alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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 20, 2006

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-60548 

Summary Calendar

JUANA HORNBURG,

Petitioner,

versus

ALBERTO R. GONZALES, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Respondent.

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

Petition for Review of an Order of the 

Board of Immigration Appeals 

BIA No. A78 128 445 

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

Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Juana Medina Hornburg appeals the denial of her application

for cancellation of removal pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1229b. The

immigration judge (IJ) determined that Hornburg had not made the

requisite showing that her United States citizen daughter would

suffer “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship.” See

§ 1229b(b)(1)(D). A single member of the Board of Immigration

Appeals (BIA) affirmed the IJ’s opinion, thereby making the IJ’s 

decision the final agency determination. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1
No. 05-60548

-2-

(e)(4).

Where the BIA affirms the IJ decision without opinion, this

court reviews the IJ’s decision. See Soadjede v. Ashcroft, 324

F.3d 830, 831-32 (5th Cir. 2003). To the extent that Hornburg

challenges the IJ’s discretionary determination that she had not

made the requisite showing under § 1229b(b)(1)(D), this court is

without jurisdiction to hear her petition. 8 U.S.C. 

§ 1252(a)(2)(B)(i), (ii); Rueda v. Ashcroft, 380 F.3d 831, 831

(5th Cir. 2004).

Hornburg also challenges the BIA’s application of its

summary affirmance procedures to her case, arguing that the

procedure violated her due process rights and that her appeal did

not satisfy the requirements for employing that procedure

enumerated in § 1003.1(e)(4), (e)(6). This court has previously

held the BIA’s summary affirmance procedures constitutional. 

Soadjede, 324 F.3d at 832-33. The IJ’s decision met the criteria

for summary affirmance pursuant to § 1003.1(e).

Accordingly, the petition is DISMISSED in part for lack of

jurisdiction and DENIED in part.
#### The Saunders.

*(Circuit Court, S. D. New York.*

March 24, 1885 )

Admiralty Practice—Appeal—Offer of Testimony Withheld Below.

An appellant will not be allowed to produce testimony upon appeal which he has deliberately withheld in the court below.

Motion to Suppress Depositions.

*E. D. McCarthy,*for libelant.

*Thos. L. Ogden,*for appellee.

*Butler, Stillman & Hubbard,*for the Saunders.

Wallace, J.

The- appellee moves to suppress the depositions of witnesses taken in this court, by the appellant because, although the witnesses were present at the instance of the appellant at the hearing in the district court, they were not examined. It is insisted that a party should not be allowed to produce upon appeal testimony which ho has deliberately withheld in the court below.

Although appellate courts in admiralty treat an appeal as a new trial, and exorcise great liberality in permitting new proofs and new pleadings in furtherance of justice, they are not constrained by any arbitrary rules which require them to receive testimony which ought to have been produced but was not produced in the court of original jurisdiction. In the case of *The Maybey,*10 Wall. 419, 13 Wall. 738, the supreme court refused to allow a commission to examine witnesses because no excuse was shown in the moving papers why the wit*304nesses were not examined in the courts below. See, also, *The Boston,*1 Sumn. 331; *Coffin*v. *Jenkins, 3*Story, 120; *Taylor*v. *Harwood,*1 Taney, 438. In *Farrell*v. *Campbell,*7 Blatchf. 158, Nelson, *J.,*held that where the appellant declined to appear upon the hearing in the district court, upon the refusal of that court to postpone the hearing, he could not be permitted to contest the merits of the decree on appeal.

If parties are permitted to withhold evidence in the district court, take the chances of success without it, and then avail themselves of it by appeal in case of failure, the practice would tend to intolerable abuses. It would be unjust to the adverse party, because he might prefer to abandon his case if the testimony had been presented, rather than incur further expense and labor in litigating. It would be trifling with the court of original jurisdiction by invoking its decision upon an hypothetical case while withdrawing the real case from consideration. It would impose unnecessarily upon a court of appellate jurisdiction the duty which appropriately belongs to a court of original jurisdiction.

