alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 37.15 Physical security features for the driver's license or identification card. ( a ) *General.* States must include document security features on REAL ID driver's licenses and identification cards designed to deter forgery and counterfeiting, promote an adequate level of confidence in the authenticity of cards, and facilitate detection of fraudulent cards in accordance with this section. ( 1 ) These features must not be capable of being reproduced using technologies that are commonly used and made available to the general public.
( 2 ) The proposed card solution must contain a well-designed, balanced set of features that are effectively combined and provide multiple layers of security. States must describe these document security features in their security plans pursuant to § 37.41.
( b ) *Integrated security features.* REAL ID driver's licenses and identification cards must contain at least three levels of integrated security features that provide the maximum resistance to persons' efforts to— ( 1 ) Counterfeit, alter, simulate, or reproduce a genuine document;
( 2 ) Alter, delete, modify, mask, or tamper with data concerning the original or lawful card holder;
( 3 ) Substitute or alter the original or lawful card holder's photograph and/or signature by any means; and
( 4 ) Create a fraudulent document using components from legitimate driver's licenses or identification cards.
( c ) *Security features to detect false cards.* States must employ security features to detect false cards for each of the following three levels: ( 1 ) *Level 1.* Cursory examination, without tools or aids involving easily identifiable visual or tactile features, for rapid inspection at point of usage.
( 2 ) *Level 2.* Examination by trained inspectors with simple equipment.
( 3 ) *Level 3.* Inspection by forensic specialists.
( d ) *Document security and integrity.* States must conduct a review of their card design and submit a report to DHS with their certification that indicates the ability of the design to resist compromise and document fraud attempts. The report required by this paragraph is SSI and must be handled and protected in accordance with 49 CFR part 1520. Reports must be updated and submitted to DHS whenever a security feature is modified, added, or deleted. After reviewing the report, DHS may require a State to provide DHS with examination results from a recognized independent laboratory experienced with adversarial analysis of identification documents concerning one or more areas relating to the card's security.
### §3017a. Class A notes as paid-in capital of the Bank

Only for purposes of section 3017(a) of this title, class A notes shall be deemed to be paid-in capital of the Bank.

(Pub. L. 97–35, title III, §391(b)(1), Aug. 13, 1981, 95 Stat. 434.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was enacted as part of the National Consumer Cooperative Bank Act Amendments of 1981 and also as part of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981, and not as part of the National Consumer Cooperative Bank Act which comprises this chapter.

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

#### Effective Date

Pub. L. 97–35, title III, §391(b)(2), Aug. 13, 1981, 95 Stat. 434, provided that: "This subsection [enacting this section] shall take effect on the day after the Final Government Equity Redemption Date [Dec. 31, 1981]." For definition of "Final Government Equity Redemption Date", see section 396(a) of Pub. L. 97–35, set out as a note under section 3012 of this title.
#### TOWN OF SPARTA v. HAMM

No. 66P90

Case below: 97 N.C.App. 1

Petition by defendants for discretionary review pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 denied 1 March 1990.
EX-35.3

(logo) WELLS FARGO

Corporate Trust Services

MAC R1204-010
9062 Old Annapolis Road
Columbia, MD 21045

Tel: 410 884 2000
Fax: 410 715 2380


Deutsche Mortgage & Asset Receiving Corporation
60 Wall Street
New York, New York 10005


RE: Annual Statement of Compliance for COMM 2012-CCRE1 Commercial Mortgage
    Pass-Through Certificates

Per the Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of May 1, 2012 (the
"Agreement"), the undersigned, a duly authorized officer of Wells Fargo Bank,
N.A., as Certificate Administrator ("Wells Fargo"), hereby certifies as follows
as of and for the year ending December 31, 2013 (the "Reporting Period"):

(a) A review of Wells Fargo's activities during the Reporting Period and of its
performance under the Agreement has been made under such officer's supervision;
and

(b) To the best of such officer's knowledge, based on such review, Wells Fargo
has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material
respects throughout the Reporting Period.


