alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### CASTRO v. A. H. BULL & CO.

United States District Court S. D. New York.

Jan. 13, 1949.

Benjamin B. Sterling, of New York City (Marvin Schwartz, of Brooklyn, N. Y., of counsel), for plaintiff.

Kirlin, Campbell, Hickox & Keating, of New York City (Walter X. Connor, of New York City, and Edward J. Sullivan, of Buffalo, N. Y., of counsel), for defendant.

CONGER, District Judge.

The objection to interrogatory No. 3 is sustained. I do not regard the view expressed on this point in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania as proper. See, for example, De Bruce v. Pennsylvania R. Co., D.C.E.D.Pa.1947, 6 F.R.D. 403. The Supreme Court in Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, page 504, 67 S.Ct. 385, page 390, 91 L.Ed. 451, stated that “Rule 33 [Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S. C.A.], does not make provision for such production, even when sought in connection with permissible interrogatories.” This is obviously true, and I so hold.

The other objections were disposed of on the argument.

Settle order
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Pennsylvania Higher Education Assistance Agency, “PHEAA”, Third Party Defendant-Appellee, v. Cynthia Y. ALLEN-WILLIAMS, D.D.S., Defendant-Appellant.

No. 12-1983.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Nov. 6, 2012.

Decided: Dec. 18, 2012.

Cynthia Y. Alien-Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Frank Corcoran, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland; William D. Day, GILL, Sippel & Gallagher, Rockville, Maryland, for Ap-pellees.

Before WILKINSON, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Cynthia Y. Alien-Williams, D.D.S., appeals from the district court’s memorandum and order entering judgment in favor of the United States in its action to recover amounts due on promissory notes executed in connection with two health education loans and granting the Third-Party Defendant, Pennsylvania Higher Education Assistance Agency, summary judgment on Alien-Williams’ third-party complaint. We have thoroughly reviewed the record and the district court’s memorandum and discern no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. *See United States v. Alien-Williams,*No. 8:11-cv-01001-JFM, 2012 WL 2126546 (2012). We deny as moot Alien-Williams’ motion to stay execution of the money judgment entered against her. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED.*
#### Van Dyke *v.*The Bridgeport and The John E. Mulford.

*(District Court, E. D. New York.*

May *12,*1888.)

Collision—Vessel at Anchor—Fog.

Where a steamer was runaing in a hank of fog as slowly as it was possible for her to do under the circumstances, a collision between such steamer and a schooner at anchor *held*to he an inevitable accident, imposing no liability for damages upon the steamer.

In Admiralty.

Libel by the schooner Messenger, which, while proceeding through the East river to the Sound, on the flood-tide, in charge of the tug John IS. Mulford, had anchored in a thick fog off the Sunken Meadows, and while at anchor had been run into by the steam-boat Bridgeport. The suit was begun against the steam-boat alone. The latter, by petition under the fifty-ninth admiralty rule, brought in the tug Mulford, which had the schooner in charge, as party defendant.

*Sidney Chubb,*for libelant.

*Benedict, Taft & Benedict,*for the Bridgeport.

*E. G. Davis,*for the John E. Mulford.

Benedict, J.

This is an action to recover damages occasioned to the schooner Messenger by being run into by the steam-boat Bridgeport, when at anchor off the Sunken Meadows, above Hell Gate. These vessels, while proceeding towards the Sound, were all caught in a bank of fog that came suddenly upon them. The fault charged upon the Bridgeport is that she was running in the fog at too great a rate of speed, but the proofs satisfy me that she was going as slowly as it was possible for her to do under the circumstances. My opinion is that the collision should be held to be an inevitable accident. Let the libel be dismissed, with costs.
## 1995 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit

6-22-1995 

# S quir es v B onse r
P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : D ocke t 94-7035

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al w ork s a t : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . v i l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_1995

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o you for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit a t V i l l a no va U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 1995 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr a t or of V i l l a no va U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. F or mor e infor m a t ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min
. C a rl s on@l a

w . v i l l a no va . e du

. 

## Re c omme nde d C it a t ion

" S quir e s v Bon s e r " (1995). 1995 D e cisio n s . P ape r 123. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . v i l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_1995/123

## _ UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

_______________ No. 94-7035 _______________

JOSEPH SQUIRES, SR. Appellant

V. THOMAS BONSER; JAY E. HUFFMAN; MIDDLE SMITHFIELD TOWNSHIP Appellees _______________ Before: BECKER and COWEN, Circuit Judges and POLLAK, District Judge*

_______________

ORDER _______________

The petition for panel rehearing is granted and the opinion filed on May 8, 1995, is amended by adding a footnote 17 at the final word of the opinion's text ("damages"), such footnote to be as follows:

17. At the new trial the jury is to be instructed that its award of compensatory damages cannot exceed $37,100.
By the Court, \s\ Louis H. Pollak District Judge Dated: June 22, 1995

__________________ *Honorable Louis H. Pollak, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Penndylvania, sitting by designation.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> BD
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998             DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998             DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                               0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,976,276               2,218,173
<SECURITIES-RESALE>                                  0                       0
<SECURITIES-BORROWED>                                0                       0
<INSTRUMENTS-OWNED>                         10,095,662               8,775,472
<PP&E>                                               0                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              12,071,938              10,993,645
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0                       0
<PAYABLES>                                     104,657                  82,735
<REPOS-SOLD>                                         0                       0
<SECURITIES-LOANED>                                  0                       0
<INSTRUMENTS-SOLD>                                   0                       0
<LONG-TERM>                                          0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                             0                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                  11,967,281              10,910,910
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                12,071,938              10,993,645
<TRADING-REVENUE>                            1,482,847               1,841,964
<INTEREST-DIVIDENDS>                           606,070                 588,693
<COMMISSIONS>                                    6,994                   4,894
<INVESTMENT-BANKING-REVENUES>                        0                       0
<FEE-REVENUE>                                        0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0                       0
<COMPENSATION>                                       0                       0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,804,598               2,154,550
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                   1,804,598               2,154,550
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,804,598               2,154,550
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    46.69                   52.21
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    46.69                   52.21
        

</TABLE>
Mag. No. 11-4022 (CCC>

DANIEL SPITLER and

ANDREW AUERNHEIMER : ORDER FOR CONTINUANCE

This matter having come before the Court on the joint application ofPaul J.

Fishman, United States Attorney for the District ofNew Jersey (by Lee Vartan and Zach Intrater,

Assistant U.S. Attorneys), and defendants Daniel Spitler (by Susan Cassell, Esq.) and Andrew

Auernheimer (by Candace Home, Esqj, for an order granting a continuance ofthe proceedings in

the above-captioned matter for a period of 60 days to allow the parties to conduct plea

negotiations and attempt to finalize a plea agreement, and one prior continuance order having

been entered by the Court pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 3161 (h)(7XA), so

that the parties could attempt to resolve the matter and thereby avoid a possible trial, and the

defendants being aware that they have the right to have the matter submitted to a grand jury

within thirty days ofthe date of their arrests pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section

3161(b), and the defendants having consented to the continuance and waived such right, and for

good cause shown,

IT IS THE FINDiNG OF TI-ITS COURT that this action should be continued for

the following reasons;

(1) Plea negotiations are currently in progress, and both the United States and the

defendants desire additional time to negotiate a plea agreement, which would render any grand
defendants in a speedy trial.

IT IS, therefore, on this day ofApril, 2011.

ORDERED that this action be, and it hereby is, continued for a period of 60 days

from March 31, 2011; and it is further

ORDERED that the period from March 31, 2011 through May 30,201 I shall be

excludable in computing time under the Speedy Trial Act of 1974.

HON. CLAIRE C. CECCHI

United States Magistrate Judge

Form and entry consented to:

V

Zach Intrate

Assistant .S. Attorneys

Susan assell, Esq.

Counsel for defendant Spitler

Candace Horn, Esq.

Counsel for defendant Auernheimer
defcndants in a speedy trial.

IT IS, therefore, on this day of April, 2011.

ORDERED that this action be, and it hereby is, continued for a period of 60 days

from March 31, 2011; and it is further

ORDERED that the period from March 31, 2011 through May 30,2011 shall be

excludable in computing time under the Speedy Trial Act of 1974.

C. CI’A

HON. CLAIRE C. CECCHI

United States Magistrate Judge

Form and entry consented to;

Lee Vartan

Zach Intrater

Assistant U.S. Attorneys

Susan Cassdil, Esq.

Counsel for defenda,t Spitler

&ndace Horn, Esq.

Counsel for defendant Auernlieiiner
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

STEVE WOODEN,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 235 EAL 2022

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 6th day of February, 2023

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 126 (Thursday, July 2, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 31747]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-15664]



[[Page 31747]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

[F-21901-36, F-221901-37, F-21901-38, F-21901-39, F-21901-40, F-21905-
46; AK-964-1410-KC-P]


Alaska Native Claims Selection

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of decision approving lands for conveyance.

