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

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. J. RES. 181

Disapproving the extension of nondiscriminatory treatment (most-favorednation treatment) to the products of the People’s Republic of China.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JUNE 12, 1996

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

the Committee on Ways and Means

JOINT RESOLUTION

Disapproving the extension of nondiscriminatory treatment

(most-favored-nation treatment) to the products of the

People’s Republic of China.

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 That the Congress does not approve the extension of the

4 authority contained in section 402(c) of the Trade Act of

5 1974 recommended by the President to the Congress on

6 May 31, 1996, with respect to the People’s Republic of

7 China.

Æ
4333 Amon Carter Blvd., Dallas/Fort Worth Airport, Texas 76155

September 2, 2011

Esta Rosenberg

Chief, U.S. Carrier Licensing Division

Department of Transportation

1200 New Jersey Ave., S.E.

Washington, D.C. 20590

 Re: American Eagle Application for Consolidated

U.S.-Mexico Certificate (DOT-OST-2005-22228)

Dear Ms. Rosenberg:

 On March 25, 2011, American Eagle Airlines, Inc. applied in the 

captioned docket for a single certificate of public convenience and 

necessity consolidating its U.S.-Mexico exemptions. On August 4, 

2011, the Department issued an international open skies certificate to 

American Eagle (Order 2011-8-9, August 4, 2011), which we understand 

is a prerequisite for the consolidated certificate at issue here.

 Accordingly, we request favorable action on our U.S.-Mexico 

request, and confirm that the list of transborder city-pairs we 

submitted on March 25, 2011 remains the same.

 Dallas/Ft. Worth-Chihuahua, DOT-OST-2004-18042

 Dallas/Ft. Worth-Guadalajara, DOT-OST-2004-17128

 Dallas/Ft. Worth-Monterrey, DOT-OST-2003-16101

 Dallas/Ft. Worth-San Luis Potosi, DOT-OST-2004-19024

 Dallas/Ft. Worth-Torreon, DOT-OST-2004-17469

Respectfully submitted,

Carl B. Nelson

Associate General Counsel

American Airlines, Inc.

1101 17th Street, N.W.

Suite 600

Washington, D.C. 20036

(202) 496-5647

carl.nelson@aa.com
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that I have this day served the foregoing document by email 

on the following persons:

sascha.vanderbellen@delta.com jhill@dlalaw.com

scott.mcclain@delta.com bill@mietuslaw.com

sametta.c.barnett@delta.com mgoldman@sgbdc.com

kquinn@pillsburywinthrop.com rsilverberg@sgbdc.com

bkeiner@crowell.com dhainbach@ggh-airlaw.com

esahr@eckertseamons.com mcmillin@woa.com

bruce.rabinovitz@wilmerhale.com eskraft@jamhoff.com

thomas.bolling@coair.com dpdean@jamhoff.com

bob.kneisley@wnco.com dkirstein@yklaw.com

robert.land@jetblue.com jyoung@yklaw.com

msinick@ssd.com willim.stallings@usdoj.gov

cdonley@ssd.com dwight.moore@ustranscom.mil

gbleopard@fedex.com john.allen@faa.gov

david.heffernan@wilmerhale.com urskr@state.gov

kevin.montgomery@polaraircargo.com recohn@hoganlovells.com

jrichardson@johnlrichardson.com cjsimpson@zsrlaw.com

lhalloway@crowell.com pmurphy@lopmurphy.com

efaberman@wileyrein.com lachter@starpower.net

mroller@rollerbauer.com anita.mosner@hklaw.com

howard.kass@usairways.com jennifer.nowak@hklaw.com

benjamin.slocum@usairways.com gmurphy@crowell.com

dan.weiss@coair.com russell.bailey@alpa.org

rpommer@atlasair.com 

________________________________

CARL B. NELSON

September 2, 2011
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Jerome A. Alston, Appellant.

[803 NYS2d 466]

Appeal from a judgment of the Steuben County Court (Joseph W. Latham, J.), rendered September 8, 2004. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of burglary in the second degree.

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

*1042Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of burglary in the second degree (Penal Law § 140.25 [2]). Contrary to the contention of defendant, he was afforded a “reasonable opportunity to present his contentions” in support of his motion to withdraw his plea *(People v Tinsley,*35 NY2d 926, 927 [1974]). Defendant submitted his motion papers, including his affidavit, and defense counsel argued orally in support of defendant’s motion. Thus, the record establishes that County Court made “an informed determination” in denying defendant’s motion *{id.).*We reject the further contention of defendant that his plea was not knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily entered. The record establishes that defendant was fully advised of his rights and was aware of the consequences of his *Alford*plea *(see People v Castricone,*19 AD3d 1101 [2005]; *People v Thompson,*4 AD3d 785 [2004], *lv denied*2 NY3d 808 [2004]). Present—Green, J.P., Gorski, Smith, Lawton and Hayes, JJ.
#### Edward Matuszak et al., Appellants, v B.R.K. Brands, Inc., Respondent.

