alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 18.2 Prohibition on combined category documents. ( a ) The Director of the Federal Register will not accept a document for filing and publication if it combines material that must appear under more than one category in the Federal Register. For example, a document may not contain both rulemaking and notice of proposed rulemaking material.
( b ) Where two related documents are to be published in the same Federal Register issue, the agency may insert a cross-reference in each document.
[54 FR 9680, Mar. 7, 1989]
§ 166.228 How will the BIA provide notice if Indian land is removed from an existing permit? If the reason for removal is: ( a ) Termination of trust status. We will notify the parties to the permit in writing within 30 days. The removal will be effective on the next anniversary date of the permit.
( b ) A request from Indian landowners or the permittee, or our determination. We will notify the parties to the permit in writing within 30 days of such request. The removal will be effective immediately if all sureties, Indian landowners, and permittee agree. Otherwise, the removal will be effective upon the next anniversary date of the permit. If our written notice is within 180 days of the anniversary date of the permit, the removal of Indian land will be effective 180 days after the written notice.
( c ) Tribal allocation under § 166.218 of this part. We will notify the parties to the permit in writing within 180 days of such action. The removal of tribal land will be effective on the next anniversary date of the permit. If our written notice is within 180 days of the anniversary date of the permit, the removal of Indian land will be effective 180 days after the written notice.
### §233a. Annual report on force structure changes exhibit for the defense budget

(a) Annual Report.—Not later than 10 days after the date on which the budget of the President for a fiscal year is submitted to Congress pursuant to section 1105 of title 31, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to the congressional defense committees a report on any major weapon systems proposed to be divested, re-prioritized, or retired in such budget.

(b) Contents.—Each report under subsection (a) shall include the following:

(1) Identification of each major weapon system the Secretary of Defense proposes to divest, re-prioritize, or retire in the period of five fiscal years following the date of the report.

(2) Budget line-item details related to each major weapon system identified under paragraph (1).

(3) For each proposed divestment, re-prioritization, or retirement, an explanation of—

(A) the timeline for the divestment, re-prioritization, or retirement, including any factors that may affect such timelines positively or negatively;

(B) any cost savings associated with the divestment, re-prioritization, or retirement;

(C) the rationale for the divestment, re-prioritization, or retirement, including a qualitative description of the risk associated with the divestment, re-prioritization, or retirement based on the most recent National Defense Strategy (as of the date of the report);

(D) any critical dependencies with other program efforts that might affect the timeline for such divestment, reprioritization, or retirement;

(E) the expected disposition of the weapon system after divestment, re-prioritization or retirement; and

(F) identification of the system or systems that are expected to satisfy the military requirements that were fulfilled by the weapon system once the divestment, re-prioritization, or retirement of that weapon system is completed.

(c) Relationship to Other Reports.—The Secretary of Defense shall ensure that the report required under subsection (a) is deconflicted with the report required under section 222e of this title.

(d) Major Weapon System Defined.—In this section, the term "major weapon system" has the meaning given that term in section 3455(f) of this title.

(Added Pub. L. 118–31, div. A, title I, §151, Dec. 22, 2023, 137 Stat. 179.)
EXHIBIT 35.3

CCRE Commercial Mortgage Securities, L.P.

110 East 59th Street

New York, New York 10022

Attention: Anthony
Orso

Officers Certificate

ANNUAL STATEMENT AS TO COMPLIANCE

For the period January 1, 2011 Through
December 31, 2011

Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series 2011-C2

CCRE Commercial Mortgage Securities, L.P., Depositor

Bank of America, National Association, Master Servicer

LNR Partners, LLC, Special Servicer

TriMont Real Estate Advisors, Inc., Operating Advisor

Citibank, N.A., Certificate Administrator and Trustee

Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated
December 11, 2011

Pursuant to Section 10.09 of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement governing the above referenced transaction:

As authorized Officer of TriMont Real Estate Advisors, Inc. as Certifying Servicer with respect to the preceding calendar period a review of
the activities of the Certifying Servicer during the period and its performance under this Agreement has been made under such Officers supervision and to the best of such Officers knowledge, based on such review, the Certifying Servicer
has fulfilled its obligations under this Agreement in all material respects throughout such period.

TriMont Real Estate Advisors, Inc.



|       |  |                    
|------ |  | -------------------
|       | 
|By:    |  | /s/ Ernest J. Davis
|       |  | Ernest J. Davis    
|Title: |  | Managing Director  
|Date:  |  | March 12, 2012
# C_2015230EN.01012201.xml

| 14.7.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 230/122 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.7.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 230/122

---

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on common rules for imports (codification)’

(COM(2014) 322 final — 2014/0167 (COD))

(2015/C 230/23)

On 15 September 2014 the European Parliament decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee, under Article 304 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, on the

‘Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on common rules for exports (codification)’

‘Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on common rules for exports (codification)’

COM(2014) 322 final — 2014/0167 (COD).

Since the Committee unreservedly endorses the proposal and feels that it requires no comment on its part, it decided, at its 503rd plenary session of 10 and 11 December 2014 (meeting of 10 December 2014), by 147 votes to 1 with 4 abstentions, to issue an opinion endorsing the proposed text.

Brussels, 10 December 2014.

The President of the European Economic and Social Committee

Henri MALOSSE

---
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 (the Agreement), dated as of December 1, 2011, between CCRE Commercial Mortgage Securities,
L.P., as Depositor, KeyBank National Association, as successor Master Servicer, LNR Partners, LLC, as Special Servicer, TriMont Real Estate Advisors, Inc., as Operating Advisor, Citibank, N.A., as Certificate Administrator and U.S. Bank National
Association as successor Trustee to Citibank, N.A. (the Predecessor Trustee)1, the following:

1. A review of the Companys activities as Certificate Administrator, Custodian, and Predecessor Trustee during the reporting period
ending December 31, 2016 and of its performance under the Agreement has been made under my supervision.

2. To the best of my
knowledge, based on such review, the Company has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout the reporting period ending December 31, 2016.

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, 2017



Citibank, N.A.By:

/s/ Karen MontbachName:

Karen MontbachTitle:

Managing Director




|1 | On February 28, 2013, Citibank, N.A., as predecessor trustee, U.S. Bank National Association (U.S. Bank), as successor trustee, and Bank of America, National Association, as master servicer, entered
into an Instrument of Appointment and Acceptance of Successor Trustee, pursuant to which U.S. Bank was appointed successor trustee of the issuing entity. See the Current Report on Form 8-K filed on March 5, 2013 for additional information.
|- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Honorable Anna Beth Merten 

County Auditor, Wailer County 

P. 0. Box 966 

Hempstead, Texas 77445 

Opinion No. H- 77 

Re: Is a Road and Bridge 

Warrant Coupon dated 

April 10, 1939, a valid 

claim and should it be 

Dear Ms. Merten: approved for payment? 

You have asked us if the .County Auditor of Waller County is obligated 

to pay a claim based upon a $50 coupon issued April 10, 1939, which became 

due of April 10, 1940. The coupon represented the interest due on a warrant 

which was a part of the Series 1939’Waller County Road and Bridge Warrants. 

The coupon is now 33 years past due. 

As early as 1881 the Texas Supreme Court held that the statute of 

limitation on a coupon begins to run from the date when the coupon is due. 

City of Galveston V. P. J. Loonie, 54 Tex. 517 (1881). TheCourt denied 

recovery on coupons which had been due over four years at the date of the 

institution of the suit. 

Article 5527, V. T. C. S. , governs the period of time during which 

an action on this coupon could have been brought. It reads: 

“There shall be commenced and prosecuted 

within four years after the cause of action shall 

have accrued, and not afterward, all actions or 

suits in court of the following description: 

“1. Actlms for debt where the indebtedness is evidenced by or founded upon 

any contract in writing. ” 

The right to recover on the coupon accrued on.April 10, 1940. Therefore, 

it is our opinion that the Office of the County Treasurer of Waller County is 

not ‘obligated by law to pay the bearer of the coupon when it is presented 

p. 352 
The Honorable Anna Beth Merten, page 2 (H-77) 

thrity-three years after its due date. Rockwall County v. Roberts County, 

128 S. W. 369 (Tex. 1910); Hidalgo County v. Jackson, 119 F. 2d 108 (CCA 5th, 

1941); Mullens v. Baily, 374 S. W. 2d 455 (Tex. Civ. App., Corpus Christi, 

1964); Davis v. Dennis, 448 S. W. 2d 495 (Tex. Civ.App., Tyler, 1969). 

If suit is instituted in the collection of the past due coupon and the 

statute of limitation is plead by Waller County, no recovery can be had. 

It should be noted however, that the defense of limitation may be waived, 

and should Waller County wish to acknowledge the claim it may do so. 

Article 5539, V. T. C. S. The right of a county to waive the statute of limitation is acknowledged in Falls County v. Mires, 218 S. W. 2d 491 (Tex. Civ. 

APP. 3 1949, err. ref’d. ); and in Hidalgo County, Texas v. Jackson, 119 F. 2d 

108, (CCA 5th, 1941). 

SUMMARY 

Wailer County may refuse to honor the coupon 

now 33 years past due because the claim is subject 

to the plea that is barred by the statute of limitation 

provisions of Article 5527, V. T. C.‘S. ) or it may 

acknowledge the claim and waive the limitation. 

Very truly yours, 

Attorney General of Texas 

APPRRVED: 

DAVID M. KENDALL, Chairman 

Opinion Committee 

p. 353
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Gilbert Colon, Appellant.

[824 NYS2d 429]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Rienzi, J.), rendered May 13, 2005, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a *693hearing, of that branch of the defendant’s motion which was to suppress physical evidence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, a parole officer’s question about contraband bore a substantially rational and reasonable relation to the parole officers’ duty with respect to the defendant, a parolee (see *People v Santos,*31 AD2d 508 [1969], *affd*25 NY2d 976 [1969], *cert denied*397 US 969 [1970]; *see also People v Huntley,*43 NY2d 175, 181 [1977]; *cf. People v Jackson,*46 NY2d 171, 174-175 [1978]). Accordingly, the search which followed his answer to that question was proper.

The defendant’s remaining contention is unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, is without merit. Florio, J.E, Krausman, Mastro and Covello, JJ., concur.
### §1125. Recognition for accomplishments: award of trophies

The Secretary of Defense may—

(1) award medals, trophies, badges, and similar devices to members, units, or agencies of an armed force under his jurisdiction for excellence in accomplishments or competitions related to that armed force; and

(2) provide badges or buttons in recognition of special service, good conduct, and discharge under conditions other than dishonorable.

(Added Pub. L. 89–529, §1(1), Aug. 11, 1966, 80 Stat. 339.)

#### **Executive Documents**

#### Ex. Ord. No. 11545. Defense Distinguished Service Medal

Ex. Ord. 11545, July 9, 1970, 35 F.R. 11161, as amended by Ex. Ord. No. 14085, §6, Oct. 3, 2022, 87 F.R. 60543, provided:

By virtue of the authority vested in me as President of the United States and as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States, it is ordered as follows:

Section 1. There is hereby established a Defense Distinguished Service Medal, with accompanying ribbons and appurtenances, for award by the Secretary of Defense to a member of the Armed Forces of the United States who performed exceptionally meritorious service in a duty of great responsibility with the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the Organization of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, a specified or unified command, a Defense agency, or such other joint activity as may be designated by the Secretary of Defense.

Sec. 2. The Defense Distinguished Service Medal and appurtenances thereto shall be of appropriate design approved by the Secretary of Defense and shall be awarded under such regulations as the Secretary shall prescribe. These regulations shall place the Defense Distinguished Service Medal in an order of precedence after the Medals of Honor and the Distinguished Service Crosses of the Armed Forces and before the Distinguished Service Medals of the Armed Forces.

Sec. 3. No more than one Defense Distinguished Service Medal shall be awarded to any one person, but for each succeeding exceptionally meritorious period of service justifying such an award, a suitable device may be awarded to be worn with that Medal as prescribed by appropriate regulations of the Department of Defense.

Sec. 4. The Defense Distinguished Service Medal or device may be awarded posthumously and, when so awarded, may be presented to such representative of the deceased as may be deemed appropriate by the Secretary of Defense.
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

U.S. Indo-Pacific CommandUSINDOPACOM

U.S. Indo-Pacific Command

Search

Search
Search

-  Home		 
-  Leadership    -  Commander         
  -  Deputy Commander         
  -  Chief of Staff         
  -  Senior Enlisted Leader 
-  About USINDOPACOM    -  History         
  -  USPACOM Area of Responsibility         
  -  USPACOM Previous Commanders         
  -  Women, Peace and Security 
-  Organization    -  Organization Chart 
-  Media    -  News      -  Spotlight 
  -  Photos         
  -  Speeches / Testimony         
  -  Freedom of Information Act      -  FOIA - Reading Room         
    -  Submit FOIA Request         
    -  Request Status         
    -  FOIA FAQS 
-  Resources    -  Travel Requirements         
  -  Useful Theater Information         
  -  FAQ         
  -  Useful Links 
-  Newcomers		 
-  Contact    -  Directory         
  -  Media Inquiries         
  -  Industry Engagements 
-  JTF - Red Hill		 
-  JTF-Micronesia		 

Home : Media : News : News Article View

# Citadel Pacific 2014 Enhances Security, Readiness on Guam Installations

By JoAnna DelfinJoint Region Marianas Public Affairs

                ASAN, Guam  –              

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT                

pacom

news

articles
#### § 170.126 Can roads be built in roadless and wild areas?

