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

[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 62 (Thursday, March 31, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 18797]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-06776]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION

[OMB Control No. 3090-0044; Docket No. 2021-0001; Sequence No. 14]

Submission for OMB Review; Application/Permit for Use of Space in 
Public Buildings and Grounds, GSA Form 3453

AGENCY: Public Buildings Service, General Services Administration 
(GSA).

ACTION: Notice of request for comments regarding an extension to an 
existing OMB clearance.

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

SUMMARY: Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the 
Regulatory Secretariat Division will be submitting to the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) a request to review and approve an 
extension of a previously approved information collection requirement 
regarding the Application/Permit for Use of Space in Public Buildings 
and Grounds, GSA Form 3453.

DATES: Submit comments on or before: May 2, 2022.

ADDRESSES: Written comments and recommendations for this information 
collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice 
to www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. Find this particular information 
collection by selecting ``Currently under Review--Open for Public 
Comments'' or by using the search function.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Karen Handsfield, Public Buildings 
Service, at telephone 202-208-2444, or via email to 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

A. Purpose

    The general public uses Application/Permit for Use of Space in 
Public Buildings and Grounds, GSA Form 3453, to request the use of 
public space in Federal buildings and on Federal grounds for cultural, 
educational, or recreational activities. A copy, sample, or description 
of any material or item proposed for distribution or display must also 
accompany this request.

B. Annual Reporting Burden

    Respondents: 8,000.
    Responses per Respondent: 1.
    Hours per Response: 0.05.
    Total Burden Hours: 400.

C. Public Comments

    A 60-day notice published in the Federal Register at 86 FR 67471 on 
November 26, 2021. No comments were received.
    Obtaining Copies of Proposals: Requesters may obtain a copy of the 
information collection documents from the GSA Regulatory Secretariat 
Division, by calling 202-501-4755 or emailing [email protected]. Please 
cite OMB Control No. 3090-0044, Application/Permit for Use of Space in 
Public Buildings and Grounds, GSA Form 3453, in all correspondence.

