alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
DENIED; Opinion Filed May 7, 2013.

S

In The

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-13-00563-CV

No. 05-13-00564-CV

IN RE SENRICK WILKERSON, Relator

On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 3

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause Nos. W10-01183-J, W10-01184-J

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices FitzGerald, Lang, and Myers 

Opinion by Justice Myers

The Court has before it relator’s petitions for writ of mandamus in which he asks us to 

order the trial court to provide him the arrest records and other documents for several cases. The 

facts and issues are well known to the parties, so we need not recount them herein. Based on the 

record before us, we conclude relator has not shown he is entitled to the relief requested. See 

Simon v. Levario, 306 S.W.3d 318, 320–21 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (orig. proceeding); State of 

Tex. ex. rel. Hill v. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Dist., 34 S.W.3d 924, 927–28 (Tex. Crim. App. 

2001) (orig. proceeding). Accordingly, we deny relator’s petitions for writ of mandamus.

130563F.P05

/Lana Myers/

LANA MYERS

JUSTICE
Kent B. Dolan (KBD-6573) 

Lifflander & Reich LLP 

Attorneys for Defendants 

New Water Street Corporation and 

55 Water Street Condominium

1221 Avenue of the Americas 

New York, NY 10020-1089 

212.332.8825 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

IN RE: WORLD TRADE CENTER LOWER 21 MC 102 

(AKH) MANHATTAN DISASTER SITE LITIGATION 

GALO SARMIENTO, 

 Plaintiff(s), 

 - against - 

20 BROAD STREET CO., et. al., 

 Defendants. 

21 MC 102 (AKH) 

07 CV 1529 (AKH) 

NOTICE OF NEW WATER STREET CORPORATION’S 

AND 55 WATER STREET CONDOMINIUM’S 

ADOPTION OF ANSWER TO MASTER COMPLAINT

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT Defendants New Water Street Corporation and 55 

Water Street Condominium (collectively, the “NWSC Defendants”), as and for their responses to 

the allegations set forth in the Complaint by Adoption (Check-Off Complaint) Related to the 

Master Complaint filed in the above-referenced action, hereby adopt the NWSC Defendants’ 

Answer to Master Complaint, dated August 3, 2007, which was filed in the matter of In re World

Trade Center Lower Manhattan Disaster Site Litigation, 21 MC 102 (AKH). 

WHEREFORE, the NWSC Defendants demand judgment dismissing the abovecaptioned action as against each of them, together with their costs and disbursements. 

Case 1:07-cv-01529-AKH Document 26 Filed 10/30/2007 Page 1 of 2
Dated: New York, New York 

August 10, 2007 

 Lifflander & Reich LLP 

 _____________________________ 

 Kent B. Dolan (KBD-6573) 

Attorneys for Defendants 

New Water Street Corporation and 

55 Water Street Condominium 

1221 Avenue of the Americas 

New York, New York 10020-1089 

(212) 332.8820; 8825 

TO: Paul Napoli, Esq. 

 Worby Groner Edelman & Napoli Bern LLP 

 115 Broadway, 12th Floor 

 New York, NY 10006 

Via E-mail 

James E. Tyrrell 

Joseph Hopkins 

PATTON BOGGS 

One Riverfront Plaza, 6th Floor 

Newark, NJ 07102 

Thomas Egan 

Flemming Zulack Williamson Zauderer LLP 

One Liberty Plaza 

New York, New York 10006

Case 1:07-cv-01529-AKH Document 26 Filed 10/30/2007 Page 2 of 2
"^Jjv^^gay 'p-^^vjcjios 5jt^ f-gp-f'Sfi'^ifi- jp L\pZ

'I?! ~ ^ ^

•(, iwc^-^/V\ -l/M^^ p 'l^J^

L to r«tH 0« ^ ^ T •/^t^'-^Zs.

