alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. WR-65,609-07

EX PARTE LESLEY WAYNE CONNOR, Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. B-03-1172-S-W-7 IN THE 119th DISTRICT COURT

FROM TOM GREEN COUNTY

Per curiam.

O R D E R

Pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, the

clerk of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for a writ of habeas corpus. Ex parte

Young, 418 S.W.2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was convicted of one count of

assault on a family member and one count of terroristic threat. Applicant was sentenced to eighty

five years’ imprisonment and one hundred and eight days in state jail, respectively.

In his present application, Applicant raises five grounds. This application, however, presents

a more serious question. This Court’s records reflect that Applicant has filed six prior applications

pertaining to this conviction. It is obvious from the record that Applicant continues to raise issues
2

that have been presented and rejected in previous applications or that should have been presented

in previous applications. The writ of habeas corpus is not to be lightly or easily abused. Sanders

v. U.S., 373 U.S. 1 (1963); Ex parte Carr, 511 S.W.2d 523 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974). Because of his

repetitive claims, we hold that Applicant’s claims are barred from review under Article 11.07, § 4,

and are waived and abandoned by his abuse of the writ. This application is dismissed.

Therefore, we instruct the Clerk of the Court of Criminal Appeals not to accept or file the

instant application for a writ of habeas corpus, or any future application pertaining to this conviction

unless Applicant is able to show in such an application that any claims presented have not been

raised previously and that they could not have been presented in a previous application for a writ of

habeas corpus. Ex parte Bilton, 602 S.W.2d 534 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980).

Copies of this order shall be sent to the Texas Department of Criminal Justice-Correctional

Institutions Division and Pardons and Paroles Division.

Filed: December 12, 2018

Do not publish
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                             431
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   431
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   49661
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            36125
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           403
<OTHER-SE>                                       13133
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     49661
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  7369
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (7369)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (7369)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (7369)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.02)
        

</TABLE>
UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR EXTENSION TO FILE REPLY IN SUPPORT 

OF MOTION TO DISMISS

Page 1

Carlos A. Rasch, OSB# 072179

E-mail: crasch@houser-law.com

Emilie K. Edling, OSB #035931

E-mail: eedling@houser-law.com

HOUSER & ALLISON, APC

9600 SW Oak St., Suite 570

Portland, OR 97223

Telephone: (503) 914-1382

Facsimile: (503) 914-1383

Attorneys for Plaintiff Ocwen Loan Servicing, 

LLC, and Third Pary Defendants OneWest 

Bank, FSB, and Federal National Mortgage 

Association

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

(PORTLAND DIVISION)

OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

JOHN W. FRASER, 

Defendant,

ONEWEST BANK, FSB; FEDERAL 

NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION,

 Third Party Defendants.

Case No.: 3:14-cv-01985-MC

UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR 

EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE 

REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO 

DISMISS

I. CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE

Pursuant to LR 7-1(a), the parties have conferred regarding the instant motion to 

continue the deadline for Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC (“Ocwen”), OneWest Bank, FSB 

(“OneWest”), and Federal National Mortgage Association’s (“Fannie Mae”) to file their 
UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR EXTENSION TO FILE REPLY IN SUPPORT 

OF MOTION TO DISMISS

Page 2

reply in support of their Motion to Dismiss Defendant John W. Fraser’s counterclaims and 

cross claims. The parties agree as to the following extensions of deadlines requested in this 

motion and this motion is unopposed.

II. MOTION

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b), Ocwen, OneWest, and Fannie Mae 

move for an Order enlarging the time in which they must file their Reply in Support of the 

Motion to Dismiss Defendant John W. Fraser’s counterclaims and cross claims. The reply is 

currently due January 22, 2015. The parties request a modest extension of seven (7) days so 

that the reply is due on January 29, 2015. 

Good causes appears for the extension, as Counsel for Ocwen, OneWest, and Fannie 

Mae must confer with its client prior to filing the reply and requests the additional time to do 

so. This motion is made in good faith and not for purposes of delay.

DATED this 15th day of January, 2015.

 HOUSER & ALLISON, APC

BY /s/ CARLOS A. RASCH

Carlos A. Rasch, OSB #072179

E-mail: crasch@houser-law.com

Emilie K. Edling, OSB #035931

E-mail: eedling@houser-law.com

HOUSER & ALLISON, APC

9600 SW Oak St., Suite 570

Portland, OR 97223

Telephone: (503) 914-1382

Facsimile: (503) 914-1383

Attorney for Plaintiff Ocwen Loan Servicing, 

LLC,and Third Party Defendants OneWest Bank, 

FSB, and Federal National Mortgage Association
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Consolidated Statement of Financial Condition at March 31, 2000 and the
Consolidated Statement of Operations for the Three Months Ended March 31, 2000
and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                                   0001033643
<NAME>                OCWEN ASSET INVESTMENT CORP.
<MULTIPLIER>                                 1,000
<CURRENCY>                                     USD

