alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Institute of Peace

# AGENCY:

United States Institute of Peace.

# Date/Time: 

Thursday, April 26, 2012 (9 a.m.-4 p.m.).

# Location: 

2301 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20037.

# Status: 

Open Session—Portions may be closed pursuant to Subsection (c) of Section 552(b) of Title 5, United States Code, as provided in subsection 1706(h)(3) of the United States Institute of Peace Act, Public Law 98-525.

# Agenda: 

April 26, 2012 Board Meeting; Approval of Minutes of the One Hundred Forty-Second Meeting (January 26, 2012) of the Board of Directors; Chairman's Report; President's Report; Update on Management, Budget and Congress; Audit and Finance Committee FY 2011 Audit Report; National Peace Essay Contest, JR Fellowship and Grants Update; Board Executive Session; Other General Issues.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Tessie F. Higgs, Executive Office, Telephone: (202) 429-3836.

Dated: April 7, 2012.

Michael B. Graham,

Senior Vice President for Management and CFO, United States Institute of Peace.

[FR Doc. 2012-8979 Filed 4-16-12; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6820-AR-M
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

October 26, 2009 

1019 

Order 

 

October 26, 2009 

139198 

TROY CURTIS SKINNER, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 139198 

 COA: 290281 

Genesee CC: 08-088086-NO 

QUICK-SAV FOOD STORES, LTD., 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 27, 2009 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded 

that the question presented should now be reviewed by this Court.
EXHIBIT
32.1





CERTIFICATION
OF THE PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER


PURSUANT
TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the quarterly
report of GlobalOptions Group, Inc., (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the
quarter ended September 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Harvey W. Schiller, Principal
Executive Officer of the Company, 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, 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.





November
      15, 2010
                /s/
      Harvey W. SchillerName:
                Harvey
      W. SchillerTitle:
                Chairman
      of the Board and
                  Chief
      Executive Officer
                  (Principal
      Executive Officer)
In the United States Court of Federal Claims 

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 21-1471V

UNPUBLISHED

GENEVIEVE HERING,

 Petitioner,

v.

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES,

 Respondent.

Chief Special Master Corcoran 

Filed: February 14, 2022

Withdrawal of petition; Order 

concluding proceedings

ORDER CONCLUDING PROCEEDINGS1

On June 15, 2021, Genevieve Hering filed a petition for compensation under the 

National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. § 300aa—10 through 34.

2

Petitioner alleged that she suffered injuries after receiving a human papillomavirus 

vaccination on January 30, 2019. ECF no. 1.

Because a decision had not been issued within the time specified in Vaccine 

Rule 10(b), a notice issued advising that “that the petitioner may withdraw the petition 

under section 300aa—21(b) of this title or the petitioner may choose under section 

300aa—21(b) of this title to have the petition remain before the special master.” 42 

U.S.C. § 300aa—12(g). On February 10, 2022, Petitioner timely filed a notice to 

withdraw the petition pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 300aa—21(b). 

In light of Petitioner’s election to withdraw the petition pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 

300aa—21(b) (promulgated as Vaccine Rule 10(d)), Petitioner’s request to withdraw the

petition is GRANTED. Accordingly, this Order hereby notifies the Clerk of Court that 

proceedings “on the merits” of this petition are now concluded, but no judgment 

“on the merits” should be entered by the Clerk’s Office.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

1 Although I have not formally designated this Order for publication, I am required to post it on the United 

States Court of Federal Claims' website because it contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this 

case, in accordance with the E-Government Act of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (Federal 

Management and Promotion of Electronic Government Services). This means the Order will be available 

to anyone with access to the internet. In accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), Petitioner has 14 days to 

identify and move to redact medical or other information, the disclosure of which would constitute an 

unwarranted invasion of privacy. If, upon review, I agree that the identified material fits within this definition, 

I will redact such material from public access. 

2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755.
2

s/Brian H. Corcoran

Brian H. Corcoran

Chief Special Master
#### Marion SANCETTA, d/b/a Westate Sales Co., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. APOLLO STEREO MUSIC COMPANY, INC., a Colorado Corporation; Salem Investment Company, Inc., a Colorado Corporation; Jack Hackett, Stanley Singer, and A. A. DeBaca, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 78-1121.

Colorado Court of Appeals, Div. III.

May 22, 1980.

Rehearing Denied July 3, 1980.

Certiorari Denied Sept. 22, 1980.

*183Tinsley, Frantz, Fleming & Davidson, P. C., Roger V. Davidson, Albert T. Frantz, Lakewood, for plaintiff-appellant.

Bohm, Connell & McLellan, Bruce G. McLellan, Lawrence Katz, Lakewood, for defendants-appellees.

PIERCE, Judge.

Plaintiff appeals a directed verdict for defendant granted at the close of plaintiff’s case in a malicious prosecution action. We reverse.

