alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of Aaron Hand, Petitioner, v Steward Roxanne Greene, as Hearing Officer, Respondent.

[989 NYS2d 151]

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Ulster County) to review a determination of the Commissioner of Corrections and Community Supervision which found petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule.

Petitioner, an inmate, was charged with various crimes related to having conspired from prison to murder a witness who had testified against him in relation to his underlying conviction. He ultimately pleaded guilty to conspiracy in the second degree, a felony. As a result, petitioner was found guilty after an April 12, 2012 tier III disciplinary hearing of violating the prison disciplinary rule that prohibits one from being convicted of a felony while incarcerated. He commenced a CPLR article 78 proceeding seeking annulment of the determination and expungement of same from his institutional record. Supreme Court agreed that he had been denied the right to call certain witnesses and annulled the determination, but remitted the matter for a new hearing. Insofar as petitioner did not receive all the relief that he requested, he appealed to this Court and we affirmed *(Matter of Hand v Gutwein,*113 AD3d 975 [2014], *lv denied*22 NY3d 866 [2014]).

At the conclusion of a new tier III disciplinary hearing on the charge, petitioner was found guilty and a penalty of 60 months in the special housing unit and a loss of privileges was imposed. The determination was affirmed on administrative appeal, with the penalty reduced to 36 months in the special housing unit. This CPLR article 78 proceeding ensued.*

We confirm. Petitioner’s contention that the requirements of *12467 NYCRR 251-2.2 (f) were not satisfied is without merit, as the record reflects that the review officer for the misbehavior report did not also act as the Hearing Officer *(see Matter of Murdough v Goord,*37 AD3d 915, 915-916 [2007]). Nor is there any support in the record for petitioner’s claims that the Hearing Officer was biased or that he was otherwise denied a fair hearing *(see Matter of Collins v Fischer,*109 AD3d 1040, 1040 [2013], *lv dismissed*23 NY3d 954 [2014]). The record does not sustain petitioner’s contention that his plea of guilty to the conspiracy charge was conditioned on a promise that no administrative penalty would be pursued. Finally, given the serious nature of the underlying criminal conduct, we do not find the penalty imposed to be excessive *(see Matter of Di Rose v New York State Dept. of Correction,*228 AD2d 868, 869 [1996]). Petitioner’s remaining claims have been considered and found to be without merit.

Stein, J.E, Garry, Egan Jr., Lynch and Clark, JJ., concur.

Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.

*

 Although the proceeding should not have been transferred inasmuch as the petition does not raise a question of substantial evidence, we nevertheless will retain jurisdiction and address the merits in the interest of judicial economy *(see Matter of Possert v Fischer,*106 AD3d 1350, 1350 n [2013]).
STRATS Trust For Procter & Gamble Securities, Series 2006-1 10-K

Exhibit
31.1



CERTIFICATION



I,
Barbara Garafalo, 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 STRATS Trust For Procter & Gamble Securities, Series 2006-1 (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.       Based
on my knowledge and 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 party: The
Bank of New York Mellon, as Trustee.



|Dated: March 30, 2022 | By:                                                       | /s/ Barbara Garafalo
|--------------------- | --------------------------------------------------------- | --------------------
|                      |                                                           | Barbara Garafalo    
|                      |                                                           | President           
|                      | (senior officer of depositor in charge of securitization)
#### Norma J. COLEMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. GOODWILL INDUSTRIES OF SOUTHEASTERN WISCONSIN, INC., Defendant-Appellee.

No. 11-1074.

United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

Submitted June 1, 2011.*

Decided June 2, 2011.

*643Norma Coleman, Milwaukee, WI, pro se.

Jason A. Kunschke, Michael Best & Friedrich, Milwaukee, WI, for Defendant-Appellee.

Before FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Chief Judge, ILANA DIAMOND ROVNER, Circuit Judge and JOHN DANIEL TINDER, Circuit Judge.

*

 After examining the briefs and the record, we have concluded that oral argument is unnecessary. Thus, the appeal is submitted on the briefs and the record. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2)(C).

ORDER

Norma Coleman, proceeding pro se, sued Goodwill Industries of Southeastern Wisconsin under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, alleging that she was fired because of her sex. Following discovery Goodwill moved for summary judgment, which Coleman opposed with supporting affidavits. But Coleman did not submit a proper response to Goodwill’s proposed findings of fact as required by the Eastern District of Wisconsin’s Civil Local Rule 56(b)(2)(B); specifically, she failed to submit a paragraph-by-paragraph response to Goodwill’s proposed facts with citations to the record. As a result the district court deemed admitted Goodwill’s proposed findings of fact. *See*Civ. L.R. 56(b)(2), (4) (E.D.Wis.2010); *see Fed. Trade Comm’n v. Bay Area Bus. Council, Inc.,*423 F.3d 627, 633-34 (7th Cir.2005). Based on these facts, the district court concluded that Coleman failed to establish a prima facie case of sex discrimination and also concluded that Coleman had admitted (and thus could not challenge as pretextual) Goodwill’s proffered reasons for firing her — insubordination for calling a supervisor a liar.

