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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-2088

In Re: THOMAS MACEO BRODNAX; VALERIA BRODNAX,

Debtors.

_________________________

THOMAS MACEO BRODNAX; VALERIA BRODNAX,

Plaintiffs - Appellants,

versus

CITY OF DANVILLE, VIRGINIA,

Defendant - Appellee,

and

LAURENCE P. MORIN; U. S. TRUSTEE,

Trustees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Danville. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District

Judge. (CA-98-15, BK-96-2892-6-WA4-13)

Submitted: March 9, 1999 Decided: April 23, 1999

Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
2

Thomas Maceo Brodnax, Valeria Brodnax, Appellants Pro Se. Michael

Earnest Hastings, DANIEL, VAUGHAN, MEDLEY & SMITHERMAN, P.C., Danville, Virginia, for Appellee. Laurence P. Morin, Lynchburg, Virginia; United States Trustee, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRUSTEE,

Roanoke, Virginia, for Trustees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Thomas and Valeria Brodnax appeal from the district court’s

order dismissing their bankruptcy appeal for failure to comply with

the requirement in Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8006, that a designation of

the record on appeal and a statement of issues be filed within ten

days of the filing of the notice of appeal. We have reviewed the

record and the district court’s opinion and find no abuse of

discretion and no reversible error. See Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8001(a);

In re Serra Builders, Inc., 970 F.2d 1309, 1311 (4th Cir. 1992).

Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See

Brodnax v. City of Danville, VA, Nos. CA-98-15; BK-96-2892-6-WA4-13

(W.D. Va. June 22, 1998). Additionally, we deny as moot the

Brodnaxes’ motion to defer action on this appeal. 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.

AFFIRMED
*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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under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

April 19, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 03-40732

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

FERNANDO AGUILAR, also known as 

David Fernandez,

Defendant-Appellant.

 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. M-02-CR-451-1

 

Before GARWOOD, EMILIO M. GARZA and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Fernando Aguilar pleaded guilty to one count of possession

with intent to distribute ninety-one kilograms of marijuana and was

sentenced to fifty-seven months of imprisonment and two years of

supervised release. Aguilar appeals his sentence, asserting that

the district court clearly erred when it denied a reduction
2

pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2(b) for a minor role in the offense.

Aguilar contends that his role was that of a mere courier. 

We review the finding on a defendant’s role in an offense for

clear error. United States v. Deavours, 219 F.3d 400, 404 (5th

Cir. 2000). A two-level adjustment for a minor role applies in the

case of a defendant “who is less culpable than most other

participants, but whose role could not be described as minimal.”

U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2, comment. (n.5). The defendant bears the burden

of proving that he was a minor participant in the offense. United

States v. Garcia, 242 F.3d 593, 597 (5th Cir. 2001).

Aguilar’s admissions demonstrate that he acted in a greater

capacity than a mere courier. Aguilar did not demonstrate that the

information in the presentence report was unreliable. United

States v. Young, 981 F.2d 180, 185 (5th Cir. 1993). Further,

holding only a courier-type role does not automatically entitle a

defendant to the U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2(b) reduction for a minor

participant. See United States v. Rojas, 868 F.2d 1409, 1410 (5th

Cir. 1989); United States v. Gallegos, 868 F.2d 711, 713 (5th Cir.

1989). The district court’s implicit finding that Aguilar was not

entitled to the U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2(b) reduction is plausible in light

of the record viewed as a whole. Burton v. United States, 237 F.3d

490, 500 (5th Cir. 2000).

Accordingly, the judgment of conviction and sentence is

AFFIRMED. This action is REMANDED for the sole purpose of allowing
3

the district court to correct the written judgment to reflect that

the term of supervised release is two years.

AFFIRMED; REMANDED FOR CORRECTION OF CLERICAL ERROR IN JUDGMENT.
Rule 13a-14(d)/15d-14(d) Certifications.

 

I, Brian Baker, 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 the J.P. Morgan Chase Commercial Mortgage Securities Trust 2012-C8 (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. Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statements required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicers have fulfilled their obligations under the servicing agreements 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 parties:

 

KeyBank National Association, as Master Servicer, Midland Loan Services, a Division of PNC Bank, National Association, as Special Servicer, Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as Trustee and Certificate Administrator, Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as Custodian, and Pentalpha Surveillance LLC, as Senior Trust Advisor.

