alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### COULSON *v.*GOVERNMENT OF THE CANAL ZONE.

ERROR *TO*THE SUPREME COURT OF *THE*CANAL ZONE.

No. 187.

Motion to dismiss or affirm.

Submitted November 2, 1908.

Decided November 9, 1908.

Writ of error to review, judgment of the Supreme Court of the Canal Zone dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

*The Attorney General*and *The Solicitor General*for defendant in error in support of the motion.

*Mr. Moorfield Storey*and *Mr. Franklin E. Brooks*for plaintiff in error in opposition to motion to dismiss or affirm.

*Per Curiam:*

Writ of error dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 13

- 00670

- CV

Rosalva Ruiz v. CBL & Associates Properties, Inc.
On Appeal from the 445th District Court of Cameron County , Texas Trial Cause No. 2010

- DCL

- 8555

- I

JUDGMENT THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having cons idered this cause on appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be AFFIRMED . The Court orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED

. We further order this decision certified below for observance.

August 21, 2014
Case 1:07-cv-05340-AKH     Document 6      Filed 09/06/2007     Page 1 of 2

Case 1:07-cv-05340-AKH     Document 6      Filed 09/06/2007     Page 2 of 2
Case 1:07-cv-05552-AKH     Document 6      Filed 09/06/2007     Page 1 of 2

Case 1:07-cv-05552-AKH     Document 6      Filed 09/06/2007     Page 2 of 2
#### Jerry Lee HENDRICKS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Anthony PADULA, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 13-6306.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: May 23, 2013.

Decided: May 29, 2013.

*225Jerry Lee Hendricks, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Brendan McDonald, Office of the Attorney General of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Before MOTZ and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Jerry Lee Hendricks seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The order is not appeal-able unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2006). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); see *Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Hendricks has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED.*
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)

I, Michael Lunsford, Interim Chief Executive Officer of RealNetworks, 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 RealNetworks, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended March 31, 2011 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 RealNetworks, Inc.

Date: May 10, 2011



|    |  |                      |  |                                
|--- |  | -------------------- |  | -------------------------------
|By: |  | /s/ Michael Lunsford
|    |  | Name:                |  | Michael Lunsford               
|    |  | Title:               |  | Interim Chief Executive Officer
|    |  |                      |  | (Principal Executive Officer)  

A signed original of this
written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to RealNetworks, Inc. and will be retained by RealNetworks, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Case 1:07-cv-05796-SAS     Document 10      Filed 08/07/2007     Page 1 of 1
MIDCOAST ENERGY RESOURCES, INC AND SUBSIDIARIES

                 EXHIBIT 21.1: SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                  Year of        State of
Name                                           Incorporation   Incorporation   Ownership
---------------------------------------------  --------------  -------------   ---------
<S>                                                <C>                           <C> 
Mid Louisiana Gas Company                          1953        Delaware          100%
Creole Gas Pipeline Corporation                    1962        Louisiana         100%
Midcoast Interstate Transmission, Inc.             1966        Alabama           100%
H&W Pipeline Corporation*                          1976        Alabama           100%
Nugget Drilling Corporation*                       1982        Minnesota         100%
Tennessee River Intrastate Gas Company, Inc.       1986        Alabama           100%
Mid Louisiana Gas Transmission                     1987        Delaware          100%
Magnolia Pipeline Corporation                      1989        Alabama           100%
Midcoast Marketing, Inc.                           1991        Texas             100%
Midcoast Holdings No. One, Inc.                    1993        Delaware          100%
Magnolia Resources, Inc.                           1996        Mississippi       100%
Magnolia Gathering, Inc.                           1996        Alabama           100%
Arcadia/Midcoast Pipeline of New York L.L.C.*      1996        New York          50%
Midcoast Gas Pipeline, Inc.                        1997        Texas             100%
 Pan Grande Pipeline, L.L.C.                       1996        Texas             70%
 Starr County Gathering System - A Joint Venture    N/A        N/A               60%
 Texana Gas Pipeline - A Joint Venture              N/A        N/A               50%
Midcoast Energy Marketing, Inc.                    1998        Delaware          100%
Midcoast Gas Services, Inc.                        1998        Delaware          100%
Midcoast Del Bajio S. de R.L. de C.V.              1998        Mexico            50%
Midcoast Canada Capital, Inc.                      1999        Canada            100%
Midcoast Canada Operating Corporation              1999        Canada            100%
DPI/Midcoast, Inc.                                 1999        Mississippi       100%
</TABLE>
*  Presently Inactive
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Harold Coleman, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Westchester County (Marasco, J.), rendered December 1, 1986, convicting him of attempted burglary in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

We have reviewed the record and agree with the defendant’s assigned counsel that there are no meritorious issues which could be raised on appeal. Counsel’s application for leave to withdraw as counsel is granted *(see, Anders v California,*386 US 738; *People v Paige,*54 AD2d 631; *cf., People v Gonzalez,*47 NY2d 606). Mollen, P. J., Bracken, Rubin, Kooper and Spatt, JJ., concur.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Lewis A. Cramer, Appellant.

