alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Geide’s Inn, Inc., Appellant, v. Pappas & Janis Realty Corp., Respondent, et al., Defendants.

In an action by the assignee of a lessee against the lessor to recover damages for alleged breach of the lease and for equitable relief, plaintiff appeals, as limited by its brief, from what plaintiff asserts is a portion of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, entered May 20, 1968 after a nonjury trial, namely, “ which dismissed * * * [the] complaint.” Appeal dismissed, with costs. The judgment contains no such decretal provision. However, if the judgment contained such a decretal provision, we would affirm it. Paragraph 36 of the lease provided that the lessor would maintain fire insurance in an amount equal to 80% of the insurable amount of the premises “ as same may be determined by an appropriate appraisal by a¡n authorized agency.” In our opinion, the wording of this paragraph fully and clearly expresses the purpose and intention of the parties to the lease in clear and concise terms; hence, the trial court properly excluded any testimony which tended to change or modify the meaning of this clause (see *Brainard*v. *New York Cent. R. R. Co.,*242 N. Y. 125,133). Parol evidence may not be admitted for the purpose of attempting to vary or contradict an unambiguous lease *(Raleigh Assoc.*v. *Henry,*302 N. Y. 467). It is also our view that the term *“*insurable amount ” means neither actual value nor replacement value. *932
      *It is clear*that the lessor and lessee provided that a third party would appraise the property and fix a cash sum that the parties called the “ insurable amount ”. On the date that the premises were totally destroyed by fire the lessor carried insurance in the sum of $111,000. The only testimony admitted in evidence with respect to valuation was by the lessor’s expert, Brindley, who was an appraiser for insurance companies. He valued the premises at $130,500. The trial court rejected the testimony of plaintiff’s appraiser; and plaintiff does not contend that this was error. It would appear that the lessor carried insurance in excess of *80%*of the insurable amount ($130,500). Christ, Acting P. J., Brennan, Rabin, Benjamin and Martuscello, JJ., concur.
#### § 205.379 Application for approval of the installation of permanent facilities for emergency use only.

Application for DOE approval of a permanent connection for emergency use only shall conform with the requirements in § 205.373. However, the baseline data specified in § 205.373(d) need not be included in an application made under this section. In addition, the application shall state in full the reasons why such permanent connection for emergency use is in the public interest.
(logo) pwc

 

 

**Report of IndependentRegistered Public Accounting Firm**

 

To the Board of Directors, PNCFinancial Services Group, Inc.:

 

We have examinedmanagement’s assertion, included in the accompanying Report on Assessmentof Compliance with Regulation AB Servicing Criteria, that Midland LoanServices, a division of PNC Bank, National Association (“Midland”or the “Company”) complied with the servicing criteria set forth inItem 1122(d) of the Securities and Exchange Commission's Regulation AB for alltransactions serviced on the *Enterprise!* Loan Management System (the“Platform”), as of December 31, 2016 and for the year then ended, excludingcriteria 1122(d)(1)(iii), 1122(d)(3)(i)(B), 1122(d)(3)(i)(C), 1122(d)(3)(i)(D),1122(d)(3)(ii), 1122(d)(3)(iii), 1122(d)(3)(iv), and 1122(d)(4)(xv), which theCompany has determined are not applicable to the servicing activities performedby it with respect to the Platform. Management is responsible for the Company'scompliance with the servicing criteria. Our responsibility is to express anopinion on management's assertion based on our examination.

 

Our examination was conductedin accordance with attestation standards of the Public Company AccountingOversight Board (United States) and, accordingly, included examining, on a testbasis, evidence about the Company’s compliance with the applicableservicing criteria and performing such other procedures as we considerednecessary in the circumstances. Our examination included testing of selectedasset-backed transactions and securities that comprise the Platform, testing ofselected servicing activities related to the Platform, and determining whetherthe Company processed those selected transactions and performed those selectedactivities in compliance with the applicable servicing criteria. Our procedureswere limited to the selected transactions and servicing activities performed bythe Company during the period covered by this report. Our procedures were notdesigned to detect noncompliance arising from errors that may have occurredprior to or subsequent to our tests that may have affected the balances oramounts calculated or reported by the Company during the period covered by thisreport. We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis for ouropinion. Our examination does not provide a legal determination on theCompany’s compliance with the servicing criteria.

