alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §9652. Rifles and ammunition for target practice: educational institutions having corps of cadets

(a) The Secretary of the Air Force may lend, without expense to the United States, magazine rifles and appendages that are not of the existing service models in use at the time, and that are not necessary for a proper reserve supply, to any educational institution having a uniformed corps of cadets of sufficient number for target practice. He may also issue 40 rounds of ball cartridges for each cadet for each range at which target practice is held, but not more than 120 rounds each year for each cadet participating in target practice.

(b) The institutions to which property is lent under subsection (a) shall use it for target practice, take proper care of it, and return it when required.

(c) The Secretary shall prescribe regulations to carry out this section, containing such other requirements as he considers necessary to safeguard the interests of the United States.

(Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 582.)

| Revised section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 9652(a)9652(b) 9652(c) | 10:1185 (1st par.).10:1185 (last par., less 1st 22, and last 19, words).10:1185 (1st 22, and last 19, words of last par.). | Apr. 27, 1914, ch. 72 (last proviso and last par. under "Manufacture of Arms"), 38 Stat. 370. |

9652(b)

9652(c)

10:1185 (last par., less 1st 22, and last 19, words).

10:1185 (1st 22, and last 19, words of last par.).

In subsection (a), the words, "and carrying on military training" and "the maintenance of" are omitted as surplusage. In clause (2), the words "suitable to said arm" are omitted as surplusage.

In subsection (b), the words "shall use it for target practice" are substituted for the words "insuring the designed use of the property issued". The words "take proper care of it" are substituted for the words "providing against loss to the United States through lack of proper care".
### [§2546a. Renumbered §3102]
#### Elizabeth C. Cooper, Individually and in Behalf of Mary Moore, Deceased, Appellant, v. James Moore, Jr., Individually and as Administrator, etc., of Mary *912Moore, Deceased, Respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs. No opinion. Woodward, jenks, Hooker, Gaynor and Miller, JJ., concurred.
# C_2006177EN.01003501.xml

| 29.7.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 177/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.7.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 177/35

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.4154 — Degussa/DOW (superabsorbent polymers))

(2006/C 177/17)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 20 June 2006, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | from the Europa competition web site (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This web site provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes; |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition web site (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This web site provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes;

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32006M4154. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://ec.europa.eu/eur-lex/lex) |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32006M4154. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://ec.europa.eu/eur-lex/lex)

---
Exhibit 4.2


 


Consent of Independent Registered Public
Accounting Firm


We have issued our report
dated November 18, 2021, with respect to the financial statement of Advisors Disciplined Trust 2097 contained in Amendment No. 3 to the
Registration Statement on Form S-6 (File No. 333-258830) and related Prospectus. We consent to the use of the aforementioned report in
the Registration Statement and Prospectus, and to the use of our name as it appears under the caption “Experts”.


 


/s/ Grant
Thornton LLP


 


Chicago, Illinois


November 18, 2021
#### § 227.11 Bureau of Land Management to be furnished copy of lease.

The Bureau of Land Management shall be furnished with a copy of each lease signed by the Secretary of the Interior.
H. Res. 179

In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

May 20, 1999.

Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall

be in order to take from the Speaker’s table the bill (H.R.

4) to declare it to be the policy of the United States to deploy

a national missile defense, with a Senate amendment thereto,

and to consider in the House a motion offered by the chairman of the Committee on Armed Services or his designee to

concur in the Senate amendment. The Senate amendment

and the motion shall be considered as read. The motion shall

be debatable for one hour equally divided and controlled by

the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee

on Armed Services. The previous question shall be considered

as ordered on the motion to final adoption without intervening motion.

Attest:

Clerk.
§ 1000.105 What are self-governance base budgets? ( a ) A Tribe/Consortium self-governance base budget is the amount of recurring funding identified in the President's annual budget request to Congress. This amount must be adjusted to reflect subsequent Congressional action. It includes amounts that are eligible to be base transferred or have been base transferred from BIA budget accounts to self-governance budget accounts. As allowed by Congress, self-governance base budgets are derived from: ( 1 ) A Tribe's/Consortium's Pub. L. 93-638 contract amounts;
( 2 ) Negotiated agency, regional, and central office amounts;
( 3 ) Other recurring funding;
( 4 ) Special projects, if applicable;
( 5 ) Programmatic shortfall;
( 6 ) Tribal priority allocation increases and decreases;
( 7 ) Pay costs and retirement cost adjustments; and
( 8 ) Any other inflationary cost adjustments.
( b ) Self-governance base budgets must not include any non-recurring program funds, construction and wildland firefighting accounts, Congressional earmarks, or other funds specifically excluded by Congress. These funds are negotiated annually and may be included in the AFA but must not be included in the self-governance base budget.
( c ) Self-governance base budgets may not include other recurring type programs that are currently in Tribal priority allocations (TPA) such as general assistance, housing improvement program (HIP), road maintenance and contract support. Should these later four programs ever become base transferred to Tribes, then they may be included in a self-governance Tribe's base budget.
#### CORUM v. UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA

No. 163P90

Case below: 97 N.C.App. 527

Petition by defendants for temporary stay allowed 30 April 1990 pending a receipt of response to the petition for discretionary review and determination of the petition.
EX-34.1
(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, 2013 and for the year then ended,
only including 1122(d)(1)(iv), 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, 2013 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.


/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP


February 14, 2014


PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, 2001 Ross Avenue, Suite 1800, Dallas, Texas 75201
T: (214) 999-1400, F: (214) 754-7991, www.pwc.com/us
`[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 375 Reported in House (RH)]






                                                 House Calendar No. 158
106th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 375

                          [Report No. 106-466]

   Waiving a requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII with respect to 
  consideration of certain resolutions reported from the Committee on 
                                 Rules.


_______________________________________________________________________


                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           November 10, 1999

 Mr. Diaz-Balart, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following 
 resolution; which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be
                                printed

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION


 
   Waiving a requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII with respect to 
  consideration of certain resolutions reported from the Committee on 
                                 Rules.

    Resolved, That the requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII for a 
two-thirds vote to consider a report from the Committee on Rules on the 
same day it is presented to the House is waived with respect to any 
resolution reported on or before the legislative day of November 17, 
1999, providing for consideration or disposition of any of the 
following measures:
            (1) A bill or joint resolution making continuing 
        appropriations for the fiscal year 2000, any amendment thereto, 
        any conference report thereon, or any amendment reported in 
        disagreement from a conference thereon.
            (2) A bill or joint resolution making general 
        appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2000, 
        any amendment thereto, any conference report thereon, or any 
        amendment reported in disagreement from a conference thereon.
                                     





                                                 House Calendar No. 158

106th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                              H. RES. 375

                          [Report No. 106-466]

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

   Waiving a requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII with respect to 
  consideration of certain resolutions reported from the Committee on 
                                 Rules.

_______________________________________________________________________

                           November 10, 1999

        Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed`
445 12th Street SW

Washington, DC 20024-2101

202-229-4040

PBGC.gov

FISCAL YEAR 2022 QUARTER Q2 FOIA REPORT

January 1, 2022 – March 31, 2022

Number of Requests 

Received

Number of Requests 

Processed

Number of Requests 

Backlogged

1322 1212 17
# C_2006212EN.01004604.xml

| 2.9.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 212/46 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.9.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 212/46

---

Order of the Court of First Instance of 6 July 2006 — Cofira-Sac v Commission

(Case T-43/06) (1)

1

(2006/C 212/81)

Language of the case: Italian

Language of the case: Italian

The President of the Second Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 86, 8.4.2006.

1

---
# C_2006224EN.01001501.xml

| 16.9.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 224/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.9.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 224/15

---

Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 6 July 2006 (references for a preliminary ruling by the Commissione tributaria provinciale di Napoli, Commissione tributaria regionale di Firenze — Italy) — Casa di cura privata Salus SpA v Agenzia Entrate Ufficio Napoli 4

(Joined Cases C-18/05 and C-155/05) (1)

1

(Second subparagraph of Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure - Sixth VAT Directive - Article 13.B(c) - Exemptions - Supplies of goods destined wholly for an exempted activity without being deductible)

(2006/C 224/26)

Language of the cases: Italian

Referring Courts

Commissione tributaria provinciale di Napoli, Commissione tributaria regionale di Firenze

Parties

Applicants: Casa di cura privata Salus SpA (C-18/05), Agenzia delle Entrate — Ufficio di Firenze 1 (C-155/05)

Applicants:

Defendants: Agenzia Entrate Ufficio Napoli 4 (C-18/05), Villa Maria Beatrice Hospital Srl (C-155/05)

Defendants:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Commissione tributaria provinciale di Napoli — Interpretation of Article 13.B(c) of the Sixth VAT Directive — Exemptions within the territory of the country — Exemptions for supplies of goods used wholly for an exempted activity or which are not deductible — Direct applicability

Operative part of the order

The first part of Article 13.B(c) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, must be interpreted as meaning that the exemption for which it provides applies only to the resale of goods previously acquired by a taxable person for an exempted activity under that article, in so far as the value added tax paid upon initial acquisition of the goods in question was not deductible.

---

(1)  OJ C 93 of 16.4.2005.

1

OJ C 155 of 25.6.2005.

---
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman

, Chief Justice

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

January 27, 2017

d0124 

# Order

Clerk January 27, 2017

154743

SONNY’S BODY SHOP, ROBERT VALLEAU,

and DOUGLAS RICE,

Plaintiffs

- Appellants,

v SC: 154743

COA: 333252

Grand Traverse CC:

GARFIELD TOWNSHIP, 2015

- 031274

- AA

Defendant

- Appellee.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the stipulation signed by counsel for the parties agreeing to

the dismissal of this applic ation for leave to appeal is considered, and the application for

leave to appeal is DISMISSED with prejudice and without costs.
### §8304. Availability of appropriations

The Secretary of the Navy may spend from appropriations for the pay of the Navy or the Marine Corps, as appropriate, amounts necessary to provide and replace medals of honor, Navy crosses, distinguished-service medals, silver star medals, and Navy and Marine Corps Medals, and associated bars, emblems, and insignia.

(Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 391, §6254; renumbered §8304, Pub. L. 115–232, div. A, title VIII, §807(b)(13), Aug. 13, 2018, 132 Stat. 1836.)

| Revised section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 6254 | 34 U.S.C. 359 (less proviso). | Feb. 4, 1919, ch. 14, §6 (less proviso), 40 Stat. 1056; renumbered §8 and amended Aug. 7, 1942, ch. 551, §1, 56 Stat. 744. |

The words "the appropriations for the pay of the Navy or the Marine Corps, as appropriate", are substituted for the words "the appropriation 'Pay, subsistence, and transportation of naval personnel' ", to identify by a general description, rather than by the specific appropriation title, the appropriation authorized to be used. Specific appropriation titles vary from one appropriation act to the next. The permanent authority contained in 34 U.S.C. 359 for the Secretary of the Navy to use appropriations available for the pay of the Navy and the Marine Corps is not affected by a change in the titles of those appropriations nor is it affected by a specific authorization in an appropriation act to use, during the life of the act, a different type of appropriation.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

A prior section 8304, act Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 515, related to promotion of Air Force nurses or women medical specialists to grades of first lieutenant, captain, major, lieutenant colonel, or colonel, prior to repeal by Pub. L. 85–155, title IV, §401(1), Aug. 21, 1957, 71 Stat. 390.

#### Amendments

2018—Pub. L. 115–232 renumbered section 6254 of this title as this section.

#### **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.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

MIDDLE DISTRICT 

JERMAINE TERRELL MILLER, 

AGGRIEVED PARTY, 

 Petitioner 

 v. 

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, 39TH 

DISTRICT-FRANKLIN, 

 Respondent 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 157 MM 2014 

ORDER 

PER CURIAM 

AND NOW, this 21st day of November, 2014, the Application for Leave to File 

Original Process is GRANTED, and the Petition for Writ of Mandamus is DENIED.
# C_2006224EN.01005306.xml

| 16.9.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 224/53 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.9.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 224/53

---

Order of the Court of First Instance of 13 July 2006 — Wijsmuller v Commission

(Case T -340/02) (1)

1

(2006/C 224/114)

Language of the case: Dutch

Language of the case: Dutch

The President of the Third Chamber Extended Composition has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 19, 25.1.2003.

1

---
(November 21, 2006)

#### Peter Ames, Appellant, v Waldbaum, Inc., Respondent.

[823 NYS2d 697]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Polizzi, J.), dated September 6, 2005, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is denied.

By offering no evidence to establish when the area in which the plaintiff allegedly was injured was last inspected or cleaned on the day in question, the defendant failed to establish its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law *(see Feldmus v Ryan Food Corp.,*29 AD3d 940, 941 [2006]; *Yioves v T.J. Maxx, Inc.,*29 AD3d 572, 572-573 [2006]; *Britto v Great Atl. & Pac. Tea Co., Inc.,*21 AD3d 436, 436-437 [2005]). Therefore, the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint should have been denied, without regard to the sufficiency of the opposing affidavits *(see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr.,*64 NY2d 851, 853 [1985]). Santucci, J.P., Mastro, Spolzino and Fisher, JJ., concur.
# SE Plans Paying Premiums_020124
[LETTERHEAD OF PLANTE & MORAN]

 

Report of IndependentRegistered Public Accounting Firm

 

 

 

To the Board of Directors

National Tax Search,LLC

 

 

We have examinedmanagement's assertion, included in the accompanying Management's Report on Assessment of Compliance with Securities and ExchangeCommission's Regulation AB Servicing Criteria, that National Tax Search, LLC (the "Company") complied with certain servicingcriteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of the Security and Exchange Commission's Regulation AB for the National Tax Search TaxQ system(the "Platform") as of and for the year ended December 31, 2012. The Company has determined that only certain servicingcriteria, 1122(d)(1)(ii), 1122(d)1(iv),  1122(d)2(ii),1122(d)2(v), 1122(d)2(vi), 1122(d)2(vii), 1122(d)(4)(xi), and 1122(d)(4)(xii), are applicableto the activities performed by it with respect to the Platform covered by this report. The Company has determined that the remainingservicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of the SECRegulation AB are not applicable to the activities performed by it with respect to the Platform covered by this report.

 

Managementis responsible for the Company's compliance with those servicing criteria. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on management'sassertion about the Company's compliance with the servicing criteria based on our examination.Our examination was conducted in accordance withstandards 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 examinationincluded a selection of a sample of transactions and compliance activities related to the Platform during the examination periodand determining whether the Company processed those transactionsand performed those activities in compliance with the servicingcriteria. Our testing of selected transactions and complianceactivities was limited to calculations, reports, and activities performed by the Company during the period covered by this report.Our procedures did not include determining whether errors may have occurred prior to our teststhat may have affected the balances or amounts calculated or reported by the Company during the period covered by this report forthe selected transactions or any other transactions. Webelieve that our examination providesa reasonable basis for our opinion. Our examination does not provide a legal determinationon the Company's compliance with the servicing criteria.

 

In our opinion, management'sassertion that the Company complied with the aforementioned servicing criteria as of and for the year ended December 31, 2012for the Platform is fairly stated in all material respects.
#### § 502.15 Management contract.

*Management contract* means any contract, subcontract, or collateral agreement between an Indian tribe and a contractor or between a contractor and a subcontractor if such contract or agreement provides for the management of all or part of a gaming operation.
#### SNEAD v. FOXX

No. 490PA89

Case below: 95 N.C.App. 723

Petition by defendant (Foxx) for discretionary review pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 allowed 18 January 1990.