In a malicious prosecution action, the burden is on plaintiff to prove (1) that defendants were parties to or assisted in a prior action against plaintiff; (2) that the prior action ended in favor of plaintiff; (3) that there was no probable cause for the prior action; (4) that defendants’ participation in the prior action was motivated by malice; and (5) that as a result of the prior action, plaintiff incurred damages. *Montgomery Ward & Co. v. Pherson,*129 Colo. 502, 272 P.2d 643 (1954); *See Colo. J.I.*17:1 (2d Ed. 1980). Here, the trial court ruled that plaintiff had presented sufficient evidence on all elements of malicious prosecution except the element of malice. It found that plaintiff had presented no evidence which tended to show that defendants’ prior action against plaintiff was motivated by malice, and, therefore, the trial court entered a directed verdict for defendants. *See Suchey v. Stiles,*155 Colo. 363, 394 P.2d 739 (1964).

Only when the facts which relate to the issue of malice are undisputed is a question of whether those facts warrant an inference of malice one for the court. *Koch v. Wright,*67 Colo. 292, 184 P. 363 (1919). There were disputed factual issues relating to the purported acts of plaintiff which were the basis of defendant’s prior legal action against plaintiff, as well as the disputed evidence relating to whether there was probable cause for the commencement and continuation of the prior action.

Malice may be inferred from a lack of probable cause. *Florence Oil & Refining Co.*v. *Huff,*14 Colo.App. 281, 59 P. 624 (1900). In an action for malicious prosecution where there are disputed factual issues and where it has been determined that there was no probable cause for the prior legal action, the existence of malice is an issue to be determined by the jury. *Wyatt v. Burdette,*43 Colo. 208, 95 P. 336 (1908). Here, because there were disputed factual issues relating to probable cause, and, therefore, the permissible inference of malice, a directed verdict at the close of plaintiff’s case was improper.

Judgment reversed and cause remanded for a new trial.

BERMAN and VAN CISE, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT
32.2





CERTIFICATION
OF VICE PRESIDENT OF CORPORATE FINANCE


PURSUANT
TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





The
undersigned, the Chief Financial Officer of Shengtai Pharmaceutical, Inc. (the
"Company"), does hereby certify under the standards set forth and solely for the
purposes of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the
Company for the quarter ended September 30, 2009 fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and information contained in that Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.


Date:
      November 15, 2009
              
              /s/
      Yiru ShiYiru
      ShiTitle:
      Chief Financial Officer
# C_2004094EN.01002902.xml

| 17.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 94/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 94/29

---

Action brought on 26 February 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic

(Case C-100/04)

(2004/C 94/65)

An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 26 February 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by G. Valero Jordana and R. Amorosi, acting as Agents.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Declare that, by not adopting the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2001/81/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2001 on national emission ceilings for certain atmospheric pollutants, or by not communicating those provisions to the Commission, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 15 of that directive; |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare that, by not adopting the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2001/81/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2001 on national emission ceilings for certain atmospheric pollutants, or by not communicating those provisions to the Commission, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 15 of that directive;

1

| — | Order the Italian Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments:

The time-limit for the transposition of the directive expired on 27 November 2002.

---

(1)  OJ 2001 L 316 of 1.12.2001, p. 5.

1

---
State of New York

Supreme Court, Appellate Division

Third Judicial Department

Decided and Entered: May 21, 2015 519661 

________________________________

In the Matter of ELIOT LOPEZ, 

Petitioner, 

v

MEMORANDUM AND JUDGMENT

ALBERT PRACK, as Director of 

Special Housing and Inmate 

Disciplinary Programs, 

Respondent.

________________________________

Calendar Date: March 31, 2015

Before: Peters, P.J., Egan Jr., Rose and Devine, JJ.

__________

Eliot Lopez, Comstock, petitioner pro se.

Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Marcus J.

Mastracco of counsel), for respondent.

__________

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this

Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Albany County) to

review a determination of the Commissioner of Corrections and

Community Supervision which found petitioner guilty of violating

certain prison disciplinary rules. 

Determination confirmed. No opinion.

Peters, P.J., Egan Jr., Rose and Devine, JJ., concur.
-2- 519661 

ADJUDGED that the determination is confirmed, without

costs, and petition dismissed.

ENTER:

Robert D. Mayberger

Clerk of the Court
#### ESTATE OF Sue F. O’BANNON, Deceased, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. OKLAHOMA TAX COMMISSION and the State of Oklahoma, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 54953.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma.

July 28, 1981.

Rehearing Denied Sept. 28, 1981.

Houston & Klein, Inc., E. John Eagleton, Tulsa, for plaintiff-appellant.

*742Marjorie Patmon, George Rozsypal, Oklahoma City, for defendant-appellee.

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

OPAL A, Justice:

On consideration of appellee’s motion, this cause is ordered dismissed.

The record is *absolutely clear*that the taxpayer failed timely to comply with the statutory requirement that the liability which is made the subject of review in this court be satisfied as a “condition precedent” to the prosecution of an appeal. 68 O.S. Supp. 1978 § 225(c) or (e); Rule 1.128, Rules on Perfecting a Civil Appeal, 12 O.S. Ch. 15, App. 2.

