alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
SOUTHERN ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT & SPECIALTIES, INC.
VERSUS
RICHARD W. " RICKY" LEE, HANNAH LEE NAQUIN, HUNTER R. LEE, AMSTEAD INSURANCE, LLC, P3 FINANCE, LLC AND BRUIN ENVIRONMENTAL AND REMEDIATION SERVICES, LLC NO. 

### 2024 CW 0642



### OCTOBER 7, 2024

In Re: C -Train Enterprises, LLC, Mark L. Morgan, Adam Morgan, and 

### Lindsay Morgan Duncan, 

### applying for supervisory writs, 19th Judicial District Court, Parish of East Baton Rouge, No. 712869.

BEFORE: WOLFE, MILLER, AND GREENE, JJ.

WRIT GRANTED. 

### The trial court' s June 14, 2024 judgment, which 

## denied the Exceptions of Prematurity filed byC -Train Enterprises, LLC, Mark L. Morgan, Adam Morgan, 

### and Lindsay Morgan Duncan, are reversed. 

### The C -Train Enterprises Operating Agreement, which was executed 

## by Richard W. " 

### Ricky" Lee (" Lee") and Mark Morgan, provides that "[ e] ach 

### dispute, claim and 

### controversy ( whether 

## arising during oraftertheterm hereof) arising out of or relating to this Agreement or the breach thereof (

## including but not limited tothevalidityoftheagreementto arbitrate andthe arbitrability of any matter) must be settled ...

### byan arbitrator ..."This agreement 

### clearly and unmistakably provides that the parties have agreed to submit the question of arbitrability to the arbitrator rather than to the courts. Moreover, 

### the alleged misconduct against C -Train, Mark Morgan, Adam Morgan, and 

### Lindsay Duncan 

### is concerted and 

### interdependent such that all of Lee' s claims against them are 

## subjectto consideration bythe arbitration panel. See e.g. Grigson

v. 

## CreativeArtists AgencyL.L.C., 210 F. 3d 524, 527- 28 ( 5th Cir. 2000), cert. denied, Grigson v. 

## CreativeArtists Agency, 531 U. S. 

### 1013, 121 S. Ct. 570, 148 

### L. Ed. 2d 

### 488 ( 2000). Therefore, the Exceptions of 

## Prematurity are granted, and the claims of third - party plaintiff, Richard W. " 

### Ricky" Lee, are dismissed against 

### third -

party defendants, C -Train Enterprises, LLC, Mark L. Morgan, Adam Morgan, 

## and Lindsay Morgan Duncan, without prejudice.

EW SMM HG

OURT OF APPEAL, 

### FIRST CIRCUIT

TY CLERK OF COURT FOR THE COURT
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT July Term 2014

ERIC PATRICK FLETCHER
,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA
, Appellee

.

No. 4D 13

- 3146

[ October 8, 2014 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, St. Lucie County ; Dan L. Vaughn , Judge; L.T. Case No. 562008CF003722A

.

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Tom Wm. Odom, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and James J. Carney,

Assista nt Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

M AY
, J.

The defendant appeals a final order revoking his probation on one count of manslaughter and sentencing him to a term of fifteen years imprisonment. We have reviewed the record and find no error with the exception that the written order revoking the defendant’s probation fails to comport with the trial court’s oral pronouncement.

The trial court pronounced that the State met its burden of proving a violation of probation based on the following offenses: (1) simple battery, a lesser included offense of felony battery; (2) false imprisonment; and (3) aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. T he order revoking probation

however

, indicates that the d efendant violated his probation by committing a felony

, rather than a simple

, battery.

The order revoking probation “ must conform to the court’s oral pronouncement.” Perez v. State , 98 So. 3d 1216 , 1216 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012).

We therefore remand the case to the trial court for the sole pu rpose of amending the order revoking probation to conform to the trial court’s oral2

pronouncement.

Affirmed , but remanded for the correction of the order revoking the defendant’s probation

.

