alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**CERTIFICATION      PURSUANT TO**

**18      U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

|                                |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         |                                      |
|-------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------|
|                                |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         |                                      |
| Dated:                July 24, 2008 | By:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                | /s/ Wayne                D. Cockburn |
|                                | Wayne                D. Cockburn President,                Chief Executive Officer,Secretary,                Treasurer and Interim ChiefFinancial                Officer and a Member of the Board of Directors (Principal                Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer) |
|                                |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         |
#### Moran, administratrix, etc., appellant, v. New York Central & Hudson River Railroad Company.

*Negligence*— *of co-employee—Objection—without grounds stated unmailable.*

Plaintiff’s testator, who was the employee of defendant, a railroad company, was killed by an accident on one of defendant’s trains upon which he was going to his work. *Held,*that an omission by a signal man of defendant *to*place a signal, which omission caused the accident, it not being shown that any of *771defendant’s employees was unskillful or incompetent would be the negligence of a co-employee of the intestate and give plaintiff no right to recover against defendant. *Warner*v. *Brie Railway Company,*39 N. Y. 468.

An objection to the admission of testimony stating no ground for excluding it *held*too general to be of avail.

Appeal from an order denying a new trial upon the minutes, the court also ordering exceptions to be heard in the first instance at the general term.

*Amasa J. Parker,*for plaintiff and appellant.

*Samuel Hand,*for defendant and respondent.

Bockes, J

There were no points of importance passed upon in the opinion which require its publication at length.

*Judgment affirmed.*
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-5071

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,

v. GEBRIAN RAYSHAWN GILLESPIE, a/k/a Gebrian Rayshawn Millspin, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. William L. Osteen, Jr., District Judge. (1:08-cr-00023-WO-1)

Submitted: June 10, 2009 Decided: July 2, 2009

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Louis C. Allen, III, Federal Public Defender, Gregory Davis, Senior Litigator, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, Thomas N. Cochran, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Anna Mills Wagoner, United States Attorney, L. Patrick Auld, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.PER CURIAM: Gebrian Rayshawn Gillespie appeals from his conviction on a guilty plea and sentence imposed for distribution of crack cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A) (2006). His sole issue on appeal is that the crack to powder cocaine ratio is unconstitutional, a claim he raises for the first time on appeal. * We find Gillespie’s challenge to the constitutionality of § 841 to be without merit. As Gillespie acknowledges on appeal, this court has repeatedly rejected claims that the sentencing disparity between powder cocaine and crack offenses violates either equal protection or due process. See United

States v. Perkins , 108 F.3d 512, 518 (4th Cir. 1997); United States v. Burgos , 94 F.3d 849, 876-77 (4th Cir. 1996); United

States v. Fisher , 58 F.3d 96, 99-100 (4th Cir. 1995). To the extent Gillespie seeks to have us reconsider these decisions, a panel of this court cannot overrule the decision of a prior panel. United States v. Simms , 441 F.3d 313, 318 (4th Cir. 2006).

Nor do the 2007 amendments to the Sentencing Guidelines have any effect on the constitutionality or

* We review Gillespie’s claim for plain error because he failed to raise it in the district court. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(b); United States v. Olano , 507 U.S. 725 (1993).

23 applicability of the statutory mandatory minimum sentences for crack offenses. Gillespie’s attempts to bolster his argument with the Supreme Court’s decision in Kimbrough v. United States , 128 S. Ct. 558, 575 (2007), is misplaced because its holding that district courts may consider the crack/cocaine sentencing ratio as a possible basis for variance from the Guidelines is unrelated to the constitutionality of the sentencing disparity, and the Supreme Court in Kimbrough specifically held that “sentencing courts remain bound by the mandatory minimum sentences prescribed by statute.” Id. at 573. Accordingly, we affirm Gillespie’s conviction and sentence. 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
§ 156.290 Non-certification and decertification of QHPs. ( a ) *Non-certification for a subsequent, consecutive certification cycle.* If a QHP issuer elects not to seek certification for a subsequent, consecutive certification cycle with the Exchange, the QHP issuer, at a minimum, must— ( 1 ) Notify the Exchange of its decision prior to the beginning of the recertification process and adhere to the procedures adopted by the Exchange in accordance with § 155.1075 of this subchapter;
( 2 ) Fulfill its obligation to cover benefits for each enrollee through the end of the plan or benefit year through the Exchange;
( 3 ) Fulfill data reporting obligations from the last plan or benefit year of the certification;
( 4 ) Provide notice to enrollees as described in paragraph (b) of this section; and
( 5 ) Terminate the coverage or enrollment through the Exchange of enrollees in the QHP in accordance with § 156.270, as applicable.
( b ) *Notice of QHP non-availability.* When, for a subsequent, consecutive certification cycle, a QHP issuer elects not to seek certification with the Exchange, or the Exchange denies certification of a QHP, the QHP issuer must provide written notice to each enrollee in the form and manner specified by the Secretary under § 147.106 of this subchapter.
( c ) *Decertification.* If a QHP is decertified by the Exchange, the QHP issuer must terminate the enrollment of enrollees through the Exchange only after: ( 1 ) The Exchange has made notification as described in § 155.1080 of this subchapter; and
( 2 ) Enrollees have an opportunity to enroll in other coverage.
[77 FR 18469, Mar. 27, 2012, as amended at 80 FR 10875, Feb. 27, 2015; 81 FR 94181, Dec. 22, 2016]
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

ALEX LAROCHE

v.

BRUCE BEERS, BEERS & ASSOCIATES 

INC., GEORGE A. KOUNOUPIS ESQ. 

AND HAHALIS & KOUNOUPIS P.C.

PETITION OF: GEORGE A. 

KOUNOUPIS, ESQ., AND HAHALIS & 

KOUNOUPIS, P.C.

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 197 MAL 2019

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 16th day of October, 2019, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack, Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 February 4, 2020

b0127

Order 

Clerk

February 4, 2020

159621

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 159621

COA: 347953

Wayne CC: 17-010169-FH

MARLON DELANTE JACKSON,

Defendant-Appellant.

_____________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 19, 2019 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded 

that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
#### § 155.1505 Definitions.

As used in this subpart-

*Business rules* means the State-based Exchange's internal directives defining, guiding, or constraining the State-based Exchange's actions when making eligibility determinations and related APTC calculations.

*Entity relationship diagram* means a graphical representation illustrating the organization and relationship of the data elements that are pertinent to applications for QHP and associated APTC payments.

*Pre-testing and assessment* means the process that uses the procedures specified in § 155.1515 to prepare State-based Exchanges for the planned measurement of improper payments of APTC.

*Pre-testing and assessment checklist* means the document that contains criteria that HHS will use to review a State-based Exchange's ability to accomplish the requirements of the IPPTA.

*Pre-testing and assessment data request form* means the document that specifies the structure for the data elements that HHS will require each State-based Exchange to submit.

*Pre-testing and assessment period* means the two calendar year timespan during which HHS will engage in pre-testing and assessment procedures with a State-based Exchange.

*Pre-testing and assessment plan* means the template developed by HHS in collaboration with each State-based Exchange enumerating the procedures, sequence, and schedule to accomplish pre-testing and assessment.

*Pre-testing and assessment report* means the summary report provided by HHS to each State-based Exchange at the end of the State-based Exchange's pre-testing and assessment period that will include, but not be limited to, the State-based Exchange's status regarding completion of each of the pre-testing and assessment procedures specified in § 155.1515, as well as observations and recommendations that result from processing and reviewing the data submitted by the State-based Exchange to HHS.
EXHIBIT 10.1

                                    AMENDMENT

                                        TO

                              MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT

        WHEREAS,  DEMETER MANAGEMENT  CORPORATION,  a Delaware  corporation (the
"General  Partner")  on behalf of DEAN WITTER  CORNERSTONE  FUND III, a New York
limited partnership (the "Partnership"),  and WELTON INVESTMENT  CORPORATION,  a
Delaware  corporation  (formerly,  Welton  Investment  System  Corporation) (the
"Trading Manager"),  have agreed to amend the Management Agreement,  dated as of
July 1, 1996 (the "Management  Agreement"),  among the Partnership,  the General
Partner,  and the Trading  Manager,  to change the management fee payable to the
Trading Manager.

