alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### § 87.11 Investment of judgment funds.

As soon as possible after the appropriation of judgment funds and pending approval of a plan or the enactment of legislation authorizing the use or distribution of the funds, the Commissioner shall invest such funds pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 162a. Investments of judgment funds and of investment income therefrom will continue to be made by the Commissioner after the approval of a plan or enactment of use or distribution legislation to the extent funds remain available for investment under such plan or legislation, and provided that thereafter investments of judgment funds made available for tribal use are not undertaken by the tribe pursuant to authorizing law. Invested judgment funds, including investment income therefrom, shall be withdrawn from investment only as currently needed under approved plans or legislation authorizing the use or distribution of such funds.
IV

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. RES. 264

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives honoring Lance Armstrong, America’s premier cyclist, and his winning performance in the

1999 Tour de France.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JULY 27, 1999

Mr. DOGGETT (for himself, Mr. BRADY of Texas, Mr. SHAYS, Mrs. CAPPS,

Mr. OLVER, Mr. DEFAZIO, Ms. DELAURO, Mr. OBERSTAR, Mr.

BLUMENAUER, Ms. NORTON, Mr. BENTSEN, Mr. HOUGHTON, Mr.

BONIOR, Mr. SMITH of Texas, Mr. MEEHAN, Ms. PRYCE of Ohio, and

Mr. VENTO) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the

Committee on Government Reform

RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives honoring Lance Armstrong, America’s premier cyclist, and

his winning performance in the 1999 Tour de France.

Whereas Lance Armstrong was diagnosed with advanced testicular cancer in 1996 and given a less than 50 percent

chance of survival by doctors;

Whereas testicular cancer is the most common form of cancer

in men between 15 and 35 years old;

Whereas Lance Armstrong has established the Lance Armstrong Foundation, devoted to fighting cancer through

awareness, education, and research;
2

•HRES 264 IH

Whereas Lance Armstrong has made one of the most memorable comebacks in sports history;

Whereas the Tour de France is one of the most physically

demanding endurance sporting events in the world; and

Whereas Lance Armstrong has honored the Nation with his

courageous performance by winning the Tour de France:

Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives—

2 (1) congratulates Lance Armstrong on his spec3 tacular performance, winning the 1999 Tour de

4 France; and

5 (2) recognizes the contribution Lance Arm6 strong’s perseverance has made to inspire those

7 fighting cancer and survivors of cancer around the

8 world.

Æ
Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h

Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,

J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk May 25, 2010

p0517 

# Order

May 25, 2010

140438

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 140438 COA: 287911 Wayne CC: 08-002462-FC WILLIAM BRIAN HURT, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the December 29, 2009 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented s hould be reviewed by this Court.

H ATHAWAY 

### , J., not participating. Justice Ha thaway recuses herself and will not participate in this case as sh e was the presiding trial cour t judge. See MCR 2.003(B).
§ 87.5 Submittal of proposed plan by Secretary. Subsequent to the hearing of record, the Commissioner shall prepare all pertinent materials for the review of the Secretary. Pertinent materials shall include: ( a ) The tribal use or distribution proposal or any alternate proposals;
( b ) A copy of the transcript of the hearing of record;
( c ) A statement on the hearing of record and other evidence reflecting the extent to which such proposal(s) meets the desires of the affected tribe or group, including minorities views;
( d ) Copies of all pertinent resolutions and other communications or documents received from the affected tribe or group, including minorities;
( e ) A copy of the tribal constitution and bylaws, or other organizational document, if any; a copy of the tribal enrollment ordinance, if any; and a statement as to the availability or status of the membership roll of the affected tribe or group;
( f ) A statement reflecting the nature and results of the investment of the judgment funds as of thirty (30) days of the submittal of the proposed plan, including a statement concerning attorney fees and litigation expenses;
( g ) A statement justifying any compromise proposal developed by the Commissioner in the event of the absence of agreement among any and all entities on the division or apportionment of the funds, should two or more entities be involved;
( h ) And a statement regarding the feasibility of the proposed plan, including a timetable prepared in cooperation with the tribal governing body, for the implementation of programming and roll preparation.
Within one hundred and eighty (180) days of the appropriation of the judgment funds the Secretary shall submit a proposed plan, together with the pertinent materials described above, simultaneously to each of the Chairmen of the Congressional Committees, at the same time sending copies of the proposed plan and materials to the governing body of the affected tribe or group. The one hundred and eighty (180) day period shall begin on the date of the Act with respect to all judgments for which funds have been appropriated and for which enabling legislation has not been enacted.
(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, 2014 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, 2014 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 11, 2015

 

 

 

 

 

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, 2001 Ross Avenue, Suite 1800, Dallas, TX 75201-2997

T: (214) 999 1400, F: (214)754 7991, www.pwc.com/us
#### General American Tank Car Corporation *v.*Dobda.

[No. 12,355.

Filed October 16, 1925.]

Master and *Servant.—Industrial Board’s finding that injured employee’s total disability had not ceased held*erroneous.—A finding by the Industrial Board that an injured employee’s total disability had not ceased was erroneous when the uncontradicted evidence showed that he had been employed for a number of months by different employers, and physicians who examined him were of the opinion that he could do ordinary work.

From Industrial Board of Indiana.

Proceeding under the Workmen’s Compensation Act by George Dobda against the General American Tank *518Car Corporation, which filed a petition to be relieved from further payments. From a denial of said petition, the employer appeals. *Reversed.*By the court in banc.

*Gavit, Hall, Smith & Gavit,*for appellant.

*William J. McAleer, Francis J. Dorsey, Gerald A. Gillett*and *Perry R. Chapin,*for appellee.

Nichols, P. J.

On June 15, 1922, the instant parties filed an agreement with the Industrial Board by which appellant agreed to pay appellee statutory workmen’s compensation during appellee’s period of temporary total disability resulting from injuries he received on May 31, 1922, while employed by appellant. Thereafter, appellant petitioned said board to be relieved from further payments'under said agreement for the reason that said period of temporary total disability had ended. From the full board’s finding and award that said period had not ended and its denial of said prayer, this appeal is prosecuted.

It appears by the undisputed evidence that appellees temporary total disability had ceased, that before the time of the trial, he had been employed for a number of months by the Western Steel Company, not working all of the time, however; that he had been employed by the Standard Steel Car Company, working for that company about two months. In each of these employments, he received substantial wages. It was the opinion of physicians who examined him that he could do ordinary work, though one of them testified that he would be impaired for heavy labor.

. We hold that the Industrial Board erred in holding that temporary total disability still continued. The award is reversed, with instructions to the Industrial Board to determine the extent of partial disability, if any, and to make its award accordingly.
(logo) Grant Thornton

 

 

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

 

|  

 

 

  | Audit • Tax •Advisory 

Grant Thornton LLP

1201 Walnut St, Suite 2200

Kansas City, Missouri 64106

T 816.412.2400

F 816.412.2404 |
|--------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

Board of Directors

Situs Holdings, LLC

 

We have examined management' s assertion, included in the accompanying Certification  Regarding Compliance with  Applicable  Servicing  Criteria (“Management's  Assertion"),  that  Situs  Holdings,  LLC  (the  "Company") complied with  servicing criteria set forth in Items  1117, 1119, 1122(d)(3)(i), 1122(d)(4)(i) and  1122(d)(4)(vii) of the U.S. Securities and  Exchange  Commission's Regulation  AB included in Appendix A as of and for the year ended December 31, 2015, with respect to the Company's Operating or Trust Advisor Services performed over the deals listed in Appendix B (the “Platform”). Management is responsible for the Company's compliance with the applicable servicing criteria. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on management's assertion about the Company's compliance with the applicable servicing criteria for the Platform based on our examination.

