alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                          34,089
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                             557
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                26,850
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    177,878
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          64,409
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            66,290
<LOANS>                                        540,214
<ALLOWANCE>                                      7,618
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 919,264
<DEPOSITS>                                     781,383
<SHORT-TERM>                                     1,558
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                             20,907
<LONG-TERM>                                     34,103
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        32,355
<OTHER-SE>                                      48,958
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 919,264
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 46,124
<INTEREST-INVEST>                               13,942
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                     0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                60,066
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              25,942
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              27,925
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           32,141
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      896
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 30,188
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 15,244
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                      15,244
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    11,601
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.80
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.79
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                   7.316
<LOANS-NON>                                        812
<LOANS-PAST>                                       613
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 7,730
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                    1,269
<RECOVERIES>                                       261
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                7,618
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             7,618   
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                          1,619
        

</TABLE>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Jesus Vasquez, Appellant.

[977 NYS2d 73]

*859Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Balter, J.), rendered October 4, 2011, convicting him of burglary in the second degree, criminal trespass in the second degree, and criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing (Mangano, Jr., J.), of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence.

Ordered that the judgment is modified, on the law, by vacating the conviction of criminal trespass in the second degree, vacating the sentence imposed thereon, and dismissing that count of the indictment; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the Supreme Court properly denied that branch of his omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence. A police officer received a radio report of a burglary in progress at an apartment building at 426 Rockaway Parkway. Within minutes, the officer responded to that location and found four men, including the defendant, leaving the building. The men generally matched the description reported. At that point, the officer justifiably exercised her common-law right to inquire *(see People v De Bour,*40 NY2d 210 [1976]; *People v Day,*8 AD3d 495, 496 [2004]). When the men provided the officer with evasive and vague answers regarding their presence in the building, the right to inquire ripened into reasonable suspicion, justifying their brief detention while other officers investigated the defendant’s claim that the men were visiting someone in an apartment other than the one that had been burglarized *(see People v Blas,*70 AD3d 846, 847 [2010]; *People v Solomon,*6 AD3d 335, 336 [2004]; *People v Sims,*127 AD2d 712 [1987]). Once the police confirmed that there was no one home in that apartment, they possessed probable cause to arrest the defendant for criminal trespass in the second degree *(see*Penal Law § 140.15; *Matter of Darnel B.,*248 AD2d 464 [1998]; *People v Judge,*236 AD2d 319 [1997]; *Matter of Troy F.,*138 AD2d 707 [1988]). The search of the defendant’s pockets, from which women’s jewelry and latex gloves were recovered, was lawful as incident to his arrest *(see People v Vasquez,*94 AD3d 915 [2012]).

The Supreme Court properly charged the jury with respect to the rule that an inference of guilt may be drawn from recent and exclusive possession of the fruits of the crime *(see People v Baskerville,*60 NY2d 374, 382 [1983]; *People v Galbo,*218 NY 283 [1916]).

*860However, as the People correctly concede, the defendant’s conviction of criminal trespass in the second degree must be vacated and that count dismissed as an inclusory concurrent count of burglary in the second degree *(see Matter of Richard M.,*89 AD3d 849 [2011]; *People v Rickett,*259 AD2d 636, 637 [1999], *affd*94 NY2d 929 [2000]). Dickerson, J.E, Chambers, Roman and Miller, JJ., concur.
#### Alson Alston, Appellant, v New York City Commission on Human Rights et al., Respondents.

Submitted November 13, 2012;

decided December 18, 2012

Motion for reargument of motion for leave to appeal denied *[see*19 NY3d 1021 (2012)].
#### DOUCETTE v. HOWE.

No. 242.

District Court, D. Massachusetts.

Sept. 25, 1939.

A. L. Kaplan, of Boston, Mass., for plaintiff.

Samuel P. Sears and John J. Mulcahy, both of Boston, Mass., for defendant.

FORD, District Judge.

This is an action for personal injuries based upon the alleged negligence of the' defendant, his agents or servants, in the operation of a motor vehicle on the highway. The defendant objects to the following interrogatories filed by the plaintiff:

> “5. Were you operating the said motor vehicle as the agent or servant of the owner thereof, at the time of the alleged accident?”

The defendant has waived objection to answering this interrogatory.

“7(b). Please state the number of years you have been licensed in Massachusetts.”

