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

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 6695 

To authorize private parties to compel the Securities and Exchange 

Commission to seek sanctions by filing civil actions, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 11, 2023 

Mr. DAVIDSON introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Financial Services 

A BILL 

To authorize private parties to compel the Securities and 

Exchange Commission to seek sanctions by filing civil 

actions, and for other purposes. 

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 ‘‘Due Process Restora5 tion Act of 2023’’. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 6695 IH

1 SEC. 2. PRIVATE PARTIES AUTHORIZED TO COMPEL THE 

2 SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION TO 

3 SEEK SANCTIONS BY FILING CIVIL ACTIONS. 

4 Title I of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 

5 U.S.C. 78a et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the 

6 following: 

7 ‘‘SEC. 42. PRIVATE PARTIES AUTHORIZED TO COMPEL THE 

8 COMMISSION TO SEEK SANCTIONS BY FILING 

9 CIVIL ACTIONS. 

10 ‘‘(a) TERMINATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE PRO11 CEEDING.—In the case of any person who is a party to 

12 a proceeding brought by the Commission under a securi13 ties law, to which section 554 of title 5, United States 

14 Code, applies, and against whom an order imposing a 

15 cease and desist order and a penalty may be issued at 

16 the conclusion of the proceeding, that person may, not 

17 later than 20 days after receiving notice of such pro18 ceeding, and at that person’s discretion, require the Com19 mission to terminate the proceeding. 

20 ‘‘(b) CIVIL ACTION AUTHORIZED.—If a person re21 quires the Commission to terminate a proceeding pursuant 

22 to subsection (a), the Commission may bring a civil action 

23 against that person for the same remedy that might be 

24 imposed. 

25 ‘‘(c) VENUE.—An action brought by the Commission 

26 under subsection (b) may be brought only in accordance 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
3 

•HR 6695 IH

1 with the requirements relating to venue under section 

2 1391 of title 28, United States Code.’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND> This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from
the Company's 10-Q and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such
financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                            JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                              JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                             34
<SECURITIES>                                        0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   3,078
<ALLOWANCES>                                       32
<INVENTORY>                                         0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                    0
<PP&E>                                              6
<DEPRECIATION>                                      2
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  3,936
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                               0
<BONDS>                                         2,507
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                            0
<OTHER-SE>                                        506
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    3,936
<SALES>                                             0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                  226
<CGS>                                               0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      50
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   10
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    9
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 92
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    65
<INCOME-TAX>                                        0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                41
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                       41
<EPS-BASIC>                                         0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       0



</TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jesus VALENCIA-REVUELTA, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-40219 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

October 16, 2017

Carmen Castillo Mitchell, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Jesus Valencia-Revuelta, Washington, MS, pro se.

Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Michael Lance Herman, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Houston, TX, Defendant-Appellant.

Before JOLLY, OWEN, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Jesus Valencia-Revuelta has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and *United States v. Flores,*632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Valencia-Revuelta has not filed a response. We *798have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents.no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Gib. R. 42.2.

*

 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.
##### 



Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
(18 U.S.C. Section 1350)

The undersigned executive officer of Jacksonville Bancorp, Inc., (the
Registrant) hereby certifies that the Registrants Form 10-Q for the quarter
ended June 30, 2003 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained therein
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
of operations of the Registrant.



| | /s/ Bill W. Taylor
Name: Bill W. Taylor
Title: Executive Vice President and
          Chief Financial Officer
| | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: November 24, 2003

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to the Registrant and will be retained by the Registrant and furnished
to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

In the Matter of

LOREN EVANS MULRAINE

PETITION FOR REINSTATEMENT
FROM ADMINISTRATIVE SUSPENSION :

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 99 DB 2020 (No. 60 RST 2020)

Attorney Registration No. 62562

( Philadelphia )

