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### UNPUBLISHED



# UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT



#  G REGF ERGUSON ; F ERGUSON & A SSOCIATES , PA, Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v. R ICHARD J. M AITA , Esq.; L ISA N. H OOPER ; A LICE C OPE ; G OLDSTAR M ORTGAGE C OMPANY , I NCORPORATED ; No. 00-2242



# 
T ROY D ILLS ; F IRST G REENSBORO H OME E QUITY I NCORPORATED ; R IDGEVIEWM ORTGAGE A SSOCIATES , I NCORPORATED ; F IDELITY N ATIONAL T ITLE I NSURANCE C OMPANY OFN EW Y ORK , Defendants-Appellees. 

# 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville.

Lacy H. Thornburg, District Judge. (CA-99-225-1-T) Submitted: May 22, 2001 Decided: July 25, 2001 Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

COUNSEL John N. Ellison, ANDERSON, KILL & OLICK, P.C., Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, for Appellants. Robert B. Long, Jr., Phillip S. Ander-son, LONG, PARKER, WARREN & JONES, P.A., Asheville, NorthCarolina; James W. Williams, ROBERTS & STEVENS, P.A., Asheville, North Carolina; Ervin L. Ball, Jr., BALL, BARDEN & BELL, P.A., Asheville, North Carolina; David W. Cartner, CARTNER & CARTNER, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

OPINION

PER CURIAM: Greg Ferguson and Ferguson & Associates, P.A. ("Appellants"), appeal the district court’s order, which accepted in part and rejectedin part the magistrate judge’s recommendation, granting Defendants/Appellees’ motion filed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), and dismissing Appellants’ claims alleging violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C.A. § 1962(c), (d) (West 2000), and the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C.A. § 1125(a) (West 1998 & Supp. 2000). The district court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Appellants’ state law claims and denied Appellants’motion for leave to file a second amended complaint. We have previously granted the motion to submit the case for a decision on the briefs, without oral argument. This court reviews de novo the district court’s order granting a Rule 12(b)(6) motion and reviews for an abuse of discretion the court’s denial of a motion to amend the complaint. GE Inv. Private Placement Partners II v. Parker , ___ F.3d ___, 2001 WL 392413, at *2-*3 (4th Cir. Apr. 18, 2001). We have reviewed the parties’ briefs,the joint appendix, the district court’s opinion, and Appellants’ supplemental material submitted in accordance with Fed. R. App. P.28(j), in light of the applicable standards of review and find no reversible error in the district court’s decision to grant the Rule 12(b)(6) motion. Nor do we find any abuse of discretion in the court’s denial 2 F ERGUSON v. M AITAof the motion to amend. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Ferguson v. Maita , No. CA-99-225-1-T (W.D.N.C. Aug. 24, 2000).

AFFIRMED 3 F ERGUSON v. M AITA
(November 10, 2005)

#### Juanita Birriel, Respondent-Appellant, v F.L. Smithe Machine Co., Inc., Appellant-Respondent and Third-Party Plaintiff. New York Envelope Corporation, Third-Party Defendant-Appellant.

[803 NYS2d 427]

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Patricia Anne Williams, J.), entered on or about October 8, 2004, which denied the motions by defendant and plaintiff for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

It is well settled that a manufacturer is not responsible for injuries resulting from substantial alterations to or modifications of a product by a third party that render the product defective or otherwise unsafe *(Robinson v Reed-Prentice Div. of Package Mach. Co.,*49 NY2d 471, 475 [1980]), except where the product is purposefully manufactured to permit or encourage its use without a designed safety feature *(Liriano v Hobart Corp.,*92 NY2d 232 [1998]). There are issues of fact as to when the alleged modification took place on the machine that led to plaintiffs injuries, and whether Smithe performed or authorized that alteration *(Lopez v Precision Papers,*67 NY2d 871 [1986]).

We have considered the parties’ other arguments for affirmative relief and find them unavailing. Concur—Buckley, P.J., Saxe, Nardelli, Williams and Catterson, JJ.
#### In the Matter of Anthony Barber, Petitioner, v Donald Selsky, as Director of Special Housing and Inmate Disciplinary Programs, Respondent.

[802 NYS2d 638]

*732Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Albany County) to review a determination of the Commissioner of Correctional Services which found petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.

During a search of petitioner’s cell, correction officers recovered a container of floor stripper, a volume control piece from a headset and some medications. As a result, he was charged in a misbehavior report with the unauthorized possession of medication, possession of contraband and possession of flammable materials. At the subsequent tier III disciplinary hearing, he pleaded guilty with explanation to possession of flammable materials and not guilty to possession of contraband. He communicated uncertainty as to how he wished to plead to the charge of unauthorized possession of medication. He was ultimately found guilty of all charges and the determination was upheld on administrative appeal. This CPLR article 78 proceeding ensued.

