alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### *In re*Hill, Bankrupt.

*(District*Court, *D. Delaware.*

January 15, 1881.)

1. Bankruptcy—Schedule of Creditors—Amendment.

An application by a bankrupt for leave to amend his schedule of creditors for the purpose of inserting the name of a creditor, inadvertently omitted, is grantable of-course, and is properly an *ex parte*proceeding, requiring no notice to the creditors. To such an amendment creditors have no right to object.

In Bankruptcy.

This is an application by the bankrupt to amend his schedule of creditors by adding the name of James R. Short, an unsecured creditor, to the list. He alleges in his sworn peti*449tion filed herewith that the name of said creditor was accidentally and inadvertently omitted from the same.

*E. G. Bradford, Jr.,*for bankrupt.

I. *C. Grubb*and *W. H. White, contra.*

Bradford, D. J.

This application was opposed by the last-named counsel, on behalf of the said Short, who did not appear of record, and had not proven his claim. They took the position that a bankrupt could not be discharged so long as he has omitted the names of any of his creditors from his schedule; and as a creditor who had not proven his claim had a right to oppose the discharge of such bankrupt on his petition for discharge, he would have the same standing in court and the same right to oppose the performance of any act of the bankrupt which became and was a condition pre- • cedent to his discharge.

In opposition to this, it was contended by the counsel for the bankrupt that by section *5022,*U. S. Bev. St., power to amend from time to time the bankrupt’s list of creditors is given in the following words: “Every bankrupt shall be at liberty, from time to time, upon oath, to amend and correct his schedule of creditors and property, so that the same shall conform to the fact;” and, also, that such application for leave to amend is *ex parte,*and that no creditor has the right to oppose the proceeding.

The provisions of the above-quoted act are mandatory and positive in their character, granting rights to the bankrupt which the court has no discretion to refuse at this stage of the case; and as the proposed amendment of the schedule does not affect the *status*of the creditor in opposing the final discharge of the bankrupt, it would be inequitable and unreasonable to refuse to permit the amendment as prayed for to be made.

Admitting the fact of the right of the creditor to oppose the granting of the final discharge, it does not follow, as claimed by the counsel for the creditor, that they have a right to object to the performance of an act which is permitted by tiro aforesaid section to be done at any time before the bankrupt’s discharge, and which is a condition precedent to his dis*450charge. The court is also of opinion that the creditor has no standing in court at this time; that the proceeding is properly *eso parte,*and requires no notice to the creditors.

The prayer of the petition is, therefore, granted.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
UNAUDITED CONSOLIDATED CONDENSED STATEMENT OF EARNINGS AND THE UNAUDITED
CONSOLIDATED CONDENSED BALANCE SHEETS OF THE REGISTRANT FOR THE TWELVE MONTHS
ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1996 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                          31,453
<SECURITIES>                                     2,089
<RECEIVABLES>                                  206,732
<ALLOWANCES>                                    13,320
<INVENTORY>                                     58,932
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               341,700
<PP&E>                                         394,592
<DEPRECIATION>                                 249,457
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 588,342
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          139,214
<BONDS>                                         10,125
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        22,923
<OTHER-SE>                                       4,069
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   588,342
<SALES>                                        756,925
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               768,999
<CGS>                                          442,149
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  442,149
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               194,834
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 3,289
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,236
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                130,780
<INCOME-TAX>                                    49,176
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    81,604
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     3.44
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     3.44
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements of
COMFORCE Corporation on Form S-3 (Registration Nos. 333-60403, 333-31167,
333-43321, 333-44351 and 333-47941) and Form S-8 (Registration Nos. 333-32271
and 333-46787) of our report dated February 23, 1998 on our audits of the
consolidated financial statements and financial statement schedules of COMFORCE
Corporation and Subsidiaries as of December 31, 1997 and 1996 and for the years
ended December 31, 1997, 1996 and 1995, which report is included in this Annual
Report on Form 10-K.





                                   /s/ Coopers & Lybrand L.L.P.

                                   COOPERS & LYBRAND L.L.P.



Melville, New York
February 23, 1998
DLD

- 011 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 11

- 3161

___________

DAVID BOOKMAN

,

Appellant

v.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVAN IA

____________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (D.C. Civil No. 2

- 11

- cv

- 0 3920 ) District Judge: Honorable Petrese B. Tucker

____________________________________

Submitt ed for Possible Summary Action Pursuant to Th ird Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6

October 14, 2011

Before: AMBRO, JORDAN and VANASKIE

, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed : November 3, 2011 )

_________________

OPINION

_________________

PER CURIAM

.
On June 14, 2011, David Bookman, a Pennsylvania state inmate, filed a pleading

styled as a “petition for mandamus,” claiming that the District Court erred when it fail ed

to make a de novo determ ination after Bookman filed objections to a Report and2

Recommendation in his habeas corpus proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. According to

Bookman, the District Court d enied the habeas petition ( which was docketed at E.D. Pa.

