alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 11.711 Descent and distribution. ( a ) The court shall distribute the estate according to the terms of the will of the decedent which has been admitted to probate.
( b ) If the decedent died intestate or having left a will which has been rejected by the court, the estate shall be distributed as follows: ( 1 ) According to the laws and customs of the tribe if such laws and customs are proved; or
( 2 ) According to state law absent the existence of tribal laws or customs.
( c ) If no person takes under the above subsections, the estate shall escheat to the tribe.
### §4143. Research and development laboratories: contracts for services of university students

(a) Subject to the availability of appropriations for such purpose, the Secretary of Defense may procure by contract under the authority of this section the temporary or intermittent services of students at institutions of higher learning for the purpose of providing technical support at defense research and development laboratories. Such contracts may be made directly with such students or with nonprofit organizations employing such students.

(b) Students providing services pursuant to a contract made under subsection (a) shall be considered to be employees for the purposes of chapter 81 of title 5, relating to compensation for work injuries, and to be employees of the government for the purposes of chapter 171 of title 28, relating to tort claims. Such students who are not otherwise employed by the Federal Government shall not be considered to be Federal employees for any other purpose.

(c) The Secretary of Defense shall prescribe regulations to carry out this section. Such regulations shall include definitions for the purposes of this section of the terms "student", "institution of higher learning", and "nonprofit organization".

(Added Pub. L. 97–86, title VI, §603(a), Dec. 1, 1981, 95 Stat. 1110, §2360; renumbered §4143, Pub. L. 116–283, div. A, title XVIII, §1844(b), as added Pub. L. 117–81, div. A, title XVII, §1701(u)(5)(B), Dec. 27, 2021, 135 Stat. 2154; Pub. L. 116–283, div. A, title XVIII, §1843(b)(2), Jan. 1, 2021, 134 Stat. 4245; Pub. L. 117–81, div. A, title XVII, §1701(u)(4)(A), Dec. 27, 2021, 135 Stat. 2153.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2021—Pub. L. 116–283, §1844(b), as added by Pub. L. 117–81, §1701(u)(5)(B), renumbered section 2360 of this title as this section.

Pub. L. 116–283, §1843(b)(2), which directed the renumbering of section 2360 of this title as section 4112 instead of this section, was repealed by Pub. L. 117–81, §1701(u)(4)(A), effective as if included therein, so that such renumbering was no longer directed.

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date of 2021 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 117–81 applicable as if included in the enactment of title XVIII of Pub. L. 116–283 as enacted, see section 1701(a)(2) of Pub. L. 117–81, set out in a note preceding section 3001 of this title and note below.

Amendment by Pub. L. 116–283 effective Jan. 1, 2022, with additional provisions for delayed implementation and applicability of existing law, see section 1801(d) of Pub. L. 116–283, set out as a note preceding section 3001 of this title.
[No. 5094.]

[No. 2666 C. A.]

#### Hotchkiss, Administrator, v. The First National Bank of Denver et al.

1. Practice in Civil Actions — Judgment by Default — Judgment in Chambers.

In default cases where the testimony is taken, it must be by *the court or referee, in*accordance with § 168, Code Civ. Proc.; therefore the district judge in chambers in one county cannot take testimony and render judgment which should be done by the court in another county in his district. — P. 230.

*2292. Estates of Decedents — District Courts — County Courts — Allowance of Claims.

A district court has no authority to enter a decree that a judgment rendered by it against'an administrator shall be allowed and paid as a claim of a certain class, as this is an usurpation of the authority of the county court as conferred by § 4793, Mills’ Ann. 'Stats. — P. 230.

*Error to the District Court of Montrose County.*

*Hon. Theron Stevens, Judge.*

Action by The First National Bank of Denver and B. F. Bichardson against Panl Gehr and others, in which Y. L. Hotchkiss, administrator of Paul Gehr, deceased, was substituted. • From a decree in favor of plaintiffs, defendant administrator brings error.

*Reversed.*

Messrs. Story & Story, for plaintiff in error.

Messrs. Tolles & Cobbey, Mr. S. S. Sherman . and Mr. John Gray, for defendants in error.

Mr. Justice Bailey

delivered the opinion of the court:

This action was brought by defendants in error from the district court of Montrose county, against Paul Gehr and others. While the action was pending, Paul Gehr died, and steps were taken to substitute plaintiff in error in place of deceased. Plaintiff in error did not enter his appearance in the court below.

On January 18, 1902, a decree was rendered against plaintiff in error by the judge at chambers in Delta county. In this decree the taking of evidence is recited. Certain matters of fact are found and determined and judgment rendered against plaintiff in error in the sum of $2,396.00 and costs, and the decree provides: “That the said judgment is allowed as a fourth-class claim, and the adminis*230trator is ordered to pay tlie same *pro rata*the same •as all other claims of the fourth class.”

This judgment cannot stand. In default cases where testimony is taken, it must be by the court or referee.: — Section 168, Code of Civil Proc.

