alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h
Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk January 22, 2010

0114 

# Order

January 22, 2010

139787

ELIZABETH A. BANASZAK, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 139787 COA: 263305 Wayne CC: 02-200211-NO NORTHWEST AIRLINES, INC., Defendant-Appellant, and

OTIS ELEVATOR COMPANY, COUNTY OF WAYNE, and HUNT CONSTRUCTION GROUP, INC., Defendants.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the July 21, 2009 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered and, pursuant to MCR 7.302(H)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we REVERS E in part the decision of the Court of Appeals and we REINSTATE the ruling of the Wayne Circuit Court granting summary disposition to defendant Northwest Airlines, In c. on the plaintiff’s premises liability claim. The Court of Appeals erred by rein stating the premises liability claim in this construction site injury case. Ordinarily a landowner is not responsible for injuries caused by a carefully selected contractor to whom he has de legated the task of erecting a

structure. Funk v General Motors Corp, 392 Mich 91 , 101 (1974). Northwest Airlines, as controller of the premises, did not have a duty to protect the plai ntiff, an employee of an independent contractor hired to perform construction work on the owner’s premises,
from the construction site hazardous conditio n that caused the plaintiff’s injury. Perkoviq v Delcor Homes-Lake Shore Pointe, Ltd, 466 Mich 11, 18-20 (20 02). On remand, the plaintiff’s common work area claim against No rthwest Airlines as a general contractor
and as an owner with retain ed control may proceed in accordance with the Court of Appeals decision.

H ATHAWAY , J., would deny leave to appeal.
EXHIBIT 21

SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT



|                                                          |  |                                             |  |                     |     |  
|--------------------------------------------------------- |  | ------------------------------------------- |  | ------------------- | --- | -
|Parent                                                    |  | State or OtherJurisdiction 
ofIncorporation |  | PercentageOwnership |    
|BCSB Bancorp, Inc.                                        |  | Maryland                                    |  |                     |     |  
|                                                          |  |                                            
|Subsidiary (1)                                            |  |                                             |  |                     |     |  
|Baltimore County Savings Bank, F.S.B.                     |  | United States                               |  |                     | 100 | %
|BCSB Bankcorp Capital Trust I                             |  | Delaware                                    |  |                     | 100 | %
|BCSB Bankcorp Capital Trust II                            |  | Delaware                                    |  |                     | 100 | %
|                                                          |  |                                            
|Subsidiaries of Baltimore County Savings Bank, F.S.B. (1) |  |                                             |  |                     |     |  
|Ebenezer Road, Inc.                                       |  | Maryland                                    |  |                     | 100 | %
|Lyons Properties, LLC                                     |  | Maryland                                    |  |                     | 100 | %



|(1) | The assets, liabilities and operations of the subsidiaries are included in the consolidated financial statements included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.
|--- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* 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 9, 2003

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 03-20280

Summary Calendar

 

REGINALD WAYNE GUILLORY,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

THE CITY OF HOUSTON; AARON SHUMANN; WARREN, Officer;

MAYO, Officer; CYNTHIA RENEE TURNER,

Defendants-Appellees.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. H-02-CV-934

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

Before SMITH, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Reginald Wayne Guillory, Texas prisoner # 797253, appeals

the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint as time-barred. 

Guillory argues that the district court erred in determining that

the factual predicate for his claims was discovered in late 1999

and, further, that the limitations period should be tolled

because the defendants fraudulently interfered with his ability

to file a state claim to recover his property. 
No. 03-20280

-2-

We review the district court’s dismissal de novo. 

See Hughes v. The Tobacco Inst., Inc., 278 F.3d 417, 420

(5th Cir. 2001). The relevant limitations period for Guillory’s

civil rights action is two years. See Owens v. Okure, 488 U.S.

235, 249-50 (1989); TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 16.003(a)

(West 2003). His cause of action accrued when he knew or had

reason to know of the injury which formed the basis of his

action. See Pete v. Metcalfe, 8 F.3d 214, 217 (5th Cir. 1993)

(internal quotations and citation omitted). 

