alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### 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. 03-14-00614- CV
Atlas Dental, LP ; Irm a Cantu-Thompson, DDS, PC ; Irm a Cantu-Thompson; Dr. Ric hard F. He rrsc her; V ictorM. Z urita, DDS; MA N & CF N Ortho, P LLC, Navarr o Orthidon tix of Irvin g, P C, Navarr o Orthodontix of F t. Wort h, PLLC; Navarr o Orthodontix of McA llen, PLLC; Navar ro Ort hond otix of E din burg, PLLC; Navarr o Orthondon tix, P C; Dr . Carlos F . Navarr o; West m oreland Dental, P A, Westm oreland Dental of Garland, PC ; West m oreland Dental and O rthodontics, P A; Scottie H. Nguyen, DDS; R GVSm iles by Rocky L. S alinas , DDS, P A; Dr. Roc ky Sal inas; Dr. Stephen Chu ; and Dr. Hieu Hu ynh, Ap pellants
v. The State of Texas and ACS State Healt hcare, LLC, Appellees

F ROM TH E DISTRI CT COURT O F TRAVIS CO UNTY, 53RD J UDICIAL DI STRICT NO. D-1 -GV-1 4-0 0058 1, H ONO RAB LE STEP HEN Y ELENOSK Y , JUDGE P RESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O PI N I O N Appellants have fi l ed an unopposed motion to dismiss the appea l. We g rant the motion and dismi ss the appea l. Tex. R . App. P. 42.1(a).

__________________________________________ David Puryear , J ustice Be fore Justices Puryear , Pemberton, and B ourland Dismissed on Appellants’ Motion Filed: F ebrua

ry 20, 2015
Exhibit 32Knova Software, Inc. Certification under Section 906 of the Sarbanes/Oxley Act — filed as an exhibit to 10-Q for Quarter Ended June 30, 2005CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002In connection with the Quarterly Report of Knova Software, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Qfor the period ended June 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the datehereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, Bruce Armstrong, Chief Executive Officer of the Company,and Thomas Muise, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, asadopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of our knowledge:1. The Report fully complies with the requirements of section13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, inall material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of theCompany.   /s/ Bruce Armstrong           /s/ Thomas Muise   Bruce Armstrong           Thomas MuisePrincipal Executive Officer Principal Financial OfficerAugust 8, 2005      August 8, 2005*The foregoing Certification shall not be deemed incorporated by reference by any generalstatement incorporating by reference this report into any filing under the Securities Act of1933 or under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, except to the extent that we specificallyincorporate this information by reference, and shall not otherwise be deemed filed under suchActs.*
33
# C_2006331EN.01003403.xml

| 30.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 331/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 331/34

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 22 November 2006 — Italy v Commission

(Case T-282/04) (1)

1

(EAGGF - Expenditure excluded from Community financing - Financial corrections - Rural development - Aid to the least well-off)

(2006/C 331/76)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: G. De Bellis, avvocato dello Stato)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission (represented by: C. Cattabriga and L. Visaggio, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Partial 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) (OJ 2004 L 202, p. 35) in as far as it concerns certain expenditure made by the Italian Republic.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action.

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

2.

Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 251, 9.10.2004.

1

---
Editorial Note on Part 900
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 900 appear at 67 FR 34602, May 15, 2002.

§ 900.145 On what basis may the Secretary deny a waiver request? Consistent with section 107(e) of the Act, the Secretary may only deny a waiver request based on a specific written finding. The finding must clearly demonstrate (or be supported by controlling legal authority) that if the waiver is granted: ( a ) The service to be rendered to the Indian beneficiaries of the particular program or function to be contracted will not be satisfactory;
( b ) Adequate protection of trust resources is not assured;
( c ) The proposed project or function to be contracted for cannot be properly completed or maintained by the proposed contract;
( d ) The amount of funds proposed under the contract is in excess of the applicable funding level for the contract, as determined under section 106(a) of the Act; or
( e ) The program, function, service, or activity (or portion of it) that is the subject of the proposal is beyond the scope of programs, functions, services, or activities that are contractible under the Act because the proposal includes activities that cannot lawfully be carried out by the contractor.
-  Home 
-  Training 
-  Hazmat 

