alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
ifrre}/fandlMk _ X«;7?ie<S>tA})tiM

v. ... pp dlo Qh-M-no\oz-r«. £our)oFUtfttdts'

The &ak Or 7tw : df7^.fM^P^

,ECEiVED \H oAfptlltl •rt nt Appeals -**

Sixth District

ulc z 9 21m

Texas fifOXP. MOTTOA) tie P/r£AKTOA)r>FTTMIC .Cii * U t IC4j i w

Dslira Autrey, Cleri^ ^^^ mm/lvr

dffllbftl&tB^Gk Mfi.YJt/i&fonot-l'iwfo lih $rtpptntefa-dpptJhnif* (put*?*) JLwltrx

Br**l W/toi^A fo tQiMfdu). JpfklhAl ^A^dp^hAff)^) *WV a?,J />a,f y/ A

A>rz<U. 41/ f^wd k g^ a/i /rfegi^ <WA romphk fPtpMse Aw h^f rlthu pf'pdf& of

)ht ftf&rd MMiikd ^rOi^h hiffliemwhyon

Appeiltol (Mild &l Pj-kn&M hbtSOcims tifttr FeteJuMe fr£ SufplmuMls

(j)krk uMt rmiqitA in frhOiMtor nfiom. Tks is the, frnmA MQj£A4-*fiaA w-toytoA

$r\\m c^jmM -iht_Ahks rkhutoilln p-rortltouL (IccuM/Ah frjmtkkA forfrn^ mpon?*..

hyto/Hj o] §ApfktoAfafar)~ rlcmtfc 'hi\ -fV third raiutsi fatal. Rmtd is \mi gflW

in fftlgf/iv* lb fcivtaiAS (niMh

dffltllfaA pray VR& CwsY wmk fax r^W ^ dH f/J^ rfay^

£ft^

QflrrFirATE ^f g£gur/y

T^b fe ^ reM^f >kaf a-W a*rJ rar^f opy jes &>//*) rV//? 4

1*1^ jVcyftskfri ftourf Op %'-frk ^ pMtJxrtt-PoM. /

ffJtteo/6*/(y &Ld4trl

A

/?£ ^>X /frfo*/1 -^
dwlld jw#

/Hwfalt 7Z7U1/ w ^ VJ\I^

SHREVEPORX i.A 7.10

24 DEC2014 PM2 L.

/00 AJorA J%^ Um Ave/iue #
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A19A0992. KARI SAMUELSON, AS SUCCESSOR EXECUTOR OF THE

ESTATE OF ALAN DICKINSON v. VINCENT DAWSON.

Kari Samuelson, as Successor Executor of the Estate of Alan Dickinson, filed

this direct appeal from the superior court’s order granting a motion filed by Vincent

Dawson to enforce a settlement agreement. In that motion, Dawson also sought an

award of attorney fees under OCGA § 13-6-11. The superior court’s order reserved

the issue of attorney fees. We lack jurisdiction.

“Generally, an order isfinal and appealable when it leaves no issuesremaining

to be resolved, constitutes the court’s final ruling on the merits of the action, and

leaves the parties with no further recourse in the trial court.” Thomas v. Douglas

County, 217 Ga. App. 520, 522 (1) (457 SE2d 835) (1995); see also OCGA § 5-6-34

(a) (1). Here, in the order granting Dawson’s motion to enforce the settlement

agreement, the superior court specifically reserved ruling on the request for attorney

fees, which leaves the case pending below. See CitiFinancial Svcs., Inc. v. Holland,

310 Ga. App. 480, 481 (713 SE2d 678) (2011). Samuelson therefore was required

to use the interlocutory appeal procedures – including obtaining a certificate of

immediate review from the trial court – to appeal the superior court’s order. See

OCGA § 5-6-34 (b); Miller v. Miller, 282 Ga. 164, 164-165 (646 SE2d 469) (2007);

CitiFinancial Svcs., Inc., 310 Ga. App. at 481. Her failure to do so deprives us of

February 04, 2019
jurisdiction over this direct appeal, which is hereby DISMISSED. See Bailey v.

