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NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MARY L. BECKNER, individually, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

RECONTRUST COMPANY, 

Defendant-Appellee.

No. 12-56945 

D.C. No. 2:12-cv-03379-GHKFFM 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

George H. King, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted February 13, 2018**

Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges. 

This matter has been stayed since February 2, 2015, pending issuance of the 

mandate in Ho v. ReconTrust Co., N.A., No. 10-56884, or further order of the 

court. We hereby lift the stay.

Mary L. Beckner appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment

 

* 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

FEB 26 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 12-56945 

dismissing her action alleging Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”) and 

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

novo a dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state 

a claim, and we may affirm on any ground supported by the record. Kwan v. 

SanMedica Int’l, 854 F.3d 1088, 1093 (9th Cir. 2017). We affirm.

Dismissal of Beckner’s FDCPA claims was proper because the alleged 

communications were not attempts to collect a “debt” as defined by the FDCPA. 

See Ho v. ReconTrust Co., 858 F.3d 568, 572 (9th Cir. 2017) (“[A]ctions taken to 

facilitate a non-judicial foreclosure . . . are not attempts to collect ‘debt’ as that 

term is defined by the FDCPA.”); see also Dowers v. Nationstar Mortg., LLC, 852 

F.3d 964, 970 (9th Cir. 2017) (explaining that “the FDCPA regulates security 

interest enforcement activity . . . only through Section 1692f(6),” and that “[a]s for 

the remaining FDCPA provisions, ‘debt collection’ refers only to the collection of 

a money debt”). 

Dismissal of Beckner’s FDCPA claim under 15 U.S.C. § 1692f(6) was 

proper because Beckner failed to allege facts sufficient to show that ReconTrust 

Company’s conduct was unfair or unconscionable. See 15 U.S.C. § 1692f(6); Ho, 

858 F.3d at 572-73 (determining that 15 U.S.C. § 1692f(6) protects a consumer 
3 12-56945 

against abusive practices of a security enforcer); Dowers, 852 F.3d at 971 

(discussing protections for borrowers under § 1692f(6)).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by ruling on ReconTrust 

Company’s motion to dismiss without oral argument. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b);

C.D. Cal. Civ. R. 7-15; Carpinteria Valley Farms, Ltd. v. County of Santa 

Barbara, 344 F.3d 822, 832 n.6 (9th Cir. 2003) (“The district court was within its 

discretion to dispense with oral argument.” (citations omitted)). 

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

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

Beckner’s request to take judicial notice (Docket Entry No. 16) is denied.

AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 35
                                   ----------


                       COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING LP


                              OFFICERS' CERTIFICATE
                     ANNUAL STATEMENT OF THE MASTER SERVICER


                                   CWALT, INC.
                          ALTERNATIVE LOAN TRUST 2007-6
                MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2007-6


         The undersigned does hereby certify that the undersigned is an officer
of Countrywide GP, Inc., general partner of Countrywide Home Loans Servicing LP
(the "Master Servicer"), and does hereby further certify pursuant to Section
3.16 of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement for the above-captioned Series (the
"Agreement") that:

(i)   A review of the activities of the Master Servicer during the preceding
calendar year and of the performance of the Master Servicer under the Agreement
has been made under my supervision; and

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




/s/ Craig Baingo                                    Dated: March 14, 2008
-----------------

Craig Baingo
Executive Vice President, Finance
<PAGE>
================================================================================

                       SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
                             Washington, D.C. 20549

                                    FORM 6-K

                        Report of Foreign Private Issuer

                        PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-16 OR 15d-16
                     OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

                                January 31, 2005

                         Commission File Number: 0-22346

                                 HOLLINGER INC.
                 -----------------------------------------------
                 (Translation of registrant's name into English)

                                10 TORONTO STREET
                            TORONTO, ONTARIO M5C 2B7
                                     CANADA
                    ----------------------------------------
                    (Address of principal executive offices)

      Indicate by check mark whether the registrant files or will file annual
reports under cover Form 20-F or Form 40-F.

                   Form 20-F [X]              Form 40-F [ ]

      Indicate by check mark if the registrant is submitting the Form 6-K in
paper as permitted by Regulation S-T Rule 101(b)(1): ____

      Indicate by check mark if the registrant is submitting the Form 6-K in
paper as permitted by Regulation S-T Rule 101(b)(7): ____

      Indicate by check mark whether by furnishing the information contained in
this Form, the registrant is also thereby furnishing the information to the
Commission pursuant to Rule 12g3-2(b) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

                   Yes [ ]                           No [X]

      If "Yes" is marked, indicate below the file number assigned to the
registrant in connection with Rule 12g3-2(b): 82- ________

================================================================================
<PAGE>

                                  EXHIBIT LIST


Exhibit     Description
-------     -----------

99.1        Press Release, dated January 28, 2005, regarding Hollinger
            International Declares Second Special Dividend.


