alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
January 16, 1970

No. 70-5

#### Cornelius Lucas, Formerly U. S. Air Force v United States.

On consideration of the “Affidavit of Indigence Requesting Leave to Appeal in Forma Pauperis”, construed by the Court as a Motion for Appropriate Relief, the following appears:

On October 14, 1952, petitioner was convicted by special court-martial of assault with a dangerous weapon and of wrongful discharge of a firearm, violations respectively of Articles 128 and 134, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 USC §§ 928 and 934, allegedly committed in Japan. He was sentenced to confinement at hard labor for six months, with partial forfeitures for a like period.

By his present application petitioner seeks review of his conviction by this Court, alleging he was heretofore denied an impartial review because of his inability to produce sufficient documentation of his contention. He does not identify the tribunal which he alleges denied impartial review.

Article 67, Uniform Code, supra, 10 USC § 867, empowers this Court to review the record of a court-martial in three categories of cases:

> “. . . (1) all cases in which the sentence as affirmed by a Court of Military Review, affects a general or flag officer or extends to death;

> (2) all cases reviewed by a Court of Military Review which the Judge Advocate General orders sent to the Court of Military Appeals for review; and

> (3) all cases reviewed by a Court of Military Review in which, upon petition of the accused and on good cause shown, the Court of Military Appeals has granted a review.”

In view of the sentence imposed and the type of court-martial which imposed it, the record of trial in petitioner’s case was not reviewable by a Court of Military Review (then a Board of Review), nor was it reviewable by this Court. Action by the Officer Exercising General Court-martial Jurisdiction terminated the appellate processes. Under these circumstances, resort to the special powers conferred by the All Writs Act, 28 USC § 1651, may not be had. United States v Snyder, 18 USCMA 480, 40 CMR 192.

Accordingly, it is, by the Court, this 16th day of January, 1970,

ORDERED:

> That said Motion be, and the same *626hereby is, dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
EXHIBIT 3



			    AMENDED BUSINESS CERTIFICATE


	      The undersigned hereby certify that a certificate of business
	 under the assumed name 

			    250 WEST 57TH ST. ASSOCIATES

	 for the conduct of business at 60 East 42nd Street, New York, New
	 York, was filed in the office of the County Clerk New York County,
	 State of New York, on the 11th day of June, 1953, under index
	 number 6981/53; that the last amended certificate was filed on the
	 22nd day of December, 1995 in the office of said County Clerk
	 under index number 6981/53.

	      It is hereby further certified that this amended certificate
	 is made for the purposes of more accurately setting forth the
	 facts recited in the original certificate or the last amended
	 certificate and to set forth the following changes in such facts;*

	 RALPH W. FELSTEN, residing at 300 East 54th Street, New York, New
	 York 10022, has withdrawn as a member of 250 West 57th St.
	 Associates.

	 The members of 250 West 57th St. Associates now consist of:

	 Peter L. Malkin and Stanley Katzman.


	      IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have as of the 1st day of
	 January, 1997 made and signed this certificate.



	 /s/Ralph W. Felsten                /s/Stanley Katzman         
	    RALPH W. FELSTEN                STANLEY KATZMAN



	 State of New York  ) 
			    : ss.:          
	 County of New York )
	      On this 7th day of May, 1997, before me personally appeared
	 STANLEY KATZMAN and RALPH W. FELSTEN, to me known and known to me
	 to be the individuals described in and who executed the foregoing
	 certificate, and they thereupon duly acknowledged to me that they
	 executed the same.



					    /s/Notary Public                   
					       NOTARY PUBLIC
### Significance of ground-water chemistry in performance of North Sahara Tube wells in Algeria and Tunisia

By: Frank Eldridge ClarkeBlair F. Jones

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/wsp1757M

#### Links

-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

Part or all of this report is presented in Portable Document Format                        (PDF). For best results viewing and printing PDF documents, it is recommended that you download                        the documents to your computer and open them with Adobe Reader. PDF documents opened from your                        browser may not display or print as intended. Download the latest version of Adobe Reader, free of charge. More information                        about viewing, downloading, and printing report files can be found at the common download problems FAQ.
(logo) Rialto CAPITAL

 

 

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

 

 

Pooling and ServicingAgreement (the “Pooling and Servicing Agreement”) dated as ofDecember 1, 2015 by and among Morgan Stanley Capital I Inc., as Depositor,Midland Loan Services, A Division of PNC Bank, National Association as MasterServicer, Rialto Capital Advisors, LLC as Special Servicer, Wells Fargo Bank,National Association as Trustee, Certificate Administrator, CertificateRegistrar, Authenticating Agent and Custodian and Situs Holdings, LLC as TrustAdvisor relating to the Morgan Stanley Capital I Trust 2015-UBS8, CommercialMortgage Pass-through Certificates, Series 2015-UBS8 **(MCSI 2015-UBS8)**

 

 

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

 

1.            All servicing activities and performance of such servicing activities under thePooling and Servicing Agreement are performed on behalf of the SpecialServicer.

