alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Harry David LONG, Plaintiff— Appellant, v. James H. GOMEZ, Director; Charles D. Marshall, Warden, California State Prison at Pelican Bay; David Gene Lewis, Correctional Officer at California State Prison at Pelican Bay, Defendants — Appellees.

No. 02-15062.

D.C. No. CV-98-02679-SBA.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted Nov. 6, 2002.

Decided Nov. 15, 2002.

Before HAWKINS, GRABER, and RICHARD C. TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM *

The district court granted summary judgment, reasoning that Harry Long had failed to exhaust his administrative remedies as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1997e.

Long’s “substantial compliance” argument fails because he did not properly *884complete the steps for administrative review. Long asserts that after his initial appeal he filed other grievances. These grievances, however, are only tangentially related to his grievance regarding the shooting! Long offers no sufficient explanation as to why he failed to follow the administrative procedures after he learned in November 1997 that the two CDC investigations into the shooting were completed.

Long essentially asks us to read a new exception into the PLRA: that when the final decision maker reviews an investigation pertaining to the subject matter of the grievance, it excuses the inmate’s failure to appeal the prison’s response to that grievance. This 'we may not do. *Booth v. Chumer,*532 U.S. 731, 741 n. 6, 121 S.Ct. 1819, 149 L.Ed.2d 958 (2001).

At a minimum, Long should have administratively appealed once he had notice on November 30, 1997, that the shooting complied with CDC policy on breaking up inmate fights.

Long did not exhaust applicable administrative procedures. The failure to exhaust in the PLRA context is properly considered as a failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b) instead of warranting summary judgment under Fed.R.Civ.P. 56. *Wyatt v. Terhune,*305 F.3d 1033, 1044-45 (9th Cir.2002). Dismissal of the action is proper, but not in the form of a judgment on the merits. We therefore vacate the award of summary judgment and remand so the district court can enter a judgment of dismissal. *See Stauffer Chem. Co. v. Food & Drug Admin.,*670 F.2d 106, 108 (9th Cir.1982). Each party to bear its own costs.

JUDGMENT VACATED; REMANDED with instructions to enter a judgment of dismissal.

*

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Alton Thomas Davis, 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

September 9, 2010 

s0830 

Order 

 

September 9, 2010 

141128 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 141128 

 COA: 296570 

Kent CC: 08-010809-FC 

WILLIAM ANTHONY SEYMOUR, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 2, 2010 order 

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. 

DAVIS, J., not participating. I recuse myself and am not participating because I 

was on the Court of Appeals panel in this case. See MCR 2.003(B).
EXHIBIT 31.1 - SECTION 302 CERTIFICATION

                             CERTIFICATION

I, Kenneth A. McCullum, certify that:

1.   I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form
     10-D required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this
     report on Form 10-K of Hartford Life Global Funding Trust 2006-035
     (the "Exchange Act periodic reports");

2.   Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a
     whole, do not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit
     to state a material fact necessary in order 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, all of the distribution, servicing and other
     information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period
     covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic
     reports;

4.   Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statement required
     in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as
     disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicer has
     fulfilled its obligations under the servicing agreement in all material
     respects;

5.   All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria
     for asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on
     assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed
     securities required to be included in this report in accordance with
     Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rule 13a-18 and 15d-18 have
     been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwise
     disclosed in this report. Any material instances of noncompliance
     described in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form
     10-K.

