alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1

NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

No: 08-2153

BARBARA L. ABBOTT,

 Appellant

v.

LOAN CITY, INC., 

MORTGAGES ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC.; 

*FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION, as Receiver for 

WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK; 

THE PRIORITY MORTGAGE GROUP, INC.

* (Amended per Clerk’s Order dated 12/2/08)

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

(Civ. No. 2-05-cv-04497)

District Judge: Hon. Juan R. Sánchez

Submitted pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

Monday, September 20, 2010

Before: McKEE, Chief Circuit Judge, AMBRO 

and CHAGARES, Circuit Judges 

(Opinion filed: September 30, 2010)

OPINION

McKEE, Chief Judge.

Barbara L. Abbott appeals the District Court’s judgement in favor of the defendant

in her suit under the Truth-in-Lending Act (“TILA”), 15 U.S.C § 1601 et seq. For the
We need not discuss Abbott’s contentions that she should have been allowed to amend her complaint,

1

because, for the reasons the district court has explained, that court did not abuse its discretion in not allowing the

complaint to be amended. See Abbott, 2008 WL 756069, *3-4.

 We will not address arguments that Abbott is attempting to raise now that were only contained in the 2

amended complaint since that complaint is not before us. See United States v. Melendez, 55 F.3d 130, 136 (3d Cir.

1995) (refusing to address an issue raised for the first time on appeal).

2

reasons set forth below, we will affirm.

The district court has set forth the factual and procedural history of this case, and

we need not repeat them. See Abbott v. Washington Mutual Finance, Inc., 2008 WL

756069 (E.D.Pa. March 20, 2008). On appeal, Abbott argues that the district court erred

in finding that the broker’s compensation charge was not covered under the TILA and

that the defendant was not liable for damages. She also argues that the court abused its

discretion by refusing to allow her to amend her complaint. 

1 2

In his Memorandum and Opinion, Judge Sánchez carefully and clearly explained

his reasons for finding that the fees paid to the broker are not covered by the TILA. The

district judge’s analysis is thorough and well-reasoned, and we can add little to his

thoughtful analysis since his Memorandum and Opinion explain the court’s conclusions. 

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order substantially for the reasons set

forth in the district court’s Memorandum and Opinion without further elaboration.
I

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1259

To amend title 10, United States Code, to give a priority to the States

for the transfer of nonlethal excess supplies of the Department of Defense.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 16, 1995

Mr. JEFFERSON introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on National Security

A BILL

To amend title 10, United States Code, to give a priority

to the States for the transfer of nonlethal excess supplies

of the Department of Defense.

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

3 SECTION 1. PRIORITY TO STATES FOR THE TRANSFER OF

4 NONLETHAL EXCESS SUPPLIES OF THE DE5 PARTMENT OF DEFENSE.

6 Section 2547 of title 10, United States Code, is

7 amended—

8 (1) in subsection (a), by striking out ‘‘The Sec9 retary of Defense’’ and inserting in lieu thereof
2

•HR 1259 IH

1 ‘‘Subject to subsection (d), the Secretary of De2 fense’’;

3 (2) by redesignating subsection (d) as sub4 section (e); and

5 (3) by inserting after subsection (c) the follow6 ing new subsection (d):

7 ‘‘(d) Nonlethal excess supplies of the Department of

8 Defense shall be made available to a State, a local govern9 ment of a State, a Territory, or a possession, upon the

10 request of the State, local government, Territory, or pos11 session pursuant to authority provided in another provi12 sion of law, before such supplies are made available for

13 humanitarian relief purposes under this section. The

14 President may make such supplies available for humani15 tarian purposes before such supplies are made available

16 to a State, local government, Territory, or possession

17 under this subsection in order to respond to an emergency

18 for which such supplies are especially suited.’’.

Æ
#### Salvatore PASTORE, Petitioner, v. Melvin COLEMAN, Sheriff, Orange County, Florida, Respondent.

No. 74-1351.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Oct. 18, 1974.

Habeas Corpus denied.
#### § 560.320 Iranian accounts.

The term *Iranian accounts* means accounts of persons who are ordinarily resident in Iran, except when such persons are not located in Iran, or of the Government of Iran, an Iranian financial institution, or any other person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to § 560.211 of this part, maintained on the books of either a United States depository institution or a United States registered broker or dealer in securities.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5



<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS

<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                          20,598
<SECURITIES>                                 1,673,569
<RECEIVABLES>                                  104,943
<ALLOWANCES>                                    19,911
<INVENTORY>                                     81,255
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               190,589
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,202,189
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,584,983
<BONDS>                                        480,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      9,024
<COMMON>                                        50,236
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,557,947
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,202,189
<SALES>                                        151,703
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               151,703
<CGS>                                           82,551
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  385,990
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             (112,560)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              16,458
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (429,397)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (429,397)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (429,397)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (.10)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.10)


</TABLE>
#### STATE of Florida, Petitioner, v. Jack L. MITCHELL, Respondent.

No. 54244.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Feb. 8, 1979.

Rehearing Denied April 10, 1979.

Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., and Charles Core-es, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for petitioner.

Jack 0. Johnson, Public Defender, and Karal A. B. Rushing, Asst. Public Defender, Tampa, for respondent.

ALDERMAN, Justice.

We have for review the decision of the District Court of Appeal, Second District, in *Mitchell v. State,*358 So.2d 238 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978), which directly conflicts with our recent decision in *State v. Sobel,*363 So.2d 324 (Fla.1978), decided after the district court’s decision in this cause was rendered. The district court relied on the decision of the Third District Court of Appeal in *Sobel v. State,*349 So.2d 747 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977), and stated that the facts in *Sobel*were almost identical to those in this case. In *State v. Sobel, supra,*we quashed the decision of the District Court of Appeal. On the authority of *State v. Sobel,*we quash the decision of the Second District Court of Appeal and remand for further proceedings consistent herewith.

It is so ordered.

ENGLAND, C. J., and ADKINS and SUNDBERG, JJ., concur.

HATCHETT, J., dissents.
Order entered June 27, 2013

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05 - 13 - 00173 - CR No. 05 - 13 - 00174 - CR No. 05 - 13 - 00175 - CR MICHAEL DAVID ORY, Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 219th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No s . 219 - 82844 - 2011 , 219 - 82846 - 2011, 219 - 82847 - 2011 

### O RDER These appeals are companion cases to the appeal in cause no. 05

- 13

- 00172

- CR. The clerk’s and reporter’s records have been filed. Appellant has filed a brief for cause no. 05

- 13

- 00172

- CR, but has not filed a brief that applies to the above three cases. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS the trial court to conduct a hearing to determine why appellant’s brief has not been filed. In this regard, the trial cour t shall make appropriate findings and recommendations and determine whether appellant desires to prosecute the appeals, whether appellant is indigent, or if not indigent, whether retained counsel has abandoned the appeals. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 38.8( b ). If the trial court cannot obtain appellant’s presence at the hearing, the trial court shall conduct the hearing in appellant’s absence. See Meza v. State , 742 S.W.2d 708(Tex. App.

– Corpus Christi 1987, no pet.) (per curiam). If appellant is indigent, the t rial court is

ORDERED to take such measures as may be necessary to assure effective representation, which may include appointment of new counsel. We ORDER the trial court to transmit a record of the proceedings, which shall include written findings and re commendations, to this Court within THIRTY DAYS of the date of this order. The appeals are ABATED to allow the trial court to comply with the above order. The appeals shall be reinstated thirty days from the date of this order or when the findings are
re ceived, whichever is earlier.
/s/ LANA MYERS JUSTICE
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2586 Engrossed Amendment Senate (EAS)]

  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  

                  In the Senate of the United States,

                                                      November 9, 1995.
      Resolved, That the bill from the House of Representatives (H.R. 
2586) entitled ``An Act to provide for a temporary increase in the 
public debt limit, and for other purposes'', do pass with the following

                               AMENDMENT:

    Page 34, strike out line 1 and all that follows over to and 
including line 17 on page 251

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
104th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                               H. R. 2586

