alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
A90A0334.

#### WORSHAM v. PICKERAL.

(393 SE2d 488)

Banke, Presiding Judge.

The appellant, Glorious Worsham, brought this action against the appellee to recover for personal injuries she had sustained in an automobile accident. A jury awarded her damages in the amount of $10,043.20; but in entering judgment on the verdict the trial court deducted $5,000 from the award pursuant to OCGA § 33-34-9 (b), which, provides that “[a]ny person eligible for economic loss [i.é., no-fault] benefits described in paragraph (2) of subsection (a) of Code Section 33-34-4 is precluded from pleading or recovering in an action for damages against a tort-feasor those damages for which compensation is available for economic loss under said Code Section 33-34-4. . . .” The appellant contends on appeal that the trial court erred in reducing the jury’s award in this manner because she had applied for no-fault coverage and, based on representations made to her by her insurance agent, believed in good faith that such coverage had been secured for her, although due to fraud on the part of the agent no policy was ever obtained. The appellant does not dispute that she incurred at least $5,000 in medical expenses and lost wages as a result of the accident. *Held:*

The Georgia Supreme Court has interpreted the language, “any person eligible for [no-fault] economic loss benefits,” as used in OCGA § 33-34-9 (b), to include “any person who is *required*under [OCGA § 33-34-4] to secure minimum coverage as outlined in said section.” *Davidson v. Bradford,*245 Ga. 8, 11 (262 SE2d 780) (1980). There being no question that the appellant, as the owner-operator of the vehicle she was driving at the time of the accident, was required to secure no-fault coverage, it follows that she was precluded from recovering from the appellee her first $5,000 in economic losses resulting from the accident. While we sympathize with the appellant’s complaint that she made a diligent effort to obtain coverage and believed in good faith that she was covered, we note that a certain degree of injustice would also result from shifting the risk of her failure in this regard to the appellee herein, who had no control whatever in the matter.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Birdsong and Cooper, JJ., concur.*

*331Decided April 5, 1990.

*Repasky, Minin & Bates, Alexander J. Repasky, Fred R. White,*for appellant.

*Bovis, Kyle & Burch, Steven J. Kyle, B. Dean Grindle, Terry L. Yewell, David R. Smith,*for appellee.
# C_2007247EN.01004101.xml

| 20.10.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 247/41 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.10.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 247/41

---

Order of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 6 September 2007 — easyJet v Commission

(Case T-300/04) (1)

1

(2007/C 247/67)

Language of the case: English

Language of the case: English

The President of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 262, 23.10.2004.

1

---
EXHIBIT 32.4



CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER OF

UCDP FINANCE, INC.

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350



In connection with the quarterly report of UCDP Finance, Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending April 3, 2005 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Michael J. Short, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:



|(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.
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Dated: May 16, 2005



By:

/s/ MICHAEL J. SHORTMichael J. Short Treasurer (Principal Financial Officer)
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER
Appellate case name: In the Matter of A.C.

Appellate case number: 01

- 1 5

- 00 9 3 1

- CV , 01

- 15

- 00932

- CV, and 01

- 15

- 00933

- CV

Trial court case number: 20 1 5

- 0 1921 J , 2015

- 02194J, and 2015

- 02097J

Trial court: 3 15 th District Court of Harris County

A ppellant , A. C ., has filed a notice of appeal of the trial court’s order to waive jurisdiction

. See T EX

. F AM

. C ODE A NN

. § 54.02 (West 2014 )
, § 5 6 .0 1(c)(1)(A) (West Supp. 2015); see also T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 26.1(b)

. On December 4
, 2015, a ppellant filed a n unopposed motion for extension of time to file h is brief

. We grant appellant’s motion. Appellant ’s brief is due to be filed with this Court no later than December 3 1 , 2015.

