alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 APR-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-31-2000
<CASH>                                              46,628
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    2,513,433
<ALLOWANCES>                                             0
<INVENTORY>                                              0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 2,947,346
<PP&E>                                         <blank>
<DEPRECIATION>                                 <blank>
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 <blank>
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            8,120,660
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                            18,432
<OTHER-SE>                                      13,784,397
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    21,923,489
<SALES>                                                  0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 2,245,548
<CGS>                                                    0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      937,880
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 6,767,196
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                (163,362)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (5,620,279)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        28,696
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (5,648,975)
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (5,648,975)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          (0.32)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        (0.32)



</TABLE>
# C_2015065EN.01004002.xml

| 23.2.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 65/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.2.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 65/40

---

Action brought on 16 December 2014 — Liu v OHIM — DSN Marketing (Cases for portable computers)

(Case T-813/14)

(2015/C 065/56)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Min Liu (Guangzhou, China) (represented by: R. Bailly and S. Zhang, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: DSN Marketing Ltd (Crawley, United Kingdom)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Proprietor of the design at issue: Applicant

Proprietor of the design at issue:

Design at issue: Community design No 002044180-0001

Design at issue:

Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of OHIM of 7 October 2014 in Case R 1864/2013-3

Contested decision

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order OHIM to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order OHIM to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Articles 7(1) and 7(2) of Regulation No 2245/2002. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Articles 7(1) and 7(2) of Regulation No 2245/2002.

---
ORIGINAL 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 

OP 22-0122 

RICHARD E. SHREVES, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, 

Respondent. 

FILED 

MAY 1 0 2022 

Bowen Greenwood 

Clerk of Suprerne Court 

State of Montana 

ORDER 

Representing himself, Richard E. Shreves seeks rehearing, pursuant to M. R. App. 

P. 20(1), of this Court's March 22, 2022 Order denying his petition for writ of mandate 

against the Department of Corrections. Shreves argues that the Court erred in concluding 

that "a civil rights complaint in either state or federal court was a plain[] and adequate 

remedy." 

M. R. App. P. 20(1) provides criteria for rehearing. Pertinent here, this Court will 

consider a petition for rehearing only upon the grounds "[t]hat it overlooked some fact 

material to the decision[,] . . . or [t]hat its decision conflicts with a statute or controlling 

decision not addressed by the supreme court." M. R. App. P. 20(1)(a)(i) and (iii). "Absent 

clearly demonstrated exceptional circumstances, the supreme court will not grant petitions 

for rehearing of its orders disposing of motions or petitions for extraordinary writs." M. 

R. App. P. 20(1)(d). 

Our Order pointed out that "[a] writ of mandate will not issue absent the availability 

of another remedy in the ordinary course of law." Shreves contends that he does not have 

a speedy remedy under the law and that the Court failed to analyze the issues, such as 

irreparable harm. He concludes that "a civil action and resulting damages does nothing to 

provide meaningful nor timely relief, neither for services that meet the basic need of 

general well-being, nor for basic nutrition DOC asserts it provides in each meal." 

05/10/2022

Case Number: OP 22-0122
This Court has authority to dismiss a writ in an original proceeding procedurally 

and without analyzing any claim. M. R. App. P. 14(7)(a). Shreves misses the purpose of 

a writ of mandate because such a writ occupies the space where no other remedy exists. 

Section 27-26-102, MCA. Shreves's claims present factual issues, not simply the 

enforcement of a clear legal duty. His claims of immediate and irreparable injury are 

redressable in a civil action where a court may receive evidence and develop a record. His 

references to Montana case law do not assist his arguments because both elements for a 

writ of mandate existed in those cases. See OPD v. McMeekin, 2009 MT 439, 354 Mont. 

130, 224 P.3d 616 and State ex re. Burkhartsmeyer Bros. v. McCormick, 162 Mont. 234, 

5810 P.2d 266 (1973). Shreves has not demonstrated any criteria for rehearing. 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Shreves's Petition for Rehearing is DENIED. 

The Clerk of the Supreme Court is directed to provide a copy of this Order to counsel 

of record and to Richard E. Shreves personally. 

DATED thist t•N day of May, 2022. 

2
Final Listing of Questionnaire Files for Steam Electric Rulemaking Record

Plant ID 09614

Removed 

from Public 

(Non-CBI) 

Docket1

Copyright 

Flag2

File Name Description

09614\09614_HardcopyLog.doc EPA log of hardcopy documents submitted

x 09614\09614_PartA.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 09614\09614_PartB.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 09614\09614_PartC.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 09614\09614_PartD.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 09614\09614_PartH.xls Plant submitted survey file

09614\Certification Statement_09614.pdf Plant certification statement

09614\Follow up\09614_Aerial Views Niagara Generation.docx Follow-up correspondence and materials for the survey.

x 09614\Follow up\NIGEN Part C Final.xlsx Follow-up correspondence and materials for the survey.

x 09614\Follow up\Part A upddated 01-31-11 (Received 02-16-2011).xlsx Follow-up correspondence and materials for the survey.

x 09614\Follow up\Part A upddated 01-31-11.xlsx Follow-up correspondence and materials for the survey.

x 09614\Follow up\RE Questions for Steam Electric Questionnaire (Niagara Generation - Plant ID 09614)_01.31.2011.rtf Follow-up correspondence and materials for the survey.

x 09614\Follow up\RE Questions for Steam Electric Questionnaire (Niagara Generation - Plant ID 09614)_02.17.2011_1.rtf Follow-up correspondence and materials for the survey.

x 09614\Follow up\RE Questions for Steam Electric Questionnaire (Niagara Generation - Plant ID 09614)_02.17.2011_2.rtf Follow-up correspondence and materials for the survey.

x 09614\09614_Checklist.xls EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook

09614\09614_Completeness_Checklist.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist

1

 Final reviewed survey responses are located in the Steam Electric Technical Questionnaire Database . 

2

 Copyright documents are available from the docket.
June 1, 2015

Mr. Cody Messer

180 Clearwater Rd Carbondale, CO 81623

Dear Mr. Messer:

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption. It explains why we can not process your request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Can Not Process Your Request

We entered your April 30th, 2015 exemption request on behalf into the public docket (No. FAA-2015-1374), but we are unable to pr ocess your request any further. The information you sent does not comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the request any further, you must send us all of the following:

 The specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek relief, the extent of the relief you seek, and the reason you seek relief.

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would benefit the public as a whole.

 The reasons why the exemption would not adversely affect safety or how the exemption would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which you seek an exemption.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described earlier to reach us within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption.2

If We Do Not Hear From You

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267-9677.

Sincerely,

/s/

Brenda Robeson Program Analyst, Airmen and Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure
#### Ventanas Del Caribe, S.A. *v.*The Stanley Works

*Morris Tyler,*with whom was *Louis M. Winer,*for the appellee (defendant).

*James F. Dawson,*with whom was *Joseph Neiman,*for the appellant (plaintiff).

Argued January 7

decided January 7, 1969

The motion by the defendant to dismiss the appeal from the Superior Court in Hartford County is denied.
Nov 01, 2015

U. S. Department of Transportation Docket Management System 1200 New Jersey Ave., SE Washington, DC 20590 Re: Amendment to Exemption 12047 issued pursuant to Section 333 of the FAA Reform Act and Part 11 of the Federal Aviation Regulations in Regulatory Docket FAA-2015-1598-0002

Dear Sir or Madam; 4Prop Production was issued an Exemption numbered 12142 (hereinafter the Exemption) for the purpose of conducting aerial photography and inspections. 4Prop Production herby requests an amendment to the Exemption to allow an additional type of unmanned aircraft system (UAS) that fully complies with the conditions of the Exemption. 4Prop Production wishes to operate a DJI Inspire PRO UAS. All operations of the additional UAS will be in full compliance with the terms of the Exemption. As this is an amendment to an existing exemption asking for only the addition of another type of unmanned aerial vehicle, 4Prop Production respectfully submits that good cause exists so that notice does not need to be published in the Federal Register for the requested amendment. Please contact the undersigned should you have any question concerning this request for an amendment to the Exemption. Sincerely yours,

Keith Whitehead

Co- Owner and Operator 4 Prop Production 25915 Timberline dr San Antonio , Texas 78260 keith@4propproduction.com
Missouri Court of Appeals

Southern District 

NOVEMBER 4, 2015 

THE FOLLOWING CASES WERE AFFIRMED PURSUANT TO RULE 84.16(b). 

1. Case No. SD33724 

 Re: EDDIE LEE MARSHALL, 

 Movant-Appellant, 

 vs. 

 STATE OF MISSOURI, 

 Respondent-Respondent.
**EXHIBIT 31.1**

 

** **

**CERTIFICATIONS**

** **

I, Martin J. Reid, Executive Chairman, certify that:

1.             Ihave reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Ibis TechnologyCorporation;

2.             Basedon my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, inlight of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.             Basedon my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report;

4.             Theregistrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishingand maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

a)             designed such disclosure controlsand procedures or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designedunder our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared;

b)            evaluated the effectiveness of theregistrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this reportour conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures,as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation;and

c)             disclosed in this report any changein the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurredduring the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and

5.             Theregistrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent function):

a)             all significant deficiencies andmaterial weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control overfinancial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and

b)            any fraud, whether or not material,that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

 

 
| Date: November 13, 2007 | /s/Martin J. Reid  |   |
|-------------------------|--------------------|--------|
|                    | Martin J. Reid     |   |
|                    | Executive Chairman |   |

 

31

----
|WELLS
    FARGO(logo) | Commercial
    Mortgage ServicingD1050-084, 8th Floor
401 South Tryon Street
Charlotte, NC 28202
1-800-326-1334
|--------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



ANNUAL STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE



Reference is hereby made to that
certain Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of October 1, 2015, by and among Banc of America Merrill Lynch Commercial Mortgage
Inc., as Depositor, Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as Master Servicer, Midland Loan Services, A Division of PNC Bank,
National Association, as Special Servicer, Pentalpha Surveillance LLC, as Trust Advisor, U.S. Bank National Association, as Trustee,
Certificate Administrator, Certificate Registrar, Authenticating Agent and Custodian with respect to Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through
Certificates Series 2015-C25 (the “Agreement”). Capitalized terms used herein not otherwise defined shall have the
meanings assigned in the Agreement.



Pursuant to Section 13.9 of the Agreement, I, Daniel
Bober, Executive Vice President of Commercial Mortgage Services do hereby certify that:



| | 1. | A review of the activities of the Master Servicer
during the period from January 1, 2017 through December 31, 2017 (the “Reporting Period”), and of its performance per
the Agreement during such period has been made under my supervision, and
| | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |    |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 
| | 2. | To the best of my knowledge, based on such review,
the Master Servicer, has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout the Reporting
Period.                                                      



IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this Certificate as of
the 28th day of February 2018.



|/s/ Daniel Bober         | 
|------------------------ | 
|Daniel Bober             | 
|Executive Vice President | 
|Wells Fargo Bank         | 



Together we’ll
go far

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
Exhibit 32

CERTIFICATION

The
undersigned certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, that:

|    |                                                                                                                                                                                                   
|--- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|(1) | The
 accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended January 31,
 2011 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 accompanying Report fairly presents, in all
 material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
 Company.                              

|      |                |                                       
|----- | -------------- | --------------------------------------
|Date: | March 17, 2011 | /s/ Philip I. Smith                   
|      |                | President and
 Chief Executive Officer
|      |                |                                       
|Date: | March 17, 2011 | /s/ Larry R. Degen                    
|      |                | Interim
 Chief Financial Officer      

---
### IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA DA 22 - 0423

_________________ IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF: JACINTA HARRIS,

Petitioner and Appellee, and CHRISTOPHER HARRIS,

Respondent and Appellant. O R D E R

_ ________________ Pursuant to the Internal Operating Rules of this Court, this cause is classified for submission on briefs to a five - justice panel of this Court. The Clerk is directed to provide a copy hereof to all counsel of record and to the Honorabl e Brenda Gilbert , District Judge . For the Court,

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

June 21 2023

06/21/2023
Case Number: DA 22-0423
# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

No. 21

- 30569

**United States of America,**
Plaintiff

— Appellee **,**

versus
**Jimmy R. Davis,**
Defendant

— Appellant

**.**

Application for a Certificate of Appealability from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Louisiana USDC No. 3:18

- CV

- 754

Before **Smith, Higginson,** and **Willett,** Circuit Judges

**. Per Curiam**  **:** * Jimmy Davis, federal inmate # 08450

- 095 , moves for a certificate of appealability ( “ COA ” ) to appeal the dismissal, as time

- barred, of his
28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion challenging his convictions and sentences for dis

trib uting child pornography and transferring obscene materials to a minor.

* Pursuant to **5th Circuit Rule** 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circum

stances set forth in **5th Circuit Rule** 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED June 13, 2022 Lyle W. Cay ce Clerk Case: 21-30569 Document: 00516354106 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/13/2022No. 21

- 30569

2 Davis contends that he is entitled to equitable tolling of the one

- year limita tion period of § 2255(f) based on his transfers between three Bureau of Prisons facilities and attendant lack of access to a law library at two of them ; his placement in a special housing unit at each facility; his diminished mental capacity; the time it took him to locate and contact his trial counsel; and the delay in his receiving counsel’s case file caused by prison mailroom staff. In addition, Davis requests a COA to challenge the denial of his motion to alter or amend the judgment. See **Fed. R. Civ. P.** 59(e). Lastly, Davis appeals the district court’s decision not to conduct an evidentiary hearing on equit a

ble tolling. As an initial matter, we lack jurisdiction over the appeal of the denial of the Rule 59(e) motion because Davis failed to file a separate or amended notice of appeal following the denial of that motion. See **Fed. R. App. P.**  4(a)(4)(B)(ii); Funk v. Stryker Corp ., 631 F.3d 777, 780

– 81 (5th Cir. 2011). To obtain a COA to appeal the dismissal of his § 2255 motion , Davis must make “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right

. ”
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2)

. To meet that burden as to the district court’s time

bar dismiss al , he must show “at least, that jurists of reason would find it debat able whether the [motion] states a valid claim of the denial of a consti

tu tional right and that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). Davis fails to make the requisite showing. Accord ingly , the motion for a COA is **DENIED**

. Because Davis fails to make the required showing for a COA, we do not reach whether the distr ict court erred by denying an eviden

ti ary hearing

. See United States v. Davis , 971 F.3d 524, 534

– 35 (5th Cir. 2020) , cert. denied , 142 S. Ct. 122 (2021)

. Case: 21-30569 Document: 00516354106 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/13/2022
EXHIBIT 21.1


SUBSIDIARIES OF REGISTRANT


American Care Communities, Inc.
CareAmerica, Inc.
Crown Pointe Development-Corona (LP)
Crown Pointe, Inc.
Graybrier, Inc.
Greenbriar Financial Corporation
Kellway Corporation
King City Retirement Corporation
Liberty Acquired Brain Injury Habilitation Services, Inc.
Liberty Group, LP
Real Estate Investors, LLC
Residential Healthcare Properties, Inc.
Retirement Real Estate, Inc.
Rose Terrace of Wendell, Inc.
Senior Living Management Payroll Company
Senior Living Management, Inc.
SLM-Crown Pointe, Inc.
SLM-Oak Park, Inc.
SLM-Sweetwater Springs, LLC
SLM-Wedgwood Terrace, Inc.
Sweetwater Springs Group, LLC
Villa Residential Care Homes-Arlington I,
LP Villa Residential Care Homes-Corpus
Christi South LP Villa Residential Care Homes-Ft. Worth East, LP
Villa Residential Care Homes-Granbury, LP
Villa Residential Care Homes-Oak Park, LP
Wedgwood Realty Corporation Wedgwood Retirement Inns, Inc.
Wedgwood Terrace, Inc.
Windsor Group, LLC
Windsor House Florence, Inc.
Windsor House Greenville, LLC