alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
The schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Dean
Witter Principal Plus Fund L.P. and is qualified in its entirety by
reference to such financial infstruments.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                       5,305,138
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   22,153
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              54,021,752<F1>
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                54,021,752<F2>
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           (3,952,559)<F3>
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             2,295,611
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (6,134,952)<F4>
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (6,134,952)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (6,134,952)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>In addition to cash and receivables, total assets include net unrealized
gain on open contracts of $1,241,069, net option premiums of $(297,250)
and Investment in U.S. Treasury Securities of $47,750,642.
<F2>Liabilities include redemptions payable of $2,408,129, accrued brokerage
fee of $190,236, accrued administrative fees of $217,507, accrued
management fees of $47,559, and accrued transaction fees and costs of
$11,286.
<F3>Total revenues include realized trading revenue of $(3,403,033), net
change in unrealized of $453,340, interest income of $2,274,839 and
change in valuation of Yield Pool of $(3,277,705).
<F4>Income-Pretax, Income Continuing and Net Income includes minority
interest in loss of $113,218.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 150 (Thursday, August 6, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 39306-39307]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-18826]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary


Meeting of the Defense Policy Board Advisory Committee

AGENCY: Department of Defense, Defense Policy Board Advisory Committee.

ACTION: Notice.

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

[[Page 39307]]

SUMMARY: The Defense Policy Board Advisory Committee will meet in 
closed session on September 9, 2009 from 8 a.m. until 6 p.m. and on 
September 10, 2009 from 8 a.m. until 10:30 a.m. at the Pentagon.
    The purpose of the meeting is to provide the Secretary of Defense, 
Deputy Secretary of Defense and Under Secretary of Defense for Policy 
with independent, informed advice on major matters of defense policy. 
The Board will hold classified discussions on national security 
matters.
    In accordance with Section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee 
Act, Public Law 92-463, as amended [5 U.S.C. App II (1982)], it has 
been determined that this meeting concerns matters listed in 5 U.S.C. 
552B (c)(1)(1982), and that accordingly this meeting will be closed to 
the public.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ann Hansen, (703) 571-9232.

    Dated: July 30, 2009.
Patricia L. Toppings,
OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. E9-18826 Filed 8-5-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
On September 12, 2001, by action of the Board of Directors, the
second sentence of Section 2.14(a)(ii) of the Company's By-laws was amended to
provide as follows:

                    To be timely, a shareholder's notice shall be
                    received by the Secretary of the corporation at
                    the principal office of the corporation not less
                    than 60 days nor more than 90 days prior to the
                    last Thursday in the month of April; provided,
                    however, that in the event that the date of the
                    Annual Meeting is advanced by more than 30 days or
                    delayed by more than 250 days from the last
                    Thursday in the month of April, notice by the
                    shareholder to be timely must be so received not
                    earlier than the 90th day prior to the date of
                    such Annual Meeting and not later than the close
                    of business on the later of (x) the 60th day prior
                    to such Annual Meeting and (y) the 10th day
                    following the day on which public announcement of
                    the date of such meeting is first made.
#### § 157.6091-1 Place for filing returns.

The return required by § 157.6011-1 (relating to returns of tax with respect to structured settlement factoring transactions) must be filed at the place specified in the forms and instructions provided by the Internal Revenue Service.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-6346

ALBERT CURTIS MILLS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

EUGENE NUTH, Warden,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. Deborah K. Chasanow, District Judge. (CA97-144-DKC)

Submitted: December 23, 1997 Decided: January 9, 1998

Before WILLIAMS and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Albert Curtis Mills, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's orders dismissing

without prejudice his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint and denying

his motion for reconsideration. The district court dismissed Appellant's complaint without prejudice for failure to allege facts

showing that his constitutional rights were violated. Because a

dismissal without prejudice is not generally appealable, we dismiss

the appeal. See Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union

392, 10 F.3d 1064, 1066-67 (4th Cir. 1993). 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.

DISMISSED
#### George Walker ALLEN et ux *v.*ARKANSAS STATE HIGHWAY COMM’N

5-5086

448 S. W. 2d 27

Opinion delivered December 22, 1969

*Henry 8. Wilson,*for appellants.

*Thomas Keys*and *Philip Oowen,*for appellee.

George Rose Smith, Justice.

In this condemnation proceeding the appellee is taking a 1.53-acre tract of land owned hy the appellants. Two expert witnesses for the highway department valued the land at $7,650. The landowners introduced two estimates of value, one of $14,000 and the other of $12,800. The jury’s verdict was for $8,000.

