alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# In the Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

══════════ No. WR

- 67,128

- 0 7

══════════

EX PARTE TERRENCE RUBEN SHEAD , Applicant

═══════════════════════════════════════ On Application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Cause No. W02

- 55798

- U

- (C) in the 29 1st District Court F rom Dallas County

═══════════════════════════════════════

Y EARY , J., filed a concurring opinion , in which S LAUGHTER , J., joined.
Applicant was convicted in 2004 of capital murder and sentenced
to life imprisonment . The Fifth Court of Appeals affirmed his conviction
in 2006

. Shead v. State , No. 05

- 05

- 00 080

- CR (Tex. App.

— Dallas Apr. 4 , 20 06 ) (mem. op., not designated for publication).
In November 2021, Applicant filed an application for writ ofSHEAD

– 2

habeas corpus in the county of conviction. T EX

. C ODE C RIM

. P ROC . art.
11.07. In his application, he alleges the trial prosecutor e ngaged in misconduct by forcing witnesses to falsely testify, and that he is actually innocent. Today, the Court remands this application to the trial court to further develop the record. I join the Court’s remand order. But I write separately to address my thoughts concerning the doctrine of laches and its possible application to this case. See Ex p arte Smith , 444 S.W.3d 661 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (holding a trial court has the authority to sua sponte consider the doctrine of laches); Ex parte Bazille , ___ S.W.3d ___, No. WR

- 89,851

- 02, 2022 WL 108348 (Tex. Crim. App. Jan. 12, 2022) (Yeary, J., concur ring). The doctrine of laches ought to be considered in a case like this one. Applicant’s trial occurred in 2004 , but this writ application was not filed until over sixteen years later. The record is also silent regarding circumstances that may excuse Appl icant’s delay, and at least some explanation for the long delay in filing should be provided. Consistent with this Court’s precedent, the trial court may, sua sponte , give Applicant the opportunity to explain the reasons for the delay. It may also give the State’s prosecutors and/or former counsel for Applicant an opportunity to state whether Applicant’s delay has caused any prejudice to their ability to defend against Applicant’s claims. 1 And

1 “Our revised approach will permit courts to more broadly consider the diminished memories of trial participants and the diminished availability of the State’s evidence, both of which may often be said to occur beyond five years after a conviction becomes f inal.” Ex parte Perez , 398 S.W.3d 206, 216 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (citing Ex parte Steptoe , 132 S.W.3d 434, 437

– 39 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (Cochran, J., dissenting)).SHEAD

– 3

ultimately, the trial court may include findings of fact and c onclusions of law concerning the doctrine of laches in its response to this Court’s remand order. With these additional thoughts, I join the Court’s order.

FILED : May 11, 2022 DO NOT PUBLISH
#### Rose Wygod et al., Appellants, *v.*Makewell Hats, Inc., et al., Respondents.

Submitted February 23, 1943;

decided March 4, 1943.

*657
      *Samuel L. Teitler*for motion.

*Sidney M. Wittner*opposed.

Motion dismissed with ten dollars costs and necessary printing disbursements on the ground that the order does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Postal Service

# AGENCY:

                        Postal ServiceTM.                    

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

# DATES:

*Date of required notice:*                         March 7, 2022.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sean Robinson, 202-268-8405.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on February 28, 2022, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a                     *USPS Request to Add Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 215 to Competitive Product List.*                     Documents are available at                     *www.prc.gov,*                     Docket Nos. MC2022-42, CP2022-48.                

Sean Robinson,

Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.

[FR Doc. 2022-04773 Filed 3-4-22; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
EX-33.6
(logo) WELLS FARGO

Wells Fargo Bank, NA
Document Custody
1015 - 10th Avenue SE
Minneapolis, MN 55014


ASSESSMENT OF COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE SERVICING CRITERIA


Corporate Trust Services division of Wells Fargo Bank, National Association
(the "Company") is responsible for assessing compliance with the servicing
criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of Regulation AB promulgated by the
Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company has determined that the
servicing criteria are applicable in regards to the servicing platform as of
and for the period as follows:

Platform: Publicly-issued (i.e., transaction-level reporting required under
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended) residential mortgage-backed
securities and commercial mortgage-backed securities issued on or after
January 1, 2006 for which the Company provides document custody services,
excluding any publicly issued transactions issued by any government sponsored
entity (the "Platform").

Applicable Servicing Criteria: The servicing criteria set forth in Item
1122(d)(1)(iv), 1122(d)(4)(i) and 1122(d)(4)(ii), in regard to the activities
performed by the Company with respect to the Platform (the "Applicable
Servicing Criteria"). Management of the Company has determined that all other
servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) are not applicable to the
Platform.

Period: As of and for the twelve months ended December 31, 2007 (the "Period").

With respect to the Platform and the Period, the Company provides the following
assessment of compliance with respect to the Applicable Servicing Criteria:

1. The Company is responsible for assessing its compliance with the Applicable
Servicing Criteria.

2. The Company has assessed compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria.
In performing this assessment, the Company used the criteria set forth by the
Securities and Exchange Commission in paragraph (d) of Item 1122 of
Regulation AB.