Initially, we note that by pleading guilty with explanation to possession of flammable materials, petitioner is precluded from challenging the evidentiary basis underlying that part of the determination finding him guilty of this charge *(see Matter of Scott v New York State Dept. of Corrections,*18 AD3d 925 [2005]; *Matter of Nelson v Goord,*10 AD3d 773, 774 [2004]). As for the remaining charges, petitioner admitted that he had a volume control piece he had taken from a headset he used while confined in the special housing unit and possessed medications that were not his but were in his locker when he began occupying his cell. His testimony, together with the misbehavior report and the testimony of the officer who authored it, constitute substantial evidence supporting the determination of guilt *(see Matter of Scott v New York State Dept. of Corrections, supra*at 925; *Matter of Wheeler v Commissioner of N.Y. State Correctional Servs.,*17 AD3d 378, 378 [2005]). Contrary to petitioner’s claim, we do not find that he was improperly denied his right to call witnesses as the testimony of the correction officers at issue would have been redundant or irrelevant to the charges *(see Matter of Prentiss v Selsky,*7 AD3d 905 [2004]; *Matter of Madison v Selsky, 2*AD3d 934 [2003]). Petitioner’s remaining contentions are not preserved for our review.

Mercure, J.P., Peters, Spain, Lahtinen and Kane, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.
§ 53.6694-1 Section 6694 penalties applicable to tax return preparer. ( a ) *In general.* For general definitions regarding section 6694 penalties applicable to preparers of tax returns or claims for refund under Chapter 42 of the Internal Revenue Code, see § 1.6694-1 of this chapter.
( b ) *Effective/applicability date.* Paragraph (a) of this section is applicable to returns and claims for refund filed, and advice provided, after December 31, 2008.
[T.D. 9436, 73 FR 78457, Dec. 22, 2008]
This document is located at the FAA Hearing Docket, 

600 Independence Avenue, SW

Washington, DC 20591.

This document is not publicly available;

See Protective Order issued by ALJ Goodwin 

Dated December 1, 2014.
§ 601.806 Solicitation of applications. ( a ) *Solicitation.* The Commissioner of Internal Revenue or the Commissioner's delegate may, at any time, solicit eligible agencies and organizations to submit applications. Generally, applications will be solicited and accepted in June and July of each year. Deadlines for submitting applications and the schedule for selecting program sponsors will be provided with application documents. ( 1 ) Before preparing and submitting an unsolicited application, organizations are strongly encouraged to contact the Internal Revenue Service at the address provided in paragraph (b) (2) of this section.
( 2 ) A solicitation of an application is not an assurance or commitment that the Internal Revenue Service will enter into a cooperative agreement. The Internal Revenue Service will not pay any expenses or other costs incurred by the applicant in considering, preparing or submitting an application.
( b ) *Application.* ( 1 ) In the application documents, the Commissioner or the Commissioner's delegate will specify program requirements which the applicant must meet.
( 2 ) Eligible organizations interested in participating in the Internal Revenue Service Tax Counseling for the Elderly program should request an application from the:
Program Manager, Tax Counseling for the Elderly, Taxpayer Service Division TX:T:I, Internal Revenue Service, 1111 Constitution Ave., N.W., Washington, DC 20224, (202) 566-4904.
| (logo) WELLS FARGO | **Corporate Trust Services**

  MAC R1204-010  9062 Old Annapolis Road  Columbia, MD 21045  Tel: 410 884 2000  Fax: 410 715 2380 |
|--------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

Re:          Annual Statement of Compliance for J.P. Morgan Chase Commercial MortgageSecurities Trust 2016-NINE Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates,Series 2016-NINE

 

Per the Trust and ServicingAgreement dated as of September 26, 2016 (the "Agreement"), theundersigned, a duly authorized officer of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., asCertificate Administrator ("Wells Fargo"), hereby certifies asfollows as of and for the year ending December 31, 2016 (the "ReportingPeriod"):

 

(a)           A review of Wells Fargo'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 such officer's knowledge, based on such review, Wells Fargo hasfulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respectsthroughout the Reporting Period.

 

 

February 27, 2017

 

 

/s/ Brian Smith

BRIAN SMITH

Vice President 

 

 

| Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. | (logo) Together we’ll  go far |
|------------------------|-------------------------------------|
#### Robert Pisanelli, Appellant, v Town of East Fishkill, Respondent.

[803 NYS2d 919]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Brands, J.), dated October 20, 2004, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

In response to the defendant’s showing of entitlement to sum*447mary judgment, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted summary judgment to the defendant *(see Morgan v State of New York,*90 NY2d 471, 484 [1997]; *Turcotte v Fell,*68 NY2d 432, 437-440 [1986]; *Steward v Town of Clarkstown,*224 AD2d 405 [1996]; *cf. Siegel v City of New York,*90 NY2d 471, 488-489 [1997]).

The plaintiff’s remaining contentions are without merit. Goldstein, J.P., Skelos, Fisher and Lunn, JJ., concur.
1 

## R i o s , G e r a rdo

F r om: J i m .Re xr oad @ m a c qua r i e. c om

S e nt: Fr i da y

, F eb r ua r y 15, 2013 12:16 PM

T o: R i o s

, G e r a r do

Cc: j l u c k ha r dt @ do w ne y b r and. c om

S ub jec t: Lette r to EPA

A tt ac hm e nt s: EPAl ete r 2

- 15

- 12.pdf

G e r a r do

, T h i s w i ll go i n t o t h e m a il t o d a y

, b u t w a nte d y o u t o g e t i t e l e c t r o n i c a l l y a s s o o n a s i t w a s r e a d y

. P l ea s e g i v e m e a c a ll i f

y ou h a v e a n y q ue s t i on s

.

J i m Re xr oad

A ss o c i ate D i r e c to r | Ma c q u a r i e E ne r g y

, E n e r g y Ma r k et s D i v i s i o n | F i x ed In c o m e, Cu rr en c i e s a nd C o m m od i t i e s |

Ma c qua r i e Gr o up L i m i ted O ne A l l en C en t e r , L e v e l 31 , 50 0 D a ll a s S t r e e t, H o u s t o n, T X 77002 T 713

- 2 75

- 61 47 I M 8 3 2-

748

- 1 060 I F 7 1 3

- 2 7 5

- 61 15 I j i m

. r e xr oad @ m a c qua r i e. c om

Un l e s s o t her

w i s e i nd i c a t ed

, t h i s m e ss age i s i n t ended o n l y f or t he pe r s ona l and c on f i de n t i a l u s e o f t he d e s i gna t ed r e c i p i en t ( s ) n a m e d abo v e

. I f y ou are

no t t h e i n t ended r e c i p i en t o f t h i s m e ss age y ou ar e hereb y no t i f i e d t h a t an y re v i e w

, d i s s e m i n a t i on

, d i s t r i b u t i on or c op y i ng o f t h i s m e s s age i s s t r i c t l y

proh i b i t ed

. T h i s c o mm un i c a t i o n i s f or i n f o r m a t i on purpo s e s on l y and s hou l d no t be regarded a s an o f f e r t o s e l l or a s a s o l i c i t a t i o n o f a n o ff er t o bu y an y

f i nan c i a l produ c t or s er v i c e

, an o ff i c i a l c on f i r m a t i o n o f an y t ran s a c t i o n

, or a s an o f f i c i a l st a t e m en t o f

t h e en t i t y

s end i n g t h i s m e s s age

. E m a il t ra n s m i s s i on

c anno t b e guaran t eed t o be s e c u r e or error- f ree

. T here f ore

, w e do no t repre s en t t ha t t h i s i n f o r m a t i on i s c o m p l e t e o r a c c ura t e an d i t s hou l d no t b e re li ed

upon a s s u c h

. A l l i n f o r m a t i on i s s u b j e c t t o c hange w i t hou t n o t i c e.
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 185 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. J. RES. 185

  To designate the Village of Sunbury, Ohio, as ``Flagville, U.S.A.''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 18, 1996

    Mr. Kasich introduced the following joint resolution; which was 
      referred to the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
  To designate the Village of Sunbury, Ohio, as ``Flagville, U.S.A.''.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That the Village of Sunbury, 
Ohio, is designated as ``Flagville, U.S.A.'', and the President is 
authorized and requested to issue a proclamation calling on the people 
of the Village of Sunbury, Ohio, to display the United States flag on 
National holidays and regularly during the year.
                                 <all>
```
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 153 (Tuesday, August 11, 2009)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 40069]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-19297]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

21 CFR Part 2


Use of Ozone-Depleting Substances; Epinephrine

CFR Correction

    In Title 21 of the Code of Federal Regulations, parts 1 to 99, 
revised as of Apr. 1, 2009, on page 66, Sec.  2.125(e)(2)(v) is 
reinstated as follows:


Sec.  2.125  Use of ozone-depleting substances in foods, drugs, 
devices, or cosmetics.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (v) Epinephrine.
* * * * *

[FR Doc. E9-19297 Filed 8-10-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 1505-01-D
IA

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. J. RES. 78

To grant the consent of the Congress to certain additional powers conferred

upon the Bi-State Development Agency by the States of Missouri and Illinois.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 10, 1995

Mr. TALENT introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred to

the Committee on the Judiciary

JOINT RESOLUTION

To grant the consent of the Congress to certain additional

powers conferred upon the Bi-State Development Agency

by the States of Missouri and Illinois.

Whereas the Congress in consenting to the compact between

Missouri and Illinois creating the Bi-State Development

Agency and the Bi-State Metropolitan District provided

that no power shall be exercised by the Bi-State Agency

under the provisions of article III of such compact until

such power has been conferred upon the Bi-State Agency

by the legislatures of the States to the compact and approved by an Act of Congress; and

Whereas such States have now enacted certain legislation in

order to confer certain additional powers on such BiState Development Agency: Now, therefore, be it
2

•HJ 78 IH

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 That (a) the consent of the Congress is hereby given to

4 the additional powers conferred on the Bi-State Develop5 ment Agency by Senate Bill 114, Laws of Missouri 1993

6 and Public Act 88–611 (Senate Bill 1670), Laws of Illi7 nois 1994.

8 (b) The powers conferred by the Acts consented to

9 in subsection (a) shall take effect on January 1, 1995.

10 SEC. 2. The provisions of the Act of August 31, 1950

11 (64 Stat. 568) shall apply to the additional powers ap12 proved under this joint resolution to the same extent as

13 if such additional powers were conferred under the provi14 sions of the compact consented to in such Act.

15 SEC. 3. The right to alter, amend, or repeal this joint

16 resolution is expressly reserved.

17 SEC. 4. The right is hereby reserved to the Congress

18 to require the disclosure and furnishings of such informa19 tion or data by the Bi-State Development Agency as is

20 deemed appropriate by the Congress.

Æ
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 7 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                               H. J. Res. 7

Proposing a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution of the United 
                                States.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 4, 1995

    Mr. Archer introduced the following joint resolution; which was 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
Proposing a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution of the United 
                                States.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House 
concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an 
amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be 
valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when 
ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States 
within seven years after the date of its submission for ratification:

                              ``Article --

    ``Section 1. Prior to each fiscal year, Congress shall, by law, 
adopt a statement of receipts and outlays for such fiscal year in which 
total outlays are not greater than total receipts. Congress may, by 
law, amend that statement provided revised outlays are not greater than 
revised receipts. Congress may provide in that statement for a specific 
excess of outlays over receipts by a vote directed solely to that 
subject in which two-thirds of each House agree to such excess. 
Congress and the President shall ensure that actual outlays do not 
exceed the outlays set forth in such statement.
    ``Section 2. Total receipts shall include all receipts of the 
United States except those derived from borrowing and total outlays 
shall include all outlays of the United States except those for the 
repayment of debt principal.
    ``Section 3. The amount of Federal public debt as of the first day 
of the second fiscal year beginning after the ratification of this 
Article shall become a permanent limit on such debt and there shall be 
no increase in such amount unless two-thirds of each House shall have 
passed a bill approving such increase and such bill shall become law.
    ``Section 4. Congress may waive the provisions of this Article for 
any fiscal year in which a declaration of war is in effect. The 
provisions of this Article may be waived for any fiscal year in which 
the United States faces an imminent and serious military threat to 
national security and is so declared by a joint resolution, adopted by 
a majority of the whole number of each House, which becomes law.
    ``Section  5. This Article shall take effect for the fiscal year 
2002 or for the second fiscal year beginning after its ratification, 
whichever is later.''.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 32.1
                                                               ------------

             STATEMENT FURNISHED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
             SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002, 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

      The undersigned, Mary Lynn D. Lenz, is the President and Chief
Executive Officer of Slade's Ferry Bancorp. (the "Company"). This statement
is being furnished in connection with the filing by the Company of the
Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A for the quarter ended September
30, 2004 (the "Report").

By execution of this statement, I certify that:

A)    the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
      15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or
      78o(d)); and

B)    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
      material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
      of the Company as of the dates and for the periods covered by the
      Report.

      This statement is authorized to be attached as an exhibit to the
Report so that this statement will accompany the Report at such time as the
Report is filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350. It
is not intended that this statement be deemed to be filed for purposes of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.

DATE:  August 15, 2005                 /S/ MARY LYNN D. LENZ
        ----------------------         ------------------------------------
                                       MARY LYNN D. LENZ
                                       PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER


<PAGE>