alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

KIMBERLY COX, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

NEWREZ LLC; et al., 

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 20-17264 

D.C. No. 3:20-cv-04418-VC 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of California

Vince Chhabria, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted November 8, 2021**

Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and MILLER, Circuit Judges.

Kimberly Cox appeals from the district court’s judgment dismissing her 

action alleging claims regarding a home loan and denying her motion to remand to 

state court. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo 

issues of subject matter jurisdiction and denials of motions to remand. 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

NOV 17 2021

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
 2 20-17264 

Ritchey v. Upjohn Drug Co., 139 F.3d 1313, 1315 (9th Cir. 1998). We affirm. 

The district court properly denied Cox’s motion to remand because the 

district court had subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and the action 

was properly removed under 28 U.S.C. § 1441. See Rivet v. Regions Bank of La., 

522 U.S. 470, 475 (1998) (to establish jurisdiction under § 1331, a federal question 

must be “presented on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint” 

(citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); Lippitt v. Raymond James Fin. 

Servs., Inc., 340 F.3d 1033, 1042 (9th Cir. 2003) (“[T]he artful pleading doctrine 

allows federal courts to retain jurisdiction over state law claims . . . when . . . the 

right to relief depends on the resolution of a substantial, disputed federal question.”

(citations omitted)); see also Destfino v. Reiswig, 630 F.3d 952, 957 (9th Cir. 

2011) (explaining that consent to removal is not required from defendants who 

were not properly served). 

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Cox’s motion to 

alter or amend the judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) because 

Cox failed to demonstrate any basis for relief. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah 

County, Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (9th Cir. 1993) (setting forth 

standard of review and grounds for relief under Rule 59(e)).

We reject as meritless Cox’s contention that the district court lacked 

jurisdiction to rule on the motion to dismiss because it did not first explicitly deny 
 3 20-17264 

the motion to remand.

Cox’s motion to strike (Docket Entry No. 32) and motion for judicial notice 

(Docket Entry No. 33) are denied.

Cox’s request to file supplemental briefs, set forth in the opening brief, is 

denied.

AFFIRMED.
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, August 06, 2018. I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia. Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto affixed the day and year last above written. , Clerk. 

# Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
ATLANTA, August 06, 2018 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A18D0542. CHAD BRYANT v. HOLLY BRYANT. Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered that it be hereby DENIED.
LC NUMBERS: 17CV1503
EXHIBIT 13.2



PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350



In connection with this Annual Report of
Ardmore Shipping Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 20-F/A for the year ended December 31, 2015 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) on or about the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Paul Tivnan,
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 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 contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



A signed original of this written statement
has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the SEC or its staff upon request.



Date: April 8, 2016



|/s/ Paul Tivnan | 
|--------------- | 
|Paul Tivnan     | 

Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer, Secretary and
Treasurer (Principal Financial Officer)
img215787041_0.jpg



1123 – Servicer Compliance Statement Transactions Listed With SEC







I, Bradley Wayman, President of CitiMortgage, Inc., certify that:



(a) A review of CitiMortgage, Inc. (the “Servicer”) activities during the 12 month period ending December 31, 2022 (“Reporting Period”) and of its performance under the applicable servicing agreement as identified on Schedule A has been made under my supervision.




(b) To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the applicable servicing agreement in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period.






|                                    
|------------------------------------
|February 24, 2023                   
|By:/s/ Bradley Wayman               
|Name: Bradley Wayman                
|Title: President, CitiMortgage, Inc.



|                                  |                                        |                                       |                                      |                                       |                                                    |                                             |                                                                             |                   |         
|--------------------------------- | -------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------ | ------------------------------------- | -------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ----------------- | --------
|Schedule A                       
|                                 
|Transactions Listed with SEC 2022
|CitiMortgageBond Administrator    | CRLI Primary Servicing (Investor Code) | CMI Primary Servicing (Investor Code) | Cenlar Sub-Servicing (Investor Code) | CMI- Master Servicing (Investor Code) | CMI Primary Bonds (Bond # or GSE Investor Block #) | Security or Deal                            | Party the Servicer is Reporting To (Master Servicer or Trustee or Investor) | CBNA DocCustodian | Footnote
|                                  |                                        |                                       |                                      | 7800                                  |                                                    | SEQUOIA MORTGAGE TRUST 2013-8 (SEMT 2013-8) | WILMINGTON TRUST, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION                                      |                   | 1       



|                       |  
|---------------------- | -
|Non-Listed by Platform | 0
|Listed by Platform     | 1
|TOTAL                  | 1

1 – Master Servicing transferred to Nationstar dba Mr. Cooper Master Servicing 05/1/2022, except Morgan Stanley servicing transferred 5/2/2022 for SEMT 2015 2, SEMT 2018 2, & SEMT 2018 CH1



---
Exhibit 31.2 I, Ellida McMillan, certify that: 1.

          I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Alcentra Capital Corporation; 2.

          Based on my knowledge, this report does 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, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 4.

          The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: (a)

          Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; (b)

          Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles; and (c)

          Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation. 5.

