alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Leonard Bisk et al., Respondents, v The Manhattan Club Timeshare Association, Inc., et al., Appellants.

[987 NYS2d 164]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles E. Ramos, J.), entered February 26, 2014, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the complaint dismissed. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.

In this putative class action lawsuit alleging deceptive practices by defendants that prevented plaintiffs from being able to use their timeshare units for their stated purpose, a vacation accommodation experience, the IAS court denied defendants’ motion to dismiss, and credited plaintiffs’ allegation that defendants rented up to 96% of the available units to the general public, thus preventing plaintiff owners from reserving accommodations. This was error, as plaintiffs made this contention not in their complaint or in an affidavit opposing the motion to dismiss, but in their memorandum of law opposing the motion to dismiss *(see Basilotta v Warshavsky,*91 AD3d 460 [1st Dept 2012]). Moreover, the allegation is based on an apparent misreading of the documents submitted by defendants in support of their motion to dismiss.

*586We find that plaintiffs’ other claims are similarly deficient, as they are conclusory and speculative at best *(see e.g. Sheppard v Manhattan Club Timeshare Assn., Inc.,*2012 WL 1890388, 2012 US Dist LEXIS 72902 [SD NY, May 23, 2012, No. 11-Civ-4362 (PKC)]; *Smith v Manhattan Club Timeshare Assn., Inc.,*944 F Supp 2d 244, 249 [SD NY 2013]). Moreover, the key deceptive practice alleged, that defendants would rent a portion of the unused accommodations to the general public, was plainly disclosed to plaintiffs in the offering documents.

We have considered the remaining arguments and find them unavailing.

Concur—Tom, J.P, Moskowitz, DeGrasse, ManzanetDaniels and Clark, JJ.
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 Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Docket No. EL18-19-000]

                    On October 19, 2017, the Commission issued an order in Docket No. EL18-19-000,                     *Southwest Power Pool, Inc.,*                     161 FERC 61,062 (2017) (October 2017 Order), pursuant to section 206 of the Federal Power Act (FPA), 16 U.S.C. 824e (2012), instituting an investigation to examine the Southwest Power Pool, Inc. (SPP) Membership Agreement and any other Commission-jurisdictional SPP documents that must be revised to fully implement the refund commitment concerns identified in the Commission's July 21, 2016 order in Docket No. EL16-91-000 in                     *Southwest Power Pool, Inc.,*                     156 FERC 61,059 (2016). The October 2017 Order also consolidated Docket Nos. EL16-91-000 and EL18-19-000.                

                    The refund effective date in Docket No. EL18-19-000, established pursuant to section 206(b) of the FPA, will be the date of publication of this notice in the                     **Federal Register**                    .                

Any interested person desiring to be heard in Docket No. EL18-19-000 must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate, with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.214, within 21 days of the date of issuance of the order.

Dated: October 19, 2017.

Kimberly D. Bose,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2017-23110 Filed 10-24-17; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
#### Zoila Del Carmen DERAS-ROMERO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 09-72912.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 8, 2011.*

Filed March 24, 2011.

Jenny Tsai, Green & Tsai, Attorneys at Law, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.

Edward John Duffy, Trial, OIL DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.

Before: FARRIS, O’SCANNLAIN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Zoila Del Carmen Deras-Romero, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying her application for asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, *Ochave v. INS,*254 F.3d 859, 861-62 (9th Cir.2001), and we deny the petition for review.

We reject Deras-Romero’s contention that she is eligible for asylum based on her membership in a particular social group, namely young Salvadoran women who refuse to assist gangs. *See Santos-Lemus v. Mukasey,*542 F.3d 738, 745-46 (9th Cir. 2008) (rejecting as a social group “young men in El Salvador resisting gang violence.”). Further, Deras-Romero did not demonstrate that the gang members’ threats and other criminal acts against her were motivated by political opinion, social group, or any other protected ground. *See Ochave,*254 F.3d at 865-66 (no nexus between rape by guerillas and any protected ground); *see also Zetino v. Holder,*622 *752F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir.2010) (“An alien’s desire to be free from harassment by criminals motivated by theft or random violence by gang members bears no nexus to a protected ground.”).

Because Deras-Romero failed to satisfy the lower standard of proof for asylum, she necessarily fails to satisfy the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. *See Ochave,*254 F.3d at 868.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Bret Cooney (deceased) - :

Amanda Serrano, :

Petitioner :

:

v. :

:

Workers' Compensation Appeal :

Board (Patterson UTI, Inc.), :

Respondent : No. 1681 C.D. 2013

O R D E R

NOW, August 1, 2014, having considered petitioner’s application for 

reargument, rehearing, or rehearing en banc, the application is denied.

 BY THE COURT:

 

 DAN PELLEGRINI,

 President Judge
Order entered June 16, 2022

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-22-00542-CV

IN RE CHRISTOPHER PITTS AND CHRISTINA PITTS, Relators

Original Proceeding from the County Court at Law No. 1

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. CC-20-02155-A

ORDER

Before Justices Molberg, Pedersen, III, and Garcia

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we DENY relators’ petition for 

writ of mandamus. We also DENY relators’ motion to expedite as moot.

