alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Willard F. Custis, Appellant.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau 'County, rendered September 20, 1968 (and amd. on 18, 1968) on his plea of guilty, convicting him of possession of a dangerous weapon as a misdemeanor and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review an order of the County Court, Nassau County, entered May 16, 1968, which denied his motion to suppress certain evidence. Order of May 16, 1968 reversed, on the law; case remanded to the .Supreme Court, Nassau County, for a hearing on the motion to suppress evidence and for further proceedings in accordance herewith; and appeal from the judgment held in abeyance in the interim. No questions of fact have been considered. The pistol which constituted the basis of the conviction herein was found on the person of defendant during a search which took place on the grounds of Roosevelt Raceway and which was conducted by a special policeman employed by the Raceway. Defendant’s motion to suppress was denied without a hearing on the ground that the seizure was made by a private individual, so that the constitutional safeguards were inapplicable (see *People*v. *Horman,*22 N Y 2d 378). By statute, special policemen are endowed, “when appointed” by a harness racetrack, with the status of police officers (L. 1962, ch. 223). The statute provides that any such appointment “shall only be made with the approval of the state harness racing commission.” The finding by the County Court that the search was conducted by a private individual was based on information communicated by the District Attorney that such approval had never been obtained for the appointment of this particular employee. No proof was offered as to this point. The proceeding must be remanded for a full hearing, including the issue of whether the subject special policeman’s appointment was approved by the Harness Racing Commission. Beldock, P. J., Christ, Hopkins, Munder and Kleinfeld, JJ., concur.
§ 50.45 Standards for construction permits, operating licenses, and combined licenses. ( a ) An applicant for an operating license or an amendment of an operating license who proposes to construct or alter a production or utilization facility will be initially granted a construction permit if the application is in conformity with and acceptable under the criteria of §§ 50.31 through 50.38, and the standards of §§ 50.40 through 50.43, as applicable.
( b ) A holder of a combined license who proposes, after the Commission makes the finding under § 52.103(g) of this chapter, to alter the licensed facility will be initially granted a construction permit if the application is in conformity with and acceptable under the criteria of §§ 50.30 through 50.33, § 50.34(f), §§ 50.34a through 50.38, the standards of §§ 50.40 through 50.43, as applicable, and §§ 52.79 and 52.80 of this chapter.
[72 FR 49494, Aug. 28, 2007]
§ 81.8 Information collection requirements: OMB approval. ( a ) The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has submitted the information collection requirements contained in this part to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for approval as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.*). The NRC may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. OMB has approved the information collection requirements contained in this part under control number 3150-0121.
( b ) The approved information collection requirements contained in this part appear in §§ 81.20, 81.32, and 81.40.
[55 FR 23422, June 8, 1990, as amended at 62 FR 52190, Oct. 6, 1997]
In The Matter Of: JAMES KEARNS Respondent 

### SERVED: JANUARY 30, 2015 

### U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS WASHINGTON, DC ) ) ) ) ) DocketNo. FAA-2014-0683 Case No.**2012S027~132**

ORDERDISMISSING PROCEEDING OnJanuary 12, 2015, an Order Granting JointMotion for Continuance was filed. This Order continued the Rule 16 Litigation Scheduling Conference to February 12, 2015, and, inthe eventthe parties executed a settlement agreementprior to that date, required the FAAto file a withdrawal ofthe Complaint. OnJanuary 29,2015, the FAA filed a Withdrawal ofComplaint. After having reviewed the case file, all pleadings and motions, all relevant caselaw, statutes, regulations, rules, and authority, and being fully advised; IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 1. The Rule 16 Litigation Scheduling Conference, set for February 12, 2015, at 10:00 a.m. Easterntime, is cancelled. 2. Pursuant to 14 C.F.R. 

### § 13.215, the FAA has withdrawn its Complaint, and this proceeding is dismissed with prejudice.

Attachment: Service ListDocketNo. FAA-2014-0683 (Civil Penalty Action) SERVICE LIST- BY U.S. MAIL ORIGINAL & ONE COPY Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, DC 20591 Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W1000 1

Ms. Rashawn Rich George 

### Complainant's Counsel Federal Aviation Administration Office ofthe Regional Counsel, ASO-7 Southern Region 1701 ColumbiaAvenue College Park, GA 30337 TEL: 404-305-5200 FPC(: 404-305-5223 Mr. John O.C. Moss 

### Respondent's Counsel 220 FifthAvenue, Suite 900 NewYork, NewYork TEL: 212-644-1000 FPC(: 212-644-2590 Judge J.E. Sullivan 

### US. Administrative Law Judge Office ofHearings, M-20 U.S. Department ofTransportation ONE COPY

1200 NewJersey Avenue, S.E. (Ell-310) Washington, DC 20590 TEL: 202-366-6941 FPC(: 202-366-7536 Mr. James Kearns 

### Respondent 270 Union Street, Apt. 2 Brooklyn, NY 11231 TEL: 917-992-6323

1 Service was byU.S. Mail. For service inperson or by expedited courier, use the following address: Federal Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W1000, Washington, DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC--430.
KATZ
SAPPER
& MILLER



Report of Independent
Registered Public Accounting Firm



Managing Member

Park Bridge Lender Services LLC

New York, NY



We have examined management’s assertion,
included in the accompanying Management’s Report on Assessment of 2017 Compliance by Park Bridge Lender Services LLC with
Regulation AB Servicing Criteria (“Management’s Report”), that Park Bridge Lender Services LLC (the “Company”)
complied with the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission’s Regulation
AB as of and for the year ended December 31, 2017, excluding those criteria determined by management and noted as not applicable
(N/A) within Exhibit B to Management’s Report. The transactions covered by this report are only those transactions processed
by the Company in its capacity as trust advisor or operating advisor for the asset backed securities transactions (the “Platform”)
identified in Management’s Report. Reference Exhibit A to Management’s Report for the transactions covered by this
examination. Management is responsible for the Company’s compliance with the applicable servicing criteria. Our responsibility
is to express an opinion on management’s assertion about the Company’s compliance with the applicable servicing criteria
based on our examination.



Our examination was conducted in accordance
with standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) and, accordingly, included examining, on a test
basis, evidence about the Company’s compliance with the applicable servicing criteria. Our examination included tests on
a sample basis of the servicing activities related to the Platform, determining whether the Company performed those selected activities
in compliance with the applicable servicing criteria during the specified period, and performing such other procedures as we considered
necessary in the circumstances. Our procedures were limited to the selected servicing activities performed by the Company during
the period covered by this report and, accordingly, such samples may not have included servicing activities related to each asset
backed transaction included in the Platform. An examination is not designed to detect noncompliance arising from errors that may
have occurred prior to the period specified above or subsequent to our tests that may have affected the Company’s servicing
activities during the period covered by this report. We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion.
Our examination does not provide a legal determination on the Company’s compliance with the applicable servicing criteria.



In our opinion, management’s assertion
that the Company complied with the aforementioned applicable servicing criteria identified in Exhibit B to Management’s Report
with respect to the transactions identified in Exhibit A to Management’s Report as of and for the year ended December 31,
2017, for the Platform, is fairly stated, in all material aspects.



/s/ Katz, Sapper & Miller LLP



New York, NY

February 15, 2018
Onslow County DJI Inspire 1 EMERGENCY PROCEDURES 

In the event of a flyaway, we will immediately contact the appropriate Air traffic 

Control Facility via Radio or phone and alert them to the last know location of the UAS, 

altitude, direction of flight and remaining flight time. (Listed on page 2) 

The DJI Inspire 1 comes with lost link software that allows the UAS to return to its 

original “Take off point” or until it regains signal with the user remote. The USA will return to 

home with the prescribed return altitude. This altitude is usually set at 100 ft AGL. This will 

avoid all trees or obstructions in the surrounding are if the return to base option is need. Part 

of the initial Pre-flight safety checking for heights of nearby obstructions. This will be done 

by first getting to altitude of highest obstructions and rotating 30 degrees and asses your 

highest point. Then PIC will set above the highest obstruction for the altitude return to 

home. 

Accident/Incident Notification 

 If UAS is lost, the crew will attempt to locate the downed aircraft and request help 

from the Onslow County Emergency Services. The crew will write a detailed description of 

the event for Onslow County flight safety and the FAA. The flight the crew will inform the 

Sheriff of any abnormalities.

 If the UAS crashes and damages any property or anyone is injured the crew will assess 

the situation. 

o Maintain personal safety 

o Care for or request medical care for any injured parties. 

o Notify any applicable law enforcement agencies 

o Write down exactly what happened and be ready to file a report with the FAA 

If electrical power loss occurs, the PIC will initiate a fail-safe mission abort procedure 

and immediately notify the local ATC. 

DJI Inspire 1 discrepancies will be written up in the aircraft forms and records. 

Information will be passed to the FAA and the manufacturer, if necessary. All FAA accident/

incident notification procedures will be followed as required.
Local Air Traffic Control 

Marine Corps Air Station New River 

*Base Ops (910) 449-6316 or 449 6311 

 Tower Freq. 120.00000 

Albert J. Ellis Airport 

 *(910) 324-1100 or 989-3168 (No tower) 

 Freq. 153.90500 

Wilmington International Airport 

*Tower (910) 815-4504 

 Freq. 121.50000 

Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point 

*Base Ops (252) 466-2233 

 Freq.121.30000 

Marine Corps Auxiliary Landing Field (MCALF) Bogue 

 *Base Ops (252) 466-0674 

 Freq. 126.450000 

Onslow County Sheriff 

 (910) 455-3113 

Onslow County Emergency Services

 (910) 347-4270
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-7360

RICARDO EVANS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versusINDIAN CREEK CORRECTIONAL CENTER, an Institution; A. HINES, Correctional Officer; B. FLOYD, Investigating Correctional Officer, Defendants - Appellees.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (CA-98-812-AM) Submitted: February 10, 2000 Decided: February 15, 2000 Before WIDENER and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ricardo Evans, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).* Although the order from which Evans appeals was filed on October 13, 1998, it was entered on the district court’s docket sheet on October 14, 1998. October 14, 1998, is therefore the effective date of the district court’s decision. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 58 and 79(a); see also Wilson v. Murray, 806 F.2d 1232, 1234-35 (4th Cir. 1986). 2 PER CURIAM:Richardo Evans seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 1999) complaint withoutprejudice for Evans’ failure to pay the partial filing fee in accordance with the court’s order. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because Evans’ notice of appeal was not timely filed. Parties are accorded thirty days after entry of the district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, see Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(1), unless the district court extends the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5) or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). This appeal period is “mandatory and jurisdictional.” Browder v. Director, Dep’t of Corrections , 434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson , 361 U.S. 220, 229 (1960)). The district court’s order was entered on the docket on October 14, 1998. * Evans’ notice of appeal was filed on October 5, 1999. Because Evans failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal and deny Evans’ motion for appointment of counsel as moot. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal3 contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
H. Res. 651

In the House of Representatives, U.S., 

January 31, 2006.

Resolved, That unless otherwise ordered, before Monday, 

May 15, 2006, the hour of daily meeting of the House shall 

be 2 p.m. on Mondays; noon on Tuesdays; and 10 a.m. on 

all other days of the week; and from Monday, May 15, 2006, 

for the remainder of the 109th Congress, the hour of daily 

meeting of the House shall be noon on Mondays, 10 a.m. on 

Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays; and 9 a.m. on all 

other days of the week. 

Attest:

Clerk.
Rule 13a-14(d)/15d-14(d) Certifications. 

I, Brian Baker, 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 the J.P. Morgan Chase Commercial Mortgage Securities Trust 2013-C10 (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 statements 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:

Midland Loan Services, a Division of PNC Bank, National Association, as Master Servicer, CWCapital Asset Management LLC, as Special Servicer through July 20, 2014, C-III Asset Management LLC, as Special Servicer on and after July 21, 2014, Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as Trustee and Certificate Administrator, Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as Custodian, Park Bridge Lender Services LLC, as Senior Trust Advisor, Midland Loan Services, a Division of PNC Bank, National Association, as Primary Servicer for the West County Center Mortgage Loan, Rialto Capital Advisors, LLC, as Special Servicer for the West County Center Mortgage Loan, Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as Trustee and Certificate Administrator for the West County Center Mortgage Loan, Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as Custodian for the West County Center Mortgage Loan, and Pentalpha Surveillance LLC, as Senior Trust Advisor for the West County Center Mortgage Loan.

 

Dated: March 30, 2015

 

/s/ Brian Baker

President and Chief Executive Officer

(senior officer in charge of securitization of the depositor)
§ 1120.310 Use of plain language. ( a ) DoD Components must use plain language in: ( 1 ) General terms and conditions of grants and cooperative agreements to institutions of higher education, nonprofit organizations, States, local governments, and Indian tribes. Those awards are subject to the DoDGARs provisions in: ( i ) 2 CFR parts 1128 through 1138, the appendices to which provide standard wording for general terms and conditions addressing administrative requirements. That standard wording uses personal pronouns.
( ii ) 2 CFR part 1122, the appendices to which provide standard wording for general terms and conditions addressing commonly applicable national policy requirements. That standard wording also uses personal pronouns.
( 2 ) The national policy requirements in Subdivision B of general terms and conditions of grants and cooperative agreements to for-profit entities, which also are subject to 2 CFR part 1122.
( b ) Although the DoDGARs currently do not provide standard wording for terms and conditions addressing administrative requirements for use in awards to for-profit entities, DoD Components are strongly encouraged to use plain language and personal pronouns in their terms and conditions of those other awards. The DoDGARs provisions that specify the administrative requirements to incorporate into those terms and conditions are listed in § 1120.510(b).
#### § 71.39 Requirement for additional information.

The Commission may at any time require additional information in order to enable it to determine whether a license, certificate of compliance, or other approval should be granted, renewed, denied, modified, suspended, or revoked.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-1646

ANA CECILIA MONGRUT-AVANZINI,

Plaintiff – Appellant,

v.

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA; COUNTY OF FAIRFAX,

Defendants – Appellees,

and

COMMUNITY SERVICES BOARD; ALCOHOL AND DRUG SERVICES; 

GARTLAN MOUNT VERNON CENTER,

Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior

District Judge. (1:12-cv-00152-CMH-TRJ)

Submitted: September 30, 2013 Decided: October 3, 2013

Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ana Cecilia Mongrut-Avanzini, Appellant Pro Se. Kimberly Pace 

Baucom, FAIRFAX COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, Fairfax, Virginia, for 

Appellee County of Fairfax.
2

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
3

PER CURIAM:

Ana Cecilia Mongrut-Avanzini appeals the district 

court’s order granting summary judgment to Defendants in this 

action filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. 

We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. 

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district 

court. Mongrut-Avanzini v. Virginia, No. 1:12-cv-00152, 2013 WL 

1755055 (E.D. Va. Apr. 22, 2013). We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 

presented in the materials before this court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Douglas *685Rush, Appellant.

by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered March 12, 1979, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. Judgment affirmed. We perceive no prejudice in the trial court’s instruction to the jury concerning the weight to be accorded a prior inconsistent statement made by the complainant. Damiani, J. P., Gulotta, Martuscello and O’Connor, JJ., concur.
State ofArkansas Jurisdiction: 

# f1'1eJbo"uNJ.Q Type of Levy: ---=L=o=ca""I-=So.:a.:.::le:.::s-=a:.:.;n:.::dc...::U""s=.::e'-'T:...::a:.:.:x
__ Enactment Date: 

# q 

# f2:z.lZtJ Ordinance No. 

# '3

# rr- 5 Tax Rate:



# _.._/_OZo....:..-~

**I~~** . 

## .,4-
. Purpose and Use ofTax: 

# UK:..ru...

**~VL SJIC~**  Applicability ofTax: General sales & use tax- Applies to all goods and services taxable under state law. Administrative Costs: 3% ofgross collections withheld bythe state foradministration ofthe tax. Credits or Exemptions: Tax subjectto same credits & exemptionsavailable understate sales & use tax law Subsequent Amendments and Amendment Purpose: 1. Date:
-- -- ------ Amending Ordinance No.----------- Purpose ofAmendment: 2. Date: ---------- Amending Ordinance No .------ ----- Purpose ofAmendment: 3. Date:

- - ---- ---- Amending Ordinance No .----------- Purpose ofAmendment: 

### 4. Date:

- - ---- ---- Amending Ordinance No.-- ---- ---- - PurposeofAmendment: -------- --------------------- Is the tax on aviation fuel distributed for airport related purposes: Yes



# or~ If No, state reason for beliefthat the tax is grandfathered.

The state ofArkansas administers local taxes for all cities and counties in this state and commits thatthe Arkansas Department of Finance and Administrationwill notify the FAA ofany subsequent amendments to this taxthat could affectgrandfathered status. 

# l?;/yj 5 Date

# ------·----------

LEVYING TAX AND CALLING ELECTION
ORDINANCE NO. 87-5 

### AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR THE LEVY OF A LOCAL SALES AND USE TAX AT THE RATE OF ONE PERCENT (l% 

### l ON RECEIPTS FRm1 RETAIL 

### SALES WITHIN Tlil:; CITY OF UELBOURNE, ARKANSAS; PROVIDING FOR A SPECIAL ELECTION ON 

### I September 22 , 198 7; PROVIDING THE E!·lERGENCY CLAUSE; PROVIDING-FOR A REPEAL OF EXISTING ORDINANCE NO. 44 0F' 1967 AND FOR 

### OTHER PURPOSES. WHEREAS, 'rhere is a great need for immediate improve

### ment of municipal services and a stable source of revenue to finance such vital local government services, and WHEREAS, Act 25 of lst Extraordinary Session of 1981,


### as amended by 

### Acts 726 and 802 of 1983, provides for the local option of 

### adoption of a 

### city-Wide sales and use tax. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY TilE CITY COUNCIL Ol'' TilE CITY OP HELBOURNE, ARKANSAS: 

### Section l.

**~evy** 

### of· Sales and Use Tax. As authorized bv Act 25 of lst Extraordinary 

### Session of 1981, as amended by

### Section 3. 

### That the City Council for the City of tielbourne, Arkansas has determined that there is
u (jreut 

### need to establish a stable source of revenue to finance v.i tal munic.i.pal services, and this Ordinance being necessary for the preservation of the health, safety, and welfare of the Citizens of 1'1elbourne, Arkansas, shall become law immediately upon its passage, approval, and publication. Passed and approved this 

### _11_ day of 

### l98z_.