alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of Richard M. Rudnicki.

December 6, 1995.

*Supreme Judicial Court,*

Superintendence of inferior courts.

*Mandamus. Moot Question. Practice, Civil,*Moot case.

This is an appeal by Richard M. Rudnicki (petitioner) from the denial by a single justice of this court of a petition for a writ of mandamus. Several restraining orders against the petitioner were issued in the Cambridge District Court and thereafter the petitioner was criminally complained of for violating one or more of those orders. The criminal matters were disposed of as a single case on January 28, 1991, by the petitioner’s waiver of a jury trial and admission to sufficient facts resulting in a continuance for one year without a finding.

1The petitioner filed a notice of appeal and thereafter petitioned the Appeals Court to compel assembly of the record in the District Court. Mass. R.A.P. 9 (a), as amended, 378 Mass.'935 (1979). In July, 1991, a single justice of the Appeals Court denied that petition, stating, “As the criminal matter . . . was continued without a finding, the case is still in an interlocutory posture and this court is without jurisdiction to take action on the within motion.” The petitioner then filed in the county court this petition for a writ of mandamus to compel assembly of the record. The single justice of this court denied the petition and this appeal ensued.

*1007
      *Chester M. Rudnicki,*for the petitioner, submitted a brief.

Pursuant to the order in the District Court, the criminal case was dismissed on January 28, 1992. Thus, the present appeal is moot because the petitioner “no longer has a personal stake in the outcome of this litigation.” *Delaney*v. *Commonwealth,*415 Mass. 490, 492 (1993). See *Thayer Co.*v. *Binnall,*326 Mass. 467, 484-485 (1950) (writ of mandamus cannot issue when foundation on which petition rests is moot).

We note that, in his brief, the petitioner asserts several substantive errors in connection with matters unrelated to the aforementioned District Court criminal case. Those matters were not raised by the petition for a writ of mandamus and are not before us.

The order entered in the county court denying the petition for a writ of mandamus is affirmed.

*So ordered.*
| 1.   | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and |
|----------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

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

|                | BIOMODA, INC.                                                       |                                                                     |
|---------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                |                                                                |                                                                     |   |
| Dated: May 16, 2011 | By:                                                       | /s/ John J. Cousins         |   |
|                | John J. Cousins                                                     |                                                                     |
|                | President and Chief Financial Officer(Principal Accounting Officer) |                                                                     |
Exhibit 32.1

SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATIONS

This Certificate is being delivered pursuant to the requirements of Section 1350 of Chapter 63 (Mail Fraud) of Title 18
(Crimes and Criminal Procedures) of the United States Code, as adopted 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 for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Act of 1934, as amended.

The
undersigned, who are the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of Behringer Harvard Opportunity REIT II, Inc. (the "Company"), each hereby certify, to their
knowledge:

The
Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company (the "Report"), which accompanies this Certificate, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and all information contained in all Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Dated
this 29th day of March, 2011.

/s/ ROBERT S. AISNER Robert S. Aisner, Chief Executive Officer/s/ KYMBERLYN K. JANNEY Kymberlyn K. Janney Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer


---



QuickLinks
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 26 (Wednesday, February 8, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 7588]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-3093]



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

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION


Environmental Assessment and Request for Comments; Notice

AGENCY: National Science Foundation.

ACTION: Notice of environmental assessment and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The National Science Foundation (NSF) has prepared an 
Environmental Assessment for the construction and operation of a Laser 
Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory (LIGO) facility at a 
Louisiana State University site in Livingston Parish, Louisiana. LIGO 
is a scientific research program for the detection and study of cosmic 
gravitational waves. The program shall enhance our understanding of the 
nature of gravity and expand our knowledge of astrophysics. Possible 
effects of the project on wetlands have been mitigated by the 
acquisition and restoration of 39 acres of wetlands at the Cypress 
Island Nature Preserve. NSF is inviting public comment on the 
Environmental Assessment.

DATES: The NSF welcomes any comments on the environmental assessment. 
In order to be assured consideration comments must be received no later 
than March 10, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be addressed to Dr. David Berley, Program 
Manager for LIGO, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, 
Room 1015, Arlington, Virginia, 22230.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. David Berley, 703-306-1892.

    Dated: February 3, 1995.
Lawrence Rudolph,
Acting General Counsel, National Science Foundation.
[FR Doc. 95-3093 Filed 2-7-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-P
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

January 15, 2020

No. 04-19-00500-CV

Mary Ann JOHNSON,

Appellant 

v.

