alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1

Alberto Gonzales, who has been appointed to serve as Attorney General of the

United States, and Michael Chertoff, who has been appointed to serve as Secretary of

the Department of Homeland Security, are substituted as respondents pursuant to

Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c).

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-1779

___________

Noe Vasquez-Ramirez, *

*

Petitioner, *

* Petition for Review of

v. * an Order of the

* Board of Immigration Appeals.

Alberto Gonzales, Attorney General * 

of the United States of America; * [UNPUBLISHED]

Michael Chertoff, Secretary of * 

Homeland Security, *

*

Respondents.1 *

___________

Submitted: July 7, 2006

Filed: July 17, 2006

___________

Before ARNOLD, BYE, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Noe Vasquez-Ramirez, a citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of an order of

the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying his second motion to reopen.

Vasquez-Ramirez entered the United States in 1986, and in 1998 he was charged with
-2-

being removable. He conceded removability and in November 1999 an Immigration

Judge (IJ) denied his application for cancellation of removal. The BIA affirmed the

IJ’s decision on October 25, 2002. In January 2003 Vasquez-Ramirez moved to

reopen, asserting that his United-States-born children would suffer hardship if he is

removed to Mexico, but the BIA denied the motion. On October 31, 2003, VasquezRamirez again moved the BIA to reopen, this time to allow him to apply for asylum

and withholding of removal on the grounds that one of his United-States-born children

suffered from a psychological impairment and that his family would have decreased

economical and educational opportunities in Mexico. The BIA denied the motion as

numerically barred. The BIA also concluded that Vasquez-Ramirez did not qualify

for the asylum-application exception to the numerical limitation because he failed to

establish changed circumstances in Mexico or prima facie eligibility for asylum or

withholding of removal.

We conclude that the BIA acted within its discretion in denying VasquezRamirez’s second motion to reopen. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), (c)(3)(ii) (2006)

(permitting only one motion to reopen, except when alien seeks to apply for asylum

or withholding of removal based on changed circumstances in country to which alien

is to be removed); Kanyi v. Gonzales, 406 F.3d 1087, 1089 (8th Cir. 2005) (standard

of review). We cannot consider Vasquez-Ramirez’s newly raised argument that the

numerical limitation should be waived because he received ineffective assistance of

counsel. See Alyas v. Gonzales, 419 F.3d 756, 761-62 (8th Cir. 2005).

Accordingly, we deny the petition.

______________________________
Marvin SCOTT, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D18-0612

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

January 25, 2019 Rehearing Denied April 09, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
[NOT FOR PUBLICATION–NOT TO BE CITED AS PRECEDENT]



# United States Court of Appeals

**For the First Circuit**

No. 00-1106 JOANN I. CONNOLLY, Plaintiff, Appellant,

v. WILLIAM J. HENDERSON, Defendant, Appellee.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS [Hon. Rya W. Zobel, U.S. District Judge ]
Before Torruella, Chief Judge , Boudin and Lipez, Circuit Judges .

Christopher C. Trundy on brief for appellant. Donald K. Stern , United States Attorney, and Rayford A. Farquhar , Assistant U.S. Attorney, on brief for appellee.

August 1, 2000Per Curiam . Appellant Joanne I. Connolly

(“Connolly”) challenges the lower court’s refusal on jurisdictional grounds to entertain her motion for reconsideration. We find the district court erred. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) allows the district court to reconsider a judgment if the losing party files a motion within ten days of judgment, and Connolly’s motion was timely. Thus, the judgment will be vacated to allow reconsideration of the dismissal order.

Appellee William J. Henderson (“Henderson”) argues that judgment was appropriate anyway because Connolly’s claimis barred by the applicable statute of limitations. But in her opposition to Henderson’s motion to dismiss, Connolly presented facts which arguably might justify equitable tolling of the limitations period, see , e.g. , Cantrell v. Knoxville Community Dev. Corp. , 60 F.3d 1177 (6 th Cir. 1995); Doherty v. Teamsters Pension Trust Fund , 16 F.3d 1386 (3d Cir. 1994), although we have also stressed that the equitable tolling exception is a narrow one, see , e.g. , Nunnally v. MacCausland , 996 F.2d 1, 4 (1 st Cir. 1993), and we take no position on her claim at this time. Henderson fails to mention or address these facts.-3- Finally, though Connolly filed her opposition late in violation of D. Mass. Local Rule 7.1(B)(2), we will leave it to the district court to decide what, if any, sanction is appropriate for this noncompliance.