 

Dated: March 30, 2015

 

 

/s/ Brian Baker

 

 

President and Chief Executive Officer

(senior officer in charge of securitization of the depositor)
**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**

|   | 1. | The                Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)                of                the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;                and |
|--------|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | 2. | The                information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material                respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the                Company                for the periods presented therein. |
|--------|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:                August 7, 2008 | /s/                Jacob Silverman     |
|-------------------------------------|----------------------------------------|
|                                |                                   |
|                                | JACOB                SILVERMAN         |
|                                | Chief                Financial Officer |

----
ANNUAL STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE



Reference is hereby made to that certain Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated
as of August 1, 2012, by and among Deutsche Mortgage & Asset Receiving Corporation, as Depositor, Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as Master
Servicer, Certificate Administrator, Paying Agent and Custodian, Midland Loan Services, a division of PNC Bank, National Association, as Special Servicer,
U.S. Bank National Association, as Trustee and Park Bridge Lender Services LLC, as Operating Advisor, with respect to Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through
Certificates Series 2012-CCRE2 (the "Agreement"). Capitalized terms used herein not otherwise defined shall have the meanings assigned in the
Agreement.



Pursuant to Section 10.11 of this Agreement,
I, Daniel Bober, Executive Vice President of Commercial Mortgage Services do hereby certify that:



| | 1. | A review of the activities of the Master Servicer during the
period from January 1, 2013 through December 31, 2013 (the "Reporting Period"),  and of its performance per the Agreement during such period has
been made under my supervision, and
| | -- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Master
Servicer, has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period.
| | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------







IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has
executed this Certificate as of the 13th day of March 2014.



| |  | 
| |  | 



|Daniel Bober             | 
|------------------------ | 
|Executive Vice President | 
|Wells Fargo Bank         | 





















|Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. | 
|---------------------- |
# L_2011190EN.01000101.xml

| 21.7.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 190/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.7.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 190/1

---

COUNCIL REGULATION (EU, EURATOM) No 699/2011

of 18 July 2011

adjusting the correction coefficients applicable to the remuneration and pensions of officials and other servants of the European Union

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union and the Conditions of Employment of other servants of the Union, laid down in Regulation (EEC, Euratom, ECSC) No 259/68 (1), and in particular Articles 64, 65(2) of the Staff Regulations and Annexes VII, XI and XIII thereto, and the first paragraph of Article 20, Articles 64 and 92 of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants,

Having regard to the proposal from the European Commission,

Whereas:

There was a substantial increase in the cost of living in Estonia in the period from June to December 2010, the correction coefficients applied to the remuneration of officials and other servants of the Union should therefore be adjusted,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

With effect from 1 January 2011, the correction coefficients applicable, under Article 64 of the Staff Regulations, to the remuneration of officials and other servants employed in the country listed below shall be as follows:

Estonia: 78,5.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 18 July 2011.

For the Council

The President

M. DOWGIELEWICZ

---

(1)  
  OJ L 56, 4.3.1968, p. 1.

1

---
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman

, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen

Kurtis T. Wilder,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

May 31, 2017

t0522 

# Order

Clerk May 31, 2017

154031 (66)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 154031

COA: 324672

Wayne CC: 14

- 006199

- FC

DARRELL MILES WALKER,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court’s April 4, 2017

order is considered, and it is DENIED, because it does not appear that the order was

entered erroneously.
United Realty Trust Incorporated 10-Q







Exhibit 4.8


 


UNITED
REALTY CAPITAL OPERATING PARTNERSHIP, L.P.


 


ISSUANCE
OF ADDITIONAL PARTNERSHIP INTERESTS


 


 


WHEREAS,
United Realty Trust Incorporated (the “General Partner”) as the General Partner of United Realty Capital Operating
Partnership, L.P. (the “Partnership”), has the right pursuant to Section 4.3 of the Agreement of Limited Partnership
of the Partnership dated as August 12, 2012, as amended (the “Partnership Agreement”) to issue additional Partnership
Interests in the form of Partnership Units in one or series or classes; and


 


WHEREAS,
in connection with the Partnership’s acquisition of a property located at 945 82nd Parkway, Myrtle Beach, South
Carolina (the “Property”), the General Partner desires to issue to Rolf H. Berg (“Limited Partner”), a
newly created class MB Partnership Unit-1 (the “Class MB Partnership Unit”).


