alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________ No. 14

- 14456 Non

- Argument Calendar

________________________ D.C. Docket No. 2:12

- cv
- 00115

- LGW

- JEG

MICHAEL MCGEHEE, as authorized representative of M.M., a minor child, Plaintiff, KEITH SMALL, as authorized legal representative of A.S., a minor child and as representative of the Estate of Caroline Small, ALAN WELCH, as guardian ad litem of M.M. , Plaintiffs

- Appellants,

versus GLYNN COUNTY, GEORGIA, M. TODD SIMPSON, in their individual capacities, ROBERT C. SASSER, in their individual capacities,
Defendants

- Appellees.

Case: 14-14456 Date Filed: 03/18/2015 Page: 1 of 22 ________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Geor gia

________________________ ( March 18, 2015 )
Before HULL , ROSENBAUM and JILL PRYOR , Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
We affirm the district court ’ s grant of qualified immunity for the r easons articulated in its summary judgment order, Small v. Glynn Cnty., Ga. , N o. CV 212

- 11 5, 2014 WL 4928877 (S.D. Ga. Sept. 30, 2014)

. We note that the district court expressly took care to construe the facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs

. Accordingly, we agree with the district court that an “objectively reasonable official standing in the [officers’] place” would not have been on notice that using deadly force against Ms. Small “would be clearly unlawful given the
circumstances.” See Pace v. Capobianco , 283 F.3d 1275, 1282 (11th Cir. 2002 )

. AFFIRMED. Case: 14-14456 Date Filed: 03/18/2015 Page: 2 of 2
1

STIPULATION OF VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

William E. Kennedy State Bar No. 158214 

CONSUMER LAW OFFICE OF WILLIAM E. KENNEDY 

2797 Park Avenue, Suite 201 

Santa Clara, California 95050 

Telephone: (408) 241-1000 

Facsimile: (408) 241-1500 

Email: wkennedy@kennedyconsumerlaw.com 

Attorneys for Plaintiff LUCIA RUIZ 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA – SAN JOSE DIVISION 

LUCIA RUIZ, 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

ALLY FINANCIAL INC. 

 Defendants. 

Case No. 5:17-cv-00613-LHK

STIPULATION OF VOLUNTARY 

DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that, pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure, Plaintiff Lucia Ruiz and Defendant Ally Financial Inc. hereby stipulate to the 

voluntary dismissal of Plaintiff’s claims with prejudice in the above-captioned actions. 

DATED: September 11, 2017 CONSUMER LAW OFFICE OF WILLIAM E. 

KENNEDY 

By /s/ William E. Kennedy ______________ 

 Attorney for Plaintiff ROBERTO CONTRERAS 

DATED: September 11, 2017 SEVERSON & WERSON 

Case 5:17-cv-00613-LHK Document 23 Filed 10/04/17 Page 1 of 2
2

STIPULATION OF VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

By /s/ Andrew S. Elliot ______________ 

 Attorney for Defendant ALLY FINANCIAL, INC. 

I, William E. Kennedy, am the ECF user whose identification and password are being 

used to file this document. I hereby attest that Andrew S. Elliot has concurred in this filing. 

/s/ William E. Kennedy

Case 5:17-cv-00613-LHK Document 23 Filed 10/04/17 Page 2 of 2
EXHIBIT 11
                            U.S.B. HOLDING CO., INC.
                    COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER COMMON SHARE

             FOR THE THREE AND NINE MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2002



<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                                THREE MONTHS            NINE MONTHS
                                                                    ENDED                   ENDED
                                                              SEPTEMBER 30, 2002      SEPTEMBER 30, 2002
                                                              ------------------      ------------------
                                                                   (000'S, EXCEPT SHARE DATA)

<S>                                                              <C>                      <C>

NUMERATOR:
        Net income                                               $     6,509              $    18,624
        Less preferred stock dividends                                    --                       10
                                                                 -----------              -----------

        Net income for basic and diluted earnings
          per common share - net income available
          to common stockholders                                 $     6,509              $    18,614
                                                                 ===========              ===========

DENOMINATOR:
        Denominator for basic earnings per common
           share - weighted average shares                        18,430,819               18,395,793

        Effects of dilutive securities:
         Director and employee stock options                         628,202                  575,903
                                                                 -----------              -----------

        Total effects of dilutive securities                         628,202                  575,903
                                                                 -----------              -----------

        Denominator for diluted earnings per common
           share - adjusted weighted average shares               19,059,021               18,971,696
                                                                 ===========              ===========

        Basic earnings per common share                          $      0.35              $      1.01
                                                                 ===========              ===========
        Diluted earnings per common share                        $      0.34              $      0.98
                                                                 ===========              ===========


</TABLE>
Raul Enrique GONZALEZ COLON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D19-1149

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed July 2, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 14-1173

___________________________

American Family Mutual Insurance Company

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

John Martin Donaldson

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant

Todd Richard Patton; Jacob Todd Patton

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants

____________

 Appeal from United States District Court 

for the District of Minnesota - Minneapolis

____________

 Submitted: October 7, 2014

Filed: October 14, 2014

[Unpublished] 

____________

Before RILEY, Chief Judge, WOLLMAN and BYE, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.

