alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 884.2990 Breast lesion documentation system. ( a ) *Identification.* A breast lesion documentation system is a device for use in producing a surface map of the breast as an aid to document palpable breast lesions identified during a clinical breast examination.
( b ) *Classification.* Class II (special controls). The device, when it is a breast examination recording sheet, is exempt from the premarket notification procedures in subpart E of part 807 of this chapter subject to the limitations in § 884.9. The special control is FDA's guidance entitled “Class II Special Controls Guidance Document: Breast Lesion Documentation System.” See § 884.1(e) for the availability of this guidance document.
[68 FR 44415, Aug. 27, 2003, as amended at 84 FR 71816, Dec. 30, 2019]
#### DIXIE REALTY FINANCE CO. *et al. v.*MORGAN *et al.*

No. 8779.

May 12, 1932.

*Moore, Oberry & Wheless,*for plaintiffs.

*Chastain & Henson, J. H. Williams,*and *J. A. Roberts,*for defendants.

Beck, P. J.

D. D. Morgan, one of the defendants in error, brought suit against the Dixie Realty Finance Company et al., for the recovery of a small strip of land, and for other purposes. The case was tried, and a verdict and decree were rendered in favor of the plaintiff. The defendants filed a motion for a new trial, which' was overruled, and to that judgment the defendants excepted and brought the case by writ of error to the Supreme Court. That case was dismissed in the Supreme Court, for the reason that the record did not reach this court within the time required by law and the court was without jurisdiction to hear and determine the cause. *Dixie Realty Finance Co.*v. *Morgan,*171 *Ga.*348 (155 S. E. 468). The judgment of dismissal was made the judgment of the lower court. Afterward the plaintiffs in error filed suit seeking to vacate the verdict and decree of which a review was sought by the former writ of error, the contention being that the bill of exceptions in that case was not considered by the Supreme Court, and that the failure to consider the case was not due to any fault upon their part. They also insist that *808had the Supreme Court considered their ease a new trial would have been granted. No fraud in the procurement of the judgment of dismissal is alleged. The defendants filed a general demurrer, which was sustained and the petition was dismissed. To this judgment the plaintiffs in error excepted. *Held,*that the court did not err in so ruling.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur, except Hines, J., absent for providential cause.*
39378.

#### SAVANNAH TRANSIT COMPANY v. ODUM.

Decided April 11, 1962.

*741*Bouhan, Lawrence, Willia7ns, Levy & McAlpin, Kirk McAlpin, Frank W. Seiler, Walter C. Hartñdge, II,*for plaintiff in error.

*Pierce, Ranitz & Lee, John F. M. Ranitz, Jr., F. Robert Raley,*contra.

Hall, Judge.

A common carrier has a duty to use extraordinary diligence to protect its passengers from known or reasonably observable danger from outside sources. This duty of extraordinary care is owed towards passengers, of a bus from the time they board the bus, and not just when the bus is in motion. *Metropolitan Transit System, Inc. v. Burton,*103 Ga. App. 688, 690 (120 SE2d 663). The failure to warn a passenger of such danger may amount to negligence. *Georgia R. &c. Co. v. Murphy,*28 Ga. App. 173 (110 SE 680); *Yellow Cab Co. v. Carmichael,*33 Ga. App. 364, 368 (126 SE 269), annotated in 42 ALR 174; 10 Am. Jur. 256, § 1439.

The allegation that the bus driver "was in a position to observe what was happening, in the exercise of the care imposed upon him should have observed what was happening, and should have given his passengers warning of the impending danger,” is a general allegation of negligence which is good as against a general demurrer. *Keenan Welding Supplies Co. v. Bronner,*100 Ga. App. 400 (111 SE2d 140). Whether a bus driver, charged with the duty of extraordinary care, neglected a duty to warn a passenger injured by the act of a third person at the bus stop, is a question that must be decided by a jury from the evidence before them.

The trial court did not err in overruling the defendant’s general demurrer.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Felton, C. J., and Bell, J., concur.*
* This matter is being decided by a quorum. 28 U.S.C. §

46(d).

** Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-40914 Conference Calendar

UHRICO CADENA, Petitioner-Appellant,

versus JOHN M. TOMBONE, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 1:98-CV-1635

- - - - - - - - - - February 9, 1999 Before BARKSDALE and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges. * PER CURIAM: ** Uhrico Cadena, federal prisoner #57712-080, appeals from the denial of his petition for habeas corpus relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Cadena contends that the Bureau of Prison’s (BOP’s) interpretation of 18 U.S.C. § 3621(e)(2), as reflected in Program Statement 5162.02, is arbitrary and capricious and violates the Due Process Clause; that the retroactive application of § 3621(e)(2), Program Statement 5162.02, and 28 C.F.R.No. 98-40914 -2- § 550.58 violated the Ex Post Facto Clause; that the denial of his request for early release for completion of a residential substance abuse program violated the Equal Protection Clause; and that the denial of his request for early release constituted a breach of contract. We have reviewed the record and Cadena’s brief and we have found no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we dismiss Cadena’s appeal for essentially the reasons relied upon by the district court. Cadena v. Tombone , No. 1:98-CV-1635 (E.D. Tex. Jun. 12, 1998). APPEAL DISMISSED. 5 TH C IR . R. 42.2.
- 1 - 

Alexander Van der Bellen 

Managing Director and 

Associate General Counsel 

Delta Air Lines, Inc. 

1212 New York Avenue NW 

Washington, DC 20005 

202.842.4184 

sascha.vanderbellen@delta.com 

 

April 15, 2011 

Ms. Dorothy Beard 

Chief-Docket Operations 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

Re: Delta/Virgin Blue Group Antitrust Immunity Proceeding 

 Docket OST-2009-0155 

Dear Ms. Beard: 

Enclosed for filing in the public docket is a copy of the Joint Applicants’ Capacity Commitment 

Agreement, together with the Alliance Cooperation and Coordination Agreements. Thank you 

for your assistance. 

