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

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1255 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1255

To amend the Clean Air Act to extend the deadline for the imposition of 
                sanctions under section 179 of the Act.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 15, 1995

  Mr. Schiff introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                         Committee on Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Clean Air Act to extend the deadline for the imposition of 
                sanctions under section 179 of the Act.

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

SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF SANCTIONS DEADLINE.

    (a) Extension.--Section 179(a) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 
7509(a)) is amended by striking ``18 months'' and inserting ``30 
months''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall 
take effect with respect to any finding, disapproval, or determination 
made under section 179(a) of the Clean Air Act after the date 18 months 
prior to the date of enactment of this Act.

                                 <all>
```
#### § 19.325 What happens if I do business with an excluded person in a covered transaction?

If as a participant you knowingly do business with an excluded person, we may disallow costs, annul or terminate the transaction, issue a stop work order, debar or suspend you, or take other remedies as appropriate.
#### § 20.2101-1 Estates of nonresidents not citizens; tax imposed.

(a) *Imposition of tax.* Section 2101 imposes a tax on the transfer of the taxable estate of a nonresident who is not a citizen of the United States at the time of death. In the case of estates of decedents dying after November 10, 1988, the tax is computed at the same rates as the tax that is imposed on the transfer of the taxable estate of a citizen or resident of the United States in accordance with the provisions of sections 2101(b) and (c). For the meaning of the terms *resident, nonresident,* and *United States,* as applied to a decedent for purposes of the estate tax, see § 20.0-1(b)(1) and (2). For the liability of the executor for the payment of the tax, see section 2002. For special rules as to the phaseout of the graduated rates and unified credit, see sections 2001(c)(2) and 2101(b).

(b) *Special rates in the case of certain decedents.* In the case of an estate of a nonresident who was not a citizen of the United States and who died after December 31, 1976, and on or before November 10, 1988, the tax on the nonresident's taxable estate is computed using the formula provided under section 2101(b), except that the rate schedule in paragraph (c) of this section is to be used in lieu of the rate schedule in section 2001(c).

(c) *Rate schedule for decedents dying after December 31, 1976 and on or before November 10, 1988.*

| If the amount for which the tentative tax to be computed is: | The tentative tax is: |
| --- | --- |
| Not over $100,000 | 6% of such amount. |
| Over $100,000 but not over $500,000 | $6,000, plus 12% of excess over $100,000. |
| Over $500,000 but not over $1,000,000 | $54,000, plus 18% of excess over $500,000. |
| Over $1,000,000 but not over $2,000,000 | $144,000, plus 24% of excess over $1,000,000. |
| Over $2,000,000 | $384,000, plus 30% of excess over $2,000,000. |

[T.D. 8612, 60 FR 43551, Aug. 22, 1995]
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 7 (Monday, January 12, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 1247]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-198]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE


Antitrust Division

Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and Production 
Act of 1993--IMS Global Learning Consortium, Inc.

    Notice is hereby given that, on November 17, 2008, pursuant to 
Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 
1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (``the Act'') , IMS Global Learning 
Consortium, Inc. has filed written notifications simultaneously with 
the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing 
changes in its membership. The notifications were filed for the purpose 
of extending the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust 
plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances. 
Specifically, 4C Soft, Inc., Seoul, REPUBLIC OF KOREA; CCKF Limited, 
Dublin, IRELAND; Common Need, Inc., Alexandria, VA; Embanet, Toronto, 
Ontario, CANADA; Lone Star College Online, The Woodlands, TX; and 
University of California System, Oakland, CA have been added as parties 
to this venture. Also, Respondus, Redmond, WA has withdrawn as a party 
to this venture.
    No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned 
activity of the group research project. Membership in this group 
research project remains open, and IMS Global Learning Consortium, Inc. 
intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes 
in membership.
    On April 7, 2000, IMS Global Learning Consortium, Inc. filed its 
original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The 
Department of Justice published a notice in the Federal Register 
pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on September 13, 2000 (65 FR 
55283).
    The last notification was filed with the Department on August 28, 
