alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 94-6576
LEONARD PHILLIPS, Petitioner - Appellant, versus GEORGE TRENT, Warden, West Virginia Penitentiary, Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston. Charles H. Haden II, Chief District Judge. (CA-94-15-2) Submitted: January 18, 1996 Decided: January 31, 1996 Before HAMILTON and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Leonard Phillips, Appellant Pro Se. Jacquelyn Irwin Custer, Darrell V. McGraw, Jr., OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WEST VIRGINIA, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1988) petition. We have reviewedthe record and the district court's opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of probable cause to appeal and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Phillips v. Trent , No. CA-94-15-2 (S.D.W. Va. May 2, 1994). We dispense withoral 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
III

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. CON. RES. 141

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

FEBRUARY 1, 1996

Received

FEBRUARY 27 (legislative day, FEBRUARY 23), 1996

Referred to the Committee on Appropriations

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Providing for the adjournment of the two Houses.

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring), That when the House adjourns on the legisla3 tive day of Thursday, February 1, 1996, it stand ad4 journed until 12:30 p.m. on Monday, February 26, 1996,

5 or until noon on the second day after Members are notified

6 to reassemble pursuant to section 2 of this concurrent res7 olution, whichever occurs first; and that when the Senate

8 recesses or adjourns at the close of business on Thursday,

9 February 1, 1996, Tuesday, February 6, 1996, Wednes10 day, February, 7, 1996, Thursday, February 8, 1996,

11 Tuesday, February 13, 1996, Wednesday, February 14,

12 1996, or Thursday, February 15, 1996, pursuant to a mo-
2

HCON 141 RFS

1 tion made by the Majority Leader or his designee in ac2 cordance with this resolution, it stand recessed or ad3 journed until 3 p.m. on Monday, February 26, 1996, or

4 until noon on the second day after Members are notified

5 to reassemble pursuant to section 2 of this concurrent res6 olution, whichever occurs first.

7 SEC. 2. The Speaker of the House and the Majority

8 Leader of the Senate, acting jointly after consultation with

9 the Minority Leader of the House and the Minority Lead10 er of the Senate, shall notify the Members of the House

11 and Senate, respectively, to reassemble whenever, in their

12 opinion, the public interst shall warrant it.

Passed the House of Representatives February 1,

1996.

Attest: ROBIN H. CARLE,

Clerk.

By LINDA NAVE,

Deputy Clerk.
(logo) usbank®

 

Global Corporate Trust

60 Livingston Avenue 

EP-MN-WS3D

Saint Paul, MN 55107 

 

usbank.com

 

 

**Annual Statement of Compliance**

**Morgan Stanley Bank of America Merrill Lynch Trust 2015-C25**

 

 

*VIA: EMAIL*

 

Banc of America Merrill Lynch CommercialMortgage Inc.

One Bryant Park

New York, New York 10036

Attention: Leland F. Bunch, III

leland.f.bunch@baml.com 

 

Morgan Stanley Capital I, Inc.

1585 Broadway

New York, New York 10020 

Attention: Jane Lam

jane.lam@morganstanley.com

 

Eightfold Real Estate Capital,L.P.

1111 Lincoln Road, Suite 802

Miami Beach, Florida 33139

Attention: Brian Tageson

btageson@eightfoldcapital.com 

 

17g5informationprovider@usbank.com

 

 

Re:                           Poolingand Servicing Agreement dated as of October 1, 2015 (the "Agreement")between Banc of America Merrill Lynch Commercial Mortgage Inc., as Depositor,Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as Master Servicer, Midland LoanServices, a Division of PNC Bank, National Association, as Special Servicer,Pentalpha Surveillance LLC, as Trust Advisor and U.S. Bank NationalAssociation, as Trustee, Certificate Administrator, Certificate Registrar, AuthenticatingAgent and Custodian.

 

I, Thomas C. Campbell, aSenior Vice President of U.S. Bank National Association, as Custodian, as acertifying servicer hereby certify that:

 

(1)           A review of theactivities of the Custodian during the preceding calendar year (the"Reporting Period") and of the performance of the Custodian under theAgreement has been made under my supervision; and

 

(2)           To the best ofmy knowledge, based on such review, the Custodian has fulfilled all itsobligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout suchReporting Period.

