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

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Federal Reserve System

The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board’s Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire a bank or bank holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).

The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for inspection at the office of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must be received not later than April 3, 2009.

**A. Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia**                     (Michael E. Collins, Senior Vice President) 100 North 6th Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19105-1521:                

*1. Patriot Financial Partners, GP, L.P., Patriot Financial Partners, L.P., Patriot Financial Partners Parallel, L.P., Patriot Financial Partners, GP, LLC, Patriot Financial Managers, L.P., and Messrs. Ira M. Lubert, W. Kirk Wycoff and James J. Lynch, all of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania;*                     to purchase up to 14.9 percent of Guaranty Bancorp, and thereby acquire shares of Bank and Trust Company, both in Denver, Colorado.                

      ( print page 12362)    
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, March 17, 2009.

Robert deV. Frierson,

Deputy Secretary of the Board.

[FR Doc. E9-6094 Filed 3-23-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6210-01-S
Order filed February 9, 2021

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 19

- 00922

- CV

____________ 4922 HOLDINGS, LLC AND HORIZON UNITED GROUP

INTERNATIONAL, LLC , Appellant

V.

SALVADOR RIVERA D/B/A RIVERA'S COMMERCIAL , Appellee

On App eal from the 189th District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2017

- 30658



### O R D E R

The clerk’s record was filed December 6 , 202 0 . Our review has determined that a relevant item has been omitted from the clerk's record. See Tex. R. App. P. 34.5(c). The r ecord does not contain Findings of Fact (and Exhibit A thereto), signed August 19, 2019

. The Harris County District Clerk is directed to file a supplemental clerk’s record on or before February 16, 2021 , containing Findings of Fact (and Exhibit A thereto), signed August 19, 2019

.If the omitted item is not part of the case file, the district clerk is directed to

file a supplemental clerk’s record containin g a certified statement that the omitted item is not a part of the case file.

PER CURIAM

Panel Consists of Chief Justice Chris topher and Justices Jewell and Poissant.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5347 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

  2d Session
                                H. R. 5347

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 27, 2006

                                Received

                           November 13, 2006

   Read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and 
                             Urban Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

To reauthorize the HOPE VI program for revitalization of public housing 
                               projects.

    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 ``HOPE VI Reauthorization Act of 
2006''.

SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF PROGRAM.

    Section 24 of the United States Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 
1437v) is amended--
            (1) in paragraph (1) of subsection (m), by striking the 
        matter that follows ``section'' and inserting the following: 
        ``such sums as may be necessary for fiscal year 2007.''; and
            (2) in subsection (o), by striking ``September 30, 2006'' 
        and inserting ``September 30, 2007''.

            Passed the House of Representatives September 27, 2006.

            Attest:

                                                 KAREN L. HAAS,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
Third Amendment Executive Cash Balance Plan


 EXHIBIT 10.10.1 
 THIRD AMENDMENT 
 SPECTRA ENERGY CORP 
 EXECUTIVE CASH BALANCE PLAN 
 THIS THIRD AMENDMENT is made this 8th day of December, 2009, by Spectra Energy Corp, a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), and amends the Spectra Energy Corp Executive Cash Balance Plan originally executed by the
Company and effective as of December 18, 2006 (the “Plan”), and as amended from time to time thereafter, in order to implement various design changes to the Plan. 
 The Plan is hereby amended to be effective as of January 1, 2010, as follows: 
 1. The first paragraph of Section 6.2(a) of the Plan is amended by insertion of the following new sentence immediately following
the first sentence thereof: 
 Failure to timely elect a form of benefit payment shall result in a deemed election of a
single lump sum payment. 
 2. Section 6.2(b) of the Plan is deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following:

  

	 	(b)	The forms of benefit payment available under the Plan are: 

  

	 	(1)	single sum payment; 

  

	 	(2)	monthly payments for three years; and 

  

	 	(3)	monthly payments for ten years. 

