alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Lucas HILL, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-41241 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed May 26, 2017

Marisa J. Miller, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Eastern District of Texas, Plano, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Lucas Hill, Pro Se

Before DAVIS, SOUTHWICK, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The attorney appointed to represent Lucas Hill has moved for leave to withdraw *828and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and *United States v. Flores,*632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Hill has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivo-lous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be *828published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
#### In the MATTER OF: Stephen Thomas YELVERTON, Stephen Thomas Yelverton, Appellant

No. 15-7156

September Term, 2016

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.

Filed On: January 4, 2017

Stephen Thomas Yelverton, Pro Se.

BEFORE: Henderson, Tatel, and Srinivasan, Circuit Judges

JUDGMENT

Per Curiam

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the brief filed by appellant. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); D.C. Cir. Rule 84(j). It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s November 5, 2015 order dismissing appellant’s bankruptcy appeal be affirmed. Although the filing injunction relied on by the district court in this case does not apply to bankruptcy appeals, see U.S. ex rel. Yelverton v. Fed. Ins. Co., 831 F.3d 585, 589 (D.C. Cir. 2016), this court nonetheless affirms the bankruptcy court’s dismissal on the merits, see Jones v. Bernanke, 557 F.3d 670, 676 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (“[W]e may affirm a judgment on any ground the record supports”). Appellant is barred by the doctrine of res judicata from avoiding the transfer of the .Homeplace tract to appellees under either 11 U.S.C. § 548 or § 522. By order filed August 6, 2015 in Yelverton v. Marm, No. 11-7063, this court dismissed the appeal of the district court’s order affirming the dismissal of the adversary proceeding No. 10-bk-10004 as moot, without vacatur. See U.S. Bancorp. Mortg. v. Bonner Mall P’ship, 513 U.S. 18, 29, 115 S.Ct. 386, 130 L.Ed.2d 233 (1994) (“Mootness by reason of settlement does not justify vacatur of a judgment under review.”). Further, because the Homeplace tract is not property of the bankruptcy estate, appellant’s claim of exemption is without effect. See 11 U.S.C. § 522(b)(1); id. § 541(a)(1)

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed. R. App. P. 41(b); D.C. Cir. Rule 41.
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 39 (Monday, February 28, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 11051]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-04216]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meetings

TIME AND DATE: Monday, February 28, 2022; 10:00 a.m.

PLACE: This meeting will be conducted by remote means.

STATUS: Commission meeting--closed to the public.*

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: Briefing matter.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Alberta E. Mills, Secretary, 
Division of the Secretariat, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. 
Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East-West Highway, Bethesda, 
MD 20814, (301) 504-7479 (Office) or 240-863-8938 (cell).
    * The Commission unanimously determined by recorded vote to close 
the meeting and that agency business requires calling the meeting 
without seven calendar days advance public notice.

    Dated: February 23, 2022.
Alberta E. Mills,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-04216 Filed 2-24-22; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 6355-01-P
Exhibit 33.1MANAGEMENT’S ASSERTION ONCOMPLIANCE WITH REGULATION AB CRITERIA     Bank of America, National Association (the “Asserting Party”), is responsible for assessingcompliance as of December 31, 2006 and for the period from November 14, 2006 (date of issuance ofthe Banc of America Securities Auto Trust 2006-G1 (“BASAT 2006-G1”) securitization transactionbacked by auto receivables) through December 31, 2006 (the “Reporting Period”) with the servicingcriteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of Regulation AB, excluding the criteria set forth in Items1122(d)(1)(iii), 1122(d)(1)(iv), 1122(d)(2)(i), 1122(d)(2)(ii), 1122(d)(2)(iii), 1122(d)(2)(iv),1122(d)(2)(v), 1122(d)(2)(vi), 1122(d)(2)(vii), 1122(d)(3)(i), 1122(d)(3)(ii), 1122(d)(3)(iii),1122(d)(3)(iv), 1122(d)(4)(i), 1122(d)(4)(ii), 1122(d)(4)(iii), 1122(d)(4)(iv), 1122(d)(4)(v),1122(d)(4)(vi), 1122(d)(4)(vii), 1122(d)(4)(viii), 1122(d)(4)(ix), 1122(d)(4)(x), 1122(d)(4)(xi),1122(d)(4)(xii), 1122(d)(4)(xiii), 1122(d)(4)(xiv) and 1122(d)(4)(xv), which the Asserting Partyhas concluded are not applicable to the servicing activities it performs with respect to BASAT2006-G1 (such non-excluded criteria, the “Applicable Servicing Criteria”). This report coversBASAT 2006-G1, the sole asset-backed securities transaction which was conducted by BASSecuritization LLC, registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to theSecurities Act of 1933 and outstanding during the Reporting Period (the “Platform”).     The Asserting Party has assessed its compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria for theReporting Period and has concluded that the Asserting Party has complied, in all material respects,with the Applicable Servicing Criteria as of December 31, 2006 and for the Reporting Period withrespect to the Platform taken as a whole.     PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, an independent registered public accounting firm, has issued anattestation report for the Platform on the assessment of compliance with the Applicable ServicingCriteria as of December 31, 2006 and for the Reporting Period.Bank of America, National Association   /s/ Daniel B. Goodwin   Daniel B. Goodwin  Managing Director  Date: March 16, 2007
No. 12-15-00117-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TWELFTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT TYLER

