alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pane l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T UN I T E D S T AT E S OF AME R I C A, P l ai nt i ff

- A pp el l ee , v. KE VIN F AL C ON , D e f

e n d an t - A p p e llan t. N o. 11- 30110 D. C. No . 4 : 0 9 - c r - 0 0 1 1 8 - SE H ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe D i s tr i c tof

M ont ana S a m E . H a ddon, D i s tr i c tJudge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d M ar c h 6, 2012 ** B efo re: B . F L E T C H E R , R E IN H A R D T , an dT A S H IM A , C i rcu i tJu d g es. K e vi n F a l c on appe a l s f

r om the 110- m onth s e nt e nc e i m pos e d on r e m and f o llo w in g h is g u ilty - p le ac o n v ic tio n f o rb e in g af

e lo n in p o s s e s s io n o f

af ir e arm , in vi ol a t i on of

18 U . S . C . § 922( g) ( 1) . W e ha ve j ur i s di c t i on unde r28 U . S . C . § 1291, a nd w e va c a t e a nd r e m and. 

# FI LED MA R 14 2012 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS11- 30110 2 F a lc o n a r g u e s th a t h is s e n te n c e is p r o c e du r a llya n ds ub s tan tiv e ly u n r e a s o n ab le , in lig h t o f b o th h is p o o rh e a lth a n dth e r e la tiv e s e r io u s n e s s o f h is of f e ns e . A c orr e c t l y - c a l c ul a t e d a dvi s oryS e nt e nc i ng G ui de l i ne s r ange i s “ the s tartin g p o in t an dth e in itia l b e n c h m ark ” f o rs e n te n c in g . See G al l v. U ni ted States , 5 5 2 U .S . 3 8 , 4 9 (2 0 0 7 ). A s n o b as is ap p ea rs inth e r ec o rd fo r th e d istrict co u rt’s s e le c tio n o f

ab a s e o f

f e n s e le v e l o f

2 0 u n d e rU .S .S .G . § 2 K 2 .1 ( a ) ( 4 ) , an da s it se em s l i kel y, i nst ea d, thatF al con’ s bas e off ense l evelshou l d h ave been as se ss ed as 14 , un der s ec t i on 2K 2. 1(a) (6), w e c anno tconcl ud e thatthe 11 0-m on th sent ence w a s e i the rpr oc e dur a l l yors ubs t ant i ve l yr e a s onabl e . A c c or di ngl y , w e va c a t e the s e nt e nc e a nd r e m and f

orr e s e nt e nc i ng. W e ar e in r e c e ip t o f

F a lc o n ’s p r o s e m o tio n to o b ta in n e w ap p e lla te c o u n s e l. I n vi e w of

ourde c i s i on t o r e m and, w e de nytha tm ot i on a s m oot . I n hi s m ot i on, F a l c on a s s e rt s tha tJudge H a ddon i s bi a s e d a ga i ns thi m . W e f i nd no ba s i s i n the re cord for F al con’ s a ss ert i on and, there fore , decl i ne t o rea ss i gn the ca se t o ano ther ju d g e o n r e m an d . T h is p an e l r e ta in s ju r is d ic tio n o v e ra n yf u tu r e ap p e a l. V AC AT E D a n d RE MAND E D.
*

Senior U.S. Circuit Judge Albert J. Henderson has elected

to participate in further proceedings in this matter pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 46(c). 

United States Court of Appeals,

Eleventh Circuit.

No. 94-9121.

Aurelia DAVIS, as Next Friend of LaShonda D., PlaintiffAppellant,

v.

MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION, et al., Defendants-Appellees.

Aug. 1, 1996.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle

District of Georgia (No. 94-CV-140-4 MAC (WDO)), Wilbur D. Owens,

Jr., Judge.

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING AND SUGGESTION FOR REHEARING EN BANC

(Opinion February 14, 1996, 11th Cir., 1996), 74 F.3d 1186)

Before TJOFLAT, Chief Judge, and KRAVITCH, HATCHETT, ANDERSON,

EDMONDSON, COX, BIRCH, DUBINA, BLACK, CARNES and BARKETT, Circuit

Judges.*

BY THE COURT:

A member of this court in active service having requested a

poll on the suggestion of rehearing en banc and a majority of the

judges in this court in active service having voted in favor of

granting a rehearing en banc,

IT IS ORDERED that the above cause shall be reheard by this

court en banc. The previous panel's opinion is hereby VACATED.
-81 -80 -79 -78 -77 -76 -75

37 38 39 40



### ★ ▲

▲ ▲ ▲



### ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ 500 1000 1500 500 18 12 06 00 07/18 

### NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL 

## Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 18 Jul 06

EDAS Meteorological DataSource★at 38.77 N 77.11 WMeters AGL
State of Utah 

GARY R. HERBERT

Governor

SPENCER J. COX

Lieutenant Governor

Department of 

Environmental Quality

Amanda Smith

Executive Director

DIVISION OF AIR QUALITY

Bryce C. Bird

Director

DAQ-081-14

M E M O R A N D U M

TO: Air Quality Board

THROUGH: Bryce C Bird, Executive Secretary

FROM: Mark Berger, Environmental Planning Consultant

DATE: September 12, 2014

SUBJECT: PROPOSE FOR PUBLIC COMMENT: Amend R307-110-17. General Requirements: 

State Implementation Plan. Section IX, Control Measures for Area and Point Sources, Part 

H, Emissions Limits; and R307-110-28. General Requirements: State Implementation 

Plan. Regional Haze.

______________________________________________________________________________________ 

The new State Implementation Plan (SIP) for regional haze, along with the new emission limits added to 

Part H, will have to be incorporated into the Air Quality Rules. R307-110-17 and R307-110-28 are the 

rules that do this. The proposed rules will update the latest versions of these SIPs that could be adopted by 

the Board in January. 

Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends R307-110-17 and R307-110-28 be proposed for public 

comment. 

195 North 1950 West • Salt Lake City, Utah 

Mailing Address: P.O. Box 144820 • Salt Lake City, Utah 84114-4820 

Telephone (801) 536-4000 • Fax (801) 536-4099 • T.D.D. (801) 536-4414 

www.deq.utah.gov

Printed on 100% recycled paper
R307-110-17 and 28 September 12, 2014 Page 1 of 1

1 R307. Environmental Quality, Air Quality.

2 R307-110. General Requirements: State Implementation Plan.

3 R307-110-17. Section IX, Control Measures for Area and Point Sources, 

4 Part H, Emissions Limits.

5 The Utah State Implementation Plan, Section IX, Control Measures 

6 for Area and Point Sources, Part H, Emissions Limits, as most recently 

7 amended by the Utah Air Quality Board on [December 3, 2014]January 

8 7, 2015, pursuant to Section 19-2-104, is hereby incorporated by 

9 reference and made a part of these rules.

10

11

12 R307-110-28. Regional Haze.

13 The Utah State Implementation Plan, Section XX, Regional Haze, 

14 as most recently amended by the Utah Air Quality Board on [April 6, 

15 2011]January 7, 2015, pursuant to Section 19-2-104, is hereby 

16 incorporated by reference and made a part of these rules.

17

18

19 KEY: air pollution, PM10, PM2.5, ozone

20 Date of Enactment or Last Substantive Amendment: [January 9, 

21 2014]2015

22 Notice of Continuation: February 1, 2012

23 Authorizing, and Implemented or Interpreted Law: 19-2-104(3)(e)
* Pursuant to 5 TH CIR . 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 CIR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED June 13, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-60691 Summary Calendar

RUBYANTO DERMAWAN, Petitioner,

versus ALBERTO R. GONZALES, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent.