 At such time as benefits under the Plan become payable with respect to a Participant, such benefits shall be paid in accordance with the benefit payment form then in effect and unless otherwise expressly provided by the Plan. 
 Notwithstanding the foregoing, if a Participant has previously elected to receive payment of his Account on a monthly basis over a period of
15 years and has commenced payment of his Account pursuant to such election as of December 31, 2009, the Participant shall continue to receive payment of his Account on a monthly basis for the remainder of such 15-year period. If the
Participant has previously elected to receive payment of his Account on a monthly basis over a period of 15 years and has not yet commenced payment of his Account pursuant to such election as of December 31, 2009, the Participant shall be
permitted to retain such election, but in the event that the Participant makes a subsequent election, only the forms of benefit payment set forth in the first paragraph of this Section 6.2(b) are available. 
 3. The first sentence of Section 6.2(c) of the Plan is deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following new sentence:

  

	 	(a)	Under the monthly form of benefit payment, the amount of payment for a particular month shall be calculated as follows: 

 As amended hereby, the Plan is hereby ratified and confirmed and shall remain in full force and effect. 
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has adopted and executed this Third Amendment on this 8th day of December, 2009, to be effective as of January 1, 2010.

  

					
	SPECTRA ENERGY CORP
		
	By:	 	/s/    Dorothy M. Ables        
		
	Name:	 	Dorothy M. Ables
		
	Title:	 	Chief Administrative Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                          49,487
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   15,446
<ALLOWANCES>                                  (18,876)
<INVENTORY>                                      4,813
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                           7,034
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (5,889)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 149,445
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                         53,184
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      4,212
<COMMON>                                            24
<OTHER-SE>                                      33,784
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   149,445
<SALES>                                        140,112
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               142,536
<CGS>                                          113,025
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   19,174
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,859
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 11,391
<INCOME-TAX>                                       600
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             10,791
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    10,791
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.34
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .53
        


</TABLE>
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

NORMAN DOUGLAS DIAMOND,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; DOES, Unknown Employees of the United States,

Defendants

- Appellees. No. 18

- 55376

D.C. No. 2:17

- cv

- 06327

- ODW

PJW

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California Otis D. Wright

, II, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted April 17, 2019 **

Before: McKEOWN, BYBEE, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.

Norman Douglas Diamond , a resident of Japan, appeals pro se from the

district court’s judgment dismissing his action seeking tax refunds and damages

arising from various interactions with defendant s

. We have jurisdiction under 28

U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal on the basis of res judicata

.

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

- 3.

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

# FILED

APR 23 2019

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 18

- 55376

Stewart v. U.S. Bancorp , 297 F.3d 953, 956 (9th Cir. 2002). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Diamond’s claims for unauthorized

disclosure as barred by the doctrine of res judicata because Diamond litigated these

claims in a prior action that resulted in a final judgment on the merits. See Tahoe

–

Sierra Pres. Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Reg’l Planning Agency , 322 F.3d 1064, 1077

(9th Cir. 2003) (requirements for res judicata )

.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Diamond’s motion

to transfer venue as to nonresident Diamond’s internal revenue tax claims because

venue was not proper in any district court

. See Jones v. GNC Franchising, Inc.

,

211 F.3d 495, 498 (9th Cir. 2000) (standard of review) ; see also 28 U.S.C.

§ 1402(a)(1) (providing that any action filed in district court against the United

States “may be prosecuted only

. . . in the judicial district where the plaintiff

resides”)

. To the extent that Diamond alleged damages claims arising from

defendants’ acts or omissions in the District of Columbia , denial of Diamond’s

r equest to transfer venue was not an abuse of discretion because Diamond failed to

show why it was in the interest of justice to transfer rather than dismiss without

prejudice

. See 28 U.S.C. § 140 6 (a) ( “ The district court of a district in which is

filed a case laying venue in the wrong division or district shall dismiss, or if it be in3 18

- 55376

the interest of justice, transfer such case to any district or division in which it could

have been brought. ” ).

