alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Citibank (S.D.) N.A., Respondent, v Dean K. Cutler, Appellant.

[976 NYS2d 196]

In an action to recover the outstanding balance due on a credit card, the defendant appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Tolbert, J.), dated September 10, 2012, which, upon an order of the same court entered August 10, 2012, granting the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment on the complaint, is in favor of the plaintiff and against him in the principal sum of $49,137.28.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

An account stated is an agreement, express or implied, between the parties to an account based upon prior transactions *574between them with respect to the correctness of account items and a specific balance due on them *(see White Plains Cleaning Servs., Inc. v 901 Props., LLC,*94 AD3d 1108, 1109 [2012]; *Stephan B. Gleich & Assoc. v Gritsipis,*87 AD3d 216, 223 [2011]; *American Express Centurion Bank v Cutler,*81 AD3d 761, 762 [2011] ). An account stated is independent of the original obligation *(see Citibank [S.D.], N.A. v Macarle,*11 Misc 3d 128[A], 2006 NY Slip Op 50241[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 9th and 10th Jud Dists 2006]). “An agreement may be implied where a defendant retains bills without objecting to them within a reasonable period of time, or makes partial payment on the account” *(American Express Centurion Bank v Cutler,*81 AD3d at 762). Here, in support of its motion for summary judgment the plaintiff submitted monthly billing statements from January 2007 through March 2008, and an affidavit from a document control officer who averred that the billing statements were sent to the defendant at his home address, that the defendant accepted and retained those statements without objection, and that he made partial payments on the account until on or about December 2007 when payments ceased. This evidence was sufficient to establish the plaintiffs entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the cause of action for an account stated *(see American Express Centurion Bank v Gabay,*94 AD3d 795 [2012] ). In opposition, the defendant failed to raise a triable issue of fact *(see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp.,*68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions either are without merit or have been rendered academic in light of our determination.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment on the complaint. Dillon, J.E, Angiolillo, Roman and Sgroi, JJ., concur.
Benefits and Beneficiaries Under the Railroad Retirement 

and Unemployment Insurance Systems - August 2007 

Benefit payments August 2007 August 2006 

Regular Retirement 

and Survivor Benefits 

Total 

Retired employ

Spouses and d

Widow(er)s - ag

Other survivors 

ees 

ivorced spouses 

ed and disabled 

22,960,000 

97,820,000 

157,292,000 

$815,411,000 

537,339,000 

22,882,000 

94,005,000 

157,004,000 

$790,692,000 

516,800,000 

Average under 

Being paid Awarded in Social Security 

Monthly benefits end of month month August 2007 

Number Average1 Number Average1 Being Paid Awarded 

Total 575,500 ......... 2,900 ......... ......... .........

Regular employee annuities, total 277,600 $1,921 1,300 $2,542 ......... .........

 Age 193,200 1,885 2 600 2 2,966 $1,051 3 $1,448

 Disability, Full Retirement Age and Over 34,400 1,712 ......... ......... ......... .........

 Disability, Under Full Retirement Age 50,000 2,202 300 2,481 979 1,030 

Spouses and divorced spouses 137,300 707 900 896 504 380 

Widow(er)s--aged and disabled 134,300 1,165 600 1,591 995 823 

Widowed mothers and fathers 900 1,467 4/ 1,700 762 750 

Widow(er)s--remarried and divorced 14,400 775 100 821 5/ 5/ 

Children 11,100 851 4/ 1,093 686 678 

Other survivors 4/ 857 ......... ......... ......... .........

 Benefit payments 

Being paid 

end of month 

Awarded 

in month 

Supplemental 

Employee 

Annuities 

August 

2007 

$5,064,000 

August 

2006 

$5,085,000 

Number 

121,100 

Average 

$42 700 

Number 

$41 

Average 

1

Railroad retirement benefits shown are net of reduction for social security benefit entitlement. 

2

For employees retiring directly from the railroad industry with full age annuity (their years of service averaged 34); about 300

 other age annuities were awarded in the month. 

3

For men aged 65 or over insured on regular basis. 

4

Fewer than 50. 

5

Remarried and divorced widow(er)s included with aged and disabled widow(er)s and widowed mothers and fathers. 

