alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### SUND v. CLUB BEACHCOMBERS, Inc., et al.

District Court, S. D. New York.

Oct. 30, 1941.

*247Irving L. Levey, of New York City (Mortimer Jay Goodstein, of New York City, of counsel), for plaintiff.

Deane Ramey and Judah B. Felshin, both of New York City, for defendants.

HULBERT, District Judge.

This action was commenced October *7,*1941. A motion for a preliminary injunction was made by the plaintiff and argued before Judge Conger, who reserved decision thereon.

It appears that a similar action was previously instituted, to which none of the defendants in this action were parties, and an injunction therein granted.

On October 16, 1941, the plaintiff obtained an order requiring the defendants to show cause on October 21, 1941, why leave should not be granted pursuant to Rule 26, Federal Rules of Civil Practice, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c, permitting the plaintiff to examine certain of the defendants, as parties, and two witnesses, not defendants, for the purpose of ascertaining:

> “(a) The relationship between the landlord and the defendants in this action;

> “(b) The terms of the lease made between Trebuhs Realty Co., Inc., and Club Beachcombers, Inc.;

> “(c) The negotiations leading up to the lease, mentioned in Subdivision B”

and directing said witnesses, and parties, to produce certain documents therein named.

In the moving affidavit the attorney for the plaintiff states: “An order to show cause is respectfully prayed for so that this motion may be argued expeditiously and the results presented to the Court who has heard the motion for a preliminary injunction.”

On the return day the motion was adjourned to Friday, Oct. 24th, and on that day, to Tuesday, Oct. 28, 1941, when a request to refer the motion to Judge Conger was denied, and argument was had before me.

In drafting the Rules, it was recognized that an examination under Rule 26 might be necessary before answer, but, as the Rule wisely provides, there must be an application to the court. I think it is a fair construction that in passing upon such an application, the court is bound to exercise a sound discretion based upon a showing o f necessity, or that it would be prejudicial to the party seeking the order to be compelled to await the joinder of issue.

The disclosed purpose of the examination was “that the results might be presented to the judge before whom the motion for a preliminary injunction is pending.”

There is no evidence in the moving papers that Judge Conger suggested, approved of, or is awaiting, the information sought by this motion.

I do not feel that plaintiff has brought herself within the Rule, and the motion is denied, without prejudice. Submit order.
Exhibit 4.1


 





 



     


     


    

 





The
following abbreviations, when used in the inscription on the face of this certificate, shall be construed as though they were written
out in full according to applicable laws or regulations.


 


	TEN COM            	- 	 as tenants in common 	UNfF GIFT MIN
    ACT 	......................... 	Custodian	 .......................
	TEN ENT 	- 	 as tenants by the entireties 	 	(Cust)	 	(Minor)
	JT TEN 	- 	as joint tenants with the right of 	Act.......................................................	 
	 	 	survivorship and not as tenants in common	(State)	 


 


Additional
abbreviations may also be used though not in the above list.


 


For
value received,________________________________________________ hereby sell, assign and transfer unto


 


PLEASE
INSERT SOCIAL SECURITY OR OTHER IDENTIFYING NUMBER OF ASSIGNEE:


 


 





 



(PLEASE
PRlNT OR TYPEWRITE NAME AND ADDRESS, INCLUDING ZIP CODE, OF ASSIGNEE) 


	 	 
	 	 
	 	 
	 	 
	 	 
	 	 
	 	 
	 	    shares


 


of
the capital stock represented by the within Certificate, and do hereby irrevocably constitute and appoint


 


	 	“ Attorney
    
	to transfer
    the said stock on the books of the within named Corporation with full power of substitution in the premises.


 


	Dated 	 	 
	 	 	 
	X	 	 


 


THE
SIGNATURE TO THIS ASSIGNMENT MUST CORRESPOND WITl·I THE NAME AS WRITTEN UPON THE FACE OF THIS CERTIFICATE. THE SIGNATURE(S)
MUST BE GUARANTEED BY AN ELIGIBLE GUARANTOR INSTITUTION (Banks. Stockbrokers. Savings andLoan Associations and Credit
Unions). 


 


SIGNATURE
GUARANTEED: 


 


TRANSFER
FEE WILL APPLY
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 18

- 3256

_____________________________
C LARENCE L EONTAY F RAZIER , Appellant,

v.

M ARK S. I NCH , Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Santa Rosa County. David Rimmer, Judge.

August 5, 2019

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

. B.L. T HOMAS , R OWE , and O STERHAUS , JJ., concur.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________2 Clarence Leontay Frazier, Appellant, pro se.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Michael Mc Dermott, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee , for Appellee.
Exhibit 32.2





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the Quarterly Report of AllianceBernstein Holding L.P. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2010 to be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on or about May 3, 2010 (the “Report”), I, John B. Howard, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, for the purpose of complying with Rule 13a-14(b) or 15d-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) and 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





(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 the Company.





