alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, October 07, 2024. I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia. Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto affixed the day and year last above written. , Clerk. 

# Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
ATLANTA, October 07, 2024 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A25I0039. ARHC PPLVLGA01, LLC et al v. CHARLES BUSBEE et al.
Upon consideration of the Application for Interlocutory Appeal, it is ordered that it be hereby DENIED.
LC NUMBERS: 21C05820
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 5055 Filed: 12/10/19 Entered: 12/10/19 12:15:06 Page 1 of

3
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 5055 Filed: 12/10/19 Entered: 12/10/19 12:15:06 Page 2 of

3
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 5055 Filed: 12/10/19 Entered: 12/10/19 12:15:06 Page 3 of

3
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-14-00746-CV

C. W., Appellant

v.

Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, Appellee

FROM THE 53RD DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

NO. D-1-FM-13-002393, HONORABLE SCOTT H. JENKINS, JUDGE PRESIDING

O R D E R

PER CURIAM

Appellant C.W. filed her notice of appeal on November 21, 2014. The appellate 

record was complete December 15, 2014, making appellant’s brief due January 5, 2015. On 

January 5, 2015, counsel for appellant filed a motion for extension of time to file appellant’s 

brief. 

Amendments to the rules of judicial administration accelerate the final disposition 

of appeals from suits for termination of parental rights. See Tex. R. Jud. Admin. 6.2(a) 

(providing 180 days for court’s final disposition). The accelerated schedule constrains this 

Court’s leeway in granting extensions. In this instance, we will grant the motion and order 

counsel to file appellant’s brief no later than January 27, 2015. If the brief is not filed by that 

date, counsel may be required to show cause why she should not be held in contempt of court.
It is ordered on January 7, 2015.

Before Chief Justice Rose, Justices Goodwin and Field
No. 1058.

*Morris Lavine*for petitioner. *Solicitor General Cox, Assistant Attorney General Miller, Beatrice Rosenberg*and *Robert G. Maysack*for respondent.

#### Greene *v.*Immigration and Naturalization Service.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 108 (Monday, June 7, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 32230-32231]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-13548]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

[License No. 03/03-0247]


Solutions Capital I, L.P.; Notice Seeking Exemption Under Section 
312 of the Small Business Investment Act, Conflicts of Interest

    Notice is hereby given that Solutions Capital I, L.P., 1100 Wilson 
Blvd., Suite 3000, Arlington, VA 22209, a Federal Licensee under the 
Small Business Investment Act of 1958, as amended (``the Act''), in 
connection with the financing of a small concern, has sought an 
exemption under Section 312 of the Act and Section 107.730, Financings 
which Constitute Conflicts of Interest, of the Small Business 
Administration (``SBA'') Rules and Regulations (13 CFR 107.730). 
Solutions Capital I, L.P. proposes to provide equity/debt security 
financing to GSDM Holdings, LLC, 66 Route 17 North, 2nd Floor, Paramus, 
NJ 07652. The financing is contemplated for working capital and general 
corporate purposes.
    The financing is brought within the purview of Sec.  107.730(a)(1) 
of the Regulations because MCG Capital Corporation, an Associate of 
Solutions Capital I, L.P., owns more than ten

[[Page 32231]]

percent of GSDM Holdings, LLC; therefore, GSDM Holdings, LLC is 
considered an Associate of Solutions Capital I, L.P., as defined in 
Sec. 105.50 of the regulations.
    Notice is hereby given that any interested person may submit 
written comments on the transaction to the Associate Administrator for 
Investment, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 Third Street, SW., 
Washington, DC 20416.

    Dated: April 22, 2010.
Sean J. Greene,
Associate Administrator for Investment.
[FR Doc. 2010-13548 Filed 6-4-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
#### STATE v. JOHN FRIDDLE and GLENN PROCTOR.

(Filed 23 May, 1945.)

Appeal and Error § 39e—

Evidence material to the decision on a former trial was not offered: hence exception to the charge on this point was untenable.

Appeal by defendants from *Olive, Special Judge,*at October Term, 1944, of G-uileord. No error.

*241Tbe defendants were charged witb breaking and entering a store building and witb tbe larceny of a quantity of sugar therefrom. There was verdict of guilty, and from judgment imposing sentence defendants appealed.

*Attorney-General McMullan and Assistant Attorneys-General Rhodes and Moody for the State.*

P. *W. Glidewell, Geo. Tounce, and J. Hampton Price for defendants, appellants.*

Devin, J.

This case was here at Spring Term, 1943, and is reported in 223 N. C., 258. On that appeal a néw trial was awarded for errors pointed out in tbe opinion written for tbe Court by *Justice Barnhill.*It was held that defendants’ testimony raised certain questions as to felonious intent which were not properly submitted to tbe jury.

