alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 86 (Thursday, May 4, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 22061]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-10965]



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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. CP95-119-001]


Steuben Gas Storage Co.; Notice of Amended Application

April 28, 1995.
    Take notice that, on April 18, 1995, Steuben Gas Storage Company 
(Steuben), 500 Renaissance Center, Detroit, Michigan 48243, amended its 
December 13, 1994, application in Docket No. CP95-119-000, for a 
certificate of public convenience and necessity, under Section 7(c) of 
the Natural Gas Act (NGA) and Part 157 and Part 284 of the Commission's 
Regulations, by proposing a new route for its Thomas Corners Field's 
injection/withdrawal facilities (a 12-inch pipeline, the terminus of 
which remains the same as originally set forth in the application).
    Any person desiring to be heard, or to make any protest with 
reference to said application should on or before May 19, 1995, file 
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 825 North Capitol 
Street, N.E., Washington, DC 20426, a motion to intervene or a protest 
in accordance with the requirements of the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or 385.211) and the regulations 
under the Natural Gas Act (18 CFR 157.10). All protests filed with the 
Commission will be considered by it in determining the appropriate 
action to be taken, but will not serve to make the protestants parties 
to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party to the 
proceeding, or to participate as a party in any hearing therein, must 
file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-10965 Filed 5-3-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Paul Wilner, Also Known as Wilner Paul, Appellant. —

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Kuffner, J.), rendered November 28, 1983, convicting him of manslaughter in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Judgment affirmed.

Defendant’s argument that his plea should be vacated because he was not advised of his right to testify or call witnesses on his own behalf is without merit. Defendant’s challenge to the sufficiency of the plea allocution is not preserved for appellate review since he failed to move in the court of first instance to withdraw his plea or vacate the judgment of conviction *(see,*CPL 470.05 [2]; *People v Hoke,*62 NY2d 1022; *People v Pellegrino,*60 NY2d 636; *People v Ortiz,*105 AD2d 809; *People v Carrisquello,*106 AD2d 513). In any event, the allocution satisfied the requirements of *People v Harris*(61 NY2d 9) and thus vacatur is not warranted *(see, People v De Santis,*108 AD2d 821).

In addition, the imposed sentence of *SVs*to 25 years’ imprisonment, which was bargained for by defendant, was not harsh or excessive and thus will not be disturbed on appeal *(People v Kazepis*101 AD2d 816; *People v Suitte,*90 AD2d 80). Mangano, J. P., Brown, Rubin and Lawrence, JJ., concur.
In re Levon SPAULDING, petitioner.

No. 12-9734.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 17, 2013.

Petition for writ of mandamus denied.
```
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 102 (Friday, May 26, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 27988-27989]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-12977]

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

INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION

Notice of Intent To Engage in Compensated Intercorporate Hauling 
Operations

    This is to provide notice as required by 49 U.S.C. 10524(b)(1) that 
the named corporations intend to provide or use compensated 
intercorporate hauling operations as authorized in 49 U.S.C. 
10524(b). [[Page 27989]] 
    1. Parent corporation and address of principal office: Casey's 
General Stores, Inc., P.O. Box 3001, Ankeny, IA 50021-8045.
    2. Wholly owned subsidiary which will participate in the 
operations, and State(s) of incorporation: Casey's Services Company, 
Iowa.
Vernon A. Williams,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-12977 Filed 5-25-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7035-01-M
```
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1772 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1772

   To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to treat gold, silver, 
platinum, and palladium, in either coin or bar form, in the same manner 
as equities and mutual funds for purposes of the maximum capital gains 
                         rate for individuals.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 21, 2005

   Mr. Hayworth (for himself, Mr. Gibbons, Mr. Dreier, Mr. Paul, Mr. 
 Wilson of South Carolina, Mr. English of Pennsylvania, and Mr. Otter) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                             Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to treat gold, silver, 
platinum, and palladium, in either coin or bar form, in the same manner 
as equities and mutual funds for purposes of the maximum capital gains 
                         rate for individuals.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Fair Treatment for Precious Metals 
Investors Act''.

SEC. 2. GOLD, SILVER, PLATINUM, AND PALLADIUM TREATED IN THE SAME 
              MANNER AS STOCKS AND BONDS FOR MAXIMUM CAPITAL GAINS RATE 
              FOR INDIVIDUALS.

    (a) In General.--Section 1(h)(5) of the Internal Revenue Code of 
1986 (relating to definition of collectibles gain and loss) is 
amended--
            (1) by striking ``(as defined in section 408(m) without 
        regard to paragraph (3) thereof)'' in subparagraph (A), and
            (2) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
                    ``(C) Collectible.--For purposes of this paragraph, 
                the term `collectible' has the meaning given such term 
                by section 408(m), except that in applying paragraph 
                (3)(B) thereof the determination of whether any bullion 
                is excluded from treatment as a collectible shall be 
                made without regard to the person who is in physical 
                possession of the bullion.''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a) shall 
apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2004.
                                 <all>
```
ANNUAL REPORT 2013

Seated (left to right): Mark Pearce, Arthur Murton, Richard Osterman, Jr., Doreen Eberley, Barbara Ryan, 

Chairman Martin Gruenberg, Director Jeremiah Norton, Arleas Upton Kea, and Andrew Gray. 

Standing (left to right): Cottrell Webster, Steven App, Russell Pittman, the late D. Michael Collins, Bret Edwards, 

Eric Spitler, Fred Gibson, Stephen Quick, and Craig Jarvill.

Not pictured: Vice Chairman Thomas Hoenig, Kymberly Copa, E. Melodee Brooks, Diane Ellis, Christopher 

Farrow, Robert Harris, Martin Henning, and Suzannah Susser.

FDIC Senior Leaders

12 FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

FORT WAYNE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

v. ) CAUSE NO. 1:13-CR-45

)

ORLANDO PASCHALL )

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

UPON A PLEA OF GUILTY

TO: THE HONORABLE THERESA L. SPRINGMANN, JUDGE, 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Upon Defendant’s request to enter a plea of guilty pursuant to Rule 11 of the Federal Rules

of Criminal Procedure, this matter came on for hearing before U.S. Magistrate Roger B. Cosbey,

on October 30, 2014, with the written consents of the defendant, counsel for the defendant, and

counsel for the United States of America.

The hearing on defendant’s plea of guilty was in full compliance with Rule 11, Federal

Rules of Criminal Procedure, before the Magistrate Judge in open court and on the record.

In consideration of that hearing and the statements made by the defendant under oath on

the record and in the presence of counsel, the remarks of the Assistant United States Attorney and

of counsel for defendant,

I FIND as follows:

(1) that defendant understands the nature of the charge against him to which the plea is

offered;

(2) that the defendant understands his right to trial by jury, to persist in his plea of not

guilty, to the assistance of counsel at trial, to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses, and
his right against compelled self-incrimination;

(3) that the defendant understands what the maximum possible sentence is, including the

effect of the supervised release term, and defendant understands that the Sentencing Guidelines

apply and that the Court may depart from those guidelines under some circumstances;

(4) that the plea of guilty by the defendant has been knowingly and voluntarily made and

is not the result of force or threats or of promises apart from the plea agreement between the

parties;

(5) that defendant is competent to plead guilty;

(6) that the defendant understands that his answers may later be used against him in a

prosecution for perjury or false statement;

(7) that there is a factual basis for the defendant’s plea; and further,

I RECOMMEND that the Court accept the defendant’s plea of guilty and that the

Defendant be adjudged guilty of the offense charged in Count 1 of the two-count Indictment, and

have sentence imposed. A Presentence Report has been ordered. Should this Report and

Recommendation be accepted and the Defendant adjudged guilty, sentencing will be scheduled

before Judge Theresa L. Springmann by separate order and notice. Objections to the Findings

and Recommendation are waived unless filed and served within fourteen (14) days. 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1)(B).

DATED this 30th day of October 2014.

/s/ Roger B. Cosbey 

Roger B. Cosbey

United States Magistrate Judge

2
Oscar Eduardo DE LA CRUZ-DIAZ, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 13-7269.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 9, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
EXHIBIT 32.2

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                       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 Pharmos  Corporation  (the
"Company")  on Form 10-Q for the period ended  September  30, 2003 as filed with
the Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I,
Robert W. Cook, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,  certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C ss. 1350,  as adopted  pursuant to 906 ss. 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  results  of
               operations of the Company.



                                        /s/ Robert W. Cook
                                        ------------------------------------
                                        Robert W. Cook, Chief Financial Officer
November 13, 2003
Terri L. CUBAS, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 13-5789.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 18, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2001
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               106,935
<PP&E>                                      20,585,627
<DEPRECIATION>                                  38,888
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              20,727,562
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       14,357,111
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                  1,100,000
<COMMON>                                    61,581,687
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                20,727,562
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   96,121
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (96,121)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (96,121)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (96,121)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     .002
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     .002


</TABLE>
Jessie D. McDONALD, petitioner, v. Robert E. COOPER, Jr.

No. 12-1333.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 24, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

July 30, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

133747 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 133747 

 COA: 275604 

Kent CC: 04-012396-FC 

FAROD KARRIEM WESTERFIELD,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 5, 2007 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded 

that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

p0723 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

July 30, 2007 

 Clerk
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 100 (Wednesday, May 24, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 27552-27553]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-12624]



=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 27553]]

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

National Park Service


Final Rock Creek Tennis Stadium Environment Impact Statement, 
Washington, DC

AGENCY: National Park Service (Interior).

ACTION: Notice to distribute the final environmental impact statement.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to Council on Environmental Quality regulations and 
National Park Service policy, the National Park Service (NPS) announces 
the release of the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the 
Rock Creek Tennis Stadium. The FEIS presents the NPS preferred 
alternative for future management and use of the Rock Creek Tennis 
Stadium. The preferred alternative, Alternative 2, allows for only one 
professional tennis tournament a year, in addition to amateur and 
league tennis events. Mitigation to relieve the park and surrounding 
neighborhood of parking and traffic congestion will be required for 
every professional tennis tournament. At a minimum, mitigation will 
include elimination of parking on turf areas in the park, measures to 
prevent tournament related parking on neighborhood streets, use of 
remote parking and shuttle buses, and dedication of some existing paved 
parking areas in the park for shuttle bus loading and storage. No major 
physical alterations to the park for buses or parking are proposed.

ADDRESSES: For copies of the FEIS, please contact: Superintendent Rock 
Creek Park, 3545 Williamsburg Lane, Washington, DC 20008. Copies can 
also be reviewed at the Rock Creek Park Nature Center.
    The responsible official is Mr. Robert G. Stanton, Regional 
Director, National Capitol Region, National Park Service, 1100 Ohio 
Drive, SW., Washington, DC 20242.
    A final public record of decision will be released stating the NPS 
selected alternative, environmental mitigation strategies adopted, and 
the rationale for the decisions no sooner than 30 days from the 
publication of this notice.

    Dated: May 18, 1995.
Terry R. Carlstrom,
Acting Regional Director, National Capital Region.
[FR Doc. 95-12624 Filed 5-23-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-70-M
#### Robert Goldsmith et al., Appellants, v Howmedica, Inc., Defendant, and Chitranjan S. Ranawat, Respondent.

Appeal from the order, Supreme Court, New York County (Harold Baer, Jr., J.), which granted the motion by defendant Chitranjan S. Ranawat for summary judgment dismissing the fourth and fifth causes of action as against him, is dismissed as superseded by the appeal from the order of May 1, 1984, without costs.

Order of the Supreme Court, New York County (Harold Baer, Jr., J.), entered on May 1,1984, which granted plaintiff’s motion to renew and reargue and, upon renewal and reargument, adhered to the court’s original determination, is affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff herein received a total hip replacement in or around November of 1973. The prosthetic device implanted in him was produced by defendant Howmedica, Inc., and the operation was performed by defendant Chitranjan S. Ranawat. The device broke in June of 1981, and in March of 1983, plaintiff instituted suit against both the manufacturer and Dr. Ranawat, charging the latter with medical malpractice. Dr. Ranawat thereafter successfully moved to dismiss the action as against him pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (5), 3212 on grounds of the Statute of Limitations. It was defendant’s contention that since the prosthetic device at issue was not a foreign object within the meaning of CPLR 214-a, the applicable period of limitations was three years. Thus, the time to commence suit began to run on the date of surgery, when the alleged malpractice occurred, or on the last day that the plaintiff consulted the defendant, which was on November 25,1974. The plaintiff, on the other hand, argued on behalf of extending the principle of law enunciated in *Martin v Edwards Labs.*(60 NY2d 417) to situations involving medical *681malpractice. According to the Court of Appeals therein, a cause of action in a products liability case accrues when the product first malfunctions and results in injury.

However, notwithstanding the fact that rules which bar causes of action before liability actually arises are not generally regarded with favor, they still retain considerable viability. *(See, Fleishman v Lilly & Co.,*62 NY2d 888; *Matter of Steinhardt v Johns-Manville Corp.,*54 NY2d 1008, *appeal dismissed and cert denied*456 US 967; *Reis v Pfizer, Inc.,*48 NY2d 664; *Thornton v. Roosevelt Hosp.,*47 NY2d 780.) By modifying the standard limitations rules only as to instances of contamination by Agent Orange, wherein suit may be brought within two years of the time of discovery of the injury (CPL 214-b), the Legislature has in effect reaffirmed them. As the Court of Appeals declared in *Fleishman v Lilly & Co. (supra,*p 890: “Any departure from the policies underlying these well-established precedents is a matter for the Legislature and not the courts.” Although the Second Department has adopted a rule applying the same standard to both products liability and malpractice claims *{Reyes v Bertocchi,*92 AD2d 863), we believe that prevailing statutory provisions and legal authority preclude us from taking such an approach. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Asch, Bloom, Fein and Milonas, JJ. [123 Misc 2d 473.]
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA 

SOUTH BEND DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

 VS. 

LINN H. JOHNSON 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

CAUSE NO. 3:14-CR-54-RLM

O R D E R 

No objections have been filed to the magistrate judge’s findings and 

recommendations upon a plea of guilty on October 29, 2014. Accordingly, the 

court ADOPTS those findings and recommendations (Doc. No. 26), ACCEPTS 

defendant Linn H. Johnson’s plea of guilty, and FINDS the defendant guilty of 

Count 3 of the Indictment, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(4)(B). 

SO ORDERED. 

 ENTERED: December 2, 2014 

 /s/ Robert L. Miller, Jr. 

 Judge 

 United States District Court
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA 

FORT WAYNE DIVISION 

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) 

 ) 

 v. ) CASE NO.: 1:15-CR-25-TLS 

 ) 

CHARLES D. ST. CLAIR ) 

 

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION 

 This matter is before the Court on the Findings and Recommendation of the United States 

Magistrate Judge [ECF No. 52], filed on May 18, 2016. The Defendant has waived objection to 

the Findings and Recommendation, and the Court, being duly advised, adopts the Findings and 

Recommendation [ECF No. 52] in its entirety and accepts the recommended disposition. Subject 

to this Court’s consideration of the Plea Agreement pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal 

Procedure 11(c), the plea of guilty to the offense charged in Count One (1) of the single Count 

Indictment is hereby accepted, and the Defendant is adjudged guilty of such offense. 

 The notice of sentencing and pre-sentence scheduling deadlines will be issued by separate 

order.

SO ORDERED on June 6, 2016. 

 s/ Theresa L. Springmann 

 THERESA L. SPRINGMANN 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Exhibit 35.3

SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT (Item 1123)

Homecomings Financial, LLC

RFMSI Series 2007-SA4 Trust (the Issuing Entity)

The undersigned, a duly authorized officer of Homecomings Financial, LLC, as servicer (the Servicer) pursuant to the applicable servicing agreement, does hereby certify that:

1. A review of the Servicers activities during the period from and including August 30, 2007 through and including September 24, 2007 and of the
Servicers performance under the applicable servicing agreement has been made under my supervision.

2. To the best of my knowledge, based on such
review, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the applicable servicing agreement in all material respects throughout such period.

IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has duly executed this Certificate this 24th day of March 2008.



|       |  |                     
|------ |  | --------------------
|By:    |  | /s/ Anthony N. Renzi
|Name:  |  | Anthony N. Renzi    
|Title: |  | Managing Director
Todd James LUH, petitioner, v. Corey FARNSWORTH, et al.

No. 12-10913.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 2, 2013.

Petition for rehearing denied.
Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 294 Filed 04/28/17 Page 1 of 2
Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 294 Filed 04/28/17 Page 2 of 2