alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of Frank J. Franzino, an Attorney, Respondent. Association of the Bar of the City of New York, Petitioner.

First Department,

November 23, 1954.

*Lewis B. Reynolds*of counsel *(Frank H.*Gordon, attorney), for petitioner.

*Per Curiam.*

Respondent is charged with professional misconduct for failing to prosecute claims for personal injuries on behalf of two separate clients from whom he accepted retainers on a contingent basis in January, 1948, and April, 1948, respectively. He informed these clients that their claims were being properly taken care of when actually he took no steps in their prosecution and allowed the Statute of Limitations to run against them. Respondent was also charged with violating the rules of this court by failing to file a statement of retainer in both cases.

Respondent defaulted in appearance before both the petitioner’s Committee on Grievances and the referee. He filed an answer which offered no real defense or explanation. The proceeding has been pending for over two years and respondent has had ample time to rehabilitate himself or come forward with some explanation of the grave injustice he has done to the complainants, one of whom appears to have received serious injuries. The report of the referee should be confirmed and respondent should be disbarred from the practice of law.

Peck, P. J., Callahan, Breitel, Bastow and Bergan, JJ., concur.

Respondent disbarred.
### §18405. Commercial Reusable Suborbital Research Program

#### (a) In general

The report of the National Academy of Sciences, Revitalizing NASA's Suborbital Program: Advancing Science, Driving Innovation and Developing Workforce, found that suborbital science missions were absolutely critical to building an aerospace workforce capable of meeting the needs of current and future human and robotic space exploration.

#### (b) Management

The Administrator shall designate an officer or employee of the Space Technology Program to act as the responsible official for the Commercial Reusable Suborbital Research Program in the Space Technology Program. The designee shall be responsible for the development of short- and long term strategic plans for maintaining, renewing and extending suborbital facilities and capabilities.

#### (c) Establishment

The Administrator shall establish a Commercial Reusable Suborbital Research Program within the Space Technology Program that shall fund the development of payloads for scientific research, technology development, and education, and shall provide flight opportunities for those payloads to microgravity environments and suborbital altitudes. The Commercial Reusable Suborbital Research Program may fund engineering and integration demonstrations, proofs of concept, or educational experiments for commercial reusable vehicle flights. The program shall endeavor to work with NASA's Mission Directorates to help achieve NASA's research, technology, and education goals.

#### (d) Report

The Administrator shall submit a report annually to the appropriate committees of Congress describing progress in carrying out the Commercial Reusable Suborbital Research program, including the number and type of suborbital missions planned in each fiscal year.

#### (e) Authorization

There are authorized to be appropriated to the Administrator $15,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2011 through 2013 to carry out this section.

(Pub. L. 111–267, title IX, §907, Oct. 11, 2010, 124 Stat. 2837.)
#### The People of the State of New York, Appellant, v. Meddie Goyette, Respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Tompkins County Court, allowing a demurrer to an indictment and dismissing the indictment and ordering the resubmission of the charge to another grand jury. The indictment purports to charge the defendant with the crime of rape in the second degree in violation of section 2010 of the Penal Law. The indictment fails to allege that the defendant was “ of the age of twenty-one years or over ”. By chapter 525 of the Laws of 1950, section 2010 was amended to make that fact an essential element of the crime of rape in the second degree, and to provide that otherwise the crime would be a misdemeanor. In. its present form the indictment may be construed as accusing the defendant of only a misdemeanor, although it purports to indict him for the felony o£ .rape ip the second degree. *(People*v. *Burch,*281 *981App. Div. 348, 350.) Under the circumstances presented by this record it was within the discretion of the County Court to order that the matter be resubmitted to a Grand Jury. It is therefore unnecessary to pass upon the question of whether the indictment is fatally defective. The People’s motion to amend the indictment, made upon arraignment, was properly denied. The Code of Criminal Procedure provides only for authority to amend an indictment *“*Upon the trial” and “according to proof.” (Code Grim. Pro., §§ 293, 295-j.) Moreover, the granting of an order to amend is discretionary. Order unanimously affirmed. Present — Foster, P. J., Bergan, Coon, Halpern and Imrie, JJ.
EXHIBIT 32.1
                                                                    ------------

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

I, Mark Meller, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge
and belief, 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: August 14, 2008

                                          By /s/ Mark Meller
                                          ---------------------
                                          Mark Meller
                                          President, Chief Executive Officer and
                                          Principal Financial Officer
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-1048

