alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Fields *v.*Bush *et al.*

1. The will involved in the present case created an estate in the testator’s widow for and during her life or widowhood, without reference to whether all the children should arrive at majority within that period or not.

2. A sale and conveyance by her of a portion of the realty embraced in the devise, the sale being made privately and without an order' of the ordinary, would pass such estate as she had as devisee, but no more.

3. If the conveyance from her was procured by fraud and afterwards the property was legally sold at sheriff’s sale under a judgment against her vendee, the purchaser at that sale, while he would be affected by notice of the fraud were she reclaiming the property, is entitled to hold it irrespective of the question of fraud or no fraud, during her life or widowhood, as against any claim to possession by the devisees in remainder, children of the testator.

July 30, 1894.

*Judgment reversed.*

Equitable petition. Before Judge Milner. Gordon superior court. August term, 1893.

I. N. Buckner left á will in which he appointed his wife executrix". He bequeathed to her certain realty, including that' involved in the present case; also his merchandise, furniture, notes and accounts; and provided that she should have full power to collect all debts due him “ without any further as my executrix hereinafter named, during her life or widowhood,” and full power to manage the property “ so as to raise and educate the minor children, during her life or widowhood ; *665then the remainder to be sold and divided equally between my heirs.” In another item he directed his executrix to pay $100 to each of his heirs who were of age, and the others as they came of age, as she might be able and at her convenience. She made a private sale and conveyance of the land in question to John C. Buckner who conveyed it to his wife, who conveyed part of it to Fields, and the sheriff' levied on the other part and sold it to Fields. This action was brought by several children of I. N. Buckner against their mother, their brother John C. and his wife, and Fields, alleging that the deed to John C. was procured by his fraud of which defendants had full notice, that Mrs. Buckner had no power, under the will, to sell the property, etc. There was a verdict for plaintiffs, upon which a decree was taken setting aside the deeds and vesting the title in plaintiffs. Fields moved for a new trial, and the motion was overruled. The questions m§,de by the grounds of the motion appear from the head-notes.

W. H. Dabney and R. J. & J. McCamy, for plaintiff in error. McCutchen & Shumate, J. C. Fain and *W.*R. Ranion, *contra.*
EX-35.1
(logo) OCWEN



ANNUAL SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT
PURSUANT TO ITEM 1123 OF REGULATION AB

March 7, 2008


RE: ACE 2007-HE2


For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2007 (the "Reporting Period"), Ocwen Loan
Servicing, LLC ("OLS") furnishes this annual servicer compliance statement
pursuant to Item 1123 of Regulation AB, indicating its compliance with the
servicing standards of the Securities & Exchange Commission as set forth in
Regulation AB, 17 CFR Section 229.1100, et seq., ("Regulation AB"). In this
regard, I make the following representations, which are true to the best of my
knowledge and belief in all material respects.

1. A review of the servicing activities of OLS during the Reporting Period, and
   of its performance under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of
   February 1, 2007 (the "Agreement"), has been performed under my supervision.

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



By: /s/ Ronald M. Faris
Name: Ronald M. Faris
Title: President



Ocwen Loan Servicing LLC
1661 Worthington Road Suite 100
Centrepark West
West Palm Beach, FL 33409
EXHIBIT 4.15
                          ADDENDUM TO 2004 SENIOR NOTE

      This Addendum shall be a part of and incorporated by reference into the
12% Convertible Senior Note, due December 31, 2004, made by USA in favor of the
undersigned ("Senior Note"). All capitalized terms used herein shall have the
meanings ascribed to them in the Senior Note.

      The undersigned, ____________________, is the holder of a $_____________
principal amount Senior Note. The undersigned agrees and confirms that the
Maturity Date of the Senior Note is hereby extended from December 31, 2004 until
December 31, 2007. The undersigned further agrees and acknowledges that the
Conversion Price of the Senior Note is hereby reduced from $.40 per share to
$.20 per share.

      Except as expressly set forth herein, all the terms and conditions of the
Senior Note from USA in favor of the undersigned shall remain in full force and
effect.

      IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this Addendum to 2004
Senior Note on this _____ day of ________ 2003.

