alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
## 2009 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit
12-3-2009 

# Puleo v . C h a se B ank U SA N

A
P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 08-3837

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o you for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2009 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. F or mor e infor m at ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min . C a rl s on@l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du
. 

## Re c omme nde d C it at ion

" P ule o v . C h as e B a nk U SA NA" (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 14. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/14

## UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT No. 08-3837 FRANCIS J. PULEO; TRISH C. PULEO, ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND ALL OTHER PENNSYLVANIA RESIDENTS SIMILARLY SITUATED
v. CHASE BANK USA, N.A. Francis J. Puleo; Trish C. Puleo, Appellants (U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania No. 07-cv-04800) Present: SCIRICA, Chief Judge , SLOVITER, McKEE, RENDELL, AMBRO, FUENTES, SMITH, FISHER, CHAGARES, JORDAN and ROTH, Circuit Judges ORDER The Court, sua sponte , orders rehearing en banc in the above captioned appeal. The matter will be argued before the en banc court on Wednesday, February 17, 2010, at 10:00 a.m. Counsel are directed to file supplemental briefs and shall be prepared to address the following issues at argument: 1. Is an unconscionability challenge to an arbitration agreement’s class action waiver provision to be decided by the court or the arbitrator? 2. Does the answer to Question 1 turn on whether the waiver provision, if invalid, would render the arbitration clause as a whole unenforceable? 3. In deciding whether the validity of the waiver provision is a question for the arbitrator or the court, is it relevant whether: a. all parties agree that the case is arbitrable?

## 2 b. the contract contains a severability clause that would leave the remainder of the arbitration clause enforceable if the waiver provision is held invalid? The supplemental briefs shall be filed within 14 days from the date of this order. The inclusion of a jurisdictional statement, statement of the issues, statement of the case, and statement of the facts in the supplemental briefs is not required. The briefs shall not exceed 15 pages or 7,500 words. By the Court, /s/ Anthony J. Scirica Chief Judge Dated: 3 December 2009
IV

House Calendar No. 47

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. RES. 163

[Report No. 105–126]

Providing for consideration of the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 54) proposing

an amendment to the Constitution of the United States authorizing

the Congress to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the

United States.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JUNE 10, 1997

Mr. SOLOMON, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following resolution; which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed

RESOLUTION

Providing for consideration of the joint resolution (H.J. Res.

54) proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the

United States authorizing the Congress to prohibit the

physical desecration of the flag of the United States.

1 Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution

2 it shall be in order to consider in the House the joint reso3 lution (H.J. Res. 54) proposing an amendment to the Con4 stitution of the United States authorizing the Congress

5 to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the Unit-
2

HRES 163 RH

1 ed States. The joint resolution shall be considered as read

2 for amendment. The joint resolution shall be debatable for

3 two hours equally divided and controlled by the chairman

4 and ranking minority member of the Committee on the

5 Judiciary. The previous question shall be considered as or6 dered on the joint resolution to final passage without in7 tervening motion except one motion to recommit. The mo8 tion to recommit may include instructions only if offered

9 by the minority leader or his designee. If including instruc10 tions, the motion to recommit shall be debatable for one

11 hour equally divided and controlled by the proponent and

12 an opponent.

House Calendar No. 47

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. RES. 163

[Report No. 105–126]

RESOLUTION

Providing for consideration of the joint resolution

the flag of the United States.Congress to prohibit the physical desecration ofConstitution of the United States authorizing the(H.J. Res. 54) proposing an amendment to the

JUNE 10, 1997

Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be

printed
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT

 

Everett McKinley Dirksen 

United States Courthouse 

Room 2722 - 219 S. Dearborn Street 

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Office of the Clerk 

Phone: (312) 435-5850 

www.ca7.uscourts.gov 

 

October 13, 2021 

By the Court: 

 No. 21-2063 

ENRIQUE CHAVEZ and EMMA SHEIKH, 

 Plaintiffs - Appellants 

v. 