Mahoney, P. J.

Appeal, by permission from an order of the County Court of Albany County (Turner, Jr., J.), entered November 19, 1986, which denied defendant’s motion pursuant to CPL 440.10 to vacate the judgment convicting him of the crime of burglary in the second degree, without a hearing.

On June 21, 1983, defendant was convicted upon a guilty plea of second degree burglary and was sentenced as a predicate felon to an indeterminate prison term of 5 to 10 years. The judgment of conviction was affirmed by this court (105 AD2d 1164) and leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals was denied (64 NY2d 779).

In October 1986, defendant moved pursuant to CPL 440.10 to vacate the judgment of conviction. County Court denied the motion without a hearing. Permission to appeal from such denial was granted by a Justice of this court.

*881The gist of defendant’s motion was that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel because his attorney made no attempt to prepare a defense but simply negotiated a plea bargain and "coerced” defendant into agreeing to it. In support of his motion, defendant alleged that he informed his attorney of a number of mitigating facts including his assertions that he used to live in the house that he was charged with breaking into, certain items he was charged with removing did not belong to the complainant and other items were not of sufficient value to amount to grand larceny. Further, defendant alleges that his attorney negotiated a plea bargain with a sentence of an indeterminate prison term of 2 *Vi*to 5 years and urged him to plead guilty because he had no defense. At the time of the plea, a different Trial Judge refused to abide by the plea. Defendant alleged that his attorney simply negotiated another, less favorable, plea bargain with a prison sentence of 5 to 10 years and, again, urged him to accept it because he had no defense.

The allegations raise a triable issue of fact regarding the effectiveness of defendant’s attorney *(see, People v Welch,*108 AD2d 1020). Thus, a hearing was necessary to determine the validity of defendant’s allegations *(see,*CPL 440.30 [5]; *People v Picciotti, 4*NY2d 340, 344-345).

Order reversed, on the law, and matter remitted to the County Court of Albany County for further proceedings not inconsistent herewith. Mahoney, P. J., Kane, Main, Casey and Yesawich, Jr., JJ., concur.
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.                  

###### Department of Defense

###### GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION 

###### NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION 

          - 48 CFR Parts 2 and 37 
          - [FAC 97—22 Correction] 

# AGENCIES:

Department of Defense (DOD), General Services Administration (GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). 

# ACTION:

Corrections. 

# SUMMARY:

The Civilian Agency Acquisition Council and the Defense Acquisition Regulations Council are issuing corrections to the definition of “Performance—based contracting.” 

# EFFECTIVE DATE:

May 15, 2001. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Ms. Laurie Duarte at (202) 501-4755, General Services Administration, FAR Secretariat, Washington, DC 20405.

## Corrections 

                                In the document appearing in the                                 **Federal Register**                                 at 66 FR 2116, January 10, 2001:                             

1. On page 2124, in the bottom of the third column, revise the definition “Performance—based contracting” to read as follows: 

2.101 

* * * * *

*Performance-based contracting*                                     means structuring all aspects of an acquisition around the purpose of the work to be performed with the contract requirements set forth, in clear, specific, and objective terms with measurable outcomes as opposed to either the manner by which the work is to be performed or broad and imprecise statements of work.                                 

* * * * *

37.101 

2. On page 2133, in instruction number 93., remove the words “ ‘Performance-based contracting’ and”. 

Dated: May 10, 2001.

Al Matera, 

Director, Acquisition Policy Division. 

