alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 20-0274

Filed January 21, 2021

TIMOTHY WEAKLEY,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

vs.

KEVIN YETMAR,

Defendant-Appellee.

________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Webster County, Angela L. Doyle, 

Judge.

Timothy Weakley appeals following the dismissal of his civil petition at law. 

AFFIRMED. 

Timothy Weakley, Johnson City, Tennessee, self-represented appellant.

William H. Habhab, Fort Dodge, for appellee.

Considered by Doyle, P.J., and Mullins and Greer, JJ.
2

MULLINS, Judge.

Timothy Weakley appeals following trial on, and dismissal of, his civil 

petition at law alleging Kevin Yetmar violated the real-estate-disclosure 

requirements contained in Iowa Code chapter 558A (2019) and engaged in 

fraudulent misrepresentation. He generally argues the court erred in concluding 

Yetmar’s disclosure was timely tendered and accurate. He also claims the court 

erred in “failing to reach whether [Yetmar’s] violation of [chapter] 558A was also a 

violation of the parties’ purchase agreement which entitles [Weakley] to recover 

his down payment pursuant to the terms of the agreement.”

Absent from the record on appeal are the transcripts from trial and hearings 

on motions for summary judgment.1 As the appellant, it was Weakley’s duty to 

provide us with a record adequate for us to decide the appeal. See In re F.W.S., 

698 N.W.2d 134, 135 (Iowa 2005). While some facts can be determined from the 

exhibit evidence, without the trial transcript, we are without a full picture and are 

unable to adequately determine the facts underlying Weakley’s claims. While the 

court’s ruling contains its factual determinations, “[t]he district court’s recitation of 

these matters in its ruling is not a substitute for the required appellate record.” 

Smith v. Iowa Bd. of Med. Exam’rs, 729 N.W.2d 822, 828 (Iowa 2007). It would 

be improvident for us to speculate on what the evidence and testimony2 at trial 

showed or did not show, and we decline to do so. F.W.S., 698 N.W.2d at 135–36. 

And we do not afford Weakley a deferential standard due to his status as a self-

 

1

In his initial combined certificate, Weakley stated “[t]he entirety of the trial 

transcript” is ordered. See Iowa Rs. App. P. 6.803(1), .804(2). He filed an 

amended combined certificate requesting the transcript not be ordered. 

2 The district court’s ruling makes clear testimony was received at trial. 
3

represented litigant. Kubik v. Burk, 540 N.W.2d 60, 63 (Iowa Ct. App. 1995). We 

have no choice but to affirm the dismissal of Weakley’s petition. 

AFFIRMED.
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 58 (Thursday, March 26, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 16011]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-06923]


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

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank 
or Bank Holding Company

    The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank 
Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and Sec.  225.41 of the Board's 
Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire shares of a bank or bank 
holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the 
notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).
    The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal 
Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for 
inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons 
may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for 
that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must 
be received not later than April 13, 2015.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City (Dennis Denney, Assistant 
Vice President), 1 Memorial Drive, Kansas City, Missouri 64198-0001:
    1. Scott Warren Cooper, Garnett, Kansas; to retain voting shares of 
Garnett Bancshares, Inc., and thereby indirectly retain voting shares 
of Patriots Bank, both in Garnett, Kansas.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, March 23, 
2015.
Michael J. Lewandowski,
Associate Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 2015-06923 Filed 3-25-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
# C_2015319EN.01000201.xml

| 26.9.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 319/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.9.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 319/2

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

25 September 2015

(2015/C 319/03)

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,1151 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 134,92 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4597 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,73475 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,3917 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,0922 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 9,5130 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 27,193 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 315,46 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,2218 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,4111 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 3,3767 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,5895 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4845 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 8,6420 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,7578 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,5860 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 326,92 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 15,3184 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 7,1082 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,6405 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 16 341,76 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,8912 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 52,126 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 73,2000 |
| THB | Thai baht | 40,322 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 4,3383 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 18,6723 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 73,7709 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,1151

JPY

Japanese yen

134,92

DKK

Danish krone

7,4597

GBP

Pound sterling

0,73475

SEK

Swedish krona

9,3917

CHF

Swiss franc

1,0922

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

9,5130

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

27,193

HUF

Hungarian forint

315,46

PLN

Polish zloty

4,2218

RON

Romanian leu

4,4111

TRY

Turkish lira

3,3767

AUD

Australian dollar

1,5895

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4845

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

8,6420

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,7578

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,5860

KRW

South Korean won

1 326,92

ZAR

South African rand

15,3184

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

7,1082

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,6405

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

16 341,76

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,8912

PHP

Philippine peso

52,126

RUB

Russian rouble

73,2000

THB

Thai baht

40,322

BRL

Brazilian real

4,3383

MXN

Mexican peso

18,6723

INR

Indian rupee

73,7709

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

1

Source

---
EXHIBIT 32.2








CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002








The undersigned, Xianping Wang, the Chief Executive Officer and Acting as Interim Chief Financial Officer of Xinhua China LTD., 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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Xinhua China LTD. for the six month period ended December 31, 2010, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that the information contained in the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of Xinhua China LTD.








