alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Mary AMERSON, Appellant, v. CITY OF DES MOINES, IOWA, Appellee.

No. 11-1575.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: Dec. 2, 2011.

Filed: Dec. 7, 2011.

Mary Amerson, Des Moines, IA, pro se.

Gary D. Goudelock, Jr., City Attorney’s Office Legal Department City Hal, Des Moines, IA, for Appellee.

Before WOLLMAN, SMITH, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Mary Amerson sued the City of Des Moines in Iowa state court, claiming in part that the City’s enforcement of its nuisance ordinances was discriminatory and unconstitutional and that various City officials had caused damage to or the loss of her real estate and vehicles, had committed illegal searches and seizures, had *399defamed her character, and had conducted an unfair administrative hearing. After the City removed the action to federal court, the district court1 denied Amerson’s motion to remand because it was untimely and because Amerson had claimed violations of her federal constitutional rights. The court later granted the City’s motion for summary judgment, denied Amerson’s motion to alter or amend judgment, and denied her related motion to strike. She appeals all those rulings.

Following careful review, we conclude that the motion to remand was properly denied as untimely, *see Graphic Commc’ns Local 1B Health & Welfare Fund A v. CVS Caremark Corp.,*636 F.3d 971, 974 (8th Cir.2011), and that the grant of summary judgment was proper, *see Rau v. Roberts,*640 F.3d 324, 327 (8th Cir.2011). We find no abuse of discretion in the denial of the motion to alter or amend judgment, *see Sipp v. Astrue,*641 F.3d 975, 980-81 (8th Cir.2011), and no error in the denial of the motion to strike the City’s timely response. Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed. *See*8th Cir. R. 47B.

1

. The Honorable Robert W. Pratt, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa.
DISMISS; and Opinion Filed December 28, 2015.

S

In The

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-15-01457-CR

JACKIE DON MARTIN, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 1

Grayson County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2015-1-0882

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Fillmore, Myers, and Whitehill

Opinion by Justice Fillmore

Jackie Don Martin pleaded guilty to assault involving family violence. Pursuant to a plea 

agreement, the trial court deferred adjudication of Martin’s guilt and placed him on twenty-four 

months’ community supervision. Martin waived his right to appeal as part of the plea 

agreement. See Blanco v. State, 18 S.W.3d 218, 219–20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000). The trial court 

has certified both that Martin waived his right to appeal and that the case involves a plea bargain 

and Martin has no right to appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(a), (d); Dears v. State, 154 S.W.3d 

610 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). We dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

 

Do Not Publish

TEX. R. APP. P. 47

151457F.U05

/Robert M. Fillmore/

ROBERT M. FILLMORE

JUSTICE
–2–

Court of Appeals

S

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

JACKIE DON MARTIN, Appellant

No. 05-15-01457-CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law 

No. 1, Grayson County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2015-1-0882.

Opinion delivered by Justice Fillmore, 

Justices Myers and Whitehill participating.

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we DISMISS the appeal for want of 

jurisdiction.

Judgment entered this 28th day of December, 2015.
<PAGE>



                                                                    Exhibit 99.6



Report of Independent Accountants


Chase Manhattan Bank USA, N.A. (the "Bank"),
Administrator of the Chase Credit Card Owner Trust Series 2002-1



We have examined management's assertion, included in the accompanying Management
Report on Internal Control over the Administration of the Chase Credit Card
Owner Trust Series 2002-1 (the "Owner Trust"), that Chase Manhattan Bank USA NA
(the "Bank") maintained effective internal control over its administration of
the Certificates held by the Owner Trust and the Notes issued by the Owner Trust
(the "Administration" of the Owner Trust) as of December 31, 2003, based upon
the criteria for effective internal control established in "Internal Control -
Integrated Framework" issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the
Treadway Commission. The Bank's management is responsible for maintaining
effective internal control over the Administration of the Owner Trust. Our
responsibility is to express an opinion on management's assertion based on our
examination.