O R D E R

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 10 th day of September

, 2020 , the Report and Recommendation of

Disciplinary Board Member dated September 1

, 2020

, is approved and it is ORDERED

that Loren Evans Mulraine

, who has been on Administrative Suspension

, has never been

suspended or disbarred, and has demonstrated that h e has the moral qualifications,

competency and learning in law required for admission to practice in the Commonwealth,

shall be and is, hereby reinstated to active status as a member of the Bar of this

Commonwealth. The expenses incurred by the Board in the investigation and processing

of this matter shall be paid by the Petitioner.
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 7069 

To amend the Federal Fire Prevention and Control Act of 1974 to expand 

permissible uses of assistance to firefighters grant funds relating to 

behavioral and mental health, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 22, 2024 

Ms. SALINAS (for herself and Ms. TOKUDA) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology 

A BILL 

To amend the Federal Fire Prevention and Control Act 

of 1974 to expand permissible uses of assistance to firefighters grant funds relating to behavioral and mental 

health, and for other purposes. 

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 ‘‘Peer Support for Fire5 fighters Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 7069 IH

1 SEC. 2. EXPANSION OF PERMISSIBLE USES OF ASSISTANCE 

2 TO FIREFIGHTERS GRANT FUNDS RELATING 

3 TO BEHAVIORAL AND MENTAL HEALTH. 

4 Paragraph (3) of section 33(c) of the Federal Fire 

5 Prevention and Control Act of 1974 (15 U.S.C. 2229(c)) 

6 is amended— 

7 (1) by redesignating subparagraphs (F) 

8 through (N) as subparagraphs (G) through (O), re9 spectively; and 

10 (2) by inserting after subparagraph (E) the fol11 lowing new subparagraph: 

12 ‘‘(F) To support behavioral and mental 

13 health, including the development of or expan14 sion of evidence-based peer support programs.’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
#### BROWN BROTHERS EQUIPMENT COMPANY *v.*STATE HIGHWAY COMMISSION.

1. Contracts — Court op Claims — Highways—Summary Judgment.

Summary judgment by court of claims for defendant State highway commission on ground that plaintiff’s claims for damages could bo resolved in condemnation proceedings against plaintiff’s property *held,*improper where complaint and exhibits stated cause of action in contract for purchase of property against highway commission.

2. Same — Court op Claims — Jurisdiction.

Court of claims has exclusive jurisdiction over claims in contract against State and State commissions (CLS 1961, § 600-.6419).

3. Costs — Contracts—States.

Ño costs are awarded on appeal by' plaintiff asserting contract '; right against State highway commission in court of claims; from summary judgment dismissing action.

References por Points in Headnotes

[1] 41 Am Jur, Pleadings §§ 340-343.

[2] 20 Am Jur 2d, Courts § 33.

[3] 5 Am Jur 2d, Appeal and Error §§ 1009, 1013.

*571Appeal from Court of Claims; Beer (William J.), J.

Submitted Division 2 May 7, 1968, at Lansing.

(Docket No. 4,413.)

Decided May 31, 1968.

Leave to appeal denied September 3, 1968.

See 381 Mich 772.

Brown Brothers Equipment Company, a Michigan corporation, filed claim in the Court of Claims against the State Highway Commission for damages for breach of contract. Summary judgment for defendant. Plaintiff appeals.

[Reversed and remanded.

*Glassen,*Parr, *Rhead & McLean,*for plaintiff.

*Frank J. Kelley,*Attorney General, *Robert A. Derengoski,*Solicitor General, *Louis J. Caruso*and *Robert J. Taube,*Assistant Attorneys General, for defendant.

Per Curiam.

Plaintiff filed its claim in the court of claims against defendants for damages for breach of an alleged contract between plaintiff and Michigan State Highway Commission consummated, if at all, prior to the institution of condemnation proceedings* by the commission against property of plaintiff. The alleged contract resulted from negotiations between the commission and plaintiff concerning the interests of plaintiff in the property sought by the commission. Plaintiff’s action was filed in the court of claims subsequent to the condemnation proceedings.

The court of claims granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment for the reason that all of *572plaintiff’s claims for damages could be resolved in the condemnation case. Plaintiff appeals.

