alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 197 (Wednesday, October 13, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 62766]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-25770]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-570-908]


First Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Sodium 
Hexametaphosphate From the People's Republic of China: Extension of 
Time Limit for the Final Results

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce

DATES: Effective Date: October 13, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul Walker, AD/CVD Operations, Office 
9, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. 
Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., 
Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-0413.

Background

    On April 15, 2010 the Department of Commerce (``Department'') 
published the Preliminary Results of the first administrative review of 
sodium hexametaphosphate From the People's Republic of China (``PRC''), 
covering the period September 14, 2007 through February 28, 2009. See 
First Administrative Review of Sodium Hexametaphosphate From the 
People's Republic of China: Notice of Preliminary Results of the 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 75 FR 19613 (April 15, 2010) 
(``Preliminary Results''). On August 10, 2010 the Department extended 
the final results of review to October 5, 2010. See First Antidumping 
Duty Administrative Review of Sodium Hexametaphosphate From the 
People's Republic of China: Extension of Time Limit for the Final 
Results, 75 FR 48309 (August 10, 2010).

Extension of Time Limit for the Preliminary Results

    As noted in the August 10 extension notice, section 751(a)(3)(A) of 
the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (``the Act''), requires the 
Department to issue the final results of an administrative review 
within 120 days after the date on which the Preliminary Results have 
been published. If it is not practicable to complete the review within 
the time period, section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act allows the Department 
to extend this deadline to a maximum of 180 days.
    The Department determines that completion of the final results of 
this review by the current deadline is not practicable. The Department 
requires more time to analyze a significant amount of information 
pertaining to the respondent's corporate structure and ownership, sales 
practices and manufacturing methods. Therefore, given the number and 
complexity of issues in this case, and in accordance with section 
751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, we are extending the time period for issuing 
the final results of review until October 12, 2010.
    This notice is published pursuant to sections 751(1)(3)(A) and 
777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(h)(2).

    Dated: October 5, 2010.
Susan H. Kuhbach,
Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing 
Duty Operations.
[FR Doc. 2010-25770 Filed 10-12-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
# Fire Prevention Week, 2010 

During Fire Prevention Week, we reaffirm the importance of fire safety and awareness, and we pay tribute to our firefighters, volunteers, and first responders who put themselves in harm’s way to protect our lives, homes, and communities every day. 

Each of us can take precautions in our homes to safeguard our loved ones from the hazards of fire.  Smoke alarms are vital detection devices, and properly installing and maintaining them in the home can help keep our families safe.  Residential sprinkler systems can give individuals extra time to evacuate a home safely in case of an emergency as well.  This year’s theme, “Smoke Alarms:  A sound you can live with,” encourages all Americans to test alarms at least once a month, and to check their batteries and locations. 

Parents and caregivers should also take the time to discuss and practice emergency plans with children in the event of a fire.  Additionally, around the home, it is important to ensure electronic appliances, machines, and heating units are plugged in and operated properly.  With responsible use of fire indoors and outdoors—from safely disposing of matches and cigarettes to increased attention when cooking on grills or building a campfire—we can avoid untold numbers of emergencies, injuries, and lives lost to fire and its consequences. 

Fire Prevention Week also calls our attention to the lifesaving work our firefighters perform in communities across America.  These courageous professionals are the first ones on the scene during an emergency, fearlessly charging up smoke-filled staircases as people rush down them.  Some have paid the ultimate sacrifice in the line of duty. Our Nation is profoundly grateful for the dedication and tireless efforts of our firefighters and first responders in their selfless service to our communities. 

I encourage all Americans to take preventative measures during Fire Prevention Week to protect themselves, their families, and their communities from the hazards of fire and to express gratitude to our firefighters and first responders.  Together, we can ensure the resilience and safety of our neighborhoods, and aid the brave men and women who risk their lives every day to protect us. 

NOW, THEREFORE, I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim October 3 through October 9, 2010, as Fire Prevention Week.  On Sunday, October 3, 2010, in accordance with Public Law 107-51, the flag of the United States will be flown at half-staff on all Federal office buildings in honor of the National Fallen Firefighters Memorial Service.  I call on all Americans to participate in this observance with appropriate programs and activities and by renewing their efforts to prevent fires and their tragic consequences. 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this first day of October, in the year of our Lord two thousand ten, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-fifth. 

