alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________ No. 96-40144 Conference Calendar

__________________
MARK ANDREW CHRISTENSEN, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus RON SCOTT, Administrative Warden, Bowie County Correctional Center; CAROL DOLBE, Assistant District Attorney, Bowie County, Texas, Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 5:95-CV-193

- - - - - - - - - - June 26, 1996 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BARKSDALE, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Mark Andrew Christensen, #85649, a Colorado state prisoner incarcerated in Texas, appeals from the district court's dismissal of his civil rights complaint as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d). Christensen argues that he was denied access to the courts because Dolbe removed a disk containingNo. 96-40144 -2- Colorado statutes from the prison law library, that the prison law library is inadequate, that no other method of legal support is available to the inmates, that the prison does not have a system for Colorado inmates to make legal telephone calls to their attorneys, that since filing his complaint he has been transferred to a facility with no law library, and that he is denied the rights and privileges available to other Colorado inmates incarcerated in the State of Colorado. Because Christensen failed to allege the element of legal prejudice necessary to set forth a cognizable access-to-the-courts claim, the district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing this claim as frivolous. See Eason v. Thaler , 73 F.3d 1322, 1328 (5th Cir. 1996). Neither has Christensen alleged purposeful or intentional discrimination with regard to the transfer of Colorado inmates to Texas prison facilities. See Muhammad v. Lynaugh , 966 F.2d 901, 903 (5th Cir. 1992). He has thus failed to set forth a cognizable equal protection claim. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
AFFIRMED.
# Úradný vestník C 301A/12.

| | ISSN 1725-5236 |
| --- | --- |
| Úradný vestník
  Európskej únie | C 301A |
| | |
| Slovenské vydanie | Informácie a oznámenia | Zväzok 4912. decembra 2006 |

ISSN 1725-5236

Úradný vestník

Európskej únie

C 301A

Slovenské vydanie

Informácie a oznámenia

Zväzok 4912. decembra 2006

---

| Číslo oznamu | Obsah | Strana |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | III   Oznámenia |
| | Komisia |
| 2006/C 301A/1 | Úrad spoločenstva pre odrody rastlín – Výzva na vyjadrenie záujmu o vymenovanie do funkcie predsedu/predsedníčky odvolacej komisie a jeho/jej zástupcu | 1 |

Číslo oznamu

Obsah

Strana

III   Oznámenia

Komisia

2006/C 301A/1

Úrad spoločenstva pre odrody rastlín – Výzva na vyjadrenie záujmu o vymenovanie do funkcie predsedu/predsedníčky odvolacej komisie a jeho/jej zástupcu

1

| SK | |
| --- | --- |

SK

---

III Oznámenia

Komisia

| 12.12.2006 | SK | Úradný vestník Európskej únie | CA 301/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.12.2006

SK

Úradný vestník Európskej únie

CA 301/1

---

ÚRAD SPOLOČENSTVA PRE ODRODY RASTLÍN

Výzva na vyjadrenie záujmu o vymenovanie do funkcie predsedu/predsedníčky odvolacej komisie a jeho/jej zástupcu

(2006/C 301 A/01)

Úrad Spoločenstva pre odrody rastlín hľadá pracovníka na pozíciu predsedu/predsedníčky odvolacej komisie a jeho/jej zástupcu.

Uchádzači musia byť občanmi jedného z členských štátov Európskej únie.

Po prijatí stanoviska správnej rady úradu Rada vymenuje predsedu/predsedníčku a jeho/jej zástupcu vybratého spomedzi uchádzačov navrhovaných Komisiou. Informácie o odmenách možno získať na požiadanie na sekretariáte odvolacej komisie Úradu Spoločenstva pre odrody rastlín (Community Plant Variety Office, 3, boulevard Maréchal-Foch, BP 10121, F-49101 Angers Cedex 02). Úrad Spoločenstva pre odrody rastlín a Komisia uplatňujú pri výbere politiku rovnakých príležitostí.

Náplň práce, formuláre prihlášky a pokyny na zasielanie prihlášok si možno stiahnuť z tejto internetovej adresy:

http://ec.europa.eu/food/plant/propertyrights/index_en.htm

alebo

http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/personnel_administration/working_senior_mgt_en.htm.

Uzávierka prijímania prihlášok je 31. januára 2007 (podrobnosti možno nájsť v pokynoch týkajúcich sa vypĺňania prihlášky).

---
11TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

In the interest of M.J.C.B., Jr. * From the 118th District

and M.J.B., children, Court of Howard County,

 Trial Court No. 48,789.

No. 11-14-00140-CV * November 14, 2014

 * Memorandum Opinion by Willson, J.

 (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 

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

reverse the order of the trial court insofar as it relates to the conservatorship of 

M.J.C.B., Jr. and M.J.B., and we remand the cause to the trial court for 

reconsideration of that issue. In all other respects, we affirm the order of the trial 

court.
#### Town of Waterford et al. *v.*Charles R. Cone et al.

King, C. J., Murphy, Shea, Alcorn and Comley, Js.

Argued December 7, 1960

continued January *24,*1961

decided December 17, 1963

*Edmund W. O’Brien,*for the appellant (named plaintiff).

*Richard F. Corlcey,*for the appellees (defendants).

Per Curiam.

The appeal by the town of Waterford from a conditional judgment of the Superior Court concerning the town’s duty to repair a portion of Pilgrim Boad was continued on our docket awaiting the final determination of the validity of the discontinuance of the road. *Waterford*v. *Cone,*148 Conn. 113, 167 A.2d 854. A final judgment by the Court of Common Pleas in the case of *Cone*v. *Dar*
      *703
      *row,*New London County, No. 15480, from which no appeal has been taken, has now determined that the discontinuance of the road was valid.1 Had the Superior Court in the present case awaited that determination before rendering judgment, as it should have, the correct judgment would have been one setting aside the order to repair. Such a judgment should now be directed.

There is error, the judgment is set aside and the case is remanded with direction to render judgment setting aside the order to repair.

No costs will be taxed in this court in favor of any party.

See *Cone*v. *Darrow,*148 Conn. 109, 167 A.2d 852, regarding an attempted appeal from an interlocutory order in that case.
EXHIBIT 32


               CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                       AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
                       OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report of GUNDAKER/JORDAN AMERICAN HOLDINGS,
INC. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2004,
(the "Report"), I, W. Neal Jordan, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial
and Accounting 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 requirement 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 Company's financial position and results of operations.


June 24, 2005



/s/ W. Neal Jordan
Chief Executive Officer and
Chief Financial and
Accounting Officer
#### State of Connecticut *v.*William J. Paladine

*Morris Y. Brown,*in support of the petition.

*George J. Jaser,*assistant prosecuting attorney, in opposition.

Submitted April 27

decided May *7,*1964

The petition by the defendant for certification for appeal from the Appellate Division of the Circuit Court is denied.
In the United States Court of Federal Claims 

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 19-12V

UNPUBLISHED

AMY SKOPAK,

 Petitioner,

v.

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES,

 Respondent.

Chief Special Master Corcoran 

Filed: March 6, 2020

Special Processing Unit (SPU);

Ruling on Entitlement; Concession;

Table Injury; Influenza (Flu) Vaccine;

Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine 

Administration (SIRVA)

Leah VaSahnja Durant, Law Offices of Leah V. Durant, PLLC, Washington, DC, for 

petitioner.

Traci R. Patton, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1

On January 3, 2019, Amy Skopak filed a petition for compensation under the 

National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq.,

2

(the 

“Vaccine Act”). Petitioner alleges that she suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine 

administration (“SIRVA”) as a result of an influenza (“flu”) vaccine administered on 

September 28, 2017. Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing 

Unit of the Office of Special Masters.

On February 28, 2020, Respondent filed his Rule 4(c) report in which he

concedes that Petitioner is entitled to compensation in this case. Respondent’s Rule 

 

1 Because this unpublished ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am 

required to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website in accordance with the EGovernment Act of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (Federal Management and Promotion of 

Electronic Government Services). This means the ruling will be available to anyone with access to 

the internet. In accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), Petitioner has 14 days to identify and move to 

redact medical or other information, the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of 

privacy. If, upon review, I agree that the identified material fits within this definition, I will redact such 

material from public access. 

2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755. Hereinafter, for 

ease of citation, all “§” references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. § 

300aa (2012).
2

4(c) Report at 1. Specifically, Respondent concludes that Petitioner “meets the criteria 

for a presumed SIRVA, as defined by the Vaccine Injury Table.” Id. at 4-5. 

In view of Respondent’s position and the evidence of record, I find that 

Petitioner is entitled to compensation.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Brian H. Corcoran

Brian H. Corcoran

Chief Special Master
#### § 1.811-3 Cross-reference.

For special rules regarding the treatment of modified guaranteed contracts (as defined in section 817A and § 1.817A-1(a)(1)), *see* § 1.817A-1.

[T.D. 9058, 68 FR 24350, May 7, 2003]
| (logo)  WELLS FARGO | **Commercial  Mortgage Servicing**D1050-084,  8th Floor  401 South Tryon Street  Charlotte, NC 28202  1-800-326-1334 |
|---------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

**ANNUAL STATEMENT OFCOMPLIANCE**

 

 

Referenceis hereby made to that certain Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as ofNovember 1, 2015, by and among WELLS FARGO COMMERCIAL MORTGAGE SECURITIES,INC., as Depositor, WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Master Servicer,MIDLAND LOAN SERVICES, A DIVISION OF PNC BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as SpecialServicer, TRIMONT REAL ESTATE ADVISORS, LLC, as Trust Advisor, WELLS FARGOBANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Certificate Administrator, as Tax Administratorand as Custodian and WILMINGTON TRUST, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Trustee, withrespect to Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series 2015-C31 (the"Agreement"). Capitalized terms used herein not otherwise definedshall have the meanings assigned in the Agreement.

 

Pursuantto Section 11.12 of this Agreement, I, Daniel Bober, Executive Vice Presidentof Commercial Mortgage Services do hereby certify that:

 

1A review of the activities of the Master Servicer during the period fromJanuary 1, 2017 through December 31, 2017 (the “Reporting Period”), and of itsperformance per the Agreement during such period has been made under mysupervision, and

 

2.To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Master Servicer, hasfulfilled all of its obligations under this Agreement in all material respectsthroughout the Reporting Period.

 

 

INWITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this Certificate as of the 28thday of February 2018.

 

 

/s/Daniel Bober

DanielBober

ExecutiveVice President

WellsFargo Bank

 

 