2008. A notice was published in the Federal Register pursuant to 
Section 6(b) of the Act on September 29, 2008 (73 FR 56611).

Patricia A. Brink,
Deputy Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. E9-198 Filed 1-9-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-11-M
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Ismael Walker, Appellant.

[803 NYS2d 449]

Rose, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Washington County (Hemmett, Jr., J.), rendered August 25, 1999, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree.

In January 1999, defendant was charged by indictment with criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree. Pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement, defendant pleaded guilty to criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree in full satisfaction of the indictment and County Court agreed to impose a sentence of 2 to 4 years in a particular treatment program, conditioned upon defendant abiding by the terms of the agreement. Particularly relevant here, defendant was advised that his failure to appear as required for sentencing in July 1999 could result in the imposition of an increased sentence. Defendant failed to appear as directed and County Court adjourned sentencing three times before finally sentencing defendant in absentia to a prison term of 3Va to 7 years. Defendant now appeals.

Defense counsel now seeks to be relieved of his assignment on the ground that there are no nonfrivolous issues that can be raised on appeal. Where, as here, defendant pleaded guilty but did not waive his right to appeal and an enhanced sentence was imposed based upon his violation of the plea agreement, he is *764entitled to argue on appeal that the enhanced sentence was harsh and excessive, although we express no opinion about the ultimate merit of this issue *(see People v Dixon,*288 AD2d 562, 563 [2001]; *People v Haight,*281 AD2d 648, 648 [2001]; *People v Espino,*279 AD2d 798, 799-801 [2001]). Accordingly, defense counsel’s application to be relieved of assignment is granted and new counsel will be assigned to address this issue and any other nonfrivolous issue the record may disclose *(see People v Stokes,*95 NY2d 633 [2001]; *People v Dixon, supra*at 563; *People v Cruwys,*113 AD2d 979 [1985], *lv denied*67 NY2d 650 [1986]).

Mercure, J.P., Spain, Carpinello and Kane, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is withheld, application to be relieved of assignment granted and new counsel to be assigned.
300

250

300

350

350

300

350

250

300

350

250

350

350

350

300

350

350

B A L U A R T E C R E E K R D B A L U A R T E C R E E K R D

Chocolate

Windmill

Paisano

Windmill

Mocho

Windmill

El Ba±o

Windmill

Agua Dulce

Windmill

Las Coyotas

Windmill

San Javier

de Ajuera

Windmill

Mota Chica

Windmill

Tula

Windmill

Agua Nueva

Windmill

Tasajal

Windmill

Gragenitos

Windmill

Northe

Windmill

Blanco

Windmill

Cograge

Windmill

Cuervo

Windmill

Avispa

Windmill

Senisoco

Windmill

La Javalina

Windmill

Certificad

Windmill

Baluarte

Ranch

Palomas

Ranch

Palomas

Ranch SE

Palomas

Ranch NW

Palomas

Ranch SW

Santa

Elena NW

Alta

Vista

Ranch

Agua

Nueva Tacubaya

FEET

FEET

990 000 FEET

98°22'30"

NR

25'

07' 07'

27°00' 00'

NR

30"

98°

27' 25'

NQ

27°

98° 98° 30"

NQ

30"

30"

27'

22'

27°

27°

30' 30"

30'

2'30" 2'

5' 5'

30"

16 930 000

1 020 000 FEET

16 890000

000mE

5

29

29

5 5

5

29

5

29

29

5

29

29

5

29

29

5

5

000m

29

5 5

000m

29

29

5 5

5

5

5

5

5

29

29

29

29

29

29

29

29

5

000m 5

30

5

29

5 5

29

29

29

5

30

53

00

59

90

E 61

87

89

94

55

N

53

95

96

51 58

50 57

91 91

54

54

93

59 60

88

60

97

89

58

94

92

88

N

93

98

56

99

52

97

98

61

52

51

95

57

96

00

90

56

92

50 55

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U. S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

TEXAS

ADJOINING 7.5' QUADRANGLES

QUADRANGLE LOCATION

TX 2798-122

PALOMAS RANCH SW, TX

2010

Interstate Route State Route

ROAD CLASSIFICATION

Interstate Route US Route State Route

Ramp 4WD

US Route Local Road

PALOMAS RANCH SW QUADRANGLE

TEXAS

7.5-MINUTE SERIES

Zone 14R

Imagery......................................................NAIP, April 2008

Roads.....................................US Census Bureau TIGER data

with limited USGS updates, 2008

Names...............................................................GNIS, 2008

Hydrography.................National Hydrography Dataset, 1995

Contours............................National Elevation Dataset, 2008

North American Datum of 1983 (NAD83)

World Geodetic System of 1984 (WGS84). Projection and

1 000-meter grid: Universal Transverse Mercator,

Produced by the United States Geological Survey

10 000-foot ticks: Texas Coordinate System of 1983

(south zone)

1000 500 0 METERS 1000 2000

1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000

FEET

This map was produced to conform with version 0.5.10 of the

draft USGS Standards for 7.5-Minute Quadrangle Maps.

A metadata file associated with this product is also draft version 0.5.10

SCALE 1:24 000

1 0.5 0 1

MILES

MN

1 0.5 0 KILOMETERS 1 2

GN

UTM GRID AND 2010 MAGNETIC NORTH DECLINATION AT CENTER OF SHEET

0° 15 ́

5 MILS

5° 8 ́

91 MILS

U.S. National Grid

