alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### JOSE G. CRUZ and ROSA S. CRUZ, Appellees v. ANA LEON GUERRERO WHITE, Appellant

Civil No. 12-A

District Court of Guam Appellate Division

September 15, 1958

*Counsel for Appellees:*Paul D. Palting

*Counsel for Appellant:*Turner *&*Novak

Before FURBER, *Chief Justice,*and TOOMIN, *Associate Justice,*High Court of the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands and SHRIVER, *United States Judge,*District Court of Guam

PER CURIAM

OPINION

This is an appeal from the Island Court of Guam in which that court decreed specific performance of the transfer of land from the appellant to the appellees. The issue was clouded by bad procedures and constant bickering between counsel. The trial court finally placed the issue in proper perspective and made findings of fact and conclusions of law with judgment decreeing the conveyance from the appellant to the appellees of the land in question after survey and proper description. We must remand the case *33to the trial court for this purpose as it is evident that there is no description at the present time, in the absence of survey, which describes the land to be conveyed and which the appellant could be required to convey.

The appellant offered no evidence. The appellees attempted to obtain an order requiring the appellant to produce a deed alleged to have been obtained from the appellees for the purpose of surveying the land to be conveyed. The trial court held that since secondary evidence could be received as to the contents of the deed, no extraordinary remedy was indicated and set the case for trial on the issue of specific performance. It appeared that the appellees took possession of the land in 1947 and constructed part of a house; that about four years later they constructed another house; that the appellant may not have owned the land but obtained title in 1951 after which the portion in question was conveyed to the appellees for consideration. We assume that the deed which was the subject of contradictory evidence bound the appellant to transfer the land. Her failure to deny that she had obtained the deed from the appellees under the promise to have the land surveyed and her subsequent refusal to return it strongly indicate support for the appellees’ contentions.

While we affirm the court’s holding that specific performance is indicated, we remand for the purpose of having the land surveyed and a description satisfactory to the court obtained, after which specific performance may be required under the usual powers of the court.
Catholic University of America SBIRT Medical Professionals Training

1. Program Description & Model

*Launching SBIRT into the Community: A Multidisciplinary Approach* is a collaborative project between the schools of social work and nursing at The Catholic University of America.  The project is designed to provide training on SBIRT to students, faculty, field instructors, clinical preceptors, community providers, and administrators.  The training will increase their capacity to effect positive behavioral change among individuals with substance use disorders (SUD), especially among those individuals most at-risk, vulnerable, and underserved.  The expected outcome of our efforts is not simply to educate graduate students and faculty.  Rather, we will provide SBIRT training utilizing a combination of didactic and clinical instruction to ensure trainees have the knowledge combined with the practical experience to confidently utilize SBIRT with their clients as social workers and nurse practitioners after graduation.  Through our community training sessions, we will identify SBIRT champions to influence social work and nursing practice in the community to advocate for the incorporation of SBIRT into new settings and standards of care. Attainment of each of the project goals and objectives will be assessed using evaluation metrics.  Based on evaluation findings, we will modify the delivery of SBIRT content during the project period and beyond to identify those with or at risk for a SUD and initiate appropriate treatment and referral. Further, we commit to sustainability through permanent incorporation of SBIRT content into curricula and convening ongoing community trainings and symposia.

2. Special/Unique Features

Emphasis on interprofessional training

3. Website URL 

http://ncsss.cua.edu/

http://nursing.cua.edu/

4. Contact information for the project director 

Dr. Karlynn BrintzenhofeSzoc

Email: Brintzek@cua.edu
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 49 (Monday, March 14, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 13615]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-5781]



[[Page 13615]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER11-2059-000]


Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.; Notice of 
Informal Technical Conference

    Take notice that an informal technical conference will be convened 
in this proceeding commencing at 10:00 am on April 12, 2011 at the 
offices of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, 
NE., Washington, DC, 20426.
    Any party, as defined by 18 CFR 385.102(c), or any participant as 
defined by 18 CFR 385.102(b), is invited to attend. Persons wishing to 
become a party must move to intervene and receive intervenor status 
pursuant to the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 385.214).
    FERC conferences are accessible under section 508 of the 
Rehabilitation Act of 1973. For accessibility accommodations please 
send an e-mail to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#9efffdfdfbededf7fcf7f2f7eae7def8fbecfdb0f9f1e8"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="1d7c7e7e786e6e747f74717469645d7b786f7e337a726b">[email protected]</span></a> or call toll free 1-866-208-
3372 (voice) or 202-208-1659 (TTY), or send a FAX to 202-208-2106 with 
the required accommodations.
    For additional information, please contact Janet K. Jones, 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#98d2f9f6fdecd2f7f6fdebd8fefdeafbb6fff7ee"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="c882a9a6adbc82a7a6adbb88aeadbaabe6afa7be">[email protected]</span></a>, (202) 502-8165.

    Dated: March 8, 2011.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-5781 Filed 3-11-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
EXHIBIT 31.1 CERTIFICATION



I, Brenda G. Gujral, President, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Inland Monthly Income Fund II, L.P.;
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 we have:

> 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;
> 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
> 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 that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and

1. 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 registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):

> 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
> 
> 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.



By: Inland Real Estate Investment Corporation
    General Partner



/S/ Brenda G. Gujral

Name: Brenda G. Gujral
Title: President of the General Partner and
          principal executive officer of Inland Monthly Income Fund II, L.P
Date: March 26, 2004
### §7266. Enhanced review of periodic disclosures by issuers

#### (a) Regular and systematic review

The Commission shall review disclosures made by issuers reporting under section 78m(a) of this title (including reports filed on Form 10–K), and which have a class of securities listed on a national securities exchange or traded on an automated quotation facility of a national securities association, on a regular and systematic basis for the protection of investors. Such review shall include a review of an issuer's financial statement.

#### (b) Review criteria

For purposes of scheduling the reviews required by subsection (a), the Commission shall consider, among other factors—

(1) issuers that have issued material restatements of financial results;

(2) issuers that experience significant volatility in their stock price as compared to other issuers;

(3) issuers with the largest market capitalization;

(4) emerging companies with disparities in price to earning ratios;

(5) issuers whose operations significantly affect any material sector of the economy; and

(6) any other factors that the Commission may consider relevant.

#### (c) Minimum review period

In no event shall an issuer required to file reports under section 78m(a) or 78o(d) of this title be reviewed under this section less frequently than once every 3 years.

(Pub. L. 107–204, title IV, §408, July 30, 2002, 116 Stat. 790.)
Dismissed and Opinion Filed February 19, 2020

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 19

- 01592

- CV

ARLAN P. JOHNSON AND SPRINT TRANSPORT, L LC , Appellant
V.
SABA T. YOHANS , Appellee

On Appeal from the 193rd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC

- 19

- 02250



### MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Bridges, Molberg, and Carlyle Opinion by Justice Molberg
Before the Court is appellants’ “Agreed Mot ion to Effectuate Settlement” requesting that

we set aside the trial court’s default judgment and dismiss this appeal. 1 See T EX

. R. A PP

. P.

42.1(a)(2)(A). We grant the motion, set aside the trial court’s default judgment signed on October

3, 2019, and di smiss this appeal. See id

.

191592f.p05

1 Although the certificate of conference states that counsel for appellee agrees with the relief sought, the motion is signed o nly by counsel for appellants. /Ken Molberg/ /
KEN MOLBERG JUSTICE– 2

– 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

ARLAN P. JOHNSON AND SPRINT TRANSPORT, LLC, Appellants

No. 05

- 19

- 01592

- CV V.

SABA T. YOHANS, Appellee On Appeal from the 193rd Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC

- 19

- 02250. Opinion delivered by Justice Molberg. Justices Bridges and Carlyle participating.

In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s October 3, 2019 default judgment is SET ASIDE and the appeal is DISMISSED

.
Subject to any agreement between the parties, it is ORDERED that appellee SABA T. YOHANS recover her costs of this appeal from appellants ARLAN P. JOHNSON AND SPRINT TRANSPORT, LLC.

Judgment entered this 19 th day of February

, 2020

.
Crisis Counseling Assistance and Training Program 

Trainer’s Toolkit 

Handout 5 

The Road to Resilience
# C_2010260EN.01001701.xml

| 25.9.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 260/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.9.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 260/17

---

Action brought on 30 June 2010 — CBp Carbon Industries v OHIM

(Case T-294/10)

()

2010/C 260/23

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: CBp Carbon Industries, Inc. (New York, USA) (represented by: J. Fish, Solicitor and S. Malynicz, Barrister)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 21 April 2010 in case R 1361/2009-1; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 21 April 2010 in case R 1361/2009-1;

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

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘CARBON GREEN’ for goods in class 17 — Community trade mark application No 973531

Community trade mark concerned:

Decision of the examiner: Refused the application for a Community trade mark

Decision of the examiner:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: The applicant advances two pleas in law in support of its application.

Pleas in law:

On the basis of its first plea, the applicant claims that the contested decision infringes Article 7(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal erred in its assessment of the distinctiveness of the concerned word mark in relation to the relevant goods.

By its second plea, the applicant considers that the contested decision infringes Article 7(1)(c) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal (i) erred in relation to the meaning and syntax of the concerned word mark, as well as its aptness or otherwise as an immediate and direct descriptive term for the goods in question; (ii) on the one hand correctly concluded that the relevant public was specialised, yet, on the other failed to establish facts of its own motion that showed the mark was descriptive to such public; and (iii) failed to establish on the evidence that there was, in the relevant specialised sphere, a reasonable likelihood that other traders would wish to use the sign in future.

---
### [§2533a. Renumbered §4862]
#     Gender

### Categories Related to Gender

                      - Alcohol
                      - People with Substance Use or Mental Health Issues
                      - Illegal Drugs
                      - Age Group
                      - Stimulants
                      - Sedatives
                      - Pain Relievers
                      - Inhalants
                      - Racial and Ethnic Groups
                      - Populations of Interest
                      - Over-the-Counter Drugs
                      - Tobacco
                      - Hallucinogens
                      - Young Adults as Population Group
                      - Nicotine

Latest In Gender

2020 NSDUH Annual National Report

Annual Report : National Survey on Drug Use and Health - October 25, 2021

Drug Abuse Warning Network (DAWN): Findings From Drug-Related Emergency Department Visits, 2021

Annual Report : Drug Abuse Warning Network - December 14, 2022

Preliminary Findings from Drug-Related Emergency Department Visits, 2021  

Annual Report : Drug Abuse Warning Network - May 31, 2022

View All
### §77kk. Representations by Corporation as acting for Department of State or United States forbidden; interference with foreign negotiations forbidden

Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions of this subchapter, it shall be unlawful for, and nothing in this subchapter shall be taken or construed as permitting or authorizing, the Corporation in this subchapter created, or any committee of said Corporation, or any person or persons acting for or representing or purporting to represent it—

(a) to claim or assert or pretend to be acting for or to represent the Department of State or the United States Government;

(b) to make any statements or representations of any kind to any foreign government or its officials or the officials of any political subdivision of any foreign government that said Corporation or any committee thereof or any individual or individuals connected therewith were speaking or acting for the said Department of State or the United States Government; or

(c) to do any act directly or indirectly which would interfere with or obstruct or hinder or which might be calculated to obstruct, hinder, or interfere with the policy or policies of the said Department of State or the Government of the United States or any pending or contemplated diplomatic negotiations, arrangements, business or exchanges between the Government of the United States or said Department of State and any foreign government or any political subdivision thereof.

(May 27, 1933, ch. 38, title II, §210, 48 Stat. 95.)
#### § 385.1006 Request for hearing (Rule 1006).

A participant may file with the Commission and serve on the other participants a request for hearing, which will be deemed granted. Such request must be filed concurrently with participant's first pleading.

[Order 225, 47 FR 19022, May 3, 1982, as amended by Order 422, 50 FR 21600, May 28, 1985]
# C_2011226EN.01001102.xml

| 30.7.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 226/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.7.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 226/11

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 9 May 2011 — Jyske Bank Gibraltar Limited v Administración del Estado

(Case C-212/11)

2011/C 226/21

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Referring court

Tribunal Supremo

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Jyske Bank Gibraltar Limited

Applicant:

Defendant: Administración del Estado

Defendant:

Question referred

Question referred

Does Article 22(2) of Directive 2005/60/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2005 on the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purpose of money laundering and terrorist financing permit a Member State to make it a mandatory requirement that the information which must be provided by credit institutions operating in its territory without a permanent establishment be forwarded directly to its own authorities responsible for the prevention of money laundering, or, on the other hand, must the request for information be directed to the Financial Intelligence Unit of the Member State in whose territory the addressee institution is situated?

1

---

(1)  OJ 2005 L 309, p. 15.

1

---
# C_2010113EN.01006601.xml

| 1.5.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 113/66 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.5.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 113/66

---

Action brought on 17 February 2010 — Rütgers Germany and others v ECHA

(Case T-96/10)

2010/C 113/98

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicants: Rütgers Germany GmbH (Castrop-Rauxel, Germany), Rütgers Belgium NV (Zelzate, Belgium), Deza, a.s. (Valašské Meziříčí, Czech Republic), Koppers Denmark A/S (Nyborg, Denmark), Koppers UK Ltd (Scunthorpe, United Kingdom) (represented by: K. Van Maldegem, R. Cana, lawyers and P. Sellar, Solicitor)

Applicants:

Defendant: European Chemicals Agency (ECHA)

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | declare the application admissible and well-founded; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare the application admissible and well-founded;

| — | partially annul the contested act, as far as it relates to anthracene oil, anthracene paste; |
| --- | --- |

—

partially annul the contested act, as far as it relates to anthracene oil, anthracene paste;

| — | order ECHA to pay the costs of these proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order ECHA to pay the costs of these proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicants seek the partial annulment of the decision of the European Chemicals Agency (“ECHA”) (ED/68/2009) to identify anthracene oil, anthracene paste (CAS Number 90640-81-6) (“anthracene oil (paste)”) as a substance meeting the criteria set out in Article 57(d) and (e) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 (1) (“REACH”), in accordance with Article 59 REACH.

1

On the basis of the contested decision, brought to the applicants’ attention by means of an ECHA’s press release, the anthracene oil (paste) was included in the list of 14 chemical substances of the Candidate List of Substance of Very High Concern (‘SVHC’) for eventual inclusion in Annex XIV to the REACH. The reasons stated in the contested act for the identification of anthracene oil (paste) as a SVHC are that the substance is carcinogenic mutagenic and also persistent, and very bioaccumulative (‘vPvB’) in accordance with criteria set out in Annex XIII to the REACH.

The applicants consider that the contested act infringes the applicable rules established for the identification of SVHCs under the REACH and put forward four pleas in law in support of their application which are identical to those raised in Case T-94/10, Rütgers Germany and Others v ECHA.

Rütgers Germany and Others

ECHA

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency, amending Directive 1999/45/EC and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 as well as Council Directive 76/769/EEC and Commission Directives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC (OJ 2006 L 396, p. 1)

1

---
Exhibit 16.1



                                                             February 14, 2005
Securities and Exchange Commission
Mail Stop 11-3
450 5th Street, N.W.
Washington, DC  20549

Dear Sirs/Madams:

We have read and agree with the statements in Item 4.01 of Form 8-K of
Unitronix Corporation dated December 6, 2004.

Yours truly,

/s/ Dan Clasby & Company
    --------------------
    Dan Clasby & Company