alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### RICHARD M. DAVIS, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. TOWNSHIP OF WALL, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.

Superior Court of New Jersey Appellate Division

Argued telephonically October 23, 1995

Decided December 7, 1995.

Before Judges HAVEY and D’ANNUNZIO.

*R. Gregory Leonard*argued the cause for appellant *(Leonard & Butler, P.C.,*attorneys; *George W. Keefer,*on the brief).

*Dennis M. Crawford*argued the cause for respondent *(Gilroy, Cramer, McLaughlin & Gelson, P.C.,*attorneys; *Mr. Crawford,*on the brief).

PER CURIAM.

The Wall Township Tax Assessor denied farmland assessment to appellant for the year 1992. The assessor contended that the *681Township had not received appellant’s farmland assessment application. Appellant alleged that he had timely mailed the application, but he had no proof of mailing and could not produce a copy of the application.

Appellant appealed the denial to the County Tax Board and his appeal was rejected. Appellant then appealed the County Tax Board’s determination to the Tax Court by filing a complaint. Appellant mailed the complaint to the Tax Court a few days before expiration of the statutory limitation period contained in *N.J.S.A*54:51A-9(a). The Tax Court received the complaint for filing eight days after the limitation period had expired. Judge Hamill dismissed appellant’s complaint deeming the statutory limitation period to be jurisdictional and also denied appellant’s motion for reconsideration.

Appellant appeals the Tax Court’s dismissal of his complaint, and we affirm substantially for the reasons expressed by Judge Hamill in her oral opinions.

Affirmed.
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 36 (Thursday, February 22, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 11158]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-4335]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary


Defense Science Board; Notice of Meeting

ACTION: Notice of Advisory Committee Meetings.

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

SUMMARY: The Defense Science Board (DSB) Task Force Precision Targeting 
will meet in closed session March 29-30, 2001; April 19-20, 2001; May 
10-11, 2001; June 14-15, 2001; and July 26-27, 2001, at SAIC, 4001 N. 
Fairfax Drive, Arlington, VA 22201. The Task Force will examine the 
full range of the precision weapons targeting in tactical military 
operations, from target execution, location, and identification through 
mission execution and damage assessment. Target types will include 
fixed installations and both transportable and mobile military force 
elements.
    The mission of the Defense Science Board is to advise the Secretary 
of Defense and the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, 
Technology & Logistics on scientific and technical matters as they 
affect the perceived needs of the Department of Defense. The Task Force 
will review: all planned precision weapons programs and procurements to 
determine the degree to which these weapons are compatible with 
targeting requirements for different target classes; the degree to 
which existing and planned reconnaissance and surveillance assets are 
used to effectively develop target sets, real time targeting data and 
perform battle damage assessment under varied degrees of cover, 
concealment and deception; our ability to identify and precisely locate 
targets while minimizing false alarms using automatic target 
recognition techniques and precision location technologies; and our 
ability to attack moving targets.
    In accordance with section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee 
Act, Pub. L. No. 92-463, as amended (5 U.S.C. App. II), it has been 
determined that these Defense Science Board meetings, concern matters 
listed in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(1), and that accordingly these meetings will 
be closed to the public.

    Dated: February 14, 2001.
L.M. Bynum,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 01-4335 Filed 2-21-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-10-M
#### In the Matter of: Dean KALIVAS, Debtor, Dean Kalivas, Appellant, v. D. Gerard McAleese; et al., Appellees.

No. 07-35608.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Jan. 13, 2009.*

Filed Feb. 11, 2009.

Dean Kalivas, Seattle, WA, pro se.

Marc K. Sellers, Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt, Portland, OR, for Appellees.

Before: O’SCANNLAIN, BYBEE, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Attorney Dean Kalivas appeals pro se from the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel’s (“BAP”) order affirming the bankruptcy court’s order dismissing his adversary complaint. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). We review BAP decisions de novo and use the same standard used by the BAP to review the bankruptcy court’s decision. *Busseto Foods, Inc. v. Laizure (In re Laizure),*548 F.3d 693, 696 (9th Cir.2008). We affirm.

