alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                            SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                               OCT-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                 JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                            1,189
<SECURITIES>                                          0
<RECEIVABLES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCES>                                          0
<INVENTORY>                                       2,618
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  6,107
<PP&E>                                           73,026
<DEPRECIATION>                                   23,885
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   57,285
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            12,020
<BONDS>                                               0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                 0
<PREFERRED>                                           0
<COMMON>                                             42
<OTHER-SE>                                       38,561
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     57,285
<SALES>                                          66,238
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 66,238
<CGS>                                            17,307
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    60,828
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     42
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                      0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                1,083
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   4,285
<INCOME-TAX>                                      1,701
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               2,584
<DISCONTINUED>                                        0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                       0
<CHANGES>                                             0
<NET-INCOME>                                      2,584
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      0.59
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      0.59
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATE OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

This Certificate is being delivered pursuant to the
requirements of Section 1350 of Chapter 63 (Mail Fraud) of Title 18 (Crimes and Criminal Procedures) of the United States Code and shall not be relied on by any person for any other purpose.

I, David B. Turner, hereby certify as follows:

The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q (Report) of CCF Holding Company (the issuer), which accompanies this Certificate, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, and all information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the issuer.

Dated this 14th day of August, 2008.



/s/ David B. TurnerDavid B. Turner, President and Chief Executive Officer


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
has been provided to the issuer and will be retained by the issuer and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.



18
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 23-1331

___________________________

James M. Raper, Jr.

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant

v.

Mark Gober; Drew County Detention Center; Does, All Guards and Employees of 

Drew County Detention Center; Susan Potts, Ambassador Drew County Jail; 

Robert Akin, Drew County Judge

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendants - Appellees

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Central

____________

Submitted: June 16, 2023

Filed: June 26, 2023

[Unpublished]

____________

 

Before GRUENDER, SHEPHERD, and STRAS, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.

James Raper, Jr., appeals the grant of summary judgment to jail officials who 

allegedly delayed medical treatment for a spider bite and turned off the water to the
-2-

toilet in his cell. Having carefully reviewed the record1 and the parties’ arguments 

on appeal, we conclude that no material facts are in dispute and the officials are 

entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Johnson v. Leonard, 929 F.3d 569, 574–

75 (8th Cir. 2019) (reviewing a grant of summary judgment de novo and explaining 

that a deliberate-indifference claim requires showing that the “defendants knew of” 

an objectively serious medical need “yet deliberately disregarded it” (citation

omitted)); Smith v. Copeland, 87 F.3d 265, 268–69 (8th Cir. 1996) (holding that four 

days in a cell with raw sewage from an overflowed toilet was not “cruel and unusual 

punishment”). We accordingly affirm the judgment of the district court.2

 See 8th 

Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________

1

We deny the pending motion to present evidence. See Fed. R. App. 

P. 10(a)(1) (making district-court exhibits part of the record on appeal).

2

The Honorable James M. Moody, Jr., United States District Judge for the 

Eastern District of Arkansas, adopting the report and recommendations of the 

Honorable Edie R. Ervin, United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of 

Arkansas.
**Coordinating Council on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention**

**Quarterly Meeting, May 11, 2012**

**Attendance List**

1
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



I,
Yi Li, certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:



| | 1. | The
    Annual Report on Form 10-K of TMSR Holding Company Limited (the “Company”) for the fiscal year ended December
    31, 2019 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange
    Act of 1934 (U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); 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:
    May 14, 2020 | By: | /s/ Yi
    Li                                                                                                                
|---------------------- | --- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                       |     | Yi
    Li                                                                                                                    
|                       |     | Chief
                                         Financial Officer
        (Principal
        Financial and Accounting Officer)



The
foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and
(b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code) and is not being filed as part of a separate disclosure document.
Hoa. T. X. TriLmhle, pnm 2 

malntcuaanoa of 8amolhounee should be f88oz 

~11) tt005 BS th6 ht ttd 15t0 Ofr00t. 

not have b6an oonknplated t&it, ianteed of tha 

law bsd5g 0rre0tm ita66dbt6iy OT in 90 days 

artor ttaj oumuant at the ram2.06t, it nhoulu not 

eat into l mot untir the rouous.~ mar, and yet 

tbnt WOtila be the b&OH1 l%lUlt if the jUt&Xlnt 

of the loucr oourt a!loald IIE sustained. . . . * 

!&la deoldon 1618 r0u0w by the comadaaion of .4pjmnls in Bltndtt v. Hegar@ Qoanty J&o fndopcadent Who& 

This antm oonowrneb the toxsMUty y a 

Mstxlot, 285 SW. 27l (o-an a"&" h~~t~;y;tad~;'. 

loaatad in tsrrltory snnexoC to the dietrlot dur3.q the year. 

