alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 253.15 Recourse against parties. ( a ) *Form.* Recourse by borrowers or guarantors may be by a repayment guarantee, irrevocable letter of credit, additional tangible or intangible collateral, or other form acceptable to the Program.
( b ) *Principals accountable.* The principal parties in interest, who ultimately stand most to benefit from the project, will ordinarily be held financially accountable for the project's performance. The Program may require recourse against: ( 1 ) All major shareholders of a closely-held corporate obligor;
( 2 ) The parent corporation of a subsidiary corporate obligor;
( 3 ) The related business entities of the obligor if the Program determines that the obligor lacks substantial pledged assets other than the project property or is otherwise lacking in any credit factor required to approve the application;
( 4 ) Any or all major limited partners;
( 5 ) Non-obligor spouses of applicants or obligors in community property states; and/or
( 6 ) Against any others it deems necessary to protect its interest.
( c ) *Recourse against parties.* Should the Program determine that a secondary means of repayment from other sources is necessary (including the net worth of parties other than the obligor), the Program may require secured or unsecured recourse against any such secondary repayment sources.
( d ) *Recourse unavailable.* Where appropriate recourse is unavailable, the conservatively projected net liquidating value of the obligor's assets (as such assets are pledged to the Program) must, in the Program's credit judgment, substantially exceed all projected Program exposure or other risks of loss.
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

In re: 

Cedric Cordero Ousley

Debtor(s)

Case No. 16 B 26857

CHAPTER 13 STANDING TRUSTEE’S FINAL REPORT AND ACCOUNT

Marilyn O. Marshall, chapter 13 trustee, submits the following Final Report and Account 

of the administration of the estate pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 1302(b)(1). The trustee declares as 

follows:

1) The case was filed on 08/22/2016.

2) The plan was confirmed on NA .

3) The plan was modified by order after confirmation pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 1329 on

NA .

4) The trustee filed action to remedy default by the debtor in performance under the plan 

on NA .

5) The case was Dismissed on 09/28/2016.

6) Number of months from filing to last payment: 0.

7) Number of months case was pending: 4.

8) Total value of assets abandoned by court order: NA .

9) Total value of assets exempted: NA .

10) Amount of unsecured claims discharged without payment: $0.00.

11) All checks distributed by the trustee relating to this case have cleared the bank.

UST Form 101-13-FR-S (9/1/2009)

Case 16-26857 Doc 17 Filed 12/30/16 Entered 12/30/16 15:06:12 Desc Page 1

 of 3
Receipts:

Total paid by or on behalf of the debtor $0.00

Less amount refunded to debtor $0.00

NET RECEIPTS: $0.00

Expenses of Administration:

Attorney’s Fees Paid Through the Plan $0.00

Court Costs $0.00

Trustee Expenses & Compensation $0.00

Other $0.00

TOTAL EXPENSES OF ADMINISTRATION: $0.00

Attorney fees paid and disclosed by debtor: $0.00

Scheduled Creditors:

Creditor

Name Class

Claim

Scheduled

Claim

Asserted

Claim

Allowed

Int.

Paid

Principal

Paid

Summary of Disbursements to Creditors:

Secured Payments:

Mortgage Ongoing

Mortgage Arrearage

Debt Secured by Vehicle

All Other Secured

TOTAL SECURED:

Priority Unsecured Payments:

Domestic Support Arrearage

Domestic Support Ongoing

All Other Priority

TOTAL PRIORITY:

GENERAL UNSECURED PAYMENTS:

Claim

Allowed

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

Principal

Paid

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

Interest

Paid

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

UST Form 101-13-FR-S (9/1/2009)

Case 16-26857 Doc 17 Filed 12/30/16 Entered 12/30/16 15:06:12 Desc Page 2

 of 3
Disbursements:

Expenses of Administration $0.00

Disbursements to Creditors $0.00

TOTAL DISBURSEMENTS : $0.00

12) The trustee certifies that, pursuant to Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 5009, 

the estate has been fully administered, the foregoing summary is true and complete, and all 

administrative matters for which the trustee is responsible have been completed. The trustee 

requests a final decree be entered that discharges the trustee and grants such other relief as may 

be just and proper.

Dated: 12/30/2016

STATEMENT: This Unified Form is associated with an open bankruptcy case, therefore, Paperwork Reduction 

Act exemption 5 C.F.R. § 1320.4(a)(2) applies.

