alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                           AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report On Form 10-QSB of Artcraft
II Inc. for the quarter ending August 31, 2004, I, Scott Raleigh, Chief
Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of Artcraft II Inc. hereby certify
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge and belief, that:

     1.   Such Quarterly Report on Form 10-KSB for the quarter ending August 31,
          2004, 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 such Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for
          the quarter ending August 31, 2004, fairly presents, in all material
          respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
          Artcraft II Inc.

Dated:  October 8, 2004

ARTCRAFT II INC.


By: /s/ Scott Raleigh
-------------------------------------
Chief Executive Officer and
Chief Financial Officer
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

JUDGMENT

No. 04-14-00299-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF J.J.B., a Child

From the 225th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2012-PA-02385

Honorable Martha B. Tanner, Judge Presiding

BEFORE JUSTICE MARION, JUSTICE MARTINEZ, AND JUSTICE CHAPA

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s April 8, 2014 order 

terminating the parental rights of James B. is AFFIRMED.

It is ORDERED that no costs shall be assessed against appellant because he is indigent. 

SIGNED August 27, 2014.

_____________________________

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice
50346.

#### HUNT v. THE STATE.

Marshall, Judge.

At a hearing of appellant’s motion to dismiss charges of terroristic threats and battery, evidence was introduced that the arresting police officers had not completed their training and were not qualified to make an arrest under the Georgia Peace Officers Standards and Training Act, Ga. L. 1970, pp. 208-215 (Code Ann. § *76292A-2101 et seq.). Appellant contends that his prosecution is barred because of p. 215 (Code Ann. § 92A-2115) therein, making "any proceeding under” an arrest by such officers null and void. The denial of this motion was certified for appeal. *Held:*

Argued March 3, 1975

Decided May 9, 1975.

*Steven E. Fanning,*for appellant.

*Eldridge W. Fleming, District Attorney,*for appellee.

This contention has been decided adversely to appellant in *Rogers v. State,*133 Ga. App. 513 (211 SE2d 373), where we stated: "The indictment, trial, and conviction of the defendants was not a 'proceeding under’ an arrest. . . It is inconceivable to us that the legislature intended to absolve a man of all guilt of a crime charged merely because his arrest was illegal, as contended by the appellant, and we will not so hold.”

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Bell, C. J., and Webb, J., concur.*
Page 1 of 1 

Instructions for CCC-25 

UNIFORM GRAIN AND RICE STORAGE AGREEMENT

Warehouse operators use this form to enter into a Uniform Grain and Rice Storage 

Agreement to store CCC-interest grain.

Submit a copy of the completed form in hard copy or facsimile or scan to the Kansas 

City Commodity Office, Storage Contract Branch, STOP 8748, P.O. Box 419205, 

Kansas City, MO 64141-6205; telephone 816-926-6198, fax 816-448-5648 or directly 

to verna.garrett@kcc.usda.gov 

A CCC contracting officer will sign CCC-25 in Item 4 and return a copy to the 

warehouse operator. The agreement will be effective on the date it is signed by the 

contracting officer.

Warehouse Operators must complete Items 1 through 3.

Agreement number at top of page 1 and Item 4 are for CCC use only.

Item 1 through 3. 

Fld Name /

Item No.

Instruction

1

Warehouse 

Enter legal entity name of the warehouse.

2

Warehouse 

Location

Enter the location or principal place of business for the warehouse 

(city and state).

3 A - D

Warehouse 

Operator 

Signature 

Item 3A. Enter the company name of the warehouse as shown in 

Item 1.

Item 3B. Enter the signature of an authorized individual, i.e., 

corporate officer, partner, or proprietor authorized to sign 

for the warehouse. 

Item 3C. Enter the title of the person signing for the warehouse. 

 

Item 3D. Enter the area code and telephone number of the person 

responsible for warehouse storage and handling rates. 

Item 4 for CCC use only.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JEANETTE K. LANSBURG; LARRY J. 

ENCINAS, husband and wife, 

 Plaintiffs - Appellants,

 v.

FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTGAGE 

CORPORATION; SAXON MORTGAGE 

SERVICES, INC., 

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 13-15545

D.C. No. 2:11-cv-01529-HRH

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Arizona

H. Russel Holland, Senior District Judge, Presiding

Submitted June 9, 2015**

San Francisco, California

Before: SILVERMAN, GOULD, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

Jeanette K. Lansburg and Larry J. Encinas (“Plaintiffs”) appeal a summary 

judgment entered by the district court on their contract claims against Saxon 

 

*

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

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

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

FILED

JUN 12 2015

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2

Mortgage Services, Inc. and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation. We 

have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291; we vacate and remand.

