alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Fourth Court of Appeals **San Antonio, Texas** MEMORANDUM OPINION
N o. 04

- 13

- 00485

- CR Wel d on Lee MCMILLIAN , Appellant

v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee From the 19th Judicial District Court, McLennan County, Texas Trial Court No. 2013

- 44

- C1 Honorable Ralph T. Strother, Judge Presiding Opinion by: Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice Sitting: Karen Angelini, Justice Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice Delivered and Filed: April 9, 2014
MOTION TO WITHDRAW GRANTED ; AFFIRME D Weldon Lee McMillian entered an open plea of guilty to felony driving while intoxicated. He waived a jury and punishment was tried to the court. McMillian pled true to the enhancement paragraphs in the indictment and, after a hearing, the trial court se ntenced McMillian to forty

- five
years in prison. McMillian timely appealed. McMillian’s court

- appointed appellate attorney filed a motion to withdraw and a brief in which he raises no arguable points of error and concludes this appeal is frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967 ), High v.04

- 13

- 00485

- CR

State , 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978), and Gainous v. State , 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). Counsel informed McMillian of his right to file a pro se brief and provided him copies of the brief , the motion to withdraw , and the appel late record. McMillian filed a pro se brief in which he contends the indictment contained clerical errors and that at least one of the convictions alleged for enhancement purposes never occurred. After reviewing the record, counsel’s brief, and McMillian’ s pro se brief, we find no reversible error and agree with counsel the appeal is wholly frivolous. See Bledsoe v. State , 178 S.W.3d 824, 826

- 27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). We therefore grant the motion to withdraw filed by counsel and affirm the trial court’s judgment. See id .; Nichols v. State , 954 S.W.2d 83, 86 (Tex. App.

— San Antonio 1997, no pet.); Bruns v. State , 924 S.W.2d 176, 177 n.1 (Tex. App.

— San Antonio 1996, no pet.). 1
Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice
DO NOT PUBLISH

1 No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should McMillian wish to seek further review of this case by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, he must either retain an attorney to file a petition for discretionary review or file a pro se petition for discretionary review. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed within thirty days after either this opinion is rendered or the last timely m otion for rehearing or motion for en banc reconsideration is overruled by this court. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.2. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed with the clerk of the Court of Criminal Appeals. See id. R. 68.3. Any petition for discreti onary review must comply with the requirements of rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See id. R. 68.4.

- 2

-
EX-31 Rule 13a-14(d)/15d-14(d) Certifications

  I, Melissa Loiselle, certify that:

  1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K/A, and all reports on
     Form 10-D required to be filed in respect of the period covered by
     this report on Form 10-K/A of MASTR Asset Backed Securities Trust
     2006-AM3 (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/A.

     In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on
     information provided to me by the following unaffiliated party:
     Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, as Servicer.


     Dated: May 27, 2008

     /s/ Melissa Loiselle
     Signature

     Vice President
    (senior officer in charge of the servicing function of the master servicer)
**** 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 on Form 10-K for the period ended April 30,
      2008 of Photomatica, Inc., a Nevada corporation (the “Company”), as filed with
      the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Annual Report”),
      I, Hilary Vieira, Chairman, President and 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
      Annual Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d)
      of
      the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and





2.
      The
      information contained in this Annual Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the
      Company.





Date:
      August 6, 2008





/s/
      Hilary Vieira





Hilary
      Vieira


President,
      Secretary Treasurer, Principal Executive Officer,


Principal
      Financial Officer and Director
AJPIERRO PHOTOGRAPHY

DRONE PRE-FLIGHT CHECKLIST

PIC signature: ___________________________________ Date: ______________
CRESTMARKCAPITAL
            February
      3, 2009





Mr.
Michael Mathews, CEO


Interclick,
Inc.


257 Park
Avenue South, Suite 602


New York,
NY 10010





Dear Mr.
Mathews:





We are
pleased to advise you that your company’s credit facility has been increased to
a maximum outstanding Initial Purchase Price of $4,500,000.00.





As
always, we look forward to a continued mutually beneficial funding relationship
with your company.





In
accordance with Section 1.14 of our Accounts Receivable Financing Agreement
dated November 12, 2008, please acknowledge your acceptance and agreement to
this new credit facility by signing below.  Please return a signed
copy to me via email or fax.





Should
you have any comments or questions regarding this action please do not hesitate
to give me a call.





