alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. 47,836

#### Norman D. Kennedy and Donna Kennedy, *Appellees,*v. Meyerco, Inc., *Appellant.*

(543 P. 2d 937)

Opinion filed December 13, 1975.

*Harrison Smith,*of Garden City, argued the cause and was on the brief for the appellant.

*Don Shultz,*of Dodge City, argued the cause and was on the brief for the appellee.

*Per Curiam:*

This appeal is from an order of the district court refusing to set aside a default judgment against the defendant for $9,728.69 damages to plaintiffs’ residence from fire caused by a limb of a tree, which defendant’s employees were trimming, falling against an electric power line.

Defendant is an Arkansas corporation doing business in Kansas. The company had a registered agent in Kansas, but no business office or officer in the state. Service of process was obtained by serving the summons at his residence on one Leonard Owen, who was the foreman in charge of the defendant’s work. Mr. Owen neglected to forward the summons and the petition to his employer, and two days after the summons was served on him left his employment. Default judgment was rendered May 3, 1974. Defendant first learned of the judgment in July as the result of execution and garnishment on defendant’s insurance company. Defendant took prompt and proper steps to have the judgment set aside.

Two questions are presented for review: (1) Was the service of summons on Leonard Owen sufficient under K. S. A. 60-304(e), [now 1974 Supp.], and, if so, (2) was there excusable neglect in failing to answer?

We do not deem it necessary to pass on the first question. Defendant had no officer, partner as a resident or general agent, in Kansas or any “business office” where a summons could be left with the person in charge.” It did have a *registered*process agent in Kansas, but no attempt was made to make service on that agent. The question is whether the foreman, Leonard Owen, was by virtue *388of his employment the “managing agent” of defendant or “authorized by appointment” to receive service.

Even though the service might be deemed technically good, we believe that under all the circumstances it has been shown that there was surprise and excusable neglect on the part of the defendant in failing to answer, and that the trial court abused its discretion in not vacating the judgment. The case is very much like that of *Montez v. Tonkawa Village Apartments,*215 Kan. 59, 523 P. 2d 351, where we reversed the trial court under comparable circumstances. The present case meets all of the conditions of *Montez.*The employee was a foreman in charge of manual or mechanical operations and apparently not one charged with general business management. His tenure at the time of service was apparently tenuous for he terminated *his employment two days*later. He was under a legal and moral duty to send the papers to his employer, but did not do it. Defendant’s neglect was excusable and it is entitled to its day in 'court to defend against the plaintiffs’ claim.

The judgment is reversed, the default judgment against defendant set aside, and the cause remanded for further proceedings.
#### Woodlawn Union Baptist Church et al., Appellants, v. Hamilton D. Martin et al., Appellees.

Gen. No. 41,051.

opinion filed June 19, 1940.

William. H. Haynes and William H. Harrison, for appellants;

no appearance for appellees.

Opinion by

Presiding Justice Denis E. Sullivan.

“Not to be

published in full.”
EX-35.1
NS Servicing II, LLC
399 Park Avenue, 18th Floor
New York, New York 10022


ANNUAL OFFICERS' CERTIFICATE

Reference is hereby made to Morgan Stanley Bank of America Merrill Lynch Trust
2013-C8, Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2013-C8 (the
"Trust"), issued pursuant to that certain Pooling and Servicing Agreement,
dated as of February 1, 2013 (the "Agreement"), by and among Banc of America
Merrill Lynch Commercial Mortgage Inc., as depositor (the "Depositor"), Wells
Fargo Bank, N.A. as servicer (the "Servicer"), NS Servicing II, LLC, as special
servicer (the "Special Servicer"), U.S. Bank National Association, as trustee
(the "Trustee"), Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as certificate
administrator, certificate registrar and authenticating agent (the "Certificate
Administrator") and, in its capacity as Custodian (the "Custodian"), and Situs
Holdings, LLC, as trust advisor (the "Trust Advisor"). Capitalized terms used
herein not otherwise defined shall have the meanings assigned in the
Agreement.

Pursuant to Section 13.9 of this Agreement, we, Debra A. Hess, Chief Financial
Officer, Ronald J. Lieberman, Executive Vice President, General Counsel and
Secretary and Daniel D. Raffe, Executive Vice President, of NRFC Sub-REIT Corp.,
sole Member of the Special Servicer, do hereby certify in our capacities as
officers of NRFC Sub-REIT Corp. and without personal liability:

1.  A review of the activities of the Special Servicer during the period from
    February 1, 2013 to December 31, 2013 and of its performance under the
    Agreement during such period has been made under our supervision; and

2.  To the best of our knowledge, based on such review, the Special Servicer
    has fulfilled all of its obligations under this Agreement in all material
    respects during the period from February 1, 2013 to December 31, 2013.


(page)


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this Certificate as of the
14th day of March 2014.


/s/ Debra A. Hess
Debra A. Hess
Chief Financial Officer
NRFC Sub-REIT Corp., sole Member of Special Servicer


/s/ Ronald J. Lieberman
Ronald J. Lieberman
Executive Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary
NRFC Sub-REIT Corp., sole Member of Special Servicer


/s/ Daniel D. Raffe
Daniel D. Raffe
Executive Vice President
NRFC Sub-REIT Corp., sole Member of Special Servicer
227 So.2d 596

#### E. E. RABALAIS & SON, INC. v. UNITED BONDING INSURANCE COMPANY et al.

No. 50176.

Nov. 12, 1969.

In re: United Bonding Insurance Company applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, Parish of Avoyelles. 226 So.2d 528.

Writ refused. On the facts found by the Court of Appeal there is no error in the judgment complained of.
From: "Milet, Meredith (CDPH-EHIB)" <Meredith.Milet@cdph.ca.gov> To: Debbie LoweJR9/USEPNUS@EPA Cc "Rojas-Cheatham, Tivo (CDPH-EHIB)" <Tivo.RojasCheatham@cdph.ca.gov> Date: 02117/2011 09:36 AM Subject: RE: Question about asthma data in Kettleman City Report

Hi Debbie,
Thanks again for catching that mistake and we confirmed that there was an error. The rate ofasthmarelated ED visits for Kettleman City (2005-2007) is actually 35.7 per 10,000. Or, see below the corrected paragraph. The number (23 visits) is correct and all ofthe other statistics in this paragraph were doublechecked and found to be correct. 

### Dataonasthma ED visits are available from 2005-2007. During thattime, there were 23 asthma-related ED visits among residents ofKettleman City (zip code 93239), oran annual rate of35.7 visits per 10,000residents. Duringthis same time period (2005-2007), there were 107 asthma-related ED visits among residents ofAvenal (zip code 93204), or an annual rate of26.3 visits per 10,000 residents. The correspondingrate for Kings County (61.5 visits per 10,000 residents), San Joaquin Valley (52.1) and California overall (43.6) were also higher.
Let us know ifyou need anyfurther clarification. Best, Meredith 

### *-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* Meredith Milet,MPH Epidemiologist

- California Breathing Environmental Health Investigations Branch CaliforniaDepartment ofPublic Health 850 Marina Bay Parkway BuildingP, 3rdFloor Richmond, CA 94804 510-620-3634 Meredith.Milet@cdph.ca.gov
#### In the Matter of Michael V. Magro, Respondent, v. James M. Power et al., Constituting the Board of Elections of the City of New York, Respondents, and Paul A. Fino, Jr., Intervenor-Appellant.

Judgment entered June 19, 1970, affirmed, without costs and without disbursements, upon the opinion of Helman, J., at Special Term. Whatever its form, this proceeding sounds essentially in mandamus to compel performance by a public body of a duty imposed by law. Concur — Stevens, P. J., Capozzoli, McGivern and Markewich, JJ.; McNally, J., dissents in the following memorandum: I dissent and vote to reverse and dismiss the proceeding on the ground there was a failure to join the appellant who was a necessary party in this proceeding under section 330 of the Election Law. Objections had been filed by appellant to the petition of the predecessor of petitioner-respondent. Hence in my judgment, he was a necessary party to any proceeding to substitute a new candidate. See cases cited in the dissenting opinion *Matter of Spillane*v. *Katz*(32 A D 2d 157, 160, revd. 25 N Y 2d 34). The learned Trial Justice in his memorandum decision recognized this deficiency by stating “ the objection is at best technical and should not be used as a possible disenfranchisement ”. The appellant appeared by attorney on the argument and submitted an affidavit wherein he asked permission from the court to allow the appellant to appear specially for the limited purpose of challenging the jurisdiction in this matter. Since the appellant was an original objector he is entitled to notice of subsequent court proceedings. If this were not so, then one could do indirectly what cannot be done directly, namely to circumvent objection to a candidate and therefore avoid any scrutiny as to the regularity of substitution. The failure to at least give notice of the court’s proceedings might very well result in a surprise advantage over the appellant who was the original objector.
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE

F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

M EMORANDUM O RDER

Appellate case name: Demarquis Rogers v. The State of Texas

Appellate case number: 01

- 15

- 00553

- CR

Trial court case number: 14

- DCR

- 065079A

Trial court: 268th District Court of Fort Bend County

On December 29, 2015, we issued an order, abating the appeal and remanding to the trial

court to hold a hearing to determine why appellant had not filed his brief. On January 7, 2016, a

supplemental clerk’s record was filed, con taining the trial court’s findings. The trial court

appointed counsel for appellant and set a brief due 60 days from the date of entry of its findings.

Accordingly, we order the appeal reinstated on the active docket. Appellant’s brief is due

on or befor e March 7, 2016.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Harvey Brown

 Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: January 12, 2016
PGI 246.1 -GENERAL    **Parent topic:** PGI Part 246 - QUALITY ASSURANCEPGI 246.103 Contracting office responsibilities.       (2)(i)  In preparing instructions for Government inspections, the technical activity shall consider, as applicable—          (A)  The past quality history of the contractor;          (B)  The criticality of the material procured in relation to its intended use, considering factors such as—          *(1)*  Reliability;          *(2)*  Safety;          *(3)*  Interchangeability; and          *(4)*  Maintainability;          (C)  Problems encountered in the development of the material;          (D)  Problems encountered in other procurements of the same or similar material;          (E)  Available feedback data from contract administration, receiving, testing, or using activities; and          (F)  The experience of other contractors in overcoming manufacturing problems.          (ii)  The instructions shall—          (A)  Be kept to a minimum;          (B)  Ensure that the activities requested are in direct relation to contract quality requirements to serve as objective evidence of quality conformance; and          (C)  Be prepared on a contract-by-contract basis.          (iii)  The instructions shall not—          (A)  Serve as a substitute for incomplete contract quality requirements;          (B)  Impose greater inspection requirements than are in the contract;          (C)  Use broad or general designations such as—          *(1)*  All requirements;          *(2)*  All characteristics; or          *(3)*  All characteristics in the classification of defects;          (D)  Be used for routine administrative procedures; or          (E)  Specify continued inspection requirements when statistically sound sampling will provide an adequate degree of protection.          (iv)  After issuing the instructions, the technical activity must—          (A)  Provide the contract administration office with available information regarding those factors that resulted in the requirement for Government inspection;          (B)  Periodically analyze the need to continue, change, or discontinue the instructions; and          (C)  Advise the contract administration office of the results of the periodic analyses.
§ 440.15 Subgrantees. ( a ) The grantee shall ensure that: ( 1 ) Each subgrantee is a CAA or other public or nonprofit entity;
( 2 ) Each subgrantee is selected on the basis of public comment received during a public hearing conducted pursuant to § 440.14(a) and other appropriate findings regarding: ( i ) The subgrantee's experience and performance in weatherization or housing renovation activities;
( ii ) The subgrantee's experience in assisting low-income persons in the area to be served; and
( iii ) The subgrantee's capacity to undertake a timely and effective weatherization program.
( 3 ) In selecting a subgrantee, preference is given to any CAA or other public or nonprofit entity which has, or is currently administering, an effective program under this part or under title II of the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964, with program effectiveness evaluated by consideration of factors including, but not necessarily limited to, the following: ( i ) The extent to which the past or current program achieved or is achieving weatherization goals in a timely fashion;
( ii ) The quality of work performed by the subgrantee;
( iii ) The number, qualifications, and experience of the staff members of the subgrantee; and
( iv ) The ability of the subgrantee to secure volunteers, training participants, public service employment workers, and other Federal or State training programs.
( b ) The grantee shall ensure that the funds received under this part will be allocated to the entities selected in accordance with paragraph (a) of this section, such that funds will be allocated to areas on the basis of the relative need for a weatherization project by low-income persons.
( c ) If DOE finds that a subgrantee selected to undertake weatherization activities under this part has failed to comply substantially with the provisions of the Act or this part and should be replaced, such finding shall be treated as a finding under § 440.30(i) for purposes of § 440.30.
( d ) Any new or additional subgrantee shall be selected at a hearing in accordance with § 440.14(a) and upon the basis of the criteria in paragraph (a) of this section.
( e ) A State may terminate financial assistance under a subgrant agreement for a grant period only in accordance with established State procedures that provide to the subgrantee appropriate notice of the State's reasons for termination and afford the subgrantee an adequate opportunity to be heard.
[49 FR 3629, Jan. 27, 1984, as amended at 55 FR 41326, Oct. 10, 1990; 58 FR 12526, Mar. 4, 1993; 65 FR 77218, Dec. 8, 2000]
#### COHEN, Respondent, v. EAGLE PENCIL CO. et al., Appellants.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

November 13, 1914.)

Action by Max Cohen against the Eagle Pencil Company and others.

No opinion. Motion for stay denied, with $10 costs, and temporary stay contained in the order to show cause vacated.
Exhibit 31.1




Certification of Senior Officer in Charge of the Servicing Function


of the Servicer Pursuant to Rule 15d-14(d)









CERTIFICATION






I, Mark Kaczynski, 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 Nissan Auto Receivables 2013-A 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 servicer and based on my knowledge and the compliance review conducted in preparing the servicer compliance statement required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicer has fulfilled its obligations under the servicing agreement 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 party:  Citibank, N.A.




Date: June 26, 2015




By:/s/ Mark Kaczynski


Mark Kaczynski


President and Chief Executive Officer of


Nissan Motor Acceptance Corporation


(senior officer in charge of the


servicing function)
| (logo) Prudential

  | Prudential Asset Resources,  Inc.

 

**Prudential Mortgage  Capital Company**

2100 Ross Avenue, Suite 2500  Dallas, TX 75201

Tel 877-937-4500

  |
|---------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

Wells Fargo Bank, NationalAssociation Commercial Mortgage ServicingMAC D1086550 South Tryon Street, 14th FloorCharlotte, North Carolina 28202Attention: Asset Manager

 

RE: **RBS 2013-C11**Period: **January 1, 2016 to December 31, 2016 (the "ReportingPeriod")**

**Annual Compliance Statement**I, Timothy E. Steward, in my capacity as President and Managing Director of PrudentialAsset Resources, Inc. (the "Company") hereby certify with regard tothe Company's role as Primary Servicer under the Pooling and ServicingAgreement, (the "Agreement") dated as of February 1, 2013 pertainingto the above-referenced certificates, that:(i) a review of the activities of the Company under the Agreement during theperiod noted above, and of the performance of the Company under the Agreementduring the reporting period has been made under my supervision, and(ii) to the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Company hasfulfilled all its obligations under the Agreement throughout the reportingperiod.

 

 

Effective as of 2/22/2017

/s/ Timothy E. StewardTimothy E. StewardPresident and Managing DirectorPrudential Asset Resources, Inc.
From: Elineth Torres/RTP/USEPA/US

To: Keith Barnett/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA Cc: Samudra Vijay/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA Date: 08/06/2009 12:45 PM Subject: ISIS_NESHAP_Docket Files Keith, Please find attached the ISIS files to be posted in the Portland Cement NESHAP docket. Please let me know they will load each file in the zip folder as an individual entry in the docket or if they can load it as on folder with all the files to run the model on it, Please let me know, if you have any questions. Thanks,

Elineth Torres Environmental Protection Specialist U.S. EPA OAQPS/SPPD/Program Design Group 109 T.W. Alexander Dr. Durham, NC 27711 Phone: 919 - 541 -4347 Fax: 919 - 541 - 5600 

### Note the ISIS Model files could not be loaded electronically into the Docket. Con tact the docket office at 202 - 566 - 1744 to obtain a copy of these files.
1 The Honorable Joan N. Ericksen, United St ates District Judge for the District of Minnesota. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 05-4149

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * District of Minnesota. Mario Hernandez-Parra, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: December 7, 2006 Filed: December 21, 2006

___________ Before MURPHY, BYE, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Mario Hernandez-Parra appeals th e sentence the district court 1 imposed after he pleaded guilty to conspiring to distribute one kilogram or more of a heroin mixture or substance and 500 grams or more of a methamphetamine mixture or substance, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A ), and 846. Parra contends the court erred in concluding that hewas ineligible for safe ty-valve relief under U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2(a), upon finding that he had not been completely truthful with the government regarding his drug-dealing involvement with a co-defendant.-2- To receive safety-valve relief, Parra had “to show, through affirmative conduct, that he gave the Government truthful information and evidence about the relevant crimes before sentencing.” See United States v. Romo , 81 F.3d 84, 85-86 (8th Cir. 1996). We review for clear error the distri ct court’s findings as to the completeness and truthfulness of Parra’s sa fety-valve proffer. See United States v. Soto , 448 F.3d 993, 995 (8th Cir. 2006).
Upon careful review of the record beforeus on appeal, we cannot say that the district court clearly erred in its findi ngs. The evidence presented to the court indicated that Parra was working with the co-defendant in question within the drug conspiracy. We also disagree with Parra ’s argument that granting an acceptance-ofresponsibility reduction is incons istent with denying safety-v alve relief. Safety-valve relief and an offense-level reduction for accepting responsibility are distinct forms of sentencing relief that entail se parate requirements. In particular, a defendant who is given an acceptance-of-responsibility reduc tion is not required to admit conduct beyond his offense of conviction. SeeU.S.S.G. § 3E1.1, cmt. n. 1(a). On the other hand, safety-valve relief requi res the defendant to give a truthful proffer of all the information he has re garding “the offense or offenses that were part of the same course of conduct or of a common scheme or plan.” See U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2(a)(5); Romo , 81 F.3d at 85 (to satisfy safety-v alve criteria in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f)(5), defendant was required to di sclose all information he possessed about his involvement in the crime and his chain of distribution, including identities and participation of others); see also United States v. Mashek , 406 F.3d 1012, 1013 n.1 (8th Cir. 2005) (§ 5C1.2(a) is derived from and identical to 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f)).
Accordingly, we affirm the judgmen t of the district court. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________
#### BENE, Respondent, v. ENEQUIST, Appellant (two cases).

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division Second Department.

July 24, 1906.)

Action b~ Mary F. Bene against Erik Enequist.

No opinion. Judgments of the Municipal Court affirmed, with costs.