alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
 

Bureau of Land Management
 

Butte Field Office
 

Draft RMP/EIS
 

Map 16: Lewis & Clark County
 

NW Travel Plan Route
 

Designations Under Alternative C
 

BLM Routes 

Open Yearlong 

Bureau of Land Managment (BLM) 

Closed Yearlong 

Bureau of Reclamation 

Decommission 

County / City Government 

Snowmobile Only 

Private 

BLM Routes with Restrictions 

State Lands 

Closed 12/2 to 5/15 

Other Federal Lands 

Other Routes 

US Forest Service (USFS) Public Access Route
 

Water
 Non-BLM Route
 

County Boundary
 Interstate
 

Field Office / TPA Boundary
 US Highway 

State Highway 

Map shows proposed road management within the Lewis and Clark County NW Travel Planning Area under Alternative C. 

Under this alternative 8.0 miles of road would be Open yearlong, 11.7 miles of road would be Open with a seasonal 

closure from December 2 to May 15, 41.6 miles of road would be Closed yearlong, and 5.2 miles of road would be 

Decommissioned. 

This map is intended for display purposes. No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land
 

Management as to the accuracy, reliability, or completeness of these data for individual
 Malta 

or aggregate use with other data, or for purposes not intended by BLM. This map may Field Office 

not meet National Map Accuracy Standards. This product was developed through 

digital means and information may be updated without notification. Missoula 

Field Office 

Lewistown Miles Field Office 

04 Miles City 

Map Scale 1:80,000 Field Office 

Butte 

Map generated by the Butte Field Office in February 2007 Field 

Office Billings 

Albers Equal Area, NAD83 Projection Field Office 

Dillon 

Field Office 

Miles 

0 400
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

BEFORE THE

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

INVESTMENT COMPANY ACT OF 1940

Release No. 35064 / December 12, 2023

In the Matter of:

John Hancock GA Mortgage Trust

John Hancock GA Senior Loan Trust

Manulife Investment Management Private Markets (US) LLC

John Hancock Life Insurance Company (U.S.A.)

John Hancock Life & Health Insurance Company

John Hancock Life Insurance Company of New York

John Hancock Funding Company, LLC

Manulife SDF SPV – OH, LLC

MDLF Holdings Onshore LLC

Manulife Direct Lending Fund (Unlevered) L.P.

Manulife Direct Lending Fund, L.P.

197 Clarendon Street

Boston, MA 02116

812-15458

ORDER UNDER SECTIONS 17(d) and 57(i) OF THE INVESTMENT COMPANY ACT OF 

1940 AND RULE 17d-1 UNDER THE ACT

John Hancock GA Mortgage Trust, et al. filed an application on April 25, 2023, and amendments

to the application on May 10, 2023, August 16, 2023, and October 4, 2023, requesting an order 

to amend a prior order under sections 17(d) and 57(i) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 

(the “Act”) and rule 17d-1 under the Act (“Prior Order”). The Prior Order permitted certain joint 

transactions otherwise prohibited by sections 17(d) and 57(a)(4) of the Act and rule 17d-1 under 

the Act. In particular, the Prior Order permitted certain business development companies and 

closed-end management investment companies (collectively, the “Regulated Funds”) to co-invest 

in portfolio companies with each other and with certain affiliated investment entities.

On November 16, 2023, a notice of the filing of the application was issued (Investment 

Company Act Release No. 35050). The notice gave interested persons an opportunity to request 

a hearing and stated that an order disposing of the application would be issued unless a hearing 

was ordered. No request for a hearing has been filed, and the Commission has not ordered a 

hearing.

The matter has been considered and it is found, on the basis of the information set forth in the 

application, as amended, that participation by the Regulated Funds in the proposed transactions 
2

is consistent with the provisions, policies and purposes of the Act and is on a basis no less 

advantageous than that of other participants. 

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED, under sections 17(d) and 57(i) of the Act and rule 17d-1 under the Act, that 

the relief requested by John Hancock GA Mortgage Trust, et al. (File No. 812-15458) is granted, 

effective immediately, subject to the conditions contained in the application, as amended.

