alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
This memorandum opinion was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports.

Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum

opinions. Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain

computer-generated errors or other deviations from the official paper version filed by the Court of

Appeals and does not include the filing date. 

1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO

2 STATE OF NEW MEXICO,

3 Plaintiff-Appellee,

4 v. NO. 34,340

5 DIANE BACA,

6 Defendant-Appellant.

7 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY

8 Jacqueline Flores, District Judge

9 Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General

10 Santa Fe, NM

11 for Appellee

12 Jorge A. Alvarado, Chief Public Defender 

13 Vicki W. Zelle, Assistant Appellate Public Defender

14 Albuquerque, NM

15 for Appellant

16 MEMORANDUM OPINION
2

1 WECHSLER, Judge.

2 {1} Defendant has appealed from a conviction for DWI. We previously issued a

3 notice of proposed summary disposition in which we proposed to uphold Defendant’s

4 conviction. Defendant has filed a memorandum in opposition. After due consideration,

5 we remain unpersuaded. We therefore affirm.

6 {2} Defendant has raised a single issue, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence

7 to establish that she was driving. [DS 10] As we previously observed in the notice of

8 proposed summary disposition, the State presented evidence that Defendant repeatedly

9 admitted that she had been driving. [DS 2-5, MIO 2] This is sufficient to support the

10 factfinder’s determination. See, e.g., State v. Orquiz, 2012-NMCA-080, ¶ 4, 284 P.3d

11 418 (observing that although no witnesses testified to seeing the defendant driving,

12 his admission at the scene was sufficient for a jury to infer that he actually drove). 

13 {3} In her memorandum in opposition, Defendant focuses on the countervailing

14 evidence, including the “physical evidence” (i.e., the position of the driver’s seat),

15 [MIO 10] in support of her continuing assertion that the verdict is unsupported by the

16 weight of the evidence. [MIO 9-11] However, insofar as we cannot re-weigh the

17 evidence, Defendant’s argument does not supply a basis for reversal. See, e.g., State

18 v. Owelicio, 2011-NMCA-091, ¶ 34, 150 N.M. 528, 263 P.3d 305 (observing, in a

19 similar case, that “[a]lthough there was other evidence and testimony indicating that
1 [the d]efendant was not the driver, the factfinder [was] entitled to weigh these

2 inconsistencies against [the d]efendant’s admission and the evidence suggesting she

3 was driving[,]” and that on appeal this Court “will not disturb the factfinder’s

4 determinations” on such matters). We therefore reject Defendant’s assertion of error.

5 {4} Accordingly, for the reasons stated in our notice of proposed summary

6 disposition and above, we affirm.

7 {5} IT IS SO ORDERED.

8 ________________________________

9 JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge

10 WE CONCUR:

11 ________________________________

12 TIMOTHY L. GARCIA, Judge

13 ________________________________

14 M. MONICA ZAMORA, Judge
Exhibit 32

Certificate 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 Piedmont Community Bank Group, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q/A
for the period ending June 30, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Drew Hulsey, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and I, Julie Simmons, Chief Financial 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. | To my knowledge, 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.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/ Drew HulseyDrew Hulsey, C.E.O.(Principal Executive Officer)/s/ Julie SimmonsJulie Simmons, C.F.O.(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)


October 31, 2008
#### Marczullo et al. *v.*The State of Ohio.

(No. 23687

Decided October 13, 1932.)

*646
      *Mr. Louis Fernberg*and *Mr. Hubert J. McCaffery,*for plaintiffs in error.

*Mr. W. George Kerr,*director of law, *Mr. Frank M. Surtz*and *Mr. M. Keith Wilson,*for defendant in error.

It is ordered and adjudged that said petition in error be, and the same is hereby, dismissed for the reason no debatable constitutional question is involved in said cause;

*Petition in error dismissed.*

Marshall, C. J., Jones, Matthias, Day, Allen and Stephenson, .JJ., concur.

; Kinkade, J., not participating.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-6990

In Re: RANDY REYNOLDS,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CR-98-8)

Submitted: August 28, 2003 Decided: September 10, 2003

Before NIEMEYER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Randy Reynolds, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Randy Reynolds petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging the

district court has unduly delayed acting on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255

(2000) motion. He seeks an order from this court directing the

district court to act. We find there has been no undue delay in the

district court. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in

forma pauperis, we deny the petition for a writ of mandamus. 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. 

PETITION DENIED
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE
F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER

Appellate case name: Cornelius Milan Harper v. The State of Texas

Appellate case number: 01

- 14

- 00641

- CR

Trial court case number: 11

- DCR

- 056513

Trial court: 434th District Court of Fo rt Bend County

The reporter’s record on this appeal was originally due August 18, 2014. 71 volumes of the record have previously been filed by two of the three reporters in the trial court.

