alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION

File Name: 15a0386n.06

No. 14-3613

UNITED STATES COURTS OF APPEALS

FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

PNC EQUIPMENT FINANCE, LLC,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

DONNA G. KELLER,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

ON APPEAL FROM THE 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT 

COURT FOR THE 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF 

OHIO

BEFORE: SUHRHEINRICH, BATCHELDER, and CLAY, Circuit Judges

SUHRHEINRICH, Circuit Judge.

Donna G. Keller (“Defendant”) appeals the district court’s decision denying her motion 

to vacate the default judgment the court entered in favor of PNC Equipment Finance, LLC 

(“PNC”). 

This case arises out of PNC’s efforts to enforce a loan guaranty signed by Defendant. 

Although PNC served Defendant through certified mail and personal service, Defendant did not 

respond to PNC’s complaint, and the district court entered a default judgment against her on 

August 13, 2013. On November 18, 2013, Defendant moved to vacate that judgment under 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60, presenting four issues. Defendant first claimed that PNC

never served her with process, rendering the default judgment void due to lack of personal 

jurisdiction. The district court held that the default judgment was not void because 
No. 14-3613

PNC Equipment Finance, LLC v. Keller

-2-

(1) Defendant waived personal jurisdiction under the terms of the guaranty, and (2) PNC 

personally served Defendant with a copy of the summons and the complaint. Defendant next 

averred that her delay in responding to the complaint was based on excusable neglect, and that

she had viable defenses to the complaint. The district court found that Defendant could not 

allege excusable neglect because PNC personally served her, and Defendant chose to do nothing 

until the court entered judgment against her. And without the presence of excusable neglect, 

there was no reason to examine any viable defenses. Lastly, Defendant maintained that unusual 

circumstances and principles of equity required relief. The district court found no exceptional or 

extraordinary circumstances justifying relief. The court thus denied Defendant’s motion to 

vacate the default judgment.

On appeal, Defendant repeats her arguments concerning lack of personal jurisdiction and 

the existence of excusable neglect. Defendant also claims for the first time that the district court 

erred by granting relief in an amount that was not supported by PNC’s exhibits, and by refusing 

to conduct an evidentiary hearing on Defendant’s motion to vacate its default judgment. 

Having reviewed the parties’ briefs, the applicable law, and the record, and having heard 

oral arguments, we conclude that the district court appropriately disposed of the issues regarding 

personal jurisdiction and excusable neglect. Moreover, we conclude that the district court did 

not abuse its discretion in determining the amount in judgment and in foregoing an evidentiary 

hearing. Therefore, for the reasons stated in the district court’s order dated May 29, 2014, we 

AFFIRM.
Miguel Steven WAGNER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D18-12

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed August 31, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 

# Explore Search: Communications Plans

Filters

              - multimedia_video(2)
              - multimedia_video-149194(2)
              - connect_staff_profiles(1)

## By Location

              - alabama(1)
              - alaska(4)
              - arizona(3)
              - arkansas(1)
              - california(21)
              - colorado(3)
              - commonwealth of the northern mariana islands(1)
              - florida(2)
              - georgia(1)
              - hawaii(2)
              - idaho(3)
              - illinois(1)
              - indiana(1)
              - louisiana(2)
              - maine(1)
              - maryland(4)
              - mississippi(1)
              - montana(3)
              - nebraska(3)
              - nevada(2)
              - new jersey(1)
              - new mexico(1)
              - new york(1)
              - north carolina(2)
              - (-)oklahoma(3)
              - oregon(4)
              - puerto rico(2)
              - south carolina(3)
              - south dakota(12)
              - tennessee(1)
              - texas(1)
              - u.s. virgin islands(1)
              - utah(1)
              - virginia(2)
              - washington(11)
              - wisconsin(2)
              - wyoming(3)

## By Year

              - 2024(1)

