alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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 Local Rule

47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 96-40961

 

CHARLES C. DAVIS,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

GARY JOHNSON, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, 

INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION; JOHN STICE; MARSHALLO HERKLOTZ; C. T.

O'REILLY; H. D. JOHNSON, M. D.; E. MURPHY, Sgt.; P. TAYLOR,

Officer; RETRIEVE UNIT; NURSE AIDE, Infirmary; WILSON, Mrs.,

Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. G-95-CV-154

- - - - - - - - - -

March 12, 1997

Before SMITH, DUHE’, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Charles C. Davis, Texas prisoner # 653273, appeals the

dismissal of his civil rights complaint as frivolous. He has

filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on

appeal. The motion for leave to appeal IFP is GRANTED.

Davis is not required to pay an initial partial filing fee;

however, he shall make monthly payments of twenty percent of the

preceding month’s income credited to his account. See 28 U.S.C. 
No. 96-40961

- 2 -

§ 1915(a) The agency having custody of Davis is directed to

forward payments from his prisoner account to the clerk of the

district court each time the amount in his account exceeds $10

until the filing fee is paid. See id.

Davis filed his complaint against the defendants in their

official capacities. Because a decree against personnel of the

Texas Department of Criminal Justice operates against the

sovereign, the suit is barred by the Eleventh Amendment. See

Pennhurst State School & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 100-01

(1984); Hawaii v. Gordon, 373 U.S. 57, 58 (1963) (per curiam);

Harris v. Angelina County, Tex., 31 F.3d 331, 337-38 n.7 (5th

Cir. 1994).

Davis’ appeal is without arguable merit and thus frivolous. 

See Howard v. King, 707 F.d. 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983). 

Because the appeal is frivolous, it is DISMISSED. See 5th Cir.

R. 42.2.

APPEAL DISMISSED.
#### Baldemar GONZALEZ-VENUSTIANO, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 12-73975

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted November 15, 2017 *

Filed November 20, 2017

David Williams, Law Offices of David W. Williams, Santa Ana, CA, for Petitioner

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

Before: CANBY, TROTT, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Baldemar Gonzalez-Venustiano, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision pretermit-ting his application for cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We grant the petition for review and remand.

The BIA did not have the benefit of *Losano-Arredondo v. Sessions,*866 F.3d 1082 (9th Cir. 2017), which set aside the BIA’s interpretation of 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(C) in *Matter of Cortez Canales,*25 I. & N. Dec. 301 (BIA 2010), when it pretermitted cancellation of removal. Thus, we remand the petition for review for further proceedings consistent with that disposition.

We do not reach the government’s contentions regarding Gonzalez-Venustiano’s alleged ineligibility for cancellation of removal under *Gonzalez-Gonzalez v. Ashcroft,*390 F.3d 649 (9th Cir. 2004). *See Navas v. INS,*217 F.3d 646, 658 n.16 (9th Cir. 2000).

*656PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose Pedro FUERTE-NAMBO, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-50720 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed May 26, 2017

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

Jose Pedro Fuerte-Nambo, Pro Se

Before JOLLY, SMITH, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Jose Fuerte-Nambo has moved for leave to withdraw and 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). Fuerte-Nambo has filed a response.

We have reviewed counsel’s brief, relevant portions of the record, and Fuerte-Nambo’s response. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. The record is not sufficiently developed to *830allow a fair evaluation of Fuerte-Nambo’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel; we therefore decline to consider it, without prejudice to collateral review. *See United States v. Isgar,*739 F.3d 829, 841 (5th Cir. 2014).

Accordingly, the motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the appeal is DISMISSED. *See*5th Cíe. R. 42.2.

*

 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 33.5

[LOGO]                                                  Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
                                                        Document Custody
                                                        1015 10th Avenue SE
                                                        Minneapolis, MN 55414

                                                        Appendix I

          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 regard to the servicing platform 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)(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"). The
Company has determined that all other servicing criteria set forth in Item
1122(d) are not applicable to the Platform.

Period: Twelve months ended December 31, 2006 (the "Period").

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

1. The Company is responsible for assessing the Company's compliance with the
Applicable Servicing Criteria as of and for the Period.

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 L. Gillund
                                   -----------------------------------
                                       Shari L. Gillund

                                Its:   Senior Vice President

                                Dated: March 1, 2007
##### 



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 of Matrixx Initiatives, Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Carl
J. Johnson, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 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/ Carl J. JohnsonCarl J. JohnsonPresident and Chief Executive OfficerDated August 13, 2004
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.1

INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement
Nos. 333-59686, 333-64638, and 333-89292 on Form S-8 of Etablissements Delhaize
Freres et Cie "Le Lion" S.A. of our report dated March 22, 2002, appearing in
the Annual Report on Form 20-F Etablissements Delhaize Freres et Cie "Le Lion"
S.A. for the year ended December 31, 2001.


Deloitte & Touche Reviseurs d'Enterprises SC s.f.d. SCRL
Brussels, Belgium


June 28, 2002


Represented by:

/s/ James Fulton
James Fulton

                                      E-5
<PAGE>
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.50



Mr. Eric G. Walters
167 Monument Street
Concord, MA   01742


                 Re: AMENDMENT TO EXECUTIVE EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

Dear Eric,

This letter agreement serves to further amend the Amended Executive Employment
Agreement dated as of April 1, 2001, by and between you and PolyMedica
Corporation (the "Company") as amended on June 8, 2001 and September 25, 2001
(together, the "Executive Employment Agreement").

         SALARY. The Base Salary, as defined in Section 3.1 of the Amended
         Executive Employment Agreement, shall be increased to $270,000
         effective April 1, 2002.

If the foregoing is acceptable to you, please indicate your agreement by signing
a copy of this letter agreement and returning it to the undersigned.

                                         Very truly yours,


                                         /s/ Steven J. Lee
                                         ------------------------------------
                                         Steven J. Lee
                                         Chairman and Chief Executive Officer

ACCEPTED AND AGREED TO:



/s/ Eric G. Walters
-------------------------------
Eric G. Walters
DENIED and Opinion Filed August 19, 2024 

# S

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-24-00902-CV IN RE KRISTOPHER GENE GUILLAUME, ALAN E. DEVOE, AND SYLVIA J. GUILLAUME, Relators Original Proceeding from the County Court at Law No. 2 Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CC-24-00774-B MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Pedersen, III, Smith, and Garcia Opinion by Justice Pedersen, III In their July 31, 2024 petition for writ of mandamus, relators contend the judgment in the underlying case is void for various reasons. Upon review, relators’ petition does not meet the requirements of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure for c onsideration of mandamus relief. See In re Backusy , No. 05-23-00674-CV, 2023 WL 4540278, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas July 14, 2023, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.); see also T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 52.2, 52.3(a), 52.3(d), 52.3(e), 52.3(g), 52.3(h), 52.3(j), 52. 3(k)(1)(A), 52.7(a)(1), 52.7(a)(2). For example, the person filing the petition failed to certify that he or she has reviewed the petition and concluded that every factua l statement in the petition is supported–2– by competent evidence included in the a ppendix or record, as required by rule 52.3(j). See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 52.3(j); In re Stewart , No. 05-19-01338-CV, 2020 WL 401764, at *1 (Tex. App.—Da llas Jan. 24, 2020, orig . proceeding) (mem. op.) (explaining that our precedent requires “ex ceptionally strict compliance” with rule 52.3(j)). Additionally, the documents incl uded in the appendix and record are not properly certified or sworn copies. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 52.3(k)(1)(A), 52.7(a)(1); In re Leonard , No. 05-23-00546-CV, 2023 WL 3944376, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas June 12, 2023, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.) (explaining how to obtain properly certified or sworn copies). Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus.

240902F.P05 /Bill Pedersen, III / BILL PEDERSEN, III JUSTICE
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                           4,158
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   43,736
<ALLOWANCES>                                       640
<INVENTORY>                                     12,003
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                65,272
<PP&E>                                         241,077
<DEPRECIATION>                                  53,461
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 254,963
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           29,155
<BONDS>                                         47,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           62,845
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        91,953
<OTHER-SE>                                     (12,852)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   254,963
<SALES>                                        199,743
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               199,743
<CGS>                                          115,747
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  115,747
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                12,852
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    15
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,763
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 68,381
<INCOME-TAX>                                    20,119
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             48,262
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    48,262
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.03
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.03
        

</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S.J. Res. 23 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. J. RES. 23

  Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to 
   repeal the twenty-second amendment relating to Presidential term 
                              limitations.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

             January 24 (legislative day, January 10), 1995

Mr. McConnell introduced the following joint resolution; which was read 
          twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
  Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to 
   repeal the twenty-second amendment relating to Presidential term 
                              limitations.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House 
concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an 
amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be 
valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when 
ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States 
within seven years from the date of its submission by the Congress:

                              ``Article--

    ``The twenty-second article of amendment to the Constitution of the 
United States is hereby repealed.''.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FORM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AND CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF INCOME OF THE COMPANY
AS OF AND FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                          12,345
<SECURITIES>                                    71,484
<RECEIVABLES>                                   52,530
<ALLOWANCES>                                     3,723
<INVENTORY>                                      7,498
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               153,271
<PP&E>                                          68,864
<DEPRECIATION>                                  28,770
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 234,268
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           36,942
<BONDS>                                          3,723
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           179
<OTHER-SE>                                     192,218
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   234,268
<SALES>                                         59,655
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                59,655
<CGS>                                           38,559
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   38,559
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 136
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  9,446
<INCOME-TAX>                                     3,873
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              5,573
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     5,573
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.31
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.30
        

</TABLE>
**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**
  I,
        Terry
        Desjardins, of Heritage Explorations, Inc. (the "Company"), certify, pursuant
        to
        Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
        that:
  (1)
              The
                    annual report on Form 10-KSB of the Company for the year ended
                    August 31,
                    2007 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section
                    13(a)
                    of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m);
                    and
  (2)
              The
                  information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
                  respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
                  the
                  Company.
  
  By:  /s/
          Terry Desjardins
 Terry
          Desjardins
 Treasurer
          and Director
 Principal
          Financial Officer
 Date:
          November 28, 2007.
  
  A
        signed
        original of this written statement required by s. 906 has been provided to
        the
        Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities
        and
        Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 11**  **- 6250** 

GEORGE ALBERT HOOD , Petitioner

- Appellant ,

v. TRACY W. JOHNS , Respondent

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina , at Raleigh

. Louise W. Flanagan , Chief District Judge. ( 5:10

- hc

- 02130

- FL )

Submitted : May 19, 2011 Decided: May 24, 2011

Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and AGEE and KEENAN , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opi nion

. George Albert Hood, Appellant Pro Se. Christina Ann Kelley, BUREAU OF PRISONS, Butner, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: George Albert Hood, a detainee pending commitmen t proceedings pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 4248 (2006), appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2241 (West 2006 & Supp. 2010) petition , which sought his release . The district court has since dismissed the 18 U.S.C. § 4248 action in acco rd with a joint stipulation of the parties and Hood has been released. As a result of Hood’s release, “there is no wrong to remedy and an appeal should . . . be dismissed . . . when, by virtue of an intervening event, a court of appeals cannot grant any e ffectual relief whatever in favor of the appellant.” United States v. Hardy , 545 F.3d 280, 285 (4th Cir. 2008) (quoting Calderon v. Moore , 518 U.S. 149, 150 (1996)) (internal quotation marks omitted). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal as moot. We dispe nse 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.

DISMISSED
_______________________________________ __ Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

October 6, 2005 Clifford W. Taylor,
Chief Justice

127886 Michael F. Cavanagh
Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan RUSSELL HILEMAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman,
Justices

v SC: 127886 COA: 257001 WCAC: 03-000119 TRAILER EQUIPMENT, INC., and ACCIDENT FUND INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, Defendants-Appellants.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application fo r leave to appeal th e December 17, 2004 order of the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.302(G)(1 ), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we REMAND th is case to the Court of Appeals for consideration as on leave granted.

t0929 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

October 6, 2005

Clerk