alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPI RES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT

JOSEPH SERRA, MICHELLE SERRA, ) MICHAEL SERRA, and JOHN A. ) SHAHAN, ) ) Appellants, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D15-593 ) MARY BROWN, ) ) Appellee. ) ) Opinion filed June 3, 2016. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Pasco County; William H. Burgess, III, Judge. John A. Shahan, Tarpon Springs, for Appellants. Knute J. Nathe of McClain, Alfonso & Meeker, P.A., Dade City, for Appellee.

LaROSE, Judge.

Joseph Serra, Michelle Serra, Michael Serra, and their counsel, John Shahan, appeal the trial court's final order awarding attorney' s fees to Mary Brown pursuant to section 57.105(1), Florida Statutes (2014). The order on appeal contains no fi ndings required under section 57.105 to support the award. Consequently , we must reverse. See Dep't o f Revenue v.- 2 - Marchines, 974 So. 2d 1085, 1088 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007); Goldberg v . Watts, 864 So. 2d 59, 60 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003); Mason v. Highlands Cty. Comm'rs, 817 So. 2d 922, 923 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002). We render no view as to the underlying merits of the fee award. We only hold that the record before us and the order on appeal are insu fficient to support imposition of a section 57.105 sa nction. We therefore reverse the order and remand with directions for the trial court to make appropriate finding s of fact to justify the award of attorney’s fees.

Reversed and remanded with directions.

NORTHCUTT and KELLY, JJ., Concur.
appellant challenges the district court's rejection of his counterclaim. See 

Consol. Generator-Neu., Inc. v. Cummins Engine Co., 114 Nev. 1304, 1312, 

971 P.2d 1251, 1256 (1998) (recognizing that a party may challenge 

interlocutory orders entered before a final judgment in an appeal from the 

final judgment). 

Turning to the merits of appellant's challenge to the rejection 

of his counterclaims, having considered appellant's civil proper person 

appeal statement and the record on appeal, we affirm the district court's 

denial of his motion to submit a counterclaim, as appellant's proposed 

counterclaim failed to state a cognizable claim against respondent. 1 Cf. 

Halcrow, Inc. v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 129 Nev. „ 302 P.3d 

1148, 1152 (2013) (explaining that leave to amend a complaint should be 

denied if the proposed amendment would be futile because it attempts to 

plead an impermissible claim); Buzz Stew, LLC v. City of N. Las Vegas, 

124 Nev. 224, 228, 181 P.3d 670, 672 (2008) (providing that a complaint 

should be dismissed "if it appears beyond a doubt that [the plaintiff] could 

prove no set of facts, which, if true, would entitle [him or her] to relief). 

It is so ORDERED. 

Parraguirre 1S4ekr. 

J. 

'Although the district court denied appellant's motion to submit a 

counterclaim on the ground that no such motion was available to 

appellant, we may affirm the district court's order if it reached the correct 

result, albeit for a different reason. See Butler ex rel. Biller v. Bayer, 123 

Nev. 450, 460 n.22, 168 P.3d 1055, 1063 n.22 (2007). 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 2 

(0) 1947A 
cc: Hon. James Todd Russell, District Judge 

John Michael Foster 

Steven J. Klearman & Associates 

Carson City Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 3 

(0) 1947A me
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 300 Introduced in House (IH)]

105th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 300

  Expressing Support for a National Week of Reflection and Tolerance.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            October 31, 1997

   Mr. Rangel (for himself, Mrs. Maloney of New York, Mr. Stark, Ms. 
Carson, Mr. Abercrombie, Mr. Frost, Mr. Faleomavaega, Ms. Lofgren, Mr. 
 Coyne, Mrs. Thurman, Ms. Christian-Green, Mr. Dellums, Mr. Cummings, 
Mr. Clay, Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas, Mrs. Meek of Florida, Mr. 
   Stokes, Mr. Scott, Mr. Rush, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Flake, Ms. Furse, Mr. 
 Engel, Mr. Jefferson, Mrs. Clayton, Mr. Payne, Mr. McGovern, and Mr. 
 Torres) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 
              Committee on Government Reform and Oversight

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
  Expressing Support for a National Week of Reflection and Tolerance.

Whereas America is a pluralistic country comprised of different races, genders, 
        ethnic groups, religions, and creeds;
Whereas our Nation, founded on the principles of tolerance, diversity, justice, 
        and equality, should affirm these common values and principles; and
Whereas Americans should reflect on the importance of understanding and 
        tolerance in our pluralistic country: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That a National Week of Reflection and Tolerance should 
be established encouraging communities and institutions around the 
Nation to engage in events and activities that are reflective, 
educational, celebratory, and healing as they relate to diversity among 
Americans.
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT 31

CERTIFICATION TO BE PROVIDED BY
NEW CENTURY MORTGAGE SECURITIES, INC
WITH FORM 10K

Certification

              1.	I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K, and all
reports on Form 8-K containing distribution or servicing reports filed in
respect of periods included in the year covered by this annual report, of
New Century Home Equity Loan Trust 2004-1, Asset Backed Notes, Series 2004-1;

              2.	Based on my knowledge, the information in these reports,
taken as a whole, 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 as
of the last day of the period covered by this annual report;

              3.	Based on my knowledge, the distribution or servicing
information required to be provided to the trustee by the servicer under the
pooling and servicing, or similar, agreement, for inclusion in these reports
is included in these reports;

              4.	Based on my knowledge and upon the annual compliance
statement included in the report and required to be delivered to the trustee
in accordance with the terms of the pooling and servicing, or similar,
agreement, and except as disclosed in the reports, the servicer has
fulfilled its obligations under the servicing agreement; and

              5.	The reports disclose all significant deficiencies relating
to the servicer's compliance with the minimum servicing standards based upon
the report provided by an independent public accountant, after conducting a
review in compliance with the Uniform Single Attestation Program for
Mortgage Bankers or similar procedure, as set forth in the pooling and
servicing, or similar, agreement, that is included in these reports.

              In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied
on information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties:
Deutsche Bank National Trust Company.


                                           NEW CENTURY MORTGAGE SECURITIES, INC.

                                           By: /s/: Kevin Cloyd
                                           Name: Kevin Cloyd
                                           Title: Executive Vice President
                                           Date: March 28, 2005
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 99.2







INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS' REPORT

To the Board of Directors
Navistar Financial Retail Receivables Corporation:

We have examined management's assertion that Navistar Financial Corporation (the
"Company") has complied as of and for the year ended October 31, 2004, with its
established minimum servicing standards described in the accompanying
Management's Assertion Concerning Compliance dated January 31, 2005, for the
servicing of the receivables for the Navistar Financial 2003-B Owner Trust. The
Company's management is responsible for compliance with those minimum servicing
standards. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on management's assertion
about the Company's compliance based on our examination.

Our examination was conducted in accordance with attestation standards
established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants and,
accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Company's
compliance with its minimum servicing standards and performing such other
procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. We believe that our
examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our examination does
not provide a legal determination on the Company's compliance with its minimum
servicing standards.

Our examination disclosed the following material noncompliance with the
Company's minimum servicing standards. The Company was noncompliant with the
requirement that custodial bank accounts and related bank clearing accounts are
reconciled within 45 days after the cutoff date as specified in item I.1.b in
the minimum servicing standards.

In our opinion, except for the noncompliance described in the preceding
paragraph, management's assertion that the Company complied with the
aforementioned minimum servicing standards as of and for the year ended October
31, 2004 is fairly stated, in all material respects based on the criteria set
forth in Appendix I.



