alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

JUDGMENT

No. 04-16-00296-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF T.M.C., A.M.C., and N.R.S.C., Children

From the 150th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2014PA02352

Honorable Peter Sakai, Judge Presiding

BEFORE JUSTICE BARNARD, JUSTICE ALVAREZ, AND JUSTICE PULLIAM

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the order of the trial court is 

AFFIRMED. It is ORDERED that no costs be assessed against appellant in relation to this appeal 

because he qualifies as indigent under TEX. R. APP. P. 20.

SIGNED September 14, 2016.

_____________________________

Jason Pulliam, Justice
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Alpine Resources Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended May 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date here of (the "report"), I, Mir Huculak, Chief Executive Officer and 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 this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



Dated this 17th day of August, 2006.



| | MIR HUCULAK                                        
| | ---------------------------------------------------
| | Mir Huculak                                        
| | Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer























---
Order entered May 14, 2015

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-15-00253-CV

DOROTHEA LASTER, Appellant

V.

SHARON THOMAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 256th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DF-04-10316

ORDER

Because Dallas County District Clerk Felicia Pitre has failed to comply with our April 

27, 2015 order directing her to file, no later than May 1, 2015, a supplemental clerk’s record 

containing the items designated by Dorothea Laster in her “First Supplemental Designation,” we 

again ORDER Ms. Pitre to file the requested record. The record shall be filed no later than May 

19, 2015. 

We DIRECT the Clerk of the Court to send a copy of this order to Ms. Pitre and all 

parties.

/s/ CRAIG STODDART 

JUSTICE
Exhibit 23.1

            Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm


Board of Directors

Velocity Asset Management, Inc.

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statement on
Form S-8 of Velocity Asset Management, Inc. of our report dated March 17, 2006
related to the consolidated balance sheets of Velocity Asset Management, Inc.
and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2005 and 2004, and the related consolidated
statements of income, shareholder's equity, and cash flows for each of the years
in the three-year period ended December 31, 2005, which report is included in
the December 31, 2005 annual report on Form 10-KSB of Velocity Asset Management,
Inc.



/s/ Cowan and Gunteski & Co., P.A.


Toms River, New Jersey


March 31, 2006
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Dean Curtis SAWYER, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 12-7854.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Dec. 13, 2012.

Decided: Dec. 19, 2012.

Dean Curtis Sawyer, Appellant Pro Se. Laura Pellatiro Tayman, Assistant United States Attorney, Newport News, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before MOTZ, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

*223PER CURIAM:

Dean Curtis Sawyer seeks to appeal the district court’s order treating his Fed. R.Civ.P. 60(b) motion as a successive 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2012) motion, and dismissing it on that basis. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2258(c)(1)(B) (2006). 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) (2006). 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, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Sawyer has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.

Additionally, we construe Sawyer’s notice of appeal and informal brief as an application to file a second or successive § 2255 motion. *United States v. Winestock,*340 F.3d 200, 208 (4th Cir.2003). In order to obtain authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion, a prisoner must assert claims based on either: (1) newly discovered evidence, not previously discoverable by due diligence, that would be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that, but for constitutional error, no reasonable factfinder would have found the movant guilty of the offense; or (2) a new rule of constitutional law, previously unavailable, made retroactive by the Supreme Court to cases on collateral review. 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255(h) (West Supp. 2012). Sawyer’s claims do not satisfy either of these criteria. Therefore, we deny authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion.

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED.*
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

THOMAS EDWARD SPERBER, JR.,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 125 WAL 2018

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 15th day of August, 2018, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
EXHIBIT NO 99.2

                         ANNUAL STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE

                           PREMIER AUTO FINANCE, INC.

             OFFICER'S CERTIFICATE / ANNUAL STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE

The undersigned certifies that he is President of Premier Auto Finance, Inc.
(Premier), and that as such is duly authorized to execute and deliver this
certificate on behalf of Premier, as Servicer, in connection with the Sale and
Servicing Agreement (the Sale and Servicing Agreement) dated as of August 24,
2000 by and among Premier, as Servicer, Dealer Auto Receivables Corp. (DARC),
The Bank of New York, as Indenture Trustee and Dealer Auto Receivables Owner
Trust 2000-1 (Issuer), (all capitalized terms used herein without definition
having the respective meaning set forth in the Sale and Servicing Agreement),
and further certifies and follows:

(1)      This Certificate is being delivered pursuant to Section 9.02 and 9.05
         of the Sale and Servicing Agreement

(2)      A review of the activities of the Servicer during Calendar year 2003
         and of Premier's performance under the Sale and Servicing Agreement was
         made under my supervision.

(3)      To my knowledge, based the review, Premier has fully performed all its
         obligations under the Sale and Servicing Agreement.

It is understood and acknowledged that the undersigned is executing this
Certificate not in an individual capacity by solely in his capacity as an
officer and is without any personal liability as to the matters contained in
this Certificate.

In Witness Whereof, I have affixed by signature hereto as of March 29, 2004.

By: /s/ David Greenberg
    --------------------------------

Printed Name:  David Greenberg
Title:              CEO
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-7081

LEE DON SHEPHERD,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

BRIAN A. BLEDSOE, Warden,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern

District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. Irene M. Keeley, Chief

District Judge. (CA-01-76)

Submitted: August 24, 2001 Decided: September 5, 2001

Before WILKINS and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Lee Don Shepherd, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Lee Don Shepherd appeals the district court’s order denying

relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (1994) petition. We have reviewed

the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible

error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district

court. See Shepherd v. Bledsoe, No. CA-01-76 (N.D.W. Va. June 21,

2001). 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
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA : Hon. Stanley R. Chesler
Vv. : Crim. No. 11-208 (SRC)
SIXING LIU : ORDER

This matter having come before the Court on motions
filed by defendant Sixing Liu (James D. Tunick, Esq., appearing)
for various relief (Docket Entries 41, 42, 43, 49, 50, 51, 52,
54, 55 and 56); and the United States of America (Paul J.
Fishman, United States Attorney, by L. Judson Welle and Gurbir Ss.
Grewal, Assistant United States Attorneys, appearing) having
opposed the motions; and the Court having considered the papers
filed by the parties and having heard the arguments of counsel;

and for the reasons expressed by the Court on the record on

December 7, 2011, fE
IT IS, therefore, on this (4 day of December, 2011,

ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Counts 1-8
of the Indictment for Failure to State an Offense (Docket Entry
41) is hereby DENIED; and it is further

ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Counts
10(d), 11(b) and 11(c) of the Superseding Indictment Based on a
Failure to State an Offense (Docket Entry 42) is hereby GRANTED

IN PART in that paragraph 3(d) of Count Ten and paragraphs 3(b)



and 3(c) of Count Eleven of the Superseding Indictment are hereby
stricken; and it is further

ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for an Evidentiary
Hearing Regarding DDTC’s Certification that Certain Technical
Data is a Defense Article of a Nature Prohibited by the USML
(Docket Entry 43) is hereby DENIED; and it is further

ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for Production of
404(b) Material (Docket Entry 49) is hereby DENIED AS MOOT; and
it is further

ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for Immediate
Disclosure of Favorable Evidence Related to L-3 Communications
Witnesses (Docket Entry 50) is hereby DENIED; and it is further

ORDERED that the Court’s ruling on Defendant’s Motion
to Strike as Surplusage Paragraph 27 of the Superseding
Indictment (Docket Entry 51) is hereby RESERVED; and it is
further

ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Preserve Law
Enforcement Agent’s Notes and Logs (Docket Entry 52) is hereby
DENIED AS MOOT; and it is further

ORDERED that Defendant’s Second Motion to Dismiss
Counts 1-8 of the Indictment for Failure to State an Offense

(Docket Entry 54) is hereby DENIED; and it is further



ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion and Memorandum of Law
to Dismiss Counts 1-8 of the Superseding Indictment as
Unconstitutionally Vague (Docket Entry 55) is hereby DENIED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE;

ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for a Bill of
Particulars with Respect to Count Nine of the Superseding
Indictment (Docket Entry 56) is hereby DENIED AS MOOT; and it is
further

ORDERED that the government will provide notice under
Rule 404(b) as directed by the Court on the record 30 days before
commencement of the trial of this case; and it is further

ORDERED that the government will provide all Jencks and
Giglio material ten days before the commencement of the trial of
this case; and it is further

ORDERED that the parties are granted leave to file

additional motions prior to the trial of this matter.

AMON. STANLEY R. CHESLER
United States District Judge
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 136 (Friday, July 17, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 34776]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-17105]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

National Park Service


Acadia National Park, Bar Harbor, ME; Acadia National Park 
Advisory Commission; Notice of Meeting

    Notice is hereby given in accordance with the Federal Advisory 
Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 86 Stat. 770, 5 U.S.C. App. 1, Sec. 10), 
that the Acadia National Park Advisory Commission will hold a meeting 
on Monday, September 14, 2009.
    The Commission was established pursuant to Public Law 99-420, Sec. 
103. The purpose of the commission is to consult with the Secretary of 
the Interior, or his designee, on matters relating to the management 
and development of the park, including but not limited to the 
acquisition of lands and interests in lands (including conservation 
easements on islands) and termination of rights of use and occupancy.
    The meeting will convene at Park Headquarters, Bar Harbor, Maine, 
at 1 p.m., to consider the following agenda:
    1. Committee Reports:
     --Land Conservation
     --Park Use
     --Science and Education
     --Historic
    2. Old business.
    3. Superintendent's report.
    4. Public comments.
    5. Proposed agenda for next Commission meeting in February 2010.
    The meeting is open to the public. Interested persons may make 
oral/written presentations to the Commission or file written 
statements. Such requests should be made to the Superintendent at least 
seven days prior to the meeting.
    Further information concerning this meeting may be obtained from 
the Superintendent, Acadia National Park, P.O. Box 177, Bar Harbor, 
Maine 04609, tel: (207) 288-3338.

    Dated: June 30, 2009.
Sheridan Steele,
Superintendent.
[FR Doc. E9-17105 Filed 7-16-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-2N-P
# cpsaat43
Exhibit 31.2

CERTIFICATIONS UNDER SECTION 302

I, John C. Deighan, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Orchid Cellmark 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.

Date: March 28, 2007



|                                                                 
|-----------------------------------------------------------------
|/S/ JOHN C. DEIGHAN                                              
|John C. Deighan                                                  
|Corporate Controller (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 136 (Friday, July 17, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 34764-34765]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-17053]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Cancer Institute; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Cancer Institute Special Emphasis 
Panel; NCI Epidemiology, Prevention Control & Population Sciences 
P01.
    Date: October 14-15, 2009.
    Time: 8 a.m. to 6 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: Hilton Washington DC/Rockville Executive Meeting C, 1750 
Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852.
    Contact Person: Wlodek Lopaczynski, MD, PhD, Scientific Review 
Officer, Research Programs Review Branch, Division of Extramural 
Activities, National Cancer Institute, 6116 Executive Blvd. Room 
8131, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-594-1402, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#4c20233c2d2f3b0c212d252062222524622b233a"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="deb2b1aebfbda99eb3bfb7b2f0b0b7b6f0b9b1a8">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.392, 
Cancer Construction; 93.393, Cancer Cause and Prevention Research; 
93.394, Cancer Detection and Diagnosis Research; 93.395, Cancer 
Treatment Research; 93.396, Cancer Biology Research; 93.397, Cancer 
Centers Support; 93.398, Cancer Research Manpower; 93.399, Cancer 
Control, National Institutes of Health, HHS)


[[Page 34765]]


    Dated: July 10, 2009.
Jennifer Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. E9-17053 Filed 7-16-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Eddie MOBLEY, a/k/a Eddie Country, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 12-7481.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Dec. 13, 2012.

Decided: Dec. 18, 2012.

Eddie Mobley, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer Lynn Dillon, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina; Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Ap-pellee.

Before MOTZ, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

*227Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Eddie Mobley appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for a reduction of sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *United States v. Mobley,*No. 3:92-cr-00018-MOC-15 (W.D.N.C. Aug. 16, 2012). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED.*
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 575

To expedite the process by which the Secretary of the Interior and the 

Secretary of Agriculture may utilize military aircraft to fight wildfires, 

and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 5, 2003

Mr. HEFLEY introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Agriculture, and in addition to the Committees on Resources, 

Government Reform, and Armed Services, for a period to be subsequently 

determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL

To expedite the process by which the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture may utilize military 

aircraft to fight wildfires, 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,

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Wildfire Response Act 

5 of 2003’’. 
2

•HR 575 IH 

1 SEC. 2. EXPEDITED AUTHORITY OF SECRETARY OF THE IN2 TERIOR AND SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE 

3 TO UTILIZE MILITARY AIRCRAFT TO FIGHT 

4 WILDFIRES. 

5 (a) EXCEPTION TO ECONOMY ACT REQUIREMENT.—

6 Notwithstanding section 1535(a)(4) of title 31, United 

7 States Code, the Secretary of the Interior and the Sec8 retary of Agriculture may procure the services of military 

9 aircraft (and personnel of the Armed Forces to operate 

10 and maintain such aircraft) to fight a wildfire without first 

11 comparing the cost and convenience of procuring such 

12 services from the Armed Forces to the cost of procuring 

13 the same services from a commercial enterprise. 

14 (b) CONGRESSIONAL NOTICE.—Whenever the Sec15 retary of the Interior or the Secretary of Agriculture uses 

16 the exception provided in subsection (a) to expedite the 

17 procurement of the services of military aircraft (and per18 sonnel of the Armed Forces to operate and maintain such 

19 aircraft) to fight a wildfire, the Secretary concerned shall 

20 submit to Congress notice of the use of the exception and 

21 the reasons for the use of the exception.

Æ