alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

MARSHALL DIVISION

DISPLAY TECHNOLOGIES, LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

WONDERSHARE TECHNOLOGY 

GROUP CO LTD.,

Defendant.

Case No. 2:24-cv-00046

Jury Trial Demanded 

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO WITHDRAW PROOF OF SERVICE

The Court, having considered Plaintiff Display Technologies, LLC’s Motion to Withdraw the 

Proof of Service at Docket No. 4, and Plaintiff having contemporaneously filed a replacement Affidavit 

of Service, is of the opinion that the Motion should be GRANTED.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Case 2:24-cv-00046-JRG-RSP Document 9-1 Filed 04/04/24 Page 1 of 1 PageID #: 105
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.1 CERTIFICATION REQUIRED BY
RULE 13a-14(b) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION 
 In
connection with Amendment No. 1 to the Quarterly Report of Origen Financial, Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the period September 30, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the
undersigned officers, Ronald A. Klein and W. Anderson Geater, Jr., hereby
certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that, to their knowledge: 
  (1)
    
    Such Amendment No. 1 to the Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and(2)
    
    The information contained in Such Amendment No. 1 to the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of
the Company. /s/ Ronald A. Klein
    
    Dated: August 12, 2005Ronald A. Klein, Chief Executive Officer/s/ W. Anderson Geater, Jr.
    
    Dated:
August 12, 2005W. Anderson Geater, Jr., Chief Financial Officer
Zaid ABDUL-AZIZ, Petitioner, v. NATIONAL BASKETBALL ASSOCIATION PLAYERS' PENSION PLAN.

No. 19-1007.

Supreme Court of the United States.

March 23, 2020

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.
Omar SAUNDERS, Petitioner, v. Steven JOHNSON, Administrator, New Jersey State Prison, et al.

No. 19-8155.

Supreme Court of the United States.

May 4, 2020

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA

Present: Judges Fitzpatrick, Overton and Senior Judge Hodges Argued at Salem, Virginia

EUGENE ZINCKE AND STORM ZINCKE MEMORANDUM OPINION * BY v. Record No. 2819-95-3 JUDGE NELSON T. OVERTON JULY 2, 1996 JANE ROHRER AND HARRISONBURG ROCKINGHAM SOCIAL SERVICES DISTRICT

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF ROCKINGHAM COUNTY Dennis L. Hupp, Judge Dabney Overton, Jr., for appellants. L. Quinn Taylor for appellee Harrisonburg Rockingham Social Services District. No brief or argument for appellee Jane Rohrer.

* Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not designated for publication. Eugene and Storm Zincke appeal from the decision of the circuit court to award custody of their niece to the Harrisonburg Rockingham Social Services with the right to place the child for adoption and to consent thereto. Appellants contend that the circuit court judge did not properly consider several factors, including the blood relationship between the appellants and the

child. On appeal, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the party prevailing below, giving it all reasonable inferences fairly deducible therefrom. Farley v. Farley , 9 Va. App. 326, 328, 387 S.E.2d 794, 795 (1990). "Where, as here, the- 2 - court hears the evidence ore tenus, its finding is entitled to great weight and will not be disturbed on appeal unless plainly wrong or without evidence to support it." Martin v. Pittsylvania County Dep't of Social Servs. , 3 Va. App. 15, 20, 348 S.E.2d 13, 16 (1986). The record demonstrates that the circuit court gave proper consideration to all of the issues of which appellants complain. The evidence presented, particularly the lack of contact between appellants and the child, clearly supports the conclusions of the circuit court judge. Accordingly, the order of the circuit court is affirmed.

Affirmed.
Charles FRITSCHE, Petitioner v. Robert LEGRAND, Warden, et al.

No. 19-5711

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 7, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

No. 21

- 40810 Summary Calendar

**United States of America,**

Plaintiff

— Appellee **,**

versus

**Blake Andrew Simmons,**

Defendant

— Appellant

**.**

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 1:21

- CR

- 7

- 2

Before **Higginbotham, Graves,**  and **Ho,** Circuit Judges

**. Per Curiam**  **:** *

The attorney appointed to represent Blake Andrew Simmons has
moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Simmons has not filed a response. We have reviewed

* Pursuant to **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  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 **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED August 18, 2022

Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 21-40810 Document: 00516438547 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/18/2022No. 21

- 40810

2 counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to
withdraw is **GRANTED** , counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the **APPEAL IS DISMISSED**

. See **5th Cir. R.** 42.2

. Case: 21-40810 Document: 00516438547 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/18/2022
IA 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. J. RES. 112 

Providing for the approval of the Congress of the proposed Third Amendment 

to the Agreement for Co-operation Between the United States of America 

and the International Atomic Energy Agency that was transmitted to 

Congress on January 29, 2014. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 5, 2014 

Mr. ROYCE (for himself and Mr. ENGEL) introduced the following joint 

resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs 

JOINT RESOLUTION 

Providing for the approval of the Congress of the proposed 

Third Amendment to the Agreement for Co-operation 

Between the United States of America and the International Atomic Energy Agency that was transmitted 

to Congress on January 29, 2014. 

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 That the Congress does favor the proposed agreement for 

4 cooperation transmitted to the Congress by the President 

5 on January 29, 2014. 

Æ 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-6541

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

TERRY LAVELLE INGRAM,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at 

Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (5:18-cr-00061-BO-2; 5:20-cv-00691-BO)

Submitted: October 18, 2022 Decided: October 21, 2022

Before WYNN and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Terry Lavelle Ingram, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 22-6541 Doc: 6 Filed: 10/21/2022 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Terry Lavelle Ingram seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 

28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge 

issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B). 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). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a 

prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists could find the 

district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v. 

Davis, 137 S. Ct. 759, 773-74 (2017). When the district court denies relief on procedural 

grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is 

debatable and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. 

Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 140-41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473,

484 (2000)). 

Limiting our review of the record to the issues raised in Ingram’s informal brief, we

conclude that Ingram has not made the requisite showing.*

 See 4th Cir. R. 34(b); Jackson 

v. Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir. 2014) (“The informal brief is an important 

document; under Fourth Circuit rules, our review is limited to issues preserved in that 

brief.”). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.

* We decline to consider Ingram’s actual innocence and ineffective assistance 

claims that he raises for the first time on appeal. See Hicks v. Ferreyra, 965 F.3d 302, 310 

(4th Cir. 2020) (“It is well established that this court does not consider issues raised for the 

first time on appeal, absent exceptional circumstances.” (cleaned up)).

USCA4 Appeal: 22-6541 Doc: 6 Filed: 10/21/2022 Pg: 2 of 3
3

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

USCA4 Appeal: 22-6541 Doc: 6 Filed: 10/21/2022 Pg: 3 of 3
EXHIBIT 32.a

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 Boston Capital Tax Credit Fund V L.P. (the "Fund") on Form 10-Q for the period ended December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, John P. Manning, Principal Executive Officer of the Fund's general partner, Boston Capital Associates V, L.L.C., certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge, after due inquiry:



|(1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a)-15 or 15(d)-15 of the Securities and 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 Fund.



|                  |  |                            
|----------------- |  | ---------------------------
|Date:             |  |                            
|February 22, 2005 |  | /s/ John P. Manning        
|                  |  |                            
|                  |  | John P. Manning            
|                  |  | Principal Executive 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 the Fund and will be retained by the Fund and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Johnny L. DAWSON, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 19-7314.

Supreme Court of the United States.

April 20, 2020

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
EXHIBIT 35.1








ANNUAL SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT PURSUANT TO ITEM 1123 OF REGULATION AB





CARMAX BUSINESS SERVICES, LLC








The undersigned, a duly authorized officer of CarMax Business Services, LLC, as Servicer pursuant to Section 3.10 of the Sale and Servicing Agreement dated as of October 1, 2017 (the "Sale and Servicing Agreement") among CarMax Auto Owner Trust 2017-4, as Issuer (the "Issuer"), CarMax Auto Funding LLC, as Depositor, and CarMax Business Services, LLC, as Servicer (the "Servicer"), does hereby certify that:





|   |                                                                                                              
|-- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|1. | CarMax Business Services, LLC is, as of the date hereof, the Servicer under the Sale and Servicing Agreement.




|   |                                                                                      
|-- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|2. | The undersigned is duly authorized to execute and deliver this Officer's Certificate.




|   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          
|-- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|3. | A review of the activities of the Servicer during the period beginning onMarch 1, 2018and ending onFebruary 28, 2019and of the Servicer's performance under the Sale and Servicing Agreement was made under my supervision.  To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Sale and Servicing Agreement in all material respects throughout such period.







Capitalized terms used in this certificate and not otherwise defined herein have the meanings assigned to them in the Sale and Servicing Agreement.





IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned, a duly authorized officer of the Servicer, has duly executed this Officer's Certificate this 23rd day of May, 2019 .





CARMAX BUSINESS SERVICES, LLC





/s/ Enrique Mayor-Mora


Enrique Mayor-Mora


Vice President and Treasurer
R. Jay THOMPSON, Petitioner, v. OKLAHOMA.

No. 18-9470

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 7, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma denied.
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. WR-93,583-01

EX PARTE RICARDO ANTONIO RUEBEN, Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. 1177987-A IN THE 338TH DISTRICT COURT

FROM HARRIS COUNTY

Per curiam.

O R D E R

Applicant was convicted of aggravated robbery with a deadlyweapon and sentenced to forty

years’ imprisonment. Applicant’s appeal to the Fourteenth Court of Appeals was dismissed. Rueben

v. State, No. 14-10-00345-CR (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Feb. 1, 2011) (not designated for

publication). Applicant filed this application for a writ of habeas corpus in the county of conviction,

and the district clerk forwarded it to this Court. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 11.07.

Applicant contends that appellate counsel was ineffective because appellate counsel failed

to file Applicant’s brief in his direct appeal, and appellate counsel told Applicant he needed to agree

to a dismissal so that counsel could file a writ of habeas corpus on Applicant’s behalf, which he

never did. Applicant has alleged facts that, if true, might entitle him to relief. Smith v. Robbins, 528
2

U.S. 259 (2000); Ex parte Miller, 330 S.W.3d 610 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009). Accordingly, the record

should be developed and supplemented. The trial court is the appropriate forum for findings of fact. 

TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 11.07, § 3(d). The trial court shall order appellate counsel to respond

to Applicant’s claim. The trial court shall furthersupplement the record with the Reporter’s Record

from the abatement hearing regarding Applicant’s appeal held in 2011. In developing the record,

the trial court may use any means set out in Article 11.07, § 3(d). If the trial court elects to hold a

hearing, it shall determine whether Applicant is indigent. If Applicant is indigent and wants to be

represented by counsel, the trial court shall appoint counsel to represent him at the hearing. SeeTEX.

CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 26.04. If counsel is appointed or retained, the trial court shall immediately

notify this Court of counsel’s name.

The trial court shall make findings of fact and conclusions of law as to whether appellate

counsel’s performance was deficient and Applicant was prejudiced. The trial court may make any

other findings and conclusions that it deems appropriate in response to Applicant’s claims.

The trial court shall make findings of fact and conclusions of law within ninety days from

the date of this order. The district clerk shall then immediately forward to this Court the trial court’s

findings and conclusions and the record developed on remand, including, among other things,

affidavits, motions, objections, proposed findings and conclusions, orders, and transcripts from

hearings and depositions. See TEX.R.APP. P. 73.4(b)(4). Any extensions of time must be requested

by the trial court and obtained from this Court.

Filed: March 30, 2022

Do not publish
# C_2018327EN.01001601.xml

| 17.9.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 327/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.9.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 327/16

---

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case M.9019 — Mars/AniCura)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2018/C 327/11)

1.

This notification concerns the following undertakings:

| — | Mars, Incorporated (United States), |
| --- | --- |

—

Mars, Incorporated (United States),

| — | AniCura TC AB (Sweden). |
| --- | --- |

—

AniCura TC AB (Sweden).

Mars, Incorporated (‘Mars’) will acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation sole control of the whole of AniCura TC AB (‘AniCura’).

The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.

2.

| — | Mars is a global company, headquartered in the United States, active in several business segments, including pet care. Mars' petcare segment, headquartered in Belgium, is a pet food and veterinary care provider. Mars is active in the EEA in the manufacture and provision of pet food, |
| --- | --- |

—

Mars is a global company, headquartered in the United States, active in several business segments, including pet care. Mars' petcare segment, headquartered in Belgium, is a pet food and veterinary care provider. Mars is active in the EEA in the manufacture and provision of pet food,

| — | AniCura is a provider of veterinary care for companion animals (primarily dogs and cats). AniCura is based in Stockholm, Sweden, and operates animal hospitals and clinics across several countries in the EEA (Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Austria, Germany, the Netherlands and Italy). AniCura is also active in the sales of ancillary products, including pet food, through its animal hospitals and clinics. |
| --- | --- |

—

AniCura is a provider of veterinary care for companion animals (primarily dogs and cats). AniCura is based in Stockholm, Sweden, and operates animal hospitals and clinics across several countries in the EEA (Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Austria, Germany, the Netherlands and Italy). AniCura is also active in the sales of ancillary products, including pet food, through its animal hospitals and clinics.

3.

On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of the Merger Regulation. However, the final decision on this point is reserved.

4.

Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. The following reference should always be specified:

M.9019 — Mars/AniCura

Observations can be sent to the Commission by email, by fax, or by post. Please use the contact details below:

| Email: COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu |
| --- |
| Fax +32 22964301 |
| Postal address: |
| European Commission |
| Directorate-General for Competition |
| Merger Registry |
| 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel |
| BELGIQUE/BELGIË |

Email: COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu

Fax +32 22964301

Postal address:

European Commission

Directorate-General for Competition

Merger Registry

1049 Bruxelles/Brussel

BELGIQUE/BELGIË

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1 (the ‘Merger Regulation’).

1

---
|   | (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. |
|--------|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:  August      14, 2009 | By:    | /s/ Cary J. Claiborne                                                                                                                                    |
|---------------------------------------|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                  |   | Cary      J. Claiborne                                                                                                                                   |
|                                  |   | President,      Chief Executive Officer & Chief Financial      Officer (principal executive officer, principal      financial and accountingofficer) |

----
Chris FORDHAM, Petitioner, v. CORRECTIONS OFFICER MANZOLA, et al.

No. 19-7357

Supreme Court of the United States.

March 2, 2020

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
Veronica W. OGUNSULA, Petitioner v. STAFFING NOW, INC.

No. 19-83

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 7, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit denied.

Justice Kavanaugh took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
Bert HUDSON, Petitioner, v. PENNSYLVANIA BOARD OF PROBATION AND PAROLE.

No. 19-7397.

Supreme Court of the United States.

March 23, 2020

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, Western District denied.