alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### § 986.60 Budget.

As soon as practicable before the beginning of each fiscal year, and as may be necessary thereafter, the Council shall prepare a budget of income and expenditures necessary for the administration of this part. The Council may recommend a rate of assessment calculated to provide adequate funds to defray its proposed expenditures. The Council shall present such budget to the Secretary with an accompanying report showing the basis for its calculations, and all shall be subject to Secretary approval.
#### Atkinson, receiver, *v.*Olmstead.

June 11, 1913.

Action for damages. Before Judge Daniel. Fayette superior court. July 17, 1912.

*Rosser & Brandon, Colquitt & Conyers,*and *Bldloch & Culpepper,*for plaintiff in error.

*John M. Graham*and *J. W. Wise,*contra.

Fish, C. J.

1. The plaintiff brought an action against the receiver of a railroad company. The defendant filed demurrers to the petition, which were overruled, and exceptions pendente lite were filed. On the trial, upon the conclusion of the evidence in behalf of the plaintiff, the defendant moved for a nonsuit, which was refused; and exceptions pendente lite to this ruling were filed. A verdict was rendered for the plaintiff. The railroad company moved for a new trial, which was refused. The respondent to the motion at no time raised the point before the trial court that the company, not being a party to the action, was not authorized to make the motion. Upon the call of the ease in the Supreme Court, the defendant in error moved to dismiss the bill of exceptions, upon the ground that the railroad company was not a party to the ease and therefore had no right to move for a new trial or to sue out a writ of error complaining of the overruling of such motion. The receiver, in response to the motion to dismiss, asked that the bill of exceptions be so amended as to insert his name in lieu of the railroad company as plaintiff in error. *Held:*(a) The motion to amend the bill of exceptions, so as to make the receiver the plaintiff in error in lieu of the railroad company, is allowed. (6) The motion to dismiss the bill of exceptions is overruled. See *Gate City Terminal Co.*v. *Thrower,*136 *Ga.*456 (1), 460 (71 S. E. 903).

2. The assignment of error upon the overruling of the demurrers to the petition, not being referred to in the brief of counsel for the plaintiff in error, is .considered abandoned.

,3. The instructions to which exceptions were taken were not erroneous for any reason assigned.

4. The original petition alleged that the cause of action — the burning of tlie plaintiff’s property by the alleged negligent acts of the defendant’s employees — originated in Fayette county, where the suit was instituted. This allegation was not denied, nor was it averred in the answer that the defendant could neither admit nor deny it for lack of information in reference thereto, although the answer did deny that the value of the property alleged to have been burned was as set forth in the petition, and averred that the defendant could neither admit nor deny the allegation as to the ownership of such property. *Held,*that the plaintiff was not bound to prove, on the trial, that the cause of action originated in the county where the suit was brought (Civil Code, § 5539), under the general rule as provided in the Civil Code, § 2798.

.5. The verdict was authorized by the evidence, and there was no error in refusing a .new trial. *Judgment affirmed. All the Justices concur.*
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROf ECTlOM AGENCY 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 

DFFfCE OF 

AIR AND RADIATION 

Ms. Julie R. Domike 

Mr. Alec C. Zolcaroli 

Counsel for Mack Trucks, Inc. and Volvo Group North America, LLC 

Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton, LLP 

Suite 900 607 14' Street, NW 

Washington, D.C, 20005-20 1 8 

Dear Ms. Domike and Mr. Zacaroli: 

The U. S. Environmental Protection Agency received your letter dated February 7,20 12. In the letter, 

you ask the EPA to confirm that EPA will not take any action based on the use of nonconformance 

penalties provided under the Interim Final Rule until such time as my petitions for stay of the rule have 

been resolved or, in the alternative, to provide at least fifteen days notice to Mack prior to taking such 

action. 

After reviewing your request, the EPA is not in a position to provide such assurances. The EPA believes 

that it is appropriate and reasonable to take action in furtherance of its regulations, including those 

promulgated in the Interim Final Rule, in the normal course of business and thus does not believe it is 

appropriate to commit to take no action until such time as any petitions for stay of the rule have been 

resolved. In addition, the EPA daes not make a determination concerning issuance of a certificate of 

conformity until our review of the application is completed and we are satisfied that it is appropriate to 

issue a certificate. EPA's standard practice for many years has been to then promptly issue a certificate 

to the requesting manufacturer. The notice requested by Volvo would presumably occur at the point the 

EPA has determind that a certificate should be issued, as there would be no basis for providing notice 

prior to that point. Complying with Volvo's request would mean delaying issuance of a certificate for 

the requested time period, contrary to the normal procedures the EPA applies to ail manufacturers. 

Particularly given the exigencies identified in the Interim Final Rule, the EPA does not believe it is 

appropriate ta bind itself to such a delay prior to taking action on a certificate application. 

Sincerely,
_________________________________________ 

 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

November 25, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

137154 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Stephen J. Markman, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, Justices 

v SC: 137154 

 COA: 285611 

Kent CC: 07-000473-FH 

JAMES ORLANDO RAMOS,

 Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the July 3, 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. 

l1117 

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. 

November 25, 2008 

 Clerk
#### Glawson *v.*The State.

Fish, C. J.

A bill of exceptions assigning error upon a judgment overruling a motion for a new trial in a criminal ease must be tendered to the judge within twenty days from the rendition of the judgment. Penal Code, § 1102; Civil Code, § 6153.

*{a)*Accordingly, where it appears from a bill of exceptions in a criminal case that the plaintiff in error was convicted on October 30, 1912, and on the next day during the term of court filed a motion for a new trial, and on the same date a rule nisi was granted, calling upon the solicitor-general to show cause, at chambers on November 18, 1912, why a new trial should not be granted, and on November 22, 1912, the motion by consent of counsel for both sides was heard and a new trial was refused on the last-named date, and on March 28, 1913, a bill of exceptions was presented to the judge, complaining of the judgment refusing a new trial, and the judge certified the bill of exceptions on the date it was presented, the Supreme Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the writ of error. See *Harris*v. *State,*117 *Ga.*13 (43 S. E. 419) ; *Crawford*v. *15
      *Goodwin,*128 *Ga.*134 (57 S. E. 240) ; *Sistrunk*v. *Mangum,*138 *Ga.*222 (75 S. E. 7).

May 13, 1913.

Indictment for murder. Before Judge James B. Park. Jones superior court. November *22,*1912.

*John R. Cooper,*for plaintiff in error. *T. 8. Felder, attorney-*

*general,*and *Joseph F. Pottle, solicitor-general,*contra.

(6) In a case of the character above stated, jurisdiction is not conferred upon the Supreme Court to entertain the bill of exceptions by an averment therein to the effect that the delay in tendering it was caused by the refusal of counsel, who represented plaintiff in error on the trial, to proceed further with the case, and the inability of plaintiff in error to procure other counsel to present the bill of exceptions within twenty days from the decision refusing a new trial.

*Writ of error dismissed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
2915.606 Agency procedures.

When an unsolicited proposal is received by an official of the Department of Labor, the recipient of

the proposal must forward it to the HCA. The HCA must address the requirements of FAR 15.604.

The HCA must determine if there is an office(s) within the Department of Labor whose mission could

be impacted by the proposal. If there is, the HCA must designate a recipient within that office as an

“assignee”, and take the following action:

(a) Within seven (7) working days of receipt, the HCA must forward the proposal to the assignee

along with instructions concerning the security, review and disposition of the document.

(1) Inform the offeror of this transfer in writing (preferably by facsimile or other electronic means).

(2) Within one (1) month of receipt of the unsolicited proposal by the assignee, the office receiving

the proposal must determine the merit of the unsolicited proposal.

(i) If the office finds insufficient merit to consider the unsolicited proposal further, then a letter will

be sent to inform the offeror that their proposal will not be considered further, and is not being

retained.

(ii) If, after a comprehensive evaluation as defined by FAR 15.606-2, the office finds merit in the

proposal, it must consult with a Department of Labor contracting officer for direction in complying

with FAR 15.607. If not excluded by a condition of FAR 15.607(a), a requisition may be prepared in

accordance with FAR 15.607(b). If the requirement exceeds the simplified acquisition threshold

inclusive of options then a request must be prepared for the Procurement Review Board in

accordance with Department of Labor procedures stated in Department of Labor Manual Series

2-830 (available by mail from the Division of Acquisition Management Services).

(b) If within one

(1) month of receipt (by the HCA) no assignee can be identified, the HCA must notify the offeror that

the proposal is not being considered further.

Parent topic: Subpart 2915.6 - Unsolicited Proposals
| (logo) WELLS FARGO | **Commercial Mortgage Servicing**D1086-120, 12th Floor550 South Tyron StreetCharlotte, NC 28202 1-800-326-1334 |
|--------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

ANNUAL STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE

 

Reference is hereby made to that certain Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of February 1, 2013, by and among RBS Commercial Funding Inc., as Depositor, Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as Master Servicer, Certificate Administrator, Tax Administrator and Custodian, Midland Loan Services, a division of PNC Bank, National Association, as Special Servicer, Trimont Real Estate Advisors, Inc., as Trust Advisor and U.S. Bank National Association, as Trustee, with respect to Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates WFRBS 2013-C11 (the "Agreement"). Capitalized terms used herein not otherwise defined shall have the meanings assigned in the Agreement.

 

Pursuant to Section 11.12 of this Agreement, I, Daniel Bober, Executive Vice President of Commercial Mortgage Services do hereby certify that:

 

1. A review of the activities of the Master Servicer during the period from January 1, 2015 through December 31, 2015 (the “Reporting Period”), and of its performance per the Agreement during such period has been made under my supervision, and

 

2. To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Master Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period.

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this Certificate as of the 4th day of March 2016.

 

 

/s/ Daniel Bober

Daniel Bober

Executive Vice President

Wells Fargo Bank

 

 

| Wells Fargo Bank, N.A |  (logo) Together we’ll go far |
|-----------------------|------------------------------------------|
IV 

House Calendar No. 11 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 151 

[Report No. 109–18] 

Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 1268) making emergency supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2005, 

and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 14, 2005 

Mr. COLE, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following resolution; 

which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed 

RESOLUTION 

Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 1268) making 

emergency supplemental appropriations for the fiscal 

year ending September 30, 2005, and for other purposes. 

1 Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 

2 resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of 

3 rule XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee 

4 of the Whole House on the state of the Union for consider5 ation of the bill (H.R. 1268) making emergency supple6 mental appropriations for the fiscal year ending Sep7 tember 30, 2005, and for other purposes. The first reading 
2 

HRES 151 RH 

1 of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order 

2 against consideration of the bill are waived. General de3 bate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one 

4 hour equally divided and controlled by the chairman and 

5 ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropria6 tions. After general debate the bill shall be considered for 

7 amendment under the five-minute rule. Points of order 

8 against provisions in the bill for failure to comply with 

9 clause 2 of rule XXI are waived, except for Sections 1113 

10 and 1114. During consideration of the bill for amendment, 

11 the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may accord 

12 priority in recognition on the basis of whether the Member 

13 offering an amendment has caused it to be printed in the 

14 portion of the Congressional Record designated for that 

15 purpose in clause 8 of rule XVIII. Amendments so printed 

16 shall be considered as read. At the conclusion of consider17 ation of the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise 

18 and report the bill to the House with such amendments 

19 as may have been adopted. The previous question shall 

20 be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments 

21 thereto to final passage without intervening motion except 

22 one motion to recommit with or without instructions. 

23 SEC. 2. In the engrossment of H.R. 1268, the Clerk 

24 shall— 
3 

HRES 151 RH 

1 (a) add the text of H.R. 418, as passed by the House, 

2 as new matter at the end of H.R. 1268; 

3 (b) conform the title of H.R. 1268 to reflect the addi4 tion to the engrossment of H.R. 418; 

5 (c) assign appropriate designations to provisions 

6 within the engrossment; and 

7 (d) conform provisions for short titles within the en8 grossment. 
House Calendar No. 11 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 151 

[Report No. 109–18] 

RESOLUTION 

Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 1268) 

and for other purposes. for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2005, making emergency supplemental appropriations 

MARCH 14, 2005 

Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 

printed
2834.005-6 Full production.       The CAO is the agency head for the purposes of FAR 34.005-6.    **Parent topic:** Subpart 2834.0 - General
Case 1:06-cr-00201-WHA-CSC Document 51 Filed 03/07/2007 Page 1 of 1
<PAGE>

                                  EXHIBIT 99.1
                CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

     In connection with the Quarterly Report of Intervoice, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the period ended May 31, 2003, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, David W. Brandenburg,
Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that:

     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:         July 15, 2003
                                         /s/ David W. Brandenburg
                                         ---------------------------------------
                                         David W. Brandenburg
                                         Chief Executive Officer and Chairman
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CASE NO. 2:06-cv-0736-WKW

)

SEVENTY FOUR THOUSAND SEVEN )

HUNDRED ($74,700) DOLLARS IN )

UNITED STATES CURRENCY, )

)

Defendant. )

ORDER

The parties are hereby ORDERED to submit a revised proposed pretrial order to the court

no later than September 12, 2007.

Furthermore, if the parties have any further briefs concerning the hearing on claimant’s

motion to suppress conducted on September 6, 2007, the parties are ORDERED to file them by

September 17, 2007.

Done this 7th day of September, 2007.