The tax controversy attempted to be placed before us had its inception when a tax auditor, by a “summary” of January 4, 1979, assessed the appellant estate for an *additional*amount of tax and interest. The estate’s protest met — on February 5,1980— with an adverse decision of the Commission’s hearing officer. That decision was upheld by the Commission by order of March 12, 1980 which denied the estate’s “formal written objections” to the hearing officer’s recommendation. The petition-in-error, by which review is sought of the Commission’s failure to grant to the estate relief from the additional assessment, was filed March 19, 1980. While the exact date the tax due was paid is not known, it is *certain*that the check by which it was remitted was not received by the Commission *before*the *terminal date*for filing this appeal.

The statute, 68 O.S.Supp. 1978 § 225(c) and (e), unambiguously commands that one who seeks in this court review of an order “assessing a tax or an *additional*tax...” [emphasis added] must pay the “amount assessed” “[a]s a condition precedent to the right...” of appeal and “as a jurisdictional prerequisite” to the exercise of our reviewing power. The Commission’s order here in controversy is unmistakably one which assesses “an additional tax.” Inasmuch as the amount of tax and interest assessed was neither paid nor secured by a bond within the thirty-day period prescribed by law for filing an appeal in this court, the estate failed to show compliance with the clear command of § 225(c) or (e) and with Rule 1.128.

Because judicial institutions are without power to grant dispensation from jurisdictional prerequisites that are statutorily imposed, this appeal may not be entertained.

Dismissed.

IRWIN, C. J., and WILLIAMS, HODGES, LAVENDER, HARGRAVE, JJ., concur.

BARNES, V. C. J., and SIMMS and DOO-LIN, JJ., dissent.
United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

June 26, 2006

Before

Hon. KENNETH F. RIPPLE, Circuit Judge

Nos. 04-3829, 04-3900

MICHAEL P. GAFFNEY, THOMAS BELL,

EDWARD ANDERSON, et al.,

Plaintiffs-Appellees, 

Cross-Appellants,

v.

RIVERBOAT SERVICES OF INDIANA,

INCORPORATED, RIVERBOAT

SERVICES, INCORPORATED, ROBERT

HEITMEIER, et al.,

Defendants-Appellants, 

Cross-Appellees,

v. 

SHOWBOAT MARINA CASINO

PARTNERSHIP, SHOWBOAT,

INCORPORATED, SHOWBOAT INDIANA,

INCORPORATED, et. al.,

Defendants-Appellants.

Appeals from the United States

District Court for the Northern

District of Indiana, Hammond

Division.

No. 98 C 10

Andrew P. Rodovich,

Magistrate Judge.

O R D E R

On page 47 of the opinion in this case, footnote 29 is misnumbered; the

correct number is footnote 30. The proceeding footnotes should be renumbered from

31 to 45.
[No. 18138-0-II.

Division Two.

July 26, 1996.]

#### Clifford L. Ross, et al., *Appellants,*v. Richard W. Knannlein, *Respondent.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Thur-ston County, No. 91-2-01171-8, Paula Casey, J., entered March 15, 1994. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Turner, J., concurred in by Morgan and Bridgewater, JJ.
Exhibit 32.2

                            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 Quarterly  Report of West coast Car Company
(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31,2006 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Alex Ferries, Chief Executive Officer of the small business issuer,  certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002:

         (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 result of operations of the small
business issuer.



/s/ Alex Ferries
-----------------------
Alex Ferries
Chief Financial Officer

May 15, 2006
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h
Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,
J ustices

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.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk October 26, 2009

1019 

# Order

October 26, 2009

139198

TROY CURTIS SKINNER, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 139198 COA: 290281 Genesee CC: 08-088086-NO QUICK-SAV FOOD STORES, LTD., Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, th e application for leave to ap peal the May 27, 2009 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the question presented should now be reviewed by this Court.
**Certifications**

 

 

I, Paul Vanderslice, certify that:

 

1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K, and all reportson Form 10-D required to be filed in respect of the period covered by thisreport on Form 10-K, of BMO 2022-C2 Mortgage Trust (the “Exchange Act PeriodicReports”);

 

2. Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act Periodic Reports,taken as a whole, do not contain any untrue statement of a material fact oromit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in lightof the circumstances 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, servicingand other 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 compliancestatement(s) required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, andexcept as disclosed in the Exchange Act Periodic Reports, the servicers havefulfilled their obligations under the servicing agreement(s) in all materialrespects; and

 

5. All of the reports on assessment of compliance withservicing criteria for asset-backed securities and their related attestationreports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backedsecurities required to be included in this report in accordance with Item 1122of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included asan exhibit to this report, except as otherwise disclosed in this report. Any material instances of noncompliance described in such reports have beendisclosed in this report on Form 10-K.

 

In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably reliedon information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties: MidlandLoan Services, a Division of PNC Bank, National Association; Rialto CapitalAdvisors, LLC; Pentalpha Surveillance LLC; Computershare Trust Company, NationalAssociation; Wilmington Trust, National Association; KeyBank NationalAssociation; Park Bridge Lender Services LLC; and LNR Partners, LLC.

 

 

Date: March 30, 2023

 

/s/ PaulVanderslice                                                   

Paul Vanderslice

Chief Executive Officer, BMO Commercial Mortgage SecuritiesLLC

(senior officer in charge of securitization of thedepositor)