The judgment of the lower court is vacated; the matter is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. See 1 st Cir. Loc. R. 27(c).
---

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF
THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Graham R. Hughes, the Chief Financial Officer of Quantum
Solar Power Corp. (the Company), 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 the best of my knowledge:

| | (i)  | the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company, for the
      fiscal quarter ended March 31, 2011, and to which this certification is
      attached as Exhibit 32.2 (the Report) fully complies with the
      requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
      1934, as amended; and
| | ---- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |      |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         
| | (ii) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents,
      in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
      operations of the Company.                                                                                                                                                        

| | By:    |                                                       
| | ------ | ------------------------------------------------------
| |        | */s/ Graham R. Hughes*                                
| | Name:  | GRAHAM R. HUGHES                                      
| |        |                                                       
| | Title: | Chief Financial Officer, Secretary and
      Treasurer
| |        |                                                       
| | Date:  | May
      10, 2011                                    

A signed original of this written statement required by
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to the Company
and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.

This certification accompanies the Form 10-Q to which it
relates, is not deemed filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and is
not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company under the
Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (whether made
before or after the date of the Form 10-Q), irrespective of any general
incorporation language contained in such filing.

---
# C_2022024EN.01003002.xml

| 17.1.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 24/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.1.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 24/30

---

Judgment of the General Court of 10 November 2021 — VF International v EUIPO — National Geographic Society (NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC)

(Case T-517/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU word mark NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC - Earlier non-registered mark geographic - Relative ground for refusal - Use in the course of trade of a sign of more than mere local significance - Article 8(4) and Article 53(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(4) and Article 60(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

(2022/C 24/39)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: VF International Sagl (Stabio, Switzerland) (represented by: T. van Innis and A. Van der Planken, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: M. Fischer and V. Ruzek, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: National Geographic Society (Washington, District of Columbia, United States) (represented by: S. Malynicz QC and C. de Haas, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 May 2020 (Case R 1665/2019-1), relating to invalidity proceedings between VF International and National Geographic Society.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders VF International Sagl to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders VF International Sagl to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 339, 12.10.2020.

---
IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AMARILLO DIVISION

IN RE: §

§

McCLAIN FEED YARD, INC. § CASE NO. 23-20084-rlj7

§

Debtor. §

ENTRY OF APPEARANCE FOR PHILIP E. RAPP

TO THE HONORABLE COURT:

WHITNEY A. DAVIS and JULIAN WHITLEY enter their appearance as counsel of record 

for JARED LESH in this action:

Whitney A. Davis

State Bar No.

whit@ekdlaw.com

Julian Whitley

State Bar No.

julian@ekdlaw.com

102 Houston Avenue, Suite 300

Weatherford, Texas 76086

(817) 596-4200; Fax (817) 596-4269

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Whitney A. Davis

Whitney A. Davis

State Bar No. 24084843

Julian Whitley

State Bar No. 24108913

EGGLESTON KING DAVIS LLP

102 Houston Avenue, Suite 300

Weatherford, Texas 76086

Phone: (817) 596-4200

Fax: (817) 596-4269

ATTORNEYS FOR JARED LESH

Case 23-20084-rlj7 Doc 104 Filed 08/16/23 Entered 08/16/23 10:16:16 Desc Main

Document Page 1 of 2
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that on the 16

th day of August, 2023, the above Entry of Appearance was 

filed with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system, which sent notice of electronic filing 

to the following electronic filing users in this case:

Max Ralph Tarbox

TARBOX LAW, P.C.

2301 Broadway

Lubbock, Texas 79401

ATTORNEY FOR McCLAIN FEED YARD, INC. 

Case 23-20084-rlj7 Doc 104 Filed 08/16/23 Entered 08/16/23 10:16:16 Desc Main

Document Page 2 of 2
R.C. BLACKBURN, Intervenor v. FRANKLIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES

2160910

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

November 29, 2017

Dismissed.
EX PARTE Richard L. BOLDEN

In re: Richard L. Bolden v. State

2161080

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

October 23, 2017

Mand. pet. denied.
Exhibit 15.2


Deloitte Accountants B.V.
 Orlyplein 10
 1043 DP Amsterdam
 P.O.Box 58110
 1040 HC Amsterdam
 Netherlands
 
 Tel: +31 (0)88 288 2888
 Fax: +31 (0)88 288 9739
 www.deloitte.nl
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm
 
 
 We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Numbers: 333-74703, 333-81400, 333-84044, 333-127660, 333-128619, 333-128621, 333-140798, 333-145751, and 333-149577 on Form S-8 of our report dated 27 March 2013 (30 April 2014 as to the IFRS 10 retrospective adjustments and 30 April 2015 as to the retrospective restatement relating to the change in composition of reportable segments described in Note 30), relating to the 2012 consolidated financial statements of RBS Holdings N.V. (which report expresses an unqualified opinion and includes an explanatory paragraph for the retrospective adjustments relating to the implementation of International Financial Reporting Standard 10 (“IFRS 10”) Consolidated Financial Statements), appearing in this Annual Report on Form 20-F of RBS Holdings N.V. for the year ended 31 December 2014.
 
