alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________ No. 95-50780 Summary Calendar

__________________
JOHN LENTWORTH, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus LEO SAMANIEGO, Sheriff of El Paso County, Texas, Defendant-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. EP-94-CV-38

- - - - - - - - - - May 20, 1996 Before SMITH, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * This is an appeal from the district court's order granting summary judgment in favor of the defendant in John Lentworth's civil rights complaint brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Lentworth contends that the district court erred in granting summary judgment because he supported his claim of jail overcrowding with sufficient evidence to establish genuine issues of material fact. Because he failed to brief them on appeal,No. 95-50780 -2- Lentworth has abandoned any claims of liability against Samaniego premised on inadequate medical treatment and inadequate access to the jail's law library. See Yohey v. Collins , 985 F.2d 222, 225 (5th Cir. 1993). We have reviewed the record and the briefs of the parties and AFFIRM the district court's judgment for essentially the same reasons set forth by the district court. Lentworth v. Samaniego , No. EP-94-CV-38 (W.D. Tex. Aug. 4 and Sept. 22, 1995).
This memorandum is uncorrected and subject to revision before

publication in the New York Reports.

----------------------------------------------------------------- No. 132 The People &c., Appellant, v. Terrance L. Mack, Respondent.

Geoffrey Kaeuper, for appellant. Nicolas Bourtin, for respondent.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Reargument ordered and case set down for argument during a future session of this Court. Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Pigott, Rivera, Abdus-Salaam, Stein and Fahey concur. Decided October 27, 2015
ORIGINAL w. 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 

PR 23-0005 

IN RE MOTION OF LINDSAY M. CHVILICEK FOR 

ADMISSION TO THE BAR OF THE STATE OF 

MONTANA 

FILED 

JUL 1 8 2023 

Bowen Greenwood 

Clerk of Supreme Court 

E, r ,,,c,ntana 

ORDER 

Lindsay M. Chvilicek has moved for admission to the Bar of the State of Montana 

pursuant to Rule V of the Rules for Admission, Admission on Motion. The Bar Admissions 

Administrator of the State Bar of Montana has informed the Court that the Commission on 

Character and Fitness has certified that Chvilicek has provided the necessary 

documentation and has satisfied the requirements prerequisite to admission on motion 

under Rule V. Therefore, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that upon payment of any application fees and 

completion of any other processing requirements as set forth by the Bar Admissions 

Administrator, Lindsay M. Chvilicek may be sworn in to the practice of law in the State of 

Montana. Arrangements for swearing in may be made by contacting the office of the Clerk 

of the Montana Supreme Court. 

The Clerk is directed to provide copies of this order to Petitioner and to the State 

Bar of Montana. 

DATED this I ( day of July, 2023. 

Chief Justice 

07/18/2023

Case Number: PR 23-0005
eU le J4laL 

Justices
#### BRYANT v. TEXAS *&*N. O. R. CO. et al.

No. 2671.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. First Circuit.

Jan. 26, 1945.

For original opinion, see 19 So.2d 898.

*559A. Deutsche O’Neal, oi Houma, and Pugh, Lanier & Pugh, of Thibodaux, for appellant.

Ellender & Wright, of Houma, and Harry McCall, Gill & Simon, and Carroll Mon-tet, all of New Orleans, for appellees.

. PER CURIAM.

For thé reasons assigned in the companion case of Wright et al. v. Texas & N. O. R. Co., Defendant, La.App., 20 So.2d 558, the application for rehearing herein will not be considered for having been filed too late.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 05-cr-215-01-PB

Larry Stallings

O R D E R

The defendant has moved to continue the January 4, 2006

trial in the above case, citing the need for additional time to

complete discovery and prepare a defense. The government and codefendant, Christopher Stallings, do not object to a continuance

of the trial date.

Accordingly, in order to allow the parties additional time

to complete discovery and properly prepare for trial, the court

will continue the trial from January 4, 2006 to February 7, 2006. 

In agreeing to continue the trial, the court finds pursuant to 18

U.S.C.A. § 3161(h)(8)(A) that for the above-stated reasons, the

ends of justice served in granting a continuance outweigh the

best interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial.

Case 1:05-cr-00215-PB Document 17 Filed 12/21/05 Page 1 of 2
2

The December 21, 2006 final pretrial conference is continued

until January 25, 2006 at 4:30 p.m.

SO ORDERED.

/s/Paul Barbadoro

Paul Barbadoro

United States District Judge

December 21, 2005

cc: Paul Pappas, Esq., Bjorn Lange, Esq.

