alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA MICHAEL COMER, : : Plaintiff, : Civil Action No.: 09-2455 (RMU) : v. : : FEDERAL BUREAU OF : Re Document Nos.: 15, 16, 22, 25, 38, 41, INVESTIGATION et al. , : 42, 43 : : Defendants. :

MEMORANDUM OPINION L IFTING THE S TAY AND D ISMISSING THIS A CTION FOR F AILURE TO P ROSECUTE The pro se plaintiff, previously incarcerated at the Federal Prison Camp in Yankton, South Dakota (“FPC Yankton”), filed a complaint on December 31, 2009, “seeking the expedited processing and release of agency records” allegedly in the defendants’ possession. Compl. at 1. According to the Federal Bureau of Prisons’ Inmate Locator, the plaintiff was released from custody on June 29, 2010, see http://www.bop.gov/iloc2/LocateInmate.jsp (last visited Sept. 20, 2010), and mail sent to him at his current address of record, FPC Yankton, has been returned to the Clerk of the Court as undeliverable. Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 5.1(e)(1), the plaintiff was required to file a notice of any change in his address within fourteen days after the change. See LCvR 5.1(e)(1). To date, he has not done so. Nor has the plaintiff responde d to any of the defendants’ pending dispositive motions, notwithstanding a court order in each instance directing the plaintiff to file an opposition by a date certain and advising him that his failure to respond could result in the

1motions being granted as conceded. See Orders (April 6, 2010; March 30, 2010; March 18, 2010). On August 12, 2010, the court issued an order to show cause directing the plaintiff to notify the Clerk of Court of his change of address or, alternatively, of his intention not to prosecute this case. Order (Aug. 12, 2010). The order set a deadline of September 15, 2010, and to date, plaintiff has not responded. Id. “The authority of a federal trial court to dismiss a plaintiff’s action with prejudice because of his failure to prosecute cannot seriously be doubted.” Link v. Wabash R.R. Co. , 370 U.S. 626, 629 (1962). Because the plaintiff has failed to respond to the court’s show cause order and failed to prosecute this case, the court dismisses this action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41 and Local Civil Rule 83.23. An Order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion is separately and contemporaneously issued this 20th day of October, 2010.

RICARDO M. URBINA United States District Judge

2
#### Catherine Upton et al., Appellants-Respondents, v Redmond Products, Inc., et al., Defendants and Third-Party Plaintiffs-Respondent, and United States Can Company, Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff-Respondent-Appellant. Dow Brands et al., Third-Party Defendants; Dow Chemical Company et al., Third-Party Defendants-Respondents.

[806 NYS2d 653]

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Thomas, J.), dated September 19, 2003, as, upon a jury verdict, is in favor of the defendants third-party plaintiffs and the defendant second third-party plaintiff dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against those defendants, and the defendant *552second third-party plaintiff cross-appeals from so much of the same judgment as dismissed the second third-party complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from; and it is further,

Ordered that the cross appeal is dismissed; and it is further,

Ordered that one bill of costs is awarded to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs payable by the plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs allegedly sustained injuries when the plaintiff Catherine Upton was cleaning the outside of a can of hair spray, and the can exploded. The aerosol can was manufactured by the defendant United States Can Company, marketed by the defendants Redmond Products, Inc., and Redmond Products Distributing, Inc., and allegedly sold by the defendant Genovese Drug Stores, Inc. The jury found that Catherine Upton acted negligently in her handling of the aerosol can in question and was 100% at fault in the happening of the accident. On appeal, the plaintiffs contend, inter alia, that the trial court erred in not allowing an occupational therapist to testify about the location and nature of burns on Catherine’s body.

“While courts are encouraged to conduct a bifurcated trial in cases involving personal injuries *{see,*22 NYCRR 202.42 [a]), a unified trial should be conducted where the nature of the injuries has an important bearing on the question of liability” *(Wright v New York City Hous. Auth.,*273 AD2d 378 [2000]). The instant trial dealt solely with the issue of liability and there was no proof submitted that injuries have an important bearing on the question of liability. The plaintiffs did not offer any evidence demonstrating that the location and extent of Catherine Upton’s injuries would indicate how the accident occurred and help determine the appropriate liable party *(cf. Wright v New York City Hous. Auth., supra).*Under the facts of this case, the Supreme Court properly excluded the occupational therapist’s testimony concerning injuries allegedly sustained by Catherine Upton.

The plaintiffs’ remaining contentions are without merit.

In light of our determination on the appeal, the cross appeal has been rendered academic. Schmidt, J.E, Santucci, Rivera and Spolzino, JJ., concur.
#### § 1023.640 [Reserved]
I

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1227

To amend the Portal-to-Portal Act of 1947 relating to the payment of wages

to employees who use employer owned vehicles.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 14, 1995

Mr. FAWELL introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities

A BILL

To amend the Portal-to-Portal Act of 1947 relating to the

payment of wages to employees who use employer owned

vehicles.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. PROPER COMPENSATION FOR USE OF EM4 PLOYER VEHICLES.

5 Section 4(a) of the Portal-to-Portal Act of 1947 (29

6 U.S.C. 254(a)) is amended by striking ‘‘and’’ at the end

7 of paragraph (1), by striking the period at the end of para8 graph (2) and inserting ‘‘; and’’, and by adding at the

9 end the following:
2

•HR 1227 IH

1 ‘‘(3) use of employer owned vehicles for travel2 ing to and from the actual place of performance of

3 the principal activity which such employee is em4 ployed to perform.’’.

Æ
MINIMUM INTEROPERABILITY INTERCONNECT DEVICE SPECIFICATION

PURPOSE

This document details the minimum specifications for an interconnect device, which has the most 

immediate application as an audio switch/bridge capable of interfacing multiple land mobile radios 

(LMR) used by public safety first responders. 

1. OPERATING MODES

• The device must be able to retransmit the audio of radios that operate in different parts of the 

radio spectrum, use different modulation and access techniques, and use analog or digital 

encoding. The audio shall be distributed or switched throughout a shared audio distribution 

bus where it can be presented to and shared amongst all or a selected subset of radios 

interfaced to the device. 

2. CAPACITY

• The device must support a minimum of four LMR radios in different operating modes. The 

ability to support cellular phones and connection to the public switched telephone network 

(PSTN) is desirable. 

3. POWER AND PHYSICAL

• The device must be capable of being powered either from vehicular power, battery power, or 

portable AC power sources. 

• The device must accommodate being rack mounted or standing alone in a portable enclosure. 

The device must be able to withstand shock and vibration typically encountered in field 

operations activity. 

• The device must include documented cable specifications for audio (speaker and 

microphone) and control (push-to-talk - PTT) in order to interface with the basic audio and 

transmit controls for standard off the shelf LMR radio manufacturers’ subscriber units that 

are typically employed by public safety. 

• The device must have input mechanisms or modules that can support balanced or unbalanced 

2 or 4-wire circuits. 

• The device must have input mechanisms or modules that can transmit (TX) Audio, receive 

(RX) Audio, PTT, and Carrier Operated Relay/Carrier Operated Squelch (COR/COS) 

signaling. Ability for supporting tone remote control (TRC) and Voice Operated Transmit 

(VOX) signaling is desirable. Some form of adjustable automatic gain control should be 

provided for each device interface. 

4. CONTROL AND ADMINISTRATION

• The device must provide local control to establish two or more talk groups of the 

radios/phone interfaces that are provided. 

• The device must provide adjustable audio/PTT delay to the radio interfaces, in order to allow 

the supported radios and associated infrastructure to reach full transmit power and to 

accommodate unknown repeater operating parameters such as hang times and squelch trails. 

• The device must be easily configurable with short set up times.
#### § 31.6011(a)-9 Instructions to forms control as to which form is to be used.

Notwithstanding provisions in this part which specify the use of a particular form for a return or other document required by this part, the use of a different form may be required by the latter form's instructions. In such case, the latter form shall be completed in accordance with its instructions.

