alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 23

- 00553

- CR

Geraro Mendiola Jr.

v. The State of Texas

On Appeal from the 227th District Court of Bexar County , Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2023CR6869

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered th is cause on

appeal, concludes the appeal should be dismissed. The Court orders the appeal

DISMISSED in accordance with its opinion

.
We further order this decision certified below for observance.

May 23, 2024
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court

generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order

and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

F I L E D

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

NOV 6 1998

PATRICK FISHER

Clerk

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

EDWARD H. LEWIS,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

KENNETH S. APFEL, Commissioner,

Social Security Administration,

Defendant-Appellee.

No. 97-5224

(D.C. No. 96-CV-523-B)

(N.D. Okla.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before PORFILIO, BARRETT, and KELLY , Circuit Judges.

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined

unanimously to grant the parties’ request for a decision on the briefs without oral

argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f) and 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is

therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. 
1 The parties proceeded before a magistrate judge. See 28 U.S.C. § 636.

-2-

Claimant Edward H. Lewis appeals the district court’s order1

 affirming the

Commissioner’s decision to deny his application for supplemental security income

benefits. The Commissioner determined that Mr. Lewis could perform a limited

range of light work available in significant numbers in the national economy and,

therefore, he is not disabled within the meaning of the Social Security Act. Mr.

Lewis contends (1) the Commissioner’s decision is not supported by substantial

evidence, (2) the Commissioner failed to evaluate properly his allegations of

disabling pain, and (3) the Commissioner erred in holding that he can perform

light work. We affirm.

We review the Commissioner’s decision to determine whether it is

supported by substantial evidence and whether correct legal standards were

applied. See Hawkins v. Chater, 113 F.3d 1162, 1164 (10th Cir. 1997). 

Substantial evidence is “‘such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might 

accept as adequate to support a conclusion.’” Soliz v. Chater, 82 F.3d 373, 375

(10th Cir. 1996) (quoting Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401 (1971)

(further quotation omitted)). We may neither reweigh the evidence nor substitute

our judgment for that of the Commissioner. See Casias v. Secretary of Health &

Human Servs., 933 F.2d 799, 800 (10th Cir. 1991).
-3-

We have carefully reviewed the record on appeal, as well as the briefs

submitted by the parties. Applying the standards set out above, we affirm the

denial of benefits for substantially the reasons stated in the magistrate judge’s

September 22, 1997 recommendation, as adopted by the district court. 

The judgment of the United States District Court for the Northern District

of Oklahoma is AFFIRMED.

Entered for the Court

John C. Porfilio

Circuit Judge
#### FLOYD v. STATE.

No. 19123.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

June 2, 1937.

Raymond Wilson, of Fort Worth, for appellant.

Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

HAWKINS, Judge.

On the 2d day of May, 1934, on a plea of guilty, appellant was convicted in criminal district court of Tarrant county, Tex., of the offense of burglary, and his punishment assessed at five years’ imprisonment in the penitentiary.- Sentence was suspended during the good behavior of appellant. On the 13th day' of April, 1936, the criminal district attorney- of Tar-rant county-filed in the'court of conviction a motion praying that said suspended sentence be revoked, alleging that appellant was on the 23d day -of- March, 1936; convicted of a felony in United States "District Court at New Orleans in the state of Louisiána. A hearing- on said'motion was had on the 27 th day of''February, -1937, "and the court found' that during: the -sus'•pension of. Appellant’s sentence---heAfiad been corfricte'd-fin'-United- States - District Court of-a-felony;’-to-'-wit, violation of-the -Natfonál'^M-otíír • Ve'h'iclfe-<3.-Theft-<'.-'Act-é (¿8 U.S.C.A. § 408). The suspended sentence was revoked and appellant sentenced under the original conviction to imprisonment in the penitentiary for not less than two nor more than five years.

No statement of facts or bills of exception are brought forward. The record shows that all proceedings were in accord with article 779, C.C.P., relating to the revocation of a suspended sentence.

The judgment is affirmed.
Exhibit 31.1
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 17 CFR 240.13(a)-14(a)
(SECTION 302 CERTIFICATION)
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Western Dubuque Biodiesel, LLC;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does 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, the financial statements, and other financial information included in
this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of
operations and cash flows of the registrant, as of, and for, the periods presented in this
report;4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and
15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
 a)
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is
made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in
which this report is being prepared;b)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the
disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report
based on such evaluation; andc)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the registrants third fiscal quarter that has
materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants
internal control over financial reporting; and
 5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the
audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):
 a)
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation
of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely
affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial
information; andb)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees
who have a significant role in the registrants internal controls over financial
reporting.
 Date: November 14, 2008
    
    /s/ Bruce Klostermann

Bruce Klostermann, Vice Chairman and Director(Principal Executive Officer)
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3393 Introduced in House (IH)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3393

 To amend the Truth in Lending Act to clarify that the points and fees 
in connection with a mortgage loan do not include certain compensation 
amounts already taken into account in setting the interest rate on such 
                     loan, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 29, 2015

  Mr. Posey (for himself and Mr. Ross) introduced the following bill; 
       which was referred to the Committee on Financial Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Truth in Lending Act to clarify that the points and fees 
in connection with a mortgage loan do not include certain compensation 
amounts already taken into account in setting the interest rate on such 
                     loan, and for other purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Mortgage Fairness Act of 2015''.