 

Capitalized terms used but notdefined herein have the meanings set forth in the Agreement.

 

Date: March 1st, 2020

 

 

U.S. Bank National Association,as Custodian

 

 

By: /s/ Thomas C. Campbell

Thomas C. Campbell 

Senior Vice President

 

 

**Morgan Stanley Bank of America Merrill Lynch Trust 2015-C25**

Annual Statement of Compliance
Exhibit 10.33.2 Exec. Def. Comp. Amend 2


Exhibit 10.33.2




AMENDMENT NO. 3 

TO

SPECIAL SEVERANCE PROGRAM FOR OFFICERS OF 

NORTHEAST UTILITIES SYSTEM COMPANIES







The Special Severance Program for Officers of Northeast Utilities System Companies (the “Plan”), is hereby amended, effective September 12, 2006, as follows:




Article VIII, Subsection (a) of the Plan is amended to read in its entirety as follows:




“(a)

Amendment or Termination.  Prior to the occurrence of a Change of Control, the Board or the Compensation Committee of the Board may amend or discontinue this Program at any time upon providing prior written notice to each Participant specifying the changes to be made.  Any amendment will not be effective until at least two years following such notice, except in the case of an amendment that does not materially impact the timing or amount of benefit provided or is required under statute, regulation, other law, or rule of a governing or administrative body having the effect of a statute or regulation.  Upon and following a Change of Control, this Program may not be amended or terminated in any way that would eliminate or reduce the payments and benefits owing to Participants under the Program.”
§ 25.6696-1 Claims for credit or refund by tax return preparers. ( a ) *In general.* For rules for claims for credit or refund by a tax return preparer who prepared a return or claim for refund for gift tax under chapter 12 of subtitle B of the Internal Revenue Code, or by an appraiser that prepared an appraisal in connection with such a return or claim for refund under section 6695A, the rules under § 1.6696-1 of this chapter will apply.
( b ) *Effective/applicability date.* This section is applicable to returns and claims for refund filed, and advice provided, after December 31, 2008.
[T.D. 9436, 73 FR 78452, Dec. 22, 2008]
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without **

oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

LA/Research

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

SATNAM SINGH, aka Lakhwinder Singh,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 07-70066

Agency No. A075-251-955

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted November 17, 2009** 

Before: ALARCÓN, TROTT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.

Satnam Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board

of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration

judge’s decision denying his motion to reopen proceedings conducted in absentia. 

FILED

DEC 07 2009

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
LA/Research 2 07-70066

Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of

discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. Salta v. INS, 314 F.3d 1076, 1078 (9th

Cir. 2002). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Singh’s motion to reopen

because Singh filed the motion almost nine years after his removal order and failed

to submit evidence of the bona fides of his marriage or evidence of a pending visa

petition. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b); see also Malhi v. INS, 336 F.3d 989, 993-95

(9th Cir. 2003) (upholding denial of motion to reopen where alien failed to

demonstrate prima facie case of bona fide marriage).

The agency did not abuse its discretion in concluding Singh failed to

demonstrate that personal service of the Order to Show Cause provided him

insufficient notice of his hearing. See Khan v. Ashcroft, 374 F.3d 825, 829 (9th

Cir. 2004) (notice in English is “reasonably calculated to reach and to inform

[petitioner] within the meaning of the Due Process Clause”); see also Matter of

Hernandez, 21 I. & N. Dec. 224, 226-27 (BIA 1996). 

In his opening brief, Singh fails to address, and therefore has waived any

challenge to, the agency’s denial of his motion based on changed country

conditions. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996).
LA/Research 3 07-70066

Singh has not established a due process violation. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d

1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2004) (requiring error for petitioner to prevail on a due

process claim).

We lack jurisdiction to review Singh’s contention regarding former 8 C.F.R.

§242.1(c), as he did not exhaust that issue before the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft,

358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004). 

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
39556.

#### WIGGINS v. THE STATE.

Jordan, Judge.

