alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### MIRABELLA LENTINI, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. TOWN OF MONTCLAIR, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.

Submitted October 11, 1938

Decided April 17, 1939.

Before Brogan, Chief Justice, and Justices Bodine and Heher.

For the plaintiff-appellant, *Samuel Rosenblatt.*

For the defendant-respondent, *George S. Harris.*

Brogan, Chief Justice.

Plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Essex County Common Pleas Court dismissing her complaint on the ground that “it fails to show a cause of action in favor of the plaintiff against the defendant.”

The complaint charges that the defendant municipality, having the duty to maintain the public highways in Mont*356elair in. good and safe condition, undertook to repair Wood-lawn avenue by “seal-coating” the surface of that highway. This operation consisted in treating the surface with oil and covering same with crushed stone and dust. The complaint further alleges that the oil was laid down on the road “in such a quantity and in such a manner” that the pavement became slippery, with the result that it became a place of danger and amounted to a common nuisance as far as the public was concerned. The plaintiff was seriously injured by falling thereon. The second count of the complaint is a virtual repetition of the first.

The court below held that the complaint did not state a cause of action and relied chiefly on the case of *Lydecker*v. *Freeholders of Passaic, 91 N. J. L. 622,*but we do not think that this case is controlling. There, an excess amount of oil was spread on the roadway by a contractor. The municipality was not the active *lori feasor*and the complaint charged a mere omission of duty, *i. e.,*failure to warn the public, &c. Our view here is that the burden of the complaint before us charges affirmative negligence amounting to misfeasance. It is not an omission to perform a duty that is charged but rather active, affirmative wrongdoing. There is no right of action for injuries received by an individual because of a neglect to perform a duty, *i. e.,*non-feasance. A municipality is not answerable for non-feasance on the part of its servants or agents unless such liability be created b3r positive statutory law, but a municipality is answerable to an individual who suffers a private wrong when such injury arises from the misfeasance or malfeasance of the municipality when that private wrong results from active wrongdoing on the part of the municipality, and even though it be in the performance of a governmental duty under circumstances and results amounting to common nuisance for which an indictment would lie. See *Allas*v. *Rumson,*115 *N. J. L.*593, and cases therein cited.

*We*are further of the opinion that facts are sufficiently pleaded which, if proved, would justify the finding that there was active wrongdoing.

*357The defendant municipality urges in its brief that the plaintiff was manifestly guilty of contributory negligence or assumption of risk, but these are matters of defense and certainly do not appear on the face of the complaint which is all that is before us.

The judgment will be reversed, and costs will abide the event.
#### WESTON et al. v. WATTS.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

February 11, 1915.)

Action by Walter Weston and others against James R. Watts.

No opinion. Motion denied, with $10 costs. Order filed. See, also, 149 N. Y. Supp. 1118.
#### § 182.20 What must a Federal agency do to implement the guidance?

To comply with the requirement in Section 41 U.S.C. 705 for Governmentwide regulations, each Federal agency that awards grants or cooperative agreements or makes other financial assistance awards that are subject to the drug-free workplace requirements in subparts A through F of the guidance must issue a regulation consistent with those subparts.
§ 1002.7 Submission of data and reports. All submissions such as reports, test data, product descriptions, and other information required by this part, or voluntarily submitted to the Director, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, shall be filed with the number of copies as prescribed by the Director, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, and shall be signed by the person making the submission. The submissions required by this part shall be addressed to the Food and Drug Administration, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, ATTN: Electronic Product Reports, Document Mail Center, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, rm. G609, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. ( a ) In addition to the requirements of this part, all material submitted to the Director, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, shall be submitted pursuant to the provisions of part 20—Public Information, of this chapter.
( b ) Where guides or instructions have been issued by the Director for the submission of material required by this part, such as test data, product reports, abbreviated reports, supplemental reports, and annual reports, the material submitted shall conform to the applicable reporting guides or instructions. Where it is not feasible or where it would not be appropriate to conform to any portion of a prescribed reporting guide or instruction, an alternate format for providing the information requested by that portion of the guide or instruction may be used provided the submitter of such information submits adequate explanation and justification for use of an alternate format. If the Director, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, determines that such justification is inadequate and that it is feasible or appropriate to conform to the prescribed reporting guide or instruction, he may require resubmission of the information in conformance with the reporting guide or instruction.
( c ) Where the submission of quality control and testing information is common to more than one model, or model family of the same product category, a “common aspects report” consolidating similar information may be provided, if applicable.
[42 FR 18062, Apr. 5, 1977, as amended at 53 FR 11254, Apr. 6, 1988; 60 FR 48385, Sept. 19, 1995; 72 FR 17400, Apr. 9, 2007; 75 FR 20916, Apr. 22, 2010]
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

June 13, 2018

No. 04

- 18

- 00345

- CR

Comfort Delando ROBERTS,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 186th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2016 CR11457

Honorable Jefferson Moore, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

On June 4, 2018, appellant filed a motion for the appointment of appellate counsel. The

record before this court indicates the trial court appointed Michael Young, Chief Public

Defender, to represent appellant on appeal. Accordingly, appellant’s motion is DENIED.