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                      DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                         JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                           MAR-31-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                  1
<CASH>                                      47,658
<SECURITIES>                                57,738
<RECEIVABLES>                                    0
<ALLOWANCES>                                     0
<INVENTORY>                                      0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 0
<PP&E>                                           0
<DEPRECIATION>                                   0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             631,753
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       19,878
<BONDS>                                    251,366
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            0
<PREFERRED>                                      0
<COMMON>                                         0
<OTHER-SE>                                 143,494
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               741,362
<SALES>                                          0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            23,958
<CGS>                                            0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             6,884
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                78
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          10,601
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              6,395
<INCOME-TAX>                                 1,906
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          6,395
<DISCONTINUED>                                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                              2,182
<CHANGES>                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                                 6,671
<EPS-BASIC>                                   0.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                 0.00


</TABLE>
U.S. flagAn official website of the United States government
                    Here's how you know **Official websites use .gov**
                            
                            A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
 **Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**
                            
                            A **lock** (                            
                              A locked padlock                                                      
                            
                            ) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.


Menu Agricultural Research Service
						
                    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
 Mississippi State, Mississippi
 close




            Search small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home People & Locations







Gay  McCain
                        Location Support Staff

                        




                        
                        Safety and Occupational Health Specialist
                        Phone: (662) 320-7383
                        
                        
                        Fax: (Employee information on this page comes from the REE Directory. Please contact your front office staff to update the REE Directory.)


Return to top


Connect with ARS Sign up


ARS Home
                            USDA.gov
                            Plain Writing
                            Policies & Links
                            Civil Rights Statements
                            FOIA
                            Accessibility Statement
                            Privacy Policy
                            Non-Discrimination Statement
                            Quality of Information
                            USA.gov
                            WhiteHouse.gov
Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h Marilyn Kell y Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathawa y Mary Beth Kell y Brian K. Zahra,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk March 5, 2012

h0227 

# Order

March 5, 2012

143366

DANIEL E. LASECKI, MARY ANN LASECKI and WILLARD LAWRENCE GIBSON, Plaintiffs/Counter Defendants-Appellees,

v SC: 143366 COA: 293723 Hillsdale CC: 05-000422-CK LAKE LEANN PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION, Defendant/Counter Plaintiff-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the applicati on for leave to appeal the May 31, 2011 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions pr esented should be reviewed by this Court prior to the completion of the proceedings or dered by the Court of Appeals.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE  CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL  INFORMATION  EXTRACTED FROM FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS  FOR THE PERIOD FROM APRIL 1, 1998 TO MARCH 31, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED
IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                         272,256
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                3,439,342
<ALLOWANCES>                                  (50,000)
<INVENTORY>                                    599,451
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             5,212,727
<PP&E>                                       5,999,195
<DEPRECIATION>                             (3,829,184)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               8,570,447
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        5,173,145
<BONDS>                                        682,046
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                  1,772,411
<COMMON>                                     6,126,338
<OTHER-SE>                                 (5,323,832)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 8,570,447
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            18,877,867
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               18,561,869
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             324,499
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                378,460
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            378,460
<DISCONTINUED>                             (1,090,324)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                              2,550,000
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,838,136
<EPS-BASIC>                                     0.11
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.10




</TABLE>
<PAGE>






                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.2



               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 Noble International, Ltd.
("Noble") on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2002, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, David
V. Harper, Chief Financial Officer of Noble, certify, pursuant to 18 U. S. C.
section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes - Oxley Act of
2002, to my knowledge 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
         Noble.



Dated:  August 14, 2002                     /s/ David V. Harper,
                                            ----------------------------------
                                            David V. Harper
                                            Chief Financial Officer











                                                                              21
#### George Howard, Respondent, v City of New York, Defendant, and Kathryn Smith, Appellant.

[944 NYS2d 886]—

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant Kathryn Smith appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Ash, J.), dated September 28, 2011, which denied her motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against her.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

In 2003, the New York City Council enacted section 7-210 of the Administrative Code of the City of New York to shift tort liability for injuries resulting from defective sidewalks from the City to abutting property owners *(see Vucetovic v Epsom Downs, Inc.,*10 NY3d 517, 519-520 [2008]). However, this liability shifting provision does not apply to “one-, two- or three-family resi*1277dential real property that is (i) in whole or in part, owner occupied, and (ii) used exclusively for residential purposes” (Administrative Code § 7-210 [b]). “The purpose of the exception in the Code is to recognize the inappropriateness of exposing small-property owners in residence, who have limited resources, to exclusive liability with respect to sidewalk maintenance and repair” *(Coogan v City of New York,*73 AD3d 613, 614 [2010]; *see Gangemi v City of New York,*13 Misc 3d 1112, 1120 n 2 [2006]).

Here, the defendant property owner, Kathryn Smith, failed to make a prima facie showing that she is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the theory that she is exempt from liability pursuant to Administrative Code § 7-210 (b). Although Smith submitted proof that the subject property is a two-family residence, her own deposition testimony raises an issue of fact as to whether the premises were “owner occupied” within the meaning of Administrative Code § 7-210 (b) *(see Acevedo v Rodriguez,*20 Misc 3d 1122[A], 2008 NY Slip Op 51518[U] [2008]; *cf. Moreno v Shanker,*93 AD3d 829 [2012]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied Smith’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against her, regardless of the sufficiency of the plaintiff’s opposing papers *(see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr.,*64 NY2d 851, 853 [1985]).

Smith’s contention that she is entitled to summary judgment because the sidewalk defect which allegedly caused the plaintiff’s fall was open and obvious and not inherently dangerous is raised for the first time on appeal, and is thus not properly before this Court *(see Van Salisbury v Elliott-Lewis,*55 AD3d 725, 726-727 [2008]; *see also Quinones v Federated Dept. Stores, Inc.,*92 AD3d 931 [2012]; *ATC Healthcare, Inc. v Goldstein Golub Kessler, LLP,*92 AD3d 820, 821 [2012]). Dillon, J.P., Eng, Belen and Sgroi, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains financial information extracted from the financial
statements of HEARx Ltd. and is qualified in its entirety by references to such
financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-26-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             DEC-28-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-26-1997
<CASH>                                       3,644,838
<SECURITIES>                                10,281,913
<RECEIVABLES>                                3,256,716
<ALLOWANCES>                                 (246,371)
<INVENTORY>                                    523,356
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            18,019,689
<PP&E>                                      13,639,007
<DEPRECIATION>                             (4,661,880)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              28,216,176
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        4,883,542
<BONDS>                                        177,897
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            7,115
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     9,921,144
<OTHER-SE>                                  13,226,478
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                28,216,176
<SALES>                                     24,213,879
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            24,213,879
<CGS>                                        6,963,782
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               33,417,880
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (9,204,001)
<INCOME-TAX>                               (9,204,001)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (9,204,001)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (9,204,001)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.12)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.12)
        

</TABLE>
##### 



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 on Form 10-Q of Blue Rhino
Corporation (the Company) for the three months ending October 31, 2003 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, Mark Castaneda, 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.

| |  |                        
| |  | -----------------------
| |  | /s/ Mark Castaneda     
| |  |                        
| |  | Mark Castaneda         
| |  | Chief Financial Officer
| |  | December 10, 2003
#### Sherard Taylor, Appellant, v One Bryant Park, LLC, et al., Respondents.

[941 NYS2d 142]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Milton A. Tingling, J.), entered June 17, 2011, which denied plaintiffs motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability on his Labor Law § 240 (1) cause of action, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion granted.

Plaintiff was injured when the A-frame ladder he was ascending fell over. Plaintiff testified that he placed the ladder about six inches from a stack of metal studs and that as he was ascending the ladder, he heard a noise, which was the sound of the metal studs sliding against the ladder, causing it to fall. Under these circumstances, plaintiff established a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1) *(see Bruce v 182 Main St. Realty Corp.,*83 AD3d 433, 437 [2011]; *Schultze v 585*W. *214th St. Owners Corp.,*228 AD2d 381 [1996]).

Although summary judgment is not warranted where “credible evidence reveals differing versions of the accident” *(Ellerbe v Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J.,*91 AD3d 441, 442 [2012]), the evidence upon which defendants rely is neither credible, nor admissible. The workers’ compensation C-2 report is not signed or authenticated, and it is not conclusively clear who created the report or where that person acquired the information *(see Zuluaga v P.P.C. Constr., LLC,*45 AD3d 479 [2007]). Assuming *416that the site medic listed on the report completed it, an affidavit from that same medic gives a different version of the accident from that listed on the C-2. The affidavit does not address the inconsistency, and is also not notarized. “While hearsay statements may be used to oppose a summary judgment motion, such evidence is insufficient to warrant a denial of the motion where [as here] it is the only evidence submitted in opposition” (see *Rivera v GT Acquisition 1 Corp.,*72 AD3d 525, 526 [2010]).

Moreover, the record establishes plaintiff was not the sole proximate cause of his injuries (see *e.g. Clarke v Morgan Contr. Corp.,*60 AD3d 523 [2009]). There is a lack of evidence that plaintiff was aware that the stacked pile of studs was not secured when he placed the ladder near it. Concur — Friedman, J.P., DeGrasse, Freedman and Abdus-Salaam, JJ.