alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### § 826.34 Comments by other parties.

Any party to a proceeding other than the applicant and agency counsel may file comments on an application within 30 days after it is served or on an answer within 15 days after it is served. A commenting party may not participate further in proceedings on the application unless the administrative law judge determines that the public interest requires such participation in order to permit full exploration of matters raised in the comments.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                       4,759,084
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  136,611
<ALLOWANCES>                                   136,611
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             6,106,982
<PP&E>                                         207,402
<DEPRECIATION>                                (110,036)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               6,357,674
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          536,760
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     9,317,747
<OTHER-SE>                                  (3,499,023)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 6,357,674
<SALES>                                          2,461
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 2,461
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,305,252
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               6,053
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (1,298,834)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         (1,298,834)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                (1,298,834)
<EPS-BASIC>                                       (.26)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.26)


</TABLE>
[Cite as State v. Sutton , 2020-Ohio-324.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO

FAYETTE COUNTY

STATE OF OHIO, Appellee,

- vs -

JUSTIN T. SUTTON, Appellant. :

:

:

:

:

: CASE NO. CA2019-07-014

D E C I S I O N 2/3/2020

CRIMINAL APPEAL FROM FAYETTE CO UNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Case No. CRI20190009

Jess C. Weade, Fayette County Prosecuting Attorney, Fayette Cou nty Courthouse, 110 East Court Street, 1st Floor, Wa shington, Court House, Ohio 431 60, for appellee Steven H. Eckstein, 1208 Bramble Ave., Washington Court House, Ohio 43160, for appellant

Per Curiam. {¶1} This cause came on to be considered upon a notice of appeal fil ed by appellant, Justin T. Sutton, the transcript of the docket and j ournal entries, the transcript of proceedings and original papers from the Fayette County Court o f Common Pleas, and upon the brief, and amended brief, filed by appellant's counsel

.{¶2} Appellant's counsel has filed a brief with this court pursuant to Anders v.

California , 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396 (1967), which (1) indicates that a careful review of the record from the proceedings below fails to disclose any err ors by the trial court prejudicial to the rights of appellant upon which an assignment of error may be predicated; (2) lists one potential error "that might arguably support the appeal," Anders , at 744, 87 S.Ct. at 1400; (3) requests that this court review the record i ndependently to determine whether the proceedings are free from prejudicial error and wit hout infringement of appellant's constitutional rights; (4) requests permission to w ithdraw as counsel for appellant on the basis that the appeal is wholly frivolous; and (5) certifies that a copy of both the brief and motion to withdraw have been served upon appellan t. {¶3} Having allowed appellant sufficient time to respond, and no res ponse having been received, we have accordingly examined the record and find no error prejudicial to appellant's rights in the proceedings in the trial court. The motion of counsel for appellant requesting to withdraw as counsel is granted, and this appeal i s dismissed for the reason that it is wholly frivolous.

M. POWELL, P.J., S. POWELL and RINGLAND, JJ., concur.
#### Benjamin Reamer, Appellant, v. The Argus Company, Respondent.

Order reversed, with ten dollars costs and printing disbursements, and motion granted, with ten dollars costs. Opinion by

Bockes, J.
Here's how you know
 **Official websites use .mil** .mil
 **Secure .mil websites use HTTPS** lock () https://


Skip to main content (Press Enter).
 Toggle navigation
            
            U.S. Central Command
                CENTCOM
        Search
                    Search CENTCOM:
                        Search
                Search CENTCOM:
                    Search
    Home

    ABOUT US
    
        COMMAND PRIORITIES

    LEADERSHIP

    COMPONENT COMMANDS

    HISTORY

    POSTURE STATEMENT

    CENTCOM AOR
    
        CENTCOM COALITION

    OPERATIONS AND EXERCISES
    
        USMTM

    CIVILIAN CASUALTY REPORT

    CONTACT
    
        OPERATIONAL CONTRACT SUPPORT

    COMMUNITY RELATIONS

    THEATRE MEDICAL CLEARANCE

    INNOVATION VENDOR PORTAL

    MILITARY MEMBER INNOVATION PORTAL

    MEDIA
    
        SOCIAL MEDIA

    NEWS ARTICLES

    PRESS RELEASES

    STATEMENTS

    IMAGERY

    VIDEOS

    TRANSCRIPTS

    VISITORS AND PERSONNEL
    
        FAMILY CENTER

    FAMILY READINESS

    CENTCOM WEBMAIL

    SOCIAL MEDIA SECURITY

    ACCOUNTABILITY

    EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS

    USCENTCOM UNCLASSIFIED REGULATIONS

    FOIA LIBRARY

    INNOVATION OASIS

    WELCOME GUIDE  Search
 Search
 All Images All ImagesCommunity RelationsOtherPreviousCommanders
 Upload Date Upload DatePhoto DateTitle
  Share
  
