alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of William Robinson, Petitioner, v Patricia Nunez, Respondent.

[973 NYS2d 80]

The above-named petitioner having presented an application to this Court praying for an order, pursuant to article 78 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules, now, upon reading and filing the papers in said proceeding, and due deliberation having been had thereon, it is unanimously ordered that the application be and the same hereby is denied and the petition dismissed, without costs or disbursements. Concur — Friedman, J.P., Moskowitz, Richter, Manzanet-Daniels and Gische, JJ.
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 649 

To amend the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 to 

make volunteer members of the Civil Air Patrol eligible for Public Safety 

Officer death benefits. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 17, 2005 

Mr. ALLARD introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets 

Act of 1968 to make volunteer members of the Civil 

Air Patrol eligible for Public Safety Officer death benefits. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Civil Air Patrol Home5 land Security Benefits Act of 2005’’. 
2 

•S 649 IS

1 SEC. 2. ELIGIBILITY OF CIVIL AIR PATROL FOR PUBLIC 

2 SAFETY OFFICER DEATH BENEFITS. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1204(8) of the Omnibus 

4 Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 

5 3796b(8)) is amended— 

6 (1) by striking ‘‘or’’ at the end of subparagraph 

7 (B); 

8 (2) by striking the period at the end of sub9 paragraph (C) and inserting ‘‘; or’’; and 

10 (3) by adding at the end the following: 

11 ‘‘(C) a volunteer civilian member of the 

12 Civil Air Patrol who is engaged in— 

13 ‘‘(i) active service, if such service is— 

14 ‘‘(I) rendered in performance or 

15 support of operational missions of the 

16 Civil Air Patrol under the direction of 

17 the Department of the Air Force; and 

18 ‘‘(II) pursuant to, and is per19 formed consistent with, written au20 thorization from competent authority 

21 that specifies a finite assignment and 

22 a finite period of time for such assign23 ment; or 

24 ‘‘(ii) travel to or from such service.’’. 
3 

•S 649 IS

1 (b) CONSULTATION.—Section 1205 of the Omnibus 

2 Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 

3 3796c) is amended by adding at the end the following: 

4 ‘‘(d) CONSULTATION.—In making determinations 

5 under section 1201 with respect to the eligibility of a vol6 unteer civilian member of the Civil Air Patrol, the Bureau 

7 may consult with the Secretary of the Air Force and, if 

8 consulted, the Secretary of the Air Force shall provide to 

9 the Bureau such assistance and information as the Bureau 

10 considers necessary.’’. 

Æ
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19

- 40979 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.
JOSE GUADALUPE GARCIA

- LOPEZ , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 7:19

- CR

- 1358

- 1

Before STEWART, DENNIS, and HO, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Jose Guadalupe Garcia

- Lopez has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Garcia

- Lopez h a s not fil ed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal

* 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 June 10, 2020 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 19-40979 Document: 00515448437 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/10/2020No. 19

- 40979

2 presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave t o withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR

. R. 42.2. Case: 19-40979 Document: 00515448437 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/10/2020
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 695 

To suspend temporarily new shipper bonding privileges. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 4, 2005 

Mr. COCHRAN (for himself and Mr. BYRD) introduced the following bill; which 

was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily new shipper bonding privileges. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘New Shipper Review 

5 Amendment Act of 2005’’. 

6 SEC. 2. TEMPORARY SUSPENSION OF NEW SHIPPER BOND7 ING PRIVILEGES. 

8 Clause (iii) of section 751(a)(2)(B) of the Tariff Act 

9 of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(2)(B)(iii)) shall not be effec10 tive during the 3-year period beginning on the date of the 

11 enactment of this Act. 
2 

•S 695 IS

1 SEC. 3. REPORT TO CONGRESS. 

2 Not later than 2 years after the date of the enact3 ment of this Act, the Secretary of Commerce, in consulta4 tion with the Secretary of the Treasury, the United States 

5 Trade Representative, and the Commissioner of Customs 

6 and Border Protection, shall submit to the Committee on 

7 Finance of the Senate and the Committee on Ways and 

8 Means of the House of Representatives a report con9 taining— 

10 (1) recommendations on whether the suspension 

11 of the effectiveness of section 751(a)(2)(B)(iii) of 

12 the Tariff Act of 1930 should be extended beyond 

13 the date provided in section 2 of this Act; and 

14 (2) assessments of the effectiveness of any ad15 ministrative measures that have been implemented 

16 to address the difficulties giving rise to section 2 of 

17 this Act, including— 

18 (A) problems in assuring the collection of 

19 antidumping duties on imports from new ship20 pers; 

21 (B) administrative burdens imposed on the 

22 Department of Commerce by new shipper re23 views; and 
3 

•S 695 IS

1 (C) the use of the bonding privilege by im2 porters from new shippers to circumvent the ef3 fect of antidumping duty orders. 

