alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 1.528-3 Association property. ( a ) *Property owned by the organization. Association property* includes real and personal property owned by the organization or owned as tenants in common by the members of the organization. Such property must be available for the common benefit of all members of the organization and must be of a nature that tends to enhance the beneficial enjoyment of the private residences by their owners. If two or more facilities or items of property of a similar nature are owned by a homeowners association, and if the use of any particular facility or item is restricted to fewer than all association members, such facilities or items neverthelesswill be considered association property if all association members are treated equitably and have similar rights with respect to comparable items or facilities. Among the types of property that ordinarily will be considered association property are swimming pools and tennis courts. On the other hand, facilities or areas set aside for the use of nonmembers, or in fact used primarily by nonmembers, are not association property for the purposes of this section. For example, property owned by an organization for the purpose of leasing it to groups consisting primarily of nonmembers to be used as a meeting place or a retreat will not be considered association property.
( b ) *Property normally owned by a governmental unit. Association property* also includes areas and facilities traditionally recognized and accepted as being of direct governmental concern in the exercise of the powers and duties entrusted to governments to regulate community health, safety and welfare. Such areas and facilities would normally include roadways, parklands, sidewalks, streetlights and firehouses. Property described in this paragraph will be considered association property regardless of whether it is owned by the organization itself, by its members as tenants in common or by a governmental unit and used for the benefit of the residents of such unit including the members of the organization.
( c ) *Privately owned property. Association property* may also include property owned privately by members of the organization. However, to be so included the condition of such property must affect the overall appearance or structure of the residential units which make up the organization. Such property may include the exterior walls and roofs of privately owned residences as well as the lawn and shrubbery on privately owned land and any other privately owned property the appearance of which may directly affect the appearance of the entire organization. However, privately owned property will not be considered association property unless: ( 1 ) There is a covenant or similar requirement relating to exterior appearance or maintenance that applies on the same basis to all such property (or to a reasonable classification of such property);
( 2 ) There is a pro rata mandatory assessment (at least once a year) on all members of the association for maintaining such property; and
( 3 ) Membership in the organization is a condition of ownership of such property.
[T.D. 7692, 45 FR 26321, Apr. 18, 1980]
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT LEON BRIGHT, ) ) Appellant, ) v. ) Case No. 2D19-4990 ) ANGEL DIDIOS, ) ) Appellee. ) ) Opinion filed September 4, 2020. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County; Paul L. Huey, Judge. Leon Bright, pro se. PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

VILLANTI, LUCAS, and SMITH, JJ., Concur.
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 8040 

To limit the closure or consolidation of any United States Postal Service 

processing and distribution center in Postal Service regions that have 

failed to meet certain delivery standards, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 17, 2024 

Ms. BUDZINSKI (for herself and Mr. BERGMAN) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and Accountability 

A BILL 

To limit the closure or consolidation of any United States 

Postal Service processing and distribution center in Postal Service regions that have failed to meet certain delivery standards, 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. LIMITATION ON CLOSING OR CONSOLIDATING 

4 POSTAL SERVICE PROCESSING AND DIS5 TRIBUTION CENTERS. 

6 During any calendar year, the United States Postal 

7 Service may not close, consolidate, or otherwise move any 

8 operations or services from any Postal Service processing 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 8040 IH

1 and distribution center located within any Postal Service 

2 region that, during anytime within the immediately pre3 ceding calendar year, failed to meet the Postal Service’s 

4 fiscal year 2023 performance plan target of— 

5 (1) at least 93 percent on-time delivery rate for 

6 two-day single first-class mail; and 

7 (2) at least 90.3 percent on-time delivery rate 

8 for three to five-day first-class mail. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
Editorial Note on Part 878
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 878 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 878.3720 Tracheal prosthesis. ( a ) *Identification.* The tracheal prosthesis is a rigid, flexible, or expandable tubular device made of a silicone, metal, or polymeric material that is intended to be implanted to restore the structure and/or function of the trachea or trachealbronchial tree. It may be unbranched or contain one or two branches. The metal tracheal prosthesis may be uncovered or covered with a polymeric material. This device may also include a device delivery system.
( b ) *Classification.* Class II. The special control for this device is FDA's “Guidance for the Content of Premarket Notification Submissions for Esophageal and Tracheal Prostheses.”
[65 FR 17146, Mar. 31, 2000]
Exhibit 32.2

                          CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                           18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                            AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 In connection with the Quarterly Report of American HealthChoice, Inc.  (the
 "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2005 as filed with
 the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
 John C. Stuecheli, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
 to 18 U.S.C. S 1350, as adopted pursuant to S 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley  Act
 of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge and belief:

           (1)  The Report 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  the Report fairly presents,  in
           all material  respects,  the  financial condition  and  result  of
           operations of the Company.



 /s/ John C. Stuecheli


 John C. Stuecheli
 Chief Financial Officer

 May 16, 2005
Editorial Note on Part 890
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 890 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 890.5670 Internal therapeutic massager. ( a ) *Identification.* A hand-held internal therapeutic massager device is a prescription device intended for medical purposes to manually provide direct pressure applied to localized areas of pain or tenderness in the myofascial tissue associated with chronic pelvic pain syndromes. The device is inserted rectally or vaginally and provides quantitative feedback to the user of the applied force to the target tissue.
( b ) *Classification.* Class II (special controls). The device, when it is for prescription use only with a quantitative feedback mechanism and a disposable covering, is exempt from the premarket notification procedures in subpart E of part 807 of this chapter subject to the limitations in § 890.9. The special controls for this device are: ( 1 ) Labeling must include adequate directions for use.
( 2 ) Non-clinical performance testing must demonstrate electromagnetic compatibility (EMC), electrical safety and mechanical safety.
( 3 ) Non-clinical performance testing must demonstrate that the device performs as intended under anticipated conditions of use. The following performance characteristics must be tested: ( i ) Mechanical durability; and
( ii ) Accuracy of the feedback mechanism.
( 4 ) Software verification, validation, and hazard analysis must be performed.
( 5 ) The patient-contacting components of the device must be demonstrated to be biocompatible.
[84 FR 57323, Oct. 25, 2019, as amended at 85 FR 44188, July 22, 2020]
QuickLinks
 -- Click here to rapidly navigate through this document

Exhibit 4.8.1  


 
 

List of Subordinated Note Holders February 1, 2001    
  



	Mr. Dan Patrick	 	$	100,000
	Mr. & Mrs. Kenneth Guthrie	 	$	50,000
	Dr. Shannon Johnson	 	$	100,000
	Mr. Albert Whiteman	 	$	200,000
	Mr. Albert Whiteman (previously Ms. Mary Whiteman)	 	$	100,000
	Mr. Richard Odom	 	$	175,000
	Mr. Curtis Nestegard	 	$	325,000












QuickLinks


List of Subordinated Note Holders February 1, 2001
<page>  EXHIBIT 32.01

CERTIFICATION OF PRESIDENT PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Morgan Stanley
Principal Plus Fund L.P. (the "Partnership") on Form 10-Q for the
quarter ended March 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Walter
Davis, President of Demeter Management Corporation, the general
partner of the Partnership, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:
(1)	The Report 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 the Report fairly presents,
in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Partnership.









By:  	/s/ Walter Davis

Name:		    Walter Davis
Title:	    President of Demeter Management Corporation,
			    the general partner of the Partnership

Date:		    May 15, 2008
#### § 1.72-12 Effect of taking an annuity in lieu of a lump sum upon the maturity of a contract.

If a contract to which section 72 applies provides for the payment of a lump sum in full discharge of the obligation thereunder and the obligee entitled thereto, prior to receiving any portion of such lump sum and within 60 days after the date on which such lump sum first becomes payable, exercises an option or irrevocably agrees with the obligor to take, in lieu thereof, payments which will constitute “amounts received as an annuity”, as that term is defined in paragraph (b) of § 1.72-2, no part of such lump sum shall be deemed to have been received by the obligee at the time he was first entitled thereto merely because he would have been entitled to such amount had he not exercised the option or made such an agreement with the obligor.
§ 1.1312-1 Double inclusion of an item of gross income. ( a ) Paragraph (1) of section 1312 applies if the determination requires the inclusion in a taxpayer's gross income of an item which was erroneously included in the gross income of the same taxpayer for another taxable year or of a related taxpayer for the same or another taxable year.
( b ) The application of paragraph (a) of this section may be illustrated by the following examples:
Example 1. A taxpayer who keeps his books on the cash method erroneously included in income on his return for 1947 an item of accrued rent. In 1952, after the period of limitation on refunds for 1947 had expired, the Commissioner discovered that the taxpayer received this rent in 1948 and asserted a deficiency for the year 1948 which is sustained by the Tax Court of the United States in 1955. An adjustment in favor of the taxpayer is authorized with respect to the year 1947. If the taxpayer had returned the rent for both 1947 and 1948 and by a determination was denied a refund claim for 1948 on account of the rent item, a similar adjustment is authorized.
Example 2. A husband assigned to his wife salary to be earned by him in the year 1952. The wife included such salary in her separate return for that year and the husband omitted it. The Commissioner asserted a deficiency against the wife for 1952 with respect to a different item; she contested that deficiency, and the Tax Court entered an order in her case which became final in 1955. The wife would therefore be barred by section 6512(a) from claiming a refund for 1952. Thereafter, the Commissioner asserted a deficiency against the husband on account of the omission of such salary from his return for 1952. In 1955 the husband and the Commissioner enter into a closing agreement for the year 1952 in which the salary is taxed to the husband. An adjustment is authorized with respect to the wife's tax for 1952.
[T.D. 6500, 25 FR 12033, Nov. 26, 1960]
```

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 111 (Monday, June 10, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 34702]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-13719]

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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 8351]

Notice of Meeting of Advisory Committee on International Law

    A meeting of the Department of State's Advisory Committee on 
International Law will take place on Monday, June 24, 2013, from 9:30 
a.m. to approximately 5:30 p.m., at the George Washington University 
Law School (Frederick Lawrence Student Conference Center), 2000 H 
Street NW., Washington, DC.
    Acting Legal Adviser Mary McLeod will chair the meeting, which will 
be open to the public up to the capacity of the meeting room. The 
agenda covers a range of current international legal topics, including 
the Supreme Court's recent decision in Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum, 
Internet governance and international law, corporate social 
responsibility, compliance mechanisms for international humanitarian 
law, and the American Law Institute's new Restatement of the Foreign 
Relations Law of the United States.
    This announcement might appear in the Federal Register less than 15 
days prior to the meeting. The Department of State finds that there is 
an exceptional circumstance in this case. This advisory committee 
meeting must be held on June 24 because of the travel schedules of the 
Acting Legal Adviser and committee members.
    Members of the public who wish to attend the meeting should, by 
Wednesday, June 19, 2013, notify the Office of the Legal Adviser (202-
776-8442 or lermanjb@state.govmailto:KillTP@state.gov) of their name, 
professional affiliation, address, and phone number. A valid photo ID 
is required for admission to the meeting. Members of the public who 
require reasonable accommodations should make their requests by June 
17, 2013. Requests received after that time will be considered but 
might not be possible to accommodate.

    Dated: June 4, 2013.
Jonas Lerman,
Attorney-Adviser, Office of the Legal Adviser, Executive Director, 
Advisory Committee on International Law, United States Department of 
State.
[FR Doc. 2013-13719 Filed 6-7-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-08-P
```
39100.

39101.

#### WALKER v. THE STATE. EBRON v. THE STATE.

Townsend, Presiding Judge.

1. An accusation under *Code Ann.*§ 26-6802 making it a misdemeanor to do any act which the defendant knew or should have known would produce, promote, or contribute to conditions rendering a child delinquent or neglected must further allege that the child is delinquent or neglected. *Jones v.*State, 214 Ga. 163 (103 SE2d 559). The accusations here specifically allege that the named minors are “neglected children.”

2. Such accusation is not subject to general demurrer on the ground that the words “neglect” and “neglected” are not defined either in the statute or the accusation and have no established legal meaning. Neglect by general definition implies the omission of a care or duty. It has frequently been held, as to minors, that a child may be a neglected child either when it is not provided with necessaries or where by reason of the parents’ improvidence and neglect it is placed in unfit surroundings or exposed to unfit, immoral and depraved influences, not conducive to its health, morals or well-being. State v. Lefebvre, 91 N. H. 382 (20 A2d 185); In re Sherill, 206 La. 457 (19 S2d 203); Nunn v. State, 55 Ind. App. 37 (103 NE 439); In re Kowalke’s Guardianship, 232 Minn. 292 (46 NW2d 275).

3. One of the accusations charged the defendant father of the three named little girls in that part of the language of *Code Ann.*§ 26-6802 set out above, further alleging the prohibited acts to be that the defendant did himself, and did allow the *596other defendant in the presence of the children, to appear before them in a drunken and semi-nude condition, and charged the codefendant, a mature male, with so appearing and making suggestive remarks to them. Under the broad definition of neglected children such allegations are sufficient to show a deliberate exposure of the children to conditions which would render such children neglected by reason of an immoral environment.

Decided September 28, 1961

Rehearing denied October 10, 1961.

*Casey Thigpen,*for plaintiffs in error.

*Thomas A. Hutcheson, Solicitor,*contra.

The demurrer was accordingly properly overruled.

*Judgment affirmod.*

*Frankum and Jordan, JJ., concur.*
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the balance
sheets and statements of operations found on pages 3 and 4 of the Company's Form
10-QSB for the quarter ended June 30, 1998, and is qualified in its entirety by
reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                            1140
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 6,770
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   6,770
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            2,115
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       191,688
<OTHER-SE>                                    (187,033)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     6,770
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 6,219
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (6,219)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0

</TABLE>
**Exhibit 34.17**

**CURCIO**

**+COHEN**

**Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

Managing Member 

Park Bridge Lender Services LLC 

New York, NY 

We have examined management’s assertion,included in the accompanying Management’s Report on Assessment of 2015 Compliance by Park Bridge Lender Services LLC with Regulation AB Servicing Criteria (“Management’s Report”), that Park Bridge Lender Services LLC (the“Company”) complied with the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission’s Regulation AB as of and for the year ended December 31, 2015, excluding those criteria noted as notapplicable (N/A) within Exhibit B to Management’s Report. The transactions covered by this report are only those transactions processed by the Company in its capacity as trust advisor or operating advisor for the asset backed securitiestransactions (the “Platform”) identified in Management’s Report. Reference Exhibit A to Management’s Report for the transactions covered by this examination. Management is responsible for the Company’s compliance with theapplicable servicing criteria. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on management’s assertion based on our examination. 

Our examination wasconducted in accordance with attestation standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) and, accordingly, including examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Company’s compliance with the applicable servicingcriteria and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. Our examination included testing of a selected sample of the servicing activities related to the Platform, determining whether the Company performed thoseselected activities in compliance with the applicable servicing criteria during the specified period. Our procedures were limited to the selected transactions and servicing activities performed by the Company during the period covered by thisreport. Our examination was not designed to detect material noncompliance arising from errors that may have occurred prior to or subsequent to our tests, that may have affected the Company’s servicing activities during the period covered bythis report. We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our examination does not provide a legal determination on the Company’s compliance with the applicable servicing criteria. 

In our opinion, management’s assertion that the Company complied with the aforementioned applicable servicing criteria identified in Exhibit B toManagement’s Report with respect to the transactions identified in Exhibit A to Management’s Report as of and for the year ended December 31, 2015, for the Platform, is fairly stated in all material aspects. 

/s/ Curcio & Cohen, CPA’S, P.C. 

New York, NY

February 15, 2016 

CERTIFIED PUBLICACCOUNTANTS PC 7 PENN PLAZA, SUITE 1500 NEW YORK NY 10001 

TEL: 212 557-9800 FAX: 212 557 9819 WEBSITE: WWW.CWCCPAFIRM.COM
Order entered May 22, 2015

In The



## Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 14

- 01127

- CR

RUBEN LORENZO PAZ, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 291st Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F13

- 53572

- U



### O RDER

T h e Court GRANTS the State’s May 20, 2015 second motion for extension of time to

file the State’s Brief and the May 20, 2015 motion for leave to file brief exceeding word limit.

We ORDER the Clerk of the Court to file the brie f tendered as of the date of this order.

/s/ ADA BROWN

JUSTICE
#### §§ 1.282-1.300 [Reserved]