alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Sim

pson

T

h

acher &

B

artlett L

L

P

425 Lexington

A

ve

New

York, N

Y 10

017

Exhibit C 

Customary and Comparable Compensation Disclosures 

Category of 

Timekeeper 

BLENDED HOURLY RATE 

Billed by timekeepers in all 

domestic offices, excluding 

bankruptcy 

Billed in this Application 

Partners $1,324.10 $1,550.20 

Counsel $1,066.32 $1,219.98 

Associate $739.33 $852.36 

Paraprofessionals $284.08 $379.56 

All timekeepers 

aggregated $814.50 $1,237.69 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4767-3 Filed: 11/15/19 Entered: 11/15/19 14:36:16 Page 1

of 1
Exhibit 31.1
 
 CERTIFICATIONS
 
 I, James B. Wiegand, Chief Executive Officer, certify that:
 
 1.   I have reviewed the report being filed on Form 10-K byRosewind Corporation.
 
 2.   Based on my knowledge, the report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the  statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements  were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by the report;
 
 3.   Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in the report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of Rosewind Corporation as of, and for, the periods presented in the report;
 
 4.   I and the other certifying officer are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as such term is defined in Regulation 13a-14 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) for Rosewind Corporation and have:
 
 i.   Designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material information relating to Rosewind Corporation, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made  known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which the periodic reports are being prepared;
 
 ii.  Evaluated the effectiveness of Rosewind Corporation's disclosure controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of the report ("Evaluation Date"); and
 
 iii. Presented in the report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;
 
 5.   I and the other certifying officer have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the Rosewind Corporation auditors and the audit committee of the board of directors (or persons fulfilling the equivalent function):
 
 i.   All significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls which could adversely affect Rosewind Corporation's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data and have identified Rosewind Corporation's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and
 
 ii.  Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the issuer's internal controls; and
 
 6.   I and the other certifying officer have indicated in the report whether or not there were significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.
 
 Date: November 23, 2010
 
 By:
/s/ James B. WiegandJames B. Wiegand

President

Chief Financial Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                       4,179,656
<SECURITIES>                                    22,834
<RECEIVABLES>                                  683,534
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             8,580,192
<PP&E>                                      99,177,092
<DEPRECIATION>                              23,725,163
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              85,029,412
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        4,017,062
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   6,788,046
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                85,029,412
<SALES>                                     12,838,383
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            12,965,457
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             7,712,863
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           3,165,151
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              2,724,430
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 2,724,430
<EPS-BASIC>                                      15.73
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    15.73


</TABLE>
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano, 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.

 February 28, 2014

t0224

Order 

Clerk

February 28, 2014

148191

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 148191

COA: 314913 

Saginaw CC: 10-033662-FH

ELISHA TILLMAN, II,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 11, 2013 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

In Re:

PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY,

 Debtor.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 19-30089 (DM)

REQUEST FOR NOTICE

 TO ALL INTERESTED PARTIES:

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that American Construction and Supply, Inc., is a 

creditor in this case and hereby requests special notice of all events in the abovereferenced bankruptcy and copies of all pleadings or documents filed in relation to 

the above-referenced bankruptcy, including all pleadings or notices under Federal 

Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure, Rule 2002, the commencement of any adversary 

proceedings, the filing of any requests for hearing, objections, and/or notices of 

motion, or any other auxiliary filings, as well as notice of all matters which must be 

noticed to creditors, creditors’ committees and parties-in-interest and other notices 

as required by the United States Bankruptcy Code and Rules and/or Local Rules.

Counsel’s (for Creditor American Construction and Supply, Inc.) contact 

information for purposes of service is:

//

BLOOMFIELD LAW GROUP, INC., P.C.

Neil Jon Bloomfield, Esq. (SBN 052235)

901 E Street, Suite 100

San Rafael, CA 94901

Telephone: (415) 454-2294

Facsimile: (415) 457-5348

njbloomfield@njblaw.com

Attorney for Creditor American 

Construction and Supply, Inc.