Æ
Exhibit 31(ii)
                                 --------------


                                 CERTIFICATIONS

      I, Steve Bailey, 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 CHL Mortgage Pass-Through Trust
               2007-4 (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.   I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the
               servicer(s) and based on my knowledge and the compliance
               review(s) conducted in preparing 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(s) have fulfilled their
               obligations under the servicing agreement(s) 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:
          The Bank of New York, as Trustee.

Date: March 25, 2008

             /s/ Steve Bailey
             --------------------------------------
             Steve Bailey
             Senior Managing Director, Chief Executive Officer Loan
             Administration
             (Senior officer in charge of the servicing function of
             Countrywide Home Loans Servicing LP)
Exhibit 35.2

                    SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT (Item 1123)

                               GMAC Mortgage, LLC

             Home Equity Loan Trust 2007-HSA2 (the "Issuing Entity")

The undersigned,  a duly authorized  officer of GMAC Mortgage,  LLC, 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  covered  by the
Issuing Entity's report on Form 10-K 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 24th
day of March 2008.


By:     /s/ Anthony N. Renzi
        Name:  Anthony N. Renzi
        Title: Executive Vice President
EX-35.6
(logo) LaSalle Bank

LaSalle Bank N.A.
135 South LaSalle Street
Suite 1625
Chicago, IL 60603

Global Securities and Trust Services



Annual Statement of Compliance


VIA: EMAIL

Banc of America Commercial Mortgage Inc.
214 North Tryon Street, NC1-027-22-03
Charlotte, North Carolina 28255

Re: Banc of America Commercial Mortgage Trust 2007-1


Reference is made to the Pooling and Servicing Agreement (the "Agreement")
dated as of February 1, 2007, among Banc of America Commercial Mortgage Inc. as
Depositor, Bank of America, National Association, as Master Servicer,
LNR Partners, Inc., as Special Servicer, and LaSalle Bank National Association,
as Trustee and REMIC Administrator.

I, Barbara L. Marik, a Senior Vice President of LaSalle Bank National
Association, as Trustee and REMIC administrator hereby certify that:

(1) A review of the activities of the Trustee and REMIC Administrator during
the preceding calendar year and of the performance of the Trustee and REMIC
Administrator under the Agreement has been made under my supervision; and

(2) To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Trustee and REMIC
Administrator have fulfilled all its obligations under the Agreement in all
material respects throughout such year or a portion thereof.


Date: 02/27/08

LaSalle Bank National Association, as Trustee and REMIC Administrator



By: /s/ Barbara L. Marik
Barbara L. Marik
Senior Vice President
<PAGE>



                                                                 EXHIBIT 10.1
                                                           September 29, 2004


Jason LeBeck
3500 Lee Terrace Court
San Jose, CA 95127

         Re:      2004 Key Employee Program

Dear Jason,

              This letter  agreement  ("Agreement")  shall confirm the agreement
reached between you and Computer Access Technology Corporation ("CATC") offering
you  the  opportunity  to  participate  in  CATC's  2004  Key  Employee  Program
("Program") that provides  bonuses based on GAAP Operating  Income  performance.
You  acknowledge by your execution of this Agreement that the provisions of this
Agreement  constitute the entire agreement  between you and CATC with respect to
the subject  matter hereof and supersede  any prior  understanding  or agreement
between us. You further  acknowledge  that except as  specifically  set forth in
this Agreement,  the terms and conditions of your employment agreement with CATC
dated November 3, 2000, shall remain in full force and effect including, without
limitation,  the  section  which  states that your  employment  with CATC is "at
will."

              You will be  eligible  to be paid an  annual  bonus of 10% of your
current  base  salary  through  the Program if CATC  achieves  its planned  GAAP
Operating Income,  as agreed to by the Board of Directors.  If CATC achieves 80%
of planned  GAAP  Operating  Income,  you will be  eligible to be paid an annual
bonus of 6.7% of your current base salary. If CATC achieves 120% of planned GAAP
Operating Income, you will be eligible to be paid an annual bonus of 15% of your
current base salary.

                  Payment of any bonus will be made no later than  February  15,
2005 upon final approval by the Compensation Committee and the completion of the
FY 2004 audited financial statements.

              Please  acknowledge  your agreement to the terms and conditions of
this Agreement by executing this letter where indicated below.

Sincerely,



Carmine Napolitano
President and CEO


ACKNOWLEDGED AND AGREED:


--------------------------------------
Jason LeBeck

Dated: ________________________________
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-41190

Summary Calendar 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee 

v. 

FERNANDO VARGAS-FUENTES, 

Defendant-Appellant 

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Southern District of Texas 

USDC No. 2:16-CR-324-1 

Before JOLLY, SMITH, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Fernando VargasFuentes has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance 

with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 

F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Vargas-Fuentes has not filed a response. We have 

reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected 

therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no 

 

* 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

March 6, 2017

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 16-41190 Document: 00513897845 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/06/2017
No. 16-41190

2 

nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave 

to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities 

herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

 Case: 16-41190 Document: 00513897845 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/06/2017
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

NINA LOWE-MALONE,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Commissioner

Social Security Administration,

 Defendant - Appellee.

