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

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of the Treasury

###### Internal Revenue Service

# AGENCY:

Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

# ACTION:

Notice. 

# SUMMARY:

An open meeting of the Area 6 Committee of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel will be conducted (via teleconference).  The Taxpayer Advocacy Panel (TAP) is soliciting public comments, ideas, and suggestions on improving customer service at the Internal Revenue Service.  The TAP will use citizen input to make recommendations to the Internal Revenue Service.

# DATES:

The meeting will be held Thursday, May 24, 2007.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Dave Coffman at 1-888-912-1227, or (206) 220-6096.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    Notice is hereby given pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) that an open meeting of the Area 6 Committee of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel will be held Thursday, May 24, 2007 from 1 p.m. to 2:30 p.m. Pacific Time via a telephone conference call.  The public is invited to make oral comments.  Individual comments will be limited to 5 minutes. Due to limited conference lines, notification of intent to participate in the telephone conference call meeting must be made to Dave Coffman. Mr. Coffman can be reached at 1-888-912-1227 or (206) 220-6096.  If you would like to have the TAP consider a written statement, please call or write to Dave Coffman, TAP Office, 915 2nd Avenue, MS W-406, Seattle, WA 98174, or you can contact us at                     *http://www.improveirs.org.*

The agenda will include the following: Various IRS issues.

Dated: April 24, 2007.

John Fay, 

Acting Director, Taxpayer Advocacy Panel.

 [FR Doc. E7-8304 Filed 4-30-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM UNIFAB
INTERNATIONAL, INC.'S DECEMBER 31, 1998 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND IS QUALIFIED IN
ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                       1,842,940
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               21,908,821
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  5,506,190
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            33,965,249
<PP&E>                                      30,339,729
<DEPRECIATION>                               8,960,232
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              67,266,856
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       17,743,608
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        59,800
<OTHER-SE>                                  40,433,505
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                67,266,856
<SALES>                                     23,474,041
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            23,474,041
<CGS>                                       18,526,735
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               18,526,735
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             234,699
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              2,633,418
<INCOME-TAX>                                   956,217
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,677,201
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,677,201
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.28
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.28
        

</TABLE>
Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida

Opinion filed October 6, 2021.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D21-0902

Lower Tribunal No. F17-18789

________________

Todd E. Watson,

Appellant,

vs.

The State of Florida,

Appellee.

An Appeal under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.315(a) from 

the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Miguel M. de la O, Judge.

Todd E. Watson, in proper person.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, for appellee.

Before HENDON, MILLER and BOKOR, JJ. 

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v BILLY A. HANEY, Aviation Ordnanceman Airman Apprentice, U. S. Naval Reserve, Appellant

19 USCMA 527, 42 CMR 129

No. 22,947

July 2, 1970

*Commander E. M. Fulton, Jr.,*JAGC, USN, was on the pleadings for Appellant, Accused.

*Lieutenant Colonel Charles J. Keener,*USMC, was on the pleadings for Appellee, United States.

Opinion of the Court

Darden, Judge:

Pursuant to his guilty plea, the appellant was convicted by a special court-martial for an unauthorized absence beginning June 16, 1969. Under United States v Johnson, 19 USCMA 464, 42 CMR 66 (1970), introduction of evidence of Article 15 punishment for a prior three-day absence without leave was erroneous. No harm results, considering the presence of evidence showing prior convictions by court-martial for three absences without leave, breaking restriction, and escape from confinement. United States v Johnson, 19 USCMA 464, 42 CMR 66 (1970), and United States v Young, 19 USCMA 481, 42 CMR 83 (1970).

The decision of the Court of Military Review is affirmed.

Chief Judge Quinn concurs.

Ferguson, Judge

(dissenting):

I dissent for the reasons set forth in my separate opinion in United States v Johnson, 19 USCMA 464, 42 CMR 66 (1970).
#### EARL X, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Mitch MORROW, Respondent—Appellee.

No. 02-36051.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Aug. 5, 2005.

Christine Stebbins Dahl, Esq., Federal Public Defender’s Office, Portland, OR, for Petitioner-Appellant.

Mary H. Williams, Rolf C. Moan, Esq., Hardy Myers, Jr., Esq., Department of Justice, Salem, OR, for Respondent-Appellee.

