alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UN PUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18

- 1498

In re: KAREEM JAMAL CURRENCE

,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus . ( 5:18

- ct

- 03038

- BO)

Submitted: July 19, 2018 Decided: July 23, 2018

Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and AGEE , Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by un published per curiam opinion

.

Kareem Jamal Currence, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:

K areem Jamal Currence petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging that a United

States Magistrate Judge has unduly delayed his civil rights action, and he seeks an order

from this court directing the judge to act. T he present record reveal s no undue delay in

the district court. Accordingly, we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis and deny the

mandamus petition. 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 de cisional process.

PETITION DENIED
Exhibit 31

SEMT 2013-8

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 2013-8 (the Exchange Act periodic reports);

2. Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit
to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

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

4. Based
on my knowledge and the servicer compliance 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 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: Corelogic Tax Services, LLC, Assurant, Inc., Cenlar, FSB as Servicer, First Republic Bank as Servicer, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. as Custodian, CitiMortgage,
Inc. as Master Servicer, and Citibank, N.A. as Securities Administrator and Paying Agent.



|                                                                                                                          
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: March 31, 2017                                                                                                      
|                                                                                                                          
|/s/ Christopher J. Abate                                                                                                  
|Signature                                                                                                                 
|                                                                                                                          
|Chairman of the Board, President and Chief Financial Officer
(senior officer in charge of securitization of the depositor)
CIRCUIT COURT OF FAIRFAX COUNTY

#### Roberta A. Paugh v. Robert J. Paugh

July 1, 2002

Case No. C176058

By Judge Robert W. Wooldridge, Jr.

This matter came before me on the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss the pending suit and to vacate the Court’s Order of December 21, 2001. Complainant filed her bill of complaint for divorce on December 20, 2001. As part of her relief she sought to incorporate into a final decree of divorce a November 3, 2000, property settlement agreement of the parties, in which Defendant allegedly agreed to make Complainant the beneficiary of his thrift savings and retirement plans on his death.

On December 21, 2001, the Court entered an agreed order freezing a portion of Defendant’s retirement and thrift savings accounts. Defendant died later in the day of December 21,2001, after the Order was entered. Defendant moves to dismiss the divorce action and vacate the December 21,2001, order on the grounds that this entire proceeding ends with Defendant’s death. While Complainant does not object to dismissal of the divorce aspects of the case, she contends that the Court retains jurisdiction over the Defendant’s thrift savings and retirement plans, that the December 21,2001, order should not be vacated, and that the Court should adjudicate disposition of those funds. Complainant relies on *Sprouse v. Griffin,*250 Va. 46 (1995), for her position.

I find that *Sprouse*is not controlling here. In *Sprouse,*the parties owned real estate as tenants by the entireties. During the pendency of their divorce action, they sold the property and received the funds as tenants by the *194entireties. When they could not agree on a division of the proceeds, the trial court ordered that the funds be held in escrow pending further order of the court. The husband died intestate before a final decree of divorce or any further order concerning the funds was entered. The trial court and the Supreme Court of Virginia (the latter reversing the Court of Appeals) held that the funds retained their characteristics as tenants by the entireties and were the sole property of the wife on the husband’s death. The instant case is inapposite. While Complainant may have a contract claim against the Defendant’s estate based on the property settlement agreement, this Court has not “created a res” by its December 21,2001, order, as occurred in *Sprouse. Id.,*250 Va. at 50. There is no basis not to dismiss the divorce proceeding, and no basis for the Court to retain jurisdiction over the thrift savings and retirement plans. Defendant’s motion is granted.
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pane l unani m ous l yf i nds thi s c a s e s ui t abl e f

orde c i s i on w i thout ** o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). JT K / R es ear ch NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON

UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T WE I QI AN G Z HE NG , P et i t i on er , v. E R I C H . H O L D E RJ r ., A tto rn e yG e n e r a l, R e s p o n d e n t. N o. 06- 73851 A ge nc yN o. A 095- 449- 436 ME MOR AN DU M *

O n P e t i t i on f

orR e vi e w of

an O r de rof

the B o ar do f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls S ubm i tt e d N ove m be r17, 2009 ** B e f o r e : A L A R C Ó N , T R O T T , an dT A S H I M A , C ir c u it Ju d g e s . W ei qi ang Z heng , a nat i ve and ci t i ze n o f C hi na, pet i t i on s pro se for r evi ew of the B oard of Im m i grat i on A pp ea l s’ (“ B IA ”) order r ej ec t i ng hi s m ot i on t o reopen f o rla c ko f

ju r is d ic tio n . O u rju r is d ic tio nis g o v e rn e db y8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 . 

