alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# STATEOFLOUISIANA COURTOFAPPEAL,FIRSTCIRCUIT

MILITARY ROAD REVITALIZATION COMPANY, LLC VERSUS ST. TAMMANY PARISH GOVERNMENT NO. 2023 CW 1221



### MARCH 15, 2024

InRe: Military Road Revitalization Company, LLC, applying for supervisory writs, 22nd Judicial District Court, Parish of St. Tammany, No. 202313320.

BEFORE: WELCH, WOLFE, AND STROMBERG, JJ.
WRIT GRANTED WITH ORDER. The portion of the district court's November 8, 2023 judgment which granted, in part, the exception of no right of action filedbydefendant is reversed. Defendant, St. Tammany Parish Government, failed to carry its burden of proving that plaintiff, Military Road Revitalization Company, LLC, has no right of action to challenge the moratoriumordinance. Under the facts of this case, plaintiff has a "real and actual personal stake" in challenging themoratorium. Jenkinsv. CityofBatonRouge, 2014-1235 (La. App. 1st Cir. 3/9/15), 166 So.3d 1032, 1036; La. Code Civ. P. art. 681. Accordingly, we reverse the portion of the district court's judgment granting, in part, defendant's exception of no right of action to the claims based upon allegations of violation of the Code of Ordinances anddenythe exception. The portion of the district court's November 8, 2023 judgment, whichdeniedthepreliminaryinjunction is a final, appealablejudgment pursuant to Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure article 3612. Therefore, thewrit is grantedfor the limitedpurpose ofremandingthismatterto the district court with instructions to grant an appeal to plaintiff, Military Road Revitalization Company, LLC, pursuant to the pleading that notified the district court of plaintiff's intention to seek writs. See In re Howard, 541 So.2d 195, 197 (La. 1989) (per curiam). In the event plaintiff, Military Road Revitalization Company, LLC, seeks to appeal the district court's judgment, plaintiff shall submit an order for appeal to the district court on or before fifteen days from the date of this court's order. Additionally, a copy of this court's orderis tobe includedinthe appellate record.
EW TPS Welch, J., concurs. The portion of the district court's November 8, 2023 judgment which granted, in part, defendant's peremptory exception of no right of action, did not dismiss all of plaintiff's claims, and therefore, the judgment constitutes an impermissible partial judgment. See State, by and through Caldwell v. AstraZenecaAB, 2016-1073 (La. App. 1st Cir. 4/11/18), 249 So.3d 38, 43, (en bane), writs denied, 2018-00766, 2018-0758 (La. 9/21/18), 252 So.3d 899, 904.

COURT OFAPPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT 

# 11.s..O

DEPUTY CLERK OF COURT FOR THE COURT
# SF MBS

# SF Resecuritizations

# REMIC
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   EXHIBIT 21.1

    SCHEDULE OF SUBIDIARIES OF AVALON PROPERTIES, INC.

Avalon Chase Glen, Inc.
Avalon Chase Grove, Inc.
Avalon Chase Hampton II, Inc.
Avalon Chase Heritage, Inc.
Avalon Chase Lea, Inc.
Avalon Chase Ridge, Inc.
Avalon 4100 Massachusett Ave., Inc.
Avalon Town Green II, Inc.
Avalon Town Meadows, Inc.
Avalon Town View, Inc.
Avalon Transactions, Inc.
Lexington Ridge-Avalon, Inc.
Town Cove Jersey City Urban Renewal, Inc.
Avalon Decoverly, Inc.
Avalon Lake Arbor, Inc.
Avalon Commons, Inc.
Avalon Collateral, Inc.
Town Cove II Jersey City Urban Renewal, Inc.
Avalon Fairway II, Inc.
Avalon Ballston II, Inc.
Avalon Oaks, Inc.
Avalon Development Services, Inc.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                  12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                         3,570
<SECURITIES>                                   152,080
<RECEIVABLES>                                  84,719
<ALLOWANCES>                                   5,180
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               259,966
<PP&E>                                         56,964
<DEPRECIATION>                                 31,103
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 342,823
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          131,901
<BONDS>                                        74
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       567
<OTHER-SE>                                     207,740
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   342,823
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               1,111,653
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  960,215
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               (187)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             540
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                21,440
<INCOME-TAX>                                   6,951
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            14,489
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   14,489
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  .31
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  .31



