alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### ALTAIR INSTRUMENTS, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. NEWCELL-TECHNOLOGIES, Defendant-Appellant, and Jose Aguila (doing business as Newcell-Technologies), Defendant-Appellant.

No. 05-1489.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

Aug. 30, 2005.

Jose Aguila, pro se.

*ORDER*

On August 10, 2005 the court issued an order allowing 14 days for any party to *363object to the dismissal of this appeal. No party has responded within the time allowed.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

(1) This appeal is dismissed as moot.

(2) Each side shall bear its own costs.
PUBLIC LAW 110–194—MAR. 11, 2008 122 STAT. 651 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—S. 2478: 

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD: 

Vol. 153 (2007): Dec. 19, considered and passed Senate. 

Vol. 154 (2008): Feb. 28, considered and passed House. 

Æ 

Public Law 110–194 

110th Congress 

An Act 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 59 Colby 

Corner in East Hampstead, New Hampshire, as the ‘‘Captain Jonathan D. 

Grassbaugh Post Office’’. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. CAPTAIN JONATHAN D. GRASSBAUGH POST OFFICE 

BUILDING. 

(a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States Postal 

Service located at 59 Colby Corner in East Hampstead, New Hampshire, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Captain Jonathan 

D. Grassbaugh Post Office’’. 

(b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, regulation, 

document, paper, or other record of the United States to the facility 

referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference 

to the ‘‘Captain Jonathan D. Grassbaugh Post Office’’. 

Approved March 11, 2008. 

Mar. 11, 2008 

[S. 2478] 


dkrause on GSDDPC29 with PUBLIC LAWS
M A N D A T E

TO THE 319TH DISTRICT COURT OF NUECES COUNTY, GREETINGS:

Before our Court of Appeals for the Thirteenth District of Texas, on the 17th day of

March, 2016, the cause upon appeal to revise or reverse your judgment between

Roel Garcia, Appellant,

v.

The State of Texas Appellee.

CAUSE NO. 13-16-00070-CR (Tr.Ct.No. 14-CR-0630-G)

was determined; and therein our said Court made its order in these words:

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on appeal,

concludes the appeal should be DISMISSED. The Court orders the appeal DISMISSED in

accordance with its opinion.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

      

WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Court of Appeals

for the Thirteenth District of Texas, in this behalf, and in all things have it duly

recognized, obeyed and executed.

WITNESS, the Hon. Rogelio Valdez, Chief Justice of our Court of Appeals, with the seal

thereof affixed, at the City of Edinburg, Texas this 12th day of May, 2016.

Dorian E. Ramirez, CLERK

FILE COPY
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

WILLIAM WINSTON,

Petitioner

v.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS 

PHILADELPHIA COUNTY,

Respondent

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 110 EM 2018

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 26th day of November, 2018, the Application for Leave to File 

Original Process is GRANTED. Considering that Petitioner’s PCRA petition has been 

pending for approximately three years with no judicial action appearing on the docket, the 

Application for Writ of Mandamus is GRANTED. 

Further, the common pleas court docket sheet indicates that counsel’s 

representation is inactive. See Commonwealth v. Winston, CP-51-CR-0402771-1975. 

The Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County is DIRECTED to determine issues 

relative to Petitioner’s representation status within 60 days, including whether he is 

entitled to court-appointed counsel. See Pa.R.Crim.P. 904(C). 

The Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County is further DIRECTED to 

ensure that, following resolution of the representation issue, the final adjudication of the 

PCRA petition occurs in due course. 
[110 EM 2018] - 2

The Prothonotary is DIRECTED to serve the order on the President Judge of the 

Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, as well as on the Philadelphia District 

Attorney’s Office.
MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-12-00272-CV

IN RE Steven L. AMIS, Relator

Original Mandamus Proceeding1

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice

Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

Rebecca Simmons, Justice

Delivered and Filed: May 23, 2012

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION

On May 2, 2012, Relator Steven L. Amis filed a petition for writ of mandamus 

complaining that the District Clerk of Bexar County has failed to properly file documents 

requested by the relator. We conclude this court does not have jurisdiction to grant the requested 

relief.