SEC. 2. POINTS AND FEES.

    Section 103 of the Truth in Lending Act (15 U.S.C. 1602) is 
amended--
            (1) by redesignating subsection (aa) (relating to 
        disclosure of the greater amount or percentage) as subsection 
        (bb);
            (2) by redesignating subsection (bb) (relating to high cost 
        mortgages) as subsection (aa), and moving such subsection to 
        immediately follow subsection (z); and
            (3) in paragraph (4) of subsection (aa), as so 
        redesignated, by amending subparagraph (B) to read as follows:
                    ``(B) all compensation from any source (other than 
                compensation taken into account in setting the interest 
                rate and for which there is no separate charge to the 
                consumer) paid directly or indirectly by a consumer or 
                creditor to--
                            ``(i) a mortgage originator, including a 
                        mortgage originator that is also the creditor 
                        in a table-funded transaction; or
                            ``(ii) an individual employed by or 
                        contracting with the originator or a mortgage 
                        originator;''.
                                 <all>
```
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.                  

###### Postal Service

# AGENCY:

                        Postal ServiceTM.                    

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

# DATES:

*Date of required notice:*                         October 2, 2024.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sean Robinson, 202-268-8405.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on September 23, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a                     *USPS Request to Add Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage® Contract 361 to Competitive Product List.*                     Documents are available at                     *www.prc.gov,*                     Docket Nos. MC2024-728, K2024-21.                

Sean Robinson,

Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.

[FR Doc. 2024-22686 Filed 10-1-24; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
* 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 Local Rule

47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 97-50023

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ROY MARION JONES,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. A-83-CR-36

- - - - - - - - - -

August 15, 1997

Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM, and DUHÉ, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Roy Marion Jones, federal prisoner #00083-153, filed a

motion to vacate, set aside, or correct judgment pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 2255 which was denied by the district court as an abuse

of the writ under Rule 9(b) of the Rules Governing § 2255

Proceedings. Jones timely filed a notice of appeal from this

judgment on November 11, 1996. 
Jones subsequently filed three discovery motions and a

motion for a stay in the district court. The district court did

not have jurisdiction over these motions because of the filing of

the notice of appeal. Henry v. Independent Am. Sav. Ass’n, 857

F.2d 995, 997-98 (5th Cir. 1988). Jones’s contention that the

district court erred by not granting the motions is without a

legal basis and is frivolous. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215,

219-20 (5th Cir. 1983). 

APPEAL DISMISSED.
January 23, 2014

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

IN THE MATTER OF D.A., A JUVENILE

NO. 14-13-00627-CV 

________________________________

Today the Court heard appellant's motion to dismiss the appeal from the 

judgment signed by the court below on May 30, 2013. Having considered the 

motion and found it meritorious, we order the appeal DISMISSED.

We further order that all costs incurred by reason of this appeal be paid by 

appellant, D.A.

We further order that mandate be issued immediately.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
CERTIFICATION
      OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND


CHIEF
      FINANCIAL OFFICER


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 accompanying quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Hybrook
      Resources Corp. for the quarter ended October 31, 2007, I certify, pursuant
      to
      18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
      Act of 2002, to my knowledge, that:





|(1) | the
              quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Hybrook Resources Corp. for the
              quarter
              ended October 31, 2007 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 quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the
              quarter ended October 31, 2007, fairly presents in all material respects,
              the financial condition and results of operations of Hybrook Resources
              Corp..
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------




By:
            /s/
                Les D. ScottName:
            Les
                D. ScottTitle:
            Principal
                Executive Officer,
              Principal
                Financial Officer and DirectorDate:
            December
                7, 2007
| (logo) WELLS  FARGO | **Commercial  Mortgage Servicing**D1050-084,  8th Floor  401 South Tryon St.  Charlotte, NC 28202  1-800-326-1334 |
|---------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

