alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A18A2099. NORMAN EUGENE PARKER v. THE STATE.

Following a jury trial, Norman Eugene Parker was convicted of entering an

automobile with intent to commit theft and obstruction of a law enforcement officer. 

This Court affirmed his convictions on direct appeal. Parker v. State, Case No.

A14A0656 (affirmed June 18, 2014). In September 2017, Parker filed a motion to

vacate a void sentence, claiming that his sentences were void because the trial court

erred in imposing consecutive sentences and erred in sentencing him as a recidivist. 

The trial court dismissed the motion on April 17, 2018, and Parker filed this appeal

on May 25, 2018.

Pretermitting whether Parker may directly appeal the trial court’s order,1

Parker’s appeal is untimely. A notice of appeal must be filed within 30 days after

entry of the order to be appealed. OCGA § 5-6-38 (a). The proper and timely filing

of a notice of appeal is an absolute requirement to confer jurisdiction on this Court. 

Rowland v. State, 264 Ga. 872, 872 (1) (452 SE2d 756) (1995). Here, Parker filed his

1 An appeal may lie from an order denying a motion to vacate a void sentence

if the defendant raises a colorable claim that the sentence is, in fact, void or illegal.

See Harper v. State, 286 Ga. 216, 217 n.1 (1) (686 SE2d 786) (2009); Burg v. State,

297 Ga. App. 118, 119 (676 SE2d 465) (2009). A sentence is void only if it imposes

punishment that the law does not allow. Crumbley v. State, 261 Ga. 610, 611 (1) (409

SE2d 517) (1991). “Motions to vacate a void sentence generally are limited to claims

that – even assuming the existence and validity of the conviction for which the

sentence was imposed – the law does not authorize that sentence, most typically

because it exceeds the mostsevere punishment for which the applicable penal statute

provides.” Von Thomas v. State, 293 Ga. 569, 572 (2) (748 SE2d 446) (2013).

August 07, 2018
notice of appeal 38 days after the trial court’s dismissal order. Accordingly, this

appeal is hereby DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

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.

08/07/2018
May 30, 1979

79-40 MEMORANDUM OPINION FOR THE ACTING

GENERAL COUNSEL, DEPARTMENT OF

COMMERCE

Loans—Department of Commerce—Guarantee of

Payment of Interest—42 U.S.C. § 3142

This is in response to your request of May 3, for our opinion on an 

aspect of the authority granted, to the Secretary of Commerce by § 202 of 

the Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965 (PWEDA), as 

amended, 42 U.S.C. § 3142, to issue 90 percent guarantees of payment of 

fixed asset and working capital loans made to private borrowers by private 

lending institutions. In particular, you asked whether the respective 

authorizing provisions of the statute, 42 U.S.C. § 3142(a)(1)(C) and 

§ 3142(a)(3)(B), which speak only of the guarantees of “ loans,” permit 

the Secretary to include payment of interest on the loans within his 

assurances.

As you noted in the opinion that accompanied your letter, the Attorney 

General in 1971 concluded that the Export-Import Bank, which is explicitly given the power by § 2(a) of its enabling indebtedness, but not interest 

thereon, has the power to guarantee such interest despite the omission. 42 

Op. A.G. 429, at 430-431 (1971). In reaching that result the Attorney 

General relied on New Orleans v. Clark, 95 U.S. 644, 651-652 (1877), 

where it was held that a contractual guarantee of certain bonds which did 

not by its terms extend to the interest on the bonds embraced both the 

principal and interest nonetheless. The Court was categorical in its 

explanation:

The payment of bonds, without other designation, always implies a payment of the principal sum and its incident; and a 

guaranty in similar terms covers both. [Id., at 651.]

In the absence of anything in PWEDA to the contrary, we view this statement as dispositive of the question you have posed.

It might be added that an earlier Attorney General’s opinion, 42 Op. 

A.G. 417, at 418-419 (1969), dealt with two statutory provisions, 7 U.S.C.

