alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### PUBLIC ADMINISTRATOR OF THE COUNTY OF NEW YORK, as Administrator of the Estate of Janis Freimanis, Deceased, Plaintiff, v. William P. ROGERS, Attorney General of the United States of America, as Successor to the Alien Property Custodian, Defendant.

United States District Court S. D. New York.

Sept. 14, 1960.

Joseph T. Arenson, New York City, Milton W. Levy, New York City, of counsel, for plaintiff.

S. Hazard Gillespie, Jr., U. S. Atty., Southern District of New York, New York City, Myron J. Wiess, Asst. U. S. Atty., New York City, of counsel, for defendant.

DAWSON, District Judge.

This is a motion for an order pursuant to Rule 34 of the Rules of Civil Proce*119dure, 28 U.S.C.A., requiring defendant to produce and permit the plaintiff to.inspect and copy or photograph certain documents. The documents are not itemized and are not referred to in the notice of motion but only in an affidavit in support thereof where they are described as “all reports of investigators commissioned by the defendant or by the Office of Alien Property or its predecessor, the Alien Property Custodian, as well as affidavits or transcripts of testimony, with respect to the matters embraced in the above recitation of facts upon which defendant relies in his claim that Alice Freimanis was ‘an enemy’ within the meaning of the Act.”

Applications for discovery and inspection under Rule 34 may be made only by a party showing good cause therefor.

This motion does not itemize the documents to be examined, but seeks rather to have a general “roving commission” to go through all the records of the Office of Alien Property to find out what statements, affidavits, transcripts and other evidence it may have.

The plaintiff, by proper use of interrogatories, could have ascertained what documents defendant had on which he sought to rely; what affidavits he had, and who executed those affidavits; what transcripts of evidence he had and in what court proceedings such transcripts were taken. He then would have had some basis for his motion and would be able to refer to specific documents necessary for production and inspection. He has failed to do this. He is seeking rather to obtain the work product of the lawyers in the Office of Alien Property, which is a part of the office of the Attorney General. As the Supreme Court of the United States has said:

> “When Rule 26 and the other discovery rules were adopted, this Court and the members of the bar in general certainly did not believe or contemplate that all the files and mental processes of lawyers were thereby opened to the free scrutiny of their adversaries.” Hickman v. Taylor, 1947, 329 U.S. 495, at page 514, 67 S.Ct. 385, at page 395, 91 L.Ed. 451.

Upon a proper showing of due cause and a proper designation of documents, plaintiff may be able to discover and inspect certain documents so that the trial may proceed with “all the cards on the table.” The present application is, however, so obviously an attempt by plaintiff’s lawyer to avoid doing any work and to seek a free examination of his opponent’s files without showing good cause therefor, that there is no basis for the motion.

The motion is denied. So ordered.
f8k021111ex10v_westergaard.htm


 


Exhibit 10.5


 


Fujian Jinjiang Chendai Ansheng Shoes and Clothing Co., Ltd.


Product Sales Contract







Contract No.:


Date of Signing:


Seller: Fujian Jinjiang Chendai Ansheng Shoes and Clothing Co., Ltd.


Buyer:







Based on mutual consultations, the Parties have agreed on the following:







1. Order List







Note: The buyer shall make the payment according to the products actually delivered.







2. Quality Requirement and Period for Objection: the quality requirement is subject to the sample provided by the Seller. If the Buyer has objection to the quality of the product, the Buyer shall notify the Seller within 7 days after receipt of the product. The Seller shall not bear any liability if the Buyer does not notify the objection within 7 days.







3. Time, Place and Method of Delivery: deliver the product in batches according to the Buyer’s notifications within one(1) year, to the Buyer’s warehouse.







4. Method and Cost of Transportation: the Seller arranges road transportation on behalf of the Buyer. The Buyer shall bear all transportation cost.







5. Method and Schedule of Payment: the Seller shall make the payment within 60 days after the Seller accepts each batch of product without any pre-condition.







6. Performance Place of the Contract: the Seller’s location







7. Breach of Contract: if the Buyer fails to make the payment on time, the Buyer shall bear the liability to the Seller according to relevant laws.







8. Dispute Settlement: in the event there is any dispute relating to this Agreement, the Parties may settle it by consultations. If fails, any of the Parties may file a law suit with the people’s court.