On tbe second trial below tbe defendants did not testify, or offer evidence. There was no evidence on this record, such as appeared in defendants’ testimony on tbe former trial, that an employee of tbe prosecuting witness had authorized tbe removal of tbe sugar. It would seem therefore that tbe exceptions to tbe charge debated in defendants’ brief on this point are without support in the record. In bis charge tbe trial judge correctly instructed tbe jury that before they could convict tbe defendants they were required to find beyond a reasonable doubt not only tbe breaking and entry and asportation of tbe sugar, but also by the same degree of proof that this was done witb intent to steal.

Exceptions noted by defendants to tbe ruling of tbe court on matters of evidence have been abandoned. Rule 28. They were admittedly inconsequential.

In tbe trial we find

No error.
#### Nathan J. Packard, Substituted for The Ulster County Savings Institution, Respondent, *v.*Anna E. Lyon and Grace Parker Lyon, Appellants, Impleaded with Elly Z. Parker and Others.

Appeal from an order entered in the Ulster county clerk’s office' on the 25th day of February, 1911.'.

Per Curiam:

We are of the opinion the appellant had sufficient interest in the property to make the motion for a resale and to appeal to this court. • Manifestly the appellant expected that Schantz was to bid in property according to his agreement. He failed to make any bid at all. The property sold for much less than its conceded value.- Under the circumstances a resale should have been ordered. The order should, therefore, be reversed and the motion granted. All concurred, except Smith, P. J. , and Sewell, J., dissenting. Order reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion granted, without costs.
EXHIBIT 32.1





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 Annual Report of  Silverstar  Mining Corp.   (the "Company") on Form 10-K/A for the year ended September 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), each of the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:





1.
The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





2.
The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.





3.
A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.








Date:  January 26, 2011





By: /s/ Neil Kleinman


-----------------


Neil Kleinman


Chief Executive Officer
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5387 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 

14373 Manchester Road in St. Louis, Missouri, as the ‘‘Sgt. Zachary 

M. Fisher Post Office’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 31, 2014 

Mrs. WAGNER (for herself, Mr. CLAY, Mr. LUETKEMEYER, Mrs. HARTZLER, 

Mr. CLEAVER, Mr. GRAVES of Missouri, Mr. LONG, and Mr. SMITH of 

Missouri) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

A BILL 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 14373 Manchester Road in St. Louis, Missouri, as the ‘‘Sgt. Zachary M. Fisher Post Office’’. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SGT. ZACHARY M. FISHER POST OFFICE. 

4 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

5 Postal Service located at 14373 Manchester Road in St. 

6 Louis, Missouri, shall be known and designated as the 

7 ‘‘Sgt. Zachary M. Fisher Post Office’’. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5387 IH

1 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg2 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

3 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

4 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Sgt. Zachary M. Fish5 er Post Office’’. 

Æ 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
EXHIBIT 32: Rule 13a-14(b) Certifications





The undersigned officers certify that this report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and that the information contained in the report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Advanced Battery Technologies, Inc.





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Advanced Battery Technologies, Inc. and will be retained by Advanced Battery Technologies, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.





November 15, 2010
/s/ Zhiguo FuZhiguo Fu (Chief Executive Officer)November 15, 2010
/s/ Guohua WanGuohua Wan (Chief Financial Officer)
EX-35.4
(logo) WELLS FARGO

Corporate Trust Services
MAC N2702-011
9062 Old Annapolis Road
Columbia, MD 21045
410 884-2000
410 715-2380 Fax

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.



Credit Suisse First Boston Mortgage Securities Corp.
11 Madison Ave
4th Floor
New York, NY 10010


RE: Annual Statement as to Compliance

The undersigned, a duly authorized officer of Wells Fargo Bank, National
Association ("Wells Fargo"), hereby certifies as follows for the calendar year
2007 or applicable portion thereof (the "Reporting Period"):

(a) a review of Wells Fargo's activities as Trustee under the servicing
agreement(s) listed on Schedule A hereto (the "Servicing Agreement(s)") has
been made under my supervision; and

(b) to the best of my knowledge, based on such review Wells Fargo has fulfilled
all of its obligations under the Servicing Agreement(s) in all material
respects throughout the Reporting Period.


March 1, 2008

/s/ Judith Rishel
JUDITH RISHEL
Vice President


(page)


(logo) WELLS FARGO

Corporate Trust Services
MAC N2702-011
9062 Old Annapolis Road
Columbia, MD 21045
410 884-2000
410 715-2380 Fax

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.


