alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL 

### FIRST CIRCUIT 2022 CA 1248' 

# C I CONTI ENTERPRISES, INC. VERSUS 

### PROVIDENCE/GSE ASSOCIATES, LLC, ROBERT E. WILLIAMS, JR.,

AND ASPEN SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY Judgment rendered: 

### Noy 0 12023

On Appeal from the 

### 32°d Judicial District Court Terrebonne Parish State ofLouisiana No. 1743S5 

### Judge Randall L. Bethancourt, Presiding

Stephen P. Hall Attorneys for Appellee/Defendant Phelps Dunbar, LLP 

### XL Specialty Insurance Company New Orleans, Louisiana Adrian.G. Nadeau J. Weston Clark Baton Rouge, Louisiana Brian J. Marceaux Julius P. Hebert, Jr. 

### DerickA. Bercegeay Brianna Wilson Orgeron Houma, Louisiana Attorneys for Appellees/Defendants 

### Hartman Engineering, Inc. and Jared Monceaux Attorneys for Plaintiff/ Appellant Terrebonne Parish Consolidated Government

BEFORE: THERIOT, HOLDRIDGE, AND HESTER,JJ.

We note that 2022 -

CA -1249, Conti Enterprises, Inc.vs. Providence/GSE Associates, LLC, is consolidated with 2022 - CA - 1248, Conti Enterprises, Inc. vs. Providence/GSE Associates, LLC, for oral argument and submission.HOLDRIDGE, J. In this appeal, Terrebonne Parish Consolidated Government ( TPCG) 

## challenges a trial court'sjudgment granting a motion for summaryjudgment filed by XL Specialty Insurance Company (XLSIC), the alleged professional insurer of 

### Hartman Engineering, Inc. and Jared Monceaux. In Conti Enterprises, Inc. v. Providence Associates, LLC, 2022- 1249 ( 

### La. App. 1 Cir. 10/30/23), 2023 WL 7125055 ( unpublished), 

## this court upheld a summary judgment dismissing all of 

## TPCG's claims against Hartman Engineering, Inc. and Mr. Monceaux on the basis that TPCG' s claims against those defendants were statutorily perempted. By the extension and operation of law, peremption is a defense that is not personal to the 

### insured and is available to the insured's liability insurer. See Shields v. Alvin R. Savoie & Associates, Inc., 

## 2016-0827 (La. App. 1 Cir 2117117), 217 So.3d 420, 421; Vicari v. Window World, Inc., 

### 14-870 (La. App. 5 Cir. 5128115), 171 So.3d 425, writ denied, 2015- 1269 ( La. 9125115), 179 So.3d 570. Because XLSIC' s 

## insureds can have no liability to TPCG as a matter of law, XLSIC cannot be held 

## liable to TPCG as the professional liability insurer of Hartman Engineering, Inc. and Mr. Monceaux. 

### Therefore,the trial court correctly entered summaryjudgment 

## dismissing all claims asserted byTPCG against XLSIC in this litigation. Forthese reasons, we affirm the trial court's summaryjudgment in favor of XL Specialty Insurance Company. All costs of this appeal, in the amount of 35, 108.50, are taxed to appellant, Terrebonne Parish Consolidated Government. AFFIRMED.

2
Order issued November 29, 2012 

### 00515.1

In The 

## istri exas at No. 05-12-00280-CR No. 05-12-00281-CR No. 05-12-00282oCR LARRY MICHELLE SCHULZ, Appellant



### V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee



### ORDER Before Justices Bridges, O’Neill, and Murphy Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we set aside the trial court’s restatuhon order and remand the cases to the trial court for a hearing to determine the proper amount of restitution.- We ORDER the trial court to transmit a record of the proceedings, including the new written restitution orders, to this Court within THIRTY DAYS from the date of this order. The appeals are ABATED to allow the trial court to comply with the above order. The appeals shall be reinstated thirty days from the date of this order or when the record of the 

### restitution hearing is received, whichever is earlier.

DAVID L. BRIDGES - JUSTICE
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2941 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2941

 To make the internal control reporting and assessment requirements of 
 the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 optional for certain smaller companies.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 15, 2011

    Mr. Quayle (for himself, Mr. Paul, Mr. McHenry, Mr. Yoder, Mr. 
 Hultgren, Mr. Smith of Texas, and Mr. Dold) introduced the following 
    bill; which was referred to the Committee on Financial Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To make the internal control reporting and assessment requirements of 
 the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 optional for certain smaller companies.