<PAGE>

                                   SIGNATURES

Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the
registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the
undersigned, thereunto duly authorized.

Date:  January 31, 2005

                                       HOLLINGER INC.

                                       By   /s/ Donald M. J. Vale
                                            ------------------------------------
                                            Name:   Donald M. J. Vale
                                            Title:  President
EX-35.1
TMST 2007-1

SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT (ITEM 1123)

Cenlar FSB

The undersigned, a duly authorized officer of Cenlar FSB, as servicer (the
"Servicer") pursuant to the applicable servicing agreement, does hereby certify
that:

1. A review of the Servicer's activities during the period from and including
January 1, 2007 through and including December 31, 2007 and of the Servicer's
performance under the applicable servicing agreement has been made under my
supervision.

2. To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has
fulfilled all of its obligations under the applicable servicing agreement in
all material respects throughout such period.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has duly executed this Certificate this
22nd day of February 2008.



By: /s/ Jeanne M. Bader
Name: Jeanne M. Bader
Title: Senior Vice President
Director of Loan Administration
EX-35.3
(logo) HSBC


SERVICER COMPLIANCE CERTIFICATE
PURSUANT TO ITEM 1123 OF REGULATION AB UNDER THE
SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

Re: GSAA 2007-2 (352 Step-1)

I, Michael T. Stilb, Senior Vice President of HSBC Mortgage Corp. (USA) (the
"Company"), pursuant to Item 1123 of Regulation AB under the Securities Act of
1934, as pursuant to the Amended and Restated Purchase, Warranties and Servicing
Agreement, dated as of December 1, 2006 between Goldman Sachs Mortgage Company,
as Purchaser and HSBC Mortgage Corp. (USA), hereby certify that:

1. A review of the activities of the Company from February 23, 2007 through
   December 31, 2007 and of its performance under the Agreement has been made
   under my supervision; and

2. To the best of my knowledge, based on my review, the Company has fulfilled
   all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects
   throughout the reporting period referred to above except as set forth below:

NONE

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have signed this certificate on behalf of the Company this
29th day of February, 2008.

HSBC Mortgage Corporation (USA)

By: /S/ Michael T. Stilb
Name: Michael T. Stilb
Title: Senior Vice President


HSBC Mortgage Corporation (USA)
2929 Walden Avenue, Depew, NY 14043

(logo) EQUAL HOUSING
       LENDER


(page)


(logo) HSBC


SERVICER COMPLIANCE CERTIFICATE
PURSUANT TO ITEM 1123 OF REGULATION AB UNDER THE
SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

Re: GSAA 2007-2 (352-Step 2)

I, Michael T. Stilb, Senior Vice President of HSBC Mortgage Corp. (USA) (the
"Company"), pursuant to Item 1123 of Regulation AB under the Securities Act of
1934, as pursuant to the Amended and Restated Purchase, Warranties and Servicing
Agreement, dated as of December 1, 2006 between Goldman Sachs Mortgage Company,
as Purchaser and HSBC Mortgage Corp. (USA), hereby certify that:

1. A review of the activities of the Company from February 23, 2007through
   December 31, 2007 and of its performance under the Agreement has been made
   under my supervision; and

2. To the best of my knowledge, based on my review, the Company has fulfilled
   all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects
   throughout the reporting period referred to above except as set forth below:

NONE

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have signed this certificate on behalf of the Company this
29th day of February, 2008.

