alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Gerry Means HAIRGROVE, Appellant, v. CRAMER FINANCIAL GROUP, INC., Appellee.

No. 2-94-196-CV.

Court of Appeals of Texas, Fort Worth.

March 23, 1995.

Rehearing Overruled May 4, 1995.

Timothy W. Sorenson, Dallas, for appellant.

John Clark Long, IV, Arlington, for appel-lee.

Before DAY, DAUPHINOT and RICHARDS, JJ.

OPINION

DAY, Justice.

Gerry Means Hairgrove (Hairgrove) appeals from a summary judgment granted in favor of Cramer Financial Group, Inc. (Cramer) in a suit for judicial foreclosure arising from Hairgrove’s default on a note held by Cramer. We affirm.

On January 30,1986, Hairgrove executed a promissory note in the amount of $75,000 to MBank-Houston, N.A., pledging certain securities purchased with the loan funds. Later, the FDIC took over MBank and sold the loan and assigned its rights in the collateral to BankOne Texas, N.A. BankOne then sold the loan and assigned its rights in the collateral to Cramer.1

Hairgrove defaulted on her note, and Cramer sought a judicial foreclosure on the remaining indebtedness. The trial court granted summary judgment for Cramer for the outstanding balance of the note plus in*875terest and attorney fees, and ordered foreclosure of the collateral.

In two points of error, Hairgrove asserts the trial court erred in granting summary judgment because BankOne failed to give Hairgrove notice of the sale of the loan and assignment of its security interest in the collateral to Cramer. Hairgrove argues that BankOne’s sale of the loan and assignment of its rights in the collateral constituted a disposition of the collateral under section 9.504 of the Texas Business and Commerce Code, thus entitling Hairgrove to notice of the disposition. *See*Tex.Bus. *&*Com.Code Ann. § 9.504(c) (Vernon 1991). We disagree.

Section 9.504 addresses the actual foreclosure sale of collateral after default. *See id.*It does not address a party assigning its rights in the collateral to another party.2 Therefore, BankOne’s sale of the loan and assignment of its rights in the collateral to Cramer does not constitute a disposition of the collateral requiring notice under section 9.504. We overrule points of error one and two.

We affirm the trial court’s grant of summary judgment.

1

. When BankOne sold its interest in the loan and assigned its rights in the collateral under the security agreement to Cramer, it no longer had any right in the loan or collateral. *See Associated Telephone Directory Publishers, Inc. v. Five D's Publishing Co.,*849 S.W.2d 894, 897 (Tex.App.-Austin 1993, no writ).

2

. *See generally*Ronald A. Anderson, Uniform Commercial Code § 9-504:28 (3rd Ed.1994), stating:

> In applying UCC § 9-504 it is necessary to distinguish between (1) a foreclosure sale of the collateral and (2) ... a sale by the creditor of the creditor’s rights under the security agreement.... It is only the first of these transactions that comes within the scope of UCC § 9-504.

*Id.*
Case 2:09-cv-13116-AC-MJH ECF No. 23-14, PageID.455 Filed 12/15/10 Page 1 of 6
Case 2:09-cv-13116-AC-MJH ECF No. 23-14, PageID.456 Filed 12/15/10 Page 2 of 6
Case 2:09-cv-13116-AC-MJH ECF No. 23-14, PageID.457 Filed 12/15/10 Page 3 of 6
Case 2:09-cv-13116-AC-MJH ECF No. 23-14, PageID.458 Filed 12/15/10 Page 4 of 6
Case 2:09-cv-13116-AC-MJH ECF No. 23-14, PageID.459 Filed 12/15/10 Page 5 of 6
Case 2:09-cv-13116-AC-MJH ECF No. 23-14, PageID.460 Filed 12/15/10 Page 6 of 6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

MICHIGAN BELL TELEPHONE

COMPANY d/b/a AT&T MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff,

v.

ORJIAKOR N. ISIOGU, Chairman,

MONICA MARTINEZ, Commissioner, and

STEVEN TRANSETH, Commissioner, in

their official capacities; SPRINT

COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY, L.P.;

SPRINT SPECTRUM L.P.; and NEXTEL

WEST CORP.,

Defendants.

 /

Case No. 09-12577

Honorable Patrick J. Duggan

JUDGMENT

This matter is before the Court on cross motions for summary judgment. For the

reasons set forth in an opinion issued this date,

IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that defendants’ motions for

summary judgment are granted and plaintiff’s complaint is DISMISSED WITH

PREJUDICE.

s/PATRICK J. DUGGAN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Date: March 2, 2010

copies to:

William J. Champion, III, Esq.

Spencer A. Sattler, Esq.

Haran C. Rashes, Esq.

Joseph C. Cavender, Esq.

Roderick S. Coy, Esq.

Thomas E. Maier, Esq.
#### STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Gary ROBINSON, Defendant-Appellant. Gary ROBINSON, Movant-Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent-Respondent.

Nos. 66861, 69178.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

Sept. 17, 1996.

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied Oct. 29,1996.

Deborah B. Wafer, Dist. Defender, St. Louis, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Christine M. Blegen, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before DOWD, P.J., and REINHARD and GARY M. GAERTNER, JJ.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Defendant appeals from the judgment upon his conviction by a jury of one count of manufacture of a controlled substance, § 195.211, RSMo 1994, for which he was sentenced to a term of ten years’ imprisonment as a prior and persistent offender. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order. The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 30.25(b).
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

____________________

CITIMORTGAGE, INC., 

Case No. 2:09-cv-12881

Plaintiff, Hon. Sean F. Cox

v.

ANDREA CRAYTON, et al., 

Defendants.

______________________________________________________________________________

Kaveh Kashef (P64443)

Matthew R. Rechtien (P71271)

Clark Hill PLC

Attorneys for Plaintiff

151 S. Old Woodward Avenue, Suite 200

Birmingham, MI 48009

(248) 642-9692

Attorneys for Plaintiff

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Matthew Von Schuch

Trial Attorney, Tax Division

U.S. Department of Justice

P.O. Box 55

Ben Franklin Station

Washington, D.C. 20044

(202) 307-6565

______________________________________________________________________________

JUDGMENT

This matter having come before the Court on Plaintiff’s Application for Entry of Partial

Default Judgment against Defendants Andrea Crayton (“Crayton”) and Mercy Dee Westbrook,

a/k/a Mercy Dee Link (“Westbrook”), due notice having been given and the Court being advised,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Application for Entry of Partial Default

Judgment is granted;

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the interests, if any, of Westbrook and/or Crayton in

the Property, which is more particularly described as:
Lot 260 And 262, of Palmer Woods Subdivision, according to the

Plat thereof, as recorded in Liber 32, Page(s) 16, Wayne County

Records.

Tax IDs: 02-004666, 02-004578

are, to the extent they ever existed, forever extinguished, cutoff, released, voided and declared

null, void and of no effect; and

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, Citi hold a priority money mortgage on the

Property, subject only to the interests of the United States, if any, that are of superior priority, the

existence, amount and priority of which interests, if any, remain in dispute in this action. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

S/Sean F. Cox 

Sean F. Cox

United States District Judge

Dated: March 19, 2010

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record on

March 19, 2010, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

S/Jennifer Hernandez 

Case Manager
#### Anthony BRUCE, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. WD 48808.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Aug. 9, 1994.

Matthew J. O’Connor, Office of the State Public Defender, Columbia, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Joanne E. Beal, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before ULRICH, P.J., and LOWENSTEIN and HANNA, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Appeal from denial of Rule 24.035 motion for postconviction relief after an evidentiary hearing.

Judgment affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
#### Michael DAVIS-BEY, Appellant, v. MISSOURI BOARD OF PROBATION AND PAROLE, et al., Respondent.

No. WD 52285.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Aug. 13, 1996.

Michael Davis-Bey, pro se, Jefferson City, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., John W. Simon, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before ULRICH, C.J., and FENNER and BRECKENRIDGE, JJ.

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Michael Davis-Bey appeals the dismissal of his petition for declaratory judgment seeking review of the Missouri Board of Probation and Parole’s (Board’s) decision scheduling him for parole release on August 27, 1997. He claims that the Board incorrectly applied its guidelines and section 558.019, RSMo 1994, in calculating the release date. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).

ULRICH, C.J., P.J., and BRECKENRIDGE, J., concur.

FENNER, J., not participating because no longer a member of the court.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

ANDERSON LEE FERNANDERS,

Plaintiff,

v.

MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF

COMMUNITY HEALTH/HAWTHORNE

CENTER,

Defendant.

/

Case No. 09-12933

HONORABLE AVERN COHN

JUDGMENT

For the reasons stated in the Order (Doc. No. 91) entered on August 14, 12,

judgment is entered in favor of defendant and against plaintiff and the case is DISMISSED.

DAVID WEAVER

Dated: August 14, 2012 By: s/Julie Owens 

 Deputy Clerk

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to the attorneys of

record on this date, August 14, 2012, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

S/Julie Owens 

Case Manager, (313) 234-5160 

2:09-cv-12933-AC-RSW Doc # 92 Filed 08/14/12 Pg 1 of 1 Pg ID 1031
EXHIBIT 31.2

              CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO
                      SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT

I, Michael Noble, certify that:

1.   I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Lucky Strike
     Explorations Inc.;

2.   Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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
     this quarterly report;

3.   Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
     information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all
     material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash
     flows of the registrant as of, and for, the period presented in this
     quarterly report;

4.   I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and
     procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the
     registrant and have:

     a.   designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that
          material information relating to the registrant, including its
          consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those
          entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly
          report is being prepared;
     b.   evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls
          and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of
          this quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and
     c.   presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the
          effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our
          evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;

5.   I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation, to the registrant's
     auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors (or
     persons performing the equivalent functions):

     a.   all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal
          controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to
          record, process, summarize and report financial data and have
          identified for the registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in
          internal controls; and
     b.   any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
          employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal
          controls; and

6.   I have indicated in this quarterly 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.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this certification as of the
4th day of May, 2007.


/s/ Michael Noble
---------------------------
Chief Financial Officer
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-6079

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

JANE RUSSELL,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James P. Jones, Chief District

Judge. (CR-02-46; CA-03-710-7)

Submitted: March 11, 2005 Decided: April 14, 2005

Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jane Russell, Appellant Pro Se. Steven Randall Ramseyer, OFFICE OF

THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Abingdon, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Jane Russell seeks to appeal the district court’s order

denying relief on her motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000).

The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge

issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)

(2000). 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 her

constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive

procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or

wrong. See 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 Russell has not made the requisite

showing. Accordingly, we deny Russell’s motion for a certificate

of appealability 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
EXHIBIT
31.1




CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


SECTION 302
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




I, Ramin
(“Ron”) Najafi, certify that:




1. I have
reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of NovaBay Pharmaceuticals,
Inc.;




2. Based
on my knowledge, this 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 this report;




3. Based
on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information
included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial
condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and
for, the periods presented in this report;




4. The
registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules
13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:




(a)
Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that
material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly
during the period in which this report is being prepared;




(b)
Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness
of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered
by this report based on such evaluation; and




(c)
Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal
quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report)
that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the
registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and




5. The
registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most
recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of
directors  (or persons performing the equivalent functions):




(a) All
significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to
adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and
report financial information; and




(b) Any
fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who
have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial
reporting.




Date: May
15, 2009




/s/ Ramin
      ("Ron")NajafiRamin
      (“Ron”) NajafiChief
      Executive Officer
              (principal
      executive officer)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

NORTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

Case Number 09-20155-BC

Honorable Thomas L. Ludington

 v.

ROBERT DENBOER, JR.,

Defendant.

_______________________________________/

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, ACCEPTING

DEFENDANT’S PLEA OF GUILTY, AND TAKING THE RULE 11 PLEA

AGREEMENT UNDER ADVISEMENT

A plea hearing was conducted on November 18, 2009, by United States Magistrate Judge

Charles E. Binder pursuant to the defendant’s consent. The magistrate judge issued his report on

November 18, 2009, recommending that this Court accept the defendant’s plea of guilty to counts

one and two of the information. As of today’s date, no party has filed any objections to the

magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. The failure to file objections to the report and

recommendation waives any further right to appeal. Smith v. Detroit Fed’n of Teachers Local 231,

829 F.2d 1370, 1373 (6th Cir. 1987). Likewise, the failure to object to the magistrate judge’s report

releases the Court from its duty to independently review the record. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140,

149 (1985).

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation [Dkt

# 17] is ADOPTED.

1:09-cr-20155-TLL-CEB Doc # 20 Filed 12/09/09 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 85
-2-

It is further ORDERED that the defendant’s plea of guilty to counts one and two of the

information is ACCEPTED, and the Rule 11 Plea Agreement [Dkt. # 16] is taken UNDER

ADVISEMENT.

s/Thomas L. Ludington 

THOMAS L. LUDINGTON

United States District Judge

Dated: December 9, 2009

PROOF OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing order was served

upon each attorney or party of record herein by electronic means or first

class U.S. mail on December 9, 2009.

s/Tracy A. Jacobs 

TRACY A. JACOBS

1:09-cr-20155-TLL-CEB Doc # 20 Filed 12/09/09 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 86
II

Calendar No. 632

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 3916

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

SEPTEMBER 5, 1996

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations

SEPTEMBER 25, 1996

Reported by Mr. HELMS, without amendment

AN ACT

To make available certain Voice of America and Radio Marti

multilingual computer readable text and voice recordings.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

HR 3916 RS

1 SECTION 1. AVAILABILITY OF VOICE OF AMERICA AND

2 RADIO MARTI MULTILINGUAL COMPUTER

3 READABLE TEXT AND VOICE RECORDINGS.

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding section 208 of

5 the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years

6 1986 and 1987 (22 U.S.C. 1461–1a) and the second sen7 tence of section 501 of the United States Information and

8 Educational Exchange Act of 1948 (22 U.S.C. 1461), the

9 Director of the United States Information Agency is au10 thorized to make available, upon request, to the Linguistic

11 Data Consortium of the University of Pennsylvania com12 puter readable multilingual text and recorded speech in

13 various languages. The Consortium shall, directly or indi14 rectly as appropriate, reimburse the Director for any ex15 penses involved in making such materials available.

16 (b) TERMINATION.—Subsection (a) shall cease to

17 have effect 5 years after the date of the enactment of this

18 Act.

Passed the House of Representatives September 4,

1996.

Attest: ROBIN H. CARLE,

Clerk.

Calendar No. 632

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 3916

AN ACT

To make available certain Voice of America and

and voice recordings.Radio Marti multilingual computer readable text

SEPTEMBER 25, 1996

Reported without amendment
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19

- 30722

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee

v. LOUELLA GIVENS , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana USDC No. 2:16

- CR

- 110

- 1

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SOUTHWICK, and WILLETT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Louella Givens, federal prisoner # 34318

- 034, appeal s the district court’s order denying her request that her time spent on postsentencing house arrest be credited against the 18

- month prison term imposed for her conviction of health care fraud. Before the court is Givens’s motion for the appointment of

cou nsel. In the interests of judicial economy, we dismiss the appeal as frivolous , as discussed below

. See 5 TH C IR

. R. 42.2 ; United States v. Garcia

Gutierrez , 835 F.2d 585, 586 (5th Cir. 1988)

.

* 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 f orth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED December 5, 2019 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 19-30722 Document: 00515224646 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/05/2019No. 19

- 30722

2 The district court had the authority to restrict Givens to house arrest during her postsentencing release on bond pending her surrender to the Bureau of Prisons

. See 18 U.S.C. § 3142(c)(1)(B) ; 18 U.S.C. § 3143(a) ; Reno v. Koray , 515 U.S. 50, 57 (1995). Because her house arrest occurred duri ng her release on bond before her surrender to the Bureau of Prisons , her time on house arrest was not “official detention” under 18 U.S.C. § 3585(b) and thus was not eligible to be credited against her 18

- month prison sentence

. See Koray , 515 U.S. at 56

- 65. Givens’s appeal is frivolous and en tirely without merit . Accordingly, we DISPENSE with further briefing and DISMISS the appeal. See 5 TH C IR

. R. 42.2 . Givens’s motion for the appointment of counsel is DENIED. Case: 19-30722 Document: 00515224646 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/05/2019