alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. 59.

#### Luke Bliss, plaintiff in error, *vs.*Seth C. Stevens, defendant in error.

[1.] When it appears by a liberal construction of the acknowledgements of service, and waivers of further service on the papers, that it was the intention of the defendant’s counsel to dispense with service of the citation, the writ of error will not be dismissed.

[2.] The true construction of the Act of 1851, is, that it requires the writ of error, original citation and notice, to be filed and served, and the bill of exceptions to be filed only.

Motion, to dismiss the writ of error.

Counsel for defendant in error moved to dismiss the writ of error, upon the grounds :

1st. Because there was no service of the original citation.

2d. Because there was no service of the original bill of exceptions, as contemplated by the Act of 1851.

*402• The facts were these : Upon the original citation was endorsed the following acknowledgement of service :

“ April 28th, 1858.

Service acknowledged of the within notice of the signing'and certifying of the bill of exceptions, and farther service waived.”

LYON & ’CLARK, Defendant’s Attorneys.

Upon the original notice was endorsed the following acknowledgement of service:

“ 28th April, 1853.

We acknowledge notice of the signing and certifying of the bill of exceptions, and farther service waived.

LYON & CLARK, Defendant’s Attorneys.”

No copy of the bill of exceptions was served upon the defendant, nor was service acknowledged or copy waived.

Lyon & Clark, for the motion.

Andrews *&*Strozier, *contra.*

*By the Court.*

Starnes, J.

delivering the opinion.

[1.] Liberally construing the record and the acts of the parties in this case, as we are always inclined to do, for the purpose of insuring to every case a hearing upon the merits, we think that the entry upon the citation, acknowledging the signing and certifying the bill of excepttons, and *waiving further*service, which entry is signed by defendant’s counsel, must be held, (as it was no doubt understood by the defendant’s counsel to be,) a waiver of *all*farther service; and as a consequence, of service of the citation. It may thus be regarded as a compliance with the rule.

[2.] The construction which we place upon the Act of 1851, is, that the writ of error, original citation, and notice shall be filed and served, and the bill of exceptions filed only; and that it was not the intention of the Legislature to make any *403change of the law, so as to require service, of the bill of exceptions.

The motion is refused.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 9
<RESTATED>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                      16,997,472
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                         670,124
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                             2,500,000
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                  7,594,929
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                      13,265,772
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                        12,928,349
<LOANS>                                     85,937,915
<ALLOWANCE>                                  1,155,032
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             132,261,502
<DEPOSITS>                                 120,770,793
<SHORT-TERM>                                   350,000
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                          1,292,815
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     4,506,694
<OTHER-SE>                                   5,341,200
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>             132,261,502
<INTEREST-LOAN>                              3,734,411
<INTEREST-INVEST>                              841,135
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                     0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                             4,575,546
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                           1,167,217
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,213,569
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                        3,361,977
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                   81,500
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                              5,140,043
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                781,341
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                     520,926
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   520,926
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.47
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.42
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    8.43
<LOANS-NON>                                    931,000
<LOANS-PAST>                                    18,000
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                             1,069,535
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                    6,000
<RECOVERIES>                                    10,000
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                            1,155,032
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                         1,155,032
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0


</TABLE>
No. A-738.

#### Rapp *v.*United States.

Application for bail, addressed to Justice White and referred to the Court, denied.
584 A.2d 246

#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. ROBERT JOHNSON.

June 11, 1990.

Petition for certification denied.
585 A.2d 387

#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. GEORGE WATSON, JR.

October 10, 1990.

Petition for certification denied.
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathawa y A lton Thomas Davis,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk October 26, 2010

1018 

# Order

October 26, 2010

141548

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 141548 COA: 290026 Kalamazoo CC: 2008-001426-FH RICKY ALLEN NORTON, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 15, 2010 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the question presented s hould be reviewed by this Court.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                 5
<LEGEND>

     This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from
Financial Statements for the 6 months ended June 30, 1999, and is qualified
in its entirety by reference to such form 10QSB for six months ended June
30, 1999.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                                         1

<S>                                                       <C>
<PERIOD-START>                                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                                    6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                                          39,043
<SECURITIES>                                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                                  115,429
<ALLOWANCES>                                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                                     64,720
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                               262,202
<PP&E>                                                         372,356
<DEPRECIATION>                                                  75,672
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                                 758,109
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                          132,357
<BONDS>                                                              0
<COMMON>                                                           153
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                                0
<PREFERRED>                                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                                     425,572
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                   758,109
<SALES>                                                        273,250
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                               278,037
<CGS>                                                           25,785
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                   25,785
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                               182,833
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                                 874
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                                 68,864
<INCOME-TAX>                                                    17,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                             51,864
<DISCONTINUED>                                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                      0
<CHANGES>                                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                                    51,864
<EPS-BASIC>                                                      .04
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                      .04



</TABLE>
# Mississippi Valley Division conducts 2015 All Hazards Exercise 

**VICKSBURG, Miss.**– The Mississippi Valley Division will****conduct an interagency All Hazards Exercise to practice its response and recovery activities if a disaster strikes the Mississippi Valley Division’s Area of Operations. The All Hazards Exercise will include planning discussions for hurricanes, floods, severe weather and earthquakes that could strike the region.  

