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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.  No. 01-4248

JOSE HERNANDEZ-CARBAJAL,

Defendant-Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham.

Frank W. Bullock, Jr., District Judge.

(CR-00-297)

Submitted: November 8, 2001

Decided: November 20, 2001

Before WILKINS, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

COUNSEL

Louis C. Allen, III, Federal Public Defender, William S. Trivette,

Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina, for

Appellant. Benjamin H. White, Jr., United States Attorney, Steven H.

Levin, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina,

for Appellee. 
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c). 

OPINION

PER CURIAM: 

Jose Hernandez-Carbajal appeals the sentence imposed following

his guilty plea to re-entry after deportation by an alien previously convicted of an aggravated felony, in violation of 8 U.S.C.A. §§ 1326(a),

(b)(2) (West 1999) and distributing 28.3 grams of cocaine hydrochloride, in violation of 21 U.S.C.A. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C) (West 1999

& Supp. 2001). Hernandez-Carbajal’s attorney has filed a brief in

accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Counsel

states there are no meritorious issues for appeal, but contends on

Hernandez-Carbajal’s behalf that the district court erred in sentencing

him to seventy-eight months’ imprisonment, which was within the

guidelines range of seventy to eighty-seven months. HernandezCarbajal was informed of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief

but has not done so. 

As Hernandez-Carbajal presents no challenge to the calculation of

the guidelines range but merely contends his sentence was too high

within the correct range, we find he is not entitled to appellate review

on his claim. See United States v. Jones, 18 F.3d 1145, 1150-51 (4th

Cir. 1994); United States v. Porter, 909 F.2d 789, 794 (4th Cir. 1990).

In addition, we have examined the entire record in this case in accordance with the requirements of Anders and find no meritorious issues

for appeal. We therefore affirm Hernandez-Carbajal’s conviction and

sentence. 

We deny counsel’s motion to withdraw at this time. This court

requires that counsel inform his client, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If

requested by the client to do so, counsel should prepare a timely petition for writ of certiorari, unless counsel believes that such a petition

would be frivolous. In that case, counsel may move in this court for

leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state

2 UNITED STATES v. HERNANDEZ-CARBAJAL
that a copy thereof was served on the client. 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

UNITED STATES v. HERNANDEZ-CARBAJAL 3
#### Frank Rickerson, plaintiff in error, *vs.*C. H. Flowers, defendant in error.

Where a distress warrant was sued out for rent, and a counter-affidavit was filed denying that the defendant held the premises from the plaintiff, either by lease or rent, and also that he owed the plaintiff any rent, a verdict as follows : “ We, the jury, find the issue for the plaintiff,” was sufficiently certain, and covered the issue made by the pleadings.

Verdict. Distress warrant. Before Judge Hill. Bibb Superior Court. April Term, 1873.

For the facts of this case, see the decision.

E. H. Harman ; C. B. Wooten, by brief, for plaintiff in error.

No appearance for defendant.

Warner, Chief Justice.

This was a distress warrant for rent under the provisions of the 4005th section of the Code. The defendant filed a counter-affidavit denying that he held the premises from the plaintiff, either by lease or rent, and also denied that, he owed the plaintiff any rent. On the trial of the issue thus formed, the jury returned the following verdict: “We, the jury, find *216the issue for the plaintiff.” The defendant made a motion for a new trial on the ground that the verdict was void, as it did not cover the issue made by the pleadings, and because it was decidedly against the weight of the evidence, and without evidence or law to support it. The motion was overruled, and the defendant excepted. The distress warrant was taken out on the ground that the defendant had failed to pay the rent for the premises rented when the same became due. The issue made by the affidavit of the plaintiff and the counter-affidavit of defendant, was whether the defendant rented the premises from the plaintiff, and whether the rent claimed by him was due and defendant had failed to pay the same. The jury found that issue in favor of the plaintiff. Verdicts are to have a reasonable intendment, and are to have a reasonable construction, and are not to be avoided unless from necessity: Code, 3503. There was no error in refusing to set aside the verdict in this case, and there is sufficient evidence disclosed in the record to sustain it.