# In This Section

                      -  Hazardous Materials Outreach & Engagement 
                      -  Training Requirements for Industry 
                      -  Emergency Response Guidebook (ERG) 
                      -  Workshops 
                      -  Webinars 
                      -  Community Liaisons (CLs) 
                      -  Publications 
                      -  Publicaciones (en español) 
                      -  Newsletters 
                      -  Training Modules 
                      -  Videos and Mobile Apps 
                      -  Contact Us 

## Related Links

                  -                                          Hazmat Transportation Training Requirements Webinar                   
                  -                                          PHMSA's Online CFR (oCFR)                   

## Related Documents

                  -                                          Hazmat Transportation Training Requirements                   
                  -                                          Guide to Developing a Hazmat Training Program                   
                  -                                          How to Use Hazardous Materials Regulations                   
                  -                                          DOT Chart 17: Markings, Labeling, and Placarding Guide                   
                  -                                          Security Requirements Brochure (English)                   

## Contact Us

Hazardous Materials Training Program
U.S. Department of Transportation, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration1200 New Jersey Avenue, SEWashington, DC20590United States

**Email:**Training@dot.gov**Phone:**202-366-4900****Alt Phone:**800-467-4922****Fax:**202-366-7342**

If you are deaf, hard of hearing, or have a speech disability, please dial 7-1-1 to access telecommunications relay services.

# Training Requirements for Industry

The Federal hazardous materials transportation law (49 U.S.C. § 5101 et seq.), is the basic statute regulating the transportation of hazardous materials (hazmat) in the United States. This law requires the training of ALL hazmat employees. The purpose is to increase a hazmat employee's safety awareness and be an essential element in reducing hazmat incidents. The Hazardous Materials regulations (HMR) include training requirements in several sections of Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) as follows:

**GENERAL:** § 173.1

**SPECIFIC:** § 172.704

**MODAL:**  Air:  § 175.20,Vessel:  § 176.13,Highway:  § 177.800 and § 177.816
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation 

80-1 

January 10, 1980 

REFERENCE: 

 [*1] 4021(b)(2) Plans Covered. Government Plans

4062 Liability of Employer in Single Employer Plans 

OPINION: 

 This is in response to your letter of November 20, 1979, requesting our view of the State of Montana's (the "State")

liability with respect to several privately maintained pension plans. 

As you have presented the facts, the State has established and maintains the Public Employees Retirement System

("PERS"). By state law all employees must belong to PERS. State law prohibits the State from making contributions

to any plan other than the PERS, but allows employees to contribute their own funds to a private pension plan. In

addition, you have stated that: 

Given two employees, A and B, with equal pay and deductions: if employee A elects to participate in a private plan

while employee B does not, employee A's paycheck will be less than employee B's paycheck in an amount equal to the

contribution withheld for payment to the private plan. 

Specifically you have asked: 

1) If the State merely withholds and forwards funds that employees have voluntarily designated to be paid to a

private pension plan, will the State be deemed a contributing employer under Title IV; and 

2) Should the State forward [*2] funds to a private plan in excess of amounts designated by employees, would the

State then be deemed a contributing employer under Title IV? 

 Title IV termination insurance covers retirement plans that are defined benefit pension plans. If, as you represent,

the employees contributions are paid directly to the private plans as a convenience to the employees, the State is not a

contributing employer to those plans, and would have no liability under Title IV in the event the plans are terminated.

However, should the State become a contributing employer to any plans that are defined benefit plans, the State could

be liable in the event the plan terminated. 

We hope this information will assist you. If we can be of any further assistance please contact * * * of my staff at

(202) 254-3011. 

Henry Rose 

General Counsel
#### § 580.6 How is time computed?

In computing any period of time prescribed for filing and serving a document, the first day of the period so computed shall not be included. The last day shall be included unless it falls on a Saturday, Sunday, or Federal legal holiday, in which case the period shall run until the end of the next business day. Except for appeals of temporary closure orders, when the period of time prescribed or allowed is less than 11 days, intermediate Saturdays, Sundays, and legal federal holidays shall be excluded from the computation.

