alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C o u rt o f

A p p ea ls

o f t h e S t a te o f

G eo rg ia

ATLANTA,_

_ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _

Th e Co u rt

o f Ap p ea l s h er eb y p a s s es t h e f

o ll owi n g o r der :

A2 1 A0 27 4 . I N RE: ESTATE OF CHARLES CLEMENTS, DECEASED.

An d rew M ick l e, t h e ex ecu to r o f t he es t at e o f t h e d eced en t Ch arl es Cl em en t s

,

fi led a p et i t i o n t o b e d i s ch arg ed aft er p ay i ng t h e d eced en t ’ s d eb t s an d d i s t ri b u t i n g t h e

p ro p ert y o f t h e es t a t e

. T h e t ri al co u rt h el d a h eari n g to d et erm i n e wh et h er t h e

d i s t ri b u t i o n s fo l l o wed t h e pro vi s i on s o f t h e d eced en t ’ s wi l l

, an d, aft er ad d i t i o n al

b ri efi n g

, t h e t ri al co u rt en t ered an o r d e r fi n di n g t h at M ick l e d is t ri b u t ed a

d i s p ro p o rt i o nat e s h are o f th e es t at e t o on e h ei r o v er o t h er h ei rs o f t h e d eced en t an d

o rd ered M ick l e to m ak e a pro per d i v i s i o n t o t h e o t h er h ei rs

. Th e o rd er al s o s t at ed t h at

t h e t ri al co u rt wo ul d no t g ran t a d i s ch arg e u n t i l t h e o t h er h ei rs are m ad e wh o l e an d

d o cu m en t at i o n d e m o n st rat i n g t h at d i s t ri bu t io n is fi led wi t h t h e t ri al co u rt

. M i ck l e

t h en fi led t h i s d i rect ap p eal . W e l ack ju ri s d i ct i o n

. Here, t he cas e rem ai n s p en d i n g b el o w. Co n s eq u en t ly

, M ick l e was req u i red to

u s e th e i n t erl o cu t o ry a p p e a l p ro ced u res

– i n cl u di ng o bt ai ni n g a cert i fi cat e o f

i m m ed i at e rev i ew fro m t h e t ri al co u rt

– t o s eek ap p el l at e rev i ew o f t h e o rd er at i s s u e October 20, 2020h ere. See OCGA § 5 -6 -3 4 (b ); Bo yd v

. S t a t e

, 1 9 1 Ga. Ap p

. 43 5 (3 8 3 SE2 d 9 0 6 )

(1 9 8 9). Hi s fai l u re t o d o s o d ep ri ves u s o f ju ri s d i ct io n o ver t h i s ap p eal

, wh i c h i s

h ereb y DISM ISSED. Ba i ley v. Ba i l ey , 2 66 Ga. 8 3 2 , 8 3 3 (4 7 1 SE2 d 2 1 3) (1 9 9 6 ).

C o u r t o f A p p e a l s o f t h e S t a t e o

f G e o r g ia

C le r k ’ s O f f i c e

, A t la n t a

,

_

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I c e r t i f y th a t t h e a b o v e i s a t r u e e x t r a c t f r o m

t h e m i n u t e s o

f t h e C o u r t o

f A p p e a l s o f G e o r g i a

. W i tn e s s m y s i g n a t u r e a n d t h e s e a l o

f s a i d c o u r t

h e r e t o a f f i x e d t h e d a y a n d y e a r l a s t a b o v e w r i t t e n

.

, C l e r k

. 10/20/2020
## In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02

- 18

- 00476

- CR

R ONNIE M ICHAEL H OPPER

, Appellant

V

.

T HE S TATE OF T EXAS §

§

§

§

§ On Appeal from the 30th District Court

of Wichita Co un ty (60,066

- A)

February 6, 2020

Opinion by Justice Wallach

(nfp)

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that there

was no error in the trial court’s judgment s . It is ordered that the judgment s of the

trial co urt are affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By _ /s/ Mike Wallach

___________________ Justice Mike Wallach
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND NOTES INCLUDED IN THIS FORM 10-Q AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                          15,279
<SECURITIES>                                    78,332
<RECEIVABLES>                                   21,362
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,296
<INVENTORY>                                     20,784
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               135,267
<PP&E>                                         154,573
<DEPRECIATION>                                  34,412
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 282,466
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           48,657
<BONDS>                                         32,402
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        87,672
<OTHER-SE>                                     106,898
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   282,466
<SALES>                                        136,488
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               143,567
<CGS>                                          112,298
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  131,584
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                  (41)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,147
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 11,983
<INCOME-TAX>                                       110
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             11,873
<DISCONTINUED>                                     466
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    12,399
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.90
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.90
        

</TABLE>
#### Betty R. PORTER, Appellant, v. Jennifer WELSH, M.D.; William Miller, M.D., Appellees.

