alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
RE: Case #

TRUSTEE’S NOTICE OF DEFICIENCY FOR CONFIRMATION AND RECOMMENDATION (Pre 341)

The Trustee reviewed this case for the meeting of creditors and found the following deficiencies from the Trustee’s letter requesting 

documents and thus objects as follows: Reviewed documents received prior to: 

Tax returns: Corporate Tax Returns: 

 Plan form completed incorrectly

Plan does not fund properly 

Calculation errors Missing months/amounts Inconsistent terms 

Attorney fee itemization or Fee Application needed (see court guideline 6) 

Other provisions: 100% Lawsuit Gambling MMM 

 Lien Avoidance motion not filed 

Reaffirm, redeem or surrender Sch D or G creditor: 

MMM Motion not filed

Priority debt on Schedule E not in plan: 

Creditor in Plan is not listed in Schedules or has not filed a POC:

Creditor paid through the Plan has not filed a POC: 

Object or Conform to Proof of Claim: Miami-Dade County Tax Certificate (DE# ) Dept of Revenue 

 IRS

OTHER PLAN ISSUES:

Real Estate FMV and Payoff: 

Non-Homestead Information Sheet: 

Vehicles FMV (NADA/Carmax), Reg and Payoff: 

Other: 

Bank Account Statements 3 months pre-petition 

Copy of check(s) and/or explanation: 

Explanation of withdrawal(s): 

Domestic Support Obligation form complete with info: name, address and phone 

Wage deduction order or Motion to waive 

 Profit/loss Balance Sheet 

Business Bank statements and checks 3 months pre-petition 

Trustee reserves the right to raise additional objects until all requested documents are timely provided. This deficiency is limited to 

missing documents only. The Trustee will file a Notice of Deficiency with additional document requested and legal issues raised after the 

341 - meeting of creditors. I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was served through ECF on the debtor’s 

attorney or by U.S. First Class pre-paid Mail on the pro se debtor on the same day filed with the Court.

Submitted by NANCY K. NEIDICH, ESQ, STANDING CHAPTER 13 TRUSTEE P.O. BOX 279806, MIRAMAR, FL 33027

*DOCUMENTS MUST BE RECEIVED OR FILED AND ISSUES ADDRESSED AT LEAST FOURTEEN DAYS PRIOR TO EACH

CONFIRMATION HEARING TO AVOID DISMISSAL*

 LF 1 LF 67

Life Insurance Policy

 Jose Gafas 21-11561 RAM 4/22/21 Photo ID/SS card - Legible/Unredacted Missing 2016(B) IVL ✔ Valuation motion not filed IRS ✔ Amend Plan to correct address and acct# for creditor in section III 1 to match POC#3 ✔ #2463 (1/30/21-2/18/21) ✔ ✔

✔

Affidavit of support LF 90 LF 10 BDQ & attachments Retirement Stmt. (Current) Annuity✔ Missing signed copy of the Attorney's Declaration

Case 21-11561-RAM Doc 23 Filed 04/27/21 Page 1 of 1
Jemiral MARTINEZ, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D17-4157

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

August 15, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
EXHIBIT 32.1

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

I, John D.  Aquilino,  certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002,  that the Quarterly
Report of POP3 MEDIA CORP on Form  10-QSB/A for the three months ended  December
31,2004 fully  complies with the  requirements  of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities  Exchange Act of 1934 and that  information  contained in such Annual
Report on Form 10-QSB/A fairly  presents in all material  respects the financial
condition and results of operations of POP3 MEDIA CORP.


Dated:   September 13, 2005        By: /s/ John D. Aquilino
                                       ---------------------------------
                                           John D. Aquilino
                                           President and Chief Executive Officer


A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 906 has been
provided  to POP3  MEDIA  CORP  and  will be  retained  by POP3  MEDIA  CORP and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-6368

ROLAND MATHIS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

DR. IRENE WASYLYK; GARLAND R. WARD, PA-C; ARH APPALACHIAN 

REGIONAL HEALTH CARE HOSPITAL,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at 

Beckley. Irene C. Berger, District Judge. (5:18-cv-01487)

Submitted: August 15, 2019 Decided: September 3, 2019

Before AGEE and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Roland Mathis, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Roland Mathis, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order adopting the 

recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing his complaint filed pursuant to 

Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). 