    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 ``Startup Expansion and Investment 
Act''.

SEC. 2. EXEMPTION FROM THE INTERNAL CONTROL REPORTING AND ASSESSMENT 
              REQUIREMENTS.

    Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (15 U.S.C. 7262) is 
amended by striking subsection (c) and inserting the following:
    ``(c) Exemption.--The Commission's rules under subsection (a) shall 
permit an issuer to elect not to provide the assessment described in 
subsection (a)(2) and the attestation thereof described in subsection 
(b) if the issuer--
            ``(1) has a total market capitalization for the relevant 
        reporting period of less than $1,000,000,000; and
            ``(2) is not subject to the annual reporting requirement 
        under section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 
        1934, or has been subject to such requirement for a period of 
        fewer than 10 years.
    ``(d) Disclosure.--An issuer that, pursuant to subsection (c), 
elects not to provide the assessment described in subsection (a)(2) and 
the attestation described in subsection (b), shall disclose that 
decision in the next report required under section 13(a) or 15(d) of 
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.''.
                                 <all>
```
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3076 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3076

 To amend the Internal Revenue Code to qualify formerly homeless youth 
  who are students for purposes of the low income housing tax credit.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            October 3, 2011

 Mr. McDermott (for himself, Mr. Paulsen, Mr. Ellison, and Mr. Tiberi) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                             Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Internal Revenue Code to qualify formerly homeless youth 
  who are students for purposes of the low income housing tax credit.

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

SECTION 1. FORMERLY HOMELESS YOUTH WHO ARE STUDENTS QUALIFIED FOR 
              PURPOSES OF LOW INCOME HOUSING TAX CREDIT.

    (a) In General.--Clause (i) of section 42(i)(3)(D) of the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by redesignating subclauses (II) and 
(III) as subclauses (III) and (IV), respectively, and by inserting 
after subclause (I) the following new subclause:
                                    ``(II) a student who previously was 
                                a homeless child or youth (as defined 
                                by section 725 of the McKinney-Vento 
                                Homeless Assistance Act),''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a) shall 
apply to determinations made before, on, or after the date of the 
enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
LAW AND CHANCERY COURT OF THE CITY OF NORFOLK

#### Owens v. Baumgardner

March 20, 1969

Case No. (Law) 2997

By JUDGE EDWARD L. RYAN, JR.

It appears that plaintiff did not violate the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Code when she continued her effort to make a left turn after the signal light had turned red for traffic flowing on East Ocean View Avenue. Code § 46.1-184(b) provides that traffic which "has entered the intersection shall continue to move until the intersection has been entirely cleared." Also, Code § 46.1-248 provides that "No vehicle shall be stopped in such manner as to impede or render dangerous the use of highways by others." Remaining stopped under the traffic light would have impeded traffic flowing from the intersecting street.

While not directly in point, the court concludes that the principles announced in *Va. Elec. & P. Co.*v. *Holland,*184 Va. 893 (1946), govern in this case. Accordingly, judgment will be entered in favor of plaintiff.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack, Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 January 16, 2019

Order 

Clerk

January 23, 2019

157951(67)(68)

JAWAD A. SHAH, M.D., PC, INTEGRATED

HOSPITAL SPECIALISTS, PC, INSIGHT

ANESTHESIA, PLLC, and STERLING

ANESTHESIA, PLLC,

Plaintiffs-Appellees,

SC: 157951

v COA: 340370

Genesee CC: 17-108637-NF

STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE

INSURANCE COMPANY,

Defendant-Appellant.

________________________________________/

On order of the Chief Justice, the separate motions of the Michigan Brain Injury 

Provider Council and the Michigan Defense Trial Counsel to participate as amici curiae 

and to extend the time for filing amicus briefs are GRANTED. The amicus briefssubmitted 

by those organizations on January 16, 2019, are accepted for filing.
**Exhibit 23.1**

 

Consent of Independent Auditors

 

We consent to the incorporation by referencein this Annual Report (Form 10-K) of Community First Bankshares, Inc. of ourreport dated January 14, 2003 (except for Note 23, as to which the date isFebruary 7, 2003), included in the 2002 Annual Report to Shareholders ofCommunity First Bankshares, Inc.

 

We also consent to the incorporation byreference in the following Registration Statements and related Prospectuses ofCommunity First Bankshares, Inc. of our report dated January 14, 2003 (exceptfor Note 23, as to which the date is February 7, 2003), with respect to theconsolidated financial statements of Community First Bankshares, Inc.incorporated by reference in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year endedDecember 31, 2002.

 

 

|     |   | **Registration**  |   |                                                                                        |
