alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-7281

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

WALTER LITTLE, JR.,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Chief

District Judge. (CR-92-270-MU, CA-98-463-3-4-MU)

Submitted: November 8, 2001 Decided: November 16, 2001

Before WILKINS, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Walter Little, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Brian Lee Whisler, OFFICE

OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Walter Little, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order

denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.

2001). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of

the district court. See United States v. Little, Nos. CR-92-270-

MU; CA-98-463-3-4-MU (W.D.N.C. filed June 26, 2001; entered June

28, 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.

DISMISSED
#### Ouachita *&*Mississippi River Packet Co. *v.*Estate of Aiken and others, Wharf Lessees.*

*(Circuit Court, E. D. Louisiana.*

April, 1882.)

Prblimtnaky Injunction.

To decide whether the rate of wharfage fixed by ordinance of the city of New Orleans is or is not greater than a fair and reasonable compensation for the use of the city’s wharves, the evidence submitted with a rule for a preliminary injunction must enable the court to say, as a matter of fact, that such greater charge is made against the particular vessels of the complainant. If the evidence does not do this the preliminary injunction will be refused.

*Leathers*v. *Aiken,*9 Fed. Rep. 679, followed.

In Equity.

On a motion for a preliminary injunction restraining the collection of wharfage dues.

*663*Charles S. Rice, John H. Kennard, W. W. Howe,*and *S. S. Prentiss,*for complainants.

*W. S. Benedict,*and *George Denegre,*for defendants.'

*

 Reported by Joseph P. Homor, Esq., of the New Orleans bar. See 16 Fed. Rep. 890, and 7 Sup. Ct. Rep. 907.

Billings, D. J.

We think the principles of law applicable to this case are correctly stated in the opinion by the circuit judge in *Leathers*v. *Aiken,*9 Fed. Rep. 679. The sole question in this cause into which we ean inquire is this: Viewing the lease as an ordinance simply fixing the rate of wharfage, and excluding all imposition for the support of lights or police, is the rate of wharfage greater than a fair and reasonable compensation for the use of the city’s wharves ? The matter is full of intricate difficulties. We can deal with it only as a judicial question, presented by a case in court with reference to an imposition upon specific property. We cannot take it up and decide it upon the general consideration which would bo proper in case the matter was pending before a legislative body as to permitting such a lease. The case must be heard and decided by us upon evidence; that evidence must come from the bill of complaint, exhibits, and affidavits; and to authorize the granting of the injunction must enable us to say, as a matter of fact, that a greater charge is made against the particular vessels of the complainants therein than is a just wharfage.

We do not find that the evidence submitted to us upon the hearing of this preliminary motion enables us to say this. The motion must, therefore, be refused.

Pardee, C. J., concurring.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                          99,162
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  4,378,980
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             4,478,142
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,478,142
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          748,516
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   3,729,626
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,478,142
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   555
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    555
<INCOME-TAX>                                       800
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (245)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (245)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.02)
        

</TABLE>
#### Tracy HARRIS, Petitioner-Appellant v. Christopher B. EPPS, Commissioner, Mississippi Department of Corrections, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 06-60592

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Jan. 16, 2008.

Tracy Harris, Leakesville, MS, pro se.

Jerrolyn M. Owens, Office of the Attorney General, for the State of Mississippi, Jackson, MS, for Respondent-Appellee.

Before KING, DAVIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Tracy Harris, Mississippi prisoner # R9409, appeals from the district court’s judgment denying him habeas corpus relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Harris challenges his conviction of murder.

The district court determined that Harris’s claims that he had received ineffective assistance of counsel were not exhausted in state court, would be procedurally barred if raised in state court, and therefore were procedurally barred from being raised in federal court. We granted Harris a certificate of appealability on the issue whether his claims of ineffective assistance of counsel were not procedurally barred in state court because he had the same attorney at trial and on appeal.

Harris argues that counsel was ineffective for failing to request a balancing test pursuant to Miss. R. Evid. 403 as to the testimony of two witnesses. He discusses no other ineffective-assistance claims on appeal. Harris alleged facts relevant to his ineffective-assistance contention in his state application for postconviction relief; however, he did not contend that counsel was ineffective for failing to request a Rule 403 balancing test. Harris did not fairly present the substance of his ineffective-assistance claim to the state court. *See Wilder v. Cockrell,*274 F.3d 255, 259 (5th Cir.2001). He did not exhaust his state remedies as to that claim. *See id.*Harris’s contention would be procedurally barred were he to raise it in a Mississippi *799state court, *see*Miss.Code Ann. § 99-39-27(9); the district court did not err by holding it to be procedurally barred in federal court. *See Coleman v. Thompson,*501 U.S. 722, 735 n. 1, 111 S.Ct. 2546, 115 L.Ed.2d 640 (1991).

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 5tii Cir. R. 47.5.4.
1 Larry G. Massanari has been appointed to serve as Acting Commissioner of

Social Security, and is substituted as appellee pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c)(2). 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 00-3692

___________ Linda Halvorson, on behalf of * Mark Halvorson, * * Appellant, * * v. * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the Larry G. Massanari, Acting * District of North Dakota. Commissioner of Social Security, 1 * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellee. *

___________ Submitted: June 7, 2001 Filed: June 12, 2001

___________ Before HANSEN, MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, and BYE, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM.2 The Honorable Rodney S. Webb, Chief Judge, United States District Court for

the District of North Dakota, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable Karen K. Klein, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of North Dakota. -2- On behalf of her late husband Mark, Linda Halvorson appeals the district court’s 2 decision affirming the Commissioner’s denial of disability insurance benefits. We review that decision to determine whether it is supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole, including the new evidence submitted to the Appeals Council. See Cunningham v. Apfel , 222 F.3d 496, 500 (8th Cir. 2000). Having carefully reviewed the record, we conclude that the administrative law judge (ALJ) properly determined Mark’s residual functional capacity, see Anderson v. Shalala , 51 F.3d 777, 779 (8th Cir. 1995); and properly evaluated his credibility, see Haggardv. Apfel , 175 F.3d 591, 594 (8th Cir. 1999) (decision of ALJ who considers, but for good cause expressly discredits, claimant’s subjective complaints will not be disturbed). Further, we do not believe that the evidence concerning Mark’s demise was material to determining whether he was disabled before his insured status expired. See Bergmann v. Apfel , 207 F.3d 1065, 1069 (8th Cir. 2000) (material evidence is evidence relating to claimant’s condition for time period for which benefits were denied). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. A true copy.
Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 165 (Monday, August 28, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 40767]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-18111]


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

FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION


Notice to All Interested Parties of the Termination of the 
Receivership of 10410--Mid City Bank, Inc., Omaha, Nebraska

    Notice is hereby given that the Federal Deposit Insurance 
Corporation (FDIC) as Receiver for Mid City Bank, Inc., Omaha, Nebraska 
(``the Receiver'') intends to terminate its receivership for said 
institution. The FDIC was appointed Receiver of Mid City Bank, Inc. on 
November 4, 2011. The liquidation of the receivership assets has been 
completed. To the extent permitted by available funds and in accordance 
with law, the Receiver will be making a final dividend payment to 
proven creditors.
    Based upon the foregoing, the Receiver has determined that the 
continued existence of the receivership will serve no useful purpose. 
Consequently, notice is given that the receivership shall be 
terminated, to be effective no sooner than thirty days after the date 
of this notice. If any person wishes to comment concerning the 
termination of the receivership, such comment must be made in writing 
and sent within thirty days of the date of this notice to: Federal 
Deposit Insurance Corporation, Division of Resolutions and 
Receiverships, Attention: Receivership Oversight Department 34.6, 1601 
Bryan Street, Dallas, TX 75201.
    No comments concerning the termination of this receivership will be 
considered which are not sent within this time frame.

    Dated: August 22, 2017.

