alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

June 22, 2005

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 04-51315

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ALEJANDRO CORTES-MELENDEZ, also 

known as Roberto Macias-Saldana,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 5:04-CR-375-ALL

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

Before WIENER, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Alejandro CortesMelendez raises arguments that are foreclosed by AlmendarezTorres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), which held

that a prior conviction is a sentencing factor under 8 U.S.C. 

§ 1326(b)(2) and not a separate criminal offense. The

Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the

judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
## T RIAL 

## C OURT 

## O FFICIAL 

## ' S



## R EQUEST FOR 

## E XTENSION OF 

## T IME TO 

## F ILE 

## R ECORD

Court of Appeals No. (If known): 

## 12

- - -

Trial Court Style: The State of Texas vs. Michael Benjamin Johnson

Trial Court & County: 241 st Judicial District Court of Smith County, Texas

Trial Court No.: 241-0950-14

Date Trial Clerk's Record Originally Due: 6-28-15

Date Court Reporter's/Recorder's Record Originally Due: 6-28-15

Anticipated Number of Pages of Record: 475

I am responsible for preparing a record in this app eal but I am unable to file the record by the origi nal

due date for the following reason/s: (Check all that apply - attach additional pages if necessary.)



#  to the best of my knowledge, the Appellant has mad e no claim of indigence and has failed to

either pay the required fee or to make arrangement s to pay the fee for preparing the record.

# my duties listed below preclude working on this re cord:



# Other. (Explain.) :

I anticipate this record will be completed and forw arded to the 12 th Court of Appeals by

, and I hereby request an additional days within which to prepare it. T EX

. R. A PP

. P.

37.3.

In compliance with T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 9.5(e), I certify that a copy of this notice has be en served on counsel

for all parties to the trial Court's judgment or or der being appealed. I further certify by my signatu re

below that the information contained in this notice is true and within my personal knowledge.

July 9, 2015 /s/Carla A. Sims, CSR, RPR

Date Signature

903-517-5120 Carla A. Sims

Office Phone Number Printed Name

carla_sims_csr@hotmail.com Deputy Court Reporter

___________________________________E-mail Address (if available) Official Title

Trial Clerk's/Court Reporter's Request for Ext/12 th CA-CsL/Tyler/12-3-97 /Rev.5-3-2001

T EXAS R ULE OF A PPELLATE P ROCEDURE 9.5(e) reads:

Certificate requirements. A certificate of service must be signed by the per son who made the

service and must state:

(1) the date and manner of service;

(2) the name and addresses of each person served; a nd

(3) if the person served is a party's attorney, the name of the party represented by that attorney.

The following parties have been served with a copy of this document:

(Information may be either printed or typed.)

Lead Counsel for A PPELLANT ( S ) : Lead Counsel for A PPELLEE ( S ) :

Name: Michael B. Johnson #01992023 Name:

Address: BILL CLEMENTS UNIT Address:

9601 Spur 591

Amarillo, TX 79107

Phone no.: Phone no.:

Attorney for: Attorney for:

Additional information, if any:

I am a deputy court reporter for the 241 st District Court. I was the only court reporter in this trial.

Mr. Johnson has not contacted me at all to request a record or make arrangements for payment.
II 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 695 

To require the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to conduct a study on matters 

relating to the burial of unclaimed remains of veterans in national cemeteries, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 10, 2015 

Mr. TOOMEY introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL 

To require the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to conduct 

a study on matters relating to the burial of unclaimed 

remains of veterans in national cemeteries, 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 ‘‘Dignified Interment 

5 of Our Veterans Act of 2015’’. 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 695 IS

1 SEC. 2. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS STUDY ON 

2 MATTERS RELATING TO BURIAL OF UN3 CLAIMED REMAINS OF VETERANS IN NA4 TIONAL CEMETERIES. 

5 (a) STUDY AND REPORT REQUIRED.—Not later than 

6 one year after the date of the enactment of this Act, the 

7 Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall— 

8 (1) complete a study on matters relating to the 

9 interring of unclaimed remains of veterans in na10 tional cemeteries under the control of the National 

11 Cemetery Administration; and 

12 (2) submit to Congress a report on the findings 

13 of the Secretary with respect to the study required 

14 under paragraph (1). 

15 (b) MATTERS STUDIED.—The matters studied under 

16 subsection (a)(1) shall include the following: 

17 (1) Determining the scope of issues relating to 

18 unclaimed remains of veterans, including an esti19 mate of the number of unclaimed remains of vet20 erans. 

21 (2) Assessing the effectiveness of the proce22 dures of the Department of Veterans Affairs for 

23 working with persons or entities having custody of 

24 unclaimed remains to facilitate interment of un25 claimed remains of veterans in national cemeteries 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 695 IS

1 under the control of the National Cemetery Adminis2 tration. 

