alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TETYANA DORSANEO,

Plaintiff,

v.

EDWARD MATTHEW DORSANEO,

Defendant.

Case No. 17-cv-00765-VC 

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S 

MOTION FOR SUMMARY 

JUDGMENT

Re: Dkt. Nos. 87, 97

Tetyana's motion for summary judgment is granted. The Court previously found Edward 

liable for damages to Tetyana under the Form I-864 contract and left discovery open as to the 

amount of financial assistance he owed. See Dkt. No. 55. Tetyana has now presented evidence 

that Edward owes her $49,775.81 in compensatory damages under the I-864 contract. Edward 

has not presented any evidence disputing this amount. To the extent that Edward attempts to 

relitigate the issue of liability, his arguments do not establish a genuine dispute of material fact 

as to the amount of damages he owes.

1

In addition, Tetyana is entitled to prejudgment interest in this case. See Home Savings 

Bank, F.S.B. by Resolution Trust Corp. v. Gillam, 952 F.2d 1152, 1161 (9th Cir. 1991). 

However, the prejudgment interest rate in this case should be based on the federal rate outlined 

in 28 U.S.C. § 1961(a). See Western Pacific Fisheries, Inc. v. SS President Grant, 730 F.2d 

1280, 1289 (9th Cir. 1984). Therefore, Tetyana is awarded $49,775.81 in compensatory 

damages and prejudgment interest at the rate outlined in 28 U.S.C. § 1961.

 

1

Edward's request for judicial notice is granted. Fed. R. Evid. 201.
2

There is no evidence of a terminating event having occurred that would end Edward's 

ongoing obligation under the statute. See 8 C.F.R. § 213a.2(e)(2)(i). Therefore, Edward is 

ordered to continue meeting his I-864 financial support obligation to Tetyana until a terminating 

event occurs. See, e.g., Erler v. Erler, No. 12-cv-02793-CRB, 2017 WL 5478560, at *9 (N.D. 

Cal. Nov. 15, 2017).

Within 7 days of this ruling, Tetyana is ordered to submit a proposed judgment reflecting 

this ruling, including an award of interest at the rate required by this ruling. Tetyana's counsel

should separately file a declaration explaining how the total amount of interest owed was 

calculated. Tetyana's counsel must submit a draft of the proposed judgment to Edward's counsel 

within 5 days of this ruling to give Edward's counsel an opportunity to object (with the 

understanding that the only appropriate objection at this point could be that the proposed 

judgment does not conform with this ruling). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 24, 2018

______________________________________

VINCE CHHABRIA

United States District Judge
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

FORT WAYNE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

v. ) CASE NO.: 1:12-CR-5-TLS

)

VICTOR ALPHONSO ROSILES )

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

This matter is before the Court on the Findings and Recommendation of the United States

Magistrate Judge [ECF No. 22] filed on May 2, 2012. The Defendant has waived objection to the

Findings and Recommendation, and the Court, being duly advised, adopts the Findings and

Recommendation [ECF No. 22] in its entirety and accepts the recommended disposition. Subject to

this Court’s consideration of the Plea Agreement pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(c)(3), the plea of

guilty to the offense charged in Count 1 of the Indictment is hereby accepted, and the Defendant is

adjudged guilty of such offense. 

Any request for a sentence involving a departure under the United States Sentencing

Guidelines, or for a variance above or below a Guidelines sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a),

with the exception of matters raised pursuant to §5K1.1 of the Guidelines, shall be communicated to

the probation officer and opposing counsel, in writing, within fourteen (14) days following initial

disclosure of the pre-sentence report. Any sentencing memorandum addressing these or any other

issues, including requests for a departure based on § 5K1.1, shall be filed with the Court no later

than seven (7) days prior to the sentencing hearing. The notice of sentencing and pre-sentence

scheduling deadlines will be issued by separate order.

SO ORDERED on May 17, 2012. 

 s/ Theresa L. Springmann 

THERESA L. SPRINGMANN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-41445

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JAMES DOUGLAS NICHOLS,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:13-CV-56

USDC No. 4:09-CR-222-2

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, HAYNES, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

James Douglas Nichols, federal prisoner # 16570-078, filed a 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2255 motion to vacate his sentence for conspiracy to possess with intent to 

distribute heroin. Nichols seeks a certificate of appealability (COA) and leave 

to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) to appeal the magistrate judge’s order 

closing his case administratively. This court must examine the basis of its 

jurisdiction, sua sponte, if necessary. See Mosley v. Cozby, 813 F.2d 659, 660 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

March 1, 2017

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-41445 Document: 00513892949 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/01/2017
No. 15-41445

2

(5th Cir. 1987). A magistrate judge has authority to hear and determine 

pretrial matters. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). As a general rule, an order 

issued by a magistrate judge is not a final order appealable to this court. See 

Donaldson v. Ducote, 373 F.3d 622, 624 (5th Cir. 2004); see also Colburn v. 

