alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

February 7, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice
132281 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan BEVERLY GARGES, Plaintiff-Appellant, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices

v SC: 132281 COA: 260084 Jackson CC: 03-001448-NO PATRICIA TODD, d/b/a LAST CHANCE PARTY STORE, Defendant-Appellee.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application fo r leave to appeal the September 12, 2006 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented s hould be reviewed by this Court.

C AVANAGH and K ELLY , JJ., would grant leave to appeal.

t0131 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.

February 7, 2007

Clerk
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. WR-81,606-01

IN RE MILTON SEYMORE, JR., Relator

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS

CAUSE NO. 1053259 IN THE 208TH DISTRICT COURT

FROM HARRIS COUNTY

Per curiam.

O R D E R

Relator has filed a motion for leave to file a writ of mandamus pursuant to the original

jurisdiction of this Court. In it, he contends that he filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus

in the 208th District Court of Harris County, that more than 35 days have elapsed, and that the

application has not yet been forwarded to this Court.

In these circumstances, additional facts are needed. Respondent, the District Clerk of Harris

County, is ordered to file a response, which may be made by submitting the record on such habeas

corpus application, submitting a copy of a timely filed order which designates issues to be

investigated (see McCree v. Hampton, 824 S.W.2d 578, 579 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992)), or stating that
2

Relator has not filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus in Harris County. Should the

response include an order designating issues, proof of the date the district attorney’s office was

served with the habeas application shall also be submitted with the response. This application for

leave to file a writ of mandamus shall be held in abeyance until Respondent has submitted the

appropriate response. Such response shall be submitted within 30 days of the date of this order.

Filed: July 9, 2014

Do not publish
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.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         Microbiology, Infectious Diseases and AIDS Initial Review Group; Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome Research Study Section; Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome Research Study Section (AIDS).                    

*Date:*                         April 20, 2022.                    

*Time:*                         10:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health, 5601 Fishers Lane, Room 3F40A, Rockville, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).                    

*Contact Person:*                         Dimitrios Nikolaos Vatakis, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Scientific Review Program, Division of Extramural Activities, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health, 5601 Fishers Lane, MSC-9823, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 761-7176,                         *dimitrios.vatakis@nih.gov.*

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.855, Allergy, Immunology, and Transplantation Research; 93.856, Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: March 16, 2022.

Tyeshia M. Roberson-Curtis,

Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2022-05968 Filed 3-21-22; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Favian Arredondo MENDOZA, Defendant-Appellant

No. 17-10221 Conference Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed December 20, 2017

James Wesley Hendrix, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S, Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Favian Arredondo Mendoza, Pro Se

Before JONES, DENNIS, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

*251PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Favian Arredondo Mendoza 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 (6th Cir. 2011). Arre-dondo Mendoza 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 ft*om 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 published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
# Official Journal C 380/2019

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 380 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 628 November 2019 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 380

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 628 November 2019

---

| Contents | page |
| --- | --- |
| | I   Resolutions, recommendations and opinions |
| | RECOMMENDATIONS |
| | Court of Justice of the European Union |
| 2019/C 380/01 | Recommendations to national courts and tribunals in relation to the initiation of preliminary ruling proceedings | 1 |

Contents

page

I   Resolutions, recommendations and opinions

RECOMMENDATIONS

Court of Justice of the European Union

2019/C 380/01

Recommendations to national courts and tribunals in relation to the initiation of preliminary ruling proceedings

1

---

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Wilson Lee GARRETT, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-6883

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: December 15, 2017

Decided: December 22, 2017

*143Wilson Lee Garrett, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. James Andrew Crowell, IV, Ray Daniel McKenzie, Assistant United States Attorneys, John Michael Pellettieri, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and AGEE and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Wilson Lee Garrett, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certifícate of ap-pealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong, *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003), When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Garrett has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. 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.

*DISMISSED*
III

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. RES. 282

To designate October 10, 1996, as the ‘‘Day of National Concern About

Young People and Gun Violence’’.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JULY 24, 1996

Mr. BRADLEY (for himself, Mr. SPECTER, Mr. WELLSTONE, Mr. FRIST, Mr.

LEVIN, Ms. SNOWE, Mr. AKAKA, Mr. DEWINE, Mrs. BOXER, Mr. THURMOND, Mr. MOYNIHAN, Mr. BIDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr. GLENN, Mr.

REID, Mr. SIMON, Mr. KOHL, Mr. LAUTENBERG, Mr. DODD, Mr.

CHAFEE, Mr. BENNETT, Mr. MCCAIN, Mr. COATS, Mr. D’AMATO, Mr.

BROWN, Mrs. KASSEBAUM, Mr. GRASSLEY, Mr. INOUYE, Mr. BURNS, Mr.

GRAHAM, Mr. NICKLES, Mr. CONRAD, Mr. ROTH, Mr. DORGAN, Mrs.

HUTCHISON, Mr. PRYOR, Mr. SIMPSON, Mr. LIEBERMAN, Mr.

FAIRCLOTH, Mr. BUMPERS, Mr. MCCONNELL, Mr. ROCKEFELLER, Mr.

THOMPSON, Mr. KERRY, Mr. COHEN, Mr. JOHNSTON, Mr. GORTON, Mr.

KENNEDY, Mr. CRAIG, Mr. ROBB, Mr. KEMPTHORNE, Ms. MOSELEYBRAUN, Mr. MACK, Mr. WYDEN, Mr. GRAMS, Mr. HOLLINGS, Mr. JEFFORDS, Mr. DASCHLE, Mr. CAMPBELL, Ms. MIKULSKI, Mr. COCHRAN,

Mr. HEFLIN, Mrs. FRAHM, Mr. EXON, Mr. ABRAHAM, Mr. FORD, Mr.

ASHCROFT, Mr. BYRD, Mr. GREGG, Mr. SARBANES, Mr. HATFIELD, Mrs.

FEINSTEIN, Mr. LUGAR, Mr. KERREY, Mr. SANTORUM, Mr. NUNN, Mr.

THOMAS, Mr. BINGAMAN, Mr. WARNER, Mr. LEAHY, Mr. HELMS, Mr.

BREAUX, Mr. BRYAN, and Mr. PELL) submitted the following resolution;

which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

RESOLUTION

To designate October 10, 1996, as the ‘‘Day of National

Concern About Young People and Gun Violence’’.

Whereas violent crime among juveniles in American society

has dramatically escalated in recent years;
2

•SRES 282 IS

Whereas between 1989 and 1994, juvenile arrest rates for

murder in this country skyrocketed 42 percent;

Whereas in 1993, more than 10 children were murdered each

day in America;

Whereas America’s young people are this country’s most important resource, and Americans have a vested interest in

helping children survive, free from fear and violence, to

become healthy adults;

Whereas America’s young people can, by taking individual

and collective responsibility for their own decisions and

actions, help chart a new and less violent direction for

the entire country;

Whereas American school children will be invited to participate in a national observance involving millions of their

fellow students and will thereby be empowered to see

themselves as the agents of positive social change; and

Whereas this observance will give American school children

the opportunity to make a solemn decision about their future and control their destiny by voluntarily signing a

pledge promising that they will never take a gun to

school, will never use a gun to resolve a dispute, and will

use their influence to prevent friends from using guns to

settle disputes: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved, That the Senate designates October 10,

2 1996, as the ‘‘Day of National Concern About Young Peo3 ple and Gun Violence’’. The President is authorized and

4 requested to issue a proclamation calling upon the school
3

•SRES 282 IS

1 children of the United States to observe such day with

2 appropriate activities.

Æ
III

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. RES. 124

Relating to the retirement of Frederick R. Broomfield, Sr.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

MAY 22 (legislative day, MAY 15), 1995

Mr. DOLE (for himself and Mr. DASCHLE) submitted the following resolution;

which was considered and agreed to

RESOLUTION

Relating to the retirement of Frederick R. Broomfield, Sr.

Whereas on June 30, 1995, Frederick R. Broomfield, Sr. will

retire from service as a member of the Department of Office Services staff within the Office of the Secretary of

the Senate after almost 20 years;

Whereas he has upheld the high standards and traditions of

the Office of the Secretary of the Senate with abiding devotion; and

Whereas he has gained the trust, confidence, and respect of

his associates and the Members of the United States Senate: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved, That the United States Senate expresses its

2 deep appreciation and gratitude to Frederick R. Broom-
2

•SRES 124 ATS

1 field, Sr., for his years of faithful and exemplary service

2 to his country and to the United States Senate.

3 SEC. 2. The Secretary shall transmit a copy of this

4 resolution to Frederick R. Broomfield, Sr.

Æ
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Candido LOPEZ-ROJAS, Defendant-Appellant

No. 17-40564 Conference Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed December 20, 2017

Carmen Castillo Mitchell, Assistant U.S, Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Candido Lopez-Rojas, Pro Se

Before JONES, DENNIS, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Candido Lopez-Rojas 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). Lopez-Rojas 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 nonfrivolous 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 published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4,
III

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. RES. 192

A resolution making majority appointments to the Joint Committee on the

Library and the Joint Committee on Printing.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

NOVEMBER 3, 1995

Mr. DOLE submitted the following resolution; which was considered and

agreed to

RESOLUTION

A resolution making majority appointments to the Joint

Committee on the Library and the Joint Committee on

Printing.

1 Resolved, The following are named majority party

2 members on the part of the Senate to the Joint Committee

3 on the Library: Mr. Hatfield (chairman), Mr. Stevens, and

4 Mr. Warner.

5 The following are named majority party members on

6 the part of the Senate to the Joint Committee on Printing:

7 Mr. Warner (vice chairman), Mr. Hatfield, and Mr. Coch8 ran.

Æ
420 P.2d 588

#### STATE of Arizona, Appellee, v. Arthur Robert VALENZUELA, Appellant.

No. 2 CA-CR 71.

