alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
42290.

#### MORRIS et al. v. INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA.

Eberhardt, Judge.

1. An indorsement to an insurance policy (not covering loss by theft), providing that “this policy is extended to cover personal property of the insured . . . *518while in transit . . . against loss or damage from the perils insured hereunder and including theft or attempted theft from automobiles of the assured” affords no coverage for a loss sustained “while in transit” where it does not appear that the loss resulted “from the perils insured hereunder” or from “theft or attempted theft from automobiles of the assured.” *Code Ann.*§ 56-2419, and cf. *Hartford Acc. &c. Co. v. Hulsey,*220 Ga. 240 (138 SE2d 310).

Argued September 7, 1966

Decided October 26, 1966.

*Roy E. Stephens, James M. Embry,*for appellants.

*Long, Weinberg & Ansley, Ben Weinberg, Jr., Gregg Loomis, John W. Dunlap,*for appellee.

2. Enumerations of error predicated upon a construction of the insurance contract at variance with Headnote 1 are without merit.

3. Enumerations of error complaining of the admission of evidence and charges of the court in regard to provisions and conditions pertaining to theft from automobiles other than those of the insured are without merit. The charges and the admission of the evidence, if error, are harmless since the scope of coverage was thereby enlarged beyond that afforded by the contract of insurance and since the insured is not entitled to recover in any event under the construction of the policy as stated in Headnote 1.

4. Error enumerated on the court’s refusal to submit the question of bad faith and statutory penalty to the jury is without merit since there was no coverage. See *American Cas. Co. v. Griffith,*107 Ga. App. 224, 228 (129 SE2d 549); *American Cas. Co. v. Seckinger,*108 Ga. App. 262 (5) (132 SE2d 794); *Lincoln Life Ins. Co. v. Anderson,*109 Ga. App. 238, 247 (136 SE2d 1); *Brown v. Seaboard Lumber &c. Co.,*221 Ga. 35 (142 SE2d 842) ; *Equitable Life Assur. Soc. v. Gillam,*195 Ga. 797 (2) (25 SE2d 686, 147 ALR 1008); *Life Ins. Co. of Ga. v. Burke,*219 Ga. 214 (132 SE2d 737).

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Bell, P. J., and Jordan, J., concur.*
1

The Honorable Lyle E. Strom, United States District Judge for the District of

Nebraska, sitting by designation.

2

The Honorable Gary A. Fenner, United States District Judge for the Western

District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 09-2403

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Western District of Missouri.

Carlus L. Phillips, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: January 11, 2010

Filed: January 19, 2010

___________

Before MURPHY and BYE, Circuit Judges, and STROM,1

 District Judge.

___________

PER CURIAM.

In 2003, Carlus Phillips pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute

five grams or more of cocaine base (crack cocaine) in violation of 21 U.S.C.

§§ 841(a)(1) and 841 (b)(1)(B). The district court2

 sentenced him to 252 months of

imprisonment, a sentence which fell near the top of the applicable Guidelines range

of 210-262 months. In 2009, Phillips moved for a reduction in his sentence under 18
3

The Honorable Ortrie D. Smith, United States District Judge for the Western

District of Missouri.

-2-

U.S.C. § 3582(c) based on Amendment 706 to the Guidelines, which reduced the base

offense level for crack cocaine offenses by two levels. The amended Guidelines range

for Phillips's crack cocaine offense thus became 168-210 months. The district court3

resentenced Phillips to 202 months, selecting a sentence that fell near the top of the

amended Guidelines range, proportionally consistent with the original sentence of 252

months.

Phillips appeals his amended sentence contending the district court erred by

failing to elaborate on its reasons for selecting a sentence near the high end of the

amended Guidelines range, and by failing to consider or explain its application of the

sentencing factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).

The district court's selection of a sentence within the amended Guidelines range

that was proportionally consistent with the original sentence, coupled with the

discussion of the § 3553(a) factors conducted in the original sentencing proceeding,

sufficiently explain the amended sentence. See United States v. Clark, 563 F.3d 722,

725 (8th Cir. 2009) (affirming a sentence amended pursuant to § 3582(c) which was

near the high end of the amended Guidelines range, where the original sentence was

also at the high end of the Guidelines range, and where the district court at the original

sentencing hearing provided an adequate explanation of the § 3553(a) factors and gave

the reasons for selecting its sentence).

We affirm.