For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management, under delegated authority.

Sherry R. Haywood,

Assistant Secretary.
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.

§ 1003.5 Forwarding of record on appeal. ( a ) *Appeal from decision of an immigration judge.* If an appeal is taken from a decision of an immigration judge, the record of proceeding shall be promptly forwarded to the Board upon the request or the order of the Board. Where transcription of an oral decision is required, the immigration judge shall review the transcript and approve the decision within 14 days of receipt, or within 7 days after the immigration judge returns to their duty station if the immigration judge was on leave or detailed to another location. The Chairman and the Chief Immigration Judge shall determine the most effective and expeditious way to transcribe proceedings before the immigration judges, and shall take such steps as necessary to reduce the time required to produce transcripts of those proceedings and to ensure their quality.
( b ) *Appeal from decision of a DHS officer.* If an appeal is taken from a decision of a DHS officer, the record of proceeding shall be forwarded to the Board by the DHS officer promptly upon receipt of the briefs of the parties, or upon expiration of the time allowed for the submission of such briefs. A DHS officer need not forward such an appeal to the Board, but may reopen and reconsider any decision made by the officer if the new decision will grant the benefit that has been requested in the appeal. The new decision must be served on the appealing party within 45 days of receipt of any briefs or upon expiration of the time allowed for the submission of any briefs. If the new decision is not served within these time limits or the appealing party does not agree that the new decision disposes of the matter, the record of proceeding shall be immediately forwarded to the Board.
[89 FR 46791, May 29, 2024]
%"3.1
 )123!,% )$$+%!,% !23!,%

%"3.1

/.42%)&&)+)-' )123!,% )$$+%!,% !23!,%

-)3%$3!3%2!-*14/3#7.413&.13(% )231)#3.&

!2%-4,"%1

&*-.6-

(!/3%1&)+)-'4-$%1

 (!/3%1

 (!/3%1



 (!/3%1


 (!/3%1


		

		

	

&3%1#.-2)$%1)-'3(%




	

		
	&&)#)!+.1,
	3(%

#.413.1$%123(!3

	(%$%"3.12,!7/!73(%&)+)-'&%%)-)-23!++,%-32.-3(%3%1,2/1./.2%$)-3(%!//+)#!3).-

	(%$%"3.12,423/!73(%&)+)-'&%%!##.1$)-'3.3(%&.++.6)-'3%1,2


 










 

.-3(  $!7 7%!1

.-3($!77%!1

.-3($!77%!1

&3(%$%"3.18228"!-*14/3#7#!2%)2$)2,)22%$3(%$%"3.182281)'(32)-.3(%1"!-*14/3#7/1.#%%$)-'2,!7

"%!&&%#3%$

&3(%$%"3.18228"!-*14/3#7#!2%)2$)2,)22%$3(%1%,!)-)-'&)+)-'&%%)2$4%!-$/!7!"+%6)3()-

$!72

&.++.6)-'$)2,)22!+.&3(%#!2%!-$24"2%04%-3!//+)#!3).-23./!7&)+)-'&%%2)-)-23!++,%-36)++"%$%-)%$4-3)+

!++/1).1&)+)-'&%%2!1%/!)$)-&4++

-3)+3(%&)+)-'&%%)2/!)$)-&4++3(%$%"3.12,423-.3,!*%!-7!$$)3).-!+/!7,%-3.131!-2&%1!-7

!$$)3).-!+/1./%1373.!-!33.1-%7.13.!-7.-%%+2%&.12%15)#%2)-#.--%#3).-6)3(3()2#!2%



.-3($!77%!1 -)3%$3!3%2!-*14/3#74$'%

.3)#%.&4$',%-3.11$%1

-3%1%$.-.#*%3: ___________________________________________ 


	.!//5%1

 

