alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
11 TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND

, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

Janos Farkas

, * From the 26th District

Court of Will i amson County,

Trial Court No. 11

- 070

- C26

.

Vs. No. 11

- 12

- 00024

- CV * January 9, 2014

Mortgage Electronic Registration * Memorandum Opinion by Wright, C.J

. Systems, Inc. et al.

, (Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

Willson , J. , and Bailey, J. )

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that there is no

error in the judgment below. Therefore, in accordance with this court ’ s opinion, the

judgment of the trial court is in all things affirmed. The costs incurred by reason of this

appeal are taxed against Janos Farkas

.
416.000 Scope of part.       Heads of contracting activities (HCA's) are authorized to establish written procedures allowing the use of any contract type described in FAR part 16 for acquisitions made under simplified acquisition procedures in FAR part 13.    **Parent topic:** PART 416 - TYPES OF CONTRACTS
H. Res. 330

In the House of Representatives, U.S., 

June 21, 2005.

Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 

shall be in order without intervention of any point of order 

to consider in the House the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 10) 

proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United 

States authorizing the Congress to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States. The joint resolution 

shall be considered as read. The previous question shall be 

considered as ordered on the joint resolution and on any 

amendment thereto to final passage without intervening motion except: (1) two hours of debate on the joint resolution 

equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking 

minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary; (2) the 

amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in the report 

of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution, if 

offered by Representative Watt of North Carolina or his designee, which shall be in order without intervention of any 

point of order, shall be considered as read, and shall be separately debatable for one hour equally divided and controlled 
2

•HRES 330 EH 

by the proponent and an opponent; and (3) one motion to recommit with or without instructions. 

SEC. 2. During consideration of H.J. Res. 10 pursuant 

to this resolution, notwithstanding the operation of the previous question, the Chair may postpone further consideration 

of the joint resolution to a time designated by the Speaker. 

Attest:

Clerk.
Case 2:06-cv-00693-ID-TFM Document 8 Filed 09/18/2006 Page 1 of 2
Case 2:06-cv-00693-ID-TFM Document 8 Filed 09/18/2006 Page 2 of 2
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

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

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

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

DENNIS DIXEY,

 Petitioner - Appellee,

 v.

J. E. THOMAS, Warden, FCI-Sheridan,

 Respondent - Appellant.

No. 07-35782

D.C. No. 07-cv-00101-MFM

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Oregon

Malcolm F. Marsh, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted June 29, 2010** 

Before: ALARCÓN, LEAVY, and GRABER, Circuit Judges. 

The Warden appeals from the district court’s judgment granting Dennis

Dixey’s 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition for writ of habeas corpus. We have jurisdiction

under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2253, and we reverse and remand.

FILED

JUL 21 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 07-35782

The Warden contends the district court erred by concluding 1) that the

Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) unlawfully modified Dixey’s restitution schedule by

setting the terms for his participation in the Inmate Financial Responsibility

Program (“IFRP”), and 2) that Dixey’s participation in the IFRP was involuntary. 

We held in an intervening case that where the district court has properly set a

restitution repayment schedule as required by the Mandatory Victims Restitution

Act, “the BOP has the authority to encourage voluntary payments in excess of

those required under the court’s judgment by conditioning the receipt of certain

privileges during the term of imprisonment on the inmate’s participation in the

IFRP.” United States v. Lemoine, 546 F.3d 1042, 1050 (9th Cir. 2008). In 

Lemoine, we also rejected the petitioner’s argument that his participation in the

IFRP was involuntary, reasoning that he did not have a preexisting right to receive

any of the benefits conditioned on his participation in the IFRP during his

incarceration. Id. at 1046. Because the district court did not have the benefit of

Lemoine at the time of its decision, we reverse and remand for further proceedings

in light of this disposition. See id. at 1050-51.

