alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Student Debt Relief

- Biden-Harris Administration Announces Additional $4.9 Billion in Approved Student Debt Relief The  Biden-Harris Administration announced today the approval of $4.9 billion in  additional student loan debt relief for 73,600 borrowers. These discharges are  the result of fixes made by the Administration to income-driven repayment (IDR)  forgiveness and Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF).
- Biden-Harris Administration Continues Efforts to Provide Debt Relief for More Student Loan Borrowers The  Biden-Harris Administration today continued its critical efforts to deliver  student debt relief to as many borrowers as possible through negotiated  rulemaking under the Higher Education Act by releasing draft regulatory text  for specific categories of borrowers and outlining next steps to consider  relief options for borrowers experiencing hardship.
- Biden-Harris Administration Announces an Additional $9 Billion in Student Debt Relief  The Biden-Harris administration announced today that an additional 125,000 Americans have been approved for $9 billion in debt relief through fixes the U.S. Department of Education has made to income-driven repayment (IDR) and Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF), and granting automatic relief for borrowers with total and permanent disabilities.
- Biden-Harris Administration Moves Forward with Student Debt Relief Negotiated Rulemaking to Deliver Support to as Many Borrowers as Possible as Quickly as Possible The  Biden-Harris Administration marked a critical step forward in its efforts to  deliver student debt relief to as many borrowers as possible through negotiated  rulemaking under the Higher Education Act, even as extreme House Republicans  threaten a government shutdown that would hurt families, communities, and our  economy. The U.S.
##### 



Exhibit 31.2
 Certification of Principal Financial Officer
Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002/SEC Rule 13a-14(a)
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of The Immune Response Corporation;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material
fact 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, the financial statements, and other financial information
included in this report, fairly present in all material respect the financial condition,
results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods
presented in this report;4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)
and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have:
 a.
    
    designed such disclosure controls and procedures or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure
that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly
during the period in which this report is being prepared;b.
    
    evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of
the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this
report based on such evaluation; andc.
    
    disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent
fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially
affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and
 5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most
recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants
auditors and the audit committee of registrants board of directors (or persons performing
the equivalent functions):
 a.
    
    all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely
to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and
report financial information; andb.
    
    any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over
financial reporting.
  /s/ Michael K. GreenMichael K. GreenChief Operating Officer andChief Financial Officer
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 8761 

To reduce premiums under the National Flood Insurance Program for certain 

properties, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 17, 2020 

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

Committee on Financial Services 

A BILL 

To reduce premiums under the National Flood Insurance 

Program for certain properties, 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 ‘‘Flood Protection Mod5 ernization Fairness Act of 2020’’. 

6 SEC. 2. FLOOD INSURANCE PREMIUM RATES FOR AREAS 

7 WITH SMALL FLOOD CONTROL PROJECTS. 

8 Notwithstanding section 1308(e) of the National 

9 Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4015(e)) or any 

10 other provision of law, during the 10-year period beginVerDate Sep 11 2014 04:47 Nov 28, 2020 Jkt 019200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H8761.IH H8761

kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 8761 IH

1 ning on the date of the enactment of this Act, in the case 

2 of any property located in an area for which protection 

3 is to be provided by a project with respect to which a non4 Federal interest has requested assistance pursuant to sec5 tion 205 of the Flood Control Act of 1948 (33 U.S.C. 

6 701s) but which has not been completed, the premium rate 

7 for flood insurance coverage made available under the Na8 tional Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4001 et 

9 seq.) shall be the preferred risk premium rate for such 

10 property. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
# Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida

Opinion filed June 8, 2016.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D15-600

Lower Tribunal No. 13-18824

________________



### Felix Rivera

, Appellant,

vs.



### The State of Florida

, Appellee.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Ariana Fajardo

Orshan and Veronica A. Diaz, Judges.

Carlos J. Martinez, Public Defender, and Natasha Baker-Bradley

, Assistant

Public Defender, for appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Keri T. Joseph

, Assistant Attorney

General, for appellee.

Before WELLS, EMAS and FERNANDEZ, JJ.

