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

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT

OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION

Deloise Price, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 2: 06 cv721-MHT

 )

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., )

Extreme Performance, Inc., )

)

Defendants. )

NOTICE CONCERNING SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE AND MEDIATION

Pursuant to the Court’s Scheduling Order dated September 26, 2006, the undersigned 

counsel files this Notice Concerning Settlement Conference and Mediation. This pleading is

being filed within five days of the settlement conference conducted in this case. The case has

not settled, but the parties are continuing to discuss settlement. At this time, the parties do not

believe that mediation will assist in resolving the case short of trial. 

Respectfully Submitted,

/s/ Brian P. Strength

JOCK M. SMITH (SMIO47)

BRIAN P. STRENGTH (STR052)

Attorneys for Plaintiff

OF COUNSEL:

COCHRAN, CHERRY, GIVENS & SMITH

Post Office Box 830419

Tuskegee, Alabama 36083

Tel: (334) 727-0060

Fax: (334) 727-7197

Case 2:06-cv-00721-MHT-TFM Document 22 Filed 06/25/2007 Page 1 of 2
2

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that I have served a copy of the foregoing upon counsel listed below by

placing a copy same in the U. S. Mail, properly addressed and postage prepaid, on this the 25th

day of June, 2007;

Dennis Bailey

Rushton, Stakely, Johnston & Garrett, P.A.

P.O. Box 270

Montgomery, AL 36101

/s/ Brian P. Strength

OF COUNSEL

Case 2:06-cv-00721-MHT-TFM Document 22 Filed 06/25/2007 Page 2 of 2
#### Scott Mauro, Respondent, v James White, Appellant.

In a negligence action to recover damages for. personal injuries sustained in an automobile accident, defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated October 1, 1979, which granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and directed an assessment of damages. Order reversed, on the law, with $50 costs and disbursements, and motion denied. The existence of factual issues regarding the events immediately preceding the instant accident and conflicting inferences which may be drawn therefrom preclude the granting of summary judgment (see *Ugarriza v Schmieder,*46 NY2d 471, affg 61 AD2d 1010). Mangano, J. P., Gulotta, Cohalan and Margett, JJ., concur.
1316.603-3 Limitations.

The designee authorized to determine that a letter contract is suitable so that work can begin

immediately is set forth in CAM 1301.70.

Parent topic: Subpart 1316.6 - Time-and-Materials, Labor-Hour, and Letter Contracts
EXHIBIT 31.1

             CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13A-14(D)/15D-14(D)
                  UNDER THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

I, Anthony N. Renzi, certify that:
1. I have  reviewed  this  report  on Form  10-K and all  reports  on Form  10-D
   required to be filed in respect of the period  covered by this report on Form
   10-K of RALI Series 2006-QO8 Trust (the "Exchange Act periodic reports");
2. Based on my knowledge,  the Exchange Act periodic reports,  taken as a whole,
   do 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,  all  of  the  distribution,  servicing  and  other
   information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by
   this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;
4. I am responsible for reviewing the activities  performed by the servicers and
   based on my knowledge and the compliance  reviews  conducted in preparing the
   servicer  compliance  statements  required in this report  under Item 1123 of
   Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic  reports,
   the servicers have fulfilled their obligations under the servicing agreements
   in all material respects; and
5. All of the reports on assessment of compliance  with  servicing  criteria for
   asset-backed  securities and their related  attestation reports on assessment
   of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to
   be included in this report in accordance  with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and
   Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this
   report,  except as otherwise disclosed in this report. Any material instances
   of noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in this report
   on Form 10-K.
   In giving the  certifications  above, I have reasonably relied on information
   provided to me by the  following  unaffiliated  parties:  Deutsche Bank Trust
   Company Americas.


Date:  March 26, 2007

By:   /s/ Anthony N. Renzi
      ---------------------
Name:  Anthony N. Renzi
Title:    Managing Director
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 08-8412

ROBERT H. DIXON, 

 Plaintiff - Appellant, 

 v. 

R. DAVID MITCHELL, Superintendent, Mountain View 

Correctional Institution; NURSE PRESNELL, RN, Mountain View 

Correctional Institution, 

 Defendants - Appellees. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Graham C. Mullen, 

Senior District Judge. (1:08-cv-00473-GCM) 

Submitted: March 12, 2009 Decided: March 17, 2009 

Before MOTZ and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge. 

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Robert H. Dixon, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2 

PER CURIAM: 

Robert H. Dixon appeals the district court’s order 

denying him leave to file an amended complaint after the action 

had already been dismissed. We have reviewed the record and 

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the 

reasons stated by the district court. Dixon v. Mitchell, No. 

1:08-cv-00473-GCM (W.D.N.C. Nov. 3, 2008). 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. 

AFFIRMED
#### § 984.21 Handler inventory.

*Handler inventory as of any date* means all walnuts, inshell or shelled, wherever located, then held by a handler or for his or her account.

[85 FR 27108, May 7, 2020]
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

DONNA L. EARLY, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACT. NO. 2:06-CV-727-CSC

)

RHEEM MANUFACTURING )

COMPANY, et al ,)

)

Defendants. )

ORDER

Now pending before the court is the September 7, 2006, motion for extension of

time (doc. # 5) filed by the defendant. Upon consideration of the motion and for the

following reasons, it is

ORDERED that the motion be and is hereby GRANTED and that the time for

responding to the complaint be extended from September 14, 2006, to September 28,

2006.

Done this 7 day of September, 2006. th

 /s/Charles S. Coody 

CHARLES S. COODY

CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-00727-WKW-CSC Document 6 Filed 09/07/2006 Page 1 of 1
Instructions for Attorneys completing the electronic version of 

the Transcript Information Form for Appeals

An electronic version of the Transcript Order Information Form is available on the Middle

District of Alabama website. The following instructions and guidance are provided.

First Click on the link below to obtain the Transcript Order Information Form from the

Middle District of Alabama website: 

http://www.almd.uscourts.gov/forms/transcription-information-form.pdf

Second Complete the form electronically using Adobe Acrobat or other PDF editor. The

form should be signed using the s/ name convention for electronic signatures.

Third Save the completed form as a PDF document (using the full version of Adobe

Acrobat, PDF 995, etc.) or “print” the completed form to a PDF file (using

programs which only have PDF print capabilities).

Fourth File the form electronically with the district court using the CM/ECF system. 

From the main CM/ECF menu select:

Civil or Criminal Events; Appeal Documents; Transcript Information

Form. 

Fifth After the transcript information form is e-filed use the notice of electronic filing to

access the PDF image of the form and print it for the following step. This version

of the document contains the case number, filing date, and document number

information in a header along the top if you have that feature enabled.

Sixth Mail the printed form to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals; 56 Forsyth St,

NW; Atlanta, GA 30303.

Seventh Your transcript information form will be emailed to the court reporter when the

form is e-filed with the court. Please follow the prompts during the event.

 If you are requesting a transcript(s), you must also mail a copy of the printed form 

 to the appropriate court reporter(s).

Case 2:06-cv-00735-MHT-CSC Document 51 Filed 12/06/2007 Page 1 of 1
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
financial statements of Realmark Property Investors Limited Partnership IV for
the quarter ended June 30, 2000, and is qualified in its entirety by reference
to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1

<S>                                    <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                          3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                  DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                     APR-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                       JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                                 142,154
<SECURITIES>                                                 0
<RECEIVABLES>                                                0
<ALLOWANCES>                                                 0
<INVENTORY>                                                  0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                             0
<PP&E>                                               5,121,009
<DEPRECIATION>                                       2,419,358
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       2,942,272
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                        0
<BONDS>                                              3,950,000
<COMMON>                                                     0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                        0
<PREFERRED>                                                  0
<OTHER-SE>                                                   0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         2,942,272
<SALES>                                                      0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                       274,061
<CGS>                                                        0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                          309,428
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                             0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                             0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                     139,884
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                       (175,247)
<INCOME-TAX>                                                 0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                          0
<DISCONTINUED>                                               0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                              0
<CHANGES>                                                    0
<NET-INCOME>                                          (175,247)
<EPS-BASIC>                                                  0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                0


</TABLE>
#### § 948.5 Potatoes.

*Potatoes* means and includes all varieties of Irish potatoes grown within any of the aforesaid areas.
2007-1545.

#### In re Guardianship of Santrucek.

Licking App. No. 06 CA 130, 2007-Ohio-3427.

Lundberg Stratton, O’Connor, and O’Donnell, JJ., dissent.
# SUBPART 32.4 –– ADVANCE PAYMENTS FOR NON–COMMERCIAL ITEMS

**Parent topic:**PART 32 –– CONTRACT FINANCING

## 32.402 General.

(c)(1)(iii) The HCA is the designee.

## 32.407 Interest.

(d) The HCA is the designee.
-       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2022-04-13T07:50:17-0400
      - Government Publishing Office, Washington, DC 20401
      - Government Publishing Office
      - Government Publishing Office attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by Government Publishing Office
EXHIBIT 13.1





PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER CERTIFICATION


PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350





In connection with this Annual Report of North Atlantic Drilling Ltd (the "Company") on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2013 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC") on or about the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Alf Ragnar Løvdal, Principal Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 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.





A signed original of this written statement has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the SEC or its staff upon request.





Date: April 22, 2014








/s/ Alf Ragnar Løvdal





Alf Ragnar Løvdal


Chief Executive Officer
#### Lake Anne Realty Corp., Respondent, v Lake Anne at Monroe Associates, LLC, et al., Appellants.

[814 NYS2d 533]

In an action, inter alia, for a judgment declaring that the parties’ contract for the sale of real property was terminated and that the plaintiff was entitled to retain all payments made thereunder as liquidated damages, the defendants appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Slobod, J.), dated February 17, 2005, as, upon an order of the same court dated January 24, 2005, granting the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment, among other things, on its first cause of action, is in favor of the plaintiff and against them, declaring that the contract between the parties was properly terminated, that the parties had no further obligations to each other pursuant to the contract, and that the plaintiff was entitled to retain all payments made thereunder as liquidated damages.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The Supreme Court correctly determined that the defendant’s contention that the parties’ agreement was orally modified by alleged statements of the plaintiffs former attorney was barred by the provisions of General Obligations Law § 15-301. The contract expressly provided that its terms could only be modified in writing, and there was no evidence of partial performance or justifiable reliance unequivocally referable to such an oral modification *(see Rose v Spa Realty Assoc.,*42 NY2d 338, 343-344 [1977]; *Matter of Irving O. Farber, PLLC v Kamalian,*16 AD3d 506 [2005]; *Perry v Perry,*13 AD3d 508 [2004]). The defendant’s current argument that the plaintiff waived timely performance under the contract is improperly raised for the first time on appeal *(see Sandoval v Juodzevich,*293 AD2d 595 [2002]; *Orellano v Samples Tire Equip. & Supply Corp.,*110 AD2d 757 [1985]). In any event, the record is devoid of evidence that the attorney possessed the authority to waive performance *(see Bryan v State-Wide Ins. Co.,*144 AD2d 325 [1988]), or that the defendant could reasonably rely upon such a purported waiver given the circumstances of the case.

*867“A determination of summary judgment cannot be avoided by a claimed need for discovery unless some evidentiary basis is offered to suggest that discovery may lead to relevant evidence” *(Ruttura & Sons Constr. Co. v Petrocelli Constr.,*257 AD2d 614, 615 [1999]). Since the defendant’s arguments regarding the need for additional discovery in this action are completely speculative, the Supreme Court properly awarded judgment in favor of the plaintiff *(see Cordova v City of New York,*22 AD3d 784 [2005]; *Prado v City of New York,*19 AD3d 674 [2005]). Mastro, J.P., Rivera, Skelos and Covello, JJ., concur.
**Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**To the Board of Directors Pentalpha Surveillance, LLC  We have examined management's assertion, included in the accompanying Management's Report on Assessment of 2012 Compliance with Applicable Servicing Criteria (Management's Assertion), that Pentalpha Surveillance, LLC (the Company) complied with the servicing criteria set forth in item 1122(d) of the Securities and Exchange Commission's (SEC) Regulation AB for services by the Company that are encompassed by contractual obligations to perform Regulation AB reporting (the Platform), including only those asset-backed securities transactions defined below, as of and for the year ended December 31, 2012, excluding the following criteria set forth in items 1122(d)(1)(i-iv), 1122(d)(2)(i-vii), 1122(d)(3)(ii-iv), 1122(d)(4)(i-vi) and 1122(d)(4)(viii-xv), which management has determined are not applicable to the activities performed by the Company with respect to the Platform. Appendix A to Management's Assertion identifies the individual asset-backed transactions identified by management as constituting the Platform. Management is responsible for the Company's compliance with its contractual obligations and its assertion. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on Management's Assertion based on our examination. Our examination was conducted in accordance with attestation standards established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, as adopted by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) and, accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Company's activities related to the Platform and other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. Our procedures were limited to selected servicing activities performed by the Company during the period covered by this report. Further, an examination is not designed to detect noncompliance arising from errors that may have occurred prior to the period specified above that may have affected the balances or amounts calculated or reported by the Company during the period covered by this report. We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our examination does not provide a legal determination on the Company's compliance with the servicing criteria or its contractual obligations. In our opinion, Management's Assertion as of and for the year ended December 31, 2012 for the Platform, is fairly stated, in all material respects. /s/ McGladrey LLP Irvine, CA February 25, 2013
Editorial Note on Part 1
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 1 appear at 78 FR 34247, June 7, 2013.

§ 1.28 Office of Public Affairs. The Office of Public Affairs— ( a ) Develops policies, programs, and procedures for the Chairman's approval for informing the public of NRC activities;
( b ) Prepares, clears, and disseminates information to the public and the news media concerning NRC policies, programs, and activities;
( c ) Keeps NRC management informed on media coverage of activities of interest to the agency;
( d ) Plans, directs, and coordinates the activities of public information staffs located at Regional Offices;
( e ) Conducts a cooperative program with schools; and
( f ) Carries out assigned activities in the area of consumer affairs.
[57 FR 1639, Jan. 15, 1992]
162 So.2d 572

#### STATE of Louisiana, through the DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS v. ACME BRICK COMPANY.

No. 47193.

April 17, 1964.

In re: Acme Brick Company applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Parish of East Baton Rouge. 162 So.2d 37.

Writ refused. On the facts found by the Court cf Appeal there appears no error of law in its judgment.

FOURNETi 'C. 'J., and SUMMERS and SANDERS, JJ., are of the opinion that the writ should be granted.
§ 1014.9 Final denial of claim. ( a ) Final denial of an administrative claim shall be in writing and sent to the claimant, or the claimant's attorney or legal representative by certified or registered mail. The notification of final denial may include a statement of the reasons for the denial and shall include a statement that, if the claimant is dissatisfied with the Department's action, the claimant may file suit in an appropriate U.S. District Court not more than 6 months after the notification is mailed.
( b ) Before the commencement of suit and before the 6-month period provided in 28 U.S.C. 2401(b) expires, a claimant, or the claimant's duly authorized agent, or legal representative, may file a written request with the DOE General Counsel for reconsideration of a final denial of a claim. Upon the timely filing of a request for reconsideration the DOE shall have 6 months from the date of filing to decide the claim, and the claimant's option under 28 U.S.C. 2675(a) shall not accrue until 6 months after the request for reconsideration is filed. Final DOE action on a request for reconsideration shall be made in accordance with the provisions of paragraph (a) of this section.
#### § 986.18 Grower-cleaned production.

*Grower-cleaned production* means production harvested and processed through a cleaning plant to determine volumes of improved pecans, native and seedling pecans, and substandard pecans to transfer to a handler for sale.
#### Gail M. Galbraith, Appellant, v Richard J. Galbraith, Respondent.

Judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs. Memorandum: In this action by a wife against her husband, plaintiff sought to prove that the parties, who separated in 1974, were partners in a farming business on premises owned by them as tenants by the entirety. She asked for an accounting of partnership assets and liabilities; judgment for a half share of the net value; an accounting of income and expense of the farm since 1974; and judgment for the greater of half the net income or half the rental value of the farming operation since 1974. The trial court dismissed the complaint at the close of all the evidence. We affirm. Plaintiff wholly failed to demonstrate that there was a partnership between the parties (see *Martin v Peyton,*246 NY 213; *Miller v Schloss,*218 NY 400; Partnership Law, § 10, subd 1; § 11). Additionally, the evidence would support a finding that plaintiff voluntarily left defendant and the farm in 1974, made no effort to return and was not excluded from the farm operation by any act of defendant (see *Daigle v Daigle,*73 AD2d 771). Moreover, we note that the record supports the trial court’s determination that plaintiff’s claims are *771barred by laches (see *Smith v Maine,*145 Misc 521, 538). (Appeal from judgment of Wayne Supreme Court—action for an accounting.) Present— Dillon, P. J., Hancock, Jr., Schnepp, Doerr and Moule, JJ.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA 

NORTHERN DIVISION

JOHN DEREK WILLIAMS, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CASE NO. 2:06-cv-00716-WKW

)

BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD OF )

ALABAMA and NEW HORIZONS )

CHURCH, )

)

Defendants. )

ORDER

This case is before the court on the parties’ Rule 26(f) report (Doc. #9) wherein the parties

propose to stay the case pending the exhaustion administrative remedies. Therefore, it is 

ORDERED that the proceedings in this case are STAYED pending the exhaustion of

administrative remedies. The parties shall notify the court of the status of the case at the conclusion

of the administrative appeal or by May 15, 2007, whichever first occurs. 

DONE this 21st day of November, 2006.

 /s/ W. Keith Watkins 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-00716-WKW-WC Document 12 Filed 11/21/2006 Page 1 of 1