REVERSED and REMANDED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE BALANCE
SHEET AS OF SEPTEMBER 30, 1999 AND FROM THE STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOR THE NINE
MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1999AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                         860,520
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  140,350
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               0<F1>
<PP&E>                                         46,332,156
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0<F2>
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 47,816,548
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          0<F1>
<BONDS>                                        31,640,740
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                     14,039,675
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   47,816,548
<SALES>                                        7,074,011
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               7,103,721
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  5,795,118
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             1,461,208
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (152,605)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (152,605)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (152,605)
<EPS-BASIC>                                  0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0
<FN>
<F1>THE PARTNERSHIP HAS AN UNCLASSIFIED BALANCE SHEET,THEREFORE THE VALUE IS $0.
<F2>THIS INFORMATION IS NOT DISCLOSED IN THE PARTNERSHIP'S FORM 10-Q.
</FN>


</TABLE>
Case 2:06-cr-00198-WKW-CSC Document 1 Filed 07/28/2006 Page 1 of 6
Case 2:06-cr-00198-WKW-CSC Document 1 Filed 07/28/2006 Page 2 of 6
Case 2:06-cr-00198-WKW-CSC Document 1 Filed 07/28/2006 Page 3 of 6
Case 2:06-cr-00198-WKW-CSC Document 1 Filed 07/28/2006 Page 4 of 6
Case 2:06-cr-00198-WKW-CSC Document 1 Filed 07/28/2006 Page 5 of 6
Case 2:06-cr-00198-WKW-CSC Document 1 Filed 07/28/2006 Page 6 of 6
Editorial Note on Part 35
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 35 appear at 79 FR 75739, Dec. 19, 2014.

§ 35.2075 Records of the release of individuals containing unsealed byproduct material or implants containing byproduct material. ( a ) A licensee shall retain a record of the basis for authorizing the release of an individual in accordance with § 35.75, if the total effective dose equivalent is calculated by— ( 1 ) Using the retained activity rather than the activity administered;
( 2 ) Using an occupancy factor less than 0.25 at 1 meter;
( 3 ) Using the biological or effective half-life; or
( 4 ) Considering the shielding by tissue.
( b ) A licensee shall retain a record that the instructions required by § 35.75(b) were provided to a breast-feeding female if the radiation dose to the infant or child from continued breast-feeding could result in a total effective dose equivalent exceeding 5 mSv (0.5 rem).
( c ) The records required by paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section must be retained for 3 years after the date of release of the individual.
Exhibit 34.2




Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm (KPMG LLP)









Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm






The Board of Directors


Citibank, N.A.:  We have examined management’s assessment, included in the accompanying Management’s Assessment of Compliance, that the Agency and Trust division of Citibank, N.A. (the “Company”) complied with the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Regulation AB for publicly-issued (i.e., transaction-level reporting initially required under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended) automobile loan or lease-backed securities serviced by Nissan Motor Acceptance Corporation issued on or after January 1, 2006 for which the Company provides trustee and paying agent services (the “Platform”), except for servicing criteria 1122(d)(1)(i)-1122(d)(1)(v), 1122(d)(2)(i), 1122(d)(2)(iii), 1122(d)(2)(v)-1122(d)(2)(vii), 1122(d)(3)(i) and 1122(d)(4)(i)-1122(d)(4)(xv), which the Company has determined are not applicable to the activities it performs with respect to the Platform, as of and for the twelve months ended March 31, 2016. With respect to the Platform, servicing criterion 1122(d)(3)(ii) is applicable only as it relates to remittances. Management is responsible for the Company’s compliance with the servicing criteria. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on management’s assessment about the Company’s compliance based on our examination.
  Our examination was conducted in accordance with the attestation standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States)and, accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Company’s compliance with the servicing criteria specified above and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. Our examination included testing selected asset-backed transactions and securities that comprise the Platform, testing selected servicing activities related to the Platform, and determining whether the Company processed those selected transactions and performed those selected activities in compliance with the servicing criteria. Furthermore, our procedures were limited to the selected transactions and servicing activities performed by the Company during the period covered by this report. Our procedures were not designed to determine whether errors may have occurred either prior to or subsequent to our tests that may have affected the balances or amounts calculated or reported by the Company during the period covered by this report for the selected transactions or any other transactions. 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.
  In our opinion, management’s assessment that the Company complied with the aforementioned servicing criteria as of and for the twelve months ended March 31, 2016 is fairly stated, in all material respects.