EMAS, J.We affirm the judgment and sentence below, and decline appellant’s

invitation to address on direct appeal the merits of his claim of ineffective

assistance of trial counsel. See Bruno v. State

, 807 So. 2d 55, 63 (Fla. 2001)

(noting that, as a general rule, a claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel

cannot be raised on direct appeal); Desire v. State

, 928 So. 2d 1256, 1257 (Fla. 3d

DCA 2006) (recognizing that “[a]s a general rule, claims of ineffective assistance

of counsel are not ordinarily cognizable on direct appeal. The exception is when

the error is apparent on the face of the record, which is rarely the case.”) We do so

without prejudice for appellant to file a timely and proper motion for postconviction relief pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, and

express no opinion on the merits of any such motion.

Affirmed.

2
Submitted December 19, 2016,

reversed February 8, 2017

#### In the Matter of C. J. C., a Person Alleged to have a Mental Illness. STATE OF OREGON, *Respondent, v.*C. J. C., *Appellant.*

Jackson County Circuit Court

16CC04391; A162855

388 P3d 1249

Joseph DeBin and Multnomah Defenders, Inc., filed the brief for appellant.

Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Dustin Buehler, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent.

Before Sercombe, Presiding Judge, and Flynn, Judge, and DeHoog, Judge.

*647PER CURIAM

Appellant in this civil commitment case appeals an order by the trial court finding her to be a person with a mental illness and committing her to the custody of the Mental Health Division for a period not to exceed 180 days. *See*ORS 426.130; ORS 426.005(1)(f). On appeal, in her first assignment of error, appellant contends that the trial court plainly erred when it failed to advise her of her rights in accordance with ORS 426.100(1).1 The state concedes that the court’s failure constitutes plain error and requires reversal. We agree, and accept the state’s concession. *See State v. R. D. S.,*271 Or App 687, 688, 352 P3d 84 (2015) (“A trial court’s failure to advise a person as required is not only error, but it is plain error that we exercise our discretion to consider despite an appellant’s failure to raise and preserve it at the hearing.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.)); *State v. M. L. R.,*256 Or App 566, 570, 303 P3d 954 (2013) (observing that “plain error review of violations of ORS 426.100(1) is justified by the nature of civil commitment proceedings, the relative interests of the parties in those proceedings, the gravity of the violation, and the ends of justice” (internal quotation marks omitted)). Furthermore, for the reasons set forth in *M. L. R.,*we exercise our discretion to correct the trial court’s error in this case. See *also State v. T. L. H.,*280 Or App 392, 393, 381 P3d 1089 (2016) (exercising discretion to correct trial court’s error in failing to advise person alleged to have a mental illness of her rights under ORS 426.100(D).2

Reversed.

1

 Pursuant to ORS 426.100(1),

“[a]t the time the person alleged to have a mental illness is brought before the court, the court shall advise the person of the following:

> “(a) The reason for being brought before the court;

> “(b) The nature of the proceedings;

> “(c) The possible results of the proceedings;

> “(d) The right to subpoena witnesses; and

> “(e) The person’s rights regarding representation by or appointment of counsel.”

2

 Based on our resolution of appellant’s first assignment of error, we need not reach her second assignment, in which she contends that the trial court erred “by finding that appellant had a mental illness.”
# C_2022340EN.01001402.xml

| 5.9.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 340/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.9.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 340/14

---

Appeal brought on 4 April 2022 by Meta Cluster GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 26 January 2022 in Case T-233/21, Meta Cluster GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office

(Case C-233/22 P)

(2022/C 340/17)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Meta Cluster GmbH (represented by: H. Baumann, Rechtsanwalt)

Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office

By order of 15 July 2022, the Court of Justice of the European Union (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) decided that the appeal should not be allowed to proceed and ordered the appellant to bear its own costs.

---
#### Pedro VIVAS-LEMUS, Petitioner v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS, III, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent

No. 17-60160 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed March 1, 2018

*379Malvern Clopton Burnett, Law Offices of Malvern C. Burnett, New Orleans, LA, for Petitioner

Sunah Lee, Trial Attorney, Brendan Paul Hogan, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent

Before WIENER, DENNIS, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Pedro Vivas-Lemus petitions for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”). He challenges the denial of relief from removal, including applications for withholding of removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). According to Vivas-Lemus, the BIA and Immigration Judge (“U”) did not base their decisions on substantial evidence.

