alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
TYRONE L. SMITH,

Petitioner,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Respondent.

___________________________/

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D15-0749

Opinion filed March 16, 2015.

Petition for Writ of Mandamus -- Original Jurisdiction.

Tyrone L. Smith, pro se, Petitioner.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The petition for writ of mandamus is denied as premature. 

WOLF, MAKAR, and OSTERHAUS, JJ., CONCUR.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Alton Thomas Davis, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, 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.

 _________________________________________

 Clerk

November 3, 2010

d1027

Order 

November 3, 2010

141381

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 141381

COA: 290833 

Wayne CC: 08-013567-FH

LAMAR EVANS,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 13, 2010 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is GRANTED. The parties shall 

address whether retrial is barred under the double jeopardy clauses of the state and 

federal constitutions where the trial court’s grant of defendant’s motion for a directed 

verdict was based on an error of law and did not determine any actual element of the 

charged offense.

The Criminal Defense Attorneys of Michigan, Prosecuting Attorneys Association 

of Michigan, and National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers are invited to file 

briefs amicus curiae. Other persons or groups interested in the determination of the issue 

presented in this case may move the Court for permission to file briefs amicus curiae.
Exhibit 10.2

 



	
 
    	
Michael P. Connors
    
	
 
    	
Chairman   and
    
	
 
    	
Chief   Executive Officer
    


 

December 16, 2011

 

David Whitmore

CEO – Compass & Vice Chairman, ISG

 

Dear David:

 

As we have discussed, I am very pleased with the integration progress of Compass and ISG and the overall power of the combination success we have demonstrated with our clients this year. Since we are ahead of schedule with our integrated organization and the broader portfolio of products and services we are ready for our next step to continue the momentum in 2012.

 

This letter will confirm our offer for you to assume the position of President-ISG Americas based in Stamford, CT. in addition to continuing in your role as Vice Chairman of ISG.

 

Effective January 1,2012 your base salary will be $475,000 with an Annual Incentive Plan ( AIP) target of $355,000. You will also receive a 100,000 Special Restricted Stock Unit (RSU) grant with four year ratable vesting. In addition, you will receive our standard Change in Control Agreement. To help you and Monica with your relocation to the U.S. for 2012 only we will provide you with relocation housing assistance of $5000 per month and up to $10,000 in 2012 of incidental travel expense to/from the UK.  You understand that your current UK housing situation is your responsibility.

 

David, as you know we have good business momentum and provided the macro-economic environment does not slow down client demand, we are well positioned for a very successful 2012.  I am glad you will be joining me and our small but very effective ISG team in Stamford next year.

 

Please sign and return a fully executed copy to me.

 

	
Sincerely,
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
/s/   Michael P. Connors
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
Accepted   and Agreed:
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
/s/   David Whitmore
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
David   Whitmore
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
Date:   
    	
December 16,   2011
    


 

 

	
Information Services   Group, Inc.
    	
t:   203 517 3102
    
	
Two Stamford Plaza
    	
f:   203 517 3199
    
	
281 Tresser Boulevard, Stamford, CT 06901
    	
www.informationsg.com
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 Annual Report on Form 10-K of Terra Income Fund 6, Inc. (the “Company”) for the annual period ended September 30, 2017 , as filed with the Securities Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Bruce D. Batkin, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and I, Gregory M. Pinkus, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to our 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 Company.





Date: November 20, 2017


/s/ Bruce D. BatkinBruce D. BatkinChief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer)/s/ Gregory M. PinkusGregory M. PinkusChief Financial Officer,Chief Operating Officer, Treasurer and Secretary(Principal Financial and Principal Accounting Officer)
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A19D0049. JOHNATHON NELSON STARNES v. THE STATE.

On January 9, 2018, the trial court revoked Johnathon Nelson Starnes’s

probation based on his failure to pay restitution. On May 16, 2018, Starnes filed an

application for discretionary review in the Supreme Court of Georgia, which

transferred the case to this Court. See Case No. S18D1343 (June 15, 2018). We,

however, also lack jurisdiction. 

To be valid, an application for discretionary appeal must be filed within 30

days of the entry of the order to be appealed. OCGA § 5-6-35 (d); Hill v. State, 204

Ga. App. 582, 582 (420 SE2d 393) (1992). But Starnes filed his application 127 days

after entry of the revocation order. Accordingly, this application is untimely, and it

is hereby DISMISSED.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

August 24, 2018

08/24/2018
Unassociated Document


    


    Exhibit
10.26

    


    


    Amendment
No. 2 to Original Employment Agreement

    


    


     

    March 16,
2009

    


    


    PERSONAL &
CONFIDENTIAL

    


    [Address]

    


    Dear
Bob:

    


    Reference
is made to the Employment Agreement dated January 3, 2007 between you and NYFIX,
Inc., (the “Agreement”).

