alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-60209

Summary Calendar

JOSE ROMERO-FLORES, also known as Jose Flores,

Petitioner,

v.

MICHAEL B. MUKASEY, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Respondent.

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

BIA No. A94 124 205

Before KING, DENNIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Jose Romero-Flores, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for

review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing his

appeal as untimely filed. We require that arguments be briefed in order to be

preserved; issues not adequately briefed are deemed abandoned. Yohey v.

Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993); see also Soadjede v. Ashcroft, 324

F.3d 830, 833 (5th Cir. 2003) (issues not raised in alien’s petition for review of

decision by BIA deemed abandoned). When an appellant, like Romero-Flores,

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

November 21, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 08-60209

2

fails to identify any error in the analysis of the judgment from which he appeals,

it “is the same as if he had not appealed that judgment.” Brinkmann v. Dallas

Cty. Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987). Romero-Flores has

not argued or briefed the BIA’s dismissal of his appeal as untimely filed,the only

issue arguably before this court. Accordingly, the petition for review is DENIED.
News United States Air Force
 ‘Tent City’ brings relief to AirmenPublished Oct. 26, 2018
                        
                        By Tech. Sgt Rachelle Blake
                        
                        
                        325th Fighter Wing Public Affairs
                **TYNDALL AIR FORCE BASE, Fla. (AFNS) --**
                One thousand service members from around the U.S. are set to call Tyndall Air Force Base’s “Tent City” their temporary home while supporting base recovery efforts.In just over two weeks since Hurricane Michael made landfall along the base’s coastline, a blend of civil engineering Airmen have worked around the clock and successfully brought basic necessities to the installation, which was heavily damaged in the storm.Master Sgt. Angela Duran, 49th Civil Engineering Squadron team lead, arrived on Tyndall AFB Oct. 13, just a few days after the storm hit. She and her team of 27 from Holloman AFB, New Mexico, landed in a C-17 Globemaster III filled with equipment.“When we came in, we had to build our tents first to house us,” she said. “We didn’t really have anything. We brought everything with us so we were able to start tent city.”The team has since grown to 41, and what started as a 60-tent project has now expanded to 80.“We put up the first 60 in three and a half days,” said Master Sgt. Jeremie Wilson, 49th CES team lead. “The new 20 will be done in two days.”Tents aren’t their only task. They have also put in latrines, showering facilities and air conditioning units for the tents – bringing comfort to the city’s inhabitants.  “It is so rewarding to see people actually be able to go in and use the showers and have a climatized environment to sleep in after their hard day of work,” Wilson said. “They are able to come home, a deployed home, and have some kind of normality.”Being able to help is especially important to Wilson, who is from New Orleans.“When Katrina hit, I was deploying and a lot people did a lot of great things for my community and family,” he said. “It feels good to be paying it back, since I have been on the other side.”For the other members of the team who may not have such strong  emotional ties, the work is still rewarding, Wilson said..“It can be trying work and repetitive,” Wilson said. “They are constantly counting parts and operationally checking equipment, but they are getting the opportunity to actually see the equipment working and being used for a purpose. Everyone is taking a lot of pride in that.”Duran echoed his sentiment.“They enjoy it,” she said. “They get to say, ‘this is what we do and what we do it for and we are helping these people out.’ They are getting fulfillment and satisfaction. For some, it is their first time putting training to work.”Air Force 



C-17 



Globemaster III 



AF 



Holloman AFB 



ACC 



Tyndall AFB 



civil engineer 



relief 



Air Force Base 



49th ces 



tent city 



Michael 



49th Civil Engineering Squadron 



hurricane
Exhibit 13.2



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with
the Annual Report of 58.com Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Hao Zhou, Chief Financial
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 to my knowledge:



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



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



Date: April 19, 2019



|By:    | /s/ Hao Zhou            | 
|------ | ----------------------- | 
|Name:  | Hao Zhou                | 
|Title: | Chief Financial Officer |
Exhibit 21.1



