alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### MERION CRICKET CLUB *v.*UNITED STATES.

No. 83.

Argued December 12, 1941.

Decided January 12, 1942.

*Mr. John Lewis Evans*for petitioner.

*Mr. J. Louis Monarch,*with whom *Solicitor General Fahy*and *Messrs. Michael H. Cardozo, IV,*and *Richard S. Salant*were on the brief, for the United States.

Mr. Justice Jackson

delivered the opinion of the Court.

The question in this case — whether amounts paid by-members of the Merion Cricket Club during the period from July 1, 1931, to June 30, 1935, for golf privileges, constituted payments as “dues or membership fees” subject to the tax imposed by § 501 of the Revenue Act of 1926, 44 Stat. 9, 92, as amended by § 413 of the Revenue Act of 1928, 45 Stat. 791, 864 — does not differ in substance from that decided this day in *White*v. *Winchester Country Club, ante,*p. 32.

With certain exceptions, a member of the Merion Cricket Club could obtain annual golf privileges only by payment of a fee, which varied in amount according to his age and status. The fee was payable in two equal installments, one on the first of January, and the other on *43the first of July. A member admitted to golf privileges after the latter date was entitled to remission of one-half of the annual fees, but if one stopped using the golf facilities during the year there was no proportionate refund. If a member elected to play golf he continued to be liable for the succeeding year unless he gave notice of withdrawal before the end of the year. Members who paid the annual golf fees were entitled to use the golf facilities as often as they desired without further charge, and could on occasion obtain golf privileges for their wives and guests.

After a claim for refund of the amounts alleged to have been paid as taxes on the annual golf fees had been duly filed and rejected, the Club on its own behalf and on behalf of its members sued the United States in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania to recover them. The District Court entered a judgment for the United States which was affirmed on appeal to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. 119 F. 2d 578. Certiorari was granted in this case and in *White*v. *Winchester Country Club, ante,*p. 32, because of an asserted conflict between the decisions below. 313 U. S. 555; 314 U. S. 589.

In this case, as in *White*v. *Winchester Country Club, supra,*we hold that amounts paid were paid as “dues or membership fees,” since they were for rights to the repeated and general use of a common club facility for an appreciable period of time, and were not fixed by each occasion of actual use.

The decision below is therefore

*Affirmed.*

Mr. Justice Roberts took no part in the decision of this ease.
Exhibit 32




         Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act

                                                                    May 12, 2004

Securities and Exchange Commission
450 Fifth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20549

Ladies and Gentlemen:

The  certification  set forth below is being  submitted in  connection  with the
quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Cable TV Fund 14-B, Ltd. (the "Report") for the
purpose of complying  with Rule  13a-14(b) or Rule  15d-14(b) of the  Securities
Exchange  Act of 1934 (the  "Exchange  Act") and  Section  1350 of Chapter 63 of
Title 18 of the United States Code.

Brian L. Roberts,  the Chief Executive Officer,  Lawrence S. Smith, the Co-Chief
Financial Officer and John R. Alchin, the Co-Chief Financial Officer of Cable TV
Fund 14-B, Ltd., each certifies that, to the best of his knowledge:

     1.   the Report fully  complies with the  requirements  of Section 13(a) or
          15(d) of the Exchange Act; and

     2.   the  information  contained  in the  Report  fairly  presents,  in all
          material respects,  the financial  condition and results of operations
          of Cable TV Fund 14-B, Ltd.



/s/ Brian L. Roberts
------------------------------------------
Name: Brian L. Roberts
Chief Executive Officer


/s/ Lawrence S. Smith
------------------------------------------
Name: Lawrence S. Smith
Co-Chief Financial Officer


/s/ John R. Alchin
------------------------------------------
Name: John R. Alchin
Co-Chief Financial Officer
Order entered May 9, 2013

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-12-01516-CR

No. 05-12-01517-CR

KELLY MACK LAMBETH, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 219th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause Nos. 219-80060-2012, 219-80495-2012

ORDER

The Court REINSTATES the appeals.

On April 23, 2013, we ordered the trial court to make findings regarding why appellant’s 

brief has not been filed. We ADOPT the findings that: (1) appellant desires to pursue the 

appeals; (2) appellant is indigent and represented by court-appointed counsel Tim Avery; (3) Mr. 

Avery explained the family matters caused the delay in filing appellant’s brief; and (4) Mr. 

Avery indicated he could file appellant’s brief within forty-five days of the May 2, 2013 hearing.

We ORDER appellant to file his brief by JUNE 14, 2013. 

