alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Donald TINKER-BEY, Petitioner, v. Hon. Kenneth J. MEYERS, United States Magistrate, Southern District of Illinois, Benton Division, Respondent.

No. 86-8026.

United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

Submitted July 17, 1986.

Decided Sept. 11, 1986.

Donald Tinker-Bey, pro se.

Frederick J. Hess, U.S. Atty., Benton, Ill., for respondent.

Before BAUER, WOOD and POSNER, Circuit Judges.

POSNER, Circuit Judge.

A prisoner at the federal penitentiary in Marion, Illinois has asked us for a writ of mandamus to compel the magistrate who is handling his suit against the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2671-2680, to proceed with greater dispatch. The suit was filed in July 1984, and the petition for writ of mandamus on June 19, 1986. In response to our inquiry of the magistrate what the status of the suit is, we are advised that on July 14, 1986, the United States filed a motion for summary judgment, to which the petitioner has not yet responded. The petition for a writ of mandamus is Denied.

One feature of this case deserves public attention. The suit is for $150 — the alleged value of two sweatshirts, one pair of tennis shoes, and a pair of pajama bottoms, allegedly lost when the petitioner was transferred into disciplinary segregation. No minimum amount in controversy is required to maintain a suit under the Tort Claims Act; nor is this the smallest such suit filed by an inmate at Marion in recent years. In one case the inmate alleged the loss of four very old shoelaces, a partially used jar of cream, a partially used tube of hair oil, and a five-year-old cardboard file folder held together with Scotch tape. After motions for summary judgment, dismissal, and discovery had been filed, the case was settled for $10. Another inmate sued for the value of an “Afro-pick” and refused a settlement offer of $2.

Marion is the nation’s maximum security prison, and cell searches and transfers are frequent. Personal possessions are sometimes lost; and none of the usual inhibitions to bringing suits for trivial or imagined losses weighs on prisoners serving long prison terms. The result is that the federal district court for the Southern District of Illinois, already inundated by post-conviction and civil-rights actions brought by inmates at Marion, is also becoming the prison’s lost-and-found department. Inmates should have a remedy for the negligent loss of their personal belongings even if the belongings have no great monetary value, but the remedy should not be a full-scale federal lawsuit.

It is true that the Tort Claims Act requires exhaustion of administrative remedies, see 28 U.S.C. § 2675, but this merely delays, it does not prevent, suit upon trivial claims. We respectfully suggest that Congress may want to consider making the prisoner’s administrative remedy under the Act, see 28 C.F.R. § 543.30, exclusive for small claims. Compare 31 U.S.C. § 3721(k). All other considerations to one side, we point out that some prison inmates have substantial grievances that require access to a federal court, and there is a danger that the interests of these inmates will be submerged in a flood of trivial litigation.
Summary of Severance Benefit for CFO


    Exhibit
      10.55

     

    


     

    Summary
      of Severance Benefit For

    Bertrand
      Valdman, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer

     

    Pursuant
      to Mr. Valdman's employment offer letter, if there is a change in the Puget
      Sound Energy President and Chief Executive Officer and due to that change Mr.
      Valdman's employment is terminated or there is a significant decrease in the
      role, scope and compensation structure for his employment that is not otherwise
      covered by a change in control agreement, Mr. Valdman is entitled to receive
      the
      following benefits:

     

    
      	·  	
              a
                severance payment equal to one year's base
                salary;

            


    

     

    
      	·  	
              a
                pro-rata share of the annual incentive at 100%
                target;

            


    

     

    
      	·  	
              a
                relocation allowance not to exceed $50,000;
                and

            


    

     

    
      	·  	
              the
                vested
                portion of the restricted stock granted at the time of his
                employment.

            


    

     

    To
      receive these benefits, Mr. Valdman will be required to sign a waiver and
      release agreement in a form to be provided by Puget Sound Energy.
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:****In the loop : a reference guideto American English idioms**
 
PDF | Mobi | epub
 
SuDoc Number:S 1.40/2:ID 3
Item Number:0876-B (online)
CGP systemNumber:000920905
 
December 19, 2017
#### Merlin Biomed Asset Management, LLC, et al., Appellants, v Wolf Block Schorr & Solis-Cohen LLP, et al., Respondents.

