alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Order entered July 31, 2015

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-15-00664-CV

LUIS A. SANTIAGO, Appellant

V.

THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON, AS SUCCESSOR TRUSTEE TO JPMORGAN 

CHASE BANK, AS TRUSTEE FOR NOVASTAR MORTGAGE FUNDING TRUST, 

SERIES 2004-2. NOVASTAR HOME EQUITY LOAN ASSET-BACKED 

CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2004-2, AND OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, LLC, Appellees

On Appeal from the 296th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 296-01232-2015

ORDER

The Court GRANTS appellees’ July 30, 2015 unopposed motion for a fourteen-day 

extension of time to file their brief. We ORDER appellees to file their brief by MONDAY, 

AUGUST 17, 2015. Because this is an accelerated appeal, no further extensions will be granted 

absent a showing of extraordinary circumstances. 

/s/ CAROLYN WRIGHT

CHIEF JUSTICE
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 Creative Beauty Supply of
New Jersey Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter
ended June 30, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Carmine Catizone,
Chief Executive 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 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 result of
operations of the Company.

/s/Carmine Catizone
-----------------------------
Carmine Catizone
Chief Executive Officer

August 15, 2011


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 Creative Beauty Supply of
New Jersey Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter
ended June 30, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Daniel Generelli,
Chief Executive 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 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 result of
operations of the Company.

/s/Daniel Generelli
-----------------------------
Daniel Generelli
Chief Financial Officer

August 15, 2011
#### Jo-Etta Lynn WORSHAM, et al. v. Rose T. WALKER, et al.

No. 86-C-2440.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 23, 1987.

In re Worsham, Jo-Etta Lynn; applying for writ of certiorari and/or review; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 85 CA 1038; Parish of East Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court, Div. “B”, No. 262203.

Prior report: La.App., 498 So.2d 260.

Denied.

DENNIS, J., would grant the writ.
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 67 (Friday, April 6, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 20838]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-8215]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

[Docket No. FR-5601-N-14]


Federal Property Suitable as Facilities To Assist the Homeless

AGENCY: Office of the Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and 
Development, HUD.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Steward B. McKinney Homeless Assistance 
Act, as amended, HUD publishes a weekly Federal Register notice listing 
unutilized, underutilized, excess, and surplus Federal property 
reviewed by HUD for suitability for use to assist the homeless. HUD 
generally publishes this weekly report each Friday. Today's notice 
announces that because of the size of HUD's next report, the Office of 
the Federal Register has informed HUD that it cannot accommodate HUD's 
request to schedule publication of the report on Friday, April 6, 2012. 
As a result, HUD's next report listing unutilized, underutilized, 
excess, and surplus Federal property will be published in the Federal 
Register on April 20, 2012.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Juanita Perry, Department of Housing 
and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW., Room 7266, Washington, 
DC 20410; telephone number 202-708-1234; TTY number for the hearing- 
and speech-impaired 202-708-2565 (these telephone numbers are not toll-
free), or call the toll-free Title V information line at 800-927-7588.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In accordance with 24 CFR part 581 and 
section 501 of the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act (42 
U.S.C. 11411), as amended, HUD publishes a weekly notice in the Federal 
Register listing Federal buildings and other real property that HUD has 
reviewed for suitability for use to assist the homeless. The properties 
are reviewed using information provided to HUD by Federal landholding 
agencies regarding unutilized and underutilized buildings and real 
property controlled by such agencies or by GSA regarding its inventory 
of excess or surplus Federal property. HUD's weekly notice is also 
published in order to comply with the December 12, 1988 Court Order in 
National Coalition for the Homeless v. Veterans Administration, No. 88-
2503-OG (D.D.C.).
    HUD generally publishes this notice each Friday. Today's notice 
announces that because of the size of HUD's next report, the Office of 
the Federal Register has informed HUD that it cannot accommodate HUD's 
request to schedule publication of the report on Friday, April 6, 2012. 
As a result, today's notice announces that HUD's next report listing 
unutilized, underutilized, excess, and surplus Federal property will be 
published in the Federal Register on April 20, 2012.