Sincerely,
              ACCEPTED
      AND AGREED TO BY:/s/
      Brett Hossley
              INTERCLICK,
      INC.By:
              /s/ Michael MathewsBrett
      Hossley
              Printed Name:
              Michael MathewsVice
      President
              Title:
              CEO





BH/cm





A
      Crestmark Bank Company, Member FDIC
              www.comcaplending.com726
      Highlandia Drive
              Phone
      225-293-0711Baton
      Rouge, Louisiana 70810
              Fax 225-293-0712
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Anton Lemar DAMES, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-16195 Non-Argument Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

(September 7, 2017)

Laura Thomas Rivero, John C. Shipley, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Monique Botero, Wifredo A. Ferrer, Emily M. Smachetti, Arimentha R. Walkins, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Miami, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Anton Lemar Dames, Pro Se

Before JULIE CARNES, JILL PRYOR and BLACK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Anton Dames appeals the district court’s denial of his Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(g) motion for the return of two vehicles seized by the Government. After review,1 we vacate and remand for further proceedings.

Under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(g), a person aggrieved by an unlawful search and seizure of property or by the deprivation of property may move for the property’s return. The person from whom the property was seized is presumed to have a right to its return, and the Government must demonstrate that it has a legitimate reason to retain the property. *United States v. Potes Ramirez,*260 F.3d 1310, 1314 n.8 (11th Cir. 2001).

The Government has advocated inconsistent positions throughout Dames’ criminal proceedings as to whether it forfeited the vehicles. During Dames’ sentencing hearing, the Government informed the district court that it had seized one of the two vehicles in dispute, but not the other. In its response to Dames’ motion below and in its brief before this Court, however, the Government has insisted that the United States did not seize either vehicle. Additionally, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Form FD-302 completed for the search of Dames’ residence states that both vehicles were seized by the FBI. As such, Dames has demonstrated that both vehicles were originally seized by the FBI. Therefore, it appears the Government, at least at some point, had possession of the vehicles and intended to forfeit them, and, consequently, the Government has not met its burden of demonstrating that it has a legitimate reason to retain the vehicles. *See Potes Ramirez,*260 F.3d at 1314. Therefore, we vacate the district court’s order and remand for further proceedings.

VACATED AND REMANDED.

1

. We review a district court’s denial of a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(g) motion for return of property *de novo. United States v. Potes Ramirez,*260 F.3d 1310, 1314 n.8 (11th Cir. 2001). We also review a district court's determination that it lacks jurisdiction to exercise equitable jurisdiction *de novo. See id.*
EX-33 (h)


(logo) REGULUS


Report on Assessment of Compliance with Regulation AB Servicing Criteria

1. Pursuant to Subpart 229.1100 - Asset Backed Securities, 17 C.F.R. section
   229. 1100-229.1123 ("Regulation AB"), Regulus Group LLC, for itself and its
   wholly-owned subsidiaries (individually and collectively "Regulus"), is
   responsible for assessing its compliance with the servicing criteria
   applicable to the remittance processing services it provides to customers who
   are issuers or servicers of asset backed securities transactions and who have
   requested confirmation of Regulus' compliance in connection with loan and/or
   receivables portfolios that include pool assets for asset backed securities
   transactions (the "Platform"). Remittance processing is a service whereby
   check payments that are remitted by mail to a post office box are collected,
   processed through a highly automated data capture system, and prepared for
   deposit to a bank account held by the beneficiary of the payment.

2. The servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of Regulation AB were used
   in Regulus' assessment of compliance. Regulus has concluded that the
   servicing criteria set forth in Items 1122(d)(2)(i) and 1122(d)(4)(iv) of
   Regulation AB are applicable to the servicing activities it performs with
   respect to the Platform (such criteria the "Applicable Servicing Criteria").
   Regulus has concluded that the remainder of the servicing criteria set forth
   in Item 1122(d) of Regulation AB are inapplicable to the activities it
   performs with respect to the Platform because Regulus does not participate in
   the servicing activities referenced by such servicing criteria.

3. As of and for the year ending December 31, 2006, Regulus has complied in all
   material respects with the Applicable Servicing Criteria set forth in Item
   1122(d) of Regulation AB.

4. KPMG LLP, a registered public accounting firm, has issued an attestation
   report on Regulus' assessment of compliance with the Applicable Servicing
   Criteria as of and for the year ending December 31, 2006. A copy of that
   attestation report is attached hereto as Exhibit A.


/s/ Kimberlee Clark
Kimberlee Clark
Chief Financial Officer

February 22, 2007


860 LATOUR COURT | NAPA, CA | 94558 | TEL: 707.254.4000 | FAX: 707.254.4070
| REGULU5GROUP.COM
Exhibit 31

      Exhibit 31:  Rule 13a-14(d)/15d-14(d) Certifications

Re:   Morgan Stanley ABS Capital I Inc. Trust 2006-NC5 (the "Trust")

I, Steven Shapiro, certify that:

1.    I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D
required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form
10-K of the 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.    Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statements required in
this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the
Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicers have fulfilled their obligations
under the servicing agreements; 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: Countrywide Home Servicin
LP, NC Capital Corporation and Deutsche Bank National Trust Company,

Date: March 30, 2007

/s/ Steven Shapiro
By: Steven Shapiro
Title: Vice President
#### Joe B. COOK, Petitioner, v. Charles MONTGOMERY, Warden, and the Attorney General of the State of Georgia, Respondents.

No. 80-7981

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit. Unit B

July 13, 1981.

Cook & Palmour, Bobby Lee Cook, L. Branch, S. Connelly, Summerville, Ga., for petitioner.

Harrison Kohler, Asst. Atty. Gen., Atlanta, Ga., for respondents.

Before TJOFLAT, VANCE and THOMAS A. CLARK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

The sole issue raised by this habeas corpus petition is the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain petitioner’s state court conviction for murder. The district court reviewed the evidence under the strict standard established by *Jackson v. Virginia,*443 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979), and concluded that “a rational trier of fact could have found the Petitioner guilty beyond a reasonable doubt ... . ” Record at 264. We also have reviewed the evidence, and assuming without deciding that the *Jackson*standard applies, reach the same conclusion. On the record before us, we conclude that a rational trier of fact could have found petitioner guilty of the charge beyond a reasonable doubt.

AFFIRMED.
#### UNITED STATES of America Plaintiff-Appellee v. Mario JOHNSON, also known as Mario D. Clemons Defendant-Appellant

No. 17-1184

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: June 29, 2017

Filed: July 12, 2017

Keith D. Sorrell, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Eastern District of Missouri, Cape Girar-deau, MO, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Mario Johnson, Pro Se

Before WOLLMAN, COLLOTON, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Mario Johnson directly appeals after the district court1 revoked his' supervised release and sentenced him to a within-guidelines prison term plus supervised release with special conditions. His counsel has filed a brief arguing that the district court plainly erred in imposing special conditions of supervised release related to treatment *803programs. In addition, his counsel has moved for leave to withdraw.

Upon careful review, we conclude that the district court did not plainly err in imposing the special conditions of supervised release. *See United States v. Wisecarver,*644 F.3d 764, 775 (8th Cir. 2011) (explaining that unobjected-to special conditions of supervised release are reviewed for plain error); *see also*18 U.S.C. § 3583(d) (providing that special release conditions must be reasonably related to 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and must involve no greater deprivation of liberty than is reasonably necessary to advance § 3553(a) purposes). Accordingly, we grant counsel leave to withdraw, and we affirm.

1

. The Honorable Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr., United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE BALANCE
SHEET AND STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                           9,587
<SECURITIES>                                     7,238
<RECEIVABLES>                                    8,880
<ALLOWANCES>                                       265
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                27,899
<PP&E>                                           9,391
<DEPRECIATION>                                   6,544
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  32,062
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           12,004
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            63
<OTHER-SE>                                      19,995
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    32,062
<SALES>                                         17,906
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                17,906
<CGS>                                            4,740
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    4,740
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                17,853
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (4,553)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        40
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (4,593)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (4,593)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.73)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.73)
        

</TABLE>
# EUR-Lex - 32001D0674 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 32001D0674

**2001/674/EC: Commission Decision of 9 August 2001 amending Decision 2001/433/EC for the purchase by the Community of bluetongue vaccine for restocking the Community bank (Text with EEA relevance) (notified under document number C(2001) 2494) **

*
Official Journal L 236 , 05/09/2001 P. 0015 - 0015 *

Commission Decision

of 9 August 2001

amending Decision 2001/433/EC for the purchase by the Community of bluetongue vaccine for restocking the Community bank

(notified under document number C(2001) 2494)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2001/674/EC)

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Directive 2000/75/EC of 20 November 2000 laying down specific provisions for the control and eradication of bluetongue(1), and in particular Article 9(2) thereof,

Having regard to Council Decision 90/424/EEC of 26 June 1990 on expenditure in the veterinary field(2), as last amended by Decision 2001/12/EC(3), and in particular Article 3(3) and (5) thereof,

Whereas:

(1) Decision 2001/433/EC(4) has been adopted for restocking the BT vaccine bank with 1000000 doses.

(2) Article 2 of Decision 2001/433/EC provides that the maximum cost of this restocking shall be EUR 100000.

(3) Given the evolution of commercial circumstances, it appears that this maximum does not cover the actual cost of the purchase, storage and airfreight of 1000000 doses.

(4) The measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Veterinary Committee,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

In Article 2 of Decision 2001/433/EC, the amount "EUR 100000" is replaced by "EUR 115000".

Article 2

This Decision is addressed to the Member States.

Done at Brussels, 9 August 2001.

For the Commission

David Byrne

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 327, 22.12.2000, p. 74.

(2) OJ L 224, 18.8.1990, p. 19.

(3) OJ L 3, 6.1.2001, p. 27.

(4) OJ L 154, 9.6.2001, p. 61.