alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Jeffrey Noah BROWN, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 03-4866.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: April 29, 2004.

Decided: May 3, 2004.

David W. Plowden, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellant.

David Calhoun Stephens, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.

*136Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Jeffrey Noah Brown appeals the district court’s judgment revoking his supervised release and imposing a prison term of eight months. Brown’s counsel filed a brief pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), stating that there were no meritorious grounds for appeal but raising the issue of whether the district court abused its discretion by revoking Brown’s supervised release. Brown was advised of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief but has declined to do so. We have reviewed the record on appeal and conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion by revoking Brown’s supervised release and imposing a prison sentence. *See United States v. Davis,*53 F.3d 638, 642 (4th Cir.1995) (providing standard of review). In accordance with the requirements of *Anders,*we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the revocation of Brown’s supervised release and his sentence. This court requires that counsel inform his client, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If the client requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on the client. 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*
Supreme Court of the United States 

Office of the Clerk 

Washington, DC 20543-0001

October 18, 2010 

Clerk 

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth 

Circuit 

95 Seventh Street 

San Francisco, CA 94103-1526 

Re: George Cosio 

v. Randy Grounds, Warden 

No. 10-6025 

(Your No. 07-15474) 

Dear Clerk: 

 The Court today entered the following order in the above-entitled case: 

 The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied. Justice Breyer took no 

part in the consideration or decision of this petition. 

 Sincerely, 

 

 William K. Suter, Clerk 

William K. Suter 

Clerk of the Court 

(202) 479-3011 

Case: 07-15474 10/20/2010 Page: 1 of 1 ID: 7515400 DktEntry: 25 Case 3:05-cv-01966-CRB Document 19 Filed 11/17/10 Page 1 of 1
Kennie HINES, petitioner, v. TEXAS.

No. 13-6351.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 18, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Texas, First District, denied.
UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE, et al., petitioners, v. PACIFIC RIVERS COUNCIL, et al.

No. 12-623.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 17, 2013.

Motion of respondent Pacific Rivers Council to vacate judgment below and dismiss as moot granted. Judgment below vacated, and case remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit with directions that it instruct the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California to dismiss the case as moot in its entirety.
##### 



Exhibit 31.1 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 I, Kevin K. Moriarty, certify that:  1.
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Del Taco Restaurant Properties I;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 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 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; andc)
    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 the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
function):  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; andb)
    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 13, 2005
    
    /s/ Kevin K. MoriartyKevin K. MoriartyDirector, Chairman andChief Executive Officer
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 32.2


                          TEXTRON FINANCIAL CORPORATION
                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                               RULE 13A-14(B) AND
                             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 Textron Financial Corporation
(the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2003 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Thomas J. Cullen, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to Rule 13a-14(b) and 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.


                            Textron Financial Corporation

                            /s/ Thomas J. Cullen
                            ---------------------------------------------------
                            Thomas J. Cullen
                            Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer

Date: August 5, 2003
Teklezgi GEBREZGIABHER, petitioner, v. Mike C. KREMER, Warden.

No. 12-9774.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 3, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
EXHIBIT 31.1

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

I, Harvey Houtkin, certify that:

1. I have  reviewed  this  Quarterly  Report  on Form  10-QSB  of  Arbor  Entech
Corporation;

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 (if any) 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 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: September 13, 2006               /S/HARVEY HOUTKIN
                                       ---------------------------------------
                                       Harvey Houtkin, Chief Executive Officer





                                       12
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack, Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, 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.

 September 11, 2020

s0909

Order 

Clerk

September 11, 2020

161430 & (26)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 161430

COA: 352614

St. Joseph CC: 16-020735-FH;

16-020705-FH; 16-020706-FH

LEANDRA LYNNE TRACY,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the request for immediate consideration is GRANTED. 

The application for leave to appeal the April 14, 2020 order of the Court of Appeals is 

considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.305(H)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we 

REMAND this case to the Court of Appeals for reconsideration in light of MCL 771.4 

and People v Vanderpool, ___ Mich ___ (Docket No. 158486, decided July 13, 2020). In 

all other respects, leave to appeal is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the 

remaining questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. The motion for appeal 

bond is DENIED.

We do not retain jurisdiction.
EX-33.2
(logo) PHH Mortgage
3000 Leadenhall Road
Mt. Laurel, NJ 08054



REPORT ON ASSESSMENT OF COMPLIANCE WITH REGULATION AB
SERVICING CRITERIA

PHH Mortgage Corporation (the "Asserting Party") is responsible for assessing
compliance as of December 31, 2007 and for the period from January 1, 2007
through December 31, 2007 (the "Reporting Period") with the servicing criteria
set forth in Section 229.1122(d) of the Code of Federal Regulations (the "CFR"),
except for criteria set forth in Section 229.1122(d)(3)(i)(c), (d)(4)(ii),
(d)(4)(xv) and (d)(1)(iii) of the CFR, which the Asserting Party has concluded
are not applicable to the servicing activities it performs with respect to the
transactions covered by this report (the "Applicable Servicing Criteria"). The
criteria set forth in Section 229.1122 (d)(4)(vii) and (d)(4)(xi) of the CFR are
performed by outsource providers on behalf of the Asserting Party; however, the
Asserting Party has monitored the outsourcing of these criteria and assumes
responsibility for compliance. The transactions covered by this report include
all non-agency loan sale agreements executed after January 1, 2006 as well as
all re-securitization transactions after January 1, 2006 for which the Asserting
Party served as servicer (the "Platform").

