alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### SEMIDEY v. NATIONAL CITY BANK OF NEW YORK et al.

Civ. No. 5063.

United States District Court San Juan Division. D. Puerto Rico.

July 7, 1949.

Judgment Affirmed May 26, 1950.

*342Raul Matos, Ponce, Puerto Rico, B. F. Sanchez, San Juan, Puerto Rico, for plaintiff.

McConnell & Valdes, San Juan, Puerto Rico, for defendants.

CHAVEZ, District Judge.

This cause originally came on to be heard upon a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The action is one for the recovery of real property, and subsidiarily for damages for its alleged wrongful detention. Plaintiff was met at the outset by the contention that under the decisions of the Supreme Court of Puerto Rico, a plaintiff seeking to recover real property must allege and prove his own title, and that upon his failure to do so, the courts will not inquire into the title of the defendant; and by the further contention that one who seeks to recover property belonging to a Puerto Rican partnership must allege and prove that the partnership was liquidated. Rosaly v. Graham, 16 P.R.R. 156. A showing was also made that under the decisions of the Supreme Court of Puerto Rico, a partner in a Puerto Rican partnership or one claiming under such partner, is not an owner or co-owner of the partnership property or even of his own contribution to the partnership capital, but that, the partnership being a separate juridical entity, the interest of a partner is merely the right to receive his distributive share, if any, upon dissolution or liquidation of the partnership. González v. Méndez, 8 P.R.R. 249; Blanco v. Registrar, 28 P.R.R. 159.

In the present case, the language of the complaint as to plaintiff’s title is dubious, but the Court overruled the motion to dismiss when plaintiff refused to concede that the property sought to be recovered was not the individual property of her predecessor in title but was partnership property.

Upon the motion for summary judgment, it appears that the property in question was acquired by the partnership known as Solivellas & Company, by a deed from the Municipality of Yauco, executed in 1917. Plaintiff has filed no opposition to the motion for summary judgment on this point, or showing that the partnership at any later date transferred the real estate in question to plaintiff’s predecessor in title, who was one of the partners. In the course of argument on the motion for summary judgment it was conceded that no such transfer had taken place, and that the property in question at no time belonged personally to plaintiff's predecessor in title. Similarly, no showing was made, -or even indicated, that the partnership had been liquidated.

Upon these facts, it is apparent that there can be no genuine issue as to any material fact, and that defendants are under the decisions of the Supreme Court of Puerto Rico entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

In the course of argument, an effort was made to present the complaint as itself an action for liquidation of the partnership. A mere reading of the complaint is sufficient to indicate that this is untenable.

The motion for summary judgment will be granted.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-6004
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus HERBERT J. ROTHBERG, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, District Judge. (CR-90-405-A, CA-95-655-AM) Submitted: September 20, 1996 Decided: October 3, 1996 Before NIEMEYER, HAMILTON, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Gregory B. English, ENGLISH & SMITH, Alexandria, Vi rginia, for Appellant. Helen F. Fahey, United States Attorney, David G. Barger, Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Herbert J. Rothberg seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1994) motion. Specifically, Rothberg claims that the district court committed reversible error by dismissing the motion without the benefit of an evidentiary hearing. See Rules Governing § 2255 Proceedings, Rule 8. A district court need not conduct such a hearing where the facts are not in dispute. See, e.g. , Foster v. Barbour , 613 F.2d 59, 60-61 (4th Cir. 1980). Rothberg has not identified any factual dispute that couldhave been resolved at a hearing and our review of the record reveals none. The district court did not err in dismissing the motionwithout a hearing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented inthe materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
07/24/15

To Whom it May Concern:

My name is Carissa Crocker, and I need to request an extension for the appeal of case number 

03-15-00416-CV. I am in need of additional time to get this prepared. Thank you for your consideration. 

Regards, 

Carissa Crocker
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

2009-5085

MATTHEW J. CRUSAN, ROBERT J. DONNELLY,

DAVID M. HARGRODER and SHARON A. LYNN,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v.

UNITED STATES,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims in 07-CV-434,

Judge Marian Blank Horn.

ON MOTION

ORDER

The United States moves without opposition to stay the briefing schedule in this

appeal pending disposition of Easter v. United States, 2008-5187, and Forbes v. United

States 2009-5030.

The United States asserts that this appeal and Easter and Forbes all involve the

issue of whether the Court of Federal Claims correctly decided that the appellants were

not entitled to overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 201 et

seq. for time spent driving a government vehicle between home and work. The United

States asserts that the court's decision in Easter and Forbes may resolve the overtime

pay issues in this case.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:
The motion is granted. The United States is directed to notify this court within 21

days of the date both mandates have issued in Easter and Forbes concerning how they

believe this appeal should proceed. The appellants may also respond within that time.

FOR THE COURT

JUL 24 2009

/s/ Jan Horbalv

Date	

Jan Horbaly

Clerk

cc:	Jules Bernstein, Esq.

Shalom Brilliant, Esq.

s20

ILO)

U.S. COURT

F

OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT

JUL 2 4 2009

JAN HORBALY

CLERK

2009-5085	 2
#### Kathleen Star Lawlor, Respondent, v 543 Second Avenue LLC et al., Appellants.

[854 NYS2d 125]

Defendants presented no evidence that they sought a certificate of eviction from the Division of Housing and Community Renewal before unilaterally deciding to demolish the building that housed plaintiffs rent-regulated apartment *(see*Administrative Code of City of NY § 26-408 [b]; *Sohn v Calderon,*78 NY2d 755, 764-765 [1991]). Moreover, plaintiffs evidence of defendants’ harassment raised factual issues as to the alleged necessity of the demolition.

Since, as a rent-controlled tenant seeking restoration to her apartment pursuant to Administrative Code § 26-408, plaintiff has asserted a possessory right affecting real property, her notice of pendency was properly filed *(see*CPLR 6501; *220 E. 56th St. Corp. v Excelsior Sav. Bank,*253 App Div 345 [1938]; *Lafayette Forwarding Co., Inc. v Rothbart Garage Operators, Inc.,*205 App Div 247, 249-250 [1923]). Concur—Tom, J.P., Andrias, Nardelli and Sweeny, JJ.
Exhibit 32.1   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 Success Exploration & Resources, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended November 30, 2013 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), the undersigned certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of the undersigneds knowledge, that:  (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 Company.   Dated: January 21, 2014 By:  /s/ Matthew H. Sage  Matthew H. Sage, President, Treasurer and Director (Principal Executive Officer)   1
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED JULY 22, 2015

NO. 03-14-00404-CV

Kevin Tower, Appellant

v.

Bank of America, N.A., Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 1 OF HAYS COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES PURYEAR, PEMBERTON, AND BOURLAND

AFFIRMED -- OPINION BY JUSTICE PURYEAR

This is an appeal from the judgment signed by the trial court on June 9, 2014. Having reviewed 

the record and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was no reversible error in the 

trial court’s judgment. Therefore, the Court affirms the trial court’s judgment. Appellant shall 

pay all costs relating to this appeal, both in this Court and the court below.
In the Supreme Court of Georgia

Decided: July 27, 2015

S15Y1099. IN THE MATTER OF TANYA YVETTE BROCKINGTON.

PER CURIAM.

This disciplinary matter is before the Court on a Notice of Discipline

seeking the disbarment of Tanya Yvette Brockington (State Bar No. 259287)

based on her abandonment of three clients. Brockington, who was admitted to

the Bar in the State of Georgia in 2010, lives and practices in Illinois; she is

currently under an interim suspension from this Court, In the Matter of

Brockington, S14Y0153 (Oct. 6, 2014). The State Bar of Georgia attempted to

serve Brockington personally at the address listed with the State Bar, but the

sheriff filed a return of service non est inventus. The State Bar then sought to

serve Brockington at a residence address, but the sheriff also filed a return of

service non est inventus from that attempt. The State Bar then properly served

Brockington by publication pursuant to Bar Rule 4-203.1 (b) (3) (ii). 

Brockington failed to file a Notice of Rejection. Therefore, she is in default, has

waived her rights to an evidentiary hearing, and is subject to such discipline and
further proceedings as may be determined by this Court. See Bar Rule 4-208.1

(b).

The facts, as deemed admitted by virtue of Brockington’s default, show

that, with regard to each matter,1 Brockington was retained to represent a client

in an immigration matter and was paid a retainer. Brockington did minimal

work for each client before abandoning the legal matters entrusted to her. 

Thereafter she failed to respond to her clients’ telephone calls and failed to

refund any portion of the unearned fees. She also failed to respond to the

Notices of Investigation, as required by Bar Rule 4-204.3. 

Based on these facts, we agree that Brockington has violated Rules 1.2,

1.3, 1.4, 1.16 (d), and 9.3 of the Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct found

in Bar Rule 4-102 (d). The maximum sanction for a violation of Rules 1.2 and

1.3 is disbarment, and the maximum sanction for a violation of Rules 1.4, 1.16

(d), and 9.3 is a public reprimand. In aggravation of discipline, we note that

Brockington received a prior disciplinary sanction, In the Matter of

Brockington, 296 Ga. 438 (768 SE2d 458) (2015).

1

 See State Disciplinary Board Docket Nos. 6714, 6715, and 6716.

2
Having reviewed the record, we conclude that disbarment is the

appropriate sanction in this matter. Accordingly, it is hereby ordered that the

name of Tanya Yvette Brockington be removed from the rolls of persons

authorized to practice law in the State of Georgia. Brockington is reminded of

her duties pursuant to Bar Rule 4-219 (c).

Disbarred. All the Justices concur. 

3
5l«-/£

ELECTRONIC RECORD

COA# 03-12-00620-CR OFFENSE: 19.02

Henry Gonzales, Jr. v. The State of

STYLE: Texas COUNTY: Travis

COA DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED TRIAL COURT: 299th District Court

DATE: 12/04/14 Publish: NO TC CASE #: D-l-DC-12-904023

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

Henry Gonzales, Jr. v. The State of

STYLE: Texas

A??ELLANT\^ Petition

FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW IN CCA IS:

CCA#: S%H-lS

DATE: _

JUDGE:

DtUylir

2^

CCA Disposition:

DATE:

JUDGE:

SIGNED:

PUBLISH:

REHEARING IN CCA IS:

JUDGE:

PC:_

DNP:

MOTION FOR

ELECTRONIC RECORD
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, July 22, 2015.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of

the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, July 22, 2015

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A15D0483. IN THE INTEREST OF: A. H., A CHILD (FATHER) .

Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered that it be

hereby GRANTED. The Appellant may file a Notice of Appeal within 10 days of the date of this

order. The Clerk of Juvenile Court is directed to include a copy of this order in the record

transmitted to the Court of Appeals.

LC NUMBERS:

1500070
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-1287

GARY D. HICKS; CLYDE CASEY; JEAN CASEY, Plaintiffs - Appellants, versus WILSHIRE CREDIT CORPORATION, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District ofMaryland, at Greenbelt. Roger W. Titus, District Judge. (8:06-cv02195-RWT) Submitted: November 30, 2007 Decided: January 7, 2008 Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. M. Albert Figinski, John A. Pica, Jr., Michael W. Reed, Thomas P. Kelly, LAW OFFICES OF PETER G. ANGELOS, PC, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellants. Brian L. Moffet, GORDON, FEINBLATT, ROTHMAN, HOFFBERGER & HOLLANDER, LLC, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: Gary Hicks, Clyde Casey, and Jean Casey appeal the district court’s order denying their motion to remand and granting Wilshire Credit Corporation’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. We have reviewed the parties’briefs and the record on appeal and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court at the hearing held on February 26, 2007. Hicks v. Wilshire Credit Corp. , No. 8:06-cv02195-RWT) (D. Md. Feb. 26, 2007). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED
Order entered July 23, 2015

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-14-01019-CV

FEYSAL AYATI-GHAFFARI AND IRANA HAGNAZARI, Appellants

V.

HAZAWIPERI JACKIE GUMBODETE AND JOSE ANAYA, Appellees

On Appeal from the 429th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 429-04867-2012

ORDER

Before Justices Bridges, Lang, and Schenck

Before the Court is appellant Feysal Ayati-Ghaffari’s June 30, 2015 motion titled 

“Appellant’s Motion to Recall & Correct the Order 6/25/2015.” After due consideration, that 

motion is DENIED. 

/s/ DOUGLAS S. LANG 

JUSTICE
FILED IN PD-0072-1

COURT OF CRIMINALAPPEALS COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

AUSTIN, TEXA

July 24, 2015 Transmitted 7/24/2015 11:17:16 Af

Accepted 7/24/2015 11:32:37 Af

ABELACOSTA, CLERK TQ THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS ABEL ACOST,

OF THE STATE OF TEXAS

JAMES LEMING

Appellant

V. § CASE NO. PD-0072-15

TRIAL COURT NO. 41799-B

THE STATE OF TEXAS

Appellee §

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE CORRECTED RESPONSE TO STATE'S BRIEF

TO THE HONORABLE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS:

Comes Now the Appellant, JAMES LEMING, by and through his counsel, Clement

Dunn, and respectfully seeks leave to file his corrected Response to State's Brief, to replace the

Response to State's Brief filed in this cause on July 21, 2015. The corrected Response to State's

Brief contains corrections and clarifications only; it does not differ in substance from the

previously filed Response to State's Brief. No additional issues or arguments are set forth. This

counsel respectfully submits the filing ofthe corrected Response to State's Briefis necessary to

maintain the standards of professionalism and appellate representation to which the Court is

entitled.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

//ss// Clement Dunn

Attorney for Appellant

140 E. Tyler Street, Suite 240

Longview, TX 75601

(903) 753-7071 Fax (903) 753-8783

State Bar # 06249300

CLER

a\6
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

As Attorney of Record for Defendant, I do hereby Certify that a true and correct copy of

the above and foregoing document was this date provided to the Attorney for the State.

