alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Earl Wayne HAMILTON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. James E. TILTON, Secretary, California Department of Corrections and Reha*781bilitation; et al.,* Respondents-Appellees.

No. 05-17325.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Oct. 16, 2006.**

Filed Oct. 23, 2006.

Earl Wayne Hamilton, Vacaville, CA, pro se.

Spencer L. Walker, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Respondents-Appellees.

Before: LEAVY, W. FLETCHER, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

*

 James E. Tilton is substituted for his predecessor, Edward S. Alameida, Jr., who was Director of the California Department of Corrections, pursuant to Fed. R.App. P. 43(c)(2).

**

 This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM ***

California state prisoner Earl Wayne Hamilton appeals from the district court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253. We review de novo a district court’s decision to deny a § 2254 petition, *see McQuillion v. Duncan,*306 F.3d 895, 899 (9th Cir.2002), and we affirm.

The State contends that this Court lacks jurisdiction because there is no federally protected interest in parole release in California, and thus, Hamilton has failed to state a federal claim. This contention is foreclosed. *See Sass v. Cal. Bd. of Prison Terms,*461 F.3d 1123, 1127-28 (9th Cir. 2006).

Hamilton contends that the California Board of Prison Terms’ (the “Board”) decision to deny him parole violated his due process rights. Upon review, we conclude that the Board based its decision on several factors, and that some evidence supports their decision. *See Superintendent v. Hill,*472 U.S. 445, 454, 105 S.Ct. 2768, 86 L.Ed.2d 356 (1985); *see also Sass,*461 F.3d at 1128-29 (concluding that the requirements of due process are satisfied in the parole context if “some evidence” supports the Board’s decision). Accordingly, the state court’s decision was not contrary to, and did not involve an unreasonable application of, federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court. *See 28*U.S.C. § 2254(d).

AFFIRMED.

***

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may *not*be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
DISMISS; and Opinion Filed July 30, 2015.

S

In The

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-15-00457-CV

JAIMIE DANIELS, Appellant

V.

BROOKFIELD APTS., Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 5

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. CC-15-01593-E

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Wright and Justices Brown, and Stoddart

Opinion by Justice Brown

By letter dated April 9, 2015, the Court directed appellant to pay the filing fee for the 

appeal within ten days. On May 29, 2015, we notified appellant that the Dallas County Clerk 

had informed us no payment had been made for the clerk’s record. We directed appellant to file, 

within ten days, written verification that she had either paid or made payment arrangements for 

the clerk’s record or she was entitled to proceed without payment for the record. We warned that 

failure to do so would result in dismissal of the appeal. Appellant has not responded to either 

letter, the filing fee has not been paid, and the clerk’s record has not been filed.
–2–

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. See TEX. R. APP. P. 37.3(b), 

42.3(a).

150457F.P05

/Ada Brown/

ADA BROWN

JUSTICE
–3–

Court of

S

Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

JAIMIE DANIELS, Appellant

No. 05-15-00457-CV V.

BROOKFIELD APTS., Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law 

No. 5, Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. CC-15-01593-E.

Opinion delivered by Justice Brown, Chief 

Justice Wright and Justice Stoddart 

participating.

In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, we DISMISS the appeal for want of 

prosecution. We ORDER that appellee Brookfield Apts. recover its costs of this appeal from 

appellant Jaimie Daniels.

Judgment entered this 30th day of July, 2015.
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

TRAYMONTE SNIPES,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D20-2731

[August 5, 2021]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit,

Martin County; Steven J. Levin, Judge; L.T. Case No. 432020CA001066A.

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Narine N. Austin, Assistant 

Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Traymonte Snipes, Fort Myers, appellant.

No appearance filed for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

CONNER, C.J., KLINGENSMITH and ARTAU, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
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 Annual Report of Endeavor Power Corp. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ending December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Alfonso Knoll, 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/Alfonso Knoll By: Alfonso Knoll Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer   Dated: April 13, 2011   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.
EXHIBIT 13.1
   CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
 SECTION 906 OF THE U.S. SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  The certification set forth below is being submitted in connection with the Annual Report on Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2011 (the “Report”) for the purposes of complying with Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code.
  I, Alceu Duilio Calciolari,Chief Executive Officer of Gafisa S.A., certify that, to the best of my knowledge:
  ·
the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
  ·
the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the Company.
  Date: July 5, 2012
 