(DVWHUQ 9LUJLQLD

Patrick Roch

18-13759-KHK

✔

✔

115.00 12/17/2018

100.00 01/25/2019

95.00 03/06/2019

310.00

Nov 17 2018 /s/ Klinette Kindred

November 19, 2018

Case 18-13759-KHK Doc 13 Filed 11/19/18 Entered 11/19/18 07:58:36 Desc Main

 Document Page 1 of 1
**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

 

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the quarterly report of NMXS.com, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB/A for the quarter ended September 30, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned principal executive officer and the principal financial officer of the Company, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

|   | (1) | the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and |
|--------|-----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

|   | (2) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. |
|--------|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

Date:  March 24, 2006

 

/s/ Richard Govatski

Richard Govatski, President

(Principal Executive Officer)

 

/s/ Teresa Dickey

Teresa Dickey, Treasurer

(Principal Financial Officer)
Exhibit 32.2

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

         In connection with the Quarterly Report of Dental Patient Care America,
Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2006 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Brad Berrett, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

         (1)      The Report fully complies with the requirements of section
                  13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

         (2)      The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in
                  all material respects, the financial condition and result of
                  operations of the Company.


/s/ Brad Berrett
-------------------------
Chief Financial Officer
November 13, 2006
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

**1329 KA 12-00099** 
PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., SMITH, VALENTINO, WHALEN, AND DEJOSEPH, JJ.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

DARIUS R. BURKE-WELLS, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

TIMOTHY P. DONAHER, PUBLIC DEFENDER, ROCHESTER (MARK C. DAVISON OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

SANDRA DOORLEY, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (NANCY GILLIGAN OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

Appeal from a judgment of the Monroe County Court (Frank P. Geraci, Jr., J.), rendered November 9, 2011. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of burglary in the second degree.

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon a jury verdict of burglary in the second degree (Penal Law § 140.25 [2]). Defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention that he was deprived of his right to a fair trial by the testimony of the People’s fingerprint analyst on the ground that her testimony “suggest[ed] absolute certainty” and was not presented as an opinion ( see generally People v Comerford , 70 AD3d 1305, 1305-1306) and, in any event, we reject that contention. It is well settled that a fingerprint match may provide the basis for a burglary conviction ( see People v Safford , 74 AD3d 1835, 1836, lv denied 16 NY3d 746, reconsideration denied 16 NY3d 899), and here the People’s fingerprint analyst testified that she matched a known fingerprint belonging to defendant to a latent fingerprint recovered from the entry point at the crime scene. Defendant also failed to preserve for our review his contention that he was deprived of a fair trial based on prosecutorial misconduct ( see People v Torres , 125 AD3d 1481, 1484, lv denied 25 NY3d 1172). In any event, we conclude that the prosecutor’s comments during summation were a fair response to comments made by defense counsel ( see People v Santana , 55 AD3d 1338, 1339, lv denied 12 NY3d 762; People v Beggs , 19 AD3d 1150, 1151, lv denied 5 NY3d 803), and any improprieties with respect to the remaining allegations of misconduct “were not so pervasive or egregious as to deprive defendant of a fair trial” ( Torres , 125 AD3d at 1484 [internal quotation marks omitted]).**-2- 1329 KA 12-00099** 

Finally, defendant’s sentence is not unduly harsh or severe.

Entered: December 23, 2015 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE O F FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME E XPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED N OAH STEVEN FRANCIS , A ppellant ,
v. Case No. 5D 22

- 801 LT Case No. 2021

- CF

- 000671

- AX

STATE O F FLORIDA ,

Appellee

. ________________________________/ Decis ion filed March 28, 2023 A ppeal from t he Circuit Court for Mari on County , Lis a D. Herndon, Judge. M atthew J. Metz , Public Defender, and B etty Wyatt, Assistant Public Defender , Dayt ona Beach, for Appellant. A s hley Moody, A ttorney General, Tallahassee, and Daniel P. Caldwell , A s sistant Attor ney General, Daytona Beach, for A ppellee. PER CURIAM. A FFIRMED.

E DWA RDS , JAY an d HARRIS , JJ., concur.
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 10 (Friday, January 14, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 2710]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-746]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-74,326]


Pitney Bowes, Inc., Mailing Solutions Management Division 
Including On-Site Leased Workers of Guidant Group, and Teleworkers 
Located Throughout the United States, Shelton, CT; Amended 
Certification Regarding Eligibility To Apply for Worker Adjustment 
Assistance

    In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended 
(``Act''), 19 U.S.C. 2273, the Department of Labor issued a 
Certification of Eligibility to Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance 
on September 10, 2010, applicable to workers and former workers of 
Pitney Bowes, Inc., Mailing Solutions Management Division, Engineering 
Quality Assurance, Shelton, Connecticut. The Department's Notice was 
published in the Federal Register on September 23, 2010 (75 FR 57981).
    At the request of a state workforce agent, the Department reviewed 
the certification to clarify the identity of the subject worker group.
    The worker group consists of workers of Pitney Bowes, Inc., the 
Mailing Solutions Management Division, located in Shelton, Connecticut, 
including workers in the various subgroups of the Mailing Solutions 
Management Division, including but not limited to the engineering 
quality assurance group. The subject worker group also includes leased 
workers of Guidant Group working within the Mailing Solutions 
Management Division and on-site at the Shelton, Connecticut facility. 
The worker group also includes workers of Pitney Bowes, Inc. working 
within the Mailing Solutions Management Division who are located in 
remote work sites, including but not limited to home offices, located 
throughout the United States and who report to the Shelton, Connecticut 
facility.
    The amended notice applicable to TA-W-74,326 is hereby issued as 
follows:

    All workers of Pitney Bowes, Inc., Mailing Solutions Management 
Division, including on-site leased workers of Guidant Group and 
teleworkers located throughout the United States, Shelton, 
Connecticut, who became totally or partially separated from 
employment on or after June 23, 2009, through September 10, 2010, 
and all workers in the group threatened with total or partial 
separation from employment on the date of certification through two 
years from the date of certification, are eligible to apply for 
adjustment assistance under Chapter 2 of Title II of the Trade Act 
of 1974, as amended.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 3rd day of January 2011.
Del Min Amy Chen,
Certifying Officer, Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 2011-746 Filed 1-13-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER  PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the Annual Report of The Hertz Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ending
December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Mark P. Frissora, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:



Date:
March 1, 2010

By:

/s/ MARK P. FRISSORA Mark P. Frissora
Chief Executive Officer


---



QuickLinks
### §777l. State use of contributions

A State may use contributions of funds, real property, materials, and services to carry out an activity under this chapter in lieu of payment by the State of the State share of the cost of such activity. Such a State share shall be considered to be paid in an amount equal to the fair market value of any contribution so used.

(Aug. 9, 1950, ch. 658, §13, as added Pub. L. 100–448, §6(c)(2), Sept. 28, 1988, 102 Stat. 1841.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Another section 13 of act Aug. 9, 1950, ch. 658, which was classified as a note under section 777 of this title, was repealed by Pub. L. 106–408, title I, §122(a)(1), Nov. 1, 2000, 114 Stat. 1772.

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

#### Effective Date

Section effective Oct. 1, 1988, see section 6(e) of Pub. L. 100–448, set out as an Effective Date of 1988 Amendment note under section 777 of this title.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Cliffina E. JOHNSON, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 01-10273. D.C. No. CR-99-20092-RMW.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted April 9, 2002 *.

Decided May 10, 2002.

Before SCHROEDER, Chief Judge, B. FLETCHER and KOZINSKI, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

To succeed in her entrapment claim, Johnson must “persuade us that, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the'government, no reasonable jury could have found in favor of the government as to inducement or lack of predisposition.” *United States v. Poehlman,*217 F.3d 692, 698 (9th Cir.2000).

Agent Walker’s requests that Johnson arrange meetings between him and Shirley do not rise to inducement, because they did not “go[] beyond providing an ordinary opportunity to commit a crime.” *Id.*at 701 (internal quotation marks omitted). Nor does Walker’s description of the adverse consequences that could befall Shirley if he were audited constitute inducement, because the audit would not have affected Johnson. Walker’s conduct therefore did not “creatfe] a substantial risk that an otherwise law-abiding citizen would commit an offense.” *United States v. Davis,*36 F.3d 1424, 1430 (9th Cir.1994).

