alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Whipple *v.*Miner and others.

*(Circuit Court, D. Massachusetts.*

February 2, 1883.)

1. Patents for Inventions—Restraining Issue of Patent.

The decision of the commissioner of patents is not final on a question of the priority of invention, but the successful applicant will not be enjoined from receiving his patent upon the mere suggestion that the commissioner Was mistaken.

2. Same—Jurisdiction—Appeal from Decision of Commissioner.

The jurisdiction of the circuit courts to grant a patent, notwithstanding an adverse decision of the commissioner of patents, is an independent original jurisdiction, and it is not within, the mere discretion of the defeated party when and under what circumstances the action of the office shall be suspended.

In Equity.

*Broume, Holmes é Browne,*for complainant.

*George L. Roberts & Bros.,*for defendants.

Lowell, J.

The complainant alleges that he was the first inventor of a certain improvement in horseshoe nails; that he applied for a patent for the improvement, and, pending his application, the defendant Miner made a similar application, and, upon an interference, the office decided in favor of Miner, and is about to issue to him a patent. The hill prays that the complainant “may he adjudged to be entitled, according to law, to receive a patent for his invention,” as provided by Eev. St. § 4915, and that the defendant Miner may be restrained in the mean time from receiving his patent.

I adhere to the opinion given in *Union Paper Bag Co.*v. *Crane,*1 Holmes, 429, in which I sat with Mr. Justice Clifford, that the decision of the commissioner of patents is not final on a question of priority of invention, even between those who were fully heard in the interference; but his decision has great weight, and it would be highly improper to enjoin the successful applicant from receiving his patent upon the mere suggestion that the commissioner was mistaken.

The bill contains no allegation of fraud, undue influence, or even of mistake, excepting a mistaken judgment, and the case is put on the simple legal proposition that the statute above cited is intended to give the courts a purely and strictly appellate jurisdiction in cases of interference, and that the appeal suspends the original judgment.

I do not find the law to be so. The statute applies primarily to ordinary cases which are heard *ex parte*in the patent-office, and though the language is broad enough to include a case where there *118has been a contest, yet it is, plainly, an independent, original jurisdiction which is given to the courts. If it were not so, the mode of appeal, and the security to be given the adverse party, would undoubtedly be provided for, but especially the time within which the appeal should be taken, so that the commissioner might know whether he could issue the patent or not. Upon the theory of th¿ bill it is left to the mere discretion of the defeated party when, and under what circumstances, the action of the office shall be suspended. This cannot be the law. Injunction refused.
112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2360 

AN ACT 

To amend the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act to extend 

the Constitution, laws, and jurisdiction of the United 

States to installations and devices attached to the seabed 

of the Outer Continental Shelf for the production and 

support of production of energy from sources other than 

oil and gas, and for other purposes. 
2 

•HR 2360 EH

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 ‘‘Providing for Our 

5 Workforce and Energy Resources Act’’ or the ‘‘POWER 

6 Act’’. 

7 SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF CONSTITUTION, LAWS, AND JURIS8 DICTION OF THE UNITED STATES TO ENERGY 

9 FACILITIES AND DEVICES ON THE OUTER 

10 CONTINENTAL SHELF. 

11 Section 4(a)(1) of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands 

12 Act (43 U.S.C. 1333(a)(1)) is amended by— 

13 (1) inserting ‘‘or producing or supporting pro14 duction of energy from sources other than oil and 

15 gas’’ after ‘‘therefrom’’; 

16 (2) inserting ‘‘or transmitting such energy’’ 

17 after ‘‘transporting such resources’’; and 

18 (3) inserting ‘‘and other energy’’ after ‘‘That 

19 mineral’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives December 7, 

2011. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2360 

AN ACT 

To amend the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act 

gas, and for other purposes. tion of energy from sources other than oil and Shelf for the production and support of producattached to the seabed of the Outer Continental of the United States to installations and devices to extend the Constitution, laws, and jurisdiction
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

1297 CA 13-00507 PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., PERADOTTO, CARNI, SCONIERS, AND WHALEN, JJ.

AMERICAN TOWER ASSET SUB, LLC AND AMERICAN TOWER ASSET SUB II, LLC, PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS,

V ORDER

BUFFALO-LAKE ERIE WIRELESS SYSTEMS, CO., LLC, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

LIPPES MATHIAS WEXLER FRIEDMAN LLP, BUFFALO (THOMAS J. GAFFNEY OF COUNSEL), AND HOFFNER PLLC, NEW YORK CITY, FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
MCELROY, DEUTSCH, MULVANEY & CARPENTER, LLP, NEW YORK CITY (WILLIAM N. AUMENTA OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County (John A. Michalek, J.), entered August 3, 2012. The order, among other things, granted the motion of plaintiffs for partial summary judgment dismissing the first counterclaim and denied the cross motion of defendant for partial summary judgment.
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs for reasons stated at Supreme Court.

