alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE
F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER

Appellate case name: Monica Hardaway and Glenn Hardaway v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company as Trustee, In Trust for Registered Holders of Long Beach Mortgage Loan Trust 2006

- WL1, Asset Backed Certificates, Series 2006

- WL 1

Appellate case number: 01

- 17

- 00677

- CV

Trial court case number: 17

- CCV

- 059731

Trial court: County Court at Law No. 4 of Fort Bend County

Appellants, Monica Hardaway and Glenn Hardaway, have filed a notice of appeal of the trial court’s final judgment in a forcible detainer proceeding. A ppellee

, Deutsche Bank National Trust Company as Trustee, In Trust for Registered Holders of Long Beach Mortgage Loan Trust 2006

- WL1, Asset Backed Certificates, Series 2006

- WL 1 , has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal, asserting that it is “ moot as there is no actual controversy between Appellants and Appellee.” A ppellants ha ve filed a “ Motion f o r A ddition al Time

to Respond” to appellee’s motion. We grant appellants’ motion for additional time to respond

. Appellants’ response to appellee’s motion to dismiss is due to be filed no later than May 25, 2018.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Terry J e nnings

 Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: May 22, 2018
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER OFTUESDAY MORNING CORPORATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. §1350

I,Kathleen Mason, the Chief Executive Officer of Tuesday Morning Corporation,hereby certify that:

1.                                       Thequarterly report on Form 10-Q of Tuesday Morning Corporation for theperiod ended June 30, 2006 fully complies with the requirements ofSection 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;and

2.                                       Theinformation contained in the above-mentioned report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of Tuesday MorningCorporation.

 
| Date: August 3, 2006 |   | By:    | /s/ Kathleen Mason                       |   |   |
|----------------------|--------|--------|------------------------------------------|--------|--------|
|                 |   |   | Kathleen Mason   Chief Executive Officer |   |   |

 

 

----
No. 60352.

protest 276851-K (New York).

#### Dernier, Inc. *v.*United States,

*416Opinion by

Mollison, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of hoods the same in all material respects as those passed upon in *United States*v. *Accurate Millinery Co., Roberts, Reilly & Sons, et al.*(42 C. C. P. A. 229, C. A. D. 599), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-6830

TODD E. COLLINS,

 Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA,

 Respondent - Appellee.

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

Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles, District Judge. (1:21:cv-00210-CCE-LPA)

Submitted: December 20, 2022 Decided: December 27, 2022

Before NIEMEYER and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit 

Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Todd E. Collins, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 22-6830 Doc: 11 Filed: 12/27/2022 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Todd Collins, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting 

the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition. 

We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely 

filed. 

In civil cases, parties have 30 days after the entry of the district court’s final 

judgment or order to note an appeal, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), unless the district court 

extends the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5) or reopens the appeal period under 

Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). “[T]he timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a 

jurisdictional requirement.” Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007).

The district court entered its order on May 11, 2021 but did not set forth its judgment 

in a separate document, and so the court’s order was deemed entered 150 days later, on

October 8, 2021. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 58(c)(2)(B); Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(7)(A)(ii). Collins 

filed the notice of appeal on July 13, 2022.*

 Because Collins failed to file a timely notice 

of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we deny a certificate 

of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 

* For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the postmark date appearing on the 

envelope containing the notice of appeal is the earliest date Collins could have delivered 

the notice to prison officials for mailing to the court. Fed. R. App. P. 4(c)(1); Houston v. 

Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988).

USCA4 Appeal: 22-6830 Doc: 11 Filed: 12/27/2022 Pg: 2 of 3
3

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

USCA4 Appeal: 22-6830 Doc: 11 Filed: 12/27/2022 Pg: 3 of 3
REGULATORY EVALUATION

Directorate Identifier: 2011-NM-133-AD

Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)

Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:

This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific 

requirements for aircraft operated in Alaska, where aviation might be the only mode of 

transportation?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

 v. 

MICHAEL WALKER, 

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 20-10068 

D.C. No. 1:19-cr-00136-SOM-1 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Hawaii

Susan O. Mollway, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted October 26, 2020**

Before: McKEOWN, RAWLINSON, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.

