alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 310.13 Exemptions. The following systems of records are exempt from §§ 310.3 through 310.9 and § 310.10(c)(2) of these rules: ( a ) Investigatory material compiled for law enforcement purposes in the following systems of records is exempt from §§ 310.3 through 310.9 and § 310.10(c)(2) of these rules; *Provided, however,* That if any individual is denied any right, privilege, or benefit to which he/she would otherwise be entitled under Federal law, or for which he/she would otherwise be eligible, as a result of the maintenance of such material, such material shall be disclosed to such individual, except to the extent that the disclosure of such material would reveal the identity of a source who furnished information to the Government under an express promise that the identity of the source would be held in confidence, or, prior to September 27, 1975, under an implied promise that the identity of the source would be held in confidence: *30-64-0002*—Financial institutions investigative and enforcement records system. *30-64-0010*—Investigative files and records.
( b ) Investigatory material compiled solely for the purpose of determining suitability, eligibility, or qualifications for Corporation employment to the extent that disclosure of such material would reveal the identity of a source who furnished information to the Corporation under an express promise that the identity of the source would be held in confidence, or, prior to September 27, 1975, under an implied promise that the identity of the source would be held in confidence, in the following systems of records, is exempt from §§ 310.3 through 310.9 and § 310.10(c)(2) of these rules: *30-64-0001*—Attorney-legal intern applicant system. *30-64-0010*—Investigative files and records.
( c ) Testing or examination material used solely to determine or assess individual qualifications for appointment or promotion in the Corporation's service, the disclosure of which would compromise the objectivity or fairness of the testing, evaluation, or examination process in the following system of records, is exempt from §§ 310.3 through 310.9 and § 310.10(c)(2) of these rules:
*30-64-0009*—Examiner training and education records.
[42 FR 6797, Feb. 4, 1977, as amended at 42 FR 33720, July 1, 1977; 54 FR 38507, Sept. 19, 1989; 61 FR 43420, Aug. 23, 1996]
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 79 (Monday, April 24, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 21735]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-10102]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket Nos. RP97-14-005 and GT00-16-001]


Midwestern Gas Transmission Company; Notice of Compliance Filing

April 18, 2000.
    Take notice that on April 12, 2000, Midwestern Gas Transmission 
Company (Midwestern), tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas 
Tariff, Second Revised Volume No. 1, the following tariff sheets, with 
an effective date of April 1, 2000:

Fifth Revised Sheet No. 52
Original Sheet No. 110B

    Midwestern states that this filing is being made in compliance with 
the Commission's Letter Order issued on March 29, 2000 in the above-
referenced dockets. Midwestern Gas Transmission Company, 90 FERC para. 
61,302 (2000). Moreover, Midwestern provides the following description 
of the proposed Wheatland Power Station in accordance with Article V of 
the Gas Transportation Agreement:
    Midwestern will construct facilities necessary to establish a new 
delivery point located in Knox County, Indiana on Midwestern's 2100 
line for West Fork. Midwestern will own and operate the following: hot 
tap assembly, interconnect pipeline inside Midwestern's right-of way, 
electronic gas measurement, chromatograph and appurtenant facilities.
    West Fork will own and operate the following: interconnect pipeline 
outside of Midwestern's right-of-way to the measurement site, lateral 
pipeline, filter/separator, liquids tank, cathodic protection and 
appurtenant facilities.
    West Fork will own and Midwestern will operate the following: 
measurement and flow control.
    Any person desiring to protest this filing should file a protest 
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., 
Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Section 385.211 of the 
Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such protests must be filed as 
provided in Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests 
will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate 
action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to 
the proceedings. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission 
and are available for public inspection in the Public Reference Room. 
This filing may be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance).

David P. Boergers,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-10102 Filed 4-21-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
#### LAFFERTY *v.*ROSS AND DAVIS.

Non suit after evidence — opening a non suit — fining a witness.

Where the plaintiff progresses with his testimony, expecting a witness in time to examine him, he will be permitted to enter a non suit.

The non suit will be opened up at his cost, if the statute of limitations will bar a new suit.

A witness who is detained from court by his own dilatory movements until the cause in which he is summoned is sacrificed, will be fined.

After the plaintiff had proceeded some way with his testimony, he informed the court that owing to the absence of a witness who had been summoned, and for whom he had since issued an attachment, he must submit to a non suit: whereupon the jury were discharged, and a non suit ordered.

*S. Brush,*for the plaintiff,

now moved to open up the non suit, and read a statement showing the materiality of the testimony of the absent witness. He also showed that the statute of limitations would bar the action, if the plaintiff were driven to a new suit. He claimed that his motion should be allowed without costs.