In giving the certification above, I have reasonably relied on information
provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties:

            JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. and its officers and agents

Date:  August 29, 2006


/s/ Kenneth A. McCullum


Kenneth A. McCullum
Senior Vice President & Actuary
Hartford Life Insurance Company, as depositor
Evaluation Only. Created with Aspose.Pdf. Copyright 2002-2014 Aspose Pty Ltd.Evaluation Only. Created with Aspose.Pdf. Copyright 2002-2014 Aspose Pty Ltd.Evaluation Only. Created with Aspose.Pdf. Copyright 2002-2014 Aspose Pty Ltd.Evaluation Only. Created with Aspose.Pdf. Copyright 2002-2014 Aspose Pty Ltd.
EXHIBIT 31.1
   CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302(A) OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

                                   (Depositor)


                     Rule 13a-14(d)/15d-14(d) Certification

     I, Michelle Gill, certify that:

1.   I have reviewed this report  on Form 10-K/A and all  reports  on Form 10-D
     required  to be filed in respect of the  period  covered by this  report on
     Form 10-K/A of GSAA Home Equity Trust 2006-5 (the  "Exchange  Act  periodic
     reports");

2.   Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole,
     do 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,  all  of the  distribution,  servicing  and  other
     information  required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered
     by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;

4.   Based on my knowledge  and the servicer  compliance  statements required in
     this report  under Item 1123 of  Regulation  AB, and except as disclosed in
     the Exchange Act periodic  reports,  the  servicers  have  fulfilled  their
     obligations under the servicing agreements in all material respects;

5.   All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing  criteria for
     asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on assessment
     of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed  securities required
     to be included in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB
     and Exchange  Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been  included as an exhibit
     to this report,  except as otherwise disclosed in this report. Any material
     instances of noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in
     this report on Form 10-K/A.

     In  giving  the  certifications  above,  I have  reasonably  relied  on the
information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties: JPMorgan Chase
Bank, N.A., as Securities  Administrator  and Master Servicer,  Countrywide Home
Loans Servicing LP, GreenPoint Mortgage Funding,  Inc., PHH Mortgage Corporation
and SunTrust Mortgage, Inc., as Servicers and ZC Sterling Insurance Agency, Inc.
and SunTrust Bank, as Vendors for SunTrust Mortgage, Inc.


By:     /s/ Michelle Gill
       -------------------------------------
Name:  Michelle Gill, Vice President
       (senior officer in charge of securitization of the depositor)

Date:  May 30, 2008
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 China Tel Group, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, George Alvarez, CEO of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. SS. 1350, as adopted pursuant to SS. 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:




The 10-K
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and




The
information contained in this 10-K Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the
Company.




Date:  April 15, 2010
            By: /s/ George AlvarezGeorge
      Alvarez, Chief Executive Officer




[A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears
in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement 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.]
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A17D0254. DOUGLAS S. DAVIS v. PENNY C. DAVIS.

Upon review, Douglas S. Davis’s application for discretionary appeal is hereby

GRANTED, and Penny C. Davis’s motion to dismiss the application is DENIED. 

Douglas Davis shall have ten days from the date of this order to file his notice of

appeal in the trial court. See OCGA § 5-6-35 (g). The clerk of the trial court is

DIRECTED to include a copy of this order in the record transmitted to the Court of

Appeals.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

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.

February 07, 2017

02/07/2017
<TABLE> <S> <C>

   <ARTICLE> 5
   <LEGEND>
   Note:  This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from
   the Form 10-Q for the Quarter Ended September 30, 1997 and is qualified in
   its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
   </LEGEND>
   <CIK>  0001029317
   <NAME>  National Account Systems Inc.
          
   <S>                             <C>
   <PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
   <FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
   <PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
   <PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
   <CASH>                                          28,124
   <SECURITIES>                                         0
   <RECEIVABLES>                                   23,789
   <ALLOWANCES>                                       850
   <INVENTORY>                                     47,913
   <CURRENT-ASSETS>                               111,328
   <PP&E>                                          81,845
   <DEPRECIATION>                                  54,545
   <TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 358,234
   <CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           72,981
   <BONDS>                                              0
   <PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
   <PREFERRED>                                     11,699
   <COMMON>                                            53
   <OTHER-SE>                                           0
   <TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   358,234
   <SALES>                                              0
   <TOTAL-REVENUES>                               197,663
   <CGS>                                                0
   <TOTAL-COSTS>                                  206,958
   <OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
   <LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
   <INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              20,950
   <INCOME-PRETAX>                               (30,245)
   <INCOME-TAX>                                   (9,626)
   <INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (20,619)
   <DISCONTINUED>                                       0
   <EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
   <CHANGES>                                            0
   <NET-INCOME>                                  (20,619)
   <EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
   <EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
           
<PAGE>

   
</TABLE>
#### HIGGINBOTHAM v. LOUISIANA POWER & LIGHT CO.

