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

*336
      *Wisler, Pearlstine, Talone & Gerber,*for plaintiff.

*William A. O’Donnell, Jr.,*for defendant.

May 18,1951.

Knight, P. J.,

— This divorce case was started on July 30, 1948, and the docket entries fill over two typewritten pages.

On November 15, 1950, defendant filed a petition, on which a rule was allowed, to show cause why an order should not be made, requiring plaintiff to pay counsel fees and expenses to defendant. The proceedings were stayed pending the disposition of the rule.

Plaintiff filed a responsive answer, and the case was ordered on the argument list. Questions of fact are raised by the petition and answer, both as to the income of plaintiff and defendant.

No depositions have been taken.

On April 10, 1951, plaintiff filed a rule to proceed under Rule 209 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendant filed an answer on April 17, 1951, in which it is averred that defendant is an inmate of the Norristown State Hospital in a complete security building.

The answer does not aver that defendant is mentally incompetent to testify and it was stated at the argument that she was confined in the institution as an inebriate.

Under these circumstances we are of the opinion that plaintiff should not be further delayed or the case longer continued because of the lack of depositions in support of defendant’s own rule.

We therefore make the following order:

And now, May 18, 1951, the rule is made absolute and defendant allowed 30 days from this date within which to file depositions in support of her rule.

The stay of proceedings is abrogated.

If defendant does not file depositions within 30 days plaintiff may put the case on the argument list as provided in Pa. R. C. P. 209.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v.

CHARLES RAY BARTKOWIAK,

Defendant

- Appellant. No. 17

- 30150

D. C. No. 2 :16

- cr

- 00277

- EJL

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Idaho

Edward J. Lodge, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted May 15, 2018 **

Before: SILVERMAN, BEA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges

.

Charles Ray Bartkowiak appeals from the district court’ s judgment and

challenges the 70

- month sentence imposed following his guilty

- plea conviction for

bank robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a). We have jurisdiction under 28

U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

MAY 18 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 17

- 30150

Bartkowiak contends that his sentence is subst antively unreasonable because

the district court improperly presumed that the Guidelines range was reasonable

,

and placed undue weight on the Guidelines and the need for deterrence

. The court

did not abuse its discretion in imposing Bartkowiak’s sentence. See Gall v. United

States , 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The record shows that the court did not presume

the reasonableness of the Guidelines range or place undue weight on any single

sentencing factor

. To the contrary, after evaluating several of the 18 U.S.C.

§ 3353(a) sentencing factors and the “mitigating circumstances that are not usually

encountered in a case of this nature,” the court imposed a sentence seven months

below the Guidelines range. The below

- Guidelines sentence is substantively

reasonable in light of the section 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the

circumstances, including Bartkowiak’s criminal history and the seriousness of the

offense. See Gall , 552 U.S. at 51.

AFFIRMED.
§ 556.344 Ivermectin. ( a ) *Acceptable daily intake (ADI).* The ADI for total residue of ivermectin is 5 μg/kg of body weight per day.
( b ) *Tolerances.* The tolerances for 22,23-dihydroavermectin B1a (marker residue) are: ( 1 ) *American bison.* Liver (target tissue): 15 ppb.
( 2 ) *Cattle.* ( i ) Liver (target tissue): 1.6 ppm.
( ii ) Muscle: 650 ppb.
( 3 ) *Reindeer.* Liver (target tissue): 15 ppb.
( 4 ) *Sheep.* Liver (target tissue): 30 ppb.
( 5 ) *Swine.* ( i ) Liver (target tissue): 20 ppb.
( ii ) Muscle: 20 ppb.
( c ) *Related conditions of use.* See §§ 520.1192, 520.1195, 520.1197, 522.1192, 522.1193, 524.1193, and 558.300 of this chapter.
[84 FR 32993, July 11, 2019, as amended at 85 FR 18121, Apr. 1, 2020]
㪫㪪㪄㪟㪉㪇㪈㪧㪧 㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㪘㫋㫋㪸㪺㪿㫄㪼㫅㫋㩷㪉 㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㩷㪧㪸㪾㪼㩷㪈㪆㪈

