alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### FEN-PHEN SERIES 2005-01, A SERIES OF CAPTRAN FUNDING, LLC, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. JAMES S. FARRIN, P.C., Defendant-Appellee.

No. 10-1949.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: June 17, 2011.

Decided: June 24, 2011.

Ryan J. Adams, Shirley & Adams, PLLC, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. James L. Gale, Matthew N. Leer-berg, Smith Moore Leatherwood, LLP, Raleigh, North Carolina; T. Matthew Creech, Smith Moore Leatherwood, LLP, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before WILKINSON and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Fen-Phen Series 2005-01, A Series Of Captran Funding, LLC, appeals the district court’s order adopting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing its civil complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no error. *151Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *Fen-Phen Series 2005-01, A Series of Captran Funding LLC, v. Farrin,*No. 1:09-cv-00479-JAB-WWD (M.D.N.C. July 19, 2010). 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.*
[No. 16391-1-III.

Division Three.

September 30, 1997.]

#### Janelle Riddle, *Appellant,*v. The Town of Naches, et al., *Respondents.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Yakima County, No. 96-2-00649-1; Michael Leavitt, J., entered December 20, 1996. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Schultheis, J., concurred in by Sweeney, C.J., and Thompson, J.
---

|CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO                     
|----------------------------------------------
|18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
|SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 

The undersigned, Jeff Finkelstein, of Argentex Mining
Corporation, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1) the annual report on Form 10-K of Argentex Mining
Corporation for the year ended January 31, 2011 (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
Argentex Mining Corporation

Dated: April 29, 2011

|/s/ Jeff Finkelstein   
|-----------------------
|Jeff Finkelstein       
|Chief Financial Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section
906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the
signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this
written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Argentex Mining
Corporation and will be retained by Argentex Mining Corporation and furnished to
the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---
PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS ~

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

1177 Avenue of the Americas

New York NY 10036

Telephone (646) 471 4000 

Facsimile   (646) 286 6000

Report of Independent Accountants

 

 

 

To the Board of Directors andShareholder of
GMAC Commercial Mortgage Corporation:

We have examined management's assertion, dated March 17, 2003, about GMAC Commercial Mortgage Corporation's compliance with its established minimum servicing standards ("Servicing Policy"), which were derived from the Mortgage Bankers Association of America's Uniform Single Attestation Program for Mortgage Bankers (USAP), as of and for the year ended December 31, 2002 included in the 

accompanying management assertion (Exhibit A). Management is responsible for the company's  compliance with the Servicing Policy. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on management's assertion about the company's compliance based on our examination.

Our examination was made in accordance with the standards established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants and, accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidence about the company's compliance with the Servicing Policy and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis for our 

opinion. Our examination does not provide a legal determination of the company's compliance with the Servicing Policy.

In our opinion, management's assertion that the company complied with the aforementioned Servicing Policy as of and for the year ended December 31, 2002 is  fairly stated, in all material respects.

 

 

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

March 17, 2003
**Exhibit 3.2**

 

**CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT**

**TO CERTIFICATE OF LIMITED PARTNERSHIP**

**OF RFS PARTNERSHIP, L.P.**

 

 

Dated as of June 9, 1997

 

----

 

**CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT**

**TO CERTIFICATE OF LIMITED PARTNERSHIP**

**OF RFS PARTNERSHIP, L.P.**

 

 

To the Secretary of State of the State of Tennessee:

 

Pursuant to the provisions of the Tennessee Revised Uniform LimitedPartnership Act, Section 61-2-201 et seq., the undersigned parties herebyexecute this Certificate of Amendment to the Certificate of LimitedPartnership:

 

1.             The name of thelimited partnership is RFS Partnership, L.P. (the “Partnership”).

 

2.             The originalCertificate of Limited Partnership of the Partnership was filed with the Officeof the Secretary of State of Tennessee on August 3, 1993 and is recorded atFile Number DW8500 in the office of the Register of Deeds of Shelby County,Tennessee (the “Certificate”).

