alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Joseph Mack, Appellant.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered March 9, 1979, convicting him of robbery in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. By order dated May 12, 1980, this court remitted the case to Criminal Term to hear and report on defendant’s motion to withdraw his plea, and the appeal has been held in abeyance in the interim *(People v Mack,*75 AD2d 858). Criminal Term has complied and rendered a report in accordance therewith. Judgment affirmed. No opinion. Hopkins, J. P., Damiani, Titone and Mangano, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 33.3b

|                |                        |                                
|--------------- | ---------------------- | -------------------------------
|[Assurant Logo] |                        | 260 Interstate North Circle, SE
|                | Atlanta, GA 30329-2210
|                | T 770.763.1000        
|                | F 770.859.4403        
|                | www.assurant.com      
|                | February 15, 2017     

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, 2016 TO DECEMBER 31, 2016

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, 2016 through December 31, 2016 (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 15, 2017
I 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 975 

To amend the Controlled Substances Act to provide for a new rule regarding 

the application of the Act to marihuana, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 7, 2017 

Mr. ROHRABACHER (for himself, Mr. COHEN, Mr. YOUNG of Alaska, Mr. 

POCAN, Mr. YOHO, Mr. BLUMENAUER, Mr. MCCLINTOCK, Ms. TITUS, 

Mr. HUNTER, Mr. POLIS, Mr. AMASH, Ms. LEE, and Mr. MASSIE) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, for 

a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for 

consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To amend the Controlled Substances Act to provide for a 

new rule regarding the application of the Act to marihuana, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Respect State Mari5 juana Laws Act of 2017’’. 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 975 IH

1 SEC. 2. RULE REGARDING APPLICATION TO MARIHUANA. 

2 Part G of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 

3 801 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the fol4 lowing: 

5 ‘‘SEC. 710. RULE REGARDING APPLICATION TO MARI6 HUANA. 

7 ‘‘Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the pro8 visions of this subchapter related to marihuana shall not 

9 apply to any person acting in compliance with State laws 

10 relating to the production, possession, distribution, dis11 pensation, administration, or delivery of marihuana.’’. 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
§ 600.210 Forms for applying for grants. ( a ) *Scope.* ( 1 ) This section prescribes forms and instructions to be used by governmental organizations (except hospitals and institutions of higher education operated by a government) in applying for grants. This section is not applicable, however, to formula grant programs which do not require applicants to apply for funds on a project basis.
( 2 ) This section applies only to applications to Federal agencies for grants, and is not required to be applied by grantees in dealing with applicants for subgrants. However, grantees are encouraged to avoid more detailed or burdensome application requirements for subgrants.
( b ) *Authorized forms and instructions for governmental organizations.* ( 1 ) In applying for grants, applicants shall only use standard application forms or those prescribed by the granting agency with the approval of OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980.
( 2 ) Applicants are not required to submit more than the original and two copies of preapplications or applications.
( 3 ) Applicants must follow all applicable instructions that bear OMB clearance numbers. Federal agencies may specify and describe the programs, functions, or activities that will be used to plan, budget, and evaluate the work under a grant. Other supplementary instructions may be issued only with the approval of OMB to the extent required under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980. For any standard form, except the SF-424 facesheet, Federal agencies may shade out or instruct the applicant to disregard any line item that is not needed.
( 4 ) When a grantee applies for additional funding (such as a continuation or supplemental award) or amends a previously submitted application, only the affected pages need be submitted. Previously submitted pages with information that is still current need not be resubmitted.
IV 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 188 

Recognizing and honoring firefighters for their many contributions throughout 

the history of the Nation. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 5, 2005 

Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi (for himself, Mr. COX, Mr. PASCRELL, Mr. 

KING of New York, Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania, Mr. TOM DAVIS of 

Virginia, Mr. HOYER, Mr. ANDREWS, Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas, Ms. 

HARMAN, Mr. MARKEY, Mr. DICKS, Mr. DEFAZIO, Mr. MEEK of Florida, 

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN, Mr. ETHERIDGE, Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California, 

Mr. LANGEVIN, Ms. NORTON, Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California, Mrs. 