**ANNUAL STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE**

** **

Reference is herebymade to that certain Pooling and Servicing Agreement  dated as of October1, 2012, by and among Deutsche Mortgage & Asset Receiving Corporation, asDepositor, Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as Master Servicer, MidlandLoan Services, a division of PNC Bank, National Association, as Special Servicer,U.S. Bank National Association, as Trustee, Deutsche Bank Trust CompanyAmericas as Certificate Administrator, Paying Agent and Custodian and SitusHoldings LLC, as Operating Advisor, with respect to Commercial MortgagePass-Through Certificates Series 2012-CCRE3 (the "Agreement").Capitalized terms used herein not otherwise defined shall have the meaningsassigned in the Agreement.

 

Pursuant to Section10.11 of this Agreement, Daniel Bober, Executive Vice President of CommercialMortgage Services and Timothy S. Ryan, Managing Director of CustomerRelationship Management do hereby certify that:

 

1. A review of theactivities of the Master Servicer during the period from January 1, 2017through December 31, 2017 (the “Reporting Period”), and of its performance perthe Agreement during such period has been made under my supervision, and

 

2. To the best ofmy knowledge, based on such review, the Master Servicer has fulfilled all ofits obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout the ReportingPeriod.

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the undersigned has executed this Certificate as of the 28th day of February2018.

 

 

/s/ Daniel Bober

Daniel Bober

Executive VicePresident 

Wells Fargo Bank

 

/s/Timothy S. Ryan

TimothyS. Ryan

ManagingDirector

WellsFargo Bank

 

  

| Wells Fargo Bank,  N.A. | (logo) Together  we’ll go far |
|-------------------------|-------------------------------------|
Office of Personnel Management

Retirement and Insurance Service

1920 1954 1959 

 

1986

 

Federal Employee Benefit Programs

FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT LETTER

Number: F-98-08 Date: November 10, 1998 

Subject: Federal Employees Life Insurance Improvement Act

On October 30, 1998, President Clinton signed into law the Federal Employees Life Insurance

(FEGLI) Improvement Act (Public Law 105-311). P.L. 105-311 contains provisions that will

have a significant impact on the FEGLI Program. We have enclosed a copy, for your information,

of Benefits Administration Letter (BAL) 98-208, which provides an overview of Act.

We have also enclosed a copy of Payroll Office Letter, which presents issues that require

immediate implementation at agency payroll offices (APO’s). We will issue additional

implementational guidance regarding P.L. 105-311 to APO’s as it is developed and will keep you

informed by means of Financial Management Letters. Your help in ensuring the timely

implementation of the provisions of the Act is greatly appreciated.

Robert Yuran, Chief

Financial Policy Staff

Retirement and Insurance Service

Enclosures
**Exhibit 32.1****Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**I, Al A. Gonsoulin, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of PHI, Inc. (the “Company”), certify,pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that: 1. the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2007 as filedwith the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”) fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Actof 1934; and  2. the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company for theperiod covered by such Report.Date: August 9, 2007         By:                                                /s/ Al A. Gonsoulin    Al A. Gonsoulin        Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
#### Langdon, Appellant, *v.*Lawrence Park Realty Company.

*Negligence*— Master *and servant*— Injury *to employee of inde~ pendent contractor*— Liability *of owner*— Judgment *for defendant.*

In an action against an owner of real estate by an employee of an independent contractor engaged to construct certain buildings thereon, to recover damages for personal injuries sustained in a fall resulting from defects in a scaffold erected by the contractor, judgment was properly entered for the defendant non obstante veredicto where it appeared that there was no contractual relation between plaintiff and defendant. Plaintiff’s right to recover, if at all, was against his employer.

Argued April 25, 19l6.

Appeal, No. 131, Jan. T., 1916, by plaintiff, from judgment of C. P. Erie Co., Sept. T., 1914, No. 87, entered for defendant non obstante veredicto in case of Grant Langdon v. Lawrence Park Realty Company.

Before Brown, C. J., Mestrezat, Potter, Stewart and Moschzisker, JJ.

Affirmed.

Trespass to recover damages for personal injuries. Before Prather, P. J., specially presiding.

*87The defendant owned a large tract of land east of Erie and entered into a contract with Joseph Heilman, a building contractor, to erect a number of houses thereon. Plaintiff, a carpenter, was engaged by Heilman as one of the workmen on the operation. Heilman directed that a scaffold be erected for the purpose of putting a cornice on a house. The scaffold was defective and broke, causing the injuries complained of.

Further facts appear in the opinion of the Supreme Court.

After verdict for plaintiff judgment was entered f(?r the defendant non obstante veredicto. Plaintiff appealed.

*Error assigned,*among others, was in making absolute - defendant’s rule for judgment n. o. v.

*J. B. Cessna,*with him *Monroe Echols,*for appellant.

*W. S. Carroll,*with him *J. M. Sherwin,*for appellee.

May 15, 1916:

Per Curiam,

This judgment is affirmed on the following from the opinion of the court below directing it to be entered: “In our opinion, the contract itself makes Joseph J. Heilman an independent contractor. Defendant company, as owner, did nothing to change the relation established by said contract. Plaintiff had no contractual relations Avith the owner: therefore, his action, if maintainable, is against his employer. It follows that defendant’s point in bar should have been affirmed: hence, the rule should be made absolute.”

Judgment affirmed.