alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
D.L.F. v. JEFFERSON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES

2160085

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

July 28, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
**Exhibit 99.3**

**OFFICER’S CERTIFICATE OF SERVICER**

| To:    | The Chase Manhattan Bank, as Owner Trustee                                                |
|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   | The Bank of New York Trust Company of Florida, National Association, as Indenture Trustee |
|   | Moody’s Investors Service, Inc.                                                      |
|   | Standard & Poor’s Ratings Group                                                  |

Pursuant to Section 4.10 of the Sale and Servicing Agreementdated as of October 1, 2000 among AmSouth Auto Trust 2000-1, as Issuer, AmSouth Auto Receivables, LLC, as Seller, AmSouth Bank, as Servicer, and The Bank of New York Trust Company of Florida, National Association, as Indenture Trustee (theAgreement), the undersigned hereby certifies that (i) a review of the activities of Servicer from January 1, 2002 through December 31, 2002, and of its performance under the Agreement has been made under the undersigned officer’s supervisionand (ii) to the best of the undersigned officer’s knowledge, based on such review, Servicer has fulfilled all its obligations in all material respects under the Agreement throughout such period. 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have executed this Certificate this 24th day of March, 2003. 

|   |   | AMSOUTH BANK |
|--------|--------|--------------|
|   |   | as Servicer  |
|   |   |         |
|   |   | By:          | /s/ DONALD R. KIMBLE |
|   |   |         |  |
|   |   |         | Name: | **Donald R. Kimble** |
|   |   |         | Title: | **Executive Vice President** |
11 TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND

, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

Angelo Celedonio Santos, * From the 90 th District

Court of Stephens County,

Trial Court No. F34081

.

Vs. No. 11

- 14

- 00173

- CR * October 31, 2014

T he State of Texas, * Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion

(Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

Willson, J. , and Bailey, J. )

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that the

appeal should be dismissed. Therefore, in accordance with this court ’ s

opinion, the appeal is dismissed.
Case 3:03-cv-00761-P Document 40 Filed 10/28/03 Page 1 of 3 PageID 233
Case 3:03-cv-00761-P Document 40 Filed 10/28/03 Page 2 of 3 PageID 234
Case 3:03-cv-00761-P Document 40 Filed 10/28/03 Page 3 of 3 PageID 235
Savanna Rae SHIVER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D18-0873

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

February 12, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
1989.

#### Georgia Railroad *&*Banking Company *v.*Wheeler.

Action for damages — appeal, from Greene superior court— Judge Lewis. June 15, 1909.

Submitted July *20,*—

Decided October 5, 1909.

*Joseph B. & Bryan Gumming, Park <& Park,*for plaintiff in error.

*James Davison,*contra.

Powell, J.

1. Tlie verdict is not without some evidence to support it.

2. The action being against a railroad company for the killing of cows by the operation of its train, and the defendant having pleaded its own freedom from negligence, without pleading any contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff, it was not error for the court to refuse to allow the defendant to prove that the plaintiff left his pasture gate unlocked, and that thereby the cows escaped, so that they went upon the railroad track. *M. & W. R. Co.*v. *Barber,*42 *Ga.*301.

3. The charge of the court is not fairly susceptible to the criticism that it expresses an opinion upon the facts of the ease.

4. The court properly instructed the jury upon the enhancement of the damages by the allowance of interest. The verdict, especially as amended by the plaintiff’s voluntarily writing off a portion of the recovery, is not without the requisite pleading to support it.

5. The request to charge upon the duty of the railroad company in approaching a private crossing was properly refused. It would not have been proper for the court to tell the jury what particular acts of diligence the company should or should not omit under such circumstances.

*Judgment affirmed.*
#### Carrie May Conkling and Charles Mansel Conkling, *Complainants,*v. W. C. Clements, et al., *Defendants.*

Division B.

Decision Filed October 19, 1927.

*F. W. Butler,*for Appellants;

*W. G. Martin,*for Appellees.

Per Curiam.

This cause having heretofore been submitted to the Court upon the transcript of the record of the decree 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 be given in the premises, it seems to the Court that there is no error in the said decree; it is, therefore, considered, ordered and adjudged by the Court that the said decree of the Circuit Court be, and the same is hereby affirmed.

Whitfield, P. J., and Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Postal Service

# AGENCY:

                        Postal Service TM.                    

