alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 170.132 What Federal funds are available for a Tribe's transit program? Title 23 U.S.C. authorizes use of TTP funds for transit facilities as defined in this part. There are many additional sources of Federal funds for Tribal transit programs, including the Federal programs listed in this section. Note that each program has its own terms and conditions of assistance. For further information on these programs and their use for transit, contact the FTA Regional Transit Assistance Program at *www.nationalrtap.org .* Section 170.627 of this part identifies how these funds, if provided to the Tribe from a State or county, can be made available. ( a ) *Department of Transportation.* Formula Grants for Public Transportation on Indian Reservations under 49 U.S.C. 5311, Welfare-to-Work, Tribal Transportation Program, transportation and community and systems preservation, Federal transit capital improvement grants, public transportation for non-urbanized areas, capital assistance for elderly and disabilities transportation, education, and Even Start.
( b ) *Department of Agriculture.* Community facilities loans; rural development loans; business and industrial loans; rural enterprise grants; commerce, public works and economic development grants; and economic adjustment assistance.
( c ) *Department of Housing and Urban Development.* Community development block grants, supportive housing, Tribal housing loan guarantees, resident opportunity and support services.
( d ) *Department of Labor.* Indian employment and training, welfare-to-work grants.
( e ) *Department of Health and Human Services.* Programs for Indian elders, community service block grants, job opportunities for low-income individuals, Head Start (capital or operating), administration for Indian programs, Medicaid, HIV Care Grants, Healthy Start, and the Indian Health Service.
152 So.2d 136

#### William Burns PEADEN v. STATE of Alabama.

1 Div. 126.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

April 11, 1963.

William Burns Peaden, pro se.

Richmond M. Flowers, Atty. Gen., and Paul T. Gish, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

MERRILL, Justice.

This appeal is from a judgment denying an application for a writ of error coram nobis after hearing.

The defendant was tried and convicted of the offense of first degree murder and was sentenced to life imprisonment in the penitentiary on September 22, 1956. No motion for a ne.w trial was made and there was no appeal to this court.

The petition for writ of error coram nobis was filed in November, 1962, and the solicitor filed a motion to dismiss. The cause was heard in December, 1962, and the application was denied.

Petitioner asserts as error that he was denied adequate counsel. The record before us shows that qualified counsel of petitioner’s own choice represented him on *73his trial and a court appointed attorney represented him at his hearing in December, 1962.

The next charge is that the court accepted hearsay testimony. That this charge is frivolous is shown by petitioner’s sole argument — that his father was allowed to testify that he heard petitioner’s voice before the shooting but could not distinguish a single word that he said.

The third charge is that petitioner was denied the right to testify. The record does not support this charge.

The fourth charge — failure to furnish a transcript is, according to petitioner —“OUT.” We take that to mean he no longer insists on it.

The fifth charge is the trial court refused to grant a continuance of his trial as requested by his counsel. The matter of continuance in a criminal case is addressed to the trial court’s sound discretion, the exercise of which will not be disturbed unless clearly abused. Aaron v. State, 271 Ala. 70, 122 So.2d 360; Cook v. State, 269 Ala. 646, 115 So.2d 101; Walker v. State, 265 Ala. 233, 90 So.2d 221. No abuse of discretion is shown in the record before us.

The last contention is that “the court sent fourth an incorrect judgment entered that is not regular on its face.” The judgment is regular on its face, is correct and the lower court included a copy of the judgment in the decree denying the petition.

The judgment of the trial court is due to be affirmed because there is nothing in the record before us which even slightly indicates that the judgment is not correct. Edwards v. State, 274 Ala. 569, 150 So.2d 710.

Affirmed.

'.LIVINGSTON, C. J.,' and SIMPSON and HARWOOD, JJ., concur.
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

# USINDOPACOM Statement on DPRK Missile Launch

U.S. Indo-Pacific Command Public Affairs

We are aware of the DPRK’s ballistic missile launch, and we are consulting closely with our Allies and partners. While we have assessed that this event does not pose an immediate threat to U.S. personnel or territory, or to our allies, the missile launch highlights the destabilizing impact of the DPRK’s unlawful WMD and ballistic missile programs. The U.S. commitments to the defense of the Republic of Korea and Japan remain ironclad.