 /s/ W. Keith Watkins 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-00736-WKW-SRW Document 25 Filed 09/07/2007 Page 1 of 1
5124.203 Policy.

(a) Contracting officers must follow instructions in Army Regulation (AR) 25-55 for the denial of, or

release of, acquisition information.

(b)(i) The Assistant Secretary of the Army (Acquisition, Logistics and Technology) has delegated the

initial denial authority to act on requests for procurement records under the Freedom of Information

Act, except those procurement records under the purview of the Chief of Engineers and the

Commander, Army Materiel Command, to the heads of the contracting activities (HCAs). The HCAs

may further delegate this authority only to the senior contracting official (SCO).

(ii) If the contracting officer concludes that he/she should deny some or all information requested,

he/she must prepare the proposed response for the HCA in accordance with AR 25-55. The response

must include appeal language substantially the same as the following:

“You may appeal, in whole or in part, this denial to the Secretary of the Army (attn: General

Counsel). In the event you decide to appeal, your letter of appeal must be postmarked no later than

60 calendar days after the date of this denial letter. Please address your appeal to (HCA address).

This denial is made on behalf of the Initial Denial Authority, (name and title), by (name and rank),

Head of the Contracting Activity (office).” (Substitute SCO for HCA if the SCO is the HCA’s designee

.)

(iii) Contracting officers in contracting activities other than the Army Materiel Command and the

United States Army Corps of Engineers must send the proposed denial response to the HCA or, if

delegated, to the SCO. Include copies of the records recommended for denial with a justification for

the denial. Contracting officers in the Army Materiel Command and the United States Army Corps of

Engineers must follow the procedures specified by their headquarters.

(iv) After coordination with counsel, the HCA will provide the denial response, modified if necessary,

to the requestor.

(v) Within three working days of receipt of appeals, HCAs must send notice, the appeal and the

documents required by AR 25-55 to the Office of the General Counsel at the following address:

ATTN: SAGC

General Counsel

104 Army Pentagon

Washington, DC 20310-0104.

Parent topic: Subpart 5124.2 - Freedom of Information Act
# L_2014258EN.01000401.xml

| 29.8.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 258/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.8.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 258/4

---

COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 930/2014

of 28 August 2014

amending for the 218th time Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with the Al Qaida network

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 of 27 May 2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with the Al-Qaida network, (1) and in particular Article 7(1)(a) and 7a(1) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 lists the persons, groups and entities covered by the freezing of funds and economic resources under that Regulation. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 lists the persons, groups and entities covered by the freezing of funds and economic resources under that Regulation.

| (2) | On 20 August 2014 the Sanctions Committee of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) decided to add one natural person to its list of persons, groups and entities to whom the freezing of funds and economic resources should apply. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

On 20 August 2014 the Sanctions Committee of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) decided to add one natural person to its list of persons, groups and entities to whom the freezing of funds and economic resources should apply.

| (3) | Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 should therefore be updated accordingly. |
| --- | --- |

(3)

Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 should therefore be updated accordingly.

| (4) | In order to ensure that the measures provided for in this Regulation are effective, it should enter into force immediately, |
| --- | --- |

(4)

In order to ensure that the measures provided for in this Regulation are effective, it should enter into force immediately,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 is amended in accordance with the Annex to this Regulation.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 28 August 2014.

For the Commission,

On behalf of the President,

Head of the Service for Foreign Policy Instruments

---

(1)  
  OJ L 139, 29.5.2002, p. 9.

1

---

ANNEX

In Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002, the following entry shall be added under the heading ‘Natural persons’:

‘Qari Rahmat (alias Kari Rahmat). Date of birth: (a) 1981 (b) 1982. Place of birth: Shadal (variant Shadaal) Bazaar, Achin District, Nangarhar Province, Afghanistan. Address: (a) Kamkai Village, Achin District, Nangarhar Province, Afghanistan (b) Nangarhar Province, Afghanistan. Date of designation referred to in Article 2a(4)(b): 20.8.2014.’

---
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

v ) CR. NO. 1:06CR201-WHA

)

OSCAR MARTINEZ-RAMIREZ )

ORDER

Upon consideration of the motion to withdraw and appoint panel attorney (doc. #

14) filed by the defendant, it is

ORDERED that the motion be and is hereby GRANTED and that James R.

Cooper, Jr. be and is hereby appointed to represent the defendant for all further

proceedings in this court. Appointed counsel shall file a notice of appearance.

Done this 24 day of August, 2006. th

 /s/Charles S. Coody 

CHARLES S. COODY

CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cr-00201-WHA-CSC Document 15 Filed 08/24/2006 Page 1 of 1