alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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 Local Rule

47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________

No. 96-10020

Summary Calendar

__________________

DAVID LYNN WALLEN,

 Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

EDWARD G. OWENS, Warden, ET AL.,

 Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 2:95-CV-92

- - - - - - - - - -

April 3, 1996

Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

David Lynn Wallen appeals the dismissal for frivolousness of

his civil rights complaint asserting various constitutional

violations surrounding his prison disciplinary hearing and

punishment. Wallen argues the merits of his claim. We have

carefully reviewed his arguments and the record. For essentially

the same reasons as explained by the magistrate judge in his

report and recommendation, we conclude that the court did not
No. 96-10020

-2-

 

** Spears v. McCotter, 766 F.2d 179 (5th Cir. 1985).

abuse its discretion in dismissing the complaint under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(d).

Wallen argues that the prison rulebook and his prison

disciplinary records were improperly used at the Spears**

hearing and the magistrate judge improperly ended the hearing as

Wallen attempted to explain further the alleged constitutional

violations. Our review reveals no error. Wallen also argues

that error ensued from the denial of his written motion to amend

his complaint. Wallen had the right to amend his complaint once

before the service of a responsive pleading. See Fed. R. Civ. P.

15(a). The claims which Wallen desired to add to his complaint

have been considered by this court, and the claims are without

merit. Therefore, any error by denying Wallen the right to amend

his complaint was harmless. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 61.

AFFIRMED.
exv10w3






Exhibit 10.3




AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT




This Amendment to Employment Agreement (“Amendment”) is entered into this 4th day of November, 2011
by and between Walter Investment Management Corp. (“WIMC”) and Kimberly A. Perez (“Employee”). If
not specifically defined in this Amendment, all capitalized terms used herein shall have the
meaning ascribed to it in the Agreement as defined below.




WHEREAS, WIMC and Employee entered into a contract of employment effective March 15, 2010 (the
“Agreement”), and




WHEREAS, the parties thereto wish to amend the Agreement as set forth herein,




IT IS HEREBY AGREED AS FOLLOWS:





	 	1.	 	Employee’s target bonus as set forth in Section 2.b. of the Agreement shall be, at a
minimum, 100% of Base Salary with the potential for increase to 200% of Base Salary.
	 
	 	2.	 	All other terms and conditions of the Agreement, as modified to date by WIMC’s
Compensation and Human Resources Committee, shall remain in full force and effect.





The foregoing is hereby agreed to this 4th day of November, 2011.




WALTER INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT CORP.




	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 
	By:  	 	 
	 	 	 
	 
	 
	Kimberly A. Perez
Leonel SALDANA, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-1809

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

August 3, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Denied.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

November 21, 2014

d1118 

# Order

Clerk November 21, 2014

149352

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 149352

COA: 314326

Antrim CC: 12

- 004511

- FH

JOSEPH VINCENT RANDAZZO,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 1, 2014

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered and, pu rsuant to MCR 7.302(H)(1), in

lieu of granting leave to appeal, we REVERSE in part the judgment of the Court of

Appeals, VACATE the sentences of the Antrim Circuit Court, and REMAND this case to

the trial court for resentencing. On remand, the trial court shall impose concurrent

sentences or articulate on the record the reason for imposing consecutive sentences. In

all other respects, leave to appeal is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the

remaining questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
PH # 103195 1 

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

MIAMI DIVISION 

In Re: 

ARLEY HOME, 

 Bk No.: 19-18085-AJC 

Chapter 7 

Debtor / 

MOTION TO APPROVE FORBEARANCE AGREEMENT 

Comes now, Caliber Home Loans, Inc., by and through Counsel undersigned and files 

this Motion to Approve Forbearance Agreement and in support thereof would state as follows: 

1. The Debtor has been offered a forbearance plan per the terms of the offer attached 

as an exhibit hereto. 

2. On April 14, 2020 the Debtor requested and was approved for a forbearance plan 

agreement. Beginning on April 1, 2020 through June 1, 2020 the mortgage monthly payments 

have been suspended for three (3) months. All suspended payments will be due on July 1, 2020. 