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

MIDDLE DISTRICT 

 

 Respondent 

 v. 

BET SHAVEI-TZION A/K/A BET SHAVEITZION, INTERNATIONAL AND/OR BET 

SHAVEI-TZIO, LTD., INTERNATIONAL, 

 Petitioner 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 475 MAL 2016 

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court 

ORDER 

PER CURIAM 

AND NOW, this 31st day of October, 2016, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

is DENIED. 

CADLES OF GRASSY MEADOWS, II , 

LLC, , SUBSTITUTED PLAINTIFF TO 

BROWN BARK I, L.P., ASSIGNEE OF 

SOVEREIGN BANK, SUCCESSOR BY 

MERGER TO MAIN STREET BANK,
(logo) pwc

 

 

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

 

To the Board of Directors and shareholders of CoreLogic, Inc.:

 

We have examined management’s assertion, included in the accompanying Report on Assessment of Compliance, that CoreLogic Commercial Real Estate Services, Inc. (the "Company"), an indirect subsidiary of CoreLogic, Inc. complied with the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of the Securities and Exchange Commission's Regulation AB for all loans for commercial mortgage loan outsourcing customers for which the Company served as the commercial tax service provider (the "Platform"), as of December 31, 2015 and for the year then ended, only including 1122(d)(1)(iv), 1122(d)(2)(ii), 1122(d)(2)(v), 1122(d)(2)(vi), 1122(d)(2)(vii), 1122(d)(4)(xi), 1122(d)(4)(xii) and 1122(d)(4)(xiii), which the Company has determined are applicable to the servicing activities performed by it with respect to the Platform. Management is responsible for the Company's compliance with the servicing criteria. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on management's assertion based on our examination.

 

Our examination was conducted in accordance with 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 performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. Our examination included testing of selected servicing activities related to the Platform, and determining whether the Company performed those selected activities in compliance with the applicable servicing criteria. Our procedures were limited to the selected servicing activities 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 balances or 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’s compliance with the servicing criteria.

 

In our opinion, management’s assertion that the Company complied with the aforementioned applicable servicing criteria as of and for the year ended December 31, 2015 for all loans for commercial mortgage loan outsourcing customers for which the Company served as the commercial tax service provider is fairly stated, in all material respects.

 

 

February 4, 2016

 

/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers

 

 

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, 2001 Ross Avenue, Suite 1800, Dallas, Texas 75201

T: (214) 999-1400, F: (214) 754-7991, www.pwc.com/us
```

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 191 (Monday, October 3, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 61133]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-25444]

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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice: 7626]

Waiver of Restriction on Assistance to the Central Government of 
Guinea-Bissau

    Pursuant to Section 7086(c)(2) of the Department of State, Foreign 
Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2010 (Div. F, Pub. 
L. 111-117), as carried forward by the Full-Year Continuing 
Appropriations Act, 2011 (Div. B, Pub. L. 112-10) (``the Act''), and 
Department of State Delegation of Authority Number 245-1, I hereby 
determine that it is important to the national interest of the United 
States to waive the requirements of Section 7086(c)(1) of the Act with 
respect to Guinea-Bissau and I hereby waive such restriction.
    This determination shall be reported to the Congress, and published 
in the Federal Register.

    Dated: July 22, 2011.
Thomas Nides,
 Deputy Secretary of State for Management and Resources.
[FR Doc. 2011-25444 Filed 9-30-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-26-P
```
# C_2014130EN.01000201.xml

| 29.4.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 130/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.4.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 130/2

---

Notice to importers

Imports of high-content sugar products

2014/C 130/02

By a notice to importers published in Official Journal C 265 of 7 November 2007, p. 6, the Commission informed EU traders presenting documentary evidence of origin with a view to securing preferential treatment for high sugar content products of headings CN 1704 90 99, 1806 10 30, 1806 20 95, 1901 90 99, 2101 20 98, 2106 90 98 and 3302 10 29 to take all necessary precautions, since the release of the goods in question for free circulation could give rise to a customs debt and lead to fraud against the EU’s financial interests.

The underlying reasonable doubts as to the origin of these products, which triggered the publication of the notice, can no longer be confirmed.

Therefore, the notice to importers published in Official Journal C 265 of 7 November 2007, p. 6, is hereby withdrawn.

---
§ 273.178 Are there contract recordkeeping requirements? A contractor will be required to maintain a recordkeeping system that allows the Bureau to meet its legal records program requirements under the Federal Records Act (44 U.S.C. 3101 *et seq.*). Such a record system must: ( a ) Fully reflect all financial transactions involving the receipt and expenditure of funds provided under the contract in a manner that will provide accurate, current and complete disclosure of financial status; correlation with budget or allowable cost schedules; and clear audit facilitating data;
( b ) Reflect the amounts and sources of funds other than Bureau contract funds that may be included in the operation of the contract;
( c ) Provide for the creation, maintenance, and safeguarding of records of lasting value, including those involving individual rights, such as permanent records and transcripts; and
( d ) Provide for the orderly retirement of permanent records in accordance with Department Records Schedule (Bureau of Indian Affairs (075)), when there is no established system set up by the State, public school district, or Indian corporation.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 00-40859

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

MAURICIO LOPEZ-GUTIERREZ,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. L-00-CR-296-1

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

April 12, 2001

Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and JONES, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Mauricio Lopez-Gutierrez appeals his sentence for illegal

reentry by a previously deported alien in violation of 8 U.S.C.

§ 1326(b)(2). He argues that in view of Apprendi v. New Jersey,

120 S. Ct. 2348, 2362-63 (2000), his prior felony conviction was

an element of the offense under § 1326(b)(2) and not merely a

sentence enhancement. He acknowledges that his argument is

foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224,

247 (1998), but states that he is preserving it for possible

Supreme Court review because the Supreme Court indicated in
No. 00-40859

-2-

Apprendi that Almendarez-Torres may have been wrongly decided. 

Because the Supreme Court has not overruled Almendarez-Torres,

this court is compelled to follow it. See United States v.

Dabeit, 231 F.3d 979, 984 (5th Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 121 S.

Ct. 1214 (2001). Because Lopez-Gutierrez’s argument is

foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres, the judgment is AFFIRMED.
§ 262.2 Definitions. As used for purposes of this part: ( a ) *Funerary objects* means objects that, as a part of the death rite or ceremony of a culture, are reasonably believed to have been placed with human remains of Indians either at the time of death or later, or to have been made exclusively for burial purposes or to contain such remains.
( b ) *Sacred objects* means specific ceremonial objects that are needed by traditional Indian religious leaders for the practice of traditional Indian religions by their present day adherents.
( c ) *Object of cultural patrimony* means an object having ongoing historical, traditional, or cultural importance central to an Indian tribe itself and that shall have been considered inalienable by the tribe at the time the object was separated therefrom.
( d ) *Indian individual* means: ( 1 ) Any person who is an enrolled member of a Federally recognized Indian tribe;
( 2 ) Any person who is a descendent of such a member and was, on June 1, 1934, physically residing within the present boundaries of any Indian reservation; or
( 3 ) Any other person of one-half or more Indian blood of tribes indigenous to the United States.
( e ) *Lands of Indian tribes* means land or any interest therein: ( 1 ) The title to which is held in trust by the United States for an Indian tribe; or
( 2 ) The title to which is held by an Indian tribe, but which cannot be alienated or encumbered by the owner without the approval of the Secretary because of limitations contained in the conveyance instrument pursuant to Federal law or because of a Federal law directly imposing such restrictions.
( f ) *Lands of Indian individuals* means land or any interest therein: ( 1 ) The title to which is held in trust by the United States for the benefit of Indian individuals; or
( 2 ) The title to which is held by Indian individuals, but which cannot be alienated or encumbered by the owner without the approval of the Secretary because of limitations contained in the conveyance instrument pursuant to Federal law or because of a Federal law directly imposing such restrictions.
MIDLAND CAPITAL HOLDINGS CORPORATION

