alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>   1


                                                                   EXHIBIT 15.1


November 11, 1997

Penske Motorsports, Inc.
13400 Outer Drive, West
Detroit, Michigan   48239

We have made a review, in accordance with standards established by the American
Institute of Certified Public Accountants, of the unaudited interim financial
information of Penske Motorsports, Inc. for the periods ended September 30, 1997
and 1996, as indicated in our report dated October 30, 1997; because we did not
perform an audit, we expressed no opinion on that information.

We are aware that our report referred to above, which is included in your
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 1997, is
incorporated by reference in Registration Statement No. 333-692 on Form S-8.

We also are aware that the aforementioned report, pursuant to Rule 436(c) under
the Securities Act of 1933, is not considered a part of the Registration
Statement prepared or certified by an accountant or a report prepared or
certified by an accountant within the meaning of Sections 7 and 11 of that Act.


/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP
Detroit, Michigan
#### Sean WOFFORD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Christopher BRACKS, Peace Officer; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 16-56840

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted December 18, 2017 *

Filed December 21, 2017

Sean Wofford, Pro Se

Andrew Charles Pongracz, Attorney, Kari C. Kadomatsu, Esquire, Gilbert M. Nishimura, Esquire, Attorney, Seki, Nishi-mura & Watase, LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendants-Appellees

Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Sean Wofford appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging federal and state law claims arising out of his detention and arrest. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c). *Fleming v. Pickard,*581 F.3d 922, 925 (9th Cir. 2009). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Wofford’s Fourth Amendment claims because Wofford failed to allege facts sufficient to show that defendants lacked reasonable suspicion for his detention or probable cause for his arrest. *See Arizona v. Gant,*556 U.S. 332, 339, 129 S.Ct. 1710, 173 L.Ed.2d 485 (2009) (a search of an arrestee’s person is lawful incident to arrest); *Terry v. Ohio,*392 U.S. 1, 21, 30-31, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968) (an initial detention is reasonable when officers have reasonable suspicion that a person has committed a crime); *Barry v. Fowler,*902 F.2d 770, 773 (9th Cir. 1990) (probable cause requirement for a war-rantless arrest); *see also United States v. Cook,*808 F.3d 1195, 1200 (9th Cir. 2015) (holding that a search of a defendant’s backpack was reasonable and valid incident to arrest); *United States*v. *Brooks,*367 F.3d 1128, 1134 (9th Cir. 2004) (“We look at the total circumstances known to the officer to determine whether probable cause existed.”).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Wofford’s motion for relief from judgment, because Wofford failed to demonstrate any basis for relief from the judgment. *See Foley v. Biter,*793 F.3d 998, 1001 (9th Cir. 2015) (standard of review).

*490We reject as unsupported by the record Wofford’s contentions concerning bias of the district court.

Wofford’s motion for judicial notice (Docket Entry No, 5) is denied.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Dismiss and Opinion Filed April 25 , 2024 

# S

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 24

- 00197

- CV

JERRY RAMON , Appellant

V.

DULCE CARIDAD BARAJAS MARTINEZ , Appellee

On Appeal from the 44th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC

- 23

- 19736

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Smith, Miskel, and Breedlove

Opinion by Justice Smith

Before the Court is appellant’s motion to dismiss the appeal and take judicial

notice of prison mailroo m issues. We grant the motion to the extent we dismiss the

appeal. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.1(a)(1).

240197F.P05 /Craig Smith/

CRAIG SMITH

JUSTICE– 2

– 

# S

Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

JERRY RAMON, Appellant

No. 05

- 24

- 00197

- CV V.

DULCE CARIDAD BARAJAS MARTINEZ, Appellee On Appeal from the 44th Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC

- 23

- 19736. Opinion delivered by Justice Smith,

Justices Miskel and Breedlove participating.

In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, we DISMISS the appeal.