9. There are two counterparts of this Agreement. Each of the Parties holds one. This Agreement shall take effect upon execution.







10. Particular Provision: if the Buyer’s sales of product hereunder exceed RMB8 million within one (1) year, the Seller shall award the Buyer 4% of the Buyer’s total yearly sales, in cash or by writing-down the same amount from the accounting receivable at the end of the year.


 




  





  











  






 



	
Seller

	
Buyer


	
Company Name: Fujian Jinjiang Chendai Ansheng Shoes and Clothing Co., Ltd.

	
Company Name:


	
Adress:

	
Adress:


	
Legal Representative:

	
Legal Representative:


	
Agent:

	
Agent:


	
Tel:

	
Tel:


	
Bank Name:

	
Bank Name:


	
Bank Account:

	
Bank Account:


	
Post Code:

	
Post Code:
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

January 16, 2014

No. 04-13-00803-CV

Denise MCVEA,

Appellant

v.

James KISSLER,

Appellee

From the 150th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2013-CI-14927

Honorable Barbara Hanson Nellermoe, Judge Presiding

ORDER

The trial court clerk has filed a notification of late record stating that the clerk’s record 

has not been filed because appellant has failed to pay or make arrangements to pay the clerk’s 

fee for preparing the record and that appellant is not entitled to appeal without paying the fee. It 

is therefore ORDERED that appellant provide written proof to this court within ten (10) days of 

the date of this order that either (1) the clerk’s fee has been paid or arrangements have been made 

to pay the clerk’s fee; or (2) appellant is entitled to appeal without paying the clerk’s fee. If 

appellant fails to respond within the time provided, this appeal will be dismissed for want of 

prosecution. See TEX. R. APP. P. 37.3(b).

_________________________________

Catherine Stone, Chief Justice

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

court on this 16th day of January, 2014.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>            5
<LEGEND>
                     THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION
                     EXTRACTED FROM FORM 10-K OF BERLITZ INTERNATIONAL, INC.
                     FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1996 AND IS QUALIFIED IN
                     ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                                                  <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                        12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                    DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                         DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                               25,781
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        37,962
<ALLOWANCES>                                         1,914
<INVENTORY>                                          10,260
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     82,711
<PP&E>                                               44,638
<DEPRECIATION>                                       15,275
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       561,245
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                77,579
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             1,003
<OTHER-SE>                                           356,404
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         561,245
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     366,067
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        218,758
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     12,746
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   7,647
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      12,814
<INCOME-TAX>                                         7,508
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  3,803
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                         3,803
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0.40
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0.40


</TABLE>
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 14**  **- 6469** 

ANTHONY JUNIOR BARNHILL , Petitioner

- Appellant ,

v. F. TAYLOR , Respondent

– Appellee , and
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA , Respondent.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina , at Raleigh

. Louise W. Flanagan , District Judge. ( 5:12

- hc

- 02141

- FL )

Submitted : August 21, 2014 Decided: August 25, 2014

Before SHEDD, AGEE, and KEENAN , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

. Anthony Junior Barnhill , Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III , NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE , Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee

. Unpublished opinions are not binding preceden t in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Anthony Junior Barnhill seeks to appeal the district court’s order s denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition and his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion to alter or amend the judgment . The order s are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (A) (2012) . A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012 )
. When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Barnhill has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately3 presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
<PAGE>
                                                                    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 accompanying Quarterly Report of Onyx Software
Corporation on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Brent
R. Frei, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

      (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
      15(d) of the 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.

August 11, 2003                /s/    Brent R. Frei
-----------------------        -------------------------------------------------
Date                           Brent R. Frei
                               Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board
### T E X A S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S , T H I R D D I S T R I C T , A T A U S T I N

NO. 03-13-00192- CV

In re Harr is Corporation, Harris IT Service s Corporation, Digital Display Networks, In c., and 7-El even Inc., Re lators

ORI GINAL P ROCEEDI NG F ROM TRAVIS CO UNTY

O R D E R
P ER CURIAM

Relators have filed a petition for writ of mandamus and motion for emer g ency relief
. Tex. R. App. 52.8, 52.10. We g rant rela tors’ motion for emer g ency relief and stay all proce eding s in the trial court, pending further order of this Court. The Court order s that the rea l party in interest file a r esponse to the pe tition for writ of mandamus on or be fore April 3, 2013.

I t is ordere d on Marc h 20, 2013.

