alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
11 TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND

, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

In the interest of Z.B., J.B., * From the 3 26th District Court

and S.B., children, of Taylor County,

Trial Court No. 10792

- CX

.

No. 11

- 2 3

- 00 248

- C V * April 11 , 20 2 4

* Memorandum Opinion by Williams , J.

(P anel consists of: Bailey , C.J.,

Trotter , J. , and W illiams, J.)

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that th ere is no

error in the order below. Therefore, in accordance with this court’s opinion, the

order of the tr ia l court is in all things affirmed.
(logo) Rialto 

CAPITAL

 

 

**2017 Annual Statement of Servicer Compliance (Item1123)**

 

Pooling and ServicingAgreement (the “Pooling and Servicing Agreement”) dated as of December I, 2016by and among Morgan Stanley Capital I Inc., as Depositor, Midland LoanServices, A Division of PNC Bank, National Association as Master Servicer,Rialto Capital Advisors, LLC as Special Servicer, Wells Fargo Bank, NationalAssociation as Certificate Administrator and Trustee and Park Bridge LenderServices, LLC as Operating Advisor Asset Representations Reviewer relating tothe Morgan Stanley Capital I Trust 2016-UBS12, Commercial Mortgage Pass-throughCertificates, Series 2016-UBS12

**(MCSI 2016-UBS12)**

 

 

The undersigned, a dulyauthorized officer of Rialto Capital Advisors, LLC, as special servicer (the“Special Servicer”) herein ce1tifies to the following:

 

1.       All servicing activities and performanceof such servicing activities under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement areperformed on behalf of the Special Servicer.

 

2.       A review of the servicing activities andperformance by the Special Servicer for the period of January 1, 2017 toDecember 31, 2017 (the “Reporting Period”) in accordance with the Pooling andServicing Agreement has been conducted under my supervision.

 

3.       To the best of my knowledge, based on suchreview, the Special Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under theterms of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement, in all material respects for theReporting Period and if there has been a failure to fulfill any suchobligations in any material respect, each failure and the nature and statusthereof has been specifically identified herein. 

 

 

Certified by: /s/ Adam Singer

Adam Singer, Managing Director

 

Date: March 1, 2018
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 158 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. J. RES. 158

 To recognize the Peace Corps on the occasion of its 35th anniversary 
      and the Americans who have served as Peace Corps volunteers.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 31, 1996

 Mr. Farr of California (for himself, Mr. Hall of Ohio, Mr. Ward, Mr. 
    Walsh, Mr. Petri, and Mr. Shays) introduced the following joint 
   resolution; which was referred to the Committee on International 
                               Relations

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
 To recognize the Peace Corps on the occasion of its 35th anniversary 
      and the Americans who have served as Peace Corps volunteers.