We review only the final decision of the BIA unless the IJ’s ruling affected the BIA’s decision. *Zhu v. Gonzales,*493 F.3d 588, 593 (5th Cir. 2007). The BIA’s legal conclusions are reviewed *de novo*“unless a conclusion embodies [the BIA’s] interpretation of an ambiguous provision of a statute that it administers,” in which case deference is given to a reasonable interpretation. *Orellana-Monson v. Holder,*685 F.3d 511, 517 (5th Cir. 2012) (quotation marks and citation omitted). We review findings of facts, including eligibility for withholding of removal and protection under the CAT, for substantial evidence. *Zhang v. Gonzales,*432 F.3d 339, 343 (5th Cir. 2005).

Vivas-Lemus has not shown that the record compels a finding that he was statutorily eligible for withholding of removal. *Eduard v. Ashcroft,*379 F.3d 182, 186 (5th Cir. 2004). Although Vivas-Lemus attempts to distinguish his proposed particular social group from those previously rejected, *see Orellana-Monson,*685 F.3d at 516, 519-20, his arguments fail. Notably, the BIA considered the country conditions evidence highlighted by Vivas-Lemus and concluded that the evidence does not make the distinction that he advances. Nor has he cited to any other record evidence to support that his proposed social group is a cognizable basis for withholding of removal.

Likewise, Vivas-Lemus has not shown that the record evidence compels a finding that he was eligible for CAT protection. *Chen v. Gonzales,*470 F.3d 1131, 1134, 1140 (5th Cir. 2006). To be eligible for CAT protection, the applicant must show that it is more likely than not that he would be tortured in the country of removal. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2). Although Vivas-Lemus cites the same country conditions evidence, he has not shown how it compels a finding that he would more likely than not be tortured. *See Chen,*470 F.3d at 1134, 1140.

PETITION DENIED.

*

 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.
pedo_ex1065.htm


Exhibit 10.65


 





May 15, 2013







South Texas Reservoir Alliance LLC


1416-B Campbell Road, Suite 204


Houston, Texas 77055


 


Attn.: Sean Fitzgerald








	
  

	
Re:

	
Equity Compensation -- Mississippian Acquisition












Dear Sean:







This letter memorializes the further agreement by and between South Texas Reservoir Alliance LLC (“STXRA”) and Pacific Energy Development MSL LLC (“PEDCO”), a wholly-owned subsidiary of PEDEVCO Corp. (“PEDEVCO”), regarding equity compensation due and payable to STXRA in connection with PEDCO’s acquisition of certain interests in the Mississippian formation in southern Kansas (the “Subject Acreage”) from Berexco LLC (“Berexco”), pursuant to that certain Agreement for Purchase of Term Assignment dated February 22, 2013, by and between Berexco and PEDCO (the “AFPOTA”).







PEDCO and STXRA previously entered into a letter agreement, dated March 25, 2013, pursuant to which PEDCO agreed to pay to STXRA a fee equal to $75.00 per net oil and gas acre in the Subject Acreage acquired by PEDCO (6,762.94 net acres) (the “Gross Commission”), payable 80% in cash and 20% in common stock of PEDEVCO (the “Equity Commission”), with the number of shares of common stock to be issued to be calculated as follows:  (Gross Commission * 20%) / the higher of (x) the price per share of PEDEVCO common stock issued in the IPO, or (y) $1.25.







However, STXRA and PEDCO hereby agree that the number of shares of common stock to be issued shall instead be calculated as follows:  (Gross Commission * 20%) / the higher of (x) the closing price per share of PEDEVCO common stock on June 14, 2013, or (y) $3.75.







Regards,







/s/ Michael L. Peterson                                                            


Michael L. Peterson


Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer


Pacific Energy Development MSL LLC












Agreed to and Accepted:







South Texas Reservoir Alliance LLC







By:  /s/ Michael Rozenfeld                                                      







Name:  Michael Rozenfeld                                                                







Title:  Manager/VP Geosciences                                                      







Date:  May 15, 2013
(logo) BERKADIA®

 

 

Annual Statement as to Compliance

For the Calendar Year 2021

 

*Morgan Stanley Bank of America Merrill Lynch Trust,*

*Series 2015-C21*

 

Pursuant to Section 3.01 (13.9)of the Subservicing Agreement governing the referenced transaction (the“Servicing Agreement”), I hereby attest that:

 

         i.           A review of the activities and performanceof Berkadia as Subservicer during the calendar year has been made under mysupervision.