In holding eaah proparty taxable by the Qlatrlot ths &reds8ion, Jutl4-p Raney writing, said: 

“The Qeoiaioa in tkw OalBo or Cedom 1. mete* 

(Tttx. Oiv. App.) 185 9.W. 367, is eathority for 

tbs proposition that, when an independent 8ohool 

dlstriotis oreet+dattertJmlstof January cd 

6 utv65 yenr, all property tit&b mob mwly orel t66 distrfot, whloh waa own06 b tho tewer 05 

Jmrmy 1st 0r that yuir, %a su 

suthoriao6 by law, wheth6r sash taxeri hsva 

authorlmd theretofore ar any be author%rul t& 

the pew8r to levy at any t3.m 

The Baprom court denied a writ or erlwr. 

*fl@ aan8iQur the propoaltion souml. A l'air 

aonsldw&lon or the atatutosmldrig pxwislonior 

tb ommtlonoi indepa~toohooldiatrioteleatns 

50 reSWMbl6 l!pound to oonalua6 thnt th6 xaginlnturn intaat4a the 50 UabUSty ror taxes rw 

sohool purpomom in a nohaql (Ustriat should rrlso 

aatll the gear r03..wft56 the amet2on a? the al*- 

triat; nor did the LoC18lnture Intend that tha 

rules or ltitrrr gore- taxntlon ‘0; mz;marposon, or property in now 

aihoula b6 dirrertm mft 3Y- oat6 wtioh govorn &L 

tar&ion or property ia a newly oreate& dietriot. 

. . . 

".... 

“A considuretlon or the . . . at-Atutory prcm 

viai . . . 1eai.b to the ofmoluslon that all taxable pmprty nituetod on Junuary lrrt, OS anlp 

Kiten yem, in u territory whloh la subsequently, duxine eruch y-r', annex& to rp lndepndent 

fiO'mo1 dlatrL0t . . . beomwo, by mob nnxmxatfan, 

ycer an &ei levied War proptar eutg%ority.” 
. ,
TRACY RAY HASS VS. STATE OF TEXAS No. 12-14-00189-CR IE COURT OF APPEALS 

### TYLER, TEXAS / -^{SD/sfr/ct

Respectfully submitted,
/S/ Cindy Bardwell Cindy Bardwell, CSR, RPR Certification Number 5693 

### 59th Judicial District Court 200 South Crockett Sherman, Texas 75090 (903)813-4314 

### bardwellc@co.grayson.tx.us 

# Apff29 20fi TO THE HONORABLE JUSTICES OF SAID COURT: / ' 

# CATHYkEP, TEXAS Attachedplease find State's Exhibits 15, 16, and 17thatyouliaVeTe^tteffidli^liCLERK according to your letter ofApril 23, 2015. These particular exhibits would not convert to 

### any valid extension that is accepted by the Court ofAppeals. Ifyou have any questions, please feel free to contact me.
December 26, 2012 

 Exemption No. 10679 

 Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2012-1208 

Ms. Sheryl L. Oxley 

Tulsa Tech 

801 East 91st Street 

Tulsa, OK 74132 

Dear Ms. Oxley: 

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your request for exemption. It transmits our 

decision, explains its basis, and gives you the conditions and limitations of the exemption, 

including the date it ends. 

The Basis for Our Decision 

By letter dated May 2, 2012, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on 

behalf of Tulsa Tech, for an exemption from § 147.21 of Title 14, Code of Federal 

Regulations (14 CFR). This exemption, if granted, would permit a 42 hour exemption for 

attendance and volunteering at KidVenture/Oshkosh AirVenture. 

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition 

in the Federal Register because the requested exemption would not set a precedent, and any 

delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to Tulsa Tech, and would not serve in the 

public’s interest. 