|----------|--------|-------------------|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| **Form** |   | **Statement No.** |   | **Purpose**                                                                                 |
|     |   |              |   |                                                                                        |
| S-8      |   | 33-44921          |   | 1987 Stock Option Plan                                                                      |
| S-8      |   | 33-48160          |   | 401(k) Retirement Plan                                                                      |
| S-8      |   | 333-52071         |   | 1996 Stock Option Plan and  401(k) Plan                                                     |
| S-8      |   | 333-74909         |   | Board of Directors Deferred  Compensation Plan and

Supplemental Executive  Retirement Plan |
| S-3      |   | 333-37527         |   | Registration of  $150,000,000 of Common Stock,

Preferred Stock and Debt  Securities        |
| S-3      |   | 333-83240         |   | Shelf registration of  $180,000,000 of Common Stock,

Preferred Stock and Debt  Securities  |
| S-4      |   | 333-40071         |   | Shelf registration of  4,438,207 shares of Common Stock                                     |
| S-4      |   | 333-49367         |   | Shelf registration of  7,000,000 shares of Common Stock                                     |
|          |        |                   |        |                                                                                             |  |

 

 

Ernst & Young LLP         

 

Minneapolis,Minnesota

March19, 2003
CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH

#### T. R. Lamb v. Seaboard Citizens National Bank

October 12, 1967

Case No. (Law) 10,323

By JUDGE GEORGE W. VAKOS

In the above case, defendant filed a motion to quash service of process and a plea in abatement and was heard by the court on plaintiff’s motion to overrule these motions.

For the purpose of hearing the motions, counsel for both parties agreed to stipulate that the defendant, a national banking corporation, was organized under the laws of the United States, was doing business in the State of Virginia and the City of Virginia Beach, had no registered agent and service in the above action was by posting a copy of the notice on the front door of the residence maintained in Virginia Beach by the then president of defendant bank.

The motions filed by the defendant presented two questions, i.e. whether defendant is a foreign or domestic corporation and whether service of process was valid. It was stipulated by counsel that Seaboard Citizens National Bank was organized under the laws of the United States and not the State of Virginia and it had no registered agent in the State of Virginia. It is the opinion of the court that since the defendant corporation was not created under the laws of this state, it is a foreign corporation and subject to the requirements as set forth in Section 8-60 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, which provides that where a foreign corporation conducts affairs in this state with no registered agent, process *437or notice may be served on any agent of such corporation in the city - or county in which he resides or in which his place of business is or on the Clerk of the State Corporation Commission. Section 8-65 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended in 1966, provides that the method of service on any person as agent for a foreign corporation other than the Clerk of the State Corporation Commission "shall be by delivering to him a copy of the process or notice in the county or city wherein he resides or his place of business is or the registered office of the corporation is located and the return shall show this, and state on whom and when the service was; otherwise it shall not be valid." This clearly sets forth the mode of service on a foreign corporation and precludes any other form of service.

Since the service was made by posting the notice on the door of the residence of an officer of the defendant corporation, it is my opinion that it is not valid; therefore, the defendant’s motion to quash is granted.

Although the question presented by defendant’s plea in abatement is now moot, I am of the opinion that the defendant’s contention that service of process must be in the City where the defendant’s principal office is located is without merit in view of the stipulated fact that the defendant maintains offices and in fact is doing business in the City of Virginia Beach.
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 185 (Tuesday, September 26, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 44839]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-20569]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

[LLMT922200-2017-L13100000-FI0000-P; NDM 106959 and NDM 106960]


Proposed Reinstatement of Terminated Oil and Gas Leases NDM 
106959 and NDM 106960, North Dakota

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of proposed reinstatement.

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

SUMMARY: Per the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Bakken Production Inc., 
AGRI Properties LLP, and Southfork Oil LLC timely filed a petition for 
reinstatement of competitive oil and gas leases NDM 106959 and NDM 
106960, Bottineau County, North Dakota. The lessees paid the required 
rentals accruing from the date of termination. No leases were issued 
that affect these lands. The BLM proposes to reinstate the leases.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kimberly Werven, Chief, Fluids 