Whereas the Peace Corps has become a powerful symbol of America's commitment to 
        expand hope, create opportunity, and encourage development at the grass 
        roots level in the developing world;
Whereas more than 140,000 Americans have served as Peace Corps volunteers in 
        more than 125 countries in Africa, Asia and the Pacific, Central Asia, 
        Eastern and Central Europe, and the Western Hemisphere since 1961, and 
        have strengthened the ties of friendship and understanding between the 
        people of the United States and those of other countries;
Whereas Peace Corps volunteers have made significant and lasting contributions 
        around the world in agriculture, business development, education, the 
        environment, health, and youth development, and have improved the lives 
        of individuals and communities around the world;
Whereas Peace Corps volunteers, enriched by their experiences overseas, have 
        brought to their communities throughout the United States a deeper 
        understanding of other cultures and traditions;
Whereas Peace Corps volunteers embody and represent many of America's most 
        enduring values, such as service, commitment to the poor, and friendship 
        among nations;
Whereas the Peace Corps continues to receive broad, bipartisan support in 
        Congress and from the American people; and
Whereas March 1, 1996 will mark the 35th anniversary of the founding of the 
        Peace Corps: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That the achievements and 
contributions of the Peace Corps over the past 35 years be celebrated; 
that the dedication and sacrifice of Peace Corps volunteers be 
recognized and their continued contributions be acknowledged not only 
for their service in other countries but in their own communities; and 
that the President is requested to honor Peace Corps volunteers and 
reaffirm our Nation's commitment to international peace and 
understanding.
                                 <all>
```
#### § 1.6654-7 Applicability.

Section 6654 is applicable only with respect to taxable years beginning after December 31, 1954. Section 294(d) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1939 shall continue in force with respect to taxable years beginning before January 1, 1955.

[T.D. 6500, 25 FR 12150, Nov. 26, 1960. Redesignated by T.D. 7282, 38 FR 19028, July 17, 1973. Redesignated by T.D. 9224, 70 FR 52301, Sept. 2, 2005]
## FOR PUBLICATION

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE : JAY RODIA GR EGORY F. ZOELLER Indianapolis, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
MICHELLE BUMGARNER Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana



## IN THE COURT OF APPE ALS OF INDIANA

PAUL SPARKS , ) ) Appellant

- Defendant, ) ) vs. ) No. 49A02

- 1207

- CR

- 593 ) STATE OF INDIANA , ) ) Appellee

- Plaintiff. )

APPEAL FROM THE MARION SUPERIOR COURT The Honorable Robert Altice , Judge Ca use No. 49G02

- 1202

- F C

- 8723

April 23, 2013

OPINION ON REHEARING
- FOR PUBLICATION

ROBB, Chief Judge

### 2

The State has petitioned for rehearing of this court’s decision in Sparks v

. State , 983 N.E.2d 221 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013), in which we held that the trial court did not handle Sparks’s

p robation revocation hearing in a way that comports with his due process rights, and we reversed and remanded for a new probation revocation hearing. We grant the petition for rehearing for the sole purpose of clarifying what is required on remand, but aff irm our opinion in all respects. 1 

### The State’s petition reiterates its original argument that an evidentiary hearing was not required because Sparks admitted to the probation violation after consulting with his attorney. However, as was well

- explained in t he opinion, Sparks’s admission was suspect in light of the comment made by the trial court. Thus, the particular circumstances surrounding Sparks’s admission rendered the lack of an evidentiary hearing in this case fundamental
error. Our decision did not change established Indiana law that a probationer may admit to a probation violation and waive the right to a probation violation hearing. See Ind. Code § 35

- 38

- 2

- 3(e). On remand, the trial court must conduct an evidentiary hearing in which the State

p roves by a preponderance of evidence that Sparks violated his probation. The State cannot rely on Sparks’s original admission, which this court held was suspect. If Sparks chooses to, once again, admit to the probation violation, there would no longer be a need for an evidentiary hearing, as long as both the trial court and the State abide by due process requirements.

1 Sparks has not filed a brief in response to the petition for rehearing.

### 3

M AY, J., and PYLE, J., concur.
§ 48.4216(e)-3 No exclusion or readjustment for other advertising charges or reimbursements. ( a ) *Exclusions from price.* No exclusion in computing the taxable price of any article sold by the manufacturer may be allowed in respect of any charge for advertising if, and to the extent that, such charge: ( 1 ) Is for advertising which does not qualify as local advertising within the meaning of section 4216(e)(4) and paragraphs (a) and (b) of § 48.4216(e)-1, or
( 2 ) Does not satisfy all of the conditions and limitations stated in section 4216(e)(1) and paragraph (c) of § 48.4216(e)-1.
( b ) *Readjustments of price.* No credit or refund under section 6416(b)(1) may be allowed in respect of any amount which was included in the taxable price of an article sold by the manufacturer and which was later paid by him to his vendee in reimbursement of costs incurred for advertising, if, and to the extent that, the amount so paid: ( 1 ) Is for advertising which does not qualify as local advertising within the meaning of section 4216(e)(4) and paragraph (b) of § 48.4216(e)-1, or
( 2 ) Is not within the limitation provided in section 4216(e)(2), as computed in accordance with § 48.4216(e)-2, as of the close of the calendar quarter in which the amount is so paid over or as of the close of any subsequent calendar quarter in the same calendar year. See, however, paragraph (c)(2)(ii) of § 48.6416(b)-1, relating to redetermination of price readjustments in cases where local advertising charges excluded from taxable price in one calendar year become taxable as of May 1 of the following calendar year.
[T.D. 6686, 28 FR 11411, Oct. 24, 1963. Redesignated and amended by T.D. 7536, 43 FR 13521, Mar. 31, 1978]
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 96 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. J. RES. 96

    Disapproving the extension of nondiscriminatory treatment (most-
 favored-nation treatment) to the products of the People's Republic of 
                                 China.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 16, 1995

Mr. Wolf (for himself, Mr. Solomon, Mr. Baker of California, Mr. Barton 
 of Texas, Mr. Bonior, Mr. Brown of Ohio, Mr. Bunning of Kentucky, Mr. 
Conyers, Mr. Diaz-Balart, Mr. Dickey, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Evans, Mr. Frank 
 of Massachusetts, Ms. Kaptur, Mr. Lantos, Mr. Markey, Ms. Pelosi, Mr. 
  Rohrabacher, Ms. Ros-Lehtinen, Mr. Sensenbrenner, Mr. Smith of New 
  Jersey, Mr. Stark and Mr. Traficant) 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.
    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That the Congress does not 
approve the extension of the authority contained in section 402(c) of 
the Trade Act of 1974 recommended by the President to the Congress on 
June 2, 1995, with respect to the People's Republic of China.
                                 <all>
```
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1026 Engrossed in House (EH)]

