alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Membership Balance Plan for the

FDIC Advisory Committee of State Regulators

(1) Name: FDIC Advisory Committee of State Regulators (“Committee”).

(2) Authority: Discretionary committee established under agency authority.

(3) Mission/Function: The Committee will provide advice and recommendations to 

the FDIC on a broad range of policy issues regarding the regulation of state-chartered 

financial institutions throughout the United States, including its territories. The 

Committee will provide a forum where state regulators and the FDIC can discuss 

current and emerging issues that have potential implications regarding the regulation 

and supervision of state-chartered financial institutions. The Committee is intended 

to facilitate regular discussion of: safety and soundness and consumer protection issues; 

the creation of new banks; the protection of our nation’s financial system from risks such 

as cyber-attacks or money laundering; and other timely issues. 

(4) Points of View: To achieve a balanced membership, the members of the Committee 

will represent regulators of state-chartered financial institutions from across the United 

States, including its territories. No Special Government Employees and no Regular 

Government Employees are expected to be on the Committee. However, membership 

balance is not static and may change, depending on the work of the Committee. The 

number of Committee members will not exceed 15. 

(5) Other Balance Factors: To achieve balance on the Committee, the FDIC may 

include as Committee members other individuals with expertise in the regulation of statechartered financial institutions.

(6) Candidate Identification Process: Senior-level FDIC staff, including one or more 

representatives from the Office of the Chairman of the Board of Directors of the FDIC 

(“the FDIC Chairman”), will be involved in determining balance on the Committee and 

recommending qualified individuals. The FDIC Chairman will make the final selections. 

In seeking to achieve an appropriate balance on the Committee, the FDIC may seek 

recommendations for membership on the Committee from other relevant stakeholders. 

Members will serve for a term of two years, which may be renewed or otherwise 

extended for an additional period. Any vacancies on the Committee will be filled as soon 

as practicable using the process noted above. 

(7) Subcommittee Balance: The process for assuring the appropriate balance on any 

subcommittee shall be the same process as for the full Committee, as outlined above. 

(8) Other: Appointments will be made without discrimination on the basis of race, 

religion, color, sex (including pregnancy, gender identity, and sexual orientation), 

national origin, disability, age, and genetic information.

(9) Initially Prepared/Updated: Initially prepared on December 17, 2019; updated on

December 7, 2021.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

LAFAYETTE DIVISION

APRIL RICHESIN,

PLAINTIFF,

VS.

COMENITY CAPITAL BANK F/K/A

WORLD FINANCIAL CAPITAL BANK,

JOHN DOE CORP., AND ALLIANCE

DATA SYSTEMS CORP.,

DEFENDANTS.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CAUSE NO. 4:13-CV-24-RLM-PRC

O R D E R

Pursuant to the plaintiff’s notice of dismissal (Doc. No. 4), the court

ORDERS this cause DISMISSED with prejudice.

SO ORDERED.

ENTERED: July 23, 2013

 /s/ Robert L. Miller, Jr. 

Judge

United States District Court

USDC IN/ND case 4:13-cv-00024-RLM-PRC document 5 filed 07/23/13 page 1 of 1
Exhibit 35
                                   ----------


                       COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING LP


                              OFFICERS' CERTIFICATE
                     ANNUAL STATEMENT OF THE MASTER SERVICER


                                   CWALT, INC.
                         ALTERNATIVE LOAN TRUST 2007-24
               MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2007-24


      The undersigned does hereby certify that the undersigned is an officer of
Countrywide GP, Inc., general partner of Countrywide Home Loans Servicing LP
(the "Master Servicer"), and does hereby further certify pursuant to Section
3.16 of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement for the above-captioned Series (the
"Agreement") that:

(i)   A review of the activities of the Master Servicer during the preceding
calendar year and of the performance of the Master Servicer under the Agreement
has been made under my supervision; and

(ii)  To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Master Servicer has
fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects
throughout such calendar year.