Before: HUG, MCKEOWN and FISHER, Circuit Judges.

*69MEMORANDUM *

Oregon state prisoner Earl X (“petitioner”) appeals the district court’s denial, as untimely, of his motion to amend his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition filed in 1999. Petitioner’s initial petition, filed pro se, alleged various ineffective assistance of counsel claims. After counsel had been appointed and after the statute of limitations had passed, petitioner moved to amend his petition by adding a new claim alleging that the state had failed to disclose that petitioner had been serving as a government informant against the alleged victim of his crimes, thus violating *Brady v. Maryland,*373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963). The district court denied petitioner’s motion, ruling that the *Brady*claim did not relate back to the date of the original petition within the meaning of Rule 15(c)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

In accordance with the Supreme Court’s recent decision in *Mayle v. Felix,*— U.S. -, 125 S.Ct. 2562, — L.Ed.2d - (2005), we affirm the district court’s ruling. Petitioner’s *Brady*claim and his initially filed ineffective assistance of counsel claims differ in “time and type” and do not arise from a “common core of operative facts.” *Id.*at 2571, 2574. The *Brady*claim does not, therefore, relate back to the original petition.

Petitioner also argues that his *Brady*claim should not be dismissed as untimely because he is entitled to equitable tolling or tolling under the savings clause of 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(D). The district court did not grant a certificate of appealability with respect to either of these issues and petitioner has not filed a separate motion for broader certification with respect to these issues before us. Ninth Circuit Rule 22-1 and Rule 22 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure thus preclude us from reaching these other arguments.

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

*

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
III 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. RES. 70

Commemorating the 40th anniversary of Bloody Sunday. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 3, 2005

Mr. FRIST (for himself, Mr. CORZINE, Mr. MCCONNELL, Mr. KENNEDY, Mr. 

ALLEN, Mr. REID, and Mr. ALEXANDER) submitted the following resolution; which was considered and agreed to 

RESOLUTION

Commemorating the 40th anniversary of Bloody Sunday.

Whereas March 7, 2005, marks the 40th anniversary of 

Bloody Sunday, the day on which some 600 civil rights 

marchers were demonstrating for African American voting rights; 

Whereas Jimmy Lee Jackson was killed February 26, 1965, 

2 weeks prior to Bloody Sunday, at a civil rights demonstration while trying to protect his mother and grandfather from a law enforcement officer; 

Whereas Congressman John Lewis and the late Hosea Williams led these marchers across the Edmund Pettus 

Bridge in Selma, Alabama where they were attacked with 

billy clubs and tear gas by State and local lawmen; 
2

•SRES 70 ATS 

Whereas the circumstances leading to Selma’s Bloody Sunday 

represented a set of grave injustices for African Americans which included— 

(1) the murder of Herbert Lee of Liberty, Mississippi for attending voter education classes; 

(2) the cutting off of Federal food relief by State authorities in 2 of the poorest counties in Mississippi in 

order to intimidate residents from registering to vote; 

and 

(3) the loss of jobs or refusal of credit to registered 

black voters at local banks and stores;

Whereas during the march on Bloody Sunday Congressman 

Lewis was beaten unconscious, leaving him with a concussion and countless other injuries; 

Whereas footage of the events on Bloody Sunday was broadcast on national television that night and burned its way 

into the Nation’s conscience; 

Whereas the courage, discipline, and sacrifice of these marchers caused the Nation to respond quickly and positively; 

and 

Whereas the citizens of the United States must not only remember this historic event, but also commemorate its 

role in the creation of a more just society and appreciate 

the ways in which it has inspired other movements 

around the world: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved, That Congress commemorates the 40th an2 niversary of Bloody Sunday.

Æ
Before the Third Division,

April 20, 1950

No. 54257.

#### Oldetyme Distillers, Inc., and Schenley Import Corp. *v.*United States,

protests 115869-K and 124923-K (Pittsburgh and Indianapolis).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

For the reasons stated in *Austin, Nichols & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(22 Cust. Ct. 33, C. D. 1155), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AND INCOME STATEMENT OF UGI UTILITIES, INC.
AND SUBSIDIARIES AS OF AND FOR THE SIX MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31, 1997 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS INCLUDED
IN UGI UTILITIES' QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-Q FOR THE QUARTER ENDED MARCH 31,
1997.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000100548
<NAME> UGI UTILITIES, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                           5,614
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   87,520
<ALLOWANCES>                                     4,262
<INVENTORY>                                      8,878
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               119,207
<PP&E>                                         747,248
<DEPRECIATION>                                 232,628
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 698,680
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          201,013
<BONDS>                                        141,121
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           35,187
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        60,259
<OTHER-SE>                                     142,688
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   698,680
<SALES>                                        307,458
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               307,458
<CGS>                                          163,623
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  163,623
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               8,556
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 62,809
<INCOME-TAX>                                    23,861
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             38,948
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    38,948
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0<F1>
<FN>
<F1>There are no publicly held shares outstanding.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
(Reap. Dec. 8402)

Entry No. 750881, etc.

#### Paul A. Straub & Co., Inc. *v.*United States

(Decided March 4, 1955)

*Fred Bennett; John D. Rode,*associate counsel; for the plaintiff.

*Warren E. Burger,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Johnson, 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 AND AGREED, subject to the approval of the Court, that the appraised values of the merchandise covered by the appeals to reappraisement enumerated herein, less the additions made by the importer on entry because of advances by the Appraiser in similar cases, is equal to the market value or the price at the time of exportation of such merchandise to the United States, at which such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of the country from which exported, in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade, for exportation to the United States including the cost of all containers and coverings of whatever nature and all other costs, charges, and expenses incident to placing the merchandise in condition, packed ready for shipment to the United States and that there was no higher foreign value for such or similar merchandise.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the cases may be submitted on the foregoing stipulation.

*468On 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 merchandise here involved, and that such values were the appraised values, less the additions made by the importer on entry because of advances by the appraiser in similar cases.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
Before the Third Division,

December 16, 1944

No. 49874.

#### Protest 36993-K of Kwong Yick & Co. (Los Angeles).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

It was stipulated that the ducks in oil in tins are the same in all material respects as those passed upon in *Wa Chong*v. *United States,*(T. D. 45695) and that the rice is broken rice of the same character and description as that involved in Abstract 48704 as amended. In accordance therewith the protest was sustained as to the ducks in oil in tins and a portion of the rice in question *{2/\o*percent) thereof by weight was held dutiable at five-sixteenths of 1 cent per pound under paragraph 727 as amended. Protests sustained to this extent.
No. 39078.

#### Protests 391484-G, etc., of L. A. Consmiller, Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

Articles in chief value of cellulose filaments similar to those involved in Abstract 37230 were held dutiable at 60 percent under paragraph 31 as claimed.
(logo)C-III | C-III Asset Management

 

 

**OFFICER’SCERTIFICATE**

**C-IIIAsset Management LLC**

 

 

Theundersigned, Barry Davis, President of C-III Asset Management LLC (*f/k/aCenterline Servicing LLC*), the Special Servicer under that certain Poolingand Servicing Agreement dated as of February 1, 2016, relating to the **MorganStanley Bank of America Merrill Lynch Trust 2016-C28, Commercial MortgagePass-Through Certificates, Series 2016-C28** (the "Pooling and ServicingAgreement"), hereby certifies as follows:

 

1.       a review of theactivities of the Special Servicer and of its performance under the Pooling andServicing Agreement during the calendar year 2017 (the "Reporting Period")has been made under the undersigned's supervision;

 

2.      to thebest of the undersigned's knowledge, based on such review, the Special Servicermaintained an effective internal control system relating to its servicing ofthe Mortgage Loans serviced by it and has fulfilled in all material respectsits obligations under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement throughout theReporting Period.

 

Capitalizedterms not otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings given them in thePooling and Servicing Agreement.

** **

** **

**INWITNESS WHEREOF**, as of the 1st day of March, 2018, I havehereunto signed my name.

 

 

/s/Barry Davis

**BarryDavis**,President

C-IIIAsset Management LLC, a

Delawarelimited liability company

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MSBAM2016-C28
(logo) Rialto CAPITAL

 

 

**2016 Annual Statement ofServicer Compliance (Item 1123)**

 

 

Pooling and ServicingAgreement (the “Pooling and Servicing Agreement”) dated as of May1, 2016 by and among Morgan Stanley Capital I, Inc. as Depositor, Wells FargoBank, National Association as Master Servicer, Rialto Capital Advisors, LLC asSpecial Servicer, Wilmington Trust, National Association as Trustee, WellsFargo Bank, National Association as Certificate Administrator and Park BridgeLender Services LLC as Operating Advisor and Asset Representations Reviewerrelating to Morgan Stanley Bank of America Merrill Lynch Trust 2016-C29, CommercialMortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2016-C29 **(MSBAM 2016-C29)**

 

 

The undersigned, a dulyauthorized officer of Rialto Capital Advisors, LLC, as special servicer (the“Special Servicer”) herein certifies to the following:

 

1.  All servicingactivities and performance of such servicing activities under the Pooling andServicing Agreement are performed on behalf of the Special Servicer.

 

2.  A review of theservicing activities and performance by the Special Servicer for the period ofMay 5, 2016 to December 31, 2016 (the “Reporting Period”) inaccordance with the Pooling and Servicing Agreement has been conducted under mysupervision.

 

3.  To the best ofmy knowledge, based on such review, the Special Servicer has fulfilled all ofits obligations under the terms of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement, in allmaterial respects for the Reporting Period and if there has been a failure tofulfill any such obligations in any material respect, each failure and thenature and status thereof has been specifically identified herein.

 

 

Certified by: /s/ AdamSinger                                                 Date: March 1, 2017

Adam Singer, Managing Director
[Cite as Jackson v. Ohio Dept. of Transp., 2011-Ohio-4380.]

Court of Claims of Ohio

The Ohio Judicial Center 

65 South Front Street, Third Floor 

Columbus, OH 43215 

614.387.9800 or 1.800.824.8263 

www.cco.state.oh.us

HALLE ANN JACKSON Case No. 2011-05564-AD 

 Plaintiff Deputy Clerk Daniel R. Borchert 

 v. ENTRY OF DISMISSAL

OHIO DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION 

 Defendant 

{¶1} On April 8, 2011, plaintiff was ordered to either pay the $25 filing fee or to 

file a poverty statement. Plaintiff was also ordered to submit a copy of the form 

complaint with her original signature. Plaintiff has failed to comply with the court orders. 

Therefore, plaintiff’s action is DISMISSED, without prejudice, pursuant to Civ.R. 

41(B)(1). The court shall absorb the costs of this case. 

 ________________________________ 

 DANIEL R. BORCHERT 

 Deputy Clerk 

cc: 

Halle Ann Jackson 

3423 Yellow Creek Road 

Akron, Ohio 44333 

DRB/laa 

Filed 5/26/11 

Sent to S.C. reporter 8/26/11
No. 54283.

#### Gradiaz-Annis & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 136355-K (Tampa).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

An examination of the record failing to disclose evidence sufficient to overcome the presumption of correctness attaching to the collector’s decision, the protest was overruled.
#### Harold W. VAN ALLEN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 05-5147.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

Aug. 31, 2005.

Harold W. Van Allen, pro se.

Before MICHEL, Chief Judge, NEWMAN and SCHALL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

*ORDER*

Harold W. Van Allen submits an “emergency motion” and a motion for an extension of time to file his brief. The court sua sponte considers whether this appeal should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Van Allen filed suit in the United States Court of Federal Claims, seeking review of veterans health care expenses and possibly military disability retirement. Regarding health care expenses, the Court of Federal Claims stated it would dismiss those claims for lack of jurisdiction. Regarding military disability retirement, the Court of Federal Claims requested that Van Allen file an amended complaint by September 6, 2005, more fully setting forth a claim or demand for military disability retirement. Absent an amended complaint, the Court of Federal Claims stated that it would dismiss the case and issue a final judgment on or before September 12, 2005. Van *367Allen filed a notice of appeal on July 18, 2005.

Because there is no final judgment, Van Allen’s appeal is premature. 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(3). Van Allen may timely file an appeal within 60 days of entry of final judgment by the Court of Federal Claims, if appropriate.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

(1) Van Allen’s motions are denied.

(2) Van Allen’s appeal is dismissed as premature.