          The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): (a)

          All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and (b)

          Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting. Date: March 9, 2016 /s/ Ellida McMillanEllida McMillan Chief Accounting Officer
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

**COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,**

**Respondent**

**v.**

**EDWARD SCOTT,**

**Petitioner :** 

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**: No. 502 EAL 2015** 

**Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court** 

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW **, this 1st day of December, 2015, the Petition for A llowance of Appeal** 

**is** DENIED

**.**
#### Joseph R. GONZALEZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Frank NACARATO, Gerald A. Wells, Frank R. Headley, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 05-2210-pr.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

Jan. 23, 2008.

Joseph R. Gonzalez, pro se, Fishkill Correctional Facility, Beacon, NY, for Appellant.

Oren L. Zeve, Assistant Solicitor General (Andrew M. Cuomo, Attorney General, Barbara D. Underwood, Solicitor General, Michael S. Belohlavek, Senior Counsel, Of Counsel), Attorney General’s Office for New York State, New York, NY, for Appellees.

PRESENT: AMALYA L. KEARSE, PIERRE N. LEVAD, JOSÉ A. CABRANES, Circuit Judges.

SUMMARY ORDER

Plaintiff-appellant Joseph R. Gonzalez (“plaintiff’ or “Gonzalez”) brought an action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against defendants-appellees Father Frank A. Nacarato, the chaplain at Arthur Kill Correctional Facility (“AKCF”), Gerald A. Wells, the deputy superintendent of security at AKCF, and Frank R. Headley, the superintendent at AKCF (collectively, “State defendants”). Plaintiff alleged that State defendants violated his civil rights under the First and Fourth Amendments to the United States Constitution by preventing him from having contact with officials who attended a religious ceremony at AKCF on September 28, 1998, and later retaliated against him by transferring him to another correctional facility. Defendants moved *326for summary judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c).

In her comprehensive and considered report and recommendation, Magistrate Judge Bloom determined that there was no triable issue of fact, that all state defendants acted reasonably, and that even if plaintiff had succeeded in establishing a violation of his constitutional rights, defendants would be entitled to summary judgment under the doctrine of qualified immunity because they acted in the performance of their discretionary functions. [A-27] Judge Gershon adopted the Magistrate Judge’s report and recommendation and entered summary judgment for State defendants.

We review *de novo*a district court’s orders granting summary judgment and focus on whether the District Court properly concluded that there was no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. *See, e.g., Miller v. Wolpoff & Abramson, L.L.P.,*321 F.3d 292, 300 (2d Cir.2003). Upon a review of the record and the relevant law, we detect no error in the District Court’s order of March 24, 2005. We have considered all of petitioner’s claims on appeal and find them to be without merit. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of the District Court.
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S.J. Res. 22 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        S.J.Res.22

                     One Hundred Fourteenth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE SECOND SESSION

           Begun and held at the City of Washington on Monday,
           the fourth day of January, two thousand and sixteen

                            Joint Resolution

 
  Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, 
United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Corps of Engineers and 
   the Environmental Protection Agency relating to the definition of 
   ``waters of the United States'' under the Federal Water Pollution 
                              Control Act.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress disapproves the 
rule submitted by the Corps of Engineers and the Environmental 
Protection Agency relating to ``Clean Water Rule: Definition of `Waters 
of the United States''' (80 Fed. Reg. 37054; June 29, 2015), and such 
rule shall have no force or effect.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
<partyblock><br><br><div align="center"><b><font size="+1"> The People of the State of New York,<br><br>against<br><br>Keith Morris, Defendant-Appellant.</font></b></div><br><br><p>Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, New York County (James M. Burke, J.), rendered May 14, 2013, convicting him, after a jury trial, of assault in the third degree, and imposing sentence.</p><p>Per Curiam.</p><p>Judgment of conviction (James M. Burke, J.), rendered May 14, 2013, affirmed.</p><p>Defendant's claim that the evidence was legally insufficient to support his conviction is unpreserved, and we decline to review it in the interest of justice (<i>see People v Hawkins</i>, 11 NY3d 484, 492 [2008]). Were we to review this claim, we would find that the verdict convicting defendant of assault in the third degree (<i>see </i>Penal Law ยง 120.00[1]) was supported by legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence (<i>see People v Danielson</i>, 9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]). There is no basis for disturbing the jury's credibility determinations, including its rejection of defendant's version of events. The evidence warranted the conclusion that defendant was the aggressor in the altercation, which arose from a traffic dispute, and that he punched complainant in the face with a closed fist, breaking complainant's jaw (<i>see</i> Penal Law ยง 120.00[1]; <a href="../2009/2009_02825.htm" target="_blank"><i>Matter of Edward H.</i>, 61 AD3d 473</a> [2009]; <i>Matter of Marcel F.</i>, 233 AD2d 442, 442-443 [1996]). </p><p>THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.</p><br>I concur I concur I concur<br>Decision Date: September 25, 2019<br><br><div align="center"><form method="LINK" action="../../slipidx/at_1_idxtable.shtml"><input type="submit" value="Return to Decision List"></form></div></partyblock>
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, 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. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

May 21, 2012 

h0514 

Order 

 

May 21, 2012 

144443 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 144443 

 COA: 299928 

 Kalamazoo CC: 2009-002038 FC 

WILLIAM DARNELL COLLIER, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

____________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the November 22, 2011 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed December 31, 2019

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-19-00775-CV

IN THE MATTER OF THE MARRIAGE OF CLARENCE DAVID 

SINGLETARY AND CASSANDRA MARIE JOHNSON

On Appeal from the 309th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2014-66873

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This is an attempted appeal from a judgment signed June 25, 2016. 