Chandler Elizabeth JOHNSON and Mary M. Johnson,

Appellee

From the County Court at Law No. 2, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2017PC0180

Honorable Veronica Vasquez, Judge Presiding

ORDER

On September 13, 2019, appellant Mary Ann Johnson filed Plaintiff’s Request for Taking 

of Judicial Notice. In light of our disposition of this appeal, we DENY appellant’s motion as 

moot.

Entered on this 15th day of January, 2020.

 PER CURIAM

ATTESTED TO: ___________________________

MICHAEL A. CRUZ,

Clerk of Court
Exhibit 32.1

# CERTIFICATION PURSUANT
TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly
Report of Washington Banking Company (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period
ended June 30, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the Report), I, Michal D. Cann, Chief Executive Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 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; and
|--- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|(2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
          respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company as of,
          and for, the periods presented in the Report.
|--- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This certification is being furnished
solely to comply with the requirements of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, and shall not be
incorporated by reference into any of the Companys filings under the Securities Act
of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, or otherwise be deemed to be filed as part
of the Report or under such Acts.

/s/ Michal D. Cann

Michal D. CannChief Executive
Officer

August 13, 2004
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM (A) The
Balance Sheets, Statement of Operations and Footnotes to the Company's 10Q AND
IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH (B)
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0001058581
<NAME> PLAINWELL INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                           2,504
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   26,678
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (1,226)
<INVENTORY>                                     21,169
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                51,908
<PP&E>                                         163,225
<DEPRECIATION>                                (31,025)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 217,901
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           67,534
<BONDS>                                        152,300
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             1
<OTHER-SE>                                    (14,301)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   217,901
<SALES>                                         60,107
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                60,107
<CGS>                                           63,161
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   63,161
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 5,408
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,814
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (13,276)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       150
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (13,426)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (13,426)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 32



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly  Report of Meditecnic, Inc. (the "Company") on Form  10-QSB for the quarter  ended March 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof  (the "Report"),  I, Bernard Arbalet, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 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 and Exchange Act of 1934; and



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



/s/ Bernard Arbalet

By: Bernard Arbalet

Chief Executive  Officer

November 6, 2008
Long-range 

actuarial 

balance

Annual 

balance in 

75th year

Long-range 

actuarial 

balance

Annual 

balance in 

75th year

Long-range 

actuarial 

balance

Annual 

balance in 

75th year

-3.61 -4.35 0.65 1.52 18% 35%

Estimates based on the intermediate assumptions of the 2023 Trustees Report Office of the Chief Actuary

Social Security Administration

August 1, 2023

Summary Measures and Graphs

Category of Change: Retirement Age

Current law

[percent of payroll]

Change from current law

[percent of payroll] Shortfall eliminated

Proposed Provision: C2.2. Starting for those age 62 in 2024, index the normal retirement age (NRA) to 

maintain a constant ratio of expected retirement years (life expectancy at NRA) to potential work years 

(NRA minus 20). We assume the NRA will increase 1 month every 2 years. Also, raise the earliest 

eligibility age (EEA) for retired-workers, aged widow(er)s, and disabled widow(er)s by the same amount as 

the NRA starting for those attaining 62 in 2024.

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

14.0

16.0

18.0

20.0

2023 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090

Percent

Year

OASDI Cost Rates and Income Rates

(as a percentage of taxable payroll)

Income rates under current law

Income rates with this provision

Cost rates under current law

Cost rates with this provision

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

2023 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090

Percent

Year

OASDI Trust Fund Ratio

(assets as a percentage of annual expenditures)

Current law With this provision
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 241 (Friday, December 15, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 64449]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-30560]



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

INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION


Notice of Intent to Engage in Compensated Intercorporate Hauling 
Operations

    This is to provide notice as required by 49 U.S.C. 10524(b)(1) that 
the named corporations intend to provide or use compensated 
intercorporate hauling operations as authorized in 49 U.S.C. 10524(b).
    1. The parent corporation and principal office is: ARR-MAZ 
PRODUCTS, L.P., 621 Snively Avenue, Winter Haven, FL 33880, 941-293-
7884.
    2. The wholly owned subsidiary which will participate in the 
operation is: AMP Trucking, Inc., 1001 American Superior Blvd., Winter 
Haven, FL 33880, 941-293-7884.
    States of Incorporation are: Delaware, Florida, Louisiana, North 
Carolina.
Vernon A. Williams,
Secretary.
FR Doc. 95-30560 Filed 12-14-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7035-01-M
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-6811

ROBERT EDWARD LUNDQUIST,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Chief District

Judge. (CA-96-1047-5-F)

Submitted: November 6, 1997 Decided: November 25, 1997

Before WIDENER and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert Edward Lundquist, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge,

III, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA, Raleigh,

North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying

relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 &

Supp. 1997). We have reviewed the record and the district court's

opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district

court. Lundquist v. North Carolina, No. CA-96-1047-5-F (E.D.N.C.

