alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

June 9, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 03-30988

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

EMERSON C. NEWMAN,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Louisiana

USDC No. 97-CR-68-2

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

Before JOLLY, WIENER, and PICKERING, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Defendant-Appellant Emerson C. Newman appeals from the

district court’s issuance of an injunction prohibiting the disposal

of assets by Newman & Associates, Inc. (N & A), for purposes of

securing the repayment of Newman’s personal restitution debt.

Newman argues that the district court’s application of the doctrine

of reverse veil-piercing of the corporate form was improper in the

absence of any Louisiana authority approving of the practice, and

because the facts of Newman’s case failed to support the district

court’s alter ego analysis. With respect to the latter argument,
2

Newman contends, in essence, that N & A’s facial compliance with

various corporate formalities militates against the district

court’s findings.

First, even if there are neither statutory nor jurisprudential

examples of Louisiana applications precisely on point, Louisiana

has long recognized and applied the doctrine of piercing the veil

of single-shareholder, family, and other closely-held corporations

to determine alter ego status, as well as the practice of

disregarding the corporate form once alter ego status is

determined. As for corporate formalities, Louisiana is like

virtually every other jurisdiction in treating the observance or

non-observance of such formalities as but one among several indicia

of alter ego, yet not as controlling in and of itself.

We have reviewed the record and the briefs submitted by the

parties and are satisfied that the district court’s issuance of the

injunction prohibiting the disposal of N & A’s corporate assets did

not constitute an abuse of discretion. See McClure v. Ashcroft,

335 F.3d 404, 408 (5th Cir. 2003); Century Hotels v. United States,

952 F.2d 107, 110 (5th Cir. 1992).

AFFIRMED.
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

                                     BY THE
               CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

         In connection with the Quarterly Report of LION, Inc. (the
"Registrant") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2003 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 14, 2003, hereof (the
"Report"), each of David Stedman, Chief Executive Officer, and Steve Thomson,
Chief Financial Officer, of LION, Inc., a Washington corporation (the
"Company"), hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuanT
to ss.906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)  The Form 10 - QSB fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
     15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and

(2)  The information contained in the Form 10 - QSB fairly presents, in all
     material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
     Company.



CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER                     CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


/s/ DAVID STEDMAN                           /s/ STEVE THOMSON
------------------------------------        ------------------------------------
David Stedman                               Steve Thomson


November 14, 2003                           November 14, 2003
------------------------------------        ------------------------------------
APPENDIXl§34.302.AmendmentOfDepositContract.TuaStatutesFinanceCodaTltle3.FlnanclallnstltuOonsAndBuelne••••SubtlltaA.BankeChapter34.lnveatrnent,,Loan•,AndDepositsSubchapterD.DaposttaIncludesalllegislationsignedbytheGovernororfiledwithouttheGowmor'ssignBluf9asafJune19,2015§34.302.AmendmentOfDapHltContract(a)AbankanditsaccountholdermayamendthedepositcontractbyagreementoraspennittadbySubsection(b)orotherlaw.·(b)Abankmayamendadepositcontractbymailingawrittennoticeoftheamendmenttothaaccountholder,separatelyorasanenclosurewithorpartoftheaccountholder'sstatementofaccountorpaubook.Thenoticemustincludethetextandeffectivedateoftheamendment.ThebankIsrequiredtodeliverthe noticetoonlyoneoftheaccountholdersofadepositaccountthathasmorethanoneaccountholder.Theeffectivedatemaynotbaearlierthanthe30thdayafterthedateofmalllngthenoticeunlesstheamendment:(1)ismadetocomplywithastatuteorrulethatauthorizesanearliereffectivedate;(2)doesnotreducetheinterestrateontheaccountorotherwiseadverselyaffecttheaccountholder,or(3)ismadeforareasonrelatlngtosecurityofanaccount.{c)ExceptforadisclosurerequiredtcbemadeunderSection34.303ortheTruthinSavingsAct(12U.S.C.Section4301etseq.)orotherfederallaw,beforerenewalofanaccountanoticeofamendmentIsnotrequiredunderSubsection(b)for:(1) achangeinthaintsrestrateonavariable-rateaccount,includingamoneymarketornegoUebleorderofwithdrawalaccount:(2)achangeInatennforatimeaccountwithamaturityofonemonthorlassifthedepositcontractauthorizesthechangeintheterm;orAPPENDIXI(3)achangecontemplatedandpennlttadbytheoriginalcontract.(d)AnamendmentunderSubsection(b)mayreducetherateofinterestorelimina18interestonanaccountwithoutamaturitydate.(a)AmendmentofadepositcontractmadeincompliancewiththissectionIsnotaviolationoftheDeceptiveTradePractices--ConsumarProtectionAct(Section17.41etseq.,Business&CommerceCode).CitenTn.Fin.CDdaIM.302Hlatory.km1997,76thLag.,ch.1008,Sac.1,llff.Sept.1,1997.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Defense

###### Office of the Secretary

# AGENCY:

Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Command, Control, Communications, and Intelligence DoD.

# ACTION:

Notice of availability. 

# SUMMARY:

The DoD Standard, “Design Criteria Standard for Electronic Records Management Software Applications” is being revised. The document sets forth mandatory requirements for software applications used by Department of Defense organizations to manage their records. The current version has been endorsed, with some recommendations, by the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) for other Federal Agency use. A draft of the revised version, which incorporates security markings and related issues, as well as the NARA recommendations, is available for review and comment.

# DATES:

Submit comments by January 19, 2001.

# ADDRESSES:

                        Download the document and comment form from URL:                         *http://jitc.fhu.disa.mil/​recmgt.*                         Requests and comments may be e-mailed to:                         *matsuurs@fhu.disa.mil.*

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Steve Matsuura, telephone (520) 538-5169.

Dated: November 14, 2000.

Patricia L. Toppings,

Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.

[FR Doc. 00-29558 Filed 11-17-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 5001-10-M
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

LIIBBOCK DIVISION

TINITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plainffi,

NO. 5:22-CR-046-02-H

MICI{AEL ANTHONY ARTIAGA,

Defendant.

ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

OF TIIE UMTED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

CONCERNING PLEA OF GI,JILTY

After reviewing all relevant matters of record, including the Notice Regarding Entry

of a Plea of Guilty, the Consent of the Defendant, and the Report and Recommendation

Conceming Plea of Guilty of the United States Magistrate Judge, and no objections thereto

having been filed within fourteen (14) days of service in accordance with 28 U.S.C.

$ 636OX1), the undersigned Disrict Judge is of the opinion that the Report and

Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge conceming the Plea of Guilty is correct, and it is

hereby accepted by the Court. Accordingly, the Court accepts the plea of guilty and

Defendant is hereby adjudged guilty.

Sentence will be imposed in accordance with the Court's scheduling order.

SO ORDERED.

Ir

Dated September L?, 2022.

JAMES Y RIX

UNITED ATES DISTRICT ruDGE

wEs

/

Case 5:22-cr-00046-H-BQ Document 68 Filed 09/16/22 Page 1 of 1 PageID 145
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-6362

THOMAS M. TULLY,

 Petitioner – Appellant,

v.

GENE JOHNSON, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections,

 Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

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

District Judge. (3:10-cv-00299-JRS)

Submitted: August 30, 2011 Decided: September 2, 2011

Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Thomas M. Tully, Appellant Pro Se. Donald Eldridge Jeffrey, III, 

Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Thomas M. Tully seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. 

The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge 

issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(1)(A) (2006). A certificate of appealability will not 

issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). When the 

district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies 

this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would 

find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional 

claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 

484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 

(2003). When, as here, the district court denies relief on 

procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the 

dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the 

petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a 

constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85. We have 

independently reviewed the record and conclude that Tully has 

not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a 

certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We deny

Tully’s motions to schedule and participate in oral argument and 

to appoint counsel. We dispense with oral argument because the 

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 
3

materials before the court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process. 