[FR Doc. 01-12214 Filed 5-14-01; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6820-EP-P
# FCM DATA MAY 2007
Case 1:07-cv-05353-AKH Document 41-3 Filed 12/06/2007 Page 1 of 24
Case 1:07-cv-05353-AKH Document 41-3 Filed 12/06/2007 Page 2 of 24
Case 1:07-cv-05353-AKH Document 41-3 Filed 12/06/2007 Page 3 of 24
Case 1:07-cv-05353-AKH Document 41-3 Filed 12/06/2007 Page 4 of 24
Case 1:07-cv-05353-AKH Document 41-3 Filed 12/06/2007 Page 5 of 24
Case 1:07-cv-05353-AKH Document 41-3 Filed 12/06/2007 Page 6 of 24
Case 1:07-cv-05353-AKH Document 41-3 Filed 12/06/2007 Page 7 of 24
Case 1:07-cv-05353-AKH Document 41-3 Filed 12/06/2007 Page 8 of 24
Case 1:07-cv-05353-AKH Document 41-3 Filed 12/06/2007 Page 9 of 24
Case 1:07-cv-05353-AKH Document 41-3 Filed 12/06/2007 Page 10 of 24
Case 1:07-cv-05353-AKH Document 41-3 Filed 12/06/2007 Page 11 of 24
Case 1:07-cv-05353-AKH Document 41-3 Filed 12/06/2007 Page 12 of 24
Case 1:07-cv-05353-AKH Document 41-3 Filed 12/06/2007 Page 13 of 24
Case 1:07-cv-05353-AKH Document 41-3 Filed 12/06/2007 Page 14 of 24
Case 1:07-cv-05353-AKH Document 41-3 Filed 12/06/2007 Page 15 of 24
Case 1:07-cv-05353-AKH Document 41-3 Filed 12/06/2007 Page 16 of 24
Case 1:07-cv-05353-AKH Document 41-3 Filed 12/06/2007 Page 17 of 24
Case 1:07-cv-05353-AKH Document 41-3 Filed 12/06/2007 Page 18 of 24
Case 1:07-cv-05353-AKH Document 41-3 Filed 12/06/2007 Page 19 of 24
Case 1:07-cv-05353-AKH Document 41-3 Filed 12/06/2007 Page 20 of 24
Case 1:07-cv-05353-AKH Document 41-3 Filed 12/06/2007 Page 21 of 24
Case 1:07-cv-05353-AKH Document 41-3 Filed 12/06/2007 Page 22 of 24
Case 1:07-cv-05353-AKH Document 41-3 Filed 12/06/2007 Page 23 of 24
Case 1:07-cv-05353-AKH Document 41-3 Filed 12/06/2007 Page 24 of 24
**Exhibit
      32.1**





**Certification
      of Principal Executive Officer**


**Pursuant
      to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to**


**Section
      906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**





In
      connection with the Quarterly Report of SRKP 16, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
      10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and
      Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Richard A. Rappaport,
      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/
                Richard A. RappaportRichard
                A. RappaportPrincipal
                Executive OfficerOctober
                22, 2008
EXHIBIT 32.1
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
 18 U.S.C. 1350,
 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
 SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 
  In connection with the Report of HERITAGE-CRYSTAL CLEAN, INC. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 20, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Joseph Chalhoub, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350,
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:
  The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
  The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
  
  Date: July 31, 2009
By: /s/ Joseph ChalhoubJoseph ChalhoubPresident, CEO and Director — Principal Executive Officer
 
  26
cme ¢é

Chicago Mercantile Exchange

20 South Wacker Drive 312/930.1000 tel
Chicago, IL 60606-7499 312/466.4410 fax
www.cme.com

November 28, 2004

Ms. Jean A. Webb

Office of the Secretariat

Commodity Futures Trading Commission
Three Lafayette Centre

1155 21" Street, NW

Washington DC 20581

RE: — Section Sc(c)1 and Regulation 40.4(b)(8) Submission. Non-Material Agricultural Rule
Change. Exchange Certification of Change in Standard Freight Rate for Live Cattle
Futures Deliveries. CME Submission #05-125.

Dear Ms. Webb:

The Standard Freight Rate is used in carcass graded deliveries of Live Cattle to compensate
sellers when the buyer requests delivery at a packing plant that is farther from the feedyard than
the delivery point stockyards. In accordance with Live Cattle Rule 10103.C.8., this rate is set
annually by the Exchange. For 2005, the rate was $2.75 per mile per contract, up 25 cents from
the $2.50 rate for 2004.

Results from a survey of livestock trucking firms show that freight rates have increased
substantially during the past year, largely due to higher fuel costs. On November 23, 2005, the
Exchange approved an increase in the Standard Freight Rate to $3.00, beginning with the
January 2006 contract month.

The Exchange certifies that this action complies with the Commodity Exchange Act and the
regulations thereunder.


Ms. Jean A. Webb

Standard Freight Rate for Live Cattle Futures
November 28, 2005

Page 2

If you have any questions regarding this submission, please contact Mr. Paul Peterson at (312)
930-4587 or via e-mail at ppeterso@cme.com . Please refer to CME Submission #05-125 in all
correspondence regarding this matter.

ie

John W. Labuszewski, Managing Director
Research & Product Development

Sincerely,
# EUR-Lex - 52005AP0191 - EN

Important legal notice

*|*

# 52005AP0191

**European Parliament legislative resolution on the proposal for a Council decision amending Decision 2000/439/EC of 29 June 2000 on a financial contribution from the Community towards the expenditure incurred by certain Member States in collecting data, and for financing studies and pilot projects for carrying out the common fisheries policy (COM(2004)0618 - C6-0243/2004 - 2004/0213(CNS)) **

