alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Benjamin B. Sterling, Plaintiff, *v.*Saul A. Brahms, Defendant.

Supreme Court, Special Term, Kings County,

January 2, 1958.

*Meyer Kraushaar*for plaintiff.

*Roy Guthman*for defendant.

Benjamin Brenner, J.

Plaintiff moves for a mandatory injunction *pendente lite*requiring defendant to restore to plaintiff certain papers and documents which the latter requires as an attorney at law in the prosecution of a proceeding now at the eve of trial in the United States District Court. In substance, it is asserted that plaintiff engaged defendant to conduct an investigation concerning the matter involved in the proceeding in the District Court; that defendant took into his possession from plaintiff’s files exhibits, documents, interrogatories and reports in addition to other papers pertaining to said proceeding and that defendant now refuses to return the same to plaintiff; that the actions of the defendant are destructive of plaintiff’s rights and will cause immediate, material and irreparable injury to the plaintiff. Defendant asserts that plaintiff has refused to pay him for the investigation and that defendant has a lien on the papers.

Assuming *arguendo*that the defendant has a lien, such lien can only extend to papers and documents which he has produced, altered or enhanced in value *(Scott Shoe Mach. Co.*v. *Broaker,*35 Misc. 382). It seems obvious to me that, at least as to some of the papers withheld by him, the defendant has done nothing but examine them and that after their examination, these remained as they were before, nothing whatsoever *959having been added to their face value. The report of the investigation which ensued may indeed have much value but the original papers and documents withdrawn from plaintiff are not at all involved, if not augmented. The defendant can claim no lien as to those papers, and a trial as to them would be a futility.

The situation created by defendant is thus unusual and destructive of plaintiff’s rights. Actual and irreparable injury may result from the withholding of the aforesaid papers imminently needed for trial in the Federal court. The motion is therefore granted to the extent that the defendant shall be required to return to plaintiff all documents, papers and exhibits which have not been produced or enhanced in value by the defendant, and denied as to the others. In the event that the parties cannot mutually agree within five days after the entry of the order to be entered herein as to what papers, documents and exhibits are to be returned, this court, upon application, shall refer the same to an official referee to hear and determine if the parties so agree, otherwise to hear and report.

Settle order on notice.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-50285 Summary Calendar

REMIGIO A. MARTINEZ, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus NANCY HEES; TX. BOARD OF PARDONS; S.O. WOODS, JR.; KATHY CLEERE; STEPHEN L. ROGERS, Warden; VERONICA BALLARD, Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. A-98-CV-696-SS

- - - - - - - - - - December 1, 2000 Before GARWOOD, HIGGINBOTHAM and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Remigio A. Martinez, Texas prisoner # 799604, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for failure to state a claim. In his complaint, Martinez challenged the issuance of a pre-revocation warrant of arrest for his alleged violation of the terms of his mandatory supervision stemming from his conviction for carrying a weapon on school property. He admits that while he was serving his term ofNo. 00-50285 -2- mandatory supervision, he committed robbery and theft. He pleaded guilty to the theft charge prior to the expiration of his term of mandatory supervision and was sentenced to nine months of incarceration. Subsequent to the expiration of his term of mandatory supervision, but while he remained incarcerated on the theft charge, he was bench warranted to Bexar County to stand trial on the robbery charge. The day after this bench warrant was issued, the pre-revocation warrant he challenges was issued. The pre-revocation warrant was withdrawn after Martinez was sentenced on the robbery charge, and his mandatory supervision was not revoked. On appeal, Martinez argues that the issuance of the pre-revocation warrant violated his rights under the Due Process and Double Jeopardy Clauses. Because Martinez was incarcerated for the theft charge and as a result of the bench warrant issued in the robbery case, he has not established that he was punished or that his liberty was infringed as a result of the allegedly mistaken issuance of the pre-revocation warrant after his discharge date for the underlying conviction passed. Therefore, he has not shown the denial of a constitutional right, see Doe v. Rains County Ind. Sch. Dist. , 66 F.3d 1402, 1406 (5th Cir. 1995), and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-7746

CHARLIE OMAR SEAY,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

KENNETH A. POWELL, Doctor,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, District Judge.

(CA-95-1157-R)

Submitted: March 21, 1996 Decided: April 10, 1996

Before NIEMEYER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Charlie Omar Seay, 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 denying

relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) complaint. We have reviewed

the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible

error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district

court. Seay v. Powell, No. CA-95-1157-R (W.D. Va. Oct. 25, 1995).

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.

AFFIRMED
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH DIVISION

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, §

 §

Plaintiff, §

 §

v. § Civil Action No. 4:22-cv-00368-O

 § 

$21,255 IN U.S. CURRENCY, §

 §

Defendant. §

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

The United States Magistrate Judge made Findings, Conclusions, and a Recommendation 

in this case. No objections were filed, and the Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation is ripe for 

review. The District Judge reviewed the proposed Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation 

for plain error. Finding none, the undersigned District Judge believes that the Findings and 

Conclusions of the Magistrate Judge are correct, and they are accepted as the Findings and 

Conclusions of the Court.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Motion for Default Judgment (ECF No. 29) is 

GRANTED. Accordingly, DEFAULT JUDGMENT is hereby ENTERRED as set forth in the 

accompanying Final Judgment.