Date:  May 3, 2010
/s/ John B. HowardJohn B. HowardChief Financial OfficerAllianceBernstein Holding L.P.
#### Mayra Bonilla et al., Appellants, v Mohammed Abdullah et al., Respondents.

Submitted April 23, 2012;

decided June 7, 2012

Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution.
97-768.

#### State v. Bowen.

Licking App. No. 96CA80. On motion for leave to file delayed appeal. Motion denied.

Pfeifer, J., dissents.
97-229.

#### State ex rel. Johnson v. Fais.

In Procedendo. On answer of respondent and on motion for summary judgment. Answer treated as motion to dismiss. Motion to dismiss sustained. Cause dismissed.

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-41446 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus MANUEL PATINO-DE LA TORRE, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. L-02-CR-1602-1

-------------------- Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and PICKERING, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Manuel Patino-De La Torre (“Patino”) appeals his guilty plea conviction and 70-month sentence for illegal reentry into the United States following an aggravated felony conviction in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. For the first time on appeal, Patino argues that the sentencing provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(1) & (b)(2) are unconstitutional in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466 (2000). United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## F I L E D August 18, 2004 Charles R. Fulbruge III ClerkNo. 03-41446 -2- Patino acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224 (1998), but he seeks to preserve the issue for Supreme Court review. Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres
. See Apprendi , 530 U.S. at 489-90; United States v. Mancia-Perez , 331 F.3d 464, 470 (5th Cir.), cert. denied , 124 S. Ct. 358 (2003). AFFIRMED.
The City of San 

Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

May 16, 2014

No. 04-13-00720-CV

Marilyn STEWART,

Appellant

v.

THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO,

Appellee

From the 45th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2012-CI-09344

Honorable Cathleen M. Stryker, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

On April 30, 2014, this court ordered appellant to file written proof with this court by 

May 15, 2014, that she had paid or made arrangements to pay the fee for the preparation of the 

clerk’s record and reporter’s record for this appeal. On May 14, 2014, the trial court clerk filed a 

notification of late record stating that appellant had “made a payment arrangement, with the first 

payment of $10.00 to be paid on or around May 28, 2014.” At the top of the notification of late 

record, appellant added a handwritten note stating, “This is proof of payment arrangement for the 

clerk’s record.” The trial court clerk has informed this court that the total cost of the clerk’s 

record will be $80.00. The notification by the trial court clerk that the first payment will be 

made “on or around” May 28, 2014, does not provide this court with sufficient information 

regarding the payment arrangements because it does not provide a date certain for payment. In 

addition, appellant’s note does not inform this court of the dates when the balance of the fee for 

preparing the clerk’s record will be paid or even address the fee for preparing the reporter’s 

record.

It is therefore ORDERED that appellant provide this court with specific dates when all of 

the fees for the clerk’s record and reporter’s record will be paid no later than ten days from the 

date of this order. If appellant fails to respond to this order within the time provided, this appeal 

will be dismissed for want of prosecution. See TEX. R. APP. P. 37.3(b), 42.3(b)(c).
_________________________________

Catherine Stone, Chief Justice

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

court on this 16th day of May, 2014.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-14-0001025

26-DEC-2014

08:40 AM
PROMISSORY NOTE
                           
                           
                           
                           
                           
$100,000                              Dulles, Virginia
                                          July 1, 1998




    FOR  VALUE RECEIVED, the undersigned (the "Maker"),
promises to pay Fairchild Holding Corp. (the "Company")
the  principal sum of $100,000, together with  interest
at  5.48% per annum (the "Applicable Rate"), payable at
the  offices  of  the Company in Dulles,  Virginia,  on
October 1, 1998.

    The  obligation  represented  by  this  Note  shall
constitute  the general obligation of  the  Maker.   It
shall  constitute a default hereunder if the  principal
and  interest  is  not paid when due and  payable.   If
Maker fails to pay principal and interest when due, the
Note,  plus  accrued interest, will  continue  to  bear
interest at the Applicable Rate from the date the  Loan
is due and as long as any principal and interest remain
outstanding.

    The  Maker  waives  all exemptions  to  the  extent
permitted  by  law,  diligence in  collection,  demand,
presentment for payment, protest, and notice of protest
and  of  non-payment.   Time  is  of  the  essence   in
connection with this Note, which shall be construed  in
accordance with, and governed in all respects  by,  the
laws of the State of Delaware.

   IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Note has been duly executed
by  the  undersigned  Maker on  the  date  first  above
written.






                                             Robert A.
Sharpe
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-20217 (Summary Calendar)

NORMAN GRENIER,

Plaintiff——Counter Defendant——Appellant,

versus

NOBLE DRILLING CORPORATION,

Defendant——Counter Claimant——Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas

(CA-H-94-3212)

August 19, 1996

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM * :

In this appeal from an employ ment discrimination case,

Plaintiff

- Counter Defendant

- Appellant Norman Grenier challenges

the district court's grant of a summary judgment of dismissal in

favor of his former employer, Defendant - Counter Claimant -2

Appellee Noble Drilling Corporation. We have carefully reviewed

the district court's opinion and the arguments set forth in the

appellate briefs of both parties; and we are convinced that the

district court correctly applied the law to the facts, which in all

material respects are undi s puted, and reached the appropriate

conclusions, as reflected by its judgment. We therefore adopt the

opinion of the district court, a copy of which we attach hereto,

and affirm the judgment of that court.

