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

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Kathleen Mary O’Dell

v. Civil No. 07-12-JD

United States of America

PROCEDURAL ORDER

The movant has filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to

vacate, set aside, or correct the sentence ordered by the court

in United States of America v. Kathleen Mary O’Dell, Cr. 03-cr61-02-JD on January 13, 2006. The court has reviewed the motion.

The court orders the United States Attorney to file an

answer within sixty (60) days of the date of this order, which

answer shall provide a detailed response, with appropriate

references to the record when necessary, to each claim asserted

by the movant.

In the event that the United States Attorney contends that

the motion is not timely filed under the limitations provided for

in 28 U.S.C. § 2255 or that it is a second or successive motion, 

Case 1:07-cv-00012-JD Document 2 Filed 01/18/2007 Page 1 of 2

O'Dell v. USA Doc. 2

Dockets.Justia.com
2

a motion to dismiss in lieu of a response shall be filed within

thirty (30) days of the date of this order.

 SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.

District Judge

January 18, 2007

cc: William E. Christie, Esquire

Case 1:07-cv-00012-JD Document 2 Filed 01/18/2007 Page 2 of 2
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-6617

MICHAEL ALLEN KOKOSKI,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

CHARLES T. FELTS, Warden,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern

District of West Virginia, at Beckley. Robert C. Chambers,

District Judge. (5:06-cv-00763)

Submitted: July 23, 2007 Decided: August 17, 2007

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael Allen Kokoski, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
*

Insofar as Kokoski seeks authorization to file a second or

successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion, we deny relief.

- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Michael Allen Kokoski, a federal prisoner, appeals the

district court’s order and judgment accepting the recommendation of

the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2241

(West 2006 & Supp. 2007) petition. We have reviewed the record and

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons

stated by the district court.*

 Kokoski v. Felts, No. 5:06-cv-00763

(S.D.W. Va. Apr. 12, 2007). 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
EXHIBIT 10.1



 Exhibit 10.1 
  

			
	Morgan Stanley Senior Funding Inc.	  	1585 Broadway
New York NY 10036
tel 212 761 4000

  
 [GRAPHIC] 
  
 January 6, 2004 
  
 Capital One Bank 
 Capital One, F.S.B.

 Capital One Financial Corporation 
 Capital One Bank (Europe)
plc 
 1680 Capital One Dr. 
 McClean, VA 22101-2980 

 
 JPMorgan Chase Bank, as Administrative Agent 
 Loan & Agency Services 
 1111 Fanin, 10th Floor 
 Houston, TX 77002 
 Attention: Mr. Jeremy M. Jones 
  
 Ladies and Gentlemen: 
  
 Reference is made to the Credit Agreement dated as of May 5, 2003 (as modified and supplemented and in effect from time to
time, the “Credit Agreement”) among Capital One Financial Corporation, Capital One Bank, Capital One, F.S.B., Capital One Bank (Europe) plc, the lenders party thereto and JPMorgan Chase Bank, as Administrative Agent. Terms used but
not defined herein have the respective meanings given to such terms in the Credit Agreement. 
  
 This Commitment Increase Letter is delivered pursuant to Section 2.10 of the Credit Agreement. 
  
 If, prior to the execution and delivery of this Commitment Increase Letter, the undersigned is a Lender already party to the Credit Agreement, then the
undersigned hereby agrees that, effective as of the Commitment Increase Date set forth below, the Commitment of such Lender set forth below is increased by an amount equal to the “Commitment Increase Amount” set forth below. 
  
 If, prior to the execution and delivery of this Commitment Increase Letter,
the undersigned is not a Lender already party to the Credit Agreement, then the undersigned hereby agrees that, effective as of the Commitment Increase Date set forth below, the undersigned shall have a Commitment in an amount equal to the
“Commitment Increase Amount” set forth below. 
  










			
	Morgan Stanley Senior Funding Inc.	  	1585 Broadway
New York NY 10036
tel 212 761 4000

  
 [GRAPHIC] 
  

			
	Commitment Increase Date:	 	January 29, 2004
		
	Commitment Increase Amount:	 	$85,000,000

  
 The undersigned agrees
with the Borrowers and the Administrative Agent that the undersigned will, from and after the Commitment Increase Date, be a “Lender” under the Credit Agreement (if not already a “Lender” thereunder) and perform all of the
obligations of the undersigned as a “Lender” under the Credit Agreement in respect of the Commitment Increase Amount (together with, if already a “Lender” under the Credit Agreement, the Commitment(s) of the Lender in effect
immediately prior to the execution and delivery of this Commitment Increase Letter). 
  
 This Commitment Increase Letter shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the law of the State of New York without reference to choice of law doctrine. 
  
  

			
	 Very truly yours,
  
 Morgan Stanley Senior Funding

		
	 By
	 	/s/ Jaap L. Tonckens
	 	 	

	 Title:
	 	 Jaap L. Tonckens
 Vice President
 Morgan Stanley Senior Funding
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-40996 Summary Calendar

JEHAAD A.M.E SAAHIR, Petitioner-Appellant,

versus GARY L. JOHNSON, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION, Respondent-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 1:97-CV-680

- - - - - - - - - - March 17, 1999 Before EMILIO M. GARZA, DeMOSS, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Jehaad A.M.E. Saahir, Texas prisoner # 291515, seeks a certificate of appealability (COA) to appeal the denial of his application for a writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He also requests the appointment of counsel, which is DENIED. He argues that the district court erred in dismissing his application for want of prosecution pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).No. 98-40996 -2- A COA may be issued only if the prisoner has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). However, in an appeal such as this one, in which the applicant challenges the district court’s dismissal for a reason not of constitutional dimension, the petitioner must first make a credible showing that the district court erred. See Murphy v. Johnson , 110 F.3d 10, 11 (5th Cir. 1997)(applying the COA standard to nonconstitutional issue of exhaustion of state remedies). Only if a showing of error is made will the court then consider whether the petitioner has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right on the petitioner’s habeas claims. Whitehead v. Johnson , 157 F.3d 384, 386 (5th Cir. 1998). Saahir contended in his motion for relief from judgment in the district court and contends in his motion for a COA in this court that the mailroom on his unit erroneously reported to the district court that he had moved without giving a forwarding address, and he asserted that he was still housed on the same unit as when he filed this action. Although the district court’s dismissal was without prejudice, it became effectively with prejudice due to the operation of the AEDPA’s one-year statute of limitations provision contained in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1). There is no clear record of delay or contumacious conduct. The district court abused its discretion in dismissing Saahir’s § 2254 application for want of prosecution. Berry v. CIGNA/RSICIGNA , 975 F.2d 1188, 1191 (5th Cir. 1992).No. 98-40996 -3- We therefore GRANT a COA on the issue of the district court’s dismissal for want of prosecution, and we vacate the judgment of the district court and remand this case to the district court for consideration of the merits of Saahir’s habeas claims. See Whitehead , 157 F.3d at 388.
COA GRANTED; JUDGMENT VACATED AND CASE REMANDED; MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL DENIED.
Exhibit 35.18  LOGO

CommercialMortgageServicing D1050-084, 8th Fl
401 South Tryon Street Charlotte, NC 28202
1-800-326-1334 ANNUAL
STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE Reference is hereby made to that certain Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of December 1, 2018,
by and among WELLS FARGO COMMERCIAL MORTGAGE SECURITIES, INC., as Depositor, WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Master Servicer, LNR PARTNERS, LLC, as Special Servicer, WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Certificate Administrator,
WILMINGTON TRUST, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Trustee and PENTALPHA SURVEILLANCE LLC, as Operating Advisor and as Asset Representations Reviewer with respect to Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series
2018-C48 (the Agreement). Capitalized terms used herein not otherwise defined shall have the meanings assigned in the Agreement. Pursuant to Section 11.09 of this Agreement, I, Leslie Hayton, Managing Director of Commercial Mortgage Services do hereby certify that:  1.
A review of the activities of the Master Servicer during the period from December 1, 2018 through
December 31, 2018 (the Reporting Period), and of its performance per the Agreement during such period has been made under my supervision, and  2.
To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Master Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations
under this Agreement in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has
executed this Certificate as of the 28th day of February 2019.  LOGO Leslie Hayton Managing
Director Wells Fargo Bank  Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.