Analysis 

The FAA has issued similar exemption grants in circumstances similar in all material respects 

to those presented in your petition. In grant of Exemption No. 7772 (copy enclosed), the 

FAA has found in the past for students that participated in competitions and in preparations to 

participate in workshops and safety briefings provided by FAA or other aviation professionals 

that the student reinforces skills learned at an Aviation Maintenance Technician School 

(AMTS) along with an expanded scope of general aviation technology advances observed and 

applied by the participating student. 
2 

Our Decision 

Under the authority contained in 49 U.S.C. §§ 40113 and 44701, which the FAA 

Administrator has delegated to me, I hereby grant Tulsa Tech an exemption from 14 CFR 

§ 147.21 to the extent necessary to permit authorized Tulsa Tech faculty members of the 

aviation maintenance technician school to attend and determine if student time spent as a 

volunteer participant at KidVenture/ Oshkosh Air Venture may be considered creditable to 

satisfy the requirements of § 147.21 curriculum hourly requirements, subject to the following 

conditions and limitations. 

1. This exemption is valid only for substitution of the curriculum requirements of 

§ 147.21 as detailed in the Tulsa Tech letter dated May 2, 2012 for the purpose of student 

participation in KidVenture/Oshkosh Air Venture participating activities. 

2. Only authorized faculty members of Tulsa Tech whose students participate in the 

 KidVenture/Oshkosh Air Venture activities may determine if student time dedicated to 

preparing for and participating in the KidVenture activities may be considered creditable to 

satisfy the requirements of § 147.21 

3. Creditable time is limited to a maximum of 42 hours per participating student per year. 

This exemption terminates on May 2, 2014, unless sooner superseded or rescinded. 

Sincerely, 

/s/ 

John S. Duncan 

Deputy Director, Flight Standards 

 Service 

Enclosure
#### Dauman Displays, Inc., Appellant, v Paul Masturzo et al., Respondents.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Irma Vidal Santaella, J.), entered June 4, 1990, which, *inter alia,*granted the individual defendants’ motion for summary judgment, unanimously reversed, on the law, summary judgment denied, and the complaint reinstated, without costs.

This case involves an action for moneys due for goods sold and delivered to the corporate defendant AWI Associates Inc., and on the alleged personal guarantees of the individual defendants. The central issues concern whether two agreements, dated October 20, 1988 and January 20, 1989, constituted, as plaintiff contends, modification agreements of a *205contract dated March 21, 1988 and whether the individual defendants may be held liable on personal guarantees of payments due to, plaintiff. The individual defendants moved for summary judgment, alleging that they intended for the March 21, 1988 contract to cease to have any effect when the parties entered into the subsequent agreements, and that, as a direct consequence, their guarantees ceased to have effect. The IAS court agreed, summarily holding that the new agreements voided the guarantees contained in the March 21, 1988 agreement, and that "the individual officers cannot be held personally liable.”

Plaintiff now contends, correctly, that the IAS court erred when it granted the individual defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Issue finding, not issue determinátion, is the purpose of a summary judgment motion. *(See, Assaf v Ropog Cab Corp.,*153 AD2d 520, 521 [1st Dept 1989].) Thus, summary judgment is to be granted only when there are no genuine issues of material fact. *(Compare, Friedman v Pesach,*160 AD2d 460 [1st Dept 1990].) In determining whether summary judgment is appropriate, the motion court should draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party and should not pass on issues of credibility. *(Assaf v Ropog Cab Corp., supra.)*

Our examination of the record reveals that there are genuine issues of fact regarding whether the agreements at issue constituted modification agreements or new contracts, and thus whether the individual defendants’ guarantees are valid or void. We accordingly reverse, deny the motion for summary judgment, and reinstate the complaint. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Carro, Kassal and Wallach, JJ.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

DALLAS DIVISION 

MR. and MRS. LONDER B. DAVIS, § 

 Plaintiffs, § 

 § 

v. § No. 3:22-cv-01136-N (BT) 

§ 

CLYDE McGUIRE, et al., 

 Defendants. 

§ 

§ 

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION 

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

After making an independent review of the pleadings, files and records in this case, and 

the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge dated 

September 8, 2022, the Court finds that the findings and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge 

are correct, and they are accepted as the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the Court. 

IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the 

Magistrate Judge are accepted. 

