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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-7741

FRED SHORES, JR.,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

ALFRED W. BETHEA, Assistant United States Attorney; JOHN H. HARE, Assistant Federal Public

Defender,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Greenwood. William B. Traxler, Jr., District

Judge. (CA-96-2716-6-21-AK)

Submitted: February 27, 1997 Decided: March 13, 1997

Before MURNAGHAN, NIEMEYER, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Fred Shores, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Alfred W. Bethea, OFFICE OF

THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Florence, South Carolina; John H. Hare,

FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER'S OFFICE, Columbia, South Carolina, for

Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court's order denying his motion to obtain a document under Fed. R. Civ. P. 27 and dismissing

his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) action without prejudice. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion accepting the

recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible

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

court. Shores v. Hare, No. CA-96-2716-6-21-AK (D.S.C. Oct. 17,

1996). 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
U.S. ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION

1225 New York Ave. NW – Suite 1100 

Washington, DC 20005

January 18, 2005 

EAC Advisory 05-002 - Appropriation of matching funds equal to 5% of an 

amount less than the total available Requirements 

Payment

Question: Can a state receive a Requirements Payment in an amount less than the 

total amount authorized and appropriated to the State for a single fiscal year? 

Response: Yes, a State may a obtain portion of the total HAVA Title II 

Requirements Payment available to the State in a Fiscal Year. When a State 

cannot appropriate the amount of matching funds required to receive the full 

Requirements Payment, the state can certify using a lesser amount of matching 

funds. Whatever amount of matching funding is provided by the State, the State 

will receive funds from the federal government such that the State’s funding makes 

up 5% of the total State and Federal money, in accordance with Section 253(b)(5). If

the State is later able to provide a supplemental amount of matching funds, the 

State may apply for additional federal funding at the commensurate rate. 

If a State wishes to make a certification for less than the total amount of Title II 

payments available for a fiscal year, certifications and submissions should be made 

in the same manner as they have in the past with the exception of identifying the 

specific amount of matching funds that are being provided and the expected amount 

of Requirements Payment. Such a submission will be considered and processed in 

the same manner as all other submissions made in the past.
1 

MEMORANDUM 

Date: June 15, 2015 

Subject: Environmental and Energy Impacts for Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing NESHAP – 

Final RTR Amendments 

 40 CFR 63, Subpart NNN 

 

From: Susan Fairchild 

OAQPS/SPPD/NRG (D243-02) 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711 

To: Docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-1042 

I. Introduction 

The purpose of this memorandum is to document the estimated environmental and energy impacts 

associated with the final residual risk and technology review (RTR) amendments to 40 CFR 63, Subpart 

NNN - Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing. Secondary impacts include the solid waste, water, wastewater 

generated and the electricity required to operate air pollution control devices, as well as, the resultant 

greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from controls or work practices required by the NESHAP. 

II. Water, Wastewater, and Solid Waste Impacts 

The EPA estimates that two gas-fired glass-melting furnaces located at two wool fiberglass 

manufacturing facilities do not meet the final chromium compound emission limit (2.5E-04 lb/ton of 

glass pulled) for Subpart NNN. Based on the compliance cost analyses, the most cost-effective approach 

to comply with the emission limit would be to reduce the operational life of the two furnaces (i.e., 

replace or rebuild them earlier than they would usually). Therefore, there are no water or wastewater 

impacts using this approach. 

Assuming that same approach to reducing emissions of chromium compounds would involve rebuilding 

the glass-melting furnaces earlier than usual (e.g., after 7 years instead of 10 years), we estimated the 

solid waste impacts. The average cost of disposing of all the old refractories in a furnace rebuild is 

estimated to be 200 tons x $300/ton = $60,000.1 Using the 7-year operational furnace life scenario, the

annualized solid waste cost impact would be $2,600 for each of the two furnaces. The technical 

literature indicate that manufacturers of chromium refractories accept the spent chromium refractories 

from rebuilt furnaces and recycle the materials into the manufacture of new refractories.2 However, we 

do not have cost data relevant to chromium refractory recycling, and have not included it here. As a 

result, these costs are overestimated, and are conservative. 

 

 

1

 Letter from A. Crane, NAIMA to D. Reeves, RTI, dated September 26, 2014. 

2 Glass Global Community, 2015 (online website news and advertisement). Harbison Walker International. North American 

Refractories Company. Cherrington Corporate Center, 400 Fairway Drive, 15108 Moon Township, PA.
2 

III. Energy Impacts and GHG Emissions from Electricity Usage 

Since the expected compliance approach does not involve any type of additional add-on control device, 

there are no additional electricity costs or associated GHG emissions.
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 317 Introduced in House (IH)]

105th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. CON. RES. 317

Expressing the sense of Congress that Members of Congress should follow 
 the examples of self-sacrifice and devotion to character displayed by 
  Jacob Chestnut and John Gibson of the United States Capitol Police.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             August 4, 1998

    Mrs. Myrick (for herself, Mr. DeLay, Mr. Lewis of Georgia, Mr. 
Gingrich, Mr. Bliley, Mr. Livingston, Mr. Cox of California, Mr. Armey, 
  Mr. Thune, Mr. Boehner, Mr. Hobson, Mr. Kasich, Mr. Doolittle, Mr. 
 McIntosh, Mr. Hastert, Mr. Lazio of New York, Ms. Pryce of Ohio, Mr. 
McCrery, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Linder, and Ms. Dunn) submitted the following 
  concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on House 
                               Oversight

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
Expressing the sense of Congress that Members of Congress should follow 
 the examples of self-sacrifice and devotion to character displayed by 
  Jacob Chestnut and John Gibson of the United States Capitol Police.

Whereas Jacob Chestnut and John Gibson of the United States Capitol Police laid 
        down their lives for their country and all of us;
Whereas beyond the devotion of Jacob Chestnut and John Gibson to duty, honor, 
        and country was their commitment to respect;
Whereas Jacob Chestnut and John Gibson were simple, humble, private men who 
        deeply moved this nation simply by doing their jobs;
Whereas the focus on their exemplary personal character could not have come at a 
        time of greater need as many in our country seem more and more dedicated 
        to self-indulgence; and
Whereas the Members of Congress have an unparalleled opportunity to be urgently 
        needed role models of respect and dignity with no loss of personal 
        principles: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That Members of Congress should follow the example of Jacob Chestnut 
and John Gibson by living lives of love, respect, and integrity every 
day at all times, including on the floor of the Senate and House of 
Representatives, and should deserve the title ``Honorable'' by setting 
an example so that Jacob Chestnut and John Gibson did not die in vain.
                                 <all>
```
(logo) LNR

Partners, LLC

 

 

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, 2014 and ending on December 31, 2014 (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 company

 

By:          /s/ Job Warshaw

                Job Warshaw

                President

 

 

Dated: February 23, 2015

 

 

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

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

 

 

Schedule I

 

COMM 2014-LC17

 

COMM 2014-LC17 Mortgage Trust Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates

 

 

17g Information Provider
No. 11-8864.

#### Escamilla-Rojas *v.*United States and Diaz-Ramirez et al. *v.*United States

(Reported below: 640 F. 3d 1055);

(646 F. 3d 653). C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
February 14,2011 

U. S. ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION 

OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR 

1201 New York Avenue, NW, Suite 300 

Washington, DC. 20005 

SUBJECT: Transmittal of the FY 2012 Interim Congressional Budget Request, FY 2010 Annual 

Performance Report, and Cumulative Report on Grant Expenditures April 2003 -

December 2010 

Attached please find the U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC) FY 2012 Interim 

Congressional Budget Request and accompanying reports, supporting the request contained in the 

FY 2012 President's Budget. 

Please note that since December 11,2010, the EAC has lacked a quorum of Commissioners 

necessary to do certain business, including the adoption of a formal budget justification. However, 

in order to meet our responsibility to submit to Congress timely information regarding our budget 

request, we submit the necessary information that would be contained in a formal justification but 

for the lack of a quorum. It is our intention to formally submit this document and its attachments to 

the Commission for a ratification tally vote once a quorum has been reestablished. 

We further wish to note that pending the reestablishment of a quorum, and in light of the present 

fiscal situation facing the Federal government, EAC staff is in the process of outlining structural 

reorganization scenarios. The scenarios will allow the agency to meet its statutory obligations in an 

effective and efficient manner with less resources, should there be a significant decrease in 

appropriations. 

When the EAC first became operational in 2004, the very small staff concentrated on the agency's 

statutory responsibilities to disburse initial Help America Vote Act funds to the states, and conduct 

mandated studies. As a result, the Commission received criticism that it was not meeting some of 

the more standard and routine responsibilities of every Federal agency, and was not certifying 

voting systems quickly enough. Consequently, the EAC responded by hiring staff with specific 

skill sets who could establish sound operating procedures. The agency is now in a position to 

continue exercising its responsibilities with less resources. 

We are happy to respond to any question that you may have. 

Thomas R. Wilkey 

Executive Director
(logo)Prudential

**PrudentialAsset Resources**

PrudentialMortgage Capital Company

2100Ross Avenue, Suite 2500, Dallas TX 75201

Tel214-777-4500

Abusiness of Prudential Financial, Inc.

 

 

WellsFargo Bank, National Association

CommercialMortgage Servicing

MACD1086

550South Tryon Street, 14th Floor

Charlotte,North Carolina 28202

Attention:Asset Manager

 

RE:**WFCM 2014-LC18**

Period:**January 1. 2017 to December 31. 2017(the "Reporting Period")**

 

**Annual ComplianceStatement**

 

I,Joni Brown-Haas, in my capacity as President and Managing Director ofPrudential Asset Resources, Inc. (the "Company") hereby certify withregard to the Company's role as Sub-Servicer under the Sub-Servicing Agreement,(the "Agreement") dated as of December 1,2014, pertaining to theabove-referenced certificates, that:

 

(i)           a review of the activities of the Company under the Agreement during the periodnoted above, and of the performance of the Company under the Agreement duringthe reporting period has been made under my supervision, and

 

(ii)          to the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Company has fulfilledall its obligations under the Agreement throughout the reporting period, and

 

(iii)          tothe best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Company has fulfilled itsobligations under its sub-servicing agreement in all material respects, and

 

(iv)         the Company has maintained an effective internal control system over theservicing of mortgage loans including the Loans serviced by the Company, and

 

(v)          the Company has not received any notice regarding qualification, or challengingthe status of the Lower Tier REMIC or the Upper Tier REMIC as a REMIC, from theIRS or any other governmental agency or body.

 

Effectiveas of 2/22/2018

 

 

/s/JoniBrown-Haas

JoniBrown-Haas

Presidentand Managing Director

PrudentialAsset Resources, Inc.
#### Michael RINALDI, Appellant v. John DOE #1; J. Baltazar; John Doe #2

No. 17-3249

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.

Submitted for Possible Dismissal Due to a Jurisdictional Defect, Possible Dismissal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1916(e)(2)(B), or Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6 January 11, 2018

(Opinion filed: January 17, 2018)

Michael Rinaldi, Pro Se

Before: RESTREPO, BIBAS and NYGAARD, Circuit Judges

OPINION *

PER CURIAM