No. 12-55841

D.C. No. 2:11-cv-02231-AGR

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

Alicia G. Rosenberg, Magistrate Judge, Presiding

Submitted December 17, 2013** 

San Francisco, California

Before: CLIFTON, N.R. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.

For the reasons stated in the memorandum opinion and order filed by the

district court, we AFFIRM.

FILED

JUN 02 2014

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * 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).
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED DECEMBER 30, 2015

NO. 03-15-00745-CV

Continental Homes of Texas, LP, Appellant

v.

Scofield Villas Condominium Community, Inc., Appellee

APPEAL FROM 126TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES PURYEAR, GOODWIN, AND BOURLAND

DISMISSED ON APPELLANT’S MOTION -- OPINION BY JUSTICE PURYEAR

This is an appeal from the order signed by the trial court on November 11, 2015. Appellant has 

filed a motion to dismiss the appeal, and having considered the motion, the Court agrees that the 

motion should be granted. Therefore, the Court grants the motion and dismisses the appeal. 

Appellant shall pay all costs relating to this appeal, both in this Court and the court below.
EX-31 Sarbanes-Oxley Certification.


  I, Diane Courtney, certify that:

  1.I have reviewed the 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 Merrill Lynch Alternative Note Asset Trust, Series
    2007-OAR1 (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.I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the
    servicers and based on my knowledge and the compliance reviews
    conducted in preparing the servicer compliance statements required in
    this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as
    disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicers have
    fulfilled their obligations under the servicing agreements in all
    material respects; and

  5.All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria
    for ABS 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:
    Central Mortgage Company as Servicer and Wilshire Credit Corporation as
    Servicer.

    Dated:   March 26, 2008


    /s/ Diane Courtney
    Signature

    Vice President
    (senior officer in charge of the servicing function of the master
    servicer)
#### New York Municipal Insurance Reciprocal, as Subrogor of County of Oswego, Appellant, v Casella Construction, Inc., Respondent.

[964 NYS2d 370]

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Oswego County (Norman W. Seiter, Jr., J.), entered April 9, 2012. The order granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiffs complaint.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is *1441unanimously reversed on the law without costs, the motion is denied and the complaint is reinstated.

Memorandum: Plaintiff, as subrogor of the County of Oswego, commenced this action seeking to recover damages for losses sustained when property at a landfill operated by the County of Oswego was damaged in a fire. In its complaint, plaintiff alleged, inter alia, that the fire occurred as a result of the negligence of defendant’s employees, who were completing a construction project at the landfill on the date of the fire. Plaintiff appeals from an order granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. We conclude that defendant failed to meet its initial burden on the motion, and we therefore reverse the order and reinstate the complaint.

We reject the contention of defendant that it met its initial burden on the motion by establishing as a matter of law that plaintiff was unable to identify the cause of the fire without engaging in speculation. In order to establish proximate cause, “[p]laintiffs need not positively exclude every other possible cause of the accident. Rather, the proof must render those other causes sufficiently remote or technical to enable the jury to reach its verdict based not upon speculation, but upon the logical inferences to be drawn from the evidence ... A plaintiff need only prove that it was more likely ... or more reasonable . . . that the alleged injury was caused by the defendant’s negligence than by some other agency” *(Gayle v City of New York,*92 NY2d 936, 937 [1998] [internal quotation marks omitted]; *see Schneider v Kings Hwy. Hosp. Ctr.,*67 NY2d 743, 744 [1986]). Furthermore, it is well settled that, in seeking summary judgment dismissing a complaint, a defendant “must affirmatively establish the merits of its . . . defense and does not meet its burden by noting gaps in its opponent’s proof” *(Orcutt v American Linen Supply Co.,*212 AD2d 979, 980 [1995]; *see Brown v Smith,*85 AD3d 1648, 1649 [2011]; *Atkins v United Ref. Holdings, Inc.,*71 AD3d 1459, 1459-1460 [2010]). Here, defendant failed to meet its initial burden in support of its motion inasmuch as it failed to establish as a matter of law that its employees did not start the fire.

Present—Smith, J.P, Fahey, Peradotto, Lindley and Whalen, JJ.
#### Raines, adm’r, *v.*American Freehold Mortgage Co.

This case is ruled by *Jackson*v. *The American Mortgage Co. of Scotland,*88 *Qa.*756.

August 14, 1894.

*Assumpsit.*Before Judge Gober. Quitman superior court. September term, 1893.

W. D. Kiddoo, William Harrison and J. H. Guerry, for plaintiff in error.

W. E. Simmons and W. C. Worrill, *contra.*

*Judgment affirmed.*
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Angelo Ortiz, Appellant.

[872 NYS2d 687]

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (John Byrne, J.), rendered on or about December 13, 2007, unanimously affirmed. No opinion. Order filed. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Saxe, Friedman, Acosta and DeGrasse, JJ.