alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### IN RE: TOWER PARK PROPERTIES, LLC, Debtor, Fiduciary Trust International of California, Trustee ad litem of the Mark Hughes Family Trust dated September 3, 1987, Appellant, v. Tower Park Properties, LLC, Reorganized Debtor, Appellee.

No. 16-56092

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted November 15, 2017 Pasadena, California

Filed November 27, 2017

Richard D. Cleary, Farmer & Ridley, Los Angeles, CA, Rolf Stewart Woolner, Winston & Strawn LLP, Los Angeles, CA, Linda T. Coberly, Attorney, Winston & Strawn LLP, Chicago, IL, for Appellant

Jeremy V. Richards, Attorney, Dean A. Ziehl, Esquire, Attorney, Pachulski Stang Ziehl & Jones LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Appellee

Before: HAWKINS, PARKER,* and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.

*

 The Honorable Barrington D. Parker, Jr,, United States Circuit Judge for the U,S, Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, sitting by designation,

MEMORANDUM **

Fiduciary Trust International of California (FTIC) appeals the district court’s memorandum decision dismissing FTIC’s appeal of a bankruptcy court order approving certain “Conditional Provisions” in a settlement agreement that made changes to Tower Park Property, LLC’s confirmed Chapter 11 plan of reorganization. Before the district court, FTIC moved to dismiss this appeal on the ground that the Conditional Provisions failed to take effect, and appeals the district court’s denial of this motion to dismiss. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d)(1) and 28 U.S.C. § 1291.

The settlement agreement provides that the Conditional Provisions do not take effect unless a fourteen-day appeal period following the bankruptcy court’s approval of the provisions elapses “without the filing of any appeal,” Because Alexander Hughes appealed the bankruptcy court’s approval order within the fourteen-day period, the Conditional Provisions became “void and of no force or effect ab initio.” Contrary to Tower Park’s argument, the phrase “any appeal” is not “reasonably susceptible” to an interpretation that excludes Hughes’s appeal. *Pac. Gas & Elec. Co. v. G.W. Thomas Drayage & Rigging Co.,*69 Cal. *7032d 33, 37, 69 Cal.Rptr. 561, 442 P.2d 641 (1968). The term that the parties chose is “plainly all-inclusive.” *Gerdlund v. Elec. Dispensers Int’l,*190 Cal. App. 3d 263, 273, 235 Cal.Rptr. 279 (1987). While Tower Park’s extrinsic evidence shows that certain parties to the settlement agreement were especially concerned about the risk of certain types of appeals, it does not show that the parties to the settlement agreement understood the phrase “any appeal” to mean “only certain appeals.” Because the Conditional Provisions did not go into effect, FTIC’s appeals are moot.1

REVERSED.

**

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

1

. Because we resolve this case on mootness grounds, we need not reach either the other threshold question, whether FTIC has appellate standing, *see Sinochem Int’l Co. v. Malaysia Int’l Shipping Corp.,*549 U.S. 422, 431, 127 S.Ct. 1184, 167 L.Ed.2d 15 (2007), or FTIC’s other arguments,
#### Earl R. MAYFIELD, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Tom RUIZ, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 17-2107

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

Filed November 28, 2017

(D.C. No. 1:17-CV-00193-JCH-KRS) (D. New Mexico)

Earl Mayfield, Pro Se

Before KELLY, MURPHY, and MATHESON, Circuit Judges.

ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

Paul J Kelly, Jr. Circuit Judge

Plaintiff-Appellant Earl R. Mayfield, appearing pro se, seeks a certificate of ap-pealability (COA) to challenge the district court’s dismissal without prejudice of his habeas corpus petition, 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Mayfield v. Ruiz, No. 17-CV-00193-JCH-KRS, 2017 WL 3168972, at *3 (D.N.M. May 19, 2017). We deny his application for a COA and dismiss the appeal.

On February 1, 2017, Mr. Mayfield was convicted of trafficking controlled substances, tampering with evidence, and resisting, evading, or obstructing an officer. Id. at *1. He was sentenced by the state court to 19 years’ imprisonment. Id. On February 6, 2017, he filed a federal habeas petition. Id. The district court noted that his direct appeal was still pending in the New Mexico Court of Appeals, State of New Mexico v. Earl Mayfield, No. D-202-CR-2012-02229 (N.M. Ct. App. appeal docketed Sept, 19, 2017), and therefore dismissed his petition without prejudice for failure to exhaust state court remedies. Mayfield, 2017 WL 3168972, at *3.

We may grant a COA only if Mr. May-field establishes that “jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a *787constitutional right and that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000). Here, the district court denied Mr. Mayfield’s habeas petition on procedural grounds for failure to exhaust state court remedies. Mayfield, 2017 WL 3168972, at *3. Reasonable jurists would not debate the correctness of the district court’s decision to dismiss Mr. Mayfield’s claims on procedural grounds.

Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)(A), an application for a writ of habeas corpus requires a showing of exhaustion. A federal court should not grant an application for a writ of habeas corpus by a state prisoner unless the prisoner has “give[n] the state courts one full opportunity to resolve any constitutional issues by invoking one complete round of the State’s established appellate review process.” O’Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 845, 119 S.Ct. 1728, 144 L.Ed.2d 1 (1999). Mr. Mayfield has not given the New Mexico state courts such an opportunity. His appeal is still pending before the New Mexico Court of Appeals. See Mayfield, No. D-202-CR-2012-02229.

Therefore, we DENY Mr. Mayfield’s request for a COA, DENY his motion to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP), and DISMISS the appeal.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                         379,918
<SECURITIES>                                   1,110,098
<RECEIVABLES>                                  0
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               1,788,126
<PP&E>                                         0
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 1,907,799
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          391,337
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       393
<OTHER-SE>                                     1,516,069
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   1,907,799
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               0
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  129,408
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (41,010)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (41,010)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (41,010)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (.01)


</TABLE>
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

October 24, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

134172 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 134172 

 COA: 265843 

Genesee CC: 05-016127-FC 

ROBERT THOMAS PARKS, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the February 20, 2007 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered. We DIRECT the Genesee County 

Prosecuting Attorney to answer the application for leave to appeal within 28 days after 

the date of this order. 

The application for leave to appeal remains pending. 

s1017 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

October 24, 2007 

 Clerk
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.2

                       Form of Irrevocable Limited Proxy
       granted by officers and directors of ComVest Venture Partners, L.P.

                            IRREVOCABLE LIMITED PROXY

       For good and valuable consideration, receipt of which is hereby
acknowledged, the undersigned,[                 ], hereby appoints ComVest
Venture Partners, L.P. ("ComVest"), the proxy of the undersigned for the period
commencing on the date hereof and continuing until September 30, 2002 (the
"Proxy Term") with full power to vote at any special meeting of the shareholders
for a shareholder proposal to approve an amendment to Comdial Corporation's (the
"Company") Certificate of Incorporation to review the authorized shares of
Common Stock (the "Proposal") of the Company in such manner as it, in its sole
discretion, deems proper with respect to the shares of Common Stock of the
Company owned by the undersigned on any record date for such meeting (the "Proxy
Shares"). Any other matters to be acted upon at such special meeting of
shareholders during the Proxy Term where the Proposal is presented to the
shareholders shall be voted by ComVest as directed by the undersigned.

       This proxy is irrevocable and coupled with an interest. At any time and
from time to time during the Proxy Term, the undersigned shall execute and
deliver to ComVest or its designees such additional proxies or instruments as
may be deemed by ComVest necessary or desirable to effectuate the purposes of
this Proxy or further to evidence the right and powers granted hereby.

       If the undersigned sells or otherwise transfers any of Proxy Shares
during the Proxy Term, such shares will remain subject to this Proxy during the
remainder of the Proxy Term.

       IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this irrevocable proxy
as of the June 20, 2002.

                                              __________________________________
                                                  [             ]

       ComVest hereby in good faith affirms that it will independently vote the
[        ] Shares on this Proposal without influence from the grantor of the
above proxy and will vote the[        ] Shares in accordance with what it
believes to be the best interests of the Company and independently of the
interests of the grantor of such proxy.

                               COMVEST VENTURE PARTNERS, L.P.

                               By:  ComVest Management LLC, its general partner

                                    By:_________________________________________
                                        Name:
                                        Title: Manager
| (logo)  WELLS FARGO | **Commercial  Mortgage Servicing**D1050-084,  8th Floor  401 South Tryon Street  Charlotte, NC 28202  1-800-326-1334 |
|---------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

**ANNUAL STATEMENT OFCOMPLIANCE**

 

Referenceis hereby made to that certain Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as ofSeptember 1, 2014, by and among DEUTSCHE MORTGAGE & ASSET RECEIVINGCORPORATION, as Depositor, WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as MasterServicer, RIALTO CAPITAL ADVISORS, LLC, as Special Servicer, WILMINGTON TRUST, NATIONALASSOCIATION, as Trustee, WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as CertificateAdministrator, Paying Agent and Custodian, and SITUS HOLDINGS, LLC as OperatingAdvisor with respect to Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, COMM2014-UBS5 (the "Agreement"). Capitalized terms used herein nototherwise defined shall have the meanings assigned in the Agreement.

 

Pursuantto Section 10.11 of this Agreement, I, Daniel Bober, Executive Vice Presidentof Commercial Mortgage Services do hereby certify that:

 

1.            A review of the activities of the Master Servicer during the period fromJanuary 1, 2017 through December 31, 2017 (the “Reporting Period”), and of itsperformance 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 Master Servicer hasfulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respectsthroughout the Reporting Period.

 

INWITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this Certificate as of the 28thday of February 2018.

