alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

December 16, 2019

No. 04-19-00820-CV

Grant R. MICHAEL,

Appellant

v.

WALTON SIGNAGE, LTD.,

Appellee

From the 225th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2019-CI-21334

Honorable Angelica Jimenez, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

On November 27, 2019, appellant filed a motion for emergency stay of the trial court’s 

temporary injunction. After considering the motion and appellee’s response filed on December 6, 

2019, we DENY the motion for emergency stay. 

_________________________________

Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 16th day of December, 2019.

___________________________________

MICHAEL A. CRUZ,

Clerk of Court
<page> 	  EXHIBIT 31.01


CERTIFICATIONS

I, Jeffrey A. Rothman, President of Demeter Management Corporation
("Demeter"), the general partner of the registrant, certify that:

1.		I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of the
registrant;

2.	Based on my knowledge, this report does 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, the financial statements, and other
financial information included in this report, fairly present
in all material respects the financial condition, results of
operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for,
the periods presented in this report;

4.		The registrant's other certifying officer and I are
responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure
controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules
13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

a)	Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or
caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be
designed under our supervision, to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, including its
consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others
within those entities, particularly during the period in
which this report is being prepared;

b)	Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure
controls and procedures and presented in this report our
conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure
controls and procedures, as of the end of the period
covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

c)	Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's
internal control over financial reporting that occurred
during the registrant's most recent fiscal quarter (the
registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an
annual report) that has materially affected, or is
reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's
internal control over financial reporting; and

<page>
5.		The registrant's other certifying officer and I have
disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal
control over financial reporting, to the registrant's
auditors and the audit committee of Demeter's board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

     a)	All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in
the design or operation of internal control over financial
reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect
the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and
report financial information; and

     b)	Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves
management or other employees who have a significant role
in the registrant's internal control over financial
reporting.





Date:  May 17, 2004        /s/	Jeffrey A. Rothman
		Jeffrey A. Rothman
		President,
	Demeter Management Corporation,
	general partner of the registrant
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                           6,145
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 6,145
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  28,945
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           93,527
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       279,769
<OTHER-SE>                                   (344,351)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    28,945
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                24,469
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (24,469)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (24,469)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (24,469)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.01)



</TABLE>
#### Sneads Lumber Company, a Corporation, *Plaintiff in Error,*v. W. R. Forrester, *Defendant in Error.*

Division B.

Decision Filed March 10, 1926.

*James H. Finch,*for Plaintiff in Error;

*446
      *Carter & Solomon,*for Defendant in Error.

Per Curiam.

— This cause having heretofore been submitted to the court upon the transcript of the record of the judgment herein, and briefs and argument of counsel for the respective parties, and the record having been seen and inspected, and the court being now advised of its judgment to be given in the premises, it seems to the court that there is no error in the said judgment; it is, therefore, considered, ordered and adjudged by the court that the said judgment of the Circuit Court be, and the same is hereby affirmed.

Whitfield, P. J., and Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur.
No. 11-337.

#### Western Radio Services, Company, et al., Petitioners v. United States Forest Service.

565 U.S. 1014, 132 S. Ct. 555,

181 L. Ed. 2d 397,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 8036.

November 7, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 433 Fed. Appx. 558.
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 37 (Thursday, February 26, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8811-8812]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-4030]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division


Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993--Interchangeable Virtual Instruments Foundation, 
Inc.

    Notice is hereby given that, on January 21, 2009, pursuant to 
Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 
1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (``the Act'') Interchangeable Virtual 
Instruments Foundation, Inc. has filed written notifications 
simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade 
Commission disclosing changes in its membership. The notifications were 
filed for the purpose of extending the Act's provisions limiting the 
recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified 
circumstances. Specifically, GCSD Division of Harris Corporation, 
Melbourne, FL; and California Instruments, San Diego, CA have withdrawn 
as parties to this venture.
    No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned 
activity of the group research project. Membership in this group 
research project remains open, and Interchangeable Virtual Instruments 
Foundation, Inc. intends to file

[[Page 8812]]

additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
    On May 29, 2001, Interchangeable Virtual Instruments Foundation, 
Inc. filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the 
Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the Federal 
Register pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on July 30, 2001 (66 FR 
39336).
    The last notification was filed with the Department on November 3, 
2008. A notice was published in the Federal Register pursuant to 
Section 6(b) of the Act on December 12, 2008 (73 FR 75771).

Patricia A. Brink,
Deputy Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. E9-4030 Filed 2-25-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-11-M
Oct 27 2010

Mr. Omer ErSelcuk

President & CEO Seaborne Virgin Island, Inc. 1210 Watergut Christiansted, VI 00820

Dear Mr. ErSelcuk:

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption from part 121, Appendix K, 5(a) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). It explains why we can’t process your request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Can Not Process Your Request

We entered your September 20, 2010, exemption request on behalf of Seaborne Virgin Island, Inc. into the public docket (No. FAA-2010-0947), but we are unable to process your request any further. The information you sent doesn’t comply with the requirements of 14 CFR 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the request any further, you must send us all of the following:

 The reasons why the exemption wouldn’t adversely affect safety or how the exemption would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which you seek an exemption.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.

 The specific reasons why you need to exercise the privileges of your exemption outside

the United States.

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described earlier to reach us within 30 days. We will consider the docket on your request open until we receive this required information from you. Please note that 14 CFR 11.63(d) requires you to send your petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption.2

If We Do Not Hear From You

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267-9677.

Sincerely,

Ida M. Klepper Manager, Airmen and Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure
| (logo) WELLS  FARGO | **Commercial  Mortgage Servicing**D1050-084,  8th Fl  401 South Tryon Street  Charlotte, NC 28202  1-800-326-1334 |
|---------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

**ANNUAL STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE**

** **

Reference is herebymade to that certain Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of July 1, 2017,by and among J.P. Morgan Chase Commercial Mortgage Securities Corp., asDepositor, Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as Master Servicer,CWCapital Asset Management LLC, as Special Servicer, Wells Fargo Bank, NationalAssociation, as Certificate Administrator, Wilmington Trust, NationalAssociation, as Trustee, and Pentalpha Surveillance LLC, as Operating Advisorand as Asset Representations Reviewer, with respect to Commercial MortgagePass-Through Certificates Series 2017-JP7 (the "Agreement").Capitalized terms used herein not otherwise defined shall have the meaningsassigned in the Agreement.

 

Pursuant to Section11.09 of this Agreement, I, Daniel Bober, Executive Vice President ofCommercial Mortgage Services do hereby certify that:

 

1. A review of theactivities of the Master Servicer during the period from July 1, 2017 throughDecember 31, 2017 (the “Reporting Period”), and of its performance per theAgreement during such period has been made under my supervision, and 

 

2. To the best ofmy knowledge, based on such review, the Master Servicer has fulfilled all ofits obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout theReporting Period.

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the undersigned has executed this Certificate as of the 28th day of February2018.

 

 

/s/ Daniel Bober

Daniel Bober

Executive VicePresident 

Wells Fargo Bank

 

 

 

 

| Wells Fargo Bank,  N.A. | (logo) Together  we’ll go far |
|-------------------------|-------------------------------------|
No. 11-6751.

#### Mario Meschino, Petitioner v. United States.

565 U.S. 1019, 132 S. Ct. 564,

181 L. Ed. 2d 406,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 8010.

November 7, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied.

*407Same case below, 643 F.3d 1025.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND> THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM
SEC FORM 10-Q AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>      0001067173
<NAME>     SPG REALTY CONSULTANTS, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                            JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                              SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                        107,198
<SECURITIES>                                        0
<RECEIVABLES>                                 234,753<F1>
<ALLOWANCES>                                        0<F1>
<INVENTORY>                                         0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                    0<F2>
<PP&E>                                     12,945,397
<DEPRECIATION>                              1,370,618
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             13,880,319
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                               0<F2>
<BONDS>                                     8,792,597
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                   538,684
<COMMON>                                           18
<OTHER-SE>                                  2,520,791
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               13,880,319<F3>
<SALES>                                             0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            1,456,499
<CGS>                                               0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 799,897
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                7,671
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            475,563
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               228,344
<INCOME-TAX>                                        0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           228,344
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                 (440)
<CHANGES>                                    (12,342)
<NET-INCOME>                                  141,699
<EPS-BASIC>                                      0.66
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    0.66
<FN>
<F1> Receivables are stated net of allowances.
<F2> The Registrant does not report using a classified balance sheet.
<F3> Includes Limited Partners' interest in the SPG Operating Partnership of
     $913,033; limited partners' preferred interest of $149,885; and preferred
     stock of subsidiary of $339,799.
</FN>





</TABLE>
No. 11-7199.

#### Lance George Owen, Petitioner v. Douglas Weber, Warden.

565 U.S. 1126, 132 S. Ct. 1034,

181 L. Ed. 2d 761,

2012 U.S. LEXIS 137.

January 9, 2012.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 646 F.3d 1105.
(1) Adjusting Price $25.72 CWT

(2) Base Price $27.23 CWT

(3) Change from Base Price per CWT (1.51)

(4) Price change per gallon ($0.13)

(Line (3) divide by 11.63 gallons/cwt)

(5) Price change per half gallon ($0.06)

Price change per quart ($0.03) 

Price change per pint ($0.02)

Price change per 14-oz pg. ($0.01)

Price change per 12-oz pg. ($0.01)

Price change per 1/3 qt. (10-oz) ($0.01)

Price change per half pint ($0.01)

(6) Price adjustment per gallon ($0.13)

Price adjustment per half gallon ($0.06)

Price adjustment per quart ($0.03)

Price adjustment per pint ($0.02)

Price change per 14-oz pg. ($0.01)

Price change per 12-oz pg. ($0.01)

Price adjustment per 1/3 qt. (10-oz) ($0.01)

Price adjustment per half pint ($0.01)

NOTE: Numbers in brackets are negative or decreases, all others are positive or increases.

Monthly EPA Calculation for Class I Milk (Clause 52.216-9032 Alt. I)

Based on California Marketing Area Federal Milk Order #51

 Effective Date: Sept 4th, 2022
No. 84903 

FR. 

AUG 1 1 2022 

A. BROWN 

PREME COURT 

DEPU CLERK 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA 

SOUTHERN NEVADA AUTO SALES, 

LLC, D/B/A OPEN LOT USED CAR 

SALES, 

Petitioner, 

vs. 

THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT 

COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, 

IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF 

CLARK; AND THE HONORABLE BITA 

YEAGER, DISTRICT JUDGE, 

Respondents, 

and 

FRANKIE GONZALES, M.D., 

Real Party in Interest. 

ORDER DENYING PETITION 

This original petition for a writ of mandamus or prohibition 

challenges a district court order denying a motion to dismiss in a torts 

action. Having considered the petition and its documentation, we are not 

persuaded that our extraordinary and discretionary intervention is 

warranted. See Walker u. Second Judicial Dist. Court, 136 Nev. 678, 683, 

476 P.3d 1194, 1198 (2020) (declining to grant writ relief when a later 

appeal was available); Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 

228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004) (observing that the party seeking writ relief 

bears the burden of showing such relief is warranted); Smith v. Eighth 

Judicial Dist. Court, 107 Nev. 674, 677, 679, 818 P.2d 849, 851, 853 (1991) 

(recognizing that writ relief is an extraordinary remedy and that this court 

has sole discretion in determining whether to entertain a writ petition). 

Generally, we will not consider writ petitions that challenge orders denying 

motions to dismiss, and we are not persuaded that any exception to the 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A 
ÇJ

Parraguirre 

• 

J. 

Silver 

, C.J. 

general rule applies here. Int'l Game Tech., Inc. v. Second Judicial Dist. 

Court, 124 Nev. 193, 197-98, 179 P.3d 556, 558-59 (2008) (discussing writ 

petitions challenging denials of motions to dismiss). We therefore 

ORDER the petition DENIED.' 

cc: Hon. Bita Yeager, District Judge 

Kravitz Schnitzer Johnson Watson & Zeppenfeld, Chtd. 

Injury Lawyers of Nevada 

Huang & Associates 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

1The Honorable Mark Gibbons, Senior Justice, participated in the 

decision of this matter under a general order of assignment. 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(o) I947A 

2
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-6363

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus LEONARD SHELTON MCCULLOUGH, JR., Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Winston-Salem. Frank W. Bullock, Jr., Senior District Judge. (6:96-cr-00195-FWB; 1:05-cv-00785-FWB) Submitted: June 22, 2006 Decided: July 3, 2006 Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Leonard Shelton McCullough, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Angela Hewlett Miller, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Leonard Shelton McCullough, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue 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 any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that McCullough 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 materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
_______________________________________ __ 

# Order Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

September 25, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice
Michael F. Cavanag h Elizabeth A. Weave r Marilyn Kell y 133433(70)(72) Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, J ustices AMANDA JEAN ODOM, Plaintiff-Appellee, SC: 133433

v COA: 270501

WAYNE COUNTY and CITY OF DETROIT, Defendants, and Wayne CC: 05-503671-NI

CHRISTINE KELLY, Defendant-Appellant.

___________________ _________________

On order of the Chief Justice, th e motion by the Mi chigan Municipal League Liability and Property Po ol and the Michigan Municipa l League for extension to September 10, 2008 of the time for filing their brief amicus curiae is considered and it is GRANTED. The motion by the Michigan Mu nicipal Risk Management Authority for leave to file a brief amicus curiae is considered an d it is GRANTED.

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

September 25, 2008

Clerk
Date: 16 August 2023 ********************

NSN: 8920-01-709-1656 (MLL) MONOGRAPH 3D2

 ******************** 

Item: Mini Loaves and Muffins, Lemon with white icing, Type I, Flavor 2

Document: PCR-M-018, Mini Loaves and Muffins, Packaged in a Polymeric Tray, Shelf Stable

Approximate Caloric Value Per Serving: 228 Component Classification: Primary

Estimated Shelf Life: 36 months at 80°F

Item Characteristics

Appearance:

Fully baked, intact, individual, rectangular loaf, light to medium golden yellow exterior 

color. Off-white to pale yellow interior crumb color with irregular crumb appearance. 

Dimensions not less than 3 inches long by 1-2/5 inches wide. The interior crumb may 

have air pockets distributed throughout. Height measured at highest point shall be not 

less than 1-1/4 inch. The interior crumb may have air pockets distributed throughout. 

The icing shall be white, smooth, and glossy. 

Odor: Sweet, lemon. 

The icing shall have a sweet odor.

Flavor: Sweet, lemon. 

The icing shall have a sweet flavor.

Texture: Slightly dense and tender with a fine grain crumb. 

The icing shall be easily spreadable and smooth.

Possible Deteriorative Changes 

Appearance: Darkening color of interior and exterior crumb and icing.

Odor: Off notes, oxidized.

Painty, oxidized icing.

Flavor: Off notes, oxidized burnt.

Painty, oxidized icing.

Texture: Gummy or dry.

Unique Examination/Test Procedures

Special Notes