alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

FARON E. LOVELACE, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

ROBIN SANDY; et al., 

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 17-35499 

D.C. No. 1:14-cv-00430-BLW 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Idaho

Chief Judge B. Lynn Winmill, Presiding

Submitted May 15, 2018**

Before: SILVERMAN, BEA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.

Idaho state prisoner Faron E. Lovelace appeals pro se from the district 

court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional 

and state law claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de 

novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Hamilton v. Brown, 630 F.3d 889, 892 

 

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

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

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

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

FILED

MAY 23 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 17-35499 

(9th Cir. 2011). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Lovelace’s action because Lovelace 

failed to allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief. See Hebbe v. 

Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341-42 (9th Cir. 2010) (although pro se pleadings are to be 

liberally construed, a plaintiff must present factual allegations sufficient to state a 

plausible claim for relief); see also Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 483-84 (1995) 

(states may create liberty interests protected by due process, but such interests are 

limited to “freedom from restraint” which “imposes atypical and significant 

hardship on the inmate in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life”); 

Lightner v. Hardison, 239 P.3d 817, 823-24 (Idaho Ct. App. 2010) (analyzing 

Idaho Department of Correction visiting policy and concluding that termination of 

visiting privileges does not impose an atypical and significant hardship).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying appointment of 

counsel because Lovelace failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances. See 

Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009) (setting forth standard of 

review and requirements for appointment of counsel).

We reject as meritless Lovelace’s contention that the district court failed to 

liberally construe the amended complaint.
3 17-35499 

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued 

in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on 

appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED.
# Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas October 4, 2021 No. 04-21-00290-CV PARRISH & CO., INC. and East Point Installers, Inc.,

Appellants

v. Vincent POLIDORE , Appellee From the 57th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2020-CI-11827 Honorable Cynthia Marie Chapa, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R Sitting: Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice Lori I. Valenzuela, Justice This is an interlocutory appeal from the trial court’s denial of appellants’ motion to compel arbitration. On September 17, 2021, appellee filed a motion to dismiss this appeal asserting (1) appellants appeal should be dismissed for want of prosecution because they failed to timely-file their brief and (2) this court lacks jurisdiction to consider an appeal from the trial court’s denial of appellants’ motion to reconsider the denial of its motion to compel arbitration. On September 27, 2021, appellants filed a response. On August 19, 2021, this court issued an order stating appellants’ brief was due September 6, 2021. Appellants filed their brief on September 3, 2021. Appellants’ notice of appeal clearly states they wish to appeal from the trial court’s denial of their motion to compel arbitration, not the denial of their motion for reconsideration. Appellee’s motion to dismiss is DENIED. Appellee is reminded that his brief is due October 4, 2021.

_________________________________ Lori I. Valenzuela, JusticeIN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 4th day of October, 2021.

___________________________________ MICHAEL A. CRUZ, Clerk of Court
EX-31 Rule13a-14(d)/15d-14(d) Certifications.

 

 

I, Helaine M. Kaplan,certify that:

 

1. I have reviewedthis report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required to be filed in respectof the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of the COMM 2014-CCRE19Mortgage Trust (the "Exchange Act periodic reports");

 

2. Based on myknowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do not containany untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material factnecessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances underwhich such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;

 

3. Based on myknowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and other information required tobe provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this report is includedin the Exchange Act periodic reports;

 

4. Based on myknowledge and the servicer compliance statements required in this report underItem 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Actperiodic reports, the servicers have fulfilled their obligations under theservicing agreements in all material respects; and

 

5. All of the reportson assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securitiesand their related attestation reports on assessment of compliance withservicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included in thisreport in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except asotherwise disclosed in this report. Any material instances of noncompliancedescribed in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.

 

In giving thecertifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me bythe following unaffiliated parties:

 

Midland LoanServices, a Division of PNC Bank, National Association, as Master Servicer,Midland Loan Services, a Division of PNC Bank, National Association, as SpecialServicer, Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as Trustee and CertificateAdministrator, Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as Custodian, ParkBridge Lender Services LLC, as Operating Advisor, and Berkeley Point CapitalLLC d/b/a Newmark Knight Frank, as Primary Servicer.

 

 

 

Dated: March 16, 2020

 

 

/s/ Helaine M. Kaplan

 

 

President

(seniorofficer in charge of securitization of the depositor)
# USACE Vicksburg District signs water system rehabilitation agreement with City of Brandon

VICKSBURG, Miss. – The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Vicksburg District entered into a Project Partnership Agreement (PPA) with the City of Brandon, Mississippi, as part of the Mississippi Environmental Infrastructure Program (Section 592) today.

