alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Penney HEARD *v.*REGIONS BANK

06-1040

257 S.W.3d 543

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Opinion delivered May 24, 2007

*Stephen P. Westerfield,*for appellant.

*John T. Vines,*for appellee.

Per Curiam;.

In a per curiam order dated March 15, 2007, we found certain deficiencies in Appellant’s addendum and record. We remanded the case to settle the record pursuant to Ark. R. App. P.-Civil 6(e), stating it would be “manifestly unjust for the *118appeal to be dismissed . . . without giving Heard an opportunity to supply the deficiency.” *Heard v. Regions Bank,*369 Ark. 274, 253 S.W.3d 422 (2007) (per curiam). Specifically, we said:

> Further, because of Heard’s omission in the record, she has failed to include “relevant pleadings” in violation of Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 4 — 2(a)(8), which provides that “an Addendum shall include true and legible photocopies of the order . . . from which the appeal is taken, along with any other relevant pleadings, documents, or exhibits essential to an understanding of the case and the Court’s jurisdiction on appeal.” Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4 — 2(a) (8) (2006).

*Id.*at 277, 253 S.W.3d at 424. Finally, we explained that Heard’s failure to file an addendum within fifteen days of completion of the record may result in our affirming the circuit court’s judgment for noncompliance.

Now Appellee Regions Bank urges us to dismiss the appeal, claiming our March 15, 2007 order required appellant to file her supplemental brief by April 28, 2007. Heard responds saying Regions misspeaks and that our order required her to file a substituted addendum within fifteen days.

Our order clearly required Heard to settle the record by including “the order from which the appeal is taken along with relevant pleadings, documents, or exhibits essential to an understanding of the case and the Court’s jurisdiction on appeal.” *Heard, supra.*We emphasized that pleadings from the district court needed on appeal included Heard’s complaint, Regions’s answer, and the district court’s order granting dismissal. We further said that those items were critical to Heard’s argument.

We have given Heard the opportunity to supplement the record. On April 13, 2007, the record on remand was filed. By the terms of our March 15, 2007 order, Heard’s supplement to the addendum was due on April 28, 2007. From a review of the clerk’s docket sheet, Heard failed to supplement the addendum within the prescribed time limits. As we suggested in our March 15, 2007, order, we therefore affirm the circuit court’s judgment.

Appeal dismissed.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 392 Engrossed in House (EH)]

H. Res. 392

                 In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

                                                         July 28, 2005.
    Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to 
consider the conference report to accompany the bill (H.R. 2361) making 
appropriations for the Department of the Interior, environment, and related 
agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2006, and for other purposes. 
All points of order against the conference report and against its consideration 
are waived. The conference report shall be considered as read.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
H. Res. 345

In the House of Representatives, U.S., 

June 30, 2005.

Resolved, That it shall be in order at any time on the 

legislative day of Thursday, June 30, 2005, for the Speaker 

to entertain motions that the House suspend the rules. The 

Speaker or his designee shall consult with the Minority Leader or her designee on the designation of any matter for consideration pursuant to this resolution. 

SEC. 2. Upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be 

in order, any rule of the House to the contrary notwithstanding, to consider concurrent resolutions providing for adjournment of the House and Senate during the month of 

July. 

Attest:

Clerk.
Editorial Note on Part 4
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 4 appear at 77 FR 39904, July 6, 2012.

§ 4.302 Application of this subpart. ( a ) The Age Discrimination Act of 1975 and these regulations apply to any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance from NRC.
( b ) The Age Discrimination Act of 1975 and these regulations do not apply to— ( 1 ) An age distinction contained in that part of a Federal, State, or local statute or ordinance adopted by an elected, general purpose legislative body that— ( i ) Provides any benefits or assistance to persons based on age; or
( ii ) Establishes criteria for participation in age-related terms; or
( iii ) Describes intended beneficiaries or target groups in age-related terms.
( 2 ) Any employment practice of any employer, employment agency, labor organization, or any labor-management joint apprenticeship training program, except for any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance for public service employment under the Comprehensive Employment and Training Act of 1974 (CETA) (29 U.S.C. 801 *et seq.*).
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 31.2

                                  CERTIFICATION

I, Robert McCray, Chief Financial Officer of Sionix Corporation, certify that:

         1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Sionix
Corporation:

         2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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
quarterly report;

         3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this quarterly report, fairly represent 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 quarterly 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-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and we have:

                  a. designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure
that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly
during this period in which the quarterly report is being prepared;

                  b. evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure
controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of
this quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

                  c. presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about
the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our
evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;

         5. The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed,
based on our most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit
committee of the registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the
equivalent function):

                  a. all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of
internal controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to
record, process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the
registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

                  b. any fraud, whether or not material, that involves
management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's
internal controls; and

         6. The registrant's other certifying officer and I have indicated in
this quarterly report whether or not there were significant changes in internal
controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls
subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective
actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

 Date: May 20, 2004

 /s/ Robert McCray
------------------------------
   Robert McCray
   Chief Financial Officer
#### Harold Noyes *v.*University Realty, Inc., et al.

*Laurence M. Wood,*in support of the petition.

Decided May 10, 1984

The petition of the defendant Anthony J. Mase for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 1 Conn. App. 453, is denied.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Agriculture

###### Forest Service

# AGENCY:

Forest Service, USDA.

# ACTION:

Notice of meetings.

# SUMMARY:

The Dixie Resource Advisory Committee will meet in Panguitch, Utah and Santa Clara, Utah. The committee is meeting as authorized under the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act (Pub. L. 110-343) and in compliance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The purpose of the two meetings are to discuss Title II project proposals.

# DATES:

December 7, 2010, 9 a.m. & January 6, 2011, 9 a.m.

# ADDRESSES:

December 7, 2010 meeting will be held at Garfield County Courthouse, 55 South Main Street, Panguitch, Utah. January 6, 2011 meeting will be held at the Santa Clara Town Hall, 2721 Santa Clara Drive, Santa Clara, Utah. The public is invited to attend both meetings.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Kenton Call, RAC Coordinator, Dixie National Forest, (435) 865-3730; e-mail:                         *ckcall@fs.fed.us*.                    

Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., Eastern Standard Time, Monday through Friday.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The meetings are open to the public. The following business will be conducted: (1) Welcome and committee introductions; (2) Review of project proposals; (3) Category discussion of proposals; (4) RAC discussion and decision on proposals, and (5) Public comment on any propopals. Persons who wish to bring related matters to the attention of the Committee may file written statements with the Committee staff before or after the meeting. Public input will be accepted by the RAC during the meetings.

Dated: November 11, 2010.

Robert G. MacWhorter,

Forest Supervisor.

[FR Doc. 2010-30008 Filed 12-2-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410-11-P
§ 52.97 Issuance of combined licenses. ( a ) ( 1 ) After conducting a hearing in accordance with § 52.85 and receiving the report submitted by the ACRS, the Commission may issue a combined license if the Commission finds that: ( i ) The applicable standards and requirements of the Act and the Commission's regulations have been met;
( ii ) Any required notifications to other agencies or bodies have been duly made;
( iii ) There is reasonable assurance that the facility will be constructed and will operate in conformity with the license, the provisions of the Act, and the Commission's regulations.
( iv ) The applicant is technically and financially qualified to engage in the activities authorized; and
( v ) Issuance of the license will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public; and
( vi ) The findings required by subpart A of part 51 of this chapter have been made.
( 2 ) The Commission may also find, at the time it issues the combined license, that certain acceptance criteria in one or more of the inspections, tests, analyses, and acceptance criteria (ITAAC) in a referenced early site permit or standard design certification have been met. This finding will finally resolve that those acceptance criteria have been met, those acceptance criteria will be deemed to be excluded from the combined license, and findings under § 52.103(g) with respect to those acceptance criteria are unnecessary.
( b ) The Commission shall identify within the combined license the inspections, tests, and analyses, including those applicable to emergency planning, that the licensee shall perform, and the acceptance criteria that, if met, are necessary and sufficient to provide reasonable assurance that the facility has been constructed and will be operated in conformity with the license, the provisions of the Act, and the Commission's rules and regulations.
( c ) A combined license shall contain the terms and conditions, including technical specifications, as the Commission deems necessary and appropriate.
2007-2249.

#### State v. DeLuca.

Cuyahoga App. No. 88615, 2007-0hio-3905. On motion for leave to file delayed appeal. Motion denied.

Moyer, C.J., and Pfeifer and Ldndberg Stratton, JJ., dissent.
(logo)**Prudential**

**PrudentialAsset Resources**

PGIMReal Estate Finance

2100Ross Avenue, Suite 2500, Dallas TX 75201

Tel214-777-4500

 

Abusiness of Prudential Financial, Inc.

 

WellsFargo Bank, National Association

CommercialMortgage Servicing

MACD1086

550South Tryon Street, 14th Floor

Charlotte,North Carolina 28202

Attention:Asset Manager

 

 

RE:         **RBS 2013-C11**

Period: **January 1, 2018 to December 31,2018(the "Reporting Period")**

 

 

**Annual ComplianceStatement**

 

I, Joni Brown-Haas, in my capacity asPresident and Managing Director of Prudential Asset Resources, Inc. (the"Company") hereby certify with regard to the Company's role asSub-Servicer under the Sub-Servicing Agreement, (the "Agreement")dated as of February 1, 2013, pertaining to the above-referenced certificates,that:

 

       (i)           areview of the activities of the Company under the Agreement  during theperiod noted above, and  of the performance of the Company under theAgreement during the  relevant  period  has been made under mysupervision, and

 

     (ii)           to thebest of my knowledge, based on such review, the Company has fulfilled all itsobligations under the Agreement throughout the relevant period, and

 

   (iii)           to thebest of my knowledge, based on such review, the Company has fulfilled itsobligations under its sub-servicing agreement in all material respects, and

 

    (iv)           theCompany has maintained an effective internal control system over the servicingof mortgage loans including the Loans serviced by the Company, and

 

     (v)           theCompany has not received any notice regarding qualification or challenging thestatus of the Lower Tier REMIC or the Upper Tier REMIC as a REMIC, from the IRSor any other governmental agency or body.

 

Effectiveas of February 22, 2019

 

 

/s/Joni Brown-Haas

JoniBrown-Haas

Presidentand Managing Director

PrudentialAsset Resources, Inc.
###### Editorial Note on Part 35

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 35 appear at 79 FR 75739, Dec. 19, 2014.

#### § 35.2040 Records of written directives.

A licensee shall retain a copy of each written directive as required by § 35.40 for 3 years.
#### William Mayhak, Appellee, v. Edward J. Meyers Company, Appellant.

Gen. No. 9,561.

opinion filed June 28, 1940.

Hall & Hulse, for appellant; Harry A. Hall and Marshall Meyer, of counsel; L. Erie Carey, for appellee.

Opinion by

Justice Huffman.

‘‘Not to be published in full.”
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 May 20, 2015

t0513

Order 

Clerk

May 20, 2015

148521

HURON MOUNTAIN CLUB,

Plaintiff/Counter- Defendant/Appellant,

v SC: 148521

COA: 309075

Marquette CC: 09-047419-CH

MARQUETTE COUNTY ROAD COMMISSION,

Defendant/Counter- Plaintiff/Appellee,

and

DAN W. COLLINS,

Intervening Defendant/Appellee.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the December 5, 2013 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
831.7001-6 Reimbursement for other supplies and services.       VA will provide reimbursement for other services and assistance that may be authorized under applicable provisions of 38 U.S.C. chapter 31 regulations, including, but not limited to, employment and self-employment services, initial and extended evaluation services, and independent living services.    **Parent topic:** Subpart 831.70 - Contract Cost Principles and Procedures for Veterans Services
Editorial Note on Part 51
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 51 appear at 80 FR 74980, Dec. 1, 2015.

§ 51.35 Requirement to publish finding of no significant impact; limitation on Commission action. ( a ) Whenever the Commission makes a draft or final finding of no significant impact on a proposed action, the finding will be published in the Federal Register as provided in § 51.119.
( b ) Except as provided in § 51.13, the Commission shall not take the proposed action until after the final finding has been published in the Federal Register.
#### In the Matter of Aisle National, LLC, Respondent, v K&E Mechanical, Inc., Respondent, and Elwood Johnson et al., Appellants.

[814 NYS2d 550]

In a proceeding pursuant to CFLR 5206 (e) to compel the sale of real property to satisfy a default judgment, Elwood Johnson and Gladys Johnson appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Roberto, J.), dated August 19, 2004, which, inter alia, granted the petitioner’s motion to confirm a referee’s report (Rosenblum, R.), made after a hearing, and denied their cross motion to disaffirm the referee’s report.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The appellants, Elwood Johnson and Gladys Johnson, among others, personally guaranteed a credit line made to K&E Mechanical, Inc. (hereinafter K&E), by Bank Leumi Trust Company of New York (hereinafter the bank). In consideration thereof, K&E executed a promissory note. Thereafter, K&E defaulted on the note, and on April 27, 1995, the bank obtained a default judgment against the Johnsons for the amount due plus interest. On November 7, 2000, the bank assigned the judgment to the petitioner, Aisle National, LLC, which sought an order directing the sale of certain real property owned by the Johnsons in satisfaction of the judgment.