 

2.            A review of the servicing activities and performance by the Special Servicer forthe period of January 1, 2016 to December 31, 2016 (the “ReportingPeriod”) in accordance with the Pooling and Servicing Agreement has beenconducted under my supervision.

 

3.            To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Special Servicer hasfulfilled all of its obligations under the terms of the Pooling and ServicingAgreement, in all material respects for the Reporting Period and if there hasbeen a failure to fulfill any such obligations in any material respect, eachfailure and the nature and status thereof has been specifically identifiedherein.

 

 

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

                    Adam Singer, Managing Director
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 14 (Tuesday, January 23, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 2905]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-852]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

National Park Service


National Register of Historic Places; Notification of Pending 
Nominations and Related Actions

    Nominations for the following properties being considered for 
listing or related actions in the National Register were received by 
the National Park Service before January 6, 2007. Pursuant to section 
60.13 of 36 CFR Part 60 written comments concerning the significance of 
these properties under the National Register criteria for evaluation 
may be forwarded by United States Postal Service, to the National 
Register of Historic Places, National Park Service, 1849 C St., NW., 
2280, Washington, DC 20240; by all other carriers, National Register of 
Historic Places, National Park Service, 1201 Eye St., NW., 8th floor, 
Washington, DC 20005; or by fax, 202-371-6447. Written or faxed 
comments should be submitted by February 7, 2007.

John W. Roberts,
Acting Chief, National Register/National Historic Landmarks Program.

COLORADO

Denver County

Stanley School--Montclair School, 1301 Quebec St., Denver, 07000038

IDAHO

Idaho County,

Campbell's Ferry, Frank Church River of No Return Wilderness, 
Riggins, 07000037

MARYLAND

Wicomico County

San Domingo School, 11526 Old School Rd, Sharpstown, 07000044

MISSOURI

Franklin County

Spaunhorst and Mayn Building, (Washington, Missouri MPS), 300-305 
Jefferson St., Washington, 07000041
Barclay Building 3613-23 Broadway Blvd., Kansas City, 07000042
Kuehne--Schmidt Apartments, (Colonnade Apartment Buildings of Kansas 
City, MO MPS), 3737-39 and 3741-43 Main Sts., Kansas City, 07000040
Mainstreet Theatre, 1400 Main St., Kansas City, 07000043

Warren County

Southwestern Bell Repeater Station--Wright City, NE. corner of North 
Service Rd. and Bell Rd., Wright City, 07000039

NEW JERSEY

Cape May County

Rio Grande Station, 720 NJ 9, Lower Township, 07000047

Monmouth County

St. George's-by-the-River Episcopal Church, 7 Linoln Ave., Rumson, 
07000045

Warren County

Blairstown Historic District, Main St., East Ave., Douglas St., 
Water St., Blair Place, Blairstown, 07000046

VIRGINIA

Accomack County

Pocomoke Farm, 7492 Monument Rd., VA 699, Sanford, 07000054

Bath County

Homestead Dairy Barns, USS 220, Warm Springs, 07000051
Yard, The, 381 Old Greenhouse Rd., Hot Springs, 07000050

King And Queen County

Marriott School, 450 Newtown Rd., St. Stevens Church, 07000052

Loudoun County

Sleepy Hollow Farm, 39902 Thomas Mill Rd., Leesburg, 07000048
Temple Hall, 15764 Temple Hall Ln., Leesburg, 07000053

Rockingham County

Kite Mansion, 17271 Spotswood Trail, Elkton, 07000049

 [FR Doc. E7-852 Filed 1-22-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4312-51-P
#### Tambara & Co. *v.*United States

No. 6270.

Entry No. 7626.

Invoice dated Shigaken, Japan, January 21, 1937.

Entered at San Francisco, Calif., February 16, 1937.

(Decided April 4, 1946)

*Lawrence & Tuttle (George R. Tuttle*of counsel) for the plaintiff.

*Paul P. Rao,*Assistant Attorney General *(Daniel I. Auster,*special attorney), for the defendant.

Keefe, Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement has been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

It is hereby stipulated and agreed by and between counsel for the respective parties hereto, subject to the approval of the court:

*346(1) That as to the merchandise involved herein, represented on the invoice by the items marked “A” and initialed E. H. W. by Examiner E. H. Weber, the market value or price at the time of exportation, 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, plus, when not included in such price, the cost of 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, was the invoiced unit prices, packed.

(2) That at the time of exportation there was no higher foreign value for this merchandise and that the appraisement made under authority of the Presidential proclamation published in T. D. 46158 was not applicable to said merchandise, based upon the decisions in Reap. Dec.’s 4444 and 4570.

(3) That the appeal as to all other merchandise not marked with the letter “A” as stated above and contained on the invoice is abandoned, and that this case may be submitted on the foregoing stipulation.

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 merchandise represented on the invoice by the items marked “A” and initialed EÍIW by Examiner E. H. Weber, and that such values are the invoiced unit prices, packed.

The appeal having been abandoned insofar as it relates to all other merchandise, to that extent the appeal is dismissed.
### Ground-water levels in the United States, 1961-65, southwestern States

By: Charles Lee McGuinness

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/wsp1855

#### Links

-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- NGMDB Index Pages:                               - **Arizona**                            (html)
  - **Calfornia**                            (html)
  - **Hawaii**                            (html)
  - **Nevada**                            (html)
  - **New Mexico**                            (html) 
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

No abstract available.

#### Study Area

Part or all of this report is presented in Portable Document Format                        (PDF). For best results viewing and printing PDF documents, it is recommended that you download                        the documents to your computer and open them with Adobe Reader. PDF documents opened from your                        browser may not display or print as intended. Download the latest version of Adobe Reader, free of charge. More information                        about viewing, downloading, and printing report files can be found at the common download problems FAQ.
# C_2017121EN.01002502.xml

| 18.4.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 121/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.4.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 121/25

---

Judgment of the General Court of 1 March 2017 — Universiteit Antwerpen v REA

(Case T-208/15) (1)

1

((Arbitration clause - Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007-2013) - Marie Curie actions - Early-stage researchers - Call for proposals FP7-People-ITN-2008 - Grant agreements - Eligible costs - Recovery of sums paid - Concept of hosting researchers - Proportionality))

(2017/C 121/36)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Universiteit Antwerpen (Antwerp, Belgium) (represented by: P. Teerlinck and P. de Bandt, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Research Executive Agency (REA) (represented by: S. Payan-Lagrou and V. Canetti, acting as Agents, and by D. Waelbroeck and A. Duron, lawyers)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Action under Article 272 TFEU seeking, first of all, a declaration that Grant Agreements No 238214 ‘C7’ (Cerebellar-Cortical Control: Cells, Circuits, Computation, and Clinic) and No 238686 ‘Cerebnet’ (Timing and plasticity in the olivo-cerebellar system), which were entered into in the context of call for proposals FP7-People-ITN-2008, cannot be interpreted as imposing an obligation on the beneficiaries to provide training to early-stage researchers exclusively on their own premises and, as a consequence, confirmation that the REA cannot reject as ineligible part of the costs relating to the training of three early-stage researchers outside the applicant’s premises; and, secondly, an order that the REA is to pay all the costs related to the training of those early-stage researchers, as claimed by the applicant, together with interest from the date on which the payments were due under the agreements.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Orders the Research Executive Agency (REA) to pay Universiteit Antwerpen the sum of EUR 45 526,73, corresponding to payment of some of the eligible costs under the ‘Cerebnet’ Agreement No 238686 entered into under the Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007-2013), together with contractual interest from the date from which that amount was due under that agreement; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Orders the Research Executive Agency (REA) to pay Universiteit Antwerpen the sum of EUR 45 526,73, corresponding to payment of some of the eligible costs under the ‘Cerebnet’ Agreement No 238686 entered into under the Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007-2013), together with contractual interest from the date from which that amount was due under that agreement;

| 2. | Dismisses the action as to the remainder; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 3. | Orders the REA and Universiteit Antwerpen to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the REA and Universiteit Antwerpen to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 270, 17.8.2015.

1

---
E.O. 12866 Meeting on EPA's Greenhouse Gas New Source

Performance Standard for Electric Generating Units Rule

Tue 02/07/2012 1:00 PM - 1:30 PM

Attendance is for RobertJ Wayland

Chair: Mabel_E._Echols@omb.eop.gov

Location: 10103 NEOB (202-395-6392; code 3862485)

This entry has an alarm. The alarm will go off before the entry starts.

Required:

Kevin_F._Neyland@omb.eop.gov, Dominic_J._Mancini@omb.eop.gov, Nathan_J._Frey@omb.eop.gov, 

Manisha_D_Patel@ceq.eop.gov, Michael_C._Clark@omb.eop.gov, John_S._MacNeil@omb.eop.gov, Kevin 

Culligan/DC/USEPA/US, Peter Tsirigotis/RTP/USEPA/US, Sarah Rees/DC/USEPA/US, 

Jeffrey_G_Weiss@omb.eop.gov, Cortney_Higgins@omb.eop.gov, Darian_E_Ghorbi@omb.eop.gov, 

Glenn_D_Sheriff@ceq.eop.gov, Andrew_J_McConville@ceq.eop.gov, Monisha_R_Shah@ceq.eop.gov, 

Jesse_M_McCormick@ceq.eop.gov, Nathaniel_O_Keohane@who.eop.gov, Bruce_D_Rodan@ostp.eop.gov, 

Robert_C_Johansson@cea.eop.gov, Jason_E._Bordoff@ceq.eop.gov, wayland.robertj@epa.gov, RobertJ 

Wayland/RTP/USEPA/US

This meeting was requested by Michael McKenna, MWR Strategies.

