alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 4.2

 

	
 
    	
May 17, 2012
    


 

U.S. Bank National Association
 1420 Fifth Avenue, Seventh Floor
 PD-WA-T7CT
 Seattle, WA 98101
 Attn:  Carolyn Morrison

 

Ladies and Gentlemen:

 

Pursuant to the provisions of Section 2.02 of the Indenture (the “Indenture”) dated as of November 23, 2011 among Kodiak Oil & Gas Corp. (the “Company”), Kodiak Oil & Gas (USA) Inc. (the “Guarantor”) and you, as Trustee, the undersigned officers of the Company hereby certify, in their capacity as officers of the Company and not in their personal capacity, as follows in connection with the issuance by the Company, of $150,000,000 aggregate principal amounts of the Company’s 8.125% Senior Notes due 2019 (“Notes”) to be consolidated and form a single series with the Company’s $650,000,000 8.125% Senior Notes due 2019 under the Indenture:

 

The issuance of the Notes pursuant to Section 2.02 of the Indenture does not contravene any provision of Article 4 of the Indenture.

 

The Notes shall constitute Additional Notes under the Indenture.

 

The Company hereby delivers to you two global notes (the “Global Notes”) representing $150,000,000 aggregate principal amount of the Additional Notes. You are hereby requested to authenticate on the date hereof (i) one Global Note (144A CUSIP No. 50015QAA8) registered in the name of Cede & Co. in the aggregate principal amount of $149,985,000 and (ii) one Global Note (Reg S CUSIP No. C49539AA4) registered in the name of Cede & Co. in the aggregate principal amount of $15,000, and to retain such Global Notes as custodian for The Depository Trust Company.

 

Terms used herein but not otherwise defined shall have the meaning given such terms in the Indenture.

 

[Signature pages follow]

 











 

	
 
    	
 
    	
Very truly yours,
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
Kodiak   Oil & Gas Corp.
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
By:
    	
/s/   James P. Henderson
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
Name:
    	
James P. Henderson
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
Title:
    	
Chief Financial   Officer, Treasurer, Secretary and Executive Vice President of Finance
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
Kodiak   Oil & Gas Corp.
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
By:
    	
/s/   Lynn A.   Peterson
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
Name:
    	
Lynn A. Peterson
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
Title:
    	
President and Chief   Executive Officer
    


 

[Signature Page to Order of the Trustee]
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Dana John ALEXANDER, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-51017 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed August 17, 2017

Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Dana John Alexander, Pro Se

Before OWEN, ELROD, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Dana John Alexander, federal prisoner # 56715-180, moves for leave to proceed in *804forma pauperis (IFP) to appeal the district court’s sealed order partially granting a motion for reduction of sentence pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 35. His IFP motion is a challenge to the district court’s certification that his appeal is not taken in good faith. *See Baugh v. Taylor,*117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997). Contrary to Alexander’s assertions, because the district court certified that his appeal would not be in good faith, he is required to obtain authorization to proceed IFP. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(3); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1).

Alexander states that he intends to argue on appeal that the district court should have recused itself from ruling on the Rule 35 motion. Alexander did not move for recusal in the district court, even though the facts supporting his recusal argument—announced in December 2015 when the Fifth Circuit Judicial Council reprimanded the judge—were publically known while the case was pending in district court. His request for recusal on appeal is therefore untimely. *See Travelers Ins. Co. v. Liljeberg Enters., Inc.,*38 F.3d 1404, 1410 (5th Cir. 1994) (“[O]ne seeking disqualification must do so at the earliest moment after knowledge of the facts demonstrating the basis for such disqualification.”); *United States v. Sanford,*157 F.3d 987, 988-89 (5th Cir. 1998) (same). We thus conclude that Alexander has not shown that he will present a nonfrivolous issue on appeal. *See Howard v. King,*707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983). Accordingly, we deny his motion for leave to proceed IFP and dismiss the appeal as frivolous. *See Baugh,*117 F.3d at 202 n.24; 5th Cir. R. 42.2.

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IFP DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be *804published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
From: Rogers, Bob
To: "mac@adeq.state.ar.us" ; "Elliott_Bickerstaff@deq.state.ms.us" ; Marc.Corrigan@tn.gov ; Srivastava, Pragati
Cc: Barry.Stephens@tn.gov ; Quincy.Styke@tn.gov ; Holt, Jim ; Fritchie, Denis ; Boyd, Christopher Subject: Redesignation request
Date: Friday, February 20, 2015 2:03:33 PM

Good frozen afternoon folks.

We are progressing with development of our redesignation request and maintenance plan and would like to schedule a conference call to get the 3 MSA parties together to discuss progress and what, if any direct coordination should be included in each of our plans. We hope to have a plan ready for submission to EPA by mid-April, although that might be a little ambitious with all the notice requirements we’ll have to meet. But it is always good to have a goal.

This first call may be a bit informal, but I’ll work up an agenda to help steer the conversation. I would prefer anytime Thursday morning or early Friday morning (say 8:30 to 9:30 or so). In case we can’t all get together at one of those times, please let me know of your preferences for anytime the next Monday or Tuesday (May 2 nd and 3 rd ). Once we get a time, we’ll work out the details on conference call hosting.

Well – they’re shutting us down due to ice again – stay warm and dry before we talk next.

Bob Rogers, Manager
Pollution Control Shelby County Health Department
814 Jefferson Ave. Memphis TN 38105 (901)222-9599
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

January 3, 2023

No. 04-22-00795-CV

IN THE ESTATE OF ELOISA M. MARTINEZ, DECEASED

From the Probate Court No 1, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2020PC3191

Honorable Oscar J. Kazen, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

The clerk’s record was originally due on December 19, 2022. On December 21, 2022, the 

trial court clerk filed a notification of late record, stating that the clerk’s record has not been filed 

because appellant failed to pay the fee for preparing the clerk’s record. The trial court clerk’s 

notification further indicates that appellant did not file a statement of inability to afford payment 

court costs. However, appellant did file an affidavit of inability to pay court costs in this court on 

November 22, 2022. Accordingly, appellant is entitled to appeal without paying for the clerk’s 

record. See TEX. R. APP. P. 20.1(c). 

The trial court clerk further states in her notification of late record that appellant has not 

filed a designation of the clerk’s record. However, a designation is not required. The contents of 

the clerk’s record are listed in Rule 34.5(a) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See id. 

34.5(a).

We ORDER the trial court clerk to file the clerk’s record on or before January 23, 2023. 

_________________________________

Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 3rd day of January, 2023.

___________________________________

MICHAEL A. CRUZ, Clerk of Court

FILE COPY
#### Jose Kahin RESENDIZ-GARCIA, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 15-71429

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

*448Submitted April 11, 2017 *

Filed April 19, 2017

Jose Kahin Resendiz-Garcia, Pro Se

Sarah Abigail Byrd, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, OIL, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent

Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Jose Kahin Resendiz-Garcia, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his motion for a continuance. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the agency’s denial of a continuance. *Sandoval-Luna v. Mukasey,*526 F.3d 1243, 1246 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying for lack of good cause Resen-diz-Garcia’s motion for a fourth continuance to await the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s (“DHS”) determination in his application for Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals. *See Singh v. Holder,*638 F.3d 1264, 1274 (9th Cir. 2011) (“Under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.29, an IJ ‘may grant a motion for continuance for good cause shown.’ ”). Resendiz-Garcia provided no evidence to support his contention that DHS would grant his request, and the basis for the motion remained merely a speculative possibility at the time of his final removal hearing. *See id.*(“[Tjhe IJ [is] not required to grant a continuance based on ... speculations.”).

Contrary to Resendiz-Garcia’s contention, the agency did not find him removable based on his criminal conviction. The record shows that Resendiz-Garcia conceded the charge of removability in the Notice to Appear that he entered the United States without inspection by an immigration officer, and the IJ ordered him removed on this basis.

We lack jurisdiction to consider Resen-diz-Garcia’s unexhausted contentions regarding the immigration consequences of his conviction under California Penal Code § 459. *See Barron v. Ashcroft,*358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004) (no subject-matter jurisdiction over legal claims not presented in administrative proceedings below).

