alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### GONZALES et al. v. STATE.

No. 23087.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

March 21, 1945.

John J. Herrera, of Houston, for appellant.

A. C. Winborn, Cr. Dist. Atty., and E. T. Branch, Asst. Cr. Dist. Atty., both of Houston, and Ernest S. Goens, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

DAVIDSON, Judge.

Appellants were convicted on a charge of aggravated assault .and their punishment assessed at sixty days’ confinement in jail.

The record is before us without a statement of facts or bills of exception. The procedure appears to be regular and nothing is presented for the consideration of this Court.

The judgment of the trial court is accordingly affirmed.

PER CURIAM.

The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the Court.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1

                           MORGAN STANLEY DEAN WITTER
                               CREDIT CORPORATION

                              Michael J. Gillespie
                               Accounting Director

                              Officer's Certificate

Pursuant to the Servicing Agreement between Morgan Stanley Dean Witter Credit
Corporation, formerly known as NOVUS Financial Corporation, as seller and
servicer (referred to herein in such capacity as the "Servicer"), and Sequoia
Mortgage Trust 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12; 2003- 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8; 2004-1, 2, 3,
4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9,10,11, 12, the undersigned, hereby states that:

      (1) A review of the activities of the Servicer and of its performance
under the Servicing Agreement during the calendar year ended December 31, 2004
has been made under my supervision; and

      (2) To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has
fulfilled ail its obligations under the Agreement throughout such period.

                              MORGAN STANLEY DEAN WTTTER
                              CREDIT CORPORATION

                              By /s/  Douglas J. Bush
                                 -----------------------------------------------
                                      Douglas J. Bush

                              Title  Director

                              Dated as of December 31, 2004

                              By /s/ David Bianucci
                                 -----------------------------------------------
                                     David Bianucci

                              Title Vice President

                              Dated as of December 31, 2004

    2500 Lake Cook Road. 1 East, Riverwood, Illinois 60015 Tel (224)405-1903

CertSequoiaMortTrust6-12;2003:2004
**Exhibit 21.1**

 

LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES

 
| **Entity (****1)**                               | ** ** | **Jurisdiction of  Incorporation** |
|--------------------------------------------------|------------|------------------------------------|
| BHR Partners, LLC                                |       | Delaware                           |
| BHR, Inc. (2)                               |       | Delaware                           |
| BHR BT, Inc.                                |       | Delaware                           |
| BHR Business Trust                               |       | Maryland                           |
| Behringer Harvard  Operating Partnership I LP(3) |       | Texas                              |

 

----

(1) Does not includesubsidiaries of Behringer Harvard Operating Partnership I LP, which holds ourinvestment assets.

 

(2) BHR BT, Inc.owns 100% of the interests of BHR Business Trust.

 

(3) As of December 31, 2009, BHR, Inc. was the solegeneral partner and owner of 17 general partnership units in Behringer HarvardOperating Partnership I LP, our operating partnership.  As of December 31, 2009, BHR BusinessTrust was a limited partner and owner of approximately 257.4 millionpartnership units in Behringer Harvard Operating Partnership I LP.  As of December 31, 2009, BHR Partners,LLC was a limited partner and owner of approximately 35.1 millionpartnership units in Behringer Harvard Operating Partnership I LP.  Noncontrolling interest not owned by usconsists of 432,586 partnership units in Behringer Harvard OperatingPartnership I LP.

 

----
#### Julias PALOMO, Appellant, v. STATE, Appellee.

No. 25847.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

May 7, 1952.

Rehearing Denied June 18, 1962.

A. A. Garza, Joe Burkett, San Antonio,, for appellant.

Austin F. Anderson, Crim. Dist. Atty., James C. Onion, Asst. Crim. Dist. Atty., San Antonio, George P. Blackburn, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

MORRISON, Judge.

This is a companion case to Palomo v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 249 S.W.2d 210, wherein the same question was raised. Reference is made to the opinion in such cause for a discussion of appellant’s contention.

