alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3398 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 3398

      To suspend temporarily the duty on synthetic indigo powder.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              June 6, 2006

  Mr. DeMint introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
      To suspend temporarily the duty on synthetic indigo powder.

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

SECTION 1. SYNTHETIC INDIGO POWDER.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

      

``      9902.39.13        Synthetic indigo        Free      No change       No change       On or before 12/
                           powder; 3H-Indol-3-                                               31/2009          ''
                           one, 2-(1,3-dihydro-3-                                                              .
                           oxo-2H-indol-2-
                           ylidene)-1,2-dihydro-
                           (CAS No. 482-89-3)
                           (provided for in
                           subheading
                           3204.15.10)..........

    (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to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 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>
```
43.103 Types of contract modifications.    (b) Unilateral.       (S-90) In cases when the contractor is unable to sign a bilateral modification deobligating an unliquidated obligation (ULO), the contracting officer may issue a unilateral deobligation modification with concurrence of Office of Counsel. **Parent topic:** SUBPART 43.1 – GENERAL
1... This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 04-09-00132-CV-K-A, in the 218th Judicial District Court, Karnes

County, Texas, the Honorable Stella Saxon presiding. However, relator lists the Honorable Ron Carr, Visiting Judge,

as the respondent. 

i i i i i i

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-10-00370-CV

IN RE Carlos GUTIERREZ ARCE

Original Mandamus Proceeding1

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice

Karen Angelini, Justice

Rebecca Simmons, Justice

Delivered and Filed: June 16, 2010

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED

On May 12, 2010, relator Carlos Gutierrez Arce filed a petition for writ of mandamus,

complaining of the trial court’s failure to rule on his pro se request for production of a trial transcript

and statement of facts. 

The record indicates relator’s request was filed with the trial court on January 27, 2010.

Relator acknowledges that he received correspondence from the clerk that he will be provided a copy

of the requested documents upon relator’s full payment of the costs of the copies. Accordingly,

relator’s petition for writ of mandamus is DENIED. TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a). 

PER CURIAM
LEGAL02/30203495v1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

STEVE HAMILTON, as administrator of the 

Estate of JOSEPH HAMILTON,

)

)

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

Civil Action No. 

2:06-CV-757-LES-CSC

PACTIV CORPORATION and LOUISIANAPACIFIC CORPORATION, )

)

)

Defendants. )

)

DEFENDANT LOUISIANA-PACIFIC CORPORATION’S 

MOTION TO DISMISS COUNT SIX

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b) and 7(b), Defendant Louisiana-Pacific Corporation 

(“Louisiana-Pacific”) moves this Court for an Order dismissing Count Six of Plaintiff’s 

Complaint. As set forth in the accompanying Memorandum of Law, Count Six fails to state a 

valid claim under the Alabama Extended Manufacturer’s Liability Doctrine. Therefore, 

pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), Count Six must be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which 

relief may be granted.

Case 2:06-cv-00759-LES-CSC Document 6 Filed 12/22/2006 Page 1 of 4
2

LEGAL02/30203495v1

Respectfully submitted this 22nd day of December, 2006.

/s/Bernard Taylor

Bernard Taylor (admitted pro hac vice)

Douglas S. Arnold (admitted pro hac vice)

Orlyn O. Lockard, III (admitted pro hac vice)

Counsel for Defendant Louisiana-Pacific

Corporation

OF COUNSEL:

ALSTON & BIRD LLP

One Atlantic Center

1201 West Peachtree Street, N.W.

Atlanta, Georgia 30309

Tel: (404) 881-7000

Fax: (404) 881-7777

bernard.taylor@alston.com

doug.arnold@alston.com

skip.lockard@alston.com

ADDITIONAL COUNSEL:

Dennis R. Bailey 

ASB No. 4845-I71D

R. Austin Huffaker 

ASB NO. 3422-F55R

RUSHTON, STAKELY, JOHNSON, & GARRETT, P.A.

184 Commerce Street

Post Office Box 270

Montgomery, AL 36101

Tel: (334) 206-3100

Fax: (334) 262-6277

drb@rsjg.com (Bailey)

rah2@rsjg.com (Huffaker)

Case 2:06-cv-00759-LES-CSC Document 6 Filed 12/22/2006 Page 2 of 4
3

LEGAL02/30203495v1

Laura Proctor

ASB 1504-R54L

Associate General Counsel

Louisiana-Pacific Corporation

414 Union Street North, Suite 2000

Nashville, Tennessee 37219

Tel: (615) 986-5878

Fax: 1-866-741-5091

laura.proctor@lpcorp.com

Case 2:06-cv-00759-LES-CSC Document 6 Filed 12/22/2006 Page 3 of 4
4

LEGAL02/30203495v1

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on this 22nd day of December, 2006, I filed the foregoing via the 

CM/ECF system which will send notice of said filing to the following:

W. Eason Mitchell

Gregory A. Cade

Fred R. DeLeon

W. Lee Gresham, III

Robert Leslie Palmer

Mark R. TerMolen

John C. Berghoff, Jr.

Matthew C. Sostrin

John A. Earnhardt

H. Thomas Wells, Jr.

Richard Elder Crum

/s/Orlyn O. Lockard, III

Of Counsel

Case 2:06-cv-00759-LES-CSC Document 6 Filed 12/22/2006 Page 4 of 4
Exhibit 99.1




Annual Servicer’s Certificate


Provided by Nissan Motor Acceptance Corporation


to Holders of Notes and Certificates









NISSAN MOTOR ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION




OFFICER'S CERTIFICATE




The undersigned, Michael J. McConnell, Vice President of NISSAN MOTOR ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION, a California corporation (the “Company”), does hereby certify, in his capacity as such corporate officer, as follows:




(1)           The undersigned has caused a review, under his supervision, to be made of i) the activities; and ii) the performance under the Agreement (as defined below), of the Company during the period from January 16, 2013 through March 31, 2013 (the “Reporting Period”); and




(2)           To the best of the undersigned’s knowledge, based upon such review, the Company has fulfilled its obligations in all material respects under the Agreement throughout the Reporting Period.




