alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MICHAEL ROBERTS, a.k.a. Kedrin

Kizzee,

Petitioner

- Appella nt,

v.

RANDY L. TEWS

, Warden, *

Respondent

- Appellee. No. 14

- 55354

D.C. No. 2:13

- cv

- 06595

- GAF

MEMORANDUM * *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

Gary A. Feess, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted April 7, 2015 * * *

Before: FISHER, TALLMAN, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges

.

Federal p risoner Michael Roberts appeals pro se from the district court’s

* Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(C)(2), Randy L.

Tews is substituted for his predecessor, R. Phillip Guttierez as Warden.

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

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36

- 3.

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

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Accordingly, Roberts’s

request for oral argument is denied. 

# FILED

APR 15 2015

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 14

- 55354

denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas corpus petition challenging the computation

of his custody credits. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291

, and we

affirm.

Roberts contends that he is entitled to credit towards his federal sentence for

the time he served between February 22, 2000, and January 7, 2003. This court

review s the district court’s denial of a habeas corpus petition de novo. See

Schleining v. Thoma s , 642 F.3d 1242, 1246 (9th Cir. 2011). The district court

correctly found that Roberts was serving time on a state sentence during the

relevant time period, thereby precluding credit towards his federal sentence for the

same period. See 18 U.S.C. § 3585 (b); United States v. Wilson , 503 U.S. 329, 337

(1992).

AFFIRMED.
DISMISS; and Opinion Filed October 2 , 2014 

# S

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05 - 14 - 01236 - CV IN RE JUANITO MARSHA LL , Relator Original Proceeding from the 265th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F09 - 53984 - R 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices O'Neill, Lang, and Brown Opinion by Justice Lang Relator filed this petition for writ of mandamus contending that the Dallas County dist rict clerk has failed to transmit his “Motion to Obtain Documents and Trial Records in Forma Pauperis” to the district court and requests that the Court grant relief against the respondent district clerk. This Court has mandamus jurisdiction over the dist rict clerk only when the actions of the district clerk interfere with the exercise of this Court’s jurisdiction
. T EX . G OV ' T C ODE A NN . § 22.221 (West 2010); In re Phillips, No. 05

– 14

– 00683

– CV, 2014 WL 2609217, at *1 (Tex. App.

— Dallas June 10, 2014, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.); In re Chumbley, No. 05

– 13

– 00881

– CV, 2013 WL 3718070, at *1 (Tex. App.

— Dallas July 12, 2013, orig. proceeding) (mem. op). Rela tor has not asserted facts that would, if proven , establish that the district clerk’s actions interfere wi th the jurisdiction of this Court. T EX . C ODE C RIM . P ROC . A NN . art. 11.07 (West Supp. 2010); In re McAfee, 53 S.W.3d 715, 717 (Tex. App.

— Houston [1st Dist.] 2001, orig. proceeding) (“Article 11.07 contains no role for the courts of appeals; the only court s referred to– 2

– are the convicting court and the Court of Criminal Appeals.”) . Accordingly, this Court lacks mandamus jurisdiction. We DISMISS the petition.

.

141236F.P05 /Douglas S. Lang/ DOUGLAS S. LANG JUSTICE
NUMBER 13-18-00565-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

____________________________________________________________

MARCOS MONTALVO A/K/A 

JOSE MARCOS MONTALVO, APPELLANT,

v.

MANUEL GUERRA AND ROSITA 

GUERRA, APPELLEES.

____________________________________________________________

On appeal from the 206th District Court

of Hidalgo County, Texas.

____________________________________________________________

ORDER

Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Longoria and Hinojosa

Order Per Curiam

The parties have notified this Court that appellant Jose Marcos Montalvo has filed 

for protection in bankruptcy. According to the notice, appellant filed a bankruptcy petition 

on April 27, 2016, in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas, 

McAllen Division. 
2

Upon the filing of a bankruptcy petition, an automatic stay becomes effective which 

prohibits the commencement or continuation of any judicial action or proceeding against 

the debtor and any property within the debtor's bankruptcy estate. See 11 U.S.C.A. §

362(a). Pursuant to Rule 8.2 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, the appeal is 

suspended. See TEX. R. APP. P. 8.2. 

Accordingly, this appeal is ABATED until further order of this Court. Any 

documents filed subsequent to the bankruptcy petition will remain pending until the appeal 

is reinstated. The parties are directed to take such action as is appropriate to advise the 

Court of any change in the status of the bankruptcy proceeding which would affect the 

status of this appeal, including but not limited to, the filing of a motion to reinstate pursuant 

to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 8.3. See id. 8.3.

PER CURIAM

Delivered and filed the

6th day of November, 2018.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. David J. MERRITT, Defendant-Appellant. United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. David J. Merritt, Defendant-Appellant.

Nos. 06-7085, 06-7086.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Oct. 17, 2006.

Decided: Oct. 23, 2006.

David J. Merritt, Appellant Pro Se. Michael R. Smythers, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Ap-pellee.

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed in part; dismissed in part by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM.:

David J. Merritt seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) and 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2000) motions and his motions for reconsideration of the denial of his § 2255 motion. Because the motions sought to attack sentences in two criminal proceedings, the district court recorded the motions in two separate cases, but dealt with them in an identical manner. The district court docketed Merritt’s notice of appeal in both cases, and the two appeals from identical district court orders have been consolidated in this court.

The orders denying the § 2255 motion and the motions for reconsideration are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. *Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *Rose v. Lee,*252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Merritt has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, *469we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss this portion of the appeals.

Regarding the denial of Merritt’s § 3582 motion, we have reviewed the record and found no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the relevant portion of the district court’s order for the reasons stated by the district court. *United States v. Merritt,*No. 4:97-cr-00043; 4:01-cv-00016; 4:98-er-0006; 4:01-cv-00015 (E.D.Va. Mar. 22 & Apr. 27, 2006). We deny Merritt’s motion for appointment of 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.

*AFFIRMED IN PART; DISMISSED IN PART.*
Exhibit 31.2



CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL
AND ACCOUNTING OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C SECTION 1350 AS
ADOPTED

PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXELY
ACT OF 2002



I, Steve O’Loughlin, certify that:



| | 1. | I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the report on Form 10-K of Actinium Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; and
| | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 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.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|Dated: June 16, 2020 | By: | /s/ Steve O’Loughlin                                                                              
|-------------------- | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                     |     | Steve O’Loughlin                                                                                  
|                     |     | Principal Financial Officer
(Duly Authorized Officer, 
Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                          55,475
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   60,229
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,733
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               136,019
<PP&E>                                         142,663
<DEPRECIATION>                                   8,112
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 614,164
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          151,126
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              363
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     191,464
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   614,164
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                82,302
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   73,716
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             (267,618)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    91
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               5,617
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                276,204
<INCOME-TAX>                                   110,953
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            165,251
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   165,251
<EPS-BASIC>                                     4.73
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     4.72


</TABLE>
LaSalle
      Bank N.A.135
      South LaSalle StreetSuite
      1625Chicago,
      IL 60603Global
      Securities and Trust Services





Annual
Statement of Compliance
 
 VIA:
EMAIL
 
 Merrill
Lynch Mortgage Investors, Inc.
 250 Vesey
Street
 4 World
Financial Center, 10th Floor
 New York,
New York 10080
 
 Home Loan
Services, Inc.
 150
Allegheny Center Mall
 Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania 15212
 
 Re:
                First Franklin
      Mortgage Loan TrustMortgage Loan
      Asset-Backed Certificates, Series
2007-FFC
 
 Reference
is made to the Pooling and Servicing Agreement (the "Agreement"), dated as of
May 1, 2007, among Merrill Lynch Mortgage Investors, Inc., as depositor, Home
Loan Services, Inc., as servicer, and LaSalle Bank National Association, as
trustee, relating to First Franklin Mortgage Loan Trust, Mortgage Loan
Asset-Backed Certificates, Series 2007-FFC
 
 I,
Barbara L. Marik, a Senior Vice President of LaSalle Bank National Association,
as Trustee hereby certify that:
 
 (1)
A review of the activities of the Trustee during the preceding calendar year and
of the performance of the Trustee under the Agreement has been made under my
supervision; and
 
 (2)
To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Trustee has fulfilled all
its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout such
year or a portion thereof.
 
