alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed April 18 , 20 2 3
.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14

- 22

- 0 0 862

- CV

IN THE INTEREST OF W.Y.G .M. A / K / A W.G.G. AND J.N.G.

- A. A / K / A J .A , CHILD REN
On Appeal from the 3 08 th District Court

Harr is County, Texas Tri al C o urt Cause No. 20 20

- 79963

AND

NO. 14

- 22

- 0 0 8 85

- CV

IN THE INTEREST OF J.D.G.G. A / K / A J.D.G. AND M
. E.G.G. A / K / A M .E.G., CHILD REN
On Appeal from the 3 08 th District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Co urt Cause No. 20 18

- 189302 M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N Appellant , M. Y.G. M. , appeals a final order of termination signed November 10 , 20 22 , terminating her parental rights to the four child re n who a re the subject of these suits

. Appellant ’ s appointed counsel filed a brief in whic h s h e concludes t he appeal is wholly f

ri volo us a nd without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396 (1967), presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable
groun ds to be advanc ed. See High v. Stat e , 573 S.W .2d 807 , 811

- 13 (T ex. Crim. App. 1978). The Anders procedures apply to an appeal from the termination of parental rights when an appointed attorney concludes there are no non

- frivolous issues to assert on appe al. In re D.E .S. , 135 S.W.3d 326, 3 29 (Te x. A pp.

— H ouston [14th Dist.] 2004, no pet.).
On January 4 , 202 3 , appellant was notified o f the right to file a pro se
response to the Anders brief

. See Stafford v. State , 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991 ); In re D.E. S. , 135 S.W.3d at 329

- 30

. M ore than th irty days h ave elapsed and , as of this date, no pro se response has been filed. We have carefully reviewed the record and counsel ’ s brief and agree the appeal is wholl y frivolous and without merit. Furthe r, we find n o r eversible error in th e re cord

. A discu ssion of the brief would add nothing to the jurisprudence of the state. Accordingly, the trial court ’ s final order is affirmed.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Christopher and Justices Jewell and Spain

.
<PAGE>

                                  EXHIBIT 31.1

I, Stephan Kuppenheimer, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K, and all reports on Form 8-K
containing distribution or servicing reports filed in respect of periods
included in the year covered by this annual report, of Merrill Lynch Depositor,
Inc., on behalf of Public STEERS(R) Series 1999 REN-C1 Trust;

2. Based on my knowledge, the information in these reports, taken as a whole,
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 as of the
last day of the period covered by this annual report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the distribution or servicing information required to
be provided to the depositor by the trustee under the pooling and servicing, or
similar, agreement, for inclusion in these reports is included in these
reports;

4. I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the depositor and
the trustee under the pooling and servicing, or similar, agreement and based
upon my knowledge and the annual compliance review required under that
agreement, and except as disclosed in the reports, the depositor and trustee
have each fulfilled its obligations under that agreement; and

5. The reports disclose all significant deficiencies relating to the compliance
by the depositor or trustee with the minimum servicing or similar standards
based upon the report provided by an independent public accountant, after
conducting a review in compliance with the Uniform Single Attestation Program
for Mortgage Bankers or similar procedure, as set forth in the pooling or
servicing, or similar, agreement, that is included in these reports.

In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information
provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties: The Bank of New York and
its officers and agents.

                                                        /s/ Stephan Kuppenheimer
Date: March 27, 2006                                    ------------------------
                                                           President
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 24-0168

STATE OF MONTANA, 

Plaintiff and Appellee, 

vs. 

MARTIN BRADLEY COLEMAN,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, 

and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including September 25, 2024, within which to prepare, 

file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

August 19 2024

08/19/2024

Case Number: DA 24-0168
# NationalArchives andRecordsAdministration Office afthe Federal Register November 24, 20 I0 FAA '800Independence Avenue, SW Room 915 J, Regulations Division Waslungton, DC 20591 ATTN: Nancy Molitor, FAA Liaison Officer for the Federal Register Dear Ms. Molitor: TlJe 1llaterl,i! listeJ ;nthe atl<lehrnc:nlisapproved for incorporation by reference in 14CFR Part 39. This approval is contingent upon the final nile containing any language changes, which were agreed upon by our staffs. The approval toincorporate by reference this publication(s) is effective onthe effective date ofyour fmal rule. Tfyou wish to enforce some other edition oftbepublication(s) approved, you must: 1. Publish notice orthe change mthe Federal Register, and amend the Code ofFederal Regulations; and 2 Ensure that acopy ofthat edition is on fileat the Office ofthe Pederal Register; and 3_ Notify me inwriting ofthe change.

Federal Register Attorney:;(Iul Attachment

us. mail address: 8601 Adelphi Road, College Park, MD 20740..0001

Office location: 800 North Capitol Street, NW, Suite 700,Washington, DC 20002-4244 Federal Rl'gi5tcr web sites: http) jwww.archives.gov/f<,'dcfal-regi5tcfillld http:! jwww,gpoaccessgov/nafa

### incorporation by

### Reference Docket .f"lo.

FAA-2007-28348; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-060-AD; AmendmenI39-/6530.- AD 20/0-24-11 Boeing Commercial Airplanes Service Bulletin 737- 57A1279 Revision 2 02/02/2010 Docket No. FAA-2009-1067: Directorate Identifier 2009-NM-071-AD; Amel1dmenl39-16516; AD 2010-23-26 Airbus A300 Airbus A300 Airbus A300 Airbus A300 Airbus A300 Airbus A300 Airbus A300 Mandatory Service Bulletin A300-57-0254 Mandatory Service Bulletin A300-57-61i0, including Appelldix 1 Mandatory Service Revision 4 Bulletin A300-57A0246, including Appendices 1 and 2 Mandatory Service Revision 3 Bulletin A300-57A0246, including Appendices 1 ,and 2 Mandatory SeNiee Revision 5 Bulletin A300-57A6087, including Appendix 1 Mandatory Service Revision 4 Bulletin A300-57 A6i01, including Appendices 1 and 2 Malldatory Service Revision 3 Bulletin A300-57 A61 01, including Appendices 1 and 2 06104/2010 06/07/2010 0910912009 0311112009 03/1012008 09/09/2009 03/11/2009 Docket IVo.FAA-20JO-V735 Directorate Idel1l{fier2010-CE-030-AD: Amendment 39-16529; AD 2010-24-JO Societe Nouvelle Centrair

Printer! /1/24/2010 Service Bulletin No, 10'-29 07/30/2009

Page lofl
No. 63184.

#### Dreyfus Ashby & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 58/11663 (New York).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

It was stipulated that the facts and issues herein are similar in all material respects to those involved in *United States*v. *Browne Vintners Co., Inc.*(34 C.C.P.A. 112, C.A.D. 351) and that the quantities, two cases of Annis liqueur, reported by the inspector as manifested, not found, were not in fact received by the importer. In accordance with stipulation of counsel and following the decision cited, it was held that duty and internal revenue tax are not assessable upon such portions of the merchandise as were reported by the inspector as manifested, not found. The protest was sustained to this extent.
Exhibit 31.2





PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER CERTIFICATION





I, Jan E. Chason, certify that:





(1)    I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of United EcoEnergy Corp.;





(2)    Based on my knowledge, this annual 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 annual report;





(3)    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this annual report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this annual report;





(4)    The small business issuer's other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer 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 small business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this annual report is being prepared;





(b)    Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer’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 upon based such evaluation; and





(c)    Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuer’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting;





(5)    The small business issuer's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuer’s auditors and the audit committee of the small business issuer's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):





(a)    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the small business issuer'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 small business issuer's internal controls over financial reporting.





Dated: April 15, 2010
By:
/s/ Jan E. ChasonJan E. Chason

Chief Financial Officer
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION WASHINGTON, D.C.

IN THE MATTER OF: BIRMINGHAM FLIGHT CENTER, INC. Respondent Docket No. FAA-2014-0867

Case No. 2012S0090053

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE Undersigned counsel for Complainant submits this Notice ofAppearance inthe abovecaptioned matter solely for purposes ofComplainant's Interlocutory Appeal as ofRight filed simultaneously with this notice ofappearance. Accordingly, all copies ofdocuments to be served on Complainant in connection with its Interlocutory Appeal as ofRight should be addressed as follows: Ryan M. Landers Enforcement Division, Southern Team 1701 Columbia Ave. College Park, GA 30337 Tel: 404-305-5200 Fax: 404-305-5223 Respectfully submitted this 17th day ofJune, 2016. Patricia A. MeNall Acting Assistant ChiefCounsel for Enforcement By:

# ;;&~ Enforcement Division, Southern Team 1701 Columbia Ave. College Park, GA 30337 Tel: 404-305-5200 Fax: 404-305-5223CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certifythat on June 17, 2016, the foregoing Notice ofAppearance was filed with the Decisionmaker and the Hearing Docket Clerk viaFederal Express as follows: Original and One Copy: Federal Aviation Administration 600 Independence Avenue, S.W. Wilbur Wright Building, Suite 2W1000 Washington, D.C. 20591 Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 Inaddition, I certify that on June 17,2016the foregoing Notice ofAppearance was served via Federal Express as follows: One Copy: The Honorable J.E. Sullivan Administrative LawJudge Office ofHearings, M-20 U.S. Department ofTransportation 1200 NewJersey Avenue, SE (Ell-310) East Building Ground Floor Washington, DC 20590 Paul R. Borth Counsel for Birmingham Flight Center, Inc. Barnett & Borth, LLC 800 Waukegan Road, Suite 200 Glenview, IL 60025



## [JUN 17. Dated
#### Jonathan Bracero, an Infant, by His Mother and Natural Guardian, Yolanda L. Bracero, et al., Respondents, v 2780 Realty Co. et al., Appellants.

