alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
This memorandum opinion was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports.

Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum

opinions. Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain

computer-generated errors or other deviations from the official paper version filed by the Court of

Appeals and does not include the filing date. 

1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO

2 STATE OF NEW MEXICO,

3 Plaintiff-Appellee,

4 vs. NO. 31,846

5 RAY THOMAS, JR.,

6 Defendant-Appellant.

7 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF DOÑA ANA COUNTY

8 Lisa C. Schultz, District Judge

9 Gary K. King, Attorney General

10 Santa Fe, NM

11 for Appellee

12 Ray Thomas, Jr.

13 Las Cruces, NM

14 Pro se Appellant

15 MEMORANDUM OPINION

16 GARCIA, Judge.
2

1 Summary dismissal was proposed for the reason stated in the notice of proposed

2 disposition. No memorandum opposing summary dismissal has been filed, and the

3 time for doing so has expired.

4 DISMISSED.

5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

6 

7 TIMOTHY L. GARCIA, Judge

8 WE CONCUR:

9 

10 JONATHAN B. SUTIN, Judge

11 

12 MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Judge
# DLA Europe & Africa celebrates Air Force's 73rd birthday

/ Published Sept. 18, 2020
KAISERSLAUTERN, Germany, 
Service members and civilians with the Defense Logistics Agency Europe & Africa celebrated the Air Force’s 73rd birthday Sept. 18. On this date in 1947, the Air Force was separated from the Army and established as its own branch of service.
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 111 (Wednesday, June 10, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 31825]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-15355]


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

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

[License No. 08/08-0152]


Rocky Mountain Mezzanine Fund II, L.P.; Notice of Issuance of a 
Small Business Investment Company License

    On December 18, 1997, an application was filed by Rocky Mountain 
Mezzanine Fund II, L.P. at 1125 17th Street, Suite 1500, Denver, 
Colorado 80202, with the Small Business Administration (SBA) pursuant 
to Section 107.300 of the Regulations governing small business 
investment companies (13 CFR 107.300 (1997)) for a license to operate 
as a small business investment company.
    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to Section 301(c) of the 
Small Business Investment Act of 1958, as amended, after having 
considered the application and all other pertinent information, SBA 
issued License No. 08/08-0152 on May 4, 1998, to Rocky Mountain 
Mezzanine Fund II, L.P. to operate as a small business investment 
company.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program No. 59.011, Small 
Business Investment Companies)

    Dated: May 8, 1998.
Harry E. Haskins,
Acting Associate Administrator for Investment.
[FR Doc. 98-15355 Filed 6-9-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
EXHIBIT 32.1 Certification of Principal Executive Officer Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350 (Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)   I, Robert Ipson, Chief Executive Officer and Principal Accounting Officer, of Piranha Ventures, Inc. (the "Registrant") do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge, based upon a review of the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period December 31, 2009 of the Registrant, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"):  (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and  (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.  Dated:  March 30, 2010 By:  /s/ Robert Ipson  Robert Ipson  Chief Executive Officer, Principal Accounting Officer  * A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Piranha Ventures, Inc. and will be retained by Piranha Ventures, Inc. and furnished to the Securities Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
162 A.3d 249

#### IN THE MATTER OF DIEGO P. MILARA, AN ATTORNEY AT LAW (ATTORNEY NO. 049331991)

May 12, 2017

ORDER

The Disciplinary Review Board having filed with the Court pursuant to *Rule*1:20-15(k) a recommendation (DRB 17-116) that DIEGO P. MILARA of NEWARK, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 1991, and who has been temporarily suspended from the practice of law since January 22, 2015, be suspended from the practice of law and compelled to pay a monetary sanction to the Disciplinary Oversight Committee for failure to comply with the determination of the District VA Fee Arbitration Committee in Docket No. VA-2016-0455F, and good cause appearing;

