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 Homeland Security

###### Federal Emergency Management Agency

          - [Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-1900-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2010-0002]

# AGENCY:

Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Minnesota (FEMA-1900-DR), dated April 19, 2010, and related determinations.

# DATES:

*Effective Date:*                         April 26, 2010.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Peggy Miller, Recovery Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-3886.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Notice is hereby given that the incident period for this disaster is closed effective April 26, 2010.

(The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance—Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households—Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants—Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.)

W. Craig Fugate,

Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.

[FR Doc. 2010-13020 Filed 5-28-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 9111-23-P
#### Henry Iden, Respondent, v. Thomas Osborn, Appellant.

Order reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion granted with ten dollars costs to abide the event of the suit.

Opinion by

Davis, P. J.
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

BAKER 

&

HOSTETLER LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

LOS 

ANGELES

-8- 

Exhibit B 

 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2798-2 Filed: 07/01/19 Entered: 07/01/19 10:07:47 Page 1

of 3
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

BAKER 

&

HOSTETLER LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

LOS 

ANGELES

-9- 

COMPENSATION BY WORK TASK CODE FOR 

SERVICES RENDERED BY BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP 

FOR THE PERIOD MAY 1, 2019 THROUGH MAY 31, 2019 

TASK 

CODE DESCRIPTION HOURS AMOUNT 

001 Administrative Expense Claims 3.20 $2,552.00

002 Asset Sales/363 Sales 3.50 $3,325.00

003 Automatic Stay 44.10 $42,235.00

004 Bankruptcy Litigation 198.20 $145,069.00

005 Bar Date Motion/Claims Reconciliation/Claim 

Reconciliation Issue 777.50 $611,392.50

006 Case Administration (docket updates, WIP and calendar) 90.50 $38,029.50

007 CCA and other Aggregator Issues 0.60 $570.00

008 Chapter 11 Plan/Plan Confirmation 62.40 $52,505.50

009 Committee Meetings and Preparation 281.90 $234,476.00

010 Corporate and Board Issues 75.40 $65,391.00

011 Customer, Supplier and Vendor Issues 3.30 $3,778.50

016 Exclusivity 92.80 $75,825.00

018 

General Case Strategy (includes communications with 

Committee) 93.40 $73,876.00

019 Hearings and Court Matters 129.30 $100,509.00

020 Legislative Issues/Inverse Reform 139.20 $140,068.00

021 Non-Bankruptcy Litigation 3.80 $2,507.00

022 Non-Working Travel 99.40 $33,811.75†

023 FERC Adversary Proceeding 0.30 $279.00

024 District Court Litigation 159.00 $94,379.00

025 Regulatory Issues including CPUC and FERC 336.80 $215,987.00

026 Retention Applications 19.80 $16,324.00

027 Fee Application: Baker 75.50 $48,091.00

028 Fee Application: Other Professionals 3.50 $1,914.50

029 Schedules/Statement of Financial Affairs 11.30 $7,094.00

031 

U.S. Trustee issues/meetings/communications/monthly 

operating 2.50 $2,250.00

032 Unsecured Creditor Issues/Communications/Meetings 24.10 $24,386.00

033 Utility Issues/Adequate Assurance/Insurance 0.50 $465.00

034 Withdraw Reference 2.10 $1,512.00

035 Real Estate and Real Property Issues 0.30 $285.00

036 Avoidance Action Analysis/Lien Avoidance Analysis 14.60 $9,532.00

037 Investigations 1.90 $1,732.00

 