For reversal the landowners insist that the court erred in refusing to require the condemnor to answer interrogatories about the expert witnesses it expected to use at the trial. The interrogatories asked the names and addresses of the experts who had appraised the land for the highway department, their occupation, *858whether they were highway department employees, the date of their reports to the department, whether they were to be called as witnesses, how often they had previously testified for the department, and how they were to be compensated. The court refused to require the department to answer any of the interrogatories.

In ruling upon the matter the trial court did not have the benefit of our opinion in *Bower*v. *Murphy,*247 Ark. 238, 444 S. W. 2d 883 (1969), which was not delivered until after the case at bar had been tried. There we held that a litigant is entitled to obtain by interrogatories the names of his adversary’s expert witnesses. The other interrogatories propounded in the court below were also proper, for the requested information was needed to enable counsel to prepare for trial by investigating the qualifications and credibility of the department’s experts. The opportunity to elicit such information by cross-examination at the trial is not the equivalent of a complete independent investigation made ahead of time.

The error must be taken to have been prejudicial unless we can say with confidence that it was not. *Ark. State Highway Comm’n*v. *Parks,*240 Ark. 719, 401 S. W .2d 732 (1966). Here the amount' of the verdict was so slightly in excess of the figure fixed by the department’s expert witnesses that we cannot say with assurance that the award would not have been larger if the landowners had been afforded a better opportunity to explore the qualifications and credibility of the experts in advance of the trial.

Reversed.
| (logo) WELLS FARGO | **Commercial Mortgage Servicing**D1086-120, 12th Floor550 South Tyron StreetCharlotte, NC 28202 1-800-326-1334 |
|--------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

ANNUAL STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE

 

Reference is hereby made to that certain Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of September 1, 2015, by and among WELLS FARGO COMMERCIAL MORTGAGE SECURITIES, INC., as Depositor, WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as General Master Servicer, RIALTO CAPITAL ADVISORS, LLC, as General Special Servicer, NATIONAL COOPERATIVE BANK, N.A., as NCB Master Servicer, NATIONAL COOPERATIVE BANK, N.A., as NCB Special Servicer, PARK BRIDGE LENDER SERVICES LLC, as Trust Advisor, WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Certificate Administrator, as Tax Administrator and as Custodian and WILMINGTON TRUST, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Trustee, with respect to Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series 2015-LC22 (the "Agreement"). Capitalized terms used herein not otherwise defined shall have the meanings assigned in the Agreement.

 

Pursuant to Section 11.12 of this Agreement, I, Daniel Bober, Executive Vice President of Commercial Mortgage Services do hereby certify that:

 

1. A review of the activities of the General Master Servicer during the period from September 1, 2015 through December 31, 2015 (the “Reporting Period”) , and of its performance per the Agreement during such period has been made under my supervision, and

 

2. To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the General Master Servicer, has fulfilled all of its obligations under this Agreement in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period.

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this Certificate as of the 4th day of March 2016.

 

 

/s/ Daniel Bober

Daniel Bober

Executive Vice President Wells Fargo Bank

 

 

| Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. | (logo) Together we’ll go far |
|------------------------|------------------------------------|
(logo) Rialto CAPITAL

 

 

**2016 Annual Statement ofServicer Compliance (Item 1123)**

 

 

Pooling and Servicing Agreement(the “Pooling and Servicing Agreement”) dated as of  August 1, 2015 by and among Wells Fargo Commercial Mortgage Securities, Inc., as Depositor,Wells Fargo Bank, National Association as Master Servicer, Rialto CapitalAdvisors, LLC as Special Servicer, TriMont Real Estate Advisors, Inc. as TrustAdvisor, Wells Fargo Bank, National Association as Certificate Administrator,as Tax Administrator and as Custodian, and Wilmington Trust, NationalAssociation as Trustee relating to the Wells Fargo Commercial Mortgage Trust2015-SG1, Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2015-SG1 **(WFCM2015-SG1)**

 

 

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 1,2016 to December 31, 2016 (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 the natureand status thereof has been specifically identified herein.

 

 

Certified by: /s/ Adam Singer

Adam Singer, Managing Director

 

 

Date: March 1, 2017
#### The Town of Wilton *v.*The Leeden Corporation

*Sidney Vogel,*for the appellee (plaintiff).

*Willard B. Garter,*for the appellant (defendant).

Argued January 7

decided January 7, 1964

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

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. CON. RES. 198

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JULY 16, 1996

Received

JULY 30, 1996

Referred to the Committee on Rules and Administration

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Authorizing the use of the Capitol Grounds for the first

annual Congressional Family Picnic.

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring),

Whereas the Member’s and Family Room is an official entity

of the House of Representatives, administratively under

the Office of the Clerk of the House;
2

HCON 198 RFS

Whereas the purpose of the Member’s and Family Room is

to facilitate family life in congressional families, and to

promote collegial relationships among the sitting Members of Congress; and

Whereas a family picnic on the Capitol grounds would promote the purposes of the Member’s and Family Room:

Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring),

3 SECTION 1. AUTHORIZATION OF FIRST ANNUAL CONGRES4 SIONAL FAMILY PICNIC ON CAPITOL

5 GROUNDS.

6 The Advisory Board of the Member’s and Family

7 Room (in this resolution referred to as the ‘‘Advisory

8 Board’’) shall be permitted to sponsor an event, the first

9 annual Congressional Family Picnic, on the Capitol

10 grounds on July 30, 1996, or on such other date as the

11 Speaker of the House of Representatives and the Presi12 dent pro tempore of the Senate may jointly designate.

13 SEC. 2. CONDITIONS.

14 The event to be carried out under this resolution shall

15 be arranged under conditions to be prescribed by the Ar16 chitect of the Capitol and the Capitol Police Board.

17 SEC. 3. STRUCTURES AND EQUIPMENT.

18 For the purposes of this resolution, the Advisory

19 Board is authorized to erect upon the Capitol grounds,

20 subject to the approval of the Architect of the Capitol,
3

HCON 198 RFS

1 such structures and equipment (including cooking equip2 ment) as may be required for the event to be carried out

3 under this resolution.

4 SEC. 4. ADDITIONAL ARRANGEMENTS.

5 The Architect of the Capitol and the Capitol Police

6 Board are authorized to make any such additional ar7 rangements that may be required to carry out the event

8 under this resolution.

Passed the House of Representatives July 12, 1996.

Attest: ROBIN H. CARLE,

Clerk.
13

‐ 4725 Yale

‐ New Haven Hospital v. Nicholls, et al. 

## UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT August Term, 2015 (Argued: October 16, 2014 Decided: January 22, 2016)
Docket No. 13

‐ 4725

_____________________________________ Yale

‐ New Haven Hospital, Interpleader

‐ Plaintiff,

v. Claire M. Nicholls, Defendant

‐ Cross

‐ Defendant

‐ Appellee,

v. Barbara Nicholls, Defendant

‐ Cross

‐ Claimant

‐ Appellant.

_____________________________________ Before: KEARSE, STRAUB, and WESLEY, Circuit Judges

. A petition for panel rehearing having been made by Defendant

‐ Cross

‐ Claimant

‐ Appellant Barbara Nicholls, the petition is hereby DENIED

. Judge Wesley dissents
from the denial of panel rehearing in a separate opinion.
KENNETH VOTRE, Votre & Associates, P.C., East Haven, CT, for Defendant

‐ Cross

‐ Claimant

‐ Appellant Barbara Nicholls

. SUSAN E. NUGENT, Murphy & Nugent, LLC, New Haven, CT, for Defendant

‐ Cross

‐ Defendant

‐ Appellee Claire M. Nicholls

.

### ORDER

A petition for panel rehearing having been made by Defendant

‐ Cross

‐ Claimant

‐ Appellant Barbara Nicholls, the petition is hereby DENIED

. Judge Wesley dissents from the denial of panel rehearing in a separate opinion.
For the Court : Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk of Court



### 2

### 1

W ESLEY 

### , Circuit Judge , dissenting from the denial of panel rehearing : I dissent from the denial of panel rehearing for the reasons stated in my opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part in Yale

- New Haven Hosp ital v. Nicholls , 788 F.3d 79 (2d Cir. 2015). Shortly before our decision in Nicholls , the Supreme Court of Virginia, over the vigorous dissent of three of its members, including the Chief J ustice , upheld a
state interme dia te appellate court opinion that decided substantially the issue presented here. See Cowser

- Griffin v. Griffin , 771 S.E.2d 660 (Va. 2015) , cert. denied , No. 14

- 1531, 2016 WL 100359 (U.S. Jan. 11, 2016). The Virginia appellant then filed an unsuccessful pe tition for a writ of certiorari in the United States Supreme
Court , see 2015 WL 3918905 (U.S. June 24, 2015) , which the Virginia appellee opposed principally on the ground that the posthumous qualified domestic relations order there assigned to an alternat e payee payable lump

- sum benefits, as opposed to annuity benefits, and thus no conflict exist ed between the decision of Supreme Court of Virginia and those of other state supreme courts or federal courts of appeal s, see 2015 WL 7770869 (U.S. Nov. 10, 2015).

