alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Skinner v. Preferred Credit

Case below: 361 N.C. 114

No. 525A05-2

Pit’s Petition for Rehearing

Denied 2/15/07
QuickLinks
 -- Click here to rapidly navigate through this document

Exhibit 4.5  


 
 

MEMORANDUM OF ASSOCIATION
  OF
  MOLSON COORS CAPITAL FINANCE ULC    
    


	1.
	The
name of the Company is Molson Coors Capital Finance ULC.



	2.
	There
are no restrictions on the objects and powers of the Company and the Company shall expressly have the following powers:



	(1)
	to
sell or dispose of its undertaking, or a substantial part thereof;



	(2)
	to
distribute any of its property in specie among its members; and



	(3)
	to
amalgamate with any company or other body of persons.






	3.
	The
liability of the members is unlimited. 





        I,
the undersigned, whose name, address and occupation are subscribed, am desirous of being formed into a company in pursuance of this Memorandum of Association, and I agree to take the
number and kind of shares in the capital stock of the Company written below my name. 



	 	 	 /s/ Charles S. Reagh
 Name of Subscriber: Charles S. Reagh

800-1959 Upper Water Street, Halifax, NS B3J 2X2

Occupation: Solicitor

Number of shares subscribed: One common share	 	 





TOTAL
SHARES TAKEN: one common share

Dated this 29th day of December, 2004. 



	Witness to above signature:	 	/s/  AMY SMITH      
 Name of Witness: Amy Smith

800-1959 Upper Water Street, Halifax, NS B3J 2X2

Occupation: Legal Assistant





[SEAL]












QuickLinks


MEMORANDUM OF ASSOCIATION OF MOLSON COORS CAPITAL FINANCE ULC
#### Michael LESANE, a/k/a Michael B. Lesane, a/k/a Michael Bernard Lesane, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Anthony PADULA, Warden Lee Correctional Institution, Respondent—Appellee.

No. 08-8568.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: April 23, 2009.

Decided: May 4, 2009.

Michael B. Lesane, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Alphonso Simon, Jr., South Carolina Attorney General’s Office, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Before MICHAEL, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Michael Lesane seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The order is not appeal-able unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). A certificate *285of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dis-positive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. *Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *Rose v. Lee,*252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Lesane has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED.*
EX-35.1
(logo) EMC
Mortgage Corporation


ITEM 1123 ANNUAL STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE

EMC MORTGAGE CORPORATION


The undersigned officers of EMC Mortgage Corporation ("EMC") as servicer
pursuant to the Bear Stearns Asset Backed Securities Trust 2007-1 Agreement
(the "Agreement") hereby certify that:


1. A review of EMC's activities during the period from and including January 1,
   2007 through and including December 31, 2007 (the "Reporting Period") and
   EMC's performance under the Agreement has been made under my supervision.

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


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has duly executed this Certificate on this
12th day of March 2008



By: /s/ David B. Little
David B. Little
Executive Vice President
Default Administration

/s/ William Glasgow Jr.
William Glasgow Jr.
Executive Vice President
Enterprise Operations Services

/s/ Jenna Kemp
Jenna Kemp
Executive Vice President
Investor Administration



(logo) MBA
Member
Mortgage Bankers
Association of America

2780 Lake Vista Drive, Lewisville, Texas 75067
Mailing Address: P.O. Box 1292190 Lewisville, Texas 75029-2190
Exhibit 35.3

SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT (Item 1123)

Homecomings Financial, LLC

RALI Series 2007-QS5 Trust (the Issuing Entity)

The undersigned, a duly authorized officer of Homecomings Financial, LLC, as servicer (the Servicer) pursuant to the applicable servicing agreement, does hereby certify that:

1. A review of the Servicers activities during the period from and including March 29, 2007 through and including September 24, 2007 and of the
Servicers performance under the applicable servicing agreement has been made under my supervision.

2. To the best of my knowledge, based on such
review, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the applicable servicing agreement in all material respects throughout such period.

IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has duly executed this Certificate this 24th day of March 2008.



|       |  |                     
|------ |  | --------------------
|By:    |  | /s/ Anthony N. Renzi
|Name:  |  | Anthony N. Renzi    
|Title: |  | Managing Director
**Exhibit 32.2****CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,****AS ENACTED PURSUANT TO****SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**In connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of HubInternational Limited (the “Company”) datedMay 9, 2005 containing the financial statements of theCompany for the quarter ended March 31, 2005 (the“Report”) filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof, I, Dennis J. Pauls, ChiefFinancial Officer of the Company, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.Section 1350, as enacted, certify, pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:1.    the Report fully complies with the requirements of    Section 13(a) 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.A signed original of this written statement required bySection 906 has been provided to the Company and will beretained by the Company and furnished to the Securities andExchange Commission or its staff upon request. By:     /s/ Dennis J. Pauls       Dennis J. Pauls     Chief Financial OfficerMay 9, 2005
#### Amy L. Roberts et al., on Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated, Respondents, v Tishman Speyer Properties, L.P., et al., Appellants.

Submitted August 3, 2009;

decided August 27, 2009

Reported below, 62 AD3d 71.

Motion by Office of the Manhattan Borough President for leave to file a brief amicus curiae on the appeal herein granted and the proposed brief is accepted as filed. Two copies of the brief must be served and 24 copies filed within seven days.
#### In the Matter of Outback Steakhouse, Inc., Respondent, v Contracting Management, Inc., Appellant.

[873 NYS2d 120]

In a proceeding to confirm an arbitration award dated June 6, 2007, as modified July 16, 2007, Contracting Management, Inc., appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Dolan, J.), dated January 10, 2008, which, inter alia, granted the petition to the extent of confirming the award, as modified, except insofar as it awarded certain reimbursement to Outback Steakhouse, Inc., and, in effect, denied its cross petition to vacate the award, as modified.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law and the facts, without costs or disbursements, the petition to confirm the award, as modified, is denied, the cross petition to vacate the award, as modified, is granted, and the arbitration award, as modified, is vacated.

We agree with Contracting Management, Inc., that the arbitrator exceeded his authority in modifying the original arbitration award by rendering wholly new determinations on matters not addressed in the original award, which went beyond correcting a miscalculation or mistake, correcting an award upon a matter not submitted to him without affecting the merits of the decision, or correcting a matter of form not affecting the merits of the controversy (see CPLR 7509, 7511 [c]). Thus, the award, as modified, must be vacated (see *Matter of Herman v Cupero,*12 AD3d 674 [2004]; *Cavallaro v Allstate Ins. Co.,*124 AD2d 625 [1986]).

Moreover, to the extent the award, as modified, “reaffirmed” provisions of the original award, those provisions also must be vacated on the ground that the arbitrator so imperfectly executed his power in making that award that a final and definite award on the subject matter submitted was not made *(see*CPLR 7511 [b] [1] [iii]; *Matter of Herman v Cupero,*12 AD3d at 675; *Matter of Wolff & Munier [Diesel Constr. Co.],*41 AD2d 618 [1973], *affd after remand*36 NY2d 750 [1975]). Rivera, J.E, Santucci, Garni and Dickerson, JJ., concur.
* 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. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED March 29, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk REVISED JULY 10, 2006 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________ No. 05-60552 Summary Calendar

_____________________ RICHARD JOHN FLORANCE, JR., Petitioner-Appellant v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent-Appellee

--------------------- Appeal from the United States Tax Court

(11782-03 and 18209-03)

--------------------- Before KING, WIENER, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Proceedingpro se, Petitioner-Appellant RichardJohn Florance, Jr. appeals adverse rulings of the United States Tax Court. We note that, in addition to rulings against Florance on all substantive issues, the Tax Court imposed sanctions grounded primarily in the frivolousness of his cases and the actions he took in prosecuting them. Now, in addition to seeking our affirmance of the Tax Court in all respects, Respondent-Appellee Commissioner ofInternal Revenue asks us to impose sanctions against Florance for

bringing a frivolous appeal. Based on our review of the record on appeal, including the rulings and reasoning of the Tax Court and its imposition of sanctions, the operative facts, the appellate briefs of the parties, and the technical revision by the Tax Court of its earlier ruling, we conclude that the Tax Court correctly held in favor of the Commissioner on all substantive matters as well as on
sanctions, and that Florance’s contentions there, as here, are wholly without merit. Turning to sanctions for a frivolous appeal, the Commissioner has clearly made a case for their imposition, and Florance has failed to file a response or opposition thereto. Noting the sanctions already imposed by the Tax Court, and further noting that Florance is before us pro se, we decline to assess further monetary penalties. We do, however, order the Clerk of this Court to refuse to accept for filing any further pleadings or other instruments received from Florance or on his behalf without first obtaining the authorization of a judge of this court. AFFIRMED; ORDER ISSUED PROHIBITING FUTURE FILINGS.
#### Western Land & Emigration Co. *v.*Guinault *et al.*

*(Circuit Court, E. D. Louisiana.*

January 24, 1889.)