By statute, this court may only exercise our habeas jurisdiction when confinement results 

from the violation of an order, judgment, or decree previously made in a civil case. See TEX.

GOV’T CODE ANN. § 22.022 (e) (West Supp. 2011). Because the petition for writ of mandamus is 

directed toward the Bexar Court District Clerk and not a district or county court judge, and does 

not challenge an order entered in a specific underlying proceeding, the writ is not necessary to 

 1 This original proceeding stems from Bexar County, but does not challenge an order entered in a specific 

underlying proceeding pending in an identifiable court.
04-12-00272-CV

- 2 -

enforce this court’s jurisdiction. In re Coronado, 980 S.W.2d 691, 692 (Tex. App.—San 

Antonio 1998, orig. proceeding).

Accordingly, relator’s petition for writ of mandamus is DISMISSED FOR LACK OF 

JURISDICTION. 

PER CURIAM

DO NOT PUBLISH
Exhibit 32

Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

            Pursuant  to  section  906  of  the   Sarbanes-Oxley   Act  of  2002
      (subsection  (a) and (b) of section  1350,  chapter 63 of title 18, United
      States  Code),   each  of  the  undersigned   officers  of  Canal  Capital
      Corporation and Subsidiaries, a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), does
      hereby certify that:

            The Quarterly Report of Form 10-Q for the three months ended January
      31,  2007  (the  "Form  10-Q")  of the  Company  fully  complies  with the
      requirements  of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities  Exchange Act of
      1934 and information  contained in the Form 10-Q fairly  presents,  in all
      material  respects,  the financial  condition and results of operations of
      the Company.

Date: June 8, 2007                    /S/ Michael E. Schultz
                                      -----------------------
                                      Chief Executive Officer


Date: June 8, 2007                    /S/ Reginald Schauder
                                      -----------------------
                                      Chief Financial Officer


                                       48
on oath, states that The Des Moines Register 

and Tribune Company, a corporation duly 

organized and existing under the laws of the 

State of Iowa, which its principal place of 

business In Des Moines, Iowa, the publisher of 

The Des Moines Register newspaper of general 

circulation printed and published in the City of 

Des Moines, Polk County, Iowa, and that an 

advertisement, a printed copy of.which is 

attached as Exhibit 'W' and made a part of this 

. affidavit, was printed an~ published In The Des 

Moines Register on the following· dates 

lo-r z .. , y ~ lLt~. 14 

Subscribed and sworn to before me by said 

affiant this 

flfh- day of fvuw , ... lot,- 'Zot'i" 

Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa 

fi' lOW" 
. . ~ . I'
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Joel JIMENEZ-CID, aka Joel Rosendo Jimenez, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 04-50282.

D.C. No. CR-03-00061-RT.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Sept. 12, 2005.*

Decided Sept. 15, 2005.

Elyssa Getreu, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Criminal Division, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Phillip I. Bronson, Encino, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before REINHARDT, RYMER, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.

*

 This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM**

Joel Jimenez-Cid appeals from his 46-month sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction for being an illegal alien found in the United States following deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) & (b).

Jimenez-Cid contends that the district court erred by failing to depart to depart downward based on extraordinary childhoold abuse, reduced mental capacity, cul*844tural assimilation and overstatement of criminal history. Jimenez-Cid was sentenced before the Supreme Court’s decision in *United States v. Booker,*— U.S. -, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005).