Be fore Chief J ustice Jones, J ustices Goodwin and F ield
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

DWIGHT GILLESPIE,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 135 WAL 2017

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 29th day of August, 2017

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
**Exhibit
      32**








**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 OrthoLogic Corp. (the “Company”) on Form
      10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and
      Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), each of John M. Holliman,
      III, Principal Executive Officer of the Company, and Les M. Taeger, Chief
      Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as
      adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of
      his knowledge:





(1)
      The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and





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





Date:
      November 5, 2007








/s/
      John M. Holliman, III


John
      M.
      Holliman, III


Principal
      Executive Officer








/s/
      Les M. Taeger


Les
      M.
      Taeger


Chief
      Financial Officer








A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
      authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears
      in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required
      by Section 906, has been provided to OrthoLogic Corp. and will be retained
      by
      OrthoLogic Corp. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or
      its
      staff upon request.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                           4,676
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    5,266
<ALLOWANCES>                                        56
<INVENTORY>                                      1,220
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                           6,953
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,217
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  25,827
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             6
<OTHER-SE>                                      22,129
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    25,827
<SALES>                                          9,038
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 9,038
<CGS>                                            5,950
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    5,950
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 2,085
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 (44)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,047
<INCOME-TAX>                                       419
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                628
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       628
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .11
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 10.1




 








	Plan and Agreement of Reorganization dated December 1, 2012, between the Registrant, Royal Texan Energy Co., and Brent and Brook Hatchett.






 


 


The accompanying PDF document contains the signed Plan and Agreement.
| (logo) WELLS  

      FARGO | Corporate Trust Services

 

MAC R1204-010

9062 Old Annapolis Road

Columbia, MD 21045

 

Tel: 410-884-2000

Fax: 410-715-2380 |
|-----------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

                

 

 

Bank of America Merrill Lynch Commercial Mortgage Inc. 

Bank of America Tower

One Bryant Park

New York, New York 10036, 

Attention: David S. Fallick

 

 

RE: Annual Statement of Compliance

 

The undersigned, a duly authorized officer of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as Certificate Administrator for the Marriott Chicago River North Hotel Loan Combination (in such capacity, “Wells Fargo”), hereby certifies as follows as of and for the year ending December 31, 2014 (the “reporting period”):

 

 

(a)     A review of Wells Fargo’s activities during the reporting period and of its performance under the applicable servicing agreement(s) listed on Schedule A hereto (the “Servicing Agreement(s)”) has been made under my supervision; and

 

(b)     To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, Wells Fargo has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Servicing Agreement(s) in all material respects throughout the reporting period, except as noted on Schedule B.

 

 

 

March 26, 2015

 

 

/s/ Brian Smith

Brian Smith

Vice President

 

 

To: Bank of America Merrill Lynch Commercial Mortgage Inc. 

Schedule A

 

 

 

 

List of Servicing Agreement(s) and Series

 

 

Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of October 1, 2013, by and among MORGAN STANLEY CAPITAL I INC., as Depositor, WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Master Servicer, MIDLAND LOAN SERVICES, A DIVISION OF PNC BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Special Servicer, TRIMONT REAL ESTATE ADVISORS, INC., as Trust Advisor, U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION as Trustee, and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. as Certificate Administrator, Certificate Registrar, Authenticating Agent and Custodian relating to the Marriott Chicago River North Hotel Loan Combination, a pari passu portion of which is included in the Series MSBAM 2013-C11 Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates. 

 

 

To: Bank of America Merrill Lynch Commercial Mortgage Inc. 

 

 

 

Schedule B

 

 

Material Non-Compliance with Servicing Obligations

 

Not Applicable
#### Superb General Contracting Co., Appellant, v. City of New York et al., Respondents, et al., Defendants.

Submitted November 19, 2007;

decided March 20, 2008

Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<CURRENCY> US. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                6,263,635
<ALLOWANCES>                               (2,593,328)
<INVENTORY>                                  1,764,003
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             7,839,990
<PP&E>                                       1,227,453
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              13,684,530
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       10,370,967
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       130,119
<OTHER-SE>                                  10,640,929
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                13,684,530
<SALES>                                      5,126,536
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             5,126,536
<CGS>                                        2,738,284
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                6,850,364
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             196,443
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,920,271)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       257
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,920,528)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,920,528)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.15)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>