alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-4016

___________

Douglas Brueckner, Colette Brueckner, *

*

Appellants, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Nebraska.

Burlington Northern and Santa Fe *

Railway Company, a Corporation; * [UNPUBLISHED]

Brown’s Crew Car, doing business as *

Armadillo Express, *

*

Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: July 3, 2008

Filed: July 14, 2008

___________

Before MURPHY, COLLOTON, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Douglas and Colette Brueckner, husband and wife, filed this action against the

Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Company (BNSF) and its agent Brown’s

Crew Car, also known as Armadillo Express (Armadillo), alleging they negligently

caused injuries to Douglas while he was working as a conductor for BNSF.

According to the complaint, on October 3, 2001, Brueckner was riding in a van owned

and operated by Armadillo when the driver drove over a crossing at an excessive

speed, causing Brueckner to be thrown against the ceiling of the van and injured. The
1

The Honorable Richard G. Kopf, United States District Judge for the District

of Nebraska.

-2-

Brueckners claimed that Armadillo was liable to them under Nebraska state law for

negligently operating the vehicle, and that BNSF was liable under the Federal

Employers’ Liability Act, 45 U.S.C. §§ 51-60, based on its own negligence and the

negligence of its agent, Armadillo. Following a five-day trial, the jury found for

defendants. The district court1

 entered judgment on the verdict and denied the

Brueckners’ motions for judgment as a matter of law (JAML) and for a new trial. The

Brueckners argue on appeal that the evidence did not support the jury’s verdict, and

that the jury instructions were erroneous.

We find that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the

Brueckner’s motions for JAML and for a new trial because the evidence, viewed in

the light most favorable to defendants, supports the jury’s verdict. See Boudreau v.

Wal-Mart Stores, 249 F.3d 715, 717-18 (8th Cir. 2001) (in reviewing motion for

JAML, court resolves factual conflicts in favor of nonmovant and affirms if evidence

would allow reasonable jurors to differ); Batiste-Davis v. Lincare, Inc., 526 F.3d 377,

381 (8th Cir. 2008) (denial of new trial based on verdict against weight of evidence

is virtually unassailable; this court reviews for abuse of discretion, viewing evidence

most favorably to verdict). We also find that the instructions given by the court

adequately presented the case to the jury. See Campos v. City of Blue Springs, Mo.,

289 F.3d 546, 551-52 (8th Cir. 2002) (jury-instruction review is for abuse of

discretion, limited to whether instructions as a whole fairly and adequately represent

evidence and law).

Accordingly, we affirm.

______________________________
Exhibit 35.2

SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Santander Drive Auto Receivables Trust 2014-3 for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016 (the Report), the undersigned, a duly authorized officer of Santander Consumer International Puerto Rico LLC (the Subservicer), does
hereby certify and represent that:



| | 1. | A review of the activities and performance of the Subservicer under the Sale and Servicing Agreement, dated as of June 18, 2014, among Santander Drive Auto Receivables LLC, Santander Consumer USA Inc., Santander
Drive Auto Receivables Trust 2014-3 and U.S. Bank National Association (the Agreement) during the period that is the subject of the Report has been made under my supervision.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Subservicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout the period that is the subject of the Report.
| | -- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



SANTANDER CONSUMER INTERNATIONAL
PUERTO RICO LLCBy:

/s/ Troy MillerName:

Troy MillerTitle:

PresidentDate:

March 30, 2017
| (logo) ncb  National Cooperative Bank    | 2011 Crystal  Drive  Suite 8oo  Arlington, Virginia 22202 |
|-----------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

February 6, 2017

 

 

RBS Commercial Funding, Inc.as Depositor 

600 Washington Blvd.

Stamford, CT 06901

 

RE: Annual Statement as toCompliance 

      WFRBS 2014 C21

 

Dear Sir/Madam:

 

In accordance with the Poolingand Servicing Agreement entered into in connection with the issuance of theCommercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series 2014-C21, as an authorizedofficer of National Cooperative Bank, N.A., formerly NCB, FSB (the “NCBMaster Servicer”), I hereby certify pursuant to Section 11.12 thereofthat:

 

a. A review of the activitiesof the NCB Master Servicer during the preceding calendar year (the“Reporting Period”) and of its performance under the Pooling andServicing Agreement has been made under my supervision.

 

b. To the best of myknowledge, based on these reviews, the NCB Master Servicer has fulfilled allobligations under this agreement in all material respects throughout theReporting Period.

 

Please note that the annualfinancial statement will be sent under separate cover on or before March 31,2017.

 

Best regards,

  

/s/Karyn Mann

Karyn Mann

Senior Vice President,Investor Compliance 

National Cooperative Bank,N.A.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                                            5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD ENDED JUNE 30, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY
BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>              6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                           DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                              JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                          939,000
<SECURITIES>                                          0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   298,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                          0<F1>
<INVENTORY>                                     178,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                              1,625,000
<PP&E>                                        5,099,000<F2>
<DEPRECIATION>                                        0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                7,330,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                         1,103,000
<BONDS>                                       1,878,000<F3>
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                 0
<PREFERRED>                                           0
<COMMON>                                         63,000
<OTHER-SE>                                    4,286,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  7,330,000
<SALES>                                         778,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              3,923,000
<CGS>                                           857,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                         0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              3,238,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                      0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               83,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (819,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                          0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (819,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                        0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                       0
<CHANGES>                                             0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (819,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      (.14)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      (.14)

<FN>
<F1>  Notes and accounts receivable - trade are reported net of allowances for
      doubtful accounts in the Balance Sheet.
<F2>  Property, plant, and equipment are reported net of accumulated
      depreciation in the Balance Sheet.
<F3>  Excludes current portion.
</FN>
        


</TABLE>
861 A.2d 110

#### IN THE MATTER OF JOHN N. GIORGI, AN ATTORNEY AT LAW (ATTORNEY NO. 021261988).

November 30, 2004.

ORDER

This matter having been duly presented to the Court, it is ORDERED that JOHN N. GIORGI of UNION, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 1988, and who was suspended from the practice of law for a period of three months effective August 18, 2004, by Order of this Court filed July 27, 2004, be restored to the practice of law, effective immediately.
#### STATE ex rel. Paul C. JONES v. STATE of Louisiana.

No. 2010-KH-2406.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Nov. 19, 2010.

In re Jones, Paul C; —Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. C, Nos. 06-10-0444, 08-10-0790; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2010 KW 1215.

Denied.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-6060

STEPHEN M. HAUSE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus GEORGE MARTIN, III, Warden; G. P. MIRO, Associate Warden; HARRIETTE FOWLER, NelsonComplaint Coordinator; PARKER EVATT, Commissioner, South Carolina Department of Corrections; RICKIE BELLINGER, Classification Case Worker, C.C.I.; and possibly JOHN DOE DEFENDANTS, in their individual and/or official capacities, Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District Judge. (CA-93-1790-2-20AJ) Submitted: June 20, 1996 Decided: July 1, 1996 Before HALL, WILKINS, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Stephen M. Hause, Appellant Pro Se. David Leon Morrison, ELLIS, LAWHORNE, DAVIDSON & SIMS, P.A., Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).23 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court's order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) complaint. Appellant's case was referred to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (1988). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advisedAppellant that failure to file timely objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court orderbased upon the recommendation. Despite this warning and an extension of time, Appellant failed to object to the magistrate judge's recommendation. The timely filing of objections to a magistrate judge's recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when the parties have been warned that failure to object will waive appellate review. Wright v. Collins , 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985). See generally Thomas v. Arn , 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Appellant has waived appellate review by failing to file objections after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we af firm the judgment of the district court. 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
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 191 (Monday, October 4, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 61229-61230]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-24766]


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

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

[Disaster Declaration <greek-i>12333 and <greek-i>12334]


South Dakota Disaster <greek-i>SD-00034

AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This is a Notice of the Presidential declaration of a major 
disaster for Public Assistance Only for the State of South Dakota 
(FEMA-1938-DR), dated 09/23/2010.
    Incident: Severe Storms and Flooding.
    Incident Period: 07/21/2010 through 07/30/2010.
    Effective Date: 09/23/2010.
    Physical Loan Application Deadline Date: 11/22/2010.
    Economic Injury (EIDL) Loan Application Deadline Date: 06/23/2011.

ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business 
Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport 
Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A. Escobar, Office of Disaster 
Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, SW., 
Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that as a result of 
the President's major disaster declaration on 09/23/2010, Private Non-
Profit organizations that provide essential services of governmental 
nature may file disaster loan applications at the address listed above 
or other locally announced locations.
    The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected 
by the disaster:

Primary Counties: Beadle, Brule, Clay, Fall River, Hand, Jerauld, 
Lincoln,

[[Page 61230]]

Miner, Minnehaha, Sanborn, Turner, Union.

    The Interest Rates are:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Physical Damage:
  Non-Profit Organizations With Credit Available Elsewhere....     3.625
  Non-Profit Organizations Without Credit Available Elsewhere.     3.000
For Economic Injury:
  Non-Profit Organizations Without Credit Available Elsewhere.     3.000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 12333B 
and for economic injury is 12334B.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 59002 and 59008)

James E. Rivera,
Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance.
[FR Doc. 2010-24766 Filed 10-1-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Kelton L. SPANN.

No. 2011-K-0142.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 3, 2011.

In re State of Louisiana; —Plaintiff; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 08-CR3-097696; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2010 KA 1073.

Denied.
Exhibit 13.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT

The certification set forth below is being submitted in connection with the annual report of MINEBEA MITSUMI Inc. on Form
20-F for the year ended March 31, 2017 (the Report) for the purpose of complying with Rule 13a-14(b) or
Rule 15d-14(b) of the United States Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the Exchange Act) and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code.

Yoshihisa Kainuma, the Representative Director, CEO & COO and Hiromi Yoda, Director and Senior Managing Executive Officer of MINEBEA MITSUMI Inc.,
each certifies that, to the best of his knowledge:



|1. | the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act; and
|-- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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

Date: July 26, 2017



By:

/s/ Yoshihisa KainumaName:

Yoshihisa KainumaTitle:

Representative Director,
CEO & COOBy:

/s/ Hiromi YodaName:

Hiromi YodaTitle:

Director, Senior ManagingExecutive Officer(Chief Financial Officer)
<PAGE>
                          ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF INDEPENDENT
                          CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS
                REGARDING INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS' REVIEW REPORT


The Board of Directors
Northfield Laboratories Inc.:

With respect to registration statements of Form S-8 of Northfield Laboratories
Inc., we acknowledge our awareness of the use therein of our report dated
October 1, 2001 related to our review of interim financial information.

Pursuant to Rule 436(c) under the Securities Act of 1933, such report is not
considered a part of a registration statement prepared or certified by an
accountant or a report prepared or certified by an accountant within the meaning
of sections 7 and 11 of the Act.

Very truly yours

/s/ KPMG LLP

October 12, 2001
Chicago, Illinois
#### Elaine C. WAGUESPACK v. George K. WAGUESPACK.

No. 2010-C-2250.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Nov. 19, 2010.

In re Waguespaek, Elaine C; —Plaintiff; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Ascension, 23rd Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 75139; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2009 CA 1478.

Denied.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FIFTH DISTRICT

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CARLOS ALBERTO MORENO-ROJAS,

Appellant,

v. Case No. 5D21-2894

LT Case No. 2015-CF-013375-A-O

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

________________________________/ 

Decision filed November 29, 2022

3.850 Appeal from the Circuit Court 

for Orange County, 

Elaine A. Barbour, Judge. 

Carlos Alberto Moreno-Rojas, 

Crawfordville, pro se 

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, 

Tallahassee, and Allison Leigh Morris, 

Assistant Attorney General, Daytona 

Beach, for Appellee. 

PER CURIAM. 

AFFIRMED. 

TRAVER, NARDELLA and WOZNIAK, JJ., concur.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-20475

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

RICHARD CRUZ,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:92-CR-184-1

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Richard Cruz, federal prisoner # 60692-079, appeals the denial of his

motion for a sentence reduction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). He was

found guilty by a jury of being a felon in possession of a firearm and was

sentenced to 235 months in prison. 

Cruz contends that Amendment 709 to the sentencing guidelines applies

retroactively to his criminal history calculation because the amendment is a

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

September 13, 2011

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

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.

Case: 10-20475 Document: 00511600908 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/13/2011
No. 10-20475

clarifying amendment. He asserts that as a result of the amendment, his

criminal history score should be recalculated. 

The decision whether to reduce a sentence under § 3582(c)(2) is

discretionary, so the denial of a § 3582(c) motion is reviewed for abuse of that

discretion. United States v. Evans, 587 F.3d 667, 672 (5th Cir. 2009), cert.

denied, 130 S. Ct. 3462 (2010). The district court is authorized to reduce a

sentence based on a sentencing range that subsequently was lowered by the

Sentencing Commission only if the amendment to the guidelines is listed in

U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(c). See § 3582(c)(2); § 1B1.10(a)(1); § 1B1.10, comment.

(n.1(A)); United States v. Gonzalez-Balderas, 105 F.3d 981, 982 (5th Cir. 1997). 

Amendment 709 is not listed in § 1B1.10(c), so the district court was not

authorized to reduce the sentence pursuant to § 3582(c)(2), and the denial of the

motion was not an abuse of discretion. See Evans, 587 F.3d at 672, 674.

Cruz’s motion for the appointment of counsel is DENIED. There is no

right to appointed counsel in a § 3582(c)(2) proceeding. United States v.

Whitebird, 55 F.3d 1007, 1010-11 (5th Cir. 1995). Moreover, because the district

court was not authorized to grant § 3582(c)(2) relief, the interest of justice does

not require appointment of counsel. Cf. United States v. Robinson, 542 F.3d

1045, 1052 (5th Cir. 2008) (finding that the interest of justice required the

appointment of counsel where appeal raised issues not previously resolved by

this court’s precedent).

AFFIRMED; Motion DENIED.

2

Case: 10-20475 Document: 00511600908 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/13/2011
#### In re APPEAL OF the DECISION OF the DISCIPLINARY BOARD NOS. 2009-ADMIN-953 AND 2009-ADMIN-954.

No. 2010-OB-2018.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 7, 2011.

*881In re Elfrida W. Johnson, Petitioner; Applying for Reconsideration of this Court’s action dated October 29, 2010 to the Office of Disciplinary Counsel.

Denied.
#### NATIONAL GRANGE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellee, and WOW, Incorporated, t/a Insurance Center of Williamsburg; Deborah Bresna-ham, Third Party Defendants-Appel-lees, v. Richard Lynwood CHISMAN, a/k/a Bay; Joyce Ann Chisman, Defendants-Appellants.

No. 00-1334.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 20, 2000.

Decided Jan. 8, 2001.

Kenneth L. Roberts, Roberts & Roberts, P.C., Newport News, VA, for appellants. Robert Tayloe Ross, Michael L. Rigsby, Midkiff Muncie & Ross, P.C., Douglas M. Palais, McCandlish, Kane & Grant, Richmond, VA, for appellees.

Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Richard Lynwood Chisman and Joyce Ann Chisman appeal from the district court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of the Appellees in this action in which National Grange Mutual Insurance Company sought a declaration that the insurance policy it issued to the Chismans was void. We have reviewed the parties’ briefs, the joint appendix, the supplemental joint appendix, and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. *National Grange Mut. Ins. Co. v. Chisman,*No. CA-99-362-3 (E.D.Va. Feb. 14, 2000). 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 35.1



AMERICAN HONDA FINANCE CORPORATION

ANNUAL COMPLIANCE CERTIFICATE

PURSUANT TO SECTION 3.11(a) OF THE

SALE AND SERVICING AGREEMENT AND

ITEM 1123 OF REGULATION AB



I, Paul C. Honda,
do hereby certify that I am the Vice President and Assistant Secretary of American Honda Finance Corporation, a California corporation
(the “Company”), and further certify on behalf of the Company in its capacity as servicer (the “Servicer”
and “Sponsor”) under the Sale and Servicing Agreement (the “Agreement”) dated as of May 21, 2014 among
the Servicer and Sponsor, American Honda Receivables LLC, as Seller, and Honda Auto Receivables 2014-2 Owner Trust, as follows:



| | (i) | A review of the activities of the Servicer during the reporting period ended March 31, 2016, and
of its performance under the Agreement has been made under my supervision.
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (ii) | To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations
under the Agreement throughout such period in all material respects.
| | ---- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set
my hand this 16th day of May, 2016.



| | /s/ Paul C. Honda                                   
| | ----------------------------------------------------
| | Paul C. Honda                                       
| | Vice President and Assistant Secretary              
| | (senior officer in charge of the servicing function)