 

In our opinion, management’sassertion that Midland complied with the aforementioned applicable servicingcriteria as of and for the year ended December 31, 2016 for the Platform isfairly stated, in all material respects.

 

 

/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

 

February 17, 2017

 

 

*PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP,1100 Walnut Street, Suite 1300, Kansas City, MO 64106*

*T: (816) 472 7921, F: (816)218 1890 www.pwc.com/us*
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

V. ) CASE NO: 2:06-mj-069-DRB

)

HECTOR R. SILVA )

MOTION TO WITHDRAW

COMES NOW undersigned counsel and moves to withdraw as counsel for HECTOR R.

SILVA. In support of this motion, undersigned counsel states:

Mr. Silva has retained attorney Barry Teague to represent him.

WHEREFORE, undersigned counsel respectfully asks that this Motion be granted.

Dated this 19 day of July, 2006. th

Respectfully submitted,

s/ Donnie W. Bethel

DONNIE W. BETHEL

Assistant Federal Defender

201 Monroe Street, Suite 407

Montgomery, Alabama 36104

Phone: (334) 834-2099

Fax: (334) 834-0353

E-mail:don_bethel@fd.org

IN Bar Code: 14773-49

Case 2:06-cr-00200-WHA-CSC Document 16 Filed 07/19/2006 Page 1 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

V. ) CASE NO: 2:06-cr-069-DRB

)

HECTOR R. SILVA )

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on July 19, 2006, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of

Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing to the following: 