We DIRECT the Clerk to send copies of this order, by electronic transmission, to 

counsel for all parties.

/s/ DAVID EVANS 

JUSTICE
Cite as 2013 Ark. 379

SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS

No. CV-11-632

 

WILLIAM J. WIGLEY

 APPELLANT

V.

RAY HOBBS, DIRECTOR OF

ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF

CORRECTION

 APPELLEE

Opinion Delivered October 3, 2013 

PRO SE APPEAL FROM THE

JEFFERSON COUNTY CIRCUIT

COURT, 35CV-11-110, HON. JODI

RAINES DENNIS, JUDGE

APPEAL DISMISSED.

PER CURIAM

While an inmate in the Tucker Unit of the Arkansas Department of Correction (ADC),

located in Jefferson County, appellant William J. Wigley filed pro se petitions for declaratory

judgment and writ of mandamus in the Jefferson County Circuit Court based on claims that the

ADC improperly withheld his meritorious good-time credit and miscalculated his transfereligibility date. The circuit court entered an order denying appellant’s petitions and dismissing

the case with prejudice. Appellant brings this appeal. 

Since appellant filed his brief on appeal, he has provided a change of address indicating

that he has been released from the custody of the ADC. Thus, we take judicial notice that

appellant is no longer incarcerated. As a general rule, appellate courts of this state will not

review moot issues, as doing so would be to render an advisory opinion, which this court will

not do. Bank of Am., N.A. v. Brown, 2011 Ark. 446. Generally, an issue becomes moot when any

judgment rendered would have no practical effect upon a then-existing legal controversy. Lott

v. Langley, 2013 Ark. 247; State v. First Serv. Bank of Greenbrier, 2013 Ark. 101. Because appellant
Cite as 2013 Ark. 379

is no longer incarcerated, granting the relief requested would have no practical effect such that

the issue on appeal is moot at this time.

Appeal dismissed.

William J. Wigley, pro se appellant.

Dustin McDaniel, Att’y Gen., by: Pamela A. Rumpz, Ass’t Att’y Gen., for appellee.

2
Page 1 of 7.
	The Exhibit Index
	appears on page 5.
	
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C.  20549

____________


FORM 10-Q

QUARTERLY REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d)
OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
For the quarterly period ended September 30, 1996
Commission File Number 33-20110-02

____________


COOPERATIVE UTILITY TRUST
(BIG RIVERS SERIES)
1988-A3
(Issuer of the Certificates)

CoBANK, ACB
(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

	UNITED STATES	84-1286705
	(State or other jurisdiction of	(I.R.S. Employer
	incorporation or organization)	Identification No.)

5500 South Quebec Street, Englewood, Colorado	80111
(Address of principal executive offices)	(Zip Code)

(303) 740-4000
(Registrant's telephone number, including area code)

__________

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required
to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934
during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant
was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing
requirements for the past 90 days.  Yes   X   No  __

Indicate the number of shares outstanding of each of the registrant's classes
of common stock as of the latest practicable date:  not applicable.
	

PART I--FINANCIAL INFORMATION

	Financial information has not been included in accordance with the no action
letter issued to Louisville Bank for Cooperatives (now merged into CoBank, ACB)
(pub. avail. March 22, 1988) (the "No Action Letter").

PART II--OTHER INFORMATION

Item 1 through item 4 have not been included either because such items are
inapplicable or in accordance with the No Action Letter.

Item 5.	Other Information.

On August 15, 1996, certain distributions were made by the trustee, as more
specifically described in a Semiannual Report dated August 15, 1996, and
delivered to the holders of the Certificates of Beneficial Interests after
such distribution.  This Semiannual Report is filed as Exhibit 21.1 to this
report pursuant to the No Action Letter.

Item 6(b).	Reports on Form 8-K.

	(a)	Exhibits.

	21.1	Semiannual Report dated August 15, 1996, from the CoBank, ACB, as the
 Servicer, to Holders of Certificates of Beneficial Interests.

	(b)	Reports on Form 8-K.

	No report on Form 8-k has been filed during the quarter for which this report
 is filed.
 
SIGNATURES

	Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the
 registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the
 undersigned thereunto duly authorized.


	CoBANK, ACB


February 13, 1997		
	Nicholas G. Hahn
	Senior Vice President and Controller


February 13, 1997		
	William D. Snider
	Chief Financial Officer


EXHIBIT INDEX



	Exhibit		Sequential
	  No.  		Page No.

	21.1	Semiannual Report dated August 15, 1996,		6
		from CoBank, ACB, as the Servicer,
		to Holders of Certificates of Beneficial Interests.