LOWEY, Ms. HARRIS, Mr. SHAYS, Mr. ROGERS of Alabama, Mr. PEARCE, 

Mrs. JONES of Ohio, Mr. RUPPERSBERGER, Mr. SIMMONS, Mr. BURTON

of Indiana, Mr. WILSON of South Carolina, Ms. WOOLSEY, Mr. MCNULTY, Mr. BUTTERFIELD, Mr. MCINTYRE, Mr. OBERSTAR, Mr. ROHRABACHER, Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California, Mr. MCCAUL of 

Texas, Mr. SOUDER, Mr. REHBERG, Mr. JINDAL, Mr. LINDER, Mr. GIBBONS, Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida, Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts, Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN, Mr. LOBIONDO, Mr. ENGEL, Mr. POMBO, 

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois, Mr. LEWIS of Georgia, Mr. BERRY, Mr. JEFFERSON, Mr. MANZULLO, Mr. EHLERS, and Mr. FITZPATRICK of Pennsylvania) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 

Committee on Government Reform 

RESOLUTION 

Recognizing and honoring firefighters for their many 

contributions throughout the history of the Nation. 

Whereas in 1736 Benjamin Franklin founded the Union Fire 

Company, the first volunteer fire company; 
2 

•HRES 188 IH 

Whereas there are more than 1,100,000 firefighters in the 

United States; 

Whereas approximately 75 percent of all firefighters are volunteers who receive little or no compensation for their heroic work; 

Whereas career and combination fire departments protect 3 

out of 4 Americans; 

Whereas there are more than 30,000 fire departments in the 

United States; 

Whereas approximately 100 firefighters die in the line of duty 

each year; 

Whereas more than 340 firefighters died responding to the 

terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001; 

Whereas firefighters respond to more than 24,000,000 calls 

during an average year; 

Whereas firefighters also provide emergency medical services 

and life safety education; and 

Whereas it is estimated that on April 7, 2005, more than 

2,000 firefighters will attend the 17th Annual National 

Fire and Emergency Services Dinner and Seminars: 

Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives honors 

2 and recognizes the more than 1,100,000 firefighters in the 

3 United States for their contributions to and sacrifice for 

4 the Nation. 

Æ
#### § 76.111 Physical security, material control and accounting, and protection of certain information.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission regulations that will be used for certification of the Corporation[1] for physical security and material control and accounting are contained in title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations as described in this subpart. The regulations referenced in this subpart contain requirements for physical security and material control and accounting for formula quantities of strategic special nuclear material (Category I), special nuclear material of moderate strategic significance (Category II), and special nuclear material of low strategic significance (Category III), and for protection of Restricted Data, National Security Information, Safeguards Information, and information designated by the U.S. Department of Energy as Unclassified Controlled Nuclear Information.

[62 FR 6671, Feb. 12, 1997, as amended at 85 FR 65664, Oct. 16, 2020]

###### Footnotes -
  76.111

[1] For the purpose of this subpart, the terms “licensee” or “license” used in parts 70, 73, and 74 of this chapter, mean, respectively, the Corporation, or the certificate of compliance or approved compliance plan.
Ronald J. Jackson, Plaintiff,
v. GMAC Insurance 

### et aI., Defendants. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Civil Action No.

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

# FILED MAR - 62009 NANCyMAYER WHITTINGTON ClERK U.S. DISmlCTCOURT'



# 09 

# 0439

This matter is before the Court on plaintiffs

### pro se complaint and his application to proceed 

### informapauperis. The Court will grant the application to proceed 

### informapauperis and dismiss the complaint. The complaint seeks compensation for physical injuries the plaintiffincurred when the motor scooter he was riding was struck by another vehicle. He alleges that he was inadequately treated by the Veterans Administration (VA) Hospital for broken bones and other injuries from which he has not yet recovered in major respects. He names as defendants an insurance company, his legal counsel in the matter, and the VA. Unlike state courts ofgeneraljurisdiction, federal district courts are courts oflimited jurisdiction. A federal district court does not have subject matterjurisdiction over claims that would require the court to determine first whether the VA provided appropriate medical care to the plaintiff. 