[804 NYS2d 814]

In an action to recover for damage to property, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (O’Connell, J.), dated August 12, 2004, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and denied their cross motion to compel discovery pursuant to CPLR 3212 (f).

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendant established its prima facie entitlement to summary judgment by proffering, inter alia, documentary evidence that the subject fire was not caused by its rechargeable First Alert flashlight, but by a clothes dryer. In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact.

Moreover, the plaintiffs certified this matter as trial ready, filed a note of issue, voiced no objection to the manner in which discovery was proceeding, and did not make any application to compel disclosure until they cross-moved in opposition to the defendant’s summary judgment motion. In such instances, the law is well settled that a claim of incomplete discovery will not defeat a prima facie showing of entitlement to summary judgment *(see Guarino v Mohawk Containers Co.,*59 NY2d 753 [1983]; *Kraeling v Leading Edge Elec.,*2 AD3d 789 [2003]; *Federoff v Camperlengo,*215 AD2d 806 [1995]; *Kracker v Spartan Chem. Co.,*183 AD2d 810 [1992]; *Dabbs v City of Peekskill,*178 AD2d 577 [1991]; *Hecht v Vanderbilt Assoc.,*141 AD2d 696 [1988]).

The plaintiffs’ remaining contentions are without merit. Schmidt, J.P., S. Miller, Santucci and Spolzino, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 32.1

SARBANES-OXLEY ACT SECTION 906

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, the undersigned officer of Sky Financial Group, Inc. (the Company), hereby certifies, to such officers knowledge,
that the Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2007 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/ Marty E. Adams     
|Marty E. Adams         
|Chairman, President and
|Chief Executive Officer

April 27, 2007

The signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version 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.
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 192 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. J. RES. 192

  To consent to certain amendments enacted by the Legislature of the 
      State of Hawaii to the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act, 1920.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 16, 1996

 Mr. Abercrombie introduced the following joint resolution; which was 
                 referred to the Committee on Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
  To consent to certain amendments enacted by the Legislature of the 
      State of Hawaii to the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act, 1920.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled,
That, as required by section 4 of the Act entitled ``An Act to provide 
for the admission of the State of Hawaii into the Union'', approved 
March 18, 1959 (73 Stat. 4), the United States consents to the 
following amendments to the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act, 1920, 
adopted by the State of Hawaii in the manner required for State 
legislation:
            (1) Act 339 of the Session Laws of Hawaii, 1993.
            (2) Act 37 of the Session Laws of Hawaii, 1994.
                                 <all>
```
#### § 1.642(c)-0 Effective dates.

The provisions of section 642(c) (other than section 642(c)(5)) and of §§ 1.642 (c)-1 through 1.642(c)-4 apply to amounts paid, permanently set aside, or to be used for a charitable purpose in taxable years beginning after December 31, 1969. The provisions of section 642(c)(5) and of §§ 1.642(c)-5 through 1.642(c)-7 apply to transfers in trust made after July 31, 1969. For provisions relating to amounts paid, permanently set aside, or to be used for a charitable purpose in taxable years beginning before January 1, 1970, see 26 CFR 1.642(c)-1 through 1.642(c)-4 (Rev. as of Jan. 1, 1971).

[T.D. 7357, 40 FR 23739, June 2, 1975]
§ 36.3121(l)(10)-3 Returns. ( a ) The forms prescribed for use in making returns of the taxes imposed by the Federal Insurance Contributions Act (except any forms particularly prescribed for use by household employers or by employers filing returns in Puerto Rico) shall be used by a domestic corporation in making returns of its liability under an agreement entered into as provided in § 36.3121(l)(1)-1. Returns of such liability shall be made separate and apart from any returns required of the domestic corporation in respect of the taxes imposed by the Federal Insurance Contributions Act. The domestic corporation shall plainly mark “3121(l) Agreement” at the top of each return, each detachable schedule thereof, and each paper or document constituting a part of the return, filed by the domestic corporation pursuant to the regulations in this part. Returns required under the regulations in this part shall be made by the domestic corporation as if all services covered by the agreement, whether performed in the employ of one or more than one foreign subsidiary, were performed in the employ of the domestic corporation as an employer in its separate capacity as a party to the agreement.
( b ) Each return required under the regulations in this part must be filed on or before the last day of the month following the period for which the return is made.
[T.D. 6145, 20 FR 6577, Sept. 8, 1955, as amended by T.D. 6390, 24 FR 4832, June 13, 1959]
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 102 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. J. RES. 102

   Disapproving the recommendations of the Defense Base Closure and 
                        Realignment Commission.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 18, 1995

  Mr. Tejeda (for himself Mr. Bonilla, Mr. Gonzalez, and Mr. Smith of 
Texas) introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred to 
                   the Committee on National Security

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
   Disapproving the recommendations of the Defense Base Closure and 
                        Realignment Commission.
    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress disapproves the 
recommendations of the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission 
as submitted by the President on July 13, 1995.
                                 <all>
```
IB

Union Calendar No. 2

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 101

[Report No. 104–7]

To transfer a parcel of land to the Taos Pueblo Indians of New Mexico.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 4, 1995

Mr. RICHARDSON introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Resources

JANUARY 27, 1995

Reported with an amendment, committed to the Committee of the Whole

House on the State of the Union, and ordered to be printed

[Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert the part printed in italic]

[For text of introduced bill, see copy of bill as introduced on January 4, 1995]

A BILL

To transfer a parcel of land to the Taos Pueblo Indians

of New Mexico.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. LAND TRANSFER.

4 (a) TRANSFER.—The parcel of land described in sub5 section (b) is hereby transferred without consideration to
2

•HR 101 RH

1 the Secretary of the Interior to be held in trust for the Pueb2 lo de Taos. Such parcel shall be a part of the Pueblo de

3 Taos Reservation and shall be managed in accordance with

4 section 4 of the Act of May 31, 1933 (48 Stat. 108) (as

5 amended, including as amended by Public Law 91–550 (84

6 Stat. 1437)).

7 (b) LAND DESCRIPTION.—The parcel of land referred

8 to in subsection (a) is the land that is generally depicted

9 on the map entitled ‘‘Lands transferred to the Pueblo of

10 Taos—proposed’’ and dated September 1994, comprises

11 764.33 acres, and is situated within sections 25, 26, 35,

12 and 36, Township 27 North, Range 14 East, New Mexico

13 Principal Meridian, within the Wheeler Peak Wilderness,

14 Carson National Forest, Taos County, New Mexico.

15 (c) CONFORMING BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENTS.—The

16 boundaries of the Carson National Forest and the Wheeler

17 Peak Wilderness are hereby adjusted to reflect the transfer

18 made by subsection (a).

19 (d) RESOLUTION OF OUTSTANDING CLAIMS.—The

20 Congress finds and declares that, as a result of the enact21 ment of this Act, the Taos Pueblo has no unresolved equi22 table or legal claims against the United States on the lands

23 to be held in trust and to become part of the Pueblo de Taos

24 Reservation under this section.

Union Calendar No. 2

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 101

[Report No. 104–7]

A BILL

To transfer a parcel of land to the Taos Pueblo

Indians of New Mexico.

JANUARY 27, 1995

Reported with an amendment, committed to the Commitordered to be printed tee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, and
The Honorable Charles B. Kornmann, United States District Judge for the

1

District of South Dakota.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

______________

Nos. 96-3623/3635

________________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeals from the United

States

v. * District Court for the

* District of South Dakota.

John W. Perko, Jr., *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

 Submitted: May 30, 1997

 Filed: June 11, 1997

___________

Before WOLLMAN, MAGILL, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

John W. Perko, Jr. appeals the sentences imposed by

the district court after he pleaded guilty in separate

1

proceedings to assault and firearm charges. Counsel

filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S.

738 (1967), and was granted leave to withdraw. Perko was

given an opportunity to file a supplemental brief, but

did not do so. We dismiss the appeals, as both of the

written plea agreements contained a waiver of Perko’s
-2-

appeal rights, and our review of the record convinces us

that Perko
-3-

knowingly and voluntary waived these rights. See United

States v. His Law, 85 F.3d 379, 379 (8th Cir. 1996) (per

curiam); United States v. Rutan, 956 F.2d 827, 829 (8th

Cir. 1992).

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH

CIRCUIT.
#### Ernest C. HANES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES AIR FORCE; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 01-16839.

D.C. No. CV-00-01526-PJH.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted June 10, 2002.*

Decided June 14, 2002.

Before RYMER, T.G. NELSON, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.

*

This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Ernest C. Hanes appeals pro se the district court’s order dismissing for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction his action seeking damages against the Air Force for damaging personal property. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo dismissals for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, *Sommatino v. United States,*255 F.3d 704, 707 (9th Cir.2001), and we affirm.

