alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Opinion issued April 25, 2017

In The 

## Court of Appeals For The 

## First District of Texas

———————————— NO. 01 - 1 7 - 00 1 29 - CV

——————————— IN THE INTEREST OF J .L.G., JR. , A Child
On Appeal from the 315 th District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Ca se No. 20 1 4 - 0 6119J
MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant, J .L.G., through counsel, re presenting that the trial court has signed an order granting a new trial in this parental termination case , has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal as moot
. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 42.1(a)(1). We grant the motion and dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction
. We are authorized by statute to consider an appeal from a “final order” rendered under Title 5 of the Family Code. See T EX . F AM . C ODE A NN . § 109.002(b)2

(West 2011); see, e.g. , Brejon v. Johnson , 314 S.W.3d 26, 33 (Tex. App.

— Houston [1st Dist.] 2009, no pe t.). When the trial court grants a motion for new trial, the case is reinstated on the trial court’s docket and will proceed to trial as though no trial had been previously conducted. Wilkins v. Methodist Health Care Sys ., 160 S.W.3d 559, 563 (Tex. 2005)
. The granting of a new trial renders the appeal m oot , and this Court lacks jurisdiction over the appeal
. See Galvan v. Harris Cty. , No. 01

- 09

- 00884

- CV, 2011 WL 345677, at *1 (Tex. App.

— Houston [1st Dist.] Jan. 31, 2011, no pet.) (per curiam) (mem. op.) (dismissing appeal as moot after trial court signed order granting new trial)
. Accordingly, b ecause the trial court signed an order granting a new trial, we reinstate this case following th is Court’s March 21, 2017 Order of Abatement, grant the appellant’ s motion , and dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction
. 1 See T EX . R. A PP . P. 42.1(a)(1) , 43.2(f)
. We direct the Clerk of this Court to issue the mandate immediately with this opinion. See id. 18.1(c); T EX . R. J UD . A DMIN . 6.2(a) (West 2012). We dismiss any other pending motions as moot. PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices Je n nings, Higley, and Massengale
.

1 This Court had abated this case to determine whether appellant, J.L.G., was indigent and, if so, to appoint counsel. On April 13, 2017, the district clerk filed a third supplemental clerk’s record in this Court containing, among other things, the “A greed Order Granting Partial Motion for New Trial” for appellant, J.L.G., onl y, and appointing counsel for appellant, signed by the trial court on April 3, 2017.
Exhibit 32.1




CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO 18 C. SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906


OF
THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Linn Energy, LLC (the “Company”) on
Form 10-Q for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2008 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
“Report”), I, Michael C. Linn, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:




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 6, 2008
            By:
            /s/  Michael
      C. LinnMichael
      C. LinnChairman
      and Chief Executive Officer
# L_2021294EN.01005501.xml

| 17.8.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 294/55 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.8.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 294/55

---

Corrigendum to Council Regulation (EU) 2021/92 of 28 January 2021 fixing for 2021 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in Union waters and, for Union fishing vessels, in certain non-Union waters

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 31 of 29 January 2021
  )

On page 95, Annex IA, table for Blue ling (BLI/12INT-), comments:

for:

‘Precautionary TAC

Article 7(1) of this Regulation applies’,

read:

‘Precautionary TAC’.

---
To Board of Directors
Quipp, Inc.:

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements on
Form S-8 of Quipp, Inc., file numbers 333-6355 and 333-75085, of our report
dated February 19, 1999, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of Quipp,
Inc. and subsidiary as of December 31, 1998 and 1997, and the related
consolidated statements of income, shareholder's equity and cash flows for each
of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 1998, which report
appears in the December 31, 1998 annual report on Form 10-K of Quipp, Inc.




/ s / KPMG LLP
Miami, Florida
February 19, 1999
(Except NOTE 13 which is dated March 8, 1999.)
Editorial Note on Part 4290
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 4290 appear at 85 FR 16522, Mar. 24, 2020.