Note. --Data are on a cash basis (unaudited) and are partly estimated. Detail may not add to totals due to rounding. 

Regular retirement and survivor benefit payments total includes hospital insurance benefits for services in Canada. 

(Over) 
Benefits and Beneficiaries Under the Railroad Retirement 

and Unemployment Insurance Systems - (Continued) 

August 2007 

Unemployment and Sickness Benefits 

Average payment 

Number of beneficiaries 

during month 

Per 2-week 

registration period

 Per

 full week 

Unemployment 2,500 $522 $291 

Sickness 6,000 

August 2007 

520 

Benefit payments 

291 

August 2006 

Unemployment

Total 

1,324,000 

$8,182,000 $5,240,000 

1,742,000 

Sickness 6,858,000 3,499,000 

Note. --Data are on a cash basis (unaudited). Detail may not add to totals due to rounding.

Published by the U.S. Railroad Retirement Board

Bureau of the Actuary

Recycled

 Paper
An unpublisijed order shall not be regarded as precedent and shall not be cited as legal authority. SCR 123.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

PERCY LAVAE BACON, | No. 68159
Petitioner,

vs.

THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT F | L E D
COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA,

IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF JUL 2.1 2015
CLARK, TRACIE K. LINDEMAN

CLERK.DF SUPREME COURT
Respondent. oS Voung
DEPUTY CLERK

ORDER DENYING PETITION

This is a pro se petition for a writ of mandamus. Petitioner
seeks an order directing the district court to hold a limited evidentiary
hearing on whether petitioner was adequately canvassed to determine
whether he wished to continue to represent himself after the jury verdict
was rendered. Without deciding upon the merits of any claims raised in
the documents submitted in this matter, we decline to exercise our
original jurisdiction. See NRS 34.160; NRS 34.170. Accordingly, we

ORDER the petition DENIED.

it,

aan Saitta
“) }
KU J. Prekeaixe J.
Gibbons Pickering )

ec: Hon. David B. Barker, District Judge
Percy Lavae Bacon

Attorney General/Carson City
Eighth District Court Clerk

‘Supreme Count
oF
Nevapa

©) 19095 Be 1§-2207|
||
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED JULY 17, 2015

NO. 03-15-00216-CV

Randal Mach, Appellant

v.

The County of Bastrop, Texas, Appellee

APPEAL FROM 335TH DISTRICT COURT OF BASTROP COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE ROSE, JUSTICES PEMBERTON AND FIELD

DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION -- OPINION BY JUSTICE FIELD

This is an appeal from the judgment signed by the trial court on January 28, 2015. Having 

reviewed the record, it appears that the Court lacks jurisdiction over the appeal. Therefore, the 

Court dismisses the appeal for want of jurisdiction. Because appellant is indigent and unable to 

pay costs, no adjudication of costs is made.
## In The Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06

- 17

- 00171

- CR

IN RE EARL KING

Original Mandamus Proceeding

Before Morriss, C.J., Moseley and Burgess, JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Morriss2 

### M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Earl King has filed a pro se petition for writ of mandamus in which he asks this Court to
order the 202nd Judicial District Court of Bowie County to rule on a “Motion For Dismissal” of
trial court cause number 13F0063, filed on June 2, 2017. We deny King’ s petition for writ of

mandamus.
It is King’s burden to properly request and show his entitlement to mandamus relief. See

Barnes v. State , 832 S.W.2d 424, 426 (Tex. App.

— Houston [1st Dist.] 1992, orig. proceeding)
(per curiam ) (“Even a pro se applicant for a writ of mandamus must show himself entitled to the
extraordinary relief he seeks.”). With respect to his request, King must show that he has no adequate
remedy at law to redress his alleged harm and that what he seeks to compel is a ministerial act, not
involving a discretionary or judicial decision. See State ex rel. Young v. Sixth Judicial Dist. Court of
Appeals at Texarkana , 236 S.W.3d 207, 210 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (orig. proceeding).
While the trial court is requ ired to consider all properly filed motions before it, In re Shaw , 175
S.W.3d 901, 904 (Tex. App.