Our examination was conducted in accordance with attestation standards
established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants and,
accordingly, included obtaining an understanding of internal control over the
Administration of the Owner Trust, testing and evaluating the design and
operating effectiveness of internal control, and performing such other
procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. We believe that our
examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion.

Because of inherent limitations in any internal control, misstatement due to
error or fraud may occur and not be detected. Also, projections of any
evaluation of internal control over the Administration of the Owner Trust to
future periods are subject to the risk that the internal control may become
inadequate because of changes in conditions, or that the degree of compliance
with the policies or procedures may deteriorate.

In our opinion, management's assertion that the Bank maintained effective
internal control over Administration of the Certificates held by the Owner Trust
and the Notes issued by the Owner Trust as of December 31, 2003, is fairly
stated, in all material respects, based upon the criteria for effective internal
control established in "Internal Control - Integrated Framework" issued by the
Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission.



/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

March 29, 2004
# C_2021062EN.01002702.xml

| 22.2.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 62/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.2.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 62/27

---

Judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2020 — BT v Commission

(Case T-315/19) (1)

(Civil service - Officials - Surviving spouse - Survivor’s pension - Articles 18 and 20 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations - Conditions for eligibility - Duration of the marriage - Plea of illegality - Equal treatment - Principle of non-discrimination on grounds of age - Proportionality)

(2021/C 62/33)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: BT (represented by: J.-N. Louis, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: B. Mongin, acting as Agent)

Intervener in support of the applicant: International Association of Former Officials of the European Union (AIACE International) (represented by: J. Van Rossum, lawyer)

Interveners in support of the defendant: European Parliament (represented by: J. Van Pottelberge and J. Steele, acting as Agents), Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bauer and R. Meyer, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 270 TFEU seeking annulment of the Commission’s decision of 20 July 2018 rejecting the applicant’s request for a survivor’s pension.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the European Commission of 20 July 2018 rejecting BT’s request for a survivor’s pension; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the European Commission of 20 July 2018 rejecting BT’s request for a survivor’s pension;

| 2. | Orders the Commission to pay, in addition to its own costs, the costs incurred by BT; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Commission to pay, in addition to its own costs, the costs incurred by BT;

| 3. | Orders the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union each to bear their own costs; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union each to bear their own costs;

| 4. | Orders the International Association of Former Officials of the European Union (AIACE International) to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders the International Association of Former Officials of the European Union (AIACE International) to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 246, 22.7.2019.

---
#### ELMER FRANCIS WHEELER, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. JOHN W. DENNIS *ET AL.,*DEFENDANTS-PETITIONERS AND EDITH LEVINE *ET AL.,*DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS.

*Messrs. Emory, Langan, Lamb & Blake*for the petitioners.

*Messrs. Van Riper & Belmont*for the plaintiff-respondent.

*Mr. Charles C. Shenier*and *Mr. Kent A. Losche*for the defendants-respondents.

March 28, 1960.

Denied.
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

JUDGMENT

No. 04

- 14

- 00492

- CV

IN THE INTEREST OF K.B.F. and Z.A.R., Children

From the 285th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2012

- PA

- 02954

Honorable Richard Garcia, Judge Presiding

BEFORE JUSTICE BARNARD

, JUSTICE ALVAREZ , AND JUSTICE CHAPA

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s judgment is

AFFIRMED.

We order that no costs be assessed against appellant Mother because she is indigent.

SIGNED January 7, 201 5

.

_____________________________ Marialyn Barnard, Justice
U.S. flagAn official website of the United States government
                    Here's how you know **Official websites use .gov**
                            
                            A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
 **Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**
                            
                            A **lock** (                            
                              A locked padlock                                                      
                            
                            ) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.


