alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Elmore, appellant, v. Jaques.

*Evidence—personal transactions with deceased, person—Code,*§ 399.

The testimony of the manager of a testator’s estate held inadmissible under Code, § 399, to show payments made by him to testator in reduction of a claim of such estate against such manager. Neither the entry in the books nor the sworn evidence of a party is admissible as against a deceased person in regard to a personal transaction had with such deceased person.

Appeal from a decree of the surrogate of Kings county disallowing a claim against the estate of a deceased person. The claim was made by James H. Elmore against Zipporah D. Jaques, devisee and legatee, under the last will of Lydia J. Carles. The claimant was the executor appointed-by said will, and as such filed an inventory of the testator’s estate, in which was included a note made by him toutestator several years before her death, for a balance due upon an accounting by him as manager of testator’s estate. The claimant alleged, for the purpose of reducing the amount due on this note, certain payments made to testator.

*L. S. Chatfield,*for appellant.

*John D. Pray,*for respondent.

*680Barnard, P. J.

The only material point passed upon in the opinion is fully set forth in the head-note.

*Decree affirmed.*
Editorial Note on Part 303
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 303 appear at 64 FR 6249, Feb. 9, 1999.

§ 303.30 Securing medical support information. ( a ) If the IV-A or IV-E agency does not provide the information specified in this paragraph to the Medicaid agency and if the information is available or can be obtained in a IV-D case for which an assignment as defined under § 301.1 of this chapter is in effect, the IV-D agency shall obtain the following information on the case: ( 1 ) Title IV-A case number, title IV-E foster care case number, Medicaid number or the individual's social security number;
( 2 ) Name of noncustodial parent;
( 3 ) Social security number of noncustodial parent;
( 4 ) Name and social security number of child(ren);
( 5 ) Home address of noncustodial parent;
( 6 ) Name and address of noncustodial parent's place of employment;
( 7 ) Whether the noncustodial parent has a health insurance policy and, if so, the policy name(s) and number(s) and name(s) of person(s) covered.
( b ) The IV-D agency shall provide the information obtained under paragraph (a) of this section to the Medicaid agency in a timely manner by the most efficient and cost-effective means available, using manual or automated systems.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control numbers 0960-0420 and 0970-0107) [50 FR 41895, Oct. 15, 1985, as amended at 51 FR 37732, Oct. 24, 1986. Redesignated at 54 FR 32312, Aug. 4, 1989; 56 FR 8004, Feb. 26, 1991; 64 FR 6250, Feb. 9, 1999]
BEFORE THE FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION 

In the Matter of ) 

) 

Proposed Final Audit Report on ) 

OMalley for President ) 

CERTIFICATION 

t 

I, Dayna C. Brown, Secretary and Clerk of the Federal Election 

Commission, do hereby certify that on July 31,2018, the Commission decided 

by a vote of 4-0 to approve the Proposed Final Audit Report on OMdley for 

President, as recommended in the Memorandum from the Chief Compliance 

OfGcer and the Audit Division dated July 26,2018. 

Commissioners Hunter, Petersen, Walther, and Weintraub voted 

afGimatively for the decision. 

Attest: 

AaujitJLf I. 

\J Date Dayna C. Brown 

Secretary and Clerk of the Commission
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-6867

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

KENNETH WARRIX,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Huntington. Robert J. Staker, Senior

District Judge. (CR-88-191, CA-96-93-3)

Submitted: October 31, 1997 Decided: December 3, 1997

Before HALL and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kenneth Warrix, Appellant Pro Se. Paul Thomas Farrell, Assistant

United States Attorney, Huntington, West Virginia, 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 denying his

motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1994) (current version at 28

U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997)). We have reviewed the

record and the district court's opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. United

States v. Warrix, Nos. CR-88-191; CA-96-93-3 (S.D.W. Va. May 20,

1996). See Lindh v. Murphy, 521 U.S. ___, 1997 WL 338568 (U.S. June

23, 1997) (No. 96-6298). 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
§ 2550.30 How does a State decide whether to establish a State commission or an alternative administrative entity? ( a ) Although each State's chief executive officer has the authority to select an administrative option, the Corporation strongly encourages States to establish State Commissions which meet the requirements in this part as quickly as possible. The requirements for State Commissions were established to try to create informed and effective entities.
( b ) The Corporation recognizes that some States, for legal or other legitimate reasons, may not be able to meet all of the requirements of the State Commissions. The AAE is essentially the same as a State Commission; however, it may be exempt from some of the State Commission requirements. A State that cannot meet one of the waivable requirements of the State Commission (as explained in § 2550.60), and which can demonstrate this to the Corporation, should seek to establish an AAE.
( c ) Regardless of which entity a State employs, each State is required to solicit broad-based, local input in an open, inclusive, non-political planning process.
[58 FR 60981, Nov. 18, 1993, as amended at 70 FR 39607, July 8, 2005]
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-12-00705-CV

Don C. HOLLAND,

Appellant

v.