No. 03-1222.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted June 6, 2003.

Decided Aug. 19, 2003.

Before BOWMAN, MELLOY, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Betty R. Porter appeals the decision of the District Court1 to grant summary judgment to the defendants in her diversity medical malpractice action after the District Court determined that Porter had failed to meet the requirements of Minn. Stat. § 145.682 (West 1998) (certification *613of expert review). Having reviewed de novo the Court’s interpretation and application of § 145.682, *see Reimer v. City of Crookston,*326 F.3d 957, 961 (8th Cir. 2003), we agree with the District Court that expert testimony was required and that a psychologist was not qualified to render expert opinions in this case. Accordingly, we affirm, *see*8th Cir. R. 47B, and we deny Porter’s motion to supplement the record.

A true copy.

1

. The Honorable Joan N. Ericksen, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota.
**EXHIBIT 12.1**PACIFIC ENTERPRISES**COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES**(Dollars in millions)
Nine months ended
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
September 30, 2005
Fixed Charges and Preferred Stock Dividends:
Interest 
 $             72 
 $             88 
 $             63 
 $             54 
 $             47 
 $                 38 
Interest portion of annual rentals
4 
3 
                  2 
                  2 
                  2 
                           2 
Preferred dividends of subsidiaries (1)
2 
2 
2 
2 
                  2 
                           1 
Total fixed charges for purpose of ratio
 $             78 
 $             93 
 $             67 
 $             58 
 $             51 
 $                 41 
Earnings:
Pretax income from continuing operations
 $            396 
 $            377 
 $            383 
 $            361 
 $            391 
 $               231 
Total fixed charges (from above)
78 
93 
67 
58 
51 
41 
Total earnings for purpose of ratio
 $            474 
 $            470 
 $            450 
 $            419 
 $            442 
 $               272 
Ratio of earnings to fixed charges
6.08 
5.05 
6.72 
7.22 
8.67 
                      6.63 
(1) In computing this ratio, "Preferred dividends of subsidiaries" represents the before-tax earnings necessary to pay such dividends, 
computed at the effective tax rates for the applicable periods.********
......

-..

... . . .:.-
.. OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS AUSTINEonoreble Taylor Cariiale,Fege 3

where before his eleotloh,he had been empJ.oyed adversely. HOUle7er,

it iS 8R aholeht OaliOh Of leg81 qthiqa that no attorncig~sha&l rqma.qent adverasor oonilioting intqerseta. It.16 8ga$nst ,pablle. poliop r0r a ooaaty attomey to proseoat@ in Q oaso.whan hq hadbmn qrnployqd ~aUvereqly.prlor to hie .q~eo@.on,~$rreepeotlvq oi **the** abasnqq of a prohltdtory statate;erd we think the~ootmtswould 80 hold.

Bpetherefore think that you have very properly **&$eid,** ~yourselfiir,paahoases.

An assistant -oount y attqrney hae authorltp. bog&k atiidavits in hie ~nameas ahsiatant Oo+ty sttqney. Dlux~V.’ State‘;.35 2. W. 661, Kqllqy v. statq, 38 8, pr. 391 Noore ‘v..%fetq, 3G S. F..209; Copeland v. State, 38 S. F. 210, and .kaley v. .&ate, ,224 5.. W. .'771.

, I The aae,e

df Pvivis

v. State,'58 3. W..(2) 89, holds that an stiaiatant oo&ty attorney ia mug auttrolizs~ ta 00ndaot a oriminelproaeautlon in the name of the State of Texas.

Artfclq 31, vernoh'eAnnotated Texas Code of Crfm-' inalProeqdtixe,‘

reads & r0iith: -Art. 31. (38) 139) Attorney pr6 tern Vhaaqvar .a~ng

ditx&ct.or dounty attorney falls to ettdnd,a,nf

tqnn of t&e districti, Oounty aZ ja&tioe*d mart, the judge of eaid oourt or auoh jaatles nap appoint some ocm tent attorneyto pqrfonn tlm duties of auohdlatr rot qc aounty ettqrn6y,'*tro shall bo allowed the aam3 oaPpenratloa.forhls.aarviocre aa la allowed the district attorney 01:’oonnbJ attornay. Said appolhtmqnt ohall not extend beyond the te$m OS the aourt et whioh it ie made, and @alI be vaekted upon the appearease of the diertriotor oounty attorneg." The citme

of %ete,v. Laokey, 35 T. 357, hold6 Oha* an ettorney pro tern. appolnted~

by the oourt hea all the powers and.dutles of the reguler proseauting EttOrnsY.

