alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### James Ellis *v.*James G. Richardson et al.

Arbitrators — Oath of.

Informality in the oath administered to arbitrators not sufficient to set aside award.

Pleadings — Answer — Judgment.

A judgment for a larger sum than alleged in the answer will be reversed.

APPEAL EROÍC LIVINGSTON CIRCUIT COURT.

January 30, 1861.

Opinion oe the Court by

Judge Peters:

Several exceptions were taken to the award by the appellant, which we will not notice in detail, as there is one objection which must prove fatal to the action of the arbitrators.

The award shows upon its face that the arbitrators were not sworn to decide the controversy to them submitted, according to law and evidence, and the equity of the case, to the best of their judgment, without favor or affection, as required by the Civil Code, but they were sworn to try the issue in the case; this departure from the form of the oath prescribed we do not decide as a sufficient cause to set aside an [award, as it is not necessary in this case, and it is only referred to because in passing upon the substantial rights of the parties it is important to ascertain what the issue really is.

Appellant alleges in his petition that appellee was indebted to him in the sum of $475 for certain articles sold and delivered to *350him which was evidenced by a writing signed by the parties which indebtedness was to be discharged by hauling logs at $1.25 per log before the 1st day of March, 1857, and if he failed to discharge his obligation by the time stipulated, he was to forfeit and ■pay $100 to appellant, and by the second paragraph in his petition, appellant alleges that appellee was indebted to him in the further sum of $160 for boarding hands, food furnished teams, and for hire of hands, all of which he charged appellee owed him, *except*$40 which were credited upon the writing.

In his answer appellee denied his indebtedness, and set out divers payments which, according to his own allegations, amounted in all to the sum of $658; admitted that appellant had furnished his teams and drivers to some considerable amount, not more, however, than about $60, and that he owes appellant something for hire of hands. Some of the payments set out in the answer are controverted in the reply, and, particularly, the prices charged for the hauling; but according to the ^pleadings, and ¡admitting all the payments claimed by appellee in his answer, he does not show himself entitled to a judgment (for only about $100; the arbitrators, however, awarded to him $163, with interest from the 7th day of April, 1860, till paid.

The proof heard by the arbitrators was not reported, but as appellee has obtained a judgment for a larger amount than he is entitled to according to the allegations of his answer, the judgment must be reversed, and the cause remanded, with directions that the award be set aside, and for further proceedings in conformity with this opinion.
| (logo) WELLS

           FARGO | Commercial Mortgage Servicing

D1086-120, 12th Floor

550 South Tryon Street

Charlotte, NC 28202

1-800-326-1334

  |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

ANNUAL STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE

 

Reference is hereby made to that certain Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of September 1, 2014, by and among DEUTSCHE MORTGAGE & ASSET RECEIVING CORPORATION, as Depositor, WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Master Servicer, RIALTO  CAPITAL ADVISORS, LLC, as Special Servicer, WILMINGTON TRUST, NATIONAL  ASSOCIATION, as Trustee, WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Certificate Administrator, Paying Agent and Custodian, and SITUS HOLDINGS, LLC as Operating Advisor with respect to Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, COMM 2014-UBS5 (the "Agreement"). Capitalized terms used herein not otherwise defined shall have the meanings assigned in the Agreement.

 

Pursuant to Section 10.11 of this Agreement, I, Daniel Bober, Executive Vice President of Commercial Mortgage Services do hereby certify that:

 

1.        A review of the activities of the Master Servicer during the period from September 1, 2014 through December 31, 2014 (the “Reporting Period”),  and of its performance per the Agreement during such period has been made under my supervision, and 

 

2.        To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Master Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period.

 

 

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this Certificate as of the 6th day of March 2015.

 

 

/s/ Daniel Bober

Daniel Bober

Executive Vice President 

Wells Fargo Bank

 
| Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. | (logo) Together we’ll go far |
|------------------------|------------------------------------|
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose BELTRAN, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 02-20236

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Sept. 2, 2003.

