alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Cement

LAFARGE NORTH AMERICA INC. 12950 Worldgate Dr. Suite 500, Herndon, VA 20170 (703)480-3600 June 15, 2010

Ms. Charlene Spells Natural Resource and Commerce Group Sector Policies and Programs Division (E-143-03) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Research Triangle Park, NC 27711

Re: Request for Extension to the Comment Perio d for Proposed CISWI Rule

Dear Ms. Spells

Lafarge North America (Lafarge) is requesting an ex tension to the proposed rule entitled “Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources and Emission Guidelines for Existing Sources: Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration Units; Prop osed Rule” which as published in the Federal Regist er on Friday, June 4, 2010.

Lafarge is aware that EPA has extended the proposed comment period from 45 days to 60 days in a subsequent Federal Register notification. However, 60 days is still not ample time to adequately revi ew a rulemaking with such far-reaching effects to Lafarg e, the entire cement industry, and several other impacted industries. EPA has been working on devel oping this rulemaking since the 2007 vacatur of the 2005 rule. In this period, EPA has had the opportu nity to evaluate a significant volume of informatio n that went into its reasoning for developing this pr oposal. To provide the public only 60 days to revi ew all of the information that EPA evaluated for nearl y 3 years, and prepare relevant comments does not seem appropriate or reasonable.

In addition to this rulemaking, Lafarge and the cem ent industry is actively working on several other r ules underway at EPA. The resources necessary to manage and coordinate the comments and data collection obligations for these rules is enormous. Therefore , Lafarge requests that EPA extend the current 60-d ay comment period to at least 90 days to allow for a r easonable time to properly assess this rulemaking.

Thank you for considering our views on this matter. If you have any questions, please contact me at (816) 251-2122 or by e-mail at michael.pelan@lafarge-na.com

.

Respectfully,

Michael L. Pelan Regional Environmental Manager Lafarge North America – Cement Division
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-1759

WAKE COUNTY HUMAN SERVICES,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

WILLIAM SCOTT DAVIS, JR.,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, 

District Judge. (5:12-cv-00413-BO)

Submitted: November 19, 2013 Decided: November 21, 2013

Before WYNN and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William Scott Davis, II, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

William Scott Davis, Jr., appeals the district court’s 

order dismissing, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, two

motions to stay and a motion to file an amended complaint. We 

have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. As the 

district court observed, the underlying proceeding has been 

remanded to state court. This court has dismissed Davis’ appeal 

of the order of remand. Wake Cnty. Human Servs. v. Davis, No. 

13-1066, 2013 WL 3186471 (4th Cir. June 25, 2013) (unpublished). 

Therefore, the district court properly dismissed the motions at 

issue in this appeal, and we affirm the challenged order. We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

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

 

 

RE: Annual Statement of Compliance for MAD 2015-11MD Mortgage Trust Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates

 

Per the Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of September 6, 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 29, 2016

 

 

/s/ Brian Smith

BRIAN SMITH

Vice President

 /s/ Jeffrey Coletta

Jeffrey Coletta

Assistant Secretary

 

 

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
§ 31.3306(r)(2)-1 Treatment of amounts deferred under certain nonqualified deferred compensation plans. ( a ) *In general.* Section 3306(r)(2) provides a special timing rule for the tax imposed by section 3301 with respect to any amount deferred under a nonqualified deferred compensation plan. Section 31.3121(v)(2)-1 contains rules relating to when amounts deferred under certain nonqualified deferred compensation plans are wages for purposes of sections 3121(v)(2), 3101, and 3111. The rules in § 31.3121(v)(2)-1 also apply to the special timing rule of section 3306(r)(2). For purposes of applying the rules in § 31.3121(v)(2)-1 to section 3306(r)(2) and this paragraph (a), references to the Federal Insurance Contributions Act are considered references to the Federal Unemployment Tax Act (26 U.S.C. 3301 *et seq.*), references to FICA are considered references to FUTA, references to section 3101 or 3111 are considered references to section 3301, references to section 3121(v)(2) are considered references to section 3306(r)(2), references to section 3121(a), (a)(5), and (a)(13) are considered references to section 3306(b), (b)(5), and (b)(10), respectively, and references to § 31.3121(a)-2(a) are considered references to § 31.3301-4.
( b ) *Effective dates and transition rules.* Except as otherwise provided, section 3306(r)(2) applies to remuneration paid after December 31, 1984. Section 31.3121(v)(2)-2 contains effective date rules for certain remuneration paid after December 31, 1983, for purposes of section 3121(v)(2). The rules in § 31.3121(v)(2)-2 also apply to section 3306(r)(2). For purposes of applying the rules in § 31.3121(v)(2)-2 to section 3306(r)(2) and this paragraph (b), references to section 3121(v)(2) are considered references to section 3306(r)(2), and references to section 3121(a)(2), (a)(3), or (a)(13) are considered references to section 3306(b)(2), (b)(3), or (b)(10), respectively. In addition, references to § 31.3121(v)(2)-1 are considered references to paragraph (a) of this section. For purposes of applying the rules of § 31.3121(v)(2)-2 to this paragraph (b)— ( 1 ) References to “December 31, 1983” are considered references to “December 31, 1984”;
( 2 ) References to “before 1984” are considered references to “before 1985”;
( 3 ) References to “Federal Insurance Contributions Act” are considered references to “Federal Unemployment Tax Act”; and
( 4 ) References to “FICA” are considered references to “FUTA”.
[64 FR 4541, Jan. 29, 1999]
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 Interior

