alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

KALIM A. R. MUHAMMAD,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 2:14cv592-MW

BRENDA L. BETHEL MUHAMMAD,

et al.,

Defendants.

___________________________/

ORDER ACCEPTING

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This Court has considered, without hearing, the Magistrate Judge's Report 

and Recommendation, ECF No. 31, and has also reviewed de novo Plaintiff’s

objections to the report and recommendation, ECF No. 32. Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED:

The report and recommendation is accepted and adopted, over Plaintiff's 

objections, as this Court’s opinion. The Clerk shall enter judgment stating, "This 

case is DISMISSED for failure to comply with an order of the Court and for lack 

of subject matter jurisdiction. Any outstanding motions are DENIED." The Clerk 

Case 2:14-cv-00592-MW Document 33 Filed 11/05/15 Page 1 of 2
2

shall close the file. 

SO ORDERED on November 5, 2015.

s/Mark E. Walker

United States District Judge

Case 2:14-cv-00592-MW Document 33 Filed 11/05/15 Page 2 of 2
#### MARIE T. FORMYDUVAL, as Administratrix of the Estate of HARTWELL B. FORMYDUVAL, and JOEY FORMYDUVAL v. WILLIAM S. BRITT, individually and d/b/a BRITT & BRITT) and BRITT *&*BRITT, PLLC

No. 357A06

(Filed 26 January 2007)

Appeal pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7A-30(2) from the decision of a divided panel of the Court of Appeals, 177 N.C. App. 654, 630 S.E.2d 192 -(2006), reversing an order of dismissal entered 3 November 2003 by Judge B. Craig Ellis in Superior Court, Columbus County, and remanding for further proceedings. Heard in the Supreme Court 9 January 2007.

*216*The Odom Firm, PLLC, by Thomas L. Odom, Jr. and T. LaFontine Odom, Sr., and Williamson & Walton, LLP, by Benton H. Walton, III, for plaintiff-appellees.*

*Mitchell Brewer Richardson, by Ronnie M. Mitchell and Coy E. Brewer, Jr., for defendant-appellants.*

PER CURIAM.

Justice TIMMONS-GOODSON took no part in the consideration or decision of this case. The remaining members of the Court are equally divided, with three members voting to affirm and three members voting to reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals. Accordingly, the decision of the Court of Appeals is left undisturbed and stands without precedential value. *See State v. Harrison,*360 N.C. 394, 627 S.E.2d 461 (2006); *Crawford v. Commercial Union Midwest Ins. Co.,*356 N.C. 609, 572 S.E.2d 781 (2002); *Robinson v. Byrd,*356 N.C. 608, 572 S.E.2d 781 (2002).

AFFIRMED.
#### Radames Mercado, Appellant, v Rafael Ovalle et al., Respondents.

[973 NYS2d 171]

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Lucindo Suarez, J.), entered July 17, 2012, which granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendants, a grocery store and its owner, established entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. Defendants demonstrated that they did not own or harbor the two pit bulls that attacked plaintiff and did not own or control the adjacent lot on which the dogs were kept *(see Smith v City of New York,*68 AD3d 445, 446 [1st Dept 2009]; *Williams v City of New York,*306 AD2d 203, 206-207 [1st Dept 2003]).

In opposition, plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Plaintiff’s only evidence of defendants’ ownership and/or control over the dogs and the subject lot consisted of hearsay statements from a mechanic who operated out of the lot which the dogs guarded and his own observations that defendant Ovalle fed the dogs at an unidentified frequency and walked the dogs on one occasion, that men from the grocery store and Ovalle’s relatives were involved in the dogs’ care, and that men from the grocery store accessed the lot. Such evidence does not establish that defendants harbored the dogs *(cf. Dufour v Brown,*66 AD3d 1217 [3d Dept 2009]). Moreover, plaintiff had never seen the dogs on defendants’ premises and does not claim to have ever seen Ovalle enter the lot. Plaintiff’s speculation that Ovalle employed the aforementioned mechanic and had an interest in a nearby auto parts store and that the store was associated with the lot, does not establish that defendants owned or controlled the lot.

Plaintiff’s argument that defendants’ failure to annex the answer mandates denial of the motion *(see*CPLR 3212 [b]) is *540unpreserved *(see Tranes v Independent Health Assn.,*275 AD2d 410 [2d Dept 2000]). Had plaintiff raised the issue earlier, defendants would have had an opportunity to supplement the record *(see Ayer v Sky Club,*70 AD2d 863 [1st Dept 1979], *appeal dismissed*48 NY2d 705 [1979]). In any event, this procedural defect does not bar consideration of the motion as defendants explained the absence of the answer and submitted a copy of Ovalle’s deposition transcript, wherein he denied the relevant allegations concerning ownership and control of the dogs and lot. Accordingly, the record was sufficiently complete to consider the motion *(see Chan v Garcia,*24 AD3d 197, 198 [1st Dept 2005]).

Furthermore, plaintiff has not established any basis to revive his abandoned negligence claim *(see Bard v Jahnke,*6 NY3d 592 [2006]; *compare Hastings v Sauve,*21 NY3d 122 [2013]). Concur — Gonzalez, P.J., Tom, Saxe, Manzanet-Daniels and Gische, JJ.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Roy Smith, Appellant.

[870 NYS2d 802]

Application by the appellant for a writ of error coram nobis to vacate, on the ground of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, a decision and order of this Court dated December 12, 2006 *(People v Smith,*35 AD3d 635 [2006]), affirming a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered December 22, 2004.

Ordered that the application is denied.

The appellant has failed to establish that he was denied the effective assistance of appellate counsel *(see Jones v Barnes,*463 US 745 [1983]; *People v Stultz,*2 NY3d 277 [2004]). Prudenti, PJ., Ritter, Santucci and Miller, JJ., concur.
Exhibit
            31.1
 Certification
            of Senior Officer in Charge of the Servicing Function
 of
            the
            Servicer Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
            2002







**SERVICER
      CERTIFICATION**






I,
      Steven
      R. Lambert, certify that:




1.           I
      have reviewed this annual 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 Nissan Auto Receivables 2007-A Owner 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.           I
      am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the Servicer and based
      on my knowledge and the compliance review conducted in preparing the Servicer
      compliance statement required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation
      AB,
      and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act Periodic Reports, the Servicer
      has
      fulfilled its obligations under the Sale and Servicing Agreement 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 party:  Wells Fargo Bank, National
      Association.




Date:        June
      29, 2007




By:/s/ Steven R. Lambert


Steven
      R.
      Lambert


President
      and Chief
      Executive Officer of


Nissan
      Motor
      Acceptance Corporation









23
#### In re M.M., An.E., Ad.E.

Case below: 182 N.C. App. 529

No. 203P07

1. Respondent’s (Mother) PDR Under N.C.G.S. § 7A-31 (COA06-600)

2. Respondent’s (Father) PWC to . Review Decision of COA

3. Respondent’s (Father) PDR Under N.C.G.S. § 7A-31

1. Denied 06/27/07

2. Denied 06/27/07

3. Denied 06/27/07
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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Global Gold Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2007 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Lester S. Caesar, the
Chief Financial 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:

(1)The Report fully complies with the  requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 as amended; and

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

Dated: August 14, 2007                               /s/ Jan E. Dulman
                                                     ---------------------------
                                                     Jan E. Dulman
                                                     Chief Financial Officer
PUBLIC STORAGE, INC.
                            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 on Form 10-Q of Public Storage,
Inc. (the "Company") for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2002 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), B.
Wayne Hughes, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, Harvey Lenkin, as
President, and John Reyes, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each
hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:


              (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section
         13(a) 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.


/s/  B. Wayne Hughes
------------------------------------
Name:    B. Wayne Hughes
Title:   Chief Executive Officer
Date:    August 14, 2002

/s/  Harvey Lenkin
------------------------------------
Name:    Harvey Lenkin
Title:   President
Date:    August 14, 2002

/s/  John Reyes
------------------------------------
Name:    John Reyes
Title:   Chief Financial Officer
Date:    August 14, 2002


         This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to ss. 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of ss.18
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

                                  Exhibit 99.1
M A N D A T E

TO THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 3 OF EL PASO COUNTY, GREETINGS: Before our Court of Appeals for the Eighth District of Texas, on December 14, 2020, the cause upon appeal to revise or reverse your judgment between STEVE JUEN AND CSDT AMERICA, INC., Appellants, No. 08-18-00181-CV and NOE RODRIGUEZ, Appellee, was determined; and therein our said Court made its order in these words: The Court has considered this cause on the record and concludes there was error in the judgment. We therefore reverse the final summary judgment of the court below and remand the cause for further proceedings, in accordance with this Court’s opinion. We further order that Appellants recover from Appellee all costs of this appeal, for which let execution issue. This decision shall be certified below for observance. WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Court of Appeals for the Eighth District of Texas, in this behalf, and in all things have it duly recognized, obeyed and executed. WITNESS, the Clerk of the Court of Appeals, with the Seal thereof affixed, at the City of El Paso, this March 11, 2021. Elizabeth G. Flores, Clerk

Trial Court No. 2016DCV2973
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 19

- 0319

_____________________________
W INSTON M URPHY , Appellant,

v.

S TATE OF F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County

. James H. Daniel , Judge

. May 22, 2019

P ER C URIAM

.
D ISMISSED

. W ETHERELL , R AY , and W INSOR , JJ., concur

.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________

Winston Murphy, pro se
, Appellant.2 Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee
, for Appellee.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-6330

NATHAN J. YANCEY, JR.,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

C. MOBLEY, A.L.L.S. Law Library Supervisor

Assistant; MS. MILLER, Sergeant, Prison Security; D. A. GARRAGHTY, Head Warden, Greensville Correctional Center,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District

Judge. (CA-00-1927-AM)

Submitted: April 27, 2001 Decided: June 7, 2001

Before WILKINS and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Nathan J. Yancey, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Nathan J. Yancey, Jr., a Virginia inmate, appeals the district

court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp.

2000) complaint under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1915A (West Supp. 2000). We

have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find

that this appeal is frivolous. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal

on the reasoning of the district court. See Yancey v. Mobley, No.

CA-00-1927-AM (E.D. Va. Feb. 8, 2001). We deny Yancey’s motion for

appointment for counsel. We dispense with oral argument because

the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

DISMISSED
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATION

I, Martha L. Long, certify that:

1.

I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Shelter Properties II;

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;



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 small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;



4.

The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and have:



(a)

Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the small business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;



(b)

Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and



(c)

Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuer's most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting; and



5.

The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuer's auditors and the audit committee of the small business issuer's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):



(a)

All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the small business issuer's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and



(b)

Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting.

Date:  November 8, 2007

/s/Martha L. Long

Martha L. Long

Senior Vice President of Shelter Realty II Corporation, equivalent of the chief executive officer of the Partnership
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v.

PABLO ALVAREZ

- JIMENEZ,

Defendant

- Appellant. No. 15

- 50552

D.C. No. 3:14

- cr

- 01694

- WQH

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of California

William Q. Hayes, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted April 11

, 2017 **

Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

Pablo Alvarez

- Jimenez appeals from the district court’s judgment and

challenges the 30

- month sentence imposed following his guilty

- plea conviction for

for being a removed alien found in the United States, in violation of

8 U.S.C. § 1326. Alvarez

- Jimenez challenges the 16

- level enhancement that the

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# F ILED

APR 19 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 15

- 50552

district court imposed on the basis of his 2013 aggravated assault conviction.

This sentencing appeal is moot because Alvarez

- Jimenez has fully served his

custodial sentence and is not subject to a term of supervised release. See United

States v. Palomba , 182 F. 3d 1121, 1123 (9th Cir. 1999). Accordingly, we dismiss

the appeal.

DISMISSED.
**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

**EXHIBIT 32.1**

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Mountains West Exploration, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”).

I, Lee Wiskowski, President and principal executive officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 USC Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge and belief.

(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.

 

|                |   |   |             |                          |
|---------------------|--------|--------|------------------|-------------------------------|
| Dated: May 21, 2007 |   |   | /s/Lee Wiskowski |
|                |   |   |             | Lee Wiskowski, President      |
|                |   |   |             | (principal executive officer) |
Order entered August 23, 2013

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 13
- 00402
- CR GEORGIA LEE JONES, Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 194th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Cou rt Cause No. F
- 0971128
- M



### O RDER
We GRANT c ourt reporter Debi Harris’s August 19, 2013 request for an extension of time to file the reporter’s record. The reporter’s record shall be due THIRTY DAYS from the
date of this order.

/s/ LANA MYERS JUSTICE
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-14-00864-CV

Jeremil RODRIGUEZ,

Appellant

v.

JP Morgan 

JP MORGAN CHASE BANK,

Appellee

From the 25th Judicial District Court, Guadalupe County, Texas

Trial Court No. 14-0255-CV

Honorable W.C. Kirkendall, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

Karen Angelini, Justice

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Delivered and Filed: February 11, 2015

DISMISSED

The clerk’s record and reporter’s record were both due on January 5, 2015. On January 9, 

2015, this court ordered appellant to provide written proof to this court no later than January 19, 

2015 that either (1) the clerk’s fee has been paid or arrangements have been made to pay the clerk’s

fee; or (2) appellant is entitled to appeal without paying the clerk’s fee. Our order informed 
04-14-00864-CV

appellant that if he failed to provide such written proof within the time provided, this appeal would 

be dismissed for want of prosecution.1

 

A filing fee of $195.00 was due from appellant when this appeal was filed but was not paid.

See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 51.941(a) (West 2013); id. §§ 51.0051, 51.207(b)(1), 51.208 (West 

2013); TEXAS SUPREME COURT ORDER REGARDING FEES CHARGED IN CIVIL CASES IN THE 

SUPREME COURT, IN CIVIL CASES IN THE COURTS OF APPEALS, AND BEFORE THE JUDICIAL PANEL 

ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION (Misc. Docket No. 13-9127, Aug. 16, 2013). On January 13, 2015, 

this ordered appellant to, no later than January 22, 2015, either (1) pay the applicable filing fee or 

(2) provide written proof to this court that he is excused by statute or the Rules of Appellate 

Procedure from paying the fee. See TEX. R. APP. P. 20.1. Our order informed appellant that if he 

failed to provide such written proof within the time ordered, this appeal would be dismissed. See

TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3. 

Appellant has not responded to either of our orders; therefore, this appeal is dismissed. 

Costs of appeal are assessed against appellant.

PER CURIAM

1 On January 26, 2015, the court reporter filed a letter with this court stating she has had no communication with 

appellant, nor has she received a deposit to begin work on the reporter’s record.

- 2 -