alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed March 7, 2024.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-23-00196-CR

BRYAN WILLIAMS, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 180th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1681638

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant appeals his conviction for sexual assault. Appellant’s appointed 

counsel filed a brief in which he concludes the appeal is wholly frivolous and 

without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 

738 (1967), by presenting a professional evaluation of the record and 

demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See High v. 

State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 811–13 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). The brief further meets 

the requirements of Anders by assigning issues that might arguably support the 
2

appeal, and explaining why those issues do not raise arguable error warranting 

relief in this appeal. See Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137, 138 (Tex. Crim. App. 

1969).

A copy of counsel’s brief was delivered to appellant. Appellant was advised 

of the right to examine the appellate record and file a pro se response. See Stafford 

v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 512 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). At appellant’s request, the 

record was provided to him. On January 11, 2024, appellant filed a pro se response 

to counsel’s brief.

We have carefully reviewed the record, counsel’s brief, and appellant’s pro 

se response and agree the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. Further, we 

find no reversible error in the record. We are not to address the merits of each 

claim raised in an Anders brief or a pro se response when we have determined 

there are no arguable grounds for review. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824,

827–28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

PER CURIAM 

Panel consists of Chief Justice Christopher and Justices Zimmerer and Wilson.

Do Not Publish — Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 206 (Thursday, October 24, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Page 84908]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-24655]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4775-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2024-0001]


Washington; Amendment No. 2 to Notice of a Major Disaster 
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration 
for the State of Washington (FEMA-4775-DR), dated April 28, 2024, and 
related determinations.

DATES: This change occurred on October 2, 2024.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and 
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW, 
Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Emergency Management Agency 
(FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the 
Administrator, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Yolanda J. 
Jackson, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating 
Officer for this disaster.
    This action terminates the appointment of Tonia Pence as Federal 
Coordinating Officer for this disaster.

    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 
(CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, 
Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis 
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster 
Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance 
Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and 
Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, 
Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing 
Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially 
Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other 
Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially 
Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

Deanne Criswell,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2024-24655 Filed 10-23-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P
#### In the Matter of the Estate of Mary Garrity, Deceased.

Surrogate’s Court, New York County,

October 29, 1937.

*911
      *Edward T. Corcoran,*for Mary A. Fagan and Catherine Tevlin, petitioners.

*Theodore M. Gibbons, Jr.,*for John J. Dwyer, respondent-attorney.

Delehanty, S.

The respondent here, an attorney at law, filed in tins court a power of attorney authorizing him to act for the petitioners in this proceeding (among others) in obtaining from the city treasury the funds deposited for the benefit of the next of kin of deceased. Eventually a decree was entered which by its terms directed payments to petitioners here of specific sums of money. Petitioners assert that they did not receive the amounts directed to. be paid them and now complain of the charges made against, their shares by the respondent-attorney. The latter has not answered the petition on the merits, but challenges the jurisdiction of the court to take any action on the petition.

The court holds that it has complete jurisdiction. The decree heretofore entered is final in the sense that it fixed the rights of the parties, It is not final in the sense now urged, by the respondent-attorney. The' court still retains jurisdiction to enforce the decree. One aspect of that enforcement is here the fixation of the proper charges of the attorney in fact for the distributees. The power to fix his charges is granted to this court by section 231-b of the Surrogate’s Court Act. That section states that the power may be exercised *“*irrespective the pendency of a particular proceeding.” It was intended to enable the court to reach the evil of overcharges made by attorneys in fact to persons interested in the. estates of deceased persons. The section should not be construed narrowly, but rather broadly, so as to effect the purposes which caused its enactment.

If respondent-attorney desires an opportunity to contest the application on the merits he may file within five days after the publication of this decision an answer setting forth any defenses which he may have to the allegations in the petition. Lacking such answer, an order may he submitted, on notice, granting the prayer of the petition and firing a date as ef which the charges of the attorney in fact will be inquired into and fixed. If an answer be filed raising an issue of fact, the court will then set a date for hearing upon the issue so formulated,
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
UNAUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE QUARTER ENDED MARCH 31, 2000 QUALIFIED IN
ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.

