alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
federal rulemaking in fdsys

Research

www.fdsys.gov
Federal Register (FR) 

Official legal newspaper of the Federal 

Government that contains rules, proposed 

rules, public notices, executive orders, 

proclamations and other Presidential 

documents from Federal agencies and 

organizations.

List of Code of Federal Regulations Sections Affected (LSA)

Index of new, amended, and deleted Federal 

rules that have been published since the most 

recent revision date of a Code of Federal 

Regulations (CFR) title. Contains descriptive 

entries and Federal Register page numbers 

that can be used to retrieve regulatory text that 

affects a given CFR section or part. 

Once Congress passes laws, Federal agencies are responsible for implementing 

those laws. Regulations are issued by Federal agencies under the authority 

delegated to them by Federal law or a Presidential executive order. The Unified 

Agenda, Federal Register, List of CFR Sections Affected, and Code of Federal 

Regulations can be used in conjunction with each other on GPO’s Federal 

Digital System (FDsys) to track Federal regulations. 

Unified Agenda (UA)

Semiannual compilation that reports Federal 

agency rulemaking activities under development 

or review for the upcoming year which is likely 

to have a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities and entries 

that have been selected for periodic review.

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)

Annual codification of the general and permanent 

final rules published in the Federal Register by 

executive departments, agencies, and organizations 

of the Federal Government. Contains complete 

official text of agency rules organized into 50 titles 

covering broad subject areas. 

Explore the Federal rulemaking 

process using FDsys. 

FDsys is America’s Authentic Government Information.

www.fdsys.gov
FDsys is a service of the U.S. Government Printing Office.

For additional information, contact the GPO Contact Center:

Toll-Free 866.512.1800

DC Metro 202.512.1800

ContactCenter@gpo.gov
Rialto CAPITAL(logo)  2018
Annual Statement of Servicer Compliance (Item 1123)  Pooling
and Servicing Agreement (the “Pooling and Servicing Agreement”) dated as of August 1, 2015 by and among Credit Suisse
First Boston Mortgage Securities Corp. as Depositor, Midland Loan Services, a Division of PNC Bank, National Association as Master
Servicer, Rialto Capital Advisors, LLC as Special Servicer, Pentalpha Surveillance LLC as Operating Advisor, Wells Fargo Bank,
National Association as Certificate Administrator and Wells Fargo Bank, National Association as Trustee relating to the Credit
Suisse First Boston Mortgage Securities Corp., CSAIL 2015-C3 Commercial Mortgage Trust, Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates
Series 2015-C3(CSAIL 2015-C3)  The undersigned, a duly authorized
officer of Rialto Capital Advisors, LLC, as special servicer (the “Special Servicer”), except for the Charles River
Plaza North Whole Loan, herein certifies to the following:   1.
    All servicing activities and performance of such servicing activities under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement are performed on behalf of the Special Servicer.2.
    A review of the servicing activities and performance by the Special Servicer for the period of January 1, 2018 to December 31, 2018 (the “Reporting Period”) in accordance with the Pooling and Servicing Agreement has been conducted under my supervision.3.
    To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Special Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligationsunder the terms of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement, in all material respects for the Reporting Period and if there has been a failureto fulfill any such obligations in any material respect, each failure and the nature and status thereof has been specifically identified herein.   Certified by:
    /s/ Adam Singer
    
    Date: March 1, 2019Adam Singer, Managing Director
[J-145A&B-2012] [MO: Per Curiam]
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

**COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,**

**Appellee**

**v.**

**MICHAEL BARDO,**

**Appellant**

**COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,**

**Appellant**

**v.**

**MICHAEL BARDO,**

**Appellee :** 

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**: No. 650 CAP** 

**Appeal from the Order dated 12/30/2011 (docketed on 1/3/2012) in the Court of**  **Common Pleas, Criminal Division, Luzerne County at No. CP-40-MD** 
**0002778-1992**

**No. 651 CAP**

**Appeal from the Order dated 12/30/2011 (docketed on 1/3/2012) in the Court of**  **Common Pleas, Criminal Division, Luzerne County at No. CP-40-MD** 
**0002778-1992**

**SUBMITTED: November 5, 2012**

CONCURRING OPINION AND OPINION IN SUPPORT OF AFFIRM ANCE ON
DOCKET No. 651 CAP

MR. JUSTICE BAER DECIDED: December 16, 2014

**I join the Per Curiam Opinion’s disposition of the ap peal of Michael Bardo and its** 

**affirmance of the denial of guilt-phase relief. As t o the penalty phase, however, I join** 

**the Concurring Opinion and Opinion in Support of Aff irmance on Docket No. 651 CAP** 

**by Justice Saylor to the extent that he would uphold t he reasoning and holding of the** 

**post-conviction court in awarding penalty phase relief t o Bardo because, like Justice** **[J-145A&B-2012] [M.O. - Per Curiam] - 2**

