alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Order entered January 8, 2013

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-12-01096-CR

CHARLES EDWARDS SIELOFF III, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 203rd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F10-35795-P

ORDER

The Court REINSTATES the appeal.

On October 29, 2012, we ordered the trial court to make findings regarding why 

appellant’s brief had not been filed. We ADOPT the findings that: (1) appellant desires to 

pursue the appeal; (2) appellant is indigent and represented by court-appointed counsel Melvyn 

Bruder; (3) Mr. Bruder’s explanation for the failure to file appellant’s brief is his workload; and 

(4) Mr. Bruder requested thirty days to file appellant’s brief. 

We ORDER appellant to file his brief within thirty days of the date of this order. 

Because the brief is three months overdue, no further extensions will be granted. If appellant’s 

brief is not filed within the time specified, we will order Melvyn Bruder removed as appellant’s 

attorney and order the trial court to appoint new counsel to represent appellant in the appeal.
We DIRECT the Clerk to send copies of this order, by electronic transmission, to the 

Honorable Teresa Hawthorne, Presiding Judge, 203rd Judicial District Court, and to counsel for 

all parties. 

/s/ DAVID W. EVANS

JUSTICE
| (logo) ncbNational Cooperative Bank   | 2011 Crystal  DriveSuite 8oo Arlington, Virginia 22202 |
|--------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------|

 February 26, 2016  RBS Commercial Funding, Inc. as Depositor Attn: Jim Barnard600 Washington Blvd.Stamford, CT 06901 RE: Annual Statement as to Compliance WFRBS 2013 C15 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-C15, as an authorized officer of National Cooperative Bank, N.A., formerly NCB, FSB (the “NCB Master Servicer”), I hereby certify pursuant to Section 11.12 thereof that: a. A review of the activities of the NCB Master 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 NCB Master 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.
Exhibit 32.2
 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
 PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANESOXLEY ACT OF 2002
  (a)
    
    the Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended June 30, 2010 filed on the date
hereof with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report) fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934; and(b)
    
    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 By:
    /s/ John R. Troka, Jr.John R. Troka, Jr.Interim Chief Financial Officer
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

2009-1374

TIVO, INC.,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

ECHOSTAR CORPORATION,

ECHOSTAR DBS CORPORATION,

ECHOSTAR TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION,

ECHOSPHERE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY,

ECHOSTAR SATELLITE LLC,

and DISH NETWORK CORPORATION,

Defendants-Appellants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas

in case no. 2:04-CV-01, Judge David Folsom.

ON MOTION

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

BRYSON, Circuit Judge.

ORDER

EchoStar Corporation et al. (EchoStar) move for a stay, pending appeal, of the

order of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (1) holding

EchoStar in contempt of its previous injunction, (2) enjoining EchoStar, and (3) requiring

that EchoStar take certain steps in light of its contempt holdings. TiVo, Inc. opposes.

EchoStar replies. The Association for Competitive Technology, Inc. moves for leave to

file a brief amicus curiae in support of TiVo regarding the motion. EchoStar opposes.

The Association replies.
In deciding whether to stay an injunction, pending appeal, this court "assesses

the movant's chances of success on the merits and weighs the equities as they affect

the parties and the public." E.I. Dupont de Nemours & Co. v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 

835 F.2d 277, 278 (Fed. Cir. 1987); see also Standard Havens Prods. V. Gencor

Indus., 897 F.2d 511 (Fed. Cir. 1990). To prevail, a movant must establish a strong

likelihood of success on the merits or, failing that, must demonstrate that it has a

substantial case on the merits and that the harms factors militate in its favor. Hilton v. 

Braunskill 481 U.S. 770, 778 (1987).

Without prejudicing the ultimate disposition of this case by the merits panel, we

determine based upon the arguments raised in the motions papers that EchoStar has

met its burden of demonstrating the requisites for a stay of the order, pending appeal.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

The motion for a stay of the order is granted.

The motion for leave to file an amicus brief is granted.

(3)	The briefing schedule is expedited. EchoStar's opening brief is due no

later than July 17, 2009. TiVo's brief is due no later than August 25, 2009. EchoStar's

reply brief and the joint appendix are due no later than September 4, 2009. The case

will be placed on the November calendar, if practicable.

2009-1374	 2
FOR THE COURT

JUL 0 1 2009

Date

/s/ Jan Horbaly

Jan Horbaly

Clerk

cc:	Seth P. Waxman, Esq.

Donald R. Dunner, Esq.

s19	

thatilit5IST"

JUL 01 2009

JAN HOR8Aa

CLERK

2009-1374	3
| Name of Subsidiary               | ​ | ​ | State of Incorporation or Organization | ​ |
|----------------------------------|---------|---------|----------------------------------------|---------|
| Burholme Funding LLC             | ​ | ​ | Delaware                               | ​ |
| Center City Funding LLC          | ​ | ​ | Delaware                               | ​ |
| Dunlap Funding LLC               | ​ | ​ | Delaware                               | ​ |
| Germantown Funding LLC           | ​ | ​ | Delaware                               | ​ |
| Jefferson Square Funding LLC     | ​ | ​ | Delaware                               | ​ |
| FSIC III Investments, Inc.       | ​ | ​ | Delaware                               | ​ |
| IC III Arches Investments, LLC   | ​ | ​ | Delaware                               | ​ |
| IC III Altus Investments, LLC    | ​ | ​ | Delaware                               | ​ |
| IC III Northern Investments, LLC | ​ | ​ | Delaware                               | ​ |
| Society Hill Funding LLC         | ​ | ​ | Delaware                               | ​ |

----
OFFICE OF THE Al-l-ORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN 

op3nion loo. O-711 

R8r Ttre C?iftWt Of 
Hen. W. Lee O*Daniel, June 10, 1999, Page 2 

intention have btwm filed with the proper authorities, and that suoh per005 ,&all be a 

bcna fide resident Or tha state of Texas far 

at least SIX (6) months Immediately prior to 

the inakin& or appllaatim to the Habdreesing 

and/or Cosmetolog;y Department for pcmaieeion 

to take such exsmlnstfon to entttle such per8011 to so pm&Ice 3alrdressing and/or aosmetology orany of Its branahes in this State." 

Seoticn 1 of muss Bill lS9 (Artlole os.Uj q 

the present tlw rea4B M fulluw~ 

saltoengagehtha 

efahdrdrea8aror 
.Horl. :;. Lee OlDaniel, June 10, X39, Page 3 

Se have not been asked to pass upon the validfty of the prcvisim of substitute S.B. 100, whioh rrould 

require a hair&essar or oosmetolO&st to be a oiti%en 

of the United Statea of America, but we feel that it is 

our duty to point out that mid provlslon Is a olear vlol&ion of the 14th Aslendmento the Oonstltuticn of the 

United States, which dealares that no state shall deprive 

any person al' life, liberty or proparty without dus process of law, nor deny to any person within its jurlsdiotion the equal proteotim of the laws. 
HOD.. &. Lee o*Daniel., June 10, 1999, Page 4 

Se cite as authority the case of Tezplar v, 

Ei:ichi~an State Board of miners of Barbers (Supresm 

Court of NiChi@iIl) 131 tioh. 254, 90 I?% 10058. 

In that case it wa8 held that Act No. 2l2 Pub. 

Acts 1899, B 5, lkichigan, providing for the exsml&on 

and licensing oi' barbers, and stipulating that 50 pewon 

eb~ll reoeive a oertitioate, who at the tirm ot hia (ILaminatim la an alien, is repugnant to the 14th Amendment 

of the IJuited Stutes Constitution, as denying equal protection of the law, lu so far as it discriminates gl aaoouut of oitizenship. 
Eon. IT. Lee O'lhniczl, June 10, 1939, Pa@ 5 

requisite knowledge upon the subjeote preacrlbed by the Lag%alaturc to praotloe his oolling 

without endangering the health of his patrons. 

