alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1143 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1143

To exclude foreign reparation payments from consideration as income in 
 determining eligibility and benefits under Federal housing assistance 
                               programs.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 25, 1993

  Mr. Frank of Massachusetts introduced the following bill; which was 
    referred to the Committee on Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To exclude foreign reparation payments from consideration as income in 
 determining eligibility and benefits under Federal housing assistance 
                               programs.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa- tives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled, That, notwithstanding 
any other provision of law, reparation payments received from any 
foreign government shall not be considered as income or a resource for 
the purpose of determining the eligibility of, or the amount of 
benefits payable for, any person under the United States Housing Act of 
1937, section 236 of the National Housing Act, section 101 of the 
Housing and Urban Development Act of 1965, section 202(h)(4) of the 
Housing Act of 1959 (as in effect before October 1, 1991), section 811 
of the Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act, or title V of 
the Housing Act of 1949.

                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT 32.2  CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTING AND FINANCIAL OFFICER REGAN HOLDING CORP. FORM 10-K FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2009 PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002   I am the Principal Accounting and Financial Officer of Regan Holding Corp., a California corporation (the "Company"). I am delivering this certificate in connection with the Companys annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009 ("Form 10-K").  Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I hereby certify that, to the best of my knowledge, the Form 10-K fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.    Date: April 15, 2010  By: /s/ R. Preston Pitts R. Preston Pitts Principal Accounting and Financial Officer   A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Regan Holding Corp. and will be retained by Regan Holding Corp. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
(logo)TORCHLIGHT

          LOAN SERVICES

 

 

**ANNUAL COMPLIANCE STATEMENT**

 

CERTIFICATIONJ.P. Morgan Chase Commercial Mortgage Securities Trust 2015-C30,Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through CertificatesSeries 2015-C30 (the “Trust”)

 

I, Jacob Baron, on behalf ofTorchlight Loan Services, LLC, as special servicer (the “Certifying Servicer”),certify to J.P. Morgan Chase Commercial Mortgage Securities Corp. and itsofficers, directors and affiliates, and with the knowledge and intent that theywill rely upon this certification, that:

 

I (or Servicing Officers under my supervision) have reviewed the Certifying Servicer’s activities forthe fiscal year 2017 (the    “Reporting Period”) and theCertifying Servicer’s performance under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement;and

 

To the best of my knowledge,based on such review, the Certifying Servicer has fulfilled all of itsobligations under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement in all material respectsduring the Reporting Period.

 

Date:February 28, 2018

 

 

TORCHLIGHT LOAN SERVICES, LLC, as Special Servicer

 

 

By: /s/ Jacob Baron

Name: Jacob Baron

Title: Authorized Signatory

 

 

475Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10017

T212.883.2800   F 212.883.2560

Einfo@torchlightloanservices.com

www.torchlightinvestors.com
# THE STATE OF TEXAS

M A N D A T E

*********************************************

TO THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO

. 3 OF SMITH COUNTY, G REETING:

Before our Court of Appeals for the 12th Court of Appeals District of Texas, on the 1 1th
day of March, 2015 , the ca use upon appeal to revise or reverse your judgment between

IN THE MATTER OF THE GUARDIANSHIP OF JAME S N. CONIS, AN

INCAPACITATED PERSON

NO. 12

- 15

- 00057

- CV; Trial Court No. 39,676

- G

By per curiam opinion.

was determined; and therein our said Court made its order in these words:

“ THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record; and the same being considered, it is the opinion of this court that this court is without jurisdiction of the appeal, and that the appeal should be dismissed.

It is therefo re ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED by this court that this appeal be, and the same is, hereby dismissed for want of jurisdiction ; and that this decision be certified to

the court below for observance. ”

WHEREAS, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our sai d Court of Appeals for the Twelfth Court of Appeals District of Texas in this behalf, and in all things have it duly recognized, obeyed, and executed.

