alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-7336

EARL SAND,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

S. STEELE, Corrections Officer; L. RICKS,

Corrections Officer, 6-2 Shift; DARLING,

Corrections Officer; B. MOHEAD, Inmate

Hearings Officer A,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry Coke Morgan, Jr., District

Judge. (CA-01-11-2)

Submitted: June 19, 2003 Decided: August 8, 2003

Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Earl Sand, Appellant Pro Se. Pamela Anne Sargent, Assistant

Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Earl Sand appeals the district court’s order denying relief on

his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record

and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the

reasons stated by the district court. See Sand v. Steele, No. CA01-11-2 (E.D. Va. Aug. 15, 2002). 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.

AFFIRMED
**EXHIBIT 31.1****CERTIFICATION**I, James B. McCurry, certify that:     1. I have reviewed this Form 10-Q of PRG-Schultz International, Inc.;     2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations 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 andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) and have:     (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controlsand procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;     (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, 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 financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’sfourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting; and     5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the registrant’s board of directors:     (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and     (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.        November 13, 2007 By:  /s/ James B. McCurry    James B. McCurry    *President, Chairman of the Board and ChiefExecutive Officer(Principal Executive Officer)*
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jose TRUJILLO-RODRIGUEZ, Defendant-Appellant

No. 17-40721 Conference Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed February 20, 2018

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

Jose Trujillo-Rodriguez, Pro Se

Before REAVLEY, CLEMENT, and HO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Jose Trujillo-Rodriguez 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). Trujillo-Rodriguez 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.
Listening 

Sessions 

to gather 

public 

input

Agencies 

draft 

regulatory 

language

Proposed 

Rule

published 

in the 

Federal 

Register

Public 

Review 

and 

Comment 

Period

Agencies 

revise 

rule 

based on 

public 

input

Final Rule 

published 

in the 

Federal 

Register
## Affidavit of Nondisclosure

____________________________________ ______________________________ (Job Title) (Date Assigned to Work with IES Data)

____________________________________ (Organization, State or Local Agency Name)

____________________________________ ____________________________ (Organization or Agency Address) (NCES Database or File Containing Individually Identifiable Information*)

I, ____________________ ______________ , do solemnly swear (or affirm) that when given access to the subject IES database or file, I will not -

(i) use or reveal any individually identifiable information furnished, acquired, retrieved or assembled by me or others, under the provisions of Section 183 of the Education Sciences Reform Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-279) for any purpose other than statistica l, research, or evaluation purposes specified in the IES survey, project or contract;

(ii) make any disclosure or publication w hereby a sample unit or survey respondent (including students and schools) could be identified or the data furnished by or related to any particular person or school under these sections could be identified; or

(iii) permit anyone other than the individuals author ized by the Director of the Institute of Education

Sciences to examine the individual reports.

___________________________________ (Signature)

[The penalty for unlawful disclosure is a fine of not more than $250,000 (under 18 U.S.C. 3571) or imprisonment for not more than five years (under 18 U.S.C. 3559), or both. The word "swear" should be stricken out when a person elects to affirm the affidavit rather than to swear to it.]

City/County of _________________ Commonwealth/State of ________________ .

Sworn to and subscribed before me this _______________ day of

_______________, 20________ . Witness my hand and official Seal.

____________________________________ (Notary Public/Seal) My commission expires__________________ .

* Request all subsequent follow-up data that may be ne eded. This form cannot be amended by NCES, so access to databases not listed will require submitting additional notarized Affidavits.

Form last revised 09/27/12
No. 11-10299.

#### Bravo-Perez *v.*United States.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
EXHIBIT 31.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Grant C. Bennett, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q;
2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly report;
3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this quarterly 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 quarterly report;
4. The registrant`s other certifying officers 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 quarterly 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 quarterly report based on such evaluation (the "Evaluation Date"); and

c)	Disclosed in this quarterly 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 like to materially affect, the registrant`s internal control over financial reporting.

1. The registrant`s other certifying officers 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 the registrant`s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

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:	November 7, 2005
/s/	Grant C. Bennett
Grant C. Bennett

President and Treasurer
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 62 Introduced in House (IH)]

105th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. CON. RES. 62

   Directing the Joint Committee on the Library to procure a bust or 
        statue of Sojourner Truth for placement in the Capitol.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 15, 1997

Mr. Hastings of Florida submitted the following concurrent resolution; 
         which was referred to the Committee on House Oversight

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
   Directing the Joint Committee on the Library to procure a bust or 
        statue of Sojourner Truth for placement in the Capitol.

