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



UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549
 FORM 8-K
 CURRENT REPORT
 PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
  Pioneer Companies, Inc.
  Commission File Number 000-31230
 DELAWARE
(State or other jurisdiction of 
Incorporation or organization)
    
    06-1215192
(IRS Employer
Identification No.)
 700 LOUISIANA, SUITE 4300, HOUSTON, TEXAS 77002
   o
 o
 o
 o




---



##### 



Item 8.01 Other Events
  Item 9.01 Financial Statements and Exhibits
  Exhibit Number
    
    Description99.1
    
    Press Release dated August 28, 2007.




---



##### 



SIGNATURES
   PIONEER COMPANIES, INC.By:
    /s/ Gary L. PittmanSenior Vice President andChief Financial Officer




---



##### 



EXHIBIT INDEX
 Exhibit Number
    
    Description99.1
    
    Press Release dated August 28, 2007.
Mr. Dennis DeVany Chief 

Essential Air Service Division 

Office of Aviation Analysis 

Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, 

Washington, D~C. 205go 

Reference; DOT-OST-2009-0300, Alpena, Michigan Air Service 

Dear Mr. DeVany, 

I am a native of Alpena, Michigan and lived there until age 22 when I graduated from college. I moved 

to Southern California one year later in 1968, married and have lived here ever since. 

Over the last 44 years, I have had the good fortune to spend summer vacations in Alpena ... travelling 

alone or with my husband and subsequently with our three children. Alpena has much to offer with its 

natural beauty, resources and its friendly people. It is a beautiful spot to enjoy water sports, summer 

activities, clean air and pristine, well-maintained highways, beautiful greenery, but most of all it has 

been a haven to enjoy my family. 

When I learned that there would no longer be flights into Alpena, I was saddened and angry. While we 

can fly into Detroit, Saginaw or Traverse City, the drive to Alpena (even though it is scenic) from these 

_ citi~s is no! ~a~y_. It often means additional time and hassle to rent a car and an added travel expense_. 

There have been many enticing tv commercials touting the state as PURE Michigan in an attempt to lure 

people there to visit or to reside. Yet, getting to northern Michigan destinations will be even more 

difficult if the airlines are not servicing the very places they are touting. As an example, Traverse City, 

even though it is smaller than Alpena, has more tourism than Alpena because of airline service and the 

Interstate Highway, 75, from the south. Alpena is the largest city in Michigan north of Bay City. It 

certainly serves a significant population base to warrant a first class commuter airline. 

Susan Anderson
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-1394
In Re: DONNA J. FERNICOLA; ROBERT E. FERNICOLA, Petitioners.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (4:08-cv-00516-TLW-TER) Submitted: August 11, 2008 Decided: October 28, 2008 Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Donna J. Fernicola, Robert E. Fernicola, Petitioners Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Donna J. Fernicola and Robert E. Fernicola petition for a writ of mandamus directing the district court to enter default judgment in their favor in the underlying action. Our review of the district court docket sheet reveals that the district court has remanded the underlying case to Utica City Court in Utica, New York. See GPO Federal Credit Union v. Fernicola , No. 4:08-cv00516-TLW-TER (D.S.C. July 11, 2008). Accordingly, we deny this mandamus petition as moot. We also deny as moot the Fernicolas’ motion for a stay. 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. PETITION DENIED
EX-31 Rule 13a-14(d)/15d-14(d) Certification.

  WFRBS Commercial Mortgage Trust 2012-C7 (the "Trust")

  I, Douglas Tiesi, President and Managing Director of RBS Commercial
  Funding Inc., the depositor into the above-referenced Trust, certify that:

  1.I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K, and all reports Form
    10-D required to be filed in respect of periods included in the year
    covered by this annual report, of the Trust (the "Exchange Act periodic
    reports");

  2.Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a
    whole, do 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 annual 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.Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statements required
    in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as
    disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic report, the servicers have
    fulfilled their obligations under the pooling and 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 on
    assessment 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 the following unaffiliated parties:
    CoreLogic Commercial Real Estate Services, Inc. as Vendor for Wells
    Fargo Bank, N.A. as Master Servicer, National Tax Search, LLC as Vendor
    for Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. as Master Servicer and Prudential Asset
    Resources, Inc. as Sub-Servicer for Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. as Master
    Servicer, Prudential Asset Resources, Inc. as Sub-Servicer for Wells
    Fargo Bank, N.A. as Master Servicer, Torchlight Loan Services, LLC as
    Special Servicer, TriMont Real Estate Advisors, Inc. as Trust Advisor,
    Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. as Master Servicer, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. as
    Certificate Administrator and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. as Custodian.

    Dated:   March 27, 2013


    /s/ Douglas Tiesi
    Signature

    President and Managing Director
    (senior officer in charge of securitization of the depositor)
# Official Journal C 257/20 J

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 257 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 6120 July 2018 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 257

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 6120 July 2018

---

| Contents | page |
| --- | --- |
| | I   Resolutions, recommendations and opinions |
| | RECOMMENDATIONS |
| | Court of Justice of the European Union |
| 2018/C 257/01 | Recommendations to national courts and tribunals in relation to the initiation of preliminary ruling proceedings | 1 |

Contents

page

I   Resolutions, recommendations and opinions

RECOMMENDATIONS

Court of Justice of the European Union

2018/C 257/01

Recommendations to national courts and tribunals in relation to the initiation of preliminary ruling proceedings

1

---

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
SERVED: May 4, 2016 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION . ..: ; • ~ ! \ ¥' , 

In The Matter Of: 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

Docket No. FAA-2014-0551 

Air Medical Resources Group, Inc. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Case No. 2014WP910076 

Respondent 

DISMISSAL ORDER 

On May 3, 2016, the Respondent filed a Notice of Withdrawal of Request for Hearing, 

stating that the parties had reached a settlement in this matter. 

Pursuant to 14 C.F.R. § 13.215, a party may withdraw a request for a hearing without the 

consent of the administrative law judge at any time before or during a hearing. Upon such 

withdrawal, the administrative law judge shall dismiss the case with prejudice. 

THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that these proceedings are dismissed with prejudice. 

Attachment: Service List 

~. 

~~ Administrative Law Judge 
SERVICE LIST - BY U.S. MAIL 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2Wl0001 

ONE COPY 

Gregory S. Wiriton, Respondent's Counsel 

The Aviation Law Firm 

1997 Annapolis Exchange Parkway, Suite 300 

Annapolis, MD 21401 

TEL: 301-294-8550 

FAX: 866-568-9886 

Adam Runkel, Complainant's Counsel 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Office of the Chief Counsel 

Enforcement Division-Western Division 

1601 Lind Avenue, S.W. 

Renton, WA 98056 

TEL: 425-227-2914 

FAX: 425-227-1007 

Email: adam.runkel@faa.gov 

The Honorable Douglas M. Rawald, Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 -

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue; S.E. (El 1-310) 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-5121 Staff Assistant 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

Docket No. FAA-2014-0551 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

1 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following 

address: Federal Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright 

Building-Suite 2Wl000, Washington, DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430.
#### MAXWELL v. STATE.

No. 17209.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Jan. 30, 1935..

B. B. Chappell, of Dublin, for appellant.

Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.-

HAWKINS, Judge.

Conviction is for assault with intent to rape, punishment being three years in the penitentiary.

No statement of facts or bills of exception are found in the record. Nothing is presented for review. However, we notice that in pronouncing sentence upon appellant the court overlooked application of the Indeterminate Sentence Law. Article 775, C. C. P., as amended by Acts 1931, c. 207, § 1 (Vernon’s Ann. C. C. P. art. 775). The sentence is reformed, and it is directed that appellant be confined in the penitentiary for not less than two nor more than three years.

As so reformed, the judgment is affirmed.
#### SCHLITTLER v. KING.

No. 13095.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Fort Worth.

Feb. 1, 1935.

Rehearing Denied March 15, 1935.

Wm. R. Watkins, of Fort Worth, for appellant.

Bert King, of Wichita Falls, and Marshall & King, of Graham, for appellee.

LATTIMORE, Justice.

Our former opinion is withdrawn and this abbreviated opinion, to the same effect, is substituted.

This is an appeal from a default judgment in trespass to try title. The appellant, by a motion for new trial filed more than *two*months after the entry of the default, sought to have the case restored to the trial docket.

The statement of facts is wholly composed of the evidence adduced on the hearing of the motion. It contains evidence of what the appellant conceives to be the facts upon which appellee based his suit, but there is no word of testimony as to what the evidence, if any, was upon which the trial court based the default judgment. We observe that the land described in the judgment is the same land as is described in a constable’s deed under execution in another cause — No. 9294 — district court of Young county. That sale under execution is claimed to have been insufficient for want of advertising of notices thereof by newspaper, but the defendant was cited to appear in trespass to try title suit after that constable’s sale had been made in the presence and with the knowledge of the appellant, and no fact is offered or attempted to be offered by the appellant to excuse his failure to defend or to sooner express his intention to ' question that decree. On the contrary, the record affirmatively shows that *549appellee showed the draft of the judgment in this case to appellant, who expressed no dissent thereto, and that, relying on this judgment, appellee, at considerable labor and expense, procured an oil well to be drilled in connection with this land; that appellant still made no resistance or objection to appel-lee’s judgment until the well was in productive oil stratum, when he then filed this motion. We are of the opinion that this laches justifies the action of the trial court in overruling the motion.

