alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Celia D. Goodman, Respondent, v Solack Estates, Inc., et al., Defendants, and Finkelstein, Schwartz & Goldstein, P. C., Appellant.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered December 17, 1979, granting reargument of an order entered November 21, 1979, and adhering to the original decision, dismissing the first, fifth, sixth and seventh affirmative defenses interposed by the defendant law firm and striking in its entirety interrogatories propounded by that defendant, reversed, on the law, as to that part of the order that dismissed the affirmative defenses, and, on the law and on the facts, as to that part of the order striking the interrogatories, the affirmative defenses are reinstated and the interrogatories restored, without costs. This is an action by a tenant for damages in connection with her eviction from an apartment, which eviction was ultimately vacated. (See *Solack Estates v Goodman,*78 AD2d 512.) The defendant Finkelstein, Schwartz & Goldstein, P. C., a law firm, appeals from an order dismissing four of its affirmative defenses on the ground that the defendant law firm is bound under the doctrine of collateral estoppel by the judgment in the eviction proceedings, and further striking as unduly prolix its interrogatories. As to the fifth and sixth affirmative defenses, they allege, respectively, that the defendant committed no fraud and that the defendant committed no fraud or other wrongful conduct. In *Solack Estates v Goodman (supra)*this court explicitly disapproved the findings of the Civil Court relied upon in the order appealed from. As to the first and seventh affirmative defenses, these allege, respectively, that plaintiff is bound by a stipulation entered into in the Civil Court eviction proceedings holding landlord and its agents harmless, which stipulation was subsequently vacated after a hearing, and further assert that the defendant law firm is not bound in this action by the Civil Court judgment. We do not believe that collateral estoppel is appropriately applied to a law firm on the basis of a judgment entered against a client in a proceeding in which the law firm was not a litigant but was acting solely as counsel. We further note that the motion to vacate the stipulation resulting in its vacatur and the judgment in favor of the tenant in the Civil Court proceeding set forth no claim of fraud or misconduct against the defendant law firm. Nor do we agree that the interrogatories propounded by the defendant were so prolix and burdensome *514as to warrant their being struck. Appeal from order of the Supreme Court, New York County, entered November 21, 1979, dismissed as academic in view of the above disposition, without costs. Concur—Fein, J. P., Sandler, Sullivan, Bloom and Carro, JJ.
Exhibit 35.1

SERVICING COMPLIANCE STATEMENT

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Santander Drive Auto Receivables Trust 2013-2 for the fiscal year ending
December 31, 2015 (the Report), the undersigned, a duly authorized officer of Santander Consumer USA Inc. (the Servicer), does hereby certify and represent that:



| | 1. | A review of the activities and performance of the Servicer under the Sale and Servicing Agreement, dated as of March 13, 2013, among Santander Drive Auto Receivables LLC, Santander Consumer USA Inc., Santander
Drive Auto Receivables Trust 2013-2 and U.S. Bank National Association (the Agreement) during the period that is the subject of the Report has been made under my supervision.
| | -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout the period that is the subject of the Report.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



SANTANDER CONSUMER USA INC./s/ Jennifer M. DavisName:

Jennifer M. DavisTitle:

Deputy Chief Financial OfficerDate:

March 29, 2016/s/ Rich MorrinName:

Rich MorrinTitle:

Chief Operating OfficerDate:

March 29, 2016
§ 200.111 English language. ( a ) All Federal financial assistance announcements and Federal award information must be in the English language. Applications must be submitted in the English language and must be in the terms of U.S. dollars. If the Federal awarding agency receives applications in another currency, the Federal awarding agency will evaluate the application by converting the foreign currency to United States currency using the date specified for receipt of the application.
( b ) Non-Federal entities may translate the Federal award and other documents into another language. In the event of inconsistency between any terms and conditions of the Federal award and any translation into another language, the English language meaning will control. Where a significant portion of the non-Federal entity's employees who are working on the Federal award are not fluent in English, the non-Federal entity must provide the Federal award in English and the language(s) with which employees are more familiar.
EX-35.8
(logo) WELLS FARGO

Corporate Trust Services

MAC R1204-010
9062 Old Annapolis Road
Columbia, MD 21045

Tel: 410 884 2000
Fax: 410 715 2380

Deutsche Mortgage & Asset Receiving Corporation
60 Wall Street
New York, New York 10005


RE: Annual Statement of Compliance for Deutsche Mortgage & Asset Receiving
    Corporation, Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2013-
    CCRE7

Per the Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of April 1, 2013 (the
"Agreement"), the undersigned, a duly authorized officer of Wells Fargo Bank,
N.A., as Certificate Administrator ("Wells Fargo"), hereby certifies as follows
as of and for the year ending December 31, 2013 (the "Reporting Period"):

(a) A review of Wells Fargo's activities during the Reporting Period and of its
performance under the Agreement has been made under such officer's supervision;
and

(b) To the best of such officer's knowledge, based on such review, Wells Fargo
has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material
respects throughout the Reporting Period.


