alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

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

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 02-20218 

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

CHRISTOPHER MCKNIGHT,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. H-01-CR-776-ALL

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

December 12, 2002

Before JOLLY, JONES, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent

Christopher McKnight has moved for leave to withdraw and has

filed a brief as required by Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738

(1967). McKnight has not filed a response. Our independent

review of the brief and the record discloses no nonfrivolous

issue in this direct appeal. Accordingly, the motion for leave

to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further

responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH

CIR. R. 42.2.
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 38 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. J. RES. 38

  Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to 
                     authorize the line item veto.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 27, 2007

    Mr. Platts introduced the following joint resolution; which was 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
  Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to 
                     authorize the line item veto.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House 
concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an 
amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be 
valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when 
ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States 
within seven years after the date of its submission for ratification:

                              ``Article --

    ``In the case of any bill, order, resolution, or vote which is 
presented to the President under section 7 of Article I, the President 
may decline to approve in whole any dollar amount of discretionary 
budget authority, any item of new direct spending, or any tax benefit. 
A matter which the President declines to approve under this article of 
amendment shall be returned with his objections to the House in which 
it originated, and shall be treated in the same manner as a bill which 
the President returns without signing under section 7 of Article I.''.
                                 <all>
```
```

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 79 (Friday, May 12, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Page S6601]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                         REPORTS OF COMMITTEES

  The following reports of committees were submitted:

       By Mrs. KASSEBAUM, from the Committee on Labor and Human 
     Resources, with amendments:
       S. 141. A bill to repeal the Davis-Bacon Act of 1931 to 
     provide new job opportunities, effect significant cost 
     savings on Federal construction contracts, promote small 
     business participation in Federal contracting, reduce 
     unnecessary paperwork and reporting requirements, and for 
     other purposes (Rept. No. 104-80).
     

