alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-7363
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus FITZROY GUNTER, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Richard D. Bennett, District Judge. (8:01-cr-00514-RDB; 8:05-cv-02136-RBD) Submitted: June 15, 2007 Decided: June 19, 2007 Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Fitzroy Gunter, Appellant Pro Se. Barbara Suzanne Skalla, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: Fitzroy Gunter seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude Gunter has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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
ANNUAL STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE



Reference is hereby made to that
certain Trust and Servicing Agreement dated as of May 6, 2013, by and among CITIGROUP COMMERCIAL MORTGAGE SECURITIES INC., as Depositor,
WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Servicer, WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Special Servicer, CITIBANK, N.A.,
as Certificate Administrator and U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Trustee, with respect to Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates,
Series 2013-375P (the "Agreement"). Capitalized terms used herein not otherwise defined shall have the meanings assigned
in the Agreement.

Pursuant to Section 12.7 of this
Agreement, I, Daniel Marthinsen, Managing Director of Special Servicing do hereby certify that:

| | 1. | A review of the activities of the Special Servicer during the period from January 1, 2017 through
December 31, 2017 (the “Reporting Period”), and of its performance per the Agreement during such period has been made
under my supervision, and
| | -- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the
undersigned has executed this Certificate as of the 28th day of February 2018.






Daniel Marthinsen 
Managing Director 
Wells Fargo Bank
#### THE STATE, THE WASHINGTON MANUFACTURING COMPANY, PROSECUTORS, v. THOMAS HALLAM, COLLECTOR. THE STATE, THE KAIGHN’S POINT FERRY COMPANY, PROSECUTORS, v. WILLIAM VANTIER, COLLECTOR. THE STATE, THE WEST JERSEY FERRY COMPANY, PROSECUTORS, v. SAMUEL I. RUDDEROW, COLLECTOR. THE STATE, THE CAMDEN AND PHILADELPHIA FEERY COMPANY, PROSECUTORS, v. JAMES H. DENNY, COLLECTOR. THE STATE, THE CAMDEN WATER WORKS COMPANY, PROSECUTORS, v. RUDDEROW, COLLECTOR.

On *certiorari.*In matter of taxation.

On *certiorari.*In matter of taxation.

On *certiorari.*In matter of taxation.

On *certiorari.*In matter of taxation.

On *certiorari.*In matter of taxation.

For the prosecutors, *A. Browning.*

For the defendants, *J. M. Robeson*and *J. M. Scovel.*

In the above cases the assessments to be reduced as in *The State*v. *Hallam, ante*412.
SCPW-19-0000088

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I 

_________________________________________________________________

CLARE E. CONNORS, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I,

Petitioner,

vs.

KEITH M. KANESHIRO, PROSECUTING ATTORNEY

 OF THE CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU,

Respondent.

_________________________________________________________________

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

ORDER

(By: Recktenwald, C.J., McKenna, Pollack, and Wilson, JJ., and

Circuit Judge Kawamura, in place of Nakayama, J., recused)

Upon consideration of the March 7, 2019 filing by

Petitioner Clare E. Connors, the subsequent March 7, 2019 filing

by Respondent Keith M. Kaneshiro, and the record in this matter, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition is dismissed,

without prejudice. 

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, March 8, 2019. 

/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald

/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna

/s/ Richard W. Pollack

/s/ Michael D. Wilson

/s/ Shirley M. Kawamura 

Electronically Filed

Supreme Court

SCPW-19-0000088

08-MAR-2019

01:48 PM
DISMISS and Opinion Filed December 11, 2019 

S 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-19-00436-CV 

THE JAGO TIMES GROUP PUBLICATIONS, LLC, AND 

RAJA A. KHANZADA, Appellants 

V. 

ANWER CHUGTAI, Appellee 

On Appeal from the 191st Judicial District Court 

Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. DC-18-09353 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before Justices Molberg, Reichek, and Evans 

Opinion by Justice Evans 

 Before the Court is appellants’ “Notice of Voluntary Dismissal by Agreement” informing 

the Court that the parties have “have resolved their differences and have agreed to nonsuit all 

claims against each other with prejudice.” We construe appellants’ notice as a motion to dismiss 

this appeal. We grant the motion and dismiss the appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(1). 