1

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 1365 Filed: 04/12/19 Entered: 04/12/19 12:49:31 Page 1 of

2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Neil J. Bloomfield

BLOOMFIELD LAW GROUP, INC., P.C.

901 E St., Suite 100

San Rafael, CA 94901

email: njbloomfield@njblaw.com

Dated: April 12, 2019 BLOOMFIELD LAW GROUP, INC., P.C.

By /s/Neil J. Bloomfield

Neil J. Bloomfield. Attorney for Creditor 

American Construction and Supply, Inc.

2

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 1365 Filed: 04/12/19 Entered: 04/12/19 12:49:31 Page 2 of

2
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-15-00285-CR

Valence Veloat Smith

v.

The State of Texas

§

§

§

§

§

From the 432nd District Court

of Tarrant County (1317055D)

September 17, 2015

Per Curiam

(nfp)

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that 

the appeal should be dismissed. It is ordered that the appeal is dismissed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

PER CURIAM
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

September 14, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 134077 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, CHARLES NASH, Justices 

Claimant-Appellee, 

v SC: 134077 

 COA: 275069 

Muskegon CC: 06-044698-AE

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR & ECONOMIC
 GROWTH, UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE 

AGENCY,
 Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 27, 2007 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.302(G)(1), in lieu of 

granting leave to appeal, we REMAND this case to the Court of Appeals, which shall 

hold this case in abeyance pending its decision in Department of Labor & Economic 

Growth v Jordan (Court of Appeals Docket No. 272634) and Department of Labor & 

Economic Growth v Dykstra (Court of Appeals Docket No. 271535). After Jordan and 

Dykstra are decided, the Court of Appeals shall reconsider this case in light of those 

cases. 

d0911 

I, Corbin R. Davis, 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. 

September 14, 2007 

Clerk
1

The Honorable Robert T. Dawson, United States District Judge for the

Western District of Arkansas.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 01-2236

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the Western

* District of Arkansas.

Antonio Triplett, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

 Submitted: November 1, 2001

 Filed: November 5, 2001

___________

Before BOWMAN, LOKEN, and BYE, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Antonio Triplett appeals his conviction, upon his guilty plea, for possessing

with intent to distribute more than five grams of cocaine base. See 21 U.S.C.

§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B)(iii) (1994). The District Court1

 sentenced him to 200 months'

imprisonment and four years' supervised release. Triplett’s counsel has filed a brief

and moved to withdraw under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Triplett has

filed a “Motion to Withdraw, With Prejudice, the Impending Direct Appeal,” in which

he argues his plea was coerced, he did not know the nature of the charge or that the
-2-

sentence he received could be imposed, he did not receive the sentence concessions

contemplated by his plea agreement, and his counsel was ineffective. We do not

believe that Triplett actually wishes to forego his right to appeal, and thus we will

liberally construe his motion as a pro se supplemental brief.

Any complaints Triplett has about his counsel’s performance should be

presented in 28 U.S.C. § 2255 proceeding, see United States v. Cain, 134 F.3d 1345,

1352 (8th Cir. 1998), and he cannot claim on appeal that his guilty plea was

involuntary after declining to move to withdraw his plea in the District Court, cf.

United States v. Bond, 135 F.3d 1247, 1249 (8th Cir.) (per curiam) (holding that this

court need not address guilty-plea claim which defendant withdrew at sentencing

hearing), cert. denied, 524 U.S. 961 (1998). Triplett was adequately advised of the

nature of the charge and the sentence he could receive, and his sentence did not

violate his plea agreement.

Having reviewed the record independently pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488

U.S. 75 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we affirm, and we grant

counsel’s motion to withdraw.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

In re )

) Case No. 