</TABLE>
#### Cathy D. BROOKS-MCCOLLUM; Samuel J. McCollum, Plaintiffs-Appellants, and The Reserve @ Elk River, with permission of the Court upon indemnification ruling and within corporate document, Plaintiff, v. STATE FARM INSURANCE COMPANY; Jeff Beam; Eric Haversack; Darlene Rendek; Stuart Moultrie, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 13-2409.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: March 25, 2014.

Decided: April 11, 2014.

Cathy D. Brooks-McCollum; Samuel J. McCollum, Appellants Pro Se. Melissa Dyan McNair, Budow & Noble, PC, Bethesda, Maryland; Erin Kathleen Voss, Nagle & Zaller PC, Columbia, Maryland, for Appellees.

Before NIEMEYER, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Cathy D. Brooks-McCollum and Samuel J. McCollum appeal the district court’s order dismissing Appellants’ civil complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny all of Appellants’ motions that are not for an extension of time,1 deny Appel*211lees’ motions to strike, grant all outstanding motions for extension of time,2 and affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *McCollum v. State Farm Ins. Co.,*No. 1:13-cv-02025-JFM (D.Md. Nov. 18, 2013). 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.

*AFFIRMED.*

1

. To the extent that Appellants seek a writ of mandamus asking us to overturn a decision of a Maryland state administrative law judge, we do not have jurisdiction to grant mandamus *211relief against state officials. *Gurley v. Superior Court of Mecklenburg Cnty.,*411 F.2d 586, 587 (4th Cir.1969).

2

. The Appellants and Appellees have each filed motions to permit late filing or to extend the time for filing informal briefs. Although no orders acting on these motions have been entered, it appears that the pertinent pleadings have, in fact, been filed. So that the record is clear that we have considered all submissions by all parties, all outstanding motions for extension of time are granted nunc pro tunc.
[Exhibit 32.1]


   CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED
    PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


    The undersigned hereby certifies, pursuant  to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as  adopted pursuant  to  Section 906  of  the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of  2002, that this Quarterly  Report  on
Form 10-Q for  the quarter  ended  September 30, 2005  fully
complies  with the requirements of  Section  13(a)  or 15(d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and  the
information contained in such report fairly presents, in all
material respects,  the financial condition and  results  of
operations of the Company.


This 11th day of November, 2005


/S/Wm. Lee Popham
-------------------------------------
Wm. Lee Popham
Chairman, Chief Executive Officer
and Chief Financial Officer
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

June 5, 2019

Nos. 04-19-00255-CR, 04-19-00258-CR, 04-19-00259-CR

John Gabriel CASTILLO,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 187th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court Nos. 2017CR7236, 2019CR2596, 2019CR2597

Honorable Stephanie R. Boyd, Judge Presiding

ORDER

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, these appeals are DISMISSED FOR 

WANT OF JURISDICTION.

It is so ORDERED on June 12, 2019.

_____________________________

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 5th day of June, 2019.

_____________________________

Keith E. Hottle, Clerk of Court
Exhibit 23.1

                  Exhibit 23 - Consent of Independent Auditors


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form
S-8 No. 33-75668) pertaining to the 1993 Long-Term Stock Incentive Plan of Triad
Guaranty Inc., the Registration  Statement (Form S-8 No. 33-96550) pertaining to
the Triad  Guaranty  Inc.  401(k)  Profit  Sharing  Plan,  and the  Registration
Statement (Form S-8 No. 33-69967) pertaining to the Employee Stock Purchase Plan
of Triad Guaranty Inc. of our report dated January 17, 2002, with respect to the
consolidated financial statements of Triad Guaranty Inc. included in this Annual
Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2001, and our report included
in the following paragraph with respect to the financial statement schedules.