246
§ 1928 and 42 U.S.C. § 1487(d), which give the Farmers Home Administration (FHA) the authority to ensure certain loans. Although 7 

U.S.C. § 1928 simply authorizes the insurance of “ loans,” the other 

statute authorizes insurance of “ the payment of principal and interest on 

loans.” No doubt because the point was not in issue, the Attorney General 

assumed without discussion that FHA could properly ensure the payment 

of interest on the loans under the former law as well as the latter, with the 

result that its commitments to pay interest under both, like those to pay 

principal, are backed by the full faith and credit of the United States. This 

correct assumption, it seems fair to say, simply reflected the well understood, indeed almost axiomatic, principle expressed in the quotation from 

New Orleans v. Clark.

In short, we share your view that the Secretary of Commerce has the 

power to guarantee not only 90 percent of the principal of fixed asset and 

working capital loans made by private lending institutions under the provisions of PWEDA but also 90 percent of the interest payable on such 

loans.

Leo n U lm an

Deputy Assistant Attorney General

Office o f Legal Counsel

247
#### Anita Howell, Respondent, v. Alphonse Christlieb and Daniel Lamm, Impleaded with Otto C. Heinze and Others, Appellants.

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. No opinion.
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATION

I, Carla Anita Kneipp,
certify that:

1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of CenterPoint Energy Transition Bond Company IV, LLC (the Exchange Act periodic
reports);

2. Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do not contain any untrue statement of a
material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3. Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and other information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;

4. I am
responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the Servicer, and based on my knowledge and the compliance review conducted in preparing the servicer compliance statement required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and
except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicer has fulfilled its obligations under the Transition Property Servicing Agreement dated as of January 19, 2012 between CenterPoint Energy Transition Bond Company IV, LLC, as
the Issuing Entity, and the Servicer, in all material respects; and

5. All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing
criteria for asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and
Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwise disclosed in this report. Any material instances of
noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.

In giving the
certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties: Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas, as Indenture Trustee.

Date: March 27, 2017



|                       |  |                                                                                                                                    
|---------------------- |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Carla Anita Kneipp
|Name:                  |  | Carla Anita Kneipp                                                                                                                 
|Title:                 |  | Vice President and Treasurer (Senior Officer
in Charge of Servicing Function) CenterPoint Energy Houston Electric, LLC, as servicer
§ 18.13 Withdrawal or correction of filed documents. ( a ) A document that has been filed for public inspection with the Office of the Federal Register but not yet published, may be withdrawn from publication or corrected by the submitting agency. Withdrawals or minor corrections may be made with a timely letter, signed by a duly authorized representative of the agency. Extensive corrections may require agency withdrawal of the document from publication.
( b ) Both the originally filed document and the withdrawing or correcting letter shall remain on file. The original document and the withdrawing or correcting letter will be retained by the Office of the Federal Register after the public inspection period expires.
[54 FR 9681, Mar. 7, 1989]
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                         947,158
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  397,671
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               2,606,657
<PP&E>                                         2,783,823
<DEPRECIATION>                                 955,998
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 5,828,060
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          2,080,868
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       5,939,507
<OTHER-SE>                                     0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   5,828,060
<SALES>                                        15,323,952
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               15,369,264
<CGS>                                          605,814
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  14,718,138
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             64,827
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                586,299
<INCOME-TAX>                                   4,600
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            581,699
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   581,699
<EPS-BASIC>                                    .09
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  .09



</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 32.1


                          SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATIONS

                  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 Form 10-QSB of Intergold Corporation (the "Company")
on Form  10-QSB  for the  period  ended  September  30,  2003 as filed  with the
Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  I, Grant
Atkins, President and Chief Executive Officer 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 based on my knowledge:

     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.


