alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 25.2503-4 Transfer for the benefit of a minor. ( a ) Section 2503(c) provides that no part of a transfer for the benefit of a donee who has not attained the age of 21 years on the date of the gift will be considered a gift of a future interest in property if the terms of the transfer satisfy all of the following conditions: ( 1 ) Both the property itself and its income may be expended by or for the benefit of the donee before he attains the age of 21 years;
( 2 ) Any portion of the property and its income not disposed of under subparagraph (1) of this paragraph will pass to the donee when he attains the age of 21 years; and
( 3 ) Any portion of the property and its income not disposed of under subparagraph (1) of this paragraph will be payable either to the estate of the donee or as he may appoint under a general power of appointment as defined in section 2514(c) if he dies before attaining the age of 21 years.
( b ) Either a power of appointment exercisable by the donee by will or a power of appointment exercisable by the donee during his lifetime will satisfy the conditions set forth in paragraph (a)(3) of this section. However, if the transfer is to qualify for the exclusion under this section, there must be no restrictions of substance (as distinguished from formal restrictions of the type described in paragraph (g)(4) of § 25.2523(e)-1 by the terms of the instrument of transfer on the exercise of the power by the donee. However, if the minor is given a power of appointment exercisable during lifetime or is given a power of appointment exercisable by will, the fact that under the local law a minor is under a disability to exercise an intervivos power or to execute a will does not cause the transfer to fail to satisfy the conditions of section 2503(c). Further, a transfer does not fail to satisfy the conditions of section 2503(c) by reason of the mere fact that— ( 1 ) There is left to the discretion of a trustee the determination of the amounts, if any, of the income or property to be expended for the benefit of the minor and the purpose for which the expenditure is to be made, provided there are no substantial restrictions under the terms of the trust instrument on the exercise of such discretion;
( 2 ) The donee, upon reaching age 21, has the right to extend the term of the trust; or
( 3 ) The governing instrument contains a disposition of the property or income not expended during the donee's minority to persons other than the donee's estate in the event of the default of appointment by the donee.
( c ) A gift to a minor which does not satisfy the requirements of section 2503(c) may be either a present or a future interest under the general rules of § 25.2503-3. Thus, for example, a transfer of property in trust with income required to be paid annually to a minor beneficiary and corpus to be distributed to him upon his attaining the age of 25 is a gift of a present interest with respect to the right to income but is a gift of a future interest with respect to the right to corpus.
****Consumer Product Safety Commission**Children Can Strangle When They Become Entangled in Wall Decorations with Ribbons and StreamersCPSC Document #5105The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission(CPSC) warns that children can strangle if theybecome entangled in ribbons or streamers hangingfrom wall decorations near the crib or within reach ofchildren. CPSC knows of incidents involving youngchildren who became entangled in the ribbons of awall decoration.The padded fabric wall decorationwas hung near the crib where the child could reachthe ribbons and streamers on the decoration.CPSC recommends that parents keep wall decorationswith ribbons or streamers away from cribs andwell out of reach where children play to prevent entanglementand strangulation.**Keep wall decorations with ribbons or streamers away from cribs and well out of reach where children play to prevent entanglement and strangulation.**009611**
EXHIBIT
10.3








AMENDMENT
TO


JMAR
TECHNOLOGIES, INC.


2006
EQUITY INCENTIVE PLAN








Section 4.1 of the 2006 Equity
Incentive Plan (the “Plan”) is hereby amended to read as
follows:





“4.1 Shares Available for
Issuance of Awards. Subject to adjustment as provided in
Section 4.3, the aggregate number of Shares which may be issued under this
Plan shall not exceed 20,000,000 Shares. As determined from time to time by the
Committee, the Shares available under this Plan for grants of Awards may consist
either in whole or in part of authorized but unissued Shares or Shares which
have been reacquired by the Company following original
issuance.”
§ 31.3306(c)(7)-1 Services in employ of States or their political subdivisions or instrumentalities. ( a ) Services performed in the employ of any State, or of any political subdivision thereof, are excepted from employment. Services performed in the employ of an instrumentality of one or more States or political subdivisions thereof are excepted if the instrumentality is wholly owned by one or more of the foregoing. Services performed in the employ of an instrumentality of one or more of the several States or political subdivisions thereof which is not wholly owned by one or more of the foregoing are excepted only to the extent that the instrumentality is with respect to such services immune under the Constitution of the United States from the tax imposed by section 3301.
( b ) For provisions relating to the term “State” see § 31.3306(j)-1.
[T.D. 6516, 25 FR 13032, Dec. 20, 1960, as amended by T.D. 6658, 28 FR 6638, June 27, 1963]
#### In the Matter of Edwin Colon, Petitioner, v Glenn S. Goord, as Commissioner of Correctional Services, Respondent.