Presentations and Events        August 7, 2017        Developing Effective Drought Monitoring Tools for Farmers and Ranchers

staff profileHeidi Koehler

Presentations and Events        July 25, 2019        Climate Projections as a Way to Illustrate Future Possibilities
```

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 235 (Friday, December 6, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Page 97054]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-28590]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4742-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2024-0001]

Tennessee; Amendment No. 2 to Notice of a Major Disaster 
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration 
for the State of Tennessee (FEMA-4742-DR), dated September 27, 2023, 
and related determinations.

DATES: This change occurred on October 7, 2024.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and 
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW, 
Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Emergency Management Agency 
(FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the 
Administrator, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Darryl L. 
Dragoo, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer 
for this disaster.
    This action terminates the appointment of Leda M. Khoury as Federal 
Coordinating Officer for this disaster.

    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 
(CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, 
Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis 
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster 
Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance 
Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and 
Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, 
Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing 
Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially 
Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other 
Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially 
Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

Deanne Criswell,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2024-28590 Filed 12-5-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P
```
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.
 Consumer Product Safety Commission 16 CFR Part 1500


Correction In rule document E8-26964 beginning on page 67730 in the issue of Monday, November 17, 2008, make the following correction: §1500.20
  On page 67738, in §1500.20(e)(3), the table and its accompanying footnote text should appear as follows: Required cautionary statement
Number16 CFR 1500.19(b)(1) 1
116 CFR 1500.19(b)(2) 2
216 CFR 1500.19(b)(3)(i) 3
316 CFR 1500.19(b)(3)(ii) 4
416 CFR 1500.19(b)(4)(i) 5
516 CFR 1500.19(b)(4)(ii) 6
6
 1
                        See figure 1. 2
                        See Figure 2. 3
                        See Figure 3. 4
                        See Figure 4. 5
                        See Figure 5. 6
                        See Figure 6.


[FR Doc. Z8-26964 Filed 11-24-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 1505-01-D
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 

# Explore Search: CoreCast

Filters

              - multimedia_image(31)
              - (-)multimedia_image-141771(31)

## By Location

## By Year

              - (-)2022(31)

Photography  Wind Turbines

Photography  Hoary Bat Victim

Photography  Wind Turbines

Photography  Wind Turbine

Photography  Wind Turbine Blade

Photography  Bison in Winter

Photography  Bison at Yellowstone National Park

Photography  Bison Cow and Calf

Photography  Pliocene Lignite Coal from BEN Village

Photography  Exposing Pliocene Lignite Bed Near a BEN Village

Photography  Bat with Radio Transmitter

Photography  Bats and Wind Energy

Photography  Bats and Wind Energy

Photography  Wind Energy Facility

Photography  BEN Patient

Photography  BEN Sampling in Serbia

Photography  Pliocene Lignite Bed

Photography  BEN Sampling in Serbia

Photography  Sampling a Sprint in BEN Village

Photography  Kidney Size Comparison of BEN Victims

Photography  Wind Turbine

Photography  Dave Mech with Brutus

Photography  Dave Mech Following Wolves

Photography  Brutus the North Pole Wolf

Photography  Brutus the North Pole Wolf

Photography  Brutus the North Pole Wolf

Photography  Brutus Dominance Behavior After Capture

Photography  Brutus Howling

Photography  Brutus' Teeth

Photography  Brutus the North Pole Wolf

#### Pagination

-                Current page            1 
-                Page            2 
-  Next page›› 
-  Last pageLast »
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19
- 7837

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. SHEMIKA ALFRIDA PARSON WILLIAMS , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Anderson

. Timothy M. Cain , District Judge. ( 8:17

- cr - 00211

- TMC

- 1 , 8:19

- cv - 00777

- TMC )

Submitted: March 12, 2020 Decided: March 17, 2020

Before KING, KEENAN, and FLOYD , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

. Shemika Alfrida Parson Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Katherine Hollingsworth Flynn, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina , Leesa Washington, Assistant United Stat es Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Shemika Alfrida Parson Williams seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on her 28 U.S.C. § 225 5 (201 8 ) motion . The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)( B ) (201 8 ). 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) (201 8 ). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find the district court’s assessment o f the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v. Davis , 137 S. Ct. 759, 773

- 74 (2017). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Gonzalez v. Thaler , 565 U.S. 134, 140

- 41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000))

. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Williams has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability 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 argumen t would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 

# Explore Search: Declination

Filters

              - science_science(3)
              - products_publications(53)
              - multimedia_image(1)
              - multimedia_image-141771(1)
              - (-)multimedia_video(2)
              - multimedia_video-149194(1)
              - multimedia_video-149195(1)
              - news_news-149248(2)
              - news_news-149250(1)

