alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Order entered October 30, 2018

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-18-00650-CV

KEVIN HINDS, Appellant

V.

KELLY BETH CAIDWELL, ZACHARY ADAM ALLEN, TRINA T. WILSON AND

ASSOCIATES, TRINA T. WILSON, GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE INSURANCE 

COMPANY, AND STATE BAR OF TEXAS, Appellees

On Appeal from the 134th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-17-13392

ORDER

The reporter’s record in this accelerated appeal is past due. By postcard dated June 13, 

2018, we notified Vielica Dobbins, Official Court Reporter for the 134th Judicial District Court, 

that the reporter’s record was overdue and directed her to file the reporter’s record within ten 

days. By order dated July 30, 2018, we again notified Ms. Dobbins the reporter’s record was 

overdue and ordered her to, within ten days, file either (1) the reporter’s record; (2) written 

verification no hearings were recorded; or (3) written verification that appellant had not paid for 

or made arrangements to pay for the reporter’s record. To date, Ms. Dobbins has failed to 

comply with the Court’s order. 
Accordingly, we ORDER Vielica Dobbins to file, within TEN DAYS of the date of this 

order, either (1) the reporter’s record; (2) written verification no hearings were recorded; or (3) 

written verification that appellant has not paid for or made arrangements to pay for the reporter’s 

record. We notify appellant that if we receive verification he has not requested the reporter’s 

record or paid for or made arrangements to pay for the reporter’s record, we will order the 

appeal submitted without the reporter’s record. See Tex. R. App. P. 37.3(c). 

We expressly CAUTION Ms. Dobbins that failure to comply with this order WILL result 

in the Court taking such action as is necessary to have Ms. Dobbins comply with the Court’s orders, 

including an order that she not sit as a court reporter until she complies.

We DIRECT the Clerk to send copies of this order to:

Honorable Dale Tillery 

Presiding Judge

134th Judicial District Court 

Vielica Dobbins

Official Court Reporter

134th Judicial District Court

All parties

/s/ CAROLYN WRIGHT

CHIEF JUSTICE
N OTE : This order is nonprecedential

. 

# United States **Court of Appeals** 
**for the Federal Circuit**

______________________

LUZONICA M. BAUTISTA,

Petitioner

v.

MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD, Respondent

______________________

2022

- 1500

______________________

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection

Board in No. SF

- 0831

- 21

- 0221

- I

- 1.

______________________

ON MOTION

______________________

Before L OURIE

, T ARANTO

, and H UGHES

, Circuit Judges

.

P ER C URIAM

.
O R D E R

Luzonica M. Bautista moves for leave to proceed in forma pauperis . The Merit Systems Protection Board moves to dismiss this matter as untimely. M s . Bautista has not responded to the Board’s motion.

M s . Bautista appealed t o the Board from the agency’s decision denying her application for an annuity. On Case: 22-1500 Document: 11 Page: 1 Filed: 05/26/2022BAUTISTA v. MSPB 2

November 10, 2021, an administrative judge issued a decision dismissing M s . Bautista’s appeal as untimely and, alternatively, affirming the agency’s decision. That decision

became the final decision of the Board on December 15,

2021

, by operation of the fact that M s . Bautista did not timely seek further review at the Board. T his court received M s . Bautista’s petition for this court’s review 6 9 days later, on February 22, 2022

. Section 7703(b)(1)(A) of title 5 of the U.S. Code states that a petition for review from the Board “shall be filedwithin 60 days after the Board issues notice of the final order or decision of the Board.” 5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(1)(A). Thi s court has held that section 7703(b)(1)(A)’s statutory deadline is jurisdictional and not subject to equitable tolling. See Fedora v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd. , 848 F.3d 1013, 1016 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Thus, we may only consider whether the petition for review was timely filed. M s . Bautista’s petition
here was received outside of the 60

- day filing deadline, and

we therefore must dismiss.

Accordingly,

I T I S O RDERED T HAT :

(1) The Board’s motion to dismiss is granted. The petition for review is dismissed.

(2) Each sid e shall bear its own costs.

(3) M s . Bautista’s motion is denied as moot.

May 26 , 2022

Date F OR THE C OURT

/s/ Peter R. Marksteiner

Peter R. Marksteiner

Clerk of Court

ISSUED AS A MANDATE: May 26, 2022 Case: 22-1500 Document: 11 Page: 2 Filed: 05/26/2022
**
**Exhibit 31.3**

**Certification of Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to**

**Securities Exchange Act Rules 13a-14(a) and 15d-14(a)**

**as Adopted Pursuant to**

**Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

I, Douglas G. Del Grosso, certify that: 

1. I have reviewed thisAmendment to the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of Adient plc for the year ended September 30, 2018; 

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

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in thisreport, 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 report. 

 
By: 
/s/ Douglas G. Del Grosso
 Douglas G. Del Grosso President and Chief Executive OfficerDate: June 24, 2019**
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 279 Received in Senate (RDS)]

  2d Session
H. CON. RES. 279

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

             January 22 (legislative day, January 3), 2008

                                Received

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
        Providing for a conditional adjournment of the House of 
                            Representatives.

    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That when the House adjourns on the legislative day of Wednesday, 
January 23, 2008, on a motion offered pursuant to this concurrent 
resolution by its Majority Leader or his designee, it stand adjourned 
until 2 p.m. on Monday, January 28, 2008, or until the time of any 
reassembly pursuant to section 2 of this

              

concurrent resolution, whichever occurs first; and that when the House 
adjourns on the legislative day of Tuesday, January 29, 2008, on a 
motion offered pursuant to this concurrent resolution by its Majority 
Leader or his designee, it stand adjourned until 2 p.m. on Wednesday, 
February 6, 2008, or until the time of any reassembly pursuant to 
section 2 of this concurrent resolution, whichever occurs first.
    Sec. 2.  The Speaker or her designee, after consultation with the 
Minority Leader, shall notify the Members of the House to reassemble at 
such place and time as she may designate if, in her opinion, the public 
interest shall warrant it.

            Passed the House of Representatives January 16, 2008.

            Attest:

                                            LORRAINE C. MILLER,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
| (logo) ncb  National Cooperative Bank    | 2011 Crystal  Drive  Suite 8oo  Arlington, Virginia 22202 |
|-----------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

**FORM OF ANNUAL COMPLIANCESTATEMENT**

 

CERTIFICATION

 

Wells Fargo CommercialMortgage Trust 2016-C33, Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series2016-C33 (the “Trust”)

  

I, Karyn Mann, on behalf of NationalCooperative Bank, N.A., as NCB Master Servicer (the “CertifyingServicer”), certify to Wells Fargo Commercial MortgageSecurities,  Inc. and its officers, directors and affiliates, and with theknowledge and intent that they will rely upon this certification, that:

 

1.       I (or ServicingOfficers under my supervision) have reviewed the Certifying Servicer’sactivities during the preceding calendar year between January 1, 2016 andDecember 31, 2016 (the “Reporting Period”) and theCertifying Servicer’s performance under the Pooling and ServicingAgreement; and

 

2.       To the best ofmy knowledge, based on such review, the Certifying Servicer has fulfilled allof its obligations under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement in all materialrespects during the Reporting Period.

 

 

Date: February 6, 2017

 

 

National Cooperative Bank,N.A., 

as NCB Master Servicer

 

 

By: /s/Karyn Mann 

Name: Karyn Mann

Title: Senior Vice President
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE 10-Q FOR
THE QUARTER ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1999, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                  JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                       SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                               4,482,000
<SECURITIES>                                                 0
<RECEIVABLES>                                          623,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                           303,000
<INVENTORY>                                          1,320,000<F1>
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     8,245,000
<PP&E>                                               7,208,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                       4,251,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                      15,741,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                2,336,000
<BONDS>                                                      0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                        0
<PREFERRED>                                                  0
<COMMON>                                             2,894,000<F2>
<OTHER-SE>                                           7,146,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                        15,741,000
<SALES>                                                619,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                       875,000
<CGS>                                                  476,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        1,085,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                             0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                             0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                      49,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                       (259,000)<F3>
<INCOME-TAX>                                          (104,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                   (155,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       3,610,000
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                              0
<CHANGES>                                                    0
<NET-INCOME>                                         3,525,000
<EPS-BASIC>                                               2.32
<EPS-DILUTED>                                             2.25
<FN>
<F1> NET OF RESERVE OF $362,000
<F2> 1,520,087 TOTAL COMMON SHARES OUTSTANDING
<F3>
</FN>


</TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Jose Luis ORTIZ-HERNANDEZ, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 04-30049.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Jan. 10, 2005.*

Decided Sept. 14, 2005.

George W. Breitsameter, Esq., USBO— Office of the U.S. Attorney, Boise, ID, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

*821Greg S. Silvey, Esq., Boise, ID, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before BEEZER, HALL, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.

*

 This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

ORDER and MEMORANDUM **

The petition for panel rehearing is GRANTED. The full court has been advised of the petition for rehearing en banc and no judge has requested a vote on whether to rehear the matter en banc. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 35. The petition for rehearing en banc is denied.

The Memorandum Disposition filed January 14, 2005, is WITHDRAWN and replaced with the following Memorandum Disposition:

Jose Luis Ortiz-Hernandez appeals his guilty plea conviction and 46-month sentence imposed for illegal re-entry, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b)(2).

Pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), counsel for Ortiz-Hernandez has filed a brief stating there are no grounds for relief, and a motion to withdraw as counsel of record.

We have conducted an independent review of the record pursuant to *Penson v. Ohio,*488 U.S. 75, 83, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988). We affirm the conviction. Because the guidelines are now purely advisory, *see United States v. Booker,*- U.S. -, ---, 125 S.Ct. 738, 764-67,160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), we remand to the district court for the limited purpose of determining if Ortiz-Hernandez should receive a different sentence under the advisory Guidelines system. *See United States v. Ameline,*409 F.3d 1073, (9th Cir.2005) (en banc); *see also United States v. Hermoso-Garcia,*413 F.3d 1085, 1089-90 (9th Cir.2005).

Counsel’s motion to withdraw as counsel on appeal is denied.

The conviction is AFFIRMED, and the sentence is REMANDED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
EXHIBIT 32.1
                                                                    ------------


                         CERTIFICATION UNDER SECTION 906
                                     OF THE
                           SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Unico American
Corporation (the "Company") for the period ended Marach 31, 2005, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission as of the date hereof
(the "Report"), I, Erwin Cheldin, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

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

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



                    /s/  Erwin Cheldin
                    ------------------
           Name:    Erwin Cheldin
           Title:   Chairman of the Board, President and Chief Executive Officer
           Date:    May 13, 2005




A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement
required by Section 906, has been provided to Unico American Corporation, and
will be retained by Unico American Corporation, and furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 172 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. CON. RES. 172

     Honoring the life of each of the 9 fallen City of Charleston 
  firefighters who lost their lives in Charleston, South Carolina, on 
                             June 18, 2007.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 21, 2007

 Mr. Brown of South Carolina (for himself, Mr. Clyburn, Mr. Pascrell, 
Mr. Wilson of South Carolina, Mr. Inglis of South Carolina, Mr. Barrett 
 of South Carolina, and Mr. Spratt) submitted the following concurrent 
   resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and 
                           Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
     Honoring the life of each of the 9 fallen City of Charleston 
  firefighters who lost their lives in Charleston, South Carolina, on 
                             June 18, 2007.