''^^?^-5H'^5i|'SxmOTu<^.g P°4)1"^<.J, -A »f M *n„'^'"r^

^=»l.^<TMM-posto -c A.'pbis^i1^ 'f»4%l<>p

'Vcv^ Y^YApKi i® '-"U/ ^ Tft •

g' uO '^tff si^inxw-io ^/le^ I

SMMCn (y\cHJ pr>ijl/~nij!kj.%iiQ ]«b^'oa^?nj- te (lPiXf.cn3W

7 Clj- S|W^V

NOXiOW ^mV3H3H 'R M3N "TVIVJ. — 3iAaS iO S|/)Qi. :: •

jat^O^SUlQ /.• • ^ V/'^'/

8S=1IHV

"orKwfiD-Wijfe

mod 30 siv3c^c^v

N.iK'

,9
* Local Rule 47.5 provides: "The publication of opinions

that have no precedential value and merely decide particular cases on the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes needless expense on the public and burdens on the legal profession." Pursuant to that Rule, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________ No. 95-20091 Summary Calendar

__________________
CLEMMIE RAY WICKWARE, Petitioner-Appellant,

versus WAYNE SCOTT, Director, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION, Respondent-Appellee.

--------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. CA-H-93-1186

---------------------- (October 4, 1995) Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DUHÉ, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Clemmie Ray Wickware has filed a motion for leave to file an out-of-time brief in support of his motion for a certificate of probable cause (CPC). The issuance of a CPC is required to take an appeal from a final order in a habeas corpus proceeding only "where the detention complained of arises out of process issued by a State court." See28 U.S.C. § 2253. The issuance of a CPCNo. 95-20091 -2-
is not necessary to provide appellate jurisdiction because Wickware's complained of detention does not arise out of process issued by a State court. Id . Thus, Wickware's motions for leave to file an out-of-time brief and for a CPC are DENIED as
unnecessary. Wickware's petition must be construed as seeking relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 because he is contesting the manner in which his sentence is being executed by the Texas Parole Board.
See Story v. Collins , 920 F.2d 1247, 1250 (5th Cir. 1991) (jurisdiction over state prisoner's good conduct claim is based on § 2241 rather than § 2254). Wickware has not shown that he is entitled to § 2241 relief inasmuch as he has received the presentence credits to which he argues he is entitled. This court previously affirmed the dismissal of Wickware's suit filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against prison officials for an alleged conspiracy to miscalculate time served. Wickware v. Stice , No. 94-40480 (5th Cir. Oct. 12, 1994) (unpublished; copy attached). The court noted that "the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals responded to Wickware's post-conviction writ of habeas corpus by granting relief and ordering the prison system to grant Wickware additional time credit." Id . at op. p. 2. Given that Wickware has pursued his quest for presentence credits despite the relief he received from the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals and this court's recognition of the same, the instant petition is frivolous. Wickware is hereby warned that the filing of frivolous appeals in the future will result in sanctions, monetary or otherwise. See, e.g. , Smith v. McCleod ,No. 95-20091 -3-
946 F.2d 417, 418 (5th Cir. 1991); Jackson v. Carpenter , 921 F.2d 68, 69 (5th Cir. 1991). The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

PRINCE G. ROBERTS,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D18-2734

[December 27, 2018]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.850 motion from the Circuit Court for 

the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, Okeechobee County; Michael C. Heisey, 

Judge; L.T. Case No. 07000259CFAXMX.

Prince Roberts, Orlando, pro se.

No appearance required for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

CIKLIN, LEVINE and KUNTZ, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
#### In the Matter of Daniel Kramer, Petitioner, v New York State Racing and Wagering Board et al., Respondents.

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the New York State Racing and Wagering Board, dated December 1, 1988, which, after a hearing, confirmed a determination denying the petitioner’s 1988 application for a harness racing owner’s license.

Adjudged that the determination is confirmed and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits, with costs.