190436F.P05 

 

/David Evans/ 

DAVID EVANS 

JUSTICE 
 –2– 

S 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

JUDGMENT 

THE JAGO TIMES GROUP 

PUBLICATIONS, LLC AND RAJA A. 

KHANZADA, Appellants 

No. 05-19-00436-CV V. 

ANWER CHUGTAI, Appellee 

 On Appeal from the 191st Judicial District 

Court, Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. DC-18-09353. 

Opinion delivered by Justice Evans. 

Justices Molberg and Reichek participating. 

 In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the appeal is DISMISSED. 

 Subject to any agreement between the parties, it is ORDERED that appellee ANWER 

CHUGTAI recover his costs of this appeal from appellants THE JAGO TIMES GROUP 

PUBLICATIONS, LLC AND RAJA A. KHANZADA. 

Judgment entered December 11, 2019
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

JNC LAND CO., INC.,

 

 Appellant,

v.

THE CITY OF EL PASO, TEXAS,

 Appellee.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-13-00165-CV

Appeal from the

205th District Court

of El Paso County, Texas 

(TC# 2010-4955)

O R D E R

The Court GRANTS the Appellee’s third motion for extension of time within which to 

file the brief until March 22, 2014. NO FURTHER MOTIONS FOR EXTENSION OF TIME 

TO FILE THE APPELLEE’S BRIEF WILL BE CONSIDERED BY THIS COURT.

It is further ORDERED that the Hon. David S. Jeans, Jr., the Appellee’s attorney, prepare 

the Appellee’s brief and forward the same to this Court on or before March 22, 2014.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 26th day of February, 2014.

PER CURIAM

Before McClure, C.J., Rivera and Rodriguez, JJ.
**
**Exhibit 32.2**

**Certification of Chief Financial Officer**

**Pursuant to**

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

In connection with the annual report on Form 10-K/A for the year ended** September******** 30,2020****** (the “Report”) of****** Oaktree Strategic Income Corporation** (the “Registrant”), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I,****** Mel Carlisle**,the Chief Financial Officer of the Registrant, hereby certify, to the best of my knowledge, that: 

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements ofSection 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 allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant. 

 

/s/ Mel Carlisle
Name: Mel CarlisleDate: December 18, 2020**
EX-10.60



 Exhibit 10.60 
 AMENDMENT TO PROMISSORY NOTE 
 This Amendment to Promissory Note (the
“Amendment”) is entered into as of December 1, 2011 by and between eDiets.com, Inc. (“Maker”) and Lee S. Isgur (“Holder”). 
 WHEREAS, Maker executed and delivered to Holder that certain promissory note dated November 12, 2010 (the “Original Note”), payable to the order of Holder in the original principal amount
of Two Hundred Thousand and 00/100 Dollars ($200,000.00), which Original Note evidences a loan in such original principal amount made by Holder to Maker; and 
 WHEREAS, Maker and Holder wish to amend the Original Note to extend the maturity date thereunder, 
 NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, Maker and Holder hereby agree as follows:

 8. All capitalized terms not otherwise defined herein shall have the respective meanings set forth in the Original Note.

 9. The entire outstanding principal balance of the Original Note, together with all accrued and unpaid interest and charges
thereon, shall be due and payable on December 31, 2012. 
 10. Except as otherwise provided in this Amendment, all terms
and provisions of the Original Note shall remain in full force and effect. 
 11. This Amendment shall be governed by and
construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Illinois. 
 12. This Amendment shall bind and inure to the benefit of the
parties hereto and to their respective successors and assigns. 
 13. This Amendment may not be changed orally. 

14. This Amendment may be executed in multiple counterparts, and may be delivered by facsimile or other form of electronic transmission.
Each counterpart, when so executed and delivered, shall be deemed an original, and all counterparts shall together constitute one and the same instrument. 
 [REMAINDER OF THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK] 







 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Maker and Holder have duly executed this Amendment as of the day and year first above
written. 
  

							
	HOLDER:	 		 	MAKER:
			
		 		 	EDIETS.COM, INC.
				
	 /s/ Lee S. Isgur
	 		 	By:	 	 /s/ Thomas Hoyer

	LEE S. ISGUR	 		 		 	Name: Thomas Hoyer
		 		 		 	Title: Chief Financial Officer
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14

- 60605 Summary Calendar

GASPAR BONIFACIO MARCOS

- CARDONA , al so known as Angel Cardona

Rios,

Petitioner

v.
LORETTA LYNCH , U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL , Respondent

Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A200 967 830

Before WIENER, HIGGINSON, and COSTA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Gaspar Bonifacio Marcos

- Cardona petitions this court for review of the Board of Immigration Appeal s’s (BIA) decision dismissing his appeal of the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) discretionary denial of cancellation of removal

. He argues that this court has jurisdiction because he raises questions of law.
Marcos

- Cardona contends that the BIA and IJ failed to aggregate the hardship

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. 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 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED September 30, 2015 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 14-60605 Document: 00513213066 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/30/2015N o. 14

- 60605

2 factors he presented , which resulted in a violation of his due process rights and the right to present evidence. He also argues that the IJ and BIA failed to consider the impact of removal on his children’s education. In addition,
Marcos

- Cardona contend s that his son’s speech impediment should have been given more consideration because his testimony in support of the speech impediment was cre dible

. Finally, h e argues that the IJ and BIA failed to
render an individualized hard s hip determination as to each child. Under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i), n o court shall have jurisdiction to review any judgment relating to requests for relief under § 12 29b. This provision does not , however, preclude review of constitutional claims or questions of law. § 1252(a)(2)(D); see Wilmore, v. Gonzales , 455 F.3d 524, 526 (5th Cir. 2006). But the alien’s framing of an issu e is not dispositive. We will decline to consider an abuse

- of

- discretion argument cloaked in constitutional or legal garb. Hadwani v. Gonzales , 445 F.3d 798, 801 (5th Cir. 2006); Delgado

Reynua v. Gonzales , 450 F.3d 596, 599

- 600 (5th Cir. 2006)

. That is the case here. Because Ma rcos
- Cardona’s arguments are nothing more than a disa greement with the weighing of the factors underlying the di scretionary decision whether he merited cancellation of removal , we lack jurisdiction

. See Rueda v. Ashcroft , 380 F.3d 831, 831 (5th Cir. 2003). Accordingly, the petition is DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION. Case: 14-60605 Document: 00513213066 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/30/2015
Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-16-0000072

27-SEP-2018

08:46 AM
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 175 (Tuesday, September 12, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 42806]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-19246]



[[Page 42806]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER17-2427-000]


Hudson Energy Services, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial 
Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 
Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding, 
of Hudson Energy Services, LLC's application for market-based rate 
authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such 
application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR 
part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of 
liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, 
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's 
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone 
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that 
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with 
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of 
liability, is September 26, 2017.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet 
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an 
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the 
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the 
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 
5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in 
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in 
the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the 
Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an 
eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive 
email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). 
For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#f9bfbcabbab6979590979caa8c8989968b8db99f9c8b9ad79e968f"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="44020116070b2a282d2a21173134342b363004222136276a232b32">[email protected]</span></a> or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, 
call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: September 6, 2017.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-19246 Filed 9-11-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned hereby certifies, for the purposes of section 1350 of
chapter 63 of title 18 of the United States Code, in his capacity as Chief Executive Officer of SRI/Surgical Express, Inc. (SRI), that, to his knowledge, the Quarterly Report of SRI on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2008
(the Report), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of SRI.



|                      |  |     |  |                        
|--------------------- |  | --- |  | -----------------------
|Date: August 13, 2008 |  | By: |  | /s/ Gerald Woodard     
|                      |  |     |  | Gerald Woodard         
|                      |  |     |  | Chief Executive Officer
[932 NYS2d 307]

#### Frederick Viglietta, Appellant, v Alain Lavoie et al., Respondents.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Department,

September 21, 2011

*37APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*DeJesu Maio & DeJesu,*Huntington *(<Joseph C. DeJesu*of counsel), for appellant. *Law Offices of Michaelangelo Matera,*Melville *{Michaelangelo Matera*of counsel), for respondents.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs.