 Small () Medium () Full Size (1.53 MB)
 Photo Gallery
 About UsCommand PrioritiesLeadershipComponent
   CommandsHistoryPosture Statement
   Area of
   ResponsibilityCENTCOM Coalition
   Operations And
   ExercisesOperation Inherent
   ResolveResolute Support
   MediaSocial MediaNews ArticlesPress ReleasesVideo And Imagery
   Visitors And
   PersonnelFamily ReadinessCENTCOM WebmailSocial MediaSecurityAccountabilityEmergency
   Preparedness
   ContactCommunity Relations
                    Stay Connected
                
                Privacy & Security  Inspector General  FOIA  Privacy Act
            

Hosted by Defense Media Activity - WEB.mil
Certifications

I, Cecil A. Brooks, certify that:

1. I  have  reviewed  this  quarterly  report  on  Form  10-QSB  of  Cornerstone
Ministries Investments, Inc.;

2. Based on my  knowledge,  this  quarterly  report  does not contain any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact  necessary to make
the statements made, in light of the  circumstances  under which such statements
were made, not  misleading  with respect to the period covered by this quarterly
report;

3.  Based  on my  knowledge,  the  financial  statements,  and  other  financial
information  included in this quarterly  report,  fairly present in all material
respects the financial  condition,  results of operations  and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;

4.  The  registrant's  other  certifying  officers  and  I are  responsible  for
establishing and maintaining  disclosure  controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have:

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

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

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

5. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation,  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 in the design or operation of internal controls
which  could  adversely  affect the  registrant's  ability  to record,  process,
summarize and report  financial data and have  identified  for the  registrant's
auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

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

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

Date:  November 11, 2003            s/Cecil A. Brooks
                                    ------------------
                                    Cecil A. Brooks, Chairman of the Board,
                                    President, Chief Executive Officer

                                                                               7
#### THE CITY OF NEWARK, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. JOHN V. MARTIN, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

Essex County Court Law Division

Decided April 29, 1952.

*329
      *Mr. Michael*Breithopf, attorney for the City of Newark.

*Mr. Carl*Abruzzese, attorney for the defendant.

Conlon, J. C. C.

The defendant was convicted of violating a zoning ordinance in the City of Newark and was fined $200 in the municipal court. The alleged violation consisted in his conducting a parking lot on the premises at No. 347 Washington Street, Newark, New Jersey, which is in a second business district. The ordinance in question concerns section 7 of the zoning ordinance of the City of Newark, and reads as follows:

> “In a Second Business District no building or premises shall be used, and no building shall be erected to be used for any of the following specified trades, industries or uses:

> * * * # is is *

> (n) Public Garage.”

The definition in the ordinance classifies a public garage as follows:

> “(aa) The term ‘public garage’ shall be construed to mean any building or premises in which a business, service or industry connected with motor vehicles is conducted or rendered, and shall include all premises used for motor vehicles either housed or unhoused, excepting automobile salesrooms conducted exclusively for the exhibition of not more than twenty vehicles.”

The ordinance is penal in nature. If there is any ambiguity in the language it must be strictly construed, and no intendment is properly permissible so as to extend its *330operation to acts not clearly expressed. *Perrine Terrace Land Co. v.*Brennan, 101 *N. J. L.*487 *(Sup. Ct.*1925).

The language in the ordinance under consideration does not mention the term “parking lot” as such, but leaves to implication whether or not the language “and shall include all premises used for motor vehicles, housed or unhoused” was intended to include parking lots. That particular phrase must, of necessity, be read in conjunction with the terminology which specifies that the premises must be used in connection with a “business, service or industry connected with motor vehicles.” The term “parking lot” has a well defined meaning and connotes an operation that is distinct from any other business connected with the sale, repair or servicing of automobiles. If it were the intent by the ordinance to interdict the conduct of a parking lot the ordinance would have so stated.

I find that the maintenance of a parking lot is not in violation of the ordinance in question and therefore the defendant is found not guilty of the charge. ■
-------------------------------------------------------------------

Page 1 of 1 

LSOJ\l.PR 

PUBLICAnOCONF:SSlNG Dltn 

& REo VISION 

BRANCH ULAl10NS 

PUBLIC 

SUBMISSION 

As of: August 20, 2010 

Received: August 09, 2010 

Status: Posted 

Posted: August 20, 2010 

Tracking No. 80b2cbc5 

Comments Due: August 16, ;!OlO 

Submission Type: Web 

Docket: IRS-2010-0010 

Group Health Plans and Health Insurance Coverage Rules Relating to Status as a Grandfathel"ed 

Health Plan Under the Patient Protection and Afforable Care Act 

Comment On: IRS-2010-001O-0001 

Group Health Plans and Health Insurance Coverage: Interim Final Rules for Relating to Status as 

a Grandfathered Health Plan under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act 

Document: IRS-2010-0010-0226 

Comment on FR Doc # 2010-14488 

Submitter Information 

Name: William James Jordan 

Address: 

724 So. Westcott St. 

Sioux City, 51106 

Email: biljor712@msn.com 

Phone: 712-276-7588 

---------------------------------------------------------------.... 