To hold that he Is not entitled to praotioe 

this calling, beoauae not a full citizen of 

the United States, is to deny to him rights 

whioh we think are preserved by the fourteenth 

amendmnt.W 

a* holdthat theprotislon42r mastitutss.t). 

mototkeerr66tal8talyp6r6oa6ag6glaginfhepraetl6e %.r 066upistior ur 8 -sar ur uommtu&gl6t or 

06nda6tioe: a Bsirdrelultlg or uuem&ulogUul eatabwAllt *almll b6 a eit;Mlr ur th8 ualt6d stat66 6r Amml6u 

clp pzwhati prooi to th6 prepor A&lnl&r8t1ve r4ntharit~ 

w&t& the prupar autkfmitlefl ti UWast
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Ivey WALKER, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 06-7594.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Dec. 14, 2007.

Decided: Jan. 11, 2008.

Andrew Brady Banzhoff, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellant. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Office of the United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Ivey Walker seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief in part on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appeal-ability. 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, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *Rose v. Lee,*252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir.2001).

Walker has filed a motion for a certificate of appealability on the issue of whether trial counsel labored under an actual conflict of interest in violation of his Sixth Amendment rights. Based on our independent review of the record, we conclude that Walker has not made the requisite showing of the denial of a constitutional right. Accordingly, we deny his motion for 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.*

*

 We note that the district court granted § 2255 relief in part; the Government’s appeal of that decision in No. 06-7582 remains pending before the court.
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D21-2874

_____________________________

CARL EVAN SUMMERLIN,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Bradford County.

James M. Colaw, Judge.

September 6, 2022

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

RAY, WINOKUR, and JAY, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________
2

Candice K. Brower, Criminal Conflict and Civil Regional Counsel, 

and Michael Jerome Titus, Assistant Regional Conflict Counsel, 

Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
Be cause Domingue z filed the notice of a ppeal more than fifte en day s late, the instrument 1 itself cannot serve as an im plied motion for ex tension of time. See Verburgt v. Dorne r , 959 S.W .2d 615, 617 (Tex. 1997). 

### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN NO. 03-05-00120- CV
Ro y D om ing ue z , A ppe lla nt

v. Jo Anne Dom ingu ez, A ppellee
F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF BELL CO UNTY, 169TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. 199,31 7-C, HO NORAB LE MICH AEL J. NELSON, JUDGE PRESI DING

M E M O R

A N D U M O P I N I O N The judg ment in this case wa s signe d Aug ust 19, 2 0 0 4
. On October 28, 2004, appellant Ro y D o mi n g u e z f il e d w it h th e tr ia l c o u rt a n o ti c e o f a p p e a l, a mo ti o n to ame nd the judgmen t , an d a motion for nunc pro tunc judgme nt and orde r. The tr ial court did not rule on Domingue z’s moti ons. Be cause Domingue z’s motion to amend judgment was untimely , his notice of a pp e a l w a s d

ue on Se pte mbe r 1 9, 20 04 . D omi ngue z did no t f ile a mot ion fo r a

n e xten sio n o f t ime to fi le no ti c e o f

a p p e a l
. A l a t e - f

i l e d n o t i c e o f a p p e a l d o e s n o tc o n f

e r j u r i s d i c t i o no nt h i s Cou rt
. 1 Acc ording ly , we dismiss the appea l for wa nt of jurisdiction.

Be a Ann Smith, J ustice Be fore J ustices B . A. Smith, P ury ear and Pember

ton Dismissed for Want of J urisdiction Filed: Mar ch 24, 20052
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 08-4804

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

 v. 

DWAYNE MCARTHUR MITCHELL, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge 

(2:07-cr-01118-DCN-2) 

Submitted: March 17, 2009 Decided: March 19, 2009 

Before TRAXLER, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. 

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

David B. Betts, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. Sean 

Kittrell, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, South 

Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
PER CURIAM: 

 Dwayne McArthur Mitchell pled guilty, pursuant to a 

written plea agreement, to possession of a firearm and 

ammunition by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 

§§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2) (2006). The conditional plea preserved 

Mitchell’s right to appeal the district court’s denial of his 

motion to suppress. Mitchell was sentenced to 110 months’ 

imprisonment. Counsel for Mitchell has filed a brief in 

accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), 

certifying that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal, but 

questioning whether the district court erred in denying the 

motion to suppress. Mitchell was notified of his right to file 

a supplemental pro se brief but has not done so. The Government 

has declined to file a reply brief. Finding no reversible 

error, we affirm. 

 This court reviews the factual findings underlying a 

motion to suppress for clear error, and the legal determinations 

de novo. United States v. Wilson, 484 F.3d 267, 280 (4th Cir. 

2007). When evaluating the denial of a suppression motion, we 

review the evidence in the light most favorable to the 

Government. United States v. Uzenski, 434 F.3d 690, 704 (4th 

Cir. 2006). 

 With these standards in mind, and having reviewed the 

transcript of the suppression hearing, we conclude the district 

2 
3 

court did not err in denying the motion to suppress. In 

accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in this case 

and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore 

affirm the district court’s judgment. This court requires that 

counsel inform Mitchell, in writing, of the right to petition 

the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If 

Mitchell requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes 

that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move 

in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. 

Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on 

Mitchell. 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
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-2303

BOBBY SAUL,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

KENNETH S. APFEL, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL

SECURITY,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston. Charles H. Haden II, Chief

District Judge. (CA-99-1043-2)

Submitted: April 27, 2001 Decided: May 3, 2001

Before LUTTIG and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
2

William S. Thompson, COOK & COOK, Madison, West Virginia, for Appellant. James A. Winn, Regional Chief Counsel, Patricia M. Smith,

Deputy Regional Chief Counsel, Robert W. Flynn, Assistant Regional

Counsel, Office of the General Counsel, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Rebecca A. Betts, United

States Attorney, Stephen M. Horn, Assistant United States Attorney,

Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
3

PER CURIAM:

Bobby Saul appeals the district court’s order affirming the

Commissioner’s final decision regarding the onset date of Saul’s

disability for determining entitlement to Supplemental Security

Income and Disability Insurance Benefits. See 42 U.S.C. § 405(g)

(1994). Appellant’s case was referred to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (1994). The magistrate judge recommended that the Commissioner’s decision be affirmed and advised

Appellant that failure to file timely objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order

based upon the recommendation. Despite this warning, Appellant

failed to object to the magistrate judge’s recommendation.

The timely filing of objections to a magistrate judge’s

recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of the

substance of that recommendation when the parties have been warned

that failure to object will waive appellate review. See Wright v.

Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v.

Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Appellant has waived appellate review by

failing to file objections after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. 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
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 the Treasury

###### United States Mint

# AGENCY:

United States Mint, Department of the Treasury.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The United States Mint is announcing the price of the 2017 American Liberty 225th Anniversary Silver Four-Medal Set. Each set will be priced at $199.95.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Katrina McDow, Marketing Specialist, Numismatic and Bullion Directorate; United States Mint; 801 9th Street NW., Washington, DC 20220; or call 202-354-8495.

Authority:31 U.S.C. 5111(a)(2).

      ( print page 42880)    
Dated: September 7, 2017.

David Motl,

Acting Deputy Director, United States Mint.

[FR Doc. 2017-19316 Filed 9-11-17; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE P
Exhibit 13.1





Certification of CEO and CFO 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 20-F (the "Report") of Marine Harvest ASA (the "Company") for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014 as filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC") on the date hereof, Alf-Helge Aarskog, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Ivan Vindheim, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of his knowledge:





|    |                                                                                                                      
|--- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|(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.




/s/ Alf-Helge AarskogName: Alf-Helge AarskogTitle: Chief Executive OfficerDate: April 28, 2015/s/ Ivan VindheimName: Ivan VindheimTitle: Chief Financial OfficerDate: April 28, 2015





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the SEC or its staff upon request.





This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.