3. On July 1, 2020, all suspended mortgage payments can be sent to: 

CALIBER HOME LOANS, INC. 

P.O. Box 24330 

Oklahoma City, OK 73124-0330 

 WHEREFORE, Creditor requests Motion to Approve Forbearance Agreement be 

granted and for such other and further relief as this Court deems proper. 

I HEREBY CERTIFY, that I am admitted to the Bar of the United States District Court 

for the Southern District of Florida and I am in compliance with the additional qualifications to 

practice in this Court set forth in Local Rule 2090-1(A). 

April 27, 2020 

/s/ Stefan Beuge, Esquire 

Stefan Beuge, Esq., Florida Bar No. 68234 

Phelan Hallinan Diamond & Jones, PLLC 

2001 NW 64th Street 

Case 19-18085-AJC Doc 47 Filed 04/27/20 Page 1 of 6
PH # 103195 2 

Suite 100 

Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33309 

Tel: 954-462-7000 Ext. 56588 

Fax: 954-462-7001 

Email: stefan.beuge@phelanhallinan.com 

FLSD.bankruptcy@phelanhallinan.com

Case 19-18085-AJC Doc 47 Filed 04/27/20 Page 2 of 6
PH # 103195 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

 I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing, and any 

applicable exhibits attached thereto, has been served electronically, or routed for service by U.S. 

Mail, to the following: 

ARLEY HOME 

550 W 78TH STREET 

HIALEAH, FL 33014-4222 

ROBERT SANCHEZ, ESQ 

355 W 49 ST. 

HIALEAH, FL 33012 

JOEL L TABAS, (TRUSTEE) 

25 SE 2ND AVENUE 

SUITE 248 

MIAMI, FL 33131 

UNITED STATES TRUSTEE (SERVED ELECTRONICALLY) 

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRUSTEE 

51 S.W. 1ST AVE. 

SUITE 1204 

MIAMI, FL 33130 

Date: /s/ Stefan Beuge, Esquire 

Stefan Beuge, Esq., Florida Bar No. 68234 

Phelan Hallinan Diamond & Jones, PLLC 

2001 NW 64th Street 

Suite 100 

Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33309 

Tel: 954-462-7000 Ext. 56588 

Fax: 954-462-7001 

Email: stefan.beuge@phelanhallinan.com 

FLSD.bankruptcy@phelanhallinan.com

Case 19-18085-AJC Doc 47 Filed 04/27/20 Page 3 of 6
Case 19-18085-AJC Doc 47 Filed 04/27/20 Page 4 of 6
Case 19-18085-AJC Doc 47 Filed 04/27/20 Page 5 of 6
Case 19-18085-AJC Doc 47 Filed 04/27/20 Page 6 of 6
The Honorable Harold D. Vietor, United States District Judge for the Southern 1 District of Iowa, sitting by designation.



## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 98-2482

___________ Robert Stofiel, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Eastern District of Missouri. Kenneth S. Apfel, Commissioner of * Social Security, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellee. *

___________ Submitted: January 14, 1999 Filed: January 28, 1999

___________ Bef ore BOWMAN, Chief Judge, MURPHY, Circuit Judge, and VIETOR, Distric t 1 Judge.

___________ PER CURIAM. RobertStofiel appeals the decision of the District Court affirming th e Commissioner's denial of Stofiel's applications for disability insurance benefits an d supplemental security income benefits. Having carefully considered the appeal, w e conclude th at no error of law appears and that the denial of benefits is supported b y s u bstantial evidence on the administrative record as a whole. Because an opinion by-2-

this Court would lack precedential value, the j udgment of the District Court is, without further discussion, affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
> From: "Weissinger, Thomas" <tweissinger@raven-power.com> 

> Date: December 10, 2012, 6:22:12 PM EST 

> To: Thomas Finseth <Thomas.Finseth@erg.com> 

> Subject: RE: Brandon Shores Info. 

> 

> Thomas, 

> 

> The notes from the tour are NOT considered CBI. 

> 

> You had a long list of attendees attached to the data. And some have changed 

companies, i.e., with the sale of Brandon Shores to Raven Power. You have my 

contact info, and I am the key environmental contact. Do you need/want any 

additional updated emails, like for the plant manager? 

> 

> Tom 

> 

> From: Thomas Finseth [mailto:Thomas.Finseth@erg.com] 

> Sent: Monday, December 10, 2012 10:50 AM 

> To: Weissinger, Thomas 

> Cc: (Angela.nealan@exeloncorp.com), Angela Nealan 

> Subject: Re: Brandon Shores Info. 

> 

> If the information is claimed as CBI, then ERG/EPA have to protect the 

information according to our CBI plans and the information will not be released to 

the public. You may also be required to provide substantiation for your CBI 

claims (e.g., explain why the release of the information would be detrimental to 

your business). EPA and OGC determine whether you would have to substantiate 

your claim; therefore, I can say whether there would be additional hurdles at this 

time. 

> 

> Please let me know if you have any additional questions. 

> Thanks, 

> TJ 

> 

> >>> "Weissinger, Thomas" <tweissinger@raven-power.com> 12/10/2012 10:34 

AM >>> 

> Thomas, 

> 

> Sorry, but as you’ve heard, we have changed companies, and I have a new e-mail 

address. I have asked the plant about CBI status. Are there additional hurdles, if 
the info is considered CBI? 

> 

> Tom 

> 

> Tom Weissinger 

> Director, Environmental 

> 

> Fleet Environmental Unit 

> 1005 Brandon Shores Road, Baltimore, MD 21226 

> Office: 410 787 5532 | Mobile: 410 507-2109 | Fax: 410 787 5160 

>
### IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10
- 18
- 00295
- CR
IN RE MARCUS PILKING TON
Original Proceeding

CONCURRIN G O PINION
At the hearing before the trial court various arguments were made. Some of the arguments made by various attorneys are set out below. The arguments have to do with the legal effect of a document, which is being referred to as a “reindictment” apparently to distinguish it from the original “indictment.” Both the indictment and the
reindictment were filed in the same trial court cause number. Attorney One: “...the caption of the two indictments run under the same cause number that’s been assigned by the d istrict clerk. These are two independently returned indictments, Your Honor. The State has never moved to amend the first returned indictment at all...It is still an active, validly returned indictment...The same can be said for the second returned indictm ent.” Attorney One: “Again, there has been no amendment of either indictment on this

— in this case,...”In re Pilkington Page 2

Attorney Two: “Our opinion on that is it [the reindictment] replaces completely the old indictment. The old indictment ceases to exist. Attorney Thre e: “The other indictment ceases to exist.” Attorney Two: “We’re proceeding on the riot [reindictment]. That’s our election at that point.” The problem is that all these arguments were being made by the same party, the State, and the arguments are clea rly inconsistent. One attorney is arguing that there are two valid and subsisting indictments against the defendant now pending in the same case number. The other attorneys for the State are arguing that the second indictment replaced the first indictmen t. This causes me to agree with a summary from the
defendant’s brief: “This is a debacle wholly of the State’s creation.” It seems like there is an easy fix. The easy fix seems to be first, call it what it is, an indictment, and second, file the so calle d “reindictment” in a new cause number. There are consequences that follow an additional indictment versus an amended indictment. I have found nothing that authorizes or prohibits the filing of two indictments in the same trial court case number, but it is certainly going to be confusing as it moves forward to identify to which of the indictments any post

- indictment procedures and protections, motions, hearings, etc. apply if the parties even on one side cannot agree whether there
is one or two indictment s pending in this case.In re Pilkington Page 3

But even an easy fix does not give us the authority to compel it by mandamus. I concur in the Court’s denial of the petition for a writ of mandamus.

TOM GRAY Chief Justice Concurring o pinion delivered and filed November 7 , 2018
Charles Kyle WILLIAMS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D18-127

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed March 7, 2018

Charles Kyle Williams, in proper person.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, for appellee.