    Dated: March 29, 2012.
Mark R. Johnston,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Special Needs.
[FR Doc. 2012-8215 Filed 4-5-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4210-67-P
AAM-13-076-E

December 6, 2012

 Exemption No. 9840B

 Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2009-0167

Ms. Cindy R. Kearns

Vice President

Albatross Air, Inc.

380 Airport Circle

Beaver, WV 25813

Dear Ms. Kearns:

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your petition to extend Exemption No. 9840, 

as amended. It explains the basis for our decision, describes its effect, and lists the conditions 

and limitations.

The Basis for Our Decision

By letter dated October 26, 2012, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) 

on behalf of Albatross Air, Inc. (Albatross Air), for an extension of Exemption No. 9840, as 

amended. That exemption from part 120 of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)

allows Albatross Air, which is operating under separate parts of the regulations, to cover its 

safety-sensitive employees under one testing program. 

In your petition, you indicate that there has been no change in the conditions and reasons 

relative to public interest and safety that were the basis for granting the original exemption.

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition 

in the Federal Register because the requested extension of the exemption would not set a 

precedent, and any delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to Albatross Air.
2

Our Decision

The FAA has determined that the justification for the issuance of Exemption No. 9480

remains valid with respect to this exemption and is in the public interest. Therefore, under the 

authority provided by 49 U.S.C. 40113 and 44701, which the FAA Administrator has 

delegated to me, I grant your petition, subject to the following conditions and limitations.

Conditions and Limitations 

1. Employees of Albatross Air are subject to the drug and alcohol regulations at all 

times while conducting operations under part 135 or part 91.

2. The drug and alcohol testing program must be implemented under the auspices of 

the Albatross Air part 135 operation, not under part 91.

The Effect of Our Decision

Our decision extends the termination date of Exemption No. 9840 to April 30, 2015, unless 

sooner superseded or rescinded. 

Sincerely,

/s/

James R. Fraser, M.D.

Deputy Federal Air Surgeon
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 09-3262

___________

United States of America, *

*

 Plaintiff - Appellee, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the Eastern 

v. * District of Missouri.

*

Patrick Pierce, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

 Defendant - Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: June 18, 2010

Filed: June 23, 2010

___________

Before MURPHY, BEAM, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

After Patrick R. Pierce pled guilty to one count of being a felon in possession

of ammunition in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), the district court1

 sentenced him

to 57 months’ imprisonment (within the Sentencing Guidelines range).

Pierce pled guilty under a written plea agreement that contained a waiver of his

right to appeal “all sentencing issues, including any issues relating to the

determination of . . . the Total Offense Level,” other than one issue not relevant here. 

1

 The Honorable Catherine D. Perry, Chief Judge, United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Missouri.
See United States v. Reeves, 410 F.3d 1031, 1033 (8th Cir. 2005) (enforcing appeal

waiver covering “whatever sentence is imposed, any issue relating to the

establishment of the Total Offense Level”). We will enforce the appeal waiver in this

case. See United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 889-92 (8th Cir. 2003) (en banc)

(waiver enforced and appeal dismissed where it falls within scope of waiver, both plea

agreement and waiver were entered into knowingly and voluntarily, and no

miscarriage of justice results). 

Pierce’s argument on appeal falls within the scope of the appeal waiver, and the

record shows the requisite knowledge and voluntariness. See id. at 890-91 (“One

important way a district court can help ensure that a plea agreement and corresponding

waiver are entered into knowingly and voluntarily is to properly question a defendant

about his or her decision to enter that agreement and waive the right to appeal.”). 