Date:  November 12, 2003


/s/ GRANT ATKINS
______________________________________
Grant Atkins
President and Chief Executive 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 INTERGOLD  CORPORATION AND WILL BE
RETAINED BY INTERGOLD  CORPORATION  AND FURNISHED TO THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
COMMISSION OR ITS STAFF UPON REQUEST.
#### Ellena Maris, Appellant, v. Mark E. Swan, Respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs. No opinion.
#### §§ 457.152-457.159 [Reserved]
**Exhibit 34.4**

<LOGO> 

REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLICACCOUNTING FIRM 

LNR Partners, LLC 

Miami Beach, Florida

We have examined management’s assertion, included in the accompanying Management’s Report on Assessment of Compliance with SEC Regulation ABServicing Criteria, that LNR Partners, LLC (the “Company”) complied with the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Regulation AB for the commercial mortgage-backed securitiestransactions for which the Company served as special servicer, and that were registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to the Securities Act of 1933 (the “Platform”) as of and for the year ended December 31,2013, excluding criteria 1122(d)(1)(iii), (3)(i)(c), (3)(i)(d), (3)(ii), (3)(iii), (3)(iv), (4)(v), (4)(ix), (4)(x), (4)(xi), (4)(xii), (4)(xiii), (4)(xiv) and (4)(xv) which management has determined are not applicable to the activitiesperformed by the Company with respect to the Platform. Management is responsible for the Company’s compliance with the servicing criteria. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on management’s assertion about the Company’scompliance with the servicing criteria based on our examination. 

Our examination was conducted in accordance with attestation standards established bythe American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, as adopted by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States), and, accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Company’s compliance with theapplicable servicing criteria, including tests on a sample basis of the servicing activities related to the Platform, determining whether the Company performed those selected activities in compliance with the servicing criteria during the specifiedperiod, and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. Our procedures were limited to selected servicing activities performed by the Company during the period covered by this report and, accordingly, suchsamples may not have included servicing activities related to each asset-backed transaction included in the Platform. Further, an examination is not designed to detect noncompliance arising from errors that may have occurred prior to the periodspecified above that may have affected the balances or amounts calculated or reported by the Company during the period covered by this report. We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our examination does notprovide a legal determination on the Company’s compliance with the servicing criteria. 

In our opinion, management’s assertion that the Companycomplied with the aforementioned applicable servicing criteria as of and for the year ended December 31, 2013 for the commercial mortgage-backed securities Platform is fairly stated, in all material respects. 

/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP 

February 28, 2014
July 2 0 , 2017



### JUDGMENT 

## The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

HEATHER TENINI KUENT Z, INDIVIDUALLY, AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF TH E ESTATE OF ROBERT M ICHAEL KUENTZ, DECEASED, AND AS NEX T F RIEND OF B.M.K , A MINOR, LARRY MICHAEL “ ROBERT ” KUENTZ AND SANDRA KUENTZ , Appellant s
NO. 14

- 15

- 01031

- CV V.

CO LE SYSTEMS GROUP, INC., D/B/A THE COLE GROUP
, Appellee

________________________________ This cause, an appeal from the partial judgment in favor of appellee, Cole Systems Group, Inc., d/b/a The Cole Group , signed November 4, 2015 and made final by order of dismissal pursuant to non

- s uit signed December 4, 2015 , was heard on the transcript of the record. We have inspected the record and find no error in the judgment. We order the judgment of the court below AFFIRMED

. We order appellant, Heather Tenini Kuentz, Individually, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Robert Michael Kuentz, deceased, and as Next Friend of B.M.K. , a Minor, Larry Michael “ Robert ” Kuentz and Sandra Kuentz , jointly and several ly, to pay all costs incurred in this appeal.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
**EXHIBIT
      32.1**


**CERTIFICATION
      OF PERIODIC FINANCIAL REPORTS**





Pursuant
      to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of The Doe Run Resources
      Corporation (the ‘‘Company’’), does hereby certify, to such officer’s knowledge,
      that:





(a) The
      quarterly report on Form 10-Q/A for the quarter ended April 30, 2006, of the
      Company as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
      (the “Form 10-Q/A”), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
      15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





(b) The
      information contained in the Form 10-Q/A fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Company.