Date: July 24, 2015

//ss// Clement DunnAttorney for Appellant
TO THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF THE STATE OF TEXAS

JAMES LEMING

Appellant

THE STATE OF TEXAS

Appellee §

CASE NO. PD-0072-15

TRIAL COURT NO. 41799-B

ORDER

BE IT REMEMBERED, that on the day of , 2015, came

on to be considered the above and foregoing Motion for Leave to File Corrected Response to

State's Brief. After consideration ofthe same, it is the opinion ofthe Court that Appellant's

Motion be:

( ) GRANTED, and the present cause is hereby extended until

2014.

( ) DENIED, to which ruling the Appellant excepts.

( ) SET FOR HEARING ON THE day of ,2015, at

o'clock .

SIGNED:

JUDGE PRESIDING
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                       1,991,695
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                          70,611
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                               314,652
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                  2,181,889
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                     46,392,855
<ALLOWANCE>                                  (520,953)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              57,528,783
<DEPOSITS>                                  45,267,171
<SHORT-TERM>                                 2,744,188
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                          4,168,761
<LONG-TERM>                                  1,749,070
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        13,919
<OTHER-SE>                                   3,384,783
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>              57,528,783
<INTEREST-LOAN>                              4,074,994
<INTEREST-INVEST>                              661,117
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                     0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                             4,736,111
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                           2,675,469
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           3,208,083
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                        1,528,028
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                  260,000
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                               7,715
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                              7,867,874
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,410,742)
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                 (1,410,742)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,117,924)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.58)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.00
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    3.14
<LOANS-NON>                                    586,709
<LOANS-PAST>                                   534,896
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                              1,667,000
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                               297,783
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                   83,265
<RECOVERIES>                                    46,435
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                              520,953
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                           520,953
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                        110,000


</TABLE>
# covid_table51_c57_size_class
# table111_q13.2_size
(More)

No. 21-2 For Immediate Release

February 2021 

RRB Plans Improved Access to Toll-Free Service

The U.S. Railroad Retirement Board (RRB) has developed two changes to the agency’s 

nationwide toll-free telephone system that should improve customers’ access to agency staff and 

services. The changes will take effect on February 15. 

To address lengthy wait times for callers on our toll free number ((877)772-5772), the RRB 

is adding a virtual hold function and increasing our total hours of availability beginning with the 

week of February 15, 2021. 

Starting February 15, rather than staying on the phone until a representative becomes 

available, callers will be able to request a callback when their place in line comes up. When 

choosing this option, callers will be asked to confirm their phone number and record their name. 

The system will then tell them approximately how long it will take for them to receive a 

callback. 

At the time the return call is placed, the person answering the phone will be able to accept

the call, request a brief delay while the original caller comes to the phone, or reschedule the call 

for a later time. This approach will result in more efficient service by RRB representatives, and 

will allow customers to avoid long hold times. 

In conjunction with implementing the virtual hold feature, the RRB will also be increasing 

the number of hours per week during which claims representatives will be available to answer 

calls. Going forward, the hours during which the toll-free number will accept calls will change 

to 9 a.m. to 3 p.m. each business day, including Wednesdays. 

Customers also have other options that are available 24 hours a day to obtain select services 

without the need to talk to an agency representative. By calling 877-772-5772 and using the 

automated menus or visiting myRRB at the agency website RRB.gov, the following 

information and services are available:

• Letters verifying income and monthly benefit rates;

• Service and compensation statement;

U.S. Railroad Retirement Board

RRB News

844 North Rush Street Chicago, Illinois 60611-1275

www.rrb.gov

877-772-5772 general information

Public Affairs

312-751-4777 

opa@rrb.gov media inquiries
-2-

• Replacement Medicare card;

• Duplicate tax statement (1099, 1099-R);

• General benefit information; and

• RRB field office addresses.

In addition, railroad employees who have established myRRB accounts can login and 

complete the following actions:

• Apply for and claim unemployment benefits;

• Claim sickness benefits;

• Check the status of their unemployment or sickness benefit claims;

• View their railroad service and compensation history; and

• Get an estimate of retirement benefits.

Customers also have the option of sending a secure message to their local office by 

accessing the Field Office Locator on RRB.gov and clicking on the link at the bottom of their 

servicing office’s page.

# # #