alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
N OTE : This disposition is nonprecedential.



# United States **Court of Appeals** 

**for the Federal Circuit**

______________________

IN RE: C. DOUGLASS THOMAS,

Appellant

______________________

2019

- 2053

______________________

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark

Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. 11/253,299.

______________________

JUDGMENT

______________________

C. D OUGLASS T HOMAS , TI Law Group, PC, San Jose,

CA, argued pro se

.

N ICHOLAS T HEODORE M ATICH

, IV, Office of the Solicitor,

United States Patent and Trademark Office, Alexandria,

VA, argued for appellee Andrei Iancu. Also represented by

T HOMAS W. K RAUSE

, A MY J. N ELSON

.

______________________

T HIS C AUSE ha ving been heard and considered, it is

O RDERED and A DJUDGED :

P ER C URIAM (L OURIE

, S CHALL

, and C HEN

, Circuit

Judges ). Case: 19-2053 Document: 23 Page: 1 Filed: 03/05/2020AFFIRMED. See Fed . Cir. R. 36.

E NTERED BY O RDE R OF THE C OURT

March 5, 2020

Date /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner

Peter R. Marksteiner

Clerk of Court Case: 19-2053 Document: 23 Page: 2 Filed: 03/05/2020
STATE of North Carolina v. Willie James LANGLEY, Defendant.

No. COA16-1107-2

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: December 18, 2018

NO ERROR.
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 accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-K of Sun River Energy,
Inc. for the year ended April 30, 2010, I, Donal R. Schmidt, Jr., Chief
Executive Officer and President (Principal Executive and Financial Officer) of
Sun River Energy, Inc., hereby 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:





a)
            such
      Annual Report on Form 10-K of Sun River Energy, Inc. for the year ended
      April 30, 2010, fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
      15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
  and





b)           the
information contained in such Annual Report on Form 10-K of Sun River Energy,
Inc. for the year ended April 30, 2010, fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Sun River Energy,
Inc.








Date:  August
13, 2010


/s/
      Donal R. Schmidt, Jr.Donal
      R. Schmidt, Jr. Chief Executive Officer and President (Principal Executive
      and Financial Officer)




This
certification accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
The  schedule  contains  summary  financial   information   extracted  from  the
Consolidated  Balance  Sheet  as of  December  31,  1998,  and the  Consolidated
Statement  of  Operations  for the year ended  December 31, 1998 of Mission West
Properties,  Inc.,  and is  qualified  in its  entirety  by  reference  to  such
financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                     1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998 
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                             246
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                         521,439
<DEPRECIATION>                                  (5,410)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 519,866
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             8
<OTHER-SE>                                      33,245
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   519,866
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                31,756
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    4,821
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 6,911
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               8,196
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   (221)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               (221)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (221)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     (.13)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.13)
        

</TABLE>
SYKES, et al. v. HEALTH NETWORK SOLUTIONS, INC., et al.

251PA18-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

February 13, 2019

Robert E. Fields, III, Attorney at Law, Samuel Pinero, II, Attorney at Law, William A. Blancato, GAL Appellate Attorney, Leon E. Porter, Attorney at Law, Winston-Salem, for Sykes, Susan, et al.

Ellis B. Drew, III, Attorney at Law, Winston-Salem.

Jennifer K. Van Zant, Attorney at Law, Benjamin R. Norman, Attorney at Law, Greensboro, W. Michael Dowling, Attorney at Law, for Health Network Solutions, Inc., et al.

*707The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 8th of February 2019 by Plaintiff to Seal Portions of the Reply Brief:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 13th of February 2019."
### NUMBER 13
- 1 3
- 00 330
- CV 

## COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI
- EDINBURG

____________________________________________________________ LA JOYA HOUSING AUTHORITY , A ppellant ,

v. CHASE HOME FINANCE, LLC AND CHASE MANHATTAN MORTGAGE CORPORATION , A ppellees

.

____________________________________________________________

On appeal from the 13 9th District Court of Hidalgo County, Texas

.

