alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 182 (Thursday, September 18, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 54198]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-21818]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary


Aviation Proceedings, Agreements Filed the Week Ending September 
5, 2008

    The following Agreements were filed with the Department of 
Transportation under the Sections 412 and 414 of the Federal Aviation 
Act, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1383 and 1384) and procedures governing 
proceedings to enforce these provisions. Answers may be filed within 21 
days after the filing of the application.
    Docket Number: DOT-OST-2008-0276.
    Date Filed: September 4, 2008.
    Parties: Members of the International Air Transport Association.
    Subject: PTC COMP Mail Vote 575 Amending Composite Resolutions 
(Memo 1477). Intended effective date: 1 April 2009.

Renee V. Wright,
Program Manager, Docket Operations, Federal Register Liaison.
[FR Doc. E8-21818 Filed 9-17-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P
Case 1:04-cv-00467-JM Document 1 Filed 12/09/04 Page 1 of 4
Case 1:04-cv-00467-JM Document 1 Filed 12/09/04 Page 2 of 4
Case 1:04-cv-00467-JM Document 1 Filed 12/09/04 Page 3 of 4
Case 1:04-cv-00467-JM Document 1 Filed 12/09/04 Page 4 of 4
#### Robert W. SHAUGHNESSY, Appellant, v. Kathryn Y. DEPUE, Appellee.

Supreme Court of Florida, Special Division A.

July 13, 1956.

Rehearing Denied Oct 4, 1956.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
#### Edward Brian CAPETILLO, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Janie COCKRELL, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 03-20384.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Aug. 8, 2003.

*349Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.*

CapetiHo requests a certificate of appealability on several issues. We decline to issue the requested certificate for essentially the reasons stated by the district court in its careful opinion.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in *5th*Cir. R. 47.5.4.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

 

 

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

 **ANNUALSTATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE**

 

 

Reference is hereby made to that certain Trust and Servicing Agreement dated as ofAugust 9, 2018, by and among BARCLAYS COMMERCIAL MORTGAGE SECURITIES LLC, asDepositor, WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Servicer and SpecialServicer, WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Certificate Administratorand Custodian and WILMINGTON TRUST, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION as Trustee withrespect to Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2018-CHRS (the"Agreement"). Capitalized terms used herein not otherwise definedshall have the meanings assigned in the Agreement.

 

Pursuant to Section3.19 of this Agreement, I, Leslie Hayton, Managing Director of CommercialMortgage Services do hereby certify that:

 

1.             A review of the activities of the Servicer during the period from August 9,2018 through December 31, 2018 (the “Reporting Period”), and of its performanceper the Agreement during such period has been made under my supervision, and 

 

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

 

3.             A statement that a registered public accounting firm that is a member of theAmerican Institute of Certified Public Accountants has issued an attestationreport on such Reporting Servicer’s assessment of compliance with theApplicable Servicing Criteria as of and for such 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 |
|-------------------------|-------------------------------------|
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________ No. 15

- 15378 Non

- Argument Calendar

________________________ D.C. Docket No. 1:15

- cr - 20334

- KMM

- 1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff

- Appellee,

versus GLENTON ANTHONY PETERKIN, Defendant

- Appellant.

______________ __________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida

________________________ (A p ril 24, 2017) Before HULL, WILSON, and JORDAN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: Glenton Peterkin argues that the district court erred by using two Florid a convictions to enhance his sentence for being a career offender under U.S.S.G.

Case: 15-15378 Date Filed: 04/24/2017 Page: 1 of 22 § 4B1.2

. But the arguments are squarely foreclosed by this Court’s prior published opinions. Mr. Peterkin’s career offender enhancem ent is unaffected by the Supreme Court’s decision in Johnson v. United States , __ U.S. __, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015) , because vagueness principles do not apply to the advisory Sentencing Guidelines

. See Beckles v. United States , __ U.S. __, 137 S. Ct. 886, 890 (2017) ; United States v. Matchett , 802 F.3d 1185, 1190 (11th Cir. 2015)

. And his Florida convictions that supported the enhancement

— for robbery (Fla. Stat. § 812.13(1)) and aggravated assault (Fla. Stat. § 784.021)

— remain qualifying predicates under § 4B1.2

. See United States v. Lockley , 632 F.3d 1238, 1240

– 46 (11th Cir. 2011) (robbery conviction under § 812.13(1) qualifies as crime of violence ); Turner v. Warden Coleman FCI (Medium) , 709 F.3d 1328, 1332 (11th Cir. 2013) ( aggravated assault conviction under § 784.021 qua lifies as crime of violence). AFFIRMED. Case: 15-15378 Date Filed: 04/24/2017 Page: 2 of 2
Exhibit 32.1


Certification of Chief Executive Officer


Pursuant to


Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)


In connection with the annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended September 30, 2018 (the “Report”) of Oaktree Strategic Income II, Inc. (the “Registrant”), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Edgar Lee , the Chief Executive Officer of the Registrant, hereby certify, to the best of my knowledge, that:


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


(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.





/s/    Edgar LeeName:    Edgar LeeDate: December 19, 2018
1The following HCDOC officers and employees are named as

defendants in the body of the complaint: Superintendent James

O’Mara; Classification Supervisor William Raymond; HCDOC Medical

Department; Medical Doctor Ward; Nurse Jane Doe; and Corrections

Officer Richards, Dickerson, Shultz, Gordon, Cruze, Grizil and

John Doe. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Warren R. Picard

v. Civil No. 05-cv-234-SM

Hillsborough County Department

of Corrections, et al.

O R D E R

Proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, plaintiff Warren R.

Picard brings this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §

1983, alleging that defendants have abridged his rights under the

First, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States

Constitution (document no. 1). Named as defendants are several

officers and employees of the Hillsborough County Department of

Corrections (“HCDOC”).1 

The complaint is before me for preliminary review to

determine whether, among other things, it states a claim upon

which relief may be granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A; U.S.

Case 1:05-cv-00234-SM Document 17 Filed 10/21/05 Page 1 of 3
2

District Court for the District of New Hampshire Local Rule

(“LR”) 4.3(d)(2). For the reasons stated in the report and

recommendation issued simultaneously herewith, I find that

plaintiff has alleged an Eighth Amendment excessive use of force

claim against Richards (Count II) and First Amendment retaliation

claims against Raymond and Richards (Counts II and III). I have 

recommended dismissal of all remaining claims.

Accordingly, I order that the complaint be served on the

defendants. As plaintiff has filed all of the necessary summons

forms, I order that the complaint be served on those defendants. 

The Clerk’s office is directed to issue the necessary summons

forms and forward to the United States Marshal for the District

of New Hampshire (the “U.S. Marshal’s Office”) the summonses, 

copies of the complaint (document no. 1), report and

recommendation and this order. Upon receipt of the necessary

documentation, the U.S. Marshal’s Office shall effect service

upon defendants. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(2).

Defendants shall answer or otherwise plead within twenty

days of acceptance of service. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(1)(A). 

Plaintiff is instructed that all future pleadings, written

motions, notices, or similar papers shall be served directly on

Case 1:05-cv-00234-SM Document 17 Filed 10/21/05 Page 2 of 3
3

the defendants by delivering or mailing the materials to them or

their attorneys, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(b). 

SO ORDERED.

__________________________________

James R. Muirhead

United States Magistrate Judge

Date: October 21, 2005

cc: Warren Picard, pro se

Case 1:05-cv-00234-SM Document 17 Filed 10/21/05 Page 3 of 3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 05-cr-229-01-PB

Lee Lafaso

O R D E R

The defendant has moved to continue the January 4, 2006

trial in the above case, citing the need for additional time to

engage in plea negotiations or otherwise prepare for trial. The

government does not object to a continuance of the trial date.

Accordingly, in order to allow the parties additional time

to negotiate a plea agreement or properly prepare for trial, the

court will continue the trial from January 4, 2006 to February 7,

2006. In agreeing to continue the trial, the court finds

pursuant to 18 U.S.C.A. § 3161(h)(8)(A) that for the above-stated

reasons, the ends of justice served in granting a continuance

outweigh the best interests of the public and the defendant in a

speedy trial.

Case 1:05-cr-00229-PB Document 10 Filed 12/19/05 Page 1 of 2
2

The December 19, 2005 final pretrial conference is continued

until January 31, 2006 at 3:30 p.m.

SO ORDERED.

/s/Paul Barbadoro 

Paul Barbadoro

United States District Judge

December 19, 2005

cc: Bjorn Lange, Esq.

Donald Feith, AUSA

United States Probation

United States Marshal

Case 1:05-cr-00229-PB Document 10 Filed 12/19/05 Page 2 of 2
EXHIBIT 32.1

 

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE

PUBLIC COMPANY ACCOUNTING REFORM AND INVESTOR PROTECTION ACT OF 2002

 

 

In connection with the periodic report of California BanCorp (the “Company”) on Form 10-K/A for the period ended December 31, 2019, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Steven E. Shelton, Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify as of the date hereof, solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States Code, that:

(1)the Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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.

This Certification has not been, and shall not be deemed, “filed” with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

 

|                       |                                                             |              |
|-----------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------|--------------|
| Dated: April 29, 2020 | /s/                                                         | Thomas A. Sa |
|                  | Thomas A. Sa                                                |
|                  | Senior Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |
#### OUACHITA PARISH POLICE JURY GUARANTY FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF PROVIDENCE, R. I.

No. 5358.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Second Circuit.

June 1, 1937.

Rehearing Denied June 30, 1937.

Writ of Certiorari and Review Denied Nov. 2, 1937.

Deutsch & Kerrigan & Burke, of New Orleans, for appellant.

Frank W. Hawthorne and Theus, Gris-ham, Davis & Leigh, all of Monroe, and St. Clair Adams & Son, of New Orleans, for appellee.

DREW, Judge.

This is a companion case to suit styled Ouachita Parish Police Jury v. Northern Insurance Company of New York, No. 5360 on the docket of this court, 176 So. 639, in which a decision was rendered this day. The facts and the issues are the same.

For the reasons assigned in case No. 5360, the judgment of the lower court is affirmed, with costs.
Judith and Terry Robinson, 

Gary and Brenda Fest, 

Virginia Gray, and Butch 

Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

June 20, 2013

No. 04-12-00754-CV

John A. LANCE and Debra L. Lance,

Appellants

v.

Judith and Terry ROBINSON, Gary and Brenda Fest, Virginia Gray, and Butch Townsend,

Appellees

From the 216th Judicial District Court, Bandera County, Texas

Trial Court No. CV-12-209

The Honorable N. Keith Williams, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Sitting: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

The panel has considered the appellant's motion for rehearing, and the motion is 

DENIED.

_________________________________

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

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

court on this 20th day of June, 2013.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Civil No. 05-cv-385-PB

Land and Buildings Located at 68 Grove Avenue,

Salem, New Hampshire, with all Appurtenances

and Improvements Thereon, Owned by Nancy Butters

O R D E R

 Ms. Butters, the owner of the in rem real estate defendant,

seeks in forma pauperis status and for appointed counsel and a

stay of proceedings. 

The apparent deadline for her to have asserted her rights

was December 19, 2005. A final Order of Forfeiture was issued on

February 8, 2006. The exclusive remedy to set aside a

declaration of forfeiture under the statute is a motion under 18

U.S.C. § 983(e)(1) alleging lack of notice. At this time no such

motion has been filed nor does Ms. Butters claim she did not

receive timely or adequate service. The government has filed an

affidavit of service together with a signed certified mail

receipt demonstrating timely and adequate service. 

Case 1:05-cv-00385-PB Document 13 Filed 03/15/06 Page 1 of 2
2

Ms. Butters’ two motions are too late and futile. As a

consequence they are denied. 

SO ORDERED.

____________________________________

James R. Muirhead

United States Magistrate Judge

Date: March 15, 2006

cc: Robert J. Rabuck, Esq.

 Nancy Butters, pro se

Case 1:05-cv-00385-PB Document 13 Filed 03/15/06 Page 2 of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE 3/31/99
RALSTON PURINA COMPANY BALANCE SHEET AND STATEMENT OF EARNINGS AND IS QUALIFIED
IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                    1,000
       
<S>                                              <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                          75,600
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  700,100
<ALLOWANCES>                                    24,400
<INVENTORY>                                    560,200
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,424,300
<PP&E>                                       2,195,900
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,136,700
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               5,457,400
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,448,900
<BONDS>                                      1,595,800
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        32,900
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,468,500
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 5,457,400
<SALES>                                      2,422,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,422,000
<CGS>                                        1,181,300
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,181,300
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               731,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0<F1>
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              94,900
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                414,800
<INCOME-TAX>                                   148,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            284,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   284,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.92
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.89
<FN>
<F1>LOSS-PROVISION INCLUDED IN OTHER-EXPENSES ABOVE.
</FN>
        


</TABLE>
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, September 05, 2017.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes 

of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto 

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, September 05, 2017

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A17A2110. BARBARA SMITH MCBRIDE v. ENCORE HOSPITALITY LLC d/b/a 

DOUBLETREE SUITE BY HILTON.

Upon consideration of the APPELLANT'S motion FOR PERMISSION TO WITHDRAW 

THE APPEAL in the above styled case, it is ordered that the motion is hereby GRANTED.
#### WELLS v. SOUTHWESTERN GAS & ELECTRIC CO.

No. 6298.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Second Circuit.

June 18, 1941.

Rehearing Denied July 7, 1941.

Dickson & Denny, of Shreveport, for appellant.

Wilkinson, Lewis, Wilkinson & Naff and John M. Madison, all of Shreveport, for appellee.

TALIAFERRO, Judge.

This is a tort action in which plaintiff seeks to fasten responsibility upon defendant for the injuries sustained by her when she fell over a light pole alleged to have been owned and negligently left by defendant’s agents and employees across the sidewalk in the 1300 block of Andrews Street in the City of Shreveport. Defendant denies liability to any extent. It avers that the light pole over which plaintiff fell had stood in the 1300 block of Andrews Street but was cut down by its agents and replaced by another pole; that the pole on the day it was cut down was by defendant’s foreman given to an old negro man named Allen Mitchell with the distinct understanding that it would be immediately removed from the street to a place of safety; that before its work crew left the scene Mitchell did remove the pole on to a vacant lot on the opposite side of Andrews Street and left it there in a position which offered no hazard or danger to pedestrian traffic; that thereafter defendant exercised no control over the pole and had no right so to do as it had become the property of said Mitchell and subject exclusively to his personal control and direction.

The trial judge rejected plaintiff’s demand and she appealed.

The allegations of defendant’s answer are proven beyond any doubt whatever. After the pole was given to Mitchell, he, assisted by another colored man, carried it across the street and deposited it on a vacant lot perpendicular to the dirt path in front of the lot which was used by pedestrians in lieu of a sidewalk. The testimony convinces us that no part of the pole when left on the vacant lot by Mitchell extended over any part of said path. If it so extended when plaintiff fell over it, surely someone had moved it from the position in which Mitchell and his helper had left it. There is some testimony to the effect that plaintiff was looking backward when she fell. The accident happened in the nighttime. If she was looking backward when she tripped over the pole, it is very likely she walked from the well beaten path. However, this is unimportant. Since defendant had parted with title to and control of the pole and saw to it that it was carried from the street and left at a place and in a position free of danger or hazard to traffic of any character, no liability can possibly attach to defendant for the injuries sustained by plaintiff who thereafter fell over the same. It was no duty of defendant to guard the pole after it was left on the vacant lot.

The judgment of the lower court rejecting plaintiff’s demand is manifestly correct. It is affirmed with costs of court.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-6188

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

RICHARD M. HIRSCHFELD,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. J. Calvitt Clarke, Jr., Senior

District Judge. (CR-90-142, CA-95-1089-2)

Submitted: November 12, 1996 Decided: January 9, 1997

Before WIDENER, HALL, and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Richard M. Hirschfeld, Appellant Pro Se. Helen F. Fahey, United

States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
* We have jurisdiction over the denial of the motion to recuse

because Appellant timely raised the claim in his informal brief.

See Smith v. Barry, 502 U.S. 244, 248-49 (1992).

2

PER CURIAM:

Richard Hirschfeld appeals the district court's orders (i) denying his motion to recuse the United States Attorney's office in

the Eastern District of Virginia and his motion filed under 28

U.S.C. § 2255 (1994), amended by Antiterrorism and Effective Death

Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214; and (ii)

denying his motion to recuse the district court judge.* We have

reviewed the record and the district court's opinions and find no

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

district court. United States v. Hirschfeld, Nos. CR-90-142; CA-95-

1089-2 (E.D. Va. Dec. 28, 1995; Jan. 22, 1996). We deny Appellant's motion for general relief, deny Appellee's motion to supplement the record, and 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