alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### IN RE: Madeline Yvette DAVIS, Debtor. Madeline Yvette Davis, Appellant, v. Bank of America, N.A., Appellee.

No. 17-60058

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted January 16, 2018 *

Filed January 19, 2018

Madeline Yvette Davis, Pro Se

Leslie M. Werlin, Esquire, . McGuire-Woods LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Appel-lee

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 **

Chapter 7 debtor Madeline Yvette Davis appeals pro se from the judgment of the *498Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (“BAP”) affirming the bankruptcy court’s order dismissing Davis’s adversary proceeding, We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). We review de novo BAP decisions, and apply the same standard of review that the BAP applied to the bankruptcy court’s ruling. *Boyajian v. New Falls Corp. (In re Boyajian),*564 F.3d 1088, 1090 (9th Cir. 2009). We affirm.

The bankruptcy court properly dismissed Davis’s adversary proceeding because Davis lacks standing to pursue claims that are property of the bankruptcy estate. *See*11 U.S.C. § 323; *Moneymaker v. CoBen (In re Eisen),*31 F.3d 1447, 1451 n.2 (9th Cir. 1994) (Chapter 7 trustee is the representative of the debtor’s estate, and therefore the only party with standing to administer estate assets); *Canatella v. Towers (In re Alcala),*918 F.2d 99, 102 (9th Cir. 1990) (causes of action which accrued before a Chapter 7 petition is filed are part of the estate vested in the trustee).

To the extent Davis seeks to appeal the order granting relief from the automatic stay, we lack jurisdiction to review it. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A); *Stephanie-Cardona LLC v. Smith’s Food & Drug Ctrs., Inc.,*476 F.3d 701, 703 (9th Cir. 2007) (“A timely notice of appeal is a non-waivable jurisdictional requirement.”).

The parties’ motions to take judicial notice (Docket Entry Nos. 9, 13) are denied.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
#### James Alexander MOORE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Eddie L. PEARSON, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 17-6940

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: November 30, 2017

Decided: January 3, 2018

*782James Alexander Moore, Appellant Pro Se! Robert H. Anderson, III, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before DIAZ, FLOYD, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

James Alexander Moore seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for reconsideration of the order denying relief on his 28 U.S.O. § 2254 (2012) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Moore has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Moore’s motion for a certifícate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in for-ma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. 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>                     5
<LEGEND>
     This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
consolidated balance sheet and the consolidated statement of operations, and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>

       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-Mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              jul-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   Oct-31-1998
<CASH>                                         47,944
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  4,070,655
<ALLOWANCES>                                   56,689
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               4,682,741
<PP&E>                                         939,231
<DEPRECIATION>                                 596,847
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 17,122,704
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          14,365,299
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       14,544
<OTHER-SE>                                     2,560,671
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   17,122,704
<SALES>                                        5,813,106
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               5,813,106
<CGS>                                          3,878,740
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  2,016,458
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             224,484
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (306,576)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (62,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (244,576)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (244,576)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (.02)
        



</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

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 Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases Special Emphasis Panel; RFA DK21-029: NIDDK Diabetes Research Center (P30 Clinical Trial Optional).                    

*Date:*                         June 27-28, 2022.                    

*Time:*                         9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         National Institutes of Health, Democracy II, 6707 Democracy Blvd., Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).                    

*Contact Person:*                         Najma S. Begum, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Review Branch, DEA, NIDDK, National Institutes of Health, Room 7349, 6707 Democracy Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20892-5452, (301) 594-8894,                         *begumn@niddk.nih.gov.*

                        (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.847, Diabetes, Endocrinology and Metabolic Research; 93.848, Digestive Diseases and Nutrition Research; 93.849, Kidney Diseases, Urology                               ( print page 20452)                            and Hematology Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)                    

Dated: April 1, 2022. 

Miguelina Perez,

Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2022-07377 Filed 4-6-22; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
18932 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 62 / Thursday, March 31, 2022 / Notices 

Dated: March 24, 2022. 

Andrea M. Gacki, 

Director, Office of Foreign Assets Control, 

U.S. Department of the Treasury. 

