alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Howard HILDEBRANDT et al., Defendants-Appellants, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.

No. 4834.

United States Court of Appeals First Circuit.

Nov. 17, 1954.

Howard Hildebrandt, pro se.

Jacob S. Temkin, U. S. Atty., Providence, R. I. (Henry R. DiMascolo, Asst. U. S. Atty., Providence, R. I., on the brief), for appellee.

Before MAGRUDER, Chief Judge, and WOODBURY and HARTIGAN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from an order of the District Court of the United States for the District of Rhode Island entered February 12, 1954, denying and dismissing appellants’ “Amended Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence,” filed under Title 28 U.S.C. § 2255.

The order of the District Court is affirmed. See opinion of Judge Gibson, United States v. Hildebrandt, 113 F.Supp. 577, denying a substantially similar motion.
#### § 10.7 Where do I find help or receive technical assistance in complying with the policies and standards?

The BIA has a trained Detention Specialist on the staff of the Office of Law Enforcement Services, Albuquerque, New Mexico, who is available to conduct evaluations and provide technical assistance or guidance in all facets of Indian country detention programs.
#### Fred W. STAUDT, Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent.

No. 6875.

United States Court of Appeals Fourth Circuit.

Argued Oct. 21, 1954.

Decided Nov. 8, 1954.

Joseph H. Levinson, Benson, N. C., for petitioner.

Karl Schmeidler, Sp. Asst. to the Atty. Gen. (H. Brian Holland, Asst. Atty. Gen., Ellis N. Slack and Robert N. Anderson, Sp. Assts. to the Atty. Gen., on the brief), for respondent.

Before PARKER, Chief Judge, and SOPER and DOBIE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

 This is a petition to review a decision of the Tax Court which affirmed deficiency assessments of income taxes against taxpayer for the years 1942 and 1943 and the assessment of a fraud penalty for the year 1942. We agree with the Tax Court that taxpayer has not sustained the burden of overcoming the presumption of correctness which attaches to the Commissioner’s assessment of the deficiencies here questioned, and we agree, too, that the Commissioner has sufficiently established, not only that there was an understatement of income by taxpayer in his return for the year 1942, but also that this was intentional and fraudulent. Taxpayer, in defense, offers evidence as to the condition of his *611health and its effect upon his mental condition at the time of the filing of the return; but we are not convinced by it that taxpayer was not aware of what he was doing or of the fraud that it involved. The fact that he admits the filing of returns which grossly understated income for each of the eight years preceding 1942, when there was no question as to his mental condition, and that fraud penalties have been assessed for each of these years, goes far toward negativing any contention that he was unaware of the fraud that he was committing in connection with the filing of the 1942 return. His conduct there merely followed the pattern that he had established in preceding years. At all events, it is clear that we would not be justified in setting aside as clearly wrong the finding of the Tax Court with respect to this matter.

Affirmed.
o 

U.S.Department of GENERAL COUNSEL .l^OO New Jereey Avenue, S.E 

Transportation Washington, O.C. 20590 

Office of the Secretary 

of Transportation 

March 24, 2010 

MEMORANDUM TO DOCKET NO. FAA-2010-0109 g 

From: Robert Rivkin, General Counsel O "^^^^ 

X64702 ^ ^ 

Re: Federal Aviation Administration Notice of Petition for Waiver and Solicitation of 

Comments on Grant of Petition with Conditions 

On March 5, 2010, the follow^ing individuals participated in a telephone conversation on 

the above subject: Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood, DOT General Counsel 

Robert Rivkin, DOT Deputy Assistant Secretary for Aviation and International Affairs 

Christa Fornarotto, and Congressmen Steve Israel and Tim Bishop. 

During the conversation. Congressman Israel noted that he sent a letter in October 2009 

urging approval of the slot-sw^ap agreement so that Long Island's MacArthur Airport 

could have better service to Washington's Reagan National Airport. He said the show^ 

cause order would endanger that prospect, and that, if the deal does not go through. 