Date: February 21, 2011





/s/  "Xianping Wang"Xianping Wang

Acting as Interim Chief Financial Officer





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signatures that appear in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Xinhua China LTD. and will be retained by Xinhua China LTD. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
# Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas

January 26, 2017

No. 04

- 16

- 00724

- CV

IN THE INTEREST OF R.S.

- T., A CHILD
, From the 25th Judicial District Court, Guadalupe County, Texas

Trial Court No. 14

- 2048

- CV Honorable W.C. Kirkendall, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R
In this accelerated appeal of the October 13 , 2016 order terminating the father’s and mother’s parental rights to their child
, the a ppellant s ’ brief s were due to be filed with this court

on Dec ember 1 9 , 2016

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 38.6(a). This court granted the mother’s and father’s first motion s for extension of time to file the brief until January 9, 2017 , and January 18, 2017, respectively

. See id. We cautioned Appellant s that “[f] urther motions for ex tension of time to file Appellant’s brief are discouraged

. ” S ee T EX

. R. J UD

. A DMIN

. 6.2 (a) (directing courts of appeals to dispose of SAPCR suits “[w]ithin 180 days of the date the notice of appeal is filed”). On January 12, 2017, the father moved this court for an extension of time to file his brief and an order compelling the trial court clerk to file a supplemental clerk’s record. On January 13, 2017, the mother moved this court for the same relief; her motion identified essenti al documents that were missing from the clerk’s record and needed in the supplemental clerk’s record. On January 24, 2017, the Guadalupe County District Clerk’s office notified this court that it intends to file a supplemental clerk’s record by Janu ary 27, 2017. Given the documents missing from the appellate record, the appellate record is not yet complete ; w e withdraw the brief due dates. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 38.6 (a). Appellants’ briefs will be due TWENTY DAYS after the supplemental clerk’s recor d is filed. See id. The State’s brief will be due TWENTY DAYS after the Appellants’ briefs are filed. See id. R. 38.6(b). We caution Appellants and the State that NO EXTENSIONS OF TIME TO FILE THE PARTIES’ BRIEFS WILL BE GRANTED.T he child’s “need f or permanence is the paramount consideration for the child’s present and future physical and emotional needs.” See Dupree v. Tex

. Dep ’ t of Protective & Regulatory Servs

. , 907 S.W.2d 81, 87 (Tex. App.

— Dallas 1995, no writ) . This court must render its decision “with the least possible delay,” and any further delays will hinder this court in its duty. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 35.3(c); In re J.L. , 163 S.W.3d 79, 82 (Tex. 2005) (quoting T EX

. F AM

. C ODE A NN

. § 263.405(a) (West 2014) ) ; see a lso T EX

. R. J UD

. A DMIN

. 6.2(a) (180 day disposition requirement)

. Appellants’ motions for this court to order the Guadalupe County District Clerk’s office to file a supplemental clerk’s record are MOOT.

_________________________________ Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 26th day of January, 2017

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle Clerk of Court
Exhibit 4.33

 

Summary of the Share Purchase Agreement between Cemig Capim Branco Energia S.A., Suzano Papel e Celulose S.A., and Suzano Holding S.A., internening by Comercial Agrícola Paineiras LTDA (“Paineiras”) e Epícares Empreendimentos e Participações LTDA (“Epícares”)

 

 

On March 12th, 2013, Cemig Capim Branco Energia S.A (“Cemig Capim Branco”) signed a Share Purchase Agreement with Suzano Papel e Celulose S.A. (“SPC”), and Suzano Holding S.A. (“Suzano”) to acquire 30.3030% of the Epícares, which owns 17.8947% of the Consórcio Capim Branco Energia.

 

For the acquisition to be concluded, SPC and Suzano transferred 30.3030% of the shares held in Epícares to Cemig Capim Branco.

 

The acquisition price is R$ 97 million.

 

The acquisition price was deposited in escrow account, and the variation until May 31th will be owned by Cemig Capim Branco and, after this date, will be owned by SPC and Suzano.

 

In the event the Share Purchase Agreement is rescinded, the infringing party will be subject to a penalty equivalent to 10% of the acquisition price.