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.
Robert E. Feldman,
Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-18111 Filed 8-25-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6714-01-P
Deutsche Mortgage&Asset Receiving Corporation

60 Wall Street

New York, NY 10005





RE: Annual Statement of Compliance



The undersigned, a duly authorized
officer of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as Certificate Administrator and Paying Agent for the Moffett Towers Phase II Loan Combination
(in such capacities, "Wells Fargo"), hereby certifies as follows as of and for the year ending December 31, 2014 (the
"reporting period"):





|(a) |  | A review of Wells Fargo's activities during the reporting period and of its performance
under the applicable 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, except as noted on
Schedule B.
|--- |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------







March 17, 2015





Brian Smith

Vice President











To: Deutsche Mortgage&Asset Receiving Corporation



Schedule A





List of Servicing Agreement(s) and Series





| | 1. | Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as
of April 1, 2013, by and among DEUTSCHE MORTGAGE&ASSET
RECEIVING CORPORATION, as Depositor, MIDLAND LOAN SERVICES, A DIVISION OF PNC BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Master Servicer, SITUS
HOLDINGS, LLC as Special Servicer, and PARK BRIDGE LENDER SERVICES LLC, as Operating Advisor and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. as Certificate
Administrator, Paying Agent, Trustee and Custodian relating to the Series COMM 2013-CCRE7 Commercial Mortgage Pass Through Certificates
relating to the Moffett Towers Phase II Loan Combination, a pari passu portion of which is included in the Series COMM 2013-CCRE8
Commercial Mortgage Pass Through Certificates transaction.
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------













To: Deutsche Mortgage & Asset Receiving Corporation



Schedule B





Material Non-Compliance with Servicing Obligations



Not Applicable
NO. 07-12-0135-CR

NO. 07-12-0136-CR

NO. 07-12-0137-CR

NO. 07-12-0138-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO 

PANEL B

JANUARY 3, 2013

___________________________________

RICARDO CAVAZOS, 

Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, 

						Appellee

___________________________________

FROM THE 251ST DISTRICT COURT OF POTTER COUNTY; 

NOS. 51,006-C, 51,007-C, 51,008-C, & 51,009-C; 

HON. PATRICK A. PIRTLE, PRESIDING

__________________________________

***Memorandum Opinion*****

__________________________________

Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ.

	Appellant, Ricardo Cavazos, appeals his four convictions that occurred in 2006.  The Court of Criminal Appeals granted him an out-of-time appeal in all four cases.  Through a single issue, he contends that the trial court erred by requiring him to pay $1,225.00 in attorney’s fees in trial court cause number 51,006-C.  The State agrees and requests that we delete the award of attorney’s fees in the amount of $1,225.00.  

	Based on appellant’s brief and the State’s response, we consider and sustain the sole issue presented as to trial court cause number 51,006-C, appellate cause number 07-12-00135-CR, modify the trial court’s judgment by deleting from it the assessment of prior court-appointed attorney’s fees in the amount of $1,225.00 against appellant, and affirm the trial court’s judgment of conviction in cause number 51,006-C as modified.  As to the judgments in trial court cause numbers 51,007-C, 51-008-C, and 51,009-C, we note that no attorney’s fees were awarded.  Therefore, we affirm those judgments.

	Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s judgment in 51,006-C as modified and affirm the trial court’s judgments in 51,007-C, 51,008-C, and 51,009-C.

						Brian Quinn

						Chief Justice

Do not publish.

2
|   |   Prudential Asset Resources Prudential Mortgage Capital Company2100 Ross Avenue, Suite 2500, Dallas TX 75201Tel 214 777-4500 A business of Prudential Financial, Inc. |
|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| RE:  | Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through, WFRBS 2013-C14Period:   June 1, 2013 to December 31, 2013 |
|-----------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   |   |                             |
|--------|--------|----------------------------------|
|   |   |                             |   |
|   |   | /s/ Hal Collett             |   |
|   |   | Hal Collett                 |   |
|   |   | President and Managing Director  |   |
|   |   | Prudential Asset Resources, Inc. |   |
Exhibit
32.B
 
 
 
 
 
 
 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 Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ending
December 31, 2009, of Colorado Interstate Gas Company (the “Company”)
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
“Report”), I, John R. Sult, Senior Vice President and
Chief Financial Officer, certify (i) that the Report fully complies
with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, as amended, and (ii) that the information contained in the Report
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
of operations of the Company.
 