</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                           3,315
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  613,529
<ALLOWANCES>                                   505,659
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               809,414
<PP&E>                                         526,189
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,221,257
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        6,351,110
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     9,752,592
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,221,257
<SALES>                                        164,217
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               176,224
<CGS>                                          119,372
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,837,541
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               868,302
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              43,302
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (2,529,619)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (2,529,619)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.26)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.26)


</TABLE>
EX-35.3
(logo) MIDLAND    (logo) PNC
       LOAN              REAL ESTATE
       SERVICES

OFFICER CERTIFICATE

Deutsche Mortgage & Asset Receiving Corp.
Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates
COMM 2012-CCRE3


March 1, 2013


Pursuant to the requirements of that certain Pooling and Servicing Agreement
(the "Agreement"), it is hereby certified that on behalf of PNC Bank, National
Association d/b/a Midland Loan Services as successor by merger to Midland Loan
Services, Inc. (the "Servicer"),

(i) a review of the Servicer's activities during the calendar year 2012 (the
"Reporting Period") and of its performance under the Agreement has been made
under the undersigned officer's supervision;
(ii) to the best of the undersigned officer's knowledge, based on such review,
the Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all
material respects throughout the Reporting Period or, if there has been a
failure to fulfill any such obligation in any material respect, each such
failure known to the undersigned officer and the nature and status thereof are
set forth below; and

Nature and Status of Failures: None.

PNC BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCATION
d/ba MIDLAND LOAN SERVICES

/s/Steven W. Smith
Steven W. Smith
Executive Vice President

Member of The PNC Financial Services Group

10851 Mastin Boulevard  Overland Park, Kansas 66210
800-327-8083
www.pnc.com/midland
DISMISS and Opinion Filed January 28, 2020 

S 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-19-00853-CV 

IN THE INTEREST OF S.L.M., A.L.M., AND H.P.M., CHILDREN 

On Appeal from the 417th Judicial District Court 

Collin County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. 417-54002-2014 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before Justices Bridges, Molberg, and Carlyle 

Opinion by Justice Bridges 

 Stating he no longer wishes to pursue this appeal, appellant has filed a motion to dismiss. 

See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(1). We grant the motion and dismiss the appeal. See id. 

190853F.P05 

 

/David L. Bridges/ 

DAVID L. BRIDGES 

JUSTICE 
 –2– 

S 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

JUDGMENT 

IN THE INTEREST OF S.L.M., A.L.M., 

AND H.P.M., CHILDREN 

No. 05-19-00853-CV 

 On Appeal from the 417th Judicial District 

Court, Collin County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. 417-54002-2014. 

Opinion delivered by Justice Bridges, 

Justices Molberg and Carlyle participating. 

 In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, we DISMISS the appeal. 

 We ORDER that appellee Kelly Marx recover her costs, if any, of this appeal from 

appellant Timothy Marx. 

Judgment entered January 28, 2020.
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



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Hudson Technologies, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, James R. Buscemi, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

|(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.







|/s/ James R. Buscemi   
|-----------------------
|James R. Buscemi       
|Chief Financial Officer
|                       
|May 4, 2005
`[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 43 Placed on Calendar Senate (PCS)]






                                                         Calendar No. 4
106th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 43

   To prohibit the provision of Federal funds to any State or local 
      educational agency that denies or prevents participation in 
                   constitutional prayer in schools.


_______________________________________________________________________


                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 19, 1999

 Mr. Helms introduced the following bill; which was read the first time

                            January 20, 1999

            Read the second time and placed on the calendar

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL


 
   To prohibit the provision of Federal funds to any State or local 
      educational agency that denies or prevents participation in 
                   constitutional prayer in schools.

    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 ``Voluntary School Prayer Protection 
Act''.

SEC. 2. FUNDING CONTINGENT ON RESPECT FOR CONSTITUTIONAL SCHOOL PRAYER.