DISMISSED
#### Ex parte KNOX.

No. 22853.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

March 22, 1944.

Oxford & Oxford, of Edinburg, for relator.

Tom L. Hartley, Cr. Dist. Atty., of Pharr, and Ernest S. Goens, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

GRAVES, Judge.

Relator was under the accusation of felony theft, as evidenced by certain complaints filed in a justice court of Hidalgo County, and was held thereunder by virtue of a warrant issued out of such court on December 20, 1943; that while held in jail on such warrant by the sheriff of such county, on February 9, 1944, relator’s wife filed an affidavit in lunacy in the county court, alleging that relator was a person of unsound mind, etc., and requesting that he be tried thereunder in the county court of such county. On February 23, 1944, the grand jury of Hidalgo County indicted relator for felony theft in three cases, and returned same into the district court of that county, they being the same cases under which he was held by virtue of the justice court warrants.

Relator now makes application to this court requesting that we issue our writ of habeas corpus herein, and that we also issue writ of mandamus to the county judge of Hidalgo County, directing him to forthwith try relator in such county court under the affidavit in lunacy in order to determine his sanity thereunder.

It appears from the record that prosecution had begun in the matter of the felony thefts by a filing of complaints in the proper court prior to the attempt to have the question of relator’s sanity inquired into by the county court, and that at the time of such filing of the insanity affidavit prosecution was pending in the felony cases. See 5 Words and Phrases, Perm.Ed., p. 281. Therefore relator was at such time charged with a criminal offense, and the statute relative to the determination of his sanity is found in Art. 932a, Vernon’s Ann.C.C.P., and not in Art. 5561a, Vernon’s Texas Statutes 1939, Cumulative Supplement. See Ex parte Frailey, Tex.Cr.App., 177 S.W.2d 72 (not yet reported [in State reports]).

We think the accusations filed prior to the county court affidavit should and do cause relator to come within the class of a person charged with a criminal offense, and he is triable as such under Art. 932a, supra.

The writ will therefore be refused.
| (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 to that certain Poolingand Servicing Agreement dated as of June 1, 2015, by and among J.P. MorganChase Commercial Mortgage Securities Corp., as Depositor, Wells Fargo Bank,National Association, as Master Servicer, Midland Loan Services, a Division ofPNC Bank, National Association, as Special Servicer, Wells Fargo Bank, NationalAssociation, as Certificate Administrator, Wilmington Trust, NationalAssociation, as Trustee, and Pentalpha Surveillance LLC, as Senior TrustAdvisor with respect to Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series2015-C29 (the "Agreement"). Capitalized terms used herein nototherwise defined shall have the meanings assigned in the Agreement.

 

Pursuant to Section 11.09 of thisAgreement, I, Leslie Hayton, Managing Director of Commercial Mortgage Servicesdo hereby certify that:

 

1.       Areview of the activities of the Master Servicer during the period from January1, 2018 through December 31, 2018 (the “Reporting Period”), and of itsperformance per the Agreement during such period has been made under mysupervision, and

 

2.       To thebest of my knowledge, based on such review, the Master Servicer has fulfilledall of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughoutthe Reporting Period.

 

 

INWITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this Certificate as of the 28thday of February 2019.

 

 

/s/Leslie Hayton

LeslieHayton

ManagingDirector

WellsFargo Bank

 

 

| Wells  Fargo Bank, N.A. | (logo) Together  we’ll go far |
|-------------------------|-------------------------------------|
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                         416,095
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  851,195
<ALLOWANCES>                                  (23,639)
<INVENTORY>                                    228,036
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,545,630
<PP&E>                                       2,608,828
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,582,505
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,602,343
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,514,289
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         3,494
<OTHER-SE>                                     979,676
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,602,343
<SALES>                                      1,484,134
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,484,134
<CGS>                                          951,941
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,434,891
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              (12,085)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              16,778
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 37,157
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             37,157
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    37,157
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.01


</TABLE>
H. R. 3626 

One Hundred Thirteenth Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE FIRST SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Thursday, 

the third day of January, two thousand and thirteen 

An Act 

To extend the Undetectable Firearms Act of 1988 for 10 years. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF UNDETECTABLE FIREARMS ACT OF 1988 

FOR 10 YEARS. 