It is ORDERED that DIEGO P. MILARA be temporarily suspended from the practice of law, effective June 12, 2017, and until respondent complies with the determination of the District VA Fee Arbitration Committee in Docket No. VA-2016-0455F, pays a sanction of $500 to the Disciplinary Oversight Committee, and until the further Order of the Court; provided, however, this Order, in respect of the determination in Docket No. VA-20160455F, shall be vacated automatically if the Disciplinary Review Board reports to the Court that prior to the effective date of the suspension respondent has satisfied all obligations under this Order; and it is further

ORDERED that if respondent seeks to be heard on this matter, he shall file with the Clerk of the Court within ten days of the file date of this Order a written request for the issuance of an Order to Show Cause; and it is further

ORDERED that respondent continue to be restrained and enjoined from practicing law during the period of his suspension and that he continue to comply with *Rule*1:20-20, and it is further

*263ORDERED that the entire record of this matter be made a permanent part of respondent’s file as an attorney at law of this State.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

ANTHONY FELICIANO,

Appellant

v.

PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF 

CORRECTIONS,

Appellee

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 6 EAP 2022

Appeal from the Order of 

Commonwealth Court dated January 

26, 2022 at No. 588 M.D. 2019.

ORDER

PER CURIAM DECIDED: September 29, 2022

AND NOW, this 29th day of September, 2022, the order of the Commonwealth 

Court is AFFIRMED.

Justice Brobson did not participate in the consideration or decision of this matter.
|                                                                                            
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                            
|View History:  Monthly  Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                    
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                                              
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                                              
|View History:                                                                               
|                                                                                            
|Price of Champlain, NY Natural Gas LNG Imports from Canada (Dollars per Thousand Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                            
|                                                                                            
|Price of Champlain, NY Natural Gas LNG Imports from Canada (Dollars per Thousand Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                            

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2010's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        | --     | 10.69  | 8.78   | 8.55   | 9.24   | 8.84   | 9.48  
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 5.95   | 7.00   | 8.08   | 4.30   |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 7/31/2024                                                                                                          
|Next Release Date: 8/30/2024
|                                                                                                                                                 |   For the quarter endedJune 30, 2012 |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------|
|   Mine or operating name(MSHA ID)                                                                                                          | The MonarchCementCompany(1400124)                   | ValenciaSandPit #1(1400503) |   Pratt Sand(1401712) |
| Total number of significant and substantial violations under       Mine Act §104                                       |  0                                             |  0 |  0 |
| Total number of orders under Mine Act §104(b)                                                                                                   | 0                                                   | 0 | 0 |
| Total number of unwarrantable compliance failure citations and       orders under Mine Act §104(d) |  0                                             |  0 |  0 |
| Total number of flagrant violations under Mine Act §110(b)(2)                                                                                   | 0                                                   | 0 | 0 |
| Total number of imminent danger orders under Mine Act §107(a)                                                                         | 0                                                   | 0 | 0 |
| Total dollar value of MSHA assessments proposed                                                                                                 | $0                                                  | $0   | $100   |
| Total number of mining related fatalities                                                                                                            | 0                                                   | 0 | 0 |
| Received notice of Pattern of Violations under §104(e) (yes/no)?                                                            | no                                                  | no | no |
| Received notice of Potential to Have Pattern under §104(e) (yes/no)?                                                                            | no                                                  | no | no |
| Number of legal actions pending as of last day of period                                                                                             | 3                                                   | 0 | 0 |
| Number of legal actions initiated during period                                                                                                      | 0                                                   | 0 | 0 |
| Number of legal actions resolved during period                                                                                                       | 5                                                   | 0 | 0 |
No. 09-10896.

#### Fred E. Christian, Petitioner v. Frank Bommarito Oldsmobile, Inc., dba Bommarito Infinity.

562 U.S. 823, 131 S. Ct. 383,

178 L. Ed. 2d 18,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6660.

October 4, 2010.

Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis denied. Petitioner is allowed until October 25, 2010, within which to pay the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) and to submit a petition in compliance with Rule 33.1 of the Rules of this Court.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be

published and is not precedent except under the limit ed circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FIFTH CIRCUIT

_________________

No. 98-30613

Summary Calendar

_________________

REGINALD BROWN,

Plaint iff,

KEVIN P. GIPSON,

Appellant,

versus

EMERSON ELECTRIC COMPANY; LOUISVILLE LADDER CO,

INC,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

(97-CV-3117-L)

July 1, 1999

Before EMILIO M. GARZA, DeMOSS, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Appellant, Kevin P. Gipson, appeals the district court’s order requiring him to pay $750.00

in attorneys’ fees to the Defendant-Appellees. The district court sanctioned Gipson for his repeated

refusals to comply with disc o very o rders, as well as his failure to appear before the court for

numerous motion hearings. The imposition of sanctions is a matter of discretion for the district court,

which we review only for abuse. S ee Shipes v. Trinity Industries

, 987 F.2d 311, 323 (5th Cir. 1993).

An attorney may be held liable for reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, caused by his failure

to comply with discovery. See id

.-2-

In his appellate brief, Gipson attem pts to explain his failure to attend one particular hearing.

However, he provides no basis for reversing the district court’s imposition of sanctions. The

sanctions stemmed from numerous incidents in which Gipson failed to comply with court orders and

failed to appear at hearings. After reviewing the record, we conclude that the district court did not

abuse its discretion in imposing sanctions.

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
#### Isaac Yamali et al., Respondents, v Robert Felshman, Appellant.

[51 NYS3d 869]

An appeal having been taken to this Court by the above-named appellant from an order of the Supreme Court, New York County (Martin Shulman, J.), entered July 11, 2016, and said appeal having been argued by counsel for the respective parties; and due deliberation having been had thereon, and upon the stipulation of the parties hereto dated May 2, 2017, it is unanimously ordered that said appeal be and the same is hereby withdrawn in accordance with the terms of the aforesaid stipulation.

Concur—Acosta, J.P, Renwick, Mazzarelli, Gische and Gesmer, JJ.
exv4w23



 







Exhibit 4.23




CERTIFICATE OF TRUST

OF

SOVEREIGN CAPITAL TRUST VIII




     THIS CERTIFICATE OF TRUST OF Sovereign Capital Trust VIII (the “Trust”), is being duly
executed and filed by the undersigned, as trustees, to form a statutory trust under the Delaware
Statutory Trust Act, 12 Del.C. §§ 3801, et seq. (the “Act”).


1. NAME. The name of the statutory trust formed hereby is Sovereign Capital Trust
VIII.


2. RESIDENT TRUSTEE. The name and business address of the trustee of the Trust
meeting the requirements of Section 3807 of the Act is Bank of New York (Delaware),
502 White Clay Center, Route 273, Newark, Delaware 19711.


3. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Certificate of Trust will be effective upon filing.


4. COUNTERPARTS. This Certificate of Trust may be executed in two (2) or more counterparts,
each of which will be deemed to be an original copy of this Certificate of Trust and all of which,
when taken together, shall be deemed to constitute one and the same Certificate of Trust. Any
party to this Certificate of Trust may deliver an executed copy hereof by facsimile transmission to
the other and any such delivery shall have the same force and effect as any other delivery of a
manually signed copy of this Certificate of Trust.




     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned, being all of the Trustees of the Trust, have
executed this Certificate of Trust in accordance with the Act.





	 	 	 	 	 
	 	The Bank of New York,

as Property Trustee

 	 
	 	By:  	/s/
Mary La Gumina	 
	 	Name:  	Mary
La Gumina	 
	 	Title:  	Vice
President	 
	 
	 	The Bank of New York (Delaware),

as Delaware Trustee

 	 
	 	By:  	/s/
Kristine K. Gullo	 
	 	Name:  	Kristine
K. Gullo	 
	 	Title:  	Vice
President	 
	 
	 	/s/
Thomas R. Brugger	 
	 	Thomas R. Brugger, Administrative Trustee	 
	 
	 	/s/
Thomas D. Cestare
	 	Thomas D. Cestare, Administrative Trustee

	 
	 	/s/
Larry K. Davis
	 	Larry K. Davis, Administrative Trustee
No. 12-8548.