AFFIRMED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
QUARTERLY REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT
OF 1934 FOR THE QUARTERLY PERIOD ENDED JUNE 30, 1999.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                         699,694
<SECURITIES>                                 1,987,495
<RECEIVABLES>                                    2,435
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,113,401
<PP&E>                                       1,514,463
<DEPRECIATION>                                 524,367
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               6,530,182
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          367,637
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,325,035
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 6,530,182
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                78,061
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               176,388
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               6,128
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (266,498)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (266,498)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (266,498)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (10.32)<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (10.32)<F1>
<FN>
<F1>EPS IS NET LOSS PER $1,000 LIMITED PARTNERSHIP UNIT.
</FN>


</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 32.1



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

(18 U.S.C. 1350)



In connection with the Quarterly Report on
Form 10-Q of Wells Real Estate Fund II-OW (the Registrant) for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), the undersigned, Leo F. Wells, III, Chief Executive
Officer of the corporate General Partner of the Registrant, and Douglas P. Williams, Chief Financial Officer of the corporate General Partner of the Registrant, hereby certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C.
1350), that, to the best of our knowledge and belief:



| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                          
|--------------------------
|/s/    LEO F. WELLS, III  
|Leo F. Wells, III         
|Chief Executive Officer   
|August 12, 2005           
|                          
|/s/    DOUGLAS P. WILLIAMS
|Douglas P. Williams       
|Chief Financial Officer   
|August 12, 2005
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                          14,892
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                             299
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                16,400
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     22,476
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          22,558
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                             6,518
<LOANS>                                        172,003
<ALLOWANCE>                                      2,009
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 238,559
<DEPOSITS>                                     213,646
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              2,988
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,048
<OTHER-SE>                                      20,877
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 238,559
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 12,072
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                1,215
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   679
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                13,966
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               3,518
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,518
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           10,448
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      540
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                (15)
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  8,821
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  3,198
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,973
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.95
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.90
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    6.64
<LOANS-NON>                                      1,237
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                    950
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 1,953
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      639
<RECOVERIES>                                       155
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                2,009
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             1,489
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                            520


</TABLE>
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 21

               SUBSIDIARIES OF CONSTELLATION ENERGY GROUP, INC.*

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                   Jurisdiction
                                                                        of
                                                                   Incorporation
                                                                   -------------
<S>                                                                <C>
Baltimore Gas and Electric Company................................   Maryland
Constellation Holdings, Inc.......................................   Maryland
Constellation Investments, Inc....................................   Maryland
Constellation Power, Inc..........................................   Maryland
Constellation Real Estate Group, Inc..............................   Maryland
Constellation Enterprises, Inc....................................   Maryland
Constellation Power Source, Inc...................................   Delaware
Constellation Energy Source, Inc..................................   Delaware
BGE Home Products & Services, Inc.................................   Maryland
Constellation Nuclear, LLC........................................   Maryland
Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Inc...........................   Maryland
Constellation Nuclear Services, Inc...............................   Maryland
Constellation Power Source Generation, Inc........................   Maryland
Constellation Power Source Holdings, Inc..........................   Maryland
BGE Capital Trust I...............................................   Delaware
</TABLE>

  *  The names of certain indirectly owned subsidiaries have been omitted
     because, considered in the aggregate as a single subsidiary, they would
     not constitute a significant subsidiary pursuant to Rule 1-02(w) of
     Regulation S-X.

                                       96
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v John Rossi, Appellant.

Submitted March 25, 2013;

decided April 25, 2013

Motion for assignment of counsel granted and Jillian S. Harrington, Esq., PO Box 6006, Monroe, New Jersey 08831 assigned as counsel to the appellant on the appeal herein.
<PAGE>
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

                         INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

The Board of Directors and Stockholders
AVEMCO Corporation:

We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statement No. 
33-41930 and registration statement No. 33-22520 on Forms S-8 of AVEMCO 
Corporation of our report dated January 31, 1997 (February 28, 1997, as to Note 
12), relating to the consolidated balance sheets of AVEMCO Corporation and 
subsidiaries as of December 31, 1996 and 1995, and the related consolidated 
statements of income, stockholders' equity, and cash flows for each of the years
in the three-year period ended December 31, 1996, and all the related schedules,
which report appears in the December 31, 1996, annual report and Form 10-K of 
AVEMCO Corporation. Our report refers to a change in the method of accounting 
for investments in fixed maturities.


                                         /s/ KPMG Peat Marwick LLP

Washington, D.C.
March 27, 1997