Based on his allegations, the magistrate judge found that he was seeking damages from 

privately employed personnel for conduct for which he would have a cause of action under 

state law; and there was no Bivens liability. Mathis did not timely file specific objections 

to the magistrate judge’s recommendation. On appeal, he argues that his failure was due 

to his mail being delayed. However, even assuming he did not waive his right to appellate 

review of the district court’s order accepting the recommendation, he fails to show any 

error in the recommendation or the order dismissing his complaint. See Minneci v. Pollard, 

565 U.S. 118, 131 (2012). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. 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 99.14

                            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 AnnualReport of E and S Holdings, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-KSB for the period ending May 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"). I, Edward A. Barth,
Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer and Director of the
company, certify, pursuant to 18 USC Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge
and belief.

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

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


                                        By: /s/ Edward A. Barth
                                            ------------------------------------
                                            Edward A. Barth
Dated: July 30, 2003
       ------------------
<PAGE>
                            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 E and S Holdings, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-KSB for the period ending May 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"). I, Eugene H.
Swearengin, Vice-President, Secretary and Director of the company, certify,
pursuant to 18 USC Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge and belief.

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

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


                                        By: /s/ Eugene H. Swearengin
                                            ------------------------------------
                                            Eugene H. Swearengin
Dated: July 30, 2003
       ----------------------
I 

114TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5108 

To authorize the Director of the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection 

to penalize persons who fail to maintain nuisance properties. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 28, 2016 

Mr. GRAYSON (for himself and Mr. CONYERS) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Financial Services 

A BILL 

To authorize the Director of the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection to penalize persons who fail to maintain 

nuisance properties. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Zombie Property Relief 

5 Act of 2016’’. 

6 SEC. 2. FINES FOR FAILURE TO MAINTAIN NUISANCE PROP7 ERTIES. 

8 In the case of a nuisance property subject to a Feder9 ally-related mortgage, the Director of the Bureau of Con10 sumer Financial Protection may assess a fine equal to 3 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5108 IH

1 times the costs that would be incurred as a result of main2 taining the property against the mortgagee of such prop3 erty if the mortgagee fails to maintain such property until 

4 such time as ownership has been transferred to a new 

5 owner, and the deed for such property transfer has been 

6 duly recorded. 

7 SEC. 3. REPORTING SYSTEM. 

8 Not later than 6 months after the date of enactment 

9 of this Act, the Director of the Bureau of Consumer Fi10 nancial Protection shall establish a system under which 

11 a person may report to the Director on the existence of 

12 a nuisance property. 

13 SEC. 4. DEFINITIONS. 

14 In this Act: 

15 (1) The term ‘‘nuisance property’’ means resi16 dential real property subject to a Federally-related 

17 mortgage in foreclosure, in foreclosure proceeding, 

18 or if— 

19 (A) at least three monthly payments are 

20 past due on the mortgage loan or the mort21 gagor has informed the mortgagee or loan serv22 icing company in writing that the mortgagor 

23 does not intend to occupy the property in the 

24 future; and 

25 (B) either— 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 5108 IH

1 (i) there is a reasonable basis to be2 lieve that the property is not occupied for 

3 three months; or 

4 (ii) such residential real property is a 

5 risk to the health, safety or welfare of the 

6 public or any adjoining or adjacent prop7 erty owners, due to acts of vandalism, loi8 tering, criminal conduct, or physical de9 struction or deterioration of the property, 

10 or the relevant governmental authority has 

11 declared the property unfit for occupancy 

12 and to remain vacant and unoccupied or to 

13 be demolished. 

14 (2) The term ‘‘Federally-related mortgage’’ 

15 means a Federally related mortgage loan, as such 

16 term is defined in section 3 of the Real Estate Set17 tlement Procedures Act of 1974 (12 U.S.C. 2602). 

