alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI

NO. 2016-CP-00965-COA

CAROL DEARMAN A/K/A CAROL LEE

DEARMAN A/K/A CAROL L. DEARMAN

APPELLANT

v.

STATE OF MISSISSIPPI APPELLEE

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 09/27/2016

TRIAL JUDGE: HON. JOHN H. EMFINGER

COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED: MADISON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: CAROL L. DEARMAN (PRO SE)

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

BY: LISA L. BLOUNT

NATURE OF THE CASE: POST-CONVICTION RELIEF

DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED - 09/05/2017

MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED:

MANDATE ISSUED:

BEFORE LEE, C.J., FAIR AND WILSON, JJ.

WILSON, J., FOR THE COURT:

¶1. On November 29, 2011, in the Madison County Circuit Court, Carol Dearman pled

guilty to motor vehicle theft as a nonviolent habitual offender. See Miss. Code Ann. §§ 97-

17-42 (Rev. 2014) & 99-19-81 (Rev. 2015). At Dearman’s plea hearing, the assistant district

attorney represented that Dearman took a gray Chevy Silverado from its owner at the Red

Roof Inn in Ridgeland without the owner’s permission. Dearman claimed that the owner

loaned her the car, but she entered a valid “Alford plea,” admitting under oath that the State

could prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt and that it was more likely than not that a jury

would convict her. See North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 37 (1970). The circuit court
accepted her plea as knowing and voluntary and sentenced her to ten years in the custody of

the Mississippi Department of Corrections as a nonviolent habitual offender, said sentence

to run concurrently to sentences previously imposed in Hinds County.

¶2. On September 12, 2016, Dearman filed a petition for an “Order to Amend Sentencing

per MS Code Section 99-1-5.” Dearman’s petition alleged that her conviction should be set

aside because her indictment was returned outside of the applicable two-year statute of

limitations. The circuit court dismissed Dearman’s petition, which it construed as a petition

for post-conviction relief, because it was filed almost five years after Dearman pled guilty. 

See Miss. Code Ann. § 99-39-5(2) (Rev. 2015) (a motion for post-conviction relief must be

filed within three years after the entry of a judgment of conviction based on a guilty plea). 

The court also noted that the underlying statute of limitations issue was discussed on the

record at Dearman’s plea hearing. At her plea hearing, Dearman’s attorney acknowledged

that the prosecution was not barred by the statute of limitations because a warrant was issued

for her arrest within about six weeks of the offense. See Miss. Code Ann. § 99-1-7 (Rev.

2015) (“A prosecution may be commenced, within the meaning of Section 99-1-5 by the

issuance of a warrant . . . .”); see also Conerly v. State, 607 So. 2d 1153, 1158 (Miss. 1992)

(holding that a valid guilty plea waives a statute of limitations defense).

¶3. The circuit court correctly ruled that Dearman’s petition for post-conviction relief is

time-barred and without merit.

¶4. AFFIRMED.

LEE, C.J., IRVINGANDGRIFFIS,P.JJ.,BARNES,ISHEE,CARLTON, FAIR,

GREENLEE AND WESTBROOKS, JJ., CONCUR. 

2
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.

September 12, 2017

a0906 

# Order

Clerk September 12, 2017

153039

- 40

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 153039

- 40

COA: 321370; 325372

Charlevoix CC: 13

- 014711

- FC

MATTHEW JOHN SCOTTON,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_____________________________________/

By order of October 5, 2016, the application for leave to appeal the November 24,

2015 judgment of the Court of Appeals was he ld in abeyance pending the decision in

People v Comer (Docket No. 152713). On order of the Court, the case having be en

decided on June 23, 2017, 500 Mich ___ (2017), the application is again considered, and

it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be

reviewed by this Court.
----

----

|   |   |                                                                                                                                                |
|--------|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   | (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/ Nigel Johnson                                   |   |
|                                                |   |
| Nigel Johnson                                       |   |
| Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer |   |
| April 8, 2010                                       |   |

----
COURT OF APPEALS EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO, TEXAS

BEATRIZ HUML, Appellant,

v. FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTGAGE CORPORATION,

Appellee. §

§ § § § § No. 08

- 13

- 00158

- CV

Appeal from County Court at Law No. 3 of El Paso County, Texas (TC #2013

- CCV00382)

MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant, Beatriz Huml, is appealing from a judgment awarding Appellee, Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, possession of a home in El Paso, Texas. Appellee has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal as moot. We grant the motion and dismiss the appeal

. In a forcible

- detainer action, the only issue is the right to actual possession of the premises, and the merits of the title are not be adjudicated. T EX .R.C IV .P. 746; see Wilhelm v. Federal National Mortgage Association , 349 S.W.3d 766, 768

- 69 ( Tex.App.