Beth Anne Killoran,
Deputy Chief Information Officer.
[FR Doc. 2022-06776 Filed 3-30-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6820-34-P
```
| (logo) ncb  National Cooperative Bank    | 2011 Crystal  Drive  Suite 8oo  Arlington, Virginia 22202 |
|-----------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------|

 

February 6, 2017

 

Wells Fargo CommercialMortgage Securities, Inc. as Depositor 

Attn: Anthony Sfarra

375 Park Avenue, 2nd Floor 

J0127-023

New York, NY 10152

 

RE:         Annual Statement as to Compliance  

WFCM2014 LC18

 

Dear Sir/Madam:

 

In accordance with the Poolingand Servicing Agreement entered into in connection with the issuance of theCommercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series 2014-LC18, as anauthorized officer of National Cooperative Bank, N.A., formerly NCB, FSB (the“Co-op Special Servicer”), I hereby certify that:

 

a.            A review of the activities of the Co-op Special Servicer during the precedingcalendar year (the “Reporting Period”) and of its performance underthe Pooling and Servicing Agreement has been made under my supervision.

 

b.            To the best of my knowledge, based on these reviews, the Co-op Special Servicerhas fulfilled all obligations under this agreement in all material respects throughoutthe Reporting Period.

 

Please note that the annualfinancial statement will be sent under separate cover on or before March 31,2017.

 

 

Best regards, 

  

/s/Karyn Mann

Karyn Mann

Senior Vice President,Investor Compliance 

National Cooperative Bank,N.A.
#### Robert GARBER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 17-55296

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted January 16, 2018 *

Filed January 19, 2018

Robert Garber, Pro Se

Garrett Joseph Coyle, USLA — Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellee

Before: REINHARDT, TROTT, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Robert Garber appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”) action alleging dental malpractice. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, *Landreth v. United States,*850 F.2d 532, 534 (9th Cir. 1988), and we affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Garber’s FTCA claim because Garber failed to adduce expert testimony and therefore failed to establish a genuine dispute of material fact as to the elements of his medical malpractice claim. *See Johnson v. Superior Court,*143 Cal. App.4th 297, 49 Cal.Rptr.3d 52, 58 (2006) (setting forth elements of medical malpractice claim under California law); *Bushling v. Fremont Med. Ctr.,*117 Cal.App.4th 493, 11 Cal.Rptr.3d 653, 664 (2004) (“[Wjhere the conduct required of a medical professional is not within the common knowledge of laymen, a plaintiff must present expert witness testimony to prove a breach of the standard of care. Plaintiff also must show that defendants’ breach of the standard of care was the cause, within a reasonable medical probability, of his injury.” (citations omitted)); *see also Hutchinson v. United States,*838 F.2d 390, 393 (9th Cir. 1988) (when applying California medical malpractice law under the FTCA, “when the defendant supports his motion for summary judgment with the declarations of experts, a plaintiff who has presented no expert evidence concerning the required standard of care has failed to make a sufficient showing that there are genuine factual issues for trial”).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 15.1

May 17, 1999

Penske Motorsports, Inc.
Detroit, Michigan

We have made a review, in accordance with standards established by the American
Institute of Certified Public Accountants, of the unaudited interim financial
information of Penske Motorsports, Inc. and subsidiaries for the periods ended
March 31, 1999 and 1998, as indicated in our report dated May 13, 1999; because
we did not perform an audit, we expressed no opinion on that information.

We are aware that our report referred to above, which is included in your
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 1999, is
incorporated by reference in Registration Statement Nos. 333-10171 and 333-72439
on Form S-8.

We also are aware that the aforementioned report, pursuant to Rule 436(c) under
the Securities Act of 1933, is not considered a part of the Registration
Statement prepared or certified by an accountant or a report prepared or
certified by an accountant within the meaning of Sections 7 and 11 of that Act.


/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP

Detroit, Michigan





                                       19
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

September 24, 2020

No. 04-20-00399-CV

CIRRUS DESIGN CORPORATION,

Appellant

v.

Sydney BERRA, Individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Lee Berra, and on 

behalf of his surviving parents, Philip Berra and Ellen Berra,

Appellee

From the 408th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2019CI01530

The Honorable Monique Diaz, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Appellant’s unopposed motion for an extension is granted. We order the appellant’s brief 

due October 19, 2020.

_________________________________

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 24th day of September, 2020.

___________________________________

Michael A. Cruz, 

Clerk of Court
No. 11-8648.

#### Ferguson *v.*Avelo Mortgage, LLC.

App. Div., Super. Ct. Cal., County of Los Angeles. Certiorari denied.
(logo) pwc

 

 

**Report of IndependentRegistered Public Accounting Firm**

 

To the Board of Directors, PNCFinancial Services Group, Inc.:

 

We have examinedmanagement’s assertion, included in the accompanying Report on Assessmentof Compliance with Regulation AB Servicing Criteria, that Midland LoanServices, a division of PNC Bank, National Association (“Midland”or the “Company”) complied with the servicing criteria set forth inItem 1122(d) of the Securities and Exchange Commission's Regulation AB for alltransactions serviced on the *Enterprise!* Loan Management System (the“Platform”), as of December 31, 2016 and for the year then ended,excluding criteria 1122(d)(1)(iii), 1122(d)(3)(i)(B), 1122(d)(3)(i)(C),1122(d)(3)(i)(D), 1122(d)(3)(ii), 1122(d)(3)(iii), 1122(d)(3)(iv), and1122(d)(4)(xv), which the Company has determined are not applicable to theservicing activities performed by it with respect to the Platform. Managementis responsible for the Company's compliance with the servicing criteria. Ourresponsibility is to express an opinion on management's assertion based on ourexamination.

 

Our examination was conductedin accordance with attestation standards of the Public Company AccountingOversight Board (United States) and, accordingly, included examining, on a testbasis, evidence about the Company’s compliance with the applicableservicing criteria and performing such other procedures as we considerednecessary in the circumstances. Our examination included testing of selected asset-backedtransactions and securities that comprise the Platform, testing of selectedservicing activities related to the Platform, and determining whether theCompany processed those selected transactions and performed those selectedactivities in compliance with the applicable servicing criteria. Our procedureswere limited to the selected transactions and servicing activities performed bythe Company during the period covered by this report. Our procedures were notdesigned to detect noncompliance arising from errors that may have occurredprior to or subsequent to our tests that may have affected the balances oramounts calculated or reported by the Company during the period covered by thisreport. We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis for ouropinion. Our examination does not provide a legal determination on theCompany’s compliance with the servicing criteria.

 

In our opinion,management’s assertion that Midland complied with the aforementioned applicableservicing criteria as of and for the year ended December 31, 2016 for thePlatform is fairly stated, in all material respects.

 

 

/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

 

February 17, 2017

 

 

*PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP,1100 Walnut Street, Suite 1300, Kansas City, MO 64106*

*T: (816) 472 7921, F: (816)218 1890 www.pwc.com/us*
#### Drew MARTIN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Felix TAYLOR; Attorney General of the State of North Carolina, Respondents-Appellees.

No. 17-6628

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: September 26, 2017

Decided: September 28, 2017

Drew Martin, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, NORTH CAR*780OLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before NIEMEYER and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Drew Martin seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Martin has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and 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*
Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

Joshua Lee Bolton, Appellant

No. 06-17-00129-CR v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

Appeal from the 5th District Court of Cass 

County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 2016F0025). 

Opinion delivered by Chief Justice Morriss, 

Justice Moseley and Justice Burgess

participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find no error in the judgment of the court 

below. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

We note that the appellant, Joshua Lee Bolton, has adequately indicated his inability to 

pay costs of appeal. Therefore, we waive payment of costs.

RENDERED MARCH 23, 2018

BY ORDER OF THE COURT

JOSH R. MORRISS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST:

Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
No. 11-9330.

#### Miller *v.*United States.

C. A. 5th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.
No. 11-1314.

#### Holland *v.*Michigan.

Ct. App. Mich. Certio-rari denied.
| Name                                                 | ​ | ​ | State/Country of Organization or Incorporation | ​ |
|------------------------------------------------------|---------|---------|------------------------------------------------|---------|
| Majesco Canada Ltd.                                  | ​ | ​ | Canada                                         | ​ |
| Majesco Software and Solutions Inc.                  | ​ | ​ | New York                                       | ​ |
| Majesco Sdn. Bhd.                                    | ​ | ​ | Malaysia                                       | ​ |
| Majesco UK Limited                                   | ​ | ​ | United Kingdom                                 | ​ |
| Majesco (Thailand) Co., Ltd.                         | ​ | ​ | Thailand                                       | ​ |
| Majesco Software and Solutions India Private Limited | ​ | ​ | India                                          | ​ |

----
Exhibit 32.1
                                                                    ------------

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Bay Resources Ltd.
(the "Company") for the three months ended March 31, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "report"), the
undersigned, Joseph Gutnick, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certifies
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that:

(1)  The report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
     of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)  The information contained in the report fairly presents, in all material
     respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.


Dated: May 11, 2004

                                /s/ Joseph I. Gutnick
                                ---------------------
                                Joseph I. Gutnick
                                Chairman of the Board, President and
                                Chief Executive Officer



                                       22
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03
- 21
- 00013
- CR

Ex parte Miguel Macias

FROM THE 167TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY NO. D
- 1
- DC
- 19
- 300300, THE HONORABLE P. DAVID WAHLBERG, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellant Miguel Macias has filed a motion to dismiss his appeal. The motion is signed by both appellant and his attorney. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.2(a). We g rant the motion and dismiss the appeal. See id

.

____________ ______________________________ Melissa Goodwin , Justice
Before Justices Goodwin, T riana, and K e lly Dismissed on Appellant’s Motion
Filed: February 11, 2021
D o Not Publish
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 8318 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 8318

  To extend the availability of amounts under the Coronavirus Relief 
                                 Fund.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 18, 2020

  Mr. Welch introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                   Committee on Oversight and Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To extend the availability of amounts under the Coronavirus Relief 
                                 Fund.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. EXTENSION.

    Section 601(d)(3) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 801(d)(3)) 
is amended by striking ``December 30, 2020'' and inserting ``September 
30, 2021''.
                                 <all>
```
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-12-00187-CR

