alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of G. Gregory WILLIAMS, Debtor. G. Gregory Williams, Appellant, v. Franklin Towers Homeowners Association Inc.; et al., Appellees.

No. 08-55109.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted June 29, 2010.*

Filed July 6, 2010.

G. Gregory Williams, Los Angeles, CA, pro se.

Gary J. Bradley, Esquire, Bradley & Gmelich, Glendale, CA, Rene J. Kern, Jr., Esquire, Kern & Gonzalez, Christie Gau-mer, Esquire, Peter D. Gordon, Esquire, Peter D. Gordon Law Offices, Los Ange-les, CA, for Appellees.

Before: ALARCÓN, LEAVY, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

*610MEMORANDUM **

G. Gregory Williams, a Chapter 13 debtor, appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing for lack of subject matter jurisdiction his appeal from the bankruptcy court’s November 29, 2004, and November 30, 2004, orders. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). We review de novo jurisdictional issues and the district court’s decision on appeal from a bankruptcy court. *Mantz v. Cal. State Bd. of Equalization (In re Mantz),*343 F.3d 1207, 1211 (9th Cir.2003). We may affirm on any ground supported by the record. *O’Guinn v. Lovelock Corr. Ctr.,*502 F.3d 1056, 1059 (9th Cir.2007). We affirm.

Williams’ challenge to the bankruptcy court’s recusal order is barred by the law of the case doctrine. *See Williams v. Gordon, Gaumer, Bovshow, Levi Estates, LLC (In re Williams),*234 Fed.Appx. 741, 741-42 (9th Cir.2007) (affirming the bankruptcy court’s order denying recusal); *Merritt v. Mackey,*932 F.2d 1317, 1320 (9th Cir.1991) (under the law of the case doctrine, one panel of an appellate court will not reconsider questions that another panel has decided on a prior appeal in the same case).

As we held previously, *In re Williams,*234 Fed.Appx. at 741-42, we lack jurisdiction to review the bankruptcy court’s remand order, *see Things Remembered, Inc. v. Petrarca,*516 U.S. 124, 128-29, 116 S.Ct. 494, 133 L.Ed.2d 461 (1995) (court of appeals does not have jurisdiction to review a bankruptcy court’s order remanding a case to state court).

The district court properly concluded that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction to review orders issued in state court proceedings. *See Reusser v. Wachovia Bank, N.A,*525 F.3d 855, 858-59 (9th Cir.2008) (“The *Rooker-Feldman*doctrine is a well-established jurisdictional rule prohibiting federal courts from exercising appellate review over final state court judgments.”); *Dubinka v. Judges of Sup.Ct.,*23 F.3d 218, 221 (9th Cir.1994) (“Federal district courts may exercise only original jurisdiction; they may not exercise appellate jurisdiction over state court decisions.”).

We reject Williams’ remaining contentions.

AFFIRMED.

**

**This disposition is not appropriate for publication and except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 15**  **- 6570** 

ROBERT DEMURO , Plaintiff

– Appellant ,
v. WILL SESSOMS, Mayor of Virginia; COMMISSIONER OF VIRGINIA CORRECTIONAL CENTER; SHERIFF KEN STOLEY, overseeing V.B.C.C.; DEPUTY DIGGS, overseeing cell classifications , Defendants

- Appellees
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Norfolk
. Mark S. Davis , District Judge. ( 2:14

- cv - 00158

- MSD

- LRL )

Submitted : September 14, 2015 Decided: October 13, 2015

Before FLOYD and HARRIS , Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. Robert Demuro, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Robert Demuro appeals the district court ’ s order dismissing this action without prejudice for failure to comply with a court order . We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the appeal for the reasons stated by the district
court. Demuro v. Sessoms , No. 2:14

- cv - 00158

- MSD

- LRL (E.D. Va. Apr. 3, 2015) . We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.