The Asserting Party has assessed its compliance with the Servicing Criteria as
of December 31, 2007 and for the Reporting Period and has concluded that the
Asserting Party has complied, in all material respects, with the Servicing
Criteria with respect to the Platform taken as a whole.

Deloitte & Touche, an independent registered public accounting firm, has issued
an attestation report on the assessment of compliance with the Servicing
Criteria for the Reporting Period as set forth in this assertion.


PHH Mortgage Corporation

Date: February 28, 2008


/s/ Terence W. Edwards
Terence W. Edwards
President and Chief Executive Officer

/s/ Mark Danahy
Mark Danahy
Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer

/s/ Martin L. Foster
Martin L. Foster
Senior Vice President - Loan Servicing
Artemio M. ILAGAN, et ux., petitioners v. Engracia UNGACTA, et al.

No. 12-723.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 15, 2013.

Motion of National Federation of Independent Business Small Business Legal Center, et al. for leave to file a brief as *amici curiae* granted. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Guam denied.
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 93 (Monday, May 15, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 25895]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-11878]



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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. RP93-49-001]


Paiute Pipeline Company; Notice of Proposed Changes in FERC Gas 
Tariff

May 9, 1995.
    Take notice that on May 4, 1995, Paiute Pipeline Company (Paiute) 
tendered for filing to be a part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Second Revised 
Volume No. 1-A, the following tariff sheet.

First Revised Sheet No. 11

    Paiute states that it is submitting the proposed tariff sheet in 
order to make adjustments to the fixed take-or-pay buyout and buydown 
charges to be collected by Paiute from its shippers as the result of a 
recent order issued in Docket No. RP92-229 with respect to Paiute's 
upstream pipeline, Northwest Pipeline Corporation (Northwest). 
According to Paiute, that order authorized Northwest to assess Paiute 
an amount of $758,291, including interest as of January 31, 1995, in 
addition to the fixed take-or-pay charges previously paid by Paiute to 
Northwest. Paiute indicates that its filing only proposes to revise the 
amounts of the fixed take-or-pay charges to be passed through to its 
customers based upon the Commission's Northwest order, and that the 
methodology utilized to allocate the amounts among its customers is the 
same methodology used in Paiute's December 21, 1992 filing in Docket 
No. RP93-49-000.
    Paiute requests that the tendered tariff sheet be accepted for 
filing to become effective June 1, 1995.
    Paiute states that copies of the filing were served upon all of 
Paiute's customers and affected state regulatory commissions, and upon 
all parties on the service list in Docket No. RP93-49-000.
    Any person desiring to protest said filing should file a protest 
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 825 North Capitol Street 
NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rule 211 of the 
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211). All such 
protests should be filed on or before May 16, 1995. Protests will be 
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to 
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the 
proceeding. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and 
area available for public inspection in the public reference room.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-11878 Filed 5-12-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
##### 



Exhibit 99.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
(SUBSECTIONS (a) AND (b) OF SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18,
UNITED STATES CODE)

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Del Taco Restaurant Properties I
(the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2002 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), each
of the undersigned officers of the Company, 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.





|      |  |                 |  |                                                                    
|----- |  | --------------- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: |  | August 14, 2002 |  | /s/ Kevin K. Moriarty                                              
|      |  |                 |  |                                                                    
|      |  |                 |  | Kevin K. Moriarty
Director, Chairman and
Chief Executive Officer   
|     
|Date: |  | August 14, 2002 |  | /s/ Robert J. Terrano                                              
|      |  |                 |  |                                                                    
|      |  |                 |  | Robert J. Terrano
Executive Vice President,
Chief Financial Officer
QuickLinks
 -- Click here to rapidly navigate through this document

Exhibit 10.47  


 
 

Omitted Indemnification Agreements    
    


	1.
	Dana
Anderson



	2.
	Rick
Bayer



	3.
	David
Contis



	4.
	Arthur
Coppola



	5.
	Edward
Coppola



	6.
	Jim
Cownie



	7.
	Fred
Hubbell



	8.
	Diana
Laing



	9.
	Stan
Moore



	10.
	Tom
O'Hern



	11.
	Dr. William
Sexton



	12.
	Larry
Sidwell 









QuickLinks


Omitted Indemnification Agreements
Exhibit 32.2



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-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Robin S. McRae, Secretary/Treasurer, Director and Chief Financial Accounting 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/ Robin S. McRae

By  ____________________________________

Robin S.  McRae

Secretary/Treasurer and Director and Chief Financial Accounting Officer

Date:  November 16, 2005
Exhibit 32.2

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                       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 Annual Report of Urban Barns Foods Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-K for the period ending July 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Deniz Hassan,
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350,
as adopted pursuant to ss.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 result of operations of
          the Company.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this certification as of the
13th day of November, 2009.


/s/ Deniz Hassan
-------------------------------
Chief Financial Officer
Amilcar BUTLER, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 12-9316.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 22, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
Casey Dale MAYER, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 13-6568.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 4, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.

Justice KAGAN took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.