1. Plaintiffs contend that they entered into a Trial Period Plan (“TPP”) with 

Saxon’s predecessor-in-interest that promised an eventual permanent loan 

modification, that they complied with the terms of the TPP, but that Saxon 

nonetheless refused to permanently modify the loan and foreclosed on their home. 

The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants, finding that the TPP

did “not guarantee that the lender will provide the borrower with a loan modification 

agreement even if the borrower” complied with its terms.

2. In Corvello v. Wells Fargo Bank, NA, which involved claims similar to 

those here, we held that a lender may be contractually obligated to offer a permanent 

loan modification if the borrower complies with the terms of a TPP. 728 F.3d 878, 

883–85 (9th Cir. 2013). Because the district court did not have the benefit of our 

later opinion when it granted summary judgment in this case, we vacate the

judgment and remand for reconsideration of plaintiffs’ claims in light of Corvello.

VACATED AND REMANDED; each party shall bear its own costs.
Abatement Order filed June 30, 2015.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 15

- 00380

- CR

____________ GUSTAVO ANDRES VASQUEZ, Appellant

V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 230th District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 1412198



### ABATEMENT ORDER
The trial court failed to submit findings of fact and conclusions of law on the voluntariness of appellant’s statement. Article 38.22, section 6 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure require s the trial court to make written fact findings and conclusions of law as to whether a challenged statement was made voluntarily, even if appellant did not request them or object to their absence. Tex. Code Crim.
Proc. art. 38.22 ' 6; Urias v. State , 155 S .W.3d 141, 142 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004).The statute is mandatory and the proper procedure to correct the error is to abate

the appeal and direct the trial court to make the required findings and conclusions.
See Tex. R. App. P. 44.4; Wicker v. State , 740 S. W.2d 779, 784 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987).
Accordingly, the trial court is directed to reduce to writing its findings of fact and conclusions of law on the voluntariness of appellant’s statement and have a supplemental clerk’s record containing those findings filed with the c lerk of this
Court on or before July 30, 2015.
The appeal is abated, treated as a closed case, and removed from this Court’s active docket. The appeal will be reinstated on this Court’s active docket when the trial court’s findings and recommendations are filed in this Court. The Court will
also consid er an appropriate motion to reinstate the appeal filed by either party.

It is so ORDERED.

PER CURIAM
ZUCKERT SCOUTT & RASENBERGER, L.L.P. ATTORNEYS AT LAW

888 Seventeenth Street, NW, Washington, DC 20006-3309

Telephone [202] 298-8660 Fax [202] 342-0683

www.zsrlaw.com

 

January 8, 2013

BY ELECTRONIC MAIL

Robert Finamore

Chief, Foreign Carrier Licensing Division

U.S. Department of Transportation

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E.

Washington, D.C. 20590

Re: Polling Results, Application of Aerovias del Continente Americano

S.A. (Avianca) (Docket OST-2012-0137)

Dear Mr. Finamore,

On January 3, 2013, we filed an Application for an Amended Exemption in the abovereferenced docket on behalf of our client Aerovias del Continente Americano S.A. (Avianca). 

We have completed polling on this application and no carrier has objected to the grant of 

the requested authority. We respectfully request that the Department proceed to grant Avianca’s 

application as soon as possible. 

Sincerely,

 

Richard D. Mathias

David M. Endersbee

Counsel for Aerovias del Continente 

Americano S.A. (Avianca).

cc: service list
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION 4

Mr. John Finke Director, Pollution Control Division Metro Public Health Department 311 23rd Avenue North Nashville , Tennessee 37203
Dear Mr. Finke: ATLANTA FEDERAL CENTER 61 FORSYTH STREET ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303-8960


## APR 1 

# 9 2016

Enclosed i s th e fmal end-of-year report for your agency's FY 2015 Air Pollution Control grant authorized by 

### § 105 of the Clean Air Act. This report outline s your agency 's various grant commitments and their status. Since there w e re no issues and no adjustments neces s ary , your report is now finaliz e d. This letter documents the conclu s ion of the joint evaluation process required by 40 Code of Fed e ral Regulation s 35.115 and identified a s a commitme nt in your FY 2015 Air Planning A greement under 

### Cross Cuttin g iss ues.
We appreciate th e progress you mad e in FY 2015 and look forward to cont inuing ourjoint efforts to protect and improve air quality. If you have any questions regarding your grant, please contact Stuart Perry at (404) 562-8980 or Gwe ndolyn Grafat (404) 562-9289.

