alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be

published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-21152

Summary Calendar

RUSSELL WADE EASON,

Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

GARY L. JOHNSON, DIRECTOR, TEXAS

DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE,

INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION,

Respondent-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Southern District of Texas

(H-96-CV-2025)

June 24, 1998

Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, JONES and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Russell Wade Eason, a Texas state prisoner, appeals the denial of his petition

under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for a federal writ of habeas corpus. Eason asserts that he1 Eason also argues that his parole revocation was heard by a parole officer, not by a

parole board panel as required by state law and, therefore, constituted an unconstitu tional

statute. Because this court specifically denied a COA on Eason’s issues regarding violations

of state law or policies at the hearing, this issue is not subject to review. L ackey v. Johnson

, 116 F.3d 149 (5th Cir. 1997).

2 Morrissey v. Brewer , 408 U.S. 471 (1972); McBride v. Johnson , 118 F.3d 432 (5th

Cir. 1997).

2 was denied due process in connection with his parole revocation. 1 Specifically, he

contends that in determining that he had violated his parole by assaulting and

making terroristic threats against his wife, the hearing officer relied on statements

by Eason’s wife which she recanted, and relied on hearsay to support the recanted

statements.

Our review of the record persuades that Eason was accorded due process in

connection with his parole revocation. 2 The record reflects that the hearing officer

did not rely solely on the recanted statements but, rather, also considered the wife’s

testimony and another statement submitted at the hearing which were consistent

with that recanted. Further, the hearing officer’s determination was not based on

hearsay fr om a neighbor, police officer, medical staff, or the 911 operator, but,

instead, it was based in part on statements that the wife confirmed that she made

to them. Finally, it is clear from the record that Eason’s wife made the challenged

“Shields” statement. Considering that she testified at trial on Eason’s behalf, Eason

manifestly was not denied the right to examine her about same.3 Lackey , 116 F.3d at 151-52.

3

For the first time on appeal, Eason asserts that he did not testify in his own

defense at the revocation hearing because he had not been granted use-immunity

and any statements he made at the hearing could have been used against him during

the trial on the assault and terroristic threat charges. No certificate of appealability

has been granted on this issue; it is not subject to appellate review. 3

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

E ason’s motion to expedite the appeal and to place it on the summary docket is

DENIED as moot.
<PAGE>   1

                                                                    Exhibit 20.2

                              OFFICER'S CERTIFICATE

                                MELLON BANK, N.A.

                    MELLON BANK HOME EQUITY LOAN TRUST 1996-1


                  The undersigned, a First Vice President of Mellon Bank, N.A.,
as Servicer ("Mellon Bank N.A."), pursuant to Section 3.09 of the Pooling and
Servicing Agreement, dated as of March 1, 1996 (as may be amended and
supplemented from time to time, the "Agreement"), among Mellon Bank, N.A., as
Transferor and Servicer, and The Bank of New York, as Trustee, does hereby
certify that:

         1.       Mellon Bank, N.A. is, as of the date hereof, Servicer under
                  the Agreement. Capitalized terms used in this Certificate have
                  their respective meanings as set forth in the Agreement.

         2.       The undersigned is an officer of Mellon Bank, N.A. who is duly
                  authorized to execute and deliver this Certificate to Trustee.

         3.       A review of the activities of Servicer during the fiscal year
                  ended December 31, 1999, and of its performance under the
                  Agreement was conducted under my supervision.

         4.       Based on such review, Servicer has, to the best of my
                  knowledge, fulfilled all its material obligations under the
                  Agreement throughout such year and no default in the
                  performance of such obligations has occurred or is continuing.

                  IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has duly executed this
Certificate this 1st day of March, 2000.



                               MELLON BANK, N.A., as Servicer



                               By /s/ Patrick Ryan
                                 ------------------------------------------
                               Name:  Patrick Ryan
                               Title: First Vice President
                                      Loan Servicing & Collections Division
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    Exhibit 28.1

March 26, 1997

                               Annual Report per
                Section 5.03 of Pooling and Servicing Agreement

                               MELLON BANK, N.A.

                      MELLON HOME EQUITY LOAN TRUST 1996-1

<TABLE>
<S>                                                              <C>
Reimbursement of Previous Liquidation Loss Amounts for 1996 per Clause (viii):

                                                                 $          666.92

Net Principal Allocation for 1996 per Clause (x):

         (a)      Distributed to Seller                          $            0.00
         (b)      Reinvested in Additional Mortgage Loans        $  204,938,813.08
         (c)      Deposited in Excess Funding Accounts           $            0.00
</TABLE>

Clause (xi) -- Not Applicable (applies only during the amortization period)
#### Ex parte R. W. ALEXANDER.