No. 17350.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Orleans.

May 19, 1941.

Writ of Certiorari Denied Tune 30, 1941.

For former opinion, see 198 So. 402.

John D. Nix, Jr., Walter B. Hamlin, St. Clair Adams & Son, and Wm. J. Daly, all of New Orleans, for appellant.

Monroe & Lemann and J. Ráburn Mon-ro?, all of New Orleans, and John E. Fleu-ry, of Gretna, for appellee.

McCALEB, Judge.

A careful reconsideration of this matter convinces us that our former decree is correct and that it should be reinstated.

For the reasons assigned, our original opinion and decree herein are reinstated as the final judgment of this Court.

Original decree reinstated.
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6257 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 6257

 To prohibit the Federal Government from imposing a vaccine mandate on 
  individuals traveling on public or private transportation for hire 
           within the United States, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           December 14, 2021

   Mr. Webster of Florida (for himself, Mr. Graves of Missouri, Mrs. 
  McClain, Mr. Norman, Mr. Weber of Texas, Mr. Posey, Mr. Perry, Mrs. 
Boebert, Mr. Budd, and Mr. Gaetz) introduced the following bill; which 
   was referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To prohibit the Federal Government from imposing a vaccine mandate on 
  individuals traveling on public or private transportation for hire 
           within the United States, 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 ``Saving Americans From Executive 
Reach in Travel Act'' or the ``SAFER Travel Act''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON IMPOSITION OF FEDERAL VACCINATION REQUIREMENT 
              FOR TRAVEL.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of law, an Executive agency (as 
defined in section 105 of title 5, United States Code) may not issue, 
implement, or enforce any regulation, requirement, guidance, or other 
directive that requires an individual to be vaccinated against COVID-19 
as a condition to travel within the United States on any commercial 
public or private transportation subject to regulation by the Federal 
Government, including air, rail, commercial motor vehicle, vessel, or 
other public or private form of transportation.

SEC. 3. PROHIBITION ON PUBLIC AND PRIVATE VACCINATION REQUIREMENT FOR 
              TRAVEL.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no entity engaged in 
the operation of any public or private transportation for hire that is 
subject to regulation by the Federal Government may require an 
individual to be vaccinated against COVID-19 as a term or condition of 
travel.