SUBSIDIARIES OF MONROE CAPITAL CORPORATION



|Name                                |          | Jurisdiction
|----------------------------------- | -------- | ------------
|Monroe Capital Corporation SBIC, LP |          | Delaware    
|MCC SBIC GP, LLC                    |          | Delaware    
|MRCC Holding Company I, LLC         |          | Delaware    
|MRCC Holding Company II, LLC        |          | Delaware    
|MRCC Holding Company III, LLC       |          | Delaware    
|MRCC Holding Company IV, LLC        |          | Delaware    
|MRCC Holding Company V, LLC         |          | Delaware    
|MRCC Holding Company VI, LLC        |          | Delaware    
|MRCC Holding Company VII, LLC       |          | Delaware    
|MRCC Holding Company VIII, LLC      |          | Delaware    
|MRCC Holding Company IX, LLC        |          | Delaware    
|MRCC Holding Company X, LLC         |          | Delaware    
|MRCC Holding Company XI, LLC        |          | Delaware    
|MRCC Holding Company XII, LLC       |          | Delaware    
|MRCC Holding Company XIII, LLC      |          | Delaware    
|MRCC Holding Company XIV, LLC       |          | Delaware    
|MRCC Holding Company XV, LLC        | Delaware
|MRCC Holding Company XVI, LLC       | Delaware
|MRCC Holding Company XVII, LLC      | Delaware
|MRCC Holding Company XVIII, LLC     | Delaware
|MRCC Holding Company XIX, LLC       | Delaware
|MRCC Holding Company XX, LLC        | Delaware
| (logo)  WELLS FARGO | **Commercial  Mortgage Servicing**D1050-084,  8th Floor  401 South Tryon St.  Charlotte, NC 28202  1-800-326-1334 |
|---------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

**ANNUAL STATEMENT OFCOMPLIANCE**

** **

 

Reference is hereby made to that certainPooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of August 1, 2011, by and amongDeutsche Mortgage & Asset Receiving Corporation, as Depositor, Wells FargoBank, National Association, as Master Servicer, Midland Loan Services, ADivision of PNC Bank, NA, as a Pooled Special Servicer, Wells Fargo Bank,National Association, as Providence Place Mall Loan Special Servicer, U.S.Bank, National Association, as Trustee, Wells Fargo Bank, National Association,as Certificate Administrator, Paying Agent and Custodian, and Trimont RealEstate Advisors, Inc., as Operating Advisor, with respect to CommercialMortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series DBUBS 2011-LC3 (the"Agreement"). Capitalized terms used herein not otherwise defined shallhave the meanings assigned in the Agreement.

 

Pursuant to Section 10.11 of thisAgreement, Daniel Marthinsen, Managing Director of Special Servicing andTimothy S. Ryan, Managing Director of Customer Relationship Management, dohereby certify that:

 

1.       Areview of the activities of the Providence Place Mall Loan Special Servicerduring the period from January 1, 2018 through December 31, 2018 (the“Reporting Period”), and of its performance per the Agreement during suchperiod has been made under my supervision, and

 

2.       To thebest of my knowledge, based on such review, the Providence Place Mall LoanSpecial Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement inall material respects throughout the Reporting Period.

 

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the undersigned has executed this Certificate as of the 28th day ofFebruary 2019.

 

 

/s/Daniel Marthinsen

DanielMarthinsen, Managing Director

WellsFargo Bank

 

 

/s/Timothy S. Ryan

TimothyS. Ryan, Managing Director

WellsFargo Bank

 

 

| Wells  Fargo Bank, N.A. | (logo)  Together we’ll go far |
|-------------------------|-------------------------------------|
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             FEB-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-30-1998
<CASH>                                          40,565
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  762,232
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    756,600
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,281,421
<PP&E>                                       1,715,230
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,648,737
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              12,321,076
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        5,495,924
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       115,890
<OTHER-SE>                                     470,590
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                12,321,076
<SALES>                                      3,391,323
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,434,156
<CGS>                                          212,949
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                3,297,287
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             122,144
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 14,726
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            136,869
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    14,726
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.00
        

</TABLE>
2013 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

7-11-2013

In Re: Delgardo Scott

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 13-1592

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2013

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2013 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"In Re: Delgardo Scott " (2013). 2013 Decisions. Paper 567.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2013/567
1

*AMENDED DLD-197 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 13-1592

___________

IN RE: DELGARDO SCOTT,

Petitioner

____________________________________

On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the

United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania

(Related to W.D. Pa. Crim. No. 02-cr-00073)

____________________________________

Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.

April 18, 2013

Before: AMBRO, SMITH and CHAGARES, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: July 11, 2013)

_________

OPINION

_________

PER CURIAM

Petitioner Delgardo Scott is a federal inmate. He has filed a petition for writ of 

mandamus, dated February 27, 2013, asking us to compel the District Court to issue a ruling on 

the motion to dismiss that he filed in his criminal case. Scott identified the motion to dismiss 

by certified mail number, and the record shows that the motion was signed and mailed on 

October 24, 2012, and filed on the docket on October 26, 2012.

Scott already has received the relief he seeks in his mandamus petition, as the District 

Court denied the motion to dismiss by order entered November 8, 2012. Thus, the matter is 
2

moot. See County of Morris v. Nationalist Movement, 273 F.3d 527, 533 (3d Cir. 2001). 

Because the District Court has adjudicated Scott’s motion, and there is no need for our 

intervention, we will deny the petition for a writ of mandamus. See Blanciak v. Allegheny 

Ludlum Corp., 77 F.3d 690, 698-99 (3d Cir. 1996).1

 

1

 Within this mandamus action, Scott has also filed documents, including Petitions To 

Dismiss, in which he seeks, among other things, dismissal of his criminal proceedings and 

immediate release from incarceration. We decline to rule on these documents. To the extent 

that he wishes to pursue a collateral attack on the judgment and sentence in his criminal case, 

he must pursue such relief in the District Court. Insofar as Scott may be objecting to the 

District Court’s ruling on his motion to dismiss filed in District Court, it is not appropriate for 

us to issue relief via mandamus in lieu of an appeal. See, e.g., In re Baldwin, 700 F.3d 122, 

127 (3d Cir. 2012); In re Kensington Int’l Ltd., 353 F.3d 211, 219 (3d Cir. 2003).
News United States Air Force
 Air Force selects 9,467 in 19E6/technical sergeant promotion cyclePublished July 10, 2019
                        
                        By Kat Bailey
                        
                        
                        Air Force’s Personnel Center Public Affairs
                **JOINT BASE SAN ANTONIO-RANDOLPH, Texas (AFNS) --**
                Air Force officials have selected 9,467 staff sergeants for promotion to technical sergeant out of 29,328 eligible for a selection rate of 32.28%.
The 19E6/technical sergeant promotion list will be available on the Air Force’s Personnel Center website Enlisted Promotions page, the Air Force Portal and myPers, July 18 at 8 a.m. CDT. Airmen will also be able to access their score notices on the virtual Military Personnel Flight via the AFPC secure applications page.
Those selected for technical sergeant will be promoted beginning Aug. 1, according to their promotion sequence number.
Commanders will receive notice of their selects from their senior rater's agent starting July 11.
For more information about Air Force personnel programs, visit the AFPC public website.AFWN 



promotion 



TSgt release 



Advancement 



AFPC 



Air Force Personnel Center 



JB San Antonio-Randolph 



enlisted promotion 



19E6 



release 



selection 



Tech. Sgt. 



joint base 



Technical Sergeant 



Air Education and Training Command 



AETC 



staff sergeants 



AF 



Air Force
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 177 (Tuesday, September 14, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 55743-55744]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-22865]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

RIN 0648-XZ02


North Pacific Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of a public meeting of the North Pacific Fishery 
Management Council and Alaska Board of Fisheries Joint Protocol 
Committee.

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

SUMMARY: The North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) Joint 
Protocol Committee of the Alaska Board of Fisheries and Council will 
meet on in Anchorage, AK.