Date:
      October 19, 2006











By: /s/
      A. Bruce Neil


A.
      Bruce
      Neil


President
      & Chief Executive Officer


(Principal
      Executive Officer)
### **CHAPTER 385—OTHER TECHNOLOGY BASE POLICIES AND PROGRAMS**

Subchapter
Sec.
I.
Defense Trade Reciprocity and Offset Policy
4851
II.
Limitations on Procurement of Certain Items from Foreign Sources
4861
III.
Limitations on Procurement from Certain Foreign Sources
4871
IV.
Defense Industrial Reserve and Industrial Mobilization
4881
V.
Other Matters
4891

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

A prior chapter 385 "PROCUREMENT TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT PROGRAM", consisting of reserved section 4881, was repealed by Pub. L. 116–283, div. A, title XVIII, §1872(a)(1)(A), Jan. 1, 2021, 134 Stat. 4287.
Appendix O.2 

EPA Request for 

Additional Information: Sea Salt
Appendix 0.2 - 1
Appendix 0.2 - 2
Appendix 0.2 - 3
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

U.S. Indo-Pacific CommandUSINDOPACOM

U.S. Indo-Pacific Command

Search

Search
Search

-  Home		 
-  Leadership    -  Commander         
  -  Deputy Commander         
  -  Chief of Staff         
  -  Senior Enlisted Leader 
-  About USINDOPACOM    -  History         
  -  USPACOM Area of Responsibility         
  -  USPACOM Previous Commanders         
  -  Women, Peace and Security 
-  Organization    -  Organization Chart 
-  Media    -  News      -  Spotlight 
  -  Photos         
  -  Speeches / Testimony         
  -  Freedom of Information Act      -  FOIA - Reading Room         
    -  Submit FOIA Request         
    -  Request Status         
    -  FOIA FAQS 
-  Resources    -  Travel Requirements         
  -  Useful Theater Information         
  -  FAQ         
  -  Useful Links 
-  Newcomers		 
-  Contact    -  Directory         
  -  Media Inquiries         
  -  Industry Engagements 
-  JTF - Red Hill		 

Home : Media : News : News Article View

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

# U.S. Marines Simultaneously Launch Major Bilateral Exercises with Japan, Philippines

By Courtesy Story3rd Marine Division

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT                

More
Exhibit
10.7


 


Legato
Merger Corp. II


777
Third Avenue, 37th Floor


New
York, New York 10017


 


[●],
2021


 


Crescendo
Advisors II, LLC


777
Third Avenue, 37th Floor


New
York, New York 10017


 


Ladies
and Gentlemen:


 


This
letter will confirm our agreement that, commencing on the effective date (the “Effective Date”) of the registration
statement (the “Registration Statement”) for the initial public offering (the “IPO”)
of securities of Legato Merger Corp. II (the “Company”) and continuing until the earlier of (i) the consummation
by the Company of an initial business combination or (ii) the Company’s liquidation (in each case as described in the Registration
Statement) (such earlier date hereinafter referred to as the “Termination Date”), Crescendo Advisors II, LLC
shall make available to the Company certain office space and administrative and support services as may be required by the Company from
time to time, situated at 777 Third Avenue, 37th Floor, New York, New York 10017 (or any successor location). In exchange therefore,
the Company shall pay Crescendo Advisors II, LLC the sum of $15,000 per month on the Effective Date and continuing monthly thereafter
until the Termination Date. Crescendo Advisors II, LLC hereby agrees that it does not have any right, title, interest or claim of any
kind in or to any monies that may be set aside in a trust account (the “Trust Account”) to be established upon
the consummation of the IPO (the “Claim”) and hereby waives any Claim it may have in the future as a result
of, or arising out of, any negotiations, contracts or agreements with the Company and will not seek recourse against the Trust Account
for any reason whatsoever.


 


[Signature
Page Follows]


 






     


     


    

 


	 	Very truly yours,
	 	 	 	 
	 	LEGATO MERGER CORP. II
	 	 	 	 
	 	By:	 
	 	 	Name:  	Gregory
Monahan
	 	 	Title:	Chief Executive Officer


 


	AGREED TO AND ACCEPTED BY:	 
	 	 	 
	CRESCENDO ADVISORS II, LLC	 
	 	 	 
	By:	 	 
	 	Name:  	 
	 	Title:	 


 


[Signature
Page to Administrative Services Agreement]