alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Kenneth Scott MORRISON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Teresa WAID, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 10-6421.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Jan. 12, 2011.

Decided: Feb. 8, 2011.

Kenneth Scott Morrison, Appellant Pro Se.

Before NIEMEYER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Kenneth Scott Morrison seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The order is not appeal-able unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). A certificate of ap-pealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). When the district court denies relief on the *602merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Morrison has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED.*
Exhibit 31

                          FORM OF CERTIFICATION TO BE
                            PROVIDED WITH FORM 10-K


     Re: BCAP LLC Trust 2007-AA2, issued pursuant to the Trust Agreement
         dated as of March 1, 2007, between BCAP LLC, as depositor,
         Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as custodian, and Deutsche Bank National
         Trust Company, as trustee.

I, Tom Hamilton, 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 BCAP LLC Trust 2007-AA2 (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 as of the last day of 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 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.

In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on
information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties:
Countrywide Home Loans Servicing LP, as servicer, Wells Fargo Bank,
National Association, as servicer and Deutsche Bank National Trust
Company, as trustee.


Date: 3/28/2008

/s/ Tom Hamilton
Tom Hamilton
President and
Chief Executive Office
(senior officer in charge of securitization of the depositor)
1The Honorable Scott O. Wright, United States District Judge for the Western

District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 00-1621

___________

Hosie Edward Roberts, Jr., *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court from the Western

* District of Missouri.

City of Columbia, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellee. *

___________

 Submitted: March 6, 2001

 Filed: March 9, 2001

___________

Before HANSEN, MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, and BYE, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Hosie Edward Roberts, Jr., appeals following the district court’s1 grant of

summary judgment to his employer, the City of Columbia, Missouri, in his action under

the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101-12213; the Family

Medical Leave Act (FMLA), 29 U.S.C. §§ 2601-2654; and the Missouri Human Rights

Act (MHRA), Mo. Rev. Stat. §§ 213.010-213.137 (Supp. 1998). After de novo

review, see Harvey v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc., 38 F.3d 968, 971 (8th Cir. 1994), we
-2-

agree--for the reasons stated by the district court in its thorough order--that

Mr. Roberts, a diabetic, failed to show (1) that he was disabled within the meaning of

the ADA, (2) that the City took adverse employment action against him on account of

his taking FMLA leave, or (3) that the City created a hostile working environment to

retaliate against him for complaining about the City’s allegedly discriminatory conduct.

Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
**EXHIBIT 23.1**

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-201808) pertaining to the 2011 Equity Incentive Plan, 2015 Equity Incentive Plan and 2015 Employee Stock Purchase Plan of TRACON Pharmaceuticals, Inc. of our report dated March 10, 2015, with respect to the financial statements of TRACON Pharmaceuticals, Inc. incorporated by reference in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2014.

 
|                  | /s/ Ernst & Young LLP |
|-----------------------|--------------------------------|
|                  |                           |
| San Diego, California |                           |
| March 10, 2015   |                           |

 

----
United States Court of Appeals

For the First Circuit

No. 10-1984

UNITED STATES,

Appellee,

v.

CARLOS RODRIGUEZ,

Defendant, Appellant.

ERRATA SHEET

The opinion of this Court issued on March 28, 2012, is amended

as follows:

On page 5, lines 2 and 3, change "48 Water Street" to "48

Warren Street".
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Robert Moore, Appellant.

[2 NYS3d 354]

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Megan Tallmer, J.), entered on or about July 23, 2013, which adjudicated defendant a level three sexually violent offender pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (Correction Law art 6-C), unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The record supports the court’s discretionary upward departure to level three. Initially, we note that, contrary to defendant’s assertion, the court did not actually assess any points other than the 100 points that were uncontested.

Clear and convincing evidence established aggravating factors that were not otherwise adequately taken into account by the risk assessment instrument *(see People v Gillotti,*23 NY3d 841, 861-862 [2014]). “[T]he level suggested by the [risk assessment instrument (RAI)] is merely presumptive and a SORA court possesses the discretion to impose a lower or higher risk level if it concludes that the factors in the RAI do not result in an appropriate designation” *(People v Mingo,*12 NY3d 563, 568 n 2 [2009]). The egregiousness of defendant’s conduct toward his 13-year-old daughter was an aggravating factor that was indicative of defendant’s inability to control his behavior and that was not adequately accounted for in the RAI *(see People v Mantilla,*70 AD3d 477, 478 [1st Dept 2010], *lv denied*15 NY3d 706 [2010]; *People v Ferrer,*35 AD3d 297 [1st Dept 2006], *lv denied*8 NY3d 807 [2007]).

*445Assuming, without deciding, that the state and federal standards for effective assistance of counsel at a criminal trial apply to this civil proceeding *(see People v Reid,*59 AD3d 158 [1st Dept 2009], *lv denied*12 NY3d 708 [2009]), we find that defendant received effective assistance *(see People v Benevento,*91 NY2d 708, 713-714 [1998]; *see Strickland v Washington,*466 US 668 [1984]). Defendant’s counsel made appropriate arguments at the hearing, and there was no basis upon which to seek a downward departure. In addition, there is no reasonable likelihood that additional steps by counsel, such as requesting an opportunity for further investigation, would have changed the result.

Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Sweeny, Moskowitz, Clark and Kapnick, JJ.
#### Robert L. DAVIS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Robert C. LEWIS, Director of Prisons, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 10-6980.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Jan. 18, 2011.

Decided: Jan. 26, 2011.

*705Robert L. Davis, Appellant Pro Se.

Before NIEMEYER, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Robert L. Davis seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion for a certificate of appealability in his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition and the magistrate judge’s order denying his motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. *See*28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). 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) (2006). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Davis has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny Davis’ motion to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. 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.

*DISMISSED.*
# In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 18

- 0495 V

Filed: April 23, 2019

UNPUBLISHED

BETH RAITE R

,

Petitioner,

v.

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND

HUMAN SERVICES,

Respondent. Special Processing Unit (SPU) ;

Rul ing on Entitlement; Concession;

Table Injury; Influenza (Flu) Vaccine;

Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine

Administration (SIRVA)

Howard Dale Mishkind, Mishkind Law Firm Co., L.P.A., Beachwood, Ohio , for petitioner.

Christine Mary Becer

, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT 1

Dorsey

, Chief Special Master:

On April 4, 2018

, petitioner filed a petition for compensation under the National

Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa

- 10, et seq

. , 2 (the “Vaccine

Act”). Petitioner alleges that she suffered the Table injury of shoulder injury related to

vaccine administration ( “ SIRVA ” ) after receiving an influenza vaccina tion on September

10, 2015 . Petit ion at ¶¶ 2

- 3

. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of

the Office of Special Masters.

On April 23, 2019

, respondent filed his Rule 4(c) report in which he concedes

that petitioner is entitled to compensa tion in this case. Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report

at 1. Specifically, respondent has “ concluded that petitioner ’ s claim meets the Table

1 The undersigned intends to post this ruling on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website. This

means the ruling will be available to anyone with access to the internet. In accordance with Vaccine

Rule 18(b), petitioner has 14 days to identify and move to redact medical or other information, the

disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasio n of privacy. If, upon review, the undersigned

agrees that the identified material fits within this definition, the undersigned will redact such material from

public access. Because this unpublished ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this

case, undersigned is required to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website in

accordance with the E

- Government Act of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (Federal Management

and Promotion of Electronic Government Services).

2 N ational Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99

- 660, 100 Stat. 3755

.criteria for SIRVA. ” Id. at 3 . Respondent further agrees that petitioner has satisfied all

legal prerequisites for compe nsation under the Vaccine Act

. Id. at 4.

In view of respondent’s position and the evidence of record, the

undersigned find s that petitioner is entitle d to compensation.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Nora Beth Dorsey

Nora Beth Dorsey

Chief Special Master
CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

*March 23, 2010*

[Cite as *03/23/2010 Case Announcements #3,*2010-Ohio-1167.]

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

2010-0488.

#### State ex rel. Hoag v. Lucas Cty. Bd. of Elections.

In Prohibition. This cause originated in this court on the filing of a complaint for a writ of prohibition involving an expedited election matter. Upon consideration of the Lucas County Republican Party and John Lavelle’s motion for leave to intervene as respondents,

It is ordered by the court that the motion is granted.

O’Connor and Lanzinger, JJ., not participating.
Exhibit 23.2

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to
the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements No. 333-02903, No. 333-04712, No. 333-87124, No. 333-102109, No. 333-125291, No. 333-134031, No. 333-143285, No. 333-151290 and No. 333-159501 on
Form S-8, of our report dated March 16, 2009 relating to the consolidated financial statements of West Marine, Inc. for the years ended January 3, 2009 appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of West Marine, Inc. for the year ended
January 1, 2011.



|                                        
|----------------------------------------
|/s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP               
|                                        
|San Francisco, California
March 14, 2011
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**





I,
      Leo
      Mentzelopoulos , Chief Executive and Financial Officer of Cavalier Holdings,
      Inc. (the “Company”), certify, that to the best of my knowledge, based upon a
      review of the annual report on Form 10-KSB for the transition period
      ending December 31, 2007 of
      the
      Company (the “Report”):





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 Company.





Date:
      April 14, 2008




/s/
                Leo
                MentzelopoulosLeo Mentzelopoulos
                Chief
                    Executive Officer, Director
EX-33.5
(logo) M&T Bank

1 Fountain Plaza, Buffalo, NY 14203
Lending Services Division



REPORT ON ASSESSMENT OF COMPLIANCE WITH
APPLICABLE REGULATION AB SERVICING CRITERIA



M&T Bank (the "Asserting Party") is responsible for assessing compliance as of
December 31, 2007 and for the period from January 1, 2007 through December 31,
2007 (the "Reporting Period") with the servicing criteria set forth in Title 17,
Section 229.1122(d) of the Code of Federal Regulations, excluding sections
1122(d)(1)(iii), 1122(d)(3)(i,ii,iii,iv), 1122(d)(4)(i,ii,iii,xi,xv), which the
Asserting Party has concluded are applicable to the servicing activities it
performs with respect to transactions covered by this report (the "Applicable
Servicing Criteria"). The transactions covered by this report include (i)
asset-backed securities transactions involving mortgage loans that were
registered after January 1, 2006 with the Securities and Exchange Commission
pursuant to the Securities Act of 1933, and (ii) mortgage loans where the
Asserting Party has (a) acquired servicing rights, or (b) originated and sold
mortgage loans and is contractually obligated to service the mortgage loans in
accordance with Regulation AB (the "Platform").

The Asserting Party has assessed its compliance with the Applicable Servicing
Criteria for the Reporting Period and has concluded that the Asserting Party has
complied, in all material respects, with the Applicable Servicing Criteria for
the Reporting Period with respect to the Platform taken as a whole.

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, an independent registered public accounting firm,
has issued an attestation report on the assessment of compliance with the
Applicable Servicing Criteria as of and for the Reporting Period ending December
31, 2007 as set forth in this assertion.

M&T Bank

By:

/s/ Michael J. Shryne
Michael J. Shryne
Senior Vice President


February 26, 2008
FIRST AMENDMENT TO
                         CONNECTICUT NATURAL GAS CORPORATION
                     UNION EMPLOYEE SAVINGS PLAN TRUST AGREEMENT



               This Amendment is made this 25th day of March, 1997 by and

          between Connecticut Natural Gas Corporation, a corporation

          organized under the laws of the State of Connecticut, having its

          principal office in Hartford, Connecticut (the "Company") and

          Putnam Fiduciary Trust Company, a Massachusetts trust company,

          having its principal office in Boston, Massachusetts (the

          "Trustee");



                                W I T N E S S E T H :

               WHEREAS, by Trust Agreement made as of January 1, 1993, the

          Company and the Trustee adopted the Connecticut Natural Gas

          Corporation Union Employee Savings Plan Trust Agreement (the

          "Trust Agreement"); and

               WHEREAS, the parties wish to amend the Trust Agreement in

          the particulars set forth below; and

               WHEREAS, the Company reserved the right to amend the Trust

          Agreement in Section 18 thereof; 

               NOW, THEREFORE, the Company and the Trustee hereby agree as

          follows:

               1.   In accordance with a certain Agreement and Plan of

          Exchange, the outstanding shares of Company stock will be

          exchanged for shares of the common stock of CTG Resources, Inc. 

          As of the effective date of such Agreement and Plan of Exchange,<PAGE>





          each share of Company stock will be exchanged for one share of

          common stock of CTG Resources, Inc.  Effective as of said date,

          any reference to "Company stock" in the Trust Agreement shall be

          deemed to refer to stock of CTG Resources, Inc.

               2.   Except as hereinabove modified and amended, the Trust

          Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.

               IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company and Trustee hereby execute

          this Amendment as of the day and year first above written.

          WITNESS:                      CONNECTICUT NATURAL GAS CORPORATION


          S/ R. L. Babcock                   S/ James P. Bolduc
          __________________________    By_________________________________
                                          Its


          WITNESS:                      PUTNAM FIDUCIARY TRUST COMPANY


          S/ Mary MacDonald                  S/ Genna R. Spear VP
          ___________________________   By________________________________
                                          Its























                                          2<PAGE>
#### UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, AND RAINHOLD HOLDING COMPANY, AND RAINTREE ASSOCIATES, PLAINTIFFS, v. TOWNSHIP OF FREEHOLD, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.

Superior Court of New Jersey Appellate Division

Submitted November 1, 1995

Decided November 16, 1995.

*676Before Judges MUIR, Jr., and LOFTUS.

*Faith S. Hochberg,*United States Attorney, attorney for appellants *(Loretta C. Argrett,*Assistant Attorney General, *Gary R. Allen, David English Carmack,*and *Linda E. Mosakowski,*of counsel; *Andrew O. Schiff,*Assistant U.S. Attorney, on the brief).

*Rosenblum Wolf & Lloyd,*attorneys for respondent *(Nathan P. Wolf,*on the brief).

PER CURIAM.

In this tax appeal brought by the owner-lessor and the United States Postal Service-lessee challenging the local real property tax assessments on lands of the owner, the Postal Service, without leave, appeals from a Tax Court order denying its motion for summary judgment. The Postal Service based the summary judgment motion on the claim that the assessed lands were immune from local taxation due to the nature of its long-term lease of those lands.

The appellate argument is as follows:

> Freehold Township’s property tax assessment against Rainhold improperly includes the value of a building wholly owned by an agency of the United States.

> A. Under the terms of the lease, the Postal Service owns the post office buiiding.

> B. The Township cannot include the value of the post office building in the property tax assessment against the landowner because the budding is owned by the United States and therefore is exempt from state taxation.

We affirm.

We note initially that the rules of court do not authorize the Appellate Division to entertain this appeal. Interlocutory orders are reviewable by this court only by leave granted. *R.*2:2-4. The Tax Court’s order denying motion for summary judgment *677was interlocutory. *See*Pressler, *Current N.J. Court Rules,*comment on *R.*2:2-4 (1995). We did not grant leave. The matter reached our doorstep based on the fact that the Postal Service filed a Notice of Appeal, *see R.*2:2-3, in which it represented all issues as to all parties were disposed of in the action. Yet, in its appellate brief, the Postal Office conceded underlying issues concerning the value of the land remained unresolved. Under such circumstances, the appeal should be dismissed as improperly filed.

Nonetheless, to avoid unnecessary further expense to all involved, we choose to review the appeal. That review satisfies us that the order under appeal should be affirmed for the reasons so comprehensively expressed by Judge Hamill in her opinion reported at 14 *N.J. Tax*266 (Tax 1994).

Affirmed.