alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of Daniela R. and Others, Children Alleged to be Abused. Daniel R., Appellant; Administration for Children’s Services, Respondent.

[988 NYS2d 185]

Orders of disposition, Family Court, New York County (Clark V Richardson, J.), entered on or about June 11, 2013, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, brings up for review a fact-finding determination that respondent father sexually abused his daughters Danieda R. and Daniela R., unanimously affirmed, without costs. Appeal from order of fact-finding, same court and Judge, entered on or about May 4, 2013, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as superceded by the appeal taken from the orders of disposition.

The finding that respondent sexually abused his two daughters was supported by a preponderance of the evidence, including the sworn testimony of the daughters *(see*Family Ct Act §§ 1012 [e] [iii]; 1046 [b] [i]; *Matter of Christina G. [Vladimir G.],*100 AD3d 454 [1st Dept 2012], *lv denied*20 NY3d 859 [2013]). There exists no basis to disturb the court’s credibility determinations *(see generally Matter of Irene O.,*38 NY2d 776 [1975]). Furthermore, the record shows that respondent presented no credible evidence to explain his conduct except to *638claim that he was never alone with his daughters. However, this testimony was contradicted by his own testimony and that of his wife *(see Matter of Elizabeth S. [Dona M.],*70 AD3d 453 [1st Dept 2010]).

The record also demonstrates by a preponderance of the evidence that respondent inappropriately touched his daughters for the purpose of gratifying his sexual desire. In this regard, the court properly drew a negative inference against him as to that issue, because gratification may be inferred from the totality of the circumstances and respondent failed to offer an innocent explanation for his actions *(see Matter of Jani Faith B. [Craig S.],*104 AD3d 508, 509 [1st Dept 2013]).

Concur—Mazzarelli, J.E, Acosta, Freedman, Richter and Clark, JJ.
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D18-941

_____________________________

STEVEN IVEY,

Appellant,

v.

RICHARD CORCORAN,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Leon County.

Charles W. Dodson, Judge.

August 30, 2019

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

RAY, C.J., BILBREY, J., and SHARRIT, MICHAEL S., ASSOCIATE 

JUDGE, concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

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

9.331.

_____________________________
2

Steven Ivey, pro se, Appellant.

Jason D. Borntreger, Office of the General Counsel, Florida 

Department of Education, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
Exhibit 32.1

 

**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 Viva International, Inc. (the“Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2006, as filedwith the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), theundersigned certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuantto Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of theundersigned’s knowledge, 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. 

 
| Dated: August 17, 2006 | By: | */s/ Rodolfo J. Dominguez* |
|------------------------|-----|----------------------------|

Rodolfo J. Dominguez, Chief Executive Officer

(Principal Executive Officer)

 
| Dated: August 17, 2006  | By: | */s/ Robert J. Scott* |
|------------------------------|-----|-----------------------|

Robert J. Scott, Chief Financial Officer

(Principal Financial Officer)
#### STATE OF CONNECTICUT *v.*GREGORY M. FIELDS

(AC 31968)

Robinson, Alvord and Pellegrino, Js.

Argued October 28

officially released November 15, 2011

Per Curiam.

The judgment is affirmed.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-2085

PAMELA NEG TINONG,

Petitioner,

versus

ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration

Appeals. (A96-094-252))

Submitted: April 27, 2005 Decided: May 19, 2005

Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Danielle Beach-Oswald, NOTO & OSWALD, P.C., Washington, D.C., for

Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, M.

Jocelyn Lopez Wright, Assistant Director, Larry P. Cote, UNITED

STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Pamela Neg Tinong (“Tinong”), a native and citizen of

Cameroon, petitions for review of an order of the Board of

Immigration Appeals (Board) affirming the immigration judge's (IJ)

denial of her application for asylum and withholding of removal.

Tinong challenges the IJ's finding that she failed to present

credible testimony and thus did not meet her burden of proof to

qualify for asylum.

To obtain reversal of a determination denying eligibility

for relief, an alien "must show that the evidence he presented was

so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could fail to find the

requisite fear of persecution." INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S.

478, 483-84 (1992). We have reviewed the evidence of record and

conclude that the IJ's negative credibility findings are supported

by specific, cogent reasons. Figeroa v. INS, 886 F.2d 76, 78 (4th

Cir. 1989). Accordingly, Tinong fails to show that the evidence

compels a contrary result. 

Finally, we lack jurisdiction over Tinong’s challenge to

the denial of her applications for withholding of removal and

protection under the Convention Against Torture because she failed

to properly exhaust these claims in her appeal to the Board. See

8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1) (2000); Asika v. Ashcroft, 362 F.3d 264, 267

n.3 (4th Cir. 2004), cert. denied, 125 S. Ct. 861 (2005). 
- 3 -

Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. 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. Respondent’s

motions to strike documents in the joint appendix and to file a

supplemental appendix are denied.

PETITION DENIED
. 

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENEPAL @F TEXAS 

AUSTIN 

Your lottat e? lt8y 

or tbir do-at on the qu 

nae$*rd. wo quote pmJr QUO 

at, tbo aouatr uat8 OS their rupeatiw aouatlu. 

lkattoar 1 W P 0f Art&ale S899b, u mmk4@d, VWIOII’D 

h0c4wa oml 8twt08, w 80 SO~RW 
Hon. Chad. H. Blaughteli, Page 2 

“beation 1. There shall be 8110~84 t0 a0mty 

_- - Judger, Clerkcs ol the Dlstrlot and Gouaty Courts, 

8herlSS8, County Tmeaumm, Tax Assessors and Colleotora, suoh books, l tationery, laoludiag blank bail 

bonda aad blank complainta, and off100 Sxwniture ae 

.msy be neoasaary Sor their offloes, to be paid for oa 

the order of the Com~%asionerr Cowt out of the County 

Treasury; 8nd sulteble oSSioes shall also be provided 

by the Comlealontws Court iolr said oiiloera at the 

l x p enrof a e the oouaty. Aad buch bo&s end stationery 

aa are neoesaorp in the perfonaanae OS their duties 

e-11 also be f’urnlahed Justloes oS the Peaoe by aeld 

fJommlealoners Court. Provided all pumhases herein 

must be approvad by Oommlsalonere Oowt, and must be 

made under the provlaions OS Aztlole 1659, Revised 

Oivll Statutes OS Tsar, 1925.. 

“Sea. 2. Sultablo ofSloes and etitionery and 

blanks neoeesary la the perSomanoe OS their duties 

m6y la the dleoretlon of the oommlesloaere Oourt e1e(P ,~ 

be Surnlehed to reeldent Metriot Judgee, resident 

Distrlot aud Couaty Attorneys, Douaty Super%atendeate 

aad Oounty durveyors, and may be poia Sor, on order 

OS the Ocmnlesloners Court out oi th0 00uaty Tr(w8Wy~” 

8eotloa (a) 0S Art1010 3899, VA,Q.b., pramldee that 

uoh oSSlo(lr aamed la the Aot uho la oompensated on a fee baeir 

“ehall make as part of the report nmr r~qulred by law, aa ltemired aad worn l tetem0at of all the &stun1 8ad aeoeaatmy mpea~~8 

laourrad by bin! la the oondu0t OS hia oSSio#, ewh 8s stationery, 

etmq~e tolo 

aoet ol ewe eh y bonda ror hi8 eputlee, premium oa fire, burglmy, 

mm, prmnlums 016 ofSio@Lls’ bonds, lmluding the 

theSt, ~obbsry lasuraaor pmtootlag pub110 Suads, trsveliI# 

l peaeee sad other neaese~ oxpea8ea,” the amount OS eu0h 

l p ea so u to b e p a l4 o ut o f the Tee8 ea r a by ed l u0h oifloer. 

This etattite dose not iutharlse or ~equiw~ the oomlel loaere court to pep the sxpsmsee meationed %a Your laqulry. 

Uader Elsotion 2 of Artiolo 3899b, as ammded, the 

oolmnieeionars oourt 1s not mquired to Sumleh l ult8ble OfSlaee, 

Suralture, atatlonery sad blaaks aeoeasa~y la the performsnco 

OS the duties OS tha oouaty attorney, but euah suttsrr are le$t 

eatirely vithia the dleoretloa of the oomaierlsnere 00wt* 

the aomnisaionare oourt her &gally ooatra0ted or mod to 

tunrSeh the o o ua ty attorney l eultablr Offi Oa d -t-n 

than the aourt vould be liable Sor suah.expeneea. Harovora where 

me o~esloners court he not oontraoted or med to sumieh 
lion. Ohas. HI &laughter, Pago 3 

a ruitable oiTloe.or Swnlture, *to., for the oounty *ttornepr 

arid aommleelonerr oourt would not be liable for ruoh experuoe. 