- - Houston [ 14th Dist.] 2011, no pet

. ). The failure to supersede a forcible

- detainer judgment does not divest an appellant of the right to appeal , but the judgment may be enforced including the issuance of a writ of possession evicting the tenant from the premises. Marshall v. Housing Authority of the City of San Antonio , 198 S.W.3d 782, 786

- 87 (Tex. 2006) . Huml did not post a supersedeas bond and Appellee obtained possession of the p roperty under a writ of possession. An appeal- 2

-

from a forcible

- detainer action becomes moot if the appellant is no longer in possession of the property, unless the appellant holds and asserts “a potentially meritorious claim of right to
current, act ual possession” of the property

. Marshall , 198 S.W.3d at 787 ; Wilhelm , 349 S.W .3d

at 768. Appellee filed its motion to dismiss the appeal on August 21, 2013 and Huml has not filed any response. Consequently, Huml has failed to assert a potentially meritorious claim of right to current, actual possession of the property. See Marsh all , 198 S.W.3d at 787; Wilhelm , 349 S.W. 3d at 768; Soza v. Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation , No. 01

- 11

- 00568

- CV, 2013 WL 3148616 (Tex.App.

-- Houston [1st Dist.] June 18, 2013, no pet.) ( stating that appellant who failed to respond to the appellee ’ s m otion to dismiss had failed to assert potentially meritorious claim of right to current, actual possession )

. We grant Appellee’s motion and dismiss the appeal as moot.

November 13, 2013 ANN CRAWFORD Mc CLURE, Chief Justice Before McClure, C.J., Rivera, and Rodriguez, JJ.
EXHIBIT 31.1**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**I, Jean-Pierre Vandromme, certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Golden Telecom, Inc.;2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact oromit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport;3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have:(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relatingto the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by otherswithin those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;(b) Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal controlover financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonableassurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financialstatements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;(c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controlsand procedures, as of the end of the period covered by the report based on such evaluation;and(d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee 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 ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who havea significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.Date: August 14, 2007   /s/ JEAN-PIERRE VANDROMME   Jean-Pierre Vandromme
# L_2007070DE.01043901.xml

| 9.3.2007 | DE | Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union | L 70/439 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.3.2007

DE

Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union

L 70/439

---

Berichtigung der Verordnung (EG) Nr. 2286/2003 der Kommission vom 18. Dezember 2003 zur Änderung der Verordnung (EWG) Nr. 2454/93 mit Durchführungsvorschriften zu der Verordnung (EWG) Nr. 2913/92 des Rates zur Festlegung des Zollkodex der Gemeinschaften

(
  Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union L 343 vom 31. Dezember 2003
  )

(
  Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union L 343 vom 31. Dezember 2003

Seite 111, Feld Nr. 37, B. Zweites Unterfeld, in den Zeilen zu den Codes A03, A05 und A07:

anstatt:

anstatt:

„..., die zur Wiederausfuhr auf das europäische Festland bestimmt sind“

muss es jeweils heißen:

muss es jeweils heißen:

„..., die zur Wiederausfuhr auf den Kontinentalschelf bestimmt sind“.

---
I 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3618 

To clarify the exclusion of orphan drug sales from the calculation of the 

annual fee on branded prescription pharmaceutical manufacturers and 

importers, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 25, 2015 

Mr. LANCE (for himself, Mr. PASCRELL, Ms. LINDA T. SA ́NCHEZ of California, Mr. TIBERI, and Mr. HOLDING) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means, and in addition to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of 

such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To clarify the exclusion of orphan drug sales from the calculation of the annual fee on branded prescription pharmaceutical manufacturers and importers, and for other 

purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Orphan Drug Fairness 

5 Act’’. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3618 IH

1 SEC. 2. EXCLUSION OF ORPHAN DRUG SALES. 

2 (a) IN GENERAL.—Paragraph (3) of section 9008(e) 

3 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (26 

4 U.S.C. 4001 note prec.; Public Law 111–148) is amended 

5 to read as follows: 

6 ‘‘(3) EXCLUSION OF ORPHAN DRUG SALES.— 

7 The term ‘branded prescription drug sales’ shall not 

8 include sales of any drug or biological product with 

9 respect to which a credit was allowable for any tax10 able year under section 45C of the Internal Revenue 

11 Code of 1986, regardless of whether such credit was 

12 claimed and received. The preceding sentence shall 

13 not apply with respect to any such drug or biological 

14 product after the date on which such drug or bio15 logical product is approved by the Food and Drug 

16 Administration for marketing for any indication 

17 other than the treatment of the rare disease or con18 dition with respect to which such credit was allow19 able.’’. 

