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

FOURTH DISTRICT

RUDOLPH SILAS,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D22-3181

[April 27, 2023]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.850 motion from the Circuit Court for 

the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Bernard I. Bober, 

Judge; L.T. Case No. 18-003099CF10A.

Rudolph Silas, Miami, pro se.

No appearance required for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

WARNER, DAMOORGIAN and FORST, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Dismissed and Opinion Filed September 15 , 2016 .

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 16
- 00217
- CV BRIDGET SKINNER, VIC TOR WEBSTER AND ALL OTHER OCCUPANTS OF 3015 GOLDENROD DR. L ANCASTER, TX 75134 , Appellant s V. WELLS FARGO BANK, NA TI ONAL ASSOCIATION AS TRUSTEE FOR

OPTION ONE MORTGAGE LOAN TR UST 2007
- 1, ASSET
- BACKED CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2007
- 1 , Appellee On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 4

Dallas Count y, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CC
- 16
- 00457
- D 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Chief Justice Wright, Justice Lang

- Miers, and Justice Stoddart

Opinion by Justice Stoddart Before the Court is appellee ’ s September 1, 2016 motion to dismiss the appeal. In the motion, appellee asks the Court to dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. By postcard dated August 20, 2016 , we notified appellant s the time for filing thei r brief had expired. We directed appellant s to file within ten days their brief and a motion for ext ension complying with Rules 10.1(a) and 10.5(b) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure

. We notified appellant s that the appeal would be dismissed if they failed to file their brief and an extension motion within the time specified. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P

. 38.8(a)(1). To date, appellant s have not filed their brief, an extension motion, or otherwise corresponded with the Court regarding the status of this appeal

.– 2

–

Accordingly, we GRANT appellee’s motion and we DISMISS this appeal for want of prosecution

. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 38.8(a)(1); 42.3(b)(c).

160217F.P05 /Craig Stoddart/ CRAIG STODDART JUSTICE– 3

– 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT
BRIDGET SKINNER, VICTOR WEBSTER AND ALL OTHER OCCUPANTS OF 3015 GOLDENROD DR. LANCASTER, TX 75134, Appellants No. 05

- 16

- 00217

- CV V. WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION AS TRUSTEE FOR OPTION ONE MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST 2007

- 1, ASSET

- BACKED CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2007

- 1, Appellee On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 4, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CC

- 16

- 00457

- D. Opinion delivered by Justice Stoddart. Chief Justice Wright and Justice Lang

- Miers participating.

In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the appeal is DISMISSED

. It is ORDERED that appellee WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION AS TRUSTEE FOR OPTION ONE MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST 2007

- 1, ASSET

- BACKED CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2007

- 1 recover its costs of this appeal from appellants BRIDGET SKINNER, VICTOR WEBSTER AND ALL OTHER OCCUPANTS OF 3015 GOLDENROD DR. LANCASTER, TX 75134.
Judgment entered this 15th day of September, 2016.
#### Peter Callaghan *v.*The Rome and Watertown Railroad Company.

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs.
(Reap. Dec. 10473)

#### New York Merchandise Co., Inc. *v.*United States

Entry Nos. 5726; 613.

(Decided April 1, 1963)

*Stem & Shostalc*for tlie plaintiff.

*John W. Douglas,*Assistant Attorney General, for tlie defendant.

Wilson, Judge:

These appeals for reappraisement hare been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the respective parties herein:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between counsel for tbe respective parties hereto, subject to the approval of the Court, as to the merchandise covered by the entries the subject of the appeals for reappraisement enumerated in the attached Schedule of Cases, which is incorporated herein, that, on the dates of exportation thereof to the United States, the market value or the price at which such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of the country from which exported, in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade for exportation to the United States, including the cost of all containers and coverings of whatever nature and all costs, charges and expenses incident to placing the merchandise in condition packed ready for shipment to the United States, were the invoice unit values net packed plus the f.o.b. charges, but not including the buying commission invoiced to Rayman Trading Company.