[804 NYS2d 451]

*934Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Albany County) to review a determination of respondent which found petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.

Following an investigation into a fight and stabbing in the prison facility yard, petitioner was charged with violating the prison disciplinary rules that prohibit violent conduct, creating a disturbance, fighting and assault on an inmate. Based on the hearing testimony and confidential information, petitioner was found guilty of all charges after a tier III disciplinary hearing. Upon his administrative appeal, respondent modified the penalty imposed but affirmed the determination. Petitioner then commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging the determination.

“It is well settled that hearsay evidence in the form of confidential information relayed to the Hearing Officer may provide substantial evidence to support a determination of guilt where the Hearing Officer makes an independent assessment and determines that the information is reliable and credible” *(Matter of Vega v Goord,*274 AD2d 807, 808 [2000] [citation omitted]). We find that the information provided by the investigating officer was not sufficiently detailed or specific for the Hearing Officer to make his own independent credibility assessment of the informants. Although there was some information as to how petitioner was identified, no specific information was relayed about the fight and assault. Furthermore, there was simply a general statement that the information from the confidential informants coincided, without any particulars regarding the specific activity allegedly engaged in by petitioner. In fact, most of the confidential interview involved the Hearing Officer disclosing the particulars of the investigation for the record with the investigating officer simply affirming or denying the facts as stated by the Hearing Officer. Inasmuch as the determination of guilt was based upon the confidential information forming the basis for the misbehavior report, it must be annulled *(see Matter of Debose v Selsky,*12 AD3d 1003, 1004 [2004]; *Matter of Irving v Goord,*288 AD2d 787, 787-788 [2001]; *Matter of Callens v Goord,*286 AD2d 811, 812 [2001]).

In view of the foregoing, petitioner’s remaining contentions need not be addressed.

*935Mercure, J.P., Crew III, Peters, Spain and Carpinello, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is annulled, without costs, petition granted and respondent is directed to expunge all references thereto from petitioner’s institutional record.
Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter II
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to subchapter A appear at 78 FR 60697, Oct. 2, 2013.

§ 212.9 Preemption of State law. ( a ) *Inconsistent law preempted.* Any State or local government law or regulation that is inconsistent with a provision of this part is preempted to the extent of the inconsistency. A State law or regulation is inconsistent with this part if it requires a financial institution to take actions or make disclosures that contradict or conflict with the requirements of this part or if a financial institution cannot comply with the State law or regulation without violating this part.
( b ) *Consistent law not preempted.* This regulation does not annul, alter, affect, or exempt any financial institution from complying with the laws of any State with respect to garnishment practices, except to the extent of an inconsistency. A requirement under State law to protect benefit payments in an account from freezing or garnishment at a higher protected amount than is required under this part is not inconsistent with this part if the financial institution can comply with both this part and the State law requirement.
February 9, 2012



### JUDGMENT 

## The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

DONALD M. HOLDEN , Appellant

NO. 14

- 11

- 01045

- CV V.

JOHN C. OSBORNE AND THE LAW OFFICES OF J OHN C. OSBORNE , Appellees

____________________ Today the Court heard its own motion to dismiss the appeal from the judgment signed by the court below on August 25, 2011. Having considered the motion and found it meritorious, we order the appeal DISMISSED

. We further order that all costs incurred by r eason of this appeal be paid by
DONALD M. HOLDEN

. We further order this decision certified below for observance.
April 30, 2008 

OMB CONTROL NO. 2070-0027 

ATTACHMENT C

Display Related to OMB Control #2070-0027 - Listings of 

Related Regulations in 40 CFR 9.1

As of May 10, 1993, the OMB approval numbers for EPA regulations in Chapter I of Title 

40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) appear in a listing in 40 CFR 9.1 (58 FR 27472). This 

listing fulfills the display requirements in section 3507(f) of the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) 

for EPA regulations. The listing at 40 CFR 9.1 displays this OMB Control number for the 

following regulations: 

Program Title 40 CFR citation 

Statements of Enforcement Policies and Interpretations ............................................................168.65 

 ............................................................ 168.75 

 ............................................................ 168.85
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1220 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1220

To establish a temporary moratorium on the delineation of new wetlands 
      until enactment of a law that is the successor to the Food, 
    Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990, and for other 
                               purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 13, 1995

