alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
National City
Mortgage

March 14,2000

National City Mortgage Co.
3232 Newmark Drive *  Miamisburg, Ohio 45342
Telephone (937) 910-1200

Mailing Address:
P.O. Box 1820
Dayton, Ohio 45401-1820

Norwest Bank Minnesota, N.A.
11000 Broken Land Parkway
Columbia, MD 21044-3562
Attention: Master Servicing

RE:    Officer's Certificate

Dear Master Servicer:

The undersigned Officer certifies the following for the 1999 fiscal year.

(A)      I have reviewed the activities and  performance of the Servicer  during
         the preceding  fiscal year under the terms of the Servicing  Agreement,
         Trust Agreement, Pooling and Servicing Agreement and/or Seller/Servicer
         Guide and to the best of these  Officers'  knowledge,  the Servicer has
         fulfilled all of its duties responsibilities or obligations under these
         Agreements  throughout  such  year,  or if there has been a default  or
         failure of the servicer to perform any of such duties, responsibilities
         or obligations, a description of each default or failure and the nature
         and status thereof has been reported to Norwest Bank Minnesota, N.A.;
(B)      I have  confirmed  that the Servicer is  currently an approved  FNMA or
         FHLMC servicer in good standing;
(C)      I have  confirmed  that the  Fidelity  Bond,  the Errors and  Omissions
         Insurance  Policy and any other bonds  required  under the terms of the
         Servicing Agreement,  Trust Agreement,  Pooling and Servicing Agreement
         and/or Seller/Servicer Guide are in full force and effect;
(D)      All premiums for each Hazard Insurance  Policy,  Flood Insurance Policy
         (if applicable) and Primary Mortgage  Insurance Policy (if applicable),
         with respect to each  Mortgaged  Property,  have been paid and that all
         such insurance policies are in full force and effect;
(E)      All real estate taxes,  governmental assessments and any other expenses
         accrued and due, that if not paid could result in a lien or encumbrance
         on any  Mortgaged  Property,  have been  paid,  or if any such costs or
         expenses have not been paid with respect to any Mortgaged Property, the
         reason for the non-payment has been reported to Norwest Bank Minnesota,
         N.A.;
(F) All Custodial Accounts have been reconciled and are properly  funded;and (G)
All annual reports of Foreclosure and Abandonment of Mortgage Property
         required per section  6050H,  6050J and 6050P of the  Internal  Revenue
         Code, respectively, have been prepared and filed.

Certified By:

Officer

Vice President
Title

March 14, 2000
Date
#### David ESTRADA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. GIPSON; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 15-17230

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted January 18, 2017 *

Filed January 25, 2017

David Estrada, Pro Se

John Paul Walters, II, Esquire, AGCA—Office of the Attorney General, San Diego, CA, for Defendants-Appellees

Before: TROTT, TASHIMA, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.

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

MEMORANDUM **

California state prisoner David Estrada appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional violations. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. *Toguchi v. Chung,*391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir. 2004). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Estrada’s failure to protect claim against defendants Espinosa, Gipson, Lambert, and Cavazos because Estrada failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether these defendants were deliberately indifferent to a threat to Estrada’s safety. *See Farmer v.*
      *770
      *Brennan,*511 U.S. 825, 837, 114 S.Ct. 1970, 128 L.Ed.2d 811 (1994) (a prison official is deliberately indifferent only if he “knows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate ... safety”); *Starr v. Baca,*652 F.3d 1202, 1207-8 (9th Cir. 2011) (requirements for establishing supervisory liability).

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Estrada’s retaliation claim against defendants Espinosa and Gipson because Estrada failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether these defendants’ actions did not advance a legitimate correctional purpose, *See Rhodes v. Robinson,*408 F.3d 559, 567-68 (9th Cir. 2005) (setting forth the elements of a retaliation claim in the prison context).

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief, including Estrada’s reference to the district court’s discovery orders. *See Padgett v. Wright,*587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

We do not consider Estrada’s arguments regarding the district court’s screening order. *See Smith v. Marsh,*194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir. 1999) (matters not properly raised before the district court are waived).

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Glennarius Antwuan BALDWIN v. STATE

CR-16-0493

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

May 26, 2017 Reh. denied June 16, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
#### Inna Vladislavovna ARGASHOKOVA, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 17-1133

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: September 12, 2017

Decided: September 22, 2017

Tatiana S. Aristova, KHAVINSON & ASSOCIATES, P.C., Plainsboro, New Jer-aey, for Petitioner. Chad A. Readier, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Cindy S. Ferrier, Assistant Director, Timothy G. Hayes, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Before NIEMEYER, AGEE, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Inna Vladislavovna Argashokova, a native of the former Soviet Union and a citizen of Russia, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) denying her motion to reopen as untimely. We have reviewed the administrative record and the Board’s order and find no abuse of discretion. *See*8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a), (c)(2) (2017). We therefore deny the petition for review in part for the reasons stated by the Board. *See In re Argashokova*(B.I.A. Jan. 4, 2017).

We lack jurisdiction to review the Board’s refusal to exercise its sua sponte authority to reopen and therefore dismiss this portion of the petition for review, *See Lawrence v. Lynch,*826 F.3d 198, 206-07 (4th Cir. 2016); *Mosere v. Mukasey,*552 F.3d 397, 400-01 (4th Cir. 2009). 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.

*PETITION DENIED IN PART; DISMISSED IN PART*
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Tomas GALVAN-FUENTES, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-40516 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed May 30, 2017

Carmen Castillo Mitchell, Assistant U.S, Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, John Moreno Parras, Federal Pub-

*162lie Defender’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, PRADO, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Tomas Galvan-Fuentes appeals following his guilty plea conviction and sentence for illegal reentry after deportation. He contends that the district court committed reversible plain error by imposing an enhancement under U.S.S.G, § 2L1.2(b)(l)(A)(ii) (2014) based on his pri- or Texas conviction for burglary of a habitation. Relying on *Mathis v. United States,*— U.S. —, 136 S.Ct. 2243, 195 L.Ed.2d 604 (2016), Galvan-Fuentes argues that the Texas burglary statute is broader than the enumerated offense of burglary of a dwelling and that the Texas burglary statute is not divisible for purposes of applying the modified categorical approach. Galvan-Fuentes concedes, however, that the issue he raises on appeal is foreclosed by this court’s decision in *United States v. Uribe,*838 F.3d 667 (5th Cir. 2016), *cert. denied,*— U.S. —, 137 S.Ct. 1359, 197 L.Ed.2d 542 (2017).

The Government agrees that Galvan-Fuentes’s Matte-based challenge is foreclosed by *Uribe,*and it has filed an opposed motion for summary affirmance. Summary affirmance is proper where, among other things, “the position of one of the parties is clearly right as a matter of law so that there can be no substantial question as to the outcome of the case.” *Groendyhe Transp., Inc. v. Davis,*406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969).

In a *pre-Mathis*decision, we determined that the Texas burglary statute, Tex Penal Code Ann. § 30.02(a) (2009), is a divisible statute that is amenable to application of the modified categorical approach. *See United States v. Conde-Castaneda,*753 F.3d 172, 176 (5th Cir. 2014). Galvan-Fuentes’s argument, in reliance on *Mathis,*that § 30.02(a) is not divisible and, thus, cannot support application of the modified categorical approach, was squarely rejected in *Uribe,*wherein we determined that the provisions of the Texas burglary statute set forth elements, rather than means, and that *Conde-Castaneda*had not been disturbed by *Mathis. See Uribe,*838 F.3d at 670-71.

In view of the foregoing, the Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED. The Government’s alternative motion for an extension of time to file a brief is DENIED.

*

 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.
Mark Foster WALLACE, Jr., Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE ON BEHALF OF Aaron June BREUNIG, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-0749

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

October 25, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Appeal is dismissed.
Exhibit 32.1  CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002  Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), each of the undersigned officers of Abviva, Inc., a Nevada corporation (the "Company"), does hereby certify, to such officer's knowledge, that:  The Annual Report for the year ended December 31, 2007 (the "Form 10-K") of the Company fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.  Date:  April 14, 2008   /s/ Douglas Lane ---------------------- Douglas Lane Chief Executive Officer And Principal Accounting Officer
Horace Evan HOLLIE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D17-3763

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

May 2, 2018

Andy Thomas, Public Defender, and Steven L. Seliger, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

Per Curiam.

AFFIRMED .

Ray, Bilbrey, and Winokur, concur.
The LIVELY STONE CHURCH OF MIAMI, INC., Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. CITIZENS PROPERTY INSURANCE CORPORATION, Appellee(s)/Respondent(s),

CASE NO.: 3D17-2247

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

NOVEMBER 22, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
### JUDGMENT 

## Court of Appeals First District of Texas

NO. 01

- 15

- 0020 3

- C R

CODY CRYMES , Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee
Appeal from the 253rd District Court of Chambers County. (Tr. Ct. No. 1716 3 ).
After due consideration, the Court grants the motion to dismiss th e appeal filed by the appellant . Accordingly, the Court dismisses the appeal.

The Court orders that this decision be certified below for observance.

Judgment rendered April 14 , 201 5

.
Per curiam opinion delivered by panel consisting of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Brown and Lloyd

. y
Morgan KELLEY v. Travis KELLEY

2160027

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

April 14, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Robert Earl MORRIS v. STATE

CR-16-0257

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

May 26, 2017 Reh. denied June 30, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Larryel Lanier WILLIAMS, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-0287

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

April 26, 2018

BY ORDER OF THE COURT:

Petitioner's petition for belated appeal is dismissed for petitioner's failure to respond to this court's order of March 13, 2018.

NORTHCUTT, KELLY, and LUCAS, JJ., Concur.
**CERTIFICATEOF AMENDMENT**

 

**OF THE**

 

**CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION**

 

**OF**

 

**BIOLABS, INC.,**

**a NewYork corporation**

**Under Section 805 of the BusinessCorporation Law**

 

 

----

 

**CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT**

**OF THE**

**CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION**

**OF**

**BIOLABS, INC.,**

**a New York corporation**

**UnderSection 805 of the Business Corporation Law**

Biolabs, Inc., a New Yorkcorporation organized and existing under and by virtue of the New York BusinessCorporation Law (the “Corporation”), does hereby certify:

1.             The name of the Corporation is Biolabs, Inc.  The name under which the Corporation wasformed is Flexx Realm Inc.

2.             The Certificate of Incorporation was filed by theDepartment of State on the 19th day of September, 1994.

3.             The Certificate of Incorporation ishereby amended to effect the following change:

                Article I shall read as follows:

“The name of the corporation is: GENESIS BIOVENTURES,INC.”

4.             The Certificate of Amendment to theCertificate of Incorporation was authorized first by the Board of Directors andthen by vote of the holders of all outstanding shares entitled to vote thereon.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, theCorporation, has caused this Certificate of Amendment to be signed by its dulyauthorized President, this 26th day of October, 2001.

 
|   |   |                                                      |
|--------|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------|
|   |   | E. Greg McCartney,  President and Chief Executive Officer |

 

2

----
EXHIBIT 32.2





SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION





Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, I, Jane Morlok, Chief Financial Officer of Breda Telephone Corp., certify that to my knowledge (i) Breda Telephone Corp.'s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2009 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and (ii) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Breda Telephone Corp.





Date: March 30, 2010





/s/ Jane MorlokJane Morlok, Chief Financial Officer







E-16
TEE ATTORNEYGENEOF TEXAS 

AUSTIN =S.TEXAS 

WTJiL WIJLSON 

*-I-r0RNEY oENl.GRAx. 

Mr. W. K. Peace 

State Librarian 

Texas State Library 

Austin, Texas 

Dear Mr. Peace: 

October 10, 1960 

Opinion No. WW-950 

Re: Will it be mandatory that 

the words "State Archives 

and Library Building" be 

placed in permanent form 

on that Building that will 

house the Texas State 

Library? 

Your letter requesting an opinion from this department 

asks the following question: 

"Will it be mandatory that the words 

'State Archives and Library Building' be 

placed in permanent form on that Building 

that will house the Texas State Library?" 

Article 678m-2, Vernon's Civil Statutes, as amended by 

Acts 55th Legislature, Second Called Session, 1957, ch. 21, 

P. 181, states in part: 

"Notwithstanding other provisions of 

law, the Legislature may appropriate money 

from the Motor Vehicle Inspection Fund for 

the purpose of constructing and initially 

equipping a building to be known as the 

'State Archives and Library Building' to 

house the State Library and the State 

Archives, Museum and Land Office, . . .' 

In House Bill 133, Section 1, Article 3, Acts 55th 

Legislature, Regular Session, 1957, ch. 385, p. 954, and 

in House Bill 4, Section 1, Article 3, Acts 56th Legislature, 

Third Called Session, 1959, ch. 23, p. 514, both of which 

are appropriation bills, this building is referred to as 

the State Library and Archives Building. 

It is a well settled rule that "an appropriation bill 

cannot repeal, modify, or amend an existing state law." 
Mr. W. K. Peace, Page 2 (WW-950) 

Conley v. Daughters of the Republic, 151 S.W. 877 (Civ. App. 

1912), Linden v. Finley 9 

Attorney General's Opinion2W%& 

451, 4g S.W. 578 (18gg), 

(1959) Therefore, Article 

678m-2 is controlling over the above cited appropriation bills. 

There is nothing mentioned in Article 678m-2 about placing an inscription on the Building and it is the opinion of 

this office that it is not mandatory that the name "State 

Archives and Library Building" be placed in permanent form 

on this Building. 

However, It is the further opinion of this office that 

the Legislature has designated this Building as the "State 

Archives and Library Building" and if a name is inscribed on 

the Building it must be "State Archives and Library Building.' 

SUMMARY 

The Legislature in Article 678m-2, Vernon's 

Civil Statutes, expressed its intention that 

the Building referred to above should be 

known as the "State Archives and Library 

Building" but did not require that such title 

should be put in permanent form on that 

Building. 

Yours very truly, 

WILL WILSON 

Attorney General of Texas 

MJS:mm 

APPROVED: 

OPINION COMMITTEE 

w. v. Geppert, Chairman 

Morgan Nesbitt 

Joe Allen Osborn 

Bob Eric Shannon 

By Qgh.$Ae@ t&&f& 

'trouu 

Assistant 

REVIEWED FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 

BY: Leonard Passmore
Susan M. GILBERT, et al., Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. U.S. BANK, N.A., Appellee(s)/Respondent(s),

CASE NO.: 3D17-2132

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

OCTOBER 04, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Denied.
Exhibit 32.1

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 Mortons Restaurant Group, Inc. (Mortons) on
Form 10-Q for the quarter ended April 1, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Thomas J. Baldwin, the Chief Executive Officer of Mortons, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(i) The Report fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(ii) The information contained in
the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Mortons.

Date: May 2, 2007



| |  |                                          
| |  | -----------------------------------------
| |  | /s/ THOMAS J. BALDWIN                    
| |  | Thomas J. Baldwin Chief Executive
Officer
#### Joe Henry BANDY, III Plaintiff-Appellant v. COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTION; Jeff Peterson; Craig Oseland Defendants-Appellees

No. 16-2182

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: April 18, 2017

Filed: April 21, 2017

Joe Henry Bandy, III, Pro Se

Rachel Bell, Assistant Attorney General, Attorney General’s Office, Saint Paul, MN, for Defendants-Appellees

Before GRUENDER, ARNOLD, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Joe Bandy, a civilly committed detainee at the Minnesota Sex Offender Program, appeals following the district court’s1 adverse grant of judgment on the pleadings in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. Upon- careful consideration of Mr. Bandy’s appellate arguments and the district court record, see McIvor v. Credit Control Servs., Inc., 773 F.3d 909, 912-13 (8th Cir. 2014) (reviewing de novo grant of judgment on the pleadings), we find no basis for reversal.

Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

1

. The Honorable John R. Tunheim, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the district of Minnesota, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable Leo I. Brisbois, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Minnesota.
#### Kenny SOWELL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. William BRIGHTHARP, Defendant-Appellee, and Joseph McFadden; James Blackwell; Captain McBride, Defendants.

No. 17-6725

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: August 17, 2017

Decided: August 22, 2017

*126Kenny Sowell, Appellant Pro Se. Kevin Michael DeAntonio, Christopher Thomas Dorsel, Sandra J. Senn, SENN LEGAL, LLC, Charleston, South Carolina, for Ap-pellee.

Before KEENAN, THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Kenny Sowell appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the appellant’s brief. *See*4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Sowell’s informal brief does not challenge the basis for the district court’s disposition, Sowell has forfeited appellate review of the court’s order. *See Williams v. Giant Food Inc.,*370 F.3d 423, 430 n.4 (4th Cir. 2004). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.' 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.

*AFFIRMED*
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C.Section 1350, as Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

In connection with theQuarterly Report onForm 10-Q of 3CI Complete Compliance Corporation (the “Company”) for the quarter ended June 30,2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Otley L. Smith III, the President andChief ExecutiveOfficer of the Company,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 ofthe Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

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

 

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

 
| Date:  August 16, 2004 | /s/  Otley L. Smith III               |   |
|-----------------------------|---------------------------------------|--------|
|                        | Otley L. Smith III                    |
|                        | President and Chief Executive Officer |

 

----
EX PARTE Melvin R. BUSH

CR-16-0761

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

June 9, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Mand. pet. denied.
July 26, 2016



### JUDGMENT 

## The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

BRIAN KEITH WILLIA MS , Appellant

NO. 14

- 16

- 00443

- CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

________________________________ Today the Court heard its own motion to dismiss the appeal from the judgment sign ed by the court below on May 3, 2016. Having considered the motion and found it meritorious, we order the appeal DISMISSED

. We further order that all costs incurred by reason of this appeal be paid by appellant, Brian Keith Williams.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.