alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Henschel, by Guardian *ad litem,*and others, Respondents, vs. Rural Mutual Casualty Insurance Company and others, Appellants.

*December 3*

December *5, 1957.*

*Curley & Sheedy*and *Patrick J. Sheedy,*all of Milwaukee, for the appellants.

*Charles Saggio*of Milwaukee, for the respondents.

Per Curiam.

This is an action for damages growing out of an automobile accident. Respondents bring a motion before this court for an order “requiring the defendant-appellants to print, serve, and file herein a proper brief and appendix of defendant-appellants, and for such other and further order as is just and equitable herein.”

In motions such as this the court does not have before it the brief and appendix of the appellants and cannot say whether or not they are proper or just how they do not comply with the rules, but must rely upon the allegations of the respondent. These allegations are usually denied by the appellant.

We are satisfied that the rules governing the contents of briefs and appendices are clear and unambiguous and we insist that they be followed. In all future matters if on the hearing of the appeal it appears that the brief and appendix do not substantially comply with the rules, this court will in *467its discretion deny appellant costs shoúld he be the prevailing party, and allow respondent double costs should the respondent prevail. Nothing herein shall be considered as depriving respondents of their right to serve a supplemental appendix. At the argument on the merits respondents may call to the attention of the court any noncompliance with the rules.

Motion denied.

Fairchild, J., took no part.
Exhibit 31.1



CERTIFICATIONS



I, Paul C. Honda, 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 Honda Auto Receivables 2012-4 Owner 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 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
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 as disclosed 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 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 unaffiliated party Citibank, N.A.







Date: June 10, 2015







|/s/ Paul C. Honda                                    | 
|---------------------------------------------------- | 
|Paul C. Honda                                        | 
|Vice President and Assistant Secretary               | 
|of American Honda Finance Corporation                | 
|(senior officer in charge of the servicing function) |
#### Feldstein, Appellant, v. Harrington and another, Respondents.

*November 5*

December *1, 1959.*

*570For the appellant there was a brief by *Reino A. Perala*of Superior, and *Friedmcm & Friedman*of Duluth, Minnesota, and oral argument by *Newton S. Friedman.*

For the respondents there was a brief by *Hughes, Anderson, Davis & Walker*of Superior, and oral argument by *John L. Davis.*

Dieterich, J.

This action is before this court a second time. *Feldstein v. Harrington*(1958), 4 Wis. (2d) 380, 90 N. W. (2d) 566. That action was tried to a court and jury. The only issue for jury determination was the issue of damages. The only question submitted to the jury in the former case was:

> “ ‘At what sum do you assess the damages of the plaintiff, Jacob Feldstein, for personal injuries, including pain and suffering, which you find were actually sustained by him as a result of the accident in question ?’ ”

The jury returned an answer of $700 to such question. This court granted a new trial because of erroneous rulings on admissibility of evidence and did not discuss the inadequacy of damages, although this court stated it would not disturb the jury’s findings as to damages if that were the sole issue.

In the present action the sole issue was as to damages, liability being admitted, and the trial court submitted the following question:

> “What sum will fairly compensate the plaintiff, Jacob Feldstein, as a natural consequence of the collision,

> *“A.*For personal injuries?

> “B. For hospital and medical expenses?”

*571The jury’s answers to these questions were as to (A) none, and (B) $700.

The medical expenses stipulated and testified to were as follows: St. Luke’s Hospital, $247.50; Dr. J. R. McNutt, for X rays, $62.50; Dr. Mendeloff, $255; total $565. There was testimony that the plaintiff also expended the sum of $85.80 per year for hot baths at $1.65 each. There is also testimony in the record that plaintiff had taken hot baths regularly prior to the accident, which is the subject matter of this suit.

No manipulation of the items of special damages allowed under sub. (B) of the special verdict results in the figure of the jury’s award in the amount of $700 to the plaintiff for medical and hospital expenses, which resulted as a natural consequence of the negligence of the defendant. In sub. (A) of the same question, the jury failed to award any amount for personal injuries. The verdict, therefore, is inconsistent. The inconsistency of the answers to subs. (A) and (B) in the special verdict creates a perverse verdict and requires the granting of a new trial. *Lines v. Milwaukee*(1911), 147 Wis. 546, 133 N. W. 592; *Olsen v. Brown*(1925), 186 Wis. 179, 202 N. W. 167; and *Murphy v. Lachmund Lumber & Coal Co.*(1927), 194 Wis. 119, 215 N. W. 822.

