alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
$

$

$

$

s

s

s

$

$

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

ABILENE DIVISION

MICHAEL DON MADRON,

Plaintifl

CIVIL ACTION NO. I :22-CV-00031-C

WARNER B. MASSEY,

Defendant.

ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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

in this case. (Doc. 39). No objections were filed. The District Court made an independent

examination ofthe record in this case and reviewed the Magistrate Judge's Report and

Recommendation for plain enor. Finding none, the Court ACCEPTS and ADOPTS the

Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiffls complaint and all claims alleged therein

are DISMISSED without prejudice for want of prosecution pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 4l(b). Altematively, Plaintiff s claims are dismissed as frivolous and for failure to

state a claim under 28 U.S.C. $ 1915(e)(2)(B).

All reliefnot expressly granted and any pending motions are denied.

Judgment shall be entered accordingly.

SO ORDERED.

Dated Septembe, 4 .zozq.

CU INGS

/

S

or Uni States District Jud

rt4/vT /'7/t'14

(

Case 1:22-cv-00031-C Document 40 Filed 09/09/24 Page 1 of 1 PageID 354
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 Brigus Gold Corp. (the “Company”) on
Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned hereby
certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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 result of operations of the Company.







/s/Wade K.
      DaweWade
      K. DawePresident
      and Chief Executive OfficerAugust
      13, 2010/s/Melvyn
      WilliamsMelvyn
      WilliamsChief
      Financial Officer and Senior VicePresident-Finance
      and Corporate DevelopmentAugust
      13, 2010





A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.




The
foregoing certification is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350.  It 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.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT CO{.JRT'

FOR THE NORTI{ERN DISl-zuCT OF'TEXAS

AMARILLO DIVISION

JOSEPH DEAN TAYI-OR.

Petitioner,

2:22-CY- 110-Z-BR

LINITI]D STA'fES OI AMERICA.

Respondent.

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION

Befbre the Court are the findings. conclusions. and recommendation o1- the United Statcs

Magistrate Judge to dismiss the 28 U.S.C. | 2255 Motion to Vacate filed by Petitioner (''FCR").

ECF No. 8. No ob.iections to the FCR hal'e been tlled. After making an independent revierv of the

pleadings. tlles. and records in this case. the Court concludes that the FCR of the Magistrate Judge

are correct. It is therefbre ORDERED that thc finclings, conclusions, and recommendation of the

Magistrate Judge are ADOPTED and the case is DISMISSED.

Additionally, thc C'ourt DENIES a certificatc of appealability ("COA").' A district court

rrray dcny a COA sua sponte and without rcquiring f urther briefing or argument. See Alexttnder v.

.lohn.son.2ll F.3d 895, 8c)8 (5th Cir.2000). Considering the record in this case and pursuant to

F'ederal Rule of Appellatc Procedure 22(b), Rule I l(a) of the Rules Governing $$ 2254 and2255

proceedings, and 28 U.S.Cl. c\ 2253(c), and ADOPTING and INCORPORATING the Magistrate

Judge's FCR. the Court flnds that Petitioner has failed to show that reasonable jurists would flnd

I Because the Motion to Vacate is governed b.v- the Antiterrorism and Etfective Death Penaltv Act. codif-ied as amended

at 28 U.S.C. S 2253, a COA is a 'Jurisdictional prerequisite" betbre an appeal may proceed. lvliller-El v. (-ockrell, 537

tJ.S. 322. 336 (2003) (citing 28 U.S.C. rs 2253(c)(l)); Hallmurk v. .lohn.son, I l8 F.3d 1073. 1076 (5th Cir. 1997)

(noting r\r\ 2254 and 2255 actions require a COA).

Case 2:22-cv-00110-Z-BR Document 9 Filed 10/30/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID 61
''it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right" or

''debatable whether [this Court] was correct in its procedural ruling." Sluc'k v. ,\,[cDuniel. 529 U.S.