    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 

SECTION 1. PROCUREMENT OF BUST OR STATUE OF SOJOURNER TRUTH.

    The Joint Committee on the Library shall procure a bust or statue 
of Sojourner Truth and cause such bust or statue to be placed in a 
suitable location in the Capitol, as determined by the Joint Committee.

SEC. 2. PAYMENT OF EXPENSES.

    The expenses incurred by the Joint Committee on the Library in 
carrying out this concurrent resolution may not exceed $50,000, and 
shall be paid out of the applicable accounts of the House of 
Representatives on vouchers approved by the Joint Committee and signed 
by the chairman and vice-chairman of the Joint Committee.
                                 <all>
```
Carey contends that the district court erred by denying his

petition because it was timely filed.' This contention lacks merit. See NRS 34.726(1) (explaining that a petition that challenges the validity of a judgment or sentence must be filed within one year after entry of the judgment of conviction or, if an appeal has been taken to a Nevada appellate court, within one year after remittitur is issued). We reject Carey's argument that we should construe his petition as timely, despite the unequivocal language in NRS 34.726, because it was filed within one year after he was denied relief in the federal courts. State v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court (Riker), 121 Nev. 225, 231, 112 P.3d 1070, 1074 (2005) ("Application of the statutory procedural default rules to post-conviction habeas petitions is mandatory."). Similarly, we reject Carey's argument that we should consider his pursuit of federal remedies as good cause for the untimely filing. We note that these are not issues of first impression. See, e.g., Colley v. State, 105 Nev. 235, 236, 773 P.2d 1229, 1230 (1989).

We also reject Carey's assertion that the district court abused its discretion by declining to consider his supplemental petition. See NRS 34.750(5); State v. Powell, 122 Nev. 751, 758, 138 P.3d 453, 458 (2006) (recognizing that district courts are vested with broad discretion regarding supplemental pleadings in postconviction cases). The supplement did not allege or demonstrate good cause and prejudice, which were essentially the only relevant issues in this case given that appellant's pro se petition

'Carey also argues that the order denying his petition is deficient. We disagree. Although the order did not address the merits of Carey's underlying claims, it was not required to do so because the petition was procedurally barred.

SUPREME COURT

OF NEVADA 2 (0) 1947A cice>was clearly untimely. See State v. Haberstroh, 119 Nev. 173, 181, 69 P.3d

676, 681 (2003) (recognizing that an appellant is required to allege good cause and prejudice on the face of the petition). Therefore, even assuming that the district court abused its discretion, no relief would have been warranted. Having considered Carey's contentions and concluded that they lack merit, we

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.

Gibbons

LJ Pickering

cc: Hon. Elliott A. Sattler, District Judge Karla K. Butko Attorney General/Carson City Washoe County District Attorney Washoe District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 3 (0) 194Th .40.
No. 11-9801.

#### Dowdy *v.*Virginia.

Sup. Ct. Va. Certiorari denied.
| (logo) WELLS FARGO | **Corporate Trust Services**MAC R1204-0109062 Old Annapolis RoadColumbia, MD 21045Tel: 410 884 2000 Fax: 410 715 2380 |
|--------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

Deutsche Mortgage & Asset Receiving Corporation

60 WALL ST

NEW YORK, New York 10005-2836

 

 

RE: Annual Statement of Compliance for COMM 2014-CCRE21 Mortgage Trust Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates

 

Per the Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of December 1, 2014 (the "Agreement"), the undersigned, a duly authorized officer of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as Certificate Administrator ("Wells Fargo"), hereby certifies as follows as of and for the year ending December 31, 2015 (the "Reporting Period"):

 

(a) A review of Wells Fargo's activities during the Reporting Period and of its performance under the Agreement has been made under such officer's supervision; and

 

(b) To the best of such officer's knowledge, based on such review, Wells Fargo has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period.

 

 

February 29, 2016

 

 

/s/ Brian Smith

BRIAN SMITH

Vice President

 

/s/ Jeffrey Coletta

Jeffrey Coletta

Assistant Secretary

 

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
EXHIBIT  99.1


                            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 on Form 10-QSB for the three-month
period ended March 31, 2003 of Equicap, Inc., a California corporation (the
"Company"), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the "Quarterly Report"), I Stephen M. Siedow, Chief Executive Officer
and 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:

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

     2.   The information contained in this Annual Report fairly presents, in
          all material respects, the financial condition and results of the
          operation of the Company.


Date:     May 5, 2003                /s/ Stephen M. Siedow
                                     -------------------------------------------
                                     Stephen M. Siedow, Chief Executive
                                     Officer and Chief Financial Officer
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Leslie Keith BLOXOM, Defendant-Appellant

No. 17-30365 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed January 24, 2018