Judgment entered this day of April 25, 2024.
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 60 (Tuesday, March 29, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 18024-18025]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-06494]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Human Genome Research Institute; Notice of Closed 
Meeting

    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.


[[Page 18025]]


    Name of Committee: National Human Genome Research Institute 
Special Emphasis Panel; Gabriella Miller Kids First.
    Date: May 6, 2022.
    Time: 11:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Human Genome Research Institute, National 
Institutes of Health, 6700B Rockledge Drive, Suite 3100, Room 3185, 
Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).
    Contact Person: Barbara J. Thomas, Ph.D., Scientific Review 
Officer, Scientific Review Branch, National Human Genome Research 
Institute, National Institutes of Health, 6700B Rockledge Drive, 
Suite 3100, Room 3185, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 402-8837, 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#a7c5c6d5c5c6d5c689d3cfc8cac6d4e7c9cecf89c0c8d1"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="c8aaa9baaaa9baa9e6bca0a7a5a9bb88a6a1a0e6afa7be">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.172, Human 
Genome Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: March 23, 2022.
David W. Freeman,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2022-06494 Filed 3-28-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### Lashawn GILL, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Harold W. CLARKE, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 17-7215

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: February 22, 2018

Decided: February 26, 2018

*318Lashawn M. Gill, Appellant Pro Se.

Before TRAXLER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Lashawn Gill seeks to appeal the district court’s orders dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition without prejudice and denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion. The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certifí-cate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). A certificate of ap-pealability 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 petition 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 Gill 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*
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 47 (Thursday, March 10, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 13758]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-05106]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division


Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993--Countering Weapons of Mass Destruction

    Notice is hereby given that, on January 5, 2022, pursuant to 
Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 
1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), Countering Weapons of Mass 
Destruction (``CWMD'') has filed written notifications simultaneously 
with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing 
changes in its membership. The notifications were filed for the purpose 
of extending the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust 
plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances. 
Specifically, 4D Tech Solutions, Inc., Fairmont, WV; Cape Henry 
Associates, Inc., Virginia Beach, VA; Droneshield LLC, Warrenton, VA; 
Gold Standard Radiation Detection, Inc., Albuquerque, NM; Kinsa, Inc., 
San Francisco, CA; Kuprion, Inc., San Jose, CA; Next Tier Concepts, 
Inc., Vienna, VA; NTELX, Inc., Asheville, NC; Paratek Pharmaceuticals, 
Boston, MA; Philips North America LLC, Cambridge, MA; Rose 
Developments, Inc., Virginia Beach, VA; Sherpa 6, Inc., Littleton, CO; 
Software AG Government Solutions, Inc., Herndon, VA; Spark Insights 
LLC, Tampa, FL; The University of Illinois, Urbana, IL; and XCMR, Inc., 
Penn Valley, PA have been added as parties to this venture.
    Also, Alion Science and Technology Corporation, Burr Ridge, IL; CDO 
Technologies, Inc., Dayton, MD; Life Safety Systems, Inc., Santa Cruz, 
CA; Practical Energetics Research, Inc., Huntsville, AL; QRC LLC dba 
QRC Technologies, Fredericksburg, VA; SitScape, Inc., Vienna, VA; 
Terminal Horizon Operations and Resourcing (THOR), St. Petersburg, FL; 
Veterans Corps of America (VCA), O'Fallon, IL; and WWT Asynchrony Labs, 
St. Louis, MO have withdrawn as parties to this venture.
    No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned 
activity of the group research project. Membership in this group 
research project remains open, and CWMD intends to file additional 
written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
    On January 31, 2018, CWMD filed its original notification pursuant 
to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a 
notice in the Federal Register pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on 
March 12, 2018 (83 FR 10750).
    The last notification was filed with the Department on October 28, 
2021. A notice was published in the Federal Register pursuant to 
Section 6(b) of the Act on November 24, 2021 (86 FR 67084).

