alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
NAUTILUS INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff - Appellant,
v. LEXINGTON INSURANCE COMPANY; DOE DEFENDANTS 1-10, Defendants - Appellees. No. 10-17826D.C. No. 1:09-cv-00537-DAELEK
ORDER *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii David A. Ezra, District Judge, Presiding Submitted October 16, 2012 ** Honolulu, Hawaii Before: REINHARDT, THOMAS, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges. In light of the Supreme Court of Ha wai’i’s decision addressing the certified questions in this case, the district court’s order granting summary judgment to Defendants-Appellees and denying summary judgment to Plaintiff-Appellant is 

# FILED
MAR 28 2014 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).VACATED. This case is REMANDED to the district court for further proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court of Hawai’i’s decision in Nautilus Insurance Co. v. Lexington Ins. Co. , No. SCCQ-12-0000977, 2014 WL 560805 (Haw. Feb. 13, 2014). Each party shall bear its own costs on this appeal.
Order entered April 14, 2015

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-14-00682-CV

RUBEN MONREAL, Appellant

V.

BRUCE ALAN DOTSY D/B/A DOTSY TRUCKING SERVICE, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 4

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. CC-14-02331-D

ORDER

We GRANT appellee’s April 10, 2015 unopposed second motion for an extension of 

time to file a brief. Appellee shall file a brief by MAY 20, 2015. We caution appellee that no 

further extension of time will be granted absented extraordinary circumstances.

/s/ ELIZABETH LANG-MIERS 

JUSTICE
#### Town of Islip, Appellant, v Pella Auto Sales, Inc., et al., Respondents.

—In an action seeking to enjoin the defendants from operating a used car dealership and parking lot, the plaintiff Town of Islip appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Vaughn, J.), entered October 25, 1989, which, after a hearing, denied its application for a preliminary injunction.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The defendant Pella Auto Sales (hereinafter Pella) is an enterprise engaged in the business of selling used motor vehicles and utilizes its property to store and display these vehicles. Following efforts by the plaintiff Town of Islip to have Pella cease its operations, a hearing was held to adjudicate the Town’s application for a preliminary injunction. The Town Inspector testified at that hearing that, based on the previously issued certificate of occupancy and the tax map, the premises were zoned Business I in which the sale of used cars was prohibited under Islip Town Code § 68-420 which prohibits the outdoor storage of unregistered motor vehicles in Business I districts. However, neither the tax map nor the certificate of occupancy indicated the zoning status. Therefore, we conclude that the testimony of the Town Inspector was inadequate to establish that the site was zoned Business I rather than Business III as claimed by Pella. Consequently, injunctive *665relief was properly denied. Bracken, J. P., Eiber, Harwood and Balletta, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                         201,600
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  798,500
<ALLOWANCES>                                   442,200
<INVENTORY>                                     24,300
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               443,600
<PP&E>                                       1,561,800
<DEPRECIATION>                                 467,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,322,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          914,400
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     12,400
<COMMON>                                        31,100
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,028,800
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,322,000
<SALES>                                        458,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               764,600
<CGS>                                          154,400
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  603,700
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 800
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  5,700
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,600
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              4,100
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     4,100
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
Inspected

by experts

Traced

from farm to store

Traced

from farm to store

Shaped

by public input

Protected

& enforced by law

Protected

by law

C

M

Y

CM

MY

CY

CMY

K

Final.pdf 15 2/23/2024 9:32:43 AM
My name is Aline DeLucia.  I'm the Director of Public Policy for the National Association of State Departments of Agriculture (NASDA).

And we appreciate the opportunity to comment on the implementation of the hemp provisions established by the 2018 Farm Bill.  NASDA represents the commissioners, secretaries, and directors of the State Departments of Agriculture in all 50 states and four territories.

NASDA members are regulatory partners of the USDA and the implementation of the farm bill, including the hemp program.  We'd like to start by thanking the USDA AMS team for their extraordinary outreach efforts to NASDA members and impacted stakeholders to better understand the different perspectives of this industry, and getting knowledge of the regulatory landscape in the states.

NASDA policies support the production, processing, and commercialization of hemp and encourages researching all aspects of hemp production to finished products.

Hemp production is expected to significantly grow in the next few years due to the passage of the 2018 Farm Bill, and there'll be a significant shared state-federal authority over hemp cultivation and production with NASDA members splitting a critical regulatory role at the state level.

NASDA members will need guidance in a well-defined regulatory pathway from the federal agencies to exercise their regulatory authority under the 2018 Farm Bill, so NASDA encourages USDA to prioritize implementation of industrial hemp provisions of the 2018 Farm Bill, and to move as fast as possible so state departments of agriculture can submit their state plans and therefore provide clarity and direction to farmers and ranchers in their states.

We also urge USDA to work closely with other federal partners such as FDA and DEA to avoid potential conflicts that would negatively impact this emerging crop.

We're hopeful that USDA will establish a regulatory pathway that provides much needed clarity to the industry as well as the state co-regulators, while also giving states the flexibility to regulate the crops as they see fit.

