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

| 1.  | A      review of EMC's activities during the period from and including      January      1, 2007 through and including December 31, 2007 (the "Reporting      Period") and EMC's performance under the agreement has      been made under my supervision.  |
|----------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 2.  | To      the best of my knowledge, based on such review, EMC has fulfilled all      of its obligations under the Agreement in all material      respects throughout the Reporting  Period.                                                             |

| By:    | /s/ David B.      Little      |   | /s/ William Glasgow      Jr.        |
|--------|-------------------------------|--------|-------------------------------------|
|   | David      B. Little          |   | William      Glasgow Jr.            |
|   | Executive      Vice President |   | Executive      Vice President       |
|   | Default      Administration   |   | Enterprise      Operations Services |
|   |                          |   |                                |
|   | /s/ Jenna      Kemp           |   |                                |
|   | Jenna      Kemp               |   |                                |
|   | Executive      Vice President |   |                                |
|   | Investor      Administration  |   |                                |

----

----
16213.101 4813-3072-1699.3 

EXHIBIT E 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4038-5 Filed: 09/30/19 Entered: 09/30/19 13:37:00 Page 1

of 2
16213.101 4813-3072-1699.3 Exhibit E 

DETAILED EXPENSE ENTRIES (COBLENTZ PATCH DUFFY & BASS LLP) FOR 

THE PERIOD AUGUST 1, 2019 THROUGH AUGUST 31, 2019 

Costs Advanced Amount 

Deposition Transcript and Related Charges – U.S. Legal Support – Sac 

(Invoice 328032) 

$1,308.30 

Sacramento Superior Court Website Subscription Fee for Case No.

JCCP4972 (Invoice 328032) 

$132.80 

Sacramento Superior Court Website Subscription Fee for Case No.

JCCP4972 (Invoice 328032) 

$105.00 

Total Costs Requested: $1,546.10

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4038-5 Filed: 09/30/19 Entered: 09/30/19 13:37:00 Page 2

of 2
#### Diane Maier, Appellant, v Howard Maier et al., Respondents.

Submitted December 26,1995;

decided February 20, 1996

Motion, insofar as it seeks leave to appeal from that portion of the Appellate Division order that affirmed so much of Supreme Court’s order as granted defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, denied; motion *966otherwise dismissed upon the ground that the remaining portion of the order does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution.
**Exhibit 31.2****CERTIFICATION**I, J. E. Corrigan, Jr., Executive Vice President & CFO, certify that:      1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of MidSouth Bancorp, Inc.;     2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this quarterly report;     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in thisquarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterlyreport;     4. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for theregistrant and have: a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material information relating tothe registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;  b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures as of the end ofthe period covered by this quarterly report (the “Evaluation Date”); and  c) presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures based on our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;     5. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation, 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 in the design or operation of internal controls which could adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data and haveidentified for the registrant’s auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and  b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal controls; and     6. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have indicated in this quarterly report whether ornot there were significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that couldsignificantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation,including any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.Date: August 14, 2006       /s/ J. E. Corrigan,Jr.     Chief Financial Officer
<!--/* //NOSONAR */--><!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<!--/* //NOSONAR */--><html  lang="en-US">
<head id="Head"><meta id="MetaDescription" name="DESCRIPTION" /><meta id="MetaKeywords" name="KEYWORDS" /><meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width,initial-scale=1" /><title>
	Hospital ship to support humanitarian mission in Latin America
</title><link id="css3605" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="/DesktopModules/ArticleCS/module.css" /><link id="css4619" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="/desktopmodules/ArticleCS/styles/DOD2/style.css" /></head>
<body>
    <main>
    <div>
    <div class="aprint news">
    <div class="header">
        <img height="100" class="print-logo" alt="Site Logo" src="/Portals/7/Images/SOUTHCOM_logo_thumb.jpg?ver=SIvIeRRofyrg5ZHPpvvh6Q%3d%3d" />

        <h1 class="title">Hospital ship to support humanitarian mission in Latin America</h1>
    </div>
    

    <div> <span class="date">/ Published Aug. 22, 2018</span></div>
    <span class="dateline-text"></span>
    <p>MIAMI – The U.S. Navy hospital ship USNS COMFORT (T-AH 20) will deploy to Central America and South America in late September to begin a two-month humanitarian mission with stops in Colombia and the region.</p>
<p>During the deployment, military medical personnel will work alongside our partners to provide needed medical assistance, according to the needs defined by each stop.</p>
<p>The USNS COMFORT support in Colombia was requested by the Colombian government to relieve the pressure of increased population flows from Venezuela on their national health system.</p>
<p>"This mission is a symbol of what can be accomplished when partners work together to aid people in need," said U.S. Navy Adm. Kurt Tidd, commander of U.S. Southern Command, which will oversee the deployment. "Because this mission is humanitarian in nature, it will focus on the people we're assisting, on the nations we're partnering with, and on the region we're supporting together."</p>
<p>This marks the sixth hospital ship deployment to the region since 2007 and reflects the United States’ steadfast commitment of friendship and solidarity with the Americas.</p>
<br /><br />
</div>

    </div>
    </main>
</body>
</html>
#### General Motors Corporation—Delco Products Division, Appellant, v Margarita Rosa, as Commissioner of the New York State Division of Human Rights, et al., Respondents.