§ 4290.1620 Functions of agents, including Central Registration Agent, Selling Agent and Fiscal Agent. ( a ) *Agents.* The Agency may appoint or cause to be appointed agent(s) to perform functions necessary to market and service Debentures or TCs pursuant to this part. ( 1 ) *Selling Agent.* As a condition of guaranteeing a Debenture, the Agency may cause each RBIC to appoint a Selling Agent to perform functions that include, but are not limited to: ( i ) Selecting qualified entities to become pool or Trust assemblers (“Poolers”).
( ii ) Receiving guaranteed Debentures as well as negotiating the terms and conditions of sales or periodic offerings of Debentures and/or TCs on behalf of RBICs.
( iii ) Directing and coordinating periodic sales of Debentures and/or TCs.
( iv ) Arranging for the production of Offering Circulars, certificates, and such other documents as may be required from time to time.
( 2 ) *Fiscal Agent.* The Agency shall appoint a Fiscal Agent to: ( i ) Establish performance criteria for Poolers.
( ii ) Monitor and evaluate the financial markets to determine those factors that will minimize or reduce the cost of funding Debentures.
( iii ) Monitor the performance of the Selling Agent, Poolers, CRA, and the Trustee.
( iv ) Perform such other functions as the Agency, from time to time, may prescribe.
( 3 ) *Central Registration Agent.* Pursuant to a contract entered into with the Agency, the CRA, as the Agency's agent, will do the following with respect to the Pools or Trust Certificates for the Debentures: ( i ) Form an approved Pool or Trust;
( ii ) Issue the TCs in the prescribed form;
( iii ) Transfer the TCs upon the sale of original issue TCs in any secondary market transaction;
( iv ) Receive payments from RBICs;
( v ) Make periodic payments as scheduled or required by the terms of the TCs, and pay all amounts required to be paid upon prepayment of Debentures;
( vi ) Hold, safeguard, and release all Debentures constituting Trusts or Pools upon instructions from the Agency;
( vii ) Remain custodian of such other documentation as the Agency shall direct by written instructions;
( viii ) Provide for the registration of all pooled Debentures, all Pools and Trusts, and all TCs; and
( ix ) Perform such other functions as the Agency may deem necessary to implement the provisions of this section.
( b ) *Functions.* Either the Agency or an agent appointed by the Agency may perform the function of locating purchasers, and negotiating and closing the sale of Debentures and TCs. Nothing in the regulations in this part shall be interpreted to prevent the CRA from acting as the Agency's agent for this purpose.
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION

In connection with the Annual
Report of Histogenics Corporation (the Registrant) on Form 10-K for the annual period ended December 31, 2014 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, Adam
Gridley, President, Chief Executive Officer, and Director of the Registrant, and Kevin McArdle, Chief Financial Officer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that to their respective 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 Registrant.
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                     |  |                                                                    
|-------------------- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: March 27, 2015 |  | /s/ Adam Gridley                                                   
|                     |  | Adam Gridley                                                       
|                     |  | President and Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)



|                     |  |                                                                     
|-------------------- |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: March 27, 2015 |  | /s/ Kevin McArdle                                                   
|                     |  | Kevin McArdle                                                       
|                     |  | Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)

This certification is made solely for the purposes of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, subject to the knowledge standard
contained therein, and not for any other purpose. A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Registrant and will be retained by the Registrant and furnished to the United States Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

This certification accompanies the Form 10-K to which it relates, is not deemed filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Registrant under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (whether made before or after the date of the Form 10-K),
irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.
#### Vera Sacco, Respondent, v City of Buffalo et al., Defendants, and Loblaw, Inc., et al., Appellants.

Order unanimously reversed, without costs, motions granted and complaint dismissed. Memorandum: Defendants, Loblaw, Inc., and Beneficial Finance Corporation appeal from an order denying their motions for summary judgment in their personal injury action. Plaintiff alleges that she was injured when she slipped on snow or ice that had accumulated on the sidewalk in front of the West Side Shopping Center on Ferry Street in the City of Buffalo. In a verified bill of particulars and at examination before trial plaintiff stated that the accident occurred at a point on the sidewalk some two feet from the entrance to the Beneficial Finance Corporation office. In their moving papers defendants have shown that that part of the sidewalk is on land owned by the City of Buffalo. Since the evidence establishes that the defendants did not own or control this property and the complaint makes no claim that defendants took any action to create the dangerous condition, plaintiff has failed to state a common-law cause of action *(Roark v Hunting,*24 NY2d 470; see *Mandel v City of New York,*44 NY2d 1004). Instead, on appeal plaintiff seeks relief by virtue of a City of Buffalo ordinance that directs “every owner or occupier of any premises on any public street to remove before 9:00 in the morning all snow and ice which may have fallen upon the sidewalk in front of said premises” (Buffalo City Code, ch 4, § 21). However, unless such a statute or ordinance clearly imposes liability “An abutting owner is not liable even though he fails to comply with a provision * * * charging him with removal of snow and ice” *(Roark v Hunting, supra,*p 475). Since the Buffalo ordinance does not impose tort liability for failure to comply with its provisions it does not aid plaintiff *(Lodato v Town of Oyster Bay,*68 AD2d 904). (Appeal from order of Erie Supreme Court — summary judgment.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Cardamone, Schnepp, Doerr and Witmer, JJ.
Exhibit 33.2
                                 ------------


          ASSERTION OF COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE SERVICING CRITERIA