Adjudication Section, Bureau of Land Management Montana State Office, 
5001 Southgate Drive, Billings, Montana 59101-4669, 406-896-5091, 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#553e22302723303b153739387b323a23"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="c0abb7a5b2b6a5ae80a2acadeea7afb6">[email protected]</span></a>.
    Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may 
call the Federal Relay Service (FRS) at 1-800-877-8339 to contact the 
above individual during normal business hours. The FRS is available 24 
hours a day, 7 days a week, to leave a message or question with the 
above individual. You will receive a reply during normal business 
hours.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The lessees agree to new lease terms for 
rentals and royalties of $10 per acre, or fraction thereof, per year, 
and 16\2/3\ percent, respectively. The lessees paid the $500 
administration fee for the reinstatement of the leases and the $159 
cost for publishing this Notice.
    The lessees met the requirements for reinstatement of the leases 
per Sec. 31(d) and (e) of the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920. We are 
proposing to reinstate the leases, effective the date of termination, 
subject to the:
    <bullet> Original terms and conditions of the leases;
    <bullet> Increased rental of $10 per acre;
    <bullet> Increased royalty of 16\2/3\ percent; and
    <bullet> $159 cost of publishing this Notice.

    Authority:  30 U.S.C. 188.

Kimberly Werven,
Chief, Fluids Adjudication Section.
[FR Doc. 2017-20569 Filed 9-25-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4310-DN-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

January 6, 2023

No. 04-22-00901-CV

IN RE FAIR OAKS COUNTRY STORE, LLC

Original Mandamus Proceeding1

O R D E R

Sitting: Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

Beth Watkins, Justice

On December 30, 2022, relator filed a petition for writ of mandamus. This court is of the 

tentative opinion that a serious question concerning the requested relief requires further 

consideration. Therefore, the court requests that respondent and real parties in interest file a 

response to the petition on or before January 26, 2023. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(b). Any such 

response must conform to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52.4.

It is so ORDERED on January 6, 2023.

PER CURIAM

ATTESTED TO:__________________________

 MICHAEL A. CRUZ, 

 CLERK OF COURT

1

 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2020CI14929, styled Stacy Marc Barrus as Turnover Receiver for Victor 

Farias and Integrity Aviation and Leasing, LLC, and Gina Perez, Lisa Aldaco, Olga Perez-Meredith, Viola Fraga, 

Elaine Castillo, Susan Perez, and Joann Aguilar vs. Fair Oaks Country Store, LLC, pending in the 150th Judicial 

District Court, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Rosie Alvarado presiding.

FILE COPY
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21
- 7182

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. STERLING WHITAKER , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina , at Wilmington

. Terrence W. Boyle , District Judge. ( 7:19

- cr - 00129

- BO

- 2 ; 7:21

- cv - 00033

- BO )

Submitted : December 21, 2021 Decided: December 27, 2021

Before KING and QUATTLEBAUM , Circuit Judges , and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

. Sterling Whitaker, Appellant Pro Se. David A. Bragdon, Assistant U nited States Attorney , OFFICE OF TH E UNITED STATES ATTORNEY , Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Sterling Whitaker seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 225 5 motio n . The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)( B ). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating tha t reasonable jurists c ould find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims d ebatable or wrong. See Buck v.
Davis , 137 S. Ct. 759, 773

- 74 (2017). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Gonzalez v. Thaler , 565 U.S. 134, 140

- 41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473,
484 (2000))

. Limiting our review of the record to the issues raised in Whitaker ’s informal brief ,

we conclude that Whitaker has not made the requisite showing. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b); see also Jackson v. Lightsey , 775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir. 2014) ( “ The informal brief is an
im portant document; under Fourth Circuit rules, our review is limited to issues preserved in that brief. ” )

. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
EXHIBIT
      32





CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350











We, each hereby certify to the best of
our knowledge that the Annual Report of Form 10-K of Gateway Tax Credit Fund II,
Ltd. for the year ended March 31, 2008 containing the financial statements fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o (d)) and that information contained
in the periodic report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of Gateway.








/s/ Ronald M.
      Diner
              Ronald
      M. Diner
              President
              Raymond
      James Tax Credit Funds, Inc.
              (Managing
      General Partner)
              July
      11, 2008/s/ Jonathan
      Oorlog
              Jonathan
      Oorlog
              Vice
      President and Chief Financial Officer
              Raymond
      James Tax Credit Funds, Inc.
              (Managing
      General Partner)
              July
      11, 2008