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

Kelly, Shaheerah

From: Kelly, Shaheerah

Sent: Friday, August 07, 2015 8:53 AM

To: tbillie@navajo-nsn.gov

Cc: Kelly, Shaheerah

Subject: NHPA Consultation for McElmo Creek Unit Flare

Hi Tamara,

EPA is processing a federal air permit for the McElmo Creek Unit (MCU) Flare. The applicant has a consultant working on

an assessment of historic properties in the area of potential effects for this project. We spoke few weeks ago and you

mentioned that you would be covering the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) consultation for this project. I

would appreciate it if we could talk about what information EPA will need to send to the Navajo Nation Historic

Preservation Department as part of the NHPA consultation. I plan to follow‐up with you by phone during the week of

August 10.  

Thanks.

************************************ 

Shaheerah Kelly 

Permits Office, Air Division (AIR-3) 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9 

San Francisco, CA 94105 

Phone: 415-947-4156 

Fax: 415-947-3579 

Email: kelly.shaheerah@epa.gov
# C_2016068EN.01004601.xml

| 22.2.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 68/46 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.2.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 68/46

---

Action brought on 17 December 2015 — ZZ v Parliament

(Case F-147/15)

(2016/C 068/59)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: M. Casado García-Hirschfeld, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Parliament

Defendant:

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Application for annulment of the decision terminating the applicant’s contract.

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

| — | annul the contested decision dated 24 February 2015; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision dated 24 February 2015;

| — | so far as necessary, annul the rejection decision dated 9 September 2015; |
| --- | --- |

—

so far as necessary, annul the rejection decision dated 9 September 2015;

| — | order the Parliament to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Parliament to pay the costs.

---
No. 55467.

#### Chas. H. Demarest, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 168452-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the .court dismissed the protests.
110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 1

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 

2 concurring), That pursuant to clause 4, section 5, article 

3 I of the Constitution, during the One Hundred Tenth Con4 gress the Speaker of the House and the Majority Leader 

5 of the Senate or their respective designees, acting jointly 

6 after consultation with the Minority Leader of the House
2

•HCON 1 EH 

1 and the Minority Leader of the Senate, may notify the 

2 Members of the House and the Senate, respectively, to as3 semble at a place outside the District of Columbia if, in 

4 their opinion, the public interest shall warrant it. 

Passed the House of Representatives January 4, 

2007. 

Attest:

Clerk. 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 1

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Regarding consent to assemble outside the seat of 

government.
#### Marshall Field & Co. *v.*United States

No. 7593.

Entry No. 4993, etc.

Invoices dated London, England, March 17, 1941, etc.

Certified March 17, 1941, etc.

Entered at Chicago, Ill., April 29, 1941, etc.

(Decided May 28, 1948)

*James W. Bevans*for the plaintiff.

*Paul P. Bao,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Oliver, Presiding Judge:

These appeals for reappraisement have been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

(Stipulation omitted.)

On the agreed facts I find the export value, as that value is defined in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the items marked *“A”*on the invoices and checked “GF” by examiner George Felzer, and that such values are the appraised values, less the additions made by the appraiser for .British purchase tax.

Insofar as the appeals relate to all other merchandise they are hereby dismissed.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-6334

LEONARD CARTER,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA; R. A. YOUNG, Regional Administrator; A. D. ROBINSON, Warden;

KEITH DAVIS, AWP; B. L. JOHNSON, Treatment

Programs Supervisor; UNKNOWN PINCHBECK, Counselor; C. W. FITZGERALD; V. L. FOSTER; A. W.

GRAHAM, Counselor; SCOTT L. LAMBERT, Counselor; D. CHAFLIN, Counselor; J. WOODSON,

Counselor,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior

District Judge. (CA-97-558)

Submitted: July 2, 1998 Decided: July 27, 1998

Before NIEMEYER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and HALL, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Leonard Carter, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court’s order dismissing

without prejudice his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) action. The district

court’s order of dismissal is not appealable. See Domino Sugar

Corp. v. Sugar Workers’ Local Union 392, 10 F.3d 1064, 1066-67 (4th

Cir. 1993). A dismissal without prejudice is final if “no amendment

[to the complaint] could cure defects in the plaintiff’s case.” Id.

at 1067 (citation omitted). In ascertaining whether a dismissal

without prejudice is reviewable in this court, the court must

determine “whether the plaintiff could save his action by merely

amending the complaint.” Id. at 1066-67.

