alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### IN THE UNI TED STAT ES COURT OFAPPEALS FOR THE FIF TH CIRCU IT

No. 10-31013 Summary Calendar

JAMES SAMUEL FELKNOR, Plaintiff–Appellant,

v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS; OVERTON BROOKS VETERANS AFFAIRS MEDICAL CENTER, Defendants–Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana USDC No. 3:10-CV-1399

Before WIENER, PRADO, and OWEN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * James Samuel Felknor has applied for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) in this appeal from the dismissal of his civil rights complaint, in which he named as defendants the United States of America, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and Overton Brooks Veterans Affairs Medical C enter. Felknor complained that he was improperly denied benefits pursuant to a Veterans U n i te d S ta te s C o u rt o f A p p ea l s

F i ft h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D July 6, 20 11 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk

Purs uant to 5 T H C IR

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

. R. 47.5 .4. Case: 10-31013 Document: 00511531001 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/06/2011No. 10-3 101 3

Administration regulation. As an initial matter, Felknor has filed a motion for appointment of counsel. This motion is DENIED. “An appeal may not be taken in forma pauperis if the trial court certifies in writing that it is not taken in good faith.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3); Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983); see also Baugh v. Tay lo r , 1 1 7 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997). A cou rt’s inquiry into whether the appeal is taken in good faith “is limited to whether the appeal involves legal points arguable on their merits (and therefore not frivolous).” Howard , 707 F.2d at 22 0 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Felknor alleges that he is trying to bring two claims; one is for defamation under state law, and the other is a constitutional challenge to th e Ve t e r ans Administration regulation that he asserts is the basis for the decision to deny him m e di c a l services. Although he states that he is trying to bring a constitutional challenge to the administrative regulation, it appears that what he is really challenging is the decision to deny him benefits. The di s t ri c t court concluded that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction to entertain Felknor’s complaint. Felknor has not demonstrated any error in the district court’s ruling. See38 U.S.C. § 511(a). Because the appeal is frivolous, leave to proceed IFP on appeal is DENIED and the appeal is DISMISSED. See Howard , 707 F.2d at 220; 5 T H C I R
. R. 42.2. We WARN Fe lk n o r that the continued filing of frivolous motions and other pleadi n g s i n thi s court or in the district court will invite the imposition of sanctions.

2 Case: 10-31013 Document: 00511531001 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/06/2011
EX-10.9(a)



 Exhibit 10.9(a) 
 June 1, 2013 
 Graham Capital Management, L.P. 

Rock Ledge Financial Center 
 40 Highland Avenue

 Rowayton, CT 06853 
 Attention:
Mr. Paul Sedlack 
 Re: Management Agreement Renewals  
 Dear Mr. Sedlack: 
 We are writing with respect to your management agreements concerning the
commodity pools to which reference is made below (the “Management Agreements”). We are extending the term of the Management Agreements through June 30, 2014 and all other provisions of the Management Agreements will remain unchanged.

  

	 	•	 	 Diversified 2000 Futures Fund L.P. 


  

	 	•	 	 Fairfield Futures Fund L.P. 


  

	 	•	 	 Diversified Multi-Advisor Futures Fund L.P. 


  

	 	•	 	 Diversified Multi-Advisor Futures Fund L.P. II 



 

	 	•	 	 Tactical Diversified Futures Fund L.P. 


  

	 	•	 	 Fairfield Futures Fund L.P. II 


  

	 	•	 	 CMF Graham Capital Master Fund L.P. 


 Please acknowledge receipt of this modification by signing one copy of this letter and returning it to the attention of Mr. Damian George at the address above or fax to 212-296-6868. If you have any
questions I can be reached at 212-296-1292. 
 Very truly yours, 

 

					
	 CERES MANAGED FUTURES LLC
	 	
			
	By:	 	 /s/ Damian George
	 	
		 	 Damian George
	 	
		 	Chief Financial Officer & Director	 	
		
	GRAHAM CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, L.P.	 	
			