The authorities referred to justify the granting of the motion.
III 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. RES. 129 

Designating May 4, 2015, as National Food Protein-Induced Enterocolitis 

Syndrome (FPIES) Awareness Day. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 27 (legislative day, MARCH 26), 2015 

Mr. BOOKER (for himself and Mr. TOOMEY) submitted the following 

resolution; which was considered and agreed to 

RESOLUTION 

Designating May 4, 2015, as National Food Protein-Induced 

Enterocolitis Syndrome (FPIES) Awareness Day. 

Whereas Food Protein-Induced Enterocolitis Syndrome 

(FPIES) is a form of food allergy that primarily affects 

the gastrointestinal system and adversely impacts the 

lives of young children throughout the nation; 

Whereas children with FPIES may experience acute and severe allergic reactions for which they may require emergency room treatment; 

Whereas FPIES patients may suffer chronically from the disorder and develop health issues, such as failure to thrive, 

long-term feeding problems, and food aversions, for which 

there is no treatment; 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•SRES 129 ATS 

Whereas a diagnosis of FPIES leads to significant dietary restrictions and imposes a substantial reduction in quality 

of life on children with FPIES and their families; 

Whereas families with children who suffer from FPIES are 

often unaware that the condition exists, and health care 

providers often misdiagnose the condition or are unaware 

of available treatment options; 

Whereas there is a tremendous need to generate awareness 

of FPIES to ensure that health care providers are able 

to quickly and effectively diagnose FPIES and schools 

and childcare providers are able to effectively care for 

those who struggle with this condition; 

Whereas it is essential that necessary treatment and dietary 

options be accessible and available to families with children suffering from FPIES; and 

Whereas increasing FPIES awareness will encourage all people of the United States to provide comfort to families 

with children suffering from this condition and collectively work towards finding better treatments: Now, 

therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the Senate— 

2 (1) designates May 4, 2015, as National Food 

3 Protein-Induced Enterocolitis Syndrome (FPIES) 

4 Awareness Day in order to raise awareness and in5 crease understanding of FPIES, highlight research, 

6 accurate diagnoses, and effective treatments, and 

7 improve the lives of children and families struggling 

8 with FPIES; and 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•SRES 129 ATS 

1 (2) expresses support for all people in the 

2 United States living with FPIES, expresses grati3 tude to the friends and family members who care for 

4 them, and salutes the health care professionals, 

5 teachers, and other caregivers who provide assist6 ance to those so affected. 

Æ 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
| (logo) Rialto 

CAPITAL |  

  |
|-------------------------|----------------|

 

 

 

 

 

2014 Annual Statement of Servicer Compliance (Item 1123)

 

            Pooling and Servicing Agreement (the “Pooling and Servicing Agreement”) dated as of  July 1, 2013  by and among Wells Fargo Commercial Mortgage Securities, Inc., as Depositor, Wells Fargo Bank, National Association as Master Servicer, Rialto Capital Advisors, LLC as Special Servicer, Wells Fargo Bank, National Association as Certificate Administrator, as Tax Administrator and as Custodian, Park Bridge Lender Services, LLC, as Trust Advisor and U.S. Bank National Association as Trustee relating to the Wells Fargo Commercial Mortgage Trust 2013-LC12, Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2013-LC12                    **(WFCM 2013-LC12)**

 

            

The undersigned, a duly authorized officer of Rialto Capital Advisors, LLC, as special servicer (the “Special Servicer”) herein certifies to the following:

 

1.       All servicing activities and performance of such servicing activities under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement are performed on behalf of the Special Servicer.

 

2.       A review of the servicing activities and performance by the Special Servicer for the period of January 1, 2014 to December 31, 2014 (the “Reporting Period”) in accordance with the Pooling and Servicing Agreement has been conducted under my supervision.