EXHIBIT 11 - STATEMENT REGARDING COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE


                                                             Three months ended
                                                             September 30, 1998
                                                             ------------------


Net Income                                                       $142,557
                                                                 --------

Weighted average common shares outstanding
  for basic computation                                           363,975
                                                                 ========

Basic earnings per share                                         $   0.39
                                                                 ========

Weighted average common shares outstanding
  for basic computation                                           363,975

Common stock equivalents due to dilutive effect of
  stock options                                                     5,150
                                                                 --------

Weighted average common shares and equivalents
  Outstanding for diluted computation                             369,125
                                                                 ========

Diluted earnings per share                                       $   0.39
                                                                 ========
#### Kroft *v.*Kroft.

[No. 11,954.

Filed November 20, 1924.]

From Marshall Circuit Court; *Reuben R. Carr,*Judge.

Action between Alice Kroft and Ulysses S. Kroft. From the judgment rendered, the former appeals. *Affirmed.*

*Jesse Sanford*and *B. F. Watson,*for appellant.

*Albert B. Chipman,*for appellee.

Per Curiam.

Judgment affirmed.
EXHIBIT 32.2

                 CERTIFICATE 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 Quarterly Report of Satellite Newspapers Corp. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2005 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the
undersigned, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies,
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 the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



                                       /s/ Randy Hibma
                                       ---------------------------------
                                       Randy Hibma
                                       Chief Financial Officer

                                       December 1, 2005
§ 1001.10 Selection criteria for other planning and negotiating financial assistance. ( a ) What is the purpose of this section? This section describes how to apply for other financial assistance for planning and negotiating of a DOI non-BIA program, service, function or activity that may be available, as well as the selection process.
( b ) Are there other funds that may be available to self-governance tribes/consortia for planning and negotiating with DOI non-BIA bureaus? Yes. Tribes/consortia may contact the Director, Office of Self-Governance to determine if funds are available for the purpose of planning and negotiating with DOI non-BIA bureaus under this section. A tribe/consortium may also request information from a DOI non-BIA bureau on any funds which may be available from that bureau.
( c ) Who is eligible to apply for financial assistance to plan and negotiate for a DOI non-BIA program? Any existing self-governance tribe/consortium is eligible.
( d ) Under what circumstances may planning and negotiation financial assistance be made available to tribes/consortia? At the discretion of the Director, grants may be awarded when requested by the tribe and coordinated with the DOI non-BIA agency involved.
( e ) How does the tribe/consortium apply for a grant to plan and negotiate for a DOI non-BIA program? When such funds are available, we will publish a notice of their availability and a deadline for submitting applications for such grants in the Federal Register as indicated in § 1001.7.
( f ) What must be included in the application? The application must include the following: ( 1 ) The tribal resolution or other final action of the tribal governing body indicating that the tribe/consortium intends to negotiate for a DOI non-BIA program;
( 2 ) A copy of the proposal or summary that was submitted to the DOI non-BIA bureau;
( 3 ) A time line indicating when planning will begin and end;
( 4 ) The planning resources from all other sources that are approved and/or anticipated for the planning activity; and
( 5 ) The amount requested and a justification of why it is needed by the tribe/consortium.
( g ) What criteria will we use to award grants to those tribes/consortia requesting financial assistance to plan and negotiate for a DOI non-BIA program? The award of such grants is discretionary. After consulting with the requesting tribe/consortium and the appropriate DOI non-BIA bureau, the Director will determine whether to award a grant to plan and negotiate for a DOI non-BIA program. The determination will be based upon the complexity of the project, the availability of resources from all other sources, and the relative need of the tribe/consortium to receive such funds for the successful completion of the planning and negotiating activity, as determined by the percentage of tribal resources to total resources as indicated in the latest A-128 audit. All decisions to award or not to award grants as described in paragraphs (e) and (f) of this section are final for the Department.
[61 FR 17832, Apr. 23, 1996]