#1                                                   #2

______________________                               ____________________
Signature                                            Signature

#1                                                   #2

______________________                               ____________________
Witness                                              Witness


                                                     AGREED TO AND ACCEPTED:
                                                     USA TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

                                                     By:_____________________
                                                        George R. Jensen, Jr.
                                                        Chairman and CEO
EXHIBIT 32.1





STATEMENT OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER


PURSUANT TO SECTION 1350 OF TITLE 18 OF THE UNITED STATES CODE








Pursuant to Section 1350 of Title 18 of the United States Code, the undersigned, Fred O’Connor, Chief Executive Officer of Biofuels Power Corporation (the “Company”), hereby certifies that:





The Company’s Form 10-K/A Annual Report for the year ended December 31, 2010 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.








/s/ Richard DeGarmo


Richard DeGarmo, Director and


Acting Chief Executive Officer


Dated: June 15, 2011
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

June 25, 2015

N o. 04

- 15

- 00318

- CV

GEMINI INSURANCE COMPANY and Berkley Oil and Gas Specialty Services, LLC,

Appellant s

v.

DRILLING RISK MANAGEMENT, INC.,

Appellee

From the 216th Judicial District Court , Kendall County, Texas

Trial Court No. 12

- 066

Honorable Bill R. Palmer, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

The District Clerk's Notification of Late Record is hereby GRANTED. Time is extended

to July 24, 2015.

_________________________________ Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 25th day of June, 201 5

.

___________________________________ Kei th E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-1529
WALTER H. LEE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, The Honorable Marion Barry, Jr., Defendant - Appellee.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, District Judge. (CA-97-201) Submitted: July 24, 1997 Decided: August 6, 1997 Before HAMILTON, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Walter H. Lee, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court's order dismissing his workers' compensation claim for lack of jurisdiction. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Lee v. District of Columbia , No. CA-97-201 (E.D. Va. Mar. 19, 1997). We dispense with oral argument because thefacts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                           3,997
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   43,509
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,375
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                80,931
<PP&E>                                         228,662
<DEPRECIATION>                                 134,859
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 243,609
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           71,842
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           329
<OTHER-SE>                                    (65,268)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   243,609
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               192,266
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  151,154
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                28,732
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   530
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                         0
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.46
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.46
        

</TABLE>
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANTTO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with theQuarterly Report of Cubic Energy, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Qfor the period ending March 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, as C.E.O., certify,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1) The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2) The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

Date: May  15, 2009

 
| Signature: | /s/ Calvin A. Wallen, III      |   |
|------------|-------------------------------------|--------|
|       | Calvin A. Wallen, III,  C.E.O. |   |

 

----
## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 05-3752

___________ Yoram Raz, * * Appellant, * * v. * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the Robert M. Mueller, Director, United * Western District of Arkansas. States Department of Justice; United * States of America, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellees. *

---------------------------------------- Yoram Raz, * * Appellant, * * v. * * United States of America, * * Appellee. *

___________ Submitted: February 7, 2007 Filed: February 9, 2007

___________ Before RILEY, HANSEN, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM.1 The Honorable Jimm Larry Hendren, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas. -2- Yoram Raz challenges the adverse judgm ent entered by the district court 1 after a bench trial on Raz’s claims based on the FB I’s alleged campaign of surveillance and harassment of him. For reversal, Raz argues the district court abused its discretion in limiting essential discovery, in limiting evid ence, and in refusing to sanction the opposing parties. Following careful review, we find no abuse of the district court’s discretion with regard to these matters, and we affirm for the reasons cited in the district court’s thorough memorandum opinion. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 12 (Wednesday, January 21, 2009)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 3508]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-1104]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Internal Revenue Service

26 CFR Part 1

[REG-150670-07]
RIN 1545-BH49


Guidance Regarding the Treatment of Stock of a Controlled 
Corporation Under Section 355(a)(3)(B); Correction

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

ACTION: Correction to notice of proposed rulemaking by cross-reference 
to temporary regulations.