HSBC Mortgage Corporation (USA)

By: /s/ Michael T. Stilb
Name: Michael T. Stilb
Title: Senior Vice President


HSBC Mortgage Corporation (USA)
2929 Walden Avenue, Depew, NY 14043

(logo) EQUAL HOUSING
       LENDER
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20
- 7103

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. CARMEN JOHNSON , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland , at Greenbelt

. George Jarrod Hazel , District Judge. ( 8:14

- cr - 00352

- GJH

- 1; 8:18

- cv - 03461

- GJH )

Submitted : December 11 , 2020 Decided: December 22, 2020

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and WYNN and RUSHING , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Andrew Brooks Greenlee, ANDREW B. GREENLEE, P.A., Sanford, Florida, for Appellant. Dwight John Draughon, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, O FFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Carmen Johnson appeals the district court’s order denying h er 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion and petition for a writ of error coram nobis. * We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Johnson , No s . 8:14

- cr - 00352

- GJH

- 1, 8:18

- cv - 03461

- GJH (D. Md. filed June 16, 2020 ; entered June 17, 2020 ) . We dispense 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

* Johnson does not challenge that portion of the district court’s order denying her § 2255 motion and, thus, she need not obtain a certificate of appealabil i ty from this court.
#### Hill v. Hill

Case below: 181 N.C. App. 69

No. 138P06-2

1. Pit’s Notice of Appeal Based Upon a Constitutional Question (COA06-331)

2. Pit’s PDR Under N.C.G.S. § 7A-31

3. Defs’ Notice of Appeal Based Upon a Constitutional Question

4. Pit’s Motion for Sanctions and Notice Regarding the Dependency of Federal Bankruptcy Court Proceedings on Ruling in 138P06-2

1. Dismissed *ex mero motu*06/27/07

2. Denied 06/27/07

3. Dismissed *ex mero motu*06/27/07

4. Denied 06/27/07

Martin, J., Recused Timmons-Goodson, J., Recused
#### In re: GRAND JURY SUBPOENA TO Mustafa JANAN. Mustafa Janan, Witness—Appellant, v. United States of America, Appellee.

No. 08-55425.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Feb. 4, 2009.*

Filed April 30, 2009.

*552Randall Hamud, Esquire, Law Offices of Randall B. Hamud, San Diego, CA, for Witness-Appellant.

Michael G. Wheat, Assistant U.S. Sabrina Laurence Feve, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Appellee.

Before: PREGERSON, GRABER, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Mustafa Janan (“Janan”) appeals a district court order holding him in contempt for his refusal to provide voice exemplars in accordance with a grand jury subpoena. The parties are familiar with the facts of this case, which we repeat here only to the extent necessary to explain our decision. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1826 and 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We apply contract principles to the interpretation of a proffer agreement and review de novo alleged violations of a proffer agreement. *United States v. Chiu,*109 F.3d 624, 625 (9th Cir.1997). We affirm.

The proffer agreement (“the Agreement”) between Janan and the U.S. Attorney is not ambiguous. The Agreement explicitly states that the government is precluded from directly offering Janan’s statements against him only in its case-in-chief. We have held that similarly worded agreements confer only direct use immunity. *Id.*at 626. Janan’s attempt to distinguish *Chiu*on the ground that Janan is a witness, rather than a defendant, is not persuasive. As in *Chiu,*the government here has not used Janan’s statements against him in its case-in-chief.

We reject Janan’s invitation to adopt an expansive definition of the term “case-in chief.” In *Chiu,*we held that a government’s use of proffer statements to prepare a witness for trial did not constitute use during the case-in-chief. *Id.*The term “case-in-chief’ refers only to “[t]he evidence presented at trial by a party between the time the party calls the first witness and the time the party rests” or “[t]he part of a trial in which a party presents evidence to support the claim or defense.” *Black’s Law Dictionary*229 (8th ed.2004). We reject Janan’s suggestion that the term “case-in-chief’ encompasses preliminary proceedings in any action.1 No trial has yet taken place, and therefore no case-in-chief has yet been presented. '

*553Accordingly, the district court’s order is AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.

1

. Because the government has not violated the Agreement, we do not reach the question whether quashing the subpoena is an appropriate remedy for violation of a proffer agreement.
* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

December 29, 2005

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FIFTH CIRCUIT

____________

No. 04-30915

____________

BOYD BAKER; SARAH BAKER; CAMERAS AMERICA LLC,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

versus

HAROLD DEARIE, ET AL,

Defendants,

CANAL INDEMNITY CO.,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 2:03-CV-678-C

Before REAVLEY, GARZA, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

BoydBaker, SarahBaker, andCameras America, L.L.C.(collectively, “Cameras”) appealthe
-2-

district court’ssummary judgment in favor ofCanalIndemnityCompany (“Canal”). Cameras argues

that the district court erred in holding that Canal had no duty to defend Camerasin two state lawsuits,

one in Louisiana and one in Texas. 