In view of our granting a new trial on damages, it becomes unnecessary to discuss other questions raised by the briefs and arguments of counsel.

*By the Court.*— Judgment reversed, and cause remanded for a new trial on the issue of damages only.
----

----

|   | 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 Corporation. |
|--------|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                   |   |   |   |                                                            |
|------------------------|--------|--------|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| Date: January 11, 2011 |   |   |   | /s/ Frank Lamendola                                             |
|                   |   |   |   | Frank Lamendola                                                 |
|                   |   |   |   | Chief Financial Officer and Acting Principal Accounting Officer |

----

----
12/07/201 1 11:3 1 FAX 2024935N 2 FAA - OMS @|002/00J 

r? :oo : 

federal A\.iaTloD AdmininmMon, * 

Comptainant, it 

i,K„^^ •••^PARTfv;ENTOF 

OFFICE OF HE.VR1NGS 

WASHINGTON, D C 

I>oeke* No. 

F A A Cwe No, 2010WF700010 

NOTICE OF nrAHTSG 

* UNAVAILABULITV 

J. 

Kej^pondenr, * 

***********"*"****" ^** «.^,„^ 

-^^^.' App.y/.r. Docicct Cick, Feri^al Av1.,on Adm.i.r..a n 

y.at a.> heann.. be scheduled dunng thi. penod. 

CbnstophcT Merrill, Attorney 

Office of the Regional COURECI, ^W?. ? 3 

° 0 . Box 92007 

Los Angeles. C A 90009-2007 

PKone: (3:0>725-7ins 

Focsufliie:(^10)725-6HI6 

Pedera) Aviation AdmmistratiOTi 

I.a^vndale, Caliiomifl 

^^Ao^^ TSUDA 

P-eeipnai Counsel 

^. /V-C 

Attorney 

• '-^^'- . j']; i 
12/07/2011 11":31 FAX 2024935142 FAA r OMS g|003/003 

looa 

Ccnifiraie i>f Service 

I bcTeVT>' certift- thai on This dale I have scm by ficsimils and placed in the Uniic-d Stains 

mill, postage picpairt, The executed Qriginal of thr, NnTicc of Hsnring UTiavaJI«biLt>-, ?iHdr«2cii *s 

follow?,; 

FodfTTT.! Aviation Ailmmiatreuon 

800 Tndert^filic:^ Avenuo, SW 

Waahington, DC ?0591 

Atto: .\ppcllatc Dc-cVe.r Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building—Sune 2W] QOO 

Facsimile: (202) 493-514? 

1 further canifv thai on thi?: date I hsve placed iji the UnitrH SIRTCS mflil, pofitfl4:e prepaid, 

rrrrified mail -remm receipt requeued, and regular mail, D true copy nf the above, addreaeed aa 

follows: 

M & M Tanks, Inc. 

ATtn; Michael Wdtrcnhnff 

]036MikolaSt. 

Honolulu, HI 96819 

Ditcd: !JE:^ 7 :i):l 

^ ^ 

.^ 

Jt'ff Kamb 

Litgal Teclffijciaii 

Office of the Rcgionnl Coun^rl 

Federal Aviation Aiiminiatraticn 

•ft'ertrrn-Paciflc Region 

La-wnrfale, California
<PAGE>


                                                                    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 Winwheel Bullion, Inc. on
Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended September 30, 2008 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Sungjin
Kim, Principal Executive Officer, certify to my knowledge and in my capacity as
an officer of the Company, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 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, 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 as of the dates and for the periods
                  expressed in the Report.

Date: November 19, 2008                      /s/ Sungjin Kim
                                             --------------------------------
                                             Sungjin Kim
                                             Chief Executive Officer



The foregoing certification is provided solely for purposes of complying with
the provisions of Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-6568

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JERMEER MARSHALL, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Norman K. Moon, District Judge. (CR-00-60; CA-03-358-7) Submitted: August 25, 2005 Decided: September 2, 2005 Before TRAXLER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jermeer Marshall, Appellant Pro Se. Ray B. Fitzgerald, Jr., OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Jermeer Marshall seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion to reconsider a prior order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a habeas proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000); Reid v. Angelone , 369 F.3d 363, 370 (4th Cir. 2004) (applying the certificate of appealability requirement to appellate review of the denial of a Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion). A certificate of appealability will not issue for claims addressed by a district court absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of his constitutional claims is debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. SeeMiller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Marshall has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the- 3 - materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED
ANTHONY KEITH COUNCIL,

Petitioner,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Respondent.

