alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT NASHVILLE

November 18, 2005 Session

AUTO CREDIT OF NASHVILLE v. MELISSA WIMMER

 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Sumner County

No. 23298-C C. L. Rogers, Judge

No. M2005-00978-COA-R3-CV - Filed on August 31, 2006

FRANK G. CLEMENT, JR., J., dissenting.

I respectfully dissent from the majority’s conclusion that Auto Credit failed to give Ms.

Wimmer reasonable notice of the scheduled sale of the collateral.

The Uniform Commercial Code provides that a person “notifies” or “gives” a notice or

notification to another “by taking such steps as may be reasonably required to inform the other in

ordinary course whether or not such other actually comes to know of it.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-1-

201 (26). 

Auto Credit placed the notice in the U. S. Mail with sufficient postage properly addressed

to the current home address of Ms. Wimmer. The notice was placed in the U.S. Mail twenty days

prior to the scheduled sale of the collateral. The UCC deems ten days a reasonable time for

notification. Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-9-612(b). When the sale occurred, Auto Credit was unaware Ms.

Wimmer had not received the notice. 

The fact Auto Credit was unaware when the sale occurred that Ms. Wimmer had not received

the notice is significant because it distinguishes this case from Mallicoat v. Volunteer Finance &

Loan Corp., 415 S.W.2d 347 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1966), cited by the majority. In Mallicoat, the creditor

knew prior to the sale that the debtor had not received notice. The Mallicoat court found that

significant. “[Volunteer Finance] not only failed to show a compliance with the Act but . . . the

record affirmatively shows a lack of compliance and a conscious disregard of the debtor’s right to

notice.” Mallicoat, 415 S.W.2d at 350.

As the majority notes, proof of actual notice to or receipt by the debtor is not required, R &

J of Tennessee, Inc. v. Blankenship-Melton Real Estate, Inc., 166 S.W.3d 185, 205 (Tenn. Ct. App.

2004), and the creditor is not “forced to take responsibility for lost mail or the debtor’s refusal to

accept properly delivered mail.” Id. Although it would be an entirely different scenario if Auto
-2-

Credit had learned prior to the sale that Ms. Wimmer had not received notice, as was the case in

Mallicoat, that isn’t the case here. 

In my view, Auto Credit acted in good faith pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-1-203, in a

commercially reasonable manner pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-9-607 and -610, and the steps

it took constituted reasonable notification pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-9-612(b) and Tenn.

Code Ann. § 47-47-1-201 (26). 

For the foregoing reasons I would affirm the trial court.

____________________________________

FRANK G. CLEMENT, JR., JUDGE
EXHIBIT 32.2








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


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF


THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002








The
certification set forth below is hereby made solely for the purpose of
satisfying the requirements of Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and
may not be relied upon or used for any other purposes.





In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Access Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2010, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Stephen
B. Thompson, Chief Finance Officer certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002, that (1) the
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and (2) the information contained in the Report
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
of operations of the Company.





A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 or other document
authenticating, acknowledging or otherwise adopting the signature that appears
in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required
by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the
Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
upon request.





Signed at
the City of Dallas, in the State of Texas, this 16th day of August,
2010.





/s/ Stephen B.
Thompson


Stephen
B. Thompson


Chief Finance
Officer
```

[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 10 (Thursday, January 15, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 2116]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-00494]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health

Center for Scientific Review; 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: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis 
Panel, PAR13-259 Program Project: Behavioral and Neurobiological 
Effects of Drug Use.
    Date: January 21, 2015.
    Time: 12:30 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, 
Bethesda, MD 20892, (Telephone Conference Call).
    Contact Person: Boris P Sokolov, Ph.D., Scientific Review 
Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of 
Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 5217A, MSC 7846, Bethesda, MD 
20892, 301-408-9115, [email protected].

    This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the 
meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and 
funding cycle.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.306, 
Comparative Medicine; 93.333, Clinical Research, 93.306, 93.333, 
93.337, 93.393-93.396, 93.837-93.844, 93.846-93.878, 93.892, 93.893, 
National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: January 9, 2015.
Anna Snouffer,
Deputy Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2015-00494 Filed 1-14-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
```
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Eugene Rivera, Appellant.