March 7, 2014


/s/ Brian Smith
BRIAN SMITH
Vice President


Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
#### § 1138.900 Purpose of SUB Article IX.

SUB Article IX addresses national policy requirements that recipients must include in their subaward terms and conditions. It thereby partially implements OMB guidance in 2 CFR 200.331(a)(2).
#### HUGHES, Respondent, v. BROWN-REISS REALTIES, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

June 26, 1914.)

Action by Mary B. Hughes against the Brown-Reiss Realties.

H. M. Marks, of New York City, for appellant.

E. P. Kilroe, of New York City, for respondent.

No opinion. Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. Order filed.
IV 

115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 1089 

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that a replacement 

for the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act should have certain 

features. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 27, 2018 

Mr. SESSIONS (for himself, Mr. FASO, Mr. COLE, Mr. BACON, Ms. GRANGER, 

Mr. HILL, Mr. AMODEI, Mr. BYRNE, Mr. GIANFORTE, Mr. LANCE, Mr. 

MITCHELL, Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio, Mr. POE of Texas, Mr. BISHOP of 

Michigan, Ms. TENNEY, Mr. OLSON, Mr. BUCK, Mr. MEADOWS, and Mr. 

CRAMER) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

RESOLUTION 

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that 

a replacement for the Patient Protection and Affordable 

Care Act should have certain features. 

1 Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Rep2 resentatives that a replacement for the Patient Protection 

3 and Affordable Care Act (Public Law 111–148) should do 

4 the following: 

5 (1) Allow States to ask for and receive broad 

6 authority to reform their individual health insurance 

7 markets provided that any such reform— 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 1089 IH 

1 (A) ensures that individuals with pre2 existing conditions experience— 

3 (i) lower premiums; 

4 (ii) lower out-of-pocket costs; and 

5 (iii) greater accessibility to in-network 

6 providers; 

7 (B) takes steps towards ensuring that indi8 viduals who pay premiums to group health 

9 plans and then become too sick to work have 

10 access to individual health insurance coverage 

11 that is similar to such group health plans in 

12 price, quality, and access to care, regardless of 

13 any preexisting condition; and 

14 (C) has an impact on Federal finances that 

15 is budget neutral. 

16 (2) Grant States the authority necessary— 

17 (A) to create market conditions which pro18 vide incentives to insurance companies to pro19 vide coverage to individuals with an expensive 

20 health condition, including cancer, diabetes, and 

21 heart disease; and 

22 (B) to allow individuals to use health sav23 ings accounts and individual insurance plans for 

24 more services. 

Æ 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with BILLS
# EUR-Lex - 31987D0482 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 31987D0482

**87/482/EEC: Council Decision of 7 August 1987 concerning the conclusion of the Settlement in the form of an Exchange of Letters between the European Economic Community and the United States of America on Community exports of pasta products to the United States of America **

*
Official Journal L 275 , 29/09/1987 P. 0036 - 0036 Finnish special edition: Chapter 3 Volume 24 P. 0138 Swedish special edition: Chapter 3 Volume 24 P. 0138 *

*****

COUNCIL DECISION

of 7 August 1987

concerning the conclusion of the Settlement in the form of an Exchange of Letters between the European Economic Community and the United States of America on Community exports of pasta products to the United States of America

(87/482/EEC)

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, and in particular Article 113 thereof,

Having regard to the recommendation from the Commission,

Whereas the Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters between the European Economic Community and the United States of America on the Mediterranean preferences, citrus and pasta (1), approved by the Council on 3 November 1986, provides that both parties agree to proceed in good faith in seeking a prompt solution to their dispute over Community pasta export refunds;

Whereas on 5 August 1987 both sides reached an agreement on the settlement of the issue and this Settlement should therefore be approved,

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Article 1

The Settlement in the form of an Exchange of Letters between the European Economic Community and the United States of America on Community exports of pasta products to the United States is hereby approved on behalf of the Community.

The text of the Settlement is attached to this Decision.

Article 2

The President of the Council is hereby authorized to designate the person empowered to sign the Settlement in order to bind the Community.

Done at Brussels, 7 August 1987.