173. ,+8-+ (2000).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

october Q, zoz:

MATTIIL,W J. KACSMARYK

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2

Case 2:22-cv-00110-Z-BR Document 9 Filed 10/30/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID 62
---

EXHIBIT 13.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED
PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Blake Olafson, hereby 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 Annual Report on Form 20-F of Alexandra Capital Corp.
      for the year ended November 30, 2016 (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 Alexandra Capital Corp.                                                               

Dated: October 12, 2017



| | /s/Blake Olafson                                                 
| | -----------------------------------------------------------------
| | Blake Olafson                                                    
| | President, Chief Executive Officer, Treasurer,
      and Director
| | (Principal Executive Officer)                                    
| | Alexandra Capital Corp.                                          



A signed original of this written statement required by Section
906, or other document authenticating, 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 Alexandra
Capital Corp. and will be retained by Alexandra Capital Corp. and furnished to
the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---
Exhibit 23.1 

Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm 

 

|                                      |
|-------------------------------------------|
| MCBC Holdings, Inc. and subsidiaries |
| Vonore, Tennessee                         |

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on Form S-8 No. 333-205825 of MCBC Holdings, Inc. of our report dated September 17, 2015, relating to the consolidated financial statements which appears in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

 

|               |
|--------------------|
| /s/ BDO USA, LLP   |
|               |
| Memphis, Tennessee |
| September 17, 2015 |

 

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER>  1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                          15,952
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                12,750
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    125,232
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          70,884
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            70,798
<LOANS>                                        302,512<F1>
<ALLOWANCE>                                      4,968
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 550,733
<DEPOSITS>                                     414,578
<SHORT-TERM>                                    58,178
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              7,347
<LONG-TERM>                                      9,207
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            55
<OTHER-SE>                                      61,368
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 550,733
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  6,334
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                2,590
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   256
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 9,180
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               3,694
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,427
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            4,753
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                       90
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                  45
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  3,281
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,743
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       2,743
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,881
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.35
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.34
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    7.40
<LOANS-NON>                                        233
<LOANS-PAST>                                        75
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                   117
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 5,279
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      474
<RECOVERIES>                                        73
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                4,968
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             4,968
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
<FN>
<F1>Includes mortgages available-for-sale and net of allowance
for
loan losses of $4,968.
</FN>

</TABLE>
#### DEZELLE v. STATE.

No. 22255.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Nov. 4, 1942.

Leon D. Lusk, of Houston, for appellant.

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

KRUEGER, Judge.

Appellant was convicted of an assault with an automobile and his punishment assessed at a fine of $30.

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.

PER CURIAM.

The foregoing opinion o'f the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the Court.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER>  1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                          25,613
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                 3,200
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    146,153
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          16,280
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            16,377
<LOANS>                                        301,887<F1>
<ALLOWANCE>                                      5,723
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 516,544
<DEPOSITS>                                     401,049
<SHORT-TERM>                                    44,137
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              6,211
<LONG-TERM>                                      9,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            52
<OTHER-SE>                                      56,095
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 516,544
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 19,582
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                7,694
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   485
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                27,761
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              12,238
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              14,359
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           13,402
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      325
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   8
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 10,560
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  5,852
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       5,852
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,914
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.75
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.75
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    7.88
<LOANS-NON>                                      2,350
<LOANS-PAST>                                     1,756
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                   143
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 5,587
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      387
<RECOVERIES>                                       199
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                5,723
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             5,723
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
<FN>
<F1>Includes mortgages available-for-sale and net of allowance
for loan losses
of $5,723.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
| (logo)  WELLS FARGO | **Commercial  Mortgage Servicing**D1050-084,  8th Floor  401 South Tryon Street  Charlotte, NC 28202  1-800-326-1334 |
|---------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

**ANNUAL STATEMENT OFCOMPLIANCE**

 

Referenceis hereby made to that certain Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of March1, 2015, by and among WELLS FARGO COMMERCIAL MORTGAGE SECURITIES, INC., asDepositor, WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Master Servicer, RIALTOCAPITAL ADVISORS, LLC, as Special Servicer, TRIMONT REAL ESTATE ADVISORS, INC,as Trust Advisor, WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as CertificateAdministrator, as Tax Administrator and as Custodian and WILMINGTON TRUST,NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Trustee, with respect to Commercial MortgagePass-Through Certificates Series 2015-LC20 (the “Agreement”). Capitalized termsused herein not otherwise defined shall have the meanings assigned in theAgreement.

