alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 7 (Tuesday, January 12, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 1588-1589]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-252]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service


Deschutes and Ochoco National Forests Resource Advisory Committee

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Deschutes and Ochoco National Forests Resource Advisory 
Committee will meet in Redmond, Oregon. The purpose of the meeting is 
to review proposed projects and make recommendations under Title II 
(division C of Pub. L. 110-343 reauthorized and amended the Secure 
rural Schools and community Self-Determination Act of 2000 (SRS Act) as

[[Page 1589]]

originally enacted in Public Law 106-393.

DATES: The meeting will be held January 27, 2010 from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., 
and January 28, 2010 from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the office of the Central Oregon 
Intergovernmental Council, 2363 SW Glacier Place, Redmond, Oregon 
97756. Send written comments to Jeff Walter as Designated Federal 
Official, for the Deschutes and Ochoco National Forests Resource 
Advisory Committee, c/o Forest Service, USDA. Ochoco National Forest, 
3160 NE., 3rd St., Prineville, OR 97754 or electronically to 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#a5cfd2c4c9d1c0d7e5c3d68bc3c0c18bd0d6"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="5a302d3b362e3f281a3c29743c3f3e742f29">[email protected]</span></a>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeff Walter, Designated Federal 
Official, Ochoco National Forest, 541-416-6625.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The meeting is open to the public. Committee 
discussion is limited to Forest Service staff and Committee members. 
However, persons who wish to bring Title II matters to the attention of 
the Committee may flle written statements with the Committee staff 
before the meeting. A public input session will be provided and 
individuals who made written requests by January 15, 2010 will have the 
opportunity to address the Committee at the session.

    Dated: January 4, 2010.
Jeff Walter,
Designated Federal Official.
[FR Doc. 2010-252 Filed 1-11-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### APPEAL OF COMPLAINT NO. 26645.

No. 2010-OB-2459.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 8, 2011.

In re Johnson, Elfrida W.; —Plaintiff; Applying for Reconsideration of this Court’s action dated January 7, 2011; Office of Disciplinary Board, No. 26645.

Denied.
Dismiss and Opinion Filed September 9, 2022

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 21

- 00928

- CV
VALET LIVING, LLC AN D VALET PARENT, INC. D/B/A VALET WASTE HOLDINGS, INC. , Appellants V. JASMINE AMBER MITCHE LL , Appellee

On Appeal from the 44th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC

- 20

- 09789

MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Schenck, Osborne, and Smith Opinion by Justice Osborne
By motion filed September 6, 2022, appellants informed the Court that the

parties have settled their dispute. Appellants move to dismiss the appeal, advising

the Court that dismissal will not prevent any party from seeking relief to which it

would otherwi se be entitled because appellee has not noticed a cross

- appeal. See

T EX . R. A PP . P. 42.1(a). We grant the motion and dismiss the appeal. See id.

210928f.p05 /Leslie Osborne/ / LESLIE OSBORNE JUSTICE– 2

– 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

VALET LIVING, LLC AND VALET PARENT, INC. D/B/A VALET WASTE HOLDINGS, INC., Appellants

No. 05

- 21

- 00928

- CV V.

JASMINE AMBER MITCHELL, Appellee On Appeal from the 44th Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC

- 20

- 09789. Opinion delivered by Justice Osborne. Justices Schenck and Smith participating.

In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the appeal is DISMISSED

. Subject to any agreement between the parties, we ORDER that appellee Jasmine Amber Mitchell recover her costs, if any, of this appeal from appellants Valet Living, LLC and Val et Parent, Inc. d/b/a Valet Waste Holdings, Inc.

Judgment entered this 9 th day of September
, 2022

.
| (logo) Prudential

  | Prudential Asset Resources,  Inc.

