alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

In re:

BURTON SANDLES,

Movant.

No. 12-1193

(D.C. No. 1:11-CV-02718-LTB)

(D. Colo.)

ORDER

Before BRISCOE, Chief Judge, HARTZ and HOLMES, Circuit Judges.

Burton Sandles seeks authorization to file a second or successive 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2254 habeas application. We deny authorization.

In 1999, Mr. Sandles entered a guilty plea to one count of theft and received 

two years of probation in case number 98-CR-368 in Arapahoe County, Colorado. 

His probation was revoked in July 2001, and the trial court reinstated probation for 

another two-year term. In March 2004, the trial court terminated Mr. Sandles’ 

probation and ordered him released for time served. 

In 2010, Mr. Sandles filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas application in which he 

asserted three claims for relief. The district court dismissed the second claim for 

failing to raise a cognizable federal constitutional issue. The district court denied and 

dismissed the remaining claims because (1) Mr. Sandles was not in custody pursuant 

to the conviction he was attacking, which is a requirement for seeking habeas relief; 

(2) his first and third claims were barred by the one-year statute of limitations; and 

EALS

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

May 14, 2012

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 12-1193 Document: 01018843963 Date Filed: 05/14/2012 Page: 1 

Case 1:11-cv-02718-LTB Document 10 Filed 05/14/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2
- 2 -

(3) his first and third claims were procedurally barred. Mr. Sandles filed an untimely 

notice of appeal from the district court’s order, and this court dismissed his appeal 

for lack of jurisdiction.

In November 2011, Mr. Sandles filed another § 2254 habeas application. The 

district court dismissed it for lack of jurisdiction because Mr. Sandles had not 

received authorization to file a second or successive § 2254 habeas application. He 

did not appeal. 

Mr. Sandles has now filed a motion for authorization to file a second or 

successive § 2254 application, asserting that he has newly discovered evidence to 

support his claims. In order to satisfy the standard for authorization in 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2244(b)(2), however, he must produce new facts showing a “high probability of 

actual innocence.” Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 530 (2005). This he has not 

done. Accordingly, we DENY the motion for authorization. This denial of 

authorization “shall not be appealable and shall not be the subject of a petition for 

rehearing or for a writ of certiorari.” 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(E).

Entered for the Court

ELISABETH A. SHUMAKER, Clerk

Appellate Case: 12-1193 Document: 01018843963 Date Filed: 05/14/2012 Page: 2 

Case 1:11-cv-02718-LTB Document 10 Filed 05/14/12 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2
**Exhibit 99.5**

 

Certification of CEO under Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002

 

 

I certify that this periodicreport containing the issuer’s financial statements fully complies with therequirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934(15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)) and that information contained In this periodicreport fairly presents in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the issuer.

 

 
|   | By:    | /s/ Keith C Robbins                 |   |
|--------|--------|-------------------------------------|--------|
|   |   | Keith C. Robbins                    |
|   |   | President, Chief Executive  Officer |
|   |   | March 18, 2003                      |

 

----
| Skip to Content*Release Date: December 6, 2007*Release dates |  Coded tables |  Historical dataCurrent release |  Screen reader |  PDF (450 KB)**F.220 Commercial Mortgages** |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
#### Oliver SWEAT v. STATE.

8 Div. 996.

Court of Appeals of Alabama.

May 21, 1935.

. RICE, Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02-20-00280-CV

IN RE KILLICK AEROSPACE LIMITED,

KILLICK AEROSPACE, LLC, Relator

§

§

§

§

§

§

Original Proceeding

236th District Court of Tarrant County, 

Texas

Trial Court No. 236-315925-20

December 23, 2020

Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice 

Sudderth

JUDGMENT

This court has considered relator’s petition for writ of mandamus and holds 

that the petition should be conditionally granted. Accordingly, we conditionally grant 

the writ of mandamus and direct the trial court to vacate its order denying the Killick 

Parties’ motion to dismiss, and we direct the trial court to enter an order dismissing 

the claims brought against the Killick Parties. Our writ will issue only if the trial court 

fails to comply.
It is further ordered that Real Party in Interest Bombardier Inc. and Learjet, 

Inc. shall pay all of the costs of this proceeding, for which let execution issue. 