By:/s/ Marilyn O. Marshall

Trustee

UST Form 101-13-FR-S (9/1/2009)

Case 16-26857 Doc 17 Filed 12/30/16 Entered 12/30/16 15:06:12 Desc Page 3

 of 3
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





In connection with the Quarterly Report of Enxnet, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending December 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Quarterly Report"), We, Ryan Corley, Chief Executive Officer and Stephen Hoelscher, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



(1) The Quarterly 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 Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.





|                 |  |                        
|---------------- |  | -----------------------
|Date: 02/14/2007 |  | /s/Ryan Corley         
|                 |  | Ryan Corley            
|                 |  | Chief Executive Officer
|                 |  |                        
|                 |  |                        
|Date: 02/14/2007 |  | /s/Stephen Hoelscher   
|                 |  | Stephen Hoelscher      
|                 |  | Chief Financial Officer
|                 |  |                        
|                 |  |
§ 23.45 What are the requirements for a pre-Convention specimen? ( a ) *Purpose.* Article VII(2) of the Treaty exempts a pre-Convention specimen from standard permitting requirements in Articles III, IV, and V of the Treaty when the exporting or re-exporting country is satisfied that the specimen was acquired before the provisions of CITES applied to it and issues a CITES document to that effect.
( b ) *U.S. and foreign general provisions.* The following general provisions apply to the issuance and acceptance of pre-Convention documents: ( 1 ) Trade in a specimen under the pre-Convention exemption is allowed only if the importing country will accept a pre-Convention certificate.
( 2 ) The pre-Convention date is the date the species was first listed under CITES regardless of whether the species has subsequently been transferred from one Appendix to another.
( 3 ) For a pre-Convention Appendix-I specimen, no CITES import permit is required.
( 4 ) The pre-Convention exemption does not apply to offspring or cell lines of any wildlife or plant born or propagated after the date the species was first listed under CITES.
( c ) *U.S. application form.* Complete Form 3-200-23 (wildlife) or Form 3-200-32 (plants) and submit it to the U.S. Management Authority.
( d ) *Criteria.* The criteria in this paragraph (d) apply to the issuance and acceptance of U.S. and foreign certificates. When applying for a U.S. certificate, you must provide sufficient information for us to find that the specimen meets all of the following criteria: ( 1 ) The specimen was removed from the wild or born or propagated in a controlled environment before the date CITES first applied to it, or is a product (including a manufactured item) or derivative made from such specimen.
( 2 ) The scientific name of the species is the standard nomenclature in the CITES Appendices or the references adopted by the CoP (see § 23.23).
( 3 ) Live wildlife or plants will be prepared and shipped so as to minimize risk of injury, damage to health, or cruel treatment of the specimen.
( 4 ) For the re-export of a pre-Convention specimen previously imported under a CITES document, the wildlife or plant was legally imported.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

)

RONNIE L. HARRIS, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. ) Civil Action No. 15-1425 (KBJ)

)

UNITED STATES, )

)

Respondent. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Petitioner Ronnie L. Harris claims that he is “actually and factually innocent of 

the retaliatory Maryland charges of which the United States Parole Commission based 

its revocation of . . . parole,” and he seeks habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Pet. 

of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to Title 28 U.S.C. 2254(e)(2)(b), ECF No. 1.) For the 

following reasons, this Court will DISMISS this case for want of jurisdiction.

First of all, although Harris’s petition appears to be based on a revocation of 

parole that was executed by the state of Maryland, see Pet. at 4, 9, Harris is currently 

incarcerated at the Federal Correctional Institution in Edgefield, South Carolina; 

therefore, it is not entirely clear that Harris is actually “in custody pursuant to the 

judgment of a State court[.]” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). Regardless, section 2254 of Title 28 

of the United States Code authorizes federal courts “to entertain an application for a 

writ of habeas corpus” that challenges a state court conviction under certain conditions. 

See id § 2254(b)-(e). The district courts may grant “[w]rits of habeas corpus . . . within 

their respective jurisdictions[,]” id. § 2241(a)(emphasis added), and that language has 

been interpreted as “limit[ing] the power of a district court to hear and determine a 
prisoner’s petition for habeas corpus to those situations where the prisoner both is 

physically present in the court’s territorial jurisdiction and is detained or held in 

custody within that jurisdiction.” U. S. ex rel. Rudick v. Laird, 412 F.2d 16, 20 (2d Cir. 

1969). 

Thus, a federal court in the District of Columbia lacks jurisdiction to grant 

habeas relief from a Maryland conviction. Furthermore, to the extent that Harris is 

challenging the U.S. Parole Commission’s reliance on the Maryland conviction to deny 

or delay his release to parole, he must proceed under the general habeas statute, 28 

U.S.C. § 2241, before a district court judge who is capable of exercising personal 

jurisdiction over the warden of the prison where he is detained, which, in this case, is 

the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina. See Stokes v. U.S. 

