alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida

Opinion filed April 10, 2019. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearin g.

________________

No. 3D18-1371 Lower Tribunal No. 09-6638

________________



### Javier A. Carrillo, et al., Appellants,

vs.


### IndyMac Fed Bank (FSB), et al., Appellees.

An Appeal from a non-final order from the Circuit Court for Mi ami-Dade County, Rodolfo A. Ruiz, Judge.

Javier A. Carrillo and Mayra E. Farias, in proper persons.

Greenberg Traurig, P.A., Kimberly S. Mello and Vitaliy Kats (T ampa), for appellee, U.S. Bank National Association.

Before FERNANDEZ, LINDSEY and HENDON, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed on the authority of Florida Rule of Appellate Procedur e 9.315(a).

Fla. R. App. P. 9.315(a) (“After service of the initial brief . .. the court may2 summarily affirm the order to be reviewed if the court finds th at no preliminary basis

for reversal has been demonstrated.”).
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 199 (Tuesday, October 14, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 60707]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-24295]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health & Human 
Development; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Child Health and Human 
Development Special Emphasis Panel Program on Contraception and 
Reproductive Health Research.
    Date: November 6, 2008.
    Time: 8:30 a.m. to 6 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: Gaithersburg Hilton, 620 Perry Parkway, Gaithersburg, MD 
20877.
    Contact Person: Peter Zelazowski, PhD, Scientific Review 
Officer, Division of Scientific Review, Eunice Kennedy Shriver 
National Institute, of Child Health and Human Development, NIH, 6100 
Executive Boulevard, Rm. 5B01, Bethesda, MD 20892-7510, 301-435-
6902, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#bdcdd8c9d8cf93c7d8d1dcc7d2caced6d4fdd3d4d593dad2cb"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="7d0d1809180f530718111c07120a0e16143d131415531a120b">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.864, 
Population Research; 93.865, Research for Mothers and Children; 
93.929, Center for Medical Rehabilitation Research; 93.209, 
Contraception and Infertility Loan Repayment Program, National 
Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: October 7, 2008.
Jennifer Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
 [FR Doc. E8-24295 Filed 10-10-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

BRIAN BALLENTINE; et al., 

Plaintiffs-Appellees, 

 v. 

LAS VEGAS METROPOLITAN POLICE 

DEPARTMENT, 

Defendant, 

MIKE WALLACE, Sergeant; JOHN 

LIBERTY, Lieutenant, 

Defendants, 

and 

CHRISTOPHER T. TUCKER, Detective, 

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-16728 

D.C. No. 

2:14-cv-01584-APG-GWF 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Nevada

Andrew P. Gordon, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted and Submission Deferred March 15, 2019**

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

JUL 2 2019

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 

Resubmitted June 28, 2019

San Francisco, California

Before: W. FLETCHER, WATFORD, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

In this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, the plaintiffs allege that Las Vegas police 

officers arrested them in retaliation for protected speech. The district court denied 

in part the officers’ motion for summary judgment seeking qualified immunity, and 

this appeal followed.

In Nieves v. Bartlett, the Supreme Court held that a plaintiff pursuing a First 

Amendment retaliatory arrest claim must generally plead and prove the absence of 

probable cause for the arrest. 139 S. Ct. 1715, 1723-24 (2019) (abrogating Ford v. 

Yakima, 706 F.3d 1188 (9th Cir. 2013) (per curiam)). The Court noted, however, 

“that the no-probable-cause requirement should not apply when a plaintiff presents 

objective evidence that he was arrested when otherwise similarly situated individuals 

not engaged in the same sort of protected speech had not been.” Id. at 1727. Because 

neither the district court nor the parties had the benefit of Nieves when the order on 

appeal was decided, we vacate that order and remand for further proceedings in light 

of Nieves. 

VACATED AND REMANDED.
|Skip to ContentRelease Date: September 19, 2006Release dates | 
Announcements | 
Coded tables |
Historical dataCurrent release | Screen reader | PDF (632 KB) | Data Download Program (DDP)                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Z.1 Release                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      
|Complete file      PDF (632 KB)


Summary statistics and table of contents      PDF (88 KB) | CSV (8 KB)
Debt growth, borrowing and debt outstanding tables      PDF (12 KB) | CSV (6 KB)
Flows tables      PDF (178 KB) | CSV (122 KB)
Level tables      PDF (146 KB) | CSV (105 KB)
Balance sheet tables      PDF(23 KB) | CSV (12 KB)
Supplementary tables      PDF (35 KB) | CSV (23 KB)These files are available in Acrobat (PDF 3) format only.Obtaining the free Acrobat Reader from the Adobe Web SiteRelease dates | 
Announcements | 
Coded tables |
Historical dataCurrent release | 
 Screen reader | PDF (632 KB) | Data Download Program (DDP)


Statistical releasesHome |
Economic research and dataAccessibility | 
Contact Us
Last update: September 19, 2006
|These files are available in Acrobat (PDF 3) format only.Obtaining the free Acrobat Reader from the Adobe Web Site
Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions   under delegated authority  Applications and reports:Boston |New York |Philadelphia |Cleveland |Richmond |AtlantaChicago |St. Louis |Minneapolis |Kansas City |Dallas |San FranciscoDistrict: 11Federal Reserve Bank of: DallasFilings received during the week ending January 11, 2014FilerFiling TypeFiling ProposalEnd of Comment PeriodAF MUTUAL HOLDING COMPANY                                                                                               MHC Minority Stock Issuance
178 La. 96

#### LANDIS et al. v. BRIDGES et al.

No. 32582.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Oct. 30, 1933.

Ponder & Ponder and Boone & Boone, all of Many, for relators.

Pickett & Moore, of Many, for J. M. Bridges.

ST. PAUL, Justice.

The relators are nonresidents of this state. They are the owners of a certain oil or gas well, the casing in said well, the storage tanks and other machinery thereto attached for the drilling, equipment, and operation of said well.

The respondents are the owners of a certain drilling rig which they leased to re-lators for the purpose of drilling said oil or gas well.

I.

The rent of said' drilling rig not having been, paid in full, and the relators having allegedly damaged said drilling rig, respondents brought suit in rem for the amount of the unpaid rent and alleged damages, and provisionally seized the aforesaid property, citing relators through a curator ad hoc.

There was judgment in the court below, rendered contradictorily with the curator ad hoe, recognizing the alleged claim of respondents and their alleged lien and privilege on the property provisionally seized, maintaining said writ, and ordering that the property seized thereunder be sold and respondents’ claims paid out of the proceeds of said sale.

II.

When said judgment was about to be executed, relators applied to the lower court for an injunction restraining said execution and the sale of said property, on the ground that respondents’ alleged claim did not give them a lien and privilege on the property seized, nor the right to provisionally seize the same or proceed against the same in rem; and that all proceedings had were null.

The trial judge refused the injunction; hence this application to have said execution stayed and the judgment complained of annulled and avoided.

III.

We - find no law which grants a lien and privilege for the rent of, or damages to, a drilling rig, upon any gas or oil well or the machinery, appurtenances, etc., thereunto belonging. Act No. 161 of 1932, p. 524, does not grant such a lien and privilege for the rent of, or damages to, a drilling rig, but only to such as perform labor or service in the drilling or operation of such wells or furnish material or supplies in connection therewith. Hence respondents were without right to provisionally seize the property involved; for, being without lien or privilege, they were without right to proceed in rem. O. P. arts. 290-295, 285, par. 4.

Decree.'

For the reasons assigned, the writs herein issued are now made peremptory, and the judgment in favor of the respondents is annulled and set aside, and the respondents and the trial judge are now prohibited from proceeding further with the execution of said judgment; all costs to be paid by the respondents J. M. Bridges et al.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02664-BNB

DARIAN L. HUNTER,

Applicant,

v.

J. WANDS, Warden, Federal Correctional Institution (F.C.I.), Florence,

Respondent.

ORDER TO FILE PRELIMINARY RESPONSE

As part of the preliminary consideration of the Application for a Writ of Habeas

Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 filed on October 13, 2011, in this case and

pursuant to Redmon v. Wiley, 550 F. Supp. 2d 1275 (D. Colo. 2008), the Court has

determined that a limited Preliminary Response is appropriate. Respondent is directed

pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States

District Courts to file a Preliminary Response limited to addressing the affirmative

defense of exhaustion of administrative remedies. If Respondent does not intend to

raise this affirmative defense, Respondent must notify the Court of that decision in the

Preliminary Response. Respondent may not file a dispositive motion as a Preliminary

Response, or an Answer, or otherwise address the merits of the claims in response to

this Order.