Bailey, 266 Ga. 832, 833 (471 SE2d 213) (1996).

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.

02/04/2019
U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 

HSPD-12 Status 

Last Updated: February 9, 2011 

Updated 

Date 

Number of 

Employees 

requiring 

PIV 

credentials* 

Number of 

Employees 

requiring a 

NACI (or at 

least 

equivalent) 

that have 

not 

previously 

undergone a 

background 

check 

Number of 

Employees 

requiring a 

NACI (or at 

least 

equivalent) 

with 

background 

investigation 

in process* 

Total 

Number of 

PIV 

credentials 

Issued to 

Employees* 

Number of 

Contractors 

requiring PIV 

credentials 

February 

2011 

219 7 10 219 0
Exhibit 35.2  LOGO 2014 Annual Statement of Servicer Compliance (Item 1123) Pooling and Servicing Agreement (the Pooling and Servicing Agreement) dated as of August 1, 2014 by and among Citigroup
Commercial Mortgage Securities, Inc. as Depositor, Midland Loan Services, a Division of PNC Bank, National Association as Master Servicer, Rialto Capital Advisors, LLC as Special Servicer, TriMont Real Estate Advisors, Inc. as Operating Advisor,
Citibank, N.A. as Certificate Administrator, and Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas as Trustee, relating to the Citigroup Commercial Mortgage Securities, Inc., Commercial Mortgage Pass-through Certificates, Series 2014-GC23 (CGCMT 2014-GC23) The undersigned, a duly authorized officer of Rialto Capital Advisors, LLC, as special servicer (the Special Servicer) herein certifies to the
following:  1.
All servicing activities and performance of such servicing activities under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement are performed on behalf of the Special Servicer.  2.
A review of the servicing activities and performance by the Special Servicer for the period of August 7, 2014 through December 31, 2014 (the Reporting Period), under the Pooling and Servicing
Agreement has been conducted under my supervision.  3.
To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Special Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the terms of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement, in all material respects throughout the Reporting
Period and if there has been a failure to fulfill any such obligations in any material respect, each failure and the nature and status thereof has been specifically identified herein.  Certified by:

/s/ Adam Singer



Date: March 5, 2015Adam Singer, Managing Director
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. JAMES EARL ALLEN.

October 14, 1987.

Petition for certification denied.
585 A.2d 408

#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. JOSE RAMOS.

October 30, 1990.

Petition for certification denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>              5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                         221,637
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  604,155
<ALLOWANCES>                                    86,566
<INVENTORY>                                  1,407,802
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,554,328
<PP&E>                                       2,872,441
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,443,797
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,478,522
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,434,618
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    14,476,808
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,478,522
<SALES>                                      1,378,017
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,381,855
<CGS>                                          300,952
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,281,193
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               129,092
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              33,004
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (329,382)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (329,382)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (329,382)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.14)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.14)


</TABLE>
**OFFICE OF**  **THE ATTORNEY**  **GENERAL OF**  **TEXAS AUSTIN** oaoh orfanse in violationof tils 

### at. The baddlng ciaoti~4tarars and reaofators.48ust amz?ly ..*ith

the law after the affeatitedata a& place ihe raqdred tag and adheslveataq upon all bedding aantiacturedaal rszcvatadas re:;..lred by the **tarns** of this lau. In the evant thy **tall** to ao.x?ly 31th the requlreaento of tills :iot, they **iriil** bo subjeot to the Qenaltfes provided in &otlon 9 of ti-Ais **bill.** U.1 other bstidlr,g et aaterialo aorsredbr the terma of tM.a iot and aamraotured prior to the 

### srraotlre data niy be sild by an auotionatuor az~im?lvldunluithoat riolatingtha tbrzm of tbls law.

Tou are herabyacvlsed that :5%tlan ll of .+&mats 8i:i 30. zoo 8pe0irhmy ar=pta fro5 temb8 OS t.b Mot all bdddirrg

w?tzioh

**bR3** been **zmnufactured, repetirei3**  **or re**  novat prior 

### to the effcativa

### d::tsof tha Mt.

APPES""'AUG10, 1939
(logo) CWCapital Asset Management

 

 

Annual Statement as to Compliance

For the Period of January 1, 2014 to December 31, 2014

 

 

 

GSMS 2014-GC22  

 

 

               

In accordance with Item 1123 of Regulation AB andwith the requirements detailed in §10.7 of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement (the “Agreement”) for the above-mentioned CMBS pool, (the “CMBS Pool”), CWCapital Asset Management LLC (“CWCAM”), in its capacity as Special Servicer, is providing this Officer’s Certificate with respect to the following:

 

(A)       a review of CWCAM’s activities during the preceding calendar year or portion thereof  (the “Reporting Period”) and of CWCAM’s performance under the Agreement has been made under such officer’s supervision and;

 

(B)       to the best of such officer’s knowledge, based on such review, CWCAM has fulfilled all its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period. 

 

 

Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.  

 

Sincerely,

CWCapital Asset Management LLC

/s/ David B. Iannarone

David B. Iannarone

President

 

 

 

 

 

7501 Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 500 West, Bethesda, MD  20814 www.cwcapital.com
#### McClurg *v.*Barnes.

[No. 19,959.

Filed December 5, 1963.]

*453
      *Zane E. Stokler, Mendenhall, Hunter & Stohler,*of Winchester, and *Owen S. Kern,*of Indianapolis, for appellant.

*Joseph P. Sullivan,*of Indianapolis, .for appellee.

Kelley, J.

— The appellant duly instituted this action against appellee by complaint alleging upon a certain promissory note. The appellee, by appropriate pleading, admitted the note as declared upon in the first rhetorical paragraph of the complaint; and, by affirmative answer, alleged that the note “was given without any consideration whatever,” and that appellant was not a holder in due course of said note.

The issues, duly made, were submitted for trial to the court, without a jury. The court found 'against the plaintiff on his complaint and taxed the costs against him. Consistent judgment followed. • Appellant’s motion for a new trial, on the grounds that the decision is not sustained by sufficient evidence and that the same is contrary to law, was overruled and such action by the court is the sole error assigned on this appeal.

*454
      *453The appellee has not appeared or filed any brief herein. Therefore, if appellant has prima facie estab*454lished the error assigned, the judgment may be reversed. *Brown, Admr., etc.*v. *Montgomery*(1955), 125 Ind. App. 395, 397, pt. 1, 125 N. E. 2d 37.

The sole ground of non-liability relied upon by appellee in the trial court was that there was no consideration for the note sued upon. Appellant’s brief, however, quite definitely demonstrates that a good, sufficient and adequate consideration for the note was proved by the undisputed evidence.

The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded to the trial court, with instructions to sustain appellant’s motion for a new trial, and for further proceedings.

Hunter, P. J., and Mote and Pfaff, JJ., concur.

Note. — Reported in 194 N. E. 2d 421.
#### STATE ex rel. Raymond HUDDLESTON v. STATE of Louisiana.

No. 2011-KH-2542.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Dec. 16, 2011.

In re Huddleston, Raymond; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. H, Nos. 09-11-0153, 09-11-0154; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2011 KW 1781.

Denied; moot.
**Exhibit 31.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

I, Robert H. Barghaus, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer ofBlyth, Inc., certify that:

 

1.     I have reviewedthis quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Blyth, Inc.;

 

2.     Based on myknowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, inlight of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

 

3.     Based on myknowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report;

 

4.     The registrant’sother certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

 

(a)  Designed such disclosure controls andprocedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designedunder our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared;

 

(b)  Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’sdisclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusionsabout the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of theend of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

 

(c)  Disclosed in this report any change in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarterin the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonablylikely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting; and

 

5.     The registrant’sother certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (orpersons performing the equivalent functions):

 

(a)  All significant deficiencies and materialweaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financialreporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

 

(b)  Any fraud, whether or not material, thatinvolves management or other employees who have a significant role in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

 

 
| Date: April 14, 2005                       |
|--------------------------------------------|
|                                       |
|                                       |
| /s/  Robert H. Barghaus                    |   |
| Robert H. Barghaus                         |
| Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |

 