 


NOW
THEREFORE, the parties hereto agree as follows:


 


		1.	Unless
                                         otherwise defined herein, all initially capitalized terms shall have the definition set
                                         forth in the Partnership Agreement.



 


		2.	The
                                         Capital Contribution for the MB Partnership Unit shall be One Million Two Hundred Thousand
                                         Dollars ($1,200,000).



 


		3.	Effective
                                         upon the acquisition of the Property by the Partnership, the holder of the Class MB Partnership
                                         Unit shall be entitled to an annualized return of ten percent (10%) on the amount of
                                         the Capital Contribution related to the MB Partnership Unit, payable on the Exercise
                                         Date as defined below.



 


		4.	On
                                         the date that is no later than 6 months from the acquisition of the Property (the “Exercise
                                         Date”), the General Partner shall redeem the MB Partnership Unit at a price of
                                         $1,320,000, which is calculated to include the annualized return referenced in Section
                                         3 above. If the Property is not acquired by the Partnership, the Capital Contribution
                                         will be returned no later than June 2, 2014, together with reasonable costs incurred
                                         by the Limited Partner in connection with the transfer of the funds.



 


UNITED
REALTY CAPITAL OPERATING PARTNERSHIP, L.P.


 


By:
United Realty Trust Incorporated


 





	 /s/
    Jacob Frydman	 	 /s/
    Rolf H. Berg 
	By:  Jacob
    Frydman 	 	
    Rolf H. Berg
	Title:  Chief
    Executive Officer
In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

06-20-00076-CR

MARIO ALBERTO BRIONES, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 76th District Court

Camp County, Texas

Trial Court No. CF-19-01958

Before Morriss, C.J., Burgess and Stevens, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Morriss
2

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Mario Alberto Briones pled guilty to the offense of deadly conduct.1 Pursuant to a plea 

agreement with the State, Briones was sentenced to eight years’ imprisonment. The trial court 

certified that this was a plea-agreement case and that Briones had no right of appeal; nonetheless, 

Briones, acting pro se, filed a notice of appeal. Because we find that we are without jurisdiction 

over this case as a result of Briones’s plea agreement with the State, we dismiss the appeal for 

want of jurisdiction.

The Texas Legislature has granted a very limited right of appeal in plea-bargain cases. 

Rule 25.2(a)(2) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure details that right as follows:

(2) . . . . In a plea bargain case—that is, a case in which a defendant’s 

plea was guilty or nolo contendere and the punishment did not exceed the 

punishment recommended by the prosecutor and agreed to by the defendant—a

defendant may appeal only:

(A) those matters that were raised by written motion filed and

ruled on before trial, or

(B) after getting the trial court’s permission to appeal.

TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(a)(2). There is no indication in the record before this Court that Briones 

either (1) filed a motion that was ruled on before trial or (2) obtained the trial court’s permission 

to appeal. To the contrary, the trial court’s certification of Briones’s right of appeal indicates 

that he has no right of appeal. Pursuant to Rule 25.2(d) of the Texas Rules of Appellate 

Procedure, this Court is required to dismiss an appeal if, as in this case, the trial court’s 

certification indicates no right of appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(d).

1See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 22.05(b)(2).
3

We informed Briones of this apparent defect in our jurisdiction over his appeal and 

afforded him an opportunity to respond and, if possible, cure such defect. Briones did not file a 

response to our jurisdictional defect letter. 

Because Briones has no right of appeal as a result of his plea bargain with the State and 

because the trial court’s certification correctly indicates that he is without a right of appeal, we 

dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction.

