alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### William S. Haberek vs. Commonwealth.

November 15, 1995.

*Practice, Criminal,*Postconviction relief, Assistance of counsel.

William S. Haberek * (defendant) was convicted of murder in the first degree in 1985. See *Commonwealth*v. *Habarek,*402 Mass. 105 (1988). In 1992, the defendant sought a release from custody and a new trial. He also sought an evidentiary hearing on his motion. The trial judge denied the motion without a hearing on the ground that the motion raised no “question which could not have been raised in the original appeal.” The defendant sought leave to appeal from a single justice of this court. See G. L. c. 278, § 33E (1994 ed.). The defendant also sought remand to the Superior Court for an evidentiary hearing before another Superior Court judge (not the trial judge). The single justice denied the defendant’s motions. The defendant appeals.

It was error for the trial judge to deny without a hearing the defendant’s motion for a new trial and release from custody based on the defendant’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. Because the same counsel was both the trial attorney and the appellate attorney, the ineffective assistance of counsel claim could not have been raised earlier. “Without expressing *1006any view as to the merits of [the defendant’s] claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, we are constrained to reverse the order denying the motion for a new trial and to remand the case to the Superior Court for consideration of the motion for new trial on its merits.”1*Commonwealth*v. *Lanoue,*400 Mass. 1007, 1008 (1987), *S.C.,*409 Mass. 1 (1990). Because there must be a remand, all issues are open at the hearing on the motion for a new trial. The case is remanded to the county court where an appropriate order consistent with this opinion is to be entered.

The case was submitted on briefs.

*William S. Haberek,*pro se.

*William R. Freeman,*Assistant District Attorney, for the Commonwealth.

*So ordered.*

*

The court adopted the correct spelling of the defendant’s surname, “Haberek,” while noting the spelling, “Habarek,” in the case reported at 402 Mass. 105 (1988). — Reporter.

1

The defendant’s motion for assignment of the evidentiary hearing to a judge other than the trial judge is denied. The defendant’s motion to investigate the Committee for Public Counsel Services (CPCS) and to refer CPCS’s conduct to the Board of Bar Overseers is denied. The motion for discovery is for the Superior Court judge.

The record appendix does not conform to Mass. R.A.P. 9, 378 Mass. 935 (1979). We remind pro se litigants that they “are held to the same standards as practicing members of the bar.” *Commonwealth*v. *Jackson,*419 Mass. 716, 719 (1995). Failure to conform to appellate procedure may result in dismissal of the appeal.
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED APRIL 7, 2023

NO. 03

- 22

- 00820

- CV

Phillip "Baby Shark" Scott , Appellant

v.

Comal County Magistrate Andrew Leonie , Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE COUNTY COURT OF COMAL COUNTY

BE FORE CH IEF JUSTI CE BYRNE, JUSTICES TRIANA AND THEOFANIS
DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION

-- OPINION BY JUSTICE THEOFANIS

Having reviewed the record

, it appears that the C ourt lacks jurisdiction over t he appeal

.

Therefore, the C ourt dismisses the appeal for want of jurisdiction

. Because appellant is indigent

and unable to pay costs, no adjudication of costs is made.
Exhibit 21.1

KKR Financial Holdings LLC  List of Subsidiaries

Company

Jurisdiction of
Incorporation or
FormationKKR TRS Holdings, Ltd.

Cayman IslandsKKR Financial Holdings, Inc.

DelawareKKR Financial Holdings II, LLC

DelawareKKR Financial Holdings III, LLC

DelawareKKR Financial Holdings IV, LLC

DelawareKKR Financial CLO Holdings, LLC

DelawareKKR Financial CDO 2005-1, Ltd.

Cayman IslandsKKR Financial CLO 2005-1, Ltd.

Cayman IslandsKKR Financial CLO 2005-2, Ltd.

Cayman IslandsKKR Financial CLO 2006-1, Ltd.

Cayman IslandsKKR Financial CLO 2007-1, Ltd.

Cayman IslandsKKR Financial CLO 2007-A, Ltd.

Cayman IslandsKKR Financial CLO 2009-1, Ltd.