S TEVENSON and K LINGENSMITH

, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Exhibit 32(b)

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE

SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and in connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Zep Inc. (the Corporation) for the year ended August 31, 2009, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, the Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Corporation, certifies 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 Corporation.
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                    
|----------------------------------------------------
|                                                    
|/s/ Mark R. Bachmann                                
|Mark R. Bachmann                                    
|Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
|October 29, 2009                                    

[A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Zep Inc. and
will be retained by Zep Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.]
---

Exhibit 99.17


CONSENT OF EXPERT To:

   United States Securities and Exchange Commission Washington, D.C. 20549Alberta Securities CommissionBritish Columbia Securities CommissionOntario Securities CommissionRio Alto Mining Limited
 Ladies and Gentlemen: Re: Technical report entitled “La Arena Project, Peru”, effective December 31st, 2013 (the “Report” prepared for Rio Alto Mining Limited (the “Company") I, Chris Kaye, do hereby confirm that I am a qualified person under National Instrument 43-101 and a co-author of the Report. The undersigned, for himself, pursuant to Section 8.3 of National Instrument 43-101 Standards of Disclosure for Mineral Projects confirms thatthis letter is being filed as the consent to the use of extracts from, or summaries of, the Report in the Company's Annual Information Form for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2013 (the "AIF") and to being named in the AIF. The undersigned further acknowledges that the AIF will be filed as an Exhibit to the Company's Annual Report on Form 40-F for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2013 (the "Form 40-F") and consents to being named in the Form 40-F and authorize the use of the information represented therein relating to the Report.  DATED the 28th day of March 2014 By:

   /s/ Chris KayeName: Chris Kaye

   B E (Chem) FAusIMMCompany: MQesTitle: Principal Process Engineer


---
Exhibit
      36.1





CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO


18
      U.S.C.
      SECTION 1350,


AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





Each
      of
      the undersigned hereby certifies, in his capacity as an officer of Fushi
      Copperweld, Inc. (the "Company"), for the purposes of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
      as
      adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to
      the
      best of his knowledge:





(1)
      The
      Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September
      30,
      2007 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.





Dated:
      August 11, 2008





/s/
                Li FuLi
                FuChief
                Executive Officer/s/
                Wenbing Chris WangWenbing
                Chris WangChief
                Financial Officer





A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      to
      Fushi Copperweld, Inc. and will be retained by Fushi Copperweld, Inc. and
      furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
      request.
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 Thunder Mountain Gold 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, Eric T. Jones, President, Director and Chief Executive 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 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/ Eric T. Jones

By  __________________________________

Eric T. Jones

President, Director and Chief Executive Officer

Date:  August 20, 2012
D.A. OSGUTHORPE FAMILY PARTNERSHIP, petitioner, v. ASC UTAH, INC., et al.

No. 12-1247.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 17, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit denied.
Exhibit No. 32.1
----------------
Form 10-QSB
Parallel Technologies, Inc.
File No. 0-19276

          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 Parallel Technologies, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Glenn
A. Little, Chief Executive 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 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.


Date: July 16, 2004                               By:    /s/ Glenn A. Little
      -------------                                  ---------------------------
                                                                 Glenn A. Little
                                                     Chief Executive Officer and
                                                         Chief Financial Officer


A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 906 has been
provided  to  Parallel  Technologies,  Inc.  and will be  retained  by  Parallel
Technologies,  Inc. and furnished to the Securities  and Exchange  Commission or
its staff upon request.
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

In the Interest of Z.N., J.S., J.R. and J.S., children.

G.S.,

Appellant,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES and

GUARDIAN AD LITEM PROGRAM,

Appellees.

No. 2D2023-2083

May 22, 2024

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County; Lisa D. 

Campbell, Judge.

Constance Daniels, Brandon, for Appellant.

Mary Soorus of Children's Legal Services, Tampa, for Appellee 

Department of Children and Families.

Sara Elizabeth Goldfarb, Statewide Director of Appeals, and Amanda 

Victoria Glass, Senior Attorney, Statewide Guardian Ad Litem Office, 

Tallahassee, for Appellee Guardian ad Litem.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
2

SILBERMAN, LaROSE, and SMITH, JJ., Concur. 

Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.
Order entered December 22, 2015

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-15-00938-CR

No. 05-15-00939-CR

DEMARCUS JERMANE SAMPSON, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 5

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause Nos. F09-12092-L, F09-12093-L

ORDER

Appellant has informed the Court that he wishes to file a pro se response to the Anders

brief filed by appellate counsel. Accordingly, we ORDER appellate counsel John Tatum to 

provide appellant with copies of the clerk’s and reporter’s records. We further ORDER

appellate counsel to provide this Court, within THIRTY DAYS of the date of this order, with 

written verification that the record has been sent to appellant.