Further, enforcing the appeal waiver would not result in a miscarriage of justice. See

id. at 891-92 (the miscarriage-of-justice exception to enforcing an otherwise valid

appeal waiver is extremely narrow and “an allegation that the sentencing judge

misapplied the Sentencing Guidelines or abused his or her discretion is not subject to

appeal in the face of a valid appeal waiver”). Finally, Pierce’s ineffective-assistance

of counsel claim is not properly raised in this direct criminal appeal. See United

States v. Ramirez-Hernandez, 449 F.3d 824, 827 (8th Cir. 2006). Accordingly, we

dismiss the appeal.

______________________________

-2-
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED
PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Paul E. Berger, M.D., certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of NightHawk Radiology Holdings, Inc. for the quarter ended September 30, 2008 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that
information contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of NightHawk Radiology Holdings, Inc.



|                        |  |  |  |     |  |                           |  |                                      
|----------------------- |  |  |  | --- |  | ------------------------- |  | -------------------------------------
|                        |  |  | 
|Dated: October 30, 2008 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/  PAUL E. BERGER, M.D.
|                        |  |  |  |     |  | Name:                     |  | Paul E. Berger, M.D.                 
|                        |  |  |  |     |  | Title:                    |  | President and Chief Executive Officer
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

ELIJAH WEIR,

Petitioner

v.

PHILA. CT. OF COMMON PLEAS; PHILA. 

DIST. ATTY'S OFFICE,

Respondents

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 92 EM 2023

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 26th day of February, 2024, the Application for Leave to File 

Original Process is GRANTED, and the “Petition for Writ of Prohibition and/or Habeas 

Corpus Relief” is DENIED.
##### 



Exhibit 32.2
 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  
    
    the Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2006
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended; and
    
    the information contained in such Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
  /s/ Amerisa KornblumAmerisa KornblumChief Financial Officer
[No. 37140.

Department Two.

June 11, 1964.]

#### Lowell D. Sperline *et al., Respondents,*v. Albert D. Rosellini *et al., Appellants.****

*The Attorney General,*and *Angelo R. Petruss, Assistant,*for appellants.

*Sperline & Kuntz,*for respondents.

*

Reported in 392 P. (2d) 1009.

Per Curiam

This is an action for a declaratory judgment seeking construction of Laws of 1959, chapter 72, § 1 and an order restraining and prohibiting the State Highway Commission from transferring lands acquired by it for highway purposes to the State Parks and Recreation Commission.

Laws of 1959, chapter 72, § l1 provides:

“The Washington state highway commission is authorized and directed to set aside or convey to the state parks and recreation commission so much of certain lands presently owned or to be acquired by the highway commission situated in Douglas county and lying along the eastern shore *606of the Columbia river, north of the community of East Wenatchee, *as will not be required for highway purposes. . . .*” (Italics ours.)

The parties have agreed that the State Highway Commission has negotiated to transfer the lands involved to the State Parks and Recreation Commission.

The only witness to testify was the district engineer for the State Highway Department, District 2 (which includes the lands in question). He testified that the lands had not been declared surplus. The trial court concluded that the lands were required for highway purposes, and adjudged that chapter 72 authorized the transfer of lands “only to the extent the same are not required for highway purposes”; hence, the trial court, upon the record before it, restrained the transfer of the property to the State Parks and Recreation Commission.

The Highway Commission’s basic contention is that the trial court erred in its construction of chapter 72. The statute is clear and unambiguous. We cannot agree with the Commission’s argument that the statute is a legislative declaration that the lands involved are not necessary for highway purposes. The statute authorizes and directs the transfer of only “. . . so much of certain lands . . . *as will not be required for highway purposes.”*(Italics ours.)

The only evidence before the court is that the lands are presently required for highway purposes; therefore, so long as they are so required, the Commission is not empowered by Laws of 1959, chapter 72, § 1 to transfer them to the State Parks and Recreation Commission.

The judgment is affirmed.

