alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### § 987.9 Handle.

*Handle* means to sell, consign, transport, or ship (except as a common or contract carrier of dates owned by another person) or in any way to put dates into the current of commerce including the shipment or delivery of utility dates or cull dates into nonhuman consumption outlets, except that sales or deliveries, by producers, of other than cull dates, to a handler within the area of production, or the movement of dates by a handler to storage for his account within the area of production, or counties adjoining the area of production, shall not be considered handling. The Committee, with the approval of the Secretary, may establish monitoring procedures for storage of dates in Orange, San Diego, and Yuma Counties.

[36 FR 15037, Aug. 12, 1971, as amended at 43 FR 4250, 4251, Feb. 1, 1978]
#### § 993.20 Crop year.

*Crop year* means the 12-month period beginning August 1 of any year and ending July 31 of the following year.
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

September 22, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 136465 Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 136465 

 COA: 283499 

Otsego CC: 07-003720-FH 

KODY ALLEN PADGETT,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 26, 2008 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded 

that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. The denial is without 

prejudice to the defendant seeking relief, pursuant to MCR 6.500, et seq., as to the new 

issues raised in his application supplement. 

d0915 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

September 22, 2008 

 Clerk
§ 13.13 Parties to the hearing. ( a ) The parties to the hearing shall be the defendant and the authority.
( b ) Pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 3730(c)(5), a private plaintiff under the False Claims Act may participate in these proceedings to the extent authorized by the provisions of that Act.
# SUBCHAPTER G—CONTRACT MANAGEMENT   

- PART 3042—CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION AND AUDIT SERVICES 
- PART 3043—CONTRACT MODIFICATIONS [RESERVED] 
- PART 3044—SUBCONTRACTING POLICIES AND PROCEDURES [RESERVED] 
- PART 3046—QUALITY ASSURANCE 
- PART 3047—TRANSPORTATION 
- PART 3048—VALUE ENGINEERING [RESERVED] 
- PART 3049—TERMINATION OF CONTRACTS 
- PART 3050—EXTRAORDINARY CONTRACTUAL ACTIONS [RESERVED] 
- PART 3051—USE OF GOVERNMENT SOURCES BY CONTRACTORS [RESERVED] 

- PART 3042—CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION AND AUDIT SERVICES    - Subpart 3042.15—Contractor Performance Information     - 3042.1502   Policy.
  - Subpart 3042.70—Contracting Officer's Representative     - 3042.7000   Contract clause.
- PART 3043—CONTRACT MODIFICATIONS [RESERVED]   
- PART 3044—SUBCONTRACTING POLICIES AND PROCEDURES [RESERVED]   
- PART 3046—QUALITY ASSURANCE    - Subpart 3046.7—Warranties     - 3046.702   [Reserved]
    - 3046.790   Use of warranties in major systems acquisitions by the USCG (USCG).
    - 3046.790-1   Scope (USCG).
    - 3046.790-2   Definitions (USCG).
    - 3046.790-3   Policy (USCG).
    - 3046.790-4   Waiver (USCG).
    - 3046.791-1   Policy (USCG).
    - 3046.791-2   Tailoring warranty terms and conditions (USCG).
    - 3046.791-3   Warranties on Government-furnished property (USCG).
    - 3046.792   Cost benefit analysis (USCG).
    - 3046.793   Waiver and notification procedures (USCG).
- PART 3047—TRANSPORTATION    - Subpart 3047.3—Transportation in Supply Contracts     - 3047.305   Solicitation provisions, contract clauses, and transportation factors.
    - 3047.305-70   Solicitation provisions.
- PART 3048—VALUE ENGINEERING [RESERVED]   
- PART 3049—TERMINATION OF CONTRACTS          - 3049.9001   Policy (USCG).
  - 3049.9002   Contract clause (USCG).
- PART 3050—EXTRAORDINARY CONTRACTUAL ACTIONS [RESERVED]   
- PART 3051—USE OF GOVERNMENT SOURCES BY CONTRACTORS [RESERVED]
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not *

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-50276

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

ROBERTO LOPEZ-GARCIA, also known as Robert Lopez,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 5:02-CR-624-1

Before JOLLY, WIENER, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Defendant-Appellant Roberto Lopez-Garcia appeals the 24-month sentence

he received following the revocation of his supervised release. Lopez-Garcia

contends that his sentence, which exceeded the applicable guidelines range of 12

to 18 months, is greater than necessary to achieve Congress’s sentencing goals

because it overstates the severity of his violation.

We disagree. The sentence imposed falls within the two-year statutory

maximum authorized on revocation, and Lopez-Garcia has identified no evidence

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

December 1, 2009

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 09-50276

2

to support his claim that the sentence is unreasonable or plainly unreasonable.

See United States v. Hinson, 429 F.3d 114, 120 (5th Cir. 2005); see also 8 U.S.C.

§ 1326(a), (b)(2), 3559(a)(2), 3583(e)(3).

AFFIRMED.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

October 31, 2003

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 03-30144

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

HERMAN ROBINSON,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 01-CR-353-1

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

Before JONES, BENAVIDES, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Herman Robinson pleaded guilty to conspiracy to possess with

the intent to distribute more than 50 grams of cocaine base and

more than 500 grams, but less than five kilograms, of cocaine

hydrochloride and distributing less than 500 grams of cocaine

hydrochloride. On appeal, he contends that his guilty plea as to

the conspiracy count should be set aside as unsupported by the

factual basis. He avers that the factual basis to his guilty

plea attributed 49.2 grams of cocaine base to him but that the
No. 03-30144

-2-

indictment charged him with conspiracy to possess with the intent

to distribute more than 50 grams of cocaine base. Robinson

contends that the discrepancy between the factual basis and the

indictment rendered his plea invalid.

Because Robinson did not challenge the factual basis in the

district court, review is for plain error only. United States v.

Vonn, 122 S. Ct. 1043, 1046 (2002). The district court did not

plainly err in accepting Robinson’s guilty plea to conspiring to

distribute more than 50 grams of cocaine base as alleged in the

indictment. Robinson admitted under oath at rearraignment that

he was guilty of a more-than-50-gram conspiracy. See FED. R.

CRIM. P. 11(f); United States v. Adams, 961 F.2d 505, 508-09 (5th

Cir. 1992). Even if it is assumed that Robinson admitted to

conspiring to possess with the intent to distribute only 49.2

grams of cocaine base, Robinson makes no argument that he was

misled or prejudiced by the discrepancy between the indictment

and the factual basis, and the record does not show prejudice. 

See United States v. Phillips, 625 F.2d 543, 546 (5th Cir. 1980). 

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
227 So.2d 598

#### STATE of Louisiana v. Lucille BRUCE.

No. 50213.

Nov. 14, 1969.

In re: Lucille Bruce applying for writs of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus.

Writs refused. Defendant has an adequate remedy by appeal in the event of conviction.
Exhibit 34.4a



LOGO

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

To the Board of Directors and shareholders of CoreLogic, Inc.:

We have examined managements assertion, included in the accompanying Report on Assessment of Compliance, that CoreLogic Tax Services, LLC (the
Company), an indirect subsidiary of CoreLogic, Inc. complied with the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of the Securities and Exchange Commissions Regulation AB for all loans for residential and commercial mortgage loan
outsourcing customers for which the Company served as the residential and commercial tax service provider (the Platform), as of December 31, 2015 and for the year then ended, only including 1122(d)(1)(iv), 1122(d)(2)(ii), 1122(d)(2)(v),
1122(d)(2)(vi), 1122(d)(2)(vii), 1122(d)(4)(xi), 1122(d)(4)(xii) and 1122(d)(4)(xiii), which the Company has determined are applicable to the servicing activities performed by it with respect to the Platform. Management is responsible for the
Companys compliance with the servicing criteria. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on managements assertion based on our examination.

Our examination was conducted in accordance with attestation 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
selected servicing activities related to the Platform, and determining whether the Company performed those selected activities in compliance with the applicable servicing criteria. Our procedures were limited to the selected servicing activities
performed by the Company during the period covered by this report. Our procedures were not designed to detect noncompliance arising from errors that may have occurred 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. 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 applicable servicing criteria as of
and for the year ended December 31, 2015 for all loans for residential and commercial mortgage loan outsourcing customers for which the Company served as the residential and commercial tax service provider is fairly stated, in all material respects.

February 4, 2016



|                              
|------------------------------
|/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, 2001 Ross Avenue, Suite 1800, Dallas, Texas 75201

T: (214) 999-1400, F: (214) 754-7991, www.pwc.com/us
#### § 923.67 Duration of immunities.

The benefits, privileges, and immunities conferred upon any person by virtue of this subpart shall cease upon the termination of this subpart, except with respect to acts done under and during the existence of this subpart.
Subpart 3031.2—Contracts with Commercial Organizations    **Parent topic:** PART 3031—CONTRACT COST PRINCIPLES AND PROCEDURES3031.205 Selected costs.3031.205-32 Precontract costs.       (a) The decision to incur precontract costs is that of the contractor. DHS employees may not authorize, demand, or require a contractor to incur precontract costs. The contracting officer must advise the prospective contractor that any costs incurred before contract award are incurred at the contractor's sole risk and that if negotiations fail to result in a binding contract, payment of these costs will not be made by the Government. See (HSAR) 48 CFR 3031.205–32(b) regarding exception due to reconciliation of costs.          (b) When the contracting officer determines that incurring precontract costs was necessary to meet the proposed contract delivery schedule of a cost-reimbursement contract, the clause at (HSAR) 48 CFR 3052.231–70, Precontract Costs, may be inserted in the resultant contract.
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

267 CAF 09-02488 PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., PERADOTTO, LINDLEY, SCONIERS, AND MARTOCHE, JJ.