[77 FR 58945, Sept. 25, 2012, as amended at 80 FR 31995, June 5, 2015]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM OPTIMARK
HOLDINGS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES UNAUDITED CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS AT JUNE 30, 2000 AND FOR THE SIX MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30, 2000, AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                      22,505,711
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,897,803
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            28,531,154
<PP&E>                                      28,112,223
<DEPRECIATION>                              11,931,859
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              82,561,415
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       15,224,311
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                    227,221
<COMMON>                                       366,121
<OTHER-SE>                                  64,047,709
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                82,561,415
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             6,105,462
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               19,465,600
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            31,355,235
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             513,932
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           (44,008,470)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       (44,008,470)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                              (44,008,470)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (1.20)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.20)


</TABLE>
### §§1301 to 1303. Repealed. Pub. L. 86–230, §24, Sept. 8, 1959, 73 Stat. 466

Sections, act Mar. 4, 1923, ch. 252, title II, §215(a)–(c), 42 Stat. 1471, related to appointment and powers of receiver, appointment and powers of shareholders' agents, and voluntary liquidation, respectively.
### §193. Notice to present claims

The Comptroller shall, upon appointing a receiver, cause notice to be given, by advertisement in such newspapers as he may direct, for three consecutive months, calling on all persons who may have claims against such association to present the same, and to make legal proof thereof.

(R.S. §5235.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

R.S. §5235 derived from act June 3, 1864, ch. 106, §50, 13 Stat. 114, which was part of the National Bank Act. See section 38 of this title.

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

#### Application to District of Columbia

Provisions of this section were made applicable to banks, etc., in the District of Columbia by act Mar. 4, 1933, ch. 274, §4, 47 Stat. 1567.

#### **Executive Documents**

#### Exception as to Transfer of Functions

Functions vested by any provision of law in Comptroller of the Currency, referred to in this section, not included in transfer of functions to Secretary of the Treasury, see note set out under section 1 of this title.
# C_2006190EN.01001902.xml

| 12.8.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 190/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.8.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 190/19

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 8 June 2006 — Bachotet v Commission

(Case T-400/03) (1)

1

(Officials - Annulment of the refusal to enter a candidate on a reserve list of temporary staff - Candidate's submission to a new oral test held in order to comply with the judgment annulling the refusal - Second refusal of entry - Action for annulment)

(2006/C 190/33)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Sophie Bachotet (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and E. Marchal, agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: H. serepa-Lacombe and L. Lozano Palacios, agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Action for annulment of the refusal by the committee responsible for selection procedure COM/R/A/01/1999 to enter the applicant's name on the reserve list of temporary staff, following a new oral test held in order to comply with the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 24 September 2002 in Case T-182/01 Bachotet v Commission (not published in the European Court Reports)

Bachotet

Commission

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the selection committee, contained in the letter of 21 January 2003 notified to the applicant, not to enter her name on the reserve list resulting from selection procedure COM/R/01/1999; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the selection committee, contained in the letter of 21 January 2003 notified to the applicant, not to enter her name on the reserve list resulting from selection procedure COM/R/01/1999;

| 2. | Orders the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Commission to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 35, 7.2.2004.

1

---
EX-35.1
(logo) MIDLAND    (logo) PNC
       LOAN              REAL ESTATE
       SERVICES


ANNUAL STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE

of

PNC BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION

d/b/a MIDLAND LOAN SERVICES

Pursuant to the requirements of the applicable Servicing Agreement for the
transactions listed on Schedule I hereto, the undersigned, Steven W. Smith, as
Executive Vice President of Midland Loan Services, a division of PNC Bank,
National Association, hereby certifies, subject to any limitations listed on
Schedule I hereto, as of the date hereof, solely in his capacity as an officer
and not in his individual capacity, as follows:

1. A review of the Servicer's activities during the calendar year 2013 (the
   "Reporting Period") and of its performance under the Agreement has been made
   under the undersigned officer's supervision; and
2. To the best of the undersigned officer's knowledge, based on such review,
   the Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all
   material respects throughout the Reporting Period.


