alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 33.9 Special review. ( a ) A Department employee subject to salary offset or a voluntary repayment agreement may, at any time, request a special review by the Secretary of the amount of the salary offset or voluntary repayment installments, based on materially changed circumstances, such as, but not limited to, catastrophic illness, divorce, death, or disability.
( b ) ( 1 ) In determining whether an offset would prevent the employee from meeting essential subsistence expenses, e.g., food, housing, clothing, transportation, and medical care, the employee shall submit a detailed statement and supporting documents for the employee, his or her spouse, and dependents indicating: ( i ) Income from all sources;
( ii ) Assets and liabilities;
( iii ) Number of dependents;
( iv ) Food, housing, clothing, transportation, and medical expenses; and
( v ) Exceptional and unusual expenses, if any.
( 2 ) When requesting a special review under this section, the employee shall file an alternative proposed offset or payment schedule and a statement, with supporting documents as described in paragraph (b)(1) of this section, stating why the current salary offset or payments result in an extreme financial hardship to the employee.
( c ) ( 1 ) The Secretary shall evaluate the statement and supporting documents, and determine whether the original offset or repayment schedule imposes extreme financial hardship on the employee.
( 2 ) Within 30 calendar days of the receipt of the request and supporting documents, the Secretary shall notify the employee in writing of such determination, including, if appropriate, a revised offset or repayment schedule.
( d ) If the special review results in a revised offset or repayment schedule, the Secretary shall provide a new certification to the paying agency.
#### Robert S. Haward, *Respondent, v.*Frederick A. Conkling, *Appellant*.

Judgment reversed, new trial granted, costs to abide event. Opinion by

Davis, P. J.
§ 2525.15 Upon what basis may an entity responsible for the supervision of an Eligible Individual certify that the Eligible Individual successfully completed a term of service? ( a ) An Eligible Individual's supervising entity must certify that the individual has successfully completed a term of service. The individual successfully completed a term of service if the individual has: ( 1 ) Completed the number of service hours required;
( 2 ) Satisfactorily performed on assignments, tasks, or projects;
( 3 ) Met any performance criteria as determined by the program and communicated to the member; and
( 4 ) Fulfilled any other enrollment and program requirements to earn an education award.
( b ) A certification by the supervising entity that an individual did or did not successfully complete a term of service will be deemed to incorporate an end-of-term evaluation.
Exhibit 35.1

             ANNUAL STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE PURSUANT TO SECTION 3.19

                             Argent Securities Inc.
             Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006-M2

            Each of the undersigned does hereby certify that he/she is a duly
appointed Authorized Servicing Agent of Ameriquest Mortgage Company (the "Master
Servicer"), and further certify as follows:

            1. This certification is being made pursuant to the terms of the
Pooling and Servicing Agreement, dated as of August 1, 2006 (the "Agreement"),
among Argent Securities Inc., as depositor, the Master Servicer and Deutsche
Bank National Trust Company, as trustee.

            2. I have reviewed the activities of the Master Servicer during the
preceding year and the Master Servicer's performance under the Agreement and to
the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Master Servicer has
fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects
throughout the year.

            Capitalized terms not otherwise defined herein have the meanings set
forth in the Agreement.

      IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this Certificate as of
March 26, 2007.


                                             By: /s/ Jane Johnson
                                                 -------------------------------
                                             Name: Jane Johnson
                                             Title:  Authorized Servicing Agent


                                             By: /s/ Jule J. Keen
                                                 -------------------------------
                                             Name: Jule J. Keen
                                             Title: Executive Vice President and
                                                    Authorized Servicing Agent


            I, Denise Apicella, an Assistant Secretary of the Master Servicer,
hereby certify that each of Jane Johnson and Jule J. Keen is a duly qualified,
and acting Authorized Servicing Agent of the Master Servicer and that the
signature appearing above is his/her genuine signature.

            IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this Certificate as
of March 26, 2007.


                                             By: /s/ Denise Apicella
                                                 -------------------------------
                                             Name: Denise Apicella
                                             Title: Assistant Secretary
Paula Nurthen 

From: Fred Page <fpagecpa@comcast.net> 

Sent Friday, February 16, 2018 4:08 PM 

To: Paula Nurthen 

Cc: Morgan Baldwin 

Subject: Interim Audit Report of Kelly for Congress 

Hello Paula, 

We have reviewed the Interim Audit Report and have the following response: 

1) Finding 1, The barik loan was made in the ordinary course of business in that it was secured by collateral and 

guaranteed by an individual. Also, it was repaid on June 5,2015. We respectfully request that the Commission 

consider the totality of circumstances in this case and determine that the loan was made on a basis that assured 

repayment. 

2) Finding 2, The $25,200.00 contributions in question were resolved as soon as they were brought to the attention 

of the Committee. 