______________________________
§ 50.1 Definitions. ( a ) Direct Federal financial assistance, Federal financial assistance provided directly, direct funding, or directly funded means financial assistance received by an entity selected by the Government or pass-through entity (under this part) to carry out a service (e.g., by contract, grant, or cooperative agreement). References to “Federal financial assistance” will be deemed to be references to direct Federal financial assistance, unless the referenced assistance meets the definition of “indirect Federal financial assistance” or “Federal financial assistance provided indirectly.”
( b ) Indirect Federal financial assistance or Federal financial assistance provided indirectly means financial assistance received by a service provider when the service provider is paid for services by means of a voucher, certificate, or other means of government-funded payment provided to a beneficiary who is able to make a choice of a service provider. Federal financial assistance provided to an organization is considered “indirect” within the meaning of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution when— ( 1 ) The government program through which the beneficiary receives the voucher, certificate, or other similar means of government funded payment is neutral toward religion; and
( 2 ) The organization receives the assistance wholly as a result of a genuine and independent private choice of the beneficiary, not a choice of the Government. The availability of adequate secular alternatives is a significant factor in determining whether a program affords a genuine and independent private choice.
( c ) *Federal financial assistance* means assistance that non-Federal entities receive or administer in the form of grants, contracts, loans, loan guarantees, property, cooperative agreements, food commodities, direct appropriations, or other assistance, but does not include a tax credit, deduction, or exemption.
( d ) *Pass-through entity* means an entity, including a nonprofit or nongovernmental organization, acting under a contract, grant, or other agreement with the Federal Government or with a State or local government, such as a State administering agency, that accepts direct Federal financial assistance as a primary recipient or grantee and distributes that assistance to other organizations that, in turn, provide government-funded social services.
( e ) Programs or services has the same definition as “social service program” in Executive Order 13279.
( f ) *Recipient* means a non-Federal entity that receives a Federal award directly from a Federal awarding agency to carry out an activity under a Federal program. The term recipient does not include subrecipients, but does include pass-through entities.
( g ) *Religious exercise* has the meaning given to the term in 42 U.S.C. 2000cc-5(7)(A).
[85 FR 82142, Dec. 17, 2020, as amended at 89 FR 15718, Mar. 4, 2024]
H. R. 2587 

One Hundred Tenth Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE FIRST SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Thursday, 

the fourth day of January, two thousand and seven 

An Act 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 555 South 

3rd Street Lobby in Memphis, Tennessee, as the ‘‘Kenneth T. Whalum, Sr. Post 

Office Building’’. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. KENNETH T. WHALUM, SR. POST OFFICE BUILDING. 

(a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States Postal 

Service located at 555 South 3rd Street Lobby in Memphis, Tennessee, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Kenneth T. Whalum, 

Sr. Post Office Building’’. 

(b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, regulation, 

document, paper, or other record of the United States to the facility 

referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference 

to the ‘‘Kenneth T. Whalum, Sr. Post Office Building’’. 

Speaker of the House of Representatives. 

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
Order entered January 21, 2014

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-12-01220-CR

HUBERT WILLIAMS, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 194th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F11-53043-M

ORDER

The Court GRANTS the State’s motion for extension of time to file the State’s brief. We 

ORDER the Clerk of the Court to file the brief tendered as of the date of this order.

We DIRECT the Clerk to send copies of this order, by electronic transmission, to counsel for 

all parties. 

/s/ LANA MYERS 

JUSTICE
1 The Honorable WILLIAM R. WILSON, JR., United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas. ___________ No. 95-1732

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Eastern District of Arkansas. Leroy Philmon, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: January 16, 1996 Filed: January 22, 1996

___________ Before BEAM, LOKEN, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM.
After a jury found Leroy Philmon guilty of conspiring to distribute cocaine in February 1994, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846, the district court 1sentenced him to 144 months imprisonment and four years supervised release. Philmon appeals his sentence, and we affirm.

Co-conspirator Thomas Craig Walton--who supplied the cocaine that was the subject of the conspiracy for which Philmon was convicted--testified at sentencing that he supplied cocaine to Philmon on a steady basis beginning in late 1992 and continuing through late 1993. The district court included drug quantities from these previous transactions in calculating the total drug quantity for which Philmon was responsible under U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3-2- (relevant conduct). Philmon argues that, because the prior transactions comprising the relevant conduct increased his base offense level by ten levels and tripled his sentencing range, the court should have used the clear-and-convincing standard of proof rather than the preponderance-of-the-evidence standard. We disagree. See United States v. Pugh , 25 F.3d 669, 676 (8th Cir. 1994) (four-fold increase in potential sentence not large enough to require heightened evidentiary standard).

