alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# L_2008120EN.01002501.xml

| 7.5.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 120/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.5.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 120/25

---

Corrigendum to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1518/2003 of 28 August 2003 laying down detailed rules for implementing the system of export licences in the pigmeat sector

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 217 of 29 August 2003
  )

On page 37, in Article 7(1)(a):

for:

| ‘(a) | the applications for export licences as referred to in Article 1 lodged from Monday to Wednesday of the same week, stating whether they fall within the scope of Article 4 or not;’, |
| --- | --- |

‘(a)

the applications for export licences as referred to in Article 1 lodged from Monday to Wednesday of the same week, stating whether they fall within the scope of Article 4 or not;’,

read:

| ‘(a) | the applications for export licences as referred to in Article 1 lodged from Monday to Friday of the same week, stating whether they fall within the scope of Article 4 or not;’. |
| --- | --- |

‘(a)

the applications for export licences as referred to in Article 1 lodged from Monday to Friday of the same week, stating whether they fall within the scope of Article 4 or not;’.

---
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 15 Introduced in House (IH)]

105th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. CON. RES. 15

  Expressing the sense of the Congress relating to the abduction and 
  detainment of Donald Hutchings of the State of Washington and four 
             Western Europeans in Jammu and Kashmir, India.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 5, 1997

 Mr. Pallone (for himself, Mr. McCollum, Mr. Ackerman, Mr. Nethercutt, 
Mr. McDermott, Mr. Ney, Mr. Andrews, Mr. Meehan, Mr. Brown of Ohio, Mr. 
     LoBiondo, and Mr. McHale) submitted the following concurrent 
   resolution; which was referred to the Committee on International 
                               Relations

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
  Expressing the sense of the Congress relating to the abduction and 
  detainment of Donald Hutchings of the State of Washington and four 
             Western Europeans in Jammu and Kashmir, India.