/s/ KPMG LLP






Chicago, Illinois


May 27, 2016
#### The People of the State of New York, Appellant, v. Joseph Colombo, Respondent. The People of the State of New York, Appellant, v. Lawrence Gallo, Respondent. The People of the State of New York, Appellant, v. Albert Gallo, Respondent.

Appeals from three orders of the Supreme 'Court, Kangs County, each of which respectively granted a separate motion by each defendant to dismiss an indictment against him for criminal contempt of court, the order as to defendant Colombo being dated August 22, 1967 and the -orders as to the other defendants being dated July 28, 1967. Appeal from the order which granted the motion of defendant Lawrence Gallo, now deceased, dismissed *(People*v. *Mints,*20 N Y 2d 753). Orders which granted the motions of defendants Joseph Colombo and Albert Gallo reversed, on the law and the facts, and motions denied. In our -opinion, the evidence before the Grand Jury would, if unexplained or uneontradicted, warrant a conviction for violation of subdivision 6 of section 600 of the Penal Law of 1909 (Code Crim. Pro., § 251). That the refusal to testify was made on advice of counsel and in a pleasant manner is of little relevance (cf. *People*v. *Woodruff,*26 A D 2d 236, 238-239; *People*v. *Zweig,*32 A D 2d 569; *Matter of Koota*v. *Colombo,*17 N Y 2d 147, 151). We also think that the stipulation of the District Attorney, made on October .20, 1965 with reference to dropping proceedings against defendants willing to testify .before the Grand Jury, was necessarily limited in time to December 15, 1965 by the District Attorney at the hearing on December 7, 1965. It is obvious from .the conduct of the court and the parties on May 9, 1966 that neither the court nor they considered the October 20 stipulation to be still in effect. There is no merit in the claim by respondents Colombo and Albert Gallo that these indictments place them twice in jeopardy for the same acts *(Matter of Marangelo*v. *Criminal Ct. of City of New York,*49 Misc 2d 414; *People*v. *Costello,*21 N Y 2d 967; *People ex rel. Maurer*v. *Jackson,*
      *8132 N Y2d 259, 264). Christ, Acting P. J., Benjamin, Munder, Martuscello and Kleinfeld, JJ., concur.
**Exhibit      31.5 **

**CERTIFICATIONS**

| 1)   | I                have reviewed this Amendment No. 2 to quarterly report on Form 10-Q                of                Greene County Bancshares, 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. |
|----------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                                       |                                                           |                                  |
|--------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------|
| Date: September              12, 2005 |                                                      | /s/ R.              Stan Puckett |
|                                       | R.              Stan Puckett                                   |
|                                       | Chairman              of the Board and Chief Executive Officer |

----
H. Res. 300

In the House of Representatives, U.S., 

October 18, 2005.

Whereas the South Carolina Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance 

Company was organized on December 19, 1955, to provide members of the Farm Bureau Federation with insurance coverage that was difficult to obtain and to assist 

such members with safety programs and loss control 

measures; 

Whereas the South Carolina Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance 

Company is the largest domestic property and casualty 

insurer in the State of South Carolina; 

Whereas the South Carolina Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance 

Company has 245 employees and 250 exclusive licensed 

agents throughout South Carolina that offer various insurance and financial services; 

Whereas the South Carolina Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance 

Company provides a diverse line of products, including 

auto, homeowners, and other insurance coverage with 

sales exceeding $190,000,000 on more than 344,000 policies; 

Whereas in 1999, after Hurricane Floyd struck the coast of 

South Carolina, 90 percent of reported claims made with 

the South Carolina Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance 

Company were settled within one week; and 
2

•HRES 300 EH 

Whereas the South Carolina Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance 

Company serves families of farmers and non-farmers in 

rural and urban communities and the slogan of the Company is, ‘‘Helping you is what we do best’’: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That the House of Representatives recognizes 

the South Carolina Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company 

on the occasion of its 50th anniversary and salutes the outstanding service of the Company to the people of South Carolina.