Section 2(f)(2) of the Undetectable Firearms Act of 1988 (18 

U.S.C. 922 note) is amended by striking ‘‘25’’ and inserting ‘‘35’’. 

Speaker of the House of Representatives. 

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
#### DE LUCA v. STATE.

No. 23078.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

March 7, 1945.

J. H. Letts, of Houston, for appellant.

Ernest S. Goens, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

DAVIDSON, Judge.

The offense is aggravated assault; the punishment, a fine of $500 and one year in jail.

The prosecuting witness was an eleven year old female. Notwithstanding such fact, the State elected to prosecute appellant, under allegations of the information, charging an assault by an adult male upon the person of a child. Art. 1147, sec. 5, P.C.

The sufficiency of the evidence to support the conviction is the sole question presented for review.

The State’s case showed that the assault was committed by appellant, an adult male, by the indecent fondling of the privates of the prosecutrix.

It has long been the established rule of law that the indecent familiarity of the person of a female by an adult male is an aggravated assault. Breeding v. State, 146 Tex.Cr.R. 352, 175 S.W.2d 253.

Is such the rule, where the person assaulted is a child, without reference to sex? We held in Holmes v. State, 99 Tex.Cr.R. 270, 298, 269 S.W. 95, 96, that the indecent familiarity of the privates of an eleven year old boy constituted an assault.

The judgment of the trial court is 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.
Exhibit 31.1


Rule 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a) Certification





I, James Darrell Thomas, certify that:





|   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          
|-- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|1. | I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of Harley-Davidson Motorcycle Trust 2015-2 (the “Exchange Act periodic reports”);




2.    Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;





3.   Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and other information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;





4.   I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the servicer and based on my knowledge and the compliance reviews conducted in preparing the servicer compliance statement required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicer has fulfilled its obligations under the servicing agreement in all material respects; and





5.    All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwise disclosed in this report.  Any material instances of noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.





In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me by the following unaffiliated party: The Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company, N.A.





/s/ James Darrell ThomasJames Darrell ThomasVice President, Treasurer and Assistant Secretary    (senior officer in charge of the servicing function) of Harley-Davidson Credit Corp., Servicer to Harley-Davidson Motorcycle Trust 2015-2March 23, 2017
REQUEST FOR PAYMENT OF INTEREST 

IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT 

ON ADMINISTRATIVE OR CIVIL JUDICIAL SEIZURES 

This form is to be used to request payment of interest on refunded seized currency as required by the 

Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000 (CAFRA). Please email this form, with backup documentation, 

to U.S. Immigration & Customs Enforcement (ICE), HSI- Asset Forfeiture Unit at AFUrefunds@ice.dhs.gov 

Seizure #: - - -

Seizure Date: 

Deposit Date:

Date Notice Sent: 

Seizure Amount: 

Cash Receipt Number : 

Refund Amount: 

Payment date of Refund:

 Special Instructions: 

Amount of Interest: (to be determined by EOAF) 

Pay To: TIN/SS#: 

Address: 

Headquarters Representative: 

Name: Port: Title: 

Signature & Date: Phone: Fax: 

SEIZURE#: 

FUND: 

FUNDS CENTER: RM410 

FUNCTIONAL AREA: MA1199999988 

ORDER: ZFX5 

COST CENTER: 98999000 

MATERIAL GROUP: 4312 

AMOUNT: 

EOAF: Obligator - Signature/Date EOAF: Certifier - Signature/Date 

Accomplished by NFC: 

NFC Signature and Date 

Form #7a Revised: March 2021