alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1

Rule 10 of the Rules o f the Court of Appeals p rovides as follows:

This Court, with the c oncurren ce of all judges participating in the case, may affirm,

reverse or modify the actions of the trial court by memorandum opinion when a

formal opinion would have no precedential value. W hen a case is decided by

memorandum opinion it sha ll be designa ted “ME MOR AND UM O PINIO N,” shall

not be published, and shall not be cited or relied on for any reason in any unrelated

case.

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT KNOXVILLE

Assigned on Briefs September 19, 2001

MARTA MONZON v. MIGUEL ANGEL MONZON

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Hamilton County

No. D57538 L. Marie Williams, Judge

FILED OCTOBER 31, 2001

No. E2000-03155-COA-R3-CV 

The appellant, Marta Monzon, filed her notice of appeal more than 30 days after the entry of the trial

court’s final judgment. As a consequence of this late filing, we are without jurisdiction to hear this

appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Appeal Dismissed; Case Remanded

CHARLES D. SUSANO, JR.,J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which HOUSTON M. GODDARD,

P.J., and D. MICHAEL SWINEY, J., joined.

Marta Monzon, Collegedale, Tennessee, Pro Se.

No appearance by appellee.

MEMORANDUM OPINION1

This is a post-divorce proceeding. Following hearings on August 3, 2000, and October 16,

2000, the trial court entered an order on October 18, 2000. Ms. Monzon filed a notice of appeal on

December 18, 2000.

The notice of appeal was not timely filed. Tenn. R. App. 4(a) clearly provides that the

“notice of appeal required by [Tenn. R. App. P.] 3 shall be filed with and received by the clerk of

the trial court within 30 days after the date of entry of the judgment appealed from.” In the instant
-2-

case, the notice of appeal was filed more than 30 days after the entry of the trial court’s judgment.

We are without authority to extend the “time for filing a notice of appeal prescribed in [R]ule 4.”

Tenn. R. App. P. 2. Furthermore, we cannot “enlarge the time for filing” the notice of appeal. Tenn.

R. App. P. 21(b). “This Court lacks jurisdiction to hear and decide a case if the notice of appeal is

not timely filed.” Begley Lumber Co. v. Trammell, 15 S.W.3d 455, 456 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1999),

perm. app. denied March 6, 2000.

This appeal is dismissed at the costs of Marta Monzon. This case is remanded for

enforcement of the trial court’s judgment and for collection of costs assessed below, all pursuant to

applicable law.

___________________________________ 

CHARLES D. SUSANO, JR., JUDGE
Order filed, December 05, 2018

.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 18

- 01034

- CR

____________ JOSE ERNEST ADAME , Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

On Appeal from the 177th District Court

Harris County, Texas Tr ial Court Cause No. 1426474



### ORDER
The reporter’s record in this case was due August 08, 2014

. See Tex. R. App. P. 35.1. The court has not received a request to extend time for filing the
record. The record has not been filed with the court. Because the reporter’s record has not been filed timely, we issue the following order.

We order Linda Hacker , the official court reporter, to file the record in this appeal within 30 days of the date of this order

. PER CURIAM
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

GARRETT YOUNG,

Petitioner,

v. Case No.: 4:20cv576-MW/MAF

LEON COUNTY DETENTION

FACILITY,

Respondent.

_________________________/

ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This Court has considered, without hearing, the Magistrate Judge's Report and 

Recommendation, ECF No. 18, and has also reviewed de novo Petitioner’s

objections, ECF No. 19. Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED:

The report and recommendation, ECF No. 18, is accepted and adopted, over 

the Petitioner’s objections, as this Court’s opinion. The Clerk shall enter judgment 

stating, “Respondent’s motion to dismiss, ECF No. 16, is GRANTED. Petitioner’s 

second amended petition for writ of habeas corpus, ECF No. 10 is DISMISSED.” 

The Clerk shall close the file. 

SO ORDERED on July 20, 2021.

s/Mark E. Walker 

Chief United States District Judge

Case 4:20-cv-00576-MW-MAF Document 20 Filed 07/20/21 Page 1 of 1
#### § 6.2 Responsibility for actions under section 22 and section 8(a).

The primary responsibility within the Department of Agriculture for action on matters for which the Secretary is responsible under section 22 of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933, as amended, and section 8(a) of the Trade Agreements Extension Act of 1951 is assigned to the Administrator, Foreign Agricultural Service (referred to in this part as the “Administrator”), but the other offices, agencies, and bureaus of the Department whose activities will be affected by any action under section 22 or section 8(a) shall be consulted by the Administrator in discharging his responsibility under this part.
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATION

I, Martha L. Long, certify that:

1.

I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of McCombs Realty Partners;

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 small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;



4.

The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) 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 small business issuer and have:



(a)

Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the small business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;



(b)

Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and



(c)

Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuer's most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting; and



5.

The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuer's auditors and the audit committee of the small business issuer's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):



(a)

All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the small business issuer'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 small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting.