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

SUMMARY: This document contains a correction to a notice of proposed 
rulemaking by cross-reference to temporary regulations (REG-150670-07) 
that was published in the Federal Register on Monday, December 15, 2008 
(73 FR 75979) giving guidance regarding the distribution of stock of a 
controlled corporation acquired in a transaction described in section 
355(a)(3)(B) of the Internal Revenue Code. This action is necessary in 
light of amendments to section 355(b). The text of those regulations 
also serves as the text of these proposed regulations. These 
regulations will affect corporations and their shareholders.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Russell P. Subin, (202) 622-7790 (not 
a toll-free number).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The correction notice that is the subject of this document is under 
section 355 of the Internal Revenue Code.

Need for Correction

    As published, the notice of proposed rulemaking by cross-reference 
to temporary regulations (REG-150670-07) contains an error that may 
prove to be misleading and is in need of clarification.

Correction of Publication

    Accordingly, the publication of the notice of proposed rulemaking 
by cross-reference to temporary regulations (REG-150670-07), which was 
the subject of FR Doc. E8-29545, is corrected as follows:
    On page 75980, column 2, under the CFR part heading ``PART 1--
INCOME TAXES'', line 2 of the authority citation, the language 
``Section 1.355-2(g) also issued under 26'' is corrected to read 
``Section 1.355-2(g) and (i) also issued under 26''.

LaNita Van Dyke,
Chief, Publications and Regulations Branch, Legal Processing Division, 
Associate Chief Counsel (Procedure and Administration).
 [FR Doc. E9-1104 Filed 1-16-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4007 

To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to conduct feasibility studies to 

identify opportunities to increase the surface flows of the Rio Grande, 

Canadian, and Pecos Rivers in the State of New Mexico, and for other 

purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 29, 2006 

Mr. DOMENICI introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to conduct feasibility studies to identify opportunities to increase the 

surface flows of the Rio Grande, Canadian, and Pecos 

Rivers in the State of New Mexico, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘New Mexico Rivers 

5 Feasibility Studies Act of 2006’’. 


jcorcoran on PRODPC62 with BILLS
2 

•S 4007 IS

1 SEC. 2. RIO GRANDE, CANADIAN, AND PECOS RIVERS FEA2 SIBILITY STUDY. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of the Interior, act4 ing through the Commissioner of Reclamation (referred to 

5 in this Act as the ‘‘Secretary’’), in coordination with the 

6 State of New Mexico, shall, in accordance with this Act 

7 and any other applicable law, conduct feasibility studies 

8 to identify opportunities to increase the surface flows of 

9 the Rio Grande, Canadian, and Pecos Rivers in the State 

10 of New Mexico. 

11 (b) REPORT.—Not later than 2 years after the date 

12 of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to 

13 the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the 

14 Senate and the Committee on Resources of the House of 

15 Representatives a report that describes the results of the 

16 feasibility studies conducted under subsection (a). 

17 (c) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is 

18 authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary to carry 

19 out this Act $3,000,000. 

Æ 


jcorcoran on PRODPC62 with BILLS
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Tyler L., Appellant.

[974 NYS2d 866]

Appeal from an adjudication of the Ontario County Court *1417(Frederick G. Reed, A.J.), rendered April 25, 2012. Defendant was adjudicated a youthful offender upon his plea of guilty to robbery in the second degree (four counts).

It is hereby ordered that the adjudication so appealed from is unanimously modified on the law by vacating those parts that replaced the conviction on counts two and seven of the indictment and dismissing those counts of the indictment, and as modified the adjudication is affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a youthful offender adjudication based upon his plea of guilty of four counts of robbery in the second degree (Penal Law § 160.10 [1], [2] [a]). Defendant contends, and the People correctly concede, that County Court was not authorized to accept the plea of guilty with respect to counts two and seven of the indictment, charging him with robbery in the second degree under section 160.10 (1). As a juvenile offender who was 15 years old at the time of the crimes, defendant cannot be held criminally responsible for robbery in the second degree pursuant to that subdivision *(see*CPL 1.20 [42]; Penal Law §§ 10.00 [18]; 30.00 [2]). We conclude that the portion of the plea with respect to those counts of the indictment is not “an integral part of a nonseverable plea bargain” *(People v Boye,*175 AD2d 924, 924 [1991]), and that the plea with respect to those counts of the indictment must be vacated and “deemed a nullity” *(id.; see People v McKoy,*60 AD3d 1374, 1375 [2009], *lv denied*12 NY3d 856 [2009]; *People v Stowe,*15 AD3d 597, 598 [2005], *lv denied*5 NY3d 770 [2005]). We therefore modify the adjudication accordingly.