[803 NYS2d 552]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Paula J. Omansky, J.), entered November 1, 2004, which, inter alia, granted defendants’ cross motion for partial summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Appeal from order, same court and Justice, entered September 16, 2004, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as superseded by the appeal from the order of November 1, 2004.

The motion court properly concluded that plaintiffs were required to offer expert testimony in support of their claim for legal malpractice that raises issues regarding the standard of care of an attorney drafting purchasing and marketing agreements in the field of hedge funds and financial management companies, a subject that is not part of the jurors’ ordinary, daily experience *(see Schadoff v Russ,*278 AD2d 222 [2000]). Defendants’ expert submission was sufficient to meet their burden that they did not depart from the applicable standard of care *(see id.).*Since plaintiffs failed to offer expert testimony on the subject, they failed to raise an issue of fact and partial summary judgment was properly granted defendants *(see id.; Zeller v Copps,*294 AD2d 683, 684 [2002]). Concur—Marlow, J.P., Nardelli, Gonzalez and Sweeny, JJ.
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 89 Received in Senate (RDS)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. CON. RES. 89

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

               August 1 (legislative day, July 10), 1995

                                Received

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
   Waiving provisions of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970 
             requiring adjournment of Congress by July 31.
    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That, nothwithstanding the provisions of section 132(a) of the 
Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 (2 U.S.C. 198(a)), the House of 
Representatives and the Senate shall not adjourn for a period in excess 
of three days, or adjourn sine die, until both Houses of Congress have 
adopted a concurrent resolution providing either for an adjournment (in 
excess of three days) to a day certain or for adjournment sine die.
            Passed the House of Representatives July 31, 1995.

            Attest:

                                                ROBIN H. CARLE,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
#### Roger O'Neal, Respondent, v Life Science Laboratories, Inc., Appellant.

[805 NYS2d 208]

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Steuben County (Peter C. Bradstreet, A.J.), entered January 31, 2005. The order denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Plaintiff commenced this action seeking damages for injuries he sustained while assisting his wife at her place of employment. Plaintiff injured his eye when he dropped a beaker and shards of glass entered his left eye. It is undisputed that plaintiff thereafter signed a release at the request of defendant, his wife’s employer. Supreme Court properly denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint because plaintiff raised an issue of fact whether the release was the result of mutual mistake. “Even where a releasor has knowledge of the causative trauma, it has been held *1025that there must be actual knowledge of the injury. Knowledge of injury to an area of the body cannot cover injury of a different type and gravity” *(Mangini v McClurg,*24 NY2d 556, 565 [1969]). Because there is no indication in the record that, at the time the release was signed, either party had actual knowledge that plaintiff’s loss of sight would be permanent, the court properly determined that plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact whether there was a mutual mistake concerning the ultimate nature of his eye injury *(see generally Alvarez v Prospect Hosp.,*68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]; *Zuckerman v City of New York,*49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]). Present—Pigott, Jr., P.J., Hurlbutt, Martoche, Pine and Hayes, JJ.
DEPARI t\IEN I OF ENVIRONMENlAL PROTECTION 

OFFICE OF Tl If' COMMISSJONI'R 

Mall Code 401 -07 

C'IIRIS CIIRISTII::. P.O. Box 402 BOB MARTIN 

Trenton, NJ 08625-0402 Comnusswner 

TEL (609) 292-2885 

KIM GUADAGNO FAX (609) 292-7695 

Lr Go1•emor 

DEC 2 1 20\1 

r r-...:J ..l.. <=::> Judith Enck, Administrator ;.1.) 

a c.... U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ~,.. 0 

r-: 0 · Region II -r--o ;:o_ 

w ,., v ' 290 Broadway a ("') :t . 

New York, NY 10007-1866 ~ 

r~ :bo . c ::J: Vi ,.. 

Re: Nominatio n l for National Priorities List of Superfund Sites "!? ' 

Orange Valley Regional Groundwater Contamination Site () 

(J 

I • 

Dear Ms. Enck: 

The New Jersey D epa1iment ofEnvironmenta l Protection (DEP) nominates the Orange Vall ey 

Regiona l Groundwater Contamination site in the muni cipalities of Orange and West Orange, 

Essex County for inclusion on the National Priorities List (NPL) of Superfund sites. The Orange 

Valley Regional Groundwater Contamination site consists of a groWldwater plume with 

numerous possible sources ofcontamination that has impacted wells of a public water system. 

DEP recommends the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region ll's Emergency and 

Remedial Response Division expand upon past site assessment studies in the area to delineate the 

groundwater plume, identify possible sources and implement app ropri ate measw-es to protect 

public drinking water supplies. ln addition, DEP recommends that EPA continue to assess the 

potential impacts to residential structures from vapor intrusion due to groundwater 

contamination. EPA's Removal Action Branch has conducted some initial vapor intrusion 

sampling to date. 

The Orange Park and Gist Place we lls, which serve a combined population ofmore than 10,000 

people in the City o f Orange, both have been impacted by chlorinated solvent contamination. 

The water department treats the extracted groundwater to remove compounds such as 

tetrachloroethylene (PCE) and-tri chloroethylene (TCE) to meet state drinking water standards 

prior to distributio n. The former Brook Lane public supply well, which is located between the 

Orange Park and Gist Place wells, is out of operation due to contamination. There arc several 

other public supply wells located within four miles of the site. 

New Jersey is nn Fqunl Oppurtumty Employer • Prmred on Recycled Paper and Uccyc/nble 
Due to the lack of a known, viable responsibl e party(ies) and scope o f remedia l work anticipated 

to investigate and clean up the area groundwater contamination, as well as to protect residents' 

health by ensuring safe water to drink and clean air to breathe, it is appropriate that the site be 

proposed fo r the NPL. 

DEP appreciates the opportunity to participate in the decision-making process to nominate this 

site for NPL status and is looking forward to future cooperation with EPA during remedia l work 

at the site. 

If you have any questions, please call me at 609-292-2885 

C: 	 George Pavlou, Deputy Administrator, EPA Region IT 

Walter Mugdan, Director, ·PA Region l1 

Irene Kropp, Deputy Commissioner, IJEP 

Dave Sweeney, Assistant Commissioner, DEP
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                                          5
       
<S>                                                  <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                      3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                  DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                     JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                       MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                                     3,106,342
<SECURITIES>                                                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                                467,094
<ALLOWANCES>                                                       0
<INVENTORY>                                                        0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                                   0
<PP&E>                                                             0
<DEPRECIATION>                                                     0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                            27,297,263
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                              0
<BONDS>                                                            0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                              0
<PREFERRED>                                                        0
<COMMON>                                                           0
<OTHER-SE>                                                21,666,408
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                              27,297,263
<SALES>                                                            0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                           2,389,758
<CGS>                                                              0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                      0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                           1,591,696
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                              23,898
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                           103,854
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                              670,310
<INCOME-TAX>                                                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                          670,310
<DISCONTINUED>                                                     0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                    0
<CHANGES>                                                          0
<NET-INCOME>                                                 670,310
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                                      0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                      0
        


</TABLE>
| (logo) WELLS FARGO | **Commercial Mortgage  Servicing**D1050-084, 8th Floor  550 South Tryon St.  Charlotte, NC 28202  1-800-326-1334 |
|--------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

**ANNUAL STATEMENT OFCOMPLIANCE**

 

 

Reference is hereby made tothat certain Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of November 1, 2015, byand among CREDIT SUISSE FIRST BOSTON MORTGAGE SECURITIES CORP., 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 Operating Advisor, WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONALASSOCIATION, as Certificate Administrator, and WILMINGTON TRUST, NATIONALASSOCIATION, as Trustee, with respect to Commercial Mortgage Pass-ThroughCertificates, Series 2015-C4 (the "Agreement"). Capitalized termsused herein not otherwise defined shall have the meanings assigned in theAgreement.

 

Pursuant to Section 10.07 ofthis Agreement, I, Daniel Bober, Executive Vice President of CommercialMortgage Services do hereby certify that:

 

1. A review of the activitiesof the Master Servicer during the period from January 1, 2016 through December31, 2016 (the “Reporting Period”), and of its performance per theAgreement during such period has been made under my supervision, and

 

2. To the best of myknowledge, based on such review, the Master Servicer has fulfilled all of itsobligations under this Agreement in all material respects throughout theReporting Period.

 

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, theundersigned has executed this Certificate as of the 28th day ofFebruary 2017.

