alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 93 (Friday, May 15, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 22956-22957]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-11385]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

[AA-6664-A, AA-6664-B, AA-6664-F; AK-965-1410-KC-P]


Alaska Native Claims Selection

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of decision approving lands for conveyance.

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

SUMMARY: As required by 43 CFR 2650.7(d), notice is hereby given that 
an appealable decision approving the surface estate in certain lands 
for conveyance pursuant to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act will 
be issued to The English Bay Corporation. The lands are in the vicinity 
of Nanwalek, Alaska, and Kenai Fjords National Park, Alaska, and 
located in:

Seward Meridian, Alaska

T. 6 S., R. 4 W.,
    Sec. 7.
    Containing 613 acres.
T. 7 S., R. 5 W.,
    Sec. 4.
    Containing 230 acres.
T. 11 S., R. 15 W.,
    Tracts 37, 38, and 39.
    Containing 21.589 acres.
T. 9 S., R. 16 W.,
    Sec. 25.
    Containing 0.13 acres.

    The subsurface estate in these lands will be conveyed to Chugach 
Alaska Corporation when the surface estate is conveyed to The English 
Bay Corporation. Notice of the decision will also be published four 
times in the Homer Alaska Tribune.

DATES: The time limits for filing an appeal are:
    1. Any party claiming a property interest which is adversely 
affected by the decision shall have until June 15, 2009 to file an 
appeal.
    2. Parties receiving service of the decision by certified mail 
shall have 30

[[Page 22957]]

days from the date of receipt to file an appeal.
    Parties who do not file an appeal in accordance with the 
requirements of 43 CFR part 4, subpart E, shall be deemed to have 
waived their rights.

ADDRESSES: A copy of the decision may be obtained from: Bureau of Land 
Management, Alaska State Office, 222 West Seventh Avenue, <greek-i>13, 
Anchorage, Alaska 99513-7504.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The Bureau of Land Management by phone 
at 907-271-5960, or by e-mail at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#6c0d07420e0001420f03021a09150d020f092c0d07420e0001420b031a"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="0f6e64216d6362216c6061796a766e616c6a4f6e64216d636221686079">[email protected]</span></a>. Persons 
who use a telecommunication device (TDD) may call the Federal 
Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8330, 24 hours a day, 
seven days a week, to contact the Bureau of Land Management.

Jennifer L. Noe,
Land Law Examiner, Land Transfer Adjudication II.
[FR Doc. E9-11385 Filed 5-14-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-JA-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### In the Matter of Jonathan Odom, Petitioner, v Donald Selsky, as Director of Special Housing and Inmate Disciplinary Programs, Respondent.

[870 NYS2d 811]

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Albany County) to review two determinations of the Commissioner of Correctional Services which found petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.

Petitioner, an inmate, was charged in two separate misbehavior reports with violating various prison disciplinary rules. Following respective tier III disciplinary hearings, petitioner was found guilty on October 15, 2007 of threatening the staff and on October 19, 2007 of refusing a direct order and losing state property. After exhausting his administrative remedies, petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding seeking annulment of both determinations. We now confirm.

The October 15, 2007 determination of guilt is supported by substantial evidence in the form of the relevant misbehavior *1061report, the letter containing the threatening language and petitioner’s admission that he wrote the letter *(see Matter of Sloane v McKinney,*48 AD3d 850, 850 [2008]). We also reject petitioner’s assertion that this misbehavior report was not sufficiently detailed. We note that, although he was not provided with a copy of the alleged threatening letter (which was incorporated by reference in the misbehavior report) until the hearing, he failed to show that he was prejudiced in his ability to mount a defense *(see Matter of Faison v Senkowski,*255 AD2d 625, 626 [1998], *appeal dismissed*93 NY2d 847 [1999]; *Matter of Di Rose v Coornbe,*233 AD2d 799, 800 [1996]).

Likewise, the October 19, 2007 determination of guilt is supported by substantial evidence consisting of the pertinent misbehavior report and the testimony adduced at the hearing, including the confidential testimony considered by the Hearing Officer in camera *(see Matter of Nova v Selsky,*54 AD3d 453, 454 [2008]). Petitioner’s assertion that this misbehavior report was issued in retaliation for his filing of grievances created a credibility issue for resolution by the Hearing Officer *(see Matter of Zaire v Artus,*49 AD3d 945, 946 [2008]).

Petitioner’s remaining contentions have been examined and, to the extent preserved, are lacking in merit.

Cardona, PJ., Mercure, Lahtinen, Kavanagh and Stein, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determinations are confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.
EXHIBIT 32.1

Certification Required by Rule 13a-14(b) or

Rule 15d-14(b) and Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Permian Basin Royalty Trust (the Trust) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2015, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, not in its individual capacity but solely as the trustee of the Trust, certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to its knowledge:

(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 Trust.



|                       |  |  |  |                                                         |  |                             
|---------------------- |  |  |  | ------------------------------------------------------- |  | ----------------------------
|                       |  |  |  | SOUTHWEST BANK, TRUSTEE FOR PERMIAN BASIN ROYALTY TRUST
|                       |  |  | 
|Date: November 9, 2015 |  |  |  | By:                                                     |  | /s/ RON E. HOOPER           
|                       |  |  |  |                                                         |  | Ron E. Hooper,              
|                       |  |  |  |                                                         |  | SVP Royalty Trust Management
|                       |  |  |  |                                                         |  | Southwest Bank              

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Permian Basin Royalty Trust and
will be retained by Permian Basin Royalty Trust and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<TITLE>To the Shareholders and Board of Directors</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<PRE>
<FONT FACE="Arial" SIZE=2><P ALIGN="CENTER">EXHIBIT 15</P>

<P> </P>
<P> </P>
<P> </P>
<P> </P>
<P>To the Shareholders and Board of Directors</P>
<P>of Sears, Roebuck and Co.</P>

<P>We have made a review, in accordance with standards established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, of the unaudited interim financial information of Sears, Roebuck and Co. for the 13-week and 39-week periods ended October 2,
1999 and October 3, 1998, as indicated in our report dated November 4, 1999; because we did not perform an audit, we expressed no opinion on that information.</P>

<P>We are aware that our report referred to above, which is included in your Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the 13-week and 39-week periods ended October 2, 1999 and October 3, 1998, is incorporated by reference in Registration Statement Nos. 2-64879,
2-80037, 33-18081, 33-23793, 33-41485, 33-43459, 33-45479, 33-55825,  33-58851, 33-64345, 333-8141, and 333-38131 of Sears, Roebuck and Co.; Registration Statement Nos. 33-58139, 333-9817, 33-64215, 333-30879, and 333-62847 of Sears, Roebuck and Co. and
Sears Roebuck Acceptance Corp.; Registration Statement Nos. 33-64775, 333-18591, and 333-43309 of Sears, Roebuck and Co. and Sears, Roebuck and Co. Deferred Compensation Plan; Registration Statement Nos. 33-57205, 333-11973, and 333-53149 of Sears,
Roebuck and Co. for the Sears 401(k) Profit Sharing Plan (formerly, The Savings and Profit Sharing Fund of Sears Employees); and Registration Statement No. 33-44671 of Sears, Roebuck and Co. and Sears DC Corp.</P>

<P>We are also aware that the aforementioned report, pursuant to Rule 436(c) under the Securities Act of 1933, is not considered a part of the Registration Statement prepared or certified by an accountant or a report prepared or certified by an accountant
within the meaning of Sections 7 and 11 of that Act.</P>

<P> </P>
<P> </P>
<P> </P>
<P>Deloitte & Touche LLP</P>

<P>Chicago, Illinois</P>
<P>November 4, 1999</P>

<P> </P></FONT></BODY>
</HTML>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                          53,770
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   68,800
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,094
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               138,711
<PP&E>                                         155,555
<DEPRECIATION>                                   7,682
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 654,828
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          141,244
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           363
<OTHER-SE>                                     189,257
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   654,828
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               155,753
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  135,449
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             (270,024)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              10,561
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                272,085
<INCOME-TAX>                                   109,072
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            163,013
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   163,013
<EPS-BASIC>                                     4.66
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     4.66


</TABLE>
FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

YEWHALASHET ABEBE,

 Petitioner,

 v.

MICHAEL B. MUKASEY, Attorney

General,

 Respondent.