This Officer’s Certificate is being furnished pursuant to Section 4.09(a) of that certain Sale and Servicing Agreement, dated as of January 16, 2013 (the “Agreement”), by and among the Company, in its individual capacity and as servicer, Nissan Auto Receivables Corporation II, as seller, and Nissan Auto Receivables 2013-A Owner Trust.




Capitalized terms used but not defined herein shall have the meanings assigned to such terms in the Agreement.




IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have set my hand effective as of the 24th day of June, 2013.




/s/Michael J. McConnell________________


Michael J. McConnell


Vice President
# 28.307-1 Group insurance plans.

(a) Submit insurance policies under the Defense Department Group Term Insurance Plan to the cognizant Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) office for approval.

**Parent topic:**28.307 Insurance under cost–reimbursement contracts.
#### § 1705.01 Scope.

This part contains the Board's regulations implementing the Privacy Act of 1974, Public Law 93-579, 5 U.S.C. 552a.
Exhibit 33.4b



|                            |  |  |  |                                                                                         
|--------------------------- |  |  |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|LOGO                        |  |  |  |                                                                                         
|                            |  | 
|ASSURANT Specialty
Property |  |  |  | 260 Interstate North Circle, SE Atlanta, GA
30339-2210 T 770.763.1000 
www.assurant.corn

REPORT ON ASSESSMENT OF COMPLIANCE WITH

§1122(d)(2)(vi), §1122(d)(4)(xi) and §1122(d)(4)(xii)

of REGULATION AB SERVICING CRITERIA

FOR THE REPORTING PERIOD

JANUARY 1, 2015 TO DECEMBER 31, 2015

American Security Insurance Company, Standard Guaranty Insurance Company and TrackSure Insurance Agency, Inc. (collectively, the Asserting Party)
is responsible for assessing compliance for the period of January 1, 2015 through December 31, 2015 (the Reporting Period) with the servicing criteria set forth in §1122(d)(2)(vi), §1122(d)(4)(xi) and §1122(d)(4)(xii) of
Title 17, §229.1122(d) of the Code of Federal Regulations, (the Applicable Servicing Criteria) which the Asserting Party has concluded are applicable to the insurance escrow servicing activities it performs with respect to all
mortgage backed securities transactions that were registered after January 1, 2006 with the Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to the Securities Act of 1933 (the Platform Transactions). The Asserting Party used the criteria set
forth in paragraph (d) of Item 1122 of Regulation AB to assess the compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria.

The Asserting Party has assessed
its compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria for the Reporting Period and has concluded that the Asserting Party has complied, in all material respects, with the Applicable Servicing Criteria for the Reporting Period with respect to the
Platform Transactions.

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, an independent registered public accounting firm, has issued an attestation report on the assessment
of compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria as of and for the Reporting Period,

American Security Insurance Company

Standard Guaranty Insurance Company

TrackSure
Insurance Agency, Inc.



|                                                                                             
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ John Frobose                                                                             
|By: John Frobose                                                                             
|President of American Security Insurance Company
and Standard Guaranty Insurance Company, and
|Sr. Vice President of TrackSure Insurance Agency, Inc.                                       

Date: February 8, 2016
###### Editorial Note on Part 1046

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 1046 appear at 88 FR 41295, June 26, 2023.

#### § 1046.18 Access authorization.

PF personnel must have the access authorization for the highest level of classified matter to which they have access or SNM which they protect. The specific level of access authorization required for each duty assignment must be determined by the site security organization and approved by the local ODFSA. At sites where access authorizations are not required, SPOs must have at least a background investigation based upon a national agency check with local agency and credit check with maximum duration between reinvestigations not to exceed 10 years. This background investigation must be favorably adjudicated by the applicable Departmental field element. Those SPOs who have access to Category I or Category II quantities of SNM as defined by DOE or with access to credible roll-up potential to Category I according to site-specific determination must have and maintain a DOE “Q” access authorization.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                          91,463
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   70,938
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  4,579,045
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                          21,843
<DEPRECIATION>                                  19,569
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,781,120
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          692,374
<BONDS>                                      1,538,152
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,550,594
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,781,120
<SALES>                                      1,085,500
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,109,525
<CGS>                                          871,134
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,319,666
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (210,141)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (210,141)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (210,141)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.05)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
§ 1013.31 Determining the amount of penalties and assessments. ( a ) In determining an appropriate amount of civil penalties and assessments, the ALJ and the authority head, upon appeal, should evaluate any circumstances that mitigate or aggravate the violation and should articulate in their opinions the reasons that support the penalties and assessments they impose. Because of the intangible costs of fraud, the expense of investigating such conduct, and the need to deter others who might be similarly tempted, ordinarily double damages and a significant civil penalty should be imposed.
( b ) Although not exhaustive, the following factors are among those that may influence the ALJ and the authority head in determining the amount of penalties and assessments to impose with respect to the misconduct (*i.e.,* the false, fictitious, or fraudulent claims or statement) charged in the complaint: ( 1 ) The number of false, fictitious, or fraudulent claims or statements;
( 2 ) The time period over which such claims or statements were made;
( 3 ) The degree of the defendant's culpability with respect to the misconduct;
( 4 ) The amount of money or the value of the property, services, or benefit falsely claimed;
( 5 ) The value of the Government's actual loss as a result of the misconduct, including foreseeable consequential damages and the costs of investigation;
( 6 ) The relationship of the amount imposed as civil penalties to the amount of the Government's loss;
( 7 ) The potential or actual impact of the misconduct upon national defense, public health or safety, or public confidence in the management of Government programs and operations, including particularly the impact on the intended beneficiaries of such programs;
( 8 ) Whether the defendant has engaged in a pattern of the same or similar misconduct;
( 9 ) Whether the defendant attempted to conceal the misconduct;
( 10 ) The degree to which the defendant has involved others in the misconduct or in concealing it;
( 11 ) Where the misconduct of employees or agents is imputed to the defendant, the extent to which the defendant's practices fostered or attempted to preclude such misconduct;
( 12 ) Whether the defendant cooperated in or obstructed an investigation of the misconduct;
( 13 ) Whether the defendant assisted in identifying and prosecuting other wrongdoers;
( 14 ) The complexity of the program or transaction, and the degree of the defendant's sophistication with respect to it, including the extent of the defendant's prior participation in the program or in similar transactions;
( 15 ) Whether the defendant has been found, in any criminal, civil, or administrative proceeding to have engaged in similar misconduct or to have dealt dishonestly with the Government of the United States or of a State, directly or indirectly; and
( 16 ) The need to deter the defendant and others from engaging in the same or similar misconduct.
( c ) Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit the ALJ or the authority head from considering any other factors that in any given case may mitigate or aggravate the offense for which penalties and assessments are imposed.
§ 12.107 Rulemaking on maximum rates for attorney fees. ( a ) If warranted by an increase in the cost of living or by special circumstances (such as limited availability of attorneys qualified to handle certain types of proceedings), the Commission may adopt regulations providing that attorney fees may be awarded at a rate higher than $75 per hour in some, or all of the types of proceedings covered by this part. The Commission will conduct any rulemaking proceedings for this purpose under the informal rulemaking procedures of the Administrative Procedure Act.
( b ) Any person may file with the Commission a petition for rulemaking to increase the maximum rate for attorney fees, in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR 2.802. The petition should identify the rate the petitioner believes the Commission should establish and the types of proceedings in which the rate should be used. It should also explain fully the reasons why the higher rate is warranted. Within 90 days after the petition is filed, the Commission will determine whether it will initiate a rulemaking proceeding, deny the petition, or take other appropriate action on the petition. The Commission will act on the petition in accordance with 10 CFR 2.803.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 267 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 267

Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 376) to amend title XVIII 
  of the Social Security Act to authorize the Secretary of Health and 
Human Services to negotiate fair prices for Medicare prescription drugs 
                  on behalf of Medicare beneficiaries.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 5, 2005

 Ms. Hooley submitted the following resolution; which was referred to 
                         the Committee on Rules

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 376) to amend title XVIII 
  of the Social Security Act to authorize the Secretary of Health and 
Human Services to negotiate fair prices for Medicare prescription drugs 
                  on behalf of Medicare beneficiaries.

    Resolved,  That immediately after the adoption of this resolution 
the Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare the 
House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on the state of 
the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R. 376) to amend title XVIII 
of the Social Security Act to authorize the Secretary of Health and 
Human Services to negotiate fair prices for Medicare prescription drugs 
on behalf of Medicare beneficiaries. The first reading of the bill 
shall be dispensed with. All points of order against the bill and 
against its consideration are waived (except those arising under clause 
7 of rule XVI). General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall 
not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chairman and 
ranking minority member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce. After 
general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the 
five-minute rule. The bill shall be considered as read. At the 
conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee 
shall rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as may 
have been adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote in the House 
on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the bill. The 
previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and 
amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion except 
one motion to recommit with or without instructions.
                                 <all>
```
# SUBCHAPTER B—ACQUISITION PLANNING   