AFFIRMED.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Housing and Urban Development

          - [Docket No. FR-5280-N-02]

# AGENCY:

Office of the Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and Development, HUD.

# ACTION:

Notice.

      ( print page 3094)    

# SUMMARY:

This Notice identifies unutilized, underutilized, excess, and surplus Federal property reviewed by HUD for suitability for possible use to assist the homeless.

# DATES:

*Effective Date:*                         January 16, 2009.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Kathy Ezzell, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW., Room 7262, Washington, DC 20410; telephone (202) 708-1234; TTY number for the hearing- and speech-impaired (202) 708-2565, (these telephone numbers are not toll-free), or call the toll-free Title V information line at 800-927-7588.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    In accordance with the December 12, 1988 court order in                     *National Coalition for the Homeless*                     v.                     *Veterans Administration,*                     No. 88-2503-OG (D.D.C.), HUD publishes a Notice, on a weekly basis, identifying unutilized, underutilized, excess and surplus Federal buildings and real property that HUD has reviewed for suitability for use to assist the homeless. Today's Notice is for the purpose of announcing that no additional properties have been determined suitable or unsuitable this week.                

Dated: January 8, 2009.

Mark R. Johnston,

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Special Needs.

 [FR Doc. E9-564 Filed 1-15-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4210-67-P
J

- S21007

- 17

*Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court. NON - PRECEDENTIAL DECISION – SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 ATEF V. JELASSI,

Appellee

v. NANCY NINEL VULAKH,

Appellant : : : : : : : : : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

No. 688 WDA 2016 Appeal from the Order April 15, 2016 in the Court of Common Pleas of Cameron County, Civil Division, at No(s): 2013

- 1889
BEFORE: LAZARUS, DUBOW, and STRASSBURGER, JJ.*
DISSENTING MEMORANDUM BY STRASSBURGER, J.: FILED: May 30, 2017 Because the trial court erred by failing to vacate the divorce decree, I respectfully dissent and offer the following analysis. I agree with the trial court and the Majority that the only way Vulakh can prevail on her petition to vacate the divorce decree is if she can demonstrate extrinsic fraud. One type of extrinsic fraud is found where one party has kept another “away from court by false promise of compromise.” Fenstermaker, v. Fenstermaker , 502 A.2d 185, 188 ( Pa. Super. 1985) (quoting McEvoy v. Quaker City Cab Co. , 110 A. 366, 368 (Pa. 1920)).
In Fenstermaker , this Court held that the trial court did not err in concluding there was extrinsic fraud caused by the husband’s “continued representations to [the wif e] evidencing his ‘intention’ to finalize their property settlement.” Id . at 190. The Court held that the trial court couldJ

- S21007

- 17

- 2

-

exercise its “equitable power to effectuate economic justice” where the wife “did not have the opportunity to litigate these econom ic claims.” Id

. Similarly, Vulakh testified that she “reviewed the postnuptial agreement, and [] discussed [with Attorney Grannan] that that was supposed to be incorporated together.” N.T., 1/6/2016, at 10. Vulakh testified that her soon

- to
- be ex

- husba nd “verbally agreed to it, but he hasn’t done anything for it.” Id . at 11. Attorney Grannan testified that after Vulakh confronted him about the fact that the post

- nuptial agreement was not included, he told her that he would “be happy to testify at any h earing that was conducted in this about the communications, about her intentions and about what actually happened.” 1 Id . at 16. Based on the foregoing, Jelassi’s assurances that he would sign a postnuptial agreement, coupled with the troubling nature of Attorney Grannan’s representation of the parties to this divorce, 2 I conclude that the trial court erred in denying Vulakh’s petition to vacate.

1 Jelassi did not appear or testify at the hearing because he is living out of the country with his new wife and baby.

2 See Majority Memorandum, at n.4.
- 350 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

311 Nebraska Reports

POPE v. DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES

Cite as 311 Neb. 350

Colt M. Pope, appellant, v. Department 

of Motor Vehicles of the State 

of Nebraska, appellee.

___ N.W.2d ___

Filed April 15, 2022. No. S-21-206.

supplemental opinion

Appeal from the District Court for Clay County: Stephen 

R. Illingworth, Judge. Former opinion modified. Motion for 

rehearing overruled.

T. Charles James, of Langvardt, Valle & James, P.C., L.L.O., 

for appellant.

Douglas J. Peterson, Attorney General, and Milissa JohnsonWiles for appellee.

Heavican, C.J., Miller-Lerman, Cassel, Stacy, Funke, 

Papik, and Freudenberg, JJ.

Per Curiam.

This case is before us on a motion for rehearing filed by 

the appellant, Colt M. Pope, concerning our opinion in Pope 

v. Department of Motor Vehicles, 310 Neb. 971, 969 N.W.2d 

903 (2022).

We overrule the motion, but modify the opinion as follows:

In the analysis section, under the subheading “OTHER 

ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR,” we modify the fourth paragraph to add as the final sentence the following: “We make 

Nebraska Supreme Court Online Library

www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/

06/10/2022 08:06 AM CDT
- 351 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

311 Nebraska Reports

POPE v. DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES

Cite as 311 Neb. 350

no comment on any prohibitions or obligations under Neb. Rev. 

Stat. § 84-914(6) (Reissue 2014), as Pope has not assigned as 

error, nor has he argued he was prejudiced by, any purported 

violation of that statute.”

The remainder of the opinion shall remain unmodified.

Former opinion modified.

Motion for rehearing overruled.
Amended and Restated License Agreement



 Exhibit 10.26 
 LICENSE AGREEMENT 
 AMENDMENT No. 10 
 This License Agreement Amendment No. 10 (the “Amendment No. 10”) executed and delivered as of October 2, 2009 amends the License
Agreement dated September 20, 2005, as later amended (the “Agreement”) by and between Standard & Poor’s Financial Services LLC (“S&P”), as assignee and successor in interest to Standard &
Poor’s Standard & Poor’s, a division of The McGraw-Hill Companies, and Chicago Mercantile Exchange Inc. (“CME”). 
 RECITALS 
 WHEREAS, S&P and CME are parties to the Agreement, and now
mutually desire to amend certain terms of the same. 
 NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and the covenants and
conditions contained herein, the sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties, intending to be legally bound, hereby agree as follows. All capitalized terms used but not defined in this Amendment No. 10 shall have the meaning
assigned to such terms in the Agreement. 
 1. Section 1 of the Agreement shall be amended by replacing existing Section (kk) with the
following: 
 (kk) “Cleared OTC Swap” shall mean a swap or forward contract that is bilaterally negotiated and cleared,
where the forward contract is structured identically or substantially similarly to CME’s existing S&P-GSCI Excess Return Commodity Index Swaps product except that CME may require different performance bond/margin for the forward contract.

 2. In the event of any conflict, ambiguity or inconsistency between the terms and conditions of this Amendment No. 10 and the terms and
conditions of the Agreement, the terms and conditions of this Amendment No. 10 shall govern and control. 
 Except as modified hereby, all
of the terms and conditions of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. 
  

 1 








 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Amendment No. 10 to be executed
as of the date specified above. 
  

									
	STANDARD & POOR’S FINANCIAL SERVICES LLC,
assignee and successor in interest to Standard & Poor’s, a
division of The McGraw-Hill
Companies, Inc.	 	 	 	CHICAGO MERCANTILE EXCHANGE INC.
					
	By:	 	 /s/ Robert Shakotko
	 		 	By:	 	 /s/ Rick Redding

	Name:	 	Robert Shakotko	 		 	Name:	 	Rick Redding
	Title:	 	Managing Director, S&P Index Services	 		 	Title:	 	Managing Director Products and Services Development

  

 2