Our audits also included the  financial  statement  schedules of Triad  Guaranty
Inc.  listed  in Item  14(a).  These  schedules  are the  responsibility  of the
Company's  management.  Our responsibility is to express an opinion based on our
audits. In our opinion,  the financial  statement  schedules  referred to above,
when considered in relation to the basic financial  statements taken as a whole,
present fairly in all material respects the information set forth therein.


/s/ Ernst & Young LLP
---------------------
Greensboro, North Carolina
March 26, 2002
<PAGE>
 
                                                                      EXHIBIT 21

                               G&L Realty Corp.
                             List of Subsidiaries
                          Annual Report on Form 10-K
                               December 31, 1997


1.  AV Medical Associates, LLC, a California limited liability company
2.  G&L Hampden, Inc., a Delaware corporation
3.  G&L Hampden, LLC a Delaware limited liability company
4.  G&L Realty Partnership, L.P., a Delaware limited partnership
5.  G&L Realty Financing II, Inc., a Delaware corporation
6.  G&L Realty Financing Partnership II, L.P., a Delaware limited partnership
7.  G&L Medical, Inc., a Delaware corporation
8.  G&L Gardens, LLC, an Arizona limited liability company
9.  G&L Management Delaware Corp., a Delaware corporation
10. G&L Senior Care, Inc., a Delaware corporation
11. G&L Medical Partnership, L.P., a Delaware limited partnership
12. GLN Capital Co. LLC, a Delaware limited liability company
13. GL/PHP, LLC a Delaware limited liability company
14. Theme World, L.P., a New Jersey limited partnership
15. Valley Convalescent, LLC, a California limited liability company
16. 435 N. Roxbury Drive, Ltd., a California limited partnership
17. G&L/M&Z Aliso Partners, a California general partnership
EXHIBIT 32.1
 CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  (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 at and for
the periods indicated.
  /s/ Robert L. ButchofskyRobert L. ButchofskyPresident and Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Juan SALAZAR-MORENO, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 10-7054.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Jan. 13, 2011.

Decided: Jan. 19, 2011.

Juan Salazar-Moreno, Appellant Pro Se. Arthur Bradley Parham, Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Before MOTZ, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

*709PER CURIAM:

Juan Salazar-Moreno seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2010) motion and has moved for a certificate of appealability. The district court’s order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2258(c)(1) (2006). 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) (2006). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). 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. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Salazar-Moreno has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Salazar-Moreno’s motion for a certificate of appeal-ability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED.*
Exhibit 32

SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION

In connection with the Annual Report of Georgia Gulf Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the year ended
December 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Paul D. Carrico, certify, to the best of my knowledge pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§ 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



/s/ PAUL D. CARRICO Paul D. Carrico President, Chief Executive Officer and Director


March 17,
2009

---





SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION

In connection with the Annual Report of Georgia Gulf Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the year ended
December 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Gregory C. Thompson, certify, to the best of my knowledge pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§ 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



/s/ GREGORY C. THOMPSON Gregory C. Thompson Chief Financial Officer
and Treasurer


March 17,
2009

---



QuickLinks
#### Frank A. BLOUNT, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Gene M. JOHNSON, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 10-6810.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Dec. 16, 2010.

Decided: Dec. 27, 2010.

Frank A. Blount, Appellant Pro se. Donald Eldridge Jeffrey, III, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before GREGORY, DUNCAN, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Frank A. Blount seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). 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) (2006). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); see *Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, *777120 S.Ct. 1595. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Blount has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certifícate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED.*
FEDERAL MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION 

601 NEW JERSEY AVENUE, NW
 

SUITE 9500
 

WASHINGTON, DC 20001
 

November 21, 2007 

TIME AND DATE: 10:00 am, Tuesday, December 4, 2007 

PLACE:	 The Richard V. Backley Hearing Room, 9th Floor, 601 New Jersey 

Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 

STATUS: Open 

MATTERS TO BE 

CONSIDERED:	 The Commission will consider and act upon the following in open 

session: Secretary of Labor v. Empire Iron Mining Partnership, 

Docket No. PENN 2007-251-E, and Secretary of Labor v. 

