alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
(LOGO) OPTION ONE
MORTGAGE CORPORATION

July 3, 2000

Norwest Bank Minnesota, National Association
Sixth and Marquette
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55479
Attention: Option One Series 1999-2
Inv#617

Norwest Bank Minnesota, National Association
11000 Broken Land Parkway
Columbia, Maryland 21044-3562
Attention: Kimberly Wiggins Option One Mortgage Loan Trust Series 1999-2

Norwest Funding
3601 Minnesota Drive
Suite 200
Bloomington, Mn. 55435
Attention: Joan Merrill

Financial Security Assurance Inc.
350 Park Avenue
New York, New York  10022
Attention: Surveillance Department

Moody's Investors Services
99 Church Street
New York, New York  10007
Attention: The Mortgage Monitoring Department

Standard & Poor's, a division of the McGraw Hill Companies
25 Broadway, 15th Floor
New York, New York  10004
Attention: Residential Mortgage Group


CORPORATE OFFICES * 3 ADA * IRVINE * CALIFORNIA 92618 * P.O.BOX 57038 * IRVINE
CALIFORNIA 92619-7038 * PHONE 949.790.8100 *  FAXLINE 949.790.8392


Pursuant to Section 3.20 of the Pooling and Servicing  Agreement,  dated
and effective as of April 1, 1999, (the "Agreement") among Option One
Mortgage Corporation, as Depositor and Master Servicer, and Norwest Bank
Minnesota, National Association, as Trustee, I certify that:

1. A review of the activities of the Servicer during the fiscal year ended April
   28, 2000, and of performance under the aforementioned 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 Agreement during the fiscal year ended April
   28, 2000, subject to any matters noted in the servicing report provided under
   Section 3.21 of the Agreement.


William L. O'Neill
Senior Vice President\ Chief Financial Officer
Option One Mortgage Corporation
#### Raul AGUILAR, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. EQUITY TRUSTEES, LLC, a Limited Liability Company, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 16-2355

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: June 29, 2017

Decided: July 27, 2017

Raul Aguilar, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Ryan Michael, BWW LAW GROUP, LLC, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before NIEMEYER and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Raul Aguilar seeks to appeal the magistrate judge’s order denying Aguilar’s motion for entry of default judgment and granting Defendant leave to file its responsive pleading one day late. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2012), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2012); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); *Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp.,*337 U.S. 541, 545-46, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). The order Aguilar seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.* We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED*

*

 After Aguilar noted his appeal, the district court entered an order pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 62.1, indicating that it would grant Defendant’s motion to dismiss Aguilar’s complaint if we remanded for that purpose under Fed. R. App. P. 12,1. We conclude, however, that Rules 62.1 and 12.1 are inapplicable. A district court need only enter an indicative ruling when "a timely motion is made for relief that the court lacks authority to grant because of an appeal that has been docketed and is pending.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 62.1(a). Here, the court retained jurisdiction while Aguilar’s appeal of the magistrate judge's , nonap-pealable, interlocutory order was pending. *See Wis. Mut. Ins. Co. v. United States,*441 F.3d 502, 504 (7th Cir. 2006) ("[A]n appeal taken from an interlocutory decision does not prevent the district court from finishing its work and rendering a final decision.”); *see also Gilda Indus., Inc. v. United States,*511 F.3d 1348, 1350-51 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (collecting authorities).
Thu Nov 17, 2011 4:00pm EST

WASHINGTON, Nov 17 (Reuters) - The top U.S. environmental

regulator will propose early next year twice-delayed rules on

greenhouse gas emissions from power plants, she told the

energyNOW television show.

 "I can't tell you what the regulations say right now, but

what we are planning to do is release them early next calendar

year," Lisa Jackson, the Environmental Protection Agency

administrator, told the program in a segment seen by Reuters

that is to be broadcast over the weekend.

 The EPA in June delayed the proposed rules on power plants,

which are the largest source of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions,

saying it needed more time after talking with businesses,

states and green groups. It delayed them again in September.

 Republicans in the House of Representatives have waged a

war on EPA clean-air regulations, saying such rules will kill

jobs and add costs to businesses suffering in a battered

economy.

 In September, President Barack Obama directed the EPA to

delay a major rule on smog-forming pollutants until 2013,

forcing Jackson to embrace a George W. Bush-era smog rule she

previously described as legally indefensible.

 The move led some environmentalists and health groups to

worry the administration would subject other clean-air rules to

long delays.

 But earlier this month, the EPA sent the planned rules on

carbon emissions from new power plants to the White House's

Office of Management and Budget for review, a process that can

take about 90 days.

 The rules could force big coal-burning utilities, including

Southern Co and American Electric Power , to use

more natural gas, which is lower in carbon emissions, or to

invest more in wind and solar power.

 Jackson has said the agency's coming slate of clean-air

rules can add jobs in technology to deal with smokestack

emissions.

 Lobbyists for utilities, however, say there is no

affordable technology yet that can be bolted on to power plants

to cut greenhouse gases.

 A process to bury carbon dioxide emissions underground,

known as carbon capture and sequestration or CCS, has been

suggested as a way to help utilities cut emissions in coming

years.

 But Jackson, whose agency looked at CCS as it developed the

rules, said the technology has a long way to go. "It can be

years, maybe a decade or more, until we have the technology

available at commercial scale," she said.

 Cheaper options exist to cut emissions, she said.

 "It would be shortsighted, or you would have to have

blinders on, not to look at the fact that there are other

game-changers out there like our nation's supply of natural gas

that are going to be important as people look at where they

want to make investment decisions," she said.

 Lobbyists for the power industry say energy markets, not

the EPA, should push utilities toward natural gas, adding that

the chemical industry is also eyeing new natural gas supplies,

which could eventually push up prices for the fuel.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6017 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 6017

 To revoke the waiver determination submitted to Congress on September 
  11, 2023, with respect to certain sanctions imposed with respect to 
                                 Iran.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            October 20, 2023

 Mrs. Steel (for herself, Mr. Owens, Mr. Gimenez, Mr. LaMalfa, and Mr. 
             Weber of Texas) introduced the following bill

                            October 25, 2023

 Referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, and in addition to the 
  Committees on Financial Services, Ways and Means, and Oversight and 
   Accountability, for a period to be subsequently determined by the 
  Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall 
           within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To revoke the waiver determination submitted to Congress on September 
  11, 2023, with respect to certain sanctions imposed with respect to 
                                 Iran.

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

SECTION 1. REVOCATION OF WAIVER DETERMINATION WITH RESPECT TO CERTAIN 
              IRAN SANCTIONS.

    (a) In General.--On and after the date of the enactment of this 
Act, the waiver determination issued by the Secretary of State pursuant 
to the provisions of law specified in subsection (b) and submitted to 
Congress on September 11, 2023, shall have no force or effect.
    (b) Provisions of Law Specified.--The provisions of law specified 
in this subsection are--
            (1) section 1245(d)(5) of the National Defense 
        Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (22 U.S.C. 8513a(d)(5)); 
        or
            (2) section 1244(i) or 1247(f) of the Iran Freedom and 
        Counter-Proliferation Act of 2012 (22 U.S.C. 8803(i) and 
        8806(f)).
                                 <all>
```
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Jorge Canela, Appellant.

[770 NYS2d 858]

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Caesar Cirigliano, J.), rendered November 26, 2001, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of assault in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of five years, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly exercised its discretion in denying defendant’s mistrial motion based on alleged prosecutorial misconduct during summation. Although the prosecutor, at times, made isolated remarks that might be construed as suggesting that defendant failed to present evidence at trial, the comments did not deprive defendant of a fair trial in light of the court’s timely and detailed curative instructions reminding the jury that the People bore the burden of proof and that defendant had no duty to present evidence *(see People v Santiago,*52 NY2d 865 [1981]; *People v D’Alessandro,*184 AD2d 114, 118-119 [1992], *lv denied*81 NY2d 884 [1993]). Concur—Nardelli, J.P., Andrias, Sullivan, Ellerin and Gonzalez, JJ.
#### Lisa Fuentes, Respondent, v City of New York et al., Appellants.

[771 NYS2d 178]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Jacobson, J.), dated January 24, 2003, which, inter alia, denied their motion to strike the plaintiffs supplemental bill of particulars and granted the plaintiffs cross motion for leave to amend her bill of particulars.

*550Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the cross motion is denied.

The plaintiffs self-labeled “supplemental” bill of particulars was, in reality, an amended bill of particulars, as it sought to add new injuries and a new category of damages *(see Kyong Hi Wohn v County of Suffolk,*237 AD2d 412 [1997]; *Pearce v Booth Mem. Hosp.,*152 AD2d 553, 554 [1989]). While leave to amend a bill of particulars is ordinarily to be freely granted in the absence of prejudice and surprise, when leave to amend is sought on the eve of trial, judicial discretion should be exercised in a “discreet, circumspect, prudent and cautious manner” *(Smith v Plaza Transp. Ambulance Serv.,*243 AD2d 555 [1997]; *see Kyong Hi Wohn v County of Suffolk, supra).*Moreover, where there has been an inordinate delay in seeking leave the plaintiff must establish a reasonable excuse for the delay, and submit an affidavit to establish the merits of the proposed amendment *(see Smith v Plaza Transp. Ambulance Serv., supra; Volpe v Good Samaritan Hosp.,*213 AD2d 398 [1995]).

Here, the plaintiff failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay in moving, for leave to amend her bill of particulars until eight months after the note of issue was filed. Moreover, she failed to provide an affidavit from a medical expert establishing a nexus between the newly alleged injuries and the subject accident. Thus, the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in permitting the plaintiff to amend her bill of particulars. Florio, J.P., Krausman, Luciano, Townes and Rivera, JJ., concur.
Betsy E. ROMERO, Appellant, v. Robert ROMERO, Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-3971

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed May 1, 2018

Scott E. Siverson, Orlando, for Appellant.

No Appearance for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

SAWAYA, TORPY and WALLIS, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION FROM THE FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS OF W HOLDING COMPANY, INC. FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1999
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                          55,672
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                           9,271
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                16,400
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                 1,289
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     22,185
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                       1,174,532
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                         1,074,346
<LOANS>                                      1,895,720
<ALLOWANCE>                                     23,978
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,374,571
<DEPOSITS>                                   2,247,865
<SHORT-TERM>                                   205,266
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                             23,918
<LONG-TERM>                                    673,702
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      3,220
<COMMON>                                        42,000
<OTHER-SE>                                     178,600
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>               3,374,571
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                151,398
<INTEREST-INVEST>                               65,926
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                15,663
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                               232,987
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              90,554
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             130,806
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                          102,181
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                   14,000
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                 367
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 53,816
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 46,604
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                      37,124
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    37,124
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.78
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.78
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    3.48
<LOANS-NON>                                      6,955
<LOANS-PAST>                                        66
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                  1,456
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                15,800
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                    7,358
<RECOVERIES>                                     1,536
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                               23,978
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                            23,978
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                          4,745


</TABLE>
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CertificationPursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as Adopted Pursuant to Section 906of the**

**Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002**

 

In connection with theQuarterly Report on Form 10-Q of 3CI Complete Compliance Corporation (the “Company”)for the quarter ended March 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Otley L. Smith III, the President andChief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350,as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,that:

 

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

 

(2)The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 
| Date: September 8, 2005 | /s/ Otley L. Smith III                 |   |
|-------------------------|----------------------------------------|--------|
|                    | Otley L. Smith III                     |
|                    | President and Chief  Executive Officer |

 

----
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6255 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 6255

   To require the Secretary of State to report an assessment of the 
  Conflict and Stabilization Operations Bureau, including whether the 
  Bureau should be maintained, explanations of its function, and cost 
                        analysis of the Bureau.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            November 7, 2023

  Mr. Baird introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Foreign Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To require the Secretary of State to report an assessment of the 
  Conflict and Stabilization Operations Bureau, including whether the 
  Bureau should be maintained, explanations of its function, and cost 
                        analysis of the Bureau.

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

SECTION 1. REPORT ON FUNCTION OF CONFLICT AND STABILIZATION OPERATIONS 
              BUREAU.

    (a) In General.--The Secretary of State submit a report to the 
appropriate congressional committees no more than 180 days after the 
passage of this bill concerning the Conflict and Stabilization 
Operations Bureau (referred to as the ``Bureau'').
    (b) Composition.--The report shall consist of--
            (1) an bottom-line assessment as to whether the Bureau 
        should be maintained;
            (2) an explanation of the unique function the Bureau 
        serves;
            (3) an analysis of the costs associated with the function 
        of the Bureau, including--
                    (A) potential costs related to the dissolution of 
                the Bureau; and
                    (B) potential savings, both immediate and long-
                term, related to the dissolution of the Bureau; and
            (4) a plan detailing which, if any, functions or personnel 
        of the Bureau would be absorbed by other Bureaus at the 
        Department.
    (c) Appropriate Congressional Committees.--The term ``appropriate 
congressional committees'' means the House of Representatives Committee 
on Foreign Affairs and the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
                                 <all>
```
10855 CORAL SPRINGS, LLC, Appellant, v. Wendy CICATELLO, Appellee.