†

 Travel time was charged at 50% of normal hourly rates during the Fee Period. 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2798-2 Filed: 07/01/19 Entered: 07/01/19 10:07:47 Page 2

of 3
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

BAKER 

&

HOSTETLER LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

LOS 

ANGELES

-10- 

TASK 

CODE DESCRIPTION HOURS AMOUNT 

038 Financial Advisors 189.30 $156,651.50

039 Other Contested Matters 8.70 $7,024.00

042 Subrogation 208.90 122,352.00

044 Wildfire Assistance Fund 184.30 $155,758.50

TOTAL 3,341.90 $2,491,937.25

 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2798-2 Filed: 07/01/19 Entered: 07/01/19 10:07:47 Page 3

of 3
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<CIK> 0000746253
<NAME> NORTHERN EMPIRE BANCSHARES
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                         9602000
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                           99000
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                              26126000
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    3279000
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                         6251000
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                           6253000
<LOANS>                                      197748000
<ALLOWANCE>                                    2249000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               243084000
<DEPOSITS>                                   224852000
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                            1359000
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       9766000
<OTHER-SE>                                     7107000
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>               243084000
<INTEREST-LOAN>                               13968000
<INTEREST-INVEST>                              1101000
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                 74000
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                              15143000
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                             6788000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             6788000
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                          8355000
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                   360000
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                4901000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                4086000
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                     4086000
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   2450000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.53
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.51
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    9.39
<LOANS-NON>                                     503000
<LOANS-PAST>                                      5000
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                               2077000
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                   223000
<RECOVERIES>                                     69000
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                              2249000
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                           2249000
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                         481000
        

</TABLE>
#### THEODORE S. MEEKINS v. COASTAL GAME PRESERVES, CAROLINA DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, LOUVAL REALTY COMPANY, INC., HAROLD C. LEWIS, and ALBERT A. LEWIS.

(Filed 22 September, 1937.)

*1.*Pleadings § 21—

Upon appeal from tbe clerk’s order denying a motion to vacate plaintiff's attachment, tbe Superior Court, in denying defendants’ motion, bas ample power to allow plaintiff to amend tbe complaint and affidavits.

2. Appeal and Error § 2—

An appeal from an order denying defendants’ motion to vacate an attachment is premature where tbe trial court allows plaintiff to amend bis complaint and affidavits, since what amendments, if any, will be made and their effect upon defendants’ motion cannot be determined.

Appeal from an order of *Williams, J.,*at May Term, 1931, of Dare.

Remanded.

Action by plaintiff creditor to set aside certain alleged fraudulent conveyances executed by and between tbe defendants, wbo are nonresidents. At tbe time of issuance of summons, attachment was issued and levied by tbe sheriff on tbe interests of tbe defendants in described lands. Service of summons and warrant of attachment was bad by publication. Defendants entered special appearance and moved to vacate tbe attachment. This was denied by tbe clerk and upon appeal *the*judge of *the*Superior Court made an order that tbe motion be denied and that tbe plaintiff be allowed thirty days within which to file amendment to complaint and affidavits.

From this order defendants appealed to tbe Supreme Court.

*M. B. Simpson and John H. Hall for plaintiff, appellee.*

*Worth & Horner for defendants, appellants.*

Per Curiam.

Tbe order appealed from granted tbe plaintiff thirty days within which to amend tbe complaint and affidavits upon which tbe attachment was based. Tbe power of tbe court to permit amendments of pleadings and process is ample *(Rushing v. Ashcraft,*211 N. C., 627). Hence, tbe appeal before tbe time within which amendments were permitted to be filed was premature. What amendments, if any, will be made and their effect upon defendants’ motion cannot now be properly determined. Tbe cause is remanded to the Superior Court for’further proceedings, *the*defendants’ exception being preserved. *Thomas v. Carteret County,*180 N. C., 109; *Farr v. Lumber Co.,*182 N. C., 725.

Remanded.
EXHIBIT 35.2

                    SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT (ITEM 1123)

                               GMAC MORTGAGE, LLC

                RALI SERIES 2007-QH1 TRUST (THE "ISSUING ENTITY")

The undersigned,  a duly authorized  officer of GMAC Mortgage,  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 24th
day of March 2008.