VICKSBURG, Miss. **–**The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Vicksburg District entered into a Project Partnership Agreement (PPA) with the City of Brandon, Mississippi, as part of the Mississippi Environmental Infrastructure Program (Section 592) today.

The signing ceremony was held at Brandon City Hall. Mayor Butch Lee signed the PPA for the City of Brandon, and Col. Robert Hilliard, Vicksburg District commander, signed for USACE.

“Work on the 592 is so rewarding, because you can see how it directly benefits communities and people,” said Hilliard. “When you think about investing in America’s infrastructure, we’re proud to be a part of this project and how it will help people.”

The City of Brandon’s water system improvements will include the design and construction assistance for a water tower for a total cost of $4.38 million. This cost share agreement is 75% federally funded and 25% non-federally funded.

“The 592 Program is unique to the state of Mississippi. No matter the USACE district the city is in, the Vicksburg District covers the whole state, making us the best partner in the valley,” Hilliard said.

The Section 592 Program provides environmental assistance to non-federal interests in Mississippi. Assistance may be in the form of design and construction assistance for water-related environmental infrastructure and resource protection and development projects in Mississippi. This includes, but is not limited to, projects for wastewater treatment and related facilities, elimination or control of combined sewer overflow, water supply and related facilities, environmental restoration, and surface water resource protection and development. Assistance may be provided only for projects that are publicly owned and the non-federal interest must enter into a written cost share agreement to furnish its required cooperation for the project.

The USACE Vicksburg District is engineering solutions to the nation’s toughest challenges. The Vicksburg District encompasses a 68,000-square-mile area across portions of Mississippi, Arkansas and Louisiana, that holds nine major river basins and incorporates approximately 460 miles of mainline Mississippi River levees. The Vicksburg District is engaged in hundreds of projects and employs approximately 1,100 personnel. 

The USACE Vicksburg District is engineering solutions to the nation’s toughest challenges. The Vicksburg District encompasses a 68,000-square-mile area across portions of Mississippi, Arkansas and Louisiana, that holds nine major river basins and incorporates approximately 460 miles of mainline Mississippi River levees. The Vicksburg District is engaged in hundreds of projects and employs approximately 1,100 personnel.

 

**Contact**

Release no. 22-024

partnerships

Section 592

Brandon MS
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT THOMAS W. SCOTT, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. No. 99-2085 ADT SECURITY SYSTEMS, INCORPORATED, Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (CA-99-572-A) Submitted: December 22, 1999 Decided: February 28, 2000 Before NIEMEYER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________ Affirmed in part and remanded in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________ COUNSEL Thomas W. Scott, Appellant Pro Se. Daniel Warren Whitney, Sr., Kathleen Dick Leslie, WHITNEY & BOGRIS, Towson, Maryland, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________ OPINION PER CURIAM: Thomas W. Scott appeals from the district court's order dismissing without prejudice his complaint against ADT Security Systems, Inc., in which he asserted a claim for breach of contract. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Scott v. ADT Security Sys., Inc. , No. CA-99-572-A (E.D. Va. July 30, 1999). Scott also challenges the district court's ruling that his motion for Rule 11 1 sanctions would be moot in light of the dismissal of the action. The district court's ruling effectively barred Scott from filing the motion. A federal court may consider collateral issues, such as a Rule 11 motion, after the entry of a final order. See Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp. , 496 U.S. 384, 396 (1990). Therefore, the district court's dismissal of the case would not moot the motion for sanctions. Accordingly, we affirm the dismissal of the action but remand to the district court to allow Scott to file his motion for sanctions. 2 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 IN PART AND REMANDED IN PART

_________________________________________________________________ 1 Fed. R. Civ. P. 11. 2 We express no opinion as to whether sanctions are warranted.
2
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 192 (Tuesday, October 5, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 61506]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-25012]



[[Page 61506]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention


Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP)

    In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory 
Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), the Centers for Disease Control and 
Prevention (CDC), announces the following meeting of the aforementioned 
committee:
    Times and Dates: 8 a.m.-6 p.m., October 27, 2010; 8 a.m.-5 p.m., 
October 28, 2010.
    Place: CDC, Tom Harkin Global Communications Center, 1600 Clifton 
Road, NE., Building 19, Kent ``Oz'' Nelson Auditorium, Atlanta, Georgia 
30333.
    Status: Open to the public, limited only by the space available.
    Purpose: The committee is charged with advising the Director, CDC, 
on the appropriate uses of immunizing agents. In addition, under 42 
U.S.C. 1396s, the committee is mandated to establish and periodically 
review and, as appropriate, revise the list of vaccines for 
administration to vaccine-eligible children through the Vaccines for 
Children (VFC) program, along with schedules regarding the appropriate 
periodicity, dosage, and contraindications applicable to the vaccines.
    Matters To Be Discussed: The agenda will include discussions on: 
Evidence based recommendations; Human Papillomavirus (HPV) vaccines; 
Meningococcal vaccine; Hepatitis vaccines; vaccine supply update; RSV 
Immunoprophylaxis; Rotavirus vaccines; Pertussis vaccine; Influenza 
vaccines; the 2011 Immunization Schedule for adults, children & 
adolescents; and the Herpes Zoster vaccine. Agenda items are subject to 
change as priorities dictate.
    Contact Person for More Information: Leola Mitchell, National 
Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, CDC, 1600 Clifton 
Road, NE., Mailstop E-05, Atlanta, Georgia 30333, Telephone (404) 639-
8836, Fax (404) 639-8905. The Director, Management Analysis and 
Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign Federal 
Register notices pertaining to announcements of meetings and other 
committee management activities for both the CDC and Agency for Toxic 
Substances and Disease Registry.

    Dated: September 27, 2010.
Elaine Baker,
Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, Centers for Disease 
Control and Prevention.
[FR Doc. 2010-25012 Filed 10-4-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-18-P
### T E X A S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S , T H I R D D I S T R I C T , A T A U S T I N

NO. 03-15-00006- CV

F ederal Nat ional Mortgage A ssociation, App ellant
v. Ge rald R. Hadd ox and S haron Had dox, App ellees

F ROM TH E CO UNTY COURT AT LAW NO . 2 O F TRAVIS CO UNTY NO. C-1 -CV- 14- 0050 24, H ONO RAB LE J. DAVID P HI LLIP S, JUDGE P RESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N
On J anuar

y 5, 2015, appellant filed its notice of appea l. On Marc h 4, the trial court cler k provided us with a copy of appellant’ s letter stating, “Please be advised we are dismiss ing the appea l” due to the trial court’s g ranting of appellant’ s motion for new trial. The trial court cler k also provided a copy of the trial court’s order
. Appellant has not filed a motion to dismiss its a ppeal as promised. Howeve r, we will take notice of the trial court’s order g ranting appellant’ s motio n for new tria l. Once the trial court g rante d the motion for ne w trial, the fina l and appe alable judg ment
was es s enti ally wiped awa y . See W ilkins v. Methodist Health Care Sys. , 160 S.W .3d 559, 563 (T ex. 2005). There is there fore nothing over which we may exercise appellate jurisdiction. We dismiss the appe al for w ant of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P . 42.3(a)
.__________________________________________ David Pury ear , J ustice Be fore J ustices Pury ear , Pemberton, and B ourland Dismissed for Want of J urisdiction Filed: May

8, 2015

2
# Sitemap

## May 21, 2011

- Home
- Sitemap
- 2011
- 05
- May 21, 2011

            - All in a Day’s Work
# Sitemap

## January 2020

- Home
- Sitemap
- 2020
- January 2020

            - 02
            - 03
            - 04
            - 05
            - 06
            - 07
            - 08
            - 09
            - 10
            - 11
            - 12
            - 13
            - 14
            - 15
            - 16
            - 17
            - 19
            - 20
            - 21
            - 22
            - 23
            - 24
            - 27
            - 28
            - 29
            - 30
            - 31
**EXHIBIT 35.1**

** **

**World Omni Financial Corp.**

**Servicer Compliance Statement**

**Pursuant to Item 1123**

**of Regulation AB**

** **

I, William J. Shope, dohereby certify that I am the Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of World Omni Financial Corp., a Florida corporation, andfurther certify on behalf of World Omni Financial Corp. in its capacity as servicer (the “Servicer”) under the ExchangeNote Servicing Supplement 2014-A to Closed-End Servicing Agreement, dated as of September 17, 2014 (the “Exchange Note ServicingSupplement”), among AL Holding Corp., as Closed-End Collateral Agent, World Omni LT, as Titling Trust, and the Servicer,as follows:

 

(i)            A review of theactivities of the Servicer during the period covered by the issuing entity’s Annual Report on form 10-K and covered by theExchange Note Servicing Supplement and the Closed-End Servicing Agreement (as defined in the Exchange Note Servicing Supplement)for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015 (the “Reporting Period”), and of its performance under the Exchange NoteServicing Supplement and the Closed-End Servicing Agreement (as defined in the Exchange Note Servicing Supplement), has been madeunder my supervision.