 

Pursuantto Section 11.12 of this Agreement, I, Daniel Bober, Executive Vice Presidentof Commercial Mortgage Services do hereby certify that:

 

1.       Areview of the activities of the Master Servicer during the period from January1, 2017 through December 31, 2017 (the “Reporting Period) , and of itsperformance per the Agreement during such period has been made under mysupervision, and

 

2.       Tothe best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Master Servicer, hasfulfilled all of its obligations under this Agreement in all material respectsthroughout the Reporting Period.

 

INWITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this Certificate as of the 28thday of February 2018.

 

 

/s/Daniel Bober

DanielBober

ExecutiveVice President 

WellsFargo Bank

 

 

| Wells Fargo Bank,  N.A. | (logo)  Together we’ll go far |
|-------------------------|-------------------------------------|
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 221 (Wednesday, November 15, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 69050]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-29155]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-37,914 and NAFTA-4042]


Joseph Timber Company, Joseph, OR; Dismissal of Application for 
Reconsideration

    Pursuant to 29 CFR 90.18(C) an application for administrative 
reconsideration was filed with the Director of the Division of Trade 
Adjustment Assistance for workers at Joseph Timber Company, Joseph, 
Oregon. The application contained no new substantial information which 
would bear importantly on the Department's determination. Therefore, 
dismissal of the application was issued.

TA-W-37,914 & NAFTA-4042; Joseph Timber Company, Joseph, Oregon 
(November 2, 2000)


    Signed at Washington, D.C. this 7th day of November, 2000.
Edward A. Tomchick,
Director, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 00-29155 Filed 11-14-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-M
#### MASON et al. v. ANDERSON et al.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

Oct. 19, 1951.

Napier & Napier, C. W. Napier, C. W. Napier, Jr., Hazard,, for appellant.

C. A. Noble, Hazard, Vera P. Street, Dallas, Tex., for appellee.

STANLEY, Commissioner.

This is a suit by the appellants, owners of the Hurst Hotel property in Hazard, ■against James A. Anderson, and his agent, ■L. F. Smith,! to cancel a lease to Anderson executed on-May 16, 1944,-for a period o.f • ten years. The action is based upon numerous alleged breaches of contract concerning the maintenance of the property and the operation of the-hotel. See Commonwealth v. Anderson, Ky., 237 S.W.2d 860. The circuit court adjudged that the lease should not be cancelled;

The appeal was seasonably filed on December 8, 1950, but the appellants obtained -time and filed their brief on April 18,"1951. The case was submitted June 8-without any brief for the appellees. On June 20 the attorneys for the appellees filed a statement that the appellee, Anderson, had died April 18, and that they were not authorized to represent the executors of his estate. The statement was accompanied by official certificates of death and the qualification of the executors on April 23, 1951. The appellants have not taken any step towards a revivor but moved that the case be advanced.

 The Code provisions for revivor of actions in the trial courts, Sec. 500 et seq., regulate cases in the Court of Appeals, . Sec. 767,. Civil Code of Practice. Those ■provisions -are not clear- in their application to a situation such as the present one. Anderson’s co-appellee, Smith, was but his agent and is not a real party in interest. Where the right oi action survives the death of a party to an appeal, a revivor here is not necessary after submission since the judgment relates back to the date of submission. Wallace v. Wallace’s Executors, 150 Ky. 33, 150 S.W. 13. But if an appellee dies before submission, the appeal is abated, and a revivor .is necessary. Ayres v. Fuqua, 46 S.W. 209, 20 Ky.Law Rep. 1; Buchanan v. Boyd’s Ex’r, 131 Ky. 433, 115 S.W. 222, 120 S.W. 295. It may be otherwise if there are other appellees surviving who have a real interest and the case may be decided without prejudicing the rights of successors of the deceased party. It' would be error to decide the case where the court has been given notice of the death of. the appellee having the real, if not the only, interest and his personal representatives have not had opportunity to *1012present their side of the case. The appellants have - had notice of Anderson’s death and six months have just about, expired since the qualification of his personal representatives. The case may now be revived against them. Sec. 507, Civil Code of Practice. The case is one that should be disposed of without any more delay than is ¡necessary.