[T.D. 7351, 40 FR 17145, Apr. 17, 1975]
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 32 Introduced in House (IH)]

                                     

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. J. RES. 32

 Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States with 
 respect to physical desecration of the flag of the United States and 
            expenditure of money to elect public officials.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 4, 1995

    Mr. Jacobs 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 with 
 respect to physical desecration of the flag of the United States and 
            expenditure of money to elect public officials.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House 
concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an 
amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be 
valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when 
ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States 
within seven years after the date of its submission for ratification:

                              ``Article--

    ``Neither the physical desecration of the flag of the United States 
nor the expenditure of money for the election of public officials is 
protected speech under the first amendment to the Constitution of the 
United States.''.
                                 <all>
```
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS

444444444444

NO. 14-0214

444444444444

ANDREWS COUNTY, TEXAS, ANDREWS INDUSTRIAL FOUNDATION, AND ANDREWS

CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, PETITIONERS,

v.

SIERRA CLUB, RESPONDENT

4444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444

ON PETITION FOR REVIEW FROM THE

COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

4444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444

 PER CURIAM

When a plaintiff’s claim implicates a defendant’s valid exercise of First Amendment rights,

the Texas Citizens Participation Act allows the defendant to move for dismissal. TEX. CIV. PRAC.

&REM.CODE § 27.003(a). To defeat the defendant’s dismissal motion, a plaintiff must “establish[]

by clear and specific evidence a prima facie case for each essential element of the claim in question.”

Id. § 27.005(c). In In re Lipsky, ___S.W.3d ___, ___ (Tex. 2015), we explained that the phrase

“clear and specific evidence” neither imposes a heightened evidentiary burden nor categorically

rejects the use of circumstantial evidence when determining the plaintiff’s prima-facie-case burden

under the Act.

In contrast to Lipsky, the court of appeals here concluded that the statute’s “clear and specific

evidence” requirement indicated an elevated evidentiary standard that did not permit the use of
circumstantial evidence or reasonable inferences to support the plaintiff’s prima facie case. 418

S.W.3d 711, 715-16 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2013). Applying that standard, the court concluded that

the plaintiff (Andrews County) failed to meet the Act’s prima-facie-case burden and that the trial

court accordingly erred when it did not grant the defendant’s (Sierra Club’s) motion to dismiss. Id.

at 719. Because the evidentiary standard applied by the court is contrary to our decision in Lipsky,

we remand the case for the court of appeals’s further consideration in light of our recent explanation

of the statutory standard. Andrews County’s petition for review is accordingly granted and, without

hearing oral argument, we reverse and remand to the court of appeals for further proceedings

consistent with our opinion. TEX. R. APP. P. 59.1.

Opinion Delivered: May 8, 2015

2
OFFICEOFl-HEATfORN~ GENERALOFAUSTIN 

Ronorabls Qeorge B. Sh8ppard 

CctmptPolle~ 0r Public Aot3oImta 

AUUtAn, Taca6 

near 8lr: oplnlcul Ho. o-4014 

Rer Does the groas reoaipts tax 

levied by Artlole X. B. B. 8, 

on nev radior apply to the 

prooeedu fPem the 8alo of the 

entire ooetblnation 8et or 

only to that POPtlon PepParented by the sale of the 

radio? 

we ar8 in reoelpt OS ycmr letter o? 8epteabor, 17, 

l!J'U, vhiah i8 as ?ollovst 

th%S dO&nU'tWllt ilth eePteilISUdi0 dealeM U to 

Vh&hOPS OglbiartiO!l I&i, tb&18,8 l'8db-@CliW, 

orar8dla-~-~aOrd~~rr orszud&O-phOJlOreoord ohanger-reoordw should be hued upon the 

full 8mount reeaetved for the 80@8t~ odplbirtcrtlon 

orvhether the tax ahouldapply only to the mount 

OF prooesdr recalvod fer the mdio in thr oembinw 

tiOll 8Ot. I&t%U the iniO?sU6tiOll giVSUi thi8 dOpaPtmoat, the set is sold as a aoauplete unit and the 

prliae i8 not broken dovm a8 to whet portien Of the 

rebkipte i&for the radio. Ammtber 0r rsdio dealer8 81% OOntending th8t thi8 tax vould not l oOru8 

on the anttre pmceeds. We we therefore requmt- 

,.Ilg JrOUr OplniOIl a8 t0 Vh&WP thr iMU am1108 t0 

the proceeds frcm! the rale of the 8ntlFs oombinatiG%l set OF VhOth8P it em1198 OlirJ t0 that pOrti0lS 

X'OpFO8ented by the UtiQ 0f the PPd%O." 
Honorable Coorge Ii. shoppard, P8ge 2 

UpOn thi8 8filbtO Of fkWt8 yOU 8UkdU%t the fOlloU~ 

qW8tiOnt 

DQO8 th8 -088 P%WiptCb t4IX 1Wbd by Al%iOl* x Of 

Eouse Bill 8, on new radios apply to the proceed8 iram the 

8618 or thb entire aombiartlOn 8Ot or only to tb8t portiOn 

rSpm8Onted by the 8ale Of the radio? 

section 1, of Artiole 7047-1, ROVi8ed gtatUte8 0r 

!hexIII, being m%Oie X Or IiOU80 Bill 8 Of th6 47th hgiSi&tWO, 

provld~s an follovsr 

"'IWoh PeX'rOZL, mnhip, a8800i8ttioll, Or 

oorpor8tlon 88lllag atmtall new F6dlor or x18w 

008WtiO8, 8ha11 make i$ltbl'tWly Oil th8 ftF8t 6578 

of January, April, July uui October of uoh year, 

a report to the Comptroller, wxdec +2x of th8 

ovwr, manager, oc If a oorparation, an officer 

thW3Of, 8hOViI3g i&# 4SggPOg9tO gr088 WWipt8 AXE 

the 8a8 0fq0r th0ab0~-2~4~d ~~CIIU r0rth8 

qwrtesnextpmoedlngt and8hallatthe 888OtilR8 

.prytot.ha cemptrolleFal~exolBa tJbxoqmlt0 

tvo (2) par sent of aaid -88 Nwlpt8 88 8hovn by 

aaid report ." 

v8 iLOt* iroap JWUl’ letkl tbot YOU 8ay, %lWlB tfu infOI'58tiOn giVOXi t&$8 mt, ths Set 18 8old 60 0 OUQl&O 

unit 8nd the prior 18 not bMcen dovn e8 to vhat pOrtion 0s 

the lWWtpt8 18 h' th@ l'UitO.* m hing th0 WM it 18 Ooc 

OpiniOXt pnd YOU aF8 80 dV18ti that th0 tax k&.crd w BOOtbX& 

1 Of Ax'tlols X Of Hourr. Bill 8 8hOUld b0 pald M th0 bM18 Of 

the proueeds derived fraa the eale of the entire eombinetlrm 

88t.
§ 157.7701-1 Tax return preparer. ( a ) *In general.* For the definition of a tax return preparer, see § 301.7701-15 of this chapter.
( 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 78463, Dec. 22, 2008]
#### § 20.630 Debarment.

*Debarment* means an action taken by a Federal agency to prohibit a recipient from participating in Federal Government procurement contracts and covered nonprocurement transactions. A recipient so prohibited is debarred, in accordance with the Federal Acquisition Regulation for procurement contracts (48 CFR part 9, subpart 9.4) and the common rule, Government-wide Debarment and Suspension (Nonprocurement), that implements Executive Order 12549 and Executive Order 12689.
104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. J. RES. 195

JOINT RESOLUTION

Recognizing the end of slavery in the United

rican-Americans.States, and the true day of independence for Af-
104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. J. RES. 195

JOINT RESOLUTION

Recognizing the end of slavery in the United States, and

the true day of independence for African-Americans.

Whereas ‘‘Juneteenth’’ celebrations have been held informally

for over 130 years to commemorate the strong survival

instincts of African-Americans who were first brought to

this country stacked in the bottoms of slave ships during
2

•HJ 195 EH

a month-long journey across the Atlantic Ocean known as

the ‘‘Middle Passage’’;

Whereas the Civil War was fueled by the economic and social

divide caused by slavery;

Whereas on January 1, 1863, President Abraham Lincoln

signed the Emancipation Proclamation, the enforcement

thereof occurred only in those Confederate States under

the control of the Union Army;

Whereas on January 31, 1863, Congress passed the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution abolishing slavery

throughout the United States and its territories;

Whereas on April 9, 1865, when General Robert E. Lee surrendered on behalf of the Confederate States at Appomattox, the Civil War was nonetheless prolonged in the

Southwest;

Whereas news of the Emancipation Proclamation reached

each State at different times;

Whereas the Emancipation Proclamation was not enforced in

the Southwest until June 19, 1865, when Union General

Gordon Granger landed at Galveston, Texas, to present

and read General Order No. 3;

Whereas former slaves in the Southwest began celebrating

the end of slavery and recognized ‘‘Juneteenth Independence Day’’; and

Whereas ‘‘Juneteenth’’ allows us to look back on the past

with an increased appreciation for the strength of the

men, women, and children who for generations endured

unspeakable cruelties in bondage: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
3

•HJ 195 EH

1 That the end of slavery in the United States should be

2 celebrated and recognized.

Passed the House of Representatives September 26,

1996.

Attest:

Clerk.
| (logo) WELLS FARGO | **CMBS Department**

 

MAC N9401-011

1055 10th Avenue SE

Minneapolis, MN 55414 |
|--------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

Morgan Stanley Capital I Inc. 

1585 BROADWAY

NEW YORK, New York 10036-8200

 

RE: Annual Statement ofCompliance for Morgan Stanley Bank of America Merrill Lynch Trust 2016-C31, CommercialMortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2016-C31

 

Per the Pooling and ServicingAgreement dated as of November 1, 2016 (the “Agreement”), theundersigned, a duly authorized officer of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as Custodian(“Wells Fargo”), hereby certifies as follows as of and for the yearending December 31, 2016 (the “Reporting Period”):

 

(a) A review of WellsFargo’s activities during the Reporting Period and of its performanceunder the Agreement has been made under such officer’s supervision; and

 

(b) To the best of suchofficer’s knowledge, based on such review, Wells Fargo has fulfilled allof its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout theReporting Period.

 

 

February 27, 2017

 

/s/ Gail Vannest

GAIL VANNEST

Vice President

 

 

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
- PEPFAR Home
- About Us
- Our Priorities
- Where We Work
- Results and Impact
- Partnerships
- Remarks and Releases
- Reports and Guidance

HomeThe United States President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief...About Us – PEPFAR

# About Us – PEPFAR

#### Who We Are

The U.S. President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) [1 MB] is the largest commitment by any nation to address a single disease in history, enabled by strong bipartisan support across ten U.S. congresses and four presidential administrations, and through the American people’s generosity. PEPFAR shows the power of what is possible through compassionate, cost-effective, accountable, and transparent American foreign assistance. 

PEPFAR is managed and overseen by the U.S. Department of State’s Office of the U.S. Global AIDS Coordinator and Health Diplomacy. PEPFAR leverages the power of a whole-of-government approach to controlling the global HIV/AIDS epidemic, implemented by seven other U.S. government departments and agencies: the U.S Agency for International Development; the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and its agencies, including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Health Resources and Service Administration and the National Institutes of Health; the U.S. Department of Defense; the Peace Corps; the U.S. Department of Labor; the U.S. Department of Commerce; and the U.S. Department of the Treasury.

For information on PEPFAR’s senior leadership team, please visit the bio page.

#### What We Do

Since its inception in 2003, PEPFAR has invested over $100 billion in the global HIV/AIDS response, saving 25 million lives, preventing millions of HIV infections, and supporting several countries to achieve HIV epidemic control – all while significantly strengthening global health security.

PEPFAR’s strategic rigor has allowed the program to significantly expand its lifesaving results [918 KB] and impact without increased financial resources over the past nine years.

PEPFAR’s investments also have strengthened the systems that drive effective, efficient, and sustainable health care. These investments create a lasting health system for partner countries to confront other current and future health challenges and enhance global health security.

PEPFAR’s transformative, lifesaving impact is unassailable, but our mission is not yet finished. The HIV pandemic continues to evolve in every community and country, and PEPFAR constantly adapts to address new risk groups, new health challenges, and persistent gaps.

Back to Top