 In support of the Preliminary Response, Respondent should attach as exhibits

copies of any administrative grievances Applicant has filed raising the issues asserted in

the Application, as well as any responses to those grievances. Applicant may reply to

Case 1:11-cv-02664-BNB Document 9 Filed 11/21/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2
2

the Preliminary Response and provide any information that might be relevant to his

efforts to exhaust administrative remedies. Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that within twenty-one (21) days from the date of this Order

Respondent shall file a Preliminary Response that complies with this Order. It is

FURTHER ORDERED that within twenty-one (21) days of the filing of the

Preliminary Response Applicant may file a Reply, if he desires. It is

FURTHER ORDERED that if Respondent does not intend to raise the affirmative

defense of exhaustion of administrative remedies, Respondent must notify the Court of

that decision in the Preliminary Response.

DATED November 21, 2011, at Denver, Colorado.

BY THE COURT:

 s/ Boyd N. Boland 

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 1:11-cv-02664-BNB Document 9 Filed 11/21/11 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 35.3




SERVICER COMPLIANCE CERTIFICATE




PURSUANT TO ITEM 1123 OF REGULATION AB UNDER THE




SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934




Re:
HSBC Private Label Credit Card Master Note Trust (USA) I


Series 2007-1, Class A Notes; Series 2007-1, Class B Notes





I, Betty A. Earll, Vice President of HSBC Technology & Services (USA) Inc. (the “Company”), pursuant to Item 1123 of Regulation AB of the Securities and Exchange Commission and Section 3.05 of the Amended and Restated Transfer and Servicing Agreement, dated as of August 11, 2006 amending and restating in full the Transfer and Servicing Agreement dated as of June 12, 2001 (the “Agreement”), among HSBC Funding (USA) Inc. V, as Transferor, HSBC Finance Corporation, as Servicer, and Wilmington Trust Company, as Owner Trustee of the HSBC Private Label Credit Card Master Note Trust (USA) I, hereby certify that:





1.
A review of the activities of the Company from January 1, 2010 through December 31, 2010 and of its performance under the Agreement has been made under my supervision; and





2.
To the best of my knowledge, based on my review, the Company has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout the reporting period referred to above except as set forth below:





NONE





IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have signed this certificate on behalf of the Company this 28th day of March 2011.








HSBC Technology & Services (USA) Inc.











By: /s/ Betty A. Earll


Name: Betty A. Earll


Title:   Vice President
#### Ruby EDWARDS v. STATE.

6 Div. 624.

"Supreme Court of Alabama.

April 25, 1935.

PER CURIAM.

There is no bill of exceptions in this case, and no error appearing upon the record prop*926er, the judgment of the circuit court is affirmed.

ANDERSON, .0. J., and GARDNER, BOULDIN, and FOSTER, JJ., concur.
SCWC-16-0000473

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

TED’S WIRING SERVICE, LTD., 

Petitioner-Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, STATE OF HAWAI#I;

Respondent-Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant.

CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

(CAAP-16-0000473; CIV. NO. 13-1-1910)

ORDER REJECTING APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Pollack, and Wilson, JJ.)

Petitioner-Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee Ted’s Wiring

Service, Ltd.’s application for writ of certiorari, filed on

April 3, 2020, is hereby rejected.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, May 14, 2020.

/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald

/s/ Paula A. Nakayama

/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna 

/s/ Richard W. Pollack

/s/ Michael D. Wilson

Electronically Filed

Supreme Court

SCWC-16-0000473

14-MAY-2020

10:40 AM
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02679-BNB

CAMDEN P. FORTNEY, III,

Plaintiff,

v.

CORRECTIONS CORPORATION OF AMERICA, d/b/a Kit Carson Correctional Center,

and

WARDEN EVERT, Trustee,

Defendants.

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Plaintiff, Camden P. Fortney, III, is a prisoner in the custody of the Colorado

Department of Corrections at the Kit Carson Correctional Center in Burlington,

Colorado. Mr. Fortney initiated this action by filing pro se a document titled “Notice of

Intent to Redeem 38-38-302 CRSA” along with a cover letter. On October 19, 2011,

Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland entered an order directing Mr. Fortney to cure certain

deficiencies if he wished to pursue any claims in this action. Specifically, Magistrate

Judge Boland ordered Mr. Fortney to file a Prisoner Complaint on the proper form and

either to pay the filing fee or to file a properly supported motion seeking leave to

proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 on the proper form. Mr.

Fortney was warned that the action would be dismissed without further notice if he failed

to cure these deficiencies within thirty days.

Mr. Fortney has failed to cure the deficiencies in this action because he has

Case 1:11-cv-02679-LTB Document 5 Filed 11/29/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2
2

failed to file a Prisoner Complaint and he has failed either to pay the filing fee or to file a

properly supported motion seeking leave to proceed in forma pauperis on the proper

form. Instead, on October 28, 2011, apparently in response to the order directing him to

cure the deficiencies, Mr. Fortney filed a document titled “Notice of Opportunity to Cure”

in which he states that “This Is not a case” and “I am only here to ‘Pay’ the

Bill/Debt/Judgement [sic] connected to and surrounding CASE/CONTRACT NO.

2009CR000713.” (Doc. #4 at 1.)

The action will be dismissed without prejudice for failure to cure the deficiencies. 

Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that the action is dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b)

of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure because Plaintiff failed to cure the deficiencies

as directed.

DATED at Denver, Colorado, this 29th day of November , 2011.

BY THE COURT:

 s/Lewis T. Babcock 

LEWIS T. BABCOCK, Senior Judge

United States District Court

Case 1:11-cv-02679-LTB Document 5 Filed 11/29/11 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Criminal Case No. 11-cr-00391-LTB

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

1. DANIEL CANTER, 

Defendant.

ORDER

PURSUANT to and in accordance with the Sentencing hearing held before the

Honorable Lewis T. Babcock, United States District Judge, on September 6, 2012, it is

hereby

ORDERED that Defendant Daniel Canter is sentenced to TIME SERVED.

Dated: September 6, 2012.

BY THE COURT:

 s/ Lewis T. Babcock 

LEWIS T. BABCOCK,

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 1:11-cv-02695-REB-KMT Document 3 Filed 10/27/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 3
Case 1:11-cv-02695-REB-KMT Document 3 Filed 10/27/11 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 3
Case 1:11-cv-02695-REB-KMT Document 3 Filed 10/27/11 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 3
SCHEDULE OF SECURED PROMISSORY NOTES
                    SUBSTANTIALLY IDENTICAL TO EXHIBIT 10.33


                                                          Principal     Maturity
Date           Borrower                                    Amount         Date
----           --------                                    ------         ----
2/28/00        Main Street and Main Incorporated
                 and Redfish America, L.L.C.             $1,012,000      3/1/10

2/28/00        Main Street and Main Incorporated
                 and Main St. California, Inc.           $1,590,000      3/1/15

2/11/00        Main Street and Main Incorporated
                 and Redfish Cleveland, Inc.             $1,530,000      3/1/10

2/11/00        Main Street and Main Incorporated
                 and Main St. California, Inc.           $2,499,000      3/1/15
| Skip to Content*Release Date: September 16, 2004*Release dates |  Coded tables |  Historical dataCurrent release |  Screen reader |  PDF (450 KB)**D.1 Debt Growth by Sector1** |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Skip to Content*Release Date: September 19, 2006*Release dates |  Coded tables |  Historical dataCurrent release |  Screen reader |  PDF (450 KB)**F.8 Saving and Investment1** |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT-23.2


              CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS




The Board of Directors
Conseco, Inc.:


We consent to the incorporation by reference of our report dated January 27,
1998, relating to the consolidated statements of operations, shareholder's
equity and cash flows for the year ended December 31, 1997, of Conseco Finance
Corp. and subsidiaries (formerly known as Green Tree Financial Corporation),
which report appears in the December 31, 1999 Form 10-K of Conseco, Inc., in the
following Registration Statements of Conseco, Inc.: Nos. 33-57079, 33-56901,
33-57931, 33-40556, 33-58710, 33-58712, 333-10297, 333-18037, 333- 18581,
333-19783, 333-23251, 333-28305, 333-32615, 333-32617, 333-51123 and 333- 83607
on Form S-8 and Nos. 333-32621, 333-83465, 333-85825 and 333-94683 on Form S-3.
Our report refers to the Company's adoption of the Financial Accounting
Standards Board's Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 125,
"Accounting for Transfers and Servicing of Financial Assets and Extinguishments
of Liabilities," in 1997.



                                                /s/ KPMG LLP



Minneapolis, Minnesota
April 11, 2000