alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
CASE NO 24-43547-MXM-13

CHAPTER 13

IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH DIVISION

IN RE: Falts, Wael Samir

VERIFICATION OF CREDITOR MATRIX

The above named Debtor hereby verifies that the attached list of creditors is true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge.

Date 10/29/2024 Signature /s/ Wael Samir Falts

Wael Samir Falts, Debtor

Case 24-43547-mxm13 Doc 29 Filed 10/29/24 Entered 10/29/24 14:55:15 Desc Main

Document Page 1 of 2
Amex

Correspondence/Bankruptcy

PO Box 981535

El Paso, TX 79998-1535

Amex

c/o Becket and Lee

PO Box 3001

Malvern, PA 19355

Navy Federal Credit Union

P O Box 3000

Merrifield, VA 22119-3000

Case 24-43547-mxm13 Doc 29 Filed 10/29/24 Entered 10/29/24 14:55:15 Desc Main

Document Page 2 of 2
ROONEY & ROONEY, P.A., Appellant, v. U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, not in its Individual Capacity but Solely as Trustee for the RMAC Trust, Series 2016-CTT, Appellee.

No. 4D18-1540

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[January 17, 2019]

D. John Rhodeback of Rooney & Rooney, P.A., Vero Beach, for appellant.

Richard S. McIver, H. Michael Muñiz of Kass Shuler, P.A., Tampa, for appellee.

Per Curiam.

*Affirmed.*

Levine, Forst and Klingensmith, JJ., concur.
STATE of Louisiana v. Phillip DOMINICK

NO. 2019-KK-0322

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 14, 2019

Denied.
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.                  

###### Federal Maritime Commission

          - [Docket No. FMC-2024-0025]

# AGENCY:

Federal Maritime Commission.

# ACTION:

Notice of availability.

# SUMMARY:

The Federal Maritime Commission (Commission) is issuing this document to advise the public of the availability of a new policy statement. The policy statement explains that private parties are not precluded from bringing class action complaints at the Commission.

# DATES:

                        Policy statement                         *On Class Action Complaints*                         announced in this document was issued on January 2, 2025.                    

      ( print page 1128)    

# ADDRESSES:

                        The policy statement can be found at the following link:                         *https://www2.fmc.gov/​readingroom/​proceeding/​24-29/​.*

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        David Eng, Secretary; Phone: (202) 523-5725; Email:                         *Secretary@fmc.gov.*

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

On January 2, 2025, the Commission issued a policy statement to provide guidance to shippers and other third parties on bringing class action complaints at the Commission. As the policy statement explains, class action complaints are not precluded by Title 46 or the Commission's interpretation of the statute. In accordance with 46 CFR 502.12, the Commission may follow the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure “for situations which are not covered by a specific Commission rule . . . to the extent that they are consistent with sound administrative practice.” The Commission may use the procedures of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to evaluate class action complaints filed with the Commission because the requirements under § 502.12 are satisfied.

                    The policy statement can be found at the following link:                     *https://www2.fmc.gov/​readingroom/​proceeding/​24-29/​.*

This document is issued under authority of 5 U.S.C. 552, 46 U.S.C. 46105 and 46 CFR 502.12.

By the Commission.

David Eng,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2025-00074 Filed 1-6-25; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6730-02-P
```

[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 4 (Tuesday, January 7, 2025)]
[Notices]
[Page 1117]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2025-00084]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2610-012]

Northern States Power Company; Notice of Reasonable Period of 
Time for Water Quality Certification Application

    On December 16, 2024, the Michigan Department of Environment, Great 
Lakes, and Energy (Michigan EGLE) submitted to the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission (Commission) notice that it received a request 
for a Clean Water Act section 401(a)(1) water quality certification as 
defined in 40 CFR 121.5, from Northern States Power Company, in 
conjunction with the above captioned project on December 6, 2024. 
Pursuant to section 4.34(b)(5) of the Commission's regulations,\1\ we 
hereby notify Michigan EGLE of the following dates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 18 CFR 4.34(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Date of Receipt of the Certification Request: December 6, 2024.
    Reasonable Period of Time to Act on the Certification Request: One 
year, December 6, 2025.
    If Michigan EGLE fails or refuses to act on the water quality 
certification request on or before the above date, then the certifying 
authority is deemed waived pursuant to section 401(a)(1) of the Clean 
Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1341(a)(1).

    Dated: December 31, 2024.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2025-00084 Filed 1-6-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
```
Derek D. DURANT, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-4857, 2D18-3500

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

January 10, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed. Denied.
*       *       *       *       *





EXHIBIT
31: Rule 13a-14(a) Certification





I,
Thaddeus A. Wier, Jr., certify that:





1.  I
have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Centale,
Inc.;





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 small business
issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in
this  report;





4.  The
small business issuer’s other certifying officers and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the small business issuer 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 small business issuer, 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 small business issuer’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 small business issuer’s internal
controls over financial reporting that occurred during the small business
issuer’s most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer’s fourth fiscal
quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is
reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer’s internal
control over financial reporting; and





5.  The
small business issuer’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on
our most recent evaluation of internal controls over financial reporting, to the
small business issuer’s auditors and the audit committee of the small business
issuer’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):





a)  All
significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal controls over financial reporting which are reasonably likely
to  adversely affect the small business issuer’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 small business issuer’s internal controls over
financial reporting.





Date:
      February 13, 2008
            /s/ Thaddeus A. Wier,
      Jr.Thaddeus
      A. Wier, Jr., Chief Executive Officerand
      Chief Financial Officer
# C_2020423EN.01002501.xml

| 7.12.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 423/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.12.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 423/25

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Köln (Germany) lodged on 28 August 2020 — Phantasialand v Finanzamt Brühl

(Case C-406/20)

(2020/C 423/37)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Köln

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Phantasialand

Defendant: Finanzamt Brühl

Questions referred

| 1. | Can the listing of fairs and amusement parks in Annex III(7) to Directive 2006/112, (1) in conjunction with Article 98(2) thereof, be relied on as the basis for drawing a distinction in the form of the taxation of a theme park at the standard rate, even though the term ‘amusement park’ covers both static and mobile fairground undertakings? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Can the listing of fairs and amusement parks in Annex III(7) to Directive 2006/112, (1) in conjunction with Article 98(2) thereof, be relied on as the basis for drawing a distinction in the form of the taxation of a theme park at the standard rate, even though the term ‘amusement park’ covers both static and mobile fairground undertakings?

| 2. | Is the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union, to the effect that different services may be dissimilar on account of their context, applicable to the provision of services by mobile fairground entertainers and by static fairground undertakings in the form of theme parks? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union, to the effect that different services may be dissimilar on account of their context, applicable to the provision of services by mobile fairground entertainers and by static fairground undertakings in the form of theme parks?

| 3. | In the event that the second question is answered in the negative:
  Does the ‘point of view of the average consumer’, which, in accordance with the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union, is an essential element of the principle of fiscal neutrality, constitute a ‘conceptual perspective’ not amenable to the gathering of evidence based on expert opinion? |
| --- | --- |

3.

In the event that the second question is answered in the negative:

Does the ‘point of view of the average consumer’, which, in accordance with the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union, is an essential element of the principle of fiscal neutrality, constitute a ‘conceptual perspective’ not amenable to the gathering of evidence based on expert opinion?

---

(1)  Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1).

---
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

April 8, 2016

p0405 

# Order

Clerk April 8, 2016

151663 & (170)(175)(176)(178)(180)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 151663

COA: 316224

Wayne CC: 12

- 009631

- FC

ROBERT ANTHONY SMITH,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motions to add issue and to supplement are GRANTED.

The motion to remand and the application f or leave to appeal the March 12, 2015

judgment of the Court of Appeals are considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.305(H)(1), in

lieu of granting leave to appeal, we REMAND this case to the Wayne Circuit Court to

determine whether the court would have imposed a materially different sentence under

the sentencing procedure described in People v Lockridge, 498 Mich 358 (2015). On

remand, the trial court shall follow the procedure described in Part VI of our opinion. If

the trial court determines that it would have imposed the same sentence absent the

unconstitutional constraint on its discretion, it may reaffirm the original sentence. If,

however, the trial court determines that it would not have imposed the same sentence

absent the unconstitutional constraint on its discretion, it shall resentence the defendant.

In all other respects, leave to appeal is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the

remaining questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. The motion to stay and

the motion for guidance are DENIED.

We do not retain jurisdiction.
Anthony K. GIBSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D18-0668

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

March 11, 2019

Affirmed.
Aylin MAKLANSKY v. Steven MAKLANSKY

NO. 2019-CC-0060

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 6, 2019

Denied.
**EXHIBIT 31.2**

 

**Certification of Chief Financial Officer**

**Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

I, Wayne Badovinus, certify that: 

 

1. I havereviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Design Within Reach, Inc.; 

 

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 misleadingwith 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 thisreport; 

 

4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I areresponsible 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 underour 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’sdisclosure 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 internalcontrol 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 materiallyaffect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and 

 

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 the registrant’sboard 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 andreport financial information; and 

 

b) any fraud, whether or notmaterial, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting. 