 By:
/s/ Alceu Duilio CalciolariName:
Alceu Duilio CalciolariTitle:
Chief Executive Officer
Exhibit 3.3
 CERTIFICATE OF DESIGNATIONS
 OF
 FIXED RATE CUMULATIVE PERPETUAL PREFERRED STOCK, SERIES A
 OF
 FIRST PRIORITY FINANCIAL CORP.
 Issuer
 Board of Directors Fixed Rate Cumulative
Perpetual Preferred Stock, Series A
 RESOLVED
 Designation and Number of Shares Designated
Preferred Stock
 Standard Provisions
 Definitions
 Common Stock
 Dividend Payment Date




---



##### 



Junior Stock
 Liquidation Amount
 Minimum Amount
 Parity Stock
 Signing Date
 Certain Voting Matters
 Remainder of Page Intentionally Left Blank
  2




---



##### 



FIRST PRIORITY FINANCIAL CORP.By:
    /s/ David E. SparksName:
    David E. SparksTitle:
    Chief Executive Officer  3




---



##### 



Schedule A
 STANDARD PROVISIONS
 General Matters
 Standard Definitions
 Applicable Dividend Rate
 Appropriate Federal Banking Agency
 Business Combination
 Business Day
 Bylaws
 Certificate of Designations
 Charter
 Dividend Period
 Dividend Record Date
 Liquidation Preference
  A-1




---



##### 



Original Issue Date
 Preferred Director
 Preferred Stock
 Qualified Equity Offering
 Standard Provisions
 Successor Preferred Stock
 Voting Parity Stock
 Dividends
 Rate i.e. Dividend Period
  A-2




---



##### 



Dividend Record Date
  Priority of Dividends
  A-3




---



##### 



pro rata
  Liquidation Rights
 Voluntary or Involuntary Liquidation Liquidation Preference
 Partial Payment
  A-4




---



##### 



Residual Distributions
 Merger, Consolidation and Sale of Assets Not Liquidation
 Redemption
 Optional Redemption
 provided Successor Preferred Stock
  A-5




---



##### 



No Sinking Fund
 Notice of Redemption
 Partial Redemption pro
rata
  A-6




---



##### 



Effectiveness of Redemption pro rata
 Status of Redeemed Shares provided
 Conversion
 Voting Rights
 General
 Preferred Stock Directors Preferred Directors Preferred Director provided
  A-7




---



##### 



Class Voting Rights as to Particular Matters
 Authorization of Senior Stock
 Amendment of Designated Preferred Stock
 Share Exchanges, Reclassifications, Mergers and Consolidations
  A-8




---



##### 



provided, however
 Changes after Provision for Redemption
 Procedures for Voting and Consents
 Record Holders
 Notices
  A-9




---



##### 



No Preemptive Rights
 Replacement Certificates
 Other Rights
  A-10
## F I FTH 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________ Case No. 5 D 23

- 2283 LT Case No. 2023

- CA

- 002294

_____________________________
T AUG W ALKER , Appellant,

v.

P EYTON C. G RINNELL , as Sheriff of Lake County, Florida
, Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Lake County

. Heidi Davis , Judge

. Taug Walker
, Tavares
, Appellant

. No Appearance for Appellee.

January 1 9, 2024

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED without prejudice to Appellant ’s right to seek habeas corpus relief upon disposition of violation of probation proceedings if failure to correct conviction would constitute manifest injustice

.2

M AKAR , M AC I VER , and P RATT , JJ., concur

.

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

.

_____________________________
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 15**  **- 6942** 

SAQUAN DEVEL HUSSEY , Petitioner

- Appellant ,
v. ROY COOPER , Respondent

- Appellee
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina , at Raleigh
. Louise W. Flanagan , District Judge. ( 5:14

- hc

- 02075

- FL )

Submitted : October 15, 2015 Decided: October 20, 2015

Before WILKINSON , AGEE, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. Saquan Devel Hussey , Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III , NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE , Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Saquan Devel Hussey seeks to a ppeal the district court’s order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(1) (A) (2012) . A certificate of appeala bility will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012)
. When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies 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
g rounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition 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 Hussey has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argum ent because the facts and legal3 contentions are adequately presented in the materials be fore th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
Wachovia
Bank, National Association


8739
Research Drive, URP4


Charlotte,
NC 28288-1075





WACHOVIA SECURITIES








1123
SERVICER’S CERTIFICATE




Reference
is hereby made to that certain Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of
December 1, 2006, by and among J.P. Morgan Chase Commercial Mortgage Securities
Corp, Inc., as Depositor, Midland Loan Services, INC as  Master
Servicer No. 1, Capmark Finance Inc as Master No. 2 and Wachovia Bank, National
Association, as Master Servicer No. 3, Capmark Finance INC., LNR Partners, INC.,
as Special Servicer, and LaSalle Bank, National Association as Trustee, and
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A as Paying Agent with respect to Commercial Mortgage
Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006-LDP9 (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, Timothy Ryan and Marilyn Addison, Managing
Director of Customer Relationship Management and Director of Compliance Third
Party Oversight, do hereby certify that:
 
