alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
SMITH COUNTY COURTHOUSE

100 N. BROADWAY 4th Floor

TYLER, TEXAS 75702

 April Allison Sikes, First Assistant

D. Matt Bingham

Criminal District Attorney

Smith County

TELEPHONE: (903) 535-0520

TELECOPIER: (903) 590-1719

Jennifer Barfield, Office Manager

Michael J. West. Appellate Chief

 

Ms. Pam Estes, Clerk

12th Court of Appeals

1517 W Front St., Ste. 354

Tyler, TX 75701

September 30, 2015

RE: Barrett v. State, Cause Number 12-15-00146-CR

Dear Ms. Lusk:

The State acknowledges receipt of the brief filed by Appellant’s counsel pursuant

to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), in the above-listed cause(s). The brief

presents no claims of error; therefore, the State has no points to which to respond. See

TEX. R. APP. P. 38.2(a)(2). The State will not file any further response unless the Court

decides that the appeal is not frivolous and orders one. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744;

High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 810 (Tex.Crim.App. 1978).

Respectfully submitted,

D. MATT BINGHAM

Criminal District Attorney

Smith County, Texas

_______________________

Michael J. West

Assistant Criminal District Attorney

SBOT# 21203300

 Michael J. West

/s/

ACCEPTED

12-15-00146-CR

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS

TYLER, TEXAS

9/30/2015 9:34:18 AM

Pam Estes

CLERK

 FILED IN 12th COURT OF APPEALS TYLER, TEXAS 9/30/2015 9:34:18 AM PAM ESTES Clerk
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a copy of the State’s acknowledgment of filing of an Anders

brief was served by electronic filing on September 30, 2015, on Mr. James Huggler,

Attorney at Law, 100 East Ferguson, Ste. 805, Tyler, Texas 75702.

_________________________

Michael J. West

Assistant Criminal District Attorney

SBOT# 21203300

100 N. Broadway, 4th Fl.

Tyler, Texas 75702

(903) 590-1720

(903) 590-1719 (fax)

mwest@smith-county.com

 /s/ Michael J. West
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases...Ambassador Murray’s Travel to Kuala Lumpur and Singapore 

# 											Ambassador Murray’s Travel to Kuala Lumpur and Singapore 									

Media Note

Office of the Spokesperson

February 13, 2024

U.S. Senior Official for Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) Ambassador Matt Murray will travel to Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, February 14-17 and to Singapore, February 17-21.  In both cities Ambassador Murray will meet with government counterparts and the American business community to highlight broad U.S. economic engagement with the region as outlined in the Indo-Pacific Strategy Prosperity pillar.   

In Kuala Lumpur, Ambassador Murray will participate in the first APEC Business Advisory Council (ABAC) meeting of the year and help lay the groundwork for expanded public-private collaboration during APEC 2024.  The ABAC meeting will be chaired by Peru ABAC 2024 Chair Mrs. Julia Torreblanca and will explore ways to advance the APEC agenda, including through the annual dialogue between ABAC and APEC Senior Officials. 

In Singapore, Ambassador Murray will participate in the *APEC Outcomes 2023/Outlook 2024* event hosted by the APEC Secretariat focusing on the U.S. and Peru host years.  During this event, he will highlight key outcomes from the U.S. APEC Host Year, along with insights from the 2023 APEC Economic Leaders’ Week and their implications for the future of the APEC region.

For further information, please contact the U.S. APEC Team at **DOSAPEC@state.gov**.

Tags

Asia-Pacific Economic CooperationBureau of East Asian and Pacific AffairsEconomic Prosperity and Trade PolicyIndo-PacificIndo-Pacific StrategyMalaysiaOffice of the SpokespersonOfficial International TravelSingapore

Back to Top
###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter II

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to subchapter A appear at 78 FR 60697, Oct. 2, 2013.

#### § 224.6 Where can I find a sample power of attorney form?

The Surety Bond Branch provides a sample form on its Web page located at: *http://www.fiscal.treasury.gov/c570.* While use of the sample form is not required, any power of attorney provided should be substantially the same as the sample form.
J - S 05031 - 18

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court. NON - PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 RONA MUSTIN, Appellee v. EDWIN HART, Appellant : : : : : : : : : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

No. 732 WDA 2017 Appeal from the Order Entered April 21, 2017 in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County Civil Division at No(s): Case No. FD98- 09519- 005 PACSES No. 694112986 BEFORE: OLSON , OTT , and STRASSBURGER , JJ . * MEMORANDUM BY STRASSBURGER, J.: FILED JUNE 13, 2018 Edwin Hart (Husband) appeals from the order entered on April 21, 2017, which found him in civil contempt. We affirm. After an initial review of this case, this Court issued a memorandum on March 20, 2018, which remanded the matter for Husband’s counsel to supplement the certified record within 30 days by filing Wife’s motion for contempt and the transcript from the April 21, 2017 contempt hearing . See Mustin v. Hart, 2018 WL 1386754 (Pa. Super. filed March 20, 2018) (unpublished memorandum) . More than 30 days have passed, and Husband has not supplemented the certified record in compliance with our remand.