SOUTHERN METHODIST UNIVERSITY Appellant

V.

RIO BRAZOS ENERGY CO. Appellee

On Appeal from the 294th District Court

of Van Zandt County, Texas

Cause No. 10-0927

AGREED MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE TRIAL COURT'S JUDGMENT

All the parties to this cause, by agreement, jointly move that

the trial court's judgment be set aside without regard to the

merits and the case be remanded to the trial court for rendition

of judgment in accordance with the agreement set out below:

The trial court will be requested will be requested to sign

and enter granting a nonsuit with preudice of all claims

and counterclaims with costs

Respectfully submitted.

Bailey Hyden

A/torney for Appellant/Defendant Southern Methodist

University

GOITTARD & HYDEN, P.C.

1330 Tower Energy Square

4849 Greenville Avenue

Dallas, Texas 75206

Tel. (214) 692-7866

Fax. (214) 692-7897

Texas Bar No. 10373000

Email: 1oehvden6hotmail.com

AGREED MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE TRIAL COURT'S JUDGMENT

Page 1 of

ACCEPTED

12-15-00117-CV

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS

TYLER, TEXAS

7/17/2015 4:23:14 PM

CATHY LUSK

CLERK

 FILED IN 12th COURT OF APPEALS TYLER, TEXAS 7/17/2015 4:23:14 PM CATHY S. LUSK Clerk
Respectfully submitted,

By: _

R. Paul Elliott

Attorney for Appellee Plaintiff Rio Brazos Energy Co.

R. PAUL ELLIOTT, ATTORNEY AT LAW, P.C.

301 S. Main Street

Canton, Texas 75103

Tel. (903) 567-4141

Fax. (903) 567-6228

Texas Bar No. 24008606

Email: rpe@elilaw.com

AGREED MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE TRIAL COURT'S JUDGMENT