Beulah M. HOLLAND,

Appellee

From the 33rd District Court, Burnet County, Texas

Trial Court No. 33,055

Honorable Guilford L. Jones, III, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Phylis J. Speedlin, Justice

Rebecca Simmons, Justice

Steven C. Hilbig, Justice

Delivered and Filed: December 21, 2012

DISMISSED

Appellant has filed a motion to dismiss this appeal. The motion contains a certificate of 

service to appellee, who has not opposed the motion. Therefore, we grant the motion and 

dismiss the appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(1). Costs of the appeal are taxed against the 

party who incurred them.

PER CURIAM
Chris Mashiba <cmashlba@cade8.com> 

06/11/2012 04:55 PM 

Dear Tom: 

The following responds to your letter of May 24,2012 regarding the draft final audit 

report for the 2009-2010 election cycle audit of Djou for Hawaii ("the campaign"). The 

campaign waives Its right to a hearing before the Commission to respond to the draft 

final audit report, but would like to raise two matters with the FEC Audit Division ("Audit 

Division") regarding the third finding in the draft final audit report (Reporting of Debts 

and Obligations). 

First, it is our understanding that the Audit Division's review of a statistical sample of the 

campaign's records identified 15 debts totaling $124,317.79 that should have been 

disclosed on the campaign's reports. We further understand that based on this 

statistical sample, the Audit Division then estimated that the campaign's records in their 

entirety likely contained 40 debts totaling $168,990 that should have been disclosed on 

the campaign's reports. In several places, the draft final audit report lists the totals of 

$168,990 or 40 debts, but does not make clear that this total was an extrapolation and 

was estimated based on a statistical sample and is significantly higher than the amount 

of unreported debt actually identified by the Audit Division in the audit. The campaign 

requests that the Audit Division modify the language in the draft final audit report each 

time the totals of $168,990 or 40 debts are listed to make clear that these figures were 

extrapolated estimates based on a review of a statistical sample of the campaign's 

activity and that the actual amount of unreported debt identified in the audit was only 

$124,317.79. 

Second, the campaign wants to make clear that following the adoption of the final audit 

report, if the Commission decides whether to take any additional action concerning the 

third finding in the draft final audit report, the lower figure of $124,317.79 should be 

used given that it reflects the actual amount of unreported debt that the Audit Division 

identified in the audit. 

If you have any questions regarding these two matters concerning the draft final audit 

report, please do not hesitate to contact me. 

Sincerely, 

Chris Mashiba 

Treasurer, Djou for Hawaii 

(808) 391-1883
#### § 2400.48 Fellows' participation in the Summer Institute.

Each fellow is required as part of his or her fellowship to attend the Institute (if it is offered), normally during the summer following the Fellow's commencement of graduate study under a fellowship.

[69 FR 11815, Mar. 12, 2004]
EXHIBIT 35.3

                    SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT (ITEM 1123)

                           HOMECOMINGS FINANCIAL, LLC

                RASC SERIES 2006-KS7 TRUST (THE "ISSUING ENTITY")

The undersigned,  a duly authorized  officer of Homecomings  Financial,  LLC, as
servicer (the "Servicer") pursuant to the applicable  servicing agreement,  does
hereby certify that:

1. A review of the  Servicer's  activities  during  the  period  covered  by the
Issuing Entity's report on Form 10-K and of the Servicer's performance under the
applicable servicing agreement has been made under my supervision.

2. To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled
all of its obligations under the applicable  servicing agreement in all material
respects throughout such period.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has duly executed this Certificate this 26th
day of March 2007.

By: /s/ Anthony N. Renzi
    Name: Anthony N. Renzi
    Title: Managing Director
§ 605.23 New construction. ( a ) *Design and construction.* Each facility or part of a facility constructed by, on behalf of, or for the use of a recipient shall be designed and constructed in such manner that the facility or part of the facility is readily accessible to and usable by qualified handicapped persons, if the construction was commenced after the effective date of this part.
( b ) *Alteration.* Each facility or part of a facility which is altered by, on behalf of, or for the use of a recipient after the effective date of this part in a manner that affects or could affect the usability of the facility or part of the facility shall, to the maximum extent feasible, be altered in such manner that the altered portion of the facility is readily accessible to and usable by qualified handicapped persons.
( c ) *Conformance with Uniform Federal Accessibility Standards.* ( 1 ) Effective as of January 18, 1991, design, construction, or alteration of buildings in conformance with sections 3-8 of the Uniform Federal Accessibility Standards (USAF) (appendix A to 41 CFR subpart 101-19.6) shall be deemed to comply with the requirements of this section with respect to those buildings. Departures from particular technical and scoping requirements of UFAS by the use of other methods are permitted where substantially equivalent or greater access to and usability of the building is provided.
( 2 ) For purposes of this section, section 4.1.6(1)(g) of UFAS shall be interpreted to exempt from the requirements of UFAS only mechanical rooms and other spaces that, because of their intended use, will not require accessibility to the public or beneficiaries or result in the employment or residence therein of persons with physical handicaps.
( 3 ) This section does not require recipients to make building alterations that have little likelihood of being accomplished without removing or altering a load-bearing structural member.
[47 FR 8573, Mar. 1, 1982, as amended at 55 FR 52138, 52142, Dec. 19, 1990]
#### § 2554.52 How does the Corporation protect the rights of defendants?

These procedures separate the functions of the investigating official, reviewing official, and the ALJ, each of whom report to a separate organizational authority in accordance with 31 U.S.C. 3801. Except for purposes of settlement, or as a witness or a representative in public proceedings, no investigating official, reviewing official, or Corporation employee or agent who helps investigate, prepare, or present a case may (in such case, or a factually related case) participate in the initial decision or the review of the initial decision by the authority head. This separation of functions and organization is designed to assure the independence and impartiality of each government official during every stage of the proceeding. The representative for the Corporation may be employed in the offices of either the investigating official or the reviewing official.
#### § 2551.114 What happens if a non-CNCS funded sponsor does not comply with the NGA?

###### Cross Reference

Link to an amendment published at 89 FR 70542, Aug. 30, 2024.

A non-CNCS funded project sponsor's noncompliance with the NGA may result in suspension or termination CNCS' agreement and all benefits specified in § 2551.112.

[83 FR 64648, Dec. 17, 2018]
"Mitchell, Cleta" To "'Marty Favin (mfavin@fec.gov)"' <mfavin@fec.gov>, 

<CMitchell@foley.com> "Camilla Reminsky (creminsl<y@fec.gov)" 

08/08/2012 02:49 PM <creminsky@fec.gov> 

cc 

bcc 

Subject Friends of Sharron Angle - Draft Audit Report 

Marty / Camilla -1 am in receipt of the final Audit Report of the above-referenced committee. I have no 

comments and the Committee will not be requesting a hearing on the audit. Please proceed as 

necessary to finalize and let me know what else I need to do. Once again, I appreciate your ongoing 

assistance and cooperation. Cleta 

Cleta Mitchell, Esq. 

Foley & Lardner, LLP 

3000 K Street, NW#600 

Washington, DC 20007 

(202) 295-4081 (direct) 

(202) 431-1950 (cell) 

(202) 672-5399 (fax) 

cmitchell@foley.com 

The preceding email message may be confidential or protected by the attorney-client privilege. It 

is not intended for transmission to, or receipt by, any unauthorized persons. If you have received 

this message in error, please (i) do not read it, (ii) reply to the sender that you received the 

message in error, and (iii) erase or destroy the message. Legal advice contained in the preceding 

message is solely for the benefit of the Foley & Lardner LLP client(s) represented by the Firm in 

the particular matter that is the subject of this message, and may not be relied upon by any other 

party. 

Internal Revenue Service regulations require that certain types of written advice include a 

disclaimer. To the extent the preceding message contains advice relating to a Federal tax issue, 

unless expressly stated otherwise the advice is not intended or written to be used, and it cannot 

be used by the recipient or any other taxpayer, for the purpose of avoiding Federal tax penalties, 

and was not written to support the promotion or marketing of any transaction or matter discussed 

herein.
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 44 (Wednesday, March 7, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 10258]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-1045]


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

JUDICIAL CONFERENCE OF THE UNITED STATES


Meeting of the Judicial Conference Advisory Committee on Rules of 
Appellate Procedure

AGENCY: Judicial Conference of the United States.

ACTION:  Notice of open meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Advisory Committee on Rules of Appellate Procedure will 
hold a two day meeting. The meeting will be open to public observation 
but not participation.

DATES: April 26-27, 2007.
    Time: 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.

ADDRESSES: La Posada de Sante Fe, 330 East Palace Avenue, Santa Fe, NM 
87501.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John K. Rabiej, Chief, Rules Committee 
Support Office, Administrative Office of the United States Courts, 
Washington, DC 20544, telephone (202) 502-1820.