Civ. No. 08

- cv

- 05407) without a de novo review under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), and thereby

deni ed Bookman due process and equal protection of the law.

The District Court dismissed the “petition for mandamus ” sua sponte

, noting that

its order in the habeas case reflects that it cons ider ed Bookman’s objections and approv ed

of the Report and Recommendation after “careful and independent consideration of the

petition

. ” Further, t he District Court denied Bookman’s motion for reconsideration in the

habeas case , and also denied his “Rule 60(b)” motion in which he rais ed the same

argument about a purported lack of de novo review. Book man timely filed this appeal.

We have jurisd iction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and will affirm

. There is no record

support for Bookman’s contention that the District C ourt failed to conduct a proper

review after he filed objections to the Report and Recommendation in his habeas case

.

Further more , this Court denied a certificate of appealability in the habeas case , explaining

that Bookman did not make a substantial show ing of the denial of a constitutional right

on any of his claim s

. See C.A. No. 10

- 1507 (order entered May 26, 20 10). In short,

Bookman’s claim that he was deprived of due process or equal protection in the habeas

case is without merit, and his p urported “ petition for mandamus

, ” therefore, was properly

dismissed. W e will summarily affirm the District Court’s judgment. See 3d Cir. LAR

27.4. Bookman’s motion for summary action is denied.
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 112 (Friday, June 12, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 28094]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-13876]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration


Fifth Meeting, Special Committee 213/EUROCAE: Enhanced Flight 
Vision Systems/Synthetic Vision Systems (EFVS/SVS), EUROCAE Working 
Group 79 (WG-79)

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of RTCA Special Committee 213/EUROCAE, Enhanced Flight 
Vision Systems/Synthetic Vision Systems (EFVS/SVS), EUROCAE Working 
Group 79 (WG-79).

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of a 
meeting of RTCA Special Committee 213, Standards for Air Traffic Data 
Communication Services.

DATES: The meeting will be held July 14-16, 2009 from 9 a.m.-5 p.m. 
Sign-in will begin at 8:30 a.m., July 14, 2009.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at MITRE Center for Advanced 
Aviation System Development (CAASD), 7515 Colshire Drive, McLean, 
Virginia, USA 22102-7508, POC Tel: David A. Domino, 703-983-3695, 
http://www.mitrecaasd.org.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal 
Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., Appendix 2), notice 
is hereby given for a Special Committee 213 meeting. The agenda will 
include:

July 14

    <bullet> Opening Plenary (Welcome, Introductions, Review agenda and 
objectives).
    <bullet> Plenary briefings.
    <bullet> Plenary work group updates, action item review, LED 
lighting.
    <bullet> Separate work group 1 and work group 2 discussions.

July 15

    <bullet> Separate work group 1 and 2 discussions.
    <bullet> Plenary discussion.

July 16

    <bullet> Separate work group 1 and 2 discussions.
    <bullet> Summarize work group discussions.
    <bullet> Review action items.
    <bullet> Closing Plenary (Administrative).

    Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space 
availability. With the approval of the chairmen, members of the public 
may present oral statements at the meeting. Persons wishing to present 
statements or obtain information should contact the person listed in 
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. Members of the public may 
present a written statement to the committee at any time.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on June 3, 2009.
Francisco Estrada C.,
RTCA Advisory Committee.
[FR Doc. E9-13876 Filed 6-11-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
Exhibit 10.4
​
Amendment to Appendix 1 – Scope of Employment
​
This document serves as an amendment to the vacation paragraph within your most recent employment agreement appendix. The below paragraph replaces the paragraph related to vacation in its entirety. This amendment does not constitute a new employment agreement or alter any other terms of your employment with Enfusion.
​
In accordance with Enfusion’s Flexible Time Off policy effective July 1, 2022, which may be amended from time to time, Employee is entitled to flexible time off as needed each calendar year. Flexible Time Off will not accrue or vest and therefore will not be paid out at the time of separation of employment. Any unused and unexpired accrued vacation days that Employee earned under the previous policy will expire on December 31, 2022 if unused by the Employee. If the Employee’s Termination Date is on or before December 31, 2022, the Employee will receive a final payment for all vested paid vacation time through their Termination Date. If the Employee’s Termination Date is on or after January 1, 2023, in accordance with Enfusion’s vacation policy, Employee will not be paid out for any expired accrued vacation days. Any employee beginning employment after July 1, 2022 will not accrue vacation days.
​
​
/s/ Bronwen Bastone
​
Bronwen Bastone 
Chief People Officer 
July 01, 2022
​
​
/s/ Thomas Kim
​
Thomas Kim
96-2260.