By:   /s/ Anthony N. Renzi
      Name:  Anthony N. Renzi
      Title: Executive Vice President
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen,

Justices

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

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

June 28, 2016

d0620 

# Order

Clerk June 28, 2016

151808

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 151808

COA: 326518

Wayne CC: 08

- 008157

- FH

ALSTAIR ALEXANDER RICHARDSON,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 10, 2015 order

of the Court of Appeals is considered and, it appearing to thi s Court that the case of

People v Comer (Docket No. 152713) is pending on appeal before this Court and that the

decision in that case may resolve an issue raised in the present application for leave to

appeal, we ORDER that the application be held in ABEYA NCE pending the decision in

that case.
1 The Honorable William R. Wilson, Jr., United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 03-2261

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the Eastern * District of Arkansas. Seven Firearms and Ammunition; * * [UNPUBLISHED] Defendant, * * Tammy Wilson, * * Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: January 7, 2004 Filed: November 24, 2004

___________ Before BYE, BOWMAN, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Appellant Tammy Wilson challenges the district court’s 1 adverse grant of summary judgment, and the denial of her cross-motion for summary judgment, in this 18 U.S.C. § 924(d)(1) action to forfeit and condemn seven firearms and various-2- ammunition (defendant property) for violations of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (unlawful for felon to possess firearms or ammunition). We affirm. Contrary to Wilson’s arguments, the district court had jurisdiction over this action, see 28 U.S.C. §§ 1355(a) (district courts have original jurisdiction over action for forfeiture under any Act of Congress), (b) (forfeiture action may be brought in district in which any acts giving rise to forfeiture occurred or in district specified by 28 U.S.C. § 1395), and 1395(b) (forfeiture proceeding may be prosecuted in district where defendant property is found), and the action was not untimely because the government began administrative forfeiture proceedings by publishing notice 37 days after the defendant property was seized, see 18 U.S.C. § 924(d)(1) (“Any action or proceeding for the forfeiture of firearms or ammunition shall be commenced within one hundred and twenty days of such seizure.”); United States v. Ninety-Three Firearms , 330 F.3d 414, 417, 422-23 (6th Cir. 2003) (federal agency commenced administrative forfeiture proceedings by publication; § 924(d)(1) does not mandate that judicial actions be brought within 120 days of seizure, as long as administrative proceeding has been brought within that timeframe). As to the merits of Wilson’s claimed interest in the defendant property, we assume without deciding that Wilson inherited an ownership interest in the defendant property from her deceased husband, and that she could assert the defense of innocent ownership. See 18 U.S.C. § 983(d)(1) (innocent owner’s interest in property shall not be forfeited under any civil forfeiture statute), (d)(2)(A)(i) (innocent owner means owner who did not know of conduct giving rise to forfeiture). We conclude, however, that Wilson did not show she was an innocent owner, because she knew her husband was a convicted felon who could not legally possess the defendant property. Hence, the defendant property was subject to forfeiture. Accordingly, we affirm.

______________________________
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. Section 1350

AS ADOPTEDPURSUANT TO

SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

In connection with theQuarterly Report of XETA Technologies, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Qfor the fiscal quarter ended April 30, 2010, as filed with the Securitiesand Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Robert B. Wagner, Chief FinancialOfficer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, asadopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1)           The Reportfully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

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

 

 
|   |   /s/ Robert B. Wagner |
|--------|-----------------------------|
|   | Robert  B. Wagner           |
|   | Chief  Financial Officer    |
|   | May 28, 2010                |

 

----
Exhibit
          31: Rule 13a-14(d)/15d-14(d) Certification
   Re:  Morgan
        Stanley Capital I Trust 2006-IQ12 (the “ Trust ”)
 
 I,
        Warren
        H. Friend, Vice President of Morgan Stanley Capital I Inc., certify
        that:
  1.  I
        have
        reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required to
        be
        filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of the
        Trust
        (the “Exchange Act periodic reports”);
  2.  Based
        on
        my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do 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, all of the distribution, servicing and other information required
        to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this report is included
        in the Exchange Act periodic reports;
  4.  Based
        on
        my knowledge and the servicer compliance statements required in this report
        under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange
        Act
        periodic reports, the servicers have fulfilled their obligations under the
        servicing agreements; and
  5.  All
        of
        the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed
        securities and their related attestation reports on assessment of compliance
        with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included
        in
        this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act
        Rules
        13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except
        as
        otherwise disclosed in this report. Any material instances of noncompliance
        described in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form
        10-K.
  In
        giving
        the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided
        to me
        by the following unaffiliated parties: Capmark
        Finance Inc., Prudential Asset Resources, Inc. , ARCap
        Servicing, Inc., Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Babson Capital Management LLC, SunTrust
        Bank, and LaSalle Bank National Association.
  Date:  March
        30,
        2007
  /s/
        Warren H. Friend
 By:
        Warren H. Friend
 Title:
        Vice President
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5119 