The petitioner renewed his application for a harness racing owner’s license in 1988 after his previous application was denied on the ground that his character and general fitness *629were such that his participation in racing would be inconsistent with the public interest and the best interest of racing generally *(see, Kramer v New York State Racing & Wagering Bd.,*153 AD2d 606 [decided herewith]). The New York State Racing and Wagering Board (hereinafter the Board) denied his application on the ground, *inter alia,*that there was insufficient evidence of rehabilitation. The weight to be given evidence of rehabilitation is the responsibility of the Board *(see, Matter of Cantor v New York State Racing & Wagering Bd.,*73 AD2d 544), and we conclude that the Board’s determination is supported by substantial evidence. This court’s determination is without prejudice to the petitioner’s right to reapply in the future for a license *(see, Matter of Warner v New York State Racing & Wagering Bd.,*126 AD2d 956; *Matter of Cantor v New York State Racing & Wagering Bd., supra).*The petitioner’s remaining contentions are without merit. Bracken, J. P., Kunzeman, Sullivan and Balletta, JJ., concur.
Case 1:07-cv-05315-AKH Document 36 Filed 05/29/2008 Page 1 of 3
Case 1:07-cv-05315-AKH Document 36 Filed 05/29/2008 Page 2 of 3
Case 1:07-cv-05315-AKH Document 36 Filed 05/29/2008 Page 3 of 3
EXHIBIT 32
 Certification Pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as Adopted Pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
   (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.
 Dated: May 12, 2008
    By:
    /s/ Philippe TartavullPhilippe TartavullChief Executive Officer and President Dated: May 12, 2008
    By:
    /s/ Robert M. VreelandRobert M. VreelandInterim Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit
32





CERTIFICATION
OF THE


PRINCIPAL
EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER


PURSUANT
TO


18 U.S.C.
SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I, Richard F. Sommer, the Chief
Executive Officer of LiveDeal, Inc., certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that
the Quarterly Report of LiveDeal, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June
30, 2009 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Quarterly
Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of LiveDeal, Inc.





Date:
      August 14, 2009
                  /s/
      Richard F. SommerRichard
      F. SommerChief
      Executive Officer





I, Rajeev Seshadri, the Chief
Financial Officer of LiveDeal, Inc., certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that
the Quarterly Report of LiveDeal, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June
30, 2009 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Quarterly
Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of LiveDeal, Inc.





Date:
      August 14, 2009
                  /s/  Rajeev
      SeshadriRajeev
      SeshadriChief
      Financial Officer
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Postal Rate Commission

# AGENCY:

Postal Rate Commission. 

# ACTION:

Notice of commission briefing.

# SUMMARY:

The Commission's Office of the Consumer Advocate will host a briefing on two federal laws relating to electronic signatures: the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act and the Electronic Signature in Global and National Commerce Act. Mr. R. David Whitaker will give the briefing. 

# DATES:

Thursday, May 24, 2001, at 10:30 a.m.

# ADDRESSES:

The briefing will be held in the Postal Rate Commission's hearing room, 1333 H St. NW., Suite 300, Washington, DC 20268-0001. 

# FOR MORE INFORMATION CONTACT:

Stephen L.Sharfman, General Counsel, 202-789-6820.

Authority: 39 CFR 3002.7(a). 

Dated: April 30, 2001. 

Steven W. Williams, 

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 01-11200 Filed 5-3-01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7710-FW-M
##### 



Exhibit 20.3 Independent Accountants Report Mellon Bank Premium Finance Loan Master Trust
c/o Wells Fargo Bank Minnesota, N.A., as Trustee: AFCO Credit Corporation, as Servicer
AFCO Acceptance Corporation, as Servicer We have examined the accompanying assertion made by management on AFCO Credit
Corporations and AFCO Acceptance Corporations (jointly, AFCO) compliance, as Servicer,
with Sections 4.2, 4.3, 4.5 and 8.8 of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement for the
Mellon Bank Premium Finance Loan Master Trust dated June 15,
2001, Sections 4.7(a)(i)
and 4.8 of the Supplement (Series 2004-1) dated June 17, 2004 (as amended,
collectively, the Agreements), for the period June 1, 2004 through December 31, 2004.
Management is responsible for AFCOs compliance with the aforementioned sections of the
Agreements. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on managements assertion about
AFCOs compliance based upon our examination. Or examination was conducted in accordance with attestation standards established by the
American Institute of Certified Public Accountants and, accordingly, included examining,
on a test basis, evidence about AFCOs compliance with the aforementioned sections of
the Agreements and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the
circumstances. We believe our examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion.
Our examination does not provide a legal determination on AFCOs compliance with the
Agreements. In our opinion, managements assertion that AFCO was materially in compliance with the
aforementioned sections of the Agreements for the period June 1, 2004 through
December 31, 2004 is fairly stated, in all material respects. /s/ KPMG, LLP
 Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
March 25, 2005 E - 4




