alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 31.1



CERTIFICATION



I, Michael C. Forman, certify that:



| | 1. | I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the annual report on Form 10-K of FS Investment Corporation IV; and
| | -- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | Based on 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 with respect to the period covered by this report.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Date: April 24, 2019



|/s/ MICHAEL C. FORMAN   | 
|----------------------- | 
|Michael C. Forman       | 
|Chief Executive Officer |
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-7387
GEORGE SAMUEL GREEN, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus COUNSELS OF A-7-8 UNIT AND B-1 UNIT; D. GARRHARTY, Warden; UNIT MANAGERS, A-7-8, B-1;LIEUTENANTS OF UNIT, A-7-8, B-1; UNKNOWN SERGEANTS OF UNIT, A-7-8, B-1; UNKNOWN COMMANDING OFFICERS OF UNIT, A-7-8, B-1; UNKNOWN LAW LIBRARY MANAGER, A Unit, B Unit, Defendants - Appellees.
No. 97-7414
GEORGE SAMUEL GREEN, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus COUNSELS OF A-7-8 UNIT AND B-1 UNIT; D. GARRHARTY, Warden; UNIT MANAGERS, A-7-8, B-1;LIEUTENANTS OF UNIT, A-7-8, B-1; UNKNOWN SERGEANTS OF UNIT, A-7-8, B-1; UNKNOWN COMMANDING OFFICERS OF UNIT, A-7-8, B-1; UNKNOWN LAW LIBRARY MANAGER, A Unit, B Unit, Defendants - Appellees.2Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Robert G. Doumar, Senior District Judge. (CA-97-26-2) Submitted: July 22, 1998 Decided: July 31, 1998 Before ERVIN, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. George Samuel Green, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).3 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's orders denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 1998) complaint and denying his motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the recordand the district court's opinions and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Green v. Counsels , No. CA-97-26-2 (E.D. Va. Sept. 17 & 30, 1997). We deny Appellant’s motion for an ex parte hearing. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Defendant Montenegro’s Notice of Intention to file a Motion for Summary Judgment

30028/750547/ctb Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

BRYAN RISER, §

Plaintiff, §

§

vs. § Civil Action No. 3:22-CV-01014-C

§

§

ESTEBAN MONTENEGRO, §

Defendant. §

DEFENDANT’S NOTICE OF INTENTION TO FILE A MOTION FOR SUMMARY 

JUDGMENT ASSERTING QUALIFIED IMMUNITY

NOW COMES Esteban Montenegro, Defendant in this cause (hereinafter “Defendant”) 

and files this notice of intention to file a motion for summary judgment asserting qualified 

immunity, pursuant to the Court’s order.

SUMMARY

Pursuant to the Court’s order on June 8, 2023 [Dkt. 22], Defendant hereby notifies the 

Court that he will not be filing a motion to dismiss based on qualified immunity, but does intend 

to file a motion for summary judgment asserting qualified immunity.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

1. The Court’s Order on June 8, 2023, outlined the procedure moving forward regarding 

Defendant’s assertion of the defense of Qualified Immunity in his Original Answer. [Dkt. 

22].

2. The Court ordered Plaintiff to file a Rule 7(a) reply to all assertions of qualified 

immunity within thirty (30) days of June, 8 2023.

3. On July 10, 2023, Plaintiff filed his Rule 7(a) Reply. [Dkt. 25]. The deadline for 

Defendant to notify the Court of his intention to file a motion for summary judgment is 

Case 3:22-cv-01014-K Document 26 Filed 08/09/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID 91
Defendant Montenegro’s Notice of Intention to file a Motion for Summary Judgment

30028/750547/ctb Page 2 of 2

thirty (30) days after the date of Plaintiff’s Rule 7(a) reply. [Dkt. 22].

NOTIFICATION

Defendant Esteban Montenegro hereby notifies the Court that he intends to file a motion 

for summary judgment asserting qualified immunity.

Respectfully submitted,

FANNING, HARPER, MARTINSON,

BRANDT & KUTCHIN, P.C.

By: /s/ Thomas P. Brandt

THOMAS P. BRANDT

State Bar No. 02883500

tbrandt@fhmbk.com

STEPHEN D. HENNINGER

State Bar No. 00784256

shenninger@fhmbk.com

CHRISTOPHER BRANDT

State Bar No. 24072262

cbrandt@fhmbk.com

FANNING, HARPER, MARTINSON,

BRANDT & KUTCHIN, P.C.

One Glen Lakes

8140 Walnut Hill Lane, Ste. 200

Dallas, Texas 75231

(214) 369-1300 (office)

(214) 987-9649 (telecopier)

ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on August 9, 2023, I electronically filed the foregoing document with 

the Clerk of the Court through the ECF system and an email notice of the electronic filing was 

sent to all attorneys of record.