DISMISSED
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION OF ACTING PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTING OFFICER**

**PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

The undersigned, Henry Lam, the Acting Principal Accounting Officer of LF George Holdings, Inc. (the “Company”), hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to his or her knowledge, the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A for the year ended September 30, 2014 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that the information contained in the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 

| Date: February 17, 2015 | By:    | */s/ Henry Lam *          |   |
|-------------------------|--------|--------------------------------|--------|
|                    |   | Henry Lam                      |   |
|                    |   | Chief Financial Officer,  |   |
|                    |   | (Principal Accounting Officer) |   |
EX-35.4
(logo) WELLS FARGO

Corporate Trust Services

MAC R1204-010
9062 Old Annapolis Road
Columbia, MD 21045

Tel: 410 884 2000
Fax: 410 715 2380


Wells Fargo Commercial Mortgage Securities, Inc.
c/o Wells Fargo Securities, LLC
375 Park Avenue 2nd floor
J0127-023
New York, New York 10152-023

RE: Annual Statement of Compliance for Wells Fargo Commercial Mortgage Trust
    2013-LC12, Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2013-LC12

Per the Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of July 1, 2013 (the
"Agreement"), the undersigned, a duly authorized officer of Wells Fargo Bank,
N.A., as Certificate Administrator ("Wells Fargo"), hereby certifies as follows
as of and for the year ending December 31, 2013 (the "Reporting Period"):

(a) A review of Wells Fargo's activities during the Reporting Period and of its
performance under the Agreement has been made under such officer's supervision;
and

(b) To the best of such officer's knowledge, based on such review, Wells Fargo
has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material
respects throughout the Reporting Period.


March 10, 2014


/s/ Brian Smith
BRIAN SMITH
Vice President


Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
EXHIBIT
32.1





CERTIFICATION
OF PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER


PURSUANT
TO 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
connection with the Quarterly Report of ATSI Communications, Inc. on Form 10-Q
for the period ending October 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Arthur L. Smith, President and Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C, ss. 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that,





1)
            the
      Report complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
and





2)
            the
      information in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
      financial condition and result of operations of the
    Company.





By /s/
Arthur L. Smith


Arthur L.
Smith


President
and


Chief
Executive Officer


December
15, 2008
# Fourth Court of Appeals **San Antonio, Texas**

JUDGMENT

N o. 04

- 20

- 00132

- CV

ESCONDIDO RESOURCES II, LLC

, Appellant

v.

LAS TINAJAS MINERALS, LTD.

, Appellee

From the 111th Judicial District Court

, Webb County, Texas Trial Court No. 2020

- CVI

- 000015

- D2 Honorable Monica Z. Notzon , Judge Presiding

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE MARION

, JUSTICE CHAPA , AND JUSTICE RODRIGUEZ

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s order denying appellant’s motion to dismiss is AFFIR MED. Costs of this appeal are taxed against appellant.

SIGNED December 30, 2020.

_____________________________ Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health Special Emphasis Panel; Fellowship, Career Development, and Research Grant Programs.                    

*Date:*                         November 8, 2017.                    

*Time:*                         12:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         National Institutes of Health, Two Democracy Plaza, 6707 Democracy Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).                    

*Contact Person:*                         Viatcheslav A. Soldatenkov, MD, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Office of Scientific Review, Division of Extramural Activities, NCCIH/NIH, 6707 Democracy Boulevard, Suite 401, Bethesda, MD 20892,                         *soldatenkovv@mail.nih.gov.*

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.213, Research and Training in Complementary and Integrative Health, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: September 13, 2017.

Michelle Trout, 

Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2017-19855 Filed 9-18-17; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 180 (Tuesday, September 19, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 43800]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-19848]


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

POSTAL SERVICE


Product Change--Priority Mail Negotiated Service Agreement

AGENCY: Postal Service<SUP>TM</SUP>.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the 
Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services 
contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail 
Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

DATES: Date of notice required under 39 U.S.C. 3642(d)(1): September 
19, 2017.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elizabeth A. Reed, 202-268-3179.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The United States Postal Service[supreg] 
hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on 
September 13, 2017, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a 
Request of the United States Postal Service to Add Priority Mail 
Contract 356 to Competitive Product List. Documents are available at 
www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2017-199, CP2017-302.

Elizabeth A. Reed,
Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.
[FR Doc. 2017-19848 Filed 9-18-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
*Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-10890

Summary Calendar

LOUIS M. DYLL; JOYCE DYLL; EDWARD JAMES DYLL;

MICHAEL ANDREW DYLL; KATHERINE ROSE DYLL,

Plaintiffs-Appellees,

VERSUS

PAUL W. ADAMS; ET AL.,

Defendants,

PAUL W. ADAMS,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

(3:92-CV-698)

February 2, 2000

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

In May 1999, Paul W. Adams ("Adams") filed a motion under Rule

60(b)(6) in the district court seeking to vacate a judgment entered

in favor of Louis M. Dyll, et al. ("plaintiffs") by the district

court in July 1997 against Adams and two other defendants. The two

other defendants appealed such judgment but Adams did not appeal.