20 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

21 subsection (a) shall take effect as if included in section 

22 9008 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act 

23 (26 U.S.C. 4001 note prec.; Public Law 111–148). 

Æ 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
NO. 12-24-00227-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

IN THE INTEREST OF 

L. M. C., R. C. & R. W. C., JR., 

CHILDREN

§

§

§

APPEAL FROM THE 420TH 

JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

NACOGDOCHES COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

This appeal is being dismissed for failure to comply with the Texas Rules of Appellate 

Procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3. Pursuant to Rule 32.1, Appellant D.S.’s docketing 

statement was due to have been filed at the time the appeal was perfected, i.e., July 18, 2024. On 

July 18, this Court requested that Appellant file a docketing statement within ten days if she had 

not already done so. Appellant did not file the docketing statement as requested.

On July 31, this Court issued a second notice advising Appellant that the docketing 

statement was past due. The notice further provided that unless the docketing statement was 

filed on or before August 8, the appeal would be presented for dismissal in accordance with 

Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.3. The date for filing the docketing statement passed, and 

Appellant has not complied with the Court’s request.

Because Appellant failed, after notice, to comply with Rule 32.1, the appeal is dismissed. 

See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(c) (after giving ten days’ notice, appellate court may dismiss appeal 

because appellant failed to comply with a requirement of the appellate rules, a court order, or a 

notice from the clerk requiring a response or other action within a specified time).

Opinion delivered August 15, 2024.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.
COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT 

AUGUST 15, 2024 

NO. 12-24-00227-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF L. M. C., R. C. & R. W. C., JR., CHILDREN 

Appeal from the 420th District Court 

of Nacogdoches County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. C2338248) 

THIS CAUSE came on to be heard on the appellate record; and the same 

being considered, it is the opinion of this Court that this appeal should be dismissed. 

It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED by this Court that 

this appeal be, and the same is hereby dismissed; and that the decision be certified to the court 

below for observance. 

By per curiam opinion. 

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J. and Neeley, J
EX-31 Rule 13a-14(d)/15d-14(d) Certification.

  Wells Fargo Commercial Mortgage Trust 2012-LC5,
  Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates
  Series 2012-LC5 (the Trust)

  I, Anthony Sfarra, a President of Wells Fargo Commercial Mortgage
  Securities, Inc., the depositor into the above-referenced Trust, certify
  that:

  1.I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K, and all reports Form
    10-D required to be filed in respect of periods included in the year
    covered by this annual report, of the Trust;

  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 annual 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 report, the servicers have
    fulfilled their obligations under the pooling and 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 parties:
    CoreLogic Commercial Real Estate Services, Inc. as Vendor for Wells
    Fargo Bank, N.A. as Master Servicer, National Tax Search, LLC as Vendor
    for Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. as Master Servicer, Pentalpha Surveillance
    LLC as Trust Advisor for the 100 Church Street Loan, Rialto Capital
    Advisors, LLC as Special Servicer, Rialto Capital Advisors, LLC as
    Special Servicer for the 100 Church Street Loan and TriMont Real Estate
    Advisors, Inc. as Trust Advisor.

    Dated:   March 31, 2014


    /s/ Anthony Sfarra
    Signature

    President
    (senior officer in charge of securitization of the depositor)
Exhibit 31.1




Certification of Senior Officer in Charge of the Servicing Function


of the Servicer Pursuant to Rule 15d-14(d)









SERVICER CERTIFICATION






I, Mark Kaczynski, certify that:




1.           I have reviewed this annual 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 Nissan Auto Receivables 2012-B Trust (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 review 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:  Citibank, N.A.




Date:                      June 27, 2014




By:/s/ Mark Kaczynski


Mark Kaczynski


President and Chief Executive Officer of


Nissan Motor Acceptance Corporation


(senior officer in charge of the


servicing function)
##### 



Exhibit 5
  
     JONES, WALKER, WAECHTER, POITEVENT,
CARRÈRE & DENÈGRE, L.L.P.By:
    /s/ Margaret F. MurphyMargaret F. MurphyPartner
Exhibit
32.1


CERTIFICATION
OF


CHIEF
EXECUTIVE OFFICER


PURSUANT
TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350




In
connection with this Quarterly Report of Henya Food Corp. (the “Company”) on
Form 10-Q for the period ending January 31, 2008, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Henry
Ender, President, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Executive Officer of the
Company, certifies to the best of his knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec.
1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:




1.
            Such
      Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ending January 31,
      2008, 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 such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for
      the period ending January 31, 2008, fairly presents, in all
      material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
      Max Cash Media, Inc.




Date:
      May 21, 2008/s/ Henry
      EnderHenry
      Ender
              CEO