E nclo s ur e Carol L. Ke mke r Acting Direc t or Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division

Internet Address (URL) • http://www.epa.gov Recycled/Recyclab l e • Printed wi th Vegetable Oil Based I nks o n Recycled Paper (Minimum 30% Pos t consumer)
### I N THE UNI TED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FI F TH CI RCUI T

No. 12-40870 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee

v. TORIBIO MEDINA-LINAN, Defendant-Appellant

A ppeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 7:12-CR-177-1
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * T h e F e d e r a l P u b l i c D e fender appointed to r e present Toribio M e d i n a - L i n a n has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders

v. C alifornia , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United S tates v . F lores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Medina-Linan has filed a response. W e have reviewed counsel’s brief and t he relevant p ortions of the record reflected therein, as well as MedinaLinan’s response. We concur w ith counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents

no nonfrivolous issu e f o r a ppellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s m otion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 T H C I R
. R. 42.2. U n i t e d S t a te s C o u r t o f A p p e al s

F i f t h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D Aug ust 20, 2013 Ly l e W . Cay ce Clerk

* Purs uant to 5 T H C I R

. R

. 47. 5, the court has d eterm ined that this op inion should not be p ublis hed and is not p reced ent excep t und er the lim ited circum s tances s et forth in 5 T H C I R

. R. 47. 5. 4. Case: 12-40870 Document: 00512347771 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/20/2013
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________ No. 14

- 15482 Non

- Argument Calendar

________________________ D.C. Docket No. 1:14

- cr
- 20206

- BB

- 1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff

- Appellee,

versus MARCELLUS ROUNDTREE, a.k.a. Four, a.k.a. Fatboy,
Defendant

- Appellant.

________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida

________________________ (August 21, 2015)
Before TJOFLAT , WILSON and JORDAN , Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:

Case: 14-15482 Date Filed: 08/21/2015 Page: 1 of 22 Sheryl J. Lowenthal, appointed counse l for Marcellus Roundtree in this appeal, has moved to withdraw from further representation of the appellant and filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Our independent review of the entire record reveals that counsel’s assessment of the relative merit of the appeal is correct. Because independent examination of the entire record reveals no arguable issues of merit,
counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED , and Roundtree’s conviction and

sentence are AFFIRMED

.

Case: 14-15482 Date Filed: 08/21/2015 Page: 2 of 2
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

October 15, 2018

No. 04

- 18

- 00455

- CV

Ex PARTE Vincent Trevor CALDAROLA

,

From the 288th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2018

- CI

- 06739 Honorable Solomon Casseb III, Ju dge Presiding



### O R D E R

This is an appeal by the Texas Department of Public Safety in an expunction matter. The Department filed its appellant’s brief on September 7, 2018. Accordingly, the brief of appellee Vincent Trevor Caldarola was due in this court on or before October 8, 2018. However, appellee Caldarola did not file his brief. Accordingly, we ORDER appellee Vincent Tr evor Caldarola to
file h is ap pellee’s brief in this court on or before November 7, 2018. If appellee Caldarola does not file his brief in this court on or before the date ordered, we will order the case submitted without an appellee ’ s brief.

We order the clerk of this court to serv e a copy of this order on all counsel.

_________________________________ Marialyn Barnard, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed t he seal of the said

court on this 15th day of October, 20 18

.

___________________________________ KEITH E. HOTTLE

, Clerk of Court
WBSCM Domestic Vendor Training

• March 22, 1:00-3:00pm ET: How to Submit an Offer

• March 23, 1:00-3:00pm ET: How to Enter an ASN and Submit an E-Invoice

• March 24, 1:00-3:00pm ET: Advanced E-Invoicing

• Sign-up through: WBSCMAMSHelpDesk@usda.gov and 

provide:

• Company Name

• Name(s) of attendee(s)

• E-mail address(es) of attendee(s)

• Which session you wish to participate in
WBSCM International Vendor Training

• March 29, 1:00-3:00pm ET: How to Submit an Offer

• March 30, 1:00-3:00pm ET: How to Enter an ASN and Submit an E-Invoice

• Sign-up through: WBSCMAMSHelpDesk@usda.gov and 

provide:

• Company Name

• Name(s) of attendee(s)

• E-mail address(es) of attendee(s)

• Which session you wish to participate in
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

WASHINGTON, DC 

In the Matter of: REGENT AEROSPACE CORPORATION 

FDMS No. FAA-2013-0851 

Served: September 17, 2015 

EXTENSION OF TIME 

Complainant Federal Aviation Administration filed its notice of appeal in this matter 

from the written initial decision issued by Administrative Law Judge Richard C. Goodwin on 

July 27, 2015. Under 14 C.F.R. §§ 13.233(c) and 13.2ll(e), parties must perfect their appeals by 

filing an appeal brief within 55 days of the date of the issuance of the initial decision. 

Complainant's appeal brief is due no later than September 21,2015. 

By letter dated September 14, 2015, the agency attorney requested a 14-day extension of 

time for the FAA to file its appeal brief under 14 C.F.R. § 13.233(c)(1).1 The agency attorney 

represented in this letter that Respondent, through its counsel, had agreed to the 14-day 

extension. 

Complainant's request for an extension of time in which to file its appeal brief is granted 

under 14 C.P.R. § 13.233(c)(l). Complainant's appeal brief is now due to be filed on or before 

October 5, 2015. 2 

MICHAEL P. HUERTA 

ADMINISTRATOR 

Federal Aviation Administration 

'!~Jdi::~ Manager, Adjudication Branch 

1 The agency attorney also asked for an extension oftime in another case involving Regent Aerospace 

Corporation, FAA-2013-0852. That extension of time is granted in a separate order. 

2 The "mailing rule" (14 C.F.R. § 13.211(e)), which provides additional time after service by mail, does 

not apply to this extension. Thus, it does not extend the appeal briefs due date beyond October 19, 2015. 

3 Issued under authority delegated to the Chief Counsel and the Assistant Chief Counsel for Litigation by 

Memorandum dated October 27, 1992, under 49 U.S.C. § 322(b) and 14 C.P.R.§ 13.202 (see 57 Fed. 

Reg. 58,280 (1992)) and redelegated by the Assistant Chief Counsel for Litigation to the Manager, 

Adjudication Branch, by Memorandum dated August 6, 1993.
#### Thomas Clifford McGOWAN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 76-1765

Summary Calendar.*

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Sept. 3, 1976.

Robert M. Helton, Wichita Falls, Tex. (Court-appointed), for petitioner-appellant.

Michael E. Carnes, U. S. Atty., Ronald C. H. Eddins, Gerhard Kleinschmidt, Asst. U. S. Attys., Fort Worth, Tex., for respondentappellee.

Before COLEMAN, GOLDBERG and GEE, Circuit Judges.

*

Rule 18, 5 Cir., *Isbell Enterprises, Inc, v. Citizens Casualty Company of New York et al.,*5 Cir., 1970, 431 F.2d 409, Part I.

EER CURIAM:

Thomas Clifford McGowan was convicted of unlawfully possessing a sawed-off shotgun in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 5861(d) and 5871. He took no direct appeal from that conviction. He has petitioned the court below for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, contending that he requested and paid his retained attorney to appeal his conviction, but the attorney had failed to do so. McGowan argued that in the circumstances his retained counsel’s failure to appeal constituted a deprivation of his constitutional rights to adequate and competent representation. After an evidentiary hearing on McGowan’s § 2255 motion, the district court made the following findings:

> Eetitioner retained counsel H. Dale Bailey to represent him at this trial and paid Bailey $1,200 for his services. Counsel’s fee extended to the trial of the case only and not to any appeal.

> Eetitioner failed to make any arrangement for the appeal of his case even though he was aware of his right to appeal and the necessity of giving notice of appeal within ten days of sentencing and that petitioner was entitled to proceed *in forma pauperis*with court appointed counsel if he could not afford an appeal.

> The failure to appeal petitioner’s conviction was not due to the inadequacies of his retained counsel’s representation of him

> There was no evidence of fraud or deceit in retained counsel’s representation of petitioner in this matter.

The district court concluded that McGowan’s claims “that his constitutional rights *94have been violated are not supported by the facts in this case,” and accordingly denied relief. We have carefully examined the record and find the decision of the district court to be free of error. *See Brewen v. United States,*5 Cir. 1967, 375 F.2d 285, *on appeal following remand,*1968, 396 F.2d 350. *See also Fitzgerald v. Estelle,*5 Cir. 1975, 505 F.2d 1334*(en banc); Edwards v. Louisiana,*5 Cir. 1975, 520 F.2d 321, *cert. denied,*1976, 423 U.S. 1089, 96 S.Ct. 882, 47 L.Ed.2d 100. The denial of relief is AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 31.2
 
 **CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**
 **18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**
 **AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**
 **SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**
 
 
 I, Robert M. Fujii, Chief Financial Officer of Blackhawk Capital Group BDC, Inc. certify that:
 
 1.
I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Blackhawk Capital Group BDC, Inc.; 
 2.
Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly report; 
 3.
Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this quarterly 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 quarterly 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 Rule 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 quarterly 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 quarterly report (the Evaluation Date); and 
 (c)
presented in this quarterly 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 quarterly report whether there were significant changes in internal controls or in other facts that could significantly affect internal subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses. 
 Dated: November 19, 2004/s/ Robert M. FujiiRobert M. Fujii, Chief Financial Officer