alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
647 A.2d 841

#### IN THE MATTER OF JULIET O. BERNARDEZ, AN ATTORNEY AT LAW.

September 28, 1994.

ORDER

JULIET O. BERNARDEZ of JERSEY CITY, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 1980, having tendered her consent to disbarment as an attorney at law of the State of New Jersey, and good cause appearing;

It is ORDERED that JULIET O. BERNARDEZ is disbarred by consent, effective immediately; and it is further

ORDERED that respondent’s name be stricken from the roll of attorneys and that she be permanently restrained and enjoined from practicing law; and it is further

ORDERED that all funds, if any, currently existing in any New Jersey financial institution maintained by JULIET O. BERNAR-DEZ, pursuant to *Rule*1:21-6, shall be restrained from disbursement except upon application to this Court, for good cause shown, and shall be transferred by the financial institution to the Clerk of the Superior Court who is directed to deposit the funds in the Superior Court Trust Fund, pending further Order of this Court; and it is further

ORDERED that respondent comply with Administrative Guideline No. 23 of the Office of Attorney Ethics dealing with disbarred attorneys.
# FILED OCT 21 2009 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Clerk, U.S. District and Bankruptcy courts LaVonne Davis, Plaintiff,


### v. Superior Court, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Civil Action No.

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

# 09 

# 1995

This matter is before the Court on plaintiffspro se complaint and application to proceed informapauperis. The Court will grant plaintiffs application and dismiss the complaint for lack ofsubject matterjurisdiction. The subject matterjurisdiction ofthe federal district courts is limited and is set forth generally at 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1332. Under those statutes, federaljurisdiction is available only when a "federal question" is presented or the parties are ofdiverse citizenship and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. A party seeking reliefin the district court must at least plead facts that bring the suit within the court'sjurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Failure to plead such facts warrants dismissal ofthe action. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). Plaintiff, a District ofColumbia resident, sues the Superior Court ofthe District of Columbia. She states that "[t] there is a case in Family Court
... pertaining to one ofmy kids, where there should be one case including both ofmy kids," and seeks assistance with presenting her case "to the appropriatejudge" to get her children out offoster care. Compi. at 1. The complaint neither presents a federal question nor provides a basis for diversityjurisdiction.


# 3Accordingly, the complaint must be dismissed.! A separate Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.
Date: October

# --1.b.-, 2009

# S?~tes~J-----

! Plaintiffs recourse lies, ifat all, in the District ofColumbia Superior Court. 2
|    |                                                                                                    |
|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 1. | I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Civitas Solutions, Inc.; |

|    |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            |
|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 2. | Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report. |

|                        |
|------------------------|
|                        |  |
| Date: January 22, 2019 | /s/ Bruce F. Nardella |
|                   | Bruce F. Nardella |
|                   | Chief Executive Officer, President & Chair of the Board of Directors |
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pane l unani m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T M I CHAEL M . M c M AH I LL , P la in tif

f - A p p e llan t, v . W . E C H E N D U ; e t a l., D efen d an t s - A p p el l ees. N o. 09- 56620 D . C . N o. 2: 08 -c v-07 18 8-A H M -E ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e C e n tr a l D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia A . H ow ar d M a t z , D i s tr i c tJudge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d J anuary10, 2011 ** B efo re: B E E Z E R , T A L L M A N , an dC A L L A H A N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. M i c ha e l M . M c M ahi l l , aC a l i f orni as t a t e pr i s one r , appe a l s pr o s e f r om the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s j udgm e ntdi s m i s s i ng hi s 42 U . S . C . § 1983 a c t i on a l l e gi ng vi ol a t i ons o f h is E ig h th A m e n d m e n t r ig h ts . W e h a v e ju r is d ic tio n u n d e r2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 . W e r evi ew de no vo a di sm i ss alun der 28 U . S . C . §§ 19 15 (e ) and 19 15 A for f ai l ure 