____________________________________________________________



## MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Rodriguez, Benavides, and Longoria

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam Appellant, La Joya Housing Authority , perfected an appeal from a judgment entered by the 139th District Court of Hidalgo County, Texas, in cause number
C

- 1417

- 07

- C . The parties have filed an agreed motion to dismiss the appeal on grounds2

that all matters in controversy between them in this cause have been settled. The parties request that this Court dismiss the appeal. The Court, having considered the documents on file and the agreed motion to dismiss, is of the opinion that the motion should be granted. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 42.1(a).
The agreed motion to dismiss is GRANTED , and the appeal is hereby DISMISSED. In accordance with the agre ement of the parties, costs are taxed against the party incurring

same. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 42.1(d) ("Absent agreement of the parties, the court will tax costs against the appellant."). Having dismissed the appeal at the parties’ request, no
motion for r ehearing will be entertained, and our mandate will issue forthwith.

P ER CURIAM
Delivered and filed the 5th day of September , 201 3

.
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.                  

###### Federal Reserve System

# AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETING:

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.

# TIME AND DATE:

11:30 a.m., Monday, October 17, 2005.

# PLACE:

Marriner S. Eccles Federal Reserve Board Building, 20th and C Streets, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20551.

# STATUS:

Closed.

# MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

1.  Personnel actions (appointments, promotions, assignments, reassignments, and salary actions) involving individual Federal Reserve System employees.

2.  Any items carried forward from a previously announced meeting.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Michelle A. Smith, Director, Office of Board Members; 202-452-2955.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                        You may call 202-452-3206 beginning at approximately 5 p.m. two business days before the meeting for a recorded announcement of bank and bank holding company applications scheduled for the meeting; or you may contact the Board's Web site at                         *http://www.federalreserve.gov*                         for an electronic announcement that not only lists applications, but also indicates procedural and other information about the meeting.                    

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, October 7, 2005.

Robert deV. Frierson,

Deputy Secretary of the Board.

[FR Doc. 05-20568 Filed 10-7-05; 3:25 pm]

BILLING CODE 6210-01-S
In the MATTER OF: G.N.R-U. & H.J.H-U.

No. COA18-49

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: July 17, 2018

AFFIRMED.
STATE of North Carolina v. Guy Tobias LEGRANDE

No. 327P02-11

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

February 7, 2019

Guy Tobias LeGrande, for LeGrande, Guy Tobias.

Daniel P. O'Brien, Special Deputy Attorney General, T. Lynn Clodfelter, District Attorney, for State of N.C.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the application filed by Defendant on the 4th of February 2019 in this matter for Writ of Habeas Corpus, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Superior Court, Stanly County:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 7th of February 2019."

Ervin, J. recused
<PAGE>
                                                                               .
                                                                               .
                                                                               .
                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1

                          SUBSIDIARIES OF THE COMPANY

<Table>
<Caption>
Name                                            Jurisdiction of Incorporation
----                                            -----------------------------
<S>                                             <C>
Brenda Buell & Associates, Inc.                 Texas
Dallas Woodcraft & Company, L.P.                Delaware (Limited Partnership)
DWC G.P., Inc.                                  Delaware
GIA, Inc.                                       Nebraska
Homco, Inc.                                     Texas
Home Interiors de Mexico S. de R.L. de C.V.     Mexico
Home Interiors Services de Mexico S.A. de C.V.  Mexico
Homco Puerto Rico, Inc.                         Delaware
Laredo Candle Company, L.P.                     Texas (Limited Partnership)
Spring Valley Scents, Inc.                      Delaware
HIG Investments, Inc.                           Delaware
HI Ceramics, S.A. de C.V.                       Mexico
HI Metals, S.A. de C.V.                         Mexico
HI Glass, S.A. de C.V.                          Mexico
HI Trading Mexicana, S.A. de C.V.               Mexico
</Table>
#### Larry Matthew PUCKETT v. STATE of Mississippi.

No. 2000-DR-01077-SCT.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Dec. 12, 2002.

Mississippi Office of Capital Post-Conviction Counsel by Terri L. Marroquin, Robert Ryan, attorneys for appellant.

Office of the Attorney General by Marvin L. White, Jr., attorneys for appellee.

McRAE, Presiding Justice,

Dissenting.

¶ 20. The analysis used by the majority to disregard this Court’s holding in *Booker v. State,*699 So.2d 132 (Miss.1997), and its adoption of the doctrine of equitable tolling are fatally flawed. For these reasons, I dissent.

¶21. The. majority disregards this Court’s holding in *Booker*■ by asserting that the decision is only a plurality decision which does not create precedent or a binding result. In my view,' *Booker*is not a plurality decision, but a .majority decision. A plurality vote is an opinion with less than five votes. In *Booker,*Justice Banks wrote the majority which was joined by Presiding Justice Prather, Presiding Justice Sullivan, and then Justice (now Chief Justice Pittman). I concurred in result only. Four (4) Justices dissented, then Justice (now Presiding Justice) Smith, Chief Justice Dan Lee, Justice Roberts, and Justice Mills. A “concurrence in result only” is a vote for the majority opinion, however signifies that there may be some points and/or statements in the majority which the Justice disagrees. “Concurring in result only” still means one is agreeing with the majority’s holding and outcome. By concurring in result only, I essentially acquiesced in Justice Banks’s opinion. Since five Justices concurred in the *Booker*opinion, it is indeed a majority opinion which did establish precedent. Contrary to the majority’s findings, *Booker*did create a binding result. The majority’s disregard for the *Booker*holding is fatally misguided. As found in *Booker,*the statute of limitations for post-conviction relief does not begin to run “until the conclusion of [the] direct appeal, which [does] not occur until the denial of rehearing of [a] petition for cer-tiorari in the United States Supreme Court from this Court’s decision [on] direct appeal.” 699 So.2d at 134. That is the law, and that is what this Court should have found here.

¶ 22. Furthermore, the majority’s adoption of the doctrine of equitable tolling as it applies to capital cases is fatally flawed. Equity should not be used to create a new defense and appeal mechanism for defendants in criminal cases who claim the delay of their post-conviction appeal was due to no fault of their own and under extenuating circumstances. By adopting the doctrine .of equitable tolling, the majority is opening a flood gate of appeals and fact intensive review. The majority’s holding creates a free-for-all standard when it comes to criminal appeals. Is equity now going to be applicable to all criminal convictions and proceedings?

¶ 23. For these reasons, I dissent.
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 for the quarter ended September 30, 2019 (the “Report”) of Hercules Capital, Inc. (the “Registrant”), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Seth H. Meyer, the Chief Financial Officer of the Registrant, certify, to the best of 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, as amended; and 

2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant. 

 

| Date: October 30, 2019 | By:    | /S/ SETH H. MEYER

                                |
|------------------------|--------|---------------------------------------------------------|
|                   |   | Seth H. Meyer                                           |
|                   |   | Chief Financial Officer, and 

Chief Accounting Officer |
Pender C. CATES, Jr. v. Peter BUCHOLTZ, Administrator

No. 443P18

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

January 9, 2019

Pender C. Cates, Jr., for Cates, Pender C. (Jr.)

Teresa M. Postell, Assistant Attorney General, Joseph L. Hyde, Assistant Attorney General, for State of North Carolina

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the application filed by Petitioner on the 18th of December 2018 in this matter for Writ of Habeas Corpus, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Superior Court, Richmond County:

"Dismissed without prejudice by order of the Court in conference, this the 9th of January 2019."
The CITY OF CHARLOTTE v. UNIVERSITY FINANCIAL PROPERTIES, LLC, et al.

183PA16-2

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 11, 2019

Benjamin R. Sullivan, Jr., Attorney at Law, Nicolas E. Tosco, Attorney at Law, Charles C. Meeker, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, DeWitt McCarley, Attorney at Law, Charlotte, for The City of Charlotte.

Martin L. White, Attorney at Law, R. Susanne Todd, Attorney at Law, Charlotte, David V. Brennan, Attorney at Law, for University Financial Properties, LLC.

Jessica Odom Wilkie, Attorney at Law, Joshua D. Hansen, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, for NC Advocates for Justice.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 8th of March 2019 by North Carolina Advocates for Justice for leave to file Amicus Curiae Brief:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 11th of March 2019."

Unless already submitted, the Amicus Brief shall be submitted to the court within the times allowed and in the manner provided by Appellate Rule 28(i).
DENY; and Opinion Filed August 22, 2019.

