alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
39260.

#### ADAMS v. THE STATE.

Franicum, Judge.

This court certified to the Supreme Court of Georgia the following question: “Where the mother of a child under 18 years of age is awarded temporary custody of the child in a divorce and alimony proceeding filed by the mother of the child against the, father of the child, is the father guilty of kidnapping the child under *Code*§ 26-1602 if the jury try*532ing him under an indictment under said Code section finds that he with force and arms fraudulently, maliciously and forcibly led, abducted, stole and carried away and enticed and carried away the child (alleged to have been kidnapped) from her mother, and against the will of the mother?” The Supreme Court answered this question in the negative. See *Adams v. State,*218 Ga. 130 (126 SE2d 624).

Decided September 12, 1962.

*Davis & Davidson, Jack S. Davidson, Tifton Greer,*for plaintiff in error.

*George Rains, Solicitor General,*contra.

Since the evidence shows that the defendant is the father of the child alleged to have been kidnapped by him, and at the time of the alleged kidnapping the mother of said child had been awarded temporary custody of the child by an interlocutory order granted in a divorce and alimony proceeding brought by the mother against the defendant, the court erred in overruling his motion for a new trial.

*Judgment reversed.*

*Nichols, P. J., and Jordan, J., concur.*
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED AUGUST 28, 2014

NO. 03-13-00015-CR

William Bryan Finley, Ill, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

APPEAL FROM COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 2 OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE JONES, JUSTICES PEMBERTON AND ROSE

AFFIRMED -- OPINION BY JUSTICE PEMBERTON;

DISSENTING OPINION BY CHIEF JUSTICE JONES

This is an appeal from the judgment of conviction rendered by the trial court. Having reviewed 

the record and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was no reversible error in the 

trial court’s judgment of conviction. Therefore, the Court affirms the trial court’s judgment of 

conviction. Because appellant is indigent and unable to pay costs, no adjudication of costs is 

made.
www.gpo.gov

### §290e–1. International Agency for Research on Cancer; authorization of appropriations; limitation

There are hereby authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary for the annual payment by the United States of its share of the expenses of the International Agency for Research on Cancer as determined in accordance with article VIII of the Statute of the International Agency for Research on Cancer, except that in no event shall that payment for any year exceed 16 per centum of all contributions assessed Participating Members of the Agency for that year.

(Pub. L. 92–494, Oct. 14, 1972, 86 Stat. 811.)
| (logo) WELLS FARGO | **Commercial Mortgage  Servicing**D1050-084, 8th Fl  401 South Tryon Street  Charlotte, NC 28202  1-800-326-1334 |
|--------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

**ANNUAL STATEMENT OFCOMPLIANCE**

 

 

Reference is hereby made tothat certain Trust and Servicing Agreement dated as of September 26, 2016, byand among J.P. Morgan Chase Commercial Mortgage Securities Corp., as Depositor,Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as Servicer and Special Servicer, WellsFargo Bank, National Association, as Certificate Administrator and WilmingtonTrust, National Association, as Trustee with respect to Commercial MortgagePass-Through Certificates Series 2016-NINE (the "Agreement").Capitalized terms used herein not otherwise defined shall have the meaningsassigned in the Agreement.

 

Pursuant to Section 13.7 ofthis Agreement, I, Daniel Marthinsen, Managing Director of Special Servicing dohereby certify that:

 

1.            A review of the activities of the Special Servicer during the period fromSeptember 26, 2016 through December 31, 2016 (the “ReportingPeriod”), and of its performance per the Agreement during such period hasbeen made under my supervision, and 

 

2.            To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Special Servicer hasfulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respectsthroughout the Reporting Period.

 

 

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

                                                                                               

 

/s/ Daniel Marthinsen

Daniel Marthinsen, ManagingDirector                  

Wells Fargo Bank 

 

| Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. | (logo) Together we’ll  go far |
|------------------------|-------------------------------------|
Air Transport Association

1301 Pennsylvania Ave. NW

Suite 1100

Washington, DC 20004

202 626-4012

October 17, 2011

U.S. Department of Transportation

Docket Management System

400 7th Street SW, Plaza 401

Washington, DC 20590

Re: Exemption No. 5400I, (Docket No. FAA-2001-10676)

Dear Sir or Madam:

In accordance with the Code of Federal Regulations, 14 CFR §11.81, the Air Transport 

Association of America1(ATA) on behalf of its member airlines and other similarly 

situated Part 121 certificate holders, petitions for an extension of Exemption No. 5400I

(Docket No. FAA-2001-10676). This exemption will expire on January 31, 2012.

