alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule

47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________

No. 96-30056 

Summary Calendar

__________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

BILLY D. MCLEOD,

 Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Louisiana

USDC No. 94-CR-74 A M2

- - - - - - - - - -

June 19, 1996

Before GARWOOD, WIENER and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Billy D. McLeod, # 02571-095, moves for permission to appeal

in forma pauperis (IFP) the denial of his motion pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 2255. McLeod argues that his guilty plea was

involuntary due to ineffective assistance of counsel based on

erroneous advice regarding his sentencing guidelines range,

erroneous advice that he could not withdraw his guilty plea, and
No. 96-30056

-2-

failure to advise that his arrest and the search of his home were

illegal. He also argues that the Government breached its plea 

agreement. He also argues that counsel was ineffective for

advising him not to file a direct appeal. He further argues that

his arrest and the search of his home were illegal.

We have reviewed the record, the district court's opinion,

and appellant's brief and discern no reversible error. See

United States v. McLeod, No. 94-74-A (M.D. La. Sept. 1, 1995). 

Further, we hold that McLeod's appeal is frivolous, and

accordingly, we DENY IFP and DISMISS the appeal as frivolous. 

See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 212, 220 (5th Cir. 1983); 5th Cir.

R. 42.2.

IFP DENIED, APPEAL DISMISSED.
#### SYKES v. KINGS COUNTY REFRIGERATING CO. (two cases).

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

July 11, 1913.)

Action by Henry W. Sykes against the Kings County Refrigerating Company.

No opinion. Applications denied, with $10 costs. Orders signed and filed.
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 12 (Thursday, January 19, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 3883]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-1327]



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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
[TA-W-29,065 Midland, Texas; TA-W-29,066 Houston, Texas]


Penetrators, Inc., Revised Determination on Reconsideration

    The Department, on its own motion, has further considered the 
findings in the subject investigation. New findings in the 
investigation show that all of the Group Eligibility Requirements of 
the Trade Act are met.
    The findings show that Penetrators, Inc., provides drilling 
services to unaffiliated production firms in the oil and gas industry.
    The findings show substantial worker separations occurred in 1993 
and the subject firm experienced a decline in revenues in 1993 compared 
to 1992.
    U.S. imports of crude oil and natural gas increased in 1993 
compared to 1992.

Conclusion

    After careful review of the additional facts obtained on 
reconsideration, it is concluded that increased imports of articles 
like or directly competitive with crude oil and natural gas for which 
drilling services were performed by workers of Penetrators, Inc., in 
Midland and Houston, Texas contributed importantly to the decline in 
sales or production and to the total or partial separation of workers 
of the subject firm. In accordance with the provisions of the Trade Act 
of 1974, I make the following revised determination:

    All workers of Penetrators, Inc., in Midland, Texas and Houston, 
Texas who become totally or partially separated from employment on 
or after September 16, 1992 are eligible to apply for adjustment 
assistance under Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 23rd day of December 1994.
Victor J. Trunzo,
Program Manager, Policy and Reemployment Services, Office of Trade 
Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 95-1327 Filed 1-18-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-M
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                      EXHIBIT 11


                STATEMENT RE COMPUTATION OF NET INCOME PER SHARE
             (DOLLARS IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT FOR NET INCOME PER SHARE)


                                               NINE MONTHS ENDED
                                                  SEPTEMBER 30,
                                               ------------------
                                                 2003      2002
                                               --------  --------
<S>                                            <C>       <C>
Net income                                     $ 30,496  $ 30,391
Less:  Preferred stock dividends                    122       123
                                               --------  --------
Net income applicable to common stock          $ 30,374  $ 30,268

Weighted average common shares outstanding-
  basic and diluted                             909,045   919,321

Net income per common share-basic and diluted  $  33.41  $  32.92
</TABLE>



<PAGE>
USDC ND/IN case 2:13-cv-00491-RL-JEM document 127 filed 01/08/15 page 1 of 4
USDC ND/IN case 2:13-cv-00491-RL-JEM document 127 filed 01/08/15 page 2 of 4
USDC ND/IN case 2:13-cv-00491-RL-JEM document 127 filed 01/08/15 page 3 of 4
USDC ND/IN case 2:13-cv-00491-RL-JEM document 127 filed 01/08/15 page 4 of 4
EX-33.4
REPORT ON ASSESSMENT OF COMPLIANCE

First American Commercial Real Estate Services, Inc. (an indirect subsidiary of
The First American Corporation, and the "Asserting Party") is responsible for
assessing compliance as of December 31, 2007, and for the period from January
1, 2007 through December 31, 2007 ("the Reporting Period") with the servicing
criteria set forth in Title 17, Sections 229.1122(d)(1)(iv), (d)(2)(v),
(d)(2)(vi), (d)(2)(vii), (d)(4)(xi), (d)(4)(xii) and (d)(4)(xiii) of the Code
of Federal Regulations applicable to the Asserting Party ("the Applicable
Servicing Criteria"). The transactions covered by this report include all loans
for commercial mortgage loan outsourcing customers for which the Asserting
Party served as the commercial tax service provider (the "Platform").