[635 NYS2d 466]

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Bertram Katz, J.), entered July 7, 1994, which denied defendants’ motion to amend their answer so as to assert counterclaims against plaintiff parent, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

We affirm for the reasons stated in *Nieves v 1097 Walton Realty Co.*(220 AD2d 329) and *Rosario v Bann Hous. Corp.*(220 AD2d 345), holding that claims by a landlord that amount to negligent parental supervision are precluded under the circumstances here prevailing. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Ellerin, Nardelli and Tom, JJ.
#### The People of the State of New York, Plaintiff, v Robert W. North, Defendant.

Town Court of Town of Amherst, Erie County,

August 28, 1978

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*John E.*Nicholas, *Jr.,*for defendant. *Edward C. Cosgrove, District Attorney (Manuel S. Wortzman*of counsel), for plaintiff.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Sherwood L. Bestry, J.

Defendant, charged with a violation of subdivision 3 of section 1192 of the Vehicle and Traffic Law (driving while intoxicated), moves pursuant to CPL 240.20 (subd 3) for a "discovery” of the blood sample taken from the defendant, after his arrest, pursuant to section 1194 of the Vehicle and Traffic Law.

The blood sample was defendant’s property prior to being extracted. We rule that the blood sample is not exempt property as that term is defined in CPL 240.10 (subd 3).

*638The People’s witness, a chemist, on trial, will testify as to the alcoholic content of said sample, and will be offered as an expert witness.

The defendant should have the right to call his own expert witness to testify as to the result of any scientific tests he has made with reference to alcoholic content of the blood sample.

There is no difference between the right to challenge the reliability of the People’s chemical test here, than was present with respect to drugs in *People v White*(40 NY2d 797).

This court does not know whether the mere passage of time will cause a change in the alcohol content of the blood, but that is a scientific matter, proof of which can be offered at the trial.

However, the physical evidence (the blood sample) is subject to damage or alteration. (See *People v Innes,*69 Misc 2d 429, 431.)

Therefore, the motion of the defendant is granted upon certain conditions. The People shall furnish to the defendant’s attorney a portion of the blood sample, of sufficient quantity to enable defendant’s expert to perform independent testing, but that portion of the entire sample shall not be so large as to, in any way, chemically alter or modify the remainder to be retained by the People.

In the event that furnishing a portion of said sample will alter or modify the remaining portion, chemically, then the People shall furnish the defendant an opportunity to have his expert travel to the laboratory where said blood is situated, and make his independent test there, under such conditions as the superintendent of such laboratory shall direct.

The People and defendant shall confer upon the arrangements, and if no agreement as to method shall be forthcoming, either party shall apply to the court for further instructions.
II 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4730 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend the energy credit 

with respect to electrochromic glass. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 23, 2024 

Mr. MARKEY (for himself and Mr. WICKER) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend 

the energy credit with respect to electrochromic glass. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Dynamic Glass 2.0 

5 Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF ENERGY CREDIT FOR 

7 ELECTROCHROMIC GLASS. 

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 48(a)(3)(A) of the Inter9 nal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended— 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 4730 IS

1 (1) in clause (ii), by striking ‘‘, or 

2 electrochromic glass which uses electricity to change 

3 its light transmittance properties in order to heat or 

4 cool a structure’’, 

5 (2) in clause (x), by striking ‘‘or’’, 

6 (3) in clause (xi), by inserting ‘‘or’’ after the 

7 comma at the end, and 

8 (4) by adding at the end the following new 

9 clause: 

10 ‘‘(xii) electrochromic glass which uses 

11 electricity to change its light transmittance 

12 properties in order to heat or cool a struc13 ture, but only with respect to property the 

14 construction of which begins before Janu15 ary 1, 2033,’’. 

16 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Section 

17 48(a)(2)(A)(i)(III) of such Code is amended by striking 

18 ‘‘paragraph (3)(A)(ii)’’ and inserting ‘‘clause (ii) or (xii) 

19 of paragraph (3)(A)’’. 

20 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

21 this section shall apply to property placed in service after 

22 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
#### In the Matter of Mix Centre, Ltd., Appellant, v Durron M. Butler, Respondent.

[633 NYS2d 157]

—Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Walter Tolub, J.), entered on or about June 1, 1994, which denied petitioner’s application to confirm an arbitration award, and granted respondent’s cross motion to vacate the award, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The award was properly vacated pursuant to CPLR 7511 (b) (2) (ii) since respondent was not bound by an arbitration clause or designation of an agent for service of process contained in an agreement that was not signed by him, or anyone else other than petitioner, and did not even mention his name. Nor did respondent participate in the arbitration hearing when an attorney appeared on his behalf and did nothing more than request an adjournment *(see, Matter of Fair v Continental Ins. Co.,*203 AD2d 364; *Matter of IMG Publ. [Viesti],*170 AD2d 268). Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Ellerin, Wallach, Asch and Tom, JJ.
EX-32.1

Certification pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350

INFE- Human Resources, Inc. 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 amended quarterly report of INFE- Human Resources, Inc.
(INFE-HR) on Form 10-QSB for the period ending May 31, 2004 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I,
Arthur Viola, Chief Executive Officer of INFE-HR, 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 INFE-HR.

/s/    ARTHUR VIOLA
--------------------
       Arthur Viola      Chief Executive Officer          July 19, 2004
                         Sole Director
                         and Chief Financial Officer
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v DONNIE McDOWELL, Seaman Recruit, U. S. Navy, Appellant

19 USCMA 151, 41 CMR 151

No. 22,464

December 19, 1969

*Lieutenant James S. Bailey, Jr.,*JAGC, USNR, was on the pleadings for Appellant, Accused.

*Lieutenant Colonel Charles J. Keever,*USMC, was on the pleadings for Appellee, United States.

Opinion of the Court

FERGUSON, Judge:

In United States v Johnson, 18 USCMA 436, 40 CMR 148, we reversed as to sentence because the president failed to inform the court that when voting on proposed sentences it should begin with the lightest proposal and continue in this manner until a sentence is adopted by the concurrence of the required number of members. See also United States v Newton, 18 USCMA 562, 40 CMR 274; United States v Conner, 19 USCMA 74, 41 CMR 74; United States v Dues, 19 USCMA 130, 41 CMR 130.

In the case at bar, the president failed to give any instructions on voting procedure. Paragraph 766(2), Manual for Courts-Martial, United States, 1969. Prejudicial error is apparent. United States v Johnson, supra. Reversal as to sentence is required.

The decision of the board of review is reversed. The record of trial is returned to the Judge Advocate General of the Navy. A rehearing on sentence may be ordered.

Chief Judge Quinn and Judge Dar-den concur.
```

[111th Congress Public Law 318]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]

[[Page 124 STAT. 3455]]

Public Law 111-318
111th Congress

                                 An Act

 
  To limit access to Social Security account numbers. <<NOTE: Dec. 18, 
                          2010 -  [S. 3789]>> 

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled, <<NOTE: Social Security 
Number Protection Act of 2010.>> 
SECTION 1. <<NOTE: 42 USC 1305 note.>> SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Social Security Number Protection Act 
of 2010''.
SEC. 2. SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER PROTECTION.

    (a) Prohibition of Use of Social Security Account Numbers on Checks 
Issued for Payment by Governmental Agencies.--
            (1) In general.--Section 205(c)(2)(C) of the Social Security 
        Act (42 U.S.C. 405(c)(2)(C)) is amended by adding at the end the 
        following:

    ``(x) No Federal, State, or local agency may display the Social 
Security account number of any individual, or any derivative of such 
number, on any check issued for any payment by the Federal, State, or 
local agency.''.
            (2) Effective <<NOTE: 42 USC 405 note.>> date.--The 
        amendment made by this subsection shall apply with respect to 
        checks issued after the date that is 3 years after the date of 
        enactment of this Act.

    (b) Prohibition of Inmate Access to Social Security Account 
Numbers.--
            (1) In general.--Section 205(c)(2)(C) of the Social Security 
        Act (42 U.S.C. 405(c)(2)(C)) (as amended by subsection (a)) is 
        amended by adding at the end the following:

    ``(xi) No Federal, State, or local agency may employ, or enter into 
a contract for the use or employment of, prisoners in any capacity that 
would allow such prisoners access to the Social Security account numbers 
of other <<NOTE: Definition.>> individuals. For purposes of this clause, 
the term `prisoner' means an individual confined in a jail, prison, or 
other penal institution or correctional facility pursuant to such 
individual's conviction of a criminal offense.''.
            (2) Effective date.--The amendment made by this subsection 
        shall apply with respect to employment of prisoners,

[[Page 124 STAT. 3456]]

        or entry into contract with prisoners, after the date that is 1 
        year after the date of enactment of this Act.

    Approved December 18, 2010.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--S. 3789:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 156 (2010):
            Sept. 28, considered and passed Senate.
            Dec. 8, considered and passed House.

                                  <all>
```