alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
MARTHA VIGIL, ANDY BLACKLEDGE and ROBIN SILVER, Petitioners, v. MICHAEL O. LEAVITT, *Administrator, United States Environmental Protection Agency; WAYNE NASTRI, Regional Administrator, Region IX; and UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, Respondents. * Pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 43(c), Michael O. Leavitt is automatically substituted as a party respondent for Christie Whitman.

No. 02-72424
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

381 F.3d 826; 2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 18495

September 1, 2004, Decided
PRIOR HISTORY: [**1] On Petition for Review of an Order of the Environmental Protection Agency. Vigil v. Leavitt, 366 F.3d 1025, 2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 9069 (9th Cir., 2004)
JUDGES: Before: Susan P. Graber, Kim McLane Wardlaw, and Jay S. Bybee, Circuit Judges.
OPINION

[*829] ORDER AMENDING OPINION AND GRANTING IN PART RESPONDENTS' MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION OR FOR REHEARING BY THE PANEL The opinion, filed May 10, 2004, slip opinion 595, and appearing at 366 F.3d 1025 (9th Cir. 2004), is amended as follows: 1. At slip op. 5967, first full paragraph, line 25; 366 F.3d at 1033, second full paragraph, line 39, delete "and applied here in the approval of Arizona's SIP." 2. At slip op. 5967, first full paragraph, line 26; 366 F.3d at 1033, second full paragraph, line 41, insert the following: "We need not resolve the question whether the EPA's interpretation of the Act in the course of approving Arizona's SIP is entitled to Chevron deference, because the result in the present case would be the same under any standard of deference." With these amendments, the panel has voted to grant in part respondents' motion for clarification or for rehearing by the panel. Respondents' Motion for Clarification or for Rehearing by the Panel has been considered and [**2] it is GRANTED IN PART. No further petitions for rehearing may be filed. Page 1
| (logo) plante moran | **Plante & Moran, PLLC**

10 South Riverside Plaza

9th floor

Chicago, IL 60606

Tel: 312.207.1040

Fax: 312.207.1066

plantemoran.com |
|---------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

Report of IndependentRegistered Public Accounting Firm

 

 

To the Board of Directors

National Tax Search, LLC

 

We have examined National TaxSearch, LLC’s (the “Company”) compliance with the Securities and ExchangeCommission’s Regulation AB Servicing Criteria, set forth in Item 1122(d) of theSecurity and Exchange Commission’s Regulation AB for the National Tax SearchTaxQ system (the “Platform”) as of and for the year ended December 31, 2016.The Company has determined that only certain servicing criteria,1122(d)(l)(ii), 1122(d)1(iv), 1122(d)2(ii), 1122(d)2(v), 1122(d)2(vi),1122(d)(4)(xi), and 1122(d)(4)(xii), are applicable to the activities performedby it with respect to the Platform covered by this report. The Company hasdetermined that the remaining servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) ofthe SEC Regulation AB are not applicable to the activities performed by it withrespect to the Platform covered by this report.

 

Management is responsible forthe Company's compliance with those servicing criteria. Our responsibility isto express an opinion on management's assertion about the Company's compliance withthe servicing criteria based on our examination. Our examination was conductedin accordance with standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board(United States) and, accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidenceabout the Company's compliance with the applicable servicing criteria andperforming such other procedures as we considered necessary in thecircumstances. Our examination included a selection of a sample of transactionsand compliance activities related to the Platform during the examination periodand determining whether the Company processed those transactions and performedthose activities in compliance with the servicing criteria. Our testing ofselected transactions and compliance activities was limited to calculations,reports, and activities performed by the Company during the period covered bythis report. Our procedures did not include determining whether errors may haveoccurred prior to our tests that may have affected the balances or amountscalculated or reported by the Company during the period covered by this reportfor the selected transactions or any other transactions. We believe that ourexamination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our examination doesnot provide a legal determination on the Company’s compliance with theservicing criteria.

 

In our opinion, management’sassertion that the Company complied with the aforementioned servicing criteriaas of and for the year ended December 31, 2016 for the Platform is fairlystated in all material respects.

 

 

/s/ Plante & Moran, PLLC

 

Chicago, IL

January 27, 2017

 

 

(logo) Praxity 

MEMBER

GLOBAL ALLIANCE OF 

INDEPENDENT FIRMS
1 NO. 14- 15 -00439- CV

IN THE FOURTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

HOUSTON, TEXAS

DENBURY ONSHORE, LLC,

Appellant

,

V.

TEXCAL ENERGY SOUTH TEXAS, L.P., AND VENOCO, INC.,

Appellees

.