IN THE MATTER OF ALEXANDER M.

-------------------------------------------- ONEIDA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, PETITIONER-RESPONDENT; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

CINDY M., RESPONDENT, AND MICHAEL M., RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.

PETER J. DIGIORGIO, JR., UTICA, FOR RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.

DENISE J. MORGAN, UTICA, FOR PETITIONER-RESPONDENT.

A.J. BOSMAN, ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD, ROME, FOR ALEXANDER M.

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Oneida County (Joan E. Shkane, J.), entered November 23, 2009 in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 10. The order, among other things, adjudged that respondent father had neglected the subject child and ordered that the subject child remain in the care and custody of petitioner.
It is hereby ORDERED that said appeal insofar as it concerned disposition is unanimously dismissed and the order is otherwise affirmed without costs.
Memorandum: Respondent father appeals from an order adjudicating the child at issue in this appeal to be a neglected child. We agree with the father that Family Court erred in finding that the child was neglected based on his purported threats to remove the child from the hospital, which he made during a telephone call to hospital staff. The evidence of those purported threats did not establish that the child’s “physical, mental or emotional condition . . . [was] in imminent danger of becoming impaired” (Family Ct Act § 1012 [f] [i];

see Nicholson v Scoppetta , 3 NY3d 357, 369; see also Matter of Anna F. , 56 AD3d 1197, 1198; Matter of Casey N. , 44 AD3d 861, 862). We conclude, however, that the court properly found that the father neglected the child based on his continued failure to address his illegal drug use. The prior orders in this proceeding detail the father’s long-standing inability or refusal to deal with his drug usage ( see Matter of Carlena B. , 61 AD3d 752, lv denied 13 NY3d 703; Matter of Douglas QQ. , 273 AD2d 711, 713; see generally Matter of Nassau County Dept. of Social Servs. v Denise J. , 87 NY2d 73, 78-80). The court stated that it would take judicial notice of those prior orders, and the father did not object ( see Matter of Kayla J. , 74 AD3d 1665, 1667-1668; Matter of Andrew U. , 22 AD3d 926, 926-927; Matter of-2- 267 CAF 09-02488

Catherine KK. , 280 AD2d 732, 734). Finally, the father’s appeal from the order insofar as it concerned disposition is moot, inasmuch as superseding permanency orders have since been entered ( see Matter of Dustin B. , 71 AD3d 1426; see also Matter of Giovanni K. , 62 AD3d 1242, lv denied 12 NY3d 715).

Entered: April 1, 2011 Patricia L. Morgan Clerk of the Court
FINANCING STATEMENT                                     Identifying File No.____

ALL INFORMATION MUST BE TYPEWRITTEN OR PRINTED IN INK. 
                                                      SIGNATURES MUST BE IN INK.

If transaction or transactions wholly or partially subject to 
recordation tax indicate amount of taxable debt here. $__________ .

This  financing  statement  dated  6/10/97 is presented to a filing  officer for
filing pursuant to Uniform Commercial Code.

1.   DEBTOR

     Name              Central Life and Casualty Company, Limited
         ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 
     Address    11460 Cronridge Drive, Suite 120, Owings Mills, Maryland  21117
              -----------------------------------------------------------------

2.   SECURED PARTY

     Name              The Chase Manhattan Bank
         ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 
     Address           200 Jericho Quadrangle, Jericho, NY   11753
             ------------------------------------------------------------------
             Person and Address to whom Statement is to be Returned if Different
             from above.

3.   Maturity date of obligation (if any)      5/31/2002
                                         --------------------------------------
4.   This financing statement covers the following types (or items) of property:
     (List)

     All present and future accounts, contract rights,  instruments,  documents,
     and chattel paper, all returned and repossessed goods relating thereto, all
     proceeds thereof,  and all books,  records,  and other property relating to
     any of the foregoing.



                         CHECK |X| THE LINES WHICH APPLY

5.   |_| (If collateral is crops)  The above described crops are growing or  are
         to be grown on: (describe estate)


     |_| (If collateral is goods which are or are to  become fixtures) The above
         described goods are affixed or to be affixed to: (describe real estate)

     |_| (Proceeds of collateral are also covered)

     |_| (Products of collateral are also covered)


/s/Kenneth L. Blum,Jr. - President
--------------------------------------
(Signature of Debtor)

Central Life and Casualty Company, Limited
------------------------------------------
Type of Print Above Name on Above Line

                                               Signature Illegible - VP   
--------------------------------------       -----------------------------------
(Signature of Debtor)                           (Signature of Secured Party)


                                                The Chase Manhattan Bank
--------------------------------------       -----------------------------------
Type or Print Above Signature on Above Line     Type or Print Above Signature on
                                                Above Line
#### § 906.121 Reestablishment of districts.

The three districts of the production area specified in § 906.20 *Districts* are reestablished as a single district comprising the entire production area.

[34 FR 6651, Apr. 18, 1969]
#### In the Matter of 9th & 10th Street L.L.C., Respondent, v Board of Standards and Appeals of the City of New York, Appellant.

Submitted January 7, 2008;

decided January 10, 2008

Reported below, 43 AD3d 36.

Motion by the Real Estate Board of New York, Inc. for leave to file a brief amicus curiae on the appeal herein granted. Three copies of the brief must be served and an original and 24 copies filed within seven days.
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: Craig Lynn Beal v. The State of Texas

Appellate case number: 01-12-00896-CR

Trial court case number: 1793757

Trial court: County Criminal Court at Law No 8 of Harris County

This case was abated for several hearings in the trial court to determine why the 

reporter’s record had not been filed. In July 2015, this Court received findings and conclusions 

prepared by the Honorable Sherman Ross, where he determined that the court reporter, Sondra 

Humphries, had lost the record and that appellant was entitled to a new trial. Appellant filed a 

motion to reinstate the appeal and for us to follow Judge Ross’ conclusion that appellant was 

entitled to a new trial. Soon thereafter, the State filed an objection to appellant’s motion, 

claiming that Sondra Humphries had filed the record. Humphries had tendered a reporter’s 

record, but it was incomplete and this Court rejected the tender. 

On September 14, 2015, Sondra Humphries, filed the reporter’s record and, though it 

appeared to be complete, this Court notified the parties of their right to review the record and 

object if they determined the record was incomplete. We further stated that, if no objections 

were received showing that the record was incomplete, we would reinstate the appeal and set 

briefing deadlines. Appellant objected to a number of inaccuracies and problems with the 

record. The State filed no response.

After our review of the record, we are unable to discern any material mistakes in the 

reporter’s record other than the following:

1. Vol. 1, page 3 identifies the date of the proceeding as September 13, 2013. This is 

incorrect.

2. Vol. 2, page 1 is entitled “TRIAL SEPTEMBER 11, 2012”. Under this title, the text 

begins “On the 11th day of September, 2015. . . .” This 2015 date is incorrect.

3. Vols. 2-3 do not name the presiding judge.

4. Vol. 2, pg. 66 includes the following words on line 24: “BAENLT EFRMENT” 

This line of text needs correction.

5. State’s Exhibit 7, offered and admitted in Vol. 2, page 115, is missing from the 

exhibit volume, Vol. 4. 

6. Vol. 4 contains two exhibits labeled State’s Exhibit 16.
7. Vol. 4 contains a State’s Exhibit 19, though an exhibit 19 is never offered or admitted 

in the record.

8. Vol. 4, State’s Exhibit 18, a trustee deed, is copied with pages overlapping each other 

and is not legible.

9. Vol. 4, Defendant’s Exhibit 1, a warranty deed, appears to be missing from the 

record, but it may be among the pages copied one on top of the other. 

We order the court reporter, Sondra Humphries, to correct these errors and to file a 

corrected reporter’s record on or before November 24, 2015. 

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Harvey Brown

 Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: November 5, 2015
#### § 986.52 Council expenses.

The members and their alternates of the Council shall serve without compensation, but shall be reimbursed for the reasonable and necessary expenses incurred by them in the performance of their duties under this part.
Case 2:06-cr-00200-WHA-CSC Document 84 Filed 12/01/2006 Page 1 of 10
Case 2:06-cr-00200-WHA-CSC Document 84 Filed 12/01/2006 Page 2 of 10
Case 2:06-cr-00200-WHA-CSC Document 84 Filed 12/01/2006 Page 3 of 10
Case 2:06-cr-00200-WHA-CSC Document 84 Filed 12/01/2006 Page 4 of 10
Case 2:06-cr-00200-WHA-CSC Document 84 Filed 12/01/2006 Page 5 of 10
Case 2:06-cr-00200-WHA-CSC Document 84 Filed 12/01/2006 Page 6 of 10
Case 2:06-cr-00200-WHA-CSC Document 84 Filed 12/01/2006 Page 7 of 10
Case 2:06-cr-00200-WHA-CSC Document 84 Filed 12/01/2006 Page 8 of 10
Case 2:06-cr-00200-WHA-CSC Document 84 Filed 12/01/2006 Page 9 of 10
Case 2:06-cr-00200-WHA-CSC Document 84 Filed 12/01/2006 Page 10 of 10