alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 10.1


PRESS RELEASE                        SOURCE: ADVANTAGE CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT CORP.

ADVANTAGE CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT CORP. OUTLINES CORPORATE MISSION

COMPANY DEVELOPS NARROWLY FOCUSED INVESTMENT STRATEGY

MIAMI, Sept. 16 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- The Board of Directors and Management
of Advantage Capital Development Corp. (OTC Pink Sheets: AVCP - News), formerly
CEC Industries Corp., announced today that it has developed a clearly defined
investment strategy as it moves forward as a regulated business development
company. (BDC).

"As a business development company (BDC) we have the latitude to invest in both
public and private entities, including developing companies," said Jeffrey
Sternberg, Advantage Capital Development Corp. Chairman and CEO. "However, in
order to create long-term shareholder value, we have developed very specific
investment criteria that is clearly focused on creating long- term shareholder
value."

According to Sternberg, the Company will focus on three specific types of
investments:

      o     Investments in existing small, public companies in the form of
            secured convertible debentures in the $200,000 to $750,000 range
            with an acceptable exit strategy;

      o     Investments in private companies that can be incubated and then spun
            off into their own public companies, also with an acceptable exit
            strategy; and

      o     Special situation investments in either private or public companies
            that are secured and opportunistic.

The Company recently closed on a transaction for $1 million in debt financing as
part of the first phase of its financing. The funds were provided by an
institutional investor. The Company said it is currently raising equity capital
to finance its aggressive, short- and long-term investment plans.

"We are currently evaluating several investment opportunities that meet these
stringent criteria," said Sternberg. "We anticipate this initial round of
financing will allow us to close on one or more of these potential investments
within the next few weeks."

The Company recently changed its name to Advantage Capital Development Corp. to
better reflect its new business operations as a regulated BDC. This followed a
comprehensive corporate restructuring that included the resignation of its
former officers and directors as well as the establishment of a new board of
directors and the appointment of new senior management.

Safe Harbor Statement

The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 provides a "safe harbor"
for forward-looking statements. Certain of the statements contained herein,
which are not historical facts, are forward-looking statements with respect to
events, the occurrence of which involve risks and uncertainties. These
forward-looking statements may be impacted, either positively or negatively, by
various factors. Information concerning potential factors that could affect the
Company is detailed from time to time in the Company's reports filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission.

Contact: Peter Nasca 312-421-0723
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-2498

WILLIAM S. DAVIS, II,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

and

BABY J.F.D., c/o William S. Davis, II; ESTATE OF WILLIAM 

SCOTT DAVIS, SR., Deceased,

Plaintiffs,

v.

ALBERT J. SINGER; DANIELLE DOYLE; SYDNEY J. BATCH; BATCH, 

POORE & WILLIAMS, LLP; MICHELE JAWORSKI SUAREZ; MELANIE A. 

SHEKITA; MICHELLE SAVAGE; ERIC CRAIG CHASSE; LISA SELLERS; 

CHARLOTTE MITCHELL; WENDY KIRWAN; SONJI CARLTON; NANCEY 

BERSON; DR. SUSAN GARVEY; ROBERT B. RADAR; MARGARET EAGLES; 

RICHARD CROUTHARMEL; WAKE COUNTY GOVERNMENT,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Newport News. Rebecca Beach Smith, 

Chief District Judge. (4:13-cv-00007-RBS-DEM)

Submitted: April 19, 2016 Decided: April 21, 2016

Before AGEE, DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
2

William Scott Davis, II, Appellant Pro Se. Roger Allen Askew, 

WAKE COUNTY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Raleigh, North Carolina; James 

Nicholas Ellis, Lisa Patterson Sumner, POYNER SPRUILL LLP, 

Raleigh, North Carolina; Sydney J. Batch, BATCH, POORE & 

WILLIAMS LLP, Raleigh, North Carolina; Elizabeth A. Martineau, 

MARTINEAU KING PLLC, Charlotte, North Carolina, Peter Andrew 

Teumer, ROBEY TEUMER & DRASH, Norfolk, Virginia; Allison Jean 

Becker, YATES, MCLAMB & WEYHER, LLP, Raleigh, North Carolina, 

for Appellees. Sydney J. Batch, Appellee Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
3

PER CURIAM:

William Scott Davis, II, appeals the district court’s order 

denying 4 motions for recusal, 19 motions for relief from 

judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), and 

49 other various motions relating to a closed civil matter. We 

have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. 

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district 

court. Davis v. Singer, No. 4:13-cv-00007-RBS-DEM (E.D. Va. 

filed Oct. 19, 2015 & entered Oct. 20, 2015). We deny Davis’ 

motions for appointment of counsel. 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
Exhibit 99.1***Media Release*****PWC appointed receiver of Hemosol Corp.****TORONTO, Ontario (December 6, 2005)**— Hemosol Corp. (NASDAQ: HMSL, TSX: HML) today announcedthat PricewaterhouseCoopers Inc. (the “Receiver”) was appointed interim receiver of the assets ofHemosol and its affiliate Hemosol LP pursuant to an order of Mr. Justice Campbell of the OntarioSuperior Court of Justice (Commercial List) made December 5, 2005 (the “Order”).Pursuant to the terms of the Order, the Receiver is mandated to market the assets and the businessof Hemosol and Hemosol LP. In doing so, the Receiver will retain the services of an investmentbanker on or before December 9, 2005 as well as the services of a real estate agent no later thanDecember 23, with a view to listing for sale the real property owned by Hemosol LP no later thanJanuary 6, 2005. The listing of the real property will run concurrently with the Receiver’smarketing of Hemosol’s business as a whole. The Receiver will also distribute information packagesrelating to the business and the assets to potential investors or purchasers during the months ofDecember and January. The Order requires that binding expressions of interest must be received byno later than February 3, 2006. Pursuant to the Order, the Receiver was also authorized to enterinto an interim financing for up to $2 million.At this time there is no certainty as to the outcome of the marketing and sales process.Accordingly, it is unclear whether or not there will be any value for holders of Hemosol’s sharesat the conclusion of the marketing and sales process.About Hemosol***Hemosol is an integrated biopharmaceutical developer and manufacturer of biologics, particularlyblood-related protein based therapeutics.***For more information visit Hemosol’s website at www.hemosol.com. Information in respect of the receivership is available at www.pwc.com/brs-hemosolCertain statements concerning Hemosol’s future prospects are “forward-looking statements”within the meaning of the United States Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 and otherapplicable securities legislation. There can be no assurances that future results will beachieved, and actual results could differ materially from forecasts and estimates. Importantfactors that could cause actual results to differ materially from forecasts and estimates include,but are not limited to: Hemosol’s continued viability as a going concern; the risk that Hemosol maynot become profitable; the Receiver’s ability to complete a transaction pursuant to the terms ofthe Order; and other factors set forth in filings with Canadian securities regulatory authoritiesand the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. These risks and uncertainties, as well as others,are discussed in greater detail in the filings of Hemosol with Canadian securities regulatoryauthorities and the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Hemosol makes no commitment to reviseor update any forward-looking statements in order to reflect events or circumstances after the dateany such statement is made.
Exhibit 35.2


                                     [logo]
                                    O C W E N

                      ANNUAL SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT
                     PURSUANT TO ITEM 1123 OF REGULATION AB

March 7, 2008

RE: GSAA 2007-S1

For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2007 (the "Reporting Period"), Ocwen Loan
Servicing, LLC ("OLS") furnishes this annual servicer compliance statement
pursuant to Item 1123 of Regulation AB, indicating its compliance with the
servicing standards of the Securities & Exchange Commission as set forth in
Regulation AB, 17 CFR ss.229.1100, et seq., ("Regulation AB"). In this regard, I
make the following representations, which are true to the best of my knowledge
and belief in all material respects.

1.    A review of the servicing activities of OLS during the Reporting Period,
      and of its performance under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as
      of February 1, 2007 (the "Agreement"), has been performed under my
      supervision.

2.    To the best of my knowledge, based on this review, OLS has fulfilled all
      of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout
      the Reporting Period.

                                                        By: /s/ Ronald M. Faris
                                                            --------------------
                                                        Name:  Ronald M. Faris
                                                        Title: President

                            Ocwen Loan Servicing LLC
                        1661 Worthington Road Suite 100
                                 Centrepark West
                           West Palm Beach, FL 33409
Exhibit
32.1





Certification
of Chief Executive and Principal Accounting Officer





In
connection with the Annual Report of Pro Financial Services, Inc. (the
“Company”), on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2009, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, B. Bryan Robinson,
Principal Executive Officer and Principal Accounting Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as added by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





1.  The
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





2. To my
knowledge, 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.


/s/
      B. Bryan RobinsonB.
      Bryan RobinsonChief
      Executive and Principal Accounting OfficerDate:
      April 13, 2010
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 14**  **- 6193** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

– Appellee ,
v. THOMAS EDWARD FIELDS , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland , at Baltimore
. Catherine C. Blake , District Judge. ( 1:08

- cr - 00241

- CCB

- 2; 1:12

- cv - 00069

- CCB )

Submitted : June 19, 2014 Decided: July 15, 2014

Before KING and SHEDD , Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. Thomas Edward Fields, Appellant Pro Se. Christopher John Romano, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Thomas Edward Fields seeks to appeal the district court’s order s denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion and denying reconsideration . The order s are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (B) (2012)
. A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012)
. When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this st andard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85
. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Fields has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral
argumen t because the facts and legal contentions are adequately3 presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FIFTH DISTRICT

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

SCOTT HARTMAN, 

Appellant, 

v. Case No. 5D22-574

LT Case No. 2021-CA-905

HERNANDO COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE, 

SHAUN KLUCZNIK, A. BATCHELDER, K.

DEKANY, R. MCPHEE, S. SOLLAZZO, AND

C. ANDREWS,

Appellees. 

________________________________/ 

Decision filed January 31, 2023

Appeal from the Circuit Court

for Hernando County, 

Pamela Stinnette Vergara, Judge.