WellsFargo Bank, N.A.                                                         (logo)Together we’ll go far
§ 1.6044-1 Returns of information as to patronage dividends with respect to patronage occurring in taxable years beginning before 1963. ( a ) *Requirement* — ( 1 ) *In general.* Except as provided in subparagraph (2) of this paragraph, any corporation allocating to any patron in respect of patronage occurring in any taxable year of the corporation beginning before January 1, 1963, amounts aggregating $100 or more during a calendar year as patronage dividends, rebates, or refunds (whether in cash, merchandise, capital stock, revolving fund certificates, retain certificates, letters of advice, or in some other manner that discloses to each patron the amount of such dividend, rebate, or refund) shall for each such calendar year file a return of information with respect to such allocation on Forms 1096 and 1099. A separate Form 1099 shall be prepared for each patron showing the name and address of the patron to whom such allocation is made, and the amount of the allocation. The allocation shall be reported for the calendar year during which the allocation is made, regardless of whether the allocation is deemed for the purpose of section 522 to be made at the close of a preceding taxable year of the corporation.
( 2 ) *Exception.* A return is not required under this section in the case of any corporation (including any cooperative or nonprofit corporation engaged in rural electrification) described in section 501(c) (12) or (15) which is exempt from tax under section 501(a), or in the case of any corporation subject to a tax imposed by subchapter L, chapter 1, of the Code.
( b ) *Time and place for filing.* Returns made under this section on Forms 1096 and 1099 for any calendar year shall be filed on or before February 28 of the following year with any of the Internal Revenue Service Centers, the addresses of which are listed in the instructions for such forms.
( c ) *Definitions.* The terms “cooperative association”, “patron”, “patronage dividends, rebates, and refunds”, and “allocation” are defined, for the purpose of this section, in paragraph (b) of § 1.522-1.
[T.D. 6500, 25 FR 12108, Nov. 26, 1960, as amended by T.D. 6628, 27 FR 12798, Dec. 28, 1962]
§ 1.6081-4 Automatic extension of time for filing individual income tax return. ( a ) *In general.* An individual who is required to file an individual income tax return will be allowed an automatic 6-month extension of time to file the return after the date prescribed for filing the return if the individual files an application under this section in accordance with paragraph (b) of this section. In the case of an individual described in § 1.6081-5(a)(5) or (6), the automatic 6-month extension will run concurrently with the extension of time to file granted pursuant to § 1.6081-5.
( b ) *Requirements.* To satisfy this paragraph (b), an individual must— ( 1 ) Submit a complete application on Form 4868, “Application for Automatic Extension of Time To File U.S. Individual Income Tax Return,” or in any other manner prescribed by the Commissioner;
( 2 ) File the application on or before the later of— ( i ) The date prescribed for filing the return; or
( ii ) The expiration of any extension of time to file granted pursuant to § 1.6081-5;
( 3 ) File the application with the Internal Revenue Service office designated in the application's instructions; and
( 4 ) Show the full amount properly estimated as tax for the taxable year.
( c ) *No extension of time for the payment of tax.* An automatic extension of time for filing a return granted under paragraph (a) of this section will not extend the time for payment of any tax due on such return.
( d ) *Termination of automatic extension.* The Commissioner may terminate an automatic extension at any time by mailing to the individual a notice of termination at least 10 days prior to the termination date designated in such notice. The Commissioner must mail the notice of termination to the address shown on the Form 4868 or to the individual's last known address. For further guidance regarding the definition of last known address, see § 301.6212-2 of this chapter.
( e ) *Penalties.* See section 6651 for failure to file an individual income tax return or failure to pay the amount shown as tax on the return. In particular, see § 301.6651-1(c)(3) of this chapter (relating to a presumption of reasonable cause in certain circumstances involving an automatic extension of time for filing an individual income tax return).
( f ) *Effective/applicability dates.* This section is applicable for applications for an automatic extension of time to file an individual income tax return filed after July 1, 2008.
[T.D. 9407, 73 FR 37366, July 1, 2008]
#### Charles S. Fredericks and Bernadine A. Fredericks, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Frederick R. Schaab, Defendant-Appellant.

Gen. No. 68-30.

Third District.

December 10, 1968.

Rehearing denied January 17, 1969.

McConnell, McConnell, Kennedy & Morris, of Peoria, for appellant;

Heyl, Royster, Voelker & Allen, of Peoria, for appellees.

Opinion by

JUSTICE SCHEINEMAN.

Not to be published in full.
| (logo) NTS NATIONAL

TAX SEARCH, LLC | 130 S. Jefferson, Suite 300

Chicago, IL 60661

312-233-6440 |
|--------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

REPORT ON ASSESSMENT OFCOMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION’SREGULATION AB SERVICING CRITERIA

 

 

For the calendar year endingDecember 31, 2016, National Tax Search, LLC has been a Tax Service Vendor for **WellsFargo Bank** (the “Servicer”).

