alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
H. R. 5134 

One Hundred Thirteenth Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE SECOND SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Friday, 

the third day of January, two thousand and fourteen 

An Act 

To extend the National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity 

and the Advisory Committee on Student Financial Assistance for one year. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON 

INSTITUTIONAL QUALITY AND INTEGRITY. 

Section 114(f) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 

1011c(f)) is amended by striking ‘‘2014’’ and inserting ‘‘2015’’. 

SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON STUDENT FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE. 

Section 491(k) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 

1098(k)) is amended by striking ‘‘2014’’ and inserting ‘‘2015’’. 

Speaker of the House of Representatives. 

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
#### George H. Lawrence and another, Respondent, v. John W. Lischer, Appellant.

— Judgment affirmed, with costs.
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

McCormick, Barstow,

Shepparo, Wayte &

Carruth LLP

7M7 NORTH FRESNO STREET

FRESNO. CA 93720

McCormick, Barstow, Sheppard,

Wayte & Carruth LLP

Hagop T. Bedoyan, #131285

hasop. bedovan(a)mccormickbarstow. com

16A1 North Fresno Street

Fresno, California 93720

Telephone: (559)433-1300

Facsimile: (559) 433-2300

Attorneys for Scott and Charlyse Raven

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

In re

PG&E CORPORATION,

- andPACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC

COMPANY,

Debtors.

[ ] Affects PG&E Corporation

[x] Affects Pacific Gas Electric Company

[ ] Affects Both

*A11 papers shall be filed in the Lead Case

No. 19-30088

Case No. 3:19-bk-30088-(DM)

Chapter 11

(Lead Case Jointly Administered)

NOTICE OF SCOTT AND CHARLYSE

RAVEN'S MOTION FROM AND/OR

MODIFICATION OF THE PLAN

INJUNCTION AND/OR FOR

ABSTENTION

Date: November 30, 2022

Time: 10:00 a.m.

Place: Ct. Rm. 17

United States Bankruptcy Court

450 Golden Gate Avenue

San Francisco, CA 94102

Hearing will be conducted

telephonically or by video

Judge: Honorable Dennis Montali

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 13077 Filed: 10/14/22 Entered: 10/14/22 10:59:58 Page 1

of 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

MCCORMICK. BARSTOW,

SHEPPARD, WAYTE &

Carruth LLP

7M7 NORTM FRESNO STHEET

FRESNO. CA S3720

NOTICE OF HEARING ON MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM STAY

TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on November 2, 2022 at 10:00 a.m., or as soon thereafter

as the matter may be heard before the Honorable Dennis Montali ofthe United States Bankruptcy

for the Northern District ofCalifornia, San Francisco Division, located at 450 Golden Gate Avenue,

San Francisco, CA, 16'^ Floor, Courtroom 17, SCOTT AND CHARLYSE RAVEN will and hereby

do move the Court for relief from the automatic stay. The motion will be conducted telephonically

or by video.

All interested parties should consult the Bankruptcy Court's website at

wAvw.canb.uscourts.gov for information about court operations during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Bankruptcy Court's website provides information regarding how to arrange a telephonic or

video appearance. If you have any questions regarding how to appear at a court hearing, you may

contact the Bankruptcy Court by calling 888-821-7606 or by using the Live Chat feature on the

Bankruptcy Court's website.

Dated: October 11,2022

039515-000000 8659991.1

McCORMICK, BARSTOW, SHEPPARD,

WAYTE & CARRUTH LLP

Hagop T. Bedoyfcr

Attorneys for Scott and Charlyse Raven

Case No. 19-30088-DM Case: 19-30088 Doc# 13077 Filed: 10/14/22 Entered: 10/14/22 10:59:58 Page 2

of 2
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 307 Filed: 02/05/19 Entered: 02/05/19 15:19:32 Page 1 of 2
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 307 Filed: 02/05/19 Entered: 02/05/19 15:19:32 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 34.6.2

