alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-6602

PATRICK E. O’NEILL, JR., Petitioner - Appellant, versus EARL BESHEARS, Warden; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF MARYLAND, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District ofMaryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, District Judge. (CA97-3790-DKC) Submitted: August 11, 1998 Decided: August 26, 1998 Before HAMILTON, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Patrick E. O’Neill, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, Annabelle Louise Lisic, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate ofappealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. O’Neill v. Beshears , No. CA-97-3790-DKC (D. Md. Apr. 2, 1998). 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.

DISMISSED
| (logo) WELLS FARGO | **Commercial Mortgage  Servicing**D1050-084, 8th Floor  401 South Tryon St.  Charlotte, NC 28202  1-800-326-1334 |
|--------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

**ANNUAL STATEMENT OFCOMPLIANCE**

 

Reference is hereby made tothat certain Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of March 1, 2015, by andamong WELLS FARGO COMMERCIAL MORTGAGE SECURITIES, INC., as Depositor, WELLS FARGOBANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Master Servicer, RIALTO CAPITAL ADVISORS, LLC,as Special Servicer, TRIMONT REAL ESTATE ADVISORS, INC, as Trust Advisor, WELLSFARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Certificate Administrator, as TaxAdministrator and as Custodian and WILMINGTON TRUST, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, asTrustee, with respect to Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series2015-C27 (the "Agreement"). Capitalized terms used herein nototherwise defined shall have the meanings assigned in the Agreement.

 

Pursuant to Section 11.12 ofthis Agreement, I, Daniel Bober, Executive Vice President of CommercialMortgage Services do hereby certify that:

 

1. A review of the activitiesof the Master Servicer during the period from January 1, 2016 through December31, 2016 (the “Reporting Period”), and of its performance per theAgreement during such period has been made under my supervision, and

 

2. To the best of myknowledge, based on such review, the Master Servicer, has fulfilled all of itsobligations under this Agreement in all material respects throughout theReporting Period.

 

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, theundersigned has executed this Certificate as of the 28th day of February 2017.

 

/s/ Daniel Bober

Daniel Bober

Executive Vice President

Wells Fargo Bank

 

 

| Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. | (logo) Together we’ll  go far |
|------------------------|-------------------------------------|
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 20
- 0390 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. JASON AARON CARRYWATER,

Defendant and Appellant .

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including April 1 2 , 2021 , within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

March 5 2021

03/05/2021

Case Number: DA 20-0390
Exhibit 32.1





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES OXLEY ACT OF 2002





Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as enacted by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Stratus Media Group, Inc. (the “Company”) hereby certifies, to such officer’s knowledge:





(1)  This Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009 (“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 result of operations of the Company.





Date:  April 15, 2010/s/ Paul FellerName: Paul FellerTitle:     Chief Executive Officer





The foregoing certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, and is not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.






62
Case 4:22-cr-00122-O Document 80 Filed 05/18/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID 164
Case 4:22-cr-00122-O Document 80 Filed 05/18/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID 165
1 

CORE/3522697.0002/182503907.1 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

DALLAS DIVISION 

HIGHLAND CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, 

L.P., 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

HIGHLAND CAPITAL MANAGEMENT 

FUND ADVISORS, L.P. 

Defendant. 

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§ 

Case No. 3:22-cv-00789-X 

CERTIFICATE REGARDING JUDGE-SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS 

I, the undersigned attorney, hereby certify that I have read and will comply with all judgespecific requirements for Judge Brantley Starr, United States District Judge for the Northern 

District of Texas. 

I further certify that no portion of any filing in this case will be drafted by generative 

artificial intelligence or that any language drafted by generative artificial intelligence—including 

quotations, citations, paraphrased assertions, and legal analysis—will be checked for accuracy, 

using print reporters or traditional legal databases, by a human being before it is submitted to the 

Court. I understand that any attorney who signs any filing in this case will be held responsible for 

the contents thereof according to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, regardless of whether 

generative artificial intelligence drafted any portion of that filing. 

Case 3:22-cv-00789-X Document 7 Filed 06/14/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID 26
2 

CORE/3522697.0002/182503907.1 

Dated: June 14, 2023 Respectfully submitted, 

/s/ Deborah Deitsch-Perez 

Deborah Deitsch-Perez 

State Bar No. 24036072 

STINSON LLP 

2200 Ross Avenue, Suite 2900 

Dallas, Texas 75201 

(214) 560-2201 telephone 

(214) 560-2203 facsimile 

Email: deborah.deitschperez@stinson.com 

Email: michael.aigen@stinson.com 

Attorneys for Highland Capital Management 

Fund Advisors, L.P. 

Case 3:22-cv-00789-X Document 7 Filed 06/14/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID 27
#### R. T. BAKER, Doing Business in the Name of Hazard Poultry and Supply Company, and John Gross, Sheriff of Perry County, Kentucky, Movant, v. Charlie S. DUFF, Opposed.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

May 15, 1951.

Courtney. C., Wells, Hazard, for movant.

D. G. Boleyn, Hazard, for Opposed.

PER CURIAM.,

Appeal denied.

