alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### WALKER *et al. v.*HODGES *et al.*

The constitution of 1868 did not and that of 1877 does not contain any provision forbidding a head of a family to alienate his “reversionary interest” in a homestead set apart under the statutory provision now embraced in Civil Code, § 2866 et seep; nor was there of force either in December, 1879, or on December 8, 1877, any statutory provision making such alienation unlawful.

Argued June 7,

Decided July 22, 1901.

Levy and claim. Before Judge Evans. Washington superior court. September, 1900.

*Rawlings & Hardwick,*for plaintiffs. *Evans & Evans,*contra.

Cobb, J.

On December 8, 1877, a homestead was set apart to W. E. Hodges under the provisions of the Code of 1873, § 2040 et serp, now embraced in Civil Code, § 2866 et seep In December, 1879, Hodges attempted to convey by deed the reversionary interest in the land set apart as a homestead. Executions founded on judgments rendered in 1895 against Hodges were levied on the land, and claims were interposed by the vendees in the deed. The court directed a verdict in favor of the claimants, and the plaintiffs in execution excepted. The case was argued here on the assumption that the same rule as to the power of the head of a family to alienate the homestead property would apply to the homestead set apart under the statutory provisions above referred to as applied to what is known as the constitutional homestead; and we were asked *1043to decide whether the constitution of 1877 took effect immediately upon its ratification or not until after the proclamation of the Governor, so as to determine whether the homestead in question was .governed by the provisions of the constitution of 1868 or that of 1877. It has been held that the head of a family might 'convey the reversionary interest in a homestead set apart under the constitution of 1868 *(Huntress*v. *Anderson,*110 *Ga.*427); while this is an open question as regards the homestead provided for in the ■constitution of 1877. In so far as the homestead provided for in the Code of 1873, § 2040, now embraced in Civil Code, § 2866, is concerned, no restriction upon the power of the head of a family to alienate his reversionary interest was contained in the constitution of 1868, nor is any restriction now contained in the constitution of 1877. It will, therefore, be at once seen that, so far as this case is concerned, it is perfectly immaterial when the constitution of 1877 took effect. There was not, at the time the homestead was set apart to Hodges or at the time he made the deed to the reversion, any statute of force prohibiting such an alienation. This being so, he had a perfect right to make the deed, and the interest in the land thereby conveyed was not subject to an execution issued on a judgment against him rendered after the deed was made. There was no error in directing a verdict for the claimants. *Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concu/rring.*
#### Siranush KAMIKIAN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 08-70523.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Jan. 10, 2011.*

Filed Jan. 19, 2011.

Alan Aghabegian, Aghabegian & Associates, Glendale, CA, for Petitioner.

Julie M. Iversen, Trial, Mark Christopher Walters, Esquire, Assistant Director, OIL, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, District Counsel Phoenix, Esquire, Office of the District Director, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Phoenix, AZ, Ronald E. LeFevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.

Before BEEZER, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Siranush Kamikian, a native and citizen of Armenia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. “This court reviews factual determinations, including credibility determinations, for substantial evidence.” *Morgan v. Mukasey,*529 F.3d 1202, 1206 (9th Cir.2008). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that Kamikian testified inconsistently concerning how her employment ended, and whether Kamikian was fired or resigned voluntarily goes to the heart of her claim that she was persecuted on account of her whistle-blower status. *See Desta v. Ashcroft,*365 F.3d 741, 745 (9th Cir.2004). Kamikian also failed to corroborate her claim with material evidence that a reasonable trier of fact would not be compelled to conclude was unavailable. *See*8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(D); *Sidhu v. INS,*220 F.3d 1085, 1090 (9th Cir.2000) (“[I]f the trier of fact either does not believe the applicant or does not know what to believe, the applicant’s failure to corroborate his testimony can be fatal to his asylum application.”). Substantial evidence *59therefore supports the BIA’s determination that Kamikian did not satisfy her burden of proof for establishing eligibility for asylum. *See Chebchoub v. INS,*257 F.3d 1038, 1044-45 (9th Cir.2001). Accordingly, we deny the petition as to Kamikian’s asylum claim.

Because Kamikian failed to establish eligibility for asylum, she necessarily cannot demonstrate eligibility for withholding of removal. *See Farah v. Ashcroft,*348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir.2003).

Finally, because Kamikian’s CAT claim is based on the same evidence that the agency found not credible, and she points to no other evidence showing it is more likely than not she would be tortured if returned to Armenia, her CAT claim fails. *See id.*at 1156-57.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 02-50172

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

MARK ANTHONY DUNKLEY, also known as Pharaoh,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. EP-01-CR-418-3-DB

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

October 8, 2002

Before BARKSDALE, DeMOSS, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges

PER CURIAM:*

Mark Anthony Dunkley appeals the amended sentence imposed by

the district court for his guilty-plea conviction for conspiracy

to possess with intent to distribute 1000 kilograms or more of

marijuana. Dunkley argues that counsel was ineffective in that

he did not file a written objection to the Presentence Report,

arguing that two of the arrests listed were arrests of his

brother, and not Dunkley. Generally, claims of ineffective

assistance of trial counsel may not be litigated on direct appeal
No. 02-50172 

-2-

unless they were adequately raised in the district court. United

States v. Rivas, 157 F.3d 364, 369 (5th Cir. 1998). When such

claims are raised for the first time on direct appeal, this court

will address the claims only “‘in rare cases where the record

[allows the court] to evaluate fairly the merits of the claim.’” 

Rivas, 157 F.3d at 369; see also United States v. Higdon, 832

F.2d 312, 313-14 (5th Cir. 1987). Dunkley’s claim of ineffective

assistance of counsel was not adequately raised in the district

court. This is not one of those rare occasions where the record

is adequately developed for this court to review Dunkley’s claim. 

Dunkley may pursue these claims in a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion.

AFFIRMED.
### M A N D A T E

TO THE 186TH DISTRIC T COURT of BEXAR COUNTY, GREETI NGS:

Before our Court of Appeals for the Thirteenth District of Texas, on the 16th day of April,

2015 , the cause upon appeal to revise or reverse your judgment between

Aaron Lee Robert Flores, Appellant,

v.

The State of Texas Appellee.

CAUSE NO. 13

- 15

- 00148

- CR (Tr.Ct.No. 2014CR1271)

was determined; and therein our said Court made its order in these words:

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on

appeal, concludes the appeal should be dismissed. The Court orders the appeal

DISMISSED in accordance with its opinion

.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

April 16, 2015.



WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our sai d Court of Appeals for the Thirteenth District of Texas, in this behalf, and in all things have it duly recognized, obeyed and executed.

WITNESS, the Hon. Rogelio Valdez, Chief Justice of our Court of Appeals, with the seal thereof affixed, at the City of Edinburg, Texas this 26th day of May, 2015.

Dorian E. Ramirez, CLERK
# Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed April 21, 2021

. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________ No. 3D20

- 1199 Lower Tribunal No. 19

- 3012

________________ 

### Cliff O. Hanson , Appellant,

vs. 

### The Lofts Town Villas Condominium Association, Inc. , Appellee.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami

- Dade County, Jose M. Rodriguez , Judge. Cliff O. Hanson, in proper person

. Paul A. McKenna & Associates, P.A., and Andrew H. Braaksma , for appellee.

Before FERNANDEZ, LINDSEY and BOKOR , JJ. PER CURIAM

.2 Cliff O. Hanson appeals the entry of a final summary judgment of foreclosure, alleging, in pertinent part, a lack of notice of the summary judgment hearing. 1 The appeal appears to have substantive infirmities , such as the failure to put any evidence before the trial judge to counter the rebuttable presumption that appellant received notice of the complained

- of hearing

. World on Wheels, Inc. v. Int ’ l Auto Motors, Inc. , 569 So.2d 836, 837 n.1 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)

. However , we do not reach the merits of the appeal as we lack jurisdiction to hear untimely appeals

. Th e order on appeal was rendered on Monday, July 20, 2020 , giving appellant 30 days from that date to file a notice of appeal

. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.110(b) ("(b) Commencement. Jurisdiction of the court under this rule shall be invoked by filing a notice, ac companied by any filing fees prescribed by law, with the clerk of the lower tribunal within 30 days of rendition of the order to be reviewed . . . .")

. Thirty days from July 20 is Wednesday, August 19, 2020. As a result, the Notice of Appeal appears to
h ave been filed one day late on August 20, 2020. This is a jurisdictional defect that prevents consideration of the appeal. See Philip J. Padovano, 2

1 We note that the order granting summary judgment is not a final order. However, even if we were to overlook this or consider the notice of appeal curable due to the referenced (but not attached) “summary final judgment of foreclosure,” we cannot waive the jurisdictio nal defect of late filing of a notice of appeal

.3 Fla. Prac., Appellate Practice § 23:8 (2021 ed.) ("Because the notice of appeal is the document that invokes appellate jurisdiction, it is essential that the notice be filed within the jurisdictional time limit. When an untimely notice of appeal has been filed in a civil case, the appeal will be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.").
D ismissed

.
**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 Western Goldfields Inc., (the “Company”) on
      Form 10-KSB for the period ending December 31, 2007, as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Raymond
      Threlkeld, Principal 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 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 Western
                Goldfields Inc.




DATE:
      March 28, 2008





/s/ Raymond
                ThrelkeldRaymond
                ThrelkeldPrincipal
                Executive Officer




A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      to
      Western Goldfields Inc. and will be retained by Western Goldfields Inc. to
      be
      furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
      request.
2009-2070.

#### State v. Duncan.

Richland App. No. 2009CA028, 2009-Ohio-5668. This cause is pending before the court as a discretionary appeal and claimed appeal of right. On November 20, 2009, appellant filed a notice that a motion to certify a conflict was pending in the court of appeals and, pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. 4.4(A)(4), this court stayed consideration of the jurisdictional memoranda filed in this appeal. Whereas appellant has neither notified this court that the court of appeals determined that a conflict does not exist as provided by S.Ct.Prac.R. 4.4(B) nor filed a copy of the court of appeals’ order certifying the existence of a conflict as provided by S.Ct.Prac.R. 4.4(C),

It is ordered by the court, sua sponte, that appellant show cause within 14 days of the date of this entry why this court should not proceed to consider the jurisdictional memoranda in this appeal pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. 3.6.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         0
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                         0
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.1.2

CERTIFICATION

I, W. W. Boisture, Jr., principal executive officer of Hawker Beechcraft Notes Company (the
Company), hereby certify that:



|(1) | The Companys Annual Report on Form 10-K/A for the year ended December 31, 2008 (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.
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                            
|--------------------------------------------
|/s/ W. W. Boisture, Jr.                     
|W. W. Boisture, Jr., Chief Executive Officer
|(Principal Executive Officer)               

July 15, 2009
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
<head>
<meta name="pdf:PDFVersion" content="1.2">
<meta name="xmp:CreatorTool" content="Acrobat Capture Server 2.0">
<meta name="pdf:hasXFA" content="false">
<meta name="access_permission:modify_annotations" content="true">
<meta name="dc:creator" content="capture">
<meta name="dcterms:created" content="1998-06-29T16:57:43Z">
<meta name="dcterms:modified" content="1998-06-29T16:57:45Z">
<meta name="dc:format" content="application/pdf; version=1.2">
<meta name="pdf:docinfo:creator_tool" content="Acrobat Capture Server 2.0">
<meta name="access_permission:fill_in_form" content="true">
<meta name="pdf:docinfo:modified" content="1998-06-29T16:57:45Z">
<meta name="pdf:hasCollection" content="false">
<meta name="pdf:encrypted" content="false">
<meta name="Content-Length" content="14603">
<meta name="pdf:hasMarkedContent" content="false">
<meta name="Content-Type" content="application/pdf">
<meta name="access_permission:can_print_faithful" content="true">
<meta name="pdf:docinfo:creator" content="capture">
<meta name="pdf:producer" content="Acrobat PDFWriter 3.02 for Windows NT">
<meta name="access_permission:extract_for_accessibility" content="true">
<meta name="access_permission:assemble_document" content="true">
<meta name="xmpTPg:NPages" content="1">
<meta name="pdf:hasXMP" content="false">
<meta name="access_permission:extract_content" content="true">
<meta name="access_permission:can_print" content="true">
<meta name="X-TIKA:Parsed-By" content="org.apache.tika.parser.DefaultParser">
<meta name="X-TIKA:Parsed-By" content="org.apache.tika.parser.pdf.PDFParser">
<meta name="access_permission:can_modify" content="true">
<meta name="pdf:docinfo:producer" content="Acrobat PDFWriter 3.02 for Windows NT">
<meta name="pdf:docinfo:created" content="1998-06-29T16:57:43Z">
<title></title>
</head>
<body><div class="page"><p></p>
<p>0 2’313 L </p>
<p></p>
<div class="ocr">0 2713

No OPIN ION

Ree \GuUEeD

By THIS
NuM 662
</div>

</div>
</body></html>
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-13-00568-CV

LA VILLA INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF TRUSTEES

v.

THE BOARD OF ALDERMEN FOR THE CITY OF LA VILLA

On appeal from the

93rd District Court of Hidalgo County, Texas

Trial Cause No. C-4271-13-B

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes the appeal should be dismissed. The Court orders the appeal 

DISMISSED in accordance with its opinion. Each party shall bear their own costs 

relating to this appeal.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

June 5, 2014.
**COURT OF APPEALS**

**TENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS**

****

October 22, 2015

No. 10-14-00298-CV

IN THE MATTER OF J.G., A JUVENILE

From the 272nd District Court

Brazos County, Texas

Trial Court No. 122-J-14

**JUDGMENT**

This proceeding has been considered by the Court.  Because the Court finds that there was no error in the trial court’s judgment; it is the judgment of this Court that the trial court’s judgment signed on September 8, 2014 is affirmed.

	It is further ordered that the State of Texas, is awarded judgment against Brenda Gonzalez for the appellate costs that were paid, if any, by the State; and all unpaid appellate court costs, if any, are taxed against Brenda Gonzalez.

A copy of this judgment will be certified by the Clerk of this Court and delivered to the trial court clerk for enforcement.

							PER CURIAM

****SHARRI ROESSLER, CLERK			

						By: ___________________________

							Nita Whitener, Deputy Clerk

# image1.png

# image2.jpeg

# image3.png
EX-34.16
(logo) Deloitte

Deloitte & Touche LLP
Suite 1500
191 Peachtree Street NE
Atlanta, GA 30303-1943
USA

Tel: +1 404 220 1500
www.deloitte.com


REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM


To the Board of Directors of
LNR Partners Inc.
Miami Beach, Florida

We have examined management's assertion, included in the accompanying
Management's Report on Assessment of Compliance with SEC Regulation AB
Servicing Criteria, that LNR Partners Inc. (the "Company") complied with the
servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of the Securities and Exchange
Commission's Regulation AB for the commercial mortgage-backed securities
transactions for which the Asserting Party served as special servicer, that
were completed on or after January 1, 2006, and that were registered with the
Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to the Securities Act of 1933 (the
"Platform") as of and for the year ended December 31, 2007, excluding criteria
229.1122(d)(1)(iii), (3)(i)(C), (3)(i)(D), (3)(ii), (3)(iii), (3)(iv), (4)(v),
(4)(ix), (4)(x), (4)(xi), (4)(xii), (4)(xiii) and (4)(xv), which management
has determined are not applicable to the activities performed by the Company
with respect to the Platform. Management is responsible for the Company's
compliance with the servicing criteria. Our responsibility is to express an
opinion on management's assertion about the Company's compliance with the
servicing criteria based on our examination.

Our examination was conducted in accordance with attestation standards
established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, as
adopted by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States), and
accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Company's
compliance with the applicable servicing criteria, including tests on a sample
basis of the servicing activities related to the Platform, determining whether
the Company performed those selected activities in compliance with the
servicing criteria during the specified period, and performing such other
procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. Our procedures were
limited to selected servicing activities performed by the Company during the
period covered by this report and, accordingly, such samples may not have
included servicing activities related to each asset-backed transaction included
in the Platform. Further, an examination is not designed to detect
noncompliance arising from errors that may have occurred prior to the period
specified above that may have affected the balances or amounts calculated or
reported by the Company during the period covered by this report. 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 assertion that the Company complied with the
aforementioned applicable servicing criteria as of and for the year ended
December 31, 2007 for the commercial mortgage-backed securities Platform is
fairly stated, in all material respects.


/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP
February 22, 2008


Member of
Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu