alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 52 Referred in House (RFH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 52

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 27, 2005

                 Referred to the Committee on Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
  To direct the Secretary of the Interior to convey a parcel of real 
                    property to Beaver County, Utah.

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

SECTION 1. CONVEYANCE TO BEAVER COUNTY, UTAH.

    (a) In General.--As soon as practicable after the date of enactment 
of this Act, the Secretary of the Interior shall, without consideration 
and subject to valid existing rights, convey to Beaver County, Utah 
(referred to in this Act as the ``County''), all right, title, and 
interest of the United States in and to the approximately 200 acres 
depicted as ``Minersville State Park'' on the map entitled ``S. 2285, 
Minersville State Park'' and dated April 30, 2004, for use for public 
recreation.
    (b) Reconveyance by Beaver County.--
            (1) In general.--Notwithstanding subsection (a), Beaver 
        County may sell, for not less than fair market value, a portion 
        of the property conveyed to the County under this section, if 
        the proceeds of such sale are used by the County solely for 
        maintenance of public recreation facilities located on the 
        remainder of the property conveyed to the County under this 
        section.
            (2) Limitation.--If the County does not comply with the 
        requirements of paragraph (1) in the conveyance of the property 
        under that paragraph--
                    (A) the County shall pay to the United States the 
                proceeds of the conveyance; and
                    (B) the Secretary of the Interior may require that 
                all property conveyed under subsection (a) (other than 
                the property sold by the County under paragraph (1)) 
                revert to the United States.

            Passed the Senate July 26, 2005.

            Attest:

                                             EMILY J. REYNOLDS,

                                                             Secretary.
```
<PAGE>
<TABLE>

									 EXHIBIT 12(a)





						       COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF INCOME TO FIXED CHARGES
						    SEARS, ROEBUCK AND CO. AND CONSOLIDATED SUBSIDIARIES





<CAPTION>
						     Twelve        Three
						     Months        Months
						     Ended         Ended
						     Mar. 29,      Mar. 29,                       Year Ended
						     1997          1997
(millions, except ratios)                            (unaudited)   (unaudited)      1996     1995     1994     1993     1992
<S>                                                     <C>           <C>           <C>      <C>      <C>      <C>      <C>

Fixed Charges 

  Interest and amortization of debt discount   
   and expense on all indebtedness                     $1,364        $352          $1,365   $1,373   $1,279   $1,318   $1,389

  Add interest element implicit in rentals                127          37             121      119      114      105      165
							1,491         389           1,486    1,492    1,393    1,423    1,554
  Interest capitalized                                      4           1               5        4        1        3       23
Total fixed charges                                    $1,495        $390          $1,491   $1,496   $1,394   $1,426   $1,577

Income (loss)
  Income (loss) from continuing operations             $1,302        $182          $1,271   $1,025     $857     $625  ($1,812)
  Deduct undistributed net income (loss)  
   of unconsolidated companies                             16           8               8        9       (7)       6       (4)
							1,286         174           1,263    1,016      864      619  ( 1,808)
Add
  Fixed charges (excluding interest capitalized)        1,491         389           1,486    1,492    1,393    1,423    1,554
  Income taxes (benefit)                                  899         165             834      703      614      329  ( 1,039)
    Income (loss) before fixed charges and 
     income taxes                                      $3,676        $728          $3,583   $3,211   $2,871   $2,371  ($1,293)

Ratio of income to fixed charges                         2.46        1.87            2.40     2.15     2.06     1.66     (A)



<FN>
(A)  As a result of the loss for the year ended December 31, 1992, earnings did not cover fixed charges by $2,870 million.
</FN>
</TABLE>
Certificate of Amendment to Certificate of Trust of Mellon Capital IV


 Exhibit 4.29 
 CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT 
 TO 
 CERTIFICATE OF TRUST 
 OF 
 MELLON CAPITAL IV 
 THIS Certificate of
Amendment to Certificate of Trust of Mellon Capital IV (the “Trust”) is being duly executed and filed by the undersigned trustee to amend the Certificate of Trust of the Trust which was filed on July 8, 2003 (the “Certificate of
Trust”), with the Secretary of State of the State of Delaware under the Delaware Statutory Trust Act (12 Del. C. § 3801 et seq.) (the “Act”). 
 1. Name. The name of the statutory trust is Mellon Capital IV. 
 2. Amendment of Trust. The Certificate of Trust of the Trust is hereby amended by changing the name and business address of the trustee of the Trust with a principal place of business in Delaware to: M&T
Trust Company of Delaware, 1220 North Market Street, Suite 202, Wilmington, Delaware 19801. 
 3. Effective Date. This Certificate of
Amendment shall be effective upon filing. 
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned, a trustee of the Trust, has executed this Certificate of
Amendment in accordance with Section 3811 of the Act. 
  

			
	 M&T TRUST COMPANY OF
 DELAWARE, not in
its individual
 capacity but solely as trustee

		
	By:	 	/s/ Rita Marie Ritrovato
	Name:	 	Rita Marie Ritrovato
	Title:	 	Assistant Vice President
Wachovia
Bank, National Association


8739
Research Drive, URP4


Charlotte,
NC 28288-1075


WACHOVIA SECURITIES









1123
SERVICER’S CERTIFICATE






Reference
is hereby made to that certain Trust and Servicing Agreement dated as of October
1, 2006, by and among Deutsche Mortgage & Asset Receiving Corporation, as
Depositor, Wachovia Bank, National Association, as Master Servicer, Capmark
Finance, INC, as Master Servicer, J.E. Robert Company, INC, as Special Servicer,
LaSalle Bank, N.A., as Trustee and Paying Agent, with respect to Commercial
Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, CD 2006-CD3 (the
"Agreement").  Capitalized terms used herein not otherwise defined
shall have the meanings assigned in the Agreement.
 
 Pursuant
to Section 10.11 of this Agreement, Timothy Ryan, and Marilyn Addison, Managing
Director of Customer Relationship Management and Director of Compliance Third
Party Oversight, do hereby certify that:
 
 1.
                  A
      review of the activities of the Certifying  Servicer during the
      period from January 1, 2007 to December 31, 2007, and of its performance
      under the Agreement during such period has been made under our
      supervision; and
 
 2.
                  To
      the best of our knowledge, based on such review, the Certifying Servicer
      has fulfilled all of its  obligations under this Agreement in
      all material respects throughout the period January 1, 2007 through
      December 31, 2007; and
 
 
 IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this Certificate as of the
10th
day of March 2008.




/s/
      Timothy S. Ryan
              
              /s/
      Marilyn AddisonTimothy
      S. Ryan, Managing
      Director
                Wachovia
      Bank National Association
              
              Marilyn
      Addison, Director
                Wachovia
      Bank National Association






O:\Shared/SP/Income/Compliance
3rdParty Oversight/Annual Certification/Certification_0307/2006 /CD
2006-CD3
**EXHIBIT 32.1****CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C.SECTION 1350,****AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEYACT OF 2002**     In connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-Q ofOdyssey Re Holdings Corp. (the “Company”) for theperiod ended June 30, 2005 (the “Report”) asfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the datehereof, I, Andrew A. Barnard, President and Chief ExecutiveOfficer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.§ 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:          1. the Report fully complies with the requirements of    Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of    1934; and           2. the information contained in the Report fairly presents,    in all material respects, the financial condition and results of    operations of the Company.     /s/ Andrew A. Barnard           Andrew A. Barnard     President and Chief Executive OfficerAugust 8, 2005A signed original of this written statement required bySection 906 has been provided to Odyssey Re Holdings Corp.and will be retained by Odyssey Re Holdings Corp. and furnishedto the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff uponrequest.
Exhibit 31.2
