alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Marcel Romains WALLACE, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-5766.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 10, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
Shawn T. WALKER, petitioner, v. Michael A. FARNAN, et al.

No. 17-53.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 16, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.
##### 



EXHIBIT 31.2

INTERSTATE LAND INVESTORS II LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Jeffrey K. Harpel, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Interstate Land Investors II Limited Partnership;

2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this quarterly
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 quarterly 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)) for the registrant
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 registrant is made
known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly 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 quarterly report based on such evaluation; and

c) disclosed in this quarterly 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(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 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.

/s/ Jeffrey K. HarpelJeffrey K. HarpelSenior Vice President,ISC Realty Corporation,Principal Financial Officer,of the RegistrantDate: August 13, 2004
Shanelle JOSEPH, petitioner, v. CITY OF CEDAR HILL POLICE DEPARTMENT, et al.

No. 17-5037.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed *in forma pauperis* denied. Petitioner allowed until October 23, 2017, within which to pay the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) and to submit a petition in compliance with Rule 33.1 of the Rules of this Court.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, 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. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

May 28, 2009 

s0520 

Order 

 

May 28, 2009 

138145 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 138145 

 COA: 279501 

Wayne CC: 07-005476-01 

DEMETRIUS ALLEN ECKFORD, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the December 18, 2008 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
# C_2010037EN.01003901.xml

| 13.2.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 37/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.2.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 37/39

---

Action brought on 9 November 2009 — Escola Superior Agrária de Coimbra v Commission

(Case T-446/09)

2010/C 37/54

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Escola Superior Agrária de Coimbra (Bencanta, Portugal) (represented by: J. Pais do Amaral, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annulment of Commission Decision D(2009)224268 of 9 September 2009; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annulment of Commission Decision D(2009)224268 of 9 September 2009;

| — | Order the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Lack of reasoning in relation to the requirement of reimbursement of the amount stipulated in point 8 of the letter of 12 August 2009.

Infringement of points 21.2 and 22 of the administrative framework provisions in relation to the other amounts, since a system was in place to record the time dedicated by each of the participants to the project, which indicated the name of the person and the time, in real time, which that person dedicated to the project.

Error of fact since the administration can act only if sure that the facts are correct. Mere doubt on the part of the administration as to whether the time recorded on the timesheets was actually dedicated to the project or not is not sufficient since the burden of proof is on the Commission.

Misassumption on the part of the Commission since there is no written obligation to adopt a specific type of system to record the duration of work carried out which is more rigorous than the recording of information on timesheets. Thus, while the contract is being executed and when it is no longer possible to alter the previous legitimate procedure for registering time dedicated to the project, namely by means of timesheets, the Commission cannot legitimately require more than what was originally stated and set out in the contract. In addition, it is inappropriate to make such an onerous demand that time dedicated to the project be recorded photographically.

The contested act infringes the principles of good faith, legitimate expectations, transparency, proportionality, and good and reasonable administration since the rules in place for recording time dedicated to the project are new, which is corroborated by the fact that those rules feature explicitly and clearly in subsequent versions of the program at issue.

Error in the assessment of the facts in so far as the size and the content of the refund ordered by the Commission is disproportionate to the content and nature of the alleged irregularities, given that it was not possible to attain the results reflected in being classed in tenth position out of 200 projects, without dedicating significantly more time to the project than actually paid for (once the refund ordered has been deducted).

---
# L_2011341EN.01008701.xml

| 22.12.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 341/87 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.12.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 341/87

---

DECISION OF THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE

No 122/2011

of 21 October 2011

amending Annex XX (Environment) to the EEA Agreement

THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE,

Having regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, as amended by the Protocol adjusting the Agreement on the European Economic Area, hereinafter referred to as ‘the Agreement’, and in particular Article 98 thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Annex XX to the Agreement was amended by Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 93/2011 of 20 July 2011 (1). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Annex XX to the Agreement was amended by Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 93/2011 of 20 July 2011 (1).

| (2) | Commission Decision 2011/638/EU of 26 September 2011 on benchmarks to allocate greenhouse gas emission allowances free of charge to aircraft operators pursuant to Article 3e of Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (2) is to be incorporated into the Agreement, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Commission Decision 2011/638/EU of 26 September 2011 on benchmarks to allocate greenhouse gas emission allowances free of charge to aircraft operators pursuant to Article 3e of Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (2) is to be incorporated into the Agreement,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

The following point shall be inserted after point 21apc (Commission Decision 2011/389/EU) of Annex XX to the Agreement:

| ‘21apd. | 32011 D 0638: Commission Decision 2011/638/EU of 26 September 2011 on benchmarks to allocate greenhouse gas emission allowances free of charge to aircraft operators pursuant to Article 3e of Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ L 252, 28.9.2011, p. 20).’ |
| --- | --- |

‘21apd.