Entered: December 27, 2013 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-6289

WILLIE ERVIN,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

COLIE RUSHTON, Warden; HENRY MCMASTER,

Attorney General for South Carolina,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Greenville. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District

Judge. (6:04-cv-23176-GRA)

Submitted: July 25, 2006 Decided: August 1, 2006

Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Willie Ervin, Appellant Pro Se. Samuel Creighton Waters, OFFICE OF

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Columbia, South Carolina,

for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Willie Ervin seeks to appeal the district court’s order

accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing

as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. The order is not

appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate

of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). 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) (2000).

A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable

jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims

by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any

dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise

debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003);

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d

676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the

record and conclude that Ervin has not made the requisite showing.

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 the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
#### In the Matter of Robert M. Restaino, as Judge of the Niagara Falls City Court, Niagara County, Petitioner. State Commission on Judicial Conduct, Respondent.

Submitted February 11, 2008;

decided February 14, 2008

*750Judge Pigott taking no part.
| (logo)  WELLS FARGO | **CMBS  Department**

 

MAC  N9401-011

1055  10th Avenue SE

Minneapolis,  MN 55414 |
|---------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

MorganStanley Capital I Inc. 

1585BROADWAY

NEWYORK, New York 10036-8200

 

RE:Annual Statement of Compliance for Morgan Stanley Bank of America Merrill LynchTrust 2013-C9, Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2013-C9

 

Perthe Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of May 1, 2013 (the“Agreement”), the undersigned, a duly authorized officer of WellsFargo Bank, N.A., as Custodian (“Wells Fargo”), hereby certifies asfollows as of and for the year ending December 31, 2016 (the “ReportingPeriod”):

 

(a)A review of Wells Fargo’s activities during the Reporting Period and ofits performance under the Agreement has been made under such officer’ssupervision; and

 

(b)To the best of such officer’s knowledge, based on such review, WellsFargo has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all materialrespects throughout the Reporting Period.

 

 

February27, 2017

 

/s/Gail Vannest

GAILVANNEST

VicePresident

 

 

WellsFargo Bank, N.A.
#### Patty S. LEWIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. John E. POTTER, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 07-1299.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 5, 2007.

Decided Jan. 7, 2008.

*551Alexander D. McLaughlin, The Calwell Practice PLLC, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant. Sharon L. Potter, United States Attorney, Alan G. McGonigal, Assistant United States Attorney, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Patty S. Lewis appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of her former employer in her civil action alleging breach of contract. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *Lewis v. Potter,*No. 1:05-cv-00034-FPS, 2007 WL 419374 (N.D.W.Va. Feb. 2, 2007). 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*
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
            SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Pursuant to Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned, as
chief financial officer of Simmons Company (the "Company"), does hereby certify
that to the undersigned's knowledge:

     1)   the Company's quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June
          28, 2003 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 Company's quarterly report on Form
          10-Q for the quarter ended June 28, 2003 fairly presents, in all
          material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
          of the Company.

                                         /s/ William S. Creekmuir
                                         -------------------
                                         William S. Creekmuir
                                         Chief Financial Officer


Dated: August 11, 2003





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





                                       35
Opinion issued August 31, 2023

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The 

First District of Texas 

————————————

NO. 01-23-00242-CR

———————————

PETRINA KEPPARD, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from 443rd District Court

Ellis County, Texas

Trial Court Case No. 46666CR

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant Petrina Keppard has neither established indigence for purposes of 

court costs nor paid, or made arrangements to pay, the fee for preparing the clerk’s 

record. See TEX. R. CIV. P. 145; TEX. R. APP. P. 37.3(a), (b). On May 5, 2023, we 

notified Appellant that her appeal could be dismissed for want of prosecution if the 
2

clerk’s record was not filed. We directed Appellant to submit written evidence from 

the trial court clerk by June 5, 2023, reflecting she paid, or made arrangements to 

pay, the fee for preparing the clerk’s record. To date, Appellant has not responded 

and the clerk’s record has not been filed. 

We dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. See TEX. R. APP. P. 37.3(b), 

42.3(b)-(c), 43.2(f); see also Thomas v. State, No. 01-15-00380-CR, 2015 WL 

6081785, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Oct. 15, 2015) (per curiam) (mem. 

op.) (dismissing criminal appeal for want of prosecution based on Appellant’s failure 

to pay for clerk’s record). All pending motions are denied as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Goodman, Rivas-Molloy, and Guerra.

Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2 (b).
UN PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20 - 6590

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v. ERIC L. JACKSON, a/k/a Tango , Defendant

- Appell ant
.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia , at Wheeling

. John Preston Bailey , District Judge. ( 5:01

- cr - 00004

- JPB

- MJA

- 1 )

Submitted : November 17, 2020 Decided: November 20, 2020

Before MOTZ and KEENAN , Circuit Judges , and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge

.
Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

. Eric L. Jackson, Appellant Pro Se. Jeffrey Akira Finucane, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Martinsburg, We st Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Eric L. Jackson appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for a sentence reduction under § 404 of the First Step Act of 2018 (“First Step Act”), Pub. L. No. 115

