alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Order filed November 14, 2019.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 19

- 00118

- CR

____________ JUAN THEO VEGA, Appellant

V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 56th District Court Galveston County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 16

- CR

- 3331



### ORDER

Appellant is represented by appointed counsel, James DuCote . Appellant ’ s brief was due July 10, 2019. We have granted a total of 90 days to file appellant ’ s brief until November 8, 2019. When we granted the last extension, we noted that no further extensions would be granted absent exceptional circumstances.

On November 5, 2019, counsel informed this court that appellant no longer desires to pursue his appeal and counsel is in the process of obtaining a ppellant’ssignature on a motion to dismiss the appeal. We construe this information as a

request for a further extension of time in light of these circumstances.
Accordingly, we grant an extension of time to file a brief or motion to dismiss
with the clerk of this c ourt until December 1 6 , 2019 . If counsel does not timely file appellant’s brief as ordered, or file appellant’s motion to dismiss the appeal, the c ourt
may issue an ord er abating the appeal and directing the trial court to conduct a hearing to determine if appellant desires to dismiss his appeal and c onsider other appropriate relief.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Chief Justice Frost and Justices Christopher and Bourliot.
#### Charles O’CAIN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. RENTON POLICE DEPT; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 06-36065.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 20, 2007.*

Filed Dec. 28, 2007.

Charles O’Cain, Kent, WA, pro se.

Zanetta Lehua Fontes, Warren, Kellogg, Barber, Dean and Fontes, Renton, WA, Mary Ann Mcconaughy, Esq., Keating Bucklin & McCormack Inc., Seattle, WA, King County Courthouse Civil Division, Seattle, WA, Victoria J. Vannocken, Esq., for Defendants-Appellees.

Before: 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 **

Washington state prisoner Charles O’Cain appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in favor of defendants in his 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985 action alleging constitutional violations stemming from two searches of his cell and his subsequent placement in administrative segregation. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, *Morrison v. Hall,*261 F.3d 896, 900 (9th Cir.2001), and we affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment on O’Cain’s Fourth Amendment claim because the prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures does not apply in prison cells. *See Hudson v. Palmer,*468 U.S. 517, 526, 104 S.Ct. 3194, 82 L.Ed.2d 393 (1984) (holding prisoners do not have any subjective expectation of privacy in their prison cells).

The district court properly granted summary judgment on O’Cain’s conspiracy claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1985 because O’Cain does not allege that defendants conspired against him due to his race or class. *See Bretz v. Kelman,*773 F.2d 1026, 1028 (9th Cir.1985) (requiring allegation of class-based animus for conspiracy claim under relevant clauses of section 1985).

The district court properly granted summary judgment on O’Cain’s due process claim because O’Cain did not raise a triable issue as to whether his continued confinement in administrative segregation imposed an “atypical and significant hardship on [him] in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life.” *Sandin v. Conner,*515 U.S. 472, 484, 115 S.Ct. 2293, 132 L.Ed.2d 418 (1995).

O’Cain’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

All pending motions are denied as moot.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Exhibit 15.1  September 8, 2017 PRIVATE ANDCONFIDENTIAL Securities and Exchange Commission100 F Street, N.E. Washington, D.C. 20549-7561 USA Dear Sirs/Madams: We have read Item 16F of Tower One Wireless Corp.’s 2015 Form 20-F/A dated September 8, 2017, and have the following comments: 1.

   We agree with the statements made in paragraphs two, three and four in the section “Change in Registrant’s Certifying Accountant”2.

   We have no basis on which to agree or disagree with other statements of the registrant contained therein Yours very truly,   Leed Advisors Inc.Chartered Professional Accountants GWD/sgf


---
#### Cecil E. FOLTZ, Jr., Plaintiff, v. MOORE-McCORMACK LINES, Inc., Defendant.

United States District Court S. D. New York.

March 7, 1956.

*302John J. Vander Leith, New York City, for plaintiff.

Paul W. Williams, U. S. Atty., New York City, by Benjamin H. Berman, Dept, of Justice, Washington, D. C., for defendant.

WEINFELD, District Judge.

The motion to dismiss for failure to substitute the Administratrix of plaintiff’s estate within two years after decedent’s death, as required by Rule 25(a) (1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C., must be granted.1 The repeal of § 778 of Title 28 subsequent to the decision in Anderson v. Yungkau does not require a different result. While Professor J. W. Moore has argued that its repeal has overcome the authority of the Anderson holding in diversity suits2 I am of the view that Congress by its action gave the Rule the force and effect of a statute.3

The Revision of Title 28 did not undertake any change in the substantive law. The essential purpose of Revision was “the substitution of plain language for awkward terms, reconciliation of conflicting laws, repeal of superseded sections, and consolidation of related *provisions.”**4***The House Judiciary Committee’s explanation for the repeal and omission of § 778 was that it was “superseded by Rules 25 and 81 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.” 5

To suggest that by the streamlining of statutes and the incidental repeal of § 778 Congress overcame the authority of the Anderson case is to say that the Revision was self-defeating and that Congress achieved a purpose entirely opposite to what it intended.

The motion to dismiss must be granted.6

1

. Anderson v. Yungkau, 329 U.S. 482, 67 S.Ct. 428, 91 L.Ed. 436; cf. Bush v. Remington Rand, Inc., 2 Cir., 213 F.2d 456, 464; Hofheimer v. McIntee, 7 Cir., 179 F.2d 789.

2

. 4 Moore’s Fed.Praetice ¶ 25.01, ¶ 25.06.

3

. Cf. 28 U.S.C. § 2072.

4

. Rep. from Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives, to Accompany H.R. 3214, H.R. 308 (80th Cong., 1st Sess.) p. 2.

5

. Id. at p. A239. See also p. A261 where the Committee stated “The word ‘Omitted’ * * * indicates that the particular text of such statute was not incorporated in proposed Title 28 because it was obsolete, executed, covered by other law, superseded by later law, or covered by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

6

. See Proposed Amendment of Rule 25(a), Report of Advisory Committee on Rules for Civil Procedure, dated October, 1955.
Exhibit 32.2 Certification of Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350) In connection with this Annual Report on Form 10-K (the Report) of Alcentra Capital Corporation (the Registrant), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Ellida McMillan, the Chief Accounting Officer of the Registrant, hereby certify, to the best of my knowledge, that: (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 Registrant. /s/ Ellida McMillanName: Ellida McMillan Date:  March 9, 2016
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2

                   CERTIFICATION OF BRIAN C. HENRY 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 report of Onyx Software Corporation (the Company) on Form
10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2004, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Brian C. Henry, 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.

Date:  August 9, 2004

By:         /s/ Brian C. Henry
       ----------------------------
              Brian C. Henry
       Executive Vice President and
         Chief Financial Officer
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. James Earl MAGERS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 07-10939

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Jan. 30, 2008.

C. Richard Baker, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Lubbock, TX, for PlaintiffAppellee.

Helen Miller Liggett, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Lubbock, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before REAVLEY, BENAVIDES, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, James Earl Magers raises arguments that are foreclosed by *United States v. Hinson,*429 F.3d 114, 119 (5th Cir. 2005), which held that a defendant is not entitled to a jury trial to determine whether the terms of supervised release have been violated. The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is 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 5th Cir R. 47.5.4.
DISMISS and Opinion Filed September 20, 2016.

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 16

- 00508

- CV

SM MONTERREY GROUP, LLC , Appellant

V.
ARTURO MACIAS AND INDOOR SOCCER ZONE, LLC , Appellees

On Appeal from the 134th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC

- 14

- 01924



### MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Lang, Myers, and Evans Opinion by Justice Evans
Before the Court is the parties’ joint motion to dismiss the appeal. We grant the parties’

motion and dismiss the appeal. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.1(a)(2).

160508F.P05 /David Evans/
DAVID EVANS JUSTICE– 2

– 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

SM MONTERREY GROUP, LLC, Appellant

No. 05

- 16

- 00508

- CV V.

ARTURO MACIAS AND INDOOR SOCCER ZONE, LLC, Appellees On Appeal from the 134th Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. DC

- 14

- 01924. Opinion delivered by Justice E vans. Justices Lang and Myers participating.

In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the appeal is DISMISSED

.

It is ORDERED that each party bear its own costs of this appeal.

Judgment entered this 20th day of September, 2016.
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2408 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to temporarily increase the 

investment tax credit for geothermal energy property. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 6, 2011 

Mr. REICHERT (for himself and Mr. BLUMENAUER) introduced the following 

bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to temporarily 

increase the investment tax credit for geothermal energy 

property. 

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 ‘‘Geothermal Tax Parity 

5 Act of 2011’’. 

6 SEC. 2. TEMPORARY INCREASE IN INVESTMENT TAX CRED7 IT FOR GEOTHERMAL ENERGY PROPERTY. 

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subclause (II) of section 

9 48(a)(2)(A)(i) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2408 IH

1 amended by striking ‘‘paragraph (3)(A)(i)’’ and inserting 

2 ‘‘clause (i) or (iii) of paragraph (3)(A)’’. 

3 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

4 this section shall apply to property placed in service after 

5 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
**EXHIBIT 31.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

I, Brett D. Davis, 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 CNH Equipment Trust 2013-B (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.                                      I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the servicer and based on my knowledge and the compliance review conducted in preparing the servicer compliance statement required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicer has fulfilled its obligations under the servicing agreement 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: Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas.