/s/ BILL PEDERSEN, III

JUSTICE
EX-31 Rule 13a-14(d)/15d-14(d) Certifications

  Banc of America Funding Corporation
  Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates,
  Series 2006-2

  I, Chris Regnier, a Vice President of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (the
  "Master Servicer"), certify that:

  1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K/A and all reports on Form 10-D
     required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report
     on Form 10-K/A of the Banc of America Funding 2006-2 Trust (the
     'Exchange Act periodic reports");

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

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

  4. I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the
     master servicer and based on my knowledge and the compliance review
     conducted in preparing the master servicer compliance statements required
     in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed
     in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the master servicer has fulfilled
     its obligations under the pooling and servicing agreement, in all material
     respects; and

  5. All of the reports on assessment of compliance with the servicing
     criteria for asset-backed securities and their related attestation
     reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for
     asset-backed securities required to be included in this report in
     accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules
     13a-18 and 15d- 18 have been included as an exhibit to this report,
     except as otherwise disclosed in this report. Any material instances
     of noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in
     this report on Form 10-K/A.

     In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on
     information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties:
     Bank of America, National Association, GMAC Mortgage, LLC f/k/a GMAC
     Mortgage Corporation, National City Mortgage Co., SunTrust Mortgage, Inc.
     and Washington Mutual Bank.



     Dated:    May 30, 2008

     /s/ Chris Regnier
     Signature

     Vice President
     (senior officer in charge of the servicing function of the master servicer)
EYE CATCHING MARKETING CORP.
                              A Nevada Corporation

                             CERTIFICATE PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection with the Quarterly Report of Eye Catching Marketing Corp. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended June 30, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), we, Robert Hemmerling,
President, Chief Executive Officer, and Devinder Randhawa, Chief Financial
Officer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to
ss.ss. 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.

Dated August 13, 2003               /s/ Robert Hemmerling
                                    --------------------------------------
                                        Robert Hemmerling,
                                        President and Chief Executive Officer

                                    /s/ Devinder Randhawa
                                    --------------------------------------
                                        Devinder Randhawa,
                                        Chief Financial Officer
* 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 August 23, 2005 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-61060 Summary Calendar

WILLIE HAMPTON, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus RAYMOND BARKER; FAYE BARKER, Defendants-Appellees.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 2:04-CV-160

-------------------- Before SMITH, GARZA, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Willie Hampton has appealed the district court’s judgment dismissing his civil action for failure to state a claim. Hampton contends that the district court should have recused itself. No abuse of discretion has been shown. See Andrade v. Chojnacki , 338 F.3d 448, 454–55 (5th Cir. 2003), cert. denied , 541 U.S. 935, and cert. denied , 124 S. Ct. 1655 (2004). Hampton contends that the district court erred in dismissing his complaint for failure to state a claim without giving him anNo. 04-61060 -2- opportunity to file an amended complaint. The district court provided such an opportunity by ordering Hampton to show cause why the complaint should not be dismissed. Long after entry of the judgment, Hampton filed a document in the district court complaining that he mailed documents applying for a default judgment against the defendants to the clerk but that the clerk had failed to file the documents. Hampton contends that the district court failed to file and docket these documents and that the district court erred in failing to enter a default judgment. Although this issue is not properly before the court, we note that any error on the part of the district court in failing to file the documents was harmless.
See F ED . R. C IV . P. 61. The appeal is DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS. See F ED . R . A PP . P. 34(a)(2)(A). Hampton is WARNED that the filing of frivolous motions and appeals will result in the imposition of a sanction. Hampton should review any pending motions and appeals to ensure that they do not raise arguments that are frivolous.
APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.
(December 11, 1997)

#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Consuelo Evans, Also Known as Carla Evans, Also Known as Carla Jones, Defendant-Appellant.

[665 NYS2d 873]

—Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Gerald Sheindlin, J.), rendered March 14, 1996, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the first degree, and sentencing her to a term of 4 to 12 years, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was not against the weight of the evidence *(People v Bleakley,*69 NY2d 490, 495). The issues relating to the reliability of identification testimony and credibility of witnesses were properly presented for the jury’s consideration, and the record provides no basis for disturbing its determinations. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Rubin, Tom and Mazzarelli, JJ.
EX-34 (g)
(logo) KPMG

KPMG LLP
1601 Market Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103-2499

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

The Board of Members
Regulus Group LLC:

We have examined management's assessment for those customers that management has
informed us have requested confirmation of compliance, included in the
accompanying Report on Assessment of Compliance with Regulation AB Servicing
Criteria, that Regulus Group LLC complied with the servicing criteria set forth
in Item 1122(d)(2)(i) and 1122(d)(4)(iv) of the Securities and Exchange
Commission's Regulation AB for remittance processing services to those issuers
of asset backed securities and servicers of loan and/or receivables portfolios
that include pool assets for asset backed securities transactions (the Platform)
as of and for the year ended December 31, 2006. Regulus Group LLC has determined
that the remainder of the servicing criteria are not applicable to the
activities it performs with respect to the Platform as of and for the year ended
December 31, 2006. Management is responsible for the Company's compliance with
those servicing criteria. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on
management's assessment about the Company's compliance based on our examination.

Our examination was conducted in accordance with the standards of the Public
Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) and, accordingly, included
examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Company's compliance with the
servicing criteria specified above and performing such other procedures as we
considered necessary in the circumstances. Our examination included testing of
less than all of the individual asset-backed transactions and securities that
comprise the Platform, testing of less than all of the servicing activities
related to the Platform, and determining whether the Company processed those
selected transactions and performed those selected activities in compliance with
the servicing criteria. Furthermore, our procedures were limited to the selected
transactions and servicing activities performed by the Company during the period
covered by this report. Our procedures were not designed to determine whether
errors may have occurred either prior to or subsequent to our tests that may
have affected the balances or amounts calculated or reported by the Company
during the period covered by this report for the selected transactions or any
other transactions. We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis
for our opinion. Our examination does not provide a legal determination on the
Company's compliance with the servicing criteria.

In our opinion, management's assessment that the Company complied with the
aforementioned servicing criteria as of and for the year ended December 31, 2006
is fairly stated, in all material respects.

/s/ KPMG LLP

Philadelphia, PA
February 22, 2007

KPMG LLP, a U.S. limited liability partnership, is the U.S. member firm of KPMG
International, a Swiss cooperative.
IIB 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 3353 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

DECEMBER 9, 2010 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

AN ACT 

To provide for American Samoa and the Commonwealth of 

the Northern Marianas to be treated as States for certain criminal justice programs. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
2 

HR 3353 RFS

1 SECTION 1. TREATMENT AS A STATE FOR AMERICAN 

2 SAMOA AND CNMI. 

3 Section 901(a)(2) of Omnibus Crime Control and 

4 Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3791(a)(2)) is 

5 amended by striking ‘‘Islands:’’ and all that follows 

6 through the period and inserting ‘‘Islands;’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives December 8, 

2010. 

Attest: LORRAINE C. MILLER, 

Clerk. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0001088786
<NAME> DECURION CORPORATION

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                             500
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     500
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       5000000
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       500
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                         0
<EPS-BASIC>                                      0.0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      0.0



</TABLE>
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-18-00814-CR

IN RE Matthew Paul SURBER

Original Mandamus Proceeding1

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Karen Angelini, Justice

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

Delivered and Filed: November 7, 2018

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED

Relator filed a petition for writ of mandamus complaining the trial court has refused to rule 

on his motion for nunc pro tunc requesting jail-time credit.

To establish a right to mandamus relief in a criminal case, the relator must show the trial 

court violated a ministerial duty and there is no adequate remedy at law. In re State ex rel. Weeks, 

391 S.W.3d 117, 122 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (orig. proceeding). A trial court has a ministerial 

duty to rule on a properly-filed and timely-presented motion. See In re State ex rel. Young v. Sixth 

Judicial Dist. Court of Appeals, 236 S.W.3d 207, 210 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (orig. proceeding).

However, a relator has the burden of providing this court with a record sufficient to 

establish his right to mandamus relief. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.7(a)(1) (requiring relator to file “a 

 1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 13-0772-CR-A #4, styled The State of Texas v. Matthew Paul Surber, 

pending in the 2nd 25th Judicial District Court, Guadalupe County, Texas, the Honorable W.C. Kirkendall presiding.
04-18-00814-CR

- 2 -

certified or sworn copy of every document that is material to the relator’s claim for relief and that 

was filed in any underlying proceeding”). In a case such as this one, a relator has the burden to 

provide the court of appeals with a record showing the trial court was made aware of the motion 

at issue and that such motion has not been ruled on by the trial court for an unreasonable period of 

time. See In re Gallardo, 269 S.W.3d 643, 645 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2008, orig. proceeding). 

Attached to relator’s petition is a copy of a May 4, 2018 file-stamped copy of relator’s 

Motion for Nunc Pro Tunc. However, the mandamus record does not contain copies of any letters 

sent to the trial court or the appropriate court coordinator asking the trial court to rule on his 

pending motion. Relator must show the matter was brought to the attention of the trial court. In 

re Hearn, 137 S.W.3d 681, 685 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2004, orig. proceeding); see also In re 

Bonds, 57 S.W.3d 456, 457 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2001, orig. proceeding) (conditionally 

granting petition for writ of mandamus where record reflected relator filed motion and called 

motion to court’s attention by letter). “Merely filing the matter with the district clerk is not 

sufficient to impute knowledge of the pending pleading to the trial court.” Hearn, 137 S.W.3d at 

685. Because relator has not demonstrated the trial court is aware of his pending motion, we must 

deny his petition.

PER CURIAM

Do not publish