Æ 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
##### 



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
  (1)
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)); and(2)
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 /s/ Hargopal Singh
    
    March 30, 2007Hargopal Singh
    
    DateChief Executive Officer
Sharon ANDERSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D18-1253

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

June 20, 2018 Rehearing Denied August 7, 2018

Sharon Anderson, pro se, Appellant.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant seeks review of an order denying her motion to correct illegal sentence rendered January 16, 2018. The notice of appeal failed to timely invoke the Court's jurisdiction. Fla. R. App. P. 9.110(b) ; Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(b)(1). Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. Any request for belated appeal must be filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(c).

Wolf, Bilbrey, and Kelsey, JJ., concur.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-6480

NEKITA ANTONIO WHITE,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

DIRECTOR OF DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T.S. Ellis, III, Senior

District Judge. (1:13-cv-00804-TSE-TRJ)

Submitted: July 24, 2014 Decided: July 29, 2014

Before FLOYD and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Nekita Antonio White, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Thomas Judge, 

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, 

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Nekita Antonio White seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012)

petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice 

or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 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 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 

(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. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude 

that White has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we 

deny White’s motion for a certificate of appealability, deny his 

motion to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 
3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED
## Breadcrumb

-  Publications 
-  Articles 

#           Pox in mourning doves in the United States      

      January 1, 1961    

View Document

Pox infection has occurrcd in mourning doves in at least 8 states on 12 separate occasions. Unsuccessful attempts were made to transmit both fowl pox (chicken isolate) and passerine pox (cowbird isolate) to mourning doves.

## Citation Information

### Study Area

### Contact

####               Eastern Ecological Science Center at the Leetown Research Laboratory          

11649 Leetown RoadKearneysville, WV25430United States

### Explore Search

                  - United States
                  - Alabama
                  -  California
                  -  Florida
                  -  Illinois
                  -  Kentucky
                  -  Maryland
                  -  Ohio
                  -  Tennessee

View All **
-80 -79 -78 -77 -76

 38

 39

 40

★

▲

▲

▲

▲

★

▲ ▲ ▲

▲

 500

 1000

 1500

 500

18 12 06 00

07/16

NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL

 Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 16 Jul 07

 EDAS Meteorological Data

Source

★ at 38.90 N 76.65 W Meters AGL
This notice is in reference to your request of May 15, 2015.

In an e-mail dated May 15, 2015, Counsel for American Airlines, Inc., requested an extension of 

time in which to prepare American’s answer in the above-referenced third-party complaint to 

May 22, 2015. The Complainant, Mike Borsetti, indicated that he does not oppose the request.

This office has decided to grant for good cause the requested extension. This notice is issued 

under authority assigned in 14 CFR 302.405(a).

Note to Dockets: Please place this notice in Docket DOT-OST-2015-0087.

Charles E. Smith

Senior Trial Attorney

U.S. Department of Transportation

Office of the General Counsel

1200 New Jersey Avenue SE

Washington, DC 20590
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-5022

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

JASON OLSON BETHEA,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Newport News. Rebecca Beach Smith,

District Judge. (CR-04-95)

Submitted: March 25, 2005 Decided: April 8, 2005

Before WILLIAMS, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Bryan L. Saunders, Newport News, Virginia, for Appellant. Paul J.

McNulty, United States Attorney, Michael J. Elston, Eric M. Hurt,

Assistant United States Attorneys, Newport News, Virginia, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Jason Olson Bethea pled guilty to one count of escape

from custody in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 751(a) (2000). At

sentencing, the district court granted the Government’s motion and

imposed an upward departure and sentenced Bethea to five years’

imprisonment, the statutory maximum for the offense. The court,

after considering the guidelines and the factors under 18 U.S.C.A.

§ 3553(a) (West 2000 & Supp. 2004), stated that even if the

guidelines were not mandatory, it would impose the same sentence.

On appeal, Bethea cites United States v Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738

(2005), and Blakely v. Washington, 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004), for the

proposition that the court erred in imposing a sentence under the

sentencing guidelines. Bethea further argues the upward

enhancement was improper. We affirm.

Because the district court’s alternate sentence was based

upon the guidelines and the factors under § 3553(a) and was not

greater than the statutory maximum, we find the upward departure

and the five year sentence to be harmless error. We further find

the sentence reasonable. Booker, 125 S. Ct. at 764-67 (Breyer, J.,

opinion of the Court). 