On appeal, Coleman insists that the memoranda she filed in opposition to summary judgment should be construed as complying with Civil Local Rule 56 because they were submitted with several affidavits in support of her contrary view of the facts. Though courts are solicitous of pro se litigants, they may nonetheless require strict compliance with local rules, *see, e.g., McNeil v. United States,*508 U.S. 106, 113 S.Ct. 1980, 124 L.Ed.2d 21 (1993); *Cady v. Sheahan,*467 F.3d 1057, 1061 (7th Cir.2006). Goodwill, as required by both this court and the local rules, included a copy of the relevant rules in its motion for summary judgment and warned Coleman that noncompliance could lead to the admission of its version of the facts. *See*Civ. L.R. 56(a)(1)(B) (E.D.Wis.2010); *Timms v. Frank,*953 F.2d 281, 285 (7th Cir.1992). We cannot conclude that the district court’s decision to adhere strictly to the local rules — and require Coleman to contest Goodwill’s proposed facts in the manner set forth by the local rule — was an abuse of discretion. *Schmidt v. Eagle Waste & Recycling, Inc.,*599 F.3d 626, 630-31 (7th Cir.2010).

AFFIRMED.
EXHIBIT 35.1
                  SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT (ITEM 1123)
                        RESIDENTIAL FUNDING COMPANY, LLC
              RFMSI SERIES 2006-S3 TRUST (THE "ISSUING ENTITY")

The undersigned,  a duly authorized officer of Residential Funding Company, LLC,
as servicer  (the  "Servicer")  pursuant to the Series  Supplement,  dated as of
March 1, 2006, and the Standard Terms of Pooling and Servicing Agreement,  dated
as of January 1, 2006 (as amended  from time to time,  the  "Agreement"),  among
Residential Funding Mortgage Securities I, Inc., as company, Residential Funding
Company, LLC (formerly Residential Funding Corporation), as master servicer, and
U.S. Bank National Association, as trustee, 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 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  Agreement  in all  material
     respects throughout such period.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has duly executed this Certificate this 26th
day of March 2007.

By:  /s/ Anthony N. Renzi
    Name:  Anthony N. Renzi
    Title:    Managing Director
Exhibit 32









CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE

SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the Quarterly Report of Luna Medical Technologies, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I Cameron King, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §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 this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.









/s/ Cameron King



Cameron King

Chief Executive Officer

September 29, 2003



























In connection with the Quarterly Report of Luna Medical Technologies, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I Gord McDougall, Acting Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §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 this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.









/s/ Gord McDougall



Gord McDougall

Acting Chief Financial Officer

September 29, 2003
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, each of the undersigned officers of Quest Oil Corp. (the Company), certifies that:

1.

The Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the quarter ended June 30, 2005 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and

2.

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









|By:   | /S/
Joseph Wallen
Joseph Wallen

Chief Financial Officer
|----- | --------------------------------------------------------
|Date: | August 19, 2005                                         



This certification is made solely for the purpose of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, subject to the knowledge standard contained therein, and not for any other purpose.
Exhibit 32.2



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 on Form 10-KSB ("Form 10-KSB") of Intervia, Inc.  (the "Company") for the annual period ended January 31, 2007 as filed with

the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Glenn Morimoto, 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 Form 10-KSB 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 Form 10-KSB fairly presents, in all

material respects, the financial condition and results of operations

of the Company.



/s/ Glenn Morimoto

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

Glenn Morimoto

Chief Financial Officer

May 17, 2007
Table of Contents

Exhibit 13.5 

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

In connection with the Annual Report of TAM Capital Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2008, as filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,David Barioni Neto, Chief Executive Officer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the U.S. Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge: 

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

     (ii) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. 

Date: June 30, 2009 

By: /s/ David Barioni NetoDavid Barioni Neto Chief Executive Officer 

129 

----
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

JOHN RASPATELLO,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 56 WAL 2018

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 11th day of January, 2019

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

. The Counsel’s Second Petition for Leave to Withdraw Appearance is

GRANTED.
#### In re Merle Richard SCHMIDT, Petitioner.

No. 2014-101.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

Dec. 12, 2013.

Merle Richard Schmidt, General Delivery Deep River Post Office, River, IA, for Petitioner.

Director, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, Gregory Daniel Page, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for United States.

*1004Before RADER, Chief Judge, LOURIE and TARANTO, Circuit Judges.

ORDER

ON PETITION

PER CURIAM.

Merle Richard Schmidt petitions for a writ of mandamus to compel the United States Court of Federal Claims to enter declaratory judgment. We consider whether Schmidt’s petition should be construed as a notice of appeal.

Schmidt filed a complaint in the Court of Federal Claims seeking a declaratory judgment that he is the owner of a plot of land in Iowa. On June 28, 2013, the Court of Federal Claims entered judgment dismissing Schmidt’s complaint for lack of jurisdiction. Schmidt then requested the Court of Federal Claims to vacate the order dismissing his complaint. On August 15, 2013, the Court of Federal Claims denied that motion. On October 15, 2013, Schmidt filed this writ of mandamus, asking for the same relief he sought in the Court of Federal Claims and arguing the merits of his appeal.

In order to appeal a judgment of the United States Court of Federal Claims, the party seeking appeal must file notice that sets forth (1) the name of each party to the proceeding, (2) the judgment, order, or part, thereof being appealed, and (3) the name of the court to which the appeal is taken. Fed. R.App. P. 3(c). Schmidt’s petition meets these requirements. In addition, his petition is timely if treated as a notice of appeal. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(1)(B).

We conclude that the petition should be construed as a timely notice of appeal, and thus mandamus relief is not appropriate. *See Mallard v. U.S. Dist. Court for the Southern Dist. of Iowa,*490 U.S. 296, 309, 109 S.Ct. 1814, 104 L.Ed.2d 318 (1989) (holding that a party seeking a writ bears the burden of proving that it has no other means of attaining the relief, such as by appeal); *Bankers Life & Casualty Co. v. Holland,*346 U.S. 379, 383, 74 S.Ct. 145, 98 L.Ed. 106 (1953) (stating “whatever may be done without the writ may not be done with it.”).

Accordingly,

It Is Ordered That:

The petition for writ of mandamus is denied because the matter is treated as a timely notice of appeal. The clerk is directed to docket the case as an appeal.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Felipe Alberto HOLGUIN-DURAN, also known as Felipe Holguin-Duran, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 10-40579

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

April 19, 2011.

James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Timothy William Crooks, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Houston, TX, for Defen-danf-Appellant.

Before JOLLY, OWEN, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Felipe Alberto Holguin-Du-ran has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *An-ders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and *United States v. Flores,*632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Holguin-Duran has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 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. R. 47.5.4.
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 206 (Thursday, October 26, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 49654]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-23343]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Indian Affairs

[189A2100DD/AAKC001030/A0A501010.999900 253G]


Indian Gaming; Tribal-State Class III Gaming Compact Taking 
Effect in the State of New Mexico

AGENCY: Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.

ACTION: Notice

-----------------------------------------------------------------------.


SUMMARY: The notice announces that the Tribal-State Class III Gaming 
Compact between the Pueblo of Pojoaque and State of New Mexico is 
taking effect.

DATES: This notice is applicable as of October 26, 2017.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Paula L. Hart, Director, Office of 
Indian Gaming, Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary--Policy and 
Economic Development, Washington, DC 20240, (202) 219-4066.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under section 11 of the Indian Gaming 
Regulatory Act (IGRA) Public Law 100-497, 25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq., the 
Secretary of the Interior shall publish in the Federal Register notice 
of approved Tribal-State compacts for the purpose of engaging in Class 
III gaming activities on Indian lands. As required by IGRA and 25 CFR 
293.4, all compacts are subject to review and approval by the 
Secretary. The Secretary took no action on the compact between the 
Pueblo of Pojoaque and the State of New Mexico within 45 days of its 
submission. Therefore, the Compact is considered to have been approved, 
but only to the extent the Compact is consistent with IGRA. See 25 
U.S.C. 2710(d)(8)(C).

    Dated: October 23, 2017.
 Gavin Clarkson,
Deputy Assistant Secretary, Policy and Economic Development--Indian 
Affairs.
[FR Doc. 2017-23343 Filed 10-25-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4337-15-P
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 23

                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

     We consent to the incorporation of our report dated March 18, 2003 with
respect to the consolidated balance sheets of Consolidated Water Co. Ltd. as of
December 31, 2002 and 2001, and the related consolidated statements of income,
stockholders' equity, and cash flows for each of the years in the three year
period ended December 31, 2002, and all related financial statement schedules,
which report appears in the December 31, 2002, annual report on Form 10-K of
Consolidated Water Co. Ltd.

/s/ KPMG Chartered Accountants

Cayman Islands
March 31, 2003
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 Ichargeit, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), each of the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby certifies 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 operation of iChargeit.





Dated:  April 16, 2007



/s/ James F. Carroll

Name: James F. Carroll

Title:  Chief Executive Officer







Dated:  April 16, 2007



/s/ James F. Carroll

Name: James F. Carroll

Title:  Chief Financial Officer