alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. No. 97-7041

RONALD E. BRANDT, SR., a/k/a Rank,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Newport News.

Robert G. Doumar, Senior District Judge.

(CR-92-67, CA-97-48-4)

Submitted: August 27, 1998

Decided: September 15, 1998

Before NIEMEYER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and

BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________

Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Ronald E. Brandt, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Harvey Lee Bryant, III,

Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________
OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from a district court order that concluded his

motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998)

was barred by the one-year limitations period of 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255.

Appellant's conviction became final in February 1993, and he filed

his § 2255 motion on April 21, 1997. Appellant had until April 23,

1997, to file his § 2255 motion. See Brown v. Angelone, ___ F.3d

___, 1998 WL 389030 (4th Cir. July 14, 1998) (Nos. 96-7173, 96-

7208). Therefore, his motion was not time barred. For these reasons,

we grant a certificate of appealability on this issue, vacate the district

court's order, and remand for further proceedings. 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.

VACATED AND REMANDED

 2
**
**Exhibit 31.1**

**CERTIFICATION**

I, CoreyHenry, certify that: 

1.     I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and allreports on Form 10-D required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of Santander Drive Auto Receivables Trust 2018-4 (the “Exchange Act periodic reports”); 

2.     Based on myknowledge, 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 statementswere made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 

3.     Based on my knowledge, all of thedistribution, 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.    Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statement required in this report under Item 1123 of RegulationAB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicer has fulfilled its obligations under the servicing agreement in all material respects; and 

5.     All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria forasset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included inthis 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 otherwisedisclosed 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: Wells FargoBank, N.A. and Computershare Trust Company, N.A. 

 
By: 
/s/ Corey Henry
Name: Corey HenryTitle: President and Chief Executive Officer Santander Drive Auto Receivables LLC, as Depositor (senior officer in charge of securitization of the depositor)Date: March 31, 2022**
Certifications

I, Richard Simpson, 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 Benchmark 2018-B6 Mortgage Trust (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.	Based on my knowledge and 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 servicers have fulfilled their obligations under the servicing agreements 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:  KeyBank National Association; Midland Loan Services, a Division of PNC Bank, National Association; K-Star Asset Management LLC; Park Bridge Lender Services LLC; U.S. Bank National Association; Wells Fargo Bank, National Association; CWCapital Asset Management LLC; Park Bridge Lender Services LLC; Computershare Trust Company, National Association;  CoreLogic Solutions, LLC; and Wilmington Trust, National Association.

Date:  March 28, 2024

/s/ Richard Simpson___________________Richard SimpsonPresident, Citigroup Commercial Mortgage Securities Inc.(senior officer in charge of securitization of the depositor)

Benchmark 2018-B6 Certifications


---
IIOU U I RT

HI I FO CT OF NEW H M HIRE

HYPERTHERM, INC,

Piti,

V.

AMERICAN TORCH TIP COMPANY ,

Deedt.

Ci i l A tion No. 1 :05--373-JD

[ PROOIIIFF' O S

MO TIO N FOR LEAVE TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAI NT

THIS MATTER came before the Court o n Plaintiff's Assented-to Motio n for Lee t o

File a Second Amended Complaint, and the Court being otherwise fully advised, it is hereb y

ORDERED and ADJUDGED as follows :

or Pitis Motio Lee to Amed te Comit is GRANTED.

2. Wit hi n two (2) days o f this Order, P lai nti ff s hall ile the proposed Seo d

Amended Complaint attached as Exhibit A to its Motio n for Lee to Amed .

Withi n twenty (20) days o fthis Order, or in no e ve nt later t han My 8, 2006, 1

i e deedt s its resose to te Seod Ameded Comit .