 

Our examination was conducted in accordance with the 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 for the Services and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. Our examination was not designed to detect material noncompliance that may have occurred prior to the period covered by this report and that may have affected the Company's activities with respect to the Platform 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 applicable servicing criteria.

 

In our opinion, management's assertion that Situs Holdings, LLC complied with the aforementioned minimum servicing standards as of and for the year ended December 31, 2015, for the Platform is fairly stated, in all material respects.

 

 

/s/ Grant Thornton LLP

 

Kansas City, Missouri 

February 18, 2016
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation 

75-28 

February 27, 1975 

REFERENCE: 

 [*1] 4062(b) Liability of Employer in Single Employer Plans. Amount of Employer Liability 

OPINION: 

 This is in response to your letter of October 31, 1974, wherein you advise that you are considering the termination

of the * * * Pension Plan. You requested that we confirm your understanding as to the legality and consequencies [sic]

of your proposed distribution of the assets of the plan. We regret that our response has been delayed so long. 

In your letter you state that the plan's assets are sufficient to fund all vested liabilities and ask whether, assuming

a proper distribution, you would be liable to this Corporation on termination. Where a plan terminates and assets are

sufficient to fund all vested liabilities, those assets are also ordinarily sufficient to pay all benefits guaranteed under

Section 4022(a) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (hereinafter the "Act"). The liability to this

Corporation of an employer upon the termination of a covered pension plan is limited to the excess of the current value

of the plan's benefits guaranteed under this Title on the date of termination over the current value of the plan's assets

allocable on the date of termination. [*2] Act, Section 4062(b)(1). Accordingly, on the facts stated in your letter, it

appears that your company would probably not be liable to this Corporation upon termination of its pension plan. 

Should you decide to terminate the plan, as your letter indicated you intend to do, please be advised that you must

first file a Notice of Termination with this Corporation pursuant to Section 4041(a) of the Act. When that notice is filed,

we will make a specific determination concerning the sufficiency of your plan on the date of termination and advise you

finally as to whether the proposed distributions may be made without violating Title IV of the Act. 

You have also asked whether certain distirbutions,[sic] including payments to "two of the top twenty-five, highest

paid employees [who] . . . have restricted benefits under the plan" could be made. We feel constrained not to answer

that inquiry because such distribution may, depending on the circumstances, have tax consequences which the Internal

Revenue Service, rather than this Corporation, must determine. Should you terminate your plan, your local Internal

Revenue Service Office will, we are confident, assist you in obtaining whatever [*3] tax information you may require.

I trust this answers your inquiry. 

George B. Driesen 

Deputy General Counsel
Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed February 14, 2019.

In The 

Fourteenth Court of Appeals 

NO. 14-19-00087-CR

TIMOTHY MARCUS WILLIAMS, Appellant 

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee 

On Appeal from the County Criminal Court at Law No. 9 

Harris County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. 2127076 

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N 

This is an attempted appeal of the trial court’s order dismissing the case 

against appellant. In Texas, appeals in criminal cases are permitted only when they 

are authorized by statute. State ex rel. Lykos, 330 S.W.3d 904, 915 (Tex. Crim. 

App. 2011); see Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 44.02. Generally, a criminal 

defendant may only appeal from a final judgment. See State v. Sellers, 790 S.W.2d 

316, 321 n.4 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990). A “final judgment” is a “final judgment of 
2

conviction,” which is defined in the Code of Criminal Procedure as “the written 

declaration of the court signed by the trial judge and entered of record showing the 

conviction or acquittal of the defendant.” Raley v. State, 441 S.W.3d 647, 650 

(Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2014, pet ref’d); Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 

42.01, § 1. Appellant was not convicted or acquitted. The State filed a motion to 

dismiss the case against him which the trial court granted. 

Because this appeal does not fall within the exceptions to the general rule 

that appeal may be taken only from a final judgment of conviction, we have no 

jurisdiction. 

