alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
See T EX . R. A PP . P. 52. 8( d) ( “ W hen deny i ng r el i ef , t he co ur t m ay han d do wn an opi ni on b ut i s not 1 re q u i re d to d o s o .”); T EX . R. A PP . P
. 47
. 4 (di s t i ng ui s hi ng op i ni on s an d m em ora nd um op i ni on s ). 

### NUM BER 13-0 9-00 294- CR 

## COURT OF A PP EA LS T H I R T E E N T H D I S T R I C T O F T E X AS CORPUS CHRI ST I - E DI NBURG IN RE A RLEN RA

Y TENBERG On Petit ion fo r Writ of M an da mus . M EM ORA ND UM OPIN ION Be fo re Ju stice s R od rigu ez, Garza, a nd Ve la Per Curia m M emor andum Opini on 1 Rel ator , Ar len R ay

Tenberg , pro se, fil ed a peti ti on for w ri t of mandamus i n the abo v e cau se on June 1, 200 9, c o n t e n d in g t hatthe trial court ab used its discretion in deny ing rela tor ’s moti on for a nuncpro tun c j udg ment. Mandamus reli ef maybe g ra nted if the re lat or shows that: (1 ) the act soug ht to be compel led i s p urely min is ter ial ; and ( 2) t h e re is n o a d e qu a t e r e m e d y a tla w. See Deleo n v. Dist. Clerk , 1 8 7 S
. W
. 3 d 4 7 3 , 4 7 4 (T e x. Cr im. App. 2006) (o ri g . proceed ing ). The re lat or must hav e a “c lea r ri g ht” to th e rel ief sought a nd th e me rits of the relief

sought m ust be “beyond d ispute .” See i d. “ The2

re q uirement of a c lea r leg al ri g ht neces si tates that the law plai nly des cr ibe s t he duty

to be performe d such thatthere is no roo m for the e x ercise of discretion. ” See i

d. T he Cou rt, having examine d an d f ully conside red the petitio n for w rit of man dam us, is of the o pin ion thatrela tor has not show n him se lf e n titl ed to the re li ef soug ht. Acc ordin g ly , t he pet it ion for w ri t of mandamus i s DE NI ED
. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 52. 8(a).

PERC UR IAM Do not p ubl is h. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 47. 2(b). Me moran dum Opi nio n del iv ered and filed thi s 3 rd day

of June, 2009.
### I N THE UNI TED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FI F TH CI RCUI T

No. 12-20719 Summary Calendar

HUBERT WARREN, JR., Plaintiff-Appellant

v. ELLIS COUNTY, TEXAS; DON MAXFIELD; JOE GRUBB; GENE KNIZE, Defendants-Appellees

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:12-CV-2674

Before JONES, DENNIS and HAYNES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Hubert Warren, T exas prisoner # 1023303, has filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal following the district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 l awsuit for failure to p ay outstanding monetary sanctions and its d enial of IFP. A l itigant may not pr o ceed IFP on appeal unless he demon s t r a t es financial eligibility and t he existence of a nonfrivolous issue for appeal. See Carson v. Polley , 689 F.2d 562, 586 (5th Cir. 1982). U n i t e d S t a te s C o u rt o f A p p e al s

F i f t h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D May15, 2013 Ly l e W . Cay ce Clerk

* Purs uant to 5 T H C I R

. R

. 47. 5, the court has d eterm ined that this op inion should not be p ublis hed and is not p reced ent excep t und er the lim ited circum s tances s et forth in 5 T H C I R

. R. 47. 5. 4. Case: 12-20719 Document: 00512242733 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/15/2013No. 12-20719

The d i strict court determined that Warren was barred from proceeding IFP i n his civil rights a ction because he had a c c u mulated t hree strikes under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Warren does not dispute that he has three strikes but argues that the § 1 9 1 5 ( g) bar should not apply because he i s under imminent danger of serious physical injury, citing t he fact t hat he has been exposed to dust lint and shower o d or through his cell vent, which has caused h im headaches, voice changes, and watery eyes. He also alleges that he i s under c o nstant stress resulting from the denial of his constit u t i onal rights, subjecting him to a potential risk of, among other things, hypertension, heart and immune system problems, fatigue, depression, and weight gain, all o f which c o uld shorten his life expectancy. Warren’s assertions regarding his cell conditions a n d t h e possibility of futur e m e d i c a l problems resulting from s tress do not show that he faced an imminent da nger of serious p hysical injury at the relevant time. See Banos v. O’Guin , 144 F.3d 883, 884 (5th Cir. 1998). Consequently, he has not shown that he is entitled t o proceed IFP on the ground that he is u nder imminent danger of serious physical injury. Se e § 1915(g). Moreover, Warren briefs no argument regarding his unpaid sanctions, does not present proof of payment, and does not otherwise explain why h e s hould be permitted to proceed without payment of the

o u tstanding sanctions. H e has thus failed to show that he has a non f r i v o l o u s issue for appeal. See Carson , 689 F.2d at 586. Accordingl y , t h e I F P m otion is DENIED, and the appeal is DISMISSED. See id.; 5 T H C I R
. R . 42.2.

2 Case: 12-20719 Document: 00512242733 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/15/2013
#### Eric Goldfine et al., Appellants, v Michael Sichenzia et al., Defendants, and Old Republic National Title Insurance Company, Respondent.

Submitted December 3, 2007;

decided February 12, 2008

Motion, insofar as it seeks leave to appeal from that portion of the Appellate Division order that affirmed so much of Supreme Court’s March 2005 order as denied appellants’ motion to amend the complaint, dismissed upon the ground that such portion of the order does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution; motion for leave to appeal otherwise denied.
**EXHIBIT 35.1****SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT**Re:  Mercedes-Benz Financial Services USA LLC in its capacity as Servicer (the "Servicer") under the Sale and Servicing Agreement, dated as of July 1, 2013, among Mercedes-Benz Auto Receivables Trust 2013-1, as Issuer, Daimler Retail Receivables LLC, as Depositor, and Mercedes-Benz Financial Services USA LLC, as Seller and Servicer (the "Servicing Agreement"), for the period from January 1, 2015, to December 31, 2015 (the "Reporting Period"). I, Brian T. Stevens, certify that: (a) A review of the Servicer's activities during the Reporting Period and of its performance under 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. Dated:  March 22, 2016             /s/ Brian T. Stevens Name: Brian T. Stevens Title: Vice President and Controller
#### Helen HASKELL, Administrator of the Estate of Sigmund Kulak, Deceased, v. PHILADELPHIA TRANSPORTATION COMPANY.

No. 18117.

United States District Court E. D. Pennsylvania.

June 13, 1956.

Francis Logan, Philadelphia, Pa.; for plaintiff.

H. Francis DeLone, Philadelphia, Pa., for defendant.

WELSH, District Judge.

On February 10, 1955, this Court entered an order directing plaintiff to produce certain documents dealing with the deceased’s earnings for the years 1951, 1952 and 1953. Plaintiff failed to com*357ply with said order. As a result defendant filed the instant motion to dismiss under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 37(b) (2) (iii), 28 U.S.C.A.

In opposing the motion plaintiff states that she has searched diligently for the documents but has been unable to locate them. She further states that she will produce the documents immediately should they be located.

We do not think that under such circumstances a dismissal of the action is required. As Rule 37(b) (2) (iii) gives us the discretion to grant to the defendant other relief, we direct that an order be entered requiring plaintiff to file an affidavit stating that the documents in question are not available and that she will produce them immédiately should they be located.
Exhibit 32.1   Certification of Chief Executive & Chief Financial Officer 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 of Sweegen, Inc. a Nevada corporation (the Company) on Form 10-K/A for the year ended June 30, 2016, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), Steven Chen, Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer of the Company, certifies to the best of his knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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 result of operations of the Company.  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.  /s/ Steven ChenSteven Chen
Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer, Secretary, Treasurer and Director
(Principal Financial Officer)

November 30, 2016
<PAGE>
 
                  SUBSIDIARIES OF WESTERN GAS RESOURCES, INC.
<TABLE> 
<CAPTION> 


NAME OF SUBSIDIARY                       RELATIONSHIP
------------------                       ------------

<S>                                     <C>
1)  MIGC, Inc.                              Wholly-owned subsidiary of Western Gas Resources, Inc.
 
2)  MGTC, Inc.                              Wholly-owned subsidiary of MIGC, Inc.
 
3)  Western Gas Resources - Texas, Inc.     Wholly-owned subsidiary of Western Gas Resources, Inc.
 
4)  Western Gas Resources Storage, Inc.     Wholly-owned subsidiary of Western Gas Resources, Inc.
 
5)  Western Gas Resources - Oklahoma, Inc.  Wholly-owned subsidiary of Western Gas Resources, Inc.
 
6)  Mountain Gas Resources, Inc.            Wholly-owned subsidiary of Western Gas Resources, Inc.

7)  Western Power Services, Inc.            Wholly-owned subsidiary of Western Gas Resources, Inc.

8)  Pinnacle Gas Treating, Inc.             Wholly-owned subsidiary of Western Gas Resources, Inc.

9)  WGR Canada, Inc.                        Wholly-owned subsidiary of Western Gas Resources, Inc.

10) Lance Oil & Gas Company, Inc.           Wholly-owned subsidiary of Western Gas Resources, Inc.

11) Mountain Gas Transportation, Inc.       Wholly-owned subsidiary of Mountain Gas Resources, Inc.

12) Green River Gathering Company           A joint venture between Western Gas Resources, Inc.
                                               and Mountain Gas Resources, Inc.

13) Westana Gathering Company               A general partnership with Western Gas Resources, Inc.,
                                               as general partner
 
14) Redman Smackover Joint Venture          50%-owned joint venture of Western Gas Resources, Inc.
</TABLE>

                                                                    Exhibit 21.1
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-26-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             DEC-28-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-27-1998
<CASH>                                           3,853
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   82,366
<ALLOWANCES>                                    10,152
<INVENTORY>                                     23,647
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               116,144
<PP&E>                                          64,704
<DEPRECIATION>                                  11,894
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 388,139
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           77,028
<BONDS>                                        187,152
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           14,063
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           320
<OTHER-SE>                                      90,141
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   388,139
<SALES>                                        280,068
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               280,068
<CGS>                                          166,805
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  166,805
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   906
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               9,538
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (4,147)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (1,999)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (2,148)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (2,148)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
| (logo) WELLS            FARGO | Corporate Trust Services

 

MAC R1204-010 9062 Old Annapolis Road

Columbia, MD 21045

 

Tel:  410 884 2000

Fax: 410 715 2380 |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

 

 

J.P. Morgan Chase Commercial Mortgage Securities Corp.

383 Madison Avenue

31st Floor

New York, New York 10179

 

 

 

 

RE: Annual Statement of Compliance for J.P. Morgan Chase Commercial Mortgage Securities Trust 2013-C13 Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2013-C13

 

 

Per the Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of July 1, 2013 (the "Agreement" ), the undersigned, a duly authorized officer of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as Certificate Administrator (''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 Agreement has been made under such officer's supervision; and

 

(b) To the best of such officer's knowledge, based on such review, Wells Fargo has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period.

 

 

 

 

February 25, 2015

 

/s/  Brian Smith 

BRIAN SMITH 

Vice President

 

 

 

 

 

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
Page 1 of 1


EXHIBIT 35.1

ANNUAL SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT
OF THE SERVICERFOR THE YEAR ENDED OCTOBER 31, 2013

The undersigned, a duly authorized officer of The Bank of
Nova Scotia, as Servicer and Cash Manager under the Servicing Agreement and Cash Management Agreement, respectively, do hereby
certify that:

|1. |  | A review of the activities of the Servicer and Cash Manager during the period from
September 9, 2013 through October 31, 2013, and of its performance under the Servicing Agreement and Cash Management Agreement
was conducted under my supervision.
|-- |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|2. |  | To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer and Cash Manager have
fulfilled all of their obligations under the Servicing Agreement and Cash Management Agreement, respectively, in all material
respects throughout such period.
|-- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have duly executed this
Certificate on behalf of the Servicer this 29th day of January, 2014.



|By: | /s/ Jeffrey C. Heath                                                 
|--- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------
|    | Jeffrey C. Heath
        Executive Vice-President and Group Treasurer
<PAGE>


                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1


                                  CERTIFICATION
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
           AS ADOPTED BY SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

         I, Richard K. Crump, as President and Chief Executive Officer of
Sterling Chemicals, Inc. (the "Company"), certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my
knowledge:

         (1) the accompanying Form 10-Q report of the Company for the period
ending September 30, 2004, as filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission (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.