Donald Feith, AUSA

United States Probation

United States Marshal

Case 1:05-cr-00215-PB Document 17 Filed 12/21/05 Page 2 of 2
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS
13
- 16
- 00404
- CR William Charles Taylor

v. The State of Texas On Appeal from the 331st District Court of Travis County , Texas Trial Cause No. D
- 1
- DC
- 07
- 300708

JUDGMENT THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considere d this cause on appeal, concludes the appeal should be DISMISSED

. The Court orders the appeal DISMISSED in accordance with its opinion

. We further order this decision certified below for observance. September 2, 2016
#### In the Matter of Miquel Mercedes, Appellant, v Daniel A. Senkowski, as Superintendent of Clinton Correctional Facility, et al., Respondents.

Mahoney, P. J.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Plumadore, J.), entered April 21, 1989 in Clinton County, which dismissed petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to review a determination of respondent Commissioner of Correctional Services finding petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule.

Petitioner was confined at Clinton Correctional Facility in Clinton County and charged with the use of a controlled substance in violation of State-wide rule 113.12 *(see,*7 NYCRR former 270.1 [b] [14] [iv]). He was found guilty following a *706disciplinary hearing and was unsuccessful on administrative appeal. He commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding to challenge the determination. Supreme Court dismissed the petition and this appeal followed.

Petitioner claims that the determination should be annulled because EMIT control test result cards were not produced in violation of 7 NYCRR 1020.4 (e) (1) (iv) and 1020.5 (a) (1). Petitioner’s failure to raise this issue at the administrative level precludes its consideration now *(see, e.g., Matter of Hop Wah v Coughlin,*153 AD2d 999, *lv denied*75 NY2d 705). In any event, we recently have resolved petitioner’s contentions contrary to his position *(see, Matter of Sweet v Coughlin,*161 AD2d 1005).

Judgment affirmed, without costs. Mahoney, P. J., Mikoll, Yesawich, Jr., Levine and Mercure, JJ., concur.
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 179 (Monday, September 15, 2008)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 53151]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-21375]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Defense Acquisition Regulations System

48 CFR Parts 202 and 252


Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement; Technical 
Amendments

AGENCY: Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Department of Defense 
(DoD).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: DoD is making technical amendments to the Defense Federal 
Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) to update the list of DoD 
contracting activities and to correct a reference in a contract clause.

DATES: Effective Date: September 15, 2008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Michele Peterson, Defense 
Acquisition Regulations System, OUSD (AT&L) DPAP (DARS), IMD 3D139, 
3062 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-3062. Telephone 703-602-
0311; facsimile 703-602-7887.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This final rule amends DFARS text as 
follows:
    <bullet> 202.101. Adds the U.S. Transportation Command to the list 
of DoD contracting activities.
    <bullet> 252.212-7001. Amends the reference to the clause at 
252.219-7004 in paragraph (b)(3) to reflect the current clause date.

List of Subjects in 48 CFR Parts 202 and 252

    Government procurement.

Michele P. Peterson,
Editor, Defense Acquisition Regulations System.

0
Therefore, 48 CFR parts 202 and 252 are amended as follows:
0
1. The authority citation for 48 CFR parts 202 and 252 continues to 
read as follows:

    Authority: 41 U.S.C. 421 and 48 CFR Chapter 1.

PART 202--DEFINITIONS OF WORDS AND TERMS


202.101   [Amended]

0
2. Section 202.101 is amended in the definition of ``Contracting 
activity'' by adding at the end ``United States Transportation Command, 
Directorate of Acquisition''.

PART 252--SOLICITATION PROVISIONS AND CONTRACT CLAUSES


252.212-7001   [Amended]

0
3. Section 252.212-7001 is amended as follows:
0
a. By revising the clause date to read ``(SEP 2008)''; and
0
b. In paragraph (b)(3) by removing ``(APR 2007)'' and adding in its 
place ``(AUG 2008)''.

[FR Doc. E8-21375 Filed 9-12-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-08-P
<PAGE>

                                                                 Exhibit 32.1

                          CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                          18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350*


In connection with the Quarterly Report of PGI Incorporated (the "Company")
on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2005 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Laurence A. Schiffer, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my 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 operations of
     the Company.



/s/ Laurence A. Schiffer
-----------------------------------------------------
    Laurence A. Schiffer
    Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)     August 11, 2005


<FN>
* A signed original of this written statement has been provided to the
  Company and will be retained by the Company and will be furnished to the
  Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Federal Trade Commission

v. Civil No. 04-cv-377-JD

Seismic Entertainment

Productions, Inc., et al.

