alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED AUGUST 1, 2005

NO. 03-05-00149-CV

Jack in the Box Eastern Division, L.P., Appellant

v.

SPC Jack, Ltd. and SPC Jack GP, LLC, Appellees

APPEAL FROM 201ST DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES B. A. SMITH, PURYEAR AND PEMBERTON

DISMISSED ON APPELLANT’S MOTION -- OPINION BY JUSTICE PEMBERTON

THIS DAY came on to be submitted to this Court appellant’s motion to dismiss the appeal in the

above cause, and the Court having fully considered said motion, and being of the opinion that

same should be granted: IT IS THEREFORE considered, adjudged and ordered that said

motion is granted, and that the appeal is dismissed. It is FURTHER ordered that the appellant

pay all costs relating to this appeal, both in this Court and the court below; and that this decision

be certified below for observance.
Case 5:20-cv-00746-JKP Document 56-1 Filed 08/06/21 Page 1 of 1
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 208 (Thursday, October 26, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 64202]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-27458]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS


Agenda and Notice of Public Meeting of the Arkansas Advisory 
Committee

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and 
regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, that a meeting of 
the Arkansas Advisory Committee to the Commission will convene at 6:00 
p.m. and adjourn at 8:00 p.m. on November 15, 2000, at the Doubletree 
Hotel, 424 West Markham, Little Rock, Arkansas 72201. The purpose of 
the meeting is to plan future projects.
    Persons desiring additional information, or planning a presentation 
to the Committee, should contact Melvin L. Jenkins, Director of the 
Central Regional Office, 913-551-1400 (TDD 913-551-1414). Hearing-
impaired persons who will attend the meeting and require the services 
of a sign language interpreter should contact the Regional Office at 
least ten (10) working days before the scheduled date of the meeting.
    The meeting will be conducted pursuant to the provisions of the 
rules and regulations of the Commission.

    Dated at Washington, DC, October 20, 2000.
Lisa M. Kelly,
Special Assistant to the Staff Director, Regional Programs Coordination 
Unit.
[FR Doc. 00-27458 Filed 10-25-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6335-01-P
#### SMITH v. STATE.

No. 22513.

■Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

May 19, 1943.

Al H. Mayfield, of Anderson, for appellant.

Spurgeon E. Bell, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

BEAUCHAMP, Judge. '

The appeal is from a three-year penitentiary sentence on a charge of cattle theft.

The record is before us without bills of exception and without statement of facts. The procedure appears to be .regular. There is' no question presented for our consideration.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
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



The undersigned, Maureen D. Howley, Chief Financial Officer & Senior Vice President of the Managing Owner, Preferred Investment Solutions Corp. (the Managing
Owner), of World Monitor Trust  Series B (the Fund), hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (1) | The Funds Annual Report on Form 10-K/A for the period ended December 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Annual
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 Annual Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Fund.
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                               
|-----------------------------------------------
|/s/ Maureen D. Howley                          
|Maureen D. Howley                              
|Chief Financial Officer & Senior Vice President
|September 16, 2005
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

GARY SMITH,

 Petitioner - Appellant,

 v.

A. P. KANE, Warden; JAMES DAVIS,

Chairman, Board of Parole Hearings,

 Respondents - Appellees.

No. 08-15587

D.C. No. 06-CV-01830-CW

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of California

Claudia A. Wilken, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted March 8, 2011** 

Before: FARRIS, LEAVY, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

California state prisoner Gary Smith appeals pro se from the district court’s

judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We dismiss. 

Smith contends that the Board of Prison Terms’ 2003 decision to deny him

FILED

MAR 16 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 08-15587

parole for five years was not supported by “some evidence” and therefore violated

his due process rights. 

After briefing was completed in this case, this court held that a certificate of

appealability is required to challenge the denial of parole. See Hayward v.

Marshall, 603 F.3d 546, 554-55 (9th Cir. 2010) (en banc). Now the Supreme

Court has held that the only federal right at issue in the parole context is

procedural, and the only proper inquiry is what process the inmate received, not

whether the state court decided the case correctly. See Swarthout v. Cooke, 131 S.

Ct. 859 (2011) (per curiam). Because Smith raises no procedural challenges

regarding his parole hearing, a certificate of appealability cannot issue. Further,

because Smith has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional

right, we decline to certify the remaining claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c).

DISMISSED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

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

 ** The Honorable Linda R. Reade, United States District Court Judge for

the Northern District of Iowa, sitting by designation.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

RANJIT SINGH,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

Nos. 06-72513 & 06-74574

Agency No. A073-399-833

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the 

Board of Immigration Appeals 

Argued and Submitted June 17, 2010 

San Francisco, California

Before: TASHIMA and BEA, Circuit Judges, and READE, Chief District Judge.**

Ranjit Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board 

of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) orders denying his motion to reopen and motion

to reconsider. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review the BIA’s

FILED

JUN 24 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2

denial of both motions for abuse of discretion. Lara-Torres v. Ashcroft, 383 F.3d

968, 972 (9th Cir. 2004). 

