alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19
- 4474

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. CALVIN LEE HORNE , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina , at New Bern

. Louise W. Flanagan , District Judge. ( 5:16

- cr - 00029

- FL

- 1 )

Submitted : January 21, 2020 Decided: January 23, 2020

Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and THACKER , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

. Mary Jude Darrow, LAW OFFICE OF MARY JUDE DARROW, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. Robert J. Higdon, Jr., United States Attorney, Jennifer P. May

- Parker, Assist ant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Calvin Lee Horne appeal s the district court’s decision to revoke his supervised release and impose a 15

- month sentence. Horne argues that the district court lacked sufficient evidence to conclude that he had committed felony larceny , a Grade B violation of his supervised release ter ms . While this appeal was pending, Horne was released from custody. “When a case or controversy ceases to exist

— either due to a change in the facts or the law

— the litigation is moot, and the court’s subject matter jurisdiction ceases to exist also.” Port er v. Clarke , 852 F.3d 358, 363 (4th Cir. 2017) (internal quotation marks omitted). “Because mootness is jurisdictional, we can and must consider it even if neither party has raised it.” United States v. Ketter , 908 F.3d 61, 65 (4th Cir. 2018). Horne ha s already served his sentence and faces no further term of supervised release ; thus , there is no longer a live controversy. Horne’s challenge to the revocation of his supervised release is therefore moot. See United States v. Hardy , 545 F.3d 280, 283

- 84 (4th Cir. 2008). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional proc ess. DISMISSED
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 44 (Tuesday, March 6, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 13516]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-5341]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. GP94-2-010]


Columbia Gas Transmission Corporation; Notice of Refund Report

February 28, 2001.
    Take notice that on February 19, 2001, Columbia Gas Transmission 
Corporation (Columbia) tendered for filing with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission (Commission) its Refund Report made to comply 
with the April 17, 1995 Settlement (Settlement) in Docket No. GP94-02, 
et al. as approved by the Commission on June 15, 1995 (Columbia Gas 
Transmission Corp., 71 FERC para. 61,337 (1995)).
    On January 22, 2001 Columbia states that it made refunds, as 
billing credits and with checks, in the amount of $308,341.85. The 
refunds represent deferred tax refunds received from Trailblazer 
Pipeline Company and Overthrust Pipeline Company. These refunds were 
made pursuant to Article VIII, Section E of the Settlement using the 
allocation percentages shown on Appendix G, Schedule 5 of the 
Settlement. The refunds include interest at the FERC rate, in 
accordance with the Code of Federal Regulations, Subpart F, Section 
154.501(d).
    Columbia states that copies of its filing have been mailed to all 
affected customers and state commissions.
    Any person desiring to protest said filing should file a protest 
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., 
Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Section 385.211 of the 
Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such protests must be filed on 
or before March 9, 2001. Protests will be considered by the Commission 
in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve 
to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Copies of this filing 
are on file with the Commission, and are available for public 
inspection in the Public Reference Room. This filing may be viewed on 
the web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 
for assistance). Comments and protests may be filed electronically via 
the internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the 
instructions on the Commission's web site at http://www.ferc.fed.us/efi/doorbell.htm.

David P. Boergers,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 01-5341 Filed 3-5-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
EX-31 Rule 13a-14(d)/15d-14(d) Certification.


  I, E. Todd Whittemore, 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 Lehman Mortgage Trust 2007-4 (the "Exchange Act periodic
    reports");

  2.Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a
    whole, do not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit
    to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in
    light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not
    misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

  3.Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and other
    information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period
    covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;

  4.I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the
    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.

    In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on
    information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties:
    Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as Custodian, IndyMac Bank, F.S.B.
    as Servicer, LaSalle Bank, National Association, as Custodian, Newport
    Management Corporation, as Sub-Contractor for Aurora Loan Services LLC,
    Newport Management Corporation, as Sub-Contractor for IndyMac Bank, F.S.B.,
    U.S., Bank National Association, as Custodian, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as
    Trustee and Paying Agent, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as Custodian and Westlake
    Settlement Services, LLC, as Sub-Contractor for Aurora Loan Services LLC.

    Dated:   March 26, 2008


    /s/ E. Todd Whittemore
    E. Todd Whittemore

    Executive Vice President
    (Senior Officer in charge of the servicing function of Aurora Loan
    Services LLC, in its capacity as master servicer)

   Aurora Loan Services LLC, as Master Servicer
2009-1371.

#### State v. Gibson.

Butler App. No. CA2009-01-007.
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h Marilyn Kell y Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathawa y Mary Beth Kell y Brian K. Zahra,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk June 28, 2011

p0620 

# Order

June 28, 2011

142527

KACHELI CLEANING, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant,

v SC: 142527 COA: 294265 Oakland CC: 2008-089874-CK PROJECT SMOOTH MICHIGAN, L.L.C., f/k/a AMERICAN LASER CENTERS, L.L.C., Defendant-Appellee.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application fo r leave to appeal the November 18, 2010 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the question presented s hould be reviewed by this Court.
EX-34.8
(logo) KPMG

KPMG LLP
1601 Market Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103-2499


Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

The Board of Members
Regulus Group LLC:


We have examined management's assessment for those customers that management has
informed us have requested confirmation of compliance, included in the
accompanying Report on Assessment of Compliance with Regulation AB Servicing
Criteria, that Regulus Group LLC complied with the servicing criteria set forth
in Item 1122(d)(2)(i) and 1122(d)(4)(iv) of the Securities and Exchange
Commission's Regulation AB for remittance processing services to those issuers
of asset backed securities and servicers of loan and/or receivables portfolios
that include pool assets for asset backed securities transactions (the Platform)
as of and for the year ended December 31, 2007. Regulus Group LLC has determined
that the remainder of the servicing criteria are not applicable to the
activities it performs with respect to the Platform as of and for the year ended
December 31, 2007. Management is responsible for the Company's compliance with
those servicing criteria. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on
management's assessment about the Company's compliance based on our examination.

Our examination was conducted in accordance with the standards of the Public
Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) and, accordingly, included
examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Company's compliance with the
servicing criteria specified above and performing such other procedures as we
considered necessary in the circumstances. Our examination included testing
selected asset-backed transactions and securities that comprise the Platform,
testing selected servicing activities related to the Platform, and determining
whether the Company processed those selected transactions and performed those
selected activities in compliance with the servicing criteria. Furthermore, our
procedures were limited to the selected transactions and servicing activities
performed by the Company during the period covered by this report. Our
procedures were not designed to determine whether errors may have occurred
either prior to or subsequent to our tests that may have affected the balances
or amounts calculated or reported by the Company during the period covered by
this report for the selected transactions or any other transactions. We believe
that our examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our
examination does not provide a legal determination on the Company's compliance
with the servicing criteria.

In our opinion, management's assessment that the Company complied with the
aforementioned servicing criteria as of and for the year ended December 31, 2007
is fairly stated, in all material respects.

/s/ KPMG LLP

February 12, 2008


KPMG LLP, a U.S. limited liability partnership, is the U.S.
member firm of KPMG International, a Swiss cooperative.
2009-1902.

#### State v. McDorman.

Auglaize App. No. 2-09-16. On motion for leave to file delayed appeal. Motion denied.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Tommy Lewis WALKER, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 06-12926

Non-Argument Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

April 6, 2007.

Gwendolyn L. Spivey, Randolph P. Murrell, Federal Defender Office, Tallahassee, FL, Robert A. Dennis, Jr., Federal Public Defender’s Office, Pensacola, FL for Defendant-Appellant.

Lennard B. Register, III, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Pensacola, FL, E. Bryan Wilson, Tallahassee, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Before TJOFLAT, DUBINA and HULL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Gwendolyn Spivey, Esq., appointed counsel for Tommy Lewis Walker, has filed a motion to withdraw on appeal supported by a brief prepared pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Our independent review of the entire record reveals counsels’ assessment of the relative merit of the appeal is correct. Independent examination of the entire record reveals no arguable issues of merit, therefore, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and Walker’s conviction and sentence are AFFIRMED.
### NUMBER 13

- 1 7
- 00 401

- C V



### COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI

- EDINBURG

TEXAS WINDSTORM INSU RANCE ASSOCIATION, BRUSH C OUNTY CLAIMS, LTD AND DAVI D GUTIERREZ , Appellant s ,

v.
DAVID JAMES AND SUE JAMES , Appellee s
.

On a ppeal from the 60th District Court of Jefferson County, Texas.



### ORDER OF ABATEMENT

Before Justices Contreras , Longoria, and Hinojosa Order Per Curiam

Currently before the Court is (1) an appellants’ brief filed by Texas Windstorm
Insurance Association, Brush Country Claims, Ltd., and David Gutierrez; (2) an appellees’
brief filed by David James and Sue James; and (3) a reply brief filed by appellants. Both2 appellants and appellees have requested oral argument. The Court notes that
appellants’ brief was filed before USAA Texas Lloyds Company v. Menchaca , 545 S.W.3d
479 (Tex. 2018) was issued. In light of the fact that briefs were filed before the final

iteration of Menchaca was issued, the Court invites supplemental briefing on what effect,
if any, Menchaca and its progeny, if any, have on the disposition of this appeal.
Appellants’ and Appellees’ initial supplemental briefs shall not exceed 4,500 word s and
appellants’ supplemental reply brief shall not exceed 2,400. The supplemental briefing
calendar shall commence on today’s date and be governed by rule 38.6 of the Texas
Rules of Appellate Procedure. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 38.6. The parties request fo r oral
argument is CARRIED WITH THE CASE . This case is ABATED pending completion of
the supplemental briefing at which time the case will be reinstated.

It is so ORDERED

. PER CURIAM

D elivered and filed th e 18 th day of July, 2018.
Document headings vary by document type but may contain
                    the following: the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document
the number of the CFR title and the number of each part
                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly
                      related to
the agency docket number / agency internal file number
the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in
                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory
                      Actions See the
                    Document Drafting Handbook
                    for more details.
 Department of Health and Human Services Food and Drug Administration 21 CFR Part 510
 AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
 ACTION: Final rule.
 SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is amending the animal drug regulations to reflect a change of sponsor's name and address for Moorman Manufacturing Co.
 DATES: This rule is effective March 8, 2001.
 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Norman J. Turner, Center for Veterinary Medicine (HFV-102), Food and Drug Administration, 7500 Standish Pl., Rockville, MD 20855, 301-827-0214.


SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Moorman Manufacturing Co., Quincy, IL 62301, has informed FDA of a change of name and address to MoorMan's, Inc., 1000 North 30th St., Quincy, IL 62305-3115. Accordingly, the agency is amending the regulations in 21 CFR 510.600(c)(1) and (c)(2) to reflect the changes. This rule does not meet the definition of “rule” in 5 U.S.C. 804(3)(A) because it is a rule of “particular applicability.” Therefore, it is not subject to the congressional review requirements in 5 U.S.C. 801-808. List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 510 Administrative practice and procedure
Animal drugs
Labeling
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements
 Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs and redelegated to the Center for Veterinary Medicine, 21 CFR part 510 is amended as follows: PART 510—NEW ANIMAL DRUGS
 1.The authority citation for 21 CFR part 510 continues to read as follows: Authority:
                        21 U.S.C. 321, 331, 351, 352, 353, 360b, 371, 379e. 2.Section 510.600 is amended in the table in paragraph (c)(1) by removing the entry for “Moorman Manufacturing Co.” and adding a new entry in alphabetical order and in the table in paragraph (c)(2) by revising the entry for “021930” to read as follows: § 510.600
  
 (c) * * * (1) * * * Firm name and address
Drug labeler code*         *         *         *         *         *         *MoorMan's, Inc., 1000 North 30th St., Quincy, IL 62305-3115
021930*         *         *         *         *         *         *
 (2) * * * Drug labeler code
Firm name and address*         *         *         *         *         *         *021930
MoorMan's, Inc., 1000 North 30th St., Quincy, IL 62305-3115*         *         *         *         *         *         *
 Dated: February 8, 2001. Claire M. Lathers, Director, Office of New Animal Drug Evaluation, Center for Veterinary Medicine.


[FR Doc. 01-5682 Filed 3-7-01; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4160-01-F
Exhibit 99


                            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 on Form 10-Q of Merrill Lynch Preferred
Capital Trust I (the "Trust") and Merrill Lynch  Preferred  Funding I, L.P. (the
"Partnership")  for the period ended September 27, 2002 as filed with the
Securitiesand Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  I,
John C. Stomber, Regular  Trustee of the Trust and Senior Vice President and
Treasurer of Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc., the General Partner of the Partnership,
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 the Trust
    and the Partnership.




                              MERRILL LYNCH PREFERRED CAPITAL TRUST I


                              By:  /s/ JOHN C. STOMBER
                                   ---------------------------------------------
                              Name:  John C. Stomber *
                              Title: Regular Trustee




                               MERRILL LYNCH PREFERRED FUNDING I, L.P.


                               By: MERRILL LYNCH & CO., INC., as General Partner



                               By:  /s/ JOHN C. STOMBER
                               --------------------------------------------
                               Name:  John C. Stomber *
                               Title: Senior Vice President and Treasurer


Dated: November 7, 2002
_______________________

*  John C. Stomber functions as the equivalent of the Chief Executive Officer
   and Chief Financial Officer of each of the Trust and the Partnership for
   purposes of Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.
#### The State of Ohio, Appellant, *v.*Goldsmith, Appellee.

[Cite as *State v. Goldsmith,*123 Ohio St.3d 162, 2009-Ohio-4906.]

(No. 2009-0001

Submitted August 11, 2009

Decided September 22, 2009.)

{¶ 1} The judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed on the authority of *State v. Harris,*122 Ohio St.3d 373, 2009-Ohio-3323, 911 N.E.2d 882.

Moyer, C.J., and Pfeifer, Lundberg Stratton, O’Connor, O’Donnell, Lanzinger, and Cupp, JJ., concur.

*163William D. Mason, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and Kristen L. Sobieski, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellant.

Antonio Goldsmith, pro se.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-6585

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

TONY DURANT HARDY,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Lacy H. Thornburg,

District Judge. (CR-00-9; CA-05-53-1)

Submitted: November 17, 2005 Decided: November 23, 2005

Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Tony Durant Hardy, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Richard Ascik, OFFICE

OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Asheville, North Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Tony Durant Hardy seeks to appeal the district court’s

order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion.

An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2255

proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate

of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of

appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the

denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000).

A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable

jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of his

constitutional claims is debatable and that any dispositive

procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or

wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003); Slack

v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676,

683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and

conclude that Hardy 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