32011 D 0638: Commission Decision 2011/638/EU of 26 September 2011 on benchmarks to allocate greenhouse gas emission allowances free of charge to aircraft operators pursuant to Article 3e of Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ L 252, 28.9.2011, p. 20).’

Article 2

The text of Decision 2011/638/EU in the Icelandic and Norwegian languages, to be published in the EEA Supplement to the Official Journal of the European Union, shall be authentic.

Article 3

This Decision shall enter into force on 22 October 2011, provided that all the notifications under Article 103(1) of the Agreement have been made to the EEA Joint Committee (*1).

Article 4

This Decision shall be published in the EEA Section of, and in the EEA Supplement to, the Official Journal of the European Union.

Done at Brussels, 21 October 2011.

For the EEA Joint Committee

The President

Kurt JÄGER

---

(1)  
  OJ L 262, 6.10.2011, p. 65.

1

(2)  
  OJ L 252, 28.9.2011, p. 20.

2

(*1)  No constitutional requirements indicated.

*1

---
2

 
The beneficiaries may only claim for the Effective Date Amount not paid as per the terms andconditions of the Agreement.Under the terms of Section 2.5 of the Quota Purchase Agreement this Promissory Note is issued as a*pro solvendo*guarantee, and is not negotiable, transferable or endorsable by its beneficiaries.This Promissory Note constitutes a Schedule to the Quota Purchase Agreement entered in July 22,2009 by and among the abovementioned parties, and forms an integral part of the Quota PurchaseAgreement.São Paulo, July 22, 2009.     By: /s/ p. Marcelo Duarte     **MOBITEC EMPREENDIMENTOS E PARTICIPAÇÕES LTDA.**  **p. Marcelo Duarte**    **Administrator**       **By co-signature to the issuer:**       /s/ Oliver Andreas Wels     **MOBITEC AB (publ)**  Oliver Andreas Wels  
3
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE

F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER

Appellate case name: Elissa Adams v. Allstate County Mutual Insurance

Appellate case number: 01

- 19

- 00451

- CV

Trial court case number: 2014

- 69348

Trial court: 190th District Court of Harris County

Appellee, Allstate County Mutual Insurance, has objected to mediation. The Court’s

mediation order date June 26, 2019 is withdrawn.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature:

___

/s/ Sarah B. Landau

_____ Acting individually

Date: __ July 11, 2019

____
1 TheHonorable Robert W. Pratt, United States District Judge for the Southern

District of Iowa. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 00-1475

___________ William Perry Lacey, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the Southern * District of Iowa. Iowa Board of Corrections, Iowa * Medical and Classification Center, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellee. *

___________ Submitted: August 22, 2000 Filed: August 31, 2000

___________ Before BEAM, FAGG, and LOKEN, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. William Lacey appeals from the district court's 1 dismissal without prejudice of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint for failure to exhaust administrative remedies as mandatedby 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) of the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Havingcarefully reviewed the record and appellant's brief, we conclude dismissal was proper because Lacey's complaint failed to state a claim of deliberate indifference to-2-

his health and safety. See 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c)(2); Stephens v. Johnson , 83 F.3d 198, 200 (8th Cir. 1996). Accordingly, we direct the district court to dismiss this matter with prejudice but otherwise affirm the judgment of the district court without further discussion. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
Mahmoud M. MAHMOUD, petitioner, v. Corinne LUNA, et al.

No. 17-128.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 10, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4059 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 4059

 To take certain lands in California into trust for the benefit of the 
    Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 25, 2019

   Mr. Ruiz introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                     Committee on Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To take certain lands in California into trust for the benefit of the 
    Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians, and for other purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. LANDS TO BE TAKEN INTO TRUST.

