alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### IN THE SUPREME COURT, STATE OF WYOMING

20 2 3 WY 117

October Term, A.D. 20 2 3

December 7 , 2023

LEANNA R O SE LaFLEUR,

Appellant (Defendant),

v.

THE STATE OF WYOMING,

Appellee (Plaintiff). S

- 23

- 0186



### O RDER 

### A FFIRMING THE 

### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### ’ S


### O RDER T O 

### R EVO KE 

### P ROBATION

[¶ 1 ] This matter came before the Court upon its own motion following notification that Appellant has not filed a pro se brief in the time allotted. Appellant took this appeal to challenge the district court’s Ju ne 8

, 20 2 3

, Order to Revo ke Probation

. Appellant admitted

s he violated h er probation

. The district court revoked probation and imposed a sentence of

two to four years o n Ap p ellant’s c on viction for possession of a felony amount of methamphetamine

. W y o. Stat. Ann. § 35

- 7

- 1 0 31 ( c ) (ii)

. The district court suspended that sentence in favor of two years of supervised probation.

[¶2] On October 2 , 20 23 , Appellant’s court

- appointed appellate counsel e

- filed a Motion to Withdraw as Counsel, pursuant to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 744, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 1400, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). This Court subsequently entered an Order Granting

Motion for Extension of Time to File Pro Se Brief. This Court ordered that, on or before

November 16 , 2023, Appellant may file with this Court a pro se brief specifying the issues for the Court to consider in this appeal. This Court also provided notice that, after the time for filing a pro se brief expired, this Court would make its ruling on counsel’s motion to withdraw and, if appropriate, make a final decision on this appeal. This Court notes that Appellant did not file a pro se brief or other pleading in the time allotted.[¶3] Now, f ollowing a careful review of the record and the Anders brief submitted by appellate counsel, this Court finds appellate counsel’s motion to withdraw should be granted and the district court’s Order t o Revo ke Probation should be affirmed

. I t is, therefore,

[¶4] ORDERED that the Wyoming Public Defender’s Office, court

- appointed counsel

for A ppellant Leanna Rose LaF leur , is hereby permitted to withdraw as counsel of record

for A ppellant; and it is further

[¶5 ] ORDERED that the Natrona County D istrict C ourt’s Ju ne 8

, 20 2 3

, Order to Revo ke

Probation

, be, and the same hereby is , affirmed

.

[¶6] DA TED this 7 th d ay of Dec ember , 20 2 3

.

BY THE COURT:

/s/

KATE M. FOX

Chief Justice
**GMAC
Commercial Mortgage
        Annual Statement as to Compliance

     For the Year Ended December 31, 2002
**Structured Asset Securities Corp

                CDC Commercial Trust

                      Series 2002 FX1**
 

 

 

Pursuant to Section 3.13 of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement governing the referenced transaction, I hereby attest that:

A review of the activities of GMAC Commercial Mortgage Corporation, as Master Servicer during the period, and of its performance under this Pooling and Servicing Agreement, has been made under my supervision.

To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, GMAC Commercial Mortgage Corporation, as Master Servicer, has fulfilled in all material respects its obligations under this Pooling and Servicing Agreement throughout the period.

GMAC Commercial Mortgage Corporation, as Master Servicer, has received no notice regarding qualifications, or challenging the status as a REMIC from the Internal Revenue Service or any other governmental agency or body.

 

GMAC COMMERCIAL MORTGAGE CORPORATION

 

 
***Brian T. Stauffer

By: Brian T. Stauffer

Title:  Senior Vice President

Date: February 20, 2003

 

 

.482A

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

                               200 Witmer Road    P.O. Box 1015   Horsham, PA 19044 8015*****
SCWC

- 22

- 0000457

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI ‘ I

U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AS TRUSTEE FOR ADJUSTABLE

RATE MORTGAGE TRUST 2005

- 2, ADJUSTABLE RATE MORTGAGE

- BACKED

PASS

- THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2005

- 2

, Respondent/Plaintiff

- Appellee

,

vs.

KELLY EDWARDS, aka KELLY ANNE EDWARDS,

individually and as Trustee of the Edwards Family

Trust U/D/T dated September 19, 1996,

Petitioner/Defendant

- Appellant,

and

THE ESTATE OF STUART D. EDWARDS, aka STUART DENZIL EDWARDS,

Respondent/Defendant

- Appellee.

CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

(CAAP

- 22

- 0000457; CIVIL NO. 3CC15100031K)

ORDER REJECTING APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Wilson, and Eddins, JJ .)

The application for writ of certiorari, filed on

December 21, 2022, by petitioner/defendant/appellant Kelly

Edwards aka Kelly Anne Edwards is hereby rejected.

Dated: Honolulu, Hawai ʻ i , February 14, 2023.