Camille Ann Domingue, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Louisiana, Lafayette, LA, Cristina Walker, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Louisiana, Shreveport, LA, for Plaintiff-Appel-lee

Leslie Keith Bloxom, Pro Se

Before JOLLY, OWEN, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

*313PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Leslie Keith Bloxona 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). Bloxom 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.

The record, however, shows that the amended judgment incorrectly states that Bloxom was sentenced under the Armed Career Criminal Act, 18 U.S.C. § 924(e), and that the district court did not enter an amended written statement of reasons. We therefore REMAND to the district court for correction of these clerical errors. *See*Fed. R. Crim. P. 36.

*

 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.
#### Kevin WILLIAMS *v.*STATE of Arkansas

CR 99-399

990 S.W.2d 507

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Opinion delivered April 28, 1999

*G.B. “Bing” Colvin III,*for appellant.

No response.

Per Curiam.

Appellant, Kevin Williams, by his attorney, G. B. “Bing” Colvin, III, has filed a motion for rule on the clerk. His attorney admits that the record was tendered late due to a mistake on his part.

We find that such error, admittedly made by the attorney for a criminal defendant, is good cause to grant the motion. *See Terry v. State,*272 Ark. 243, 613 S.W.2d 90 (1981); *In Re: Belated Appeals in Criminal Cases,*295 Ark. 964 (1979) (per curiam).

A copy of this per curiam will be forwarded to the Committee on Professional Conduct. *In Re: Belated Appeals in Criminal Cases,*265 Ark. 964.
<PAGE>

                                                                      Exhibit 21


Subsidiaries of EEX Corporation              State of Incorporation/Organization
-------------------------------              -----------------------------------

EEX Operating LLC                            Delaware
EEX Operating L.P.                           Delaware
EEX Capital, Inc.                            Delaware
Enserch International Oil & Gas, Inc.        Texas
EEX International, Inc.                      Texas
Corpus Christi Energy Co.                    Delaware
Corpus Christi Hydrocarbons Co.              Delaware
Enserch Far East Ltd.                        Cayman Islands
EEX Asahan Ltd.                              Cayman Islands
EEX Turkey B.V.                              Netherlands
EEX New Zealand Ltd.                         Cayman Islands
EEX Exploration and Production Company LLC   Delaware
EEX E&P Company, L.P.                        Delaware
EEX Reserves Funding LLC                     Delaware
EEX Reserves Company LLC                     Delaware
EEX Natural Gas Company                      Delaware
EEX Gathering Company                        Delaware
EEX Pipeline Company, L.P.                   Delaware
Rocksprings Pipeline Company LLC             Delaware
<PAGE>

                                                                     EXHIBIT 4.1


    NUMBER                                                             SHARES
---------------   ------------------------------------------------  ------------
    -000-                  INCORPORATED UNDER THE LAWS OF               -000-
---------------   ------------------------------------------------  ------------


                                    WYOMING

                  ------------------------------------------------
                              FRONTIER OIL CORPORATION
                  ------------------------------------------------

This Certifies that ________________________________________ is the registered
holder of _________________________________ Shares of Common Stock, $.01 par
value per share, of Frontier Oil Corporation transferable only on the books of
the Corporation by the holder hereof in person or by Attorney upon surrender
of this Certificate properly endorsed.

In Witness Whereof, the said Corporation has caused this Certificate to be
signed by its duly authorized officers and its Corporate Seal to be hereunto
affixed this _______________________ day of ________________ A.D. ________.

_____________________________________      _____________________________________
              President                                  Secretary

                            [REVERSE OF CERTIFICATE]

                            FRONTIER OIL CORPORATION

                                  CERTIFICATE
                                      FOR

                                     -000-
                                     SHARES

                                       OF

                                  Common Stock
                                 $.01 par value

                                   ISSUED TO


                               __________________
                                     DATED

<PAGE>

For Value Received, ______________ hereby sell, assign and transfer unto
______________________ Shares represented by the within Certificate, and do
hereby irrevocably constitute and appoint _______________________ Attorney to
transfer the said Shares on the books of the within named Corporation with full
power of substitution in the premises.

Dated ___________________________

                                              __________________________________
            In presence of

_________________________________

NOTICE. THE SIGNATURE OF THIS ASSIGNMENT MUST CORRESPOND WITH THE NAME AS
WRITTEN UPON THE FACE OF THE CERTIFICATE, IN EVERY PARTICULAR, WITHOUT
ALTERATION OR ENLARGEMENT OR ANY CHANGE WHATEVER.

                                       2