Cayman IslandsKKR Financial Holdings, Ltd.

Cayman IslandsKFH PE Holdings I LLC

DelawareKFH PE Holdings II LLC

DelawareKFH PE Holdings III LLC

DelawareKFN PE Holdings IV LLC

DelawareKFN PEI V, LLC

DelawareKFN PEI VII, LLC

DelawareKFN PEI IX, LLC

DelawareKFN PEI XI, LLC

DelawareKKR Financial Capital Trust I

DelawareKKR Financial Capital Trust II

DelawareKKR Financial Capital Trust III

DelawareKKR Financial Capital Trust IV

DelawareKKR Financial Capital Trust V

DelawareKKR Financial Capital Trust VI

DelawareKFH Royalties LLC

DelawareKFH III Holdings Ltd

Cayman IslandsKFN NR Investors L.P.

DelawareKFN NR Investors G.P. LLC.

DelawareKFN NR Mineral Holdings LLC.

DelawareKFN NR Equipment Holdings LLC.

Delaware


---



QuickLinks
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

#### **SECTION 1350CERTIFICATIONS**

#### ** **

This Certificate is being delivered pursuant to therequirements of Section 1350 of Chapter 63 (Mail Fraud) of Title 18(Crimes and Criminal Procedures) of the United States Code, as adopted pursuantto Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and shall not, except tothe extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed forpurposes of Section 18 of the Securities Act of 1934, as amended.

 

The undersigned, who are the Chief Executive Officerand Chief Financial Officer of Behringer Harvard Opportunity REIT II, Inc.(the “Company”), each hereby certify as follows:

 

The Special Financial Report on Form 10-K of theCompany (the “Report”), which accompanies this Certificate, fully complies withthe requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, and all information contained in the Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of the Company.

 

Datedthis 31st day of March, 2009.

 

 
|   | /s/ Robert S.  Aisner    |
|--------|--------------------------|
|   | Robert S.  Aisner,       |
|   | Chief Executive  Officer |
|   |                     |
|   |                     |
|   | /s/ Gary S.  Bresky      |
|   | Gary S. Bresky,          |
|   | Chief Financial  Officer |

 

----
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED**

**PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Carreker Corporation (theCompany) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending July 31, 2005 as filedwith the Securities and Exchange 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 theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1)  The Report fully complies with therequirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)  The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.

 

 
| /s/    | JOHN  D. CARREKER, JR.                              |   |
|--------|-----------------------------------------------------|--------|
|   | John D. Carreker, Jr., Chief Executive Officer |

 

 

Dated:             September 8, 2005

 

1

----
```
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 26 (Wednesday, February 8, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 7525]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-3033]

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

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

National Committee on Foreign Medical Education and Accreditation

    Date and Time: Thursday, February 16, 1995, 9:00 a.m. until 5:30 
p.m. Friday, February 17, 1995, 9:00 a.m. until noon.
    Place: Wyndham Bristol Hotel, 2430 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., 
Washington, DC 20037.
    Status: Parts of this meeting will be open to the public. Parts of 
this meeting will be closed to the public.
    Matters to be Considered: The standards of accreditation applied to 
medical schools by a number of foreign countries and the comparability 
of those standards to standards of accreditation applied to United 
States medical schools.
    Discussions of the standards of accreditation will be held in 
sessions open to the public. Discussions directly bearing upon the 
determinations of comparability will be held in closed sessions.
    Discussions of determinations of comparability must be closed to 
the public because premature disclosure of any determination might 
significantly frustrate the implementation of a proposed Department 
action.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The National Committee on Foreign Medical 
Education and Accreditation is established under section 481 of the 
Higher Education Act, as amended (20 U.S.C. 1088). This Committee is 
not an advisory committee under the Federal Advisory Committee Act but 
rather carries out operational activities of the U.S. Department of 
Education.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carol F. Sperry, Executive Director, 
National Committee on Foreign Medical Education and Accreditation, 600 
Independence Avenue, SW., Room 3905, ROB #3, Washington, DC 20202-7563. 
Telephone: (202) 260-3636. Beginning Monday, February 13, 1995, you may 
call to obtain the identity of the countries whose standards are to be 
evaluated during this meeting.
David A. Longanecker,
Assistant Secretary for Postsecondary Education.
[FR Doc. 95-3033 Filed 2-7-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-M
```
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5439 