B. L. Wiggins was tried and convicted in the City Court of Millen on an accusation charging him with the possession of an excessive amount of legal whisky in a dry county. Upon the hearing on the defendant’s motion for new trial the solicitor of said court filed a motion to dismiss the motion for new trial on the ground that he had not been served with a copy of the motion and rule nisi. The trial judge entered an order sustaining the motion to dismiss, it being recited in said order that the defendant had offered no reason as to why service was not made. The exception is to that judgment. *Held:*

“A judgment dismissing a motion for new trial, on motion of the respondent made at the time set for hearing, is not an abuse of the trial court’s discretion where there has been no personal service on the respondent or any waiver of such service.’’ *Braziel v. Hunter,*103 Ga. App. 854 (3) (121 SE2d 39); *Webb v. Nobles,*195 Ga. 287 (24 SE2d 27); *Pierce v. State,*52 Ga. App. 10 (182 SE 60). Since the record in this case discloses that at the time set for hearing of the defendant’s motion for new trial, there had been no service of the motion and rule nisi upon the solicitor and no waiver of service by him, it cannot be said that the trial judge abused his discretion in sustaining the motion to dismiss the defendant’s motion for new trial.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Nichols, P. J., and Frankum, J., concur.*

*211Decided June 25, 1962.

*Spivey & Carlton,*for plaintiff in error.

*J. P. Cheney, Solicitor,*contra.
39550.

#### WEAVER v. THE STATE.

Decided June 21, 1962.

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

*Earl B. Self, Solicitor General,*contra.

Nichols, Presiding Judge.

1. “A recent possession of stolen goods, not satisfactorily explained, is an inference of guilt *(Chambers v. State,*68 Ga. App. 338 (3), 23 SE2d 545; *Hunt v. State,*64 Ga. App. 320, 13 SE2d 117; *Lundy v. State,*71 Ga. 360), on a prosecution for burglary.” *Craig v. State,*91 Ga. App. 418 (1) (85 SE2d 777).

2. Various items were allegedly stolen in the burglary, and among such items was a pair of trousers found on the defendant’s bed at the time he was arrested, and while the defendant sought to explain possession of other items identified as having been a part of the property stolen, the jury was not bound to accept such explanation and no explanation was made with reference to the pair of trousers. The verdict was authorized by the evidence and the trial court did not err in overruling the defendant’s motion for new trial on the usual general grounds only.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Frankum and Jordan, JJ., concur.*
April 16, 2015

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

PEDRO BELTRAN BATALLA, Appellant

NO. 14-13-00810-CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

________________________________

This cause was heard on the transcript of the record of the court below. 

Having considered the record, this Court holds that there was no error in the 

judgment. The Court orders the judgment AFFIRMED.

We further order appellant pay all costs expended in the appeal.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JOSE GUADALUPE ROSAS

- ROSAS,

Petitioner,

v.

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General,

Respondent. No. 23

- 1840 Agency No.

A208

- 586

- 937

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted August 22, 2024 **

Portland

, Oregon

Before: WALLACH *** , CHRISTEN, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges

.

Jose Guadalupe Rosas

- Rosas, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for

review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissing an appeal from

* 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).

*** The Honorable Evan J. Wallach

, United States Senior Circuit Judge
for the Federal Circuit , sitting by designation. 

# FILED

AUG 26 2024

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 23

- 1840

an order of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying asylum, withholding of removal,

and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Exercising

jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, we deny the petition.

1. Substantial evidence supports the denial of asylum and withholding

based on Rosas’s failure to demonstrate a nexus between membership in a particular

social group (“PSG”) and any past or feared future harm. Rosas asserted

membership in a PSG of “ Mexican young men who have resisted cartel gang

recruitment, with parents who refuse to pay for their protection,” but conceded that

his father paid the cartel twice

. Moreover, the agency reasonably concluded “that a

person who resists gang recruitment is not a me mber of a cognizable particular social

group.” See Ramos

- Lopez v. Holder , 563 F.3d 855, 860

– 62 (9th Cir. 2009)

(rejecting similar PSG)

, abrogated on other grounds by Henriquez

- Rivas v. Holder

,

707 F.3d 1081, 1093 (9th Cir. 2013) (en banc)

.

2. Substantial evidence also supports the denial of CAT relief. An

applicant seeking CAT relief must demonstrate “that it is more likely than not that

he or she would be tortured if removed,” 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2), “by, or at the

instigation of, or with the consent or acquiescence of, a public official

. . . or other

person acting in an official capacity,” id . § 1208.18(a)(1). Substantial record

evidence supports the IJ’s determination

— rendered after considering all record

evidence

, including expert testimony

— that “the government of Mexico continues to3 23

- 1840

fight against cartels” and would not acquiesce to torture. See Andrade

- Garcia v.

Lynch , 828 F.3d 829, 836 (9th Cir. 2016) (“[G]eneral ineffectiveness on the

government’s part to investigate and prevent crime will not suffice to show

acquiescence.”).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
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 Defense

###### Office of the Secretary

          - [Transmittal Nos. 09-31]

# AGENCY:

Department of Defense, Defense Security Cooperation Agency.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The Department of Defense is publishing the unclassified text of a section 36(b)(1) arms sales notification. This is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated 21 July 1996.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Ms. B. English, DSCA/DBO/CFM, (703) 601-3740.

The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Transmittals 09-31 with attached transmittal and policy justification.

Dated: July 17, 2009.

Patricia L. Toppings,

OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.

      ( print page 39936)    

BILLING CODE 5001-06-M

[FR Doc. E9-18956 Filed 8-7-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 5001-06-C
IV

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. CON. RES. 154

To congratulate the Republic of China on Taiwan on the occasion of its

first Presidential democratic election.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 26, 1996

Mr. FUNDERBURK (for himself, Mr. SMITH of New Jersey, Mr.

SCARBOROUGH, Mr. GRAHAM, Mr. HILLEARY, Mr. JONES, Mr. COX of

California, Mr. FOLEY, Mr. GUTKNECHT, Mrs. CHENOWETH, Mr.

UNDERWOOD, Mr. SALMON, Ms. PELOSI, Mr. BONO, Mr. BURTON of Indiana, Mr. SOLOMON, Ms. BROWN of Florida, Mr. HASTINGS of Washington, Mr. BAKER of California, Mr. POMBO, Mr. COOLEY of Oregon, Mr.

EHRLICH, Mr. COBLE, Mrs. CUBIN, Mr. ISTOOK, Mr. BREWSTER, Mr.

BUYER, and Mr. ROHRABACHER) submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on International Relations

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

To congratulate the Republic of China on Taiwan on the

occasion of its first Presidential democratic election.

Whereas the Chinese people have the world’s oldest continuous civilization;

Whereas for the first time in over 4,000 years of Chinese history, the Chinese people on Taiwan will elect its president

by popular vote on March 23, 1996; and

Whereas this historic event on Taiwan should be honored:

Now, therefore, be it
2

•HCON 154 IH

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring), That—

3 (1) the Congress congratulates the people of

4 Taiwan on holding the first democratic presidential

5 election in Chinese history;

6 (2) the United States continues its commitment

7 to move nations toward freedom and democracy; and

8 (3) the United States is committed to encourag9 ing and protecting its democratic friends on Taiwan,

10 within the framework of the Taiwan Relations Act.

Æ
Rail Vehicles Access Advisory Committee - Meeting #4

(and subcommittee meeting)

September 11 and 12, 2014

Updated Preliminary Agenda (9-10-14 Version)

U.S. Access Board Conference Room

1331 F Street, N.W., suite 800

Washington, DC 20004

Thursday, September 11 (10:00 a.m. – 12:30 p.m.) – Subcommittee Meeting

1. Communications Subcommittee Meeting #8

Thursday, September 11 (12:30 p.m. – 5:00 p.m.) – Advisory Committee Meeting #4

1. Introductions

2. Committee Administrative Matters 

3. Brief Reports on Subcommittee Conference Calls of April through August

4. Review and Comment on Boarding and Alighting Subcommittee Report

5. Review and Comment on Rooms and Spaces Subcommittee Report

6. Public Comment

Friday, September 12 (9:30 a.m. - 3:00 p.m.) – Advisory Committee Meeting#4

1. Continue Review and Comment on Rooms and Spaces Subcommittee Report

2. Review and Comment on On-Board Circulation and Seating Subcommittee 

Report

3. Public Comment

Note: Maybe working lunches both days
ZucKERT ScouTT 

RASENBERGER 

888 Seventeenth Street, Nw, Suite 700 

Washington, DC 20006-3309 

Phone 202.298.8660 

Fax 202.342.0683 

www.zsrlaw.com 

December 5, 2014 

VIA REGULATIONS.GOV AND EMAIL 

Mr. Paul Gretch 

Director, Office of International Aviation 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Ave., SE 

Washington, D.C. 20590 

paul.gretch@dot.gov 

Re: Joint Application of Alitalia- Compagnia Aerea Italiana S.p.A. and 

Alitalia - Societa Aerea Italiana S.p.A. for Exemption and Transfer of 

Foreign Air Carrier Permit and Related Authorization and Motion to 

Shorten Answer Period (Docket DOT-OST-2014-0210); Polling 

Results 

Dear Mr. Gretch: 

Alitalia- Compagnia Aerea Italiana S.p.A. ("Alitalia") and Alitalia- Societa Aerea 

Italiana S.p.A. ("Alitalia Societa") have completed their polling of carrier representatives served 

with the above-captioned Joint Application and Motion to Shorten Answer Period, and have 

confirmed there are no objections to the relief requested therein. The authorities which are the 

subject of the Joint Application are sought in connection with a transaction closing described in 

the Joint Application and scheduled to occur on or about December 31, 2014. Thus, Alitalia and 

Alitalia Societa respectfully ask that their motion be granted as soon as possible to facilitate their 

request for expedited action in this matter and the issuance of the requested authorities. 

cc: Attached service list 

Respectfully submitted, 

Jonathon H. Foglia 

Richard D. Mathias 

David M. Endersbee 

Counsel to ALIT ALIA- COMP AGNIA 

AEREA ITALIANA S.P.A and ALIT ALIA 

- SOCIETA AEREA ITALIANA S.P.A 

Zuckert, Scoutt & Rasenberger, L.L.P. 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that on this, the 5th day of December 2014, I caused a copy of the foregoing 

polling results letter to be served via electronic mail on the parties indicated below: 

rsilverberg@sgbdc.com (Counsel for ABX Air) 

jjohnson@sgbdc.com (Counsel for ABX Air) 

chuck.hill@airtransport.cc 

francis.heil@aa.com 

howard.kass@aa.com 

robert. wirick@aa.com 

jrichardson@johnlrichardson.con1 (Counsel for Amerijet International) 

j canny@amerij et.com 

rpommer@atlasair.com 

john@mietuslaw.com (Counsel for Centurion Air Cargo) 

sascha. vanderbellen@delta.cotn 

sam etta. c. barnett@delta.com 

sllunsford@fedex.com 

sharon.pasley@fedex.com 

gbleopard@fedex.com 

charles.donley@squirepb.com (Counsel for Florida West International Airways) 

matwood@cozen.com (Counsel for Kalitta Air) 

kevin.montgomery@polaraircargo.com 

peter. beckett@polaraircargo. com 

agoerlich@ggh-airlaw.com (Counsel for Southern Air) 

dan. weiss@united.com 

gmurphy@crowell.com (Counsel for United Airlines) 

sseiden@crowell.com (Counsel for United Airlines) 

anita.mosner@hklaw.com (Counsel for United Parcel Service) 

jem1ifer.nowak@hklaw.com (Counsel for United Parcel Service) 

robert.finamore@dot. gov 

jeffrey. gaynes@dot. gov 

paul. gretch@dot. gov 

brian.hedberg@dot. gov 

peter .irvine@dot. gov 

benjamin. taylor@dot. gov 

john.s.duncan@faa. gov 

englets@state. gov 

info@airlineinfo.com
#### § 808.53 [Reserved]