alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. 19.

#### Lewis Davis, plaintiff in error, *vs.*Wm. L. Moody and wife, defendants.

[1.] Where a set of interrogatories had been excepted to, on the ground that the witness had not fully answered the cross questions put to him therein, which exceptions were sustained by the Court: *Held,*that it was competent for the Court, in the exercise of its discretion, to allow the par*189ty who brought the interrogatories into Court tó withdraw them for the purpose of having them re-executed.

[2.] As a matter of practice in such cases, the Court ought to require that a certified copy of the interrogatories and answers of the witness should be filed in the Clerk’s office, before the original is withdrawn.

In Equity, in Crawford Superior Court. Tried before Judge Powers. September Term, 1852.

The complainants, ffm. Moody and wife, took out interrogatories for Baldwin M. Fluker.

Counsel for defendant, Davis, filed written exceptions to the answers of the witness, on the ground that the witness had not fully answered the cross-interrogatories ; whereupon, complainants asked leave to withdraw the interrogatories for the purpose of having the answers thereto re-taken.

Counsel for defendant objected.

The Court overruled the objection, and this decision is brought up for review.

Hunter and S. T. Bailey, for plaintiff in error.

,S. & R. P. Hall, Poe & Nisbet, for defendant.

*By the Court.*

Warner, J.

delivering the opinion.

[1.] The error assigned in this case is, that the Court allowed the plaintiff’s counsel to withdraw a set of interrogatories and commission, for the purpose of having the same re-executed; the interrogatories were excepted to, on the ground that the witness had not fully answered the cross-questions put to him therein.

The discretion of the Court below in allowing the interrogatories to be withdrawn for the purpose of having them re-executed, was properly exercised,' and we shall not control it.

[2.] As a matter of practice in such cases, a certified copy thereof ought always to be filed in the Clerk’s office before the original answers are withdrawn.

Let the judgment of the Court below be affirmed.
# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

No. 20

- 50627 **consolidated with** No. 20

- 50631 Summary Calendar

**United States of America,** Plaintiff

— Appellee **,**

versus
**Rosalio Barraza**

**- Soto,**  Defendant

— Appellant

**.**
Appeal s from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 4:19

- CR

- 831

- 1 USDC No. 4:20

- CR

- 55

- 1

Before **Davis, Stewart,** and **Dennis,** Circuit Judges

**. Per Curiam**  **:** *
Rosalio Barraza

- Soto appeals the 24

- month within

- guidelines sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction for illegal reentry after

* Pursuant to **5th Cir cuit**  **R ul**  **e** 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED February 23, 2021 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 20-50627 Document: 00515754644 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/23/2021No. Error! Reference source not found. c/w No. 20

- 5063 1

2 removal from the United States, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. He also appeals the concomitant revocation of his supervised release related to hi s prior conviction for illegal reentry. Raising one issue on appeal, Barraza

- Soto argues that his new illegal reentry sentence, imposed under § 1326(b)(1), violates his due process rights by exceeding the two

- year statutory maximum set forth in § 1326(a) b ecause the indictment did not allege a prior conviction necessary for the § 1326(b)(1) enhancement. He concedes that this argument is foreclosed by Almendarez

Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224, 226

- 27 (1998), but he seeks to preserve the issue for fur ther review. The Government filed an unopposed motion for summary affirmance , agreeing that the issue is foreclosed and, in the alternative, a motion for an extension of time to file a brief. As the Government argues, and Barraza

- Soto concedes, the sole i ssue raised on appeal is foreclosed by Almendarez

- Torres

. See United States v. Wallace , 759 F.3d 486, 497 (5th Cir. 2014); United States v. Pineda

- Arrellano , 492 F.3d 624, 625

- 26 (5th Cir. 2007). Because the issue is foreclosed, summary affirmance is app ropriate. See Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis , 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969). Although the appeals of Barraza