James Lee Turner, Assistant US Attorney, US Attorney’s Office Southern Dis*400trict of Texas, Houston, TX, for PlaintiffAppellee.

Jose Beltran, Pro se, Federal Correctional Institution, Jesup, GA, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, EMILIO M. GARZA, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Jose Beltran, federal prisoner number 66254-079, was convicted of one charge of aiding and abetting possession with intent to distribute more than five kilograms of cocaine. The district court sentenced him to 188 months in prison and a five-year term of supervised release and ordered him to pay a fine. Following a direct appeal and 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion, Beltran filed a motion seeking modification of his fine. The instant appeal challenges the district court’s denial of this motion. The propriety of Beltran’s fine is not cognizable under any postconviction motion. The district court thus lacked jurisdiction to consider the motion. *See United States v. Early,*27 F.3d 140, 141 (5th Cir.1994). Because the district court was without jurisdiction to consider the motion, the district court’s denial of the motion is AFFIRMED on the alternate basis of lack of jurisdiction. *See id.*

*

 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.
Exhibit 32.2

 

**Certification of President and Chief Executive Officer**

 

          Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Books-A-Million, Inc. (the “Company”) hereby certifies, to the best of such officer’s knowledge, that:

 

    (i)          the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period ended November 1, 2008 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of        the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

 

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

 

| Dated: December 9, 2008 |
|-------------------------|

 

| /s/ Sandra B. Cochran                 |
|---------------------------------------|
| Sandra B. Cochran                     |
| President and Chief Executive Officer |
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Willie Lee Clay SENIGAL, also known as Willie Lee Clay, also known as Willie Clay Parker, also known as Murkel Parker, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 02-30637.

Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Sept. 3, 2003.

Ian F. Hipwell, Deputy Chief Attorney, Baton Rouge, LA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Christopher Albert Aberle, Mandeville, LA, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.*

Willie Lee Clay Senigal was convicted on all counts of a 14-count superceding indictment. On appeal, she challenges only four counts of wire fraud. Senigal operated a beauty parlor and cosmetology *408school in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. Senigal used the wires to procure insurance for the business and then filed a fraudulent claim against that insurance. The only question on appeal is whether the evidence admitted at trial is sufficient to show that Senigal had the specific intent to defraud when she obtained the insurance.

The standard for evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence is “whether any reasonable trier of fact could have found that the evidence established the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” *United States v. Ortega Reyna,*148 F.3d 540, 543 (5th Cir.1998). This court considers the evidence in the light most favorable to the Government, including all reasonable inferences that can be drawn from the evidence. *United States v. Bermea,*30 F.3d 1539, 1551 (5th Cir.1994). Intent to defraud is established if the defendant acted knowingly and with the specific intent to deceive, ordinarily for the purpose of causing some financial loss to another or bringing about some financial gain to himself. *United States v. Saks,*964 F.2d 1514, 1518 (5th Cir.1992). Proof of such intent can arise by inference from all of the facts and circumstances surrounding the transactions. *United States v. Ismoila,*100 F.3d 380, 387 (5th Cir.1996) (wire fraud).

The evidence is sufficient to allow a jury to infer that she obtained the insurance with the specific intent to further her scheme to file a fraudulent claim. Senigal was in need of money to support her business. Senigal defrauded a bank in an effort to obtain the money. Senigal acted urgently in her attempt to secure insurance on a building from which she knew she was about to be evicted. Less than a month later, Senigal filed a fraudulent insurance claim. Taken together, these facts would allow a jury to infer that Senigal procured the insurance with the specific intent to file a fraudulent claim for financial gain. *See Saks,*964 F.2d at 1518; *Ismoila,*100 F.3d at 387. Having shown that obtaining the insurance was part of the scheme to file a fraudulent claim, there is no dispute that Senigal used the wires to further that scheme. *United States v. Aggarwal,*17 F.3d 737, 740 (5th Cir.1994). Senigal’s conviction is AFFIRMED.

*

 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.
#### James None *v.*James Letcher.

Judgments — Collateral Attack Nullity.

