alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 94-2238

IN RE: MICHELE M. FREES, d/b/a From The Heart,

a/k/a Michele M. Fries,

Debtor - Appellee,

MICHELE M. FREES, Individually and as Trustee,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

JOHN GIBNEY,

Defendant - Appellant,

and

EDWARD GIBNEY; ELEANOR GIBNEY; STEPHEN SEGALL,

Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Richard L. Voorhees, Chief

District Judge. (CA-93-275-1, BK-91-10359)

Submitted: February 13, 1996 Decided: March 4, 1996

Before HALL and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
2
3

Albert Lee Sneed, Jr., VAN WINKLE, BUCK, WALL, STARNES & DAVIS,

P.A., Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellant. Michele M. Frees,

Appellee Pro Se; David G. Gray, Jr., WESTALL, GRAY, KIMEL &

CONNOLLY, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
* In light of this disposition, the Appellant's motion to

expedite and the Appellee's motion to remand this case to the

district court are denied as moot. The Appellee's motion to impose

sanctions is hereby denied.

4

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying his

motion for stay pending appeal of the bankruptcy court's final

order and denying his motion to withdraw reference to the bankruptcy court. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction

because the order is not appealable. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (1988), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (1988);

Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337

U.S. 541 (1949). The order here appealed is neither a final order

nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order.

Accordingly, we grant Appellee's motion to dismiss the appeal

as interlocutory.* We dispense with oral argument because the facts

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
r l**~

AliChem 

I n d u s t r I e s 

6010 NW First Place " Gainesville, FL 32607 " Tel : 352-378-9696 " Fax: 352-338-0400 

December 5, 2013 

Via E-Mail 

Document Control Office (DCO) (7407M) 

Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT) 

Environmental Protection Agency 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue 

Washington, DC 20460-0001 

Scanned & Processed in CIS by: SHARON 

CBIC Control Number 

357335 

Re: Test Rule Exemption Application, Docket No. EPA-HQ-OPPT-2009-0112 

To Whom It May Concern : 

AllChem Industries (AllChem) submits this letter to request an exemption 

from the requirements to conduct testing for a substance, benzenesulfonic acid, 3-nitro, 

sodium salt (1 :1) (CASRN 127-68-4). This substance was identified for testing in 40 

C.F .R. Section 799.5089, "Chemical testing requirements for third group of high production 

volume chemicals (HPV3)" for the following tests: (1) Vapor Pressure : ASTM E 1782-08 

(thermal analysis); and (2) Reproduction/Developmental Toxicity Screening Test: 40 CFR 

799.9355. 

AllChem understands that Tiarco Chemical Company has committed to 

conduct testing for this substance and AllChem is in negotiations with Tiarco Chemical 

Company regarding its share of testing costs. Consistent with 40 C.F.R. Section 790.99, 

AlIChem understands that if this application is granted before the reimbursement period 

described in Section 4(c)(3)(B) of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) expires, 

AllChem must pay fair and equitable reimbursement to the person(s) who incurred or shared 

in the costs of complying with the requirement to submit data, and upon whose data the 

granting of our application was based. 

Thank you for your consideration of this request. If there are any questions, 

please me at (352) 378-9696 x 121, e-mail me at alex.olcese@allchem.com or send any 

additional correspondence to the address listed on our letterhead . 

EPA 

E" ~ ' ~ 7 "]113 

DOCKET CENTER 

Al1Ch~em Induktries, by 

Alex Olcese, its Chief Operating Officer 

RECEIVED 

OPPT CBIC 

2013 DEC 13 PH 12 : 0 1
52.252-4 Alterations in Contract.       As prescribed in 52.107(d), insert the following clause in solicitations and contracts in order to revise or supplement, as necessary, other parts of the contract, or parts of the solicitation that apply after contract award, except for any clause authorized for use with a deviation. Include clear identification of what is being altered.          Alterations in Contract (Apr 1984)          Portions of this contract are altered as follows:          _____________________________________________ _____________________________________________ _____________________________________________          (End of clause)    **Parent topic:** 52.252 [Reserved]
EX-33 (f)


