alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Credit Bureau of Fulton County, Inc. *v.*Faulstitch.

[No. 19,964.

Filed January 15, 1964.]

*512
      *John J. Delworth, Jr.,*of Rochester, for appellant.

*Paul Reed, Ronald St. Martin,*and *Reed, Reed & St. Martin,*of Knox, for appellee.

Pfaff, J.

— This is an action brought by appellant, Credit Bureau of Fulton County, Inc., against appellee, Marie Faulstitch, to recover for hospital care given to appellee by the Woodlawn Hospital of Rochester, Indiana.

Appellant, as alleged assignee of the Woodlawn Hospital, sought to recover $1,494.36 which appellant alleged was due for hospital, care given to appellee by appellant’s assignor at appellee’s special instance and request.

Appellee filed answer in general denial of appellant’s complaint. Trial was had by the court. The finding and judgment of the court was for the appellee, Marie Faulstitch.

The appellant moved for a new trial based on the ground that the findings of the court were not sustained by sufficient evidence and were contrary to law.

The appellant now alleges as its assignment of error that the trial court erred in overruling appellant’s motion for a new trial.

As a matter of first consideration, our attention is drawn to the fact that the appellant’s brief fails to specifically set out those matters establishing the fact that a valid assignment was made to said appellant from Woodlawn Hospital. Without such fact of assignment the appellant herein has no stand*513ing to sue, since it cannot be inferred by this court that said appellant is the real party in interest. It may well be that the claim was transferred to appellant for the purpose of collection only, in which case the transferee would not be the real party in interest. *Deuel*v. *Newlin*(1892), 131 Ind. 40, 30 N. E. 795; *Roane Iron Co.*v. *Bell-Armstead Mfg. Co.*(1900), 24 Ind. App. 250, 56 N. E. 696; *Bostwick*v. *Bryant*(1888), 113 Ind. 448, 16 N. E. 378.

It is a well-settled rule that the Appellate Court will not search the record in order to seek sufficient evidence to support a reversal for the appellant, which is what this court would be required to do to hold for the appellant herein. *Ross*v. *Clore*(1947), 117 Ind. App. 548, 551, 74 N. E. 2d 747; *Albertson v*. *Nix*(1944), 115 Ind. App. 128, 129, 57 N. E. 2d 206. Nor is the appellee required to assume the burden of the appellant to properly present the evidence. *Evansville City Coach Lines, Inc.*v. *Roger*(1952), 122 Ind. App. 119, 99 N .E. 2d 435, 102 N. E. 2d 504.

Inasmuch as the appellant has failed to establish in its brief the fact of a valid assignment, which we consider essential to this case, we are compelled to affirm the judgment of the lower court without further consideration of appellant’s assigned error.

Judgment affirmed.

Hunter, P. J., Kelley and Mote, JJ., concur.

NOTE. — Reported in 195 N. E. 2d 359.
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, e xcept under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and col lateral estoppel. This court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judg ments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and condi tions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

** After examining the briefs and the appellate record , this three-judge panel has determined unanimously that oral argument wouldnot be of material assistance in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The cause is therefore ordered su bmitted without oral argument. 

## F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### FEB 18 1999 

### PATRICK FISHER Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT
TERRY FLOYD WALLING, Plaintiff - Appellant, vs. STATE OF KANSAS, Defendant - Appellee. No. 98-3154 (D.C. No. 98-3054-GTV) (D. Kan.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before PORFILIO , KELLY , and HENRY , Circuit Judges. ** Mr. Walling, an inmate appearing pro se and in form a pauperis, appeals from the district court’s dismissal of his notice o f removal. It appears from the record that after being denied state post-convictio n relief and filing a notice of appeal, Mr. Walling sought to remove his state acti on to federal court. The district court dismissed the notice/action on the g rounds that Mr. Walling was not2

a defendant that could remove under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a), see Shamrock Oil & Gas Corp. v. Sheets , 313 U.S. 100, 104-07 (1941); Conner v. Salzinger , 457 F.2d 1241, 1243 (3d Cir. 1972), nor could he remove unde r 28 U.S.C. § 1446(c). Merely because Mr. Walling was once a defendant in the state criminal action does not make him one for purposes of state post-co nviction relief and removal. See Okot v. Callahan , 788 F.2d 631, 633 (9th Cir. 1986); Attorney General ex rel. Mertz v. Yeager , 464 F.2d 553, 554 (3d Cir. 1972). We GRANT Mr. Walling’s motion to supplement the rec ord on appeal filed February 8, 1999. This case is legally frivolous u nder 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), and the appeal is hereby DISMISSED. Entered for the Court
Paul J. Kelly, Jr. Circuit Judge
585 A.2d 400

#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. MANUEL FERNANDEZ.