 

**Prudential Mortgage  Capital Company**

2100 Ross Avenue, Suite 2500  Dallas, TX 75201

Tel 877-937-4500

  |
|---------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

Wells Fargo Bank, NationalAssociation Commercial Mortgage ServicingMAC D1086550 South Tryon Street, 14th FloorCharlotte, North Carolina 28202Attention: Asset Manager

RE:**RBS 2014-C21**Period:**January 1, 2016 to December 31, 2016 (the "ReportingPeriod")**

**Annual Compliance Statement**I, Timothy E. Steward, in my capacity as President and Managing Director ofPrudential Asset Resources, Inc. (the "Company") hereby certify withregard to the Company's role as Primary Servicer under the Pooling andServicing Agreement, (the "Agreement") dated as of August 1, 2014pertaining to the above-referenced certificates, that:(i) a review of the activities of the Company under the Agreement during theperiod noted above, and of the performance of the Company under the Agreementduring the reporting period has been made under my supervision, and(ii) to the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Company hasfulfilled all its obligations under the Agreement throughout the reportingperiod.

 

 

Effective as of 2/22/2017

/s/ Timothy E. StewardTimothy E. StewardPresident and Managing DirectorPrudential Asset Resources, Inc.
Exhibit 32.2



Certification Pursuant To

18 U.S.C. Section 1350,

As Adopted Pursuant To

Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



The undersigned hereby certifies, in my capacity as an officer of NSTAR, for purposes of 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:



|(i) | the enclosed Annual Report of NSTAR on Form 10-K/A for the period ended December 31, 2005 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934; and
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|(ii) | the information contained in such Annual Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of NSTAR.
|---- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Dated: February 27, 2006



/s/  JAMES J.
JUDGE

James J. Judge

Senior Vice President, Treasurer

and Chief Financial Officer
Amendment to Amended and Restated 1993 Stock Incentive Plan



 EXHIBIT 10.3 
 PROPOSED AMENDMENT (SUBJECT TO STOCKHOLDER APPROVAL) TO 
 ALLSCRIPTS HEALTHCARE SOLUTIONS, INC. 

 AMENDED AND RESTATED 
 1993 STOCK INCENTIVE PLAN 
 The second sentence of Section 3 is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following:

 “The maximum number of Common Shares that may be issued pursuant to all grants under this Plan shall not exceed 21,593,489, plus shares attributable
to awards that were forfeited or cancelled under the Predecessor Plans.”
(logo) Rialto

CAPITAL

 

 

**2018 Annual Statement of Servicer Compliance (Item1123)**

 

 

Pooling and ServicingAgreement (the "Pooling and Servicing Agreement") dated as of May 1,2014 by and among Wells Fargo Commercial Mortgage Securities, Inc., asDepositor, Wells Fargo Bank, National Association as General Master Servicer,Rialto Capital Advisors, LLC as General Special Servicer, NCB, FSB as NCBMaster Servicer, NCB, FSB as Co-op Special Servicer, Wells Fargo Bank, NationalAssociation as Certificate Administrator, as Tax Administrator and asCustodian, Pentalpha Surveillance LLC, as Trust Advisor and Wilmington Trust,National Association as Trustee relating to the WFRBS Commercial Mortgage Trust2014-C20, Commercial Mortgage Pass-through Certificates, Series 2014-C20 **(WFRBS2014-C20)**

 

The undersigned, a dulyauthorized officer of Rialto Capital Advisors, LLC, as special servicer (the“Special Servicer”) herein certifies to the following:

 

1.       All servicing activities and performanceof such servicing activities under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement areperformed on behalf of the Special Servicer.

 

2.       A review of the servicingactivities and performance by the Special Servicer for the period of January 1,2018 to December 31, 2018 (the “Reporting Period”) in accordance with thePooling and Servicing Agreement has been conducted under my supervision.

 

3.       To the best of my knowledge, basedon such review, the Special Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations underthe terms of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement, in all material respects forthe Reporting Period and if there has been a failure to fulfill any suchobligations in any material respect, each failure and the nature and statusthereof has been specifically identified herein.

 

 

Certified by: /s/ Adam Singer

Adam Singer, ManagingDirector 

 

Date: March 1, 2019
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14

- 51108 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.
WILLIAM HARRIS JONES , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 7:14

- CR

- 90

Before JOLLY, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * William Harris Jones was convicted by a jury of using a cellular phone and the internet to attempt to coerce and entice a minor to engage in sexual activity , in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b). The district court sentenced Jones to 120 months of imprisonment and 10 years of supervised release and imposed
the following special conditions of supervised release : a prohibition on sexually
oriented materials ; a pro hibition on alcohol consumption; a prohibition on

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. 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 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED February 2, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 14-51108 Document: 00513364731 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/02/2016No. 14

- 51108

2 r esiding where firearms are kept; a requirement that Jones submit to treatment and abide by the treatment program rules, including submitting to polygraph testing; and a prohibition on using or possessing a computer, the internet, or an i nternet

- enabled device without prior written permission of the probation officer. Jones contends, for the first time on appeal, that these conditions do not meet the statutory requirements and the district court failed to adequately explain its reasons fo r imposing these conditions. We review Jones’s claims of error for plain error. See United States v. Tang , 718 F.3d 476, 482 (5th Cir. 2013) ; United States v. Miller , 665 F.3d 114, 134 (5th Cir. 2011). A district court’s discretion in imposing condition s of supervised release is subject to the requirements of 18 U.S.C. § 3583(d)

. United States v. Ellis , 720 F.3d 220, 225 (5th Cir. 2013). Because it is debatable
whether the aforementioned conditions sati s fy these statutory requirements,

any error s in th eir imposition are not plain. See Puckett v. United States , 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009) ; United States v. Olano , 507 U.S. 725, 734 (1993). Assuming arguendo that the district court plainly erred by not adequately explaining its reasons for imposing the aforementioned conditions , any error did not affect Jones’s substantial rights because Jones has not shown that providing reasons would have changed the outcome

. See Tang , 718 F.3d at
483. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED

. Case: 14-51108 Document: 00513364731 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/02/2016
Exhibit32.2

Certification of Chief Financial Officer

Inconnection with the special financial report (the‘‘Report’’) pursuant to Rule 15d-2 underthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934 of Atlantic Express TransportationCorp. (the ‘‘Company’’), I, NathanSchlenker, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, do hereby certify,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of myknowledge:

|  |           |                                                                                                                                             |
|--|-----------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|  | (i)  | the Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and |

|  |            |                                                                                                                                                   |
|--|------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|  | (ii)  | theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of theCompany. |

|  | /s/ NathanSchlenker                    NathanSchlenkerChief Financial Officer |
|--|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

Date:September  28,  2006

The foregoing certification isbeing furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to18 U.S.C. Section 1350, and is not being filed for purposesof Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, andis not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company,whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any generalincorporation language in suchfiling.

----
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Dino Jay SCHWERTZ.

No. 2010-KO-1315.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 7, 2011.

In re Schwertz, Dino Jay; —Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. G, No. 449563; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2009 KA 2183.

Denied.
#### CITIZENS PROPERTY INSURANCE CORPORATION, Appellant, v. Osvaldo MAYTIN, Appellee.

No. 3D10-693.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Dec. 29, 2010.

Hinshaw & Culbertson and Maureen G. Pearcy and Paul R. Wallace, Miami, for appellant.

Amado Alan Alvarez, for appellee.

Before SUAREZ, CORTIÑAS and LAGOA, JJ.

SUAREZ, J.

Citizens Property Insurance Corporation (“Citizens”) appeals a non-final order granting Osvaldo Maytin’s motion to compel appraisal of a claim under his homeowners’ insurance policy with Citizens. After Maytin filed suit for breach of contract against Citizens, he moved to compel appraisal. Citizens answered the complaint and asserted that Maytin failed to comply with post-loss conditions and prevented Citizens from fully inspecting his property, thereby, precluding the invocation of the appraisal clause under the insurance policy.

On the authority of *Citizens Property Insurance Corp. v. Galeria Villas Condominium Association,*48 So.3d 188 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010), we reverse the trial court’s grant of the motion to compel appraisal and remand for an evidentiary hearing to determine if Maytin complied with the post-loss conditions under the policy. *See First Home Ins. Co. v. Fleurimond,*36 So.3d 172 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010); see *also Sunshine State Ins. Co. v. Corridori,*28 So.3d 129, 131 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (“[W]here the ‘insured cooperates to some degree or provides an explanation for its noncompliance, a fact question is presented’ regarding the necessity or sufficiency of compliance.... Whether appellees’ compliance with the policy terms was necessary or sufficient is a dispute of fact.”) (citation omitted); *U.S. Fid. & Guar. Co. v. Romay,*744 So.2d 467 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999).

