alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
This memorandum opinion was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports.

Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum

opinions. Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain

computer-generated errors or other deviations from the official paper version filed by the Court of

Appeals and does not include the filing date. 

1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO

2 FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE

3 ASSOCIATION,

4 Plaintiff-Appellee,

5 v. NO. 35,574

6 TONY M. PADILLA,

7 Defendant-Appellant.

8 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF SAN MIGUEL COUNTY

9 Matthew J. Sandoval, District Judge

10 Murr Siler & Accomazzo, P.C.

11 Joshua A Spencer

12 Albuquerque, NM 

13 for Appellee

14 Tony M. Padilla

15 Las Vegas, NM 

16 Pro Se Appellant

17 MEMORANDUM OPINION

18 WECHSLER, Judge.
2

1 {1} Summary dismissal was proposed for the reasons stated in the notice of

2 proposed summary disposition. No memorandum opposing summary dismissal has

3 been filed and the time for doing so has expired.

4 {2} Accordingly, we dismiss for the reasons stated in our calendar notice.

5 {3} IT IS SO ORDERED.

6 __________________________________

7 JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge

8 WE CONCUR:

9 _________________________________

10 MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Chief Judge

11 _________________________________

12 TIMOTHY L. GARCIA, Judge
*Exhibit      32.1*

**CERTIFICATION**

| 1. | The                Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d),                as                applicable, 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                at the dates and for the periods                indicated. |
|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                                   |                                                             |                              |
|----------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------|
|                                   |                                                             |
|                              |                                                        |                         |
| Date: March              15, 2006 | By:                                                    | /s/ HUGH              MILLER |
|                                   |                                                                  |
|                                   | Title: *President              and Chief Executive Officer* |

----
From: "Higgins, Cortney" <Cortney_Higgins@omb.eop.gov>

To: Keith Barnett/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Cc: Charlotte Bertrand/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Tom Walton/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Date: 07/30/2010 06:08 PM

Subject: Interagency comments on Portland Cement NESHAP and NSPS

Hi Keith,

Attached is a pdf with comments from the interagency reviewers on the Portland Cement NESHAP and 

NSPS draft final rule and RIA. It includes comments on the RIA. Furthermore, these comments were 

made on the draft submitted to OMB for review . There may be more questions early next week on the 

revised draft you sent to us today.

Please let me know if you have any questions.

Regards,

Cortney
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-7175

RONALD MCCLARY,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

LIEUTENANT CROSSON; OFFICER WILLIAMS; OFFICER HICKS; OFFICER 

WALLS,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Robert T. Numbers, II, 

Magistrate Judge. (5:15-ct-03259-D)

Submitted: November 17, 2016 Decided: November 22, 2016

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and MOTZ and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ronald McClary, Appellant Pro Se. Vanessa N. Totten, Assistant 

Attorney General, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, 

North Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Ronald McClary seeks to appeal the magistrate judge’s order 

granting the Defendants an enlargement of time to answer his 

complaint or file a responsive pleading. This court may exercise 

jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2012), and 

certain interlocutory and collateral orders. 28 U.S.C. § 1292 

(2012); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b), Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan 

Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-47 (1949). Because the magistrate judge’s 

order is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or 

collateral order, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

We dispense with oral 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
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE QUARTERLY
REPORT ON FORM 10-K FOR THE FISCAL QUARTER ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1997 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                         440,543
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                       5,849,610
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                 41,554,231
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                     37,166,605
<ALLOWANCE>                                    186,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              87,922,358
<DEPOSITS>                                  41,274,722
<SHORT-TERM>                                13,750,000
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                          9,788,412
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        21,821
<OTHER-SE>                                  23,087,403
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>              87,922,358
<INTEREST-LOAN>                              3,244,083
<INTEREST-INVEST>                            2,613,186
<INTEREST-OTHER>                               204,534
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                             6,061,803
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                           1,741,066
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           2,084,087
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                        3,977,716
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                        0
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                               (179)
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                              2,186,405
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,868,638
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                   1,868,638
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   921,283
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.47
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.47
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    5.01
<LOANS-NON>                                    470,987
<LOANS-PAST>                                 2,887,847
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                               186,000
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                        0
<RECOVERIES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                              186,000
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                                 0
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0




</TABLE>
# Hogan Lovells
May6, 2015 Hogan Lovells US LLP Columbia Square 555Thirteenth Street, NW Washington, DC 20004 T +1 202 637 5600 F +1 202 637 5910 www.hoganlovells.com

By Electronic Mail and Electronic Submission (cover letteronly) MarkW. Bury, Esquire Assistant ChiefCounselfor Regulations Office ofthe ChiefCounsel FederalAviation Administration 800 IndependenceAvenue, SW Washington, DC 20591 Re: Exemption No. 11368 ofTopcon Positioning Systems, Inc. from Certain FARTo Permit Unmanned AircraftSystems Operations (Docket FAA-2015-0103) Dear Mr. Bury: Topcon Positioning Systems, Inc. ("TPS") provides the FAA with the following enclosed documentswith respectto its Exemption No. 11368:
• (Exhibit 1) MAVinci UAS: SiriusAerial Image UAS Aircraft Flight Manual
• (Exhibit2) MAVinci UAS: MAVinci Desktop Supplement, User's Guide and Tutorial As explained in the underlying Petition, TPS requests confidential treatment for these two Manuals. Each ofthese documents contains informationthat is highly proprietary and confidential to MAVinci, TPS, and/or Juniper Unmanned. TPS will place a copy of this cover letter in the corresponding docket, but notthe enclosed documentsforwhich confidentialtreatment is requested. Respectfully submitted,

Patrick R. Rizzi Counselfor Topcon PositioningSystems tazewell.ellett@hoganlovells.com patrick.rizzi@hoganlovells.com D +1.202.637.8644/5659

cc: JamesWilliams, Manager, FAA UAS Integration Office Rob Pappas, Special Rules Coordinator, FAA UAS Integration Office

Hogan Lovells US LLP ts a ltmited liability partnershtp regtstered tn the District of Columbta "Hogan Lovells" ts an tnternattonal legal practice that includes Hogan Lovells US LLP and Hogan Lovells International LLP. with offices tn. Alicante Amsterdam Balttmore Betjing Brussels Caracas Colorado Spnngs Denver Dubat Dusseldorf Frankfurt Hamburg Hanot Ho Cht Mtnh Ctty Hong Kong Houston Johannesburg London Los Angeles Luxembourg Madrid Mextco Ctty Mtamt Milan Monterrey Moscow Muntch NewYork Northern Vtrginta Pans Phtladelphta Rto de Janeiro Rome San Franctsco Siio Paulo Shanghai Stltcon Valley Stngapore Tokyo Ulaanbaatar Warsaw Washington DC Associated offices. Budapest Jakarta Jeddah Riyadh Zagreb. For more Information see www.hoganlovells.com \\DC- 0268111000011 6546083v1
# C_2014366EN.01000201.xml

| 16.10.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 366/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.10.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 366/2

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

15 October 2014

2014/C 366/02

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,2666 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 135,50 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4453 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,79570 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,2003 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,2072 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 8,3800 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 27,545 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 306,46 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,2081 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,4148 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 2,8772 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,4527 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4405 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 9,8240 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,6150 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,6173 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 345,25 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 14,0336 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 7,7601 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,6610 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 15 483,49 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,1489 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 56,878 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 51,6883 |
| THB | Thai baht | 41,180 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 3,0617 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 17,0548 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 77,8009 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,2666

JPY

Japanese yen

135,50

DKK

Danish krone

7,4453

GBP

Pound sterling

0,79570

SEK

Swedish krona

9,2003

CHF

Swiss franc

1,2072

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

8,3800

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

27,545

HUF

Hungarian forint

306,46

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

PLN

Polish zloty

4,2081

RON

Romanian leu

4,4148

TRY

Turkish lira

2,8772

AUD

Australian dollar

1,4527

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4405

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

9,8240

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,6150

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,6173

KRW

South Korean won

1 345,25

ZAR

South African rand

14,0336

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

7,7601

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,6610

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

15 483,49

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,1489

PHP

Philippine peso

56,878

RUB

Russian rouble

51,6883

THB

Thai baht

41,180

BRL

Brazilian real

3,0617

MXN

Mexican peso

17,0548

INR

Indian rupee

77,8009

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

1

Source

---
Exhibit 32.2   CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002   In connection with the Quarterly Report of IGI Laboratories, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2014, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Jenniffer Collins, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, state and certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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.   Date: August 11, 2014  /s/Jenniffer CollinsJenniffer CollinsChief Financial Officer
MARY MANN,

Petitioner,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Respondent.

___________________________/

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D16-911

Opinion filed November 15, 2016.

Petition for Writ of Certiorari. Original Jurisdiction.

Dale Marie Merrill of Law Office of Dale Marie Merrill, Crystal River.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Sharon S. Traxler, Assistant Attorney 

General, Tallahassee, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

DENIED.

MAKAR, KELSEY, and WINSOR, JJ., CONCUR.
EXHIBIT 21.1

                   SUBSIDIARIES OF DELTA FINANCIAL CORPORATION




            NAME                                   STATE OF INCORPORATION
     ------------------                                ---------------
Delta Funding Corporation..........................       New York
Fidelity Mortgage Inc..............................       Delaware
DFC Financial Corporation..........................       Delaware
DF Special Holdings Corporation....................       Delaware
Continental Property Management Corp...............       New York
DFC 1999-A Corp....................................       Delaware
DFC Receivables Company, L.L.C. ...................       Delaware
DFC 2000-B Corp. ..................................       Delaware
DFC Financial of Canada Limited ...................       Ontario, Canada
DFC Funding of Canada Limited......................       Ontario, Canada
DFC Servicing Receivables Corp  ...................       Delaware
DFC Servicing Receivables Company, L.L.C. .........       Delaware
DFC Holding-A Corp. ...............................       Delaware
DFC Funding Corporation ...........................       Delaware
DFC Acceptance Corporation ........................       Delaware
Renaissance Mortgage Acceptance Corp. .............       Delaware
Renaissance NIM Trust 2002-A  .....................       Delaware
Renaissance NIM Trust 2002-B  .....................       Delaware
Renaissance NIM Trust 2002-C  .....................       Delaware
Renaissance NIM Trust 2002-D  .....................       Delaware
EXHIBIT 13.1





CERTIFICATION




PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,




AS ADOPTED BY SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




I, Oded Bashan, as Chief Executive Officer of On Track Innovations Ltd. (the “Company”), certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge the accompanying annual report on Form 20-F/A for the year ended December 31, 2010 as filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.


Date: December 20, 2011
By:
/s/ Oded BashanOded BashanChief Executive Officer of the Company
#### SIMONTON *vs.*VAIL.

APPEAL EROM CIRCUIT COURT, LA CROSSE COUNTY.

Heard January 25.]

[Decided May 4, 1860.

Interest— Usury— *Tender.*

An answer of usury to a note &nd mortgage executed under the act of 1851, which made the note void, is a good defense to an action upon the same, without any averment of a tender, or offer to pay the principal sum loaned, and evidence of the usury ought to he received,

*Platt vs. jRobinson,*10 Wis., 128, considered and approved.

This was an *action to foreclose*a mortgage, dated the *22d*of December, 1855. The complaint is in the usual form. The answer averred a payment of *$32*which had not been allowed ; and then answered that the contract was usurious, specifying in what manner, and claimed the benefit of his plea. On the trial the defendant was sworn as a witness, and several questions were put to him, tending to elicit proof of the usury, and also offers made to prove the usury. All of which were objected to and the testimony excluded by *the*court, on the ground that there had been no tender made or proven, of the principal sum secured by the note and mortgage. Judgment was entered for the plaintiff, from which the defendant appealed.

*Flint Sj- Stodgill,*for the appellant.

*Finches, Lynde fy Miller,*for the respondent.

*By the Court,*

Paine, J.

This was an action to foreclose a mortgage, and the defendant in his answer set up usury. The mortgage was executed while the law of 1851, on the subject of interest, was in *force;*and by that law, if usurious, it was void. The trial occurred in August, 1859, and on the trial the defendant offered evidence to show the usury, which was objected to on the ground that no tender of the principal *91sum loaned had been averred or proved, and the court sustained the objection and excluded the testimony, to which the defendant excepted. In the case of *Platt vs.*Robinson, 10, Wis., 128, we held, that even in cases arising under the usury law of 1856, it was not necessary to aver a tender in order to entitle the defendant to prove usury. And in the case of *Root vs. Pinney, supra,*84 we have already held that the provision of the act of 1856, in respect to a tender, related to the remedy merely, and that, although continued in the revision of 1858, it was repealed by chap. 160 of General Laws of 1859. And that being repealed, the defendant was at liberty to set up usury, even in cases arising under the act of 1856, without either averring or proving a tender of the principal. It is more clear that, being repealed, that provision in the act of 1856, could have no effect upon this case where the mortgage was executed under a prior law, which expressly prohibited the courts from requiring any such condition.

The court erred in excluding the evidence offered to show usury, and the judgment must be reversed with costs, and the cause remanded for a new trial.
<PAGE>   1

                                                                    Exhibit 20.1



March 16, 2000

                           ANNUAL DISTRIBUTION SUMMARY

                             AFCO CREDIT CORPORATION

                  MELLON BANK PREMIUM FINANCE LOAN MASTER TRUST

                              ANNUAL PERIOD ENDING

                                DECEMBER 31, 1999


ANNUAL HOLDERS' DISTRIBUTION SUMMARY

Pursuant to Section 5.2, Servicer does hereby declare to the Trustee the
following distributions for the calendar year 1999 as set forth below:

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
Interest Payments
-----------------
<S>                                                                                       <C>
A.       Pursuant to subsection 4.11(g);

         1.       Amount distributed to the Class A Holders                               $24,337,557.09

         2.       Amount distributed to the Class B Holders                               $ 1,436,482.41

         3.       Amount distributed to the Collateral Interest Holder                    $ 2,098,509.89



Principal Payments
------------------

B.       Pursuant to subsection 4.11(h)(i);

         1.       Amount distributed to the Class A Holders                               $ 0.00

         2.       Amount distributed to the Class B Holders                               $ 0.00

         3.       Amount distributed to the Collateral Interest Holder                    $ 0.00
</TABLE>





                               AFCO CREDIT CORPORATION, as Servicer



                               By /s/ C. Leonard O'Connell
                                 -----------------------------------------------
                                 Name: C. Leonard O'Connell
                                 Title: Senior Vice President, Treasurer and
                                        Chief Financial Officer
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-51236

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

SERGIO MALTOS-ESTRADA,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 2:15-CR-510-1

Before JOLLY, SMITH, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The attorney appointed to represent Sergio Maltos-Estrada has moved 

for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. 

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th 

Cir. 2011). Maltos-Estrada has not filed a response. We have reviewed 

counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We 

concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous 

 

* 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

November 23, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-51236 Document: 00513771184 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/23/2016
No. 15-51236

2

issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw 

is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the 

APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

 Case: 15-51236 Document: 00513771184 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/23/2016