Menu Agricultural Research Service
						
                    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
 Northeast Area
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    Careers


        
                Northeast Area Cities

                    Washington, D.C.
                            Newark, Delaware
                            Boston, Massachusetts
                            Beltsville, Maryland (BHNRC)
                            Beltsville, Maryland (BARC)
                            Frederick, Maryland
                            Orono, Maine
                            Geneva, New York
                            Ithaca, New York
                            University Park, Pennsylvania
                            Wyndmoor, Pennsylvania
                            Kearneysville, West Virginia
                            Leetown, West Virginia
                            Burlington, Vermont


                    Civil Rights & EEO Policy StatementsSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Northeast Area Docs





- Visitor Information
- Friends of Agricultural Research
- Student Discovery Garden
- Environmental Accomplishments at BARC
- BARC Field Day
- Climate Change
- Food Safety/Security
- Nutrition
- Bioenergy
- Sustainable Farming
- Genomics

EO/CR Policy testheadline bar


Return to top


Connect with ARS Sign up


ARS Home
                            USDA.gov
                            Plain Writing
                            Policies & Links
                            Civil Rights Statements
                            FOIA
                            Accessibility Statement
                            Privacy Policy
                            Non-Discrimination Statement
                            Quality of Information
                            USA.gov
                            WhiteHouse.gov
CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO




18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350,




AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO




SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




In
connection with the accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of Dahua Inc. (the
“Company”) for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2008, I, Yonglin Du, President
and Chief Executive Officer of 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, to the best of my knowledge and belief, that:




1.
            Such
      Annual Report on Form 10-K/A for the year ending December 31, 2008 fully
      complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
      Exchange Act of 1934; and2.
            The
      information contained in such Annual Report on Form 10-K/A for the fiscal
      year ended December 31, 2008 fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Company.




Dated:
September 14, 2009




/s/
      Yonglin DuYonglin
      DuPresident
      & CEO(Principal
      Executive
Officer)
### Motion Granted; Abatement Order filed March 21, 2013.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14
- 12
- 00796
- CR LISA MICHELLE ESTRAD A , Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

____________ NO. 14
- 12
- 00797
- CR EX PARTE LISA MICHELLE ESTRADA

On Appeal from the 262nd District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No s . 1296827 & 1296827
- A


### ABATEMENT ORDER In the appeal docketed under number 14

- 12

- 00796

- CR, appellant appeals from the order adjudicating her guilt for theft and sentenci ng her to confinement for six months in state jail. In the appeal docketed under number 14

- 12

- 00797

- CR, she appeals from the denial of her pre

- trial application for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to Texas Code of Criminal Procedure article 11.072. See Knia tt v. State , 206 S.W.3d 657, 663

- 64 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (reaffirming rule that jurisdiction is established at the time the writ is filed and is not defeated by subsequent adjudication of guilt ).Appellant has filed a motion to abate the appeal for suppl ementation of the record. In the pre

- trial writ application, appellant alleged that her plea of guilty was involuntary because her trial counsel was ineffective. She also alleged that the State had failed to disclose exculpatory evidence in the form of a p olice statement from witness Melanie Thomas. At the writ hearing, even though the trial court summarily denied the writ as frivolous, the court ordered: “In an abundance of caution, I’m going to go ahead and order that the State obtain a copy of that witn ess statement so that it can be made a part of this record for purposes of an appeal, if that’s what you choose to do.” Appellant asserts that to date, the witness statement has not been made part of the record. Accordingly, we GRANT appellant’s motion and order these appeals ABATED for supplementation of the record. We ORDER counsel for the State to see that the witness statement by Melanie Thomas is made a part of the record and a supplemental clerk’s record containing the statement is filed with the cler k of this court in the habeas appeal docketed under number 14

- 12

- 00797

- CR on or before April 26, 2013

. The appeal s are abated, treated as clos ed cases, and removed from this c ourt’s active docket. The app eals will be reinstated on this c ourt’s active dock et when the supplemental clerk’s record is filed in this court. The c ourt will also consider an appropriate motion to reinstate the appeal s filed by either party, or the c ourt may reinstate the appeal s on its own motion.
PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Chie f Justice Hedges and Justices Boyce and Donovan.