PNC Bank, National Association
d/b/a Midland Loan Services

/s/ Steven W. Smith
Steven W. Smith
Executive Vice President


Member of The PNC Financial Services Group
10851 Mastin Boulevard  Overland Park, Kansas 66210
800-327-8083
www.pnc.com/midland


(page)


Schedule I

GS Mortgage Securities Corp II
Direct Email:  leah.nivison@gs.com

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

Recipient Role                      Deal Name                                                                      Midland Role

                                 <c>                                                      <c>                   <c>
Depositor                           GS Mortgage Securities Corporation II                    Series 2012-GCJ9      Special Servicer
                      Gansevoort Park Avenue, Miami Center, and 222 Broadway whole loans only
Depositor                           GS Mortgage Securities Corporation II                    Series 2012-GCJ7      Special Servicer
Depositor                           GS Mortgage Securities Corporation II                    Series 2011-GC3       Special Servicer
Depositor                           GS Mortgage Securities Corporation II                    Series 2010-C2        Special Servicer

</TABLE>
§ 17.515 Compensation. A recipient shall not make or enforce any policy or practice that, on the basis of sex: ( a ) Makes distinctions in rates of pay or other compensation;
( b ) Results in the payment of wages to employees of one sex at a rate less than that paid to employees of the opposite sex for equal work on jobs the performance of which requires equal skill, effort, and responsibility, and that are performed under similar working conditions.
# C_2006331EN.01003401.xml

| 30.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 331/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 331/34

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 12 December 2006 — SELEX Sistemi Integrati v Commission

(Case T-155/04) (1)

1

(Competition - Abuse of a dominant position - Concept of an ‘undertaking’ - Complaint - Rejection)

(2006/C 331/74)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: SELEX Sistemi Integrati SpA, formerly Alenia Marconi Systems SpA, Rome (Italy) (represented by F. Sciaudone, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented initially by P. Oliver and L. Visaggio, and subsequently by A. Bouquet, L. Visaggio and F. Amato, agents)

Defendant:

Intervener in support of the defendant: Organisation européenne pour la sécurité de la navigation aérienne (Eurocontrol) (European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation) (represented by F. Montag and T. Wessely, lawyers)

Intervener in support of the defendant:

Re:

Application for annulment or amendment of the Commission decision of 12 February 2004 rejecting the applicant's complaint relating to alleged breach by Eurocontrol of the provisions of the EC Treaty in the field of competition)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders SELEX Sistemi Integrati SpA to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the Commission; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders SELEX Sistemi Integrati SpA to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the Commission;

| 3. | Orders the European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 179, 10.7.2004.

1

---
#### STATE v. MAYSE

No. 177P90

Case below: 97 N.C.App. 559

Petition by defendant for discretionary review pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 denied 13 June 1990.
### §15. Repealed. Aug. 7, 1946, ch. 770, §1(40, 50), 60 Stat. 869, 870

Section, act Apr. 28, 1902, ch. 594, §1, 32 Stat. 138, required inclusion of expenses of liquidation of national banks in annual report of Comptroller of the Currency.
# C_2006331EN.01003402.xml

| 30.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 331/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 331/34

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 14 December 2006 — Branco v Commission

(Case T-162/04) (1)

1

(European Social Fund (ESF) - Reduction of financial assistance - Subcontracting - Reasonable time)

(2006/C 331/75)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Applicant: Eugénio Branco, Lda (Lisbon, Portugal) (represented by: B. Belchior, lawyer)

Applicant:

da

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: P. Guerra e Andrade and A. Weimar, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Action for annulment of the decision of the Commission of 8 August 2003 reducing the assistance of the European Social Fund (ESF) and, therefore, rejecting the application for payment of the balance of the assistance from the ESF, initially approved for operational program 87 03 01 P1.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders the applicant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the applicant to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 217, 28.8.2004.

1

---