alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6854

DANI DALAL, Petitioner - Appellant, versus GARY D. MAYNARD, Director of SCDC; CHARLES CONDON, Attorney General of the State of South Carolina, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District Judge. (CA-02-1160-20-BH) Submitted: August 14, 2003 Decided: August 22, 2003 Before WILLIAMS, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Dani Dalal, Appellant Pro Se. William Edgar Salter, III, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Dani Dalal seeks to appeal the district court’s order adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2254 proceeding 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 his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. SeeMiller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, , 123 S. Ct. 1029, 1040 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir.), cert. denied , 534 U.S. 941 (2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Dalal has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny 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 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

 

The undersigned hereby certifiesthat the Form 10-Q Quarterly Report of Quaker Chemical Corporation (the“Company”) for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015 filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”) fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of1934 and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operations of theCompany.

 

 

|                 |   |                                                    |
|----------------------|--------|---------------------------------------------------------|
| Dated: July 30, 2015 |   | /s/ Michael F. Barry                                    |
|                 |   | Michael F. Barry                                        |
|                 |   | Chief Executive Officer of Quaker  Chemical Corporation |

 

 

----
DISMISS; and Opinion Filed August 19, 2014. 

# S

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 13

- 01330

- CV

JOHN C. GOLFIS, JULI E NGUYEN , SEIKILOS HOLDINGS, L LC, AND SEIKILOS FX STUDIOS LLC , Appellants V. EDWARD “ LANNY ” HOUILLION AND HOUILL ION FAMILY L IMITED P ARTNERSHIP , Appellees

On Appeal from the 134th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 12

- 13053



### MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Bridges, Fillmore, and Lewis Opinion by Justice Lewis On July 24, 2013, the trial court granted its Amended Temporary Injunction at the request

of appellee Houillion Family Limited Partnership

. Appellants John C. Golfis, Julie Ngu yen , Seiklos Holdings, LLC, and Seikilos FX Studios LLC filed this interlocutory appeal challenging

the temporary injunction. See T EX

. C IV

. P RAC

. & R EM

. C ODE A NN . § 51.014(a)(4). While the

interlocutory appeal was pending, the trial court proceeded to tr ial and entered a final judgment.

If, while on the appeal of the granting or denying of the temporary injunction, the trial

court renders final judgment, the case on appeal becomes moot. Isuani v. Manske

- Sheffield

Radiology Group, P.A. , 802 S.W.2d 235, 236 (Tex. 1991)

. When a case becomes moot on

appeal, the appeal is dismissed. Id.– 2

– Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal as moot

.

131330F.P05 /David Lewis/ DAVID LEWIS JUSTICE– 3

– 

# S

Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

JOHN C. GOLFIS, JULIE NGUYEN, SEIKILOS HOLDINGS, LLC, AND SEIKILOS FX STUDIOS LLC, Appellants

No. 05

- 13

- 01330

- CV V.

EDWARD “LANNY” HOUILLION AND HOUILLION FAMILY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, Appellees On Appeal from the 134th Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 12

- 13053. Opinion delivered by Justice Lewis, Justices Bridges and Fillmore participating.

In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the appeal is DISMISSED AS MOOT

.

It is ORDERED that appellees EDWARD “LANNY” HOUILLION AND HOUILLION FAMILY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP recover their costs of this appeal from appellants JOHN C. GOLFIS, JULIE NGUYEN, SEIKILOS HOLDINGS, LLC, AND SEIKILOS FX STUDIOS LLC.

Judgment entered this 19th day of Augus t, 2014.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Commodity Futures Trading Commission

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sauntia S. Warfield, 202-418-5084.

Sauntia S. Warfield,

Staff Assistant.

[FR Doc. E8-21111 Filed 9-8-08; 4:15 pm]

BILLING CODE 6351-01-P
Exhibit 31(ii)
                                --------------


                                CERTIFICATIONS

I, Steve Bailey, certify that:

     1.   I have reviewed this 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 of Alternative Loan Trust 2006-J3 (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
          servicer(s) and based on my knowledge and the compliance review(s)
          conducted in preparing the servicer compliance statement(s) required
          in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as
          disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicer(s) have
          fulfilled their obligations under the servicing agreement(s) 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: The
     Bank of New York, as Trustee, SunTrust Mortgage Incorporated, National
     City Mortgage Co. and Chevy Chase Bank, FSB.

Date: March 27, 2007


     /s/ Steve Bailey
     ---------------------------
     Steve Bailey
     Senior Managing Director, Loan Administration
PAGE <1>

                                  Exhibit 99.1

                               Pyramid Oil Company

                   Certification of the Chief Executive Officer
                        Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350
                        As Adopted Pursuant to Section 906
                         Of The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002


Solely for the purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, the undersigned
President of Pyramid Oil Company (the "Company"), hereby certify, based on my
knowledge, that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the
quarter ended September 30, 2007 (the "Report") fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



     Dated: November 13, 2007

                                               JOHN H. ALEXANDER
                                               -----------------
                                               John H. Alexander
                                                   President


























PAGE <1>

                                   Exhibit 99.2

                                Pyramid Oil Company

                   Certification of the Chief Financial Officer
                       Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350
                       As Adopted Pursuant to Section 906
                        Of The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002


Solely for the purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, the undersigned
Chief Financial Officer of Company Pyramid Oil (the "Company"), hereby
certify, based on my knowledge, that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of
the Company for the quarter ended September 30, 2007 (the "Report") fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and that information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.




     Date: November 13, 2007

                                                LEE G. CHRISTIANSON
                                                -------------------
                                                Lee G. Christianson
                                              Chief Financial Officer
107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. J. RES. 74

JOINT RESOLUTION

Making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year

2002, and for other purposes.

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 That Public Law 107–44 is further amended by striking

4 the date specified in section 107(c) and inserting in lieu
2

•HJ 74 EH

1 thereof ‘‘December 7, 2001’’; and by striking the date

2 specified in section 123 and inserting in lieu thereof ‘‘De3 cember 1, 2001’’.

Passed the House of Representatives November 15,

2001.

Attest:

Clerk.
107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. J. RES. 74

JOINT RESOLUTION

Making further continuing appropriations for the

fiscal year 2002, and for other purposes.
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 179 (Monday, September 15, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 53249]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-21437]


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

FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY


Membership of the Federal Labor Relations Authority's Senior 
Executive Service Performance Review Board.

AGENCY: Federal Labor Relations Authority.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the members of the Performance 
Review Board.

DATES: September 15, 2008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Catherine V. Emerson, Acting Executive 
Director, Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA); 1400 K Street, NW., 
Washington, DC 20424-0001; (202) 218-7945.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 4314(c) of Title 5, U.S.C. (as 
amended by the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978) requires each agency 
to establish, in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Office 
of Personnel Management, one or more Performance Review Boards (PRB). 
Section 4314(c)(4) requires that notice of appointment of the PRB be 
published in the Federal Register.
    As required by 5 CFR 430.310, the following executives have been 
appointed to serve on the 2008-2009 PRB for the FLRA, beginning 
September 2008 through September 2009:

Marcia Eugenio, Director, Office of Child Labor, Forced Labor & Human 
Trafficking, Bureau of International Labor Affairs, Department of 
Labor;
Bill Spencer, Clerk of the Board, Merit Systems Protection Board;
Rosa Koppel, Solicitor, Federal Labor Relations Authority;
Catherine Emerson, Acting Executive Director, Federal Labor Relations 
Authority.

    Authority: 5 U.S.C. 4134(c)(4).

    Dated: September 9, 2008.
Catherine V. Emerson,
Acting Executive Director.
[FR Doc. E8-21437 Filed 9-12-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6727-01-P
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Edwin Waithe, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from (1) a judgment of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Owens, J.), rendered November 24, 1982, convicting him of robbery in the first degree under indictment No. 153/82, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence, and (2) a judgment of the same court (Felig, J.), rendered November 4, 1987, convicting him of bail jumping in the first degree under indictment No. 310/87, upon his plea of guilty, and sentencing him to an indeterminate term of *2Vs*to 7 years’ imprisonment.

Ordered that the judgment rendered November 24, 1982, is affirmed; and it is further,

Ordered that the judgment rendered November 4, 1987, is modified by reducing the sentence imposed to an indeterminate term of *116*to 4 years’ imprisonment; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed.

The trial court did not err in permitting the defendant to be identified as the robber by reference to his arrest photograph. The defendant had absconded and was being tried in absentia. Since this was not an initial identification procedure and because the defendant could not be identified in person at the trial, the use of his photograph was proper *(see, People v Seabrooks,*120 AD2d 691). We also note that the prosecutor had complied with the direction by the trial court to remove the numbers and letters "NYCPD” from the photograph.

We find no merit to the defendant’s contention that the prosecution failed to prove the crime of robbery in the first degree because it failed to produce evidence that the weapon he utilized was operative or loaded. It was incumbent upon the defendant to affirmatively prove that the weapon was inoperative or unloaded, which he failed to do *(see, People v Cotarelo,*71 NY2d 941; *People v Proctor,*151 AD2d 788; *People v Brown,*108 AD2d 922; *see also,*Penal Law § 160.15 [4]).

The defendant’s contention that the court should have charged the lesser included offense of robbery in the third degree is not preserved for appellate review *(see,*CPL 470.05 [2]). In any event, there is no reasonable view of the evidence which would support a finding that the defendant committed the lesser crime but not the greater *(see, People v Baskerville,*
      *34860 NY2d 374; *People v Gray,*144 AD2d 483; *People v Bynum,*125 AD2d 207).