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

By _/s/ Bonnie Sudderth________________

 Chief Justice Bonnie Sudderth
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

September 28, 2015

No. 04-15-00305-CR

Brian Keith GORHAM,

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

From the 175th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2012CR10383

Honorable Mary D. Roman, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Appellant’s second motion for extension of time to file brief is GRANTED. The 

appellant’s brief is due on October 30, 2015. 

_________________________________

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 28th day of September, 2015.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
| Skip to Content*Release Date: March 6, 2008*Release dates |  Coded tables |  Historical dataCurrent release |  Screen reader |  PDF (450 KB)**L.216 Other Loans and Advances** |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02765-WJM-BNB

DALIP BASANTI,

Plaintiff,

v.

JEFFREY METCALF, M.D.,

JASON ROZESKI, M.D.,

PLATTE VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER,

THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

SALUD FAMILY HEALTH CENTER,

ANDRE MAY, M.D.,

N. WELTER, F.N.P.

GUILLERMINA CASTILLO, P.A.,

ALBERTO DENEGRI, M.D.,

KELET ROBINSON, M.D.,

EILEEN FLAHERTY, N.P.,

LORRAINE RUFNER, N.D., and

MELISSA BEAGLE, M.D.,

Defendants.

______________________________________________________________________________

MINUTE ORDER

______________________________________________________________________________

Minute Order Entered by Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland

This matter is before the Court on the United States’ Unopposed Motion to Amend

Answer [docket no. 80, filed August 15, 2012] (the “Motion”).

IT IS ORDERED that the Motion is GRANTED. Defendant United States of America’s

First Amended Answer to First Amended (Corrected) Complaint for Damages, Jury Demand and

Certificate of Review [docket number 82, filed August 15, 2012] is hereby accepted as filed.

DATED: August 16, 2012

Case 1:11-cv-02765-WJM-BNB Document 84 Filed 08/16/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
**
EXHIBIT 33.1 

**REPORT ON ASSESSMENT OF COMPLIANCE WITH SERVICING CRITERIA**

**PURSUANT TO ITEM 1122 OF REGULATION AB**

**FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF OMAHA**

Date: March 25, 2019 

Theundersigned, a duly authorized representative of First National Bank of Omaha (the “Servicer”), hereby certifies as follows: 

(1)    The Servicer is responsible for assessing its compliance with the servicing criteria set forth in 17 C.F.R. §229.1122(d) (“Item 1122(d) of Regulation AB”), except for servicing criteria specified in (1)(iii); (2)(iii) and (vi); 3(iii) and (iv); and 4(x), (xi), (xii) and (xiii) of Item 1122(d) of Regulation AB, which the Servicer hasdetermined are inapplicable to the activities it performs with respect to the credit card asset backed securities transactions issued by First National Master Note Trust (the “Platform”) being serviced (such applicable criteria, aftergiving effect to the exceptions identified above, the “Applicable Servicing Criteria”), as of and for the year ended December 31, 2018 relating to the servicing of the Platform; 

(2)    The Servicer used the servicing criteria in Item 1122(d) of Regulation AB to assess compliance with the ApplicableServicing Criteria; 

(3)    The Servicer is in compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria relating to thePlatform as of and for the year ended December 31, 2018 in all material respects; and 

(4)    Deloitte &Touche LLP, an independent registered public accounting firm, has issued an attestation report for the Platform on the Servicer’s assessment of compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria as of and for the year ended December 31,2018. 
**

FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF OMAHA, as ServicerBy /s/ Timothy D. Hart Timothy D. Hart Senior Vice President and Treasurer
 
[Signature page to Reporton Assessment of Compliance of First National Bank of Omaha]
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02356-CMA-BNB

MONTPELIER US INSURANCE COMPANY, an Oklahoma corporation,

Plaintiff,

v.

PARK FOREST CARE CENTER, INC., a Colorado corporation,

Defendant.