SEC. 4. PROHIBITION ON PERIOD OF MANDATORY QUARANTINE.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of law, an Executive agency (as 
defined in section 105 of title 5, United States Code) may not issue, 
implement, or enforce any regulation, requirement, guidance, or other 
directive that requires a citizen of the United States or lawful 
permanent resident of the United States to enter into a period of 
quarantine related to COVID-19 after having traveled on any commercial 
public or private transportation subject to regulation by the Federal 
Government, including air, rail, commercial motor vehicle, vessel, or 
other such public or private transportation.
                                 <all>
```
#### MADISON LUMBER CO. v. GLOBE INDEMNITY CO. et al.

No. 16105.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Orleans.

Oct. 7, 1935.

For prior opinion, see 161 So. 775.

PER CURIAM.

In applications for rehearing our attention is called to the fact that possibly the decree which we rendered may be construed as awarding plaintiff the penalties provided by Act No. 225 of 1918. It was not our purpose to award these penalties, since the full amount prayed for by plaintiff was not recovered; but for fear that our decree may be misunderstood, we deem it advisable to recall it and to issue another decree which will not be misconstrued.

It is therefore ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the decree rendered by us on June 10, 1935, be and it is recalled, and it is now ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the judgment appealed from be amended by the reduction of the principal amount thereof as against the Globe Indemnity Company to $276.29, and by the reduction of the amount of the judgment in warranty as against Sal*435vador Petrie to $276.29, and by the rejection of the claim of plaintiff for attorney’s fees or penalties, and it is further ordered that, as thus amended, the judgment appealed from be and it is affirmed in all other particulars; plaintiff to pay the cost of appeal only.

All three applications for rehearing are refused, but the right is reserved to plaintiff to file further application for rehearing limited, however, to the question of the penalties provided by Act No. 225 of 1918.

Rehearings refused.
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.                  

###### Federal Reserve System

                    The companies listed in this notice have given notice under section 4 of the Bank Holding Company Act (12 U.S.C. 1843) (BHC Act) and Regulation Y (12 CFR Part 225) to engage                     *de novo*, or to acquire or control voting securities or assets of a company, including the companies listed below, that engages either directly or through a subsidiary or other company, in a nonbanking activity that is listed in § 225.28 of Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.28) or that the Board has determined by Order to be closely related to banking and permissible for bank holding companies. Unless otherwise noted, these activities will be conducted throughout the United States.                

                    Each notice is available for inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notice also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the question whether the proposal complies with the standards of section 4 of the BHC Act. Additional information on all bank holding companies may be obtained from the National Information Center website at                     *www.ffiec.gov/​nic/​*.                

Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding the applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than September 9, 2008.

**A. Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta**                     (Steve Foley, Vice President) 1000 Peachtree Street, N.E., Atlanta, Georgia 30309:                

*1. Banco de Sabadell, S.A., Sabadell, Spain, and its subsidiary, TransAtlantic Holding Corp., Miami, Florida;*                     to engage de novo in making, acquiring, brokering or servicing loans or other extensions of credit through a newly-formed subsidiary, Interstate Property Holdings, LLC, Miami, Florida, pursuant to section 225.28(b)(1) of Regulation Y.                

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, August 19, 2008.

Robert deV. Frierson,

Deputy Secretary of the Board.

[FR Doc. E8-19526 Filed 8-21-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6210-01-S
EXHIBIT 12.2

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANY
COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
(Dollars in millions)

|                                          | 1996
------ | 1997
------ | 1998
------ | 1999
------ | 2000
------ | For the nine months ended Sept 30, 2000
------
|----------------------------------------- | ----------- | ----------- | ----------- | ----------- | ----------- | ----------------------------------------------
|Fixed Charges:                            |             |             |             |             |             |                                               
|Interest                                  | $88         | $88         | $81         | $62         | $72         | $62                                           
|Interest Portion of Annual Rentals        | 5
------    | 5
------    | 4
------    | 3
------    | 4
------    | 2
------                                      
|Total Fixed Charges For Purpose of Ratio  | $93
======  | $93
======  | $85
======  | $65
======  | $76
======  | $64
======                                    
|Earnings:                                 |             |             |             |             |             |                                               
|Pretax income from continuing operations  | $349
------ | $416
------ | $287
------ | $383
------ | $390
------ | $292
------                                   
|Add: Fixed charges (from above)           | 93          | 93          | 85          | 65          | 76          | 64                                            
|Less: Fixed charges capitalized           | 2
------    | 1
------    | 1
------    | 2
------    | 2
------    | 2
------                                      
|Fixed charges net of 
capitalized charges | 91
------   | 92
------   | 84
------   | 63
------   | 74
------   | 62
------                                     
|Total Earnings for Purpose of 
Ratio      | $440
====== | $508
====== | $371
====== | $446
====== | $464
====== | $354
======                                   
|Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges        | 4.73
====== | 5.46
====== | 4.36
====== | 6.86
====== | 6.11
====== | 5.53
======