alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of John K. Walters, Petitioner, v Alan G. Hevesi, as State Comptroller, et al., Respondents.

[804 NYS2d 483]

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Albany County) to review a determination of respondent Comptroller which denied petitioner’s application for accidental disability retirement benefits.

Petitioner, a police officer, sustained injuries to his right hand while apprehending a suspect and applied for accidental disability retirement benefits. Following a hearing, a Hearing Officer *983denied petitioner’s application on the ground that the incident did not constitute an accident under Retirement and Social Security Law § 363. Respondent Comptroller thereafter adopted the Hearing Officer’s findings, prompting this CPLR article 78 proceeding by petitioner.

Inasmuch as substantial evidence supports the underlying determination, we confirm. Petitioner bears the burden of demonstrating that the injury sustained resulted from an accident within the meaning of Retirement and Social Security Law § 363 *(see Matter of Pryor v Hevesi,*14 AD3d 776, 776 [2005]). “ ‘An injury that occurs without an unexpected event, as the result of activity undertaken in the performance of ordinary employment duties (considered in view of the particular employment in question) is not an accidental injury’ ” *(Matter of Weisensel v Hevesi,*8 AD3d 880, 881 [2004], quoting *Matter of Cadiz v McCall,*236 AD2d 766, 766 [1997]; *see Matter of Lichtenstein v Board of Trustees of Police Pension Fund of Police Dept. of City of N.Y., Art. II,*57 NY2d 1010, 1012 [1982]). Petitioner claims that he was injured when a fellow police officer twisted his wrist while helping him handcuff the suspect on the ground and that the weight of the other assisting officers who were piled on top of petitioner crushed his hand. He further avers that assistance from the other officers was not required because the suspect was not struggling or attempting to get loose. Police reports written by officers at the scene, however, demonstrated that multiple officers and a police dog were involved in subduing a violent suspect who was resisting arrest and that a struggle ensued. Moreover, these reports indicate that petitioner was not injured as the result of any actions taken by a fellow officer. This evidence created a credibility issue for the Comptroller to resolve and we find no basis to disturb his finding that petitioner’s injury was within the scope of risks inherent in the performance of his regular employment duties *(see Matter of Lucian v McCall,*7 AD3d 905, 906 [2004]; *Matter of Nedwick v McCall,*308 AD2d 653, 653-654 [2003]; *Matter of Mirrer v Hevesi,*4 AD3d 722, 723 [2004]).

Mercure, J.P., Crew III, Peters, Mugglin and Rose, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.
#### § 801.2 Measuring organizational performance.

The performance measures that comprise the balanced measurement system will, to the maximum extent possible, be stated in objective, quantifiable, and measurable terms and will be used to measure the overall performance of various operational units within the IRS. In addition to implementing the requirements of the Act, the measures described here will, where appropriate, be used in establishing performance goals and making performance evaluations established, inter alia, under Division E, National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996 (the Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996)(Public Law 104-106, 110 Stat. 186, 679); the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (Public Law 103-62, 107 Stat. 285); and the Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990 (Public Law 101-576, 108 Stat. 2838). Thus, organizational measures of customer satisfaction, employee satisfaction, and business results (including quality and quantity measures as described in § 801.6T) may be used to evaluate the performance of or to impose or suggest production goals for, any organizational unit.