- 391, 132 Stat. 5194 , 5222 . Although it found Jackson eligible for relief, the court exercised its discretion and declined to reduce Jackson’s term of imprisonment. In so doing, the court accurately described the procedural history and applicable law; evaluated the relevant 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and Jackson’s arguments in favor of a reduction; and explained its reasons for denying the motion. On this record, we discern no abuse of the court’s considerable discretion. See Unit ed States v. Jackson , 952 F.3d 492, 495

- 97 (4th Cir. 2020) (reviewing decision on First Step Act motion for abuse of discretion). Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Jackson , No. 5:01

- cr 00004

- JPB

- MJA

- 1 ( N.D.W. Va. Apr. 14, 2020). We deny Jackson’s motions for the appointment of counsel. 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 decisio nal process. AFFIRMED
EXHIBIT 35.1





SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT





I, Julia A. Sloat, certify that:





(a) A review of Ohio Power Company’s (the “Servicer”) activities during the reporting period covered by this Report on Form 10-K and of its performance under that certain Servicing Agreement dated as of August 1, 2013 between Ohio Phase-In-Recovery Funding LLC, as the Issuing Entity, and the Servicer (the "Servicing Agreement") has been made under my supervision.





(b) To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Servicing Agreement in all material respects throughout the reporting period.





Date: March 29, 2019





/s/ Julia A. Sloat


Name:  Julia A. Sloat


Title: Treasurer and Senior Officer in Charge of


the Servicing Function, Ohio Power Company, as Servicer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
consolidated balance sheet, statements of operations and cash flows and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such form 10Q for the nine months 
ended September 30, 1996.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                           3,592
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  348,270
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,126
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               348,862
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 348,862
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            3,906
<BONDS>                                        144,271
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             1
<OTHER-SE>                                     195,063
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   348,862
<SALES>                                         33,153
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                33,153
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 6,426
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   650
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               7,853
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 20,929
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             20,929
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    20,929
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.50
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.49
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 33.2



|                     |  |  |  |                                        
|-------------------- |  |  |  | ---------------------------------------
|LOGO                 |  |  |  | Glen A. Messina President and
CEO      
|                     |  | 
|                     |  |  |  | Tel: (856) 917-6847 Fax: (856)
917-6145
|3000 Leadenhall Road |  |  |  | glen.messina@phh.com                   
|                     |  |  |  | www.phh.com                            
|Mt. Laurel, NJ 08054 |  |  |  |                                        





REPORT ON ASSESSMENT OF COMPLIANCE WITH REGULATION AB

SERVICING CRITERIA

PHH Mortgage
Corporation (the Asserting Party) is responsible for assessing compliance as of December 31, 2014 and for the period from January 1, 2014 through December 31, 2014 (the Reporting Period) with the servicing
criteria set forth in Section 229.1122(d) of the Code of Federal Regulations (the CFR), except for criteria set forth in Section 229.1122(d)(3)(i)(c), (d)(4)(xv) and (d)(1)(iii) of the CFR, which the Asserting Party has
concluded are not applicable to the servicing activities it performs with respect to the transactions covered by this report (the Applicable Servicing Criteria). The criteria set forth in Section 229.1122 (d)(2)(i), (d)(2)(ii),
(d)(4)(iv), (d)(4)(vii), (d)(4)(viii) and (d)(4)(xi) of the CFR are performed by outsource providers on behalf of the Asserting Party; however, the Asserting Party has monitored the outsourcing of these criteria and assumes responsibility for
compliance. The transactions covered by this report include all non-agency loan sale agreements executed after January 1, 2006 as well as all re-securitization transactions after January 1, 2006 for which the Asserting Party served as
servicer (the Platform).

The Asserting Party has assessed its compliance with the Servicing Criteria as of December 31, 2014 and for the
Reporting Period and has concluded that the Asserting Party has complied, in all material respects, with the Applicable Servicing Criteria with respect to the Platform taken as a whole.

Deloitte & Touche, an independent registered public accounting firm, has issued an attestation report on the assessment of compliance with the
Servicing Criteria for the Reporting Period as set forth in this assertion.

PHH Mortgage Corporation

Date: February 26, 2015



|                                      
|--------------------------------------
|/s/ Glen A. Messina                   
|Glen A. Messina                       
|President                             
|                                      
|/s/ Martin L. Foster                  
|Martin L. Foster                      
|Senior Vice President  Loan Servicing
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7135

ERIC JOSEPH DEPAOLA,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

JAMES WADE, Food Services Director; B. OSBOURNE, Food 

Services Worker; LAFAYETTE FLEMING; TRACEY S. RAY; JOHN 

GARMAN, Regional Director,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Michael F. Urbanski, District 

Judge. (7:11-cv-00198-SGW-RSB)

Submitted: October 20, 2015 Decided: October 23, 2015

Before MOTZ, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Eric Joseph DePaola, Appellant Pro Se. John Michael Parsons, 

Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Eric Joseph DePaola appeals the district court’s order 

denying his motion for relief rom judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 

60(b)(4), (5), (6). We have reviewed the record and find no 

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated 

by the district court. See DePaola v. Wade, No. 7:11-cv-00198-

SGW-RSB (W.D. Va. entered July 7, 2015, filed July 9, 2015). 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