Josh R. Morriss, III

Chief Justice

Date Submitted: September 15, 2020

Date Decided: September 16, 2020

Do Not Publish
Company sanitized 


Does not contain Confidential Business 


Information (CBI) 


AppendixD 


Draft Facility Report on Product Content 

Company Sanitized 

2010/15 PFOA Stewardship Program 

Draft Facility Report on Product Content 

I. CHEMICAL IDENTIFICATION 

Identify the product (e.g fluoropolymer dispersion) for which you are sUbmitting infonnation: 

Product name: Fluorinated SurfactantCPolymeric) 

Product description (including concentrations of perfluoroalkyl chemicals 

identified in Section IV below and year of production): 

~BI 

II. COMPANY IDENTIFICATION 

Identify the company and location ofthe facility submitting infonnation: 

Company name: SEIMI CHEMICAL CO.,LTD 

Site 10cation:3-2-1 O,Chigasaki,Chigasaki City,Kanagawa,253-8585 Japan 

:2276-2,Nada,Hirai,Kashima City,Ibaraki,314-0012 Japan 

IdentifY a company technical contact who can respond to inquiries about the information 

submitted: 

Technical contact: Hisashi Itoh 

Phone: +81-467-82-4398 

Address: 3-2-10,Chigasaki,Chigasaki City,Kanagawa,253-8585 Japan 

III. PRODUCTION 

Calendar year for which you are reporting: Jan 1, 2009 to Dec 31, 2009 

(Data reported in the report are equal to data based on year end run rate.) 

Provide the amount ofthe product for the reporting year at each specific site: 

Imported _--,,-O__kgs/yr 

Manufactured CHI kgs/yr (As active ingredients) 
IV. PRODUCT CONTENT 

A. CONCENTRATIONS OF RELEVANT PERFLUOROALKYL CHEMICALS 

Please provide the concentrations (ppb) of various perfluoroalkyl chemicals in your product. 

For chemicals for which you do not have actual data, please provide range estimates. 

1. CBI 

B. ANALYTICAL METHODS 

Analyses should be conducted using the most accurate instrumentation and procedures available 

as ofthe time oftesting. Please provide detailed information on the methods used (including 

analytical standards used, sampling, sample treatment, analysis), assumptions made, 

uncertainties and detection limits (LOD, LOQ) for the data provided. 

• PFOA content in fluorinated acrylate used as monomer was analyzed by LC-MS. 

• 8-20H and 8-2 Olefin contents in fluorinated acrylate used as monomer was analyzed by GC-MS . 

, ,r,.
# EUR-Lex - 32011M6260 - EN

Important legal notice

*|*

# 32011M6260

**Commission Decision of 29/06/2011 declaring a concentration to be compatible with the common market (Case No COMP/M.6260 - REGGEBORGH / NORTH SEA GROUP) according to Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (Only the English text is authentic) **

*

*

|EUROPEAN COMMISSION |

Brussels , 29.6.2011

C(2011) 4819 final

PUBLIC VERSION

SIMPLIFIED MERGER PROCEDURE

To the notifying party

Dear Madam(s) and/or Sir(s),

Subject: Case No COMP/M.6260 – REGGEBORGH/ NORTH SEA GROUP Commission decision pursuant to Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 [1]

1. On 30.05.2011, the European Commission received notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of the Merger Regulation by which Reggeborgh Invest B.V. ("Reggeborgh", the Netherlands) acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation sole control over North Sea Group Beheer B.V. ("North Sea Group", the Netherlands) by way of purchase of shares [2] .

2. The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:

- for Reggeborgh: construction industry, especially in contracting and project development as well as property development.

- for North Sea Group: trade in and the supply of petroleum products for land and waterbound use, especially: bunkering of marine fuels, trade in marine fuels, waterbound transport of petroleum products, the storage of petroleum products, the storage of petroleum products and the non,-retail sales of petroleum products, and trading of bulk petroleum products and derivatives.

3. After examination of the notification, the European Commission has concluded that the notified operation falls within the scope of the Merger Regulation and of paragraph 5(b) and (d) of the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 [3] .

4 For the reasons set out in the Notice on a simplified procedure, the European Commission has decided not to oppose the notified operation and to declare it compatible with the internal market and with the EEA Agreement. This decision is adopted in application of Article 6(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation.

For the Commission (signed) Alexander ITALIANER Director General

[1]OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1 ("the Merger Regulation"). With effect from 1 December 2009, the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union ("TFEU") has introduced certain changes, such as the replacement of "Community" by "Union" and "common market" by "internal market". The terminology of the TFEU will be used throughout this decision.

[2] Publication in the Official Journal of the European Union No C 168, 08.06.2011, p.14

[3] OJ C 56, 5.3.2005, p. 32.