We also lack jurisdiction to consider Re-sendiz-Garcia’s challenges to an IJ’s 2005 voluntary departure order, because this petition is not timely as to that order. *See*8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 11** 
**- 7720** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appell ee ,

v. TERRY D. JONES, a/k/a Rick ,
Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Newport News

. Robert G. Doumar, Senior District Judge. ( 4:95

- cr
- 00037

- RGD

- 1 )

Submitted : May 24 , 2012 Decided: May 30, 2012

Before MOTZ and D AVIS , Circuit Judges , and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge

.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Terry D. Jones , Appellant Pro Se. Lisa Rae McKeel, Assistant U nited S tates Attorney , Newport News, Virginia, for Appellee

.

Unpublished opinions are not binding preced ent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
Terry D. Jones appeals the district court’s order
denying his motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C.

§ 3582(c)(2) (2006). We have reviewed the record and find no

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the d istrict court ’ s
order. United States v. Terry , No. 4:95

- cr
- 00037

- RGD

- 1 (E.D.
Va. Nov. 22, 2011). 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
Exhibit
32.1


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 Annual Report of Datone, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Tao Wang, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:




(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.





Date:
March 30, 2010





/s/
      Tao WangTao
      Wang, Principal Executive
Officer
#### Jonathan RODRIGUEZ-RUIZ, Petitioner-Appellant v. Becky CLAY, Warden, Federal Correctional Institution Oakdale, Respondent-Appellee

No. 16-30833 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed June 23, 2017

Jonathan Rodriguez-Ruiz,'Pro Se

Before STEWART, Chief Judge, and CLEMENT and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Jonathan Rodriguez-Ruiz, federal prisoner # 44015-177, appeals the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petition challenging his disciplinary conviction for engaging in or encouraging a group demonstration. He contends that he was .not guilty of the infraction because he acted as a translator for the other inmates. Rodriguez-Ruiz also claims that the hearing officer violated his due process rights by denying his request to call witnesses.

The incident report constituted sufficient evidence of the offense because it detailed how Rodriguez-Ruiz encouraged other inmates to gather around a prison official. *See Hudson v. Johnson,*242 F.3d 534, 536-37 (5th Cir. 2001). The hearing officer report indicates that Rodriguez-Ruiz was informed of his right to call witnesses but did not avail himself of the opportunity and, thus, there was no violation of his due process rights. *See Wolff v. McDonnell,*418 U.S. 539, 563-70, 94 S.Ct. 2963, 41 L.Ed.2d 935 (1974).

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.
**Exhibit 32.1**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of drugstore.com, inc. (the “Company”)for the period ending January 1, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Dawn Lepore, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, asadopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: 

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and 

(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company. 

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been providedto drugstore.com, inc. and will be retained by drugstore.com, inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request. 

March 17, 2006
EXHIBIT 32

                            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 Prime Air, Inc. (the "Company")
on  Form  10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities
and  Exchange  Commission  on  the date hereof (the "Report"), Dr. Albert Bruno,
Chief  Executive  Officer  and  Jan  Gossing,  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, to the best of their
knowledge  and  belief:

     (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.

Dated:  November  22,  2004
                                    /s/ Dr. Albert Bruno
                                    -----------------------------
                                    Dr. Albert Bruno
                                    Chief Executive Officer
                                    (Principal Executive Officer)


Dated:  November  22,  2004
                                    /s/ Jan  Gossing
                                    -------------------------------------------
                                    Jan  Gossing
                                    Chief  Financial  Officer
                                    (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)


                                       17
<PAGE>
EXHIBIT 35.3
                  SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT (ITEM 1123)
                           HOMECOMINGS FINANCIAL, LLC
              RAMP SERIES 2006-RS6 TRUST (THE "ISSUING ENTITY")

The undersigned,  a duly authorized  officer of Homecomings  Financial,  LLC, as
servicer (the "Servicer") pursuant to the applicable  servicing agreement,  does
hereby certify that:

1.   A review of the  Servicer's  activities  during the  period  covered by the
     Issuing  Entity's  report  on Form 10-K and of the  Servicer's  performance
     under  the   applicable   servicing   agreement  has  been  made  under  my
     supervision.