 

----

 
| March 30,   2015 |   |                                                             |
|-----------------------|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                  |   |                                                             |
|                  |   |                                                             |
|                  | By:    | /s/   Brett D. Davis                                             |
|                  | Name:  | Brett   D. Davis                                                 |
|                  | Title: | President   (senior officer in charge of the servicing function) |

 

----
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21

- 4305

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. ANTHONY SELLERS , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Orangeburg

. Margaret B. Seymour, Senior District Judge. ( 5:08

- cr - 00944

- MBS

- 21 )

Submitted : January 24, 2022 Decided: March 30, 2022

Before THACKER and QUATTLEBAUM , Circuit Judges , and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge

.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.

ON BRIEF: Parks N. Small, Federal Public Defender , OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER , Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. M

. R hett De Hart, Acting U nited S tates Attorney , Leesa Washington, Assistant U nited S tates Attorney , OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY , Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Anthony Sellers appeals from the district court’s amended order and opinion granting relief and reducing his sentence pursuant to the First Step Act of 2018. * In his opening brief, Sellers argued that the district court failed to adequately explain its reasons
f

or imposing what Sellers characterized as an upward variant sentence on Count 41, aiding and abetting in the possession with intent to distribute a quantity of cocaine within 1000 feet of a school, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C), 860(a), and 18 U.S.C. § 2. Sellers abandons t his claim in his reply brief and argues instead that the district cour t erred by failing to explain its reasons for not imposing a downward varian t sentence on Count 41. Because he failed to raise this issue in his opening brief, it is waived. See Grayson O Co. v. Agadir Int’l LLC , 856 F.3d 307, 316 (4th Cir. 2017) (recogn izing that issues raised for first time in reply brief are waived). Accordingly, we affirm the district

court ’s order

. United State s v. Sellers , No. 5:08

- cr - 00944

- MBS

- 21 (D.S.C. June 22, 2021)

. 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

* Sellers filed a notice of appeal from the district court’s initial opinion and order granting partial relief under the First Step Act. Because the court subsequently granted Sellers’ motion for reconsideration, the initial order is no longer in effect.
The Honorable Lyle E. Strom, United States District Judge for the District of *

Nebraska, sitting by designation.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

_____________

No. 97-3785

_____________

Doroteo Rivera, *

*

Petitioner, * On Petition for Review from

* Immigration and Naturalization

v. * Service.

*

Immigration and Naturalization Service, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Respondent. *

_____________

 Submitted: April 13, 1998

Filed: April 22, 1998

_____________

Before FAGG and HANSEN, Circuit Judges, and STROM, District Judge. *

_____________

PER CURIAM.

Having considered Doroteo Rivera's petition for review, we conclude Rivera's

contentions are without merit. We affirm for the reasons set forth in the decision of the

Board of Immigration Appeals. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
-2-

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
Exhibit 31.4

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(a) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Jason Kulas, certify that:



| | 1. | I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to Annual Report on Form 10-K of Santander Consumer USA Holdings Inc.; and
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such
statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                              
|----------------------------------------------
|/s/ Jason Kulas                               
|Name: Jason Kulas                             
|Title:   President and Chief Financial Officer
|Date:   April 29, 2015
EX-10.03


 


                         
MARKETING    AGREEMENT


This Market Agreement (the "Agreement") is made by and
between China Bull Management (the "INC") and Andrew Chien( “Chien”),a Connecticut resident, collectively
the "Parties", on the twenty third day of November 2011.


 


Whereas the "INC" is a Nevada registered stock incorporation
majority owned by Andrew Chien, with agency services specialized in financial area to serve the Chinese private companies going
USA publicly listing on SEC filing, exhibits, informative conference, road show, lettering service etc., and “Chien”
is operating his personal business as a financial consultant.


 


Now, therefore, in consideration of the mutual agreements promises
set forth herein, the parties agree as follows:


 


1. Chien agrees to recommend the services rendered by the "INC"
to its customers.


2. Chien agrees to pay the "INC" at the fair market
rate in case that Chien applies the services rendered by the "INC".


3. The "INC" agrees to deliver all services in compliance
with all relative laws, regulations or rules on the time scheduled on the contracts to the customers directly, or the Chien.


4. Chien agrees not to do any job, which is in the scope of the
services rendered by the "INC".


5. Chien agrees to help any market activity initiated by the "INC"
voluntarily.


6. Termination will be effective thirty days following the date
that one Party delivers written notice of termination to the other Party.


7. The parties agree to take their services liabilities directly
without another party to involve in.


 


Agreed to and accepted as of the third day of November 23, 2011
by:


 


 


 


China Bull Management           
Andrew Chien


 


/s/ Andrew Chien                         
 /s/ Andrew Chien   


 


Andrew Chien, President