> That all the merchandise covered by the appeals for reappraisement was entered subsequent to February 27,1958.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the merchandise the subject of the appeals for reappraisement enumerated in the attached Schedule is not included in the list of articles designated by the Secretary of Treasury in T.D. 54521, as provided for in Section 6(a) of the Customs Simplification Act of 1956, Public Law 927, 84th Congress, required to be valued in accordance with Section 402(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930 as amended.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the appeals for re-appraisement enumerated in the attached Schedule of Cases may be deemed submitted for decision on the foregoing stipulation.

On tlie agreed facts, I find and bold export value, as that value is defined in section 402(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Customs Simplification Act of 1956, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise here in question and that such value in each case is the invoice unit value, net, packed, plus the f.o.b. charges, but not including the buying commission invoiced to Rayman Trading Co.

Judgment will issue accordingly.
EX-10.6(b)



 Exhibit 10.6(b) 

June 1, 2014 
 Blackwater Capital Management, LLC 

470 Headquarters Plaza 
 East Tower – 4th Floor 
 Morristown, N.J. 07960 

Attention: Mr. Andy Silwanowicz 
  

	 	Re:	Management Agreement Renewals 

 Dear Mr. Silwanowicz: 

We are writing with respect to your management agreements concerning the commodity pools to which reference is made below (the “Management
Agreements”). We are extending the term of the Management Agreements through June 30, 2015 and all other provisions of the Management Agreements will remain unchanged. 

 

	 	•	 	Emerging CTA Portfolio L.P. 

  

	 	•	 	Global Diversified Futures Fund L.P. 

  

	 	•	 	Blackwater Master Fund L.P. 

  

	 	•	 	MSSB Spectrum Technical L.P. 

 Please acknowledge receipt of this modification by signing one copy of this
letter and returning it to the attention of Mrs. Alice Lonero at the address above or fax to 212-296-6868. If you have any questions I can be reached at 212-296-1304. 
  

			
	Very truly yours,
	
	CERES MANAGED FUTURES LLC
		
	By:		 /s/ Alice Lonero

			 Alice Lonero

			Chief Financial Officer 

  

			
	BLACKWATER CAPITAL MANAGEMENT LLC
		
	By:		 /s/ Andrew Silwanowicz



			
		
	Print Name:		 Andrew Silwanowicz

	  
 AL/sr
EXHIBIT 32.1
 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
AND CHIEF FINANCIAL 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, as amended; and
 2)
    
    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 Date: May 8, 2009
    /s/ Heath B. ClarkeHeath B. ClarkeChief Executive Officer
(principal executive officer) and Chairman/s/ Brenda AgiusBrenda AgiusChief Financial Officer (principal financial
and accounting officer) and Secretary
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TERESA G. ALEGRE,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-04-2379 FCD PAN P

vs.

GLORIA HENRY, Warden,

Respondent. ORDER

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this application for a writ

of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to a United States

Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local General Order No. 262.

On December 28, 2005, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations

herein which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any

objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within ten days. Petitioner has

filed objections to the findings and recommendations.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 72-

304, this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire

file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by

proper analysis.

Case 2:04-cv-02379-FCD-PAN Document 19 Filed 02/13/06 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed December 28, 2005, are adopted in

full; and

2. Respondent’s July 7, 2005, motion to dismiss is granted and this action is

dismissed as untimely.

DATED:February 13, 2006

/s/ Frank C. Damrell Jr. 

FRANK C. DAMRELL JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-02379-FCD-PAN Document 19 Filed 02/13/06 Page 2 of 2
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-20321 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus FRANCISCO SANCHEZ, JR., Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. H-00-CR-697-ALL

-------------------- February 21, 2002 Before JOLLY, JONES, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Francisco Sanchez, Jr., appeals his conviction of one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm. He argues that 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional on its face because it does not require a substantial effect on interstate commerce. As this court recently held, “the constitutionality of § 922(g) is not open to question.” See United States v. Daugherty , 264 F.3d 513, 518 (5th Cir. 2001) (internal quotation omitted), pet. for cert. filed , No. 01-7524 (Dec. 20, 2001). The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
EX-32.1  Certification pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350  INFe- Human Resources, Inc. 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 amended quarterly report of INFe- Human Resources, Inc. on Form 10-QSB for the period ending February 28, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Arthur Viola, Chief Executive Officer of INFe- Human Resources, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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 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 INFe-Human Resources, Inc.  /s/    ARTHUR VIOLA - -------------------- Arthur Viola  Chief Executive Officer Sole Director and Chief Financial Officer  April 21, 2006
#### THE TEXAS COMPANY, PLAINTIFF-PETITIONER, v. MARCO Di GAETANO, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.

See same case below: 71 *N. J. Super.*413.

*Messrs. Katzenbach, Gildea & Budner,*and *Mr. Milton Handler*and *Mr. Amzy B. Steed,*of the New York Bar, for the petitioner.

*Messrs. Bilder, Bidder & Freeman*for the respondent.

April 30, 1962.
No. 51061.

#### Protests 90806-K, etc., of Johnson Bros. (New York).

*269Opinion by

Keefe, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise consists of ■oatmeals or oatmeal saucers and puree cups or chowder cups the same in all materia] 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 3(IV)


                   AMENDMENT TO CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION


         UTEK Corporation, a corporation organized and existing under the laws
of the state of Delaware, does hereby certify:

         FIRST: That by a unanimous vote of the board of directors of UTEK
Corporation and by approval of a majority of the outstanding shares of UTEK
Corporation, a resolution was duly adopted amending the Certificate of
Incorporation of said corporation, as follows:

         NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Company's Certificate of
Incorporation shall be amended, subject to stockholder approval, by inserting
after the first paragraph of Article 10 the following new second paragraph;

         Notwithstanding the foregoing, for so long as the Corporation is
         regulated as business development company under the Investment Company
         Act of 1940, neither this certificate of incorporation nor the by-laws
         of the Corporation shall limit the liability of, or indemnify, any
         director or officer of the Corporation for actions or matters for which
         such limitation or indemnification is prohibited by the Investment
         Company Act of 1940.

         SECOND: That thereafter, at an annual meeting of stockholders duly
called and held, said amendment was duly adopted and approved by the necessary
number of shares, as required by statute, in accordance with the provisions of
Section 242 of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware.

         THIRD: That the capital of said corporation shall not be reduced under
or by reason of said amendment.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, said corporation has caused this certificate to be
signed by Clifford M. Gross, its Chief Executive Officer and attested to by
Carole Mason, its Secretary, this 23 day of July, 2001.


                                             /s/ Clifford M. Gross
                                             --------------------------------
                                             Clifford M. Gross
                                             Chief Executive Officer

ATTEST:


/s/ Carole R. Mason
------------------------------------
Carole R. Mason
Secretary


                                                           STATE OF DELAWARE
                                                          SECRETARY OF STATE
                                                       DIVISION OF CORPORATIONS
                                                       FILED 12:30 PM 07/24/2001
                                                          010357542 - 3068837
No. 61920.

#### Louis Greenberg & Son, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 311824-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Wilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of shell water flowers the same in all material respects as those the subject of Abstract 61346, except that the merchandise herein is in chief value of shell, the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
Case No. 6,342.

#### GEORGETOWN v. BAKER.

[2 Cranch, C. C. 291.] 1

Circuit Court, District of Columbia.

April Term, 1822.

Municipal Corporations — Auctioneer's Bond— O BLIG EII — Ll CENSES.

1. An auctioneer’s bond given to the corporation of Georgetown, by its corporate name, is void; it should be given to the mayor only, as required by the by-law.

2. The license must be under the corporate seal.

Debt [by the mayor, recorder, etc., of Georgetown for the use of the New England Glass Company] against [John W. Baker] the surety in an auctioneer’s bond, taken under a by-law of Georgetown, for licensing auctioneers, which requires them to give bond to the mayor, and directs that the licenses shall be granted under the seal of the corporation. In this case, the bond was given to the corporation by its corporate name, and the license was without a seal.