Call-in number: 202-395-6392; code 3862485.
Before the Third Division,

September 9, 1943

No. 48749.

#### Protests 92098-K, etc., of Michelson & Sternberg, Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise is the same as that the subject of *Michelson*v. *United States*(10 Cust. Ct. 239, C. D. 762). In accordance therewith it was held dutiable at 10 percent under paragraph 1558 as claimed.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

**DESMOND ABERNATHY,**

**Petitioner**

**v.**

**UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BOARD OF REVIEW,** 

**Respondent :** 

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**: No. 130 EM 2015** 

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW **, this 2nd day of December, 2015, the Petition for L eave to File** 

**Petition for Allowance of Appeal** Nunc Pro Tunc **is** DENIED

**.**
1

The Honorable John R. Tunheim, United States District Judge for the District

of Minnesota.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-4063

___________

Anitaan Kashimawo-Spikes, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Minnesota.

U.S. Bancorp, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: February 17, 2006

Filed: March 20, 2006

___________

Before MURPHY, HANSEN, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Anitaan Kashimawo-Spikes (Spikes) appeals the district court’s1

 adverse grant

of summary judgment in her employment-discrimination action against U.S. Bankcorp

(U.S. Bank) brought under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and the Americans with

Disabilities Act (ADA). Having carefully reviewed the record, see Kincaid v. City of

Omaha, 378 F.3d 799, 803-04 (8th Cir. 2004) (de novo standard of review), we agree

with the district court that Spikes could not make out a prima facie case for failure to

promote, because she did not rebut U.S. Bank’s evidence that she already held the
-2-

position for which she applied. See Shannon v. Ford Motor Co., 72 F.3d 678, 682

(8th Cir. 1996) (elements under Title VII); see also Davis v. KARK-TV, Inc., 421

F.3d 699, 703-04 (8th Cir. 2005) (Title VII and § 1981 cases analyzed in same

manner). We also agree that Spikes failed to demonstrate a prima facie case of race

discrimination, because the isolated and objectively benign comments and events she

identified do not permit an inference that her termination was based on her race. See

Wheeler v. Aventis Pharms., 360 F.3d 853, 857 (8th Cir. 2004) (elements); see also

Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775, 787 (1998) (comments must be

objectively hostile to reasonable person).

We further agree with the district court that Spikes failed to present a

trialworthy issue on her disability-discrimination claim, because she could not

establish that she was disabled within the meaning of the ADA. See Fenney v.

Dakota, Minn. & E. R.R. Co., 327 F.3d 707, 711 (8th Cir. 2003) (plaintiff must show

disability to make prima facie case). Finally, we need not consider the claim Spikes

raises under the Family and Medical Leave Act, or her hostile-work-environment

argument, because she expressly abandoned those claims below. See United States

v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 732-33 (1993) (claim relinquished below need not be

addressed on appeal).

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________
No. 51194.

#### Protests 58121-K, etc., of Joseph Perrelli et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Keepe, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and following the decisions cited the following allowances were made to compensate for the weight of the inedible substance on the outside of the cheese: (1) 2)4 percent for the cheese similar in all material respects to that the subject of *Scaramelli*v. *United States*(9 Cust. Ct. 270, C. D. 706), Abstract 42146, and Abstract 48269; and (2) 1 percent for the cheese similar to the Reggiano cheese the subject of *Scaramelli*v. *United States, supra.*The protests were sustained to this extent.
#### G. A. Bernheimer & Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States

No. 6783.

Entry No. 748914, etc.

Invoices dated London, England, February 28, 1946, etc.

Certified February 28, 1946, etc.

Entered at New York, N. Y., April 1, 1946, etc.

(Decided January 21, 1947)

*John D. Rode*for the plaintiffs.

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

Lawrence, Judge:

It has been agreed between the parties hereto that the issues herein relating to the above-mentioned merchandise are the same in all material respects as those decided in *United States*v. *Wm. S. Pitcairn Corp.,*33 C. C. P. A. (Customs) 183 C. A. D. 334, and that the record therein may be incorporated herein.

Upon the agreed facts I find the export value, as defined in section 402 (d), Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for determining the values of said merchandise, and that such values are the appraised values, less additions made by importers on entries because of advances by the appraiser in similar cases.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.