) 

) Chapter

Debtor(s). )

____________________________________)

ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION FOR ADMISSION OF 

ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE

, whose business address and telephone number is

and who is an active member in good standing of the bar of

having applied in the above-entitled action for admission to practice in the Northern District of

California on a pro hac vice basis, representing

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the application is granted, subject to the terms and

conditions of Civil L.R. 11-3. All papers filed by the attorney must indicate appearance pro hac

vice. Service of papers upon and communication with co-counsel designated in the application

will constitute notice to the represented party. All future filings in this action are subject to the

Bankruptcy Local Rules and Electronic Case Filing Procedures adopted by the United States

Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of California. 

Dated: ____________________________________

United States Bankruptcy Judge

19-30088-DM

11

PG&E CORPORATION and 

PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC 

COMPANY,

David Wirt

131 South Dearborn Street, 30th Floor, Chicago, IL 60603 

Telephone: 312.263.3600

Illinois

Deutsche Bank

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 388-2 Filed: 02/08/19 Entered: 02/08/19 14:57:15 Page 1

of 1
Exhibit E

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4686-5 Filed: 11/12/19 Entered: 11/12/19 15:50:31 Page 1

of 3
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4686-5 Filed: 11/12/19 Entered: 11/12/19 15:50:31 Page 2

of 3
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4686-5 Filed: 11/12/19 Entered: 11/12/19 15:50:31 Page 3

of 3
Entered on Docket 

February 06, 2019

EDWARD J. EMMONS, CLERK 

U.S. BANKRUPTCY COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 336 Filed: 02/06/19 Entered: 02/06/19 16:06:25 Page 1 of 1
**EXHIBIT32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATIONOF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER UNDER SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES OXLEY ACT OF 2002, 18 U.S.C. § 1350**

 

In connection with theAnnual Report on Form 10-K of Vanguard Natural Resources, LLC (the “Company”),as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),Richard A. Robert, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certifies, pursuantto 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1)   the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)   the information contained in the Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of the Company.

 

 
|   | /s/ Richard A. Robert          |
|--------|--------------------------------|
|   | Richard A. Robert              |
|   |                           |
|   | Executive Vice  President and  |
|   | Chief Financial Officer        |
|   | (Principal Financial  Officer) |
|   |                           |
|   | March 31, 2008            |

 

----
#### Walter Langdon, Plaintiff, v. The Mayor, etc, of the City of New York, Defendant.

Report set aside and further reference ordered as directed in opinion. Opinion by

Daniels, J.
#### William H. Brockway and others, Appellants, v. John Flemming and others, Respondents.

Judgment affirmed, with costs. Opinion by

Hardin, J.
## COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02

- 14

- 00206

- CV

In the Interest of A.N. and J.N., Jr.,

Children §

§

§

§ From the 323rd District Court

o f Tarr ant County (323

- 98825J

- 13 )

November 6, 2014

Opinion by Justice Walker



### JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that

there was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of

the trial court is affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By

_ /s/ Sue Walker

____________________ Justice Sue Walke r
Case: 19-30088    Doc# 3832    Filed: 09/06/19    Entered: 09/06/19 12:50:37    Page 1 of2

Case: 19-30088    Doc# 3832    Filed: 09/06/19    Entered: 09/06/19 12:50:37    Page 2 of2
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5320 

To direct the Attorney General to provide State officials with access to 

criminal history information with respect to certain financial service 

providers required to undergo State criminal background checks, and 

for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 31, 2014 

Mr. BACHUS (for himself, Mr. SESSIONS, and Ms. MOORE) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Financial Services, 

and in addition to the Committee on the Judiciary, for a period to be 

subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration 

of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To direct the Attorney General to provide State officials 

with access to criminal history information with respect 

to certain financial service providers required to undergo 

State criminal background checks, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. BACKGROUND CHECKS. 

4 Section 1511(a) of the S.A.F.E. Mortgage Licensing 

5 Act of 2008 (12 U.S.C. 5110(a)) is amended— 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5320 IH

1 (1) by inserting after ‘‘State-licensed loan origi2 nators’’ the following: ‘‘, other financial service pro3 viders, or related businesses’’; and 

4 (2) by inserting before the period the following: 

5 ‘‘, other financial service providers, or persons work6 ing in related businesses’’. 

Æ 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### Sarah W. Pease, Executrix, et al. v. William E. Hale et al.

*Mortgages—Sale—Redemption.*

1. A mortgagor’s interest in real estate is the subject of conveyance..

*2.*A wrongful sale under a power of sale in a mortgage has no effect upon the interest of the mortgagor.

3. This court has no jurisdiction of controversies involving a freehold.

[Opinion filed October 23, 1890.]

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County; the Hon. Frank Baker, Judge, presiding.

Messrs. Cook & Upton, and Gregory, Booth & Harlan, for appellants.

Messrs. Frederic Ullmann and Charles A. Dupee, for appellees.

Gary, J.

The appeal to this court in this case was taken by Walter L. Pease, since dead, and the present appellants' are his executrix, executor and devisees. The original bill by Walter L. Pease was filed to redeem a certain lot from a sale, under a power of sale in a mortgage, under which sale the appellee, Hale, holds title. Whether that sale may be redeemed from by anybody can not be inquired into on this appeal. If anybody has such a right to, or estate in the lot, as carries with it the right to redeem from that sale, it is an equitable estate in fee; an equitable freehold. If Walter L *273Pease had such right or estate, it passed by devise to the present appellants, or to some of them. Had he made no will, it would have descended to his heirs.

A wrongful sale under a power of sale in a mortgage leaves the interest of the mortgagor “justas great as it was before.” Comm. Un. Assur. Co. v. Scammon, 126 Ill. 355, 373.

In analogous cases such rights or estates have been held to be the subject of conveyances. Whitney v. Roberts, 22 Ill. 381; Smith v. Wright, 49 Ill. 403.

How, one of the appellees is Wheeler, who claims to have acquired all the title Pease had, subject to the mortgage in the lot. Wheeler has the title under the sale upon execution, which the Supreme Court in Pease v. Ritchie, 132 Ill. 638, held to be good.

As a step preliminary to decreeing any redemption, if any could be allowed, it must be ascertained who may redeem. This involves the question of which has the freehold—equitable freehold—the appellants or Wheeler.

However certain may be the answer to that question, the question is there. What would be the answer if the Supreme Court had not decided it, would be a matter for very grave consideration, and if this court were at liberty to disregard their authority, the counsel for the appellants would strenuously contend that the Supreme Court is wrong. Without regard, therefore, to the vexed question as to whether a mere bill to redeem from an unauthorized sale under a mortgage, does or does not involve a freehold, upon which counsel have cited what everybody, including the Supreme Court, concede to be conflicting decisions, in great abundance, here is a question involving a freehold, which none of these decisions touch. Of that this court has no jurisdiction, and the appeal is dismissed.

*Appeal dismissed.*
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Stanislao Pettanza, alias Leonardo Armaeto, Appellant.

Judgment of conviction and order of the County Court of Kings county affirmed. No opinion.

Jenks, P. J„ Hirschberg, Burr, Woodward and;Rich, JJ., concurred..
#### Henry S. Myers, Respondent, v. The Long Island Railroad Company, Appellant.

Judgment and order denying new trial affirmed, with costs. Opinion by

Barnard, P. J.
#### Lyman E. Warren v. George A. Bennet and others.

Judgment affirmed.

Barker J, not sitting.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>           5
<MULTIPLIER>        1
<CURRENCY>          U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1995
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                             836
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   836
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 700,836
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           42,953
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                         3,515
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                        275
<OTHER-SE>                                     654,093
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   700,836
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                27,171
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (27,171)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     (.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.01)
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 259 Filed: 02/01/19 Entered: 02/01/19 15:03:21 Page 1 of 3
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 259 Filed: 02/01/19 Entered: 02/01/19 15:03:21 Page 2 of 3
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 259 Filed: 02/01/19 Entered: 02/01/19 15:03:21 Page 3 of 3