Whereas the Al-Faran, a militant organization that seeks to merge Kashmir with 
        Pakistan, has waged a 5-year war against the Government of India;
Whereas during the week of July 2, 1995, the Al-Faran abducted Donald Hutchings 
        of the State of Washington and four Western Europeans in the territory 
        of Jammu and Kashmir, India;
Whereas the Al-Faran have threatened to kill Donald Hutchings and the Western 
        European hostages unless the Government of India agrees to release 20 
        suspected guerrillas from its jails; and
Whereas the Al-Faran continues to hold Donald Hutchings and the four Western 
        European hostages against their will: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That it is the sense of the Congress that--
            (1) the militant organization Al-Faran immediately release 
        Donald Hutchings and four Western Europeans from captivity; and
            (2) the Al-Faran and their supporters cease and desist from 
        all acts of hostage-taking and other violent acts within the 
        State of Jammu and Kashmir, India.
                                 <all>
```
1 Troutman, Jake (FAA)

From: Troutman, Jake (FAA)

Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2015 4:39 PM

To: 'tlankford@icloud.com'

Cc: Pappas, Rob (FAA)

Subject: Request for Additional Information - Skeye I LLC

Dear Mr. Lankford:

This letter is to inform you that the following information is missing from your petition (Docket No. FAA

‐ 2015

‐ 1405). This information is necessary for the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to process your petition.

* Describe the aircraft make(s), model(s), and type(s)(i.e.

‐ fixed

‐ wing,rotorcraft, lighter

‐ than

‐ air) for the

proposed UAS operation. The description(s) should include the maximum weight (including payload). This

information can be located in the aircraft manual(s).

Please submit the additional information (non

‐ proprietary) to your docket at www.regulations.gov and submit

any proprietary information to the FAA Headquarters or electronically via e

‐ mail to

333exemptions@faa.gov. If you want us to process your request any further, we must receive the information

described above by 7/1/2015. If we do not receive the information, we will close the docket without notifying

you further.

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (202) 267

‐ 9521.

Sincerely,

Jake J Troutman

Program Analyst | Rulemaking

FAA Office of Aviation Safety

Airmen and Airspace Rules Division

202

‐ 267

‐ 9521
Exhibit 33.2
                                 ------------




          ASSERTION OF COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE SERVICING CRITERIA


The Bank of New York and The Bank of New York Trust Company, N. A.
(collectively, the "Company") provides this platform-level assessment of
compliance with the servicing criteria specified in Item 1122(d) of Regulation
AB promulgated by the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Management has determined that the following servicing criteria are applicable
in regards to the following servicing platform for the following period:

Platform: Publicly-issued (i.e., transaction-level reporting initially
required under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended) residential
mortgage-backed securities and other mortgage-related asset-backed securities
issued on or after January 1, 2006 (and like-kind transactions issued prior to
January 1, 2006) for which the Company provides trustee, securities
administration, paying agent or custodial services. The platform includes like
kind transactions for which the Company provided trustee, securities
administrator, paying agent or custodial services as a result of the Company's
acquisition as of October 1, 2006 of portions of JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.'s
corporate trust business, including structured finance agency and trust
transactions.

Applicable Servicing Criteria: All servicing criteria set forth in Item
1122(d), to the extent required by the related transaction agreements as to
any transaction, except for the following criteria: 1122 (d) (1)(ii), (iii),
(iv), (4) (iv), (v), (vi), (vii), (viii), (ix), (x), (xi), (xii) and (xiii).

Period: Twelve months ended December 31, 2006.

With respect to the Platform and the Period, the Company provides the
following assessment of compliance in respect of the Applicable Servicing
Criteria:

o  The Company is responsible for assessing its compliance with the Applicable
Servicing Criteria.

o  The Company has assessed compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria.

o  As of December 31, 2006 and for the Period, the Company was in material
compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria.



                                      1
<PAGE>


Ernst & Young LLP, an independent registered public accounting firm, has
issued an attestation report with respect to the Company's foregoing
assessment of compliance.



      The Bank of New York                    The Bank of New York
      The Bank of New York Trust              The Bank of New York Trust
         Company, N.A.                           Company, N.A.


      /s/ Robert L. Griffin                   /s/ Patrick J. Tadie
      ---------------------------             ---------------------------
      Robert L. Griffin                       Patrick J. Tadie
      Authorized Signer                       Authorized Signer


March 1, 2007



                                      2
IA

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. J. RES. 32

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MAY 1, 1995

Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

JOINT RESOLUTION

Expressing the concern of the Congress regarding certain

recent remarks that unfairly and inaccurately maligned

the integrity of the Nation’s law enforcement officers.

Whereas police today are in more danger and face greater

risks than ever before, with thousands being assaulted

and hundreds being killed or injured each year;

Whereas attacks on the Nation’s law enforcement officers directly endanger the safety and well-being of all American

citizens by incapacitating and wounding those who protect all of us;

Whereas America’s law enforcement officers are increasingly

being confronted not only with physical attacks, but with

malicious, mean-spirited, and misleading character assassinations that unnecessarily malign the overwhelming majority of honest and ethical law enforcement officers while

at the same time undermining public confidence in our

country’s duly established system of criminal justice; and
2

SJ 32 RFH

Whereas persons who hold positions of special social responsibility, such as attorneys, officers of the courts, and instructors of our youth, by virtue of their position bear a

heightened responsibility not to mislead the public, and

especially not to mislead the public at the expense of

those upon whom we all rely for protection: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. SENSE OF CONGRESS CONCERNING LAW EN4 FORCEMENT OFFICERS.

5 It is the sense of Congress that—

6 (1) this Nation owes a debt of the greatest

7 magnitude to the men and women who daily serve

8 the people of America as law enforcement officers;

9 (2) the integrity, honesty, dedication, and sac10 rifice of this Nation’s law enforcement officers con11 stitute the very bedrock of the rule of law, which dis12 tinguishes a free society from a state of tyranny;

13 and

14 (3) America’s police deserve the thanks and

15 support of the people of the United States, which
3

SJ 32 RFH

1 are hereby tendered by their elected Senators and

2 Representatives.

Passed the Senate April 7 (legislative day, April 5),

1995.

Attest: SHEILA P. BURKE,

Secretary.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Dianne M. CARTER, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-2364

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: February 15, 2018

Decided: February 16, 2018

Dianne M. Carter, Appellant Pro Se. Marion E.M. Erickson, Joan Iris Oppenheimer, Francesca Ugolini, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellée.

Before WILKINSON, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Dianne M. Carter appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment to the United States on its action seeking to enjoin Carter from preparing federal income tax forms. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *United States v. Carter,*No. 3:16-cv-00673-FDW-DCK, 2017 WL 4369488 (W.D.N.C. Oct. 2, 2017). We deny Carter’s motions for stay pending appeal and for other relief, and we dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED*
#### Craig C. ANDREWS; Beverly R. Andrews, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. LOMAR SHIPPING, LIMITED; Ms Maine Trader GmbH & Company, Incorrectly Named as Lomar Corporation, Limited, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 17-30584 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed January 26, 2018

Michael R. Delesdernier, Esq., Metairie, LA, for Plaintiffs-Appellants

Peter Brooks Sloss, Esq., Jeffrey Allen Raines, Esq., Murphy, Rogers, Sloss, Gambel & Tompkins, New Orleans, LA, for Defendants-Appellees

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Craig Andrews, a river pilot, along with his "wife, sued, in diversity, for alleged *208injury from climbing a ladder that, he claims, was negligently rigged. The district court granted summary judgment for the defendant companies, explaining its decision in a thorough and detailed nineteen-page Order and Reasons. On appeal, Andrews questions whether summary judgment should have been granted in a complex matter, whether the district court should have applied the presumptions from the *Pennsylvania*Rule and *Housely v. Cerise,*whether the court used the wrong caselaw in granting summary judgment, and whether there are genuine issues of material fact.

The district court properly granted summary judgment for want of adequate and competent medical evidence. As the court carefully explained,

> To create a genuine issue for trial and withstand summary judgment, the plaintiffs must submit competent admissible medical evidence that his hip surgery was caused by the injury he says he suffered climbing the accommodation ladder.... In support of their causation theory, the plaintiffs submit an unsworn letter from a previously-deposed doctor, who states in condusory fashion that Mr. Andrews’s description of his leg position in climbing and maneuvering the ladder “could have resulted in fracture of the antero-superior aspect of the ‘socket’ of the left hip arthroplasty.”

Summarizing the record, the district court explained that “[t]he only evidence on medical causation are two doctors suggesting that the hip revision surgery was necessary due to wear and tear of the hip replacement and one doctor’s ... testimony that he lacks sufficient information to render a medical causation opinion.” The court therefore concludes that “[bjecause there is no medical expert opining that Mr. Andrews’s left hip injury was, more likely than not, caused by the ... ladder ..., [there is] a complete absence of record evidence to support the mandatory element of medical causation.”

In sum, it is undisputed that Andrews had experienced substantial hip issues before the alleged accident. As the district court pointed out, nothing in the record supports, to' the degree required for liability, Andrews’s notion that the incident involving the ladder contributed to his difficulties. The summary judgment is AFFIRMED, essentially for the reasons comprehensively provided by the district court.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not he published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
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 Justice
 On March 16, 2022, the Department of Justice lodged a proposed Consent Decree with the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio in the lawsuit entitled 
                    *United States*
                     v. 
                    *Austin Powder Co.,*
                     Civil Action No. 2:22-cv-1645. The United States' Complaint in this matter alleges violations of the Clean Water Act (CWA) at Austin Powder's Red Diamond Plant explosives manufacturing facility in McArthur, Ohio. The alleged CWA violations include hundreds of exceedances of the effluent limits in Austin Powder's NPDES Permit. Under the proposed Consent Decree, Austin Powder would pay a $2.3 million civil penalty and improve two of its wastewater treatment plants, including implementing comprehensive operation and maintenance plans designed to bring the company into compliance with its NPDES Permit and ensure future compliance. The publication of this notice opens a period for public comment on the Consent Decree. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, and should refer to 
                    *United States*
                     v. 
                    *Austin Powder Co.,*
                     D.J. Ref. No. 90-5-1-1-12117. All comments must be submitted no later than 30 days after the publication date of this notice. Comments may be submitted either by email or by mail:
                    ( print page 16232) *To submit comments:*
*Send them to:*By email
*pubcomment-ees.enrd@usdoj.gov.*By mail
Assistant Attorney General, U.S. DOJ—ENRD, P.O. Box 7611, Washington, DC 20044-7611.
 During the public comment period, the Consent Decree may be examined and downloaded at this Justice Department website: 
                    *https://www.justice.gov/​enrd/​consent-decrees.*
                     We will provide a paper copy of the Consent Decree upon written request and payment of reproduction costs. Please mail your request and payment to: Consent Decree Library, U.S. DOJ—ENRD, P.O. Box 7611, Washington, DC 20044-7611. Please enclose a check or money order for $69.25 (25 cents per page reproduction cost) payable to the United States Treasury. For a paper copy without the exhibits and signature pages, the cost is $10.25. Karen S. Dworkin, Deputy Section Chief, Environmental Enforcement Section, Environment and Natural Resources Division.


[FR Doc. 2022-06035 Filed 3-21-22; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-15-P
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Victor LUNA-USCANGA, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-11809 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed December 27, 2017

Anderson Hatfield, James Wesley Hendrix, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Efrain Sain, The Law Office of Efrain Sain, P.L.L.C., Dallas, TX, for Defendant-Appellant

Before BENAVIDES, SOUTHWICK, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Victor Luna-Uscanga appeals the 127-month sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction for conspiracy to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine. He argues that the district court erred in applying a firearm enhancement pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2Dl.l(b)(l) because neither he nor his codefendant possessed the firearm in question. We review the district court’s interpretation of the Sentencing Guidelines de novo and its factual findings for clear error. *United States v. Trujillo,*502 F.3d 353, 356 (5th Cir. 2007).

Although nothing in the record links the firearm to any particular conspirator, “the evidence makes it plausible that a ‘weapon was present’ and that one of the conspirators possessed it.” *United States v. Rodriguez-Guerrero,*805 F.3d 192, 196 (5th Cir. 2015) (quoting § 2D1.1(b)(1), comment. (n.11(A))). As there was enough evidence to support that the weapon must have been possessed by one of the conspirators in furtherance of the- conspiracy, the district court did not err in its factual findings or legal conclusions underlying the firearm enhancement. *See id.*

AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. 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 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
| (logo) WELLS

           FARGO | **Commercial  Mortgage Servicing**D1050-084,  8th Floor  401 South Tryon St.  Charlotte, NC 28202  1-800-326-1334

 

  |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

**ANNUAL STATEMENT OFCOMPLIANCE**

 

 

Reference is hereby made to that certainPooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of September 1, 2014, by and amongJ.P. Morgan Chase Commercial Mortgage Securities Corp., as Depositor, WellsFargo Bank, National Association, as Master Servicer, CWCapital AssetManagement LLC, as Special Servicer, Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, asCertificate Administrator, Wilmington Trust, National Association, as Trustee,and Pentalpha Surveillance LLC, as Senior Trust Advisor with respect toCommercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series 2014-C23 (the "Agreement").Capitalized terms used herein not otherwise defined shall have the meaningsassigned in the Agreement.

 

Pursuant to Section 11.09 of thisAgreement, I, Leslie Hayton, Managing Director of Commercial Mortgage Servicesdo hereby certify that:

 

1.       Areview of the activities of the Master Servicer during the period from January1, 2018 through December 31, 2018 (the “Reporting Period”), and of itsperformance per the Agreement during such period has been made under mysupervision, and

 

2.       To thebest of my knowledge, based on such review, the Master Servicer has fulfilledall of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughoutthe Reporting Period.

 

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned hasexecuted this Certificate as of the 28th day of February 2019.

 

 

/s/Leslie Hayton

LeslieHayton

ManagingDirector

WellsFargo Bank

 

 

| Wells  Fargo Bank, N.A. | (logo) Together  we’ll go far |
|-------------------------|-------------------------------------|
#### Steve C. CHADWICK, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Frank BISHOP, Jr.; Maryland Attorney General, Respondents-Appellees.

No. 17-7521

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: February 15, 2018

Decided: February 20, 2018

Steve Carl Chadwick, Appellant Pro Se. Ryan Robert Dietrich, Assistant Attorney General, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Before WILKINSON, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Steve Carl Chadwick seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed.

Parties are accorded 30 days after the entry Qf the district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), unless the district court extends the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). “[T]he timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional requirement.” *Bowles v. Russell,*551 U.S. 205, 214, 127 S.Ct. 2360, 168 L.Ed.2d 96 (2007).

The district court’s order was entered on the docket on September 20, 2017. The notice of appeal was filed on October 26, 2017.* Because Chadwick failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED*

*

 For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the date appearing on the notice of appeal is the earliest date it could have been properly delivered to prison officials for mailing to the court. Fed. R. App. P. 4(c); *Houston v. Lack,*487 U.S. 266, 108 S.Ct. 2379, 101 L.Ed.2d 245 (1988).