Finding no reversible error, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
#### In the Matter of Seymour Fenichel, an Attorney, Respondent. Departmental Disciplinary Committee for the First Judicial Department, Petitioner.

First Department,

May 21, 1991

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Richard M. Maltz*of counsel *(Hal R. Lieberman,*attorney), for petitioner.

No appearance on behalf of respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

Respondent Seymour Fenichel was admitted to the practice of law in the State of New York by the Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department, on March 30, 1960. At all times relevant to this proceeding, respondent maintained an office for the practice of law within the First Judicial Department.

*59On June 19, 1989, respondent was charged in an indictment filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County, with six counts of scheming to defraud in the first degree, in violation of Penal Law § 190.65; 19 counts of grand larceny in the second degree, in violation of Penal Law § 155.40; nine counts of grand larceny in the third degree, in violation of Penal Law § 155.35; one count of grand larceny in the fourth degree, in violation of Penal Law § 155.30; 47 counts of offering a false instrument for filing in the first degree, in violation of Penal Law § 175.35; eight counts of perjury in the second degree, in violation of Penal Law § 210.10; 14 counts of making an apparently sworn false statement in the first degree, in violation of Penal Law § 210.40; and one count of conspiracy in the fifth degree, in violation of Penal Law § 105.05. Respondent pleaded guilty on or about February 14, 1990 to one count of grand larceny in the second degree and one count of offering a false instrument for filing in the first degree, and, on or about May 4, 1990, he was sentenced to five years’ probation and 2,000 hours of community service.

By notice of petition dated October 30, 1990, the Departmental Disciplinary Committee moved for an order pursuant to Judiciary Law § 90 (4) (b) striking respondent’s name from the roll of attorneys as a result of his felony convictions. According to section 90 (4) (a) of the Judiciary Law, any lawyer convicted of a felony as defined in paragraph (e) of that subdivision automatically ceases to be an attorney and counselor-at-law upon such conviction. Since respondent herein was convicted of a class C (grand larceny in the second degree) and a class E (offering a false instrument for filing) felony, he ceased to be an attorney competent to practice law in New York State by operation of law (see *also,*Judiciary Law § 90 [4] [e]). Accordingly, the application by the Departmental Disciplinary Committee should be granted and respondent’s name stricken from the roll of attorneys.

Petition granted and respondent’s name is stricken from the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law, effective immediately.

Carro, J. P., Milonas, Ellerin, Kupferman and Rubin, JJ., concur.

Respondent’s name is ordered struck from the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law in the State of New York, effective immediately.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 195 (Friday, October 6, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 59867]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-25764]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

[ES-960-1910-BJ-4489] ES-50827, Group 23, Illinois


Notice of Filing of Plat of Survey; Illinois

    The plat of the survey of the subdivision of section 3 with an 
amended portion of the Rend Lake acquisition boundary, in Township 6 
South, Range 2 East of the 3rd Principal Meridian, Illinois, will be 
officially filed in Eastern States, Springfield, VA at 7:30 a.m., on 
November 9, 2000.
    The survey was requested by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
    All inquiries or protests concerning the technical aspects of the 
survey must be sent to the Chief Cadastral Surveyor, Eastern States, 
Bureau of Land Management, 7450 Boston Boulevard, Springfield, VA 
22153, prior to 7:30 a.m., November 9, 2000.
    Copies of the plat will be made available upon request and 
prepayment of the appropriate fee.

    Dated: September 25, 2000.
Stephen G. Kopach,
Chief Cadastral Surveyor.
[FR Doc. 00-25764 Filed 10-5-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-GJ-P
#### Ella RAY, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 27181.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Nov. 17, 1954.

*516No attorney on appeal, for appellant.

Wesley Dice, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

PER CURIAM.

The conviction is for the unlawful sale of whisky in a dry area; the punishment, a fine of $200.

All proceedings appear to be regular and nothing is presented for review in the absence of a statement of facts and bill of exception.

The judgment is affirmed. .
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-6315

DEWEY KEITH VENABLE,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; GENE JOHNSON,

V.D.O.C. Regional Director; PAGE TRUE, Warden;

B. TRENT, Assistant Warden; B. CABELL,

Assistant Warden; VILLARS, Counselor; MIXCELL,

Counsel; LIPES, C/O; L. RIDDICK, C/O;

CRENSHAW, C/O; RIDDICK, Sgt. (Currently a

Lieutenant),

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, Chief

District Judge. (3:05-cv-00821-JRS)

Submitted: August 13, 2007 Decided: August 28, 2007

Before GREGORY and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Dewey Keith Venable, Appellant Pro Se. Banci Enga Tewolde, OFFICE

OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for

Appellees. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Dewey Keith Venable appeals the district court’s order

denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have

reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we

affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Venable v.

Dep’t of Corr., No. 3:05-cv-00821-JRS (E.D. Va. Feb. 7, 2007). We

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions

are adequately presented in the materials before the court and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

WACO DIVISION 

WSOU INVESTMENTS LLC D/B/A 

BRAZOS LICENSING AND 

DEVELOPMENT,

 Plaintiff,

v. 

ZTE CORPORATION, ZTE (USA) INC. 

AND ZTE (TX), INC.,

 Defendants.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

C.A. NO. 6:20-cv-00490-ADA

DEFENDANTS’ UNOPPOSED MOTION TO WITHDRAW ATTORNEYS OF 

RECORD 

Defendants ZTE Corporation, ZTE (USA) Inc. and ZTE (TX), Inc. (collectively “ZTE”)

file this motion to withdraw as counsel of record David Royce Keesling, Erick Scott Robinson, 

and Timothy Scott Kittle, each of Dunlap Bennett & Ludwig PLLC. The reason for this request 

is a change in law firms representing ZTE, and accordingly, Mr. Keesling, Mr. Robinson, and 

Mr. Kittle no longer represent ZTE in this action. ZTE will remain represented by at least the 

following counsel: 

Lionel M. Lavenue

lionel.lavenue@finnegan.com 

FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER, LLP

1875 Explorer Street, Suite 800

Reston, VA 20190

Phone: (571) 203-2700

Pursuant to Local Rule CV-7, counsel contacted counsel for Plaintiff WSOU Investments 

LLC, who stated that they do not oppose this motion. Accordingly, Defendants respectfully 

request that the Court withdraw David Royce Keesling, Erick Scott Robinson, and Timothy Scott 

Kittle as attorneys of record in this case.

Case 6:20-cv-00490-ADA-DTG Document 31 Filed 11/06/20 Page 1 of 3
DATED: November 6, 2020 Respectfully submitted,

/s/Lionel M. Lavenue 

Lionel M. Lavenue

Virginia Bar No. 49,005

lionel.lavenue@finnegan.com 

FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW,

GARRETT & DUNNER, LLP

1875 Explorer Street, Suite 800

Reston, VA 20190

Phone: (571) 203-2700

Fax: (202) 408-4400

Attorney for Defendants, 

ZTE Corporation

ZTE (USA), Inc.

ZTE (TX), Inc.

Case 6:20-cv-00490-ADA-DTG Document 31 Filed 11/06/20 Page 2 of 3
CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE

Defendant states that (1) counsel has complied with the meet and confer requirements of

Local Rule CV-7, and (2) that counsel for the Defendant has stated that they do not oppose this

motion.

/s/Lionel M. Lavenue 

Lionel M. Lavenue

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned hereby certifies that all counsel of record who are deemed to have 

consented to electronic service are being served with a copy of this document via the Court’s 

CM/ECF system on November 6, 2020. 