**Saylor, I believe the lower court’s determinations are sufficiently supported by the** 

**record and free of legal error.**
Motion Denied; Order filed November 29, 2018.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-18-00205-CR

____________

SANTHY INTHALANGSY, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 178th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1471491

ORDER

Appellant is represented by retained counsel, Inger H. Chandler. Appellant’s 

brief was originally due July 16, 2018. We have granted more than 90 days’ 

extension to file appellant’s brief until November 19, 2018. When we granted the 

last extension, we noted that no further extensions would be granted absent 

exceptional circumstances. No brief was filed. On November 19, 2018, counsel filed 
a further request for extension of time to file appellant’s brief. Counsel did not allege 

any exceptional circumstances in the request. 

We deny the request for extension and order Inger H. Chandler to file a brief 

with the clerk of this court on or before December 19, 2018. If counsel does not 

timely file appellant’s brief as ordered, the court may issue an order abating the 

appeal and directing the trial court to conduct a hearing to determine the reason for 

the failure to file the brief and the consideration of sanctions or other appropriate 

relief.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Frost and Justices Jamison and Donovan.
III

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. RES. 191

To elect the Secretary of the Senate, Martha S. Pope.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

MARCH 22 (legislative day, FEBRUARY 22), 1994

Mr. MITCHELL submitted the following resolution; which was considered and

agreed to

RESOLUTION

To elect the Secretary of the Senate, Martha S. Pope.

1 Resolved, That Martha S. Pope be, and she is hereby,

2 elected Secretary of the Senate, effective April 15, 1994.

Æ
exv10w37



 





Exhibit 10.37




Summary of Certain Executive Officer and Director Compensation Arrangements




Named Executive Officer Salary and Bonus Information




     The following table presents the base salary, as of February 28, 2007, of Pride’s Chief
Executive Officer and the other named executive officers of Pride for 2006 serving as executive
officers as of December 31, 2006.



	 	 	 	 	 
	Name	 	2007 Salary	 
	Louis Raspino
	 	$	850,000	 
	 
	 	 	 	 
	Brian Voegele
	 	$	375,000	 
	 
	 	 	 	 
	Rodney W. Eads
	 	$	500,000	 
	 
	 	 	 	 
	W. Gregory Looser
	 	$	360,000	 
	 
	 	 	 	 
	Lonnie Bane
	 	$	320,000	 






     Under Pride’s annual incentive compensation plan for 2007, bonuses for executive officers will
be paid based on objectives established by Pride’s Compensation Committee. The specific objectives
and related targets under the plan for 2007 are expected to be approved by the Compensation
Committee by the end of the second quarter of 2007. Bonuses for executive officers under the 2007
plan will be determined with reference to the level of achievement of the plan objectives. Target
bonuses payable for 2007 as a percentage of base salary for the persons named above are as follows:
Mr. Raspino—80%; Mr. Voegele—60%; Mr. Eads—70%; Mr. Looser—55%; and Mr. Bane—55%. The maximum
bonus equals two times the target bonus.



Director Fees




     The annual retainer for the chairman of the board is $180,000. Each other director who is not
an employee of Pride receives an annual retainer of $75,000 and a fee of $2,000 for each board and
committee meeting attended. In addition, the chairman of the Audit Committee receives an annual fee
of $12,000; the chairman of the Compensation Committee receives an annual fee of $10,000; and the
chairman of the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee receives an annual fee of $10,000.
MANDAMUS NO. WR-81 ,972-05 

TG :THE CLERK OF THE COURT: ABEL ACOSTg: 

In my original writ of mandamus WR-81 ,972-05 I sent in some 

dacuments attached to the writ as evidence. These documents are 

my only copies af the evidence I nRed tb further my appeal process 

and was wondering if I could requests that copj_ps hP made and retuned to me? I have a writ af f-Jabeas corous on the docket in the 

291st Judicial District Court tf-Jat was remanded by the Court of 

Criminal Appeals in Ma:cch of 2015. WR-81.972-04, writ no. W03-2565 

7-U(A). I nRed the documents I sent in with the abave mentioned 

Mandamus in order to orepare my petition for W03-25713-U(A), and 

W03-25714-U(A). which were denied by the Court af Criminal Aopeals 

in 2014, WR-81 ,972-02 8nd l!!R-81 ,972-03 .... 

So, in order for my appeal process to be effective I truely 

need those documents to attach to my sucessive writ in my defense. 

Thsnk You In Advance For Your Time. 

