alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### ELISHEWITZ v. LIPSHITZ.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department.

December 24, 1914.)

Courts (§ 189*)—Municipal Courts—Application for Directed Verdict— Withdrawal.

Though in the Municipal Court both sides moved for a directed verdict, either party might withdraw his motion and resume his right to have the issues of fact submitted to the jury.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Courts, Cent. Dig. §§ 409, 412, 413, 429, 458; Dec. Dig. § 189.*]

Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, Second District.

Action by Jacob Elishewitz against Sam Lipshitz. From a judgment for defendant, entered upon a verdict directed by the court, plaintiff appeals. Reversed, and new trial ordered.

Argued December term, 1914, before GUY, BIJUR, and PAGE, JJ.

Nathaniel Levy, of New York City, for appellant.

Irving Rosenberg, of New York City, for respondent.

BIJUR, J.

Both sides had moved for a direction of a verdict. Plaintiff’s attorney then asked to go to the jury, but his request was refused.

The learned judge below seems to have been of opinion that, after both sides had moved for a direction, neither might withdraw the motion and resume his right to have the issues of fact submitted to the jury. This, however, both as a general proposition and as applied to the situation developed in the case at bar, is erroneous. Charles H. Brown Paint Co. v. Charles J. Reinhardt, 210 N. Y. 162, 163, 104 N. E. 124.

Judgment reversed, and new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide the event. All concur.
Editorial Note on Part 72
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 72 appear at 80 FR 74981, Dec. 1, 2015, and at 81 FR 86910, Dec. 2, 2016.

§ 72.92 Design basis external natural events. ( a ) Natural phenomena that may exist or that can occur in the region of a proposed site must be identified and assessed according to their potential effects on the safe operation of the ISFSI or MRS. The important natural phenomena that affect the ISFSI or MRS design must be identified.
( b ) Records of the occurrence and severity of those important natural phenomena must be collected for the region and evaluated for reliability, accuracy, and completeness. The applicant shall retain these records until the license is issued.
( c ) Appropriate methods must be adopted for evaluating the design basis external natural events based on the characteristics of the region and the current state of knowledge about such events.
#### SMITH, Appellant, v. RICHMOND LIGHT & R. CO., Respondent.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

May 29, 1914.)

Action by Charles Smith, Jr., by Charles Smith, his guardian ad litem, against the Richmond Light & Railroad Company.

No opinion. Judgment and order unanimously affirmed, with costs.
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 249 (Wednesday, December 29, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 82074-82075]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-32744]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Mine Safety and Health Administration


Fee Adjustment for Testing, Evaluation, and Approval of Mining 
Products

AGENCY: Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA), Labor.

ACTION: Notice of fee adjustment.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This notice describes MSHA's revised fee schedule for testing, 
evaluating, and approving mining products as provided by 30 CFR part 5. 
MSHA charges applicants a fee to cover its direct and indirect costs 
associated with testing, evaluating, and approval of equipment and 
materials manufactured for use in the mining industry. The new fee 
schedule, effective January 1, 2011, is based on MSHA's direct and 
indirect costs for providing services during fiscal year (FY) 2010.

DATES: This fee schedule is effective January 1, 2011.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John P. Faini, Chief, Approval and 
Certification Center, 304-547-2029 or 304-547-0400.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    Under 30 CFR 5.50, each fee schedule shall remain in effect for at 
least one year and be subject to revision at least once every three 
years. MSHA's existing fee schedule, revised December 24, 2008 (73 FR 
79195) became effective January 1, 2009.
    Under 30 CFR 5.30(a), Part 15 fees for services provided to MSHA by 
other organizations may be set by those organizations. In addition, 
under 30 CFR 5.40, when the nature of the product requires MSHA to test 
and evaluate the product at a location other than on MSHA premises, 
MSHA is allowed to charge actual travel expenses in addition to the 
fees charged for evaluation and testing.

II. Fee Computation

    MSHA computed the 2011 fees using FY 2010 costs for baseline data. 
MSHA calculated a weighted-average based on the direct and indirect 
costs to applicants for testing, evaluation, and approval services 
provided in FY 2010. From this average, MSHA computed a single hourly 
rate, which applies uniformly to all applications.
    As a result of this process, MSHA has determined that as of January 
1, 2011, the fee will be $97 per hour for services provided.

III. Applicable Fee

    <bullet> Applications postmarked before January 1, 2011: MSHA will 
process these applications under the 2009 hourly rate of $90.
    <bullet> Applications postmarked on or after January 1, 2011: MSHA 
will process these applications under the 2011 hourly rate of $97. This 
information is available on MSHA's Web site at http://www.msha.gov.


[[Page 82075]]


    Dated: December 22, 2010.
Joseph A. Main,
Assistant Secretary for Mine Safety and Health.
[FR Doc. 2010-32744 Filed 12-28-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-43-P
§ 1128.505 Content of FMS Article V. ( a ) *Requirement.* A DoD Component's general terms and conditions must address audit requirements.
( b ) *Award terms and conditions* — ( 1 ) *General.* A DoD Component's general terms and conditions must include the wording appendix E to this part provides for FMS Article V.
( 2 ) *Exception.* A DoD Component may reserve Section B of the wording in appendix E if there will be no subawards to for-profit entities under any award using those terms and conditions.
Editorial Note on Part 180
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 180 appear at 79 FR 75879, Dec. 19, 2014.

§ 180.345 What happens if I fail to disclose information required under § 180.335? If a Federal agency later determines that you failed to disclose information under § 180.335 that you knew at the time you entered into the covered transaction, the agency may— ( a ) Terminate the transaction for material failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the transaction; or
( b ) Pursue any other available remedies, including suspension and debarment.
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 242 (Friday, December 17, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 79024]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-31593]



[[Page 79024]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division


Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993--ODVA, Inc.

    Notice is hereby given that, on November 15, 2010, pursuant to 
Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 
1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), ODVA, Inc. (``ODVA'') has 
filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General 
and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing changes in its membership. 
The notifications were filed for the purpose of extending the Act's 
provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actul 
damages under specified circumstances. Specifically, Process Automation 
International Ltd., New Territories, Hong Kong-China; Secure Crossing 
Research and Development, Inc., Dearborn, MI; Vacon Plc, Vassa, 
Finland; Tappan Wire and Cable, Inc., Blauvelt, NY; Leuze Electronic 
GmbH & Co. KG, Owen, Germany; MK Precision Co., Ltd., Seoul, Republic 
of Korea; Monaghan Engineering, Inc., Dripping Springs, TX; Samsung 
Electronics Co., Ltd., Suwon City, Republic of Korea; Actel 
Corporation, Mountain View, CA; OES, Inc., London, Ontario, Canada; 
Hokuyo Automatic Co., Ltd., Osaka, Japan; Omron Scientific 
Technologies, Inc. (formerly Scientific Technologies, Inc.), Fremont, 
CA; Eilersen Electric A/S, Kokkedal, Denmark; and Han Yang System, 
Shihung-Shi, Republic of Korea, have been added as parties to this 
venture.
    Also, Schweitzer Engineering Laboratories, Pullman, WA; Meidensha 
Corporation, Tokyo, Japan; Altera Corporation, San Jose, CA; SICK 
Stegmann GmbH, Donaueschingen, Germany; Sick Stegnann Inc., Dayton, OH; 
RocKontrol Industry Co., Ltd., Taiyuan, People's Republic of China; GE 
Fanuc Automation North America, Inc., Charlottesville, VA; Unipulse 
Corporation, Tokyo, Japan; Matric Limited Inc., Seneca, PA; and 
Wittenstein AG, Igersheim, Germany, have withdrawn as parties to this 
venture.
    In addition, Invensys Process Systems has changed its name to 
Invensys Operations Management, Piano, TX.
    No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned 
activity of the group research project. Membership in this group 
research project remains open, and ODVA intends to file additional 
written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
    On June 21, 1995, ODVA filed its original notification pursuant to 
Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice 
in the Federal Register pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on February 
15, 1996 (61 FR 6039).
    The last notification was filed with the Department on June 30, 
2010. A notice was published in the Federal Register pursuant to 
Section 6(b) of the Act on August 2, 2010 (75 FR 45155).

Patricia A. Brink,
Director of Civil Enforcement, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 2010-31593 Filed 12-16-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-11-M
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-1999

In Re: NICHOLAS R. CROWDER, Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. Submitted: September 8, 1999 Decided: November 5, 1999 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Nicholas R. Crowder, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM:Nicholas R. Crowder has filed a petition for a writ of mandamus under 28 U.S.C. § 1651 (1994) seeking: (1) an order directing the Clerk of the Court for the United States District Court for the District of Maryland to submit to the district judge all pleadings in the matter of Crowder v. Kelley , No. 99-CV-477 (D. Md.); (2) an order directing the clerk of this court to submit all pleadings, motions, and rehearing pleadings in several pending appeals; (3) reconsideration of a July 7, 1999 order dismissing Crowder v. Kelley , No. 99-1712 (4th Cir. July 7, 1999), under 4th Cir. R. 45 for failing to pay the filing fee; (4) reconsideration of a July 23, 1999 order dismissing Crowder v. Kelley, No. 99-1758 (4th Cir. July 23, 1999), under 4th Cir. R. 45 for failing to pay the filing fee; (5) orders recalling the mandates in Crowder v. Goad , No. 98-7486 (4th Cir. Jan. 14, 1999), and Crowder v. Kelley , No. 98-6811 (4th Cir. Dec. 15, 1998); or in the alternative, (6) orders remanding several appeals to the district court. Mandamus is a drastic remedy to be used only in extraordinary circumstances when there are no other means by which the relief sought could be granted. See In re Beard , 811 F.2d 818, 826 (4th Cir. 1987). Mandamus is not to be used as a substitute for appeal. See In re United Steelworkers , 595 F.2d 958, 960 (4th Cir. 1979). A petitioner must show that he has a clear right to the relief sought, that the respondent has a clear duty to perform the act3 requested by the petitioner, and that there is no other adequate remedy available. See In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n , 860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir. 1988). Crowder has not made such a showing. Accordingly, we deny mandamus relief. Because no member of the court has requested a poll, we also deny Crowder’s motion for en banc review, see Fed. R. App. P. 35(f), and we deny as moot his emergency motion for reconsideration of an order deferring action on his motion for en banc review. 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.

PETITION DENIED
#### THEILE v. MERLIS.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

July 10, 1914.)

Action by William Theile against James A. Merlis.

No opinion. Application denied, with $10 costs. Order signed. See, also, 85 Misc. Rep. 351, 147 N. Y. Supp. 405.
#### § 95.1 Purpose.

The regulations in this part establish procedures for obtaining facility security clearance and for safeguarding Secret and Confidential National Security Information and Restricted Data received or developed in conjunction with activities licensed, certified or regulated by the Commission. This part does not apply to Top Secret information because Top Secret information may not be forwarded to licensees, certificate holders, or others within the scope of an NRC license or certificate.

[62 FR 17690, Apr. 11, 1997, as amended at 68 FR 41222, July 11, 2003]
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 

ORDER DISMISSING PROCEEDING 

On January 12, 2015, an Order Granting Joint Motion for Continuance was filed. This 

Order continued the Rule 16 Litigation Scheduling Conference to February 12, 2015, and, in the 

event the parties executed a settlement agreement prior to that date, required the FAA to file a 

withdrawal of the Complaint. 

On January 29,2015, the FAA filed a Withdrawal of Complaint. 

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. 

Eastern time, 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 List 
Docket No. 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 2W1 0001 

Ms. Rashawn Rich George 

Complainant's Counsel 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Office of the Regional Counsel, ASO-7 

Southern Region 

1701 Columbia A venue 

College Park, GA 30337 

TEL: 404-305-5200 

FPC(: 404-305-5223 

Mr. John O.C. Moss 

Respondent's Counsel 

220 Fifth A venue, Suite 900 

New York, New York 

TEL: 212-644-1000 

FPC(: 212-644-2590 

Judge J.E. Sullivan 

US. Administrative Law Judge 

Office ofHearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

ONE COPY 

1200 New Jersey 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 by U.S. Mail. For service in person 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.
A

STATE OF LOUISIANA

VERSUS

NO. 2024 KW 0159

JEFFERY WASHINGTON MAY 13, 2024

In Re: Jeffery Washington, applying for supervisory writs, 

19th Judicial District Court, Parish of East Baton

Rouge, No. DC - 23- 05774. 

BEFORE: GUIDRY, C. J., CHUTZ AND LANIER, JJ. 

WRIT DENIED. The records of the East Baton Rouge Parish

Clerk of Court' s Office reflect that the district court acted on

relator' s motion to act as co -counsel filed on or about November

22, 2023. The records further reflect that the district court

is proceeding toward disposition of relator' s motion for a

speedy trial, filed November 22, 2023, as a motion hearing is

set for May 13, 2024. 

JMG

WIL

Chutz, J., concurs. 

URT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT

Y CLERK OF COURT

FOR THE COURT
##### 



Exhibit 32.1

WESTCORP

CERTIFICATION OF CEO

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Westcorp (the Company) on Form
10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, to the best of his
knowledge and belief and pursuant to 18 U.S.C., Chapter 63, 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 Company.

The foregoing Certification is furnished solely for purposes of complying
with the provisions of Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act and is not
intended to be used for any other purpose.

|                                                                                     |  | 
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |  | 
|WESTCORP                                                                             |  | 
|                                                                                     |  | 
|/S/ ERNEST S. RADY

Ernest S. Rady
Chairman of the Board and
Chief Executive Officer |  | 

Date: August 14, 2003
227 So.2d 374

#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Oris ARDOIN v. C. Murray HENDERSON, Warden Louisiana State Penitentiary, et al.

No. 50186.

Nov. 7, 1969.

In re: Oris Ardoin applying for writ of habeas corpus.

Writ of mandamus issued. See order.

On considering the petition of relator in the above numbered and entitled cause:

It is ordered that the Thirteenth Judicial District Court, Parish of Evangeline, without undue delay, grant a full evidentiary hearing on relator’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed in that Court and in this Court, and make a determination of the merits of his application after the hearing.
IV 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 641 

Requesting the President to provide to the House of Representatives certain 

documents in his possession relating to electronic surveillance without 

search warrants on individuals in the United States. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 18, 2005 

Ms. LEE submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Select 

Committee on Intelligence (Permanent Select) 

RESOLUTION 

Requesting the President to provide to the House of Representatives certain documents in his possession relating 

to electronic surveillance without search warrants on individuals in the United States. 

1 Resolved, That the President is requested to provide 

2 to the House of Representatives, not later than 14 days 

3 after the date of the adoption of this resolution, all docu4 ments in the possession of the President, including tele5 phone and electronic mail records, logs, calendars, min6 utes, memoranda, and advisory legal opinions on, and 

7 identities of all individuals subject to, electronic surveil8 lance without search warrants by the National Security 
2 

•HRES 641 IH 

1 Agency within the United States since September 11, 

2 2001. 

Æ
Exhibit 32 SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATIONS This Certificate is being delivered pursuant to the requirements of Section 1350 of Chapter 63 (Mail Fraud) of Title 18 (Crimes and Criminal Procedures) of the United States Code, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Act of 1934, as amended. The undersigned, who are the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of RCS Capital Corporation (the Company), each hereby certify as follows: This Amendment No. 2 to the annual report (this report) on Form 10-K of the Company, which accompanies this Certificate, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and all information contained in this report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.  Dated this 30th day of April, 2015

          

          /s/ EDWARD M. WEIL, JR.Edward M. Weil, Jr. Chief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer)Dated this 30th day of April, 2015

          

          /s/ BRIAN D. JONESBrian D. JonesChief Financial Officer and Assistant Secretary(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
CMAS Petition

Nick Parsons to: Cortney_Higgins 08/04/2011 03:53 PM

Cortney,

Please find attached the February 12, 2010 petition for reconsideration on CMAS from ACC and SOCMA.

 CMAS Petition for Reconsideration.pdf
SEMT 2013-3

 

EX-31 Rule 13a-14(d)/15d-14(d) Certification.

 

I, Jeremy P. Strom, 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 Sequoia Mortgage Trust 2013-3 (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: CoreLogic Tax Services, LLC (“CoreLogic”), American Security Insurance Company, Standard Guaranty Insurance Company and TrackSure Insurance Agency, Inc. (collectively, “Assurant”), Cenlar, FSB as Servicer, First Republic Bank as Servicer, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. as Custodian and Master Servicer, Computershare Trust Company, N.A. as Custodian and Master Servicer, and Citibank, N.A. as Securities Administrator and Paying Agent.

 

Date: March 30, 2023

 

 

/s/ Jeremy P. Strom

Signature

 

President

(senior officer in charge of securitization of the depositor)

 

----