alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
PUBLIC LAW 110–182—JAN. 31, 2008 122 STAT. 605 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 5104 (S. 2556): 

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 154 (2008): 

Jan. 29, considered and passed House and Senate. 

Æ 

Public Law 110–182 

110th Congress 

An Act 

To extend the Protect America Act of 2007 for 15 days. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. 15-DAY EXTENSION OF THE PROTECT AMERICA ACT OF 

2007. 

Section 6(c) of the Protect America Act of 2007 (Public Law 

110–55; 121 Stat. 557; 50 U.S.C. 1803 note) is amended by striking 

‘‘180 days’’ and inserting ‘‘195 days’’. 

Approved January 31, 2008. 

Jan. 31, 2008 

[H.R. 5104]
#### LOWE, Appellant, v. CROCKER, Respondent.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

February 10, 1905.)

Action by Thaddeus C. S. Lowe against George Crocker. V. P. Donihee, for appellant. B. D. Hawkins, for respondent. No opinion. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                                       1021444
<NAME>                                          n/a
<MULTIPLIER>                                  1,000
<CURRENCY>                               US Dollars
       
<S>                                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                 9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                          JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                            SEP-30-1996
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                               1,000
<CASH>                                          618
<SECURITIES>                                      0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    43
<ALLOWANCES>                                      0
<INVENTORY>                                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                              1,406
<PP&E>                                          145
<DEPRECIATION>                                   51
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                1,511
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                         2,374
<BONDS>                                           0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                             0
<COMMON>                                          3
<PREFERRED>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                     (901)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  1,511
<SALES>                                         772
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                772
<CGS>                                           519
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   519
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              1,045
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                  0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              752
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (1,484)
<INCOME-TAX>                                      1
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (1,485)
<DISCONTINUED>                                    0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                   0
<CHANGES>                                         0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (1,485)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (.47)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (.47)
        

</TABLE>
#### In the Matter of Dorothy Barnes.

Motion granted and appeal dismissed.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3236 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3236

   To reduce temporarily the duty on certain mixtures of florasulam.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 12, 2005

  Mr. Buyer introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To reduce temporarily the duty on certain mixtures of florasulam.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. CERTAIN MIXTURES OF FLORASULAM.

    (a) In General.--Heading 9902.02.88 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (relating to florasulam and application 
adjuvants) is amended--
            (1) by striking ``Free'' and inserting ``1.5%''; and
            (2) by striking ``12/31/2006'' and inserting ``12/31/
        2008''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
#### John Derrenbacher, an Infant, etc., Respondent, *v.*The Lehigh Valley Railway Company, Appellant.

(Argued October 20, 1881 ;

decided January 24, 1882.)

Mem. of decision below, 21 Hun, 612.

This action was brought to recover damages for injuries alleged to have been sustained through defendant’s negligence.

Plaintiff was injured by the fall of a tub attached to- a derrick, which-was being used to discharge a cargo of iron ore from a canal boat into defendant’s cars at Perth Amboy; it was claimed that'the rope by which the tub was suspended was insufficient, and was old and defective. The judgment was reversed upon the ground that the evidence failed to show that the derrick was owned or furnished by the defendant, or that .it had any thing to do therewith, or that the men engaged were employed by it. On the contrary, it appeared that the pier was owned by another railroad company over whose tracks the defendant run its cars, and that the loading and unloading of boats from and to the cars was done • by outside parties. The court distinguish the case from *Kmg*v. *H. Y. O. dh II. It. B. B. Oo.*(72 N. V. 607), in this, that in the latter case the evidence tended to show that defendant agreed to furnish the derrick and keep the same in repair.

*George A. Strong*for appellant.

*Edward H. Hobbs*for respondent.

Miller, J.,

reads for reversal.

All concur.

Judgment reversed.
§ 60.109 IRB review of research. ( a ) An IRB shall review and have authority to approve, require modifications in (to secure approval), or disapprove all research activities covered by this policy, including exempt research activities under § 60.104 for which limited IRB review is a condition of exemption (under § 60.104(d)(2)(iii), (d)(3)(i)(C), and (d)(7), and (8)).
( b ) An IRB shall require that information given to subjects (or legally authorized representatives, when appropriate) as part of informed consent is in accordance with § 60.116. The IRB may require that information, in addition to that specifically mentioned in § 60.116, be given to the subjects when in the IRB's judgment the information would meaningfully add to the protection of the rights and welfare of subjects.
( c ) An IRB shall require documentation of informed consent or may waive documentation in accordance with § 60.117.
( d ) An IRB shall notify investigators and the institution in writing of its decision to approve or disapprove the proposed research activity, or of modifications required to secure IRB approval of the research activity. If the IRB decides to disapprove a research activity, it shall include in its written notification a statement of the reasons for its decision and give the investigator an opportunity to respond in person or in writing.
( e ) An IRB shall conduct continuing review of research requiring review by the convened IRB at intervals appropriate to the degree of risk, not less than once per year, except as described in § 60.109(f).
( f ) ( 1 ) Unless an IRB determines otherwise, continuing review of research is not required in the following circumstances: ( i ) Research eligible for expedited review in accordance with § 60.110;
( ii ) Research reviewed by the IRB in accordance with the limited IRB review described in § 60.104(d)(2)(iii), (d)(3)(i)(C), or (d)(7) or (8);
( iii ) Research that has progressed to the point that it involves only one or both of the following, which are part of the IRB-approved study: ( A ) Data analysis, including analysis of identifiable private information or identifiable biospecimens, or
( B ) Accessing follow-up clinical data from procedures that subjects would undergo as part of clinical care.
( 2 ) [Reserved]
( g ) An IRB shall have authority to observe or have a third party observe the consent process and the research.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under Control Number 0990-0260)
### §503. Printing in veterans' hospitals

(a) Notwithstanding section 501 of this title, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs may use the equipment described in subsection (b) for printing and binding that the Secretary finds advisable for the use of the Department of Veterans Affairs.

(b) The equipment referred to in subsection (a) is the printing and binding equipment that the various hospitals and homes of the Department of Veterans Affairs use for occupational therapy.

(Pub. L. 90–620, Oct. 22, 1968, 82 Stat. 1243; Pub. L. 102–54, §13(r), June 13, 1991, 105 Stat. 282.)

#### Historical and Revision Notes

Based on 44 U.S. Code, 1964 ed., §111b (June 16, 1933, ch. 101, §1, 48 Stat. 302; Feb. 2, 1935, ch. 3, §1, 49 Stat. 18; Mar. 19, 1936, ch. 156, §1, 49 Stat. 1182).

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1991—Pub. L. 102–54 amended section generally. Prior to amendment, section read as follows: "Notwithstanding section 501 of this title, the Administrator of Veterans' Affairs may utilize the printing and binding equipment that the various hospitals and homes of the Veterans' Administration use for occupational therapy, for printing and binding which he finds advisable for the use of the Veterans' Administration."
Parent Letter

Dear (Name of Parent/Guardian):

I am writing to ask you to complete a survey of parents/guardians who applied for a private 

school scholarship through the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program (OSP). After you 

complete the survey, we will mail you a check for $20 in appreciation of your time spent on this 

effort. 

The survey is part of a study of the OSP that is required by Congress, to help us learn whether 

the program is effective. The survey asks questions about what you looked for when choosing a 

school and your child’s or children’s current school experiences, whether they received an OSP 

scholarship or not. If you applied for more than one child, you will need to complete a survey

for each child (and will receive $20 for each completed survey).

When you applied to the program for a scholarship, you agreed that you and your child(ren) 

would participate in this study over the next few years. This spring at their schools, each child 

who applied for an OSP scholarship in 2011 will take a test; those who were in grades 4-12 last 

spring will also complete a brief survey about themselves and their school experiences. 

All answers by you or your child are completely confidential. Findings from the surveys and 

tests will only be reported in summary and will not identify you or your child. Westat and its 

partners, as the U.S. Department’s OSP evaluation contractors, are required by law to uphold all 

federal laws regarding privacy and confidentiality. 

If you have any questions or need help completing this survey, please contact Laura Prinslow, 

Research Associate at Westat (phone: 1-888-xxx-xxxx; email: <email address>). 

Thank you for participating in this important evaluation. 

Sincerely,

The survey should take approximately X minutes. We ask that you complete it by Y date.

The easiest way to fill out the survey is on the web:

 Go to www.(name of website).com.

 Enter the unique username and password we have assigned to, listed below: 

Username:

Password:

If you would prefer a paper version of the survey, please email, (insert email address), or 

call 888-xxx-xxxx.
Juanita Lucas-McLean

Project Director
[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 244 (Friday, December 18, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 82359]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-26378]



[[Page 82359]]

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

GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION

41 CFR 102-34

[Notice-MA-2020-13; Docket No. 2020-0002; Sequence No. 36]


Use of Government-Issued Fleet Charge Cards Guidance

AGENCY: Office of Government-wide Policy (OGP), General Services 
Administration (GSA).

ACTION: Availability of GSA Bulletin FMR B-53, Motor Vehicle 
Management.

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

SUMMARY: This Federal Management Regulation (FMR) bulletin recommends 
Federal agencies establish policies addressing Government-issued fleet 
charge card compliance with Section 889(a)(1)(B) of the John S. McCain 
National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year (FY) 2019 
(Pub. L. 115-232) and security risks associated with fleet charge card 
transactions.

DATES: Applicability Date: December 18, 2020.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For clarification of content, contact 
Mr. James Vogelsinger, Director, Vehicle Policy Division, GSA, at 202-
501-1764, or email <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#a2d4c7cacbc1cec78cd2cdcecbc1dbe2c5d1c38cc5cdd4"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="82f4e7eaebe1eee7acf2edeeebe1fbc2e5f1e3ace5edf4">[email protected]</span></a>. Please cite Notice of FMR 
Bulletin B-53.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Background: Section 889(a)(1)(B) of the John S. McCain National 
Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year (FY) 2019 (Pub. L. 
115-232) prohibits contracting with entities that use certain 
telecommunications and video surveillance services or equipment. This 
bulletin makes Federal agencies aware of this prohibition and 
recommends that agencies establish policies that facilitate compliance 
when a Government-issued fleet charge card is used to acquire fuel or 
maintenance services for Government motor vehicles.
    This bulletin also recommends policies and practices agencies and 
charge card users may implement to lessen the security risks associated 
with fleet charge card transactions.
    This bulletin can be viewed at www.gsa.gov/reference/gsa-bulletins.

Jessica Salmoiraghi,
Associate Administrator, Office of Government-wide Policy.
[FR Doc. 2020-26378 Filed 12-17-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6820-14-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
§ 570.612 Executive Order 12372. ( a ) *General.* Executive Order 12372, Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs, and the Department's implementing regulations at 24 CFR part 52, allow each State to establish its own process for review and comment on proposed Federal financial assistance programs.
( b ) *Applicability.* Executive Order 12372 applies to the CDBG Entitlement program and the UDAG program. The Executive Order applies to all activities proposed to be assisted under UDAG, but it applies to the Entitlement program only where a grantee proposes to use funds for the planning or construction (reconstruction or installation) of water or sewer facilities. Such facilities include storm sewers as well as all sanitary sewers, but do not include water and sewer lines connecting a structure to the lines in the public right-of-way or easement. It is the responsibility of the grantee to initiate the Executive Order review process if it proposes to use its CDBG or UDAG funds for activities subject to review.
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JEFFREY H. SHATTUCK

Plaintiff(s), No. C-09-02095 EDL

v. ORDER OF CONDITIONAL DISMISSAL

THE PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE CO.

Defendants.

___________________________________/

The parties hereto, by their counsel, having advised the Court that they have agreed to a

settlement of this cause,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this case is dismissed without prejudice, with leave to reinstate

on or before 90 days for the purpose of proceeding with the litigation in the event a settlement has not

been completed prior to that date. In the event a request to reinstate the case is not filed and served on

opposing counsel on or before the foregoing date, the dismissal will be with prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 19, 2010 _______________________________

ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:09-cv-02095-EDL Document 34 Filed 02/19/10 Page 1 of 1
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Cleveland Kimbrough, Appellant.

Motion to dismiss appeal denied. Appellant granted permission to prosecute appeal on certified copy of judgment roll, five typewritten copies of brief, David M. Coffey, Esq., of Buffalo, assigned as counsel to conduct the appeal, and time for argument of appeal enlarged to include May 1961 Term on condition that appellant’s brief is filed and served on or before April 12, 1961.
§ 402.7 Refusal to consider an owner's request for a Section 8 contract renewal because of actions or omissions of owner or affiliate. ( a ) *Determination of eligibility.* Notwithstanding 2 CFR part 2424, HUD may elect to not consider a request for renewal of project-based assistance, if at any time before contract renewal: ( 1 ) The owner or an affiliate is debarred or suspended under part 2 CFR part 2424;
( 2 ) HUD determines that the owner or an affiliate has engaged in material adverse financial or managerial actions or omissions as described in section 516 of MAHRA, including any outstanding violations of civil rights laws, or has failed to certify to compliance with the nondiscrimination requirements of 24 CFR 5.105(a), in connection with any project of the owner or an affiliate; or
( 3 ) The project does not meet the physical condition standards in 24 CFR 5.703 of this title, unless HUD determines that the project will meet the standards within a reasonable time after renewal.
( b ) *Dispute and appeal.* An owner may dispute a rejection under this section and seek administrative review under the procedures in subpart F of part 401 of this chapter.
[71 FR 2122, Jan. 12, 2006, as amended at 72 FR 73496, Dec. 27, 2007]
How to use the Internet and World Wide Web browsers
Editorial Note on Part 3282
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 3282 appear at 78 FR 60199, Oct. 1, 2013.

§ 3282.156 Petitions for investigations. ( a ) Any person may petition the Secretary in writing to open an investigation into whether noncompliances, defects, serious defects, or imminent safety hazards exist in manufactured homes. A petition shall include the reasons that the petitioner believes warrant an investigation, and it shall state any steps which have previously been taken to remedy the situation. The petition shall include all information known to the petitioner concerning the identity of manufactured homes which may be affected and where those manufactured homes were manufactured. The Secretary shall respond to petitions concerning alleged imminent safety hazards and serious defects within 60 days and to petitions alleging the existence of defects or noncompliances within 120 days.
( b ) Any person may petition the Secretary in writing to undertake an investigation for the purpose of determining whether a primary inspection agency should be disqualified. The petition shall set out all facts and information on which the petition is based and a detailed statement of why such information justifies disqualification. The Secretary shall consider such petitions when making determinations on final acceptance and continued acceptance. The Secretary shall respond to such petition within 120 days.
#### Robert B. Somerstein, as Administrator of the Estate of Philip Somerstein, Deceased, Plaintiff, v. Louis Hershkowitz, Defendant. Aaron H. Somerstein, Appellant; Murray Marsh et al., Respondents.

The appeal herein having been perfected and noticed for the October 1960 Term, the motion to extend time is dismissed, without costs, as academic. Ughetta, Acting P. J., Kleinfeld, Christ, Pette and Brennan, JJ., concur.
Case 3:09-cv-02297-JSW Document 83 Filed 02/10/10 Page 1 of 3Case 3:09-cv-02297-JSW Document 83 Filed 02/10/10 Page 2 of 3Case 3:09-cv-02297-JSW Document 83 Filed 02/10/10 Page 3 of 3
Exhibit 31

Certifications

I, Richard Simpson, certify that:

1.I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of Benchmark 2019-B15 Mortgage Trust (the “Exchange Act periodic reports”);

2.Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and other information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;

4.Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statement(s) required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicers have fulfilled their obligations under the servicing agreements in all material respects; and

5.All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwise disclosed in this report.  Any material instances of noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.

In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties:  Midland Loan Services, a Division of PNC Bank, National Association; LNR Partners, LLC; Park Bridge Lender Services LLC; U.S. Bank National Association; Wells Fargo Bank, National Association; CWCapital Asset Management LLC; CoreLogic Solutions, LLC; Pentalpha Surveillance LLC; Computershare Trust Company, National Association; Park Bridge Lender Services LLC; Rialto Capital Advisors, LLC; and Wilmington Trust, National Association.

Date:March 30, 2022

|  | /s/ Richard Simpson ___________________Richard SimpsonPresident, Citigroup Commercial Mortgage Securities Inc.(senior officer in charge of securitization of the depositor) |
|--|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

Benchmark 2019-B15 Certifications
Exhibit 32.1

GMH COMMUNITIES TRUST    CERTIFICATION REQUIRED BY  RULE 13a-14(a) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

I,
Gary M. Holloway, Sr., Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of GMH Communities Trust, a Maryland real estate investment trust (the "Company"), hereby certify that, to my
knowledge:



*
* *

|/s/GARY M. HOLLOWAY, SR.Gary M. Holloway, Sr.
Chairman, President and Chief
    Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer) | 
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | 

Date:
March 14, 2008

---



QuickLinks
### §164. Repealed. Oct. 10, 1940, ch. 851, §4, 54 Stat. 1111

Section, act Feb. 11, 1927, ch. 104, §1, 44 Stat. 1072, related to advertisements for proposals for purchases or services rendered for Board of Mediation, including arbitration boards.