alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL CONDITION AT SEPTEMBER 30, 1997
(UNAUDITED) AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                          16,205
<SECURITIES>                                     7,792
<RECEIVABLES>                                   15,584
<ALLOWANCES>                                       905
<INVENTORY>                                      3,135
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                42,974
<PP&E>                                           9,099
<DEPRECIATION>                                   3,833
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  50,560
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            8,438
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              153
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      41,802
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    50,560
<SALES>                                         52,886
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                52,886
<CGS>                                           19,019
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   19,019
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                18,847
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 15,020
<INCOME-TAX>                                     5,407
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              9,613
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     9,613
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .62
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .62
        

</TABLE>
#### Joann SIMS and Brent Sims v. The AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, Associated Indemnity Corporation, Travelers Casualty and Surety Company, Joe Bristol, Henry Bell, Mortimer Currier, Gerard Daigre, and Theophile Rozasa.

No. 2012-C-0204.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 20, 2012.

In re Achord, Jan; American Insurance Company, et al.; Associated Indemnity Corp.; Bourg, Arthur J.; Cox, Marvin Monroe; Currier, Mortimer; Daigre, Gerard W,; McNabb, Malcolm; Rozasa, Theo-phile; Travelers Casualty and Surety Company f/k/a Aetna Casualty and Surety Company; — Defendant(s); Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Iberia, 18th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 68,301; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2011 CA 0059.

Granted.
#### Steven L. KAPLAN, M.D., Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, Respondent.

No. 1D10-2493.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

July 23, 2010.

*20Monica L. Rodriguez of Dresnick & Rodriguez, Miami, for Petitioner.

Elizabeth Renee Alsobrook, Deputy General Counsel, Florida Department of Health, Tallahassee, for Respondent.

KAHN, J.

Petitioner, Dr. Stephen L. Kaplan, seeks review of an emergency suspension order (ESO), suspending his medical license, entered by the respondent, State of Florida, Department .of Health. Such an ESO is subject to the exacting standards of section 120.60(6), Florida Statutes (2009). Under this statute, the Department may take only “that action necessary to protect the public interest under the emergency procedure .... ” § 120.60(6)(b), Fla. Stat. (2009). Moreover, the review of such an order is limited to the face of the order itself, and the order must disclose “the specific facts and reasons for finding an immediate danger to the public health, safety, or welfare and [the Department’s] reasons for concluding that the procedure used is fair under the circumstances.” § 120.60(6)(c), Fla. Stat. (2009).

Many cases have construed the dictates of the statute. First, and obvious from the wording of the statute, “every element necessary to its validity must appear on the face of the order.” *Witmer v. Dep’t of Bus. and Prof'l Regulation,*631 So.2d 338, 341 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994). The reviewing court must focus not simply on charges of statutory violations, but instead, upon “particularized facts which demonstrate an immediate danger to the public.” *Crudele v. Nelson,*698 So.2d 879, 880 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997). The factual allegations of *21a legally sufficient emergency suspension order must demonstrate: (1) the complained of conduct is likely to continue; (2) the order is necessary to stop the emergency; and (3) the order is sufficiently narrowly tailored to be fair. *See Bio-Med Plus, Inc. v. State, Dep’t of Health,*915 So.2d 669, 672 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005).

The allegations in the order before us do not contain so much as a single allegation of particularized harm. Although the Department states certain conclusions, the order contains no facts showing that the conduct complained of was likely to continue, or that the order here under review is necessary to stop any emergency created by the conduct complained of. Most pointedly, and as demonstrated by petitioner, the conduct complained of involved treatment of one patient and occurred over three years before entry of the ESO. No harm to that patient, or any other patient, has been alleged by the Department.

Because respondent has failed to satisfy even a most basic application of section 120.60(6), we QUASH the emergency suspension order under review. *See e.g. Bio-Med Plus,*915 So.2d at 669 (quashing emergency suspension order which lacked any factual allegations showing immediate danger to public health, safety, or welfare, despite pendency of a federal indictment against target of the order).

HAWKES, C.J., and WEBSTER, J., concur.
<PAGE>

                                                                      Exhibit 32

                               HMN FINANCIAL, INC.

                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 HMN Financial, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Michael McNeil,
President of the Company, and I, Jon Eberle, Senior Vice President and CFO 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:

      (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.

Date:   August 2, 2006           /s/ Michael McNeil
                                 Michael McNeil
                                 President/Chief Executive Officer
                                 (Principal Executive Officer)

                                 /s/ Jon Eberle
                                 Jon Eberle
                                 Senior Vice President/Chief Financial Officer
                                 (Principal Financial Officer)
868 A.2d 1007

#### IN THE MATTER OF ANTHONY J. BRIGUGLIO AN ATTORNEY AT LAW (ATTORNEY NO. 037011983).

March 7, 2005.

ORDER

ANTHONY J. BRIGUGLIO of YONKERS, NEW YORK, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 1983, having pleaded guilty in New York to a Superior Court Information charging him with engaging in a scheme to defraud, in violation of New York Penal Law § 190.65, a class E felony, and good cause appearing;

It is ORDERED that pursuant to *Rule*l:20-13(b)(l), ANTHONY J. BRIGUGLIO is temporarily suspended from the practice of law pending the final resolution of ethics proceedings against him, effective immediately and until the further Order of this Court; and it is further

ORDERED that ANTHONY J. BRIGUGLIO be restrained and enjoined from practicing law during the period of his suspension; and it is further

ORDERED that ANTHONY J. BRIGUGLIO comply with *Rule*1:20-20 dealing with suspended attorneys.
##### 



Exhibit 32.3

LIBERTY PROPERTY LIMITED
PARTNERSHIP

CERTIFICATIONS REQUIRED BY
RULE 13a-14(b) UNDER THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Liberty Property Limited
Partnership (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June
30, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the Report), I, WILLIAM P. HANKOWSKY, Chief Executive Officer of
Liberty Property Trust (the sole general partner of the Company), certify, in
connection with Rule 13a-14(b) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 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/ WILLIAM P. HANKOWSKY
|William P. Hankowsky    
|Chief Executive Officer 

Date: August 11, 2003
| (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 tothat certain Pooling and Servicing Agreement  dated as of August 1, 2014,by and among RBS COMMERICAL FUNDING INC., as Depositor, WELLS FARGO BANK,NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as General Master Servicer, CWCAPITAL ASSET MANAGEMENTLLC, as General Special Servicer, NCB, FSB, as NCB Master Servicer, NCB, FSB,as Co-op Special Servicer, TRIMONT REAL ESTATE ADVISORS, INC., as TrustAdvisor, WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Certificate Administrator,as Tax Administrator and as Custodian, and WILMINGTON TRUST, NATIONALASSOCIATION, as Trustee, with respect to Commercial Mortgage Pass-ThroughCertificates Series 2014-C21 (the "Agreement"). Capitalized termsused herein not otherwise defined shall have the meanings assigned in theAgreement.

 

Pursuant to Section 11.12 ofthis Agreement, I, Daniel Bober, Executive Vice President of CommercialMortgage Services do hereby certify that:

 

1. A review of the activitiesof the General Master Servicer during the period from January 1, 2016 throughDecember 31, 2016 (the “Reporting Period”), and of its performanceper the Agreement during such period has been made under my supervision, and

 

2. To the best of myknowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all of itsobligations under this Agreement in all material respects throughout theReporting Period.

 

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, theundersigned has executed this Certificate as of the 28th day of Februray 2017.

 

 

/s/ Daniel Bober

Daniel Bober

Executive Vice President 

Wells Fargo Bank

 

 

| Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. | (logo) Together we’ll  go far |
|------------------------|-------------------------------------|
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22
- 2298

DORA L. ADKINS , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. ASHFORD TRS ALEXANDRIA, LLC , Defendant

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Alexandria

. Patricia Tolliver Giles , District Judge. ( 1:22

- cv - 00790

- PTG

- WEF )

Submitted : March 21 , 2023 Decided: March 23, 2023

Before WYNN and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges , and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge

.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Dora L. Adkins , Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 22-2298 Doc: 27 Filed: 03/23/2023 Pg: 1 of 22 PER CURIAM: Dora L. Adkins appeals the district court’s order adopting the recommendation of the magistrate judge, denying her requests for leave to file an emergency complaint and for leave to proceed on that complaint in forma pauperis, and dismissing her case. We have
reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we grant Adkins’ motion s for leave to amend her informal opening brief and affirm for the reasons stated by the
district court. Adkins v. Ashford TRS Alexandria, LLC , No. 1:22

- cv - 00790

- PTG

- WEF (E.D. V a. Dec. 16, 2022). We deny Adkins’ motions to reverse and remand, for leave to reverse and remand, for leave to vacate and remand, to replace, for leave to replace, to amend , for leave to amen d, and for leave to amend and moot all other motions

. We dispe nse with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional
process. AFFIRMED USCA4 Appeal: 22-2298 Doc: 27 Filed: 03/23/2023 Pg: 2 of 2
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1714 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1714

To clarify the boundaries of Coastal Barrier Resources System Clam Pass 
                              Unit FL-64P.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 27, 2007

   Mr. Mack introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                     Committee on Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To clarify the boundaries of Coastal Barrier Resources System Clam Pass 
                              Unit FL-64P.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. REPLACEMENT OF CERTAIN COASTAL BARRIER RESOURCES SYSTEM 
              MAPS.

    (a) In General.--The map subtitled ``FL-64P'', relating to the 
Coastal Barrier Resources System unit designated as Coastal Barrier 
Resources System Clam Pass Unit FL-64P, that is included in the set of 
maps entitled ``Coastal Barrier Resources System'' and referred to in 
section 4(a) of the Coastal Barrier Resources Act (16 U.S.C. 3503(a)), 
is hereby replaced by another map relating to that unit entitled 
``Coastal Barrier Resources System Clam Pass Unit, FL-64P'' and dated 
July 21, 2005
    (b) Availability.--The Secretary of the Interior shall keep the map 
referred to in subsection (a) on file and available for inspection in 
accordance with section 4(b) of the Coastal Barrier Resources Act (16 
U.S.C. 3503(b)).
                                 <all>
```
DLD-147 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 23-1443

___________

IN RE: CHARLES J. SENKE,

Petitioner

____________________________________

On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the

United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania

(Related to 3:16-cr-00373-001)

____________________________________

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

May 25, 2023

Before: JORDAN, CHUNG, and SCIRICA, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed June 7, 2023)

_________

OPINION*

_________

PER CURIAM

Charles Senke is a federal prisoner currently incarcerated at FCI-Allenwood. 

Senke petitions for a writ of mandamus to compel the United States District Court for the 

Middle District of Pennsylvania to adjudicate his motion to vacate, set aside, or correct 

his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. 

* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not 

constitute binding precedent.
Senke filed the § 2255 motion in February 2022, and the Government filed its 

response in April 2022. Senke filed a brief in support of the motion in May 2022. The 

motion is still pending in the District Court. 

“Traditionally, the writ of mandamus has been used to confine an inferior court to 

a lawful exercise of its prescribed jurisdiction or to compel it to exercise its authority 

when it is its duty to do so.” In re Chambers Dev. Co., 148 F.3d 214, 223 (3d Cir. 1998) 

(quotation marks omitted). “The writ is a drastic remedy that is seldom issued and its use 

is discouraged.” Id. (quotation marks omitted). We may issue a writ of mandamus when 

a district court’s “undue delay is tantamount to a failure to exercise jurisdiction.” 

Madden v. Myers, 102 F.3d 74, 79 (3d Cir. 1996).

We will deny the petition. After Senke filed his mandamus petition in this Court, 

the District Court entered an order directing the Government to provide a substantive 

response to Senke’s May 2022 brief.1 Therefore, the District Court is moving forward 

with the case, and we are confident that it will adjudicate his pending § 2255 motion in a 

timely manner. 

Accordingly, we will deny the petition for a writ of mandamus. 

1 The Government’s reply is currently due June 14, 2023.
i i i i i i



### MEM ORA ND UM OP INION No s. 04 -0 9- 00 66 4- CR & 04 -0 9- 00 66 5- CR

Cha rl e s P ENA , Appellant
v . The STA TE of Texas, Appellee Fr om the County

Court at L aw No. 7, B exar County , Texas Trial Court Nos. 292745 & 292744 Honora ble Br enda Cha

pman, J udg e Presiding PER C URI AM Sitt ing: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice

Kar en Ang elini, J ustice Marialy n Ba rnar d, J ustice Deliver ed and F iled: Dece mber 16, 2009 DI SMI SSED FOR L ACK OF J URI SDI CTI ON Th e tr ia l c ou rt

imp os e d s ente nc e on

Au g us t 5, 20 09 , a

nd a pp e lla nt d id n ot f

ile a tim e ly motion for ne w trial. The de adline for filing a notice of a

ppeal wa s theref

ore due September 5, 2009. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 26.2(a) (1). The notice of a ppeal wa s not filed unt il September 21, 2009, and the cl er k ’s re co rd s h o ws t h e n o t i ce o f ap p ea l wa s n o t d ep o s i t ed i n t h e m ai l b ef o re t h e l as t d ay

fo r f i l i n g.04
- 09
- 00 66 4- CR & 04
- 09
- 00 66 5- CR

- 2- I n fac t, the notice of a

ppeal shows it was not c ompleted until September 5, 2009, the day afte r it was due. No motion for extension of time to file the notice of appea l w as filed. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 26.3. On Novembe r 3, 2009, we order ed appe llant to show why this appea l should not be dismi ssed for wa nt of jurisdiction. On Dec emb er 3 , 2009, appellant f iled a re sponse in which he a dmits t he notice of a

ppeal wa s untimely , and for the first time seeks a n extension of tim e to file the notice of appea l. A motion to ex tend time to file a notice of appe al must be filed in this court within fifteen day s after the dea dline for f

iling the notice of appe al. T EX . R. A PP . P. 26 .3
. Here, th e mo tio n to extend tim e to file t he noti ce of appea l had to be filed on or bef ore Septe mber 21, 2009, but wa s not filed until Dece mber 3, 2009. See id. Be cause neither the notice of appea l nor t he mot ion to extend time to file t he notice of appea l was ti mely filed, we lack jurisdiction to enter tain the appe al. See Ol iv o v . S tat e , 918 S.W .2d 519, 52 2 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 96 ); se e als o A te r v . E igh th C ou rt o f A pp e als , 8 02 S.W. 2d

24 1 ( Te x. Cr im. App. 1991) (e x plaining tha t writ of habe as cor pus pursuant to article 11.07 of the Te x as Code of Cr imi na l Pr oc e du re g ov e rn s o ut- of -t ime a pp e a ls fr om fe lon y

c on vic tio ns ); see also T EX . R. A PP . P. 2 6
. 3
. A c c o r d in g ly , w e d is mi s s th e mo ti o n f o r e xte n s io n o f ti me a n d th e a p p e a l f o r w ant of jurisdiction.

PER C URI AM

Do no t pu bli sh
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 31.1

                                 CERTIFICATIONS

I, Michael McNeil, certify that:

1.    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of HMN Financial, 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;

3.    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as
of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.    The registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have:

      a)    designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to
ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its
consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,
particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

      b)    evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls
and procedures presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness
of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered
by this report based on such evaluation; and

      c)    disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal
control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and
15d-15(f)) that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal quarter that
has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the
registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and

5.    The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on
our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors
(or persons performing the equivalent functions):

      a)    all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design
or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial information; and

      b)    any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or
other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control
over financial reporting.

Date: May 10, 2004                          By /s/ Michael McNeil
                                            President/Chief Executive Officer