SO ORDERED on this 16th day of August, 2024. 

_____________________________________

Reed O’Connor

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 4:22-cv-00368-O Document 32 Filed 08/16/24 Page 1 of 1 PageID 249
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.                  

###### National Science Foundation

In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, as amended), The National Science Foundation announces the following meeting:

*Name:*                         Special Emphasis Panel in Elementary, Secondary and Informal Education (#59).                    

*Date/Time:*                         December 7, 2000; 4:30 pm to 9 pm. December 8, 2000; 8 am to 6 pm. December 9, 2000; 8 am to 3 pm.                    

*Place:*                         National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA.                    

*Type of Meeting:*                         Closed.                    

*Contact Person:*                         Dr. Susan Snyder, Program Director, Division of Elementary, Secondary and Informal Education, The National Science Foundation, Room 885, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA, 22230 (703) 292-8620.                    

*Purpose of Meeting:*                         To provide advice and recommendations concerning proposals submitted to the Teacher Enhancement and Instructional Materials Development Program for financial support.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate proposals as part of the selection process for awards.                    

*Reason for Closing:*                         The proposals being reviewed include information of a proprietary or confidential nature including technical information, financial data such as salaries, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the proposals. These matters are exempt under 5 U.S.C. 552b(c), (4) and (6) of the Government in the Sunshine Act.                    

Dated: October 27, 2000.

Karen J. York,

Committee Management Officer.

[FR Doc. 00-28409 Filed 11-3-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7555-1-M.
Exhibit 35.14



LOGO

ANNUAL STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE

OF

LNR PARTNERS, LLC

The undersigned, Job Warshaw, being the President of LNR Partners, LLC (the Special Servicer), as special servicer under the
applicable Pooling and Servicing Agreement for the transactions listed on Schedule I hereto, hereby certifies, subject to any limitations listed on Schedule I hereto, as of the date hereof, on behalf of the Special Servicer, solely in
his capacity as an authorized officer of the Special Servicer and not in his individual capacity, as follows:



| | 1. | A review of the activities performed by the Special Servicer during the period commencing on January 1, 2015 and ending on December 31, 2015 (or any other shorter period set forth on Schedule I hereto)
(the Reporting Period), and of the Special Servicers performance under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement has been made under my supervision; and
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | To the best of my knowledge, based on such review and using the applicable servicing criteria under Item 1122 of Regulation AB, the Special Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the applicable Pooling
and Servicing Agreement in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period.
| | -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



LNR PARTNERS, LLC,a Florida limited liability companyBy:

/s/ Job WarshawJob WarshawPresident


Dated: February 23, 2016





1601 Washington Avenue  Suite
700  Miami Beach, Florida 33139-3164

Telephone: (305) 695-5600  Fax: (305) 695-5601



---

Schedule I

JPMBB 2015-C32

JPMBB Commercial Mortgage Securities Trust
2015-C32, Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates,

Series 2015-C32

Ref: Eastmont Town Center- portion was contributed into CGCMT 2015-GC29

Citigroup Commercial Mortgage Securities Inc.

390 Greenwich
Street, 5th Floor

New York, NY 10013

Paul Vanderslice

Citigroup Commercial Mortgage Securities Inc.

388 Greenwich
Street, 17th Floor

New York, NY 10013

Ryan M. OConnor

Citibank, N.A.

Agency and Trust

388 Greenwich Street, 14th Floor

New York, NY 10013

John Hannon
H. Con. Res. 292 Agreed to October 7, 1994

One Hundred Third Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE SECOND SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,

the twenty-fifth day of January, one thousand nine hundred and ninety-four

Concurrent Resolution

Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That a collection of statements made in tribute to the late

Speaker of the House of Representatives, Thomas P. ‘‘Tip’’ O’Neill,

Jr., together with related materials, shall be printed as a House

document, with illustrations and suitable binding. The document

shall be prepared under the direction of the Joint Committee on

Printing.

SEC. 2. In addition to the usual number, there shall be printed

the lesser of—

(1) 5,000 casebound copies of the document, of which 1,760

copies shall be for the use of the House of Representatives,

400 copies shall be for the use of the Senate, and 2,840 copies

shall be for the use of the Joint Committee on Printing; or

(2) such number of casebound copies of the document as

does not exceed a total production and printing cost of $79,500,

with distribution to be allocated in the same proportion as

described in paragraph (1).

Attest:

Clerk of the House of Representatives.

Attest:

Secretary of the Senate.
#### PARKS v. STATE.

No. 23040.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Jan. 17, 1945.

M. L. Bennett, of Normangee, for appellant.

Ernest S. Goens, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

DAVIDSON, Judge.

This is a conviction for hog theft, with punishment assessed at two years’ confinement in the penitentiary.

*843The record is before us without statement of facts or bills of exception.

Nothing is presented for review.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

PER CURIAM.

The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the Court.
|                                                                                                          
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                                          
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                                            
|View History: Annual                                                                                      
|View History: Annual                                                                                      
|View History:                                                                                             
|                                                                                                          
|U.S. Refinery Methyl Teritary Butyl Ether (MTBE) Shell Storage Capacity as of January 1 (Thousand Barrels)
|                                                                                                          
|                                                                                                          
|U.S. Refinery Methyl Teritary Butyl Ether (MTBE) Shell Storage Capacity as of January 1 (Thousand Barrels)
|                                                                                                          

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|1990's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        | 15,094 | 11,651 | NA     | 10,048 | NA     | 9,624 
|2000's                                                                                                                            | 9,116  | 7,864  | 7,349  | 6,702  | 4,929  | 4,949  | 3,663  | 815    | 633    | 242   
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 302    | --     | --     | --     | --     | --     | --     | --     | --     | --    
|2020's                                                                                                                            | --     | --     | --     | --     | --     |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 6/14/2024                                                                                                          
|Next Release Date: June 2025
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 27 (Wednesday, February 9, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 6386-6387]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-2909]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Cancer Institute; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Cancer Institute Special Emphasis 
Panel, Molecular Mechanism of Human Bladder Carcinogenesis.
    Date: February 28-March 1, 2000.
    Time: 7 p.m. to 12 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: The Ritz Carlton Huntington Hotel & Spa, 1401 South Oak 
Knoll Ave, Passadena, CA 91106.
    Contact Person: Michael B Small, PhD, Scientific Review 
Administrator, Grants Review Branch, Division of Extramural 
Activities, National Cancer Institute, 6116 Executive Boulevard, 
Room 8040, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301/402-0996.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.392, 
Cancer Construction; 93.393, Cancer Cause and Prevention Research; 
93.394, Cancer Detection and Diagnosis Research; 93.395, Cancer 
Treatment Research; 93.396, Cancer Biology Research; 93.397, Cancer 
Centers Support; 93.398, Cancer Research Manpower, 93.399, Cancer 
Control, National Institutes of Health, HHS)


[[Page 6387]]


    Dated: February 3, 2000.
LaVerne Y. Stringfield,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 00-2909 Filed 2-08-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
IV

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 44

Expressing the sense of the Congress that medical examiners and coroners

should make reasonable, good faith efforts to locate the next of kin

of deceased individuals.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FEBRUARY 18, 1993

Mr. GOODLING (for himself and Mr. HYDE) submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Government

Operations

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of the Congress that medical examiners

and coroners should make reasonable, good faith efforts

to locate the next of kin of deceased individuals.

Whereas often times families lose contact with family members, making it difficult to locate a deceased family member who has not let records regarding next of kin;

Whereas some families search for years to locate a family

member, only to discover they had died and the family

was never notified; and

Whereas there is not a consistent procedure used by medical

examiners and coroners in the United States to follow in

attempting to locate the next of kin of a deceased individual: Now, therefore, be it
2

HCON 44 IH

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring), That it is the sense of the Congress that—

3 (1) the States should develop procedures that

4 require medical examiners and coroners to make rea5 sonable, good faith efforts to locate and notify the

6 next of kin of deceased persons in situations where

7 the identity of the deceased is unknown or is known

8 but the identity of next of kin is unknown; and

9 (2) the reasonable, good faith efforts referred to

10 in paragraph (1) should include, at a minimum, re11 quirements that medical examiners and coroners

12 contact the Social Security Administration and the

13 Department of Veterans Affairs to obtain informa14 tion on the background of deceased persons along

15 with—

16 (A) checking for personal papers, phone

17 lists, letters, and other documents at the place

18 of death and current residence of the deceased;

19 (B) checking for a will or insurance poli20 cies;

21 (C) checking local hospitals for previous

22 admissions of the deceased;

23 (D) checking the listings in local telephone

24 directories;

25 (E) checking city directories;
3

HCON 44 IH

1 (F) checking law enforcement agencies;

2 (G) checking local financial institutions for

3 possible accounts of the deceased with bene4 ficiaries;

5 (H) checking with neighbors of the de6 ceased;

7 (I) placing notices in local newspapers and

8 electronic media;

9 (J) sending fingerprints of the deceased to

10 the Federal Bureau of Investigation;

11 (K) contacting the place of employment of

12 the deceased;

13 (L) checking with records registrar for

14 deaths of individuals with the same name as the

15 deceased;

16 (M) if the place of birth of the deceased is

17 known, contacting the registrar, law enforce18 ment agencies, and hospitals in that area;

19 (N) using the police telenetwork; and

20 (O) checking with the Secretary of State in

21 the State where the deceased died.

Æ