March 7, 2014


/s/ Brian Smith
BRIAN SMITH
Vice President


Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 36 (Wednesday, February 23, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10054-10055]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-4031]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

[Docket No. FR-5415-C-22A]


Notice of Availability: Notice of Technical Correction to the 
Notice of Funding Availability for Fiscal Year 2010 Transformation 
Initiative: Natural Experiments Program

AGENCY: Office of the Chief of the Human Capital Officer, HUD.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: On January 20, 2011, HUD posted on http://www.Grants.gov, a 
Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) for Fiscal Year 2010 
Transformation Initiative: Natural Experiments Grant Program. This 
Correction clarifies the rating Factors for Award to be used in 
determining selected applicants and extends the deadline date.
    Funding for this effort is made available by the Department of 
Housing and Urban Development Appropriations Act, 2010 (Pub. L. 111-117 
approved December 16, 2009). This program is undertaken by HUD's 
research authority under the Transformation Initiative Fund.
    This Technical Correction also extends the application deadline 
date from Monday, February 21, 2011 to a new application deadline date 
of Wednesday, February 23, 2011. Applicants do not need to download a 
new application or resubmit their applications as a result of this 
notice.
    The technical correction notice can be found using the Department 
of Housing and Urban Development agency link on the Grants.gov/Find Web 
site at http://www.grants.gov/search/agency.do. A link to Grants.gov is 
also available on the HUD Web site at http://www.hud.gov/offices/adm/grants/fundsavail.cfm. The Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance 
(CFDA) number for this program is 14.524. Applications must be 
submitted electronically through Grants.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Questions regarding specific program 
requirements should be directed to the agency contact identified in the 
program NOFA. Program staff will not be available to provide guidance 
on how to prepare the application. Questions regarding the 2010 General 
Section should be directed to the Office of Grants Management and 
Oversight at (202) 708-0667 or the NOFA Information Center at 800-HUD-
8929 (toll free). Persons with hearing or speech impairments may access 
these numbers via TTY by calling the Federal Information Relay Service 
at 800-877-8339.


[[Page 10055]]


    Dated: February 17, 2011.
Barbara S. Dorf,
Director, Office of Departmental Grants, Management and Oversight, 
Office of the Chief Human Capital Officer.
[FR Doc. 2011-4031 Filed 2-22-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4210-67-P
### [§4350. Omitted]

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

See Codification note set out under section 4351 of this title.
SCPW-18-0000406

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

 

GALINA OGEONE, Petitioner,

vs.

THE HONORABLE JEFFREY P. CRABTREE, Judge of the Circuit Court of

the First Circuit, State of Hawai#i, Respondent Judge,

and

DENTIST LESLIE AU, Respondent.

 

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

(CIV. NOS. 16-1-1347-7 and 16-1-1348-7)

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Pollack, and Wilson, JJ.)

Upon consideration of petitioner Galina Ogeone’s

petition for writ of mandamus, filed on May 14, 2018, the

documents attached thereto and submitted in support thereof, and

the record, it appears that petitioner fails to demonstrate that

she is entitled to the requested extraordinary writ. See Kema v.

Gaddis, 91 Hawai#i 200, 204-05, 982 P.2d 334, 338-39 (1999) (a

writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy that will not issue

unless the petitioner demonstrates a clear and indisputable right

to relief and a lack of alternative means to redress adequately

the alleged wrong or obtain the requested action; where a court

has discretion to act, mandamus will not lie to interfere with or

Electronically Filed

Supreme Court

SCPW-18-0000406

21-MAY-2018

01:43 PM
control the exercise of that discretion, even when the judge has

acted erroneously, unless the judge has exceeded his or her

jurisdiction, has committed a flagrant and manifest abuse of

discretion, or has refused to act on a subject properly before

the court under circumstances in which he or she has a legal duty

to act). Accordingly, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition for writ of

mandamus is denied. 

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, May 21, 2018.

/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald

/s/ Paula A. Nakayama

/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna

/s/ Richard W. Pollack

/s/ Michael D. Wilson

2
#### Edward F. Browning, Appellant, v. Meyer L. Sire, Respondent, Impleaded.

— Motion to dismiss appeal granted, with ten dollars costs.
#### § 15.1 Purpose.

The purpose of this part is to effectuate section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (“Section 504”), as amended by section 119 of the Rehabilitation, Comprehensive Services, and Developmental Disabilities Amendments of 1978, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability in programs or activities conducted by Executive agencies. The provisions established by this part shall be effective for all components of the Department, including all Department components that are transferred to the Department, except to the extent that a Department component already has existing section 504 regulations.
§ 89.42 Factors to be considered. The following factors are to be considered in determining whether funds should be paid to provide private legal representation for a tribe. ( a ) The merits of the legal position which the tribe asserts. Greater weight will be given to those cases where the tribe's legal argument is deemed particularly meritorious than to those cases where the tribe's position, although not entirely without merit, may be relatively weak;
( b ) The ability of the tribe to pay all or a part of its legal expenses out of its own funds. A review of the tribe's financial resources under this subsection will include an examination of the tribe's total expenditures to determine whether its expenditures for other purposes comport with the asserted importance of the case for which it seeks funds;
( c ) Whether the question the tribe seeks to litigate is being litigated in another case by another tribe;
( d ) Whether, as a matter of strategy, the issues the tribe seeks to litigate could be more satisfactorily resolved in another forum, in a different factual context, or a different time; and
( e ) Whether the issue should be litigated at all in preference to a legislative or other solution.
null

337.94696
*

 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. 05-50371

_____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

 Plaintiff - Appellee

 v.

