alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Before the

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

Release No. 77046 / February 3, 2016

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING

File No. 3-14594

____________________________________

 :

In the Matter of : ORDER GRANTING

CREDIT SUISSE ALTERNATIVE : EXTENSION OF TIME

CAPITAL, LLC (f/k/a CREDIT : TO SUBMIT PROPOSED

SUISSE ALTERNATIVE CAPITAL, : PLAN OF DISTRIBUTION

INC.), CREDIT SUISSE ASSET :

MANAGEMENT, LLC, and :

SAMIR H. BHATT, : 

:

Respondents. :

____________________________________:

The Division of Enforcement (“Division”) has requested an order for an 

extension of time, until July 14, 2016, to submit a proposed plan of distribution in the 

above-captioned matter pursuant to Rule 1101(a) of the Commission’s Rules on Fair 

Fund and Disgorgement Plans. In its request, the Division states that the violations in 

this matter arise in connection with the same conduct alleged in SEC v. Citigroup 

Global Markets Inc. (the “Citigroup action” or the “civil action”) (11-cv-7387), a 

settled case filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York,

which settlement was rejected by the Court and the case set for trial on July 16, 2012. 

The SEC appealed the trial court’s rulings to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second 

Circuit (“Second Circuit”), and a stay was entered on March 15, 2012 pending 

resolution of the appeal.1 Oral arguments were heard before the Second Circuit on 

 

1

See United States Securities & Exchange Commission v. Citigroup Global Markets, Inc., Docket No. 

11-05227 (2d Cir., Dec. 20, 2011).
2

February 8, 2013. On August 5, 2014, final judgment was entered by the Southern 

District of New York.2 

Now that the final judgment has been entered, the Division states that 

additional time is needed to draft an action memorandum requesting special treatment 

provided under Rule 1102(a) to transfer funds paid in this administrative proceeding to 

the district court without need to publish a plan of distribution. The memo still needs 

to be circulated for internal review, and additional time will be necessary to receive 

and incorporate any comments and changes received. 

Accordingly, for good cause shown, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the 

Division’s request for an extension of time until July 14, 2016, to submit a proposed 

plan of distribution is granted. 

For the Commission, by its Secretary, pursuant to delegated authority. 

Brent J. Fields

Secretary

 

2

See Securities & Exchange Commission v. Citigroup Global Markets, Inc., Case No. 11-cv-7387 (JSR) 

(S.D.N.Y., Aug. 5, 2014).
#### In the Matter of Rye Police Association, Appellant, v City of Rye, Respondent.

[824 NYS2d 163]

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, in effect, to review a determination of the respondent dated January 15, 2004, denying, without a hearing, the petitioner’s request under the Freedom of Information Law (Public Officers Law art 6) that the respondent produce for inspection and copying all reports prepared by Robert V Kearon, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (DiBella, J.), entered January 11, 2005, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The petitioner requested the respondent to produce certain documents for inspection and copying under the Freedom of Information Law (Public Officers Law art 6; hereinafter FOIL). The respondent denied the request on the ground that the documents were privileged attorney-client information *(see*CPLR 4503), and therefore, pursuant to Public Officers Law § 87 (2) (a), the documents were exempt from the general requirement of FOIL that the public be given access to records.

After an in camera review of the subject documents, the Supreme Court correctly concluded that the documents were exempt from disclosure under the attorney-client privilege. The documents sought, “reports from Robert V Kearon,” were “primarily and predominantly legal in nature and, in their full content and context, were made to render legal advice or services” *(All Waste Sys. v Gulf Ins. Co.,*295 AD2d 379, 380 [2002]; *see Spectrum Sys. Intl. Corp. v Chemical Bank,*78 NY2d 371 [1991]; *Rossi v Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Greater N.Y.,*73 NY2d 588 [1989]; *Kraus v Brandstetter,*185 AD2d 300 [1992]; *see also AG-Energy, L.P. v Niagara Mohawk Power Corp.,*265 AD2d 255 [1999]).

In view of our determination that the attorney-client privilege *592is applicable, we need not reach the petitioner’s remaining argument that Supreme Court should have held a hearing on the Civil Rights Law § 50-a alternate basis asserted by the respondent for denial of access to the documents in question. In any event, we conclude that the petitioner failed to meet its initial burden of demonstrating entitlement to access to the documents pursuant to Civil Rights Law § 50-a *(see Telesford v Patterson,*27 AD3d 328 [2006], citing *Taran v State of New York,*140 AD2d 429 [1988]). Miller, J.P., Ritter, Rivera and Lifson, JJ., concur.
§ 4.96 Amendment of exemption. ( a ) An exemption holder must construct and operate its project as described in the exemption application approved by the Commission or its delegate.
( b ) If an exemption holder desires to change the design, location, method of construction or operation of its project, it must first notify the appropriate Federal and state fish and wildlife agencies and inform them in writing of the changes it intends to implement. If these agencies determine that the changes would not cause the project to violate the terms and conditions imposed by the agencies, and if the changes would not materially alter the design, location, method of construction or operation of the project, the exemption holder may implement the changes. If any of these agencies determines that the changes would cause the project to violate the terms and conditions imposed by the agencies, or if the changes would materially alter the design, location, method of construction or the operation of the project works, the exemption holder may not implement the changes without first acquiring authorization from the Commission to amend its exemption, or acquiring a license that authorizes the project, as changed.
( c ) An application to amend an exemption may be filed only by the holder of the exemption. An application to amend an exemption will be governed by the Commission's regulations governing applications for exemption. The Commission will not accept applications in competition with an application to amend an exemption, unless the Director of the Office of Energy Projects determines that it is in the public interest to do so.
[Order 413, 50 FR 11687, Mar. 25, 1985, as amended by Order 699, 72 FR 45324, Aug. 14, 2007]
Editorial Note on Part 1003
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 1003 appear at 68 FR 9846, Feb. 28, 2003, and at 68 FR 10350, Mar. 5, 2003.

§ 1003.14 Jurisdiction and commencement of proceedings. ( a ) Jurisdiction vests, and proceedings before an Immigration Judge commence, when a charging document is filed with the Immigration Court by the Service. The charging document must include a certificate showing service on the opposing party pursuant to § 1003.32 which indicates the Immigration Court in which the charging document is filed. However, no charging document is required to be filed with the Immigration Court to commence bond proceedings pursuant to §§ 1003.19, 1236.1(d) and 1240.2(b) of this chapter.
( b ) When an Immigration Judge has jurisdiction over an underlying proceeding, sole jurisdiction over applications for asylum shall lie with the Immigration Judge.
( c ) Immigration Judges have jurisdiction to administer the oath of allegiance in administrative naturalization ceremonies conducted by the Service in accordance with § 1337.2(b) of this chapter.
( d ) The jurisdiction of, and procedures before, immigration judges in exclusion, deportation and removal, rescission, asylum-only, and any other proceedings shall remain in effect as it was in effect on February 28, 2003, until the regulations in this chapter are further modified by the Attorney General. Where a decision of an officer of the Immigration and Naturalization Service was, before March 1, 2003, appealable to the Board or an immigration judge, or an application denied could be renewed in proceedings before an immigration judge, the same authority and procedures shall be followed until further modified by the Attorney General.
[57 FR 11571, Apr. 6, 1992, as amended at 60 FR 34089, June 30, 1995; 62 FR 10332, Mar. 6, 1997. Redesignated and amended at 68 FR 9830, 9832, Feb. 28, 2003]
§ 140.906 Labor costs. ( a ) *General.* ( 1 ) Salaries and wages, at actual or average rates, and related expenses paid by a company to individuals, for the time they are working on the project, are reimbursable when supported by adequate records. This shall include labor costs associated with preliminary engineering, construction engineering, right-of-way, and force account construction.
( 2 ) Salaries and expenses paid to individuals who are normally part of the overhead organization of the company may be reimbursed for the time they are working directly on the project, such as for accounting and bill preparation, when supported by adequate records and when the work performed by such individuals is essential to the project and could not have been accomplished as economically by employees outside the overhead organization.
( 3 ) Amounts paid to engineers, architects and others for services directly related to projects may be reimbursed.
( b ) *Labor surcharges.* ( 1 ) Labor surcharges include worker compensation insurance, public liability and property damage insurance, and such fringe benefits as the company has established for the benefit of its employees. The cost of labor surcharges will be reimbursed at actual cost to the company or a company may, at its option, use an additive rate or other similar technique in lieu of actual costs provided that ( i ) the rate is based on historical cost data of the company,
( ii ) such rate is representative of actual costs incurred,
( iii ) the rate is adjusted at least annually taking into consideration known anticipated changes and correcting for any over or under applied costs for the preceding period, and
( iv ) the rate is approved by the SHA and FHWA.
( 2 ) Where the company is a self-insurer there may be reimbursement: ( i ) At experience rates properly developed from actual costs, not to exceed the rates of a regular insurance company for the class of employment covered, or
( ii ) At the option of the company, a fixed rate of 8 percent of direct labor costs for worker compensation and public liability and property damage insurance together.
[40 FR 16057, Apr. 9, 1975, as amended at 47 FR 33955, Aug. 5, 1982; 56 FR 56578, Nov. 6, 1991]
FY 2016 Service Contract Inventory with Planned Analysis of FY 2017 Inventory

