alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1

 The text and authorities of the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation are

adopted in their entirety. Appended to this Order, however, is a Report and Recommendation

with corrected citations and page references to certain of the case authorities cited therein.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

BRYAN W. HILLEGASS : CIVIL ACTION

Plaintiff :

:

v. :

:

JO ANNE BARNHART, :

Commissioner of Social Security, :

Defendant : No. 05-CV-1263

O R D E R

JANUARY 18, 2006

PRATTER, DISTRICT JUDGE 

AND NOW, this 18th day of January, 2006, upon consideration of the Parties’ CrossMotions for Summary Judgment (Docket Nos. 8 & 9) and Plaintiff Hillegass’ Reply in Support

of the Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket No. 10), and after careful review of the Report

and Recommendation of the Honorable Timothy R. Rice, United States Magistrate Judge,

(Docket No. 12), IT IS ORDERED that:

1. The Report and Recommendation (Docket No. 12) is APPROVED and

ADOPTED as corrected with respect to certain citations;1

2. Plaintiff Hillegass’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket No. 8) is

 GRANTED;

3. Defendant Commissioner’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket No. 9) is

Case 2:05-cv-01263-GEKP Document 13 Filed 01/18/06 Page 1 of 3
DENIED;

4. This matter is REMANDED to the Commissioner pursuant to the fourth sentence

 of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).

BY THE COURT:

 

GENE E.K. PRATTER, J.

2

Case 2:05-cv-01263-GEKP Document 13 Filed 01/18/06 Page 2 of 3
Case 2:05-cv-01263-GEKP Document 13 Filed 01/18/06 Page 3 of 3
<PAGE>


                                                                    Exhibit 99.2

                          ANNUAL SERVICER'S CERTIFICATE

                         CHASE MANHATTAN BANK USA, N.A.

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

                       Chase Manhattan Owner Trust 2000-A

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


         The undersigned, a duly authorized representative of Chase Manhattan
Bank USA, N.A. ("Chase USA"), as Servicer pursuant to the Sale and Servicing
Agreement dated as of December 1, 2000 (the "Sale and Servicing Agreement") by
and between Chase USA and Norwest Bank Minnesota, National Association, as
trustee (the "Trustee"), does hereby certify that:

      1. A review of the activities of the Servicer during the period from
         December 1, 2000 until December 31, 2000 was conducted under my
         supervision.

      2. Based on such review, the Servicer has, to the best of my knowledge,
         fully performed in all material respects all its obligations, under the
         Sale and Servicing Agreement throughout such period and no material
         default in the performance of such obligations has occurred or is
         continuing except as set forth in paragraph 3 below.

      3. None.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has duly executed this certificate
this 26th day of March 2001.



                                                     /s/ Keith Schuck
                                                     -------------------
                                                     Keith Schuck
                                                     Vice President
No. 51946.

#### S. A. Haram et al. *v.*United States,

protests 998151-G, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
(Reap. Dec. 10331)

Entry No. 746220, etc.

#### Plywood & Door Manufacturers Corporation *v.*United States

(Decided September 4, 1962)

*Richard, Van 8teenburgh*for the plaintiff.

*Joseph D. Guilfoyle,*Acting Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Olxvee, Chief Judge:

The merchandise the subject of the appeals for reappraisement enumerated in schedule “A,” attached hereto,, consists of birch plywood, exported from Finland in the years 1953 and 1954.

Counsel for the parties have stipulated and agreed that the merchandise and issues involved in the said appeal are the same in all material respects as those in the case of *United States*v. *Plywood & Door Manufacturers*Corporation, 46 Cust. Ct. 797, A.R.D. 133, and that the record in the cited case may be incorporated as part of the record herein.

The appeals have been submitted for decision upon written stipulation, on the basis of which I find that export value, as defined in section 402(d), Tariff Act of 1930, is the proper basis for the determination of the values of the birch plywood involved and that such values were those set forth in column “4” of said schedule “A,” packed, less the prorated amounts of the nondutiable charges set forth directly after the description of the merchandise in each said reappraisement case set forth in schedule “A.”