    


    


    
      	
              1.

            	
              You
      and NYFIX, Inc. hereby agree that the first sentence of the second
      paragraph on page one of the Agreement is replaced, in its entirety, with
      the following language:

            


    

    


    “You will
be compensated at an annualized base salary of $300,000, which may be increased
in the sole discretion of NYFIX (the “Base Salary”).”

    


    


    
      	
              1.

            	
              You
      and NYFIX, Inc. hereby agree that the fourth sentence of the second
      paragraph on page one of the Agreement is replaced, in its entirety, with
      the following language:

            


    

    


    “During
your employment hereunder, you will be eligible to participate in the Annual
Incentive Plan (“AIP” or annual bonus plan). Your AIP target will be set at 75%
of Base Salary (the “Target Bonus”).

    


    


    Very truly yours,

    


    


    /s/  Steven
Vigliotti

    Steven R. Vigliotti

    Chief Financial Officer

    


    


     

     

    Accepted
and Agreed:

    /s/ Robert
Moitoso

    Robert
Moitoso

    March 16,
2009
SEMT 2013-7

 

EX-31 Rule 13a-14(d)/15d-14(d) Certification.

 

I, Jeremy P. Strom, certify that:

 

1.	I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of Sequoia Mortgage Trust 2013-7 (the “Exchange Act periodic reports”);

 

2.	Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do 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;

 

3.	Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and other information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;

 

4.	Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statements required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicers have fulfilled their obligations under the servicing agreements in all material respects; and

 

5.	All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwise disclosed in this report. Any material instances of noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.

 

In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties: CoreLogic Tax Services, LLC (“CoreLogic”), American Security Insurance Company, Standard Guaranty Insurance Company and TrackSure Insurance Agency, Inc. (collectively, “Assurant”), Cenlar, FSB as Servicer, First Republic Bank as Servicer, PHH Mortgage Corporation as Servicer, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. as Custodian and Master Servicer, Computershare Trust Company, N.A. as Custodian and Master Servicer, and Citibank, N.A. as Securities Administrator and Paying Agent.

 

Date: March 30, 2023

 

 

/s/ Jeremy P. Strom

Signature

 

President

(senior officer in charge of securitization of the depositor)

 

----
**Exhibit      32.1**

**CERTIFICATION      OF CHIEF 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**

|                                                                                                            |   |   |   |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|--------|
| /s/ Robert                Putnam                                                                           |   |   |   |
| Robert                  Putnam, Interim Chief Accounting Officer (Principal                  Financial Officer) |   |        |

|                                                                                                                                            |   |   |   |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|--------|
| /s/ William                Blakeley                                                                                                        |   |   |   |
|  William                  Blakeley, President                  and Chief Technical Officer, (Principal                  Executive Officer) |   |        |

----
Exhibit 35.1



AMERICAN HONDA FINANCE CORPORATION

ANNUAL COMPLIANCE CERTIFICATE

PURSUANT TO SECTION 3.11(a) OF THE

SALE AND SERVICING AGREEMENT AND

ITEM 1123 OF REGULATION AB



I, Paul C. Honda, do hereby certify that I am the Vice President and Assistant Secretary of American Honda
Finance Corporation, a California corporation (the “Company”), and further certify on behalf of the Company in its capacity
as servicer (the “Servicer” and “Sponsor”) under the Sale and Servicing Agreement (the “Agreement”)
dated as of April 24, 2013 among the Servicer and Sponsor, American Honda Receivables LLC, as Seller, and Honda Auto Receivables
2013-2 Owner Trust, as follows:



| | (i) | A review of the activities of the Servicer during the reporting period ended March 31, 2014, and of its performance under the
Agreement has been made under my supervision.
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (ii) | To the best of my knowledge and information, based upon such review, the Servicer has fulfilled
all its obligations under the Agreement throughout such period in all material respects.
| | ---- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand
this 23rdday of May, 2014.



| | /s/ Paul C. Honda                                   
| | ----------------------------------------------------
| | Paul C. Honda                                       
| | Vice President and Assistant Secretary              
| | (senior officer in charge of the servicing function)
#### Valentin Venancio MARTINEZ; Ines Arango Ignacio, Petitioners, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 06-71532.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 20, 2007 *.

Filed Dec. 28, 2007.

Noam Mendelson, Daly City, CA, for Petitioners.

Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Carol Federighi, Esq., Jonathan Robbins, Esq., DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.

*975Before GOODWIN, WALLACE, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Valentin Venancio Martinez and Ines Arango Ignacio petition for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) denying their motion to reopen removal proceedings. We dismiss the petition for review.

The evidence petitioners presented with their motion to reopen concerned the same basic hardship grounds as their application for cancellation of removal. *See Fernandez v. Gonzales,*439 F.3d 592, 602-03 (9th Cir.2006). We therefore lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s discretionary determination that the evidence would not alter its prior discretionary determination that they failed to establish the requisite hardship. *See id.*at 600 (holding that 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) bars this court from reviewing the denial of a motion to reopen “where the question presented is essentially the same discretionary [hardship] issue originally decided.”).