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 19
- 00919
- CV
IN RE STATE FARM MUT UAL AUTOMOBILE INSUR ANCE COMPANY AND TERECINA SHAHAN , Relators Original Proceeding from the County Court at Law No. 3

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CC
- 19
- 01423
- C 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Myers, Molberg, and Nowell Opinion by Justice Molberg Before the Court is relators ’ August 5, 2019 petition for writ of mandamus in which relators contend the trial court abused its discretion by denying their motion to abate extra

- contractual
claims in th e underlying underinsured motorist lawsuit. To be entitled to mandamus relief, relator s

mu st show both that the trial court has clearly abused its discretion and that relators h ave no adequate appellate remedy. In re Prudential Ins. Co ., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135

– 36 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding). After reviewing the petition and the mandamus record, we conclude relators have not shown they are entitled to the relief requested.– 2

–

Accordingly, we deny relators’ petition for writ of mandamus. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 52.8(a) (the court must deny the petition if the court determines relator is not entitled to the relief sought).

190919F.P05 /Ken Molberg/ KEN MOLBERG JUSTICE
Jonathan E. BRUNSON, Plaintiff, v. OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY FOR THE 12TH PROSECUTORIAL DISTRICT, the Office of the Cumberland County Sheriff, North Carolina Department of Social Services, Office of the 12th Judiciary, North Carolina Department of Public Safety, North Carolina Department of Justice, North Carolina Department of Human Resources, and The State of North Carolina, Defendants.

No. COA18-572

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: December 18, 2018

DISMISSED.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 May 28, 2015

Order 

Clerk

May 28, 2015

149599(100)

BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., Plaintiff-Appellant,

SC: 149599

v COA: 307756

Oakland CC: 2010-112606-CK

FIRST AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE

COMPANY, PATRIOT TITLE AGENCY, KIRK

D. SCHIEB, WESTMINSTER ABSTRACT

COMPANY, WESTMINSTER TITLE AGENCY,

INC., PRIME FINANCIAL GROUP, INC.,

VALENTINO M. TRABUCCHI, PAMELA S.

NOTTURNO, f/k/a PAMELA S. SIIRA, 

DOUGLAS K. SMITH, JOSHUA J. GRIGGS,

STATE VALUE APPRAISALS, LLC, NATHAN

B. HOGAN, and CHRISTINE D. MAYS,

Defendants-Appellees, 

and

FRED MATSON, MICHAEL LYNETT, JO KAY

JAMES, and PAUL SMITH,

Defendants.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion of plaintiff-appellant to file a 

supplemental authority letter is GRANTED. The supplemental authority letter submitted 

on May 15, 2015, is accepted for filing.
Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATION



Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

(Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code)



Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United
States Code), the undersigned officer of Heidrick & Struggles International, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the Company), does hereby certify that:



The Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2007 (the Form 10-K) of the Company 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 Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                         |  |                                                                                 
|------------------------ |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Dated: February 28, 2008 |  | /s/    Eileen A. Kamerick                                                       
|                         |  | Eileen A. Kamerick                                                              
|                         |  | Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer & Chief Administrative Officer
EXHIBIT 23.1



            Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm



Board of Directors and Stockholders
Mission West Properties, Inc.
Cupertino, California

We  hereby  consent  to the  incorporation  by  reference  in  the  Registration
Statement on Form S-3, SEC Nos.  333-133335 and 333-52835-99,  and Form S-8, SEC
File Nos.  333-80369  and  333-123466  of Mission West  Properties,  Inc. of our
reports dated March 12, 2007, relating to the consolidated  financial statements
and the  effectiveness of Mission West Properties,  Inc.'s internal control over
financial  reporting,  which appear in this Annual  Report on Form 10-K. We also
consent to the  incorporation  by  reference  of our report dated March 12, 2007
relating to the financial statement schedule which appear in this Form 10-K.


\S\ Burr, Pilger & Mayer, LLP
San Francisco, California
March 12, 2007
# C_2019103EN.01005902.xml

| 18.3.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 103/59 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.3.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 103/59

---

Order of the General Court of 31 January 2019 — PO v EEAS

(Case T-479/17) (1)

(2019/C 103/76)

Language of the case: French

The President of the Fifth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 347, 16.10.2017.

---
December 3 , 2013



### JUDGMENT 

## The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

RALPH O. DOUGLAS , Appellant

NO. 14

- 12

- 00321

- CV V.

MARISA A. MOFFETT AND KYLE A. THORNTON , Appellee s

________________________________ Today the Court heard its own motion to dismiss the appeal from the order of dismissal signed by the court below on March 13, 2012. Having considered the motion and found it meritorious, we order the appeal DISMISSED

. We further order that all costs incurred by reason of this appeal be paid by appellant, Ralph O. Douglas. We further order this decision certified below for observance.