— Texarkana 2005, orig. proceeding), a relator seeking a writ of mandamus
must file with this Court a certified or sworn copy of every document that is material to his claim for
relief (mandamus record). See T EX . R. A PP . P. 52.3(k), 52.7(a).
King did not file a mandamus record in this Court. Consequently, we may not evaluate the
merits of King’s request for mandamus relief. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 52.7; Barnes
, 832 S.W.2d at 426.3

We deny King’s petition for writ of mandamus.

Josh R. Morriss, III Chief Justice

Date Submitted: September 14 , 2017 Date Decided: September 15 , 2017

Do Not Publish
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                  12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>              DEC-31-1996              
<PERIOD-START>                 JAN-01-1996             
<PERIOD-END>                   DEC-31-1996              
<CASH>                         180597               
<SECURITIES>                   0                
<RECEIVABLES>                  10079257         
<ALLOWANCES>                   252850           
<INVENTORY>                    0                
<CURRENT-ASSETS>               0                
<PP&E>                         0                
<DEPRECIATION>                 0                
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                 12065900         
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>          0                
<BONDS>                        0               
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>          1549033         
<PREFERRED>                    0              
<COMMON>                       0              
<OTHER-SE>                     10516867       
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>   12065900       
<SALES>                        0              
<TOTAL-REVENUES>               1123294        
<CGS>                          0              
<TOTAL-COSTS>                  64273          
<OTHER-EXPENSES>               0              
<LOSS-PROVISION>               312684         
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>             158175         
<INCOME-PRETAX>                588162         
<INCOME-TAX>                   0              
<INCOME-CONTINUING>            588162         
<DISCONTINUED>                 0              
<EXTRAORDINARY>                0              
<CHANGES>                      0              
<NET-INCOME>                   588162         
<EPS-PRIMARY>                  .00            
<EPS-DILUTED>                  .00            
        


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>     5
       
<S>                      <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>            12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                   DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                        DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                 $968,638
<SECURITIES>                                 $0
<RECEIVABLES>                       $20,676,877
<ALLOWANCES>                         $(616,708)
<INVENTORY>                                  $0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                    $41,856,422
<PP&E>                              $62,216,826
<DEPRECIATION>                    $(23,339,305)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                      $93,082,907
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>               $36,268,929
<BONDS>                                      $0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                        $0
<PREFERRED>                                   0
<COMMON>                                  4,447
<OTHER-SE>                          $17,848,849
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>        $93,082,907
<SALES>                            $113,240,908
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                   $113,240,908
<CGS>                              $105,532,742
<TOTAL-COSTS>                      $105,532,742
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                    $15,376,594
<LOSS-PROVISION>                    $15,376,594
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                   $3,107,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                   $(10,775,428)
<INCOME-TAX>                       $(2,091,989)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                $(8,683,439)
<DISCONTINUED>                               $0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                              $0
<CHANGES>                                    $0
<NET-INCOME>                       $(8,683,439)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                           $(1.96)
<EPS-DILUTED>                           $(1.96)
        

</TABLE>
MANDATE

Court of Appeals 

First District of Texas 

NO. 01-14-00039-CR

JOSEPH WALTER HICKMAN, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

Appeal from the 412th District Court of Brazoria County. (Tr. Ct. No. 64265).

TO THE 412TH DISTRICT COURT OF BRAZORIA COUNTY, GREETINGS:

Before this Court, on the 19th day of February 2015, the case upon appeal to revise 

or to reverse your judgment was determined. This Court made its order in these words:

This case is an appeal from the final judgment signed by 

the trial court on January 9, 2014. After submitting the case on 

the appellate record and the arguments properly raised by the 

parties, the Court holds that the trial court’s judgment contains 

no reversible error. Accordingly, the Court affirms the trial 

court’s judgment.

The Court orders that this decision be certified below 

for observance.

Judgment rendered February 19, 2015.

Panel consists of Justices Keyes, Higley, and Brown. Opinion 
delivered by Justice Keyes.

WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Court in 

this behalf and in all things to have it duly recognized, obeyed, and executed.