Appellant Michael Rinaldi is an inmate who, at all times relevant to this case, was confined at the United States Penitentiary Canaan in Waymart, Pennsylvania. In June 2017, Rinaldi filed a complaint in the District Court against several prison officials claiming that he was being forced to perform manual labor at the prison in violation of his constitutional rights. Specifically, he objected to being forced to sweep and mop floors, clean and paint walls, and empty trash cans. He asked the District Court to declare the defendants’ conduct unconstitutional and sought both compensatory and punitive damages. The District Court dismissed the complaint on the grounds that it was frivolous and failed to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1916(e)(2)(B)® and (ii). Rinaldi appealed.1

We will dismiss the appeal because it has no arguable basis in law. 28 U.S.C. § 1916(e)(2)(B)(i); Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325, 109 S.Ct. 1827, 104 L.Ed.2d 338 (1989). The District Court correctly concluded that Rinaldi failed to allege any facts to support a constitutional violation. First, he did not allege any facts to suggest'that the manual labor of which he complained exceeded his sentence “in such an unexpected manner as to give rise to protection by the Due Process Clause of its own force.” Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 484, 115 S.Ct. 2293, 132 L.Ed.2d 418 (1995). Nor did he allege any acts of deliberate indifference toward his physical condition so as to state an Eighth Amendment claim. See Berry v. Bunnell, 39 F.3d 1056, 1057 (9th Cir. 1994) (“[T]he Eighth Amendment does not apply unless prison*749ers are compelled to perform physical labor which is beyond their strength, endangers their lives or health, or causes undue pain.”). Lastly, it is well settled that being required to work while incarcerated does not amount to involuntary servitude in violation of the Thirteenth Amendment. See Tourscher v. McCullough, 184 F.3d 236, 240 (3d Cir. 1999); Ali v. Johnson, 259 F.3d 317, 317-18 (5th Cir. 2001).2

Because Rinaldi’s appeal lacks arguable merit, we will dismiss it pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)®.

*

 This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent.

1

. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291.

2

. The District Court did not err in dismissing the complaint without providing Rinaldi leave to amend it. See Grayson v. Mayview State Hosp., 293 F.3d 103, 108 (3d Cir. 2002) (explaining that leave to amend need not be granted if amendment would be futile).
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 of Broadcaster, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I Martin Wade, III, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:



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 results of operations of the Company.



| |                                                                        
| | -----------------------------------------------------------------------
| |                                                                        
| | /s/ MARTINWADEIII                                                      
| | Martin Wade, III,
Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)



Date:  February 19, 2008



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
FIRST AMENDMENT TO

AGREEMENT OF SALE


 


THIS FIRST AMENDMENT
TO AGREEMENT OF SALE (the “Amendment”) is entered into as of the 17th day of October, 2013, between BAY
VIEW OF BOSTON ASSOCIATES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP (the “Seller”) and SENTIO-SLR BOSTON PORTFOLIO, LLC, a
Delaware limited liability company (the “Buyer”).


 


RECITALS:


 


A.           Seller
and Buyer are parties to that certain Agreement of Sale dated September 18, 2013 (the “Agreement”), pursuant
to which Seller agreed to sell, and Buyer agreed to purchase, certain real property located at 1380 Columbia Road, Boston, Massachusetts,
as more particularly described in the Agreement.


 


B.           Seller
and Buyer desire to amend the Agreement, upon the terms and conditions set forth in this Amendment.


 


NOW, THEREFORE,
in consideration of the mutual covenants contained herein and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency
of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows:


 


AGREEMENTS:


 


1.     Recitals,
Definitions. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein by reference. Capitalized but undefined
terms used in this Amendment shall have the meanings given to them in the Agreement.


 


2.      The
Definition of “Due Diligence Period”  is hereby amended to read as follows:


 


Due Diligence Period: The
period commencing on the Effective Date and ending on 6:00 PM Eastern Time on October 25, 2013, during which time Buyer may, at
reasonable times with prior notice to Seller, investigate the financial, legal, operational, environmental and all other aspects
of the Property as Buyer may desire. Buyer acknowledges that Seller has produced all items requested by Buyer concerning Due Diligence.


 


3.     Effect
of Amendment. To the extent any provisions contained herein conflict with the Agreement or any other agreements between
Seller and Buyer, oral or otherwise, the provisions contained herein shall supersede such conflicting provisions contained in the
Agreement or other agreements. Except as specifically modified by this Amendment, the Agreement remains in full force and effect
and is in all events ratified, confirmed and approved.


 


4.     Counterparts.
This Amendment may be executed in multiple counterparts, each of which shall be deemed to be an original, but all of which, together,
shall constitute one and the same instrument. Delivery of signatures by e-mail or facsimile shall be valid and binding.


 




    	 



    	 



    

 


IN WITNESS
WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Amendment on the date first above written.


 


	 	BUYER:
	 	 
	 	SENTIO-SLR BOSTON PORTFOLIO, LLC
	 	 
	 	By: 	/s/ John Mark Ramsey
	 	
        Name: John Mark Ramsey

        

	 	Its: Authorized Signatory



 


	 	SELLER:
	 	 
	 	BAY VIEW OF BOSTON ASSOCIATES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
	 	 
	 	By its General Partner
	 	SENIOR LIVING RESIDENCES, INC.
	 	 
	 	By: 	/s/ Robert F. Larkin
	 	Name: Robert F. Larkin, Jr.
	 	Title: President and Treasurer


 




    	2
United States Court of Appeals

For the First Circuit

No. 08-1402

LUIS ZULUAGA,

Petitioner, Appellant,

v.

LUIS SPENCER,

Respondent, Appellee.

ERRATA SHEET

The opinion of this Court issued on October 19, 2009, is

amended as follows:

On page 9, lines 17-18, the citation that currently reads "152

App'x 1, 3 (1st Cir. 2005)" should instead be "152 F. App'x 1, 3

(1st Cir. 2005)"