Submitted December 14, 1995;

decided February 13, 1996

On the Court’s own motion, appeal, insofar as taken from that portion of the Appellate Division order that affirmed so much of Supreme Court’s order as denied petitioner’s motion to depose Executive Deputy Commissioner Weikart, dismissed, without costs, upon the ground that that portion of the order does not finally determine the proceeding within the meaning of the Constitution; appeal otherwise dismissed, without costs, upon the ground that no substantial constitutional question is directly involved. Motion, insofar as it seeks leave to appeal from that portion of the Appellate Division order that affirmed so much of Supreme Court’s order as denied petitioner’s motion to depose Executive Deputy Commissioner Weikart, dismissed upon the ground that that portion of the order does not finally determine the proceeding within the meaning of the Constitution; motion for leave to appeal otherwise denied.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

EXHIBIT A

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2237-1 Filed: 05/28/19 Entered: 05/28/19 13:26:00 Page 1

of 4
1. Clean Power SF (a division of the City and County of San Francisco) 

2. City of San Jose 

3. East Bay Community Energy Authority 

County of Alameda 

Albany 

Berkeley 

Dublin 

Emeryville 

Fremont 

Hayward 

Livermore 

Oakland 

Piedmont 

San Leandro 

Union City 

4. Marin Clean Energy 

County of Marin 

County of Napa 

County of Contra Costa 

Benicia 

Concord 

Danville 

El Cerrito 

Lafayette 

Martinez 

Moraga 

Oakley 

Pinole 

Pittsburg 

Richmond 

San Pablo 

San Ramon 

Walnut Creek 

5. Monterey Bay Community Power 

County of Santa Cruz 

City of Santa Cruz 

City of Watsonville 

City of Capitola 

City of Scotts Valley 

County of Monterey 

City of Salinas 

City of Monterey 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2237-1 Filed: 05/28/19 Entered: 05/28/19 13:26:00 Page 2

of 4
City of Pacific Grove 

City of Carmel 

City of Seaside 

City of Marina 

Sand City 

Soledad 

Greenfield 

Gonzalez 

County of San Benito 

City of Hollister 

City of San Juan Bautista 

6. Peninsula Clean Energy 

County of San Mateo 

Atherton 

Belmont 

Brisbane 

Burlingame 

Colma 

Daly City 

East Palo Alto 

Foster City 

Half Moon Bay 

Hillsborough 

Menlo Park 

Millbrae 

Pacifica 

Portola Valley 

Redwood City 

San Bruno 

San Carlos 

San Mateo 

South San Francisco 

Woodside 

7. Pioneer Community Energy 

County of Placer 

Auburn 

Colfax 

Loomis 

Lincoln 

Rocklin 

8. Redwood Coast Energy Authority 

County of Humboldt 

Arcata 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2237-1 Filed: 05/28/19 Entered: 05/28/19 13:26:00 Page 3

of 4
Blue Lake 

Eureka 

Ferndale 

Fortuna 

Rio Dell 

Trinidad 

Humboldt Bay Municipal Water District 

9. Silicon Valley Clean Energy Authority 

Campbell 

Cupertino 

Gilroy 

Los Altos 

Los Altos Hills 

Los Gatos 

Milpitas 

Monte Sereno 

Morgan Hill 

Mountain View 

Saratoga 

Sunnyvale 

County of Santa Clara 

10. Sonoma Clean Power Authority 

Cloverdale 

Cotati 

Fort Bragg 

Petaluma 

Point Arena 

Rohnert Park 

Santa Rosa 

Sebastopol 

Sonoma 

County of Sonoma 

County of Mendocino 

Willits 

Windsor 

11. Valley Clean Energy Alliance 

Davis 

Woodland 

County of Yolo 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2237-1 Filed: 05/28/19 Entered: 05/28/19 13:26:00 Page 4

of 4
A96A1047.

#### THE STATE v. JOHNSON.

(473 SE2d 593)

Decided July 9, 1996.

*Gerald N. Blaney, Jr., Solicitor,*for appellant.

*Phyllis Miller,*for appellee.

Johnson, Judge.