This is an insurance coverage dispute arising out of an alcohol-related incident

involving a motor vehicle. After heavy drinking, eighteen-year-old Jacob Patton
operated a motor vehicle while his friend, John Donaldson, was a passenger in the

vehicle. Someone observed Patton's erratic driving and called the police. When the

police located Patton's vehicle, a chase ensued which led to a crash in which

Donaldson suffered serious injuries. Patton faced criminal charges as a result of the

incident.

Donaldson sought insurance coverage for his injuries under an umbrella policy

insuring Patton issued by American Family Mutual Insurance Company (American

Family). The umbrella policy contains two relevant exclusions. The first exclusion

provides the policy does not cover intentional injuries, defined as "injury caused by

or at the direction of any insured even if the actual injury is different than that which

was expected or intended from the standpoint of any insured." The second exclusion

provides the policy does not "cover injury arising out of violation of a penal law or

ordinance by or with the knowledge or consent of an insured when an insured is

convicted of such violation."

In this appeal, Donaldson seeks reversal of the district court's grant of summary

judgment in favor of American Family on the grounds the intentional injury exclusion

precludes coverage. After the appeal was taken, American Family filed a motion to

supplement the record, asking us to take judicial notice of the fact that Jacob Patton

had been convicted of a felony offense arising out of the alcohol-related motor vehicle

incident following the district court's grant of summary judgment.

Rather than urging us to consider Patton's violation of law as an alternative

ground for affirming the district court, however, American Family represents "there

are subsequent events surrounding the conviction that would need to be addressed in

the first instance by the district court." Appellee's Br. at 51.

Under these circumstances, we decline to exercise jurisdiction at this time. 

Instead, we remand this case to the district court to address in the first instance any

-2-
remaining unresolved issues surrounding Patton's criminal conviction that may

prevent us from considering the violation-of-law exclusion as an alternative ground

for affirming the district court.

So ordered.

______________________________

-3-
Christopher LANG, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D17-2487

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[January 24, 2019]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
DISMISS and Opinion Filed May 3, 2024 

# S

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-23-01079-CV ALFRED L. OWENS, Appellant V. TIAA, FSB, Appellee On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 5 Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CC-23-06513-E MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Chief Justice Burn s, Justice Pedersen, III, and Justice Breedlove Opinion by Chief Justice Burns Appellant’s brief in this case is overdue . After appellant failed to respond to our inquiry regarding the reporter’s record , we ordered the appeal submitted without a reporter’s record and for appellant’s br ief to be filed by March 30, 2024. By postcard dated April 2, 2024, we informed appellant his brief was overdue and directed appellant to file a brief within te n days. We cautioned a ppellant that failure to do so would result in the dismissal of this appeal without further notice. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 38.8(a)(1). To date , appellant has not file d a brief nor otherwise corresponded with the Court regarding th e status of this appeal.–2– Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 38.8 (a)(1); 42.3(b), (c).

231079F.P05 /Robert D. Burns, III / ROBERT D. BURNS, III CHIEF JUSTICE–3– 

# S

Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT ALFRED L. OWENS, Appellant
No. 05-23-01079-CV V. TIAA, FSB, Appellee On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 5, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CC-23-06513- E. Opinion delivered by Chief Justice Burns. Justices Pedersen, III and Breedlove participating. In accordance with this Court’s opi nion of this date, the appeal is DISMISSED

. Judgment entered May 3, 2024
Exhibit 32.2





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 Quarterly Report of Cass Information Systems, Inc. (“the Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, P. Stephen Appelbaum, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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 results of operations of the Company.





/s/ P. Stephen AppelbaumP. Stephen AppelbaumChief Financial Officer(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)May 5, 2011





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Cass Information Systems, Inc. and will be retained by Cass Information Systems, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Andre MCKENZIE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D18-2661

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

June 20, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Report
on Assessment of Compliance
 
 with
Regulation AB Servicing Criteria
 
 1.  The
undersigned authorized officer of LandAmerica Tax and Flood Services, Inc. (the
"Company") is responsible for assessing the Company's compliance with the
applicable servicing criteria as defined in 17 CFR Part 229 Section 1122(d) (4)
(xi) and 1122(d) (4) (xii) (the "Regulation AB Servicing Criteria") for
residential and commercial mortgage backed securities for which the Company
served as third-party property tax payment provider on the underlying collateral
(the "Platform").  Except as set forth in the preceding sentence, the
servicing criteria set forth in 17 CFR Part 229 Section 1122(d) are not
applicable to the activities the Company performed with respect to the
Platform
 
 2.  The
Company used the criteria in 17 CFR Part 229 Section 1122(d) to assess the
compliance with the applicable Regulation AB Servicing Criteria.
 
 3.  Under one
of the services offered by the Company, some customers may elect to remit tax
payments directly to tax agencies without having the Company remit those
property tax payments through our tax payment service.  We refer to
these customers as “non-outsourced servicer customers.”  With respect
to these non-outsourced customers and the services the Company delivered
pursuant to the servicing criteria set forth in 17 CFR Part 229 Section
1122(d)(4)(xi), the Company's assertion is strictly limited to its processing of
tax payments submitted through the Company's tax payment service.
 
 4.  With
respect to servicing criteria set forth in 17 CFR Part 229 Section
1122(d)(4)(xii), the Company's assertion is strictly limited to its processing
of property tax penalty payments.  The Company has determined that its
servicer customers may also have access to systems that enable those servicers
to process penalties through obligor escrow accounts.  Management's
assessment of compliance does not relate to the actual or potential activities
of other parties with access to obligor escrow accounts.
 
 5.  Based on
such assessment, management believes that, as of and for the year ended December
31, 2007, the Company has complied in all material respects with the Regulation
AB Servicing Criteria related to the servicing of the Platform taken as a
whole.
 
 6.  The
registered public accounting firm of Grant Thornton, LLP, has issued an
attestation report on the Company's assessment of compliance with the Regulation
AB Servicing Criteria as of and for the year ended December 31,
2007.
 
 Date:
February 6, 2008
 
 LandAmerica
Tax and Flood Services, Inc.
 
  
 
 By: /s/ Robert
Ige
 Name:      Robert
Ige
 Its:           Executive
Vice President
EX-34.8
(logo) Deloitte

Deloitte & Touche LLP
Suite 1500
191 Peachtree Street NE
Atlanta, GA 30303-1943
USA

Tel: +1 404 220 1500
www.deloitte.com


REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM


To the Board of Directors of
LNR Partners Inc.
Miami Beach, Florida

We have examined management's assertion, included in the accompanying
Management's Report on Assessment of Compliance with SEC Regulation AB
Servicing Criteria, that LNR Partners Inc. (the "Company") complied with the
servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of the Securities and Exchange
Commission's Regulation AB for the commercial mortgage-backed securities
transactions for which the Asserting Party served as special servicer, that
were completed on or after January 1, 2006, and that were registered with the
Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to the Securities Act of 1933 (the
"Platform") as of and for the year ended December 31, 2007, excluding criteria
229.1122(d)(1)(iii), (3)(i)(C), (3)(i)(D), (3)(ii), (3)(iii), (3)(iv), (4)(v),
(4)(ix), (4)(x), (4)(xi), (4)(xii), (4)(xiii) and (4)(xv), which management
has determined are not applicable to the activities performed by the Company
with respect to the Platform. Management is responsible for the Company's
compliance with the servicing criteria. Our responsibility is to express an
opinion on management's assertion about the Company's compliance with the
servicing criteria based on our examination.

Our examination was conducted in accordance with attestation standards
established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, as
adopted by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States), and
accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Company's
compliance with the applicable servicing criteria, including tests on a sample
basis of the servicing activities related to the Platform, determining whether
the Company performed those selected activities in compliance with the
servicing criteria during the specified period, and performing such other
procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. Our procedures were
limited to selected servicing activities performed by the Company during the
period covered by this report and, accordingly, such samples may not have
included servicing activities related to each asset-backed transaction included
in the Platform. Further, an examination is not designed to detect
noncompliance arising from errors that may have occurred prior to the period
specified above that may have affected the balances or amounts calculated or
reported by the Company during the period covered by this report. We believe
that our examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our
examination does not provide a legal determination on the Company's compliance
with the servicing criteria.

In our opinion, management's assertion that the Company complied with the
aforementioned applicable servicing criteria as of and for the year ended
December 31, 2007 for the commercial mortgage-backed securities Platform is
fairly stated, in all material respects.


/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP
February 22, 2008


Member of
Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                          26,474
<SECURITIES>                                    11,503
<RECEIVABLES>                                   26,310
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,037
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                68,889
<PP&E>                                          22,808
<DEPRECIATION>                                  16,584
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  77,869
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           55,995
<BONDS>                                            318
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            75
<OTHER-SE>                                      20,787
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    77,869
<SALES>                                         66,390
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               163,880
<CGS>                                           14,636
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   70,870
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                53,476
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 3,820
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,518
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (38,674)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     5,200
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (43,874)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                 (3,009)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (46,883)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (7.77)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (7.77)
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 31.2
CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
I, Craig A. McCollam, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of DionexCorporation; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain anyuntrue statement of a material fact or omit to state amaterial fact necessary to make the statements made, in lightof the circumstances under which such statements were made,not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and otherfinancial information included in this report, fairly presentin all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for,the periods presented in this report; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I areresponsible for establishing and maintaining disclosurecontrols and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
(a) Designed such disclosure controls andprocedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed underour supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant,including its consolidated subsidiaries, ismade known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared; (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of theregistrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report ourconclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of theend of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluation; and (c) Disclosed in this report any change in theregistrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during theregistrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in case ofan annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely tomaterially affect, the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting; and
5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I havedisclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internalcontrol over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit
 

 

  committee of registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):
(a) All significant deficiencies and materialweaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reportingwhich are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record,process, summarize and report financialinformation; and (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, thatinvolves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting.
Date: November 8, 2004
/s/ Craig A. McCollam