GAks/CORPACTG/ADMIN/TRUSTS/FORM10Q/BR88A3TR

GAks/CORPACTG/ADMIN/TRUSTS/FORM10Q/BR88A3TR
#### Albana Rugova, as Administratrix of the Estate of Dardan Binakaj, Deceased, Respondent, v Shawn D. Davis, Appellant.

[976 NYS2d 61]

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Norma Ruiz, J.), entered October 5, *2012,*which denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion granted. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment dismissing the complaint.

The motion court improvidently exercised its discretion by not considering defendant’s reply papers, and we review them in determining the appeal *(see*CPLR 2004).

Defendant demonstrated his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by showing that his car was struck in the rear by plaintiffs decedent’s car, and in response, plaintiff failed to provide a nonnegligent explanation, in evidentiary form, for the collision *(see Avant v Cepin Livery Corp.,*74 AD3d 533 [1st Dept 2010]).

The transcripts of the deposition testimony of two police officers who testified in a related action are hearsay as to defendant, since he was not notified about this deposition, nor present for the testimony given by the officers *(see*CPLR 3117 [a] [3]; *Rivera v New York City Tr.*Auth., 54 AD3d 545, 547 [1st Dept 2008]; *Weinberg v City of New*York, 3 AD3d 489 [2d Dept 2004]; *Claypool v City of New York,*267 AD2d 33 [1st Dept 1999]). Although the transcripts are hearsay, hearsay may be used to defeat summary judgment as long as it is not the only evidence submitted in opposition *(see O’Halloran v City of New York,*78 *405AD3d 536 [1st Dept 2010]; *Rivera v GT Acquisition 1 Corp.,*72 AD3d 525 [2010]). However, plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact, since she submitted no other admissible evidence as to the happening of the accident in opposition to defendant’s motion for summary judgment.

Plaintiff may not avail herself of the *Noseworthy*doctrine *(Noseworthy v City of New York,*298 NY 76, 80 [1948]), so as not to be held to as high a degree of proof, since plaintiff failed to make a showing of facts from which negligence can be inferred *(see Melendez v Parkchester Med. Servs., P.C.,*76 AD3d 927 [1st Dept 2010]). Concur — Andrias, J.E, Acosta, Saxe, Renwick and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.
<PAGE>

[LETTERHEAD]


                                   EXHIBIT 23


                     CONSENT OF LEVINE, HUGHES & MITHUEN, INC.




CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements No. 
33-88948, No. 333-26221 and No. 333-42787 on Form S-8 and Registration 
Statement No. 333-18831 on Form S-3 of Sport-Haley, Inc., of our report dated 
September 4, 1998 on the financial statements of Sport-Haley, Inc., appearing 
in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Sport-Haley, Inc. for the year ended 
June 30, 1998.

                                        /s/ Levine, Hughes & Mithuen, Inc.


Englewood, Colorado
September 28, 1998
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.1
 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION
1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  1.
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and2.
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.
 /s/ James R. MurphyJames R. MurphyChairman of the Board of Directors and Chief
Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)May 9, 2007
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2503 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 2503

               To suspend temporarily the duty on nPBAL.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 29, 2009

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

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
               To suspend temporarily the duty on nPBAL.

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

SECTION 1. NPBAL.

    (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:

``      9902.01.00       4-                  Free         No change        No change        On or before 12/ ''.
                          Propylbenzaldehyd                                                  31/2011.......
                          e (CAS No. 28785-
                          06-0) (provided
                          for in subheading
                          2912.29.60)......

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to articles entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
Cistera
Networks Delivers First Quarter Operating Profit, Revenues Up 40%





PLANO,
Texas – August 13, 2010 – Cistera Networks® (OTCBB: CNWT) a leading provider of
enterprise application platforms and engines for unified communications today
reported results for the three month ended June 30th, 2010 (all figures in U.S.
dollars and U.S. GAAP except EBITDA).





Revenue
for the first quarter of fiscal 2011 was $0.644 million, up 21% from $0.51
million in the previous quarter and up 40% from $0.457 million in the same
quarter of last year.





Net
operating income for the quarter was $0.016 million, or $0.00 per share,
compared with net loss of $0.11 million or $0.00 per share, in the same quarter
last year. Earnings before Interest, Depreciation and Amortization, and Taxes
(EBITDA) were positive $90,736 or 14% of revenue.





“The
slowdown continues to affect our markets, particularly those of us that offer a
premium Unified Communications solution,” says Cistera CEO Greg Royal “However
we are seeing good progress in our pipeline and order book and have kept costs
under control” he added.