/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald

/s/ Paula A. Nakayama

/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna

/s/ Michael D. Wilson

/s/ Todd W. Eddins Electronically Filed

Supreme Court

SCWC-22-0000457

14-FEB-2023

08:46 AM

Dkt. 11 ODAC
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 199 (Friday, October 13, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 60983]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-26327]


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

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION


Special Emphasis Panel in Research Evaluation and Communication; 
Notice of Meeting

    In accordance with Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 
as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the following 
meeting:

    Name: Special Emphasis Panel in Research Evaluation and 
Communication (1210).
    Date/Time: October 23, 2000--Room 310 & 360; 8:30 a.m.-5 p.m.; 
October 24, 2000--Room 310 & 360; 8:30 a.m.-5:00 p.m.
    Place: National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, 
Arlington, VA.
    Type of Meeting: Closed.
    Contact Person: Elizabeth VanderPutten, Program Director, 
Research Evaluation and Communication Division, National Science 
Foundation, Room 855, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22230, 
(703) 292-8650.
    Purpose of Meeting: To provide advice and recommendations 
concerning proposals submitted to NSF for financial support.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate CAREER Proposals as part of the 
selection process for awards.
    Reason for Closing: The proposals being reviewed include 
information of a proprietary or confidential nature, including 
technical information; financial data, such as salaries; and 
personal information concerning individuals associated with the 
proposals. These matters are exempt under 5 U.S.C. 552b(c), (4) and 
(6) of the Government in the Sunshine Act.

    Dated: October 10, 2000.
Karen J. York,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 00-26327 Filed 10-12-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-M
Document

Exhibit 10.1

[Treasury Department Letterhead]




September 14, 2021




Ms. Sandra L. Thompson
Acting Director
Federal Housing Finance Agency
400 7th Street, SW
Washington, DC 20219


Dear Acting Director Thompson:


Reference is made to the Amended and Restated Preferred Stock Purchase Agreement dated as of September 26, 2008, as amended (the Agreement), between the United States Department of the Treasury (Treasury) and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (the Enterprise), acting through the Federal Housing Finance Agency as its Conservator. 


In accordance with Section 6.3 of the Agreement, Treasury and the Enterprise hereby agree that the requirements under Sections 5.12(c), 5.13, 5.14(a), and 5.14(b) of the Agreement are suspended as of the date this letter is countersigned by the Enterprise.  Each such suspension shall terminate on the later of one year after the date hereof and six months after Treasury so notifies the Enterprise. 




[Remainder of page intentionally left blank]




















































Sincerely,


 /s/ Janet L. Yellen


Janet L. Yellen




Agreed and Accepted:


Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, by
Federal Housing Finance Agency, its Conservator 




 /s/ Sandra L. Thompson___________________
Sandra L. Thompson  
Acting Director
2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUL-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-31-2000
<CASH>                                           (6176)
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                 14704962
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                   14032375
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                              29363521
<PP&E>                                        24186948
<DEPRECIATION>                                 1142034
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                55328485
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                         26634389
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                       2500000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                    17352198
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  55328485
<SALES>                                       32559949
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              34239443
<CGS>                                         27253131
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 28484520
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                532095
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              699294
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                5754923
<INCOME-TAX>                                   2186871
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            3568052
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   3568052
<EPS-BASIC>                                     1.43
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.43


</TABLE>
July 1, 2015

Mr. Douglas Piper

Sealy & Company, LLC

333 Texas Street

Suite 1050

Shreveport, LA 71101

Dear Mr. Piper:

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption from

§ § 61.113 (a) and (b), 91.119 (c), 91.121, 91.151 (b), 91.405 (a) and (b), 91.407 (a)(1), 91.409(a)(1),

91.409 (a) (2), and 91.417 (a) and (b) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). It

explains why we can not process your request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Can n o t Process Your Request

We entered your April 22, 2015

, exemption request on behalf of Sealy & Company, LLC into

the public docket (No. FAA− 20 15

− 1235 ), but we are unable to proce ss your request any

further. The information you sent does no t comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy

enclosed). For us to consider the request any further, you must send us all of the following:

 The reasons why granting the request would be in t he public interest; that is, how it would

benefit the public as a whole.

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described

earlier to reach us within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requir es you to send your

petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption.2

If We Do No t Hear From You

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you

further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267

- 9677.

Sincerely,

Brittany Newton

Program Analyst, Airmen and

Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure
##### 



Exhibit 32.1 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 on Form 10-Q of Enesco Group, Inc. (the
Company) for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Thomas
F. Bradley, the interim 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 results of the
operations of the Company. May 10, 2004
    
    By: /s/ Thomas F. BradleyInterim Chief Executive Officer
 31
#### Carl Kropf, Individually and Doing Business as International Fluorescent Co., Respondent, *v.*Joseph Electric Co. Inc., et al., Defendants, and Bernard Orenstein, Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department,

June 13, 1957.

*Jack Levy*and *Samuel W. Gilman*for appellant.

*Freda Silbowits*for respondent.