By the Court.

This application is addressed to our discretion. The absence of the witness was known before the trial, and was good ground for a continuance, if one had been applied for. If it were not for the statute of limitations, we should leave the party to his new suit; as it is, the non suit is opened up; the plaintiff to pay all the costs which have accrued until the making up of the issue, and the cause is continued.

The witness whose non attendance occasioned the non suit, was brought in on an attachment, and being interrogated, said he had been subpoenaed, and intended to come to court. Had hired a horse last *night,*but could not get started this morning in season to get to court, fourteen miles, until eleven o’clock.

By the Court. The business of the court cannot proceed unless its process is obeyed: no excuse is offered *here:*the party only moved so dilatorily, that he failed to arrive until after the cause was sacrificed. He is ordered to pay a fine of two dollars and costs.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                             5
<LEGEND>
This schedule  contains summary  financial  information  extracted from DAVIDSON
GROWTH PLUS,  L.P. 2000 Third Quarter 10-QSB and is qualified in its entirety by
reference to such 10-QSB filing.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                                 0000795757
<NAME>                                DAVIDSON GROWTH PLUS, L.P.
<MULTIPLIER>                                              1,000

<S>                                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                         9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                     DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                        JUL-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                          SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                                      760
<SECURITIES>                                                  0
<RECEIVABLES>                                               210
<ALLOWANCES>                                                  0
<INVENTORY>                                                   0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                              0 <F1>
<PP&E>                                                   25,470
<DEPRECIATION>                                          (11,543)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                           15,550
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                         0 <F1>
<BONDS>                                                  11,425
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                         0
<PREFERRED>                                                   0
<COMMON>                                                      0
<OTHER-SE>                                                3,202
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                             15,550
<SALES>                                                       0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                          4,301
<CGS>                                                         0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                 0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                          3,576
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                              0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                          757
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                               0
<INCOME-TAX>                                                  0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                           0
<DISCONTINUED>                                                0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                               0
<CHANGES>                                                     0
<NET-INCOME>                                                661
<EPS-BASIC>                                               22.59 <F2>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                 0
<FN>
<F1> Registrant has an unclassified balance sheet. <F2> Multiplier is 1.
</FN>


</TABLE>
Editorial Note on Part 708b
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 708b appear at 84 FR 1607, Feb. 5, 2019, and at 85 FR 62213, Oct. 2, 2020.

§ 708b.205 Modifications to notice and ballot. ( a ) Converting credit unions will use the form notice and ballot as provided in subpart C of this part unless the Regional Director approves the use of a different form.
( b ) A converting credit union will provide the Regional Director with a copy of the notice and ballot, including any reasons for conversion and estimated costs of conversion, on or before the date the notice and ballot are mailed to the members.
( c ) Federally insured state-chartered credit unions may include additional language in the notice and ballot regarding state requirements for mergers, where appropriate.
[70 FR 3288, Jan. 24, 2005, as amended at 85 FR 62213, Oct. 2, 2020]
## In the Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas at Fort Worth

___________________________ No. 02

- 18

- 00035

- CV

___________________________

On Appeal from the 342nd District Court Tarrant County, Texas Trial Court No. 342

- 262692

- 12

Before Bass el , Kerr, and Pittman, JJ. Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion 

### H ARRIETT 

### N ICHOLSON 

### , Appellant

V



### . T HE 

### B ANK OF 

### N EW 

### Y ORK 

### M ELLON FKA THE 

### B ANK OF 

### N EW 

### Y ORK AS 

### T RUS TEE FOR THE 

### C ERTIFICATEHOLDERS OF 

### CWMBS, I NC 

### ., CWMBS R EFORMING 

### L OAN 

### R EMIC 

### T RUST 

### C ERTIFICATES 

### S ERIES 

### 2005

- R2, M ELANIE 

### C OWAN 

### , B ANK OF 

### A MERICA 

### , N.A., AND 

### R ECON 

### T RUST 

### C OMPANY 

### , N.A. , Appellees2 MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant Harriett Nicholson attempts to appeal a n October 26, 2017 order labeled “Final Judgment.” On January 10, 2019 , we notified Nicholson of our concern that we lack juris diction over this appeal because the order does not appear to be a final judgment that disposes of all parties

. See Lehmann v. Har

- Con Corp. , 39 S.W.3d 191, 200 (Tex. 2001) (explaining that a judgment is final for purposes of appeal if it (1) actually dis poses of all claims and parties or (2) states with unmistakable clarity that it is a final judgment). We informed Nicholson that he r appeal c ould be dismissed for want of jurisdiction unless s he or any party desiring to continue the appeal filed a respons e showing grounds for continuing the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a), 44.3. In response, Nicholson filed an unopposed amended motion to abate the appeal , claiming that the October 26, 2017 order is final but that it is erroneous and seeking to have t he appeal abated “until the remaining claims, parties, and issues
are resolved in the trial court