Parole Comm’n, 374 F.3d 1235, 1239 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (“[A] district court may not 

entertain a habeas petition involving present physical custody unless the respondent 

custodian is within its territorial jurisdiction.”); Rooney v. Sec’y of Army, 405 F.3d 

1029, 1032 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (habeas “jurisdiction is proper only in the district in which 

the immediate . . . custodian is located”) (internal citations and quotation marks 

omitted). Consequently, this Court has no jurisdiction over Harris’s petition, and will 

dismiss this case without prejudice. 

A separate order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion. 

DATE: December 11, 2015 Ketanji Brown Jackson

KETANJI BROWN JACKSON

United States District Judge

2
Exhibit 23.5

**Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement Form S-8 (No. 333-07377) pertaining to the 1995 Stock Option Plans, in Registration Statement Form S-8 (No. 333-53400) pertaining to the Special Purpose Stock Option Plan, in Registration Statement Form S-8 (N0. 333-73000) pertaining to the 2001 Employee Stock Purchase Plan, in Registration Statement Form S-8 (No. 333-73002)        pertaining to the 2000 Stock Option Plan, in the Registration Statement Form S-8 (No. 333-152706) pertaining to the SPAR Group, Inc., 2008 Stock Compensation Plan and in Registration Statement Form S-8 (No. 333-72998) pertaining to the 2001 Consultant Stock Purchase Plan of SPAR Group, Inc. and with Respect to the December 31, 2008 consolidated financial statements of SPAR Group, Inc. included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K), for the year ended December 31, 2008 of our report dated        February 17, 2009 with respect to the financial statements of UAB SPAR RRS Baltic, as of December 31, 2008 and for the year ended December 31, 2008.

|   | /s/ UAB “Rezultatas” |
|--------|----------------------------------|

 

Vilnius, Lithuania

March 23, 2009 

 

Ex-4
THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS

Post Office Box 12248

Austin, Texas 78711

(512) 463-1312

May 15, 2015

Mr. Robert B. Dubose

Alexander Dubose Jefferson & Townsend LLP

1844 Harvard Street

Houston, TX 77008

* DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL *

Ms. Macey Reasoner Stokes

Baker Botts LLP

910 Louisiana Street, One Shell Plaza

Houston, TX 77002-4995

* DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL *

RE: Case Number: 13-0552

Court of Appeals Number: 01-11-00201-CV

Trial Court Number: 0965221

Style: SHELL OIL COMPANY AND SHELL INTERNATIONAL, E&P, INC.

v.

ROBERT WRITT

Dear Counsel:

Today the Supreme Court of Texas issued an opinion and judgment in the abovereferenced cause. You may obtain a copy of the opinion and judgment through Case Search on

our Court’s webpage at: http://www.txcourts.gov/supreme.aspx. On the Case Search page

simply enter the case number and push the Search button to find the docket page for your case.

Sincerely,

Blake A. Hawthorne, Clerk

by Claudia Jenks, Chief Deputy Clerk

cc: Kenneth David Hughes (DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL)

Mr. James C. Ho (DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL)

Mr. Chris Daniel (DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL)

Michael Mukasey (DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL)

Mr. Christopher Prine (DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL)

FILE COPY
1... This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2010-CR-5325, styled State of Texas v. Christopher Cook, in

the 227th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Philip Kazen presiding. 

2... Attorney Jeanne Bloomster is appointed to represent relator in the criminal proceeding pending in the

trial court. 

i i i i i i

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-10-00468-CR

IN RE Christopher COOK

Original Mandamus Proceeding1

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice

Phylis J. Speedlin, Justice

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Delivered and Filed: July 7, 2010

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED

On June 23, 2010, relator Christopher Cook filed a petition for writ of mandamus, seeking

to compel the trial court to rule on his pro se motion for speedy trial, motions for discovery, motion

for reduction of bond, motion requesting examining trial, and motion to suppress evidence. 

However, counsel has been appointed to represent relator in the criminal proceeding pending

in the trial court for which he is currently confined.2 A criminal defendant is not entitled to hybrid

representation. See Robinson v. State, 240 S.W.3d 919, 922 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007); Patrick v.
04-10-00468-CR

-2-

State, 906 S.W.2d 481, 498 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995). A trial court has no legal duty to rule on a pro

se motion filed with regard to a criminal proceeding in which the defendant is represented by

counsel. See Robinson, 240 S.W.3d at 922. Consequently, the trial court did not abuse its discretion

by declining to rule on relator’s pro se motions that relate directly to his confinement based on the

criminal proceeding pending in the trial court. Accordingly, relator’s petition for writ of mandamus

is denied. TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a). 