In opposition, the Johnsons asserted, among other things, that the judgment failed to credit them for certain sums of money recovered by the bank. The Supreme Court appointed a referee to determine the amount owed by the Johnsons, and the Johnsons challenge the referee’s findings on the instant appeal.

*902“It is fundamental that ... a default judgment bars the litigation of issues that were, or could have been, determined in the prior action” *(Sterling Doubleday Enters. v Marro,*238 AD2d 502, 503 [1997]). Therefore, the Johnsons are precluded from litigating the issue of whether they were credited for certain payments made by co-obligors prior to entry of the judgment *(see Tri-Global Mgt. Corp. v Richardson,*303 AD2d 674 [2003]; *Matter of Eagle Ins. Co. v Facey,*272 AD2d 399 [2000]; *Sterling Doubleday Enters. v Marro, supra).*

Furthermore, the remaining findings of the referee are fully supported by the record and there is no basis to disturb the order of the Supreme Court *(see Matter of Matsis,*274 AD2d 431 [2000]; *Mondello v Mondello,*253 AD2d 861 [1998]).

The appellants’ remaining contentions either are not properly before this Court or without merit. Schmidt, J.P., Krausman, Mastro and Covello, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 32.2





Certification of Chief Financial Officer


Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350 as Adopted Pursuant to


Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002





In connection with this Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2019 (the “Report”) of Harvest Capital Credit Corporation (the “Registrant”), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, William E. Alvarez, Jr., the Chief Financial Officer of the Registrant, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge, that:





(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and





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





/s/ William E. Alvarez, Jr.Name:William E. Alvarez, Jr.Date:March 12, 2020
#### Jacob Kredi et al. *v.*Joan Benson et al.

*Diane Polan,*in support of the petition.

*Alvin M. Murray,*in opposition.

Decided May 16, 1984

The defendants’ petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 1 Conn. App. 511, is denied.
PUBLIC LAW 109–445—DEC. 21, 2006 120 STAT. 3317

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 6429:

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 152 (2006):

Dec. 8, considered and passed House and Senate.

Æ

Public Law 109–445

109th Congress

An Act

To treat payments by charitable organizations with respect to certain firefighters

as exempt payments.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Fallen Firefighters Assistance

Tax Clarification Act of 2006’’.

SEC. 2. PAYMENTS BY CHARITABLE ORGANIZATIONS WITH RESPECT

TO CERTAIN FIREFIGHTERS TREATED AS EXEMPT PAYMENTS.

(a) IN GENERAL.—For purposes of the Internal Revenue Code

of 1986, payments made on behalf of any firefighter who died

as the result of the October 2006 Esperanza Incident fire in

southern California to any family member of such firefighter by

an organization described in paragraph (1) or (2) of section 509(a)

of such Code shall be treated as related to the purpose or function

constituting the basis for such organization’s exemption under section 501 of such Code if such payments are made in good faith

using a reasonable and objective formula which is consistently

applied.

(b) APPLICATION.—Subsection (a) shall apply only to payments

made on or after October 26, 2006, and before June 1, 2007.

Approved December 21, 2006.

California.

Fallen

Firefighters

Assistance Tax

Clarification Act

of 2006.

Dec. 21, 2006

[H.R. 6429]
#### § 473.1 Purpose and scope.

These regulations implement section 304(f) of the Federal Energy Administration Act of 1978—Civilian Applications, and apply to each new contract, grant, cooperative agreement, Department of Energy project, or other agency project funded or to be funded under the authority of that Act. 15 U.S.C. 2703(f) (1970). These regulations do not apply to subcontractors, or to contracts, grants, cooperative agreements, Department of Energy projects, or other agency projects entered into, made, or formally approved and initiated prior to February 25, 1978, or with respect to any renewal or extension thereof. Insofar as grants, cooperative agreements, and contracts are concerned, these regulations provide procedures and requirements that are in addition to those generally applicable under the assistance and procurement regulations of the Federal agency funding research and development under the Act.