While represented by counsel, John E. Johnson, Jr., entered a plea of guilty to charges of driving while under the influence of alcohol, attempting to elude a law enforcement officer, and driving with a suspended license. Johnson was sentenced by the State Court of Gwinnett County and, more than a year later, filed a motion in state court to withdraw his plea, claiming it was not knowingly, intelligently, freely or voluntarily made. The trial court granted his motion. The state appeals, arguing that the trial court erred in allowing the guilty plea to be withdrawn when the motion was filed outside the term of court in which the judgment was entered. We agree and reverse.

The trial court’s authority to grant a motion to withdraw a guilty plea ends with the term of court in which the judgment of conviction is entered. *State v. Kight,*175 Ga. App. 65, 66 (1) (332 SE2d 363) (1985). The terms of court for the State Court of Gwinnett County begin in January, March, May, July, September and November. Ga. L. 1981, pp. 3034-3035, § 2. The state court’s judgment of conviction in this case was entered on October 3, 1994, during its September 1994 term. The order granting the motion was entered in December 1995, during the court’s November 1995 term, a full seven terms and more than a year beyond the term in which the judgment was entered. The trial court therefore lacked authority to allow Johnson to withdraw his plea. See *Jarrett v. State,*217 Ga. App. 627, 628 (1) (458 SE2d 414) (1995). At the time of his motion, the only remedy available to Johnson would have been through habeas corpus proceedings. See *Lowery v. State,*188 Ga. App. 411 (373 SE2d 261) (1988). Inasmuch as the trial court here was not a superior court, it lacked jurisdiction to treat the motion as a habeas corpus proceeding. *Thigpen v. State,*165 Ga. App. 837, 838 (303 SE2d 81) (1983). The trial court erred in granting Johnson’s motion.

*Judgment reversed.*

*McMurray, P. J, and Ruffin, J., concur.*
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R.

47.5.4.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FIFTH CIRCUIT

_________________

No. 97-40863

(Summary Calendar)

_________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

NICHOLAS BURNETT PARSON, also known as Nick,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Eastern District of Texas

(6:96-CR-49-1)

January 20, 1998

Before WIENER, BARKSDALE, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Defendant-Appellant Nicholas Burnett Parson appeals his

sentence, following a guilty plea, for conspiracy to possess with

intent to distribute cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846.

Parson’s contention that the district court was not authorized to
-2-

impose a two-level Sentencing Guideline enhancement for obstruction

of justice under U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1 in addition to a two-level

enhancement for reckless endangerment under § 3C1.2 is without

legal support. See United States v. Somner, 127 F.3d 405, 407-08

(5th Cir. 1997) (affirming sentence that included a two-level

enhancement under § 3C1.1 and a two-level enhancement under §

3C1.2); U.S.S.G. § 3C1.2, comment. (n.1); U.S.S.G. § 1B1.1,

comment. (n.4); U.S.S.G. App. C, Amendment 347. Furthermore, the

district court did not clearly err in determining that each of the

two-level enhancements was factually supported. See United States

v. Lugman, 130 F.3d 113, 115 (5th Cir. 1997); United States v.

Upton, 91 F.3d 677, 687 (5th Cir. 1996), cert. denied, 117 S. Ct.

1818 (1997).

AFFIRMED.
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5047 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5047

 To prohibit the Secretary of Veterans Affairs from altering available 
health care and wait times for appointments for health care for certain 
                   veterans, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              July 9, 2014

    Mr. Peters of Michigan introduced the following bill; which was 
             referred to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To prohibit the Secretary of Veterans Affairs from altering available 
health care and wait times for appointments for health care for certain 
                   veterans, 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. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Continuing Care for Veterans Act of 
2014''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON ALTERING AVAILABLE HEALTH CARE AND WAIT TIMES 
              FOR APPOINTMENTS FOR HEALTH CARE FOR CERTAIN VETERANS.

    The Secretary of Veterans Affairs may not alter the hospital care, 
medical services, or other health care available to a veteran who is 
enrolled in the patient enrollment system of the Department of Veterans 
Affairs under section 1705 of title 38, United States Code, or the 
amount of time such veteran is required to wait for an appointment for 
such care or services based solely on the length of time since such 
veteran has last received such care or services from the Department.
                                 <all>
```
BF

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 20-0604

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

PRESTON CSOO ROSSBACH,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration Appellee’s motion for a 30-day extension of time, 

and good cause appearing therefor,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellee is granted an extension of time 

to and including June 15, 2023, within which to prepare, file, and serve its 

response brief.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

May 5 2023

05/05/2023

Case Number: DA 20-0604
# United States Court of Appeals **For the Eighth Circuit** ___________________________ No. 12-3269 ___________________________ Ernestine Rencher lllllllllllllllllllll Appellant v. Tishaura O. Jones lllllllllllllllllllll Appellee ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis ____________ Submitted: April 15, 2013 Filed: April 23, 2013 [Unpublished] ____________ Before BYE, ARNOLD, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Ernestine Rencher appeals following the district court’s 1 adverse grant of summary judgment in her employment-discrimination case. Upon careful de novo 1 The Honorable Rodney W. Si ppel, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri.review of the record before the district court and the parties’ submissions on appeal, seeTorgerson v. City of Rochester , 643 F.3d 1031, 1042-43 (8th Cir.) (en banc) (standard of review), cert. denied , 132 S. Ct. 513 (2011), we affirm for the reasons explained in the district court’s thorough opinion. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. ______________________________

-2-
Order filed, August 12, 2019

.

In The



## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14

- 19

- 00519

- CR

____________

AARON JAQUES , Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

On Appeal from the 228th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Co urt Cause No. 1391641



### ORDER

The reporter’s record in this case was due August 9, 2019

. See Tex. R. App.

P. 35.1. The court has not received a request to extend time for filing the record.

The record has not been filed with the court. Because the reporter’s record has not

been filed timely, we issue the following order.

We order Karen Young , the court reporter, to file the record in this appeal

within 15 days of the date of this order

.

PER CURIAM

Panel Consists of Justices Wise, Zimmerer and Spain.
#### MARY E. LONG et al. v. CITY OF RANDLEMAN.

(Filed 20 August, 1930.)

Highways *A*cl — Statutory remedy against Highway Commission for talcing of lands is exclusive.

The remedy afforded by statute to the owner of lands for damages for the talcing of his property for State highways is exclusive, and a motion as of nonsuit in an action therefor against a city which had agreed to save the Highway Commission harmless on claims for compensation within the city limits is properly allowed. C. S.,'3846(bb), 3846(ff).

Civil actioN for damage to property, before *MacBae, Special Judge,*at October Special Term, 1929, of RaNdolfh.

There was a judgment of nonsuit, from which plaintiff appealed.

*Moser & Bums and A. Q. Davis for plaintiff.*

*Brittain & Brittain and H. M. Robins for defendant.*

Pee Cukiam.

The State Highway Commission constructed Highway No. 70 through the city of Randleman. In so doing the road was built across certain land of plaintiff within the corporate limits of said city.

The law imposes upon the Highway Commission the duty to lay out and build State highways, and in order to enable it to properly perform its function it is authorized to condemn land. O. S., 3846(bb). The defendant entered into an agreement with the Highway Commission in accordance with 0. S., 3846 (ff) to “save the State Highway Commission harmless from any claim for damages arising from the construction of said work through the said city, and including claims for right of way, change of grade line, and interference with public service structures.” The State Highway Commission was not a party to the action.

Ample remedy is afforded to owners of land whose property has been taken for highway purposes and this remedy provided by statute is exclusive. *Latham v. State Highway Commission,*191 N. C., 141, 131 S. E., 385; *McKinney v. Highway Commission,*192 N. C., 670, 135 S. E., 772; *Greenville v. Highway Commission,*196 N. C., 226, 145 S. E., 31. In the *McKinney case, supra,*this Court pointing out the remedy, said: “This remedy is equally available to the owner of land and the State Highway Commission.”

Affirmed.
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 1**  **1 -**  **6 185** 

RHONDA K. JONES , P laintiff

─ Appell ant ,

v. A. J. CATOGGIA, OFC; RICHMOND POLICE , Defendant s ─ Appell ees .
Appeal from the United States District Court for the East ern District of Virginia , at Alexandria

. Anthony John Trenga , District Judge. ( 1 : 1 0

- c v - 1 04 2

- AJT

- TRJ )

Submitted : June 16 , 2011 Decided: June 20, 2011

Before NIEMEYER and GREGORY , Circuit Judge s , and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge

.

Dismiss e d by unpublished per curiam opinion

.

R honda K. Jones , Appellant Pro Se
.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
Rhonda K. Jones seeks to ap peal the district court’s order dismissing her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) and state law tort claims . We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed. Parties 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.” Bow l e s v . Russell , 551 U.S. 2 0 5, 2 1 4 ( 2007 ). The district court’s order was entered on the docket

on January 3 , 2011 . The notice of appeal was filed on February 7, 2011 . Because Jones failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopenin g of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
June 11, 2013

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

MUHAMMAD AMIR QURASHI, Appellant

NO. 14-12-00858-CV V.

ISMAT JABEEN, Appellee

________________________________

This cause, an appeal from the final decree of divorce, signed June 19, 2012, 

was heard on the transcript of the record. We have inspected the record and find no 

error in the judgment. We order the judgment of the court below AFFIRMED.

We order appellant, Muhammad Amir Qurashi, to pay all costs incurred in 

this appeal. 

We further order this decision certified below for observance.