WITNESS, THE HONORABLE JAMES T. WORTHEN , Chief Justice of our Court of Appeals for the Twelfth Court of A ppeals District, with the Seal thereof affixed, at the City of Tyler, this the 22 nd day of Ma y , 2015.

CATHY S. LUSK, CLERK

By:

_______________________________ Chief Deputy Clerk
14-4354 United States of America v. Kenner UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING TO A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL. At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 7 th day of January, two thousand fifteen. PRESENT: GERARD E. LYNCH, DENNY CHIN, Circuit Judges, JOHN G. KOELTL, District Judge. *

_____________________________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appellee , v. 14-4354 TOMMY C. CONSTANTINE, AKA Tommy C. Hormovitis., Defendant , PHILLIP A. KENNER, Defendant-Appellant

.

_____________________________________

* The Honorable John G. Koeltl, United States District Judge for the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation.FOR APPELLEE: Saritha Komatireddy, Assistant United States Attorney (Susan Corkery, Assistant United States Attorney, on the brief ) for Loretta E. Lynch, United States Attorney, Eastern District of New York, Brooklyn, NY. FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT: Richard Haley, Haley Weinblatt & Calcagni, LLLP, Islandia, NY. Appeal from an order of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Joseph F. Bianco, J .). UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the order of the district court is AFFIRMED

. Phillip A. Kenner appeals from an order of the district court denying his motion to be released on bond pending trial on an indictment for mail fraud, wire fraud, and money laundering. 18 U.S.C. §§ 1343, 1349, 1956. We have considered Kenner’s arguments and affirm the denial of his motion substantially for the reasons stated by the district court. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the order of the district court. FOR THE COURT: Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk

2
115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 188 

AN ACT 

To prohibit the use of Federal funds for the costs of painting 

portraits of officers and employees of the Federal Government. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

†S 188 ES

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Eliminating Govern3 ment-funded Oil-painting Act’’ or the ‘‘EGO Act’’. 

4 SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON USE OF FUNDS FOR PORTRAITS. 

5 (a) PROHIBITION.—No funds appropriated or other6 wise made available to the Federal Government may be 

7 used to pay for the painting of a portrait of an officer 

8 or employee of the Federal Government, including the 

9 President, the Vice President, a Member of Congress, the 

10 head of an executive agency, or the head of an office of 

11 the legislative branch. 

12 (b) DEFINITIONS.—In this section— 

13 (1) the term ‘‘executive agency’’ has the mean14 ing given the term in section 133 of title 41, United 

15 States Code; and 

16 (2) the term ‘‘Member of Congress’’ includes a 

17 Delegate or Resident Commissioner to Congress. 

Passed the Senate September 18, 2017. 

Attest: 

Secretary. 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 188 

AN ACT 

To prohibit the use of Federal funds for the costs 

the Federal Government. of painting portraits of officers and employees of
Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida 

Opinion filed January 18, 2023.

________________

No. 3D22-1731

Lower Tribunal No. 16-4348

________________

Asuka Nomura,

Appellant,

vs.

Hideto Hata,

Appellee.

An Appeal from a non-final order from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade 

County, Spencer Multack, Judge.

Law Firm of Anya Cintron Stern, PA, and Anya Cintron Stern, for 

appellant.

Davis Smith & Jean, LLC, and Sonja A. Jean and Laura Davis Smith, 

BCS, for appellee.

Before LOGUE, SCALES, and HENDON, JJ. 

PER CURIAM.

ON CONFESSION OF ERROR

Based upon Appellee’s commendable confession of error, we reverse 

the order under review because the case management conference that led 
2

to the issuance of the order of reunification had not been noticed as an 

evidentiary hearing and Appellant was given no notice or an opportunity to 

present evidence. Mezei v. Tzynder, 307 So. 3d 83, 83-84 (Fla. 3d DCA 

2020) (“Because the motion to modify timesharing was not properly noticed 

for hearing, the mother was divested of her procedural due process rights.”).
Exhibit 10.22




WAIVER




The
undersigned is a party to an Employment Agreement with Dime Community
Bancshares, Inc. (the "Company") made and entered into as of January 1, 2003
(the "Company Agreement") and an Amended and Restated Employment Agreement with
The Dime Savings Bank of Williamsburgh (the "Bank") made and entered into as of
June 26, 1995 (the "Bank Agreement").