Appellant’s pro se response is due by MARCH 4, 2016.

We DIRECT the Clerk to send copies of this order to the Honorable Carter Thompson, 

Presiding Judge, Criminal District Court No. 5; Victoria Franklin, official court reporter, 
Criminal District Court No. 5; Felicia Pitre, Dallas County District Clerk; John Tatum; and the 

Dallas County District Attorney’s Office.

We further DIRECT the Clerk to send a copy of this order to Demarcus Sampson, No. 

13049333, Dallas County Jail, P.O. Box 660334, Dallas, Texas 75266-0334.

/s/ ADA BROWN 

JUSTICE
Willie James BATES, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 12-9959.

Supreme Court of the United States

Aug. 12, 2013.

Petition for rehearing denied.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

MARCUS E. HENDERSON, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CAUSE NO.: 3:13-CV-346 TLS

)

ST. JOSEPH COUNTY JAIL, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

OPINION AND ORDER

On April 19, 2013, the Plaintiff, Marcus E. Henderson, a pro se prisoner, filed a

Complaint [ECF No. 1] pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In his Complaint, the Plaintiff alleges that

on or about September 20, 2010, while he was being held in the St. Joseph County Jail, money in

his account at the jail was disbursed in violation of a State court order. He also alleges that he

was unable to bond out on November 20, 2010, because he was required to post more money

than the State court had ordered. This is not the first time that the Plaintiff has asserted these

claims. In Henderson v. Lawson, 3:12-CV-536 (N.D. Ind. filed September 20, 2012), he raised

these same issues. In that case, he stated that the violations continued “up to and include Jan. of

2011.” Id. at [ECF No. 1-1 at 1]. Because that complaint was otherwise vague, it was stricken

with leave to refile. The Plaintiff was sent a form so that he could file an amended complaint, but

he did not return it. That case was dismissed without prejudice on October 22, 2012. 

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the Court must review this prisoner complaint.

“Indiana’s two-year statute of limitations . . . is applicable to all causes of action brought in

Indiana under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.” Snodderly v. R.U.F.F. Drug Enforcement Task Force, 239

F.3d 892, 894 (7th Cir. 2001). Here, all of the Plaintiff’s claims arose by January 2011. Thus, the

latest he could file these claims was January 2013. Henderson’s complaint in 3:12-CV-536 was
timely—as would have been his amended complaint if he had filed one. But this Complaint is

untimely. This Complaint was not signed until April 19, 2013, months after the statute of

limitation had expired. Although the statute of limitation is an affirmative defense, dismissal is

appropriate where it is clear that the claim is time barred. Cancer Found., Inc. v. Cerberus

Capital Mgmt., LP, 559 F.3d 671, 674 (7th Cir. 2009). 

For the foregoing reasons, this case is DISMISSED because it is untimely. 

SO ORDERED on June 18, 2013

 s/Theresa L. Springmann 

THERESA L. SPRINGMANN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FORT WAYNE DIVISION

2
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

EDWIN ANTONIO LUNA CORNEJO,

Petitioner,

v.
WILLIAM P. BARR , Attorney General,

Respondent. No. 14

- 72711 Agency No. A200

- 943

- 696

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 27, 2019 **

Before: WALLACE , FARRIS , and TROTT , Circuit Judges. Edwin Antonio Luna Cornejo, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture

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

- 3.

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

# FILED

MAR 29 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2

(“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 , and w e deny the petition
for review.
We review questions of law de novo , Pirir

- Boc v. Holder , 750 F.3d 1077, 1081 (9th Cir. 2014) , except to the exten t that deference is owed to the BIA’s interpretation of the governing statutes and regulations, Simeonov v. Ashcroft , 371 F.3d 532, 535 (9th Cir. 2004) . We review the agency’s factual findings for
substantial evidence. Parada v. Sessions , 902 F.3d 901, 9 08 (9th Cir. 2018).
The BIA did not err in holding that Luna Cornejo failed to establish persecution or a well

- founded fear of persecution on account of his membership in

a cognizable social group. See 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A); Reyes v. Lynch , 842
F.3d 1 125, 1131 (9th Cir. 2016)

. Henriquez

- Rivas v. Holder , 707 F.3d 1081, 1091 (9 th Cir. 2013) (en banc) does not control our analysis of this case, for two reasons. First, the social group at issue in Henriquez