Given that the standard of review is abuse of discretion, the issue in this case

is whether the BIA had substantial evidence to conclude that Singh did not exercise

due diligence in seeking his motion to reopen. This court finds there was

substantial evidence in support of the BIA’s conclusion. 

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Singh’s motion to reopen

because it was filed more than six years after the BIA’s October 20, 1999 dismissal

of his underlying appeal, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2) (stating that motion to reopen

generally must be filed within 90 days of the final administrative order), and Singh

failed to establish grounds for equitable tolling due to his lack of diligence. See

Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 897 (9th Cir. 2003) (noting that equitable tolling

is available “when a petitioner is prevented from filing because of deception, fraud,

or error, as long as the petitioner acts with due diligence in discovering the

deception, fraud, or error”). Singh did not exercise due diligence because he offers

no plausible explanation as to why he did not inquire about the status of the filing

of a petition for review for over five years after hiring his second attorney. 

PETITIONS 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 Annual Report on Form 10-K of Merrill Lynch Preferred
Capital Trust III (the "Trust") and Merrill Lynch Preferred Funding III, L.P.
for the period ended December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Haig Nargesian,
Regular Trustee of the Trust, 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 Trust.





                              MERRILL LYNCH PREFERRED CAPITAL TRUST III


                              By:  /s/ HAIG NARGESIAN
                                   ---------------------------------------------
                              Name:    Haig Nargesian *
                              Title:   Regular Trustee









Dated: March 29, 2005
_____________________

* Haig Nargesian functions as the equivalent of the Chief Executive Officer
  and Chief  Financial  Officer of the Trust for  purposes  of Section  906
  of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3001 

To amend the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990 

to permit commercial applicators of pesticides to create, retain, submit, 

and convey pesticide application-related records, reports, data, and other 

information in electronic form. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

AUGUST 2, 2013 

Mr. ANDREWS introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Agriculture 

A BILL 

To amend the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade 

Act of 1990 to permit commercial applicators of pesticides to create, retain, submit, and convey pesticide 

application-related records, reports, data, and other information in electronic form. 

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 ‘‘21st Century Pest 

5 Management Records Act’’. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3001 IH

1 SEC. 2. ALLOWING COMMERCIAL APPLICATORS OF PES2 TICIDES TO USE ELECTRONIC RECORDS TO 

3 COMPLY WITH RECORDKEEPING AND RE4 PORTING REQUIREMENTS. 

5 Section 1491 of the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, 

6 and Trade Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C. 136i–1) is amended by 

7 adding at the end the following: 

8 ‘‘(h) ELECTRONIC RECORDKEEPING AND REPORT9 ING.—Notwithstanding any contrary provision of Federal, 

10 State, or local law, commercial applicators of pesticides, 

11 including commercial applicators of restricted use pes12 ticides, may create, retain, submit, and convey a pesticide 

13 application-related record, report, data, or other informa14 tion in electronic form in order to satisfy any requirement 

15 for such creation, retention, submission, or conveyance, re16 spectively, under any Federal, State, or local law.’’. 

Æ 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-1048

JANICE WOLK GRENADIER,

Plaintiff – Appellant,

v.

BWW LAW GROUP, LLC, f/k/a Bierman, Geesing, Ward & Wood, 

LLC; HOWARD N. BIERMAN; EQUITY TRUSTEES, LLC; MARK R. 

GALBRAITH; WELLS FARGO; BANK OF AMERICA, f/k/a LaSalle Bank 

N.A., as successor-in-interest, Jointly and Severally, in 

their Official and Personal Capacities; OCWEN LOAN 

SERVICING, LLC, Jointly and Severally, in their Official 

and Personal Capacities,

Defendants - Appellees.

No. 16-1088

JANICE WOLK GRENADIER,

Plaintiff – Appellant,

v.

BWW LAW GROUP, LLC, f/k/a Bierman, Geesing, Ward & Wood, 

LLC; HOWARD N. BIERMAN; EQUITY TRUSTEES, LLC; MARK R. 

GALBRAITH; WELLS FARGO; BANK OF AMERICA, f/k/a LaSalle Bank 

N.A., as successor-in-interest, Jointly and Severally, in 

their Official and Personal Capacities; OCWEN LOAN 

SERVICING, LLC, Jointly and Severally, in their Official 

and Personal Capacities,

Defendants – Appellees,

and
2

BANK OF AMERICA, f/k/a LaSalle Bank N.A.,

Defendant.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Rebecca Beach Smith, Chief

District Judge; Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (1:14-cv00827-LMB-TCB)

Submitted: August 31, 2016 Decided: September 13, 2016

Before WILKINSON and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, 

Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Janice Wolk Grenadier, Appellant Pro Se. Syed Mohsin Reza, Mary 

Catherine Zinsner, TROUTMAN SANDERS, LLP, Tysons Corner, 

Virginia; Nathaniel Patrick Lee, MCGUIREWOODS, LLP, Tysons 

Corner, Virginia; Robert Ryan Michael, BWW LAW GROUP, LLC, 

Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
3

PER CURIAM:

Janice Wolk Grenadier appeals the district court’s orders

denying her motions for a writ of error and for reconsideration. 

