alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### OLLOQUI v. DURAN.

No. 1956-6592.

Commission of Appeals of Texas, Section A.

April 1, 1936.

*437Frank R. Graves, of Fort Worth, for plaintiff in error.

B. W. Ashworth, C. E. Farrall, and A. A. Kern, all of Dallas, for defendant in error.

GERMAN, Commissioner.

Defendant in error, Anselmo Duran, who will be referred to herein as plaintiff, brought this suit in the county court of Dallas county at Law No. 2, against plaintiff in error, Hermila T. Vda Olloqui, referred to herein as defendant. Plaintiff sued for the sum of $266.31, balance on a note, with interest and attorney’s fee, and to foreclose a mortgage lien on certain personal property. A judgment was rendered in favor of plaintiff with foreclosure of the mortgage lien, and this judgmént was affirmed by the Court of Civil Appeals. 60 S.W.(2d) 808, 809.

The writ of error was granted upon conflict in decisions. It was urged in the Court of Civil Appeals that the county court was without jurisdiction because the petition did not allege the value of the personal property upon which the mortgage lien was foreclosed. The Court of Civil Appeals held that this was not jurisdictional. The precise holding is as follows: “In a suit to foreclose a chattel mortgage, it is not essential that the value of the property be shown to confer jurisdiction, but in order to oust the court of such jurisdiction, it is essential to affirmatively show that the amount in controversy exceeds its jurisdictional amount.”

This holding is in conflict with the holding of the Supreme Court and of Courts of Civil Appeals in numerous cases. The Supreme Court has in the case of Campsey v. Brumley, 55 S.W.(2d) 810, directly settled the proposition that, in a case in the county court seeking to foreclose a mortgage lien, a petition which does not allege the value of the mortgaged property is not sufficient to support a judgment, and the question is one which can be raised on appeal as fundamental error.

The only allegation in the petition tending to show value of the property was the allegation that “the amount of the purchase price being $516.31.” This was not sufficient. Smith v. Horton, 92 Tex. 21, 46 S.W. 627.

The judgments of the county court and of the Court of Civil Appeals are set aside, and the cause is remanded.

Opinion adopted by the Supreme Court.
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



The
undersigned hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, that, to their knowledge, the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A (Amendment No 1) for the year ended December 31, 2014 of
Joblocationmap Inc. (the “Company”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and the information contained in such periodic report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of, and for, the periods presented in
such report.



Very truly
yours,





|/s/Omri Morchi                  | 
|------------------------------- | 
|Signature:  Omri Morchi         | 
|Title:   President
and Director | 
|(Principal
Executive Officer,)  | 



|/s/Eden
    Shoua                                                  | 
|------------------------------------------------------------------ | 
|Eden Shoua                                                         | 
|Secretary, Treasurer
    and Director                              | 
|(Principal Accounting
    Officer and Principal Financial Officer) | 



Dated:
October 20, 2015



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

(No. 12507.)

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

April 24, 1929.

Rehearing Denied May 22, 1929.

J. A. Carlisle, of Sherman, for appellant.

A. A. Dawson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

LATTIMORE, J.

Conviction for possessing intoxicating liquor for purposes of sale;' punishment, two years in the penitentiary.

There appears in this record but one bill of exceptions, which is made up of ten pages of questions and answers, without any certificate of the trial judge that such form is in any wise necessary in order that any matter may be understood by this court. Such bill is uniformly held to be in violation of the rules laid down by the statute and decisions of this court. We are not favored with a brief on behalf of appellant. Examination of the facts discloses that same are amply sufficient to support the verdict and judgment.

No error appearing in the record, the judgment will be affirmed.

HAWKINS, J., absent.

On Motion for Rehearing.

HAWKINS, J.

Appellant predicates his motion on the proposition that our opinion is contrary to former decisions of this court, but we are referred to none. The following are a few cases which support our original opinion: Jetty v. State, 90 Tex. Cr. R. 346, 235 S. W. 589; Snitz v. State, 100 Tex. Cr. R. 259, 272 S. W. 464; Rylee v. State, 90 Tex. Cr. R. 482, 236 S. W. 744; Reese v. State, 94 Tex. Cr. R. 220, 249 S. W. 857, and under note 23, article 667, Vernon’s C. C. P., volume 2, will be found collated 32 other eases.

The motion for rehearing is overruled.
#### LEATH v. STATE.

No. 20170.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Feb. 15, 1939.

Walter Friberg and S. Heyser, both of Wichita Falls, for appellant.

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

CHRISTIAN, Judge.

The offense is driving an automobile on a public highway while under the influence of intoxicating liquor; the punishment, a fine of $50 and confinement in jail for 5 days.

It does not appear that appellant was sentenced. In the absence of a sentence this court is without jurisdiction.

The appeal is dismissed.

PER CURIAM.

The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the Court.
1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 46337

STATE OF IDAHO ,

Plaintiff

- Respondent ,

v.

ANAND JAMES STANLEY WARNER ,

Defendant

- Appellant

. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Filed: May 3, 2019

Karel A. Lehrman, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION AND SHALL NOT BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Ada County. Hon. Nancy Baskin , District Judge.

Order relinquishing jurisdiction and sentence, affirmed

.
Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Sally Cooley , Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming , Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.

________________________________________________ Before HUSKEY, Judge ; LORELLO, Judge; and BRAILSFORD, Judge

________________________________________________

PER CURIAM
Anand James Stanley Warner pleaded guilty to possession of a controlled substance

, Idaho Code § 37

- 2732(c) . The district court imposed a unified five

- year sentence, with two
years determinate , suspended the sentence, and place d Warner on a term of probation. After a
probation violation, t he district court retained jurisdiction, and Warner was sent to participate in
the rider program. After Warner completed his rider, the district court relinquished jurisdiction

and reduce d Warner’s sentence to a unified four and one

- half year sentence, with one and one

half years determinate

. Warner appeals, claiming that the district court erred by relinquishing
jurisdiction and by failing to further reduce Warner’s sentence.2 We note t hat the decision to place a defendant on probation or whether, instead, to
relinquish jurisdiction over the defendant is a matter within the sound discretion of the district
court and will not be overturned on appeal absent an abuse of that discretion. St ate v. Hood , 102
Idaho 711, 712, 639 P.2d 9, 10 (1981); State v. Lee , 117 Idaho 203, 205

- 06, 786 P.2d 594, 596

- 97 (Ct. App. 1990). The record in this case shows that the district court properly considered the
information before it and determined that prob ation was not appropriate. We hold that Warner
has failed to show that the district court abused its discretion in relinquishing jurisdiction.
Applying the foregoing standards, and having reviewed the record in this case, we cannot
say that the district court abused its discretion either in re linquishing jurisdiction or in failing to

further reduce Warner ’s sentence witho ut modification. Therefore, th e order of the district court
relinquishing jurisdiction and Warner ’s sentence are affirmed.
#### CANTRELL v. STATE.

No. 18767.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Feb. 3, 1937.

B. L. Palmer, of Houston, for appellant.

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

LATTIMORE, Judge.

Conviction for assault to murder; punishment, three years in the penitentiary.

There is no brief on file for the appellant, nor are there any bills of exceptions in the record. The facts sufficiently show that appellant • and her husband were separated, and that she went to the place where he lived, called him out and tried to get him to go back and live with her, and that he refused, telling her that they had tried it three or four times, and it resulted in nothing but arguments and fights, and he would not go back. After talking ten or fifteen minutes, upon the husband’s refusal to live with appellant, she asked him to take her home, and when he turned to go in the house to get his coat and hat she pulled a pistol from her coat pocket and shot him. As a result of the shot, he lost a leg. We see no necessity for further discussion of the facts.