______________________________________________________________________________

ORDER

______________________________________________________________________________

This matter arises on Defendant Park Forest Care Center, Inc.’s Unopposed Motion

to Extend Scheduling Order Deadlines [Doc. # 31, filed 6/7/2012] (the “Motion”). I held a

hearing on the Motion this morning and made rulings on the record, which are incorporated here.

IT IS ORDERED:

(1) The Motion [Doc. # 31] is DENIED; and

(2) The parties shall file a motion to administratively close the action pursuant to

D.C.COLO.LCivR 41.2, if at all, on or before June 20, 2012.

Dated June 13, 2012.

BY THE COURT:

 s/ Boyd N. Boland 

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 1:11-cv-02356-CMA-BNB Document 36 Filed 06/13/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
#### SCHARR v. SKAFTE.

Supreme Court of Florida.

June Term 1953.

Certiorari denied without opinion.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Criminal Action No. 11-cr-00422-REB-01

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

vs.

HA MANH DO,

Defendant.

ORDER GRANTING TRAVEL OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES

Upon report of the probation officer that the defendant has requested foreign

travel and he remains in compliance with the conditions of supervised release, it is 

ORDERED that the defendant, Ha Manh Do, be allowed to travel to The Republic

of Vietnam, July 30-August 21, 2015.

DATED at Denver, Colorado, this 15th day of July, 2015.

BY THE COURT:

Case 1:11-cr-00422-REB Document 256 Filed 07/15/15 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
**Exhibit 31(a)**

 

**CERTIFICATIONS**

 

I, John E. Duffy, certify that:

 

1.                                       I have reviewedthis quarterly report on Form 10-Q of HickoryTech;

 

2.                                       Based on myknowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, inlight of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

 

3.                                       Based on myknowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report;

 

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

 

a)         designed such disclosure controls andprocedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designedunder our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared;

 

b)        evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’sdisclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusionsabout the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of theend of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

 

c)         disclosed in this report any change in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and

 

5.                                       The registrant’sother certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent function):

 

a)         all significant deficiencies and materialweaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financialreporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

 

b)        any fraud, whether or not material, thatinvolves management or other employees who have a significant role in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

 

Date:  August 12, 2003

 

 
| /s/ John E. Duffy       |   |
|-------------------------|--------|
| John E. Duffy           |
| Chief Executive Officer |

 

1

----
Exhibit 32.1

Certification by Chief Executive Officer of Amendment No. 1 on Form 10K/A

I, Richard McBee, Chief Executive Officer of Mitel Networks Corporation (Mitel), certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1) the Amendment No. 1 on Form 10-K/A of Mitel, for the year ended
December 31, 2014 filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or
78o(d)); and

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

Dated: April 1, 2015



/s/ Richard McBeeName: Richard McBee Title: Chief Executive
Officer & President
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1764 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1764

To improve the use of a grant of a parcel of land to the State of Idaho 
      for use as an agricultural college, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             July 11, 2007

 Mr. Crapo (for himself and Mr. Craig) introduced the following bill; 
     which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, 
                     Education, Labor, and Pensions

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To improve the use of a grant of a parcel of land to the State of Idaho 
      for use as an agricultural college, and for other purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. AGRICULTURAL COLLEGE LAND GRANT.

    (a) In General.--Section 10 of the Act of July 3, 1890 (26 Stat. 
215, chapter 656) is amended--
            (1) by inserting ``(a)'' after ``Sec. 10.''; and
            (2) by adding at the end the following:
    ``(b) Notwithstanding sections 3 through 5 of the Act of July 2, 
1862 (commonly known as the `First Morrill Act') (7 U.S.C. 303 et 
seq.), the State of Idaho may--
            ``(1) invest and manage earnings and proceeds derived from 
        land granted to the State of Idaho pursuant to subsection (a), 
        in accordance with the standards applicable to a trustee under 
        Idaho law;
            ``(2) deduct from earnings and proceeds generated from 
        granted land any expenses that a trustee is authorized to 
        deduct pursuant to Idaho law; and
            ``(3) use earnings and proceeds generated by the granted 
        land for any uses and purposes described in that Act (7 U.S.C. 
        301 et seq.) without regard to the limitations set out in 
        section 5 of that Act (7 U.S.C. 305) that prohibit the State 
        from exceeding 10 per centum on the purchase of land and 
        prohibit the State from purchasing, erecting, preserving, or 
        repairing of any building or buildings.''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a) shall 
take effect on October 27, 1998.
                                 <all>
```
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 200 (Wednesday, October 15, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 61079-61082]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-24407]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary

[Transmittal Nos. 08-102]


36(b)(1) Arms Sales Notification

AGENCY: Department of Defense, Defense Security Cooperation Agency.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Defense is publishing the unclassified text 
of a section 36(b)(1) arms sales notification. This is published to 
fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated 21 
July 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. B. English, DSCA/DBO/CFM, (703) 
601-3740.
    The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of 
Representatives, Transmittals 08-102 with attached transmittal, and 
policy justification.

    Dated: October 7, 2008
Patricia L. Toppings,
OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
BILLING CODE 5001-06-M

[[Page 61080]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN15OC08.048


[[Page 61081]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN15OC08.049


[[Page 61082]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN15OC08.050

[FR Doc. E8-24407 Filed 10-14-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-06-C
<PAGE>


                                                                    Exhibit 99.1

                             OFFICER'S CERTIFICATE
             -----------------------------------------------------

                  CHASE CREDIT CARD OWNER TRUST SERIES 2002-2

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



      The undersigned, an Authorized Officer of the Chase Manhattan Bank USA,
National Association, as Administrator pursuant to the Indenture for the Chase
Credit Card Owner Trust Series 2002-2 does hereby certify that:

                  1. The undersigned is an Authorized Officer pursuant to the
            Indenture to execute and deliver this Certificate to the Indenture
            Trustee.

                  2. This Certificate is delivered pursuant to Section 3.9 of
            the Indenture.

                  3. A review of the activities of the Issuer during the period
            from the closing date until December 31, 2002, and of performance
            under this Indenture has been made under the supervision of the
            undersigned.

                  4. To the best of the undersigned knowledge, based on such
            review, the Issuer has complied with all conditions and covenants in
            all material respects under this Indenture throughout the period
            from the closing date until December 31, 2002. No default in the
            compliance of any such condition or covenant has occurred or is
            continuing except as set forth in paragraph 5 below.

                  5. The following is a description of each default in the
            performance of the Issuer's obligations under the provisions of the
            Indenture known to the undersigned to have been made during such
            period which sets forth in detail (i) the nature of each such
            default, (ii) the action taken by the Issuer, if any, to remedy each
            such default and (iii) the current status of each such default:
            NONE.


      IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has duly executed this certificate
this 28th day of March, 2003.

                                               By CHASE MANHATTAN BANK
                                               USA, National Association,
                                               as Administrator




                                               By:  /s/ Patricia M. Garvey
                                                    ----------------------------
                                               Name: Patricia M. Garvey
                                               Title: Vice President
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1

<S>                                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                          OCT-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                            DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                      126171
<SECURITIES>                                     0
<RECEIVABLES>                               270372
<ALLOWANCES>                                     0
<INVENTORY>                                  86499
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           1426805
<PP&E>                                      340999
<DEPRECIATION>                                   0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             1908831
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       337633
<BONDS>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            0
<PREFERRED>                                      0
<COMMON>                                   3919253
<OTHER-SE>                                (2348055)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               1571198
<SALES>                                     177139
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            222202
<CGS>                                       157167
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               157167
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            650647
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  0
<INCOME-TAX>                                     0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              0
<DISCONTINUED>                                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  0
<CHANGES>                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                               (585612)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    0


</TABLE>
KURT HELMICH,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D16-400

_____________________________/

Opinion filed April 3, 2017.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County.

Angela Cox, Judge.

Kurt Helmich, pro se, Appellant. 

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Trisha Meggs Pate, Tallahassee Bureau 

Chief, Criminal Appeals, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

ROWE, RAY, and M.K. THOMAS, JJ., CONCUR.