alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Case 1:07-cv-05804-GEL Document 15-19 Filed 05/02/2008 Page 1 of 10
Case 1:07-cv-05804-GEL Document 15-19 Filed 05/02/2008 Page 2 of 10
Case 1:07-cv-05804-GEL Document 15-19 Filed 05/02/2008 Page 3 of 10
Case 1:07-cv-05804-GEL Document 15-19 Filed 05/02/2008 Page 4 of 10
Case 1:07-cv-05804-GEL Document 15-19 Filed 05/02/2008 Page 5 of 10
Case 1:07-cv-05804-GEL Document 15-19 Filed 05/02/2008 Page 6 of 10
Case 1:07-cv-05804-GEL Document 15-19 Filed 05/02/2008 Page 7 of 10
Case 1:07-cv-05804-GEL Document 15-19 Filed 05/02/2008 Page 8 of 10
Case 1:07-cv-05804-GEL Document 15-19 Filed 05/02/2008 Page 9 of 10
Case 1:07-cv-05804-GEL Document 15-19 Filed 05/02/2008 Page 10 of 10
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1

                        OFFICER'S CERTIFICATE OF SERVICER

To:  Deutsche Bank Trust Company Delaware, f/k/a Bankers Trust (Delaware), as
     Owner Trustee
     Bank One, 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 Agreement dated as of August
30, 2001 (the "Sale and Servicing Agreement") among Deutsche Bank Trust Company
Delaware, f/k/a Bankers Trust (Delaware), as Owner Trustee, not in its
individual capacity but solely as owner trustee (the "Owner Trustee") of M&I
Auto Loan Trust 2001-1 (the "Issuer"), Bond Securitization, L.L.C., as seller
(the "Seller"), M&I Marshall & Ilsley Bank, as servicer (the "Servicer"), and
Bank One, National Association, as indenture trustee (the "Indenture Trustee"),
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
Sale and Servicing Agreement has been made under the undersigned officer's
supervision and (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 28/th/ day of May,
2003.

                                         M&I Marshall & Ilsley Bank, as Servicer


                                         By: /s/ THOMAS J. O'NEILL
                                             -------------------------------
                                         Name:  Thomas J. O'Neill
                                         Title: Executive Vice President
KalshiEX LLC 

KalshiEX LLC 

November 22, 2022

SUBMITTED VIA CFTC PORTAL 

Secretary of the Commission 

Office of the Secretariat 

U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

Three Lafayette Centre 

1155 21st Street, N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20581 

Re: KalshiEX LLC – Request for an extension of time under Commission Regulation 

40.11(c)(2) with regard to the “Will <party> be in control of the <chamber of Congress>?” 

contract

Dear Sir or Madam, 

Pursuant to section 40.11(c)(2) of the regulations of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, 

KalshiEX LLC (Kalshi) hereby requests an extension to the Commission’s review period under section 

40.11 regarding the “Will <party> be in control of the <chamber of Congress>?” contract until January 23, 

2023.

If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. 

Sincerely, 

Elie Mishory

Chief Regulatory Officer 

KalshiEX LLC 

emishory@kalshi.com
153 So. 218

#### WEAVER et al. v. TIDWELL, County Treasurer.

6 Div. 482.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

March 1, 1934.

Travis Williams, of Russellville, and *Kw*Mayhall, of Haleyville, for appellants.

John A. Posey, of Haleyville, for appellee-.

Brief did not reach the Reporter.

*170ANDERSON, Chief Justice.

The main question presented is whether or not the commissioners’ court, in making the claims in question, conceded to be valid and payable out of the general fund of the county, had the authority to shift said claims against the general fund to a valid charge against the special road and bridge fund created from the county’s share of the gasoline tax, as provided by the General Acts of 1931, p. 458. True the act provides that this fund “shall be expended exclusively for the maintenance, or construction or repair of roads or highways or bridges in said county” (section 1); and the claims in question arise out of duties discharged in connection with the roads, yet the law, as existing, made provision for said compensation as a charge against the general fund, and we do not think the act in question intended to burden this special fund with charges for which the general fund was liable. Section 7285 of the Code of 1923 provides for the compensation of the probate judges for services rendered in connection with roads “to be paid out of the county treasury,” meaning, of course, out of the general fund, and section 6771, as amended by the General Act of 1931, p. 805, likewise provides for the compensation of commissioners.

True, sections 1347 and 6754 of the Code of 1923 give the commissioners’ court quite general powers, but that does not give it the power to direct the funds arising under the General Act of 1931, p. 458, to the payment of claims against the general fund.

The trial court did not err in sustaining the demurrer- to the petition and in dismissing same after the petitioners declined to amend same, and the judgment of the circuit court is affirmed.