_________________________________ Irene Rios , Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have her eunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 13th day of June, 2018

.

___________________________________ KEITH E. HOTTLE

, Clerk of Court
Retirement News

 for Employers 

Information for Sponsors of Retirement Plans 

Internal Revenue Service Tax Exempt and Government Entities

 Special Edition

December 18, 2008 

Extension of Year-End Deadline for 403(b) Plan Sponsors 

On December 11, 2008, the IRS released Notice 2009-3 extending the deadline for 403(b) 

plan sponsors to adopt new written plans or amend their existing written plans from January 1, 

2009, to December 31, 2009. The IRS will consider 403(b) plans as meeting the requirements 

of §403(b) and the final regulations for 2009 if the plan sponsor: 

1.	 adopts or amends a written plan by December 31, 2009 that is intended to satisfy 

§403(b) (and the final regulations) effective January 1, 2009; 

2.	 operates the plan during 2009 with a reasonable interpretation of §403(b), taking into 

account the final regulations; and 

3.	 makes its best effort to retroactively correct by the end of 2009, any operational failure 

occurring in 2009 to conform to the written plan, based on the general principles of 

correction in section 6 of Rev. Proc. 2008-50, the revenue procedure for the Service’s 

Employee Plans Compliance Resolution System. 

The IRS plans to issue further guidance on 403(b) plans, including a revenue procedure 

establishing a 403(b) prototype plan program and, later, a determination letter program. These 

programs will allow plans to correct plan document failures for years after 2009 by making 

remedial amendments. The EPCRS procedure will also be modified to provide for additional 

403(b) issues. 

Stay tuned!• 

Please share this Special Edition with your colleagues. To subscribe to our newsletter, please 

go to www.irs.gov/ep. All editions of the Retirement News for Employers are archived there.•
usbank(logo)



Global Corporate
Trust

190 S. LaSalle
Street, 7th Floor

MK-IL-SL7C

Chicago, IL 60603



usbank.com



VIA EMAIL



Barclays Commercial Mortgage Securities LLC

745 Seventh Avenue

New York, New York 10019

Attention: Daniel Vinson, Vice President

Email: daniel.vinson@barclays.com



17g5informationprovider@usbank.com



Annual Statement of Compliance

UBS-Barclays Commercial Mortgage Trust 2013-C6



| | Re: | ThePooling and Servicing Agreement (the “Agreement”)
dated as of April 1, 2013 entered into by Barclays Commercial Mortgage Securities LLC, as depositor, Midland Loan Services, a Division
of PNC Bank, National Association, as master servicer, Rialto Capital Advisors, LLC, as special servicer, Park Bridge Lender Services
LLC, as operating advisor, and U.S. Bank National Association, as trustee, certificate administrator, paying agent and custodian
| | --- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I, Kimberly O. Jacobs,
a Senior Vice President of U.S. Bank National Association, as Certificate Administrator hereby certify that:



(1) A review of the activities
of the Certificate Administrator during the preceding calendar year (the “Reporting Period”) and of the performance
of the Certificate Administrator under the Agreement have been made under my supervision; and



(2)
To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Certificate Administrator has fulfilled its obligations under the Agreement
in all material respects throughout theReporting Period.



Capitalized terms used
but not defined herein have the meanings set forth in the Agreement.



Date: March 1, 2019



U.S. Bank National Association, as Certificate Administrator



|By: | /s/ Kimberly O. Jacobs | 
|--- | ---------------------- | 
|    | Kimberly O. Jacobs     | 
|    | Senior Vice President  |
§ 1309.54 Burden of proof. ( a ) At any hearing for the denial of a registration, the Administration shall have the burden of proving that the requirements for such registration pursuant to section 303 of the Act (21 U.S.C. 823) are not satisfied.
( b ) At any hearing for the revocation or suspension of a registration, the Administration shall have the burden of proving that the requirements for such revocation or suspension pursuant to section 304(a) of the Act (21 U.S.C. 824(a)) are satisfied.
[60 FR 32454, June 22, 1995. Redesignated at 62 FR 13968, Mar. 24, 1997]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Balance
Sheet, Statement of Operations, Statements of Cash Flows and Notes thereto
incorporated in Part I, Item 1. of this Form 10QSB and is qualified in its
entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                          28,985
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                28,985
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  28,985
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        47,400
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    28,985
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    2,015
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (2,015)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (2,0150)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     0.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.00


</TABLE>
II 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1085 

To amend title 18, United States Code, to provide enhanced penalties for 

convicted murderers who kill or target America’s public safety officers. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 10, 2017 

Mr. TOOMEY (for himself, Mr. BLUNT, Mrs. CAPITO, Mr. CORNYN, Mr. COTTON, Mr. CRUZ, Mrs. FISCHER, Mr. HOEVEN, Mr. JOHNSON, Mr. KENNEDY, Mr. LANKFORD, Mr. LEE, Mr. MCCAIN, Mr. MORAN, Mr. 

PERDUE, Mr. PORTMAN, Mr. RISCH, Mr. TILLIS, and Mr. SULLIVAN) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend title 18, United States Code, to provide enhanced 

penalties for convicted murderers who kill or target 

America’s public safety officers. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Thin Blue Line Act’’. 

5 SEC. 2. AGGRAVATING FACTORS FOR DEATH PENALTY. 

6 Section 3592(c) of title 18, United States Code, is 

7 amended by inserting after paragraph (16) the following: 


lotter on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1085 IS

1 ‘‘(17) KILLING OR TARGETING OF LAW EN2 FORCEMENT OFFICER.— 

3 ‘‘(A) The defendant killed or attempted to 

4 kill, in the circumstance described in subpara5 graph (B), a person who is authorized by law— 

6 ‘‘(i) to engage in or supervise the pre7 vention, detention, investigation, or pros8 ecution, or the incarceration of any person 

9 for any criminal violation of law; 

10 ‘‘(ii) to apprehend, arrest, or pros11 ecute an individual for any criminal viola12 tion of law; or 

13 ‘‘(iii) to be a firefighter or other first 

14 responder. 

15 ‘‘(B) The circumstance referred to in sub16 paragraph (A) is that the person was killed or 

17 targeted— 

18 ‘‘(i) while he or she was engaged in 

19 the performance of his or her official du20 ties; 

21 ‘‘(ii) because of the performance of his 

22 or her official duties; or 

23 ‘‘(iii) because of his or her status as 

24 a public official or employee.’’. 

Æ 


lotter on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 31.1

# CERTIFICATION UNDER
SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF
EXECUTIVE OFFICER

I, Richard Leeds, Chief
Executive Officer of Systemax Inc., certify that: 

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Systemax Inc. (the
registrant); 

2. Based on my knowledge, this annual report does 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 annual report; 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this annual report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this annual report; 

4. The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and (except as
disclosed in Item 9A of this annual report on Form 10-K) we have: 

a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to reasonably
ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its
consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within these entities,
particularly during the period in which this annual report is being prepared; 

b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness
of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered
by this report based on such evaluation; and 

c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control
over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants fourth
fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
materially affect, the registrants control over financial reporting. 

5. The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on
our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrants auditors and the audit committee of the registrants
board of directors: 

a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting known to me which are
reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record,
process, summarize and report financial information; and 

b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal controls
over financial reporting.

Date:  March 30, 2007

/s/ RICHARD LEEDS
Richard Leeds, Chief Executive Officer
§ 1314.103 Self-certification fee; time and method of fee payment. ( a ) Each regulated person who makes a sale at retail of a scheduled listed chemical product and is required under § 1310.03 of this chapter to submit a report of the sales transaction to the Administration must pay a fee for each self-certification. For each initial application to self-certify, and for the renewal of each existing self-certification, a regulated seller shall pay a fee of $21.
( b ) The fee for self-certification shall be waived for any person holding a current, DEA registration in good standing as a pharmacy to dispense controlled substances.
( c ) A regulated person shall pay the fee at the time of self-certification.
( d ) Payment shall be made by credit card.
( e ) The self-certification fee is not refundable.
[76 FR 20523, Apr. 13, 2011]
**Printed on 100% recycled/recyclable paper with 100% post**  **- consumer fiber and process chlorine free.**  **Customer Service Hotline: 1**
**- 800** 
**- 438** 
**- 2474**  **UNITED ST AT**  **ES ENVIRONMENT AL**  **PROTECTION A GENCY**  **REGION III 1650 A**  **rch Street Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103**  **- 2029** 

May 23, 2012 Mr. David K. Pay lor, Director Virginia Department of Environmental Quality P.O. Box 1105 Richmond, Virginia 23218 Dear Mr. Pay lor: On April 26, 2012, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) received a revision to the Virginia State Implementation Plan (SI P) from the Virginia Depa rtment of Environmental Quality which repeals duplicative administrative regulations from Virginia’s inspection and maintenance (I/M) regulations found in 9VAC5, Chapter 91. EPA has determined that the submittal is administratively and technically

complet e . If members of your staff have an y questions, they may direct them to Mr. Harold A. Frankford at (215) 814

- 2108. He is the principal contact for this rulemaking. Sincerel y, /s/ Diana Esher, Director Air Protection Division
§ 1401.24 What does it cost to get records under the Privacy Act? ( a ) *Agreement to pay fees.* Your request is an agreement to pay fees. We consider your Privacy Act request as your agreement to pay all applicable fees unless you specify a limit on the amount of fees you agree to pay. We will not exceed the specified limit without your written agreement.
( b ) *How do we calculate fees?* We will charge a fee for duplication of a record under the Privacy Act in the same way we charge for duplication of records under the FOIA in § 1401.11(c). There are no fees to search for or review records requested under the Privacy Act.