alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

CAMELLIA THERAPEUTIC FOSTER )

AGENCY, LLC, REPRESENTED BY )

JOSEPH APPIAH, CHAIRMAN )

CAMELLIA THERAPEUTIC FOSTER )

CHILDREN, FOSTER PARENTS, and )

STAFF, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:06cv735-MHT

)

GOVERNOR BOB RILEY, DEPT. OF )

HUMAN RESOURCES )

COMMISSIONER PAGE WALLEY, )

and SUSAN WARD, )

)

Defendants. )

ORDER

This case was originally filed in the Circuit Court of Montgomery County, Alabama

on June 27, 2006. On August 15, 2006, the defendants removed the case to this court on the

basis of federal question jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1446. A review of the pleading

demonstrates that the plaintiff limited liability corporation is being represented by Joseph

Appiah, the Chairman of the corporation. It further appears from a review of the pleadings

that Mr. Appiah is not a lawyer. A corporation cannot represent itself, nor can it be

represented by a non-lawyer. Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that, on or before September 7, 2006, the plaintiff shall secure

representation by a licensed attorney authorized to practice in this court. Counsel shall file

Case 3:06-cv-00691-WHA-WC Document 6 Filed 08/17/2006 Page 1 of 2
2

a notice of appearance on or before September 7, 2006. 

Done this 18 day of August, 2006. th

 /s/Charles S. Coody 

CHARLES S. COODY

CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-00691-WHA-WC Document 6 Filed 08/17/2006 Page 2 of 2
# Subpart 1530.3 - CAS Contract Requirements [Reserved]

**Parent topic:**PART 1530 - COST ACCOUNTING STANDARDS
Exhibit 31

SEMT 2012-6

EX-31 Rule 13a-14(d)/15d-14(d) Certification.

I, Christopher J. Abate, 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 Sequoia Mortgage Trust 2012-6 (the
Exchange Act periodic reports);

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

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

4.    Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance 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: Corelogic Tax Services, LLC, Assurant, Inc., Cenlar, FSB as Servicer, First Republic Bank as Servicer, PHH Mortgage Corporation as Servicer, Wells Fargo
Bank, N.A. as Custodian and Master Servicer, and Citibank, N.A. as Securities Administrator and Paying Agent.

Date: March 31, 2017



|                                                             
|-------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Christopher J. Abate                                     
|Signature                                                    
|                                                             
|Chairman of the Board, President and Chief Financial Officer 
|(senior officer in charge of securitization of the depositor)
#### John Vella, Appellant, v. Seacoast Towers “A,” Inc., Respondent.

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County,. entered March 12, 1968 in favor of defendant upon the trial court’s dismissal of the complaint at the *814end of plaintiff’s ease upon a jury trial. Judgment affirmed, with costs. “ While under some circumstances a glass door exit may be constructed or maintained in a manner so as to constitute negligence (see *Shannon*v. *Broadway & 41st St. Corp.,*272 App. Div. 1029, affd. 298 N. Y. 589), in the instant case there was a complete absence of proof of negligence on the part of defendant. There was no evidence offered to show faulty construction or improper maintenance” *(Luciano*v. *Mapart, Inc.,*14 A D 2d 843, mot. for lv. to app. den. 11 N Y 2d 642; see, also, *Gardino*v. *Barney Co.,*17 A D 2d 895; cf. *Lockwood*v. *Proctor,*21 A D 2d 686). Accordingly, it was proper to dismiss the complaint, especially in light of the rule that a plaintiff is bound to see what by the proper use of his senses he might have seen *(Weigand*v. *United Traction Co.,*221 N. Y. 39, 42; see, also, *Cooper*v. *Scharf,*11 A D 2d 101). Rabin, Acting P. J., Benjamin, Munder, Martuscello and Kleinfeld, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
REGISTRANT'S FORM 10-Q FOR THE SIX MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30, 1998 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
INCLUDED IN SUCH REPORT.
</LEGEND>

       
<S>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>           6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>       DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>            JUN-30-1998

<CASH>                             804,061 
<SECURITIES>                          0    
<RECEIVABLES>                       90,609 
<ALLOWANCES>                          0    
<INVENTORY>                           0    
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                   894,670 
<PP&E>                                0    
<DEPRECIATION>                        0    
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                     894,670 
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>               44,339 
<BONDS>                               0    
<COMMON>                              0    
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                 0    
<PREFERRED>                           0    
<OTHER-SE>                         695,155 
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>       894,670 
<SALES>                               0    
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                   109,138 
<CGS>                                 0    
<TOTAL-COSTS>                       30,151 
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                   171,254 
<LOSS-PROVISION>                      0    
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                    0    
<INCOME-PRETAX>                    (92,267)
<INCOME-TAX>                          0    
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                (87,925)
<DISCONTINUED>                        0    
<EXTRAORDINARY>                       0    
<CHANGES>                             0    
<NET-INCOME>                       (87,925)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                        (1.21)
<EPS-DILUTED>                        (1.21)

        

</TABLE>
Case 2:06-cr-00196-MHT-CSC Document 17 Filed 10/23/2006 Page 1 of 8
Case 2:06-cr-00196-MHT-CSC Document 17 Filed 10/23/2006 Page 2 of 8
Case 2:06-cr-00196-MHT-CSC Document 17 Filed 10/23/2006 Page 3 of 8
Case 2:06-cr-00196-MHT-CSC Document 17 Filed 10/23/2006 Page 4 of 8
Case 2:06-cr-00196-MHT-CSC Document 17 Filed 10/23/2006 Page 5 of 8
Case 2:06-cr-00196-MHT-CSC Document 17 Filed 10/23/2006 Page 6 of 8
Case 2:06-cr-00196-MHT-CSC Document 17 Filed 10/23/2006 Page 7 of 8
Case 2:06-cr-00196-MHT-CSC Document 17 Filed 10/23/2006 Page 8 of 8
#### § 986.6 Confidential data or information.

*Confidential data or information* submitted to the Council consists of data or information constituting a trade secret or disclosure of the trade position, financial condition, or business operations of a particular entity or its customers.
#### In the Matter of Lemuel A. Davis, Appellant, v County of Westchester et al., Respondents.

Submitted October 15, 2007;

decided October 23, 2007

Reported below, 42 AD3d 791.

Appeal dismissed, without costs, by the Court of Appeals, sua sponte, upon the ground that no substantial constitutional question is directly involved.
§ 987.147 Surplus. ( a ) *General.* Surplus dates delivered to the Committee pursuant to § 987.47 shall be pooled for sale to livestock feeders, distillers, or manufacturers of inedible products: *Provided,* That if any portion of the deliveries differs sufficiently to require separate handling, and earn a different average return, such portion shall be handled as a separate pool. The income from sale of surplus, after deduction of committee expenses, shall be paid to the respective equity holders in the pool or pools, or to their assignees, on the basis of the weight of dates each delivered.
( b ) *Delivery.* The Committee may refuse delivery of any surplus dates which it determines are excessively soured, fermented, or adulterated by palm debris, rocks, paper, wood, plastic liners, or other foreign material. If the Committee refuses delivery, the deliverer shall be permitted to clean such dates sufficiently to make them acceptable to the Committee. The weight of each accepted delivery shall be that determined by a public weightmaster or, in the absence of such weight, that determined by the Committee on the basis of the number and size of the containers used in the delivery. Upon delivery of surplus dates to the Committee, the deliverer, or a designee of the Committee shall execute CDAC Form SP-1, Delivery Manifest, showing: ( 1 ) The person to receive payment of the net proceeds for the surplus,
( 2 ) The date and place of loading,
( 3 ) If field surplus, the location and owner of the garden,
( 4 ) The type and number of containers loaded or dumped,
( 5 ) The net weight of the load, and
( 6 ) If the delivery is directly to a buyer's truck, the driver, truck and buyer.
#### PEOPLE ex rel. RANDALL, Appellant, v. GOODINO et al., Respondents.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

May 16, 1906.)

Proceedings by the people, on the relation of William Randall, against James H. Goodino and others, as, etc.

No opinion, Order affirmed, with §10 costs and disbursements.
Case 2:06-cv-00735-MHT-CSC Document 26 Filed 02/22/2007 Page 1 of 2
Case 2:06-cv-00735-MHT-CSC Document 26 Filed 02/22/2007 Page 2 of 2
SUBCHAPTER G - CONTRACT

MANAGEMENT

PART 1042 - CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION AND AUDIT SERVICES

PART 1042 - CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION AND AUDIT SERVICES

1042.1500 [Reserved]
#### In the Matter of Helen L. Cohen et al., Respondents, v. Robert D. Clark et al., Appellants, et al., Respondents.

In a proceeding to invalidate petitions designating appellants, Robert D. Clark and Elizabeth E. Gussak, as candidates in the Republican Party Primary Election to be held on June 23, 1970 for the Party position of Member of the State Committee for the 52nd Assembly District, Kings County, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated June 9, 1970, which granted the application. Judgment affirmed, without costs. No opinion. Rabin, Acting P. J., Munder, Martuscello and Latham, JJ., concur; Benjamin, J., not voting.
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

THERESA LOUISE BATSON,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D21-680

[August 26, 2021]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.800 motion from the Nineteenth Judicial 

Circuit, St. Lucie County; William L. Roby, Judge; L.T. Case No. 56-2008-

CF-004134-A.

Theresa Louise Batson, Florida City, pro se.

No appearance required for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

CONNER, C.J., DAMOORGIAN and LEVINE, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OFALABAMA

________________________DIVISION

_________________________________, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CASE NO.__________________

)

_________________________________, )

)

Defendants, )

CONFLICT DISCLOSURE STATEMENT

COMES NOW ___________________,a intheabove-captioned

matter,and in accordance with the orderofthis Court,making the following disclosure

concerning parentcompanies,subsidiaries,partners,limited liability entity members and

managers,trustees(butnottrustbeneficiaries),affiliates,orsimilarentitiesreportableunder

theprovisionsoftheMiddleDistrictofAlabama’sGeneralOrderNo.3047:

Thispartyisanindividual,or

Thispartyisagovernmentalentity,or

Therearenoentitiestobereported,or

Thefollowingentitiesandtheirrelationshiptothepartyareherebyreported:

ReportableEntity RelationshiptoParty

________________________________ _________________________________

________________________________ _________________________________

________________________________ _________________________________

________________________________ _________________________________

Date (Signature)

(Counsel’sName)

Counselfor(printnamesofallparties)

Address,City,StateZipCode

TelephoneNumber

Southern

Debra Beyah

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

1:06-cv-00659-CSC

Debra Beyah

7/11/2007 /s/ Temple D. Trueblood

Debra Beyah (Plaintiff)

Wiggins, Childs, Quinn & Pantazis, LLC

301 19th Street North; Birmingham, Alabama 35203

(205) 314-0500

Plaintiff

Temple D. Trueblood

Case 1:06-cv-00659-CSC Document 32 Filed 07/11/2007 Page 1 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

________________________ DIVISION

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I,____________________________________, do hereby Certify that a true and correct copy

of the foregoing has been furnished by ___________________________(manner of service,

i.e., U.S. Mail, electronic mail, etc.) on this _______day of ____________ 20__, to:

Date Signature

Southern

Temple D. Trueblood, counsel for Plaintiff

notification via the CM/ECF system

11th July

Charlotte K. McClusky, LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.

3348 Peachtree Road, N.E. Suite 1100; Atlanta, Georgia 30326-1008

Scott A. Forman, LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.

2 South Biscayne Blvd.; One Biscayne Tower, Ste. 1500; Miami, Florida 33131

7/11/2007

07

/s/ Temple D. Trueblood

Case 1:06-cv-00659-CSC Document 32 Filed 07/11/2007 Page 2 of 2
|National Tax Search, LLC(logo) | 130 S. Jefferson, Suite 300Chicago, IL 60661312-233-6440
|------------------------------ | --------------------------------------------------------



REPORT ON ASSESSMENT OF COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE SECURITIES AND
EXCHANGE COMMISSION’S REGULATION AB SERVICING CRITERIA



For the calendar year ending December 31, 2016, National Tax Search,
LLC has been a Tax Service Vendor for Wells Fargo Bank (the “Servicer”).



National Tax Search, LLC (“NTS”)
is responsible for assessing compliance as of December 31, 2016 and for the period from January 1, 2016 through December 31, 2016
(the “Reporting Period”) with the servicing criteria set forth in Title 17, Section 229.1122(d) of the Code of Federal
Regulations (the “CFR”). NTS has used the servicing criteria communicated to NTS by the Servicer to assess compliance
with the applicable servicing criteria. Only servicing criteria 1122 (d) (l)(ii), 1122 (d)1(iv), 1122 (d)2(ii), 1122 (d)2(v), 1122(d)2(vi),
1122(d)(4)(xi), and 1122(d)(4)(xii) (the “Applicable Servicing Criteria”) are applicable to the activities NTS performs
with respect to the transactions covered by this report. NTS has determined that the remaining servicing criteria set forth in
Item 1122 (d) of the SEC Regulation AB are not applicable to the activities it performs with respect to the transactions covered
by this report. The transactions covered by this report include all tax payments made on behalf of the Servicer using NTS’s
TaxQ system (the “Platform Transactions”).



NTS, as a vendor, has assessed its compliance
with the Applicable Servicing Criteria for the Reporting Period and has concluded that NTS has complied, in all material respects,
with the Applicable Servicing Criteria as of December 31, 2016 and for the Reporting Period with respect to the Platform Transactions
taken as a whole.



Plante & Moran, PLLC, an independent registered
public accounting firm, has issued an attestation report on the assessment of compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria
as of December 31, 2016 and for the Reporting Period as set forth in this assertion.



National Tax Search, LLC, as Vendor to Servicer



|/s/ Lori D. Eshoo            | 
|---------------------------- | 
|Lori D. Eshoo, President/CEO | 
|January 23, 2017             |
Case 2:06-cv-00721-MHT-TFM Document 19 Filed 01/02/2007 Page 1 of 3
Case 2:06-cv-00721-MHT-TFM Document 19 Filed 01/02/2007 Page 2 of 3
Case 2:06-cv-00721-MHT-TFM Document 19 Filed 01/02/2007 Page 3 of 3
#### § 985.12 Salable quantity.

*Salable quantity* means the total quantity of each class of oil which handlers may purchase from, or handle on behalf of, producers during a marketing year.
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Rudolph Francis, Appellant, v. Harold W. Follette, as Warden of Green Haven Prison, Respondent.

In a habeas corpus proceeding, relator appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County, dated January 30, 1969, which dismissed the writ. Judgment affirmed, without costs *(People ex rel. Allen*v. *Follette,*33 A D 2d 1051; *People ex rel. Baker*v. *Follette,*33 A D 2d 1052; *People ex rel. Smith*V. *Beegan,*32 A D 2d 940). Christ, P. J., Rabin and Brennan, JJ., concur; Hopkins and Benjamin, JJ., concur under constraint of *People ex rel. Allen*v. *Follette*(33 A D 2d 1051) and *People ex rel. Baker*v. *Follette*(33 A D 2d 1052), although they adhere to the dissenting views expressed therein.
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 319 

To amend the Public Health Service Act to revise the amount of minimum 

allotments under the Projects for Assistance in Transition from Homelessness program. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 8, 2005 

Mr. DOMENICI (for himself and Mr. KENNEDY) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions 

A BILL 

To amend the Public Health Service Act to revise the amount 

of minimum allotments under the Projects for Assistance 

in Transition from Homelessness program. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. MINIMUM ALLOTMENTS UNDER THE PROJECTS 

4 FOR ASSISTANCE IN TRANSITION FROM 

5 HOMELESSNESS PROGRAM. 

6 Section 524 of the Public Health Service Act (42 

7 U.S.C. 290cc–24) is amended to read as follows: 
2 

•S 319 IS

1 ‘‘SEC. 524. DETERMINATION OF AMOUNT OF ALLOTMENT. 

2 ‘‘(a) DETERMINATION UNDER FORMULA.—Subject 

3 to subsection (b), the allotment required in section 521 

4 for a State for a fiscal year is the product of— 

5 ‘‘(1) an amount equal to the amount appro6 priated under section 535 for the fiscal year; and 

7 ‘‘(2) a percentage equal to the quotient of— 

8 ‘‘(A) an amount equal to the population 

9 living in urbanized areas of the State involved, 

10 as indicated by the most recent data collected 

11 by the Bureau of the Census; and 

12 ‘‘(B) an amount equal to the population 

13 living in urbanized areas of the United States, 

14 as indicated by the sum of the respective 

15 amounts determined for the States under sub16 paragraph (A). 

17 ‘‘(b) MINIMUM ALLOTMENT.— 

18 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Subject to paragraph (2), 

19 the allotment for a State under section 521 for a fis20 cal year shall, at a minimum, be the greater of— 

21 ‘‘(A) the amount the State received under 

22 section 521 in fiscal year 2005; and 

23 ‘‘(B) $600,000 for each of the several 

24 States, the District of Columbia, and the Com25 monwealth of Puerto Rico, and $100,000 for 

26 each of Guam, the Virgin Islands, American 
3 

•S 319 IS

1 Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the Northern 

2 Mariana Islands. 

3 ‘‘(2) CONDITION.—If the funds appropriated in 

4 any fiscal year under section 535 are insufficient to 

5 ensure that States receive a minimum allotment in 

6 accordance with paragraph (1), then— 

7 ‘‘(A) no State shall receive less than the 

8 amount they received in fiscal year 2005; and 

9 ‘‘(B) any funds remaining after amounts 

10 are provided under subparagraph (A) shall be 

11 used to meet the requirement of paragraph 

12 (1)(B), to the maximum extent possible.’’. 

Æ
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE MICHAEL BENNETT, 1 Petitioner Below, Appellant,

v. JENNIFER JACOBS, Respondent Below, Appellee. § § § No. 477, 2018 § § Court Below—Family Court § of the State of Delaware § § File No. CN08-05031 § Petition Nos. 13-38057, 14-16798 § § § Submitted: August 2, 2019 Decided: August 19, 2019

ORDER

This 19 th day of August 2019, it appears to the Court that: (1) The appellant filed this appeal fro m a Family Court order concerning visitation with the appellant’s minor child. The opening brief was due to be filed by June 24, 2019. When the appellant did not file the brief, the Chief Deputy Clerk issued a brief delinquency notice, dated Ju ly 2, 2019, advising the appellant that the brief must be filed within seven days. The appellant did not respond to the brief delinquency notice and did no t file the opening brief.

1 The Court previously assigned pseudonyms to the parties pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 7(d).2 (2) On July 12, 2019, the Chief Deputy Clerk issued a notice, by certified mail, directing the appellant to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed for failure to file the openi ng brief. The notice to show cause directed the appellant to respond within ten days and advised him that if he did not respond, dismissal of the appeal would be deemed to be unopposed. (3) The appellant’s address ha s changed multiple time s since he filed this appeal. When he filed the appeal, the appellant was incar cerated; it appears that he

has since been released. The July 12 notice to show cause and the July 2 brief delinquency notice were both se nt to the most recent address that the Court has for the appellant. On July 22, 2019, the July 12 notice to show cause was returned to the Clerk’s office, marked by the postal serv ice as undeliverable. The July 2 brief delinquency notice has not been returned. The Clerk’s office contacted the Family Court and the Department of Correction and neither had an updated address for the appellant. The Clerk’s office also contact ed the appellant’s probation officer, who stated that he does not have an updated address for the appellant and that the appellant never reported to probation as directed. (4) The appellant having failed to re spond to the notice to show cause within the required ten-day peri od, to file the opening brie f, or to report any change of address to the Court, dismissal of this action is deemed unopposed.3 NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, under Supreme Court Rules 29(b) and 3(b)(2), that the appeal is DISMISSED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Collins J. Seitz, Jr. Justice