alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 95.19 Changes to security practices and procedures. ( a ) Except as specified in paragraph (b) of this section, each licensee, certificate holder, or other person shall obtain prior CSA approval for any proposed change to the name, location, security procedures and controls, or floor plan of the approved facility. A written description of the proposed change must be furnished to the CSA and the NRC Regional Administrator of the cognizant Regional Office listed in appendix A to part 73 of this chapter, and, if the NRC is not the CSA, also to the Director, Division of Security Operations, Office of Nuclear Security and Incident Response; the communications to NRC personnel should be by an appropriate method listed in § 95.9. These substantive changes to the Standard Practice Procedures Plan that affect the security of the facility must be submitted to the NRC Division of Security Operations, or CSA, at least 30 days prior to the change so that they may be evaluated. The CSA shall promptly respond in writing to all such proposals. Some examples of substantive changes requiring prior CSA approval include— ( 1 ) A change in the approved facility's classified mail address; or
( 2 ) A temporary or permanent change in the location of the approved facility (e.g., moving or relocating NRC's classified interest from one room or building to another). Approved changes will be reflected in a revised Standard Practice Procedures Plan submission within 30 days of approval. Page changes rather than a complete rewrite of the plan may be submitted.
( b ) A licensee, certificate holder, or other person may effect a minor, non-substantive change to an approved Standard Practice Procedures Plan for the safeguarding of classified information without receiving prior CSA approval. These minor changes that do not affect the security of the facility may be submitted to the addressees noted in paragraph (a) of this section within 30 days of the change. Page changes rather than a complete rewrite of the plan may be submitted. Some examples of minor, non-substantive changes to the Standard Practice Procedures Plan include— ( 1 ) The designation/appointment of a new facility security officer; or
( 2 ) A revision to a protective personnel patrol routine, provided the new routine continues to meet the minimum requirements of this part.
( c ) A licensee, certificate holder, or other person must update its NRC facility clearance every five years either by submitting a complete Standard Practice Procedures Plan or a certification that the existing plan is fully current to the Division of Security Operations.
[64 FR 15650, Apr. 1, 1999, as amended at 68 FR 41222, July 11, 2003; 68 FR 58823, Oct. 10, 2003; 72 FR 49562, Aug. 28, 2007; 74 FR 62685, Dec. 1, 2009]
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Marvin Bristol, Appellant.

[813 NYS2d 722]

Judgments, Supreme Court, New York County (Edwin Torres, J.), rendered March 18, 2004, convicting defendant, upon his pleas of guilty, of attempted criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and attempted bail jumping in the first degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 3 to 6 years and 2 to 4 years, respectively, unanimously affirmed.

Since defendant did not move to withdraw his plea, his challenge to the validity of his controlled substance conviction is unpreserved *(see People v Lopez,*71 NY2d 662 [1988]), and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review this claim, we would find that nothing in the record casts doubt on the voluntariness of the plea or the effectiveness of the representation defendant received in connection therewith *(see People v Ford,*86 NY2d 397, 404 [1995]). When, after taking the controlled substance plea, defendant absconded and was returned on a bench warrant, he made vague allegations with respect to the attorney who had represented him at the time of that plea. These allegations did not warrant any inquiry by the court, and, in any event, the court responded by directing the new attorney who was representing defendant on his bail jumping plea to represent him for sentencing as to both cases. Defendant had no further complaints about his representation, or about the favorable disposition he received.

Defendant’s claim that he was sentenced without a current presentence report is unpreserved and we decline to review it in the interest of justice *(see e.g. People v Scott,*251 AD2d 248 [1998]). Concur—Buckley, P.J., Saxe, Nardelli, Gonzalez and Catterson, JJ.
IV 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 732 

Congratulating the Public Broadcasting Service as it celebrates the 15th 

anniversary season of the nationally televised broadcast program, Public 

Broadcasting Service’s To The Contrary, with Bonnie Erbe ́. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 16, 2006 

Ms. NORTON submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 

Committee on Government Reform 

RESOLUTION 

Congratulating the Public Broadcasting Service as it celebrates the 15th anniversary season of the nationally televised broadcast program, Public Broadcasting Service’s 

To The Contrary, with Bonnie Erbe ́. 

