alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Meriani MERIANI, Petitioner v. Michael B. MUKASEY, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 07-60002

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Jan. 24, 2008.

Troy Kwang-Mung Sim, Houston, TX, for Petitioner.

Patricia Ann Smith, Vanessa O. Lefort, U.S. Department of Justice Office of Immigration Litigation, Thomas Ward Hussey, Director, Emily Anne Radford, Assistant Director, U.S. Department of Justice Civil Division Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Trey Lund, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Field Office Director, New Orleans, LA, Sharon A. Hudson, U.S. Citizenship *&*Immigration Services, Houston, TX, for Respondent.

Before JONES, Chief Judge, and REAVLEY and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Meriani Meriani is a native and citizen of Indonesia who was admitted into the United States in May 2000 and remained in the country beyond the authorized period. An immigration judge (IJ) ordered Meriani removed but granted her request for voluntary departure. The Board of *622Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed the Id’s decision. Meriani filed a motion to reopen on the ground that she was seeking adjustment of status. The BIA denied Meriani’s motion to reopen. The BIA also denied Meriani’s motion to reconsider the denial of her motion to reopen on the ground that she failed to leave the United States by the imposed deadline for voluntary departure, and was thus statutorily ineligible for adjustment of status pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1229c(d).

In this petition for review, Meriani argues that the BIA erred in denying her motion to reopen because the evidence in the record proved that her husband is a United States citizen by naturalization. She thus argues that she is eligible for adjustment of status. Meriani further argues that the BIA’s interpretation of 8 U.S.C. § 1229c(d) should be rejected by this court because it creates a conflict between the statutory provisions on voluntary departure and a motion to reopen. She asserts that because of this conflict, the rule of lenity should be applied in her case.

The BIA’s interpretation of the applicable statutes rendering Meriani ineligible for adjustment of status was reasonable. *See Banda-Ortiz v. Gonzales,*445 F.3d 387, 389-91 (5th Cir.2006), *cert. denied,*- U.S. -, 127 S.Ct. 1874, 167 L.Ed.2d 363 (2007). As Meriani was ineligible for adjustment of status, the BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying her motion to reconsider on that basis. *See Singh v. Gonzales,*436 F.3d 484, 487 (5th Cir.2006); *Zhao v. Gonzales,*404 F.3d 295, 303-04 (5th Cir.2005). As such, Meriani’s rule of lenity argument is unavailing. *See United States v. Cooper,*966 F.2d 936, 944 (5th Cir.1992). Accordingly, her petition for review is denied. Her requests for a stay of removal and compensation under the Equal Access to Justice Act are denied as well.

DENIED.

*

 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.
Exhibit 32.2
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  (1)
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C 78m or 78o(d));
and(2)
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
of the Company.
 Date: March 11, 2011
    /s/ Joseph G. MahlerJoseph G. MahlerSenior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer,
Treasurer and Corporate Secretary
(Principal Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer)
Exhibit 99.1





CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND


PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER


PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350





In connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Onyx Software Corporation for the quarter ended September 30, 2002, the undersigned, Brent R. Frei, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board of
Onyx Software Corporation, and Brian C. Henry, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Onyx Software Corporation, each do hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, that:





(1)  such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September
30, 2002 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 such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2002 fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of Onyx Software Corporation.





Date:

November 13, 2002



By:

/S/    BRENT R. FREIBrent R. Frei, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board





Date:

November 13, 2002



By:

/S/    BRIAN C. HENRYBrian C. Henry, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
| (logo) WELLS            FARGO | Corporate Trust ServicesMAC R1204-010 9062 Old Annapolis Road

Columbia, MD 21045

 

Tel:  410 884 2000

Fax: 410 715 2380 |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

 

 

 

 

J.P. Morgan Chase Commercial Mortgage Securities Corp.

270 Park Avenue,

New York, NY 10017

 

 

RE: Annual Statement of Compliance

 

The undersigned,  a duly authorized officer of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as Certificate Administrator and Paying Agent for the Southridge Mall Whole Loan (in such capacities, "Wells Fargo"), hereby certifies as follows as of and for the year ending December 31,  2014 (the "reporting period"):

 

 

(a)  A review of Wells Fargo's activities during the reporting period and of its performance under the applicable servicing agreement(s) listed on Schedule A hereto (the "Servicing Agreement(s)") has been made under my supervision; and

 

(b)   To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, Wells Fargo has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Servicing Agreement(s) in all material respects throughout the reporting period, except as noted on Schedule B.