  1st Session

                               H. R. 1026

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

   To designate the United States Post Office building located at 201 
East Pikes Peak Avenue in Colorado Springs, Colorado, as the ``Winfield 
                     Scott Stratton Post Office''.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1026

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
   To designate the United States Post Office building located at 201 
East Pikes Peak Avenue in Colorado Springs, Colorado, as the ``Winfield 
                     Scott Stratton Post Office''.

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

    The United States Post Office building located at 201 East Pikes 
Peak Avenue, Colorado Springs, Colorado, shall be known and designated 
as the ``Winfield Scott Stratton Post Office''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the building referred to in section 1 
shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Winfield Scott Stratton Post 
Office''.

            Passed the House of Representatives October 17, 1995.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
```
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

RONALD PERREAULT

, Appellant,

v.

CRYSTAL COURT NO. 4 CONDOM I NIUM INC.,

Appellee

.

No. 4D22

- 3410

[ August 10, 2023 ]

Appeal of a nonfinal order from the C ounty Court for the Seventeenth

Judicial Circuit, Broward County ; Ellen Feld, Judge ; L.T. Case No.

COWE20002412.

Ronald Perreault, Plantation, pro se.

Kevin M. Kennedy and Cory B. Kravit of Kravit Law, P.A., Boca Raton,

for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed

.

M AY

, C ONNER and F ORST

, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
EXHIBIT 35.1





ANNUAL SERVICER’S COMPLIANCE CERTIFICATE





I, Kim Taylor, certify that:





(a) A review of The Huntington National Bank’s activities and of its performance under the Servicing Agreement, dated as of November 30, 2016 (the “Servicing Agreement”), by and among, Huntington Auto Trust 2016-1 (the “Issuing Entity”), The Huntington National Bank, as Servicer, (in such capacity, the “Servicer”), and Wells Fargo Bank, as indenture trustee (the “Indenture Trustee”), during the year ended December 2019 has been made under my supervision.





(b) To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Servicing Agreement in all material respects, throughout the aforementioned period.

















By:  /s/ Kim Taylor


Name:  Kim Taylor


Title:    Senior Vice President, The Huntington National Bank





Date: March 12, 2020
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 133 Agreed to House (ATH)]

104th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. CON. RES. 133

            Providing for an adjournment of the two Houses.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

              January 9 (legislative day, January 5), 1996

 Mr. Boehner submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was 
                        considered and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
            Providing for an adjournment of the two Houses.

    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That when the House adjourns on the calendar day of Tuesday, January 9, 
1996, it stand adjourned until 2 p.m. on Monday, January 22, 1996, or 
until noon on the second day after Members are notified to reassemble 
pursuant to section 2 of this concurrent resolution, whichever occurs 
first; and that when the Senate recesses or adjourns on the calendar 
day of Wednesday, January 10, 1996, pursuant to a motion offered by the 
Majority Leader or his designee, it stand recessed or adjourned until 
noon on Monday, January 22, 1996, or until noon on the second day after 
Members are notified to reassemble pursuant to section 2 of this 
concurrent resolution, whichever occurs first.
    Sec. 2. The Speaker of the House and the Majority Leader of the 
Senate, acting jointly after consultation with the Minority Leader of 
the House and the Minority Leader of the Senate, shall notify the 
Members of the House and the Senate, respectively, to reassemble 
whenever, in their opinion, the public interest shall warrant it.
                                 <all>
```
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

CERTIFICATION OF 10-Q REPORT

OF

WESTERN GAS RESOURCES, INC.

 

FOR THE QUARTER ENDED MARCH 31, 2004

 

1.             The undersigned are the Chief Executive Officer and the Chief Financial Officer of Western Gas Resources, Inc.  This Certification is made pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.  This Certification accompanies the 10-Q Report of Western Gas Resources, Inc. for the quarter ended March 31, 2004.

 

2.             We certify that such 10-Q Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in such 10-Q Report fairly represents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Western Gas Resources, Inc.

 

This Certification is executed as of November 22, 2004.

 

 
|   | /s/  PETER A. DEA                                                  |   |
|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|   | Peter A. Dea, Chief Executive Officerand President                      |
|   |                                                                    |
|   |                                                                    |
|   | /s/  WILLIAM J. KRYSIAK                                            |   |
|   | William J. Krysiak, Executive Vice Presidentand Chief Financial Officer |
EMIVEST 

Anthony Power 

Chief Executive Officer 

"•••'.^iMEi-JTOF 

\:-:i - 3 A ••}: 0 0 

April 25, 2011 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Docket Management System 

400 7'^ Street, SW 

Room PL 401 

Washingto ,DC 205901 -0001 

To whom it may concern. 

Emivest Aerospace Corporation formally requests cancellation of our previous 

submitted petition for rulemaking no. FAA-2010-1244 because Emivest Aerospace 

Corporation has ceased its aircraft manufacturing operations. 

Sincerely 

Anthony Power 

Eitihwtt A»ro«pao* 

Pagt 1 .>r 1 177Q SkyplBOB BoLJimwd 

San Anionic, "Dt 78218 www.amrvwuarospan.oom
§ 156.6161-1 Extension of time for paying tax or deficiency. ( a ) *In general* — ( 1 ) *Tax shown or required to be shown on return.* A reasonable extension of the time for payment of the amount of any tax imposed by chapter 54 (Greenmail) of the Code and shown or required to be shown on any return may be granted by the appropriate district director at the request of the taxpayer. The period of such extension shall not exceed 6 months from the date for payment of such tax.
( 2 ) *Deficiency.* The time for payment of any amount determined as a deficiency in respect of tax imposed by chapter 54 of the Code may, at the request of the taxpayer, be extended by the internal revenue officer to whom the tax is required to be paid. The extension may be for a period not to exceed 18 months from the date fixed for payment of the deficiency, as shown on the notice and demand. In exceptional cases, a further extension for a period not in excess of 12 months may be granted. No extension of time for payment of a deficiency shall be granted if the deficiency is due to negligence, to intentional disregard of rules and regulations, or to fraud with intent to evade tax.
( 3 ) *Extension of time for filing distinguished.* The granting of an extension of time for filing a return does not operate to extend the time for the payment of the tax or any part thereof unless so specified in the extension.
( b ) *Certain rules relating to extensions of time for paying income tax to apply.* The provisions of § 1.6161-1 (b), (c), and (d) of this chapter (relating to a requirement for undue hardship, to the application for extension, and to payment pursuant to an extension) shall apply to extensions of time for payment of the tax imposed by chapter 54 of the Code.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-8019

JOHN WAYNE CAUDLE,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

GENE M. JOHNSON, Director of the Virginia

Department of Corrections,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Richmond. M. Hannah Lauck, Magistrate

Judge. (3:05-cv-00235-MHL)

Submitted: May 14, 2007 Decided: June 12, 2007

Before WILKINSON, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John Wayne Caudle, Appellant Pro Se. Alice T. Armstrong, OFFICE OF

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
*

The parties consented to the jurisdiction of the magistrate

judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2000).

- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

John Wayne Caudle seeks to appeal the magistrate judge’s

order*

 denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. The

order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a

certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A

certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial

showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any

assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is

debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by

the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell,

537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484

(2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have

independently reviewed the record and conclude that Caudle has not

made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of

appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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