July 17, 2015

Date CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE

CLERK OF THE COURT
IV 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 677 

Supporting the goals and ideals of National Veterans Small Business Week. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 1, 2019 

Mr. CROW (for himself, Mr. HAGEDORN, Mr. SCHNEIDER, Mr. FITZPATRICK, 

Mr. LAWSON of Florida, Mr. ESPAILLAT, Ms. CRAIG, Ms. FINKENAUER, 

Ms. VELA ́ZQUEZ, Mr. STAUBER, Mr. BURCHETT, Mr. SPANO, Mr. KEVIN

HERN of Oklahoma, Mr. JOYCE of Pennsylvania, Mr. VEASEY, Mr. 

CHABOT, Mrs. RADEWAGEN, and Mr. BALDERSON) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Small Business 

RESOLUTION 

Supporting the goals and ideals of National Veterans Small 

Business Week. 

Whereas the Armed Forces of the United States train individuals with the skills, discipline, and leadership necessary to establish and operate a successful business; 

Whereas there are approximately 2,500,000 veteran-owned 

small businesses in the United States, employing nearly 

5,800,000 individuals; 

Whereas veteran-owned businesses make up nearly 10 percent of all businesses in the United States; 

Whereas veterans account for more than $1,200,000,000,000 

in business receipts every year; 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 677 IH 

Whereas veterans are 45 percent more likely to be self-employed than nonveterans; 

Whereas business ownership by women veterans has increased significantly, from 97,114 in 2007 to 383,302 in 

2012; 

Whereas business ownership by immigrant veterans is over 

62,000; 

Whereas the Small Business Administration serves more than 

200,000 veterans, service-disabled veterans, women veterans, and military spouses annually; 

Whereas the Small Business Administration will be hosting 

events honoring National Veterans Small Business Week 

from November 4 through November 8, 2019; 

Whereas the Congress and the Small Business Administration will be celebrating Veterans Small Business Week 

during the week of November 4 through November 8, 

2019; and 

Whereas the week of November 4 through November 8, 2019, 

would be an appropriate time to celebrate National Veterans Small Business Week: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives joins 

2 with the Small Business Administration in— 

3 (1) supporting the goals and ideals of National 

4 Veterans Small Business Week; 

5 (2) supporting veterans through the Small 

6 Business Administration that funds veteran-owned 

7 small business, trains veterans for entrepreneurship, 

8 and supports veteran contracting; 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
3 

•HRES 677 IH 

1 (3) celebrating the millions of people in the 

2 United States, especially the veterans of the United 

3 States and the spouses of those veterans, who ben4 efit from the programs of the Small Business Ad5 ministration; and 

6 (4) expressing appreciation for the continued 

7 service to the United States by the veterans of the 

8 United States through small business ownership and 

9 entrepreneurship. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
Order entered November ,2012

In The

Court of [pptals

 ifth i tria of exas at Pallas

NO. 0~12~0708-CR

No. 0~12~0709-CR

JOSE TO~Z~G~ AppeHant

V.

T~ STA~ OF TE~, AppeH~

O ER

The Court ORDERS the State’s brief received on October 10, 2012 filed as of the date of

this order.

DAVID L. BRIDGES

JUSTICE
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15

- 41600 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee

v. ROSBEL FLORES

- VERA , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 1:15

- CR

- 422

- 1

Before KING, DENNIS, and COSTA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Rosbel Flores

- Vera appeals the 84

- month sentence imposed by the district court after his guilty plea conviction for being found in the United States illegally following a prior conviction for an aggravated felony. Relying
upon Mathis v. United States , 136 S. Ct . 2243 (2016), he argues that the district court erred by imposing a U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii) enhancement based upon his prior conviction under Texas Penal Code § 30.02(a)(1).

* 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. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED May 5, 2017 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 15-41600 Document: 00513981044 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/05/2017No. 15

- 41600

2 We review the district court’s application of the Sentencing Guidelines de novo. See United States v. Cisneros

- Gutierrez , 517 F.3d 751, 764 (5th Cir. 2008). We have previously held that § 30.02(a) is divisible under the modified categorical approach and that a § 30.02(a)(1) conviction supports a § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii) enhancement

. United States v. Conde

- Castaneda , 753 F.3d 172, 176 (5th Cir. 2014 ) . Contrary to Flores

- Vera’s argument, Conde

Castaneda remains good law in the wake of Mathis

. See United States v. Uribe , 838 F.3d 667, 669

- 71 (5th Cir. 2016), cert. denied , 2017 WL 66 192 4 (Mar. 20, 2017) (No. 16

- 7969). AFFIRMED. Case: 15-41600 Document: 00513981044 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/05/2017
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. John Dennis APEL, Defendant-Appellant. United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. John Dennis Apel, Defendant-Appellant. United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. John Dennis Apel, Defendant-Appellant.

