alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
546 A.2d 151

#### Rosalie A. Lucarelli, Petitioner *v.*Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board (Emerson Electric), Respondents.

Submitted on briefs April 26, 1988,

before Judges Doyle and McGinley, and Senior Judge Kalish, sitting as a panel of three.

*73*Rosalie A. Lucarelli,*petitioner, for herself.

*John B. Bechtol, Reed, Smith, Shaw*& *McClay,*for respondent, Emerson Electric.

August 22, 1988:

Opinion by

Judge McGinley,

This is an appeal by Rosalie Lucarelli (Claimant) from an order of the Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board (Board) affirming the decision of the referee which dismissed Claimant’s petition for compensation benefits.

Unfortunately, because of numerous substantial defects in Claimant’s brief which impair our ability to conduct meaningful appellate review, we must quash this appeal without reaching the merits. *Wicker v. Civil Service Commission,*74 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 548, 460 A.2d 407 (1983).

Claimant’s brief materially deviates from the requirements set forth in Chapter 21 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure, Pa. R.A.P. 2101-2189. Defects in the Claimant’s brief include: 1) failure to include a statement of jurisdiction in violation of Pa. R.A.P. 2114; 2) failure to include a verbatim text of the order in question in violation of Pa. R.A.P. 2115; 3) failure to include a statement of the questions involved in violation of Pa. R.A.P. 2116(a); 4) failure to include a statement of the case in violation of Pa. R.A.P. 2117; and 5) failure to include a summary of the argument in violation of Pa. R.A.P. 2118.

*74The mandatory language of Pa. R. A.P. 2116(a) clearly and emphatically mandates the inclusion of a statement of questions involved in an appellate brief.1

Accordingly, as Claimant has failed to properly state any questions for our consideration, we shall consider none. *Wicker*at 553, 460 A.2d at 409. We therefore conclude Claimants appeal must be quashed.

Order

And Now, August 22, 1988, the appeal of Rosalie Lucarelli from the order of the Board is hereby quashed.

1

 Pa. R.A.P. 2116(a) provides in part:

> This rule is to be considered in the highest decree mandatory, admitting of no exception; ordinarily no point will be considered which is not set forth in the statement of questions involved or suggested thereby. . . .
1828 L Street, NW, Suite 600 

Washington, DC 20036 

PHONE (202) 789-0100 FAX (202) 789-0101 

www.passmanandkaplan.com 

Edward H. Passman (DC, MD) 

Joseph V. Kaplan (DC, MD) 

Senior Associates: 

Andrew J. Perlmutter (DC, MD) 

Amy L. Beckett (DC, MD) 

Adria S. Zeldin (DC) 

Associates: 

Daniel T. Raposa (DC) 

Johnathan P. Lloyd (DC, VA) 

Samir Yakhou (DC, NY) 

September 17, 2014 

VIA e-mail to mspb@mspb.gov

William D. Spencer 

Clerk of the Board 

Merit Systems Protection Board 

1615 M Street, NW 

Washington, DC 20419 

Re: Response to Interim Final Rule, 79 Fed.Reg. 48,941-48,946 

 Docket No. MSPB-2014-0007-0001 

Dear Mr. Spencer: 

Passman & Kaplan, P.C. (P&K) respectfully submits the following comments in response to the 

Merit Systems Protection Board’s Interim Final Rule implementing Section 707 of the Veterans’ 

Access to Care through Choice, Accountability and Transparency Act of 2014, Pub.L. 113-146 

(“Section 707”), published in the Federal Register on August 19, 2014, 79 Fed.Reg. 48,941-

48,946 (as amended 79 Fed.Reg. 49,423 (August 21, 2014)). We have reviewed the comments 

of the National Employment Lawyers Association (NELA) to the Board’s Interim Final Rule, 

and we concur with NELA’s comments in all respects. P&K appreciates the opportunity to 

respond to the Interim Final Rule, and wishes to thank the Board for its attention and 

consideration. 

Respectfully submitted, 

 

Edward H. Passman Joseph V. Kaplan Andrew J. Perlmutter 

Founding Principal Founding Principal Senior Associate 

Passman & Kaplan, P.C. Passman & Kaplan, P.C. Passman & Kaplan, P.C. 