Schedule A

List of Servicing Agreement(s) and Series

1 Pooling and Servicing Agreement for Credit Suisse First Boston Mortgage
  Securities Corp., Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series
  2007-C2, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. as Trustee

2 Pooling and Servicing Agreement for Credit Suisse First Boston Mortgage
  Securities Corp., Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series
  2007-C1, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. as Trustee

3 Pooling and Servicing Agreement for Credit Suisse First Boston Mortgage
  Securities Corp., Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series
  2007-C3, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. as Trustee

4 Pooling and Servicing Agreement for Credit Suisse First Boston Mortgage
  Securities Corp., Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series
  2006-C2, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. as Trustee

5 Pooling and Servicing Agreement for Credit Suisse First Boston Mortgage
  Securities Corp., Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series
  2006-C3, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. as Trustee

6 Pooling and Servicing Agreement for Credit Suisse First Boston Mortgage
  Securities Corp., Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series
  2006-C4, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. as Trustee

7 Pooling and Servicing Agreement for Credit Suisse First Boston Mortgage
  Securities Corp., Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series
  2007-C4, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. as Trustee

8 Pooling and Servicing Agreement for Credit Suisse First Boston Mortgage
  Securities Corp., Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series
  2007-C5, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. as Trustee

9 Pooling and Servicing Agreement for Credit Suisse First Boston Mortgage
  Securities Corp., Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series
  2006-05, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. as Trustee
#### A. P. THORPE and W. S. WILKINSON v. HENRY C. PARKER, JOHN LEGGETT and JONAS JONES.

(Filed 17 September, 1930.)

Estoppel B b — Judgment roll may be introduced in evidence as estoppel without pleading such estoppel where it is not relied on as defense.

A former judgment involving the same controverted title to lands between the parties under whom the plaintiffs and defendants claim title to the *locus in quo*may be introduced in evidence by the plaintiff as an estoppel without pleading an estoppel by judgment, although when relied upon as a defense it must be pleaded.

Connor, J., not sitting.

Civil action, before *Gowper, ¡Special Judge,*at March Special Term, 1930, of Nash.

Tbe plaintiffs, alleging tbat they were tenants in common of tbe land in controversy, instituted an action of ejectment against tbe defendants. Tbe plaintiffs claim title under Cornelia Parker Bullock, and introduced tbe judgment roll in a former case entitled Cornelia Parker Bullock *v.*Jeffrey Parker, under whom tbe defendants claim title. Tbe defendants objected to tbis evidence. Tbe trial judge gave peremptory instructions to tbe jury, and from tbe verdict in favor of plaintiffs tbe defendants appeal.

*Battle & Winslow and W. S. Wilkinson, Jr., for plaintiffs.*

*T. T. Thorne for defendants.*

Per Curiam.

Tbe plaintiffs introduced tbe judgment roll in a former case between tbe parties under whom both plaintiffs and defendants respectively claim title. Tbis evidence was relied upon as an estoppel. Tbe defendants objected to tbe introduction of tbe evidence upon tbe ground tbat tbe estoppel by judgment was not pleaded, but tbe law has been settled contrary to tbe contention of tbe defendants. *Stancill v. James,*126 N. C., 190, 35 S. E., 245; *Moody v. Wike,*181 N. C., 509, 107 S. E., 457; *Bullard v. Insurance Co.,*189 N. C., 34, 126 S. E., 179. These decisions bold tbat tbe record and judgment, in a former action between tbe same parties or their privies, involving title to tbe same tract of land, may be offered in evidence, although not pleaded in tbe complaint; but when an estoppel is relied upon as a defense, it must be pleaded.

No error.

ConNOb, J., not sitting.
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 108 (Monday, June 7, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 32181]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-13541]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisition of Shares of Bank or 
Bank Holding Companies

    The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank 
Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and Sec. [thinsp]225.41 of the Board's 
Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire a bank or bank holding company. 
The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth 
in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).
    The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal 
Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for 
inspection at the office of the Board of Governors. Interested persons 
may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for 
that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must 
be received not later than June 22, 2010.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond (A. Linwood Gill, III, Vice 
President) 701 East Byrd Street, Richmond, Virginia 23261-4528:
    1. Carlyle Financial Services Harbor, L.P., Washington, D.C.; CGFSP 
Coinvestment, L.P.; Carlyle Global Partner Master Coinvestment Cayman, 
L.P.; Carlyle Global Financial Services Partners, L.P.; TCG Financial 
Services, L.P.; Carlyle Financial Services, Ltd.; TC Group Cayman 
Investment Holdings, L.P.; TCG Holdings Cayman II, L.P.; DBD Cayman, 
Limited; TCG Financial Services Investment Holdings, L.P.; and Carlyle 
Financial Services Holdings, Ltd., all of Grand Cayman, Cayman Islands; 
Daniel A. D' Aniello; William E. Conway, Jr.; and David M. Rubenstein, 
all of Washington, D.C.; and Carlyle Investment Management, L.L.C.; TC 
Group, L.L.C.; and TCG Holdings, L.L.C., all of Wilmington, Delaware; 
to acquire voting shares of Hampton Roads Bankshares, Inc., Norfolk, 
Virginia, and thereby indirectly acquire voting shares of Shore Bank, 
Onley, Virginia.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, June 2, 2010.
Robert deV. Frierson,
Deputy Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 2010-13541 Filed 6-4-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-S
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3167 Filed: 07/24/19 Entered: 07/24/19 10:08:41 Page 1 of