It is immaterial how long the defendant has been licensed to operate a motor vehicle; the real issue is what was his conduct in operating the motor vehicle at the time of the accident, whether he had been licensed for a day or years. It need not be answered.

“8. Please state whether your operator’s license to operate motor vehicles in Massachusetts has ever been suspended or revoked and if so, the dates of such suspension or revocations.”

This is immaterial to any issue in the case and need not be answered. It is a “fishing” question.

“19. Please state what, if anything, was done by you in the operation of the said motor vehicle in an attempt to avoid the alleged accident.”

This question calls for an opinion and conclusion and no answer is required.

“21. Please state each and every act or omission to act on the part of the plaintiff which you claim in any way contributed to the alleged accident.”

In accordance with decision on interrogatory No. 19, no answer is required to this question.

The plaintiff has filed an objection to the following interrogatory filed by the defendant :

> *19“26. Please state fully and in detail what act or acts the defendant did or failed to do which caused you injury.”

This question calls for an expression of opinion and conclusion, and need not be answered.
#### Claudia Grosso et al., Appellants, v Estate of Ira L. Gershenson et al., Respondents.

[822 NYS2d 150]

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Winslow, J), entered February 22, 2005, which granted the defendants’ motion pursuant to CFLR 3211 (a) (3) and (7) to dismiss the complaint and denied her cross motion for leave to amend the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The plaintiff could not bring an action against the decedent’s estate since no executor or administrator had been appointed. “An estate is not a legal entity and any action for or against the estate must be by or against the executor or administrator in his or her representative capacity” *(100*W *72nd St. Assoc, v Murphy,*144 Misc 2d 1036, 1040 [1989]). Since no executor or administrator had been appointed for the decedent’s estate, the Supreme Court properly dismissed the complaint insofar as asserted against the estate *(see Jordan v City of New York,*23 AD3d 436 [2005]). Further, the defendant Deborah Radice could not be sued as executor of the estate since she had never been appointed executor.

The plaintiffs claim that there is a basis for in personam jurisdiction over the defendant Deborah Radice under the provisions of SCEA 210 (2) is without merit. SCEA 210 (2) is not applicable in this case because Radice did not receive or accept property paid or distributed from an estate *(see Matter of Roy,*166 AD2d 146 [1991]).

The plaintiffs remaining contentions are without merit. Adams, J.E, Goldstein, Mastro and Lifson, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 31.2
 CERTIFICATIONS
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Concho Resources Inc. (the
Registrant);2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of a
material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light
of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the
period covered by this quarterly report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in
this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,
results of operations and cash flows of the Registrant as of, and for, the periods presented
in this quarterly report;4.
    
    The Registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and
15d-15(e)), or for causing such controls and procedures to be established and maintained, for
the Registrant and have:
 (a)
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure
that material information relating to the Registrant, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly
during the period in which this report is being prepared;(b)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the Registrants disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of
the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this
report based on such evaluation; and(c)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the Registrants internal control
over financial reporting that occurred during the Registrants most recent fiscal
quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect,
the Registrants internal control over financial reporting; and
 5.
    
    The Registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the Registrants auditors and the
audit committee of Registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
function):
 (a)
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely
to adversely affect the Registrants ability to record, process, summarize and
report financial information; and(b)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the Registrants internal control over
financial reporting.
 Date: November 13, 2008
    
    /s/ Darin G. Holderness

Darin G. HoldernessVice President, Chief Financial Officer and
Treasurer(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
#### In the Matter of Carlos Abreu, Appellant, v Brian Fischer, Commissioner, New York State Department of Correctional Services, Respondent.

Submitted September 10, 2012;

decided October 25, 2012

On the Court’s own motion, appeal dismissed, without costs, upon the ground that no substantial constitutional question is directly involved. Motion for leave to appeal denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
     THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED
     FROM AMERICOLD CORPORATION'S FINANCIAL STATEMENTS CONTAINED IN
     ITS ANNUAL REPORT ON FORM 10-K FOR THE PERIOD ENDING FEBRUARY
     28, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
     FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                    1,000
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          FEB-28-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               FEB-28-1997
<CASH>                                          13,702
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   27,560
<ALLOWANCES>                                       396
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                51,755      
<PP&E>                                         577,133       
<DEPRECIATION>                                 192,649       
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 531,034       
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           64,285      
<BONDS>                                        465,834       
<COMMON>                                            50
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            5,753
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                    (113,759)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   531,034       
<SALES>                                        310,767       
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               310,767       
<CGS>                                          228,762       
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  262,910       
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   701    
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              56,678      
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (9,144)       
<INCOME-TAX>                                    (2,604)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (6,540)       
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0  
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (6,540)       
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   ($1.46)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   ($1.46)


</TABLE>
#### In the Matter of Ronald Rabasco, Appellant, v Stacey Lamar, Respondent. (And Two Other Proceedings.)