We realize there were errors made due to ignorance on our part. 

We respectfully submit to the Commission that all errors were ultimately resolved in that: 

A) The bank loan was repaid within 30 days, and 

B) The Committee has documented to the audit staff copies of re-designation and reattribution letters, signed by . 

the contributors, which ultimately resolved all of the excessive contributions, totaling $25,200.00. 

Thank you for your consideration in this matter. 

Sincerely, 

Fred Page, Treasurer 

U.S. Treasury Circular 230 Notice: Any U.S. Federal tax advice included in this communication (including any 

attachments) was not intended or written to be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding U.S. federal tax-related penalties or 

(ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any tax-related matter addressed herein. 

This communication may'contain information that is legally privileged, confidential or exempt from disclosure. If you are 

not the intended recipient, please note that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication Is strictly 

prohibited. Anyone who receives this message in error should notify the sender immediately by telephone or by return 

e-mail and delete it from his or her computer or other device.
#### § 310.40 What requirements apply for accessing systems and records for monitoring Computerized Tribal IV-D Systems and Office Automation?

In accordance with part 95 of this title, a comprehensive Tribal IV-D agency must allow OCSE access to the system in all of its aspects, including installation, operation, and cost records of contractors and subcontractors, and of Service Agreements at such intervals as are deemed necessary by OCSE to determine whether the conditions for FFP approval are being met and to determine the efficiency, effectiveness, reasonableness of the system and its cost.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-30574

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

KIN L. GAYLE,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 2:07-CR-196-1

Before SMITH, DENNIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

*

Kin L. Gayle, federal prisoner # 30212-034, pleaded guilty to possession

with intent to distribute five grams or more of crack cocaine, and he was

sentenced to the mandatory minimum of 120 months in prison. Gayle appeals

the district court’s denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion for a reduction of

sentence, which primarily was based on recent amendments to the Sentencing

Guidelines for crack cocaine. The Assistant Federal Public Defender

representing Gayle on appeal has filed an unopposed motion to substitute

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

October 26, 2010

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not *

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

Case: 08-30574 Document: 00511274223 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/26/2010
No. 08-30574

counsel. Counsel avers that he was a member of the review panel charged with

determining Gayle’s eligibility for a reduction under the amendments to the

Guidelines for crack cocaine. Counsel contends that his participation in the

review panel creates a potential conflict of interest.

Because Gayle was subjected to the mandatory minimum penalty, he was

not eligible for § 3582(c)(2) relief under the recent crack cocaine guidelines

amendments. See 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(b)(1)(A), 851; United States v. Pardue, 36

F.3d 429, 431 (5th Cir. 1994). Nor has Gayle alleged or identified any basis upon

which the district court could have imposed a sentence below the statutory

minimum.

Gayle’s appeal is entirely without merit. Therefore, counsel’s motion to

substitute counsel is denied, the appeal is dismissed, and counsel is excused

from further responsibilities herein. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

MOTION TO SUBSTITUTE COUNSEL DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED.

2

Case: 08-30574 Document: 00511274223 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/26/2010
# C_2008224EN.01003901.xml

| 30.8.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 224/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.8.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 224/39

---

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, and the enforcement of the obligation to insure against such liability (Codified version)

COM(2008) 98 final — 2008/0037 (COD)

(2008/C 224/08)

On 22 April 2008, the Council of the European Union decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee, under Article 95 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the

Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, and the enforcement of the obligation to insure against such liability (Codified version)

Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, and the enforcement of the obligation to insure against such liability (Codified version)

Since the Committee unreservedly endorses the content of the proposal and feels that it requires no comment on its part, it decided, at its 445th plenary session of 28 and 29 May 2008 (meeting of 29 May), by 80 votes and 3 abstentions, to issue an opinion endorsing the proposed text.

Brussels, 29 May 2008.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Dimitris DIMITRIADIS

---
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1753 

To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to include in the definition 

of the term ‘‘aggravated felony’’ a criminal violation committed by an 

alien who unlawfully entered the United States. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 26, 2009 

Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida (for herself, Mr. BILBRAY, Mrs. 

MYRICK, Mr. ROHRABACHER, Mr. LUETKEMEYER, Mr. BURTON of Indiana, Mr. LAMBORN, Mr. JONES, Mr. CHAFFETZ, Mr. POE of Texas, and 

Mr. AKIN) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to include 

in the definition of the term ‘‘aggravated felony’’ a criminal violation committed by an alien who unlawfully entered the United States. 

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 ‘‘One Strike Act’’. 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with BILLS
2 

•HR 1753 IH

1 SEC. 2. CRIMINAL VIOLATIONS BY ALIENS ENTERING UN2 LAWFULLY. 

3 Section 101(a)(43) of the Immigration and Nation4 ality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43)) is amended— 

5 (1) by striking ‘‘and’’ at the end of subpara6 graph (T); 

7 (2) by striking the period and inserting ‘‘; and’’ 

8 at the end of subparagraph (U); and 

9 (3) by inserting after subparagrah (U) the fol10 lowing: 

11 ‘‘(V) an offense committed in the United 

12 States for which a term of imprisonment may 

13 be imposed after the date of the enactment of 

14 this subparagraph by an alien who violated sec15 tion 275(a).’’. 

Æ 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with BILLS
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

____________

No. 14-5240 September Term, 2014

1:14-cv-00837-CRC

1:14-cv-00853-CRC

Filed On: December 10, 2014

Chris Rufer, et al.,

Appellants

v.

Federal Election Commission,

Appellee

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

Consolidated with 14-5241

BEFORE: Garland, Chief Judge; Henderson, Rogers, Tatel, Brown,

Griffith, Kavanaugh, Srinivasan, Millett, Pillard, and Wilkins, 

Circuit Judges

O R D E R

Upon consideration of the joint dismissal agreement filed December 2, 2014, 

and the stipulation dismissing Republican plaintiffs filed November 19, 2014, it is

ORDERED that the Clerk note on the docket that these consolidated cases are

dismissed. No mandate will issue. 

Per Curiam

FOR THE COURT:

Mark J. Langer, Clerk 

BY: /s/

Michael C. McGrail 

Deputy Clerk

USCA Case #14-5240 Document #1526566 Filed: 12/10/2014 Page 1 of 1
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 96-3506

___________ Jerry X. Ellis, * * Appellant, * * v. * * Larry B. Norris, Director, Arkansas * Department of Correction, originally * Appeal from the United States sued as L. Norris; M. D. Reed, * District Court for the Warden, Cummins Unit, Arkansas * Eastern District of Arkansas. Department of Correction; R. Toney, * Assistant Warden, Cummins Unit, * [UNPUBLISHED] Arkansas Department of Correction; * D. Tate, Captain, Cummins Unit, * Arkansas Department of Correction; * Long, Captain, Cummins Unit, * Arkansas Department of Correction; * R. Scott, CO-1, Cummins Unit, * Arkansas Department of Correction; * Moncrief, Lt., Cummins Unit, Arkansas * Department of Correction; Todd, Sgt., * Cummins Unit, Arkansas Department * of Correction; Everett, Sgt., Cummins * Unit, Arkansas Department of * Correction; Dean, Sgt., Cummins Unit, * Arkansas Department of Correction; * D. Guntharp, Deputy/Assistant Director, * Cummins Unit, Arkansas Department * of Correction, originally sued as D. * Gunthary; Al-Mustafa Abdu Raheem, * originally sued as Imam M. Raheem; *TheHonorable Henry L. Jones, Jr., United States Magistrate Judge for th e 1 EasternDistrict of Arkansas, to whom the case was referred for final disposition b y consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). -2- K. D. Millerd, originally sued as Sgt. * Miller, * * Appellees. *

___________ Submitted: February 6, 1998 Filed: February 23, 1998

___________ Before FAGG, BEAM, and HANSEN, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM.

Jerry X. Ellis appeals the district court & s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1 1983 action. In his complaint, Ellis alleged defendants viola ted his constitutional rights by fai ling to provide him with evening meals during the month of Ramadan in 1994

. After a bench trial, the court found that the evidence was in equipoise and that Elli s thus had not met his burden of proof. Accepting the trial court & s factual findings and evidentiary rulings as correct, see Fed. R. App. P. 10(b)(2); Van Treese v. Blome , 7 F.3d729, 729 (8th Cir. 1993) (per curiam); Schmid v. United Brotherhood o f Carpenters & Joiners , 827 F.2d 384, 386 (8th Cir. 1987) (per curiam), cert. denied , 484 U.S. 1071 (1988), we conclude the district court & s judgment was correct. Accordingly, we affirm. See8th Cir. R. 47B.-3-

A true copy.

Attest:
CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
```

[Federal Register: September 23, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 184)]
[Notices]               
[Page 58019-58020]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr23se10-127]                         

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

 
Notice of Intent to Rule on Request to Release Airport Property 
at the Kearney Municipal Airport, Kearney, NE

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of Request to Release Airport Property.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to rule and invites public comment on the 
release of land at the Keamey Municipal Airport under the provisions of 
Section 125 of the Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment Reform Act for 
the 21st Century (AIR 21).

DATES: Comments must be received on or before October 25, 2010.

ADDRESSES: Comments on this application may be mailed or delivered to 
the FAA at the following address: Federal Aviation Administration, 
Central Region, Airports Division, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 
64106-2325.
    In addition, one copy of any comments submitted to the FAA must be 
mailed or delivered to Michael J. Tye, City Attorney, City of Kearney, 
1419 Central Avenue, P.O. Box 636, Kearney, NE. 68848-0636.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nicoletta Oliver, Airports Compliance 
Specialist, FAA, Central Region, 901 Locust, Kansas City, MO 64106-
2325, (816) 329-2642. The request to release property may be reviewed 
in person at this same location.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA proposes to rule and invites public 
comment on the request to release property at the Kearney Municipal 
Airport under the provisions of AIR21.
    On September 9, 2010, the FAA determined that the request to 
release property at the Kearney Municipal Airport, submitted by the 
City of Kearney, met the procedural requirements of the Federal 
Aviation Administration. The FAA will approve or disapprove the 
request, in whole or in part, no later than November 9, 2010.
    The following is a brief overview of the request: The City of 
Kearney requests the release of approximately 7.09 acres of airport 
property, as well as structures located on this property. The land is 
currently not being used for aeronautical purposes. The purpose of this 
release is to sell the land to Delux Manufacturing Co. Inc. for use as 
a manufacturing facility.
    Any person may inspect the request in person at the FAA office 
listed above

[[Page 58020]]

under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
    In addition, any person may, upon request, inspect the application, 
notice and other documents that are relevant to the request, in person 
at the City of Kearney, Keamey, Nebraska.

    Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on September 9, 2010.
Jim A. Johnson,
Manager, Airports Division, Central Region.
[FR Doc. 2010-23750 Filed 9-22-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
```
#### § 35.5 Investigation, examination, and determination of claims.

When a claim is received, the constituent agency out of whose activities the claim arose shall make such investigation as may be necessary or appropriate for a determination of the validity of the claim and thereafter shall forward the claim, together with all pertinent material, and a recommendation based on the merits of the case, with regard to allowance or disallowance of the claim, to the Department Claims Officer to whom authority has been delegated to adjust, determine, compromise and settle all claims hereunder.
Exhibit 8


     EXHIBIT 8: LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES

     Name of Subsidiary                                Place of Incorporation

     VocalTec Communications Inc.                               Delaware
     VocalTec Communications Japan KK                           Japan
     VocalTec Communications Deutschland GmbH                   Germany
     VocalTec Communications Hong Kong Limited                  Hong Kong
     VocalTec Communications International B.V.                 Netherlands
     VocalTec Communications Italy S.r.l.                       Italy

     VocalTec Communications Singapore Pte Ltd.                 Singapore
     VocalTec Communications France SAS                         France
     VocalTec Communications Spain S.L.                         Spain
     VocalTec Communications Sweden AB                          Sweden
     VocalTec Communications India Private Limited              India
     TrulyGlobal Limited                                        Israel*
     VocalTec Rocket Inc.                                       Delaware*

     * inactive corporate entities
§ 681.46 What if the investigation indicates criminal misconduct? ( a ) Any investigating official may: ( 1 ) Refer allegations of criminal misconduct directly to the Department of Justice for prosecution or for suit under the False Claims Act or other civil proceeding;
( 2 ) Defer or postpone a report or referral to the reviewing official to avoid interference with a criminal investigation or prosecution; or
( 3 ) Issue subpoenas under any other statutory authority.
( b ) Nothing in this part limits the requirement that NSF employees report suspected violations of criminal law to the NSF Office of Inspector General or to the Attorney General.
Argued and submitted January 31,

reversed and remanded in part; vacated in part; otherwise affirmed in part May 29,1996

#### STATE OF OREGON, *Respondent, v.*MAX EDWARD MULLER, *Appellant.*

(C940698CR; CA A86521)

917 P2d 76

Eric R. Johansen, Deputy Public Defender, argued the cause for appellant. With him on the briefs was Sally L. Avera, Public Defender.

Timothy A. Sylwester, Assistant Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Theodore R. Kulongoski, Attorney General, and Virginia L. Linder, Solicitor General.

Before Deits, Presiding Judge, and De Muniz and Haselton, Judges.

PER CURIAM

Conviction for first degree robbery reversed and remanded for new trial; compensatory fine vacated; otherwise affirmed. *State v. Alben,*139 Or App 236, 911 P2d 1239, *rev den*323 Or 153 (1996).
Exhibit 32.1

March 12,
2015
Via EDGAR
Securities and Exchange Commission
Judiciary Plaza
450 Fifth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20549

Ladies
and Gentlemen:

In
connection with the Annual Report of MV Oil Trust (the "Trust") on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2014 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned, not in its individual capacity but solely as the trustee of the Trust, certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to its knowledge:



The
above certification is furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350) and is not being filed as part of the Form 10-K or as
a separate disclosure document.

THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON TRUST COMPANY, N.A.Trustee for MV Oil TrustBy:

/s/ MICHAEL J. ULRICH Michael J. Ulrich Vice President


---



QuickLinks