The judgment will be affirmed.
**Exhibit 31.1**

 

Rule 13a-14(d)/15d-14(d) Certification

 

I, James A. Israel, 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 John Deere Owner Trust 2012-B (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 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 am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the servicers and based on my knowledge and the compliance reviews conducted in preparing the servicer compliance statements required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicers have fulfilled their 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 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 party: U.S. Bank National Association (as indenture trustee).

 
|                        | JOHN   DEERE OWNER TRUST 2012-B |
|-----------------------------|---------------------------------|
|                        |                            |   |   |
|                        |                            | By:    John Deere Capital Corporation |
|                        |                            | (Servicer) |
|                        |                            |   |   |
|                        |                            |   |   |
|                        |                            |   |   |
| Date: January 25, 2013 |                            | By: | */s/   James A. Israel* |   |
|                        |                            |   |   |
|                        |                            |   | James A. Israel |
|                        |                            |   |   |
|                        |                            |   | President |

 

----
Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-18-0000190 30-APR-2019 08:18 AM
##### 



Exhibit 32.1
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)
  (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 Partnership.
  /s/ Joseph A. MillsJoseph A. MillsChairman and Chief Executive Officer
of
Eagle Rock Energy G&P, LLC General Partner of
Eagle Rock Energy GP, L.P., General Partner of
Eagle Rock Energy Partners, L.P.
Attachment 4: Going Green – View Your FEHB Brochure Online or 

Contact Your Plan for a Paper Brochure 

Please remember that paper copies of health plan brochures will not be 

automatically mailed to Federal Employees Health Benefits (FEHB) Program 

members. 

Health plan brochures are available online at www.opm.gov/FEHBbrochures or 

on your health plan’s website. Accessing brochures online will help to lower 

administrative costs and protect natural resources. 

Your FEHB health plan will contact you to offer the option of obtaining your 

2016 benefit brochure online or requesting a paper copy of the benefit brochure. 

If you did not previously request a paper copy of your health plan’s 

brochure, you will not automatically receive one. If you change plans, your 

new health plan will mail you a paper copy of its brochure. 

If you choose to review the online version of your plan’s benefit brochure, you 

will still receive the Open Season package your plan normally mails to you. This 

package will include an explanation of benefit changes and your new premium 

rate for 2016. 

Go to www.opm.gov/FEHBbrochures to view your FEHB health plan brochure 

and to get more information about our Going Green initiative.
EX-34.3
McGladrey LLP


(logo) McGladrey


Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm


To the Board of Directors
Pentalpha Surveillance, LLC


We have examined management's assertion, included in the accompanying
Management's Report on Assessment of 2012 Compliance with Applicable Servicing
Criteria (Management's Assertion), that Pentalpha Surveillance, LLC (the
Company) complied with the servicing criteria set forth in item 1122(d) of the
Securities and Exchange Commission's (SEC) Regulation AB for services by the
Company that are encompassed by contractual obligations to perform Regulation
AB reporting (the Platform), including only those asset-backed securities
transactions defined below, as of and for the year ended December 31, 2012,
excluding the following criteria set forth in items 1122(d)(1)(i-iv),
1122(d)(2)(i-vii), 1122(d)(3)(ii-iv), 1122(d)(4)(i-vi) and
1122(d)(4)(viii-xv), which management has determined are not applicable to the
activities performed by the Company with respect to the Platform. Appendix A to
Management's Assertion identifies the individual asset-backed transactions
identified by management as constituting the Platform. Management is
responsible for the Company's compliance with its contractual obligations and
its assertion. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on Management's
Assertion based on our examination.

Our examination was conducted in accordance with attestation standards
established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, as
adopted by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) and,
accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Company's
activities related to the Platform and other procedures as we considered
necessary in the circumstances. Our procedures were limited to selected
servicing activities performed by the Company during the period covered by this
report. Further, an examination is not designed to detect noncompliance arising
from errors that may have occurred prior to the period specified above that may
have affected the balances or amounts calculated or reported by the Company
during the period covered by this report.

We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion.
Our examination does not provide a legal determination on the Company's
compliance with the servicing criteria or its contractual obligations.

In our opinion, Management's Assertion as of and for the year ended December
31, 2012 for the Platform, is fairly stated, in all material respects.


/s/ McGladrey LLP


Irvine, CA
February 25, 2013


Member of the RSM International network of Independent accounting, tax and
consulting firms.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman

, Chief Justice

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , 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.

April 4, 2017

a0327 

# Order

Clerk April 4, 2017

153537

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 153537

COA: 323162

Wayne CC: 13

- 004236

- FC

AQUIRE BERNARD SIMMONS,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_____________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 15, 2016

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

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
```

[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 235 (Wednesday, December 8, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 76494-76495]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-30758]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NATIONAL FOUNDATION ON THE ARTS AND THE HUMANITIES

National Endowment for the Arts; Proposed Collection; Comment 
Request

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The National Endowment for the Arts (NEA), as part of its 
continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, conducts a 
preclearance consultation program to provide the general public and 
Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed and/or 
continuing collections of information in accordance with the Paperwork 
Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA95) [44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(A)]. This program 
helps to ensure that requested data can be provided in the desired 
format, reporting burden (time and financial resources) is minimized, 
collection instruments are clearly understood, and the impact of 
collection requirements on respondents can be properly assessed. 
Currently, the NEA is soliciting comments concerning the proposed 
information collection on arts participation in the U.S. A copy of the 
current information collection request can be obtained by contacting 
the office listed below in the address section of this notice.

DATES: Written comments must be submitted to the office listed in the 
address section below on or before February 1, 2011. The NEA is

[[Page 76495]]

particularly interested in comments which:
     Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is 
necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, 
including whether the information will have practical utility;
     Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the 
burden of the proposed collection of information including the validity 
of the methodology and assumptions used;
     Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the 
information to be collected; and
     Minimize the burden of the collection of information on 
those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate 
automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection 
techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting 
electronic submissions of responses.

ADDRESSES: Sunil Iyengar, National Endowment for the Arts, 1100 
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Room 616, Washington, DC 20506-0001, 
telephone (202) 682-5424 (this is not a toll-free number), fax (202) 
682-5677.

Kathy Plowitz-Worden,
Office of Guidelines and Panel Operations, National Endowment for the 
Arts.
[FR Doc. 2010-30758 Filed 12-7-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7537-01-P
```
Albany Atlanta Brussels Denver 

# McKenna Long &Aldridgew · 1676 International Drive • Penthouse Mclean, VA22102 Northern Virginia Orange County Rancho Santa Fe San Diego Los Angeles Tel: 703.336.8800 mckennalong.com San Francisco Miami Seoul New York Washington, DC MARK E. MCKINNON 703.336.8708 EMAIL ADDRESS mmckinnonf@mckennalong.com

U.S. Department ofTransportation Docket Management System 1200 New Jersey Ave., SE Washington, DC 20590 January 7, 2015

Re: FAA-2014-0845- Response to Request for Additional Information in Support ofPerfect View Aerial Media's Petition for Exemption Pursuant to Section 333 ofthe FAA Modernization and Reform Act of2012 Dear Sir or Madam: In response to a request for additional information in support ofthe above Petition for Exemption, Perfect View Aerial Media states as follows: 1. The aircraft's cruising speed is 40 miles per hour. 2. Perfect View Aerial Media will not perform any flight operations within 5 nautical miles ofthe airport reference point as denoted on a current FAApublished aeronautical chart without prior written permission from the airport operator and applicable air traffic control. 3. Please update the Petitioner's current mailing address, which is: 5379 Lyons Rd Suite 108 Coconut Creek FL 33073U.S. Department ofTransportation January 7, 2015 Page2
Ifyou have additional questions orneed furtl1er information, please do not hesitate to call.
MCKENNALONG & ALDRIDGE



# ~~ **--**

Mark E. McKinnon, Esq.
Exhibit 32.2
 CERTIFICATIONS
PURSANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED BY SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  1.
    
    The accompanying quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2010 as filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (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.
 Date:  May 14, 2010
    By:
    /s/ Dale E. OberkfellName:
    Dale E. OberkfellTitle:
    Chief Financial Officer