3. Based on such assessment, as of and for the Period, the Company has
complied, in all material respects with the Applicable Servicing Criteria.

KPMG LLP, a registered public accounting firm, has issued an attestation report
with respect to the Company's assessment of compliance as of and for the
Period.


WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION
By: /s/ Shari Gillund
Its: Senior Vice President

Dated: February 29, 2008
Exhibit 32 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)   In connection with the Annual Report of Trilliant Exploration Corporation, a Nevada corporation (the Company), on Form 10-KSB for the year ending December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Dave Ludwar, CEO of the Company, certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350), 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 result of operations of the Company.    /s/ Dave Ludwar Dave Ludwar, CEO Dated:  March 28, 2008     CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)   In connection with the Annual Report of Trilliant Exploration Corporation, a Nevada corporation (the Company), on Form 10-KSB for the year ending December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Doug Billingsley, CFO of the Company, certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350), 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 result of operations of the Company.    /s/ Doug Billingsley Doug Billingsley, CFO Dated:  March 28, 2008
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
American Wagering, Inc.
Financial Data Schedule Required under:
Appendix A to Item 601(c) of Regulation S-B
Commercial and Industrial Companies
Article 5 of Regulation S-X
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-30-1997
<CASH>                                       3,263,129
<SECURITIES>                                 7,229,037
<RECEIVABLES>                                  286,485
<ALLOWANCES>                                  (147,445)
<INVENTORY>                                    487,138
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               461,001
<PP&E>                                       8,734,144
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              24,087,053
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,836,513
<BONDS>                                      6,836,114
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        78,375
<OTHER-SE>                                  13,336,051
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                24,087,053
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,597,878
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,952,879
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (416,879)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (416,879)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (416,879)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.05)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
**EXHIBIT      32.1**

**UNIVERSAL      TRACKING SOLUTIONS, INC.**

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

| (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/                Keith Tench*                                                                    | */s/                Terrell Horne*                                                                    |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Keith                TenchChief                Executive OfficerDate:                April 16, 2007 | Terrell                HorneChief                Financial OfficerDate:                April 16, 2007 |
#### IN RE: LEI KE, Petitioner

No. 17-2154

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.

Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P. June 29, 2017

(Opinion filed: July 10, 2017 )

*687Lei Ke, Pro Se

Julia Jacobelli, Esq., Peter Samson, Esq., Cipriani *&*Werner, Blue Bell, PA, George C. Morrison, Esq., White *&*Williams, Center Valley, PA, for Defendants-Respondents Drexel University, Richard Homan, Samuel Parrish, Amy Fuchs, Jennifer Hamilton, Anthony Sahar

George C. Morrison, Esq., White & Williams, Center Valley, PA, Peter Samson, Esq., Cipriani & Werner, Blue Bell, PA, for Defendant-Respondent John Fry

Before: SHWARTZ, NYGAARD and FISHER, Circuit Judges

OPINION *

PER CURIAM

Lei Ke was a medical student at Drexel University College of Medicine (“Drexel”) until it terminated him for poor academic performance. Ke then filed a racial discrimination suit against Drexel, and the suit proved to be protracted and contentious. While it was pending, Ke filed a total of seven interlocutory appeals and mandamus petitions with this Court, including three petitions seeking the District Judge’s disqualification. We denied them. Proceedings on the merits finally came to a close when the District Court entered summary judgment in Drexel’s favor. We affirmed, and the United States Supreme Court denied certiorari. See Ke v. Drexel Univ., 645 Fed.Appx. 161, 166 *&*n.12 (3d Cir. 2016), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 137 S.Ct. 384, 196 L.Ed.2d 303 (2016).

After we affirmed, Drexel obtained from the District Court’s Clerk a judgment taxing costs against Ke in the amount of $4,503.15. Ke appealed, but the Clerk’s judgment was not a final order under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and we dismissed his appeal without prejudice to further review of costs by the District Court. See Ke v. Drexel Univ., No. 16-2960, 686 Fed.Appx. 98, 100-01, 2017 WL 1373276, at *2 (3d Cir. Apr. 13, 2017). Ke immediately filed a motion to disqualify the District Judge, which the District Court denied. Ke then filed the mandamus petition at issue here seeking the District Judge’s disqualification from the taxation-of-costs proceeding.

After Ke filed this petition, however, Drexel withdrew its request for costs and asked the District Court to finally close the case. The District Court approved that request and closed the case on May 25, 2017. Although that ruling was favorable to Ke, he filed a motion for reconsideration arguing that he had a “right” to know the costs for which he would have been liable had Drexel pressed its request. The District Court denied that motion on June 19, 2017. Thus, the taxation-of-costs proceeding and the case as whole are now closed. Ke’s request that we disqualify the District Judge from presiding over the taxation-of-costs proceeding is moot, and we will dismiss his petition on that basis.

