alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Clive HOFFMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Derrick WADSWORTH, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 02-6646.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted June 13, 2002.

Decided June 19, 2002.

Clive Hoffman, Appellant Pro Se.

Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

PER CURIAM.

Clive Hoffman appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp.2001) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we. affirm on the reasoning of the district court. *See Hoffman v. Wadsworth,*No. CA-01-851-5-BR (E.D.N.C. Apr. 10, 2002). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED.*
Dam

KENDALL HILLS

0.2

0.3

0.3

0.2

0.7

0.4

1.0

Map

Available

Tunnel

Cross Country Trail

Lake Trail

Salt Run Trail

Kendall

Lake

Shelter

Kendall

Lake

Pine 

Hollow

Crow

Foot

Gulley

Little 

Meadow

to

Buckeye

Sports Center

to Pine Grove 

and Ledges Trails

to

Ledges

Shelter

to

Octagon

Shelter

Kendall Park Road

Truxell Road

Quick Road

Quick Road

to 

Akron Peninsula Road

to 

Cuyahoga Falls

0

0

0.25 Kilometers

0.25 Miles

to 

Akron

Peninsula 

Road

to Route 8

Cross Country Trail

Connector Trails

Lake Trail

Other Trails

Streams

Trailhead

Parking

Picnic Area

Restrooms

Contour lines at 10-foot intervals. 

Trail locations approximate.

 Map updated 8/2013.

Shelter

Sledding

Cross Country

Skiing

Distance between arrows (in miles) 0.2

North

Cross Country Trail

National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

Cuyahoga Valley National Park

CROSS COUNTRY TRAIL

Distance ..................2.3 miles

Hiking Time ............1.5 hours

Skiing Time .............1 hour

Rating......................moderate

Elevation Change ...160 feet

LAKE TRAIL

Distance .................. 1 mile

Hiking Time ............ 45 minutes

Rating...................... easy

Elevation Change ... 20 feet
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-6852

ISAAC GRAY,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF MARYLAND;

ARCHIE C. GEE, Warden,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (CA97-332-CCB)

Submitted: April 29, 1998 Decided: May 13, 1998

Before MURNAGHAN, NIEMEYER, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Isaac Gray, Appellant Pro Se. Annabelle Louise Lisic, OFFICE OF THE

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying

relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 &

Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court's

opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning

of the district court. Gray v. Attorney General, No. CA-97-332-CCB

(D. Md. May 22, 1997). We dispense with oral argument because the

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

DISMISSED
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
   PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)

     The undersigned Chief Executive Officer of First Keystone Financial, Inc.
(the "Registrant") hereby certify that the Registrant's Form 10-Q for the
quarter ended June 30, 2004 fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained
therein fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Registrant.

                                     /s/ Donald S. Guthrie
                                     -------------------------------------------
                                     Name: Donald S. Guthrie
                                     Title: Chairman and Chief Executive Officer

Date: August 13, 2004

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act has been provided to First Keystone Financial, Inc. and will
be retained by First Keystone Financial, Inc. and furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
§ 20.6694-4 Extension of period of collection when preparer pays 15 percent of a penalty for understatement of taxpayer's liability and certain other procedural matters. ( a ) *In general.* For rules relating to the extension of the period of collection when a tax return preparer who prepared a return or claim for refund for estate tax under chapter 11 of subtitle B of the Internal Revenue Code pays 15 percent of a penalty for understatement of the taxpayer's liability, and procedural matters relating to the investigation, assessment and collection of the penalties under sections 6694(a) and (b), the rules under § 1.6694-4 of this chapter will apply.
( b ) *Effective/applicability date.* This section is applicable to returns and claims for refund filed, and advice provided, after December 31, 2008.
[T.D. 9436, 73 FR 78451, Dec. 22, 2008]
#### Wu Zhou Wu, Also Known as Wo Zhou Wu, Appellant, v Korea Shuttle Express Corporation, Defendant, and Garden Hotel, Inc., Respondent.

[808 NYS2d 82]

*377In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Kelly, J.), dated July 15, 2004, which granted the motion of the defendant Garden Hotel, Inc., for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it.

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

The plaintiff alleged that he slipped on an ice patch on a public sidewalk abutting property leased by the respondent, Garden Hotel, Inc. “An owner or lessee of property abutting a public sidewalk is under no duty to pedestrians to remove snow and ice that naturally accumulates upon the sidewalk in front of the premises unless a statute or ordinance specifically imposes tort liability for failing to do so” *(Negron v G.R.A. Realty,*307 AD2d 282 [2003]).

In opposition to the respondent’s prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law *(see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp.,*68 NY2d 320 [1986]), the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact that the respondent undertook to remove snow,. or that due to its snow removal on or about the date of the accident, it created a more hazardous condition *(see Negron v G.R.A. Realty, supra; Yen Hsia v City of New York,*295 AD2d 565, 566 [2002]; *Plona v City of New York,*289 AD2d 215, 216 [2001]). We note that the accident at issue occurred before September 14, 2003, the effective date of revisions to the Administrative Code of the City of New York that imposed tort liability on certain abutting property owners for failure to maintain a sidewalk in a reasonably safe condition, including the negligent failure to remove snow and ice *(see*Administrative Code of City of NY § 7-210; *Martinez v City of New York,*20 AD3d 513, 514 [2005]). Adams, J.P., Crane, S. Miller and Mastro, JJ., concur.
#### Jacques M. Toussaint, Appellant, v Jason A. Claudio, Respondent.

[803 NYS2d 564]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Milton A. Tingling, J.), entered June 9, 2004, which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint for failure to establish serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d), unanimously modified, on the law, to deny the motion insofar as plaintiff’s claim of serious injury is predicated upon allegations that he sustained a nonpermanent injury in the subject automobile accident which incapacitated him for 90 of the 180 days immediately following the accident, and the complaint reinstated to that extent, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

The reports of the defense medical experts, based on examinations of plaintiff conducted six years after the subject automobile accident, addressed plaintiffs condition as of the time of the examination, not during the six months immediately after the accident, and were, accordingly, insufficient to sustain defendant summary judgment movant’s burden of proof to establish prima facie that plaintiff had not sustained serious injury by reason of having been incapacitated from performing substantially all of his customary and daily activities for 90 of the 180 days following the accident *(see Burford v Fabrizio, 8*AD3d 784, 786 [2004]; *Loesburg v Jovanovic,*264 AD2d 301 [1999]).

Defendant, however, by showing a more than six-year gap in plaintiff’s treatment, met his burden to demonstrate prima facie that plaintiff had not sustained serious injury involving a significant limitation in his use of a body function or system, *269and since plaintiff failed to come forward with a reasonable explanation for the gap, summary judgment dismissing plaintiff’s claim of serious injury under the significant limitation category was correct *(see Agramonte v Marvin,*22 AD3d 322 [2005]; *Pommells v Perez,*4 NY3d 566 [2005]). Concur—Tom, J.P., Marlow, Ellerin, Sweeny and Catterson, JJ.
#### § 31.3121(o)-1 Crew leader.

The term “crew leader” means an individual who furnishes individuals to perform agricultural labor for another person, if such individual pays (either on his own behalf or on behalf of such person) the individuals so furnished by him for the agricultural labor performed by them and if such individual has not entered into a written agreement with such person whereby such individual has been designated as an employee of such person. For purposes of this chapter a crew leader is deemed to be the employer of the individuals furnished by him to perform agricultural labor, after 1956, for another person, and the crew leader is deemed not to be an employee of such other person with respect to the performance of services by him after 1956 in furnishing such individuals or as a member of the crew. An individual is not a crew leader within the meaning of section 3121(o) and of this section if he does not pay the agricultural workers furnished by him to perform agricultural labor for another person, or if there is an agreement between such individual and the person for whom the agricultural labor is performed whereby such individual is designated as an employee of such person. Whether or not such individual is an employee will be determined under the usual common-law rules (see paragraph (c) of § 31.3121(d)-1).

[T.D. 6744, 29 FR 8320, July 2, 1964]
(logo)CWCapital

ASSETMANAGEMENT

 

 

**Annual Statement as toCompliance**

**For the Period of January 1,2017 to December 31, 2017**

** **

**MSBAM 2015-C27**

 

In accordance with Item 1123 of RegulationAB and with the requirements detailed in §13.9 of the Pooling and ServicingAgreement (the “Agreement”) for the above-mentioned CMBS pool, (the “CMBSPool”), CWCapital Asset Management LLC (“CWCAM”), in its capacity as SpecialServicer, is providing this Officer’s Certificate with respect to thefollowing: 

 

(A)   a review of CWCAM’s activities during thepreceding calendar year or portion thereof (the "Reporting Period")and of CWCAM’s performance under the Agreement has been made under such officer’ssupervision and;

 

(B)   to the best of such officer’s knowledge,based on such review, CWCAM has fulfilled all its obligations under theAgreement in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period. 

 

Should you have any questions,please do not hesitate to contact us.   

 

Sincerely, 

CWCapital Asset Management LLC 

 

/s/David B. Iannarone 

DavidB. Iannarone

President

 

 

7501Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 500 West, Bethesda, MD 20814 

www.cwcapital.com
----

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg lodged on 5 September 2006 — Heinrich Bauer Verlag BeteiligungsGmbH v Finanzamt für Großunternehmen in Hamburg

(Case C-360/06)

(2006/C 310/02)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Hamburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Heinrich Bauer Verlag BeteiligungsGmbH

Defendant: Finanzamt für Großunternehmen in Hamburg

Question referred

Is it incompatible with Article 52 in conjunction with Article 58 of the EEC Treaty (now Article 43 in conjunction with Article 48 EC) that, when unlisted shares in a capital company are valued, a financial interest in a German partnership is given a lower value than a financial interest in a partnership established in another Member State?

----
p. 1 

# OAR Box 

# 1796 Prepped byKeeia Richards

Document

Number: 

# 56 ) VI-B- 7 Docket Number: 

# A-90-3 7

Printed 10/31/2008 4:20:37

PM Sheet 56 of 107P. 2 A-90-3 7 VI-B- 7 Thi s documen t

ha s bee nmove dt o IV-E-2 5 a t th ereques t

o f th eprojec t officer . I t

wa s incorrectl y categoriz e originally .
#### § 48.4161(b)-3 Use considered sale.

For provisions relating to the tax on use of taxable articles by the manufacturer, producer, or importer thereof, see section 4218 relating to use by a manufacturer considered a sale, and the regulations thereunder.
City of Lakeland • Department of Electric Utilities 

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

501 East Lemon Street • Lakeland, Fl 33801-5050 • 863. 834.6603 • Fax 863. 834.8187 • Cell 863.430.8297 

farzie.shelton@lakelandelectric.com

Page 1 of 1 

 

 Farzie Shelton, ChE; REM 

 Associate GM Technical Support 

 

October 28, 2010 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards 

Sector Policies and Programs Division 

U.S. EPA Mailroom (D205-01) 

Attention: Mr. Peter Tsirigotis, Director 

109 T. W. Alexander Drive 

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711 

(submitted electronically with ERT)

RE: Electric Utility MACT Information Collection Request ERT Submittal 

 ORIS 0676 – C.D. McIntosh, Jr. Power Plant Unit 2 

Dear Mr. Tsirigotis: 

On behalf of Lakeland Electric (Lakeland), this letter accompanies the Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT)

submittals for Lakeland’s Unit 2 response to Part III of the information collection request (ICR) sent to Lakeland 

by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in January 2010. The ICR instructs Lakeland to conduct 

emissions testing and provide the results to EPA to assist the agency in developing national emission standards 

for hazardous air pollutants. 

All electronic files will be uploaded to the EPA ICR website. Test conditions and results are noted in both the 

ERT and accompanying Emissions Results Excel spreadsheet. Notably, the ERT recalculates test results based 

on built-in assumptions and procedures. As such, the emission numbers in the ERT may differ from the results in 

the actual emissions spreadsheet. Because ERT users cannot alter the assumptions and procedures embedded 

with the ERT, we cannot attest to the accuracy of the ERT-calculated results. We strongly recommend that EPA 

verify all data extracted through the ERT by comparison with the test results provided as Excel spreadsheets. 

If you have any questions regarding the enclosed, please do not hesitate to contact me. 

Sincerely, 

for/Farzie Shelton
IA

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. J. RES. 88

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to provide

that no person born in the United States will be a United States

citizen on account of birth in the United States unless a parent is

a United States citizen at the time of the birth.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MAY 17, 1995

Mr. CALLAHAN (for himself, Mr. STUMP, Mr. EVERETT, and Mr. TRAFICANT)

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

JOINT RESOLUTION

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United

States to provide that no person born in the United

States will be a United States citizen on account of

birth in the United States unless a parent is a United

States citizen at the time of the birth.

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two3 thirds of each House concurring therein), That the follow4 ing article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitu5 tion of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents

6 and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by

7 the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States with-
2

•HJ 88 IH

1 in seven years after the date of its submission to the

2 States for ratification:

3 ‘‘ARTICLE —

4 ‘‘SECTION 1. No person born in the United States

5 after the date of the ratification of this article shall be

6 a citizen of the United States, or of any State, on account

7 of birth in the United States unless the mother or father

8 of the person is a citizen of the United States at the time

9 of the birth.

10 ‘‘SEC. 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce

11 this article by appropriate legislation.’’.

Æ
§ 48.4041-4 Application of tax on sales of liquid for use as fuel in aircraft in noncommercial aviation. ( a ) *In general.* The taxes imposed by subparagraphs (1)(A) and (2)(A) of section 4041(c) apply to the taxable sale of any liquid by any person to an owner, lessee, or other operator of an aircraft, for use as a fuel in the aircraft in noncommercial aviation.
( b ) *Liability of tax.* The tax on the taxable sale of any liquid used as fuel in aircraft in noncommercial aviation is payable by the person who sells the liquid to the owner, lessee, or operator of an aircraft in noncommercial aviation.
( c ) *Rate of tax.* Tax is imposed on the sale of liquids used as fuel in aircraft in noncommercial aviation at the rate applicable on the date on which the liquid is sold. See § 48.4041-1(b)(3) for rates.
( d ) *Cross references.* ( 1 ) For the tax applicable on the basis of the use of fuel in an aircraft in noncommercial aviation, see § 48.4041-6.
( 2 ) For the definition of the term “noncommercial aviation”, see paragraph (j) of § 48.4041-8.
( 3 ) For the exemption of tax with respect to liquids used as fuel in aircraft in noncommercial aviation sold for use on a farm for farming purposes or as supplies for vessels or aircraft, see §§ 48.4041-9 and 48.4041-10, respectively. For tax-free sales if sellers and purchasers are registered, see § 48.4041-11.
( 4 ) For credit or refund of tax paid on fuel used in noncommercial aviation that is resold or used otherwise than for the purpose for which purchased, see section 6427(a).
( e ) *Effective date.* The provisions of this section shall apply to sales or uses occurring before October 1, 1980, and to sales or uses occurring on or after September 1, 1982, and ending before January 1, 1988.
[T.D. 8066, 51 FR 15, Jan. 2, 1986]
Exhibit 4.06



 Exhibit 4.06 
  
 AGREEMENT TO FURNISH CERTAIN DEBT AGREEMENTS 
  
 Upon request of the Securities and Exchange Commission we will provide the following debt agreements not filed herewith.

  
 1. Bond resolution dated December 6,
1983 with the Industrial Development Authority of the County of Maricopa authorizing the issuance of a $4,400,000 Industrial Revenue Bond. 
  
