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 the Treasury

###### Office of Thrift Supervision

          - [AC-46: OTS No. 08283]

                    Notice is hereby given that on May 24, 2010, the Office of Thrift Supervision approved the application of Ideal Federal Savings Bank, Baltimore, Maryland, to convert to the stock form of organization. Copies of the application are available for inspection by appointment (phone number: (202) 906-5922 or e-mail:                     *pub1ic.info@ots.treas.gov*) at the Public Reading Room, 1700 G Street, NW., Washington, DC 20552, and the OTS Southeast Regional Office, 1475 Peachtree Street, NE., Atlanta, Georgia 30309.                

Dated: May 26, 2010.

By the Office of Thrift Supervision.

Sandra E. Evans,

Federal Register Liaison.

[FR Doc. 2010-13216 Filed 6-2-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6720-01-M
#### Andrew Holling and another, Respondents, v. Lathrop S. Sprague, Appellant, Impleaded, etc.

Judgment and order affirmed.

Opinion by

Bradley, J.
#### ASHER GUCKENHEIMER and others, Appellants, *v.*JACKSON ANGEVINE, Impleaded, etc., Respondent.

*Motion for new trial*■— *reargument ordered*— *two argument fees may he taxed*— *Motion for relaxation ■*— what *laches a defence*— when *waived by taking an appeal.*

The plaintiff having recovered a verdict, defendant moved for a new trial on a ' case at Special Term. The justice heard the motion but did not decide it, and ordered a roargument before another justice, by whom the motion was denied. In taxing- costs, plaintiff was allowed two argument fees.

*Held,*that as the necessity of a rearg-ument was not caused by any act or omission of the plaintiff, such allowance was proper.

Plaintiffs entered judgment upon the verdict, which included the costs, and defendant appealed therefrom, giving an undertaking for their payment. Pour months afterwards defendant made a motion for a retaxation of the costs.

*Held,*that the defendant was guilty of *laches,*and that the appeal was a waiver of the right to move for a retaxation.

Appeal from an order of the Erie Special Term, granting a motion made by the defendant for a readjustment of costs.

The plaintiffs recovered a verdict, and the defendant moved for a new trial on a case. The motion was argued and submitted at a Special Term hold by a justice of this court, who did not decide it, but subsequently ordered that it be reargued before another judge, and it was so reargued at a subsequent term, and the motion ivas denied.

The clerk on taxing the costs alloAved the plaintiff tivo argument fees, to which defendant objected. The Special Term held that the plaintiffs were entitled to but one argument fee.

The defendant had allowed four special terms in Erie to pass without moving for retaxation, and no excuse Avas shown for the delay. Ho had also appealed from the judgment more than four months before this motion Avas made.

*Delavan F. Clark\*for the appellants.

*Horatio FT. Griffith,*for the respondent.

*454SMITH. J. :

It is well-settled that *laches*in motions for retaxation is a defence. *(McLean*v. Forward, 1 Cow., 49; *Morris*v. *Mullett,*1 Johns. Ch. R., 44.) It appears that the costs had been put into judgment, and that the defendant appealed from the judgment and gave an undertaking for their payment. We think the appeal was a waiver of the right to move for a retaxation; and on the merits vve are of the opinion that the plaintiffs were entitled to the argument fee given by statute for each argument. It does not appear that the necessity for a reargiunent was caused by any act or omission on their part, and two arguments having been in fact made, we think the items were properly taxed.

Order reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.

Talcott, P. J., and IIardiN, J., concurred.
ALBERT L. BUCKHALTER,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D15-0424

_____________________________/

Opinion filed July 14, 2015.

An appeal from an order of the Circuit Court for Escambia County.

Edward P. Nickinson, III, Judge.

Albert L. Buckhalter, pro se, Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Matthew Pavese, Assistant Attorney 

General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The appellant challenges the trial court's summary denial of his motion for 

postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). 

Because the appellant’s direct appeal of his judgment and sentence was pending at 

the time, the trial court was without jurisdiction to rule on the appellant’s 
2

postconviction motion. See Day v. State, 770 So. 2d 1262 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000) 

(holding that effective January 13, 2000, a party may not file a rule 3.800(a) 

motion during the pendency of a direct appeal); Bunkley v. State, 800 So. 2d 663

(Fla. 2d DCA 2001) (holding that a trial court is without jurisdiction to rule on a 

motion for postconviction relief during the pendency of a direct appeal). 

Accordingly, we quash the order denying the appellant’s postconviction 

motion.

ORDER QUASHED.

THOMAS, MARSTILLER, and KELSEY, JJ., CONCUR.
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 410 Filed: 02/12/19 Entered: 02/12/19 12:42:00 Page 1 of 3
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 410 Filed: 02/12/19 Entered: 02/12/19 12:42:00 Page 2 of 3
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 410 Filed: 02/12/19 Entered: 02/12/19 12:42:00 Page 3 of 3
#### S. J. BARTHOLOMEW & COMPANY v. S. L. PARRISH.

