alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<partyblock><br><br><div align="center"><b><font size="+1">Board of Managers of the Towers on the Park Condominium, Plaintiff-Respondent,<br><br>against<br><br>Anthony De Silva, Defendant-Appellant.</font></b></div><br><br><p>Defendant appeals from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (Lisa A. Sokoloff, J.), entered March 1, 2017, after inquest, directing the entry of judgment in favor of plaintiff in the principal sum of $49,305.12.</p><p>Per Curiam.</p><p>Appeal from order (Lisa A. Sokoloff, J.), entered March 1, 2017, deemed an appeal from the ensuing judgment (same court and Judge), entered May 15, 2017, and so considered (<i>see</i> CPLR 5520[c]), appeal dismissed, without costs, as nonappealable.</p><p>No appeal lies from a default judgment, or its underlying order, entered upon an uncontested inquest (<i>see </i>CPLR 5511;<i> Salomon v Angsten</i>, 63 AD3d 564 [2009]). Although defendant subsequently moved to vacate the default, he failed to appeal from the order denying that motion.</p><p>THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.</p><br>I concur I concur I concur<br>Decision Date: September 17, 2018<br><br><div align="center"><form method="LINK" action="../../slipidx/at_1_idxtable.shtml"><input type="submit" value="Return to Decision List"></form></div></partyblock>
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 229 Agreed to House (ATH)]

104th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. CON. RES. 229

   Directing the Secretary of the Senate to make corrections in the 
                         enrollment of S. 1004.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 28, 1996

 Mr. Shuster submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was 
                        considered and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
   Directing the Secretary of the Senate to make corrections in the 
                         enrollment of S. 1004.

    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That, in the enrollment of the bill S. 1004, the Secretary of the 
Senate shall make the following corrections:
            (1) In section 1106(c), in the text added to section 5 of 
        the Act of January 2, 1951--
                    (A) strike ``This section does not prohibit, nor 
                may any State make'' and insert in lieu thereof ``With 
                respect to a vessel operating in Alaska, this section 
                does not prohibit, nor may the State of Alaska make'';
                    (B) strike ``except that a State may'' and insert 
                in lieu thereof ``except that such State may''; and
                    (C) strike paragraph (2) and insert in lieu thereof 
                the following:
    ``(2) A voyage referred to in paragraph (1) is a voyage that--
            ``(A) includes a stop in Canada or in a State other than 
        the State of Alaska;
            ``(B) includes stops in at least 2 different ports situated 
        in the State of Alaska; and
            ``(C) is of at least 60 hours duration.''.
            (2) In section 1113(d), in the text added to section 12106 
        of title 46, United States Code, in subsection (e)(1)(E) strike 
        ``section 12102'' and insert in lieu thereof ``this section''.
                                 <all>
```
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

EASTERN DISTRICT 

ABDUR RAHEEM MUHAMMAD, 

 Petitioner 

 v. 

ARTHUR CARL SCHWOTZER; GREGG 

A. SCHWOTZER AND THE ESTATE OF 

GREGG A. SCHWOTZER (DECEASED); 

W. REID HOWE; RYAN SCHWOTZER; 

DAMIAN WINCHEL; ANNA MASON; 

JINADA ROCHELLE; CHRISTINE E. 

RICE; JOANN L. EDWARDS; STEPHEN 

A. GLASSMAN; ARBERDELLA WHITEDAVIS; JAMES D. HOLT; HOMER C. 

FLOYD; TOM CORBETT; EDWARD G. 

RENDELL; CROSSGATES 

MANAGEMENT INCORPORATED D/B/A 

SWISSVALE TOWERS ASSOCIATION; 

PENNSYLVANIA HUMAN RELATIONS 

COMMISSION; PENNSYLVANIA 

HOUSING FINANCE AGENCY AND THE 

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, 

 Respondents 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 8 EAL 2016 

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court 

ORDER 

PER CURIAM 

AND NOW, this 29th day of February, 2016, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

is DISMISSED. See Pa.R.A.P. 1112(a), (b). 

Justice Eakin did not participate in the consideration or decision of this matter. 
[8 EAL 2016] - 2
EXHIBIT 32.1


CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SS 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Edd Helms Group, Inc.
and Subsidiaries (the "Company") for the quarter ended February 29, 2008, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, W. Edd Helms, Jr., President and Chief Executive Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

      (1)The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
            15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

      (2)The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
            material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
            of the company.