Let the judgment of the Court below be affirmed.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

__________________________________________

)

MICHAEL FENWICK, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) Civil Action No. 07-2330 (PLF)

)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al. )

)

Defendants. )

__________________________________________)

ORDER

For the reasons given in the Opinion issued this same day, it is hereby 

ORDERED that [20] defendants’ motion to dismiss is GRANTED in part and

DENIED in part; it is

FURTHER ORDERED that, to the extent the plaintiff attempts to state common

law tort claims against defendants Andrew Pudimott, Jeremy Fischer, and John Mickle, those

claims are DISMISSED; it is

FURTHER ORDERED that on or before April 15, 2010, the plaintiff shall effect

proper service of process on defendants Andrew Pudimott, Jeremy Fischer, and John Mickle or

face dismissal of his claims against them under Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; it

is

FURTHER ORDERED that [27] the plaintiff’s objection to and motion to strike

all juvenile court records submitted by defendants in support of their motion to dismiss and/or for

summary judgment is DENIED; it is
2

FURTHER ORDERED that, on or before April 15, 2010, the parties shall submit

supplemental briefs addressing the questions identified in Part II.C. of the Opinion accompanying

this Order. Neither brief shall exceed fifteen pages in length; and it is

FURTHER ORDERED that the defendants shall obtain and file copies of the

documents specified in Part II.C. of the accompanying Opinion on or before April 15, 2010.

SO ORDERED.

/s/_______________________________

PAUL L. FRIEDMAN

United States District Judge

DATE: March 8, 2010
Exhibit 99.1

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

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


Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned certifies that (1) this Annual
report of Cedric Kushner Promotions, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the
year ended December 31, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (this "Report"), fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
as amended, and (2) the information contained in this Report fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition of the Company as of December 31,
2002.





                        /s/ Cedric Kushner
                        --------------------------------------------------------
                      Name: Cedric Kushner
                     Title: Chief Executive Officer
                            (Principal Executive Officer)


Date: June 24, 2003
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

, 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 30, 2013

h0923 

# Order

Clerk September 30, 2013

147223 & (19)(20)(21)(22)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 147223

COA: 314585

Wayne CC: 99

- 003949

- FC

DAVID KENDALE LAMB,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 7, 2013 order of

the Court of Appeals is considered , and it is DENIED, because the defendant’s motion

for relief from judgment is prohibited by MCR 6.502(G). The motions to remand for

various evidentiary hearings are all DENIED.
Exhibit 32.1
















CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002







In connection with the quarterly report of EZJR, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the three months ended September 30, 2015, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Barry Hall, Executive Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, to the best of my knowledge and belief, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:




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




ii.
The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.




Date:  November 18, 2015














/s/   Barry Hall


Barry Hall, Executive Chairman, Chief Executive Officer


and Chief Financial Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3194 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        S.3194

                       One Hundred Sixth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE SECOND SESSION

           Begun and held at the City of Washington on Monday,
             the twenty-fourth day of January, two thousand

                                 An Act

 
To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 
 431 North George Street in Millersville, Pennsylvania, as the ``Robert 
                        S. Walker Post Office''.

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION OF ROBERT S. WALKER POST OFFICE.

    (a) In General.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 431 North George Street in Millersville, Pennsylvania, shall 
be known and designated as the ``Robert S. Walker Post Office''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Robert S. 
Walker Post Office''.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
Exhibit 10.2

 

FIRST AMENDMENT

TO

AIRCRAFT DRY LEASE

 

Effective as of September 1, 2014, Intrepid Production Holdings LLC (“Lessor”), and Intrepid Potash, Inc. (“Lessee”) enter into this First Amendment to Aircraft Dry Lease (this “Amendment”).  This Amendment amends the Aircraft Dry Lease, dated January 9, 2009, between Lessor and Lessee (the “Agreement”).

 

The parties agree to amend the Agreement as follows:

 

1.              Section One LEASE OF AIRCRAFT of the Agreement is amended as follows.  The first sentence shall be deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following:

 

For $6,235 per flight hour, Lessor agrees to lease the Aircraft to Lessee.

 

2.              All other provisions of the Agreement remain unchanged and in full force and effect.

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Amendment to be duly executed as of the date first written above.