No. 05-76201

Agency No. A026-810-941

ORDER

KOZINSKI, Chief Judge:

The per curiam opinion that was filed November 20, 2008, was filed in

error. The opinion accompanying this order is substituted as the opinion of the

court. The previously filed concurrence and dissent are unaffected by this order.

The petition for rehearing remains pending. Within 14 days, respondent

shall file a response to the petition. Petitioner may reply within 14 days of the

response; the reply shall not exceed the length permitted for the response. See 9th

Cir. R. 40-1.

FILED

JAN 05 2009

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
#### Laslie *et al. v.*Laslie *et al.*

On the same day upon which a case was tried, a motion for a new trial was made out and presented to the judge, who granted a rule *nisi,*which was immediately served. At the same time a consent order was passed continuing the hearing of the motion to a future day in vacation, the order providing that a brief of evidence should be submitted to respondent’s counsel within twenty days and that the brief of evidence be approved at the hearing. The brief was submitted to respondent’s counsel within the time prescribed by the order. On the day first appointed for the hearing of the motion, and at various times thereafter, orders were passed continuing the hearing, each order providing that the brief of evidence should be corrected and approved at the hearing. The last of these orders fixed January 22, 1891, as the time for the hearing. On that day the hearing was by a consent order again continued until March 20,1891, “ under same terms as previous orders.” On the day last named, it was ordered that the motion be continued until the February adjourned term of the superior court, to be held the first Monday in May, “ for the correction and approval of the brief of evidence in said case and for the hearing of said motion for new trial.” During that term the brief of evidence was “agreed to” in writing by counsel for both sides and the judge, all of whom signed the written agreement; the motion was argued on the merits, and the judge reserved bis decision, no motion to dismiss the motion for a new trial having been made. This judge went . out of office without rendering a decision, and his successor after-*721wards, on motion of respondent’s counsel, dismissed the motion for a new trial, on the ground that the brief of evidence “ was not approved and filed within the terms of consent orders granted in said case as required by law,” Under the facts recited, it was error to dismiss the motion for a new trial.

(а) The effect of the order of January 22,1891, and the orders of continuance subsequently passed, was to renew and extend the original right of movant to have the brief of evidence approved at the hearing.

(б) The signing by the judge of an entry on the brief of evidence expressing that it was “ agreed to,” was in effect an approval of the brief.

‘(c)- The failure to have the brief of evidence marked “ filed in office ” by the clerk, was waived by arguing the motion on the merits. Besides, it appears that the motion for a new trial and the brief of evidence were in fact deposited in the clerk’s office at the term when the motion was heard.

April 30, 1894.

Argued at the last term.

Motion for a new trial. Before Judge Smith. Dodge superior court. March term, 1898.

DeLacy & Bishop, for plaintiffs.

E. A. Smith, for defendants.

*Judgment reversed.*
Exhibit 34.2


[logo]
Crowe Chizek and Company LLC
Member Horwath International

             REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

Audit Committee
Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC
West Palm Beach, Florida

We have examined management's assertion, included in the accompanying report
"Certification Regarding Compliance with Applicable Servicing Criteria", that
Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC (the Company) complied with the servicing criteria set
forth in Item 1122(d) of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission's
Regulation AB for the Residential Mortgage Loans Platform (the "Platform") as of
and for the year ended December 31, 2007, excluding criteria 1122(d)(1)(iii) and
1122(d)(4)(xv), which management has determined are not applicable to the
activities performed by the Company with respect to the Platform. The Platform
consists of the asset-backed transactions and securities defined by management
in Appendix B of Management's Report. Management is responsible for the
Company's compliance with those minimum servicing standards. Our responsibility
is to express an opinion on management's assertion about the Company's
compliance based on our examination.

Our examination was conducted in accordance with the standards established by
the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, as adopted by the Public
Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) and, accordingly, included
examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Company's compliance with the
applicable servicing criteria for the Platform and performing such other
procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. Our examination
included testing selected asset-backed transactions and securities constituting
the Platform and evaluating whether the Company performed servicing activities
related to those transactions and securities in compliance with the applicable
servicing criteria for the period covered by this report. Accordingly, our
testing may not have included servicing activities related to each asset-backed
transaction or security constituting the Platform. Further, our examination was
not designed to detect material noncompliance that may have occurred prior to
the period covered by this report and that may have affected the Company's
servicing activities during the period covered by this report. We believe that
our examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our examination
does not provide a legal determination on the Company's compliance with the
applicable servicing criteria.

In our opinion, management's assertion referred to above is fairly stated, in
all material respects, based on the aforementioned applicable servicing
criteria.

                                                /s/ Crowe Chizek and Company LLC
                                                    Crowe Chizek and Company LLC

Fort Lauderdale, Florida
March 6, 2008
Exhibit 32.2





CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER


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 Midas Medici Group Holdings, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Johnson Kachidza, 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; and





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





Date: April 4, 2011
By:
/s/ Johnson KachidzaJohnson Kachidza

Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

JUDGMENT

No. 04-19-00078-CV

NABORS DRILLING TECHNOLOGIES USA, INC.,

Appellant

v.

Leslie Wayne RATLIFF and Shannon Ratliff,

Appellees

From the 81st Judicial District Court, La Salle County, Texas

Trial Court No. 15-05-00091-CVL

Honorable Russell Wilson, Judge Presiding

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE MARION, JUSTICE MARTINEZ, AND JUSTICE ALVAREZ

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, this appeal is DISMISSED. Each party 

shall bear their respective costs. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(d).

SIGNED September 25, 2019.

_________________________________

Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice
#### Davis *v.*McDade.

In view of the fact that the presiding judge in granting the injunction required a bond with security, to be given for the forthcoming of the property levied upon to answer the final judgment, it is not *727apparent to this court that there was any such abuse of discretion in granting the injunction as to require or justify a reversal; the plaintiff in error not having briefed the evidence nor made any *bona fide*attempt to brief it, but having brought to this court lengthy documents containing much needless and irrelevant matter.

April 9, 1894.

Argued at the last term.

Injunction. Before Judge Jenkins. Putnam county. October 23, 1893.

W. B. & S. T. Wingfield, for plaintiff in error.

Joseph S. Turner, *contra.*

*Judgment affirmed.*
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h Marilyn Kell y Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathawa y Mary Beth Kell y Brian K. Zahra,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk April 23, 2012

d0416 

# Order

April 23, 2012

143925

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 143925 COA: 302635 Bay CC: 02-001198-FC LONNIE BAILEY, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application fo r leave to appeal the September 20, 2011 order of the Court of Appeals is considered , and it is DENIED, because the defendant has

failed to meet the burden of establishi ng entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).
#### Wen-Yu Zhou Wahab, Respondent, v Chassis Kassim Wahab, Appellant.

Decided June 30, 2009

Appeal dismissed, without costs, by the Court of Appeals, sua sponte, upon the ground that it does not lie *(see*NY Const, art VI, § 3 [b]; CPLR 5601).
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Evita Quimbley, Appellant.

[972 NYS2d 523]

Judgment, Supreme *495Court, New York County (Juan Merchan, J.), rendered on or about July 20, 2011, unanimously affirmed.

Application by appellant’s counsel to withdraw as counsel is granted *(see Anders v California,*386 US 738 [1967]; *People v Saunders,*52 AD2d 833 [1976]). We have reviewed this record and agree with appellant’s assigned counsel that there are no non-frivolous points which could be raised on this appeal.

Pursuant to Criminal Procedure Law § 460.20, defendant may apply for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals by making application to the Chief Judge of that Court and by submitting such application to the Clerk of that Court or to a Justice of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of this Department on reasonable notice to the respondent within 30 days after service of a copy of this order.

Denial of the application for permission to appeal by the judge or justice first applied to is final and no new application may thereafter be made to any other judge or justice. Concur — Tom, J.P., Sweeny, Saxe, Freedman and Clark, JJ.
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D17-5056

_____________________________

DEVIN N. JONES and LISA A.

JONES,

Appellants,

v.

AUTO-OWNERS INSURANCE 

COMPANY,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Walton County.

Jeffrey E. Lewis, Judge.

November 28, 2018

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

ROBERTS, RAY, and WINSOR, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

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

9.331.

_____________________________
2

Dixie D. Powell of Powell Injury Law, P.A., Crestview, for 

Appellants.

Bobby L. Whitney, Jr., of Seymour & Whitney, Fort Walton Beach,

for Appellee.