Whereas To The Contrary, launched in April 1992, provides 

an important and timely women’s forum to discuss national and international issues and policies, and presents 

news and views that are rarely available elsewhere on television; 

Whereas To The Contrary is the only woman-owned National 

weekly news analysis show, and is now one of the longest 

running programs of its kind on national television; 

Whereas To The Contrary broadcasts focus primarily on 

issues affecting women, families, and communities of 


bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
2 

•HRES 732 IH 

color, and has been enhanced by an ethnically diverse and 

balanced panel of women from all political persuasions; 

Whereas To The Contrary is carried on more than 250 Public Broadcasting Service stations nationwide, internationally on Voice of America Television, and is seen by over 

one million viewers each week; 

Whereas To The Contrary has won numerous awards, including the 1994, 1995, 1998 and 2003 EMMA awards from 

the National Women’s Political Caucus for overall excellence; the 1997, 1996 and 1994 Clarion Award from 

Women Communications for Best TV Talk show; the 

1997, 1999, and the 2005 Gracie Award from American 

Women in Radio and Television; and, in 2000, two prestigious economic reporting awards, the ICI/American 

University Personal Finance Reporting Awards and the 

NYS Society of CPAs awards; 

Whereas the host Bonnie Erbe ́, with 20 years of experience 

as a journalist covering national government, has been at 

the helm since the first broadcast in 1992, writes a blog 

on politics for USNews.com; 

Whereas Bonnie Erbe ́’s career in journalism has included 

posts as the Legal Affairs Correspondent for the Mutual/ 

NBC Radio Networks, and assignments as a reporter and 

anchor for the UPI Radio Network, CBS and NBC affiliates in Florida and Georgia, as well as the District of Columbia; and 

Whereas Bonnie Erbe ́, a 1987 Georgetown University Law 

School graduate, is the recipient of awards from the 

American Women in Radio and Television and the National Press Club: Now, therefore, be it 


bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
3 

•HRES 732 IH 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives con2 gratulates To The Contrary and Bonnie Erbe ́ for their ex3 traordinary 15 season run on the Public Broadcasting 

4 Service and for consistently giving voice to significant so5 cial issues affecting women, children, families, and com6 munities of color. 

Æ 


bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Anthony Chicchetti, Appellant.

[814 NYS2d 542]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Collini, J.), rendered March 1, 2004, convicting him of reckless endangerment in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to support his conviction under a theory of accomplice liability is unpreserved for appellate review *(see*CPL 470.05 [2]; *People v Seabrooks,*289 AD2d 515 [2001]; *see also People v Gray,*86 NY2d 10 [1995]). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, we find that it was legally sufficient to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant shared the principal’s culpable mental state and intentionally aided the principal *(see People v Rossey,*89 NY2d 970 [1997]; *People v Hart,*8 AD3d 402 [2004]; *People v Jimenez,*245 AD2d 304 [1997]). Upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence *(see*CPL 470.15 [5]). Adams, J.P., Rivera, Skelos and Lifson, JJ., concur.
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

September 17, 2020

No. 04

- 2 0

- 00051

- CV

MEDFINMANAGER, LLC,

Appellant

v.

John SALAS,

Appellee

From the 407th Judicial District Court

, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2019

- CI

- 22706

Honorable Karen H. Pozza , Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

Appellee’s brief was due September 14, 2020. On September 15, 2020, appellee filed his

brief and motion requesting a two day extension of time. We GRANT the motion and DEEM

the brief timely filed.

_________________________________ Beth Watkins , Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 17th day of September, 2020

.

___________________________________ MICHAEL A. CRUZ

, Clerk of Court
Exhibit 31

 



EX-31 Rule 13a-14(d)/15d-14(d) Certifications.





I, Larry Kravetz, certify that:

 

1.   I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of the UBS-Barclays Commercial Mortgage Trust 2013-C6 (the "Exchange Act periodic reports");



2.   Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;



3.   Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and other information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;



4.   Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statements required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicers have fulfilled their obligations under the servicing agreements in all material respects; and



5.   All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwise disclosed in this report. Any material instances of noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.



In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties:

 

Midland Loan Services, a Division of PNC Bank, National Association, as Master Servicer, Rialto Capital Advisors, LLC, as Special Servicer, U.S. Bank National Association, as Trustee, Certificate Administrator and Custodian, Park Bridge Lender Services LLC, as Operating Advisor, Midland Loan Services, a Division of PNC Bank, National Association, as Primary Servicer for the Santa Anita Mall Mortgage Loan, Midland Loan Services, a Division of PNC Bank, National Association, as Special Servicer for the Santa Anita Mall Mortgage Loan, Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas, as Trustee, Certificate Administrator and Custodian for the Santa Anita Mall Mortgage Loan, and Situs Holdings, LLC, as Operating Advisor for the Santa Anita Mall Mortgage Loan.





Dated: June 21, 2016





/s/ Larry Kravetz





President and Chief Executive Officer

(senior officer in charge of securitization of the depositor)

 



 

---
#### Multiple Products, Inc., Respondent, v. Seaboard National Distribution Center, Inc., et al., Appellants.

Judgment entered November 26, 1969, unanimously modified on the law and the facts by vacating the judgment as against the defendant Rodolitz and dismissing the complaint as to him, and except as modified judgment affirmed, without costs and without disbursements. Even though the individual was neither -an officer nor a director of the corporate defendant, he was its sole stockholder and concededly its moving spirit. All of the acts done by him were on behalf of the corporation and the latter’s liability stems solely from those acts. The claim is based on an overcharge by the corporate defendant and no grounds for individual liability were established. Concur — Eager, J. P., McGivern, Markewich and Steuer, JJ.
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 432 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 432

  Amending the Rules of the House of Representatives to prohibit the 
  consideration of any general appropriations bill until a concurrent 
resolution on the budget has been adopted or the appropriate budgetary 
                   suballocations are made available.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 11, 2017

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

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
  Amending the Rules of the House of Representatives to prohibit the 
  consideration of any general appropriations bill until a concurrent 
resolution on the budget has been adopted or the appropriate budgetary 
                   suballocations are made available.

    Resolved, Clause 2 of rule XXI of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives is amended by adding at the end the following new 
paragraph:
    ``(h) It shall not be in order in the House to consider a general 
appropriations bill for a fiscal year unless the Committee on 
Appropriations has filed the allocations required by section 302(b) of 
the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, or, if a concurrent resolution on 
the budget has not yet been agreed to for that fiscal year, unless the 
Committee on Appropriations has filed a report indicating the total 
amount of new discretionary budget authority it intends to include in 
general appropriations bills for the fiscal year and how it has 
allocated that total among its subcommittees.''.
                                 <all>
```
§ 1108.135 Cost-type subaward. *Cost-type subaward* means a subaward that: ( a ) A recipient or subrecipient makes to another entity at the next lower tier; and
( b ) Provides for payments to the entity that receives the cost-type subaward based on the actual, allowable costs it incurs in carrying out the subaward.
#### § 780.35 Communication of decision to General Counsel.

Following a determination to issue a patent license under section 153b(2) of the Act, the Board shall send the decision to the General Counsel and instruct the General Counsel to issue the license on terms deemed equitable by the Department and generally not less fair than those granted by the patentee or by the Department to similar licensees for comparable use.
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 249 (Wednesday, December 29, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 81966]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-32863]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[C-423-809]


Stainless Steel Plate in Coils From Belgium: Extension of Time 
Limit for Preliminary Results of the Countervailing Duty Administrative 
Review

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.

DATES: Effective Date: December 29, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mary Kolberg at (202) 482-1785 or 
David Neubacher at (202) 482-5823; AD/CVD Operations, Office 1, Import 
Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of 
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 
20230.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On June 30, 2010, the Department of Commerce (``the Department'') 
published a notice of initiation of administrative review of the 
countervailing duty order on stainless steel plate in coils from 
Belgium, covering the period January 1, 2009, through December 31, 
2009. See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 
Administrative Reviews and Requests for Revocation in Part, 75 FR 
37759, 37763 (June 30, 2010). The preliminary results of this 
administrative review are currently due no later than January 31, 2011.

Statutory Time Limits

    Section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (``the 
Act''), requires the Department to issue the preliminary results of an 
administrative review within 245 days after the last day of the 
anniversary month of an order for which a review is requested and the 
final results of review within 120 days after the date on which the 
preliminary results are published. If it is not practicable to complete 
the review within the time period, section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act 
allows the Department to extend these deadlines to a maximum of 365 
days and 180 days, respectively.

Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary Results

    The Department requires additional time to review, analyze, and 
verify submitted information and to issue supplemental questionnaires. 
Therefore, it is not practicable to complete this review within the 
originally anticipated time limit, and the Department is extending the 
time limit for completion of the preliminary results by 120 days to no 
later than May 31, 2011, in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the 
Act. Accordingly, the deadline for completion of the preliminary 
results is now no later than May 31, 2011.
    We are issuing and publishing this notice in accordance with 
sections 751(a)(3)(A) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: December 21, 2010.
Christian Marsh,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 
Operations.
[FR Doc. 2010-32863 Filed 12-28-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Annual Report of TurnKey Capital, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, I, Neil Swartz, Chief Executive Officer and Director of TurnKey Capital, Inc., hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge and belief, that:



(1)

Such Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, 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 such Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of TurnKey Capital, Inc.



|                     |                                                      
|-------------------- | -----------------------------------------------------
|Date: April 27, 2016 | /s/Neil Swartz                                       
|                     | Neil Swartz                                          
|                     | Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)
#### PHILLIPS, Respondent, v. CROSSTOWN ST. RY. CO. OF BUFFALO et al., Appellants.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

July 7, 1914.)

Action by Margaret E. Phillips, as administratrix, etc., against the Crosstown Street Railway Company of Buffalo and another.

No opinion. Motion to amend decision, so as to state that the reversal was made upon questions of law only, and that the facts had been examined and no error found therein, denied, with $10 costs. See, also, 157 App. Div. 876, 143 N. Y. Supp. 183; 161 App. Div. 911, 145 N. Y. Supp. 1141.
§ 1128.710 What program income includes. ( a ) *OMB guidance.* Under the definition of “program income” at 2 CFR 200.80 and related OMB guidance at 2 CFR 200.307, an agency's regulations or terms and conditions of grants and cooperative agreements may include as program income: ( 1 ) Rebates, credits, discounts, and interest earned on any of them; and
( 2 ) Taxes, special assessments, levies, fines and other similar revenue raised by a governmental recipient.
( b ) *DoD implementation.* Unless a statute or program regulation adopted in the Code of Federal Regulations after opportunity for public comment specifies otherwise, each DoD Component must exclude the types of income listed in paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of this section from program income for which recipients are accountable to the Federal Government.
( c ) *Award terms and conditions* — ( 1 ) *General.* Except as provided in paragraph (c)(2) of this section, a DoD Component must use the wording provided in appendix G to this part as Section A of FMS Article VII in its general terms and conditions. Doing so excludes the types of income listed in paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of this section from program income for which recipients are accountable to the Federal Government.
( 2 ) *Exceptions.* If a DoD Component has a statutory or regulatory basis for including either or both types of income described in paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of this section, it may do so by appropriately revising the wording appendix G provides for Section A of FMS Article VII. For example, to include as program income: ( i ) Rebates, credits, discounts, and interest earned on them, a DoD Component would reserve paragraph A.3.c and insert the wording of that paragraph as a new paragraph at the end of section A.2, thereby adding them to the list of items included as program income subject to FMS Article VII.
( ii ) Taxes, special assessments, levies, fines and other similar revenue raised by a governmental recipient, a DoD Component would reserve paragraph A.3.d and insert that wording as a new paragraph at the end of section A.2, thereby adding them to the list of items included as program income subject to FMS Article VII.
#### § 200.455 Organization costs.

Costs such as incorporation fees, brokers' fees, fees to promoters, organizers or management consultants, attorneys, accountants, or investment counselor, whether or not employees of the non-Federal entity in connection with establishment or reorganization of an organization, are unallowable except with prior approval of the Federal awarding agency.