alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Editorial Note on Part 702
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 702 appear at 84 FR 1606, Feb. 5, 2019.

§ 702.110 Consultation with state officials on proposed prompt corrective action. ( a ) *Consultation on proposed conservatorship or liquidation.* Before placing a federally insured state-chartered credit union into conservatorship (pursuant to 12 U.S.C. 1786(h)(1)(F) or (G)) or liquidation (pursuant to 12 U.S.C. 1787(a)(3)) as permitted or required under subparts A or B of this part to facilitate prompt corrective action— ( 1 ) The NCUA Board shall seek the views of the appropriate state official (as defined in § 702.2), and give him or her an opportunity to take the proposed action;
( 2 ) The NCUA Board shall, upon timely request of the appropriate state official, promptly provide him or her with a written statement of the reasons for the proposed conservatorship or liquidation, and reasonable time to respond to that statement; and
( 3 ) If the appropriate state official makes a timely written response that disagrees with the proposed conservatorship or liquidation and gives reasons for that disagreement, the NCUA Board shall not place the credit union into conservatorship or liquidation unless it first considers the views of the appropriate state official and determines that— ( i ) The NCUSIF faces a significant risk of loss if the credit union is not placed into conservatorship or liquidation; and
( ii ) Conservatorship or liquidation is necessary either to reduce the risk of loss, or to reduce the expected loss, to the NCUSIF with respect to the credit union.
( b ) *Nondelegation.* The NCUA Board may not delegate any determination under paragraph (a)(3) of this section.
( c ) *Consultation on proposed discretionary action.* The NCUA Board shall consult and seek to work cooperatively with the appropriate state official before taking any discretionary supervisory action under §§ 702.107(b), 702.108(b), 702.109(b), 702.204(b) and 702.205(b) with respect to a federally insured state-chartered credit union; shall provide prompt notice of its decision to the appropriate state official; and shall allow the appropriate state official to take the proposed action independently or jointly with NCUA.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<CIK>                         0000795965
<NAME>                        US Servis, Inc.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1               
       
<S>                                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              MAR-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                                 OCT-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1995

<CASH>                                         7,330,000
<SECURITIES>                                           0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  3,535,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                     476,000
<INVENTORY>                                        6,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                              13,614,000
<PP&E>                                         3,378,602
<DEPRECIATION>                                 2,392,933
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                18,943,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          3,864,000
<BONDS>                                                0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          5,982,000
<PREFERRED>                                            0
<COMMON>                                          63,000
<OTHER-SE>                                     8,198,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  18,943,000
<SALES>                                                0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               4,267,000
<CGS>                                                  0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  5,356,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                       0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                16,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (1,105,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    (381,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                    0
<DISCONTINUED>                                         0   
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                        0
<CHANGES>                                              0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (724,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (0.13)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.13)
        



</TABLE>
#### Mary A. Wilder, Appellant, *v.*Charles A. Moffat, Respondent.

Appeal from a judgment rendered in favor of defendant, in the Municipal Court of the city of Xew York, eighth district, borough of Manhattan.

*778Bruce R. Duncan, for appellant.'

Edwin F. Stern, for respondent.

*Per Curiam.*

The defendant was tenant of the plaintiff under a written lease which covered not only the house but also certain mirrors, cornices and gas fixtures. A mirror, included in the lease, was broken under circumstances which would have justified a judgment against the defendant. Certainly its destruction did not result from reasonable use and wear, nor from the action of the elements. The pleadings were written, and the answer, after denying the material allegations of the complaint, sets up, as the sole, affirmative defence, the Statute of Limitations. The destruction of the mirror occurred in December, 1898, when the plaintiff was the unquestioned owner of the house, as well as the mirror. The justice permitted oral evidence to be introduced tending to show that, in February, 1899, the plaintiff had conveyed the house to her daughter, and also permitted questions to be put and answered touching the legal effect of the conveyance, giving as a reason that what the court desired to know was whether the plaintiff was the real party in interest. All this evidence was clearly incompetent and improper. In the first place, there was no allegation in the answer that the plaintiff was not the real party in interest and no such issue was present in the case. In the second place, the legal effect of the conveyance was a matter which should have been determined by the court from the conveyance itself, and not by the examination of a witness; and, in the third place, the whole testimony was immaterial, because a deed of the house would not presumably include the transfer of a claim for damages to personal property in the house. The court also admitted in evidence certain papers in a former action between the parties. This action, however, had never gone to trial, but had been discontinued or dismissed. In any event it was not *res adjudicada,*and was immaterial. As it is impossible to say that these errors may not have influenced the judgment, it must be reversed and a new trial granted, with costs to the appellant to abide the event.