Appellant could refile his complaint once he has particularized his complaint, as directed by the district court. We therefore dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because we find

the dismissal of the complaint without prejudice is not appealable.

We deny Carter’s motions for appointment of counsel, to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis, for a jury trial, and for production of documents. We dispense with oral argument because the facts

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

September 9, 2011 

h0906 

Order 

 

September 9, 2011 

142615(21) 

DOREEN JOSEPH, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 142615 

 COA: 302508 

Macomb CC: 2009-005726-CK 

A.C.I.A., 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the motion for stay of trial court proceedings is 

GRANTED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Company's Balance Sheet as of June 30, 2000 and the Statement Of Income
for the year ended June 30, 2000, and is qualified in its entirety by
reference to such financial staements.

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                         516,949
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               516,949
<PP&E>                                       7,995,908
<DEPRECIATION>                               5,878,473
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,151,582<F1>
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        4,887,256<F2>
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                    (735,674)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,151,582
<SALES>                                        580,905<F3>
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               609,997
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               147,384<F4>
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             177,043
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                285,570
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            285,570
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   285,570
<EPS-BASIC>                                   396.63<F5>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   396.63<F5>
<FN>
<F1>Includes unamortized mortgage refinancing costs
<F2>Accrued interest on mortgage and first mortgage principal payment due
    within one year
<F3>Rental income includes basic rent and advance of primary overage rent
<F4>Supervisory services and amortization of mortgage refinance costs and
    professional fees.
<F5>Earnings per $5,000 participation unit, based on 720 participation units
    outstanding during the period



</TABLE>
# C_2016191EN.01000201.xml

| 30.5.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 191/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.5.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 191/2

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Sibiu (Romania) lodged on 2 July 2015 — Andreea Corina Târșia v Statul român, Universitatea ‘Lucian Blaga’ Sibiu, Consiliul Național pentru Combaterea Discriminării

(Case C-328/15)

(2016/C 191/02)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Referring court

Tribunalul Sibiu

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Andreea Corina Târșia

Applicant:

Defendants: Statul român, Universitatea ‘Lucian Blaga’ Sibiu, Consiliul Național pentru Combaterea Discriminării

Defendants:

By order of 14 April 2016, the Court (Sixth Chamber) declared that it clearly lacked jurisdiction to hear and determine the request for a preliminary ruling made by the Tribunalul Sibiu (Romania) by decision of 8 June 2015.

---
UGI UTILITIES INC.
COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES  EXHIBIT 12.1
(Thousands of dollars)
 NineMonthsEndedJune 30,
    
    
    Year Ended September 30,2009
    
    
    2008
    
    
    2007
    
    
    2006
    
    
    2005
    
    
    2004Earnings:Earnings before income taxes
    
    $
    131,118
    
    
    $
    123,977
    
    
    $
    122,766
    
    
    $
    80,544
    
    
    $
    84,953
    
    
    $
    83,098Interest expense
    
    
    33,010
    
    
    
    39,065
    
    
    
    42,327
    
    
    
    24,102
    
    
    
    18,079
    
    
    
    17,698Amortization of debt discount and expense
    
    
    468
    
    
    
    467
    
    
    
    462
    
    
    
    243
    
    
    
    247
    
    
    
    233Estimated interest component of rental expense
    
    
    1,454
    
    
    
    1,619
    
    
    
    1,506
    
    
    
    1,675
    
    
    
    1,568
    
    
    
    1,477$
    166,050
    
    
    $
    165,128
    
    
    $
    167,061
    
    
    $
    106,564
    
    
    $
    104,847
    
    
    $
    102,506Fixed Charges:Interest expense
    
    $
    33,010
    
    
    $
    39,065
    
    
    $
    42,327
    
    
    $
    24,102
    
    
    $
    18,079
    
    
    $
    17,698Amortization of debt discount and expense
    
    
    468
    
    
    
    467
    
    
    
    462
    
    
    
    243
    
    
    
    247
    
    
    
    233Allowance for funds used during
construction (capitalized interest)
    
    
    153
    
    
    
    139
    
    
    
    179
    
    
    
    85
    
    
    
    22
    
    
    
    11Estimated interest component of rental expense
    
    
    1,454
    
    
    
    1,619
    
    
    
    1,506
    
    
    
    1,675
    
    
    
    1,568
    
    
    
    1,477$
    35,085
    
    
    $
    41,290
    
    
    $
    44,474
    
    
    $
    26,105
    
    
    $
    19,916
    
    
    $
    19,419Ratio of earnings to fixed charges
    
    
    4.73
    
    
    
    4.00
    
    
    
    3.76
    
    
    
    4.08
    
    
    
    5.26
    
    
    
    5.28
# C_2016326EN.01000601.xml

| 5.9.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 326/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.9.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 326/6

---

Appeal brought on 23 July 2015 by Harper Hygienics S.A. against the judgment delivered by the General Court on 13 May 2015 in Case T-363/13, Harper Hygienics v European Union Intellectual Property Office — Clinique Laboratories (CLEANIC natural beauty)

(Case C-474/15 P)

(2016/C 326/08)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Harper Hygienics S.A. (represented by: D. Rzążewska, radca prawny)

Appellant:

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office and Clinique Laboratories, LLC

Other parties to the proceedings:

By order of the Court of Justice (Tenth Chamber) of 7 April 2016, the appeal was declared inadmissible in part and was dismissed as to the remainder.

---
Before the Second Division,

September 17, 1942

No. 47563.

#### Protests 2078-K, etc., of Associated Merchandising Corp. (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the 'mufflers in question are hemmed and are of the same character as those involved in Abstract 45938 the claim at 60 percent under paragraph 1209 was sustained.
# C_2016016EN.01003702.xml

| 18.1.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.1.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/37

---

Judgment of the General Court of 24 November 2015 — Intervog v OHIM (meet me)

(Case T-190/15) (1)

1

((Community trademark - Application for Community figurative mark meet me - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2016/C 016/46)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Intervog (Paris, France) (represented by: M.-R. Hirsch, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: S. Bonne, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 February 2015 (Case R 845/2014-4) concerning an application for registration of the sign meet me as a Community trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Intervog to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Intervog to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 198, 15.6.2015.

1

---
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

February 27, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

132488 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

ABN AMRO MORTGAGE GROUP, INC., 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 132488 

 COA: 265518 

Macomb CC: 2004-002450-CH 

HOUSEHOLD BANK, F.S.B., and 

COMERICA BANK, 

Defendants-Appellees, 

and 

VLADIMIR ABRAMOVICH and 

GALINA ABRAMOVICH, 

 Defendants. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the August 8, 2006 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

s0220 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

February 27, 2007 

 Clerk
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 103 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.Con.Res.103
                                                Agreed to March 29, 2007

                       One Hundred Tenth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

          Begun and held at the City of Washington on Thursday,
            the fourth day of January, two thousand and seven

                          Concurrent Resolution

    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring),  
That when the House adjourns on the legislative day of Thursday, March 
29, 2007, or Friday, March 30, 2007, on a motion offered pursuant to 
this concurrent resolution by its Majority Leader or his designee, it 
stand adjourned until 2 p.m. on Monday, April 16, 2007, or until the 
time of any reassembly pursuant to section 2 of this concurrent 
resolution, whichever occurs first; and that when the Senate recesses 
or adjourns on Thursday, March 29, 2007, on a motion offered pursuant 
to this concurrent resolution by its Majority Leader or his designee, 
it stand recessed or adjourned until noon on Tuesday, April 10, 2007, 
or such other time on that day as may be specified by its Majority 
Leader or his designee in the motion to recess or adjourn, or until the 
time of any reassembly pursuant to section 2 of this concurrent 
resolution, whichever occurs first.
    Sec. 2. The Speaker of the House and the Majority Leader of the 
Senate, or their respective designees, acting jointly after 
consultation with the Minority Leader of the House and the Minority 
Leader of the Senate, shall notify the Members of the House and the 
Senate, respectively, to reassemble at such place and time as they may 
designate if, in their opinion, the public interest shall warrant it.
Attest:

                                 Clerk of the House of Representatives.

Attest:

                                               Secretary of the Senate.
```
(Reap. Dec. 8831)

#### Leading Forwarders, Inc. *v.*United States

Entry No. 23783, etc.

(Decided June 12, 1957)

*Michael Stramiello, Jr.,*for the plaintiff.

*George Cochran Doub,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

*684Wilson, Judge:

The appeals for reappraisement listed in schedule “A,” hereto attached and made a part hereof, have been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED, by and between the attorney for the plaintiff and the Assistant Attorney General, attorney for the defendant, as follows:

> 1. The items marked “A” and checked JJO by Examiner J. J. O’Connor Jr., on the invoices covered by the appeals for reappraisement enumerated below under the schedule marked, “Schedule A” consist of sodium para-amino salicylate, a coal tar product, imported under the entry numbers and dates shown on said Schedule A.

> 2. At the times of exportation of said merchandise, competitive sodium para-amino salicylate manufactured or produced in the United States was freely offered for sale for domestic consumption to all purchasers in the principal market of the United States, in the ordinary course of trade and in the usual wholesale quantities at $2.70 per pound, less 1 per cent, which price includes the cost of all containers and coverings and all other costs, charges and expenses incident to placing said merchandise in condition packed ready for delivery.

> 3. The cases listed in Schedule A are hereby submitted for decision.

On the agreed facts I find the American selling price, as that value is defined in section 402 (g) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by section 8 of the Customs Administrative Act of 1938, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the items of merchandise marked “A” and checked JJO by Examiner J. J. O’Connor, Jr., on the invoices, and that such value was $2.70 per pound, less 1 per centum.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
EX-31 Rule 13a-14(d)/15d-14(d) Certifications.

 

 

I, Anthony Sfarra, certify that:

 

1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports onForm 10-D required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this reporton Form 10-K of the Wells Fargo Commercial Mortgage Trust 2016-C33 (the"Exchange Act periodic reports");

 

2. Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, takenas a whole, do not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit tostate a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading withrespect to the period covered by this report;

 

3. Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing andother information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the periodcovered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;

 

4. Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statementsrequired in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except asdisclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicers have fulfilledtheir obligations under the servicing agreements in all material respects; and

 

5. All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicingcriteria for asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports onassessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securitiesrequired to be included in this report in accordance with Item 1122 ofRegulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as anexhibit to this report, except as otherwise disclosed in this report. Anymaterial instances of noncompliance described in such reports have beendisclosed in this report on Form 10-K.

 

In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied oninformation provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties:

 

National Cooperative Bank, N.A., as NCB Master Servicer, RialtoCapital Advisors, LLC, as Special Servicer, National Cooperative Bank, N.A., asNCB Special Servicer, Wilmington Trust, National Association, as Trustee, ParkBridge Lender Services LLC, as Operating Advisor, CoreLogic Solutions, LLC, asServicing Function Participant, Computershare Trust Company, NationalAssociation, as Servicing Function Participant for the CertificateAdministrator on and after November 1, 2021, Computershare Trust Company,National Association, as Servicing Function Participant for the Custodian onand after November 1, 2021, Trimont Real Estate Advisors, LLC, as Special Servicerfor the 225 Liberty Street Mortgage Loan, Wilmington Trust, NationalAssociation, as Trustee for the 225 Liberty Street Mortgage Loan, Citibank,N.A., as Custodian for the 225 Liberty Street Mortgage Loan, CoreLogicSolutions, LLC, as Servicing Function Participant for the 225 Liberty StreetMortgage Loan, National Tax Search, LLC, as Servicing Function Participant forthe 225 Liberty Street Mortgage Loan, and U.S. Bank National Association, asServicing Function Participant for the 225 Liberty Street Mortgage Loan.

 

 

 

Dated:March 8,2022

 

 

/s/ Anthony Sfarra

Anthony Sfarra 

President

(seniorofficer in charge of securitization of the depositor)