/s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP
    Deloitte & Touche LLP
    Chicago, IL


January 31, 2005
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"NASA","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/nasamigrate\/","title":"Alan: My everyday extraordinary is managing instruments for the largest airborne observatory in the world","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"Tn6d97av9T\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/people-of-nasa\/alan-my-everyday-extraordinary-is-managing-instruments-for-the-largest-airborne-observatory-in-the-world\/\">Alan: My everyday extraordinary is managing instruments for the largest airborne observatory in the world<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/people-of-nasa\/alan-my-everyday-extraordinary-is-managing-instruments-for-the-largest-airborne-observatory-in-the-world\/embed\/#?secret=Tn6d97av9T\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Alan: My everyday extraordinary is managing instruments for the largest airborne observatory in the world” — NASA\" data-secret=\"Tn6d97av9T\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","thumbnail_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/12\/alan_rhodes_-_pic_0.jpg?w=320","thumbnail_width":320,"thumbnail_height":390}
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                    23,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     43,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               371,403
<PP&E>                                          47,243
<DEPRECIATION>                                 415,827
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 371,177
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     50,902
<COMMON>                                       (6,252)
<OTHER-SE>                                     415,827
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   649,136
<SALES>                                        415,827
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               649,136
<CGS>                                          649,136
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             2,728,406
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              12,253
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (2,091,523)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (2,091,523)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (2,091,523)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.04)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.04)


</TABLE>
9905.

#### Crane *v.*Smith.

Decided October 15, 1918.

Action on contract; from city court of Atlanta—Judge Reid. May 10,1918.,

*Munday & Gornwell, James K. Hines,*for plaintiff.

*Rosser, Slaton, Phillips & Hoplcins,*for defendant.

Luke, J.

Where a petition was attacked by demurrer upon the ground that causes of action ex contractu and ex delicto were joined^ therein, and the court, on hearing the demurrer, rendered a judgment “that there be stricken both, from the amendment and the original petition all allegations seeking to recover upon grounds ex delicto, and the special demurrers complaining as to the general damages be and the same are hereby sustained,” and there was no exception to the judgment, it became the law of the case. And where, at a subsequent term of the court, the plaintiff announced in open court that he did not insist on damages ex contractu, but insisted on damages ex delicto, arising out of a breach of the contract, it was not error for the court to sustain a demurrer and dismiss the petition as amended. See *Colquitt*v. *Georgia Railway Power Co.,*146 *Ga.*249 (91 S. E. 70).

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Wade, C. J., and Jenhins, J., concur.*
* 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. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED February 23, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-41598 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus ELIAS GOMEZ-ROMERO, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 5:04-CR-821-ALL

-------------------- Before KING, GARWOOD, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Having pleaded guilty, Elias Gomez-Romero (Gomez) appeals his conviction and 63-month sentence for being illegally present in the United States following deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Gomez’s constitutional challenge to 8 U.S.C. § 1326 is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998). Although Gomez contends that Almendarez-Torres was incorrectly decided and that a majority of the Supreme CourtNo. 04-41598 -2- would overrule Almendarez-Torres in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466 (2000), we have repeatedly rejected such arguments on the basis that Almendarez-Torres remains binding.
See United States v. Garza-Lopez , 410 F.3d 268, 276 (5th Cir.), cert. denied , 126 S. Ct. 298 (2005). Gomez properly concedes that his argument is foreclosed in light of Almendarez-Torres and circuit precedent, but he raises it here to preserve it for further review. Accordingly, Gomez’s conviction is affirmed. Gomez contends that his sentence must be vacated because he was sentenced pursuant to mandatory Sentencing Guidelines that were held unconstitutional in United States v. Booker , 543 U.S. 220 (2005). Although Gomez asserts that the error in his case is structural and not susceptible of harmless error analysis, we have previously rejected this specific argument. See United States v. Walters , 418 F.3d 461, 463 (5th Cir. 2005). In the alternative, Gomez contends that the Government cannot show that the sentencing error was harmless. We review Gomez’s preserved challenge to his sentence for harmless error under F ED . R. C RIM . P. 52(a). See Walters , 418 F.3d at 463. The district court sentenced Gomez to the lowest sentence in the relevant guidelines sentencing range. The record does not indicate, and the Government has not shown, that the district court would have imposed the same sentence under an advisory guidelines regime. See United States v. Garza , 429 F.3d 165, 170-71 (5th Cir. 2005) . Accordingly, we vacate Gomez’s sentenceNo. 04-41598 -3- and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
CONVICTION AFFIRMED IN PART; SENTENCE VACATED; REMANDED.
No. D-667.