LOIS E. MCKINNEY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus MOTEL 6, Defendant - Appellee.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. David G. Lowe, Magistrate Judge. (CA-96-476-R) Submitted: April 14, 1998 Decided: June 22, 1998 Before WILKINS and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Lois E. McKinney, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Frank Marino, Eric Anthony Welter, REED, SMITH, SHAW & MCCLAY, McLean, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).* McKinney failed to provide the court with a transcript of the trial, so our review is necessarily limited by the sparsenature of the record. In any event, the jury’s verdict was undoubtedly based on its view of the weight of the evidence and thecredibility of the witnesses, and those findings are not reviewable. See, e.g. , DeJarnette v. Corning, Inc. , 133 F.3d 293, 297 (4th Cir. 1998). 2 PER CURIAM: Lois McKinney appeals the district court’s order denying relief on her employment discrimination action after a jury trial. McKinney was terminated from employment as the general manager ofthe Motel 6 in Sandston, Virginia. She contends that her termination was based on her gender, while Motel 6 asserts that she was terminated based on an undue number of customer complaints and on her failure to properly maintain and operate the motel. * McKinney was a member of a protected class, and after her termination the general manager position was filled by someone outside of that class. However, there is no evidence in the record from which to conclude that McKinney was performing her job in asatisfactory manner, or that the reasons for her termination proffered by Motel 6 were a pretext for discrimination. See Texas Dep’t of Community Affairs v. Burdine , 450 U.S. 248, 252-56 (1981); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802 (1973). Further, the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to admit evidence regarding the alleged misconduct of McKinney’s3 successor because that evidence was irrelevant. See Fed. R. Evid. 402. Because McKinney did not carry her burden of showing that her termination was based on discrimination, we affirm. See St. Mary’s Honor Ctr. v. Hicks , 509 U.S. 502, 507-08 (1993). We dispense with oral argument because argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
### §19153. Policies for review of Federal research awards

#### (a) Assessment of policies

Federal research agencies shall regularly assess, and update as necessary, policies, and practices to remove or reduce cultural and institutional barriers limiting the recruitment, retention, and success of groups historically underrepresented in STEM research careers, including policies and practices relevant to the unbiased review of Federal research applications.

#### (b) Considerations and activities

In carrying out the requirements under subsection (a), Federal research agencies shall—

(1) review current levels of participation of groups historically underrepresented in STEM in peer-review panels and consider approaches for expanding their participation;

(2) analyze the data collected under section 19152 of this title, including funding rates of proposals from all groups, including those historically underrepresented in STEM;

(3) collect and disseminate best practices to remove or reduce cultural and institutional barriers limiting the recruitment, retention, and success of groups historically underrepresented in STEM research careers; and

(4) implement evidence-based policies and practices to achieve the goals of this section.

(Pub. L. 117–167, div. B, title V, §10503, Aug. 9, 2022, 136 Stat. 1610.)
Editorial Note on Part 260
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 260 appear at 57 FR 36501, Aug. 13, 1992, and 57 FR 47409, Oct. 16, 1992.

§ 260.10b-3 Applications relative to affiliations between trustees and underwriters. ( a ) Any person proposing to act as trustee under indentures to be qualified under the act may make application for a finding by the Commission as to whether such person is or is not an affiliate of any specified person who may be named as an underwriter for an obligor in any registration statement or application for qualification subsequently filed with the Commission.
( b ) Every application pursuant to this section shall be filed in triplicate and shall contain a statement of the material facts necessary to enable the Commission to make the finding request. The applicant may incorporate by reference in the application any information or documents contained in a statement of eligibility and qualification of the applicant filed with the Commission. The Commission may with the consent of the applicant or at the applicant's request, make a part of the record the record in any prior proceeding in which the same issues were involved.
( c ) A hearing will be held, after confirmed telegraphic notice to the applicant, upon every application filed pursuant to this section.
( d ) Every finding by the Commission pursuant to this section shall be limited to the facts disclosed in the application and in the hearing thereon, and shall be made solely for the purposes of sections 305(b) and 307(c) of the Act.
[6 FR 2376, May 13, 1941]
#### § 21.01 Special calls for information on controlled accounts from futures commission merchants, clearing members and introducing brokers.

Upon call by the Commission, each futures commission merchant, clearing member and introducing broker shall file with the Commission the names and addresses of all persons who, by power of attorney or otherwise, exercise trading control over any customer's account in commodity futures or commodity options on any reporting market.

[74 FR 12192, Mar. 23, 2009]
§ 286.4 Preparation and filing of reports. ( a ) Every report required by this part shall be filed under cover of a letter of transmittal which shall state the nature of the report and indicate the particular rule and subdivision thereof pursuant to which the report is filed. At least the original of every such letter shall be signed on behalf of the Bank by a duly authorized officer thereof.
( b ) Two copies of every report, including the letter of transmittal, exhibits and other papers and documents comprising a part of the report, shall be filed with the Commission.
( c ) The report shall be in the English language. If any exhibit or other paper or document filed with the report is in a foreign language, it shall be accompanied by a translation into the English language.
( d ) Reports pursuant to § 286.3 may be filed in the form of a prospectus to the extent that such prospectus contains the information specified in Schedule A.
#### In the Matter of the Probate of the Will of Frank F. Arnold, Deceased. Manufacturers Trust Company et al., Respondents; Ada G. Dolan, Appellant.

Decree and order unanimously affirmed, with costs to all respondents appearing and filing briefs herein, payable out of the estate. No opinion. Present — -Peek, P. J., Glennon, Dore, Callahan and Bergan, JJ. [200 Misc. 909.] [See *post,*p. 837.]
### The Honorable Stephen M. Reasoner, Chief Judge, United 1 

### States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas.



# United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 96-3845

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * Appeal from the United * States District Court for the v. * Eastern District of Arkansas. * Eugene Fitzhugh, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: May 5, 1997 Filed: May 7, 1997

___________ Before BOWMAN, BEAM, and LOKEN, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Eugene Fitzhugh, convicted of bribery with the intent to influenc e an official of a federal small business investme nt company, appeals a tenmonth sentence imposed by the District Court. He argues that the cour t 1 err edin using the presentence investigation report as evidence when h e challengedthe facts contained therein. We disagree, because the record establ ishes that Fitzhugh waived his objection to the relevant fact s containedin the presentence investigation report. We conclude that the District Court’s estimate of the value of the bribe is not clearly

### -2-

err oneous and that it plainly warranted a four-level enhancement . Accordingly, Fitzhugh’s sentence is affirmed. A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT
MANAGEMENT’S REPORT ON ASSESSMENT OF COMPLIANCE WITH SEC REGULATION AB SERVICING CRITERIA

 

 

Pacific Life Insurance Company (the “Asserting Party”) is responsible for assessing compliance, as of and for the year ended December 31, 2022, with the Servicing Criteria set forth in Item 1122 (d) of the SEC’s Regulation AB, excluding the criteria set forth in Item 1122 (d)(1)(iii), (d)(2)(ii), (d)(3)(i), (d)(3)(ii), (d)(3)(iii), (d)(3)(iv), (d)(4)(ii), (d)(4)(iv), (d)(4)(v), (d)(4)(ix), (d)(4)(x), (d)(4)(xi), (d)(4)(xii), (d)(4)(xiii), (d)(4)(xiv), and (d)(4)(xv), which the Asserting Party has concluded are not applicable to the activities it performs, with respect to the asset-backed securities transactions covered by this report (such criteria, after giving effect to the exclusions identified above, the “Applicable Servicing Criteria”). The transactions covered by this report include all asset-backed transactions under the Securitized Commercial Mortgage Loans Platform (the “Platform”), as listed in Appendix A.

 

The Asserting Party has used the criteria set forth in paragraph (d) of Item 1122 of Regulation AB in order to assess the effectiveness of Pacific Life Insurance Company’s compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria as of and for the year ended December 31, 2022. The Asserting Party has concluded that it has complied, in all material respects, with the Applicable Servicing Criteria as of and for the year ended December 31, 2022, with respect to the Platform taken as a whole.

 

Deloitte & Touche LLP, an independent registered public accounting firm, has issued an attestation report for the Platform on the assessment of compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria as of and for the year ended December 31, 2022 as set forth in this assertion.

 

 

Pacific Life Insurance Company

 

 

 

/s/ Edwin FerrellEdwin FerrellVP, Investment Management

February 17, 2023

 

 

PACIFIC LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY

700 Newport Center Drive, Newport Beach, California 92660-6397

Visit us at our website: www.PacificLife.com

----

 

APPENDIX A

 

 

 

SECURITIZED COMMERCIAL MORTGAGE LOANS PLATFORM

 

 

|                         |                                |
|-------------------------|--------------------------------|
| Trust Name              | Loan Name                      |
|                    |                           |
| COMM 2014-277P          | 277 Park Avenue                |
| HGMT 2015-HGLR          | Houston Galleria Mall          |
| DBJPM 2016 –SFC  | Westfield San Francisco Center |
| JPM 2015 – WPG   | Scottsdale Quarter             |
| BMARK 2019 – B12 | Woodlands Mall                 |
| CSMC 2020-WEST          | Westchester Mall

        |

 

----
Part 524 - Protection of Privacy and Freedom

of Information

Subpart 524.1 - Protection of Individual Privacy

524.103 Procedures.

Subpart 524.2 - Freedom of Information Act

524.203 Policy.

Parent topic: General Services Administration Acquisition Manual

Subpart 524.1 - Protection of Individual Privacy

524.103 Procedures.

(a) See 41 CFR 105-64, GSA Order CIO 2201.1, Privacy Act Program, and Privacy Act Program

information available on Insite, when contracting for the design, development, or operation of a

system of records on individuals.

(b) The Office of the Chief Acquisition Officer (OCAO) will review every two years a random sample

of contracts that provide for the maintenance of a system of records pursuant to OMB Circular

A-130, Appendix 1.

Subpart 524.2 - Freedom of Information Act

524.203 Policy.

(a) See 41 CFR 105-60 and GSA FOIA procedures available on Insite, for requirements on making

records available under FOIA.

(b) The contracting officer shall notify the appropriate FOIA officer of the request.
#### § 39.42 Advance notice of material risk-related rule changes by systemically important derivatives clearing organizations.

A systemically important derivatives clearing organization shall provide notice to the Commission in advance of any proposed change to its rules, procedures, or operations that could materially affect the nature or level of risks presented by the systemically important derivatives clearing organization, in accordance with the requirements of § 40.10 of this chapter.
```

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 217 (Friday, November 8, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 67144]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-26997]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Notice

AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETING: Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

DATE AND TIME: Wednesday, November 13, 2013, 9:30 a.m. Eastern Time.

PLACE: Commission Meeting Room on the First Floor of the EEOC Office 
Building, 131 ``M'' Street NE., Washington, DC 20507.

STATUS: The meeting will be open to the public.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: 
    Open Session:
    1. Announcement of Notation Votes, and
    2. National Origin Discrimination in Today's Workplace.

    Note: In accordance with the Sunshine Act, the meeting will be 
open to public observation of the Commission's deliberations and 
voting. Seating is limited and it is suggested that visitors arrive 
30 minutes before the meeting in order to be processed through 
security and escorted to the meeting room. (In addition to 
publishing notices on EEOC Commission meetings in the Federal 
Register, the Commission also provides information about Commission 
meetings on its Web site, eeoc.gov., and provides a recorded 
announcement a week in advance on future Commission sessions.)

    Please telephone (202) 663-7100 (voice) and (202) 663-4074 (TTY) at 
any time for information on these meetings. The EEOC provides sign 
language interpretation and Communication Access Realtime Translation 
(CART) services at Commission meetings for the hearing impaired. 
Requests for other reasonable accommodations may be made by using the 
voice and TTY numbers listed above.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Bernadette B. Wilson, Acting 
Executive Officer on (202) 663-4077.

    Dated: November 6, 2013.
Bernadette B. Wilson,
Acting Executive Officer, Executive Secretariat.
[FR Doc. 2013-26997 Filed 11-6-13; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 6570-01-P
```
### §1973ff–4a. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 1973ff–4a was editorially reclassified as section 20308 of Title 52, Voting and Elections.
### §1991. Fees; persons appointed to execute process

Every person appointed to execute process under section 1989 of this title shall be entitled to a fee of $5 for each party he may arrest and take before any United States magistrate judge, with such other fees as may be deemed reasonable by the magistrate judge for any additional services necessarily performed by him, such as attending at the examination, keeping the prisoner in custody, and providing him with food and lodging during his detention, and until the final determination of the magistrate judge; such fees to be made up in conformity with the fees usually charged by the officers of the courts of justice within the proper district or county, as near as may be practicable, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States on the certificate of the judge of the district within which the arrest is made, and to be recoverable from the defendant as part of the judgment in case of conviction.

(R.S. §1987; Pub. L. 90–578, title IV, §402(b)(2), Oct. 17, 1968, 82 Stat. 1118; Pub. L. 101–650, title III, §321, Dec. 1, 1990, 104 Stat. 5117.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

R.S. §1987 derived from acts Apr. 9, 1866, ch. 31, §7, 14 Stat. 29; May 31, 1870, ch. 114, §12, 16 Stat. 143.

Section was formerly classified to section 53 of Title 8, Aliens and Nationality.

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

#### Change of Name

"United States magistrate judge" and "magistrate judge" substituted in text for "magistrate" wherever appearing pursuant to section 321 of Pub. L. 101–650, set out as a note under section 631 of Title 28, Judiciary and Judicial Procedure. Previously, "magistrate" substituted for "commissioner" pursuant to Pub. L. 90–578. See chapter 43 (§631 et seq.) of Title 28.
DIRECTV HOLDINGS LLC

Exhibit 32.4

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 DIRECTV Financing Co., Inc. (the "Corporation") on
Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Patrick T. Doyle, Executive Vice
President and Chief Financial Officer of the Corporation, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that to the best of my knowledge:



/s/ PATRICK T. DOYLE Patrick T. Doyle Executive Vice President and Chief Financial OfficerNovember 6, 2008


---



QuickLinks