The Asserting Party has assessed its compliance with the Applicable Servicing
Criteria for the Reporting Period and has concluded that the Asserting Party
has complied, in all material respects, with the Applicable Servicing Criteria
as of December 31, 2007, and for the Reporting Period with respect to the
Platform taken as a whole.

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, an independent registered public accounting firm,
has issued an attestation report on the assessment of compliance with the
Applicable Servicing Criteria as of December 31, 2007, and for the Reporting
Period as set forth in this assertion.


FIRST AMERICAN COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE SERVICES, INC.


/s/ Scott R. Friberg
Scott R. Friberg
Chief Operations Officer
February 22, 2008
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

HAMMOND DIVISION

DAVID LEE ROBINSON, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) No. 2:14 CV 271 

)

MABLE CRISLER, et al. )

)

Defendants. )

OPINION AND ORDER

David Lee Robinson, a pro se prisoner, filed a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

(DE # 3.) Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the court must review the complaint and dismiss

it if the action is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be

granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. The

court applies the same standard as when deciding a motion to dismissunder FEDERALRULE

OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 12(b)(6). Lagerstrom v. Kingston, 463 F.3d 621, 624 (7th Cir. 2006). To

survive dismissal, a complaint must state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face.

Bissessur v. Indiana Univ. Bd. of Trs., 581 F.3d 599, 602-03 (7th Cir. 2009). “A claim has facial

plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the

reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. at 603. The

court must bear in mind that “[a] document filed pro se is to be liberally construed, and a

pro se complaint, howeverinartfully pleaded, must be held to less stringent standards than

formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (quotation

marks and citations omitted). 
Robinson brings suit against his formerlandlords, Mable Crisler and her son, Butch

Crisler. Robinson alleges that the Crislers rented him a basement apartment and the

Crislers have now stolen his personal belongings. “In order to state a claim under § 1983

a plaintiff must allege: (1) that defendants deprived him of a federal constitutional right;

and (2) that the defendants acted under color of state law.” Savory v. Lyons, 469 F.3d 667,

670 (7th Cir. 2006). Here, Robinson’s section 1983 claim is without merit because the

defendants are not state actors that can be sued for constitutional violations. See Blum v.

Yaretsky, 457 U.S. 991, 1004 (1982); Savory v. Lyons, 469 F.3d 667, 670 (7th Cir. 2006).

Accordingly, this claim must be dismissed.

For these reasons, the court DISMISSES this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.

SO ORDERED.

Date: September 23, 2014

s/James T. Moody 

JUDGE JAMES T. MOODY

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Opinion issued December 19, 2019

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The 

First District of Texas 

————————————

NO. 01-19-00565-CV

———————————

IN RE AMLI/BPMT TOWNE SQUARE PARTNERSHIP, AMLI 

RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES, L.P., AMLI RESIDENTIAL PARTNERS, 

LLC, AND AMLI MANAGEMENT COMPANY, Relators

Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Relators, AMLI/BPMT Towne Square Partnership, AMLI Residential 

Properties, L.P., AMLI Residential Partners LLC, and AMLI Management 

Company, have filed a petition for writ of mandamus, seeking to have this Court 
2

reverse the trial court’s order denying relators’ motion to enforce a contractual jury 

waiver.1

We deny relators’ petition for a writ of mandamus. See TEX. R. APP. P. 

52.8(a). We deny the motion to strike portions of the mandamus record filed by 

the real parties in interest. We dismiss all other pending motions as moot. 

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Landau and Hightower.

 

1 The underlying case is Baron Real Property Holdings LLC and TSQuare Apts 

LLC v. AMLI/BPMT Towne Square Partnership, AMLI Residential Properties, 

L.P., AMLI Residential Partners LLC, and AMLI Management Company, cause 

number 2017-24217, pending in the 295th District Court of Harris County, Texas, 

the Honorable Donna Roth presiding.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA 

HAMMOND DIVISION 

 

K.B., Individually, JOHN BRUGH and )

CHRISTINA BRUGH, Individually )

and as Parents and Natural Guardians of )

K.B., a Minor, )

)

Plaintiffs, ) Case No. 2:13-cv-296-JVB-APR

)

v. )

)

CONAGRA FOODS, INC., )

)

Defendant.

STIPULATION FOR DISMISSAL

The parties, by counsel, stipulate to the dismissal of this action, with prejudice, and

with each party to bear its own costs and attorneys’ fees. 