 1.
                A
      review of the activities of the Certifying Servicer, during the period
      from January 1, 2007 to December 31, 2007, and of its
      performance  per the Agreement during such period has been made
      under our supervision; and
 
 2.
                To
      the best of our knowledge, based on such review, the Certifying Servicer,
      has fulfilled all of its  obligations under this Agreement in
      all material respects throughout the period January 1, 2007, through
      December 31, 2007;
 
 
 IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this Certificate as of the
10th
day of March 2008.




/s/
      Timothy S. Ryan
              
              /s/
      Marilyn AddisonTimothy
      S. Ryan, Managing
      Director
                Wachovia
      Bank National Association
              
              Marilyn
      Addison, Director
                Wachovia
      Bank National Association






O:\Shared/SP/Income/Compliance
3rdParty Oversight/Annual Certification/Certification_0307/2006/JP Morgan
2006-LDP9
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 99.1

                                 HOLLINGER INC.
              TO ESCROW CERTAIN FUNDS FROM TELEGRAPH GROUP PROCEEDS

     Toronto, Ontario, Canada, January 14, 2005 -- Hollinger Inc. ("Hollinger")
(TSX: HLG.C; HLG.PR.B) today announced that its Board of Directors has
determined that it is in the best interest of Hollinger's shareholders that
certain of the funds Hollinger will receive from Hollinger International Inc.
("HII") relating to the sale of The Telegraph Group be placed in escrow.

     As part of its settlement discussions with staff of the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission (the "SEC") relating to the action commenced by the SEC
against Hollinger and its former directors and senior executives, Conrad M.
Black and F. David Radler in the U.S. District Court, Northern District of
Illinois (the "SEC Action"), Hollinger has voluntarily agreed that it will enter
into an arrangement whereby it will deposit (i) the net amount to be received by
it directly and indirectly from the special dividend declared on December 16,
2004 by the Board of Directors of HII on its Class A Common Stock and its Class
B Common Stock that is payable on January 18, 2005, and (ii) subject to any
overriding rights of the holders of Hollinger's outstanding Senior Secured
Notes, the net amount of any subsequent distribution made by HII of The
Telegraph Group sale proceeds, if any, into an escrow account with a licensed
trust company. The escrow will terminate upon the conclusion of the SEC Action
as to all parties.

     The escrow arrangements will provide that Hollinger will have access to the
escrowed funds for ordinary business and certain other purposes, including:

o    Payment of principal, interest, premium and fees, if any, on or relating to
     Hollinger's indebtedness for borrowed money.

o    Payment of dividends on the preferred shares of Hollinger.

o    Buy-back of non-Ravelston shares of Hollinger.

o    Acquisition of assets other than from Ravelston and certain of its
     affiliates.

     The escrow is subject to Hollinger and the SEC agreeing to a mutually
acceptable termination date for the escrow should the parties be unable to reach
an overall settlement of the SEC Action as against Hollinger in the near future.
If termination of the arrangement occurs, Hollinger has agreed to provide staff
of the SEC a reasonable opportunity to assert any rights it may have with
respect to the escrowed funds.

     Hollinger's principal asset is its interest in Hollinger International Inc.
which is a newspaper publisher the assets of which include the Chicago
Sun-Times, a large number of community newspapers in the Chicago area, a
portfolio of news media investments and a variety of other assets.

Media contact:
Larry Parnell
Hill & Knowlton
416-413-4623
larry.parnell@hillandknowlton.ca
                              www.hollingerinc.com
#### UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Jeffrey S. SAUERBRY, Appellant.

No. 06-1244.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: Oct. 27, 2006.

Filed: Oct. 31, 2006.

Matt Jeffrey Whitworth, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Kansas City, MO, for Appellee.

Travis Poindexter, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Kansas City, MO, for Appellant.

Jeffrey S. Sauerbry, Leavenworth, KS, pro se.

Before MURPHY, BYE, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Jeffrey Sauerbry appeals the 12-month prison sentence that the district court1 imposed after revoking his supervised release. For reversal, Sauerbry argues the sentence was unreasonable because the court failed to consider the factors listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).