3 (3) Assessing State and local laws that affect 

4 the ability of the Secretary to inter unclaimed re5 mains of veterans in national cemeteries under the 

6 control of the National Cemetery Administration. 

7 (4) Developing recommendations for such legis8 lative or administrative action as the Secretary con9 siders appropriate. 

10 (c) METHODOLOGY.— 

11 (1) NUMBER OF UNCLAIMED REMAINS.—In es12 timating the number of unclaimed remains of vet13 erans under subsection (b)(1), the Secretary may re14 view such subset of applicable entities as the Sec15 retary considers appropriate, including a subset of 

16 funeral homes and coroner offices that possess un17 claimed veterans remains. 

18 (2) ASSESSMENT OF STATE AND LOCAL

19 LAWS.—In assessing State and local laws under sub20 section (b)(3), the Secretary may assess such sample 

21 of applicable State and local laws as the Secretary 

22 considers appropriate in lieu of reviewing all applica23 ble State and local laws. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

ALAN ORTIZ,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 315 MAL 2022

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 10th day of January, 2023

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC FINANCIAL REPORT

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350



The undersigned officer of Chittenden Corporation (the Company) hereby certifies that the Companys annual report on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2004 to which this certification is
being furnished as an exhibit (the Report), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
as amended (the Exchange Act), and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. This certification is provided pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350 and Item 601(b)(32) of Regulation S-K (Item 601(b)(32)) promulgated under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the Securities Act), and the Exchange Act. In accordance with clause (ii) of Item
601(b)(32), this certification (A) shall not be deemed filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Exchange Act, or otherwise subject to the liability of that section, and (B) shall not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any
filing under the Securities Act or the Exchange Act, except to the extent that the Company specifically incorporates it by reference.



|                         |  |  |  |                                                
|------------------------ |  |  |  | -----------------------------------------------
|                         |  | 
|Dated: February 18, 2005 |  |  |  | /s/    PAUL A. PERRAULT                        
|                         |  |  |  | Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20-7716

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

RODNEY WAYNE BARNES, a/k/a C,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at 

Charlottesville. Norman K. Moon, Senior District Judge. (3:10-cr-00032-NKM-1; 3:13-

cv-80601-NKM-RSB)

Submitted: June 16, 2021 Decided: July 7, 2021

Before WILKINSON, KING, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Rodney Wayne Barnes, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Rodney Wayne Barnes seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 60(b) motion for relief from the district court’s prior order denying relief on his 28 

U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues 

a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B). See generally United States v. 

McRae, 793 F.3d 392, 400 & n.7 (4th Cir. 2015). 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). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this 

standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists could find the district court’s assessment 

of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v. Davis, 137 S. Ct. 759, 773-74 

(2017). 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. Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 

134, 140-41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)). 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Barnes has not made 

the requisite showing. Barnes is correct that the district court erred in dismissing his motion 

as a successive and unauthorized § 2255 motion. Because Barnes alleged that the district 

court failed to address one of the claims he raised in his § 2255 motion, his motion 

challenged the integrity of the § 2255 proceedings and therefore was a true Rule 60(b) 

motion. See McRae, 793 F.3d at 397. However, as the district court stated, in denying 

Barnes’ § 2255 motion, the court had considered and rejected the claim Barnes contends 
3

the court overlooked. Therefore, Barnes’ Rule 60(b) motion failed to state a debatable 

claim of the denial of a constitutional right.

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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
NO. 07-07-0338-CR

	IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

	FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	AT AMARILLO

	PANEL A

	SEPTEMBER 28, 2007

	______________________________

	NICOLAS CONTRERAS, APPELLANT

	V.

	THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

	_________________________________

	FROM THE 121ST DISTRICT COURT OF TERRY COUNTY;

	NO. 5580; HONORABLE KELLY G. MOORE, JUDGE

	_______________________________

Before CAMPBELL and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ.

	ON MOTION TO DISMISS

	Pending before this Court is appellant’s motion to dismiss his appeal.  Appellant and his attorney both have signed the document stating that appellant withdraws his appeal.  Tex. R. App. P. 42.2(a).  No decision of this Court having been delivered to date, we grant the motion.  Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.  No motion for rehearing will be entertained and our mandate will issue forthwith.

							Mackey K. Hancock

							        Justice

Do not publish.
EXHIBIT 32.2



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



The certification set forth below is being submitted in connection with the

Annual Report of Commerce Group Corp. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the

fiscal year ended March 31, 2008 (the "Report") for the

purpose of complying with Rule 13a-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of

1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the

United States Code.



I, Sidney Sodos, Vice President, Treasurer and Chief Financial

Officer of Commerce Group Corp., (the "Company"), hereby 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 Form 10-K of the Company for the fiscal year ended

March 31, 2008, (the "Form 10-K"), 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 Form 10-K fairly presents, in all

material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of

the Company.



Date:  July 14, 2008                      /s/ Sidney Sodos

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

Sidney Sodos

Vice President, Treasurer

and Chief Financial Officer
| (logo) ncb National Cooperative Bank | 2011 Crystal DriveSuite, 800 Arlington, VA 22202 |
|--------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------|

 February 26, 2016 RBS Commercial Funding, Inc. as DepositorAttn: Jim Barnard600 Washington Blvd.Stamford, CT 06901 RE: Annual Statement as to ComplianceWFRBS 2013 C13 Dear Sir/Madam: In accordance with the Pooling and Servicing Agreement entered into in connection with the issuance of the Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series 2013-C13, as an authorized officer of National Cooperative Bank, N.A., formerly NCB, FSB (the “Co-op Special Servicer”), I hereby certify that: a. A review of the activities of the Co-op Special Servicer during the preceding calendar year (the “Reporting Period”) and of its performance under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement has been made under my supervision. b. To the best of my knowledge, based on these reviews, the Co-op Special Servicer has fulfilled all obligations under this agreement in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period. Please note that the annual financial statement will be sent under separate cover on or before March 31, 2016.  Best regards,/s/ Karyn MannKaryn MannSenior Vice President, Investor Compliance National Cooperative Bank, N.A.
#### Joyce P. PAIGE, Claimant-Appellee, v. James B. PEAKE, M.D., Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Respondent-Appellant.

No. 2007-7157.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

Jan. 10, 2008.

Before MICHEL, Chief Judge, LOURIE and LINN, Circuit Judges.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

The Secretary of Veterans Affairs responds to the court’s November 20, 2007 order and requests that the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) in *Paige v. Nicholson,*05-1514 be summarily affirmed. Joyce P. Paige has not responded.

The Secretary appealed from the CAVC’s decision, challenging the court’s placement of the burden on the Secretary of establishing that a 38 U.S.C. § 5103(a) notification error was not prejudicial. In *Sanders v. Nicholson,*487 F.3d 881 (Fed. Cir.2007) this court held that any section 5103(a) error should be presumed prejudicial and the Secretary has the burden of rebutting this presumption. *Id. at 891.*Under these circumstances, summary affirmance is appropriate.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

(1) The judgment of the CAVC is summarily affirmed. The case is remanded for further proceedings.

(2) Each side shall bear its own costs.
ORDER - 1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

Supreme Court No. DA 22-0342

STATE OF MONTANA, 

 

Plaintiff and Appellee, 

v.

JEREMY HOLMQUIST,

Defendant and Appellant.

_________________________________________________________________

ORDER

__________________________________________________________________

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

good cause appearing, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including February 29, 2024, within which to prepare, file, 

and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed and dated as indicated below.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

February 1 2024

02/01/2024

Case Number: DA 22-0342
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

April 28, 2014

t0421 

# Order

Clerk April 28, 2014

148430

HARTFORD EQUITIES, INC., DALE

HOP PES, KAREN A. HOPPES, GREGORY

HUHN, and GEOFFREY HUHN,

Plaintiffs

- Appellees,

v SC: 148430

COA: 313443

Clinton CC: 00

- 009158

- CZ

COUNTY OF CLINTON,

Defendant

- Appellee,

and

DURGA, L.L.C., and KUMAR VEMULAPALLI,

Respondents

- Appellants.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the November 26, 2013

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                       3,592,436
<SECURITIES>                                10,650,745
<RECEIVABLES>                                  122,500
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    167,560
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            15,814,874
<PP&E>                                       7,996,420
<DEPRECIATION>                               4,509,852
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              19,361,033
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,441,041
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                         30
<COMMON>                                       128,129
<OTHER-SE>                                  15,791,833
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                19,361,033
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               800,000
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                5,369,352
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              4,402,346
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          4,402,346
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 4,402,346
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .19
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
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 Commerce

###### Foreign-Trade Zones Board

          - [B-22-2017]

On April 4, 2017, Polaris Industries, Inc., submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board within Subzone 167B, in Osceola, Wisconsin.

                    The notification was processed in accordance with the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR part 400), including notice in the                     **Federal Register**                     inviting public comment (82 FR 17968, April 14, 2017). On August 8, 2017, the applicant was notified of the FTZ Board's decision that no further review of the activity is warranted at this time. The production activity described in the notification was authorized, subject to the FTZ Act and the FTZ Board's regulations, including Section 400.14.                

Dated: August 16, 2017.

Andrew McGilvray,

Executive Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2017-17696 Filed 8-21-17; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P