------------

CERTIFICATION
-------------

I, Donald Rabinovitch Co-Principal Executive Officer of AFP Imaging Corporation,
certify that:

1.   I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of AFP Imaging
     Corporation;

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;

3.   Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
     information included in this report, fairly present in all material
     respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of
     the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.   The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for
     establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined
     in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

     a)   Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
          disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our
          supervision, to enable that material information relating to the
          registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to
          us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in
          which this report is being prepared;

     b)   Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls
          and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
          effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end
          of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

5.   The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on
     our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to
     the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board
     of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

     a)   All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
          operation of internal control over financial reporting which are
          reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to
          record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

     b)   Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
          employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal
          controls over financial reporting.









Date: May 14, 2004                                /s/ Donald Rabinovitch
                                                  ------------------------------
                                                  Donald Rabinovitch
                                                  President
                                                  Co-Principal Executive Officer


                                       16
##### 



CP SHIPS ANNOUNCES SENIOR SUBORDINATED CONVERTIBLE NOTE OFFER
 AND CONSENT SOLICITATION
 GATWICK, UK
  Offer and Consent Solicitation
   1/4




---



##### 



Commencement of Conversion Period
  2/4




---



##### 



About CP Ships
 Forward Looking Information
 3/4




---



##### 



CONTACTS
 
 4/4
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Gina Mitchelle CARROLL, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 08-16814

Non-Argument Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

April 28, 2009.

Gina Mitchelle Carroll, Coleman, FL, Pro Se.

Brendan F. Flanagan, Dean S. Daskal, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Columbus, GA, for Defendant-Appellant.

*810Before CARNES, HULL and WILSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Cynthia Maisano, appointed counsel for Gina Mitchelle Carroll in this direct criminal appeal, has filed a motion to withdraw from further representation, supported by a brief prepared pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Our independent review of the entire record reveals that counsel’s assessment of the relative merit of the appeal is correct. Because independent examination of the record reveals no arguable issues of merit, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and Carroll’s conviction and sentence are AFFIRMED.
Motion granted; Order filed October 25, 2016 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-15-00945-CV

____________

DAVID B.T. MYRICK, JR., EDNA ARCHER, HADEN BEARDSLEY, AND 

SARAH KATHRYN PACHECO, Appellants

V.

LINDA MOODY, ELIZABETH MOODY AND W.L. MOODY, V, Appellees

On Appeal from the Probate Court

Galveston County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. PR-0076077

ORDER

This is an appeal from a judgment signed October 8, 2015. On October 7, 

2016, David B.T. Myrick, Jr., filed a motion to dismiss the appeal as to his claims. 

See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1. The motion is GRANTED.

Appellant David B.T. Myrick, Jr., is ordered DISMISSED from the appeal.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Busby, Donovan, and Brown.
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4081 

To restore habeas corpus for those detained by the United States. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

DECEMBER 5, 2006 

Mr. SPECTER (for himself and Mr. LEAHY) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To restore habeas corpus for those detained by the United 

States. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Habeas Corpus Res5 toration Act of 2006’’. 

6 SEC. 2. RESTORATION OF HABEAS CORPUS FOR THOSE DE7 TAINED BY THE UNITED STATES. 

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 2241 of title 28, United 

9 States Code, is amended by striking subsection (e). 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with BILLS
2 

•S 4081 IS

1 (b) TITLE 10.—Section 950j of title 10, United 

2 States Code, is amended by striking subsection (b) and 

3 inserting the following: 

4 ‘‘(b) LIMITED REVIEW OF MILITARY COMMISSION

5 PROCEDURES AND ACTIONS.—Except as otherwise pro6 vided in this chapter or in section 2241 of title 28 or any 

7 other habeas corpus provision, and notwithstanding any 

8 other provision of law, no court, justice, or judge shall 

9 have jurisdiction to hear or consider any claim or cause 

10 of action whatsoever, including any action pending on or 

11 filed after the date of the enactment of the Military Com12 missions Act of 2006, relating to the prosecution, trial, 

13 or judgment of a military commission under this chapter, 

14 including challenges to the lawfulness of procedures of 