: 2006, Dted

Uited Sttes Distrit Jd e

1 This date is twenty (20) days ater the previous deadline o f A pri l 17, 2006 for defendant to ile its resose to te

comit tio . i tis

Case 1:05-cv-00373-JD Document 16-2 Filed 04/11/2006 Page 1 of 1


April 12, 2006 /s/ James R. Muirhead Magistrate Judge

Case 1:05-cv-00373-JD Document 17 Filed 04/12/06 Page 1 of 1
Cossette v. US Department of Agriculture, Secretary Doc. 3

Dockets.Justia.com
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Criminal No. 05-cr-203-01-B

Daniel Childs

O R D E R

The defendant has moved to continue the February 7, 2006

trial in the above case. Defendant cites the need for additional

time to prepare for trial or other disposition. The government

does not object to a continuance of the trial date.

Accordingly, in order to allow the parties additional time

to properly prepare for trial, the court will continue the trial

from February 7, 2006 to May 2, 2006. In agreeing to continue

the trial, the court finds pursuant to 18 U.S.C.A. §

3161(h)(8)(A) that for the above-stated reasons, the ends of

justice served in granting a continuance outweigh the best

interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial.

Case 1:05-cr-00203-PB Document 16 Filed 02/02/06 Page 1 of 2
2

A final pretrial conference will be held on April 18, 2006

at 4:45 pm

SO ORDERED.

/s/ Paul Barbadoro

Paul Barbadoro

US District Judge

February 2, 2006

cc: Bjorn Lange, Esq.

Robert Veiga, Esq.

United States Probation

United States Marshal

Case 1:05-cr-00203-PB Document 16 Filed 02/02/06 Page 2 of 2
**Exhibit 32.01**

 

**Officer Certification**

 

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

 

In connection with theQuarterly Report of PSCo on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2007, asfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (Form10-Q), each of the undersigned officers of PSCo certifies, pursuant to 18U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002, that, to such officer’s knowledge:

 

(1)          The Form 10-Q fully complieswith the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Actof 1934; and

 

(2)          The information contained inthe Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial conditionand results of operations of PSCo as of the dates and for the periods expressedin the Form 10-Q.

 

Date: April 30, 2006

 
| /s/ PATRICIA K. VINCENT                     |   |
|---------------------------------------------|--------|
| Patricia K. Vincent                         |   |
| President and Chief  Executive Officer      |   |
|                                        |   |
| /s/ BENJAMIN G.S. FOWKE  III                |   |
| Benjamin G.S. Fowke III                     |   |
| Vice President and  Chief Financial Officer |   |

 

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

 

A signed original of this written statement requiredby Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging or otherwiseadopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic versionof this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to PSCoand will be retained by PSCo and furnished to the Securities and ExchangeCommission or its staff upon request.

 

 

1

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                         1225144
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    27481
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               1252625
<PP&E>                                          646750
<DEPRECIATION>                                   27658
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 2339783
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           639959
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        500000
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   2339783
<SALES>                                          27761
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 27761
<CGS>                                           396893
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   396893
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                378804
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (506023)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (296000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (740876)
<DISCONTINUED>                                  234853
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (210,23)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.42)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.42)


</TABLE>
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.4

        Certification Pursuant to Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18
                            of the United States Code

     I, E. James Ferland, Chief Executive Officer of PSEG Power LLC, to the best
of my knowledge, certify that (i) the Quarterly Report of PSEG Power LLC on Form
10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2004 (the "Periodic Report") fully complies
with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and (ii) the information contained in the Periodic Report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of PSEG Power LLC.


                                   /s/ E. James Ferland
                                   ---------------------------------------------
                                   E. James Ferland
                                   PSEG Power LLC
                                   Chief Executive Officer
                                   April 30, 2004
194 La. 1096

#### STATE v. HINGLE. In re PEREZ, Dist. Atty.

No. 35761.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 17, 1940.

Leander H. Perez, Dist. Atty., of New Orleans, for relator.

Oliver S. Livaudais, of New Orleans, for respondents.

HIGGINS, Justice.

The district attorney of the Twenty-Fifth Judicial District for the Parishes of Plaq-uemines and St. Bernard, filed an application in this court for writs of certiorari, mandamus and prohibition to review the district judge’s ruling in granting the accused, Abner Hingle, a preliminary hearing on a murder charge, before the grand jury of the Parish of Plaquemines acted upon the matter, and, also, to review the ruling of the district judge in refusing to call the grand jury in special session to consider the Hingle and other homicide cases, when the foreman of the grand jury, under Article 208 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, requested the approval of the judge in calling the grand jury in session.

The district judge and Abner Hingle in their returns to the rule nisi granted by this court, in addition to other defenses, pleaded that the term of the grand jury sought to be called in special session through these proceedings expired on April 1, 1940r that a new grand jury was empaneled and qualified on the same day, and that therefore the proceedings now present moot questions.

The six months’ term of the grand jury sought to be called in special session having expired on April 1, 1940, and the new grand jury having been empaneled and qualified on that date, the old grand jury ceased to exist and could not legally function. Arti-*616ele 189, Code of Criminal Procedure. Therefore, to grant the writs herein applied for would serve no useful purpose, as the questions presented have become moot ones.

For the reasons assigned, the rule nisi is dissolved and the writs are refused.
IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-07-00281-CV

FLYING DIAMOND-WEST MADISONVILLE 

LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, SOL LEVINE, AND 

MARDAN ENERGY CORPORATION,

Appellants

v.

GW PETROLEUM, INC., GREAT WESTERN 

ONSHORE, INC., FORCENERGY ONSHORE, INC.,

CASCADE ENERGY CORPORATION, FAULCONER 

1996 LLC, GULFWEST OIL COMPANY, AND 

GULFWEST OIL & GAS COMPANY,

Appellees

From the 278th District Court

Madison County, Texas

Trial Court No. 6354

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellants, Flying Diamond-West Madisonville Limited Partnership, Sol Levine, 

and Mardan Energy Corporation filed a notice of appeal on September 13, 2007. This 

Court issued its opinion and judgment affirming in part and reversing in part on 
Flying Diamond-West Madisonville Ltd. Partnership v. GW Petroleum, Inc. Page 2

August 26, 2009. A motion for rehearing was filed on September 11, 2009. This Court 

referred this cause to mediation on October 7, 2009. 

Appellants and Appellees now jointly seek a dismissal of this appeal because the 

parties have settled their dispute in mediation and they no longer wish to pursue the 

appeal. The parties have agreed that the costs of appeal should be borne by the party 

incurring them.

Therefore, we withdraw the prior judgment entered in this cause dated August 

26, 2009. The opinion of the Court issued on August 26, 2009 is not withdrawn. TEX. R.

APP. P. 42.1(c).

Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed and the court costs are assessed against the 

party incurring them. TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1. The motion for rehearing is denied as moot.

TOM GRAY

Chief Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Reyna, and

Justice Davis

Dismissed

Opinion delivered and filed April 14, 2010

[CV06]
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Philip Puopolo

v. Civil No. 05-cv-397-SM

USA

ORDER GRANTING REQUEST TO

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal

is hereby granted, but only for the purpose of waiving the filing

fee. 

SO ORDERED.

___________________________________

James R. Muirhead

United States Magistrate Judge

Date: May 5, 2006

cc: Philip Puopolo, pro se

 Peter E. Pappas, Esq.

Case 1:05-cv-00397-SM Document 18 Filed 05/05/06 Page 1 of 1
Blueprint






Exhibit 10.1







AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO



TENAX THERAPEUTICS, INC.



2016 STOCK INCENTIVE PLAN


 


This
Amendment No. 1 (the “Amendment”) to the Tenax
Therapeutics, Inc. 2016 Stock Incentive Plan (the
“Plan”) to increase the number of shares of common
stock issuable under the Plan is made on April 18, 2019, effective
as of the time provided below.


 


WHEREAS, Tenax Therapeutics, Inc. (the
“Company”) has heretofore adopted the
Plan;


 


WHEREAS, as a result of the February 23,
2018 reverse stock split, the number of shares of the
Company’s common stock issuable under the Plan was reduced
from 3,000,000 to 150,000; and


 


WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of the
Company has approved the Amendment contingent upon the approval of
the Amendment by the stockholders of the Company.


 


NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that, pursuant to
Section 17.1 of the Plan, the Plan is hereby amended as follows,
effective as of such time as the Amendment is approved by the
stockholders of the Company:


 


Section
4.1 of the Plan is amended by replacing “three million
(3,000,000) Shares” with seven hundred fifty thousand
(750,000) Shares.”


 


Except
as expressly amended hereby, all provisions of the Plan shall
remain unamended and shall continue to be, and shall remain, in
full force and effect in accordance with their respective
terms.


 


The
Amendment shall have no effect until such time as it is approved by
the stockholders of the Company.


 


The
provisions of the Amendment shall be governed by and interpreted in
accordance with the laws of the State of Delaware.
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

 

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

 ________________________

 No. 11-16013 

Non-Argument Calendar

 ________________________

 D.C. Docket No. 8:11-cr-00080-VMC-TGW-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

SHAWNTRECE SIMS, 

llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

 Appeal from the United States District Court

 for the Middle District of Florida

 ________________________

(February 1, 2013)

Before HULL, JORDAN and FAY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Case: 11-16013 Date Filed: 02/01/2013 Page: 1 of 2 
Tom Dale, appointed counsel for Shawntrece Sims in this direct criminal

appeal, has moved to withdraw from further representation of the appellant and

filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18

L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Our independent review of the entire record reveals that

counsel’s assessment of the relative merit of the appeal is correct. Because

independent examination of the entire record reveals no arguable issues of merit,

counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and Sims’s convictions and

sentences are AFFIRMED.

2

Case: 11-16013 Date Filed: 02/01/2013 Page: 2 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Hypertherm, Inc.

v. Civil No. 05-cv-373-JD

American Torch Tip Company

PROCEDURAL ORDER

American Torch Tip Company filed a document titled: "ATTC's

Notice That Hypertherm's Just-Served Expert Report Contradicts

Hypertherm's Arguments in Its Motion to Dismiss Amended

Counterclaims or, in the Alternative, for Summary Judgment."

Hypertherm then filed a response to the "Notice." Although

Hypertherm noted in a footnote that ATTC failed to seek leave of

court to file the "Notice," it did not otherwise challenge the

procedural basis of the "Notice."

The pleadings allowed in federal court are listed in Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure 7(a)(1), which does not include a

"notice." Rule 7(a)(2) requires that an application to the court

for an order must be made by motion, and the word "motion" must

appear in the title, LR 7.1(a)(1). Because the "Notice" filed by

ATTC does not include "Motion" in its title, other than to refer

to Hypertherm's motion, it is not deemed to be seeking an order

from the court.

Instead, the "Notice" appears to be a belated surreply to

Hypertherm's reply to ATTC's objection to the Motion to Dismiss. 

Case 1:05-cv-00373-JD Document 128 Filed 06/28/07 Page 1 of 2
2

Hypertherm's reply was filed on January 22, 2007. ATTC filed a

notice of its intent to file a surreply and a motion for leave to

file a surreply with the surreply. ATTC then moved to strike the

motion for leave and the surreply, which the court granted on

February 21, 2007. On June 6, 2007, ATTC filed its "Notice" that

argues Hypertherm's expert has taken a position contrary to the

basis for Hypertherm's motion to dismiss.

A surreply is not allowed without prior leave of court. LR

7.1(e)(3). Because ATTC did not seek leave to file its "Notice,"

which appears to be a surreply, it was not properly filed. The

"Notice" will not be considered in support of ATTC's objection to

Hypertherm's motion to dismiss.

SO ORDERED.

___________________________

Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.

United States District Judge

June 28, 2007

cc: Jacob K. Baron, Esquire

Steven M. Bauer, Esquire

Seth M. Cannon, Esquire

Joseph A. Capraro, Jr., Esquire

Myriah M. Gambrell-Glenn, Esquire

Jamie N. Hage, Esquire

Nicholas K. Holmes, Esquire

Jonathan A. Lax, Esquire

Barbara L. Mandell, Esquire

Richard C. Nelson, Esquire

W. Scott O'Connell, Esquire

Jeremy P. Oczek, Esquire

Allan J. Sternstein, Esquire

Adam B. Strauss, Esquire

Case 1:05-cv-00373-JD Document 128 Filed 06/28/07 Page 2 of 2