alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Venancio ROJAS-PEDROZA, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 13-7256.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 9, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
Ruth LEIGH and Sarah Sturgeon, petitioners, v. Jack KEMP, et al.

No. 12-1234.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 17, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied.
TOLL BROS., INC, et al. v. Mehdi NOOHI, et al.

No. 13-55, R46-026.

Supreme Court of the United States

Sept. 26, 2013.

The petition for writ of certiorari was dismissed today pursuant to Rule 46.1 of the Rules of this Court.
Dawn KAMINSKI, petitioner, v. NEW YORK, et al.

No. 12-10354.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 9, 2013.

Petition for rehearing denied.
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-Q for the period ending September 30, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Eric T. Jones, 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 Thunder Mountain Gold, Inc.







/s/ Eric T. Jones

DATE:  November 14, 2008

Eric R. Jones, Secretary/Treasurer and Chief Financial Accounting Officer





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Thunder Mountain Gold, Inc. and will be retained by Thunder Mountain Gold, Inc. to be furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.









1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

SOUTH BEND DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

v. ) CAUSE NO. 3:14-CR-22 RM 

)

JAVIER TREVINO (02) )

ORDER

No objections have been filed to the magistrate judge’s findings and

recommendations upon a plea of guilty entered on May 22, 2014. Accordingly, the

court ADOPTS those findings and recommendations [docket # 36], ACCEPTS

defendant Javier Trevino’s plea of guilty, and FINDS the defendant guilty of Count

3 of the Indictment, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). 

SO ORDERED.

ENTERED: June 12, 2014 

 /s/ Robert L. Miller, Jr. 

Judge, United States District Court

Northern District of Indiana
EX-33.9
(logo) WestLake
SETTLEMENT SERVICES


Mark J. Girasole
President


ANNUAL ASSESSMENT AS TO COMPLIANCE


The Tax Outsourcing Service Agreement dated as of October 1, 2006 (together with
all amendments thereto, the "Agreement"), between Aurora Loan Services and
WestLake Settlement Services, LLC.

I, Mark Girasole, the president of WestLake Settlement Services, certify to
Aurora Loan Services, with the knowledge and intent that it will rely upon this
certification, that:

(1) As of and for the year ended December 31, 2007, WestLake Settlement
Services, LLC has complied with the applicable servicing criteria set forth in
Item 1122(d) of Regulation AB applicable to WestLake (the "Applicable
Servicing Criteria"):

1122(d)(4)(xi) Payments made on behalf of an obligor (such as tax or
insurance payments) are made on or before the related penalty or expiration
dates, as indicated on the appropriate bills or notices for such payments,
provided that such support has been received by the servicer at least 30
calendar days prior to these dates, or such other number of days specified in
the transaction agreements.

1122(d)(4)(xii) Any late payment penalties in connection with any payment to
be made on behalf of an obligor are paid from the servicer's funds and not
charged to the obligor, unless the late payment was due to the obligor's error
or omission.

WESTLAKE SETTLEMENT SERVICES


/s/ Mark Girasole
Mark Girasole, President
March 3, 2008


1 American Way * DFW 6-4-100 * Westlake, TX 76262 *T 817 699 5733 *
www.westlake.com
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A19A2313. CEDRIC BRADSHAW v. THE STATE.

In 2009, Cedric Bradshaw was convicted of failing to register as a sex offender.

The trial courtsentenced him to twenty years, to serve the first ten in confinement and

the remainder on probation. In 2017, Bradshaw was released on probation, but the

following year the State petitioned to revoke his probation based on the commission

of a new offense, and the court revoked the balance of Bradshaw’s probation.

Thereafter, Bradshaw filed a motion to modify his sentence, arguing that the trial court

was only authorized to revoke two years of probation. The trial court denied the

motion, and Bradshaw appeals. We lack jurisdiction.

“In determining the proper procedure to follow in pursuing an appeal, the

underlying subject matter generally controls over the relief sought.” Self v. Bayneum,

265 Ga. 14, 14-15 (453 SE2d 27) (1995). Because the underlying subject matter of this

appeal is the revocation of Bradshaw’s probation, he was required to file an

application for discretionary appeal in order to appeal. See OCGA§ 5-6-35 (a) (5), (b);

July 11, 2019
Todd v. State, 236 Ga. App. 757, 758 (513 SE2d 287) (1999); White v. State, 233 Ga.