Date: November 8, 2007

/s/Martha L. Long

Martha L. Long



Senior Vice President of CRPTEX, Inc., equivalent of the chief executive officer of the Partnership
§ 760.1907 Eligibility subject to verification. ( a ) Producers who are approved for participation in ERP Phase 2 are required to retain documentation in support of their application for 3 years after the date of approval.
( b ) Participants receiving ERP Phase 2 payments must permit authorized representatives of USDA or the Government Accountability Office, during regular business hours, to enter the agricultural operation and to inspect, examine, and to allow representatives to make copies of books, records, or other items for the purpose of confirming the accuracy of the information provided by the participant.
§ 764.154 Rates and terms. Cross Reference
Link to an amendment published at 89 FR 65040 , Aug. 8, 2024.
( a ) *Rates.* ( 1 ) The interest rate is the Agency's Direct Farm Ownership rate, available in each Agency office.
( 2 ) The limited resource Farm Ownership interest rate is available to applicants who are unable to develop a feasible plan at regular interest rates.
( 3 ) If the FO loan is part of a joint financing arrangement and the amount of the Agency's loan does not exceed 50 percent of the total amount financed, the interest rate charged will be the greater of the following: ( i ) The Agency's Direct Farm Ownership rate, available in each Agency office, minus 2 percent; or
( ii ) 2.5 percent.
( 4 ) The interest rate charged will be the lower of the rate in effect at the time of loan approval or loan closing.
( b ) *Terms.* Except for MLs made for FO purposes, the Agency schedules repayment of an FO loan based on the applicant's ability to repay and the useful life of the security. In no event will the term be more than 40 years from the date of the note. ( 1 ) For MLs made for FO purposes the Agency schedules repayment of an FO based on the applicant's ability to repay and the useful life of the security. In no event will the term be more than 25 years from the date of the note.
( 2 ) [Reserved]
[72 FR 63298, Nov. 8, 2007, as amended at 79 FR 78693, Dec. 31, 2014; 81 FR 3293, Jan. 21, 2016]
| **National      Center for       Health Statistics               Division of Data       Services               6525 Belcrest Road       Hyattsville, MD       20782-2003       (301)458-4636 **

**The National Immunization SurveyHome | English Overview | Spanish Overview | Household FAQProvider FAQ | Children with    Special Health Care Needs FAQSurvey of Families with Young Children FAQ | ConfidentialityAbt Associates Inc. | MMWR | Search NCHS | Contact    us**
**Contact Us**

For questions about the    Random-Digit Dial Telephone Survey**e-mail** or phone (800) 247-1970.

For questions about the    Provider Record Check Study**e-mail** or phone (800) 886-7732.

**Home | English Overview | Spanish Overview |    Household FAQProvider FAQ | Children with    Special Health Care Needs FAQSurvey of Families with Young Children FAQ | ConfidentialityAbt Associates Inc. | MMWR | Search NCHS | Contact    us**
**CDC Home | Search    | Health Topics A-Z**
This page last reviewed March 24, 2000

**U.S.    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES****Centers    for Disease Control and Prevention**    National Center for Health Statistics    Division of Data Services     Hyattsville, MD    20782-2003    (301) 458-4636
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

 )

 v. ) CR. NO. 2:06-cr-169-WKW

 )

DARNELL MONTREZE BROWN )

O R D E R

Upon consideration of the government's motion for release of prisoner filed on September

28, 2007, and for good cause, it is ORDERED that the motion be and hereby is GRANTED.

It is hereby ORDERED that the United States Marshals Service release custody of Darnell

Brown, to Todd Mims, DEA, and/or Tom Halasz, DEA, on September 28, 2007, through December

28, 2007, so that said agents can take such prisoner into custody without the necessity of the presence

of a Deputy United States Marshal.

It is further ORDERED that Todd Mims, DEA, and/or Tom Halasz, DEA, return said

prisoner into the custody of the United States Marshals Service when they have finished with him.

DONE this the ______ day of September, 2007.

______________________________

Susan Russ Walker

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:06-cr-00169-WKW-SRW Document 337-2 Filed 09/28/2007 Page 1 of 1
---

Exhibit 13.1








CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. §1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the annual report of Ur-Energy Inc. (the "Corporation") on Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, W. William Boberg, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Corporation, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.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 Corporation.





Date: March 11, 2010





/s/ W. William BobergW. William BobergPresident and Chief Executive Officer(principal executive officer)
#### In the Matter of Elaine Wolf, Respondent, v. Murray Wolf, Appellant.

Order of the Family Court, Queens County, dated October 31, 1968, modified, on the law and the facts and in the exercise of discretion, by reducing to $40 a week the amount awarded for the support of each child. As so modified, order affirmed, without costs. In our opinion the evidence in the record does not warrant increasing the amount of support for each child to more than $40 a week. Christ, Acting P. J., Brennan, Hopkins, Munder and Martuscello, JJ., concur.
**EXHIBIT 35.2**

**WASHINGTON MUTUAL MORTGAGE SECURITIES CORP.**

**OFFICER’S CERTIFICATEANNUAL STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE** 

            I, Barbara Campbell, an authorized officer of Washington Mutual Mortgage Securities Corp. (the “AdministrativeAgent”), do hereby certify to WaMu Asset Acceptance Corp. (the “Depositor”) and Washington Mutual Bank (the “Servicer”), pursuant to the Amended and Restated Administrative Agent Agreement dated as of February 1, 2005(the “Servicing Agreement”) by and between the Servicer, and the Administrative Agent the following with respect to Washington Mutual Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates WMALT Series 2006-9 Trust for the 2006 fiscal year  (the“Relevant Year”):

1.                 A review of the activities of the Servicer during the Relevant Year and of performance under the ServicingAgreement has been made under my supervision.