Nos. 11-50003, 11-50004, 11-50005.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted April 13, 2012.

Filed April 25, 2012.

André Birotte Jr., Robert E. Dugdale, and Mark R. Yohalem (argued), United States Attorney’s Office, Los Angeles, CA, for the plaintiff-appellee.

Erwin Chemerinsky, Selwyn Chu, law student (argued), and Matthew Plunkett, law student (argued), Appellate Litigation Clinic, University of California Irvine School of Law, Irvine, CA, for the defendant-appellant.

Before: BARRY G. SILVERMAN and JOHNNIE B. RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges, and JOHN R. TUNHEIM, District Judge.*

*

 The Honorable John R. Tunheim, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota, sitting by designation.

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Appellant John Apel, who was subject to a pre-existing order barring him from *1203Vandenberg Air Force Base, was convicted of three counts of trespassing on the base in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1382. After his convictions became final in district court, we decided *United States v. Parker,*651 F.3d 1180 (9th Cir.2011). *Parker*held that because a stretch of highway running through Vandenberg AFB is subject to an easement “granted to the State of California, which later relinquished it to the County of Santa Barbara,” the federal government lacks the exclusive right of possession of the area on which the trespass allegedly occurred; therefore, a conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 1382 cannot stand, regardless of an order barring a defendant from the base. 651 F.3d at 1184.

Although we question the correctness of *Parker,*it is binding, dispositive of this appeal, and requires that Apel’s convictions be REVERSED.
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 14-14360

________________________

D.C. Docket Nos. 3:13-cv-00090-DHB-BKE,

11-bkc-30021-SDB

In re: WILLIAM M. FOSTER, JR.,

Debtor.

WILMINGTON PLANTATION, LLC,

Plaintiff-Appellant

Cross Appellee,

versus

WILLIAM M. FOSTER, JR.,

Defendant-Appellee

Cross Appellant.

________________________

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Georgia

________________________

(July 20, 2015)

Case: 14-14360 Date Filed: 07/20/2015 Page: 1 of 2 
2

Before ED CARNES, Chief Judge, ROSENBAUM, Circuit Judge, and SMITH,

*

District Judge.

PER CURIAM:

The parties are aware of the long and sometimes convoluted procedural 

history of the dispute that has given rise to this case and all of the facts related to it, 

much of which we discussed at oral argument. We will not reiterate any of that. 

Having considered what we heard during oral argument and having read the briefs 

and the relevant parts of the record, we conclude that the bankruptcy court’s 

September 24, 2013 order is due to be affirmed for the reasons set out in that order 

itself and also in the district court’s August 24, 2014 order affirming it. Both 

orders are well reasoned, and we have nothing to add to what they say.

AFFIRMED.

 * Honorable C. Lynwood Smith, Jr., United States District Judge for the Northern District of 

Alabama, sitting by designation.

Case: 14-14360 Date Filed: 07/20/2015 Page: 2 of 2
Consent of
Independent Registered Public Account




SHATSWELL,
MacLEOD & COMPANY, P.C.
 CERTIFIED
PUBLIC ACCOUNTS
     To the
Board of Directors
 Northeast
Bancorp
 Lewiston,
Maine
 
 CONSENT
OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM
 
 We
consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form
S-8 (No. 333-85206), (No. 33-32095), (No. 33-58538), (No. 33-32096), (No.
33-87976) and (No. 333-135452) of Northeast Bancorp of our report dated
September 18, 2008, related to our audit of the consolidated financial
statements of Northeast Bancorp and Subsidiary included in the Annual Report
Form 10-K for the year ended June 30, 2008.
 
 
 West
      Peabody, Massachusetts
              /s/SHATSWELL, MacLEOD
      & Company, P.C.September
      26, 2008
              SHATSWELL,
      MacLEOD & Company,
P.C.