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

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

AUGUST 1, 2007

THOMAS K. KAHN

CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 06-16610

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket Nos. 06-21054-CV-ASG & 00-40613-BKC-AJ

IN RE: EXTENSIS MANAGEMENT, INC.,

EVERSMILE DENTAL, INC.

Debtors.

_____________________________________________________

EXTENSIS MANAGEMENT, INC.,

EVERSMILE DENTAL, INC.,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

versus

CHRISTIE'S INC.,

Defendant-Appellee.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

________________________

(August 1, 2007)

Before ANDERSON, BARKETT and COX, Circuit Judges.
2

PER CURIAM:

Extensis Management, Inc. and Eversmile Dental, Inc., Appellants, seek review

of the district court's judgment affirming the orders of the Bankruptcy Court which

allowed the claim of Christie's, Inc., Appellee.

We have considered the briefs, and relevant parts of the record, and find no

reversible error. We conclude that the orders of the Bankruptcy Court were properly

affirmed for the reasons stated in the district court's well-reasoned opinion. (R.1-18.)

AFFIRMED.
EX-31 Rule 13a-14(d)/15d-14(d) Certification.

  Re: Soundview Home Loan Trust, Series 2007-1
  Asset Backed Certificates, Series 2007-1

  I, Molly Yackel, certify that:

  1.I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form
    10-D required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this
    report on Form 10-K Soundview Home Loan Trust 2007-1 (the "Exchange Act
    periodic reports");

  2.Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a
    whole, do 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 this report;

  3.Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and other
    information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period
    covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;

  4.I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the
    servicers and based on my knowledge and the compliance reviews
    conducted in preparing the servicer compliance statements required in
    this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed
    in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicers have fulfilled
    their obligations under the servicing agreements in all material
    respects; and

  5.All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria
    for asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on
    assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed
    securities required to be included in this report in accordance
    with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and
    15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as
    otherwise disclosed in this report. Any material instances of
    noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in this
    report on Form 10-K.

    In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on
    information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties:
    Central Mortgage Company as Servicer, Countrywide Home Loans Servicing
    LP as Servicer, GMAC Mortgage, LLC f/k/a GMAC Mortgage Corporataion as
    Servicer and Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC as Servicer.

    Dated:   March 28, 2008


    /s/ Molly Yackel
    Signature

    Vice President
    (Senior officer in charge of the servicing function of the master
    servicer)
#### Mone Mustafaj, Appellant, v Walter Driscoll, Defendant, and Jorge Lugo, Respondent.

[773 NYS2d 26]

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Barry Salman, J.), entered September 16, 2003, which granted defendant Lugo’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the action against him, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff, who sustained injuries as a result of a three-car collision, was a passenger in the first vehicle in the toll lane at the Triboro Bridge. The second vehicle, driven by defendant Lugo, was stopped behind plaintiffs vehicle when it was struck in the rear by the third car, driven by defendant Driscoll. Plaintiff alleged negligence on the part of both defendants. Driscoll subsequently settled with plaintiff.

In a chain-reaction collision, responsibility presumptively rests with the rearmost driver, i.e., Driscoll *(see Bendik v Dy*
      *139
      *bowski,*227 AD2d 228 [1996]; *Rue v Stokes,*191 AD2d 245, 246 [1993]). Plaintiff contends that an issue of fact is raised in the affidavit of her son, the driver of her vehicle, who asserted that Lugo stopped suddenly only four feet behind them.

Stop-and-go movement is to be anticipated in a toll lane. The evidence shows that both plaintiffs vehicle and the Lugo vehicle were able to stop safely prior to the collision. The son did not actually witness Lugo’s alleged sudden stop, but claims in conclusory fashion that he heard Lugo stop short, without explaining how he came to attribute that sound to the Lugo vehicle, as opposed to any other vehicle *(cf. Levine v Taylor,*268 AD2d 566 [2000]). What is undisputed is that Driscoll first rear-ended Lugo, propelling Lugo into the vehicle in which plaintiff was a passenger. Plaintiff has failed to raise a triable issue sufficient to defeat Lugo’s motion for summary judgment. Concur— Nardelli, J.P., Andrias, Sullivan and Lerner, JJ.
Second Department,

March, 2004

(March 1, 2004)

#### Beneficial Mortgage Corporation, Respondent, v Carl Lawrence et al., Appellants.

[772 NYS2d 713]

*340In an action to cancel and expunge a mortgage satisfaction erroneously made and recorded, the defendants appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Lefkowitz, J.), entered April 23, 2002, which, inter alia, upon granting the plaintiffs’ motion to strike their answer for failure to comply with discovery requests, in effect, cancelled the mortgage satisfaction.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the defendants’ contentions, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in striking their answer. Although striking a pleading pursuant to CPLR 3126 is a drastic remedy, it is warranted where a party’s conduct is shown to be willful, contumacious, or in bad faith *(see Frias v Fortini,*240 AD2d 467 [1997]). In this case, the willful and contumacious character of the defendants’ failure to respond to discovery can be inferred from their repeated refusals to comply with the plaintiffs discovery requests, even after being directed do so by court order, as well as the inadequate explanations offered to excuse their failures to comply *(see Conch Assoc. v PMCC Mtge. Corp.,*303 AD2d 538 [2003]; *Pryzant v City of New York,*300 AD2d 383 [2002]).