Suzanne Morris,
Chief, Premerger and Division Statistics, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 2022-05106 Filed 3-9-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
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

                    Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the Sleep Disorders Research Advisory Board, April 7, 2022, 12:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m., Virtual Meeting, which was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     on March 09, 2022, V 87 Vol. 46, Page 13302, FR Doc No. 2022-04982.                

Meeting is being amended to change the telephone call in number to 1-669-254-5252 (Meeting ID: 161 532 8417 Passcode: 330488). The meeting is open to the public.

Dated: March 22, 2022.

David W. Freeman, 

Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2022-06433 Filed 3-25-22; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
EXHIBIT 32.1
 Certification of Chief Executive Officer And Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
  (1)
    
    the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Registrant, to which this certification is
attached as an exhibit (the Report), fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a)
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 Registrant.
 Dated: May 8, 2009
    /s/  Hamish N. J. BrewerHamish N. J. BrewerPresident and Chief Executive Officer/s/ David AlbertyDavid AlbertyGroup Vice President of Accounting, Finance and Treasury and
Acting Principal Financial and Accounting Officer
Exhibit 35.4



|     |  |                                                                                                          
|---- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|LOGO |  | Commercial Mortgage Servicing D1050-084, 8th Floor 401 South Tryon St.
Charlotte, NC 28202 1-800-326-1334

ANNUAL STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE

Reference is hereby made to that certain Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of September 1, 2014, by and among WELLS FARGO
COMMERCIAL MORTGAGE SECURITIES, INC., as Depositor, WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as General Master Servicer, CWCAPITAL ASSET MANAGEMENT LLC, as General Special Servicer, NCB, FSB, as NCB Master Servicer, NCB, FSB, as NCB Special Servicer,
PENTALPHA SURVEILLANCE LLC, as Trust Advisor, WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Certificate Administrator, as Tax Administrator and as Custodian, and WILMINGTON TRUST, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Trustee, with respect to Commercial Mortgage
Pass-Through Certificates Series 2014-C22 (the Agreement). Capitalized terms used herein not otherwise defined shall have the meanings assigned in the Agreement.

Pursuant to Section 11.12 of this Agreement, I, Daniel Bober, Executive Vice President of Commercial Mortgage Services do hereby certify
that:



| | 1. | A review of the activities of the General Master Servicer during the period from January 1, 2017 through December 31, 2017, (the Reporting Period), and of its performance per the Agreement during
such period has been made under my supervision, and
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the General Master Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under this Agreement in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period.
| | -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this Certificate as of the 28th day of
February 2018.



|                        
|------------------------
|LOGO                    
|Daniel Bober            
|Executive Vice President
|Wells Fargo Bank        



|                       |  |     
|---------------------- |  | ----
|Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. |  | LOGO
**
**Exhibit 31**

**Certifications**

I,Richard Simpson, certify that: 

1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports onForm 10-D required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of Citigroup Commercial Mortgage Trust 2014-GC25 (the “Exchange Actperiodic reports”); 

2. Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 

3. Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and other information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports; 

4. Basedon my knowledge and the servicer compliance statement(s) required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicers have fulfilled their obligations under the servicingagreements in all material respects; and 

5. All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backedsecurities and their related attestation reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwise disclosed in this report. Any material instances of noncompliance described in suchreports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.

In giving the certifications above, Ihave reasonably relied on information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties: Wells Fargo Bank, National Association; Midland Loan Services, a Division of PNC Bank, National Association; Park Bridge Lender Services LLC; Deutsche BankTrust Company Americas; CoreLogic Commercial Real Estate Services, Inc.; National Tax Search, LLC; CWCapital Asset Management LLC; Pentalpha Surveillance LLC; and LNR Partners, LLC. 

Date: March 28, 2019 

/s/ RichardSimpson                                                    

Richard Simpson 

President, Citigroup Commercial Mortgage Securities Inc. 