General Comment 

We support the American Chiropractic Associiation. 

https:llfdms.erulemaking.net/fdms-web-agency1component/submitter InfoCoverPage?Call ==... 8/20/2010
# Fourth Court of Appeals **San Antonio, Texas**

September 4, 2020

No. 04

- 20

- 00134

- CV

H.L. ZUMWALT CONSTRUCTION , INC., Appellant

v.

ROAD REPAIR, LLC

, Appellee

From the 111th Judicial District Court

, Webb County, Texas Trial Court N o. 2015CVQ002791D2 Honorable Monica Z. Notzon , Judge Presiding



### ORDER

The Appellee's Third Motion for Extension of Time to File Appellee ’ s Brief is hereby GRANTED. Appelle e ’ s Brief is due on September 8, 2020

. No furth er extensions absent extenuating circumstances.

_________________________________ Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

IN WITNES S WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 4th day of September, 2020

.

___________________________________ MICHAEL A. CRUZ

, Clerk of Cour t
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion

should no t be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED
October 26, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-20150 Summary Calendar

DUKE STEWART ELLIOTT,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

JAY T. MORGAN, Warden II; GLENN W. SMITH, Assistant Warden; PRISCILLA DALY; MICHAEL P. ODWYER, Captain; CYNTHIA A. WOOD, Officer; JAMES JONES,

Defendants-Appellees.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. H-02-CV-1585

--------------------

Before DAVIS, SMITH, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Duke Elliott appeals a F E D

. R. C IV

. P. 12(b)(6) and summary
judgment dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. We affirm.

The district court did not err in dismissing Elliott’s

retaliation and Eighth Amendment harassment claims pursuant to rule

12(b)(6). The chronology of events alleged in the complaint do notNo. 04-20150 -2-

allow for the drawing of a plausible inference of retaliation. S ee
Jones v. Greninger , 188 F.3d 322, 25 (5th Cir. 1999). Similarly,

the allegations fall short of identifying behavior on the part of

Warden Morgan of the type necessary to state an Eighth Amendment

harassment claim. S ee Hudson v. Palmer
, 468 U.S. 517, 530 (1984).

Further, the district court did not err in its summary judgment qualified immunity determination that Elliott had not established the violation of a clearly established constitutional right

insofar as he alleged that the routine, cross-gender body cavity

searches violated his Fourth Amendment right to privacy; no such

right is clearly established under either controlling authority or

a consensus of the persuasive authority. S ee McClendon v. City of

Columbia
, 305 F.3d 314, 323, 329 (5th Cir. 2002) (en banc). We

therefore do not reach Elliott’s argument that the district court

erred when it held, in the alternative, that, as a matter of law,

he was not entitled to the requested relief. Given that Elliott

received adequate notice of the constitutional issue dispositive of

his Fourth Amendment claim and responded thereto, we find no error

in the decision to award summary judgment to the unserved defendants. S ee NL Indus., Inc. v. GHR Energy Corp. , 940 F.2d 957, 965

(5th Cir. 1991).

AFFIRMED.
Monthly Payment


 Exhibit 10.1 
  

							
	JPMorgan Chase Bank – Structured Finance Services	  	 
	 4 New York Plaza, 6th Floor
	  	Distribution Date:    3/25/04
	 New York, NY 10004-2477
	  	 
	 Officer:
	  	Taoheed A. Agbabiaka	  	 ph:  212-623-4481
	  	 
	 	  	 	  	 fax:  212-623-5858
	  	 

  
 GreenPoint Mortgage
Securities LLC 
  
 GreenPoint Home Equity Loan Trust 2004-1

  
 Home Equity Loan Asset-Backed Notes 
 Series 2004-1 
  

																	
	Distribution In Dollars
									
	 Class

	  	 Original
 Face
 Value

	  	 Beginning
 Principal
 Balance

	  	Principal

	  	Interest

	  	Total

	  	 Realized
 Loses

	  	 Deferred
 Interest

	  	 Ending
 Principal
 Balance


	 A1
	  	202,045,000.00	  	195,669,662.62	  	9,806,181.17	  	208,062.07	  	10,014,243.24	  	0.00	  	0.00	  	185,863,481.45
	 	  	
	  	
	  	
	  	
	  	
	  	
	  	
	  	