____________________________________________J - S 05031 - 18

- 2 - Accordingly, we conclude that Husband has waived his issue on appeal, and we affirm the order of the trial court. Order affirmed. Judgment Entered. Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary Date: 6/13/2018
(logo) Rialto

CAPITAL

 

 

**2018 Annual Statement of Servicer Compliance (Item1123)**

 

 

Pooling and ServicingAgreement (the “Pooling and Servicing Agreement”) dated as of December l, 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 Lender Services,LLC as Operating Advisor Asset Representations Reviewer relating to the MorganStanley 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 “SpecialServicer”) herein certifies to the following:

 

1.        All servicing activities and performance of suchserv1cmg activities under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement are performed onbehalf of the Special Servicer.

 

2.        A review of the servicing activities and performance bythe Special Servicer for the period of January 1, 2018 to December 31, 2018(the “Reporting Period”) in accordance with the Pooling and Servicing Agreementhas been conducted under my supervision.

 

3.        To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, theSpecial Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the term of thePooling Servicing Agreement, in all material respects for the Reporting Periodand if there has been a failure to fulfill any such obligations in any materialrespect, each failure and the nature and status thereof has been specificallyidentified here in.

 

 

Certified by: /s/ Adam Singer

Adam Singer, Managing Director

 

Date: March l, 2019
§ 550.302 Effective date. ( a ) The term *effective date* refers to the effective date of the applicable prohibitions and directives contained in this part, and with respect to a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to § 550.201 or on whom other sanctions are imposed, the earlier of the date of actual or constructive notice that such person's property and interests in property are blocked or that other sanctions are imposed on such person.
( b ) For the purposes of this section, c*onstructive notice* is the date that a notice of the blocking of the relevant person's property and interests in property or imposition of other sanctions is published in the Federal Register.
§ 544.403 Termination and acquisition of an interest in blocked property. ( a ) Whenever a transaction licensed or authorized by or pursuant to this part results in the transfer of property (including any property interest) away from a person, such property shall no longer be deemed to be property blocked pursuant to § 544.201(a), unless there exists in the property another interest that is blocked pursuant to § 544.201(a) or any other part of this chapter, the transfer of which has not been effected pursuant to license or other authorization.
( b ) Unless otherwise specifically provided in a license or authorization issued pursuant to this part, if property (including any property interest) is transferred or attempted to be transferred to a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to § 544.201(a), such property shall be deemed to be property in which that person has an interest and therefore blocked.
- Bureau Home
- About Us
- Leadership
- Key Topics
- Global Health Security and Diplomacy
- Front Office
- SCE
- PEPFAR

HomeBureau of Global Health Security and Diplomacy...About Us

# 									About Us							

Bureau of Global Health Security and Diplomacy

Health security is national security, and an infectious disease threat anywhere is a threat everywhere. U.S. leadership is critical to save lives domestically and globally by preventing, detecting, and responding to these health threats, in collaboration with international partners. The Department of State mobilizes political will and resources to help build capacity around the world to stop diseases from spreading and convenes global partners bilaterally, regionally, and multilaterally – to strengthen policies and frameworks for addressing global health challenges.

The Bureau of Global Health Security and Diplomacy provides a single voice of leadership on global health security and diplomacy and advances our longstanding focus on HIV/AIDS through the U.S. President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR).

## Bureau Organization

        - U.S. President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief Program (PEPFAR)
        - Global Health Security and Diplomacy
        - Strategy, Communications, and Health Equity
        -  Front Office

Back to Top
§ 526.407 Payments from blocked accounts to satisfy obligations prohibited. Pursuant to § 526.201, no debits may be made to a blocked account to pay obligations to U.S. persons or other persons, except as authorized by or pursuant to this part. Note 1 to § 526.407 .
*See also* § 526.502(e), which provides that no license or other authorization contained in or issued pursuant to this part authorizes transfers of or payments from blocked property or debits to blocked accounts unless the license or other authorization explicitly authorizes the transfer of or payment from blocked property or the debit to a blocked account.
From: Lydia Wegman/RTP/USEPA/US

To: "King, Heidi R." <Heidi_R._King@omb.eop.gov>

Cc: Deirdre Murphy/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Karen Martin/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Nealson Watkins/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Lewis Weinstock/RTP/USEPA/U S@EPA

Date: 01/27/2011 06:54 AM

Subject: Re: Answers to your cost questions on the CO NAAQS monitoring network



### Thanks a lot Heidi. I'll lo forward to hearing from you this morning.
#### Banco de Puerto Rico, Liquidator, etc., Plaintiff and Appellee, *v.*Cristóbal Cruet Carrasquillo et ux., Defendants and Appellants.