Affirmed.

THOMAS, BROWN, and KNIGHT, JJ., concur.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ............................................................... X 

ZIM INTEGRATED SHIPPING, et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

-againstBELCO RESOURCES, et al., 

Defendants. ............................................................... X 

The above entitled action is referred to the designated Magistrate Judge for the following 

purpose(s): 

General Pretrial (includes scheduling, 

x- discovery, non-dispositive pretrial Consent under 28 U.S.C. 636(c) 

motions, and settlement) for all purposes (including trial) 

Specific Non-Dispositive 

Motion/Dispute:* Consent under 28 U.S.C. 5 636(c) 

for limited purpose (e.g., 

dispositive motion, preliminary 

injunction) 

If referral is for discovery disputes when 

the District Judge is unavailable, the Habeas Corpus 

time period of the referral: 

Social Security 

Settlement* Dispositive Motion (i.e., motion 

requiring a Report and 

Recommendation) 

- Inquest After DefaultIDamages Hearing Particular 

Motion: 

All Such Motions: 

* Do not check if already referred for general pretrial. 

SO ORDERED. 

Dated: New York, New York 

October 18,2007 

RICHARD M. BERMAN 

U.S.D.J. 

Case 1:07-cv-05861-RMB-GWG Document 22 Filed 10/18/2007 Page 1 of 1
Case 1:07-cv-05564-AKH     Document 17      Filed 09/13/2007     Page 1 of 3

Case 1:07-cv-05564-AKH     Document 17      Filed 09/13/2007     Page 2 of 3

Case 1:07-cv-05564-AKH     Document 17      Filed 09/13/2007     Page 3 of 3
Case 1:07-cv-05388-AKH Document 28 Filed 01/07/2008 Page 1 of 9Case 1:07-cv-05388-AKH Document 28 Filed 01/07/2008 Page 2 of 9Case 1:07-cv-05388-AKH Document 28 Filed 01/07/2008 Page 3 of 9Case 1:07-cv-05388-AKH Document 28 Filed 01/07/2008 Page 4 of 9Case 1:07-cv-05388-AKH Document 28 Filed 01/07/2008 Page 5 of 9Case 1:07-cv-05388-AKH Document 28 Filed 01/07/2008 Page 6 of 9Case 1:07-cv-05388-AKH Document 28 Filed 01/07/2008 Page 7 of 9Case 1:07-cv-05388-AKH Document 28 Filed 01/07/2008 Page 8 of 9Case 1:07-cv-05388-AKH Document 28 Filed 01/07/2008 Page 9 of 9
Clear All

        02 October 2023    

                    2023 Stockdale Leadership Award Recipients Announced                 
                The Navy announced Cmdr. David Burke, from U.S. Fleet Forces Command, and Cmdr. Jeffrey C. Fassbender, from U.S. Pacific Fleet, as the 2023 recipients of the Vice Admiral James Bond Stockdale Award for inspirational leadership, Oct. 2.            

        14 July 2022    

                    Why You Want to be a Submarine Independent Duty Corpsman                 
                Submarine Independent Duty Corpsman Submarine (IDC) is one of four types of IDCs in the Navy. But because of how they deploy and the culture of the Submarine Force, it's arguably the most demanding independent duty corpsman job and one of the most rewarding.            

        16 May 2022    

                    Littoral combat ship completes first land attack missile exercise                 
                USS Montgomery fired three Longbow Hellfire missiles to strike a land-based target as part of the littoral combat ship surface-to-surface mission module.            

#####  

##### Navy.mil  |  Navy.com  |  Navy FOIA  |  DoD Accessibility/Section 508  |  No Fear Act  |  Open Government  |  Plain Writing Act USA.gov  |  Veterans Crisis Line  |  VA Vet Center  |  FVAP  |   DoD Safe Helpline  |  Navy SAPR  |  NCIS Tips  |  Privacy Policy  |  Site Map  |  Contact US

###### Commander, U.S. Fleet Forces Command   |   1562 Mitscher Ave., Suite 250   |   Norfolk, Virginia 23551-2487

###### Official U.S. Navy Website
# C_2019187EN.01006801.xml

| 3.6.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 187/68 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.6.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 187/68

---

Judgment of the General Court of 11 April 2019 — Adapta Color v EUIPO — Coatings Foreign IP (Bio proof ADAPTA)

(Case T-224/17) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - European Union figurative mark Bio proof ADAPTA - Declaration of invalidity by the Board of Appeal - Absolute grounds for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2007/1001) - No distinctive character acquired by use - Article 7(3) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 7(3) of Regulation 2017/1001) - Infringement of the right to be heard - Obligation to state reasons - Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 94 of Regulation 2017/1001) - Evidence submitted for the first time before the Court)

(2019/C 187/72)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Adapta Color, SL (Peñiscola, Spain) (represented by: G. Macías Bonilla, by G. Marín Raigal and by E. Armero Lavie, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: E. Markakis, A. Söder and D. Walicka, Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court, being: Coatings Foreign IP Co. LLC (Wilmington, Delaware, United States) (represented by: A. Rajendra, Solicitor, and by S. Malynicz QC)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 February 2017 (Case R 2521/2015-5), relating to invalidity proceedings between Coatings Foreign IP and Adapta Color

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Adapta Color, SL to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Adapta Color, SL to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 202, 26.6.2017.

