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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-2367

ANGELA AYRES; STEPHAN AYRES,

Plaintiffs - Appellants,

v.

OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, LLC; BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON, as 

Trustee for the registered holders of Salomon Brothers Mortgage Securities VII, 

Inc., Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Services 2001-2,

Defendants – Appellees,

and

LITTON LOAN SERVICING, LP; SALOMON BROTHERS MORTGAGE 

SECURITIES VII, INC., Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Services 2001-2; 

SALOMON SMITH BARNEY, INC.; SALOMON SMITH BARNEY HOLDING; 

CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS, INC., formerly known as Salomon Brothers 

Realty Corp; J.P. MORGAN CHASE BANK; CITIBANK, NA,

Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. 

J. Frederick Motz, Senior District Judge. (8:13-cv-01597-JFM)

Submitted: May 30, 2017 Decided: August 10, 2017

Before NIEMEYER, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
2

Dismissed and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Angela Ayres, Stephan Ayres, Appellants Pro Se. Laurie Beth Goon, DUANE MORRIS, 

LLP, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
3

PER CURIAM:

Angela Ayres and Stephan Ayres seek to appeal the district court’s order granting 

summary judgment in favor of Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, and Bank of New York 

Mellon, in their action asserting claims related to mortgage fraud. Although “[t]he 

parties . . . have not questioned [this Court's] jurisdiction . . . , [this Court has] an 

independent obligation to verify the existence of appellate jurisdiction” and may exercise 

jurisdiction only over final orders and certain interlocutory and collateral orders. Porter 

v. Zook, 803 F.3d 694, 696 (4th Cir. 2015) (internal quotation marks omitted); see 28 

U.S.C. § 1292 (2012); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 

U.S. 541, 545-46 (1949). “Ordinarily, a district court order is not final until it has 

resolved all claims as to all parties.” Porter, 803 F.3d at 696 (internal quotation marks 

omitted). “Regardless of the label given a district court decision, if it appears from the 

record that the district court has not adjudicated all of the issues in a case, then there is no 

final order.” Id.

In this case, the district court’s order does not address the Ayreses’ claim under 

the Maryland Consumer Debt Collection Act, which was part of Count 1 of the amended 

complaint, or their request for declaratory and injunctive relief, which was Count 6 of the 

amended complaint. Because the district court did not rule on these claims, it “never 

issued a final decision” in this matter. Id. at 699. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for 

lack of jurisdiction and remand to the district court for consideration of these claims. We 

express no opinion on the ultimate disposition of the claims. We dispense with oral 
4

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 

materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED AND REMANDED
###### Editorial Note on Part 460

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 460 appear at 67 FR 61504, Oct. 1, 2002.

#### § 460.14 [Reserved]
Order entered August 28, 2020

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05
- 20
- 00770
- CR
EX PARTE KEITH TEHDAI CHITSAKA On Appeal from the 366th Judicial District Court

Collin Co unty, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 366
- 82291
- 2019

ORDER
A pp e l l a nt has filed a notice of a p p ea l seeking review of the trial court’s denial of his post

- conviction a ppl i ca t i on for w r it of h a b e a s c orpus. This is a n

ac c e le ra t e d a pp e a l g ov e rn e d b y T e x a s R ule of App e l l a te P r o c e dure 3 1.
W e ORDER the tri a l c ourt to pr e p a r e a c e rtifi ca t ion of a pp e l l a nt’s r i g ht to

a pp ea l a nd t o file it with the clerk’s record

. W e ORDER the C o l l i n Coun t y Di st r ic t Cle r k to file the c le r

k’s

r e c o rd b y September 18 , 2020. We ORDER that th e clerk’s record contain copies
of the writ application; the State’s response to the writ application, if any; the trial court’s order adjudicating the writ application; any findings of fact and conclusions– 2

–

of law issued by the trial court; the judgment in the underlying case; any other
documents , pleadings, or motions related to the writ application ; the trial court’s certification of appellant’s right to appeal ; and any other documents requested by the parties

. We ORDER the court reporter to file, by Sept ember 18 , 2020 , the reporter’s record of the hearing on the writ application, written verificatio n that no hearing was conducted, or a letter indicating why no reporter’s record has been filed. Appellant’s brief shall be due thirty days after the record is filed, and the State’s brief shall be due thirty days after appellant’s brief is filed. See T EX

. R.
A PP

. P. 31.1(a). A ft e r t h e r ec o rd a nd b ri e fs h a ve b ee n fil e d, t h e Court will not i f y the p a rti e s of the submis s ion date a nd p a n e l.
W e DI R ECT the Cl e rk to s e nd c opies of th i s ord e r to the Hono ra b l e Tom
Nowak , P r e sid i ng J ud g e , 366th Judicial District Court ; Antoinette Varela , official c ourt r e port e r, 366th Judicial District Court ; Lynne Finley , Collin C ou n t y
District C le r k; and c ouns e l for a l l pa r t i e s.
/s/ BIL L PEDERSEN, III JUSTICE
**Exhibit
      32.1**


**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO**


**18
      U.S.C. §1350,**


**AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**


**SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**




In
      connection with the Quarterly Report of SpectraScience, Inc. (the “Company”) on
      Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities
      and
      Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, James Hitchin, Chief
      Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §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 the
      Company.





/s/
                James HitchinJames
                Hitchin
              Chief
                Executive Officer
              August
                14, 2008
HomePeople...Sandra Oudkirk

# 				Sandra Oudkirk			

															U.S. Senior Official for APEC and  Deputy Assistant Secretary for Australia, New Zealand, and the Pacific Islands						Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs												

				July 6, 2019 -									July 12, 2021							

**Sandra Oudkirk's term ended on July 12, 2021.** Sandra Oudkirk, a career member of the Senior Foreign Service, joined the Department of State in 1991 and joined the Bureau of East Asian & Pacific Affairs as U.S. Senior Official for APEC and Deputy Assistant Secretary for Australia, New Zealand, and the Pacific Islands in May 2019.  Immediately prior, she served as Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy Diplomacy in the Energy Bureau.  From 2017-2018 she served as the Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Threat Finance and Sanctions in the Bureau of Economic and Business Affairs.  Her previous overseas assignments include consular assignments at AIT/Taipei and Embassy Dublin as well as two assignments in Turkey (trade officer in Ankara 1999-2001 and Deputy Principal Officer in Istanbul 2006-2009), a tour as Narcotics Affairs Section Chief in Kingston, Jamaica and an assignment as the economic counselor in Beijing. She has also served as the East Asian & Pacific Bureau staff assistant, the Burma/Laos desk officer, as a Senior Watch Officer in the Operations Center, and as the Director for the Middle East and Asia in the Energy Bureau.Ms. Oudkirk was born and raised in Tampa, Florida and is a graduate of Georgetown University’s School of Foreign Service.  She speaks Mandarin Chinese and Turkish.
Tags
Bureau of East Asian and Pacific AffairsState Department OfficialBack to Top- White House
- USA.gov
- Office of the Inspector General
- Archives
- Contact Us
follow usFacebookXInstagramYouTubeFlickrGovDelivery- Privacy Policy
- Accessibility Statement
- Copyright Information
- FOIA
- No FEAR Act
U.S. Department *of* StateThe Lessons of 1989: Freedom and Our Future
* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

May 9, 2005

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 04-50469

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

SRINATH AUDITYAN

Defendant - Appellant

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 1:03-CR-211-ALL-LY

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

Before KING, Chief Judge, and DeMOSS and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Srinath Audityan has appealed his jury conviction of

attempted enticement of a child to engage in illicit sexual

activity. Audityan contends that the district court erred in

refusing to give a spoliation instruction. Because there is no

reason to believe that the Government acted in bad faith in

failing to record the telephone conversations at issue, the

district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to give

the instruction. See United States v. Wise, 221 F.3d 140, 156
No. 04-50469

-2-

(5th Cir. 2000); see also United States v. Townsend, 31 F.3d 262,

270 (5th Cir. 1994) (standard of review). The conviction is 

AFFIRMED.
Supplemental Retirement Plan



 Exhibit 10.44 
 FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE 
 AMEREN SUPPLEMENTAL RETIREMENT PLAN 
 WHEREAS, Ameren Corporation (“Ameren”) previously adopted the Ameren Supplemental Retirement Plan (“Plan”); and 
 WHEREAS, Ameren previously acquired Central Illinois Light Company (“CILCO”) and became the sponsor of the CILCO Benefit Replacement Plan
(“BRP”); and 
 WHEREAS, Ameren reserved the right to amend the Plan and the BRP; and 
 WHEREAS, Ameren desires to merge the BRP into the Plan effective November 1, 2008; 
 NOW THEREFORE, effective November 1, 2008, the BRP is merged into the Plan, and the Plan is amended by adding a new Schedule B as attached hereto;
and 
 RESOLVED FURTHER, the terms of the BRP in effect prior to the merger shall continue to apply with respect to a participant who
terminated employment prior to January 1, 2005, and the benefits of such participants shall be “grandfathered” for purposes of Section 409A of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended. 
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Amendment is executed as of the date below. 
  

			
	 AMEREN CORPORATION

		
	 By:
	 	/s/ Donna K. Martin
		
	 Title:
	 	SVP & CHRO
		
	 Date:
	 	10-24-08









 SCHEDULE B 
 CILCO BENEFIT REPLACEMENT PLAN BENEFITS 
 Effective November 1, 2008, the CILCO BRP is merged into the Plan. An
individual who is a Participant under the CILCO BRP on such date (“CILCO Participant”) shall become a Participant in the Plan on such date, and his or her benefits under the Plan shall be determined in accordance with the terms of the
Plan, subject to the following provisions: 
  

	 	•	 	 In lieu of the death benefits described in Section 3.3, upon the death of a CILCO Participant before termination of employment, if he or she leaves a surviving
spouse to whom he or she had been continuously married for the one-year period ending on the date of his or her death, his or her spouse shall be entitled to a death benefit equal to (a) the monthly benefit which would have been payable to the
surviving spouse as a pre-retirement death benefit under the CILCO Salaried Supplement without regard to any limitations described in Section 2.1(a) of the Plan, minus (b) the monthly pre-retirement death benefit actually payable to the
surviving spouse under the CILCO Salaried Supplement. Such benefit shall be paid at the time and in the form described in Section 3.3 of the Plan. 


  

	 	•	 	 In addition to the forms of payment described in Section 3.4B, a CILCO Participant may elect, in accordance with the terms of Section 3.4, to receive his
or her benefit upon termination of employment in the form of an annuity option available under the CILCO Salaried Supplement (or its successor document) under the Retirement Plan.
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Dannye K. TELFORD.

No. 64643.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 17, 1979.

In re Dannye K. Telford applying for writ of certiorari. Parish of Union. No. 23659.

Writ denied.
<PAGE>



                                                                    Exhibit 32.2



                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                                  SECTION 906,
                        OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Enzon Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and
Subsidiaries (the "Company") on Form 10-Q/A for the period ended December 31,
2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report"), I, Craig A. Tooman, Executive Vice President, Finance and Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as
adopted pursuant to ss. 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 result of operations
           of the Company.

                                       By: /s/Craig A. Tooman
                                           -------------------
                                           Craig A. Tooman
                                           Executive Vice President, Finance and
                                           Chief Financial Officer
                                           (Principal Financial Officer)


September 27, 2005


A signed original of this written statement required by section 906 has been
provided to Enzon Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases...Opening of U.S.-Denmark Defense Cooperation Agreement Negotiations

# 									Opening of U.S.-Denmark Defense Cooperation Agreement Negotiations							

Press Statement

Ned Price, Department Spokesperson

February 10, 2022

The United States welcomes the offer announced today by Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen to begin negotiating a new Defense Cooperation Agreement. When concluded, this agreement will allow our countries to deepen our close security partnership, further strengthen cooperation in NATO operations, and together, contribute to continued growth in Transatlantic security.

These negotiations represent a natural progression in our decades of security cooperation. In doing so, we look to build on the 1951 NATO Status of Forces Agreement to enhance interoperability to meet shared security challenges more effectively.

Our alliances are a core source of American strength. The United States and Denmark work closely together on a wide range of issues important to both countries, to the NATO Alliance, and to the rest of the world. Opening these consultations with Denmark reflects our commitment to reaffirming and reinvigorating America’s alliances to meet common security challenges while protecting shared interests and values.

Tags

Bureau of European and Eurasian AffairsBureau of Political-Military AffairsDenmarkOffice of the Spokesperson

Back to Top
#### Larry Allen HARTS, Appellant, v. Joyce K. HARTS, Appellee.

No. 79-837.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

May 20, 1980.

Rehearing Denied June 10, 1980.

Gilbride & Heller and Lewis N. Brown, Miami, for appellant.

Richard H. W. Maloy & Associates, Coral Gables, Kevin A. Anderson, Hialeah, for appellee.

Before HUBBART, NESBITT and PEARSON, DANIEL, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

The final judgment of marriage dissolution under review is affirmed upon a holding that: (a) there was substantial, competent evidence in this record upon which the trial court could properly award the wife, as it did, the subject 1978 Fiat automobile and require the husband to make the payments thereon as a form of ■lump sum alimony; and (b) there was substantial, competent evidence in this record upon which the trial court could award the *953wife, as it did, $10,000, impose a lien in that amount against the marital home to guarantee payment of said sum, and authorize a payment schedule thereon, as a form of lump sum alimony. It is not the function of this court to substitute its judgment for that of the trial court, as urged by the husband, through re-evaluation of the testimony and evidence from the record on appeal before us and to interfere with the trial court’s admittedly broad discretion in matters of this nature. We find no abuse of discretion here, and, accordingly, are compelled to affirm. *Canakaris v. Canakaris,*382 So.2d 1197 (Fla.1980); *Rosenberg v. Rosenberg,*371 So.2d 672 (Fla.1979) adopting 352 So.2d 867 (Fla.3d DCA 1977) (Hubbart, J., dissenting); *Shaw v. Shaw,*334 So.2d 13, 16 (Fla.1976); *Yandell v. Yandell,*39 So.2d 554, 556 (Fla.1949).

Affirmed.
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 180 (Friday, September 18, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 47951]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-22460]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[Docket No. USCG-2009-0790]


Certificate of Alternative Compliance for the Offshore Supply 
Vessel ACO LANDRY A GALIANO

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard announces that a Certificate of Alternative 
Compliance was issued for the offshore supply vessel ACO LANDRY A 
GALIANO as required by 33 U.S.C. 1605(c) and 33 CFR 81.18.

DATES: The Certificate of Alternative Compliance was issued on August 
10, 2009.

ADDRESSES: The docket for this notice is available for inspection or 
copying at the Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of 
Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New 
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., 
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. You may also find this 
docket on the Internet by going to http://www.regulations.gov, 
inserting USCG-2009-0790 in the ``Keyword'' box, and then clicking 
``Search.''

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this notice, 
call CWO2 David Mauldin, District Eight, Prevention Branch, U.S. Coast 
Guard, telephone 504-671-2153. If you have questions on viewing or 
submitting material to the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program 
Manager, Docket Operations, telephone 202-366-9826.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background and Purpose

    The offshore supply vessel ACO LANDRY A GALIANO will be used for 
offshore supply operations. The horizontal distance between the forward 
and aft masthead lights may be 22'- 5''. Placing the aft masthead light 
at the horizontal distance from the forward masthead light as required 
by Annex I, paragraph 3(a) of the 72 COLREGS, and Annex I, Section 
84.05(a) of the Inland Rules Act, would result in an aft masthead light 
location directly over the cargo deck, where it would interfere with 
loading and unloading operations.
    The Certificate of Alternative Compliance allows for the horizontal 
separation of the forward and aft masthead lights to deviate from the 
requirements of Annex I, paragraph 3(a) of 72 COLREGS, and Annex I, 
Section 84.05(a) of the Inland Rules Act.
    This notice is issued under authority of 33 U.S.C. 1605(c), and 33 
CFR 81.18.

    Dated: August 24, 2009.
J. W. Johnson,
Commander, U.S. Coast Guard, Chief, Inspections and Investigations 
Branch, By Direction of the Commander, Eighth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. E9-22460 Filed 9-17-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P
104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 3546

AN ACT

To direct the Secretary of the Interior to convey

State of South Carolina.the Walhalla National Fish Hatchery to the
104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 3546

AN ACT

To direct the Secretary of the Interior to convey the Walhalla

National Fish Hatchery to the State of South Carolina.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

•HR 3546 EH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Walhalla National Fish

3 Hatchery Conveyance Act’’.

4 SEC. 2. CONVEYANCE OF WALHALLA NATIONAL FISH

5 HATCHERY TO THE STATE OF SOUTH CARO6 LINA.

7 (a) CONVEYANCE REQUIREMENT.—Within 180 days

8 after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary

9 of the Interior shall convey to the State of South Carolina

10 without reimbursement all right, title, and interest of the

11 United States in and to the property described in sub12 section (b), for use by the South Carolina Department of

13 Natural Resources as part of the State of South Carolina

14 fish culture program.

15 (b) PROPERTY DESCRIBED.—The property referred

16 to in subsection (a) is the property known as the Walhalla

17 National Fish Hatchery, located on Indian Camp Creek

18 and the East Fork of Chattooga River off of State Second19 ary Highway 325 in northern Oconee County, South Caro20 lina, consisting of 76.2 acres (more or less), all improve21 ments and related personal property under the control of

22 the Secretary that is located on that property, including

23 buildings, structures, and equipment, and all easements,

24 leases, and water rights relating to that property.

25 (c) REVERSIONARY INTEREST.—If any of the prop26 erty conveyed to the State of South Carolina under this
3

•HR 3546 EH

1 section is used for any purpose other than the use author2 ized under subsection (a), all right, title, and interest in

3 and to all property conveyed under this section shall revert

4 to the United States. The State of South Carolina shall

5 ensure that all property reverting to the United States

6 under this subsection is in substantially the same or better

7 condition as at the time of transfer to the State.

Passed the House of Representatives July 30, 1996.

Attest:

Clerk.
#### SMALLEY TRANSPORTATION COMPANY, Petitioner, v. Paula F. HAWKINS et al., Respondents.

No. 55314.

Supreme Court of Florida.

March 29, 1979.

Ansley Watson, Jr. and David C. G. Kerr of MacFarlane, Ferguson, Allison & Kelly, Tampa, for petitioner.

Prentice P. Pruitt, Legal Director and M. Robert Christ, Staff Counsel of the Florida Public Service Commission, Tallahassee, and Martin Sack, Jr., Jacksonville, for respondents and intervenors.

PER CURIAM.

Denied.

ENGLAND, C. J., and ADKINS, BOYD, OVERTON and ALDERMAN, JJ., concur.