We hold that the record supports the district court’s

finding that Guillory knew of the factual predicate for his

claims in late 1999 and, therefore, that his 2002 complaint was

filed beyond the two-year limitations period. We further hold

that Guillory is not entitled to tolling of the limitations

period, because under Texas’s doctrine of fraudulent concealment,

a defendant is no longer estopped from relying on the statute

of limitations when the plaintiff discovers facts which would

lead to the discovery of the concealed cause of action, which in

Guillory’s case was late 1999. See Borderlon v. Peck, 661 S.W.2d 

907, 909 (Tex. 1983). Moreover, the record controverts Guillory’s

assertion that his ability to access the Texas court system was

interfered with.

AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 32

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18. U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE

SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned executive officers of BCSB Bancorp, Inc. (the Company) hereby certify that this Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended September 30, 2007 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements
of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of and for the period
covered by the Report.



By:

/s/ Joseph J. BouffardName:

Joseph J. BouffardTitle:

President and Chief Executive OfficerBy:

/s/ Anthony R. ColeName:

Anthony R. ColeTitle:

Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer


January 28, 2008
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

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

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

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

MEGAN MARIEL MORRILLO, a.k.a.

Megan Mariel, a.k.a. Megan Morrillo,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 11-10044

D.C. No. 4:08-cr-01412-DCB

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Arizona

David C. Bury, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted January 17, 2012** 

Before: LEAVY, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.

Megan Mariel Morrillo appeals from the 30-month sentence imposed

following her guilty plea to assault resulting in serious bodily injury, in violation of

18 U.S.C. §§ 113(a)(6) and 1153. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, 

FILED

JAN 19 2012

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 11-10044

and we affirm.

Morrillo contends the sentence is substantively unreasonable in light of her

many compelling mitigating factors and the district court’s impermissibly narrow

focus on the seriousness of the offense and the need for general deterrence. 

Morrillo’s sentence at the low end of the Guidelines range is substantively

reasonable in light of the totality of the circumstances and the sentencing factors

set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992-93

(9th Cir. 2008) (en banc); see also United States v. Gutierrez-Sanchez, 587 F.3d

904, 908 (9th Cir. 2009) (“The weight to be given the various [section 3553(a)

sentencing] factors in a particular case is for the discretion of the district court.”).

AFFIRMED.
ISHMIR JAMAL NORTHRUP

,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

,

Appellee

. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D 16

- 3017

__ ___________________________/

Opinion filed November 3, 2016.

An appeal from an order of the Circuit Court for Clay County

. John H. Skinner , Judge

.

Ishmir Jamal Northrup , pro se, Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General

, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

LEWIS, ROWE, and KELSEY, JJ., CONCUR.
# Fourth Court of Appeals San An tonio, Texas July 21, 2017 No. 04 - 17 - 00436 - CR & 04 - 17 - 00437 - CR David Stuart BISHOP , Appellant v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee From the 144th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2015CR3325 & 2015CR3326 Laura Lee Parker, Judge Presiding 

### O R D E R We grant the motion for extension of time to file the notice of appeal in appeal number 04 - 17 - 00436 - CR. We grant the motion for extension of time to file the notice of appea l in appeal number 04 - 17 - 00437 - CR. We order appeal numbers 04 - 17 - 00436 - CR and 04 - 17 - 00437

– CR retained on the docket of this court and we reinstate the appellate deadlines. In the interest of the efficient administration of the court’s docket, we order a ppeal numbers 04 - 17 - 00436 - CR and 04 - 17 - 00437

– CR consolidated. The parties must file motions, briefs, and other pleadings as if the appeals were one but put both appeal numbers in the style of the case. The cases must be argued together in one brief, as i n a single appeal, and if oral argument is requested and granted, the entire case must be argued as a single appeal, with the total time limit for each party equal to the ordinary time limit for a party in a single appeal. However, a record must be filed in each appeal, the record in each case will remain separate and, if supplementation of the record becomes necessary, the supplemental material must be filed in the appeal to which it applies. The court will dispose of both appeals in the same judgment, op inion, and mandate.