 

	
LESSOR
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
Intrepid   Production Holdings LLC
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
By:   
    	
Intrepid   Production Corporation
    	
 
    
	
Its:   
    	
Member
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
By: 
    	
/s/ Robert P. Jornayvaz III
    	
8/12/14
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
Robert   P. Jornayvaz III
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
President
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
LESSEE
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
Intrepid   Potash, Inc.
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
By:   
    	
/s/   Martin D. Litt
    	
8/13/14
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
Martin   D. Litt
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
Executive   Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 204 (Tuesday, October 22, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Page 84424]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-24470]


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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-101380; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2024-037]


Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC; 
Notice of Withdrawal of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend Rule 5820 To 
Codify the Standards of Review That Govern Appeals Before the Nasdaq 
Listing and Hearing Review Council and Calls for Review by the Nasdaq 
Listing and Hearing Review Council

October 17, 2024.
    On July 3, 2024, The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC (``Nasdaq'' or 
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission 
(``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities 
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a 
proposed rule change to amend Rule 5820 to codify the standards of 
review that govern appeals before the Nasdaq Listing and Hearing Review 
Council and calls for review by the Nasdaq Listing and Hearing Review 
Council. The proposed rule change was published for comment in the 
Federal Register on July 23, 2024.\3\ On August 30, 2024, pursuant to 
Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,\4\ the Commission designated a longer 
period within which to approve the proposed rule change, disapprove the 
proposed rule change, or institute proceedings to determine whether to 
approve or disapprove the proposed rule change.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 100544 (July 17, 
2024), 89 FR 59782 (``Notice''). Comments on the proposed rule 
change are available at: https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-nasdaq-2024-037/srnasdaq2024037.htm.
    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 100879 (August 30, 
2024), 89 FR 72501 (September 5, 2024). The Commission designated 
October 21, 2024, as the date by which the Commission shall approve 
or disapprove, or institute proceedings to determine whether to 
disapprove, the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On October 15, 2024, the Exchange withdrew the proposed rule change 
(SR-NASDAQ-2024-037).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, 
pursuant to delegated authority.\6\
Sherry R. Haywood,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2024-24470 Filed 10-21-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
II

106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 3226

To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to extend for an additional

3 years the special immigrant religious worker program.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

OCTOBER 19 (legislative day, SEPTEMBER 22), 2000

Mr. HATCH introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred

to the Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to extend

for an additional 3 years the special immigrant religious

worker program.

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 ‘‘Religious Workers Act

5 of 2000’’.

6 SEC. 2. 3-YEAR EXTENSION OF SPECIAL IMMIGRANT RELI7 GIOUS WORKER PROGRAM.

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 101(a)(27)(C)(ii) of the

9 Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C.
2

•S 3226 IS

1 1101(a)(27)(C)(ii)) is amended by striking ‘‘2000,’’ each

2 place it appears and inserting ‘‘2003,’’.

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

4 subsection (a) shall take effect on October 1, 2000.

Æ
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

HERLEY VELEZ,

Appellant,

v.

DVA LABORATORY SERVICES, INC.,

Appellee.

No. 4D21-2530

[April 6, 2023]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, 

Broward County; Carol Lisa Phillips, Judge; L.T. Case No. CACE19-

007355.

Chad A. Barr of Chad Barr Law, Altamonte Springs, for appellant.

Kurt T. Koehler of Cole, Scott & Kissane, P.A., Jacksonville, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

MAY, CIKLIN and KUNTZ, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Years Ended December 31,2009
    
    
    2008
    
    
    2007
    
    
    2006
    
    
    2005Earnings:Income (loss) before income taxes
    
    $
    201,419
    
    
    $
    (2,256
    )
    
    $
    179,894
    
    
    $
    173,082
    
    
    $
    86,711Add: fixed charges
    
    
    24,414
    
    
    
    30,439
    
    
    
    27,287
    
    
    
    5,020
    
    
    
    4,675Total earnings
    
    $
    225,833
    
    
    $
    28,183
    
    
    $
    207,181
    
    
    $
    178,102
    
    
    $
    91,386Fixed charges:Interest expensed
    
    $
    16,266
    
    
    $
    20,514
    
    
    $
    18,962
    
    
    $
    608
    
    
    $
    608Amortization of debt issuance cost
    
    
    2,444
    
    
    
    4,313
    
    
    
    3,410
    
    
    
    508
    
    
    
    553Interest component of rental payments (1)
    