Hanes’s contention that the “Little Tucker Act,” 28 U.S.C. § 1346(a)(2), gives him the substantive right to sue the federal government fails. *See Sisseton-Wahpeton Sioux Tribe v. United States,*895 F.2d 588, 596 n. 5 (9th Cir.1990) (noting that the *887Tucker Act does not create any substantive rights). Moreover, Hanes did not identify another source of substantive law that entitles him to sue the federal government. *See id.*

Hanes’s remaining contentions lack merit.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
(logo)Rialto 

CAPITAL

 

 

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

 

Poolingand Servicing Agreement (the “Pooling and Servicing Agreement”) dated as of November1, 2016 by and among Citigroup Commercial Mortgage Securities, Inc. asDepositor, Midland Loan Services, a Division of PNC Bank, National Associationas Master Servicer, Rialto Capital Advisors, LLC as Special Servicer, TriMontReal Estate Advisors, Inc. as Operating Advisor and Asset RepresentationsReviewer, Citibank, N.A. as Certificate Administrator, and Deutsche Bank TrustCompany Americas as Trustee, relating to the Citigroup Commercial MortgageTrust 2016-C3, Commercial Mortgage Pass-through Certificates, Series 2016-C3 **(CGCMT2016-C3)**

 

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 January 1, 2017 through December 31, 2017 (the “ReportingPeriod”), under 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 throughout the Reporting Period and ifthere has been a failure to fulfill any such obligations in any materialrespect, each failure and the nature and status thereof has been specifically identifiedherein. 

 

 

Certifiedby: /s/ Adam Singer

AdamSinger, Managing Director

 

Date:March 1, 2018
§ 31.3402(f)(6)-1 Withholding exemptions for nonresident alien individuals. ( a ) *In general.* ( 1 ) A nonresident alien individual (other than a nonresident alien individual treated as a resident under section 6013(g) or (h)) subject to withholding under section 3402 is on any one day entitled to the number of withholding exemptions corresponding to the number of personal exemptions to which the nonresident alien is entitled on such day by reason of the application of section 873(b)(3) or section 876, whichever applies. Thus, a nonresident alien individual who is not a resident of Canada or Mexico and who is not a resident of Puerto Rico during the entire taxable year, is allowed only one withholding exemption.
( 2 ) The withholding exemption in paragraph (a) of this section and section 3402(f)(6) is the deduction allowed to the nonresident alien individual under section 151.
( b ) *Additional guidance.* A nonresident alien individual (other than a nonresident alien individual treated as a resident under section 6013(g) or (h)) subject to withholding must follow administrative guidance such as forms, instructions, publications, or other guidance prescribed by the Commissioner to determine the nonresident alien's withholding allowance.
( c ) *Applicability date.* The provisions of this section apply on and after October 6, 2020. Taxpayers may choose to apply this section on or after January 1, 2020 and before October 6, 2020. For rules that apply before October 6, 2020, see 26 CFR part 31, revised as of April 1, 2020.
[T.D. 9924, 85 FR 63032, Oct. 6, 2020]
#### Wilberforce Thomas, Appellant, v Veta Thomas, Respondent.

[808 NYS2d 81]

In action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Gibson, R.), entered June 17, 2004, as, after a nonjury trial, awarded the defendant sole title to the marital residence, directed him to transfer his share of the marital residence to the plaintiff in full satisfaction of the defendant’s share of the equitable distribution of the marital property, and failed to award him maintenance.

Ordered that the judgment is modified, on the law, on the facts, and as an exercise of discretion, by adding a provision thereto directing the defendant to pay to the plaintiff the sum of $30,000 as a distributive award; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Nassau County, for the entry of an appropriate amended judgment.

In making the determination as to the equitable distribution of the marital residence, the Special Referee failed to properly credit the plaintiff for a contribution made from his separate funds in the sum of $21,750, towards the down payment on the *375marital residence. In addition, the Special Referee failed to properly credit the plaintiff for contributions he made from his separate funds towards the payment of the mortgage and other household expenses during the approximately seven years he and the defendant lived in the marital residence. Under these circumstances and considering the relative length of this marriage, together with the sparse quantitative proof as to the expenditures of any marital funds on the plaintiffs separate property in Jamaica, we find that in distributing the marital residence, the Special Referee should also have made a distributive award of $30,000 to the plaintiff (see *generally Kobylack v Kobylack,*62 NY2d 399 [1984]; *Pelletier v Pelletier,*242 AD2d 325 [1997]).

The plaintiff’s remaining contentions are without merit. Florio, J.P., Luciano, Skelos and Lifson, JJ., concur.