DEPAUL UNIVERSITY, 

 Defendant - Appellee 

Originating Case Information: 

District Court No: 1:20-cv-03431 

Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division 

District Judge Matthew F. Kennelly

Upon consideration of the STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL, filed on October 13, 2021, by 

counsel for the parties, 

IT IS ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED, pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate 

Procedure 42(b). 

form name: c7_FinalOrderWMandate (form ID: 137) 

Case: 21-2063 Document: 00713892769 Filed: 10/13/2021 Pages: 1

Case: 1:20-cv-03431 Document #: 47 Filed: 10/13/21 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:3109
Exhibit 99.1
                                 ------------


                      COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING LP


                             OFFICERS' CERTIFICATE
                    ANNUAL STATEMENT OF THE MASTER SERVICER


                                  CWALT, INC.
                        ALTERNATIVE LOAN TRUST 2004-7T1
              MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2004-7T1


     The undersigned do hereby certify that they are each an officer of
Countrywide GP, Inc., general partner of Countrywide Home Loans Servicing LP
(a "Master Servicer"), and do hereby further certify pursuant to Section 3.16
of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement for the above-captioned Series (the
"Agreement") that:

(i) A review of the activities of the Master Servicer during the preceding
calendar year and of the performance of the Master Servicer under the
Agreement has been made under our supervision; and

(ii) To the best of our knowledge, based on such review, the Master Servicer
has fulfilled all its obligations under the Agreement throughout such year.




/s/ Joseph M. Candelario                              Dated: March 29, 2005
------------------------

JOSEPH M. CANDELARIO
FIRST VICE PRESIDENT



/s/ Mark Wong                                          Dated: March 29, 2005
-------------

MARK WONG
SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT
##### 



Exhibit 31.1Section 302 Certification I, Ellen Z. Lamale, certify that: I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K, and all reports on Form 8-K containing
distribution or servicing reports filed in respect of period included in the year covered by
this annual report, of Principal Life Income Fundings Trust 3;  1.
    Based on my knowledge, the information in these reports, taken as a whole, does not contain
any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the
statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not
misleading as of the last day of the period covered by this annual report;  2.
    Based on my knowledge, the distribution or servicing information required to be provided to
the depositor by the trustee under the pooling and servicing, or similar agreement, for
inclusion in these reports is included in these reports;  3.
    I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the depositor and the trustee
under the pooling and servicing, or similar agreement, and based upon my knowledge and the
annual compliance review required under that agreement, and except as disclosed in the
reports, the depositor and trustee have each fulfilled its obligations under that agreement;
and  4.
    The reports disclose all significant deficiencies relating to the compliance by the trustee
and the depositor with the minimum servicing or similar standards based upon the report
provided by an independent public accountant, after conducting a review in compliance with the
Uniform Single Attestation Program for Mortgage Bankers or similar procedures, as set forth in
the pooling and servicing, or similar agreements, that is included in these reports. In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me by the
following unaffiliated parties: Ernst and Young and Citibank, N.A. Date: March 29, 2005 By: /s/ Ellen Z. Lamale
Name: Ellen Z. Lamale
Title: Senior Vice President and Chief Actuary
#### Northern Bank of Kentucky *v.*John S. Scott.

Banks and Banking — Unauthorized Payment of Check — Acquiescence— Estoppel.

The appellant waived his right of action against the bank by taking up the check and assenting to the charge for the payment against him, as shown by his permitting his account with the bank, including the charge, to be balanced on his passbook without objection, and especially so as he acquiesced in the transaction for three years.

APPEAL, OF KENTON CIRCUIT COURT.

October 12, 1871.

*Johnson, Menzies & Furber, for appellant.*

*Pryor, for appellee.*

Opinion by

Judge Hardin :

If it be true as contended for the appellee, that the bank was unauthorized to pay the check of the appellee without the genuine endorsement of Carlisle or his authority, and that the bank by paying it to Hamilton who endorsed it in Carlisle's name as by Carlisle Hamilton and Carlisle, incurred responsibility to the appellee, which he might have enforced. We are satisfied from the evidence that he waived his right to do so by taking up the check on the 3d of January, 1866, and assenting to the charge for the payment against him as shown by his permitting his account with the bank, including that charge, to e .balanced on his passbook without objection, and especially so, as he seems to have acquiesced in the transaction for nearly three years after being informed by Carlisle that he did not authorize the endorsement.

