alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

Robert G. Houle, 

 Appellant,

v.

Capital One Bank (USA), N. A.,

 Appellee.

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-16-00234-CV

Appeal from the

County Court at Law No. 5

of El Paso County, Texas 

(TC# 2015-CCV01442)

O R D E R

The Court GRANTS the Appellee’s Motion to Reestablish the Appellate Timetable.

Therefore the Court ORDERS this appeal to continue, the appellate timetable 

suspension is lifted, and the Appellant’s brief is due in this Court on or before February 16, 2017. 

 

IT IS SO ORDERED this 17th day of January, 2017.

PER CURIAM

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez and Palafox, JJ.
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF 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 Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report of Sterling Financial Corporation (Sterling) on Form 10-K/A for
the year ended December 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Daniel G. Byrne, Principal Financial Officer of Sterling, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350,
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



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



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



|                      |  |  |  |     |  |                                                                                                        
|--------------------- |  |  |  | --- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                      |  |  | 
|Dated: April 30, 2010 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/ Daniel G. Byrne                                                                                    
|                      |  |  |  |     |  | Daniel G. Byrne
Executive Vice President  Finance, Assistant Secretary and
Principal Financial Officer

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

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Sterling and will be retained by Sterling
and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
IN THE SUPREME COURT

STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

2022 ND 25

State of North Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellee

v.

Guy Clairmont, Defendant and Appellant

No. 20210219

Appeal from the District Court of Cass County, East Central Judicial District, 

the Honorable Steven E. McCullough, Judge.

AFFIRMED.

Per Curiam.

Robert C. Vallie and Nicholas S. Samuelson, Assistant State’s Attorneys, 

Fargo, ND, for plaintiff and appellee; submitted on brief.

Richard E. Edinger, Fargo, ND, for defendant and appellant; submitted on 

brief.

FILED 

IN THE OFFICE OF THE 

CLERK OF SUPREME COURT 

JANUARY 27, 2022 

STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA
1

State v. Clairmont

No. 20210219

Per Curiam.

[¶1] Guy Clairmont appeals from a criminal judgment entered after a jury 

found him guilty of gross sexual imposition. Clairmont argues the district court 

erred in denying his N.D.R.Crim.P. 29 motion because sufficient evidence did

not exist to support the conviction. He also argues the State violated Brady v. 

Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), because it made no effort to obtain certain 

exculpatory evidence.

[¶2] The district court did not err in denying Clairmont’s N.D.R.Crim.P. 29 

motion, and the State did not violate Brady. An analysis under Brady is 

appropriate only when the State suppresses evidence that has been collected 

and preserved. State v. Schmidt, 2012 ND 120, ¶ 13, 817 N.W.2d 332. In 

Schmidt, at ¶ 13, the State did not violate Brady because the State did not 

collect the evidence sought by the defendant. Here, similar to Schmidt, the 

State did not collect the evidence sought by Clairmont. We summarily affirm 

under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3) and (7).

[¶3] Jon J. Jensen, C.J. 

Gerald W. VandeWalle 

Daniel J. Crothers 

Lisa Fair McEvers 

Jerod E. Tufte
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 the Interior

###### Bureau of Land Management 

          - [CO-922-09-1310-FI; COC66236] 

# AGENCY:

Bureau of Land Management, Interior. 

# ACTION:

Notice of proposed reinstatement of terminated oil and gas lease.

# SUMMARY:

Under the provisions of 30 U.S.C. 188(d) and (e), and 43 CFR 3108.2-3(a) and (b)(1), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) received a petition for reinstatement of oil and gas lease COC66236 from Red Willow Production, LLC., for lands in Jackson County, Colorado. The petition was filed on time and was accompanied by all the rentals due since the date the lease terminated under the law. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Bureau of Land Management, Milada Krasilinec, Land Law Examiner, Branch of Fluid Minerals Adjudication, at 303-239-3767. 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The lessee has agreed to the amended lease terms for rentals and royalties at rates of $10.00 per acre or fraction thereof, per year and 16                    2/3                     percent, respectively. The lessee has paid the required $500 administrative fee and $163 to reimburse the Department for the cost of this                     **Federal Register**                     notice. The lessee has met all the requirements for reinstatement of the lease as set out in Section 31(d) and (e) of the Mineral Lands Leasing Act of 1920 (30 U.S.C. 188), and the Bureau of Land Management is proposing to reinstate lease COC66236 effective September 1, 2008, under the original terms and conditions of the lease and the increased rental and royalty rates cited above.                

Dated: January 14, 2009. 

Milada Krasilinec, 

Land Law Examiner.

[FR Doc. E9-1189 Filed 1-21-09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310-JB-P
#### In the Matter of Frans Sital, Appellant, v Brian Fischer, as Commissioner of Correctional Services, et al., Respondents.

Submitted July 6, 2010;

decided September 14, 2010

Motion for leave to appeal dismissed as untimely *(see*CPLR 5513 [b]).
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

__________________________________________________________________ No. DA 18

- 0578
STATE OF MONTANA,
Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

AUSTIN MICHAEL WHITE

, Defendant and Appellant.

_________________________________________________________________ ORDER

__________________________________________________________________

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time,

and good ca use appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension

of time to and including August 14, 2020 , within which to prepa re, file,

and serve Appellant’s reply brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Bowen Greenwood Clerk of the Supreme Court July 28 2020

07/28/2020

Case Number: DA 18-0578
exv10w6w4



 





Exhibit 10.6.4




AMENDMENTS TO

SUPPLEMENTAL EXECUTIVE RETIREMENT PLAN




1. On
September 14, 2007, the Board of Directors authorized the
following amendment to Section 3.1 of the Supplemental Executive
Retirement Plan (“SERP”):




     “(c) Notwithstanding any other provision of the Plan to the contrary, participation in the
Plan is frozen effective January 1, 2007, and no employees who are not Participants on January 1,
2007 will become Participants in the Plan after January 1, 2007.”



2. On
November 8, 2007, the Board of Directors authorized the
following amendment to Section 2.1 of the SERP. Section 2.1 of the SERP is amended and restated in its entirety to read a
follows:



“2.1 Actuarial Equivalent




     ‘Actuarial Equivalent’ means equivalence in value between two (2) or more forms and/or types
of payment based on a determination by an actuary chosen by the Company. Effective September
30th, 2007, the interest rate assumption shall be 6% per annum and the mortality
assumption shall be the RP 2000 Projected 10 years using Projection Scale AA. These assumptions
may be changed from time to time by the Plan’s actuary with the approval of the Board.”
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-64,360]

                    By application dated April 1, 2009, the petitioners requested administrative reconsideration of the Department's negative determination regarding eligibility for workers and former workers of MeadWestvaco Corporation, Consumer and Office Products Division, Enfield, Connecticut (subject firm) to apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) and Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance (ATAA). The Department's Notice of Affirmative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration was signed on April 7, 2009, and published in the                     **Federal Register**                     on April 16, 2009 (74 FR 17691).                

The petitioners have requested that the request for reconsideration be withdrawn. Consequently, the investigation has been terminated.

Signed at Washington, DC, this 16th day of April 2009.

Elliott S. Kushner,

Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.

[FR Doc. E9-10897 Filed 5-8-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 13 (Thursday, January 22, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 4035]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-1164]


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

EXPORT-IMPORT BANK OF THE UNITED STATES


Economic Impact Policy

    This notice is to inform the public that the Export-Import Bank of 
the United States has received an application for a $453 million direct 
loan to support the U.S. export of approximately $372 million worth of 
mining equipment and services for a mining project in the Dominican 
Republic. The U.S. exports will enable the company in the Dominican 
Republic to produce approximately 28.35 metric tons of gold and 140 
metric tons of silver per year on average during the 11-year repayment 
term of the loan. Available information indicates that most of this new 
gold and silver production will be sold internationally. Interested 
parties may submit comments on this transaction by e-mail to 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#8beee8e4e5e4e6e2e8a5e2e6fbeae8ffcbeef3e2e6a5ece4fd"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="8beee8e4e5e4e6e2e8a5e2e6fbeae8ffcbeef3e2e6a5ece4fd">[email protected]</span></a> or by mail to 811 Vermont Avenue, NW., Room 
1238, Washington, DC 20571, within 14 days of the date this notice 
appears in the Federal Register.

Helene S. Walsh,
Vice-President, Policy Analysis Division.
[FR Doc. E9-1164 Filed 1-21-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6690-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
| 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 in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the      financial condition and results of operations of the    Company. |
|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Dated: March 31,      2009 | By:    | /s/      Jeffrey J. Raymond |   |
|--------------------------------------|--------|-----------------------------|--------|
|                                 |   | Jeffrey      J. Raymond     |
|                                 |   | President              |
|                                 |   |                        |
EX-34.7
(logo) ERNST & YOUNG

Ernst & Young LLP
220 South Sixth Street, Ste 1400
Minneapolis, MN 55402-4509

Phone (612) 343-1000
www.ey.com

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

The Board of Directors
U.S. Bank National Association

We have examined management's assertion, included in the accompanying Report on
Assessment of Compliance with Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)
Regulation AB Servicing Criteria, that U.S. Bank National Association (the
Company) complied with the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of the
SEC's Regulation AB for the Corporate Trust Asset Backed Securities platform
(the Platform) as of and for the year ended December 31, 2007, except for
servicing criteria 1122(d)(1)(i), 1122(d)(1)(iii), 1122(d)(2)(i)-(vii),
1122(d)(3)(i)-(iv), and 1122(d)(4)(iv)-(xv), which the Company has determined
are not applicable to the activities performed by them with respect to the
servicing platform covered by this report. Management is responsible for the
Company's compliance with those servicing criteria. Our responsibility is to
express an opinion on management's assertion about the Company's compliance with
the servicing criteria based on our examination.

Our examination was conducted in accordance with attestation 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 and performing such other
procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. Our examination
included testing of less than all of the individual asset backed transactions
and securities that comprise the Platform, testing of less than all of the
servicing activities related to the Platform, and determining whether the
Company processed those selected transactions and performed those selected
activities in compliance with the servicing criteria. Furthermore, our
procedures were limited to the selected transactions and servicing activities
performed by the Company during the period covered by this report. Our
procedures were not designed to determine whether errors may have occurred
either prior to or subsequent to our tests that may have affected the balances
or amounts calculated or reported by the Company during the period covered by
this report for the selected transactions or any other transactions. 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 servicing criteria.

In our opinion, management's assertion that the Company complied with the
aforementioned servicing criteria as of and for the year ended December 31,
2007, for the Corporate Trust Asset Backed Securities platform is fairly stated,
in all material respects.

/s/ Ernst & Young LLP

February 12, 2008

A member firm of Ernst & Young Global Limited
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE BALANCE
SHEET AT MARCH 31, 1998 (UNAUDITED) AND THE STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOR THE
QUARTERLY PERIOD ENDED MARCH 31, 1998 (UNAUDITED) AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS INCLUDED AS PART OF ITS
QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-Q FOR THE PERIOD MARCH 31, 1998
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                         610,985
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  244,258
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               855,243
<PP&E>                                      10,480,964
<DEPRECIATION>                               5,461,215
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               5,874,992
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   5,874,992
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 5,874,992
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               291,622
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  166,585
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   162,583
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Moises LUNA, also known as Luna Moises, also known as Moses Luna, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 05-20650

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Oct. 25, 2006.

James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, Plaintiff-Ap-pellee.

Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Brent Evan Newton, Assistant Federal Public, Federal Public Defender’s Office Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before JOLLY, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.*

Moisés Luna appeals his sentence following his guilty plea conviction for illegal reentry after previous deportation. Luna contends that the district court erred in treating his Texas burglary of a habitation conviction as a crime of violence under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(l)(A)(ii). As Luna *612concedes, his argument has been rejected by this court. *See United States v. Valdez-Maltos,*443 F.3d 910, 911 (5th Cir. 2006), *cert. denied,*- U.S. -, 127 S.Ct. 265, 166 L.Ed.2d 205 (2006); *United States v. Garcia-Mendez,*420 F.3d 454, 456-57 (5th Cir.2005), *cert. denied,*- U.S. -, 126 S.Ct. 1398, 164 L.Ed.2d 100 (2006).

Luna also challenges, in light of *Apprendi v. New Jersey,*530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), the constitutionality of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)’s treatment of prior felony and aggravated felony convictions as sentencing factors rather than as elements of the offense that must be found by a jury. This issue is foreclosed by *Almendarez-Torres v. United States,*523 U.S. 224, 235, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998). Although Luna contends that *Almendarez-Torres*was incorrectly decided and that a majority of the Supreme Court would overrule *Almendarez-Torres*in light of *Apprendi,*we have repeatedly rejected such arguments on the basis that *Almendarez-Torres*remains binding. *See United States v. Garza-Lopez,*410 F.3d 268, 276 (5th Cir.), *cert. denied,*- U.S. -, 126 S.Ct. 298, 163 L.Ed.2d 260 (2005). Luna properly concedes that his argument is foreclosed in light of *Almendarez-Torres*and circuit precedent, but he raises it here to preserve it for further review.

AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
#### Steve Mason Enters., Inc. v. City of Gastonia

Case below: 184 N.C. App.-(19 June 2007)

No. 405P07

Def’s PDR Under N.C.G.S. § 7A-31 (COA06-1339)

Denied 10/11/07