Equity—Multiea biottsnkss.

Where the same relief is asked against several defendants, and all based *on*the same transaction, and it appears that, unless they can be joined in one bill. 70 or 80 suits, all growing out of the same character of transactions, will have to be brought, the bill will not be held had for mnltifariousness'.

In Equity. On motion for injunction *pendente lite.*

*E. Howard McOaleb*and *W. II.*Smith, for complainant.

*S. L. Gilmore*and *Wynn Rogers,*for defendants.

Pardee, J.

This cause has been submitted on a motion for an injunction *pendente lite.*The defendant’s main objection is that the bill is multifarious. The general rule with regard to multifariousness is clearly stated in Coop. Eq. Pl. 182, as follows:

> “The court will not. permit several plaintiffs to demand by one bill several matters perfectly distinct and unconnected against one defendant, nor one plaintiff to demand several matters of distinct natures against several defendants.”

But Mr. Cooper, in commenting on this rule, allows that there are many exceptions, mainly for the purpose of preventing a multiplicity ol‘ suits, and where the rights claimed grow out of the' same transaction. Justice Story, in commenting upon the same question, says:

> “A bill is not to be treated as multifarious because it joins two good causes of complaint growing out of the same transaction, where all the defendants are interested in the same claim of right, and where the relief asked in relation to eacli is of the same general character. * * * Indeed, the objection of multifariousness, and the circumstances under which it will be allowed to prevail or not, is in many cases, as we shall hereafter see, a matter of discretion, and no general rule can be laid down on the subject.” See Story, Eq. PI. § 284.

In this case the same relief is asked against the several defendants, and all based upon the same transactions. Unless they can be joined in one bill, a multiplicity of suits,—70 or 80,—all growing out of the same character of transactions, would have to be brought. Therefore the objection of mul tifariousn ess, in my opinion, ought not to be allowed. On the other grounds of opposition to the injunction *pendente*as prayed for, iu order that the question may be presented fully, and the *status quo*maintained, (without committing myself to a fixed opinion,) I am inclined to think that the injunction should issue, and it is so ordered.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3735 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 3735

To suspend temporarily the duty on vulcanized rubber felt bottom boots 
                           for use in waders.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             July 26, 2006

  Mr. Baucus introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To suspend temporarily the duty on vulcanized rubber felt bottom boots 
                           for use in waders.

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

SECTION 1. FELT BOTTOM BOOTS FOR USE IN FISHING WADERS.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

      

``      9902.64.05        Vulcanized rubber felt  Free      No change       No change       On or before 12/
                           bottom boots for                                                  31/2009          ''
                           actual use in fishing                                                               .
                           waders (provided for
                           in subheading
                           6405.90.90)..........

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
Dismissed and Opinion Filed December 29, 2020

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 20

- 00967

- CV

JOHN JOHNSON , Appellant

V.

KIM WELLS , Appellee

On Appeal from the 14th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC

- 19

- 02496

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Molberg, Reichek, and Nowell Opinion by Justice Molberg

Stating he no longer wishes to pursue th is appeal, appellant has filed a motion

to dismiss. We GRANT the motion and dismiss the appeal. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P.

42.1(a)(1).

200967f.p /Ken Molberg//

KEN MOLBERG

JUSTICE– 2

– 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

JOHN JOHNSON, Appellant

No. 05

- 20

- 00967

- CV V.

KIM WELLS, Appellee On Appeal from the 14th Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC

- 19

- 02496. Opinion delivered by Justice Molberg, Justices Reichek and Nowell participating.

In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, we DISMISS the appeal.

Subject to any agreement between the parties, we ORDER that appellee Kim Wells recover her costs, if any, of this appeal from appellant John Johnson.