On Appeal from the 334th Judicial District Court, Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2014-17506

STATEMENT REGARDING MEDIATION

Appellant Denbury Onshore, LLC (“Denbury”) hereby notifies the Court

that the parties participated in mediation as required by the Court’s June 11, 2015

Abatement Order and that the parties were unable to resolve this dispute. Denbury

asks the Court to reinstate the appeal and issue a briefing schedule so that the

appeal may proceed. ACCEPTED

14-15-00439-cv

FOURTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

HOUSTON, TEXAS

8/4/2015 12:02:04 PM

CHRISTOPHER PRINE

CLERK2 Respectfully submitted,

Of Counsel:

Lionel M. Schooler

TBN 17803300

Jackson Walker L.L.P.

1401 McKinney, Suite 1900

Houston, TX 77010

(713) 752

- 4200 office

(713) 502

- 0381 fax

lschooler@jw.com /s/ J. Albert Kroemer

J. Albert Kroemer

TBN 11728400

Cantey Hanger LLP

1999 Bryan Street, Suite 3300

Dallas, TX 75201

(214) 978

- 4167 office

(214) 978

- 4150 fax

akroemer@canteyhanger.com

Stephen L. Tatum

TBN 19674500

T. Derek Carson

TBN 24085240

Cantey Hanger LLP

600 West 6th Street, Suite 300

Fort Worth, TX 76102

(817) 877

- 2800 office

(817) 877

- 2807 fax

statum@canteyhanger.com

dcarson@canteyhanger.com

COUNSEL FOR DENBURY

ONSHORE, LLC3 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

This is to certify that the foregoing docu ment was served via the Court’s

electronic

- filing system and/or electronic mail on the foll owing counsel of record

on this 4 th day of August , 2015.

Barrett H. Reasoner

Aundrea K. Gulley

Ayesha Najam

J. Benjamin Bireley

Gibbs & Bruns LLP

1100 Louisiana, Su ite 5300

Houston, TX 77002

breasoner@gibbsbruns.com

agulley@gibbsbruns.com

anajam@gibbsbruns.com

bbireley@gibbsbruns.com

/s/ J. Albert Kroemer

J. Albert Kroemer
#### Glenn DAVIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF TUCSON, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 01-17102.

D.C. No. CV-00-00032-WDB.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted June 10, 2002.*

Decided June 13, 2002.

Before O’SCANNLAIN, BERZON, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

*

 Because the panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument, Davis' request for oral argument is denied. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM**

Glenn Davis appeals pro se the district court’s summary judgment dismissing his Title VII action alleging race, national origin, gender, religion and disability discrimination and retaliation. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s summary judgment, *Margolis v. Ryan,*140 F.3d 850, 852 (9th Cir.1998), and we affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Davis’s Title VII claims because Davis failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether his employer terminated him due to a discriminatory or retaliatory motive. *See Sischo-Nownejad v. Merced Comm. College Dist.,*934 F.2d 1104, 1109-10 (9th Cir.1991) (discrimination); *Hashimoto v. Dalton,*118 F.3d 671, 679 (9th Cir.1997) (retaliation).

Davis’s remaining contentions lack merit.

AH outstanding motions are denied.

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 Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Swift Energy
Managed Pension Assets Partnership  1989-2,  Ltd.'s  balance  sheet and
statement  of  operations contained in its Form 10-Q for the quarter ended
March 31, 2000 and  is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial
statements.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                         1,150
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  16,258
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               17,408
<PP&E>                                         1,425,408
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (1,314,204)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 128,612
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          2,659
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                     125,953
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   128,612
<SALES>                                        10,389
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               10,432
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  4,311<F1>
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (2,096)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (2,096)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (2,096)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0
<FN>
<F1>Includes  lease  operating  expenses,  production  taxes  and  depreciation,
depletion and  amortization  expense.  Excludes general and  administrative  and
interest expense.
</FN>



</TABLE>
Docket Number: FAA-2012-0810
IA

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. J. RES. 76

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States limiting

the terms of office of Senators and Representatives.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 8, 1995

Mr. HILLEARY (for himself, Mr. NETHERCUTT, Mrs. MYRICK, Mr. MCINTOSH,

Mr. BRYANT of Tennessee, Mr. GRAHAM, Mr. ROYCE, Mr. LATOURETTE,

Mr. KINGSTON, Mr. WAMP, Mr. TATE, Mr. SALMON, Mr. WELLER, Mrs.

WALDHOLTZ, Mr. LATHAM, Mr. CHRISTENSEN, Mr. NORWOOD, Mr.