	By:	 	 /s/ Paul Sedlack
	 	
		 	Print Name: Paul Sedlack	 	

 DG/sr
|    |                                                                                                                   |
|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) 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 results of operations of the Company. |

|                                             |
|---------------------------------------------|
|                                             |  |  |  |
| /S/    MALON WILKUS     |   |
| Name:                                       |    | Malon Wilkus |   |
| Title:                                      |    | Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer |   |
| Date:                                       |    | August 6, 2013 |   |
|                                        |   |
| /S/    JOHN R. ERICKSON |   |
| Name:                                       |    | John R. Erickson |   |
| Title:                                      |    | Chief Financial Officer |   |
| Date:                                       |    | August 6, 2013 |   |
No. 11-10164.

#### Dilworth *v.*Mississippi.

Sup. Ct. Miss. Certiorari denied.
PAGE <1>

                                  Exhibit 32.1

                               Pyramid Oil Company

                  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 Pyramid Oil Company (the Company) on
form 10-KSB for the period ended December 31, 2005, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, John H. Alexander, Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350,
as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to
my knowledge:

     (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 results of operations
          of the Company.



     Dated: January 24, 2007

                                               JOHN H. ALEXANDER
                                               -----------------
                                               John H. Alexander
                                            Chief Executive Officer





















PAGE <1>

                                   Exhibit 32.2

                                Pyramid Oil Company

                  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 Pyramid Oil Company (the Company) on
form 10-KSB for the period ended December 31, 2005, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Lee G. Christianson,
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section
1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that, to my knowledge:

     (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 results of operations
          of the Company.




     Date: January 24, 2007

                                                LEE G. CHRISTIANSON
                                                -------------------
                                                Lee G. Christianson
                                              Chief Financial Officer
Submitted December 21, 2016,

affirmed February 15,

petition for review denied June 15, 2017 (361 Or 543)

#### STATE OF OREGON, *Plaintiff-Respondent, v.*NORMAN DANIEL HOAG, *Defendant-Appellant.*

Columbia County Circuit Court

14CR03134; A158906

388 P3d 1253

Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, and David Sherbo-Huggins, Deputy Public Defender, Office of Public Defense Services, filed the brief for appellant.

Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Timonthy A. Sylwester, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent.

Before Ortega, Presiding Judge, and Egan, Judge, and Lagesen, Judge.

PER CURIAM

Affirmed. *State v. Silsby,*282 Or App 104, 386 P3d 172 (2016), *rev den,*360 Or 752 (2017).
# C_2022237EN.01003001.xml

| 20.6.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 237/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.6.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 237/30

---

Appeal brought on 9 March 2022 by Nemea Bank plc against the order of the General Court (Ninth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 20 December 2021 in Case T-321/17, Niemelä and Others v ECB

(Case C-181/22 P)

(2022/C 237/39)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Nemea Bank plc (represented by: A. Meriläinen, asianajaja)

Other parties to the proceedings: Heikki Niemelä, Mika Lehto, Nemea plc, Nevestor SA, European Central Bank, European Commission

Form of order sought

The Appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | set aside the order under appeal; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the order under appeal;

| — | refer the case back to the General Court to be properly adjudicated, but to a different chamber with an entirely different composition of judges, given the bias and non-respect of the Appellant’s fundamental rights by the chamber having issued the said order, and |
| --- | --- |

—

refer the case back to the General Court to be properly adjudicated, but to a different chamber with an entirely different composition of judges, given the bias and non-respect of the Appellant’s fundamental rights by the chamber having issued the said order, and

| — | order the ECB to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the ECB to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

First ground of appeal: the General Court erred in law by erroneously assuming that there is no need to adjudicate in case T-321/17, erroneously failed to take into consideration that the purported effect ex tunc of the ECB decision of 30 June 2017 violated Art. 263 TFEU and erroneously assumed that the Appellant has no interest in the annulment of the ECB decision of license withdrawal of 23 March 2017.