Wherefore the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial consistent with this opinion.
#### COLLINS v. COLLINS

No. 44P97

Case below: 125 N.C.App. 113

Petition by defendant for discretionary review pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 denied 5 June 1997.
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

GEORGETA MILLER,

Appellant,

v.

FINIZIO & FINIZIO, P.A., PAUL G. FINIZIO

and ANYA E. MACIAS,

Appellees.

No. 4D19-100

[April 2, 2020]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, 

Broward County; Sandra Perlman, Judge; L.T. Case No. CACE09-005292.

Thomas Regnier of Kramer, Green, Zuckerman, Greene & Buchsbaum, 

P.A., Hollywood, for appellant.

Lissette Gonzalez and Scott A. Cole of Cole, Scott & Kissane, P.A., 

Miami, for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

CONNER, FORST and KLINGENSMITH, JJ., concur.

* * *

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

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 233 Agreed to House (ATH)]

105th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 233

         Relating to a question of the privileges of the House.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 18, 1997

 Mr. Menendez submitted the following resolution; which was considered 
                             and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
         Relating to a question of the privileges of the House.

Whereas the privilege of admission to the Hall of the House or rooms leading 
        thereto is subject to the requirements of proper decorum;
Whereas concern has arisen that the privilege of admission to the Hall of the 
        House or rooms leading thereto has become the subject of abuse;
Whereas Representative Menendez of New Jersey has given notice pursuant to 
        clause 2 of rule IX of his intention to offer a question of the 
        privileges of the House addressing that concern; and
Whereas these circumstances warrant an immediate affirmation by the House of its 
        unequivocal commitment to the principle that every person who exercises 
        the privilege of admission to the Hall of the House or rooms leading 
        thereto assumes a concomitant responsibilty to comport himself in a 
        manner that properly dignifies the proceedings of the House: Now, 
        therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the Sergeant-at-Arms is instructed to remove former 
Representative Robert Dornan from the Hall of the House and rooms 
leading thereto and to prevent him from returning to the Hall of the 
House and rooms leading thereto until the election contest concerning 
the forty-sixth district of California is resolved.
                                 <all>
```
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Marcie Henry,

Plaintiff,

v.

Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. and C. R. 

Bard, Inc., et al.,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

MDL Case No. 2:15-md-02641-DGC

Civil Action No. CV-17-03427-PHX-DGC

APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL

To: The clerk of court and all parties of record

I am admitted or otherwise authorized to practice in this court, and I appear in this case as counsel for:

Defendants C. R. Bard, Inc. and Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc.

Date: October 26, 2017 /s/ Richard B. North, Jr.

Attorney's signature

Richard B. North, Jr. (Ga. Bar No. 545599)

Printed name and bar number

Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, LLP

201 17th St., NW, Suite 1700, Atlantic Station, Atlanta, GA 30363

Address

richard.north@nelsonmullins.com

E-mail Address

(404) 322-6000

Telephone number

(404 322-6050

FAX number

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 8517 Filed 11/01/17 Page 1 of 1
H. Res. 399

In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

June 16, 1998.

Whereas Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Children v.

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 334 F. Supp. 1247 (E.

Dist. Pa. 1971), and Mills v. Board of Education of the

District of Columbia, 348 F. Supp. 866 (Dist. D. C.

1972), found that children with disabilities are guaranteed an equal opportunity to an education under the 14th

amendment to the Constitution;

Whereas the Congress responded to these court decisions by

passing the Education for All Handicapped Children Act

of 1975 (enacted as Public Law 94–142), now known as

the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (20

U.S.C. 1400 et seq.), to ensure a free, appropriate public

education for children with disabilities;

Whereas the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act provides that the Federal, State, and local governments are

to share in the expense of educating children with disabilities and authorizes the Federal Government to pay up

to 40 percent of the national average per pupil expenditure for children with disabilities;

Whereas the Federal Government has provided only 7, 9, and

11 percent of the maximum State grant allocation for

educating children with disabilities under the Individuals
2

•HRES 399 EH

with Disabilities Education Act in the last 3 years, respectively;

Whereas the national average cost of educating a special education student ($12,002) is more than twice the national

average per pupil cost ($5,955);

Whereas research indicates that children who are effectively

taught, including effective instruction aimed at acquiring

literacy skills, and who receive positive early interventions

demonstrate academic progress, and are significantly less

likely to be referred to special education;

Whereas, if the appropriation for part B of the Individuals

with Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.C. 1411 et seq.)

exceeds $4,100,000,000 for a fiscal year, a local educational agency may reduce its local spending on special

education for such fiscal year by an amount equal to 20

percent of the amount that exceeds the prior year’s appropriation so long as the local educational agency is not

failing to comply with the requirements of part B of such

Act, as determined by the State educational agency;

Whereas the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act has

been successful in achieving significant increases in the

number of children with disabilities who receive a free,

appropriate public education; and

Whereas the current level of Federal funding to States and

localities under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act is contrary to the goal of ensuring that children with disabilities receive a quality education: Now,

therefore, be it

Resolved, That the House of Representatives urges the

Congress and the President, working within the constraints

of the balanced budget agreement, to give programs under
3

•HRES 399 EH

the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.C.

1400 et seq.) higher priority among Federal education programs by working to fund the maximum State grant allocation for educating children with disabilities under such Act.

Attest:

Clerk.
9200.

#### Busby & Son *v.*Elliott.

Jenkins, J.

1. An affidavit upon which an attachment is based is amendable to the same extent as ordinary declarations, and with only the restrictions, limitations, and consequences now obtaining in the case of *392ordinary declarations and pleas (Civil Code of 1910, § 5706; *Penn*v. *McGhee,*6 *Ga. App.*631, 65 S. E. 686) ; but since a suit brought by one in his individual name can not be changed into a suit in the name of a partnership *(Blackwell*v. *Pennington,*66 *Ga.*240), the .court did not err in refusing to allow the proposed amendment to the affidavit and attachment bond, to the effect that the indebtedness was due to A. W. Busby & Son, a partnership, instead of to A. W. Busby, as alleged in the original affidavit and bond.

Decided May 17, 1918.

Complaint; from city court of Floyd county—-Judge Nunnally. September 7, 1917.

*Harris & Harris,*for plaintiffs. IF. *B. Mebane,*for defendant.

2. An attachment proceeding instituted by affidavit in the name of an individual will not support a declaration brought in the name of a partnership *(Sheffield*v. *Key,*14 *Ga.*537), unless the variance has been waived by the defendant; but where the defendant has made a replevy bond payable to the partnership, and conditioned to pay to it the amount of the judgment which the partnership in its suit may recover, the defendant is estopped from setting up such variance, and the action thus brought will proceed as at common law, although the attachment itself and the levy made thereunder be dismissed. Civil Code (1910), §§ 5121, 5103; *Camp*v. *Cahn,*53 *Ga.*558; *Buice*v. *Lowman Mining Co.,*64 *Ga.*769; *Walter*v. *Kierstead,*74 *Ga.*18; *Mayer*v. *Brooks,*74 *Ga.*526; *Woodbridge*v. *Drought,*118 *Ga.*671 (45 S. E. 266); *Duke*v. *Automobile Supply Co.,*21 *Ga. App.*608 (94 S. E. 915); *Cowart*v. *Caldwell Co.,*134 *Ga.*544 (3), 550 (68 S. E. 500, 30 L. R. A. (N. S.) 720). The court erred in dismissing the declaration in attachment.

*Judgment reversed m part, and affirmed in part.*

*Wade, C. J., and Luke, J., concur.*
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION 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 Stereotaxis, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ended
December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Michael P. Kaminski, President & Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to Rule 13a-14(b) and
Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of 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: March 11, 2011 |  |  |  |  |  | /s/    MICHAEL P.
KAMINSKI                                               
|                     |  |  |  |  |  | Michael P. Kaminski President & Chief Executive Officer Stereotaxis,
Inc.