/s/ Thomas P. Brandt

THOMAS P. BRANDT

Case 3:22-cv-01014-K Document 26 Filed 08/09/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID 92
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 222 (Thursday, November 16, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 69299-69300]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-29335]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP01-79-000]


Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corporation; Notice of Tariff 
Filing

November 9, 2000.
    Take notice that on November 3, 2000 Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line 
Corporation (Transco) tendered for filing to become part of its FERC 
Gas Tariff, Third Revised Volume No. 1, Thirtieth Revised Sheet No. 50, 
with an effective date of November 1, 2000.
    Transco states that the purpose of the instant filing is to track 
fuel changes attributable to transportation service purchased from 
Texas Gas Transmission Corporation (Texas Gas) under its Rate Schedule 
FT the costs of which are included in the rates and charges payable 
under Transco's Rate Schedule FT-NT. This filing is being made pursuant 
to tracking provisions under Section 4 of the Transco's Rate Schedule 
FT-NT. Transco states that included in Appendix B attached to the 
filing is the explanation of the fuel changes and details regarding the 
computation of the revised FT-NT fuel percentages.
    Transco states that copies of the filing are being mailed to each 
of its FT-NT customers and interested State Commissions.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in 
accordance with Sections 385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission's Rules 
and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed in 
accordance with Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. 
Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the 
appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants 
parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must 
file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the 
Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public 
Reference Room. This filing may be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance). 
Comments and protests may be filed electronically via the internet in 
lieu of paper. See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions

[[Page 69300]]

on the Commission's web site at
http://www.ferc.fed.us/efi/doorbell.htm.

Linwood A. Watson, Jr.
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-29335 Filed 11-15-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
Case 4:22-cr-00138-O Document 23 Filed 06/15/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID 38
Case 4:22-cr-00138-O Document 23 Filed 06/15/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID 39
<PAGE>   1
         21.1     SUBSIDIARIES OF REGISTRANT

         Automotive Performance Group, Inc. (APG) has the following
         subsidiaries:

         1. Zeropaper.com, Inc. (ZP) is a Delaware corporation that is wholly
         owned by APG.

         D'Artagnan Associates, Inc., a Delaware corporation, is wholly-owned by
         ZP.

         Boyds Wheels, Inc., a California corporation, is 80% owned by ZP. Hot
         Rods by Boyd, Inc., a California corporation, is wholly-owned by Boyds
         Wheels, Inc.

         Automotive Specialty Chemicals Group, Inc. (ASCG), a Delaware
         corporation formerly known as International Motor Sports Group, Inc.,
         is wholly-owned by ZP. All the businesses owned by ASCG have been
         discontinued or remain only as a shell after most operating assets have
         been sold. Shell companies include Royal Purple Motor Oil, Inc., a
         Texas corporation.

         2. APG Special Purpose Sub, Inc. (SPS) is a Delaware corporation that
         is wholly owned by APG.

         SPS holds APG's minority ownership interest in PBT Brands, Inc. (PBT),
         a Delaware corporation.

Unless stated otherwise, each operating company does business under its own
name.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Consolidated Balance Sheet as of March 31, 1999 and the Consolidated Statements
of Operations for the three month period ended March 31, 1999 and is qualified
in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>


<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                 3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                          JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                            MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                      152,314
<SECURITIES>                                      0
<RECEIVABLES>                             6,921,855
<ALLOWANCES>                                532,596
<INVENTORY>                              13,351,762
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                         20,726,255
<PP&E>                                    3,089,828
<DEPRECIATION>                            1,031,962
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                           39,282,191
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                    22,659,881
<BONDS>                                      75,771
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                             0
<PREFERRED>                              23,809,000
<COMMON>                                      2,384
<OTHER-SE>                               (7,264,845)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>             39,282,191
<SALES>                                  10,532,935
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                         10,532,935
<CGS>                                     6,289,642
<TOTAL-COSTS>                             6,289,642
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                          3,040,046
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                  0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          436,331
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             761,258
<INCOME-TAX>                                      0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         761,258
<DISCONTINUED>                                    0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                   0
<CHANGES>                                         0
<NET-INCOME>                                761,258
<EPS-BASIC>                                   .16
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   .02



</TABLE>
<partyblock><br><br><div align="center"><b><font size="+1">American Kinetics Lab, Inc., as 	Assignee of Mahamadou Camara, Appellant,<br><br>against<br><br>Warner Insurance Company, Respondent.</font></b></div><br><br><p>Law Office of Emilia I. Rutigliano, P.C., Marina Josovich, Esq., for appellant.Gullo &amp; Associates, LLC, Natalie Socorro, Esq., for respondent.</p><p>Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Terrence C. O'Connor, J.), entered June 16, 2015. The order denied plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and granted defendant's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.</p><p>ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with $25 costs.</p><p>In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Civil Court which denied plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and granted defendant's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, finding that defendant established that it had timely denied the claims at issue on the ground that plaintiff's assignor had failed to appear for duly scheduled independent medical examinations (IMEs). </p><p>Contrary to plaintiff's sole argument on appeal, defendant did not raise an issue of fact as to whether the first scheduled IME had been mutually rescheduled, let alone establish a mutual rescheduling as a matter of law (<a href="../2006/2006_26536.htm" target="_blank"><i>see generally Vitality Chiropractic, P.C. v Kemper Ins. Co.</i>, 14 Misc 3d 94</a> [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d &amp; 11th Jud Dists 2006]).</p><p>Accordingly, the order is affirmed.</p><p>Solomon, J.P., Pesce and Elliot, JJ., concur.</p><br><br>ENTER:<p class="auto-style1">Paul Kenny</p>Chief Clerk<br><br>Decision Date: March 31, 2017<br><br><div align="center"><form method="LINK" action="../../slipidx/at_2_idxtable.shtml"><input type="submit" value="Return to Decision List"></form></div></partyblock>
FP&F Seizure #: - - -

SEACATS# - - -

Date of Forfeiture: DCR Deposit Date:

Cash Receipt Number : Sale #: - -

Reason for Refund: Petition Restoration Court Order Other

State Reason Below

Special Instructions:

Amounts to be Refunded or Transferred:

Amount: Amount:

Pay To: Pay To:

Address: Address:

Amount: Amount:

Pay To: Pay To:

Address: Address:

ICE Headquarters Representative:

Name: HQ: Title:

Signature & Date: Phone: Fax:

SEIZURE#:

FUND:

FUNDS CENTER:

FUNCTIONAL AREA:

ORDER:

EOAF: Obligator - Signature/Date EOAF: Certifier - Signature/Date

Accomplished by NFC:

NFC Signature and Date

Form #7 Revised: October 2019

REQUEST FOR REFUND FROM FORFEITURE FUND

IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT

TREASURY FORFEITURE FUND

This form is to be used to request a refund of monies that were previously forfeited and deposited to the

Treasury Forfeiture Fund. All refund request, with backup documentation, must be submitted to the

U.S. Immigration & Customs Enforcement (ICE), HSI- Asset Forfeiture Unit at AFUrefunds@ice.dhs.gov

COST CENTER: 

MATERIAL GROUP: 

MA1199999988 AMOUNT:

ZFX5

98999000
**Exhibit 32.1**

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**

**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 Coinstar, Inc. (the “***Company***”) on Form 10-Q for the period endedMarch 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “***Form 10-Q***”), I, Paul D. Davis, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adoptedpursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: 

(1) The Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements ofSection 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and 

(2) Theinformation contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. 

Dated: April 29, 2010
<PAGE>   1
                                                                       EX - 21.1

                                 ClimaChem, Inc.
                               Subsidiary Listing
                              As of March 31, 2001


CLIMACHEM, INC.
   Northwest Financial Corporation
   Climate Mate, Inc.
   The Environmental Group International Limited
   LSB Chemical Corp.
          LSB Australia Pty. Ltd. (f/k/a Total Energy Systems Limited)
                 Total Energy Systems (NZ) Limited
          El Dorado Chemical Company
                 Slurry Explosive Corporation
          El Dorado Nitrogen Company (f/k/a LSB Nitrogen Corporation,
             f/k/a LSB Import Corp.)
          DSN Corporation
          Universal Tech Corporation
   The Environmental Group, Inc.
   International Environmental Corporation
   Climate Master, Inc.
   CHP Corporation
          Koax Corp.
   The Climate Control Group, Inc. (f/k/a APR Corporation)
   ClimateCraft, Inc. (f/k/a Summit Machine Tool Systems, Inc.)
   ACP International Limited (f/k/a ACP Manufacturing Corp.)
   ThermalClime, Inc. (f/k/a/ LSB South America Corporation)
   ClimaCool Corp. (f/k/a MultiClima Holdings, Inc., f/k/a LSB
     International Corp.)
   TRISON Construction, Inc.
Opinion issued August 27 , 2019