Michael Walker appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges 

the 420-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for aiding 

and abetting second-degree murder, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 1111. We have 

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

NOV 2 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 20-10068 

Walker contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to 

explain the sentence adequately, and by basing the 55-month upward variance on 

factors that were already accounted for in the Guidelines range. We review for 

plain error, see United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 

2010), and conclude that there is none. The district court thoroughly explained that 

the upward variance was warranted because of Walker’s aggravated role in the 

offense, his criminal history, his late acceptance of responsibility, and the horrific 

nature of the crime. Contrary to Walker’s assertion, the court properly emphasized 

those factors, even though they were also accounted for in the Guidelines 

calculation. See United States v. Christensen, 732 F.3d 1094, 1100-01 (9th Cir. 

2013) (sentencing court may conclude that the Guidelines do not sufficiently 

account for the harm caused by the defendant’s conduct). Moreover, the record 

does not support Walker’s contention that the district court improperly relied upon 

an ex parte memorandum filed in his co-defendant’s case in selecting the sentence. 

Walker next contends that the sentence is substantively unreasonable

because it gave undue weight to aggravating factors and created an unwarranted 

sentencing disparity. The district court did not abuse its discretion. See Gall v. 

United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The above-Guidelines sentence is

substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and

the totality of the circumstances. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51; see also United States 
3 20-10068 

v. Gutierrez-Sanchez, 587 F.3d 904, 908 (9th Cir. 2009) (“The weight to be given 

the various factors in a particular case is for the discretion of the district court.”). 

Furthermore, the disparity between Walker’s sentence and that of his co-defendant

is not unwarranted. See United States v. Carter, 560 F.3d 1107, 1121 (9th Cir. 

2009) (no unwarranted sentencing disparity where defendants are not similarly 

situated).

AFFIRMED.
Order Granting Extension of Time to File Response Brief Page 1

**IN THE**  **SUPREME COURT**  **OF THE**  **ST AT**  **E OF**  **MONT**

**ANA**

__________________________________________________________________

ORDER GRANTING EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE RESPONSE BRIEF

On Appeal from the Montana First Judicial District Court, Lewis and Clark

County , the Honorable Mike Menahan, Presiding District Court Cause No. ADR 2019

- 545

**APPEARANCES:**

Michelle H. V

anisko David B. Gallik HINSHA W & V ANISKO, PLLC Gallik Law Office, PLLC 1 N. Last Chance Gulch, Ste. 1 11 24 Billings Av enue He le na, Montana 59601 He le na, MT 59601 IN RE THE MA

TTER OF THE MARRIAGE OF:

NANCY M. STEW

ARD
Petitioner/Appellant,

vs.

JOSEPH H. STEW

ARD,
Respondent/Appellee. Appellant Cause No. DA 23

- 0118 11/20/2023

Case Number: DA 23-0118Order Granting Extension of Time to File Response Brief Page 2

Upon consideration of Appellee ’ s request for additional time to file their
Response Brief with no objection from Appellant ’ s Counsel and good cause
appearing,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Appellee is granted additional time up
to and including Friday December 8 , 2023, within which to submit and/or file the
Appellee ’ s Response Brief.

DATED this _____ day of November, 2023.

______________________________ Supreme Court JusticeOrder Granting Extension of Time to File Response Brief Page 3 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that on the date set forth below I served **Request for Extension of Time to File Response Brief**  by e

- filing and email to the fo llo wing address:

Michelle H. Vanisko HINSHAW & VANISKO, PLLC 1 N. Last Chance Gulch, Suite 3 Hel ena, MT 59601
michelle@hinshawlaw.net

DATED thi s ____ day

of October , 2023.

__________________________________

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

November 20 2023
No. 68585.

protests 63/12410, etc. (Los Angeles).

#### Standard Brands Paint Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Rao, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of hanging paper similar in all material respects to that the subject of *Victor England Agencies, Inc.*v. *United States*(50 Cust. Ct. 83, C.D. 2394), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
No. 51537.

#### Protests 984208-G, etc., of Alfred Friedman Co., Inc., et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Kincheloe, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
No. 65339.

#### Advance Distributing Co. and W. R. Zanes & Company et al. *v.*United States,

protests 60/2215, etc. (Galveston).