For the Council

The President

K. E. TYGESEN

(1) OJ No L 62, 5. 3. 1987, p. 23.
§ 200.324 Contract cost and price. ( a ) The non-Federal entity must perform a cost or price analysis in connection with every procurement action in excess of the Simplified Acquisition Threshold including contract modifications. The method and degree of analysis is dependent on the facts surrounding the particular procurement situation, but as a starting point, the non-Federal entity must make independent estimates before receiving bids or proposals.
( b ) The non-Federal entity must negotiate profit as a separate element of the price for each contract in which there is no price competition and in all cases where cost analysis is performed. To establish a fair and reasonable profit, consideration must be given to the complexity of the work to be performed, the risk borne by the contractor, the contractor's investment, the amount of subcontracting, the quality of its record of past performance, and industry profit rates in the surrounding geographical area for similar work.
( c ) Costs or prices based on estimated costs for contracts under the Federal award are allowable only to the extent that costs incurred or cost estimates included in negotiated prices would be allowable for the non-Federal entity under subpart E of this part. The non-Federal entity may reference its own cost principles that comply with the Federal cost principles.
( d ) The cost plus a percentage of cost and percentage of construction cost methods of contracting must not be used.
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

ALLIE BESSETTE,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 2D23-1136

December 6, 2023

Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for 

Hillsborough County; Michelle Sisco, Judge.

Marie-Louise Samuels Parmer of Samuels Parmer Law, P.A., Tampa, 

for Appellant. 

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

KELLY, MORRIS, and ATKINSON, JJ., Concur.

Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.
#### § 1108.145 Debt.

*Debt* means any amount of money or any property owed to a Federal agency by any person, organization, or entity except another United States Federal agency. Debts include any amounts due from insured or guaranteed loans, fees, leases, rents, royalties, services, sales of real or personal property, or overpayments, penalties, damages, interest, fines and forfeitures, and all other claims and similar sources. For the purposes of this chapter, amounts due a non-appropriated fund instrumentality are not debts owed the United States.
IV 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 870 

Congratulating and commending the Port of Baltimore on the occasion of 

its 300th anniversary. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 14, 2006 

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER (for himself, Mr. HOYER, Mr. CARDIN, Mr. GILCHREST, 

Mr. WYNN, Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland, Mr. CUMMINGS, and Mr. VAN

HOLLEN) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 

Committee on Government Reform 

RESOLUTION 

Congratulating and commending the Port of Baltimore on 

the occasion of its 300th anniversary. 

Whereas the Port of Baltimore, which lays on 45 miles of 

coastline, was established in 1706 to transport farmers’ 

crops along the East Coast and to import and export 

cargo to international destinations; 

Whereas the Port was a key strategic goal for the British 

during the Revolutionary War and the War of 1812; 

Whereas the Port was successfully defended during the War 

of 1812 by the American soldiers and militiamen at Fort 

McHenry and North Point; 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
2 

•HRES 870 IH 

Whereas Francis Scott Key’s commemoration of the attack, 

the Star Spangled Banner, was to become America’s national anthem; 

Whereas the Port of Baltimore is one of America’s busiest 

international deepwater ports; 

Whereas the Port of Baltimore is the second largest automobile importer in the United States, is regarded as one 

of America’s top container terminals, and handles other 

cargoes such as coal, paper goods, electronics, aluminum, 

and sugar; 

Whereas the Port of Baltimore now ranks fifth among ports 

in the United States, with major railways and trucking 

lines carrying cargoes from the Port; 

Whereas the Port of Baltimore is ranked number one in rollon/roll-off (‘‘Ro/Ro’’) cargo, handling nearly 50 percent 

of the East Coast market’s share of Ro/Ro cargo annually; 

Whereas one of the Port of Baltimore’s greatest advantages 

is its mid-Atlantic and inland location, which makes it 

the closest Atlantic port to the Midwest, as it lays farther 

west than any other major Atlantic port; 

Whereas the Port of Baltimore serves as a critical anchor for 

Baltimore and the area known as the Inner Harbor, 

where hotels, offices, and retail and entertainment facilities, such as the National Aquarium and the Maryland 

Science Center, replaced dilapidated wharves and warehouses; 

Whereas the Port of Baltimore has been a driving force in 

maintaining the economic stability of the region, generating an estimated $1.5 billion in revenue annually and 

employing over 16,000 Marylanders in direct jobs; and 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
3 

•HRES 870 IH 

Whereas without the hard work and dedicated service of Baltimore’s port workers, the Port of Baltimore and the 

State of Maryland would not maintain the economic viability and success they enjoy today: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives con2 gratulates and commends the Port of Baltimore on the 

3 occasion of its 300th anniversary. 

Æ 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
223 So.2d 406

#### STATE of Louisiana v. William J. BENSON.

No. 49877.

June 10, 1969.

In re: William J. Benson applying for writs of' certiorari, prohibition, mandamus and injunction. .

Granted.

. ORDER

The petition of relator William J. Benson in the above entitled and numbered cause having been duly considered, and it having been made to appear that the progress of the prosecution during one year from arraignment was not retarded by any action of relator.

Ordered, that the Honorable Cyril J. Gracianette, Judge, First Parish Court, Parish of Jefferson, sustain the motion to quash this prosecution based upon the plea of prescription filed by defendant, William J. Benson, in these proceedings.

Further ordered, that in the event the respondent judge fails to comply with the aforesaid order on or before June 23, 1969, a writ of certiorari issue herein directing the said judge to transmit to the Supreme Court of Louisiana the record in duplicate or a certified copy of the record in duplicate in the proceeding complained of by relator, and that said judge show cause in this Court on October 13, 1969, at 11:00 a. m., why the plea of prescription should not be maintained.

Further ordered, that, in the meantime, all proceedings in this matter against relator in the said First Parish Court of Jefferson Parish shall be stayed and suspended.
§ 1108.370 Suspension. *Suspension* means either: ( a ) When used in the context of a specific award or subaward, the temporary withdrawal of authority for that recipient or subrecipient to obligate funds under the award or subaward, pending its taking corrective action or a decision to terminate the award or subaward.
( b ) When used in the context of an entity, an action by a DoD Component's suspending official under 2 CFR part 1125, DoD's regulation implementing OMB guidance on nonprocurement debarment and suspension in 2 CFR part 180, to immediately exclude the entity from participating in covered Federal Government transactions, pending completion of an investigation and any legal or debarment proceedings that ensue.
§ 71.87 Routine determinations. Before each shipment of licensed material, the licensee shall ensure that the package with its contents satisfies the applicable requirements of this part and of the license. The licensee shall determine that— ( a ) The package is proper for the contents to be shipped;
( b ) The package is in unimpaired physical condition except for superficial defects such as marks or dents;
( c ) Each closure device of the packaging, including any required gasket, is properly installed and secured and free of defects;
( d ) Any system for containing liquid is adequately sealed and has adequate space or other specified provision for expansion of the liquid;
( e ) Any pressure relief device is operable and set in accordance with written procedures;
( f ) The package has been loaded and closed in accordance with written procedures;
( g ) For fissile material, any moderator or neutron absorber, if required, is present and in proper condition;
( h ) Any structural part of the package that could be used to lift or tie down the package during transport is rendered inoperable for that purpose, unless it satisfies the design requirements of § 71.45;
( i ) The level of non-fixed (removable) radioactive contamination on the external surfaces of each package offered for shipment is as low as reasonably achievable, and within the limits specified in DOT regulations in 49 CFR 173.443;
( j ) External radiation levels around the package and around the vehicle, if applicable, will not exceed the limits specified in § 71.47 at any time during transportation; and
( k ) Accessible package surface temperatures will not exceed the limits specified in § 71.43(g) at any time during transportation.
```

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 74 (Wednesday, April 17, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 22876]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-09066]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FIFRA Docket No. 661; FRL-9804-2]

Rodenticides; Notice of Intent To Cancel Registrations of, and 
Notice of Denial of Applications for, Certain Rodenticide Bait Products

AGENCY: United States Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Notice of objections filed and hearing requested.

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

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to Section 6 of the Federal 
Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, 7 U.S.C. 136d, and Section 
164.8 of the associated Rules of Practice Governing Hearings set forth 
at 40 CFR part 164, that objections were filed and a hearing was 
requested in response to the Notice of Intent to Cancel Registration 
of, and Notice of Denial of Application for, Certain Rodenticide Bait 
Products, published in the Federal Register on February 5, 2013, 78 FR 
8123.
    This proceeding has been assigned FIFRA Docket No. 661, In the 
Matter of Reckitt Benckiser, LLC, et al., and the undersigned has been 
designated to preside. A hearing on the objections filed will be 
conducted in accordance with the Rules of Practice set forth at 40 CFR 
part 164. Notice of the hearing date and time will be published when 
the hearing is scheduled.
    An electronic copy of the case file in this proceeding is 
publically available online at www.epa.gov/oalj/filings-section6.htm. 
The official case file is available for public inspection between the 
hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, in the office 
of the Hearing Clerk, located in Room M1200 of the Ronald Reagan 
Building, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20004.

    Dated: April 4, 2013.
Susan L. Biro,
Chief Administrative Law Judge.
[FR Doc. 2013-09066 Filed 4-16-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
```