___________________________/

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D15-5450

Opinion filed March 4, 2016.

Petition for Belated Appeal -- Original Jurisdiction.

Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender, and Glen P. Gifford, Assistant Public Defender, 

Tallahassee, for Petitioner.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Samuel B. Steinberg, Assistant Attorney 

General, Tallahassee, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

Petitioner is granted a belated appeal of the August 28, 2015, judgment and 

sentence in Bay County Circuit Court case number 13-3537-CF. Upon issuance of 
2

mandate in this cause, a copy of this opinion shall be provided to the clerk of the circuit

court for treatment as the notice of appeal. Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(c)(6)(D). If 

petitioner qualifies for appointed counsel, the trial court shall appoint counsel to 

represent petitioner on appeal. 

ROBERTS, C.J., MAKAR, and OSTERHAUS, JJ., CONCUR.
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS 

Appeal of -- ) 

) 

Northrop Grumman Corporation ) 

) 

Under Contract No. F33657-0l-C-4600 et al. ) 

APPEARANCES FOR THE APPELLANT: 

APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: 

ASBCA No. 59562 

Terry L. Albertson, Esq. 

Stephen J. McBrady, Esq. 

Crowell & Moring LLP 

Washington DC 

E. Michael Chiaparas, Esq. 

DCMA Chief Trial Attorney 

Carol L. Matsunaga, Esq. 

Senior Trial Attorney 

Defense Contract Management Agency 

Carson, CA 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

The dispute has been settled. The appeal is dismissed with prejudice. 

Dated: 6 September 2017 

Administrative Judge 

Chairman 

Armed Services Board 

of Contract Appeals 

I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the Order of Dismissal of the Armed 

Services Board of Contract Appeals in ASBCA No. 59562, Appeal of Northrop Grumman 

Corporation, rendered in conformance with the Board's Charter. 

Dated: 

JEFFREY D. GARDIN 

Recorder, Armed Services 

Board of Contract Appeals
# L_2011341EN.01003101.xml

| 22.12.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 341/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.12.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 341/31

---

COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1367/2011

of 19 December 2011

entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications [Figue de Solliès (PDO)]

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Pursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, France's application to register the name ‧Figue de Solliès‧ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Pursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, France's application to register the name ‧Figue de Solliès‧ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).

| (2) | As no statement of objection under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, that name should therefore be entered in the register, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

As no statement of objection under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, that name should therefore be entered in the register,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The name contained in the Annex to this Regulation is hereby entered in the register.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 19 December 2011.

For the Commission, On behalf of the President,

Dacian CIOLOȘ

Member of the Commission

---

(1)  
  OJ L 93, 31.3.2006, p. 12.

1

(2)  
  OJ C 119, 16.4.2011, p. 15.

2

---

ANNEX

Agricultural products intended for human consumption listed in Annex I to the Treaty:

Class 1.6.   Fruit, vegetables and cereals, fresh or processed

FRANCE

Figue de Solliès (PDO)

---
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Kelsey, Petty and Senior Judge Bumgardner 

KEVIN MICHAEL COLBURN 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION*

v. Record No. 1269-10-4 PER CURIAM 

 OCTOBER 12, 2010 

E. C. ERNST, INC. AND 

 HARTFORD INSURANCE COMPANY 

 OF THE MIDWEST 

 FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION 

 (Julie H. Heiden; M. Thomas McWeeny; Koonz, McKenney, 

Johnson, DePaolis & Lightfoot, L.L.P., on brief), for appellant. 

 (Francis H. Foley; Law Office of Jonathan P. Jester, on brief), for 

appellees. 

 Kevin Michael Colburn appeals a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Commission 

finding he failed to adequately market his residual work capacity. We have reviewed the record 

and the commission’s opinion and find this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we affirm for 

the reasons stated by the commission in its final opinion. See Colburn v. E C Ernst, Inc., VWC 

File No. 236-46-16 (May 27, 2010). We dispense with oral argument and summarily affirm 

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the Court 

and argument would not aid the decisional process. See Code § 17.1-403; Rule 5A:27. 