. ” Because the response does not show grounds for continuing the appeal , we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction. 1 See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a), 43.2( f); Lehmann , 39 S.W.3d at 200.
Per Curiam
Delivered: January 31, 2019

1 Because we lack jurisdiction over this appeal, we take no action on Nicholson’s “Unopposed Amended Motion To Abate Appeal.” See Elliott v. Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust Co. , No. 02

- 16

- 00421

- CV, 2017 WL 526315, at *1 n.2 (Tex. App.

— Fort Worth Feb. 9, 2017, no pet.) (mem. op.) (“Because we lack jurisdiction over this appeal, we take no action on Appellants’ ‘Motion for Stay of Action on Appeal.’”)

.
EXHIBIT 28.1
                                               ------------
               ANNUAL STATEMENT AS TO COMPLIANCE
                     UCFC LOAN TRUST 1997-B1
                                               

      In accordance with Section 9.16 of that certain Pooling and
Servicing  Agreement  relating to UCFC Loan Trust  1997-B1, dated
as of June 1, 1997 (the "Pooling and Servicing Agreement"), by and
among UCFC Acceptance Corporation, as depositor, United Companies
Lending  Corporation, as servicer (the "Servicer"), and  Bankers
Trust Company of California, N.A., as trustee, the undersigned
officer of the Servicer does hereby certify as follows:  (i) a
review of the activities of the Servicer during  1997 and of
performance under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement  has been
made under the undersigned officer's supervision; and (ii) to the
best of such  undersigned officer's knowledge,  based on such
review, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations  under
the Pooling and Servicing Agreement for 1997.

     EXECUTED this 26th day of March, 1998.

                         /s/ C. GERON HARGON
                         --------------------------------
                         C. Geron Hargon
                         President
                         United Companies Lending Corporation


                               PAGE 7
Exhibit 99.2




				Exhibit 99(ii)

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

         In connection with the Quarterly Report of  Nutek, Inc. (the "Company")
on  Form  10-QSB for the quarter ended  September 30,  2003  as  filed  with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date  therein specified (the "Report")
"Report"),  I,  Jason F. Griffith, Chief  Financial   Officer  of  the  Company,
certify  pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.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)
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/ Jason F. Griffith, CPA
                                    -------------------------------------------
                                    JASON F. GRIFFITH, Chief Financial Officer

Dated: November 14, 2003
Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida 

Opinion filed July 14, 2021.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D20-0691

Lower Tribunal No. 17-1986

________________

Law Offices of Alexander E. Borell, P.A.,

Appellant,

vs.

In re: Jesus Cala Acevedo vs Herga Imperiod Noda, et al.,

Appellees.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Valerie R. 

Manno Schurr and Daryl E. Trawick, Judges.

Law Office of Alexander E. Borell, P.A., and Alexander E. Borell and 

Vanessa Jaleh Bravo, for appellant.

The Law Offices of Mario G. Menocal, P.A., and Mario G. Menocal, for 

appellee Jesus Cala Acevedo.

Before SCALES, LINDSEY, and MILLER, JJ. 

PER CURIAM.
2

The Law Offices of Alexander Borell (“Borell”), counsel for defendant

below, Herga Noda, in an action brought by plaintiff below, Jesus Cala 

Acevedo, appeals one order granting Acevedo’s motion for sanctions 

pursuant to section 57.105, a second order denying Borell’s motion for relief 

from the sanctions award, and a third order awarding attorney’s fees and 

costs.

“[T]he award of attorney’s fees is a matter committed to sound judicial 

discretion which will not be disturbed on appeal, absent a showing of clear 

abuse of discretion.” Lanson v. Reid, 314 So. 3d 385, 386 (Fla. 3d DCA 

2020) (quotation omitted). “The trial court’s finding must be based upon 

substantial competent evidence presented to the court at the hearing on 

attorney’s fees or otherwise before the court and in the trial court record.” 

Weatherby Assocs. Inc. v. Ballack, 783 So. 2d 1138, 1141 (Fla. 4th DCA 

2001) (citation omitted); accord Lanson, 314 So. 3d at 387. “When there are 

issues of fact . . . [and] [w]ithout a record of the trial proceedings, the 

appellate court can not properly resolve the underlying factual issues so as 

to conclude that the trial court’s judgment is not supported by the evidence 

or by an alternative theory.” Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 

So. 2d 1150, 1152 (Fla. 1979).