-------------------- Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A95 607 166

-------------------- Before KING, WIENER, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Rubyanto Dermawan, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions this court to review the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming the immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Dermawan argues that he demonstrated past persecution on account of his ethnicity and a well-founded fear of future persecution. Because Dermawan does not address the BIA’s finding that his application for asylum is time-barred, he has abandoned theNo. 05-60691 -2- issue, and we will not review it. See Yohey v. Collins , 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993). Likewise, he has abandoned his argument for relief under the CAT by failing to discuss the issue in his brief. Id. With respect to Dermawan’s claim for withholding of removal, he testified that he was discriminated against and was the victim of crime because of his ethnicity. We conclude, however, that the BIA’s determination that Dermawan’s treatment did not rise to the level of persecution is supported by substantial evidence, and the record does not compel a contrary conclusion. See Eduard v. Ashcroft , 379 F.3d 182, 188 (5th Cir. 2004); Ozdemir v. INS , 46 F.3d 6, 7-8 (5th Cir. 1994); Chun v. INS , 40 F.3d 76, 78 (5th Cir. 1994). The petition for review is DENIED.
Certifications

I, Richard Simpson, certify that:


1.	I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of Benchmark 2021-B27 Mortgage Trust (the “Exchange Act periodic reports”);


2.	Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do 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 report;


3.	Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and other information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;


4.	Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statement(s) required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicers have fulfilled their obligations under the servicing agreements in all material respects; and


5.	All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwise disclosed in this report.  Any material instances of noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.


In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties:  Midland Loan Services, a Division of PNC Bank, National Association; K-Star Asset Management LLC; Park Bridge Lender Services LLC; U.S. Bank National Association; KeyBank National Association; Situs Holdings, LLC; Pentalpha Surveillance LLC; Wells Fargo Bank, National Association; Computershare Trust Company, National Association; Greystone Servicing Company LLC; CoreLogic Solutions, LLC; and Wilmington Trust, National Association.

Date:  March 28, 2024

/s/ Richard Simpson___________________Richard SimpsonPresident, Citigroup Commercial Mortgage Securities Inc.(senior officer in charge of securitization of the depositor)

Benchmark 2021-B27 Certifications


---
## COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02

- 14

- 00382

- CR

Roderick Dixon

v.

The State of Texas §

§

§

§

§ From the 371st District Court

o f Tarrant County (1376529W )

Fe bruary 18, 2016

Opinion by Justice Gardner

(nfp)



### JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that

there was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of

the trial court is affirmed.

SE COND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By

__ /s/ Anne Gardner

________________ Justice Anne Gardner
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 84 Introduced in House (IH)]

107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. CON. RES. 84

    Supporting the goals of Red Ribbon Week in promoting drug-free 
                              communities.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 27, 2001

   Mr. Baca submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was 
            referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
    Supporting the goals of Red Ribbon Week in promoting drug-free 
                              communities.