Sincerely, 

Alexander Van der Bellen 

Managing Director, Government Affairs 

 and Associate General Counsel 

cc: Anita Mosner, Counsel for the Virgin Blue Group 




CONFIDENTIAL

JA0060
CONFIDENTIAL

JA0061
CONFIDENTIAL

JA0062
CONFIDENTIAL

JA0063
CONFIDENTIAL

JA0064
CONFIDENTIAL

JA0065
CONFIDENTIAL

JA0066
CONFIDENTIAL

JA0067
CONFIDENTIAL

JA0068
CONFIDENTIAL

JA0069
CONFIDENTIAL

JA0070
CONFIDENTIAL

JA0071
CONFIDENTIAL

JA0072
CONFIDENTIAL

JA0073
CONFIDENTIAL

JA0074
CONFIDENTIAL

JA0075
CONFIDENTIAL

JA0076
CONFIDENTIAL

JA0077
CONFIDENTIAL

JA0078
CONFIDENTIAL

JA0079
CONFIDENTIAL

JA0080
CONFIDENTIAL

JA0081
CONFIDENTIAL

JA0082
CONFIDENTIAL

JA0083
CONFIDENTIAL

JA0084
CONFIDENTIAL

JA0085
CONFIDENTIAL

JA0086
CONFIDENTIAL

JA0087
CONFIDENTIAL

JA0088
CONFIDENTIAL

JA0089
CONFIDENTIAL

JA0090
CONFIDENTIAL

JA0091
CONFIDENTIAL

JA0092
CONFIDENTIAL

JA0093
CONFIDENTIAL

JA0094
CONFIDENTIAL

JA0095
CONFIDENTIAL

JA0096
CONFIDENTIAL

JA0097
CONFIDENTIAL

JA0098
CONFIDENTIAL

JA0099
CONFIDENTIAL

JA0100
CONFIDENTIAL

JA0101
CONFIDENTIAL

JA0102
CONFIDENTIAL

JA0103
CONFIDENTIAL

JA0104
CONFIDENTIAL

JA0105
CONFIDENTIAL

JA0106
CONFIDENTIAL

JA0107
CONFIDENTIAL

JA0108
CONFIDENTIAL

JA0109
CONFIDENTIAL

JA0110
CONFIDENTIAL

JA0111
CONFIDENTIAL

JA0112
CONFIDENTIAL

JA0113
CONFIDENTIAL

JA0114
CONFIDENTIAL

JA0115
CONFIDENTIAL

JA0116
CONFIDENTIAL

JA0117
CONFIDENTIAL

JA0118
CONFIDENTIAL

JA0119
CONFIDENTIAL

JA0120
CONFIDENTIAL

JA0121
CONFIDENTIAL

JA0122
CONFIDENTIAL

JA0123
CONFIDENTIAL

JA0124
CONFIDENTIAL

JA0125
CONFIDENTIAL

JA0126
CONFIDENTIAL

JA0127
CONFIDENTIAL

JA0128
CONFIDENTIAL

JA0129
CONFIDENTIAL

JA0130
CONFIDENTIAL

JA0131
CONFIDENTIAL

JA0132
CONFIDENTIAL

JA0133
CONFIDENTIAL

JA0134
CONFIDENTIAL

JA0135
CONFIDENTIAL

JA0136
CONFIDENTIAL

JA0137
CONFIDENTIAL

JA0138
CONFIDENTIAL

JA0139
#### Laetitia N. Corbin *v.*Howard J. Corbin1

Submitted June 4

decided June 4, 1968

*Alan H. Nevas,*in support of the motions.

1

 No counsel appeared when the ease was called for argument.

The motion by the plaintiff to dismiss the appeal from the Superior Court in Fairfield County at Stamford is dismissed.

The motion by the plaintiff to withdraw her motion to dismiss the appeal from the Superior Court in Fairfield County at Stamford is denied.
#### § 1.358-3 Treatment of assumption of liabilities.

(a) For purposes of section 358, where a party to the exchange assumes a liability of a distributee or acquires from him property subject to a liability, the amount of such liability is to be treated as money received by the distributee upon the exchange, whether or not the assumption of liabilities resulted in a recognition of gain or loss to the taxpayer under the law applicable to the year in which the exchange was made.

(b) The application of paragraph (a) of this section may be illustrated by the following examples:

# Example 1.

A, an individual, owns property with an adjusted basis of $100,000 on which there is a purchase money mortgage of $25,000. On December 1, 1945, A organizes Corporation X to which he transfers the property in exchange for all the stock of Corporation X and the assumption by Corporation X of the mortgage. The capital stock of the Corporation X has a fair market value of $150,000. Under sections 351 and 357, no gain or loss is recognized to A. The basis in A's hands of the stock of Corporation X is $75,000, computed as follows:

| Adjusted basis of property transferred | $100,000 |
| --- | --- |
| Less: Amount of money received (amount of liabilities assumed) | —25,000 |
| Basis of Corporation X stock to A | 75,000 |

# Example 2.

A, an individual, owns property with an adjusted basis of $25,000 on which there is a mortgage of $50,000. On December 1, 1954, A organizes Corporation X to which he transfers the property in exchange for all the stock of Corporation X and the assumption by Corporation X of the mortgage. The stock of Corporation X has a fair market value of $50,000. Under sections 351 and 357, gain is recognized to A in the amount of $25,000. The basis in A's hands of the stock of Corporation X is zero, computed as follows:

| Adjusted basis of property transferred | $25,000 |
| --- | --- |
| Less: Amount of money received (amount of liabilities) | —50,000 |
| Plus: Amount of gain recognized to taxpayer | 25,000 |
| Basis of Corporation X stock to A | 0 |
(logo) CWCapital

          Asset Management 

 

 

Annual Statement as to Compliance

For the Period of January 1, 2015 to December 31, 2015

 

 

COMM 2015-CCRE26

 

 

In accordance with Item 1123 of Regulation AB and with the requirements detailed in §10.11 of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement (the “Agreement”) for the above-mentioned CMBS pool, (the “CMBS Pool”), CWCapital Asset Management LLC (“CWCAM”), in its capacity as Special Servicer, is providing this Officer’s Certificate with respect to the following:

 

(A)      a review of CWCAM’s activities during the preceding calendar year or portion thereof (the “Reporting Period”) and of CWCAM’s performance under the Agreement has been made under such officer’s supervision and;

 

(B)      that, to the best of such officer’s knowledge, based on such review, CWCAM has fulfilled all its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period.

 

 

Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. 

 

 

Sincerely,

CWCapital Asset Management LLC

 

 

/s/ David B. Iannarone

David B. Iannarone 

President

 

 

7501 Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 500 West, Bethesda, MD 20814 

www.cwcapital.com
#### Carol C. Lowe *v.*Morton E. Lowe

Argued January 2

decided January 2, 1968

*Joel G. Karp,*for the appellee (defendant).

*Sigmund L. Miller,*for the appellant (plaintiff).

The motion by the defendant to dismiss the appeal from the Superior Court in Fairfield County is denied.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

May 24, 2016

d0516 

# Order

Clerk May 24, 2016

152027

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 152027

COA: 326758

Wayne CC: 91

- 001862

- FC

DEMETRIUS JERMAINE KNUCKLES,

a/k/a DECARRIUS LOVE,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 10, 2015 order

of the Court of Appeals is considered and , pursuant to MCR 7.305(H)(1), in lieu of

granting leave to appeal, we VACATE the sentence of the Wayne Circuit Court on the

defendant’s first

- degree murder conviction, and we REMAND this case to the trial court

for resentencing on that conviction pursuant to MCL 769.25 and MCL 769.25a. See

Montgomery v Louisiana , 577 US ___; 136 S Ct 718; 193 L Ed 2d 599 (2016); Miller v

Alabama , 567 US ___; 132 S Ct 2455; 183 L Ed 2d 407 (2012).

We do not retain jurisdiction.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                       1,274,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,534,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                    75,000
<INVENTORY>                                  2,757,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             5,674,000
<PP&E>                                       1,822,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                 787,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               8,650,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,040,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    19,351,000
<OTHER-SE>                                     128,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 8,650,000
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,288,000
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,448,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               914,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              12,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 15,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             15,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    15,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
§ 1.305-4 Distributions of common and preferred stock. ( a ) *In general.* Under section 305(b)(3), a distribution (or a series of distributions) by a corporation which results in the receipt of preferred stock whether or not convertible into common stock) by some common shareholders and the receipt of common stock by other common shareholders is treated as a distribution of property to which section 301 applies. For the meaning of the term *a series of distribution,* see subparagraphs (1) through (6) of § 1.305-3(b).
( b ) *Examples.* The application of section 305(b)(3) may be illustrated by the following examples:
Example 1. Corporation X is organized with two classes of common stock, class A and class B. Dividends may be paid in stock or in cash on either class of stock without regard to the medium of payment of dividends on the other class. A dividend is declared on the class A stock payable in additional shares of class A stock and a dividend is declared on class B stock payable in newly authorized class C stock which is nonconvertible and limited and preferred as to dividends. Both the distribution of class A shares and the distribution of new class C shares are distributions to which section 301 applies.
Example 2. Corporation Y is organized with one class of stock, class A common. During the year the corporation declares a dividend on the class A stock payable in newly authorized class B preferred stock which is convertible into class A stock no later than 6 months from the date of distribution at a price that is only slightly higher than the market price of class A stock on the date of distribution. Taking into account the dividend rate, redemption provisions, the marketability of the convertible stock, and the conversion price, it is reasonable to anticipate that within a relatively short period of time some shareholders will exercise their conversion rights and some will not. Since the distribution can reasonably be expected to result in the receipt of preferred stock by some common shareholders and the receipt of common stock by other common shareholders, the distribution is a distribution of property to which section 301 applies.
[T.D. 7281, 38 FR 18536, July 12, 1973]
Filed 5/27/15 P. v. Williams CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.111.5.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. REGINALD WILLIAMS, Defendant and Appellant. 2d Crim. No. B259397 (Super. Ct. No . TA128215) (Los Angeles County)

Reginald Williams appeals from an August 21, 2014 order revoking probation and sentencing him to four years state prison. On May 29, 2013, appellant pled no contest to one count of vandalism (Pen. Code, § 594, subd. (a)) 1 and admitted a prior strike conviction (§§ 667, subd . (d); 1170.12.) The trial court sentenced appellant to four years state prison, suspended execution of se ntence, and granted probation subject to the condition that appellant serve one year in a residential treatment program. (§ 1203.1, subd. (a).) Appellant was non-compliant and fa iled to complete the residential treatment program. On August 21, 2014, the trial court revoke d probation, ordered appellant to serve the four year sentence pr eviously imposed, and denied appellant's subsequent request for a form al probation violation hearing. Appellant was ordered to pay a $300 restitution fine (§ 1202.4, subd. (b)) and a $300 parole restitution fine (§ 1202.45).