As required by OMB Memorandum entitled Service Contract Inventories, dated October 5, 2017, SEC has 

selected the following PSCs in its FY 2017 inventory. The SEC selected three (3) PSCs. None of the selected 

PSCs were included in the FY 2016 review. 

The first PSC code is D310. Product or service description is IT and telecom-cyber security and data backup. 

The dollars obligated in FY 2017 was $835,855.75. This PSC was selected because it is on the special 

interest list and has not been reviewed since FY 2013. 

The second PSC code is D399. Product or service description is IT and telecom- other IT and 

telecommunications. The dollars obligated in FY 2017 was $$9,045,415.92. PSC was selected because it is 

on the top ten biggest percentages of obligations and has not reviewed since 2013. 

The third PSC code is R499. Product or service description is support- professional other. The dollars 

obligated in FY 2017 was $9,895,130.62. PSC was selected because it is on the top ten biggest percentages 

of obligations and has not reviewed since 2014.
!"

 
!	

	#$%$&'

'
()%
&	%
()%


	%$*+

,-+.%/	(%&
$$)	&%
	0&%.%/&	(%&$(

)
	12%	(
344)%
,*560

""#"$

56 #$%$&
	(
&%%&%!

5,6 3
	'
%
	&	+$$	
	'
$$	.%
	56


7%&%/2)	.%/+
	56$$)2(	+	%)+$$
	
	7%

)
.'	$	
	'7%
2%	
%%/
	&	
	
.$	
(%
2	



Case 16-11346-BFK Doc 11 Filed 07/12/16 Entered 07/12/16 15:56:09 Desc Main

 Document Page 1 of 4
%&'




'
()%
&	%
()%


()*+)),-*+


56 '*+,-+&)(
		2%$2		
	&	
%
2	+


	$$'
	2+
(#8
	(# 
9**+(%+:-**

2(
;+---	(
%
	&	
'$$)	&%
	)<--=
$$$$
7&)$%(

#'(2&	%&#$
)
($&7%%-(
	
(&2&
%	'(

%%)

56 
	$$%$$$&	$&%)
(9	2	

	
	&2

&+7%
29%
+&	
.%&	27%%/&)
%
	2	7%%>&'

	'	%$&&	
.%&	22)&&%%
$%
	(%
	2('	12%	


	&	(%%


	?&%
$%)
(!%$2	
%($')
($'7%%	
.%%


$$/	
2&
	&%(%$

5*6 
'$%.
%&))%
56)
($&'4)%
>5 6
#$(2

(&'%$%/

&.		'#	
)&%/$	%9'5-6&'	
(&


	'
%	&	

&@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

 	%!"'

3%&4 <	2)'A2&/

Jul 12 2016 /s/ Brian F. Kenney

Entered on Docket:Jul 12 2016

Case 16-11346-BFK Doc 11 Filed 07/12/16 Entered 07/12/16 15:56:09 Desc Main

 Document Page 2 of 4

%	(%
)
((&&

@BB
(#8
	(@@@@@@@@@@@


(#8
	(

		2

--
	C%/
4	+4--


$9&	%+D
,,

5>-6:,,,

D4 E,,

F
)$2$G-,,56	%%)%



	/
%/	&	7&
	&'&B
		.&2
$$)	'	%2	2
F
)$

2$G-,,56

BB
(#8
	(@@@@@@@@@@@@@@


(#8
	(+		2

Case 16-11346-BFK Doc 11 Filed 07/12/16 Entered 07/12/16 15:56:09 Desc Main

 Document Page 3 of 4
%&'




'
()%
&	%
()%


()*+)),-*+



	




'
()%


	%
()%


	
	

::*!$2
2	

+D
,--G

A2	%
8
H	)
+1



	'
	
	

47'	I
H	)


--*A2&%)%$	+ ,

!%	9+D
,,--


(#8
	(

		2

--
	C%/
4	+4--


$9&	%+D
,,

Case 16-11346-BFK Doc 11 Filed 07/12/16 Entered 07/12/16 15:56:09 Desc Main

 Document Page 4 of 4
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.3

                            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 GIANT GROUP, LTD.'S Annual Report as filed with the SEC
on the date hereof, I, Burt Sugarman, Chief Executive Officer of the GIANT
GROUP, LTD., certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

          (1) This Annual Report fully complies with the requirements of Section
     13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)), and

          (2) The information contained in this Annual Report fairly presents,
     in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations
     of GIANT GROUP, LTD.

Dated: March 27, 2003

                                                        /s/    Burt Sugarman
                                                    ----------------------------
                                                            Burt Sugarman
                                                       Chief Executive Officer
<partyblock><br><br><div align="center"><b><font size="+1">Island Life Chiropractic Pain Care, PLLC, as Assignee of St. Juste, Rilaire, Respondent,<br><br>against<br><br>Omni Indemnity Company, Appellant.</font></b></div><br><br><p>Freiberg, Peck &amp; Kang, LLP (Yilo J. Kang of counsel), for appellant.The Rybak Firm, PLLC (Damin J. Toell of counsel), for respondent.</p><p>Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Odessa Kennedy, J.), entered February 1, 2018. The order, insofar as appealed from, denied defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.</p><p>ORDERED that the order, insofar as appealed from, is reversed, with $30 costs, and defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted.</p><p>In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, defendant appeals from so much of an order of the Civil Court as denied defendant's motion which had sought summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that defendant had not issued an insurance policy covering the vehicle which was involved in the accident in question and that, therefore, plaintiff had sued the wrong party.</p><p>For the reasons stated in <i>Island Life Chiropractic Pain Care, PLLC, as Assignee of Dorleans, Darlene v Omni Indem. Co.</i> (___ Misc 3d ___, 2019 NY Slip Op _____ [appeal No. 2017-526 K C], decided herewith), the order, insofar as appealed from, is reversed and defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted.</p><p>PESCE, P.J., ALIOTTA and SIEGAL, JJ., concur. </p><br>ENTER:<br>Paul Kenny<br>Chief Clerk<br>Decision Date: March 15, 2019<br><br><div align="center"><form method="LINK" action="../../slipidx/at_2_idxtable.shtml"><input type="submit" value="Return to Decision List"></form></div></partyblock>
#### Gertrude Welz, Respondent, v. Commercial Travelers Mutual Accident Association of America, Appellant.

Close, P. J., Hagarty, Carswell, Adel and Taylor, JJ., concur.
### UNPUBLISHED



# UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT



#  U NITED S TATES OFA MERICA ,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. No. 01-4371



# 

E VARISTO P AZ -Z AMORA ,

Defendant-Appellant. 

# 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. Frank W. Bullock, Jr., District Judge.

(CR-00-406)

Submitted: October 4, 2001

Decided: October 16, 2001

Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

COUNSEL
Louis C. Allen, III, Federal Public Defender, John A. Dusenbury, Jr.,Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina. Benjamin H. White, Jr., United States Attorney, Arnold L. Husser, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

OPINION

PER CURIAM: Evaristo Paz-Zamora appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty plea to unlawful re-entry after deportation by an alien who had previously been convicted of an aggravated felony in violation of 8 U.S.C.A. §§ 1326(a), (b)(1)(West 1999). Paz-Zamora’s attorney has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Counsel states there are no meritorious issues for appeal, butcontends on Paz-Zamora’s behalf that the district court erred in sentencing Paz-Zamora to ninety months’ imprisonment, which was within the guidelines range of seventy-seven to ninety-six months. Paz-Zamora was informed of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief but has not done so. As Paz-Zamora presents no challenge to the calculation of the guidelines range but merely contends his sentence was too high within the correct range, we find he is not entitled to appellate review on his claim. See United States v. Jones , 18 F.3d 1145, 1150-51 (4th Cir. 1994); United States v. Porter , 909 F.2d 789, 794 (4th Cir. 1990).In addition, we have examined the entire record in this case in accordance with the requirements of Anders and find no meritorious issuesfor appeal. We therefore affirm Paz-Zamora’s conviction and sentence. This court requires counsel to inform his client, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If the client requests a petition be filed, but counsel believes such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on the client. Finally, we dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentionsare adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED 2 U NITED S TATES v. P AZ -Z AMORA
**Exhibit 3.3**

 

**AMERICAN REALTY INVESTORS, INC.**

 

**ARTICLES OF AMENDMENT**

**TO THERESTATED ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION**

**AS FILED AUGUST 26, 2003**

 

**Decreasing the Number of Authorized Shares of**

**and Eliminating Series B Cumulative Convertible Preferred Stock**

 

Pursuant to the provisions of Section 78.390 of the Nevada Revised Statutes, American Realty Investors, Inc. is desiring to amend its Restated Articles ofIncorporation, as heretofore amended, as more particularly described hereinafter, hereby certifies as follows: 

 

1. The name of the corporation (the “Corporation”) whose Restated Articles of Incorporation, as heretofore amended (the “Articles ofIncorporation”) are being amended hereby is 

 

AmericanRealty Investors, Inc. 

 

2. Set forth immediately below is thetext of the amendments (the “Amendments”) to Article Fourth Section D of the Articles of Incorporation to eliminate Series B Cumulative Convertible Preferred Stock, being made hereby. 

 

A. 

 

Section 1. Designation and Amount which designates the authorized number, preferences, limitations and relativerights of the Corporation’s Series B Cumulative Convertible Preferred Stock is hereby amended to read as follows: 

 

1. Designation and Amount. The number of shares which shall constitute the Series B Cumulative Convertible Preferred Stock shall besuch number as may actually be issued by the Corporation, not to exceed a maximum of zero shares. 

 

B. 

 

Section D. Series B Preferred Stock. as amended by item A above, is hereby deleted from the Articles of Incorporation. 

 

Except as hereby amended, the Articles of Incorporation remain and shall remain in full force and effect. 

 

3. The Amendments were adopted by the Corporation’s Board of Directorsat a meeting held on May 22, 2002. There being no Holders of the Series B Cumulative Convertible Preferred Stock, the approval of a majority of the holders of the Corporation’s Common Stock was obtained at a meeting held on August 26, 2003.

 

Dated this 26th day of August, 2003.
CERTIFICATE OF TRUST
                                    OF
                         MERRY LAND CAPITAL TRUST

     THIS  Certificate  of Trust of Merry Land Capital Trust (the "Trust"),
dated as of September ___,  1999,  is  being duly executed and filed by the
undersigned,  as  trustee,  to form a business  trust  under  the  Delaware
Business Trust Act (12 DEL. C. Section 3801 ET SEQ.).

     1. NAME. The name of the  business  trust  formed hereby is Merry Land
Capital Trust.

     2. DELAWARE TRUSTEE. The name and business address  of  the trustee of
     the Trust with a principal place of business in the State  of Delaware
     is  William J. Reif, The Corporation Trust Company, Corporation  Trust
     Center, 1209 Orange Street, Wilmington, Delaware 19801.

     3. EFFECTIVE  DATE.  This Certificate of Trust shall be effective upon
     filing.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the  undersigned,  being the trustee of the Trust,
has executed this Certificate of Trust as of the date first written above.

                         _____________________________________
                         William J. Reif, not in his individual capacity
                         but solely a trustee of the Trust


D:\America Online 4.0a\download\Certificate of Trust #1.wpd             REH
D.3. Nevada IMPROVE Monitoring 

 

1 

Data for 2006-2010 (Fine Mass)

2006 
 

2 

2007 
 

3 

2008 
 

4 

2009 
5 

2010
§ 571.22 Release clothing and transportation. ( a ) Staff shall provide release clothing appropriate for the time of year and the inmate's geographical destination. Upon request, work clothing will be provided. Nonavailability of work clothing may limit this practice.
( b ) Inmates transferring to a community corrections center will be provided adequate clothing to complete a job search and perform work. Additionally, an outer garment, seasonably suited for the geographical destination will be provided.
( c ) Transportation will be provided to an inmate's place of conviction or to his/her legal residence within the United States or its territories.
[56 FR 23480, May 21, 1991, as amended at 68 FR 34302, June 9, 2003]