JVK-EHP/ajp
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO

John Gage J. David Cox, Sr. ~ «s+, Augusta Y. Thomas
National President National Secretary-Treasurer National Vice President for
Women and Fair Practices
“Te/MSPB/277084
May 20, 2010
Ms Susan Tsui Grundmann
Chairman
Merit Systems Protection Board By e-mail and regular mail

1615 M Street, NW
Washington, D.C. 20419-0002

Re: Merit Systems Protection Board’s Open Government Plan

Dear Chairman Grundmann:

This is in response to your April 28, 2010 letter inviting the American Federation
of Government Employees (AFGE) to comment on the MSPB’s Open Government Plan.
l appreciate your soliciting feedback from AFGE and hope that this will be the beginning
of a productive dialogue. I applaud the Obama administration’s initiative to increase the
level of openness in government. In particular, the MSPB’s solicitation of amicus briefs
in cases of significant impact and plans to hold oral argument in significant cases will
greatly increased AFGE’s ability to advocate on behalf of fair treatment for federal
employees.

I have two suggestions for improving the Open Government Plan. First of all,
while the publication of data sets on the Data.gov website seems like it would provide
useful information to the public, my staff has been unable to download the data in a
comprehensible format. The data sets need to be reformulated in a more user-friendly
manner. My second suggestion concerns the type of data that the MSPB should disclose
on its website. I would like to see the website include information on the number of
cases which were decided in favor of the agency, the number that were decided in favor
of the employee and the number that were resolved through settlement after an appeal
was filed with the Board.

I look forward to working together with you to improve the functioning of the
MSPB. -

Sincerely,
lege C Fagg.

John Gage
National President

80 F Street, N.W, Washington, DC 20001 ¢ (202) 737-8700 ¢ FAX (202) 639-6490 ¢ www.afge.org

3)

é

é
#### FRED RAINESS, PROSECUTOR, v. GRANT FINISHING CO., INC., RESPONDENT.

Argued January 17, 1945

Decided February 5, 1945.

Before Justices Case, Bodine and Porter.

Eor the prosecutor, *Aaron Gordon.*

For the respondent, *George E. Meredith*and *G. Dixon Spealcman.*

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Bodine, J.

This is a workmen’s compensation case. The Bureau dismissed the claim and since the accident, in which the deceased was killed, occurred in South Carolina the writ was allowed directly to the Bureau. *Franzen*v. *E. I. duPont deNemours & Co.,*128 *N. J. L.*549.

The sole question for determination is whether petitioner’s husband met his death in the course of his employment. We think not.

*423He was president of the Grant Finishing Company and in the early part of April, 1942, with one Alpin, he was driving in an automobile on his way south. The car was an open one; they had golf bags and light weight clothing. The car was overturned on route 17 south of St. George, South Carolina. To suggest that the trip was for business purposes, there was testimony that decedent had spoken of moving his plant south and intended to visit some textile mills as well as to call on his mother who lived in Florida. She had been ill.

Since the trip started on Good Friday and there were no textile mills in that part of South Carolina, where the accident occurred, and the route taken was the shortest distance to Florida and since inconsistent statements had been made by Alpin shortly after the occurrence, we think that the petitioner failed to establish the fact b)r the weight of credible evidence. So the Bureau found and so do we.

To bolster the claim there was some testimony that the deceased’s company was having some trouble in finishing goods for the firm of which xALpin was salesman. But the type of goods causing the trouble was discontinued before the trip was commenced and was never resumed.

The burden of proof was upon the petitioner and this she failed to establish. *Riley*v. *Crucible Steel Company of America,*132 *N. J. L.*273.

It might further be noted that there was no evidence that the deceased was traveling in the course of his employment but the statements alleged to be made by him, and such statements could not form the basis of a recovery.

Mr. Justice Trenchard said in *Helminsky*v. *Ford Motor Co.,*111 N. J. *L.*369, 373: “While the Workmen’s Compensation Bureau is not bound by technical rules of evidence, it must ascertain parties’ substantial rights from competent evidence; and while hearsay testimony may be received by the Workmen’s Compensation Bureau without necessarily resulting in reversal, it cannot, as here, form the basis of an award of compenastion. *Friese*v. *Nagle Packing Co.,*110 *N. J. L.*588; 166 *Atl. Rep.*307.”

The judgment of the Bureau is affirmed, with costs.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

GERARDO BARRAZA ZAZUETA, a.k.a.

Joel Rivera,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 14-30252

D.C. No. 2:13-cr-02081-WFN

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Washington

Wm. Fremming Nielsen, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted August 25, 2015** 

Before: McKEOWN, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

Gerardo Barraza Zazueta appeals from the district court’s judgment and

challenges the 51-month sentence imposed following his jury-trial conviction for

FILED

SEP 01 2015

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). We

have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. 

Zazueta contends that the district court erred by imposing a sentencing

enhancement for possession of a firearm in connection with another felony offense

under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) without sua sponte holding an evidentiary

hearing. We review for plain error, see United States v. Berry, 258 F.3d 971, 976

(9th Cir. 2001), and find none. No evidentiary hearing was required because the

district court allowed Zazueta to challenge the enhancement orally and through

briefing and affidavits. See id.

Zazueta also contends that there was insufficient evidence that he possessed

a firearm in connection with drug trafficking. We review for clear error the district

court’s finding that Zazueta possessed the firearm in connection with another

felony offense. See United States v. Polanco, 93 F.3d 555, 564 (9th Cir. 1996). 

The district court did not clearly err; agents located the firearm in close proximity

to a bag containing 28 grams of methamphetamine, a digital scale, body armor, and

a pair of pants containing Zazueta’s identification. See U.S.S.G.§ 2K2.1

cmt. n.14(B); Polanco, 93 F.3d at 567.

AFFIRMED.

2 14-30252
#### SELIG J. SISSELMAN, ET AL. AND LORRAINE R. SISSELMAN, ETC. v. ALEXANDER M. GOLDFINGER, JR., ET AL.

February 27, 1987.

Petition for certification denied. (See 209 *N.J.Super.*25)
# Sitemap

## November 29, 2010

- Home
- Sitemap
- 2010
- 11
- November 29, 2010

            - Dark Dune Fields of Proctor Crater, Mars
            - Enceladus Flyby – Nov. 30, 2010
CERTIFICATION  Re:       Morgan Stanley Bank of
America Merrill Lynch Trust 2014-C18, Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2014-C18(the “Transaction”),
issued pursuant to the Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of September 1, 2014 (the “Pooling and Servicing Agreement”),
executed in connection with the Transaction (capitalized terms used but not defined herein have the meanings set forth in the Pooling
and Servicing Agreement).  
  I, Jane Lam, certify that:  1.     I
have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this
report on Form 10-K of Morgan Stanley Bank of America Merrill Lynch Trust 2014-C18 (the “Exchange Act periodic reports”);  2.     Based
on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do 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 report;  3.     Based
on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and other information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period
covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;  4.     Based
on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statement(s) required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as
disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicer(s) have fulfilled their obligations under the servicing agreement(s)
in all material respects; and  5.     All
of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports
on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included in this report in accordance
with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except
as otherwise disclosed in this report. Any material instances of noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in
this report on Form 10-K.  In giving the certifications above, I have
reasonably relied on information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties:  ●U.S. Bank National Association, as Trustee ●U.S. Bank National Association, as Certificate Administrator ●U.S. Bank National Association, as Custodian ●Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as Master Servicer ●Rialto Capital Advisors, LLC, as Special Servicer ●Park Bridge Lender Services LLC, as Operating Advisor  
 
  ●CoreLogic Solutions, LLC, as Servicing Function Participant ●Berkadia Commercial Mortgage LLC, as Servicing Function Participant  2
 
  Date: August 2, 2023  By
    /s/ Jane LamName: Jane Lam
Title: President  SOX Certification – MSBAM 2014-C18
EXHIBIT 11


                           IPI, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
              STATEMENT REGARDING COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE
                    (In Thousands, Except Per Share Amounts)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                 Three Months Ended       Nine Months Ended
                                                                     August 31,              August 31,
                                                               ----------------------------------------------
                                                                  2001        2000        2001        2000
                                                               ----------------------------------------------
<S>                                                             <C>         <C>         <C>         <C>
Net Income                                                      $  5,359    $    151    $  9,618    $    872
                                                                ========    ========    ========    ========

Weighted average number of issued shares outstanding               4,859       4,859       4,859       4,843
                                                                ========    ========    ========    ========

Shares used in computation of basic earnings per
     common stock                                                  4,859       4,859       4,859       4,843
                                                                ========    ========    ========    ========

Dilutive effect of outstanding stock options and stock
     warrants after application of treasury stock method               0           0           0           0
                                                                --------    --------    --------    --------

Common and common equivalent shares outstanding-diluted            4,859       4,859       4,859       4,843
                                                                ========    ========    ========    ========

Basic and diluted earnings per common share                     $   1.10    $    .03    $   1.98    $    .18
                                                                ========    ========    ========    ========
</TABLE>


                                       12
**EXHIBIT 32.1**



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Annual Report of Kibush Capital Corporation, (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the year ended September 30, 2015, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "report"), I, Warren Sheppard, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 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 this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------







|Dated this 13th day of January, 2016. | By: | */s/ WARREN SHEPPARD*   | 
|------------------------------------- | --- | ----------------------- | 
|                                      |     | WARREN SHEPPARD         | 
|                                      |     | Chief Executive Officer |
585 A.2d 407

#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. RICHARD KUKLINSKI.

October 30, 1990.

Petition for certification denied.
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. GREGORY WALLACE.

March 10, 1987.

Petition for certification denied.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

IN RE: FORTIETH STATEWIDE

INVESTIGATING GRAND JURY

PETITION OF: J.D. :

:

:

:

: No. 93 WM 2018

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW

, this 14th day of December , 2018, in consideration of the Petition for

Review, the temporary redaction of Petitioner’s name and other identifying information

from Report 1 of the Fortieth Statewide Investigating Grand Jury is made permanent. See

In re Fortieth Statewide Investigating Grand Jury , 190 A.3d 560 (Pa. 2018); In re Fortieth

Statewide Investigating Grand Jury , 2018 WL _________ (Pa. Dec. 3, 2018).

The Application to File under Seal is GRANTED. The Motion to Unseal and the

Application to Lift Stay are DENIED. The Applicati on for Stay is DISMISSED AS MOOT.

Jurisdiction is relinquished.

The instant order is unsealed.
This decision of the New Mexico Court of Appeals was not selected for publication in 

the New Mexico Appellate Reports. Refer to Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the 

citation of unpublished decisions. Electronic decisions may contain computergenerated errors or other deviations from the official version filed by the Court of 

Appeals.

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO

No. A-1-CA-41353

RUBEL ROMERO,

Petitioner-Appellant,

v.

AMBER GARCIA,

Respondent-Appellee.

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF SANTA FE COUNTY

Matthew J. Wilson, District Court Judge

Rubel Romero

Santa Fe, NM

Pro Se Appellant

Sheri A. Raphaelson

Española, NM

for Appellee

MEMORANDUM OPINION

HANISEE, Judge.

{1} Summary affirmance was proposed for the reasons stated in the notice of 

proposed summary disposition. No memorandum opposing summary affirmance has 

been filed and the time for doing so has expired. AFFIRMED.

{2} IT IS SO ORDERED.

J. MILES HANISEE, Judge

WE CONCUR:
KRISTINA BOGARDUS, Judge

ZACHARY A. IVES, Judge
usbank(logo)



Global Corporate
Trust

190 S. LaSalle
Street, 7th Floor

MK-IL-SL7C

Chicago, IL 60603



usbank.com



Annual Statement of Compliance

Morgan Stanley Bank of America Merrill Lynch
Trust 2014-C18



VIA: EMAIL



Morgan Stanley Capital I
Inc.

1585 Broadway

New York, New York 10036

Attention: Stephen Holmes

stephen.holmes@morganstanley.com



| | Re: | Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of September 1, 2014 (the “Agreement”) between
Morgan Stanley Capital I Inc., as Depositor, Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as the Master Servicer, Rialto Capital Advisors,
LLC, as the Special Servicer, Park Bridge Lender Services LLC, as the Trust Advisor, U.S. Bank National Association, as the Trustee,
Certificate Administrator, Certificate Registrar, Authenticating Agent and Custodian.
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I, Michael Farrell, a Senior
Vice President of U.S. Bank National Association, as Custodian, as a certifying servicer hereby certify that:



(1) A review of the activities
of the Custodian during the preceding calendar year (the “Reporting Period”) and of the performance of the Custodian
under the Agreement has been made under my supervision; and



(2) To the best of my knowledge,
based on such review, the Custodian has fulfilled all its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout such
Reporting Period.



Capitalized terms used
but not defined herein have the meanings set forth in the Agreement.



Date: March 1, 2019



U.S. Bank National Association, as Custodian





|By: | /s/ Michael Farrell                   | 
|--- | ------------------------------------- | 
|    | Michael Farrell Senior Vice President |
StHealth Capital Investment Corp. 10-K



EXHIBIT
32.1



Certification
of Principal Executive Officer

Pursuant
to U.S.C. Section 1350

As
Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



Pursuant
to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States
Code), the undersigned officer of CompanyName a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), does hereby certify, to such
officer’s knowledge, that:



The
Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2018 of the Company (the “Form 10-K”) fully complies
with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in the Form
10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|Date: August 27, 2019 |    
|--------------------- | ---
|                      | By:
|                      |