The BAP properly affirmed the bankruptcy court’s conclusion that the district court did not act until it had obtained relief from the automatic stay, and therefore did not violate the automatic stay. The BAP also properly affirmed the bankruptcy court’s determination that its order granting relief from the automatic stay so that the district court could enter judgment necessarily included entry of findings of fact and conclusions of law. *See*Fed. R.Civ.P. 52(a) (requiring separate entry of findings of fact and conclusions of law following a bench trial).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 36 (Thursday, February 22, 2001)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 11108]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-4329]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[CGD07-01-011]


Drawbridge Operation Regulations: Stickney Point Bridge (SR 72), 
Sarasota, Sarasota County, FL

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of temporary deviation from regulations.

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

SUMMARY: The Commander, Seventh Coast Guard District, has approved a 
temporary deviation from the regulations governing the operation of the 
Stickney Point Drawbridge (SR 72) across the Gulf Intracoastal 
Waterway, mile 68.6, Sarasota, Sarasota County, Florida. This deviation 
allows the drawbridge owner or operator to only open a single leaf from 
February 26, 2001 to February 28, 2001 from 8 a.m. until 5 p.m., daily. 
This temporary deviation is requred to allow the bridge owner to safely 
complete maintenance to the drawbridge.

DATES: This deviation is effective from February 26, 2001 to February 
28, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Barry Dragon, Chief, Operations 
Section, Seventh Coast Guard District, Bridge Section at (305) 415-
6743.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Stickney Point Drawbridge (SR 72) across 
the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway at Sarasota, FL is a double leaf bridge 
with a vertical clearance of 18 feet above mean high water (MHW) 
measured at the center in the closed position. On January 24, 2001 the 
owner requested a deviation from the current operating regulation in 33 
CFR 117.35 which requires the drawbridge to open promptly and fully 
when a request to open is given. This temporary deviation was requested 
to allow necessary maintenance to the drawbridge in a critical time 
sensitive manner.
    The District Commander has granted a temporary deviation from the 
operating requirements listed in 33 CFR 117.35 for the purpose of 
maintenance of the drawbridge. Under this deviation, the Stickney Point 
Drawbridge (SR 72) need only open one leaf from February 26, 2001 to 
February 28, 2001 from 8 a.m. until 5 p.m., daily.

    Dated: February 13, 2001.
G. E. Shapley,
Chief, Bridge Administration, Seventh Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 01-4329 Filed 2-21-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-U
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          AUG-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               AUG-31-1996
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            8,188
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     2,787,000
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         0
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  128,920
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (857,396)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (128,920)
<DISCONTINUED>                               (728,476)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (857,396)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.31)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.31)
        

</TABLE>
I

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 2068

To revive, and extend until January 1, 1999, the suspension of duty on

certain narrow fabric weaving machines.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MAY 11, 1993

Mr. MACHTLEY introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Ways and Means

A BILL

To revive, and extend until January 1, 1999, the suspension

of duty on certain narrow fabric weaving machines.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. SUSPENSION OF DUTY.

4 Heading 9902.84.42 (relating to power-driven weav5 ing machines for weaving fabrics not exceeding 30cm in

6 width) of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United

7 States is amended by striking out ‘‘12/31/92’’ and insert8 ing ‘‘12/31/98’’.
2

•HR 2068 IH

1 SEC. 2. EFFECTIVE DATE.

2 (a) IN GENERAL.—The amendment made by sub3 section (a) applies with respect to goods entered, or with4 drawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after the

5 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.

6 (b) RETROACTIVE APPLICATION TO TERMINATION OF

7 PREVIOUS SUSPENSION.—Notwithstanding section 514 of

8 the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1514) or any other pro9 vision of law, upon proper request filed with the appro10 priate customs officer before the 90th day after the date

11 of the enactment of this Act, any entry, or withdrawal

12 from warehouse for consumption, of any good described

13 in heading 9902.84.42 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule

14 of the United States that was made—

15 (1) after December 31, 1992; and

16 (2) before the 15th day after the date of the en17 actment of this Act;

18 shall be liquidated or reliquidated as though such entry

19 or withdrawal occurred on the 15th day after the date of

20 the enactment of this Act.