*
Official Journal 117 E , 18/05/2006 P. 0119 - 0120 *

P6_TA(2005)0191

Financing CFP studies and pilot projects *

European Parliament legislative resolution on the proposal for a Council decision amending Decision 2000/439/EC of 29 June 2000 on a financial contribution from the Community towards the expenditure incurred by certain Member States in collecting data, and for financing studies and pilot projects for carrying out the common fisheries policy (COM(2004)0618 — C6-0243/2004 — 2004/0213(CNS))

(Consultation procedure)

The European Parliament,

- having regard to the Commission proposal to the Council (COM(2004)0618) [1],

- having regard to Article 37 of the EC Treaty, pursuant to which the Council consulted Parliament (C6-0243/2004),

- having regard to Rule 51 of its Rules of Procedure,

- having regard to the report of the Committee on Fisheries (A6-0113/2005),

1. Approves the Commission proposal;

2. Calls on the Council to notify Parliament if it intends to depart from the text approved by Parliament;

3. Asks the Council to consult Parliament again if it intends to amend the Commission proposal substantially;

4. Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council and the Commission.

[1] Not yet published in OJ.

--------------------------------------------------
Case 1:07-cv-05785-PAC Document 26 Filed 08/17/2007 Page 1 of 25
Case 1:07-cv-05785-PAC Document 26 Filed 08/17/2007 Page 2 of 25
Case 1:07-cv-05785-PAC Document 26 Filed 08/17/2007 Page 3 of 25
Case 1:07-cv-05785-PAC Document 26 Filed 08/17/2007 Page 4 of 25
Case 1:07-cv-05785-PAC Document 26 Filed 08/17/2007 Page 5 of 25
Case 1:07-cv-05785-PAC Document 26 Filed 08/17/2007 Page 6 of 25
Case 1:07-cv-05785-PAC Document 26 Filed 08/17/2007 Page 7 of 25
Case 1:07-cv-05785-PAC Document 26 Filed 08/17/2007 Page 8 of 25
Case 1:07-cv-05785-PAC Document 26 Filed 08/17/2007 Page 9 of 25
Case 1:07-cv-05785-PAC Document 26 Filed 08/17/2007 Page 10 of 25
Case 1:07-cv-05785-PAC Document 26 Filed 08/17/2007 Page 11 of 25
Case 1:07-cv-05785-PAC Document 26 Filed 08/17/2007 Page 12 of 25
Case 1:07-cv-05785-PAC Document 26 Filed 08/17/2007 Page 13 of 25
Case 1:07-cv-05785-PAC Document 26 Filed 08/17/2007 Page 14 of 25
Case 1:07-cv-05785-PAC Document 26 Filed 08/17/2007 Page 15 of 25
Case 1:07-cv-05785-PAC Document 26 Filed 08/17/2007 Page 16 of 25
Case 1:07-cv-05785-PAC Document 26 Filed 08/17/2007 Page 17 of 25
Case 1:07-cv-05785-PAC Document 26 Filed 08/17/2007 Page 18 of 25
Case 1:07-cv-05785-PAC Document 26 Filed 08/17/2007 Page 19 of 25
Case 1:07-cv-05785-PAC Document 26 Filed 08/17/2007 Page 20 of 25
Case 1:07-cv-05785-PAC Document 26 Filed 08/17/2007 Page 21 of 25
Case 1:07-cv-05785-PAC Document 26 Filed 08/17/2007 Page 22 of 25
Case 1:07-cv-05785-PAC Document 26 Filed 08/17/2007 Page 23 of 25
Case 1:07-cv-05785-PAC Document 26 Filed 08/17/2007 Page 24 of 25
Case 1:07-cv-05785-PAC Document 26 Filed 08/17/2007 Page 25 of 25
NO. 07-07-0384-CR and 07-07-0385-CR

	IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

	FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	AT AMARILLO

	PANEL A

	MAY 13, 2008

	______________________________

	RITO L. PEREZ, APPELLANT

	V.

	THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

	_________________________________

	FROM THE 121ST DISTRICT COURT OF YOAKUM COUNTY;

	NO. 2525, 2526; HONORABLE KELLY G. MOORE, JUDGE

	_______________________________

Before CAMPBELL and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ.

	ON MOTION TO DISMISS

	Before the Court is appellant’s motion to dismiss his appeals pursuant to Rule 42.2 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure.  Rule 42.2 states that at any time before the appellate court’s decision, the court may dismiss an appeal upon the appellant’s motion.  Tex. R. App. P. 42.2(a).  The appellant and his attorney must sign the written motion to dismiss.  Id.  

	All of the requirements of Rule 42.2(a) have been satisfied.  The Court has considered appellant’s motion and concludes the motion should be granted and the appeals should be dismissed.

	Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed.  No motion for rehearing will be entertained and our mandates will issue forthwith.  

							Mackey K. Hancock

							          Justice

Do not publish.