 

3.             The Partnership’saddress is hereby changed from 889 Ridge Lake Boulevard, Suite 100, Memphis,Tennessee 38120 to 850 Ridge Lake Boulevard, Suite 220, Memphis, Tennessee38120.

 

4.             Except as modifiedand amended herein, the Certificate of Limited Partnership shall in all otherrespects remain in full force and effect.

 

5.             This document shallbe effective upon filing by the Secretary of State of Tennessee.

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this documenteffective as of the 9th day of June, 1997.

 

 
|   | GENERAL PARTNER:              |
|--------|-------------------------------|
|   |                          |
|   | **RFS HOTEL INVESTORS, INC.** |
|   |                          |
|   |                          |
|   | By:                           | /s/  Michael J. Pascal |   |
|   |                          | Michael J. Pascal |
|   |                          | Secretary and Treasurer |

 

----

 

STATE OF TENNESSEE

COUNTY OF SHELBY, to wit:

 

On the 19th day of June, 1997, personally appeared beforeme, Liz Stamey, a Notary Public of said County and State, Michael J. Pascal,who acknowledged himself to be Secretary and Treasurer or RFS Hotel Investors,Inc., the within named bargainor, and that he, as such Secretary and Treasurer,executed the foregoing instrument for the purposes therein contained by signingthe name of the corporation by himself as such Secretary and Treasurer.

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and official seal.

 

 
|                   |   | /s/ Liz Stamey |   |
|------------------------|--------|----------------|--------|
|                   |   | Notary Public  |   |
|                   |   |           |
|                   |   |           |
| Notary Public Seal     |   |           |
|                   |   |           |
|                   |   |           |
| My commission expires: |   |           |
|                   |   |           |
| 11/7/2000              |   |           |   |
|                        |        |                |        |  |

 

----
* 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 limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-20063 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus ALI REZA DADI, also known as Raymond Dadi, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. H-01-CV-4099 USDC No. H-98-CR-419-1

- - - - - - - - - - February 12, 2003 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Ali Reza Dadi, federal prisoner # 59270-079, appeals from the summary denial of his motion for relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. We granted a certificate of appealability (COA) on Dadi’s claim that his trial counsel was ineffective for misadvising him to reject the Government’s plea offer and undergo trial and on whether the cause should be remanded for the district court to file written findings of fact and conclusionsNo. 02-20063 - 2 - of law, and denied a COA on the remaining issues raised in Dadi’s 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. Dadi argues that he was denied effective assistance of counsel regarding a plea offer when trial counsel misinformed him of the sentence he faced if he proceeded to trial. He also argues that the district court erred by denying his motion without making written factual findings and legal conclusions. The record does not show conclusively that Dadi is not entitled to relief. First, the record does not refute Dadi’s assertion that there was a plea offer. Indeed, in Dadi’s objections to the presentence report, counsel mentioned a plea offer and an understanding with the Government about the sentence Dadi faced if he proceeded to trial. Second, we cannot say that the record does not suggest a reasonable probability that Dadi would have received a significantly less severe sentence had Dadi accepted the Government’s plea offer. See Teague v. Scott , 60 F.3d 1167, 1172 (5th Cir. 1995). We express no opinion regarding whether Dadi actually received ineffective assistance of counsel.