Present: Tbuax, P. J., Soott and Dggro, JJ.

Judgment reversed and new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide event.
#### Gabriella Mays, a widow, *Appellant,*v. Carrie D. White and A. W. White, her husband, Annetta May Holmes and William Holmes, her husband, Mamie H. Smith and W. H. Smith, her husband, Gabriella E. Plair and S. Means Plair, her husband, Theodore H. Mays and George H. Mays, Jr., *Appellees.*

Opinion Filed February 3, 1923.

Where, in a suit between the widow on one hand and the children on the other of a deceased owner 'of a homestead involving only the question of “what the widow as widow is entitled to,” it is made to appear to the appellate court that since the entry of the appeal the widow, who is the sole appellant, has died, a motion to dismiss upon the ground that the question has become moot should be granted.

A motion to dismiss the appeal.

Motion granted.

*151
      *George, G. Bedell*and *D. H. Doig,*for Appellant;

*McGill*& *McGill,*for Appellees.

Per Curiam.

This is a suit between a widow and children involving the homestead of the deceased owner. In the brief of counsel for appellant it is stated that the *‘ ‘*only-question presented by this case is the question as to what the widow as widow is entitled to.” The widow is the sole appellant. Motion is made by counsel for appellees to dismiss the case on the ground that the question has become moot because of the death of the widow, the sole appellant, and proof of her death accompanies the motion.

The motion to dismiss will be granted.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 80 (Tuesday, April 25, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 24190]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-10250]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket Nos. RP00-243-000, CP97-177-000, and CP97-177-001]


Alliance Pipeline L.P.; Notice of Petition

April 19, 2000.
    Take notice that on April 5, 2000, Alliance Pipeline L.P. 
(Alliance) filed a Petition for Partial Waiver of Part 284, Subpart J 
Regulations, pursuant to rule 207(a)(5) of the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission (Commission) Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 
CFR 385.207(a)(5). Alliance requests a partial, limited term waiver of: 
(1) 18 CFR 284.287 to permit Alliance to make sales of test gas during 
commissioning and testing of its pipeline without having tariff 
provisions governing such sales on file and approved by the Commission 
and (2) 18 CFR 284.283 regarding the delivery point at which Subpart J 
sales may be made, to the extent necessary. If the Commission declines 
to grant the requested waiver requests, Alliance requests, in the 
alternative, that the Commission issue a limited term certificate 
authorizing sales of test gas as proposed in the application.
    Alliance states that disposition of test gas is necessary to permit 
the safe, timely and efficient commissioning of its new pipeline 
system. According to Alliance, sales of test gas as proposed in its 
petition will not adversely affect the firm shippers for whom Alliance 
will be providing transportation on the in-service date of the 
pipeline. In accordance with governing accounting regulations, Alliance 
proposes to credit net revenues from sales of test gas to the capital 
cost of the associated facilities being tested and commissioned for the 
economic benefit of the Alliance shippers. Finally, Alliance states 
that the requested waivers are applicable only during the limited 
period of the Alliance commissioning process, and that any Subpart J 
sales made following Alliance's in-service date will be made in 
accordance with the Subpart J regulations and the Commission-approved 
tariff in effect for Alliance at that time.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a protest or motion to intervene with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE, Washington, DC 20426 in 
accordance with sections 385.211 and 385.214 of the Commission's Rules 
of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before May 
10, 2000. 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. Any person wishing to become a 
party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on 
file with the Commission and are available for public inspection in the 
Public Reference Room.

David P. Boergers,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-10250 Filed 4-24-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
Case:17-03283-LTS   Doc#:23143-3   Filed:12/22/22   Entered:12/22/22 12:23:02    Desc:Exhibit C   Page 1 of 1
RIE

RIZE

2 a1

D

DS Z
\ Mex
2 OK
2
3 J
BS 8 4
2 z
es Sr) <a
3 zy > ' 2g
3 é

i

ra

ISS

Legend

Interim Guidance for Motorized Use
of Existing Roads and Trails *

BLM Routes Available for
Motorized Travel

Closed Year Round

Limited to Designated Roads
and Trails Year Round

Limited to Designated Roads
Only Year Round

* Management ofthe land applies only to BLM
‘Administered Lands within the recreation area
boundary. This map does not distinguish
between OHV specific routes and routes
‘open to passenger vehicles.