[T.D. 9227, 70 FR 60215, Oct. 17, 2005. Redesignated and amended by T.D. 9426, 73 FR 60628, Oct. 14, 2008]
§ 20.2051-1 Definition of taxable estate. ( a ) *General rule.* The taxable estate of a decedent who was a citizen or resident (see § 20.0-1(b)(1)) of the United States at death is determined by subtracting the total amount of the deductions authorized by sections 2053 through 2058 from the total amount which must be included in the gross estate under sections 2031 through 2044. These deductions are in general as follows— ( 1 ) Funeral and administration expenses and claims against the estate (including certain taxes and charitable pledges) (section 2053).
( 2 ) Losses from casualty or theft during the administration of the estate (section 2054).
( 3 ) Charitable transfers (section 2055).
( 4 ) The marital deduction (section 2056).
( 5 ) Qualified domestic trusts (section 2056A).
( 6 ) Family-owned business interests (section 2057) to the extent applicable to estates of decedents.
( 7 ) State death taxes (section 2058) to the extent applicable to estates of decedents.
( b ) *Special rules.* See section 2106 and the corresponding regulations for special rules regarding the computation of the taxable estate of a decedent who was not a citizen or resident of the United States. See also § 1.642(g)-1 of this chapter concerning the disallowance for income tax purposes of certain deductions allowed for estate tax purposes.
( c ) *Effective/applicability date.* This section applies to the estates of decedents dying on or after October 20, 2009.
[T.D. 9468, 74 FR 53657, Oct. 20, 2009]
§ 40.6107-1 Tax return preparer must furnish copy of return to taxpayer and must retain a copy or record. ( a ) *In general.* A person who is a signing tax return preparer of any return or claim for refund of any tax to which this part 40 applies shall furnish a completed copy of the return or claim for refund to the taxpayer and retain a completed copy or record in the manner stated in § 1.6107-1 of this chapter.
( b ) *Effective/applicability date.* This section is applicable for returns and claims for refund filed after December 31, 2008.
[T.D. 9436, 73 FR 78454, Dec. 22, 2008; 74 FR 5105, Jan. 29, 2009]
| (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 Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of November 1, 2016, byand among J.P. Morgan Chase Commercial Mortgage Securities Corp., as Depositor,Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as Master Servicer, Midland LoanServices, A Division of PNC Bank, National Association, as Special Servicer,Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as Certificate Administrator,Wilmington Trust, National Association, as Trustee, and Pentalpha SurveillanceLLC, as Operating Advisor and as Asset Representations Reviewer, with respectto Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series 2016-C4 (the"Agreement"). Capitalized terms used herein not otherwise definedshall have the meanings assigned in the Agreement.

 

 

Pursuant to Section 11.09 ofthis Agreement, I, Daniel Bober, Executive Vice President of CommercialMortgage Services do hereby certify that:

 

1.           A review of the activities of the Master Servicer during the period fromNovember 1, 2016 through December 31, 2016 (the “Reporting Period”), and of itsperformance per the Agreement during such period has been made under mysupervision, and 

 

2.           To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Master Servicer has fulfilledall of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughoutthe Reporting Period.

 

 

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

 

 

/s/Daniel Bober

Daniel Bober

Executive Vice President

Wells Fargo Bank

 

 

| Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. | (logo) Together we’ll go far |
|------------------------|------------------------------------|
###### Editorial Note on Part 301

#### Editorial Note:

In the text of this part, integral section references are to sections of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954; decimal section references are to the Code of Federal Regulations.

References in the text to the “Code” are references to sections of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954.

#### § 301.6105-1 Compilation of relief from excess profits tax cases.

Pursuant to and in accordance with the provisions of section 6105, the Commissioner shall make and publish in the Federal Register a compilation, for each fiscal year beginning after June 30, 1941, of all cases in which relief under the provisions of section 722 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1939, as amended, has been allowed during such fiscal year by the Commissioner and by the Tax Court of the United States.
#### § 15.737-6 Interpretative standards.

A determination that a former officer or employee of the Department violated 18 U.S.C. 207 (a), (b) or (c) will be made in conformance with the standards established in the interpretative regulations promulgated by the Office of Government Ethics and published at 5 CFR part 737.
###### Editorial Note on Part 301

#### Editorial Note:

In the text of this part, integral section references are to sections of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954; decimal section references are to the Code of Federal Regulations.

References in the text to the “Code” are references to sections of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954.

#### § 301.6017-1 Self-employment tax returns.

For provisions relating to the requirement of self-employment tax returns, see § 1.6017-1 of this chapter (Income Tax Regulations).

Estate and Gift Tax Returns
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-12-00292-CV

TIM BRANDON APPELLANT

V.

WELLS FARGO BANK WALLACE 

HALL, INDIVIDUALLY AMIA 

BECKER, INDIVIDUALLY CRYSTAL 

CASTILLO, INDIVIDUALLY

APPELLEES

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

FROM THE 141ST DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY

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

MEMORANDUM OPINION1 AND JUDGMENT

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

On November 19, 2012, we notified appellant that his brief did not comply 

with rules of appellate procedure 9.4(h) and 38.1(a)–(k) and local rules 1.A and 

1.A(8). We gave appellant until November 29, 2012, to file an amended brief that 

complied with these rules and informed him that failure to do so might result in 

 

1See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
2

striking the brief he had filed, waiver of noncomplying points, or dismissal of the 

appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(a), 38.9(a), 42.3. 

On December 11, 2012, we notified appellant that because his amended 

brief had not been filed, we would dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution 

unless, on or before December 21, 2012, he or any party desiring to continue the

appeal filed with the court a motion reasonably explaining the failure to file his 

amended brief and the need for an extension. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(a)(1), 

42.3. Having received no response, we dismiss the appeal for want of 

prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(a), 42.3(b), 43.2(f).

Appellant shall pay all costs of this appeal, for which let execution issue.

PER CURIAM

PANEL: MCCOY, MEIER, and GABRIEL, JJ. 

DELIVERED: January 17, 2013
Editorial Note on Part 10
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 10 appear by T.D. 9359, 72 FR 54544, Sept. 26, 2007.

§ 10.52 Violations subject to sanction. ( a ) A practitioner may be sanctioned under § 10.50 if the practitioner— ( 1 ) Willfully violates any of the regulations (other than § 10.33) contained in this part; or
( 2 ) Recklessly or through gross incompetence (within the meaning of § 10.51(a)(13)) violates § 10.34, § 10.35, § 10.36 or § 10.37.
( b ) *Effective/applicability date.* This section is applicable to conduct occurring on or after September 26, 2007.
[T.D. 9359, 72 FR 54551, Sept. 26, 2007]
(Cin. Superior Court,

Gen. Term, 1899.)

#### OHIO MESSENGER & TELEGRAPH CO. v. THEODORE BRANDSTETTNER.

*Rules of general terms as to*briefs—

(1.) The rules of the superior court of Cincinnati require briefs to be filed in all general term cases, containing distinctly the points relied upon. A motion for rehearing will be denied when the brief of plaintiff in error made no reference to the technical error relied upon in the motion. The fact that he did not, by reason of want of time, reach the point in oral argument does not excuse the omission in his brief.

*Too late to open cases on technical*errors—

(2.) Where a case has been examined in general term on all the substantial questions of law and evidence raised in the brief of plaintiff in error, it is toodatetoreopenthecase upon a mere technical error in the charge of the trial court to the jury, of which no reference was made either in his brief or oral argument.

On motion for hearing.

*Scott Bonham*and *Louis A. Ireton,*for motion.

*C. B. Matthews,*contra.

By the Court.

This motion must be denied. The grounds advanced for a rehearing are not, sufficient in the opinion of the court to overcome the reasons assigned in the original decision by the court for declining to interfere with the judgment below because of the technical error, if it be. error, in the charge of the trial court. The rules of the court require that in all general term cases briefs shall be filed, containing distinctly the points relied on for reversal or otherwise. In the brief filed by plaintiff in error in this case, whether from oversight or otherwise, no reference was made to the technical error in question, and we do. not feel that, at this stage of the case, when the case has been examined on all the substantial questions of law and evidence raised, it ought to be reopened for discussion of mere technical error. In this case there was no reference to the point involved, either in the brief or in the oral argument. Counsel claims that by reason of want of time he did not reach the point in the oral argument, but a similar excuse cannot avail him for the omission in his brief, as to which he had absolute control.
#### § 1.9 Records not to be otherwise withdrawn or disclosed.

Except in accordance with this part, or as otherwise authorized, Treasury Department officers and employees are prohibited from making records or duplicates available to any person who is not an officer or employee of the Department, and are prohibited from withdrawing any such records or duplicates from the files, possession or control of the Department.

[69 FR 54003, Sept. 7, 2004]
| (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 to that certainPooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of December 1, 2016, by and amongWELLS FARGO COMMERCIAL MORTGAGE SECURITIES, INC., as Depositor, WELLS FARGOBANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Master Servicer, LNR PARTNERS LLC, as SpecialServicer, WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Certificate Administrator,WILMINGTON TRUST, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Trustee and TRIMONT REAL ESTATEADVISORS, LLC, as Operating Advisor and as Asset Representations Reviewer withrespect to Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series 2016-C37 (the"Agreement"). Capitalized terms used herein not otherwise definedshall have the meanings assigned in the Agreement.

 

Pursuant to Section 11.09 of thisAgreement, I, Daniel Bober, Executive Vice President of Commercial MortgageServices do hereby certify that:

 

1.       Areview of the activities of the Master Servicer during the period from January1, 2017 through December 31, 2017 (the “Reporting Period”), and of itsperformance per the Agreement during such period has been made under mysupervision, and

 

2.       To thebest of my knowledge, based on such review, the Master Servicer has fulfilledall of its obligations under this Agreement in all material respects throughoutthe Reporting Period.

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned hasexecuted this Certificate as of the 28th day of February 2018.

 

 

/s/Daniel Bober

DanielBober

ExecutiveVice President

WellsFargo Bank

 

 

| Wells Fargo Bank,  N.A. | (logo)  Together we’ll go far |
|-------------------------|-------------------------------------|
# L_2020031EN.01001001.xml

| 4.2.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 31/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.2.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 31/10

---

Corrigendum to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/1776 of 9 October 2019 amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 280 of 31 October 2019
  )

On page 1030, the entry for Switzerland, in third column, is replaced with the following:

‘Eidgenössische Zollverwaltung EZV — Sektion Tabak- und Biersteuer

Administration fédérale des douanes AFD — Section Impôts sur le tabac et sur la bière

Amministrazione federale delle dogane AFD — Sezione imposte sul tabacco e sulla birra

Federal Customs Administration FCA — Section Tobacco and Beer Tax’.

---
Comment Info: ================= General Comment:Bryan Regan Photography 400 E. Martin St. Raleigh NC 27601 bryan@bryanreganphotography.com
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

	NO. 2-03-105-CV

WILLIAM R. HURST	APPELLANT

	V.

ESTATE OF ROBERT L. HAYNIE, 

DECEASED, LEAH LYNN HAYNIE, 

AND M. DAN KING, INDEPENDENT 

ADMINISTRATOR AND TRUSTEE 	APPELLEES

	----------

	FROM PROBATE COURT NO. 2 OF TARRANT COUNTY

	----------

	MEMORANDUM OPINION1 AND JUDGMENT

	----------

We have considered appellant’s “Motion To Dismiss Appeal.”  It is the court's opinion that the motion should be granted; therefore, we dismiss the appeal.  See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(1), 43.2(f).

Costs of the appeal shall be paid by the party incurring the same, for which let execution issue.

PER CURIAM	

PANEL D:	LIVINGSTON, DAUPHINOT, and HOLMAN, JJ.

		         DELIVERED: May 8, 2003
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 156 (Friday, August 14, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 41132]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-19495]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisition of Shares of Bank or 
Bank Holding Companies

    The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank 
Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and Sec. [thinsp]225.41 of the Board's 
Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire a bank or bank holding company. 
The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth 
in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).
    The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal 
Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for 
inspection at the office of the Board of Governors. Interested persons 
may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for 
that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must 
be received not later than August 31, 2009.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago (Colette A. Fried, Assistant 
Vice President) 230 South LaSalle Street, Chicago, Illinois 60690-1414:
    1. David L. Schultz, Luana, Iowa; to acquire additional voting 
shares of Luana Bancorporation, and thereby indirectly acquire 
additional voting shares of Luana Savings Bank, both of Luana, Iowa.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, August 11, 
2009.
Robert deV. Frierson,
Deputy Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. E9-19495 Filed 8-13-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-S
###### Editorial Note on Part 301

#### Editorial Note:

In the text of this part, integral section references are to sections of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954; decimal section references are to the Code of Federal Regulations.

References in the text to the “Code” are references to sections of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954.

#### § 301.6064-1 Signature presumed authentic.

An individual's name signed to a return, statement, or other document shall be prima facie evidence for all purposes that the return, statement, or other document was actually signed by him.
§ 40.6694-4 Extension of period of collection when tax return 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 period of collection when a tax return preparer who prepared return or claim for refund of excise tax of any tax to which this part 40 applies pays 15 percent of a penalty for understatement of taxpayer's liability and procedural matters relating to the investigation, assessment and collection of the penalties under section 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 78455, Dec. 22, 2008]
§ 31.3401(a)(16)-1 Tips. Tips paid to an employee are excepted from wages and hence not subject to withholding if— ( a ) The tips are paid in any medium other than cash, or
( b ) The cash tips received by an employee in any calendar month in the course of his employment by an employer are less than $20.
However, if the cash tips received by an employee in a calendar month in the course of his employment by an employer amount to $20 or more, none of the cash tips received by the employee in such calendar month are excepted from wages under this section. The cash tips to which this section applies include checks and other monetary media of exchange. Tips received by an employee in any medium other than cash, such as passes, tickets, or other goods or commodities do not constitute wages. If an employee in any calendar month performs services for two or more employers and receives tips in the course of his employment by each employer, the $20 test is to be applied separately with respect to the cash tips received by the employee in respect of his services for each employer and not to the total cash tips received by the employee during the month. As to the time tips are deemed paid, see § 31.3401(f)-1. For provisions relating to the treatment of tips received by an employee prior to 1966, see paragraph (b)(11) of § 31.3401(a)-1. [T.D. 7001, 34 FR 1001, Jan. 23, 1969]