A judgment is presumed to be right and is binding until reversed, and before it can be assailed collaterally it must be shown to be a nullity.

APPEAL EROM GARRARD CIRCUIT COURT.

June 11, 1867.

Opinion oe the Court by

Judge Williams :

Had this court sufficient license it would not always be an unpleasant labor to review the record and develope the errors of counsel as to facts.

In the petition upon which the dower lands of twenty acres was ordered to be sold George Nalor sets up his title to three-eighths, one in his own right as heir, and two as the vendee of Davidson who was vendee of Absolem and Mr. Nalor.

*451Seymore Happer who had purchased out Horatio Nalor was a petitioner also, he had one-eighth; the other parties held the other four-eighths, thus the entire undivided interests were represented.

The judgment in that case is presumed to be right and binding until reversed, find before it can be assailed collaterally it must be shown to be a nullity; it is not sufficient to show an absence of the orders appointing the guardian to the infants. It is averred in the petition that Josiah Easley had been duly appointed guardian to the minor children of both Eliza Mills and Martha Jane Easley and we presume the court was satisfied by proper evidence that this was so; it is not now insisted otherwise but merely that the orders of their appointment are not in the record.
Exhibit 99.2

Certification of Principal Financial Officer
Pursuant to U.S.C. Section 1350
Regarding Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB

I, John E.
Yetter, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Derma Sciences, Inc.,
hereby certify that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the period ending
June 30, 2002 of Derma Sciences, Inc. (the Form 10-QSB) upon my best
knowledge and belief fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained
in the Form 10-QSB fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of Derma Sciences, Inc.

|Dated:  August 14, 2002 | /s/ John E. YetterJohn E. Yetter, CPAVice President
     and Chief Financial Officer(Principal Financial Officer)
|----------------------- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY APPELLATE PANEL

OF THE TENTH CIRCUIT

—————————————————

IN RE ARROW TRUCKING 

COMPANY, ARROW TRUCK 

LEASING COMPANY, ARROW 

TRUCK REAL ESTATE COMPANY, 

and MEGAN CORPORATION,

 Debtors.

_________________________________

DCFS USA, LLC,

 Appellant,

 v.

PATRICK J. MALLOY, III, Trustee, 

CITY NATIONAL BANK, and 

NAVISTAR FINANCIAL 

CORPORATION,

 Appellees. 

BAP No. NO-10-044

Bankr. No. 10-10041 

Chapter 7 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

August 3, 2010 

—————————————————

The matter before the Court is the Joint Motion to Dismiss Appeal (“Motion”)

filed by Appellant DCFS USA, LLC, and Appellee Patrick J. Malloy, III. The Motion 

requests that the appeal be dismissed.

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

(1) The Motion is GRANTED. Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8001(c)(2); 10th Cir. 

BAP L.R. 8016-4(a)(8).

BAP Appeal No. 10-44 Docket No. 11 Filed: 08/03/2010 Page: 1 of 2
2

(2) Any deadlines previously set by the Court are VACATED.

(3) This appeal is DISMISSED.

(4) The mandate shall issue immediately. A certified copy of this Order 

shall constitute the mandate on appeal.

For the Panel: 

Blaine F. Bates, Clerk of Court

By:

Gregory Wright

Deputy Clerk

BAP Appeal No. 10-44 Docket No. 11 Filed: 08/03/2010 Page: 2 of 2
EXHIBIT
32

CERTIFICATION

|    |                                                                                                                                                                                                 
|--- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|    | The undersigned certify
 pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, that:                                                                                                                                    
|    |                                                                                                                                                                                                 
|(1) | The accompanying Quarterly
 Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2011 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 accompanying report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
 financial condition and results of operations of the Company.                             

|      |             |  |                         | 
|----- | ----------- |  | ----------------------- | 
|Date: | May 9, 2011 |  | /s/ Sherman L. Black    | 
|      |             |  | Chief Executive Officer | 
|      |             |  |                         | 
|Date: | May 9, 2011 |  | /s/ James R.
 Stewart   | 
|      |             |  | Chief Financial Officer | 

---
- Home
- About NIAC
- News
- Funded Studies
- Symposium
- Apply to NIAC
- Resources
- Key Dates

## NIAC News

Stay up-to-date with the latest content from NIAC as we explore the universe and discover more about our home planet.