CBI CBI CBI
1 

### Hutson, Nick

From: Hutson, Nick Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2015 6:00 PM To: Frey, Nathan J. Cc: Szabo, Aaron; Culligan, Kevin; Fruh, Steve Subject: Revised versions of 111(b) preamble/rule Attachments: 111b preamble_DRAFT_072815_clean.docx; 111b preambl e_DRAFT_072415_clean.docx; SummaryofInteragencyCommentsUnderEO 12866_13563_111 (b) New-Mods 2060-AQ91 Final_7 26 2015_EPAResponse.docx

Nathan,

Please find three files attached:

1. A clean version of the latest version of the 111(b) preamble and rule for GHG emissions from new, modi fied, and reconstructed EGUs – this version incorporates chan ges responsive to Interagency comments/suggestions and also changes that we have made as we continue to im prove the document. The document also has EPA responses to OMB/Interagency comments in marginal c omment balloons.
2. A RLSO version showing changes that have been made – compared to the clean version that was submitted to OMB on 07/24/15.
3. EPA’s response to summary of comments from review o f the 07/24/15 submission.

We are continuing to work on the document. However, we expect no more substantive changes to the docum ent.

Specifically we are still working on:

1. We are reading through to ensure consistency in ter minology, formatting, punctuation, grammar, etc.
2. We are revising some sections (esp. turbine section s) for readability and clarity – however, again, no substantive or directional changes.
3. We are working on the NTTA section and amendments t o 60.17 – this involves making sure we are properly incorporating the test methods (e.g., ASME test met hods for determining efficiency and ANSI method for assuring consistent accuracy of electricity monitor ing)
4. We are reviewing regulatory text to make sure it is as easy as possible for the public to understand & verifying that it is consistent with the preamble.

If you have any questions or concerns, let me know.

Thanks, Nick



# Nick Hutson, PhD

Energy Strategies Group Office of Air & Radiation U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
tel: +1 919 541 2968 email: hutson.nick@epa.gov
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 8083 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 8083

 To prohibit Federal funding for National Public Radio, and for other 
                               purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 19, 2024

Mr. Banks (for himself, Mr. Meuser, Mr. Duncan, Mrs. Cammack, Mr. Weber 
 of Texas, Mr. LaMalfa, and Mr. Babin) introduced the following bill; 
       which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To prohibit Federal funding for National Public Radio, and for other 
                               purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Defund NPR Act''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON FEDERAL FUNDING FOR NATIONAL PUBLIC RADIO.

    (a) In General.--After the date of the enactment of this Act, no 
Federal funds may, directly or indirectly, be made available to or used 
to support an organization described in subsection (b), including 
through the payment of dues to or the purchase of programming from such 
organization by a public broadcast station using Federal funds received 
by such station.
    (b) Organizations Described.--The organizations described in this 
subsection are--
            (1) the organization known, as of the date of the enactment 
        of this Act, as ``National Public Radio''; and
            (2) any successor organization to the organization 
        described in paragraph (1).
                                 <all>
```
(logo) Rialto

CAPITAL

 

 

**2018 Annual Statement of Servicer Compliance (Item1123)**

 

Pooling and ServicingAgreement (the "Pooling and Servicing Agreement") dated as ofSeptember 1, 2015 by and among Wells Fargo Commercial Mortgage Securities, Inc.,as Depositor, Wells Fargo Bank, National Association as General MasterServicer, Rialto Capital Advisors, LLC as General Special Servicer, National CooperativeBank, N.A., as NCB Master Servicer, National Cooperative Bank, N.A., as NCBSpecial Servicer, Park Bridge Lender Services LLC as Trust Advisor, Wells FargoBank, National Association as Cet1ificate Administrator, as Tax Administratorand as Custodian, and Wilmington Trust, National Association as Trustee relatingto the Wells Fargo Commercial Mortgage Trust 2015-LC22, Commercial MortgagePass-Through Certificates, Series 2015-LC22**(WFCM 2015-LC22)**

 

The undersigned, a dulyauthorized officer of Rialto Capital Advisors, LLC, as special servicer (the“Special Servicer”) herein certifies to the following:

 

1.        All servicing activitiesand performance of such servicing activities under the Pooling and ServicingAgreement are performed on behalf of the Special Servicer.

 

2.        A review of the servicingactivities and performance by the Special Servicer for the period of January 1,2018 to December 31, 2018 (the “Reporting Period”) in accordance with thePooling and Servicing Agreement has been conducted under my supervision.

 

3.        To the best of myknowledge, based on such review, the Special Servicer has fulfilled all of itsobligations under the terms of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement, in allmaterial respects for the Reporting Period and if there has been a failure tofulfill any such obligations in any material respect, each failure and thenature and status thereof has been specifically identified herein.

 

 

Certified by: /s/ Adam Singer

Adam Singer, ManagingDirector 

 

Date: March 1, 2019
Editorial Note on Part 880
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 880 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 880.6991 Medical washer. ( a ) *Identification.* A medical washer is a device that is intended for general medical purposes to clean and dry surgical instruments, anesthesia equipment, hollowware, and other medical devices.
( b ) *Classification.* Class II (special controls). The special control for this device is the FDA guidance document entitled “Class II Special Controls Guidance Document: Medical Washers and Medical Washer-Disinfectors.” The device is exempt from the premarket notification procedures in subpart E of part 807 of this chapter subject to § 880.9.
[67 FR 69121, Nov. 15, 2002]
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 09-1900

ALEKSANDR J. STOYANOV, 

 Plaintiff – Appellant, 

 v. 

DONALD C. WINTER, Secretary of the Navy; STEPHAN W. PETRI, 

Individually and in his Official Capacity as the Head of the 

Carderock Division; GARY M. JEBSEN, Individually and in his 

Official Capacity as the Head of Code 70; GERALD SMITH, 

Individually and in his Official Capacity as Deputy Head of 

Code 70 Carderock Division; M. KATHLEEN FOWLER, Individually 

and in her Official Capacity as Administrative Officer Code 

709; KEVIN M. WILSON, Individually and in his Official 

Capacity as the Head of Code 74; JAMES H. KING, Individually 

and in his Official Capacity as the Head of Code 74 

Carderock Division; JOHN C. DAVIES, Individually and in his 

Official Capacity as the Deputy Head of Code 74; STEPHAN M. 

FARLEY, Individually and in his Official Capacity as the 

Head of Code 741; ROGER P. FORD, Individually and in his 

Official Capacity as the Head of Code 7014 Carderock 

Division; DAVID CARON, Individually and in his Official 

Capacity as Assistant Counsel Code 39, 

 Defendants – Appellees. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (1:06-

cv-01245-AMD) 

Submitted: December 15, 2009 Decided: December 17, 2009 

Before MICHAEL and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge. 
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Aleksandr J. Stoyanov, Appellant Pro Se. John Walter Sippel, 

Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for 

Appellees. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 

2 
3 

PER CURIAM: 

 Aleksandr J. Stoyanov appeals the district court’s 

order dismissing his claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights 

Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17 (2006), 

the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, as amended, 

29 U.S.C. §§ 621 to 634 (2006), the Whistleblower Protection 

Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 1214, 1221 and 2302 (2006), and various state 

law tort claims, as well as its order denying his Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 59(e) motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the 

record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the 

district court’s orders. See Stoyanov v. Winter, No. 1:06-cv01245-AMD (D. Md. July 6, 2009; July 14, 2009). 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. 

AFFIRMED
EX-31 Rule13a-14(d)/15d-14(d) Certifications.

 

 

I, Anthony Sfarra,certify that:

 

1. I have reviewedthis report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required to be filed inrespect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of the Wells FargoCommercial Mortgage Trust 2015-SG1 (the "Exchange Act periodicreports");

 

2. Based on myknowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do not containany untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material factnecessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances underwhich such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;

 

3. Based on myknowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and other information required tobe provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this report is includedin the Exchange Act periodic reports;

 