    (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no 
funds made available through the Department of Education shall be 
provided to any State or local educational agency that has a policy of 
denying, or that effectively prevents participation in, constitutional 
prayer in public schools by individuals on a voluntary basis.
    (b) Limitation.--No person shall be required to participate in 
prayer, or shall influence the form or content of any constitutional 
prayer, in a public school.
                                     





                                                         Calendar No. 4

106th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                                 S. 43

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

   To prohibit the provision of Federal funds to any State or local 
      educational agency that denies or prevents participation in 
                   constitutional prayer in schools.

_______________________________________________________________________

                            January 20, 1999

            Read the second time and placed on the calendar`
EX-35.6


(logo) WELLS FARGO

Corporate Trust Services
MAC R1204-010
9062 Old Annapolis Road
Columbia, MD 21045

Tel: 410 884 2000
Fax: 410 715 2380


Deutsche Mortgage & Asset Receiving Corporation
60 Wall Street
New York, NY 10005


RE:  Annual Statement of Compliance


The undersigned, a duly authorized officer of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as
Certificate Administrator and Paying Agent (in such capacity, "Wells Fargo"),
hereby certifies as follows as of and for the year ending December 31, 2012
(the "reporting period"):


(a) A review of Wells Fargo's activities during the reporting period and of its
performance under the applicable servicing agreement(s) listed on Schedule A
hereto (the "Servicing Agreement(s)") has been made under my supervision; and

(b) To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, Wells Fargo has
fulfilled all of its obligations under the Servicing Agreement(s) in all
material respects throughout the reporting period, except as noted on Schedule
B.


October 25, 2013


/s/Julie Eichler
Julie Eichler
Vice President


(page)


To:  Deutsche Mortgage & Asset Receiving Corporation

Schedule A


List of Servicing Agreement(s) and Series


1. Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of November 1, 2012, by and among
DEUTSCHE MORTGAGE & ASSET RECEIVING CORPORATION, as Depositor, WELLS FARGO
BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Master Servicer TORCHLIGHT LOAN SERVICES, LLC,
as Special Servicer, U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Trustee, and PARK
BRIDGE LENDER SERVICES LLC, as Operating Advisor and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. as
Certificate Administrator, Paying Agent and Custodian relating to the Series
COMM 2012-CCRE4 Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates.


(page)


To:  Deutsche Mortgage & Asset Receiving Corporation

Schedule B


Material Non-Compliance with Servicing Obligations

Not Applicable
SCWC-22-0000056 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI‘I 

STATE OF HAWAI‘I, 

Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee, 

vs. 

MELISSA FAY, 

Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant. 

CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS 

(CAAP-22-0000056; CASE NO. 2DTA-21-00637) 

ORDER ACCEPTING APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI 

(By: Recktenwald, C.J., McKenna, Eddins, Ginoza, and Devens, JJ.)

Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant Melissa Fay’s application 

for writ of certiorari filed on January 9, 2024, is accepted. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that no oral argument will be heard 

in this case. Any party may, within ten days and pursuant 

to Rule 34(c) of the Hawai‘i Rules of Appellate Procedure, move 

for retention of oral argument. 

 DATED: Honolulu, Hawaiʻi, February 23, 2024. 

 /s/ Mark E. Recktenwald 

 /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna 

 /s/ Todd W. Eddins 

 /s/ Lisa M. Ginoza 

 /s/ Vladimir P. Devens 

Electronically Filed

Supreme Court

SCWC-22-0000056

23-FEB-2024

10:14 AM

Dkt. 5 OGAC
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15

- 40347 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.
EDWIN GARRIDO, also known as Edwin Garrido

- Arriaga , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 2:14

- CR

- 500

- 1

Before DENNIS, PRADO, and OWEN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Appealing the judgment in a criminal case, Edwin Garrido raises an argument that is foreclosed by United States v. Gonzalez

