alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 12**  **- 7838** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v. JAMES BOSTIC, a/k/a Jimmy , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland , at Baltimore
. William D. Quarles, Jr. , District Judge. ( 1:09

- cr - 00333

- WDQ

- 4; 1:11

- cv - 03131

- WDQ )

Submitted : February 27, 2013 Decided: March 29, 2013

Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and DIAZ , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. James Bostic, Appellant Pro Se. James Thomas Wallner, Assistant United States Attorney, Peter Marshall Nothstein, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not bind ing precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: James Bostic seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. A. § 2255 ( West Supp. 2012 ) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit judge issues a certificate of appealabilit y. 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(1) (B) (200 6 ). 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) (200 6 ). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner sa tisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Bostic 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 leg al3 contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 199 (Friday, October 15, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 63498]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-26029]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health & Human 
Development; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Child Health and Human 
Development Special Emphasis Panel; Congenital Diaphragmatic Hernia.
    Date: November 9, 2010.
    Time: 2 p.m. to 5 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6100 Executive Boulevard, 
Rockville, MD 20852 (Telephone Conference Call).
    Contact Person: Neelakanta Ravindranath, PhD, Scientific Review 
Officer, Division of Scientific Review, Eunice Kennedy Shriver 
National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, NIH, 6100 
Executive Blvd., Room 5B01G, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-6889, 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#89fbe8ffe0e7edfbe7c9e4e8e0e5a7e7e0e1a7eee6ff"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="295b485f40474d5b47694448404507474041074e465f">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.864, 
Population Research; 93.865, Research for Mothers and Children; 
93.929, Center for Medical Rehabilitation Research; 93.209, 
Contraception and Infertility Loan Repayment Program, National 
Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: October 6, 2010.
Jennifer S. Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2010-26029 Filed 10-14-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Exhibit 99.1



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 quarterly report of Dynacq International, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended May 31, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Chiu M. Chan, Chief Executive Officer 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:



(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 result of operations of the Company.



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/    CHIU M. CHAN    
|Chiu M. Chan,          
|Chief Executive Officer



July
14, 2003



The signed original of this written statement required by Section
906 has been provided to Dynacq International, Inc., and will be retained by Dynacq International, Inc., and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
584 A.2d 218

#### STEPHEN S. LEVITT, ET AL. v. GREEN COURT BUILDERS, INC., ET AL.

May 15, 1990.

Petition for certification denied.
| (logo) WELLS   

           FARGO

  | Commercial Mortgage Servicing

D1086-120, 12th Floor

550 South Tryon Street

Charlotte, NC 28202

1-800-326-1334 |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

ANNUAL STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE

 

Reference is hereby made to that certain Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of July 1, 2014, by and among J.P. Morgan Chase Commercial Mortgage Securities Corp., as Depositor, Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as Master Servicer, Midland Loan Services, A Division of PNC Bank, National Association, as Special Servicer, Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as Certificate Administrator, Wilmington Trust, National Association, as Trustee, and Pentalpha Surveillance LLC, as Senior Trust Advisor with respect to Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series 2014-C21 (the "Agreement"). Capitalized terms used herein not otherwise defined shall have the meanings assigned in the Agreement.

 

Pursuant to Section 11.09 of this Agreement, I, Daniel Bober, Executive Vice President of Commercial Mortgage Services do hereby certify that:

 

1.              A review of the activities of the Master Servicer during the period from July 1, 2014 through December 31, 2014 (the “Reporting Period”),  and of its performance per the Agreement during such period has been made under my supervision, and 

 

2.              To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Master Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period.

 

 

 

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this Certificate as of the 6th day of March 2015.

                                                

                                                

/s/ Daniel Bober

Daniel Bober

Executive Vice President

Wells Fargo Bank

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
| Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. | (logo) Together we’ll go far |
|------------------------|------------------------------------|
N OT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

____________

No. 1 8

- 3619

____________ In re: FENDI BROOKS , Petitioner

____________ On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the District Court of the Virgin Islands ( Related to D.C. No. 3

- 1 8

- c r - 00042

- 002 )

____________ Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P. August 12, 2019 Before: CHAGARES , HARDIMAN , and RESTREPO, Circuit Judges

. (Filed: January 27, 2020)

____________ OPINION *

____________

* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute bindin g precedent.2 HARDIMAN, Circuit Judge

. Fendi Brooks petitioned this Court for a supervisory writ of mandamus. She claims the District Court of the Virgin Islands has unconstitutionally delegated to the United States Marshal’s Service the power to determine whether pretrial detainees are shackled in court. At the time she filed her petition, Brooks was a pretrial detainee. B ut she has since pleaded guilty and was sentenced on October 31, 2019. This change in status renders her case moot under the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Sanchez

- Gomez , 138 S. Ct. 1532 (2018). In that case , four pretrial detainees challenge d the constitutionality of a blanket policy of using full restraints during pretrial proceedings. Id . at 1536. The Supreme Court held their case moot following their guilty pleas

. See id . at 1540

– 4 2

. Brooks’s petition is , as her counsel rightly acknowledge d, likewise moot. Petitioner’s Letter Br. at 1

- 2 (Jan. 13, 2020) (quoting Sanchez

- Gomez , 138 S.Ct. at 1540)). W hile Brooks could theoretically violate the law and appear in court again, we “assume that [litigants] will conduct their activities within the law and so avoid prosecution and conviction.” O’Shea v. Littleton , 414 U.S. 488, 497 (1974). So we will dismiss the petition for mandamus.
#### STEPHEN VALLILLO v. MUSKIN CORPORATION AND EDWARD VALLILLO.

November 17, 1987.

Petition for certification denied. (See 218 *N.J.Super.*472)
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                         918,369
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  849,328
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  2,660,489
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             4,637,863
<PP&E>                                       4,805,399
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,953,238
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               6,561,402
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,568,184
<BONDS>                                      2,274,381
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                  2,383,116
<COMMON>                                    47,022,179
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 6,561,402
<SALES>                                      2,249,498
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,249,498
<CGS>                                        2,144,306
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,144,306
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               951,830
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              97,814
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,662,431)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,662,431)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,662,431)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.12)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.12)
        

</TABLE>
#### Richard J. HEATH v. CITY OF ALEXANDRIA, LOUISIANA.

No. 2010-C-2493.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 7, 2011.

In re Heath, Richard J.; —Plaintiff; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Re*887view, Parish of Rapides, 9th Judicial District Court Div. G, No. 230,927; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. CA 10-280.

Denied.
# Sitemap

## 1952

- Home
- Sitemap
- 1952

            - March
11TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

MCH Professional Care and * From the 161st District Court

Kristopher Kindle, CRNA, of Ector County

Trial Court No. B-16-12-1170-CV.

Vs. No. 11-17-00115-CV * June 6, 2019

Yulissa Zubia, individually and * Memorandum Opinion by Bailey, C.J.

as representative of the Estate (Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J.,

of Elpidia Rios De Zubia; Rene Willson, J., and Wright, S.C.J., sitting

Zubia; and Rene Zubia, Jr., by assignment)

(Willson, J., not participating)

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that there 

is error in the order below. Therefore, in accordance with this court’s opinion, 

the order of the trial court denying MCH Professional Care and Kristopher 

Kindle’s motion to dismiss is reversed, and this cause is remanded to the trial 

court for further proceedings. The costs incurred by reason of this appeal are 

taxed against Yulissa Zubia, individually and as representative of the Estate of 

Elpidia Rios De Zubia; Rene Zubia; and Rene Zubia, Jr.
## Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

Leonard George Mitchell , Appellant

No. 06

- 20

- 00047

- CR v.

The State of Texas , Appellee Appeal from the 124th District Court of Gregg County, Texas (Tr. Ct

. No. 49,299

- B ). Memorand um Opinion delivered by Justice Stevens

, Chief Justice Morriss and Justice Burgess participating

.

As stated in the Court’s opi nion of this date, we find there was partial error in the judgment of the court below. Therefore, we modify the judgment of th e trial court by deleting the assessment of $1,190 .00 in atto rney fees . We also delete the entry of $1,190.00 for “Attorney F ee” in the certified bill of costs and revise the entry for “Total Costs” to $330.00. As modified, the judgment of the trial cour t is affirmed. We note that the appellant, Leonard George Mitchell , has adequately indicated his inability to pay costs of appeal. Therefore, we waive payment of costs.

RENDERED OCTOBER 20, 2020 BY ORDER OF THE COURT JOSH R. MORRISS, III CHIEF JUSTICE

A TTEST: Debra K. Autrey , Clerk
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 915 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 915

  To permanently extend the Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act of 
                                 2009.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 7, 2017

Mr. Ellison (for himself, Ms. Maxine Waters of California, Mrs. Carolyn 
    B. Maloney of New York, Mr. Lynch, Ms. Moore, Mr. Capuano, Mr. 
Grijalva, Mr. Butterfield, Mr. Smith of Washington, Mr. Cicilline, Ms. 
   Clark of Massachusetts, Ms. Norton, Mr. McGovern, Mr. Takano, Mr. 
    Cummings, Mr. Cartwright, Mr. Pocan, and Mr. Lewis of Georgia) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                           Financial Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To permanently extend the Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act of 
                                 2009.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Permanently Protecting Tenants at 
Foreclosure Act of 2017''.

SEC. 2. RESTORATION OF THE PROTECTING TENANTS AT FORECLOSURE ACT OF 
              2009.

    (a) Repeal of Sunset Provision.--Section 704 of the Protecting 
Tenants at Foreclosure Act of 2009 (12 U.S.C. 5201 note; 12 U.S.C. 5220 
note; 42 U.S.C. 1437f note) is repealed.
    (b) Restoration.--Sections 701 through 703 of such Act, the 
provisions of law amended or repealed by such sections, and any 
regulations promulgated pursuant to such sections, as were in effect on 
December 31, 2014, are restored and revived as if the sunset provision 
in section 704 had not taken effect.
                                 <all>
```
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 1066 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. RES. 1066

 Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that protections 
for individuals with pre-existing conditions should be retained in law 
  regardless of further amendments to, or the repeal of, the Patient 
                  Protection and Affordable Care Act.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 13, 2018

   Mr. Young of Iowa (for himself, Mr. Rodney Davis of Illinois, Mr. 
   McKinley, Mr. Diaz-Balart, Mr. Blum, Mr. Joyce of Ohio, Mrs. Mimi 
   Walters of California, Ms. Stefanik, Mr. Bacon, Mr. Valadao, Mr. 
Knight, Mr. Bost, Ms. Herrera Beutler, Mrs. Brooks of Indiana, Mr. King 
  of New York, Mr. Renacci, Mr. LoBiondo, Mr. Newhouse, Mr. Hurd, Mr. 
 Huizenga, Miss Gonzalez-Colon of Puerto Rico, Mr. Upton, Mr. Coffman, 
  Mr. Curbelo of Florida, Mr. Yoder, Mr. Katko, Mr. Donovan, and Ms. 
McSally) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 
                    Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
 Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that protections 
for individuals with pre-existing conditions should be retained in law 
  regardless of further amendments to, or the repeal of, the Patient 
                  Protection and Affordable Care Act.

Whereas pre-existing conditions can affect any individual regardless of race, 
        gender, age, social class, or creed;
Whereas health insurance coverage should not discriminate against those with 
        pre-existing conditions;
Whereas pre-existing condition protections have long been supported in a 
        bipartisan manner; and
Whereas protections for pre-existing conditions should be included in any reform 
        of our Nation's health care system: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Representatives that 
Congress should--
            (1) support protections in law for individuals with pre-
        existing conditions; and
            (2) in the case of a court ruling that would hinder such 
        protections, act swiftly to reinstate such protections for such 
        individuals.
                                 <all>
```
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA Cause No. DA 22

- 0182 BROADWATER COUNTY, MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, and HELENA INDEPENDENT RECORD,

Defendant and Appellee,

v. PERSON WITH AN INTEREST IN THE RELEASE OF CONFIDENTIAL CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFORMATION PERTAINING TO THE INVESTIGATION AND PROSECUTION OF JASON ELLSWORTH: JASON ELLSWORTH

Defendant and Appellant.

**GRANT OF EXTENSION** Upon consideration of the Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time from Appellee, Broadwater County, Montana, and good cause appearing therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellee, Broadwater County, Montana, is granted an extension of time up to and including October 12, 2022, within which to prepare, file and serve Appellee’s answer brief.

Electronically signed by: Bowen Greenwood Clerk of the Supreme Court September 12 2022

09/12/2022

Case Number: DA 22-0182
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. WILLIAM HENDERSON.

October 20, 1987.

Petition for certification denied.
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. JOHN THOMAS CUSICK.

October 20, 1987.

Petition for certification denied.
Petition for Writ of Mandamus Dismissed and Memorandum Majority and 

Dissenting Opinions filed August 15, 2023.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-23-00472-CR

IN RE JOHN DAVIS BERNARD, JR., Relator

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

WRIT OF MANDAMUS

184th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1726657

MEMORANDUM MAJORITY OPINION

On July 7, 2023, relator John Davis Bernard, Jr. filed a petition for writ of 

mandamus in this court. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221; see also Tex. R. App. 

P. 52. In the petition, relator asks this court to set aside his indictment in the 

underlying case. 

Relator is seeking habeas-corpus relief in his mandamus petition. The courts 

of appeal have no original habeas-corpus jurisdiction in criminal matters. In re 
2

Ayers, 515 S.W.3d 356, 356 (Tex. App.―Houston [14th Dist.] 2016, orig. 

proceeding) (citing Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221(d)). Original jurisdiction to 

grant an application for a writ of habeas corpus in a criminal case is vested in the 

Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, the district courts, the county courts, or a judge in 

those courts. Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art 11.05. Therefore, this court is without 

jurisdiction to consider relator’s petition requesting habeas corpus relief.

Accordingly, relator’s petition is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. 

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Wise, Bourliot, and Spain (Spain, J., dissenting). 

Do Not Publish — Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).
EXHIBIT 31.1



CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE

SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 AS AMENDED



I, Jugal K. Taneja, certify that:



1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q/A of DrugMax, Inc.;



2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any
untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; and



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



|                          |  |     |  |                        
|------------------------- |  | --- |  | -----------------------
|Dated: September 28, 2004 |  | By: |  | /s/ Jugal K. Taneja    
|                          |  |     |  | Jugal K. Taneja        
|                          |  |     |  | Chief Executive Officer