THE COURT

(nem. con.) decided that the bond was void, because given to the corporation, and not to the-mayor, as required by the by-law. And that as the bond was taken .prospectively, before the license was granted, and as the license was not granted under the corporate seal, as required by the ordinance, the auctioneer [John Peabody] never was such an auctioneer as was contem-i plated by the bond, although he continued to act as such through' the whole year.

Verdict for the defendant.

The plaintiff’s counsel took a'bill of exJ ceptions, but’ no writ of error was prosecuted, although there were several suits, for considerable sums depending upon the same' questions.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Jose Gonzalez, Also Known as Victor Perez, Appellant.

[632 NYS2d 962]

—Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Gerald Sheindlin, J.), rendered on or about August 23, 1992, unanimously affirmed.

Application by appellant’s counsel to withdraw as counsel is granted. *(See, Anders v California,*386 US 738; *People v Saunders, 52*AD2d 833.) We have reviewed this record and agree with appellant’s assigned counsel that there are no non-frivolous points which could be raised on this appeal.

Pursuant to CPL 460.20, defendant has the right to apply for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals by making application to the Chief Judge of that Court and by submitting such application to the Clerk of that Court or to a Justice of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of this Department on reasonable notice to the respondent within thirty (30) days after service of a copy of this order, with notice of entry.

Denial of the application for permission to appeal by the Judge or Justice first applied to is final and no new application may thereafter be made to any other Judge or Justice. Concur—Ellerin, J. P., Wallach, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.
I, Christopher Paton-Gay , certify that:





1. I have reviewed this Annual report on Form 10-KSB of Turner Valley Oil & Gas, Inc. ;





2. Based on my knowledge, this Annual report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this Annual report;





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





4. The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have:





a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this Annual report is being prepared;





b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this Annual report (the "Evaluation Date"); and





c) presented in this Annual report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;





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





a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and





b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls; and





6. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have indicated in this Annual report whether there were significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.








Dated: March 31, 2004


|/s/Christopher Paton-Gay                             
|-----------------------------------------------------
|Christopher Paton-Gay
president/director/Sole Officer
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Harold Moody, Appellant.

[635 NYS2d 466]

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Murray Mogel, J.), rendered May 7, 1992, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of two counts of robbery in the first degree and two counts of robbery in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 41⁄2 to 9 years on the first degree convictions and 3 to 6 years on the second degree convictions, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s claim that he was denied a fair trial by the prosecutor’s summation comments vouching for the veracity of the complaining witnesses is unpreserved for appellate review as a matter of law *(People v Ball,*69 NY2d 641), and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. If we were to review it, we would find that the challenged comments were proper responses to defendant’s summation. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Ellerin, Ross, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.
The Honorable Ortrie D. Smith, United States District Judge 1

for the Western District of Missouri, sitting by designation.

 The Honorable Lyle E. Strom, United States District Judge for 2

the District of Nebraska.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 96-2322

___________

Joseph L. Johnson, *

*

Plaintiff-Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Nebraska.

Shirley S. Chater, Commissioner *

of Social Security, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Defendant-Appellee. *

___________

 Submitted: December 9, 1996

 Filed: March 3, 1997

___________

Before BOWMAN and LAY, Circuit Judges, and Smith, District Judge. 1

___________

PER CURIAM.

Joseph Johnson brings this appeal from the district

court’s order affirming an administrative law judge (ALJ)’s

2

decision to deny him social security disability benefits. The

district court upheld the ALJ’s ruling because it did not contain

errors of law and was supported by substantial evidence on the

record as a whole. See Mitchell v. Shalala, 25 F.3d 712, 714 (8th

Cir. 1994). We have reviewed the parties’ arguments carefully, and

we agree with the district court’s determination. Because an
-2-

opinion would lack precedential value, we affirm without further

discussion. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.