# FI LED DE C 07 2009 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALSJ T K / Res ea r ch 06- 73851 2 R e v ie w in g d e n o v o qu e s tio n s o f law , Si n gh v . I

NS , 21 3 F . 3d 10 50 , 10 52 (9th C i r. 2 0 0 0 ) , we d e n yi n p artan dd i s m i s s i n p artth e p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w. T h e B I A p r o p e r lyr e

je c te dZ h e n g ’s m o tio n to r e o p e n f o rla c ko f

ju r is d ic tio n . See M at terof Mlad i neo , 14 I. & N . D ec . 59 1 (B IA 19 74 ). T o the e xt e ntZ he ng c ha l l e nge s the i m m i gr a t i on j udge ’ s ( “ I J ” ) F e bruary23, 2 0 0 4 , f in a l o r d e ro f

r e m o v a l, th e I J ’s N o v e m b e r1 8 , 2 0 0 4 , o r d e rd e n y in g h is m ot i on t o reopen, or the B IA ’ s A pri l 26 , 20 05 , order di sm i ss i ng hi s app ea l as u n tim e ly , w e la c kju r is d ic tio n b e c au s e th is p e titio n is n o t tim e lya s to th o s e o r d e r s . S i n gh v . I

NS , 31 5 F . 3d 11 86 , 11 88 (9th C i r. 20 03 ). P E T IT IO N F O R R E V IE W D E N IE D i n p art; D IS M IS S E D i n p art.
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-19-00037-CV

Eloy Gomez

v.

Rey Eduardo Esquivel

On Appeal from the

357th District Court of Cameron County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2018-DCL-6418-E

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed. The Court 

orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED. Costs of the appeal are adjudged 

against appellant.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

March 19, 2020
| (logo) ncb  National Cooperative Bank    | 2011 Crystal Drive  Suite, 8oo  Arlington, VA 22202 |
|-----------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------|

 

 

February 6, 2017

 

 

RBS Commercial Funding, Inc.as Depositor 

600 Washington Blvd.

Stamford, CT 06901

 

RE:         Annual Statement as to Compliance 

WFRBS 2013 C15

 

Dear Sir/Madam:

 

In accordance with the Poolingand Servicing Agreement entered into in connection with the issuance of theCommercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series 2013-C15, as an authorizedofficer of National Cooperative Bank, N.A., formerly NCB, FSB (the “NCBMaster Servicer”), I hereby certify pursuant to Section 11.12 thereofthat:

 

a. A review of the activitiesof the NCB Master Servicer during the preceding calendar year (the“Reporting Period”) and of its performance under the Pooling andServicing Agreement has been made under my supervision.

 

b. To the best of myknowledge, based on these reviews, the NCB Master Servicer has fulfilled allobligations under this agreement in all material respects throughout theReporting Period.

 

Please note that the annualfinancial statement will be sent under separate cover on or before March 31,2017.

 

 

Best regards, 

/s/ Karyn Mann

Karyn Mann

Senior Vice President,Investor Compliance 

National Cooperative Bank,N.A.
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 16

- 772

_____________________________
J ONATHAN A RN B RYANT , Appellant,

v.

S TATE O F F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Okaloosa County

. John T. Brown , Judge

. January 11, 2018

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

.
L EWIS , R AY , and J AY , JJ., concur

.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________2 Andy Thomas, Public Defender, and Victor D. Holder, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee
, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Virginia Harris, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee
, for Appellee.
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

June 26, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice
133179 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices

v SC: 133179 COA: 263439 Calhoun CC: 2004-001098-FC AMIEL KEVIN TUMPKIN, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application fo r leave to appeal the December 21, 2006 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

t0618 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.

June 26, 2007

Clerk
# STATE OF LOUISIANA

COURTOFAPPEAL, 

# FIRSTCIRCUIT
STATE OF LOUISIANA VERSUS WILBERT KELLY, JR. NO. 

### 2021 KW 1512 

# JAN 3 1 2022
In Re: Wilbert 

## Kelly, Jr., 

### applying for 

### supervisory writs,



### 20th Judicial 

### District Court, Parish of East 

### Feliciana, No. 

### 03 -CR -898. BEFORE: McDONALD, LANIER, AND WOLFE, JJ.

WRIT DENIED. JMM WIL EW

COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT 

# YM DEPUCALERK OF COURT FOR THE COURT
Opinion issued August 3 , 2023

In The 

## Court of Appeals For The 

## First District of Texas

———————————— NO. 01 - 23 - 00507 - CV

——————————— IN RE REYNALDO MORALES , Relat or Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus

MEMORANDUM OPINION Relator, Reynaldo Morales, proceeding pro se, has filed a petition for writ of mandamus challenging the June 23, 2023 order signed by the Honorable Latosha Lewis Payne , the presiding judge of the 55th District Court and the Harris County Local Administrative Judge
. 1 Morales a lso mentions an April 21, 2016 order

1 The underlying case is Reynaldo Morales v. Travelers Indemnity Company of Connecticut , cause number 2013

- 54065 , pending in the 165th District Court of Harris County, Texas, the Honorable Ursula Hall, presiding.2

signed by a different judge, which allegedly stated that the trial court lacked jurisdiction. Morales a ttach es only a copy of the June 23, 2023 order. Morales has been adj udicated a vexatious litigant. See https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1337456/Reynaldo