    Dated: February 27, 2007.
John K. Rabiej,
Chief, Rules Committee Support Office.
[FR Doc. 07-1045 Filed 3-6-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 2210-55-M
Exhibit 31.2

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                                 SECTION 302 OF
                         THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 Certification of Chief Financial Officer

I, Charles Joyce, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Mobile Reach
International, Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does 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 quarterly
report.

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;

4. I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and
procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the
registrant and I have:

a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries,
is made known to us by, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be
designed under our supervision, others within those entities, particularly
during the period in which this report is being prepared;

b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness
of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered
by this report based on such evaluation; and

c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal
quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially
affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and

5. I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the registrant's
auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors (or persons
performing the equivalent function):

a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal controls over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial information; and

b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls over
financial reporting.

                                            /s/  Charles Joyce
                                            ---------------------------------
                                                 Charles Joyce
                                                 Chief Financial Officer


                                            December 15, 2004
### IN THE UNI TED STAT ES COURT OFAPPEALS FOR THE FIF TH CIRCU IT

No. 11-30004 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee

v. KEITH J. BROUSSARD, Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana USDC No. 6:10-CR-159-1

Before REAVLEY, SMITH and PRADO, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Keith J. Broussar d was charged with mailing a threatening communication to an employee of the Social Security Administratio n . Bro u s s ard t hreatened to physically injure and forcibly rape the recipient of th e communication. Broussard sought a downward departur e t o a sentence of probation because he suffers from epileptic seizures and was frustrated because he was not granted disability benefits. At sentencing, the district c o u r t n o t ed and rejected the arguments for a downward departure. The di s trict court U n i te d S ta te s C o u rt o f A p p ea l s

F i ft h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D Sep tem ber 2 2, 2 011 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk

Purs uant to 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5 , the cour t hasd ete rm inedt hat this op inion sho uld not * be publ ish ed and is not pr ece dent excep t unde r the lim ite d cir cum st ance s se t forth in 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5 .4. Case: 11-30004 Document: 00511609989 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/22/2011No. 11-30004

considered the factors co n t ained in 18 U.S.C. Section § 3553(a) and the Sentencing Guidelines. After contemplating these factors, the district court choose a non-guidelines sentence, above the recommended range, and sentenced Broussard to serve five years in prison. On appeal, Broussard does not challenge any procedural aspect of his

s entence, but he argues that his sentence is substantively unreasonab l e considering the § 3553(a) factors and his physical p r ob l e m s . We review sentencing decisions for reasonable n e s s an d u s e the abuse of discretion standard when determining whether a given sentence is in fact reasonable. United States

v. Cisneros-Gutierrez , 517 F.3d 751, 764 (5th Cir. 2008). A non-guidelines sentence is unreasonable if “it (1) does not account for a factor that should have received significant weight, (2) gives significant weight t o a n i rrelevant or improper factor, or (3) represents a clear error of judgment in balancing the sentencing factors.” United States v. Smith , 440 F.3d 704, 708 (5th Cir. 200 6). The district court made no procedural errors and stated permissible reasons for its choice of sentence. See Smith , 440 F.3d at 710. Broussard has f a i l e d t o show that the district court abused its discretion in going above th e recommended range and that his sentence is substantively unreasonable. AFFIRMED.

2 Case: 11-30004 Document: 00511609989 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/22/2011
§ 402.45 Amendments to applications. ( a ) ( 1 ) If, during the course of a fiscal year, a State adds a program or activity for which it intends to claim reimbursement or make payment in that fiscal year, it must submit an amendment (containing appropriate information pursuant to § 402.41(c)) to its approved application for that fiscal year prior to the due date for reports required by § 402.51 of this part.
( 2 ) If a State plans to initiate employment discrimination education and outreach activities not described in its application pursuant to § 402.41(d), it must submit an application amendment, which shall be reviewed in accordance with procedures described in § 402.41(d) of this part. The Department's approval of such an amendment is a prerequisite for the initiation of such new activities, except as provided for in § 402.11(n) (2).
( b ) Except as provided for in § 402.11(k) and (n), a State may use SLIAG funds received for a fiscal year to reimburse or pay SLIAG related costs for programs or activities described in paragraph (a) of this section retroactive to the date the activity began, but no earlier than the first day of the fiscal year and only to the extent described in § 402.10(d), except that funds received in FY 1992, if any, may be used for costs incurred on or after October 1, 1989. Costs incurred prior to October 1, 1987, are allowable only to the extent described in § 402.12.
[53 FR 7858, Mar. 10, 1988, as amended at 56 FR 21249, May 7, 1991]