2.                 To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under theServicing Agreement in all material respects throughout the Relevant Year, except as set forth in paragraph 3 below.

3.         Servicing fees in excess of the amounts provided for under the termsof the Servicing Agreement were subtracted from the funds remitted to investors on the November 2006 distribution date, resulting in an underpayment of interest to eighteen classes of certificateholders.  The interest shortfall was remitted to the trustee withinthree days of the distribution date and a corrected distribution statement was made available to investors on November 28, 2006 and a Form 10-D with the corrected distribution statement was timely filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Dated as of March 15, 2007. 
|  

/s/ Barbara Campbell________________Name:  Barbara CampbellTitle:    First Vice President |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
52.246-1 Contractor Inspection Requirements.       As prescribed in 46.301, insert the following clause:          Contractor Inspection Requirements (Apr 1984)          The Contractor is responsible for performing or having performed all inspections and tests necessary to substantiate that the supplies or services furnished under this contract conform to contract requirements, including any applicable technical requirements for specified manufacturers’ parts. This clause takes precedence over any Government inspection and testing required in the contract’s specifications, except for specialized inspections or tests specified to be performed solely by the Government.          (End of clause)    **Parent topic:** 52.246 [Reserved]
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

OSCAR TREJO,

 Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

 Appellee.

§

§

§

§

§

§ 

No. 08-12-00117-CR

Appeal from the

205th District Court

of El Paso County, Texas

(TC#20100D01573)

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the record and concludes there was no error in the 

judgment. We therefore affirm the judgment of the court below. This decision shall be certified 

below for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 19TH DAY OF MARCH, 2014.

GUADALUPE RIVERA, Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Rivera, and Rodriguez, JJ.
§ 761.11 Dishonored payment fee. ( a ) The Agency will charge a fee for payment transactions that are returned for insufficient funds.
( b ) [Reserved]
[87 FR 13123, Mar. 9, 2022]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000759440
<NAME> BIG RIVER PRODUCTIONS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                          $110296
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  $110296
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             $2344
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     $107952
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   $110296
<SALES>                                        $ 98059
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               $ 98059
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    (1847)
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             96,212
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    96,212
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 33.5**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 criteriaspecified 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 thefollowing servicing platform for the following period:Platform: Publicly-issued (i.e., transaction-level reporting initially required under theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended) residential mortgage-backed securities and othermortgage-related asset-backed securities issued on or after January 1, 2006 (and like-kindtransactions issued prior to January 1, 2006) for which the Company provides trustee, securitiesadministration, paying agent or custodial services. The platform includes like kind transactionsfor which the Company provided trustee, securities administrator, paying agent or custodialservices as a result of the Company’s acquisition as of October 1, 2006 of portions of JPMorganChase Bank, N.A.’s corporate trust business, including structured finance agency and trusttransactions.Applicable Servicing Criteria: All servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d), to theextent required by the related transaction agreements as to any transaction, except for thefollowing 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 ofcompliance in respect of the Applicable Servicing Criteria:**•** The Company is responsible for assessing its compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria. **•** The Company has assessed compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria. **•** As of December 31, 2006 and for the Period, the Company was in material compliance with theApplicable Servicing Criteria.
 

 
Ernst & Young LLP, an independent registered public accounting firm, has issued an attestationreport with respect to the Company’s foregoing assessment of compliance.         The Bank of New York
#### § 58.246 Cleaning of dryers, collectors, conveyors, ducts, sifters and storage bins.

This equipment shall be cleaned as often as is necessary to maintain such equipment in a clean and sanitary condition. The kind of cleaning procedure either wet or dry and the frequency of cleaning shall be based upon observation of actual operating results and conditions.
Case 1:06-cv-00634-WKW-WC Document 14-2 Filed 05/29/2007 Page 1 of 3
Case 1:06-cv-00634-WKW-WC Document 14-2 Filed 05/29/2007 Page 2 of 3
Case 1:06-cv-00634-WKW-WC Document 14-2 Filed 05/29/2007 Page 3 of 3
Case 2:06-cv-00618-MEF-SRW Document 74-20 Filed 02/08/2008 Page 1 of 4
Case 2:06-cv-00618-MEF-SRW Document 74-20 Filed 02/08/2008 Page 2 of 4
Case 2:06-cv-00618-MEF-SRW Document 74-20 Filed 02/08/2008 Page 3 of 4
Case 2:06-cv-00618-MEF-SRW Document 74-20 Filed 02/08/2008 Page 4 of 4