2.   To the  best of my  knowledge,  based  on such  review,  the  Servicer  has
     fulfilled all of its obligations under the applicable  servicing  agreement
     in all material respects throughout such period.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has duly executed this Certificate this 26th
day of March 2007.

By:       /s/ Anthony N. Renzi
          Name: Anthony N. Renzi
          Title: Managing Director
New York Superior Court—General Term.

Filed March 9, 1891.

#### Lawrence Lynch, Resp’t, *v.*The Metropolitan Elevated R. R. Co. *et al.,*App’lts.

Appeal by defendant from judgment entered upon findings and conclusions at special term.

*Davies & Rapallo,*for app’lts; *Charles Gibson Bennett,*for resp't.

Per Curiam.—Judgment affirmed, with costs.
EXHIBIT 21

                              List of Subsidiaries



Gasco Production Company  (previously Pannonian Energy, Inc.)
         Delaware Corporation
         Tax ID: 84-1461816
         Date of Incorporation: 5/21/98

San Joaquin Oil & Gas, Ltd
         Nevada Corporation
         Tax ID: 98-0213872
         Date of Incorporation: 9/14/99


Riverbend Gas Gathering, LLC (Gasco Energy, Inc. is the managing member)
         Nevada Registration
         Tax ID: 43-2049794
         Date of Organization: 3/3/04


Myton Oilfield Rentals, LLC (Gasco Energy, Inc. is the managing member)
         Nevada Registration
         Tax ID: 20-1202389
         Date of Organization: 5/26/04
## SERVED: March 7, 2013 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS**WASHINGTON~** 

### DC

In The Matter Of: NORTHEASTERN AVIATION, CORP. Respondent ' 

## ) ) ) ) ) ) D9cketNo. FAA-2012-1264
CaseNo. 2012EA110030



### ORDERRESETTING RULE 16 LITIGATION SCHEDULING CONFERENCE AND DEADLINE FORRULE 26(t) SUBMISSION
OnMarch 1, 2013, an Order Setting Rule 16 Litigation Scheduling Conference and DirectingRule 26(t) Planning and Submission was filed. Among otherthings, this Order setthe Rule 16 Litigation Scheduling Conference for Wednesday, May 15, 2013, at 10:00 a.m. Eastern time and ordered the partiesto file a Ru1e 26(f), proposed scheduling/discovery planon orbefore May 8, 2013. OnMarch 5, 2013, Complainant's Counsel contacted Office ofHearings (OH) attorney staft'to point outthathehad previously notified OH ofhis unavailability on certain dates including May 15, 2013. Complainant's Counsel provided alternate dates for consideration. OH attorney staffcontacted Respondent's Counsel to check his availability onthe. alternate date. Respondent's Counsel had no objection.to the change in date. 

### IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 1. The Rule 16 Litigation Scheduling Conference previously set for May 15, 2013, at 10:00 a.m. Easterntime is reset to Monday, May 

### 20,2013, at 

### 11:00 a.m. 2. The deadline for the parties to file their Ru1e 26(t), proposedschedu1ing/discovery planpreviously set for May 8, 2013 is reset to Monday, May 

### 13, 2013.

Attachment: Service ListSERVICE LIST- BY U.S. MAIL ORIGINAL & ONE COPY Federal AviationAdministration 800 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, DC 20591 Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W1000 1

Mr. Zachary M. Berman, Esq. 

### Complainant's Counsel Office ofthe Regional Cmmsel Eastern Region Federal AviationAdministration 1Aviation Plaza Jamaica, NY 11434 TEL: 718-553-3258 FAX: 718-995-5699 ONE COPY

Mr. James Ehrig, Esq. 

### Respondent's Counsel

.Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellot, LLC

1717 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, 12th Floor Washington, DC 20006-4604 TEL: 202-659-6672 FAX: 202-659-6699 jehrig@eckertseamans.corn JudgeJ.E. Sullivan, 

### US. Administrative LawJudge Office ofHearings, M-20 U.S. Department ofTransportation 1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (Ell-310) Washington, DC 20590 TEL: 202-366-2132 FAX: 202-366-7536 FDMS No. FAA-2012-1264 (Civil Penalty Action)

1 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person orby expedited courier, use the following address: Federal Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2Wl000, Washington, DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430.