/s/Lionel M. Lavenue 

Lionel M. Lavenue

Case 6:20-cv-00490-ADA-DTG Document 31 Filed 11/06/20 Page 3 of 3
following the taxable year of the Covered Termination; and (iii) any Severance Paymentsthat are not paid pursuant to either the preceding clause (i) or the preceding clause (ii)shall be subject to delay, if necessary, as provided in the previous sentence. Any premiumpaid pursuant to a group benefit plan covered by Section 4980B of the Code (COBRA) are notintended to be delayed pursuant to Section 409A(a)(2)(B)(i) of the Code and are intended tobe paid pursuant to the exception provided by Treasury Regulation Section1.409A-1(b)(9)(v)(B).     **In Witness Whereof**, the Company and Executive have executed this Amendment on thedates set forth below, to be effective immediately as of the Effective Date.     **Cavium Networks, Inc.**       By: /s/ Art Chadwick        Its: CFO       Date: 12-24-08       **Executive**       /s/ Anil Jain            Date: 12-24-08
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.5

[PHH LOGO]

February 25. 2005

Sequoia Residential Funding, Inc.
One Belvedere Place, Suite 330
Mill Valley, CA 94941

HSBC Bank USA
452 Fifth Avenue
New York, NY 10018

RE: ANNUAL STATEMENT AS TO COMPLIANCE

Investor number(s)/Deal name(s): 168/ SEQUOIA 2003-6

Dear Investor, Master Servicer or Trustee,

The undersigned officer certifies the following for PHH Mortgage Corp. f/k/a
Cendant Mortgage Corp., for the 2004 calender year. To the best of our
knowledge:

      a)    The activities and performances of the Servicer during the preceding
            Fiscal year under the terms of the above Servicing Agreement, Trust
            Agreement, Pooling and Servicing Agreement and/or Servicer Guide and
            to the best of my knowledge the Servicer has fulfilled all of its
            duties, responsibilities or obligations under this Agreement
            throughout such year, or if there has been default or failure of the
            Servicer to perform any such duties, responsibilities or
            obligations, a description of each default or failure and the nature
            and status thereof has been reported to HSBC Bank USA;

      b)    The Servicer is currently an approved FNMA or FHLMC Servicer in good
            standing;

      c)    The Fidelity Bond, the Errors and Omissions Insurance Policy and any
            other bonds required under the terms of the Servicing Agreement,
            Trust Agreement, Pooling and Servicing Agreement and/or Servicer
            Guide are in full force and effect;

      d)    All premiums for each Hazard Insurance Policy, Flood Insurance
            Policy (if applicable) and Primary Mortgage Insurance Policy (if
            applicable), with respect to each Mortgaged Property, have been paid
            and that such insurance policies are in full force and effect;

      e)    All real estate taxes, governmental assessments and any other
            expenses accrued and due, that if not paid could result in a lien or
            encumbrance on any Mortgage Property, have been paid, or if any such
            costs or expenses have been paid with respect to any Mortgaged
            Property, the reason for the non-payment has been reported to HSBC
            Bank USA;

      f)    All Custodial Accounts have been reconciled and are properly funded;
            and

      g)    All annual reports of Foreclosure and Abandonment of Mortgaged
            Properly required per section 6050H, 6050J and 6050P of the Internal
            Revenue Code, respectively, have been prepared and filed.

Certified by

/s/ William E. Fricke, Jr,
-----------------------------
William E. Fricke, Jr,
Assistant Vice President

FEB 25, 2005
Date: February 25, 2005
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE

F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER ON M OTION S

November 7, 2008 Revision Cause number: 01

- 1 8

- 0 1011

- C V

Style: Eduardo Nonoalsi Bravo v. Parkhollow Place Property Owners

Date motion s filed * : June 6 , 201 9

Type of motion s : Letter

- Motion for Extension of Time to File Motion for Extension

of Time to File Notice of Appeal with Extension of Time to File NOA

Party filing motion s : Pro se appellant Eduardo Nonoalsi Bravo

Document to be filed: Appellant’s Brief

If motion to extend time:

Original due date s : 9 / 13 /18 ( NOA deadline) ; 5 / 2 4/19 ( extension )

Number of extensions granted: 0 Current Due D ate s : 6 / 10 /19 (15

- day grace period

for extension)

Date s Requested: 9/25 /1 8 (NOA filing date); 6/6/19 ( extension )

Ordered that motions are :

 Granted

If document is to be filed, document due: July 11 , 201 9.