 

(ii)            To the best ofmy knowledge, based on the review described above, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Exchange Note ServicingSupplement and the Closed-End Servicing Agreement (as defined in the Exchange Note Servicing Supplement) in all material respectsthroughout the Reporting Period.

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereuntoset my hand as of March 11, 2016.
IV 

115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 1141 

Commemorating and acknowledging veteran-owned small businesses. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 9, 2018 

Mr. SCHNEIDER (for himself, Mr. FITZPATRICK, and Ms. VELA ́ZQUEZ) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on 

Veterans’ Affairs, and in addition to the Committee on Small Business, 

for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case 

for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the 

committee concerned 

RESOLUTION 

Commemorating and acknowledging veteran-owned small 

businesses. 

Whereas members and veterans of the Armed Forces of the 

United States develop a wide array of skills during their 

time of service that support entrepreneurship; 

Whereas many veterans build on their experience in the 

Armed Forces to start their own business after leaving 

active service; 

Whereas veterans form a vital part of the United States labor 

force, and firms that hire veterans benefit from their diverse set of skills; 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 1141 IH 

Whereas more than one in five veterans surveyed have purchased a business, started their own business, or considered doing so; 

Whereas there are more than 2,500,000 veteran-owned businesses in the United States, representing more than 9 

percent of all United States firms; 

Whereas veteran-owned businesses employ more than 

5,000,000 people and generate an annual payroll of 

$195,000,000,000; 

Whereas veteran-owned businesses generate more than 

$1,140,000,000,000 in annual sales; and 

Whereas the Small Business Administration, through its 

Boots to Business program, has trained more than 

30,000 service members, veterans, and their spouses on 

launching their own small business: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 

2 (1) honors and recognizes veterans for their 

3 service to the United States; and 

4 (2) celebrates the entrepreneurial spirit and 

5 work of veteran small business owners. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-11-00613-CR

The STATE of Texas,

Appellant

v.

Refugio Angel LOZANO,

Appellee

From the 229th Judicial District Court, Starr County, Texas

Trial Court No. 04-CRS-78

Honorable Ana Lisa Garza, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice

Karen Angelini, Justice

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Delivered and Filed: September 21, 2011

DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION

This is an attempted appeal by the State of Texas from a trial court order granting 

appellee Refugio Angel Lozano’s writ of habeas corpus. The order from which the State 

attempts to appeal was signed July 8, 2011. Accordingly, the State’s notice of appeal was due on 

or before July 28, 2011, twenty days from the date the order was signed. See TEX. R. APP. P.

26.2(b); TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 44.01(d) (West Supp. 2010). However, the State did not 

file its notice of appeal until July 29, 2011. Moreover, the State did not timely file a motion to 
04-11-00613-CR

- 2 -

extend time to file the notice of appeal, which would have been due on August 12, 2011. See

TEX. R. APP. P. 26.3. 

Because the notice of appeal appeared to be untimely, on August 29, 2011, we issued a 

show cause order requiring the State to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed for 

lack of jurisdiction. The State filed a response on September 8, 2011. In its response, the State 

admits it filed the notice of appeal on July 29, 2011, but claims it was timely pursuant to the 

rules governing the computation of time for deadlines. We disagree. 

Although we agree with the State that when computing time for purposes of filing 

deadlines, the day the order is signed is not included, but the last day of the relevant time period 

is included. See TEX. R. APP. P. 4.1(a). Accordingly, in this case, in computing the twenty day 

deadline for the State’s notice of appeal, we would not include July 8th, the date the trial court’s 

signed the order, but we would include the 20th day. Excluding July 8th, but including the 20th

day thereafter results in the notice of appeal being due July 28, 2011, not July 29, 2011, as 

asserted by the State. Given the State’s admission that its notice of appeal was filed July 29th, 

and considering the twenty-day deadline and the rules for computing time, we hold the State’s 

notice of appeal was one day late. 

This court does not have jurisdiction to consider an appeal that was not timely filed. See

Olivo v. State, 918 S.W.2d 519, 522 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996). Therefore, because the State’s 

notice of appeal was untimely, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 

PER CURIAM

Do Not Publish