Accordingly, the appeal is ordered dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. 

PER CURIAM 

Panel consists of Justices Wise, Zimmerer, and Spain. 

Do Not Publish – Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)
EXHIBIT 35.1





SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT





I, Lonni L. Dieck, certify that:





(a) A review of AEP Texas Inc.’s (the “Servicer”) activities during the reporting period covered by this Report on Form 10-K and of its performance under that certain Transition Property Servicing Agreement dated as of March 14, 2012 between AEP Texas Central Transition Funding III LLC, as the Issuing Entity, and the Servicer (the "Servicing Agreement") has been made under my supervision.





(b) To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Servicing Agreement in all material respects throughout the reporting period.





Date: March 30, 2017








/s/ Lonni L. Dieck


Name:  Lonni L. Dieck


Title: Treasurer and Senior Officer in Charge of


the Servicing Function, AEP Texas Inc., as Servicer
120 STAT. 2688 PUBLIC LAW 109–388—DEC. 12, 2006

Public Law 109–388

109th Congress

An Act

To direct the Secretary of the Interior to convey Paint Bank National Fish Hatchery

and Wytheville National Fish Hatchery to the State of Virginia.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Paint Bank and Wytheville

National Fish Hatcheries Conveyance Act’’.

SEC. 2. CONVEYANCE OF PAINT BANK AND WYTHEVILLE NATIONAL

FISH HATCHERIES TO THE STATE OF VIRGINIA.

(a) IN GENERAL.—Within 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Interior shall convey to

the State of Virginia without reimbursement all right, title, and

interest of the United States in and to the property described

in subsection (b) for use by the Virginia Department of Fish and

Game as part of the State of Virginia fish culture program.

(b) PROPERTY DESCRIBED.—The property referred to in subsection (a) consists of—

(1) the real property comprising Paint Bank National Fish

Hatchery and Wytheville National Fish Hatchery, located at

Paint Bank and Wytheville, Virginia, respectively, as described

in the 1982 Cooperative Agreement between the United States

Fish and Wildlife Service and the State of Virginia;

(2) all improvements and related personal property under

the control of the Secretary that is located on that real property,

including buildings, structures, and equipment; and

(3) all easements, leases, and water rights relating to the

property described in paragraphs (1) and (2).

(c) REVERSIONARY INTEREST.—If any of the property conveyed

to the State of Virginia under this section is used for any purpose

other than the use authorized under subsection (a), all right, title,

and interest in and to all property conveyed under this section

shall revert to the United States. The State of Virginia shall ensure

Deadline.

Paint Bank and

Wytheville

National Fish

Hatcheries

Conveyance Act.

Dec. 12, 2006

[H.R. 5061]

PUBLIC LAW 109–388—DEC. 12, 2006 120 STAT. 2689

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 5061:

HOUSE REPORTS: No. 109–533 (Comm. on Resources).

SENATE REPORTS: No. 109–341 (Comm. on Environment and Public Works).

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 152 (2006):

July 10, considered and passed House.

Nov. 16, considered and passed Senate.

Æ

that all property reverting to the United States under this subsection is in substantially the same or better condition as at the

time of transfer to the State.

Approved December 12, 2006.
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 
-  Employers & Practitioners 
-  Mortality, Retirement and PV Max Guarantee 
-  ERISA Section 4044 Retirement Assumptions 
-  Retirement Rate Category Tables 2020 

This page has not been translated. Please go to PBGC.gov's Spanish home page for more information available in Spanish.

Esta página no ha sido traducida. Por favor vaya a la página principal del sitio de español de PBGC para ver información disponible en español.

# Retirement Rate Category Tables 2020

The rate tables applicable for other years are accessible from the main XRA webpage.

**TABLE I-20 SELECTION OF RETIREMENT RATE CATEGORY**

For valuation dates in 2020

December 7, 2020