Appellant insists that it is not necessary to show diligence when he relies on the fact that the evidence before the court at the default trial was itself insufficient to justify the judgment, but we cannot say, what evidence was before the court at the taking of such judgment. Article 7383, R. S.

The motion for rehearing is overruled.
# C_2023338EN.01001102.xml

| 25.9.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 338/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.9.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 338/11

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret (Denmark) lodged on 6 July 2023 — Slagelse Almennyttige Boligselskab — Afdeling Schackenborgvænge, XM, ZQ, FZ, DL, WS, JI, PB, VT, YB, TJ, RK v MV, EH, LI, AQ, LO, Social-, Bolig- og Ældreministeriet

(Case C-417/23, Slagelse Almennyttige Boligselskab — Afdeling Schackenborgvænge)

(2023/C 338/16)

Language of the case: Danish

Referring court

Østre Landsret

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Slagelse Almennyttige Boligselskab — Afdeling Schackenborgvænge, XM, ZQ, FZ, DL, WS, JI, PB, VT, YB, TJ, RK

Defendants: MV, EH, LI, AQ, LO, Social-, Bolig- og Ældreministeriet

Questions referred

| 1. | Must the term ‘ethnic origin’ in Article 2(2)(a) and (b) of Directive 2000/43 (1) be interpreted as meaning that that term, in circumstances such as those in the present case — where, under the Danish Law on social housing, there must be a reduction in the proportion of social family housing in ‘transformation areas’, and where it is a condition for categorisation as a transformation area that more than 50 % of residents in a housing area are ‘immigrants and their descendants from non-Western countries’ — covers a group of persons defined as ‘immigrants and their descendants from non-Western countries’? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must the term ‘ethnic origin’ in Article 2(2)(a) and (b) of Directive 2000/43 (1) be interpreted as meaning that that term, in circumstances such as those in the present case — where, under the Danish Law on social housing, there must be a reduction in the proportion of social family housing in ‘transformation areas’, and where it is a condition for categorisation as a transformation area that more than 50 % of residents in a housing area are ‘immigrants and their descendants from non-Western countries’ — covers a group of persons defined as ‘immigrants and their descendants from non-Western countries’?

| 2. | If the answer to the first question is wholly or partly in the affirmative, must Article 2(2)(a) and (b) be interpreted as meaning that the scheme described in this case constitutes direct or indirect discrimination? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the answer to the first question is wholly or partly in the affirmative, must Article 2(2)(a) and (b) be interpreted as meaning that the scheme described in this case constitutes direct or indirect discrimination?

---

(1)  Council Directive 2000/43/EC of 29 June 2000 implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin (OJ 2000 L 180, p. 22).

---
Exhibit



Exhibit 10.6



AMENDMENT NUMBER FOUR 
TO
THE ALICO OVERSEAS PENSION PLAN




The Alico Overseas Pension Plan is hereby amended, effective as of the date set forth below, as follows:




Section 8.01 shall be replaced with the following, effective July 1, 2017:
8.01 The Plan Administrator shall be the administrator of the Metropolitan Life Retirement Plan for United States Employees.


In Witness Whereof, this Amendment Number Four to the Alico Overseas Pension Plan is hereby adopted and approved.






By: /s/ Mark J. Davis________________________        
Mark J. Davis 
Plan Administrator




Date: 6/19/17_____________________________        






Witness: Elyse Moore_____________________
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

CYNTHIA WILLIAMS, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) Civil Action No. 24-113 (UNA)

)

(VIVINT) DAVID BYWATER, )

)

Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter is before the Court on review of pro se plaintiff’s application to proceed in 

forma pauperis and civil complaint. The Court GRANTS the application and, for the reasons 

stated below, DISMISSES the complaint and this civil action without prejudice. 

The Court has reviewed plaintiff’s complaint, keeping in mind that complaints filed by 

pro se litigants are held to less stringent standards than are applied to formal pleadings drafted by 

lawyers. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). Even pro se litigants must comply 

with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Jarrell v. Tisch, 656 F. Supp. 237, 239 (D.D.C. 

1987). Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires that a complaint contain a 

short and plain statement of the grounds upon which the Court’s jurisdiction depends, a short and 

plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, and a demand for 

judgment for the relief the pleader seeks. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). The purpose of the minimum 

standard of Rule 8 is to give fair notice to the defendants of the claim being asserted, sufficient to 

prepare a responsive answer, to prepare an adequate defense and to determine whether the 

doctrine of res judicata applies. Brown v. Califano, 75 F.R.D. 497, 498 (D.D.C. 1977). 
2

Plaintiff purports to bring two claims: breach of contract and violation of the Privacy Act. 

The breach of contract presumably occurred when she “received a phone call telling [her that 

her] system was being taken out,” yet she did not receive a phone call from Vivint. Compl. at 1. 

According to plaintiff, David Bywater is the person who removed the system, and he allegedly 

also accepted “Bribes in exchange for excess [sic] to [plaintiff’s] residence.” Id. The Privacy 

Act violation presumably occurred when unidentified persons gained access to plaintiff’s

residence, and when “in the middle of the night [she] was spoken to” through a speaker. Id. She 

demands an award of $2 billion for the “mental stress” she has experienced. Id. 

So few cogent facts are alleged that the named defendant would not have adequate notice 

of the legal claims against him. For example, plaintiff alleges breach of a contract and fails to 

describe the contract’s terms. And if plaintiff intends to bring a claim under the Privacy Act, see

5 U.S.C. § 552a, the claim would fail because the Act applies only to an agency of the Executive 

Branch of the federal government, see 5 U.S.C. §§ 551, 552a(a)(1). 

As drafted, the complaint fails to meet the minimal pleading standard set forth in Rule 8, 

and it will be dismissed. An Order is issued separately.

DATE: February 26, 2024 RUDOLPH CONTRERAS

United States District Judge
Cite as 2017 Ark . 240 

## SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS
No. CV

- 17

- 412

NATASHA FURNISH APPELLANT
V.
ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES AND MINOR C HILDREN APPELLEES Opinion Delivered: August 3, 2017
APPEAL FROM THE CRAIGHEAD COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT , WESTERN DISTRICT [NO. 16JV

- 15

- 410 ]
HONORABLE CINDY THYER , JUDGE
PETITION FOR R EVIEW GRANTED; COURT OF AP PEALS’ OPINION VACATED; CAS E REMANDED TO COURT OF APPEALS

.

PER CURIAM On May 15, 2017, appellant Natasha Furnish filed a petition for review of the court of appeals’ May 3, 2017 memorandum opinion summarily affirming the circuit court’s order terminating her parental rights to three of her children. We grant the petition for review, vacate the court of appeals’ opinion, and remand this case to the court of appeals for a full opinion as required by this court’s recent deci sion in Brookshire Grocery Co. v. Morgan , 2017 Ark. 221 (per curiam).
In Brookshire , a workers’ compensation case in which the appellant had filed a petition for review of the court of appeals’ memorandum opinion, we overruled In re Memorandum Opinions , 16 Ark. App. 301, 700 S.W.2d 63 (1985) (per curiam), and amended Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 5

- 2(e), both of which the court of appeals had relied on as authority for issuing memorandum opinions in certain cases. We then vacated the court of appeals’Cite as 2017 Ark. 240

2 opinion and remanded to that court for a full and meaningful analysis of the issues raised on appeal. In light of Brookshire , we vacate the court of appeals’ May 3, 2017 opinion in the present case and remand to that court for a full analysis . We further note our concern with the use of a memorandum opinion in a case involving the termination of parental rights. As Furnish asserts in her petition for review, the use of such opinions in termination cases is inconsistent with the procedural and constitutional safeguards that have bee n required by
this court in these cases. Petition for review granted; court of appeals’ opinion vacated; case remanded to court of appeals.
**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 MAP V Acquisition, Inc. (the “Company”)      on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities      and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Lawrence E.      Koehler, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.      906      of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

|                             |                                                   |                                                |
|----------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------|
| August                  13, 2007 |                                                        | /s/                      Lawrence E. Koehler   |
|                             | Lawrence                      E. Koehler               |
|                             | Principal                      Financial Officer  |

----
#### MINYARD v. STATE.

No. 18174.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

April 8, 1936.

Willis, Studer & Studer, of Pampa, for appellant.

Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

HAWKINS, Judge.

The conviction of appellant was for driving an automobile upon a highway at a time when she was intoxicated; punishment assessed being a fine of $100.

The record contains neither statement of facts nor bills of exception. In such condition nothing is presented for review.

The judgment is affirmed.

MORROW, P. J., absent.