(seniorofficer in charge of securitization of the depositor) 

 

 
CGCMT 2014-GC25Certifications (2018) 

**
No. 11-438.

#### Liberty University et al. *v.*Geithner, Secretary of the Treasury, et al.,

567 U. S. 951. Respondents are requested to file a response to petition for rehearing within 30 days.
#### Josephat MUA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF PRINCE GEORGE’S COUNTY, MARYLAND, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 17-2029

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: February 22, 2018

Decided: February 26, 2018

Josephat Mua, Appellant Pro Se. Lindsay A. Freedman, Linda Hitt Thatcher, Wayne Bennett Wiseman, THATCHER LAW FIRM, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Ap-pellee.

Before TRAXLER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

*304Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. '

PER CURIAM:

Josephat Mua appeals the district court’s order denying his self-styled motion to reopen his civil case based on new evidence, and challenges the district court’s decision to return to Mua a subsequently filed motion for reconsideration. Mua has also filed motions to proceed in forma pauperis, to exceed the length limitations for his informal opening brief, and for leave to file corrected and supplemental briefs. We have reviewed’ the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we grant Mua’s motions and affirm the district court’s order.*
      *See Mua v. Bd. of Educ. of Prince George’s Cty., Md,*No. 8:11-cv-01198-PJM (D. Md. Aug. 1, 2017); *see also United States v. Riley,*856 F.3d 326, 328 (4th Cir.) (recognizing this court’s ability to “affirm on any grounds apparent from the record” (internal quotation marks omitted)), *cert. denied,*— U.S. —, 138 S.Ct. 273, 199 L.Ed.2d 175 (2017). 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.

*AFFIRMED*

We discern no reversible error in the district court’s refusal to entertain Mua’s motion for reconsideration.
# Fourth Court of Appeals
San Antonio, Texas

November 30, 2022

No. 04

- 22

- 00772

- CR

EX PARTE Jorge BECERRA

- ORTIZ

,

From the County Court

, Kinney County, Texas

Trial Court No. 12255CR Honorable Tully Shahan , Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

The clerk’s record in this appeal has been filed. The record reflects that on May 11, 2022, appellant filed in the trial court an application for pretrial writ of habeas corpus. On September 9, 2022, appellant filed a notice of appeal, conten ding the trial court denied him relief on September 7, 2022. The clerk’s record does not contain a final order signed by the trial court. On September 14, 2022, the trial court signed a certification of defendant’s right to appeal stating, in part, that “I do not find where I have signed, or has been submitted to me for signature, an Order Denying Application for Pretrial Writ of Habeas Corpus and for Other Ancillary Matters,” although [a] notice of appeal has be en [sic] filed.” This court contacted appel lant’s attorney who stated there is no signed order in the case.

It thus appears that this appeal is interlocutory and we have no jurisdiction over this appeal. Ex parte Evans , 611 S.W.3d 86, 88 (Tex. App.

— Waco 2020, no pet.) (“Because there i s no final order denying Evans’s application for writ of habeas corpus to be appealed, we therefore lack jurisdiction to entertain Evans’s appeal from such order.”); Ex parte Kietzman , No. 04

- 14

- 00106

- CR, 2014 WL 1319387, at *1 (Tex. App.

— San Antonio Apr. 2, 2014, no pet.) (per curiam) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (“Indeed, there is no final order signed by the trial court in the clerk’s record. It thus appears that this appeal is interlocutory and that we have no jurisdiction over this appeal .”).

We therefore ORDER appellant to show cause in writing, no later than December 12,
2022 , why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. If appellant fails to respond by December 12, 2022

, this appeal will be subject to dismi ssal for want of jurisdiction. All other appellate deadlines are held in abeyance pending further order of this court.

_________________________________ Lori I. Valenzuela , JusticeIN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 30th day of November, 2022

.

___________________________________ MICHAEL A. CRUZ

, Clerk of Court