Finally, as the People concede, at the time of the crime, bail jumping in the first degree was a class E felony punishable by a term of imprisonment not to exceed 4 years *(see,*Penal Law §§ 215.57, 70.00 [2] [e]; *People v Jones,*101 AD2d 738). The sentence imposed was clearly outside the then-permissible range. Therefore, we have modified the sentence accordingly *(see, People v Rockwood,*78 AD2d 845).

We have considered the contentions raised in the defendant’s supplemental *pro se*brief and find them to be without merit. Lawrence, J. P., Kunzeman, Rubin and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.
#### In the Matter of Louis B. Youmans, an Attorney, Respondent. Committee on Professional Standards, Third Judicial Department, Petitioner.

Per Curiam.

Respondent is a New Jersey attorney admitted to practice in this Department in 1984.

Petitioner Committee on Professional Standards moves for an order disciplining respondent pursuant to section 806.19 of this court’s rules (22 NYCRR 806.19) by reason of his recent suspension from the practice of law in the State of New Jersey.

It appears from petitioner’s papers that a disciplinary proceeding was commenced against respondent in New Jersey alleging misconduct in six separate client matters. The charges against respondent included, *inter alia,*soliciting and obtaining unsecured loans from clients at a time when his ability to repay those loans was seriously in doubt, signing a client’s settlement check contrary to her stated desire to sign it herself, and failing to deposit prepaid unearned legal fees *794into a trust account as required by New Jersey ethical rules. Pending final resolution of the disciplinary proceeding, the New Jersey Office of Attorney Ethics petitioned the Supreme Court in that State for an order of temporary suspension. That petition was prompted by respondent’s failure to comply with various fee arbitration committee determinations directing him to refund moneys to clients, and by an intervening indictment charging respondent with one count of conspiracy to commit theft by deception and five counts of bad check offenses. The Supreme Court granted the petition and temporarily suspended respondent by orders entered January 24 and February 6,1990.

Thereafter, by decision dated May 18, 1990, the New Jersey Supreme Court found respondent guilty of five of the disciplinary charges and, ”[i]n view of the severity of the multiple ethical violations committed by respondent”, a two-year suspension was imposed *(Matter of Youmans,*118 NJ 622, 637, 573 A2d 899, 908-909).

Although respondent was served with a copy of the order to show cause initiating this application, he has failed to file a verified statement as permitted by section 806.19 (b) or otherwise appear in the matter.

In view of respondent’s suspension in the State of New Jersey for several ethical violations and his failure to appear on this application, petitioner’s motion is granted. It is further determined that the ends of justice will be served by imposing upon respondent the same discipline in this State as was imposed in the State of New Jersey *(see, Matter of Apovian,*140 AD2d 736).

Respondent suspended for two years and until further order of this court, the period of suspension to correspond with the period of suspension imposed in the State of New Jersey. Respondent may apply for reinstatement upon furnishing satisfactory proof that he has been reinstated as a member of the New Jersey Bar and has otherwise complied with the requirements of section 806.12 of this court’s rules (22 NYCRR 806.12). Mahoney, P. J., Kane, Casey, Weiss and Levine, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

Each of the undersigned, the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of Cleartronic, Inc. (the "Company"), hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual Report of the Company on Form 10-K/A for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2017 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



Date: May 4, 2018

|   |  |                        
|-- |  | -----------------------
|   |  |                        
|   |  |                        
|   |  | /s/ Michael M. Moore   
|By |  | Michael M. Moore       
|   |  | Chief Executive Officer



|   |  |                        
|-- |  | -----------------------
|   |  |                        
|   |  | /s/ Larry M. Reid      
|By |  | Larry M. Reid          
|   |  | Chief Financial Officer
#### STANDARD OIL CO. OF LOUISIANA v. JOY et al.*

No. 14251.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Orleans.

Oct. 16, 1933.

T. M. Milling, F. L. Hargrove, and A. M. Curtis, all of New Orleans, for appellant.

Francis P. Burns, of New Orleans, for ap-pellees.

*

Writ of certiorari granted November 27, 1933.

JANVIER, Judge.

Plaintiff succeeded to all the rights of Liberty Oil Company in a lease under which that company was tenant and the present defendants were owners. Having paid certain paving assessments levied against the said property, plaintiff, alleging that it was not' obligated under the terms of the said lease to pay the said charges, and that the said payments were made only because it was required to make them in order to maintain its peaceable possession of the premises, now seeks from the owners of the property reimbursement of the amounts so paid.

In Liberty Oil Company, Ltd., v. Mary Joy et al., 150 So. 440, decided by us to-day, we held that the written lease cannot be construed, otherwise than as placing upon the tenant the duty of making payments of the special paving charges.

Plaintiff has no greater rights than had the original tenant whose lease it has assumed, and plaintiff is likewise obligated, as was the original tenant.

For the reasons given in Liberty Oil Co. v. Joy et al., it is ordered, adjudged, and decreed that our original decree be and it is reinstated and made the final judgment of this court.

Original decree reinstated.