O R D E R

After close of business last night, the Federal Trade

Commission filed its response to two motions filed by John Robert

Martinson. That response was not brought to the court’s

attention until the order on those motions issued this morning. 

In light of the FTC’s response, the court reiterates the order

issued this morning with the following additions.

The court recognizes that the FTC had a short period to

accomplish discovery on the issue of a monetary judgment against

Martinson and that it scheduled discovery expeditiously, based on

that time period. Nevertheless, in light of the possibility that

the documents and information already provided will be sufficient

to resolve that issue without further time and expense devoted to

additional discovery measures, including depositions, the order

issued this morning stands. The court acknowledges the FTC’s

concern that Martinson failed to first contact the FTC’s counsel

to resolve the issues he raises about further discovery, as he

Case 1:04-cv-00377-JD Document 118 Filed 04/20/06 Page 1 of 2
2

was required to do by the local rules of this court. With

respect to any further issues that may arise in this case,

Martinson is directed to first make a reasonable effort to

resolve those issues with counsel for the FTC before resorting to

filing a motion for relief with the court.

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.

United States District Judge

April 20, 2006

cc: Stacey P. Ferguson, Esquire

David P. Frankel, Esquire

Charulata B. Pagar, Esquire

Laura M. Sullivan, Esquire

Martha Van Oot, Esquire

John McFerrin Clancy, Esquire

John Robert Martinson, pro se

Case 1:04-cv-00377-JD Document 118 Filed 04/20/06 Page 2 of 2
**EXHIBIT 35.1**

 

**SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT**

**New Holland Credit Company, LLC**

 

The undersigned, a duly authorized officer of New Holland Credit Company, LLC (“NHCC”), as Servicer pursuant to the Sale and Servicing Agreement dated as of September 1, 2018 (as amended from time to time, the “Sale and Servicing Agreement”) by and among NHCC, CNH Capital Receivables LLC and CNH Equipment Trust 2018-B, does hereby certify that:

 

1.             NHCC is Servicer under the Sale and Servicing Agreement.

 

2.             The undersigned is duly authorized as required pursuant to the Sale and Servicing Agreement to execute and deliver this Certificate to the Indenture Trustee.

 

3.             This Certificate is delivered pursuant to Section 4.9(a) of the Sale and Servicing Agreement and Item 1123 of Regulation AB.

 

4.             A review of the Servicer’s activities during the 12 month period ending (and including) December 31, 2019 and of its performance under the Sale and Servicing Agreement has been made under my supervision.

 

5.             To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Sale and Servicing Agreement in all material respects throughout the 12 month period ending (and including) December 31, 2019.

 

6.             IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has duly executed this Certificate this 23rd day of March, 2020.

 

March 23, 2020

 
|   | By:    | /s/ Carlo Alberto Sisto |
|--------|--------|-------------------------|
|   | Name:  | Carlo Alberto Sisto     |
|   | Title: | President               |

 

----
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

William J. Knowles

v. Civil No. 05-fp-363

New Hampshire Department of Corrections, Commissioner, et al.

O R D E R

Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis is granted,

but pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, as amended, the filing fee must

be paid as follows: the sum of $4.20 is due no later than

December 5, 2005. In addition, 20% of each preceding month’s

income credited to plaintiff’s account to be remitted by the New

Hampshire State Prison when the amount in the account exceeds

$10.00 until the sum of $250.00 has been paid. Failure to pay

the fee as ordered will result in dismissal of the action without

prejudice. In all other respects plaintiff’s request for in

forma pauperis has been granted. 

This case has been assigned number 05-cv-363-PB. 

SO ORDERED.

____________________________________

James R. Muirhead

United States Magistrate Judge

Date: November 2, 2005

cc: William J. Knowles, pro se

 Bonnie S. Reed, Financial Administrator

 New Hampshire State Prison, Inmate Accounts

Case 1:05-cv-00363-PB Document 5 Filed 11/02/2005 Page 1 of 1

Knowles et al v. NH Department of Corrections, Commissioner Doc. 5

Dockets.Justia.com
**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**

|   | (1) | The                Form 10-Q 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 Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material                respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the                Companies. |
|--------|-----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:  August                6, 2007                               |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|  /s/                Stephen P. Reynolds                                 |
| Stephen                P. Reynolds                                           |
| Chairman,                President andChief                Executive Officer |
(logo)CWCapital

ASSET MANAGEMENT

 

 