The discretionary denial of a downward departure under the *pre-Booker*mandatory Guidelines is unreviewable. *See United States v. Linn,*362 F.3d 1261, 1262 (9th Cir.2004) (per curiam). But because we cannot reliably determine from the record whether the sentence imposed would have been materially different had the district court known that the Guidelines were advisory, we remand to the sentencing court to answer that question, and to proceed pursuant to *United States v. Ameline,*409 F.3d 1073, 1084 (9th Cir.2005) (en banc). *See United States v. Moreno-Hernandez,*419 F.3d 906, 915-16 (9th Cir.2005) (extending *Ameline’s*limited remand procedure to cases involving non-constitutional Booker error).1

REMANDED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

1

. On remand the district court should also correct the judgment to exclude the reference to 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2). *See United States v. Herrera-Blanco,*232 F.3d 715, 719 (9th Cir.2000).
EXHIBIT 31.1

I, Douglas D. Cole, certify that:

 1.  I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Trinity
Learning Corporation;

2.   Based on my knowledge, this 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 transition report;

3.   Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this 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 report;

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

a)   designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, 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 report is being
prepared;

b)   evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls
and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of
the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

c)    disclosed in this report any change in internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent
fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial
reporting;

5.   The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based
on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting,
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 and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial information; and

b)   any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control
over financial reporting.


Date:     February 23, 2004

     /S/ DOUGLAS D. COLE
     -------------------

     Douglas D. Cole
     Chief Executive Officer
Drone Maintenance Log

Date of Repair Brand Model Diagnostics Part Repaired/or ReplacedCost of Parts Cost of Labor Date or Repair Done Serial Number Ready/Safe for Flight Denial Reasons + Any Conditions.

8/10/2015 DJI Phantom 3 Professional Series W323 Propeller Damaged- Chip on Wing Replaced Propeller $5 $25 8/10/2015CCAE15LPO850T3 YES 8/15/2015 DJI Phantom 3 Professional Series W323 Propeller Replacement (36 hours of flight) Replaced Propeller $5 $25 8/15/2015CCAE15LPO850T3 YES 8/30/2015 DJI Phantom 3 Professional Series W323 General Aircraft Maintenance Check Passed $0.00 $150 8/30/2015CCAE15LPO850T3 YES 9/25/2015 DJI Phantom 3 Professional Series W323 Replaced Propeller- Chip on Wing Replaced Propeller $5 $25 9/25/2015CCAE15LPO850T3 YES 9/25/2015 DJI Phantom 3 Professional Series W323 Camera Lens attached = Blurry images Wiped Camera Lens $0.00 $0.00 9/25/2015CCAE15LPO850T3 YES 9/30/2015 DJI Phantom 3 Professional Series W323 General Aircraft Maintenance Check Passed $0.00 $150 9/30/2015CCAE15LPO850T3 YES 10/22/2015 DJI Phantom 3 Professional Series W323 Propeller Replacement (36 hours of flight) Replaced Propeller $5 $25 10/22/2015CCAE15LPO850T3 YES 10/22/2015 DJI Phantom 3 Professional Series W323 Propeller Replacement (36 hours of flight) Replaced Propeller $5 $25 10/22/2015CCAE15LPO850T3 YES 10/22/2015 DJI Phantom 3 Professional Series W323 Propeller Replacement (36 hours of flight) Replaced Propeller $5 $25 10/22/2015CCAE15LPO850T3 YES 11/1/2015 DJI Phantom 3 Professional Series W323 Propeller Replacement (36 hours of flight) Replaced Propeller $5 $25 11/1/2015CCAE15LPO850T3 YES 11/30/2015 DJI Phantom 3 Professional Series W323 General Aircraft Maintenance Check Passed $0.00 $150 11/30/2015CCAE15LPO850T3 YES 12/1/2015 DJI Phantom 3 Remote GL300A Remote Wire not Connecting to Tablet Replaced Tablet $450 $0.00 1/12/2016 CCAE15LP0890T2 YES 12/10/2015 DJI Phantom 3 Professional Series W323 Propeller Damaged- Chip on Wing Replaced Propeller $5 $25 12/10/2015CCAE15LPO850T3 NO 1/30/2015 DJI Phantom 3 Professional Series W323 General Aircraft Maintenance Check Passed $0 $150 1/30/2015CCAE15LPO850T3 YES 2/10/2015 DJI Phantom 3 Professional Series W323 Propeller Replacement (36 hours of flight) Replaced Propeller $5 $25 2/10/2015CCAE15LPO850T3 YES 2/10/2015 DJI Phantom 3 Professional Series W323 Propeller Replacement (36 hours of flight) Replaced Propeller $5 $25 2/10/2015CCAE15LPO850T3 YES 2/10/2015 DJI Phantom 3 Professional Series W323 Propeller Replacement (36 hours of flight) Replaced Propeller $5 $25 2/10/2015CCAE15LPO850T3 YES 2/10/2015 DJI Phantom 3 Professional Series W323 Propeller Replacement (36 hours of flight) Replaced Propeller $5 $25 2/10/2015CCAE15LPO850T3 YES Waiting for repair on 12/1/2015 to clear. Once that repair clears, then this will clear
Exhibit 32



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 National Commerce Financial Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on the date hereof (the Report), we, William R. Reed, Jr. and John M. Presley, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, respectively, of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to §
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 the Company.



|                        |  |  | 
|----------------------- |  |  | 
|Date: November 13, 2003 |  |  | 
|                        |  |  | 
|                        |  |  | 
|                        |  |  | 
|                        |  |  | 
|                        |  |  | 
|                        |  |  | 



36
No. 53760.

protests 128572-K, etc. (Duluth).

#### V. W. Davis et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
Before the Second Division,

March 17, 1943

No. 48105.

#### Protests 92492-K, etc., of New York Merchandise Co., Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and following Abstract 38680 the marcel irons in question were held dutiable as household utensils at 40 percent under paragraph 339, as claimed. It was also stipulated that the banks in question are similar to those the subject of Abstract 42749. They were therefore held dutiable as hollow ware at 40 percent under paragraph 339, as claimed.
|WELLS
    FARGO(logo) | Commercial
    Mortgage ServicingD1050-084, 8th Fl
401 South Tryon Street
Charlotte, NC 28202
1-800-326-1334
|--------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



ANNUAL STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE



Reference is hereby made to that
certain Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of May 1, 2016, by and among CCRE COMMERCIAL MORTGAGE SECURITIES, L.P., as Depositor,
WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Master Servicer, RIALTO CAPITAL ADVISORS, LLC, as Special Servicer, U.S.BANK NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION, as Trustee, Certificate Administrator and Paying Agent, U.S.BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION , AS Custodian, PARK BRIDGE
LENDER SERVICES LLC, as Operating Advisor AND Asset Representations Reviewer with respect to Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates,
CFCRE 2016-C4 (the “Agreement”). Capitalized terms used herein not otherwise defined shall have the meanings assigned
in the Agreement.



Pursuant to Section 10.11 of this Agreement, I, Daniel
Bober, Executive Vice President of Commercial Mortgage Services do hereby certify that:



| | 1. | A review of the activities of the Master Servicer
during the period from January 1, 2017 through December 31, 2017 (the “Reporting Period”), and of its performance per
the Agreement during such period has been made under my supervision, and
| | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |    |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 
| | 2. | To the best of my knowledge, based on such review,
the Master Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout the Reporting
Period.                                                       



IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this
Certificate as of the 28th day of February 2018.



|/s/ Daniel Bober         | 
|------------------------ | 
|Daniel Bober             | 
|Executive Vice President | 
|Wells Fargo Bank         | 



Together we’ll
go far

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.













SERVICING
FUNCTION PARTICIPANTS

CFCRE 2016-C4



CoreLogic Commercial Real Estate Services, Inc.

National Tax Search, LLC

Berkeley Point Capital
(Full and Limited)
#### OLD TOWN CANOE COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. GLENWA, INC., Defendant-Cross Appellant.

Nos. 05-1046, 05-1047.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

Aug. 4, 2005.

ORDER

The parties having so agreed, it is

ORDERED that the proceeding is DISMISSED under Fed. R.App. P. 42(b).
San

Bernardino

Angeles

L o s P a d r e s N F

Los

Padres

N F

A n g e l e s N F

S a n B e r n a r d i n o

C l e v e l a n d

N

F

Cleveland

Figure 1.1. The Southern California Mountains

and Foothills Assessment area boundary

(dashed black line) and the distribution of

public lands in and around it.
Figure 1.3. Elevation patterns across the

assessment area and surrounding lands. Note

how widely elevations vary across the region,

resulting in a tremendous amount of habitat

diversity.
Figure 2.3. Large-scale vegetation patterns

in the southern California mountains.

The coastal foothills (approximately 800

to 3,000 feet) are dominated by chaparral

and coastal scrub, but also contain oak

woodlands and riparian hardwood forests.

The lower montane landscape

(approximately 3,000 to 5,000 feet) contains

patches of conifer/live oak forest in an

otherwise chaparral-dominated landscape. In

the lower montane are two forest types

endemic to southern California: bigcone

Douglas-fir forest and Coulter pine forest.

The montane conifer landscape

(approximately 5,000 to 8,500 feet) is

dominated by pine and fir forests.

Subalpine/alpine plant communities of

lodgepole and limber pine and above-treeline

cushion plants occur at the very top of the

highest mountains (above 8,500 feet).

The desert montane region (approximately

3,000 to 7,000 feet) is dominated by open

pinyon pine woodlands, desert scrub, and

sagebrush flats.

The Monterey coast landscape

encompasses the southernmost extension of

coastal redwood forest.
Figure 2.17. Areas shown in red are

montane conifer forests predicted to be

experiencing high understory

densification due to the long-term

absence of low- to moderate-intensity

fires. Conifer forests not likely to be

experiencing this problem are shown in

green. The densified stands are at

increased risk to loss from standreplacing crown fire or insect and disease

outbreaks.
In the Air Imaging

1605 Kavanaugh Blvd

Little Rock, AR 72205

501.240.2015

chris@itaimaging.com

October 20th, 2016

U.S. Department of Trans p o rt a t i o n

, D o cke t O p e ra t i o n s

West Building Ground Flo o r, R o o m W 1 2 -1 4 0

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE

Washington, DC 20590

Dear sir or madam,

In the Air Imaging, herea f

t e r i t a i ma g i n g

, w a s g ra n t e d a R u l e 3 3 3 E xe m p t i o n ( E xe m p t i o n

Number 12340, Docket FAA-2 0 1 5 -1 0 3 7

, d a t e d Au g u st 5

, 2 0 1 5

. ) i t a i m a g i n g

, h e r e b y r e sp e ct f u l l y

requests an amendment t o t h e e xe mp t i o n t o a l l o w f o r t h e u se o f a d d i t i o n a l u n m a n n e d a i r cr a f t

system (UAS) that fully c o mp l i e s w i t h t h e co n d i t i o n s o f t h e Exe m p t i o n

. I n a cco r d a n ce w i t h t h e

statutory criteria provided i n Se ct i o n 3 3 3 o f Pu b l i c L a w 1 1 2 −9 5 i n r e f e r e n ce t o 4 9 U

. S

. C

. §

44704, itaimaging reques t s re l i e f f ro m 1 4 C F R p a rt 2 1

, C e rt i f i ca t i o n p r o ce d u r e s f o r p r o d u ct s a n d

parts, Subpart H—Airwor t h i n e ss C e rt i f i ca t e s. I t a i ma g i n g se e ks a u t h o r i za t i o n t o u se u se a n y

aircraft identified on the L i st o f Ap p ro ve d U n ma n n e d Ae ri a l Syst e m s ( U A S ) u n d e r S e ct i o n 3 3 3 a t

regulatory docket FAA-200 7 -3 3 3 0

.

As this is an amendme n t t o a n e xi st i n g e xe mp t i o n a ski n g o n l y f o r t h e a d d i t i o n o f a n o t h e r

type of unmanned aerial ve h i cl e

, i t a i ma g i n g re sp e ct f u l l y su b mi t s t h a t g o o d ca u se e xi st s so t h a t

notice does not need to b e p u b l i sh e d i n t h e F e d e ra l R e g i st e r f o r t h e r e q u e st e d a m e n d m e n t

.

Respectfully,

Christopher L. NEw

Owner / Operator of

In the Air Imaging