	 TOTALS
	  	202,045,000.00	  	195,669,662.62	  	9,806,181.17	  	208,062.07	  	10,014,243.24	  	0.00	  	0.00	  	185,863,481.45
	 	  	
	  	
	  	
	  	
	  	
	  	
	  	
	  	


  

													
	Factor Information Per $1000 Of Original Face
							
	 Class

	  	Cusip

	  	 Beginning
 Principal

	  	Principal

	  	Interest

	  	Total

	  	 Ending
 Principal


	 A1
	  	395385AQ0	  	968.44595323	  	48.53463916	  	1.02978084	  	49.56442001	  	919.91131406
	 	  	 	  	
	  	
	  	
	  	
	  	

	 TOTALS
	  	 	  	968.44595323	  	48.53463916	  	1.02978084	  	49.56442001	  	919.91131406
	 	  	 	  	
	  	
	  	
	  	
	  	


  

										
	Pass-Through Rates	 
				
	 Class

	  	Previous

	 	  	Current

	 	  	Next

	 
	 A1
	  	1.33000	%	  	1.320000	%	  	0.000000	%
Airmen consolidate flying missions, free space for Afghan unit
 By Senior Airman Melissa B. White , 451st Air Expeditionary Wing Public Affairs
  110125_Airspace
 KANDAHAR AIRFIELD, Afghanistan (Jan. 24, 2011) — Officials from the 451st Air Expeditionary Wing recently began moving assets here as part of a long-term project to consolidate the wing’s missions and to free space for the expanding Afghan unit. The move of the 75th Expeditionary Fighter Squadron marked the first of 10 units and two groups to be consolidating on one side of the flightline, freeing space and allowing the missions of Afghanistan’s Kandahar Air Wing to grow in the near future.“This move is a good move for both us and the Afghans here at (Kandahar Airfield),” said Brig. Gen. Paul Johnson, the 451st AEW commander. “It allows us to more effectively complete our mission of protecting and providing for our ground troops and commanders, but it also gives the chance for our Afghan partners to grow, allowing them to become stronger and more capable.”The process began a few months ago when civil engineers here constructed new facilities for the fighter unit. A total of two hangars, three large California tents, eight smaller Alaska tents and five concrete facilities were erected to house the nearly 300 people supporting the 75th EFS members and their equipment. The 451st Expeditionary Communications Squadron was also called upon to install and connect more than 500 feet of fiber optic cable, 20,000 feet of copper cable, and provide dozens of network connections.“We have much safer and larger facilities now, so we have a lot more room to fit all of our people,” said Capt. Tom Harney, a 75th EFS pilot and the chief of standards and evaluations. The move began in late December with the 75th EFS and their A-10C Thunderbolt IIs. The physical move took about five days to complete, but settling into the new facilities and surroundings took a little longer.“How many times have you moved? Just think of all disruption to your entire life when you’re moving,” said Senior Master Sgt. Brett Burroughs, the 75th Expeditionary Aircraft Maintenance Unit assistant superintendent. “There were a lot of moving pieces, and it required a lot of dedication and time, but we all worked together and it was a huge accomplishment.”During the move, the 451st Expeditionary Maintenance Group and 451st Expeditionary Logistics Readiness Squadron collectively moved 375,000 pounds or about 115 pallets of equipment to sustain maintenance operations for the unit. With support of all the units throughout the process, the A-10 unit was able to support 100 percent of their missions by flying nearly 75 sorties of close air support for troops on the ground.“The people who planned this and helped with the move were really on top of things because we still had to fly,” Captain Harney said. “The mission doesn’t change just because we’re moving. If we weren’t able to do our job, then we would’ve been letting down the guys on the ground, and that can’t happen.”
# June 29: Military airstrikes continue against ISIS terrorists in Syria and Iraq 

/ Published June 29, 2017
** SOUTHWEST ASIA –**
# Laboon Sailors Provide Assistance to Distressed Mariners

/ Published March 13, 2024
GULF OF ADEN, 
Crew members from the Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyer USS Laboon (DDG 58) provided assistance to three mariners on a disabled vessel in the international waters of the Gulf of Aden, March 11.

Following a distress signal from the mariners, Laboon Sailors embarked a rigid-hull inflatable boat to offer assistance. After determining the vessel was disabled, the Sailors brought the mariners back to their ship.

None of the mariners appeared to be injured. They were turned over to a regional coast guard.

“The Sailors of Team Laboon continue to prove their excellence,” said Cmdr. Eric Blomberg, Laboon commanding officer. “Assisting mariners at sea is inherently dangerous, but the team executed without hesitation – without fear – to extend their compassion to people in distress. I’m incredibly proud to be a part of this team.”

Laboon is deployed to the U.S. 5th Fleet area of operations to help ensure maritime security and stability in the Middle East region.