No. 28190.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

April 25, 1956.

■ No appearance for appellant.

Leon B. Douglas, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

PER CURIAM.

The appeal is from an order of the Criminal District Court No. 2 of Bexar County ordering that appellant be delivered to the agent of the demanding state.

No statement of facts accompanies the record, and no bills of exception are found therein.

The proceedings being in all things regular and no error appearing, the judgment is affirmed.
II

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 225

To amend the Federal Power Act to remove the jurisdiction of the Federal

Energy Regulatory Commission to license projects on fresh waters in

the State of Hawaii.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JANUARY 12 (legislative day, JANUARY 10), 1995

Mr. AKAKA introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred

to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

A BILL

To amend the Federal Power Act to remove the jurisdiction

of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to license

projects on fresh waters in the State of Hawaii.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. PROJECTS ON FRESH WATERS IN THE STATE

4 OF HAWAII.

5 Section 4(e) of the Federal Power Act is amended

6 by striking ‘‘several States, or upon’’ and inserting ‘‘sev7 eral States (except fresh waters in the State of Hawaii,
2

•S 225 IS

1 unless a license would be required by section 23 of the

2 Act), or upon’’.

Æ
EXHIBIT 32.2

     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 Annual Report of EP MedSystems, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ended December 31, 2004 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), each of the undersigned,
in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby certifies 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 results of operation of
         the Company


Date:  March 30, 2005                /s/ Matthew C. Hill
                                     ------------------------------
                                     Matthew C. Hill
                                     Chief Financial Officer
                                     (Principal Financial Officer)
EXHIBIT 31.02**CERTIFICATION**I, Theresa D. Becks, Chief Financial Officer of Campbell & Company, Inc., the general partner ofCampbell Strategic Allocation Fund, L.P. (the “Fund”), do hereby certify that:1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of the Fund; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in lightof the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respectto the period covered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, theperiods presented in this report; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, toensure that material information relating to the registrant, including itsconsolidated 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 andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectivenessof the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period coveredby this report based on such evaluation; and  (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recentfiscal quarter (the Registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annualreport) that has materially affected, or is reasonable likely to materiallyaffect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions): (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonablylikely 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 otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting.         By:       /s/ Theresa D. Becks    Theresa D. Becks    Chief Financial Officer
**Exhibit
      32.1**


**Certification
        of Chief Executive Officer Regarding Periodic Report Containing Financial
        Statements pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906
        of the
        Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**
  I,
        Michael G. Carlton, the Chief Executive Officer of Crescent Financial
        Corporation, in compliance with 18 U.S.C Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
        to
        Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, hereby certify that, (i) the
        Form
        10-Q filed by Crescent Financial Corporation (the "Issuer") for the quarter
        ended June 30, 2008, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
        or
        15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and (ii) the information contained
        in that report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
        condition and results of operations of the Issuer on the dates and for the
        periods presented therein.


Date:
              August 7, 2008
            By:
            /s/ Michael
              G. CarltonMichael
              G. CarltonPresident
              and
              Chief Executive Officer
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

GERARDO A. LICON AND 

LICON ENGINEERING CO., INC.,

 Appellants/Cross- 

 Appellees,

v.

RABA KISTNER ANDERSON

CONSULTANTS, INC., d/b/a 

RABA-KISTNER CONSULTANTS

(SW), INC. AND RABA-KISTNER

CONSULTANTS, INC.,

 Appellees/Cross- 

 Appellants.

§

§

§

§

§

 §

§

§

No. 08-09-00049-CV

Appeal from the

327th District Court

of El Paso County, Texas

(TC# 2002-1068)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This double-appeal is before the court on its own motion for determination of whether it

should be dismissed for want of prosecution. Finding that all appellants have failed to file a brief

or motion for extension of time and have failed to respond to our inquiry letter, we dismiss the

double-appeal for want of prosecution.

On July 20, 2009, the Clerk notified all of the appellants that their briefs were past due and

no motion for extension of time had been filed. The letter advised the parties that the Court intended

to dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution unless they responded within ten days and showed

grounds for continuing the appeal. See TEX.R.APP.P. 38.8(a)(1). No reply has been received.

Pursuant to Rules 38.8(a)(1), we dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution.
November 24, 2009 

ANN CRAWFORD McCLURE, Justice

Before Chew, C.J., McClure, and Rivera, JJ.

Chew, C.J., not participating
II

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 1712

To provide incentives to encourage stronger truth in sentencing of violent

offenders, and for other purposes.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

APRIL 29, 1996

Mr. DORGAN (for himself and Mr. CRAIG) introduced the following bill; which

was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

To provide incentives to encourage stronger truth in

sentencing of violent offenders, and for other purposes.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Stop Allowing Felons

5 Early Release Act (SAFER)’’.

6 SEC. 2. ELIGIBILITY FOR TRUTH IN SENTENCING INCEN7 TIVE GRANTS.

8 Section 20102(b)(1) of the Violent Crime Control and

9 Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (42 U.S.C. 13702(b)(1))

10 is amended to read as follows:
2

•S 1712 IS

1 ‘‘(1) FORMULA ALLOCATION.—(A) From the

2 amount made available to carry out this section, the

3 Attorney General shall allocate for each eligible

4 State an amount in the ratio that the number of

5 part 1 violent crimes reported by such State to the

6 Federal Bureau of Investigation for 1993 bears to

7 the number of part 1 violent crimes reported by all

8 States to the Federal Bureau of Investigation for

9 1993.

10 ‘‘(B)(i) For each eligible State that has not en11 acted a statute meeting the requirements of this

12 subparagraph, the Attorney General shall reduce the

13 amount allocated under subparagraph (A) by 25

14 percent.

15 ‘‘(ii) A statute meets the requirements of this

16 subparagraph if it results in the elimination of pa17 role, good time credit release, and other forms of

18 early release for any person convicted of a violent

19 crime, with early release permitted only by approval

20 of the Governor of the State after a public hearing

21 in which representatives of the public and the pris22 oner’s victims have had an opportunity to be heard

23 regarding the proposed release.

24 ‘‘(iii) The total amount of the reductions under

25 clause (i) shall be allocated to each eligible State
3

•S 1712 IS

1 that has enacted a statute meeting the requirements

2 of clause (ii) in accordance with the formula under

3 subparagraph (A).’’.

4 SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.

5 The amendments made by section 2 shall take effect

6 3 years after the date of enactment of this Act.

Æ
March 28, 2002

Curt Phillips
Chief Financial Officer
Automotive Finance Corporation
310 East 96th Street
Suite 300
Indianapolis, IN  46240

RE:  Ugly Duckling  Corporation  Master Loan and Security  Agreement dated as of
     August 24, 2001


Dear Sir:

With this letter we are  requesting a waiver under  Article VIII Section 8.0 (o)
No Defaults for December 2001 and January 2002.

As previously  discussed  with you, we hit  termination  charge-off  triggers on
three of our  securitized  trusts in December  and one  termination  delinquency
trigger on a trust in January 2002. These trigger  breaches  constitute an event
of default under the Insurance  Agreements in each of these trusts.  Each of the
trusts  were  only in  breach  of the  termination  trigger  test for the  month
indicated  and have  since been under  these  levels.  MBIA,  our  insurer,  has
indicated they will retain but not exercise  their rights under the  termination
events to, among other things,  transition  servicing and retain all future cash
flows  from  the  trusts  to  pay  off  the  A  bondholder,  assuming  continued
improvement in the performance of the trusts.

To  further  validate  MBIA's  intent,  we are  scheduled  to  close  our  first
securitization  of 2002 on April 2nd with  MBIA  acting  as the  insurer  on the
transaction.

Thank  you for  your  time  and  consideration.  I have  provided  an area on an
attached page for your signature authorizing the waiver. Please call me with any
further questions at 602-852-6635.


Sincerely,



Bob Fulton
Treasurer
Ugly Duckling Corporation


<PAGE>



The undersigned hereby waive as requested above:

Automotive Finance Corporation

By:      _________________________
Name:    _________________________
Title:   _________________________
p. 1 

# OAR Box 1778 Prepped by Ollie Stewart



### Document

Number: 

# 159 ) ll-E-1 0 Docket Number: 

# A-90-0 6

Printed 10/28/2008 9:50:59 AM Sheet 159 of 276P. 2 

### CONVERSATIO N R. . II-E-1 0 / / •*-"- * r-zr-i? TYPE •VISI T Locatio n o

fVisit/Conference : •CONFERENC E 0 TELEPHON E •INCOMIN G g OUTGOIN G NAM E O F PERSON'S ) CONTACTE D O R I N CONTAC T WIT H YO U SfeJn Q>r

m ,cK ORGANIZATIO N (Office , dept. . bureau , etc. ) TELEPHON E NO . SUBJEC T ROUTIN G NAME/SYMBO L Pi t * S '• < .*> A/KgiT5_ie*;-)ei{

\ NACuTcA e ir<xr f e' / IN T

S-fti.-'vro H SUMMAR Y X OmsM^Ji

Mr. r'cjj

i f Ae . CLOU

J J clarity

a. C- o y\ v •£.</ s aioki a^- uj g hanz

<2-o~r

11 tr c_.io__u.T- S/tGu^ <z(^u^< rzp/&c*^,*viT. H <2m Ztx'ct -flng-h

V) f P t 0 Y.aJ ACi/*r j ^ g . U-

A Jrxt .-x, rcn.r

ar r>Tx, *r

VJ ." J t? . ^

& r ^ / J '7/ " <Tg-

w-Po rrare . X^^-~^ n$ l/'J/ S c an£/ f\ u ff/ Y ' E S / i g- g-/ 1 / e -j* r rt pM ted zPe

GM J r a M £ bur" lr\ e. bj gu l C erTt t ?_-

» TA* T ~ i/* ) < 3 5/gQ wc/ ru -*•

•rP Z ? >a c g /.-• » •f./j' j J0. Wj>y

g f?tA ' broua^-r

-fa

+kc_duTtvtJ-j

en rrr -hl\P W^co/iS/ H jpuj^/z c Service*. Co W inn / S S / O * 

# ±L f *A IT

To -xn iJfarS .

# 1 ^ '

,V*Y . JJ . \^ ^ ACTIO N REQUIRE D

NAM E O F PERSO N DOCUMENTIN G CONVERSATIO N DAT E ACTIO N TAKE N

SIGNATUR E DAT E 50271-10 1 rtCTO i 198 4 O - 461-27 5 (317 ) CONVERSATIO N RECOR D OPTIONA L FOR M 27 1 (12-76 ) DEPARTMEN TO F DEFENS E
II

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 290

Relating to the treatment of Social Security under any constitutional

amendment requiring a balanced budget.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JANUARY 26 (legislative day, JANUARY 10), 1995

Mr. KEMPTHORNE (for Mr. DOLE) (for himself, Mr. THOMPSON, and Mr.

INHOFE) introduced the following bill which was read for the first time

A BILL

Relating to the treatment of Social Security under any

constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 That, for the purpose of any constitutional amendment re4 quiring a balanced budget, the appropriate committees of

5 the House and the Senate shall report to their respective

6 Houses implementing legislation to achieve a balance

7 budget without increasing the receipts or reducing the dis8 bursements of the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insur-
2

S 290 IS

1 ance Trust Fund and the Federal Disability Insurance

2 Trust Fund to achieve that goal.

Æ
#### Amos M. DURBIN, Sr., Administrator of the Estate of Amos M. Durbin, Jr., Deceased, Appellant, v. NALLY, BALLARD, AND SALTSMAN, Inc., et al., Appellees.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

May 6, 1955.

*19D. G. Boleyn, Don-A. Ward, Hazard, for appellant.

W. W. Reeves, M. P. Ba.rret, Hazard, for appellees.

CLAY, Commissioner.

Appellant filed a petition for a new trial under Section 340(7) of the Civil Code on the ground of newly discovered evidence. A demurrer to this petition was sustained, and it was dismissed.

Appellant represents the estate of one Amos Durbin who was fatally injured in February, 1950, when he fell from a bridge being constructed in the City of Hazard. Suit was filed against appellees for damages, and the action was tried in April 1952. The trial court directed a verdict for ap-pellees, and the judgment entered on the verdict was affirmed' by this .Court in December, 1953. Durbin’s Adm’r v. Nally, Ballard & Saltsman, Inc., Ky.1953, 263 S. W.2d 102.

The ground for the directed verdict was that the deceased was guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law in attempting to cross a bridge which he knew was under construction and after he had been warned not to cross .by a nightwatch-tnan named Williams.

On June 30, 1953, while the appeal was pending, appellant filed his petition for a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence. Such newly discovered evidence consisted of statements by a new witness named Payne. He stated by way of affidavit that he crossed the bridge a short time before the deceased, that he heard someone fall from the bridge, and that when he crossed the bridge he saw no one and was given no warning.

Appellant in his petition states that he knew of the existence of this witness prior to the trial in April, 1952, but had been unable to learn his name. ■ He alleges that, he exercised “all diligence in preparing said action for trial” but states no facts with respect to what was done to learn the identity of the witness or to locate him.

There are at least two sound reasons why the trial court properly sustained a demurrer to this petition and refused to grant a new trial. The first is that the petition fails to state any facts showing due diligence was exercised to locate this witness and have him at the trial. See Russell v. City of Ashland, 159 Ky. 223, 166 S.W. 971.

The second reason is that the facts to which this witness would allegedly testify *20are.not of such conclusive or controlling character as to make reasonably certain a different judgment.- See Knuckles v. Helton, Ky.1952, 245 S.W.2d 942.

The judgment is affirmed.