## By Location

              - alaska(8)
              - arizona(6)
              - arkansas(1)
              - california(26)
              - florida(7)
              - hawaii(11)
              - idaho(2)
              - indiana(1)
              - iowa(1)
              - kansas(1)
              - maine(1)
              - maryland(3)
              - massachusetts(1)
              - michigan(1)
              - minnesota(1)
              - mississippi(2)
              - montana(1)
              - nebraska(1)
              - (-)nevada(2)
              - new mexico(1)
              - north carolina(1)
              - north dakota(1)
              - oklahoma(1)
              - oregon(4)
              - puerto rico(2)
              - south dakota(3)
              - texas(1)
              - utah(2)
              - virginia(3)
              - washington(3)
              - wisconsin(4)
              - wyoming(3)

## By Year

Featured Films and Shorts        February 21, 2010        The Heat is On: Desert Tortoises and Survival (Full video)

Presentations and Events        June 10, 2013        A Mammal's Take on the 'Rapture Hypothesis' in Sierra Nevada
Deanne Marie NELSON and Larry Nelson, Appellant/petitioner(s), v. BANK OF AMERICA, Appellee/respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-3175

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

September 13, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

ALONZO GARWOOD,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 353 EAL 2017

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 27th day of December, 2017

, the Petition for Allowance of

Appeal is DENIED

.
10/0^/201 1 16:1 2 FAX 202493514 2 FA A - DMS OOl/OO l LftWOFFICC S 

# //o</{h e S-YMooca/e: ^ JOH N S . VGDIC £ HOhJAL D D . GOLDErJ KAiHLbe KAtODlC e TALBO TM . MARTIN . RArMON D C . SPECIALS LeONAH D cEnuzzi . ELIZABET H M . ETERPKA . orcoutJSC L MICHAE L ATOnif; F PARALEGA L ASMTTE D I N -M D OriL i 

# RECEIVE D seP2 0 2BM 

# HEARIN G DOCJIM . 60 1 PPNNS> I V.'/INI AAVtlJUE , N.V A SUIT E 87C WASHINGTON . D C 200O- 1

(202 1 73 7 303 0 FA X(202 ) 7.-37-74^ 0 i l l A\/IATI0 N WA V

SUIT E 2-1 5 FREDERICK , M D 2170 1 (301)695-230 0 FA X(30\)G9'J.2-.3 l bPL i \ 0 M D OFFIC E

Septembe r14 , 201 1

Federa l Aviatio n Adminiscratio n 80 0 Independenc e Avenue , S.W . Wilbu rWrigh t Building , Suit e 2W100 0 Washington , DC 2059 1 Attn : Hearin g Docke t Clerk , AGC-43 0 Re : Islan d Birds , inc. , FA ADocke t No . 2010SO19030 9 

# M'0' ^ C D I 

### —ic?j5 ^

C D C/ 5 

# - S ^ 

# '^d' ^

Dea rSi ro rMadann : Th e FA Aha s issue d ^

Fina l Notic e o fPropose d Civi l F snalt yi n th e above-reference d matter . Pleas e accep t thi s a s ou rrnques t fo ra hearin g o n th e alleeation s mad e b yth e FA Ai n thei rFitia l Notice . W e respectfull yreques t tha ran yhearin g i n thi s matte rb e hel d i n St . Thomas , USVI . Al l futur e communication s i n thi s matte rshoul d b e addresse d t o ou rfirm' s Frederic k Marvlan d office . I f yo u hav e an yquestion s o rconcerns , pleas e d o no t hesitat e t o contac t us . W e appreciat e you rattentio n "t o thi s rnatter . Sincerely , athleen-A ' Yod i ounse l t o IsIand'Bird s cc : Rya n M . Landers . FA ACounse l
Judy Rebecca REHMAN, Appellant, v. Arkam REHMAN, Appellee.

No. 1D18-2641

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

September 14, 2018

Carrington Madison Mead of Carrington Madison Mead, Jacksonville, for Appellant.

Lawrence C. Datz of Datz & Datz, P.A., Jacksonville, for Appellee.

Per Curiam.