#### Ramsey *v.*Runion, Director, Virginia Center for Behavioral Rehabilitation.

C. A. 4th Cir. Certio-rari denied.
June 25, 2015

Mr. Brandon Kirchgessner

Willow Grove Productions

936 th 8 th Street Henderson, KY 42420

Dear Mr. Kirchgessner:

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption from Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) . It explains why we can not process your request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Can Not Process Your Request

We entered your June 16th, exemption request on behalf of Willow Grove Productions into the public docket (No. FAA-2015-2287), but we are unable to process your request any further. The information you sent does not comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the request any further, you must send us all of the following:

 The specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek relief, the extent of the relief you seek, and the reason you seek relief.

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would benefit the public as a whole.

 The reasons why the exemption would not adversely affect safety or how the exemption would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which you seek an exemption.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.2

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described earlier to reach us within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption.

If We Do Not Hear From You

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267-9677.

Sincerely,

/s/

Brenda Robeson Program Analyst, Airmen and Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure
Dismissed and Opinion Filed February 15, 2017 

S 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-16-01310-CV 

VERSACOM, LLC, Appellant 

V. 

NETICOM, LLC, LOC W. TRAN, TUAN A. NGO, AND HOAN BUI, Appellees 

On Appeal from the 416th Judicial District Court 

Collin County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. 416-02676-2013 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before Chief Justice Wright, Justice Lang-Miers, and Justice Stoddart 

Opinion by Chief Justice Wright 

Before the Court is the February 7, 2017 joint motion to dismiss this appeal. The parties 

have informed the Court that they have settled all matters in controversy and they no longer 

desire to pursue this appeal. Accordingly, we grant the motion and dismiss this appeal. See TEX.

R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(2)(A). 

161310F.P05 

 

/Carolyn Wright/ 

CAROLYN WRIGHT 

CHIEF JUSTICE 
 –2– 

S 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

JUDGMENT 

VERSACOM, LLC, Appellant 

No. 05-16-01310-CV V. 

NETICOM, LLC, LOC W. TRAN, TUAN 

A. NGO, AND HOAN BUI, Appellees 

 On Appeal from the 416th Judicial District 

Court, Collin County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. 416-02676-2013. 

Opinion delivered by Chief Justice Wright, 

Justices Lang-Miers and Stoddart 

participating. 

 In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the appeal is DISMISSED. 

 It is ORDERED that each party bear its own costs of this appeal. 

Judgment entered February 15, 2017.
#### Com. v. Williams

10/29/2015

241 EAL (2015)

Denied

Pa.Super., 121 A.3d 1136
#### Com. v. Talbert

10/27/2015

338 MAL (2015)

Denied

Pa.Super., 121 A.3d 1117
**Exhibit 32.01**

**SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION**

               In connection with the Annual Report of Macrovision Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-K/A for the period ending December 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), William A. Krepick certifies in his capacity as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted), that to the best of his knowledge:

                (a) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)), and

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

               IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has hereunto signed this Certification as of March 31, 2005.

|   | /s/ WILLIAM A. KREPICK                             |   |
|--------|----------------------------------------------------|--------|
|   |                                                    |   |
|   | **William A.   Krepick   Chief Executive Officer** |   |
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Jose Colon, Appellant.

[50 NYS3d 394]

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Alberto Lorenzo, J.), entered November 19, 2014, adjudicating defendant a level three predicate sex offender under the Sex Offender Registration Act (Correction Law art 6-C), unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court providently exercised its discretion when it declined to grant a downward departure *(see People v Gillotti,*23 NY3d 841 [2014]). The mitigating factors cited by defendant were adequately taken into account by the risk assessment instrument, and were in any event outweighed by the extreme seriousness of the underlying sex crimes, as well as defendant’s extensive record of sexual recidivism.

Concur — Friedman, J.P., Richter, Mazzarelli, Feinman and Gische, JJ.