alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT  32

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

     The undersigned, Stephen M. Siedow, the Chief Executive Officer, President
and Chief Financial Officer of EQUICAP, INC. (the "Company"), DOES HEREBY
CERTIFY, that:

     1.   The Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended
          June 30, 2004 (the "Report"), fully complies with the requirements of
          Section 13(a) 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.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each of the undersigned has executed this statement
this 30th day of July, 2004.


                                            By:  /s/  Stephen M. Siedow
                                               --------------------------------
                                                      Stephen M. Siedow
                                                      Chief Executive Officer,
                                                      President and
                                                      Chief Financial Officer


     A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
been provided to EQUICAP, INC. and will be retained by the Company and furnished
to the Securities and Exchange Commission or it staff upon request.
ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE * IN THE COURT OF APPEALS COMMISSION OF MARYLAND OF MARYLAND * Misc. Docket AG No. 102 * September Term, 2013 v. * SCOTT BRIAN BLUMENFELD * Case No. 29751M Circuit Court for Montgomery Co. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ORDER The Court having cons idered the Joint Petition For Indefinite Suspension By Consent and Supplement thereto (in which Bar Counsel and Respondent agreed that Respondent violated Maryland Lawyers ’ Rules of Professional Conduct (MLRPC) 1.1, 1.2 (a), 1.3, 1.4 (b), 1.5 (a)

- (b), 1.15 (a) and (c), 5.3 (a)

- (c), 5.4(a), and 8.4(a) and (d), as well as Rule 16 -606.1), filed in the above entitle d case , it is this 17th day of July, 2014 ORDERED , by the Court of Appeals of Maryland that Scott Brian Blumenfeld be, and he is hereby, suspended indefinitely by consent from the practice of law in the State of Maryland , such suspension to become eff ective sixty (60) days from the date of this Order, with the right to apply for re instatement no earlier than six (6) months af ter the effective date of th is suspension ; and it is further ORDERED , that the sixty (60) days prior to effective date of the indefinite suspension shall be used by Mr. Blumenfeld exclusively to conclude ongoing client matters and to take steps necessary to protect the interest of his clients; and it is further ORDERED, that the Respondent will undertake no new matters and/or provide legal advice to new clients during this sixty (60) day period; and it is furtherO RDERED , that sixty (60) days from the date of entry of this Order, the Clerk of this Court shall remove the name of Scott Brian Blumenfeld, from the register of attorney s of the Court and certify that fact to the Client Protection Fund of the Bar of Maryland and all Clerks of all judicial tribunals in this State in accordance with Maryland Rule 16 -772(d).

/s/ Glenn T. Harrell, Jr. Senior Judge
#### IN RE: DATA SYSTEMS, INC., Debtor. William F. Holdner, Appellant, v. Amy E. Mitchell, Appellee.

No. 17-35319

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted January 16, 2018 *

Filed January 23, 2018

William F. Holdner, Pro Se

Justin Daniel Leonard, Esquire, Attorney, Leonard Law Group LLC, Portland, OR, Timothy Andrew Solomon, Esquire, Attorney, Sussman Shank LLP, Portland, OR, for Appellee

Before: REINHARDT, TROTT, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

William F. Holdner appeals pro se from the district court’s order affirming the bankruptcy court’s order confirming debt- or Data Systems, Inc.’s (“DSI”) chapter 11 plan of reorganization. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). We review de novo a district court’s decision on appeal from a bankruptcy court, and review a bankruptcy court’s decision independently, without deference to the district court’s decision. *In re JTS Corp.,*617 F.3d 1102, 1109 (9th Cir. 2010). We review de novo a bankruptcy court’s conclusions of law and for clear error its findings of fact. *Id.*We affirm.

The bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion by confirming DSI’s plan of reorganization because Holdner failed to establish any basis to deny confirmation under 11 U.S.C. § 1129. *See Marshall v. Marshall (In re Marshall),*721 F.3d 1032, 1045 (9th Cir. 2013) (standard of review).

To the extent Holdner contends that the bankruptcy court erred by approving the second amended disclosure statement, we reject such contention as without merit.

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief. *See Padgett v. Wright,*587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
#### IN RE: Douglas GILLIES, Debtor. Douglas Gillies, Appellant, v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., Appellee.

No. 16-56908

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted November 15, 2017 *

Filed November 30, 2017

Douglas Gillies, Pro Se

Richard C. Ochoa, Esquire, Counsel, Alfred Shaumyan, Bryan Cave LLP, Santa Monica, CA, for Appellee

■ Before: CANBY, TROTT, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Douglas Gillies appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his adversary proceeding alleging pre-foreclo-sure related claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal on the basis of res judica-ta. S*tewart v. U.S. Bancorp,*297 F.3d 953, 956 (9th Cir. 2002). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Gillies’s action as barred by the doctrine of res judicata because Gillies either raised, or could have raised, his claims in his prior California state and federal court actions, which involved the same primary rights, and the same parties, and resulted in final *719judgments on the merits. *See Gillies v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.,*213 Cal.Rptr.3d 210, 216 (2017) (explaining that “[r]es judicata precludes piecemeal litigation by splitting a single cause of action or relitigation of the same cause of action on a different legal theory or for different relief’ (citation omitted)).

Gillies’s motion to take judicial notice (Docket Entry No. 20) is granted.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

August 31, 2022

No. 04-22-00357-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF L.R.R. AND A.P.R., Children

From the 37th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2021-PA-00430

Honorable Linda A. Rodriguez, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Appellant’s brief was due on August 29, 2022. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.6(a). On the due 

date, Appellant moved for a twenty-day extension of time to file the brief.

Appellant’s motion is granted; the brief is due on September 19, 2022.

It is so ORDERED on this 31st day of August, 2022.

 PER CURIAM 

 ATTESTED TO: ______________________________

 MICHAEL A. CRUZ, Clerk of Court
| (logo) WELLS FARGO | **Corporate Trust Services**MAC R1204-0109062 Old Annapolis RoadColumbia, MD 21045Tel: 410 884 2000 Fax: 410 715 2380 |
|--------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

J.P. Morgan Chase Commercial Mortgage Securities Corp. 383 Madison Avenue31st FloorNew York, New York 10179RE: Annual Statement of Compliance for JPMBB Commercial Mortgage Securities Trust 2014-C24, Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series 2014- C24Per the Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of October 1, 2014 (the "Agreement"), the undersigned, a duly authorized officer of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as Certificate Administrator ("Wells Fargo"), hereby certifies as follows as of and for the year ending December 31, 2015 (the "Reporting Period"):(a) A review of Wells Fargo's activities during the Reporting Period and of its performance under the Agreement has been made under such officer's supervision; and(b) To the best of such officer's knowledge, based on such review, Wells Fargo has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period.March 1, 2016/s/ Brian SmithBRIAN SMITHVice PresidentWells Fargo Bank, N.A.
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 59 (Monday, March 28, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 17311]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-06361]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and 
Human Development; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Child Health and Human 
Development Special Emphasis Panel; Learning Disabilities Innovation 
Hubs Reissue of RFA-HD-17-003.
    Date: April 1, 2022.
    Time: 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health 
and Human Development, National Institutes of Health, 6710B 
Rockledge Drive, Room 2137B, Bethesda, MD 20892-7002 (Video Assisted 
Meeting).
    Contact Person: Joanna Kubler-Kielb, Ph.D., Scientific Review 
Officer, Scientific Review Branch, Eunice Kennedy Shriver National 
Institute of Child Health and Human Development, National Institutes 
of Health, 6710B Rockledge Drive, Room 2137B, Bethesda, MD 20892-
7002, (301) 435-6916, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#9ef5f7fbf2fcf4def3fff7f2b0f0f7f6b0f9f1e8"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="d3b8bab6bfb1b993beb2babffdbdbabbfdb4bca5">[email protected]</span></a>.

    This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the 
meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and 
funding cycle.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.864, 
Population Research; 93.865, Research for Mothers and Children; 
93.929, Center for Medical Rehabilitation Research, National 
Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: March 22, 2022.
Melanie J. Pantoja,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2022-06361 Filed 3-25-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AND CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS OF
ORTHODONTIX, INC. FOR THE SIX MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30, 2000 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                         432,025
<SECURITIES>                                 1,091,813
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,652,495
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,897,231
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          393,194
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           393
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,503,644
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,897,231
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               145,986
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (53,435)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (53,435)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (53,435)
<EPS-BASIC>                                       (.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.01)


</TABLE>
Document Headings

                    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.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

      ( print page 17312)    
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Institute on Aging Initial Review Group; Career Development Facilitating The Transition to Independence Study Section.                    

*Date:*                         June 9-10, 2022.                    

*Time:*                         10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         National Institute on Aging Gateway Building 7201 Wisconsin Avenue Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).                    

*Contact Person:*                         NIJAGUNA PRASAD, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Scientific Review Branch, National Institute on Aging, 7201 Wisconsin Avenue, Gateway Bldg, Suite 2W200, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 496-9667,                         *prasadnb@nia.nih.gov*.                    

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.866, Aging Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: March 22, 2022.

Miguelina Perez,

Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2022-06372 Filed 3-25-22; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
532 P.2d 180

#### Jay DUSHOFF and Diane Dushoff, his wife, Appellants, v. The PHOENIX COMPANY, a limited partnership, Appellee, First National Bank of Arizona, Amicus Curiae, David H. Murdock dba David H. Murdock Development Company, Amicus Curiae.

No. 1 CA-CIV 2142.

Court of Appeals of Arizona, Division 1, Department A.

Feb. 13, 1975.

Review Denied March 18, 1975.

*239Dushoff & Sacks, by Seymour Sacks, Leroy L. Miller and Robert V. Kerrick, Phoenix, for appellants.

Bonn & Anderson, by Jeffrey D. Bonn, Phoenix, for appellee.

Streich, Lang, Weeks, Cardón & French, by Dan M. Durrant, Phoenix, for the First Nat. Bank of Arizona.

Gust, Rosenfeld, Divelbess & Henderson, by Richard A. Segal, Phoenix, for David H. Murdock, dba David H. Murdock Development Co.

STEVENS, Judge.

This Court rendered its opinion on 26 November 1974. The opinion is reported in 22 Ariz.App. 445, 528 P.2d 637.

The appellee filed a timely motion for rehearing. The First National Bank of Arizona filed its motion in support of the motion for rehearing and for leave to file an amicus curiae brief which was tendered with the motion. David H. Murdock dba David H. Murdock Development Company filed a like motion and tendered a brief. The appellants filed their response.

It is ordered granting the motion for leave to appear as amicus curiae and the briefs are accepted. In this connection the Court desires to point out that the First National Bank of Arizona’s motion and brief do not limit themselves to the record before this Court and urge a number of matters which are outside of the record. This may not be done. City of Tempe v. Prudential Insurance Company of America, 109 Ariz. 429, 510 P.2d 745 (1973).

The amicus curiae have miscontrued the opinion. They urge that the opinion places on the landlord “an absolute duty * * * to mitigate damages.” Our holding (22 Ariz.App. at 449, 528 P.2d at 641) only requires that the landlord “make reasonable efforts to rent it (the property) at a fair rental.” This requirement leaves intact the tenant’s contractual obligations under the lease, subject to the effect of the landlord’s failure to make reasonable efforts, if such be the fact.

The opinion, as pointed out in the appellants’ response, reverses the summary judgment for reasons other than the factual question as to whether the landlord did use reasonable efforts to mitigate.

It is further ordered reaffirming our opinion and denying the motion for rehearing.

OGG, P. J., and J. DONOFRIO, J., concur.
# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

No. 19

- 60525 Summary Calendar

**Sandra Elizabeth Posadas**

**- Tobar,** 

Petitioner **,**

versus **William P. Barr, U. S. Attorney General,** Respondent

**.**

Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A200 939 023

Before **Higginbotham, Jones,** and **Costa ,**  Circuit Judges

**. Per Curiam**  **:** *
Sandra Elizabeth Posadas

- Tobar , a native and citizen of Honduras , petitions for review of the order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing her appeal of the immigration judge’s (IJ) de nial of her motion to

* Pursuant to **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  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 cuit**  **R ule**  47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED August 25, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 19-60525 Document: 00515540724 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/25/2020No. 19

- 60525

2 reopen her in absentia removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction to review the denial of th is motion. See Mata v. Lynch , 576 U.S. 143, 146

- 48 (2015). We review the BIA’s denials of motion to reopen under a “ highly deferential abuse

- of

- discretion standard, regardless of the basis of the alien’s request for relief.” Gomez

- Palacios v. Holder , 560 F.3d 354, 358 (5th Cir. 2009). We will not reverse the BIA’s decision “ as long as it is not capricious, without fou ndation in the evidence, or otherwise so irrational that it is arbitrary rather than the result of any perceptible rational approach.” Id

. Posadas

- Tobar asserts that she did not receive notice of her removal hearing, maintaining that she provided a corr ect address to immigration officials upon her release but that they misspelled the street name . D espite Posa das

- Tobar’s affidavit to the contrary, the record evidence, including the Form I

- 830, does not compel the conclusion that the BIA erred by finding that she provided the apparently incorrect address, to which the notice of hearing was mailed, to immigration officials

. See id

. ; see also 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(B). In addition, Mauricio

- Benitez v. Sessions, 908 F.3d 144, 14 9 (5th Cir. 2018), cert. deni ed , 139 S. Ct. 2767 (2019) , and Pierre

- Paul v. Barr , 930 F.3d 684, 689

- 93 (5th Cir. 2019), cert. denied , 2020 WL 1978950 (U.S. Apr. 27, 2020) (No. 19

- 779) , foreclose Posadas

- Tobar’s argument that jurisdiction never vested in the immigration court because the notice was sent to an incorrect address

. S ee Pereira v. Sessions , 138 S. Ct. 2105, 2110 (2018)

. The petition for review is **DENIED**

. Case: 19-60525 Document: 00515540724 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/25/2020
1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of BMW Vehicle Owner Trust 2014-A (the “Exchange Act periodic reports”);
  2. Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;
  3. Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and other information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;
  4. I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the servicer and based on my knowledge and the compliance review conducted in preparing the servicer compliance statement required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicer has fulfilled its obligations under the servicing agreement in all material respects; and
 5. All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwise disclosed in this report.  Any material instances of noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.
   By: /s/ Ritu Chandy
No. 12-5896.

#### Quarterman *v.*Cullum.

Ct. App. Ga. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed *in forma pauperis*denied, and certiorari dismissed. See this Court’s Rule 39.8.