Whereas the National Family Partnership, Governors, Attorneys General, Parent 
        Teacher Associations, and over 100 other organizations throughout the 
        United States annually cosponsor October 23 through October 31 as Red 
        Ribbon Week;
Whereas the objective of Red Ribbon Week is to promote drug-free communities 
        through drug prevention efforts, education, parental involvement, and 
        community-wide support;
Whereas drug abuse is one of the major challenges our Nation faces in securing a 
        safe and healthy future for our children; and
Whereas parents, youth, schools, businesses, law enforcement and religious 
        institutions, service organizations, senior citizens, medical and 
        military personnel, sports teams, and individuals throughout the Nation 
        demonstrate their commitment to drug-free, healthy lifestyles by wearing 
        and displaying red ribbons during this weeklong celebration: Now, 
        therefore, be it
    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That the Congress--
            (1) supports the goals of Red Ribbon Week; and
            (2) encourages all Americans to promote drug-free 
        communities and to participate in drug prevention activities to 
        show support for healthy, productive, drug-free lifestyles.
                                 <all>
```
III

107TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. CON. RES. 385

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JULY 23, 2002

Received and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and

Pensions

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of the Congress that the Secretary

of Health and Human Services should conduct or support research on certain tests to screen for ovarian cancer, and Federal health care programs and group and

individual health plans should cover the tests if demonstrated to be effective, and for other purposes.

Whereas ovarian cancer is a serious and underrecognized

threat to women’s health;

Whereas ovarian cancer, the deadliest of the gynecologic cancers, is the fourth leading cause of cancer death among

women in the United States;

Whereas ovarian cancer occurs in 1 out of 57 women in the

United States;
2

HCON 385 RFS

Whereas approximately 50 percent of the women in the

United States diagnosed with ovarian cancer die as a result of the cancer within 5 years;

Whereas ovarian cancer is readily treatable when it is detected in the beginning stages before it has spread beyond the ovaries, but the vast majority of cases are not

diagnosed until the advanced stages when the cancer has

spread beyond the ovaries;

Whereas in cases where ovarian cancer is detected in the beginning stages, more than 90 percent of women survive

longer than 5 years;

Whereas only 25 percent of ovarian cancer cases in the

United States are diagnosed in the beginning stages;

Whereas in cases where ovarian cancer is diagnosed in the

advanced stages, the chance of 5-year survival is only

about 25 percent; and

Whereas ovarian cancer may be difficult to diagnose because

symptoms are easily confused with other diseases and because there is no reliable, easy-to-administer screening

tool: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring), That it is the sense of the Congress that—

3 (1) the Secretary of Health and Human Serv4 ices, acting through the Director of the National In5 stitutes of Health—

6 (A) should conduct or support research on

7 the effectiveness of the medical screening tech8 nique of using proteomic patterns in blood

9 serum to identify ovarian cancer, including the
3

HCON 385 RFS

1 effectiveness of using the technique in combina2 tion with other screening methods for ovarian

3 cancer; and

4 (B) should continue to conduct or support

5 other promising ovarian cancer research that

6 may lead to breakthroughs in screening tech7 niques;

8 (2) the Secretary should submit to the Congress

9 a report on the research described in paragraph

10 (1)(A), including an analysis of the effectiveness of

11 the medical screening technique for identifying ovar12 ian cancer; and

13 (3) if the research demonstrates that the med14 ical screening technique is effective for identifying

15 ovarian cancer, Federal health care programs and

16 group and individual health plans should cover the

17 technique.

Passed the House of Representatives July 22, 2002.

Attest: JEFF TRANDAHL,

Clerk.
- 1 - \ \ENTJUD0114\AdlibJobFiles \ 14a9a696 - 9deb - 4ae8 -ba04 - b6f1220914e6\Input \ 0000 - 0000 - 1436 - 8305.docx IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

Supreme Court Cause No.: DA 24 - 0026 JAMES G. ARCHER, DENISE F. ARCHER, ROGER WAGNER, ANTOINETTE WAGNER, RUTGER NIERS, LAURA NIERS, GREGORY CHAPMAN, GREGORY SMITH, and LISA BRYANT , Plaintiff s /Appellant s , vs. GORDON TAIT and MICHELLE JANZ , Defendant s /Appellee s . **On Appeal from the**  **Eleventh Judicial District Court,**  **Flathead County** 

**Cause No.: DV** **- 23**  **- 640E, Hon. Danni Coffman** 

**ORDER** Sean S. Fra mpton FRAM PTON PURDY LAW FIRM 530 West 19 th Stree t #301 Whitefish, MT 59937 Telephone: (406) 862 - 9600 Facsimile: (406) 862 - 9611 E - ma il: sean@framptonpurdy.com Attorneys for Plaintiffs -

Appellants Bruce A. Fredrickson

Angela M. LeDuc Taylor R. Miller Rocky Mountain Law Partners, P.C. 1830 3rd Avenue East, Suite 301 P. O. Box 1758 Ka lispell, MT 59903 - 1758 Telephone: (406) 314 - 6011 Facsimile: (406) 314 - 6012 E - ma il: bruce@rmtlawp.com

angie@rmtlawp.com taylor@rmtlawp.com Attorneys for Defendants - Appellees 02/26/2024

Case Number: DA 24-0026- 2 -