The
Company proposes to adopt Amendment No. 09 to the Dime Community Bancshares,
Inc. Employee Stock Ownership Plan ("ESOP"), the effect of which would be to
exclude from compensation used to calculate benefits under the ESOP, the Dime
Savings Bank of Williamsburgh 401(k) Savings Plan ("401(k)") and Dime Community
Bancshares, Inc. Benefit Maintenance Plan (the "BMP") income attributable to the
grant or vesting of restricted stock awards, the exercise of stock options and
the disqualifying disposition of stock acquired through the exercise of
incentive stock options. The adoption of such Amendment No. 9 could be viewed as
a material reduction in the compensation and benefits committed to be provided
to the undersigned in breach of the Company Agreement and/or the bank
Agreement.




For good
and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby
acknowledged, the undersigned hereby permanently and irrevocably waives, for
himself or his heirs, successors and assigns, any and all rights, remedies,
actions and causes of any name or nature whatsoever, that he does, can, may or
shall otherwise have under the Bank Agreement and/or the Company Agreement, as a
result of, in connection with or arising directly or indirectly out of the
adoption and implementation of Amendment No. 9 to the ESOP, including but not
limited to any right to resign for "good reason" thereunder and claim
termination benefits.




This
instrument is intended to operate as a binding waiver enforceable against me as
contemplated by section 19 of the Bank Agreement and section 20 of the Company
Agreement.




In
Witness Whereof, I have hereunto set my hand this 18th day of
February 2004.







/s/
VINCENT F. PALAGIANO

____________________________
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1668 Referred in House (RFH)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 1668

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             August 3, 2018

     Referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To rename a waterway in the State of New York as the ``Joseph Sanford 
                             Jr. Channel''.

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

SECTION 1. JOSEPH SANFORD JR. CHANNEL.

    (a) In General.--The waterway in the State of New York designated 
as the ``Negro Bar Channel'' shall be known and redesignated as the 
``Joseph Sanford Jr. Channel''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the waterway referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Joseph 
Sanford Jr. Channel''.

            Passed the Senate August 1, 2018.

            Attest:

                                                JULIE E. ADAMS,

                                                             Secretary.
```
Pursuant to section 10(a) (2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., Appendix 2), notice is hereby given for Joint Special Committee (SC)-190 /EUROCAE Working Group (WG)-52 meeting to be held March 6-10, 2000, starting at 9:00 am. on Monday, March 6. The meeting will be held at The Boeing Long Beach Division, 3855 Lakewood Blvd., Long Beach, California.

The agenda will include the following: March 6: 9 a.m.-3 p.m. (1) Plenary Session; (a) Welcome and Introductory Remarks; (b) Review and Approve Minutes of Previous Meeting; (c) Review New Process; (d) Review Status of Certification Authorities Software Team (CAST) & FAA Notices; (e) Review Reports of Editorial and Executive Committees, Issue List and Matrix, Subgroup Executive Summaries, and CNS/ATM; (f) Preliminary Assessment of Papers (Stand-up Plenary Model); (g) Subgroup working sessions begin. March 7: 8:30 a.m. (2) Subgroup working sessions. March 8: 8:30 a.m. (3) Plenary Session reconvenes: (a) Plenary Approval Vote on Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) & Discussion Papers (DP) seen Monday: (b) Plenary Assessment of New FAQs & DPs; 1 p.m. (4) Subgroup working sessions reconvene. March 9: (5) Subgroup working sessions continue. March 10: (6) Plenary Approval Process begins; (7) New Business; (8) Review Action Items and Plans; (9) Date and Location of Next Meeting; (10) Closing.

                    Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space availability. With the approval of the chairman, members of the public may present oral statements at the meeting. Persons wishing to present statements or obtain information should contact the RTCA Secretariat, 1140 Connecticut Avenue, NW., Suite 1020, Washington, DC. 20036; (202) 833-9339 (phone); (202) 833-9434 (fax); or http://www.rtca.org (web site) or point of contact on-site: Mr. E.W. Piper at (562) 593-1029 (phone);                     *elmo.w.piper@boeing.com*                     (email). Members of the public may present a written statement to the committee at any time.                

Dated: Issued in Washington, DC, on February 4, 2000.

Janice L. Peters,

Designated Official.

[FR Doc. 00-3080  Filed 2-9-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
Exhibit 99.2


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


 In connection  with the  Annual Report  of Sport  Supply Group,  Inc.,  (the
 "Company") on Form 10-K for  the fiscal year ended  March 28, 2003 as  filed
 with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 11,2003, I, Geoffrey  P.
 Jurick, Chief Executive Officer, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350,
 as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 (1) The Report  fully complies  with the  requirements of  section 13(a)  or
     15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
     respects,  the financial condition  and  result  of  operations  of  the
     Company.

 Date: July 11, 2003

                                    By: /s/ Robert K. Mitchell
                                    --------------------------
                                    Robert K. Mitchell
                                    Chief Financial Officer


 This certification has been furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of  the
 Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.

 A signed original of this written statement required by section 906 has been
 provided  to Sport Supply Group, Inc. and will be retained by Sport Supply
 Group, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
 staff upon request.
#### CURRIN v. STATE.

No. 20458.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

June 7, 1939.

No attorney for appellant.

Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

CHRISTIAN, Judge.

The offense is theft; the punishment, confinement in the penitentiary for two years.

The record is before us without a statement of facts or bills of exception. No question is presented for review.

The judgment is affirmed.

PER CURIAM.

The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the Court.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Appellant, v. Louis LOVEALL.

No. 11815.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Aug. 26, 1940.

*1023Richard .K. Phelps, Acting U. S. Atty., and Charles L. Chalender, Atty., Department of Justice, both of Kansas City, Mo., for appellant.

Lawrence E. Goldman and Frank R. Daley, both of Kansas City, Mo., for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal from District Court docketed and dismissed without taxation of costs in favor of either of the parties in this Court, on motion of appellant and stipulation of parties.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
The schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the balance
sheet and statement of operations and is qualified in its entirety to such
financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                                                  <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                        3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                    DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                         MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                               2,180
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        42,189
<ALLOWANCES>                                         (2,903)
<INVENTORY>                                          31,614<F1>
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     50,963
<PP&E>                                               99,361
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       172,441
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                29,786
<BONDS>                                              88,974<F2>
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             80
<OTHER-SE>                                           53,601<F3>
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         172,441
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     72,454
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     67,700
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     (31)<F4>
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   1,650
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      3,073
<INCOME-TAX>                                         1,198
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  1,875
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                         1,875
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0.23
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0.23
<FN>
<F1>Includes the following assets: prepaid expenses and other of $6,590, prepaid
income taxes of $757, deferred income taxes--current of $2,150, deferred income
taxes--long-term of $71, restricted cash of $5,782, note receivable of $7,487,
investment in limited partnership of $36, and intangible assets, net of $8,741.
<F2>Includes the following long-term liabilities: deferred income of $3,431,
capital lease obligation of $52,147, and long-term debt of $33,396.
<F3>Includes the following equity accounts: additional paid-in capital of
$48,463 and retained earnings of $5,138.
<F4>Includes loss on investment in limited partnership of $31.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Timothy Gillard, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Egitto, J.), rendered October 2, 1984, convicting him of manslaughter in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

We have reviewed the record and agree with the defendant’s assigned counsel that there are no nonfrivolous issues which could be raised on appeal. Counsel’s application for leave to withdraw as counsel is granted *(see, Anders v California,*386 US 738; *People v Paige,*54 AD2d 631; *cf., People v Gonzalez, Al*NY2d 606). Mangano, P. J., Kunzeman, Kooper, Sullivan and Ritter, JJ., concur.