Judgment affirmed.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. OP 20-0410

MIGUEL GARDIPEE,

Petitioner,

v.

JAMES SALMONSEN, Acting Warden,

Respondent.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Respondent’s motion for a 30-day extension of time, 

and good cause appearing therefor,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Respondent is granted an extension of time 

to and including March 16, 2021, within which to prepare, serve, and file his

response.

DM

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

February 9 2021

02/09/2021

Case Number: OP 20-0410
# Contents

Data 1

http://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/hist/rngwhhdm.htm

infoctr@eia.doe.gov

# Data 1

Back to Contents
|                                                                                        
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                        
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                          
|View History: Annual                                                                    
|View History: Annual                                                                    
|View History:                                                                           
|                                                                                        
|Kentucky Refinery Alkylates Production Capacity as of January 1 (Barrels per Stream Day)
|                                                                                        
|                                                                                        
|Kentucky Refinery Alkylates Production Capacity as of January 1 (Barrels per Stream Day)
|                                                                                        

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|1980's                                                                                                                            |        |        | 16,000 | 16,000 | 11,000 | 11,000 | 12,000 | 12,000 | 12,000 | 12,000
|1990's                                                                                                                            | 12,000 | 12,000 | 12,000 | 12,000 | 12,000 | 12,000 | NA     | 13,000 | NA     | 12,000
|2000's                                                                                                                            | 12,000 | 13,000 | 13,000 | 14,000 | 14,000 | 19,700 | 20,000 | 20,000 | 20,500 | 20,500
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 21,000 | 21,000 | 21,000 | 21,000 | 21,000 | 21,000 | 21,000 | 21,000 | 21,000 | 21,500
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 21,500 | 21,500 | 21,500 | 22,500 | 24,000 |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 6/14/2024                                                                                                          
|Next Release Date: June 2025
#### COPELAND v. STATE.

No. 22181.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

June 17, 1942.

Rehearing Denied Oct. 14, 1942.

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

HAWKINS, Presiding Judge.

Conviction is for theft of property of the value of more than $50. Punishment was assessed at two years in the penitentiary.

No bills of exception are found in the» record. The statement of facts shows that appellant and his brother-in-law, Alton Covill, stole the truck casings, tubes and rims from Lloyd Odom, and that appellant, in company with some one unknown to Mr. Page, sold to him the property in question. The theft occurred in Martin County. Later the property was found in the possession of Mr. Page in Big Spring, Howard County. The property was recovered and identified. On the trial appellant testified that he sold the property for his brother-in-law, but denied knowledge that it was stolen. At a former term of court he had *668sworn in an application for continuance that he (appellant) had purchased the property and gave the names of two witnesses by whom he could prove said purchase. On the present trial he admitted that what he had sworn in said application was untrue.

Under the facts it is not surprising that the jury did not give credence to his story.

The judgment is affirmed.

On Motion for Rehearing

DAVIDSON, Judge.

We have again examined the record in the light of appellant’s contention that the facts are insufficient to support the conviction, and remain of the opinion as originally expressed.

The motion for rehearing is overruled.

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.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 314 Agreed to House (ATH)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. CON. RES. 314

   Providing for the printing of a collection of statements made in 
              tribute to Representative Jamie L. Whitten.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            October 7, 1994

Mr. Montgomery submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was 
           referred to the Committee on House Administration

                            October 7, 1994

 Committee on House Administration discharged; considered and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
   Providing for the printing of a collection of statements made in 
              tribute to Representative Jamie L. Whitten.