Accordingly, we affirm the sentence. 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.
- 3 -

AFFIRMED
William G. ANDERSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D17-169

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

July 11, 2018

Candice K. Brower, Regional Counsel, Office of Criminal Conflict and Civil Regional Counsel, Region One, Gainesville, and Michael J. Titus, Assistant Regional Counsel, Office of Criminal Conflict and Civil Regional Counsel, Region One, Tallahassee, for Appellant, and William G. Anderson, pro se.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Trisha Meggs Pate, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

Per Curiam.

In Appellant's direct criminal appeal, his counsel filed a brief pursuant to *Anders v. California* , 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). We agree there are no meritorious issues for appeal, and affirm the judgment and sentence. However, Appellant correctly argues that the trial court erred in failing to give him notice and an opportunity to object to the fine imposed pursuant to section 775.083 of the Florida Statutes, and the accompanying surcharge assessed pursuant to section 938.04. *Carmichael v. State* , 192 So.3d 640, 640 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016). This issue was preserved for appeal by the denial of Appellant's motion to correct sentencing error. Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.800(b)(2). We therefore strike this fine and surcharge. The lower tribunal may, but is not required to, reimpose them on remand after following the proper procedure. *See**Nix v. State* , 84 So.3d 424, 426 & n.2 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) (noting it may be an imprudent use of judicial resources to conduct further proceedings to impose a fine on a defendant who is serving a lengthy prison sentence).

Wolf, Bilbrey, and Kelsey, JJ., concur.
B2030 (Form 2030) (12/15)

United States Bankruptcy Court

Southern District of Florida

In re

Ruben Lazaro Marquez

Yunaisy Alvarez Case No.

Debtor(s) Chapter 7

DISCLOSURE OF COMPENSATION OF ATTORNEY FOR DEBTOR(S)

1. Pursuant to 11 U .S.C. § 329(a) and Fed. Bankr. P. 2016(b), I certify that I am the attorney for the above named debtor(s) and that

compensation paid to me within one year before the filing of the petition in bankruptcy, or agreed to be paid to me, for services rendered or to

be rendered on behalf of the debtor(s) in contemplation of or in connection with the bankruptcy case is as follows:

For legal services, I have agreed to accept $ 1,700.00

Prior to the filing of this statement I have received $ 1,700.00

Balance Due $ 0.00

2. The source of the compensation paid to me was:

 Debtor  Other (specify):

3. The source of compensation to be paid to me is:

 Debtor  Other (specify):

4.  I have not agreed to share the above-disclosed compensation with any other person unless they are members and associates of my law firm.

 I have agreed to share the above-disclosed compensation with a person or persons who are not members or associates of my law firm. A

copy of the agreement, together with a list of the names of the people sharing in the compensation is attached.

5. In return for the above-disclosed fee, I have agreed to render legal service for all aspects of the bankruptcy case, including:

a. Analysis of the debtor's financial situation, and rendering advice to the debtor in determining whether to file a petition in bankruptcy;

b. Preparation and filing of any petition, schedules, statement of affairs and plan which may be required;

c. Representation of the debtor at the meeting of creditors and confirmation hearing, and any adjourned hearings thereof;

d. [Other provisions as needed]

Negotiations with secured creditors to reduce to market value; exemption planning; preparation and filing of

reaffirmation agreements and applications as needed; preparation and filing of motions pursuant to 11 USC

522(f)(2)(A) for avoidance of liens on household goods.

6. By agreement with the debtor(s), the above-disclosed fee does not include the following service:

Representation of the debtors in any dischargeability actions, judicial lien avoidances, relief from stay actions or

any other adversary proceeding.

CERTIFICATION

I certify that the foregoing is a complete statement of any agreement or arrangement for payment to me for representation of the debtor(s) in

this bankruptcy proceeding.

February 11, 2022 /s/ Dalyla Santos, Esq.

Date Dalyla Santos, Esq. 064455

Signature of Attorney

The Santos Law Offices

6741 SW 8 Street

Miami, FL 33144

305-417-4111 Fax: 305-675-7936

dsantos@santoslawpa.com

Name of law firm

Software Copyright (c) 1996-2021 Best Case, LLC - www.bestcase.com Best Case Bankruptcy

Case 22-11087-AJC Doc 5 Filed 02/11/22 Page 1 of 1