- Soto’s illegal reentry conviction and supervised release revocation were consolidated, he does not address the revocation in his appellate brief. Consequently, he has abandoned any challenge to the revocation or revocation sentence. See Yohey v. Collins , 985 F.2d 222, 224

- 25 (5th Cir. 1993). Accordingly, the Government’s motion for summary affirmance is **GRANTED** , and the judgments of the district court are **AFFIRMED**

. The Government’s alternative motion for an extension of time to file a brief is **DENIED** as moot

. Case: 20-50627 Document: 00515754644 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/23/2021
<PAGE>
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.3

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:        October 17, 1996
CONTACTS:                     Wendy Yang, (505) 880-5321
                              Stephanie Burrows, (505) 880-5337


                    RONALD L. PARRATT NAMED VP, EXPLORATION

ALBUQUERQUE, NEW MEXICO - SANTA FE PACIFIC GOLD CORPORATION (NYSE:GLD) announced
the promotion of Ronald L. Parratt to the position of Vice President,
Exploration, effective October 15, 1996. Parratt, 48, is responsible for all
aspects of the Company's worldwide exploration programs.

Parratt's previous position was Director of Exploration, The Americas. Parratt
joined a predecessor company as Senior Geologist in 1978 and, as Manager,
Minerals, he opened the Reno exploration office in 1980. In 1984, he became the
Manager, Mineral Exploration - Northwest Region. By 1991, he was promoted to
Director, U.S. Exploration. In 1994, he was named Director, North America
Exploration, responsible for directing the Company's gold exploration program in
the United States, Canada and Mexico.

Nevada Governor Bob Miller appointed Parratt to the Mineral Resources Commission
under the state Department of Business and Industry. He also serves on the
Dean's Advisory Board of the University of Nevada's Mackay School of Mines.
Parratt holds a bachelor's degree in geochemistry and a master's degree in
economic geology, both from Purdue University.

Santa Fe Pacific Gold is one of the largest gold mining companies in North
America with mines in Nevada and California and exploration offices and projects
throughout the world. The Company's shares are traded on the New York Stock
Exchange under the symbol GLD.
ANNUAL STATEMENT AS TO COMPLIANCE

COMM 2014-UBS4

The undersigned, David Co, a Director of Deutsche Bank Trust
Company Americas, as the Certificate Administrator (a “Certifying Servicer”) under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement,
dated as of July 1, 2014 (the “Agreement”), by and among, Deutsche Mortgage & Asset Receiving Corporation, as Depositor,
Midland Loan Services, a Division of PNC Bank, National Association, as Master Servicer
and as Special Servicer, Wilmington Trust, National Association, as Trustee, Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas, as Certificate
Administrator, Paying Agent and Custodian, and Park Bridge Lender Services LLC, as Operating Advisor, here by certifies in accordance
with Section 10.11 of the Agreement:



| | A) | A review of such Certifying Servicer’s activities from July 1, 2014 to December 31, 2014 (the “reporting period”)
and of such Certifying Servicer’s performance under the Agreement has been made under such officer’s supervision and
| | -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

| | B) | That, as to the best of such officer’s knowledge, based on such review, such Certifying Servicer has fulfilled all its
obligations under the Agreement, in all material respects throughout the reporting period.
| | -- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



DEUTSCHE BANK TRUST COMPANY AMERICAS

as Certificate Administrator





BY: David Co

Title: Director

Date: March 1, 2015
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. ROBERT J. SCHUMANN.

November 2, 1987.

Petition for certification granted. (See 218 *N.J.Super.*501)
Exhibit (10)(a)

    

    

    

    

    

    

    Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

    

    

    

    

    We consent to the reference to our firm under the caption “Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm” in
      Post-Effective Amendment No. 69 to the 1933 Act Registration Statement (Form N-4 No. 033-27783) and Amendment No. 605 to the 1940 Act Registration
      Statement (Form N-4 No. 811-05721), and to the use therein of our reports dated (a) March 9, 2021, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company and (b) April 15, 2021, with respect to the financial statements of Lincoln National Variable Annuity
      Account H for the registration of interests in a separate account under individual flexible payment deferred variable annuity contracts.

    

    

    

    

    

    

    

    

    /s/ Ernst & Young LLP

    Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

    December 10, 2021
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information from consolidated
financial statements for the period ending September 30, 1998 and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                          24,435
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   30,895
<ALLOWANCES>                                       390
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                57,775
<PP&E>                                         602,457
<DEPRECIATION>                                  41,576
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 776,622
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           42,895
<BONDS>                                        401,273
<COMMON>                                           204
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                     285,920
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   776,622
<SALES>                                        144,873
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               144,873
<CGS>                                           88,880
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   88,880
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 1,314
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              20,753
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 35,675
<INCOME-TAX>                                    11,480
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             24,195
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    24,195
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.19
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.15
        


</TABLE>
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 22-0476

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

NELDIA MARIE PUCCINELLI,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, 

and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including June 19, 2023, within which to prepare, file, 

and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

May 9 2023

05/09/2023

Case Number: DA 22-0476
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information from consolidated
financial statements for the period ending March 31, 1999 and is qualified
in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                           4,046
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   26,921
<ALLOWANCES>                                       691
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                34,936
<PP&E>                                         619,003
<DEPRECIATION>                                  54,803
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 755,385
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           24,757
<BONDS>                                        412,247
<COMMON>                                           205
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                     273,657
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   755,385
<SALES>                                         28,318
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                28,318
<CGS>                                           31,128
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   31,128
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   478
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               7,791
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (11,021)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (3,678)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (7,343)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (7,343)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.36)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.36)
        


</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-6496

ANDREW FLYTHE,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

RONALD ANGELONE, Director, Department of

Corrections,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. David G. Lowe, Magistrate Judge.

(CA-00-537)

Submitted: May 17, 2001 Decided: May 29, 2001

Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Andrew Flythe, Appellant Pro Se. Steven Andrew Witmer, OFFICE OF

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
* The parties consented to the jurisdiction of the magistrate

judge’s jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (1994).

2

PER CURIAM:

Andrew Flythe seeks to appeal the magistrate judge’s order

denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West

1994 & Supp. 2000).* We have reviewed the record and the magistrate judge’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly,

we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on

the reasoning of the magistrate judge. Flythe v. Angelone, No. CA00-537 (E.D. Va. Mar. 12, 2001). We dispense with oral argument

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in

the materials before the court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

DISMISSED
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

RAYMOND ADDERLEY,

Appellant,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT and

MAKEBA DISHAYE GASH,

Appellee.

No. 4D23-1118

[August 23, 2023]

Appeal from the State of Florida, Department of Revenue; L.T. Case Nos.

DOAH #23-000381CS, DEP. #13220021944FC, CS #2001808704.

Raymond Adderley, Lauderdale Lakes, pro se.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Sarah C. Prieto, 

Assistant Attorney General, Fort Lauderdale, for appellee.

CONFESSION OF ERROR

PER CURIAM.

A parent appeals a final administrative support order. The Department 

of Revenue has filed a Confession of Error based on the Department’s 

failure to “accurately and completely preserve all testimony in the 

proceeding[.]” See § 120.57(1)(g), Fla. Stat. (2022). 

We therefore reverse and remand the case to the Division of 

Administrative Hearings for further proceedings.

Reversed and remanded.

KLINGENSMITH, C.J., GROSS and MAY, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
KFS

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 19-0604

CITY OF GREAT FALLS,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

JASON BRYAN MARTIN,

Defendant and Appellant.

GRANT OF EXTENSION

Upon consideration of Appellee’s motion for an extension of time, and good

cause appearing therefor, Appellee is granted an extension of time to and including

July 25, 2020, within which to prepare, serve, and file its response brief.

Electronically signed by:

Bowen Greenwood

Clerk of the Supreme Court

June 24 2020

06/24/2020

Case Number: DA 19-0604
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. ALDO MENDOZA.

October 20, 1987.

Petition for certification denied.
#### LILLIAN WILKINS v. HUDSON COUNTY JAIL AND COUNTY OF HUDSON.

December 16, 1987.

Petition for certification denied. (See 217 *N.J.Super.*39)
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion

should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited

circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-11165

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

ALBERTO RODRIGUEZ-CAMPOS

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:07-CR-52-ALL

Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Alberto Rodriguez-Campos

raises arguments that are foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States,

523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), which held that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) is a penalty

provision and not a separate criminal offense. United States v. PinedaArrellano, 492 F.3d 624, 625 (5th Cir. 2007), cert. denied, 128 S. Ct. 872 (2008).

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

June 4, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 07-11165

2

The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the

judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
#### Gunter v. Constitution States Service Co.

*Allan J. Sagot,*for plaintiff.

*Dianne A. Dichter,*for defendant.

February 10, 1993

GLAZER, J.,

Under section 1702(3) of the Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law (75 Pa.C.S. §1701 *et seq.),*defining *283uninsured motor vehicle, an accident caused by an unidentified motor vehicle falls within the coverage of the Act, provided the accident is reported to the police or proper governmental authority. However, the fact that a police report was not produced does not preclude recovery by the plaintiff. *Hatcher*v. *Travelers Insurance Co.,*421 Pa. Super. 225, 617 A.2d 808 (1992). The determinative issues in this case are whether the accident was reported, and to whom it was reported.

At trial, plaintiff credibly testified that, after having been hit by an unidentified motor vehicle at 66th and Broad Streets in Philadelphia, she described the accident to the Philadelphia Fire Rescue Squad technician who treated her at the scene and transported her to Albert Einstein Medical Center. The technician told plaintiff that he would take care of reporting the accident to the police.1

Clearly, plaintiff believed she was reporting the accident to the proper authority: the fire rescue squad was the entity that responded to the call for emergency assistance; the fire rescue squad is part of the city’s emergency response system; and the medical technician led her to believe he was the proper authority.

It is well settled that the Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law must be construed liberally to afford the greatest possible coverage to injured claimants. *Sturkie v. Erie Insurance Group,*407 Pa. Super. 117, 595 A.2d 152 (1991). As noted by the Superior Court in *Hatcher,*
      *284the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has stated that “ 5[t]he purpose of the uninsured motorist law is to provide protection to innocent victims of irresponsible drivers.’ ” *Id.,*617 A.2d at 810, *citing Harleysville Mutual Casualty Co.*v. *Blumling,*429 Pa. 389, 395, 241 A.2d 112, 115 (1968).

Finally, the object of all interpretation and construction of statutes is to ascertain and effectuate the intention of the legislature. 1 Pa.C.S. §1921. While the requirement that the accident be reported may be intended to prevent recovery for fraudulent claims, the average citizen is not well versed in the particular statutory requirements of the MVFRL. Clearly, the intent of the legislature is not to prohibit recovery to a legitimately injured individual because she mistakenly but, in good faith, gave a report of the accident to fire rescue personnel who came to her aid at the scene of the accident.

. The admission of what the emergency medical technician said to plaintiff is- not precluded as hearsay, as the statement was not offered to show that the technician did in fact file the report. Rather, the statement was offered to show why the plaintiff failed to file a report herself, and as such is not hearsay.
Hennion & Walsh, Inc. 487


Exhibit 4.3



 


Consent of Independent Registered Public
Accounting Firm


We have issued our report
dated November 30, 2021, with respect to the financial statement of SmartTrust 544 contained in Amendment No. 1 to the Registration Statement
on Form S-6 (File No. 333-258834) and related Prospectus. We consent to the use of the aforementioned report in the Registration Statement
and Prospectus, and to the use of our name as it appears under the caption “Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm”.


 


/s/ Grant
Thornton LLP


 


Chicago, Illinois


November 30, 2021