The Bank of New York and The Bank of New York Trust Company, N. A.
(collectively, the "Company") provides this platform-level assessment of
compliance with the servicing criteria specified in Item 1122(d) of Regulation
AB promulgated by the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Management has determined that the following servicing criteria are applicable
in regards to the following servicing platform for the following period:

Platform: Publicly-issued (i.e., transaction-level reporting initially
required under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended) residential
mortgage-backed securities and other mortgage-related asset-backed securities
issued on or after January 1, 2006 (and like-kind transactions issued prior to
January 1, 2006) for which the Company provides trustee, securities
administration, paying agent or custodial services. The platform includes like
kind transactions for which the Company provided trustee, securities
administrator, paying agent or custodial services as a result of the Company's
acquisition as of October 1, 2006 of portions of JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.'s
corporate trust business, including structured finance agency and trust
transactions.

Applicable Servicing Criteria: All servicing criteria set forth in Item
1122(d), to the extent required by the related transaction agreements as to
any transaction, except for the following criteria: 1122 (d) (1)(ii), (iii),
(iv), (4) (iv), (v), (vi), (vii), (viii), (ix), (x), (xi), (xii) and (xiii).

Period: Twelve months ended December 31, 2006.

With respect to the Platform and the Period, the Company provides the
following assessment of compliance in respect of the Applicable Servicing
Criteria:

o  The Company is responsible for assessing its compliance with the Applicable
Servicing Criteria.

o  The Company has assessed compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria.

o  As of December 31, 2006 and for the Period, the Company was in material
compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria.



                                      1
<PAGE>


Ernst & Young LLP, an independent registered public accounting firm, has
issued an attestation report with respect to the Company's foregoing
assessment of compliance.



      The Bank of New York                    The Bank of New York
      The Bank of New York Trust              The Bank of New York Trust
         Company, N.A.                           Company, N.A.


      /s/ Robert L. Griffin                   /s/ Patrick J. Tadie
      ---------------------------             ---------------------------
      Robert L. Griffin                       Patrick J. Tadie
      Authorized Signer                       Authorized Signer


March 1, 2007



                                      2
Document No. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

VS CASE NO. 5:91cr5008LAC

THOMAS LEE STEPHENS

REFERRAL AND ORDER

Referred to Judge Lacey Collier on January 3, 2007

Motion/Pleadings: MOTION PURSUANT TO FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE

59(e) 

Filed byDEFENDANT PRO SE on 12/21/2006 Doc.# 203

RESPONSES:

on Doc.#

on Doc.#

Stipulated Joint Pldg.

Unopposed Consented

WILLIAM M. McCOOL, CLERK OF COURT

s/Mary Maloy

LC (1 OR 2) Deputy Clerk: Mary Maloy

ORDER

Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is ORDERED this 4th day of

January, 2007, that:

(a) The relief requested is DENIED.

(b) 

 s/L.A. Collier 

LACEY A. COLLIER

Senior United States District Judge

Entered On Docket: By: 

Rules 58 & 79(a) FRCP or 32(d)(1) & 55 FRCRP

Copies sent to:

Case 5:91-cr-05008-WS-CAS Document 204 Filed 01/04/07 Page 1 of 1
Editorial Note on Part 4290
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 4290 appear at 85 FR 16522, Mar. 24, 2020.

§ 4290.3005 Qualifications for the Non-leveraged RBIC Program. ( a ) *Business form.* In addition to complying with the applicable provisions of § 4290.100 not otherwise modified by this section, paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(4) of this section apply. ( 1 ) For RBICs applying for non-leveraged status, the types of investors eligible to invest in a RBIC must have been approved by the Agency. Investors seeking approval must submit a request to the Agency with sufficient documentation to support their request. The USDA will announce such approved categories and types of investors in a public notice published in the Federal Register from time to time. Subsequent notices that modify the types of investors eligible to invest in a RBIC will not be applied retroactively.
( 2 ) In lieu of complying with § 4290.100(d)(1)(i), you must have a minimum duration of 10 years. After 10 years, the Partnership RBIC may be terminated by a vote of your partners.
( 3 ) In lieu of complying with § 4290.100(d)(2), if you are a LLC RBIC, you must have a minimum duration of 10 years. After 10 years, the LLC RBIC may be terminated by a vote of your members.
( 4 ) In lieu of complying with § 4290.100(d)(3), if you are a Corporate RBIC, you must have a duration of not less than 30 years unless earlier dissolved by the shareholders.
( b ) *Approval of initial Management Expenses.* Section 4290.140 does not apply to Non-leveraged RBICs. However, the Agency will provide a cap on these expenses in each Federal Register notice soliciting applications for Non-leveraged RBICs.
( c ) *Management and ownership diversity requirements.* A Non-leveraged RBIC is subject to the provisions of § 4290.150 unless it is exempted from these provisions by the Agency. Exemptions will only be granted when the applicant establishes, to the satisfaction of the Agency, that granting the exemption will not unduly impair the integrity and soundness of the Non-leveraged RBIC.
( d ) *Special rules for Partnership RBICs and LLC RBICs.* Paragraph (c) of § 4290.160 does not apply to Non-leveraged RBICs.
#### The People of the State of New York, Appellant, v Hector Nobles, Respondent.