100,000-m Square ID

Grid Zone Designation

14R

NQ

NR 30 00

CONTOUR INTERVAL 10 FEET
Exhibit 10.1


    THIRD
      AMENDMENT TO DEBENTURE SUBSCRIPTION AGREEMENT

    


    California
      News Tech

    


    California
      News Tech, a Nevada corporation (hereinafter the “Company”) and DNB Capital
      Management, Inc., (hereinafter the “Subscriber”) in consideration for the mutual
      promises and covenants contained herein, agree to amend that certain Debenture
      Subscription Agreement dated October 30, 2006, as follows:

    


    I. Paragraph
      1.2 is amended and restated to provide as follows:

    


    1.2 Closing.
      The closing of the transactions contemplated herein (the “Closing”) shall occur
      on May 2, 2007, or at such other time and place as the parties may agree (the
      “Closing Date”), provided that all of the Closing conditions set forth in
      sections 1.3 and 1.4 shall have occurred. 

    


    The
      Debenture Subscription Agreement is not otherwise modified and the original
      terms and conditions thereof, with the sole exception of the Amendment contained
      herein, shall remain in full force and effect.

    


    Accepted
      and Agreed this 7th day of March, 2007

    


    
      	
              COMPANY

               

               

               

               

              /s/
                Marian Munz

              By:
                Marian Munz

              Its:
                President

            	 	
              SUBSCRIBER

               

               

               

               

              /s/
                David N. Baker

              By:
                David N. Baker

              Its:
                President

            
	
               

              CALIFORNIA
                NEWS TECH

            	 	
               

              DNB
                Capital Management, Inc.
(logo) Rialto CAPITAL

 

 

**2016 Annual Statement ofServicer Compliance (Item 1123)**

 

 

Pooling and ServicingAgreement (the “Pooling and Servicing Agreement”) dated as ofDecember 1, 2016 by and among Morgan Stanley Capital I Inc., as Depositor,Midland Loan Services, A Division of PNC Bank, National Association as MasterServicer, Rialto Capital Advisors, LLC as Special Servicer, Wells Fargo Bank,National Association as Certificate Administrator and Trustee and Park BridgeLender Services, LLC as Operating Advisor and Asset Representations Reviewerrelating to the Morgan Stanley Capital I Trust 2016-UBS12, Commercial MortgagePass-through Certificates, Series 2016-UBS12 

**(MCSI 2016-UBS12)**

 

 

The undersigned, a dulyauthorized officer of Rialto Capital Advisors, LLC, as special servicer (the“Special Servicer”) herein certifies to the following:

 

1.  All servicingactivities and performance of such servicing activities under the Pooling andServicing Agreement are performed on behalf of the Special Servicer.

 

2.  A review of theservicing activities and performance by the Special Servicer for the period ofDecember 7, 2016 to December 31, 2016 (the “Reporting Period”) inaccordance with the Pooling and Servicing Agreement has been conducted under mysupervision.

 

3.  To the best ofmy knowledge, based on such review, the Special Servicer has fulfilled all ofits obligations under the terms of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement, in allmaterial respects for the Reporting Period and if there has been a failure tofulfill any such obligations in any material respect, each failure and thenature and status thereof has been specifically identified herein.

 

 

Certified by: /s/ Adam Singer                                 Date: March 1, 2017

 Adam Singer, ManagingDirector
Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter II
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to subchapter A appear at 78 FR 60697, Oct. 2, 2013.

§ 215.7 Compliance by agencies. ( a ) In the case of an agreement with a State, the head of each agency is required to withhold State income taxes from the compensation of: ( 1 ) Employees of such agency who are subject to such taxes and whose regular place of Federal employment is within the State, and
( 2 ) Members of the Armed Forces who are subject to such taxes and who are legal residents of the State. The foregoing is also applicable with respect to a State whose statutes permit but do not require withholding by employers, provided the employee voluntarily elects to have such tax withheld.
( b ) In the case of an agreement with a city or county, the head of each agency is required to withhold city or county income or employment taxes from the compensation of any employee of the agency who is subject to the tax, and ( 1 ) Whose regular place of Federal employment is within the city or county, or
( 2 ) Is a resident of the city or county.
( c ) In withholding taxes, the head of each agency, except as otherwise provided in this agreement, shall comply with the withholding provisions of the State, city or county income or employment tax statute, regulations, procedural instructions and reciprocal agreements related thereto.
(Pub. L. 95-365, 92 Stat. 599 (5 U.S.C. 5520))
[42 FR 33731, July 1, 1977, as amended at 44 FR 4670, Jan. 23, 1979. Redesignated at 71 FR 2150, Jan. 13, 2006]
Final Listing of Questionnaire Files for Steam Electric Rulemaking Record