        WHEREAS,  all provisions contained in the Management Agreement remain in
full force and effect and are modified  only to the extent  necessary to provide
for the amendment set forth below.

        NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto hereby amend the Management Agreement
as follows:

        1.  The  monthly  management  fee rate of 1/3 of 1% (a 4%  annual  rate)
referred to in Section 7(a)(i) of the Management  Agreement is hereby changed to
7/24 of 1% (a 3.5% annual rate).

        2. The foregoing change shall take effect as of December 1, 2000.



<PAGE>




        IN WITNESS WHEREOF,  this Amendment to the Management Agreement has been
executed  for and on behalf of the  undersigned  as of the 30th day of November,
2000.

                                           DEAN WITTER CORNERSTONE FUND III

                                           By:   Demeter Management Corporation,
                                                 General Partner


                                           By:   /s/Robert E. Murray
                                              ----------------------------------
                                              Name:  Robert E. Murray
                                              Title:  President



                                           DEMETER MANAGEMENT CORPORATION


                                           By:   /s/Robert E. Murray
                                              ----------------------------------
                                              Name:  Robert E. Murray
                                              Title:  President


                                           WELTON INVESTMENT CORPORATION


                                           By:   /s/D. Nowlin
                                              ---------------------------------
                                              Name:  David Nowlin
                                              Title:  Vice President,
                                                      Administrative Operations
# Regarding the Proposed Merger of Alcatel and Lucnet Technologies, Inc.

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including section 721 of the Defense Production Act of 1950 (section 721), 50 U.S.C. App. 2170, 

**Section 1.***Findings.*

I hereby make the following findings: 

                    (1) there is credible evidence that leads me to believe that Alcatel, a                     *societe anonyme*                     organized under the laws of France, through exercising control of Lucent Technologies, Inc. (Lucent), a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Delaware, might take action that threatens to impair the national security of the United States; and                 

                    (2) provisions of law, other than section 721 and the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701*et seq*.), do not in my judgment provide adequate and appropriate authority for me to protect the national security in this matter.                 

**Sec 2.***Actions Ordered and Authorized.*

On the basis of the findings set forth in section 1 of this order and pursuant to my authority under applicable law, including section 721, I hereby order that: 

(1) any merger of Lucent and Alcatel that does not meet the following conditions within the timeframes specified is prohibited: 

(a) Lucent, Alcatel, and Alcatel USA Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of Alcatel, execute, on or before the closing date of the transaction, a National Security Agreement (NSA) with the Departments of Defense (DOD), Justice, Commerce, and Homeland Security, that is materially identical to the draft NSA negotiated with those agencies as of November 6, 2006; 

(b) Lucent and Alcatel execute, by a date to be determined by the Secretary of Defense, a Special Security Agreement (SSA) with the DOD that is materially identical to the draft SSA negotiated with the DOD as of November 6, 2006; and 

(c) the Secure Subsidiary, which is defined in the draft SSA and which will be a subsidiary of Lucent, execute the two documents described in (a) and (b) above, by a date to be determined by the Secretary of Defense; 

(2) the Attorney General is authorized to take any steps necessary to enforce this order. 

**Sec 3.***Reservation.*

                    I hereby reserve my authority until such time as the NSA and SSA are executed as required by this order, or, if the NSA and SSA are not so executed, until such time as the prohibition of the merger required by this order has been fully enforced, to issue further orders with respect to the parties as shall in my judgment be necessary to protect the national security.                           ( print page 67430)    

**Sec 4.***Publication.*

                    This order shall be published in the                     **Federal Register**                    .                

[FR Doc. 06-9381

Billing code 3195-01-P
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-1989

HARBISON STATION APARTMENTS,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

DENISE CORDERO,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., District

Judge. (CA-97-1841-3-17BD)

Submitted: December 18, 1997 Decided: January 6, 1998

Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Denise Cordero, Appellant Pro Se. Charles Elford Carpenter, Jr.,

RICHARDSON, PLOWDEN, CARPENTER & ROBINSON, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court's order remanding

this case to the state court. A district court order remanding a

case to the state court from which it was removed generally is not

appealable. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d) (1994); Thermtron Prods., Inc. v.

