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

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

      ( print page 11187)    
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended.  The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke Special Emphasis Panel; Wellstone Muscular Dystrophy.                    

*Date:*                         March 18-19, 2010.                    

*Time:*                         8 a.m. to 6 a.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         The Embassy Suites Hotel, 1250 22nd Street NW., Washington, DC 20037.                    

*Contact Person:*                         Raul A. Saavedra, PhD, Scientific Review Administrator, Scientific Review Branch, Division of Extramural Research, NINDS/NIH/DHHS, NSC; 6001 Executive Blvd., Ste. 3208, Bethesda, MD 20892-9529, 301-496-9223,                         *saavedrr@ninds.nih.gov*.                    

This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.853, Clinical Research Related to Neurological Disorders; 93.854, Biological Basis Research in the Neurosciences, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: March 5, 2010.

Jennifer Spaeth,

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2010-5149 Filed 3-9-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
§ 1.642(b)-1 Deduction for personal exemption. In lieu of the deduction for personal exemptions provided by section 151: ( a ) An estate is allowed a deduction of $600,
( b ) A trust which, under its governing instrument, is required to distribute currently all of its income for the taxable year is allowed a deduction of $300, and
( c ) All other trusts are allowed a deduction of $100.
A trust which, under its governing instrument, is required to distribute all of its income currently is allowed a deduction of $300, even though it also distributes amounts other than income in the taxable year and even though it may be required to make distributions which would qualify for the charitable contributions deduction under section 642(c) (and therefore does not qualify as a “simple trust” under sections 651-652). A trust for the payment of an annuity is allowed a deduction of $300 in a taxable year in which the amount of the annuity required to be paid equals or exceeds all the income of the trust for the taxable year. For the meaning of the term *income required to be distributed currently,* see § 1.651(a)-2.
# N Shawn Martin Finch, Plaintiff,

v. Emmet G. Sullivan, Defendant. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FORTHE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

# FILED SEP 

## -7 2011 Clerk, US DiSk:' Courts fo'r

### the

### D;;~~c~ Btankruptcy o COlumbIa ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Civil Action No. 

# 11 1 bO**~**

MEMORANDUM OPINION This matter is before the Court on review oftheplaintiff'spro se complaint and application to proceed informapauperis. The application will be granted and the complaint will be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.c. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) (requiring dismissal ofa complaint upon

a determinationthat the complaint, among other enumerated grounds, fails to state a claim upon which reliefmay be granted). The plaintiffis a District ofColumbiaresident. In the complaint captioned "Action Involves Discrimination," the plaintiffsues United States District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan of this Court for "dismissal ofcases and denying a fair hearing." Complaint at 1. He seeks '"to have [d]ismissed cases reopened and trialed [sic]." Id. at 2. Judges are absolutely immune from lawsuits predicated, as here, on their official acts. Forrester v. White, 484 U.S. 219,225 (1988); Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349,355-57 (1978); Sindram v. Suda, 986 F.2d 1459, 1460 (D.C. Cir. 1993). Therefore, this case will be dismissed. A separate Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion. 

# kl5.!Hu- 'Ul1iteiStates District Judge Date:

# /er-i:;L 3 ,2011 

# 3
IA

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. J. RES. 95

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JULY 26, 1993

Referred to the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service

JOINT RESOLUTION

To designate October 1993 as ‘‘National Breast Cancer

Awareness Month’’.