15 military commissions under this chapter.’’. 

16 SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE AND APPLICABILITY. 

17 The amendments made by this Act shall— 

18 (1) take effect on the date of the enactment of 

19 this Act; and 

20 (2) apply to any case that is pending on or 

21 after the date of enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with BILLS
IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-08-00320-CV

RUBEN NAVARRO,

Appellant

v.

CITY OF WACO, TEXAS,

Appellee

From the 170th District Court

McLennan County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2007-2058-4

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Ruben Navarro, a Waco police officer, sued the City of Waco asserting claims 

under Chapter 21 of the Texas Labor Code for race and sex discrimination and for 

retaliation. The City filed a hybrid traditional and no-evidence motion for summary 

judgment. Navarro appeals, asserting three issues. We will affirm.

Navarro’s first issue asserts that the trial court erred in granting the City’s 

motion for summary judgment. The City’s traditional motion sought summary 

judgment on five grounds, two of which asserted that Navarro’s claims were time-
Navarro v. City of Waco Page 2

barred because they were not brought within 180 days and two years, respectively. The 

City’s no-evidence motion sought summary judgment on eight grounds. The trial court 

granted the hybrid motion without specifying the grounds.

In his brief on his first issue, Navarro only argues that his claims were not timebarred. He fails to brief or argue any of the many other grounds in the City’s motion.

When there are multiple grounds for summary judgment and the 

order does not specify the ground on which the summary judgment was 

rendered, an appellant must negate all grounds on appeal. Collins v. City 

of Corpus Christi, 188 S.W.3d 415, 423 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2006, no 

pet.) (citing State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. S. S., 858 S.W.2d 374, 381 (Tex. 

1993)). If the appellant fails to negate each ground on which the judgment 

may have been rendered, we must uphold the summary judgment. Id.

Peeler v. Baylor Univ., No. 10-08-00157-CV, 2010 WL 2964375, at *2 (Tex. App.—Waco 

Sept. 16, 2009, no pet.) (mem. op.).

Because Navarro failed to challenge each ground on which the trial court may 

have rendered judgment, we overrule issue one and affirm the summary judgment. We 

need not address Navarro’s other two issues. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.1.

REX D. DAVIS

Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Davis, and

Judge Oakes Evans1

Affirmed

Opinion delivered and filed November 3, 2010

[CV06]

 

1 The Honorable Deborah Oakes Evans, Judge of the 87th District Court, sitting by assignment of 

the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Texas pursuant to section 74.003(a) of the Government Code. 

See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 74.003(a) (Vernon 2005).
#### Derfner Management Inc., Respondent, v Lenhill Realty Corp. et al., Appellants.

[964 NYS2d 132]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles E. Ramos, J.), entered March 26, 2012, which, to the extent appealed from, granted plaintiffs motion for a preliminary injunction to the extent defendants had withdrawn their notices of termination for defendants Blair Hall, Inc. and Edwin Realty Corp., and the board of directors of Lenhill Realty Corp. had withdrawn the *684previously issued notice of termination, granted plaintiffs motion for a judgment declaring that the December 21, 2010 special meeting of the board of directors of Lenhill Realty Corp. was properly noticed and the election of the five directors at that meeting was lawful, and so declared, and denied defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law, with costs, plaintiffs motions denied, the injunction and declaration vacated, and defendants’ motion granted. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in defendants’ favor dismissing the complaint.

Plaintiff alleges that defendants breached the oral agreement pursuant to which it served as the exclusive manager of the real property owned by defendants Lenhill Realty Corp., Blair Hall, Inc., and Edwin Realty Corp. by terminating the agreement without giving it reasonable notice. We find, however, that the rule that a contract lacking a clearly expressed duration will be held to have been intended to continue for a reasonable time does not apply to the subject exclusive agency agreement *(see Haines v City of New York,*41 NY2d 769, 772-773 [1977]; *see e.g. Banana Kelly Community Improvement Assn, v Schur Mgt. Co., Ltd.,*34 Misc 3d 1207[A], 2012 NY Slip Op 50013[U], *8-9 [Sup Ct, Bronx County 2012] [enjoining defendant from continuing to act as plaintiffs property manager due to irreparable deterioration of parties’ eight-year relationship]). Thus, defendants were not required to give plaintiff reasonable notice of the termination.

The preliminary injunction granted to plaintiff must be vacated in light of the foregoing. In any event, plaintiff failed to demonstrate its entitlement thereto. In particular, there is no showing of irreparable harm for which monetary damages could not adequately compensate (see *New York City Off-Track Betting Corp. v New York Racing Assn.,*250 AD2d 437, 442 [1st Dept 1998]). Indeed, the complaint seeks damages in an amount equal to fees alleged to have been wrongfully withheld by defendants.

Plaintiffs request for a declaratory judgment should not have been granted because plaintiff failed to assert a claim for declaratory relief in a pleading *(see McHugh v Weissman,*46 AD3d 369 [1st Dept 2007]).

Concur—Acosta, J.E, Moskowitz, Renwick, Freedman and Clark, JJ.
## COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02

- 13

- 00477

- CR

DAVID ALBERTO DOZAL APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE

----------

FROM THE 415TH DISTRICT COURT OF PARKER COUNTY

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



### MEMORANDUM OPINION 1 

### AND JUDGMENT

------- ---

We have considered a ppellant ’ s “ Motion To Withdraw Notice Of Appeal. ”

The motion complies with rule 42.2(a) of the rules of appellate procedure. Tex.

R. App. P. 42.2(a). No decision of this court having been delivered before we

received this motion , we grant the motion and dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R.

App. P. 42.2(a), 43.2(f).

1 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.2 PER CURIAM

PANEL: DAUPHINOT, GARDNER, and WALKER, JJ.

DO NOT PUBLISH

Tex. R. App

. P. 47.2(b)

DELIVERED: October 17, 2013