2
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6361

EDDIE LEVORD TAYLOR,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

DENNIS DANIELS,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney, 

Chief District Judge. (3:14-cv-00079-FDW)

Submitted: May 19, 2015 Decided: May 22, 2015

Before NIEMEYER and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Eddie Levord Taylor, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, 

III, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North 

Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Eddie Levord Taylor seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. We dismiss 

the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal 

was not timely filed. 

Parties in a civil action in which the United States is not 

a party are accorded thirty days after the entry of the district 

court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, Fed. R. App. 

P. 4(a)(1)(A), unless the district court extends the appeal 

period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), or reopens the appeal 

period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). “[T]he timely filing of a 

notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional 

requirement.” Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007).

The district court’s order was entered on the docket on 

August 15, 2014. The notice of appeal was filed, at the 

earliest, on March 9, 2015.1 Because Taylor failed to file a 

timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening 

of the appeal period,2 we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis 

 1 For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the date 

appearing on the notice of appeal is the earliest date it could 

have been properly delivered to prison officials for mailing to 

the court. Fed. R. App. P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 

276 (1988).

2 Even if Taylor’s untimely notice of appeal were construed 

as a motion to reopen the appeal period under Rule 4(a)(6), we 

conclude that such a motion could not be granted because Taylor 

(Continued)
3

and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because 

the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 

materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

DISMISSED

 

filed his notice of appeal 19 days after receiving notice of the

court’s judgment, which was beyond the 14-day period provided in 

Rule 4(a)(6)(B). See Dolan v. United States, 560 U.S. 605, 610 

(2010) (stating that “expiration of a jurisdictional deadline 

prevents the court from . . . extend[ing] that deadline”); 

Hensley v. Chesapeake & Ohio Ry. Co., 651 F.2d 226, 228 (4th 

Cir. 1981) (noting expiration of time limits in Rule 4 deprives 

court of jurisdiction).
# C_2019413EN.01003501.xml

| 9.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 413/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 413/35

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sofiyski rayonen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 10 October 2019 — PH, OI v ‘Eurobank Bulgaria’ AD

(Case C-745/19)

(2019/C 413/42)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Sofiyski rayonen sad

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: PH, OI

Defendant:‘Eurobank Bulgaria’ AD

Questions referred

| 1. | If it is shown that a term allowing the creditor to unilaterally change the interest rate on a loan agreement concluded between a seller or supplier and a consumer is unfair, can the national court assume that the interest rate payable under the agreement is fixed (despite any provision to the contrary in the initial agreement) in the amount set as at the date the loan was granted? |
| --- | --- |

1.

If it is shown that a term allowing the creditor to unilaterally change the interest rate on a loan agreement concluded between a seller or supplier and a consumer is unfair, can the national court assume that the interest rate payable under the agreement is fixed (despite any provision to the contrary in the initial agreement) in the amount set as at the date the loan was granted?

| 2. | If the answer to the first question is in the negative, is the national court allowed to award any interest at all where there is an unfair term that fails to set the variable interest rate on the agreement in a fair manner? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the answer to the first question is in the negative, is the national court allowed to award any interest at all where there is an unfair term that fails to set the variable interest rate on the agreement in a fair manner?

| 3. | What effect does the fact that, in the course of repayment of the loan, the consumer has agreed to the application of a methodology for setting the interest rate that does not contain any unfair terms, have on the answer to the first two questions? |
| --- | --- |

3.

What effect does the fact that, in the course of repayment of the loan, the consumer has agreed to the application of a methodology for setting the interest rate that does not contain any unfair terms, have on the answer to the first two questions?

---
Exhibit 31.2

CERTIFICATIONS

I, Amy E. Miles, certify that:

1.     I
have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Regal Entertainment Group;

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(s) 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)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f))
for the registrant and have:



5.     The
registrant's other certifying officer(s) 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 registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):



|Date: March 26, 2008 |  | By: |  | /s/AMY E. MILESAmy E. Miles
Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial Officer)
|-------------------- |  | --- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---



QuickLinks