alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### **CHAPTER 845—RECALL TO ACTIVE DUTY**

Sec.
8383.
Retired members: grade.
8384.
Promotion of retired members to higher enlisted grades: retention of grade upon release from active duty.
8385.
Members of the Fleet Reserve and Fleet Marine Corps Reserve: authority to recall.
8386.
Members of the Fleet Reserve and Fleet Marine Corps Reserve: release from active duty.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

A prior chapter 845, consisting of sections 8571 to 8583, related to rank and command within the Air Force, prior to renumbering as chapter 925 of this title.

#### Amendments

**2018**—Pub. L. 115–232, div. A, title VIII, §807(e)(2)(A), (f)(1), Aug. 13, 2018, 132 Stat. 1837, 1838, redesignated chapter 575 of this title as this chapter and items 6483 to 6486 as 8383 to 8386, respectively.

**1984**—Pub. L. 98–525, title V, §533(f)(2), Oct. 19, 1984, 98 Stat. 2528, struck out item 6482 "Retired enlisted members of the Regular Navy and Regular Marine Corps: authority to recall."

**1980**—Pub. L. 96–513, title V, §503(51), Dec. 12, 1980, 94 Stat. 2915, struck out items 6481 "Retired officers of the Regular Navy and Regular Marine Corps: authority to recall", 6487 "Retired rear admirals: retired pay after two years of active duty", and 6488 "Wartime appointments or promotions: retention of grade upon release from active duty".
#### § 1000.274 How long does the Federal government have to process a FTCA claim after the claim is received by the Federal agency, before a lawsuit may be filed?

The Federal government has 6 months to process a FTCA claim after the claim is received by the Federal agency, before a lawsuit may be filed.
#### § 115.619 If the BIA decides that the restriction on your IIM account will be continued after your hearing, do you have the right to appeal that decision?

Yes, if the BIA decides after your hearing to continue the restriction on your IIM account, you or your guardian, as applicable, have the right to appeal the decision under the procedures proscribed in § 115.107.
EXHIBIT 34.4 

**Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

To the Board of Managers andMember of Grandbridge Real Estate Capital LLC: 

We have examined management’s assertion, included in the accompanying “Report onAssessment of Compliance with Regulation AB Servicing Criteria,” that Grandbridge Real Estate Capital LLC (the Company) complied with the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of the Securities and Exchange Commission’sRegulation AB for all asset-backed transactions securitized on or after March 1, 2006 through December 31, 2011 (the Platform), as of December 31, 2011 and for the year then ended, excluding criteria 1122(d)(1)(iii), 1122(d)(3)(i),1122(d)(3)(ii), 1122(d)(3)(iii), 1122(d)(3)(iv), 1122(d)(4)(vii) and 1122 (d)(4)(xv) which the Company has determined are not applicable to the activities performed by them with respect to the servicing platform. Management’s assertion containsa listing (Exhibit A) which identifies the individual asset-backed transactions and securities defined by management as constituting the Platform. Management is responsible for the Company’s compliance with the servicing criteria. Ourresponsibility is to express an opinion on management’s assertion based on our examination. 

Our examination was conducted in accordancewith attestation standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) and, accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Company’s compliance with the applicable servicing criteria and performingsuch other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. Our examination included testing of selected asset-backed transactions and securities that comprise the Platform, testing of selected servicing activities related to thePlatform, and determining whether the Company processed those selected transactions and performed those selected activities in compliance with the applicable servicing criteria. Our procedures were limited to the selected transactions and servicingactivities performed by the Company during the period covered by this report. Our procedures were not designed to detect noncompliance arising from errors that may have occurred prior to or subsequent to our tests that may have affected the balancesor amounts calculated or reported by the Company during the period covered by this report. We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our examination does not provide a legal determination on the Company’scompliance with the servicing criteria. 

In our opinion, management’s assertion that the Company complied with the aforementionedapplicable servicing criteria as of and for the year ended December 31, 2011 for the Platform is fairly stated, in all material respects. 

/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP 

February 10, 2012
EXHIBIT 35.6

U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION,

AS CUSTODIAN

1123 CERTIFICATION

Re: CFCRE
Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series 2011-C2

Pursuant to the pooling and servicing agreement, the undersigned officer, to
the best of his knowledge hereby certifies to the following obligations as set forth in Item 1123 of Regulation AB applicable to it:



| | (A) | A review of such partys activities during the preceding calendar year or portion thereof and of such partys performance under this Agreement, or such other
applicable agreement in the case of a Servicing Function Participant, has been made under such officers supervision and,
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (B) | To the best of such officers knowledge, based on such review, such party has fulfilled all its obligations under this Agreement, in all material respects
throughout such year or portion thereof.
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

U.S. Bank National Association,

as Custodian

Name: Michael Farrell

Title: Senior Vice President

Date: March 6, 2013
¿Has

 ESCUCHADO 

 algo sobre...?

Estafas de 

impostores del IRS

Estas estafas funcionan así:

Recibes una llamada de alguien que dice que trabaja en el IRS. Te dice que 

adeudas impuestos atrasados. Te amenaza con demandarte, arrestarte, 

deportarte o revocarte tu licencia de conducir si no pagas inmediatamente. 

La persona que te llama te dice que coloques dinero en una tarjeta de 

débito pre-pagada y que le digas los números de la tarjeta.

Esta persona podría saber una parte o todo tu número de Seguro Social. Y 

tu aparato de identificación de llamadas podría indicar el código de área de 

Washington, DC. ¿Pero realmente te están llamando de parte del IRS?

No, el auténtico IRS no te pedirá que pagues con tarjetas de débito prepagadas ni a través de transferencias de dinero. Tampoco te pedirá el número 

de una tarjeta de crédito por teléfono. Y cuando el IRS necesita comunicarse 

con la gente por impuestos impagos, lo hace por correo postal, y no por 

teléfono. Y los aparatos de identificación de llamadas se pueden manipular.

Esto es lo que puedes hacer:

1. Para. No hagas transferencias de dinero ni pagues con una tarjeta de 

débito pre-pagada. Una vez que envías el dinero, adiós, desapareció. Si 

tienes preguntas sobre impuestos, visita irs.gov o llama al 800-829-1040.

2. Dale esta información a un amigo. Tal vez tú no hayas recibido una de 

estas llamadas, pero es probable que conozcas alguien que sí la haya 

recibido.
¡Pásalo! ¿Quieres saber más? Suscríbete para recibir 

alertas de fraude en ftc.gov/suscripciones.

Comisión Federal de Comercio | ftc.gov/pasalo

Por favor, reporta las estafas.

Si detectas una estafa, por favor repórtala a la 

Comisión Federal de Comercio (FTC).

•	 Comunícate con la FTC llamando al 1-877-FTCHELP (1-877-382-4357) o TTY 1-866-653-4261

•	 En internet: ftc.gov/queja

Tu queja puede ayudar a proteger a otra gente. 

Al presentar una queja, tú puedes ayudar a 

los investigadores de la FTC a identificar a los 

impostores y frenarlos antes de que logren sacarle 

el dinero, que tanto cuesta ganar, a otra persona. 

Esto, realmente, hace la diferencia.
_____________ No. 96-1094SI

_____________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the Southern v. * District of Iowa. * Robert Clyde Hoskins, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellant. *

_____________ Submitted: May 14, 1996 Filed: May 22, 1996

_____________ Before McMILLIAN, FAGG, and LOKEN, Circuit Judges.

_____________ PER CURIAM.
Aft er committing a series of restaurant robberies, Robert Clyd e Hos kins was charged with conspiring to commit robberies affectin g interstate commerce in violation of the Hobbs Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1951 (1994)
. Hoskins entered a conditional plea of guilty to the charge and appealed. Relying on United States v. Lopez , 115 S. Ct. 1624 (1995), Hoskins contend s the district court improperly denied his motion to dismiss. Hoskins argue s that his actions did not violate the Hobbs Act b ecause the statute was not meant to encompass the robbery of local businesses. Hoskins's argument, however, is foreclosed by our recent holding in United States v. Farmer , 73 F.3d 836, 843 (8th Cir. 1996). Likewise, Hoskins's argument that the super sedingindictment fails to allege a violation of the Hobbs Act i s for eclosedby our contrary holding in Farmer , id. at 843-44. We thu s affirm the district court. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

### -2- A true copy.

Attest:
CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
-80 -79 -78 -77 -76 -75 -74

38 39 40 41



### ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲



### ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ 500 1000 1500 500 18 12 06 00 08/07 

### NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL 

## Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 07 Aug 07

EDAS Meteorological DataSource★at 38.90 N 76.65 WMeters AGL
§ 1200.40 How will the Department provide technical assistance for tribes? ( a ) We will provide direct or contract technical assistance, in accordance with appropriations availability to tribes for developing, implementing, and managing Indian trust fund investment plans. We will ensure that our legal, financial and other expertise is made fully available to advise tribes in developing, implementing, and managing investment plans.
( b ) We may award grants to tribes for developing and implementing plans for investing Indian tribal trust funds.
( c ) Tribes may also obtain technical assistance on their own.
**Exhibit13.1**

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED**

**PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEYACT OF 2002**

Theundersigned, who is carrying out the functions of chief executive officer forBrookfield Renewable Energy Partners L.P. (the “Partnership”) pursuant to anAmended and Restated Master Services Agreement, dated January 20, 2014, by andamong Brookfield Asset Management Inc., the Partnership, Brookfield RenewableEnergy L.P. and others, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, asadopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that,to his knowledge, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on thedate hereof, (i) the annual report of the Partnership on Form 20-F for thefiscal year ended December 31, 2013 (the “Annual Report”) fully complieswith the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities ExchangeAct of 1934, as amended, and (ii) the information contained in the AnnualReport fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition andresults of operations of the Partnership. 

Dated: March 17, 2014 

 

|   | /s/ Richard Legault                     |
|--------|-----------------------------------------|
|   | Richard  Legault                        |
|   | Chief  Executive Officer of its Service |
|   | Provider, BRP Energy Group L.P.         |
|   |                                    |

 

- 1 -*** ***

----
#### E. L. KLINGSTEIN, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.

No. 6893.

United States Court of Appeals Fourth Circuit.

Argued Oct. 8, 1954.

Decided Oct. 8, 1954.

Jacob P. Lefkowitz, New York City, in support of motion.

James R. Moore, Asst. U. S. Atty., Richmond, Va., in opposition.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is a motion to admit to bail pending appeal a person who has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment on a plea of nolo contendere to a charge of fraudulent income tax evasion. Appellant complains because the sentencing judge had before him a presentence investigation report which appellant contends to be unfair. We have examined the report of which appellant complains and find that the criticisms made of it are entirely unfair and unwarranted, and while it contains many matters unfavorable to appellant it also contains many favorable matters, and the report does not sustain the charge of appellant that the probation officer was prejudiced against him on account of race. The fact that the report was before the sentencing judge furnishes no ground for the relief which appellant asks. We have examined also the proceedings had at the time of sentence and find no ground for the contention that appellant was denied due process or that the judge refused to listen to matters urged in defense or mitigation of punishment. On the contrary it appears that the judge gave appellant full opportunity to be heard and to present witnesses in his behalf and listened for several hours to his counsel and to witnesses offered in his behalf. The showing made on the motion before us does not justify admission to bail pending appeal.

Motion denied.
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14

- 40150 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.
CHADRIC DEW AYNE LUPER, also known as Lil

- G , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 4:02

- CR

- 88

Before STEWART, Chief Judge, and ELROD and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Chadric Dewayne Luper appeals the district court’s finding that he violated the terms of his supervised release by assaulting a public servant. While h e concedes that, following his 2002 drug conviction, he violated the terms of his supervised release by being convicted of driving while intoxicated, he notes that t he district court’s finding that he assaulted a public servant

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances se t forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED December 22, 2014 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 14-40150 Document: 00512879231 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/22/2014No. 14

- 40150

resulted in a higher guidelines range

. See U.S.S.G. §§ 7B1.1(a)(1) and 7B1.4(a)

. In that regard, he contends that the testimony presented by the Government to show that he assaulted a public servant was not credible. We review a district court’s decision to revoke supervise d release for abuse of discretion. United States v. Spraglin , 418 F.3d 479, 480 (5th Cir. 2005). We must defer to the district court’s credibility determinations. See United States v. Goncalves , 613 F.3d 601, 609 (5th Cir. 2010). “It is not this Court’ s function to pass on a district court’s determination regarding the credibility of the witness.” United States v. Alaniz

- Alaniz , 38 F.3d 788, 791 (5th Cir. 1994)

. Nevertheless, t his court “may find testimony to be ‘incredible as a matter of law,’ if the witness testifies to facts that he ‘physically could not have observed or events that could not have occurred under the laws of nature.’” Id. The magistrate judge (MJ) held a hearing to determine whether to revoke Luper’s supervised release . After li stening to the testimony of four police officers as well as the testimony of Luper and another witness in support of Luper, the MJ found that Luper assaulted one of the police officers, and the district court adopted the MJ’s finding . We must defer to the district court’s determinati on that the officers’ testimony, which was not “incredible as a matter of law,” was credible. See Alaniz

- Alaniz , 38 F.3d at 791. The judgment is AFFIRMED

.

2 Case: 14-40150 Document: 00512879231 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/22/2014
#### Willie Hodge v. The State.

No. 22678.

Delivered December 15, 1943.

Rehearing Denied January 26, 1944.

The opinion states the case.

*Percy Woodard,*of Marshall, for appellant.

*Spurgeon E. Bell,*State’s Attorney, of Austin, for the State.

HAWKINS, Presiding Judge.

Conviction is for possessing for the purpose of sale intoxicating liquor in dry territory; punishment assessed being a fine of $500.00.

*572Appellant entered his plea of guilty, with the result indicated, hence there is no statement of facts upon the original trial. After the fine was entered against him appellant secured a lawyer, and in a motion for new trial various grounds therefor are alleged. The trial judge heard evidence upon the motion and appellant very frankly admitted that the only thing that “upset” him was the amount of the fine. The trial judge testified upon the hearing of the motion as to the circumstances under which the plea of guilty was entered, and as to the warning given, etc.

We see no reason for disturbing the judgment, and the same is affirmed.

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING.

CRAVES, Judge.

We can but reiterate what was said in the original opinion herein. Appellant testified that he had in his possession at the time of his arrest 205 pints of home brew beer, 5 quarts of home brew beer, and 10 gallons thereof; that he knew it had alcohol in it. The testimony on the hearing of a motion for a new trial shows a warning of the trial court, an offer of a three days’ postponement if desired to employ an attorney, and a warning of a probably severe penalty. Nevertheless, appellant admitted his guilt, and told the court how he processed his drink with sugar, malts, etc., and again evidenced his desire to plead guilty. Again at such hearing he merely asserted his dissatisfaction with the amount of fine awarded him.

We see no reason to recede from our original opinion.

The motion will therefore be overruled.
#### In the Matter of the Application of the City of New York, Respondent, Relative to Acquiring Title, etc., for the Purpose of Opening Freeman Street Between Provost Street and Whale Creek Canal, in the Seventeenth Ward of the Borough of Brooklyn, the City of New York. Frank & Trounstein and Others, Appellants.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. Ho opinion. Hooker, Gaynor, Rich and Miller, JJ., concurred; Hirschberg, P. J., not voting.
ENCLOSURE (2)

EPA Analysis of Milton R. Young Station Unit 1, Compliance Assurance Monitoring Plan Test Data

Stack Opacity Compared to Total Particulate Emissions

Opacity lb/MMBTU lb/hr

3.1 0.0074 15.23

3.4 0.0071 16.24

5 0.0108 21.61

11.5 0.0301 66.83

11.6 0.0271 65.59

14.6 0.0442 112.96

14.8 0.042 101.49

15.1 0.0397 80.22

20.8 0.0665 163.68

mean 11.1 0.0305444 71.53889

std dev 6.092413 0.0199422 49.94652

.8*20 16 0.0459 110.4866

.9*20 18 0.0523 126.3838

y = 0.0032x - 0.0053

R2 = 0.9751

y = 7.9486x - 16.691

R2 = 0.9401

0.001

0.01

0.1

1

10

100

1000

0 5 10 15 20 25

lb/MMBTU lb/hr
### §1074h. Medical and dental care: medal of honor recipients; dependents