Cumberland Coal Resources, LP, Docket No. LAKE 2006-60-RM. 

(Issues include whether the Administrative Law Judge correctly ruled 

that the Secretary of Labor may properly allege violations of 

alternative standards in a citation and whether the Judge correctly 

determined that the operator violated 30 C.F.R. § 56.14105.) 

Any person attending this meeting who requires special accessibility 

features and/or auxiliary aids, such as sign language interpreters, must 

inform the Commission in advance of those needs. Subject to 29 

C.F.R. § 2706.150(a)(3) and § 2706.160(d). 

CONTACT PERSON 

FOR MORE INFO: Jean Ellen (202) 434-9950 / (202) 708-9300 for TDD Relay / 

1-800-877-8339 for toll free.
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION
1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



Pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code), each of the undersigned officers of GSI Commerce, Inc. (the Company), does hereby certify with respect to the
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A for the quarterly period ended April 2, 2005 (the Report) 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.



By:

/s/    MICHAEL G. RUBINMichael G. RubinChief Executive Officer




December 5, 2005



By:

/s/    JORDAN M. COPLANDJordan M. CoplandChief Financial Officer




December 5, 2005



The foregoing certification is being furnished
solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code) and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

DAVID HATCHIGIAN,

Petitioner

v.

MATTHEWS PAOLI FORD AND FORD MOTOR COMPANY,

Respondents :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 305 EAL 2023

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 20th day of February, 2024

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED

.
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 31 (Wednesday, February 14, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 10276]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-3726]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary


Board of Visitors Meeting

AGENCY: Department of Defense Acquisition University, DoD.

ACTION: Board of Visitors Meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The next meeting of the Defense Acquisition University (DAU) 
Board of Visitors (BoV) will be held at the Packard Conference Center, 
Building 184, Ft. Belvoir, Virginia on Wednesday March 7, 2001 from 
0900 until 1500. The purpose of this meeting is to report back to the 
BoV on continuing items of interest.
    The meeting is open to the public; however, because of space 
limitations, allocation of seating will be made on a first-come, first 
served basis. Persons desiring to attend the meeting should call Mr. 
John Michel at 703.805.4575.

    Dated: February 7, 2001.
Patricia L. Toppings,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 01-3726 Filed 2-13-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-10-M
**EXHIBIT 23.1** **Consent    of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**     We consent to the incorporation by reference in the following    Registration Statements: Form S-8No. 33-75668,    pertaining to the 1993 Long-Term Stock Incentive Plan; Form S-8No. 33-96550,    pertaining to the Triad Guaranty Inc. 401(k) Profit Sharing Plan; Form S-8No. 33-69967,    pertaining to the Employee Stock Purchase Plan; Form S-8No. 333-134884,    pertaining to the 2006 Long-Term Stock Incentive Plan;     of our reports dated March 7, 2007, with respect to the    consolidated financial statements and schedules of Triad    Guaranty Inc., Triad Guaranty Inc. management’s assessment    of the effectiveness of internal control over financial    reporting, and the effectiveness of internal control over    financial reporting of Triad Guaranty Inc., included in the    Annual Report    (Form 10-K)    for the year ended December 31, 2006. /s/Ernst &    Young LLP     Greensboro,    North Carolina        March 7, 2007
We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration  Statement
(Form S-8 No.  333-19491)  pertaining to the Prime Retail,  Inc. Stock Incentive
Plans of our report dated March 23,  2000,  except Note 14, as to which the date
is April 12, 2000,  with respect to the  consolidated  financial  statements  of
Prime Retail, Inc. included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended
December 31, 1999.

     Our audits also included financial statement schedule of Prime Retail, Inc.
listed in Item 14(a).  This  schedule  is the  responsibility  of the  Company's
management.  Our responsibility is to express an opinion based on our audits. In
our opinion, the financial statement schedule referred to above, when considered
in relation to the basic financial  statements taken as a whole,  present fairly
in all material respects the information set forth therein.




                                             /s/: Ernst & Young LLP
                                             ----------------------



Baltimore, Maryland
April 12, 2000