Affirmed.

 *

 Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication.
i

: .,. How Murray H. Name., Jr. Opinion No. S-82

County Attorney Crayson County 

### Sherrncm, Texas Re: h4andatory or permfssive charecter of the tax 

### aweas8or -collector ‘8 f**UliCttoB to**  Dear Mr cName: iasua ,$a~cartificaterr.

This will acknowledge receipt of your re3uest for the 

### opinion of this office upon the construction of House 81 1 769, 53rd

‘Le@irlature, which was enacted aa Chapter 436, Acts 53rd Leglrrlature, 1953, and is codified as Article 7258a, Vernon’s Civil Statutes.

The pertinent portion of Article 7258a, V.C,S., an amend: ed ,‘Xaas follows:

0

. . . the Tax Collactor or his deputy

. I

. shall., ~uponrequest, isaue a certificate showing the amount of taxes, interest.. penalty and 

### costs due, ff any, on the property described in eaid cartilicate.” We concur in your opinion to the tax assessor-colXacto,r of Grayson County holding that this statute is mandatory and not dkrec**tmy.** See Nueces County vmCurrington, 139 Tex, 297, 16,2S.WZd 687 0942) SUMMARY

Article 7258a,,V.C.S., as amended by the 53rd La&Mature, is mandatory and not directoly. Yours very truly, APPROVED: 

### W, V, Gepmt, Ta*atfon Di*ision C, K. Richards RatieweT JOHN BEN ~SHEPPERD Attorney General

As:sistant Wtllfn E, Cr esham Reviewer Robast S, Trotti Ffrat Assts:tant

. .
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.1
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
SECTION 1350 OF TITLE 18 OF THE U.S. CODE
  1.
    
    the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended September 30, 2007
(the Report), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934; and2.
    
    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
  Date: November 8, 2007/s/ Terence E. Hall

Terence E. Hall
Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer
Superior Energy Services, Inc.
N OTE : This order is nonprecedential

. 

# United States **Court of Appeals**  **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________

In re : AMY R. GURVEY, Petitioner

______________________

2023

- 134

______________________
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York in No. 1:06

- cv

- 01202

- LGS

- HBP, Judge Lorna G. Schofield.

______________________
ON PETI TION

______________________

P ER C URIAM

. O R D E R
Amy R. Gurvey petitions for a writ of mandamus to “disqualif[y]” the magistrate judge and district court judge

, vacate the district court’s orders “retroactive to 2012,” and direct that her case be transfer red . ECF No. 2

- 1 at 21

– 22.

The district court entered final j udgment against Ms. Gurvey in 2017 . She appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit , which affirmed in 2018

. In 2020 and 2021 , t he district court denied Ms. Gurvey’s request s to vacate the judgment. W e transferred her appeal s f rom those ruling s ( and her associated petition for a writ of mandamus ) to the Second Circuit, which dismissed Case: 23-134 Document: 16 Page: 1 Filed: 08/16/2023IN RE : GURVEY 2

them

. In 2022, t he district court entered an anti

- filing injunction against Ms. Gurvey. This petition appears to arise out of Ms. Gurvey ’s recen t attempt s to file submissions at the district court seek ing disqualification and vacatur of the prior rulings, which have been returned to her unadjudicated.
The All Writs Act provides that the federal courts “mayissue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles of law.” 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a). As that statute makes clear, however, the A ct is not itself a grant of jurisdiction. See Clinton v. Goldsmith , 526 U.S. 529, 534

– 35 (1999). As we have repeatedly explained to Ms. Gurvey, we do not have jurisdiction over her case. See 28 U.S.C. § 1295. Under the circumstances, we dismiss, having concluded that it would not be in the interest of justice to transfer to the Second Circuit under 28 U.S.C. § 1631.
Accordingly,

I T I S O RDERED T HAT : The petition is dismissed

.

August 16 , 2023 Date F OR THE C OURT

/s/ Jarrett B. Perlow Jarrett B. Perlow Clerk of Court Case: 23-134 Document: 16 Page: 2 Filed: 08/16/2023