DATES: The meeting will be held on October 5, 2010, from 1 p.m. to 5 
p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Captain Cook Hotel, 939 West 
5th Avenue, Quarterdeck (Tower 1, 10th Floor) Anchorage, AK.
    Council address: North Pacific Fishery Management Council, 605 W. 
4th Ave., Suite 306, Anchorage, AK 99501-2252.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Council staff; telephone: (907) 271-
2809.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Committee will review the following: 
pending actions for Annual Catch Limits (ACLs) for crab and scallops; 
background on Council sector split action and jig fishery for Gulf 
(GOA) of Alaska Pacific cod fishery management; Board schedule for 
accepting State regulatory proposals for coordination with pending 
federal GOA action; ACL requirements and Fishery Management

[[Page 55744]]

Plan (FMP) considerations for Salmon; proposals and agenda change 
requests of common interest; recent federal action on salmon bycatch 
actions; pending action on Hagemeister Island walrus protection; 
pending action on closure areas to reduce GOA Tanner crab bycatch; 
status of the Steller Sea Lion Biological Opinion.
    Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come 
before this group for discussion, in accordance with the Magnuson-
Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), 
those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this 
meeting. Actions will be restricted to those issues specifically 
identified in this notice and any issues arising after publication of 
this notice that require emergency action under Section 305(c) of the 
Magnuson-Stevens Act, provided the public has been notified of the 
Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency.

Special Accommodations

    This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. 
Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids 
should be directed to Gail Bendixen at (907) 271-2809 at least 7 
working days prior to the meeting date.

    Dated: September 9, 2010.
Tracey L. Thompson,
Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine 
Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2010-22865 Filed 9-13-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-S
#### Seligman & Houghton v. Mary Wilson.

(No. 872, Op. Book No. 2, p. 50.)

Appeal from Travis County.

Opinion by

Walker, R. S., P. J.

§ 895. *Assignment of error. A*ground of ei’ror not distinctly specified *in*reference to that which is shown in the record, or not specified at all, will be considered as waived. [Rules Sup. Ct. 24 and 25; Rule 22, 32 Tex. 812.]

§ 896. *Fraudulent title;*valid, *except as to creditor, etc.*“The title of a fraudulent grantee is not only good against the debtor, but it is also good against all parties except creditors and their representatives. It is voidable only at the suit of creditors, and if no creditor interposes and complains, the transfer is as binding and effectual to pass the title as if made with the best intents and for the most innocent and commendable purposes.” [Bump on Fraud. Conv. 451; 29 Barb. 105.]

§ 897. *Charge; must be warranted by the evidence.*It is error to give a hypothetical charge, when there is no evidence conducing to prove the facts upon which it is predicated. [Hampton v. Dean, 4 Tex. 455; Lee v. Hamilton, 12 Tex. 413; Earle v. Thomas, 14 Tex. 583; Dodd v. Arnold, 28 Tex. 97.] And although the instruction may *511be correct as an abstract proposition, yet if it is calculated to mislead the jury as to the true issues to be found, the judgment will be reversed. [McGreal v. Wilson, 9 Tex. 426; Lee v. Hamilton, 12 Tex. 413.]

May 6, 1880.

§ 898. *Charge requested; refusal of, justified when.*The refusal of an instruction, correct in itself as an abstract proposition, may be justified on the ground that it goes beyond the particular case made by the evidence. [Davis v. Loftin, 6 Tex. 489; Case v. Jennings, 17 Tex. 661; Thompson v. Shannon, 9 Tex. 536; Haggerty v. Scott, 10 Tex. 525.]

Affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                                   <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                            SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                  4,497
<SECURITIES>                                0
<RECEIVABLES>                             722
<ALLOWANCES>                                0
<INVENTORY>                                 0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                        4,529
<PP&E>                                      0
<DEPRECIATION>                              0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                          8,831
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      85
<BONDS>                                   234
<COMMON>                                    0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                       0
<PREFERRED>                                 0
<OTHER-SE>                              8,501
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>            8,831
<SALES>                                     0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                          375
<CGS>                                       0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                          627
<LOSS-PROVISION>                            0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                         11
<INCOME-PRETAX>                          (263)
<INCOME-TAX>                                0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                      (263)
<DISCONTINUED>                              0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                             0
<CHANGES>                                   0
<NET-INCOME>                             (263)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                           (9.03)
<EPS-DILUTED>                           (9.03)
        

</TABLE>