NASDA greatly appreciates the opportunity to comment today and it's eager to work with USDA in the implementation of the hemp provisions of 2018 Farm Bill. Thank you so much for your time.
1 Eric H. Holder, Jr., has been appointed to serve as Attorney General of the United States, and is substituted as responde nt pursuant to Federa l Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c). 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 08-1046

___________ Hayad Ahmed Guure; Salma Ciise * Liban; Yahia Ciise Liban; Zubeer * Ciise Liban, * * Petitioners, * * Petition for Review of v. * an Order of the Board * of Immigration Appeals. Eric H. Holder, Jr., 1 Attorney General * of the United States, * * [UNPUBLISHED] * Respondent. *

___________ Submitted: June 4, 2009 Filed: June 8, 2009

___________ Before RILEY, SMITH, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Hayad Ahmed Guure and her children petiti on for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying their motion to reopen. In particular, petitioners challenge the BIA’ s refusal to reopen sua spont e the removal proceedings,2 To the extent petitioners intended to challenge the remainder of the BIA’s decision denying the motion to reopen, we agree with the BIA that the motion was untimely, and petitioners faile d to show they met any exception to the time limitation. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i) (time limitation); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3) (exceptions); Ghasemimehr v. Gonzales , 427 F.3d 1160, 1162-63 (8th Cir. 2005) (per curiam) (BIA did not abuse its discreti on in denying untimely motion to reopen).

-2- so that petitioners could reapply for asylum on the basis of female genital mutilation. We lack jurisdiction, however, to review a BIA’s decision not to invoke its sua sponte authority to reopen removal proceedings. SeeTamenut v. Mukasey , 521 F.3d 1000, 1001, 1004-05 (8th Cir. 2008) (en banc) (per curiam). 2
Accordingly, we deny the petition.

______________________________
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1249 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1249

To prohibit the Secretary of Defense from obligating or expending funds 
                 for missiles banned by the INF Treaty.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 14, 2019

   Ms. Gabbard (for herself, Ms. Omar, Mr. McGovern, and Mr. Pocan) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
 Armed Services, and in addition to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, 
for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case 
for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of 
                        the committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To prohibit the Secretary of Defense from obligating or expending funds 
                 for missiles banned by the INF Treaty.

    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 ``INF Treaty Compliance Act of 2019''.

SEC. 2. STATEMENT OF POLICY.

    It is the policy of the United States to uphold the Treaty on the 
Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, entered into force with respect 
to the United States on March 5, 1970, which commits the United States 
as a State Party ``to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective 
measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early 
date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and 
complete disarmament under strict and effective international 
control'', including through such measures as the INF Treaty.

SEC. 3. PROHIBITION ON AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS FOR MISSILES BANNED BY THE 
              INF TREATY.

    (a) Prohibition.--None of the funds authorized to be appropriated 
or otherwise made available for the Department of Defense for fiscal 
year 2020 or any fiscal year thereafter may be obligated or expended 
for the testing and evaluation, procurement, or fielding of any missile 
prohibited under the INF Treaty (as if such treaty is in force).
    (b) Definitions.--In this Act:
            (1) The term ``INF Treaty'' means the Treaty Between the 
        United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist 
        Republics on the Elimination of Their Intermediate-Range and 
        Shorter-Range Missiles, commonly referred to as the 
        ``Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty'', signed at 
        Washington December 8, 1987, and entered into force June 1, 
        1988.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 10.4



EXHIBIT 10.4     Global Health Trax Correspondence dated April 25, 2002


                          GLOBAL HEALTH TRAX LETTERHEAD


April 25, 2002
Attorney Brenda Hamilton's Office
Fax No. 561-416-2855
Attn: Lisa Steil
Dear Ms. Steil:
Thank you for your inquiry regarding Mr. Edward Siceloff's account with us. The
name on Mr. Siceloff's account has been changed to World Health Alternatives,
Inc. effective today.

Cordially,
/s/ Shanna Denfeld
Shanna Denfeld
Manager
Customer Service and Sales



                       12305 Poway Road * Poway, CA 92064
                       (858) 513.1150 * Fax (800) 673.4883
                  ght@usinternet.com * www.globalhealthtrax.com
#### In the Matter of Russell Abbondandolo, Appellant, v Timothy Edwards, as Chief of the City of Glen Cove Police Department, et al., Respondents.

—In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the City of Glen Cove Police Department, effective September 15, 1989, which terminated the petitioner’s employment as a probationary police trainee, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Yachnin, J.), dated May 14, 1990, which, in effect, dismissed the proceeding on the merits.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

As a probationary employee, the petitioner’s employment could be terminated without a hearing and without specific reasons being stated, and, in the absence of bad faith or reasons prohibited by law, the determination must be upheld *(see, Matter of Leon v Meehan,*67 NY2d 613; *Matter of LaMotta v New York City Tr. Auth.,*165 AD2d 875). There is ample evidence in the record supporting the determination by the City of Glen Cove Police Department. It cannot be said that the termination of his employment was made in bad faith.