mmm Recreation Area

Highway or County Route
Road

Administered Lands

[] Bureau of Land

Management

[FJ State Lang
[-] Private / Other

OREGON

Cline Buttes
Recreation Area

N
w. E
8
05, 0 05, 4
MILES

os 0 05 4
I
KILOMETERS

RMP Map 13: Interim Guidance for Motorized Use of Existing

Roads and Trails for the Cline Buttes Recreation Area

Prineville District

Upper Deschutes
Planning Area

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Land Management
PRINEVILLE DISTRICT
2005

Upper Deschutes
Resource Management Plan

No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management as to the accuracy,
reliability, or completeness of these data for individual or aggregate use

with other data, Original data were compiled from various sources, This
information may not meet National Map Accuracy Standards. This product
was developed through digital means and may be updated without notification,

'Mo5-04-02:MW:082905
# **EXHIBIT 32.1**

**CERTIFICATION**

# **Pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

**(Subsection (a) and (b) of Section 1350 of Chapter 63 ofTitle 18 of the United States Code)**

** **

Pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350 ofChapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code), the undersigned officer ofVornado Realty Trust (the “Company”), hereby certifies, to such officer’sknowledge, that:

 

The Annual Report on Form10-K/A (Amendment No. 1) for year ended December 31, 2016**(the “Report”)of the Company fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in theReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the Company. 

 

|           |   |   |
|----------------|--------|--------|
| April 12, 2017 |   |   | /s/ Steven  Roth |
|           |   | Name:  | Steven Roth |
|           |   | Title: | Chairman of the Board and Chief  Executive Officer |

 

 

 

----
# Official Journal L 48/2011

| | ISSN 1725-2555
  doi:10.3000/17252555.L_2011.048.eng |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 48 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 5423 February 2011 |

ISSN 1725-2555

doi:10.3000/17252555.L_2011.048.eng

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 48

English edition

Legislation

Volume 5423 February 2011

---

| Contents | | I   Legislative acts | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | DIRECTIVES |
| | * | Directive 2011/7/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 on combating late payment in commercial transactions (1) | 1 |

Contents

I   Legislative acts

page

DIRECTIVES

*

Directive 2011/7/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 on combating late payment in commercial transactions (1)

1

| | | II   Non-legislative acts |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | | REGULATIONS |
| | * | Commission Regulation (EU) No 165/2011 of 22 February 2011 providing for deductions from certain mackerel quotas allocated to Spain in 2011 and subsequent years on account of overfishing in 2010 | 11 |
| | | Commission Regulation (EU) No 166/2011 of 22 February 2011 establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables | 14 |
| | | DECISIONS |
| | | 2011/121/EU |
| | * | Commission Decision of 21 February 2011 setting the European Union-wide performance targets and alert thresholds for the provision of air navigation services for the years 2012 to 2014 (1) | 16 |

II   Non-legislative acts

REGULATIONS

*

Commission Regulation (EU) No 165/2011 of 22 February 2011 providing for deductions from certain mackerel quotas allocated to Spain in 2011 and subsequent years on account of overfishing in 2010

11

Commission Regulation (EU) No 166/2011 of 22 February 2011 establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

14

DECISIONS

2011/121/EU

*

Commission Decision of 21 February 2011 setting the European Union-wide performance targets and alert thresholds for the provision of air navigation services for the years 2012 to 2014 (1)

16

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

1

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.
#### § 622.15 Oral argument before the Board.

Upon its own initiative or upon written request by any party, the Board, in its discretion, may order the matter to be set down for oral argument before the Board or one or more members thereof. Any request for oral argument by a party filing exceptions shall be made within the time prescribed for filing such exceptions, or by any other party, within the time prescribed for the filing of a reply brief. Oral argument before the Board shall be recorded unless otherwise ordered by the Board.
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

APR 14, 2011

JOHN LEY

 CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

 ________________________

 No. 10-11998 

Non-Argument Calendar

 ________________________

 D.C. Docket No. 0:09-cv-60648-UU

PERRY WHITE, 

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff-Appellant,

EVELYN JACKSON, et al.,

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiffs,

versus

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

including the United States Office of 

Personnel Management, et al., along

with and including

d.b.a. United States Postal Service,

FEDERAL EMPLOYEES GROUP LIFE

INSURANCE COMPANY,

METROPOLITAN (METLIFE) LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY,

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants-Appellees.
________________________

 Appeal from the United States District Court

 for the Southern District of Florida

 ________________________

(April 14, 2011)

Before WILSON, PRYOR and BLACK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Perry White appeals pro se the dismissal of his complaint to recover, as a

purported beneficiary, the proceeds of a life insurance policy that had been issued

to his brother. White argues that he was entitled to a default judgment against the

United States, the Federal Employees Group Life Insurance Company, and

Metropolitan Life Insurance Company because they failed to respond timely to

White’s complaint or to request timely an extension of time to respond. The

district court denied White’s motion on the ground that the defendants had timely

responded to the complaint, and the district court later dismissed White’s

complaint with prejudice. We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to enter a default

judgment against Metropolitan Life. Metropolitan Life never was in default. 