#### In re Disbarment of Smith.

It is ordered that Francis X. Smith, of Long Island City, N. Y., be suspended from the practice of law in this Court and that a rule issue, returnable within 40 days, requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.
Exhibit 99.2











Independent Accountant’s Report











Structured Products Corp., as Depositor


390 Greenwich Street


New York, New York 10013





U.S. Bank Trust National Association, as Trustee


Corporate Trust Department


100 Wall Street


New York, NY 10005





Re:           CorTS Trust III for Verizon Global Funding Notes (the “Trust”)





Ladies and Gentlemen:





We have examined management’s assertions that the Depositor and the Trustee have complied, in all material respects, with the provisions of the Base Trust Agreement dated as of December 15, 2000, as supplemented by the CorTS Trust III for Verizon Global Funding Notes Series Supplement, dated as of April 26, 2004 (together, the “Trust Agreement”), during the period covered by the annual report on Form 10-K filed by the Depositor on behalf of the Trust for the year ended December 31, 2011 (the “Annual Report”).  Management is responsible for compliance with the Trust Agreement. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on management’s assertions based on our examination.





Our examination was made in accordance with standards established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants and, accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Depositor’s and the Trustee’s compliance with the Trust Agreement and performing such other procedures as considered necessary in the circumstances.  We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion.





In our opinion, the Depositor and the Trustee have complied, in all material respects, with the Trust Agreement during the period covered by the Annual Report and management’s assertions with respect to such compliance are fairly stated, in all material respects, for the year ended December 31, 2011.








/s/ Aston Bell CPA





New York, New York


March 16, 2012
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

United States of America, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Devan Edward Leonard, 

Defendant.

No. CR-15-8138-02-PCT-SRB

DETENTION ORDER 

 In accordance with the Bail Reform Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f), the issue of 

detention was addressed at a hearing on December 17, 2015. The Court was informed 

that the defendant is subject to other custody and is not eligible for release at this time. 

 The Court finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant is subject to 

other custody and should be similarly detained in this case. If circumstances change such 

that defendant is no longer in custody in the other matter, defendant shall have leave to 

request that the matter of detention be reopened in this case. 

 IT IS ORDERED that the defendant be detained pending further proceedings. The 

defendant is committed to the custody of the Attorney General or his designated 

representative for confinement in a corrections facility separate, to the extent practicable, 

from persons awaiting or serving sentences or being held in custody pending appeal. The 

defendant shall be afforded a reasonable opportunity for private consultation with defense 

counsel. On order of the Court of the United States or on request of an attorney for the 

government, the person in charge of the corrections facility shall deliver the defendant to 

Case 3:15-cr-08138-SRB Document 33 Filed 12/21/15 Page 1 of 2
- 2 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

the United States Marshal for the purpose of an appearance in connection with a Court 

proceeding. 

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that should a motion for review/reconsideration of 

this detention order be filed, it is counsel's responsibility to deliver a copy of the motion 

for review/reconsideration to Pretrial Services at least one day prior to the hearing. 

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if a release to a third party is to be considered, it 

is counsel's responsibility to notify Pretrial Services sufficiently in advance of the hearing 

to allow Pretrial Services an opportunity to interview and investigate the potential third 

party custodian. 

 Dated this 18th day of December, 2015. 

Case 3:15-cr-08138-SRB Document 33 Filed 12/21/15 Page 2 of 2