                          ____________________
```
(logo)TORCHLIGHT

 

 

**ANNUAL COMPLIANCE STATEMENT**

 

CERTIFICATION

 

J.P. Morgan Chase Commercial Mortgage Securities Trust2011-C5 

Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates 

Series 2011-C5 (the “Trust”)

 

I,William A. Clarkson, on behalf of Torchlight Loan Services, LLC, as specialservicer (the “Certifying Servicer”), certify to J.P. Morgan ChaseCommercial Mortgage Securities Corp. and its officers, directors andaffiliates, and with the knowledge and intent that they will rely upon thiscertification, that:

 

1.      I (or Servicing Officers under my supervision) have reviewed the CertifyingServicer’s activities during the year ended December 31, 2019 (the “ReportingPeriod”) and the Certifying Servicer’s performance under the Pooling andServicing Agreement; and

 

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

 

 

Date: February 28, 2020

 

 

TORCHLIGHTLOAN SERVICES, LLC

 

 

By:/s/ William A. Clarkson

Name:William A. Clarkson

Title:Authorized Signatory

 

 

280Park Avenue, New York, NY 10017

T212.883.2800   F 212.883.2560

Einfo@torchlightloanservices.com

www.torchlightinvestors.com
1 The Honorable Robert T. Dawson, United States District Judge for the Western District of Arkansas. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 05-3363

___________ Michaelene Wallace, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Western District of Arkansas. Alliance National Bank, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellee. *

___________ Submitted: December 20, 2006 Filed: December 28, 2006

___________ Before SMITH, MAGILL, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Michaelene Wallace appeals the district court’s 1 adverse grant of summary judgment on her claims against her former employer alleging unlawful discrimination based on her age and the race of her son, in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act and Title VII. Havi ng carefully reviewed the record, see Jacob-Mua v. Veneman , 289 F.3d 517, 520 (8th Cir. 2002) (de novo standard of review), we find no basis for reversal. Accordingly, we affirm. See8th Cir. R. 47B.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                           4,373
<SECURITIES>                                     8,750
<RECEIVABLES>                                   11,698
<ALLOWANCES>                                       420
<INVENTORY>                                     10,156
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                37,659
<PP&E>                                           6,862
<DEPRECIATION>                                  16,490
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  44,612
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            9,354
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        24,349
<OTHER-SE>                                      10,367
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    44,612
<SALES>                                         13,529
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                13,529
<CGS>                                            8,591
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    8,591
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 3,360
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 1,578
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   4
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,699
<INCOME-TAX>                                       646
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,053
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,053
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .14
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .14
        

</TABLE>
# Cou r t of Appea l s

of t h e S ta te of

Geor gi a

A TLA N TA

,_

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

The C o u rt o f Appea ls h ereb

y p a s s es the fo llo wi

n g order:

A25A013 1. RICO LAM AR BALLARD v. T H E S T AT E

.

I n 1 9 9 5

, R ic o Lamar B allard w as c o nv ic ted o f mu rd er and o t her c rimes, and w as

sentenc ed to lif

e in priso n. The trial c o u rt d enied B allard ’ s mo tio n f o r new trial, and

o n a p p e a l, the Su p reme Co u rt o f Geo rgia af f irmed his c o nv ic tio ns. Ba l la rd v

. S t a t e ,

26 8 Ga. 89 5 (49 4 SE2d 6 44) (1 9 9 8). In 2023, Ballard f iled an extrao rd inary mo tio n f o r

new trial, amo ng o ther mo tio ns. I n 2024, the trial co u rt d enied all o f B allard ’s p end ing

mo tio ns, and he f

iled this d irec t ap p e al. W e lac k j u risd ic tio n.

The Su p rem e C o u r t o f Geo rgia has ap p ellate j urisd ic tio n o v er “ [a]ll c ases in

w hic h a s entenc e o f d eath was imp o sed o r co u ld be imp o sed .” Ga. Co nst. o f 1 983, Art.

V I

, Sec . V I , Par. I I I (8). B ec au s e a p e nalty o f d eath may be imp o sed f o r the c rime o f

mu rd er, j u risd ic t io n is p ro p er in the Su preme Co u rt. See OCGA § 16

- 5- 1 (a), (e) (1 );

N ea l v

. S t a te

, 29 0 Ga. 56 3, 57 2 (7 22 SE2d 76 5) ( 201 2) (H u nstein, C. J

. , c o nc u rring);

see also S ta te v. Tho rn to n , 253 Ga. 524, 524 (1 ) (322 SE2d 7 1 1 ) (1 9 84) (d irec ting this

Co u rt t o transf

er “ all c a ses in w hic h either a sentenc e o f d eath o r o f lif e imp riso nment

has been imp o sed u po n c o nv ic tio n o f mu rd er” ), o verru led in p a rt o n o ther gro u nd s

as rec o gniz ed in E lli

o tt v

. S ta te

, 305 Ga. 1 7 9, 205 (I II ) (C) (i) (824 SE2d 26 5) (201 9 ).

T h e Su p reme Co u rt’ s j u risd ic tio n o v er mu rd er cases inc lu d es ap p eals f r o m o rd e r s

reso lv ing p o st- ju d gment mo tio ns in su c h c ases. See Si mps o n v

. Sta te

, 29 2 Ga. 7 6 4, 7 64

(7 40 SE2d 1 24) (201 3) (ap p eal f ro m d enial of mo tio n attac k ing m u rd er c o nv ic tio ns as