At the time of the district court’s summary judgment, a Louisiana district court had held that

Canal had a duty to defend Cameras in the Louisiana litigation. A state appellate court affirmed that

holding before the parties submitted their briefs in this appeal. Subsequent to oral argument in this

appeal, the Louisiana Supreme Court denied Canal’s writ application seeking further review. 

Canal conceded in its brief that the denial of its writ application by the Louisiana Supreme

Court would render the state court’s determination final. It also conceded that such a determination

would have a preclusive effect in this litigation. See Law Offices of Moore & Assocs. v. Aetna Ins.

Co., 902 F.2d 418, 420 (5th Cir. 1990) (“In [a] diversity case, state law determines the preclusive

effect of a priorstate court judgment.” (internal quotation omitted)); LA.REV. STAT. 13:4231(3) (“A

judgment in favor of either the plaintiff or the defendant is conclusive, in any subsequent action

between them, with respect to any issue actually litigated and determined if its determination was

essential to that judgment.”). We therefore reverse the judgment of the district court as to the

Louisiana litigation.

As to the Texas litigation, the district court awarded Canal summary judgment for multiple

reasons, including that the events described in the Texas petition could not be construed as

occurrences under the policy and that the policy’s work product exclusion is applicable. Cameras’s

brief does not address these holdings at all. Its contention that the district court’s judgment should

be reversed as to the Texas litigation is therefore waived for inadequate briefing. See FED. R. APP.

P. 28(a)(9)(A). 
-3-

For the foregoing reasons, we REVERSE the judgment of the district court as it relates to

the Louisiana litigation and REMAND to the district court for further proceedings consistent with

this opinion. We AFFIRM the judgment of the district court as it relates to the Texas litigation.
**Exhibit 31.1**

 

**Certifications**

 

I, Craig D. Crisman, certify that:

 

1.             Ihave reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of BancTec, Inc;

 

2.             Basedon my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statementsmade, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

 

3.             Basedon my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects thefinancial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant asof, and for, the periods presented in this report.

 

4.             Theregistrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishingand maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: 

 

a) Designedsuch disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;

 

b) Evaluatedthe effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation, and

 

c) Disclosedin this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

 

5.             Theregistrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board ofdirectors: 

 

a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in thedesign or operation of internal controls over financial reporting which arereasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record,process, summarize and report financial data; and

 

b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management orother employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting.

 

 
| Date:  November 14, 2003 | /s/ Craig D. Crisman                    |   |
|-------------------------------|-----------------------------------------|--------|
|                          | *Craig D. Crisman*                      |
|                          | *President and Chief Executive Officer* |

 

1

----
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1

                                 HOLLINGER INC.

         Toronto, Canada, June 1, 2004 -- Hollinger Inc. ("Hollinger") (TSX:
HLG.C; HLG.PR.B; HLG.PR.C) announced today that, further to its press release of
May 18, 2004, the temporary order issued by the Ontario Securities Commission
("OSC") at Hollinger's request that prohibits certain current and former
directors, officers and insiders of Hollinger from trading in securities of
Hollinger, except in certain circumstances, has, in accordance with OSC
procedures, been replaced by a permanent order. The permanent management and
insider cease trade order will remain in place until two full business days
following receipt by the OSC of all filings that Hollinger is required to make
pursuant to Ontario securities laws. Hollinger expects that the securities
commissions in certain other provinces will also issue similar orders with
respect to residents of those jurisdictions.

         As previously disclosed, the orders have been issued as a result of the
delay in filing Hollinger's annual and first quarter interim financial
statements (and annual and interim Management's Discussion & Analysis related
thereto) by the required filing dates under applicable Canadian securities laws.

         There has been no material change in the information contained in
Hollinger's May 18, 2004 press release. Hollinger and its auditors are
continuing to explore additional avenues for obtaining the necessary access,
information and co-operation Hollinger requires in order that its financial
statements may be filed as soon as possible.

         Hollinger's principal asset is its approximately 72.3% voting and 29.7%
equity interest in Hollinger International Inc. Hollinger International is a
global newspaper publisher with English-language newspapers in the United
States, Great Britain and Israel. Its assets include The Daily Telegraph, The
Sunday Telegraph and The Spectator and Apollo magazines in Great Britain, the
Chicago Sun-Times and a large number of community newspapers in the Chicago
area, The Jerusalem Post and The International Jerusalem Post in Israel, a
portfolio of new media investments and a variety of other assets.


Media contact:                             For more information, please contact:
Jim Badenhausen                            Fred A. Creasey
646-805-2006                               416-363-8721

                              www.hollingerinc.com