[974 NYS2d 812]

Appeal from an order of the Monroe County Court (Frank E Geraci, Jr., J.), entered February 21, 2012. The order determined that defendant is a level three risk pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: On appeal from an order determining that he *1276is a level three risk pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (Correction Law § 168 *et seq.),*defendant contends that County Court’s determination of his risk level is not supported by the requisite clear and convincing evidence *(see*§ 168-n [3]). We reject that contention. “ ‘The statements in the case summary and presentence report with respect to [the number of victims and the age of the victims] constitute reliable hearsay supporting the court’s assessment of points’ ” under those risk factors *(People v St. Jean,*101 AD3d 1684, 1684 [2012]; *see People v Adams,*101 AD3d 1792, 1792-1793 [2012], *lv denied*20 NY3d 860 [2013]; *People v Vaughn,*26 AD3d 776, 776-777 [2006]). Defendant admitted that he had sexual contact with the victims in question, and there was reliable hearsay to establish that at least one of the victims was 10 years of age or younger at the time of the incident. Present — Scudder, PJ., Centra, Garni, Lindley and Sconiers, JJ.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Daniel Tavarez, Appellant.

[973 NYS2d 59]

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (George D. Covington, J.), rendered July 29, 1996, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and two counts of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to an aggregate term of 9 to 18 years, unanimously reversed, on the law, and the matter remanded for a new trial. Appeal from order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Seth L. Marvin, J), entered on or about May 27, 2010, which denied defendant’s CPL 440.46 motion for resentencing, unanimously dismissed as moot.

The court erred in denying defendant’s challenge for cause to a prospective juror who stated his belief and concern that he recognized defendant from his neighborhood, along with his fear that he would “run into” defendant or his friends. After being apprised of defendant’s address, the panelist expressed an increased concern, resulting from the fact that he lived near that address. The panelist also expressed a “feeling of defendant’s guilt,” because he believed the neighborhood was “infected with drugs and drug dealers,” After further inquiry regarding whether the panelist could follow the law and remain impartial, he ultimately stated, “I’ll try. ... I can’t promise you anything.” Viewing his statements in context and as a whole, they did not amount to an unequivocal assurance of impartiality *(see People v Chambers,*97 NY2d 417, 419 [2002]; *People v Arnold,*96 NY2d 358, 362-363 [2001]).

In view of this determination, we find it unnecessary to reach any other issues. Concur — Friedman, J.P., Richter, Feinman and Gische, JJ.
Exhibit 10.1


 


FIRST AMENDMENT TO


AMENDED FIVE PERCENT (5%) CONVERTIBLE
NOTE DATED SEPTEMBER 19, 2014


(Originally dated June 13, 2014)


 


THIS FIRST AMENDMENT
to Amended Five Percent (5%) Convertible Note dated September 19, 2014 (originally dated June 13, 2014) issued by Eurocan Holdings
Ltd. (now known as Eastside Distilling, Inc.) to Crystal Falls Investments, LLC in the principal amount of $150,000 (the “First
Amendment”) is made and entered into as of July 24, 2015, by and among Eastside Distilling, Inc. (f/k/a Eurocan Holdings,
Ltd.), a Nevada corporation (the “Company”), and Crystal Falls Investments, LLC (“Holder”). The
Company and Holder are sometimes collectively referred to herein as the “Parties” or individually as a "Party".


 


RECITALS


 


WHEREAS, on
June 13, 2014, the Company issued Holder a 5% Note in the amount of $150,000, the terms of which were amended on September 19,
2014 pursuant an Amended Five Percent Convertible Note (as amended, the “Note”). The Note is incorporated into
this First Amendment by this reference and all defined terms in the Agreement shall have the same meaning in this First Amendment.


 


WHEREAS, the
Maturity Date under the Note was June 13, 2015.


 


WHEREAS, the
Parties desire to extend the Maturity Date under the Note until December 13, 2015.


 


WHEREAS, the
Parties now wish to modify and amend the Note in accordance with this First Amendment.


 


NOW, THEREFORE,
in consideration of the foregoing, and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and adequacy of which are hereby
acknowledged, the Parties hereto agree as follows:


 


AGREEMENT


 


1.      Incorporation
of Recitals. The Recitals set forth above are herein incorporated into this First Amendment.


 


2.      Extension
of Maturity Date. The Parties hereby agree that the Maturity Date set forth in the Note is hereby extended until
December 13, 2015. Accordingly, the Note is hereby amended by deleting the reference to “June 13, 2015” immediately
before the defined term “Maturity Date” in the paragraph beginning “FOR VALUE RECEIVED” on the first page
of the Note and inserting “December 13, 2015” in lieu thereof.


 


3.      Counterparts.
This First Amendment may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which together
shall constitute one and the same instrument.


 


 






    

     

    

 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF,
the Parties hereto, intending to be legally bound, have each executed this First Amendment on the dates set forth above.


 


 


	COMPANY:	EASTSIDE DISTILLING, INC.
	 	f/k/a Eurocan Holdings Ltd.
	 	 
	 	 
	 	By: 	/s/ Steven Earles
	 	Name:	Steven Earles
	 	Title:	Chief Executive Officer
	 	 	 



 





	HOLDER:	CRYSTAL FALLS INVESTMENTS, LLC
	 	 
	 	 
	 	By: 	/s/ Ashvin Mascarenhas
	 	Name:	Ashvin Mascarenhas
	 	Title:	Manager
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

April 21, 2014

Order 

April 21, 2014

149105 & (3)(4)(5)

TIMOTHY A. STOEPKER,

Plaintiff,

v

ATTORNEY DISCIPLINE BOARD,

Defendant.

SC: 149105

ADB: 13-000032-GA

________________________________________/

On order of the Chief Justice, the stipulation to dismiss the complaint for 

superintending control is GRANTED. The dismissal is with prejudice and without costs 

or fees to either party. The earlier-filed motions to expedite and for immediate 

consideration are denied as moot.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Edwin Rodriguez, Appellant.

Submitted August 17, 2009;

decided August 27, 2009

Reported below, 60 AD3d 452.

Motion for assignment of counsel granted and Robert S. Dean, Esq., Center for Appellate Litigation, 74 Trinity Place, 11th Floor, New York, NY 10006 assigned as counsel to the appellant on the appeal herein.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Ferdinand Sandoval, Appellant.

[872 NYS2d 154]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Spires, J.), rendered March 14, 2006, convicting him of criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to establish his guilt of the crime of criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree is unpreserved for appellate review, as the defendant did not move for a trial order of dismissal with respect to this count *(see*CPL 470.05 [2]; *People v Hawkins,*11 NY3d 484 [2008]; *People v Urena,*46 AD3d 714 [2007]; *People v Richmond,*36 AD3d 721 [2007]). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution *(see People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence *(see*CPL 470.15 [5]; *People v Danielson,*9 NY3d 342 [2007]), we nevertheless accord great deference to the jury’s opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor *(see People v Mateo,*2 NY3d 383, 410 [2004], *cert denied*542 US 946 [2004]; *People v Moghaddam,*56 AD3d 801 [2008]). Upon reviewing the record here, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence *(see People v Romero,*7 NY3d 633 [2006]). Mastro, J.P, Fisher, Miller and Garni, JJ., concur.
### IN THE CO URT OF APPEALS OF TE NNE SS EE AT KNOX VILLE Ju ly 1, 20 11 Ses si on

ROBERT STABL ER V


### . RAMIE STABL ER-MARSTO N

A p p e a l f r o m t h e C i r c u i t C o u r t f o r K n o x C o u n t y N o . 8 6 4 5 4 W a l t e r C

. K u r t z , S e n i o r J u d g e

N o . E 2 0 1 0

- 0 2 2 3 0

- C O A

- R 3

- C V

- F I L E D

- J U L Y 1 , 2 0 1 1

T h e o r d e r f

r o m w h i c h t h e a p p e l l a n t R a m i e S t a b l e r

- M a r s t o n s e e k s t o a p p e a l w a s e n t e r e d o n F e b r u a r y 2 4
, 2 0 1 0

. N o t i c e s o f a p p e a l w e r e f

i l e d b y t h e a p p e l l a n t o n O c t o b e r 1 8
, 2 0 1 0
, a n d O c t o b e r 2 0
, 2 0 1 0

. B e c a u s e n e i t h e r o f t h e n o t i c e s o f a p p e a l w a s t i m e l y f i l e d
, w e h a v e n o j u r i s d i c t i o n t o c o n s i d e r t h i s a p p e a l

. A c c o r d i n g l y , t h i s a p p e a l i s d i s m i s s e d

.

T e n n . R

. A p p . P

. 3 A p p e a l a s o f R i g h t ; A p p e a l D i s m i s s e d

C H A R LE S D

. S U S A N O , J R

. , D

. M IC H A E L S W IN E Y , A N D J O H N W

. M C C LA R T Y , J J

.

R a m i e S t a b l e r

- M a r s t o n , H a m p t o n , N e w H a m p s h i r e , a p p e l l a n t , p r o s e

.

R o b e r t S t a b l e r , K n o x v i l l e , T e n n e s s e e , a p p e l l e e , p r o s e

.

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N 1

O u r j u r i s d i c t i o n o f t h i s T e n n

. R

. A p p

. P

. 3 a p p e a l a s o f r i g h t i s d e p e n d e n t u p o n t h e t i m e l y f i l i n g o f a n o t i c e o f a p p e a l

. A l b e r t v . F r

y e , 1 4 5 S

. W

. 3 d 5 2 6
, 5 2 8 ( T e n n

. 2 0 0 4 )

. I n t h e i n s t a n t c a s e , t h e d a y o f t h e r e l e v a n t o r d e r , i

. e

. , F e b r u a r y 2 4
, 2 0 1 0
, i s n o t c o u n t e d i n d e t e r m i n i n g t h e l a s t d a y o f t h e 3 0

- d a y p e r i o d o f t i m e f o r t h e f i l i n g o f a n o t i c e o f a p p e a l

. S e e T e n n

. R

. A p p

. P

. 2 1 ( a )

. H e n c e , t h e l a s t d a y t h e n o t i c e c o u l d b e t i m e l y f i l e d w a s F r i d a y ,

Rule 10 o f t he Ru le s of

th e Cou rt of

Appe al s pr ovides as fo ll ows: 1

T his Cour t, wit h the con cur re nce of al l j udges par ti ci pat ing in the cas e, m ay
a f f i rm, re verse or m odi fy the act ion s of the tr ia l cou rt by m emoran d u m opi nio n when a for m al opi nio n woul d have no pre ced ent ia l value. Wh en
a cas e is dec i d ed by m emorand um opi nio n it sha ll be des ignat ed “M EMORANDUM OPI

NI ON,” sha ll not be publ is hed
, and sha ll not be ci te d or re li ed o n f

or any re aso n i n an y unrel at ed c ase

.M a r c h 2 6
, 2 0 1 0

. I t f o l l o w s t h a t t h e n o t i c e s o f a p p e a l f i l e d O c t o b e r 1 8
, 2 0 1 0
, a n d O c t o b e r 2 0
, 2 0 1 0
, w e r e n o t t i m e l y f i l e d

. W e h a v e n o j u r i s d i c t i o n t o h e a r t h e a p p e l l a n t ’ s a p p e a l

.

T h e a p p e a l o f R a m i e S t a b l e r

- M a r s t o n i s d i s m i s s e d w i t h c o s t s o n a p p e a l t a x e d t o h e r

.

P E R C U R I A M

-2-
1

Motion Granted; Abatement Order filed February 26, 2019

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 19

- 00112

- CV

____________ SCZ RESOURCES, LLC , Appellant

V. MULTIPLEX RESOURCES, INC., BRANDON L. GU ILES, AND BLUEROCK ENERGY CAPI TAL II, LLC, Appellee s

On Appeal from the 125th District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2014

- 38802

ABATEMENT ORDER

On February 20, 2019 , the parties notified this court that the parties are attempting to settle the issues on appeal and requested that the appeal be abated for negotiation of the settlement. The motion is granted. Accordingly, we issue the following order.2

The appeal is abat ed, treated as a closed case, and removed from this court’s
active docket until March 19, 2019 . The appeal will be reinstated on this court’s active docket at that time, or when the parties file a motion to dismiss the appeal or other dispositive motion. T he court will also consider an appropriate motion to reinstate the appeal filed by any party, or the court may reinstate the appeal on its
own motion.

PER CURIAM
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 CHL Mortgage Pass-Through Trust
               2007-3 (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.

Date: March [ ], 2008

             /s/ Steve Bailey
             -----------------------------------
             Steve Bailey
             Senior Managing Director, Chief Executive Officer Loan
             Administration
             (Senior officer in charge of the servicing function of
             Countrywide Home Loans Servicing LP)