LOGO
EXHIBIT 12


                       BROOKDALE LIVING COMMUNITIES, INC.

                   STATEMENTS REGARDING COMPUTATION OF RATIOS
                          OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
                            (IN 000'S, EXCEPT RATIOS)



                                                    Three months ended March 31,
                                                    ----------------------------
                                                        2000              1999
                                                        ----              ----

EARNINGS
--------
Income before income tax expense
  per consolidated financial statements...........   $   4,870        $   4,336
Interest cost (1).................................       8,960            7,486
Interest cost (capitalized).......................        (314)            (400)
Amortization of debt expense......................         405              383
                                                     ---------        ---------
Earnings..........................................   $  13,921        $  11,805
                                                     =========        =========

FIXED CHARGES
-------------
Interest cost (1).................................   $   8,960        $   7,486
Amortization of debt expense......................         405              383
                                                     ---------        ---------
Total fixed charges...............................   $   9,365        $   7,869
                                                     =========        =========

Ratio of earnings to fixed charges................        1.49             1.50
                                                     =========        =========

Excess of earnings to fixed charges...............   $   4,556        $   3,936
                                                     =========        =========


(1)  Includes portion of rent expense representative of interest expense.
#### TECHE LINES, Inc., v. GORUM et al.

No. 2377.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. First Circuit.

April 24, 1942.

Spearing, McClendon & McCabe, of New Orleans, for appellants.

Porteous, Johnson & Humphrey, of New Orleans, for appellee.

DORE, Judge.

This suit arises out of the same bus-truck collision as detailed in the case of H. L. Leforte v. the same defendants, La.App., 7 So.2d 733, this day decided. The cases had been consolidated for trial with 'the provision that separate judgments would be rendered.

In this suit, the Teche Lines, Inc., the owner of the Greyhound bus driven by Le-forte, seeks property damage to the amount of $4,180.31. The pleadings are about the same as in the Leforte case, supra. The trial judge rendered judgment in favor of plaintiff and against the defendants, in solido, in the sum of $3,800.28. The defendants suspensively appealed to this court from this judgment.

At the time this case was argued before us, we raised the question of the jurisdiction of this court to entertain this appeal in that the question involved property damage to an amount in excess of $2,00U. Our examination of the authorities vindicates that we are not vested with jurisdiction.

Article 7, Section 10, of the Constitution, 1921, gives the Supreme Court appellate jurisdiction of all matters wherein the amount in dispute exceeds the sum of $2,-000.00, “except in suits for damages for physical injuries to, or for the death of a person, or for other damages sustained by such person or his heirs or legal representatives, arising out of the same circumstances.” As the plaintiff, the Teche Lines, Inc., is not suing for damages for physical injuries suffered by it or resulting from an act which caused also a physical injury to it, its claim does not come within the exception. The amount involved is over $2,-000, beyond our jurisdiction as fixed by the Constitution, and it becomes therefore our duty to transfer this case to the Supreme Court on our motion.' See Spearman v. Toye Bros. Auto & Taxicab Co., 164 La. 677, 114 So. 591; Newsom v. Starns et al., 174 La. 955, 142 So. 138. See also Section 29 of Article 7 of the Constitution for our appellate jurisdiction.

For the reasons assigned, and in accordance with Act 19 of 1912, it is ordered that the appeal in this case be transferred to the Supreme Court of Louisiana; that the appellants be and they are hereby given thirty days from the date this decree becomes final in which to perfect and file this appeal in the Supreme Court, and on their failure to do so, the appeal to stand as dismissed.