---



##### 



Management Report on AFCO Credit Corporations and AFCO Acceptance Corporations
Compliance, as Servicer, with the Servicing Requirements of the Pooling and Servicing
Agreement Management of AFCO Credit Corporation and AFCO Acceptance Corporation (jointly,
AFCO), as Servicer, is responsible for compliance with the servicing requirements
in Sections 4.2, 4.3, 4.5, and 8.8 of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement for the
Mellon Bank Premium Finance Loan Master Trust dated June 15, 2001 and Sections
4.7(a)(i) and 4.8 of the Supplement (Series 2004-MC) dated as of June 24, 2004. Management has performed an evaluation of AFCOs compliance with the aforementioned
sections of the Agreements for the period January 1, 2004 through December 31, 2004.
Based upon this evaluation, management believes that, for the period January 1, 2004
through December 31, 2004, AFCO, as Servicer, was materially in compliance with the
aforementioned sections of the Agreements. /s/     Daryl J. Zupan
    
    
    
    /s/     Bruce R. GoldDaryl J. Zupan
    
    
    
    Bruce R. GoldPresident
    
    
    
    Senior Vice President, Treasurer,and Chief Financial Officer
 March 25, 2005 E - 5
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 86 (Thursday, May 3, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 22223]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-11053]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission


Notice of Initiation of Proceeding and Refund Effective Date

April 27, 2001.
    San Diego Gas & Electric Company, Complainant, v. Sellers of 
Energy and Ancillary Service Into Markets Operated by the California 
Independent System Operator and the California Power Exchange, 
Respondents; Docket No. EL00-95-012.
    Investigation of Practices of the California Independent System 
Operator and the California Power Exchange; Docket No. EL00-98-000.
    California Independent System Operator Corporation; Docket No. 
RT01-85-000.
    Investigation of Wholesale Rates of Public Utility Sellers of 
Energy and Ancillary Services in the Western Systems Coordinating 
Council; Docket No. EL01-68-000.

    Take notice that on April 26, 2001, the Commission issued an order 
in the above-indicated dockets initiating a proceeding in Docket No. 
EL01-68-000 under section 206 of the Federal Power Act.
    The refund effective date in Docket No. EL01-68-000 will be 60 days 
after publication of this notice in the Federal Register.

David P. Boergers,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 01-11053 Filed 5-2-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

DA 23-0575

_________________

RIKKI HELD; LANDER B., by and through his 

guardian Sara Busse; BADGE B., by and through his 

guardian Sara Busse; SARIEL SANDOVAL; KIAN T., 

by and through his guardian Todd Tanner;

GEORGIANNA FISCHER; KATHRYN GRACE 

GIBSON-SNYDER; EVA L., by and through her 

guardian Mark Lighthiser; MIKA K., by and through 

his guardian Rachel Kantor; OLIVIA VESOVICH; 

JEFFREY K., by and through his guardian Laura King; 

NATHANIEL K., by and through his guardian Laura 

King; CLAIRE VLASES; RUBY D., by and through 

her guardian Shane Doyle; LILIAN D., by and through 

her guardian Shane Doyle; TALEAH HERNÁNDEZ,

 Plaintiffs and Appellees,

 v.

STATE OF MONTANA, GOVERNOR GREG 

GIANFORTE, MONTANA DEPARTMENT OF 

ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY, MONTANA

DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND 

CONSERVATION, and MONTANA DEPARTMENT 

OF TRANSPORTATION,

 Defendants and Appellants.

O R D E R

_________________

Byron L. Trackwell has filed a motion to file an amicus brief. Trackwell has 

attached a proposed amicus brief to his motion. Good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED. The Clerk is directed 

to file the brief attached to the motion. 

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

November 22 2023

11/22/2023

Case Number: DA 23-0575
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 

–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––x 

IN RE VIVENDI UNIVERSAL, S.A. 