We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. 

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district 

court. Grenadier v. BWW Law Group, LLC, No. 1:14-cv-00827-LMBTCB (E.D. Va. Nov. 17, 2015; Dec. 23, 2015). We dispense with 

oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

adequately presented in the materials before this court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
#### HERRIAGE v. STATE.

No. 26351.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

April 1, 1953.

No attorney on appeal for appellant.

George P. Blackburn, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

BELCHER, Commissioner.

Appellant was convicted for the felony offense of driving an automobile upon a public highway while intoxicated, and his punishment was assessed at four months in jail and a fine of $500.

The indictment and all matters of procedure appear regular. The record is before us without a statement of facts or bills of exception, in the absence of which nothing is presented for review.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Opinion approved by the Court.
# Missouri Court of Appeals

Southern District

AUGUST 24, 2015

THE FOLLOWING CASES WERE AFFIRMED PURSUANT TO RULE 84.16(b).

1. Case No. SD33445

Re: DARRELL TINDLE,

Appellant,

vs. STATE OF MISSOURI,

Respondent.
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

December 29, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

132300 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 132300 

 COA: 272100 

Oakland CC: 2004-199127-FH 

DUANE MONTGOMERY, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the August 17, 2006 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

p1218 

I, Corbin R. Davis, 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. 

December 29, 2006 

 Clerk
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 Circle  Group  Holdings,  Inc.  (the
"Company")  on Form  10-KSB/A for the annual  period ended  December 31, 2005 as
filed with the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof  (the
"Report"),  I, Dana L. Dabney, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,  certify,
pursuant  to 18  U.S.C.  ss.  1350,  as  adopted  pursuant  to  ss.  906  of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:

(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/  DANA L. DABNEY
--------------------
Dana L. Dabney
Chief Financial Officer
October 25, 2006
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

JEFFREY MARK KENNOY,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 109 MM 2014

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 12 th day of September, 2014, the Petition for Leave to File

Petition for Allowance of Appeal Nunc Pro Tunc is DENIED

.
#### Adolph M. Orlando et al., Appellants, v Otto Ege et al., Respondents.

In a proceeding to compel the respondents to allow the petitioners to enter upon a portion of the respondents’ real property in order to erect a fence, the petitioners appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Delaney, J.), entered November 2, 1988, which, after a nonjury trial, found that the property upon which the petitioners seek to erect the fence has been acquired by the respondents by reason of adverse possession and dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly concluded that the respondents sustained their burden of proving by clear and convine*337ing evidence (see, *Van Valkenburgh v Lutz,*304 NY 95; *Rusoff v Engel,*89 AD2d 587; *Mastín v Village of Lima,*86 AD2d 777) that they acquired ownership of the disputed area by adverse possession by reason of the existence of a substantial inclosure around the area since 1967 *(see,*RPAPL 522 [2]; *see, e.g., Birnbaum v Brody,*156 AD2d 408; *Golden Hammer Auto Body Corp. v Consolidated Rail Corp.,*151 AD2d 545). Moreover, even if we were to accept the petitioners’ claim that the disputed area was not substantially inclosed until a higher fence was installed in the summer of 1975, the record unequivocally demonstrates that this second fence was in place for more than 10 years before the petitioners asserted any claim of ownership of the property *(see,*RPAPL 311). Additionally, while a determination of the issue is not essential to our conclusion, it further appears that the respondents’ activities with regard to the narrow strip of property, including the periodic replacement of gravel, maintenance, fencing and eventual paving of the area, constituted usual cultivation or improvement of the property for adverse possession purposes *(see,*RPAPL 522 [1]). Inasmuch as all of the elements of adverse possession have been established herein *(see, e.g., Spiegel v Ferraro,*73 NY2d 622; *Palazzolo v Malba Estates,*118 AD2d 841), the trial court properly dismissed this proceeding in which the petitioners sought leave to enter upon the respondents’ property to erect a fence inclosing the disputed area within the petitioner’s property.

Insofar as the petitioners contend that the text of the judgment in this case lacks adequate specificity, we note that no similar objection was raised at the trial level, and that the proper vehicle for obtaining the relief sought* is a motion addressed to the trial court to amend or resettle the judgment. Mangano, P. J., Thompson, Sullivan and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.
June 24, 2015

Mrs. Elizabeth Meyer Ipswich Community Access Media

ICAM

25 Green Street Ipswich, MA 01938

Dear Mrs. Meyer:

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption from of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CF R). It explains why we can not process your request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Can Not Process Your Request

We entered your June 5, exemption request on behalf of Ipswich Community Access Media into the public docket (No. FAA-2015-2125), but we are unable to process your request any further. The information you sent does not 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 specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek relief, the extent of the relief you seek, and the reason you seek relief.

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would benefit the public as a whole.

 The reasons why the exemption would not adversely affect safety or how the exemption would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which you seek an exemption.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.2

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) requires you to send your petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption.

If We Do Not 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,

/s/

Brenda Robeson Program Analyst, Airmen and Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure