alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
exhibit10_d.htm


     

    EXHIBIT 10 (d1)

    
 

    SECOND
AMENDMENT TO THE

    CAPITOL
BANCORP LTD.

    AMENDED
AND RESTATED EMPLOYEE STOCK OWNERSHIP PLAN

    


    


    The
Capitol Bancorp Ltd. Employee Stock Ownership Plan is hereby amended effective
January 1, 2008 by adding the following participating employers at the end of
the list therein contained:

    
      
        
          	
                  Name
      of

                  Employer

                	 
      	
                  Type
      of

                  Entity

                	 
      	
                  State
      of

                  Organization

                	 
      	
                  Date
      of

                  Participation

                
	
                  BAIA
      Acquisition Company, LLC

                	 
      	
                  LLC

                	 
      	
                  Michigan

                	 
      	
                  January
      1, 2008

                
	
                  Clemson
      Holdings, LLC

                	 
      	
                  LLC

                	 
      	
                  Michigan

                	 
      	
                  January
      1, 2008

                


        

      

    

    


    


    
 

    
      
        	
                 

                 

                 

                Dated:  February 26, 2009

              	
                CAPITOL
      BANCORP LIMITED

                 

                 

                By:  /s/
      Cristin K.
      Reid                           
                                                                

                  Cristin K.
      Reid

                Its:    Corporate
      President

              


      

       

      
        


        
          	
                   

                   

                   

                  Dated:  February 6, 2009

                	
                  BAIA ACQUISITION
      COMPANY, LLC

                   

                   

                  By:  /s/ Robert
      Hogan                    
            
                                                                

                    Robert
      Hogan

                  Its:   
      Manager

                   

                


        

      

      


      


      
        	
                 

                 

                 

                Dated:  February 6, 2009

              	
                CLEMSON
      HOLDINGS, LLC

                 

                 

                By:  /s/ Robert
      Hogan                           
                                                                

                  Robert
      Hogan

                Its:   
      Manager
1

Order filed November 26, 2013.

In The



## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 13

- 00784

- CV

____________ ERVIN WALKER, ET AL. , Appellant s

V.

DIRECTORY DISTRIBUTI NG ASSOCIATES, INC., RICHARD PRICE, STEVE WASHINGTON, LA URA WASHINGTON, ROLA ND E. SCHMIDT, SANDY SANDE RS , AND AT&T CORPORATION , Appellee s

On Appeal from the 269th District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2011

- 50578



### ORDER
This is an interlocutory appeal from an order dismissing over 10,000 “Opt

- In
Plaintiffs
, ” also referred to as “Non

- Texas Collective Action Plaintiffs.” Appellants filed a brief on November 20, 2013, in which they assert that this appeal has not been styled properly, yet appellants have not designated the proper style in their filings. Appellants as sert that these dismissed plaintiffs were identified in their2

notice of appeal. The notice of accelerated appeal in the Clerk’s Record filed September 24, 2013, states that the appealing parties are “listed in Exhibit A,” yet
no exhibit A follows the notic e of appeal. Appellants filed an Amended Notice of Interlocutory Appeal on October 16, 2013, which also fails to include Exhibit A identifying the appealing parties. 1 Accordingly , we issue the following order.

W e ORDER appellants to file an amended notic e of appeal in this court on
or before December 6, 2013. The amended notice of appeal shall specify the proper style of this appeal and expressly identify the appealing parties

.
PER CURIAM

1 T he Clerk’s Record contains the trial court’s dismissal order , wh ich includes an Exhibit A of over 300 pages

. Appellants also included Exhibit A in their motion for extension of time to file their brief. Nonetheless, Appellant’s Amended Notice of Appeal does not identify the appealing parties and is defective. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.1(d), (g).
11 TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND

, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

Clayton Mountain, LLC; * From the 2 9 th District Court

Clayton Mountain Resort, LLC ; of Palo Pinto County,

Independent Subcontractors, LLC; Trial Court No s

. C46164

- 3 & C46164

- 4

Premium Sandstone Group, LLC;

Premium Sandstone Supply, LLC;

Ramrock Holdings, LLC; Sundance

Tiny Homes, LLC; Clayton Mountain

Construction, LLC; Arenisca Holdings,

LLC; Clayton Mountain Group, LLC;

Clayton Mountain Holdings, LLC; Clayton

Mountain Management, LLC; Discount Stone,

LLC; Pastoraska Holdings LLC; 7R Club,

LLC; Sundance Club Food and Beverage, LLC;

and Sundance Club Hospitality, LLC,

Vs. No. 11

- 20

- 00 034

- C V * August 5 , 20 2 1

Suzann Ruff

, * Memorandum Opinion by Bailey

, C. J.

(P anel consists of: Bailey , C.J.,

Trotter , J. , and W illiams, J.)

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that there is

error in the orders below

. We reverse the portion s of the trial court’s January 16,

2020 and February 18, 2020 orders in which it awarded attorney’s fees to Suzann

Ruff and render judgment that Suzann take nothing on her request for attorney’s

fees. We otherwise affirm the trial court’s January 16, 2020 and February 18, 2020

orders. The costs incurred by reason of this appeal are taxe d 50% against

Appellants and 50% against Suzann Ruff.
EXHIBIT 35.2

SERVICERS CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE

Re: Assessment of compliance for services provided pursuant to the Master Sale and Servicing Agreement, dated February 27, 2007, the Series Supplement,
dated May 6, 2013, the US$ Note Trust Deed, dated May 7, 2013, and other transaction documents relating to SMART ABS Series 2013-2US Trust (collectively, the Agreements).

The undersigned hereby certifies that:

| |  |    |  |                                                                                                                                                                                                                   
| |  | -- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |  |   
| |  | 1. |  | I, Alan Cameron, am a Director of Macquarie Securities Management Pty Limited (the Manager).                                                                                                                    
| |  |   
| |  | 2. |  | A review of the Managers activities during the period from April 1, 2014 through March 31, 2015 (the Reporting Period), and of its performance under each of the Agreements has been made under my
supervision.
| |  |   
| |  | 3. |  | To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Manager has fulfilled all of its obligations under each of the Agreements in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period.                        



|                                           
|-------------------------------------------
|Date: 24 June 2015                         
|                                           
|/s/ Alan Cameron                           
|Alan Cameron
Director                      
|                                           
|Macquarie Securities Management Pty Limited
EXHIBIT 11.0
   Three Months EndedMarch 312008
    
    
    2007Net earnings applicable to common shareholders  basic & diluted
    
    $
    324,712
    
    
    $
    511,667Weighted average common shares outstanding  basic
    
    
    20,080,747
    
    
    
    19,306,797Common share equivalents relating to: stock options, warrants and preferred stockStock options
    
    
    292,655
    
    
    
    672,625Warrants
    
    
    39,062
    
    
    
    239,725Restricted stock
    
    
    
    
    
    
    32,963Weighted average common shares outstanding
    
    
    20,412,464
    
    
    
    20,252,110Net Earnings Per Share:Basic
    
    $
    0.02
    
    
    $
    0.03Diluted
    
    $
    0.02
    
    
    $
    0.03Anti-dilutive options, warrants and preferred stock not included in the diluted
earnings per share computations
    
    
    1,308,000
    
    
    
    520,000
**Exhibit 31**

**SEMT 2013-7**

EX-31 Rule 13a-14(d)/15d-14(d) Certification. 

I, Christopher J. Abate, 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 Sequoia Mortgage Trust 2013-7 (the“Exchange Act periodic reports”); 

2.    Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken asa 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 periodcovered by this report; 

3.    Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and other informationrequired 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 statements required in this report under Item 1123 of RegulationAB, 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 asset-backed securities and their relatedattestation 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 Rules13a-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 insuch 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: Corelogic Tax Services, LLC, Assurant, Inc., Cenlar, FSB as Servicer, First Republic Bank as Servicer, PHH Mortgage Corporation as Servicer, Wells FargoBank, N.A. as Custodian and Master Servicer, and Citibank, N.A. as Securities Administrator and Paying Agent. 

Date: March 31, 2017 

 

Chairman of the Board, President and Chief Financial Officer 

(senior officer in charge of securitization of the depositor)
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER

Appellate case name: In re Rodolfo Juarez, Jr.

Appellate case number: 01

- 21

- 00708

- CV

Trial court case number: 487,663

- 401

Trial court: Probate Court No

. 2 of Harris County

Relator Rodolfo Juarez, Jr. filed a motion for rehearing and for en banc reconsideration

. After consideration of the motion, the panel den ies the motion for rehearing and the en banc court
denie s the motion for en banc reconsideration

. It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature:

___ Justice Richard Hightower

________________

 Acting individually  Acting for the Court

En banc court consists of Chief Justice Radack, and Justices Kelly, Goodman, Landau, Hightower, Countiss, Rivas

- Molloy, Guerra , and Farris

.

Date: ___ February 3, 2022

_______
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-6683

CLAYTON E. YOUNG,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

and

WILLIAM WRIGHT,

Plaintiff,

v.

MARTIN O’MALLEY, Governor; SECRETARY OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND

CORRECTIONAL SERVICES; COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTIONS,

Defendants - Appellees,

STATE OF MARYLAND,

Debtor - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Roger W. Titus, District Judge. (8:07-cv01613-RWT)

Submitted: July 22, 2008 Decided: July 28, 2008

Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
- 2 -

Clayton E. Young, Appellant Pro Se. Rex Schultz Gordon, OFFICE OF

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for

Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
*For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the date

appearing on the notice of appeal is the earliest date it could

have been properly delivered to prison officials for mailing to the

court. Fed. R. App. P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988).

- 3 -

PER CURIAM:

Clayton E. Young seeks to appeal the district court’s

orders denying his motions to view and denying a motion to amend,

which the district court construed as a motion for joinder of an

additional plaintiff. We dismiss the appeal for lack of

jurisdiction.

The notice of appeal of the order denying the motions to

view was not timely filed. Parties are accorded thirty days after

the entry of the district court’s final judgment or order to note

an appeal, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), unless the district court

extends the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), or reopens

the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). This appeal

period is “mandatory and jurisdictional.” Browder v. Dir., Dep’t

of Corr., 434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978) (quoting United States v.

Robinson, 361 U.S. 220, 229 (1960)).

The district court’s order was entered on the docket on

November 8, 2007. The notice of appeal was filed on April 18,

2008.*

 Because Young failed to file a timely notice of appeal or

to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we

dismiss the appeal.
- 4 -

We also lack jurisdiction over the district court’s order

denying the motion to amend the complaint. This court may exercise

jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2000), and

certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292

(2000); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan

Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949). The order denying the motion to amend

is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or

collateral order. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of

jurisdiction.

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.

DISMISSED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                             882
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   55,231
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     34,149
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                96,392
<PP&E>                                           9,316
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 135,865
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           58,234
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            25
<OTHER-SE>                                      60,367
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   135,865
<SALES>                                        121,629
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                           69,119
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                41,852
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             (3,834)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  7,111
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,738
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  (863)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,510
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.41
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.41
        

</TABLE>
#### Richard Glawson vs. Commonwealth.

December 6, 2007.

*Supreme Judicial Court,*

Superintendence of inferior courts. *Practice, Criminal,*Speedy trial, Mistrial, Voir dire.

The petitioner appeals from two judgments of a single justice of this court denying relief pursuant to G. L. c. 211, § 3. In his first petition, the petitioner sought relief from the trial judge’s denial of his pro se motion to dismiss indictments against him in an underlying criminal case on speedy trial grounds; in his second, the petitioner requested the single justice either to declare a mistrial or order that a jury voir dire be conducted (such request having been denied by the trial judge). We affirm.

The petitioner’s G. L. c. 211, § 3, petitions were filed and decided while his trial was ongoing, and he has since been convicted by a jury on multiple indictments. The Superior Court docket entries indicate that notices of appeal have been filed both from the convictions and his sentences. Where, as here, the petitioner sought relief from “interlocutory rulings that [can] adequately be reviewed in a direct appeal,” *Commonwealth*v. *Negron,*441 Mass. 685, 688 (2004), the single justice was warranted in declining to exercise the court’s supervisory power under G. L. c. 211, § 3. Such power “should be exercised only in exceptional circumstances and where necessary to protect substantive rights in the absence of an alternative, effective remedy." *MacDougall*v. *Commonwealth,*447 Mass. 505, 510 (2006), quoting *Soja*v. *T.P. Sampson Co.,*373 Mass. 630, 631 (1977).

The petitioner has neither argued nor demonstrated on appeal that the claims raised in his petitions cannot be reviewed during his direct appeal. See *Pare*v. *Commonwealth,*420 Mass. 216, 217 (1995). With respect to the speedy trial claim, “[w]e have consistently rejected comparable claims that a petitioner cannot obtain adequate review of a speedy trial claim after trial, and have consistently held that a petitioner is therefore not entitled as a matter of *1010right to interlocutory review of his speedy trial claim pursuant to G. L. c. 211, § 3.” *Marrero*v. *Commonwealth,*447 Mass. 1013, 1013 (2006). See *Esteves*v. *Commonwealth,*434 Mass. 1003, 1003-1004 (2001); *Commonwealth*v. *Spaulding,*411 Mass. 503, 510 (1992) (on appeal from conviction after trial, indictments ordered dismissed on speedy trial grounds under Mass. R. Crim. P. 36, 378 Mass. 909 [1979]). Similarly, the petitioner has neither argued nor demonstrated that his claimed right to a mistrial or jury voir dire cannot adequately be reviewed as part of his direct appeal. See *Commonwealth*v. *Kent K.,*427 Mass. 754 (1998) (whether trial judge abused discretion in denying defendant’s motion for mistrial reviewed on direct appeal).

The case was submitted on briefs.

*Richard Glawson,*pro se.

The judgments of the single justice are affirmed.

*So ordered.*
EXHIBIT 32.1



CERTIFICATION
OF PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18
U.S.C. ss. 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-
OXLEY
ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report
(the "Report") of Digerati Technologies, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending January 31,
2012, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Arthur L. Smith, President and Chief Executive
Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to 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) | the information in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
and result of operations of the Company.
| | -- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|By | /s/ Arthur L. Smith     | 
|-- | ----------------------- | 
|   | Arthur L. Smith         | 
|   | President and           | 
|   | Chief Executive Officer | 
|   | March 15, 2012          |
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

April 28, 2014

h0421 

# Order

Clerk April 28, 2014

147575(19)

TARGET CORPORATION,

Petitioner

- Appellee,

v SC: 147575

COA: 312045

Ct of Claims: 11

- 001392

- AA

STATE TAX COMMISSION and

CHARLESTON TOWNSHIP,

Respondents

- Appellants.

______________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court’s January 29,

2014 order is considered, and it is DENIED, bec ause it does not appear that the order was

entered erroneously.
Exhibit 35.2a



|     |  |  |  |                    
|---- |  |  |  | -------------------
|LOGO |  |  |  | 3001 Hackberry Road
|     |  |  |  | Irving, TX 75063   

SERVICER COMPLIANCE CERTIFICATION

This Servicer Compliance Certification is issued pursuant to the Tax Outsourcing Agreement dated as of May 28, 2009 (together with all amendments
thereto, the Agreement), between Cenlar FSB (Bank) and CoreLogic Tax Services, LLC (CoreLogic).

I, Teik Franics, an
authorized officer of CoreLogic, certify to Bank and with the knowledge and intent that it will rely upon this certification, that:

1.
The servicing information required to be provided to Bank by CoreLogic under the Agreement has been so provided;

2. I am responsible for
reviewing the activities performed by CoreLogic under the Agreement and, based upon my knowledge and in all material respects throughout the relevant reporting period, CoreLogic has fulfilled its obligations under the Agreement.

3. Attached to this Servicer Compliance Certification is a list of all material failures and the nature and status thereof. [NONE/NO
ATTACHMENT]



|                            |  |                  
|--------------------------- |  | -----------------
|CORELOGIC TAX SERVICES, LLC
|                            | 
|By:                         |  | /s/ Teik Francis 
|                            |  | Teik Francis     
|                            |  | Vice President II
|                            |  | February 14, 2017





A-1 of 1