White served Metropolitan Life with the summons and complaint on May 26,

2009, and Metropolitan Life responded by timely filing a motion to strike on June

2
9, 2009. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(1)(A)(i). The district court later granted a stay

and, after lifting the stay on February 3, 2010, granted Metropolitan Life until

February 16, 2010, to respond to the complaint, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(4). The

district court later granted a motion to extend the time to respond until February

24, 2010, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(A). Metropolitan Life filed an answer to

White’s complaint on February 24, 2010.

The district court also did not abuse its discretion by refusing to enter a

default judgment against the United States. White failed to “establish a claim or

right to relief” against the United States. Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(d). The district court

ruled that White could not “maintain his claim against the United States under the

limited waiver of sovereign immunity found in [the] [Federal Employees’ Group

Life Insurance Act],” 5 U.S.C. §§ 8701–16, and White did not challenge that

decision. Although the district court granted White leave to file an amended

complaint, White refused to do so.

The dismissal of White’s complaint is AFFIRMED.

3
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3492

To amend title 38, United States Code, to allow claimants for benefits 

under laws administered by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to pay 

fees for attorney services during any stage of the Department of Veterans 

Affairs claims process. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 17, 2003

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona (for himself, Mr. KING of Iowa, Mr. HOEKSTRA, Mr. 

MANZULLO, Mr. SOUDER, Mr. WILSON of South Carolina, Mr. BURTON

of Indiana, Mrs. CHRISTENSEN, Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania, Mr. 

GARRETT of New Jersey, and Mrs. MYRICK) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL

To amend title 38, United States Code, to allow claimants 

for benefits under laws administered by the Secretary 

of Veterans Affairs to pay fees for attorney services 

during any stage of the Department of Veterans Affairs 

claims process.

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Veterans’ Right to an 

5 Attorney Act of 2003’’. 
2

•HR 3492 IH 

1 SEC. 2. REPEAL OF PROHIBITION ON PAYING ATTORNEYS 

2 DURING THE DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AF3 FAIRS CLAIMS PROCESS. 

4 (a) REPEAL.—Section 5904(c) of title 38, United 

5 States Code, is amended—

6 (1) by striking paragraphs (1) and (3); 

7 (2) by striking ‘‘(c)’’ and all that follows 

8 through ‘‘(2) A person’’ and inserting ‘‘(c) A per9 son’’; and 

10 (3) in the first sentence—

11 (A) by striking ‘‘in a case referred to in 

12 paragraph (1) of this subsection’’ and inserting 

13 ‘‘in connection with a proceeding with respect 

14 to benefits under laws administered by the Sec15 retary’’; and 

16 (B) by striking ‘‘after the Board first 

17 makes a final decision in the case’’. 

18 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.—

19 (1) Section 5905 of such title is amended—

20 (A) by striking ‘‘Whoever’’ and inserting 

21 ‘‘(a) Whoever’’; 

22 (B) by striking ‘‘in sections 5904 or 1984 

23 of this title’’ and inserting ‘‘in subsection (b) of 

24 this section’’; and 

25 (C) by adding at the end the following new 

26 subsection: 
3

•HR 3492 IH 

1 ‘‘(b) Subsection (a)(1) does not apply to a fee or com2 pensation for services as provided in section 1984 of this 

3 title or in connection with a proceeding with respect to 

4 benefits under laws administered by the Secretary, except 

5 if in violation of an order of the Board made under the 

6 second sentence of section 5904(c) of this title.’’. 

7 (2) Section 7263(d) of such title is amended by 

8 striking ‘‘5904(c)(2)’’ and inserting ‘‘5904(c)’’.

Æ
#### JOHN BELANOWITZ, PETITIONER-PROSECUTOR ON CERTIORARI, v. TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY, RESPONDENT-DEFENDANT ON CERTIORARI.

Submitted October 3, 1939

Decided January 3, 1940.

Before Justices Parker, Bodine and Perskie.

For the petitioner-prosecutor, *David Roskein*and *Walter X. Trumbull.*

For the respondent-defendant, *James J. Skeffington.*

Per Curiam.

The disposition made in No. 261, October term, 1939, reported in 123 *N. J. L.*574, disposes of the questions raised by the prosecutor in the above matter.

The writ will be dismissed, with costs.