"The burden of presenting legal and competent evidence to show a deprivation of petitioner’s rights or bad faith or other arbitrary action constituting abuse of * * * discretion must be borne by petitioner” *(Haberman v Codd,*48 AD2d 505, 508). That the City of Glen Cove Police Department, in making its determination, relied on the reports and opinions of those who actually supervised the petitioner, is not evidence of bad faith or that the determination was arbitrary and capricious *(see, Matter of McCabe v County of Dutchess,*143 AD2d 670).

Moreover, the petitioner is not entitled to a name-clearing hearing, since the reasons for his dismissal have not been made public *(see, Matter of Lentlie v Egan,*61 NY2d 874; *see also, Matter of Bergamini v Manhattan & Bronx Surface Tr. Operating Auth.,*62 NY2d 897). Indeed, Civil Rights Law § 50-a forbids the respondents from disclosing such information, so there is no likelihood that it will be disclosed *(cf., Brandt v Board of Coop. Educ. Servs.,*820 F2d 41).

We have examined the petitioner’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Kooper, J. P., Sullivan, Lawrence and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.
**
**Exhibit 31.1**

Certification of Senior Officer in Charge of the Servicing Function 

of the Servicer Pursuant to Rule 15d-14(d)

**CERTIFICATION**

I, KevinJ. Cullum, certify that: 

1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of Nissan Auto Lease Trust 2022-A (the“Exchange Act periodic reports”); 

2. Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do not containany 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 report;

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

4. I amresponsible for reviewing the activities performed by the servicer and based on my knowledge and the compliance review conducted in preparing the servicer compliance statement required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except asdisclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicer has fulfilled its obligations under the servicing agreement in all material respects; and 

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

In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me by thefollowing unaffiliated parties: U.S. Bank National Association and U.S. Bank Trust Company, National Association 

Date: June 29, 2023 

 
By: /s/ Kevin J. Cullum
Kevin J. Cullum

President and Chief Executive Officer of Nissan Motor Acceptance Company LLC

(senior officer in charge of the servicing function)

 
**
<Page>
                                                                Exhibit 10.42

                                 AMENDMENT NO. 1

                                     to the

                             RETROCESSION AGREEMENT

                                     between

                         ALLSTATE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY

                                       and

                           ALLSTATE REINSURANCE, LTD.

          This Amendment to the Retrocession Agreement between Allstate Life
Insurance Company ("Ceding Company") and Allstate Reinsurance Ltd. ("Reinsurer")
dated January 1, 1998, is made and entered by the parties effective as of June
30, 1999.

          WHEREAS, Ceding Company desires to retrocede to Reinsurer liabilities
under certain contracts specified in Exhibit A as amended and attached hereto,
and Reinsurer desires to accept such liabilities from Ceding Company;

          NOW THEREFORE, Ceding Company and Reinsurer mutually agree as follows:

          1. Ceding Company agrees to cede and Reinsurer agrees to accept
             Ceded Policy Liabilities (as such term is defined in the
             Retrocession Agreement) under Glenbrook Performance Plus
             annuities, as described in amended Exhibit A attached hereto, and
             in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Retrocession
             Agreement between the parties.

          2. Except as otherwise specified in this Amendment, the Retrocession
             Agreement shall remain unchanged.

          IN WITNESS HEREOF, the parties have caused this Amendment to be duly
executed in duplicate by their respective officers on the dates shown below.

ALLSTATE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY

By:
   ---------------------------
Title:
      ------------------------
Date:
     -------------------------

<Page>

ALLSTATE REINSURANCE, LTD.

By:
   ---------------------------
Title:
     -------------------------
Date:
     -------------------------

<Page>

                                    EXHIBIT A
                        CONTRACTS SUBJECT TO REINSURANCE

Glenbrook Advantage Annuity and contracts supplemental thereto, issued after
January 1, 1998 to customers of PNC BankCorp. and its subsidiaries and
affiliates.

Glenbrook Performance Plus and contracts supplemental thereto, issued after June
30, 1999 to customers of PNC BankCorp. and its subsidiaries and affiliates.
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-17-00019-CV

CITY OF THE COLONY, TEXAS APPELLANT

V.

BRAZOS ELECTRIC POWER 

COOPERATIVE, INC.

APPELLEE

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

FROM THE 16TH DISTRICT COURT OF DENTON COUNTY

TRIAL COURT NO. 16-06424-16

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

MEMORANDUM OPINION1 AND JUDGMENT

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

We have considered appellant’s “Unopposed Motion to Dismiss Appeal.” It 

is the court’s opinion that the motion should be granted; therefore, we dismiss the 

appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a)(1), 43.2(f).

Costs of the appeal shall be paid by the party incurring the same, for which 

let execution issue. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(d).

PER CURIAM

PANEL: SUDDERTH, C.J.; KERR and PITTMAN, JJ.

DELIVERED: May 3, 2018

 1See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
EXHIBIT 32.1

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 American Bar Association Members/State Street Collective
Trust (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Monet T. Ewing, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to and for purposes of 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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 the Company.



/s/ Monet T. EwingMonet T. EwingChief Executive OfficerAugust 14, 2008