To direct the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to publish a health advisory and submit reports with respect to Microcystins 

in drinking water. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 10, 2014 

Ms. KAPTUR introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To direct the Administrator of the Environmental Protection 

Agency to publish a health advisory and submit reports 

with respect to Microcystins in drinking water. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Safe and Secure 

5 Drinking Water Act of 2014’’. 

6 SEC. 2. MICROCYSTINS IN DRINKING WATER. 

7 (a) HEALTH ADVISORY.—Not later than 90 days 

8 after the date of enactment of this Act, the Administrator 

9 of the Environmental Protection Agency (in this Act reVerDate Mar 15 2010 00:19 Sep 12, 2014 Jkt 039200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H5439.IH H5439

emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5439 IH

1 ferred to as the ‘‘Administrator’’) shall develop and pub2 lish a health advisory including recommendations on— 

3 (1)(A) the level of Microcystins in drinking 

4 water below which the water is expected to be safe 

5 for human consumption; and 

6 (B) feasible treatment techniques and other 

7 means for achieving such level; and 

8 (2) standardized procedures for testing for 

9 Microcystins in drinking water. 

10 (b) PERIODIC REPORTS.— 

11 (1) IN GENERAL.—Until the Administrator 

12 makes a determination of whether or not to regulate 

13 Microcystins in drinking water under section 

14 1412(b) of the Safe Drinking Water Act (42 U.S.C. 

15 300g–1(b)), the Administrator shall submit reports 

16 as required by paragraph (2). 

17 (2) REPORTING REQUIREMENTS.—Not later 

18 than 120 days after the date of enactment of this 

19 Act, and every year thereafter, the Administrator 

20 shall submit to the Congress a report on the fol21 lowing: 

22 (A) The status of the Administrator’s ef23 forts to determine whether to regulate drinking 

24 water with respect to the level of Microcystins. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 5439 IH

1 (B) The steps taken by the Administrator 

2 to promote testing of drinking water for 

3 Microcystins in areas that have been affected by 

4 harmful algal blooms. 

5 (C) An analysis of available treatment 

6 techniques and other means for addressing 

7 Microcystins in drinking water. 

Æ 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 32.1



Certifications



Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Keystone Automotive Operations, Inc. (the
Company), hereby certifies that, to his knowledge, the Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the three and six month periods ended July 2, 2005 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                      |  |     |  |                                      
|--------------------- |  | --- |  | -------------------------------------
|Date: August 16, 2005 |  | By: |  | /s/ ROBERT S. VOR BROKER             
|                      |  |     |  | Robert S. Vor Broker                 
|                      |  |     |  | Chief Executive Officer and President



The foregoing certification is being
furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.



27
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 240 (Thursday, December 14, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 64160]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-30430]



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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. RP96-76-000]


Colorado Interstate Gas Company; Notice of Tariff Filing

December 8, 1995.
    Take notice that on December 4, 1995, Colorado Interstate Gas 
Company (CIG), tendered for filing to become part of its FERC Gas 
Tariff, First Revised Volume No. 1, the following revised tariff 
sheets, to be effective January 1, 1996.