Date: April 21, 2008        /s/  W. Edd Helms, Jr.
      ----------------      ----------------------
                             W. Edd Helms, Jr., President, Chief
                              Executive Officer

      April 21, 2008        /s/  Dean A. Goodson
      ----------------      --------------------
                            Dean A. Goodson, Chief Financial Officer

      April 21, 2008       /s/  L. Wade Helms
      ----------------      ------------------
                            L. Wade Helms, Executive Vice President
#### Rothstein, etc., v. Local Union 401, etc.

*Charles J. Bufalino,*for petitioners.

*Ernest K. Herskovitz, Herman J. Goldberg*and *John F. O’Malley,*for respondents.

October 9, 1951.

PiNOLA, J.,

A group of persons, who are now distributors for the products of plaintiff, ask to be allowed to intervene as parties plaintiff in the above action brought by plaintiff against the Local Union No. 401 of International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers, of which most of his employes are members.

While an answer was filed denying some of the averments of the petition, at argument the facts in the petition were admitted and, on the basis of such admission, we proceed to dispose of the matter.

Equity Rule 25 provides:

> “By leave of court, any person or persons claiming an interest in a pending suit, may be permitted to assert his, her or their right by intervention at any stage of the proceedings; but this shall be in subordination to and in recognition of the propriety of such suit.”

Intervention implies the existence of a suit to which the intervener is not a party. Since Charles Givens, Harold Lyons and Fred Bianchino are employes and *414members of defendant union, they are already parties.

Peter Yateshin, although never employed by plaintiff, is a member of defendant union and, therefore, he is likewise a party defendant.

John T. Snyder was an employe of plaintiff, but he is not a member of defendant union.

Joseph Alfano was never an employe of plaintiff nor a member of defendant union.

So, the problem narrows down to whether these two petitioners should be allowed to intervene.

The cause of these proceedings is the alleged violation by plaintiff of a collective bargaining agreement between him and defendant union. It is claimed that he created new routes for the distribution of his products and placed them in charge of four former employes and Alfano and Yateshin.

Any action by the court will necessarily affect all six of the newly created distributors.

It is apparent, therefore, that they would all have the right to join with plaintiff in an effort to restrain the union from interfering with their relations with plaintiff and the operation of their businesses. It follows that they are entitled to become parties to these proceedings

Hence, we enter the following

*Order*

Now, October 9, 1951, since Peter Yateshin, Fred Bianchino, Charles Givens and Harold Lyons are now parties defendant, their petition to be allowed to intervene as parties plaintiff in these proceedings is denied. The petition of Joseph Alfano and John T. Snyder is allowed and they are permitted to intervene as parties plaintiff upon the terms set forth in the petition for intervention.
(logo)Prudential

 

 

**PrudentialAsset Resources**

PGIMReal Estate Finance

2100Ross Avenue, Suite 2500, Dallas TX 75201

Tel214-777-4500

 

Abusiness of Prudential Financial, Inc.

 

WellsFargo Bank, National Association

CommercialMortgage Servicing

MACD1086

550South Tryon Street, 14th Floor

Charlotte,North Carolina 28202

Attention:Asset Manager

 

RE:         **WFCM 2015-C31**

Period: **January 1, 2019 to December 31, 2019(the “Reporting Period”)**

 

**AnnualCompliance Statement**

 

 

I,Joni Brown-Haas, in my capacity as President and Managing Director ofPrudential Asset Resources, Inc. (the “Company”) hereby certify with regard tothe Company’s role as Sub-Servicer under the Sub-Servicing Agreement, (the“Agreement”) dated as of November 1, 2015, pertaining to the above-referencedcertificates, that:

 

(i)      areview of the activities of the Company under the Agreement during the periodnoted above, and of the performance of the Company under the Agreement duringthe relevant period has been made under my supervision, and

 

(ii)    to thebest of my knowledge, based on such review, the Company has fulfilled all itsobligations under the Agreement throughout the relevant period, and

 

(iii)   to the best of myknowledge, based on such review, the Company has fulfilled its obligationsunder its sub-servicing agreement in all material respects, and

 

(iv)    the Company hasmaintained an effective internal control system over the servicing of mortgageloans including the Loans serviced by the Company, and

 

(v)    theCompany has not received any notice regarding qualification, or challenging thestatus of the Lower Tier REMIC or the Upper Tier REMIC as a REMIC, from the IRSor any other governmental agency or body.

 

 

Effectiveas of February 21, 2020

 

/s/Joni Brown-Haas

JoniBrown-Haas

Presidentand Managing Director

PrudentialAsset Resources, Inc.
39618.

#### OLIVER v. THE STATE.

Jordan, Judge.

The defendant was convicted in the City Court of Walker County of the offense of carrying a concealed weapon. From the order of the court denying his motion for new trial on the general grounds he appeals to this court for review. *Held:*

“Any person having or carrying about his person, unless in an open manner' and fully exposed to view, any kind of metal knucks, pistol, dirk, sword in a cane, spear, bowie knife, *or any other kind of knives manufactured and sold for the purpose of offense and defense,*shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.” *Code*§ 26-5101. (Emphasis supplied). The evidence in this case authorized the jury to find that the defendant, when stopped by officers for a possible traffic violation, reached into his pocket and threw away a partly opened knife which had been concealed therein. The knife was produced at the trial and displayed to the jury. The record does not contain a picture or a description of the knife. The sheriff testified that it was the type “commonly manufactured for offensive and defensive” purposes. The defendant contended that it was only a pocket knife.

*494Decided September 5, 1962.

*D. L. Lomenick, Jr.,*for plaintiff in error.

*Earl B. Self, Solicitor,*contra.

While we feel sure that the General Assembly did not intend to include a common pocket knife in the. type weapons included in this Code section, it was purely a question for the jury in this case to determine whether or not the knife exhibited to them met the definition laid down in the Code section. No attack being made on this portion of the statute and the evidence being sufficient to' support the verdict, the judgment of the trial court must be affirmed.

*Judgment affirmed.*

Nichols, *P. J., and Franhum, J., concur.*
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

October 5, 2006

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-40285

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JORGE SOROSA-SANCHEZ,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 7:05-CR-788-1

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

Before JONES, Chief Judge, and SMITH and STEWART, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Jorge SorosaSanchez raises arguments that are foreclosed by United States v.

Garcia-Mendez, 420 F.3d 454 (5th Cir. 2005), cert. denied, 126

S. Ct. 1398 (2006), which held that a Texas conviction for

burglary of a habitation was equivalent to burglary of a

dwelling, and by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S.

224, 235 (1998), which held that 8 U.S.C. 1326(b)(2) is a penalty

provision and not a separate criminal offense. The Government’s
No. 06-40285

-2-

motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the

district court is AFFIRMED.
(logo) Rialto CAPITAL

 

 

**2016 Annual Statement of Servicer Compliance (Item 1123)**

 

 

Pooling and Servicing Agreement (the “Pooling and ServicingAgreement”) dated as of  August 1, 2015  by and among Wells FargoCommercial Mortgage Securities, Inc., as Depositor, Wells Fargo Bank, NationalAssociation as Master Servicer, Rialto Capital Advisors, LLC as SpecialServicer, TriMont Real Estate Advisors, Inc. as Trust Advisor, Wells Fargo Bank,National Association as Certificate Administrator, as Tax Administrator and asCustodian, and Wilmington Trust, National Association as Trustee relating tothe Wells Fargo Commercial Mortgage Trust 2015-SG1, Commercial MortgagePass-Through Certificates, Series 2015-SG1 **(WFCM 2015-SG1)**

 

 

The undersigned, a duly authorized officer of Rialto CapitalAdvisors, LLC, as special servicer (the “Special Servicer”) herein certifies tothe following:

 

1. All servicing activities and performance of suchservicing activities under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement are performed onbehalf of the Special Servicer.

 

2. A review of the servicing activities and performance bythe Special Servicer for the period of January 1, 2016 to December 31, 2016(the “Reporting Period”) in accordance with the Pooling and Servicing Agreementhas been conducted under my supervision

 

3. To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, theSpecial Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the terms of thePooling and Servicing Agreement, in all material respects for the ReportingPeriod and if there has been a failure to fulfill any such obligations in anymaterial respect, each failure and the nature and status thereof has beenspecifically identified herein.

 

 

Certified by: /s/ Adam Singer

Adam Singer, Managing Director

 

 

Date: March 1, 2017
### T E X A S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S , T H I R D D I S T R I C T , A T A U S T I N NO. 03-14-00568- CV In re Ryan O’Quin n And ers ORI GINAL P ROCEEDI NG F ROM F AY ETTE COUNTY M E M O R AN D U M O P I N I O N We deny Relator’s petition for writ of mandamus challeng ing the transfe r order and dismiss , as moot, Relator’s re quest for e merg ency relief . See Tex. R. App. P . 52.8.

__________________________________________ Bob Pembe rton, J ustice Be fore J ustices Pury ear , Pemberton, and F ield Filed: September

8, 2014
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of the Treasury

###### Internal Revenue Service 

# AGENCY:

Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury. 

# ACTION:

Notice of meeting.

# SUMMARY:

An open meeting of the Area 2 Taxpayer Advocacy Panel will be conducted. The Taxpayer Advocacy Panel is soliciting public comments, ideas, and suggestions on improving customer service at the Internal Revenue Service. 

# DATES:

The meeting will be held Wednesday, September 16, 2009. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Marianne Ayala at 1-888-912-1227 or 954-423-7978. 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    Notice is hereby given pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) that an open meeting of the Area 2 Taxpayer Advocacy Panel will be held Wednesday, September 16, 2009, at 2:30 p.m. Eastern Time via telephone conference. The public is invited to make oral comments or submit written statements for consideration. Due to limited conference lines, notification of intent to participate must be made with Marianne Ayala. For more information please contact Mrs. Ayala at 1-888-912-1227 or 954-423-7978, or write TAP Office, 1000 South Pine Island Road, Suite 340, Plantation, FL 33324, or post comments to the Web site:                     *http://www.improveirs.org.*

The agenda will include various IRS issues. 

Dated: July 30, 2009. 

Shawn F. Collins, 

Acting Director, Taxpayer Advocacy Panel.

[FR Doc. E9-18776 Filed 8-5-09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
| (logo) WELLS FARGO | **Corporate Trust Services**MAC R1204-0109062 Old Annapolis RoadColumbia, MD 21045Tel: 410 884 2000 Fax: 410 715 2380 |
|--------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

Wells Fargo Commercial Mortgage Securities, Inc.

375 PARK AVE FL 2

Wells Fargo Securities, LLC

NEW YORK, New York 10152-0002

 

 

RE: Annual Statement of Compliance for Wells Fargo Commercial Mortgage Securities, Inc., Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2015- NXS3

 

Per the Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of October 1, 2015 (the "Agreement"), the undersigned, a duly authorized officer of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as Certificate Administrator (''Wells Fargo"), hereby certifies as follows as of and for the year ending December 31, 2015 (the "Reporting Period"):

 

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

 

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

 

 

February 25, 2016

/s/ BRIAN SMITH

BRIAN SMITH

Vice President

 

 

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
39500.

#### CUMMINGS v. THE STATE.

Decided May 17, 1962

Rehearing denied May 30, 1962.

*119
      *A. Russell Ross,*for plaintiff in error.

*Albert D. Mullís, Solicitor General,*contra.

Nichols, Presiding Judge.

The defendant contends that the trial court erred in admitting in evidence, over objection, testimony of the arresting officers that they found on the premises of the defendant’s business, a restaurant, more than the legal quantity of tax-paid liquor because such evidence was discovered as the result of an illegal search and seizure. “An admission of the accused in open court, made as a part of his statement on the trial, may be treated by the jury as direct evidence of that fact.” *Hargroves v. State,*179 Ga. 722 (4) (177 SE 561). In his unsworn statement to the jury the defendant stated that it was true that the officers found the whisky on the shelf behind the counter in his cafe, but only a part of it, less than two pints, was his. Such statement admitted that more than the legal quantity of distilled, vinous and alcoholic liquors and beverages was in the defendant’s cafe and the admission of the testimony objected to, if error, was not harmful, for where a defendant in his statement admits certain facts as being true the admission of illegal evidence over proper objection of the same facts is not harmful error. See *Gatlin v. State,*18 Ga. App. 9 (89 SE 345); *Shields v. State,*22 Ga. App. 618 (3) (97 SE 90); *Brannan v. State,*43 Ga. App. 231, 233 (158 SE 355); *Mayes v. State,*108 Ga. 787 (33 SE 811).

“Whether or not the defendant presented sufficient evidence to rebut the inference arising from the finding of the liquor in his place of business was a question for the jury.” *Kent v. State,*105 Ga. App. 312, 314 (124 SE2d 296). The evidence authorized the verdict, and the trial court did not err in overruling the defendant’s amended motion for new trial.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Frankum and Jordan, JJ., concur.*