Rachel Gamez, one of the court reporters in this case, has moved for an extension to April 2, 2015 to file her portion of the record . Previous extensions granted to the reporter stated

no further extensions would be considered. We DENY the motion. 

### See T EX



### . R. A PP



### . P. 10.5(b)(1)(C) (requiring motions for extension of time to state facts relied on to reasonably explain need for extension), 35.3(c) (requiring courts to ensure that appellate record is timely filed). We ORDER the court reporter, or her substitute , to file the record within 14 days of the date of this orde r. If the record is not filed within 14 days of the date of this order, we may require Rachel Gamez to appear and show cause why the

record has not been filed.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature:

__

/s/ Harvey Brown

X Ac ting ind ividually  Acting for the Court

Date: March 5, 2015
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                              19,685
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      220,371
<ALLOWANCES>                                             0
<INVENTORY>                                        792,285
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 1,035,849
<PP&E>                                             943,336
<DEPRECIATION>                                     867,576
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   1,111,609
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            1,058,715
<BONDS>                                          1,235,600
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                           969,994
<OTHER-SE>                                      (2,152,700)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     1,111,609
<SALES>                                          1,619,875
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   186,802
<CGS>                                            1,433,073
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    1,875,208
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                         0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 114,263
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   (255,333)
<INCOME-TAX>                                             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               (255,333)
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (255,333)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                            0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                            0
        


</TABLE>
EX-35 (a)
(logo) GMAC Mortgage

SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT (Item 1123)

GMAC Mortgage, LLC

DBALTO6AF1


The undersigned, a duly authorized officer of GMAC Mortgage, LLC, as servicer
(the "Servicer") pursuant to the applicable servicing agreement, does
hereby certify that:


1.      A review of the Servicer's activities during the period covered by the
Issuing Entity's report on Form 10-K and of the Servicer's performance
under the applicable servicing agreement has been made under my
supervision.

2.      To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has
fulfilled all of its obligations under the applicable servicing agreement
in all material respects throughout such period.


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has duly executed this Certificate this
6th day of March 2007.



By: /s/ Anthony N. Renzi
Name: Anthony N. Renzi
Title: Executive Vice President


GMAC Mortgage, LLC
500 Enterprise Road
Horsham, PA 19044

www.gmacmortgage.com
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

**P&F INDUSTRIES, INC.**

 

**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 on Form 10-Q of P&F Industries, Inc. (the “Company”) for the period ended September 30, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, Richard A. Horowitz, Principal Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, 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 results of operations of the Company.

 

 
| /s/  Richard A. Horowitz    |   |
|-----------------------------|--------|
| Richard A. Horowitz         |
| Principal Executive Officer |
|                        |
|                        |
| November 13, 2008      |

 

1

----
Exhibit



            



Exhibit 10.15


AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO
FRACTIONATION AGREEMENT


This AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO FRACTIONATION AGREEMENT (this “Amendment”) is made as of the 11th day of December, 2019, by and between Phillips 66 Sweeny Frac LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (“P66SF”) and Phillips 66 Company, a Delaware corporation (“Phillips 66”).  P66SF and Phillips 66 are sometimes referred to herein singularly as a “Party” and collectively as the “Parties.”
WHEREAS, the Parties previously entered into that certain Fractionation Agreement, dated as of March 1, 2016 (the “Original Agreement”); and
WHEREAS, the Parties desire to amend the Original Agreement as set forth herein.
NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the Parties hereby agree as follows:
		
	1.
	Amendment.  The Parties hereby agree to amend the Original Agreement by amending and restating the definition of “Raw Product Delivery Point” as follows:  


AA. “Raw Product Delivery Point shall mean any of (i) the Seagas meter location site near the Fractionator, or (ii) such other locations as the Parties may from time to time agree in writing.
		
	2.
	Ratification; No Waiver.  Except as expressly modified hereby, the Original Agreement and all documents, instruments, and agreements related thereto are hereby ratified and confirmed in all respects and shall continue in full force and effect.  The execution, delivery, and effectiveness of this Amendment shall not operate as a waiver of any right, power, or remedy of either party hereto under the Original Agreement, nor constitute a waiver of any provision of the Original Agreement.  The Original Agreement shall, together with this Amendment, be read and construed as a single agreement.  All references in the Original Agreement and any related documents, instruments, and agreements shall hereafter refer to the Original Agreement as modified hereby.


		
	3.
	Counterparts; Effectiveness.  This Amendment may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of which shall be an original, but all of which taken together shall constitute one and the same instrument, and shall become effective when one or more counterparts have been signed by each Party and delivered to the other Party (including by .pdf or other electronic means).


		
	4.
	Governing Law.  This Amendment shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Texas, without regard to any provision thereof that would direct the application of the law of another jurisdiction.


[Remainder of page intentionally left blank; signature page follows.]









 




IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have duly executed this Amendment as of the day and year first set forth above.