About Cistera Networks,
Inc.





Cistera
Networks is a leading provider of enterprise application communications
platforms and services.  The company blends powerful application
infrastructure with industry-specific business processes, to deliver the
benefits of voice, video and data convergence to the user.  Cistera’s
industry-leading platform delivers the most reliable, scalable and secure
application services for IP-based network environments.  Its broad
portfolio of application services enables users to improve customer service and
satisfaction, increase productivity and collaboration, improve responsiveness to
critical incidents and to provide a safer environment. For more information,
please see www.cistera.com





This
release may be deemed to contain forward-looking statements that are subject to
the safe harbor provisions of the Private Litigation Reform Act of 1995. These
forward-looking statements include, among other things, statements regarding
future events and the future financial performance of Cistera Networks that
involve risks and uncertainties. Readers are cautioned that these
forward-looking statements are only predictions and may differ materially from
actual future events or results. Readers are referred to the documents filed by
Cistera Networks with the SEC, specifically the most recent reports on Form 10-K
and 10-Q, each as it may be amended from time to time, which identify important
risk factors that could cause actual results to differ from those contained in
the forward-looking statements.





Media
and Investor Contact:


Cistera
Networks Inc


972-381-4699
x75003


investors@cistera.com





###
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2513 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 2513

          To suspend temporarily the duty on himic anhydride.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 29, 2009

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

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
          To suspend temporarily the duty on himic anhydride.

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

SECTION 1. HIMIC ANHYDRIDE.

    (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:

``      9902.01.00       Bicyclo[2.2.1]-5-   Free         No change        No change        On or before 12/ ''.
                          heptene-2,3-                                                       31/2011.......
                          dicarboxylic
                          anhydride (himic
                          anhydride) (CAS
                          No. 826-62-0)
                          (provided for in
                          subheading
                          2917.20.00)......

    (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>
```
Exhibit 99.3





The Board of Directors
Prime Receivables Corporation:

We have applied certain agreed-upon procedures, as discussed below, to the accounting records of Prime Receivables Corporation ("Prime"), a wholly-owned special-purpose finance subsidiary of Federated Department Stores, Inc. ("Federated"), relating to the servicing procedures performed by FDS Bank, as Servicer, under the Amended and Restated Pooling and Servicing Agreement (the "Agreement") dated December 15, 1992 between Prime, as Transferor, Federated and JPMorgan Chase Bank, successor to Chemical Bank, as Trustee, on behalf of the Certificateholders of Prime Credit Card Master Trust and under the Assumption Agreement dated September 15, 1993 between Prime, Federated, FDS Bank and JPMorgan Chase Bank, successor to Chemical Bank. Prime's management is responsible for the monthly certificates prepared by the Servicer. This agreed-upon procedures engagement was performed in accordance with attestation standards established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants. The sufficiency of these procedures is solely the responsibility of the specified users of the report. Consequently, we make no representations regarding the sufficiency of the procedures described below either for the purpose for which this report has been requested or for any other purpose. Our procedures and findings are as follows:

- In accordance with section 3.06(b) of the Agreement, we recalculated or compared each amount set forth in items (i) through (xvii) of each monthly certificate prepared by the Servicer, pursuant to section 3.04(c) of the Agreement, during the period from February 3, 2001 to February 2, 2002, (the "Certificates") from information in the Transferor's computer generated Daily Cash Allocation Reports, the Agreement, the Series 1992-3 Supplement to the Agreement dated December 31, 1992, the Series 1995-1 Supplement to the Agreement dated July 27, 1995, the Series 1996-1 Supplement to the Agreement dated May 14, 1996, or the Series 2000-1 Supplement to the Agreement dated December 7, 2000, as appropriate. We found such recalculated or compared amounts to be in agreement with the amounts set forth in items (i) through (xvii) of the Certificates, as amended. Such recalculated or compared amounts are deemed to be in agreement if any differences noted are immaterial.

We were not engaged to, and did not, perform an examination, the objective of which would be the expression of an opinion on management's assertion. Accordingly, we do not express such an opinion. Had we performed additional procedures, other matters might have come to our attention that would have been reported to you.

This report is intended solely for your information and is not to be referred to or distributed for any purpose to anyone other than JPMorgan Chase Bank, as Trustee, Moody's Investor Services, Inc. and Standard & Poor's Corporation, as the Rating Agencies, Investor Certificateholders or the management of Prime.

KPMG LLP

Cincinnati, Ohio
April 15, 2002