 
 Date:
February 27, 2008
 
 LaSalle
Bank National Association, as Trustee
 
 
 /s/
Barbara L. Marik
 Barbara
L. Marik
 Senior
Vice President
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Derrick Edward BROWN, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 08-6723.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: April 27, 2009.

Decided: May 12, 2009.

Derrick Edward Brown, Appellant Pro Se. Kelli Hamby Ferry, Jeanine Linehan, Assistant United States Attorneys, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Derrick Edward Brown appeals the district court’s order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006) motion for reduction of his sentence. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. *See United States v. Dunphy,*551 F.3d 247 (4th Cir.2009); *United States v. Hood,*556 F.3d 226 (4th Cir.2009). Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons set forth by the district court. *United States v. Brown,*No. 1:03-cr-00534-CMH-1 (E.D.Va. Apr. *21011, 2008). 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.

*AFFIRMED.*
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Labor

###### Employment and Training Administration

          - [TA-W-65,706]

Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an investigation was initiated on March 16, 2009 in response to a worker petition filed on behalf of workers at R&B Fabrications, Inc., Oakwood, Ohio.

The petitioners have requested that the petition be withdrawn. Consequently, the investigation has been terminated.

Signed at Washington, DC, this 15th day of April 2009.

Richard Church,

Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.

[FR Doc. E9-10887 Filed 5-8-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
EX-35.1
(logo) Bank of America

Bank of America
475 CrossPoint Parkway
PO Box 9000
Getzville, NY 14068-9000


Annual Statement as to Compliance

Banc of America Funding 2007-B Trust,

I, H. Randall Chestnut, a Senior Vice President of Bank of America, National
Association (the "Servicer"), hereby certify pursuant to the Section 2.17 of
the Servicing Agreement, dated March 30, 2007 (the "Agreement"), between
Banc of America Funding Corporation, as Depositor, and the Servicer, that: (a)
a review of the Servicer's activities during calendar year 2007 and of the
Servicer's performance under the Agreement has been made under my supervision;
and (b) to the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has
fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects
throughout calendar year 2007.


March 26, 2008


Bank of America, N.A.
as Servicer

By: /s/ H. Randall Chestnut
Name: H. Randall Chestnut
Title: Senior Vice President
EX-35.5
(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.



Merrill Lynch Mortgage Investors, Inc.
4 World Financial Center
New York, NY 10281



RE: Annual Statement as to Compliance

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 Master Servicer and/or Certificate
Administrator under the servicing agreement(s) listed on Schedule A hereto
(the "Servicing Agreement(s)") has been made under my supervision; and

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


March 1, 2008

/s/ Judith Rishel
JUDITH RISHEL
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 Servicing Agreement(s) and Series

1 Pooling and Servicing Agreement for ML-CFC Commercial Mortgage Trust
  Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2007-5, Wells Fargo
  Bank, N.A. as Certificate Administrator

2 Pooling and Servicing Agreement for ML-CFC Commercial Mortgage Trust
  Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2007-9, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. as
  Certificate Administrator

3 Pooling and Servicing Agreement for Merrill Lynch Mortgage Trust 2007-C1,
  Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2007-C1, Wells Fargo
  Bank, N.A. as Certificate Administrator
FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________ 

Case No. 5D23-229 

LT Case No. 16-2022-CF-2019-AXXX 

_____________________________ 

ALEXANDER DAVID ROTHERMEL, 

Appellant,

v. 

STATE OF FLORIDA, 

Appellee.

_____________________________ 

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County. 

Adrian G. Soud, Judge. 

Jessica J. Yeary, Public Defender, and Tyler Kemper Payne, 

Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant. 

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Heather Flanagan 

Ross, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee. 

January 9, 2024

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED. 

EDWARDS, C.J., MAKAR, and EISNAUGLE, JJ., concur. 
2 

_____________________________ 

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331. 