	
		
	PHILLIPS 66 SWEENY FRAC LLC





	By:
	/s/ Damon Daniels

	 
	Damon Daniels

	 
	Vice President

	 
	 

	 
	 

	PHILLIPS 66 COMPANY


	By:
	/s/ Andy Giffhorn

	 
	Andy Giffhorn

	 
	Vice President, Midstream Commercial & BD

	 
	 

	 
	 










2
EXHIBIT
32.1





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 Annual Report of Paradigm Medical Industries, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2008, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Stephen L. Davis, President and Treasurer 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, to the best of my knowledge:





(a)
            the
      Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of
      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended;
  and





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








Date:
      April 14, 2009
              /s/
      Stephen L. DavisStephen
      L. DavisPresident
      and Treasurer
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-6441

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

BONITA JONES LOWRY,

Defendant - Appellant.

No. 96-6442

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

JONATHAN LOWRY,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of North Carolina, at Fayetteville. Malcolm J. Howard,

District Judge. (CR-89-36, CA-93-50-3-H, CA-93-23-3-H)

Submitted: September 5, 1996 Decided: September 17, 1996
2

Before WIDENER and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John Britton Russell, Jr., SHUFORD, RUBIN & GIBNEY, Richmond,

Virginia; David Eason Boone, Raymond Archie Carpenter, Jr., BOONE,

BEALE, CARPENTER & COSBY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellants.

Barbara Dickerson Kocher, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY,

Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
3

PER CURIAM:

Appellants appeal the district court's order dismissing their

motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1988), amended by Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-132,

110 Stat. 1214. Appellants' cases were referred to a magistrate

judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (1988). The magistrate

judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Appellants that

failure to file timely objections to this recommendation could

waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the

recommendation. Despite this warning, Appellants failed to timely

object to the magistrate judge's recommendation.

The timely filing of objections to a magistrate judge's

recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of the

substance of that recommendation when the parties have been warned

that failure to object will waive appellate review. Wright v.

Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985). See generally Thomas

v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Appellants have waived appellate

review by failing to file objections after receiving proper notice.

Accordingly, we 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
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Annual Report on Form 10-K and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such
financial statements.</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                            JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                         49,727
<SECURITIES>                                    4,982
<RECEIVABLES>                                  14,110
<ALLOWANCES>                                      226
<INVENTORY>                                     1,349
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               71,867
<PP&E>                                      1,062,888
<DEPRECIATION>                                227,411
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                934,312
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          73,529
<BONDS>                                       812,274
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                            0
<OTHER-SE>                                     39,107
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  934,312
<SALES>                                             0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              356,448
<CGS>                                               0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 131,973
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              165,604
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             62,209
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (973)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (973)
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                 (194)
<CHANGES>                                     (1,819)
<NET-INCOME>                                  (2,986)
<EPS-BASIC>                                         0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       0



</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 168 (Thursday, August 28, 2008)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 50721]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-19277]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2008-0170; Airspace Docket No. 08-AEA-16]


Modification of Class E Airspace; Staunton, VA

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule, confirmation of effective date.

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

SUMMARY: This action confirms the effective date of a direct final rule 
published in the Federal Register (73 FR 16751) that modifies the 
effective time of the Class E Airspace at Staunton, VA. The Shenandoah 
Valley Regional Airport Commission has requested to change their 
current Class E2 Airspace from part time (currently 1200 to 0400 Zulu) 
to full time. This action enhances the safety and management of 
Instrument Flight Rule (IFR) operations in the area by providing the 
required controlled airspace to support terminal operations 
continuously at Staunton, VA.

DATES: 0901 UTC, Effective June 5, 2008. The Director of the Federal 
Register approves this incorporation by reference action under title 1, 
Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual revision of 
FAA Order 7400.9 and publication of conforming amendments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Melinda Giddens, Operations Support 
Group, Federal Aviation Administration, P.O. Box 20636, Atlanta, 
Georgia 30320; Telephone (404) 305-5610, Fax 404-305-5572.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

The Confirmation of Effective Date

    The FAA published this direct final rule with a request for 
comments in the Federal Register on March 31, 2008 (73 FR 16751), 
Docket No. FAA 2008-0170; Airspace Docket No. 08-AEA-16. The FAA uses 
the direct final rulemaking procedure for a non-controversial rule 
where the FAA believes that there will be no adverse public comment. 
This direct final rule advised the public that no adverse comments were 
anticipated, and that unless a written adverse comment, or a written 
notice of intent to submit such an adverse comment, were received 
within the comment period, the regulation would become effective on 
June 5, 2008. No adverse comments were received, and thus this notice 
confirms that effective date.

    Issued in College Park, Georgia, on July 16, 2008.
Mark D. Ward,
Manager, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Air Traffic 
Organization.
[FR Doc. E8-19277 Filed 8-27-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M