(Filed 23 September, 1925.)

Appeal and Error — Record—Judgment—Pacts Found — Case on Appeal— Inconsistent Statements.

Tbe judgment setting fortb the facts in a case on appeal to the Supreme Court is a part of the record, and controls when the statement in “the case on appeal” is in material conflict.

Appeal by defendant from *Sinclair, J.,*at March Term, 1925, of Nash.

Motion of defendant to set aside judgment, rendered in this cause at the October Term, 1924, on the ground that said judgment was taken through surprise or excusable neglect. C. S., 600. Motion denied, and defendant appeals.

*Cooley & Bone and E. B. Grantham, for plaintiff.*

*W. H. Yarborough, D. W. Perry and Ben. T. Holden for defendant.*

Stacy, C. J.

The judge found the facts and embodied them in the judgment. On the findings made, supported, as they are, by competent evidence, the motion was properly overruled. *Smith v. Holmes,*148 N. C., 210; *Marsh v. Griffin,*123 N. C., 660. But in the statement of case on appeal the following appears:

> “At the conclusion of the reading of the affidavits the court stated that, while -it seemed a great hardship upon the defendant, it would hold as a matter of law upon the defendant’s own showing and taking *152tbe contents of tbe affidavits in consideration, tbat be was not entitled to bave tbe judgment set aside, and for tbat reason tbe motion was denied. To tbis ruling of tbe court tbe defendant excepted.”

Tbis statement, wbicb forms tbe basis of defendant’s appeal, is slightly at variance witb tbe facts found and incorporated in tbe judgment. Under these circumstances, where tbe record proper differs from tbe statement of case on appeal, it is tbe uniform bolding of tbe Court tbat tbe former must govern. *S. v. Wheeler,*185 N. C., 670; *Moore v. Moore, ibid.,*332. The judgment is a part óf tbe record proper *(Thornton v. Brady,*100 N. C., 38), while tbe statement of case on appeal is not. *S. v. Matthews,*142 N. C., 621.

Therefore, disregarding tbat part of tbe statement of case on appeal, wbicb apparently is inconsistent witb tbe facts recited in tbe judgment, we find no error. There was no motion to reform tbe judgment so tbat it might conform to tbe facts set out in tbe statement of case on appeal:

During tbe same term of court, at which tbe judgment was rendered, a motion was made to set it aside, on tbe ground tbat it was contrary to tbe weight of tbe evidence. Tbis was overruled. Appellee takes tbe position tbat tbe reasons now urged for a vacation of tbe judgment (surprise and excusable neglect) should bave been presented at tbe time of tbe first motion and tbat movant is guilty of laches in failing to do so. It is not necessary to give a definite ruling on tbis point, but where relief ¿from a judgment is sought by a party “upon such terms as may be just” (C. S., 600), it would seem tbat a proper regard for tbe rights of both parties would call for reasonably prompt action on tbe part of tbe movant after notice of tbe judgment.

Tbe judgment must be upheld on tbe facts found by tbe trial court.

Affirmed.
In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

(Filed: January 8, 2016)

 

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

JANET BUKSA, *

* No. 13-795V

Petitioner, *

*

v. * Special Master Roth

* 

SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Damages Decision Based on Proffer;

AND HUMAN SERVICES, * Influenza Vaccination; Shoulder Injury

* Related to Vaccine Administration 

Respondent. * [“SIRVA”]

*

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Danielle A. Strait, Hogan, Maglio Christopher and Toale, PA, Washington, DC, for petitioner. 

Claudia B. Gangi, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1

On October 15, 2013, Janet Buksa filed a petition for compensation under the National 

Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-10, et seq.

2

[the “Vaccine Act” or 

“Program”], alleging that that she suffered a shoulder injury as a result of the influenza vaccine 

she received on January 27, 2012. 

On January 8, 2016, respondent filed a proffer on award of compensation (“Proffer”). 

According to respondent’s Proffer, petitioner agrees to the proposed award of compensation. 

Pursuant to the terms stated in the attached Proffer, petitioner is AWARDED:

a lump sum payment of $443,284.82, representing compensation for future medical 

care expenses ($98,485.68), lost earnings ($209,215.14), pain and suffering 

 

1 Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I intend to post this 

decision on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website, in accordance with the E-Government Act of 2002, 

Pub. L. No. 107-347, 116 Stat. 2899, 2913 (Dec. 17, 2002). In accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), petitioners 

have 14 days to identify and move to delete medical or other information, the disclosure of which would constitute 

an unwarranted invasion of privacy. If, upon review, I agree that the identified material fits within this definition, I 

will delete such material from public access.