Opinion by

Richardson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise and issues are similar in all material respects to those involved in *United States*v. *R. C. Williams & Co., Inc.*(40 C.C.P.A. 130, C.A.D. 508), and *Austin, Nichols & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(22 Cust. Ct. 33, C.D. 1155), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
**Attachment E** 

**Work Sheets used to Calculate EPA and Federal Government Labor Costs**  This attachment is available as part of the electronic **docket E PA**  **- HQ**  **- OPP**  **- 2015**  **- 0231**  and is part of the ICR’s Supporting Statement **NAICS: 999100 Federal Executive Branch**  Labor Category : Formula Managerial Technical Clerical Unloaded Hourl y Rate 1 = W $55.83 $36.86 $20.77 Benefits Percentage 2 Lb = B/W 45% 45% 45% Benefits per hour B = W*Lb $25.13 $16.59 $9.35 Loaded Hourl y Rate Wb = W + B = W(1+Lb) $80.96 $53.45 $30.12 Overhead Percentage 3 Lo = OH/Wb 50% 50% 50% Overhead per hour OH = Wb*L o $40.48 $26.73 $15.06 Fully L oaded Hourly Rate Wf = Wb + OH = W + B + OH $121.44 $80.18 $45.18 1. Data Source: BLS http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/naics4_999100.htm May 2013 data NAI CS 999100 - Federal Executive Branch Standard Occupational Codes: Management: 11 - 0000, Management O ccupations Technical: 19 - 0000, L ife, Phy sical, and Social Science Occupations Clerical: 43 - 0000, Office and Administrative Support Occupations 2. Fringe benefits/wage per hour. 3. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency , EPA Air Pollution Control Cost Manual, Sixth Edition , EPA - 452 - 02 - 001, January 2002, pg. 2 - 34. The loading for indirect costs is within the range of 20 - 70% of the load labor rate (wage + benefits) suggested in EPA guidance.
Exhibit 32.2

                            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 Annual Report of Utilicraft  Aerospace  Industries,  Inc.
(the  "Registrant")  on Form  10-KSB/A for the year ending  December 31, 2007 as
filed with the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof  (the
"Report"),  I, Randy Moseley,  Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the
Registrant, certify to the best of my knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss..1350,
as adopted pursuant to ss..906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1) The Report fully complies with the  requirements of section 13 (a) or 15 (d)
of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2) The  information  contained in the Report fairly  presents,  in all material
respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Registrant.

Date: August 4, 2008

By: /s/ Randy Moseley
    ----------------
 Randy Moseley,
 Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5 <LEGEND>

</LEGEND>
<RESTATED> 
<CIK> 0001012704
<NAME> UGLY DUCKLING CORP
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                           4,401
<SECURITIES>                                    10,421
<RECEIVABLES>                                   33,229
<ALLOWANCES>                                     3,309
<INVENTORY>                                     19,467
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0<F1>
<PP&E>                                          39,903
<DEPRECIATION>                                   4,070
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 217,994
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0<F1>
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       171,943
<OTHER-SE>                                       5,452
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   217,994
<SALES>                                         79,543
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               101,287
<CGS>                                           45,902
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                33,260
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                14,193
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 630
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  7,302
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,966
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              4,336
<DISCONTINUED>                                   1,409
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     5,745
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .33
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .32
<FN>
<F1>UNCLASSIFIED BALANCE SHEET
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 13.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The certification set forth below is being submitted in connection with the annual report of Mizuho Financial Group, Inc. on Form 20-F
for the year ended March 31, 2010 as filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report) for the purpose of complying with Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) of the United States Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 (the Exchange Act) and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code.

Takashi
Tsukamoto, Chief Executive Officer, and Takeo Nakano, Chief Financial Officer of Mizuho Financial Group, Inc., each certifies that, to the best of his knowledge:



| | 1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act; and
| | -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Mizuho Financial Group, Inc.
| | -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: July 29, 2010



By:

/s/ Takashi TsukamotoName: Takashi TsukamotoTitle: Chief Executive Officer




By:

/s/ Takeo NakanoName: Takeo NakanoTitle: Chief Financial Officer
A89A1992.

A89A1993.

#### BARTON v. ANTHONY. CHANCE et al. v. ANTHONY.

(391 SE2d 25)

Banke, Presiding Judge.

The appellee, Mildred Anthony, obtained a judgment against appellant Kenneth Chance, among others, in an action to enforce a workers’ compensation award previously entered in her favor. Following entry of that judgment, an award of attorney fees and expenses of litigation was entered, pursuant to OCGA § 9-15-14 (b), against appellant B. H. Barton, the attorney who had filed defensive pleadings on behalf of the defendants in the case. Barton filed a direct appeal from the latter award and also joined with Chance in filing an appeal from a subsequently entered order denying their motion for a protective order to abate post-judgment discovery. *Held:*

1. Barton’s appeal from the award of attorney fees and expenses of litigation, docketed in this court as case no. A89A1992, is dismissed based on his failure to follow the application procedures applicable to “[a]ppeals from awards of attorney’s fees or expenses of litigation under Code Section 9-15-14.” OCGA § 5-6-35 (a) (10).

2. While the notice of appeal in case no. A89A1993 ostensibly is from the order denying the motion for a protective order to abate post-judgment discovery, all of the appellants’ enumerations of error in that appeal relate to the trial of the case. There appears to be a conflict in the decisions of this court regarding whether post-judgment discovery orders are directly appealable pursuant to OCGA § 5-6-34. See *Custom Form Mfg. Co. v. Miller,*157 Ga. App. 410 (278 SE2d 69) (1981); *Petty v. Chrysler Credit Corp.,*169 Ga. App. 418 (312 SE2d 874) (1984); *Miller v. U. S. Shelter Corp.,*179 Ga. App. 469 (347 SE2d 251) (1986). Pretermitting that issue, however, we hold that an appeal from such an order cannot be used as a vehicle for *501obtaining appellate review of the final judgment entered in the case, where the time for appealing that judgment has otherwise expired. The present appeal is consequently dismissed.

Decided February 13, 1990.

*Kenneth R. Chance,*for Barton.

*Nelson & Hill, Janet E. Hill,*for Anthony.

*Kenneth R. Chance,*pro se.

*Appeals dismissed.*

*Sognier and Pope, JJ., concur.*
III

106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. CON. RES. 394

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

SEPTEMBER 13, 2000

Received

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Directing the Secretary of the Senate to make technical

corrections in the enrollment of S. 1374.

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring), That in the enrollment of the bill (S. 1374)

3 to authorize the development and maintenance of a multi4 agency campus project in the town of Jackson, Wyoming,
2

HCON 394 RDS

1 the Secretary of the Senate shall make the following cor2 rections:

3 (1) In section 1, strike ‘‘1999’’ and insert

4 ‘‘2000’’.

5 (2) In section 5(a), strike ‘‘section 3’’ and in6 sert ‘‘section 4’’.

7 (3) In section 7(a)(1), strike ‘‘memorandum of

8 agreement referred to in section 4(a)(1)(A)’’ and in9 sert ‘‘memorandum of understanding referred to in

10 section 4(a)(1)(B)’’.

Passed the House of Representatives September 12,

2000.

Attest: JEFF TRANDAHL,

Clerk.
LNR






March
      13,
      2006






LaSalle
      Bank, N.A.


135
      S.
      LaSalle Street, Suite 1625


Chicago,
      IL60603


Attention:
               Thomas Stilling




Re:         
      Annual Independent Public Accountant’s Servicing Report


Pooling
      and Servicing Agreement


Structured
      Asset Securities Corporation II, Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates,
      LB-UBS Commercial Mortgage Trust 2005-C5




To
      Whom
      It May Concern:




As
      of and
      for the year ended December 31, 2005, LNR Partners, Inc. has complied in all
      material respects with the applicable minimum servicing standards set forth
      in
      the Mortgage Bankers Association of America’s Uniform Single Attestation Program
      for Mortgage Bankers applicable to the commercial and multifamily mortgages
      for
      the Special Servicer as noted in the attachment to this assertion.  As of
      and for this same period, LNR Partners, Inc. had in effect a fidelity bond
      in
      the amount of $10,000,000 and an errors and omissions policy in the amount
      of
      $10,000,000.




Sincerely,




LNR
      PARTNERS, INC.










/s/
      Susan K. Chapman


Susan
      K.
      Chapman


Vice
      President






cc:
               Wachovia Bank, NA


8739
      Research Drive-URP4


Charlotte,
      NC 28262-1075


LBUBS
      Mortgage Trust 2005-C5
No. 51234.

#### Protests 78596-K, etc., of Maddock & Miller, Inc., et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise consists of oat-meals or oatmeal saucers and chowder cups or puree cups the same in all material respects as those passed upon in *Copeland & Thompson, Inc.*v. *United States*(12 Cust. Ct. 85, C. D. 833) and *Johnson Bros.*v. *United States*(15 id. 113, C. D. 955). In accordance therewith the merchandise was held dutiable as claimed.
<Page>

                                                                     EXHIBIT 4.1

                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

     We consent to the reference to our firm under the caption
"Experts-Independent Auditors" and to the use of our report dated October 1,
2003 in the Amendment No. 1 to the Registration Statement (File No. 333-108952)
and related Prospectus of Claymore Securities Defined Portfolios, Series 158.


                                              /s/ Grant Thornton LLP
                                              -------------------------

                                              GRANT THORNTON LLP


Chicago, Illinois
October 1, 2003