### See Thomas v. 

### Principi, 394 F.3d 970, 975 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (holding that 28 U.S.C. § 511 deprives the district court of jurisdiction over such matters). Accordingly, the claim that the VA"under-treated" plaintiffs injuries will be dismissed with prejudice for lack ofsubject

### matterjurisdiction. Plaintiffs recourse as to that claim lies with the Secretary ofVeterans Affairs.The claims suggested by the facts alleged in the complaint are state law claims. A federal court hasjurisdiction ofstate law claims where the parties are ofdiverse citizenship
- that is, where no defendant is a citizen ofthe same state as any plaintiff- and ifthe amount in controversy is alleged to be more than $75,000. 

### See 28 U.S.C. §1332(a). Here, the plaintiffdid not assert that the amount in controversy is more than $75,000. Therefore, this court does not have diversityjurisdiction over the claims against the is complaint, and will dismiss the claims without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction. Because this court lacks either subject matterjurisdiction or diversityjurisdiction ofthe claims implied, the complaint will be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. A final order accompanies this memorandum opinion.

United States District Judge

2
#### WILLIAMSBURGH SAVINGS BANK v. HORN et al.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

December 4, 1914.)

Action by the Williamsburgh Savings Bank against Fannie Horn and others.

No opinion. Order of the County Court of Kings County affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements.
§ 609.17 Audit and access to records. Each Loan Guarantee Agreement and related documents shall provide that: ( a ) The Eligible Lender, or DOE in conjunction with the Federal Financing Bank where loans are funded by the Federal Financing Bank or other Holder or other party servicing the Guaranteed Obligations, as applicable, and the Borrower, shall keep such records concerning the Eligible Project as are necessary, including the Application, Term Sheet, Conditional Commitment, Loan Guarantee Agreement, Credit Agreement, mortgage, note, disbursement requests and supporting documentation, financial statements, audit reports of independent accounting firms, lists of all Eligible Project assets and non-Eligible Project assets pledged in respect of the Guaranteed Obligations, all off-take and other revenue producing agreements, documentation for all Eligible Project indebtedness, income tax returns, technology agreements, documentation for all permits and regulatory approvals, and all other documents and records relating to the Borrower or the Eligible Project, as determined by the Secretary, to facilitate an effective audit and performance evaluation of the Eligible Project; and
( b ) The Secretary and the Comptroller General, or their duly authorized representatives, shall have access, for the purpose of audit and examination, to any pertinent books, documents, papers, and records of the Borrower, Eligible Lender, or DOE or other Holder or other party servicing the Guaranteed Obligation, as applicable. Such inspection may be made during regular office hours of the Borrower, Eligible Lender, DOE or other Holder, or other party servicing the Eligible Project and the Guaranteed Obligations, as applicable, or at any other time mutually convenient.
#### § 706.40 Final responsibility of DOE in security matters.

On all matters of security at all Government-owned, privately operated DOE installations, DOE retains absolute and final authority, and neither the security rules nor their administration are matters for collective bargaining between management and labor, insofar as DOE security regulations affect the collective bargaining process, the security policies and regulations will be made known to both parties. To the fullest extent feasible DOE will consult with representatives of management and labor in formulating security rules and regulations that affect the collective bargaining process.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                          13,699
<SECURITIES>                                   883,032
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,417,727
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               941,651
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,314,458
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          264,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,050,458
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,314,458
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                76,714
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                32,785
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             43,929
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    43,929
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
Extension Agreement to $1 Billion Credit Agreement



 Exhibit 10.17d 
 EXTENSION AGREEMENT 
 JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 
 as Administrative Agent 
 under the Credit Agreement 
 referred to below 
 270 Park Avenue 
 New York, New NY 10017 
 Gentlemen: 
 Each of the
undersigned hereby agrees to extend, effective December 1, 2009, the Termination Date under the Credit Agreement dated as of December 23, 2004 (as amended from time to time, the “Credit Agreement”) among Praxair, Inc., a
Delaware corporation (the “Company”), the Subsidiaries referred to therein, the Lenders party thereto, JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., as Administrative Agent (the “Administrative Agent”), Bank of America, N.A., as
Syndication Agent and Citibank, N.A. and Credit Suisse First Boston, as Co-Documentation Agents, to December 23, 2011. Terms defined in the Credit Agreement are used herein with the same meaning. 
 This Extension Agreement shall be construed in accordance with and governed by the law of the State of New York. 
  