    (a) In General.--The approximately 2,560 acres of land owned by the 
Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians, numbered 16, 21, 27, and 29 and 
generally depicted as ``BLM Exchange Lands (2,560 Acres)'' on the map 
titled ``ACBCI/BLM LAND EXCHANGE'' is hereby taken into trust for the 
benefit of the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians.
    (b) Lands Part of Reservation.--Lands taken into trust by this 
section shall be part of the Tribe's reservation and shall be 
administered in accordance with the laws and regulations generally 
applicable to property held in trust by the United States for an Indian 
tribe.
    (c) Gaming Prohibited.--Lands taken into trust by this section for 
the benefit of the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians shall not be 
eligible for gaming under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 
2701 et seq.).
                                 <all>
```
# L_2011171EN.01003401.xml

| 30.6.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 171/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.6.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 171/34

---

DECISION OF THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE

No 34/2011

of 1 April 2011

amending Annex XIII (Transport) to the EEA Agreement

THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE,

Having regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, as amended by the Protocol adjusting the Agreement on the European Economic Area, hereinafter referred to as ‘the Agreement’, and in particular Article 98 thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Annex XIII to the Agreement was amended by Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 5/2011 of 11 February 2011 (1). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Annex XIII to the Agreement was amended by Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 5/2011 of 11 February 2011 (1).

| (2) | Commission Regulation (EU) No 1071/2010 of 22 November 2010 amending Regulation (EC) No 474/2006 establishing the Community list of air carriers which are subject to an operating ban within the Community (2) is to be incorporated into the Agreement, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Commission Regulation (EU) No 1071/2010 of 22 November 2010 amending Regulation (EC) No 474/2006 establishing the Community list of air carriers which are subject to an operating ban within the Community (2) is to be incorporated into the Agreement,

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Article 1

The following indent shall be added in point 66zab (Commission Regulation (EC) No 474/2006) of Annex XIII to the Agreement:

| ‘— | 32010 R 1071: Commission Regulation (EU) No 1071/2010 of 22 November 2010 (OJ L 306, 23.11.2010, p. 44).’. |
| --- | --- |

‘—

32010 R 1071: Commission Regulation (EU) No 1071/2010 of 22 November 2010 (OJ L 306, 23.11.2010, p. 44).’.

Article 2

The text of Regulation (EU) No 1071/2010 in the Icelandic and Norwegian languages, to be published in the EEA Supplement to the Official Journal of the European Union, shall be authentic.

Article 3

This Decision shall enter into force on 2 April 2011, provided that all the notifications under Article 103(1) of the Agreement have been made to the EEA Joint Committee (*1).

Article 4

This Decision shall be published in the EEA Section of, and in the EEA Supplement to, the Official Journal of the European Union.

Done at Brussels, 1 April 2011.

For the EEA Joint Committee

The Acting President

Gianluca GRIPPA

---

(1)  
  OJ L 93, 7.4.2011, p. 33.

1

(2)  
  OJ L 306, 23.11.2010, p. 44.

2

(*1)  No constitutional requirements indicated.

*1

---
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04

- 19

- 00394

- CV

IN RE Robert HEWITTY

Original Mandamus Proceeding 1

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

Irene Rios, Justice

Beth Watkins, Justice

Delivered and Filed: July 3, 2019

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED

On June 12, 2019, r elator filed a petition for writ of mandamus. After considering the

petition, this court concludes relator is not entitled to the relief sought. Accordingly, the petition

for writ of mandamus is denied. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 52.8(a).

PER CURIAM

1 Th is proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2016

- CI

- 01856, styled The State of Texas v. Two Thousand Three Hundred

Fifty

- Two Dollars ($2,352.00) United States Currency , pending in the 73rd Judicial District Court, Bexar County,

Texas, the Honorable Laura Salinas presiding.
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.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Special Emphasis Panel; NIAID SBIR Phase II Clinical Trial Implementation Cooperative Agreement (U44 Clinical Trial Required).                    

*Date:*                         May 25, 2022.                    

*Time:*                         12:00 p.m. to 2:00 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health, 5601 Fishers Lane, Room 4F52, Rockville, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).                    

*Contact Person:*                         Lindsey M. Pujanandez, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Scientific Review Program, Division of Extramural Activities,  National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health, 5601 Fishers Lane, Room 4F52, Rockville, MD 20852, (240) 627-3206,                         *lindsey.pujanandez@nih.gov*.                    

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.855, Allergy, Immunology, and Transplantation Research; 93.856, Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: April 11, 2022.

Tyeshia M. Roberson-Curtis,

Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2022-08087 Filed 4-14-22; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
Ronald David JONES, Jr., petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-8943.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 18, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.