alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

December 3, 2015

No. 04-15-00500-CV

IN THE BEST INTEREST AND PROTECTION OF S.W.,

From the Probate Court No 1, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2015-MH-2596

Kelly Cross, Judge Presiding

No. 04-15-00505-CV

THE STATE OF TEXAS FOR THE BEST INTEREST AND PROTECTION OF S.W.

From the Probate Court No 1, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2015-MH-2544

Kelly Cross, Judge Presiding

ORDER

Appellee's motion for extension of time to file brief is hereby GRANTED. Time is 

extended to December 21, 2015.

_________________________________

Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 3rd day of December, 2015.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
#### Miguel A. Ruiz et al., Respondents, v 195 Property Associates et al., Appellants.

[666 NYS2d 409]

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Emily Goodman, J.), entered on or about June 21, 1996, which denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The court properly denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment since the submissions of plaintiff in opposition to the motion, including photographs of the alleged defective condition, his affidavit asserting that the photographs depicted the condition on the day of the accident and an affidavit from a professional engineer, indicating that the dangerous condition occurred over a long period of time and must have existed for *225at least several years prior to the accident, were sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether defendants had constructive notice of the alleged dangerous condition *(Gordon v American Museum of Natural History,*67 NY2d 836). Under the circumstances presented herein, the fact that the photographs were taken several years after the accident does not render them inadmissible to demonstrate such notice *(see, Taylor v New York City Tr. Auth.,*48 NY2d 903). Concur— Murphy, P. J., Nardelli, Williams and Colabella, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2000 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                          80,077
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   27,238
<ALLOWANCES>                                    11,421
<INVENTORY>                                      3,969
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               109,009
<PP&E>                                         655,703
<DEPRECIATION>                                 126,004
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,198,634
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          151,783
<BONDS>                                        989,146
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      55,495
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,198,634
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               773,492
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  573,566
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                66,237
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 3,676
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              72,630
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 62,038
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             62,038
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    62,038
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
**Exhibit 32.2**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C.SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF2002**

I, Harley L. Rollins, III, certify pursuantto 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge,the Annual Report of eLandia International Inc. on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010, fully complies withthe requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Form10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of eLandia International Inc.

 

|                      |   |                               |
|---------------------------|--------|------------------------------------|
| Date: April 15, 2011 | By:    | /s/ Harley L. Rollins, III

  |
|                      |   | Harley L. Rollins, III             |
|                      |   | Chief Financial Officer            |

 

----
EX-35 (a)
(logo) GMAC Mortgage

SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT (Item 1123)

GMAC Mortgage, LLC

DBALTO6AR1



The undersigned, a duly authorized officer of GMAC Mortgage, LLC, as servicer
(the "Servicer") pursuant to the applicable servicing agreement, does hereby
certify that:

1. A review of the Servicer's activities during the period covered by the
Issuing Entity's report on Form 10-K and of the Servicer's performance under the
applicable servicing agreement has been made under my supervision.

2. To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled
all of its obligations under the applicable servicing agreement in all material
respects throughout such period.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has duly executed this Certificate this 6th
day of March 2007.



By: /s/ Anthony N. Renzi
Name: Anthony N. Renzi
Title: Executive Vice President



GMAC Mortgage, LLC
500 Enterprise Road
Horsham, PA 19044

www.gmacmortgage.com
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 Annual Report of Life Exchange, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ending June 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, David Dorr, Chief Executive Officer and acting Chief Financial Officer
of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





1.
The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





2.
The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.








/s/ David Dorr  David Dorr


CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER


ACTING CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 204 (Tuesday, October 24, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 49132]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-23054]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-1042; FRL-9970-08-OAR]
RIN 2060-AT58


National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Wool 
Fiberglass Manufacturing; Flame Attenuation Lines

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Withdrawal of direct final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: Because the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) received 
adverse comment, we are withdrawing the direct final rule for the 
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Wool 
Fiberglass Manufacturing; Flame Attenuation Lines, published on July 
27, 2017.

DATES: Effective October 24, 2017, the EPA withdraws the direct final 
rule published at 82 FR 34858, on July 27, 2017.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions about this action, 
contact Mr. Brian Storey, Sector Policies and Programs Division (D243-
04), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; 
telephone number: (919) 541-1103; fax number: (919) 541-4991; and email 
address: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#87f4f3e8f5e2fea9e5f5eee6e9c7e2f7e6a9e0e8f1"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="f88b8c978a9d81d69a8a919996b89d8899d69f978e">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On July 27, 2017, the EPA published a direct 
final rule (82 FR 34858) and parallel proposal (82 FR 34910) to amend 
the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Wool 
Fiberglass Manufacturing to provide affected sources a 1-year extension 
to comply with the emission limits for flame attenuation lines. We 
stated in that direct final rule that if we received adverse comment by 
August 28, 2017, the direct final rule would not take effect and we 
would publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register. We 
subsequently received adverse comment on that direct final rule and are 
withdrawing it. We will address those comments in any subsequent final 
action, which will be based on the parallel proposed rule also 
published on July 27, 2017. As stated in the direct final rule and 
parallel proposed rule, we will not institute a second comment period 
on this action.

