alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
The following cases in which the Court of Appeals issued pu blished opinions have been appealed to the Supreme Court:

1. Roland Baldwin v. Commonwealth of Virginia Record No. 0740-17-4 Opinion rendered by Judge Petty on July 17, 2018

2. Christopher Parris Cabral v. Commonwealth of Virginia Record No. 1186-17-1 Opinion rendered by Judge Malveaux on July 17, 2018

3. Franklin Lee Thomason, Jr. v. Commonwealth of Virginia Record No. 1290-17-3 Opinion rendered by Judge Humphreys on July 17, 2018

4. Michael Sean Green v. Commonwealth of Virginia Record No. 1338-17-4 Opinion rendered by Judge Petty on July 17, 2018

5. Jeffrey Nigel Carr v. Commonwealth of Virginia Record No. 1054-17-1 Opinion rendered by Judge O’Brien on July 24, 2018

6. Joseph John Melick v. Commonwealth of Virginia Record No. 1564-17-1 Opinion rendered by Judge Russell on July 31, 20187. Eric Hamilton v. Commonwealth of Virginia Record No. 0814-17-2 Opinion rendered by Judge Beales on August 7, 2018

8. Lee Alden Mooney v. Commonwealth of Virginia Record No. 1055-17-2 Opinion rendered by Judge AtLee on August 7, 2018

9. Andy Chavez v. Commonwealth of Virginia Record No. 1189-17-4 Opinion rendered by Judge Malveaux on August 14, 2018The following cases in which the Court of Appeals issued p ublished opinions have been disposed of by the Supreme Court:

1. Braulio M. Castillo v. Loudoun County Depart ment of Family Services Record No. 1499-17-4 Opinion rendered by Chief Judge Huff on April 3, 2018 Dismissed pursuant to Code § 17.1-410(A)(3) and ( B) (180725)

2. Debra Levy v. Wegman’s Food Markets, Inc. Record No. 1634-17-4 Opinion rendered by Judge Humphreys on April 3, 2018 Dismissed pursuant to Code § 17.1-410(A)(2) and ( B) (180582)
SERVE D AUGUS T 29 , 201 1 . _,., , '.•Tr/-.h!iviuN l U i •;•v\l^:^^U!ilAliUi.•• i U.S . DEPARTMEN T O FTRANSPORTATIO N :' / ••p T QPER^^-^TIOM

S OFFIC EO FHEARING S WASH[NGTON,D C ^C: : M) G's O A ^^3 3 I N TH EMATTE RO F CONTINENTA LAIRLINES , INC . FA A DOCKE T NO . [T O B EASSIGNED ]

{Civi l Penalt y Action ) FDM S NO . FAA-2011-077 S

NOTIC EO FASSIGNMEN T O FPROCEEDIN G Thi s proceedin g (heretofor e designate da s Cas e No . 20I0SW270081 ) ha s bee n assigne dt o Administrativ e La w Judg e Richar dC . Goodwin . Al l futur e pleading s an dothe r communication s regardin g thi s proceedin g shal l b e serve do n th e Judge , th e FA A Hcaiin g Docket , an dth e othe r person s o n th e attache dSei'vic e List .

Ronni e A . Yckler Chie f AdministrativfiHi^ w Judg e Attachmen t

- Sei'vic e Lis tFDM S NO . FAA-2011-077 8 (Civi l Penalt y Action ) SERVIC ELIS T ORIGINA L& ON ECOP Y Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n 80 0 Independenc e Avenue , S.W . Washington , D C 2059 1 Attention : Hearin g Docke t Clerk , AGC-430 , Wilbu r Wrigh t Building—Suit e 2W1000 '

ON ECOP Y Thoma s Newto nBoih'ng , Respondett l '. v Counse l Vic e Presiden t

an dAssociat e Genera l Counse l Unite dAirline s an dContinenta l Airlines , Inc. , Responden t 1 1 W . Wacke r

Drive-16" ' Floo r Chicago , I L6060 1 TEL : 312-997-806 8 FAX : 312-997-806 8 Ti mDuff , Complainant' s Counse l Attorney , Offic e o f

Regiona l Counsel , ASW- 7 Southwes t

Regio n Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n 260 1 MeachamBlvd . Ft . Worth , T X 76193^000 7 TE L817-222-509 9 FA X 817-222-5945/509 2 Th e Honorabl e Richar dC Goodwin , Administrativ e La w Judg e U.S . Departmen t

o f Transportatio n Offic e o f Hearings , M-20 , 120 0 Ne w Jerse y Avenue , S.E . Washington , D C 2059 0 TEL : Attorney-Adviso r 202

- 366-213 9 Lega l Assistan t

202-366-512 1 FAX : 202-366-753 6

' Servic e wa s b y U.S . Mail . Fo

r servic e i n perso n o r b y expeditedcourier, use th

e followin g address : Federa

l Aviatio nAdnmustratioii 600 Indcpe/ide/ice Avenue , S.W. , Wilbu r Wrigli l Btiilding—Snile 2\VI0{K>

. Waslungto a D C 20591 ; Attention : Hearin g Docke t Clerk, AGC-430 .
CERTIFICATION
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Greenhaven Continuous Commodity Index Fund;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does 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, the financial statements, and other financial information included in
this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of
operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this
report;4.
    
    I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as
defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial
reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and
have:
     5.
    
    I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation of internal
control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the
audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons
performing the equivalent functions);
   Date: March 27, 2009
    /s/ Thomas FernandesThomas FernandesPrincipal Financial Officer
Exhibit
32.2





CERTIFICATION
OF CFO 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 of Targa Resources Partners LP
(the “Partnership”) for the year ended December 31, 2008 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), Jeffrey J.
McParland, as Chief Financial Officer of Targa Resources GP LLC, the general
partner of the Partnership, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that, to his knowledge:





(1) The
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





(2) The
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the
Partnership.





By:/s/Jeffrey
J. McParland.


Name:
Jeffrey J. McParland


Title:
Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer


of Targa
Resources GP LLC, the general partner of


Targa
Resources Partners LP





Date:February 25,
2009





A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement
required by Section 906, has been provided to the Partnership and will be
retained by the Partnership and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.
EXHIBIT 13.2

Certification by the Chief Financial Officer

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Trina Solar Limited (the Company) on Form 20-F for the year ended
December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Sean Shao, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

Date: June 26, 2008



|       |  |                        
|------ |  | -----------------------
|By:    |  | /s/ Sean Shao          
|Name:  |  | Sean Shao              
|Title: |  | Chief Financial Officer



1
419 P.2d 546

#### UNITED BONDING INSURANCE COMPANY, an Indiana Insurance corporation, Appellant, v. THOMAS J. GROSSO INVESTMENT, INC., an Arizona corporation, Appellee.

No. 1 CA-CIV 239.

Court of Appeals of Arizona.

Nov. 4, 1966.

Johnson & Shaw, Phoenix, by Felix F. Gordon, Phoenix, for appellant.

Francis J. Brown, Phoenix, for appellee.

CAMERON, Judge.

This is an appeal from a judgment of the lower court granting the motion of defendant-appellee Thomas J. Grosso Investment, Inc., to dismiss the amended complaint of plaintiff-appellant (United Bonding Company) as to the said defendant Thomas J. Grosso Investment, Inc.

The appellant perfected the appeal and filed a brief in this Court. The appellee, Grosso Investment Company, failed to file an answering brief. We ordered the matter submitted.

> The Rules of the Supreme Court state: “If the appellee does not file an answering brief within the time prescribed by these Rules or within such additional time as allowed by the court * * * the appeal may be submitted for decision on the motion of appellant upon notice to appellee, or on the court’s own motion.” Rule 7(a) (2), Rules of the Supreme Court, 17 A.R.S.

Our Supreme Court has stated that where there are debatable issues and the appellee fails to file an answering brief, that such failure is a confession of reversible error on the part of the appellee. Siemers v. Randall, 94 Ariz. 302, 383 P.2d 753 (1963), Barrett v. Hiney, 94 Ariz. 133, 382 P.2d 240 (1963), Gallatin et al. v. State of Arizona, 4 Ariz.App. 44, 417 P.2d 557 (1966). Nevertheless, this Court has recently stated that we do not read Rule 7(a) (2), Rules of the Supreme Court, or the cases decided above as making it *mandatory*that we reverse when the appellee fails to file a brief. Hoffman v. Hoffman, 4 Ariz.App. 83, 417 P.2d 717 (1966).

In the instant case, there appearing to be debatable issues and it appearing further that the appellee had every opportunity to file an answering brief and there being no question as to the ability of the appellee to do so, we will consider the failure of the appellee to file a brief as a confession of reversible error.

Reversing the matter on the failure of the appellee to file an answering brief as *286we do, we are aware that the debatable issues before this Court have not been thoroughly briefed by the parties, and that this Court has not had the full benefit of the adversary system upon which our law evolves. For that reason, we do not set forth herein in detail the fact basis upon which the trial court granted its motion to dismiss.

The judgment of the trial court dismissing the amended complaint of the plaintiff-appellant is hereby reversed, and the matter remanded for further action not inconsistent with this opinion.

STEVENS, C. J., and J. SMITH GIBBONS, Judge of Superior Court, concur.

NOTE: Judge FRANCIS J. DONO-FRIO having requested that he he relieved from consideration of this matter, Judge J. SMITH GIBBONS was called to sit in his stead and participate in the determination of this decision.
EX-33 (k)
WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK

SERVICER'S REPORT ON ASSESSMENT OF COMPLIANCE


Washington Mutual Bank (the "Asserting Party") is responsible for assessing
compliance as of December 31, 2006 and for the period from January 1, 2006
through December 31, 2006 (the "Reporting Period") of the Platform Transactions
(as defined below) with the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of
Regulation AB (12 CFR part 229.1122), except the following criteria 1(iii) and
3(i)(C) and (D), which we have concluded are either (i) not applicable to the
servicing of the mortgage loans included in the Platform Transactions (each, a
"Mortgage Loan"), or (ii) performed by other parties with respect to the
Mortgage Loans (such criteria, after giving effect to the foregoing exceptions,
the "Applicable Servicing Criteria"). The transactions covered by this
Servicer's Assessment are those securitizations of pools of mortgage loans that
were completed on or after January 1, 2006 and prior to January 1, 2007 for
which the Asserting Party performed servicing functions set forth in Item
1122(d), that included one or more classes of publicly offered securities
registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to the
Securities Act of 1933, and for which the Asserting Party has an obligation to
deliver an Assessment of Compliance pursuant to Item 1122 (the "Platform
Transactions").

The Asserting Party has assessed its compliance with the Applicable
Servicing Criteria for the Reporting Period, using the Applicable Servicing
Criterion, and has concluded that it has complied in all material respects with
the Applicable Servicing Criteria with respect to the Mortgage Loans.

Deloitte & Touche LLP, a registered public accounting firm, has issued an
attestation report on the Asserting Party's assessment of compliance with the
Applicable Servicing Criteria for the Reporting Period.

Dated: March 14, 2007

WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK


By:    /s/ H. John Berens
Name:  H. John Berens
Title: Senior Vice President
#### Deverick SCOTT Plaintiff-Appellant v. Randy WATSON, Warden, Varner Super Max; Wendy Kelley, Director, Arkansas Department of Correction (originally named as Ray Hobbs); Grant Harris, Asst Director, Arkansas Department of Correction; Raymond Naylor, Disciplinary Hearing Administrator, ADC; Moses Jackson, Asst Warden, Varner Super Max (originally named as M. Jackson); Wardell Brooks, Correctional Officer, Varner Super Max (originally named as Brooks); Everett G. Litzsey, Jr., Sergeant, East Regional Unit; James Plummer, Lt. Varner Super Max (originally named as Plumer) Defendants-Appellees

No. 17-1376

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: November 24, 2017

Filed: December 6, 2017

Deverick Scott, Pro Se

Christine Ann Cryer, Assistant Attorney General, Attorney General’s Office, Little Rock, AR, for Defendants-Appellees

Before GRUENDER, BOWMAN, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Deverick Scott appeals after the district court1 adversely granted summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action.

After careful *de novo*review, *see La-Cross v. City of Duluth,*713 F.3d 1155, 1157 (8th Cir. 2013) (reviewing the district court’s grant of summary judgment based on qualified immunity *de novo),*we conclude that the district court properly granted summary judgment in favor' of the defendants for the reasons stated by the district court. Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

1

. The Honorable D.P. Marshall Jr., United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable Patricia S. Harris, United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas.
---

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned, Mark McLeary, Chief Executive Officer and
Chief Financial Officer of Candev Resource Exploration, Inc. (the Company)
hereby certifies 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 on Form 10-K of the Company for the
      year ended October 31, 2008 (the Report) fully complies with the
      requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; 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: January 28, 2009 | By: | /s/ Mark McLeary                                        
|----------------------- | --- | --------------------------------------------------------
|                        |     | Mark McLeary                                            
|                        |     | President, Secretary, Treasurer,
      Chief Executive  
|                        |     | Officer and Chief Financial
      Officer               
|                        |     | (Principal Executive Officer,
      Principal Accounting
|                        |     | Officer and Principal Financial
      Officer)          





A signed original of this written statement required by Section
906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the
signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this
written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Candev Resource
Exploration, Inc. and will be retained by Candev Resource Exploration, Inc. and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---
**Exhibit 33.2****ASSERTION OF COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE SERVICING CRITERIA**The Bank of New York, The Bank of New York Trust Company, N. A. and The Bank of New York(Delaware) (collectively, the “Company”) provides this platform-level assessment of compliance withthe servicing criteria specified in Item 1122(d) of Regulation AB promulgated by the Securities andExchange Commission.Management has determined that the following servicing criteria are applicable in regards to thefollowing servicing platform for the following period:Platform: Publicly-issued (i.e., transaction-level reporting initially required under theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended) asset-backed securities issued on or after January 1,2006 (and like-kind transactions issued prior to January 1, 2006) for which the Company providestrustee, securities administration, or paying agent services, other than residentialmortgage-backed securities and other mortgage-related asset-backed securities. The platformincludes like-kind transactions for which the Company provided trustee, securities administrator,or paying agent services as a result of the Company’s acquisition as of October 1, 2006 of portionsof JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.’s corporate trust business, including structured finance agency andtrust transactions.Applicable Servicing Criteria: All servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d), to theextent required by the related transaction agreements as to any transaction, except for thefollowing criteria: 1122 (d) (1) (ii), (iii), (iv), (2) (iii), (vi), (4) (vi), (vii), (viii), (x),(xi), (xii), (xiii) and (xiv).Period: Twelve months ended December 31, 2006.With respect to the Platform and the Period, the Company provides the following assessment ofcompliance in respect of the Applicable Servicing Criteria:· The Company is responsible for assessing its compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria.· The Company has assessed compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria.· As of December 31, 2006 and for the Period, the Company was in material compliance with theApplicable Servicing Criteria.Ernst & Young LLP, an independent registered public accounting firm, has issued an attestationreport with respect to the Company’s foregoing assessment of compliance.     The Bank of New York The Bank of New York  The Bank of New York Trust Company, N.A. The Bank of New York Trust Company, N.A.  The Bank of New York (Delaware)         /s/ Robert L. Griffin /s/ Patrick J. Tadie       Robert L. Griffin Patrick J. Tadie  Authorized Signer Authorized Signer  March 1, 2007
#### IN RE: Roger D. BURRESS, Petitioner.

No. 17-2456

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: February 15, 2018

Decided: February 16, 2018

Roger D. Burress, Petitioner Pro Se.

Before WILKINSON, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

*171Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Roger D. Burress petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging the district court has unduly delayed acting on his pro se motion for resentencing under *Johnson v. United States,*— U.S. -, 135 S.Ct. 2551, 192 L.Ed.2d 569 (2015), and his authorized successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion seeking *Johnson*relief. Burress seeks an order from this court directing the district court to act. Our review of the district court’s docket reveals that the district court granted Burress’ successive § 2255 motion by order entered January 19, 2018, denied his pro se motion as moot, reduced his terms of imprisonment and supervised release, and ordered him subject to immediate release. Burress was released from imprisonment on January 22, 2018. Accordingly, because the district court has recently decided Burress’ case, we deny the mandamus petition as moot. We grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis. We 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.

*PETITION DENIED*
III

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. RES. 28

To increase the portion of funds available to the Committee on Rules and

Administration for hiring consultants.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JANUARY 5, 1995

Mr. GRASSLEY (for Mr. STEVENS) (for himself and Mr. FORD) submitted the

following resolution; which was considered and agreed to

RESOLUTION

To increase the portion of funds available to the Committee

on Rules and Administration for hiring consultants.

1 Resolved, That section 16(c)(1) of Senate Resolution

2 71 (103d Congress, 1st Session) is amended by striking

3 ‘‘4,000’’ and inserting ‘‘40,000’’.

Æ