 

The Share Purchase Agreement contains warranties, guarantees and obligations by Cemig Capim Branco, SPC and Suzano.

 

The closing of the transaction is subject to certain conditions, which include:

 

Approval by the National Electricity Agency (Agência Nacional de Energia Elétrica, or Aneel) and consents from financing banks, when necessary.

 

The acquisition was already approved by Economic Defense Administrative Council (Conselho Administrativo de Defesa Econômica, or Cade), on April 18, 2013.
II 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 311 

To amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to include certain employment 

as a health care practitioner as eligible for public service loan forgiveness, 

and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 12, 2021 

Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself and Mr. CORNYN) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions 

A BILL 

To amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to include 

certain employment as a health care practitioner as eligible for public service loan forgiveness, and for other 

purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Stopping Doctor 

5 Shortages Act’’. 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 311 IS

1 SEC. 2. AMENDMENTS TO TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF PUB2 LIC SERVICE LOAN FORGIVENESS. 

3 Section 455(m)(3) of the Higher Education Act of 

4 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1087e(m)(3)) is amended by adding at 

5 the end the following: 

6 ‘‘(C) FULL-TIME PROFESSIONALS EN7 GAGED IN HEALTH CARE PRACTITIONER OCCU8 PATIONS.—The term ‘full-time professionals en9 gaged in health care practitioner occupations’ 

10 includes an individual who— 

11 ‘‘(i) has a full-time job as a health 

12 care practitioner; 

13 ‘‘(ii) provides medical services in such 

14 full-time job at a nonprofit hospital or pub15 lic hospital or other nonprofit or public 

16 health care facility; and 

17 ‘‘(iii) is prohibited from being em18 ployed directly by such hospital or other 

19 health care facility by State law.’’. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
exhibit_4-6.htm










Exhibit 4.6


 


TRANSLATION FOR CONVENIENCE ONLY


 


BINDING VERSION IS THE ORIGINAL HEBREW


 


Date: April 15, 2012


 


To


 


The First International Bank of Israel Ltd.


 


Ramat Hachayal Branch (the “Bank”)


 


Dear Sirs,


 


Re: Amendment to Financial Covenants


 


Whereas, Perion Network Ltd. (the “Company”), is and/or will be indebted to the Bank for various amounts of money on account of credit, documentary credit, various loans, overdraft on the Company’s checking account, debit or other account, various letter of indemnification and guaranty, discounts of bills and other banking services made available and that will be made available to the Company and/or other persons guaranteed by the Company (the “Banking Services”); and


 


Whereas, In order to secure the Banking Services, on September 6, 2011, the Company has inter alia, executed an undertaking for the compliance with financial covenants (the “Undertaking”); and


 


Whereas, the Bank and the Company have agreed to amend the Undertaking in the manner described below;


 


THEREFORE, it is hereby agreed by the Company as follows:


 



	
  

	
1.

	
In Section 1.1 on the fifth paragraph which starts with the words “Intangible Assets on Account of Acquisitions”, in the fourth line, in lieu of the reference to Section 7.4, it shall refer to Section 9.4.







 



	
  

	
2.

	
In Section 1.2 of the Undertaking, in the first paragraph on the second line, in lieu of the amount specified therein “$6,000,000 USD”, it shall read “$3,000,000 USD”.







 



	
  

	
3.

	
In Section 1.2 of the Undertaking, on the second paragraph in the second line, in lieu of the amount specified therein “$8,000,000 USD”, it shall read “$4,000,000 USD”.







 



	
  

	
4.

	
Section 1.2 of the Undertaking, in the third paragraph on the second line, in lieu of the amount specified therein “$10,000,000 USD”, it shall read “$5,000,000 USD”.







 




  





  











  






 




	 	
5.

	
Section 1.3 of the Undertaking, in the first paragraph, in lieu of the words “shall not exceed 3.5”, it shall read “shall not exceed 3.5 in the financial statements of the first and the second quarter of 2012, and will not exceed 3 in the financial statements of the third and the fourth quarter of 2012 and   the first and the second quarter of 2013, and 2 in the financial statements of the third quarter of 2013 onwards.”









 



	
  

	
6.

	
Section 1.4 of the Undertaking, in the first paragraph, in lieu of the amount specified therein “$8,000,000 USD”, it shall read “$4,000,000 USD”.







 



	
  

	
7.

	
The remaining sections of the Undertaking shall not be amended and shall remain in full force and effect. Without derogating from the foregoing said, the Company acknowledges that this consent does not derogate from other undertakings of the Company towards the Bank, including any other covenant specified in the Undertaking.