    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That a collection of statements made in tribute to Representative Jamie 
L. Whitten, prepared under the supervision of the Joint Committee on 
Printing, shall be printed as a House document, with illustrations and 
suitable binding.
    Sec. 2. In addition to the usual number, there shall be printed the 
lesser of--
            (1) 1,850 copies (including 400 casebound copies) of the 
        document, of which 550 copies (including 100 casebound copies) 
        shall be for the use of the House of Representatives, 110 
        copies (including 100 casebound copies) shall be for the use of 
        the Senate, and 1,190 copies (including 200 casebound copies) 
        shall be for the use of the Joint Committee on Printing; or
            (2) such number of copies of the document as does not 
        exceed a total production and printing cost of $19,527, with 
        such copies to be allocated in the same proportion as described 
        in paragraph (1).
                                 <all>
```
Case 3:22-cr-00174-L Document 28 Filed 09/07/23 Page 1 of 1 PageID 66
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

KEVYN D. STONE, §

#0625900, §

§

Petitioner, §

§

V. § No. 3:22-cv-882-E

§

DALLAS COUNTY JAIL, §

§

Respondent. §

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND 

RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE

JUDGE AND DENYING A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

The United States Magistrate Judge made findings, conclusions, and a 

recommendation in this case. No objections were filed. The District Court reviewed 

the proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendation for plain error. Finding 

none, the Court ACCEPTS the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the 

United States Magistrate Judge.

Insofar as a certificate of appealability (COA) is required, considering the 

record in this case and pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 22(b), Rule 

11(a) of the Rules Governing §§ 2254 and 2255 proceedings, and 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c), 

the Court DENIES a COA. The Court adopts and incorporates by reference the 

Magistrate Judge’s Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation filed in this case in 

support of its finding that Petitioner has failed to show that reasonable jurists would 

find “it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a 

Case 3:22-cv-00882-E-BN Document 14 Filed 05/17/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID 46
2

constitutional right” or “debatable whether [this Court] was correct in its procedural 

ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000).1

But if Petitioner does elect to file a notice of appeal, he must also either pay 

the appellate filing fee ($505.00) or move for leave to proceed in forma pauperis.

SO ORDERED this 17th day of May, 2022.

_________________________________________

ADA BROWN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

1 Rule 11 of the Rules Governing §§ 2254 and 2255 Cases, as amended effective on 

December 1, 2009, reads as follows: 

(a) Certificate of Appealability. The district court must issue or deny a 

certificate of appealability when it enters a final order adverse to the applicant. Before 

entering the final order, the court may direct the parties to submit arguments on whether a

certificate should issue. If the court issues a certificate, the court must state the specific issue 

or issues that satisfy the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). If the court denies a 

certificate, the parties may not appeal the denial but may seek a certificate from the court of 

appeals under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 22. A motion to reconsider a denial does 

not extend the time to appeal.

(b) Time to Appeal. Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a) governs the time 

to appeal an order entered under these rules. A timely notice of appeal must be filed even if 

the district court issues a certificate of appealability.

Case 3:22-cv-00882-E-BN Document 14 Filed 05/17/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID 47
#### BEALL v. MacDONALD et al.

No. 11632.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Galveston.

June 15, 1944.

Rehearing Denied July 6, 1944.

P. Harvey, of Houston, for appellant.

Fouts, Amerman & Moore, A. T. Carle-ton, and W. J. Howard, all of Houston, for appellees.

GRAVES, Justice.

This cause is really a companion to No. 11,631, Estate of Thomas Campbell, 181 S.W.2d 712, the causes having been so regarded and tried together both in the trial court and in this court.

Moreover, they are interdependent, since in No. 11,631, the appellant sought to establish his right as the administrator of Thomas Campbell, deceased, to bring a suit to recover land in Brazoria County as a part of Campbell’s left-over estate, while in No. 11,632, he sought, as such administrator, to prosecute a suit he had filed in that capacity in the district court of Bra-zoria County, in trespass to try title, to recover from the appellees herein such land for the benefit of Campbell’s estate.

Upon the hearing of such trespass to try title proceeding, the district court sustained appellees’ pleas in abatement of appellant’s suit, upon the ground that the order of the probate court of Brazoria County appointing appellant as such administrator was void and without effect, and thereupon dismissed the appellant’s suit herein.

This appeal now at bar is from that action of the court below.

It follows, as might the day, that if appellant’s authority to act as the administrator of Thomas Campbell’s estate did not exist, as this court has held in the foregoing companion cause in No. 11,631, he was in consequence without standing before the trial court in the trespass to try title proceeding. It is, therefore, held, as a corollary to the preceding opinion, that the trial court’s judgment sustaining the appellees’ pleas in abatement and dismissing appellant’s land-suit was correct; its judgment will, therefore, be affirmed.

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**




In
      connection with the Annual Report of European Micro Holdings, Inc. (the
“ Company ”)
      on
      Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities
      and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “ Report ”),
      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 to his knowledge:




1.  The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; 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:October 16, 2006
            By:
            */s/
              Jay P.
              Nash*Name:Jay
                      P. NashTitle:Chief Financial
                    Officer





A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
      authentications, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears
      in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required
      by Section 906, has been provided to European Micro Holdings, Inc. and will
      be
      retained by European Micro Holdings, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and
      Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### GIVENS v. STATE.

No. 25107.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Jan. 24, 1951.

Richard F. Stovall, of Floydada, for appellant.

*900George P. Blackburn, State's Atty., of Austin, for the State. .

DAVIDSON, Commissioner.

’ This is a conviction for the unlawful sale of whisky in a dry area, with punishment assessed at sixty days in jail and a fine of $300.

The complaint, as originally filed and upon which the information in this case was presented, alleged the name of the act cused to be “Jack Ross.” The information followed that allegation.

The county attorney, over the objection of appellant, was by the trial court permitted to change the name of the accused in the complaint to “Jack Ross Givens.”

The rule is well settled that the name of the defendant as stated in the complaint may not be changed by amendment, nor may it be added by amendment if omitted. 12 Tex.Jur., Criminal Law, Sec. 252, p. 576; Wilson v. State, 6 Tex.App. 154; Lazenberry v. State, 50 Tex.Cr.R. 357, 97 S.W. 87; Patillo v. State, 3 Tex.App. 442.

The rule is based upon the proposition that a complaint or affidavit which is materially amended or changed is no longer the affidavit of the affiant thereto and, therefore, is not the sworn accusation of anyone.

For the reasons stated, the judg-1 ment is reversed and the prosecution is ordered dismissed.

Opinion approved, by.the court.