(a) Medal of Honor Recipients.—A former member of the armed forces who is a Medal of Honor recipient and who is not otherwise entitled to medical and dental benefits under this chapter may, upon request, be given medical and dental care provided by the administering Secretaries in the same manner as if entitled to retired pay.

(b) Immediate Dependents.—A person who is an immediate dependent of a Medal of Honor recipient and who is not otherwise entitled to medical and dental benefits under this chapter may, upon request, be given medical and dental care provided by the administering Secretaries in the same manner as if the Medal of Honor recipient were, or (if deceased) was at the time of death, entitled to retired pay.

(c) Definitions.—In this section:

(1) The term "Medal of Honor recipient" means a person who has been awarded a medal of honor under section 7271, 8291, or 9271 of this title or section 2732 of title 14.

(2) The term "immediate dependent" means a dependent described in subparagraph (A), (B), (C), or (D) of section 1072(2) of this title.

(Added Pub. L. 106–398, §1 [[div. A], title VII, §706(a)(1)], Oct. 30, 2000, 114 Stat. 1654, 1654A–175; amended Pub. L. 115–232, div. A, title VIII, §809(a), Aug. 13, 2018, 132 Stat. 1840; Pub. L. 118–31, div. A, title XVIII, §1801(a)(11), Dec. 22, 2023, 137 Stat. 684.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2023—Subsec. (c)(1). Pub. L. 118–31, §1801(a)(11), substituted "section 2732 of title 14" for "section 491 of title 14".

2018—Subsec. (c)(1). Pub. L. 115–232 substituted "section 7271, 8291, or 9271" for "section 3741, 6241, or 8741".

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date of 2018 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 115–232 effective Feb. 1, 2019, with provision for the coordination of amendments and special rule for certain redesignations, see section 800 of Pub. L. 115–232, set out as a note preceding section 3001 of this title.

#### Effective Date

Pub. L. 106–398, §1 [[div. A], title VII, §706(b)], Oct. 30, 2000, 114 Stat. 1654, 1654A–175, provided that: "Section 1074h of title 10, United States Code, shall apply with respect to medical and dental care provided on or after the date of the enactment of this Act [Oct. 30, 2000]."
EXHIBIT 32.1


           CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
                         RULE 13a-14(b) OR 15d-14(b) AND
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


         In connection  with the quarterly  report of Lexington  Resources  (the
"Company")  on Form 10-QSB for quarter  ended June 30,  2005,  as filed with the
Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  Grant R.
Atkins,  Chief  Executive  Officer  of the  Company,  and Vaughn  Barbon,  Chief
Financial  Officer of the Company,  each  certifies for the purpose of complying
with Rule  13a-14(b) or Rule  15d-14(b) of the  Securities  Exchange Act of 1934
(the  "Exchange  Act") and Section  1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United
States Code, that:

         1.    the Report fully complies with the  requirements of Section 13(a)
               or 15(d) of the Exchange Act; and
         2.    the information  contained in the Report fairly presents,  in all
               material  respects,   the  financial  condition  and  results  of
               operations of the Company.




Dated: August 13, 2005                    By:  /s/ Grant R. Atkins
                                          --------------------------------
                                          Grant R. Atkins, Chief Executive
                                          Officer


Dated: August 13, 2005                    By:  /s/ Vaughn Barbon
                                          --------------------------------
                                          Vaughn Barbon, Chief Financial
                                          Officer
#### § 115.707 Will the Secretary accept administrative fees for deposit into a trust account?

No. The Secretary will not accept administrative fees for deposit into a trust account because administrative fees are not trust funds. However, administrative fees may be deposited into a non-interest bearing, non-trust account with the BIA.