Because this appeal involves an appeal of an order under section 54.02 of the Texas Family Code waiving the juvenile court’s exclusive jurisdiction and certifying the juvenile to stand trial as an adult , the Court is required to bring the appeal to final disposition within 180 days of the date the notice of appeal was filed in this proceeding, so far as reasonably possible. See Order Accelerating Juvenile Certification Appeals and Requiring Juvenile Courts to Give Notice of the Right to an Immediate Appeal
, Misc. Docket 15

- 9156 (Tex. A ug. 28, 201 5 ). Accordingly, no further extensions will be granted absent extraordinary circumstances

.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Russell Lloyd

 Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: December 10, 2015
# C_2007144EN.01000401.xml

| 29.6.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 144/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.6.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 144/4

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

28 June 2007

(2007/C 144/05)

1 euro=

1 euro

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,3467 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 165,61 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4425 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,67215 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,2415 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,6544 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 84,1 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 7,952 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CYP | Cyprus pound | 0,5837 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 28,633 |
| EEK | Estonian kroon | 15,6466 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 247,44 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,6962 |
| MTL | Maltese lira | 0,4293 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 3,782 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 3,1666 |
| SKK | Slovak koruna | 33,832 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 1,7796 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,5918 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4293 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 10,5264 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,7513 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 2,0649 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 248,19 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 9,572 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 10,2553 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,3042 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 12 224,67 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,6683 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 62,42 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 34,742 |
| THB | Thai baht | 42,859 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,3467

JPY

Japanese yen

165,61

DKK

Danish krone

7,4425

GBP

Pound sterling

0,67215

SEK

Swedish krona

9,2415

CHF

Swiss franc

1,6544

ISK

Iceland króna

84,1

NOK

Norwegian krone

7,952

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CYP

Cyprus pound

0,5837

CZK

Czech koruna

28,633

EEK

Estonian kroon

15,6466

HUF

Hungarian forint

247,44

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,6962

MTL

Maltese lira

0,4293

PLN

Polish zloty

3,782

RON

Romanian leu

3,1666

SKK

Slovak koruna

33,832

TRY

Turkish lira

1,7796

AUD

Australian dollar

1,5918

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4293

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

10,5264

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,7513

SGD

Singapore dollar

2,0649

KRW

South Korean won

1 248,19

ZAR

South African rand

9,572

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

10,2553

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,3042

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

12 224,67

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,6683

PHP

Philippine peso

62,42

RUB

Russian rouble

34,742

THB

Thai baht

42,859

---

(1)

1

Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

Source:

---
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

Richard L. Quinn, Jr.,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 2:11-cv-268

Robin Knab, Warden, et al.,

Defendants.

ORDER

This matter is before the court for consideration of the

report and recommendation issued by the magistrate judge on June

12, 2013. In the instant case, plaintiff asserted claims under 42

U.S.C. §1983, alleging that defendants impeded his ability to

exercise his religion in violation of the Religious Land Use and

Institutionalized Persons Act, the First Amendment, and the Equal

Protection Clause of the United States Constitution. At the time

this action was filed, plaintiff was incarcerated at the

Chillicothe Correctional Institution. However, plaintiff was

released from prison on March 24, 2013. The magistrate judge

recommended that plaintiff’s claims for injunctive relief be

dismissed without prejudice because plaintiff’s release from

custody rendered those claims moot. No objections to the report

and recommendation have been filed. Accordingly, the court will

adopt the report and recommendation.

The magistrate judge further noted that plaintiff had failed

to notify the court of his change in address. The magistrate judge

ordered plaintiff to supply the court with an updated address

within seven days if he wished to proceed with this action, and

cautioned plaintiff that failure to comply with the order would

Case: 2:11-cv-00268-JLG-EPD Doc #: 59 Filed: 07/02/13 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>
result in dismissal of the action for failure to prosecute. 

Plaintiff failed to respond to this order or to furnish a current

address.

Plaintiff has failed to comply with his affirmative duty to

provide the court with a valid address and to notify the court of

any change in address. See Barber v. Runyon, No. 93-6318, 1994 WL

163765 at *1 (6th Cir. May 2, 1994). By failing to keep the court

apprised of his current address, plaintiff has demonstrated a lack

of prosecution of his action. See Walker v. Cognis Oleo Chem.,

LLC, No. 1:07-cv-289, 2010 WL 717275 at *1 (S.D.Ohio Feb. 26,

2010). Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b), district courts have the

authority to dismiss an action for the failure of a plaintiff to

prosecute a claim or to comply with the Federal Rules or any order

of the court. Schafer v. City of Defiance Police Dep’t, 529 F.3d

731, 736 (6th Cir. 2008). The court concludes that dismissal for

failure to prosecute is warranted in this case.