BROWNBACK, Mr. BASS, Mr. NEUMANN, Mrs. SMITH of Washington, Mr.

THORNBERRY, Mr. LARGENT, Mr. COBURN, Mr. TIAHRT, Mr. HUTCHINSON, Mr. STOCKMAN, Mr. PAXON, Mr. DICKEY, Mr. KLUG, and Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota) 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 limiting the terms of office of Senators and Representatives.

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
2

•HJ 76 IH

1 ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several

2 States within seven years after the date of its submission

3 for ratification:

4 ‘‘ARTICLE—

5 ‘‘SECTION 1. No person who has been elected to the

6 Senate two times shall be eligible for election or appoint7 ment to the Senate. No person who has been elected to

8 the House of Representatives six times shall be eligible

9 for election to the House of Representatives.

10 ‘‘SECTION 2. Election as a Senator or Representative

11 before this Article is ratified shall not be taken into ac12 count for purposes of section 1, except that any State limi13 tation on service for Members of Congress from that

14 State, whether enacted before, on, or after the date of the

15 ratification of this Article shall be valid, if such limitation

16 does not exceed the limitation set forth in section 1.’’.

Æ
| (logo) plante moran | **Plante & Moran, PLLC**

10 South Riverside Plaza

9th floor

Chicago, IL 60606

Tel: 312.207.1040

Fax: 312.207.1066

plantemoran.com |
|---------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

Report of IndependentRegistered Public Accounting Firm

 

 

To the Board of Directors

National Tax Search, LLC

 

We have examined National TaxSearch, LLC’s (the “Company”) compliance with the Securities and ExchangeCommission’s Regulation AB Servicing Criteria, set forth in Item 1122(d) of theSecurity and Exchange Commission’s Regulation AB for the National Tax SearchTaxQ system (the “Platform”) as of and for the year ended December 31, 2016.The Company has determined that only certain servicing criteria,1122(d)(l)(ii), 1122(d)1(iv), 1122(d)2(ii), 1122(d)2(v), 1122(d)2(vi),1122(d)(4)(xi), and 1122(d)(4)(xii), are applicable to the activities performedby it with respect to the Platform covered by this report. The Company hasdetermined that the remaining servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) ofthe SEC Regulation AB are not applicable to the activities performed by it withrespect to the Platform covered by this report.

 

Management is responsible forthe Company's compliance with those servicing criteria. Our responsibility isto express an opinion on management's assertion about the Company's compliancewith the servicing criteria based on our examination. Our examination wasconducted in accordance with standards of the Public Company AccountingOversight Board (United States) and, accordingly, included examining, on a testbasis, evidence about the Company's compliance with the applicable servicingcriteria and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in thecircumstances. Our examination included a selection of a sample of transactionsand compliance activities related to the Platform during the examination periodand determining whether the Company processed those transactions and performedthose activities in compliance with the servicing criteria. Our testing ofselected transactions and compliance activities was limited to calculations,reports, and activities performed by the Company during the period covered bythis report. Our procedures did not include determining whether errors may haveoccurred prior to our tests that may have affected the balances or amountscalculated or reported by the Company during the period covered by this reportfor the selected transactions or any other transactions. We believe that our examinationprovides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our examination does not provide alegal determination on the Company’s compliance with the servicing criteria.

 

In our opinion, management’s assertionthat the Company complied with the aforementioned servicing criteria as of andfor the year ended December 31, 2016 for the Platform is fairly stated in allmaterial respects.

 

 

/s/ Plante & Moran, PLLC

 

Chicago, IL

January 27, 2017

 

 

(logo) Praxity 

MEMBER

GLOBAL ALLIANCE OF 

INDEPENDENT FIRMS
Searched for **https://www.asc.gov/**

 

19961997199819992000200120022003200420052006200720082009201020112012201320142015201620172018201920202021202220232024

*Note:* This calendar view maps the number of captures of **https://www.asc.gov/**, *not* how many times the site was actually updated.

Look Up URL in general Internet Archive web collection.
October 2, 2015

Mr. Garrett Jaimerson Lee Escue

1710 West Erie

C101

Springfield, MO 65807

Dear Mr. Escue:

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your petition for an exemption from 

part 21 and §§ 45.23(b), 61.113(a) and (b), 91.7(a), 91.9(b), 91.103(b), 91.109, 119.121, 

91.151(a), 91.203(a) and (b), 91.405(a), 91.407(a)(1), 91.409(a)(2), and 91.417(a) and (b) of 

Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). It explains why we cannot process your 

request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Cannot Process Your Request

We received your exemption request filed in Docket No. FAA−2015−2851, but we are unable 

to process your request any further. Your petition does not comply with the requirements of

§ 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the request any further, you must send us all of 

the following:

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would

benefit the public as a whole.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.

For more detailed information relating to submitting petitions for exemption, please visit 

http://aes.faa.gov/petition/index.html. This website helps the petitioner to meet Federal 

Aviation Administration (FAA) requirement outlines in § 11.81 and helps answer any 

questions you may have.

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must submit the requested information 

within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your petition for exemption 

at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption. 
2

If We Do Not Hear From You

If we do not receive the information, we will close the docket without notifying you further. 

If you have any questions you may call the 333 Information Line (202) 267-2999.

Sincerely,

/s/

Brittany Newton

Program Analyst, Airmen and

 Airspace Rules Division

Enclosures
3
4
#### Island Wide Realty, Inc., Appellant, v Andrew Pappas et al., Respondents.

[807 NYS2d 597]

In an action, inter alia, to compel partial specific performance of a contract to sell real property, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Burke, J.), dated September 28, 2004, which denied its motion for leave to enter a default judgment and granted the defendants’ cross motion to dismiss the complaint based upon documentary evidence.

Ordered that the order is modified, on the law, by deleting the provision thereof granting those branches of the cross motion which were to dismiss the plaintiffs second and fourth causes of action and substituting therefor a provision denying those branches of the cross motion; as so modified, the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements, and the second and fourth causes of action are reinstated.

*435The plaintiffs complaint alleged four causes of action. The second sought, inter alia, to recover costs for surveys, and the fourth sought the return of the down payment.

It is undisputed that a contract was signed by the parties, providing for the sale of certain property to the plaintiff by the defendants. That contract, which is relied upon by the defendants, at least in part, to support their cross motion to dismiss the complaint, provides, inter alia, that in the event that the plaintiff cannot obtain certain building permits, it may be entitled to recover the costs of certain surveys and the return of its down payment. Since it appears that the aforementioned contingency occurred, the defendants were not entitled to dismissal of the plaintiffs second and fourth causes of action seeking to recover those survey costs and the return of its down payment.

The plaintiffs remaining contentions are either without merit or improperly raised for the first time on appeal. Florio, J.P., Crane, Ritter and Lifson, JJ., concur.
#### In the Matter of Gail Tabernuro, Respondent, v Reginald Jones, Appellant.

[807 NYS2d 606]

In a child custody and visitation proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, and a related family offense proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 8, the father appeals from (1) an order of the Family Court, Kings County (Goldstein, R.), dated July 8, 2004, which, after a hearing, inter alia, awarded custody to the mother, permitted the mother to relocate to Florida, and permitted the father only therapeutic, supervised visitation with the child, and only upon presentation of a written plan for such visitation, and (2) an order of the same court (Pearl, J.), dated July 12, 2004, which granted the mother an order of protection directing the father, among other things, to stay away from her and the child, except for court-ordered visitation, until June 7, 2006.

Ordered that the orders are affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The paramount concern in a custody dispute is to determine the best interests of the child based on a consideration of all of the relevant facts and circumstances *(see*Domestic Relations Law § 70; *Matter of Tropea v Tropea,*87 NY2d 727, 739 [1996]; *Eschbach v Eschbach,*56 NY2d 167, 171 [1982]; *Matter of Vann v Vann,*14 AD3d 710, 711 [2005]). “ ‘Since the Family Court’s *668custody determination is largely dependent upon an assessment of the credibility of the witnesses and upon the character, temperament, and sincerity of the parents, its determination should not be disturbed unless it lacks a sound and substantial basis in the record’ ” *(Matter of Grossman v Grossman,*5 AD3d 486, 486-487 [2004], quoting *Matter of Plaza v Plaza,*305 AD2d 607, 607 [2003]).

We find no basis in this case to disturb the Family Court’s determination that it was in the child’s best interests to award custody to the mother, and to permit the mother to relocate with the child to Florida *(see Matter of Tropea v Tropea, supra; Matter of Grossman v Grossman, supra; Matter of Coulter v Scales,*20 AD3d 475 [2005]).

In addition, based on the evidence in the record, the Family Court properly concluded that the father had committed acts constituting harassment in the second degree in violation of Penal Law § 240.26 (3), which fully supported the issuance of the order of protection in favor of the mother and the child and against him, directing him, inter alia, to stay away from the mother and child, except for court-ordered visitation, for a period of approximately two years. The father’s contention that the court should not have relied upon hearsay testimony in making the order of protection is without merit. H. Miller, J.P., Luciano, Fisher and Covello, JJ., concur.