Æ
941 A.2d 1255

#### COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Respondent v. Patrick H. OTTERSON, Petitioner.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

Dec. 28, 2007.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 28th day of December, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is hereby GRANTED, the Order of the Superior Court is VACATED, and the matter is REMANDED to the Superior Court for consideration in light of *Commonwealth v. Torres,*564 Pa. 86, 764 A.2d 532 (2001).
#### STATE OF CONNECTICUT *v.*FRANKIE FRYER

*Kimberly Albright,*pro se, and *Anthony Lazzari,*pro se, in support of the petition.

*Susan C. Marks,*supervisory assistant state’s attorney, in opposition.

Decided July 14, 2010

The petition by Kimberly Albright and Anthony Lazzari for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court (AC 31948) is denied.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack, Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 November 24, 2020

t1116

Order 

Clerk

November 24, 2020

159472

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 159472

COA: 347051

Jackson CC: 17-005183-FH

KEVIN LYN BEVERLY,

Defendant-Appellant.

_____________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the February 25, 2019 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
State $4.00 $4.50 $5.00 $5.50 $6.00 $6.50 $7.00 $7.50 

Alabama 5,445,007 249,643 1,272,708 Alaska 1,845,151 

Arizona 3,212,264,058 

Arkansas 1,834,137 716,264 

California 19,097,869,022 11,455,747 1,711,225 Colorado 1,744,465,479 32,553,354 1,254,659 Connecticut 75,490,716 

Delaware Florida 592,677,901 2,085,069 Georgia 403,244,642 2,090,0HawaiiIdaho 7,152,826,955 1,539,654 Illinois 84,309,559 3,991,509 1,813,513 1,827,934 1,747,909 504,392 1,941,9Indiana 1,521,276,272 2,222,785 5,200,002 886,3

Iowa 1,221,210,133 755,098 1,238,3Kansas 2,081,334,637 3,654,447 131,671 6,233,909 6,079,971 1,584,475 1,357,5Kentucky 107,044,892 Louisiana Maine 30,303,206 

Maryland 4,151,294 3,300,280 Massachusetts 1,289,259 3,157,833 Michigan 1,433,624,309 396,087 1,852,127 6,338,0

Minnesota 1,497,819,436 11,612,777 828,513 1,753,026 5,129,656 2,209,755 12,912,9Mississippi 2,740,812 4,887,1

Missouri 60,923,856 1,567,383 7,448,604 721,084 303,7Montana 34,793,895 5,262,707 1,137,154 

Nebraska 744,376,820 36,868,902 Nevada 576,172,253 New Hampshire 5,541,020 585,264 

New Jersey New Mexico 6,800,032,282 3,722,080 New York 758,399,718 1,453,001 1,293,174 

North Carolina 310,348,818 

North Dakota 70,485,527 1,563,992 756,4

Ohio 1,012,249,969 5,793,719 6,854,8Oklahoma 298,286,615 12,402,625 Oregon 591,024,494 Pennsylvania 283,645,720 14,744,197 3,844,761 2,965,494 2,172,6Puerto Rico 1,460,282 

Rhode Island 

South Carolina 

South Dakota 1,284,692,986 1,425,416 4,227,072 4,960,107 2,552,2

Tennessee 15,226,995 841,558 

Texas 7,762,587,743 122,665,031 47,497,879 1,439,969 Utah 336,988,396 926,2

Vermont 64,483,182 1,662,975 377,699 

Virginia 18,274,863 995,222 2,233,2

Washington 2,523,858,867 1,837,094 2,262,8West Virginia 

Wisconsin 5,574,613,655 1,277,630 46,133,668 5,136,773 842,485 15,432,3Wyoming 79,985,846 

Grand Totals 69,479,675,528 38,146,532 299,769,586 5,789,289 61,999,067 33,990,138 23,671,250 65,146,9

Table 4: Production History Eligible for Payment (Production History Multiplied by Coverage Level Selected: 25% to 90%) for 2018 Margin Protection Program Dairy 

January 12, 2023

Covered Production History ‐ Pounds Eligible for Payment

Prepared by USDA/Farm Service Agency
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          APR-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             MAY-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-31-1998
<CASH>                                      15,602,411
<SECURITIES>                                22,403,282
<RECEIVABLES>                               29,609,620
<ALLOWANCES>                                 9,449,065
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            63,671,689
<PP&E>                                       3,939,921
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,115,410
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              73,636,798
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       11,220,322
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        69,580
<OTHER-SE>                                  53,997,103
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                73,636,798
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            17,851,022
<CGS>                                        2,275,119
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               10,502,683
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               239,194
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               716,439
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           (508,811)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              2,059,057
<INCOME-TAX>                                   749,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,070,763
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                      592,689
<NET-INCOME>                                   478,074
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.15
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.15
        

