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.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Initial Review Group Function, Integration, and Rehabilitation Sciences Subcommittee; Function, Integration and Rehabilitation Sciences Subcommittee.                    

*Date:*                         June 21, 2010.                    

*Time:*                         8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         Legacy Hotel and Meeting Center, 1775 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852.                    

*Contact Person:*                         Anne Krey, PhD, Scientific Review Administrator, Division of Scientific Review, Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, NIH, 6100 Executive Blvd., Room 5b01, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-6908,                         *ak41o@nih.gov.*

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.864, Population Research; 93.865, Research for Mothers and Children; 93.929, Center for Medical Rehabilitation Research; 93.209, Contraception and Infertility Loan Repayment Program, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: May 20, 2010.

Jennifer Spaeth,

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2010-12783 Filed 5-26-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
EXHIBIT 35.3
                  SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT (ITEM 1123)
                           HOMECOMINGS FINANCIAL, LLC
             RALI SERIES 2006-QO10 TRUST (THE "ISSUING ENTITY")

The undersigned,  a duly authorized  officer of Homecomings  Financial,  LLC, as
servicer (the "Servicer") pursuant to the applicable  servicing agreement,  does
hereby certify that:

1.   A review of the  Servicer's  activities  during the  period  covered by the
     Issuing  Entity's  report  on Form 10-K and of the  Servicer's  performance
     under  the   applicable   servicing   agreement  has  been  made  under  my
     supervision.

2.   To the  best of my  knowledge,  based  on such  review,  the  Servicer  has
     fulfilled all of its obligations under the applicable  servicing  agreement
     in all material respects throughout such period.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has duly executed this Certificate this 26th
day of March 2007.


By:   /s/ Anthony N. Renzi
      ------------------------
      Name:  Anthony N. Renzi
      Title:   Managing Director
- Home
      - Grants          - Project Grants
        - Technical Assistance Grants
        - Curriculum Adaptation & Training Grant
        - Strategic Initiatives Grants
        - Education Support Program
        - Funding Toolkit 
      - News
      - Grantee Spotlights
      - Priority Investment Areas          - Court Pandemic Response and Recovery Grant Program 
      - Grant Management
      - About SJI          - Board of Directors
        - Executive Director
        - Past Members
        - SJI Budget 

                  - Home
                  - Grants                      - Project Grants
                    - Technical Assistance Grants
                    - Curriculum Adaptation & Training Grant
                    - Strategic Initiatives Grants
                    - Education Support Program
                    - Funding Toolkit 
                  - News
                  - Grantee Spotlights
                  - Priority Investment Areas                      - Court Pandemic Response and Recovery Grant Program 
                  - Grant Management
                  - About SJI                      - Board of Directors
                    - Executive Director
                    - Past Members
                    - SJI Budget 

### Supporting the Nation's Judicial System & the Public it Serves

#### 					NEWS				

## SJI Board of Directors Meeting

The SJI Board of Directors will be meeting on Monday, April 8, 2013 at 1:00 PM. The meeting will be held at SJI Headquarters in Reston, Virginia. The purpose of this meeting is to consider grant applications for the 2nd quarter of FY 2013, and other business. All portions of this meeting are open to the public.

#### LATEST NEWS & ANNOUNCEMENTS

                  -  Sixteen State Courts Participate in Groundbreaking Workshop for Racial Justice Education  Read More**   
                  -  New Resource: The Rural Justice Collaborative Digest for June 2024  Read More**   
                  -  SJI Board Awards FY 2024 Third Quarter Grants  Read More**   
                  -  SJI Executive Director, Jonathan Mattiello, Congressional Briefing Panelist on Capitol Hill  Read More**   

#### CONTACT US

          contact@sji.gov
                       Tel: 703.660.4979

#### HEADQUARTERS

                       State Justice Institute
                       12700 Fair Lakes Circle, Suite 340
                       Fairfax, VA 22033         

Website design by Segue Technologies, Inc.

            -  ** 
            -  **  **
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4989 

To prohibit Federal funding of any treatment or research in which a ward 

of the State is subjected to greater than minimal risk to the individual’s 

health with no or minimal prospect of direct benefit. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 26, 2014 

Mrs. BACHMANN (for herself, Ms. BASS, Mr. MCDERMOTT, and Mr. MARINO) 

introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To prohibit Federal funding of any treatment or research 

in which a ward of the State is subjected to greater 

than minimal risk to the individual’s health with no 

or minimal prospect of direct benefit. 

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 ‘‘Justina’s Law’’. 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4989 IH

1 SEC. 2. PROHIBITION AGAINST FUNDING FOR TREATMENT 

2 OR RESEARCH IN WHICH A WARD OF THE 

3 STATE IS SUBJECTED TO GREATER THAN 

4 MINIMAL RISK WITH NO OR MINIMAL PROS5 PECT OF DIRECT BENEFIT. 

6 No Federal funds may be used to conduct or support 

7 treatment or research in which a patient or subject is— 

8 (1) a ward of the State; and 

9 (2) subjected to greater than minimal risk to 

10 the patient or subject’s health with no or minimal 

11 prospect of direct benefit. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
# States in the Senate | Oklahoma Senators

**

----

**Introduction****Senators****Timeline**

        -  Contact 
        -  Leadership & Officers 
        -  Former Senators 
        -  Qualifications & Terms of Service 
        -  Facts & Milestones 
        -  States
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4736 

To revise the authorized route of the North Country National Scenic Trail 

in northeastern Minnesota and to extend the trail into Vermont to 

connect with the Appalachian National Scenic Trail, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 22, 2014 

Mr. NOLAN (for himself, Mr. WELCH, Mr. PETERSON, Mr. WALZ, Mr. PETRI, 

Mr. ELLISON, Ms. MCCOLLUM, and Mr. PAULSEN) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To revise the authorized route of the North Country National 

Scenic Trail in northeastern Minnesota and to extend 

the trail into Vermont to connect with the Appalachian 

National Scenic Trail, 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 ‘‘North Country Na5 tional Scenic Trail Route Adjustment Act’’. 


dlhill on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4736 IH

1 SEC. 2. ROUTE ADJUSTMENT. 

2 Section 5(a)(8) of the National Trails System Act (16 

3 U.S.C. 1244(a)(8)) is amended in the first sentence— 

4 (1) by striking ‘‘thirty two hundred miles, ex5 tending from eastern New York State’’ and inserting 

6 ‘‘4,600 miles, extending from the Appalachian Trail 

7 in Vermont’’; and 

8 (2) by striking ‘‘Proposed North Country Trail’’ 

9 and all that follows through ‘‘June 1975.’’ and in10 serting ‘‘ ‘North Country National Scenic Trail, Au11 thorized Route’ dated February 2014, and numbered 

12 649/116870.’’. 

Æ 


dlhill on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
NO. 07-08 -020 0-CR IN THE CO URT OF APPEA LS FO R THE S EVEN TH D ISTRI CT O F TEXAS

AT AM AR ILLO PAN EL B JU LY7, 2008

_________

_________

_________

___ BARRY PARTAI N, Appel lan t
v. THE S TATE OF TEXAS, Appel lee

_________

_________

_________

______ FRO M T HE 28 6 th DIS T RI CT COU RT OF HO CK L EY CO UNT Y; NO. 080 265 94; HON. HAROLD PHELAN, PRES IDING

_________

_________

_________

____ Memorandum Opinion

_________

_________

_________

____ Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ. Appel lan t app eal s from hi s c onv ictio n for p oss ess ion of attempt ed ag g ra v ated
a s s a u lt c a u s in g s e ri o u s b o d il y in ju ry. B e c a u s e t h e co u rtre p o rt e r h a d n o tf il e d a re c o rd , we aba ted and rema nde d the cause to the 286 th D istrict Court of Hockle y Count y (tri al court). The la tter

co nv ened a hear ing att ended b y appel lan t. At the p ro ceeding, appel lan t in fo rm e d t h e t rial court thathe no longer cared to pro secut e the app eal. T he trial cou rt foun d this de cis ion to be kno w ing and voluntary. Furthe rmore , it along w ith ap pellan t's
re present ati ons w ere memor ial iz ed i n a s uppl emental cl er k' s record fil ed w it h thi s c our t.2

Al thoug h we hav e no moti on to di smi ss before us as re q uired by Tex as Rul e of Appel lat e Procedu re 42.2 (a ), R ule 2 of the s ame r ule s p er mitsus to sus pend t he operati on of an ex is ti ng ru le. T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 2 ; see Rod ri guez v. Sta te , 9 7 0 S

. W

. 2 d 1 3 3 , 1 3 5 (T e x. App.–A mari ll o 1998, pet. ref'd)

. Therefore, purs uant to R ule 2, and bec ause appel lan t has cl ear ly rev eal ed hi s d esi re to foreg o appea l, w e s uspen d R ule 42.2 (a ) and di smi ss the appeal bas ed upon appel lan t' s represent ati on to the tr ial co urt. Hav ing so di smi ss ed th e appea l, no mot ion for re hear ing w il l be ent ertai ned, and our mandate w il l is sue forthw it h.

Br ian Qui nn Chief Justice Do not p ubl is h.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 7
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<DEBT-HELD-FOR-SALE>                         6,339,975
<DEBT-CARRYING-VALUE>                        2,056,111
<DEBT-MARKET-VALUE>                          2,086,227
<EQUITIES>                                      49,808
<MORTGAGE>                                   1,385,760
<REAL-ESTATE>                                        0
<TOTAL-INVEST>                              12,900,644
<CASH>                                         118,216
<RECOVER-REINSURE>                              81,612
<DEFERRED-ACQUISITION>                         272,418
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              20,791,142
<POLICY-LOSSES>                             11,380,877
<UNEARNED-PREMIUMS>                                  0
<POLICY-OTHER>                                       0
<POLICY-HOLDER-FUNDS>                          448,692
<NOTES-PAYABLE>                                 79,414
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                    121,800
<COMMON>                                         7,032
<OTHER-SE>                                     979,064
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                20,791,142
<PREMIUMS>                                     708,808
<INVESTMENT-INCOME>                            436,972
<INVESTMENT-GAINS>                             (7,160)
<OTHER-INCOME>                                       0
<BENEFITS>                                     744,339
<UNDERWRITING-AMORTIZATION>                     22,443
<UNDERWRITING-OTHER>                           238,850
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                132,988
<INCOME-TAX>                                    55,037
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             77,951
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    77,951
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<RESERVE-OPEN>                                       0
<PROVISION-CURRENT>                                  0
<PROVISION-PRIOR>                                    0
<PAYMENTS-CURRENT>                                   0
<PAYMENTS-PRIOR>                                     0
<RESERVE-CLOSE>                                      0
<CUMULATIVE-DEFICIENCY>                              0
        

</TABLE>
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A24A0747. KENNETH WAYNE CLAY v. THE STATE.

In February 2019, Kenneth Wayne Clay pleaded guilty to one count of failing

to register as a sex offender. Over four years later, in August 2023, Clay filed an

extraordinary motion for a new trial. The trial court dismissed that motion, and Clay

filed this direct appeal.1 We lack jurisdiction.

An appeal from an order denying an extraordinary motion for a new trial must

be initiated by filing an application for discretionary review. OCGA § 5-6-35 (a) (7),

(b); Balkcom v. State, 227 Ga. App. 327, 329 (489 SE2d 129) (1997). “Compliance

with the discretionary appealsprocedure isjurisdictional.”Hair RestorationSpecialists

v. Stateof Ga., 360 Ga. App. 901, 903 (862 SE2d 564) (2021) (punctuation omitted).

Thus, Clay’s failure to follow the proper procedure deprives us of jurisdiction over

this appeal. Moreover, to the extent that Clay’s extraordinary motion for a new trial

may be construed as a motion to vacate his judgment of conviction, “a petition to

vacate or modify a judgment of conviction is not an appropriate remedy in a criminal

case[,]”and any appeal from an order denying or dismissing such a petition or motion

must be dismissed. Harper v. State, 286 Ga. 216, 218 (1), (2) (686 SE2d 786) (2009);

see also Roberts v. State, 286 Ga. 532, 532 (690 SE2d 150) (2010). For each of the

1 This appeal represents Clay’s third appearance before this Court.In 2020, we

dismissed, in an unpublished opinion, Clay’s appeal from an order denying his motion

to correct an illegal and void sentence. See Case No. A20A0720 (April 3, 2020). Last

year, we dismissed Clay’s appeal from an order denying his post-conviction motion

to suppress evidence. See Case No. A23A1180 (March 30, 2023).

January 18, 2024
above reasons, this appeal is hereby DISMISSED.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office,Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

01/18/2024
* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

June 21, 2005

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 04-40956

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

OSCAR JAVIER MARTINEZ-MARTINEZ,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:04-CR-23-ALL 

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

Before WIENER, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Oscar Javier Martinez-Martinez (Martinez) appeals the

sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for illegal

entry. Martinez argues that the district court erred by imposing

a two-level upward adjustment to his sentence for obstruction of

justice and denying a two-level downward adjustment for

acceptance of responsibility. Martinez contends that the

obstruction of justice adjustment was based on facts to which he
No. 04-40956

-2-

did not admit, which were not found by a jury beyond a reasonable

doubt, and which were not charged in the indictment. 