_______________________________________________________________________

                               AMENDMENT
```
#### Herbert DUPREE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. MM-302.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

June 4, 1980.

Rehearing Denied July 3, 1980.

Michael J. Minerva, Public Defender, and Harold W. Long, Jr., Asst. Public Defender, Tallahassee, for appellant.

Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., and Wallace E. Allbritton, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, for appellee.

WENTWORTH, Judge.

Dupree raises two points in his appeal of a conviction for two counts of child abuse. First, he argues that there was not enough evidence to convict him and that the trial judge should have granted his motion for judgment of acquittal. Second, he urges that the trial judge erred in deferring his sentence under count two from day to day and term to term until further notice.

We find no error in the record as to his first point on appeal. We therefore *911affirm the trial judge’s denial of the motion for judgment of acquittal.

However, we find that the trial judge erred in deferring sentencing under count two. The record reveals that the judge did not defer sentencing for purposes of probation or for matters arising after the verdict and judgment. Dupree is entitled to have the charges against him disposed of expeditiously and not be held in a state of limbo. *MacArthur v. State,*330 So.2d 548 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976).

Accordingly, the judgment and sentence on the first count are affirmed. The deferral of sentencing as to count two is reversed, and this case is remanded with directions to make an appropriate disposition thereof.

ROBERT P. SMITH, Jr. and ERVIN, JJ., concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2722 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2722

  To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide that the look-
 back method shall not apply to construction contracts required to use 
                  the percentage of completion method.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            December 6, 1995

 Mr. Christensen introduced the following bill; which was referred to 
                    the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide that the look-
 back method shall not apply to construction contracts required to use 
                  the percentage of completion method.

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

SECTION 1. FINDINGS.

    The Congress finds that--
            (1) eliminating the application of the look-back method to 
        nonresidential construction contracts is revenue neutral and 
        will save the time and money being expended by construction 
        contractors in applying such method,
            (2) the look-back method is not needed as an enforcement 
        mechanism in the construction industry, and
            (3) the look-back method does not provide the relief from 
        the percentage of completion method that it was intended to 
        provide to construction contractors because compliance costs 
        far outweigh overpayments repaid to taxpayers by the Internal 
        Revenue Service.

SEC. 2. LOOK-BACK METHOD NOT TO APPLY TO CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS 
              REQUIRED TO USE THE PERCENTAGE OF COMPLETION METHOD.

    (a) In General.--Subparagraph (B) of section 460(b)(3) of the 
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to look-back method not to 
apply to certain contracts) is amended by striking ``shall not apply to 
any contract'' and inserting ``shall not apply to any construction 
contract (as defined in subsection (e)(4)) and to any other contract''.
    (b) Minimum Tax Treatment.--Paragraph (3) of section 56(a) of such 
Code is amended by striking the second sentence and inserting the 
following new sentence: ``For purposes of applying the preceding 
sentence to a construction contract (as defined in section 460(e)(4)), 
section 460(b)(1)(B) shall not apply.''
    (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to taxable years ending on or after December 31, 1994.
                                 <all>
```
§ 588.512 Authorizing certain transactions in support of nongovernmental organizations' activities. ( a ) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, all transactions prohibited by this part that are ordinarily incident and necessary to the activities described in paragraph (b) of this section by a nongovernmental organization are authorized, provided that the nongovernmental organization is not a person whose property or interests in property are blocked pursuant to this part.
( b ) The activities referenced in paragraph (a) of this section are non-commercial activities designed to directly benefit the civilian population that fall into one of the following categories: ( 1 ) Activities to support humanitarian projects to meet basic human needs, including disaster, drought, or flood relief; food, nutrition, or medicine distribution; the provision of health services; assistance for vulnerable or displaced populations, including individuals with disabilities and the elderly; and environmental programs;
( 2 ) Activities to support democracy building, including activities to support rule of law, citizen participation, government accountability and transparency, human rights and fundamental freedoms, access to information, and civil society development projects;
( 3 ) Activities to support education, including combating illiteracy, increasing access to education, international exchanges, and assisting education reform projects;
( 4 ) Activities to support non-commercial development projects directly benefiting civilians, including those related to health, food security, and water and sanitation;
( 5 ) Activities to support environmental and natural resource protection, including the preservation and protection of threatened or endangered species, responsible and transparent management of natural resources, and the remediation of pollution or other environmental damage; and
( 6 ) Activities to support disarmament, demobilization, and reintegration (DDR) programs and peacebuilding, conflict prevention, and conflict resolution programs.
( c ) This section does not authorize funds transfers initiated or processed with knowledge or reason to know that the intended beneficiary of such transfers is a person blocked pursuant to this part, other than for the purpose of effecting the payment of taxes, fees, or import duties, or the purchase or receipt of permits, licenses, or public utility services.
( d ) Specific licenses may be issued on a case-by-case basis to authorize nongovernmental or other entities to engage in other activities designed to directly benefit the civilian population, including support for the removal of landmines and economic development projects directly benefiting the civilian population.
Note 1 to § 588.512 .
This section does not relieve any person authorized thereunder from complying with any other applicable laws or regulations.
[88 FR 25492, Apr. 27, 2023]
#### § 570.501 General and specific licensing procedures.