 


Sincerely,


 


Perion Network Ltd.
```

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 84 (Tuesday, May 1, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 25781]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-10365]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Twenty-First Meeting: RTCA Special Committee 203, Unmanned 
Aircraft Systems

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), U.S. Department of 
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Meeting Notice of RTCA Special Committee 203, Unmanned Aircraft 
Systems.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of the 
twenty-first meeting of RTCA Special Committee 203, Unmanned Aircraft 
Systems.

DATES: The meeting will be held May 22-25, 2012, from 9:00 a.m.-5:00 
p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at RTCA, Inc., 1150 18th Street, 
NW., Suite 910, Washington, DC, 20036.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The RTCA Secretariat, 1150 18th Street 
NW., Suite 910, Washington, DC, 20036, or by telephone at (202) 833-
9339, fax at (202) 833-9434, or Web site at http://www.rtca.org.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to section 10(a) (2) of the Federal 
Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., App.), notice is 
hereby given for a meeting of Special Committee 203. The agenda will 
include the following:

May 22, 2012 Opening Plenary Session

 Welcome/Introductions/Administrative Remarks
 Approval of Twentieth Plenary Summary
 Chairperson/Leadership Updates
 Designated Federal Official (DFO) Update
 Schedule Status
 Workgroup Updates
 Plenary Adjourns

Mid Morning/Afternoon

 Workgroup Breakout Sessions
     Systems Engineering Workgroup
     C&C Workgroup
     S&A Workgroup
     Safety Workgroup

Wednesday, May 23

 All day-Workgroup Breakout Sessions

Thursday, May 24

 All day-Workgroup Breakout Sessions

Friday, May 25

 8:00 a.m.-10:00 a.m.--Workgroup Breakout Sessions
 11:00 a.m.-12:00 p.m.--Plenary Reconvenes
     Workgroup Back Briefs
     Other Business
     Closing Plenary Session
     Other Business
     Date, Place, and Time for Plenary Twenty-Two
     Plenary Adjourns

    Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space 
availability. With the approval of the chairman, members of the public 
may present oral statements at the meeting. Persons wishing to present 
statements or obtain information should contact the person listed in 
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. Members of the public may 
present a written statement to the committee at any time.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on April 24, 2012.

John Raper,
Manager, Business Operations Branch, Federal Aviation Administration.
[FR Doc. 2012-10365 Filed 4-30-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
```
#### In the Matter of Michael Ackalitis, Appellant, v John Murphy et al., Respondents.

[771 NYS2d 900]

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a de*382termination of the Board of Trustees of the New York City Employees’ Retirement System, dated May 30, 2002, which denied the petitioner’s application for ordinary disability retirement benefits, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Lebowitz, J.), dated December 19, 2002, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The issue of whether a member is disabled is determined by the Medical Board of the New York City Employees’ Retirement System (hereinafter the Medical Board) (see Administrative Code of City of NY § 13-167 [b]). The Board of Trustees of the New York City Employees’ Retirement System is bound by a Medical Board finding that an applicant is not disabled for duty (see *Matter of Borenstein v New York City Employees’ Retirement Sys.,*88 NY2d 756, 760 [1996]). The Medical Board’s determination is conclusive if it is supported by some credible evidence and is not arbitrary or capricious (see *Matter of Meyer v Board of Trustees of N.Y. City Fire Dept., Art. 1-B Pension Fund,*90 NY2d 139, 147 [1997]; *Matter of Borenstein v New York City Employees’ Retirement Sys., supra*at 761; *Matter of Barnett v Board of Trustees of N.Y. City Fire Dept., Art. 1-B Pension Fund,*264 AD2d 840 [1999]).

Here, the Medical Board performed its own physical examination of the petitioner, and concluded that he was not disabled. Although the medical conclusions of the petitioner’s treating physicians differed from those of the Medical Board, the resolution of such conflicts is within the sole province of the Medical Board (see *Matter of Borenstein v New York City Employees’ Retirement Sys., supra; Matter of Tobin v Steisel,*64 NY2d 254, 258-259 [1985]; *Matter of Barnett v Board of Trustees of N.Y. City Fire Dept., Art. 1-B Pension Fund, supra*at 841; *Matter of Santoro v Board of Trustees of N.Y. City Fire Dept. Art. 1-B Pension Fund,*217 AD2d 660 [1995]). Based upon the credible evidence before the Medical Board, its determination was neither irrational nor arbitrary or capricious (see *Matter of Borenstein v New York City Employees’ Retirement Sys., supra*at 760; *Matter of Barnett v Board of Trustees of N.Y. City Fire Dept., Art. 1-B Pension Fund, supra).*

The petitioner’s remaining contentions are without merit. Ritter, J.P., Santucci, Adams and Crane, JJ., concur.