LeBLANC, DORE and OTT, JJ., concur.
|   | 1. | the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period ended April 3, 2011 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 780(d)); and |
|--------|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

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

|        |        |   |   |                                                                 |
|-------------|-------------|--------|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------|
|        |        |   |   |                                                                 |
|  Date: | May 9, 2011 |   | By:    | /s/ KEVIN T. MICHAELS                                                |
|        |        |   |   | Kevin T. MichaelsChief Financial OfficerPowerwave Technologies, Inc. |
EXHIBIT 32.2



CFO CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT



I, Kevin T. Michaels, Senior Vice President, Finance and Chief Financial Officer of Powerwave Technologies, 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 September 28, 2003 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 780(d)); and
| | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



|Date: |  | October 27, 2003 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/ KEVIN T. MICHAELS                                     
|----- |  | ---------------- |  |  |  | --- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------
|      |  |                  |  |  |  |     |  | Kevin T. Michaels                                         
|      |  |                  |  | 
|      |  |                  |  |  |  |     |  | Senior Vice President, Finance and Chief Financial Officer
|      |  |                  |  | 
|      |  |                  |  |  |  |     |  | Powerwave Technologies, Inc.
Exhibit



Exhibit 10.2



 FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE 
AMENDED AND RESTATED AGREEMENT OF LIMITED PARTNERSHIP OF 
COLE OPERATING PARTNERSHIP IV, LP 
THIS FIRST AMENDMENT, is made and entered into as of August 15, 2019 (this “Amendment”) to the AMENDED AND RESTATED AGREEMENT OF LIMITED PARTNERSHIP OF COLE OPERATING PARTNERSHIP IV, LP, effective as of January 20, 2012, by and among CIM Real Estate Finance Trust, Inc., a Maryland corporation f/k/a Cole Credit Property Trust IV, Inc., Cole Advisor Retail Income REIT, Inc. and Cole Retail Property Trust, Inc. (the “General Partner”), CIM Real Estate Finance Management, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company f/k/a Cole REIT Management IV, LLC, Cole REIT Advisors IV, LLC, Cole Advisors: Retail Income, LLC and Cole Retail Advisors, LLC (the “Original Limited Partner”), and the limited partners set forth or which may, in the future, be set forth on Exhibit A attached hereto, as amended from time to time, with respect to CIM Real Estate Finance Operating Partnership, LP, a limited partnership formed under the laws of the state of Delaware f/k/a Cole Operating Partnership IV, LP (the “Partnership”). 
W I T N E S S E T H 
WHEREAS, the parties made and entered into that certain Amended and Restated Agreement of Limited Partnership effective as of January 20, 2012 (the “Partnership Agreement”); and 
WHEREAS, the parties desire to enter into this Amendment to modify the Partnership Agreement; 
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing, of the mutual covenants among the parties to this Amendment, and of other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto do hereby covenant and agree as follows: 
The Partnership Agreement is hereby amended, effective as of the date first set forth above, so that all references to the name “Cole Operating Partnership IV, LP” shall be deleted and replaced with “CIM Real Estate Finance Operating Partnership, LP”.
[Signature pages follow]











 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this Amendment in their respective capacities set forth below as of the date first set forth above:
General Partner:
CIM REAL ESTATE FINANCE TRUST, INC.,
a Maryland corporation
By:  /s/ Nathan D. DeBacker    
Nathan D. DeBacker         
Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer
B.2. Delinquent Non-real-estate Farm Loans Held by Insured Commercial Banks

Share of outstanding farm production

Estimated volume (billions of dollars) loans (percent)

Nonperforming Nonperforming 

Past due Past due

30 to 89 Past due 30 to 89 Past due

days, 90 days, Non- days, 90 days, NonPeriod Total accruing Total accruing accruing Total accuring Total accruing accruing