On appeal, this Court reversed and vacated the award of actual
2

damages and punitive damages in favor of the plaintiffs. The

district court denied Adams’ motion for relief under Rule 60(b)(6)

and Adams appealed.

We have carefully reviewed the briefs, the reply brief, the

corrected record excerpts and relevant portions of the record

itself. For the reasons stated by the district court in its

Memorandum Opinion and Order filed under date of June 30, 1999, we

are unable to conclude that the district court abused its

discretion in denying Adams’ motion. Accordingly, the Order of the

district court is AFFIRMED.
<table class="regular" id="BLStable_2022_8_26_9_57" style="width: 95%;"><caption><span class="tableTitle">Chart 3. Average hourly wages for production occupations, by grouped work level, 2019</span></caption>
<thead>
<tr>
<th style="vertical-align: middle; min-width: 80px;" rowspan="1" scope="col">Occupation</th>
<th scope="col">Apprentice</th>
<th scope="col">Journey</th>
<th scope="col">Master</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<th scope="row">
<p>Aircraft structure, surfaces, rigging, and systems assemblers</p>
</th>
<td>$25.48</td>
<td>$25.86</td>
<td>$33.09</td>
</tr>
<tr class="greenbar">
<th scope="row">
<p>Machinists</p>
</th>
<td>18.90</td>
<td>24.43</td>
<td>29.00</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th scope="row">
<p>Tool and die makers</p>
</th>
<td><a href="#BLStable_2022_8_26_9_57_footnotes"><sup>[1]</sup></a></td>
<td>24.55</td>
<td>32.73</td>
</tr>
<tr class="greenbar">
<th scope="row">
<p>Power plant operators</p>
</th>
<td><a href="#BLStable_2022_8_26_9_57_footnotes"><sup>[1]</sup></a></td>
<td>40.19</td>
<td>43.70</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th scope="row">
<p>Chemical equipment operators and tenders</p>
</th>
<td>19.96</td>
<td>25.86</td>
<td><a href="#BLStable_2022_8_26_9_57_footnotes"><sup>[1]</sup></a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
<tfoot id="BLStable_2022_8_26_9_57_footnotes" style="display: table-footer-group;">
<tr class="footnotes">
<td class="footnotes" colspan="4">
<p>Note: <a href="#BLStable_2022_8_26_9_57"><sup>[1]</sup></a> The grouped level estimates for master chemical equipment operators and tenders and for apprentice tool and die makers and power plant operators did not pass publication criteria.</p>
<p>Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Modeled Wage Estimates.</p>
</td>
</tr>
</tfoot>
</table>
<p></p>
MLP

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 23-0549

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

MATTHEW JASON WELCH,

Defendant and Appellant.

GRANT OF EXTENSION

Upon consideration of Appellee’s motion for a 30-day extension of time, and

good cause appearing therefor, Appellee is granted an extension of time to and

including July 15, 2024, within which to prepare, serve, and file its response brief.

Electronically signed by:

Bowen Greenwood

Clerk of the Supreme Court

June 13 2024

06/13/2024

Case Number: DA 23-0549
NO. 07-04-0051-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL D

OCTOBER 29, 2004

______________________________

MARCIA A. GILLER D/B/A AME HOME HEALTH CARE, APPELLANT

V.

EXCEL FINANCIAL CO., APPELLEE

_________________________________

FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 3 OF LUBBOCK COUNTY;

NO. 2001-592,053; HONORABLE PAULA LANEHART, JUDGE

_______________________________

Before QUINN and REAVIS and CAMPBELL, JJ. 

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant Marcia A. Giller d/b/a AME Home Health Care filed a notice of appeal

challenging the trial court’s judgment in favor of appellee Excel Financial Co. in its action

to recover on a commercial equipment lease after Home Health Care defaulted. The

clerk’s record and reporter’s record have both been filed. Home Health Care’s brief was
2

due to be filed no later than June 28, 2004, but has yet to be filed, and no motion for

extension of time was filed. By letter dated October 7, 2004, this Court notified Home

Health Care of the defect and directed it to file a response reasonably explaining the failure

to file a brief with a showing that Excel Financial has not been significantly injured by the

delay by October 18, 2004. The Court also noted that failure to file a response might result

in dismissal of the appeal pursuant to Rule 38.8 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure.

Home Health Care did not respond and the brief remains outstanding.

Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for want of prosecution and failure to comply

with a directive of this Court. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(a)(1) and 42.3(b).

Don H. Reavis

 Justice
#### Babcock and another *v.*Judd and another.

*(Circuit*Court, *D. Connecticut.*

February 8, 1883.)

Patents eon Inventions—Substitution.

The substitution of a new ingredient in a combination of old ingredients u not an infringement.

*Babcock*v. *Judd,*1 Fed. Rep. 408, followed.

*Wm. Edgar Simonds,*for plaintiffs.

*Chas. E. Mitchell,*for defendants.

Shipman, J.

This bill in equity is founded upon the alleged infringement by the defendants of Franklin Babcock’s reissued patent No. 9,301, dated July 20, 1880, for an improved window-spring catch. The original patent was dated September 29, 1868. A suit upon the original patent between the same parties for the same alleged infringement was tried before me, and was decided in February, 1880. I held that the original patent was not infringed. *Babcock*v. *Judd,*1 Fed. Bep. 108. Before a decree in conformity with the opinion was entered in that case the patent was surrendered and the present reissue was obtained. The pending suit was thereupon dismissed by reason of the surrendry of the patent. It is admitted that the first and second claims of the reissue are invalid under the recent decisions of the supreme court. It is said by the plaintiff that the third claim is simply a restatement, and not an enlargement, ' of the single claim of the original patent. The third claim is:

> “ In combination, this exteriorly-threaded case, the bolt provided with a locking shoulder and pressure pad, the spring and the stem supporting the spring, all substantially as shown and described.”

Admitting that the plaintiffs’ construction of this claim is correct, there is no infringement, for the reasons stated in the former case— *Babcock*v. *Judd, supra.*The new exhibits which the plaintiffs introduced in evidence in this case have no substantial value upon the point which is in controversy.

Let the bill be dismissed.
```

[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 172 (Thursday, September 7, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 42350-42351]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-18899]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health

Notice of Listing of Members of the National Institutes of 
Health's Senior Executive Service 2017 Performance Review Board (PRB)

SUMMARY: The National Institutes of Health (NIH) announces the persons 
who will serve on the National Institutes of Health's Senior Executive 
Service 2017 Performance Review Board.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information about the NIH 
Performance Review Board, contact the Office of Human Resources, 
Division of Senior and Scientific Executive Management, National 
Institutes of Health, Building 2, Room 5E18, Bethesda, Maryland 20892, 
telephone 301-402-7999 (not a toll-free number).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This action is being taken in accordance 
with Title 5, U.S.C., Section 4314(c)(4), which requires that members 
of performance review boards be appointed in a manner to ensure

[[Page 42351]]

consistency, stability, and objectivity in performance appraisals and 
requires that notice of the appointment of an individual to serve as a 
member be published in the Federal Register.
    The following persons will serve on the NIH Performance Review 
Board, which oversees the evaluation of performance appraisals of NIH 
Senior Executive Service (SES) members:

Alfred Johnson, Chair
Joellen Austin
Michael Gottesman
Richard Ikeda
Michael Lauer
Ellen Rolfes
LaVerne Stringfield
Lawrence Tabak
Timothy Wheeles

    Dated: August 30, 2017.
Francis S. Collins,
Director, National Institutes of Health.
[FR Doc. 2017-18899 Filed 9-6-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
```
exhibit109.htm


                                                  Director Fee Arrangements                                                          Exhibit 10.9







Each non-employee director of Capitol Federal Financial, Inc. (the "Company") receives an annual retainer, paid monthly, of $25,000 for his or her service on the board of directors of Capitol Federal Savings Bank (the "Bank") and $25,000 for his or her service on the Company's board of directors ($50,000 in total).







John B. Dicus, Chairman of the Board, President and Chief Executive Officer is paid $12,000 by the Bank and $12,000 by the Company ($24,000 in total) for his service as a director of the Bank and Company.