[FR Doc. 2010-25577

Billing code 3195-W1-P
585 A.2d 401

#### NEWARK BETH ISRAEL MEDICAL CENTER v. ISADORE AND ZACHARY ROSENFIELD.

October 16, 1990.

Petition for certification granted.
584 A.2d 236

#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. RONALD HUGHES.

May 30, 1990.

Petition for certification denied.
Exhibit 35.3

OFFICERS CERTIFICATE

I, Karen Montbach, a
Managing Director of Citibank, N.A. (the Company), hereby certify, with respect to the Pooling and Servicing Agreement, dated as of August 1, 2014 (the Agreement), by and among Citigroup Commercial Mortgage Securities
Inc., as depositor, Midland Loan Services, a division of PNC Bank, National Association, as master servicer, Rialto Capital Advisors, LLC, as special servicer, Trimont Real Estate Advisors, Inc., as operating advisor, Citibank, N.A., as certificate
administrator (the Certificate Administrator), and Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas, as trustee, the following:

1. A
review of the Companys activities as Certificate Administrator during the reporting period ending December 31, 2014 and its performance under the Agreement has been made under my supervision.

2. To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, as of and for the reporting period ending December 31, 2014, the Company has
fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout the reporting period.

This statement is given by the undersigned
as an authorized officer of the Company and not in the undersigneds individual capacity.

Date: February 27, 2015



Citibank, N.A.By:

/s/ Karen MontbachName:

Karen MontbachTitle:

Managing Director
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 196 (Tuesday, October 12, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 62632]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-25447]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Internal Revenue Service


Open Meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Taxpayer Assistance 
Center Committee

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Treasury.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: An open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Taxpayer 
Assistance Center Committee will be conducted. The Taxpayer Advocacy 
Panel is soliciting public comments, ideas, and suggestions on 
improving customer service at the Internal Revenue Service.

DATES: The meeting will be held Tuesday, November 23, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ellen Smiley at 1-888-912-1227 or 414-
231-2360.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given pursuant to Section 
10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) 
that an open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Taxpayer Assistance 
Center Committee will be held Tuesday, November 23, 2010, at 1 p.m. 
Central Time via telephone conference. The public is invited to make 
oral comments or submit written statements for consideration. Due to 
limited conference lines, notification of intent to participate must be 
made with Ellen Smiley. For more information please contact Ms. Smiley 
at 1-888-912-1227 or 414-231-2360, or write TAP Office Stop 1006MIL, 
211 West Wisconsin Avenue, Milwaukee, WI 53203-2221, or post comments 
to the web site: http://www.improveirs.org.
    The agenda will include various IRS issues.

    Dated: October 4, 2010.
Shawn F. Collins,
Director, Taxpayer Advocacy Panel.
[FR Doc. 2010-25447 Filed 10-8-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
584 A.2d 233

#### MERRICK B. WILSON v. IAN LIVINGSTONE, ET AL.

May 30, 1990.

Petition for certification denied.
584 A.2d 238

#### RONALD BENDA v. SHERI BENDA.

June 6, 1990.

This matter having come before the Court on defendant’s motion for leave to appeal from the order entered May 23,1990, by the Superior Court, Chancery Division, Family Part, granting defendant interim custody of her minor children until further order of the Indiana courts, and requiring defendant and her two minor children to appear before the Indiana Circuit Court on May 25, 1990, at 9:00 a.m.;

And it appearing that the Indiana Circuit Court, in response to plaintiff’s motion to enforce the December 2, 1988 judgment granting custody of the minor children to plaintiff, issued an order providing for a hearing on plaintiff’s application on May 25,1990, at 9:00 a.m.; and it further appearing that the Indiana Circuit Court, in response to defendant’s motion for a stay of the December 2, 1988 judgment and for a full hearing on the merits of all issues relating to custody, issued an order denying defendant’s application for a stay and set down for hearing on May 25, 1990, at 10:00 a.m. the determination of the remaining relief sought by defendant;

And the Court, based on its consideration of the best interests of the children, having concluded that further proceedings to be conducted in Indiana should allow defendant’s full participation therein without any prior determination of contempt for *175violation of past orders and without any change in the present custodial status of the minor children until after a full hearing on the merits that embraces all issues material to custody, and good cause appearing;

It is ORDERED that the motion for leave to appeal is granted, and it is further

ORDERED that paragraph 1 of the order of the Superior Court, Chancery Division, Family Part, entered on May 23, 1990, is summarily reversed; and it is further

ORDERED that the matter is remanded to the Superior Court, Chancery Division, Family Part, with instructions that no further order that compels the presence of Rachael and Hillary Benda in Indiana is to be entered until the following conditions are met:

1. Defendant’s full participation in hearings to be conducted in the Indiana courts concerning custody shall be permitted to occur without any prior determination of contempt for violation of past orders; and

2. Through use of the procedures provided in the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act, such as those contained in *N.J.S.A.*2A:34-34(c), the Chancery Division determines that the present custodial status of Rachael and Hillary Benda will not be modified until the Indiana court’s best interest hearing that considers all issues material to custody is concluded and a decision rendered therein.

Chief Justice WILENTZ and Justices HANDLER, O’HERN, GARIBALDI and STEIN join in this order. Justice CLIFFORD and POLLOCK did not participate.
#### Kelvin M. BRAY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D11-0762.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

May 4, 2011.

William Mallory Kent, Jacksonville, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The appellant has filed an appeal of an order striking his postconviction motion but granting him leave to amend. Such an order is not a final, appealable order. *See Lee v. State,*939 So.2d 154, 155 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006). Thus, we DISMISS the appeal. We deny as moot the appellant’s motion for extension of time to file an initial brief.

BENTON, C.J., WEBSTER, and VAN NORTWICK, JJ., concur.
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h Marilyn Kell y Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathawa y Mary Beth Kell y Brian K. Zahra,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk April 25, 2011

h0418 

# Order

April 25, 2011

142069

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 142069 COA: 297850 Macomb CC: 2 006-005414-FC DONALD EARL FITZPATRICK, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 19, 2010 order of the Court of Appeals is considered , and it is DENIED, because the defendant has
failed to meet the burden of establishi ng entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).
#### UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Santiago DEFILLO, Appellant.

No. 256, Docket 25950.

United States Court of Appeals Second Circuit.

Argued March 11, 1960.

Decided March 17, 1960.

Santiago Defillo appeals from an order denying his second motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate his conviction and sentence for violating the federal narcotics laws, affirmed 2 Cir., 257 F.2d 835, certiorari denied Defillo v. United States, 359 U.S. 915, 79 S.Ct. 591, 3 L.Ed. 2d 577. Judge Kaufman’s earlier opinion denying appellant’s first motion is reported in D.C.S.D.N.Y., 166 F.Supp. 627.

Santiago Defillo, pro se.

David Klingsberg, Asst. U. S. Atty., S.D.N.Y., New York City (S. Hazard Gillespie, Jr., U. S. Atty., and Louis T. Gallo, Asst. U. S. Atty., New York City, on the brief), for appellee.

Before CLARK, WATERMAN, and LEWIS,** Circuit Judges.

**

 Of the Tenth Circuit, sitting by designation.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed on the opinion of District Judge Kaufman, June 30, 1959, 182 F. Supp. 782.
**Exhibit 31.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

I, Robert B. Goergen, Chairman and Chief ExecutiveOfficer of Blyth, Inc., certify that:

 

1.                  I have reviewedthis quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Blyth, Inc.;

 

2.                  Based on myknowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, inlight of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

 

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

 

4.                 The registrant’sother certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

 

(a) Designedsuch disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;

 

(b) Evaluatedthe effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and

 

(c) Disclosedin this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

 

5.                  The registrant’sother certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (orpersons performing the equivalent functions):

 

(a) Allsignificant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and

 

(b) Anyfraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.

 

Date: June 5, 2008

 
| /s/  Robert B. Goergen                |   |
|---------------------------------------|--------|
| Robert B. Goergen                     |
| Chairman and Chief  Executive Officer |

 

 

----
*This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of

law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the

citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under

the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

F I L E D

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

APR 9 1998

PATRICK FISHER

Clerk

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

RON THOMPSON,

Plaintiff - Appellant, No. 97-4066

v. (D. Utah)

NUCOR CORPORATION,

a Delaware corporation, doing

business in Box Elder County, Utah,

Defendant - Appellee.

(D.C. No. 96-CV-102-C) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before ANDERSON, BALDOCK, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

The dispositive question on appeal in this case is whether the district court

abused its discretion by denying plaintiff’s oral motion to amend the complaint to
1Although the motion to amend was not made in writing or formalized in any way,

and although the district court made no express ruling on the oral motion to amend, we

construe the motion as having been properly made and expressly denied so that we can

consider the issue on appeal.

-2-

assert a claim for wrongful discharge on the basis that the employer allegedly

demanded that the plaintiff act in violation of public policy.1

Upon careful review of the record and the briefs and arguments of counsel,

we conclude that the district court did not err. The judgment of the district court

is AFFIRMED. Appellee’s motion for sanctions on appeal is denied.

ENTERED FOR THE COURT

Stephen H. Anderson

Circuit Judge
584 A.2d 248

#### DYLM ENTERPRISES, LTD. v. CITY OF ASBURY PARK.

June 11, 1990.

Petition for certification denied.
| (logo) WELLS FARGO | **Corporate Trust Services**

  MAC R1204-010  9062 Old Annapolis Road  Columbia, MD 21045  Tel: 410 884 2000  Fax: 410 715 2380 |
|--------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

Re: Annual Statement ofCompliance for JPMBB Commercial Mortgage Securities Trust 2014-C22, CommercialMortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2014-C22 

 

Per the Pooling and ServicingAgreement dated as of August 1, 2014 (the "Agreement"), theundersigned, a duly authorized officer of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., asCertificate Administrator ("Wells Fargo"), hereby certifies asfollows as of and for the year ending December 31, 2016 (the "ReportingPeriod"):

 

(a) A review of Wells Fargo'sactivities during the Reporting Period and of its performance under theAgreement has been made under such officer's supervision; and 

 

(b) To the best of suchofficer's knowledge, based on such review, Wells Fargo has fulfilled all of itsobligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout theReporting Period. 

 

February 27, 2017 

 

 

/s/ Brian Smith

BRIAN SMITH 

Vice President

 

 

| Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. | (logo) Together we’ll  go far |
|------------------------|-------------------------------------|
---

Exhibit 34.3
 KPMG LLP
                  Suite 300
                  1212 N. 96th Street
                  Omaha, NE 68114-2274
                Suite 1120
                  1248 O Street
                  Lincoln, NE 68508-1493
   .
  Management Assessment of Compliance with SEC Regulation AB
            Criteria Management Assessment of Compliance with SEC Regulation AB Criteria
   
 KPMG LLP, a Delaware limited liability partnership and a member firm of
                    the KPMG global organization of independent member firms affiliated with
                    KPMG International Limited, a private English company limited by guarantee.
 
 Management Assessment of Compliance with SEC Regulation AB Criteria, Compliance and Disclosure Interpretation (C&DI) 200.06, Vendors Engaged by Servicers
 
  
 
  
 
 
 2
EXHIBIT 32.1



CERTIFICATIONS



The undersigned, as the chief executive officer of Valley Financial Corporation, certify that the Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2005, which
accompanies this certification, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in the periodic report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of Valley Financial Corporation at the dates and for the periods indicated. The foregoing certification is made solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States Code and is
subject to the knowledge and willfulness qualifications contained in Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350(c).



Dated: August 15, 2005



/s/ Ellis L. GutshallChief Executive Officer
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE

F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER

Appellate case name: Harold Earl Wilson v. Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas f/k/a

Banker’s Trust Co., as Trustee & Custo dian for IXIS 2006

- HE2

Appellate case number: 01

- 1 2

- 00 284

- CV

Trial court case number: 2007

- 71999

- A

Trial court: 133rd Judicial District Court of Harris County

On May 2, 2014, Appellant, Harold Earl Wilson filed a motion for reconsideration of th e Court’s April 17, 2014 opinion in this case

. Appellee, Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas

is hereby ordered to file a response to the motion for reconsideration within 20 days of the date

of this notice.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: / s/ Harvey Brow n

 Acting individually  Acting for the C ourt

Date: June 27 , 2014
584 A.2d 239

#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. JOSEPH NICHOLAS MERLINO.

June 7, 1990.

Petition for certification denied.