We are constrained by the record before us. Borell has not provided 

a transcript of any of the hearings conducted in the trial court, and thus the 
3

trial court’s findings must be presumed correct. See Lanson, 314 So. 3d at 

388 n.4 (citing Applegate, 377 So. 2d at 1152).

As such, we can find no abuse of discretion by the lower court in 

awarding attorney’s fees under section 57.105. However, nothing in the text 

of section 57.105(1) provides for the award of costs. See In re Estate of 

Assimakopoulos, 228 So. 3d 709, 713 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017) (collecting cases 

that reverse the award of costs under section 57.105(1)). Accordingly, we 

reverse that portion of the order awarding costs.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with directions to 

strike the award of costs.
§ 701.20 Suretyship and guaranty. ( a ) *Scope.* This section authorizes a federal credit union to enter into a suretyship or guaranty agreement as an incidental powers activity. This section does not apply to the guaranty of public deposits or the assumption of liability for member accounts.
( b ) *Definitions.* A *suretyship* binds a federal credit union with its principal to pay or perform an obligation to a third person. Under a *guaranty* agreement, a federal credit union agrees to satisfy the obligation of the principal only if the principal fails to pay or perform. The *principal* is the person primarily liable, for whose performance of his obligation the surety or guarantor has become bound.
( c ) *Requirements.* The suretyship or guaranty agreement must be for the benefit of a principal that is a member and is subject to the following conditions: ( 1 ) The federal credit union limits its obligations under the agreement to a fixed dollar amount and a specified duration;
( 2 ) The federal credit union's performance under the agreement creates an authorized loan that complies with the applicable lending regulations, including the limitations on loans to one member or associated members or officials for purposes of §§ 701.21(c)(5), (d); 723.4(c); and
( 3 ) The federal credit union obtains a segregated deposit from the member that is sufficient in amount to cover the federal credit union's total potential liability.
( d ) *Collateral.* A segregated deposit under this section includes collateral: ( 1 ) In which the federal credit union has perfected its security interest (for example, if the collateral is a printed security, the federal credit union must have obtained physical control of the security, and, if the collateral is a book entry security, the federal credit union must have properly recorded its security interest); and
( 2 ) That has a market value, at the close of each business day, equal to 100 percent of the federal credit union's total potential liability and is composed of: ( i ) Cash;
( ii ) Obligations of the United States or its agencies;
( iii ) Obligations fully guaranteed by the United States or its agencies as to principal and interest; or
( iv ) Notes, drafts, or bills of exchange or banker's acceptances that are eligible for rediscount or purchase by a Federal Reserve Bank; or
( 3 ) That has a market value equal to 110 percent of the federal credit union's total potential liability and is composed of: ( i ) Real estate, the value of which is established by a signed appraisal or evaluation in accordance with part 722 of this chapter. In determining the value of the collateral, the federal credit union must factor in the value of any existing senior mortgages, liens or other encumbrances on the property except those held by the principal to the suretyship or guaranty agreement; or
( ii ) Marketable securities that the federal credit union is authorized to invest in. The federal credit union must ensure that the value of the security is 110 percent of the obligation at all times during the term of the agreement.
[69 FR 8547, Feb. 25, 2004, as amended at 84 FR 10975, Mar. 25, 2019]
§ 411.100 Conditions on use of funds. ( a ) No appropriated funds may be expended by the recipient of a Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement to pay any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with any of the following covered Federal actions: the awarding of any Federal contract, the making of any Federal grant, the making of any Federal loan, the entering into of any cooperative agreement, and the extension, continuation, renewal, amendment, or modification of any Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement.
( b ) Each person who requests or receives from an agency a Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement shall file with that agency a certification, set forth in appendix A, that the person has not made, and will not make, any payment prohibited by paragraph (a) of this section.
( c ) Each person who requests or receives from an agency a Federal contract, grant, loan, or a cooperative agreement shall file with that agency a disclosure form, set forth in appendix B, if such person has made or has agreed to make any payment using nonappropriated funds (to include profits from any covered Federal action), which would be prohibited under paragraph (a) of this section if paid for with appropriated funds.
( d ) Each person who requests or receives from an agency a commitment providing for the United States to insure or guarantee a loan shall file with that agency a statement, set forth in appendix A, whether that person has made or has agreed to make any payment to influence or attempt to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with that loan insurance or guarantee.
( e ) Each person who requests or receives from an agency a commitment providing for the United States to insure or guarantee a loan shall file with that agency a disclosure form, set forth in appendix B, if that person has made or has agreed to make any payment to influence or attempt to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with that loan insurance or guarantee.