PER CURIAM

DO NOT PUBLISH
The USDA News is published by the Office of Communications, the U.S.
Department of Agriculture. This employee news publication, which is prepared by,
for, and about this Department's employees, is distributed to USDA's 103,700
federal employees--full-time, part-time, and temporary--by order of the
Secretary of Agriculture. Mailing address is Rm. 440-A Whitten Bldg., OC, USDA,
1400 Independence Ave., SW, Washington, D.C. 20250-1350.

To update your mailing address or change the quantity of USDA News
copies received in your USDA office, please contact your agency's
mailing/distribution specialist.

---

Ron Hall, Editor[email protected]

George Avalos, Art Director

Cedric Drake, Printing and Distribution Coordinator

Charles Hobbs,Home Page Coordinator[email protected]

---

The USDA News is also available on USDA's Home Page within the
Internet. Use the World Wide Web to access that Home Page version.  Simply type
the Home Page address--or Universal Resource Locator (URL)--of the USDA News,
which is
http://www.usda.gov/news/pubs/newslett/cover.htm

USDA prohibits discrimination in its programs on the basis of race, color,
national origin, sex, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, and marital
or familial status (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs). Persons
with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program
information (braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET
Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD).

To file a complaint, write the Secretary of Agriculture, U.S. Department of
Agriculture, 1400 Independence Ave SW, Washington, D.C. 20250, or call
1-800-245-6340 (voice) or (202) 720-1127 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity
employer.

The USDA News is printed on paper containing a minimum of 50 percent
waste paper. The USDA News is recyclable.



---

### Return to:

The USDA NewsCover Page
§ 228.16 Conduct of the hearing. ( a ) The hearing shall be held at the time and place fixed in the notice of the hearing, unless the presiding officer changes the time or place. If a change occurs, the presiding officer shall publish the change in the Federal Register and shall expeditiously notify all parties by telephone or by mail: Provided, that if that change in time or place of hearing is made less than 5 days before the date previously fixed for the hearing, the presiding officer shall also announce, or cause to be announced, the change at the time and place previously fixed for the hearing.
( b ) The presiding officer shall, at the commencement of the hearing, introduce into the record: the notice of hearing as published in the Federal Register; all subsequent documents published in the Federal Register; the draft Environmental Impact Statement if it is required and the comments thereon and agency responses to the comments; and a list of all parties. Direct testimony shall then be received with respect to the matters specified in the final agenda in such order as the presiding officer shall announce. With respect to direct testimony submitted as rebuttal testimony or in response to new issues presented by the prehearing conference, the presiding officer shall determine the relevancy of such testimony.
( c ) The hearing shall be publicly conducted and reported verbatim by an official reporter.
( d ) If a party objects to the admission or rejection of any direct testimony or to any other ruling of the presiding officer during the hearing, he or she shall state briefly the grounds of such objection, whereupon an automatic exception will follow if the objection is overruled by the presiding officer. The transcript shall not include argument or debate thereon except as ordered by the presiding officer. The ruling by the presiding officer on any objection shall be a part of the transcript and shall be subject to review at the same time and in the same manner as the Assistant Administrator's final decision. Only objections made before the presiding officer may subsequently be relied upon in the proceedings.
( e ) All motions and requests shall be addressed to, and ruled on by, the presiding officer, if made prior to his certification of the transcript or by the Assistant Administrator if made thereafter.
Your session is about to expire.Resume session

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                Welcome.Log inorregisterCOPS OFFICE RESOURCE CENTER

HomeCatalogCartOrders

                    

Publications and More764 publications • 16 categoriesSee the complete catalogThis Week's HighlightPolice OperationsExplore the topicRecent Publications10 publications added since 11/4/2023See the latest itemsHistorical PerspectiveThis day through the yearsLast year•2•5•10•20 years agoSearch the Resources LibrarySearch titles and abstractsFind text: Go

                    

FOIA | No FEAR Act | Open Government | Privacy | Legal|HelpCopyright (C) U.S. Department of Justice, COPS Office, IT Division, 2012 - 2024. All rights reserved.
Rendered on Sun Mar 3 2024 at 23:15 (UTC-5) in 0.17 secEnterprise Framework 3.21.7.7 • Store Controls 3.3.1.7Survey 500303407 Section 60000559 Rules Hints Inactive