Respectfully submitted,

Attorneys for Plaintiffs: Attorneys for Defendant:

/s/ Robert D. Brown /s/ Angela M. Spivey w/permission

Robert D. Brown Angela M. Spivey

Kenneth J. Allen Law Group, LLC McGUIREWOODS LLP

1109 Glendale Boulevard 1230 Peachtree Street, NE

Valparaiso, Indiana 46383 Promenade II, Suite 2100

(219) 465-6292 Atlanta, Georgia 30309-3534

(404) 443-5720

USDC IN/ND case 2:13-cv-00296-JVB-APR document 85 filed 02/25/14 page 1 of 2
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that on February 25, 2014, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk

of the Court using the CM/ECF system, which sent notification of such filing to all

attorneys of record.

/s/ Robert D. Brown 

USDC IN/ND case 2:13-cv-00296-JVB-APR document 85 filed 02/25/14 page 2 of 2
##### 



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
    /s/ Duston M. WilliamsDuston M. WilliamsExecutive Vice President, Finance
andChief Financial Officer  A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form
within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided
to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 102 (Friday, May 26, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 28009]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-12917]



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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 2212]


Overseas Security Advisory Council; Closed Meeting

    The Department of State announces a meeting of the U.S. State 
Department--Overseas Security Advisory Council on Wednesday, June 14, 
1995, at the Marriott Hotel in Salt Lake City, Utah. Pursuant to 
section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act and 5 U.S.C. 
552b(c) (1) and (4), it has been determined the meeting will be closed 
to the public. Matters relative to classified national security 
information as well as privileged commercial information will be 
discussed. The agenda calls for the discussion of classified and 
corporate proprietary/security information as well as private sector 
physical and procedural security policies and protective programs at 
sensitive U.S. Government and private sector locations overseas.
    For more information contact Marsha Thurman, Overseas Security 
Advisory Council, Department of State, Washington, DC 20522-1003, 
phone: 202-663-0869.

    Dated: May 11, 1995.
Mark Mulvey,
Director of the Diplomatic Security Service.
[FR Doc. 95-12917 Filed 5-25-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-24-M
USDC IN/ND case 3:15-cv-00442-JVB-MGG   document 13-2   filed 03/15/16   page 1 of 1
Mindy Jaye ZIED-CAMPBELL, et vir, petitioners, v. PENNSYLVANIA, et al.

No. 13-6226.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 12, 2013.

Motion of petitioners for leave to proceed *in forma pauperis* denied, and petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit dismissed. See Rule 39.8. As petitioner Mindy Jaye Zied-Campbell has repeatedly abused this Court's process, the Clerk is directed not to accept any further petitions in noncriminal matters from Mindy Jaye Zied-Campbell unless the docketing *622fee required by Rule 38(a) is paid and petition submitted in compliance with Rule 33.1. See *Martin v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals,*506 U.S. 1, 113 S.Ct. 397, 121 L.Ed.2d 305 (1992) (*per curiam* ).
No. 92-065 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1992

ROBERT BENTON, Plaintiff and Appellant,-vsLORELLE ADAMS and MARY SCHULZE, Defendants and Respondents.

APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Third Judicial District, 

### In and for the County of Powell, The Honorable Ted L. Mizner, Judge presiding.

COUNSEL OF RECORD: For Appellant: Robert Benton, Pro Se, Deer Lodge, Montana For Respondent: Norman, C. Peterson, Agency Legal Services Bureau, Helena, 

### Montana
submitted on Briefs: June 4

## , 1992 Filed: Decided: 

### June 30, 1992

j. 'a' '-' 

### ! 

### (:d 2i;;z CLE!-;;; CF 5:jp~"- !rh'iE COU STATE OFMONTANA ClerkChief Justice J.A. Turnage delivered the Opinion of the Court.

Robert Benton (Benton) appeals an order of the Third Judicial District, Powell County, which dismissed his complaint for failure to state a claim against Lorelle Adams (Adams) and Mary Schulze

(Schulze), employees of the Montana Department of Family Services. We affirm. We consolidate the issues presented on appeal to the following: Did the District Court err when it dismissed Benton's complaint alleging defamation and invasion of privacy against Adams and Schulze? On August 12, 1991, Benton filed a complaint against Adams and Schulze alleging defamation and invasion of privacy based on a letter Adams wrote to Benton's girlfriend. Benton's sole claim against Schulze is that she is Adams' supervisor. Following a review of the record, 

### we hold that the District Court properly dismissed Benton's complaint for failure to state a claim. Pursuant to Section 

### I, Paragraph 3(c), Montana Supreme Court Operating Rules, this decision shall not be cited as precedent and shall be published by its filing as a public document with the Clerk of this Court and by a report of its result to West Publishing Company.We 

### concur:

### June 30, 1992 CERTIFICATEOF

### SERVICE I hereby certify that the following order was sent by United States mail, prepaid, to the followingnamed:
Robert Benton 700 Conley Lake Road Deer Lodge,