Submitted July 22, 2013;

decided September 3, 2013

Motion for leave to appeal denied. Motion for a stay dismissed as academic.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                       5,152,222
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                      10,509,021
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                25,000
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                 27,096,931
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                    206,356,137
<ALLOWANCE>                                  2,517,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             261,799,706
<DEPOSITS>                                 154,410,687
<SHORT-TERM>                                59,604,178
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                          2,097,812
<LONG-TERM>                                 25,786,416
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                  1,999,980
<COMMON>                                     1,274,969
<OTHER-SE>                                  16,625,664
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>             261,799,706
<INTEREST-LOAN>                             17,225,937
<INTEREST-INVEST>                            2,164,531
<INTEREST-OTHER>                               638,672
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                            20,029,140
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                           6,354,803
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          10,500,096
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                        9,529,044
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                  578,427
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                             259,430
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                              8,547,773
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              2,414,700
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                   2,414,700
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,507,103
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.03
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.96
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                   3.902
<LOANS-NON>                                  2,424,000
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                               217,492
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                586,000
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                             2,549,000
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                  739,969
<RECOVERIES>                                   129,542
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                            2,517,000
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                           369,474
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                      2,147,526
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 4.10


                              CERTIFICATE OF TRUST

                                       OF

                               DTE ENERGY TRUST II


                  THIS CERTIFICATE OF TRUST OF DTE ENERGY TRUST II (the "Trust")
is being duly executed and filed by the undersigned, as trustees, to form a
business trust under the Delaware Business Trust Act (12 Del. C. ss.3801, et
seq.)(the "Act").

         FIRST: The name of the business trust being formed hereby is DTE Energy
Trust II.

         SECOND: The name and business address of the trustee of the Trust in
the State of Delaware is The Bank of New York (Delaware), 700 White Clay Center,
Route 273, Newark, Delaware 19711.

         THIRD: This Certificate of Trust shall be effective as of its filing
with the Secretary of State of the State of Delaware.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned, being the trustees of the Trust,
have duly executed this Certificate of Trust in accordance with Section
3811(a)(1) of the Act as of the date first above written.



                                      The Bank of  New York (Delaware),
                                             as Delaware trustee


                                      By: /s/ William T. Lewis
                                          -----------------------------------
                                          Name:  William T. Lewis
                                          Title: Senior Vice President


                                      The Bank of  New York,
                                          as Property trustee


                                      By: /s/ Paul J. Schmalzel
                                          -----------------------------------
                                          Name:  Paul J. Schmalzel
                                          Title: Vice President
6/29/2015

HAWKINS, QUINCY DALEON\*

On this day,

and presented to the Court.

S

a

OFFICIAL NOTICE FROM COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF exis £TS

OFFICIRE BUS Eee 1h AU RE SUS HOSTAGE) PITNEY BOWES

STATE OF TEXAS 12... 1 6

PENALTY FOR BB! @ Sa

PRIVATE USE 4, . zp7s701 § 000.27
fs RE 0001401623 JUL. 02. 2015
85.

Writ.of Habeas Corpus has been received

1.
OF eg

the application forst

Abel Acosta, Clerk

ALEON HAWKINS

AY TDC # 1899651
ws ‘ UTE

oe
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

MELINDA LYNN MUNIZ,

 Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

 State.

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-15-00136-CR

Appeal from the

401

st District Court

of Collin County, Texas 

(TC# 401-80836-2014)

O R D E R

The Court GRANTS the Court Reporter’s third request for an extension of time within 

which to file the Reporter’s Record until August 4, 2015. NO FURTHER REQUESTS 

FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE THE REPORTER’S RECORD WILL BE

CONSIDERED BY THIS COURT.

It is further ORDERED that Kimberly Tinsley, Court Reporter for the 401

st District Court, 

for Collin County, Texas, prepare the Reporter’s Record for the above styled and numbered 

cause, and forward the same to this Court on or before August 4, 2015.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 16th day of July, 2015.

PER CURIAM

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, and Hughes, JJ.