The exercise will be conducted June 17 from 8:00 a.m. until 5:00 p.m. at the Vicksburg District headquarters building, 4155 East Clay Street, Vicksburg, Miss. The media is invited to attend and interview key Corps leaders.

The exercise will also help the Corps****strengthen existing relationships with key stakeholders and partners to ensure synchronization of its planning efforts, while also improving coordination, communication and collaboration with federal, state and local government agencies. 

“This exercise will create bonds and relationships before an event happen,” said Jared Gartman, chief of the division’s Readiness and Contingency Operations Branch. “We will also learn from each other at multiple levels, while synchronizing our regional response and recovery efforts.” 

Participants in the exercise include FEMA Region IV (Mississippi), FEMA Region VI (Louisiana), U.S. Coast Guard, Mississippi Emergency Management Agency, Governor's Office of Homeland Security and Emergency Preparedness, Louisiana and Mississippi Army National Guard dual status commanders, members from the U.S. Army Reserve 412th and 416th Theater Engineer Commands, Louisiana Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority, and Southeast Louisiana Flood Protection Authority East and West.

Because of the threat to the United States’ coastal states, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers prepares annually for potential hurricanes by conducting exercises with its federal, state and local partners. Four of the eight USACE divisions are along the Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic Ocean. Each division provides planning and coordination with those states, as well as with the Federal Emergency Management Agency regions within their area of responsibility.

**Contact**

Release no. 15-007
#### Joseph Lamar WILSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 2D07-4775.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

March 23, 2011.

*913James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, and Lee Adam Cohen, Special Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Marilyn Muir Beccue, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appel-lee.

DAVIS, Judge.

Joseph Wilson challenges the new sentences he received after he was granted relief through a motion to correct illegal sentence pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). We affirm the new sentences as orally imposed but write to correct two clerical errors in the written judgments and sentences.

Wilson was originally charged under alternative theories with first-degree premeditated murder and first-degree felony murder of the same victim. When the jury returned a guilty verdict under both theories, the convictions were merged to reflect one count of first-degree murder, for which Wilson received a life sentence with a twenty-five-year minimum mandatory. He also was convicted of one count of robbery with a firearm, for which he received a fifteen-year sentence with a three-year minimum mandatory. Because the minimum mandatory sentences were run consecutively even though the crimes occurred as part of the same criminal episode, resentencing was ordered.

At resentencing, the court specifically stated that it was sentencing Wilson to life on his merged convictions for first-degree murder. The court’s written order also reflects the imposition of a single life sentence on these merged counts. Wilson’s life sentence was orally pronounced to run concurrently with his fifteen-year sentence for robbery with a firearm. The written judgment and sentence entered after re-sentencing do not reflect that the first-degree premeditated and first-degree felony murder convictions were merged. Rather, on the face of the written judgment and sentence it appears that Wilson is serving two life sentences on two separate first-degree murder convictions. Additionally, the sentences do not reflect that they were designated to run concurrently. There is nothing in the record to suggest that these were anything more than clerical errors. Accordingly, we affirm all aspects of Wilson’s sentences as orally imposed but remand for the trial court to enter written judgments and sentences that correctly reflect a single life sentence for the merged convictions and reflect that *914his life sentence and fifteen-year sentence are to run concurrently. *See Parajon v.*State, 50 So.3d 105 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010).

Affirmed; remanded.

SILBERMAN and VILLANTI, JJ., Concur.
EXHIBIT 13.2

Certification by the Principal Financial Officer pursuant to

18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to

Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of DBV Technologies S.A. (the Company) on Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, David Schilansky, Chief Operating Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:



| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                     |  |                                                      
|-------------------- |  | -----------------------------------------------------
|Date: April 29, 2015
|                    
|/s/ David Schilansky
|Name:                |  | David Schilansky                                     
|                     | 
|Title:               |  | Chief Operating Officer (Principal Financial Officer)
Exhibit 32.1

Certification of Principal Executive Officer

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350

In connection with the accompanying Report on Form 10-Q of Sterling Financial Corporation (Sterling) for the period ended June 30, 2010
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, J. Gregory Seibly, Chief Executive Officer of Sterling, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | 1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Sterling.
| | -- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                      |  |  |  |     |  |                                      
|--------------------- |  |  |  | --- |  | -------------------------------------
|Dated: August 6, 2010 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/ J. Gregory Seibly                
|                      |  |  |  |     |  | J. Gregory Seibly                    
|                      |  |  |  |     |  | President and Chief Executive Officer

This certification
accompanies each Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by Sterling for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Sterling and
will be retained by Sterling and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission upon request.
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

84 

CA 14-00708 

PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., PERADOTTO, LINDLEY, SCONIERS, AND DEJOSEPH, JJ. 

 

RICHARD H. WARNER, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS GUARDIAN 

OF MARY DOROTHY WARNER, AN INCAPACITATED PERSON, 

CLAIMANT-APPELLANT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

STATE OF NEW YORK, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT. 

(CLAIM NO. 98768.) 

--------------------------------------------------

RICHARD H. WARNER, AS EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF 

MARY DOROTHY WARNER, DECEASED, CLAIMANT-APPELLANT,

V

 

STATE OF NEW YORK, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT. 

(CLAIM NO. 105712) 

(APPEAL NO. 2.) 

 

THE COSGROVE LAW FIRM, BUFFALO (EDWARD C. COSGROVE OF COUNSEL), FOR

CLAIMANT-APPELLANT. 

ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ALBANY (JEFFREY W. LANG OF

COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT. 

 

Appeal from an order of the Court of Claims (Michael E. Hudson,

J.), entered March 26, 2014. The order denied the motion of claimant

seeking leave to reargue and renew. 

It is hereby ORDERED that said appeal is unanimously dismissed

without costs.

Same Memorandum as in Warner v State of New York ([appeal No. 1]

___ AD3d ___ [Feb. 6, 2015]).

Entered: February 6, 2015 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
# U.S. Army Corps of Engineers identifies short-term natural disaster recovery activities funded by the Additional Supplemental Appropriations Disaster Relief Act, 2019

**VICKSBURG, Miss. -- **
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) announced today work that will be accomplished with the Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies, Operation and Maintenance, and Mississippi River and Tributaries account funding provided for emergency recovery efforts in the Additional Supplemental Appropriations Disaster Relief Act, 2019, Public Law 116-20.  The act was signed into law, June 6, 2019.

Among other things, Public Law 116-20 provides USACE a total of $3.258 billion in five appropriations accounts: Investigations; Construction; Mississippi River and Tributaries; Operation and Maintenance; and Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies.  Of that amount, $2.483 billion is provided for short-term repairs to projects and activities.

USACE will use the $1 billion provided in the Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies account to repair damage resulting from natural disasters to 103 locally owned flood risk management projects in eight states. 

USACE will use the $908 million provided in the Operation and Maintenance account to repair damages to USACE projects resulting from natural disasters and to perform emergency dredging of shoaled material deposited at USACE navigation projects by natural disasters.  These short-term repair funds will be used to address the priority O&M needs identified by USACE for 113 projects in 31 states and one territory.

USACE will also use the $575 million provided in the Mississippi River and Tributaries account to repair damages resulting from natural disasters to 10 projects in seven states.

“The allocation of funds announced today demonstrates the Trump Administration’s commitment to fixing the Nation’s infrastructure.  It will enable the Corps to repair the damages caused by this past year’s weather events so these vital projects can protect citizens and flood-prone property in the future,” said Mr. R.D. James, Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works.

The current list of projects that will be funded to repair damages resulting from natural disasters is posted at http://www.usace.army.mil/Missions/Civil-Works/Budget/ as “Short-Term Repairs” under "Supplemental Appropriations for Disasters 2019."

 

**-30-**

**Contact**

Release no. 19-009

MVD

supplemental

appropriations

2019
A TTORNEY FOR A PPELLANT

Mark S. O'Hara

Brownsburg , Indiana

______________________________________________________________________________



# In the

**Indiana Supreme Court**

_________________________________

No. 49S05

- 1311

- CT

- 759

G E RSH Z AVODNIK

, Appellant ( Plaintiff b e low),

v.

M ICHELA R INALDI

, et al

. , Appellee s ( Defendants b e low)

.

_________________________________

Appeal From t he Marion Superior Court

The Honorable Patrick L. McCarty, Judge

Cause No. 49D03

- 1006

- CT

- 27798

_________________________________

On Petition t o Transfer from the Indiana Court of Appeals, No. 49A05

- 1211

- CT

- 595

_________________________________

November 18, 2013

Per Curiam.

Gersh Zavodnik filed a complaint against Michela Rinaldi and e ntities that are either

related or aliases (together "Rinaldi"). The issue in this appeal is whether Zavodnik has shown

he has made successful service of his complaint on Rinaldi, who is a resident of Italy.

On August 29, 2012, the trial court held a hearing and issued an order stating:2 2. There are various documents in the file which the Plaintiff purports to be proof

of service but they are apparently in Italian, without translation.

3. At the hearing the Plaintiff failed to show to the Court's sa tisfaction that service

has been perfected on the Defendants.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that this matter is

dismissed per Trial Rule 41( E ).

On appeal, t he Court of Appeals agreed with Zavodnik that the forms were in both Italian

and English, contrary to the trial court's finding . The Court of Appeals nevertheless affirmed

,

citing Zavodnik 's failure to support his argument that he had served Rinaldi with sufficient

citations to or quotations from relevant law. Zavodnik seeks transfer

.

Under the unique circumstances presented, the Court concludes that the trial court's order

of dismissal should be reversed. We grant transfer of jurisdiction , reverse the order of dismissal,

and remand to the trial court for further proceedings, witho ut prejudice to dismissal under Trial

Rule 41( E ) if warranted after further consideration.

All Justices concur.