Attest:

Clerk.
#### § 217.90 Protection against claims.

A person shall not be held liable for damages or penalties for any act or failure to act resulting directly or indirectly from compliance with any provision of this part, or an official action, notwithstanding that such provision or action shall subsequently be declared invalid by judicial or other competent authority.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

v. )

) CR. NO. 2:06cr210-MEF

MELISSA WARD, )

a/k/a “Melissa Foote” )

RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO CONTINUE SENTENCING

The United States does not object to Defendant Melissa Ward’s Motion to Continue

Sentencing or her Motion to Extend her Deadline to File Objections to the Presentence Investigation

Report, DE #23.

Respectfully submitted this the 31st day of January, 2007.

LEURA G. CANARY

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY

/s/ Christopher Snyder 

CHRISTOPHER A. SNYDER

Assistant United States Attorney

Post Office Box 197

Montgomery, Alabama 36101-0197

334.223.7280

334.223.7135 fax

christopher.a.snyder@usdoj.gov

Case 3:06-cr-00210-MEF-CSC Document 25 Filed 01/31/2007 Page 1 of 2
2

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

v. )

) CR. NO. 2:06cr210-MEF

MELISSA WARD, )

a/k/a “Melissa Foote” )

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on January 31, 2007, I electronically filed the foregoing with

the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system, which will send notification of such

filing to the following: Charles E. Vercelli, Jr. 

/s/ Christopher Snyder 

CHRISTOPHER A. SNYDER

Assistant United States Attorney

Post Office Box 197

Montgomery, Alabama 36101-0197

334.223.7280

334.223.7135 fax

christopher.a.snyder@usdoj.gov

Case 3:06-cr-00210-MEF-CSC Document 25 Filed 01/31/2007 Page 2 of 2
NO. 12-14-00329-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

IN RE: TARRANT REGIONAL WATER 

DISTRICT, A WATER CONTROL AND 

IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT, 

RELATOR

§

§

§

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

Tarrant Regional Water District filed this original mandamus proceeding complaining of 

the trial court’s October 17, 2014 order declining to appoint special commissioners in the 

underlying condemnation proceeding. On February 11, 2015, this Court conditionally granted 

Tarrant’s petition and directed Respondent to vacate his October 17, 2014 order and issue an 

order appointing three special commissioners. Respondent has now complied with this Court’s 

opinion and order, rendering this proceeding moot. Accordingly, we dismiss Tarrant’s petition 

for writ of mandamus as moot.

Opinion delivered February 27, 2015.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.

(PUBLISH)
COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

FEBRUARY 27, 2015

NO. 12-14-00329-CV

TARRANT REGIONAL WATER DISTRICT,

A WATER CONTROL AND IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT,

Relator

V.

HON. JOE D. CLAYTON,

Respondent

Appeal from the 3rd District Court 

of Henderson County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 2014C-0144)

ON THIS DAY came to be heard the petition for writ of mandamus filed by TARRANT 

REGIONAL WATER DISTRICT, A WATER CONTROL AND IMPROVEMENT 

DISTRICT; who is the relator in Cause No. 2014C-0144, pending on the docket of the 3rd

Judicial District Court of Henderson County, Texas. Said petition for writ of mandamus having 

been filed herein on November 10, 2014, and the same having been duly considered, because it 

is the opinion of this Court that this original proceeding should be dismissed as moot, it is 

therefore CONSIDERED, ADJUDGED and ORDERED that the said petition for writ of 

mandamus be, and the same is, hereby dismissed as moot.

By per curiam opinion.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J. and Neeley, J.
Case 1:06-cv-00760-WKW-DRB Document 6 Filed 09/11/2006 Page 1 of 2
Case 1:06-cv-00760-WKW-DRB Document 6 Filed 09/11/2006 Page 2 of 2