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 the Interior

###### Bureau of Land Management 

          - [AA-9657, AA-9676, AA-9743, AA-9811, AA-9833, AA-10034, AA-10066, AA-10319, AA-10322; AK-962-1410-HY-P] 

# AGENCY:

Bureau of Land Management, Interior. 

# ACTION:

Notice of decision approving lands for conveyance.

# SUMMARY:

As required by 43 CFR 2650.7(d), notice is hereby given that an appealable decision approving the conveyance of surface estate only for certain lands pursuant to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act will be issued to Calista Corporation for 55.00 acres located northeasterly of the Native village of Emmonak, Alaska, and southwesterly of the Native village of Nightmute, Alaska. Notice of the decision will also be published four times in the Anchorage Daily News. 

# DATES:

The time limits for filing an appeal are: 

1. Any party claiming a property interest which is adversely affected by the decision shall have until September 4, 2009 to file an appeal. 

2. Parties receiving service of the decision by certified mail shall have 30 days from the date of receipt to file an appeal. 

Parties who do not file an appeal in accordance with the requirements of 43 CFR Part 4, Subpart E, shall be deemed to have waived their rights. 

# ADDRESSES:

A copy of the decision may be obtained from: 

Bureau of Land Management, 

Alaska State Office, 

222 West Seventh Avenue, #13, 

Anchorage, Alaska 99513-7504. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        The Bureau of Land Management by phone at 907-271-5960, or by e-mail at                         *ak.blm.conveyance@ak.blm.gov.*                         Persons who use a telecommunication device (TTD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8330, 24 hours a day, seven days a week, to contact the Bureau of Land Management.                     

Dina L. Torres, 

Land Transfer Resolution Specialist, Resolution Branch.

[FR Doc. E9-18708 Filed 8-4-09; 8:45 am] 88

BILLING CODE 4310-JA-P
# THE STATE OF TEXAS

M A N D A T E

*********************************************

TO THE 3RD DISTRICT COURT OF ANDERSON CO UNTY, GREETING:

Before our Court of Appeals for the 12th Court of Appeals District of Texas, on the 22nd
day of October, 2014 , the ca use upon appeal to revise or reverse your judgment between

MICHAEL KENNEDY , Appellant

NO. 12

- 14

- 00299

- CV; Trial Court No. 3

- 41298

By per curiam opinion.

THE TEXAS COURT OF C RIMINAL APPEALS, AUS TIN, TEXAS, ET AL, Appellee

was determined; and therein ou r said Court made its order in these words:

“ THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record; and the same being considered, it is the opinion of this court that this appeal should be dismissed.

It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED by this court that this appeal be, and the same is, hereby dismissed ; and that this decision be certified to the court below for

observance. ”

WHEREAS, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Court of Appeals for the Twelfth Court of Appeals District of T exas in this behalf, and in all things have it duly recognized, obeyed, and executed.

WITNESS, THE HONORABLE JAMES T. WORTHEN , Chief Justice of our Court of Appeals for the Twelfth Court of Appeals District, with the Seal thereof affixed, at the City of Ty ler, this the 20 th day of February , 2015

.

CATHY S. LUSK, CLERK

By:

_______________________________ Chief Deputy Clerk
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 09-2597

___________

Dale J. Burke, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of North Dakota.

North Dakota Department of *

Corrections and Rehabilitation; Tim * [UNPUBLISHED]

Schuetzle, in his official capacity as *

Warden of North Dakota State *

Penitentiary; Pat Branson, in his *

official capacity as Deputy Warden of *

North Dakota State Penitentiary; *

Kathy Bachmeier, in her official *

capacity as Medical Director of *

North Dakota State Penitentiary; J. *

Peterson, in his official capacity as *

Correctional Officer at North Dakota *

State Penitentiary; Ron Bjelland, in *

his official capacity as a Lieutenant at *

the North Dakota State Penitentiary, *

*

Appellees.

___________

Submitted: April 2, 2010

Filed: April 12, 2010

___________

Before MELLOY, BOWMAN, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________
PER CURIAM.

Dale J. Burke appeals the district court’s1

 adverse grant of summary judgment

in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. We dismiss the appeal because Burke’s brief

completely fails to meet the requirements of Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure

28(a). See Carter v. Lutheran Med. Ctr., 87 F.3d 1025, 1026 (8th Cir. 1996) (per

curiam) (dismissing pro se appeal where brief presented no question for court to

decide; among other shortfalls, brief did not provide statement of issues presented for

review or identify any basis of alleged error by district court); Brown v. Frey, 806

F.2d 801, 804 (8th Cir. 1986) (pro se litigants are not excused from compliance with

procedural law); cf. Puckett v. Cook, 864 F.2d 619, 620 n.2 (8th Cir. 1989) (to extent

appellant was challenging dismissal of federal claims, he failed to show precisely and

with reference to record why findings were clearly wrong, and this court would not

search record for error relative to claims). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal, and

we deny Burke’s pending motion.

______________________________

1

The Honorable Daniel L. Hovland, United States District Judge for the District

of North Dakota. 

-2-
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

September 26, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

131399 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 131399 

 COA: 259187 

Oakland CC: 2004-196310-FC 

LARRY DARNELL CARR,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 20, 2006 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

s0918 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

September 26, 2006 

 Clerk
Tabitha Femmer, Viznu, Lafayette LA - Section 333 Exemption Petition
Tabitha Femmer, Viznu, Lafayette LA - Section 333 Exemption Petition
IV

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. CON. RES. 231

Condemning anti-Semitic vandalism in Westchester County, New York.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

SEPTEMBER 28, 1996

Mrs. LOWEY (for herself, Mr. GILMAN, Mrs. KELLY, and Mr. ENGEL) submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Condemning anti-Semitic vandalism in Westchester County,

New York.

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring),

Whereas several homes in Mamaroneck, New York, were vandalized with anti-Semitic graffiti in September;

Whereas, early in 1996, several other homes in the Orienta

Point section of Mamaroneck were targeted with anti-Semitic symbols and slurs;

Whereas several other incidents of anti-Semitism have

plagued Westchester County this year, including swastikas painted on nature trails in Mamaroneck and carved

in a table at Larchmont Public Library;
2

HCON 231 IH

Whereas community leaders in Westchester County have

joined together to condemn these vicious acts of hatred;

Whereas more must be done to combat anti-Semitism and

bigotry in our communities; and

Whereas every State should adopt legislation modeled after

Federal law that enhances criminal penalties for hate

crimes: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring), That the Congress—

3 (1) condemns acts of anti-Semitic vandalism in

4 Westchester County and throughout the country;

5 (2) commends community leaders and residents

6 in Westchester County for their resolve in combating

7 these terrible acts of cowardice;

8 (3) urges the Attorney General to continue to

9 investigate the rampant incidence of anti-Semitic

10 vandalism in Westchester County; and

11 (4) calls on every State to adopt legislation

12 modeled after Federal law that enhances criminal

13 penalties for hate crimes.

Æ
#### § 1.683-3 Application of the 65-day rule of the Internal Revenue Code of 1939.

If an amount is paid, credited, or to be distributed in the first 65 days of the first taxable year of an estate or trust (heretofore subject to the provisions of the Internal Revenue Code of 1939) to which the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 applies and the amount would be treated, if the Internal Revenue Code of 1939 were applicable, as if paid, credited, or to be distributed on the last day of the preceding taxable year, sections 641 through 682 do not apply to the amount. The amount so paid, credited, or to be distributed is taken into account as provided in the Internal Revenue Code of 1939. See 26 CFR (1939) 39.162-2 (c) and (d) (Regulations 118).
#### § 1.963-4--1.963-5 [Reserved]
Exhibit 32.1



SARBANES-OXLEY ACT SECTION 906



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER



Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, the undersigned officer of Sky Financial Group, Inc. (the Company), hereby certifies, to such officers knowledge,
that the Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2005 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/ Marty E. Adams     
|Marty E. Adams         
|Chairman, President and
|Chief Executive Officer



April 29, 2005



The signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Exhibit 31.1  CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER  I, Sean P. Nolan, certify that:  1.I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of AveXis, Inc.;  2.Based on my knowledge, this report does 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, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;  4.The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and have:  a)designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;  b)evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and  c)disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and  5.The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):  a)all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and  b)any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.   Date: March 18,   2016
/s/   Sean P. NolanSean   P. NolanPresident   and Chief Executive Officer
III

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. RES. 15

To appoint Mr. Conrad to the Committee on Finance.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JANUARY 21 (legislative day, JANUARY 5), 1993

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

agreed to

RESOLUTION

To appoint Mr. Conrad to the Committee on Finance.

1 Resolved, That the Senator from North Dakota (Mr.

2 Conrad) be appointed to the Committee on Finance in lieu

3 of his appointment to the Committee on Energy and Natu4 ral Resources.

Æ
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 148 (Tuesday, August 4, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 38579]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-18571]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Rural Housing Service

Rural Business-Cooperative Service

Rural Utilities Service


Notice of Funds Availability Under the American Recovery and 
Reinvestment Act, 2009; Correction

AGENCIES: Rural Housing Service, Rural Business-Cooperative Service, 
and Rural Utilities Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Rural Housing Service (RHS), Rural Business-Cooperative 
Service (RBS), and Rural Utilities Service (RUS) published a document 
in the Federal Register on July 23, 2009, at 74 FR 36448. The document 
contained an error related to the Catalog of Federal Domestic 
Assistance number.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for additional information 
regarding this correction should be directed to Michele Brooks, 202-
690-1078.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Need for Correction

    The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) number for 
Broadband Loans and Grants is incorrectly identified, which could 
affect locating this program within the CFDA.

Correction of Publication

    In the Federal Register of July 23, 2009, in FR Doc. E9-17512, on 
page 36450, column 2, under I. A. Affected Programs, the CFDA number 
``10.886'' is corrected to read ``10.787''.

    Dated: July 28, 2009.
Dallas Tonsager,
Under Secretary, Rural Development.
[FR Doc. E9-18571 Filed 8-3-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
#### Thomas G. McCann, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Civil Service Board of the Metropolitan Sanitary District of Greater Chicago, and Chester Kopec, Director of Personnel of the Metropolitan Sanitary District of Greater Chicago, Defendants-Appellants.

Gen. No. 52,114.

First District.

February 3, 1969.

Allen S. Lavin, of Chicago (Julius H. Grubman, of counsel), for appellants; Richard F. McPartlin, of Chicago, for appellee.

Opinion by

JUSTICE SEIDENFELD.

Not to be published in. full.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kim M. LEE, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 86-1032.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted July 22, 1986.*

Decided Sept. 24, 1986.

Allen Turbyfill, Sp: Asst. U.S. Atty., Honolulu, Hawaii, for plaintiff-appellee.

H. Dean Steward, Asst. Federal Public Defender, Honolulu, Hawaii, for defendant-appellant.

Before BROWNING, Chief Judge, and MERRILL and KOELSCH, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel finds this case appropriate for submission without argument pursuant to 9th Cir. R. 3(f) and Fed.R.App.P. 34(a).

PER CURIAM:

Defendant Lee appeals an order affirming his conviction following a jury trial *904before a United States magistrate for assault in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 113(d) (1982), and disorderly conduct in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 13 (1982) and Hawaii Rev. Stat. § 711-1101. Defendant claims the magistrate erred by failing to grant a mistrial for an alleged violation of the witness exclusion rule, and by permitting an assault victim to display to the jury a scar where defendant had bitten the victim. We affirm.

Defendant was tried for his part in an altercation at a military base club. The presiding magistrate invoked the witness exclusion rule, pursuant to Fed.R.Evid. 615. During the trial, defendant’s counsel complained that the prosecutor’s assistant regularly went out of the courtroom and communicated with witnesses in violation of the court’s order. The magistrate conducted hearings to examine this conduct, and found the conduct was improper, but it did not prejudice the defendant.

Assuming *arguendo*the conduct was improper, it was not an abuse of discretion to hold it was not prejudicial. Since the sequestered witnesses presented conflicting testimony, their contact with the prosecutor’s assistant did not lead them to conform their accounts. Defendant’s other theories of possible prejudice are speculative at best.

We cannot say the magistrate abused his discretion in allowing display of the scar. An evidentiary ruling of this type is rarely disturbed on appeal. *See, e.g., United States v. Brady,*579 F.2d 1121, 1129 (9th Cir.1978) (photograph of victim who was beaten to death admittedly “not for the faint hearted” but admissible). The location and size of the scar were directly probative of the severity of the wound the defendant inflicted and of the accuracy of the conflicting theories of the government and the defense as to how the altercation proceeded. Defendant made no showing that the scar was so gruesome that it tended unfairly to inflame the jury’s passions.

Defendant argues that his willingness to stipulate to the existence of the scar made it unnecessary, and therefore error, to admit the scar itself into evidence. A trial court had discretion to allow the proof despite defendant’s offer to stipulate. *See, e.g., United States v. O’Shea,*724 F.2d 1514, 1516 (11th Cir.1984); *United States v. Hearod,*499 F.2d 1003, 1004-05 (5th Cir.1974) (per curiam). As we have said, it was not an abuse of discretion to allow the display on the facts of this case.

AFFIRMED.
(logo) Newmark Knight Frank

 

 

225 Franklin Street

18th Floor

Boston, MA 02110

T 877.526.3562

ngkf.com

 

 

**Officer’s Certificate**

 

 

Pursuant to the requirementsof the applicable Servicing Agreement for the transactions listed on Schedule Ihereto, for which Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as Master Servicer,and Berkeley Point Capital LLC d/b/a Newmark Knight Frank, as Sub-Servicer, theundersigned, Ronald Steffenino, a Senior Managing Director of Servicing andAsset Management of Berkeley Point Capital LLC d/b/a Newmark Knight Frank,hereby certifies subject to any limitations listed on Schedule I hereto, as ofthe date hereof, solely in his capacity as an officer and not in his individualcapacity, as follows:

 

1. A review of the activitiesof the Sub-Servicer during the preceding calendar year (or in the case of thefirst such certification, during the period from the Closing Date to December31, 2019) (the "Reporting Period") and of its performance under theAgreement has been made under my supervision; and

 

2. To the best of myknowledge, based on such review, the Sub-Servicer has fulfilled all of itsobligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout theReporting Period.

 

 

Dated: January 31, 2020

 

 

Berkeley Point Capital LLCd/b/a 

Newmark Knight Frank

/s/ Ronald Steffenino

Ronald Steffenino

Senior Managing Director

Servicing and Asset Management

 

 

**Schedule I**

 

Commercial Mortgage Pass-ThroughCertificates; Berkeley Point Capital LLC d/b/a Newmark Knight Frank as ***PrimaryServicer***

 

 

| COMM 2014 CCRE20 | COMM 2015-CCRE24 |
|------------------|------------------|
| COMM 2015-CCRE26 | GSMS 2015-GC28   |
| GSMS 2015-GC34   | COMM 2015-LC23   |
| CGCMT 2016-C1    | CFCRE 2016-C3    |
| CFCRE 2016-C4    | SGCMS 2016-C5    |
| CFCRE 2016-C6    | CFCRE 2017-C8    |
| UBS 2017-C4      | UBS 2017-C6      |
| UBS 2018-C10     | BBCMS 2018-C2    |
| CGCMT 2018-C6    |             |

 

 

BPC d/b/a NKF Primary Servicerfor Wells Fargo
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:****Crime scene investigation : aguide for law enforcement.**
 
PDF | Mobi | epub
 
SuDoc Number:J 28.24/3:C 86/6/2013
Item Number:0718-A-03 (online)
CGP systemNumber:000922062
 
December 13, 2017