The judge in chambers in Delta county, cannot take testimony and render a. judgment which should be done by the court in Montrose county.

The decree is also erroneous in providing that the judgment should be allowed as a fourth-class claim. This was a usurpation of the province of-the county court. — Section 4793, Mills’ Ann. Stats.

We do not deem it necessary to pass upon the other errors assigned in this case. •

For the reasons above stated, the judgment will be reversed. *Reversed.*

Chief Justice Gabbert and Mr. Justice Gunter concur.
##### 



Exhibit 31.2 CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO
SECTION 302 OF
THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 I, Edward L. Pierce, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of BindView Development Corporation; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does 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, the financial statements, and other financial information
included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results
of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this
report; 4. The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and
15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information
relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others
within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures
and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and
procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the
registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected,
or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial
reporting; and 5. The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit
committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the
registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees
who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting. Date: December 20, 2004 /s/ EDWARD L. PIERCEEdward L. PierceDirector, Executive Vice President and
Chief Financial Officer
EX-31 Rule 13a-14(d)/15d-14(d) Certifications.

 

 

I, Helaine M. Kaplan, certify that:

 

1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-Drequired to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of the COMM 2012-LC4 Mortgage Trust (the "ExchangeAct periodic reports");

 

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

 

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

 

4. Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statements requiredin this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicers havefulfilled their obligations under the servicing agreements in all material respects; and

 

5. All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteriafor asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backedsecurities required to be included in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwise disclosed in this report. Any material instances ofnoncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.

 

In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on informationprovided to me by the following unaffiliated parties:

 

Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as Master Servicer, Rialto CapitalAdvisors, LLC, as Special Servicer prior to May 31, 2018, KeyBank National Association, as Special Servicer on and after May 31,2018, CWCapital Asset Management LLC, as Special Servicer of the Hartman Portfolio Mortgage Loan, U.S. Bank National Association,as Trustee, Park Bridge Lender Services LLC, as Operating Advisor, CoreLogic Commercial Real Estate Services, Inc., as ServicingFunction Participant, and National Tax Search, LLC, as Servicing Function Participant.

 

 

 

Dated: March 22, 2019

 

 

/s/ Helaine M. Kaplan

 

 

President

(senior officer in charge of securitization ofthe depositor)
# C_2006190EN.01002001.xml

| 12.8.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 190/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.8.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 190/20

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 20 June 2006 — Greece v Commission

(Case T-251/04) (1)

1

(EAGGF - Expenditure excluded from Community financing - Public storage of rice - Force majeure - Processed fruit and vegetable products - Assistance to the needy - Restructuring programme in the fruit and vegetables sector - Flat-rate corrections - Time-limit of 24 months)

(2006/C 190/34)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: V. Kontolaimos and I. Chalkias, Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. Condou-Durande, Agent, assisted by N. Korogiannakis, lawyer)

Defendant:

Re:

Action for annulment of Commission Decision 2004/457/EC of 29 April 2004 excluding from Community financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), in so far as it excludes certain expenditure by the Hellenic Republic in the sectors of fruit and vegetables and public storage

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action.

| 2. | Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 217, 28.8.2004.

1

---
#### § 273.135 Who will negotiate the contract?

After the approving official has approved the contract proposal, the awarding official, assisted by Bureau education personnel, will negotiate the contract.
§ 276.7 Standards for grantee financial management systems. ( a ) Grantee financial management systems for grants and subgrantee financial management systems for subgrants shall provide for: ( 1 ) Accurate, current, and complete disclosure of the financial results of each grant program in accordance with Federal reporting requirements and for each subgrant in accordance with the grantees' requirements. Except when specifically required by law, the Bureau wll not require financial reporting on the accrual basis from tribal organizations whose records are not maintained on that basis. However, when accrual reporting is required by law, tribal organizations whose records are not maintained on that basis will not be required to convert their accounting systems to the accrual basis; they may develop the accrual information through an analysis of the documentation on hand or on the basis of best estimates.
( 2 ) Records which identify adequately the source and application of funds for grant—or subgrant—supported activities. These records shall contain information pertaining to grant or subgrant awards and authorizations, obligations, unobligated balances, assets, liabilities, outlays, and income.
( 3 ) Effective control over and accountability for all grant or subgrant funds, and real and personal property acquired with grant or subgrant funds. Grantees and subgrantees shall adequately safeguard all such property and shall assure that it is used solely for authorized purposes.
( 4 ) Comparison of actual with budgeted amounts for each grant or subgrant, and, when specifically required by the performance reporting requirements of the grant or subgrant, relation of financial information with performance or productivity data, including the production of unit cost information.
( 5 ) Procedures to minimize the time elapsing between the transfer of funds from the U.S. Treasury and the disbursement by the grantee, whenever funds are advanced by the Federal Government. When advances are made by a letter-of-credit method, the grantees shall make drawdowns from the U.S. Treasury as close as possible to the time of making the disbursements. Subgrantees shall institute similar procedures when funds are advanced by the grantee.
( 6 ) Procedures for determining the allowability and allocability of costs shall be in accordance with the applicable cost principles prescribed in appendix A of this part.
( 7 ) Accounting records which are supported by source documentation.
( 8 ) A systematic method to assure timely and appropriate resolution of audit findings and recommendations.
( b ) Grantees shall require subgrantees (recipients of grants which are passed through by the grantee) to adopt all of the standards in paragraph (a) of this section.
#### § 150.304 Where do I request copies of title documents or reports from the LTRO?