Apr. 24, 1997). We dispense with oral argument because the facts

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-7306

RICHARD DAVID DEGOUT, Petitioner - Appellant, versus TERRY O’BRIEN, Warden, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, Senior District Judge. (7:07-cv-00374-jct) Submitted: December 13, 2007 Decided: December 20, 2007 Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Richard David Degout, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: Richard David Degout seeks to appeal the district court’s order treating his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000), as a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion and dismissing it on that basis. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000); Reid v. Angelone , 369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th Cir. 2004). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Degout has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
WILLIAM ALFREDO URQUILLA

- PINO,

Petitioner,

v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

Respondent. No. 15

- 71786 Agency No. A205

- 847

- 670

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 2 , 2020 * *
Before: WALLACE, CLIFTON, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.
William Alfredo Urquilla

- Pino, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review factual findings for

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

DEC 9 2020
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 15

- 71786

substantial evidence. Duran

- Rodriguez v. Barr , 918 F.3d 1025, 1028 (9th Cir. 2019). We deny the petition for review. Substantial evidence supports the finding that Urquilla

- Pino failed to establish he would be persecuted on account of a protected ground , where the evidence in the record does not show that membership in his proposed social groups motivated or would motiva te the gang activity Urquilla

- Pino fears. See Ayala v. Holder , 640 F.3d 1095, 1097 (9th Cir. 2011) (“[A petitioner] must establish that any persecution was or will be on account of his membership in such group.”) In addition, a n applicant’s “desire to be free from harassment by criminals motivated by theft or random violence by gang members bears no nexus to a protected ground

. ” Zetino v. Holder , 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010)

. Thus, Urquilla

- Pino ’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. Substantial evidence also supports the BIA ’s denial of CAT relief, where Urquilla

- Pino failed to show it is more likely than not he will be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to El Salvador. See Delgado

- Or tiz v. Holder , 600 F.3d 1148, 1152 (9th Cir. 2010) (“generalized evidence of violence and crime” insufficient for CAT relief). Urquilla

- Pino’s
contention that the BIA failed to give his claim thorough consideration is unsupported. See Cole v. Holder , 659 F.3d 762, 771

- 72 (9th Cir. 2011).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
#### The People of the State of New York *ex rel.*Bernard Earl v. Joseph Steinert, Justice, etc.

Judgment reversed, without costs.

Opinion by

Dykman, J.
Exhibit 23.1

 

Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

 

 

The Board of Directors

HSBC Finance Corporation

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statement (No. 333-131714-04) on Form S-3 of HSBC Automotive Trust (USA) 2007 – 1 of our attestation report dated March 3, 2008 with respect to HSBC Finance Corporation’s (the Company) assessment of compliance with the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Regulation ABapplicable to the servicing of asset backed securitization transactions backed by auto loan receivables, except for the criteria set forth in Sections 1122(d)(1)(ii), 1122(d)(1)(iii), 1122(d)(2)(i), 1122(d)(2)(iii), 1122(d)(2)(vi), 1122(d)(3)(i)(D), 1122(d)(4)(i), 1122(d)(4)(ii), 1122(d)(4)(iv), 1122(d)(4)(vi), 1122(d)(4)(vii), 1122(d)(4)(viii), 1122(d)(4)(ix), 1122(d)(4)(x), 1122(d)(4)(xi), 1122(d)(4)(xii), 1122(d)(4)(xiii), 1122(4)(xiv), and 1122(d)(4)(xv),  which the Company has determined are notapplicable to the Company’s activities with respect to HSBC Automotive Trust (USA) 2007 – 1, as of and for the period from January 31, 2007 (date of issuance of the initial asset-backed securitization transaction covered by this report) through December 31, 2007, which report appears in the December 31, 2007 annual report on Form 10-K of HSBC Automotive Trust (USA) 2007 – 1. 

 

/s/ KPMG LLP

 

Chicago, Illinois

March 24, 2008