_____________________________
1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

DA 22-0562

_________________

KILA SHEPHERD,

 Plaintiff and Appellant,

 v.

STATE OF MONTANA, DEPARTMENT OF 

CORRECTIONS,

 Defendant and Appellee.

O R D E R

_________________

This Court reviews briefs to ensure compliance with Rule 12 of the Montana Rules 

of Appellate Procedure. After reviewing the Appellant’s Opening Brief filed electronically

on December 29, 2022, this Court has determined that the brief does not comply with the 

below referenced Rule and must be resubmitted. 

Rule 12(1)(c) requires that an appellant’s brief include a statement of the case with 

the appropriate heading and information. Appellant’s brief is deficient because it does not 

include a statement of the case with the appropriate heading and information. 

IT IS ORDERED that the referenced brief is rejected. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within ten (10) days of the date of this Order the 

Appellants shall electronically file with the Clerk of this Court a revised brief containing 

the revisions necessary to comply with the specified Rule and that the Appellants shall 

serve copies of the revised brief on all parties of record; 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that no changes, additions, or deletions other than 

those specified in this Order may be made to the brief as originally filed; and

IT IS ORDERED that the times for any subsequent briefing contained in 

M. R. App. P. 13 shall run from the date of filing of the revised brief.

The Clerk of this Court is directed to provide a true copy of this Order to all parties 

of record. 

Electronically signed by:

James Jeremiah Shea

Justice, Montana Supreme Court

December 30 2022

12/30/2022

Case Number: DA 22-0562
109TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 449

AN ACT

To facilitate shareholder consideration of proposals to make

Settlement Common Stock under the Alaska Native

Claims Settlement Act available to missed enrollees, eligible elders, and eligible persons born after December 18,

1971, and for other purposes.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
 †

2

S 449 ES

1 SECTION 1. TECHNICAL AMENDMENT TO ALASKA NATIVE

2 CLAIMS SETTLEMENT ACT.

3 Section 36(d)(3) of the Alaska Native Claims Settle4 ment Act (43 U.S.C. 1629b) is amended—

5 (1) by striking ‘‘(d)(3)’’ and inserting ‘‘(3)’’;

6 (2) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A),

7 by striking ‘‘of this section’’ and inserting ‘‘or an

8 amendment to articles of incorporation under section

9 7(g)(1)(B)’’;

10 (3) in subparagraph (A)—

11 (A) by striking ‘‘, or’’ and inserting ‘‘; or’’;

12 and

13 (B) by striking ‘‘such resolution’’ and in14 serting ‘‘the resolution or amendment to arti15 cles of incorporation’’; and

16 (4) in subparagraph (B), by striking ‘‘such res17 olution’’ and inserting ‘‘the resolution or amendment

18 to articles of incorporation’’.

Passed the Senate December 14, 2005.

Attest:

Secretary.
109TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 449

AN ACT

To facilitate shareholder consideration of proposals

other purposes.sons born after December 18, 1971, and formissed enrollees, eligible elders, and eligible perAlaska Native Claims Settlement Act available toto make Settlement Common Stock under the
## COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02

- 17

- 00294

- CR

TREVOR WARD APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE

----------

FROM COUNTY CRIMINAL COURT NO. 1 OF DENT ON COUNTY

TRIAL COURT NO. CR

- 2 016

- 08486

- A

----------



### MEMORANDUM OPINION 1 

### AND JUDGMENT

----------

We have considered “Appellan t’s Unopposed Motion To Dismiss,” which

complies with rul e 42.2(a). Tex. R. App. P. 42.2(a). Because this court has not

yet issued a decision in this case, we grant the motion and dismiss the appeal. 2

See Tex. R. App. P. 42.2(a), 43.2(f).

1 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.

2 Appellant’s counsel ’s motion to withdraw is denied as moot.2 PER CURIAM

PANEL: WALKER, MEIER, and GABRIEL, JJ.

DO NOT PUBLISH

Tex. R. App

. P. 47.2(b)

DELIVERED: June 28, 2018