- Longoria , 831 F.3d 670 (5th Cir

. 2016) (en banc) , petition for cert

. filed (Sept. 29 , 2016) ( No. 16

- 6259 )

. In Gonzalez

- Longoria , we held that 18 U.S.C. § 16(b), wh ich defines a crime of violence when incorporated by reference into U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(C), is not unconstitutionally vague on its face in light of Johnson

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. 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 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED December 20 , 2016 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 15-40347 Document: 00513803993 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/20/2016No. 15

- 40347

2 v. United States , 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015)

. Id . at 672. Accordingly, the motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, the alternative motion for an extension of time to file a brief is DENIED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. Case: 15-40347 Document: 00513803993 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/20/2016
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14

- 30130 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee

v. MICHAEL WAYNE DAVIS, JR. , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana USDC No. 3:13

- CR

- 26

- 1

O N REMAND FROM TH E SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Before DAVIS, CLEMENT, and COSTA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * In his direct appeal to this Court last year , the defendant argued that the residual clause of the Armed Career Criminal Act was unconstitutionally vague and thus void. The defendant acknowledged t hat this argument was forcelosed by existing circuit precedent. See United States v. Gore , 636 F.3d

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. 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 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED October 26, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 14-30130 Document: 00513246375 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/26/2015No. 14

- 30130

2 728, 742 (5th Cir. 2011). We thus rejected his argument and affirmed the judgment. The defendant then filed a petition for certiorari, which the Supreme Court granted after its decision in Johnson v. United States , 135 S. Ct. 2551 (June 26, 2015). The Supreme Court vacated our previous ruling and remanded for consideration in light of Johnson , which concluded that the
residual clause is vague and thus voi d. The Armed Career Criminal Act was applied to the defendant based on a finding that a prior conviction qualified under the residual clause. That resulted in application of a fifteen

- year mandatory minimum sentence . Absent application of the Armed Career Criminal Act, the defendant faced a statutory maximum of ten years. In this direct appeal, we therefore VACATE the judgment of the district court and REMAND for resentencing in light of
Johnson. Case: 14-30130 Document: 00513246375 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/26/2015
Record of Discussion 

Docket No. FAA- Oircctorate Identifier: 

With whom outside the FAA bas this action been discussed (i.e., Design Approval Holder, 

manufacturer, ATA, NBAA, RAA, AOPA, ALPA, GAMA, etc)? 

ORGANIZATION PERSON CONTACTED DATE TOPICS DISCUSSED 

Meggitt Control John Pryor 3/25/2013 Concur. 

Systems 

NTSB Joshi Oeepah 5/7/2013 Concur. 

AOPA Robert Hackman 10/8/2013 No response. 

EAA Sean Elliot 10/8/2013 No response. 

Meggitt Control Jim Tarter 4/10/2014 Concur. 

Systems 

Other/Additional Information: 

9
II

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 521

To amend part Y of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets

Act of 1968 to provide for a waiver of or reduction in the matching

funds requirement in the case of fiscal hardship.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

MARCH 3, 1999

Mr. LEAHY (for himself, Mr. CAMPBELL, Mr. SCHUMER, Mr. FEINGOLD, and

Mr. TORRICELLI) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and

referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

To amend part Y of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control

and Safe Streets Act of 1968 to provide for a waiver

of or reduction in the matching funds requirement in

the case of fiscal hardship.

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

3 SECTION 1. MATCHING GRANT PROGRAM FOR LAW EN4 FORCEMENT ARMOR VESTS.

5 Section 2501(f) of part Y of title I of the Omnibus

6 Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C.

7 3796ll(f)) is amended—
2

•S 521 IS

1 (1) by striking ‘‘The portion’’ and inserting the

2 following:

3 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Subject to paragraph (2),

4 the portion’’; and

5 (2) by adding at the end the following:

6 ‘‘(2) WAIVER.—The Director may waive, in

7 whole or in part, the requirement of paragraph (1)

8 in the case of fiscal hardship, as determined by the

9 Director.’’.

Æ