 

National Tax Search, LLC(“NTS”) is responsible for assessing compliance as of December 31,2016 and for the period from January 1, 2016 through December 31, 2016 (the“Reporting Period”) with the servicing criteria set forth in Title17, Section 229.1122(d) of the Code of Federal Regulations (the“CFR”). NTS has used the servicing criteria communicated to NTS bythe Servicer to assess compliance with the applicable servicing criteria. Onlyservicing criteria 1122 (d) (l)(ii), 1122 (d)1(iv), 1122 (d)2(ii), 1122(d)2(v), 1122(d)2(vi), 1122(d)(4)(xi), and 1122(d)(4)(xii) (the“Applicable Servicing Criteria”) are applicable to the activitiesNTS performs with respect to the transactions covered by this report. NTS hasdetermined that the remaining servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122 (d) ofthe SEC Regulation AB are not applicable to the activities it performs withrespect to the transactions covered by this report. The transactions covered bythis report include all tax payments made on behalf of the Servicer usingNTS’s TaxQ system (the “Platform Transactions”).

 

NTS, as a vendor, has assessedits compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria for the Reporting Period andhas concluded that NTS has complied, in all material respects, with theApplicable Servicing Criteria as of December 31, 2016 and for the ReportingPeriod with respect to the Platform Transactions taken as a whole.

 

Plante& Moran, PLLC, anindependent registered public accounting firm, has issued an attestation reporton the assessment of compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria as ofDecember 31, 2016 and for the Reporting Period as set forth in this assertion.

 

National Tax Search, LLC, as Vendorto Servicer

 

 

/s/ Lori D. Eshoo

Lori D. Eshoo, President/CEO 

January 23, 2017
39761.

#### BOATRIGHT v. STATE OF GEORGIA.

Bell, Judge.

The defendant’s general assignment of error on the judgment adjudging him to be in contempt of court raises only the question whether the facts specified in the order are sufficient to constitute contempt of court. *Garland v. State of Georgia,*101 Ga. App. 395 (1) (114 SE2d 176).

The order holding the defendant in contempt recited that the conduct found to be contumacious occurred in open court and in the presence of the court and that contemnee *“. . .*(a) wilfully refused to obey the court’s orders; and (b) repeatedly attempted to argue after having been fully heard, and after the opinion of the court had been pronounced, all as appears *802in the record in the case; and, it further appearing that said conduct of J. Laddie Boatright was intended by the said J. Laddie Boatright to be contemptuous of the court”; and that the conduct did interfere with the lawful administration of justice.

Decided October 26, 1962.

*Sumner & Boatright, Robert B. Sumner, George R. Jordan,*for plaintiff in error.

*Dewey Hayes, Solicitor General,*contra.

The order recited facts which warranted the trial judge in holding the counsel in contempt of court. Code § 24-105.

Where the order specifies sufficient facts from which it appears the judge was authorized to find the defendant in contempt, the judgment is correct. A judgment affirming an order of the trial court is demanded where this court cannot hold, as a matter of law, that the trial court was unauthorized to find the defendant in contempt. *Salem v. State of Georgia,*101 Ga. App. 905, 906 (5) (115 SE2d 447).

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Felton, C. J., and Hall, J., concur.*
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

April 15, 2020

No. 04-18-00498-CV

MWM HELOTES RANCH, LTD. and Myfe Moore,

Appellants

v.

John H. WHITE Jr., Individually; John H. White III, Individually; John H. White Jr., John H. 

White III, and Molly C. White, in their capacities as Co-Trustees of the 1983 John H. White 

Long-Term Trust F/B/O John H. White Jr., and of the 1976B Partnership Trust; TCW Helotes 

Ranch Ltd; and Tuleta White,

Appellees

From the 73rd Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2018CI11563

Honorable David A. Canales, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice

The Appellants’ (Rick Harrison, Kevin Brown and Waller, Lansden, Dortch & Davis 

LLP) Motion to Withdraw as Attorneys of Record is hereby GRANTED.

_________________________________

Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 15th day of April, 2020.
___________________________________

Michael A. Cruz,

Clerk of Court