- Morales

- No

- 2016

- 02771.pdf . Under this prefiling order, Morales is prohibited from filing new litigation in state court without first obtaining permission from the appropriate local administrative judge. Section 11.103 of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code prohibits a clerk of a court from filing “a litigation, original proceeding, appeal, or other claim presented, pro se, by a vexatious litigant subject to a prefiling order under Section 11.101 unless the litigant obtains an order from the appropriate local administrative judge described by Section 1 1.102(a) permitting the filing.” T EX . C IV . P RAC . & R EM . C ODE § 11.103(a). Morales has not presented an order signed by the local administrative judge permitting the filing of this original proceeding. Accordingly, we must dismiss this proceeding. See I n re Johnson , No. 01

- 21

- 00611

- CV, 2022 WL 210406, at *1 (Tex. App.

— Houston [1st Dist.] Jan. 25, 2022, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.). We dismiss the petition. Any pending motions are dismissed as moot. PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices Kelly, Hightower, and Countiss.
| (logo) **ncb**  National Cooperative Bank    | 2011 Crystal Drive  Suite, 8oo  Arlington, VA 22202 |
|---------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------|

 

 

February6, 2019

 

 

RBSCommercial Funding, Inc. as Depositor

600Washington Blvd.

Stamford,CT 06901

 

RE:          AnnualStatement as to Compliance

                WFRBS2013 C15

 

DearSir/Madam:

 

Inaccordance with the Pooling and Servicing Agreement entered into in connectionwith the issuance of the Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series2013-C15, as an authorized officer of National Cooperative Bank, N.A., formerlyNCB, FSB (the “NCB Master Servicer”), I hereby certify pursuant to Section11.12 thereof that:

 

a.       Areview of the activities of the NCB Master Servicer during the precedingcalendar year (the “Reporting Period”) and of its performance under the Poolingand Servicing Agreement has been made under my supervision.

 

b.       Tothe best of my knowledge, based on these reviews, the NCB Master Servicer hasfulfilled all obligations under this agreement in all material respectsthroughout the Reporting Period.

 

Pleasenote that the annual financial statement will be sent under separate cover onor before March 31, 2019.

 

 

Bestregards,

/s/Karyn Mann

KarynMann

SeniorVice President, Investor Compliance

NationalCooperative Bank, N.A.
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 ofMaryland, 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
Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

Felisha Diane Williams, Appellant

No. 06-20-00039-CR v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

Appeal from the 115th District Court of 

Upshur County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 18,229). 

Memorandum Opinion delivered by Chief 

Justice Morriss, Justice Burgess and Justice 

Stevens participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find there was partial error in the 

judgment of the court below. Therefore, we modify the trial court’s judgment to reflect that

Williams pled “guilty” to the indictment and “true” to the State’s punishment enhancement 

allegation. As modified, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

We note that the appellant, Felisha Diane Williams, has adequately indicated her inability 

to pay costs of appeal. Therefore, we waive payment of costs.

RENDERED MARCH 16, 2021

BY ORDER OF THE COURT

JOSH R. MORRISS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST:

Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
Opinion issued August 3, 2023

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The 

First District of Texas 

————————————

NO. 01-23-00507-CV

———————————

IN RE REYNALDO MORALES, Relator

Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Relator, Reynaldo Morales, proceeding pro se, has filed a petition for writ of 

mandamus challenging the June 23, 2023 order signed by the Honorable Latosha 

Lewis Payne, the presiding judge of the 55th District Court and the Harris County 

Local Administrative Judge.

1

 Morales also mentions an April 21, 2016 order 

1 The underlying case is Reynaldo Morales v. Travelers Indemnity Company of 

Connecticut, cause number 2013-54065, pending in the 165th District Court of 

Harris County, Texas, the Honorable Ursula Hall, presiding.
2

signed by a different judge, which allegedly stated that the trial court lacked 

jurisdiction. Morales attaches only a copy of the June 23, 2023 order.

Morales has been adjudicated a vexatious litigant. See 

https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1337456/Reynaldo-Morales-No-2016-02771.pdf. Under this 

prefiling order, Morales is prohibited from filing new litigation in state court 

without first obtaining permission from the appropriate local administrative judge. 

Section 11.103 of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code prohibits a clerk of a court 

from filing “a litigation, original proceeding, appeal, or other claim presented, pro 

se, by a vexatious litigant subject to a prefiling order under Section 11.101 unless 

the litigant obtains an order from the appropriate local administrative judge 

described by Section 11.102(a) permitting the filing.” TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM.

CODE § 11.103(a). Morales has not presented an order signed by the local 

administrative judge permitting the filing of this original proceeding. Accordingly, 

we must dismiss this proceeding. See In re Johnson, No. 01-21-00611-CV, 2022 

WL 210406, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Jan. 25, 2022, orig. 

proceeding) (mem. op.).

We dismiss the petition. Any pending motions are dismissed as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Kelly, Hightower, and Countiss.