 On September 13, 2022, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint (doc. 13). The Court has 

reviewed the amended complaint and determined that it is not in compliance with Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure 8(a). Therefore, Plaintiffs have not remedied the deficiency set forth in the 

Magistrate Judge’s Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation. 

SO ORDERED this 17th day of October, 2022. 

 ________________________________ 

 DAVID C. GODBEY 

CHIEF JUDGE

Case 3:22-cv-01136-N-BT Document 14 Filed 10/17/22 Page 1 of 1 PageID 204
Case 4:22-cr-00042-O Document 29 Filed 03/16/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID 49
Case 4:22-cr-00042-O Document 29 Filed 03/16/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID 50
| (logo)  WELLS FARGO | **Commercial  Mortgage Servicing**D1050-084,  8th Floor  401 South Tryon Street  Charlotte, NC 28202  1-800-326-1334 |
|---------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

**ANNUAL STATEMENT OFCOMPLIANCE**

 

 

Referenceis hereby made to that certain Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of June1, 2015, by and among WELLS FARGO COMMERCIAL MORTGAGE SECURITIES, INC., asDepositor, WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as General Master Servicer,MIDLAND LOAN SERVICES, A DIVISION OF PNC BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as GeneralSpecial Servicer, NATIONAL COOPERATIVE BANK, N.A., as NCB Master Servicer,NATIONAL COOPERATIVE BANK, N.A, as NCB Special Servicer, TRIMONT REAL ESTATEADVISORS, INC., as Trust Advisor, WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, asCertificate Administrator, as Tax Administrator and as Custodian and WILMINGTONTRUST, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Trustee, with respect to Commercial MortgagePass-Through Certificates Series 2015-C29 (the "Agreement"). Capitalizedterms used herein not otherwise defined shall have the meanings assigned in theAgreement.

 

Pursuantto Section 11.12 of this Agreement, I, Daniel Bober, Executive Vice Presidentof Commercial Mortgage Services do hereby certify that:

 

1.A review of the activities of the General Master Servicer during the periodfrom January 1, 2017 through December 31, 2017 (the “Reporting Period”), and ofits performance per the Agreement during such period has been made under mysupervision, and

 

2.To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the General Master Servicer,has fulfilled all of its obligations under this Agreement in all materialrespects throughout the Reporting Period.

 

 

INWITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this Certificate as of the 28thday of February 2018.

 

 

/s/Daniel Bober

DanielBober

ExecutiveVice President 

WellsFargo Bank

 

 

WellsFargo Bank, N.A.                                                                         (logo)Together we’ll go far
U.S. flag
      An official website of the United States government, Department of Justice.
        Here's how you know
      Here's how you know**Official websites use .gov**
            
            A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
      **Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**
            
            A **lock** (
            A locked padlock
            ) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites. Menu

      
        close

            
            
                                              About
          Charter
          Legislation
          Members
          Meetings
          Reports & Resources

                            
                                About
          Contact Us
                  Share
FacebookXLinkedInRedditPinterestEmail Home
 Diane Justice
Diane Justice is a Senior Program Director at the National Academy for State Health Policy (NASHP) and manages the organization's portfolio of work in the areas of state delivery systems for chronic care, behavior health, long term services and supports, and dual eligibles. She is leading NASHP's work in evaluating the CMS funded State Demonstrations to Integrate Care for Dual Eligibles, and the Assessment of the Early Implementation of 2703 Health Homes; and participates in the evaluations of the Multi-payer Primary Care Practice Demonstration and State Innovation Models. She is also directing a project funded by the MacArthur Foundation to support states in enhancing health coverage and access for juvenile justice-involved youth. She has led work supported by SAMHS on Medicaid Financing of Evidence Based Practices; provided content support to the SAMHSA State Policy Academy on Implementation of the Olmstead Decision, and conducted a five part series of training on Medicaid for SAMHSA staff. She served as Deputy Secretary on Aging at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Executive Director of the National Association of State Units on Aging and has a long history of providing technical assistance to states on delivery systems and payment reform.
  
Date Created: July 10, 2020
 Top

      Coordinating Council on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

        
        
                        Facebook
          
                      X
          
                      YouTube
  

      Secondary Footer link menu
            Accessibility
              Plain Language
              Privacy Policy
              Legal Policies and Disclaimer
              No FEAR Act
              Freedom of Information Act
              USA.gov
              Justice.gov