---
EXHIBIT 31.2

Sarbanes-Oxley Act Section 302 Certification of Tim T. Hart



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER



I, Tim T. Hart, certify that:



1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of SeraCare Life Sciences, 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 registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;



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



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



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



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



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s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):



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



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



Date: December 14, 2004



|                                    
|------------------------------------
|/s/    TIM T. HART                  
|Tim T. Hart, Chief Financial Officer
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

----------------------------------------------------------------x

Armando Guzman

Plaintiffs,

- against -

NOMURA HOLDING AMERICA INC. and

NOMURA SECURITIES INTERNATIONAL, INC.

et al. (see Defendants’ List)

Defendants.

Index No.: 1:07-cv-05556

(AKH)

NOTICE OF THE NOMURA

PARTIES’ ADOPTION OF

ANSWER TO MASTER

COMPLAINT

_________________________

1:21-MC-00102

----------------------------------------------------------------x

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT Defendants NOMURA PARTIES (Nomura

Holding America Inc., Nomura Securities International Inc.) as and for their responses to

the allegations set forth in the Complaint by Adoption (Check-Off Complaint) related to

the Master Complaint filed herein and applicable to the above captioned matter hereby

adopts all of the responses and all of the affirmative defenses contained in the Answer

to the Master Complaint dated, filed and served July 31, 2007, In re World Trade Center

Lower Manhattan Disaster Site Litigation, 21 MC102 (AKH). The responses to all of the

allegations in the Master Complaint are adopted herein and are applicable to the CheckOff Complaint served and filed herein.

Case 1:07-cv-05556-AKH Document 31 Filed 10/23/2007 Page 1 of 3
PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that Defendant, NOMURA PARTIES,

reserves the right to serve and file an amended answer and specifically reserves the

right to interpose a cross claim against any and all co-defendants.

PLAEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that Defendant, NOMURA PARTIES, also

adopts all affirmative defenses and the jury demand therein.

WHEREFORE, Defendant, NOMURA PARTIES, demands judgment dismissing

the above captioned action against it along with the costs and disbursements of this

action.

Case 1:07-cv-05556-AKH Document 31 Filed 10/23/2007 Page 2 of 3
Dated: September 14, 2007

New York, New York

Yours, etc.

STRONGIN ROTHMAN & ABRAMS, LLP

s/ Dror M. Bikel

________________________________

Dror M. Bikel, ESQ.

Attorneys for Defendant

NOMURA HOLDING AMERICA, INC.

50 Broadway, Suite 2003

New York, NY 10004

(212) 931-8300

Case 1:07-cv-05556-AKH Document 31 Filed 10/23/2007 Page 3 of 3
Case 1:07-cv-05804-GEL Document 19-8 Filed 05/03/2008 Page 1 of 13
Case 1:07-cv-05804-GEL Document 19-8 Filed 05/03/2008 Page 2 of 13
Case 1:07-cv-05804-GEL Document 19-8 Filed 05/03/2008 Page 3 of 13
Case 1:07-cv-05804-GEL Document 19-8 Filed 05/03/2008 Page 4 of 13
Case 1:07-cv-05804-GEL Document 19-8 Filed 05/03/2008 Page 5 of 13
Case 1:07-cv-05804-GEL Document 19-8 Filed 05/03/2008 Page 6 of 13
Case 1:07-cv-05804-GEL Document 19-8 Filed 05/03/2008 Page 7 of 13
Case 1:07-cv-05804-GEL Document 19-8 Filed 05/03/2008 Page 8 of 13
Case 1:07-cv-05804-GEL Document 19-8 Filed 05/03/2008 Page 9 of 13
Case 1:07-cv-05804-GEL Document 19-8 Filed 05/03/2008 Page 10 of 13
Case 1:07-cv-05804-GEL Document 19-8 Filed 05/03/2008 Page 11 of 13
Case 1:07-cv-05804-GEL Document 19-8 Filed 05/03/2008 Page 12 of 13
Case 1:07-cv-05804-GEL Document 19-8 Filed 05/03/2008 Page 13 of 13
# C_2019044EN.01004001.xml

| 4.2.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 44/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.2.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/40