To authorize the Secretary of the Air Force to modernize C–130 aircraft 

using alternative communication, navigation, surveillance, and air traffic 

management program kits and to ensure that such aircraft meet applicable regulations of the Federal Aviation Administration. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 16, 2014 

Mr. CARNEY (for himself and Mrs. LUMMIS) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Armed Services 

A BILL 

To authorize the Secretary of the Air Force to modernize 

C–130 aircraft using alternative communication, navigation, surveillance, and air traffic management program 

kits and to ensure that such aircraft meet applicable 

regulations of the Federal Aviation Administration. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. C–130 FLEET MODERNIZATION. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—For purposes of modernizing the 

5 C–130 fleet, the Secretary of the Air Force may install 

6 alternative communication, navigation, surveillance, and 

7 air traffic management program kits in lieu of C–130 aviVerDate Mar 15 2010 21:19 Jul 21, 2014 Jkt 039200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H5119.IH H5119

emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5119 IH

1 onics modernization program kits if the Secretary deter2 mines, on a case-by-case basis, that such alternative pro3 gram is appropriate and notifies the congressional defense 

4 committees (as defined in section 101(a)(16) of title 10, 

5 United States Code) of such determination. 

6 (b) COMPATIBILITY WITH FAA REGULATIONS.—The 

7 Secretary shall ensure that all C–130 aircraft are capable 

8 of meeting applicable regulations of the Federal Aviation 

9 Administration by January 1, 2020. 

Æ 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 291 Filed: 02/05/19 Entered: 02/05/19 10:09:16 Page 1 of 3
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 291 Filed: 02/05/19 Entered: 02/05/19 10:09:16 Page 2 of 3
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 291 Filed: 02/05/19 Entered: 02/05/19 10:09:16 Page 3 of 3
_________________________________________ 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

May 18, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

130859 Michael F. Cavanagh 

130860 Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

MONIKA MAZUMDER, Personal Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, Representative of the Estate of Justices Deepika S. Mazumder, Deceased, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 130859, 130860 

 COA: 261331; 261333 

Washtenaw CC: 04-001101-NM 

UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN 

REGENTS, ROBERT A. KOEPKE, 

PH.D., RAJIV TANDON, M.D.,

SATOSHI MINOSHIMA, M.D.,

WASHTENAW COUNTY 

COMMUNITY MENTAL HEALTH, 

JOSEPH YAROCH, M.D.,

MOONSON R. ELLIOTT ENINSCHE,

B.A., R.S.W., C.S.M., RICHARD 

PFOUTZ, M.S.W., C.S.W., MOHAMED 

AZIZ, M.D., and STEPHAN F. TAYLOR, 

M.D., 

 Defendants, 

and 

SRINIBAS MAHAPATRA, M.D., 

 Defendant-Appellant. 

____________________________________/ 

By order of April 4, 2007, the application for leave to appeal the February 23, 

2006 judgment of the Court of Appeals was held in abeyance pending the decision in 

Mullins v St. Joseph Mercy Hospital (Docket No. 131879). On order of the Chief Justice, 

a stipulation signed by counsel for the parties agreeing to the dismissal of this application 

for leave to appeal is considered, and the application for leave to appeal is DISMISSED 

with prejudice and without costs. The application for leave to appeal in Docket 

No. 130836 remains pending. 

l0515 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

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

May 18, 2007 

Clerk
#### Henry J. Anderson, as Receiver, etc., Respondent, v. Gates Sherwood and another, Appellants.

Judgment affirmed

Opinion by

Barker, J.;

Haight, J., not sitting.