William G. McConnell Unti 

3001 S< EmilV Drive 

Beeville, Texas 781 02 

PAGE 1 OF 1
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-30601 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus JAMES A. MCDADE, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 00-CR-50050-2

-------------------- February 21, 2002 Before JOLLY, JONES, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: * James A. McDade appeals his sentences of 360 months’ imprisonment and five years’ supervised release on Count 1 and 240 months’ imprisonment and three years’ supervised release on Count 3, after being convicted by a jury of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of cocaine base and money laundering. McDade argues that the Sixth Amendment requires that the quantities of contraband and money that the trial court relied on in determining the guideline range in sentencing should beNo. 01-30601 -2- alleged in the indictment and proven beyond a reasonable doubt. He relies on Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466 (2000) and United States v. Norris , 143 F.Supp.2d 243 (E.D.N.Y. 2001), for the proposition that all facts which expose the defendant to a particular range of sentencing must be charged and proven. McDade admits that his argument is foreclosed by this court’s precedent. In United States v. Meshack , 225 F.3d 556, 576 (5th Cir. 2000), cert. denied , 531 U.S. 1100 (2001), amended in part on rehearing by Meshack , 244 F.3d 367 (5th Cir. 2001), cert. denied , 122 S. Ct. 142 (2001), we specifically rejected McDade’s argument that all facts which affect the sentencing range must be charged and proven. We held that Apprendi should be given a limited reading and that the rule of Apprendi applied only to facts that increase the penalty for a crime beyond the statutory maximum. 225 F.3d at 576. This reading of Apprendi was reaffirmed in United States v. Doggett , 230 F.3d 160, 166 (5th Cir. 2000), cert. denied , 121 S. Ct. 1152 (2001) and United States v. Keith , 230 F.3d 784, 787 (5th Cir. 2000), cert. denied , 121 S. Ct. 1163 (2001) (“ Apprendi should be applied only to cases in which a sentence exceeds the statutory maximum, not to cases in which a sentence is enhanced within the statutory range based on a finding of drug quantity.”). McDade admits that the quantity of drugs needed for the enhanced penalty of 10 years to life in 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A) was stated in the indictment and submitted to the jury. He does not allege that he was sentenced beyond the statutory maximum ofNo. 01-30601 -3- life on Count 1 or 20 years on Count 3. McDade’s sentences are

AFFIRMED.
Order filed March 30, 2021. 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-20-00870-CV

____________

O.A.O., Appellant

V.

R.S.O., Appellee

On Appeal from the 280th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2019-76763

ORDER

On February 23, 2021, this court issued an opinion dismissing this appeal. 

On February 26, 2021, appellant filed a motion for rehearing. The motion is 

GRANTED. 

This court’s opinion filed February 23, 2021 is WITHDRAWN, and our 

judgment of that date is VACATED. The appeal is ordered REINSTATED. 

PER CURIAM

Panel Consists of Justices Jewell, Bourliot, and Hassan.
1

NO. 01-15-00041-CR

APOLINAR MARQUEZ § THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR

CAMPOSANO §

V. § THE FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT,

§

THE STATE OF TEXAS § AT HOUSTON, TEXAS

____________________________________________________

APPELLANT COUNSEL’S MOTION TO WITHDRAW

____________________________________________________

TO THE HONORABLE JUSTICES OF THE COURT OF APPEALS:

COMES NOW Appellant’s undersigned attorney, and moves the Court to 

withdraw from the above-captioned case. The Appellant would respectfully show the 

Court the following:

1. On June 10, 2015, Appellant’s counsel filed a brief in compliance with Anders 

v. California. 

2. After a thorough review of the record, Counsel believes that there are no viable 

issues to be raised on direct appeal.

3. Counsel is forwarding a copy of this motion and a copy of the Anders brief to 

Appellant by Certified Mail, return receipt requested.

THEREFORE, counsel requests that the Court grant his motion to withdraw from 

the case. 

Respectfully submitted,

ACCEPTED

01-15-00041-CR

FIRST COURT OF APPEALS

HOUSTON, TEXAS

6/10/2015 2:41:22 PM

CHRISTOPHER PRINE

CLERK

 FILED IN 1st COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS 6/10/2015 2:41:22 PM CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE Clerk
2

/s/_Michael “Corey” Young

Michael Corey Young

S.B.T. No. 24042205

Maginnis Pullan & Young

908 N. San Jacinto Street

Tel: (936) 647-1540

Fax: (936) 756-9896

corey@mpylawfirm.com

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing motion was delivered 

via facsimile to opposing counsel listed below on the date of the filing of the original 

with the Clerk of this Court, and that a copy of this motion was mailed via Certified Mail, 

return receipt requested, to Appellant.