 

3.       To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Special Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the terms of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement, in all material respects for the Reporting Period and if there has been a failure to fulfill any such obligations in any material respect, each failure and the nature and status thereof has been specifically identified herein.

 

 

 

 

Certified by:  /s/  Adam Singer                                                                                Date:  March 5, 2015

       Adam Singer, Managing Director
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-40234

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

PATRICIA CRUZ-ALVAREZ,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 7:12-CR-1229-1

Before DAVIS, DENNIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Patricia CruzAlvarez 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). Cruz-Alvarez 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 

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

* 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 17, 2013

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

 Case: 13-40234 Document: 00512473670 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/17/2013
No. 13-40234

to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities 

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

2

 Case: 13-40234 Document: 00512473670 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/17/2013
### 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 21, 2009

s0114 

# Order

January 21, 2009

136597

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 136597 COA: 280758 Branch CC: 91-115263-FC TERRY BAUDER, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appe al the April 16, 2008 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, a nd it is DENIED, because the defendant has
failed to meet the burden of establishi ng entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).

K ELLY



### , C.J., would grant leave to appeal.
EXHIBIT 99.2


                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Guardian International, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Kenneth
Wiesenfeld, Vice President of Finance of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.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 contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the
Company.

/s/ Kenneth Wiesenfeld

Kenneth Wiesenfeld
Vice President of Finance
August 13, 2002
Exhibit 34.15






Report of Independent
Registered Public Accounting Firm

To the Board of Directors
and shareholders of CoreLogic, Inc.:

We have examined management’s
assertion, included in the accompanying Report on Assessment of Compliance, that CoreLogic Commercial Real Estate Services, Inc.
(the “Company”), an indirect subsidiary of CoreLogic, Inc. complied with the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d)
of the Securities and Exchange Commission's Regulation AB for all loans for commercial mortgage loan outsourcing customers for
which the Company served as the commercial tax service provider (the “Platform”), as of December 31, 2015 and for the
year then ended, only including 1122(d)(1)(iv), 1122(d)(2)(ii), 1122(d)(2)(v), 1122(d)(2)(vi), 1122(d)(2)(vii), 1122(d)(4)(xi),
1122(d)(4)(xii) and 1122(d)(4)(xiii), which the Company has determined are applicable to the servicing activities performed by
it with respect to the Platform. Management is responsible for the Company's compliance with the servicing criteria. Our responsibility
is to express an opinion on management's assertion based on our examination.

Our examination was
conducted in accordance with attestation standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) and, accordingly,
included examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Company’s compliance with the applicable servicing criteria and performing
such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. Our examination included testing of selected servicing activities
related to the Platform, and determining whether the Company performed those selected activities in compliance with the applicable
servicing criteria. Our procedures were limited to the selected servicing activities performed by the Company during the period
covered by this report. Our procedures were not designed to detect noncompliance arising from errors that may have occurred prior
to or subsequent to our tests that may have affected the balances or amounts calculated or reported by the Company during the period
covered by this report. We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our examination does not provide
a legal determination on the Company’s compliance with the servicing criteria.

In our opinion, management’s
assertion that the Company complied with the aforementioned applicable servicing criteria as of and for the year ended December
31, 2015 for all loans for commercial mortgage loan outsourcing customers for which the Company served as the commercial tax service
provider is fairly stated, in all material respects.

February 4, 2016







PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, 2001 Ross
Avenue, Suite 1800, Dallas, Texas 
75201 T: (214) 999-1400, F: (214) 754-7991,www.pwc.com/us
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000887022
<NAME> EVE HOLDINGS INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                               6
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     6
<PP&E>                                               3
<DEPRECIATION>                                       2
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   1,851
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            1,882
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                         (31)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     1,851
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 9,866
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 1,358
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  8,508
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,323
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              7,185
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     7,185
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>   1

                                                                      EXHIBIT 15


                     INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS' REVIEW REPORT


The Board of Directors and Shareholders
Collaborative Clinical Research, Inc.