### MT 59722
Hon. MarcRacicot,Attorney General Norman Peterson,Assistant 215 

### N. Sanders Helena,

### MT 59620 Bill Gianoulias,ChiefDefenseCounsel Department ofAdministration,Tort Claims MitchellBuilding Helena,MT 59620 EDSMITH CLERK OFTHESUPREMECOURT STATE

### OHMONTANA
EX-34.2
(logo) Deloitte

Deloitte & Touche LLP
JPMorgan Chase Tower
2200 Ross Avenue, Suite 1600
Dallas, TX 75201-6778
USA

Tel: +1 214 840 7000
www.deloitte.com


REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM


To the Board of Directors
Centerline Servicing Inc.

We have examined management's assertion, included in the accompanying
Management's Report on Assessment of Compliance with SEC Regulation AB Servicing
Criteria, that Centerline Servicing Inc. (the "Company") complied with the
servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of the Securities and Exchange
Commission's Regulation AB for all transactions for which the Company acted as
servicer involving first lien commercial mortgage loans (the "Platform") as of
and for the year ended December 31, 2007, excluding criteria 1122(d)(1)(iii),
1122(d)(3)(i)-l122(d)(3)(iv), 1122(d)(4)(ii), 1122(d)(4)(v), 1122(d)(4)(ix) and
1122(d)(4)(xv), which management has determined are not applicable to the
activities performed by the Company with respect to the Platform. 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 all transactions for which the Company acted as servicer
involving first lien commercial mortgage loans is fairly stated, in all material
respects.

/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP

February 28, 2008

Member of
Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu
Ramon VELASCO, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 13-7289.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 9, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit denied.
IN THE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

SOUTH BEND DIVISION

NYKAZA GEE, )

 )

 Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) Case No. 3:15-cv-00442-JVB-CAN

)

ERIC PARRISH and BRADY )

JANOVITZ, )

)

 Defendants. )

DEFENDANTS’ SECOND MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO 

ANSWER PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT

Defendants, Erick Parrish and Brady Janovitz (“Defendants”), by counsel, respectfully 

submit their Second Motion for Extension of Time to Answer Plaintiff’s Complaint (“motion”). 

In support of this motion, Defendant states the following:

1. Plaintiff, Nykaza Gee (“Plaintiff”) filed her complaint on March 15, 2016.

2. Service of Summons on Defendants was effectuated on May 16, 2016, making 

Defendants’ Answer due on June 6, 2016.

3. On June 3, 2016, Defendants filed an Initial Motion for Extension of Time Pursuant 

to N.D. IND. L. R. 6-1, making Defendants’ Answer due on July 5, 2016, which 

has yet to pass.

4. Defendants require an additional fourteen (14) days to gather and review documents 

that may be used to prove its defenses to the allegations in the complaint. 

Defendants anticipate fourteen (14) days will be adequate time to review additional 

documentation and prepare their responsive pleading.

USDC IN/ND case 3:15-cv-00442-JVB-MGG document 22 filed 07/05/16 page 1 of 3
2

5. Defendants now request a fourteen (14) day extension of time, specifically to July 

19, 2016, to file an answer to the complaint.

6. This extension does not interfere with any case management plan, scheduled 

hearings, or other case deadlines.

7. Plaintiff is a pro se and he is currently incarcerated, making conferring with him 

regarding this motion impracticable

WHEREFORE, Defendants, by counsel, respectfully request that the Court grant 

Defendants’ extension of time to and including July 19, 2016, to file an answer to the complaint 

in the above-captioned matter.

Respectfully submitted,

GREGORY F. ZOELLER

Indiana Attorney General 

Attorney No. 1958-98

By: /s/ Philip A. Gordon

Philip A. Gordon

Deputy Attorney General 

Atty. No.: 31321-49

USDC IN/ND case 3:15-cv-00442-JVB-MGG document 22 filed 07/05/16 page 2 of 3
3

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on July 5, 2016, the foregoing Defendants’ Second Motion for 

Extension of Time to Answer Plaintiff’s Complaint was electronically filed with the Clerk of the 

Court using the CM/ECF system. I further certify that the document was mailed by United States 

Postal Service, first-class postage prepaid and properly addressed, to the following non CM/ECF 

participants:

Nykaza Gee

DOC # 127839

Indiana State Prison

One Park Row

Michigan City, IN 46360

s/ Philip A. Gordon

Philip A. Gordon

Deputy Attorney General

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

Indiana Government Center South - 5th Floor

302 W. Washington Street

Indianapolis, IN 46204

Phone: (317) 232-6217

Fax: (317) 232-7979

Email: Philip.Gordon@atg.in.gov

USDC IN/ND case 3:15-cv-00442-JVB-MGG document 22 filed 07/05/16 page 3 of 3