In The 

## Court of Appeals For The 

## First District of Texas

———————————— NO. 01
- 19
- 00338
- CV

——————————— KEVIN WILLIAMS AND S AVON OIL AND GAS TRA NSPORTATION LLC , Appella nt s V. LONE RANGER CAPITAL INVESTMENTS LLC , Appell e e

On Appeal from the 334th District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Ca se No. 2018
- 51792

MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellants Kevin Williams and Savon Oil and Gas Transport at ion LLC appeal from a judgment signed April 5, 2019

. Appellants ha ve ne ither paid the required fees nor established indigence for purposes of appellate costs. See T EX
. R.
A PP
. P. 5, 20.1; see also T EX
. G OV ’ T C ODE §§ 51.207, 51.208, 51.941(a), 101.041;2

Order Regarding Fees Charged in the Supreme Court, in Civil Cases in the C ourts of Appeals, and Before the Judicial Panel on Multi

- District Litigation, Misc. Docket
No. 1 5

- 91 58

. Appellants failed to respond to our notice issued on May 29, 2019 advising that, should appellants not pay the fee or establish indigence, this appeal was subject to dismissal. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 5 (allowing enforcement of rule); 42.3(c) (allowing involuntary dismissal of case). We dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. We dismiss all pending motions as moot. PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices Kelly, Hightower, and Countiss.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra, 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

December 7, 2012

Order 

December 7, 2012

2 Jan Macomb v AFSCME #144303

4 Jan Bailey v Schaaf #144055

7 Jan Harris v Auto Club #144579

Oral Arguments on Applications

1454340-2 Cherryland

145144 People v Barnhart

On order of the Chief Justice, the above cases are ADJOURNED from the 

January, 2013 Session Calendar and are to be placed on the March, 2013 Session 

Calendar for argument and submission.
#### BURKHARDT v. BACHRACH et al.

No. 12036.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. San Antonio.

Jan. 11, 1950.

No attorneys representing appellant.

Geo. H. Spencer, San Antonio, Theo. F. Weiss, San Antonio, Davis, Clemens, Knight & Weiss, San Antonio, for ap-pellees.

W. O. MURRAY, Chief Justice.

This habeas corpus proceeding was instituted by Florence R. Bachrach and her husband, Peter R. Bachrach, against William R. Burkhardt, wherein Mrs. Bachrach sought the custody of her minor daughter, Lorein Burkhardt. The trial was before the court without the intervention of a jury and resulted in judgment in favor of Mrs. Florence R. Bachrach, awarding to her the custody of said minor daughter, from which judgment William L. Burk-hardt has prosecuted this appeal.

Appellant has not favored us with a brief, appellees alone having done so. Prior to December 13, 1945, Florence R. Bachrach and William L. Burkhardt were husband and wife, and on that date a decree of *1023divorce was entered in the Circuit Court of Lake County, Illinois, the decree awarding the custody of the minor daughter, Lorein, to the husband. Thereafter, on April 21, 1947, the Illinois Court modified the above decree so as to allow visitations of the child by the mother, and on July 14, 1948, a decree was entered in the Illinois Court awarding the custody of the minor daughter, Lorein, to her mother. This suit is for the purpose of enforcing the last mentioned decree of the Illinois Court in this State.

Appellant contended in the trial court that he did not appear on July 14, 1948, in the Illinois Court, but had prior thereto removed the minor child, from Illinois to Texas, and that therefore, the judgment was not binding upon him. The trial judge, upon sufficient evidence, found that appellant had legal notice of the hearing in the Illinois Court on July 14, 1948, and that the same was in all respects binding upon him. We find no error in this holding and approve the action of the trial court in this respect.

The judgment of the Illinois Court, being a valid judgment and one in which the court had jurisdiction of the subject matter of the suit and of the defendant, was entitled to full faith and credit in this suit and was properly given effect by the trial court. It was also res judicata of all matters happening between the parties prior to its date. Miller v. Schneider, Tex.Civ.App., 170 S.W.2d 301; Goldsmith v. Salkey, 131 Tex. 139, 112 S.W.2d 165, 116 A.L.R. 1293; Oldham v. Oldham, Tex.Civ.App., 135 S.W.2d 564; Fraley v. Martin, Tex.Civ.App., 168 S.W.2d 536; Lacy v. Hitzeman, Tex.Civ.App., 190 S.W.2d 764; Evans v. Taylor, Tex.Civ.App., 128 S.W.2d 77; Duncan v. Duncan, Tex.Civ.App., 197 S.W.2d 229.

The trial court, upon sufficient evidence, found that there were no changed conditions since the rendition of the Illinois judgment and properly decreed that the provisions of the Illinois judgment should be carried into effect.

Finding no error in the judgment of the trial court, the same is in all things affirmed.