Dated:  November 8, 2004

                                        /s/ RICHARD K. CRUMP
                                        -------------------------------------
                                        Richard K. Crump,
                                        President and Chief Executive Officer
#### Maria Del Socorro LOPEZ-RIVERA, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY,* Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 06-74957.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 20, 2007 **.

Filed Dec. 28, 2007.

Sung U. Park, Esq., Law Offices of Sung U. Park, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.

CAS-District Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Diego, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, OIL, U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.

*

 Michael B. Mukasey is substituted for his predecessor, Alberto R. Gonzales, as Attorney General of the United States, pursuant to Fed. R.App. P. 43(c)(2).

**

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

MEMORANDUM ***

Maria Del Socorro Lopez-Rivera seeks review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals upholding an immigration *941judge’s (“U”) order denying her application for cancellation of removal. To the extent we have jurisdiction, it is pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo claims of constitutional violations in immigration proceedings, *see Ram v. INS,*243 F.3d 510, 516 (9th Cir.2001), and we dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.

We lack jurisdiction to review the IJ’s discretionary determination that Lopez-Rivera failed to show exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to a qualifying relative. *See Romero-Torres v. Ashcroft,*327 F.3d 887, 892 (9th Cir.2003).

Lopez-Rivera’s contention that the IJ violated her due process rights by disregarding her evidence of hardship does not amount to a colorable constitutional claim. *See Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales,*424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir.2005) (“[Traditional abuse of discretion challenges recast as alleged due process violations do not constitute colorable constitutional claims that would invoke our jurisdiction.”).

We are not persuaded that Lopez-Rivera’s removal results in the deprivation of her children’s rights. *See Cabrera-Alvarez v. Gonzales,*423 F.3d 1006, 1012-13 (9th Cir.2005).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.

***

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.
| (logo) WELLS FARGO | Commercial Mortgage Servicing

D1086-120, 12th Floor

550 South Tryon Street

Charlotte, NC 28202

1-800-326-1334 |
|--------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

Banc of America Merrill Lynch Commercial Mortgage Inc.

Bank of America Tower

One Bryant Park

New York, NY 10036

Attention: Leland F. Bunch

 

 

ANNUAL STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE

 

 

Reference is hereby made to that certain Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of October 1, 2013, by and among Morgan Stanley Capital I Inc., as Depositor, Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as Master Servicer, Certificate Administrator, Certifiate Registrar, Authenticating Agent and Custodian, Midland Loan Services, A Division of PNC Bank, National Association, as Special Servicer, Trimont Real Estate Advisors, Inc, as Trust Advisor and U.S. Bank National Association as Trustee, with respect to Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series 2013-C12 (the "Agreement"), as it relates to the Pari Passu portion of the Marriott Chicago River North Hotel loan that is in the Morgan Stanley Bank of America Merrill Lynch Trust 2013-C11. Capitalized terms used herein not otherwise defined shall have the meanings assigned in the Agreement.

 

Pursuant to Section 13.9 of the Agreement, I, Daniel Bober, Executive Vice President of Commercial Mortgage Services do hereby certify that:

 

1. A review of the activities of the Master Servicer during the period from January 1, 2015 through December 31, 2015 (the “Reporting Period”), and of its performance per the Agreement during such period has been made under my supervision, and

 

2. To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Master Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period.

 

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this Certificate as of the 4th day of March 2016.

 

 

/s/ Daniel Bober

Daniel Bober

Executive Vice President

Wells Fargo Bank

 

 

| Wells Fargo Bank, N.A | (logo) Together we’ll go far |
|-----------------------|------------------------------------|
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-6580

EDWARD JAMES EGAN, 

Petitioner - Appellant, 

v. 

HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections, 

Defendant - Appellee, 

and 

VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; STEVEN MCGRAW, Clerk; 

ROANOKE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, 

Defendants. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at 

Norfolk. Mark S. Davis, Chief District Judge. (2:17-cv-00439-MSD-RJK) 

Submitted: July 16, 2019 Decided: July 19, 2019

Before MOTZ, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. 

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Edward James Egan, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2

PER CURIAM: 

Edward James Egan, Sr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order adopting the

recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing as successive his 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2254 (2012) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues 

a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). 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) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the 

merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would 

find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. 

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 

336-38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner 

must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the 

petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 

484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Egan 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 this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process. 

DISMISSED