The complaint and exhibits attached thereto state a cause of action in contract against the State and a State commission. The court of claims has exclusive jurisdiction of such claims. CLS 1961, § 600-.6419 (Stat Ann 1962 Rev § 27A.6419).

Reversed and remanded for further proceedings, but without costs.

Lesinsici, C. J., and Quinn and Moody, JJ., concurred.

*

 Filed under PA 1966, No 295 (Stat Ann 1968 Cum Supp § 8.261 [1] et seq).
EX-33 (g)
(logo) FIS
TAX SERVICES
A DIVISION OF FIDELITY NATIONAL INFORMATION SERVICES

FIS Tax Services
3100 New York Drive, Suite 100
Pasadena, CA  91107
tel: 626.345.2010    *   866.457.4112
fax: 626.398.5205

Management Compliance Statement

Management of FIS Tax Services (FIS) and formerly known as LSI Tax Services, is
responsible for assessing compliance with applicable servicing criteria set
forth in Item 1122(d) of Regulation AB of the Securities and Exchange Commission
relating to residential mortgage loans (the Platform), except for General
Servicing Consideration criteria (i) - (iv), Cash Collections and Administration
(i) - (vii), Investor Remittances and Reporting (i) - (iv), and Pool Asset
Administration (i) - (x), (xiv), and (xv), which FIS has determined are not
applicable to the activities it performs with respect to the Platform.

FIS' management has assessed the effectiveness of the Company's compliance with
the applicable servicing criteria as of and for the year ended 2006. In making
this assessment, management used the criteria set forth by the Securities and
Exchange Commission in paragraph (d) of Item 1122 of Regulation AB. FIS has
determined the following servicing criteria in paragraph (d)(4) of Item 1122 are
applicable to the activities it performed with respect to the Platform:

(xi)    Payments made on behalf of an obligor (such as tax or insurance
payments) are made on or before the related penalty or expiration dates, as
indicated on the appropriate bills or notices for such payments, provided that
such support has been received by the servicer at least 30 calendar days prior
to these dates, or such other number of days specified in the transaction
agreements.

(xii) Any late payment penalties in connection with any payment to be made on
behalf of an obligor are paid from the servicer's funds and not charged to the
obligor, unless the late payment was due to the obligor's error or omission.

(xiii) Disbursements made on behalf of an obligor are posted within two business
days to the obligor's records maintained by the servicer, or such other number
of days specified in the transaction agreements.

Based on such assessment, management believes that, as of and for the year ended
December 31, 2006, FIS has complied in all material respects with the servicing
criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of Regulation AB of the Securities and
Exchange Commission relating to the servicing of the Platform.

KPMG LLP, a registered public accounting firm, has issued an attestation report
with respect to management's assessment of compliance with the applicable
servicing criteria as of and for the year ended 2006.

To the best of my knowledge and belief, based on such assessment, FIS has
fulfilled all 0 its applicable obligations throughout the reporting period.


/s/ Darryl A. De Bond
Darryl A. De Bond
Executive Vice President

January 22, 2007
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Nabor Cruz PEREZ, also known as Nabor Perez Cruz, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-41586 Conference Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed August 18, 2017

*835Carmen Castillo Mitchell, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Nabor Cruz Perez, Pro Se

Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Nabor Cruz Perez has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and *United States v. Flores,*632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Cruz Perez has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record. reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

 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.
**Exhibit 32.1****Statement of Chief Executive Officer Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**In connection with the Annual Report of eTelecare Global Solutions, Inc. (the “Company”) for theperiod ended December 31, 2007 as filed on Form 10-K with the Securities and Exchange Commission onthe date hereof (the “Report”), I, John R. Harris, chief executive officer of the Company, herebycertify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.       Dated:March 14, 2008 By: /s/ John R. Harris     John R. Harris    Chief Executive Officer and President    (Principal Executive Officer)  
111
**EXHIBIT 31**

**WAMU ASSET ACCEPTANCE CORP.**

**OFFICER’S CERTIFICATE**

I, Thomas G. Lehmann, certify that:

1.         I have reviewed this report on Form 10–K and all reports on Form 10–D required to be filed in respect of the periodcovered by this report on Form 10–K of Washington Mutual Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, WMALT Series 2006-AR10 Trust(the ‘‘Exchange Act periodic reports’’);

2.         Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do not contain any untrue statement of a  materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.         Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and other information required to be provided under Form 10–D for theperiod covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;

4.         Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statements required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except asdisclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicers have fulfilled their obligations under the servicing agreement(s) in all material respects; and

5.         All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities and their related attestationreports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a–18 and 15d–18 have been included as an exhibit to thisreport, except as otherwise disclosed in this report.  Any material instances of noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10–K. 

In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties: None.

Date:  March 15, 2007

  /s/ Thomas G. LehmannName:  Thomas G. LehmannTitle:    President
**
**Exhibit 23.3**

**Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement (No. 333-227116) on Form N-2 of Saratoga Investment Corp. of our report dated May 14, 2018 with respect to the statement of assets and liabilities, including the consolidated schedule of investments, as of February 28, 2018, andthe related statements of operations, changes in net assets, and cash flows for the year ended February 28, 2018, and the related notes to the financial statements of Saratoga Investment Corp. CLO 2013-1,Ltd. included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) of Saratoga Investment Corp. for the year ended February 28, 2018. 

We also consent to the reference to our firm under the headings “Selected Consolidated Financial Data”, “Controls andProcedures—Attestation Report of the Registered Public Accounting Firm” and “Principal Accounting Fees and Services” in the Form 10-K.

/s/ Ernst & Young LLP 

New York, NewYork 

May 6, 2020 
**
Order filed October 18, 2016

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 16

- 00580

- CV

____________ KAREN WAKEFIELD , Appellant

V.
BANK OF AMERICA, N.A . AND FEDERAL NATION AL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION, Appellee s

On Appeal from the 157th District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2013

- 05157A



### O R D E R
Appellant’ s brief was due September 28, 2016

. No brief or motion for
extension of time has been filed.

Unless appellant files a brief with this court on or before November 17, 2016
, the court will dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(b).
PER CURIAM
#### Shaun ROBINSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 16-35644

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 24, 2017 *

Filed June 1, 2017

Shaun Robinson, Pro Se

*883Brian C. Augenthaler, Attorney, Keating Bucklin McCormack, Seattle, WA, for Defendants-Appellees

Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and SILVERMAN and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Shaun Robinson appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his action under Title IX and 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging gender discrimination. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. *Colwell v. Bannister,*763 F.3d 1060, 1065 (9th Cir. 2014). We may affirm on any basis supported by the record. *Hartmann v. Cal. Dep’t of Corr.*& *Rehab.,*707 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2013). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Robinson’s Title IX claims because Robinson failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants discriminated against him on the basis of his sex. *See*20 U.S.C. § 1681(a) (prohibiting, with certain exceptions, discrimination on the basis of sex by an education program receiving federal financial assistance); *Pac. Shores Props., LLC v. City of Newport Beach,*730 F.3d 1142, 1158 (9th Cir. 2013) (discussing summary judgment on a disparate treatment claim); *Stout v. Potter,*276 F.3d 1118, 1121-22 (9th Cir. 2002) (discussing summary judgment on .a disparate impact claim).

Summary judgment on Robinson’s equal protection claim was proper because Robinson failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether he suffered intentional discrimination on the basis of his sex. *See Serrano v. Francis,*345 F.3d 1071, 1081-82 (9th Cir. 2003) (requirements for equal protection claim based on membership in a protected class).

The district court did not abuse its discretion .by denying Robinson’s requests to strike defendants’ declarations because Robinson failed to establish a basis for excluding the declarations. *See Fonseca v. Sysco Food Servs. of Ariz., Inc.,*374 F.3d 840, 845 (9th Cir. 2004) (standard of review).

Robinson’s motion to waive the requirement of filing paper copies of the excerpts of record (Docket Entry No. 7) is granted.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.