alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[No. 4862.]

#### Gutshall v. Carpenter et al.

Former Opinion Followed.

This case is decided in accordance with Irrigation Co. y. Water S: & S. Co., 29 Colo. 469; Fluke v. Ford, 35 Colo. 112; New Cache la Poudre Irr. Co. v. Arthur Irr. Co., ante, p. 530; and Ashenfelter et al. v. Carpenter et al., ante, p. 534.

*Appeal from the District Court of Montrose County.*

*Don. Theron Stevens, Judge.*

Action by S. P. Grutshall against L. Gr. Carpenter as State Engineer, District No. 4, and W. O. Her sum, *537Water Commissioner, District No. 41. From a judg-. ment for defendants, plaintiff appeals.

Decision *en banc.*

*Affirmed.*

*Per Curiam.*

-The questions presented by this appeal have been settled by the previous decisions of this court in *Irrigation Co.*v. *Water S. & S. Co.,*29 Colo. 469; *Fluke v. Ford,*35 Colo. 112; *New Cache la Poudre Irrigating Co. v. Arthur Irrigation Co., ante,*page 530; *Ashenfelter v. Carpenter, ante,*page 534.

The judgment of tbe district court is in accordance with the views expressed in these cases, and will, therefore, be affirmed, without prejudice to appellant to maintain a proceeding in accordance with the act of 1899 (Sess. Laws 1899, 235) and the act of 1903 (Sess. Laws 1903, 278).

Decision *en banc. Judgment affirmed.*
### §1195. Transactions with professionals

Notwithstanding section 327(a) of this title, a person is not disqualified for employment under section 327 of this title, by a debtor solely because that person holds a claim of less than $10,000 that arose prior to commencement of the case.

(Added Pub. L. 116–54, §2(a), Aug. 23, 2019, 133 Stat. 1084.)

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

#### Effective Date

Section effective 180 days after Aug. 23, 2019, see section 5 of Pub. L. 116–54, set out as an Effective Date of 2019 Amendment note under section 101 of this title.
IV

House Calendar No. 167

106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. RES. 419

[Report No. 106–495]

Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 6) to amend the Internal Revenue

Code of 1986 to eliminate the marriage penalty by providing that the

income tax rate bracket amounts, and the amount of the standard

deduction, for joint returns shall be twice the amounts applicable to

unmarried individuals.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FEBRUARY 8, 2000

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following resolution; which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be

printed

RESOLUTION

Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 6) to amend

the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to eliminate the

marriage penalty by providing that the income tax rate

bracket amounts, and the amount of the standard deduction, for joint returns shall be twice the amounts applicable to unmarried individuals.

1 Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution

2 it shall be in order without intervention of any point of

3 order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 6) to amend
2

HRES 419 RH

1 the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to eliminate the mar2 riage penalty by providing that the income tax rate brack3 et amounts, and the amount of the standard deduction,

4 for joint returns shall be twice the amounts applicable to

5 unmarried individuals. The bill shall be considered as read

6 for amendment. The amendment recommended by the

7 Committee on Ways and Means now printed in the bill

8 shall be considered as adopted. The previous question shall

9 be considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and on

10 any further amendment thereto to final passage without

11 intervening motion except: (1) two hours of debate on the

12 bill, as amended, equally divided and controlled by the

13 chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee

14 on Ways and Means; (2) the further amendment printed

15 in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying

16 this resolution, if offered by Representative Rangel or his

17 designee, which shall be in order without intervention of

18 any point of order, shall be considered as read, and shall

19 be separately debatable for one hour equally divided and

20 controlled by the proponent and an opponent; and (3) one

21 motion to recommit with or without instructions.

House Calendar No. 167

106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. RES. 419

[Report No. 106–495]

RESOLUTION

Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 6) to

amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 toeliminate the marriage penalty by providing thatthe income tax rate bracket amounts, and theamount of the standard deduction, for joint returns shall be twice the amounts applicable tounmarried individuals.

FEBRUARY 8, 2000

Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be

printed
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

Agile Reaper 23-1 wraps up a successful ACE Exercise in Guam and TinianMarch 14, 2023 — ANDERSEN AIR FORCE BASE, Guam – Exercise Agile Reaper 23-1, an Agile Combat Employment exercise that took place on Guam and Tinian, came to a close with a constructive and positive conclusion mid-March, 2023... MORE 

----

2024 (327)2023 (825)2022 (1193)2021 (1066)2020 (1083)2019 (1166)2018 (1116)2017 (1356)2016 (1475)2015 (1408)2014 (904)2013 (32)2012 (4)

About DoDDoD CareersJoin the MilitaryNewsUSA.govPhotos & VideosPrivacy & SecurityTop Issues

US INDOPACOM Inspector GeneralDoD Inspector General Accessibility/Section 508DoD FOIAUS INDOPACOM FOIALink DisclaimerNo FEAR ActRecovery ActINDOPACOM Webmaster

                  - Facebook
                  - X
                  - YouTube
                  - Instagram
                  - RSS

Hosted by Defense Media Activity - WEB.mil
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsQuantifying Uncertainties in Navigation and Orbit Propagation AnalysesA tool used to calculate dilution of precision (DOP) was created in order to assist the Space Communications and Navigation (SCaN) program to analyze current and future user missions. The SCaN Center for Engineering, Networks, Integration, and Communication (SCENIC) is developing a new user interface (UI) to augment and replace the capabilities of currently used commercial software, such as Systems Tool Kit (STK). The DOP tool will be integrated in the SCENIC UI and will be used to analyze the accuracy of navigation solutions. This tool was developed using MATLAB and free and open-source tools to save cost and to use already existing orbital software libraries. GPS DOP data was collected and used for validation purposes. The similarities between the DOP tool results and GPS data show that the DOP tool is performing correctly. Additional improvements can be made in the DOP tool to improve its accuracy and performance in analyzing navigation solutions.Document ID20170010171Acquisition SourceGlenn Research CenterDocument TypeTechnical Memorandum (TM)AuthorsKrieger, Andrew W.*(Case Western Reserve Univ. Cleveland, OH, United States)*Welch, Bryan W.*(NASA Glenn Research Center Cleveland, OH, United States)*Date AcquiredOctober 18, 2017Publication DateOctober 1, 2017Subject CategorySpace Communications, Spacecraft Communications, Command And TrackingCommunications And RadarComputer Programming And SoftwareReport/Patent NumberGRC-E-DAA-TN46043NASA/TM-2017-219560Funding Number(s)WBS: WBS 439432.07.01.03.01Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightPublic Use Permitted.Keywordsdilution of precisionnavigationAvailable DownloadsNameType20170010171.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
#### Willard S. Allen, Appellant, v. Jacob Fromme, Respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs. Ho opinion.
##### 



Exhibit 10.4 (MEMORY LOGO)Memory
Pharmaceuticals Corp.
    
    Tony Scullion100 Philips Parkway
    
    Chief Executive OfficerMontvale, New Jersey 07645Phone: (201) 802-7103Fax: (201) 802-7190www.memorypharma.com
 Personal and Confidential August 2, 2004 Mr. Gardiner Smith Dear Gardiner: I am pleased to inform you that the Compensation Committee of the Board of
Directors of Memory Pharmaceuticals Corp. (the Company) has agreed to grant
you a stock option to purchase 35,000 shares of the Companys common stock on
the date of consummation of a Transaction (as defined below). Such stock option
shall (i) entitle you to purchase the 35,000 shares of the Companys common
stock at the fair market value per share on the closing date of the Transaction
(the Grant Date), (ii) have a term of ten (10) years measured from the Grant
Date and (iii) vest in a series of four (4) equal, quarterly installments over
a one (1) year period commencing on the Grant Date. To the extend permissible
under applicable law, this stock option will be in the form of an incentive
stock option and the balance will be in the form of a non-qualified stock
option. A Transaction is defined as an in-license, out-license or strategic
initiative (as confirmed by the Compensation Committee of the Board of
Directors), but shall not include an extension or renewal of any of the
Companys current agreements or licenses. Congratulations on this award. Sincerely, /s/ Tony Scullion Tony Scullion
Chief Executive Officer
#### In the Matter of Egbert T. Profitt, Appellant, v Glenn S. Goord, as Commissioner of Correctional Services, Respondent.

[824 NYS2d 493]

*1137Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Kavanagh, J.), entered February 6, 2006 in Albany County, which dismissed petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to review a determination of respondent finding petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.

Petitioner was charged in a misbehavior report with violating the prison disciplinary rules prohibiting the possession of contraband, solicitation, smuggling and abuse of the telephone procedures, after an investigation revealed that he had been in possession of a cellular telephone and had charged other inmates cigarettes to use it. Following a tier III disciplinary hearing, petitioner was found guilty of the charges. Upon administrative appeal, the penalty was modified but the determination was otherwise affirmed. Petitioner then commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging that determination on various procedural grounds. Supreme Court dismissed the petition and petitioner now appeals.

Petitioner’s contention that the misbehavior report is inadequate is without merit inasmuch as the date the investigation into petitioner’s misconduct was completed was properly used as the incident date and the report otherwise adequately described the nature of the charged misconduct to provide petitioner with an opportunity to prepare a defense *(see Matter of Toney v Goord,*26 AD3d 613, 614 [2006]; *Matter of Kayshawn v Selsky,*277 AD2d 611, 612 [2000]). Contrary to petitioner’s contention, the Hearing Officer was not required to personally interview the confidential informants to verify the reliability of the information that they provided as the correction officer who interviewed the informants was able to provide sufficient information for the Hearing Officer to independently assess the informants’ credibility *(see Matter of Sime v Goord,*30 AD3d 887, 888-889 [2006], *lv denied*7 NY3d 717 [2006]; *Matter of Berry v Portuondo,*6 AD3d 848, 849 [2004]). Finally, the record reflects that the Hearing Officer adequately set forth a statement of the evidence upon which he relied and the reasons for his determination *(see Matter of Galdamez v Taylor,*31 AD3d 934, 935 [2006]; *Matter of McCain v Goord,*273 AD2d 571, 572 [2000]).

Cardona, PJ., Mercure, Peters, Rose and Kane, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.
Exhibit 32.1  CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002  In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Fresh Medical Laboratories, Inc. (the Company) for the year ended December 31, 2012, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Steven Eror, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge: 1.The  Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and2.The information contained in this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.   Dated:August 30, 2013/s/ Steven ErorSteven ErorChief Executive Officer
### §907a. Art. 107a. Parole violation

Any person subject to this chapter—

(1) who, having been a prisoner as the result of a court-martial conviction or other criminal proceeding, is on parole with conditions; and

(2) who violates the conditions of parole;

shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

(Added Pub. L. 114–328, div. E, title LX, §5420, Dec. 23, 2016, 130 Stat. 2946.)

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

#### Effective Date

Section effective on Jan. 1, 2019, as designated by the President, with implementing regulations and provisions relating to applicability to various situations, see section 5542 of Pub. L. 114–328 and Ex. Ord. No. 13825, set out as notes under section 801 of this title.
Exhibit 33.3



|     |  |  |  |                                    
|---- |  |  |  | -----------------------------------
|LOGO |  |  |  | 1 Mortgage Way Mt. Laurel, NJ 08054



REPORT ON ASSESSMENT OF COMPLIANCE WITH REGULATION AB

SERVICING CRITERIA

PHH Mortgage
Corporation (the Asserting Party) is responsible for assessing compliance as of December 31, 2015 and for the period from January 1, 2015 through December 31, 2015 (the Reporting Period) with the servicing criteria set forth
in Section 229.1122(d) of the Code of Federal Regulations (the CFR), except for criteria set forth in Section 229.1122(d)(3)(i)(c), (d)(4)(xv) and (d)(1)(iii) of the CFR, which the Asserting Party has concluded are not applicable to the
servicing activities it performs with respect to the transactions covered by this report (the Applicable Servicing Criteria). The criteria set forth in Section 229.1122 (d)(2)(i), (d)(2)(ii), (d)(4)(iv), (d)(4)(vii), (d)(4)(viii) and
(d)(4)(xi) of the CFR are performed by outsource providers on behalf of the Asserting Party; however, the Asserting Party has monitored the outsourcing of these criteria and assumes responsibility for compliance. The transactions covered by this
report include all non-agency loan sale agreements executed after January 1, 2006 as well as all re-securitization transactions after January 1, 2006 for which the Asserting Party served as servicer (the Platform).

The Asserting Party has assessed its compliance with the Servicing Criteria as of December 31, 2015 and for the Reporting Period and has concluded that the
Asserting Party has complied, in all material respects, with the Applicable Servicing Criteria with respect to the Platform taken as a whole.

Deloitte
& Touche, an independent registered public accounting firm, has issued an attestation report on the assessment of compliance with the Servicing Criteria for the Reporting Period as set forth in this assertion.



|                                      
|--------------------------------------
|PHH Mortgage Corporation              
|                                      
|Date: February 26, 2016               
|                                      
|/s/ Glen A. Messina                   
|Glen A. Messina                       
|President                             
|                                      
|/s/ Martin L. Foster                  
|Martin L. Foster                      
|Senior Vice President  Loan Servicing
#### Mary J. Curtin, Respondent, v. The City of New York, Appellant.

Judgment and order unanimously affirmed, with costs. Ho opinion. Present — Woodward, Jenks, Hooker, Gaynor and Miller, ,JJ.
Exhibit 31

SECTION 302 CERTIFICATION

CERTIFICATION

I, David Guthrie, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report of Consolidated Energy, Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of
a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the
statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements
were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects
the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the small
business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I are
responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and
procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the
small business issuer and have:
 (a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to
ensure that material information relating to the small business issuer,
including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within
those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being
prepared;
 (b) evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer's disclosure
controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the
period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and
 (c) disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer's
internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small
business issuer's most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer's
fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially
affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business
issuer's internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I have
disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over
financial reporting, to the small business issuer's auditors and the audit
committee of the small business issuer's board of directors (or persons
performing the equivalent functions):
 (a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the small business issuer's ability to record,
process, summarize and report financial information; and
 (b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the small business issuer's internal
control over financial reporting.

Date: November 14, 2003  /S/David Guthrie
                         Principal Executive Officer
                         Principal Financial Officer
### [§235. Repealed. Pub. L. 117–81, div. A, title VIII, §815(b)(1), Dec. 27, 2021, 135 Stat. 1825]

Section, added Pub. L. 111–84, div. A, title VIII, §803(a)(1), Oct. 28, 2009, 123 Stat. 2401, related to the specification of amounts requested in the Department of Defense budget with respect to the procurement of contract services submitted to Congress in the budget justification materials.

Provisions similar to those in this section were contained in Pub. L. 110–181, div. A, title VIII, §806, Jan. 28, 2008, 122 Stat. 213, which was set out as a note under section 221 of this title, prior to repeal by Pub. L. 111–84, §803(a)(3).
I 

# ) I 

### I I ) I \



## ) 

# r
### [§2540b. Renumbered §4973]
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 20-0368

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

THOMAS WILLIAM SIGEA,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, 

and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including October 4, 2021 within which to prepare, file, 

and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

July 23 2021

07/23/2021

Case Number: DA 20-0368
### §324. Removal of trustee or examiner

(a) The court, after notice and a hearing, may remove a trustee, other than the United States trustee, or an examiner, for cause.

(b) Whenever the court removes a trustee or examiner under subsection (a) in a case under this title, such trustee or examiner shall thereby be removed in all other cases under this title in which such trustee or examiner is then serving unless the court orders otherwise.

(Pub. L. 95–598, Nov. 6, 1978, 92 Stat. 2562; Pub. L. 99–554, title II, §208, Oct. 27, 1986, 100 Stat. 3098.)

#### Historical and Revision Notes

#### senate report no. 95–989

This section permits the court, after notice and a hearing, to remove a trustee for cause.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1986—Pub. L. 99–554 amended section generally, designating existing provisions as subsec. (a), substituting "a trustee, other than the United States trustee, or an examiner" for "a trustee or an examiner", and adding subsec. (b).

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

#### Effective Date of 1986 Amendment

Effective date and applicability of amendment by Pub. L. 99–554 dependent upon the judicial district involved, see section 302(d), (e) of Pub. L. 99–554, set out as a note under section 581 of Title 28, Judiciary and Judicial Procedure.
#### § 26.38 May I appeal a decision about my application?

If the servicing agency denies your application you may appeal under part 2 of this chapter by sending your appeal to your service provider. If your servicing agency is a tribal contractor, you should file your appeal with the tribal contractor under their established procedure. The letter informing you of the decision on your application will include information on how to appeal.