 

/s/ Daniel Bober

Daniel Bober

Executive Vice President 

Wells Fargo Bank

 

 

| Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. | (logo) Together we’ll  go far |
|------------------------|-------------------------------------|
§ 1.456-3 Method of allocation. ( a ) Prepaid dues income for which an election has been made under section 456 shall be included in gross income over the period of time during which the liability to render services or make available membership privileges exists. The liability to render the services or make available the membership privileges shall be deemed to exist ratably over the period of time such services are required to be rendered, or such membership privileges are required to be made available. Thus, the prepaid dues income shall be included in gross income ratably over the period of the membership contract. For example, Corporation X, a membership organization, which files its income tax returns on a calendar year basis, elects, for its taxable year beginning January 1, 1961, to report its prepaid dues income in accordance with the provisions of section 456. On March 31, 1961, it sells a 2-year membership for $48 payable in advance, the membership to extend from May 1, 1961, to April 30, 1963. X shall include in its gross income for the taxable year 19618 ⁄ 24 of the $48, or $16, and for the taxable year 196212 ⁄ 24 of the $48, or $24, and for the taxable year 19634 ⁄ 24 of the $48, or $8.
( b ) For purposes of determining the period or periods over which the liability of the taxpayer exists, and for purposes of allocating prepaid dues income to such periods, the taxpayer may aggregate similar transactions during the taxable year in any reasonable manner, provided the method of aggregation and allocation is consistently followed.
[T.D. 6937, 32 FR 16395, Nov. 30, 1967]
### Faulk, Scott (OST)
From: 

### Sent: To: 

### Subject:

To: Scott Faulk Ka'ohulani Me Guire <hilomoon@mac.com> Wednesday, November 06, 2013 3:13 AM EAS (OST) EAS Contract for Kalaupapa -In Support of Makani Kai

Transportation IndustryAnalyst U.S. Department ofTransportation Office ofAviation Analysis 1200 NewJersey Ave., SE Washington, DC 20590 Dear Mr. Faulk: _)

I am writing in support of Makani Kai to continue providing needed Essential AirService to the Kalaupapa, Molokai, Hawaii community. Makani Kai has been providing this service forthe last twoyears orso and I have been very happy with their professional service and their willingness to workwith the specific needs ofthis community. Makani Kai knows and understands this community and they have done exceptionallywell in communicating with us and being responsive to our concerns. Makani Kai has provided Kalaupapa with affordable air service and with aflight schedule thataccommodates both the patient residents and employees. Iwould like to see them continue servicing Kalaupapa. Regards, Ka'ohulani McGuire P.O. Box 96 Kalaupapa, HI 96742

1
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.

§ 301.7209-1 Unauthorized use or sale of stamps. ( a ) Any person who buys, sells, offers for sale, uses, transfers, takes or gives in exchange, or pledges or gives in pledge, except as authorized in the Code or in regulations made pursuant thereto, any stamp, coupon, ticket, book, or other device prescribed by the Commissioner under the Code for the collection or payment of any tax imposed by the Code, shall, upon conviction thereof, be fined not more than $1,000, or imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both.
( b ) For use or resale of unused documentary stamps, see paragraph (c) of § 43.6802-1 of this chapter (Documentary Stamp Tax Regulations).
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                                                                <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                                              3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                                    JAN-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                                       MAY-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                                         JUL-31-1998
<CASH>                                                                   11,745
<SECURITIES>                                                                  0
<RECEIVABLES>                                                                 0
<ALLOWANCES>                                                                  0
<INVENTORY>                                                                   0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                                         11,745
<PP&E>                                                                        0
<DEPRECIATION>                                                                0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                                           11,745
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                                   175,550
<BONDS>                                                                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                                         0
<PREFERRED>                                                                   0
<COMMON>                                                                160,234
<OTHER-SE>                                                             (335,784)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                             11,745
<SALES>                                                                       0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                                              0
<CGS>                                                                         0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                                 0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                                          3,669
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                              0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                                            0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                                               0
<INCOME-TAX>                                                                  0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                                           0
<DISCONTINUED>                                                                0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                               0
<CHANGES>                                                                     0
<NET-INCOME>                                                             (3,669)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                                              0.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                              0.00
        

</TABLE>