Scott Hartman, Brooksville, pro se. 

Clifford A. Taylor, of The Hogan Law

Firm, Brooksville, for Appellee,

Hernando County Sheriff's Office. 

No Appearance for Remaining 

Appellees. 

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

EDWARDS, EISNAUGLE and HARRIS, JJ., concur.
1The HONORABLE HARRY F. BARNES, United States District Judge for the

Western District of Arkansas.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 00-3430

___________

Gloria Counter, *

*

Appellant, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

v. * Western District of Arkansas.

*

Arkansas Department of Finance and * [UNPUBLISHED]

Administration, et al., *

*

Appellees. *

___________

 Submitted: July 5, 2001

 Filed: July 9, 2001

___________

Before BOWMAN, BEAM, and LOKEN, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Gloria Counter, who has worked as a revenue office cashier in Magnolia,

Arkansas, since 1991, filed this action against the Arkansas Department of Finance and

Administration and two supervisory employees, claiming defendants singled her out for

harsher discipline and punishment than her coworkers on the basis of her race, and in

retaliation for her pursuit of her rights. The district court1 granted defendants summary
-2-

judgment as to Counter’s retaliation claim, finding no evidence of a causal connection

between any alleged adverse employment action and Counter’s protected activity.

Following a jury trial on the race discrimination claim, the district court granted

defendants judgment in accordance with the jury’s verdict. Counter appeals, and we

affirm.

Having carefully reviewed the record and Counter’s arguments on appeal, we

conclude (1) the grant of summary judgment on Counter’s retaliation claim was proper

because there was no evidence that the supervisors who perpetrated the alleged adverse

employment actions were aware of Counter’s EEOC claims, see Barge v. AnheuserBusch, Inc., 87 F.3d 256, 259-60 (8th Cir. 1996); (2) Counter failed to preserve her

claim of instructional error, and there was no plain error, see Kehoe v. AnheuserBusch, Inc., 96 F.3d 1095, 1104 (8th Cir. 1996); (3) there was sufficient evidence to

support the jury’s verdict on the issue of race discrimination, see Smith, 151 F.3d at

818 (standard of review); and (4) Counter was not entitled to declaratory or injunctive

relief absent undisputed evidence, or a jury finding, that race was a motivating factor

in defendants’ actions. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(g); Browning v. President Riverboat

Casino-Missouri, 139 F.3d 631, 634 (8th Cir. 1998).

Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
COMPANY'S FORM 10-Q FILED FOR THE PERIOD ENDING DECEMBER 31, 1996 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                           9,839
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 9,996
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  15,568
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              759
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             2
<OTHER-SE>                                      12,170
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    15,568
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (1,104)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,388
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (151)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,237
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,237
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .10
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .10
        

</TABLE>
EX-35.1
(logo) EMC
Mortgage Corporation


ITEM 1123 ANNUAL STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE

EMC MORTGAGE CORPORATION


The undersigned officers of EMC Mortgage Corporation ("EMC") as servicer
pursuant to the Bear Stearns Asset Backed Securities I Trust 2007-AC3 Agreement
(the "Agreement") hereby certify that:


1. A review of EMC's activities during the period from and including January 1,
   2007 through and including December 31, 2007 (the "Reporting Period") and
   EMC's performance under the. Agreement has been made under my supervision.

2. To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, EMC has fulfilled all of
   its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout the
   Reporting Period.


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has duly executed this Certificate this
12th day of March 2008.



By: /s/ David B. Little
David B. Little
Executive Vice President
Default Administration

/s/ William Glasgow Jr.
William Glasgow Jr.
Executive Vice President
Enterprise Operations Services

/s/ Jenna Kemp
Jenna Kemp
Executive Vice President
Investor Administration



(logo) MBA
Member
Mortgage Bankers
Association of America

2780 Lake Vista Drive, Lewisville, Texas 75067
Mailing Address: P.O. Box 1292190 Lewisville, Texas 75029-2190
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-7096

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.
BRIAN O’NEAL WADDELL,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L. Voorhees, District Judge. (5:02-cr-00034-RLV-5)

Submitted: May 21, 2009 Decided: May 26, 2009

Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Claire J. Rauscher, Executive Director, Tanzania Cannon-Eckerle, FEDERAL DEFENDERS OF WESTERN NORTH CAROLINA, INC., Charlotte, North Carolina, Matthew R. Segal, FEDERAL DEFENDERS OF WESTERN NORTH CAROLINA, INC., Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellant. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
Brian O’Neal Waddell appeals the district court’s
order denying his motion for reduction of sentence pursuant to

18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) (2006). We have reviewed the record and
find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm. United

States v. Waddell , No. 5:02-cr-00034-RLV-5 (W.D.N.C. June 17,

2008). See United States v. Hood , 556 F.3d 226 (4th Cir. 2009).
We deny Waddell’s motion to appoint counsel. We dispense with
oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, 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 appeal 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 appeal 

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 in 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, opinion, and mandate.

_________________________________

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

court on this 21st day of July, 2017.

___________________________________

Luz Estrada

Chief Deputy Clerk