1
United States Bankruptcy Court

Northern District of California

In re: PG&E CORPORATION and Chapter 11

PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY, Case No.: 19-30088 (DM)

Debtors Jointly Administered

TRANSFER OF CLAIM OTHER THAN FOR SECURITY

A CLAIM HAS BEEN FILED IN THIS CASE or deemed filed under 11 U.S.C. § 1111(a). Transferee

hereby gives notice pursuant to Rule 3001(e)(2), Fed. R. Bankr. P., of the transfer, other than for security,

of the claim referenced in this evidence and notice.

Sencha Funding, LLC New Context Services Inc.

Name of Transferee Name of Transferor

Name and Address where notices to transferee

should be sent Court Claim #: 7766

Claim Amount: $ 212,868.10

Date Claim Filed: 8/26/2019

Sencha Funding, LLC

c/o Farallon Capital Management, L.L.C. Court Claim #: 1726

One Maritime Plaza, Suite 2100 Claim Amount: $218,763.12

San Francisco, CA 94111 Date Claim Filed: 3/18/2019

Attn: Michael G. Linn

Tel: 1 415 421 2132 Schedule Number: 1032894

Email: mlinn@faralloncapital.com

Last Four Digits of Acct #: ______N/A______ Last Four Digits of Acct. #: ____N/A_____

Name and Address where transferee payments 

should be sent (if different from above)

I declare under penalty of perjury that the information provided in this notice is true and correct to the best

of my knowledge and belief.

By:_/s/ Andrew A. Jones_______________ Date: September 17, 2019

Transferee/Transferee’s Agent

Penalty for making a false statement: Fine of up to $500,000 or imprisonment for up to 5 years, or both. 18 U.S.C. §§ 152 & 3571.

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3909 Filed: 09/17/19 Entered: 09/17/19 11:45:31 Page 1 of

2
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3909 Filed: 09/17/19 Entered: 09/17/19 11:45:31 Page 2 of

2
#### Nason Ice Machine Company, Appellant, v. William L. Hermance, Respondent.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. No opinion.

Dykman, J., not sitting.
#### Laurelia Morris, as Administratix, Respondent, v. The Lake Shore and Michigan Southern Railway Company, Appellant.

Judgment and order reversed, ana new trial ordered, costs to abide event.

Opinion by

Bradley, J.;

Barker, J., not sitting.
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 15 (Monday, January 25, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 3895]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-1338]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration


Yale University, et al.; Notice of Consolidated Decision on 
Applications for Duty-Free Entry of Electron Microscopes

    This is a decision consolidated pursuant to Section 6(c) of the 
Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Materials Importation Act of 1966 
(Pub. L. 89-651, as amended by Pub. L. 106-36; 80 Stat. 897; 15 CFR 
part 301). Related records can be viewed between 8:30 a.m. and 5 p.m. 
in Room 3705, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th and Constitution 
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC.
    Docket Number: 09-064. Applicant: Yale University, New Haven, CT 
06520-8284. Instrument: Electron Microscope, Quanta 3D Dual-Beam 
Focused Ion-Beam Tool. Manufacturer: FEI Company, Czech Republic. 
Intended Use: See notice at 74 FR 67851, December 21, 2009.
    Docket Number: 09-065. Applicant: U.S. Department of Homeland 
Security, Science and Technology Directorate, Frederick, MD 21702. 
Instrument: Scanning Electron Microscope, Quanta 200 FEG. Manufacturer: 
FEI Company, Czech Republic. Intended Use: See notice at 74 FR 67851, 
December 21, 2009.
    Comments: None received. Decision: Approved. No instrument of 
equivalent scientific value to the foreign instrument, for such 
purposes as these instruments are intended to be used, was being 
manufactured in the United States at the time the instruments were 
ordered. Reasons: Each foreign instrument is an electron microscope and 
is intended for research or scientific educational uses requiring an 
electron microscope. We know of no electron microscope, or any other 
instrument suited to these purposes, which was being manufactured in 
the United States at the time of order of each instrument.

    Dated: January 19, 2010.
Christopher Cassel,
Director, Subsidies Enforcement Office, Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 2010-1338 Filed 1-22-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
EXHIBIT 32.1          

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Robert C. Salipante, Principal Executive Officer of Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada (U.S.) (the "Company"), hereby certify, to the best of my knowledge, that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the period ended September 30, 2005, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)) and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 */s/ Robert C. Salipante                       
Robert C. Salipante  
President 
November 14, 2005
 

 

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

 *