For provisions relating to licensing procedures, see part 501, subpart E, of this chapter. Licensing actions taken pursuant to part 501 of this chapter with respect to the prohibitions contained in this part are considered actions taken pursuant to this part. General licenses and statements of licensing policy relating to this part also may be available through the Libya sanctions page on OFAC's website: *www.treas.gov/ofac.*
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 Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of a meeting of the Board of Scientific Counselors, National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke. The meeting will be closed to the public as indicated below in accordance with the provisions set forth in section 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended for the review, discussion, and evaluation of individual intramural programs and projects conducted by the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, including consideration of personnel qualifications and performance, and the competence of individual investigators, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         Board of Scientific Counselors, National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke.                    

*Date:*                         October 4-6, 2009.                    

*Time:*                         7 p.m. to 12:30 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate personal qualifications and performance, and competence of individual investigators.                    

*Place:*                         Hyatt Regency Bethesda, One Bethesda Metro Center, 7400 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20814.                    

*Contact Person:*                         Alan P. Koretsky, PhD, Scientific Director, Division of Intramural Research, National Institute of Neurological Disorders & Stroke, NIH, 35 Convent Drive, Room 6A 908, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-2232,                         *koretskya@ninds.nih.gov.*

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.853, Clinical Research Related to Neurological Disorders; 93.854, Biological Basis Research in the Neurosciences, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: August 24, 2009.

Jennifer Spaeth,

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. E9-20874 Filed 8-28-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
§ 560.427 Exportation, reexportation, sale or supply of financial services to Iran or the Government of Iran. ( a ) The prohibition on the exportation, reexportation, sale or supply of financial services to Iran or the Government of Iran contained in § 560.204 applies to: ( 1 ) The transfer of funds, directly or indirectly, from the United States or by a U.S. person, wherever located, to Iran or the Government of Iran; and
( 2 ) The provision, directly or indirectly, to Iran or the Government of Iran of insurance services, investment or brokerage services (including but not limited to brokering or trading services regarding securities, debt, commodities, options, or foreign exchange), banking services, money remittance services; loans, guarantees, letters of credit, or other extensions of credit; or the service of selling or redeeming traveler's checks, money orders, and prepaid access products. Note to paragraph ( a
) of § 560.427 :
See § 560.516 of this part, which authorizes only United States depository institutions and United States registered brokers or dealers in securities to process certain transfers of funds to or from Iran.
( b ) Pursuant to the prohibition in § 560.204 on the exportation, reexportation, sale or supply of financial services to Iran or the Government of Iran, United States depository institutions and United States registered brokers or dealers in securities are prohibited from performing services with respect to Iranian accounts, as defined in § 560.320.
Note to paragraph ( b
) of § 560.427 :
*See* § 560.517 of this part for general licenses authorizing United States depository institutions and United States registered brokers or dealers in securities to operate Iranian accounts in certain limited circumstances.
#### § 562.801 [Reserved]