SECURITIES LITIGATION 

This Document Relates To: 

07 Civ. 5742 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

No. 02 Civ. 5571 (RJH) (HBP) 

–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––x 

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE

Please enter the appearance of Joseph A. Fonti, a member of the bar of this Court, as counsel 

for Plaintiffs Capitalia Asset Management SGR S.p.A. and Capitalia Investment Management S.A. 

in the above-captioned action. 

Dated: New York, New York Respectfully submitted, 

January 10, 2008 

LABATON SUCHAROW LLP 

 By: /s/ Eric Belfi__ 

 Eric Belfi (EB-8895) 

 Joseph A. Fonti (JF-3201) 

 140 Broadway 

 New York, New York 10005 

 Telephone: 212-907-0700 

 Facsimile: 212-818-0477 

 Attorneys for Plaintiffs Capitalia Asset 

 Management SGR S.p.A. and Capitalia 

 Investment Management S.A. 

Case 1:07-cv-05742-RJH Document 26 Filed 01/10/2008 Page 1 of 2
Certificate of Service

I hereby certify that on January 10, 2008, I caused the foregoing Notice of Appearance to be 

electronically filed with the Clerk of the Court through the Court’s CM/ECF system, which will send 

notification of such public filing to all counsel registered to receive such notice, and to be sent by 

U.S. mail, first class postage prepaid, to the following counsel: 

Michael T. Reynolds 

Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP 

Worldwide Plaza 

825 Eighth Avenue 

New York, NY 10019 

Michael J. Malone 

King & Spalding LLP 

1185 Avenue of the Americas 

New York, NY 10036 

Michael E. Swartz, Esq. 

Schulte Roth & Zabel LLP 

919 Third Avenue 

New York, NY 10022 

 /s/ Joseph A. Fonti 

Joseph A. Fonti (JF-3201) 

Case 1:07-cv-05742-RJH Document 26 Filed 01/10/2008 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 11.1

In accordance with the disclosure requirements of SFAS 128, a 
reconciliation of the numerator and denominator of basic and diluted 
EPS is provided below. 

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>          
(Unaudited and in thousands, except per share amounts)                         
                         
                                    Three months ended               Nine months ended     
                                          March, 31                      March, 31     
                                     1999          1998              1999          1998
<S>                                 <C>          <C>               <C>          <C>
Numerator - Basic and Diluted EPS:                         
Net income                         $(3,666)       $ 4,034          $ 8,693      $ 14,985 

Denominator - Basic EPS:                    
   Common stock outstanding          33,098        33,531           33,133        29,107

Basic earnings per share             ($0.11)       $ 0.12           $ 0.26        $ 0.51 
                                    =======      =======          =======        ======

Denominator - Diluted EPS:                         
   Denominator - Basic EPS           33,098        33,531           33,133        29,107
Effect of Dilutive Securities 
Common stock options                      -         1,981            1,376         1,631
                                    -------       -------          ------        ------
Diluted shares outstanding           33,098        35,512           34,509        30,738

Diluted earnings per share           $(0.11)       $ 0.11           $ 0.25        $ 0.49 
                                     =======      =======          =======        ======

<PAGE>                                21
</TABLE>
Case 1:07-cv-05712-MHD Document 18-12 Filed 03/25/2008 Page 1 of 9
Case 1:07-cv-05712-MHD Document 18-12 Filed 03/25/2008 Page 2 of 9
Case 1:07-cv-05712-MHD Document 18-12 Filed 03/25/2008 Page 3 of 9
Case 1:07-cv-05712-MHD Document 18-12 Filed 03/25/2008 Page 4 of 9
Case 1:07-cv-05712-MHD Document 18-12 Filed 03/25/2008 Page 5 of 9
Case 1:07-cv-05712-MHD Document 18-12 Filed 03/25/2008 Page 6 of 9
Case 1:07-cv-05712-MHD Document 18-12 Filed 03/25/2008 Page 7 of 9
Case 1:07-cv-05712-MHD Document 18-12 Filed 03/25/2008 Page 8 of 9
Case 1:07-cv-05712-MHD Document 18-12 Filed 03/25/2008 Page 9 of 9