The evidence also supports a finding that Johnson was predisposed to commit bribery. Walker testified that Johnson bragged to him about charging taxpayers for free services and that Johnson was the first to hint at a possibility of a bribe from *382Shirley. A reasonable jury could conclude from “the fact that the initial suggestion of bribery came from [Johnson that] she was predisposed to commit the crime.” *United States v. Hsieh Hui Mei Chen,*754 F.2d 817, 822 (9th Cir.1985).

AFFIRMED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not he cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Electrical Conductivity, UMHOS

Day High Low Mean

1 15,029 6,544 10,721

2 13,987 6,183 9,770

3 12,933 5,831 8,932

4 11,442 5,131 8,231

5 12,149 5,715 8,486

6 13,568 6,905 9,523

7 14,294 6,516 9,903

8 16,332 6,774 10,362

9 15,137 5,706 10,101

10 14,313 5,106 8,969

11 14,361 4,772 8,796

12 14,600 4,881 9,593

13 13,370 5,101 9,181

14 12,507 4,557 7,990

15 12,490 3,854 8,701

16 12,532 3,914 8,159

17 13,503 4,133 8,478

18 14,422 4,907 9,579

19 14,326 5,841 9,804

20 14,801 6,315 9,973

21 15,673 7,120 10,719

22 17,227 7,344 11,560

23 18,584 7,510 12,222

24 19,437 7,886 12,087

25 19,664 6,895 12,691

26 19,593 7,376 13,182

27 19,558 7,794 13,062

28 18,129 8,407 13,606

29 16,175 8,602 12,352

30 15,088 7,235 11,185

COMMENT(S):

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

Historical Archive and Report Database

Collinsville Bottom On The Sacramento 

River 

Period: November 2022 Run Date: 12/8/2022
### §556. Appropriations for Forest Service; use for transportation or traveling expenses; preparation or publication of newspaper or magazine articles

No part of any funds appropriated for the Forest Service shall be used to pay the transportation or traveling expenses of any forest officer or agent except he be traveling on business directly connected with the Forest Service and in furtherance of the works, aims, and objects specified and authorized by law; nor shall any such funds be paid or used for the purpose of paying for, in whole or in part, the preparation or publication of any newspaper or magazine article, but this shall not prevent the giving out to all persons, without discrimination, including newspapers and magazine writers and publishers, of any facts or official information of value to the public: Provided, That this prohibition shall not apply to scientific or technical articles prepared for or published in scientific publications.

(May 11, 1922, ch. 185, 42 Stat. 521; Pub. L. 85–464, §8, June 20, 1958, 72 Stat. 218.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1958—Pub. L. 85–464 made prohibition inapplicable to scientific or technical articles prepared for or published in scientific publications.
EXHIBIT 23

                                                        

                                                        

                                                        

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

    

    

We consent to theincorporation by reference in IDACORP, Inc.'s Registration StatementNos. 333-64737, 333-83434 and 333-103917 onForm S-3 and Registration Statement Nos. 333-65157, 333-65406 and 333-104254 onForm S-8 and Idaho Power Company's RegistrationStatement Nos. 333-103812 and 333-122153 on Form S-3 andRegistration Statement No. 333-66496 on Form S-8 of our reports dated March 8,2005, relating to the financial statements and financial statement schedules ofIDACORP, Inc. and Idaho Power Company (the report for IDACORP, Inc. expressesan unqualified opinion and includes an explanatory paragraph relating to theconsolidation of two variable interest entities related to the adoption ofFinancial Accounting Standards Board Interpretation No. 46(R)) and management'sreports of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting,  appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-Kof IDACORP, Inc. and Idaho Power Company for the year ended December 31, 2004.

    

  

DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

    

Boise, Idaho

March 8, 2005