    
    5,704
    
    
    
    5,612
    
    
    
    4,915
    
    
    
    3,904
    
    
    
    3,514Total fixed charges
    
    $
    24,414
    
    
    $
    30,439
    
    
    $
    27,287
    
    
    $
    5,020
    
    
    $
    4,675Ratio of earnings to fixed charges
    
    
    9.3
    
    
    
    0.9
    
    
    
    7.6
    
    
    
    35.5
    
    
    
    19.5Total additional earnings required to achieve 1:1 coverage
ratio of fixed charges
    
    $
    
    
    
    $
    2,089
    
    
    $
    
    
    
    $
    
    
    
    $
    
 
 (1)
    
    Estimated at 33% of rental expense as a reasonable approximation of the interest factor.
#### Estate of Hafemann (Catherine): La Bonde and others, Trustees, Appellants, vs. Weckesser, Administratrix w. w. a., Respondent.

*January 6*

February *2, 1954.*

For the appellants there was a brief by *Alfred G. Boe-decker*of Milwaukee, for the residuary legatees, and by *Erbstoesser, Cleary & Decker*of Milwaukee, for the trustees, and oral argument by *Mr. Boedecker*and *Mr. Vernon Erb-stoesser.*

For the respondent there was a brief by *Norman J. Baker,*attorney, and *John J. Ermenc*of counsel, both of Milwaukee, and oral argument by *Mr. Baker.*

Steinle, J.

This cause embraced the claim of the trustees of the estate of Charles Hafemann for $1,748.64 against the estate of Catherine R. Hafemann. The trial court considered and determined this claim in the case of *Will of Hafemann,*ante, p. 641, 62 N. W. (2d) 561. Findings of fact and conclusions of law identical with those in said case were filed herein. The disposition of the claim of the trustees herein against the estate of Catherine R. Hafemann is covered in the opinion in the case of *Will of Hafemann, supra.*

*By the Court.*— Order affirmed.

*652Currie, J.

*(dissenting).*For the reasons stated in the dissent entered, *Will of Hafemann,*ante, p. 641, 62 N. W. (2d) 561, I would reverse the judgment below and allow the claim of the trustees of the trust created by the last will and testament of Charles Hafemann, deceased, in the amount filed for the difference between the $3,500 advanced by them to the widow and the $1,751.36 due the widow’s estate as income of the trust accrued from July 1, 1951, to October 5, 1951, or $1,748.64.
EX-31 Rule 13a-14(d)/15d-14(d) Certifications.

 

I, David Nass, certify that:

 

1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports onForm 10-D required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of the UBS-Barclays Commercial MortgageTrust 2012-C4 (the “Exchange Act periodic reports”);

 

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

 

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

 

4. Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statementsrequired in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicershave fulfilled their obligations under the servicing agreements in all material respects; and

 

5. All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicingcriteria for asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteriafor asset-backed securities required to be included in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange ActRules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwise disclosed in this report. Any materialinstances 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 oninformation provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties:

 

Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as Master Servicer, RialtoCapital Advisors, LLC, as Special Servicer, U.S. Bank National Association, as Trustee, U.S. Bank National Association, as CertificateAdministrator, U.S. Bank National Association, as Custodian, TriMont Real Estate Advisors, Inc., as Operating Advisor, CoreLogicCommercial Real Estate Services, Inc., as Servicing Function Participant, National Tax Search, LLC, as Servicing Function Participant,Midland Loan Services, a Division of PNC Bank, National Association, as Primary Servicer for the 1000 Harbor Boulevard MortgageLoan, Rialto Capital Advisors, LLC, as Special Servicer for the 1000 Harbor Boulevard Mortgage Loan, Deutsche Bank Trust CompanyAmericas, as Trustee for the 1000 Harbor Boulevard Mortgage Loan, Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas, as Certificate Administratorfor the 1000 Harbor Boulevard Mortgage Loan, Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas, as Custodian for the 1000 Harbor Boulevard MortgageLoan, and Park Bridge Lender Services LLC, as Operating Advisor for the 1000 Harbor Boulevard Mortgage Loan.

 

 

Dated: March 27, 2017

 

 

/s/ David Nass

 

 

President and Chief Executive Officer

(senior officer in charge of securitizationof the depositor)