Whereas breast cancer will strike an estimated 182,000

women and 1,000 men in the United States in 1993;

Whereas the risk of developing breast cancer increases as a

woman grows older;

Whereas breast cancer is the second leading cause of cancer

death in women, and will kill an estimated 46,000 women

and 300 men in 1993;

Whereas the 5-year survival rate for localized breast cancer

has risen from 78 percent in the 1940’s to over 90 percent today;

Whereas most breast cancers are detected by the woman herself;

Whereas educating both the public and health care providers

about the importance of early detection will result in reducing breast cancer mortality;
2

•SJ 95 RFH

Whereas appropriate use of screening mammography, in conjunction with clinical examination and breast self-examination, can result in the detection of many breast cancers early in their development and increase the survival

rate to nearly 100 percent;

Whereas data from controlled trials clearly demonstrate that

deaths from breast cancer are significantly reduced in

women who have been screened by mammography;

Whereas many women are reluctant to have screening mammograms for a variety of reasons, such as the cost of

testing, lack of information, or fear;

Whereas access to screening mammography is directly related

to socioeconomic status;

Whereas increased awareness about the importance of screening mammography will result in the procedure being regularly requested by the patient and recommended by the

health care provider; and

Whereas it is projected that more women will use this lifesaving test as it becomes increasingly available and affordable: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 That October 1993 is designated as ‘‘National Breast

4 Cancer Awareness Month’’ and the President is authorized

5 and requested to issue a proclamation calling upon the
3

•SJ 95 RFH

1 people of the United States to observe the month with ap2 propriate programs and activities.

Passed the Senate July 23 (legislative day, June

30), 1993.

Attest: WALTER J. STEWART,

Secretary.
Public Comment Form 

Mystic Ranger District, Black Hills National Forest

SECTION 30 LIMESTONE MINING PROJECT 

DEIS Comments 

NAME: _________________________________________ 

ADDRESS: ______________________________________ 

 ______________________________________ 

 ______________________________________ 

( ) I have no comments, please keep me informed. 

( ) Please remove me from your Section 30 Limestone Mining Project mailing list. 

( ) I have the following comments about the Section 30 Limestone Mining Project: 

 

 

 

Return to: Robert Thompson, District Ranger, Mystic Ranger District, Section 30 Limestone Mining 

Project, 8221 S Hwy 16, Rapid City, SD 57702 (Or fold, seal, and add a stamp to the back of the sheet). 

 
........................................................................................................................................................... 

............................................................................................................................................. 

place 

stamp 

 ____________________________ here 

______________________________ 

______________________________ 

 Robert Thompson, District Ranger 

 Mystic Ranger District 

 Section 30 Limestone Mining Project 

 8221 South Highway 16 

 Rapid City SD 57702
#### Eleanor Krupp et al. *v.*William Sataline, Jr., et al.

King, C. J., Murphy, Shea, Alcorn and Comley, Js.

Argued February 4

decided April 22, 1964

*William F. Gallagher,*with whom, on the brief, were *Morton E. Cole, Cyril Cole*and *Bernard Poliner,*for the appellants (plaintiffs).

*William P. Aspell,*with whom, on the brief, were *George Muir*and *Edward J. Foley,*for the appellees (defendants).

Per Curiam.

In this action to recover damages for personal injuries sustained in an automobile accident, the defendants, father and son, admitted *708that the son’s negligence in driving the father’s car was the proximate cause of the collision, but they denied liability in a special defense on the ground of the Statute of Limitations. To this defense, the plaintiffs replied that they were induced to let the period of the statute run against them by the false and fraudulent representations of an insurance agent who acted for the defendants.

The agent testified for the defendants concerning negotiations which he had conducted with the plaintiffs. In the course of his testimony, to refresh his recollection, he used certain letters and other writings prepared by him and taken from the files of the insurance company. At the conclusion of his testimony, eleven of these documents, which were offered for the purpose of corroborating his oral evidence, were admitted by the trial court as full exhibits over the plaintiffs’ objection. The jury returned a verdict for the defendants, and from the judgment rendered thereon the plaintiffs have appealed, assigning as error the rulings admitting the documents in evidence.

The rulings were erroneous. It has long been the law in this state that a memorandum used to refresh a present recollection may not be laid in evidence since it is the recollection, not the memorandum, which is the evidence. *Hawken*v. *Daley,*85 Conn. 16, 19, 81 A. 1053; *Neff*v. *Neff,*96 Conn. 273, 278, 114 A. 126; *State*v. *Schleifer,*102 Conn. 708, 722, 130 A. 184; *Katsonas*v. *W. M. Sutherland Building & Contracting Co.,*104 Conn. 54, 69, 132 A. 553. There is no merit to the defendants’ claim that this rule has been modified by *Papas*v. *Aetna Life Ins. Co.,*111 Conn. 415, 150 A. 310. The documents involved in that case were not used to refresh present recollection.

*709The rulings were also harmful. The effect of the negotiations between the plaintiffs and the insurance agent was the paramount issue in the case, and the improperly admitted documents may well have had an important, if not controlling, influence on the jury’s determination of the credibility of the agent’s testimony.

There is error, the judgment is set aside and a new trial is ordered.
Exhibit 35.3











| | 
| | 



Annual
Statement of Compliance

GS Mortgage Securities Trust 2015-GC34



VIA EMAIL



To Addresses on Exhibit A:



| | Re: | GS Mortgage Securities Trust 2015-GC34, Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2015-GC34 (the “Trust”),
issued pursuant to the Pooling and Servicing Agreement, dated as of October 1, 2015 (the “Agreement”), by
and among GS Mortgage Securities Corporation II, as Depositor, U.S. Bank National Association, as Certificate Administrator and
Trustee, Pentalpha Surveillance LLC, as Operating Advisor, Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as Master Servicer and Midland
Loan Services, A Division of PNC Bank, National Association, as Special Servicer
| | --- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------





I, Kimberly O. Jacobs,
a Senior Vice President of U.S. Bank National Association, as Certificate Administrator, hereby certify that:



(1) A review of the activities
of the Certificate Administrator during the preceding calendar year (the “Reporting Period”) and of the performance
of the Certificate Administrator under the Agreement has been made under my supervision; and



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



Capitalized terms used
but not defined herein have the meanings set forth in the Agreement.





Date: March 15, 2016





U.S. Bank National Association, as Certificate Administrator









|By: | /s/ Kimberly
O. Jacobs
|--- | ----------------------
|    | Kimberly O. Jacobs    
|    | Senior Vice President 


























| | 
| | 



Exhibit
A



GS Mortgage Securities Corporation II

200 West Street

New York, New York 10282-2198

Attention:GSMS
2015-GC34

leah.nivison@gs.com,
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
UNAUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS INCLUDED IN THE FORM 10-QSB OF TAG-IT PACIFIC,
INC. TO WHICH THIS EXHIBIT IS A PART AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                                                         <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                                     9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                           DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                              JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                                SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                                        4,886,751
<SECURITIES>                                                          0
<RECEIVABLES>                                                   433,123
<ALLOWANCES>                                                          0
<INVENTORY>                                                     224,986
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                              5,386,406
<PP&E>                                                          800,233
<DEPRECIATION>                                                        0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                                7,498,251
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                           898,324
<BONDS>                                                               0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                                 0
<PREFERRED>                                                      31,100
<COMMON>                                                         32,151
<OTHER-SE>                                                            0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                  7,498,251
<SALES>                                                       1,089,883
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                              1,089,883
<CGS>                                                                 0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                 6,981,314
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                                (51,369)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                      0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                                8,742
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                              (5,840,062)
<INCOME-TAX>                                                     20,097
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                          (5,860,159)
<DISCONTINUED>                                                        0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                       0
<CHANGES>                                                             0
<NET-INCOME>                                                 (5,860,159)
<EPS-BASIC>                                                       (0.22)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                     (0.22)


</TABLE>
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-40062

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

ALBERTO ALVAREZ,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:15-CR-732-2

Before KING, GRAVES, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Alberto Alvarez appeals his guilty plea conviction for aiding and abetting 

possession with intent to distribute more than 100 kilograms of marijuana and 

his sentence of 60 months of imprisonment and four years of supervised 

release. He argues that the plea agreement is void due to the Government’s 

breach, lack of consideration, or frustration of purpose and that the factual 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

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

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

November 22, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 16-40062 Document: 00513769021 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/22/2016
No. 16-40062

2

basis is insufficient to support the guilty plea or renders the sentence 

unconstitutional. 

Alvarez’s claims of error are reviewed for plain error because he failed to 

raise them in the district court. See Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 

(2009). To show plain error, Alvarez must show that the error was clear or 

obvious and affects his substantial rights. See id. If he makes such a showing, 

this court has the discretion to correct the error but only if it “‘seriously affect[s] 

the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.’” Id.

(alteration in original) (quoting United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 736 

(1993)).

The Government did not breach the plea agreement because it was not 

reasonable for Alvarez to have understood that the plea agreement shielded 

him from the statutory minimum sentence. See United States v. Pizzolato, 655 

F.3d 403, 409 (5th Cir. 2011). The plea agreement is not clearly or obviously 

void for lack of consideration as we have never held that consideration is 

required to support a valid plea agreement. See Olano, 507 U.S. at 734. The 

doctrine of frustration of purpose is inapplicable because Alvarez fails to show 

that avoiding the statutory minimum sentence was a basic assumption 

underlying the plea agreement. See United States v. Moulder, 141 F.3d 568, 

571 (5th Cir. 1998). Alvarez fails to show that the factual basis was clearly or

obviously insufficient to support his guilty plea or affected his substantial 

rights. See Puckett, 556 U.S. at 135. He also fails to show that his sentence is 

clearly or obviously unconstitutional. See id.; Olano, 507 U.S. at 734.

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

 Case: 16-40062 Document: 00513769021 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/22/2016
#### § 1.547-7 Effective date.

The deduction for deficiency dividends, in computing personal holding company tax for any taxable year, is allowable only with respect to determinations under section 547(c) made after November 14, 1954 (the date falling 90 days after the date of enactment of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954). If the taxable year with respect to which the deficiency is asserted began before January 1, 1954, the deficiency dividends deduction shall include only the amounts which would have been includible in the computation of the basic surtax credit for such taxable year under the Internal Revenue Code of 1939. Section 547(g), relating to the denial of a deficiency dividends deduction if the determination contains a finding that any part of the deficiency is due to fraud, etc., shall apply only if the taxable year with respect to which the deficiency is asserted begins after December 31, 1953.
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: Earl Dietrich, Ian Knight, J.J. Leal, Shannon McLeod, and Frontier 

MWD Systems, LLC v. Weatherford International, LLC and 

Weatherford, U.S., L.P.

Appellate case number: 01-19-00556-CV

Trial court case number: 2019-25169

Trial court: 61st District Court of Harris County

The appellants, Earl Dietrich, Ian Knight, J.J. Leal, Shannon McLeod, and Frontier MWD 

Systems, LLC, have filed an Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to File Opening Brief and 

Motion to Place Appeal on Accelerated Appeal Docket. The Clerk of Court previously issued 

notice that the Court granted appellants’ motion to extend time to October 30, 2019. 

An interlocutory order denying a motion to dismiss filed under Section 27.003, Texas Civil 

Practice and Remedies Code, is appealable under Section 51.014. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM.

CODE § 51.014(a)(12). Such appeals are accelerated. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 

27.008(b); TEX. R. APP. P. 28.1(a). Appellant’s notice of appeal does not state that this is an 

accelerated appeal. TEX. R. APP. P. 25.1(d)(6); 28.1.

Generally, a notice of appeal must be filed within 30 days after the judgment is signed, 

except “in an accelerated appeal, the notice of appeal must be filed within 20 days after the . . . 

order is signed.” See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.1(b). Although the appellants’ motion does not say so, the 

appellants did not file their notice of appeal until July 22, 2019, which is 21 days after the trial 

court signed the July 1, 2019 order from which appellants appeal. Therefore, the appellants did not 

timely perfect this accelerated appeal. Accordingly, appellants’ motion to place this appeal on the 

accelerated appeal docket is DENIED.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Evelyn V. Keyes

 Acting individually Acting for the Court

Date: __October 17, 2019___