Because Martinez raises these issues for the first time on

appeal, we review only for plain error. See United States v.

Mares, 402 F.3d 511, 520 (5th Cir. 2005), petition for cert.

filed (Mar. 31, 2005) (No. 04-9517). We may correct forfeited

errors only when: (1) there is an error, (2) that is clear or

obvious, and (3) that affects the appellant’s substantial rights. 

United States v. Calverley, 37 F.3d 160, 162-64 (5th Cir. 1994)

(en banc) (citing United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 731-37

(1993)). 

During the pendency of this appeal, the Supreme Court held

in United States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738, 756 (2005), that

“[a]ny fact (other than a prior conviction) which is necessary to

support a sentence exceeding the maximum authorized by the facts

established by a plea of guilty or a jury verdict must be

admitted by the defendant or proved to a jury beyond a reasonable

doubt.” Accordingly, application of the adjustment for

obstruction of justice constitutes error under Booker and that

error is now plain in light of Booker. Even if we assume,

arguendo, that the district court also committed Booker error by

denying a downward adjustment for acceptance of responsibility, 

Martinez has not met the third prong of the plain error test

because he has made no showing that he would have received a

lesser sentence had the district court sentenced him under an
No. 04-40956

-3-

advisory application of the sentencing guidelines. See United

States v. Holmes, 406 F.3d 337, 365-66 (5th Cir. 2005). 

AFFIRMED.
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 235 Filed: 02/01/19 Entered: 02/01/19 13:39:38 Page 1 of 2
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 235 Filed: 02/01/19 Entered: 02/01/19 13:39:38 Page 2 of 2
Assumpsit.

*December*18.

*Case*80.

Case stated.

#### Northcut’s Administrator *vs*Wilkinson.

Appear from tiie Casey Circuit.

*Assumpsit. Limitation. Executors and Administrators.*

Chief Justice Simpson

delivered the opinion of the Court.

This was an action of assumpsit by Wilkinson against the defendants, as administrators *de bonis non*with the will annexed of Archibald Northcut, deceased.

The action was brought on an account for work and labor performed by the plaintiff for the defendant’s testator in his lifetime.

After the. death of the testator, Sally Northcut qualified as executrix and William Northcut as executor of his last will and testament. They both died, and after their death, the defendants were appointed administrators *de bonis non,*with the will annexed.

The statute of limitations was plead as a bar to the plaintiffs’ action, and to take the case out of the operation of the statute, he relied upon a promise to pay the demand, made by Sally Northcut the executrix, within five years, on which promise one of the counts in his declaration was founded.

*409A promise by one executor to pay the debt of the testator, is sufficient to do away the eftect of a bar by limitation and authorize an action against two executors or administ’Ts. Or an action against an administrator *de. bonis*non, in case of the death of the executor or administrator. (4 *Monroe,*36; 16 *Mass Re'p.*429; *Angel on*Lim. 278.)

*Shuck*for appellant; *Fox*for appellee.

The question, therefore, presented for the consideration of the Court is, whether the promise relied upon was sufficient to relieve the case from the statutory bar. The question was decided in the affirmative, by the Court below, and we are of opinion the decision was correct.

In the case of *Hord’s administrator*vs Lee *et al.,*(4 *Monroe,*36,) it was held that a promise by one of two administrators, was sufficient to take the case out of the statute, and to maintain the action against boih the administrators. The doctrine is based upon the assumption that an administrator or executor represents the the decedent to the extent of the assets in his hands, and that a promise made by him, in his representative capacity, to pay a debt, should have the same effect as if it had been made by the intestate or testator himself, and if there be several, that, they represent one individual and one fund, and the act of one in most cases is regarded as the act of all.

From these principles, it would seem necessarily to result, that as the estate was made liable by the promise of the executrix in her lifetime, that her death could not affect the liability, but the estate unadministered would remain subject to the demand in the hands of the defendants as administrators *de bonis non.*

This question was so decided by the Supreme Court of Massachusetts in the case of *Emmerson*vs *Thompson,*(16 *Mass. Rep.*429,) and the doctrine is recognized as correct in *Angelí on Limitations,*278.

Wherefore, the judgment is affirmed.