The Motion to Dismiss Appeal, filed July 2, 2018, is granted. The appeal is hereby dismissed. *See**Ward v. Bragg* , 957 So.2d 670, 671 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007).

Wolf, Winokur, and Jay, JJ., concur.
```

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 238 (Wednesday, December 11, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Pages 99934-99935]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-29023]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[SEC File No. 270-660, OMB Control No. 3235-0722]

Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Extension: Form 1-U

Upon Written Request Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange 
Commission, Office of FOIA Services, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 
20549-2736.

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction 
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange 
Commission (``Commission'') has submitted to the Office of Management 
and Budget this request for extension of the previously approved 
collection of information discussed below.
    Form 1-U (17 CFR 239.93) is used to file current event reports by 
Tier 2 issuers under Regulation A, an exemption from registration under 
the Securities Act of 1933 (15 U.S.C 77a et seq.). Form 1-U provides 
information to the public within four business days of fundamental 
changes in the nature of the issuer's business and other

[[Page 99935]]

significant events. We estimate that approximately 1,502 issuers file 
Form 1-U annually. We estimate that Form 1-U takes approximately 5.0 
hours to prepare. We estimate that 85% of the 5.0 hours per response is 
prepared by the company for a total annual burden of 6,384 hours (4.25 
hours per response x 1,502 responses).
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required 
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a 
currently valid control number.
    Public Comment Instructions: The 30-day public comment period for 
this information collection request opens on December 11, 2024 and 
closes at the end of the day on January 10, 2025. The public may view 
the full information request and submit comments at https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAViewICR?ref_nbr=202412-3235-005 or email 
comments to [email protected].

    Dated: December 5, 2024.
Sherry R. Haywood,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2024-29023 Filed 12-10-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
```
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 10**  **- 7160** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v. DAVID CORNELL SPENCE , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Easter n District of North Carolina , at Raleigh
. Louise W. Flanagan , Chief District Judge. ( 5:07

- cr - 00289

- FL

- 1; 5:09

- cv - 00161

- FL )

Submitted : February 24, 2011 Decided: March 2, 2011

Before GREGORY , SHEDD, and KEENAN , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un pu blished per curiam opinion
. David Cornell Spence, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer P. May

- Parker, Rudolf A. Renfer, Jr., Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circui t.2 PER CURIAM: David Cornell Spence seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2010) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006) . 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) (2006)
. When the distric t 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 motion 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 Spence has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We disp ense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials3 before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process. DISMISSED
#### COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS, Division of Employment Security, Petitioner, Appellant, v. Irving WIDETT, Trustee, Respondent, Appellee.

No. 4723.

United States Court of Appeals First Circuit.

June 9, 1953.

Sydney Zuker, Asst. Atty. Gen. of Mass., George Fingold, Atty. Gen. of Mass., John A. Brennan, Chief Counsel, Division of Employment Security, Harry P. Levowich, Counsel, Division of Employment Security, Boston, Mass., and Stephen F. LoPiano, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., on brief, for appellant.

Joseph Kruger, Boston, Mass., Alan J. Dimond and Widett & Kruger, Boston, Mass., on brief, for appellee.

Before MAGRUDER, Chief Judge, and WOODBURY and HARTIGAN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

The order of the District Court is affirmed on Memorandum of Decision below. 108 F.Supp. 183.
C.A.T., Appellant / Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee / Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-1220

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

October 11, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Appeal is dismissed.
EXHIBIT 10.31

                          RIV ACQUISITION HOLDINGS INC.
                               650 Madison Avenue
                                   15th Floor
                            New York, New York 10022


                                  July 18, 2007

Syd Ghermezian
Triple Five Investco, LLC.
9510 West Sahara, Suite 200
Las Vegas, Nevada 89117

Dear Mr. Ghermezian:

Reference is made to the agreement dated March 21, 2007 among Riv Acquisition
Holdings Inc. ("RAH"), Triple Five Investco LLC and Dominion Financial LLC (the
"Agreement"). RAH hereby advises you that it is extending the Term (as defined
in the Agreement) pursuant to section 2 of the Agreement for thirty days
commencing on July 20, 2007. In consideration of such extension, RAH has already
wired the amount of $173,547.29 to the account previously designated by you.

Sincerely,



/s/ Paul Kanavos
---------------------
Paul Kanavos
President