alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
(November 14, 2005)

#### Allstate Insurance Company, Respondent, v James P. Davis, Appellant, et al., Defendants.

[803 NYS2d 923]

*419In a subrogation action, the defendant James E Davis appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Nastasi, J.), entered October 18, 2004, which denied his motion properly denominated as one for leave to renew but incorrectly treated as one for leave to reargue, his prior motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against him.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

“[A] motion for leave to renew must be supported by new or additional facts which, although in existence at the time of a prior motion, were not known to the party seeking renewal, and, consequently, not made known to the court” *(Matter of Brooklyn Welding Corp. v Chin,*236 AD2d 392 [1997]). However, this rule is flexible, and a court has discretion to grant the motion upon facts known to the movant at the time of the original motion where the movant provides a reasonable justification for the failure to submit the additional facts on the original motion *(see Matter of Progressive Northeastern Ins. Co. v Frenkel,*8 AD3d 390, 391 [2004]; *Bloom v Primus Automotive Fin. Servs.,*292 AD2d 410 [2002]).

Although the Supreme Court incorrectly treated the appellant’s motion as one for leave to reargue, as opposed to one for leave to renew, the court nonetheless properly denied the motion. The motion was based upon evidence that, with due diligence, could have been discovered earlier *(see Yarde v New York City Tr. Auth.,*4 AD3d 352, 353 [2004]; *Ford v Lasky,*300 AD2d 536, 537 [2002]). H. Miller, J.P., Cozier, Ritter and Dillon, JJ., concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1051 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.R.1051

                       One Hundred Fourth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE SECOND SESSION

         Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday,
   the third day of January, one thousand nine hundred and ninety-six

                                 An Act

 
 To provide for the extension of certain hydroelectric projects located 
                     in the State of West Virginia.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF DEADLINE.

    (a) In General.--Notwithstanding the time period specified in 
section 13 of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 806) that would 
otherwise apply to Federal Energy Regulatory Commission projects 
numbered 6901 and 6902, the Commission shall, upon the request of the 
licensee for those projects, in accordance with the good faith, due 
diligence, and public interest requirements of that section, the 
Commission's procedures under that section, and the procedures 
specified in that section, extend the time period during which the 
licensee is required to commence construction of those projects so as 
to terminate on October 3, 1999.
    (b) Applicability.--Subsection (a) shall take effect for the 
projects upon the expiration of the extension, issued by the Commission 
under section 13 of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 806), of the 
period required for commencement of construction of the projects.
    (c) Reinstatement of Expired License.--If a license for a project 
described in subsection (a) has expired prior to the date of enactment 
of this Act, the Commission shall reinstate the license effective as of 
the date of its expiration and extend the time required for 
commencement of construction of the project until October 3, 1999.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
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.                  

###### Small Business Administration

# AGENCY:

Small Business Administration.

# ACTION:

Notice of Reporting Requirements Submitted for OMB Review; Correction.

# SUMMARY:

                        The Small Business Administration published a document in the                         **Federal Register**                         of August 7, 2009, concerning Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements. The document contained an incorrect word in the title.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Curtis Rich, 202-205-7030.

## Correction:

                        In the                         **Federal Register**                         of August 7, 2009, FR document E9-18948, Volume 74, Number 151, page 39727, under                         **Supplementary Information**                         “Title” should read:                    

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

*Title:*                     Disaster Home/Business Loan Inquiry Record.                

Dated: August 7, 2009.

Curtis B. Rich,

Acting, Chief Administrative Information Branch.

[FR Doc. E9-19490 Filed 8-13-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
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 Homeland Security

###### U.S. Customs and Border Protection

# AGENCY:

U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security.

# ACTION:

Notice of approval of Intertek USA, Inc., as a commercial gauger.

# SUMMARY:

                        Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to 19 CFR 151.13, Intertek USA, Inc., 354 Fairbanks Street, Valdez, AK 99686, has been approved to gauge petroleum, petroleum products, organic chemicals and vegetable oils for customs purposes, in accordance with the provisions of 19 CFR 151.13. Anyone wishing to employ this entity to conduct gauger services should request and receive written assurances from the entity that it is approved by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection to conduct the specific gauger service requested. Alternatively, inquires regarding the specific gauger service this entity is approved to perform may be directed to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection by calling (202) 344-1060. The inquiry may also be sent to                         *cbp.labhq@dhs.gov.*                         Please reference the Web site listed below for a complete listing of CBP approved gaugers and accredited laboratories.                         *http://cbp.gov/​xp/​cgov/​import/​operations_​support/​labs_​scientific_​svcs/​commercial_​gaugers/​.*

# DATES:

The approval of Intertek USA, Inc., as commercial gauger became effective on May 28, 2009. The next triennial inspection date will be scheduled for May 2012.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Anthony Malana, Laboratories and Scientific Services, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Suite 1500N, Washington, DC 20229, 202-344-1060.

Dated: August 4, 2009.

Ira S. Reese,

Executive Director, Laboratories and Scientific Services.

[FR Doc. E9-19389 Filed 8-12-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 9111-14-P
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 156 (Friday, August 14, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 41173]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-19475]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION


Advisory Committee For Biological Sciences; Notice of Meeting

    In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L., 92-
463, as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the 
following meeting:

    Name: Advisory Committee for Biological Sciences (BIO) 
<greek-i>1110.
    Date and Time: September 10, 2009--8:30 a.m.-5 p.m.,September 
11, 2009--8:30 a.m.-3 p.m.
    Place: National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Blvd., 
Arlington, VA 22230, Room 375.
    Type of Meeting: Open.
    Contact Person: Dr. Joann Roskoski, Executive Officer, 
Biological Sciences, Room 605, National Science Foundation, 4201 
Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22230; Tel No.: (703) 292-8400.
    Minutes: May be obtained from the contact person listed above.
    Purpose of Meeting: The Advisory Committee for BIO provides 
advice, recommendations, and oversight concerning major program 
emphases, directions, and goals for the research-related activities 
of the divisions that make up BIO.
    Agenda:
    <bullet> Assistant Director, BIO reports on the American 
Recovery and Reinvestment Act and FY'09 Budget.
    <bullet> Undergraduate Education in Biology.
    <bullet> Environmental Research and Education Report.
    <bullet> National Ecological Observatory Network Report.

    Dated: August 11, 2009.
Susanne Bolton,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. E9-19475 Filed 8-13-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-P
§ 31.6402(a)-3 Refund of Federal unemployment tax. Any person who pays to the district director more than the correct amount of— ( a ) Tax under section 3301 of the Federal Unemployment Tax Act or a corresponding provision of prior law, or
( b ) Interest, addition to the tax, additional amount, or penalty with respect to such tax,
may file a claim for refund of the overpayment, in the manner and subject to the conditions stated in § 301.6402-2 of this chapter (Regulations on Procedure and Administration). See § 31.6413(d) and the corresponding section of prior law for provisions which bar the allowance or payment of interest on the amount of any refund based on credit allowable for contributions paid under the unemployment compensation law of a State.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

**GAUGHEN LLC,**

**Respondent**

**v.**

**BOROUGH COUNCIL OF THE BOROUGH OF MECHANICSBURG,** 

**Petitioner :** 

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**: No. 81 MAL 2016** 

**Petition for Allowance of Appeal from**

**the Order of the Commonwealth Court**

**GAUGHEN LLC,**

**Respondent**

**v.**

**BOROUGH COUNCIL OF THE BOROUGH OF MECHANCISBURG,** 

**Petitioner :** 

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**: No. 82 MAL 2016** 

**Petition for Allowance of Appeal from**

**the Order of the Commonwealth Court**

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW **, this 10th day of May, 2016, the Petition for Allow ance of Appeal is** 

DENIED

**, and Respondent’s Request for Cost, Fees, and Delay Damag**  **es is**

STRICKEN

**.**
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Joshua J. Nesbitt, Appellant.

[805 NYS2d 138]

Mercure, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Albany County (Herrick, J.), rendered January 29, 2003, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of burglary in the third degree.

Pursuant to a plea agreement, defendant waived indictment, *838waived his right to appeal and pleaded guilty to a superior court information charging him with burglary in the third degree. County Court indicated that defendant would be sentenced to six months incarceration and five years probation, conditioned upon defendant not engaging in any criminal conduct between the date of the plea proceeding and the date of sentencing. Defendant was, however, subsequently charged by indictment with crimes occurring during the relevant period.* Defendant was offered a plea agreement which provided that, upon his plea of guilty to burglary in the second degree in satisfaction of the new charges, he would receive a sentence of lVs to 4 years in prison on the instant conviction and a consecutive sentence of five years in prison on the new charges. Defendant ultimately did not accept the offer and it was withdrawn. Upon defendant’s admission that he had violated the plea agreement, County Court sentenced him to a term of imprisonment of 2 to 6 years. Defendant appeals.

County Court conducted a very thorough plea proceeding, ensuring that defendant was aware of and understood the terms and conditions of the plea agreement as well as each of the rights he was relinquishing by pleading guilty. Defendant’s knowing, voluntary and intelligent guilty plea and waiver of his right to appeal preclude review of his challenge to the severity of the sentence imposed *(see People v King,*20 AD3d 580, 581 [2005], *lv denied*5 NY3d 829 [2005]; *People v Rogers,*15 AD3d 682, 683 [2005]). In any event, given defendant’s knowing violation of the plea agreement and his extensive criminal history, we cannot conclude that the sentence imposed by the court was an abuse of discretion *(see People v King, supra*at 581; *People v Douglas,*2 AD3d 1050, 1051 [2003], *lv denied*2 NY3d 761 [2004]).

Cardona, P.J., Carpinello, Mugglin and Lahtinen, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

*

 Defendant’s challenges to the sentence imposed upon his plea of guilty entered in connection with those crimes and to a sentence imposed in Saratoga County to run concurrently with the sentences imposed in Albany County are also rejected *(People v Nesbitt,*23 AD3d 836 [2005] [decided herewith]; *People v Nesbitt,*23 AD3d 838 [2005] [decided herewith]).
Editorial Note on Part 301
Editorial Note: In the text of this part, integral section references are to sections of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954; decimal section references are to the Code of Federal Regulations. References in the text to the “Code” are references to sections of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954.

§ 301.6361-4 Definitions. For purposes of the regulations in this part under subchapter E of chapter 64 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, relating to collection and administration of State individual income taxes— ( a ) *State agreement.* The term “State agreement” means an agreement between a State and the Federal Government which was entered into pursuant to section 6363 and the regulations thereunder, and which provides for the Federal collection and administration of the qualified tax or taxes of that State.
( b ) *Qualified tax.* The term “qualified tax” means a tax which is a “qualified State individual income tax”, as defined in section 6362 (including subsection (f)(1) thereof, which requires that a State agreement be in effect) and the regulations thereunder.
( c ) *Chapters and subtitles.* References in regulations in this part under subchapter E to chapters and subtitles are to chapters and subtitles of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, unless otherwise indicated.
( d ) *Subchapter E.* The term “subchapter E” means subchapter E of chapter 64 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, relating to collection and administration of State individual income taxes, as amended from time to time.
[T.D. 7577, 43 FR 59365, Dec. 20, 1978]
(logo)Rialto 

         CAPITAL

 

 

**2017 AnnualStatement of Servicer Compliance (Item 1123)**

 

Poolingand Servicing Agreement (the “Pooling and Servicing Agreement”) dated as of April1, 2017 by and among Wells Fargo Commercial Mortgage Securities, Inc. asDepositor, Wells Fargo Bank, National Association as Master Servicer, RialtoCapital Advisors, LLC as Special Servicer, Pentalpha Surveillance LLC asOperating Advisor and Asset Representations Reviewer, Wells Fargo Bank,National Association as Certificate Administrator and Wilmington Bank, NationalAssociation as Trustee relating to the BANK 2017-BNK4, Commercial MortgagePass-Through Certificates, Series 2017-BNK4 **(BANK 2017-BNK4)**

 

Theundersigned, a duly authorized officer of Rialto Capital Advisors, LLC, asspecial servicer (the “Special Servicer”) herein certifies to the following:

 

1.     Allservicing activities and performance of such servicing activities under thePooling and Servicing Agreement are performed on behalf of the SpecialServicer.

 

2.     Areview of the servicing activities and performance by the Special Servicer forthe period of April 19, 2017 to December 31, 2017 (the “Reporting Period”) inaccordance with the Pooling and Servicing Agreement has been conducted under mysupervision.

 

3.     Tothe best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Special Servicer hasfulfilled all of its obligations under the terms of the Pooling and ServicingAgreement, in all material respects for the Reporting Period and if there hasbeen a failure to fulfill any such obligations in any material respect, eachfailure and the nature and status thereof has been specifically identifiedherein.

 

 

Certifiedby: /s/ AdamSinger                                                     Date: March 1, 2018

                     AdamSinger, Managing Director
p.1 

OAR Box 1313 

Prepped by LaTeia Shed 

Document Number: 

2) l-A-1 

Docket Number: 

A-88-02 

Printed 6/12/2008 9:03:27 AM Sheet 2 of 99 
P.2 

A-88-02 

Information on health or risk assessment was removed from the 

docket. This information was compiled before the Clean Air 

Act Amendments (1990) but was not used in the development of 

the chromium NESHAP. 

PT%iii-%Jk 

• A ..-^44~~*~~- . , • \ I l 

•s I " ' 

MZi w\*m p] 

1

 w^mSassz
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000857353
<NAME> IRWIN NATURALS/4HEALTH, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                             771
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    2,813
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     25,778
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 7,904
<PP&E>                                           2,371
<DEPRECIATION>                                     177
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  10,958
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            3,813
<BONDS>                                          1,282
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           278
<OTHER-SE>                                       5,586
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    10,958
<SALES>                                          7,013
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 7,013
<CGS>                                            3,572
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    8,205
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    27
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  42
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,219)
<INCOME-TAX>                                      (45)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,174)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,174)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.04)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.04)
        

</TABLE>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Neil M. Feeley, Appellant.

[807 NYS2d 754]

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Russell E Buscaglia, A.J.), rendered April 7, 2004. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of criminal contempt in the first degree and aggravated harassment in the second degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him following a jury trial of criminal contempt in the first degree (Penal Law § 215.51 [b] [iii]) and aggravated harassment in the second degree (§ 240.30 [1]) arising from evidence that he, inter alia, left an anonymous telephone message in which he threatened physical harm to the complainant in violation of an order of protection. We reject the contention of defendant that he was denied effective assistance of counsel because defense counsel did not present expert voice identification testimony that would have exonerated him. Defendant failed to demonstrate that any such expert voice identification testimony would have been favorable to him and thus has failed to demonstrate that he was *1131prejudiced by the alleged failure of defense counsel to present such testimony (see *generally People v Clark,*6 AD3d 1066 [2004], *lv denied*3 NY3d 638 [2004]; *People v Jurgensen,*288 AD2d 937, 938 [2001], *lv denied*97 NY2d 684 [2001]). Defendant failed to preserve for our review his remaining contention that the conviction of aggravated harassment is not supported by legally sufficient evidence (see *People v Gray,*86 NY2d 10, 19 [1995]). In any event, the evidence is legally sufficient to establish that the anonymous telephone message left by defendant was “likely to cause annoyance or alarm” (Penal Law § 240.30 [1] [a]; *see generally People v Bleakley,*69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). Present—Pigott, Jr., P.J., Hurlbutt, Gorski, Smith and Lawton, JJ.