Judgment will issue accordingly.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                       1,814,714
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  156,793
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,903,078
<PP&E>                                       1,886,591
<DEPRECIATION>                                 461,095
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               5,223,570
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,254,553
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        12,775
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,822,559
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 5,223,570
<SALES>                                      4,268,989
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             4,268,989
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                5,301,286
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              49,322
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,057,559)
<INCOME-TAX>                                 (357,519)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (700,040)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (700,040)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.05)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.05)



</TABLE>
<PAGE>


                                                                    Exhibit 99.1


                                  [CHASE LOGO]


Chase Manhattan Bank USA, N.A.
Wilmington, DE

March 26, 2001



Management Report on Internal Control Over Servicing of Securitized Automobile
Financing Receivables

Management of The Chase Manhattan Bank USA, N.A. is responsible for establishing
and maintaining an effective system of internal control over servicing of
securitized automobile financing receivables, which is designed to provide
reasonable assurance regarding the proper servicing of securitized automobile
financing receivables. The system contains self-monitoring mechanisms, and
actions are taken to correct deficiencies as they are identified.

There are inherent limitations in the effectiveness of any system of internal
control, including the possibility of human error and the circumvention or
overriding of controls. Accordingly, even an effective internal control system
can provide only reasonable assurance with respect to servicing of securitized
automobile financing receivables. Further, because of changes in conditions, the
effectiveness of an internal control system may vary over time.

Management of The Chase Manhattan Bank USA, N.A. assessed its system of internal
control over servicing of securitized automobile financing receivables as of
December 31, 2000 in relation to criteria for effective internal control
described in "Internal Control - Integrated Framework" issued by the Committee
of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission. Based on this
assessment, management believes that, as of December 31, 2000, the Chase
Manhattan Bank USA, N.A. maintained an effective system of internal control over
servicing of securitized automobile financing receivables.



                                                 /s/ Keith Schuck
                                                 ------------------------------
                                                 Keith Schuck
                                                 Vice President
                                                 Chase Manhattan Bank USA, N.A.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          FEB-04-2001
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-30-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          13,017
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   83,817
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (4,894)
<INVENTORY>                                    613,270
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               726,761
<PP&E>                                         299,256
<DEPRECIATION>                               (127,075)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,065,762
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          307,900
<BONDS>                                         81,250
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           278
<OTHER-SE>                                     138,492
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,065,762
<SALES>                                        731,156
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               731,156
<CGS>                                          384,159
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  694,529
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              29,821
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  6,806
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,626
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              4,180
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     4,180
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.15
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.15


</TABLE>
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MARA FLAMM : CIVIL ACTION

:

v. :

:

SARNER & ASSOCIATES, P.C., et al. : NO. 02-4302

ORDER

AND NOW, this 7th day of April, 2003, upon this Court’s telephone confirmation of the

pendency of Plaintiff’s Bankruptcy Petition No. 02-10951, it is hereby ORDERED that:

1. The above-captioned action is STAYED and placed in CIVIL SUSPENSE pending the

resolution of Plaintiff’s bankruptcy petition.

2. The following motions are DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE with leave to refile upon

this matter’s removal from suspense:

a. Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint (Docket Entry No. 32);

b. Attorney Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Count III of Plaintiffs’s Proposed

Amended Complaint (Docket Entry No. 35);

c. Defendant Jodi H. Brown, M.D.’s Motion to Dismiss Count III of Plaintiff’s

Proposed Amended Complaint (Docket Entry No. 36);

d. Attorney Defendants’ Motion for Leave to File a Sur-reply in Support of Attorney

Defendants’ Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint and Attorney

Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Count III of Plaintiff’s Proposed Amended Complaint (DocketEntry

No. 42).

3. Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File a Reply Brief in Further Support of the Motion to

Amend (Docket Entry No. 38), having been previously stipulated to by counsel, is MOOT.

BY THE COURT:

 

M. FAITH ANGELL

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:02-cv-04302-MFA Document 47 Filed 04/08/2003 Page 1 of 1
12/17/201 0 12.0 8 FAX 2024935142 

-L^/Aci/zQiu uy:j. 3 9072765291 

FAA -^ DMS gl002/00 5 

WILKERSOM PAGE B2 

WEKERSON 

HOZUBIN 

si» K snurr, WTTv 4«a 

AMOIOItACr, AKVMfti 

TEL- <Pt7) IT^ m 

FAX CMrT) X7HV1 

":-;;\RTMENTOF 

o:'ORWION 

"; ^[=ERAT!0M3 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS ' \'C. H P :2; US 

WASHINGTON, DC 

In the Matter of: 

TGI FREIGHT 

) 

)FAA Docket No. CP10NM0012 

)DMS NO. FAA-2010-1079 

) Judge RICHARD C. GOODWICN 

NOTICE RE HERRING 

TGI Freight, through counsel, Wilkerson Hozubin, received 

and reviewed the Procedural Order in the above-listed matter. 

TGI Freight would like to advise the Court that a key witness 

in this marter is unavailable frorn March 1, 2011, until March 

15, 2011 for the hearing in this matter. Additionally, 

undersigned counsel is scheduled to be in trial in Alaska 

Superior Court in Juneau beginning M^rch 21, 2011^ for seven 

trial days. As such, TGI requests that when the hearing for 

this matter is scheduled, it be scheduled in April 2011 or 

later. 

DATE D this IQ day of December, 2010. 

WILKERSON HOZafilN 

Attorneys for TGI 

By; 
12/17/2010 12:08 FAX 2024935142 

i^/io/zOiU yS:l3 90727&5291 

FAA •* DWS 

WILKERSON 

@]003/005 

PAGE B3 

WILKQtSON 

HOZUBIN 

TEL: (•>?> rrMni 7 

CERTIFICATE OF 8ERVTCE 

I hereby certif y tha t on th« 

10"ch day uf December, 2010, a. true 

anct correc t copy oi the loregoln'j 

way served on trie following: 

Orj.qina.1 Plus l Copy-VIA FaeaimilQ and U.S. .Mail 

Federal Aviation AdminLsturation 

600 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attn; Hearing DocJtet clerk , AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2M100O 

(202) 493-5123 - fax 

1 Copy^YIA t'».c«lnile 

The Honorable Richard C Goodwin, Adminiatrativa Law Judge 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S-E, 

East Building, Ground Floor, Room E12-320 

Washington, DC 20590 

(202) 366-7S36 - fax 

OriA Copy-VTA U.S. Mail 

Howard I " Martin, Jr. 

Regional Counsel, Office of Regional counsel, AAL-7 

Alaska Region 

Federal Aviation Administration 

222 West 1^^ Avenue #14 

Anchorage/ AK 99513-7587 

po« CoTayVIA tJ.B. Majj. 

Cheryl M. Jones, 5r. Attorney 

Office of Regional Counsel 

Alaska Region 

Federal Aviation Administration 

222 West 7*" Avenue #14 

Anchorage, AK 99513-7587 

WILKCRSOM HOZODIN 

Carol L. Mcnrfej 

3100/942/plea(l/Hotice re Hearing 

^ ^ ^ 

Notic« re Hearing 

In the Mattar of TGI Freight 

Docket No. CP10NM0012 

Page 2
COALITION PROVISIONAL AUTHORITY REGULATION NUMBER 9
GOVERNING COUNCIL’S DISSOLUTION

Pursuant to my authority as Administrator of the Coalition Provisional Authority, and
under the laws and usages of war, and consistent with relevant U.N. Security Council
resolutions, including Resolutions 1483 and 1511,

Noting that the Governing Council has approved the Law of Administration for the State
of Iraq for the Transitional Period (TAL) and its Annex and charted a course to elections
and a democratic future for Iraq, and

Recognizing that the Governing Council has completed its work on behalf of the Iraqi
people,

I hereby promulgate the following:

Section 1
Dissolution of the Governing Council

1) The CPA acknowledges the actions taken by the Governing Council to dissolve
itself on June 1, 2004 as part of the ongoing evolution in the structures of the
interim Iraqi administration, as contemplated by Resolutions 1483 and 1511.

2) CPA Regulation No. 6, Governing Council of Iraq (CPA/REG/13 July 2003/6),

and CPA Memorandum No. 6, Implementation of Regulation on the Governing
Council (CPA/MEM/03 September 2003/6), are hereby rescinded.

Section 2
Entry into Force

The Regulation shall enter into force on the date of signature.

L(el ek 6la ley

L. Paul Bremer, Administrator
Coalition Provisional Authority

CPA/REG/9 June 2004/9
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR

 THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

DOLORES (DEE) BARRETT, : CIVIL ACTION NO.

: 02-cv-4421

Plaintiff, :

:

v. :

:

THE GREATER HATBORO CHAMBER : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

OF COMMERCE, INC., JOHN J. (BUD) :

AIKEN, and MICKEY GLANTZ, :

:

Defendants. :

MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE

 IMPROPER DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE

Defendants, The Greater Hatboro Chamber of Commerce, Inc. John J. (Bud) Aiken, and

Mickey Glanz, by and through their counsel, Sidney L. Gold & Associates, P.C., respectfully

moves this Court for an Order granting Defendants’ Motion in Limine to Exclude Improper

Documentary Evidence as set forth below:

1. Defendant seeks to exclude from trial any and all evidence, including testimony,

of Plaintiff and/or her self-serving witnesses that is either irrelevant or based on hearsay.