[815 NYS2d 77]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Budd G. Goodman, J.), entered on or about June 15, 2004, which dismissed the indictment with leave to re-present, unanimously reversed, on the law, and the indictment reinstated.

This appeal by the People concerns defendant’s claimed right to dismissal of his indictment on the ground that he was deprived of an opportunity to appear before the grand jury. In this case, defendant’s lawyer withdrew notice of defendant’s intent to testify before the grand jury without informing defendant.

On February 15, 2004, defendant was arraigned on the charges of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of marijuana in the fifth degree after being observed selling crack/cocaine. Without consulting his client beforehand, defendant’s attorney served notice of defendant’s intent to testify before the grand jury.

Ten days later, again without consulting his client, the attorney withdrew notice of defendant’s intent to testify before the grand jury. Subsequently, the attorney stated that his failure to speak to defendant was a mistake. However, he also said that he believed defendant should not testify before the grand jury.

*430Defendant was indicted for criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree. Represented by new counsel, defendant then moved to dismiss the indictment. The court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the indictment, with leave to the People to re-present. The court noted that the attorney admitted “that he behaved in a manner that almost certainly constitutes ineffective assistance of counsel.”

This Court’s prior decisions in similar cases and circumstances mandate reversal (see *People v DelCerro,*299 AD2d 160 [2002], *lv denied*99 NY2d 557 [2002]; *People v Senior,*15 AD3d 302 [2005], *lv denied 4*NY3d 856 [2005]). *In. DelCerro,*we found that “[d]efense counsel’s failure to effectuate defendant’s request to testify before the grand jury did not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel” (299 AD2d at 161, citing *People v Wiggins,*89 NY2d 872, 873 [1996]).

Generally, in order “[t]o prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, it is incumbent on defendant to demonstrate the absence of strategic or other legitimate explanations for counsel’s [actions]” *(People v Rivera,*71 NY2d 705, 709 [1988]). Even though the attorney admitted that his failure to consult with defendant was a mistake, the attorney’s belief that it was better for defendant not to testify before the grand jury could have been “a reasonable decision by counsel . . . concerned with the perils of providing a prosecutor with potential impeachment material at trial” *(People v Foy,*220 AD2d 220, 221 [1995], *lv denied*87 NY2d 901 [1995]). Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Friedman, Marlow, Sullivan and Catterson, JJ.
Case 3:20-cr-00057-MCR Document 8 Filed 10/29/20 Page 1 of 2
Case 3:20-cr-00057-MCR Document 8 Filed 10/29/20 Page 2 of 2
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsPreliminary results from an airdata enhancement algorithm with application to high-angle-of-attack flightA technique was developed to improve the fidelity of airdata measurements during dynamic maneuvering. This technique is particularly useful for airdata measured during flight at high angular rates and high angles of attack. To support this research, flight tests using the F-18 high alpha research vehicle (HARV) were conducted at NASA Ames Research Center, Dryden Flight Research Facility. A Kalman filter was used to combine information from research airdata, linear accelerometers, angular rate gyros, and attitude gyros to determine better estimates of airdata quantities such as angle of attack, angle of sideslip, airspeed, and altitude. The state and observation equations used by the Kalman filter are briefly developed and it is shown how the state and measurement covariance matrices were determined from flight data. Flight data are used to show the results of the technique and these results are compared to an independent measurement source. This technique is applicable to both postflight and real-time processing of data.Document ID19910009782Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeConference PaperAuthorsMoes, Timothy R.*(NASA Hugh L. Dryden Flight Research Facility Edwards, CA, United States)*Whitmore, Stephen A.*(NASA Hugh L. Dryden Flight Research Facility Edwards, CA, United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 6, 2013Publication DateFebruary 1, 1991Subject CategoryAircraft InstrumentationReport/Patent NumberNASA-TM-101737H-1691NAS 1.15:101737Meeting InformationMeeting: AIAA 29th Aerospace Sciences MeetingLocation: Reno, NVCountry: United StatesStart Date: January 7, 1990End Date: January 10, 1990Accession Number91N19095Funding Number(s)PROJECT: RTOP 533-02-01Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19910009782.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024