Whereas firefighters work devotedly and selflessly on behalf of the people of 
        the United States, without regard for the peril or danger to themselves;
Whereas firefighters carry out the vital role of protecting and ensuring the 
        safety of the public and their property;
Whereas on June 18, 2007, 9 brave men of the Charleston Fire Department 
        selflessly paid the ultimate sacrifice in service to their community;
Whereas the firemen who perished had over 120 years of combined service in the 
        fire department;
Whereas the events of June 18, 2007, constitute the single worst loss of 
        firefighters since September 11, 2001;
Whereas Captain William ``Billy'' Hutchinson, Captain Mike Benke, Captain Louis 
        Mulkey, Engineer Mark Kelsey, Engineer Bradford ``Brad'' Baity, 
        Assistant Engineer Michael French, Firefighter James ``Earl'' Drayton, 
        Firefighter Brandon Thompson, and Firefighter Melvin Champaign were 
        heroes in the truest sense of the word; and
Whereas Charlestonians, South Carolinians, and Americans will forever be 
        grateful for the service of these firefighters and mourn their loss: 
        Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring),  
That Congress honors the lives of the 9 fallen City of Charleston 
firefighters who lost their lives in Charleston, South Carolina, on 
June 18, 2007.
                                 <all>
```
# C_2016279EN.01004101.xml

| 1.8.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 279/41 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.8.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 279/41

---

Order of the General Court of 25 May 2016 — Bergbräu v EUIPO — Vilser Privatbrauerei (VILSER BERGBRÄU)

(Case T-697/15) (1)

1

(2016/C 279/57)

Language of the case: German

The President of the Second Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 78, 29.2.2016.

1

---
Regulatory Evaluation 

Docket No. FAA-2015- Directorate Identifier: 20 15-CE-Q.$3 -AD 

Add rhe n•ork hours. f>"rls cost, and 1111mher <?l U.S r~:y).~tered products to the tcJble he/ow. 11'/ien you are 

finished. dick on the ·· Updatf! Field\· ., hullon to alltmnalicollyji/J in the lotols. 

Update Fields J 

Estimated Costs: 

Action 

Costs per Product (e.g., aircraft, engine, 

propeller, appliance) 

(e.g., Inspection, Work-hours Labor Parts Cost Total Costs Number of Total Cost 

replacement) (include cost (labor+ u.s. for U.S. Fleet 

Do not include oncondition costs here access, testing, (@$85/h parts) Registered 

and close-up) our) Products 

Inspection 1.0 0 15 

The known number of products in compliance: ' 

' ~ .. • .:r 

Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $1 ,275 

Costs covered under warranty (if known) $All 

On-Condition Costs: G 

Action 

Work-hours Labor cost Parts Cost Cost per Product 

(e.g., Inspection, (include access, (@$85/hour) 

replacement) testing, and closeup) 

Replace I Repair 35 125.00 

8 
Special considerations for Economic Analysis (Use I his field to explain anything in the Estimated Costs table 

that was assumed or might not be obvious. This field can also be used to explain warranty costs): The on-condition 

cost estimates use a worst-case of replacing the rib. Piper will provide a simpler repair option for reported 

cracks, and DERs can also approve simpler corrective actions per the SB. In any case, all inspection and 

repair costs are expected to be covered by warranty. 

Executive Order 12866: 

Could the AD be considered a ·'significant regulatory action''? @ 

YES* D NO~ 

*Explanation: 

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures: 

Is the AD significant? G 

YES* D NO~ 

*Explanation: 

Regulatory Flexibility Act: 

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? Explain for 

either a Yes or No answer. G 

YES D NO 181 

Explanation: 

Intrastate Aviation in Alaska: 

This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific requirements for 

aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode of transportation? G 

YES* D NO~ 

*Explanation: 

9
EX-31 Rule 13a-14(d)/15d-14(d) Certifications.

 

 

I, Scott Epperson, certify that:

 

1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports onForm 10-D required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report onForm 10-K of the GS Mortgage Securities Trust 2016-GS2 (the "Exchange Actperiodic reports");

 

2. Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, takenas a whole, do not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit tostate a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading withrespect to the period covered by this report;

 

3. Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing andother information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the periodcovered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;

 

4. Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statementsrequired in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except asdisclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicers have fulfilledtheir obligations under the servicing agreements in all material respects; and

 

5. All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicingcriteria for asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports onassessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securitiesrequired to be included in this report in accordance with Item 1122 ofRegulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as anexhibit to this report, except as otherwise disclosed in this report. Anymaterial instances of noncompliance described in such reports have beendisclosed in this report on Form 10-K.

 

In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied oninformation provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties:

 

Midland Loan Services, a Division of PNC Bank, NationalAssociation, as Master Servicer, LNR Partners, LLC, as Special Servicer, WellsFargo Bank, National Association, as Trustee and Certificate Administrator,Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as Custodian, Pentalpha SurveillanceLLC, as Operating Advisor, Computershare Trust Company, National Association,as Servicing Function Participant for the Certificate Administrator, andComputershare Trust Company, National Association, as Servicing FunctionParticipant for the Custodian.

 

 

 

Dated:March 14, 2023

 

 

/s/Scott Epperson

Scott Epperson

Chief Executive Officer

(seniorofficer in charge of securitization of the depositor)
# C_2016048EN.01000702.xml

| 8.2.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 48/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.2.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 48/7

---

Appeal brought on 14 April 2015 by Sun Mark Ltd and Bulldog Energy Drink Ltd against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 5 February 2015 in Case T-78/13: Red Bull v OHIM

(Case C-206/15 P)

(2016/C 048/11)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Appellants: Sun Mark Ltd and Bulldog Energy Drink Ltd (represented by: A. Meskarian, Solicitor, S. Zaiwalla, Solicitor, T. Sampson, Barrister)

Appellants:

Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Other party to the proceedings:

By order of 24 November 2015 the Court of Justice (Tenth Chamber) held that the appeal is inadmissible.

---