Based upon Appell ees’ Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to file their Response Brief, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appell ees shall file and serve their Response Brief on or before April 8, 2024 .

Electronically signed by: Bowen Greenwood Clerk of the Supreme Court February 26 2024
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: Jessie Louis Johnson v. The State of Texas

Appellate case number: 01-18-00970-CR & 01-18-00971-CR

Trial court case number: 1411855 & 1411854

Trial court: 180th District Court of Harris County

Appellant’s brief in these two appeals was originally due on February 19, 2019. One 

motion for extension was filed in April. Late notice issued in May, but no brief or further request 

for extension was filed.

On August 22, 2019, this Court abated the appeal and remanded to the trial court for a 

hearing to determine why no brief had been filed. The trial court held a hearing on September 17, 

2019 and appointed counsel, Kevin Keating attended. Counsel stated that appellant did wish to 

continue his appeal. Counsel further explained that he was waiting on a record, but our records 

show that there was no record missing. The clerk’s record was filed in December 2018 and the 

last volumes of reporter’s record were filed in January 2019. Counsel next stated that he was in 

the hospital when this Court’s abatement order issued. Counsel further stated that his “return to 

work authorization” from his doctor said that he should do light duty. Counsel did not explain why 

he had not advised this Court of any of these excuses, or why he had not filed any motions for 

extension or a brief after he received this Court’s notice in late May 2019. 

The trial court permitted counsel to have an extension of 15 days from the date of the 

hearing. Accordingly, the appeal is reinstated on the active docket and appellant’s brief is due on 

or before October 17, 2019. No further extensions will be considered.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: ____/s/ Richard Hightower____

 Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: ___September 26, 2019___
The State of



# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

October 30, 2015

N o. 04

- 15

- 00207

- CR and 04

- 15

- 00208

- CR

Jessica G. CASTILLO

, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas, Appellee

From the County Court at Law No. 4, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 458109 and 458110

Honorable Jason Garrahan, Judge Presiding



### ORDER

Appellant filed motions asking this court to lift the stay of sentencing so she may begin probation on these cases

– as well as a third case

– im mediately, despite the pending appeals. We ordered the State to file a response, which it has done. In its response, the State notes that by lifting the sentencing stays, appellant’s terms of probation will begin immediately, requiring appellant to write an apology letter, a letter that is the subject of one of her appellate complaints.

We ORDER appellant to file a written reply to the State’s response and file it in this court on or before November 20, 2015, specifically as to the effect an order liftin g the automatic stays would have on appellant’s issue regarding the apology letter. In addition to responding to the State’s arguments, appellant should provide argument and authority on whether her request to lift the stay of the appeals waives her issue relating to the apology letter, as well as any other potential

effect.

_________________________________ Marialyn Barnard, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I hav e hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 30th day of October, 2015

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION. UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COUR T 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.

IN THE 

## A RIZONA 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEALS D IVISION O NE

STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent ,

v. THOMAS NOUAN, Petitioner

.

No. 1 CA-CR 23-0375 PRPC

Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. CR1997-093519 The Honorable Christina Henderson, Judge Pro Tempore REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED

COUNSEL Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, Phoenix By Douglas Gerlach Counsel for Respondent The Law Office of Brent E. Graham, PLLC, Flagstaff By Brent E. Graham Counsel for Petitioner FILED 3-21-2024STATE v. NOUAN Decision of the Court

2 MEMORANDUM DECISION Presiding Judge Anni Hill Foster, Judge Brian Y. Furuya, and Vice Chief Judge Randall M. Howe delivered the decision of the Court.

PER CURIAM : ¶1 Petitioner Thomas Nouan seeks review of the superior court’s order denying his petition for post-conviction relief. This is Petitioner’s third successive petition. ¶2 Absent an abuse of discretion or error of law, this court will not disturb a superior court’s ruling on a petition for post-conviction relief. State v. Gutierrez , 229 Ariz. 573, 577, ¶ 19, 278 P .3d 1276, 1280 (2012). It is Petitioner’s burden to show that the su perior court abused its discretion by denying the petition for post-conviction relief. See State v. Poblete , 227 Ariz. 537, ¶ 1, 260 P.3d 1102, 1103 (App. 2011) (Petitioner has burden of establishing abuse of discretion on review). ¶3 We have reviewed the record in this matter, the superior court’s order denying the petition for po st-conviction relief, and the petition for review. We find that Petitioner has not established an abuse of discretion. ¶4 We grant review and deny relief.