###### Bureau of Land Management

          - [ES-930-1310-FI; ARES 52370]

# AGENCY:

Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

# ACTION:

Notice of Reinstatement of Terminated Oil and Gas Lease.

# SUMMARY:

Under the provisions of Public Law 97-451, the Bureau of Land Management-Eastern States (BLM-ES) received a petition for reinstatement of oil and gas lease ARES 52370 from SEECO, Inc. for lands in Polk County, Arkansas. The petition was filed on time and was accompanied by all the rentals due since the date the lease terminated under the law.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Robyn Shoop, Supervisory Land Law Examiner, BLM-ES, 7450 Boston Boulevard, Springfield, Virginia, at (703) 440-1512.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    No valid lease has been issued affecting these lands. The lessee has agreed to the new lease terms for rental and royalties at rates of $5.00 per acre or fraction thereof, per year, and 16                    2/3                     percent, respectively. The lessee has paid the required $500.00 administrative fee and $163.00 to reimburse the BLM for the cost of publishing this Notice in the                     **Federal Register**                    . The lessee has met all the requirements for reinstatement as set out in Sections 31(d) and (e) of the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (30 U.S.C. 188), and the BLM is proposing to reinstate the lease effective December 1, 2008, under the original terms and conditions of the lease and the increased rental and royalty rates cited above.                

Robyn Shoop,

Supervisory, Land Law Examiner, Division of Natural Resources.

[FR Doc. E9-18715 Filed 8-4-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE P
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Miguel Ramirez, Appellant.

[805 NYS2d 617]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (Calabrese, J.), rendered April 27, 2001, convicting him of gang assault in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

*501Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant was not deprived of a fair trial due to the admission of testimony regarding a codefendant’s gang membership since the evidence was relevant to motive and intent, and explained the sequence of events and the relationship between the codefendant and two other assailants *(see People v Newby,*291 AD2d 460 [2002]; *People v Herrera,*287 AD2d 579 [2001]). Although the record did not clearly demonstrate that the defendant was a gang member, the testimony’s probative value outweighed its potential prejudice, and the trial court alleviated any prejudice to the defendant by providing appropriate curative instructions to the jury *(see People v Newby, supra).*

Nor was the defendant deprived of a fair trial due to a prejudicial comment made by a venireperson, or any prosecutorial misconduct during summation. The court took appropriate measures to alleviate any prejudice to the defendant from the comment of a venireperson regarding gangs, and there is no evidence that the remark tainted the remaining jury panel so as to deprive the defendant of a fair trial *(see People v Cruz,*292 AD2d 175 [2002]; *People v Singleton,*226 AD2d 565 [1996]).

Whether the defendant was associated with the MS-13 gang was a legitimate issue in the case *(see People v Ashwal,*39 NY2d 105 [1976]), and the prosecutor’s comments during summation were fairly inferable from the evidence admitted at trial *(see People v Watkins,*6 AD3d 734 [2004]). The evidence of the defendant’s uncharged, but concurrent, assault of the complainant’s friend was inextricably interwoven into the narrative of events, and the tried court’s instructions clearly indicated that the indictment was based on the assault of the complainant only *(see People v Cham,*259 AD2d 492 [1999]).

Upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence *(see*CPL 470.15 [5]).

The sentence imposed was not excessive *(see People v Suitte,*90 AD2d 80, 88 [1982]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Prudenti, P.J., H. Miller, Spolzino and Lunn, JJ., concur.
Summary Employment Arrangement - M. Childers


     

    Exhibit
      10(k)

     

    
      Mike
        Childers 

      Employment
        Arrangements 

       

      Since
        March 13, 2006, TXU Corp. (the “Company”) has employed Mike Childers as Chief
        Executive Officer, Generation Development on an at-will employee basis. The
        Company pays Mr. Childers an annual salary equal to $400,000, and
        Mr. Childers is eligible to participate in all compensation and benefit
        plans of the Company in which similarly situated executives are eligible
        to
        participate, which currently include the TXU Corp. Executive Annual Incentive
        Plan, the TXU Corp. 2005 Omnibus Incentive Plan, the TXU Corp. Salary Deferral
        Plan, the TXU Executive Financial Advisement Program, the Executive Physical
        Examination Program, the TXU Second Supplemental Retirement Plan, the TXU
        Corp.
        Executive Change in Control Policy and the TXU Corp. 2005 Executive Severance
        Plan. Assuming Mr. Childers is employed with the Company on the date 2007
        awards
        are granted pursuant to the 2005 Omnibus Incentive Plan, the award to be
        granted
        to Mr. Childers will have a face value equal to not less than 165% of his
        base
        salary, based on the share price of the Company’s common stock at the time of
        grant.
No. 76-6477.

#### Sturdevant *v.*Wisconsin.

Sup. Ct. Wis. Certiorari denied.
§ 41.6011(a)-1 Returns. ( a ) *In general.* ( 1 ) A person that is liable for tax under § 41.4481-2(a)(1)(i)(A), (B), or (C) must file a return for the taxable period with respect to the tax imposed by section 4481.
( 2 ) A person that is liable for tax under § 41.4481-2(a)(1)(i)(D) must file a return for a taxable period with respect to the tax imposed by section 4481 if the Commissioner notifies the person that the tax for the taxable period has not been paid in full.
( 3 ) A transferee of a vehicle that receives a statement described in the first sentence of § 41.4483-3(f) must file a return with the statement attached.
( 4 ) A person that is liable for tax under § 41.4481-2(a)(1)(i)(A), (B), (C), or (D), after taking into account the modification required under § 41.4481-2(a)(2), is treated as liable for tax by the same provision of § 41.4481-2(a)(1)(i) for purposes of this section and must file a return.
( b ) *Form 2290.* The return required under paragraph (a) of this section is Form 2290, “Heavy Highway Vehicle Use Tax Return,” or such other return as the Commissioner may prescribe. The return is made in accordance with the instructions applicable to the form.
( c ) *Required use of electronic filing* — ( 1 ) *In general.* A person that files any return reporting 25 or more vehicles must file the return electronically, as prescribed by the Commissioner. For this purpose, the number of vehicles reported on a return is the total number of vehicles for which tax is reported and does not include vehicles for which a suspension of tax is claimed.
( 2 ) *Examples.* The application of this paragraph (c) may be illustrated by the following examples: Example 1. A has 100 vehicles registered in its name, all of which have a taxable gross weight in excess of 55,000 pounds. Seventy-five of the vehicles are in use on July 1. Twenty-five are in dead storage as described in § 41.4482(c)-1(c). The vehicles in dead storage are not in use and they are not listed on the Schedule 1. A files Form 2290 electronically for the 75 vehicles in use on July 1 and receives a receipted Schedule 1. On August 23 of the same calendar year, A uses the remaining 25 vehicles. A does not file Form 2290 electronically but uses a paper Form 2290. A has failed to meet the requirements of section 4481(e) for the remaining 25 vehicles.
Example 2. Assume the same facts as in *Example* 1 except that on August 23, A uses 15 of the vehicles that were not used in July. The remaining 10 vehicles are not used in August. A does not file Form 2290 electronically but uses a paper Form 2290. A has correctly filed a return as required by section 4481(e).
( d ) *Effective/applicability date.* Paragraphs (a)(4) and (c) of this section apply to returns filed on and after July 1, 2015. For rules applicable before that date, see 26 CFR 41.6011(a)-1 (revised as of April 1, 2014).
[T.D. 8879, 65 FR 17154, Mar. 31, 2000, as amended by T.D. 9698, 79 FR 64317, Oct. 29, 2014]
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MARLON BLACHER,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

S. JOHNSON, Chief Deputy Warden; R.

DAVIS, Appeals Examiner,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 14-15586

D.C. No. 1:12-cv-01159-GSA

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of California

Gary S. Austin, Magistrate Judge, Presiding** 

Submitted May 24, 2016*** 

Before: REINHARDT, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges. 

Marlon Blacher, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district

court’s judgment dismissing for failure to exhaust administrative remedies his 42

FILED

JUN 02 2016

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

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

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

 ** The parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. See 28

U.S.C. § 636(c).

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

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional violations arising out of prison strip

searches. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo,

Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d 1162, 1171 (9th Cir. 2014) (en banc), and we vacate and

remand.

The district court dismissed Blacher’s action because it found that Blacher

did not complete the “administrative review process in accordance with the

applicable procedural rules” and thus failed to exhaust properly. Jones v. Bock,

549 U.S. 199, 218 (2007) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). 

However, we recently held that “a prisoner exhausts such administrative remedies

as are available, under the PLRA despite failing to comply with a procedural rule if

prison officials ignore the procedural problem and render a decision on the merits

of the grievance at each available step of the administrative process.” Reyes v.

Smith, 810 F.3d 654, 658 (9th Cir. 2016) (citation and internal quotation marks

omitted). Therefore, although Blacher did not comply with prison regulations, his

administrative appeals alleging unreasonable searches and a failure to remedy the

problem received a response at the third and final level informing him that his

administrative remedies were exhausted. Accordingly, we vacate and remand for

further proceedings. 

VACATED and REMANDED.

2 14-15586
§ 44.6071-1 Time for filing return. ( a ) *Return on Form 730.* Each return required to be made on Form 730 pursuant to § 44.6011(a)-1 shall be filed on or before the last day of the first calendar month following the period for which it is made. For provisions relating to the time for filing a return when the prescribed due date falls on Saturday, Sunday, or a legal holiday, see the provisions of the Regulations on Procedure and Administration (part 301 of this chapter) under section 7503.
( b ) *Return on Form 11C.* ( 1 ) The first return required to be made on Form 11-C shall be filed to cover the period beginning with the first day of the calendar month in which a person engages (or expects to engage) in activities which make him liable for the special tax imposed by section 4411 and ending with the following June 30. Thereafter, each return required to be made on Form 11-C shall be filed on or before July 1 to cover a 1-year period (beginning July 1 and ending June 30 of the following calendar year) during which taxable activity continues.
( 2 ) For additional provisions relating to the return on Form 11-C, see § 44.4412-1 and §§ 44.4901-1 to 44.4905-3, inclusive.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Nelson Cruz, Appellant.

[805 NYS2d 93]

Appeal by the defendant, by permission, from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Kreindler, J.), dated March 5, 2003, which denied, without a hearing, his motion pursuant to CPL 440.10 to vacate a judgment of the same court rendered March 12, 1999, convicting him of murder in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the order is affirmed.

The Supreme Court properly exercised its discretion in denying, without a hearing, the defendant’s motion to vacate a judgment of conviction. Not only did the defendant fail to make a showing of due diligence with respect to his claim of newly discovered evidence, but the evidence was not such that it would probably change the result in the event a new trial was granted *(see People v Salemi,*309 NY 208, 216 [1955], *cert denied*350 US 950 [1956]; *People v Cabrera,*1 AD3d 375 [2003]; *People v Latella,*112 AD2d 321 [1985]).

Further, the defendant was provided with meaningful representation *(see People v Benevento,*91 NY2d 708 [1998]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit *(see*CPL 440.10 [2] [c]; *see also People v Favor,*82 NY2d 254, 260-261 [1993]). Florio, J.P., Krausman, Skelos and Covello, JJ., concur.
| (logo) WELLS FARGO | **CMBS Department**

 

MAC N9401-011

1055 10th Avenue SE

Minneapolis, MN 55414 |
|--------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

Morgan Stanley Capital I Inc. 

1585 BROADWAY

NEW YORK, New York 10036-8200

 

RE: Annual Statement of Compliancefor Morgan Stanley Bank of America Merrill Lynch Trust 2016-C31, CommercialMortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2016-C31

 

Per the Pooling and ServicingAgreement dated as of November 1, 2016 (the “Agreement”), theundersigned, a duly authorized officer of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as Custodian(“Wells Fargo”), hereby certifies as follows as of and for the yearending December 31, 2016 (the “Reporting Period”):

 

(a) A review of WellsFargo’s activities during the Reporting Period and of its performanceunder the Agreement has been made under such officer’s supervision; and

 

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

 

 

February 27, 2017

 

/s/ Gail Vannest

GAIL VANNEST

Vice President

 

 

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.