Exemption No. 5400I permits ATA member airlines and other similarly situated Part 121 

air carriers to use a Phase II (Level C) simulator for pilot in command (PIC) training and 

checking in accordance with the requirements of Part 121, Appendix H, amended, 

provided certain conditions and limitations are met. Also, under the terms of the 

exemption, upgrade training and the certification check required by 14 CFR §61.157 can 

be accomplished in a Phase II simulator.

The conditions and circumstances, in regard to public interest and equivalent levels of 

safety, which warranted the original grant of exemption, continue to exist. This 

exemption and its predecessors, Exemption No. 5400, have been in use for almost 18

years with no known compromise of safety.

The renewal of this exemption is not a controversial issue. ATA believes that there is 

just cause to waive the requirement of public notice of this petition. There is no 

substantial change to the exemption and the renewal of this exemption is not precedent 

 

1The Member airlines are: Air Tran Airways, Alaska Airlines, American Airlines, ASTAR Air Cargo, Atlas 

Air, Continental Airlines, Delta Air Lines, Evergreen International Airlines, Federal Express, Hawaiian 

Airlines, JetBlue Airways, Southwest Airlines, United Airlines, United Parcel Service, Co., and US 

Airways. The Associate members are: Air Canada and Air Jamaica. 
setting, therefore, ATA requests that publication in the Federal Register be waived as 

unnecessary.

A summary of this petition is included (Attachment 1) as required by 14 CFR §11.81.

If any further information is required, please call me at 202-626-4012

Sincerely,

/S/

Paul W. Railsback

Director – Operations

Air Transport Association

1301 Pennsylvania Ave, NW

Suite 1100

Washington, DC 200004

Attachment 1: Summary of Petition
Attachment 1

October 17, 2012

Docket No. FAA-2001-10676

Summary of ATA Petition

Petitioner: Air Transport Association of America (ATA)

Regulation Affected: 14 CFR §61.157

14 CFR §121 Appendix H

Description of Relief Sought: Renew Exemption 5400I with no other changes to the

existing terms except to extend its termination date. 

This allows Part 121 operators to use a Phase II (Level 

C) simulator for pilot in command (PIC) training and 

checking in accordance with the requirements of Part 

121, appendix H, provided certain conditions and 

limitations are met.
§ 509.114 Private pensions and life annuities. ( a ) *General.* Private pensions and life annuities derived from sources within the United States and paid to a nonresident alien individual who is a resident of Switzerland shall not be included in gross income and shall be exempt from United States tax, in accordance with Article XI of the convention, even though at some time during the taxable year such individual has engaged in trade or business in the United States through a permanent establishment situated therein.
( b ) *Definitions.* As used in this section, the term “pensions” means periodic payments made in consideration for services rendered or by way of compensation for injuries received; and the term “life annuities” means a stated sum payable periodically at stated times during life, or during a specified number of years, under an obligation to make the payments in return for adequate and full consideration in money or money's worth.
Order filed, April 3, 2013

.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 13

- 00235

- CV

____________ WILLIAM MARSH RICE U NIVERSITY AND GARY S PEARS , Appellant

V.

RASHEED RAFAEY , Appellee

On Appeal from the 11th District Court Harr is County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2010

- 25730



### ORDER
The reporter’s record in this case was due March 25, 2013

. See Tex. R. App. P. 35.1. The court has not received a request to extend time for filing the
record. The record has not been filed with the court. Because the reporter’s record has not been filed timely, we issue the following order.

We order Terri Anderson , the official court reporter, to file the record in this appeal within 10 days of the date of this order

. PER CURIAM
IA

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. J. RES. 52

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States providing

for 4-year terms for Representatives and limiting the service of Senators

and Representatives to 12 years.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 11, 1995

Mr. PETERSON of Florida 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 providing for 4-year terms for Representatives

and limiting the service of Senators and Representatives

to 12 years.

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled

3 (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the fol4 lowing article is proposed as an amendment to the Con5 stitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all

6 intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when

7 ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several
2

•HJ 52 IH

1 States within 7 years from the date of its submission by

2 the Congress:

3 ‘‘ARTICLE—

4 ‘‘SECTION 1. The House of Representatives shall be

5 composed of Members chosen every 4th year by the people

6 of the several States. The terms of Representatives shall

7 begin at noon on the 3d day of January of the years that

8 occur 2 years after the years in which the term of the

9 President begins.

10 ‘‘SECTION 2. A person may not be a Senator if the

11 person has been a Senator for more than 12 years during

12 the lifetime of the person. A person may not be a Rep13 resentative if the person has been a Representative for

14 more than 12 years during the lifetime of the person. Any

15 term as a Senator or Representative for which a person

16 is elected or appointed to fill a vacancy in the representa17 tion of any State in the Congress may not be counted for

18 purposes of computing the 12-year limits in this section.

19 ‘‘SECTION 3. Sections 1 and 2 shall apply only to

20 Representatives who are elected on or after the date occur21 ring 1 year after the 1st day that this article is valid as

22 part of the Constitution and on which the electors of the

23 President and the Vice President are chosen.

24 ‘‘SECTION 4. Section 2 shall apply only to Senators

25 who are elected or appointed on or after the date occurring
3

•HJ 52 IH

1 1 year after the 1st day that this article is valid as part

2 of the Constitution and on which the electors of the Presi3 dent and the Vice President are chosen.’’.

Æ
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 152 (Monday, August 10, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 39948-39950]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-18961]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary

[Transmittal Nos. 09-29]


36(b)(1) Arms Sales Notification

AGENCY: Department of Defense, Defense Security Cooperation Agency.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Department of Defense is publishing the unclassified text 
of a section 36(b)(1) arms sales notification. This is published to 
fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated 21 
July 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. B. English, DSCA/DBO/CFM, (703) 
601-3740.
    The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of 
Representatives, Transmittals 09-29 with attached transmittal and 
policy justification.

    Dated: July 28, 2009.
Patricia L. Toppings,
OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
BILLING CODE 5001-06-M

[[Page 39949]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN10AU09.006


[[Page 39950]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN10AU09.007

[FR Doc. E9-18961 Filed 8-7-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-06-C
#### § 403.41 Discontinuance of administrative proceedings.

If the petition is filed prior to sale or other disposition of the property, proceedings to effect such sale or other disposition will be discontinued until the petition is either allowed or denied.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Homeland Security

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

# AGENCY:

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

# ACTION:

Notice of accreditation and approval of Saybolt LP, as a commercial gauger and laboratory.

# SUMMARY:

                        Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to 19 CFR 151.12 and 19 CFR 151.13, Saybolt LP, 235 Marginal St. Suite 3, Chelsea, MA 02150, has been approved to gauge and accredited to test petroleum and petroleum products, organic chemicals and vegetable oils for customs purposes, in accordance with the provisions of 19 CFR 151.12 and 19 CFR 151.13. Anyone wishing to employ this entity to conduct laboratory analyses and gauger services should request and receive written assurances from the entity that it is accredited or approved by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection to conduct the specific test or gauger service requested. Alternatively, inquiries regarding the specific test or gauger service this entity is accredited or approved to perform may be directed to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection by calling (202) 344-1060. The inquiry may also be sent to                         *cbp.labhq@dhs.gov.*                         Please reference the Web site listed below for a complete listing of CBP approved gaugers and accredited laboratories.                         *http://cbp.gov/​xp/​cgov/​import/​operations_​support/​labs_​scientific_​svcs/​commercial_​gaugers.*

# DATES:

The accreditation and approval of Saybolt LP, as commercial gauger and laboratory became effective on April 09, 2009. The next triennial inspection date will be scheduled for April 2012.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

Dated: August 4, 2009.

Ira S. Reese,

Executive Director, Laboratories and Scientific Services.

[FR Doc. E9-19391 Filed 8-12-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 9111-14-P
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Joseph Harris, Appellant.

[806 NYS2d 637]

*581Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Westchester County (Leavitt, J., at trial; Zambelli, J., at sentence), rendered February 5, 2002, convicting him of grand larceny in the fourth degree and criminal possession of stolen property in the fourth degree, after a nonjury trial, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see *People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. A rational trier of fact could have concluded that the testimony at trial was sufficient to establish the value of the stolen property *(see People v Castillo,*167 AD2d 159 [1990]; *People v Gaul,*22 AD2d 805 [1964]).

Furthermore, the County Court properly denied the defendant’s request to preclude the People from offering photographs and accompanying testimony into evidence based upon the People’s failure to comply with the procedures set forth in Penal Law § 450.10. The defendant failed to show that the release of the stolen property to the complainant caused him such undue prejudice as to warrant the imposition of sanctions *(see*Penal Law § 450.10 [10]; *People v Kelly,*62 NY2d 516 [1984]; *People v Woodberry,*239 AD2d 448 [1997]; *People v Watkins,*239 AD2d 448 [1997]). Moreover, the adverse inference, taken by the court, was a proper exercise of its discretion in fashioning a remedy for the People’s failure to notify the defendant before releasing the complainant’s property *(see People v Kelly, supra).*Adams, J.P., Luciano, Mastro and Lunn, JJ., concur.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Indar Pittam, Appellant.

[804 NYS2d 778]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Katz, J.), rendered June 18, 2003, convicting him of arson in the first degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, reckless endangerment in the *413first degree (three counts), and criminal mischief in the fourth degree (three counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, by reducing the sentence imposed on the conviction for arson in the first degree from an indeterminate term of 20 years’ to life imprisonment to an indeterminate term of 15 years’ to life imprisonment, and directing that all sentences shall run concurrently; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence is unpreserved for appellate review, and we decline to review it in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence *(see*CPL 470.15 [5]).

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, none of the court’s remarks during the trial prevented the jury from arriving at an impartial verdict based upon the evidence presented. The trial court kept the proceedings within the confines of the issues and encouraged clarity in the development of proof *(see People v Moulton,*43 NY2d 944, 946 [1978]). Although certain of the court’s comments during the course of the proceedings were clearly inappropriate, the defendant was not denied a fair trial by those unfortunate and ill-advised remarks *(see generally People v Moulton, id.; People v Brown,*291 AD2d 505 [2002]).

The defendant was afforded meaningful representation and was not denied the effective assistance of counsel *(see People v Benevento,*91 NY2d 708 [1998]; *People v Rivera,*71 NY2d 705 [1988]; *People v Baldi,*54 NY2d 137 [1981]).

The sentence was excessive to the extent indicated *(see People v Suitte,*90 AD2d 80 [1982]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Florio, J.P., Crane, Mastro and Rivera, JJ., concur.
§ 403.43 Final action. ( a ) *Petitions for remission or mitigation of forfeiture.* ( 1 ) The Commissioner or his delegate shall either allow or deny any petition filed pursuant to these regulations. Such allowance or denial will constitute final action. If he allows the petition, the Commissioner or his delegate shall state the conditions, if any, of the allowance.
( 2 ) If he allows the petition, the Commissioner or his delegate may order the property returned to the petitioner, sold for the account of the petitioner, or, pursuant to agreement with the petitioner, acquired for official use.
( 3 ) The Commissioner or his delegate shall notify the petitioner of the allowance or denial of the petition and, in the case of allowance, the conditions, if any, under which the Commissioner or his delegate allowed the petition.
( b ) *Offers in compromise of liability to forfeiture.* The Commissioner or his delegate shall accept or reject any offer in compromise of the liability to forfeiture of personal property seized pursuant to § 403.25 and such acceptance or rejection shall be a final action with respect to the offer.
#### Kacey Newman et al., Appellants, v Oceanside Union Free School District, Respondent.

[805 NYS2d 100]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Bucaria, J.), entered August 9, 2004, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the plaintiffs’ contentions, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The defendant demonstrated, prima facie, that it provided adequate supervision and, in any event, that the accident occurred in such a manner that it could not reasonably have been prevented by closer monitoring, thereby negating the alleged lack of supervision as the proximate cause of the infant plaintiff’s injuries *(see Weinblatt v Eastchester Union Free School Dist.,*303 AD2d 581 [2003]; *Berdecia v City of New York,*289 AD2d 354 [2001]; *Navarra v Lynbrook Pub. Schools, Lynbrook Union Free School Dist.,*289 AD2d 211 [2001]; *Lopez v Freeport Union Free School Dist.,*288 AD2d 355 [2001]).

Additionally, the defendant submitted expert evidence demonstrating, prima facie, that the design of the playground equip*632ment from which the infant plaintiff fell was appropriate for her age group, complied with relevant safety guidelines, and was not defective. The plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact in opposition to this showing. Schmidt, J.P., Cozier, Rivera and Fisher, JJ., concur.