- Rivas was “witnesses who testify against gang m embers.” Luna Cornejo did not testify in court about any of his problems with MS gang members. We did not hold in Henriquez

- Rivas that the group at issue qualified as a cognizable social group. We remanded the issue to
the BIA for a d etermination of that question. Second, as held by the BIA, Luna Cornejo did not satisfy his evidentiary burden to demonstrate that the group to which he refers is socially distinct within the society in question.3

Accordingly, there is no reason to remand this matter to the BIA for further
considerati on. Thus, we deny the petition for review as to Luna Cornejo’s asylum and withholding of removal claims , for both of which he was not eligible

. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of CAT relief because Luna Cornejo failed to establish that it is more likely than not that he will be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government of El Salvador. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208(a)(7); Ornelas

- Chavez v. Gonzales , 458 F.3d 1052, 1059 (9th Cir. 2006).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
#### Ramiro MEDRANO-RAMIREZ; Natividad Sambrano de Medrano, Petitioners, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 03-72727.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted April 12, 2004.*

Decided April 27, 2004.

Charles E. Nichol, Esq., Law Office of Charles E. Nichol, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioners.

Regional Counsel, Western Region, Immigration & Naturalization Service, Laguna Niguel, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Legal Officer, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, OIL, Richard M. Evans, Esq., Carl H. McIntyre, Jr., DOJ— U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before: O’SCANNLAIN, RYMER, and BEA, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Ramiro Medrano-Ramirez and Natividad Zambrano de Medrano, natives and *509citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing their appeal of the immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial of their applications for cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review claims of due process violations in immigration proceedings de novo, *Lopez-Urenda v. Ashcroft,*345 F.3d 788, 791 (9th Cir.2003), and we deny the petition for review.

Petitioners challenge the IJ’s denial of cancellation of removal on due process grounds, based on the manner in which the IJ conducted their removal hearing. The Petitioners’ contention that the IJ deprived them of a full and fair hearing fails, however, because Petitioners do not show that any interference with their counsel’s ability to conduct direct examination resulted in prejudice. *See Lata v. INS,*204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir.2000) (holding that an alien asserting a due process claim in deportation proceedings must demonstrate prejudice).

Ultimately, the record does not show that the proceedings were “so fundamentally unfair that the alien was prevented from reasonably presenting his case.” *Reyes-Melendez v. INS,*342 F.3d 1001, 1006 (9th Cir.2003) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Nor do Petitioners satisfy their burden of alleging that the alleged violation potentially effected the outcome of the proceedings. *See Ramirez-Alejandre v. Ashcroft,*319 F.3d 365, 383-84 (9th Cir.2003) (en banc). Thus, the IJ’s conduct did not violate Petitioners’ due process rights.

Pursuant to *Desta v. Ashcroft,*No. 03-70477, petitioner’s motion for stay of removal included a timely request for stay of voluntary departure. Because the motion for stay of removal was granted, the voluntary departure period was also stayed, nunc pro tunc, to the filing of the motion for stay of removal and this stay will expire upon issuance of the mandate.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
EX-35.1
(logo)EMC
Mortgage Corporation

ITEM 1123 ANNUAL STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE

EMC MORTGAGE CORPORATION

The undersigned officers of EMC Mortgage Corporation ("EMC") as servicer
pursuant to the Structured Asset Mortgage Investments II Trust 2007-AR5 (the
"Agreement") hereby certify that:

1. A review of EMC's activities during the period from and including January 1,
2007 through and including December 31, 2007 (the "Reporting Period") and EMC's
performance under the Agreement has been made under my supervision.

2. To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, EMC has fulfilled all of
its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout the
Reporting Period.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has duly executed this Certificate this
12th day of March 2008.


By: /s/ David B. Little
David B. Little
Executive Vice President
Default Administration

/s/ Jenna Kemp
Jenna Kemp
Executive Vice President
Investor Administration

/s/ William Glasgow Jr.
William Glasgow Jr.
Executive Vice President
Enterprise Operations Services

(logo) MBA
Member
Mortgage Bankers
Association of America

2780 Lake Vista Drive, Lewisville, Texas 75067
Mailing Address: P.O. Box 1292190, Lewisville, Texas 75029-2190