v o id ). August 16, 2024A c c o rd ingly, this ap p eal is hereby TRA N SFERRED to the Su preme Co u rt o f

Geo rgia f o r d isp o sitio n.

C o u r t o f A p p e a ls o f t h e S t a t e o f G e o r g ia

C le r k ’ s O ffic e , A t la n t a ,

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I c e r t ify t h a t t h e a b o v e is a tr u e e

x t r a c t fr o m

t h e m in u t e s o f t h e C o u r t o f A pp e a ls o f G e o r g ia

.

W it n e s s m y s ig n a t u r e a n d t h e s e a l o f s a id c o u r t

h e r e t o a ffix e d t h e d a y a n d y e a r la s t a b o v e w r

it t e n

.

, C le r

k

. 08/16/2024
Opinion issued October 20, 2015

In The 

## Court of Appeals For The 

## First District of Texas

———————————— NO. 01
- 15
- 00061
- CV

——————————— SO L IZ AUTOMOTIVE , INC. D/B/A COLLISION SPECIALIST #1 , Appellant V. SKOPOS FINANCIAL, LL C , Appellee

On Appeal from the 400th District Court Fort Bend County, Texas Trial Court Ca se No. 14
- DCV
- 214508

MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant, Soliz Automotive, Inc. d/b/a Collision Specialist #1 , has neither established indigence for purposes of appellate costs n or paid or made arrangements to pay the fee for preparing the clerk’s record. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P

.2 20.1, 37.3(b). After being notified that this appeal was subject to dismissa l, appellant did not adequately respond. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P . 42.3(b), (c). We dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. We dismiss a ll pending motions as moot.

PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Justices Jennings, Higley, and Brown.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                   5
<LEGEND> 
                            The Schedule contains summary financial information
                            extracted from the financial statements for
                            Cambridge Advantaged Properties II L.P. and is
                            qualified in its entirety by reference to such
                            financial statements
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                       0000771996
<NAME>                      Cambridge Advantaged Properties II L.P.
<MULTIPLIER>                1
       
<S>                         <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>               6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>           MAR-25-1997
<PERIOD-START>              MAR-26-1996
<PERIOD-END>                SEP-25-1996
<CASH>                       1,201,963
<SECURITIES>                 0
<RECEIVABLES>                0
<ALLOWANCES>                 0
<INVENTORY>                  0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>             5,552,685
<PP&E>                       118,798,514
<DEPRECIATION>               41,447,070
<TOTAL-ASSETS>               84,106,092
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>        12,807,949
<BONDS>                      98,725,342
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>        0
<PREFERRED>                  0
<COMMON>                     0
<OTHER-SE>                   (27,427,199)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY> 84,106,092
<SALES>                      0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>             14,850,482
<CGS>                        0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>             7,827,330
<LOSS-PROVISION>             0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>           4,373,038
<INCOME-PRETAX>              2,650,114
<INCOME-TAX>                 0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>          0
<DISCONTINUED>               0
<EXTRAORDINARY>              5,161,583
<CHANGES>                    0
<NET-INCOME>                 7,775,685
<EPS-PRIMARY>                1,077
<EPS-DILUTED>                0
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 31.2


CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a)


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF


THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I, Jon W. Howie, certify that:


1. I have reviewed this Annual report on Form 10-K/A of Chuy’s Holdings, Inc.; and


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: April 22, 2014


/s/ Jon W. HowieJon W. HowieVice President and Chief Financial Officer(Principal Financial Officer)
### IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA DA 21 - 0610

_________________ MARK DEMING,

Plaintiff and Appellant v. JASON DEMING and KELLY DEMING,

Defendants and Appellees. O R D E R

_________________ Pursuant to the Internal Operating Rules of this Court, this cause is classified for submission on briefs to a five - justice panel of this Court. The Clerk is directed to provide a copy hereof to all counsel of record and to the Honorable Katherine M. B idegaray , District Judge . For the Court,

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

October 5 2022

10/05/2022
Case Number: DA 21-0610
Exhibit 32.2

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT

TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF2002

 

In connection with the accompanying AnnualReport of Kaya Holdings, Inc.. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2014, as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Craig Frank, Chief Executive Officer (principalexecutive of the Company), certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002, to the best of our knowledge, that:

 

 

Dated: April 15, 2015
#### Hugo & Smetzer v. A. F. Dignowitty.

(No. 1229, Op. Book No. 3, p. 509.)

Appeal from Kinney County.

March 19, 1881.

Opinion by

White, P. J.

§ 158. *Injunction; returnable to what county.*Writs of injunction to stay proceedings in a suit or execution on a judgment shall be returnable to and tried in the court where the suit is pending or the judgment was rendered. [Pas. Dig. art. 3932; E. S. 2880.] This statute is imperative. [Hendrick v. Cannon, 2 Tex. 259; Winnie v. Greyson, 3 Tex. 429; Cook v. Baldridge & Co. 39 Tex. 250; George v. Dyer and wife, *post,*p. 000.]

Eeversed and remanded.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Davidson
Diversified Real Estate III Limited Partnership 1997 Second Quarter 10-QSB and
is qualified in its entirety by reference to such 10-QSB filing.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000773679
<NAME> DAVIDSON DIVERSIFIED REAL ESTATE III LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                             315
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                       13
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0<F1>
<PP&E>                                          33,747
<DEPRECIATION>                                  14,344
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  20,672
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0<F1>
<BONDS>                                         23,890
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     (3,984)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    20,672
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 2,830
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 3,363
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,089
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (533)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (533)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (533)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                 (516.07)<F2>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>Registrant has an unclassified balance sheet.
<F2>Multiplier is 1.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
#### F. M. Kinsey v. Geo. Bellas.

(No. 1061, Op. Book No. 3, p. 452.)

Appeal from Montague County.

Opinion by

White, P. J.

§ 96. *Averment of ownership of note sued on.*Where a petition alleged all the facts which constituted the plaintiff the legal owner of the note sued upon, as the making of the note by the defendant foi a valuable consideration, whereby he promised to pay the money to plaintiff, and the delivery of the note to the plaintiff without alleging in terms that the plaintiff was “the legal owner and holder of the note,” it was held to be sufficient. [Rutherford v. Smith, 28 Tex. 323.]

Reversed and remanded.
Exhibit 23.1


            CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form
S-8 No. 333-91860) of Franklin Street Properties Corp., the Registration
Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-118712) of Franklin Street Properties Corp., and the
Registration Statement (Form S-4 No. 333-118748) of Franklin Street Properties
Corp. of our reports dated March 10, 2005, with respect to the consolidated
financial statements and schedule of Franklin Street Properties Corp., Franklin
Street Properties Corp. management's assessment of the effectiveness of internal
control over financial reporting, and the effectiveness of internal control over
financial reporting of Franklin Street Properties Corp., included in this Annual
Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2004.

                                                           /s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP

Boston, Massachusetts
March 10, 2005
News United States Air Force
 Around the Air Force: Ramstein Responds, Helping Haiti, Fighting FiresPublished Aug. 27, 2021
                        
                        By Airman 1st Class Garrett Hess
                        
                        
                        Defense Media Activity - Air Force
                **FORT GEORGE G. MEADE, Md. (AFNS) --**
                Today's look around the Air Force highlights the support Ramstein Air Base, Germany, is providing for Afghan evacuees, Special Operations Airmen supporting earthquake relief in Haiti, and California Air National Guard Airmen joining the fight against wildfires. (Hosted by Senior Airman Mikayla Daly)  For previous episodes, click **here** for the Air Force TV page.Related links:**- Ramstein Air Base Supports Operation Allies Refuge****- Special tactics Airmen augment Haiti earthquake humanitarian relief efforts****- Cal Guard actively fights state’s wildfires**Featured Video 



AFTV 



ATAF 



Around the Air Force 



Air Force 



AF
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF QUINTILES TRANSNATIONAL FOR THE NINE MONTH PERIOD ENDED
SEPTEMBER 30, 1996 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>                                          60,289
<SECURITIES>                                    59,986
<RECEIVABLES>                                   95,810
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               223,409
<PP&E>                                          95,318
<DEPRECIATION>                                  25,948
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 400,117
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           62,920
<BONDS>                                        140,011
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           218
<OTHER-SE>                                     174,174
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   400,117
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               186,242
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  166,431
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,533
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 21,377
<INCOME-TAX>                                     6,735
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             14,642
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    14,642
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .66
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>