We conclude that the record reflects the district court considered the appropriate factors, and that the revocation sentence was not unreasonable. *See United States v. Nelson,*453 F.3d 1004, 1006 (8th Cir. 2006) (district court must consider advisory sentencing range and policy statements found in Guidelines Chapter 7, and must also consider § 3553(a) factors); *United States v. Larison, 432*F.3d 921, 923 (8th Cir.2006) (district court need not mechanically list every § 3553(a) consideration when sentencing defendant upon revocation of supervised release); *United States v. Tyson,*413 F.3d 824, 825 (8th Cir.2005) (per curiam) (revocation sentences are reviewed for unreasonableness in accordance with *United States v. Booker,*543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005)); *United States v. White Face,*383 F.3d 733, 740 (8th Cir.2004) (all that is required in revocation sentencing is evidence that court has considered relevant matters and *756that some reason be stated for its decision).

Accordingly, we affirm.

1

. The Honorable Fernando J. Gaitan, Jr, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri.
Exhibit 32

                          ASPEN EXPLORATION CORPORATION

                   Certification pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350

     To my knowledge: the quarterly report on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended
December 31, 2005, containing financial statements for the quarter then ended,
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Act of
1934; and the information contained in the Form 10-QSB fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Aspen
Exploration Corporation for the periods presented.


February 9, 2006



/s/ Robert A. Cohan
------------------------------
Robert A. Cohan, Chief Executive Officer,
Chief Financial Officer
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 89 (Monday, May 11, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 21830]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-10906]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-65,431]


CWR Manufacturing Corporation, East Syracuse, NY; Notice of 
Termination of Investigation

    Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an 
investigation was initiated on February 27, 2009 in response to a 
petition filed by a company official on behalf of workers of CWR 
Manufacturing Corporation, East Syracuse, New York.
    The petitioner has requested that the petition be withdrawn. 
Consequently, the investigation has been terminated.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 15th day of April 2009.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E9-10906 Filed 5-8-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
Opinion issued March 26, 2015

In The 

## Court of Appeals For The 

## First District of Texas

———————————— NO. 01
- 15
- 00123
- CV

——————————— JAMI DAVENPORT , Appella nt

V. ALIGN STRATEGIC PARTNERS, LLC , Appell e e
On Appeal from the 80th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Ca se No. 2012
- 56614

MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant, Jami Davenport , ha s filed a motion to dismiss the appeal. No other party has filed a notice of appeal, and no opinion has issued. Further, although appellant failed to include a certificate of conference in her motion, appellant’s motion includes a certificate of service, more than 10 days have passed2

since the motion was filed, and no party has responded to the motion. See T EX
. R.
A PP
. P. 10.1(a)(5), 10.3(a). Accordingly, we grant the motion and dismiss the appeal. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 42.1(a)(1). We dismiss all other pe nding motions as moot

. PER CURIAM Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Brown and Lloyd.
SLIP OP. 01-128


### AMENDED JUD GMENT

__________ 

### UNITED STAT ES COURT OF INTERNATIO NAL TRADE

JANE A. RES TANI, JUDGE

__________

________________________________________ : BORDEN, INC., GOOCH FOODS, INC. AND : HERSHEY FOODS CORP., : : Plaintiffs, : : v. : : UNITED STATES and : UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, : Consol. Court : No. 96-08-01970 : Defendants, : : and : : DELVERDE, SrL and DELVERDE USA, INC., : : Defendant-Intervenors. : ________________________________________:

As the final results of the redetermination of the Department of Commerce of October 15, 2001, that Delverde, SrL is to be excluded from the antidumping order did not elicit any objection during the relevant remand proceeding, the results are affirmed. The history of this matter is reflected in Borden, Inc. v. United States , 4 F. Supp. 2d 1221 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1998), rev’d in part , Borden, Inc. v. United States , Nos. 99-1575, 99- 1576 (Fed. Cir. March 12, 2001). See also Borden, Inc. v. United States , Consol. Court No. 96-08-01970 (Ct. Int’l Trade May 21, 2001) (order).

____________________________ Judge of the United States Court of International Trade Dated: New York, New York
This 2ndday of November, 2001.
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Michael H. Soroka, on Behalf of Shea Rosen, Petitioner, v Warden of Suffolk County Correctional Center et al., Respondents.

[869 NYS2d 913]

Writ of habeas corpus in the nature of an application for bail reduction upon Suffolk County indictment No. 2996-08.

Adjudged that the writ is dismissed, without costs or disbursements.

The determination of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, was not an improvident exercise of discretion, and did not violate “constitutional or statutory standards” *(People ex rel. Klein v Krueger,*25 NY2d 497, 499 [1969]; *see People ex rel. Rosenthal v Wolfson,*48 NY2d 230 [1979]). Spolzino, J.P., Santucci, Leventhal and Chambers, JJ., concur.