**ANNUAL COMPLIANCESTATEMENT**

** **

**CERTIFICATION**

** **

**For the Period ofJuly 13, 2018 to December 31, 2018**

 

**Benchmark 2018-B4Mortgage Trust, Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates**

**Series 2018-B4 (the“****Trust****”)**

 

 

I,James P. Shevlin, on behalf of CWCapital Asset Management LLC, as SpecialServicer (the “Certifying Servicer”), certify to J.P. Morgan ChaseCommercial Mortgage Securities Corp. and its officers, directors and with theknowledge and intent that they will rely upon this certification, that:

 

1.       I (orServicing Officers under my supervision) have reviewed the CertifyingServicer’s activities between July 13, 2018 to December 31, 2018 (the “ReportingPeriod”) and the Certifying Servicer’s performance under the Pooling andServicing Agreement; and

 

2.       To thebest of my knowledge, based on such review, the Certifying Servicer hasfulfilled all of its obligations under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement inall material respects during the Reporting Period.

 

 

Date:March 1, 2019

 

CWCapitalAsset Management LLC, as Special Servicer

 

 

By:/s/James P. Shevlin

Name:James P. Shevlin

Title:President/Chief Operating Officer

 

 

7501Wisconsin Avenue | Suite 500 West | Bethesda, MD | 20814
Exhibit 31.1



CERTIFICATION



I, Brent S. Willson, certify that:



| | 1. | I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A of NeoVolta, Inc. (the “registrant”);                                                                                                                                                                                                                   
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |    |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           
| | 2. | Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;
| |    |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           





Date: October 28, 2022





/s/ Brent S. Willson

Brent S. Willson

Chief Executive Officer

(Principal Executive Officer)
#### GOERTZ v. MENARD.*

No. 1587.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. First Circuit.

Nov. 7, 1936.

For original opinion, see 168 So. 747.

Harvey E. & Frank B. Ellis, of Coving-ton, and Charles E. De La Vergne, of New Orleans, for appellant.

S. W. Provensal, of Slidell, and B. M. Miller, of Covington, for appellee.

*

Writ of error refused Jan. 4, 1037.

PER CURIAM.

The judgment herein was rendered and signed by this court on June 9, 1936. Notice was thereafter served upon plaintiff’s attorneys. The application for rehearing was filed by plaintiff, appellee, before the expiration of the period fixed by law for the filing of said application. The motion for the dismissal of the application filed by defendant, appellant, is denied.

The court has looked into the questions raised by plaintiff (appellee) in his brief supporting rehearing application. In reaching its conclusions and in the preparation of its opinion the court gave due consideration to the case of Posey v. City of New Orleans, 113 La. 1059, 37 So. 969, which plaintiff would have us follow. In that case no mention is made of the question of possession, but it is held that it was not shown that Joseph R. Bres, in whose name the assessment appeared when the tax adjudication was made, did not own land more nearly answering the description of the assessment than the lands of the plaintiff Posey. We do not understand that the validity of any adjudication of land to the state for unpaid ta!xes depends upon possession.- Neither the state’s lien nor title is defeated or affected by possession of tax debtor or third parties. We do not consider plaintiff’s argument on question of possession as being pertinent to the issues involved in this case. As to the argument regarding the location and identity of the lands under the description by which they were adjudicated, it must be remembered that these descriptions were taken from, and these adjudications were based upon, assessments on the St. Tammany parish tax rolls for the ward of said parish in which they were situated and referred to the only lands owned by the tax debtor in said parish at the time of said adjudications. These descriptions, according to our view, are as good or better than the descriptions of the property involved in some of the cases which are cited in our opinion. We find no grounds set up in the application or supporting brief which would warrant the granting of any rehearing.

The application is refused.
mar0705_ex1039




Exhibit 10.39

Verizon Wireless 

  Financial Planning Program

 


Verizon Wireless offers financial planning services to its executives to assist with retirement planning, investment planning, tax preparation and estate planning.
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A17E0051. TRACY KUZMINSKY v. VICKY CHAPMAN.

The deadline for filing a notice of appeal is jurisdictional, so this court is

without authority to retroactively extend it “even on grounds such as providential

cause and excusable neglect.” Register v. Elliott, 285 Ga. App. 741, 743 (647 S.E.2d

406) (2007). But see Piedmont Hosp., Inc. v. D.M., 335 Ga. App. 442, 444 (1) (779

S.E.2d 36) (2015). Petitioner’s emergency motion is therefore denied. 

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.

May 02, 2017

05/02/2017