#### Kleve v. Wenstrup.

Hamilton App. No. C-950422. Reported at 77 Ohio St.3d 1516, 674 N.E.2d 371. On motion for reconsideration. Motion denied.
|                                                                                    |   | Year      Ended December 31, |    |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|------------------------------|---------|
|                                                                                    |   | 2005                         |    | 2006 |   | 2007 |   |   |  2008 |   | 2009 |   |
| EARNINGS                                                                                |   |                    |    |    |   |    |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| Income      Before Income Taxes                                                         |   | $                            | 202,021 |   | $ | 282,865 |   | $ | 195,613 |   | $ | 166,801 |   | $ | 201,263 |   |
| Fixed      Charges (as below)                                                           |   |                         | 118,365 |   |   | 151,874 |   |   | 178,067 |   |   | 225,573 |   |   | 215,640 |   |
| Total      Earnings                                                                     |   | $                            | 320,386 |   | $ | 434,739 |   | $ | 373,680 |   | $ | 392,374 |   | $ | 416,903 |   |
|                                                                                    |   |                         |    |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| FIXED      CHARGES                                                                      |   |                         |    |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| Interest      Expense                                                                   |   | $                            | 106,301 |   | $ | 129,106 |   | $ | 165,405 |   | $ | 209,733 |   | $ | 202,426 |   |
| Credit      for Allowance for Borrowed Funds Used         During Construction |   |                         | 8,764   |   |   | 17,668 |   |   | 6,962 |   |   | 9,040 |   |   | 6,014 |   |
| Estimated      Interest Element in Lease Rentals                                        |   |                         | 3,300   |   |   | 5,100 |   |   | 5,700 |   |   | 6,800 |   |   | 7,200 |   |
| Total      Fixed Charges                                                                |   | $                            | 118,365 |   | $ | 151,874 |   | $ | 178,067 |   | $ | 225,573 |   | $ | 215,640 |   |
|                                                                                    |   |                         |    |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| Ratio      of Earnings to Fixed Charges                                                 |   |                         | 2.70    |   |   | 2.86 |   |   | 2.09 |   |   | 1.73 |   |   | 1.93 |   |
JAN 2 4 2001 

Honorable Fred Matt 

Chairman, Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes 

of the Flathead Reservation 

P.O. Box 278 

Pablo, Montana 59855 

Dear Chairman Matt: 

We received Ordinance 92D, Amendment Number 2, of the Confederated Salish and 

Kootenai Tribes of the Flathead Reservation (Tribe) which was submitted by the Bureau of 

Indian Affairs Northwest Regional Director and received on November 7, 2000. 

Amendment Number 2 to the Ordinance 92D was adopted on October 17, 2000, and the 

original ordinance approved by the Chairman of the National Indian Gaming Commission 

(NIGC) on June 4, 1997. This letter constitutes approval under the Indian Gaming 

Regulatory Act (IGRA) . 

The NIGC staff and I look forward to working with you and the Community in 

implementing the IGRA . 

Sincerely yours, 

Montie R. Deer 

Chairman 

NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS 1441 L St. NW, Suite 9100, Washington, DC 20005 Tel: 202.632.7003 Fax: 202.632.7066 WWW.NlCC.GOV 

REGIONAL OFFICES Portland, OR; Sacramento, CA; Phoenix, AZ; St. Paul, MN; Tulsa, OK 
,a .a iZr 4. REGaErrgn, 3 ORIGINAL 

' 7QOO Ordinance 92D '. ; 

m,,, ,,, ,,".,wBi\ xiFNCYi 

Amendment No. 2 

~MAs, mwy -.rnmE sm?!lmORDINANCE h!C 1) - 7 2ooo 

OF THE GOVERNING BODY OF 

THE CONFEDERATED SALISH AND KOOTENAI TRIBES 

OF THE FLATHEAD RESERVATION, MONTANA 

BE IT ENACTED BY THE TRIBAL COUNCIL OF THE CONFEDERATED 

SALISH AND KOOTENAI TRIBES THAT AMENDMENT NUMBER TWO 

SHALL AMEND ORDINANCE 92D AS FOLLOWS: 

Section 2.05 (b) is rescinded in its entirety and replaced with a new Section 2.05 

(b) as follows: 

(b) person is an employee of any gaming operation licensed by any 

jurisdiction or the person's other employment or responsibilities 

create an impression or appearance of impropriety in the fulfillment 

of the duties and responsibilities of a member of the Commission; 

or person is a: 

(1) Member or officer of the Tribal Council; or 

(2) Judge in any Tribal Court. 

CERTIFICATION 

The foregoing Amendment 2 to Ordinance 92D was adopted by the Tribal 

Council on October 17, 2000, with a vote of 9 for; 0 opposed; and 0 not voting, 

pursuant to authority vested in it by Article VI, Section 1 (i), (n) and (u) of the 

Tribes' Constitution and Bylaws; said Constitution adopted and approved under 

Section 16 of the Act of June 18, 1934 (48 Stat. 984), as amended. 

* 'j b /] f'2i. S-(-.i. /', <2.?: 

chairman, Tribal Coungt' 

' ' "-73
97-41.

#### State ex rel. SuperAmerica Group v. Plunkett.

In Mandamus. This cause originated in this court on the filing of a complaint for a writ of mandamus.

Upon consideration of relator’s motion for stay,

IT IS ORDERED by the court that the motion be, and hereby is, denied on the following vote:

F.E. Sweeney and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., vote to deny.

Pfeifer and Cook, JJ., vote to deny the motion as moot.

Moyer, C.J., Douglas and Resnick, JJ., vote to grant.
Order entered January 11, 2017

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-17-00008-CV

IN RE NAZARIO CHAVEZ, JR., Relator

Original Proceeding from the Justice of the Peace 1-1

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. JT-15M8400H

ORDER

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we DISMISS this original proceeding for want 

of jurisdiction. We ORDER relator to bear the costs, if any, of this original proceeding.

/s/ ROBERT M. FILLMORE

JUSTICE
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                         0000823610
<NAME>                        Ranco Pacific Realty, L.P.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1000
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S. Dollars
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              Dec-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 Jan-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   Mar-31-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1.000
<CASH>                                         1,891
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  0
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               2,124
<PP&E>                                         42,847
<DEPRECIATION>                                 12,980
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 32,398
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          430
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                     8,494
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   32,398
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               1,646
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               721
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             479
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                203
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            203
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   203
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0
        


</TABLE>
97-201.

#### Local Union 1886, United Mine Workers of Am. v. Reclamation Bd. of Review.

Franklin App. No. 96APD04-506. Reported at 78 Ohio St.3d 1418, 676 N.E.2d 122. On motion for reconsideration. Motion denied.

Douglas, J., dissents.
#### Cincinnati Bar Association *v.*Hovey.

[Cite as *Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Hovey*(1997), 78 Ohio St.3d 495.]

(No. 96-2788

Submitted February 19, 1997

Decided June 4, 1997.)

*496
      *Henry E. Menninger*and *Naomi C. Dallob,*for relator.

*James N. Perry,*for respondent.

*Per Curiam.*

The principle of loyalty is fundamental to the attorney-client relationship and underlies the conflict-of-interest provisions of the Code of Professional Ethics. Our Ethical Considerations provide in EC 5-3 that a lawyer should not “make improper use of his professional relationship to influence his client to invest in an enterprise in which the lawyer is interested.” These considerations of loyalty require that all transactions between a lawyer and a client be objectively fair to the client. Also, the lawyer must ensure that the client has had an opportunity to consult independent counsel before entering into the transaction with respect to any matter not in the ordinary course of business.

In this case respondent and Moss entered into a contract during the time that an attorney-client relationship existed between them. Respondent not only had a different interest than Moss in the contract, which was not in the ordinary course of business between them, but Moss also consented to the terms of the contract without full disclosure by respondent.

In a separate but related matter, respondent later, when executing her personal loan application with a bank, failed to disclose the Moss loan and mortgage. That, in itself, warrants a sanction under the Disciplinary Rule that proscribes conduct involving misrepresentation.

Having accepted the board’s findings of fact, we agree with its conclusions and accept its recommendation. Respondent is hereby suspended *from*the practice of law for six months with the entire suspension stayed. Relator shall monitor the law practice of respondent during the six-month period. Costs taxed to the respondent.

*Judgment accordingly.*

*497Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.

Cook, J., dissents.

Cook, J., dissenting. I would not stay respondent’s suspension.