Under 25 CFR part 265, no roads can be built in an area designated as a roadless and wild area.
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 176 Engrossed in House (EH)]

                 In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

                                                          May 18, 1999.
Whereas in 1951 Linda Brown was a third-grader and an African-American who was 
        forced to endure hardships such as walking a mile through a railroad 
        switchyard to get to her black elementary school, even though a white 
        elementary school was only 7 blocks away;
Whereas the Reverend Oliver Brown, Linda Brown's father, was turned away when he 
        tried to register his daughter at the nearby white school, simply 
        because the little girl was black;
Whereas Thurgood Marshall, special counsel for the NAACP Legal Defense Fund and 
        a protege of Howard University Law Professor Charles Houston, 
        successfully argued that the ``separate but equal'' doctrine, 
        established by the Supreme Court in its Plessy v. Ferguson decision in 
        1896, was unconstitutional;
Whereas Chief Justice Earl Warren read aloud, from the Court's unanimous 
        decision: ``We come then to the question presented: Does segregation of 
        children in public schools solely on the basis of race, even though the 
        physical facilities and other `tangible' factors may be equal, deprive 
        the children of the minority group of equal educational opportunities? 
        We believe that it does * * *. We conclude that in the field of public 
        education the doctrine of `separate but equal' has no place. Separate 
        educational facilities are inherently unequal. Therefore, we hold that 
        the plaintiffs and others similarly situated for whom the actions have 
        been brought are, by reason of the segregation complained of, deprived 
        of the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth 
        Amendment'';
Whereas the Brown v. Board of Education decision struck a pivotal blow against 
        Jim Crow laws, as well as the dark forces of racism and segregation; and
Whereas the interaction of students of all races promotes better understanding 
        and the acceptance of racial differences: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
            (1) recognizes the historical significance of the Supreme Court's 
        unanimous decision in Brown v. Board of Education;
            (2) heralds this watershed in our shared history as a significant 
        advancement of the most basic American principles of freedom, justice, 
        and equality under the law; and
            (3) repudiates racial segregation as antithetical to the noble 
        ideals upon which this great Nation was founded, and reaffirms the 
        fundamental belief that we are all ``one Nation under God, 
        indivisible.''.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
§ 168.14 Livestock trespass. The owner of any livestock grazing in trespass on the Hopi Partitioned Lands Area is liable to a civil penalty of $1 per head per day for each animal in trespass, together with the replacement value of the forage consumed and a reasonable value for damages to property injured or destroyed. The Superintendent may take appropriate action to collect all such penalties and damages and seek injunctive relief when appropriate. All payments for such penalties and damages shall be credited to the Tribe. The following acts are prohibited: ( a ) The grazing upon or driving across any of the Hopi Partitioned Lands of any livestock without an approved grazing or crossing permit;
( b ) Allowing livestock to drift and graze on lands without an approved permit;
( c ) The grazing of livestock upon lands within an area closed to grazing of that class of livestock;
( d ) The grazing of livestock by permittees upon any land withdrawn from use for grazing purpose to protect it from damage, after the receipt of notice from the Area Director; and
( e ) Grazing livestock in excess of those numbers and kinds authorized on a livestock grazing permit approved by the Area Director.
MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-11-00265-CR

IN RE Joshua COCA

Original Mandamus Proceeding1

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

Rebecca Simmons, Justice

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Delivered and Filed: May 11, 2011

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED

On April 7, 2011, relator filed a petition for writ of mandamus, complaining of the trial 

court’s failure to rule on his pro se motion to reduce bond. However, counsel has been 

appointed to represent relator in the criminal proceeding pending in the trial court for which he is 

currently confined. A criminal defendant is not entitled to hybrid representation. See Robinson 

v. State, 240 S.W.3d 919, 922 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007); Patrick v. State, 906 S.W.2d 481, 498 

(Tex. Crim. App. 1995). A trial court has no legal duty to rule on pro se motions or petitions 

filed with regard to a criminal proceeding in which the defendant is represented by counsel. See

Robinson, 240 S.W.3d at 922. Consequently, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by 

 1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2009-CR-9772, styled State of Texas v. Joshua Coca, pending in the 144th 

Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Angus McGinty presiding. 
04-11-00265-CR

- 2 -

declining to rule on relator’s pro se motion filed in the criminal proceeding pending in the trial 

court. Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is denied. TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a).

PER CURIAM

DO NOT PUBLISH
STEAM ELECTRIC CBI REPLACEMENT PAGE EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0819

DCN: SE03804
THE FOLLOWING HAS BEEN REMOVED BECAUSE IT CONTAINS CONFIDE NTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION (CBI) PER 40 CFR PART 2, SUBPART B.
#### § 152.6 Issuance of patents in fee to non-Indians and Indians with whom a special relationship does not exist.

Whenever the Secretary determines that trust land, or any interest therein, has been acquired through inheritance or devise by a non-Indian, or by a person of Indian descent to whom the United States owes no trust responsibility, the Secretary may issue a patent in fee for the land or interest therein to such person without application.
#### Jennie De G. Monahan v. Louis De L. Ward.

Motion denied, without costs,, with leave to renew on the-decision of the motion at Special Term to open the default.
#### § 169.52 What is a service line agreement?

Service line agreements are agreements signed by a utility provider and landowners for the purpose of providing limited access to supply the owners (or authorized occupants or users) of one tract of tribal or individually owned Indian land with utilities for use by such owners (or occupants or users) on the premises.