 Denied

 Dismissed ( e.g. , want of jurisdiction, moot)

 Other: _ Appellant’s letter

- motion for an extension, construed as the implied motion

for extension of time to file his notice of appeal, is granted because his notice of

appeal was filed on September 25, 2018, within the 15

- day grace period ending on

September 28, 2018, and hi s motion provides a reasonable explanation for the 12

- day

delay

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 10.5 (b)

, 26.1 (b)

, 26.3; Verburgt v. Dorner , 959 S.W.2d 615,

617 (Tex. 1997); Hone v. Hanafin , 104 S.W.3d 884, 886

- 87 (Tex. 2003 ). To the extent

that appellant ’s letter

- motion itself also includ es an extension to file this motion, that

extension is also granted because it was filed on June 6, 2019, within 15 days of the

May 24, 2019 deadline set by this Court’s May 14, 2019 Order. Accordingly, th e Court

order s appellant to file appellant’s brief on the merits , that complies with Rule 38.1, by

July 11, 2019

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 2, 38.1, 38.6 (d).

Judge’ s signature:

_

/s/ Laur a C. Higley

____________________________________________

x Acting individually Acting for the Court

Date: ___ June 11, 2019

___
#### NILS PERSON v. GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY.1

July 7, 1911.

Nos. 17,084—(174).

Verdict for defendant sustained.

■ An examination of the record disclosing no evidence tending to show negligence on the part of the defendant company, a verdict for the defendant was properly directed.

*165Action in the district court for Grant county to recover $1,000 for personal, injuries. The answer alleged negligence on the part of plaintiff. The reply denied the contributory negligence of plaintiff. The case was tried before Flaherty, j., who directed a verdict in favor of defendant. From an order denying plaintiff’s' motion for a new trial, he appealed.

Affirmed.

*N. J. Bothne,*for appellant.

*J. D. Sullivan,*for respondent.

1

 Reported in 131 N. W. 1084.

Simpson,. J.

Action to recover for personal injuries received by’ the plaintiff while in the employ of the defendant company and engaged in distributing ties along the defendant’s track by throwing them from a moving train. The negligence of the defendant alleged as causing the injury was that while the plaintiff and another were on a moving train, holding a heavy tie and carrying the same to the side door of the car for the purpose of unloading it, the defendant, negligently and without warning, suddenly started up the train and caused the ear to jerk and jolt so violently that the plaintiff lost his balance and the tie fell on plaintiff’s foot, inflicting severe injury. Upon the trial, when the plaintiff rested his case, the court directed a verdict in favor of the defendant.' From an order denying a new trial, plaintiff appeals.

From an examination of the record it appears that the plaintiff, to sustain'the charge of negligence, testified that, while carrying a' tie as alleged, the train made a quick jerk, and because thereof he dropped the tie on his foot. That the train increased its speed at the time of this jerk. There is nothing in the evidence that warrants the 'conclusion that the jerk testified to was unusual, or was-caused by negligence of the persons controlling the movement of the1 train. It appeared from the evidence that at places ties were thrown' off frequently from the train, and at other places for some distance none were distributed. No evidence was introducéd tending to show that the increase of speed of the train testified to by plaintiff was not fully accounted for by the natural change in speed incident to the distributing of the ties at different intervals. Some jerkings- *166and. changes in speed are usual, and probably necessary, incidents in the movement- of freight trains. Jerking or jolting of a freight train, and an increase of speed not shown to be unusual or dangerous, would not establish a negligent operation of such train. In the absence of some evidence tending to show such negligence, a verdict for the defendant was necessarily directed.

The order appealed from is affirmed.
Exhibit 32.2

             CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE, ACCOUNTING AND
             FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350


In connection with the Annual Report of St. Joseph, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-KSB for the period ended December 31, 2003, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I Kenneth L. Johnson,
Secretary/Treasurer of the Company, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.
1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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/Kenneth L. Johnson
-------------------
Kenneth L. Johnson
Secretary/Treasurer/Director

April 14, 2004