1

This law has been classified by the code revisor as special legislation and for that reason has not been codified in the Revised Code of Washington.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-1674
R. J. COMBS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versusWILLIAM H. FREEMAN; JAMES G. EXUM, North Carolina Supreme Court Justice; NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS; NC SUPREME COURT, Defendants - Appellees.

No. 96-1675
R. J. COMBS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JULIUS A. ROUSSEAU, JR., Judge; JERRY L. ROTEN, Clerk of Court; ASHE COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT; JAMES C. HARTLEY, Sheriff, a/k/a Jim Hartley, Defendants - Appellees.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L. Voorhees, Chief District Judge. (CA-94-144-5-V, CA-94-145-5-V)2 Submitted: October 17, 1996 Decided: October 23, 1996 Before MURNAGHAN and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. R. J. Combs, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court's orders denying his motions filed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). We have reviewedthe records and the district court's opinions and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Combs v. Freeman and Combs v. Rousseau , Nos. CA-94- 144-5-V; CA-94-145-5-V (W.D.N.C. Apr. 23, 1996). We dispense withoral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
[No. 18606-3-II.

Division Two.

July 26, 1996.]

#### Paul Blalock, Jr., *Appellant,*v. Kinedyne West, Inc., et al., *Respondents.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Pierce County, No. 92-2-02242-2, Waldo F. Stone, J., entered August 10, 1994. *Reversed*by unpublished opinion per Seinfeld, C.J., concurred in by Morgan and Turner, JJ.
To: Monica Morales/R8/USEPA/US@EPA, 

Cc:

Bcc:

Subject: Record of external meeting regarding EPA's action on the Regional Haze SIP for North 

Dakota

Monica,

This is to inform you for docketing purposes that on February 29, 2012, Janet McCabe and I met 

with representatives of the Northern Plains Potato Growers Association regarding their views of 

EPA's proposed action on the Regional Haze SIP for North Dakota. The Association was 

represented by Brian Vculek, Justin Dagen, John Halverson, and Chuck Gunnerson.

The Association representatives expressed concern about the potential impact on electricity 

prices and how that could affect their cost of operations. 

Janet McCabe explained the schedule for the final action, that this schedule was being forced by 

a consent decree, the legal basis of the Regional Haze program, the connection between good 

visibility in Class I areas and tourism, and that while there are the health benefits that result from 

any reduction in air pollution from power plants and other sources including the controls adopted 

for visibility purposes such health benefits are not a factor in EPA's action on the Regional Haze 

SIP.

02.29.12 - National Potato Council.pdf.

Phil Lorang, Senior Policy Advisor

Air Quality Policy Division, OAQPS, EPA

919-541-5463
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: Meria James Bradley v. Robert F. Authur

Appellate case number: 01-15-00065-CV

Trial court case number: 2011-57020

Trial court: 80th District Court of Harris County

Appellant has filed a “Motion for Request for a Free Copy of the Trial Transcript and the 

Clerk Records.” The clerk’s record in this appeal was filed on March 10, 2015, but a reporter’s 

record has not been filed and the trial court reporter has informed this Court that appellant has 

not requested the preparation of a reporter’s record. We grant appellant’s request for a copy of 

the clerk’s record and direct the trial court clerk to send a copy of the clerk’s record to appellant 

within 7 days of this order.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Jane Bland

 Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: April 21, 2015
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-1307

GIL W. JONES,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND CORRECTIONAL SERVICES,

Defendant – Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Baltimore. Richard D. Bennett, District Judge. 

(1:10-cv-03429-RDB)

Submitted: July 28, 2011 Decided: August 1, 2011

Before SHEDD, AGEE, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Gil W. Jones, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Gil W. Jones appeals the district court’s order

dismissing his civil complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(e)(2)(B) (2006) for failure to state a claim. We have 

reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, 

we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. 

Jones v. Dep’t of Pub. Safety & Corr. Servs., No. 1:10-cv-03429-

RDB (D. Md. Mar. 7, 2011). We dispense with oral argument 

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented 

in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

AFFIRMED