 

 

 

March 9, 2015

 

/s/  Brian Smith

Brian Smith

Vice President

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

To: J.P. Morgan Chase Commercial Securities Corp.

 

Schedule A

 

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         

List of Servicing Agreement(s) and Series

 

 

Pooling  and  Servicing  Agreement  dated  as  of August  1,  2013,  by and  among  J.P. MORGAN CHASE COMMERCIAL MORTGAGE SECURITIES  CORP,  as  Depositor, MIDLAND LOAN SERVICES, A DIVISION OF PNC BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as  Master  Servicer and  Special Servicer, and  PENTALPHA SURVEILLANCE LLC, as Senior  Trust  Advisor and  Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. as Certificate Administrator,  Paying Agent,  Trustee  and  Custodian   relating  to  the  Series  JPMBB  2013-C14 Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through  Certificates relating to The Southridge  Mall Whole Loan, a pari passu  portion  of which is included in the Series JPMC 2013-C12 Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through  Certificates transaction.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

To: J.P. Morgan Chase Commercial Mortgage Securities Corp.

 

Schedule B

 

**Material Non-Compliance****with****Servicing Obligations**

 

Not Applicable
Exhibit 15.1





Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm





We consent to the incorporation by reference in the following Registration Statements:


(1) Registration Statement (Form F-3 No. 333-201828) of Marine Harvest ASA, and


(2) Registration Statement (Form S-8 No.  333-210299 ) pertaining to the Share Option Scheme of Marine Harvest ASA; of our reports dated April 1, 2016 , with respect to the consolidated financial statements of Marine Harvest ASA and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of Marine Harvest ASA included in this Annual Report (Form 20-F) for the year ended December 31, 2015.








/s/ Ernst & Young ASOslo, NorwayApril 1, 2016
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2

                   CERTIFICATION OF BRIAN C. HENRY 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 report of Onyx Software Corporation (the Company) on Form
10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Brian C. Henry, 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.

Date: May 7, 2004

By:      /s/ Brian C. Henry
    ----------------------------
           BRIAN C. HENRY
    EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT AND
       CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
EX-10.1



 Exhibit 10.1 
 CHART INDUSTRIES, INC. 
 AMENDMENT NO. 3 

TO 

EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT 
 This Amendment No. 3 (the “Amendment”) to the Employment Agreement, dated February 26, 2008 and subsequently amended effective January 1, 2009 and January 1, 2010 (the
“Agreement”), by and between Chart Industries, Inc. (the “Company”) and Samuel F. Thomas (“Executive”), is effective January 1, 2012. 
 WITNESSETH: 
 WHEREAS, the Company and the Executive desire to amend the
Agreement; and 
 WHEREAS, the parties reserved the right to amend the Agreement pursuant to Section 13.c thereof.

 NOW, THEREFORE, pursuant to Section 13.c of the Agreement, and effective as of January 1, 2012, the parties hereby
amend the Agreement as follows: 
 1. In Section 3 of the Agreement, delete the dollar amount
“$600,000” and replace with “$700,000”. 
 2. In Section 4 of the Agreement delete
the phrase “of one hundred fifty percent (150%) of the Executive’s Base Salary (with it being understood that one hundred fifty percent (150%) of the Executive’s Base Salary is the “Target”)” in its entirety
and replace it with “of one hundred thirty percent (130%) of the Executive’s Base Salary (with it being understood that one hundred thirty percent (130%) of the Executive’s Base Salary is the “Target”)”.

 3. Except as set forth herein, the Agreement is not modified or amended. 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have duly executed this Amendment. 

 

							
	CHART INDUSTRIES, INC.	 		 	SAMUEL F. THOMAS
	(“Company”)	 		 	(“Executive”)
				
	 By:
	 	/s/ Mark H. Ludwig	 		 	/s/ Samuel F. Thomas
	 Name:
	 	Mark H. Ludwig	 		 	
	 Title:
	 	Vice President – Human Resources
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 240 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 240

  To amend title 38, United States Code, to promote jobs for veterans 
  through the use of sole source contracts by Department of Veterans 
 Affairs for purposes of meeting the contracting goals and preferences 
of the Department of Veterans Affairs for small business concerns owned 
                      and controlled by veterans.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 7, 2011

  Mr. Filner introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                     Committee on Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend title 38, United States Code, to promote jobs for veterans 
  through the use of sole source contracts by Department of Veterans 
 Affairs for purposes of meeting the contracting goals and preferences 
of the Department of Veterans Affairs for small business concerns owned 
                      and controlled by veterans.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. PROMOTING JOBS FOR VETERANS THROUGH THE USE OF SOLE SOURCE 
              CONTRACTS BY DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS FOR PURPOSES 
              OF MEETING THE CONTRACTING GOALS AND PREFERENCES OF THE 
              DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS FOR SMALL BUSINESS 
              CONCERNS OWNED AND CONTROLLED BY VETERANS.

    (a) In General.--Section 8127(c) of title 38, United States Code, 
is amended by striking ``may'' and inserting ``shall''.
    (b) Deadline for Interim Policy Guidance.--By not later than 30 
days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of 
Veterans Affairs shall issue interim policy guidance to carry out the 
amendment made by subsection (a).
                                 <all>
```
img217634083_0.jpg
     780 Township Line Road  Yardley, PA 19067609-883-3900


Re: Servicer Compliance Statement

The undersigned, a duly authorized officer of Cenlar FSB, as servicer (“the Servicer”) pursuant to applicable servicing agreements governing the securities listed in Exhibit A, does certify that:

1. A review of the Servicer’s activities during the period of 1/1/2023 to 12/31/2023 (the “Reporting Period”) and of the Servicer’s performance under the applicable servicing agreement has been made under my supervision; and


2. 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.


The undersigned has duly executed this Certificate this 5th day of March 2024.

img217634083_1.jpg

David C. Schneider President

Cenlar FSB

Mailing Address:Cenlar FSB  425 Phillips Boulevard  Ewing, NJ 08618


---

img217634083_2.jpg








Exhibit A – Securities Covered in Cenlar’s Servicer Compliance Statement



|         |                                      |             |                                    |                       
|-------- | ------------------------------------ | ----------- | ---------------------------------- | ----------------------
|Investor | Servicer                             | Security    | * Period Subserviced by Cenlar FSB | Security Administrator
|RW0      | Redwood Residential Acquisition Corp | SEMT 2012-6 | 1/1 thru 12/31/23                  | Citibank              
|RW2      | Redwood Residential Acquisition Corp | SEMT 2013-2 | 1/1 thru 12/31/23                  | Citibank              
|RW3      | Redwood Residential Acquisition Corp | SEMT 2013-3 | 1/1 thru 12/31/23                  | Citibank              
|RW4      | Redwood Residential Acquisition Corp | SEMT 2013-4 | 1/1 thru 12/31/23                  | Citibank              
|RW5      | Redwood Residential Acquisition Corp | SEMT 2013-5 | 1/1 thru 12/31/23                  | Citibank              
|RW6      | Redwood Residential Acquisition Corp | SEMT 2013-6 | 1/1 thru 12/31/23                  | Citibank              
|RW7      | Redwood Residential Acquisition Corp | SEMT 2013-7 | 1/1 thru 12/31/23                  | Citibank              
|RW8      | Redwood Residential Acquisition Corp | SEMT 2013-8 | 1/1 thru 12/31/23                  | Citibank              






---
#### Edwin A. BARTOL, Jr. v. ISTHMIAN LINES, INC.

Civ. No. 13608.

United States District Court D. Maryland.

April 4, 1963.

*388Gould Gibbons and Dickerson, Nice & Sokol, Baltimore, Md., for plaintiff.

Randall C. Coleman, Baltimore, Md., for defendant.

THOMSEN, Chief Judge.

Among the interrogatories which plaintiff served on defendant is the following, No. 15:

> “Has any report been made by an employee of the Defendant in the ordinary course of his employment to a superior concerning the facts and circumstances of the accident or injuries suffered? If so, set forth the name and address of all persons who rendered said reports and the name and address of the person in whose possession said reports are at the present time. Attach copy of same to your Answers.”

To this interrogatory defendant replied :

> “The defendant excepts to the following interrogatory: [repeating the interrogatory] Chief Officer Mooney prepared an injury report which was sent to the defendant. The vessel’s Master prepared a report to defendant’s counsel. These are reports which the defendant requires, but they are not, it is submitted, reports of an ‘employee’ to a ‘superior’ as contemplated by the interrogatory; therefore, the defendant says that these reports are not subject to production. Even if these reports were subject to production, the defendant is not required to produce documents in answers to interrogatories. Both reports are in the possession of Randall C. Coleman, attorney for defendant.”

Plaintiff has excepted to defendant’s answer.

The answer is sufficient. Buining v. The Transporter, D.Md., 171 F. Supp. 127, 133 (No. 11). Plaintiffs often ask in their interrogatories that copies of statements be supplied, and defendants sometimes supply them. Where there is no dispute about plaintiff’s right to examine and copy the papers, this practice saves both sides the time and effort required to file and answer a motion under Rule 34. Where, however, there is a dispute about plaintiff’s right to inspect and copy one or more of the papers requested, plaintiff must proceed under Rule 34 and show cause why he should be allowed to inspect and copy the papers. The ruling on such a motion will be controlled by the principles set out in Buining v. The Transporter, D.Md., 171 F. Supp. 465. See also LaChance v. Service Trucking Co., D.Md., 215 F.Supp. 159.
Order entered April 30, 2015

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-14-01384-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF K.V.K., A CHILD

On Appeal from the 256th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DF-12-19679

ORDER

Before the Court is appellant’s April 28, 2015 unopposed motion to file supplemental 

reporter’s records. Appellant has been found indigent and is allowed to proceed without advance 

payment of costs. Appellant requested the reporter’s record from the bench trial and six 

hearings. Only the reporter’s record from the bench trial has been filed.

We GRANT appellant’s motion. We ORDER Glenda Johnson, Official Court Reporter 

for the 256th Judicial District Court, to file, WITHIN THIRTY DAYS of the date of this order, 

the reporter’s records with exhibits from the hearings held on the following dates:

1. February 20, 2014;

2. February 28, 2014;

3. March 20, 2014;

4. October 7, 2014;

5. October 22, 2014; and
6. January 9, 2015.

If any of the hearings were not recorded, Glenda Johnson shall file written verification that such 

hearings were not recorded. Appellant’s brief will be due THIRTY DAYS after the above-listed 

reporter’s records are filed or the requested written verification is filed.

We DIRECT the Clerk of this Court to send a copy of this order to the Honorable David 

Lopez, Judge of the 256th Judicial District Court, Glenda Johnson, and counsel for all parties.

/s/ ELIZABETH LANG-MIERS 

JUSTICE
#### William Henry BROWN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Joe SIMMONS, Maintenance Supervisor IV; Warden Gary Johnson; Brenda Channey, Warden; Office of the Attorney General, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 07-40264

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Jan. 16, 2008.

William Henry Brown, Cuero, TX, pro se.

George Baxter Ward, IV, Office of the Attorney General, Law Enforcement Defense Div., Austin, TX, for DefendantsAppellees.

Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

William Brown, Texas prisoner # 1188215, filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit for alleged acts of deliberate indifference to his safety and medical needs. He appeals a summary judgment for Joe Simmons and the dismissal of the suit. Brown argues that the district court erred by determining that his claims concerning deliberate indifference to his needs for a safe working environment and medical treatment lack merit. He also moves for appointment of counsel.

Our review of the record reveals no error in connection with the summary judgment. *See Threadgill v. Prudential Sec. Group, Inc.,*145 F.3d 286, 292 (5th Cir.1998); Fed.R.Ctv.P. 56(c). The record does not show that Simmons was deliberately indifferent to Brown’s need for safe working conditions. *See Cantu v. Jones,*293 F.3d 839, 844 (5th Cir.2002). That is, Brown did not establish that Simmons was aware that his actions could pose an excessive risk to Brown’s safety. *See id.*Brown likewise did not establish that Simmons acted with “the subjective intent to cause [Brown] harm.” *See Hare v. City of Corinth,*74 F.3d 633, 649 (5th Cir.1996) (en banc) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Brown thus failed to carry his burden of setting forth specific facts showing the existence of a genuine issue for trial in relation to his claim concerning safe working conditions. *See*rule 56(e).

*798Brown has likewise failed to carry his burden with respect to the claim that Simmons acted with deliberate indifference to Brown’s need for medical treatment. Brown established only that he experienced a short delay in obtaining treatment for his burns. He did not show that he suffered any substantial harm as a result of the delay or that Simmons acted with deliberate indifference when procuring treatment for him. *See Farmer v. Brennan,*511 U.S. 825, 837, 114 S.Ct. 1970, 128 L.Ed.2d 811 (1994); *Mendoza v. Lynaugh,*989 F.2d 191, 195 (5th Cir.1993). As with his claim concerning safe working conditions, Brown has failed to establish specific facts showing the existence of a genuine issue for trial. *See*rule 56(e).

Brown has shown no error in connection with the judgment, which is AFFIRMED. All outstanding motions are DENIED.

*

 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.