</TABLE>
```

[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 36 (Thursday, February 22, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 11169-11170]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-4476]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL HOUSING FINANCE BOARD

Sunshine Act Meeting; Cancellation

Federal Register Citation of Previous Announcement: 66 FR 10503, 
February 15, 2001.

Previously Announced Time and Date of the Meeting: 2 a.m., Wednesday, 
February 28, 2001.

Cancellation of the Meeting: Notice is hereby given of the cancellation 
of the Board of Directors meeting scheduled for February 28, 2001.

[[Page 11170]]

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elaine L. Baker, Secretary to the 
Board, (202) 408-2837.

James L. Bothwell,
Managing Director.
[FR Doc. 01-4476 Filed 2-20-01; 10:23 am]
BILLING CODE 6725-01-P
```
EX-10.4 ASSIGNMENT AND ASSUMPTION AGREEMENT



 








Exhibit 10.4




ASSIGNMENT AND ASSUMPTION AGREEMENT





     WHIPPLE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, a South Carolina corporation (hereinafter referred to as
“Assignor”), for and in consideration of the sum of Ten and NO/l00 ($10.00) Dollars, and other good
and valuable considerations to it paid by EBANK MORTGAGE, LLC, a Georgia limited liability company
(hereinafter referred to as “Assignee”), the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby
acknowledged, has ASSIGNED, SOLD and TRANSFERRED, and by these presents does ASSIGN, SELL and
TRANSFER, unto Assignee, without any warranty whatsoever, expressed or implied, all of the
following:



     Any and all of Assignor’s interests in and to the tenant lease by and between 2401 Lake Park
Drive Associates, L.P., a Georgia limited partnership whose sole general partner is 2401 Lake Park
Drive Holding Corp., a Georgia corporation (as “Landlord”) and Whipple Development Corporation (as
“Tenant”) dated June 1, 1998, as amended by First Amendment to Lease between the parties, dated
September 25, 2001 (hereinafter collectively referred to as the “Lease”), which Lease is for 2,430
rentable square feet of office space located on the 2nd floor of Park Centre Office
Building at 2401 Lake Park Drive, Smyrna, Georgia 30080-8812 (hereinafter referred to as the
“Property”). A copy of the entire Lease is attached hereto as Exhibit “A”.



     As a part of the consideration to Assignor for the assignment, transfer and sale of the Lease,
Assignee, by its acceptance hereof, hereby assumes and agrees to perform all of the
responsibilities and obligations of the landlord or lessor under the Lease arising and accruing
under said Lease from and after the date of this instrument. Assignee hereby agrees to defend,
indemnify and hold Assignor harmless from and against any breach, violation or non-performance on
the part of Assignee of any covenants or conditions of the Lease arising or accruing from and after
the date hereof.



     This Assignment and Assumption of Lease shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of
Assignor and Assignee and their respective successors and assigns.



     Executed under seal, this the 19th day of April, 2006



	 	 	 	 	 
	 	ASSIGNOR





WHIPPLE DEVELOPMENT

CORPORATION

 	 
	 	By:  	/s/ Marie M. Cole
 	 
	 	 	Marie M. Cole, Vice President 	 
	 	 	 	 
	 



(signatures continued on next page)




	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	ASSIGNEE	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	EBANK MORTGAGE, LLC, a Georgia	 	 
	 	 	limited liability company	 	 






 









 






	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	By:
	 	/s/ Lucien J. Barrette
 

	 	 
	 	 	LUCIEN J. BARRETTE, PRESIDENT	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	CONSENT TO BY LANDLORD:	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	2401 LAKE PARK DRIVE	 	 
	 	 	ASSOCIATES, L.P.	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	BY: 2401 LAKE PARK DRIVE	 	 
	 	 	HOLDING CORP., ITS SOLE	 	 
	 	 	GENERAL PARTNER	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	BY:
	 	/s/ Edward L. Terry
 

EDWARD L. TERRY, PRESIDENT
	 	 







-2-