2. Specifically, the Plaintiff plans to introduce written statements from John Bethard

(Pl. Ex. 20b), Robert McDowell (Pl. Ex. 20a), Parade Marshals (Pl. Ex.13), and Janan Radosin

(Pl. Ex. 8). These statements were made without any first hand knowledge of Plaintiff’s 

allegations.

3. Further, the Plaintiff plans to introduce a document pertaining to a settlement

offer (Pl. Ex. 1), and a police report (Pl. Ex. 15), neither of which fall under any exception to the

exclusionary rule.

Case 2:02-cv-04421-PBT Document 50 Filed 09/09/2005 Page 1 of 2
4. Defendants seek to exclude the above-referenced evidence pursuant to Federal

Rules of Evidence 402, 403, 404, 408, and 801.

5. Because the evidence lacks relevance and /or is hearsay and is prejudicial to the

Defendants, the above-referenced evidence may, in an of itself, confuse and mislead the jury and

lead the jury to enter a plaintiff’s verdict without basing said decision on the merits of this case.

6. Defendants request an evidentiary hearing in accordance with Rule 104(c) of the

Federal Rules of Evidence.

WHEREFORE, the Defendants respectfully requests that any and all evidence 

regarding the above -mentioned evidence be excluded from trial.

Respectfully submitted,

SIDNEY L. GOLD & ASSOCIATES, P.C.

BY: /s/Sidney L. Gold, Esquire SG1387 

 SIDNEY L. GOLD, ESQUIRE

 I.D. NO: 21374

 1835 Market Street, Suite 515

 Philadelphia, PA 19103

 (215) 569-1999

 Attorney for the Defendants

Dated: September 9, 2005

Case 2:02-cv-04421-PBT Document 50 Filed 09/09/2005 Page 2 of 2
----

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case COMP/M.4380 — EST/Dalmine)

Candidate case for simplified procedure

(2006/C 210/07)

(Text with EEA relevance)

----

(1)OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

(2)OJ C 56, 5.3.2005, p. 32.

----
<ASX version="3.0">	<ENTRY>		<REF HREF="mms://multimedia.mcpa.virginia.edu/911/hearing3/2003070901_low.asf" />	</ENTRY></ASX>
# C_2017283EN.01000701.xml

| 28.8.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 283/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.8.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 283/7

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 5 July 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht — Germany) — Werner Fries v Lufthansa CityLine GmbH

(Case C-190/16) (1)

1

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Air transport - Regulation (EU) No 1178/2011 - Annex I, point FCL.065(b) - Holders of a pilot’s licence who have attained the age of 65 prohibited from acting as pilots of aircraft engaged in commercial air transport - Validity - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Article 15 - Freedom of occupation - Article 21 - Equal treatment - Discrimination on grounds of age - Commercial air transport - Concept))

(2017/C 283/09)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Bundesarbeitsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Werner Fries

Applicant:

Defendant: Lufthansa CityLine GmbH

Defendant:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Consideration of the first and second questions has revealed nothing that might affect the validity of point FCL.065(b) in Annex I to Commission Regulation (EU) No 1178/2011 of 3 November 2011 laying down technical requirements and administrative procedures related to civil aviation aircrew pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 216/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council, in the light of Article 15(1) or Article 21(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Consideration of the first and second questions has revealed nothing that might affect the validity of point FCL.065(b) in Annex I to Commission Regulation (EU) No 1178/2011 of 3 November 2011 laying down technical requirements and administrative procedures related to civil aviation aircrew pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 216/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council, in the light of Article 15(1) or Article 21(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union;

| 2. | Point FCL.065(b) in Annex I to Regulation No 1178/2011 must be interpreted as prohibiting the holder of a pilot’s licence who has attained the age of 65 neither from acting as a pilot in ferry flights, operated by an air carrier carrying no passengers, cargo or mail, nor from working as an instructor and/or examiner on board an aircraft, without being part of the flight crew. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Point FCL.065(b) in Annex I to Regulation No 1178/2011 must be interpreted as prohibiting the holder of a pilot’s licence who has attained the age of 65 neither from acting as a pilot in ferry flights, operated by an air carrier carrying no passengers, cargo or mail, nor from working as an instructor and/or examiner on board an aircraft, without being part of the flight crew.

---

(1)  OJ C 222, 20.6.2016.

1

---