Second ground of appeal: the General Court erred in law with respect to numerous infringements of essential procedural requirements.

Third ground of appeal: the General Court failed to take into consideration the violation of the Appellant’s rights pursuant to Art. 47 of the Charter prior to the commencement of the procedure and the continuing lack of an effective representation of the Appellant during the proceedings.

Fourth ground of appeal: the General Court failed to take into consideration the violation of the Appellant’s rights pursuant to Art. 41 of the Charter in deciding the application for damages to be inadmissible.

Fifth ground of appeal: the General Court erred in law by failing to take into consideration the Appellant’s rights provided by the Art. 340 TFEU when deciding that the application for damages is inadmissible.

---
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

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

     Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, each of the undersigned officers of Rand Capital
Corporation (the "Company"), does hereby certify, to such officer's knowledge,
that:

     The Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2003
(the Form 10-K) of the Company fully complies with the requirement of section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information
contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Dated: March 26, 2004

                                                    /s/ Allen F. Grum
                                                 Allen F. Grum, President
                                                (Chief Executive Officer)

Dated: March 26, 2004

                                                 /s/ Daniel P. Penberthy
                                              Daniel P. Penberthy, Treasurer
                                                (Chief Financial Officer)

                                        39
# C_2021138EN.01004202.xml

| 19.4.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 138/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.4.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 138/42

---

Action brought on 29 January 2021 — enercity v Commission

(Case T-65/21)

(2021/C 138/57)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: enercity AG (Hannover, Germany) (represented by: C. Schalast, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul the defendant’s decision of 17 September 2019 (Case M.8870); |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the defendant’s decision of 17 September 2019 (Case M.8870);

| — | join the proceedings within the meaning of Article 68(5) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court with the actions concerning the same decision M.8870, which, on account of the substantive connection between them, are cumulative and form a single decision closing the proceedings; |
| --- | --- |

—

join the proceedings within the meaning of Article 68(5) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court with the actions concerning the same decision M.8870, which, on account of the substantive connection between them, are cumulative and form a single decision closing the proceedings;

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The action against the Commission’s decision of 17 September 2019 declaring the E.ON/Innogy concentration to be compatible with the internal market,(Case M.8870) (OJ 2020 C 379, p. 16), relies on a single plea in law which is, in essence, identical or similar to that raised in Case T-63/21, Stadtwerke Frankfurt am Main v Commission.

---
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

May 25, 2016

a0518 

# Order

Clerk May 25, 2016

153108 & (21)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 153108

COA: 330314

Barry CC: 14

- 000598

- FC

HERBERT MAX BLAIN, JR.,

Defendant

- Appellant.

____________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motion for immediate consideration is GRANTED.

The application for leave to appeal the January 13, 2016 or der of the Court of Appeals is

considered and, it appearing to this Court that the cases of People v Steanhouse (Docket

No. 152849 ) and People v Masroor (Docket No s . 152946

- 8 ) are pending on appeal

before this Court and that the decisions in those cases ma y resolve an issue raised in the

present application for leave to appeal, we ORDER that the application be held in

ABEYANCE pending the decisions in those cases.
(logo) BERKADIA

 

 

Annual Statement as to Compliance

For the Year Ended December 31, 2015 (the “Reporting Period”)

Deutsche Mortgage & Asset Receiving Corporation, Series 2015-DC1

 

Pursuant to Section 10.11 of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement governing the referenced transaction (the “Servicing Agreement”), I hereby attest that:

 

i. A review of the activities and performance of Berkadia as Subservicer during the Reporting Period has been made under my supervision.

 

ii. To the best of my knowledge, basedon such review,Berkadia as Subservicer has fulfilled, in all material respects, its obligations under this Subservicing Agreement throughout the Reporting Period and no default by the Subservicer under the Subservicing Agreement has occurred and is continuing.