					
	 Bank of America, N.A. (as successor by merger to
 Merrill Lynch Bank USA)

		
	By:	 	 /s/ Jeff Hallmark

		 	Name:	 	Jeff Hallmark
		 	Title:	 	Senior Vice President


 Agreed and accepted:

  

					
	 PRAXAIR, INC.

		
	 By:
	 	 /s/ Michael J. Allan

		 	 Name:
	 	Michael J. Allan
		 	 Title:
	 	Vice President and Treasurer
	
	 JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., as
 Administrative Agent

		
	 By:
	 	 /s/ Stacey L. Haimes

		 	 Name:
	 	Stacey L. Haimes
		 	 Title:
	 	Executive Director
#### § 930.200 Assessment rate.

On and after October 1, 2022, the assessment rate imposed on handlers shall be $0.0075 per pound of tart cherries grown in the production area and utilized in the production of tart cherry products. Included in this rate is $0.0055 per pound of tart cherries to cover the cost of the research and promotion program and $0.002 per pound of tart cherries to cover administrative expenses.

[88 FR 39119, June 15, 2023]
#### Kenneth G. Broughton, as Father and Natural Guardian of Susan M. Broughton, Appellant, v. State of New York, Respondent.

(Claim No. 50621.)

Reynolds, J.

Appeal from an order of the Court of Claims denying appellant’s cross motion for summary judgment. Concededly, summary judgment is available in the Court of Claims (e.g. *Chemical Bank N. Y. Trust*v. *State of New York,*27 A D 2d 427, 428; *Vern Norton, Inc.*v. *State of New York,*27 A D 2d 13), but on the instant record, considering the affidavits and supporting papers submitted on the original motion as well as on the cross motion, appellant’s motion was properly denied. Order affirmed, with costs. Herlihy, J. P., Reynolds, Cooke and Greenblott, JJ., concur in memorandum by Reynolds, J.; Aulisi, J., not voting.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 22 - 0483 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. KEVIN CHARLES WALLA,

Defendant and Appellant.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including January 4 , 2023 , within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening br ief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

November 28 2022

11/28/2022

Case Number: DA 22-0483
Editorial Note on Part 63
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 63 appear at 81 FR 86909, Dec. 2, 2016.

§ 63.115 Requirements for multiple barriers. Demonstration of compliance with § 63.113(a) must: ( a ) Identify those design features of the engineered barrier system, and natural features of the geologic setting, that are considered barriers important to waste isolation.
( b ) Describe the capability of barriers, identified as important to waste isolation, to isolate waste, taking into account uncertainties in characterizing and modeling the behavior of the barriers.
( c ) Provide the technical basis for the description of the capability of barriers, identified as important to waste isolation, to isolate waste. The technical basis for each barrier's capability shall be based on and consistent with the technical basis for the performance assessments used to demonstrate compliance with § 63.113(b) and (c).
## U NITED 

## S TATES 

## A IR 

## F ORCE 

## C OURT OF 

## C RIMINAL 

## A PPEALS

_______ _______ __________
No. ACM S32588

_______ _______ __________
UNITED STATES Appellee

v. Ryan D. HATCHER Airman Basic (E

- 1 ), U.S. Air Force, Appellant

_______ _______ __________ Appeal from the United States Air Force Trial Judiciary

Decided 24 October 2019

_______ _______ __________ Military Judge: Andrew R. Norton

. Approved sentence: Bad

- conduct discharge, confinement for four months, and a reprimand . Sente nce adjudged 11 February 2019 by Sp CM convened at Hurlburt Field, Florida

. For Appellant: Major Patrick J. Hughes

, USAF.
For Appellee: Mary Ellen Payne, Esquire.

Before MINK

, LEWIS, and D. JOHNSON, Appellate Military Judges

.

_______ _______ __________ This is an unpublished opinion and, as such, does not serve as precedent under AFCCA Rule of Pr actice and Procedure 30 .4.

________________________

PER CURIAM : The approved findings and sentence are correct in law and fact, and no error materially prejudicial to Appellant’s substantial rights occurred. Articles 59(a) and 66(c), Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. §§ 859(a), 866(c). 1

1 Manual for Courts

- Martial, United States (2016 ed.).United States v. Hatcher , No. ACM S32588

2 Accordingly, the findings and sentence are AFFIRMED

.

FOR THE COURT

CAROL K. JOYCE Clerk of the Court