Trusting that the ioregolng aatlefaotorlly anevere 

four tiury8 ~43 we 

Yours very truly 

’ ATTOFUUY OHHHRAL 01, TR%A8 

BYde!&&Lu 

&dell WllUam 

Aee~etent 

MtPBP
Exhibit Number 32.1



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 Great Western Bancorporation, Inc. (Great Western) on Form 10-Q for the three month period ended September 30,
2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Deryl F. Hamann, Chief Executive Officer of Great Western, certify, 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 my 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 Great Western.
| | --- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| |  |                                                      
| |  | -----------------------------------------------------
| |  | /s/ Deryl F. Hamann                                  
| |  | Deryl F. Hamann, Chairman and Chief Executive
Officer



17
### IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS No. 10 - 23 - 00403 - CR TYRONE SHEPARD , Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

From the 272nd District Court Brazos County, Texas Trial Court No. 23 - 03774 - CR F - 272 MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant Tyron e Shepard appeals from the trial court’s ruling on a “Notice of Jurisdiction ” in his underlying criminal case. T he S tate has filed a motion to dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction, arguing that there is no appealable order. “Interlocutory appeals are generally not permitted in Texas criminal proceedings
. ” Leija v. State , 456 S.W.3d 157, 158 (Tex. Crim. App. 2015) (order) (per curiam) (quoting Ex parte Smith , 178 S.W.3d 797, 801 n.13 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (per curiam)) . Intermediate appellate courts have no jurisdiction to review interlocutory orders absent expressShepard v. State Page 2

authority. Apolinar v. State , 820 S.W.2d 7 92, 794 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We have found no grant of authority to review by interlocutory appeal the trial court’s ruling on a notice or plea to the jurisdiction in a criminal case. See Taylor v. State , No s . 05
- 18
- 00691
- CR , 05
- 18
- 00692
- CR, 05
- 18
- 006 93
- CR, 05
- 18
- 00694
- CR, 05
- 18
- 00695
- CR, 2018 WL 3215905, at *1 (Tex. App.
— Dallas July 2, 2018, pet. denied) (mem. op., not designated for publication); Stevens v. State , Nos. 03
- 15
- 00675
- CR, 03
- 15
- 00676
- CR, 2016 WL 286328, at *1 (Tex. App.
— Austin Jan. 22, 2 016, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication). Accordingly, w e grant the State’s Motion to Dismiss Appeal for Want of Jurisdiction, filed on December 13, 2023, and dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction.

MATT JOHNSON Just ice Before Chief Justice Gray, Justice Johnson , and Justice Smith Dismissed Opinion delivered and filed January 4, 2024 Do not publish [CR25]
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2915 

To prohibit United States contributions to the International Fund for Ireland. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 17, 2009 

Mr. CHAFFETZ introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Foreign Affairs 

A BILL 

To prohibit United States contributions to the International 

Fund for Ireland. 

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

3 SECTION 1. PROHIBITION ON UNITED STATES CONTRIBU4 TIONS TO THE INTERNATIONAL FUND FOR 

5 IRELAND. 

6 (a) PROHIBITION.—No funds appropriated or other7 wise available to any Federal department or agency may 

8 be obligated or expended to make United States contribu9 tions to the International Fund for Ireland. 

10 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The prohibition contained in 

11 subsection (a) shall apply with respect to funds approVerDate Nov 24 2008 06:37 Jun 18, 2009 Jkt 079200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H2915.IH H2915

smartinez on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
2 

•HR 2915 IH

1 priated or otherwise made available for fiscal year 2010 

2 and subsequent fiscal years. 

Æ 


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
EX-31 Rule 13a-14(d)/15d-14(d) Certifications

  I, Kristen Ann Cronin, certify that:

  1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K/A and all reports on Form 10-D
     required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report
     on Form 10-K/A of Nomura Home Equity Loan, Inc., Home Equity Loan Trust,
     Series 2006-HE1 (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
     servicers and based on my knowledge and the compliance reviews
     conducted in preparing the servicer compliance statements required in
     this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed
     in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicers have fulfilled
     their obligations under the servicing agreements 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/A.

     In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on
     information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties:
     Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC as Servicer.

     Dated:    May 27, 2008

     /s/ Kristen Ann Cronin
     Signature

     Vice President
     (senior officer in charge of the servicing function of the master
     servicer)
     Title
Exhibit 99.2

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned, Edwin Tharp, Chief Financial Officer of International
Dispensing Corporation, a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), hereby
certifies, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

     (1)  The Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the period
          ended September 30, 2002, which this certification accompanies, 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 as of and for the periods presented in the Report.

November 14,  2002                      /s/ Edwin Tharp
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        Edwin Tharp
                                        Chief Financial Officer
# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ No. 1 8- 18 28

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ Ru dy But ch Sta nk o, an d s im il arl y si tu at edtax pa y ers in Sh eri da n c ou nt y ; Neb ras kaBeef

Pack ers , Inc ., ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll lPla in ti

ff s - Ap pe ll an ts ,

v.
Bran di Bo ss el m an , in di vi du al ly andin he r of fic ia l capa ci ty as an off

ic er o f Bo ss el m anPu m

p & Pan try, Inc.; Sm ith, Ki ng , andSim m on s, P.C., n ow kno wn as Kin g, Si m

m on s an d C on n; Jamine S im m on s, i nd iv idua ll y

an d i n h er o ffi ci al cap aci ty as a co un ty atto rn ey an d a ls o a s a p riv at e la wy er an d o ffi cer o f th e Sm it h, Kin g, an d S imm on s l aw fi rm , kn a Kin g, Si m m on s an d C on n; Aaro n C on n, in di vi du al ly andin hi s o ffi ci al cap aci ty as a d ep ut y co un ty atto rn ey

an d a s a pr iv at e la wy er i n t he na m edlaw fi rm or o ffi ce; James McC av e, in di vi du al ly andin hi s o ffi ci al cap aci ty as a d ep ut y co un ty atto rn ey

an d a s a p riv at e la wy er i n the law of fic e o r fi rm

rep res en ti ng th e Town of Ha y Sp rin gs , etc .; St at e o f Neb ras ka , Sh eri da n C ou nty

Att orne y ’s Offic e & At to rn ey Gene ral ; Offi ce o f Sh eri da n Co un ty Comm is si on ers ; Lo ren Pau l, i nd iv idua ll y an d i n h is off

ic ia l capa ci ty as a Sh eri da n C ou nt y

co m m is si on er; Jac k An de rs on , in di vi du al ly andinhi s o ffi ci al cap aci ty as a Sh eri da n C ou nty co m m is si on er; James Kro tz , in di vi du al ly andin hi s of fic ia l capa ci ty as a Sh eri da n C ou nt y co m m is si on er; Cla y

Heath, i nd iv idua ll y

an d in hi s o ffi ci al cap aci ty as a p ol ic em anfor th e Ci ty of Gor do n,
ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll lDefe nd

an ts - App el le es
.

__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e Dis tri ctof Ne br as ka- Om ah a

__ __ __ __ __ __Subm it te d: Jan ua ry 23 , 20 19 Fi le d: Jan ua ry

31 , 20 19 [Unpubl is he d]

__ __ __ __ __ __ Befo re COLLOTON, SHEPHERD, andKOBES, Cir cu itJu dg es
.

__ __ __ __ __ __ PER CURI AM.

Ru dy St an ko an d Neb ras ka Bee f Pack ers , In c. ap p e al th e di st ric t co urt’s 1 di sm is sa l of thi s civ il rig ht s acti on un de r Fed eral Ru le s of Civ il Pro cedur e 1 2( b) (1 )

an d (b )(6 ). Hav in g care fu ll y rev ie wed th e reco rd an d th e pa rti es ’ subm is si on s on ap pe al , we co nc lu de th e di stri ct co urt pr op erl y di sm is se d St an ko ’s cl ai m s. W e fu rth er
co nc lu de th at Neb ras ka Bee f Pack ers , In c. is no t a pr op er pa rty to th is ap pe al , as it is

no t rep res en te d by co un se l, an d a co rp o r at io n m ay no t ap pe ar pr o se
. Se e Uni te d St at es v. Van St el to n , 98 8 F.2 d 70 , 70 (8 th Ci r. 19 93 ) (p er cu ria m ). Acco rd in gl y , we affi rm
. Se e 8t h C ir. R . 47 B.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

The Ho no rab le Jo se ph F. Bat ai ll on , Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e 1 Dis tri ctof Ne br as ka

. -2

-
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03
- 18
- 00725
- CV

Omar Weaver Rosales, Appellant

v. Commission for Lawyer Discipline, Appellee

FROM THE 201ST DISTR ICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY NO. D
- 1
- GN
- 18
- 002039 , THE HONORABLE BRAN DON BIRMINGH AM , JUDGE PRESIDING

C O N C U R R I N G O P I N I O N

For the reasons I expres sed in Rosales I , I cannot join the majority ’s reasoning that an enforcement proceeding against a lawyer under the Disciplinary Rules of Professional
Conduct is subject to t he Texas Citizen s Participation Act (TCPA). Comm ission for Lawyer
Disci pline v. Rosales , 577 S.W.3d 305, 319

- 22 (Tex. App.

— Austin 2019, pet

. deni ed) (Kelly, J., concurring)

. As I said in Rosales I , that opinion will encourage attor neys wh o fac e credible

ac cu sati o ns o f misconduct to file TCPA motions to further delay the di sciplinary process w hile they continu e their unrestricted practice of law in Te xas
. I d

. ( e xplaining three levels of review by Chief Disciplinary Counsel and Board of Disciplinary Appeal s befor e suit is filed in d istrict court). W h ile t h e Legislature a mend ed th e TCPA to expressly exe mpt these types of actions , ther e are discip linary actions pending , su ch as this one, unaffect ed by th is statutory change

. See
supra at n
. 1.2 I concur in the C ourt ’ s judgment , but not the majority ’ s reasoning

.

______________________________________ ____ Chari L. Kelly , Justic e Before Chief Justi c e Rose , Justices Kelly and Smith
F iled: April 22, 2020