Moreover, the defendants are deemed to have admitted all traversable allegations in the complaint as a result of having their answer stricken *(see Lavi v Lavi,*256 AD2d 602 [1998]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly determined the satisfaction of mortgage invalid and ineffective *(see Matter of Barclays Bank of N.Y.,*96 AD2d 594 [1983]).

The defendants’ remaining contentions are without merit. Smith, J.P., Goldstein, Luciano and Adams, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                         258,709
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,018,067
<ALLOWANCES>                                   300,000
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,444,072
<PP&E>                                      10,698,208
<DEPRECIATION>                               8,355,849
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               9,310,590
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        7,590,623
<BONDS>                                        950,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         7,365
<OTHER-SE>                                   (271,883)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 9,310,590
<SALES>                                      8,226,404
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             8,226,404
<CGS>                                        7,326,226
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                7,326,226
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             6,445,529
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               559,042
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             554,059
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (6,086,276)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (6,086,276)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.83)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.83)
        

</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 236 (Friday, December 8, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 63075]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-29880]



=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT

[RI 25-49]


Notice of Intention to Request Review of a Revised Information 
Collection

AGENCY: Office of Personnel Management.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Public 
Law 104-13, May 22, 1995), this notice announces that the Office of 
Personnel Management intends to submit to the Office of Management and 
Budget a request for clearance of a revised information collection, RI 
25-49, Verification of Adult Student Enrollment Status, is used to 
verify that adult students are entitled to payments, OPM needs to know 
that a full-time enrollment has been maintained.
    We estimate 10,000 RI 25-49 forms are completed annually. Each form 
takes approximately 60 minutes to complete. The annual estimated burden 
is 10,000 hours.
    For copies of this proposal, contact Jim Farron on (202) 418-3208, 
or E-mail to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#751f18131407071a1b3518141c195b1a05185b121a03"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="52383f343320203d3c123f333b3e7c3d223f7c353d24">[email protected]</span></a>

DATES: Comments on this proposal should be received on or before 
February 6, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Send or deliver comments to--Lorraine E. Dettman, Chief, 
Retirement and Insurance Service, Operations Support Division, U.S. 
Office of Personnel Management, 1900 E Street, NW., Room 3349, 
Washington, DC 20415.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION REGARDING ADMINISTRATIVE COORDINATION--CONTACT: 
Mary Beth Smith-Toomey, Management Services Division, (202) 606-0623.

Office of Personnel Management.
Lorraine A. Green,
Deputy Director.
[FR Doc. 95-29880 Filed 12-7-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6325-01-M

</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
EXHIBIT 32.2


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 Annual Report of Energy Fuels Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K/A (Amendment 1) for the period ended December 31, 2018 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, David C. Frydenlund, Chief Financial Officer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §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, 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 Company.

/s/ David C. FrydenlundDavid C. FrydenlundChief Financial Officer(Principal Financial Officer)


Date: March 12, 2019


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 Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Project Category and Billing Category Hours

PG&E Corporation, et al. (Case No. 19-30088 (DM))

For the Period September 1, 2019 through September 30, 2019

Summary by Project Category and Billing Category

Total 

Compensation

Exhibit A

PwC LLP - Management, Tax and Advisory Consultants to the Debtors

Fixed Fee Services

North Bay & Camp Fire Services Retention Exhibit #: SUPP 01-B; 01-E

North Bay & Camp Fire Services - C.O. #11 & C.O. #2 5,024.30 $2,334,422.00

Subtotal - North Bay & Camp Fire Services 5,024.30 $2,334,422.00

Controls Testing Services Retention Exhibit #: 01-I

Controls Testing Services 744.90 $88,365.00

Subtotal - Controls Testing Services 744.90 $88,365.00

Subtotal - Hours and Compensation - Fixed Fee Services 5,769.20 $2,422,787.00

Hourly Services

Rate Case Support Services Retention Exhibit #: 01-L; SUPP 01-J

Rate Case Support Services 149.00 $59,200.00

Subtotal - Rate Case Support Services 149.00 $59,200.00

Wildfire Mitigation Plan Support Services Retention Exhibit #: SUPP 01-U

WMP Support Services 65.50 $18,372.50

Subtotal - Wildfire Mitigation Plan Support Services 65.50 $18,372.50

Subtotal - Hours and Compensation - Hourly Services 214.50 $77,572.50

Case Administration

Retention Exhibit #: CASE

4.70 $2,585.00

11.20 $5,705.00

Bankruptcy Requirements and Other Court Obligations

Employment Applications and Other Court Filings

Monthly, Interim and Final Fee Applications

Subtotal - Bankruptcy Requirements and Other Court Obligations 15.90 $8,290.00

Subtotal - Hours and Compensation - Case Administration 15.90 $8,290.00

Total - Hours and Compensation Sought for Reimbursement 5,999.60 $2,508,649.50

Monday, December 30, 2019

Page 1 of 1

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 5230-1 Filed: 12/31/19 Entered: 12/31/19 09:50:48 Page 1