Petitioner commenced this summary proceeding pursuant to RPAPL 713 (10) against his daughter and son-in-law, seeking to be restored to possession of the home he had previously resided in with them. In addition, he sought treble damages pursuant to RPAPL 853. Respondents moved to dismiss the petition, and the District Court granted their motion.

RPAPL 713 (10) states that a special proceeding may be maintained upon the following ground:

> “The person in possession has entered the property or remains in possession by force or unlawful means and he or his predecessor in interest was not in quiet possession for three years before the time of the forcible or unlawful entry or detainer and the petitioner was peaceably in actual possession at the time of the forcible or unlawful entry or in constructive possession at the time of the forcible or unlawful detainer; no notice to quit shall be required in order to maintain a proceeding under this subdivision.”

The only allegation in the petition as to petitioner’s interest in the subject property is that “the Premises were purchased by all parties involved.” He also alleged, however, that respondents “are the record owners of the subject premises.” While petitioner may have a claim to be an equitable owner of the premises, he was not the record owner and, thus, although he may have been in occupancy, he was not in “actual possession” or “constructive possession” at the time of the allegedly unlawful detainer and could not maintain an unlawful entry and detainer proceeding *{cf. Napier v Spielmann,*196 NY 575 [1909], *affg on op at*127 App Div 567 [1908]; *World Evangelization Church v Devoe St. Baptist Church,*27 Misc 3d 141[A], 2010 NY Slip Op 50996[U] [App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2010]). Petitioner has not provided any other basis for his claim that he is lawfully entitled to possession *{see Markun v Weckstein,*100 Misc 668 [App Term, 1st Dept 1917]), nor has he offered any *38other explanation for how respondents’ detainer of the subject premises was unlawful. Accordingly, the petition was properly dismissed. It is noted that the question of title can properly be litigated in the Supreme Court action which was commenced by petitioner prior to the commencement of this summary proceeding.

We note, in any event, that “damages for the wrongful eviction, including lost rental income and treble damages, are not available in a summary proceeding brought pursuant to RPAPL 713 (10), and must be secured separately” *(Saccheri v Cathedral Props. Corp.,*16 Misc 3d 111, 114 [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2007]).

Accordingly, the order granting respondents’ motion to dismiss the petition is affirmed.

Nicolai, EJ., Molía and Iannacci, JJ., concur.
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-30163 Conference Calendar

WANDA FAYE HUNT, individually and as natural tutrix on behalf of Keshia Lachun Hunt, Alfreda Yuvette Hunt, Chenitra Renee Hunt, Arthur Raymond Taylor, Jr., and Calisha Kawanda Hunt, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus STEVE DEMENT BAIL BONDS, INC.; STEVE DEMENT; DAN RECKTENWALD; MARK ROBBINS, Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 95-CV-168

- - - - - - - - - - August 22, 1996 Before KING, DUHÉ, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Wanda Faye Hunt appeals from the dismissal of her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim for failure to state a claim pursuant to F ED . R. C IV . P. 12(b)(6). Hunt contends that the defendants’ actions hadNo. 96-30163 - 2 - sufficient nexus with state action by virtue of state law allowing bail bondsmen to arrest their principals and that the defendants were state actors because they were performing a traditionally exclusive state function. We have reviewed the record and the briefs of the parties and we find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for essentially the reasons stated by the district court. See Hunt v. Steve Dement Bail, Inc. , No. 95-CV-168 (W.D. La. Feb. 12, 1996).
AFFIRMED.