(logo) REGULUS


Report on Assessment of Compliance with Regulation AB Servicing Criteria

1. Pursuant to Subpart 229.1100 - Asset Backed Securities, 17 C.F.R. section
   229. 1100-229.1123 ("Regulation AB"), Regulus Group LLC, for itself and its
   wholly-owned subsidiaries (individually and collectively "Regulus"), is
   responsible for assessing its compliance with the servicing criteria
   applicable to the remittance processing services it provides to customers who
   are issuers or servicers of asset backed securities transactions and who have
   requested confirmation of Regulus' compliance in connection with loan and/or
   receivables portfolios that include pool assets for asset backed securities
   transactions (the "Platform"). Remittance processing is a service whereby
   check payments that are remitted by mail to a post office box are collected,
   processed through a highly automated data capture system, and prepared for
   deposit to a bank account held by the beneficiary of the payment.

2. The servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of Regulation AB were used
   in Regulus' assessment of compliance. Regulus has concluded that the
   servicing criteria set forth in Items 1122(d)(2)(i) and 1122(d)(4)(iv) of
   Regulation AB are applicable to the servicing activities it performs with
   respect to the Platform (such criteria the "Applicable Servicing Criteria").
   Regulus has concluded that the remainder of the servicing criteria set forth
   in Item 1122(d) of Regulation AB are inapplicable to the activities it
   performs with respect to the Platform because Regulus does not participate in
   the servicing activities referenced by such servicing criteria.

3. As of and for the year ending December 31, 2006, Regulus has complied in all
   material respects with the Applicable Servicing Criteria set forth in Item
   1122(d) of Regulation AB.

4. KPMG LLP, a registered public accounting firm, has issued an attestation
   report on Regulus' assessment of compliance with the Applicable Servicing
   Criteria as of and for the year ending December 31, 2006. A copy of that
   attestation report is attached hereto as Exhibit A.


/s/ Kimberlee Clark
Kimberlee Clark
Chief Financial Officer

February 22, 2007


860 LATOUR COURT | NAPA, CA | 94558 | TEL: 707.254.4000 | FAX: 707.254.4070
| REGULU5GROUP.COM
#### Frances Swinick, Appellant, v. City of New York Department of Social Services et al., Respondents.

Oder entered on November 7, 1969, unanimously affirmed, without and without disbursements, from the order of the Supreme Co.urf- New York County, entered on November 24, 1969, is dismissed as nonappealable. No opinion. Concur — Stevens, P. J., Capozzoli, McGivern, Nunez and McNally, JJ.
Editorial Note on Part 57
Editorial Note: 1. At 63 FR 69969, Dec. 17, 1998, part 57 was added by duplicating portions of part 59. At 63 FR 72353, Dec. 31, 1998, part 59 was redesignated as part 590 of 9 CFR. 2. Nomenclature changes to part 57 appear at 63 FR 69971, Dec. 17, 1998.

§ 57.700 Prohibition on disposition of restricted eggs. ( a ) No person shall buy, sell, or transport, or offer to buy or sell, or offer or receive for transportation in any business in commerce any restricted eggs, except as authorized in §§ 57.100 and 57.720.
( b ) No egg handler shall possess any restricted eggs, except as authorized in §§ 57.100 and 57.720.
( c ) No egg handler shall use any restricted eggs in the preparation of human food, except as provided in §§ 57.100 and 57.720.
[36 FR 9814, May 28, 1971. Redesignated at 42 FR 32514, June 27, 1977, and further redesignated at 46 FR 63203, Dec. 31, 1981, as amended at 63 FR 69970, Dec. 17, 1998]
1

 The hearing previously scheduled for March 1, 2007 was cancelled due to severe weather. 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR

THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

v. ) 2:06cr169-WKW

) WO

KOWOSKY TYWAN CHRISTIAN )

CHRISTOPHER IMAN ULMER )

DARRYL LAMONT BROWN )

JAMES CALVIN TALLEY )

WILMONT TIMOTHY BARNETT )

ORDER

For good cause, it is

ORDERED that the detention hearing for the above-named defendants previously

scheduled for March 1, 2007 be and hereby is re-scheduled to 10:00 a.m. on Monday, March

5, 2007.1

DONE, this 1st day of March, 2007.