No. 4D17-1404

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[May 17, 2018]

Daniel A. Bushell of Bushell Law, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.

Robert Garven, Coral Springs, for appellee.

Per Curiam.

*Affirmed.*

Damoorgian, Forst and Klingensmith, JJ., concur.
Robert Chase CAPLEY v. STATE

CR-16-0093

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

April 28, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 32 (Wednesday, February 16, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8855-8856]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-03251]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


Center for Scientific Review; Amended Notice of Meeting

    Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the Center for 
Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel, Radiation Therapeutics and 
Biology Member Conflict, March 3, 2022, 12:00 p.m. to 3:30 p.m., which 
was published

[[Page 8856]]

in the Federal Register on January 27, 2022, 87 FR 4260, FR 2022-01548.
    Meeting is being amended to change the Contact Person from Nicholas 
J. Donato to Careen Tang-Toth, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center 
for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge 
Drive, Room 4040, MSC 7849, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435-3504, 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#2d4e4c5f48484303594259456d434445034a425b"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="90f3f1e2f5f5febee4ffe4f8d0fef9f8bef7ffe6">[email protected]</span></a>. The meeting dates, times, and meeting location 
remain the same. The meeting is closed to the public.

    Dated: February 10, 2022.
David W. Freeman,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2022-03251 Filed 2-15-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 6242 

To amend the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act to 

expand coverage of the definition of absent uniformed services voter, 

under such Act. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 6, 2023 

Mr. FROST introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on House Administration 

A BILL 

To amend the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee 

Voting Act to expand coverage of the definition of absent 

uniformed services voter, under such Act. 

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 ‘‘Voting Overseas Treat5 ed Equally for Servicemembers Act of 2023’’ or the 

6 ‘‘VOTES Act of 2023’’. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 6242 IH

1 SEC. 2. EXPANSION OF THE COVERAGE OF THE DEFINITION 

2 OF ABSENT UNIFORMED SERVICES VOTER 

3 UNDER THE UNIFORMED AND OVERSEAS 

4 CITIZENS ABSENTEE VOTING ACT. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 107 of the Uniformed and 

6 Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act (52 U.S.C. 20310) 

7 is amended— 

8 (1) in subparagraph (1)(A) by striking ‘‘on ac9 tive duty’’ and inserting ‘‘on active duty, active serv10 ice, or inactive duty-training as defined, respectively, 

11 by section 101(d) of title 10, United States Code,’’; 

12 (2) in subparagraph (1)(A) by striking ‘‘such 

13 active duty’’ and inserting ‘‘such duty status’’; 

14 (3) in subparagraph (1)(C) by striking ‘‘active 

15 duty or service’’ and inserting ‘‘active duty, active 

16 service, or inactive duty-training’’; and 

17 (4) in subparagraph (5)(A) by striking ‘‘active 

18 duty or service’’ and inserting ‘‘active duty, active 

19 service, or inactive duty-training as defined, respec20 tively, by section 101(d) of title 10, United States 

21 Code,’’. 

22 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

23 this section shall apply to elections occurring after Janu24 ary 1, 2025. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB