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

THE STATE OF TEXAS

TO THE 348TH DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY, GREETINGS:

Before our Court of Appeals for the Fourth District of Texas on August 27, 2014, the cause upon appeal to 

revise or reverse your judgment between

Federal National Mortgage Association, Appellant

V.

Summit Residential Services, LLC, as Trustee for The Hobby Falcon 2212 Land Trust, Appellee

No. 04-13-00775-CV and Tr. Ct. No. 348-263863-13

was determined, and therein our said Court of Appeals made its order in these words:

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the 

trial court is AFFIRMED. 

We ORDER that Summit Residential Services, LLC, as Trustee for The 

Hobby Falcon 2212 Land Trust, recover its costs of this appeal from Federal 

National Mortgage Association.

WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Court of Appeals for the Fourth 

District of Texas, in this behalf and in all things have the order duly recognized, obeyed, and executed.

WITNESS the Hon. Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice of the Court of Appeals for the Fourth District of 

Texas, with the seal of the Court affixed and the City of San Antonio on February 3, 2015.

KEITH E. HOTTLE, CLERK

____________________________

Cynthia A. Martinez

Deputy Clerk, Ext. 53853
BILL OF COSTS

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, FOURTH DISTRICT, AT SAN ANTONIO

No. 04-13-00775-CV

Federal National Mortgage Association

v.

Summit Residential Services, LLC, as Trustee for The Hobby Falcon 2212 Land Trust

(NO. 348-263863-13 IN 348TH DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY)

TYPE OF FEE CHARGES PAID BY

MOTION FEE

CLERK'S RECORD

MOTION FEE

FILING FEE PAID TO COURT 

THAT TRANSFERRED CASE

$10.00

$30.00

$10.00

$195.00

E-PAID

PAID

E-PAID

PAID

KENNETH HARTER

FEDERAL NAT'L MORTG ASSOC

KIMBERLY HILL

Balance of costs owing to the Fourth Court of Appeals, San Antonio, Texas: 0.00

Court costs in this cause shall be paid as per the Judgment issued by this Court.

I, KEITH E. HOTTLE, CLERK OF THE FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF 

TEXAS, do hereby certify that the above and foregoing is a true and correct copy of the cost bill of 

THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS, showing the charges and 

payments, in the above numbered and styled cause, as the same appears of record in this office.

IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, witness my hand and the Seal of the COURT OF APPEALS for 

the Fourth District of Texas, this February 3, 2015.

KEITH E. HOTTLE, CLERK

____________________________

Cynthia A. Martinez

Deputy Clerk, Ext. 53853
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

Order 

September 9, 2015

148412-3 & (89)

EMILY KINCAID,

Plaintiff-Appellee/

Cross-Appellant,

v SC: 148412

COA: 310148

Wayne CC: 11-004918-NI

ROBERT CROSKEY and WOLPIN

COMPANY, d/b/a TRI-COUNTY

BEVERAGE COMPANY/WAYNE

COUNTY,

Defendants-Appellants/

Cross-Appellees,

and

EXAMWORKS,

Nonparty-Appellee/

Cross-Appellee.

___________________________________/

EMILY KINCAID,

Plaintiff-Appellee/

Cross-Appellant,

v SC: 148413

COA: 311857

Wayne CC: 11-004918-NI

ROBERT CROSKEY and WOLPIN

COMPANY, d/b/a TRI-COUNTY

BEVERAGE COMPANY/WAYNE

COUNTY,

Defendants-Appellants/

Cross-Appellees,

and

CLIFFORD LEE, JR.,

Intervening Plaintiff.

___________________________________/
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.

 September 9, 2015

a0831

2

Clerk

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the November 21, 2013 

judgment of the Court of Appeals and the application for leave to appeal as crossappellant are considered, and they are DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the 

questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
#### Arthur W. McLaughlin et al., Appellants, *v.*Francis L. Ranger et al., Respondents.

Appeal from a judgment in favor of defendants.

Alex. Thain, for appellants.

