alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32.2 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 Certification In connection with the Annual Report of NGP Capital Resources Company (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2012, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, L. Scott Biar, Chief Financial Officer, Secretary, Treasurer and Chief Compliance Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge: (1)

          The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and (2)

          The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. March 11, 2013 /s/ L. SCOTT BIARL. Scott Biar Chief Financial Officer, Secretary, Treasurer and Chief Compliance Officer A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to NGP Capital Resources Company and will be retained by NGP Capital Resources Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT NASHVILLE

August 7, 2024 Session

GREGORY F. HEERDINK V. DAWN A. OSBORNE, ET AL.

Appeal from the Chancery Court for Bedford County

No. 32511 J.B. Cox, Chancellor

No. M2023-00816-COA-R3-CV

ANDY D. BENNETT, J., concurring. CARMA DENNIS MCGEE, J., joins.

I believe that the majority opinion accurately reflects existing law. Therefore, I 

concur. I write separately to express my concern that the existing law on voluntary nonsuits 

as outlined in this opinion allows a plaintiff to avoid sanctions for his bad actions taken 

before the nonsuit. In my opinion, defendant Osborne had at least an inchoate right to 

receive an undetermined amount of attorney’s fees based on the trial court’s order that “the 

Plaintiff should be ordered to pay all of each Defendant’s attorney’s fees associated with 

Plaintiff’s delays, including attendance at prior hearings on Motions to Withdraw, today’s 

hearing and all preparations for any such hearings.” The sanction was ordered. Only the 

amount was yet to be determined. A voluntary nonsuit should not allow Plaintiff to escape 

responsibility for his actions or to prevent Osborne from being properly compensated for 

Plaintiff’s wrongdoing.

/s/ Andy D. Bennett

ANDY D. BENNETT, JUDGE

09/24/2024
### §2241. Sense of Congress regarding permanent, pro-growth fiscal reforms

It is the sense of the Congress that any durable solution for Puerto Rico's fiscal and economic crisis should include permanent, pro-growth fiscal reforms that feature, among other elements, a free flow of capital between possessions of the United States and the rest of the United States.

(Pub. L. 114–187, title VII, §701, June 30, 2016, 130 Stat. 610.)
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule

47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________

No. 94-20392

Summary Calendar

__________________

LUTHER YOUNG. JR.,

 Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

JAMES E. COOK; HAROLD D. 

BELL; STEPHEN KELLEY,

 Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. CA-H-92-695

- - - - - - - - - -

May 3, 1996

Before GARWOOD, WIENER and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Luther Young, Jr., appeals from the district court's

dismissal of his civil rights complaint as frivolous pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 1915(d). Young has filed with this court a request

to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal. Young argues that

he was ordered to turn out for work without his prescription

shoes, thus causing him pain; that the evidence was insufficient
No. 94-20392

-2-

to support his disciplinary convictions; that he was retaliated

against for filing administrative grievances; that he was denied 

access to legal materials; and that he should have been given an

opportunity to amend his complaint. After a review of the

record, we conclude that Young has not demonstrated that he will

present a nonfrivolous issue on appeal. Accordingly, Young's

motion to proceed IFP on appeal is DENIED and the appeal is

DISMISSED. See Carson v. Polley, 689 F.2d 562, 586 (5th Cir.

1982); 5th Cir. R. 42.2.

IFP DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED.
### §1441. State and Local Implementation Fund

#### (a) Establishment

There is established in the Treasury of the United States a fund to be known as the State and Local Implementation Fund.

#### (b) Amounts available for State and Local Implementation Grant Program

Any amounts borrowed under subsection (c)(1) and any amounts in the State and Local Implementation Fund that are not necessary to reimburse the general fund of the Treasury for such borrowed amounts shall be available to the Assistant Secretary to implement section 1442 of this title.

#### (c) Borrowing authority

#### (1) In general

Prior to the end of fiscal year 2022, the Assistant Secretary may borrow from the general fund of the Treasury such sums as may be necessary, but not to exceed $135,000,000, to implement section 1442 of this title.

#### (2) Reimbursement

The Assistant Secretary shall reimburse the general fund of the Treasury, without interest, for any amounts borrowed under paragraph (1) as funds are deposited into the State and Local Implementation Fund.

#### (d) Transfer of unused funds

If there is a balance remaining in the State and Local Implementation Fund on September 30, 2022, the Secretary of the Treasury shall transfer such balance to the general fund of the Treasury, where such balance shall be dedicated for the sole purpose of deficit reduction.

(Pub. L. 112–96, title VI, §6301, Feb. 22, 2012, 126 Stat. 218.)
#### HUBBS v. SCHWANEFLUGEL et al.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

November 13, 1903.)

1. Sidewalks—Injury to Pedestrian—Action against Abutting Owner— Evidence—Defense not Pleaded.

In an action for injuries received in falling into a trench allowed by defendants to remain open across the sidewalk in front of their premises, the admission in evidence of a permit from the city for the opening of the sidewalk—such permit not having been pleaded, and its' reception having been objected to on that ground—was prejudicial error.

Appeal from Queens County Court.

Action by Clarence Hubbs against Frederick Schwaneflugel and another. From a judgment for defendants, and from an order denying a new trial, plaintiff appeals. Reversed.

Argued before BARTLETT, WOODWARD, HIRSCHBERG, and HOOKER, JJ.

*561Constantine T. Timonier, for appellant.

W. J. Foster, for respondents.

HOOKER, J.

The plaintiff claims that the defendants were guilty of maintaining a nuisance by authorizing and permitting a trench to remain open across the city sidewalk in front of premises owned by them. The plaintiff fell into this trench and was injured.. He appeals from a judgment in favor of the defendants, rendered upon a verdict of no cause of action, and from an order denying his motion for a new trial.

The judgment and order must be reversed for the error in permitting evidence of a permission from the city for opening of the sidewalk. Such permission was not pleaded, and plaintiff objected to its reception upon that, among other grounds. It cannot be successfully contended that this permit did not have weight with the jury. The gist of the action is similar to Clifford v. Dam, 81 N. Y. 52, and the rule there announced’ governing the' admissibility of this character of evidence, in the absence of an allegation in the answer, should have controlled the court below in the trial of this action. Similar questions have been raised in this court since the decision in the Clifford Case, where the ruling there has been followed. Brown v. Metropolitan St. R. Co. 60 App. Div. 184, 70 N. Y. Supp. 40, affirmed in 171 N. Y. 699, 64 N. E. 1119; Holroyd v. Sheridan, 53 App. Div. 14, 65 N. Y. Supp. 442.

The judgment and order must therefore be reversed, and a new trial ordered; costs to abide the event. All concur.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

CHIMYERE McCALL; MONROE 

McCALL, 

Plaintiffs-Appellees, 

 v. 

DAMON CHARLES WILLIAMS, 

Defendant-Appellant,

ZENE WILLIAMS, 

 Counter-claimant-Appellant.

No. 21-15638 

D.C. No. 2:19-cv-05126-SMB 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Arizona

Susan M. Brnovich, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted February 15, 2022**

Before: FERNANDEZ, TASHIMA, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.

Damon Charles Williams and Zene Williams appeal pro se from the district 

court’s judgment in Chimyere and Monroe McCall’s diversity action. We have 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

FEB 24 2022

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 21-15638 

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s 

summary judgment. Furnace v. Sullivan, 705 F.3d 1021, 1026 (9th Cir. 2013). 

We affirm. 

The district court properly granted summary judgment on plaintiffs’ 

declaratory relief claim because the debt underlying the liens had been discharged 

in bankruptcy. See In re Ybarra, 424 F.3d 1018, 1022 (9th Cir. 2005) (“A Chapter 

7 bankruptcy discharge releases the debtor from personal liability for her prebankruptcy debts.”). 

The district court properly granted summary judgment on plaintiffs’ 

wrongful lien claim as to the May 30, 2019 lien because defendants knew or had 

reason to know that the May 30, 2019 lien was groundless. See Ariz. Rev. Stat. 

§ 33-420(A) (authorizing special action on the ground that a lien against real 

property is groundless or otherwise invalid); Webber v. Grindle Audio Prods., Inc., 

60 P.3d 224, 230 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2002) (upholding liability under § 33-420(A) for 

recording judgment liens when creditor knew that the judgment had been 

discharged in bankruptcy).

We reject as without merit defendants’ contentions that the district court was 

biased. 