Court of Appeals of Arizona.

Dec. 7, 1966.

Darrell F. Smith, Atty. Gen., William J. Schafer, III, Pima County Atty., Carl Waag, Deputy County Atty., Tucson, for appellee.

O. G. Marquez, Tucson, for appellant.

KRUCKER, Chief Judge.

Defendant, Arthur Robert Valenzuela, takes this appeal from a conviction of petit theft, with a prior conviction alleged, in the Superior Court of Pima County, Arizona.

An indictment was returned by the grand jury on January 6, 1966, charging the defendant with petit theft under the provisions of A.R.S. § 13-661 and § 13-663 as amended, and charging the defendant with a prior conviction of burglary, first degree. The defendant was represented by court-appointed counsel (other than the counsel in this appeal) and was convicted by a jury. On May 25, 1966, defendant was sentenced to a term in the Arizona State Prison for not less than one nor more than five years, the prior conviction having been admitted by the defendant.

Appellant’s counsel has filed in this Court an affidavit stating that he has diligently and conscientiously searched the record of the proceedings in the trial court and has carefully read the transcript of testimony and has been unable to find any grounds upon which an appeal can be prosecuted.

The essential facts are that the defendant drove up to a gasoline service station and told the attendant who waited on him that he wanted to wash his windshield. While the attendant was absent, waiting on another customer at another pump, the defendant picked up a cash drawer from its *346pedestal and placed it on the lap of his girl companion who was sitting in the car. Before defendant drove away, the attendant discovered that the cash box was missing, saw it in defendant’s car, and retrieved the cash box. At the trial, defendant testified that it was only a joke, but apparently the jury did not believe defendant’s version and returned a verdict of guilty.

Under the provisions of A.R.S. § 13-1715, subsec. B, this Court is required, in a criminal appeal, to review the entire record. This we have done, including reading the transcript of testimony of the trial. We find no error or violation of the defendant’s rights or any grounds upon which an appeal can be prosecuted. State v. Burrell, 96 Ariz. 233, 393 P.2d 921 (1964); State v. Denmon, 3 Ariz.App. 217, 413 P.2d 276 (1966) ; State v. White, 2 Ariz.App. 455, 409 P.2d 739 (1966).

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

HATHAWAY and MOLLOY, JJ., concur.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-7693

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus WILLIAM W. KINKELLA, a/k/a Funk, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Wheeling. Frederick P. Stamp, Jr., District Judge. (CR-02-14; CA-02-159) Submitted: March 10, 2004 Decided: March 26, 2004 Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. William W. Kinkella, Appellant Pro Se. Robert H. McWilliams, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: William W. Kinkella appeals the district court’s denial of his motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2255 proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent a “substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000), Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Kinkella has not satisfied either standard. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense 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
Exhibit 34.2



LOGO

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

To the Board of Directors, PNC Financial Services Group, Inc.:

We have examined managements assertion, included in the accompanying Report on Assessment of Compliance with Regulation AB Servicing Criteria, that
Midland Loan Services, a division of PNC Bank, National Association (Midland or the Company) complied with the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of the Securities and Exchange Commissions Regulation AB
for the commercial mortgage-backed securities transactions (the Platform), as of December 31, 2014 and for the year then ended, excluding criteria 1122(d)(1)(iii), 1122(d)(3)(i)(B), 1122(d)(3)(i)(C), 1122(d)(3)(i)(D),
1122(d)(3)(ii), 1122(d)(3)(iii), 1122(d)(3)(iv), and 1122(d)(4)(xv), which the Company has determined are not applicable to the servicing activities performed by it with respect to the Platform. Management is responsible for the Companys
compliance with the servicing criteria. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on managements assertion based on our examination.

Our
examination was conducted in accordance with attestation standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) and, accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Companys compliance with the
applicable servicing criteria and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. Our examination included testing of selected asset-backed transactions and securities that comprise the Platform, testing of selected
servicing activities related to the Platform, and determining whether the Company processed those selected transactions and performed those selected activities in compliance with the applicable servicing criteria. Our procedures were limited to the
selected transactions and servicing activities performed by the Company during the period covered by this report. Our procedures were not designed to detect noncompliance arising from errors that may have occurred prior to or subsequent to our tests
that may have affected the balances or amounts calculated or reported by the Company during the period covered by this report. We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our examination does not provide a legal
determination on the Companys compliance with the servicing criteria.

In our opinion, managements assertion that Midland complied with the
aforementioned applicable servicing criteria as of and for the year ended December 31, 2014 for the Platform is fairly stated, in all material respects.



LOGO

February 25, 2015



|                                                                                 
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, 1100 Walnut Street, Suite 1300, Kansas City, MO 64106
|T: (816) 472 7921, F: (816) 218 1890 www.pwc.com/us