William Delmore III

Assistant District Attorney

207 West Phillips St., 2nd Floor

Conroe, Texas 77301

/s/_Michael “Corey” Young

Michael Corey Young
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED October 5, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-40285 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus JORGE SOROSA-SANCHEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 7:05-CR-788-1

-------------------- Before JONES, Chief Judge, and SMITH and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Jorge SorosaSanchez raises arguments that are foreclosed by United States v. Garcia-Mendez , 420 F.3d 454 (5th Cir. 2005), cert. denied , 126 S. Ct. 1398 (2006), which held that a Texas conviction for burglary of a habitation was equivalent to burglary of a dwelling, and by Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), which held that 8 U.S.C. 1326(b)(2) is a penalty provision and not a separate criminal offense. The Government’sNo. 06-40285 -2- motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
§ 1.6050L-2 Information returns by donees relating to qualified intellectual property contributions. ( a ) *In general.* Each donee organization described in section 170(c), except a private foundation (as defined in section 509(a)), other than a private foundation described in section 170(b)(1)(F), that receives or accrues net income during a taxable year from any qualified intellectual property contribution (as defined in section 170(m)(8)) must make an annual information return on the form prescribed by the IRS. The information return is required for any taxable year of the donee that includes any portion of the 10-year period beginning on the date of the contribution, but not for taxable years beginning after the expiration of the legal life of the qualified intellectual property.
( b ) *Information required to be provided on return.* The information return required by section 6050L and paragraph (a) of this section shall include the following— ( 1 ) The name, address, taxable year, and employer identification number of the donee making the information return;
( 2 ) The name, address, and taxpayer identification number of the donor;
( 3 ) A description of the qualified intellectual property in sufficient detail to identify the qualified intellectual property received by such donee;
( 4 ) The date of the contribution to the donee;
( 5 ) The amount of net income of the donee for the taxable year that is properly allocable to the qualified intellectual property (determined without regard to paragraph (10)(B) of section 170(m) and with the modifications described in paragraphs (5) and (6) of such section); and
( 6 ) Such other information as may be specified by the form or its instructions.
( c ) *Special rule—statement to be furnished to donors.* Every donee making an information return under section 6050L and this section with respect to a qualified intellectual property contribution shall furnish a copy of the information return to the donor of the property. The information return required by section 6050L and this section shall be furnished to the donor on or before the date the donee is required to file the return with the IRS.
( d ) *Place and time for filing information return* — ( 1 ) *Place for filing.* The information return required by section 6050L and this section shall be filed with the IRS location listed on the prescribed form or in its instructions.
( 2 ) *Time for filing.* A donee is required to file the return required by section 6050L and this section on or before the last day of the first full month following the close of the donee's taxable year to which net income from the qualified intellectual property is properly allocable.
( e ) *Penalties.* For penalties for failure to comply with the requirements of this section, see sections 6721 through 6724.
( f ) *Effective/applicability date.* The rules of this section apply to qualified intellectual property contributions made after June 3, 2004.
[T.D. 9392, 73 FR 18709, Apr. 7, 2008]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                         1767394
<DEPRECIATION>                                   26743
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 1767394
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            40821
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                          7774
<OTHER-SE>                                     1639743
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   1647517
<SALES>                                         205798
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                205798
<CGS>                                             9471
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  1030683
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               2000000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                7146
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (2832031)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (2832031)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (2832031)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (.42)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.42)


</TABLE>
September 25, 2015

Scott E. Sayre

7 750 Tecumseh Trail Cincinnati, Ohio 45243

Dear Mr. Sayre :

Th is letter responds to your petition for exemption dated Jun e 9 , 2015, requesting an exemption from Title 14 of The Code of Federal Regulations, § 91.881

, for your Morane

Saulnier MS

- 760 airpla ne. Your request w as docketed as No . FAA

- 2015

- 3237

. Section

91.881 requires that after December 31, 2015, jet airplanes with a maximum takeoff weight of 75,000 pounds or less must meet Stage 3 noise requirements to operate in the contiguous

United States.

Section 506 of the FAA Modern ization and Reform Act o f 2012 (FMRA) prohibit s the operation of jets weighing 75,000 pounds or less that do not meet Stage 3. The FMRA also

allows for the limited operation of prohibited jets for certain purposes. These provisions are listed in the codified statute at 49 USC 47534, and were adopted in 1 4 CFR at §§ 91.881 and

91.883.

The FAA is unable to grant your request for exemption from § 91.881 because we have no authority to do so. The statute did not grant the F AA any authority to make exceptions to the prohibition other than as specified for limited special flight authorizations for specified

purpose s identified in the law.

You noted th at your aircraft was excluded from the FAA’s rulemaking that adopted this statutory change. Since the FAA was given no authority to change the statute, our analysis

conducted a t the time w as not required by law and was not meant to be comprehensive. It was designed to give interested persons and affected operators a sense of t he range of aircraft subject to the statutory prohibition and the anticipated economic impact for some of the more common models in operation.2

Accordingly, we are taking no further action on your request and the docket for th is request is being cl osed.

Sincerely,

// s //

Lourdes Maurice Director, Environment and Energy