Nos. 7233 and 7276.

Argued November 1, 1937.

Decided November 3, 1937.

*208
      *M. Gusman Texidor*for appellants. *G. Dominguez Rubio*for appellee.

Mr. Justice Wolf

delivered the opinion of the Court.

The motion for reconsideration in these cases is exclusively based on their supposed analogy to the ease of *Gratacós*v. *District Court,*46 P.R.R. 170. The petitioners maintain that under the doctrine of that decision the proceeding in the present cases had lost its summary nature. From that premise they conclude that the suit had become ordinary and that the order involved was appealable as one especially issued after final judgment.

In the Gratacós case, supra, it was alleged that the mortgage creditor had actually taken possession of the property, leased it to a third person and then to a fourth person who had subleased part of it to the original mortgage debtor. Then the creditor, three years and nine months after adjudication in the foreclosure sale, but within the same proceeding, moved to be put into possession of the premises. The debtor file an opposition and asked to be heard. The court refused bis petition on the ground that it would suspend the summary foreclosure proceeding in a way not provided for by the Mortgage Law. On certiorari to this court, we returned the case so that the debtor be given an opportunity to prove the facts alleged by him. Incidentally we stated that it was hard to say that the summary foreclosure proceeding had, after the expiration of three years and nine months since the sale, retained its original “summary” *(sumarisimo)*nature.

The cases before us differ considerably from the Gratacós case on its facts. In the first place the creditor had never been in possession up to the time when he filed his motion. In the second place, only a year had elapsed since the adjudication, and the debtor was granted, a hearing. Lust but not least, there are appeals and not a certiorari. *209We have no doubt that an order, distinctly within a summary foreclosure proceeding, putting the creditor in possession, as happened in the case of *Roig Commercial Bank*v. *Bustelo,*44 P.R.R. 523, or, as in these cases, refusing to set aside such an order, is unappealable.

The motion for reconsideration should be denied.

Mr. Justice Córdova Dávila took no part in the decision of this case.
§ 546.505 Entries in certain accounts for normal service charges authorized. ( a ) A U.S. financial institution is authorized to debit any blocked account held at that financial institution in payment or reimbursement for normal service charges owed it by the owner of that blocked account.
( b ) As used in this section, the term *normal service charges* shall include charges in payment or reimbursement for interest due; cable, telegraph, Internet, or telephone charges; postage costs; custody fees; small adjustment charges to correct bookkeeping errors; and, but not by way of limitation, minimum balance charges, notary and protest fees, and charges for reference books, photocopies, credit reports, transcripts of statements, registered mail, insurance, stationery and supplies, and other similar items.
#### Lee Max BARNETT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. JUSTICES OF THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT; Michael Willemsen; Ronald A. Parravano; Warden of San Quentin State Prison; Director of Corrections, Terhune; Does 10 Through 500, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 99-17429.

D.C. No. CV-99-00855-DFL.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Feb. 12, 2001.1

Decided Feb. 21, 2001.

*455Before LEAVY, THOMAS, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

1

. The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM2

Lee Max Barnett, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se the district court’s judgment dismissing without prejudice his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, seeking to bring a class action challenging provisions of the California Criminal Code and challenging conditions in his prison. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court’s dismissal of a prisoner’s complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, *see Resnick v. Hayes,*213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir.2000). We affirm in part, and vacate and remand in part.

The district court properly dismissed Barnett’s claims attacking his state court conviction, *see Heck v. Humphrey,*512 U.S. 477, 487, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994), including but not limited to Barnett’s claims regarding self-representation in his state criminal trial; the alleged conflict of interest of the California Supreme Court justices; and the alleged misdeeds of his appointed defense attorney.

However, the district court did not address Barnett’s prison condition claims raised in his filed amended complaint. *See Denton v. Hernandez,*504 U.S. 25, 34, 112 S.Ct. 1728, 118 L.Ed.2d 340 (1992). To the extent that the district court implicitly considered and dismissed these claims in its order, the district court erred because it neither (1) advised Barnett of the deficiencies in his prison conditions claims nor (2) found that these deficiencies could not be cured by amendment. *See Lopez v. Smith,*203 F.3d 1122, 1127 (9th Cir.2000) (en banc); *Noll v. Carlson,*809 F.2d 1446, 1449 (9th Cir.1987).

Accordingly, we vacate and remand for the district court to consider Barnett’s prison conditions claims in light of *Lopez*and *Noll.*We affirm the district court’s dismissal of the claims attacking Barnett’s state court conviction, which dismissed the Justices of the California Supreme Court, Michael Willemsen, and Ronald A. Parravano.

AFFIRMED in part, and VACATED and REMANDED in part.

2

. 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 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Evelyn Wellens, Appellant.

[805 NYS2d 307]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (John A.K. Bradley, J.), rendered January 5, 2004, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of grand larceny in the second degree, grand larceny in the third degree (two counts), grand larceny in the fourth degree, scheme to defraud in the first degree and falsifying business records in the first degree (15 counts), and sentencing her to concurrent terms of 2 to 6 years for the second-degree grand larceny conviction concurrent with concurrent terms of 1 to 3 years for the remaining convictions, unanimously affirmed. The matter is remitted to Supreme Court, New York County for further proceedings in accordance with CPL 460.50 (5).

The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence. There is no basis upon which to disturb the jury’s determinations concerning credibility. Defendant’s larcenous intent could be readily inferred from the evidence *(see People v Meadows,*199 NY 1, 7 [1910]). The evidence warranted the conclusion that defendant deliberately made false claims of economic loss resulting from the World Trade Center disaster, and thereby obtained various forms of financial assistance to which she was not entitled.

*313Since the subject matter of the case was defendant’s theft of funds meant for victims of the destruction of the World Trade Center, the prosecutor’s summation references to that disaster were appropriate. These brief references were not inflammatory and did not deprive defendant of a fair trial *(see People v Cruz,*292 AD2d 196 [2002], *lv denied*98 NY2d 636 [2002]).

The record does not establish that defendant’s sentence was based on any improper criteria and we perceive no basis for reducing the sentence.

We have considered and rejected defendant’s remaining claims. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Andrias, Sullivan, Williams and Malone, JJ.
39615.

#### SALE v. LEACHMAN.

Decided June 13, 1963.

*Lakey ¡& Bowden, Henry L. Bowden,*for plaintiff in error.

*Sam F. Lowe, Jr., Emory S. Mabry, III,*contra.

Per Curiam.

The Supreme Court of Georgia having reversed the judgment of this court in *Sale v. Leachman,*106 Ga. App. 879 (129 SE2d 88), the judgment of this court in the case is vacated. The Supreme Court held, 218 Ga. 834 (131 SE2d 185), that the portion of Ga. L. 1950, pp. 289, 290, which alludes to “twelve months or longer” transpiring subsequently to the entry or order requiring the father to pay a specified sum for the support of his children is construed to mean twelve months immediately preceding the filing of the adoption proceedings. This holding is made the holding of this court. Accordingly, the judgment is

*Reversed.*

*All the Judges concur.*
& ¥
23
:
32
&

rece 200

I ail

it

ae

jedi t
Hat

tT
= —
Te eee oe

|, Sete 12s0.006

Weeden of peeptreiat seen
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 164 (Wednesday, August 26, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 43165]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-20455]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-70,878]


Wachovia, Charlotte, NC; Notice of Termination of Investigation

    Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an 
investigation was initiated in response to a petition filed on June 2, 
2009, by a company official on behalf of workers of Wachovia, 
Charlotte, North Carolina.
    The petitioner has requested that the petition be withdrawn. 
Accordingly, the investigation has been terminated.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 5th day of August 2009.
Richard Church,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E9-20455 Filed 8-25-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
I

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 2592

To reduce the fiscal year 1996 budget for intelligence activities by

$1,000,000,000.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

NOVEMBER 7, 1995

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts introduced the following bill; which was referred

to the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence

A BILL

To reduce the fiscal year 1996 budget for intelligence

activities by $1,000,000,000.

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

3 SECTION 1. REDUCTION IN FISCAL YEAR 1996 INTEL4 LIGENCE BUDGET.

5 (a) REDUCTION.—The amount obligated for activities

6 for which funds are authorized to be appropriated in the

7 Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996 may

8 not exceed the amount appropriated for such activities for

9 fiscal year 1996 pursuant to such authorizations reduced

10 by $1,000,000,000.
2

•HR 2592 IH

1 (b) IDENTIFICATION OF AMOUNTS.—The President

2 shall identify the accounts and the specific programs from

3 which reductions required by subsection (a) shall be made.

4 Amounts identified for such reductions shall not be avail5 able for obligation for any other purpose.

Æ
#### § 515.601 Records and reports.

For provisions relating to records and reports, see subpart C of part 501 of this chapter.

[62 FR 45106, Aug. 25, 1997]
#### § 525.406 Entities owned by one or more persons whose property and interests in property are blocked.

Persons whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to § 525.201 have an interest in all property and interests in property of an entity in which such persons directly or indirectly own, whether individually or in the aggregate, a 50 percent or greater interest. The property and interests in property of such an entity, therefore, are blocked, and such an entity is a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to § 525.201, regardless of whether the name of the entity is incorporated into OFAC's Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List (SDN List).