 

Berkadia,

 

/s/ Mark E. McCool

Mark E. McCool

President

February 10, 2016
Skip to main content
				  About Us
Contact Us
FAQs
					Language Assistance
						English
							español
							中文: 繁體版
							Việt-ngữ
							한국어
							Tagalog
							Русский


U.S. Department of Education
Search for: Toggle navigation
		  U.S. Department of Education
	  Student Loans
Grants
Laws
Data Federal Register Documents
                                                          Federal Register Documents
Recent Federal Register Notices


More...
Note

ED stopped reposting Federal Register documents on March 31, 2011.

The official Federal Register site now posts Federal Register documents and offers:

An ED overview page
A search for ED-related noticesGPO's Federal Digital System maintains the official electronic version of the Federal Register where you can:
View Federal Register issues by date
Search for ED-related notices
		How Do I Find...?
    
  
  Student loans, forgiveness
Higher Education Rulemaking
College accreditation
Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA)
FERPA
FAFSA
1098, tax forms
More...
Information About...
    
  
  Elevating Teaching
Early Learning
Engage Every Student
Unlocking Career Success
Cybersecurity
 *Our mission* is to promote student achievement and preparation for global competitiveness by fostering educational excellence and ensuring equal access.
		Student Loans
Repaying Loans
Defaulted Loans
Loan Forgiveness
Loan ServicersGrants & Programs
Apply for Pell Grants
Grants Forecast
Apply for a Grant
		
		Laws & Guidance
Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA)
FERPA
Civil Rights
IDEA WebsiteData & Research
Education Statistics
Postsecondary Education Data
ED Data Express
Nation's Report Card
What Works Clearinghouse
Open Data Platform
COVID Relief Data
		About Us
Contact Us
ED Offices
Jobs
Press Releases
FAQs
Recursos en español
Budget, Performance
Privacy Program
Homeroom Blog
	Notices
FOIA
Privacy Policy
Accessibility
Security
Information Quality
Inspector General
Whitehouse.gov
USA.gov
Benefits.gov
Regulations.gov
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 8906 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 8906

To amend title XXIX of the Public Health Service Act to reauthorize the 
      program under such title relating to lifespan respite care.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            December 9, 2020

 Mr. Langevin (for himself and Mrs. Rodgers of Washington) introduced 
 the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and 
                                Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend title XXIX of the Public Health Service Act to reauthorize the 
      program under such title relating to lifespan respite care.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Lifespan Respite Care 
Reauthorization Act of 2020''.

SEC. 2. REAUTHORIZATION OF LIFESPAN RESPITE CARE PROGRAM.

    (a) Data Collection and Reporting.--Section 2904 of the Public 
Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300ii-3) is amended to read as follows:

``SEC. 2904. DATA COLLECTION AND REPORTING.

    ``(a) In General.--Each State agency awarded a grant or cooperative 
agreement under section 2902 shall report such data, information, and 
metrics as the Secretary may require for purposes of--
            ``(1) evaluating State programs and activities funded 
        pursuant to such grant or cooperative agreement, including any 
        results pursuant to section 2902(d)(2)(B)(xii); and
            ``(2) identifying effective programs and activities funded 
        pursuant to section 2902.
    ``(b) Report.--Not later than October 1, 2023, the Secretary shall 
submit a report to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and 
Pensions of the Senate and the Committee on Energy and Commerce of the 
House of Representatives regarding the outcomes of the programs and 
activities funded pursuant to section 2902, including any effective 
programs and activities identified.''.
    (b) Funding.--Section 2905 of the Public Health Service Act (42 
U.S.C. 300ii-4) is amended by striking ``title'' and all that follows 
through the period and inserting ``title, $10,000,000 for each of 
fiscal years 2020 through fiscal year 2024.''.
                                 <all>
```