The above quota& provlsione of Artiale 25. V. 3. C. C. TJ.,

were undoubtedlyenacted for the puPpos% of keeping
UNITED STAT ES COURT OF AP P EALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMS

N O . 99-1198 J OHN R. B RI D D ELL , A PP EL L ANT , V . ANTHONY J. P RI NCI PI , S EC RE T A RY O F V ET ER A N S A FF A I RS , A PPEL L EE .

B e fo re F AR L EY , ST EI

NB ERG , and GREENE, Judges

. O R D E R I n a sing le-judg e orde r date d Dec ember 17, 2001, the Court denied the a ppellant' s application fo r an awa

rd of a tto rn e y fe e s and e xpe ns e s un de r the Eq ua l Ac c e ss to Justi c e Ac t ( EA JA) , 2 8 U .S. C. § 2412(d). On D ece mber 20, 2001, the appe llant filed a timely motion for panel de cision pursuant to Rule 35 of the Court' s Rules of Practice and Proce dure. Up on c on sid e ratio n o f t

he fo re g oin g , it

is ORDERED that not later than 20 day s afte r t he date of t his order, the Secre tary file, and se rve on the appe llant, a re sponse, pursuant to Rule 35(g ), to the appellant' s motion for panel de cision as well as to the a

rguments prese nted there in. I t is further ORDERED t hat, not later than 15 day s afte r service of the S ecr etar y ' s response , the appe llant may file, and se rve on the Secre tary , a re ply there to. DA TE D: F e br

ua ry 4, 20 02 PER CU RI AM

. STEI NB ERG, Judge , co nc ur

ri ng : I be lie ve the a

pp e lla nt' s mo tio n f

or a pa ne l de c isi on

sh ou ld be g rante d beca

use the appellant has raised a matter of first impression that was not a ddresse d in the s in g le

- ju d g e o r d e r . I h o p e th a t th e p arti e s w il l a d dr e s s th e im p li c a ti o n s , if an y , for the preva iling-pa

rty issue of J ac ob se n v . W

est , 1 2 Ve t

. Ap p . 5 4 6 , 5 4 7 -4 8 (1 9 9 9 ) ( h o l d i n g t h at S ec re t ary 's po sit ion no t su bs tanti a lly

jus tif ie d at a dmi nis tr a tiv e sta g e wh e re Se c re tary ha d c on c e de d at me ri ts sta g e th at B oa

rd fa ile d to fo llo w e sta

bli sh e d la w, e ve n th ou g h Co ur

t ha d n ot s o f

ound a t me ri ts stag e).
Exhibit 1050(A)



		

			Exhibit 10.50

		




		
			 
		

		
			 
		

		
			 
		

		
			RESTRICTED STOCK UNIT GRANT
		

		
			 
		

		
			February 27, 2014
		

		
			 
		

		
			 
		

		
			 
		

		
			Dear:
		

		
			 
		

		
			Pursuant to the terms and conditions of the Aqua America Inc. 2009 Omnibus Equity Compensation Plan, as amended and restated (the “Plan”), you have been granted restricted stock units as outlined below and in the attached Restricted Stock Unit Grant Terms and Conditions.
		

		
			 
		

		
			 
		

			
					
						 

					
					
						 

				
	
					
						Granted To:

					
					
						 

				
	
					
						Grant Date:

					
					
						February 27, 2014

				
	
					
						Number of Restricted Stock Units Granted:

					
					
						 

				
	
					
						Vesting Date:

					
					
						February 27, 2017

				
	
					
						Vesting Schedule:

					
					
						100% on February 27, 2017

				



		
			 
		

		
			By my signature below, I hereby acknowledge and accept the award of this Restricted Stock Unit Grant and the Restricted Stock Unit Grant Terms and Conditions attached hereto and incorporated herein, and I agree to be bound by the terms of the Restricted Stock Unit Grant, the Restricted Stock Unit Grant Terms and Conditions and the Plan. I hereby agree that all decisions and determinations of the Committee (as defined in the Plan) with respect to the restricted stock units shall be final and binding.



