alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# FILED
February 3, 1999 Cecil Crowson, Jr. Appellate C ourt Clerk IN THE COURT OF CR IMINAL A PPEALS OF TENN ESSEE AT JA CKSON

STATE OF TENN ESSEE, ) ) Appellee, ) C. C. A. NO. 02C01-9806-CC-00178 ) vs. ) HARDIN COUNTY ) CHARLES PORTER, ) No. 7035 ) Appellant. )

O R D E R

This matter is before the Court u pon the state’s motion to affirm the tr ial court judgment by order pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. The appellant is appealing the trial court’s rev ocation of his probation. On September 1, 1993, the appellant was convicted of robbery and sentenced to four years imprisonment. This Court affirmed on appeal. State v. Porter , No. 02C01-9310-CC00252 (Tenn. Crim. App., Oct. 19, 1994). On June 12, 1995, the appella nt was placed on probation. A probation v iolation warrant w

as subsequently issued

. After a hearing on the probation violation on May 14, 1998, the trial court found that the appellant 1) failed to r eport to his probation officer, 2) failed to report new arrests for possession of a weapon and possession of marijuana, 3) failed to appear in court on these new charges, and 4) absconded from the state. The appellant, his mother, and h is probation of ficer testifi ed at the hearin g.

A trial court may rev

oke probation and order the impos ition of the original sentence upon a finding by a pr eponderance of the evidence that the person has violated a condition of probation. T.C.A. § 40-35-311(e ). The decision to revoke probation rests withi n the sound discretion of the tri al court. State v. Mitchell , 810 S.W.2d 733, 735 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1991). Revoc ation of probation is subject t o an abuse of discretion standard of rev iew, rather than a de nov o standard. State v.2

Harkins , 811 S.W.2d 79 (Tenn. 1991). Discretion is abused only if the record co ntains no substantial evidence to support the conclusion of the tr ial court that a viol ation of probation has occurred. Id. ; State v. Gregory , 946 S.W.2d 829, 832 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1997). Proof of a violation need n ot be established beyond a re asonable doubt, and the evidence need only sho w that the trial judg e exercised a conscientious and intelligent judgment, r

ather than acting arbitr arily. Gregory , 946 S.W.2d at 832; State v. Leach , 914 S.W.2d 104, 10 6 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1995).

On appeal, the appellant contends onl y that the trial court

abused its discretion in revoki ng his probation. Hav ing reviewed the record in light of the appellant’s argument, w e find that the evidence fully supports the trial court ’s action. The appellant has simply failed to show how the trial court abused its discretion.
Accordingly, the st

ate’s motion is granted. It is hereby ORDERED that the judgement of the trial court i s affirmed in accordance with Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. Costs of this appeal shall be assess ed to the appellant.

______________________________ JOHN EVERETT WILLIAMS, JUDGE

______________________________ DAVID G. HAYES, JUDG E

______________________________ JOE G. RILEY, JUDGE
<PAGE>

                                    FORM 6-K
                       SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
                             Washington, D.C. 20549


                        Report of Foreign Private Issuer


                        PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-16 OR 15d-16
                     OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

                                  March 7, 2005

                         Commission File Number: 0-22346

                                 HOLLINGER INC.
                 (Translation of registrant's name into English)

                                10 TORONTO STREET
                            TORONTO, ONTARIO M5C 2B7
                                     CANADA
                    (Address of principal executive offices)

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant files or will file annual reports
                      under cover Form 20-F or Form 40-F.

                       Form 20-F [X]       Form 40-F [ ]

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is submitting the Form 6-K in paper as
                permitted by Regulation S-T Rule 101(b)(1): ____

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is submitting the Form 6-K in paper as
                permitted by Regulation S-T Rule 101(b)(7): ____

 Indicate by check mark whether by furnishing the information contained in this
     Form, the registrant is also thereby furnishing the information to the
Commission pursuant to Rule 12g3-2(b) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

                              Yes [ ]       No [X]

If "Yes" is marked, indicate below the file number assigned to the registrant in
                  connection with Rule 12g3-2(b): 82- ________

<PAGE>

                                  EXHIBIT LIST



<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
Exhibit     Description
-------     -----------
<S>         <C>
99.1        Press Release, dated March 4, 2005, regarding Hollinger Inc. Release
            of Alternative Financial Information.
</TABLE>



<PAGE>


SIGNATURES

Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the
registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the
undersigned, thereunto duly authorized.