2 The Program comprises Part 2 of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 

Stat. 3755, codified as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-10 et seq. (hereinafter “Vaccine Act” or “the Act”). Hereafter, 

individual section references will be to 42 U.S.C. § 300aa of the Act. 
($125,000.00), and past unreimbursable expenses ($10,584.00), in the form of a 

check payable to petitioner, Janet Buksa.

These amounts represent compensation for all damages that would be available under § 

300aa-15(a). 

The clerk of the court is directed to enter judgment in accordance with this decision.3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Mindy Michaels Roth 

Mindy Michaels Roth 

Special Master

 

3 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), entry of judgment can be expedited by each party filing a notice renouncing the 

right to seek review.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 JUL-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                              16,816
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        9,775
<ALLOWANCES>                                         (532)
<INVENTORY>                                            366
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                    34,628
<PP&E>                                               2,703
<DEPRECIATION>                                         296
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                      42,324
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                               14,861
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                                 8
<OTHER-SE>                                          52,064
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                        42,324
<SALES>                                              4,523
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     8,254
<CGS>                                                  208
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        1,131
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     7,271
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                        50
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                      56
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                        (12)
<INCOME-TAX>                                            (4)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                     (8)
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                            (8)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        (0.00)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        (0.00)
        


</TABLE>
#### In the Matter of the Probate of the Last Will and Testament of Margaret McPherson, Deceased.

Decree of surrogate reversed and the question of the testamentary capacity of the decedent to be determined by a trial by a jury, at the Genesee Circuit; costs of this appeal to abide the final award of costs.

Opinion by

Haight, J.;

Barker, J., not sitting.
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.                  

###### Farm Credit Administration

# AGENCY:

Farm Credit Administration.

# SUMMARY:

Pursuant to the Government in the Sunshine Act (5 U.S.C. 552b(e)(3)), the Farm Credit Administration gave notice on May 24, 2010 (75 FR 28806) of the regular meeting of the Farm Credit Administration Board (Board) scheduled for June 10, 2010. This notice is to amend the agenda by adding an item to the open session of that meeting.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Roland E. Smith, Secretary to the Farm Credit Administration Board, (703) 883-4025, TTY (703) 883-4056.

# ADDRESSES:

Farm Credit Administration, 1501 Farm Credit Drive, McLean, Virginia 22102-5090.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Parts of this meeting of the Board will be open to the public (limited space available), and parts of this meeting will be closed to the public. The agenda for June 10, 2010, is amended by adding an item to the open session to read as follows:

## Open Session

### C. Reports

    - Young, Beginning, and Small Farmer Mission Performance—2009 Results.

Dated: May 26, 2010.

Roland E. Smith,

Secretary, Farm Credit Administration Board.

[FR Doc. 2010-13102 Filed 5-26-10; 4:15 pm]

BILLING CODE 6705-01-P
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

###### Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

In accordance with Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92- 463), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announces the aforementioned meeting:

*Time and Date:*                     1 p.m.-4 p.m., June 25, 2010 (Closed)                

*Place:*                     Teleconference.                

*Status:*                     The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with provisions set forth in Section 552b(c) (4) and (6), Title 5 U.S.C., and the Determination of the Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, CDC, pursuant to Public Law 92-463.                

*Matters to be Discussed:*                     The meeting will include the initial review, discussion, and evaluation of applications received in response to “Outcomes of Screening American Indian/Alaska Native Women of Reproductive Age for Chronic Conditions in Reproductive Health Clinics & Technical Support for Health Systems Evaluations within Africa and Asia under PEPFAR, SIP 10-034 and SIP 10-038.”                

*Contact Person for More Information:*                     Michelle Mathieson, Public Health Analyst, National Center for Chronic Disease and Health Promotion, Office of the Director, Extramural Research Program Office, 4770 Buford Highway, NE., Mailstop K-92, Atlanta, GA 30341, Telephone: (770) 488-3068, E-mail:                     *mth8@cdc.gov.*

                    The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign                     **Federal Register**                     notices pertaining to announcements of meetings and other committee management activities, for both CDC and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.                

Dated: May 21, 2010.

Elaine L. Baker,

Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

[FR Doc. 2010-13104 Filed 5-28-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
EX-31 Rule 13a-14(d)/15d-14(d) Certifications

  I, Michelle Gill, certify that:

  1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K/A and all reports on Form 10-D
     required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report
     on Form 10-K/A of GSAA Home Equity Trust 2006-20 (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 in all
     material respects; 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/A.

     In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on
     information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties:
     Countrywide Home Loans Servicing LP as Servicer, GreenPoint Mortgage
     Funding, Inc., as Servicer, IndyMac Bank, F.S.B., as Servicer Inc.,
     National City Mortgage Co. as Servicer, SunTrust Mortgage, Inc. as
     Servicer, and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. as Master Servicer.

     Dated: June 30, 2008

     /s/ Michelle Gill
     Michelle Gill, Vice President
    (senior officer in charge of securitization of the depositor)