1993...... .8 .3 .5 .1 .4 2.2 .8 1.4 .2 1.2

1994...... .8 .3 .4 .1 .3 2.0 .9 1.1 .2 .9

1995...... .8 .4 .4 .1 .3 2.1 .9 1.1 .3 .9

1996...... 1.0 .5 .5 .1 .4 2.4 1.2 1.3 .3 1.0

1997...... .9 .4 .5 .1 .4 2.0 .9 1.1 .2 .9

1998...... 1.0 .5 .5 .1 .4 2.2 1.0 1.2 .3 .9

1999...... .9 .3 .6 .1 .5 2.1 .8 1.3 .2 1.1

2000...... 1.0 .4 .6 .1 .5 2.1 .9 1.2 .2 1.0

2001...... 1.3 .5 .7 .1 .6 2.7 1.2 1.5 .2 1.3

2002...... 1.2 .5 .7 .1 .6 2.6 1.0 1.6 .3 1.3

2003...... 1.0 .4 .7 .1 .5 2.3 .8 1.5 .3 1.2

1997: Q2... 1.0 .4 .6 .2 .4 2.4 1.0 1.4 .5 .9

 Q3... .9 .3 .6 .1 .4 2.0 .7 1.3 .3 .9

 Q4... .9 .4 .5 .1 .4 2.0 .9 1.1 .2 .9

1998: Q1... 1.3 .8 .6 .2 .4 3.2 1.8 1.3 .4 .9

 Q2... 1.1 .5 .6 .2 .4 2.4 1.1 1.3 .5 .8

 Q3... 1.0 .4 .6 .2 .4 2.1 .8 1.3 .4 .9

 Q4... 1.0 .5 .5 .1 .4 2.2 1.0 1.2 .3 .9

1999: Q1... 1.6 .9 .7 .2 .4 3.7 2.1 1.5 .5 1.0

 Q2... 1.3 .5 .7 .2 .5 2.8 1.2 1.6 .5 1.1

 Q3... 1.0 .4 .6 .2 .5 2.2 .8 1.4 .4 1.0

 Q4... .9 .3 .6 .1 .5 2.1 .8 1.3 .2 1.1

2000: Q1... 1.3 .6 .6 .2 .5 3.0 1.5 1.5 .4 1.1

 Q2... 1.0 .4 .6 .1 .4 2.2 .9 1.3 .3 1.0

 Q3... .9 .3 .6 .1 .5 1.9 .7 1.2 .2 1.0

 Q4... 1.0 .4 .6 .1 .5 2.1 .9 1.2 .2 1.0

2001: Q1... 1.7 1.0 .8 .2 .6 3.9 2.2 1.7 .4 1.3

 Q2... 1.4 .6 .8 .2 .6 2.9 1.2 1.8 .4 1.3

 Q3... 1.3 .5 .8 .2 .7 2.8 1.0 1.8 .4 1.4

 Q4... 1.3 .5 .7 .1 .6 2.7 1.2 1.5 .2 1.3

2002: Q1... 1.7 .9 .8 .2 .6 3.9 2.1 1.8 .4 1.4

 Q2... 1.4 .5 .8 .2 .6 2.9 1.2 1.8 .5 1.3

 Q3... 1.3 .4 .8 .2 .6 2.7 .9 1.8 .4 1.4

 Q4... 1.2 .5 .7 .1 .6 2.6 1.0 1.6 .3 1.3

2003: Q1... 1.7 .9 .8 .2 .6 4.0 2.1 1.9 .4 1.5

 Q2... 1.4 .5 .9 .2 .7 3.1 1.1 2.0 .5 1.5

 Q3... 1.2 .4 .8 .2 .6 2.7 .9 1.8 .4 1.4

 Q4... 1.0 .4 .7 .1 .5 2.3 .8 1.5 .3 1.2

2004: Q1... 1.3 .6 .7 .2 .5 3.0 1.3 1.6 .4 1.2

 Q2... .9 .3 .6 .1 .5 2.1 .7 1.3 .3 1.0

 Q3... .8 .3 .5 .1 .4 1.7 .6 1.1 .2 .9

 Note. Data are estimates of the national totals for non-real-estate farm loans. Reported amounts are adjusted to exclude foreign

results for large banks that report farm delinquencies on a consolidated basis and for small banks that are allowed to report

delinquencies according to their internal definition of agricultural loans. Yearly data are as of December 31. Quarterly data

are as of end of quarter.

22