NASA Doubles Down, Advances Six Innovative Tech Concepts to New Phase
NASA’s Innovative Advanced Concepts program (NIAC) has selected six visionary concept studies for additional funding and development. Each study has...

Article

Funding Future Tech: NASA Names 2024 Innovative Concept Studies
NASA selected the 2024 Phase I awardees for its program to fund ideas that could  innovate for the benefit of...

News Release

NASA Tech Breathes Life Into Potentially Game-Changing Antenna Design
Some 30 years ago, a young engineer named Christopher Walker was home in the evening making chocolate pudding when he...

Article

What is the Fluidic Telescope?
FLUTE aims to find out if giant lenses and mirrors – the high-quality optical components needed for future large-aperture space...

Article

NASA Awards Innovative Concept Studies for Science, Exploration
Technology in development today could radically change the future of air and space exploration. Nearly silent electric aircraft could ferry...

News Release

NASA Selects Experimental Space Technology Concepts for Initial Study
Imagine a future in space where pellet-beam propulsion systems speed up travel to other worlds, pipelines on the Moon transport...

News Release

NASA Selects Futuristic Space Technology Concepts for Early Study
An astronaut steps into a body scanner and, hours later, walks on Mars in a custom-made spacesuit, breathing oxygen that...

News Release

Swarm of Tiny Swimming Robots Could Look for Life on Distant Worlds
A concept in development at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory would allow potential planetary missions to chase interesting clues in subsurface...

Article

NASA-Supported Solar Sail Could Take Science to New Heights
Editor’s Note: This release was updated on May 24 to include information about the project’s co-investigator. As NASA’s exploration continues...

News Release

                            2                        
                            3                        
Next

## Discover More Topics From NIAC

Space Technology Mission Directorate
Space Technology Mission Directorate. Technology drives exploration and the space economy.

STMD Solicitations and Opportunities

NASA Innovative Advanced Concepts

NIAC Funded Studies
**Exhibit 31.2****CERTIFICATIONS**I, David J. Mickelson, certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Redhook Ale Brewery, Incorporated; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have: (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controlsand procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;  (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controlsand procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and  (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions); (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information;and  (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.Date: May 11, 2007         BY: /s/ David J. Mickelson David J. Mickelson*Presidentand Chief Operating Officer*
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1643 Reported in Senate (RS)]

                                                       Calendar No. 352
108th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1643

                          [Report No. 108-178]

 To exempt certain coastal barrier property from financial assistance 
 and flood insurance limitations under the Coastal Barriers Resources 
           Act and the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 23, 2003

 Mr. Hollings introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
       referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works

                            October 29, 2003

                Reported by Mr. Inhofe, with amendments
  [Omit the part struck through and insert the part printed in italic]

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To exempt certain coastal barrier property from financial assistance 
 and flood insurance limitations under the Coastal Barriers Resources 
           Act and the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE; FLOOD INSURANCE.

    The limitations on Federal expenditures or financial assistance in 
<DELETED>section 6</DELETED> section 5 of the Coastal Barrier Resources 
Act (16 U.S.C. 3504) and the limitations on flood insurance coverage in 
section 1321(a) of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 
4028(a)) shall not apply to lots 15, 16, 25, and 29 within the Jeremy 
Cay Subdivision on Edisto Island, South Carolina, depicted on the 
<DELETED>map</DELETED> reference map entitled ``John H. Chafee Coastal 
Barrier Resources System Edisto Complex M09/M09P'' dated January 24, 
2003.

                                                       Calendar No. 352

108th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                                S. 1643

                          [Report No. 108-178]

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 To exempt certain coastal barrier property from financial assistance 
 and flood insurance limitations under the Coastal Barriers Resources 
           Act and the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968.

_______________________________________________________________________

                            October 29, 2003

                        Reported with amendments
```