/s/ Craig Baingo                                      Dated: March 14, 2008
-----------------

Craig Baingo
Executive Vice President, Finance
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)

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended March 31, 2011 of Boeing Capital Corporation (the Company) as filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the Report) and pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, Michael J. Cave, President of the Company, certify, that:



| | (1) |  | the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | --- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) |  | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|               |  |                          
|-------------- |  | -------------------------
|April 27, 2011 |  | /s/ MICHAEL J. CAVE      
|               |  | Michael J. Cave
President



25
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1560 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1560

 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase the exclusion 
  equivalent of the unified credit allowed against the estate tax to 
          $7,500,000 and to establish a flat estate tax rate.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 12, 2005

   Mr. Ford introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase the exclusion 
  equivalent of the unified credit allowed against the estate tax to 
          $7,500,000 and to establish a flat estate tax rate.

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

SECTION 1. INCREASE IN EXCLUSION EQUIVALENT OF UNIFIED CREDIT TO 
              $7,500,000.

    (a) In General.--Subsection (c) of section 2010 of the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to applicable credit amount) is amended 
by striking all that follows ``the applicable exclusion amount'' and 
inserting ``. For purposes of the preceding sentence, the applicable 
exclusion amount is $7,500,000.''.
    (b) Modification of Estate Tax Rate Schedule.--Subsection (c) of 
section 2001 of such Code (relating to rate schedule) is amended to 
read as follows:
    ``(c) Rate.--The tentative tax on the amount with respect to which 
the tentative tax is to be computed is 27.5 percent of such amount.''.
    (c) Repeal of Certain Estate and Gift Tax Provisions Made by 
EGTRRA.--
            (1) Subtitles A and E of title V, and subsections (d), (e), 
        and (f)(3) of section 511, of the Economic Growth and Tax 
        Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001, and the amendments made by 
        such provisions, are hereby repealed. The Internal Revenue Code 
        of 1986 shall be applied and administered as if such 
        provisions, and amendments, had never been enacted.
            (2) Section 901 of the Economic Growth and Tax Relief 
        Reconciliation Act of 2001 shall not apply to title V of such 
        Act.
    (d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to estates of decedents dying, and gifts made, after December 31, 
2005.
                                 <all>
```
Jonathan Shane BENTON, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 13-5451.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 2, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
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





In connection with the annual report of Baron Energy, Inc.  (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ended July 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Ronnie L. Steinocher, 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;





(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.





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.







/s/ Ronnie L. SteinocherName:
Ronnie L. SteinhocherTitle:
Chief Executive OfficerDate:
August 10, 2012
### C OURT OF 

### A PPEALS FOR THE



### F IRST 

### D ISTRICT OF 

### T EXAS AT 

### H OUSTON



### O RDER ON 

### M OTION



### November 7, 2008 Revision Cause number: 01

- 1 3

- 0 0 6 0 4

- C V

Style: Tony Lee and James Morgan

v. BAC Home Loans, LP fka Countrywide Home Loans Servicing, LP

Date motion filed * : October 1 5 , 201 3

Type of motion: Appellee/Defendant’s Motion for Substitution of Counsel

Party filing motion: Appellee

Document to be filed:

Is appeal accelerated?

If motion to extend time:

Original due date:

Number of previous extensions granted: Current Due date:

Date Requested:

Ordered that motion is:

 Granted

If document is to be filed, document due:

 T he Court will not grant additional motions to extend time absent extraordinary circumstances

.

 Denied

 Dismissed ( e.g. , want of jurisdiction, moot )

 Other: _____________________________________

The motion does not show compliance with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 6.5. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 6.5(b)

(requiring delivery of motion “to the party in person or mailed

— both by certified and by first

- class mail

—

to the party at the party’s last known address”); 6.5(d) (requiring withdrawing attorney to comply with

rule 6.5(b)).

Judge ’ s signature: /s/ Justice Terry Jennings



Panel consists of

____________________________________________

Date: November 5, 2013
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                           5
<LEGEND>                  THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION
                          EXTRACTED FROM THE UNAUDITED QUARTERLY
                          FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF NIAGARA
                          CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES FOR THE
                          SIX MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30, 1999 AND IS
                          QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
                          TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                                          <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                            DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                               JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                 JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                       2,325,327
<SECURITIES>                                 0
<RECEIVABLES>                                41,977,982
<ALLOWANCES>                                 860,000
<INVENTORY>                                  53,042,606
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             97,604,975
<PP&E>                                       120,408,651
<DEPRECIATION>                               16,962,543
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               205,888,731
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        52,458,150
<BONDS>                                      79,101,860
<COMMON>                                     9,998
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                        0
<PREFERRED>                                  0
<OTHER-SE>                                   56,605,359
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 205,888,731
<SALES>                                      110,998,612
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             110,998,612
<CGS>                                        95,768,065
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                95,768,065
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             9,500,312
<LOSS-PROVISION>                             0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,977,839
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              3,841,627
<INCOME-TAX>                                 1,490,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          2,351,627
<DISCONTINUED>                               0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                              0
<CHANGES>                                    0
<NET-INCOME>                                 2,351,627
<EPS-BASIC>                                .25
<EPS-DILUTED>                                .24



</TABLE>
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

____________________ No. 01-10240 Summary Calendar

____________________ DIANNE MARIE HARPER, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus
LOCKHEED MARTIN CORP., doing business as Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company, Defendant-Appellee.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:00-CV-450-Y

-------------------- September 17, 2001 Before KING, Chief Judge, and HIGGINBOTHAM and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Invoking, inter alia , Title VII, Dianne Marie Harper brought this action alleging that she has subjected to sex-based discrimination. On the motion of the defendant, the district court dismissed her second amended complaint, with prejudice, for insufficient service of process, lack of subject-matter2

jurisdiction, and failure to state a claim. Harper appeals but fails to develop any legal or factual support for the position that service on the defendant was sufficient. This court “will not raise and discuss legal issues that [Harper] has failed to assert.” Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner , 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987) . The failure to challenge the district court’s determination that she did not effect proper service of process renders Harper’s appeal without merit and thus frivolous. See Howard v. King , 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983). Because the appeal is frivolous, it is dismissed. See 5 TH C IR . R. 42.2. DISMISSED.
### IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA DA 20 - 0423

_________________ ST ATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. RICHARD EDWARD ADSIT, JR.,

Defendant and Appellant. O R D E R

_________________ Pursuant to the Internal Operating Rules of this Court, this cause is classified for submission on briefs to a five - justice panel of this Court. The Clerk is directed to provide a copy hereof to all counsel of record and to the Honorable Jon A. Oldenbur g , District Judge . For the Court,

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

February 2 2022

02/02/2022
Case Number: DA 20-0423
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                    9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          FEB-28-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             MAR-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               NOV-30-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          87,494
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               15,152,981
<ALLOWANCES>                                   960,536
<INVENTORY>                                 15,748,102
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            30,887,152
<PP&E>                                       6,229,353
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,421,939
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              42,488,152
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       16,383,217
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       103,800
<OTHER-SE>                                   8,693,947
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                42,488,152
<SALES>                                     74,921,276
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            74,921,276
<CGS>                                       59,594,561
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               59,594,561
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               456,751
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,233,646
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,443,832
<INCOME-TAX>                                 (346,861)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,790,693
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .15
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .15
        

</TABLE>
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RUDY SIMENTAL,

Plaintiff,

v.

NANCY ADAMS, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 17-cv-00801-SI 

ORDER AND WRIT OF HABEAS 

CORPUS AD TESTIFICANDUM

Rudy Simental, CDCR # J-05974, is a necessary and material party for a settlement 

conference scheduled for this case on November 9, 2017, and is confined in California State 

Prison, Sacramento (SAC), in the custody of the Warden. In order to secure this inmate's 

attendance at the settlement conference, it is necessary that a Writ of Habeas Corpus Ad 

Testificandum issue commanding the custodian to produce the inmate before Magistrate Judge 

Craig M. Kellison at the U. S. District Court, Courtroom #4, 501 I Street, Sacramento, California 

95814, at 1:00 p.m. on November 9, 2017. 

ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED:

1. That a Writ of Habeas Corpus Ad Testificandum issue, under the seal of this court, 

commanding the Warden of the California State Prison - Sacramento to produce inmate RUDY 

SIMENTAL, CDCR # J-05974, to participate in a settlement conference at the time and place 

named above, until completion of the settlement conference or as ordered by the court.

2. That the Warden shall notify the court of any change in custody of this inmate and 

is ordered to provide the new custodian with a copy of this writ. 
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AD TESTIFICANDUM

TO THE WARDEN OF CALIFORNIA STATE PRISON - SACRAMENTO, P.O. Box 290002, 

Represa, California 95671:

YOU ARE COMMANDED to produce inmate RUDY SIMENTAL, CDCR # J-05974, for 

a settlement conference before Magistrate Judge Craig M. Kellison at the U. S. District Court, 

Courtroom #4, 501 I Street, Sacramento, California 95814, at 1:00 p.m. on November 9, 2017, 

and until completion of the settlement conference or as ordered by the court.

FURTHER, you have been ordered to notify the court of any change in custody of this 

inmate and to provide any new custodian with a copy of this writ.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 18, 2017

______________________________________

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 100 (Wednesday, May 24, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 27497]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-12630]



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


DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Joint Service Committee on Military Justice; Public Meeting

AGENCY: Joint Service Committee on Military Justice (JSC).

ACTION: Notice of public meeting.

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

SUMMARY: This notice sets forth the schedule and proposed agenda for 
the 1995 annual public meeting of the JSC. This notice also describes 
the functions of the JSC.

DATES: Wednesday, July 12, 1995, 10 a.m. to 11 a.m.

ADDRESS: Building 111, Washington Navy Yard, Washington, DC.

FUNCTION: The JSC was established by the Judge Advocates General in 
1972. The JSC currently operates under Department of Defense Directive 
5500.17 of January 23, 1985. It is the function of the JSC to improve 
Military Justice through the preparation and evaluation of proposed 
amendments and changes to the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the 
Manual for Courts-Martial.

AGENDA: The JSC will receive public comment concerning its 1995 Annual 
Review of Manual for Courts-Martial, United States, 1984, as published 
on May 24, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
LT Kristen M. Henrichsen, JAGC, USN, Executive Secretary, Joint Service 
Committee on Military Justice, Building 111, Washington Navy Yard, 
Washington, DC 20374-1111; (202) 433-5895.

    Dated: May 24, 1995.
L.M. Bynum,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 95-12630 Filed 5-23-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5000-04-M
Eric Emanuel TAYLOR, petitioner, v. Barack H. OBAMA, President of the United States, et al.

No. 12-9328.

Supreme Court of the United States

July 22, 2013.

Petition for rehearing denied.
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule

47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 94-50700 

Conference Calendar

 

GUADALUPE M. GUTIERREZ,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

RUSSELL WALES, Badge #5362,

SAPD, ET AL,

 Defendants,

RODOLFO GOMEZ, JR.,

Badge #303, SAPD,

Defendant-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. SA-91-CA-281

- - - - - - - - - -

December 10, 1996

Before WIENER, BARKSDALE, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Texas prisoner Guadalupe Gutierrez, No. 584485, appeals the

dismissal of his civil rights suit following a jury trial. 

Gutierrez argues that the jury’s verdict is contrary to the

weight of the evidence and that he should be granted a new trial
No. 94-50700

- 2 -

because his trial attorney performed ineffectively. The evidence

supports the jury’s verdict. See Martin v. Thomas, 973 F.2d 449,

453 (5th Cir. 1992). There is no constitutional right to counsel

in a civil trial. Sanchez v. United States Postal Serv., 785

F.2d 1236, 1237 (5th Cir. 1986).

AFFIRMED.