Terry F. Moorer, Esquire

Assistant United States Attorney

One Court Square, Suite 201

Montgomery, Alabama 36104

Respectfully submitted,

s/ Donnie W. Bethel

DONNIE W. BETHEL

Assistant Federal Defender

201 Monroe Street, Suite 407

Montgomery, Alabama 36104

Phone: (334) 834-2099

Fax: (334) 834-0353

E-mail:don_bethel@fd.org

IN Bar Code: 14773-49

Case 2:06-cr-00200-WHA-CSC Document 16 Filed 07/19/2006 Page 2 of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>6
<LEGEND> THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED 
FROM THE FORM 10-Q AS OF JUNE 30, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY 
BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
<MULTIPLIER>1
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>             DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                  JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-TYPE>                       6-MOS
<INVESTMENTS-AT-COST>           1,003,524
<INVESTMENTS-AT-VALUE>            743,295
<RECEIVABLES>                           0
<ASSETS-OTHER>                     10,641
<OTHER-ITEMS-ASSETS>               27,783
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                    781,719
<PAYABLE-FOR-SECURITIES>                0
<SENIOR-LONG-TERM-DEBT>                 0
<OTHER-ITEMS-LIABILITIES>          25,185
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES>                25,185
<SENIOR-EQUITY>                         0
<PAID-IN-CAPITAL-COMMON>        1,016,763
<SHARES-COMMON-STOCK>             109,904
<SHARES-COMMON-PRIOR>             109,904
<ACCUMULATED-NII-CURRENT>               0
<OVERDISTRIBUTION-NII>                  0
<ACCUMULATED-NET-GAINS>                 0
<OVERDISTRIBUTION-GAINS>                0
<ACCUM-APPREC-OR-DEPREC>         (260,229)
<NET-ASSETS>                      756,534
<DIVIDEND-INCOME>                       0
<INTEREST-INCOME>                   4,615
<OTHER-INCOME>                          0
<EXPENSES-NET>                    215,873
<NET-INVESTMENT-INCOME>          (211,258)
<REALIZED-GAINS-CURRENT>           19,803
<APPREC-INCREASE-CURRENT>         (24,723)
<NET-CHANGE-FROM-OPS>            (216,178)
<EQUALIZATION>                          0
<DISTRIBUTIONS-OF-INCOME>               0
<DISTRIBUTIONS-OF-GAINS>                0
<DISTRIBUTIONS-OTHER>                   0
<NUMBER-OF-SHARES-SOLD>                 0
<NUMBER-OF-SHARES-REDEEMED>             0
<SHARES-REINVESTED>                     0
<NET-CHANGE-IN-ASSETS>           (216,178)
<ACCUMULATED-NII-PRIOR>                 0
<ACCUMULATED-GAINS-PRIOR>               0
<OVERDISTRIB-NII-PRIOR>                 0
<OVERDIST-NET-GAINS-PRIOR>              0
<GROSS-ADVISORY-FEES>               8,916
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                      0
<GROSS-EXPENSE>                   222,862
<AVERAGE-NET-ASSETS>              864,623
<PER-SHARE-NAV-BEGIN>                  11
<PER-SHARE-NII>                        (2)
<PER-SHARE-GAIN-APPREC>                 0 <F1>
<PER-SHARE-DIVIDEND>                    0
<PER-SHARE-DISTRIBUTIONS>               0
<RETURNS-OF-CAPITAL>                    0
<PER-SHARE-NAV-END>                   (10)
<EXPENSE-RATIO>                        25
<AVG-DEBT-OUTSTANDING>                  0
<AVG-DEBT-PER-SHARE>                    0
<FN>
<F1>
A zero value is used since the change in net unrealized fair value is not 
allocated to General Partners and Limited Partners as it is not taxable.  
Only taxable gains or losses are allocated in accordance with the 
Partnership Agreement.
</FN>

</TABLE>
###### Editorial Note on Part 34

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 34 appear at 79 FR 75739, Dec. 19, 2014.

#### § 34.21 Limits on external radiation levels from storage containers and source changers.

The maximum exposure rate limits for storage containers and source changers are 2 millisieverts (200 millirem) per hour at any exterior surface, and 0.1 millisieverts (10 millirem) per hour at 1 meter from any exterior surface with the sealed source in the shielded position.
14910-13-PI

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14CFR Part 39 (Docket No. FAA-ZOID-llOS; Directorate Identifier 2010-NM-151-AD; Amendmen 

# 110')9J-. 

# o?r0

# B 39-*****; AD 2011-**-**) RIN 2120-AA64 Ai..-worthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc. Model CL-21 5-1 AI0 (eL-ZI5), CL-2J5-68 IJ (CL-2 J5T Variant), and CL-215-6B IJ (CL-415 Variant) Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department ofTransportation nNClJR"f.NC~.s ""T'NGSVM\ll}L
tic{

(DOT). 

### kNit-Lao ACTION: Final rule. 

# At:;\.,ya"': SUMMARY: We arc adopti.ng a new ail\.\'orthilless directive (AD) for the products list

# ~:\,[~§ /( above. This AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness mfom13tion (MeAl) originated by an aviation authority of another Cowltry to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MeAl describes the unsafe condition as: Seven cases ofon-ground hydraulic accumulator screw cap or end cap failure have been experienced 

### * 

## * * resulting in loss ofthe associated hydraulic system and high-energy impact damage to adjacent systems and structure. 

### * 

## * * NITIAI};ISIG

RO\f1'INc; S""OO[.

"ATE
ROLJTI"'G ,1'"MIlOL 

### * * * 

### * 

## * * * "~I'IIAIS'SiG A detailed analysis ofthe systems and structure in the potential line of trajectory of a failed screw cap/end cap for each accumulator has been conducted. Ithas identified that the worst-case scenarios would be impact damage to various components, potentially resulting in fuel spillage, uncommanded flap movement, or loss ofaileron control [and consequent reduced controllability ofthe airplane]. !\ATE
lNGSYMOOL .1TlALY.i1G
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-7210

In Re: STEVE ALLEN STEELMAN,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

(CA-97-107-5-V, CR-94-11-5-V)

Submitted: January 25, 2000 Decided: February 8, 2000

Before WIDENER, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Steve Allen Steelman, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Steve Allen Steelman has filed a petition for writ of mandamus

in this Court to compel the district court to enter a final order

in his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 action, which he filed in the district

court in August 1997. We deny Steelman’s request without prejudice

to his refiling a request for mandamus relief from this Court

should the district court not act within a reasonable time from

this opinion.

Mandamus is a drastic remedy to be used only in extraordinary

circumstances, see Kerr v. United States Dist. Court, 426 U.S. 394,

402 (1976), and Steelman carries the heavy burden of establishing

that he has no other adequate means to attain relief and that his

entitlement to such relief is clear and indisputable. See Allied

Chem. Corp. v. Daiflon, Inc., 449 U.S. 33, 35 (1980).

We have reviewed the district court’s docket report in this

case and conclude that after an inordinately lengthy delay in its

consideration of Steelman’s case, the court has resumed active

consideration of it. Therefore, it appears that a decision from

the court is forthcoming, and Steelman’s entitlement to mandamus

relief is not at this point clear and indisputable. We therefore

deny Steelman’s petition without prejudice to his refiling should

the court not issue a decision within a reasonable time. We grant

his motion to proceed in forma pauperis in this Court. We dispense

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
3

adequately presented in the materials before the Court and argument

would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED
EXHIBIT 32





Certification Pursuant to


18 U.S.C. Section 1350,


As Adopted Pursuant to


Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002





In connection with the Quarterly Report of Universal Detection Technology (the "Registrant") on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Jacques Tizabi, Principal Executive Officer and Acting Principal Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer of the Registrant, certify to the best of my knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





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





(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Registrant.


Dated: November 19, 2010

/s/ Jacques TizabiJacques Tizabi
 Principal Executive Officer and Acting Principal Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer
§ 1017.27 Transmission. ( a ) *Physically transmitting UCNI documents or material.* ( 1 ) A document or material marked as containing UCNI may be transmitted by: ( i ) U.S. First Class, Express, Certified, or Registered mail;
( ii ) Any means approved for transmission of classified documents or material;
( iii ) An Authorized Individual or person granted limited access under § 1017.21 as long as physical control of the package is maintained; or,
( iv ) Internal mail services.
( 2 ) The document or material must be packaged to conceal the presence of the UCNI from someone who is not authorized access. A single, opaque envelope or wrapping is sufficient for this purpose. The address of the recipient and the sender must be indicated on the outside of the envelope or wrapping along with the words “TO BE OPENED BY ADDRESSEE ONLY.”
( b ) *Transmitting UCNI documents over telecommunications circuits.* Encryption algorithms that comply with all applicable Federal laws, regulations, and standards for the protection of unclassified controlled information must be used when transmitting UCNI over a telecommunications circuit (including the telephone, facsimile, radio, e-mail, Internet).
#### Virginia Belles, Appellant, v. E. Franklin Walter et al., Respondents.

Reynolds, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Tioga County, dismissing the complaint on the merits after a jury verdict of no cause of action and from an order of the same court denying appellant’s application for a new trial. Appellant seeks to recover for personal injuries allegedly sustained when she was struck by an automobile owned by respondent Carolyn E. Walter and operated by respondent E. Franklin Walter. The jury unanimously found “ negligence on both sides ” and therefore no cause of action. Appellant urges that the charge was improper or erroneous but no exception was taken and, if any error was present, it was clearly not so fundamental as to require a reversal without an exception (e.g. *Brown*v. *Du Frey,*1 N Y 2d 190, 196; *Benjamin*v. *Rose,*20 A D 2d 838; cf., *Winser*v. *Trombley,*14 A D 2d 963). Nor can we say that the jury’s verdict is contrary to the weight of the evidence. *“*To decide this question we must take the view of the proof most favorable to the verdict.” *(Hannan*v. *Schmitt,*18 A D 2d 854; *Dowell*v. *Remmer,*24 A D 2d 542.) On the instant record the jury, upon resolving the conflicting testimony, could properly find that appellant was guilty of contributory negligence in alighting into the flow of traffic and-onto a slippery road covered with *867snow from a vehicle parked one half on the paved portion of the road, being on the wrong side of the highway and in defendant’s lane of travel, and in failing to do no more, after putting herself in this dangerous position, than stand close to the vehicle from which she had alighted when respondents’ vehicle approached. Judgment and order affirmed, without costs. Gibson, P. J., Reynolds, Cooke and Greenblott, JJ., concur in memorandum by Reynolds, J.; Aulisi, J., not voting.
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 240 (Wednesday, December 15, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 78246]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-31427]



[[Page 78246]]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention


Disease, Disability, and Injury Prevention and Control Special 
Emphasis Panel (SEP): Pre-Travel Health: Improving and Expanding the 
Implementation of Counseling and Surveillance of International 
Travelers, Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA) CK11-004, initial 
review.

    In accordance with Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory 
Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), the Centers for Disease Control and 
Prevention (CDC) announces the aforementioned meeting:

    Time and Date: 12 p.m.-2 p.m., February 10, 2011 (Closed).
    Place: Teleconference.
    Status: The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance 
with provisions set forth in Section 552b(c) (4) and (6), Title 5 
U.S.C., and the Determination of the Director, Management Analysis 
and Services Office, CDC, pursuant to Public Law 92-463.
    Matters to be Discussed: The meeting will include the initial 
review, discussion, and evaluation of applications received in 
response to ``Pre-Travel Health: Improving and Expanding the 
Implementation of Counseling and Surveillance of International 
Travelers, Funding Opportunity Announcement FOA CK11-004.''
    Contact Person for More Information: Amy Yang, PhD, Scientific 
Review Officer, CDC, 1600 Clifton Road, NE., Mailstop E60, Atlanta, 
Gerogia 30333, Telephone: (404) 498-2733.

    The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been 
delegated the authority to sign Federal Register notices pertaining 
to announcements of meetings and other committee management 
activities, for both the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 
and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.

    Dated: December 6, 2010.
Elaine L. Baker,
Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, Centers for Disease 
Control and Prevention.
[FR Doc. 2010-31427 Filed 12-14-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsBOREAS TE-5 Surface Meteorological and Radiation DataThe BOREAS TE-5 team collected measurements in the NSA and SSA on gas exchange, gas composition, and tree growth. Measurements of meteorological data, including air and soil temperature, RH, and PPFD, were 30-minute intervals during the 1994 IFCs at various sites in the BOREAS NSA and SSA. The data are provided in tabular ASCII files. The data files are available on a CD-ROM (see document number 20010000884), or from the Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) Distributed Active Archive Center (DAAC).Document ID20010005743Acquisition SourceGoddard Space Flight CenterDocument TypeTechnical Memorandum (TM)AuthorsHall, Forrest G.*(NASA Goddard Space Flight Center Greenbelt, MD United States)*Curd, Shelaine*(Raytheon Information Technology and Scientific Services Greenbelt, MD United States)*Ehleriinger, Jim*(Utah Univ. Salt Lake City, UT United States)*Brooks, J. Renee*(University of South Florida Tampa, FL United States)*Flanagan, Larry*(Lethbridge Univ. Lethbridge, Alberta Canada)*Date AcquiredSeptember 7, 2013Publication DateOctober 1, 2000Subject CategoryEarth Resources And Remote SensingReport/Patent NumberNAS 1.15:209891/VOL141NASA/TM-2000-209891/VOL141Rept-2000-03136-0/VOL141Funding Number(s)PROJECT: RTOP 462-33-01Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType20010005743.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024