alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Lloyd’s Shopping Centers, Inc., Respondent, v. Regent Properties, Inc., Appellant.

*Per Curiam.*

Appeal by defendant from an order granting summary judgment to the plaintiff. An examination of the complaint leaves some question as to whether the plaintiff intended to plead a cause of action pursuant to section 329 of the Real Property Law or whether it sought to remove a cloud on title pursuant to article 15 of the Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law, or both. The brief submitted on this appeal is less than helpful. Relief pursuant to section 329 is not available as an executory contract for the sale of real property may be recorded (Real Property Law, § 294) if it is in recordable form (§ 294, subd. 1). The present contract is recordable. The requirements of a complaint pursuant to article 15 of the Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law “Action to compel the determination of a claim to real property” are set forth in section 1515 thereof and while technically.the present complaint is not in full compliance therewith, the defendant has raised no question as to this aspect of the complaint. Procedurally the plaintiff is entitled to summary judgment as the opposing eonelusory affidavits are submitted by an attorney and set forth no evidentiary facts of a defective title or that the utilities are not brought to the perimeter *895of the subject matter as found by Special Term. In such circumstances, there being no question of fact, this court considers the motion papers as being in general compliance with the requirements of section 1515 above and accordingly, the defendant and every person claiming thereunder are barred from all claims to real estate or interest in the property described in the said complaint. Order modified, on the law, so as to grant relief pursuant to article 15 of the Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law, as set forth herein, and, as so modified, affirmed, with costs. ¡Settle order. Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Reynolds, Aulisi and Gabrielli, JJ., concur in memorandum *Per Curiam.*
EXHIBIT 31.2

CERTIFICATION

I, Lisa K. Peterson, certify that:

1.     I
have reviewed this report on Form 10-K of Heelys, Inc.;

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)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f))
for the registrant and have:



5.     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 the registrant's board of directors:



Date:
March 31, 2009

|    |  |                                                               |  | 
|--- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------- |  | 
|By: |  | /s/ LISA K. PETERSON Lisa K. Peterson Chief Financial Officer |  | 

---



QuickLinks
Exhibit 35.1
                                                                    ------------

                          SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT

For the period of September 1, 2006 to December 31, 2006, the servicing of
consumer finance receivables owned by BMW Vehicle Owner Trust 2006-A has been
conducted by BMW Financial Services NA, LLC, in its capacity as servicer, in
compliance with the servicing standards in all material respects, set forth in
Articles IV and V of the Sale and Servicing Agreement dated September 1, 2006.
To the best of the undersigned's knowledge, based on such review, the servicer
has fulfilled all of its obligations under the agreement in all material
respects throughout the reporting period.

By:   BMW Financial Services NA, LLC

By:       /s/ Kerstin Zerbst
       ------------------------------
       Kerstin Zerbst

Title: Chief Financial Officer
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

MATTHEW J. THOMPSON,

Plaintiff,

v. 4:20cv594–WS/MAF

DR. LESLIE COLOMBANI, et al.,

Defendants.

 

ORDER ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Before the court is the magistrate judge's report and recommendation (ECF

No. 3) docketed January 5, 2021. The magistrate judge recommends that this

action be transferred to the Middle District of Florida. Plaintiff has filed no

objections to the report and recommendation.

The court having reviewed the matter, it is ORDERED:

1. The magistrate judge's report and recommendation (ECF No. 3) is adopted

and incorporated by reference in this order of the court.

Case 4:20-cv-00594-WS-MAF Document 7 Filed 02/05/21 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

2. The clerk shall TRANSFER this action to the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Florida, Jacksonville Division, for all further

proceedings.

DONE AND ORDERED this 5th day of February , 2021.

s/ William Stafford 

WILLIAM STAFFORD

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 4:20-cv-00594-WS-MAF Document 7 Filed 02/05/21 Page 2 of 2
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]
#### SCHLESINGER, Appellant, v. SAGOR, Respondent.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

September 28, 1906.)

Action by Joseph Schlesinger against Joseph Sagor, first name fictitious, etc.

No opinion. Judgment of the Municipal Court affirmed, with costs.
#### § 51.2853 One type.

*One type* means that the onions are within the same general color category.
**Annual
      Compliance Statement**





VIA:
      EMAIL





J.P.
      Morgan Chase Commercial Mortgage Securities Corp.


270
      Park
      Avenue, 10th Floor


New
      York,
      New York 10017





Re:
      Pooling and Servicing Agreement (the "Agreement"), dated as of June 1, 2006,
      among J.P. Morgan Chase Commercial Mortgage Securities Corp., as Depositor,
      Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. as Master Servicer No. 1, Midland Loan Services, Inc.,
      as
      Master Servicer No. 2, J.E. Robert Company, Inc., as Special Servicer, and
      LaSalle Bank National Association, as Trustee, relating to J.P. Morgan Chase
      Commercial Mortgage Securities, Commercial Mortgage Pass Through Certificates,
      Series 2006-LDP8.





I,
      Barbara L. Marik, a First Vice President of LaSalle Bank National Association,
      as Trustee hereby certify that:





(1)
      A
      review of the activities of the Trustee during the preceding calendar year
      and
      of the performance of the Trustee under the Agreement has been made under my
      supervision; and





(2)
      To
      the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Trustee has fulfilled all
      its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout such
      year or a portion thereof.








Date: February
      1, 2007








LaSalle
      Bank National Association, as Trustee








/s/
      Barbara L Marik


Barbara
      L. Marik


First
      Vice President
#### §§ 5001.525-5001.600 [Reserved]
EXHIBIT 32.2



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION
1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the
Quarterly Report of Bush Industries, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 27, 2003 (the Report) I, Robert L. Ayres, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §
1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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 (the Exchange Act); and



(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
of operations of the Company.



|/s/    Robert L. Ayres     
|---------------------------
|Robert L. Ayres            
|President,                 
|Chief Operating Officer and
|Chief Financial Officer    
|November 10, 2003          



30
#### §§ 765.156-765.160 [Reserved]
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Charles R. Wilcox, Appellant, v Village of Endicott et al., Respondents. Workers’ Compensation Board, Respondent.

Appeal from a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Board, filed November 15, 1978, which disallowed a claim for compensation under the Workers’ Compensation Law. Claimant, a lieutenant with the Village of Endicott Police Department, filed a claim for benefits in which he contended that the myocardial infarction he suffered while camping on May 31, 1975 was causally related to his job activities he had performed earlier that day. The referee found in favor of claimant, but on appeal, the board rescinded the award and referred claimant to an impartial cardiologist, Dr. Dean, for his opinion as to causal relation. Based upon Dr. Dean’s report and testimony that claimant’s myocardial infarction was not causally related to his job activities of May 31, 1975, the board disallowed the claim. In our view, there should be an affirmance. There is substantial evidence to support the board’s decision that claimant’s myocardial infarction was not causally related to his employment. Both Dr. Dean and Dr. Walters testified that claimant did not suffer a subendocardial infarction, which can be produced by stress ¿nd strain, but sustained a transmural myocardial infarction which cannot be brought on by work effort. We have examined claimant’s other contentions and find them to be without merit. Decision affirmed, *701without costs. Mahoney, P. J, Greenblott, Sweeney, Kane and Casey, JJ, concur.
#### Hospital for Joint Diseases et al., Respondents, v Travelers Property Casualty Insurance Company et al., Appellants.

Submitted September 10, 2007;

decided September 18, 2007

Reported below, 34 AD3d 532.

Motion by New York Insurance Association, Inc. for leave to appear amicus curiae on the appeal herein granted only to the extent that the proposed brief is accepted as filed. Two copies of the brief must be served and 24 copies filed within seven days.
52.247-17 Charges.       As prescribed in 47.207-6(a)(2), insert the following clause in solicitations and contracts for transportation or for transportation-related services:          Charges (Apr 1984)          In no event shall charges under this contract be in excess of charges based on the Contractor’s lowest rate available to the general public, or be in excess of charges based on rates otherwise tendered to the Government by the Contractor for the same type of service.          (End of clause)    **Parent topic:** 52.247 [Reserved]
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

WILMARIO DEVONDRIC

TRUEBLOOD,

Petitioner,

v. Case No.: 4:20cv560-MW/MAF

RICKY D. DIXON,

1

Respondent.

_________________________/

ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

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

Recommendation, ECF No. 20, and has also reviewed de novo Petitioner’s

objections, ECF No. 27. This Court notes that Petitioner’s objection that his 

counsel’s Rule 3.850 hearing testimony contradicted her motion for psychiatric 

evaluation is belied by the record, in which defense counsel explained to the court, 

at the time her motion for a second competency evaluation was pending, that “what 

[she] wanted was really a mitigation specialist,” and she felt like she “really didn’t 

1 On November 19, 2021, Ricky D. Dixon succeeded Mark S. Inch as the Secretary of the 

Florida Department of Corrections (FDOC) and is automatically substituted for Inch, in his official 

capacity, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(d).

Case 4:20-cv-00560-MW-EMT Document 29 Filed 01/20/22 Page 1 of 2
2

have a choice but to [file her motion for a second competency evaluation.]” ECF No. 

11-1 at 246-47. Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED:

The report and recommendation, ECF No. 20, is accepted and adopted, over 

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

stating, “The petition for writ of habeas corpus, ECF No. 1, is DENIED.” A 

certificate of appealability is DENIED. The Clerk shall close the file. 

SO ORDERED on January 20, 2022.

s/Mark E. Walker 

Chief United States District Judge

Case 4:20-cv-00560-MW-EMT Document 29 Filed 01/20/22 Page 2 of 2
52.247-46 Shipping Point(s) Used in Evaluation of F.o.b. Origin Offers.       As prescribed in 47.305-3(b)(4)(ii), insert the following provision in f.o.b. origin solicitations when price evaluation for shipments from various shipping points is contemplated:          Shipping Point(s) Used in Evaluation of F.o.b. Origin Offers (Apr 1984)                                       (a) 						            If more than one shipping point or plant is designated by the offeror and the offeror fails to indicate the quantity per shipping point or plant before bid opening, the Government will evaluate the offer on the basis of delivery of the entire quantity from the point or plant where cost of transportation is most favorable to the Government.                                          (b) 						            If the offeror, before bid opening (or the closing date specified for receipt of offers) fails to indicate any shipping point or plant, the Government will evaluate the offer on the basis of delivery from the plant at which the contract will be performed, as indicated in the offer. If no plant is indicated in the offer, the offer will be evaluated on the basis of delivery from the Contractor’s business address indicated in the offer.                                          (c) 						            If the offeror uses a shipping point other than that which has been used by the Government as a basis for the evaluation of offers, any increase of transportation costs shall be borne by the Contractor and any savings shall revert to the Government.                                 (End of clause)    **Parent topic:** 52.247 [Reserved]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE>           5
<LEGEND>
                    The Schedule contains summary financial 
                    information extracted from the financial
                    statements for P-B Watson & Taylor, Ltd. 3
                    and is qualified in its entirety by reference
                    to such financial statements
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED>          
<CIK>               0000759726
<NAME>              P-B Watson & Taylor, Ltd. 3

<MULTIPLIER>                    1
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               Sep-30-1998

<PERIOD-START>                  Oct-01-1997

<PERIOD-END>                    Mar-31-1998

<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-Mos

<CASH>                          1,054,998

<SECURITIES>                    0

<RECEIVABLES>                   0

<ALLOWANCES>                    0

<INVENTORY>                     0

<CURRENT-ASSETS>                1,054,998

<PP&E>                          275,000

<DEPRECIATION>                  0

<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  1,329,998

<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>           217,641

<BONDS>                         0

<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>           0

<PREFERRED>                     0

<COMMON>                        0

<OTHER-SE>                      1,112,357

<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>    1,329,998

<SALES>                         0

<TOTAL-REVENUES>                0<F1>

<CGS>                           0

<TOTAL-COSTS>                   0<F1>

<OTHER-EXPENSES>                0

<LOSS-PROVISION>                0

<INTEREST-EXPENSE>              0

<INCOME-PRETAX>                 0

<INCOME-TAX>                    0

<INCOME-CONTINUING>             0

<DISCONTINUED>                  0

<EXTRAORDINARY>                 0

<CHANGES>                       0

<NET-INCOME>                    0<F1>

<EPS-PRIMARY>                   0<F1>

<EPS-DILUTED>                   0
<FN>
<F1>
Registrant adopted the liquidation basis of accounting 
on October 1, 1996, and, accordingly, does not reflect
Statement of Operations subsequent to 1996. See Note A
to the financial statements for further details.
</FN>

</TABLE>
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

PENSACOLA DIVISION 

RANDY L. WOULLARD, 

 Plaintiff, 

vs. CASE NO: 3:20-CV-5421-LC-MAF 

SERGEANT ERYN CARTER, 

 Defendant. 

__________________________/ 

O R D E R 

This matter is before the Court on the magistrate judge’s Report and 

Recommendation dated June 10, 2021 (ECF No. 63), which recommends denying 

Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 51). The Report recommends 

that Plaintiff's claims for violations of the Eighth Amendment, the mental and 

emotional damages, and the state tort claims proceed against Defendant Carter and 

the request for criminal prosecution be dismissed. 

 The parties were furnished a copy of the Report and Recommendation and 

afforded an opportunity to file objections pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, 

Section 636(b)(1). No objections have been filed. 

 Having considered the Report and Recommendation, I have determined the 

Report and Recommendation should be adopted. 

Accordingly, it is ORDERED: 

Case 3:20-cv-05421-LC-MAF Document 66 Filed 07/20/21 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2 

Case No. 3:20-cv-5421-LC-MAF 

1. The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation is adopted and 

incorporated by reference in this order. 

2. Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 51) is DENIED. 

3. Plaintiff’s request for a criminal prosecution against Defendant is 

DISMISSED for lack of standing. 

4. Plaintiff’s claim alleging sexual harassment and sexual abuse in 

violation of the Eighth Amendment and the state tort claims of sexual assault and 

battery shall PROCEED against Defendant. 

5. Plaintiff’s claims for compensatory, punitive, and mental and emotional 

damages shall PROCEED against Defendant. 

6. The case is remanded to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings 

consistent with this Order. 

DONE AND ORDERED this 20th day of July, 2021. 

 

 LACEY A. COLLIER 

 SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

s/L.A. Collier 

Case 3:20-cv-05421-LC-MAF Document 66 Filed 07/20/21 Page 2 of 2
§ 62.211 Appeals. ( a ) *Appeals of adverse decisions.* Appeals of adverse decisions under this part may be made in writing to the AMS Administrator, Rm. 3069-S, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20250-0249 or to the director of the applicable service office. Appeals must be made within the timeframe specified by each program or within 30 calendar days of receipt of an adverse decision, whichever is sooner.
( b ) *Procedure for Appeals.* Actions under this subparagraph concerning appeals of adverse decisions to the Administrator shall be conducted in accordance with the Rules of Practice Governing Formal Adjudicatory Proceedings Instituted by the Secretary Under Various Statutes set forth at 7 CFR 1.130 through 1.151 and the Administrative Procedures Governing Withdrawal of Inspection and Grading Services in 7 CFR part 50. The procedure for appeals is specified by each program and/or by an overarching USDA AMS administrative procedure.
Dismiss and Opinion Filed June 15, 2021 

# S

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 20

- 01085

- CV IN THE INTEREST OF T.C.N., A CHILD On Appeal from the 255th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DF

- 17

- 15940
MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Chief Justice Burns, Justice Molberg, and Justice Goldstein

Opinion by Justice Molberg We questioned our jurisdiction over this appeal from the trial court’s order dismissing appellant’s petition to modify parent

- child relationship as it appeared
other claims remained pending and the appeal was premature. See Lehmann v. Har

Con Corp. , 39 S. W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001) (subject to mostly statutory exceptions,
appeal may be taken only from final judgment that disposes of all issues and parties).
Specifically, paternal grandmother had filed a petition for grandparent access, and
no order appeared to dispose of grandmother’s claims.– 2

–

In jurisdictional briefing filed at the Court’s request, appellant does not dispute grandmother’s petition has not been disposed of by written order, but asserts
the petition was orally stricken for lack of standing and, therefore, no claims remain.
As appellee points out, however, an oral ruling must be reduced to writing and signed
by the trial court. See T EX

. R. C IV

. P. 306a(2); Dunn v. Dunn , 439 S.W.3d 830, 832
(Tex. 1969) (trial court has ministerial duty to sig n judgment after oral rendition). Because no written order has been signed disposing of grandmother’s claims,
the appeal is premature and we lack jurisdiction over it. Accordingly, we dismiss
the appeal. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.3(a).

201085f.p05 /Ken Molberg// KE N MOLBERG JUSTICE– 3

– 

# S

Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

IN THE INTEREST OF T.C.N., A CHILD

No. 05

- 20

- 01085

- CV On Appeal from the 255th Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DF

- 17

- 15940. Opinion delivered by Justice Molberg, Chief Justice Burns and Justice Goldstein participating. In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, we DISMISS the appeal.

We ORDER that appellee Attauyo Nkere N sekhe recover his costs, if any, of this appeal from appellant Gelina Batts.

Judgment entered this 15 th day of June, 2021.
§ 760.909 Payment calculation. ( a ) Under this subpart separate payment rates are established for eligible livestock owners and eligible livestock contract growers in accordance with paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section. Payments for the 2005-2007 LIP are calculated by multiplying the national payment rate for each livestock category, as determined in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section, by the number of eligible livestock in each category, as provided in § 760.906. Adjustments will be applied in accordance with paragraphs (d) and (e) of this section.
( b ) The 2005-2007 LIP national payment rate for eligible livestock owners is based on 26 percent of the average fair market value of the livestock.
( c ) The 2005-2007 LIP national payment rate for eligible livestock contract growers is based on 26 percent of the average income loss sustained by the contract grower with respect to the dead livestock.
( d ) The 2005 payment calculated under 2005-2007 LIP for eligible livestock owners will be reduced by the amount the participant received under: ( 1 ) The Livestock Indemnity Program (subpart E of this part);
( 2 ) The Aquaculture Grant Program (subpart G of this part); and
( 3 ) The Livestock Indemnity Program II (part 1416, subpart C of this title).
( e ) The 2005 payment calculated under 2005-2007 LIP for eligible livestock contract growers will be reduced by the amount the participant received: ( 1 ) Under the Livestock Indemnity Program (subpart E of this part);
( 2 ) For the loss of income from the dead livestock from the party who contracted with the producer to grow the livestock; and
( 3 ) Under the Livestock Indemnity Program II (part 1416, subpart C of this title).