Signature: ________________________________________    Date: __________________________
		

		 


		

			DB1/ 74007686.1

		


		

			Note: If there are any discrepancies in the name or address shown above, please make the appropriate corrections on this form.
CERTIFICATIONS




I, Andrew
Leszczynski, 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 Bear
Stearns Asset Backed Securities I Trust 2006-HE4 (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. I am
responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the servicers and based on
my knowledge and the compliance reviews conducted in preparing 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; and




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 information provided to me
by the following unaffiliated parties: EMC Mortgage Corporation, as servicer;
LandAmerica Tax and Flood Services, Inc., as vendor; American Security Insurance
Company, Standard Guaranty Insurance Company, and Safeco Financial Institution
Solutions, Inc. (affiliates of Assurant Inc.), each, as vendor; Wells Fargo
Bank, N.A., as servicer; Regulus Group LLC, as vendor; and ZC Sterling Insurance
Agency, Inc., as vendor.




Date:
July 22, 2008




LaSalle
Bank National Association, as master servicer




/s/Andrew
Leszczynski


Andrew
Leszczynski


First
Vice President
Dated:  March 29, 2007                                                                            In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties:By: /s/   E. Todd Whittemore                                                                  Title:Executive Vice President, Master ServicingAurora Loan Services LLC,   as Master ServicerI, E. Todd Whittemore, 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  Lehman XS Trust, Series 2006-4N (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.  I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the servicers and based on my knowledge and the compliance reviews conducted in preparing 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; and5.  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.E. Todd Whittemore**Exhibit 31 : Sarbanes-Oxley Certification**Assurant Inc., as Sub-Contractor for Greenpoint Mortgage Funding, Inc.Countrywide Home Loans Servicing LP, as ServicerGMAC Mortgage, LLC, as ServicerGreenpoint Mortgage Funding, Inc., as ServicerLandAmerica Tax and Flood Services, Inc., as Sub-Contractor for Greenpoint Mortgage Funding, Inc.U.S. Bank National Association, as Trustee, Paying Agent and Custodian
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6558 

To ensure that the right to vote shall not be impaired due to vaccination 

status. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 2, 2022 

Mr. BISHOP of North Carolina (for himself, Mr. NORMAN, Mr. POSEY, Mr. 

HICE of Georgia, Mr. WEBER of Texas, Mr. BUDD, Mr. HARRIS, Mr. 

TIFFANY, Mr. WILLIAMS of Texas, Mr. STEUBE, Mr. PERRY, Mr. CLOUD, 

Mrs. MILLER of Illinois, Mr. GOHMERT, Mr. GOOD of Virginia, Mr. 

GIBBS, Mr. DESJARLAIS, Mr. GAETZ, Mr. GROTHMAN, Mr. MAST, Mr. 

BABIN, Mr. CAWTHORN, and Mrs. FISCHBACH) introduced the following 

bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on House Administration, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such 

provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To ensure that the right to vote shall not be impaired due 

to vaccination status. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Securing Enfranchise5 ment and the Rights of Voters regardless of Inoculation 

6 Status Act’’ or the ‘‘SERVIS Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 6558 IH

1 SEC. 2. RIGHT TO VOTE SHALL NOT BE IMPAIRED. 

2 (a) IN GENERAL.—It shall be unlawful for any State 

3 or political subdivision, as such term is used in the Voting 

4 Rights Act of 1965 (52 U.S.C. 10301 et seq.), to require 

5 or impose a requirement that a voter or voters must 

6 present a vaccine passport or otherwise present informa7 tion regarding their vaccination status in order to exercise 

8 the right to vote, including to vote in person, in any elec9 tion involving any candidate for Federal office. 

10 (b) MASKING REQUIREMENT.—A State or political 

11 subdivision may require that a voter wear a mask in order 

12 to enter a polling location only if— 

13 (1) the State or political subdivision makes 

14 readily available and at no cost to the voter or any 

15 individual who accompanies the voter a mask suffi16 cient to comply with any applicable masking require17 ment; and 

18 (2) the State or political subdivision provides 

19 reasonable accommodation from such requirement 

20 for individuals with a disability as recognized under 

21 the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 

22 U.S.C. 12101 et seq.). 

23 (c) DEFINITION.—For purposes of this section, the 

24 term ‘‘vaccination status’’ means— 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 6558 IH

1 (1) an individual’s status based on the vol2 untary election to receive or not to receive a 

3 COVID–19 vaccine; and 

4 (2) regardless of whether someone has or has 

5 not been vaccinated against COVID–19, an individ6 ual’s status with respect to having or producing 

7 proof of such vaccination in the form of a vaccine 

8 passport or other medical records that would dem9 onstrate whether an individual has been vaccinated 

10 against COVID–19. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS