alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., as Trustee 

for the Certificateholders of Banc of America 

Funding Corporation, Mortgage PassThrough Certificates, Series 2005-B, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

SFR INVESTMENTS POOL 1, LLC, 

Defendant-Appellee.

No. 21-16566 

D.C. No. 

2:20-cv-01277-GMN-VCF 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Nevada

Gloria M. Navarro, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted April 11, 2024**

Pasadena, California

Before: MURGUIA, Chief Judge, and MENDOZA and DE ALBA, Circuit 

Judges.

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as Trustee for the Certificateholders of Banc of 

America Funding Corporation, Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2005-B

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

APR 15 2024

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 21-16566 

(“Wells Fargo”), appeals from the district court’s order granting SFR Investment 

Pool 1, LLC’s (“SFR”) motion to dismiss. The district court granted the motion, 

concluding that the statute-of-limitations period began once the foreclosure sale 

occurred and that Wells Fargo’s quiet-title claim was time barred. After Wells 

Fargo filed its appeal, the Nevada Supreme Court issued its opinion in U.S. Bank, 

N.A. v. Thunder Properties, Inc., 503 P.3d 299 (Nev. 2022) (“Thunder 

Properties”). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291; review statute-oflimitations dismissals de novo, Taylor v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., 993 F.2d 710, 

711 (9th Cir. 1993); vacate the district court’s order; and remand this case for 

further proceedings consistent with Thunder Properties. 

In Thunder Properties, the Nevada Supreme Court held that: (1) declaratory 

relief actions are not categorically exempt from statutes of limitations; (2) actions 

to determine the validity of a lien are subject to a four-year statute of limitations;

and (3) the statute of limitations is not triggered until the titleholder affirmatively 

repudiates the lien, which does not necessarily happen at a foreclosure sale. 503 

P.3d at 303–07. Relevant here, the court held that a “foreclosure sale, standing 

alone, is not sufficient to trigger” the statute-of-limitations period. Id. at 306. 

The district court, which decided SFR’s motion without the benefit of 

Thunder Properties, held that the statute of limitations period began after the 

foreclosure sale in 2012. Because this determination is inconsistent with the 
3 21-16566 

Nevada Supreme Court’s decision, we vacate the district court’s September 13, 

2021 order, and we remand for further proceedings consistent with Thunder 

Properties. 

VACATED and REMANDED.
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 588 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 588

            For the relief of Robert Liang and Alice Liang.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 18, 2013

Mrs. Feinstein introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
            For the relief of Robert Liang and Alice Liang.

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

SECTION 1. ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS.

    (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law or any 
order, for the purposes of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 
U.S.C. 1101 et seq.), Robert Liang and Alice Liang shall be deemed to 
have been lawfully admitted to, and remained in, the United States, and 
shall be eligible for issuance of an immigrant visa or for adjustment 
of status under section 245 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 
U.S.C. 1255).
    (b) Application and Payment of Fees.--Subsection (a) shall apply 
only if the applications for issuance of immigrant visas or the 
applications for adjustment of status are filed with appropriate fees 
not later than 2 years after the date of the enactment of this Act.
    (c) Reduction of Immigrant Visa Numbers.--Upon the granting of 
immigrant visas to Robert Liang and Alice Liang, the Secretary of State 
shall instruct the proper officer to reduce by 2, during the current or 
subsequent fiscal year, the total number of immigrant visas that are 
made available to natives of the country of birth of Robert Liang and 
Alice Liang under section 203(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act 
(8 U.S.C. 1153(a)) or, if applicable, the total number of immigrant 
visas that are made available to natives of the country of birth of 
Robert Liang and Alice Liang under section 202(e) of that Act (8 U.S.C. 
1152(e)).
    (d) PAYGO.--The budgetary effects of this Act, for the purpose of 
complying with the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010, shall be 
determined by reference to the latest statement titled ``Budgetary 
Effects of PAYGO Legislation'' for this Act, submitted for printing in 
the Congressional Record by the Chairman of the Senate Budget 
Committee, provided that such statement has been submitted prior to the 
vote on passage.
                                 <all>
```
#### Memorita Thompson, Individually and as Administratrix of the Estate of Thomasina A. Thompson, Deceased, Appellant, v New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation et al., Respondents.

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Douglas E. McKeon, J.), entered on or about August 28, 1990, which granted an application by plaintiff to serve a late notice of claim only to the extent of permitting a claim for wrongful death, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The infant decedent, at the age of ten, died at defendant Lincoln Hospital on May 16, 1989, as a result of a spontaneous left intracerebral hemorrhage. Decedent’s mother, plaintiff administratrix, was allegedly too bereaved to contact an attorney until February 20, 1990. She was appointed administratrix on April 16, 1990, and finally moved for leave to serve a notice of claim by order to show cause dated July 30, 1990.

We agree that the application was properly granted only to the extent of permitting the claim for wrongful death, which was timely. As to the claims for loss of services and conscious *434pain and suffering, the conclusory assertions of plaintiff were insufficient to excuse the delay. Further, mere possession of the hospital records cannot be construed as providing defendants with actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim. *(Perkins v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp.,*167 AD2d 150; *Matter of Mandia v County of Westchester,*162 AD2d 217; *Matter of Aviles v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp.,*172 AD2d 237.) Concur—Murphy, P. J., Milonas, Ellerin, Ross and Rubin, JJ.
Exhibit 10.21

 

This DEED is made on the 5th day of November 2008

 

BETWEEN

 

(1)                                 Montpelier Underwriting Services Limited of 7th Floor, 85 Gracechurch Street, London EC3 (“Montpelier”)

 

(2)                                 Spectrum Syndicate Management Limited of 2nd Floor, Alexander Forbes House, 6 Bevis Marks, London, EC3A 7HL (“Spectrum”); and

 

(3)                                 Richard Michael Maguire Chattock of Wayside, Mount Road, Chobham, Surrey GU24 8AW, England (the “Employee”), together “the Parties”.

 

RECITALS

 

(A)       The Parties wish to amend the service agreement between Montpellier; Spectrum and the Employee dated [ ] August 2007 (the “Service Agreement”) as set out herein.

 

1.              AMENDMENTS

 

1.1.         The defined term “Employer” in the Service Agreement is hereby amended to refer in all instances to Montpelier only; except as hereinafter provided all references to Spectrum as a joint Employer of the Employee shall be deleted throughout the Service Agreement; and Spectrum shall be jointly and severally liable only in respect of employment-related liabilities and obligations arising prior to the effective date of this Amendment, including as provided in Sections 19.1 and 19.2.

 

1.2.         Section 1.1 of the Service Agreement regarding the defined term “Employer Committee” shall be deleted in its entirety and all other references to the “Employer Committee” throughout the Service Agreement shall be deleted and, as necessary, substituted with the defined term “Employer”.

 

1.3.         Section 7.1 of the Service Agreement is hereby amended, to read in its entirety as follows:

 

“7.1  The Employee will be based at Montpelier’s offices at 7th Floor, 85 Gracechurch Street, London EC3, or such other place in central London as the Employer shall from time to time require.”

 











 

1.4.         These amendments will take effect from 1 January 2009 and except to the extent hereinabove set forth, the Service Agreement shall continue in full force and effect without change or modification.

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each of the parties hereto has executed this Deed as of the date first above written.

 

	
Executed as a deed by MONTPELIER UNDERWRITING   SERVICES LIMITED acting by:
    
	
 
    
	
 
    
	
Director
    	
 
    	
Director/Secretary
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
/s/ Giuseppe Perdoni
    	
 
    	
/s/   Nicholas Newman-Young
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
Executed as a deed by SPECTRUM SYNDICATE   MANAGEMENT LIMITED acting by:
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
/s/   Spectrum Syndicate Management Limited
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
Executed as a deed by the Employee:
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
/s/ Richard M.M. Chattock
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
Richard M.M. Chattock
    	
 
    
				


 

2
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW PITTMAN LLP
, Appellant,

v.

NORTH BROWARD HOSPITAL DISTRICT
, Appellee

.

No. 4D 22

- 2439

[ December 1, 2022 ]

Appeal of a non

- final order from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County ; Sandra Perlman , Judge; L.T. Case No.

CACE22004782

.

Jennifer G. Altman of Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP

, Miami , for appellant.

Christopher J. Stearns and E. Bruce Johnson o f Johnson, Anselmo, Murdoch, Burke, Piper & Hochman, PA, Fort Lauderdale , for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed

.

K LINGENSMITH

, C.J., G ROSS and C ONNER , JJ., concur

.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Document headings vary by document type but may contain
                    the following: the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document
the number of the CFR title and the number of each part
                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly
                      related to
the agency docket number / agency internal file number
the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in
                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory
                      Actions See the
                    Document Drafting Handbook
                    for more details.
 Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
 *Notice is hereby given*
                     that the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC or Receiver) as Receiver for the institution listed below intends to terminate its receivership for said institution. Notice of Intent To Terminate Receivership
Fund
Receivership name
City
State
Date of
                             appointment 
                             of Receiver10436
Inter Savings Bank, FSB d/b/a InterBank, FSB
Maple Grove
MN
4/27/2012
 The liquidation of the assets for the receivership has been completed. To the extent permitted by available funds and in accordance with law, the Receiver will be making a final dividend payment to proven creditors. Based upon the foregoing, the Receiver has determined that the continued existence of the receivership will serve no useful purpose. Consequently, notice is given that the receivership shall be terminated, to be effective no sooner than thirty days after the date of this notice. If any person wishes to comment concerning the termination of the receivership, such comment must be made in writing, identify the receivership to which the comment pertains, and sent within thirty days of the date of this notice to: Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Division of Resolutions and Receiverships, Attention: Receivership Oversight Department 34.6, 1601 Bryan Street, Dallas, TX 75201. No comments concerning the termination of this receivership will be considered which are not sent within this time frame. Dated at Washington, DC, on September 5, 2018. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. Robert E. Feldman, Executive Secretary.


[FR Doc. 2018-19508 Filed 9-7-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6714-01-P
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2017 (the Report) of Solar Senior Capital Ltd. (the Registrant), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, RICHARD L.
PETEKA, the Chief Financial Officer of the Registrant, hereby certify, to the best of my knowledge, that:

(1) 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 Registrant.



|      |  |                      
|----- |  | ---------------------
|      |  | /S/ RICHARD L. PETEKA
|Name: |  | Richard L. Peteka    
|Date: |  | August 1, 2017
# C o u rt o f

A p p ea ls

o f t h e S t a te o f

G eo rg ia

ATLANTA,_

_ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _

Th e Co u rt

o f Ap p ea l s h er eb y p a s s es t h e f

o ll owi n g o r der :

A1 7 D0 53 8 , A1 7 D0 5 3 9

. CAROL SUE ROBERSON v . THE STATE.

Caro l Su e Ro b ers o n p l ed g ui l t y t o m u rd er on M ay 1 8, 1 9 9 0

. On J un e 5

, 2 0 1 7,

t h e t ri al co u rt en t ered t wo o rd ers , o n e o f wh i ch d e n i ed Ro bers o n ’ s m o t i o n t o s et a

co u rt d at e an d ap p o in t an at t o rn ey , wh i l e t h e o t h er d en ied h er m o t i o n fo r

res en t en ci n g

. On J u n e 2 1

, 2 0 1 7, Ro b ers o n fi l ed ap p l i cat i o n s fo r d i s cret i o n ary ap p eal

fro m t h es e o rd ers . Ho wev er, we l ack ju ri s di ct i o n

. Un d er o u r Co ns t it u t i o n , t h e Su p rem e Co u rt h as ap p el l at e ju ri s d i c t i o n o v er

“ [a] l l cas es i n w h i ch a s en t en ce o f deat h was i m p o s ed o r co ul d b e i m

p o s ed .” See Ga.

Co n s t

. o f 1 9 8 3, Art

. VI, Sec. VI, Par. III (8 ). Becau s e a p en al t y of d eat h can b e

i m p o s ed fo r t h e cri m e o f m urd er, ju ri s d ict i o n i s pro p er i n t h e S u p r e m e Co u rt

. See

OCGA § 1 7 -1 0 -3 0 (b ); Nea l v. S t a t e , 29 0 G a. 5 6 3

, 5 7 2 (7 22 SE2 d 7 6 5 ) (2 0 1 2 )
(Hu ns t ei n , C. J., co n cu rri n g); s ee al s o S ta t e v. Th o rn t o n , 2 53 Ga. 5 2 4 (3 2 2 SE2 d 7 1 1 )
(1 9 8 4) (d i rect i n g t h i s Co u rt to t ran s fer “ al l cas es i n w h i ch ei t h er a s en t en ce o f d eat h

o r o f l i fe i m

p ri s o n m en t h as b een i m

p o s ed u p o n co n vi ct i o n o f m u rd er”). Acco rd i n g l y , Ro b ers o n ’ s ap p l i cat io n s a r e h e r eb y TRANSFERRED t o t h e Su p rem e Co u rt fo r

d i s p o s i t i on

.

C o u r t o f A p p e a l s o f t h e S t a t e o

f G e o r g ia

C le r k ’ s O f f i c e
, A t la n t a
,

_

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I c e r ti fy t h a t t h e a b o v e is a tr u e e x t r a c t f r o m

t h e m i n u t e s o

f t h e C o u r t o

f A p p e a l s o f G e o r g i a

. W i tn e s s m y s i g n a t u r e a n d t h e s e a l o

f s a i d c o u r t

h e r e t o a f f i x e d t h e d a y a n d y e a r l a s t a b o v e w r i t t e n

.

, C l e r k

. June 29, 2017

06/29/2017
----

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Sixth Chamber)

of 9 December 2004

in Case C-56/04: Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Finland (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2001/29/EC - Harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society - Failure to transpose within the period prescribed)

(2005/C 31/08)

Language of the case: Finnish

In Case C-56/04: Commission of the European Communities (Agents: K. Banks and H. Huttunen) v Republic of Finland (Agent: A. Guimaraes-Purokoski) – ACTION under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations, brought on 10 February 2004 – the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: A. Borg Barthet, President of Chamber, J.-P. Puissochet and J. Malenovský (Judge Rapporteur), Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 9 December 2004, in which it:

----

(1)OJ C 85, 3.4.2004.

----
EXHIBIT 32.1

 

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)

 

In connection with this Report on Form 10-Q for the three and six months ended March 31, 2022 (the “Report”) of PennantPark Floating Rate Capital, Ltd. (the “Registrant”), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Arthur H. Penn, Chief Executive Officer of the Registrant, hereby certify, to the best of my knowledge, that:

 

(1)   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 Registrant.

 

|                    |        |                         |
|--------------------|--------|-------------------------|
| /s/ Arthur H. Penn |
| Name:              |   | Arthur H. Penn          |
| Title:             |   | Chief Executive Officer |
| Date:              |   | May 4, 2022             |

 

 

----
CERTIFICATIONS OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER
AND PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT



Exhibit 32.01



CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO



1	SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)



In connection with the Quarterly Report
of Santa Fe Petroleum, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2012,
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Bruce A. Hall, the Principal Executive and
Financial Officer of the Company, do hereby certify, pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. §
1350), that to their knowledge:



(1) The Report fully complies with the
requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and



(2) The information contained in the Report
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|/s/ Bruce A. Hall, Principal Executive and Financial Officer |                
|------------------------------------------------------------ | ---------------
|Name:                                                        | Bruce A. Hall  
|Date:                                                        | August 13, 2012
Sl()-1()0405-()()1 

CI lARLESTON COUNTY AVIATION AUTHORITY 

March 25. 2010 

The Honorable RaN-niond 11. La) lood 

Secretary 

U.S. Deparlmenl oirransjionation 

1200 New Jersey Ave. Sii 

Washington. DC 20590 

RE: Docket DOT-OST-2010^ 

Dear Mr. Secrctaiy: 

Thank you for the opporiunity to express my support for the application tor antitrust 

immunity and proposed joint business agreement lllcd b> .American .-Xirlines and Japan 

Airlines. The proposed alliance between these two airlines is vital for oneworld to 

compete elTectiveiy with the Star and Sky Team alliance. This increased inleralliance 

competition will in turn enhance the bcncllts of the Department's Open Skies policy -

Hrst by solidifying U.S.-Japan Open Skies, (hen by serving as a foundation for further 

liberalization across .Asia. 

After a thorough review. I encourage the Department of I'ransportation to approve this 

applicaiion as it would enable these oneworld alliance airlines to work closely together to 

deliver highly competitive air transportation services, .'\pproval for AA/JAL alliance will 

have a positive impact on air travel by oflering custt)mers more service, scheduling and 

pricing options and will help to ensure that customers continue to bcnellt from having 

three competitive air alliances to choose from. 

1 urge you to quickly approve this application. 

Sincerclv. 

•DXcj^d^ ^ - d<Uuw^ 

l)a\id (j. Jennings 

Chairman
Author: SAIC, Tetra Tech, and Abt Associates Inc.

Date Created: 8/5/2010
Date Modified: 5/10/2011

Purpose: This file determines whether an in-scope Electric Generator has high or low water intake velocity.

File Contents:

Worksheet Contents

Intake Contains water intake velocity information at the level of the intake structure and determines whether this intake velocity is high.

Facility Determines whether a facility has high or low water intake velocity at the level of the facility.

Input Files: External data used in calculations/analysis:

None

The original version of this file contains, or is linked to a file that contains, confidential business information (CBI), or information that could be used to reveal CBI. As a result, the values for any variables determined by EPA to be CBI, or that could be used to reveal CBI, have been concealed.1 2 3 4 5

Plant CodeSurvey

ID Total With High Intake Velocity High

Velocity? (yes=1) Num of Intakes1 2 3 4 5

Plant CodeSurvey

ID Total With High Intake Velocity High

Velocity? (yes=1) Num of Intakes1 2 3 4 5

Plant CodeSurvey

ID Total With High Intake Velocity High

Velocity? (yes=1) Num of Intakes1 2 3 4 5

Plant CodeSurvey

ID Total With High Intake Velocity High

Velocity? (yes=1) Num of Intakes1 2 3 4 5

Plant CodeSurvey

ID Total With High Intake Velocity High

Velocity? (yes=1) Num of Intakes1 2 3 4 5

Plant CodeSurvey

ID Total With High Intake Velocity High

Velocity? (yes=1) Num of Intakes1 2 3 4 5

Plant CodeSurvey

ID Total With High Intake Velocity High

Velocity? (yes=1) Num of Intakes1 2 3 4 5

Plant CodeSurvey

ID Total With High Intake Velocity High

Velocity? (yes=1) Num of IntakesIntake Velocity Threshold--> 0.5

ID03 SUB03Q11G High Intake Velocity? (yes=1)ID03 SUB03Q11G High Intake Velocity? (yes=1)ID03 SUB03Q11G High Intake Velocity? (yes=1)ID03 SUB03Q11G High Intake Velocity? (yes=1)ID03 SUB03Q11G High Intake Velocity? (yes=1)ID03 SUB03Q11G High Intake Velocity? (yes=1)ID03 SUB03Q11G High Intake Velocity? (yes=1)ID03 SUB03Q11G High Intake Velocity? (yes=1)ID03 SUB03Q11G High Intake Velocity? (yes=1)ID03 SUB03Q11G High Intake Velocity? (yes=1)ID03 SUB03Q11G High Intake Velocity? (yes=1)ID03 SUB03Q11G High Intake Velocity? (yes=1)ID03 SUB03Q11G High Intake Velocity? (yes=1)ID03 SUB03Q11G High Intake Velocity? (yes=1)ID03 SUB03Q11G High Intake Velocity? (yes=1)