of 1
Exhibit 32.1 and Exhibit 32.2 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE AND FINANCIAL 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 Annual Report of Cytta Corp. (the Company) on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Chad Rutherford, Chief Executive and Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sect. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sect. 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 result of operations of the Company. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this certification as of the 26 day of December, 2007.  /s/ Chad Rutherford_ Chad Rutherford Chief Executive and Financial Officer
**Exhibit 99.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION1350, AS ADOPTEDPURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connectionwith the Annual Report of Carreker Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q forthe quarterly period ending April 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, John D. Carreker,Jr., Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1)          TheReport fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)          Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
| /s/   JOHN  D. CARREKER, JR. |                                            |
|---------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------|
|                                        | John D. Carreker, Jr.,  Chief Executive Officer |
|                                        |
|                                        |
| Dated:   June  12, 2003      |
|                                             |                                                 |  |

 

----
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-30727 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

GLENN PATRICK MIRE, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 97-31256 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

NEWTON SUIRE, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 98-30016 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

WILLIAM LYNCH, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana

(96-CR-60038-02)* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 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 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4.

2 -------------------- December 8, 2000

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Defendants-Appellants Glenn Patrick Mire, Newton Suire and

William Lynch appeal their convictions and sentences for conspiracy

to possess child pornography and conspiracy to ob struct justice

(Mire), making a false statement before a federal grand jury

(Suire), and suborn ation of perjury and conspiracy to obstruct

justice (Lynch), in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 371, 1512, 1622,

1612, and 2252(b)(2).

Mire argues that the district court abused its discretion in

denying, and in not granting an evidentiary hearing on, his motion

to withdraw his guilty plea. Suire contends that the district

court erred in assessing a three-lev el increase pursuant to

U.S.S.G. § 2J1.3(b )(2) for perjury resulting in substantial

interference with the administration of j ustice. Lynch asserts

that there is i nsufficient evidence to support his convictions.

Finally, both Suire and Lynch argue that the district court erred

in imposing, as conditi ons of supervised release, that Suire

refrain from contact with minors and that Lynch have no contact

with minors other than his own children.

We have reviewed the record and b riefs submitted by the

parties and find that the district court did not abuse its3

discretion in denying Mire’s motion to withdraw his guilt y plea.

S ee United States v. Carr , 740 F.2d 339, 344 (5th Cir. 1984);

United States v. Rojas

, 898 F.2d 40, 43 (5th Cir. 1990). Mire was

not entitled to an evidentiary hearing on his motion. U nited

States v. Fuller , 769 F.2d 1095, 1099 (5th Cir. 1985).

Similarly, because the district court made specific findings

in support of its assessment of a three-level increase to Suire’s

sentence pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2J1.3, there was no clear error.

United States v. Harrington , 82 F.3d 83, 83 (5th Cir. 1996).

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the jury’s

verdicts, Lynch’s convictions were amply supported by the evidence.

Unite d States v. Burns , 162 F.3d 840, 847 (5th Cir. 1998), c ert.

denied

, 526 U.S. 1076 (1999). Finally, the district court did not

commit error, plain or otherwise, by imposing special conditions on

Suire’s and Lynch’s supervised release. United States v. Coenen

,
135 F.3d 938, 940 (5th Cir. 1998).

The convictions and sentences of Mire, Suire, and Lynch are,

in all respects,

AFFIRMED.
Order entered May 9, 2022

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-22-00316-CR

EX PARTE ROBERT BEVERS

On Appeal from the County Criminal Court No. 3

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. MC20A-0523-C

ORDER

Before the Court is appellant’s May 4, 2022 motion to withdraw the appeal. 

A motion to withdraw or dismiss an appeal must be signed by both counsel and the 

appellant. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.2(a). Appellant’s motion to withdraw the appeal 

is signed only by counsel. Accordingly, we will take no action on the motion.

We ORDER appellant’s counsel to file, within FOURTEEN DAYS of the 

date of this order, an amended motion to withdraw or dismiss the appeal signed by 

both counsel and appellant. 

/s/ ERIN A. NOWELL

JUSTICE
#### John Wood, Respondent, v. Francis L. Ludlow, Appellant.

— Action No. 1.

Judgmentmodified without co>ts. Orders to be settled by Justice Pratt. Opinion by

Pratt, J.
#### John D. Griswold, Respondent, v. Helen M. Griswold, Appellant.

Judgment affirmed.

Opinion by

Barker. J.;

Smith, P. J , not sitting.