- PART 1605—PUBLICIZING CONTRACT ACTIONS 
- PART 1606—COMPETITION REQUIREMENTS 
- PART 1609—CONTRACTOR QUALIFICATIONS 

- PART 1605—PUBLICIZING CONTRACT ACTIONS    - 1605.000   Applicability.
- PART 1606—COMPETITION REQUIREMENTS    - 1606.001   Applicability.
- PART 1609—CONTRACTOR QUALIFICATIONS    - Subpart 1609.4—Debarment, Suspension, and Ineligibility     - 1609.470   Notification of Debarment, Suspension, and Ineligibility.
    - 1609.471   Contractor certification.
  - Subpart 1609.70—Minimum Standards for Health Benefits Carriers     - 1609.7001   Minimum standards for health benefits carriers.
    - 1609.7002   Minimum standards for Postal Service Health Benefits Carriers.
#### In the Matter of Timothy L., a Person Alleged to be a Juvenile Delinquent, Appellant.

[815 NYS2d 550]

Order of disposition, Family Court, Bronx County (Alma Cordova, J.), entered on or about July 12, 2005, which adjudicated appellant a juve*493nile delinquent, upon a fact-finding determination that he had committed acts which, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crimes of unlawful possession of weapons by a person under the age of 16 and possession of an imitation firearm in violation of Administrative Code of the City of New York § 10-131 (g) (1), and placed him in the custody of the New York State Office of Children and Family Services for a period of up to 12 months, unanimously modified, on the law, to the extent of vacating the finding with respect to the weapon possession and dismissing that count of the petition, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

As the presentment agency concedes, the evidence was legally insufficient to sustain the weapon possession charge. However, the court’s finding with respect to the imitation firearm charge was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence. The evidence supported the court’s conclusion that, at the time it was in appellant’s possession, the item in question “substantially duplicate[d] or [could] reasonably [have been] perceived to be an actual firearm” (Administrative Code of City of NY § 10-131 [g] [1]), especially from the point of view of an observer with no opportunity to examine it closely. Concur—Andrias, J.P., Marlow, Sullivan, Gonzalez and Sweeny, JJ.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

OFFICE OF THE CLERK

POST OFFICE BOX 711

MONTGOMERY, ALABAMA 36101-0711

DEBRA P. HACKETT, CLERK

TELEPHONE (334) 954-3600

April 12, 2007

NOTICE OF DEFICIENCY

 REGARDING CORPORATE/

CONFLICT STATEMENT

To: Cincinnati Insurance Company

From: Clerk’s Office

Case Style: Cincinnati Insurance Company v. Prather 

Case Number: 3:06-cv-00733-MHT

Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 7.1, and this

Court’s General Order Miscellaneous Case No. 00-3047 parties are required to file their

Corporate/Conflict Disclosure Statement at their initial appearance.

No corporate/conflict disclosure statement has been filed by you in this action.

This deficiency must be corrected within ten (10) days from this date. Please refer to

attachment.

Case 3:06-cv-00733-MHT-TFM Document 23 Filed 04/12/2007 Page 1 of 1