Our conclusion that we lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s determination that petitioners did not make out a prima facie case of hardship forecloses their argument that the BIA denied them due process by failing to address the entirety of the evidence submitted with the motion to reopen. *See Fernandez,*439 F.3d at 603-04.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Amended Commercial Lease



 Exhibit 10.53 
 December 16, 2008 
 EWE, Inc. 
 13884 Catawba
Circle 
 Athens, AL 35611 
 Attention: James P. English

 Re: Amendment to Commercial Real Estate Lease 
 Reference is made to that Commercial Real Estate Lease (the “Lease”) entered into by and between Durect Corporation, a Delaware corporation, (“LESSEE”) and EWE, Inc., an Alabama corporation dated
September 21, 2004 (“LESSOR”). All capitalized terms used herein shall have the meaning ascribed to such terms in the Lease. 
 LESSOR and LESSEE hereby agree as follows, effective on the date that both LESSOR and LESSEE have executed this Amendment: 
 The
term of the Lease set forth in Paragraph 3 shall be extended by one year such that the Lease shall terminate on September 30, 2010 instead of September 30, 2009. 
 The rent payable during the period from October 1, 2009 to September 30, 2010 shall be the same rent as payable during Year 5 as set forth in
Paragraph 6 of the Lease. 
 Except as expressly modified above, all remaining terms of the Lease shall remain the same. LESSOR and LESSEE
have hereunto set or caused to be set their respective signatures and seals on this dates set forth herein. 
 Sincerely,

 /s/ James E. Brown 
 James E. Brown 
 CEO 
  

			
	AGREED TO BY EWE, INC.
		
	By:	 	/s/    James P. English
	Title:	 	Vice President
	Date:	 	12/23/2008
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule

47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 96-60280

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

QUINCY MOODY,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 3:95-CR-43-LN

- - - - - - - - - -

March 20, 1997

Before JONES, DeMOSS, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Quincy Moody appeals his conviction for conspiracy to

interfere with commerce by robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. 

§ 1951. Moody first argues that the district court erred by

denying a motion to compel discovery of a recording device worn

by Moody’s coconspirator in a failed attempt to record their

conversations. Because introduction of the device would not have

significantly altered the quantum of proof in Moody’s favor,

there was no abuse of discretion in the denial of the discovery 
No. 96-60280

- 2 -

motion. See United States v. Reeves, 892 F.2d 1223, 1227 (5th

Cir. 1990). 

 Moody also argues that the district court erred by admitting

into evidence hearsay conversations before the Government had

proved the existence of the conspiracy. He argues that neither

the challenged conversations, nor conversations which occurred

after the arrest of his coconspirator, could be used in

“connecting-up” the conspiracy. This argument is without merit

because Moody’s own statements were admissible as evidence

connecting-up the conspiracy. See United States v. Flores, 63

F.3d 1342, 1358 (5th Cir. 1995)(defendant’s statements admissible

as admissions of party-opponent), cert. denied, 117 S. Ct. 87

(1996). 

 Regarding his newly-raised assertion that the district court

erred by admitting into evidence his “extrajudicial admission,”

there is no requirement that the introduction of an admission

against interest be accompanied by corroborating evidence. Thus,

there was no error, plain or otherwise, in the admission of the

incident report. See United States v. Calverley, 37 F.3d 160-

162-64 (5th Cir. 1994)(en banc), cert. denied, 115 S. Ct. 1266

(1995). Insofar as Moody challenges the sufficiency of the

evidence supporting his conviction, we conclude that there was

evidence sufficient to allow a reasonable jury to find beyond a

reasonable doubt that Moody voluntarily joined the conspiracy. 

See United States v. Bell, 678 F.2d 547, 549 (5th Cir. 1982)(en

banc), aff'd, 462 U.S. 356 (1983).

 AFFIRMED.
EXHIBIT 32



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
Empire Petroleum Corporation

(the "Company") on Form 10-Q/A for
the period ending June 30, 2011 as

filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on the date hereof (the

"Report"), I, Albert E. Whitehead,
Chief Executive Officer (and principal

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.





|September 30, 2011 | /s/ Albert E. Whitehead                                
|------------------ | -------------------------------------------------------
|                   | Albert E. Whitehead                                    
|                   | Chief Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer
|                   |                                                        
|                   |                                                        







A signed original of this written statement
required by Section 906 has been

provided to the Company and will be retained
by the Company and furnished to

the Securities and Exchange Commission or
its staff upon request.



The foregoing certification is being furnished
to the Securities and Exchange

Commission as an exhibit to the Report and
shall not be considered filed as

part of the Report.