Reversed and remanded.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-7713

ALEXANDER CAMERON,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

DAVID A. GARRAGHTY,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior

District Judge. (CA-01-1192-AM)

Submitted: February 28, 2003 Decided: March 12, 2003

Before WIDENER, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Alexander Cameron, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Drummond Bagwell,

Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Alexander Cameron seeks to appeal the district court’s order

denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000).

We have reviewed the record and conclude for the reasons stated by

the district court that Cameron has not made a substantial showing

of the denial of a constitutional right. See Cameron v. Garraghty,

No. CA-01-1192-AM (E.D. Va., filed Oct. 9, 2002; entered Oct. 10,

2002). Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma

pauperis, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the

appeal. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) (2000). We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

presented in the materials before the court and argument would not

aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                       6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                             MAR-31-2001
<PERIOD-END>                                  SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                              3,561
<SECURITIES>                                            0
<RECEIVABLES>                                     118,924
<ALLOWANCES>                                       (2,807)
<INVENTORY>                                        34,571
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  159,558
<PP&E>                                            382,201
<DEPRECIATION>                                    (79,053)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                    674,811
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              78,374
<BONDS>                                                 0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                   0
<PREFERRED>                                             0
<COMMON>                                              130
<OTHER-SE>                                        281,851
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                      674,811
<SALES>                                           345,989
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                  345,989
<CGS>                                             247,302
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                     247,302
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   61,994
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 10,109
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    26,584
<INCOME-TAX>                                       10,634
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                15,950
<DISCONTINUED>                                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                         0
<CHANGES>                                               0
<NET-INCOME>                                       15,950
<EPS-BASIC>                                          1.20
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        1.20


</TABLE>
**Exhibit3.6**

 

AMENDMENT TO RESTATEDBY-LAWSOFCONSOLIDATED GRAPHICS, INC.

 

Effective December 2, 2002, the Board of Directors ofConsolidated Graphics, Inc. (the “Corporation”) adopted the following amendmentto its Restated By-Laws:

 

Article II, Section 2 of the Corporation’sRestated By-Laws is deleted in its entirety and is replaced with the followingprovision:

 

SECTION 2.           Number,Qualifications and Term.  The Boardof Directors shall be six (6) members unless otherwise determined fromtime to time by resolution adopted by the Board of Directors, but shall neverbe less than four (4).  No decreasein the number of directors shall shorten the term of any incumbentdirector.  Directors need not beshareholders of the Corporation or residents of Texas.  Effective December 15, 1999, except asotherwise provided in Article II, Section 10 of these Bylaws, theBoard of Directors shall be divided into three classes, each class to beas nearly equal in number as possible and the existing directors shall beallocated to such classes by resolution adopted by the Board of Directors.  The terms of office of directors ofClass I are to expire at the first annual meeting of the shareholdersafter the first appointment of directors to such class, that of Class IIis to expire at the second annual meeting of shareholders after the firstappointment of directors to such class, and that of Class III is to expireat the third annual meeting of shareholders after the first appointment ofdirectors to such class.  Following eachapplicable expiration date, each director then elected shall serve for a termending on the date of the third annual meeting of shareholders following theannual meeting at which such director was elected.  Each person elected a director shall hold office until hissuccessor is duly elected and qualified or until his earlier resignation orremoval.

 

----
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-2335

JERRY BLOW,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

PHILIP MORRIS USA, INCORPORATED; BCTW&GM LOCAL

UNION 203-T,

Defendants - Appellees,

and

JAMES M HARKLESS, OSCAR B. GILES, JR.,

Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District

Judge. (CA-03-201)

Submitted: March 31, 2004 Decided: April 19, 2004

Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
- 2 -

Jerry Blow, Appellant Pro Se. Kimberlee W. DeWitt, HUNTON &

WILLIAMS, Richmond, Virginia; James J. Vergara, Jr., VERGARA &

ASSOCIATES, Hopewell, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 3 -

PER CURIAM:

Jerry Blow seeks to appeal the district court’s order

granting the Defendants’ motions for summary judgment in his action

under the Labor Management Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 185 (2000),

in which he attacked an arbitrator’s decision in favor of his

former employer. We have reviewed the record and find no

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the

district court. See Blow v. Philip Morris USA, No. CA-03-201 (E.D.

Va. Oct. 8, 2003). We dispense with oral argument because the

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the

materials before the court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

AFFIRMED