CESAR SANTA CRUZ-PASILLAS

 Defendant - Appellant

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

Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Western District of Texas, El Paso

3:04-CR-2363

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

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BENAVIDES and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

IT IS ORDERED that the Appellee’s unopposed motion to vacate

the sentence is GRANTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Appellee’s unopposed motion

to remand the case to District Court for resentencing is GRANTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Appellee’s alternative

unopposed motion to extend time to file the Appellee’s brief

until fourteen (14) days from the Court’s denial of the

Appellee’s motion to vacate and remand is DENIED as moot.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

December 8, 2005

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the Court has determine d that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-40689 Summary Calendar

JOBETH RUSSELL; TERESA BOBB,
Plaintiffs-Appellants, Cross-Appellees,

versus

DILLARD DEPARTMENT STORES, INC.,

Defendant-Appellee, Cross-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Eastern District of Texas

(1:95-CV-84)

July 29, 1996 Before GARWOOD, WIENER and PARKER, Circuit Judges. *

PER CURIAM:

Jobeth Russell and Teresa Bobb appeal the g rant of partial

summary judgment of the federal claims against Dillard Department

Stores, Inc. Dillard Department Stores, Inc., cross-appeals the

remand of the state law claims.2

We have reviewed the briefs and the record and find no error

in the district court’s determinations on these issues. We affirm

the grant of partial summary judgment and the remand of the state

law claims e ssentially for the reasons stated by the magistrate

j udge and as adopted by the district court. R ussell v. Di llard

Department Store , No. 1:95-CV-84 (E.D. Tex. June 5, 1995). There

was no evidence Dillard or its agents or employees acted on the

basis of race; nor was there any abuse of discretion in the remand

of the state law claims.

AFFIRMED
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 
-  Guidance Document Database 

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.

# Guidance Document Database

The documents listed below are PBGC’s guidance documents. The contents of these documents do not have the force and effect of law, unless expressly authorized by statute or incorporated into a contract, and are not meant to bind the public in any way. These documents are intended only to provide clarity to the public regarding existing requirements under the law or agency policies.

 If you would like to comment on an existing guidance document, please submit your comment, including your contact information, to the General Counsel at  GuidanceComments@pbgc.gov or at Regulatory Affairs Division, Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, Office of the General Counsel, 445 12th Street, SW, Washington, DC 20024-2101.

-    First  
-    Previous  
-   ...  
-  4 
-  5 
-  6 
-  7 
-  8 
-  9 
-  10 
-  11 
-  12 
-   ...  
-   Next  
-   Last
#### § 39.220 What reports must residential programs submit to comply with this subpart?

Residential programs must report their monthly counts to the Director on the last school day of the month. To be counted, a student must have been in residence at least 10 nights during each full school month.
# C_2007095EN.01004202.xml

| 28.4.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 95/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.4.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 95/42

---

Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 1 March 2007 — FMC Chemical and Others v EFSA

(Cases T-311/06 RI, T-311/06 RII, T-312/06 R and T-313/06 R)

(Application for interim measures - Application for suspension of operation - Directive 91/414/EEC - European Food Safety Authority - Inadmissibility)

(2007/C 95/86)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: FMC Chemical SPRL (Brussels, Belgium), Arysta Lifesciences SAS (Noguères, France) and Otsuka Chemical Co. Ltd (Osaka, Japan) (represented by: C. Mereu and K. Van Maldegem, lawyers)

Applicants:

Defendant: European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) (represented by: A. Cuvillier and D. Detken, Agents)

Defendant:

Intervener in support of the Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: B. Doherty, Agent)

Intervener in support of the Defendant:

Re:

Applications for suspension of operation of the measures of the EFSA of 28 July and 28 August 2006 regarding the evaluation of the active substances carbofuran, carbosulfan and benfuracarb in accordance with Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (OJ 1991 L 230, p. 1), and for other interim measures.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | Cases T-311/06 RI, T-311/06 RII, T-312/06 R and T-313/06 R are joined for the purpose of this order. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Cases T-311/06 RI, T-311/06 RII, T-312/06 R and T-313/06 R are joined for the purpose of this order.

| 2. | The applications for interim relief are dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The applications for interim relief are dismissed.

| 3. | Costs are reserved. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Costs are reserved.

---
# C_2007017EN.01002401.xml

| 25.1.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 17/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.1.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 17/24

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.4356 — Deutsche Bank/Berliner Bank)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2007/C 17/04)

On 15 December 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 German and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

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

—

from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website 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 32006M4356. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://eur-lex.europa.eu) |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32006M4356. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://eur-lex.europa.eu)

---
----

|   | By:    | /s/ Gary R. Vaughan    |
|--------|--------|------------------------|
|   |   | Name: Gary R. Vaughan  |
|   |   | Its: Managing Director |
|   |   |                   |
|   | By:    | /s/ David Co           |
|   |   | Name: David Co         |
|   |   | Its: Director          |
|   |   |                   |
|   | By:    | /s/ Matt Bowen         |
|   |   | Name: Matt Bowen       |
|   |   | Its: Managing Director |
|   |   |                   |
|   | By:    | /s/ Kevin Fischer      |
|   |   | Name: Kevin Fischer    |
|   |   | Its: Director          |
|   |   |                   |
|   | By:    | /s/ Robert Frier       |
|   |   | Name: Robert Frier     |
|   |   | Its: Managing Director |

|   |   |                |
|--------|--------|---------------------|
|   | By:    | /s/ Jenna Kaufman   |
|   |   | Name: Jenna Kaufman |
|   |   | Its: Director       |

----
# C_2007082EN.01000601.xml

| 14.4.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 82/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.4.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 82/6

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 8 February 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Investrand BV v Staatssecretaris van Financiën

(Case C-435/05) (1)

1

(Sixth VAT Directive - Article 17(2) - Right to deduct - Costs related to advisory services obtained in the course of arbitration proceedings to establish the amount of a claim that forms part of a company's assets, but arose before its holder became liable to VAT)

(2007/C 82/10)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Investrand BV

Applicant:

Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

Defendant:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Interpretation of Article 17(2) 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 (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) — Services paid for by a taxable person with a view to establishing the amount of a claim which arose before he became a taxable person — Deduction of the tax — Need for a direct and immediate link between the services and his activity as a taxable person or not

Operative part of the judgment

Article 17(2) 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, is to be interpreted as meaning that the costs for advisory services which a taxable person obtains with a view to establishing the amount of a claim forming part of his company's assets and relating to a sale of shares prior to his becoming liable to VAT do not, in the absence of evidence establishing that the exclusive reason for those services is to be found in the economic activity, within the meaning of that directive, carried out by the taxable person, have a direct and immediate link with that activity and, consequently, do not give rise to a right to deduct the VAT charged on them.

---

(1)  OJ C 74, 25.3.2006.

1

---
### **CHAPTER 719—TEMPORARY APPOINTMENTS**

Sec.
7176.
Retention on active duty.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

**2018**—Pub. L. 115–232, div. A, title VIII, §808(e)(2)(A), (f)(1), Aug. 13, 2018, 132 Stat. 1839, redesignated chapter 339 of this title as this chapter and item 3446 as 7176.

**1980**—Pub. L. 96–513, title V, §502(11), Dec. 12, 1980, 94 Stat. 2910, struck out items 3441 "General rule", 3442 "Commissioned officers; regular and reserve components: appointment in higher grade", 3444 "Commissioned officers: during war or emergency", 3445 "Officers: additional appointments during war or emergency", 3447 "Appointments in commissioned grade: how made; how terminated", 3448 "Warrant officers: grades, appointment", 3449 "Warrant officers: promotion", 3451 "Officers: acceptance of appointment in higher grade", and 3452 "Officers; Medical and Dental Corps: temporary promotion to captain".

**1968**—Pub. L. 90–235, §3(b)(2), Jan. 2, 1968, 81 Stat. 758, struck out item 3450 "Warrant officers: suspension of laws for promotion or mandatory retirement or separation during war or emergency".

**1958**—Pub. L. 85–861, §1(81)(F), (G), Sept. 2, 1958, 72 Stat. 1480, struck out item 3443 "Commissioned officers; Reserves; appointment in higher or lower grade" and added item 3452.
### §2279bb–7. Repealed. Pub. L. 115–334, title V, §5411(51), Dec. 20, 2018, 132 Stat. 4685

Section, Pub. L. 92–181, title VIII, §8.38, as added Pub. L. 104–105, title I, §117, Feb. 10, 1996, 110 Stat. 168, related to recapitalization of Corporation.