_________________________________ Luz Elena D. Chapa, JusticeIN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on thi s 21st day of July, 2017 .

___________________________________ Luz Estrada Chief Deputy Clerk
II 

Calendar No. 672 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3990 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 

216 Oak Street in Farmington, Minnesota, as the ‘‘Hamilton H. Judson 

Post Office’’. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 28, 2006 

Mr. COLEMAN (for himself and Mr. DAYTON) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

DECEMBER 6, 2006 

Committee discharged and ordered to be placed on the calendar 

A BILL 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 216 Oak Street in Farmington, Minnesota, 

as the ‘‘Hamilton H. Judson Post Office’’. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. HAMILTON H. JUDSON POST OFFICE. 

4 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

5 Postal Service located at 216 Oak Street in Farmington, 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
2 

S 3990 PCS

1 Minnesota, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Ham2 ilton H. Judson Post Office’’. 

3 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg4 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

5 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

6 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Hamilton H. Judson 

7 Post Office’’. 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with BILLS

ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
Calendar No. 672 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3990 

A BILL 

To designate the facility of the United States PostPost Office’’. ington, Minnesota, as the ‘‘Hamilton H. Judson al Service located at 216 Oak Street in FarmDECEMBER 6, 2006 

Committee discharged and ordered to be placed on the 

calendar 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
Exhibit 31

                                                        [LOGO] imbIndymacBank(R)

                                  CERTIFICATION

I, Blair Abernathy, certify that:

1.    I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D
      required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on
      Form 10-K of Residential Asset Securitization Trust 2007-A5 (the "Exchange
      Act periodic reports");

2.    Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a
      whole, do 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, all of the distribution, servicing and other
      information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered
      by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;

4.    Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statement(s) required in
      this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in
      the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicer has fulfilled its
      obligations under the servicing agreement in all material respects; and

5.    All of the reports on assessment of compliance-with servicing criteria for
      asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on
      assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed
      securities required to be included in this report in accordance with Item
      1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been
      included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwise disclosed in
      this report. Any material instances of noncompliance described in such
      reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.

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

Date: March 26, 2008



/s/ Blair Abernathy
-----------------------
Blair Abernathy
Executive Vice President
(Senior Officer in Charge of Securitization of the Depositor)
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 91 (Wednesday, May 13, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 22550]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-11134]


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

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisition of Shares of Bank or 
Bank Holding Companies

    The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank 
Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and Sec. [thinsp]225.41 of the Board's 
Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire a bank or bank holding company. 
The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth 
in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).
    The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal 
Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for 
inspection at the office of the Board of Governors. Interested persons 
may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for 
that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must 
be received not later than May 28, 2009.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City (Todd Offenbacker, Assistant 
Vice President) 1 Memorial Drive, Kansas City, Missouri 64198-0001:
    1. William B. Vollbracht, individually, and as managing member of 
The GDO Partnership and Vollbracht Properties, LLC; and as controlling 
shareholder of Land Title Guarantee Company, and Land Title Insurance 
Corporation, all of Denver, Colorado; and as a member of a family group 
acting in concert consisting of Leslie D. Vollbracht, Carole E. Earle, 
Judith L. Freehling Trust, The GDO Partnership, Land Title Guarantee 
Company, Land Title Insurance Corporation, and Vollbracht Properties, 
LLC, all of Denver, Colorado; Dana L. Vollbracht, Castle Rock, 
Colorado; Alison Vollbracht Winfield, and Kirby Franklin Winfield III 
Trust, both of Seattle, Washington; to retain control of Alpine Banks 
of Colorado, and thereby indirectly retain control of Alpine Bank, both 
of Glenwood Springs, Colorado.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, May 8, 2009.
Robert deV. Frierson,
Deputy Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. E9-11134 Filed 5-12-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-S
*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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 97-40921

Summary Calendar

 

MASSEY L. MOORE,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

SHERMAN POLICE DEPARTMENT;

DAVID WOODS, Public Information Officer

for Sherman Police Department;

THOMAS H. FLOWER, County Assistance Attorney,

Defendants-Appellees.