Because the record does not show conclusively or plainly that Dadi is entitled to no relief, the district court erred in summarily denying his motion. See 28 U.S.C. § 2255; see also Rule 4(b), R ULES G OVERNING S ECTION 2255 P ROCEEDINGS . We therefore vacate the order denying relief on Dadi’s claim that counsel was ineffective regarding his advice to reject the plea offer and proceed to trial and remand that claim for further proceedings.No. 02-20063 - 3 - On remand the district court ”shall cause notice [of Dadi’s 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion] to be served upon the United States attorney, grant a prompt hearing thereon, determine the issues and make findings of fact and conclusions of law with respect thereto.” 28 U.S.C. § 2255.
VACATED AND REMANDED.
Exhibit 15.2

[LETTERHEAD OF ICAP SHIPPING]

CONSENT OF ICAP SHIPPING

Tsakos Energy Navigation Limited

367 Syngrou Avenue

175 64 P. Faliro

Athens, Greece

April 5, 2011

Ladies and Gentlemen:

Reference is made to
the Tsakos Energy Navigation Limited (the Company) Annual Report on Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010 (the Form 20-F).

We have reviewed the section entitled Item 5. Operating and Financial Review and ProspectsGeneral Market OverviewWorld Oil Demand / Supply and Trade included in the Form 20-F
and confirm it accurately describes the international tanker industry. We further advise the Company that our role has been limited to the provision of the statistical data and other information set forth in such section of the Form 20-F. With
respect to such statistical data and other information supplied by us, we advise you that:



| |  |  | Certain information included in this discussion is derived from estimates or subjective judgments;
| | - |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| |  |  | The information the databases of other maritime data collection agencies may differ from this data; and
| | - |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| |  |  | While we have taken reasonable care in the compilation of the statistical and other information and believe it to be accurate and correct, data
compilation is subject to limited audit and validation procedures.
| | - |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We hereby consent to the reference to our firm in the
Form 20-F and to the use of the statistical data and other information supplied by us and included under the section Item 5. Operating and Financial Review and ProspectsGeneral Market OverviewWorld Oil Demand / Supply and
Trade included in the Form 20-F. In addition, we hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Companys Registration Statements (Form F-3 No. 333-159218, Form F-3 No. 333-111615, Form S-8 No. 333-102860, Form S-8
No. 333-104062 and Form S-8 No. 333-134306, as amended) and in the related Prospectuses of the information provided by us and included under the section Item 5. Operating and Financial Review and ProspectsGeneral Market
OverviewWorld Oil Demand / Supply and Trade included in the Form 20-F.

We hereby consent to the filing of this letter as an
exhibit to the Form 20-F to be filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

Sincerely,

/s/ Simon Chattrabhuti

ICAP Shipping, London

Simon Chattrabhuti

Head of Tanker
Research
# L_2018190DE.01002003.xml

| 27.7.2018 | DE | Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union | L 190/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.7.2018

DE

Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union

L 190/20

---

Berichtigung der Verordnung (EG) Nr. 1272/2008 des Europäischen Parlaments und des Rates vom 16. Dezember 2008 über die Einstufung, Kennzeichnung und Verpackung von Stoffen und Gemischen, zur Änderung und Aufhebung der Richtlinien 67/548/EWG und 1999/45/EG und zur Änderung der Verordnung (EG) Nr. 1907/2006

(
  Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union L 353 vom 31. Dezember 2008
  )

Seite 340, Anhang V, Gefahrenpiktogramme, Tabelle 3.1, Liste der harmonisierten Einstufung und Kennzeichnung gefährlicher Stoffe, Spalte Kennzeichnung, Unterspalte Piktogramm, Kodierung der Signalworte. In der gesamten Unterspalte:

Anstatt:

„Dgr“

muss es heißen:

„Gef.“.

Anstatt:

„Wng“

muss es heißen:

„Achtg.“.

---
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



Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and in connection with this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Cortelco Systems Puerto Rico, Inc. ("Registrant") for the year ended July 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned Juan C. Ramos, Chief Executive Officer, and Francisco Sanchez, Chief Financial Officer of Registrant, hereby certify, 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 this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Registrant.




Date: October 29, 2007
        /s/     Juan C. Ramos


Juan C. Ramos

Chief Executive Officer



/s/
        Francisco Sanchez


Francisco Sanchez

Chief Financial Officer
#### Jose Loza et al., Appellants, v Jagga Alluri et al., Defendants, and Michael Schuman, Respondent.