Defendant further contends that the court erred in denying that part of his omnibus motion seeking removal of this matter to Family Court pursuant to CPL 210.43 (1). We reject that contention. The court properly considered the statutory factors *(see*CPL 210.43 [2]), and it is well settled that removal to Family Court over the District Attorney’s objections may be ordered only “in the exceptional case” *(Matter of Vega v Bell,*47 NY2d 543, 553 [1979]). Inasmuch as the prosecutor objected and defendant failed to establish that this is an exceptional case, we conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant’s request *(see People v Sanchez,*128 AD2d 816, 816-817 [1987], *lv denied*70 NY2d 655 [1987]; *see generally People v Charles M.,*286 AD2d 942, 942-943 [2001]).

Finally, the sentence is not unduly harsh or severe. Present— Smith, J.R, Centra, Fahey, Garni and Whalen, JJ.
2011 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit

8-5-2011 

# N icole S chne y de r v

. G in a S mith

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 ock e t N o . 10-2367

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al w ork s a t : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . v i l l a no v a . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2011

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o y ou 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 a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit a t V i l l a no v a U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al R e posit or y

. I t h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2011 D e c i sion s b y a n a uthor i z e d a dmini s tr a t or of V i l l a no v a U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al R e posit or y

. F or mor e infor m a t ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min

. C a rl s on@l a

w . v i l l a no v a . e du

. R e c omme nde d C it a t ion

" N ic o le S chney de r v

. G in a S mith " (2011). 2011 D e cisio n s . P a pe r 598. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . v i l l a no v a . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2011/598

### UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

_____________ No. 10

- 2367

_____________ NICOLE SCHNEYDER

v. GINA SMITH, Appellant

v. LAURA DAVIS, ESQUIRE; THE DEFENDER ASSOCIATION OF PHILADELPHIA


### On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
District Court No. 2

- 06

- cv
- 04986 District Judge: The Honorable Jan E. Dubois

_____________ Argued January 26, 2011
Before: McKEE , Chief Judge , SMITH, Circuit Judge ,

and STEARNS, District Judge *


### ORDER AMENDING OPINION
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the concurrence filed on July 29, 2011, is hereby vacated. A corrected concurrence shall be filed forthwith. There are no substantive changes to the concurrence.

* The Honorable Richard G. Stearns, United States District Judge for th e District of Massachusetts, sitting by designation.

### B Y THE COU RT:

/s/ Theodore A. McKee CHIEF CIRCUIT JUDGE
Dated: August 5, 2011 tmk/cc: Daniel Silverman, Esq. Peter Carr, Esq. Alison J. Guest, Esq. Todd M. Mosser, Esq. Joseph Goldberg, Esq. Michael B. Pullano, Esq.
#### Ruchama Gamiel, Appellant, v Curtis & Reiss-Curtis, RC., et al., Respondents. (And a Third-Party Action.)

Submitted July 13, 2009;

decided September 8, 2009

Reported below, 60 AD3d 473.

Motion, insofar as it seeks leave to appeal from the March 10, 2009 Appellate Division order, dismissed as untimely *(see*CPLR 5513 [b]); motion, insofar as it seeks leave to appeal from the Supreme Court judgment entered on the Appellate Division order, dismissed upon the ground that the judgment is not the final paper from which leave to appeal may be sought *(see*CPLR 5611). Motion for a stay dismissed as academic.
#### Executive Risk Indemnity Inc., Appellant, v Pepper Hamilton LLP et al., Respondents. Pepper Hamilton LLP et al., Third-Party Plaintiffs-Respondents, v Continental Casualty Company et al., Third-Party Defendants-Appellants.

Submitted November 30, 2009;

decided January 14, 2010

Reported below, 56 AD3d 196.

Motion for reargument denied *[see*13 NY3d 313 (2009)].

Judge Smith taking no part.