/s/ Susan Russ Walker 

SUSAN RUSS WALKER

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:06-cr-00169-WKW-SRW Document 94 Filed 03/01/2007 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 35
                                  ----------


                      COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING LP


                             OFFICERS' CERTIFICATE
                    ANNUAL STATEMENT OF THE MASTER SERVICER


                                  CWABS, INC.
                 CWABS ASSET-BACKED CERTIFICATES TRUST 2006-14
                   ASSET-BACKED CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2006-14


      The undersigned does hereby certify that the undersigned is an officer
of Countrywide GP, Inc., general partner of Countrywide Home Loans Servicing
LP (the "Master Servicer"), and does hereby further certify pursuant to
Section 3.17 of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement for the above-captioned
Series (the "Agreement") that:

(i) A review of the activities of the Master Servicer during the preceding
calendar year and of the performance of the Master Servicer under the
Agreement has been made under my supervision; and

(ii) To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Master Servicer
has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material
respects throughout such calendar year.




/s/ Craig Baingo                                Dated: March 14, 2007
-----------------

Craig Baingo
Executive Vice President, Finance
#### § 63.1 Act.

*Act* means the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 (7 U.S.C. 1621-1627).

[79 FR 31845, June 3, 2014]
EX-35 (c)
SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT


BAFC 2006-H


Re: The Mortgage Loan Sale and Servicing Agreement, dated and effective as of
September 1, 2006 between Bank of America, National Association and Opteum
Financial Services, LLC (the "MLSSA") and the Assignment, Assumption and
Recognition Agreement, dated September 29, 2006, among Banc of America Funding
Corporation, U.S. Bank National Association, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. and Opteum
Financial Services, LLC (together with the MLSSA, the "Agreement").


I, Martin J. Levine, the Executive Vice President of Opteum Financial Services
LLC (the "Company"), pursuant to the Agreement, do hereby certify that:

(1)     A review of the Servicer's activities during the period from and
including January 1, 2006 through and including December 31, 2006 and of the
Servicer's performance under the Agreement has been made under my supervision;

(2)     To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has
fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects
throughout such period.


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has duly executed this Certificate this 28th
day of February 2007.


By:  /s/ Martin J. Levine
Name:    Martin J. Levine
Title:   Executive Vice President
§ 58.143 Raw product storage. ( a ) All milk shall be held and processed under conditions and at temperatures that will avoid contamination and rapid deterioration. Drip milk from can washers and any other source shall not be used for the manufacture of dairy products. Bulk milk in storage tanks within the dairy plant shall be handled in such a manner as to minimize bacterial increase and shall be maintained at 45 °F. or lower until processing begins. This does not preclude holding milk at higher temperatures for a period of time, where applicable to particular manufacturing or processing practices.
( b ) The bacteriological quality of commingled milk in storage tanks shall not exceed 1,000,000/ml.
[40 FR 47911, Oct. 10, 1975. Redesignated at 42 FR 32514, June 27, 1977, and further redesignated at 46 FR 63203, Dec. 31, 1981, as amended at 67 FR 48976, July 29, 2002]
#### Randal N. WIIDEMAN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Glen WHORTON, Director of the Nevada Department of Corrections, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 06-16070.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

*510Submitted Aug. 27, 2007.*

Filed Aug. 31, 2007.

Randal N. Wiideman, Lovelock, NV, pro se.

David K. Neidert, Esq., AGNV-Office of the Nevada Attorney General, Reno, NV, for Respondent-Appellee.

Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Nevada state prisoner Randal N. Wiideman appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.

Wiideman contends that the district court erred in dismissing his petition as time-barred, because the petition related back to his original timely-filed petition pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(c)(2). We conclude that because the district court dismissed the original petition, Wiideman’s petition cannot relate back to that original petition. *See Rasberry v. Garcia,*448 F.3d 1150, 1155 (9th Cir.2006) (holding that “a habeas petition filed after the district court dismisses a previous petition without prejudice for failure to exhaust state remedies cannot relate back to the original habeas petition”).