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

# DATES:

*Date of required notice:*                         January 6, 2025.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on December 17, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a                     *USPS Request to Add Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage® Contract 1097 to Competitive Product List.*                     Documents are available at                     *www.prc.gov,*                     Docket Nos. MC2025-872, K2025-873.                

Sean Robinson,

Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.

[FR Doc. 2024-31679 Filed 1-3-25; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
# C_2021252EN.01002202.xml

| 28.6.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 252/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.6.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 252/22

---

Judgment of the General Court of 12 May 2021 — Bavaria Weed v EUIPO (BavariaWeed)

(Case T-178/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for the EU figurative mark BavariaWeed - Absolute ground for refusal - Trade mark contrary to public policy - Article 7(1)(f) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Article 7(2) of Regulation 2017/1001)

(2021/C 252/30)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Bavaria Weed GmbH (Herrsching am Ammersee, Germany) (represented by: J. Wolhändler, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Söder, acting as Agent)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 January 2020 (Case R 1458/2019-5), relating to an application for registration of the figurative sign BavariaWeed as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Bavaria Weed GmbH to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Bavaria Weed GmbH to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 191, 8.6.2020.

---
Exhibit 4.1


 


THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON


NEW YORK’S FIRST BANK-FOUNDED 1784 BY ALEXANDER HAMILTON


 


 


2 HANSON PLACE, 12TH FLOOR, BROOKLYN,
N.Y. 11217


 


 


 


September 22, 2016


 


Hennion & Walsh, Inc.


2001 Route 46, Waterview Plaza


Parsippany, New Jersey 07054


 


Smart Trust 265


 


Dear Sirs:


The Bank of New York
Mellon is acting as trustee for the series of Smart Trust set forth above (the “Trust”). We enclosed a list
of the Securities to be deposited in the Trust on the date hereof. The prices indicated therein reflect our evaluation of such
Securities as of close of business on September 21, 2016, in accordance with the valuation method set forth in the Standard Terms
and Conditions of Trust and Trust Agreement. We consent to the reference to The Bank of New York Mellon as the party performing
the evaluations of the Trust Securities in the Registration Statement (No. 333-212721) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
with respect to the registration of the sale of the Trust Units and to the filing of this consent as an exhibit thereto.


 


 


	 	Very truly yours,
	 	 
	 	/s/ GERARDO CIPRIANO
	 	Gerardo Cipriano
	 	Vice President
1584.

1585.

#### Pate-Smith Company *v.*Claflin Company. Johnson *v.*Claflin Company.

Complaint, from city court of Sylvester — Judge Park. November 28, 1908.

Submitted February 10, —

Decided May 18, 1909.

*Claude Payton, C. F. Bay,*for plaintiffs in error.

*PoThill & Foy,*contra.

Hill, C. J.

It is apparent from an-inspection of the records and the questions made that the writs of error in these eases have been prosecuted for delay only, and for the purpose of preventing the prompt collection of a just debt. The points made are wholly without merit, and the judgments are affirmed, with damages for bringing the cases to this court for delay. *Judgments affirmed, toith damages.*
2067.

#### Greer *v.*The State.

Accusation of carrying concealed weapon, from city court of Monticello — Judge Thurman. July 28, 1909.

Submitted lOctober 5, —

Decided October 13, 1909.

*A. T.*Clemfor plaintiff in error.

*Greene F. Johnson, solicitor,*contra,

Powell, J.

Conflicts in the evidence, the credibility of witnesses, and all similar matters relating to the quality of the proof in a case address themselves exclusively to the jury and the trial judge and not to this court. *Judgment affirmed.*
Exhibit 23.2





BDO — Pazos, López de Romaña, Rodriguez  S. Civil de R.L.





CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM





We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Forms S-8 (No. 333-58298, No. 333-129152, No. 333-147448, No. 333-161459, No. 333-168588 and No. 333-183142) of our report dated June 22, 2016 , relating to the financial statements of Perurail S.A., which appears in this Form 10-K/A Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Belmond Ltd. and subsidiaries for the year ended December 31, 2015 .





Pazos, López de Romaña, Rodriguez S. Civil de R.L.


Lima, Peru


June 22, 2016








Countersigned by:/s/ Liliana Córdova MejíaLiliana Córdova MejíaCertified Chartered Public AccountantRegister No. 01-17661
# C_2022037EN.01003201.xml

| 24.1.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 37/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.1.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 37/32

---

Order of the General Court of 8 November 2021 — Satabank v ECB

(Case T-494/20) (1)

(Economic and monetary policy - Prudential supervision of less significant credit institutions - Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 - Specific tasks of the ECB - Refusal to carry out direct prudential supervision - Refusal to give instructions to the Competent Person - Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

(2022/C 37/43)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Satabank plc (St Julians, Malta) (represented by: O. Behrends, lawyer)

Defendant: European Central Bank (ECB) (represented by: C. Hernández Saseta, F. Bonnard and A. Lefterov, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action pursuant to Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of the ECB’s decision of 15 May 2020 refusing to ensure direct supervision of the applicant and to give instructions to the Competent Person concerning it.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed.

| 2. | Satabank plc shall pay, in addition to its own costs, those incurred by the European Central Bank (ECB). |
| --- | --- |

2.

Satabank plc shall pay, in addition to its own costs, those incurred by the European Central Bank (ECB).

---

(1)  OJ C 371, 3.11.2020.

---
EX PARTE Thomas WIESE

CR-16-1080

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

September 27, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Mand. pet. dismissed.
**EXHIBIT
        32.2**
 
 **CERTIFICATION
        PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. § 1350**
 
 In
        connection with the filing of the Annual Report of First Northern Community
        Bancorp (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2007
        (the “Report”), I, Louise A. Walker, the chief financial officer of the Company,
        certify pursuant to section 1350 of chapter 63 of title 18 of the United
        States Code, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
        of
        2002, that, to the best of my knowledge,
 
 (i)
        the
        Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of
        the
        Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and
 
 (ii)
        the
        information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
        the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 
 /s/
                  Louise A. WalkerLouise
                  A. Walker
 
 March
        15,
        2007
# C_2022095EN.01003602.xml

| 28.2.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 95/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.2.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 95/36

---

Order of the General Court of 8 December 2021 — Alessio and Others v ECB

(Case T-620/20) (1)

(Action for annulment - Economic and monetary union - Banking union - Recovery and resolution of credit institutions - Early intervention measures - Decision of the ECB to place Banca Carige under temporary administration - Subsequent extension decisions - Time limit for bringing proceedings - Delay - Inadmissibility)

(2022/C 95/50)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicants: Roberto Alessio (Turin, Italy) and the 56 other applicants whose names are listed in the annex to the order (represented by: M. Condinanzi, L. Boggio, M. Cataldo and A. Califano, lawyers)

Defendant: European Central Bank (represented by: C. Hernández Saseta and A. Pizzolla, Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment, first, of the ECB’s decision of 1 January 2019 placing Banca Carige SpA under temporary administration and, secondly, of its decision of 29 March 2019, extending the period of the temporary administration, and of the subsequent extension decisions.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed as inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

| 2. | There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the European Commission’s application for leave to intervene. |
| --- | --- |

2.

There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the European Commission’s application for leave to intervene.

| 3. | Mr Roberto Alessio and the other applicants whose names are listed in the annex shall bear their own costs and pay those incurred by the European Central Bank (ECB). |
| --- | --- |

3.

Mr Roberto Alessio and the other applicants whose names are listed in the annex shall bear their own costs and pay those incurred by the European Central Bank (ECB).

| 4. | The Commission shall bear its own costs relating to the application for leave to intervene. |
| --- | --- |

4.

The Commission shall bear its own costs relating to the application for leave to intervene.

---

(1)  OJ C 390, 16.11.2020.

---
# **Exhibit23.1**

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENTREGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to theincorporation by reference in the Registration Statements of Forms S-8 (File Nos.333-67086, 333-101321, 333-99237 and 333-138719) pertaining to RadView’sSoftware Ltd.’s Key Employee Share Incentive Plan (1996), United States ShareIncentive Plan (2000) and Employee Share Participation Plan of our report datedJune 28, 2007, with respect to the consolidated financial statements ofRadView Software Ltd. and its subsidiaries included in the Annual Report(Form 20-F) for the year ended December 31, 2006.

| June 28, 2007 |   | /s/ KOST FORER GABBAY & KASIERER |   |
|--------------------|--------|--------------------------------------|--------|
| Tel Aviv, Israel   |   | Kost Forer Gabbay & Kasierer     |   |
|               |   | A Member of Ernst & Young Global |   |

 

----
A.D. v. CULLMAN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES

2160631

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

July 27, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
Charles James LAWN, Jr., Appellant, v. Dr. Donald WOOD, D.O.F.A.C.E.P., Martin Medical Center, Inc., and Frank Nicholas Garcia, M.D., Appellees.

Nos. 4D18-505 & 4D18-1096

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[January 31, 2019]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

*Affirmed.*
Roy O. DANIELS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D18-3648

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[February 14, 2019]

Roy O. Daniels, Raiford, pro se.

No appearance required of appellee.

Per Curiam.

*Affirmed.*

Gerber, C.J., Conner and Forst, JJ., concur.
# C_2020304EN.01000501.xml

| 14.9.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 304/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.9.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 304/5

---

Appeal brought on 12 May 2020 by Claudio Necci against the order of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 25 March 2020 in Case T-129/19, Necci v Commission

(Case C-202/20 P)

(2020/C 304/07)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Claudio Necci (represented by: S. Orlandi, T. Martin, lawyers)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, European Parliament, Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | set aside the order of 25 March 2020 of the General Court of the European Union in Case T-129/19, Necci v Commission; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the order of 25 March 2020 of the General Court of the European Union in Case T-129/19, Necci v Commission;

| — | refer the case back to the General Court of the European Union for it to be adjudged afresh; |
| --- | --- |

—

refer the case back to the General Court of the European Union for it to be adjudged afresh;

| — | reserve the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

reserve the costs.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

The appellant seeks to have aside the order of 25 May 2020 in Case T-129/19, by which the General Court of the European Union dismissed his action for annulment as inadmissible and ordered him to pay the costs.

The appellant raises three grounds of appeal in that regard:

The first ground alleges a distortion of the subject matter of the dispute in so far as the General Court of the European Union took the view that the decision of 18 July 2011 adversely affected the appellant.

The second ground of appeal alleges infringement of his right to effective legal protection in so far as, if his appeal is inadmissible, the applicant will have no remedy to challenge the fact that he no longer enjoys any social protection, despite the fact that he has worked for his whole life.

The third ground of appeal alleges infringement of the principle of single applicable legislation in so far as the General Court of the European Union held that the loss of all social protection in Italy following the transfer ‘follows from the legal norms specific to the national law at issue and ... has no bearing whatsoever on his situation in respect of the JSIS’.

---
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 614 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
S. RES. 614

To authorize testimony, documents, and representation in United States 
                               v. Miller.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 21, 2024

  Mr. Schumer (for himself and Mr. McConnell) submitted the following 
             resolution; which was considered and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
To authorize testimony, documents, and representation in United States 
                               v. Miller.

Whereas, in the case of United States v. Miller, No. 2:23-cr-00221, pending in 
        the United States District Court for the District of Nevada, the 
        prosecution has requested the production of documents from the offices 
        of Senators Jacky Rosen and Catherine Cortez Masto and also has 
        requested testimony from employees in those offices;
Whereas, pursuant to sections 703(a) and 704(a)(2) of the Ethics in Government 
        Act of 1978, 2 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 288b(a) and 288c(a)(2), the Senate may 
        direct its counsel to represent current and former employees of the 
        Senate with respect to any subpoena, order, or request for testimony or 
        documents relating to their official responsibilities;
Whereas, by the privileges of the Senate of the United States and Rule XI of the 
        Standing Rules of the Senate, no evidence under the control or in the 
        possession of the Senate may, by the judicial or administrative process, 
        be taken from such control or possession but by permission of the 
        Senate; and
Whereas, when it appears that evidence under the control or in the possession of 
        the Senate may promote the administration of justice, the Senate will 
        take such action as will promote the ends of justice consistent with the 
        privileges of the Senate: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the office of Senator Jacky Rosen is authorized to 
produce documents and that Dara Cohen, John Fossum, and Carlos Lara, 
employees in that office, are authorized to testify in the case of 
United States v. Miller, except concerning matters for which a 
privilege should be asserted.
    Sec. 2.  That the office of Senator Catherine Cortez Masto is 
authorized to produce documents and that employees of that office from 
whom relevant evidence may be needed are authorized to testify in the 
case of United States v. Miller, except concerning matters for which a 
privilege should be asserted.
    Sec. 3.  The Senate Legal Counsel is authorized to represent the 
employees of Senator Rosen's and Senator Cortez Masto's offices in 
connection with the production of evidence and testimony authorized in 
sections one and two of this resolution.
                                 <all>
```