App. 873, 874 (505 SE2d 228) (1998). His failure to do so deprives this Court of

jurisdiction over this direct appeal, which is hereby DISMISSED.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

07/11/2019
EX-34.7
(logo) Deloitte

Deloitte & Touche LLP
Suite 3300
1100 Walnut Street
Kansas City, MO 64106-2129
USA

Tel:+1 816 474 6180
www.deloitte.com

REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

Board of Directors
The PNC Financial Services Group, Inc.:

We have examined management's assertion, included in the accompanying
Management's Report on Assessment of Compliance with SEC Regulation AB Servicing
Criteria, that Midland Loan Services, Inc., (the "Company"), an indirect wholly
owned subsidiary of The PNC Financial Services Group, Inc., complied with the
servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of the Securities and Exchange
Commission's Regulation AB for its role in servicing Commercial Mortgage Backed
Securities Transactions (the "Platform") as of and for the year ended December
31, 2007, excluding criteria 1122(d)(1)(iii), 1122(d)(3)(i)((B), (C) and
(D)), 1122(d)3(ii) through 3(iv), and 1122(d)(4)(xv), which management has
determined are not applicable to the activities performed by the Company with
respect to the Platform. Management's assertion identifies the transactions
defined by management as constituting the Platform. Management is responsible
for the Company's compliance with the servicing criteria. Our responsibility is
to express an opinion on management's assertion about the Company's compliance
with the servicing criteria based on our examination.

Our examination was conducted in accordance with attestation standards
established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, as
adopted by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States), and,
accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Company's
compliance with the applicable servicing criteria, including tests on a sample
basis of the servicing activities related to the Platform, determining whether
the Company performed those selected activities in compliance with the servicing
criteria during the specified period, and performing such other procedures as we
considered necessary in the circumstances. Our procedures were limited to
selected servicing activities performed by the Company during the period covered
by this report and, accordingly, such samples may not have included servicing
activities related to each specific asset-backed transaction included in the
Platform. Further, an examination is not designed to detect noncompliance
arising from errors that may have occurred prior to the period specified above
that may have affected the balances or amounts calculated or reported by the
Company during the period covered by this report. We believe that our
examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our examination does
not provide a legal determination on the Company's compliance with the servicing
criteria.

In our opinion, management's assertion that the Company complied with the
aforementioned applicable servicing criteria as of and for the year ended
December 31,2007, for its role in servicing Commercial Mortgage Backed
Securities Transactions is fairly stated, in all material respects.


/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP

Kansas City, MO
February 18, 2008



Member of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu
#### In re SOMBORN.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

June 20, 1913.)

In the matter of Edward K. Somborn, ■deceased.

No opinion. Motion to dismiss appeal granted. Order filed.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.6

                             EXECUTIVE BONUS PLAN OF
                           MGIC INVESTMENT CORPORATION
                                 (the "Company")

The Executive Bonus Plan of the Company in effect for 2003 (which is not
contained in a formal plan document), applied to certain officers of the
Company, including the executive officers of the Company identified in the Form
10-K for the year ended December 31, 2003. Under the Executive Bonus Plan,
bonuses were awarded based on the Company's net earnings in 2003 and the
individual performance of the executive officer during the year. The maximum
bonus that an executive officer could receive ranged from 120% to 200% of the
officer's base salary as of the end of 2003. The officer could elect to receive
up to one-third of the bonus in restricted stock of the Company that vested in
one year. For each share of restricted stock so elected, the Company awarded one
and one-half shares of restricted stock that vested in three years.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                         145,388
<SECURITIES>                                       767
<RECEIVABLES>                                   43,422
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               189,577
<PP&E>                                       4,001,642
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,727,030
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,464,189
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           35,502
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,428,687
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,464,189
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               127,239
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   32,034
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 95,205
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             95,205
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    95,205
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    10.77
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    10.77
        

</TABLE>
#### CLARKE v. PRECIOUS METALS CORP.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

March 22, 1912.)

Appeal from Special Term, New York County. Action by Ralph Clarke against the Precious Metals Corporation. From part of a judgment entered on a decision after a trial at Special Term, plaintiff appeals. Modified. Clarence De Witt Rogers, for appellant. Frank F. Vander Veer, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The judgment appealed from should be modified, by striking therefrom all after the word “stockholder,” so as to leave in the judgment only a direction to the defendant to transfer the stock. As so modified, the judgment should be affirmed, with costs to the appellant.
Juan Daniel CANO, petitioner, v. TEXAS.

No. 12-5813.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 13, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Texas, Seventh District, denied.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

HAMMOND DIVISION

WILLIAM R. TYLER, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. ) CAUSE NO. 2:14-CV-225

)

PORTER COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT, )

)

Defendant. )

OPINION AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court on the complaint filed by

William R. Tyler, a pro se prisoner, on June 26, 2014. Tyler

alleges that the Porter County Superior Court denied him the

effective assistance of counsel during his State criminal

proceedings. “A document filed pro se is to be liberally construed,

and a pro se complaint, however inartfully pleaded, must be held to

less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers."

Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (quotation marks and

citations omitted). Nevertheless, the Court must review prisoner

complaints pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. 

Tyler is asking for either $116,800,000 or to have the

criminal charges against him vacated, to be released and to receive

$11,680,000. However,“habeas corpus is the exclusive remedy for a

state prisoner who challenges the fact or duration of his

confinement and seeks immediate or speedier release . . . .” Heck

v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 481 (1994). Moreover, the Porter
Superior Court is not a suable entity. Cf. Sow v. Fortville Police

Dep’t, 636 F.3d 293, 300 (7th Cir. 2011) (Indiana Code 36-1-2-10

lists suable entities and State trial courts are not listed.) 

Though it is usually necessary to permit a plaintiff the

opportunity to file an amended complaint when a case is dismissed

sua sponte, see Luevano v. Wal-Mart, 722 F.3d 1014 (7th Cir. 2013),

that is unnecessary where the amendment would be futile. Hukic v.

Aurora Loan Servs., 588 F.3d 420, 432 (7th Cir. 2009) (“[C]ourts

have broad discretion to deny leave to amend where . . . the

amendment would be futile.”) Such is the case here because no

amendment could cure the fact that Tyler cannot obtain any relief

in a lawsuit against the Porter County Superior Court. Nor can he

obtain any relief if he were to attempt to substitute the State

court judge, because the judge has absolute judicial immunity for

his decisions related to the appointment of counsel. See Stump v.

Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 359 (1978). 

For the reasons set forth above, this case is DISMISSED

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.

DATED: July 10, 2014 /s/RUDY LOZANO, Judge

United State District Court

-2-
USDC IN/ND case 2:13-cv-00190-RLM-PRC   document 1   filed 06/03/13   page 1 of 7

USDC IN/ND case 2:13-cv-00190-RLM-PRC   document 1   filed 06/03/13   page 2 of 7

USDC IN/ND case 2:13-cv-00190-RLM-PRC   document 1   filed 06/03/13   page 3 of 7

USDC IN/ND case 2:13-cv-00190-RLM-PRC   document 1   filed 06/03/13   page 4 of 7

USDC IN/ND case 2:13-cv-00190-RLM-PRC   document 1   filed 06/03/13   page 5 of 7

USDC IN/ND case 2:13-cv-00190-RLM-PRC   document 1   filed 06/03/13   page 6 of 7

USDC IN/ND case 2:13-cv-00190-RLM-PRC   document 1   filed 06/03/13   page 7 of 7
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                       1,579,440
<SECURITIES>                                   431,007
<RECEIVABLES>                                  834,712
<ALLOWANCES>                                   102,000
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,873,878
<PP&E>                                          35,396
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,909,274
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          678,725
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        85,211
<OTHER-SE>                                   3,145,338
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,909,274
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             (133,043)
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   49,285
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                34,201
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              15,084
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (182,328)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                         0
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.05)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.05)
        

</TABLE>
##### 



Exhibit 32 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-Q for the period ended
March 31, 2004 (the Report) of Kiewit Royalty Trust (the Trust), as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Ted L. Hall,
the trust officer of U.S. Bank National Association, the trustee of the Trust,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge: (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
Trust. /s/ Ted L. HallTed L. HallTrust Officer
U.S. Bank National Association
Trustee Date:
August 10, 2004
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE

F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER ON M OTION

Appellate case name: Hani Hafiz Ibrahim Qutiefan v. Lubna Abdelziz Safi a/k/a

Lubna Aziz Safi

Appellate case number: 01

- 18

- 00425

- CV

Trial court case number: 13

- DCV

- 206211

Trial court: 505th District Court of Fort Bend County

Appellant, Hani Hafiz Ibrahim Qutiefan, has filed a motion to extend time to file a

reply in support of his third motion for extension of time to file a motion for rehearing. See

T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 49.1, 49.8. Appellant’s motion requested an extension of 10 business days,

or until December 15, 2021, to file a reply. To date, appellant has not filed a reply.

Accordingly, the Court denies appellant’s motion to extend time to file a reply.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ April L. Farris

 Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: December 30, 2021
Willie V. JONES, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 12-9704.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 13, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM MESA
OFFSHORE TRUST FORM 10-Q FOR THE QUARTERLY PERIOD ENDED 06/30/00 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                       2,428,534
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   30,551
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                     380,905,000
<DEPRECIATION>                            (380,885,615)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,478,470
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          459,085
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,019,385
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,478,470
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,001,271
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               271,491
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,729,780
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,729,780
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .02
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .02


</TABLE>
Exhibit
32.1








CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT 0F 2002





In
connection with the Annual Report of Ubiquitech Software Corporation(the
Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ended herein as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I. Brian Sobnosky, Chief
Executive and 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 fully presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations or the Company.





Dated:
November 26, 2008








By:
            /s/ Brian
      SobnoskyBrian
      Sobnosky
              Chief
      Executive Officer
              Chief
      Financial Officer