Judgment entered this 29 th day of December 2020.
##### 



Envoy announces TSX approval of share buyback. Board of Directors authorizes company to purchase up to
11,675,382 of its shares over the next year
 TORONTO, ON  August 24, 2004  Envoy Communications Group Inc. announced
today acceptance by the Toronto Stock Exchange of its normal course issuer bid,
permitting it to purchase from time to time, if it is considered desirable, up
to 11,675,382 common shares, representing 10% of the public float of its common
shares on the Toronto Stock Exchange, over the next 12 month period commencing
August 26, 2004. As of the date hereof, there are 118,455,200 common shares
outstanding and Envoys public float consists of 116,753,825 common shares.
All common shares purchased by Envoy will be cancelled. The share buyback is
considered by the Board of Directors of Envoy to be in the best interests of
the company and a desirable use of corporate funds. This share purchase program demonstrates the Boards confidence in our vision
for the future, the promise of our recently announced strategic acquisition
plan and the growth opportunities that exist for the Envoy Group of Companies
said Geoffrey B. Genovese, President and CEO of Envoy. About Envoy Envoy Communications Group (NASDAQ: ECGI / TSX:ECG) is an international
consumer and retail branding company with offices throughout North America and
Europe. For more information on Envoy visit www.envoy.to. Cautionary Statement Certain statements contained in this press release may constitute
forward-looking statements within the meaning of Section 21E(i)(1) of the
United States Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Such forward-looking statements
involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors that may cause
Envoys actual results to be materially different from any future results
expressed or implied by these statements. Such factors include the following:
general economic and business conditions, changes in demand for Envoys
services, changes in competition, the ability of Envoy to integrate
acquisitions or complete future acquisitions, interest rate fluctuations,
currency exchange rate fluctuations, dependence upon and availability of
qualified personnel and changes in government regulation. In light of these and
other uncertainties, the forward-looking statements included in this press
release should not be regarded as a representation by Envoy that Envoys plans
and objectives will be achieved. These forward-looking statements speak only
as of the date of this press release, and we undertake no obligation to update
or revise the statements. For further information, please call:
Envoy Communications Group Inc.
Contact: Geoffrey Genovese
Tel: (416) 593-1212 Or contact our investor relations department at:   info@envoy.to
**1**

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA ) Cause No. DA

- 21

- 0461 ) STATE OF MONTANA , ) ) ORDER Pl aint iff and Appellee ) and ) ) MELISSA ANN TRAINER , ) ) Respond ent and Appellant ) Upon review of Respondent’s Motion for Extension for Filing Opening Brief, and good cause therefrom:

It i s Hereby

ORDERED the Respondent’s Moti on for Extensio n to file Opening Bri ef h as been granted . Appella nt shall have unt il February 9, 2022, wi

thin which to file the opening brief.

cc: Jami Rebso m Rebecca Swandal

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

December 22 2021

12/22/2021

Case Number: DA 21-0461
#### Premium Assignment Corporation, Appellant, v Utopia Home Care, Inc., Respondent.

[871 NYS2d 724]

In an action to recover on an instrument for the payment of money, brought by motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint pursuant to CPLR 3213, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Spinner, J.), dated July 3, 2008, which denied its motion.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, for a hearing on the amount of the attorney’s fee to be awarded to the plaintiff, and thereafter for entry of an appropriate judgment.

The plaintiff made a prima facie showing of its entitlement to summary judgment pursuant to CPLR 3213 by establishing the existence of an instrument for the payment of a sum certain and the defendant’s failure to make the payments called for by its terms *(see Juste v Niewdach,*26 AD3d 416 [2006]). In opposition, the defendant failed to raise a triable issue of fact or a meritorious defense *(see Black Rock, Inc. v Z Best Car Wash, Inc.,*27 AD3d 409 [2006]). Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the instrument at issue did not require any additional performance on the part of the plaintiff as a condition precedent to repayment, nor did it require the plaintiff to pursue its claim against the defendant’s insurer *(see Afco Credit Corp. v Boropark Twelfth Ave. Realty Corp.,*187 AD2d 634 [1992]).

Since, the instrument did not provide for a sum certain with respect to the recovery of an attorney’s fee in the event of a default in payment on the instrument, a hearing must be held to determine the amount of such award *(see Borg v Belair Ridge Dev. Corp.,*270 AD2d 377, 378 [2000]). Prudenti, PJ., Spolzino, McCarthy and Leventhal, JJ., concur.