1 All statutory references are to the Penal Code.2 We appointed counsel to represent appe llant in this appeal. After counsel’s examination of the record, he filed an opening brief in which no issues were raised. On April 2, 2015, we advised appellant that he had 30 days within which to personally submit any contentions or issues he wished us to consider. No response has been received from appellant.

We have reviewed the entire record and are satisfied that appellant's attorney has fully comp lied with his responsibilities and that no arguable issues exist. ( People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal. 3d 436, 443; People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 126.) The judgment is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

YEGAN, J.

We concur:

GILBERT, P.J.

PERREN, J.3 John J. Lonerg an, Jr., Judge

Superior Court County of Los Angeles

________________ ______________

Joseph R. Escobosa, under appoin tment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance fo r Respondent.
**Exhibit 33.2**

 

**MANAGEMENT’S ASSERTION OF COMPLIANCE**

 

Management of the Agency and Trust division of Citibank, N.A. (or “Company”) is responsible for assessing compliance with the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of Regulation AB promulgated by the Securities and Exchange Commission.

 

Management has determined that the servicing criteria in Item 1122(d) of Regulation AB are applicable in regard to the servicing platform as of and for the period as follows:

 

Platform:  Publicly-issued (i.e., transaction-level reporting initially required under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended) equipment loan-backed securities issued by CNH Equipment Trust, as listed in Appendix A, for which the Company provides trustee and paying agent services (the “Platform”).

 

Applicable Servicing Criteria:  All servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d), to the extent required by Item 1122(d) servicing criteria in regards to the activities performed by the Company with respect to the Platform, except for the following servicing criteria: 1122(d)(1)(i)-1122(d)(1)(v), 1122(d)(2)(iii), 1122(d)(2)(vi)-1122(d)(2)(vii), 1122(d)(3)(i) and 1122(d)(4)(i)-1122(d)(4)(xv), which management has determined are not applicable to the activities the Company performs with respect to the Platform (the “Applicable Servicing Criteria”).  With respect to the Platform, servicing criterion 1122(d)(3)(ii) is applicable only as it relates to remittances.

 

Period:  Twelve months ended December 31, 2015 (the “Period”).

 

With respect to the Platform as of and for the Period, the Company’s management provides the following assessment of compliance with respect to the Applicable Servicing Criteria:

 

·                  The Company’s management is responsible for assessing the Company’s compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria.

 

·                  The Company’s management has assessed compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria.  In making this assessment, management used the criteria set forth by the Securities and Exchange Commission in paragraph (d) of Item 1122 of Regulation AB.

 

·                  Based on such assessment, the Company has complied, in all material respects, with the Applicable Servicing Criteria.

 

KPMG LLP, an independent registered public accounting firm, has issued an attestation report with respect to management’s assessment of compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria as of and for the Period.

 
|   | CITIBANK, N.A. |
|--------|----------------|
|   |           |
|   | By:            | /s/ Karen Montbach |
|   |           |   |
|   | Its:           | Managing Director |

 

Dated: February 26, 2016

 

----

 

Appendix A

 

CNH Transactions and Securities Constituting the Platform

 

**DEAL NAME**

CNH Equipment Trust 2014-C

CNH Equipment Trust 2015-C

 

----
§ 1.401-0 Scope and definitions. ( a ) *In general.* Sections 1.401 through 1.401-14 (inclusive) reflect the provisions of section 401 prior to amendment by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. The sections following § 1.401-14 and preceding § 1.402(a)-1 (hereafter referred to in this section as the “Post-ERISA Regulations”) reflect the provisions of section 401 after amendment by such Act.
( b ) *Definitions.* For purposes of the Post-ERISA regulations— ( 1 ) *Qualified plan.* The term “qualified plan” means a plan which satisfies the requirements of section 401(a).
( 2 ) *Qualified trust.* The term “qualified trust” means a trust which satisfies the requirements of section 401(a).
(Sec. 411 Internal Revenue Code of 1954 (88 Stat. 901; 26 U.S.C. 411))
[T.D. 7501, 42 FR 42320, Aug. 23, 1977]