[941 NYS2d 880]

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for medical malpractice, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (O’Donoghue, J.), entered March 31, 2011, which denied that branch of their motion which was pursuant to CPLR 306-b to extend the time within which to serve the summons and complaint upon the defendant Michael Schuman, and granted that defendant’s cross motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (8) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against him on the ground of lack of personal jurisdiction.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

*825Contrary to the plaintiffs’ contentions, the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying that branch of their motion which was pursuant to CPLR 306-b to extend the time within which to serve the summons and complaint upon the defendant Michael Schuman, their second request for such relief. Other than the expiration of the relevant statute of limitations, the plaintiffs did not demonstrate facts and circumstances that would support the grant of such relief in the interest of justice or for good cause shown *(see Crystal v Lisnow,*56 AD3d 713 [2008]; *Otero v Flushing Hosp.,*300 AD2d 639, 640 [2002]; *Rihal v Kirchhoff,*291 AD2d 548 [2002]). Skelos, J.P., Dickerson, Hall, Roman and Cohen, JJ., concur.
#### PEOPLE ex rel. HUBERT v. KAISER, Warden.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

April 12, 1912.)

Proceeding by the People of the State of New York, on the relation of Martin F. Hubert, against Harry M. Kaiser, Warden. No opinion. Application denied.
#### MARSHALL, Respondent, v. MARSHALL, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

April 4, 1912.)

Action by John F. Marshall against Marion E. Marshall. G. A. Hopkins, for appellant. F. Lockwood, for respondent. No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs. Order filed.
#### PEOPLE v. SWEENEY.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

April 12, 1912.)

Proceeding by the People of the State of New York against Wallace W. Sweeney. No opinion. Motion to dismiss appeal granted, unless appellant comply with terms stated in order. Order filed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                              OCT-1-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                         (2,858)
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      500
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               (2,358)
<PP&E>                                       4,576,575
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,846,312
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,735,852
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    53,743,325
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,846,312
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 2,229
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   90,519
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (88,290)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.01)
        

</TABLE>
11TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

Benny Vela, * From the 106th District Court

of Dawson County

Trial Court No. 17-7720.

Vs. No. 11-18-00266-CR * June 13, 2019

The State of Texas, * Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion

(Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J.,

Stretcher, J., and Wright, S.C.J., 

sitting by assignment)

 (Willson, J., not participating)

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that there 

is no error in the judgment below. Therefore, in accordance with this court’s 

opinion, the judgment of the trial court is in all things affirmed.
Exhibit 13.1

                     CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER CERTIFICATION
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

     In connection with this Annual Report of A/S Steamship Company Torm (the
"Company") on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC") on or about the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Klaus Kjaerulff, 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. A signed original of this written statement has been
          provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and
          furnished to the SEC or its staff upon request.

Date: May 19, 2004


/s/ Klaus Kjaerulff
-------------------
Chief Executive Officer
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Isaac Alcauter BARAJAS, a.k.a. Isaac Barajas Alcauter, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 09-30085.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 24, 2011.*

Filed June 8, 2011.

Alexander C. Ekstrom, Assistant U.S. Attorney, USYA-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Yakima, WA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

David R. Partovi, Partovi Law, Spokane, WA, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before: PREGERSON, THOMAS, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Isaac Alcauter Barajas appeals from his guilty-plea conviction and 120-month sentence for distribution of a controlled substance, methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). Pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Barajas’s counsel has filed a brief stating there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. The appellant has filed a pro se supplemental brief and the government has filed an answering brief. We have considered both.

Our independent review of the record pursuant to *Penson v. Ohio,*488 U.S. 75, 80-81, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), discloses no arguable grounds for relief on direct appeal. To the extent Ba-rajas raises a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, we decline to address it on direct appeal. *See United States v. McKenna,*327 F.3d 830, 845 (9th Cir.2003).

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.