4. Based on myknowledge and the servicer compliance statements required in this report underItem 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Actperiodic reports, the servicers have fulfilled their obligations under theservicing agreements in all material respects; and

 

5. All of the reportson assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securitiesand their related attestation reports on assessment of compliance withservicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included in thisreport in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to

this report, exceptas otherwise disclosed in this report. Any material instances of noncompliancedescribed in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.

 

In giving thecertifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me bythe following unaffiliated parties:

 

Rialto CapitalAdvisors, LLC, as Special Servicer, Wilmington Trust, National Association, asTrustee, TriMont Real Estate Advisors, Inc., as Trust Advisor, CoreLogicCommercial Real Estate Services, Inc., as Servicing Function Participant,National Tax Search, LLC, as Servicing Function Participant, Prudential AssetResources, Inc., as Primary Servicer, Rialto Capital Advisors, LLC, as SpecialServicer for the Patriots Park Mortgage Loan, Wilmington Trust, NationalAssociation, as Trustee for the Patriots Park Mortgage Loan, TriMont RealEstate Advisors, Inc., as Trust Advisor for the Patriots Park Mortgage Loan,CoreLogic Commercial Real Estate Services, Inc., as Servicing FunctionParticipant for the Patriots Park Mortgage Loan, and National Tax Search, LLC,as Servicing Function Participant for the Patriots Park Mortgage Loan.

 

 

 

Dated: March 21, 2018

 

 

/s/ Anthony Sfarra

 

 

President

(seniorofficer in charge of securitization of the depositor)
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 8007 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to make the postponement 

of certain deadlines by reason of Federally declared disaster applicable 

to the limitation on credit or refund. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 15, 2024 

Mr. MURPHY (for himself and Mr. PANETTA) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to make 

the postponement of certain deadlines by reason of Federally declared disaster applicable to the limitation on 

credit or refund. 

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 ‘‘Disaster Tax Lookback 

5 Parity Act of 2024’’. 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 8007 IH

1 SEC. 2. POSTPONEMENT OF CERTAIN DEADLINES BY REA2 SON OF FEDERALLY DECLARED DISASTERS 

3 MADE APPLICABLE TO LIMITATION ON CRED4 IT OR REFUND. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 7508A of the Internal 

6 Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end 

7 the following new subsection: 

8 ‘‘(f) APPLICATION TO LIMITATION ON CREDIT OR

9 REFUND.—For purposes of section 6511(b)(2)(A), any 

10 period disregarded under this section with respect to the 

11 time prescribed for filing any return of tax shall be treated 

12 as an extension of time for filing such return.’’. 

13 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

14 this section shall apply to claims filed after April 15, 2024. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
39246.

#### WASSERMAN v. SOUTHLAND INVESTMENT CORPORATION.

Carlisle, Presiding Judge.

1. “Questions of negligence, of contributory negligence, of cause and proximate cause, and of whose negligence or of what negligence constitutes the proximate cause of an injury are, except in plain, palpable and indisputable cases, .solely for the jury. *Montgomery v. Southern Ry. Co.,*78 Ga. App. 370 (1d) (51 SE2d 66); *Harvey v. Zell,*87 Ga. App. 280, 284 (1a) (73 SE2d 605).” *Long Const. Co. v. Ryals,*102 Ga. App. 66 (1) (115 SE2d 726). In this connection, it has been held on consideration of whether a petition is subject to general demurrer that unless the allegations of the petition set up facts from which reasonable minds cannot differ as to the cause of the injury they are sufficient to carry the case to the jury. *Bazemore v. MacDougald Const. Co.,*85 Ga. App. 107, 110 (68 SE2d 163). It was not the purpose of the summary judgment law (Ga. L. 1959, p. 234, et seq.) to change these general rules with reference to submitting questions to the jury, and a summary judgment should be granted only if there is no genuine issue of fact as shown by the record before the court.

2. In the instant case, the plaintiff’s deposition and the affidavit of her witness showed that the defendant was negligent in at least some of the ways charged in the petition. They further showed that the plaintiff, by reason of the fact that she had previously traversed the steps on which she fell, knew of their icy condition. However, under the foregoing rules of law, whether or not such knowledge constituted knowledge of the danger involved in using the steps, and whether in using the steps with such knowledge she was so negligent as to be barred of a recovery, were solely questions *421for the jury. *Rothschild v. First Nat. Bank of Atlanta,*54 Ga. App. 486 (188 SE 301); *Goldsmith v. Hazelwood,*93 Ga. App. 466 (92 SE2d 48); *Netherland v. Pacific Employers Ins. Co.,*101 Ga. App. 837 (115 SE2d 122). It follows that the trial judge erred in granting the defendant’s motion for a summary judgment.

Decided February 27, 1962.

*Hurt, Gaines, Baird, Peek Peabody, Joe C. Freeman, Jr., Sanford R. Karesh,*for plaintiff in error.

*Smith, Field, Ringel, Martin ■& Carr, Palmer H. Ansley,*contra.

*Judgment reversed.*

*Eberhardt and Russell, JJ., concur.*
Editorial Note on Part 880
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 880 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 880.5150 Nonpowered flotation therapy mattress. ( a ) *Identification.* A nonpowered flotation therapy mattress is a mattress intended for medical purposes which contains air, fluid, or other materials that have the functionally equivalent effect of supporting a patient and avoiding excess pressure on local body areas. The device is intended to treat or prevent decubitus ulcers (bed sores).
( b ) *Classification.* Class I (general controls). The device is exempt from the premarket notification procedures in subpart E of part 807 of this chapter, subject to the limitations in § 880.9. The device also is exempt from the current good manufacturing practice requirements of the quality system regulation in part 820 of this chapter, with the exception of § 820.180, with respect to general requirements concerning records, and § 820.198, with respect to complaint files.
[45 FR 69682, Oct. 21, 1980, as amended at 66 FR 38804, July 25, 2001]
```

[Federal Register: June 17, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 116)]
[Notices]               
[Page 34519]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr17jn10-137]                         

[[Page 34519]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice: 7053]

 
Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs; U.S. Professional 
Development Program for EducationUSA Advisers

    Notice: Correction to original Request for Grant Proposals.
    Summary: The United States Department of State, Bureau of 
Educational and Cultural Affairs, announces a revision to the original 
Request for Grant Proposals (RFGP) for the U.S. Professional 
Development Program for EducationUSA Advisers, announced in the Federal 
Register on May 6, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 87):
    Due to a clerical error, the header of the announcement states the 
deadline for this competition as July 7. The correct deadline, as 
stated in section IV.3f of the announcement, is July 9, 2010. All other 
terms and conditions of the original announcement remain the same.

Additional Information

    Interested organizations should contact ECA/A/S/A Branch Chief 
Caryn Danz or Program Officer Dorothy Mora, U.S. Department of State, 
Educational Information and Resources Branch, ECA/A/S/A, SA-5, 4th 
Floor, ECA/A/S/A-11-05, 2200 C Street, NW., Washington, DC 20522-0503. 
Telephone for Caryn Danz is (202) 632-6353; E-mail address: 
DanzCB@state.gov. Telephone for Dorothy Mora is (202) 632-6347; E-mail 
address: MoraDD@state.gov. Fax: 202-632-9478.

    Dated: June 11, 2010.
Maura M. Pally,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Educational and Cultural Affairs, U.S. 
Department of State.
[FR Doc. 2010-14686 Filed 6-16-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-11-P
```