*Per Curiam.*

Where a complaint is predicated on causes of action in contract and tort, not all of which authorize the granting of a body execution, such execution may not issue unless it is clear that plaintiff’s recovery was based on a cause of action which authorizes a body execution *(Boyle*v. *Semenoff,*201 App. Div. 426). Upon the verdict here, plaintiff lost his right to a body execution and there is nothing that plaintiff could adduce before another court in addition to the papers before the court on the application here under review which would entitle him to a body execution. Accordingly the motion should have been denied on the merits and it was error to deny the application “ without prejudice ”.

*272The order should be modified by deleting therefrom the words “ without prejudice ” and as modified affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements.

Hecht, Aurelio and Tilzer, JJ., concur.

Order modified, etc.
Exhibit 31.2
I, Mark A. May, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Shopsmith, Inc. (the“registrant”);
2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statementof material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make thestatements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statementswere made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;
3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all material respectsthe financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of theregistrant as of, and for the periods presented in this report;
4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as definedin Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and wehave:
a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision,to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, includingits consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;
b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end ofthe period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and
c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’smost recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonablylikely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and
5. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based onour most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, tothe registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent function):
a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which arereasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record,process, summarize and report financial information; and
b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internalcontrols over financial reporting.   Date: January 27, 2004   By: /s/ Mark A. May  Mark A. May  Vice President of Finance and Treasurer
Page 14
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Sammy Rosa, Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Thomas Galligan, J.), rendered on August 18, 1988, convicting defendant, upon a plea of guilty, of attempted robbery in the first degree and sentencing him to an indeterminate term of imprisonment of 4 *Vi*to 9 years, is unanimously affirmed.

We are unpersuaded that the sentence imposed was unduly harsh or severe. Taking into account, "among other things, the crime charged, the particular circumstances of the individ*223ual before the court and the purpose of a penal sanction”, we perceive no abuse of discretion warranting a reduction in sentence. *(People v Farrar,*52 NY2d 302, 305.)

Further, defendant was sentenced in accordance with his plea bargain and within statutory guidelines. "Having received the benefit of his bargain, defendant should be bound by its terms.” *(People v Felman,*141 AD2d 889, 890, *lv denied*72 NY2d 918.) Concur—Carro, J. P., Milonas, Smith and Rubin, JJ.
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).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JOSE ALBERTO VARGAS PEREZ and

MARTHA YOLANDA VARGAS,

 Petitioners,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 09-70167

Agency Nos. A095-444-293

 A073-956-274

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted December 14, 2010** 

Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.

Jose Alberto Vargas Perez and Martha Yolanda Vargas, husband and wife

and natives and citizens of Mexico, petition pro se for review of the Board of

Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing their appeal from an immigration

judge’s (“IJ”) removal order. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. §1252. We

FILED

DEC 27 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 09-70167

review for substantial evidence the agency’s continuous physical presence

determination, Landin-Zavala v. Gonzales, 488 F.3d 1150, 1151 (9th Cir. 2007),

and review de novo claims of due process violations in immigration proceedings,

Ram v. INS, 243 F.3d 510, 516 (9th Cir. 2001). We deny the petition for review.

The agency properly concluded that because the female petitioner was the

subject of an expedited removal order that interrupted her continuous physical

presence she was statutorily ineligible for cancellation of removal. See 8 U.S.C.

§ 1229b(b)(1)(A); Juarez-Ramos v. Gonzales, 485 F.3d 509, 512 (9th Cir. 2007)

(an expedited removal order interrupts an alien’s continuous physical presence for

cancellation purposes).

The BIA properly refused to consider the hardship evidence petitioners

submitted for the first time on appeal. See 8 C.F.R. 1003.1(d)(3)(iv). Petitioners’

claim that the BIA’s failure to consider this evidence violated due process therefore

fails. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error to

prevail on due process claim). 

Petitioners’ claim that the IJ violated due process by denying their request

for a continuance is unavailing because they have not demonstrated that the 
3 09-70167

outcome of the proceedings may have been affected by the denial. See IbarraFlores v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 614, 620 (9th Cir. 2006). 

To the extent petitioners contend that the BIA failed to consider some or all

of the evidence they submitted with their motion, they have not overcome the

presumption that the BIA did review the record. See Franco-Rosendo v. Gonzales,

454 F.3d 965, 966 (9th Cir. 2006). 

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
Exhibit 32.1

# 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 Storage Technology Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending
June 27, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the Report), I, Patrick J. Martin, 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 results of operations of the Company.

/s/ PATRICK J. MARTIN 
Patrick J. MartinChief Executive Officer August 8, 2003
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 February 24, 2014

Order 

Clerk

February 24, 2014

146478(105)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

SC: 146478

v COA: 307758

St. Clair CC: 06-001700-FC

RAYMOND CURTIS CARP,

Defendant-Appellant.

____________________________________/

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion of plaintiff-appellee to extend the time 

for filing its brief on appeal is GRANTED. The brief submitted on February 21, 2014, is 

accepted for filing.