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

SUMMARY: As required by 43 CFR 2650.7(d), notice is hereby given that 
an appealable decision approving the surface and subsurface estates in 
certain lands for conveyance pursuant to the Alaska Native Claims 
Settlement Act will be issued to Doyon, Limited. The lands are in the 
vicinity of Tanana, Alaska, and are located in:

Fairbanks Meridian, Alaska

T. 6 N., R. 17 W.,
    Secs. 5, 7, and 8.

    Containing approximately 1,898 acres.

T. 5 N., R. 18 W.,
    Secs. 2 to 6, inclusive.

    Containing approximately 3,188 acres.

T. 6 N., R. 18 W.,
    Secs. 1 to 12, inclusive;
    Secs. 14 to 23, inclusive;
    Secs. 26 to 35, inclusive.

    Containing approximately 20,364 acres.

T. 5 N., R. 19 W.,
    Secs. 1 to 6, inclusive.

    Containing approximately 3,828 acres.

T. 6 N., R. 19 W.,
    Secs. 1 and 2;
    Secs. 11 to 14, inclusive;
    Secs. 23 to 26, inclusive;
    Secs. 35 and 36.

    Containing approximately 7,680 acres.

    Aggregating approximately 36,958 acres.

    Notice of the decision will also be published four times in the 
Fairbanks Daily News-Miner.

DATES: The time limits for filing an appeal are:
    1. Any party claiming a property interest which is adversely 
affected by the decision shall have until August 3, 2009 to file an 
appeal.
    2. Parties receiving service of the decision by certified mail 
shall have 30 days from the date of receipt to file an appeal.
    Parties who do not file an appeal in accordance with the 
requirements of 43 CFR Part 4, Subpart E, shall be deemed to have 
waived their rights.

ADDRESSES: A copy of the decision may be obtained from: Bureau of Land 
Management, Alaska State Office, 222 West Seventh Avenue, <greek-i>13, 
Anchorage, Alaska 99513-7504.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The Bureau of Land Management by phone 
at 907-271-5960, or by e-mail at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#ea8b81c4888687c48985849c8f938b84898faa8b81c4888687c48d859c"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="50313b7e323c3d7e333f3e263529313e333510313b7e323c3d7e373f26">[email protected]</span></a>. Persons 
who use a telecommunication device (TTD) may call the Federal 
Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8330, 24 hours a day, 
seven days a week, to contact the Bureau of Land Management.

Jason Robinson,
Land Law Examiner, Land Transfer Adjudication I.
[FR Doc. E9-15664 Filed 7-1-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-JA-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### In the Matter of: Dennis Labarre PIKE; Kathryn Loretta Pike, Debtors, Dennis Labarre Pike; Kathryn Loretta Pike, Plaintiffs/Appellants, v. James J. Joseph, as trustee for the estate of Dennis & Kathryn Pike, Defendant/Appellee.

No. 09-56266.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted Nov. 4, 2010.

Filed March 3, 2011.

Dennis Winters, Winters Law Firm, Santa Ana, CA, for Plaintiffs/Appellants.

William Miles Burd, Burd & Naylor, Santa Ana, CA, for Defendant/Appellee.

Before: RAWLINSON and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges, and JONES, District Judge.*

*

 The Honorable Robert Clive Jones, U.S. District Judge for the District of Nevada, sitting by designation,

*711MEMORANDUM **

Appellants Dennis and Kathryn Pike appeal the district court’s order affirming the bankruptcy court’s dismissal of their action seeking a declaratory judgment. The district court properly affirmed the bankruptcy court’s dismissal of Appellants’ action seeking declaratory relief because their claim was barred by issue preclusion. *See Alonso v. Summerville (In re Summerville),*361 B.R. 133, 143-44 (9th Cir. BAP2007) (describing issue preclusion). In the declaratory relief action, Appellants sought a determination that Dennis Pike’s post-petition contribution of wages to satisfy trust deeds on their residence and post-petition work performed by Dennis Pike entitled Appellants to an equity interest in the real property.

However, earlier in the bankruptcy proceedings, Appellants brought an unsuccessful motion for allowance of an administrative claim predicated on exactly the same facts. Issue preclusion barred the declaratory relief action because the identical issue, based on the same facts, was decided in resolving the administrative claim. *See Frankfort Digital Servs. Ltd. v. Kistler (In re*Reynoso), 477 F.3d 1117, 1122 (9th Cir.2007) (holding that issue preclusion bars relitigation of issues that have been adjudicated in an earlier proceeding).

AFFIRMED.1

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

1

. Because we affirm the district court's judgment on the basis of issue preclusion, there is no need to address the other issues raised by the parties.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), the undersigned officer of Cleartronic, Inc. (the Company), does hereby certify, to such officers knowledge, that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2009 of the Company fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.  Date: May 15, 2009/s/ Larry ReidByLarry ReidPrincipal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Lanell Gamble, Appellant.

[822 NYS2d 474]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Daniel E FitzGerald, J.), rendered on or about November 4, 2004, unanimously affirmed. No opinion. Order filed. Concur—Andrias, J.E, Marlow, Nardelli, Williams and Sweeny, JJ.
BODDIE-NOELL PROPERTIES, INC.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EXHIBIT 21:  SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT
YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1997



Subsidiary of Boddie-Noell Properties, Inc.:

     Subsidiary name:                Boddie-Noell Properties Limited Partnership
     State of organization:          Delaware
     Business name:                  Boddie-Noell Properties Limited Partnership

Subsidiaries of Boddie-Noell Properties Limited Partnership:

     Subsidiary name:                BNP Realty, LLC
     State of organization:          North Carolina
     Business name:                  BNP Realty, LLC

     Subsidiary name:                BNP/Chrysson Phase I, LLC
     State of organization:          North Carolina
     Business name:                  BNP/Chrysson Phase I, LLC

Subsidiary of BNP Realty, LLC:

     Subsidiary name:                BNP Management, Inc.
     State of organization:          North Carolina
     Business name:                  BNP Management, Inc.



                                       65
<PAGE>
IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-12-00382-CV

TOMMY LEON JONES,

Appellant

v.

BRAZOS COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT,

Appellee

From the County Court at Law No. 2

Brazos County, Texas

Trial Court No. 11.002166-CV-CCL2

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Tommy Leon Jones appeals the trial court’s granting of a no evidence motion for 

summary judgment. Jones’s docketing statement was due November 12, 2012. It was 

not received. By letter dated November 20, 2012, the Clerk of this Court notified Jones 

that the docketing statement had not been filed and must be filed within 21 days from 

the date of the letter. No docketing statement was received. By letter dated December 

20, 2012, the Clerk of this Court again notified Jones that the docketing statement had 

not been filed and warned Jones that if the docketing statement was not filed within 14 
Jones v. Brazos County Sheriff’s Department Page 2

days from the date of the letter, the appeal would be dismissed. More than 14 days 

have passed and no docketing statement has been received.

Further, by letter dated December 12, 2012, Jones was notified by the Clerk of 

this Court that he had not paid or failed to make arrangements to pay the clerk’s fee for 

the preparation of the clerk’s record. Jones was warned that unless within 21 days from 

the date of the letter he paid or made arrangements to pay the clerk’s fee and notified 

this Court of the actions taken, the appeal would be dismissed for want of prosecution. 

See TEX. R. APP. P. 37.3(b). More than 21 days have passed and we have received no 

notification that Jones has paid or made arrangements to pay the clerk’s fee.

This appeal is dismissed. TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(b), (c); 37.3(b).

Absent a specific exemption, the Clerk of the Court must collect filing fees at the 

time a document is presented for filing. TEX. R. APP. P. 12.1(b); Appendix to TEX. R. APP.

P., Order Regarding Fees (Amended Aug. 28, 2007, eff. Sept. 1, 2007). See also TEX. R.

APP. P. 5; 10TH TEX. APP. (WACO) LOC. R. 5; TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. §§ 51.207(b); 51.208 

(West Supp. 2012); § 51.941(a) (West 2005). Under these circumstances, we suspend the 

rule and order the Clerk to write off all unpaid filing fees in this case. TEX. R. APP. P. 2. 

The write-off of the fees from the accounts receivable of the Court in no way eliminates 

or reduces the fees owed.

TOM GRAY

Chief Justice
Jones v. Brazos County Sheriff’s Department Page 3

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Davis, and

Justice Scoggins

Appeal dismissed

Opinion delivered and filed January 17, 2013

[CV06]
**EXHIBIT 23.2**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We consent to theincorporation by reference in post-effective Amendment No. 1 to the Registration Statement No. 33-7053 on Form S-8, in Registration Statement Nos. 33-44700, 333-44024 and 333-46218 on Form S-8 of our report dated January 12, 2009,except for the portion of Note 2 presented under the heading, “*Restatements and Reclassifications*,” as to which the date is February 22, 2010, with respect to the Consolidated Financial Statements of Archon Corporation andSubsidiaries included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended September 30, 2009. 

/s/ Piercy Bowler Taylor & Kern

Las Vegas, Nevada 

February 22,2010
# covid2_naics11-21