We have reviewed the accompanying condensed consolidated balance sheet of
Collaborative Clinical Research, Inc. and subsidiaries (the "Company") as of
September 30, 1997, and the related condensed consolidated statements of
operations and cash flows for the three-month and the nine-month periods ended
September 30, 1997 and 1996. These financial statements are the responsibility
of the Company's management.

We conducted our reviews in accordance with standards established by the
American Institute of Certified Public Accountants. A review of interim
financial information consists principally of applying analytical review
procedures to financial data, and making inquiries of persons responsible for
financial and accounting matters. It is substantially less in scope than an
audit conducted in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards, which
will be performed for the full year with the objective of expressing an opinion
regarding the financial statements taken as a whole. Accordingly, we do not
express such an opinion.

Based on our reviews, we are not aware of any material modifications that should
be made to the condensed consolidated financial statements referred to above for
them to be in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles.

We have previously audited, in accordance with generally accepted auditing
standards, the consolidated balance sheet of Collaborative Clinical Research,
Inc. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 1996, and the related consolidated
statements of operations, shareholders' equity and cash flows for the year then
ended, not presented herein, and in our report dated February 13, 1997, we
expressed an unqualified opinion on those consolidated financial statements. In
our opinion, the information set forth in the accompanying condensed
consolidated balance sheet as of December 31, 1996 is fairly stated, in all
material respects, in relation to the consolidated balance sheet from which it
has been derived.

Cleveland, Ohio                                 ERNST & YOUNG LLP
October 20, 1997
#### Rawson *v.*Lyon and others.

*(District Court, S. D. New York.*

March 15, 1883.)

Practice—Security eor Costs.

By the long-standing practice in courts of admiralty, parties prosecuting or defending or intervening are required to give a stipulation for costs. In actions *in personam,*such security was formerly obtainable under the express rule, when the process was by warrant, which was at the option of the libelant. Now that the process by warrant is abolished in ordinary cases, the requirement of security for costs should still be maintained under the supreme court rule 25, and an amendment of the old rule 44 of this court should be made, in order that no doubt may exist as to the proper practice.

In Admiralty.

*Benedict, Taft & Benedict,*for libelant.

*Scudder é Garter,*for respondents.

Brown, J.

There is no question that the ordinary practice in admiralty has long been to require a stipulation for costs from a respondent on entering his appearance and answering in an action *in personam.*Judge Betts, in his book on Admiralty Practice, says: “This stipulation must be filed when a defendant comes in to defend, although the first process was a citation and not a warrant.” Page 40. This is in accordance with the ancient practice. Clerke, Praxis, tits. 5, 11; *Pharo*v. *Smith,*18 How. Pr. 47. When suits were commenced by warrant, rule 17 of this court expressly required bail to *832be taken for $100 above the sum claimed; and this was to cover costs. When warrants were abolished by supreme court rule 48> as the ordinary process for commencing actions, rule 17 was no longer expressly applicable to ordinary suits *in personam;*but the ordinary practice in this court to give security has remained as before, although it appears to have been occasionally omitted.

In all other cases, libelants and defendants and intervenors are, by express rules, required to give security for costs, except in the special eases of seamen, salvors, or persons suing *in forma pauperis.*Rules 17, 38, 44, 45. There is no reason why the defendants in actions *in personam*should form an exception to the usual requirement to file security for costs, which, under the former process by warrant, was always obtainable.

Rule 25 of the supreme court expressly authorizes this court to require security in actions *in personam;*and the practice usually followed hitherto should be confirmed by an amendment to rule 44 of this court, so that there may be no doubt about the proper practice in future, or the obligation of the respondents to file security. That rule will be amended by adding at the end the words “and the like stipulation, with surety for costs in the sum of $100, shall be filed by the respondent in actions *in personam*at the time of entering his appearance . or answer, or the same shall not be received unless otherwise specially ordered.”

Motion granted. •