 
 
 /s/ John
      R. SultJohn R.
      SultSenior Vice
      President and Chief Financial Officer(Principal
      Financial Officer)Colorado
      Interstate Gas Company
                      
                      
                      
                      
                      
                      February 26,
2010
  
 
 
 
 
 
 A signed original
of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Colorado
Interstate Gas Company and will be retained by Colorado Interstate Gas Company
and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
EXHIBIT 32.2



CERTIFICATION
OF CORPORATE CONTROLLER AND PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL
OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report
(the "Report") of Digerati Technologies, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending January 31,
2012, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Antonio Estrada Jr., Sr. Vice President of Finance
& Corporate Controller and Principal Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,



| | 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 result of operations of the Company.
| | -- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|By | /s/ Antonio Estrada Jr.                                  | 
|-- | -------------------------------------------------------- | 
|   | Antonio Estrada Jr.                                      | 
|   | Sr. Vice President of Finance & Corporate Controller and | 
|   | Principal Financial Officer                              | 
|   | March 15, 2012                                           |
III 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. RES. 186 

Designating the week of May 17 through May 23, 2015, as ‘‘National Public 

Works Week’’. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 21, 2015 

Mr. INHOFE (for himself and Mrs. BOXER) submitted the following resolution; 

which was considered and agreed to 

RESOLUTION 

Designating the week of May 17 through May 23, 2015, 

as ‘‘National Public Works Week’’. 

Whereas public works infrastructure, facilities, and services 

are of vital importance to the health, safety, and wellbeing of the people of the United States; 

Whereas the public works infrastructure, facilities, and services could not be provided without the dedicated efforts 

of public works professionals, including engineers and administrators, who represent State and local governments 

throughout the United States; 

Whereas public works professionals design, build, operate, 

and maintain the transportation systems, water infrastructure, sewage and refuse disposal systems, public 

buildings, and other structures and facilities that are 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•SRES 186 ATS 

vital to the people and communities of the United States; 

and 

Whereas understanding the role that public infrastructure 

plays in protecting the environment, improving public 

health and safety, contributing to economic vitality, and 

enhancing the quality of life of every community of the 

United States is in the interest of the people of the 

United States: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the Senate— 

2 (1) designates the week of May 17 through May 

3 23, 2015, as ‘‘National Public Works Week’’; 

4 (2) recognizes and celebrates the important 

5 contributions that public works professionals make 

6 every day to improve— 

7 (A) the public infrastructure of the United 

8 States; and 

9 (B) the communities that public works 

10 professionals serve; and 

11 (3) urges individuals and communities through12 out the United States to join with representatives of 

13 the Federal Government and the American Public 

14 Works Association in activities and ceremonies that 

15 are designed— 

16 (A) to pay tribute to the public works pro17 fessionals of the United States; and 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•SRES 186 ATS 

1 (B) to recognize the substantial contribu2 tions that public works professionals make to 

3 the United States. 

Æ 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED JUNE 30, 2016

NO. 03-14-00596-CR

Erica Marie Moreno, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

APPEAL FROM COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 7 OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE ROSE, JUSTICES GOODWIN AND BOURLAND

AFFIRMED -- OPINION BY JUSTICE GOODWIN

This is an appeal from the judgment of conviction entered by the trial court. Having reviewed 

the record and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was no reversible error in the 

trial court’s judgment of conviction. Therefore, the Court affirms the trial court’s judgment of 

conviction. The appellant shall pay all costs relating to this appeal, both in this Court and in the 

court below.