alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, December 18, 2017.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes 

of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto 

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, December 18, 2017

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A18I0072. MASON THOMAS FRIAS v. THE STATE.

Upon consideration of the Application for Interlocutory Appeal, it is ordered that it be 

hereby DENIED.

LC NUMBERS:

169348048
### §3797d. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 3797d was editorially reclassified as section 10554 of Title 34, Crime Control and Law Enforcement.
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HALSEY MINOR, No. C 08-05445 WHA

Plaintiff,

ORDER TO PAY ADDITIONAL

v. ATTENDANCE FEE

CHRISTIE’S, INC., 

 Defendant

 /

In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1871(b)(2), petit jurors required to attend more than ten (10)

days in hearing one case may be paid, in the discretion of the trial judge, an additional fee, not

exceeding $10.00 more than the $40.00 attendance fee, for each day in excess of ten (10) days on

which the juror is required to hear such case.

Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that each member of the jury hearing the above case

shall receive a total attendance fee of $50.00 per day for each day of service in excess of ten (10)

days.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 21, 2010 WILLIAM ALSUP

United States District Judge

Case 3:08-cv-05445-WHA Document 128 Filed 05/21/10 Page 1 of 1
#### William Welwart, Appellant, v Dataware Electronics Corp. et al., Respondents.

[717 NYS2d 220]

—In an action, *inter alia,*to recover damages for fraud, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (J. Le-one, J.), dated November 9,1999, which granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint and denied, as academic, his cross motion to disqualify the defendant’s attorney.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

In 1987, the plaintiff commenced an action against the defendants alleging breach of a 1981 agreement to issue to him shares of common stock in a closely-held corporation with which he was then employed, and conversion of the dividends issued on those stock shares. Because the plaintiff failed to pursue the litigation, the court dismissed the action as abandoned in 1992. The plaintiff sought to restore the matter to the calendar in 1996, and, thereafter sought to amend the complaint to include allegations of fraud in connection with the diversion of dividends and profits, asserting causes of action as an individual, and derivatively, as a shareholder. The Supreme Court denied the motions in 1998. In 1999, the plaintiff commenced the instant action, filing a complaint in which the allegations are virtually identical to those in the earlier proposed amended complaint. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint on the grounds, *inter alia,*that the causes of action are barred by the Statute of Limitations, collateral estoppel, and laches. The Supreme Court granted the defendants’ motion on the basis of laches.

The order appealed from should be affirmed, but for a reason different from that advanced by the Supreme Court. The com*373plaint should be dismissed on the basis of the Statute of Limitations set forth in CPLR 213, since the causes of action are, essentially, based upon the alleged fraud of the defendants in depriving the plaintiff of shares of stock and diverting the profits of the corporation. Contrary to the plaintiffs contention that the causes of action accrued each time profits were diverted, the limitations period is measured from the date of the initial alleged breach in 1981 when the defendants allegedly deprived the plaintiff of his right to the shares and began diverting profits, regardless of when the damages began to accrue *(see, Ely-Cruikshank Co. v Bank of Montreal,*81 NY2d 399, 402; *Goldman v Turner,*858 F Supp 49 [SD NY 1994]; *City of New York v Cotroneo & Marino’s United Elec. Co.,*269 AD2d 154; *Rabouin v Metropolitan Life Ins. Co.,*182 Misc 2d 632, 638). Since the applicable limitations period of six years has expired, the plaintiff is barred from maintaining this action.

In light of our determination it is unnecessary to reach the plaintiff’s remaining contentions. Bracken, J. P., Ritter, Friedmann and Florio, JJ., concur.
Uni

ted 

Stat

es D

istr

ict C

ourt

For t

he N

orth

ern 

Dis

trict

 of C

alifo

rnia

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EDWARD E. ANDERSON,

Plaintiff,

    v.

AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC.,

Defendant.                                                                     /

No. C 08-04195 WHA

ORDER REGARDINGAMENDED COMPLAINT

On August 12, 2010, plaintiff’s motion to file an amended complaint was granted and

plaintiff was ordered to file the amended complaint by noon on August 16 (Dkt. No. 71).  It is

now August 17, and no amended complaint has been filed.  Plaintiff is reminded that the amended

complaint must be filed as a separate entry on the docket — its attachment as an exhibit to the

motion is not sufficient.  If the amended complaint is not filed BY NOON ON AUGUST 19, then the

amended complaint filed in February 2010 will be deemed the operative complaint in this action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:  August 17, 2010.                                                                WILLIAM ALSUPUNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:08-cv-04195-WHA   Document 72   Filed 08/17/10   Page 1 of 1

    -       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2018-03-09T19:11:59-0500
      - US GPO, Washington, DC 20401
      - Superintendent of Documents
      - GPO attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by GPO
#### In the Matter of the Estate of Eva K. Greene, Also Known as Eva Krisch, Deceased. William S. Herrmann, Jr., as Coexecutor and Cotrustee, Appellant; Alfred Greene, Individually and as Coexecutor and Cotrustee, et al., Respondents.

In a proceeding by testatrix’ surviving spouse pursuant to section 145-a of the Surrogate’s Court Act, to determine his right, under section 18 of the Decedent Estate Law, to elect to take as in intestacy his share of his deceased wife’s estate, the coexecutor and cotrustee Herrmann appeals from so much of a resettled decree of the Surrogate’s Court, Westchester County, dated February 1, 1961, as directed him to pay $712.50 to respondent Raymond M. Kahn, petitioner’s attorney, for legal services and disbursements. On a prior appeal this court affirmed so much of said resettled decree of the Surrogate’s Court, as declared that the provisions in the will for said surviving spouse were adequate and, consequently that he had no right of election *(Matter of Greene,*14 A D 2d 544). Decree, insofar as appealed from, affirmed, with costs to respondent Kahn payable out of the estate. No opinion. Beldock, P. J., Ughetta, Kleinfeld, Brennan and Rabin, JJ., concur.
§ 192.5 Relationships among agencies. ( a ) To assist in ensuring that eligible persons receive compensation, each Agency Head shall notify the Director General of the Foreign Service of the Department of State of any incident which he or she believes may be appropriately declared a hostile action under § 192.1.
( b ) The Director General of the Foreign Service for the Department of State shall promptly inform the head of any agency whenever an employee of that agency, or Family Member of such employee, is determined to be eligible for benefits under this subchapter in connection with hostile action.
( c ) In accordance with inter-agency agreements between the Department of State and relevant agencies— ( 1 ) The Department of Veterans Affairs will periodically bill the Department of State for expenses it pays for each eligible person under subpart E of this subchapter plus the administrative costs of carrying out its responsibilities under this part.
( 2 ) The Department of State will, on a periodic basis, determine the cost for services and benefits it provides to all eligible persons under this subchapter, and bill each agency for the medical service costs (in connection with hostile action abroad) and educational benefits attributable to Principals and Family Members, plus a proportionate share of related administrative expenses.
69–008 

110TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 1st Session 110–382 

PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF THE RESOLUTION (H. RES. 734) EXPRESSING THE SENSE OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES REGARDING THE WITHHOLDING OF INFORMATION RELATING TO CORRUPTION 

IN IRAQ 

OCTOBER 15, 2007.—Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed 

Mr. WELCH, from the Committee on Rules, 

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

[To accompany H. Res. 741] 

The Committee on Rules, having had under consideration House 

Resolution 741, by a nonrecord vote, report the same to the House 

with the recommendation that the resolution be adopted. 

SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS OF THE RESOLUTION

The resolution provides for consideration of H. Res. 734, expressing the sense of the House of Representatives regarding the withholding of information relating to corruption in Iraq, under a closed 

rule providing one hour of debate in the House equally divided and 

controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the 

Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. The rule waives 

all points of order against consideration of the resolution and provides that the resolution shall be considered as read. The rule provides one motion to recommit which may not contain instructions. 

EXPLANATION OF WAIVERS

Although the rule waives all points of order against consideration 

of the resolution, the Committee is not aware of any points of order 

against consideration. The waiver of all points of order is prophylactic in nature. 

COMMITTEE VOTES

The results of each record vote on an amendment or motion to 

report, together with the names of those voting for and against, are 

printed below: 

Rules Committee record vote No. 347 

Date: October 15, 2007. 

Measure: H. Res. 734. 


bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS
2 

Motion by: Mr. Dreier. 

Summary of motion: To make in order and provide the appropriate waivers for an amendment in the nature of a substitute by 

Representative Tom Davis (VA). The amendment would retain the 

language of H. Res. 734 as introduced but would add additional 

whereas and resolved clauses to paint a fuller and more accurate 

picture of the political, economic and security situation in Iraq. 

Results: Defeated 3–7. 

Vote by Members: Hastings (FL)—Nay; Matsui—Nay; Welch— Nay; Castor—Nay; Arcuri—Nay; Sutton—Nay; Dreier—Yea; DiazBalart—Yea; Hastings (WA)—Yea; Slaughter—Nay. 

Æ 


bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS
### §4370m–5. Delegated State permitting programs

#### (a) In general

If a Federal statute permits a Federal agency to delegate to or otherwise authorize a State to issue or otherwise administer a permit program in lieu of the Federal agency, the Federal agency with authority to carry out the statute shall—

(1) on publication by the Council of best practices under section 4370m–1(c)(2)(B) of this title, initiate a national process, with public participation, to determine whether and the extent to which any of the best practices are generally applicable on a delegation- or authorization-wide basis to permitting under the statute; and

(2) not later than 2 years after December 4, 2015, make model recommendations for State modifications of the applicable permit program to reflect the best practices described in section 4370m–1(c)(2)(B) of this title, as appropriate.

#### (b) Best practices

Lead and cooperating agencies may share with State, tribal, and local authorities best practices involved in review of covered projects and invite input from State, tribal, and local authorities regarding best practices.

(Pub. L. 114–94, div. D, title XLI, §41006, Dec. 4, 2015, 129 Stat. 1758.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was enacted as part of the Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act, also known as the FAST Act, and not as part of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 which comprises this chapter.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2490 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.R.2490

                       One Hundred Ninth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE FIRST SESSION

          Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,
            the fourth day of January, two thousand and five

                                 An Act

 
To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 
442 West Hamilton Street, Allentown, Pennsylvania, as the ``Mayor Joseph 
                   S. Daddona Memorial Post Office''.

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

    The facility of the United States Postal Service located at 442 
West Hamilton Street, Allentown, Pennsylvania, shall be known and 
designated as the ``Mayor Joseph S. Daddona Memorial Post Office''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the facility referred to in section 1 
shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Mayor Joseph S. Daddona 
Memorial Post Office''.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
#### Standard Code Company, Inc., v. Arthur Bishop and Others.

Motion to dismiss appeal granted, with ten dollars costs, unless appellant complies with terms stated in order. Present — Clarke, P. J., Dowling, Smith, Page and Greenbaum, JJ.
#### § 92.95 Transportation of witnesses to the United States.

Officers of the Foreign Service may at times be called upon to assist in arranging for the transportation to the United States of persons in foreign countries whose testimony is desired by the Attorney General in a case pending in a Federal court. Requests that the travel of such persons be facilitated originate in the Department of Justice, and special instructions in each case are transmitted to the appropriate Foreign Service post by the Department of State.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2593 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2593

To encourage more vigorous investigation and prosecution, under section 
  2339B of title 18, United States Code, of drug crimes committed to 
          provide material support to terrorist organizations.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 24, 2005

   Mr. Hyde introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To encourage more vigorous investigation and prosecution, under section 
  2339B of title 18, United States Code, of drug crimes committed to 
          provide material support to terrorist organizations.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Narco-Terrorism Enforcement Act of 
2005''.

SEC. 2. INVESTIGATION AND PROSECUTION OF DRUG CRIMES COMMITTED TO 
              PROVIDE MATERIAL SUPPORT TO TERRORIST ORGANIZATIONS.

    The Attorney General, through the Administrator of the Drug 
Enforcement Administration and other appropriate means, is authorized 
and encouraged to investigate foreign production and trafficking in 
illicit narcotics and other controlled substances from which the 
illicit proceeds help support or sustain foreign terrorist 
organizations, and to prosecute these offenses under section 2339B of 
title 18, United States Code, whether or not the illicit narcotics or 
other substances are ever intended for, or enter, the United States.

SEC. 3. MODIFICATION OF PENALTIES FOR PROVIDING MATERIAL SUPPORT TO 
              TERRORISTS AND TERRORIST ORGANIZATIONS.

    Sections 2339A(a) and 2339B(a)(1) of title 18, United States Code, 
are each amended by striking ``fined under this title'' and all that 
follows through ``or for life.'' and inserting ``subject to a fine 
under this title and imprisoned not less than 5 years or more than 20 
years. If the provision of material support or resources consisted of 
prohibited drug activity (as defined in section 1010A of the Controlled 
Substances Act) or transfering the proceeds from such activity or if 
death results from the offense, then the term of imprisonment shall be 
any term of years not less than 20, or for life.''.
                                 <all>
```
#### John C. Knickerbocker, Appellant, v. The Press Publishing Company, Respondent.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, with leave to the plaintiff to plead over within twenty days upon payment of the costs of the motion and of this appeal. All concur.
### §5047. Repealed. Pub. L. 103–82, title III, §365, Sept. 21, 1993, 107 Stat. 908

Section, Pub. L. 93–113, title IV, §407, Oct. 1, 1973, 87 Stat. 410; Pub. L. 98–288, §21, May 21, 1984, 98 Stat. 195; Pub. L. 99–551, §3(b), Oct. 27, 1986, 100 Stat. 3072; Pub. L. 101–204, title IV, §401, Dec. 7, 1989, 103 Stat. 1814, required annual report on activities under section 4953 of this title.

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date of Repeal

Repeal effective Oct. 1, 1993, see section 392 of Pub. L. 103–82, set out as an Effective Date of 1993 Amendment note under section 4951 of this title.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

STEVEN WITBECK, 

Petitioner, 

 v. 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, 

Respondent, 

CH2M PARTIES, 

Respondent-Intervenor.

No. 17-71397 

LABR Nos. 0-1650-11-028 

0-1650-13-008 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Administrative Review Board, Department of Labor

Submitted May 15, 2018**

Before: SILVERMAN, BEA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.

Steven Witbeck petitions pro se for review of the Department of Labor’s 

Administrative Review Board’s (“ARB”) order denying his complaint under the 

whistleblower provisions of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (“SOX”), 18 U.S.C. 

 

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

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

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

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

FILED

MAY 22 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 17-71397 

§ 1514A, and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (“Clean Water Act”), 33 

U.S.C. § 1367. We have jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 1514A(b)(2)(A) and 33 

U.S.C. § 1369(b)(1). We review the ARB’s decision pursuant to the standard 

established in the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), 5 U.S.C. § 706. Under 

the APA, “we will reverse an agency’s decision only if it is arbitrary, capricious, 

an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.” CoppingerMartin v. Solis, 627 F.3d 745, 748 (9th Cir. 2010) (citation and internal quotation 

marks omitted)). We deny the petition.

The ARB properly denied Witbeck’s complaint because Witbeck failed to 

present evidence in support of his claims to the administrative law judge. See 29 

C.F.R. § 1980.109(a) (to prevail on a SOX whistleblower claim, the complainant 

must “demonstrate[] by a preponderance of the evidence that protected activity was 

a contributing factor in the adverse action alleged in the complaint”); 29 C.F.R. 

§ 24.109(b)(2) (to prevail on a Clean Water Act whistleblower claim, the

complainant must “demonstrate[] by a preponderance of the evidence that the 

protected activity caused or was a motivating factor in the adverse action alleged in 

the complaint”).

We lack jurisdiction to consider Witbeck’s claim under 29 U.S.C. § 660(c) 
3 17-71397 

because “an agency’s decision not to take enforcement action [is] presumed 

immune from judicial review” and Witbeck failed to rebut the presumption. 

Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821, 832 (1985).

We reject as meritless Witbeck’s contentions concerning CH2M Parties’ 

alleged failure to respond to his complaints, and the application of the shifting 

burdens of proof.

We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on 

appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

To the extent Witbeck requests reconsideration of the denial of his motion to 

compel the production of the record before OSHA (Docket Entry Nos. 6 and 16), 

we deny the request.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
Exhibit 31

Certifications

I, Richard Simpson, certify that:

1.I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of Citigroup Commercial Mortgage Trust 2019-GC43 (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.Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statement(s) required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicers have fulfilled their obligations under the servicing agreements in all material respects; and

5.All of the reports on assessment of compliance with 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.

In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties: Wells Fargo Bank, National Association; Rialto Capital Advisors, LLC; Park Bridge Lender Services LLC; U.S. Bank National Association; CoreLogic Solutions, LLC; Situs Holdings, LLC; Computershare Trust Company, National Association;  Midland Loan Services, a Division of PNC Bank, National Association; Pentalpha Surveillance LLC; and Wilmington Trust, National Association.

Date:March 30, 2022

|  | /s/ Richard Simpson ___________________Richard SimpsonPresident, Citigroup Commercial Mortgage Securities Inc.(senior officer in charge of securitization of the depositor) |
|--|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

CGCMT 2019-GC43 Certifications