Bunge Towing, Inc., 883 F.2d 372, 379 (5th Cir. 1989) (noting that appellate 

courts are without jurisdiction to hear appeals directly from federal magistrate 

judges). Additionally, the constitution does not permit a magistrate judge to 

enter a final judgment in a § 2255 proceeding. United States v. Johnston, 258 

F.3d 361, 372 (5th Cir. 2001). We lack jurisdiction to address this appeal. See 

Donaldson, 373 F.3d at 624. Accordingly, we deny Nichols’s two motions as 

moot.

APPEAL DISMISSED; MOTIONS DENIED AS MOOT.

 Case: 15-41445 Document: 00513892949 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/01/2017
EXHIBIT 32.2

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                        PURSUANT TO 18U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In  connection  with the  Quarterly  Report  of Arbor  Entech  Corporation  (the
"Company")  on Form 10-QSB for the period ending July 31, 2006 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I, Mark
Shefts, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,  certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, that:

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

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

                                          /S/ MARK SHEFTS
                                          -----------------------------
                                          Mark Shefts
                                          Chief Financial Officer
                                          September 13, 2006


                                       15
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

SOUTH BEND DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

vs. ) Case No. 3:12-CR-128(7) RLM

)

RICKEY HEMPHILL )

ORDER

No objections have been filed to the magistrate judge’s findings and

recommendation upon a plea of guilty issued on May 3, 2013 [Doc. No. 134].

Accordingly, the court now ADOPTS those findings and recommendation,

ACCEPTS defendant Rickey Hemphill’s plea of guilty, and FINDS the defendant

guilty of Count 1 of the Indictment, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c).

SO ORDERED.

ENTERED: May 28, 2013 

 /s/ Robert L. Miller, Jr. 

Judge

United States District Court
Делайте это правильно р

«Я не вымыл, не прополоскал и не продезинфицировал раковину».

«Я вымыл, прополоскал и 

продезинфицировал раковину».

Защищайте людей повсюду. Всегда мойте, ополаскивайте и дезинфицируйте оборудование после каждого применения.
MAXTOR CORPORATION
                                      
                                      
                                                          EXHIBIT 11.1
                                      
                                      
                                      
                                      
                      COMPUTATION OF NET LOSS PER SHARE
                 For the Three Months and Nine Months Ended
                   December 30, 1995 and December 24, 1994
                                      
                    (In thousands, except per share data)
                                      
                                      
                                      
                                      
                                      
                                Three Months Ended      Nine Months Ended
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                Dec. 30,   Dec. 24,    Dec. 30,   Dec. 24,
                                 1995       1994        1995       1994
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

PRIMARY & FULLY DILUTED

Weighted average number
of common shares
outstanding during
the period                       53,110     50,668      52,687     50,283
                               =========  =========   =========  =========

Net loss                       $(24,633)  $(16,435)   $(82,948)  $(83,341)
                               =========  =========   =========  =========

Net loss per share             $  (0.46)  $  (0.32)   $  (1.57)  $  (1.66)
                               =========  =========   =========  =========
EXHIBIT 32.1

                           CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350


         I, Terrance M. McCarthy, President and Chief Executive Officer of First
Banks,  Inc.  (the  "Company"),   certify,   pursuant  to  Section  906  of  the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

          (1)  The  Quarterly  Report  on  Form  10-Q  of the  Company  for  the
               quarterly  period  ended  June  30,  2008  (the  "Report")  fully
               complies with the  requirements of Sections 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.


Date:  August 13, 2008

                                  By: /s/ Terrance M. McCarthy
                                     -------------------------------------------
                                          Terrance M. McCarthy
                                          President and Chief Executive Officer
                                          (Principal Executive Officer)
Jose Louis Ramos VARGAS, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 13-5398.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 12, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
---

EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, 
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Amended Annual Report of Theron Resource Group (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ended May 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Amended Annual
Report”), I, Jerry R. Satchwell, Chief Executive 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 Amended Annual 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 Amended Annual Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Dated: March 14, 2011

/s/ “Jerry R. Satchwell”

Jerry R. Satchwell
Chief Executive Officer

---
Michael Charles DeSUE, petitioner, v. FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS.

No. 12-9814.

Supreme Court of the United States

Aug. 12, 2013.