Third Revised Sheet No. 284

Original Sheet No. 284A
Original Sheet No. 284B
Original Sheet No. 284C

First Revised Sheet No. 285

First Revised Sheet No. 286

First Revised Sheet No. 287

First Revised Sheet No. 289

    CIG proposes this revision to clarify the allocation of capacity to 
firm Shippers using Secondary Capacity. Specifically, CIG proposes a 
non-bump policy in connection with Secondary Capacity. A firm Shipper 
with quantities allocated through Secondary Capacity shall retain its 
capacity allocation (subject to certain conditions) until the end of a 
capacity constraint or the end of the month (whichever occurs first). 
CIG also proposes that the capacity allocation for a Secondary Point 
Shipper that fails to tender quantities equal to its capacity 
allocation during a capacity constraint for two consecutive days will 
drop to the Shipper's average tenders to CIG at the pertinent location 
during the two day period.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to make any protest with 
reference to said application should file a motion to intervene or 
protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First 
Street, N.E., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with the requirements 
of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or 
385.211) and the Regulations. Pursuant to Section 154.210 of the 
Commission's regulations, all such motions or protests must be filed 
not later than 12 days after the date of the filing noted above. All 
protests filed with the Commission will be considered by it in 
determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to 
make the protestants parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to 
become a party to must file a motion to intervene. Copies of this 
filing are on file with the Commission and are available for public 
inspection in the Public Reference Room.
Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-30430 Filed 12-13-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
EXHIBIT 32.2



Certification of Chief Financial Officer

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

to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002



The undersigned, the Chief Financial Officer of SAVVIS, Inc.
(the Company), hereby certifies that, to his knowledge on the date hereof:



|(a) | the quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2005, filed on the date hereof with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report) fully complies with
the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934: and
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|(b) | information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
|--- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                     |  |     |  |                          
|-------------------- |  | --- |  | -------------------------
|Date: August 5, 2005 |  | By: |  | /s/ Jeffrey H. Von Deylen
|                     |  |     |  | Jeffrey H. Von Deylen    
|                     |  |     |  | Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit B 

Wildfires 

1. Butte Fire (2015) 

2. North Bay Wildfires (2017): 

a. LaPorte 

b. McCourtney 

c. Lobo 

d. Honey 

e. Redwood / Potter Valley 

f. Sulphur 

g. Cherokee 

h. 37 

i. Blue 

j. Pocket 

k. Atlas 

l. Cascade 

m. Nuns 

n. Adobe 

o. Norrbom 

p. Pressley 

q. Partrick 

r. Pythian / Oakmont 

s. Maacama 

t. Tubbs 

u. Point 

v. Sullivan 

3. Camp Fire (2018)

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3966-2 Filed: 09/23/19 Entered: 09/23/19 11:38:49 Page 1

of 1
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

 

SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATIONS

 

In connectionwith the Quarterly Report of Northwest Airlines Corporation  (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the periodending September 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commissionon the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Bernard L. Han, Chief Financial Officerof the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1) The Report fully complieswith the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Actof 1934; and

 

(2) The information containedin the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of the Company.

 
| /s/  Bernard L. Han |   |
|--------------------------|--------|
|                     |
| Bernard L.  Han          |
| Chief Financial  Officer |
| November 10,  2003       |

 

----
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 02-10474

Conference Calendar

 

YVONNE EVETTE BROWN,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

THE TEXAS BOARD OF NURSE EXAMINERS,

Defendant-Appellee.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:01-CV-2315-M

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

February 19, 2003

Before WIENER, EMILIO M. GARZA, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Yvonne Evette Brown (“Brown”) appeals the district court’s 

dismissal of her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint for lack of subject

matter jurisdiction. Brown argues that the district court erred

in denying her motion for a default judgment against the Texas

Board of Nurse Examiners. This court reviews the denial of a

default judgment for abuse of discretion. Lewis v. Lynn, 236

F.3d 766, 767 (5th Cir. 2001). The district court did not abuse

its discretion in denying Brown’s motion for a default judgment
No. 02-10474

-2-

because Brown has not demonstrated that the 11-day delay between

the Board serving her with a copy of its motion to dismiss and

filing the motion in the clerk’s office was sufficiently

“extreme” to warrant the “drastic remedy” of a default judgment. 

See id. 

Brown also contends that her case should be reinstated

because she was not given an opportunity to respond to the

magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. The record

indicates that the district court held that it would consider

Brown’s objections if they impacted the issue of whether the

court had subject matter jurisdiction, but Brown did not file

objections. Consequently, Brown’s argument lacks merit. 

Brown does not address the district court’s dismissal of her

complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. This court

“will not raise and discuss legal issues that [an appellant has]

failed to assert.” See Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff

Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987). Brown’s failure to

identify any error in the district court’s legal analysis or the

application of law is the same as if she had not appealed that

judgment. Id. 

Because Brown’s appeal is without merit, and it is DISMISSED

as frivolous. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 

(5th Cir. 1983); 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.