Southwest Airlines will continue its monopoly position from Islip. He urged the 

Secretary to allow the slots to be used, as Delta and USAirways proposed, to promote 

competition. 

Congressman Bishop agreed with Congressman Israel. He said that introducing 

competition would improve service for both carriers and might reduce cost. In 

response to the Secretary's statement on the value of public comments. Congressman 

Bishop said that they would send additional comments for the record.
(November 30, 2006)

#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Robert Krug, Appellant.

[824 NYS2d 499]

Crew III, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Rensselaer County (McGrath, J.), rendered December 19, 2002, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of attempted robbery in the first degree.

In June 2001, defendant entered the HSBC Bank on Second Avenue in the City of Troy, Rensselaer County, carrying a loaded firearm, and handed a teller a note asserting that he was in possession of a letter bomb and that he was prepared to take hostages unless given all the money in the bank’s vault. Defendant then left the bank without having obtained any money and was arrested soon thereafter. As a consequence, defendant was indicted and charged with two counts of attempted robbery in the first degree, one count of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree and one count of criminal use of a firearm in the second degree. Defendant ultimately pleaded guilty to one count of attempted robbery in the first degree in satisfaction of the charges then pending against him. Pursuant to a plea agreement, defendant was advised that the range of sentence was to be not less than 9 nor more than 12 years.

Following defendant’s plea, he failed to appear for sentencing and County Court issued a bench warrant. Thereafter, defendant was apprehended in California and returned to New York for sentencing. Defendant then was sentenced to 15 years imprisonment with five years postrelease supervision. Defendant now appeals.

*1120We reverse. The record makes plain that at no time during the plea allocution was defendant advised of the postrelease component of the determinate sentence that he was to receive and, thus, his plea must be vacated *(see People v Catu,*4 NY3d 242, 245 [2005]).

Cardona, EJ., Mercure, Peters and Spain, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, plea vacated and matter remitted to the County Court of Rensselaer County for further proceedings not inconsistent with this Court’s decision.
#### § 1000.62 Who can apply to OSG for grants to plan and negotiate non-BIA programs?

Any Tribe/Consortium that is in the applicant pool, or has been selected from the applicant pool or that has an existing AFA.
#### Anna Whitney, Respondent, v. Moses Garson, Appellant.

Judgment affirmed, with costs. All concurred.
#### § 1000.71 Can an applicant appeal a decision not to award a grant?

No, all decisions made by the Director to award or not to award a grant under this subpart are final for the Department.
Exhibit 35.6



|     |  |  |  |  |                          |                         
|---- |  |  |  |  | ------------------------ | ------------------------
|LOGO |  |  |  |  |                          | Corporate Trust Services
|     |  |  |  |  | 9062 Old Annapolis Road 
|     |  |  |  |  | Columbia, Maryland 21045
|     |  |  |  |  |                         

Citibank N.A.

17g-5 Information
Provider

ratingagencynotice@citi.com



|RE: | Annual Statement as to Compliance
|--- | ---------------------------------

The undersigned, a duly authorized officer of Wells Fargo
Bank, N.A. (Wells Fargo), as Master Servicer, hereby certifies as follows as of and for the year ending December 31, 2013 (the Reporting Period):

(a) a review of Wells Fargos activities during the Reporting Period and of its performance under the applicable servicing agreement
listed on Schedule A hereto (the Servicing Agreement) has been made under my supervision; and

(b) to the best of my
knowledge, based on such review, Wells Fargo has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Servicing Agreement in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period, except as described on Schedule B hereto.

February 27, 2014



|                      
|----------------------
|/s/ Kristen Ann Cronin
|Kristen Ann Cronin    
|Vice President        
|Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.



|                       |  |     
|---------------------- |  | ----
|Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. |  | LOGO



---

Schedule A

Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated January 1, 2012 for Sequoia Mortgage Trust 2012-1, by and among Sequoia Residential Funding, Inc., as Depositor,
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. as Master Servicer and Securities Administrator, and U.S. Bank National Association, as Trustee1.



|1 | The Pooling and Servicing Agreement was amended and restated effective January 1, 2014 to reflect the resignation of Wells Fargo as the Securities Administrator and Paying Agent (among other roles). See the Form
8-K filed on January 6, 2014 for additional information.
|- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



2



---

Schedule B

None



3
FEDERAL TRADE COMMMISSION

IdentityTheft.gov

 Data Breaches

What to know, What to do
Did you recently get a notice that says your personal 

information was exposed in a data breach? Did you lose 

your wallet? Or learn that an online account was hacked? 

Depending on what information was lost, there are steps 

you can take to help protect yourself from identity theft.

If your information has been exposed, visit 

IdentityTheft.gov/databreach for detailed 

advice about your particular situation. 

Depending on the type of information exposed, the next 

page tells you what to do right away. You’ll find these 

steps – and more – at IdentityTheft.gov/databreach.
What information was lost or exposed?

Social Security number

☐ If a company responsible for exposing your information offers you 

free credit monitoring, take advantage of it.

☐ Get your free credit reports from annualcreditreport.com. Check for 

any accounts or charges you don’t recognize.

☐ Consider placing a credit freeze. A credit freeze makes it harder for 

someone to open a new account in your name.

If you decide not to place a credit freeze, at least consider 

placing a fraud alert 

☐ Try to file your taxes early – before a scammer can. Tax identity theft 

happens when someone uses your Social Security number to get a 

tax refund or a job. 

Online login or password

☐ Log in to that account and change your password. If possible, also 

change your username

If you can’t log in, contact the company. Ask them how you can 

recover or shut down the account.

☐ If you use the same password anywhere else, change that, too.

☐ Is it a financial site, or is your credit card number stored? Check your 

account for any charges that you don’t recognize.

Bank account, credit, or debit card information

☐ If your bank information was exposed, contact your bank to close 

the account and open a new one.

☐ If credit or debit card information was exposed, contact your bank or 

credit card company to cancel your card and request a new one.
Other information

For guidance about other types of exposed information, 

visit IdentityTheft.gov/databreach. 

If your child’s information was exposed in a data breach, 

check out Child Identity Theft – What to know, What to do.

September 2016

FEDERAL TRADE COMMMISSION

IdentityTheft.gov
** **

**Exhibit 13.2**

 

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICERUNDER SECTION 906 OF THE

SARBANES-OXLEY ACT

 

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C.Section 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Can-fite BioPharma Ltd. (the“Company”) hereby certifies to such officer’s knowledge that:

 

(i)          theaccompanying Annual Report on Form 20-F of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2013 (the “Report”) fully complieswith the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

 

(ii)         theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operationsof the Company.

 

Dated: March 31, 2014

 

 

The foregoing certification is being furnishedsolely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, and is not being filed for the purposes of Section 18 of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference to any filing of the Company, whether madebefore or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.
#### John Parker *v.*George H. Fergus.

*Instruction—abstract principles.*It is not erroneous to refuse to instruct a jury that a conversation not reduced to writing, when detailed by a witness after the lapse of six years, is to be received with caution, for the reason, if such an instruction amounts to anything, it is a mere abstraction, which the court has the discretion to give or refuse.

Appeal from the Superior Court of Chicago; the Hon William A. Porter, Judge, presiding.

This was an action of assumpsit, brought in the court below by George H. Fergus against Parker and Fagan, for the recovery of a bill for printing, claimed to have been done for the defendants as partners. Parker denies the partnership, and on a former hearing of this case, at the April term, 1867, reported in 43 Ill. 437, it was held, under the evidence then *420appearing in the record, that Parker was not liable as a partner, and the judgment was reversed. On another trial below additional evidence was introduced, on the subject of the partnership, which is quite voluminous, and would serve no valuable purpose to be repeated here.

The plaintiff again recovered a judgment, from which Parker appeals.

Mr. A. D. Rich, for the appellant.

Mr. John Lyle King, for the appellee.

Mr. Chief Justice Breese

delivered the opinion of the Court:

This case was before us at a previous term, and is reported in 43 Ill. 437, and a new trial has been had. On this second trial there was proof supplying the defect found to exist on the first trial, and a verdict again rendered for the plaintiff. That the jury were justified, by the evidence, in finding that Parker was a partner of Fagan, we have no doubt. - The arrangement between them, though in the form of a lease, was, as between them, to certain intents and purposes a partnership. The evidence in this record satisfactorily establishes this, and fixes the liability of appellant, as such.

We see no error in refusing to instruct the jury, on behalf of appellant, that a conversation not reduced to writing, when detailed by a witness after the lapse of six years, is to be received with caution, for the reason, if the instruction amounts to anything, it is a mere abstraction, which the court might properly refuse. The court had a discretion to give or refuse the instruction.

Perceiving no error in the record the judgment is affirmed.

*Judgment affirmed.*
#### § 1187.10 How does an eligible applicant apply for a grant under the IBIP?

Each eligible applicant desiring a grant under the IBIP must submit to the Secretary an application as described in the solicitation posted on *www.grants.gov.*
_aiAL 144" -.41 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 

DA 21-0597 

U.S. BANK TRUST, N.A., as Trustee 

for LSF9 Master Participation Trust, 

Plaintiff and Appellee, 

v. 

NORMAN T. SOLLID, CAROLE SOLLID, 

a/k/a CAROLE M. SOLLID; 

Defendants and Appellants, 

BENEFICIAL FINANCIAL, INC., successor 

by merger to BENEFICIAL MONTANA, 

INC., d/b/a BENEFICIAL MORTGAGE CO.; 

CALIBER HOME LOANS, INC., successor 

by merger to THE CIT GROUP SLAES 

FINANCING, INC.; ACCOUNTS MANAGEMENT 

CORPORATION OF MONTANA, a Montana 

Corporation; MONTANA DEPARTMENT 

OF REVENUE, 

Defendants. 

FILED 

FEB O 1 2022 

Bowen Greenwood 

Clerk of Supreme Court 

State ot tVInntana 

ORDER 

Upon consideration of Appellants' motion for extension of time, and good cause 

appearing, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellants have until March 4, 2022, within which 

to file their opening brief. 

DATED this( day of February, 2022. 

For the Court, 

Chief Justice 

02/01/2022

Case Number: DA 21-0597
§ 1000.194 When must BIA raise the issue of limitation or reduction of services, contracts, or funding? ( a ) From the beginning of the negotiation period until the end of the first year of implementation of an AFA, BIA may raise the issue of limitation or reduction of services, contracts, or funding. If BIA and a participating Tribe/Consortium disagree over the residual information, a participating Tribe/Consortium may ask the Deputy Commissioner—Indian Affairs to reconsider residual levels for particular programs. [See § 1000.95(d)]
( b ) After the AFA is signed, BIA must raise the issue of any undetermined funding amounts within 30 days after the final funding level is determined. BIA may not raise this issue after this period has elapsed.
# 6H

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA DA 23
- 0363 LINO MANCEBO,

Plaintiff and Appellee,
v. THE LONE MOUNTAIN RANCH, INC.,

Defendant and Appellant. ORDER OF MEDIATOR APPOINTMENT

This appeal being subject to M.R.App.P. 7, and the parties having failed to jointly and timely select a mediator under M.R.App.P., 7(4),(c), IT IS ORDERED THAT **Margot Barg Ogburn,** whose name appears next on the list of attorneys desiring appointment as mediators for Money Judgments appeals which is maintained pursuant to M.R.App.P., 7(4)(e), is hereby appointed to conduct the mediation process required by M.R.App.P., 7(5), and IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the time periods set forth in M.R.App.P., 7(5)(d) shall run from the date of this order of appointment. A true copy of this order is being mailed to counsel of record for the parties, or to the parties individually if not represented by counsel, on the date hereof. DATED this July 24, 2023.

Bowen Greenwood , Clerk of the Supreme Court
c: John C. Heenan, Philip Bradford Condra, Rachel Hendershot Parkin, Margot Barg Ogburn 07/24/2023

Case Number: DA 23-0363
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 119 Agreed to House (ATH)]

106th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 119

 Designating minority membership on certain standing committees of the 
                                 House.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 17, 1999

Mr. Frost submitted the following resolution; which was considered and 
                               agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
 Designating minority membership on certain standing committees of the 
                                 House.

    Resolved, That the following named Member be, and is hereby, 
elected to the following standing committee of the House of 
Representatives:
    Committee on Government Reform: Ms. Schakowsky of Illinois.
                                 <all>
```
II

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 882

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

MARCH 3, 1999

Received

AN ACT

To nullify any reservation of funds during fiscal year 1999

for guaranteed loans under the Consolidated Farm and

Rural Development Act for qualified beginning farmers

or ranchers, and for other purposes.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

HR 882 RDS

1 SECTION 1. NULLIFICATION OF RESERVATION OF FUNDS

2 DURING FISCAL YEAR 1999 FOR GUARANTEED

3 LOANS UNDER THE CONSOLIDATED FARM

4 AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT ACT FOR QUALI5 FIED BEGINNING FARMERS OR RANCHERS.

6 Amounts shall be made available pursuant to section

7 346(b)(1)(D) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Devel8 opment Act for guaranteed loans, without regard to any

9 reservation under section 346(b)(2)(B) of such Act.

10 SEC. 2. QUALIFIED BEGINNING FARMERS AND RANCHERS

11 TO BE GIVEN PRIORITY IN MAKING GUARAN12 TEED LOANS UNDER THE CONSOLIDATED

13 FARM AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT ACT FROM

14 SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS FOR FIS15 CAL YEAR 1999.

16 In making guaranteed loans under the Consolidated

17 Farm and Rural Development Act from funds made avail18 able pursuant to any Act making supplemental appropria19 tions for fiscal year 1999, the Secretary of Agriculture

20 shall, to the extent practicable, give priority to making

21 such loans to qualified beginning farmers and ranchers (as

22 defined in section 343(a)(11) of such Act).

Passed the House of Representatives March 2,

1999.

Attest: JEFF TRANDAHL,

Clerk.
#### § 1200.2 Definitions.

As used in this part:

*Act* means the American Indian Trust Fund Management Reform Act of 1994 (Pub. L. 103-412, 108 Stat. 4239, 25 U.S.C. 4001).

*Agency Superintendent* means the official in charge of a Bureau of Indian Affairs Agency.

*Bureau* or *BIA* means the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Department of the Interior.

*Department* or *DOI* means the Department of the Interior.

*Fiduciary Trust Officer* means the designated OST official at the agency or regional office.

*General Counsel* means the attorney for the tribe.

*OST* means the Office of the Special Trustee for American Indians, Department of the Interior.

*Regional Director* means the Bureau of Indian Affairs official in charge of a Regional Office.

*Resolution* means the formal manner in which a tribal government expresses its legislative will.

*Secretary* means the Secretary of the Interior or his/her designee.

*Solicitor* means the Office of the Solicitor, Department of the Interior.

*Special Trustee* means the Special Trustee for American Indians appointed under title III of the Act.

*Tribal council* means the elected or appointed governing officials of any tribe which is recognized by the Secretary.

*Tribe* means any Indian tribe, band, nation, rancheria, pueblo, colony or community, including any Alaska Native village or regional or village corporation as defined or established pursuant to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act which is federally recognized by the U.S. Government for special programs and services provided by the Secretary to Indians because of their status as Indians. For this purpose, it also means two or more tribes joined for any purpose, the joint assets of which include funds held in trust by the Secretary. An example of this would be the KCA (consisting of the Kiowa, Comanche and Apache Tribes).

*Us* means the Department of the Interior, i.e., the Secretary of the Interior or his/her designee.

*We* means the Department of the Interior, i.e., the Secretary of the Interior or his/her designee.

[61 FR 67932, Dec. 26, 1996, as amended at 71 FR 15339, Mar. 28, 2006]