You may request LTRO information, such as copies of title documents or reports, at any Region or Agency office with access to the record of title, regardless of geographic location. If the Region or Agency office does not have access to the title documents or the ability to generate the reports requested, it will refer the request to the office with access to the title documents or ability to generate the reports requested.
#### § 39.200 What is the purpose of the Indian School Equalization Formula?

OIEP uses the Indian School Equalization Formula (ISEF) to distribute Indian School Equalization Program (ISEP) appropriations equitably to Bureau-funded schools.
United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

___________ 

No. 21-60285

___________ 

Tesla, Incorporated,

Petitioner Cross-Respondent,

International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and 

Agricultural Implement Workers of America, AFL-CIO,

Petitioner,

versus

National Labor Relations Board,

Respondent Cross-Petitioner.

______________________________ 

Petition for Review from an Order of the

National Labor Relations Board

NLRB Order No. 370 NLRB No. 101

______________________________ 

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC

(Opinion March 31, 2023, 5 Cir., 2023, 63 F.4th 981)

Before Richman, Chief Judge, and Jones, Smith, Stewart, 

Elrod, Southwick, Haynes, Graves, Higginson, Willett, 

Ho, Duncan, Engelhardt, Oldham, Wilson, and Douglas,

Circuit Judges.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

July 21, 2023

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 21-60285 Document: 00516829528 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/21/2023
No. 21-60285

2

Per Curiam:

A member of the court having requested a poll on the petition for 

rehearing en banc, and a majority of the circuit judges in regular active service 

and not disqualified having voted in favor,

IT IS ORDERED that this cause shall be reheard by the court en 

banc with oral argument on a date hereafter to be fixed. The Clerk will 

specify a briefing schedule for the filing of supplemental briefs. Pursuant to 

5th Circuit Rule 41.3, the panel opinion in this case dated March 31, 2023, is 

VACATED. 

Case: 21-60285 Document: 00516829528 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/21/2023
#### § 583.4 Are motions permitted?

Management contract and amendment appeals are summary proceedings. Only motions for an extension of time under § 580.4(f) of this subchapter, motions to supplement the record under § 581.5 of this subchapter, and motions for reconsideration under § 581.6 of this subchapter, are permitted.
# C_2006190EN.01003601.xml

| 12.8.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 190/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.8.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 190/36

---

Action brought on 26 June 2006 — Baele and Others v Commission

(Case F-70/06)

(2006/C 190/67)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Jan Baele (Beernem, Belgium) and others (represented by: S. Rodrigues and A. Jaume, lawyers)

Applicants:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the refusal of the Appointing Authority to enter the applicants on the list of officials promoted to grades A*10 and B*10 under the 2005 promotion exercise such as those decisions implicitly result from Administrative Notice No 85-2005 of 23 November 2005; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the refusal of the Appointing Authority to enter the applicants on the list of officials promoted to grades A*10 and B*10 under the 2005 promotion exercise such as those decisions implicitly result from Administrative Notice No 85-2005 of 23 November 2005;

| — | Inform the Appointing Authority of the consequences of annulling the contested decisions, and in particular the reclassification of the applicants' grades to grade A*10 with retroactive effect from 1 March 2005 or to grade B*10 with retroactive effect from 1 January 2005, as appropriate; |
| --- | --- |

—

Inform the Appointing Authority of the consequences of annulling the contested decisions, and in particular the reclassification of the applicants' grades to grade A*10 with retroactive effect from 1 March 2005 or to grade B*10 with retroactive effect from 1 January 2005, as appropriate;

| — | In the alternative: (1) request the defendant to acknowledge that the applicants are eligible for promotion to grade A*10 or to grade B*10, as appropriate, on their next promotion and (2) order it to pay compensation for the loss suffered by the applicants as a result of not having been promoted to grade A*10 from 1 March 2005 or to grade B*10 from 1 January 2005, as appropriate; |
| --- | --- |

—

In the alternative: (1) request the defendant to acknowledge that the applicants are eligible for promotion to grade A*10 or to grade B*10, as appropriate, on their next promotion and (2) order it to pay compensation for the loss suffered by the applicants as a result of not having been promoted to grade A*10 from 1 March 2005 or to grade B*10 from 1 January 2005, as appropriate;

| — | Order the defendant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of their action, the applicants put forward pleas identical to those put forward in Case F-45/06 (1).

1

---

(1)  OJ C 143, 17.06.2006, p. 39.

1

---