Petition for rehearing denied.
Exhibit 33.1.3.1

 

**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 |
|------|--------------------------|
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16
- 2170

MICHAEL LAMONT MOORE , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. MICHAEL MORGAN; ANDREW WHITLEY; MELISSA BISETTE; ROBERT EVANS; BROCK & SCOTT, PLLC; WILSON COUNTY COURTHOUSE; SHERIFF CALVIN WOODARD, Sheriff, Wilson County; DERRICK CREECH, City Councilmen; SUSAN K. FARFOUR; CARDINAL GROUP , Defendants

- Appellees

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina , at Raleigh

. Louise W. Flanagan , District Judge. ( 5:16

- cv
- 00244

- FL )

Submitted : March 30, 2017 Decided: April 3, 2017

Before TRAXLER and WYNN , Circuit Judges , and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge

.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Michael Lamont Moore , Appellant Pro Se. Alan Marc Presel , Jolee M. Wortham , BROCK & SCOTT, PLLC , Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
Michael Lamont Moore appeals the district court’s ord er accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing his complaint pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (2012). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district cou rt. Moore v. Morgan , No. 5:16

- cv
- 00244

- FL (E.D.N.C. Sept. 26 , 2016) . 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.

AF FIRMED
-1- 

### STATE OF MICHIGAN

COURT OF APPEALS

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED May 14, 2015

v No. 320349
Cass Circuit Court KALI MARIE HEFT, LC No. 13-010150-FH

Defendant-Appellant.

Before: B ECKERING
, P.J., and M ARKEY and S HAPIRO , JJ.

S HAPIRO
, J. ( concurring ).

I concur in the result only.

/s/ Douglas B. Shapiro
#### Edward Thomas SEYMOUR, III, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Robert LUSBY; Larry Welch, Administration; Captain Parrin, Calvert County Detention Center, Defendants—Appellees.

No. 04-6237.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: May 13, 2004.

Decided: May 19, 2004.

*915Edward Thomas Seymour, III, Appellant pro se.

John Francis Breads, Jr., Local Government Insurance Trust, Columbia, Maryland, for Appellees.

Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Edward Thomas Seymour, III, appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *See Seymour v. Lusby,*No. CA-03-1137-1-MJG (D.Md. Jan. 14, 2004). We deny Seymour’s motions to file a formal brief, for oral argument, and for appointment of counsel. 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*
Charles Kenneth BOWMAN, Jr., petitioner, v. FLORIDA.

No. 12-7356.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 15, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District, denied.
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 95 (Wednesday, May 17, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 26436]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-12097]



=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


UB&T Financial Corporation, et al.; Formations of; Acquisitions 
by; and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies

    The companies listed in this notice have applied for the Board's 
approval under section 3 of the Bank Holding Company Act (12 U.S.C. 
1842) and Sec.  225.14 of the Board's Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.14) to 
become a bank holding company or to acquire a bank or bank holding 
company. The factors that are considered in acting on the applications 
are set forth in section 3(c) of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)).
    Each application is available for immediate inspection at the 
Federal Reserve Bank indicated. Once the application has been accepted 
for processing, it will also be available for inspection at the offices 
of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views 
in writing to the Reserve Bank or to the offices of the Board of 
Governors. Any comment on an application that requests a hearing must 
include a statement of why a written presentation would not suffice in 
lieu of a hearing, identifying specifically any questions of fact that 
are in dispute and summarizing the evidence that would be presented at 
a hearing.
    Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these 
applications must be received not later than June 9, 1995.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas (Genie D. Short, Vice President) 
2200 North Pearl Street, Dallas, Texas 75201-2272:
    1. UB&T Financial Corporation, Dallas, Texas; to become a bank 
holding company by acquiring 100 percent of the voting shares of UB&T 
Delaware Financial Corporation, Dover, Delaware, and thereby indirectly 
acquire United Bank & Trust, N.A., Dallas, Texas.
    In connection with this application UB&T Delaware Financial 
Corporation, Dover, Delaware; has applied to become a bank holding 
company by acquiring 100 percent of the voting shares of United Bank & 
Trust, N.A., Dallas, Texas.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, May 11, 1995.
Jennifer J. Johnson,
Deputy Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 95-12097 Filed 5-16-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-F
UNIVERSITY OF OREGON, petitioner, v. Monica EMELDI.

No. 12-871.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 22, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                       1,851,559
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,941,571
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,851,559
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      90,012
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,941,571
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,866,447
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,851,559
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                14,888
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                         0
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.15
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.15
        

</TABLE>
Jeffrey THOMAS, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 12-10346.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 17, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.