---

Judgment of the General Court of 29 November 2018 — Khadi and Village Industries Commission v EUIPO — BNP Best Natural Products (Khadi Ayurveda)

(Case T-683/17) (1)

((EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU word mark ‘Khadi Ayurveda’ - Production of evidence for the first time before the Board of Appeal - Discretion of the Board of Appeal - Article 76(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 95(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Absolute grounds for refusal - Mark of such a nature as to deceive the public - Article 7(1)(g) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(g) of Regulation 2017/1001) - No bad faith - Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001)))

(2019/C 44/50)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Khadi and Village Industries Commission (Mumbai Maharashtra, India) (represented by: J. Guise, N. Rose and V. Ellis, Solicitors)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: initially, M. Rajh and D. Walicka, and, subsequently, M. Rajh and H. O’Neill, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: BNP Best Natural Products GmbH (Munich, Germany) (represented by: M. Kloth and R. Briske, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 July 2017 (Case R 2086/2016-5) relating to invalidity proceedings between Khadi and Villages Industries Commission and BNP Best Natural Products.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Khadi and Village Industries Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Khadi and Village Industries Commission to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 402, 27.11.2017.

---
Case 1:07-cv-05857-JCF Document 3 Filed 06/29/2007 Page 1 of 1
**U.S. Navy Marksmanship Menu**

                    - Marksmanship Home
                    - Leadership                        - Officer in Charge
                      - Atlantic Coast Director
                      - Pacific Coast Director
                      - Action Shooting Director
                    - Team Members
                    - Upcoming Matches
                    - Achievements

**Cmdr. Dave Michalak**Cmdr. Dave Michalak is a Florida native and joined the Navy in 1990. During his enlisted career, he served as a P-3C Orion aircrewman with Patrol Squadron (VP) 4, VP-30 and VP-31, and accumulated 2500 flying hours. His a graduate of University of North Florida and earned his commission in 1999. Following his initial officer training, Cmdr. Michalak served in a variety of assignments. Operationally, he deployed aboard USS Mount Whitney (LCC 20), USS George Washington (CVN 73), USS Kearsarge (LHD 3), USS Saipan (LHA 2), and USS Nassau (LHA 4).Ashore, Cmdr. Michalak served on the staffs of Commander, U.S. Fleet Forces Command; Commander, Naval Surface Force Atlantic; Commander, Naval Information Forces; and Commander, Information Warfare Training Group.Cmdr. Michalak began competing with the U. S. Navy Marksmanship Team in 1998. He assumed his duties as officer in charge in May 2019. 

 

#####  

##### Navy.mil  |  Navy.com  |  Navy FOIA  |  DoD Accessibility/Section 508  |  No Fear Act  |  Open Government  |  Plain Writing Act USA.gov  |  Veterans Crisis Line  |  VA Vet Center  |  FVAP  |   DoD Safe Helpline  |  Navy SAPR  |  NCIS Tips  |  Privacy Policy  |  Site Map  |  Contact US

###### Commander, U.S. Fleet Forces Command   |   1562 Mitscher Ave., Suite 250   |   Norfolk, Virginia 23551-2487

###### Official U.S. Navy Website
Case 1:07-cv-05898-RJS Document 7 Filed 01/25/2008 Page 1 of 1
Karen Lovely Direct Dial: (713) 403-8394 klovely@thompsoncoe.com 

# Thompson Coe Thompson, Coe, Cousins & Irons, L.L.P. Attorneys and Counselors

December 1,2015 <8fc 

### °/b/1/ ^>pPfi,

^ Austin Dallas Houston Los Angeles

Saint Paul

Via HandDelivery 

### First Court ofAppeals Attn: Kim 

### 301 Fannin Street, Room 208 Houston, Texas 77002-2066 

### Re: No. 01-14-00907-CV; Crum & Forster Specialty Insurance Company v. Creekstone Builders, Inc., et al.\ in the Court of Appeals for the First District ofTexas at Houston Dear Kim: 

### Per our conversation, enclosed please find our firm check in the amount of $15.00 to cover the filing fee ofthe MOTIONFORENBANC RECONSIDERATION. Ifyou have any questions, please call.

/kl 

### Enclosure (as stated)

2325123v1 05060.795 

### Sincerely,
Karen Lovely Assistant to Andrew L. Johnson

OneRiverway | Suite 1400 | Houston,TX 77056 | (713)403-8210 | Fax:(713)403-8299
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 20-0502

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

NICHOLAS LEE WINZENBURG,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and 

good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including May 14, 2021, within which to prepare, file, 

and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Beth Baker

Justice, Montana Supreme Court

April 7 2021

04/07/2021

Case Number: DA 20-0502