 

Date: May 5, 2005
Case 4:03-cv-01474-Y Document 79 Filed 02/02/05 Page 1 of 2 PageID 530
Case 4:03-cv-01474-Y Document 79 Filed 02/02/05 Page 2 of 2 PageID 531
Case 2:98-cv-00371-J Document 30 Filed 04/14/05 Page 1 of 12 PageID 43
 

 Case 2:98-cv-00371-J Document 30 Filed 04/14/05 Page 2 of 12 PageID 44
 

 Case 2:98-cv-00371-J Document 30 Filed 04/14/05 Page 3 of 12 PageID 45
 

 Case 2:98-cv-00371-J Document 30 Filed 04/14/05 Page 4 of 12 PageID 46
 

 Case 2:98-cv-00371-J Document 30 Filed 04/14/05 Page 5 of 12 PageID 47
 

 Case 2:98-cv-00371-J Document 30 Filed 04/14/05 Page 6 of 12 PageID 48
 

 Case 2:98-cv-00371-J Document 30 Filed 04/14/05 Page 7 of 12 PageID 49
 

 Case 2:98-cv-00371-J Document 30 Filed 04/14/05 Page 8 of 12 PageID 50
 

 Case 2:98-cv-00371-J Document 30 Filed 04/14/05 Page 9 of 12 PageID 51
 

 Case 2:98-cv-00371-J Document 30 Filed 04/14/05 Page 10 of 12 PageID 52
 

 Case 2:98-cv-00371-J Document 30 Filed 04/14/05 Page 11 of 12 PageID 53
 

 Case 2:98-cv-00371-J Document 30 Filed 04/14/05 Page 12 of 12 PageID 54
Case 2:03-cv-00349-J Document 19 Filed 02/06/07 Page 1 of 2 PageID 73
 

 Case 2:03-cv-00349-J Document 19 Filed 02/06/07 Page 2 of 2 PageID 74
```

[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 4 (Tuesday, January 7, 2025)]
[Notices]
[Page 1209]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2025-00039]

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

POSTAL SERVICE

Product Change--Priority Mail and USPS Ground Advantage[supreg] 
Negotiated Service Agreement

AGENCY: Postal ServiceTM.

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 7, 2025.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean Robinson, 202-268-8405.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The United States Postal Service[supreg] 
hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on 
December 23, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a 
USPS Request to Add Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage[supreg] 
Contract 570 to Competitive Product List. Documents are available at 
www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2025-994, K2025-993.

Sean Robinson,
Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.
[FR Doc. 2025-00039 Filed 1-6-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
```
# C_2016211EN.01005401.xml

| 13.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 211/54 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 211/54

---

Action brought on 18 March 2016 — Sandvik Intellectual Property v EUIPO — Unipapel (ADVEON)

(Case T-115/16)

(2016/C 211/68)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Sandvik Intellectual Property AB (Sandviken, Sweden) (represented by: S. Maaßen, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Unipapel Industria, Comercio y Servicios, SL (Madrid, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the word in standard characters ‘ADVEON’ — International registration designating the European Union No 1 164 374

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 January 2016 in Case R 738/2015-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | modify the contested decision such that the opposition is rejected and the designation of international registration IR 1164374 to the European Union is allowed; |
| --- | --- |

—

modify the contested decision such that the opposition is rejected and the designation of international registration IR 1164374 to the European Union is allowed;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings, or; |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings, or;

| — | order the other party to the proceedings to pay the costs of the proceedings; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the other party to the proceedings to pay the costs of the proceedings;

| — | stay the proceedings until the European Court of Justice has submitted its decision in the procedure regarding the request for a preliminary ruling from Högsta domstolen (Sweden) lodged on 7 December 2015 in the matter Länsförsäkringar AB v A/S Matek (Case C-654/15). |
| --- | --- |

—

stay the proceedings until the European Court of Justice has submitted its decision in the procedure regarding the request for a preliminary ruling from Högsta domstolen (Sweden) lodged on 7 December 2015 in the matter Länsförsäkringar AB v A/S Matek (Case C-654/15).

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Art. 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Art. 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.

---
Phillip KESSLER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D18-1987

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

March 21, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Maurice Franklin FINKLEA, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D18-2451

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

February 8, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.