Plant ID 07278

Removed 

from Public 

(Non-CBI) 

Docket1

Copyright 

Flag2

File Name Description

07278\07278_ Completeness Checklist.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist

07278\07278_ HardcopyLog.doc EPA log of hardcopy documents submitted

x 07278\07278_Checklist.xls EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook

x 07278\07278_Part A.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 07278\07278_Part E.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 07278\07278_Part H.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 07278\Supporting Documents\07278_Aerial Map of PRL.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 07278\Supporting Documents\07278_Water Balance Diagram.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

07278\07278_Certification Statement.pdf Plant certification statement

07278\07278_Cover Letter.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

1

 Final reviewed survey responses are located in the Steam Electric Technical Questionnaire Database . 

2

 Copyright documents are available from the docket.
V

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1236

To authorize the Secretary of Transportation to issue a certificate of documentation with appropriate endorsement for employment in the coastwise

trade for the vessel DANTE.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 14, 1995

Mrs. LOWEY introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

A BILL

To authorize the Secretary of Transportation to issue a

certificate of documentation with appropriate endorsement for employment in the coastwise trade for the vessel

DANTE.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 That notwithstanding section 27 of the Merchant Marine

4 Act, 1920 (46 App. U.S.C. 883), the Act of June 19, 1886

5 (46 App. U.S.C. 289), and section 12106 of title 46,

6 United States Code, the Secretary of Transportation may

7 issue a certificate of documentation with appropriate en-
2

•HR 1236 IH

1 dorsement for employment in the coastwise trade for the

2 vessel DANTE (United States official number 556188).

Æ
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 158 (Tuesday, August 18, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 41735]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-19695]



[[Page 41735]]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-1829-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2008-0018]


North Dakota; Amendment No. 6 to Notice of a Major Disaster 
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration 
for the State of North Dakota (FEMA-1829-DR), dated March 24, 2009, and 
related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: August 10, 2009.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peggy Miller, Disaster Assistance 
Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., 
Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-3886.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that the incident 
period for this disaster is closed effective August 10, 2009.

The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) 
are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community 
Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 
97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment 
Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, 
Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In 
Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially 
Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing Operations for 
Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster 
Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other Needs; 97.036, 
Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared 
Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

W. Craig Fugate,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. E9-19695 Filed 8-17-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-6353

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,

v. RONALD PAYNE, a/k/a Raheem, Defendant – Appellant.

No. 09-7099

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,

v. RONALD PAYNE, a/k/a Raheem, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (3:01-cr-00506-JFA-1)

Submitted: September 29, 2009 Decided: October 22, 2009

Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ronald Payne, Appellant Pro Se. Stacey Denise Haynes, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

23 PER CURIAM: In Case No. 09-6353, Ronald Payne appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006) and denying his motion to compel the Government to move for a sentence reduction pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 35(b). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Payne , No. 3:01-cr00506-JFA-1 (D.S.C. Feb. 17, 2009). In Case No. 09-7099, which has been consolidated with No. 09-6353, Payne appeals the district court’s docket order denying his motion to compel the court reporter to produce a transcript of his hearing prior to June 1, 2009. We uphold the district court’s denial of the motion to compel. Payne was not entitled to dictate the timing for the preparation of the transcript and has failed to show that he was prejudiced by any delay in preparation. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s orders in both cases. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

AFFIRMED