  Mr. Latham introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
     Committee on Agriculture, and in addition to the Committee on 
  Transportation and Infrastructure, for a period to be subsequently 
   determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such 
 provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To establish a temporary moratorium on the delineation of new wetlands 
      until enactment of a law that is the successor to the Food, 
    Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990, and for other 
                               purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. TEMPORARY MORATORIUM ON THE DELINEATION OF NEW WETLANDS.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of law, during the period 
beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act and ending on the 
date of the enactment of a law that is the successor to the Food, 
Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990, the Secretary of 
Agriculture, the Secretary of the Army, and the Administrator of the 
Environmental Protection Agency may not delineate wetlands for purposes 
of carrying out subtitle C of title XII of the Food Security Act of 
1985 (16 U.S.C. 3821 et seq.) and section 404 of the Federal Water 
Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1344).
                                 <all>
```
§ 29.333 Military service. ( a ) For employees who entered on duty on or before June 30, 1997, and whose military service was performed prior to that date, credit for military service is included in Federal Benefit Payments under the terms and conditions applicable to each plan.
( b ) For employees who enter on duty after June 30, 1997, military service is not creditable toward Federal Benefit Payments, even if performed as of June 30, 1997.
( c ) For employees who entered on duty on or before June 30, 1997, but who perform military service after that date, the credit for military service is not included in Federal Benefit Payments.
#### § 1023.310 Reports of transactions in currency.

The reports of transactions in currency requirements for brokers or dealers in securities are located in subpart C of part 1010 of this chapter and this subpart.
#### § 30.0 Executive compensation and corporate governance.

The following questions and answers reflect the executive compensation and corporate governance requirements of section 111 of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, as amended (12 U.S.C. 5221) (EESA), with respect to participation in the Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP) established by the Department of the Treasury (Treasury) thereunder.
EXHIBIT 32

      CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                               BIRCH BRANCH, INC.
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Birch Branch, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-QSB for the period ended December 31, 2006, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Earnest
Mathis, President of the Company, 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), as applicable, 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
Company.



/s/ Earnest Mathis
------------------
Earnest Mathis
President
February 12, 2007







<PAGE>
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A19D0138. ANDREA ENGELMAN v. RANDALL M. KESSLER et al.

Andrea Engelman, represented by attorney Tamela Adkins, filed an action for

malpractice and other claims against the attorneys who represented her in a divorce

action. In the malpractice case, Engelman filed several motions to compel discovery

from two non-parties, which the trial court denied. The non-parties filed requests for

attorney fees in connection with their defense of the motions to compel. Ultimately,

1

the trial court entered an order directing attorney Adkins (not Engelman) to pay a

discovery sanction of $10,000 to the non-parties.

Adkins filed this application for discretionary appeal, arguing that the trial

court committed reversible error in awarding the discovery sanction. Subsequently,

Engelman and the non-parties filed a “Joint Motion to Dismiss With Prejudice,”

asking this Court to dismiss Adkins’s application. The motion to dismiss was filed

in the name of Engelman, not her sanctioned attorney who brought the application.

Nevertheless, the motion states that it is filed by Engelman “by and through her

attorney of record,” and the motion bears an “/s/” signature by Adkins. We will

therefore treat the motion as a request by the applicant to withdraw the application. 

Applicant’s request to withdraw the application is herebyGRANTED, and this

1 The trial court also granted in part and denied in part the defendant attorneys’

motion for summary judgment and denied Engelman’smotion for summary judgment. 

On the parties’ cross-appeals, we affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded the

case to the trial court. Engelman v. Kessler, 240 Ga. App. 239 (797 SE2d 160) (2017).

The parties then settled the remaining claims, after which the non-parties renewed

their request for attorney fees in connection with Engelman’s motions to compel. 

November 09, 2018
application is deemed WITHDRAWN.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

11/09/2018
§ 18.1 Designation of First Assistants. Except as provided in § 18.2, every office within the Department of the Treasury (including its bureaus) to which appointment is required to be made by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate (“PAS Office”) may have a First Assistant within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. 3345-3349d. ( a ) Where there is a position of principal deputy to the PAS Office, the principal deputy shall be the First Assistant.
( b ) Where there is only one deputy position to the PAS Office, the official in that position shall be the First Assistant.
( c ) Where neither paragraph (a) nor (b) of this section is applicable to the PAS Office, the Secretary of the Treasury may designate in writing the First Assistant.
THE STATE OF TEXAS

M A N D A T E

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

TO THE 349TH DISTRICT COURT OF HOUSTON COUNTY, GREETING:

Before our Court of Appeals for the 12th Court of Appeals District of Texas, on the 27th

day of February, 2015, the cause upon appeal to revise or reverse your judgment between

ZELDA ROBINSON LEWIS, Appellant

NO. 12-15-00030-CR; Trial Court No. 14CR157

By per curiam opinion.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

was determined; and therein our 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 court is without jurisdiction of the appeal, and that the 

appeal should be dismissed.

It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED by this court that this appeal be, 

and the same is, hereby dismissed for want of jurisdiction; 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 Texas 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 

Tyler, this the 4

th day of May, 2015.

CATHY S. LUSK, CLERK

By: _______________________________

Chief Deputy Clerk
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, 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.

 October 2, 2013

s0925

Order 

Clerk

October 2, 2013

146722 & (89)

LaFONTAINE SALINE, INC. d/b/a

LaFONTAINE CHRYSLER JEEP DODGE

RAM,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 146722

COA: 307148

Washtenaw CC: 10-001329-CZ

CHRYSLER GROUP LLC,

Defendant-Appellant,

and

IHS AUTOMOTIVE GROUP LLC d/b/a/

CHRYSLER JEEP OF ANN ARBOR,

Defendant-Appellee.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motion for leave to file a brief amicus curiae is 

GRANTED. The application for leave to appeal the November 27, 2012 judgment of the 

Court of Appeals is considered, and it is GRANTED. The parties shall address whether 

the Court of Appeals erred in holding that the 2010 PA 139 definition of “relevant market 

area,” MCL 445.1566(1)(a), applied to enable the plaintiff to challenge the future dealer 

agreement between the defendants under MCL 445.1576(3). Compare Kia Motors 

America, Inc v Glassman Oldsmobile Saab Hyundai, Inc, 706 F3d 733, 735 (CA 6, 

2013). We further ORDER that this case be argued and submitted to the Court together 

with the case of LaFontaine Saline, Inc v Chrysler Group LLC (Docket No. 146724), at 

such future session of the Court as both cases are ready for submission. 

Persons or groups interested in the determination of the issue presented in this case 

may move the Court for permission to file briefs amicus curiae.
Exhibit 35.2



LOGO

Annual Statement as to Compliance

For the Period of January 1, 2016 to December 31, 2016

CGCMT 2016-P6

In accordance with Item 1123 of Regulation AB andwith the requirements detailed in §10.08 of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement (the
Agreement) for the above-mentioned CMBS pool, (the CMBS Pool), CWCapital Asset Management LLC (CWCAM), in its capacity as Special Servicer, is providing this Officers Certificate with respect to the
following:



| | (A) | a review of CWCAMs activities during the period noted above (the Reporting Period) and of CWCAMs performance under the Agreement has been made under my supervision;
| | --- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (B) | to the best of my knowledge, based on such review, CWCAM has fulfilled all its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period.
| | --- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Sincerely,

CWCapital Asset Management LLC

/s/ David B. Iannarone

David B. Iannarone

President

7501 Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 500 West, Bethesda,
MD 20814

www.cwcapital.com