Hermansdorfer, 423 U.S. 336, 342 (1976); Nutter v. Monongahela

Power Co., 4 F.3d 319, 321 (4th Cir. 1993). Because none of the

exceptions apply here, we dismiss the appeal from the remand order.

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.

DISMISSED
§ 152.20 Prohibitions on pre-existing condition exclusions and waiting periods. ( a ) *Pre-existing condition exclusions.* A PCIP must provide all enrollees with health coverage that does not impose any pre-existing condition exclusions (as defined in § 152.2) with respect to such coverage.
( b ) *Waiting periods.* A PCIP may not impose a waiting period with respect to the coverage of services after the effective date of enrollment.
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.                  

###### Farm Credit Administration

# AGENCY:

Farm Credit Administration.

# SUMMARY:

Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the Government in the Sunshine Act (5 U.S.C. 552b(e)(3)), of the regular meeting of the Farm Credit Administration Board (Board).

*Date and Time:*                         The regular meeting of the Board will be held at the offices of the Farm Credit Administration in McLean, Virginia, on November 9, 2006, from 9 a.m. until such time as the Board concludes its business.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Roland E. Smith, Secretary to the Farm Credit Administration Board, (703) 883-4009, TTY (703) 883-4056.

# ADDRESSES:

Farm Credit Administration, 1501 Farm Credit Drive, McLean, Virginia 22102-5090.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    This meeting of the Board will be open to the public (limited space available). In order to increase the accessibility to Board meetings, persons requiring assistance should make arrangements in advance.                           ( print page 64704)                        The matters to be considered at the meeting are:                

## Open Session

### A. Approval of Minutes

    - October 12, 2006 (Open and Closed).

### B. New Business—Regulations

    - Disclosure and Reporting Requirements—Final Rule.
    - Farmer Mac Risk-Based Capital Stress Test—Final Rule.

### C. Reports

    - Office of Management Services Quarterly Report.

Dated: November 1, 2006.

Roland E. Smith,

Secretary, Farm Credit Administration Board.

[FR Doc. 06-9074 Filed 11-1-06; 12:23 pm]

BILLING CODE 6705-01-P
Case 16-30372 Doc 12 Filed 09/26/16 Entered 09/27/16 08:29:11 Desc Main

 Document Page 1 of 3
Case 16-30372 Doc 12 Filed 09/26/16 Entered 09/27/16 08:29:11 Desc Main

 Document Page 2 of 3
Case 16-30372 Doc 12 Filed 09/26/16 Entered 09/27/16 08:29:11 Desc Main

 Document Page 3 of 3
EXHIBIT 31.1

             CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13A-14(D)/15D-14(D)
                  UNDER THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

I, Anthony N. Renzi, certify that:
1. I have  reviewed  this  report  on Form  10-K and all  reports  on Form  10-D
   required to be filed in respect of the period  covered by this report on Form
   10-K of Home Loan Trust 2006-HI3 (the "Exchange Act periodic reports");
2. Based on my knowledge,  the Exchange Act periodic reports,  taken as a whole,
   do not contain  any untrue  statement  of a material  fact or omit to state a
   material  fact  necessary  to make  the  statements  made,  in  light  of the
   circumstances  under which such  statements  were made, not  misleading  with
   respect to the period covered by this report;
3. Based  on  my  knowledge,  all  of  the  distribution,  servicing  and  other
   information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by
   this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;
4. I am responsible for reviewing the activities  performed by the servicers and
   based on my knowledge and the compliance  reviews  conducted in preparing the
   servicer  compliance  statements  required in this report  under Item 1123 of
   Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic  reports,
   the servicers have fulfilled their obligations under the servicing agreements
   in all material respects; and
5. All of the reports on assessment of compliance  with  servicing  criteria for
   asset-backed  securities and their related  attestation reports on assessment
   of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to
   be included in this report in accordance  with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and
   Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this
   report,  except as otherwise disclosed in this report. Any material instances
   of noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in this report
   on Form 10-K.

   In giving the  certifications  above, I have reasonably relied on information
   provided to me by the following  unaffiliated  parties:  JPMorgan Chase Bank,
   N.A. and The Bank of New York Trust Company, N.A.

Date:  March 26, 2007

By:     /s/ Anthony N. Renzi
      ----------------------
Name:  Anthony N. Renzi
Title: Managing Director