Philmon further argues that the prior transactions did not constitute relevant conduct. This argument also fails. Based on Walton's testimony, which the district court credited, we conclude that the court did not clearly err in finding that the prior transactions were part of the same course of conduct as the charged conspiracy, and thus were relevant conduct. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3(a)(2) & comment. (n. 9(B)); United States v. Balano , 8 F.3d 629, 630 (8th Cir. 1993); United States v. Adipietro , 983 F.2d 1468, 1472 (8th Cir. 1993).

Accordingly, we affirm. We deny Philmon's pro se motion for appointment of new counsel.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
# Official Journal L 269/2013

| | ISSN 1977-0677
  doi:10.3000/19770677.L_2013.269.eng |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 269 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 5610 October 2013 |

ISSN 1977-0677

doi:10.3000/19770677.L_2013.269.eng

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 269

English edition

Legislation

Volume 5610 October 2013

---

| Contents | | I   Legislative acts | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | REGULATIONS |
| | * | Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 October 2013 laying down the Union Customs Code | 1 |

Contents

I   Legislative acts

page

REGULATIONS

*

Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 October 2013 laying down the Union Customs Code

1

| 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 4.112


 


Loan Agreement


 


Contract No. :2014JIYINDAIZIDI14100381


 


Borrower : Hebei
Xuhua Trading Co.,Ltd.


Lender : CITIC Shijiazhuang Branch


Signing Date
: June 27, 2014


Loan Amount
: RMB30,000,000


 


Length of maturity
: From June 27, 2014 to June 27, 2015


Use of Loan
: Vehicle Purchase


Loan Interest : 6.60%


Debt Note:   Debt
note is one of the part of the contract, not specified in the contract or records do not match the loan amount, date of draft,
repayment date stated on the debt note, the loan documents shall prevail.


There are three
Debt Note of the contract:


 


		1.	Date of Draft : June 27, 2014



Draft Amount: RMB30,000,000


Date of Draft
: June 27, 2014


Withdrawal Amount
: RMB30,000,000


Payment Method : The interest should be repaid by monthly. The principal
shall be fully repaid at the maturity date of the loan.


Repayment Date
: June 27, 2015


 


Loan Guarantee: Guaranty of Pledge, Guaranty
of Guarantee


 


- Ganglian Financial Leasing Co.,Ltd. entered into The Maximum Pledge
Contract with the lender, with the contract no.2014JIYINZUIQUANZHIZIDI14140226.


 


- Mr. Li Yong Hui entered into The Maximum Guarantee Contract with
the lender, with the contract no. 2014JIYINZUIQUANBAOZIDI14120746.
EXHIBIT 31.1








RULE 13a-14(d)/15d-14(d) CERTIFICATION (SECTION 302 CERTIFICATION)











I, Andrew J. McMonigle, 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 CarMax Auto Owner Trust 2021-1 (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.








Date: May 27, 2022








/s/ Andrew J. McMonigle


Name: Andrew J. McMonigle


Title: Vice President and Treasurer


(Senior officer in charge of securitization)


Company: CarMax Auto Funding LLC


as Depositor on behalf of CarMax Auto Owner Trust 2021-1
§ 39.9 Hearings. ( a ) No application for a grant under this part shall be disapproved until the applicant has been afforded an opportunity for a hearing.
( b ) Whenever a hearing is requested under this section, notice of the hearing, procedure for the conduct of such hearing, and procedures relating to decisions and notices shall accord with the provisions of §§ 18.9 and 18.10 of this chapter. Failure of an applicant to request a hearing under this section or to appear at a hearing for which a date has been set shall be deemed to be a waiver of the right to be heard and constitutes consent to the making of a decision on the basis of such information as is available.
(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501, 2408)
Exhibit 10.8

 

A request for confidential treatment has been made with respect to portions of the following document that are marked with [*]. The redacted portions have been filed separately with the SEC.

 

First Amendment LSU—Anterios Agreement

 

First Amendment

 

This amendment is entered into between the Board of Supervisors of Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College, a public constitutional corporation, organized and existing under the laws of the State of Louisiana (“LSU”) and Anterios, Inc. a Delaware corporation, with offices located at 142 West 57th Street, Suite 4A, New York, New York 10019 (“LICENSEE”), and is made as of February 15, 2011.

 

Background

 

Anterios, Inc. (“Company”), and LSU (“University”) are parties to an exclusive license agreement designated LSU FILE 4-01-09 that was effective June 12, 2008 (“License Agreement”).

 

Company and University desire to amend the License Agreement for the purpose of extending certain terms of the diligence period of the license granted by the University to Company.

 

The Company and University agree as follows:

 

1.              Section 5.3.2 of Article 5 “Diligence” is replaced in its entirety with the following:

 

The first dosing of a patient with a LICENSED PRODUCT or LICENSED PROCESS in an FDA-approved Phase III clinical trial for the treatment of acne with botulinum toxin, by the [*] anniversary of the Effective Date;

 

2.              Section 5.3.3 of Article 5 “Diligence” is replaced in its entirety with the following:

 

The FIRST COMMERCIAL SALE of a LICENSED PRODUCT or LICENSED PROCESS, by the [*] anniversary of the Effective Date.

 

3.              The parties each agree that the other is in full compliance with the terms and conditions of the License Agreement as of the date of their respective execution of this Amendment.

 

[The remainder of the page is left intentionally blank.]

 

1











 

A request for confidential treatment has been made with respect to portions of the following document that are marked with [*]. The redacted portions have been filed separately with the SEC.

 

Other than the changes above, the terms and conditions of the Agreement remain unchanged and in full force and effect.

 

 

	
 
    	
Accepted   and Agreed:
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
ANTERIOS, INC.
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
By:
    	
/s/   Jon Edelson
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
Name:   Jon Edelson, MD
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
Title:   CEO
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
Date:
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
BOARD   OF SUPERVISORS OF LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY AND AGRICULTURAL AND MECHANICAL   COLLEGE
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
By:
    	
/s/   John Lombardi
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
Name:   Jon Lombardi, PhD
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
Title:   President
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
Date:
    


 

2
---

Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION
1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY
ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Silverado Gold
Mines, Ltd. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending February 29,
2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report"), I, Garry L. Anselmo, Principal Financial Officer of the Company,
certify to the best of my knowledge, 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 requirements of section
13 (a) or 15 (d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934; and

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



/s/ *Garry L. Anselmo*
  Garry L. Anselmo 
  Principal Financial Officer

April 14, 2008

---
§ 1010.503 Notice of certification. ( a ) If the Director determines that a state qualifies for certification under this subpart, the Director shall so notify the state in writing. The state will be effectively certified under the section and as of the date specified in the notice.
( b ) If the Director determines that a state does not meet the standards for certification, the Director shall so notify the state in writing. The notice will specify particular changes in state law, regulations or administration that are needed to obtain certification. The Director shall not be bound in advance to certify a state that makes the suggested changes if other deficiencies become apparent at a later time.
( c ) The Director's final determination to accept or reject a State's Application for Certification of Land Sales Program shall be published in the Federal Register.
( d ) A state's certification will remain in effect until it is voluntarily suspended by the state or withdrawn by the Director. A state can voluntarily suspend its certification by notifying the Director in writing. The suspension will take effect as of the date and time specified in the notice to the Director, or upon receipt by the Director if no date is specified. The Director may withdraw certification as provided in § 1010.505.
[76 FR 79489, Dec. 21, 2011, as amended at 81 FR 29118, May 11, 2016]
§ 60.20 Duration of Fisher House or other temporary lodging. Fisher House or other temporary lodging may be awarded for the following periods: ( a ) While the veteran is undergoing an episode of care.
( b ) While the veteran is hospitalized, if the veteran is admitted to a VA health care facility while undergoing an outpatient episode of care for which temporary lodging was already provided.
( c ) As extended by the appropriate VA clinician or social worker based on an emergency situation or unforeseen circumstances.
( d ) For an indefinite period for accompanying individuals who are visiting veterans hospitalized for an indefinite period, provided that the accompanying individual is not using a VA health care facility bed. Whether a veteran is hospitalized for an indefinite period will be based upon the treatment or rehabilitation needs of the veteran as determined by the veteran's health care team.
( e ) Temporary lodging may be furnished the night before the day of a scheduled appointment if, the veteran leaving home after 8:00 a.m., would be unable to arrive at the VA health care facility by the time of the scheduled appointment.
( f ) Temporary lodging may be furnished the night of the scheduled appointment if, after the appointment, the veteran would be unable to return home before 7:00 p.m. When a veteran is undergoing outpatient treatment or procedures the veteran and accompanying individual(s) may be furnished temporary lodging for the duration of the episode of care subject to limitations described in this section.
(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501, 1708)