 

       ii.           To the best of my knowledge, based on suchreview, Berkadia as Subservicer has fulfilled, in all material respects, itsobligations under this Subservicing Agreement throughout the calendar year andno default by the Subservicer under the Subservicing Agreement has occurred andis continuing.

 

Berkadia,

 

/s/ Mark E. McCool

Mark E. McCool 

President 

February 10, 2022
No. 11-9877.

#### Smith *v.*Sandor, Warden.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 46 (Monday, March 10, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 10856]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-5733]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Office of the Secretary


Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB 
Review; Comment Request

    The Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the 
Secretary publishes a list of information collections it has submitted 
to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance in 
compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 
35) and 5 CFR 1320.5. The following are those information collections 
recently submitted to OMB.
    1. HHS Acquisition Regulations --HHSAR Subpart 315 Solicitation and 
Receipt of Proposals and Quotations--0990-0139--extension with no 
change--Subpart 315.4 is needed to ensure consistency in all 
Departmental solicitations and to ensure that all solicitations 
describe all of the information which an offeror would need to submit 
an acceptable proposals. Respondent: State of local governments, 
Businesses or other for-profit organizations, non-profit institutions, 
small businesses; Total Number of Respondents: 6,645 Frequency of 
Response: one time; Average Burden per Response: 2 hours; Estimated 
Annual Burden: 23,290 hours.
    OMB Desk Officer: Allison Eydt.
    Copies of the information collection packages listed above can be 
obtained by calling OS Reports Clearance Officer on (202) 690-6207. 
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information 
collection should be sent directly to the OMB desk officer designated 
above at the following address: Human Resources and Housing Branch, 
Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Room 
10235, 725 17th Street N.W., Washington, D.C. 20503.
    Comments may also be sent to Cynthia Agens Bauer, OS Reports 
Clearance Officer, Room 503H, Humphrey Building, 200 Independence 
Avenue S.W., Washington DC, 20201. Written comments should be received 
within 30 days of this notice.

    Dated: February 18, 1997.
Dennis P. Williams,
Deputy Assistant Secretary, Budget.
[FR Doc. 97-5733 Filed 3-7-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4150-04-M
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> BD
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998             DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998             JUL-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998             SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                           76691                   76691
<RECEIVABLES>                                   247483                  247483
<SECURITIES-RESALE>                                  0                       0
<SECURITIES-BORROWED>                             5286                    5826
<INSTRUMENTS-OWNED>                               2074                    2074
<PP&E>                                            3225                    3225
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  345279                  345279
<SHORT-TERM>                                       177                     177
<PAYABLES>                                      249591                  249591
<REPOS-SOLD>                                         0                       0
<SECURITIES-LOANED>                              70497                   70497
<INSTRUMENTS-SOLD>                                 501                     501
<LONG-TERM>                                      10389                   10389
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                           141                     141
<OTHER-SE>                                       13983                   13983
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    345279                  345279
<TRADING-REVENUE>                                 3477                     541
<INTEREST-DIVIDENDS>                             17225                    5892
<COMMISSIONS>                                    19353                    6049
<INVESTMENT-BANKING-REVENUES>                        0                       0
<FEE-REVENUE>                                      413                     139
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               10806                    3748
<COMPENSATION>                                   14592                    4685
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (1627)                   (982)
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                      (1627)                   (982)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (4157)                   (604)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.25)                  (0.04)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.25)                  (0.04)
        

</TABLE>
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

August 24, 2005

THOMAS K. KAHN

CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 04-14803

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D. C. Docket No. 04-00044-CV-WLS-1-2

JOSEPH PAIT, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

versus 

CITY OF ALBANY, GEORGIA, 

JAMES ARROWOOD, Individually 

and in his official capacity 

as Chief of City of Albany 

Fire Department, 

JAMES CARSWELL, Individually 

and in his official capacity 

as Deputy Fire Chief of City 

of Albany Fire Department, 

Defendants-Appellants. 

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Georgia

_________________________

(August 24, 2005)
2

Before HULL, WILSON and GODBOLD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

After reviewing the district court’s complete and detailed order, we find this

appeal without merit. 

AFFIRMED.