 
 
 /s/Deloitte Accountants B.V.
 
 30 April 2015
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains notices to the public of the proposed

issuance of rules and regulations. The

purpose of these notices is to give interested

persons an opportunity to participate in the

rule making prior to the adoption of the final

rules.

Proposed Rules Federal Register

7653 

Vol. 90, No. 13 

Wednesday, January 22, 2025 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 73 

[MB Docket No. 22–405; Report No. 3222; 

FR ID 271711] 

Petition for Reconsideration of Action 

in Rulemaking Proceeding 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Petition for reconsideration. 

SUMMARY: Petition for Reconsideration 

(Petition) has been filed in the 

Commission’s proceeding by Robert 

McAllan, CEO, and Rich Morena, COO/ 

CFO, on behalf of Press 

Communications, LLC. 

DATES: Oppositions to the Petition must 

be filed on or before February 6, 2025. 

Replies to oppositions to the Petition 

must be filed on or before February 18, 

2025. 

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications 

Commission, 45 L Street NE, 

Washington, DC 20554. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Thomas Nessinger, Media Bureau, 

Audio Division, (202) 418–2700, 

Thomas.Nessinger@fcc.gov; or James 

Bradshaw, Media Bureau, Audio 

Division, (202) 418–2700, 

James.Bradshaw@fcc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

summary of the Commission’s 

document, Report No. 3222, released 

December 30, 2024. The full text of this 

document can be accessed online via 

the Commission’s Electronic Comment 

Filing System at: http://apps.fcc.gov/ 

ecfs/. The Commission will not send a 

Congressional Review Act (CRA) 

submission to Congress or the 

Government Accountability Office 

pursuant to the CRA, 5 U.S.C. 

801(a)(1)(A), because no rules are being 

adopted by the Commission. 

Subject: Modifying Rules for FM 

Terrestrial Digital Audio Broadcasting 

Systems, MB Docket No. 22–405, First 

Report and Order, FCC 24–105, 

published at 89 FR 84096 on October 

21, 2024. 

Number of Petitions Filed: 1. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Marlene Dortch, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2025–00493 Filed 1–21–25; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
**Exhibit 31.1C**

 

**CERTIFICATE OF STUDENT LOAN FINANCE CORPORATION, AS SERVICER**

 

Student LoanAsset-Backed Notes, 2004-C/D Indenture (Series 2004-C/D) 

 

I, Michael Gort, certify that: 

 

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K, and all reports on Form 8-K containing distribution and servicing reports filed in respect of periods included in the year covered by this annual report, of Education Loans Incorporated(the “Registrant”); 

 

2. Based on my knowledge, theinformation in these reports, taken as a whole, 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, notmisleading as of the last day of the period covered by this report; 

 

3. Based on my knowledge, the distribution information required to be provided by the Trustee and the servicing information required to be provided to the Trustee by the Servicer under the Indenture and the Servicing Agreement for inclusionin these reports is included in these reports; 

 

4. Based on myknowledge and upon the annual compliance statement included in the annual report and required to be delivered to the Trustee in accordance with the terms of the Indenture and the Servicing Agreement, and except as disclosed in the reports, theServicer has fulfilled its obligations under the Indenture and the Servicing Agreement; and 

 

5. The reports disclose all significant deficiencies relating to the Servicer’s compliance with the minimum servicing standards based upon the report provided by an independent public accountant, after conductinga review in accordance with the Uniform Single Attestation Program for Mortgage Bankers or similar procedure, as set forth in the Indenture, that is included in these reports. 

 

Capitalized terms used but not defined herein have the meanings ascribed to them (i) in the Indenture, dated August 1, 2004,(the “Base Indenture”), between the Registrant and U. S. Bank National Association, as trustee, (the “Trustee”), and the First Supplemental Indenture of Trust, dated as of August 1, 2004 (the “First Supplement” togetherwith the Base Indenture, as supplemented, the “Indenture”) between the Registrant and the Trustee and (ii) in the Servicing and Administration Agreement, as amended, dated as of August 1, 2004 (the “Servicing Agreement”) amongthe Registrant, the Servicer and the Trustee. 

