alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
19–008

107TH CONGRESS REPORT " HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ! 2d Session 107–736

PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF THE CONFERENCE 

REPORT TO ACCOMPANY H.R. 5011, MILITARY CONSTRUCTION APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2003

OCTOBER 10 (legislative day, OCTOBER 9), 2002.—Referred to the House Calendar 

and ordered to be printed 

Mrs. MYRICK, from the Committee on Rules, 

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

[To accompany H. Res. 578]

The Committee on Rules, having had under consideration House 

Resolution 578, by a nonrecord vote, report the same to the House 

with the recommendation that the resolution be adopted. 

SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS OF THE RESOLUTION

The resolution waives all points of order against the conference 

report to accompany H.R. 5011, the Military Construction Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2003, and against its consideration. 

The resolution further provides that the conference report shall be 

considered as read.

Æ
§ 3555.354 Loss claim procedures. All lenders must use a web-based automated system designated by the Agency to submit all loss claim requests. ( a ) *Sold property.* For property that has been sold, the lender must submit a loss claim within 45 calendar days of the sale. Late claims made beyond this period of time may be rejected or reduced by Rural Development. Instructions and forms may be obtained from Rural Development.
( b ) *REO.* If at liquidation, the title to the property is conveyed to the lender, the lender will submit a loss claim package, including a market value appraisal, within 60 days of the foreclosure sale date or the date the lender acquires title. If eviction action is required in order to obtain a market value appraisal, the lender must submit the loss claim package within 60 days of the date the occupants clear the premises. The lender must order a market value appraisal and include the market value appraisal with the loss claim package. The Agency will use the market value appraisal, along with other Agency required documentation, to determine the property value for the basis of the loss claim. The Agency will apply an acquisition and management resale factor to estimate holding and disposition costs, based on the most current VA Management and Acquisition Factor found at *https://www.benefits.va.gov/HOMELOANS/servicers_valeri.asp .*
( c ) *Deficiency judgments.* The lender must enforce any judgment for which there are current prospects of collection before submitting a loss claim, and amounts collected must be applied against the outstanding debt. Rural Development will process the loss claim if there are no current prospects for collection.
[78 FR 73941, Dec. 9, 2013, as amended at 81 FR 31165, May 18, 2016; 84 FR 70887, Dec. 26, 2019]
4.1303 Contract clause.

The contracting officer shall insert the clause at 52.204-9, Personal Identity Verification of

Contractor Personnel, in solicitations and contracts when contract performance requires contractors

to have routine physical access to a Federally-controlled facility and/or routine access to a Federallycontrolled information system. The clause shall not be used when contractors require only

intermittent access to Federally-controlled facilities.

Parent topic: Subpart 4.13 - Personal Identity Verification
EXHIBIT 35.3
                  SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT (ITEM 1123)
                           HOMECOMINGS FINANCIAL, LLC
             RALI SERIES 2006-QS12 TRUST (THE "ISSUING ENTITY")

The undersigned,  a duly authorized  officer of Homecomings  Financial,  LLC, as
servicer (the "Servicer") pursuant to the applicable  servicing agreement,  does
hereby certify that:

1.   A review of the  Servicer's  activities  during the  period  covered by the
     Issuing  Entity's  report  on Form 10-K and of the  Servicer's  performance
     under  the   applicable   servicing   agreement  has  been  made  under  my
     supervision.

2.   To the  best of my  knowledge,  based  on such  review,  the  Servicer  has
     fulfilled all of its obligations under the applicable  servicing  agreement
     in all material respects throughout such period.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has duly executed this Certificate this 26th
day of March 2007.

By:      /s/ Anthony N. Renzi
      ------------------------
      Name:  Anthony N. Renzi
      Title: Managing Director
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE

F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER

Appellate case name: Robert B. Walker , et al. v. Carolyn Taub and Lori Hood

Appellate case number: 01

- 20

- 00580

- CV

Trial court case number: 2016

- 20807

Trial court: 295th District Co urt of H arris County

Appellant s , Robert B. Walker and Water Removal and Drying of Houston

, L

. L

. C

. , formerly doing business as Rainbow International of Houston, ha ve filed a second motion for

extension of time in which to file their brief. Appellant s ’ mot ion is granted . Appellant s ’ brief is

due on May 12, 2021.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature:

___________ /s/ Julie Countiss

__________ A cting individually

Date: April 13, 2021
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-07-00238-CR

Douglas Howard Doores, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF COMAL COUNTY, 207TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. CR99-255, HONORABLE JACK H. ROBISON, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Douglas Howard Doores seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion

for entry of a judgment nunc pro tunc. It appears that Doores is seeking additional jail time credit.

An appeal does not lie from an order denying a request for judgment nunc pro tunc

to correct the award of jail time credit. Sanchez v. State, 112 S.W.3d 311, 312 (Tex. App.—Corpus

Christi 2003, no pet.); Everett v. State, 82 S.W.3d 735 (Tex. App.—Waco 2002, pet. ref’d). The

appropriate procedure for a person seeking additional jail time credit is to present the issue to the

trial court in a motion for nunc pro tunc judgment and if the motion is unsuccessful, to seek relief

by a petition for writ of mandamus. Ex parte Ybarra, 149 S.W.3d 147, 148-49 (Tex. Crim.

App. 2004).
2

The appeal is dismissed.

__________________________________________

David Puryear, Justice

Before Chief Justice Law, Justices Puryear and Henson

Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction

Filed: July 9, 2007

Do Not Publish
EXHIBIT
    21
  KB HOME AND CONSOLIDATED SUBSIDIARIES
  SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT
    Percentage ofVoting SecuritiesOwned bythe Registrantor aSubsidiary ofName
    of Company

the RegistrantArizonaKB HOME Phoenix Inc.


100KB HOME Sales  Phoenix Inc.


100KB HOME Sales  Tucson Inc.


100KB HOME Tucson Inc.


100CaliforniaKB HOME Central Valley Inc.


100KB HOME Coastal Inc.


100KB HOME Greater Los Angeles Inc.


100KB HOME Insurance Agency Inc.


100KB HOME Sacramento Inc.


100KB HOME South Bay Inc.


100ColoradoKB HOME Colorado Inc.


100DelawareKB HOME Atlanta LLC


100KB HOME Charlotte Inc.


100KB HOME DelMarVa Inc.


100KB HOME District of Columbia Inc.


100KB HOME Florida LLC


100KB HOME Fort Myers LLC


100KB HOME Georgia LLC


100KB HOME Gold Coast LLC


100KB HOME Gulf Coast Inc.


100KB HOME Illinois Inc.


100KB HOME Indiana Inc.


100KB HOME Jacksonville LLC


100KB HOME Maryland Inc.


100KB HOME New Orleans Inc.


100KB HOME North Carolina Inc.


100KB HOME Orlando LLC


100KB HOME Raleigh-Durham Inc.


100KB HOME/Shaw Louisiana LLC


100KB HOME South Carolina Inc.


100KB HOME Tampa LLC


100KB HOME Treasure Coast LLC


100KB HOME Virginia Inc.


100KB HOME Wisconsin LLC


100KB Urban Inc.


100




---



##### 



Percentage ofVoting SecuritiesOwned bythe Registrantor aSubsidiary ofName
    of Company

the RegistrantRate One Holdings, Inc.


100rateOne Home Loans, LLC


100FloridaKB HOME Title Services Inc.


100GeorgiaColony Homes, L.L.C.


100IllinoisKB HOME Mortgage Company


100MichiganKeywick, Inc.


100NevadaKB Home Kyle Inc.


100KB HOME Nevada Inc.


100KB HOME Reno Inc.


100New MexicoKB HOME New Mexico Inc.


100TexasKB HOME Lone Star Inc.


100KBSA Inc.


100     *
    
    Certain subsidiaries have been omitted from this list. These
    subsidiaries, when considered in the aggregate as a single
    subsidiary, do not constitute a significant subsidiary as
    defined in Rule 1-02(u) of
    Regulation S-X.
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 227 (Friday, November 26, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 72833]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-29751]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders; 
Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute on Deafness and Other 
Communication Disorders; Special Emphasis Panel.
    Clinical Research Center on Auditory Neuropathy Spectrum 
Disorder.
    Date: December 16, 2010.
    Time: 11 a.m. to 3 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications
    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6120 Executive Blvd., 
Rockville, MD 20852 (Telephone Conference Call).
    Contact Person: Shiguang Yang, DVM, PHD, Scientific Review 
Officer, Division of Extramural Activities, NIDCD, NIH, 6120 
Executive Blvd., Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-496-8683.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.173, 
Biological Research Related to Deafness and Communicative Disorders, 
National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: November 19, 2010.
Jennifer S. Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2010-29751 Filed 11-24-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
Editorial Note on Part 4290
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 4290 appear at 85 FR 16522, Mar. 24, 2020.

§ 4290.150 Management and ownership diversity requirement. ( a ) *Diversity requirement.* You must have diversity between management and ownership in order to be licensed as a RBIC and to maintain your license. To establish diversity, you must meet the requirements in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section.
( b ) *Percentage ownership requirement.* No Person or group of Persons who are Affiliates of one another may own or control, directly or indirectly, more than 70 percent of your Regulatory Capital or your Leverageable Capital.
( c ) *Non-affiliation requirement.* At least 30 percent of your Regulatory Capital and Leverageable Capital must be owned and controlled by Persons unaffiliated with your management and unaffiliated with each other, and whose investments are significant in dollar and percentage terms as determined by the Agency. Such Persons must not be your Associates (except for their status as your shareholders, limited partners or members) and must not Control, be Controlled by, or be under Common Control with any of your Associates. A single “acceptable” Institutional Investor may be substituted for two or three of the three investors who are otherwise required. The following Institutional Investors are “acceptable” for this purpose: ( 1 ) Entities whose overall activities are regulated and periodically examined by State, Federal or other governmental authorities satisfactory to the Agency;
( 2 ) Entities listed on the New York Stock Exchange;
( 3 ) Entities that are publicly-traded and that meet both the minimum numerical listing standards and the corporate governance listing standards of the New York Stock Exchange;
( 4 ) Public or private employee pension funds;
( 5 ) Trusts, foundations, or endowments, but only if exempt from Federal income taxation; and
( 6 ) Other Institutional Investors satisfactory to the Agency.
( d ) *Voting requirement.* The investors relied upon to satisfy the diversity requirement may not delegate their voting rights to any Person who is your Associate, or who Controls, is Controlled by, or is under Common Control with any of your Associates, without prior approval by the Agency.
( e ) *Requirement to maintain diversity.* You must maintain management-ownership diversity while you are a RBIC. If, at any time, you no longer have the required management-ownership diversity, you must: ( 1 ) Notify the Agency within 10 days; and
( 2 ) Re-establish diversity within six months after loss of diversity.
19.1303 Status as a HUBZone small business

concern.

(a) Status as a HUBZone small business concern is determined by the Small Business Administration

(SBA) in accordance with 13 CFR Part 126.

(b) If SBA determines that a concern is a HUBZone small business, it will designate the concern as a

HUBZone small business in the Dynamic Small Business Search (DSBS) at https://web.sba.gov/

pro-net/search/dsp_dsbs.cfm. SBA's designation also appears in SAM. Only firms designated in DSBS

and SAM as HUBZone small business concerns are eligible for HUBZone preferences. HUBZone

preferences are not contingent on the place of performance.

(c) A joint venture may be considered a HUBZone small business concern if—

(1)The joint venture qualifies as small under 19.301-1(a)(2)(i);

(2)At least one party to the joint venture is a HUBZone small business concern; and

(3)The joint venture complies with 13 CFR 126.616(a) through (c).

(d) To be eligible for a HUBZone contract under this section, a HUBZone small business concern

must be a HUBZone small business concern at the time of its initial offer.

Parent topic: Subpart 19.13 - Historically Underutilized Business Zone (HUBZone) Program
No. 47,190

#### Richard A. Armstrong and Betty J. Grisham, *Appellants,*v. Cities Service Gas Company and The Kansas Power and Light Company, *Appellees.*

(519 P. 2d 1129)

Opinion filed March 2, 1974.

*Eugene C. Riling,*of Riling, Riling & Burkhead, of Lawrence, argued die cause and was on the brief for the appellants.

*Charles D. Stough, of*Lawrence, argued the cause and *Daniel R. Hopkins,*of Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, was with him on the brief for the appellees.

*Per Curiam:*

After the case at bar had been reviewed in this court and the judgment of the trial court affirmed, plaintiffs filed a motion in the lower court for a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence. The motion was denied and plaintiffs perfected the instant appeal.

Our decision on the first appeal is *Armstrong v. Cities Service Gas Co.,*210 Kan. 298, 502 P. 2d 672. It was held that the defendants had become the owners of certain easements and a “meter regulator” lease, by adverse possession under a belief of ownership for more than fifteen years as against the remaindermen (plaintiffs), although the easements and the lease were initially acquired from the life tenant only. The lease required a rental payment of $10.00 per year to keep it alive. These payments were made to the life tenant during his lifetime.

After the Supreme Court mandate came down quieting the title in the appellants, but subject to the easements and the lease, the Cities Service Company sent a draft for the lease rental due payable to appellants, thus acknowledging their title under the mandate.

It is this draft which appellants rely on as newly discovered evidence in support of their motion for a new trial.

We hold that the motion for a new trial was properly denied for two reasons:

First, that the draft acknowledging the title of the appellants was dated December 27, 1972, after the decision of this court on November 4, 1972, and is in no sense an indication of knowledge which would undermine the claim of belief of ownership prior to *223December 5, 1968, when appellees were first apprised of appellants’ title. The giving of the draft is entirely consistent with the claim of appellees and with the mandate of this court. The evidence is irrelevant.

Second, that the draft upon which appellants rely as newly discovered evidence did not exist when the case was tried. To constitute “newly discovered evidence” the evidence would obviously have to have been subject to discovery for use at the trial. Cases cannot be reopened to receive postjudgment admissions, even if relevant, absent a valid claim of perjury or fraud in procurement.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
ERNST & YOUNG          ERNST & YOUNG LLP                  Phone: (619) 343-1000
                       220 South Sixth Street, Ste 1400   www.ey.com
                       Minneapolis, MN 55402-4509


             Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

We have examined management's assertion, included in the accompanying Report on
Assessment of Compliance with SEC Regulation AB Servicing Criteria, that U.S.
Bank National Association (the Company) complied with the servicing criteria
set forth in Item 1122 (d) of the Securities and Exchange Commission's
Regulation AB for the Corporate Trust Asset Backed Securities platform (the
Platform) as of and for the year ended December 31, 2006, except for criteria
1122(d)(1)(i), 1122(d)(1)(iii), 1122(d)(2)(i), through 1122(d)(2)(vii),
1122(d)(3)(i) through 1122 (d)(3)(iv) and 1122(d)(4)(iv) through (d)(4)(xv),
which the Company has determined are not applicable to the activities performed
by them with respect to the servicing platform covered by this report.
Management is responsible for the Company's compliance with those servicing
criteria. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on management's assertion
about the Company's compliance with the servicing criteria based on our
examination.

Our examination was conducted in accordance with standards of the Public
Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) and, accordingly, included
examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Company's compliance with the
applicable servicing criteria and performing such other procedures as we
considered necessary in the circumstances. Our examination included testing of
less than all of the individual asset backed transactions and servicing
activities related to the Platform, and determining whether the Company
processed those selected transactions and performed those selected activities
in compliance with the servicing criteria. Furthermore, our procedures were
limited to the selected transactions and servicing activities performed by the
Company during the period covered by this report. Our procedures were not
designed to determine whether errors may have occurred either prior to or
subsequent to our tests that may have affected the balances or amounts
calculated or reported by the Company during the period covered by this report
for the selected transactions or any other transactions. We believe that our
examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our examination does
not provide a legal determination on the Company's compliance with the
servicing criteria.

In our opinion, management's assertion that the Company complied with the
aforementioned servicing criteria as of and for the year ended December 31,
2006 for the Corporate Trust Asset Backed Securities platform is fairly stated,
in all material respects.

                                       /s/ Ernst & Young LLP

February 26, 2007

0703-0810457      A Member Practice of Ernst & Young Global
#### Joseph A. FITZPATRICK and Jane B. Fitzpatrick, h/w v. HOLIDAY INNS, INC.

Civ. A. No. 80-263.

United States District Court, E. D. Pennsylvania.

Feb. 26, 1981.

Edwin B. Barnett, Strong, Barnett, Hayes & Hamilton, Philadelphia, Pa., for plaintiffs.

Peter T. Parashes, White & Williams, Philadelphia, Pa., for defendant.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

HUYETT, District Judge.

The plaintiff alleges that because of the defendant’s negligence she was injured when she fell on ice while on the defendant’s property. At the defendant’s request and pursuant to Rule 35 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the plaintiff was examined by a physician. The physician prepared a report which he delivered to the defendant. The defendant gave the plaintiff a copy of this report. The defendant has decided not to call this physician as a witness and will not be offering his report into evidence. In addition, the defendant is unwilling to agree that the plaintiff may introduce the report. Since the plaintiff wants to use the report and the defendant will not stipulate to its authenticity, the plaintiff intends to subpoena the physician who prepared the report and is the only witness who can lay the necessary foundation. The defendant vigorously objects to the plaintiff’s plan to subpoena an expert that the defendant hired to prepare for litigation but who will not be called as a witness. Motions *in limine*have been filed.

I recognize that the securing of expert testimony by subpoena is an unusual *980practice. Nevertheless, the weight of authority holds that “a court does have the power to subpoena an expert witness and, though it cannot require him to conduct any examinations or experiments to prepare himself for trial, it can require him to state whatever opinions he may have previously formed.” *Kaufman v. Edelstein,*539 F.2d 811, 817 (2d Cir. 1976), *quoting Carter-Wallace, Inc. v. Otte,*474 F.2d 529, 536 (2d Cir. 1972).

So long as the examination of this witness is limited to the preparation of his report and the facts and opinions contained therein, the use of a subpoena to secure his testimony is clearly appropriate under the rule stated above. Since this is a matter largely within my discretion and because it is in the interests of fairness, I shall order the plaintiff to tender to the physician the customary expert witness fee for testimony at trial.

The defendant’s motion *in limine*will be denied; the plaintiff’s motion will be granted. The plaintiff should take whatever action it deems appropriate to secure the testimony of the physician.