[FR Doc. 2022–06837 Filed 3–30–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4810–AL–C 

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS 

AFFAIRS 

[OMB Control No. 2900–0216] 

Agency Information Collection 

Activity: Application for Accrued 

Amounts Due a Deceased Beneficiary; 

Correction 

AGENCY: Veterans Benefits 

Administration, Department of Veterans 

Affairs. 

ACTION: Notice; correction. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Veterans 

Affairs (VA) published a collection of 

information notice in the Federal 

Register on Friday, March 25, 2022, that 

contained an error. The 60-day Public 

Comment notice identified the wrong 

type of review for the Agency 

Information Collection Activity. This 

document corrects the notice by 

replacing the error and providing the 

correction from an extension of a 

currently approved collection to a 

revision of a currently approved 

collection. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Maribel Aponte, Office of Enterprise 

and Integration, Data Governance 

Analytics (008), 1717 H Street NW, 

Washington, DC 20006, (202) 266–4688 

or email maribel.aponte@va.gov. Please 

refer to ‘‘OMB Control No. 2900–0216’’ 

in any correspondence. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Correction 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1EN31MR22.074</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 62 / Thursday, March 31, 2022 / Notices 18933 

In FR Doc. 2022–06343, published on 

Friday, March 25, 2022, at 87 FR 17140, 

make the following corrections. On page 

17140, in the SUMMARY section, and in 

the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section 

under ‘‘Type of Review,’’ replace the 

two instances of the word ‘‘extension’’ 

with the word ‘‘revision.’’ 

Dated: March 28, 2022. 

By direction of the Secretary. 

Maribel Aponte, 

VA PRA Clearance Officer, Office of 

Enterprise and Integration/Data Governance 

Analytics, Department of Veterans Affairs. 

[FR Doc. 2022–06792 Filed 3–30–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8320–01–P 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1
#### Maria BRADY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF PRINCE GEORGE’S COUNTY, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 17-1010

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: September 20, 2017

Decided: January 3, 2018

*781Neil S. Hyman, LAW OFFICE OF NEIL S. HYMAN, LLC, Bethesda, Maryland, for Appellant. Lisa Y. Settles, Adam E. Konstas, PESSIN KATZ LAW, P.A., Towson, Maryland, for Appellee.

Before WILKINSON, DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Maria Brady appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of the Board of Education of Prince George’s County on Brady’s claims, brought pursuant to the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, 29 U.S.C.A. §§ 701 to 7961 (West 2008 & Supp. 2017). We have reviewed the record and discern no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. *See Brady v. Bd. of Educ. of Prince George’s Cty.,*222 F.Supp.3d 459 (D. Md. 2016).

We note that the district court, in addressing Brady’s constructive discharge claim, erred in its statement of the elements of that claim. In 2016, several months before the district court issued its ruling, the Supreme Court held that deliberateness of the employer’s action is not required for a constructive discharge claim. *See Green v. Brennan,*— U.S. -, 136 S.Ct. 1769, 1779-80, 195 L.Ed.2d 44 (2016) (“We do not also require an employee to come forward with proof-proof that would often be difficult to allege plausibly — that not only was the discrimination so bad that he had to quit, but also that his quitting was his employer’s plan all along.”).1 Nevertheless, the district court here held that a reasonable jury could not conclude both that Brady’s workplace was objectively intolerable and that her employer’s actions were deliberate. Because we agree with the district court that the record cannot support a finding of an objectively intolerable workplace, we affirm its decision with respect to the constructive discharge claim.

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*

1

. After the district court ruled in this case, this court clarified that this element was no longer required. *See U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Comm'n v. Consol Energy,*Inc., 860 F.3d 131, 144 (4th Cir. 2017) (" ‘[D]elib-erateness' is no longer a component of a constructive discharge claim.").
| (logo) WELLS

           FARGO | Commercial Mortgage Servicing

D1086-120, 12th Floor

550 South Tryon Street

Charlotte, NC 28202

1-800-326-1334

  |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

 

ANNUAL STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE

 

Reference is hereby made to that certain Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of September 1, 2014, by and among DEUTSCHE MORTGAGE & ASSET RECEIVING CORPORATION, as Depositor, WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Master Servicer, RIALTO  CAPITAL ADVISORS, LLC, as Special Servicer, WILMINGTON TRUST, NATIONAL  ASSOCIATION, as Trustee, WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Certificate Administrator, Paying Agent and Custodian, and SITUS HOLDINGS, LLC as Operating Advisor with respect to Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, COMM 2014-UBS5 (the "Agreement"). Capitalized terms used herein not otherwise defined shall have the meanings assigned in the Agreement.

 

Pursuant to Section 10.11 of this Agreement, I, Daniel Bober, Executive Vice President of Commercial Mortgage Services do hereby certify that:

 

1.        A review of the activities of the Master Servicer during the period from September 1, 2014 through December 31, 2014 (the “Reporting Period”), and of its performance per the Agreement during such period has been made under my supervision, and 

 

2.        To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Master Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period.

 

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this Certificate as of the 6th day of March 2015.

 

 

/s/ Daniel Bober

Daniel Bober

Executive Vice President 

Wells Fargo Bank

 

 
| Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. | (logo) Together we’ll go far |
|------------------------|------------------------------------|
Exhibit 32.2  Certification of CFO Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350
  
 Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned certifies that (1) this Quarterly Report of BF Enterprises, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (this "Report"), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and (2) the information contained in this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition of the Company and its results of operations as of and for the periods covered therein.
 
 **BF ENTERPRISES, INC.**Date: November 12, 2004
By:
/s/ S. Douglas PostVice President, Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer
 
 A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Stephen MACK, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-11555 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed December 21, 2017

James Wesley Hendrix, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern .District of Texas, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Stephen Mack, Pro Se

Before DAVIS," CLEMENT, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The attorney appointed to represent Stephen Mack has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and *United States v. Flores,*632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Mack has filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Mack’s response. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s .motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, coun*283sel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

 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.
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 32 Introduced in House (IH)]

105th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. J. RES. 32

  To consent to certain amendments enacted by the Legislature of the 
      State of Hawaii to the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act, 1920.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 21, 1997

   Mr. Abercrombie (for himself and Mr. Faleomavaega) introduced the 
  following joint resolution; which was referred to the Committee on 
                               Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
  To consent to certain amendments enacted by the Legislature of the 
      State of Hawaii to the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act, 1920.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That, as required by section 4 
of the Act entitled ``An Act to provide for the admission of the State 
of Hawaii into the Union'', approved March 18, 1959 (73 Stat. 4), the 
United States consents to the following amendments to the Hawaiian 
Homes Commission Act, 1920, adopted by the State of Hawaii in the 
manner required for State legislation:
            (1) Act 339 of the Session Laws of Hawaii, 1993.
            (2) Act 37 of the Session Laws of Hawaii, 1994.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 13.1

Certification of Principal Executive Officer

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Videocon
d2h Limited (the Company) hereby certifies, to such officers knowledge, that:



| | (i) | the accompanying annual report on Form 20-F of the Company for the year ended March 31, 2017 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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

Date: July 31, 2017



By:

/s/ Saurabh Pradipkumar DhootName:

Saurabh Pradipkumar DhootTitle:

Executive Chairman


The foregoing certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, and is not being filed either as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure statement, and is not to be incorporated by reference into the Report or any other filing of the Company, whether made before or after the
date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing. The foregoing certification shall not be deemed filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or otherwise subject
to the liabilities of Section 18 or Sections 11 and 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended.
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 99.2

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

In connection with the Annual Report of US Unwired Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-K for the period ending December 31, 2002 (the "Report"), I, Jerry E. Vaughn,
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section
1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:

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

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

/s/ Jerry E. Vaughn
------------------------
Jerry E. Vaughn
Chief Financial Officer
March 28, 2003
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.1
 Certification of
Chief Executive Officer & Chief Financial Officer
of VCA Antech, Inc.
   (i)
    
    the Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or section 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)); and(ii)
    
    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Issuer.
  /s/ Robert L. AntinRobert L. AntinChief Executive Officer/s/ Tomas W. FullerTomas W. FullerChief Financial Officer