----
Dismiss; Opinion Filed January 24, 2020

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 20

- 00027

- CR
EX PARTE ANGEL GUADA LUPE TORRES
On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 3

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. WX19

- 90191

- J


### MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Myers, Schenck, and Carlyle Opinion by Justice Myers On January 9, 2020, Angel Guadalupe Torres filed a “Notice of Past Due Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law” with this Court. To date, no notice of appeal has been filed either in the trial court or in this Court. “In a criminal case, appeal is perfected by timely filing a sufficient notice of appeal.”
T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 25.2(b). “Notice is suff icient if it shows the party’s desire to appeal from the judgment or other appealable order . . . .” Id . 25.2(c)(2). The notice of past due findings of fact and conclusions of law is directed to the Criminal District Court No. 3 and makes no mention of an appeal to this Court. And, when asked, the Dallas County District Clerk informed us no documents indicating an intent to appeal had been filed below

. Without a timely filed notice of appeal, we lack jurisdiction over this case.
W e dismiss this appeal.

Do Not Publish T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 47.2(b) 200027F.U05 /Lana Myers/ LANA MYERS JUSTICE– 2

– 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

EX PARTE ANGEL GUADA LUPE TORRES

No. 05

- 20

- 00027

- CR On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 3, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. WX19

- 90191

- J. Opinion delivered by Justice Myers. Justices Schenck and Carlyle participating. Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we DISMISS this appeal.

Judgment entered this 24 th day of January, 2020

.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                       2,621,761
<SECURITIES>                                   545,000
<RECEIVABLES>                               67,549,409
<ALLOWANCES>                                 7,130,730
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            39,494,776
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              71,162,140
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       44,734,190
<BONDS>                                     17,628,231
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        41,891
<OTHER-SE>                                   8,757,828
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                71,162,828
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             4,210,454
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             3,893,147
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               375,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,450,326
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,508,019)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,508,019)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.36)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.36)
        

</TABLE>
Order entered December 12, 2014

In The 

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

No. 05

- 14

- 01433

- CV

PR OWNERS ASSOCIATIO N, INC. D/B/A PR2 HO MEOWNERS ASSOCIATION , Appellant

V.

CITY HOUSE, INC., Appellee

On Appeal from the 429th Judicial Di strict Court Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 429

- 03251

- 2014



### O RDER

W e GRANT appellant’s December 9 , 2014 unopposed motion for extension of time to

file brief and ORDER the brief be filed no later than December 16, 2014.

/s/ CRAIG STODDART J USTICE
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS IN CITADEL COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION'S FORM 10-Q FOR THE NINE MONTHS
ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2000 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          16,082
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   75,361
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (3,024)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                95,866
<PP&E>                                         118,433
<DEPRECIATION>                                (25,764)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,220,998
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           24,707
<BONDS>                                        592,412
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           92,987
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            37
<OTHER-SE>                                     434,570
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,220,998
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               192,532
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  131,254
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                49,876
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 4,466
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              30,979
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (19,530)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (2,676)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (16,854)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 (3,373)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (20,227)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.81)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.81)


</TABLE>
584 A.2d 245

#### IN THE MATTER OF THE PAROLE DENIAL OF ALBERT COMPOLATTARO, SR.

June 11, 1990.

Petition for certification denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                  3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                     DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-START>                        JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                          SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                  5,611,233
<SECURITIES>                                    0
<RECEIVABLES>                              38,282
<ALLOWANCES>                                    0
<INVENTORY>                                 6,316
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                        5,698,539
<PP&E>                                  1,393,843
<DEPRECIATION>                             81,048
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                          7,454,831
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                     851,386
<BONDS>                                         0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           0
<PREFERRED>                                     0
<COMMON>                                   34,026
<OTHER-SE>                              6,452,709
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>            7,454,831
<SALES>                                         0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                0
<CGS>                                           0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                          532,307
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                         81,977
<INCOME-PRETAX>                        (1,365,231)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                    (1,365,231)
<DISCONTINUED>                                  0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                          (305,301)
<CHANGES>                                       0
<NET-INCOME>                           (1,670,532)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                (.59)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                (.59)
        



</TABLE>