    Dated: October 18, 2017.
E. Scott Pruitt,
Administrator.

0
Accordingly, the amendments to the rule published on July 27, 2017 (82 
FR 34858), are withdrawn as of October 24, 2017.

[FR Doc. 2017-23054 Filed 10-23-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Anthony Spagnola, Appellant.

[667 NYS2d 264]

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Orange County (Berry, J.), rendered June 4, 1996, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived his right to appeal his conviction and sentence as part of his negotiated plea of guilty *(see, People v Callahan,*80 NY2d 273). Thus, the defendant is precluded from claiming, *inter alia,*that tbe sentence imposed by the court was excessive *(see, People v Callahan, supra; People v Hayes,*229 AD2d 596; *People v Kazepis,*101 AD2d 816). Bracken, J. P., Pizzuto, Altman, Krausman and Lerner, JJ., concur.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Angel Nieves, Appellant.

[665 NYS2d 873]

—Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (William Donnino, J.), rendered on or about March 25, 1996, unanimously affirmed.

Application by appellant’s counsel to withdraw as counsel is granted. *(See, Anders v California,*386 US 738; *People v Saunders,*52 AD2d 833.) We have reviewed this record and agree with appellant’s assigned counsel that there are no nonfiivolous points which could be raised on this appeal.

Pursuant to CPL 460.20, defendant has the right to apply for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals by making application to the Chief Judge of that Court and by submitting such application to the Clerk of that Court or to a Justice of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of this Department on reasonable notice to the respondent within thirty (30) days after service of a copy of this order, with notice of entry.

Denial of the application for permission to appeal by the Judge or Justice first applied to is final and no new application may thereafter be made to any other Judge or Justice. Concur—Ellerin, J. P., Wallach, Williams, Andrias and Colabella, JJ.
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 202 (Friday, October 20, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 48809-48810]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-22835]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission


Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural 
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP18-28-000.
    Applicants: Northwest Pipeline LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Entitlement and OFO Filing to 
be effective 11/10/2017.
    Filed Date: 10/11/17.
    Accession Number: 20171011-5112.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/23/17.

    Docket Numbers: RP18-29-000.
    Applicants: Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company.
    Description: Compliance filing 2017 Penalty Revenue Sharing Report.
    Filed Date: 10/12/17.
    Accession Number: 20171012-5077.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/24/17.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by 
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above 
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the 
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be 
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the 
proceeding.

[[Page 48810]]

    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing 
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying 
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call (866) 208-3676 
(toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: October 12, 2017.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-22835 Filed 10-19-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
**Exhibit
      23**




**CONSENT
      OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**







The
      Board
      of Directors


Cascade
      Financial Corporation





We
      consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement (No.
      33-94456) dated July 10, 1995 on Form S-8 and in the registration
      statements (No. 333-32272 and No. 333-97929) on Form S-8 of Cascade Financial
      Corporation of our report dated March 14, 2007, relating to the consolidated
      balance sheet of Cascade Financial Corporation and subsidiaries as of December
      31, 2006 and 2005 and the related consolidated statements of income,
      stockholders’ equity and comprehensive income, and cash flows for each of the
      three years ended December 31, 2006, and in our same report, with respect
      to Cascade Financial Corporation management's assessment of the effectiveness
      of
      internal control over financial reporting and the effectiveness of internal
      control over financial reporting, which report is included in this annual report
      on Form 10-K of Cascade Financial Corporation for the year ended December 31,
      2006.





/s/
      Moss Adams LLP


**Everett,
      Washington**


**March
      14, 2007**
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Thomas H. Shannon, Appellant.

[667 NYS2d 262]

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Rockland County (Meehan, J.), rendered September 12, 1996, convicting him of driving while intoxicated, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s knowing and voluntary plea of guilty operates as a forfeiture of his right to challenge the statutory right to a speedy trial *(see, People v Gerber,*182 AD2d 252).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Rosenblatt, J. P., Miller, Copertino and Goldstein, JJ., concur.
## In The Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

No. 07 - 16 - 00346 - CR ROBERT LEE HAIRE, JR ., APPELLANT

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE On Appeal from the 181st District Court Randall County, Texas Trial Court No. 26,161 - B, Honorable John B. Board, Presiding



### November 2 , 2016 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and PIRTLE, JJ. Pending before the Court is the motion of appellant Robert Lee Haire, Jr. to dismiss his appeal. Appellant and his attorney have both signed the motion. T EX . R. A PP . P. 42.2(a). No decision of this Court having been delivered to date, we grant the motion. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. No motion for rehearing will be entertained and our mandate will issue forthwith. James T. Campbell Justice Do not publish.
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 annual report of Super Luck, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended November 30, 2009 (the "Report"), I, Wilson Cheung, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: 1) The Report fully complies with the requirement 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 Company's financial position and results of operations. /s/Wilson CheungWilson Cheung, Chief Executive Officer Date: April 14, 2010
#### In the Matter of Jesse Hughes, Petitioner, v New York State Police and Firemen’s Retirement Systems et al., Respondents.

[666 NYS2d 794]

—Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Albany County) to review a determination of respondent Comptroller which denied petitioner’s application for ordinary disability retirement benefits.

Substantial evidence supports the determination which disapproved the application of petitioner, a former police officer, for ordinary retirement disability benefits because he was not permanently incapacitated from performing his duties. Although the record contains a 1980 medical report which concluded that petitioner suffered from a personality disorder which rendered him mentally impaired to perform the duties of a police officer, petitioner failed to proffer any medical evidence attesting to this disability contemporaneous with his *9471991 application for retirement benefits. Nevertheless, the record contains the 1993 medical report of the psychiatrist who examined petitioner on behalf of the State Retirement System and who was unable to establish a diagnosis and concluded that petitioner was not permanently physically or mentally incapacitated for the performance of his duties as a police officer. Under the circumstances, we find that substantial evidence supports the finding that petitioner failed to sustain his burden of establishing his entitlement to ordinary disability retirement benefits and, accordingly, confirm the denial of his application (see, *Matter of Delson v Regan,*190 AD2d 984, 985).

Mikoll, J. P., Mercure, Crew III, White and Carpinello, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                     Exhibit 23




                       CONSENT OF KPMG PEAT MARWICK LLP




The  Board of Directors
Florsheim Group Inc.:

We consent to the use of our report dated February 6, 1998, on the consolidated
balance sheets of Florsheim Group Inc. and subsidiaries as of January 3, 1998
and December 28, 1996, the related consolidated statements of operations, cash
flows, and shareholders' equity for the years ended January 3, 1998, December
28, 1996, and December 30, 1995 and related financial statement schedule, in
the January 3, 1998 annual report on Form 10-K of Florsheim Group Inc.








KPMG Peat Marwick LLP
Chicago, Illinois
March 31, 1998








                                      68
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JOSE OZUNA ALEMAN, 

Petitioner, 

 v. 

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney 

General, 

Respondent.

No. 15-73185 

Agency No. A088-712-470 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted April 11, 2022**

Before: McKEOWN, CHRISTEN, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.

Jose Ozuna Aleman, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for 

review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an 

immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of 

removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Our 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

APR 27 2022

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 15-73185 

jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence 

the agency’s factual findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th 

Cir. 2006). We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.

In his opening brief, Ozuna Aleman does not raise, and therefore waives, 

any challenge to the agency’s dispositive determination that his asylum application 

was time-barred and that no exception to the time limitation applied, and the 

dispositive determination that he failed to establish nexus to a protected ground in 

order to establish eligibility for withholding of removal. See Lopez-Vasquez v. 

Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079-80 (9th Cir. 2013) (issues not specifically raised and 

argued in a party’s opening brief are waived). To the extent Ozuna Aleman raises 

a political opinion claim and a particular social group claim for the first time in his 

opening brief, we lack jurisdiction to consider these contentions because he did not 

raise them to the agency. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 

2004) (court lacks jurisdiction to review issues or claims not presented below).

Thus, Ozuna Aleman’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. 

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because 

Ozuna Aleman failed to show it is more likely than not he would be tortured by or 

with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Mexico. See 

Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009). 

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v James Sheffield, Appellant.

[987 NYS2d 238]

Application by the appellant for a writ of error coram nobis to vacate, on the ground of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, a decision and order of this Court dated March 31, 1986 *(People v Sheffield,*118 AD2d 882 [1986]), affirming a judgment of the Supreme Court, Rockland County, rendered March 24, 1983.

Ordered that the application is denied.

The appellant has failed to establish that he was denied the effective assistance of appellate counsel *(see Jones v Barnes,*463 US 745 [1983]; *People v Stultz,*2 NY3d 277 [2004]).

Rivera, J.P, Balkin, Hall and Miller, JJ., concur.