October 16, 1990.

Petition for certification denied.
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 199 (Friday, October 15, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 63513-63514]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-25779]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

MORRIS K. UDALL AND STEWART L. UDALL FOUNDATION


Sunshine Act Meetings

Time and Date: 9 a.m. to 12 p.m., Friday, October 29, 2010.

PLACE: The offices of the Morris K. Udall and Stewart L. Udall 
Foundation, 130 South Scott Avenue, Tucson, AZ 85701.

Status: This meeting will be open to the public, unless it is necessary 
for the Board to consider items in executive session.

Matters to be Considered: (1) A report on the U.S. Institute for 
Environmental Conflict Resolution; (2) A report from

[[Page 63514]]

the Udall Center for Studies in Public Policy; (3) A report on the 
Native Nations Institute; (4) Program Reports; and (5) A Report from 
the Management Committee.

Portions Open to the Public: All sessions with the exception of the 
session listed below.

Portions Closed to the Public: Executive session.

Contact Person for More Information: Ellen K. Wheeler, Executive 
Director, 130 South Scott Avenue, Tucson, AZ 85701, (520) 901-8500.

    Dated: October 6, 2010.
Ellen K. Wheeler,
Executive Director, Morris K. Udall and Stewart L. Udall Foundation, 
and Federal Register Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. 2010-25779 Filed 10-14-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6820-FN-M
584 A.2d 230

#### KENNETH FREITAG v. BOARD OF REVIEW.

May 30, 1990.

Petition for certification denied.
BEDFORD BANCSHARES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARY

                                   EXHIBIT 11

             STATEMENT REGARDING COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE




                                                       Three Months Ended  
                                                           December 31       
                                                       -------------------
                                                         1996        1995 
                                                       --------    --------     

Net Income .......................................   $  357,000   $  355,000
                                                     ==========   ==========

Primary and Fully Diluted:

Average Shares Outstanding, Net of
  unallocated ESOP Shares (61,793 and 67,468
    at December 31, 1996 and 1995, respectively.)     1,081,582    1,130,220
                                                     ==========   ==========

Per Share Amount .................................   $      .33   $      .31
                                                     ==========   ==========



     Earnings per share of common stock for the three months ended  December 31,
1995 and 1996 have been determined by dividing net income for the periods by the
weighted average number of shares of common stock outstanding net of unallocated
ESOP shares.












                                      -12-
Exhibit 35.2  LOGO 2015 Annual Statement of Servicer Compliance (Item 1123) Pooling and Servicing Agreement (the Pooling and Servicing Agreement) dated as of August 1, 2014 by and among Citigroup
Commercial Mortgage Securities, Inc. as Depositor, Midland Loan Services, a Division of PNC Bank, National Association as Master Servicer, Rialto Capital Advisors, LLC as Special Servicer, TriMont Real Estate Advisors, Inc. as Operating Advisor,
Citibank, N.A. as Certificate Administrator, and Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas as Trustee, relating to the Citigroup Commercial Mortgage Securities, Inc., Commercial Mortgage Pass-through Certificates, Series 2014-GC23 (CGCMT
2014-GC23) The undersigned, a duly authorized officer of Rialto Capital Advisors, LLC, as special servicer (the Special Servicer) herein
certifies to the following:  1.
All servicing activities and performance of such servicing activities under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement are performed on behalf of the Special Servicer.  2.
A review of the servicing activities and performance by the Special Servicer for the period of January 1, 2015 through December 31, 2015 (the Reporting Period), under the Pooling and Servicing
Agreement has been conducted under my supervision.  3.
To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Special Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the terms of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement, in all material respects throughout the Reporting
Period and if there has been a failure to fulfill any such obligations in any material respect, each failure and the nature and status thereof has been specifically identified herein.  Certified by:

/s/ Adam Singer



Date: March 1, 2016Adam Singer, Managing Director
Presidential Documents

5675 

Federal Register 

Vol. 75, No. 23 

Thursday, February 4, 2010 

Title 3— 

The President 

Notice of February 2, 2010 

Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to the 

Situation in or in Relation to Coˆte d’Ivoire 

On February 7, 2006, by Executive Order 13396, the President declared 

a national emergency, pursuant to the International Emergency Economic 

Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701–1706), to deal with the unusual and extraordinary 

threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States constituted by the situation in or in relation to Coˆte d’Ivoire and ordered 

related measures blocking the property of certain persons contributing to 

the conflict in Coˆte d’Ivoire. The situation in or in relation to Coˆte d’Ivoire, 

which has been addressed by the United Nations Security Council in Resolution 1572 of November 15, 2004, and subsequent resolutions, has resulted 

in the massacre of large numbers of civilians, widespread human rights 

abuses, significant political violence and unrest, and fatal attacks against 

international peacekeeping forces. Because the situation in or in relation 

to Coˆte d’Ivoire continues to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat 

to the national security and foreign policy of the United States, the national 

emergency declared on February 7, 2006, and the measures adopted on 

that date to deal with that emergency, must continue in effect beyond 

February 7, 2010. Therefore, in accordance with section 202(d) of the National 

Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)), I am continuing for 1 year the national 

emergency declared in Executive Order 13396. 

This notice shall be published in the Federal Register and transmitted to 

the Congress. 

THE WHITE HOUSE, 

February 2, 2010. [FR Doc. 2010–2574 

Filed 2–3–10; 8:45 am] 

Billing code 3195–W0–P 


cprice-sewell on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS6OB#1.EPS</GPH>
#### WILKES-BARRE CARRIAGE CO., Inc., Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent.

No. 462, Docket 28775.

United States Court of Appeals Second Circuit.

Argued May 13, 1964.

Decided May 26, 1964.

*422Fred R. Tansill of Goodwin, Rosenbaum, Meacham & White, Washington, D. C., for petitioner.

Robert H. Bernstein, Atty. Dept, of Justice, Washington, D. C. (Louis F. Oberdorfer, Asst. Atty. Gen., Lee A. Jackson and I. Henry Kutz, Attys. on the brief), for respondent.

Before KAUFMAN, HAYS and MARSHALL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

We affirm a decision of the Tax Court determining a deficiency in taxpayer’s excess profits tax for the year 1943.

The taxpayer was engaged in the manufacture of ordnance for the armed services. After it had filed its return for 1943 but before it had paid in full its excess profits tax for that year, the War Contract Price Adjustment Board held its 1943 profits from war contracts to be excessive by $3,789,321 and ordered repayment of this amount. Under Section 3806(b) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1939, repayment was to be effected by means of a credit of $3,064,-526.96 on its excess profits tax plus a cash payment of the balance of $724,794.04. The latter balance has been satisfied but the payment which consists of a credit against taxes has not been made since the excess profits tax for 1943 has never been paid.

The contentions of the taxpayer seek to create confusion about what is essentially a simple situation. We find no merit in them and uphold the result reached by the Tax Court. The taxpayer owed the government $3,064,526.96. Under § 3806 this is to be paid by crediting against it the excess profits tax. In order to discharge the obligation the taxpayer must pay the excess profits tax. This it has not done. A deficiency therefore exists.

Affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                                <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                      3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                               NOV-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                    FEB-28-1999
<CASH>                                            1,597,000
<SECURITIES>                                      8,192,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                     2,155,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                       (174,000)
<INVENTORY>                                         314,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 13,227,000
<PP&E>                                            1,543,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                   (1,030,000)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   17,853,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             1,485,000
<BONDS>                                                   0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                     0
<PREFERRED>                                               0
<COMMON>                                             47,000
<OTHER-SE>                                       16,288,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     17,853,000
<SALES>                                             877,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                  2,093,000
<CGS>                                               656,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                     1,470,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                          0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                          0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                        0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     623,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                        249,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 374,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                           0
<CHANGES>                                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                                        374,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                           .08
<EPS-DILUTED>                                           .08
        


</TABLE>
EXHIBIT
32.2





HERITAGE
OAKS BANCORP




Quarterly
report on Form 10Q


for the
quarter ended September 30, 2009





CERTIFICATION




Pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002





The
undersigned, who is the Chief Financial Officer of Heritage Oaks Bancorp (the
“Company”), hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 USC Section 1350,  that,
to my knowledge,  (i) the Quarterly Report on Form 10Q for the quarter
ended September 30, 2009, as filed by the Company with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (the “Quarterly Report”), to which this Certification is an
Exhibit, fully complies with the applicable requirements of Section 13(a) and
15(d) of the Exchange Act; and (ii) the information contained in this Quarterly
Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Company.





Dated:  November
      9, 2009
              /s/ Margaret A. TorresMargaret
      A. TorresExecutive
      Vice PresidentChief
      Financial Officer(Principal
      Financial and Accounting
Officer)





A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears
in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required
by Section 906, has been provided to Heritage Oaks Bancorp, and will be retained
by Heritage Oaks Bancorp and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
or its staff upon request.
### IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA DA 21

- 0056

_________________ JOHN RICHARDS, LINDA MILLER and LARRY RICHARDS,

Petitioners and Appellants,

v. MONTANA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND CONSERVATION,

Respondent and Appellee. O R D E R

_________________ Appellants John Richards , Linda Miller, and Larry Richards were granted an extension of time to file and serve their opening brief (s) on or before October 28 , 2021
. The opening brief is now overdue. THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that Appellant shall prepare, file, and serve the opening brief (s)
on appeal no later than December 2 , 2021
. F ailure to file the brief within that time will result in dismissal of this appeal with prejudice and without further notice. The Clerk is directed to provide a copy of this Order to Appellants John Richards , Linda Miller, and Larry Richards and to all counsel of record.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

November 2 2021

11/02/2021

Case Number: DA 21-0056
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. 82 to the 1933 Act Registration Statement (Form N-4 No. 333-61554) and Amendment No. 859 to the 1940 Act Registration
      Statement (Form N-4 No. 811-08517), 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 Life Variable Annuity Account
      N 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
No. 14,972.

#### Barlow *v.*The State.

Cbiminau *Law.*— Malicious *Trespass.-*— Claim *of Eight.*— A prosecution for malicious trespass will not lie where the act charged was done under an honest claim of right, without a mischievous or malicious intent.

Prom the Johnson Circuit Court.

*R. M. Miller*and *H. 0. Barnett,*for appellant.

*J. C. MeNutt,*Prosecuting Attorney, for the State.

*57Mitchell, J.

The appellant was found guilty of the charge of maliciously and mischievously injuring the property of John Hemphill,-by plowing up and destroying the garden of the latter, in which were sown and planted lettuce, onions, and other vegetables.

The uncontradieted testimony shows that the appellant is eighteen years old, and that he lives with, and works for, his father, John Barlow, who owns the lot on which the vegetables alleged to have been destroyed were growing. The lot had been rented to Hemphill some three years before, and had been used by him from year to year, in part as a vegetable garden. It appeared, however, that no garden had been made, or seed sown or planted the present year, but that some1 onions and lettuce had started to grow from seed which had fallen upon and remained in the ground over winter. In the latter part of March of the present year, the appellant, by the direction of his father, entered upon the lot, and, with the aid of other employees, plowed the ground and sowed it in oats.

There appears to have been some question between the father and Hemphill about the right to the possession of the lot, but the testimony is uncontradicted that the • appellant did not know of the dispute, or that Hemphill claimed the lot. There is not a syllable of evidence tending to show a malicious or mischievous purpose on the part of the appellant; .on the contrary, the entire evidence shows that he was simply obeying what he believed to be the rightful command of his father. Where a defendant is acting in good faith, doing what he honestly supposes he has a right to do, or what he believes it is his duty to do, he can not rightfully be made amenable to the criminal law in order to settle questions of disputed right. This mode of settling disputes, in which only matters of purely private concern are involved, and in which the State has no possible interest, is to be discouraged.

The machinery of the criminal law is not to be set in motion to redress merely private grievances, or to settle ques*58tions of property, where honest differences of opinion are involved. In a case like this, the absence of a malicious or mischievous purpose is a complete protection against criminal liability, and when it appears that a defendant acted in good faith, under an honest claim of right, the malicious or mischievous intent necessary to sustain a conviction is rebutted. *Hughes*v. *State,*103 Ind. 344, and cases cited.

Filed Sept. 18, 1889.

The judgment is reversed.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of State

          - [Public Notice: 7194]

In accordance with section 4314(c)(4) of 5 United States Code, the Department of State has appointed the following individuals to the Department of State Performance Review Board for Senior Executive Service members: James H. Thessin, Chairperson, Deputy Legal Adviser, Office of the Legal Adviser, Department of State; Tracy H. Mahaffey, Executive Director, Bureau of Diplomatic Security, Department of State; Joseph A. Mussomeli, Ambassador, Department of State;  Wanda L. Nesbitt, Ambassador, Department of State; and Khushali P. Shah, Chief of Staff, Office of the Director of U.S. Foreign Assistance, Department of State.

Dated: September 27, 2010. 

Nancy J. Powell,

Director General of the Foreign Service and Director of Human Resources, Department of State. 

[FR Doc. 2010-25336 Filed 10-6-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4710-15-P