A rule will issue against the appellants to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed for want of revivor. The Clerk of this court is directed to issue the rule,: returnable on or before November 2, 1951. Williams v. Reese, 176 Ky. 21, 195 S.W. 116.
#### WORM v. HUFFMAN.

No. 12365.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. San Antonio.

Dec. 19, 1951.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 16, 1952.

Werner A. Gohmert, J. Earl Barnhouse, Alice, for appellant.

*900Perkins, Floyd & Davis, and Kenneth Oden, Alice, for appellee.

NORVELL, Justice.

This is a suit upon a promissory note dated February 24, 1947, for the sum of $2,919.85, executed by appellee, Homer Huffman, payable to the order of O. J. Worm, the appellant, and due six months after date.

The defense was a failure of consideration. The note had been given in connection with a contract whereby appellant agreed to sell 3,221 cases of beer to appel-lee.

The_ jury found, among other things, that the beer was unfit for human consumption and that the bottles were short-filled, i. e., contained less than twelve fluid ounces.

Judgment was rendered that appellant take nothing.

Appellant presents three points, as follows :

1. The trial court erred in overruling appellant’s objection to the Special Issues.

2. The trial court erred in denying appellant’s motion to disregard the jury’s findings on the Special Issues and for judgment.

3. That trial court (erred) in denying appellant’s motion for new trial.

Appellant states that all three points of error are fundamentally related and they are treated under a joint statement and argument.

We have some doubt about the sufficiency of tlie points above set out to raise the question of the sufficiency of the evidence to support the specific jury finding. However, in the course of the argument under the points, it is urged that there is no evidence to support the findings. This seems to be the main contention presented by the brief. We have examined the statement of facts and are of the opinion that the jury’s findings are supported by the evidence. We need not discuss all issues. The answer in response to Special Issue Number One, relating to the fitness of the beer for human consumption, would be sufficient to defeat recovery. Reports of chemical analyses of the beer were introduced m evidence without objection. These reports were made bj> chemists employed by the State Liquor Control Board in the course of official duty. This evidence supports the jury’s findings. Articles 3720, 3731-a, Vernon’s Ann.Civ.Stats.; McCormick & Ray, Texas Law of Evidence, p. 720, § 565.

None of appellant’s points discloses a reversible error. The judgment is affirmed.
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS 

Appeals of -- ) 

) 

Eastern Construction & Electric, Inc. ) 

) 

Under Contract No. W912DS-13-C-0056 ) 

APPEARANCES FOR THE APPELLANT: 

APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: 

ASBCA Nos. 60882, 60883 

Steven A. Berkowitz, Esq. 

Ira E. Dorfman, Esq. 

Berkowitz & Associates, P.C. 

Marlton, NJ 

Michael P. Goodman, Esq. 

Engineer Chief Trial Attorney 

Lorraine C. Lee, Esq. 

Rita M. Fang, Esq. 

Engineer Trial Attorneys 

U.S. Army Engineer District, New York 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

The dispute has been settled. The appeals are dismissed with prejudice. 

Dated: October 16, 2018 

DAVID D'ALESSANDRIS 

Administrative Judge 

Armed Services Board 

of Contract Appeals 

I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the Order of Dismissal of the Armed 

Services Board of Contract Appeals in ASBCA Nos. 60882, 60883, Appeals of Eastern 

Construction & Electric, Inc., rendered in conformance with the Board's Charter. 

Dated: 

JEFFREYD. GARDIN 

Recorder, Armed Services 

Board of Contract Appeals