AFFIRMED.
### §1323a. Omitted

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section, acts Feb. 16, 1933, ch. 89, §1, 47 Stat. 812; June 13, 1940, ch. 358, §2, 58 Stat. 389; Sept. 26, 1950, ch. 1049, §2(b), 64 Stat. 1038, related to postal service generally and was omitted as not of general application, and as covered by the Canal Zone Code. The Canal Zone Code was subsequently redesignated the Panama Canal Code by Pub. L. 96–70, §3303(b), and repealed by Pub. L. 104–201, §3549.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation

# TIME AND DATE:

2:00 p.m., Thursday, December 17, 2020.

# PLACE:

Via Conference Call.

# STATUS:

Open (with the exception of Executive Session).

# MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

The General Counsel of the Corporation has certified that in his opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth in 5 U.S.C. 552 (b)(2) and (4) permit closure of the following portion(s) of this meeting:
      - Executive Session

## Agenda: 

I. CALL TO ORDER

II. Executive Session: Report from CEO

III. Executive Session: Report of CFO

IV. Action Item Approval of Minutes

V. Action Item Acceptance of Revised Audit Committee Charter

VI. Discussion Item NeighborWorks Compass Update

VII. Management Program Background and Updates

VIII. Adjournment

# CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:

                        Lakeyia Thompson, Special Assistant, (202) 524-9940;                         *Lthompson@nw.org.*

Lakeyia Thompson,

Special Assistant.

[FR Doc. 2020-27186 Filed 12-7-20; 4:15 pm]

BILLING CODE 7570-01-P
### §989. Homestead entries by purchasers from Missouri of lands declared not to be swamp lands

In all cases in the State of Missouri where lands have, prior to February 23, 1875, been selected and claimed as swamp and overflowed lands by said State, and the various counties therein, by virtue of any Act of Congress, and said lands have been withheld from market in consequence thereof by the General Government, and the said State and counties have sold said lands to actual settlers, and said settlers have improved the same to the value of $100; said settlers, their heirs, assigns, and legal representatives, who have continued to reside thereon, shall have priority of right to homestead all such lands as may be rejected by the United States as not being in fact swamp and overflowed lands; and it shall be the duty of the Secretary of the Interior to make such rules and regulations as may be necessary to carry into effect the provisions of this section: Provided, That nothing herein contained shall prejudice the rights of any person who may have made actual settlement upon such lands under the preemption or homestead laws prior to February 23, 1875.

(Feb. 23, 1875, ch. 99, 18 Stat. 334; Mar. 3, 1891, ch. 561, §4, 26 Stat. 1097.)
**Exhibit 31.2**

 

**Chief Financial Officer Certification pursuant to**

**Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

I, Héctor Alonso, certify that: 

 

1. Ihave reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of IMPSAT Fiber Networks, Inc. (the “Registrant”); 

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under whichsuch statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly report; 

 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cashflows of the Registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report; 

 

4. The Registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for theRegistrant and we have: 

 

(a) designed such disclosure controlsand 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 withinthose entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared, 

 

(b) [omitted pursuant to the guidance of Release No. 33-8283 (June 5, 2003)], 

 

(c) evaluated the effectiveness of the Registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation, and 

 

(d) disclosed in this report any change in the Registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the Registrant’s mostrecent 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, basedon our most recent evaluation, to the Registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the Registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function): 

 

(a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls over financial reporting which arereasonably likely to 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 controlsover financial reporting.
**Exhibit 23.1**

**Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

We consentto the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-137677) pertaining to the Bare Escentuals, Inc. 2004 Equity Incentive Plan and 2006 Equity Incentive Award Plan, of our reports dated February 24, 2010, with respectto the consolidated financial statements of Bare Escentuals, Inc. and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of Bare Escentuals, Inc. included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended January 3, 2010. 

/s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP 

San Francisco, California 

February 24, 2010
### §§796 to 799. Repealed. July 3, 1950, ch. 446, §5(2), 64 Stat. 320

Section 796, acts Mar. 2, 1917, ch. 145, §53, 39 Stat. 968; May 17, 1932, ch. 190, 47 Stat. 158, related to transfer of bureaus or offices.

Section 797, acts Mar. 2, 1917, ch. 145, §50, 39 Stat. 967; June 7, 1924, ch. 322, §3, 43 Stat. 631; May 29, 1928, ch. 904, §§1, 2, 45 Stat. 997; May 17, 1932, ch. 190, 47 Stat. 158; Aug. 5, 1947, ch. 490, §5, 61 Stat. 771; June 24, 1948, ch. 610, §2, 62 Stat. 579; Sept. 7, 1949, ch. 544, 63 Stat. 692, related to salaries and bonds of officials, and residence of governor.

Section 798, acts Mar. 2, 1917, ch. 145, §50, 39 Stat. 967; June 7, 1924, ch. 322, §3, 43 Stat. 631; June 24, 1948, ch. 610, §2, 62 Stat. 579; Sept. 7, 1949, ch. 544, 63 Stat. 692, related to payment of salaries, office expenses and bond premiums.

Section 799, act Mar. 2, 1917, ch. 145, §51, 39 Stat. 967, provided for payment of municipal expenses from municipal revenues.

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

#### Effective Date of Repeal

Repeal of sections 796 to 799 effective July 25, 1952, see note set out under section 732 of this title.
### SUBCHAPTER I—GENERAL

#### Historical and Revision Notes

This subchapter contains the general provisions for implementing regulatory measurement systems.
§ 964.405 Applicability. ( a ) *General.* Except as described in paragraph (b) of this section, this subpart applies to any public housing agency that has a public housing annual contributions contract with HUD or administers tenant-based rental assistance under section 8 of the United States Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437f).
( b ) *Exceptions.* The requirements of this subpart do not apply to a public housing agency that is: ( 1 ) Located in a State that requires the members of a governing board to be salaried and to serve on a full-time basis; or
( 2 ) Not governed by a governing board.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-7290

CHARLES GENE ROGERS,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

J. V. TURLINGTON,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District

Judge. (CA-95-142-HC-5-BO)

Submitted: March 27, 1997 Decided: April 2, 1997

Before RUSSELL, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Charles Gene Rogers, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III,

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA, Raleigh, North

Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying

relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1994), amended

by Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L.

No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214. We have reviewed the record and the

district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly,

we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on

the reasoning of the district court. Rogers v. Turlington, No. CA95-142-HC-5-BO (Aug. 14, 1996). We dispense with oral argument

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in

the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
#### BRUDER, Appellant, v. KLENKE et al., Respondents.

(Supreme Court, -Appellate Term.

February 28, 1905.)

Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, Tenth District. Action by Abe Bruder against Emma R. Klenke and another. From a judgment for defendants, after a trial without a jury, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed. .Tacón I. Wiener, for appellant. Albert G. Sharkey, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

One of the defendants pleaded that the note sued upon was diverted from the purposes for which she gave her indorsement, and the other defendant pleaded that it was given for a gambling debt. There was satisfactory evidence given in support of each of these defenses, and of the further fact that the plaintiff did not receive the note in good faith or for value, but that it was still the property of the original holder, to whom it had been given for a gambling debt. Judgment affirmed, with costs.
#### Joseph Biondo, Appellant, v. City of Rochester et al., Respondents.

Motion granted to prosecute appeal on one typewritten original record of testimony, original and five typewritten copies of judgment roll.
Order filed, June 04, 2012

.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 12

- 00311

- CR

____________ ROBERT VILLARREAL , Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

On Appeal from the 122nd District Court Galveston County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 07CR2810



### ORDER

The reporter’s record in this case was due May 1, 2012 , 2012. See Tex. R. App.
P. 35.1. On May 1, 2012 , this court granted the court reporters request for extension of
time to file the record until May 31, 2012 . To date, the record has not been filed with the court. Because the reporter’s record was not filed within the time prescribed in the first request, the court GRANTS your second request and issue s the following order.

We order Judy Hansen , the official court re porter, to file the record in this appeal

on or before June 14, 2012

. No further extension will be entertained absentexceptional circumstances . The trial and appellate courts are jointly responsible for

en suring that the appellate record is timely filed. See Tex. R. App. P. 35.3(c). If Judy
Hansen does not timely file the record as ordered, the Court may issue an order directing the trial court to conduct a hearing to determine the reason for the failure to file the
record.

PER CURIAM
Editorial Note on Part 982
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 982 appear at 64 FR 26640, May 14, 1999, and at 89 FR 38293, May 7, 2024.

§ 982.629 Homeownership option: Additional PHA requirements for family search and purchase. ( a ) The PHA may establish the maximum time for a family to locate a home, and to purchase the home.
( b ) The PHA may require periodic family reports on the family's progress in finding and purchasing a home.
( c ) If the family is unable to purchase a home within the maximum time established by the PHA, the PHA may issue the family a voucher to lease a unit or place the family's name on the waiting list for a voucher.