MELINDA R. HOWARD APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE

----------

FROM COUNTY CRIMINAL COURT NO. 2 OF DENTON COUNTY

----------

OPINION DISSENTING FROM DENIAL OF

MOTION FOR REHEARING EN BANC

----------

Respectfully, I must dissent from the majority’s denial of Appellant’s motion 

for rehearing en banc. Officer Clements was dispatched to investigate the crime 

of driving while intoxicated (DWI). He was not engaged in community caretaking. 

When he approached Appellant, who was leaning on the truck, he determined 

that she had alcohol on her breath; was thick-tongued; and had glassy, heavy 

eyes. When Clements asked her to move away from the truck, she swayed and 
2

was unsteady on her feet. At that point, Clements had probable cause to believe 

that Appellant was guilty of public intoxication and probable cause to arrest her 

for public intoxication. Clements admitted at the hearing on Appellant’s motion to 

suppress that she was not free to leave and was being detained until he 

completed his DWI investigation. Clements asked Appellant for her name, 

instructed her to step away from the truck, and said, “Tell me what happened this 

evening . . . .”

There was a clear show of authority by Clements. Appellant acquiesced to 

that show of authority. But Clements had no authority to arrest her for DWI 

because chapter 14 of the code of criminal procedure does not authorize a 

warrantless arrest for a misdemeanor DWI committed outside the police officer’s 

presence unless it could be classified as a breach of the peace, which is not 

applicable here.

1

 Chapter 14 does, however, authorize a warrantless arrest for 

the public intoxication offense, both because it was committed within Clements’s

presence and because he found Appellant “in suspicious places and under 

circumstances which reasonably show that [she is] guilty of” that offense.2

Clements’s public intoxication investigation was complete, and he was gathering 

evidence for a DWI prosecution when he questioned Appellant.

 

1See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. arts. 14.01(b), 14.03(a)(1) (West 2005 &

Supp. 2012).

2See id. arts. 14.01(b), 14.03(a)(1).
3

I would hold that the evidence clearly demonstrated that Clements had 

probable cause to arrest Appellant for public intoxication and that she was not 

free to leave when he questioned her. Under Dowthitt3and Miranda,

4 Appellant

was entitled to be warned that she did not have to answer Clements’s questions. 

I would therefore grant rehearing, vacate our prior opinion, reverse the trial

court’s judgment, and remand this case. Because the majority does not, I 

respectfully dissent.

LEE ANN DAUPHINOT

JUSTICE

PUBLISH

DELIVERED: May 30, 2013

 

3Dowthitt v. State, 931 S.W.2d 244, 252–55 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996).

4See Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 444, 86 S. Ct. 1602, 1612 (1966).
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 60 (Tuesday, March 29, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 17950-17951]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-06669]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Internal Revenue Service

26 CFR Part 1


Income Taxes

CFR Correction

    This rule is being published by the Office of the Federal Register 
to correct an editorial or technical error that appeared in the most 
recent annual revision of the Code of Federal Regulations.

0
In Title 26 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 1 (Sec. Sec.  
1.301 to 1.400), revised as of April 1, 2021, in Sec.  1.351-3, revise 
paragraph (f) to read as follows:


Sec.  1.351-3   Records to be kept and information to be filed.

* * * * *
    (f) Effective/applicability date. This section applies to any 
taxable year beginning on or after May 30, 2006. However, taxpayers may 
apply this section to any original Federal income tax return (including 
any amended return filed on or before the due date (including 
extensions) of such original return) timely filed on or after May 30, 
2006. For taxable years beginning before May 30, 2006, see Sec.  1.351-
3 as contained in 26 CFR part 1 in effect on April 1, 2006. Paragraphs 
(a)(3) and (b)(3) of this section apply with respect to exchanges under 
section 351 occurring on or after March 28, 2016, and also with respect 
to exchanges under section 351 occurring before such date as a result 
of an entity classification election under Sec.  301.7701-3 of this 
chapter filed on or after March 28, 2016, unless such exchange is 
pursuant to a binding agreement that was in effect

[[Page 17951]]

prior to March 28, 2016 and at all times thereafter.

[FR Doc. 2022-06669 Filed 3-28-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 0099-10-D
#### COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Respondent v. Allen KELLY, Petitioner

No. 574 MAL 2017

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

January 3, 2018

*103ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 3rd day of January, 2018, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is DENIED.