alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

MOHAMMED T. JAMSHED,

Appellant,

v.

McLANE EXPRESS INC., D/B/A THE

C.D. HARTNETT COMPANY,

Appellee. §

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 1 3

- 00 101

- CV

Appeal from the

43rd District Court

of Parker County, Texas

(TC# CV08

- 1669 )

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the record and concludes there was no error in the

judgment. We therefore affirm the judgment of the cou rt below. We further order that Appellee

recover from Appellant and his sureties, if any, see T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 43.5, on the judgment and all

costs, both in this Court and the court below for which let execution issue. This decision shall be

certified belo w for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 7 TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2014.

YVONNE T. RODRIGUEZ, Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Rivera, and Rodriguez, JJ.

Rivera, J., not participating
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Keith Pooler, Appellant.

[871 NYS2d 707]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Donnino, J.), rendered May 17, 2007, convicting him of attempted criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The decision to permit a defendant to withdraw a previously-entered plea of guilty rests within the sound discretion of the court *(see People v Seeber, 4*NY3d 780 [2005]; *People v Mann,*32 AD3d 865 [2006]; *People v Kucharczyk,*15 AD3d 595 [2005]), and this determination generally will not be disturbed absent an improvident exercise of discretion *(see People v DeLeon,*40 AD3d 1008 [2007]). Here, the defendant knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently entered his negotiated plea of guilty with the assistance of competent counsel, in exchange for a favorable sentence promise *(see People v Mann,*32 AD3d 865 [2006]). Moreover, contrary to the defendant’s arguments, his attorney was not obligated to “participate in a baseless *pro se*motion to withdraw a plea of guilty which was voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently made” *(People v Caple,*279 AD2d 635, 635 [2001]). Nor is there any merit to the defendant’s contention that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel *(see People v Brooks,*36 AD3d 929, 930 [2007]; *People v Grimes,*35 AD3d 882, 883 [2006]). Skelos, J.P, Dillon, Garni and Leventhal, JJ., concur.
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 384

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 17, 2005

Referred to the Committee on Government Reform 

AN ACT

To extend the existence of the Nazi War Crimes and Japanese Imperial Government Records Interagency Working 

Group for 2 years.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

S 384 RFH 

1 SECTION 1. TWO-YEAR EXTENSION OF WORKING GROUP. 

2 Section 802(b)(1) of the Japanese Imperial Govern3 ment Disclosure Act of 2000 (Public Law 106–567; 114 

4 Stat. 2865) is amended by striking ‘‘4 years’’ and insert5 ing ‘‘6 years’’.

Passed the Senate February 16, 2005. 

Attest: EMILY J. REYNOLDS, 

Secretary.
Exhibit 35.3

SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT (Item 1123)

Homecomings Financial, LLC

RASC Series 2007-EMX1 Trust (the Issuing Entity)

The undersigned, a duly authorized officer of Homecomings Financial, LLC, as servicer (the Servicer) pursuant to the applicable servicing agreement, does hereby certify that:

1. A review of the Servicers activities during the period from and including March 12, 2007 through and including September 24, 2007 and of the
Servicers performance under the applicable servicing agreement has been made under my supervision.

2. To the best of my knowledge, based on such
review, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the applicable servicing agreement in all material respects throughout such period.

IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has duly executed this Certificate this 24th day of March 2008.



|       |  |                     
|------ |  | --------------------
|By:    |  | /s/ Anthony N. Renzi
|Name:  |  | Anthony N. Renzi    
|Title: |  | Managing Director
EX-35.1
(logo) MORGAN STANLEY
CREDIT CORPORATION

Douglas J. Bush
Senior Vice President



Officer's Certificate


Pursuant to the Servicing Agreement between Morgan Stanley Credit Corporation,
formerly known as Morgan Stanley Dean Witter Credit Corporation, as seller and
servicer (referred to herein in such capacity as the "Servicer"), and Morgan
Stanley Dean Witter Credit Corporation HELOC Trust 2007-1, the undersigned,
hereby states that:

(1) A review of the activities of the Servicer and of its performance under the
Servicing Agreement during the calendar year ended December 31, 2007 has been
made under my supervision; and

(2) To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has
fulfilled all its obligations under the Agreement throughout such period.


MORGAN STANLEY
CREDIT CORPORATION

By /s/ Douglas J. Bush
Douglas J. Bush
Title Senior Vice President
Dated as of December 31, 2007



75 N. Fairway Drive, Vernon Hills, Illinois 60061 Tel (847)918-3016
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2536 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2536

  To prohibit importation of commercially produced fresh citrus fruit 
            originating from the People's Republic of China.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 6, 2023

  Mr. Steube introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To prohibit importation of commercially produced fresh citrus fruit 
            originating from the People's Republic of China.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``U.S. Citrus Protection Act''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON IMPORTATION OF COMMERCIALLY PRODUCED FRESH 
              CITRUS FRUIT ORIGINATING FROM THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF 
              CHINA.

    (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
articles of commercially produced fresh citrus fruit originating from 
the People's Republic of China may not be imported into the United 
States.
    (b) Effective Date.--This Act shall take effect on the date that is 
90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
S. Lane Faison Jr. Papers

SC-014_13624_001.tif SC-014_13624_002.tif SC-014_13624_003.tif

Buxheim - packing art, Edward... Lake Alt Aussee Neuschwanstein - Special Evac...

SC-014_13624_004.tif SC-014_13624_005_back.tif SC-014_13624_005_front.tif

James Plaut and Lane Faison o... Art restitution photographs Personnel - Pierre-Louis Duch...

SC-014_13624_006.tif SC-014_13624_007.tif

Personnel - Charles Kuhn, MFAA Personnel - Jan Kluh, Dutch R...

National Gallery of Art Archives. For study purposes only, contact archives@nga.gov for permission to publish
#### In the Matter of Kathleen F., Appellant, v George F., Jr., Respondent.

[974 NYS2d 245]

— Order, Family Court, Bronx County (Allen Alpert, J.), entered on about March 1, 2012, which denied petitioner’s objection to a modified order of support (Alicea Elloras, S.M.), entered on or about December 29, 2011, to the extent that it did not include in the amount of retroactive support owed by respondent George F. any amounts owed for health insurance premiums paid by petitioner on behalf of the subject child, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Appeal from order, same court and Judge, entered on or about November 1, 2012, which denied petitioner’s objection to an order, same court and Support Magistrate, entered on or about October 2, 2012, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as abandoned.

Petitioner’s objection to the first support magistrate order was properly denied because it was filed after the 35 day deadline imposed by the Family Court Act *(see*Family Ct Act § 439 [e]; *Matter of Bodouva v*Bodouva, 53 AD3d 483, 484 [2d Dept 2008]).

The appeal from the order entered on or about November 1, 2012, which denied petitioner’s objection to the support magistrate’s order dated October 2, 2012, is dismissed as abandoned, since petitioner makes no argument concerning the court’s determination and does not ask for any relief from that order *(see Matter of Gloria C. v Josephine I.,*106 AD3d 630, 630-631 [1st Dept 2013]). Concur — Sweeny, J.P., Moskowitz, Renwick, DeGrasse and Gische, JJ.
**EXHIBIT 31.1**
**CERTIFICATION**
I, WILLIAM A. OWENS, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the first quarter of 2004 of NortelNetworks Corporation;
2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;
3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport;
4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
 (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, ismade known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared;  (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluation; and  (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter(the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting.
5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):
 (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operationof internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and  (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employeeswho have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.
Date: January 31, 2005 /s/ WILLIAM A. OWENSWILLIAM A. OWENSPresident and Chief Executive Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3849 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 3849

    To require commercial airlines to make flight delay information 
            available to the public, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 6, 2006

  Mr. Schumer introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
   referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To require commercial airlines to make flight delay information 
            available to the public, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Air Travel Delay Awareness Act of 
2006''.

SEC. 2. AVAILABILITY OF FLIGHT DELAY INFORMATION.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter I of chapter 417 of title 49, United 
States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new section:
``Sec. 41724. Availability of flight delay information
    ``(a) Requirement To Make Information Available.--The Secretary of 
Transportation shall require each air carrier, foreign air carrier, or 
intrastate air carrier that provides air transportation or intrastate 
air transportation to make available to the public information 
regarding the delay of a scheduled passenger flight not later than 10 
minutes after such information is available.
    ``(b) Manner of Availability.--An air carrier, foreign air carrier, 
or intrastate air carrier shall make the information referred to in 
subsection (a) available through--
            ``(1) any Internet website of such air carrier, foreign air 
        carrier, or intrastate air carrier;
            ``(2) any automated recording related to flight departure 
        or arrival times maintained by such air carrier, foreign air 
        carrier, or intrastate air carrier;
            ``(3) announcements at appropriate airports; and
            ``(4) flight information screens at appropriate 
        airports.''.
    (b) Regulations.--Not later than 90 days after the date of 
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Transportation shall promulgate 
regulations to implement section 41724 of title 49, United States Code, 
as added by subsection (a).
    (c) Conforming Amendment.--The analysis for chapter 417 of title 
49, United States Code, is amended by adding after the item relating to 
section 41723 the following:

``41724. Availability of flight delay information.''.
                                 <all>
```
EX-35.1
(logo) GMAC Mortgage


SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT (Item 1123)

GMAC Mortgage, LLC

ACE2007SL1


The undersigned, a duly authorized officer of GMAC Mortgage, LLC, as servicer
(the "Servicer") pursuant to the applicable servicing agreement, does hereby
certify that:

1. A review of the Servicer's activities during the period covered by the
Issuing Entity's report on Form 10-K and of the Servicer's performance under the
applicable servicing agreement has been made under my supervision.

2. To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled
all of its obligations under the applicable servicing agreement in all material
respects throughout such period.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has duly executed this Certificate this 17th
day of March 2008.

By: /s/ Anthony N. Renzi
Name: Anthony N. Renzi
Title: Executive Vice President


GMAC Mortgage, LLC
1100 Virginia Drive
Ft. Washington, PA 19034
* 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. 95-40861

USDC No. CR-C-89-125-1

__________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

CHARLES DANIEL DEARING, JR.,

 Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

- - - - - - - - - -

January 31, 1996

Before JOLLY, JONES and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Charles Dearing, Jr., requests leave to appeal in forma

pauperis (IFP) the district court's denial of his motion to

emigrate upon release from custody. Because Dearing's appeal

fails to present a nonfrivolous issue, his motion for IFP is

DENIED. See Jackson v. Dallas Police Dep't, 811 F.2d 260, 261

(5th Cir. 1986). The appeal is DISMISSED.
#### The People of the State of New York, Appellant-Respondent, v Charles Frazier, Respondent-Appellant.

Submitted August 31, 2009;

decided September 15, 2009

Reported below, 58 AD3d 468.

Motion for assignment of counsel granted and Robert S. Dean, Esq., Center for Appellate Litigation, 74 Trinity Place, 11th Floor, New York, NY 10006 assigned as counsel to the respondent-appellant on the appeal herein.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                           1,640,793
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    5,132,860
<ALLOWANCES>                                       266,600
<INVENTORY>                                      6,398,952
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                13,461,136
<PP&E>                                           7,684,836
<DEPRECIATION>                                   6,237,712
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  19,669,246
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            3,917,547
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                      2,996,061
<COMMON>                                            76,343
<OTHER-SE>                                       8,484,485
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    19,669,246
<SALES>                                          8,893,620
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 8,893,620
<CGS>                                            5,727,875
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    2,612,979
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                         0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  94,599
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    458,167
<INCOME-TAX>                                        50,480
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                407,687
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                       407,687
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                          .04
<EPS-DILUTED>                                          .04
        


</TABLE>
exv10w25



 





Exhibit 10.25




SUMMARY OF EXECUTIVE BONUS PLAN

ASYST TECHNOLOGIES, INC.




     Our Executive Bonus Plan is a variable incentive compensation program pursuant to which our
officers and other senior managers may be awarded compensation in addition to their base salary.
The actual incentive award depends on the extent to which the Company determines that articulated
objectives have been achieved. The Compensation Committee of the Asyst Board of Directors oversees
the Plan, including establishing company and individual performance objectives for each executive
officer and, in consultation with our Chief Executive Officer, determining the individual’s
performance against those objectives.



     In May 2007, the Compensation Committee also established a target cash bonus amount for each
of the Company’s executive officers under the Company’s annual incentive program for its fiscal
year 2008. The target bonus amounts for the individual executive officers range from 75% to 125% of
base salary. The Compensation Committee has the discretion to award to individual officers more or
less than the target bonus amount, based on the Committee’s assessment of an individual’s
performance against identified individual objectives. However, no individual officer will be
eligible to receive greater than 200% of his or her target bonus amount. The Compensation
Committee will determine the bonus program fund based on the Company’s achievement of identified
performance objectives, included reported earnings per share, for its fiscal year ended March 31,
2008.
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, June 11, 2021.

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.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, June 11, 2021

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A21D0341. IN THE INTEREST OF J. D. et al., CHILDREN (FATHER).

Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered that it be 

hereby DENIED.

LC NUMBERS:

2100068 2100070 2100069
Revision of Payment terms of Seller Promissory Note dated February 1, 2011:
 
 Payment terms of the Promissory Note dated February 1, 2011 between MedicalWork, LLC, a Georgia limited liability company and Generation Zero Group, Inc., a Nevada Corporation (together the Borrowers) and Jeffrey E. Sisk, an individual resident of the state of Florida (the Holder) have been mutually amended to represent the following, effective February 1, 2011:
 
 Principal payments will represent 100% of the net cash flow after payment of required payments under Jeffrey Sisk’s employment agreement, applied on a cash basis first to Principal until the Note is paid in full, and the balance, if any, as payment against the accrued Interest until paid in full.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 /s/ Jeffrey E. Sisk
 Jeffrey E. Sisk
 199 Daisy Street
 Homosassa, FL 34446
 
 
 /s/ Matthew D. Krieg
 Matthew D. Krieg, CEO
 Generation Zero Group, Inc.
* 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 June 22, 2005 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-30649 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus ANTHONY A. KELLOGG, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 5:03-CR-50054

-------------------- Before WIENER, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Counsel appointed for Anthony A. Kellogg has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief and a supplemental brief pursuant to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Our independent review of the briefs, Kellogg’s responses, and the record discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. The motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 THNo. 04-30649 -2- C IR . R. 42.2. Kellogg’s motion for “Judicial Review and Writ of Coram [N]obis” is DENIED AS MOOT.