In accordance with the foregoing, the report and

recommendation (Doc. 55) is adopted. Plaintiff’s claims for

injunctive relief are dismissed without prejudice as moot, and any

other remaining claims are dismissed without prejudice for lack of

prosecution.

Date: July 2, 2013 s/James L. Graham 

 James L. Graham

 United States District Judge 

2

Case: 2:11-cv-00268-JLG-EPD Doc #: 59 Filed: 07/02/13 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>
Exhibit32.1

|   | (1) | The      Report fully complies, in all material respects, 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. |
|--------|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                            |   |                         |   |
|---------------------------------|--------|------------------------------|--------|
| Date: August      10, 2009 | By:    | /s/ Tianfu      Yang    |   |
|                            |   | Tianfu      Yang             |   |
|                            |   | Chief      Executive Officer |   |

|                            |   |                         |   |
|---------------------------------|--------|------------------------------|--------|
| Date: August      10, 2009 | By:    | /s/ Zedong      Xu      |   |
|                            |   | Zedong      Xu               |   |
|                            |   | Chief      Financial Officer |   |
|                            |   |                         |   |

----
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 9107 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 9107

To require the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to submit a report on the 
 status and timeline for completion of the redesigned Airborne Hazards 
                    and Open Burn Pit Registry 2.0.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 23, 2024

Mr. Ruiz (for himself, Mr. Wenstrup, and Mr. Bilirakis) introduced the 
   following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Veterans' 
                                Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To require the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to submit a report on the 
 status and timeline for completion of the redesigned Airborne Hazards 
                    and Open Burn Pit Registry 2.0.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Airborne Hazards and Open Burn Pit 
Registry (AHOBPR) 2.0 Act''.

SEC. 2. REPORT ON AIRBORNE HAZARDS AND OPEN BURN PIT REGISTRY 2.0.

    Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, 
the Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall submit to Congress a report on 
the current status and timeline for when the redesigned Airborne 
Hazards and Open Burn Pit Registry 2.0 will be completed.
                                 <all>
```
# C_2007297EN.01000501.xml

| 8.12.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 297/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.12.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 297/5

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 11 October 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic

(Case C-237/05) (1)

1

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 92/50/EEC - Public service contracts - Provision of assistance services to farmers for the year 2001 - Regulation (EEC) No 3508/92 - Implementation in Greek of the integrated administration and control system (IACS) - Absence of call for tenders - Application inadmissible)

(2007/C 297/06)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. Patakia and X. Lewis, Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: G. Kanellopoulos and S. Charitaki, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Infringement of Articles 3(2), 7, 11(1) and 15(2) of Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordination of procedures for the award of public service contracts (OJ 1992 L 209, p. 1)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1) | Dismisses the action as inadmissible; |
| --- | --- |

1)

Dismisses the action as inadmissible;

| 2) | Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2)

Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 193, 6.8.2005.

1

---
**Exhibit 31.2**
**CERTIFICATION**
I, Kevin L. Tate, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of UnitedNational Group, Ltd.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessaryto make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under whichsuch statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and otherfinancial information included in this report, fairly present in allmaterial respects the financial condition, results of operations andcash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented inthis report; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (asdefined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for theregistrant and have:
(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known tous by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared;
(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosurecontrols and procedures and presented in this report our conclusionsabout the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, asof the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and
(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’smost recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter inthe case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internalcontrol 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 financialreporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of theregistrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):
(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the designor operation of internal control over financial reporting which arereasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability torecord, process, summarize and report financial information; and
(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management orother employees who have a significant role in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting.
Date: August 12, 2004 /s/ Kevin L. TateName: Kevin L. TateTitle: Chief Financial Officer
(Reap. Dec. 10497)

#### Patrick & Graves *v.*United States

Entry No. 6713-H, etc.

(Decided April 23, 1963)

*Stem & Shostalc (Marjorie M. Shostalc*of counsel) for the plaintiff.

*John W. Douglas,*Assistant Attorney General *(Sheila N. Ziff,*trial attorney), for the defendant.

JOHNSON, Judge:

These appeals for reappraisement, consolidated at the trial, have been submitted upon the following stipulation of counsel for the respective parties:

> Miss Shostak: * * *

> In these cases, plaintiff accordingly offers to stipulate that the Volkswagen automobiles itemized on the invoices accompanying the entries covered by the appeals for reappraisement in these consolidated cases on the -dates of exportation -thereof to the United States, that as to this merchandise, Tour Honor, the market value or the price at which such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of the country from which exported, in the usual wholesale quantities and in the -ordinary course of trade, for exportation to the United States, including the Cost of all containers and coverings of whatever nature, and all other costs, charges, and expenses incidental to placing the merchandise in condition, packed ready for shipment to the United States, were the invoice unit values f.o.b. Hamburg, which in-*456eluded the cost of Americanization rather than the values indicated in red ink on the invoices.

> Mes. Ziet: After conferring with the Appraiser and Assistant Appraiser at this port, we so agree.

> Judge Johkson : So agreed.

> Miss Shostak : Plaintiff further offers to stipulate that the merchandise covered by all of these entries and appeals for reappraisement the subject of these consolidated cases is included in the list of articles designated by the Secretary of the Treasury in T.D. 54521, issued on January 20, 1958, pursuant to Section 6(<a) of the Customs Simplification Act of 1956, Public Law 927, 84th Congress, and plaintiff further offers to stipulate that on the dates of exportation involved herein there were no higher foreign values for such or similar merchandise.

> Mes. Znrff: After conferring with the Appraiser and Assistant Appraiser, we so agree.

On the agreed facts, I find that export value, as that value is defined in section 402a(d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Customs Simplification Act of 1956, 70 Stat. 943, is the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise involved herein and that such value is the invoiced unit values, f .o.b. Hamburg5 which included the cost of Americanization.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
LOGO

Commerce & Finance Law Offices

6F NCI Tower, A12 Jianguomenwai Avenue,

Chaoyang District, Beijing, PRC; Postcode: 100022

Tel: (8610) 65693399 Fax: (8610)
65693838, 65693836, 65693837, 65693839

E-mail Add: beijing@tongshang.com Website:www.tongshang.com.cn

April 13, 2011



|To: | Ambow Education Holding Ltd,
|--- | ----------------------------

| | 18th Floor, Building A, Chengjian Plaza,
| | ----------------------------------------

| | No. 18, BeiTaiPingZhuang Road,
| | ------------------------------

| | Haidian District, Beijing 100088
| | --------------------------------

| | Peoples Republic of China
| | --------------------------

Dear Sirs,

We hereby give our consent to the reference to our firm under the heading "Regulation" in Ambow Education Holding
Ltd.s Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2010. In giving such consent, we do not thereby admit that we come within the category of persons whose consent is required under Section 7 of the Securities Act of 1933, or
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, in each case, as amended, or the regulations promulgated thereunder.

Yours faithfully,

/s/ Commerce & Finance Law Offices

Commerce & Finance Law Offices
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

October 17, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice

131275 Michael F. Cavanagh
Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly ROGER E. COLE, Personal Representative of the Estate of Laura Kinney, Deceased, Plaintiff-Appellee, Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman,
Justices

v SC: 131275 COA: 268688 Hillsdale CC: 05-000655-NH WILLIAM KEATING, M.D., Defendant-Appellant,

and

HILLSDALE COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTER, Defendant.

________________ _______________ __________/

By order of September 26, 2006, the app lication for leave to appeal the April 18, 2006 order of the Court of Appeals was held in abeyance pending the decision in Washington v Sinai Hosp ital of Greater Detroit (Docket No. 130641). On order of the Court, the case having been decided on June 27, 2007, 478 Mich 412 (2007), the application is again considered and, it ap pearing to this Court that the case of Braverman v Garden City Hospital (Docket Nos. 134445- 134446) is pending on appeal before this
Court and that the decision in that case ma y resolve an issue ra ised in the present application for leave to app eal, we ORDER that the applic ation be held in ABEYANCE pending the decision in that case.

l1010 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

October 17, 2007

Clerk