 

 

/s/DanielBober

DanielBober

ExecutiveVice President 

WellsFargo Bank

 

 

| Wells  Fargo Bank, N.A. | (logo)  Together we’ll go far |
|-------------------------|-------------------------------------|
#### IN RE: Daniel Johnson WILLIS, Petitioner. In re: Daniel Johnson Willis, Petitioner.

No. 17-2119, No. 17-2207

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: February 22, 2018

Decided: February 26, 2018

Daniel Johnson Willis, Petitioner Pro Se.

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

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Daniel Johnson Willis petitions for writs of mandamus seeking orders directing the district court to adjudicate civil rights actions that the court denied Willis leave to file pursuant to a prefiling injunction. We conclude that Willis is not entitled to mandamus relief.

Mandamus relief is a drastic remedy and should be used only in extraordinary circumstances. *Kerr v. U.S. Dist. Court,*426 U.S. 394, 402, 96 S.Ct. 2119, 48 L.Ed.2d 725 (1976); *United States v. Moussaoui,*333 F.3d 509, 516-17 (4th Cir. 2003). Fur*305ther, mandamus relief is available only when the petitioner has a clear right to the relief sought. *In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n,*860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir. 1988).

Mandamus may not be used as a substitute for appeal. *In re Lockheed Martin Corp.,*503 F.3d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 2007). The relief sought by Willis is not available by way of mandamus. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny the petitions and supplemental petitions for writ of mandamus. 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.

*PETITIONS DENIED*
<PAGE>



                                                                  Exhibit 11.1

Statement re: Computation of Earnings Per Share
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                            Three Months Ended                Nine Months Ended
                                                     ------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        October 2,      October 3,       October 2,      October 3,
                                                           1998            1997             1998            1997
                                                     ------------------------------------------------------------------
<S>                                                       <C>              <C>           <C>              <C>
Weighted average shares outstanding..................     10,223,672        9,168,921       9,621,000        9,107,338
                                                     ------------------------------------------------------------------
Total shares.........................................     10,223,672        9,168,921       9,621,000        9,107,338
                                                     ------------------------------------------------------------------
Net loss.............................................    $(1,889,206)       $(874,874)    $(6,413,006)     $(5,704,278)
                                                     ------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     ------------------------------------------------------------------
Net loss per share:
                                                     ------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     ------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Basic..............................    $     (0.18)      $    (0.10)     $    (0.67)     $     (0.63)
                                                     ------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     ------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Diluted............................    $     (0.18)      $    (0.10)     $    (0.67)     $     (0.63)
                                                     ------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     ------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                
</TABLE>
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

MEMORANDUM OPINION

N o. 04

- 13

- 00868

- CV

FORT DUNCAN MEDICAL CENTER INC.

, Appellant

v.

Edwin Martin and Esther Martin, Individually and as Representative of the Estate of Robert

Edwin MARTIN and Esther Martin, Individually

a nd as Representative of the Estate of Robert Martin,

Appellees

From the 365th Judicial District Court, Maverick County, Texas

Trial Court No. 10

- 12

- 26093

- MCVAJA

Honorable Amado J. Abascal, III, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

Delivered and Filed: May 28, 2014

MOTION TO DISMISS GRANTED; APPEAL DISMISSED

The parties have filed a joint motion to dismiss this appeal. We grant the motion and

dismiss the appeal. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.1(a)(1).

PER CURIAM
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 58 (Friday, March 25, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 16983]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-06497]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Office of Workers' Compensation Programs

20 CFR Part 30


Claims for Compensation Under the Energy Employees Occupational 
Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000

CFR Correction

    This rule is being published by the Office of the Federal Register 
to correct an editorial or technical error that appeared in the most 
recent annual revision of the Code of Federal Regulations.

0
In Title 20 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Parts 1 to 399, revised 
as of April 1, 2021, in Sec.  30.403, remove the second paragraph (c) 
and paragraph (d).

[FR Doc. 2022-06497 Filed 3-24-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 0099-10-P
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 Loral Space & Communications Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2012 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I,
Michael B. Targoff, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §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/ Michael B. TargoffMichael B.
TargoffVice Chairman of the Board, Chief Executive Officer and President


August 9, 2012
EXHIBIT 31.1

                                  CERTIFICATION

I, Robert S. Herlin, Chief Executive Officer of Natural Gas Systems, Inc.,
certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Natural Gas Systems,
Inc.;

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. The Registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the Registrant and have:

a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that
material information relating to the Registrant, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly
during the period in which this report is being prepared;

b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the Registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness
of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered
by this report based on such evaluation; and

c) Disclosed in this report any change in the Registrant's internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the Registrant's most recent fiscal
quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially
affect, the Registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The Registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
Registrant's auditors and the audit committee of Registrant's Board of
Directors:

a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the Registrant's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial information; and

b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the Registrant's internal control over
financial reporting.


Date: May 16, 2005

                                        /s/ Robert S. Herlin
                                        ------------------------
                                        Robert S. Herlin
                                        Chief Executive Officer