*

This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent.
```

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 55 (Friday, March 21, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 15737]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-06193]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy

H2 Refuel H-Prize Draft Guidelines Released for Public Comment

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of 
Energy (DOE).

ACTION: Notice of Public Comment Period for the H2 Refuel H-Prize Draft 
Guidelines.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Energy (DOE) announces in this notice the 
release of the H2 Refuel H-Prize Draft Guidelines for public comment, 
pursuant to Section 654 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 
2007, Public Law 110-140 (December 19, 2007). Interested persons are 
encouraged to learn about the H2 Refuel H-Prize guidelines at: http://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/hprize.html.

DATES: Comments on the draft H2 Refuel H-Prize draft guidelines must be 
received within 30 days of the Federal Register Notice publication 
date.

ADDRESSES: U.S. Department of Energy, Golden Field Office, 15013 Denver 
West Parkway, Golden, CO 80401-3111, Attn: Reginald Tyler.
    To submit comments, interested persons are encouraged to follow any 
of the listed methods: Email: HPrize@go.doe.gov. Include ``H2 Refuel H-
Prize'' in the Subject line.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Questions may be directed to Reginald 
Tyler at 720-356-1805 or by email at Reginald.tyler@go.doe.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In 2007 the Energy Independence and Security 
Act authorized the H-Prize to competitively award prizes for advances 
in hydrogen energy technologies in order to accelerate and reward 
breakthroughs in notable scientific and engineering challenges, while 
engaging a broad range of participants. The $1 million H2 Refuel H-
Prize challenges America's engineers and entrepreneurs to develop 
affordable systems for small-scale, non-commercial hydrogen fueling, at 
homes or multi-use sites that can supplement the current development of 
hydrogen fueling station infrastructure. Successful entries will 
install and test systems that generate hydrogen from resources 
available to most homes, electricity and natural gas, and dispense the 
hydrogen into vehicles. Winners will demonstrate that they can meet 
both the technical and cost criteria as outlined in the final 
guidelines.
    Today's notice announces the availability of draft guidelines for 
administration of the prize competition.
    The DOE will consider any comments received within 30 days of the 
Federal Register Notice publication date.

    Issued in Golden, CO, on March 12, 2014.
Christina Kouch,
Contracting Officer.
[FR Doc. 2014-06193 Filed 3-20-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
```
#### Mark MARLOW, husband; Nancy Marlow, wife, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. John HOTCHKISS, in his individual capacity; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 16-35211

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted October 23, 2017 *

Filed October 30, 2017

Mark Marlow, Pro Se

Nancy Marlow, Pro Se

Heather C. Yakely, Attorney, Evans, Craven *&*Lackie, P.S., Spokane, WA, for Defendants-Appellees John Hotchkiss, Steven M. Clem, Andrew L. Kottkamp, Glen A. de Vreis, Ramon Perez, Mark D. Kulaas, Dale L. Snyder, Ken Stanton, Steven Jenkins, Does 1 Through 10

Vanessa Ruth Waldref, Assistant U.S. Attorney, USSP—Office of the U.S. Attorney, Spokane, WA, for Defendants-Appel-lees Karen M. Urelius, Jerry J. Gregory, Anthony 0. Wright, Bruce ,A- Estok, F. Dale Bambrick

Carl P. Warring, Assistant Attorney General, Washington State Attorney General’s Office, Spokane, WA, for Defendants-Appellees Eric Pentico, Gary Graff

Before: McKEOWN, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges,

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Mark Marlow and Nancy Marlow appeal pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing their action alleging various claims related to their real property. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §' 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under the *Rooker-Feldman*doctrine. *Noel v. Hall,*341 F.3d 1148, 1154 (9th Cir. 2003). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed the Marlows’ action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under the *Rooker-Feldman*doctrine because the claims constituted a forbidden “de facto appeal” of a prior state court judgment or were “inextricably intertwined” with that judgment. *See id.*at 1163-65 (discussing proper application of the *Rooker-Feldman*doctrine); *see also Henrichs v. Valley View Dev.,*474 F.3d 609, 616 (9th Cir. 2007) *(Rooker-Feldman*doctrine barred plaintiffs claim because the relief sought “would require the district court to determine that the state court’s decision was wrong and thus void”).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                                            9
<MULTIPLIER>                                     1,000

<S>                                                <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                    6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                           3,533
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    156,557
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                        162,826
<ALLOWANCE>                                      2,163
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 346,102
<DEPOSITS>                                     221,545
<SHORT-TERM>                                    47,650
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              5,801
<LONG-TERM>                                     15,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            57
<OTHER-SE>                                      56,049
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 346,102
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  6,109
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                5,391
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   111
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                11,611
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               4,159
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               5,932
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            5,679
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      100
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                               (117)
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  3,200
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,834
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       2,834
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,226
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .66
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .66
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    3.86
<LOANS-NON>                                        284
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                    245
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 2,093
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                       40
<RECOVERIES>                                        10
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                2,163
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             1,834
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                            329


</TABLE>