 2. Agreement dated April 28, 2003 with SunTrust Bank for a demand note in the amount of $10.0 million.
#### § 50.5 Liability for the tax.

Liability for tax attaches to any person engaged at any time during the taxable year in hydraulic mining in the area identified in paragraph (a) of § 50.2, if the debris from such mining operations is in whole or in part restrained by any of the debris dams or works constructed by the California Debris Commission.
This item contains materials that cannot be uploaded to the federal docket. A DVD containing

files submitted to EPA by Hogback Exploration

with miscellaneous file extensions is available by contacting docket staff via email at Docket_ORD@epamail.epa.gov
Amendment No. 3 to Distribution and Supply Agreement



 Exhibit 10.5 
 AMENDMENT NO. 3 TO 
 DISTRIBUTION AND SUPPLY AGREEMENT 

This Amendment No. 3 to Distribution and Supply Agreement (this “Amendment”) is made as of November 30, 2010, by and
among ViroPharma Incorporated, a Delaware corporation (hereinafter referred to as “Manufacturer”), and Prasco, LLC, an Ohio limited liability company (hereinafter referred to as “Distributor”). 

Manufacturer and Distributor are parties to a Distribution and Supply Agreement dated as of November 30, 2007, as amended (the
“Supply Agreement”) and wish to amend the Supply Agreement on the terms of this Agreement. 
 Manufacturer and
Distributor agree as follows: 
  

	 	1.	Termination for Delayed Launch. The parties hereby amend Sections 10.2(a) and 10.3(a) of the Supply Agreement to delete the words “December 31, 2010” and
substitute in lieu thereof the words “December 31, 2011”. 

  

	 	2.	Subject to the above amendment, the Supply Agreement shall continue on its terms. All references to “this Agreement” in the Supply Agreement shall mean the
Supply Agreement as modified hereby and from time to time hereafter. This Amendment may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall be an original, but all of which together shall constitute one instrument. This Amendment has been executed in
and will be governed as to validity, interpretation and effect by the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, without regard to principles of conflict of laws. 

 Manufacturer and Distributor have caused this Amendment to be duly executed as of the date first written above. 

 

			
	VIROPHARMA INCORPORATED
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Daniel B. Soland



 
			
	Name:	 	Daniel B. Soland
	Title:	 	Vice President and COO


 
			
	
	PRASCO, LLC
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Christopher H. Arington



 
			
	Name:	 	Christopher H. Arington
	Title:	 	President
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

 Respondent

 v.

ROBERT ALLEN NESMITH, JR.,

 Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 314 WAL 2014

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the

Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 25th day of November, 2014, the Petition for Allowance of

Appeal is DENIED.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 09-8227

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff – Appellee, 

 v. 

PAUL A. LEE, 

 Defendant – Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern 

District of West Virginia, at Wheeling. Frederick P. Stamp, 

Jr., Senior District Judge. (5:89-cr-00273-FPS-1) 

Submitted: January 19, 2010 Decided: February 9, 2010 

Before MICHAEL and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge. 

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Paul A. Lee, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Oliver Mucklow, Assistant 

United States Attorney, Martinsburg, West Virginia, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2 

PER CURIAM: 

 Paul A. Lee appeals the district court’s orders 

denying his motions to revisit and to refile. We have reviewed 

the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm 

for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. 

Lee, No. 5:89-cr-00273-FPS-1 (N.D. W. Va. Dec. 9, 2009). 

Appellant’s “Motion for Abeyance and Motion to Dismiss” is 

denied. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and 

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process. 

AFFIRMED
#### § 48.4062(a)-1 Specific parts or accessories.

Spark plugs, storage batteries, leaf springs, coils, timers, and tire chains, which are suitable for use on or in connection with, or as component parts of, automobile trucks, other automobiles, tractors, or other vehicles enumerated in section 4061(a), are considered parts of, or accessories for, such articles whether or not primarily designed or adapted for such use.