Page 2 of
```

[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 47 (Thursday, March 10, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 13668]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-04986]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

[File No. R207009]

16 CFR Part 4

Petition for Rulemaking of NetChoice et al.; Correction

AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission.

ACTION: Receipt of petition; correction.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Trade Commission (``Commission'') published a 
document in the Federal Register of March 3, 2022, concerning the 
receipt from and request for comments on a petition for rulemaking by 
NetChoice, Americans for Prosperity, Hispanic Leadership Fund, 
Innovation Economy Institute, Institute for Policy Innovation, James 
Madison Institute, National Taxpayers Union, R Street Institute, and 
Young Voices. The document contained an incorrect subject heading. The 
Commission is issuing this correction to provide the correct subject 
heading.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Daniel Freer (phone: 202-326-2663, 
email: [email protected]), Office of the Secretary, Federal Trade 
Commission, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20580.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Correction

    In FR Doc. 2022-04489 appearing at 87 FR 12003 in the Federal 
Register of Thursday, March 3, 2022, on page 12003, at the top of the 
second column, change the subject heading to read [Petition for 
Rulemaking of NetChoice et al.] as set forth above. The initial subject 
heading of [Petition for Rulemaking of Institute for Policy Integrity] 
was incorrect.

    Dated: March 4, 2022.
April J. Tabor,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-04986 Filed 3-9-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6750-01-P
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>



<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> US

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          34,130
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   12,349
<ALLOWANCES>                                      (75)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                49,140
<PP&E>                                           7,437
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (1,986)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  62,278
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           10,636
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            21
<OTHER-SE>                                      49,955
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    62,278
<SALES>                                         35,255
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                35,255
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   18,687
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                31,411
<LOSS-PROVISION>                              (14,843)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 454
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (14,389)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (14,389)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (14,389)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (1.12)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.12)


</TABLE>
Exhibit 31.1

                                  CERTIFICATION

I, David Balai, 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 Permanent Master Issuer Plc (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 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 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
non-compliance 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: Bank of Scotland plc as
servicer.

Date: 28 March 2008



_/s/ David Balai________
David Balai
Senior officer in charge of securitization, Permanent Funding (No. 2) Limited
#### Thomas John HEILMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. C. CHERNISS, Correctional Officer; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 15-15912

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted October 19, 2017 San Francisco, California

Filed October 24, 2017

Sean Apple, Jason German, Attorney, Baker Botts L.L.P., Palo Alto, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant

Neah Huynh, Deputy Attorney General, AGCA—Office of the California Attorney General, San Francisco, CA, Byron M. Miller, Esquire, Deputy Attorney General, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Defendant-Appellee C. Cherniss

Neah Huynh, Deputy Attorney General, AGCA—Office of the California Attorney *694General, San Francisco, CA, Kevin Allen Voth, Deputy Attorney General, California Department of Justice, San Francisco, CA, for Defendants-Appellees G. Forncrook, Larry Lesane

Before: IKUTA and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges, and GWIN,* District Judge.

*

 The Honorable James S. Gwin, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Ohio, sitting by designation.

MEMORANDUM **

Thomas Heilman appeals the district court’s order granting Cherniss’s and Le-sane’s motion for summary judgment. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.

Cherniss and Lesane concede that the district court: (1) erred when it disregarded material disputes of fact that bear on whether the defendants violated the Fourth and Eighth Amendments; and (2) abused its discretion by excluding the declarations of Oliver Overton, Victor Corde-ro, and Daniel Patillo without considering their admissibility under Rule 416 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. The district court therefore erred in granting summary judgment in favor of Cherniss and Lesane.

Heilman failed to “specifically and distinctly” argue in his opening brief on appeal that the searches that occurred prior to May 17, 2010 were unconstitutional and that the declarations of Overton, Cordero, and Patillo were admissible under Rule 404(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Evidence. *See Greenwood v. F.A.A.,*28 F.3d 971, 977 (9th Cir. 1994). These claims are therefore waived on appeal. *See id,*Issues waived on appeal, however, can be raised on remand in light of our reversal of the summary judgment, *See Kelson v. City of Springfield,*767 F.2d 661, 667 (9th Cir. 1986).

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Gensym
Corporation. (the Company) for the period ended June 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, Lowell B. Hawkinson, Chairman of the Board of Directors,
President, and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:



(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of 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.



|                       |  |                                                                                           
|---------------------- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Dated: August 16, 2004 |  | /s/ LOWELL B. HAWKINSON                                                                   
|                       |  | Lowell B. Hawkinson Chairman of the Board of Directors, President, Chief Executive Officer
```

[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 46 (Wednesday, March 9, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 13288]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-04952]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural 
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP22-672-000.
    Applicants: Bear Creek Storage Company, L.L.C.
    Description: Compliance filing: Annual Report on Operational 
Transactions 2022 to be effective N/A.
    Filed Date: 3/2/22.
    Accession Number: 20220302-5035.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 3/14/22.

    Docket Numbers: RP22-673-000.
    Applicants: Rover Pipeline LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Summary of Negotiated Rate 
Capacity Release Agreements on 3-2-22 to be effective 3/1/2022.
    Filed Date: 3/2/22.
    Accession Number: 20220302-5052.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 3/14/22.

    Docket Numbers: RP22-674-000.
    Applicants: Texas Eastern Transmission, LP.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Quality of Gas--PTR Language 
Modification eff 4-1-22 to be effective 4/1/2022.
    Filed Date: 3/2/22.
    Accession Number: 20220302-5213.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 3/14/22.

    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above 
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the 
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be 
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the 
proceeding.
    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system 
(https://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/search/fercgensearch.asp) by querying 
the docket number.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing 
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying 
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call (866) 208-3676 
(toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: March 3, 2022.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-04952 Filed 3-8-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
```
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Windsor Warner KESSLER, III, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-7194

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: April 28, 2017

Decided: May 30, 2017

*838Windsor Warner Kessler, III, Appellant Pro Se. Rod J. Rosenstein, United States Attorney, Aaron Simcha Jon Zelinsky, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Before SHEDD, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Windsor Warner Kessler, III appeals the district court’s orders denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion, his motion to reconsider, and his motion for a certificate of appealability. By order, we granted a partial certificate of appealability and ordered supplemental briefing on the issue of whether the district court abused its discretion in declining to conduct an evi-dentiary hearing on Kessler’s claim that he was entitled to equitable tolling of the habeas limitations period. We have reviewed the record, including the parties’ informal briefs following the issuance of the certificate of appealability, and find no reversible error. Accordingly, as to the claim on which we granted a certificate of appealability, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *United States v. Kessler,*Nos. 1:11-cr-00434-MJG-1; 1:14-cv-01894-MJG (D. Md. July 22, 2016; Aug. 5 & 24, 2016). We dismiss the claims on which we previously denied a certificate of appealability, deny Kessler’s motion for appointment of counsel and dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED IN PART; DISMISSED IN PART*