Before LAGOA, LOGUE, and SCALES, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
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 Annual Report of Great Western Bancorporation, Inc (Great Western) on Form 10-K/A for the period ended June 30,
2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Deryl F. Hamann, Chief Executive Officer of Great Western, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:



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



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



|                       |  |                            
|---------------------- |  | ---------------------------
|Date: January 30, 2006 |  | /s/    DERYL F.
HAMANN     
|                       |  | Deryl F. Hamann, Chairman  
|                       |  | and Chief Executive Officer
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 (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), 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 Drug Abuse Special Emphasis Panel; NIDA-L Medications Development Conflicts, Special Emphasis Panel.                     

*Date:*                         February 12, 2009.                     

*Time:*                         2:30 p.m. to 4 p.m.                     

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                     

*Place:*                         Double Tree Hotel, 1515 Rhode Island, NW., Washington, DC 20005.                     

*Contact Person:*                         Scott Chen, Scientific Review Officer, Office of Extramural Affairs, National Institute on Drug Abuse, National Institutes of Health, DHHS, 6101 Executive Boulevard, Room 220, MSC 8401, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-402-6020,                         *chensc@mail.nih.gov*.                     

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93279, Drug Abuse and Addiction Research Programs, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: January 9, 2009. 

Jennifer Spaeth, 

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. E9-995 Filed 1-21-09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
_______________________________________ __ __________________________________ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

January 5, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly 130641(62) Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman,

Justices EULA WASHINGTON, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Lisa B. Griffin, Plaintiff-Appellee, SC: 130641 v COA: 253777 Wayne CC: 03-330934-NM SINAI HOSPITAL OF GREATER DETROIT, d/b/a SINAI-GRACE HOSPITAL, DETROIT MEDICAL CENTER, DR. KUNTA, THOMAS PISKOROWSKI, D.O., and DR. AL-SAYAD, Defendants-Appellants.

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion by plai ntiff-appellee for extension of time for filing her brief on appeal is considered and it is GRANTED.

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

January 5, 2007

Clerk
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-6141
JESSIE JAMES RICHMOND, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus W. SWEETING; W. IRVING; A. W. HENDERSON, JOSEPH SMITH, Warden of Federal Correctional Institution at Edgefield, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District ofSouth Carolina, at Florence. Henry F. Floyd, District Judge. (CA04-1214-4-BH) Submitted: June 23, 2005 Decided: June 29, 2005 Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jessie James Richmond, Appellant Pro Se. Raymond Emery Clark, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Jessie James Richmond appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Richmond’s motion for appointment of counsel and affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Richmond V. Sweeting , No. CA-04-1214-4-BH (D.S.C. Dec. 23, 2004). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the 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 THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


     In connection  with the Annual Report of Poseidis,  Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-KSB for the period ending February 28, 2006 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Louis Pardo, Chief
Executive  Officer and President of the Company,  certify  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
ss.1350,  as adopted pursuant to ss.906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that
to the best of my knowledge:

     1) 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.


Date:  September 13, 2006          /s/ Louis Pardo
                                   ------------------------------------------
                                   Louis Pardo
                                   Chief Executive Officer and President
EXHIBIT 32
                                  CERTIFICATION

                    Certification of Chief Executive Officer
                 Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
                      Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350


In connection  with the Quarterly  Report of Case Financial Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended June 30, 2004 as filed with the  Securities
and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  I, Edwin S Baldwin,
Chief  Executive  Officer and 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, as amended, and

2.    The information  contained in the Report fairly presents,  in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company
      at the dates and for the periods presented in this Report.

Date: August 16, 2004


                                                 -------------------------
                                                 Edwin S Baldwin
                                                 Chief Executive Officer and
                                                 Chief Financial Officer


A signed  original  of this  written  statement  required  by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002 has been provided to Case Financial Inc. and will be
retained by Case  Financial  Inc. and furnished to the  Securities  and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.