Appellant filed a motion for new trial on July 22, 2019. Appellant’s notice of 

appeal was filed September 30, 2019.

The notice of appeal must be filed within 30 days after the judgment is 

signed when appellant has not filed a timely post-judgment motion. See Tex. R. 

App. P. 26.1. Appellant’s notice of appeal was not filed timely. A motion for 

extension of time is necessarily implied when an appellant, acting in good faith, 

files a notice of appeal beyond the time allowed by Texas Rule of Appellate 
2

Procedure 26.1, but within the 15-day grace period provided by Rule 26.3 for filing 

a motion for extension of time. See Verburgt v. Dorner, 959 S.W.2d 615, 617–18 

(1997) (construing the predecessor to Rule 26). Appellant’s notice of appeal was 

not filed within the 15-day period provided by Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 

26.3.

On November 25, 2019, notification was transmitted to all parties of the 

court’s intention to dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P.

42.3(a). Appellant’s response fails to demonstrate that this court has jurisdiction to 

entertain the appeal. 

The appeal is ordered dismissed.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Frost and Justices Christopher and Bourliot.
Exhibit 32.1

Certification of Chief Executive Officer

Pursuant to

Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)

In connection with this Annual Report on Form 10-K (the Report) of Investcorp
Credit Management BDC, Inc. (the Registrant), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Michael C. Mauer, the Chief Executive Officer of the Registrant, hereby certify, to the best of my knowledge, that:

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

(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
of the Registrant.



/s/    Michael C. MauerName:

Michael C. MauerDate:

September 13, 2022
Lithium Exploration Group, Inc.: Exhibit 10.13 - Filed by newsfilecorp.com








  
  

Exhibit 10.13

Description of the Verbal Agreement  between the Lithium Exploration Group, Inc. (the “Company”) and Alexander Walsh. 

The Company is party to an informal verbal agreement with its Chief Executive Officer, Alexander Walsh, which was effective July 1, 2011 and continues until either Mr. Walsh or the Company terminates the  agreement.  Under this verbal agreement,  Mr. Walsh serves as the Company’s Chief Executive Officer and is paid a salary of $10,000 per month.
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

**Section 1350 Certification -- Principal Executive Officer** 

 

**Citizens Financial Corporation and Subsidiaries**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Citizens Financial Corporation (the “Company”) for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Darrell R. Wells, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge: 

 

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 results of operations of the Company. 

 

 

| By:    | /s/ Darrell R. Wells                  |
|--------|---------------------------------------|
|   | Darrell R. Wells                      |
|   | President and Chief Executive Officer |

 

Date: May 11, 2007

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Citizens Financial Corporation and will be retained by CFC and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

The foregoing certification is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission as an exhibit to the Form 10-Q and shall not be considered filed as part of the Form 10-Q.
#### CONTINENTAL CASUALTY CO., American Casualty Co. of Reading, Pennsylvania, Transportation Insurance Co., et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. STAFFING CONCEPTS, INC., Staffing Concepts Nat’l, Inc., Staffing Concepts Int’l, Inc., Ventures Resources Group, LLC, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 07-2475.

United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

Argued Jan. 7, 2008.

Decided Jan. 11, 2008.

Kenneth M. Gorenberg, Wildman, Harrold, Allen & Dixon, Chicago, IL, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.

Jason H. Baruch, McIntyre, Deese, Baruch, Panzarella, Thanasides *&*Lynch, P.L., Tampa, FL, Peter G. Swan, Emalfarb, Swan *&*Bain, Highland Park, IL, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before Hon. RICHARD A. POSNER, Circuit Judge, Hon. ILANA DIAMOND ROVNER, Circuit Judge, Hon. DIANE P. WOOD, Circuit Judge.

ORDER

The appeal is DISMISSED for want of appellate jurisdiction. See 9 U.S.C. § 16(a)(1)(A) *&*(B); *Middleby Carp. v. Hussmann Corp.,*962 F.2d 614, 616 (7th Cir.1992) (barring appeal when an order denying a petition is “a delay incident to an orderly process”); *IDS Life Ins. Co. v. SunAmerica, Inc.,*103 F.3d 524, 526-27 (7th Cir.1996) (extending *Middleby*to denials of an order to arbitrate under 9 U.S.C. § 16(a)(1)(A)). An opinion will follow.