Date:  March 7, 2005

                                        HOLLINGER INC.

                                        By   /s/ Peter G. White
                                             -----------------------------------
                                             Name:   Peter G. White
                                             Title:  Vice President, Operations
                                                     and Secretary
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 88 (Friday, May 8, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 21686-21687]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-10812]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION


Public Workshop: Business Opportunity Rule

An FTC Workshop Analyzing Business Opportunity Disclosure Form and 
Other Proposed Changes to the Business Opportunity Rule

Correction

    In notice document E9-9440 appearing on page 18712 in the issue of 
April 24, 2009, make the following correction:
    On page 18715, in the third column, in the SUPPLEMENTARY 
INFORMATION section, after the word Secretary in the eighteenth line, 
the following Appendix A should be added:
BILLING CODE 6750-01-S

[[Page 21687]]

APPENDIX A
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN08MY09.000


Donald S. Clark,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-10812 Filed 5-7-09: 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6750-01-C
#### Hospice & Palliative Care Charlotte Region v. N.C. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs.

Case below: 185 N.C. App.-(7 August 2007)

No. 425P07

1. Respondent-Intervenor’s Motion for Temporary Stay (COA06-1484)

2. Respondent-Intervenor’s Petition for Writ of Supersedeas

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

4. Petitioner’s Conditional PDR Under N.C.G.S. 7A-31

1. Allowed 08/28/07 Stay Dissolved 11/08/07

2. Denied 11/08/07

3. Denied 11/08/07

4. Denied 11/08/07
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 16**  **- 1649** 

DALE EDWIN SANDERS , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v.
STEPHEN R. FARINA , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Alexandria

. T.S. Ellis, III , Senior District Judge. ( 1:14

- cv - 01214

- TSE

- IDD )

Submitted : October 13 , 2016 Decided: October 17, 2016

Before NIEMEYER, DUNCAN, and WYNN , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Stephen R. Farina, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph O’Donnell, Jr., Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Stephen R. Farina appeals from the district court ’ s order s

awar ding costs and attorney fees to Dale Sanders pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 14 4 7(c) (2012) , based on Farina’s second improper removal of a lawsuit from state court to district court, and denying Farina’s motions for reconsideration and for appointment of
counsel. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district

court. Sanders v. Farina , No. 1:14

- cv - 01214

- TSE

- IDD (E.D. Va.
Apr
. 21, 2016 & filed May 20, 2016 ; entered May 23, 2016) . We dispens e with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
#### Inez Simens, Individually and as a Membership Unit Owner of US Properties, LLC, et al., Plaintiffs, v Charles Darwish, Individually and as a Managing Membership Unit Owner of Hamilton 65th Partners, LLC, et al., Defendants. Neal Fellenbaum, as Temporary Receiver of the Premises Known as 135 East 65th Street, New York, New York, and 872 Lexington Avenue, New York, New York, Respondent, v Smallbone, Inc., Appellant.

[964 NYS2d 140]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Lawrence K. Marks, J.), entered August 6, 2012, which granted the motion of petitioner Neal Fellenbaum, as Temporary Receiver, to remove the holdover proceeding pending against respondent Smallbone in Civil Court (L&T 57366-12) to Supreme Court, and consolidated that proceeding with an action pending in Supreme Court under index No. 105097-09, unanimously reversed, on the law and the facts, without costs, and the motion denied.

The Temporary Receiver, having commenced a holdover proceeding against Smallbone, a commercial tenant, in Civil Court, where complete relief can be afforded to him, has shown no basis for removing that proceeding to Supreme Court *{see Brecker v 295 Cent. Park W., Inc.,*71 AD3d 564 [1st Dept 2010]). Smallbone’s counterclaims, based on partial actual and constructive eviction, are within the traditional scope of jurisdiction of Civil Court, which “is the preferred forum for resolving landlord-tenant issues” *{44-46 W. 65th Apt. Corp. v Stvan,*3 AD3d 440, 441 [1st Dept 2004]). Thus, the court erred in grant*687ing the motion to remove the summary proceeding, which was then scheduled for a traverse hearing and trial. Moreover, the court should not have consolidated the landlord-tenant summary holdover proceeding with an entirely distinct action involving accounting, fraud, and breach of contract claims between property owners *(see*CPLR 602).

Concur—A.costa, J.P, Moskowitz, Renwick, Freedman and Clark, JJ.
#### White Knight NYC Ventures, LLC, Respondent, v 15 West 17th Street, LLC, et al., Appellants, et al., Defendants.

[973 NYS2d 208]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Eileen A. Rakower, J.), entered September 18, 2012, which, insofar as appealed from, granted plaintiff’s motion for an order confirming the Referee’s Report of Sale and directed entry of a deficiency judgment against defendants 15 West 17th Street, LLC, Joseph Sabbagh and Isaac Mishan, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

By submitting a detailed appraisal prepared by a certified appraiser pursuant to Executive Law § 160-a (5) (a), plaintiff met its burden of establishing, prima facie, the mortgaged premises’ fair market value as of the date of the foreclosure auction *(see Trustco Bank v Gardner,*274 AD2d 873, 874 [3d Dept 2000]). Defendants’ assertions that the certified appraisal suffered from “deficiencies” in its square footage calculations and choice of *577capitalization rate are unavailing, as those “claimed deficiencies” do not preclude its consideration. Rather, the assertions of error bear on the question of the weight the appraisal should be given *(see Champlain Natl. Bank v Brignola,*249 AD2d 656, 657 [3d Dept 1998]).

In opposition, defendants’ submission of an affidavit from a real estate broker was insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact. Although a real estate broker’s affidavit may be properly received on the issue of market value *(see Union Chelsea Natl. Bank v Rumican 190 Corp.,*257 AD2d 463, 464 [1st Dept 1999], *lv dismissed in part and denied in part*93 NY2d 989 [1999]), the three-page affidavit submitted by defendants conclusorily states the broker’s opinion as to the value of the mortgage premises, without any substantiation or analysis. An “estimate of value,” rather than a “full appraisal,” is insufficient to raise an issue of fact as to valuation *(Trustco Bank,*274 AD2d at 874). To the extent the affidavit submitted by defendant Joseph Sabbagh addresses the issue of the premises’ valuation, it is similarly conclusory.

We have considered all other issues and find them to be without merit. Concur — Sweeny, J.P., Renwick, Feinman and Clark, JJ.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20-7290

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

LEO VISTOR PERCELL, JR.,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at 

Greensboro. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., Senior District Judge. (1:19-cr-00190-NCT-1)

Submitted: November 19, 2021 Decided: December 16, 2021

Before MOTZ, THACKER, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges.

Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Leo Vistor Percell, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Leo Vistor Percell, Jr., appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 18 U.S.C.

§ 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) motion for compassionate release. Before seeking compassionate 

release in the district court, an inmate must satisfy the threshold requirement of 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3582(c)(1)(A). However, as we recently held, this requirement is nonjurisdictional and, 

thus, subject to forfeiture or waiver if not timely raised. See United States v. Muhammad, 

16 F.4th 126, 129-30 (4th Cir. 2021). 

Here, the district court—which did not have the benefit of our decision in 

Muhammad—erred by sua sponte raising the threshold requirement and dismissing on that 

basis. See id. at 130. Accordingly, we vacate the district court’s order and remand for 

further proceedings. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process.

VACATED AND REMANDED
Exhibit 32.01    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 Anoteros, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, George G. Chachas, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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 result of operations of the Company.   /s/ George G. Chachas By: George G. Chachas Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer  Dated: May 12, 2010  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 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.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Steven Acevedo, Appellant.

Submitted July 27, 2009;

decided August 27, 2009

Reported below, 61 AD3d 692.

Motion for assignment of counsel granted and David L. Stein-berg, Esq. care of Law Offices of Mickey A. Steiman, 4419 Albany Post Road, Hyde Park, New York 12538 assigned as counsel to the appellant on the appeal herein.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Janica Moore, Appellant.

[870 NYS2d 806]

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Washington County (McKeighan, J), rendered February 14, 2008, convicting defendant upon her plea of guilty of the crime of promoting prison contraband in the first degree.

Waiving her right to appeal, defendant pleaded guilty to promoting prison contraband in the first degree. County Court thereafter sentenced defendant as negotiated to six months in jail and five years of probation. Defendant now appeals.

The sole contention advanced by defendant is that the sentence imposed is harsh and excessive. She is precluded from making such a challenge, however, given that she validly waived her right to appeal *(see People v Wilson,*53 AD3d 928, 929 [2008]). Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

Cardona, PJ., Peters, Lahtinen, Kane and Stein, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
#### In the Matter of Anthony Amaker, Appellant, v Brian Fischer, Commissioner, New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision, Respondent.

[974 NYS2d 883]

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Wyoming *1352County (Mark H. Dadd, A.J.), entered July 5, 2012 in a CPLR article 78 proceeding. The judgment denied the motion of petitioner requesting that the amended petition be summarily granted and denied the amended petition.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs. Present — Centra, J.P, Fahey, Garni, Sconiers and Valentino, JJ.
EX-35.4
(logo) WELLS FARGO

Corporate Trust Services
MAC N2702-011
9062 Old Annapolis Road
Columbia, MD 21045
410 884-2000
410 715-2380 Fax

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.


Structured Asset Mortgage Investments II Inc.
245 Park Avenue
New York, NY 10167

RE: Annual Statement as to Compliance for Bear Stearns ARM Trust, Mortgage
Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2007-1

The undersigned, a duly authorized officer of Wells Fargo Bank, National
Association ("Wells Fargo"), hereby certifies as follows for the calendar year
2007 or applicable portion thereof (the "Reporting Period"):

(a) a review of Wells Fargo's activities as Securities Administrator during the
Reporting Period under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement has been made under
my supervision; and

(b) to the best of my knowledge, based on such review, except as otherwise
provided on Schedule A hereto, Wells Fargo has fulfilled all of its obligations
under the Servicing Agreement(s) in all material respects throughout the
Reporting Period.

February 22, 2008
/s/ William Augustin
WILLIAM AUGUSTIN
Vice President


(page)


(logo) WELLS FARGO

Corporate Trust Services
MAC N2702-011
9062 Old Annapolis Road
Columbia, MD 21045
410 884-2000
410 715-2380 Fax

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

Schedule A

List of Exceptions for Bear Stearns ARM Trust, Mortgage Pass-Through
Certificates, Series 2007-1

Payment/Distribution Calculation Errors:

This deal experienced non-systemic administrative issues during the reporting
year that resulted in incorrect calculations of distributions to certificate
holders for one or more payment cycles. The instances were subsequently
corrected and remittance reports and payments to holders were revised to reflect
the correct distributions.
EX-31 Rule 13a-14(d)/15d-14(d) Certification.


  I, Bruce M. Rose, 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 Carrington Mortgage Loan Trust, Series 2007-FRE1 (the
    "Exchange Act periodic reports");

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

  3.Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and other
    information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period
    covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;

  4.Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statements required
    in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as
    disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicers have
    fulfilled their obligations under the servicing agreements in all
    material respects; and

  5.All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria
    for asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on
    assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed
    securities required to be included in this report in accordance with
    Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18
    have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwise
    disclosed in this report.  Any material instances of noncompliance
    described in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form
    10-K.

    In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information
    provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties:EMC Mortgage
    Corporation as Servicer, Fremont Investment & Loan as Interim Servicer,
    Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. as Trustee and Custodian, American Security
    Insurance Company, Standard Guaranty Insurance Company and TrackSure
    Insurance Agency, Inc. (formerly, "Safeco Financial Institution Solutions,
    Inc.") (collectively, "Assurant"), as sub-contractor for EMC Mortgage
    Corporation, FIS Tax Services and formerly known as LSI Tax Services, as
    sub-contractor for EMC Mortgage Corporation and LandAmerica Tax and Flood
    Services, Inc., as sub-contractor for EMC Mortgage Corporation.

    Dated:   April 2, 2008


    /s/ Bruce M. Rose
    Signature

    President
    (senior officer in charge of securitization of the depositor)
EX-35.4
(logo) GMAC RFC


SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT (Item 1123)

Residential Funding Company, LLC

Deutsche Alt-A Securities Mortgage Loan Trust,
Series 2007-OA1 (the "Issuing Entity")



The undersigned, a duly authorized officer of Residential Funding Company,
LLC, as servicer (the "Servicer") pursuant to the applicable servicing
agreement, does hereby certify that:

1. A review of the Servicer's activities during the period covered by the
Issuing Entity's report on Form 10-K and of the Servicer's performance under the
applicable servicing agreement has been made under my supervision.

2. To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has
fulfilled all of its obligations under the applicable servicing agreement in all
material respects throughout such period.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has duly executed this Certificate this
14th day of March 2008.


By: /s/ Anthony N. Renzi
Name: Anthony N. Renzi
Title: Managing Director