Wiideman also contends that his original petition was erroneously dismissed such that he is entitled to equitable tolling. We conclude that the district court did not err in dismissing the original petition as mixed, because some of the claims were unexhausted at the time that Wiideman filed the petition, *see Jiminez v. Rice,*276 F.3d 478, 481 (9th Cir.2001), and the district court properly offered Wiideman an administrative closure procedure that was the equivalent of a stay and abeyance procedure, *see Rhines v. Weber,*544 U.S. 269, *511278, 125 S.Ct. 1528, 161 L.Ed.2d 440 (2005).

To the extent that Wiideman’s brief raises uncertified issues, we construe his arguments as a motion to expand the certificate of appealability, and we deny the motion. *See*9th Cir. R. 22—1(e); *Hiivala v. Wood,*195 F.3d 1098, 1104-05 (9th Cir.1999) (per curiam).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

1

19–011 2002

107th Congress, 2d Session – – – – – – – – – – – – House Document 107–279

CONTINUATION OF THE NATIONAL EMERGENCY WITH 

RESPECT TO IRAN

MESSAGE

FROM

THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES

TRANSMITTING

NOTIFICATION THAT THE IRAN EMERGENCY DECLARED BY EXECUTIVE ORDER 12170 ON NOVEMBER 14, 1979 IS TO CONTINUE 

BEYOND NOVEMBER 14, 2002, PURSUANT TO 50 U.S.C. 1622(d)

NOVEMBER 12, 2002.—Message and accompanying papers referred to the 

Committee on International Relations and ordered to be printed 


E:\Seals\Congress.#13
(1)

To the Congress of the United States: 

Section 202(d) of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 

1622(d)) provides for the automatic termination of a national emergency unless, prior to the anniversary date of its declaration, the 

President publishes in the Federal Register and transmits to the 

Congress a notice stating that the emergency is to continue in effect beyond the anniversary date. In accordance with this provision, 

I have sent the enclosed notice, stating that the Iran emergency declared by Executive Order 12170 on November 14, 1979, is to continue in effect beyond November 14, 2002, to the Federal Register 

for publication. The most recent notice continuing this emergency 

was published in the Federal Register on November 13, 2001, (66 

FR 56966). 

Our relations with Iran have not yet returned to normal, and the 

process of implementing the January 19, 1981, agreements with 

Iran is still underway. For these reasons, I have determined that 

it is necessary to continue the national emergency declared on November 14, 1979, with respect to Iran, beyond November 24, 2002.

GEORGE W. BUSH. 

THE WHITE HOUSE, November 12, 2002. 

(3)

NOTICE 

CONTINUATION OF THE NATIONAL EMERGENCY WITH RESPECT TO

IRAN

On November 14, 1979, by Executive Order 12170, the President 

declared a national emergency with respect to Iran pursuant to the 

International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701–

1706) to deal with the unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States 

constituted by the situation in Iran. Because our relations with 

Iran have not yet returned to normal, and the process of implementing the January 19, 1981, agreements with Iran is still underway, the national emergency declared on November 14, 1979, must 

continue in effect beyond November 14, 2002. Therefore, in accordance with section 202(d) of the National Emergencies Act (50 

U.S.C. 1622(d)), I am continuing for 1 year this national emergency 

with respect to Iran. 

This notice shall be published in the Federal Register and transmitted to the Congress.

GEORGE W. BUSH. 

THE WHITE HOUSE, November 12, 2002.

Æ
<PAGE>
 
                   VIDEO DISPLAY CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES
                        STATEMENT OF PER SHARE EARNINGS
                  Quarters and Nine Months Ended November 30,



                                        
                                 1995        1994       1995       1994
                              ---------------------  --------------------- 

Primary
  Weighted average
   shares outstanding         3,959,000   4,132,000  3,959,000   4,132,000

Net effect of diluted
  stock options--based
  on the treasury stock
  method using average
  market price                    4,000       ---        4,000       ---
                              --------------------------------------------

Adjusted weighted
  average shares
  outstanding                 3,963,000   4,132,000  3,963,000   4,132,000


Earnings per share            $    0.09   $    0.00  $    0.33   $    0.13
                              ============================================
162 So.2d 11

#### SOUTHERN FARM BUREAU CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY v. L. L. JAMES and Hartford Accident and Indemnity Co.

No. 47150.

March 31, 1964.

In re: Southern Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Company applying for certiorari or writ of review to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Parish of West Feliciana. 158 So.2d 869.

The application is denied. According to the facts of the case, as found to be by the Court of Appeal, there appears no error of law in the judgment complained of.
#### McFADDEN v. STANDARD OIL CO. OF NEW YORK.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

July 31, 1914.)

Master and Servant (§ 109*)—Personal Injuries—Liability of Master.

Where, in an experienced teamster’s action for injuries due to the running away of a team of green horses, which he was exercising, there was no evidence that the horses were vicious, untrained, or that they had run away before, a verdict for plaintiff was unauthorized, though plaintiff testified that he did not know the horses were “green,” and the relationship of master and servant existed between plaintiff and defendant.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Master and Servant, Cent. Dig. § 204; Dec. Dig. § 109.*]

Appeal from Trial Term, Kings County.

Action by Patrick McFadden against the Standard Oil Company of New York for personal injuries. Prom judgment for plaintiff, and denial of new trial, defendant appeals.

Reversed, and new trial granted.

Argued before JENKS, P. J., and BURR, CARR, STAPLETON, and PUTNAM, JJ.

A. H. Cole, of New York City, for appellant.

J. LeRoy Gibson, of Brooklyn, for respondent.

*

For other cases see same topic & § number in Dec. *&*Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep’r Indexes

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff recovered damages for personal injuries. He was a teamster of 14 years’ experience, and had been employed by the defendant for over a month. He generally delivered goods, using a team and truck. On the day of the casualty he was directed to exercise a team of green horses that had recently been acquired by the defendant for the purposes of its business. Plaintiff testified he did not know they were green. The team ran away and collided with a post, and the plaintiff was thrown from the truck. There is no evidence that the horses were vicious, fractious, un*958trained, or even that they had run away before; yet the plaintiff recovered a verdict.

The law governing the liability of the owner of horses for personal injury is established, and we cannot conceive of any reason why that liability should be extended because of the relationship of master and servant existing between the parties, especially where the servant is skilled in the handling of horses. Muller v. McKesson, 73 N. Y. 195, 29 Am. Rep. 123; Lynch v. McNally, 73 N. Y. 347; Cooper v. Cashman, 190 Mass. 75, 76 N. E. 461, 3 L. R. A. (N. S.) 209.

The judgment and order should be reversed, and a new trial granted; costs to abide the event,

PUTNAM, J., not voting.
22.1310 Solicitation provision and contract clauses.       (a)                                                         (1) Insert the clause at 52.222-35, Equal Opportunity for Veterans, in solicitations and contracts if the expected value is $150,000 or more, except when-                                                                           (i) Work is performed outside the United States by employees recruited outside the United States; or                                                                              (ii) The Director, Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs of the U.S. Department of Labor, has waived, in accordance with 22.1305(a), or the head of the agency has waived, in accordance with 22.1305(b), all of the terms of the clause.                                                                                                           (2) If the Director, Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs of the U.S. Department of Labor, or the head of the agency waives one or more (but not all) of the terms of the clause, use the basic clause with its Alternate I.                                                                             (b) Insert the clause at 52.222-37, Employment Reports on Veterans, in solicitations and contracts containing the clause at 52.222-35, Equal Opportunity for Veterans.                                          (c) Insert the provision at 52.222-38, Compliance with Veterans’ Employment Reporting Requirements, in solicitations when it is anticipated the contract award will exceed the simplified acquisition threshold and the contract is not for acquisition of commercial products or commercial services.    **Parent topic:** Subpart 22.13 - Equal Opportunity for Veterans
#### § 51.2001 Blank.

*Blank* means a filbert containing no kernel or a kernel filling less than one-fourth the capacity of the shell.