alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-1425

In Re: JAMES H. DICKEY,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CA-93-117-3)

Submitted: September 10, 1996 Decided: September 24, 1996

Before WILKINS, HAMILTON, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James H. Dickey, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

James Dickey petitions this court for a Writ of Mandamus

directing that his action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988), be reassigned from Judge Patrick Duffy to Judge Mathew Perry, who was

originally assigned to his case. He also requests that the district

court clerk be prohibited from further reassigning his case until

some "random selection process" can be employed, and asks that

Judge Duffy also be directed to vacate every order he has entered

in his case. Dickey's petition follows Judge Duffy's denial of

Dickey's motion requesting that Judge Duffy recuse himself.

A party seeking mandamus relief must show that he has no other

means of relief and that his right to the relief he seeks is "clear

and indisputable." See In re Beard, 811 F.2d 818, 826 (4th Cir.

1987). We find that Dickey has failed to provide any legitimate

basis for his contentions that Judge Duffy should not be permitted

to decide his case. Dickey asserts that the reassignment of his

case to Judge Duffy has prejudiced him and results in the appearance of impropriety. If he is claiming that Judge Duffy is somehow

biased against him, he has not identified any extrajudicial source

for that bias, as he must do in order to obtain mandamus relief.

Id. at 827.

Dickey also claims that the reassignment was administratively

improper. He contends that the district court clerk lacked the

authority to reassign his case, that the reassignment process was

not random, and that reassignment to Judge Duffy is problematic

because Judge Perry had already issued pretrial rulings in his
3

case, the basis for which Judge Duffy was unfamiliar. Dickey, however, has provided no authority to support his claims of impropriety, and we decline to interfere with the district court's case

management practices.

Accordingly, the petition for a Writ of Mandamus is denied.

PETITION DENIED
### §§2689r to 2689aa. Repealed. Pub. L. 97–35, title IX, §902(e)(2)(B), Aug. 13, 1981, 95 Stat. 560

Section 2689r, Pub. L. 88–164, title II, §235, as added Pub. L. 94–63, title III, §303, July 29, 1975, 89 Stat. 329; amended Pub. L. 96–88, title V, §509(b) Oct. 17, 1979, 93 Stat. 695, defined terms applicable to subchapter.

Section 2689s, Pub. L. 88–164, title II, §236, as added Pub. L. 94–63, title III, §303, July 29, 1975, 89 Stat. 329, set forth requirements respecting promulgation of regulations.

Section 2689t, Pub. L. 88–164, title II, §237, as added Pub. L. 94–63, title III, §303, July 29, 1975, 89 Stat. 330; amended Pub. L. 96–79, title I, §115(k)(1), Oct. 4, 1979, 93 Stat. 610, related to required provisions of State plans.

Section 2689u, Pub. L. 88–164, title II, §238, as added Pub. L. 94–63, title III, §303, July 29, 1975, 89 Stat. 331; amended Pub. L. 95–622, title I, §107, Nov. 9, 1978, 92 Stat. 3417, set forth provisions respecting catchment areas of centers.

Section 2689v, Pub. L. 88–164, title II, §239, as added Pub. L. 94–63, title III, §303, July 29, 1975, 89 Stat. 332, related to State control of administration.

Section 2689w, Pub. L. 88–164, title II, §240, as added Pub. L. 94–63, title III, §303, July 29, 1975, 89 Stat. 332, set forth recordkeeping requirements.

A prior section 240 of Pub. L. 88–164, title II, was classified to section 2688e of this title.

Section 2689x, Pub. L. 88–164, title II, §241, as added Pub. L. 94–63, title III, §303, July 29, 1975, 89 Stat. 332, related to exclusions from determination of amount of grant.

A prior section 241 of Pub. L. 88–164, title II, was classified to section 2688f of this title.

Section 2689y, Pub. L. 88–164, title II, §242, as added Pub. L. 94–63, title III, §303, July 29, 1975, 89 Stat. 332, related to determination of poverty area.

A prior section 242 of Pub. L. 88–164, title II, was classified to section 2688g of this title.

Section 2689z, Pub. L. 88–164, title II, §243, as added Pub. L. 94–63, title III, §303, July 29, 1975, 89 Stat. 333, required protection of personal rights under grants.

A prior section 243 of Pub. L. 88–164, title II, was classified to section 2688h of this title.

Section 2689aa, Pub. L. 88–164, title II, §244, as added Pub. L. 94–63, title III, §303, July 29, 1975, 89 Stat. 333, related to reimbursement of centers for mental health services.

A prior section 244 of Pub. L. 88–164, title II, was classified to section 2688i of this title.

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date of Repeal

Repeal effective Oct. 1, 1981, see section 902(h) of Pub. L. 97–35, set out as an Effective Date of 1981 Amendment note under section 238l of this title.
ex1080021stamendhcp4lease.htm


EX-10.80.02


 


[Burr Ridge, IL - #1587]



[Prospect Heights, IL - #1588]


[Austin, TX - #1589]


[San Antonio, TX - #1590]
























FIRST AMENDMENT TO MASTER LEASE AND SECURITY AGREEMENT







This First Amendment to Master Lease and Security Agreement (“Amendment”) is dated as of June 8, 2010 by and among HCP, Inc., a Maryland corporation (doing business in  the state of Illinois as HC Property Investments, Inc.) and TEXAS HCP HOLDING, L.P., a Delaware limited partnership as their interests may appear (“Lessor”) and EMERITUS CORPORATION, a Washington corporation (“Emeritus” or “Lessee”).







RECITALS







A.           Lessor and Lessee entered into a Master Lease and Security Agreement dated as of May 14, 2010 (the “Lease”) for the lease of four (4) separate assisted-living care and/or skilled nursing care facilities located in the States of Illinois and Texas, as more particularly described in the Lease.







B.           Lessor and Lessee desire to memorialize their understanding regarding certain provisions of the Lease.







AGREEMENT







Capitalized terms not otherwise defined herein shall have the meaning ascribed to them in the Lease. Lessor and Lessee hereby agree as follows:







1.           The Commencement Date of the Lease is June 1, 2010;







2.           The Fixed Term Expiration Date of the Lease is May 31, 2020;







3.           The first Lease Year for the Lease commences on June 1, 2010 and ends on May 31, 2011;







Except as amended above, the Lease between Lessor and Lessee shall remain in


full force and effect. This Amendment may be executed in any number of counterparts, all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument.







[Signatures appear on the following page]






  





  











  













IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Amendment to be


executed as of the day and year first above written.







LESSOR:


HCP, INC., a Maryland corporation


(dba HC Property Investments, Inc.)







By: /s/ Susan M. Tate


Name: Susan M. Tate


Title:   Executive Vice President







TEXAS HCP HOLDING, L.P., a Delaware


limited partnership







By:           Texas HCP G.P., Inc.,


a Delaware corporation,


Its Sole General Partner







By: /s/ Susan M. Tate


Name: Susan M. Tate


Title:   Executive Vice President







LESSEE:







EMERITUS CORPORATION,


a Washington corporation







By: /s/ Eric Mendelsohn


Name: Eric Mendelsohn


Title    SVP Corporate Development
§ 1007.70 Disqualification of lenders and civil money penalties. ( a ) *In general* — ( 1 ) *Grounds for action.* HUD may take action under paragraph (a)(2) of this section if HUD determines that any lender or holder of a guarantee certificate: ( i ) Has failed: ( A ) To maintain adequate accounting records;
( B ) To service adequately loans guaranteed under this section; or
( C ) To exercise proper credit or underwriting judgment; or
( ii ) Has engaged in practices otherwise detrimental to the interest of a borrower or the United States.
( 2 ) *Actions.* Upon a determination by HUD that any of the grounds for action in paragraph (a)(1)(i), of this section apply to the holder of a guarantee certificate, HUD may: ( i ) Refuse, either temporarily or permanently, to guarantee any further loans made by such lender or holder;
( ii ) Bar such lender or holder from acquiring additional loans guaranteed under this part; and
( iii ) Require that such lender or holder assume not less than 10 percent of any loss on further loans made or held by the lender or holder that are guaranteed under this part.
( b ) *Civil money penalties for intentional violations* — ( 1 ) *In general.* HUD may impose a civil monetary penalty on a lender or holder of a guarantee certificate if HUD determines that the holder or lender has intentionally failed: ( i ) To maintain adequate accounting records;
( ii ) To adequately service loans guaranteed under this section; or
( iii ) To exercise proper credit or underwriting judgment.
( 2 ) *Penalties.* A civil monetary penalty imposed under this section shall be imposed in the manner and be in an amount provided under section 536 of the National Housing Act (12 U.S.C.A. 1735f-1) with respect to mortgagees and lenders under that Act.
( c ) *Payment on loans made in good faith.* Notwithstanding paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section, if a loan was made in good faith, HUD may not refuse to pay a lender or holder of a valid guarantee on that loan, without regard to whether the lender or holder is barred under this section.
December 6 , 20 1 3

Mr. Paul Gretch

Director

, Office of International Aviation

United States Department of Transportation

12 00 New Jersey Ave. , S. E

. Washington, D.C. 20590

Re: US Airways ’ Applications Listed in Annex A

Dear Mr. Gretch :

We have polled the air carriers on the attached se rvice list regarding the

Application s listed in Annex A . We received no objections.

Accordingly, we respectfully request expedited consideration of these

Application s

.

Sincerely,

Howard Kass

Vice President, Legal and Government Affairs

Benjamin T. Slocum

Director, Legal and Government Affairs

Attachment

cc: Service List

1401 H Street NW, Suite 1075 Washington, DC 20005 ( 202 ) 326

- 5 154 Fax: ( 202 ) 898

- 4810CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that, on December 6, 2013 , I caused to be served a copy of the

foregoing Letter by email upon those addressees listed below:

urskr@state.gov (Department of State)

esta.rosenberg@dot.gov (Department of Transportation)

brian.hedberg@dot.gov (Depar tment of Transportation)

todd.homan@dot.gov (Department of Transportation)

peter.irvine@dot.gov (Department of Transportation)

laura.remo@dot.gov (Department of Transportation)

brett.kruger@dot.gov (Department of Transportation)

john.allen@faa.gov (Fe deral Aviation Administration)

dan.weiss@united.com (United)

steve.morrissey@united.com (United)

karine.faden@united.com (United)

gmurphy@crowell.com (Counsel for United)

francis.heil@aa.com (American)

robert.wirick@aa.com (American)

sascha.vanderbel len@delta.com (Delta)

jhill@dowlohnes.com (Counsel for JetBlue and Hawaiian)

perkmann@dowlohnes.com (Counsel for JetBlue and Hawaiian)

robert.land@jetblue.com (JetBlue)

msinick@ssd.com (Counsel for Alaska)

jyoung@yklaw.com (Counsel for Spirit)

dkirste in@yklaw.com (Counsel for Spirit)

bob.kneisley@wnco.com (Southwest)

leslie.abbott@wnco.com (Southwest)

ethan.blank@rjet.com (Republic)

robert.cohn@hoganlovells.com (Counsel for Republic)

patrick.rizzi@hoganlovells.com (Counsel for Republic)

john.fred ericksen@suncountry.com (Sun Country)

thomas.ting@suncountry.com (Sun Country)

rpommer@atlasair.com (Atlas)

anita.mosner@hklaw.com (Counsel for UPS)

jennifer.nowak@ hklaw.com (Counsel for UPS)

cefelts@fedex.com (FedEx)

nssparks@fedex.com (FedEx)

kevi n.montgomery@polaraircargo.com (Polar)

______________ ________

Benjamin T. SlocumANNEX A

Application of US Airways, Inc. for an Exemption

( Various United States Points

– Various Venezuela Points )

( Docket DOT

- OST

- 20 13

- 0207 )

Application of US Airways, Inc. for an Exemption

( Miami, Florida

– La Paz and Santa Cruz, Bol ivia )

( Docket DOT

- OST

- 20 13

- 020 8 )

Application of US Airways, Inc. for an Exemption

( United States

– Quito and Guayaquil, Ecuador )

( Docket DOT

- OST

- 20 13

- 020 9 )

Application of US Airways, Inc. for an Exemption

( Various United States Points

– Various Mexico Points )

( Docket DOT

- OST

- 20 13

- 02 10 )

Application of US Airways, Inc. for Amendment of an Exemption

( Various U .S. Cities

– Bermuda )

( Docket DOT

- OST

- 20 01

- 11152 )
§ 511.5 Who may file claim. ( a ) Claims for loss or damage of property may be filed by the owner of the property, or his/her legal representatives. Claims for personal injury or death may be made by the injured person or a legal representative of the injured or deceased person. The claim, if filed by a legal representative, should show the capacity of the person signing and be accompanied by evidence of this authority to act.
( b ) The claim and all other papers requiring the signature of the claimant should be signed by him/her personally or by his/her representative. Signatures should be identical throughout.
### §§8761 to 8768. Omitted

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Sections 8761 to 8768 were omitted from the Code in view of termination of United States Synthetic Fuels Corporation. See note set out under section 8791 of this title.

Section 8761, Pub. L. 96–294, title I, §161, June 30, 1980, 94 Stat. 670, related to penalty for false statements.

Section 8762, Pub. L. 96–294, title I, §162, June 30, 1980, 94 Stat. 670, related to penalty for forgery.

Section 8763, Pub. L. 96–294, title I, §163, June 30, 1980, 94 Stat. 671, related to penalties and injunctive relief for misappropriation of funds and for unauthorized activities.

Section 8764, Pub. L. 96–294, title I, §164, June 30, 1980, 94 Stat. 671, related to penalty for conspiracy.

Section 8765, Pub. L. 96–294, title I, §165, June 30, 1980, 94 Stat. 672, related to deceptive use of corporate name.

Section 8766, Pub. L. 96–294, title I, §166, June 30, 1980, 94 Stat. 672, authorized an action for damages by Corporation in addition to penalties prescribed for violations.

Section 8767, Pub. L. 96–294, title I, §167, June 30, 1980, 94 Stat. 672, related to actions by Attorney General.

Section 8768, Pub. L. 96–294, title I, §168, June 30, 1980, 94 Stat. 672; Pub. L. 98–473, title I, §101(c) [title II, §201], Oct. 12, 1984, 98 Stat. 1837, 1860, related to civil actions against Corporation.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 9
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FORM 10-Q
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                          28,724
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                58,500
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                  2,382,261
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                         118,592
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                           118,082
<LOANS>                                      1,227,859
<ALLOWANCE>                                     24,629
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,853,282
<DEPOSITS>                                   2,034,370
<SHORT-TERM>                                   527,963
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                             92,340
<LONG-TERM>                                    604,211
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           436
<OTHER-SE>                                     593,962
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>               3,853,282
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 44,781
<INTEREST-INVEST>                               83,190
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   923
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                               128,894
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              48,303
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              77,770
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           51,124
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      600
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                               3,752
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 23,039
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 37,730
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                      37,730
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    25,630
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.66
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.65
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    7.15
<LOANS-NON>                                      8,460
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                  1,502
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                24,029
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                        0
<RECOVERIES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                               24,629
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                                 0
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                         24,629
        

</TABLE>
#### § 203.44 Eligibility of advances.

Mortgagees may not make open-end advances under section 225 of the National Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1715p) in connection with the mortgages insured under this chapter.

[61 FR 36264, July 9, 1996]
### §5655. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 5655 was editorially reclassified as section 11145 of Title 34, Crime Control and Law Enforcement.

#### Prior Provisions

A prior section 5655, Pub. L. 93–415, title II, §245, Sept. 7, 1974, 88 Stat. 1127; Pub. L. 95–115, §5(c), Oct. 3, 1977, 91 Stat. 1057; Pub. L. 96–509, §19(l), Dec. 8, 1980, 94 Stat. 2765, provided for the functions of the Advisory Committee, prior to repeal by Pub. L. 98–473, title II, §§634, 670(a), Oct. 12, 1984, 98 Stat. 2119, 2129, effective Oct. 12, 1984.

A prior section 245 of Pub. L. 93–415 was classified to section 5659 of this title prior to repeal by Pub. L. 107–273.

Another prior section 245 of Pub. L. 93–415 was classified to section 5656 of this title prior to repeal by Pub. L. 100–690.
#### Gustavo ZAMORA MARTINEZ, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 05-71398.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 12, 2007 *.

Filed March 15, 2007.

Elsa I. Martinez, Esq., Martinez Golds-by *&*Associates, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.

CAC-District Counsel, Esq., Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Michele Y.F. Sarko, Esq., Larry P. Cote, Esq., M. Jocelyn Wright, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before: KOZINSKI, LEAVY, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Gustavo Zamora Martinez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings based' on ineffective assistance of counsel. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and we review the denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion. *See Iturribarria v. INS,*321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir.2003). We deny the petition.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Zamora Martinez’s motion to reopen, which was based on his prior counsel’s failure to file a brief before the BIA. The Immigration Judge found petitioner ineligible for cancellation of removal on three grounds, and petitioner effectively challenged only one of those grounds in his motion to reopen. Because the motion is not supported by any evidence to support a claim that a brief might have made a difference, petitioner has failed to demonstrate prejudice. *See id.*at 889-900 (to establish a valid due process claim for ineffective assistance of counsel, an alien must show that he was prejudiced by the attorney’s deficient performance).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

LINDSAY NICOLE WARREN,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 56 MAL 2020

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 3rd day of August, 2020, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5



<S>                               <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                      3-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          APR-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-31-2000
<CASH>                                         114,757
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,088,319
<ALLOWANCES>                                   505,511
<INVENTORY>                                  2,071,027
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             4,210,184
<PP&E>                                       1,441,723
<DEPRECIATION>                              (1,390,104)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,262,803
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,809,532
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         4,419
<OTHER-SE>                                     448,852
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,262,803
<SALES>                                      3,466,412
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,466,517
<CGS>                                        2,679,300
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,679,300
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               775,879
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              11,589
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   (251)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (251)
<EPS-BASIC>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0



</TABLE>