alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Samuel Benjamin KELLY, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 06-7587.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Nov. 15, 2006.

Decided: Nov. 27, 2006.

Samuel Benjamin Kelly, Appellant Pro Se. Laura P. Tayman, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before WIDENER, WILKINSON, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM.

Samuel Benjamin Kelly seeks to appeal the district court’s order treating his motion to reconsider the court’s denial of his Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) motion as a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion, and dismissing it on that basis. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000); *Reid v. Angelone,*369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th Cir.2004). 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). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Kelly has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.

Additionally, we construe Kelly’s notice of appeal and informal brief as an application to file a second or successive motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. *United States v. Winestock,*340 F.3d 200, 208 (4th Cir.2003). In order to obtain authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion, a prisoner must assert claims based on either: (1) a new rule of constitutional law, previously unavailable, made retroactive by the Supreme Court to cases on collateral review; or (2) newly discovered evidence, not previously discoverable by due diligence, that would be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that, but for constitutional error, no reasonable factfinder would have found the movant guilty of the offense. 28 U.S.C. §§ 2244(b)(2), 2255 (2000). Kelly’s claims do not satisfy either of these criteria. Therefore, we deny authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion.

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before *449the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED*
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAY-02-1998
<CASH>                                           34831
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                     9494
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     260960
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                318153
<PP&E>                                          145673
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  609490
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           288574
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           115
<OTHER-SE>                                    (310718)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    609490
<SALES>                                         283871
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                286644
<CGS>                                           204201
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   204201
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                103471
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                3625
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (24653)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (24653)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (24653)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (2.18)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (2.18)
        

</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 180 (Tuesday, September 19, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 43807]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-19878]



[[Page 43807]]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice: 10127]


U.S. Department of State Advisory Committee on Private 
International Law (ACPIL): Public Meeting in Advance of Meeting of 
United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) Working 
Group I, Micro, Small, and Medium-Sized Enterprises

    The Office of the Assistant Legal Adviser for Private International 
Law, Department of State, hereby gives notice that the Micro, Small, 
and Medium-Sized Enterprises (MSMEs) study group of the Advisory 
Committee on Private International Law (ACPIL) will hold a public 
meeting via teleconference to discuss the next session of the UNCITRAL 
Working Group I scheduled for October 16-20 in Vienna. This is not a 
meeting of the full Advisory Committee.
    UNCITRAL has established a working group aimed at reducing the 
legal obstacles faced by MSMEs throughout their life cycle, and in 
particular those in developing countries. UNCITRAL further directed 
that the work should start with a focus on the legal issues surrounding 
the simplification of registration and incorporation. At its upcoming 
session, the UNCITRAL Working Group I will consider a draft legislative 
guide on key principles of business registration (UN Doc. A/CN.9/WG.I/
WP.106) and an introductory paper prepared by the Secretariat entitled 
``Reducing the legal obstacles faced by MSMEs'' (UN Doc. A/CN.9/WG.I/
WP.107). The draft texts, along with the reports of earlier sessions of 
the Working Group will be available at http://www.uncitral.org/uncitral/en/commission/working_groups/1MSME.html.
    Time and Place: The meeting of the ACPIL MSME Study Group will take 
place on Thursday October 12, from 10 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. EDT via 
teleconference.
    Public Participation: Those planning to participate should email 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#46362f2a06353227322368212930"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="2050494c6053544154450e474f56">[email protected]</span></a> to obtain the call-in number.

Michael J. Dennis,
Attorney-Adviser, Office of Private International Law, Office of the 
Legal Adviser, Department of State.
[FR Doc. 2017-19878 Filed 9-18-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4710-08-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
(logo)  LNR

Partners, LLC

 

 

ANNUAL STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE

 

OF

 

LNR PARTNERS, LLC

 

 

The undersigned, Job Warshaw, being the President of LNR Partners, LLC (the "Special Servicer"), as special servicer under the applicable Pooling and Servicing Agreement for the transactions listed on Schedule I hereto, hereby certifies, subject to any limitations listed on Schedule I hereto, as of the date hereof, on behalf of the Special Servicer, solely in his capacity as an authorized officer of the Special Servicer and not in his individual capacity, as follows:

 

1. A review of the activities performed by the Special Servicer during the period commencing on January 1, 2015 and ending on December 31, 2015 (or any other shorter period set forth on Schedule I hereto) (the “Reporting Period"), and of the Special Servicer's performance under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement has been made under my supervision; and

 

2. To the best of my knowledge, based on such review and using the applicable servicing criteria under Item 1122 of Regulation AB, the Special Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the applicable Pooling and Servicing Agreement in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period.

 

 

LNR PARTNERS, LLC,

a Florida limited liability company

By: /s/ Job Warshaw

Job Warshaw

President

 

 

Dated: February 23, 2016

 

 

1601 Washington Avenue · Suite 700 · Miami Beach, Florida 33139-3164

Telephone: (305) 695-5600 · Fax: (305) 695-5601

 

 

Schedule I

 

 

GSMS 2013-GCJ14

GS Mortgage Securities Corporation II, Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2013-GCJ14

 

 

Dominion Bond Rating Service Limited 

333 West Wacker Drive, Suite 1800 

Attn: Commercial Mortgage Surveillance 

Chicago IL 60606

General Contact

 

GS Mortgage Securities Corporation II 

200 West Street

New York NY 10282 

Leah Nivison

 

Kroll Bond Rating Agency, Inc., 

845 Third Avnue, 4th Floor 

Attention: CMBS Surveillance 

New York NY 10022

General Contact

 

Moody's Investors Service, Inc. 

7 World Trade Center

250 Greenwich Street

Attn: Commercial Mortgage Surveillace Group 

New York NY 10007

General Contact

 

Pentalpha Surveillance LLC 

375 N. French Road, Suite 100

Amherst NY 14228 

Don Simon

 

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

9062 Old Annapolis Road 

ATTN: {pool name} 

Columbia MD 21045 1951 

Corporate Trust (CMBS)
Exhibit 32.1

Certification of Chief Executive 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 CM Finance Inc (the Registrant), as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Michael C. Mauer, the Chief Executive 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/    Michael C.
MauerName:

Michael C. MauerDate:

September 4, 2018
ex1023.htm


EXHIBIT 10.23


 



 


NOTE EXTENSION:


 


PPD PARTNERS hereby agrees to extend SEA TIGER, INC, 8% Convertible Debenture Due September 30, 2010 (4PPD) in the amount of $25,000 until September 30. 2011.
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 247 

To provide for the retention of the name of Mount McKinley. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 7, 2011 

Mr. RYAN of Ohio (for himself and Ms. SUTTON) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To provide for the retention of the name of Mount McKinley. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. RETENTION OF NAME OF MOUNT MCKINLEY. 

4 Notwithstanding any other authority of law, the 

5 mountain located 63 degrees 04 minutes 12 seconds north, 

6 by 151 degrees 00 minutes 18 seconds west shall continue 

7 to be named and referred to for all purposes as Mount 

8 McKinley. 

Æ 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with BILLS
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2446 

To clarify the treatment of homeowner warranties under current law, and 

for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 7, 2011 

Mrs. BIGGERT (for herself and Mr. CLAY) introduced the following bill; which 

was referred to the Committee on Financial Services 

A BILL 

To clarify the treatment of homeowner warranties under 

current law, and for other purposes. 

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 ‘‘RESPA Home War5 ranty Clarification Act of 2011’’. 

6 SEC. 2. TREATMENT OF HOMEOWNER WARRANTIES. 

7 Section 8 of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures 

8 Act of 1974 (12 U.S.C. 2607) is amended by adding at 

9 the end the following new subsection: 

10 ‘‘(e) HOMEOWNER WARRANTIES.— 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2446 IH

1 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Nothing in this section, 

2 section 2, or section 3 shall be deemed to include, 

3 or be deemed to have included, homeowner warran4 ties or similar residential service contracts for the 

5 repair or replacement of home system components or 

6 home appliances. 

7 ‘‘(2) NOTICE.—Any person that pays another 

8 person not employed by the person for selling, adver9 tising, marketing, or processing, or performing an 

10 inspection in connection with, a homeowner war11 ranty or similar residential service contract for the 

12 repair or replacement of home system components or 

13 home appliances shall include the following state14 ment, in boldface type that is 10-point or larger, in 

15 any such warranty or contract offered or sold as an 

16 incident to or as part of any transaction involving 

17 the origination of a federally related mortgage loan: 

18 ‘‘NOTICE: THIS COMPANY MAY PAY 

19 PERSONS NOT EMPLOYED BY THE COM20 PANY FOR SELLING, ADVERTISING, 

21 MARKETING, OR PROCESSING, OR PER22 FORMING AN INSPECTION IN CONNEC23 TION WITH, A HOMEOWNER WARRANTY 

24 OR SIMILAR RESIDENTIAL SERVICE 

25 CONTRACT FOR REPAIRING OR REVerDate Mar 15 2010 23:47 Jul 08, 2011 Jkt 099200 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H2446.IH H2446

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 2446 IH

1 PLACING HOME SYSTEM COMPONENTS 

2 OR HOME APPLIANCES.’’. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
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 State

          - [Public Notice: 10127]

      ( print page 43807)    
The Office of the Assistant Legal Adviser for Private International Law, Department of State, hereby gives notice that the Micro, Small, and Medium-Sized Enterprises (MSMEs) study group of the Advisory Committee on Private International Law (ACPIL) will hold a public meeting via teleconference to discuss the next session of the UNCITRAL Working Group I scheduled for October 16-20 in Vienna. This is not a meeting of the full Advisory Committee.

                    UNCITRAL has established a working group aimed at reducing the legal obstacles faced by MSMEs throughout their life cycle, and in particular those in developing countries. UNCITRAL further directed that the work should start with a focus on the legal issues surrounding the simplification of registration and incorporation. At its upcoming session, the UNCITRAL Working Group I will consider a draft legislative guide on key principles of business registration (UN Doc. A/CN.9/WG.I/WP.106) and an introductory paper prepared by the Secretariat entitled “Reducing the legal obstacles faced by MSMEs” (UN Doc. A/CN.9/WG.I/WP.107). The draft texts, along with the reports of earlier sessions of the Working Group will be available at                     *http://www.uncitral.org/​uncitral/​en/​commission/​working_​groups/​1MSME.html.*

*Time and Place:*                     The meeting of the ACPIL MSME Study Group will take place on Thursday October 12, from 10 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. EDT via teleconference.                

*Public Participation:*                     Those planning to participate should email                     *pil@state.gov*                     to obtain the call-in number.                

Michael J. Dennis,

Attorney-Adviser, Office of Private International Law, Office of the Legal Adviser, Department of State.

[FR Doc. 2017-19878 Filed 9-18-17; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 4710-08-P
In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06-19-00023-CV

JEFFERSON TRUCKING, LLC, TIMOTHY WAYNE JEFFERSON, 

AND ERIC WAYNE JEFFERSON, Appellants

V.

EDDIE MCPHERSON AND KAREN PEARSON, Appellees

On Appeal from the 115th District Court

Upshur County, Texas

Trial Court No. 16-00247

Before Morriss, C.J., Burgess and Stevens, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Burgess
2

MEMORANDUM OPINION

The appellants have filed a motion with this Court seeking to voluntarily dismiss this

appeal. Pursuant to Rule 42.1(a)(1) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, the motion is 

granted. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(1). Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal.

Ralph K. Burgess

Justice

Date Submitted: May 28, 2019

Date Decided: May 29, 2019
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

IN RE 

ALFREDO FLORES, 

RELATOR.

§

§

§

§

No. 08-15-00345-CV

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

ON PETITION FOR

WRIT OF MANDAMUS

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the Relator’s petition for writ of mandamus 

against the Honorable Eduardo Gamboa, Judge Presiding of the Probate Court No. 1 of El Paso 

County, Texas, and concludes Relator’s petition for writ of mandamus should be denied. We 

therefore deny the petition for writ of mandamus, in accordance with the opinion of this Court.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 9TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2015.

YVONNE T. RODRIGUEZ, Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, and Hughes, JJ.
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATION

I, Jason
Kulas, 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 Santander Drive Auto Receivables Trust 2013-4 (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.



/s/ Jason KulasName:

Jason KulasTitle:

President and Chief Financial OfficerDate:

March 23, 2015
# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

No. 20

- 10897 Summary Calendar

**United States of America,**

Plaintiff

— Appellee **,**

versus

**Michael Blaine Faulkner,**

Defendant

— Appellant

**.**

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:09

- CR

- 249

- 2

Before **Jolly, Ho**  **,** and **Engelhardt,** Circuit Judges

. **Per Curiam :**  *

Michael Blaine Faulkner, federal prisoner # 03829

- 078, appeals the
denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) motion for compassionate release. He contends that the district court erred by relying on U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13 , p.s., in denying his motion because § 1B1.13 does not apply to § 3582(c)(1)(A)

* Pursuant to **5th Cir**  **cuit R**  **ule** 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 cuit**  **R ule**  47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED July 12, 2021
Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 20-10897 Document: 00515934355 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/12/2021No. 20

- 10897

2 motions brought by prisoners. We do not consider Faulkner’s claim, raised for the first time on appeal, that the district court erred by declining to grant
him a transfer to home confinement under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act

. See Leverette v. Louisville Ladder Co. , 183 F.3d 339, 342 (5th Cir. 1999)

. We review the district court’s denial of Faulkner’s § 3582(c)(1)(A)
motion for an abuse of discretion. See United States v. Chambliss , 948 F.3d 691, 693 (5th Cir. 2020) . Faulkner must show that the district court “base[d] its decision on an error of law or a clearly erroneous assessment of the
evidence.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
Following the denial of Faulkner ’s motion, we held that a district court is not bound by § 1B1.13 in considering a § 3582(c)(1)(A) motion brought by a prisoner. See United States v. Shkambi , 993 F.3d 388, 392

- 93 (5th Cir. 2021). Because t he district court treat ed § 1B1.13 as binding a nd dispositive , it abused its discretion. See id. at 393; Chambliss , 948 F.3d at 693.
The denial of Faulkner’s § 3582(c)(1)(A) motion is **VACATED** , and
the case is **REMANDED** for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Case: 20-10897 Document: 00515934355 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/12/2021
EXHIBIT 99.2





SPEEDCOM Wireless Corporation


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





In connection with the Quarterly Report of
SPEEDCOM Wireless Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Mark Schaftlein, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.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 result of operations of the
Company.





/s/    MARK
SCHAFTLEINMark Schaftlein Chief
Financial Officer





August 8, 2002