________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:96-CV-391

________________________________________________________

September 4, 1998

Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, EMILIO M. GARZA and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Massey L. Moore, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, appeals the

district court’s dismissal, as frivolous, of his civil rights lawsuit, 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

Moore moves for a court-appointed expert and for service of a subpoena duces
 

1Siglar v. Hightower, 112 F.3d 191 (5th Cir. 1997).

 

2Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817 (1977); McDonald v. Steward, 132 F.3d 225 (5th Cir.

1998); Henthorn v. Swinson, 955 F.2d 351 (5th Cir. 1992).

 

3See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215 (5th Cir. 1983).

 

4See 5th Cir. R. 42.2.

 

5See Moore v. Sherman Police Dep't et al., No. 95-40374 (5th Cir. Aug. 22, 1995).

tecum. Moore’s motions are subject to rejection.

We review the dismissal of an IFP complaint as frivolous for an abuse of

discretion.1 Although prisoners have a constitutionally protected right of access to

the courts, to prevail on such a claim, the claimant must show that his legal position

was prejudiced by the alleged violation.2 

Moore has failed to show that his legal position was prejudiced by the

defendants’ conduct. Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion by

dismissing his § 1983 complaint as frivolous.

We conclude that Moore’s appeal is without arguable merit and is frivolous,3

and, accordingly, it is subject to dismissal.4 Moore was previously warned that the

filing of additional frivolous appeals would result in the imposition of sanctions.5

A prisoner may not

bring a civil action or appeal a judgment in a civil action

or proceeding under this section if the prisoner has, on 3

or more prior occasions, while incarcerated or detained in

any facility, brought an action or appeal in a court of the

United States that was dismissed on the grounds that it is

frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which

relief may be granted, unless the prisoner is under

imminent danger of serious physical injury.

28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Including the dismissal of this appeal, Moore has three
 

6See Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383 (5th Cir. 1996).

"strikes."6 Therefore, except for cases involving an imminent danger of serious

physical injury, § 1915(g) bars Moore from proceeding further under § 1915. He

may proceed in subsequent civil cases under the fee provisions of § 1911-14

applicable to everyone else.

MOTIONS DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED; § 1915(g) SANCTION

IMPOSED.
#### Austin v. Continental Gen. Tire

Case below: 185 N.C. App.-(21 August 2007)

No. 073P01-2

1. Def’s Motion for Temporary Stay (COA06-1390)

2. Def’s Petition for Writ of Supersedeas

3. Def’s PDR Under N.C.G.S. § 7A-31

1. Allowed 09/25/07 Stay dissolved 10/11/07

2. Denied 10/11/07

3. Denied 10/11/07

Edmunds, J., Recused Hudson, J., Recused
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 4073 Engrossed in Senate (ES)]

  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 4073

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

   To designate the outpatient clinic of the Department of Veterans 
    Affairs located in Farmington, Missouri, as the ``Robert Silvey 
          Department of Veterans Affairs Outpatient Clinic''.

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

SECTION 1. ROBERT SILVEY DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS OUTPATIENT 
              CLINIC.

    (a) Designation.--The outpatient clinic of the Department of 
Veterans Affairs located in Farmington, Missouri, shall be known and 
designated as the ``Robert Silvey Department of Veterans Affairs 
Outpatient Clinic''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Robert 
Silvey Department of Veterans Affairs Outpatient Clinic''.

            Passed the Senate November 16, 2006.

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
109th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                                S. 4073

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

   To designate the outpatient clinic of the Department of Veterans 
    Affairs located in Farmington, Missouri, as the ``Robert Silvey 
          Department of Veterans Affairs Outpatient Clinic''.
```