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I havehereunto set my hand this 29th day of March, 2005.
Christopher Delaine BRYANT, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D17-4658

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

April 24, 2019

Andy Thomas, Public Defender, and Kathryn Lane, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Frank X. Moehrle, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

Per Curiam.

AFFIRMED .

Wolf, Makar, and M.K. Thomas, JJ., concur.
Statement on the Small Association Presentation

Glen R. Smith

FCA Board Chairman and CEO

Farm Credit Administration Board Meeting

October 14, 2021

First and foremost, I’d like to express my strong support for my fellow board member’s 

well-thought-out comments on the importance and concern for the Farm Credit System’s 

smaller associations. For as long as I’ve known Board Member Hall, this has been an intense 

interest of his, and I assure him that as long as I have influence on this board, that strong 

interest will continue.

The presentation we just heard discussed the decline in the number of small associations 

within the Farm Credit System. Along with Jeff, I am particularly concerned about the 

impact the reduction in the number of small associations may have on borrowers’ active 

ownership of their cooperative institutions and on their local management and control. As 

territories get larger, the distance between an association’s headquarters and local 

agriculture increases, possibly diminishing local input and interest.

In one of my first speeches as chair, I addressed the Farm Credit Council’s national 

convention here in D.C. In it, I expounded on the Jeffersonian principle of trusting the 

commonsense decisions of the yeoman farmer/landowner. The Farm Credit System should 

epitomize those principles of equally respecting the voice of all stakeholders in this 

cooperative community, both large and small.

I thank staff for this informative presentation. It provides a base for future 

recommendations and an action plan, which the board will be requesting.
# C_2017437EN.01002001.xml

| 18.12.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 437/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.12.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 437/20

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France) lodged on 12 October 2017 — Henri Pouvin, Marie Dijoux, wife of Henri Pouvin v Electricité de France (EDF)

(Case C-590/17)

(2017/C 437/24)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Referring court

Cour de cassation

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Henri Pouvin, Marie Dijoux, wife of Henri Pouvin

Applicants:

Defendant: Electricité de France (EDF)

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Is Article 2 of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (1) to be interpreted as meaning that a company such as EDF, where it grants an employee a mortgage loan covered by the scheme providing assistance for the purchase of a home, for which only members of the staff of that company are eligible, is acting as a seller or supplier? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is Article 2 of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (1) to be interpreted as meaning that a company such as EDF, where it grants an employee a mortgage loan covered by the scheme providing assistance for the purchase of a home, for which only members of the staff of that company are eligible, is acting as a seller or supplier?

1

| 2. | Is Article 2 of Directive 93/13/EEC to be interpreted as meaning that a company such as EDF, where it grants such a mortgage loan to the spouse of an employee who is not a member of the staff of that company but is jointly and severally liable as co-borrower, is acting as a seller or supplier? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is Article 2 of Directive 93/13/EEC to be interpreted as meaning that a company such as EDF, where it grants such a mortgage loan to the spouse of an employee who is not a member of the staff of that company but is jointly and severally liable as co-borrower, is acting as a seller or supplier?

| 3. | Is Article 2 of Directive 93/13/EEC to be interpreted as meaning that an employee of a company such as EDF who enters into an agreement with the company for such a loan is acting as a consumer? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Is Article 2 of Directive 93/13/EEC to be interpreted as meaning that an employee of a company such as EDF who enters into an agreement with the company for such a loan is acting as a consumer?

| 4. | Is Article 2 of Directive 93/13/EEC to be interpreted as meaning that the spouse of such an employee who enters into the same loan, not as an employee of the company but as a jointly and severally liable co-borrower, is acting as a consumer? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Is Article 2 of Directive 93/13/EEC to be interpreted as meaning that the spouse of such an employee who enters into the same loan, not as an employee of the company but as a jointly and severally liable co-borrower, is acting as a consumer?

---

(1)  OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29.

1

---
```

[Congressional Bills 119th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 24 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

119th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. J. RES. 24

  Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, 
 United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Department of Energy 
    relating to ``Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation 
         Standards for Walk-In Coolers and Walk-In Freezers''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 16, 2025

 Mrs. Bice (for herself, Ms. Tenney, Mr. Rulli, Mr. Clyde, Mr. Perry, 
  and Mr. Palmer) submitted the following joint resolution; which was 
            referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
  Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, 
 United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Department of Energy 
    relating to ``Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation 
         Standards for Walk-In Coolers and Walk-In Freezers''.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress disapproves the 
rule submitted by the Department of Energy relating to ``Energy 
Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Walk-In Coolers 
and Walk-In Freezers'' (89 Fed. Reg. 104616 (December 23, 2024)), and 
such rule shall have no force or effect.
                                 <all>
```