### 2

Without commenting on the merits of such a distinction, I would note that
Nicholls squarely presents this important ERISA question in the context of annuity benefits.
§ 1.166-4 Reserve for bad debts. ( a ) *Allowance of deduction.* A taxpayer who has established the reserve method of treating bad debts and has maintained proper reserve accounts for bad debts or who, in accordance with paragraph (b) of § 1.166-1, adopts the reserve method of treating bad debts may deduct from gross income a reasonable addition to a reserve for bad debts in lieu of deducting specific bad debt items. This paragraph applies both to bad debts owed to the taxpayer and to bad debts arising out of section 166(f)(1)(A) guaranteed debt obligations. If a reserve is maintained for bad debts arising out of section 166(f)(1)(A) guaranteed debt obligations, then a separate reserve must also be maintained for all other debt obligations of the taxpayer in the same trade or business, if any. A taxpayer may not maintain a reserve for bad debts arising out of section 166(f)(1)(A) guaranteed debt obligations if with respect to direct debt obligations in the same trade or business the taxpayer takes deductions when the debts become worthless in whole or in part rather than maintaining a reserve for such obligations. See § 1.166-10 for rules concerning section 166(f)(1)(A) guaranteed debt obligations.
( b ) *Reasonableness of addition to reserve* — ( 1 ) *Relevant factors.* What constitutes a reasonable addition to a reserve for bad debts shall be determined in the light of the facts existing at the close of the taxable year of the proposed addition. The reasonableness of the addition will vary as between classes of business and with conditions of business prosperity. It will depend primarily upon the total amount of debts outstanding as of the close of the taxable year, including those arising currently as well as those arising in prior taxable years, and the total amount of the existing reserve.
( 2 ) *Correction of errors in prior estimates.* In the event that subsequent realizations upon outstanding debts prove to be more or less than estimated at the time of the creation of the existing reserve, the amount of the excess or inadequacy in the existing reserve shall be reflected in the determination of the reasonable addition necessary in the current taxable year.
( c ) *Statement required.* A taxpayer using the reserve method shall file with his return a statement showing— ( 1 ) The volume of his charge sales or other business transactions for the taxable year and the percentage of the reserve to such amount;
( 2 ) The total amount of notes and accounts receivable at the beginning and close of the taxable year;
( 3 ) The amount of the debts which have become wholly or partially worthless and have been charged against the reserve account; and
( 4 ) The computation of the addition to the reserve for bad debts.
( d ) *Special rules applicable to financial institutions.* For special rules for the addition to the bad debt reserves of certain banks, see §§ 1.585-1 through 1.585-3.
[T.D. 6500, 25 FR 11402, Nov. 26, 1960, as amended by T.D. 6728, 29 FR 5855, May 5, 1964; T.D. 7444, 41 FR 53481, Dec. 7, 1976; T.D. 8071, 51 FR 2479, Jan. 17, 1986; T.D. 9849, 84 FR 9233, Mar. 14, 2019]
United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit ____________

No. 23-60306

Summary Calendar

____________

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Lakeith M. Faulkner, 

Defendant—Appellant.

______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Northern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 3:22-CR-141-1

______________________________

Before Willett, Duncan, and Ramirez, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Lakeith M. Faulkner appeals his guilty plea conviction and 62-month

sentence for conspiracy to commit wire fraud. He argues that his counsel in 

the district court provided ineffective assistance prior to the guilty plea 

hearing and sentencing by failing to adequately investigate loss and 

restitution. He further asserts that his counsel failed to: request a downward 

_____________________

* This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

May 9, 2024

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 23-60306 Document: 60-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/09/2024
No. 23-60306

2

departure based on his diminished capacity, raise a certain challenge to the 

gross receipts sentencing enhancement, and provide evidence in support of 

the abuse of trust enhancement.

Although Faulkner made allegations of ineffective assistance of 

counsel in a post-sentencing motion, the district court neither held a hearing 

nor issued a ruling on these issues. As a result, the record is not sufficiently 

developed to enable this court to “fairly evaluate” the merits of Faulkner’s 

ineffective assistance claim on direct appeal. United States v. Jones, 969 F.3d 

192, 200 (5th Cir. 2020); see United States v. Aguilar, 503 F.3d 431, 436 (5th 

Cir. 2007). We therefore decline to consider Faulkner’s ineffective 

assistance claim at this time without prejudice to Faulkner’s right to raise 

that claim in a proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Jones, 969 F.3d at 200.

AFFIRMED.

Case: 23-60306 Document: 60-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/09/2024