# FI LED JAN 21 2 011 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS09- 56620 2 to s ta te ac la im . R es ni ck v. H ayes , 2 1 3 F .3 d4 4 3 , 4 4 7 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 0 ) ; B arre n v. H arr i ngton , 152 F . 3d 1193, 1194 ( 9th C i r . 1998) ( or de r ) . W e m aya f f i rm on any g r o u n ds up p o rte db yth e r e c o r d , T hom ps on v . P aul , 5 4 7 F .3 d1 0 5 5 , 1 0 5 8 - 5 9 ( 9 th Ci r . 2 0 0 8 ) , an dw e a f

f i rm. T he di stri ctcourtprop er l y di sm i ss ed the ac t i on because M cM ahi l l ’ s f ac tual a lle g a tio n s an dth e a tta c h m e n ts to th e o p e r a tiv e c o m p la in t s h o w th a t d e f e n d an ts d idn o t a c t w ith d e lib e r a te in d if f e r e n c e to h is m e d ic a l p r o b le m s . See T og uchiv. Chung , 3 9 1 F .3 d1 0 5 1 , 1 0 5 7 - 5 8 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ) ( ap r is o n o f f ic ia l a c ts w ith d el i b erat e i n d i fferen ce o n l y i f h e o r sh e k n o w s o f an dd i sreg ard s an ex cessi v e ri sk t o the pri soner’ s hea l th and sa fe ty, and n egl i gence and a m er e di ff er ence i n m edi ca l op i ni on ar e i nsuffi ci entt o est abl i sh del i bera t e i nd i ff er ence ); N

at ’ l A s s oc . f orthe A dv anc e m e nt

of Ps y c hoanal ys is v . Cal. B d. of

Ps y c hology , 228 F . 3d 1043, 1049 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 0 ) ( e x p la in in g th a t “w e m ayc o n s id e rf a c ts c o n ta in e din d o c u m e n ts a tt a c he d t o the c om pl a i nt ” i n de t e rm i ni ng w he the rthe c om pl a i nts t a t e s ac l a i m f or r e lie f ) . M cM ahi l l ’ s r em ai ni ng cont ent i on s are un pers uasi ve. AF F I RME D.
**EXHIBIT 35.1**

 

**SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT**

**New Holland Credit Company, LLC**

 

The undersigned, a duly authorized officer of New Holland Credit Company, LLC (“NHCC”), as Servicer pursuant to the Sale and Servicing Agreement dated as of May 1, 2014 (as amended from time to time, the “Sale and Servicing Agreement”) by and among NHCC, CNH Capital Receivables LLC and CNH Equipment Trust 2014-B, does hereby certify that:

 

1.             NHCC is Servicer under the Sale and Servicing Agreement.

 

2.             The undersigned is duly authorized as required pursuant to the Sale and Servicing Agreement to execute and deliver this Certificate to the Indenture Trustee.

 

3.             This Certificate is delivered pursuant to Section 4.9(a) of the Sale and Servicing Agreement and Item 1123 of Regulation AB.

 

4.             A review of the Servicer’s activities during the 12 month period ending (and including) December 31, 2017 and of its performance under the Sale and Servicing Agreement has been made under my supervision.

 

5.             To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Sale and Servicing Agreement in all material respects throughout the 12 month period ending (and including) December 31, 2017.

 

6.             IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has duly executed this Certificate this 27th day of March, 2018.

 

----

 

March 27, 2018

 
|   | By:    | /s/ Brett D. Davis |
|--------|--------|--------------------|
|   | Name:  | Brett D. Davis     |
|   | Title: | President          |

 

----
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 15

            LETTER REGARDING UNAUDITED INTERIM FINANCIAL INFORMATION

The Board of Directors
Northfield Laboratories Inc.:

With respect to the registration statements (Nos. 333-15877, 333-51681,
333-79579, 333-102672, 333-110110 and 333-128787) on Form S-8 and the
registration statements (No. 333-106615, 333-115459 and 333-121622) on Form S-3
of Northfield Laboratories Inc., we acknowledge our awareness of the use therein
of our report dated April 7, 2006 related to our review of interim financial
information.

Pursuant to Rule 436 under the Securities Act of 1933, such report is not
considered to be a part of a registration statement prepared or certified by an
independent registered public accounting firm or a report prepared or certified
by an independent registered public accounting firm within the meaning of
sections 7 and 11 of the Act.

Very truly yours,


/s/ KPMG LLP

Chicago, Illinois
April 7, 2006
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Manuel SCOTT.

No. 2011-KK-1976.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Nov. 14, 2011.

In re Scott, Manuel; — Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of W. Baton Rouge, 18th Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 103868; *948to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2011 KW 1279.

Denied.

WEIMER, J., would grant.
* 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. 96-60619 Summary Calendar

GAFARI MOREIRA, Petitioner,

versus IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent.

- - - - - - - - - - Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

BIA No. A29 899 927

- - - - - - - - - - July 21, 1997 Before JOLLY, STEWART, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Gafari Moreira appeals the Board of Immigration Appeal’s decision affirming the Immigration Judge’s decision to deny political asylum and withholding of deportation. We have reviewed the record and the briefs of the parties and perceive no reversible error. The petition for review is DENIED. This court is without jurisdiction to entertain Moreira’s requests that weNo. 96-60619 - 2 - review the proceedings in his pending motion before the BIA to reopen his case and the Attorney General’s decision to deny bond.
See 8 U.S.C. § 1105a(a); Younger v. Dept. of Justice , 759 F.2d 450, 457 (5th Cir.), cert. denied , 474 U.S. 996 (1985). Finally, Moreira’s motions for consolidation and for production of documents are DENIED.
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Wendell SANTA MARINA.

No. 2010-KO-2751.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 29, 2011.

In re Marina, Wendell Santa; —Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. A, No. 474-053; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2010-KA-0028.

Denied.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED OCTOBER 2, 2014

NO. 03-12-00691-CV

Grace Shamel and Stephen Shamel, Appellants

v.

Specialized Loan Servicing, LLC; Deutsche Bank National Trust Company,

as Indenture Trustee of The Arch Bay Asset-Backed Securities Trust 2010-2,

by its Attorney-in-Fact and Servicer-in-Fact; Specialized Loan Servicing, LLC;

Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc.; Clauklin LLC; and

Capital City Relocation, LLC, Appellees

APPEAL FROM 353RD DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES PURYEAR, ROSE, AND GOODWIN

AFFIRMED ON REHEARING -- OPINION BY JUSTICE ROSE

This is an appeal from the judgment signed by the district court on August 30, 2012. Having 

reviewed the record and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was no reversible error 

in the district court’s judgment. We therefore order that the motion for rehearing filed by 

appellants is denied; that the opinion and judgment dated August 29, 2014, are withdrawn; and 

that the Court affirms the district court’s judgment. The appellants shall pay all costs relating to 

this appeal, both in this Court and the court below.
EXHIBIT  23.03

             CONSENT OF INDEPENDENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

We have issued our report dated February 23, 2004, accompanying the financial
statements included in the Annual Report of Spectrum Organic Products, Inc. on
Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2003. We hereby consent to the
incorporation by reference of said report in the previously filed Registration
Statements of Spectrum Organic Products, Inc. on Forms S-8 (File no. 333-44796
and File 333-109342).


/s/  GRANT THORNTON LLP
-----------------------
     GRANT THORNTON LLP

San Francisco, CA
March 24, 2004
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 25 (Monday, February 8, 2010)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 6095]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-2520]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2009-0960; Airspace Docket No. 09-ASO-29]


Revocation of Class E Airspace; Hinesville, GA

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; correction.

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

SUMMARY: This action corrects an error in the effective date of a final 
rule that was published in the Federal Register on November 25, 2009, 
Airspace Docket No. 09-ASO-29.

DATES: Effective Date: 0900 UTC, February 11, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Melinda Giddens, Operations Support 
Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, P.O. 
Box 20636, Atlanta, Georgia 30320; telephone (404) 305-5610.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

History

    Federal Register Docket No. FAA-2009-0960, Airspace Docket No. 09-
ASO-29, published on November 25, 2009 (74 FR 61507), revokes Class E 
airspace at Liberty County Airport, Hinesville, GA. A typographical 
error was made in the effective date. It should read February 11, 2010, 
not February 22, 2010. This action corrects that error.

Correction to Final Rule

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, on page 
61508, column 1, line 1, the DATES section is corrected to read: 
Effective Date: 0900 UTC, February 11, 2010.

    Issued in College Park, Georgia, on January 26, 2010.
Myron A. Jenkins,
Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Air 
Traffic Organization.
[FR Doc. 2010-2520 Filed 2-5-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
#### Antonio AYERS *v.*STATE of Arkansas

CR 97-368

968 S.W.2d 591

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Opinion delivered April 30, 1998

*R.S. McCullough,*for appellant.

No response.

Per Curiam.

Attorney R.S. *McCullough*represents appellant Antonio Ayers, who was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to life imprisonment without parole. A notice of appeal was filed on Mr. Ayers’s behalf, and the appellate record was subsequently filed in this Court. Thereafter, Mr. McCullough received several extensions of the deadline for the filing of Mr. Ayers’s brief. In *Ayers v. State,*332 Ark. 370, 960 S.W.2d 453 (1998), we granted Mr. McCullough’s request to extend the deadline to March 25, 1998, and cautioned that it was a “final extension.” That deadline was not met.

Mr. McCullough filed motions on March 31, 1998, and April 8, 1998, urging this Court to accept his client’s belated brief, which was tendered on April 1, 1998. We granted Mr. McCullough’s motions on April 23, 1998, and accepted Mr. Ayers’s brief for filing.

On account of the circumstances described above, we order R.S. McCullough to appear before this Court on Thursday, May 14, 1998, at 9:00 a.m., to show cause why he should not be held in contempt for falling to file his client’s brief on or before *117March 25, 1998, as previously ordered. See *Bell v. State,*332 Ark. 432, 961 S.W.2d 36 (1998).
* District Judge of the Western District of Texas, sitting

by designation.

** 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. 01-20989

In re: MITCHELL BERG, Debtor,

-------------------- MITCHELL BERG, Appellant,

versus RONALD J. SOMMERS, Trustee; PRUDENTIAL SECURITIES, INC., Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court For the Southern District of Texas USDC No. H-99-CV-4247
January 13, 2003

B efore HIGGINBOTHAM and DAVIS, Circuit Judges, and HUDSPETH * , District Judge.
PER CURIAM: **
We affirm for essentially the reasons stated by the trial court.
##### 



Exhibit 99.4

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 Quarterly Report of Liberty Property Limited
Partnership (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2003 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, GEORGE J. ALBURGER, JR., Chief Financial Officer of Liberty
Property Trust (the sole general partner 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 based on 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 result of operations
of the Company.

|                                                                                                                                                |  | 
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | 
|/s/ GEORGE J. ALBURGER, JR.

George J. Alburger, Jr.
Chief Financial Officer of Liberty Property Trust,
the sole general partner of the Company |  |
EXHIBIT 32

                                CERTIFICATION OF
                           PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                                       AND
                          PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTING OFFICER

            PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES OXLEY ACT OF 2002

          In connection with the accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-KSB (the
"Report") of CIMNET(R), Inc. (the "Company") for the year ended December 31,
2003, I, John D. Richardson, Chief Executive Officer and Principal Accounting
Officer of the Company, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best
of my knowledge and belief, that:

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

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

                                                /s/ John D. Richardson
                                                --------------------------------
                                                John D. Richardson
                                                Chief Executive Officer and
                                                Principal Accounting Officer

March 30, 2004
#### Castro GUERRA, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D09-443.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Sept. 22, 2010.

Carlos J. Martinez, Public Defender, and Robert Kalter, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant.

Bill McCollum, Attorney General, and Ansley B. Peacock, for appellee.

Before RAMIREZ, C.J., and LAGOA and SALTER, JJ.

RAMIREZ, C.J.

Castro Guerra appeals the trial court’s final judgment of conviction and sentence for second degree murder, alleging that the trial court committed fundamental error when it instructed the jury that to find the defendant guilty of manslaughter, a lesser included offense, the jury had to find that he had the intent to kill. Based on our prior decision in *Cubelo v. State,*41 So.3d 263 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010), we affirm.

As in *Cúbelo,*Guerra was charged with second-degree murder with a weapon, a knife. Manslaughter is a category one lesser included offense of second-degree murder. Section 782.07(1) Fla. Stat. (2003), provides that the crime of manslaughter may be committed by (1) act; (2) procurement; or (3) the culpable negligence of the defendant. When instructing the jury as to manslaughter, the trial court instructed the jury as to manslaughter by intentional act and manslaughter by culpable negligence. In *Cubelo,*we relied on *Salonko v. State,*42 So.3d 801 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) to conclude that because the jury was instructed on both manslaughter by act and manslaughter by culpable negligence, there was no fundamental error requiring reversal of the defendant’s conviction for second-degree murder. *Cubelo,*41 So.3d at 268. Because Guerra also was charged with both manslaughter by act and manslaughter by culpable negligence, we conclude that there was no fundamental error requiring reversal of Guerra’s conviction for second-degree murder.

Affirmed.
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO

RULE 13a-14(b) OR RULE 15d-14(b)

OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 AND 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

I, Michael D. Burger, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the quarterly report of Merix Corporation on Form 10-Q for the
quarterly period ended November 29, 2008 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such quarterly report on Form 10-Q fairly presents in all
material respects the financial condition and results of operations of Merix Corporation.



|                                                |  |                      
|----------------------------------------------- |  | ---------------------
|By:                                             |  | /s/ MICHAEL D. BURGER
|Michael D. Burger                              
|Director, President and Chief Executive Officer
|(Principal Executive Officer)                  

January 8, 2009