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

Jf n tbe Wniteb ~tates <!ourt of jf eberal <!laints 

No. 16-1 ?lOC 

(Filed January 6, 2017) 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION 

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

GORDON R. HOLMES, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

THE UNITED STATES, 

Defendant. 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

ORDER 

FILED 

JAN - 6 2017 

U.S. COURT OF 

FEDERAL CLAIMS 

The court hereby requests plaintiff's consent to the court's referral of this 

case to the Court of Federal Claims Bar Association Pro Bono/Attorney Referral 

Pilot Program for the potential representation of plaintiff by counsel. 

In the event that plaintiff consents to such referral, the court makes no 

representation that the Bar Association will be successful in identifying possible pro 

bono counsel for plaintiff. If the Bar Association is able to identify possible counsel, 

plaintiff is not obligated to engage any particular attorney, nor is an attorney 

obligated to represent plaintiff. The court does not endorse representation by any 

individual attorney. All decisions concerning representation, if any, will be by 

mutual agreement between plaintiff and an attorney. 

Accordingly, on or before Monday, January 23, 2017, plaintiff shall file a 

notice indicating whether he consents to referral of this case to the Court of Feder al 

Claims Bar Association Pro Bono/Attorney Referral Pilot Program. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 7244 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 7244

To provide for the unencumbering of title to non-Federal land owned by 
Win Oil Company, Incorporated, for purposes of economic development by 
  removing the Federal reversion interest in that land, and for other 
                               purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           December 10, 2018

Mr. O'Halleran introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                     Committee on Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To provide for the unencumbering of title to non-Federal land owned by 
Win Oil Company, Incorporated, for purposes of economic development by 
  removing the Federal reversion interest in that land, and for other 
                               purposes.

    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 ``Flagstaff Federal Reversion Relief 
Act''.

SEC. 2. RELEASE OF REVERSIONARY INTEREST, FLAGSTAFF, ARIZONA.

    (a) General Removal of Interest.--Any reversionary interest of the 
United States pursuant to the Act of July 27, 1866 (14 Stat. 292, 
chapter 278), shall no longer be subject to the reversionary interest 
described in that Act.
    (b) Removal of Interest in Particular Parcel.--The reversionary 
interest is removed in the parcel of land located in the City of 
Flagstaff, Arizona, and owned by Win Oil Company, Incorporated, which 
land is more particularly described in the deed recorded in Coconino 
County, Arizona, on November 11, 1998, as document number 98-44431.
                                 <all>
```
No. 87-603.

#### Miera et al. *v.*Garcia, a Minor, by her Next Friends, Garcia et al.

C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-16-0000377

26-SEP-2016

07:58 AM
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-1491

EUGENE HORTON, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus NORFOLK SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY, formerly known as Norfolk Southern Corporation, Defendant - Appellee.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. Frank W. Bullock, Jr., District Judge. (CA-97-1247-1) Submitted: October 8, 1999 Decided: October 19, 1999 Before HAMILTON, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Romallus O. Murphy, Sr., Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. M. Daniel McGinn, Jennifer K. Van Zant, BROOKS, PIERCE, MCLENDON, HUMPHREY & LEONARD, L.L.P., Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM:Eugene Horton, Jr., appeals the district court’s order dismissing his civil action alleging that he was denied benefits fromhis former employer because of his race. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm substantially on the reasoning of thedistrict court, finding that Horton’s action is barred by his execution of a valid and comprehensive release. See Horton v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co. , No. CA-97-1247-1 (M.D.N.C. Mar. 8, 1999). 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
#### Rayfield LANE, Jr., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 5D10-4376.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

May 13, 2011.

Rayfield Lane, Wewahitchka, pro se.

No Appearance for Appellee.

*ON ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE*

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Rayfield Lane, Jr., was adjudicated guilty of four counts of sexual battery and one count of aggravated assault in Seminole County Case No. 74-450. He was sentenced to life imprisonment for one of the sexual battery convictions. Since his judgment and sentence became final, Lane has attacked his judgment and/or sentence numerous times. Lane has at least 16 prior cases in this court, including six rule 3.850 appeals and two rule 3.800 appeals. After affirming the denial of Lane’s third rule 3.800(a) motion to correct sentence, we issued a show cause order directing Lane to demonstrate why he should not be barred from filing further pro se challenges to his judgment and sentence in this case. *See State v. Spenc*er, 751 So.2d 47 (Fla.1999). After carefully considering Lane’s response, we find it unpersuasive. We conclude that Lane is abusing the judicial process and should be barred from further pro se filings.

We therefore prohibit Rayfield Lane, Jr., from filing with this court any further pro se pleadings concerning Seminole County Case No. 74-450. The clerk of this court is directed not to accept any further pro se filings from Lane concerning this case. Any additional pleadings must be filed by a member in good standing with The Florida Bar. *See Johnson v. State,*652 So.2d 980 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995); *Isley v. State,*652 So.2d 409 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995).

Future pro se filings PROHIBITED; certified opinion FORWARDED to the Department of Corrections.

MONACO, C.J., PALMER and JACOBUS, JJ. concur.
| (logo) WELLS FARGO | **Commercial Mortgage Servicing**D1086-120, 12th Floor550 South Tryon Street Charlotte, NC 28202 1-800-326-1334 |
|--------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 **ANNUAL STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE**  Reference is hereby made to that certain Pooling and Servicing Agreement  dated  as of July 1, 2014, by and among J.P. Morgan Chase Commercial Mortgage Securities Corp., as Depositor, Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as Master Servicer, Midland Loan Services, A Division of PNC Bank, National Association, as Special Servicer, Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as Certificate Administrator, Wilmington Trust, National Association, as  Trustee, and Pentalpha Surveillance LLC, as Senior Trust Advisor with respect to Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series 2014-C21 (the "Agreement"). Capitalized terms used herein not otherwise defined shall have the meanings assigned in the Agreement. Pursuant to Section 11.09 of this Agreement, I, Daniel Bober, Executive Vice President of Commercial Mortgage Services do hereby certify that: 1. A review of the activities of the Master Servicer during the period from January 1, 2015 through December 31, 2015 (the “Reporting Period”), and of its performance per the Agreement during such period has been made under my supervision, and 2. To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Master Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this Certificate as of the 4th day of March 2016.  /s/ Daniel BoberDaniel BoberExecutive Vice PresidentWells Fargo Bank   Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.(logo) Together we’ll go far
#### Rayfield LANE, Jr., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 5D10-2476.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

June 3, 2011.

Rayfield Lane, Wewahitchka, pro se.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Wesley Heidt, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appel-lee.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant challenges the summary denial of the petition for mandamus wherein he sought records pertaining to an appeal from the Circuit Court of the Eighteenth Judicial Circuit. The records attached to the petition indicate that this Court affirmed the appeal on May 5, 1982. The circuit court denied the petition based upon the erroneous assumption that the appeal was taken to the Fourth District Court of Appeal, handled by the public defender in that district and that the trial court had no jurisdiction over the West Palm Beach Public Defender. The State acknowledges that this conclusion by the trial judge was erroneous but urges, nevertheless, that we affirm based upon the “Tipsy Coachman Doctrine.” On the limited record that we have before us, we decline to affirm on that basis. Therefore, we reverse and remand this cause for further proceedings before the trial court.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

MONACO, C.J., SAWAYA and TORPY, JJ., concur.
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 186 (Monday, September 27, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 59260]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-24080]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER10-2644-000]


Hardwood Energy LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-
Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 
Authorization

September 16, 2010.
    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of 
Hardwood Energy LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with 
an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a 
request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future 
issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., 
Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the 
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 
385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a 
copy of that document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with 
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of 
liability, is October 6, 2010.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet 
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an 
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the 
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the 
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in 
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in 
the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's 
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link 
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification 
when a document is added to a subscribed dockets(s). For assistance 
with any FERC Online service, please e-mail <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#064043544549686a6f686355737676697472466063746528616970"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="8ccac9decfc3e2e0e5e2e9dff9fcfce3fef8cceae9feefa2ebe3fa">[email protected]</span></a>. 
or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-24080 Filed 9-24-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### Hansley, Appellee, *v.*The Lake Shore Coach Co., Appellant.

*213(No. 463

Decided May 19, 1941.)

*Mr. Guilbert W. Martin,*for appellee.

*Messrs. Flynn, Froilman, Buckingham, Py S*Kruse, for appellant.

Lloyd, J.

The defendant, The Lake Shore Coach Company, appeals to this court on questions of law from a judgment of $650 in favor of the plaintiff, Ruth Hansley, as damages for personal injuries alleged to-have proximately resulted from the negligence of a ticket agent of the defendant stationed at Bellevue.

A Mr. Myers and his partner, Boehler by name, ' owned and operated a garage in Bellevue. By verbal arrangement made by Myers with the defendant, the-garage office was used as a waiting room for prospective passengers of the defendant, he to furnish heat, lights and toilet and to sell tickets for the company. He was paid 10 per cent on passenger tickets sold and 5 per cent on parcels dispatched. This was his only compensation.

At about nine o’clock in the morning of October 21, 1939, the plaintiff purchased a ticket from Myers, for passage from Bellevue to a station known as Halfway. There is no ticket window in the garge room, the ticket selling being conducted at Myers’ desk. After purchasing the ticket she leaned against the desk, talking to a lady who was also waiting for the bus, which she says passed ahead of its scheduled time without stopping. Other witnesses said that it left exactly on time.

*214“The next thing I noticed,” she says, “I happened to glance up and I saw the bus going by and I said ‘There goes the bus.’ ”

Myers volunteered to take the plaintiff and the other lady in his automobile and endeavor to overtake the bus. Plaintiff testifies that he said “Come and get in my car. I have had to do this before.” The plaintiff and the other lady then got into the rear seat of his automobile and Myers, after passing the bus, lost control of his automobile, which skidded and collided with a telephone pole resulting in the complained-of injuries to plaintiff.

This is all of the evidence material to the question of whether Myers was an agent of the company in the service he sought to render plaintiff. The evidence clearly shows that he was not employed by the defendant for any purpose except to sell tickets. That was his sole duty and obligation. In w7hat he was doing he was a mere volunteer for whose negligence, if he was negligent, the defendant is not responsible.

The judgment of the Court of Common Pleas is therefore reversed and final judgment is rendered for the defendant.

*Judgment reversed.*

Overmyer and Carpenter, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 31.1

 

 

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANTTOSECTION 302**

**OFTHESARBANES-OXLEYACT**

 

I, Edward J. Fritsch, certify that: 

 

|   | 1. | I have reviewed this amended quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Highwoods Properties Inc.; |
|--------|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

|   | 2. | Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly report; |
|--------|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

|   | 3. | Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the Registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report; |
|--------|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

Date: March 2, 2008

 

| /s/ EDWARDJ.FRITSCH                                    |   |
|--------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Edward J. FritschPresident and Chief Executive Officer |   |

 

| * | Paragraphs 4 and 5, omitted here, are included in Exhibit 31.1 to the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q filed by Highwoods Properties, Inc. on May 10, 2007. |
|---|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, 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.

 February 28, 2014

t0224

Order 

Clerk

February 28, 2014

147880

JOHN C. SPRENGER,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v SC: 147880

COA: 310599

Benzie CC: 11-009301-DP

EMILY R. BICKLE,

Defendant-Appellee.

____________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the September 10, 2013 

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

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.

CAVANAGH, J., would grant leave to appeal.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Consolidated Balance Sheet at September 30, 1998 (unaudited) and the
Consolidated Statement of Operations for the Nine Months Ended September 30,
1998 (unaudited) and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial
statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000921112
<NAME> LIBERTY PROPERTY TRUST
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                          10,610
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    9,569
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,010
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                20,179
<PP&E>                                       2,920,179
<DEPRECIATION>                                 195,253
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,825,766
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           30,158
<BONDS>                                      1,341,951
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                    120,814
<COMMON>                                            65
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,143,548
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,825,766
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               277,573
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   75,551
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                60,218
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              56,255
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 85,549
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             85,549
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    71,337
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.20
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.19
        

</TABLE>
I 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1366 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the alternative 

minimum tax on individuals. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 7, 2007 

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania (for himself, Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas, Mr. 

SESSIONS, Mr. KUHL of New York, Mr. CULBERSON, Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky, Mr. BISHOP of Utah, Mr. MILLER of Florida, Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California, Mr. JORDAN of Ohio, Mr. SHAYS, Mr. SIMPSON, Mrs. 

MUSGRAVE, Mr. CONAWAY, Mr. MANZULLO, and Mr. DOOLITTLE) 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 repeal 

the alternative minimum tax on individuals. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Individual AMT Repeal 

5 Act of 2007’’. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with BILLS
2 

•HR 1366 IH

1 SEC. 2. REPEAL OF INDIVIDUAL ALTERNATIVE MINIMUM 

2 TAX. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 55(a) of the Internal Rev4 enue Code of 1986 (relating to alternative minimum tax 

5 imposed) is amended by adding at the end the following 

6 new flush sentence: 

7 ‘‘Except in the case of a corporation, no tax shall be im8 posed by this section for any taxable year beginning after 

9 December 31, 2006, and the tentative minimum tax of any 

10 taxpayer other than a corporation for any such taxable 

11 year shall be zero for purposes of this title.’’. 

12 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

13 this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after 

14 December 31, 2006. 

Æ 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with BILLS
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Pierre WEATHERSPOON.

No. 2010-KP-0549.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Nov. 19, 2010.

In re Weatherspoon, Pierre; —Defendant; Applying For Supervisory, and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. I, No. 02-4897; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 09-KH-1010.

Denied.