Charles C. Leeds (A. 0. Palmer, of counsel), for respondents.

*Per Curiam.*

The burden rested upon plaintiffs to show by a fair preponderance of evidence that one Henry Ranger was the duly authorized agent of these defendants, concerning the transactions in question. That question of fact, which was in dispute, in our opinion was clearly and fairly presented to the jury, and they found in favor of defendants. Their verdict, we are convinced after carefully reading the appeal record, was just and reasonable, and should not be disturbed. All of the positive evidence proved that he was not their agent Plaintiffs’ evidence upon that question was merely circumstantial, very weak, and evidently entitled to little weight. Weak as it was, we think, it was entirely discredited by the defendants’ testimony, showing that the social relations existing between the alleged agent and these defendants were sustained and disrupted, as to justify any reasonable person in concluding that they would hardly have selected him as their agent in a business transaction like the one in question.

The judgment must be affirmed, with costs.

Present: Fitzsimons, Ch. J., and Scotchman, J.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.
# Official Journal L 317/2021

| | ISSN 1977-0677 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 317 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 648 September 2021 |

ISSN 1977-0677

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 317

English edition

Legislation

Volume 648 September 2021

---

| Contents | | II   Non-legislative acts | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | REGULATIONS |
| | * | Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2021/1456 of 2 June 2021 supplementing Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council by specifying the conditions under which the commercial terms for clearing services for OTC derivatives are to be considered to be fair, reasonable, non-discriminatory and transparent (
  1
  ) | 1 |
| | * | Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/1457 of 1 September 2021 entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (‘Szegedi tükörponty’ (PGI)) | 7 |
| | * | Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/1458 of 7 September 2021 fixing the import duties applicable to certain types of husked rice from 8 September 2021 | 8 |

Contents

II   Non-legislative acts

page

REGULATIONS

*

Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2021/1456 of 2 June 2021 supplementing Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council by specifying the conditions under which the commercial terms for clearing services for OTC derivatives are to be considered to be fair, reasonable, non-discriminatory and transparent (
  1
  )

1

1

*

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/1457 of 1 September 2021 entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (‘Szegedi tükörponty’ (PGI))

7

*

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/1458 of 7 September 2021 fixing the import duties applicable to certain types of husked rice from 8 September 2021

8

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance. |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance.

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.
EXHIBIT 31.2

                        CERTIFICATION UNDER SECTION 302
                       OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, John Fermanis, certify that:

1. I have reviewed  this  quarterly  report on Form  10-QSB/A of IR  BioSciences
Holdings, 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 quarterly report.

3.  Based  on my  knowledge,  the  financial  statements,  and  other  financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial  condition,  results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as
of, and for, the periods represented in this 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 Rule 13a 15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have:

a. designed such disclosure  controls and procedures,  or caused such disclosure
controls and  procedures to be designed  under our  supervision,  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 the period in which this report is being prepared;

b.  evaluated the  effectiveness  of the  registrant's  disclosure  controls and
procedures and presented in this report our 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 change in the registrant's internal control over
financial  reporting that occurred  during the  registrant's  most recent fiscal
quarter that has  materially  affected,  or is  reasonably  likely to materially
affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and

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

a. all  significant  deficiencies  and  material  weaknesses  in the  design  or
operation of internal  controls over  financial  reporting  which are reasonably
likely  to  adversely  affect  the  registrant's  ability  to  record,  process,
summarize and report financial information; 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 over
financial reporting.

                                /s/ John Fermanis
                                -----------------------
                                John Fermanis
                                Chief Financial Officer
                                November 16, 2005
§ 21.312 Reduced work tolerance. ( a ) *General.* VA will consider that a veteran with reduced work tolerance is pursuing a rehabilitation program full-time when the amount of time the veteran is devoting to his or her program is as great as the effects of his or her disability (service and nonservice-connected) will permit.
( b ) *Pursuit of a program.* A veteran with reduced work tolerance may pursue a rehabilitation program when the following conditions are met: ( 1 ) Reduced work tolerance has been determined.
( 2 ) Achievement of the goals of the program are reasonably feasible;
( 3 ) The IWRP (Individualized Written Rehabilitation Plan) or other plan provides for completion of the program under Chapter 31.
( c ) *Redetermination of work tolerance.* As necessary, but not less than once yearly, the veteran's work tolerance will be reevaluated. The rate of pursuit required to meet the standard of full-time pursuit will be modified if there is either an increase or decrease in the work tolerance of the veteran.
( d ) *Payment of allowance.* A veteran with a reduced work tolerance will be paid a subsistence allowance, at the full-time rate for the type of program being pursued, when the veteran meets the standard for full-time pursuit established for him or her in the Plan. A veteran with reduced work tolerance, who elects benefits at the Chapter 34 rate, will have to meet normal attendance requirements for that chapter, however.
( e ) *Determining work tolerance.* A VA physician will make all determinations and redeterminations of work tolerance.
(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 3108(d))
§ 488.1265 Termination of provider agreement. ( a ) *Effect of termination by CMS.* Termination of the provider agreement ends— ( 1 ) Payment to the hospice program; and
( 2 ) Any enforcement remedy.
( b ) *Basis for termination.* CMS terminates a hospice program's provider agreement under any one of the following conditions: ( 1 ) The hospice program is not in compliance with the conditions of participation.
( 2 ) The hospice program fails to submit an acceptable plan of correction within the timeframe specified by CMS.
( 3 ) The hospice program fails to relinquish control to the temporary manager, if that remedy is imposed by CMS.
( 4 ) The hospice program fails to meet the eligibility criteria for continuation of payment as set forth in § 488.1260(a)(1).
( c ) *Notice.* CMS notifies the hospice program and the public of the termination, in accordance with procedures set forth in § 489.53 of this chapter.
( d ) *Procedures for termination.* CMS terminates the provider agreement in accordance with procedures set forth in § 489.53 of this chapter.
( e ) *Payment post termination.* Payment is available for up to 30 calendar days after the effective date of termination for hospice care furnished under a plan established before the effective date of termination as set forth in § 489.55 of this chapter.
( f ) *Appeal.* A hospice program may appeal the termination of its provider agreement by CMS in accordance with part 498 of this chapter.
Exhibit 31.1  Certifications  I, Mike McKeever, certify that:  1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of Carvana Auto Receivables Trust 2021-N1 (the “Exchange Act periodic reports”); 2. Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and other information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports; 4. Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statement required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicer has fulfilled its obligations under the servicing agreement in all material respects; and 5. All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d- 18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwise disclosed in this report. Any material instances of noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K. In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me by the following  unaffiliated parties: Wells Fargo Bank, National Association and Computershare Trust Company, National  Association.  Date: March 26, 2024  /s/ Mike McKeever  Mike McKeever  President  Carvana Receivables Depositor LLC  (senior officer in charge of securitization)
EXHIBIT 32.2

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

In  connection  with the Annual  Report of IR  BioSciences  Holdings,  Inc. (the
"Company")  on Form  10-QSB/A for the three months ended  September  30, 2004 as
filed with the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof  (the
"Report"),  I, John Fermanis,  Chief Financial Officer of the Company,  certify,
pursuant  to 18 U.S.C.  ss.1350,  as  adopted  pursuant  to  Section  906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

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

/S/ John Fermanis
-----------------------
Chief Financial Officer
July 20, 2005

A signed  original of this written  statement  required by Section 906, an other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the  electronic  version of this written  statement
required by Section  906,  has been  provided to Company and will be retained by
the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
upon request.
# Archives -- List of Journals Indexed in AGRICOLA

----

**The annual *List of Journals Indexed in AGRICOLA* has been discontinued.  Please see the new Journals Indexed in AGRICOLA for more recent information regarding journals that are indexed for AGRICOLA.**

### List of Journals Indexed in AGRICOLA 2000

List of Journals Indexed in AGRICOLA 1999
List of Journals Indexed in AGRICOLA 1998
List of Journals Indexed in AGRICOLA 1997
List of Journals Indexed in AGRICOLA 1996
List of Journals Indexed in AGRICOLA 1995
Return to:

NAL Publications and Databases
NAL Home PageLast updated May 29, 2002.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

QINGSHENG ZHOU, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

JAMES E. BOASBERG,

Defendant. 

Civil Action No.12-cv-0637 (RLW)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter comes before the Court on review of the plaintiff’s pro se civil Complaint.1

 

Plaintiff alleges that he filed a previous complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of 

Columbia that was assigned to Judge Boasberg, and that Judge Boasberg subsequently 

dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint in that case. Plaintiff now claims that upon receipt of Judge 

Boasberg’s letter—presumably Judge Boasberg’s Memorandum Opinion dismissing the case—

he was “hurt.” (Compl. at 1). Plaintiff further alleges that Judge Boasberg’s dismissal order 

violated Section 1983 of the Civil Rights Act of 1871. Id. Plaintiff seeks as relief “three 

hundred millions.” Id. 

“Judges enjoy absolute judicial immunity from suits for money damages for all actions 

taken in the judge’s judicial capacity, unless these actions are taken in the complete absence of 

all jurisdiction.” Sindram v. Suda, 986 F.2d 1459, 1460 (D.C. Cir. 1993). In addition, “[a] 

judge will not be deprived of immunity because the action he took was in error, was done 

maliciously, or was in excess of his authority.” Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 356-57 

 1 The Court acknowledges that complaints filed by pro se litigants are held to less stringent 

standards than those applied to formal pleadings drafted by lawyers. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 

U.S. 519, 520 (1972).
2

(1978). 

Plaintiff seeks damages from Judge Boasberg for dismissing, sua sponte, a prior case. 

(Compl. at 1). While it appears that Plaintiff seeks a judgment against Judge Boasberg in his 

individual capacity, he has not identified any action taken by Judge Boasberg outside of his 

judicial capacity. Because Judge Boasberg acted solely within his capacity as a federal judge 

and is therefore entitled to absolute immunity, Plaintiff’s claim is barred on judicial immunity 

grounds. See e.g., Clark v. Taylor, 627 F.2d 284, 287 (D.C. Cir. 1980) (per curiam) (common 

law immunity of judges applies in suits under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging constitutional rights); 

Moore v. Motz, 437 F. Supp. 2d 88, 91 (D.D.C. 2006) (absolute judicial immunity bars pro se 

plaintiff’s claims against federal judges stemming from acts taken in their judicial capacities). 

Plaintiff’s Complaint thus fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted and will be 

dismissed with prejudice pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6); Baker v. 

U.S. Parole Comm'n, 916 F.2d 725, 727 (D.C. Cir. 1990). The Court notes that the proper 

mechanism to achieve the relief that the Plaintiff seeks is an appeal of Judge Boasberg’s order 

of dismissal, not a lawsuit against Judge Boasberg in his personal capacity. A separate Order 

of dismissal accompanies this Memorandum Opinion. 

SO ORDERED.

May 1, 2012 __________________________

Robert L. Wilkins

United States District Judge
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS CONTAINED IN THE MOST RECENT QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-Q OF
RESEARCH FRONTIERS INCORPORATED FOR THE QUARTER ENDING MARCH 31, 1997 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                         863,425
<SECURITIES>                                 6,560,732
<RECEIVABLES>                                  122,533
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             7,601,200
<PP&E>                                         187,806
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               7,852,662
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          170,978
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    10,175,726
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 7,852,662
<SALES>                                         50,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               194,711
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  867,741
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (673,030)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (673,030)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (673,030)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.07)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.07)
        

</TABLE>
#### § 4.69 Dominant hand.

Handedness for the purpose of a dominant rating will be determined by the evidence of record, or by testing on VA examination. Only one hand shall be considered dominant. The injured hand, or the most severely injured hand, of an ambidextrous individual will be considered the dominant hand for rating purposes.

(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 1155)

[62 FR 30239, June 3, 1997]