[Letterhead of Ernst & Young LLP]



Ernst & Young LLP901 E. Cary Street, Suite 1000Richmond, VA 23219


Phone: (804) 344-6000

www.ey.com

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

Board of Directors

SunTrust Bank

We have examined managements assertion included in the accompanying report of Certification Regarding Compliance with Applicable Servicing Criteria, that SunTrust
Bank (the Company) complied with the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d)(2)(i), 1122(d)(4)(i), and 1122(d)(4)(ii) of the Securities and Exchange Commissions Regulation AB for the residential mortgage loan servicing
platform of SunTrust Mortgage, Inc. as of and for the year ended December 31, 2007. Refer to managements assertion for the asset backed transactions covered by this platform. Management is responsible for the Companys compliance
with the applicable servicing criteria. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on managements assertion about the Companys compliance with the applicable servicing criteria based on our examination.

Our examination was conducted in accordance with attestation standards established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, as adopted by the Public
Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) and, accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Companys compliance with the applicable servicing criteria and performing such other procedures as we considered
necessary in the circumstances. Our examination included testing of less than all of the individual asset backed transactions and securities that compromise the platform, testing of less than all of the servicing activities related to the Platform,
and determining whether the Company processed those selected transactions and performed those selected activities in compliance with the servicing criteria. Furthermore, our procedures were limited to the selected transactions and servicing
activities performed by the Company during the period covered by this report. Our procedures were not designed to determine whether errors may have occurred either prior to or subsequent to our tests that may have affected the balances or amounts
calculated or reported by the Company during the period covered by this report for the selected transactions or any other transactions. We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our examination does not provide a
legal determination on the Companys compliance with the servicing criteria.

In our opinion, managements assertion that the Company complied
with the aforementioned servicing criteria as of and for the year ended December 31, 2007 for the residential mortgage loan servicing platform is fairly stated, in all material respects.



|                     
|---------------------
|/s/ Ernst & Young LLP
|                     
|March 6, 2008
#### Ann E. Maytham, Respondent, v. The Travelers’ Insurance Company of Hartford, Conn., Appellant.

Judgment and order affirmed.
SCPW-14-0000793

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

CLAUDETTE DE GRACIA,

Petitioner,

vs.

CHARLENE NORRIS, ACTING FUND ADMINISTRATOR, LAWYERS’ FUND FOR

CLIENT PROTECTION; LAWYERS’ FUND FOR CLIENT PROTECTION,

Respondents.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

ORDER GRANTING PETITION FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS

(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Pollack, and Wilson, JJ.)

Upon consideration of the March 17, 2014 letter from

Claudette de Gracia to the Chief Justice of this court, which

this court has deemed a petition for a writ of mandamus, and the

May 13, 2014 reply timely filed by Charlene Norris, Acting Fund

Administrator for the Lawyers’ Fund for Client Protection, this

court finds and concludes the following; that Rule 10.5(e) of the

Rules of the Supreme Court of the State of Hawai#i (RSCH) and

Rule 5.2(j) of the Lawyers’ Fund Rules and Regulations (LFRR)

grant both a denied claimant to the Fund and the respondent

attorney the right to a hearing if timely requested following

Electronically Filed

Supreme Court

SCPW-14-0000793

18-JUN-2014

07:46 AM
notification of the Fund’s final determination of a claim. 

Insofar as Ms. de Gracia timely made a request for the required

hearing, the Fund has refused to provide her the hearing, and she

has no other remedy for the denial of the hearing to which she

has a right, see In re Disciplinary Board of the Hawai#i Supreme

Court, 91 Hawai#i 363, 368, 984 P.2d 688, 693 (1999), therefore,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition for a writ of

mandamus is granted.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Lawyers’ Fund shall

timely convene a hearing on the denied claim, pursuant to RSCH

Rule 10 and the LFRR.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, June 18, 2014.

/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald

/s/ Paula A. Nakayama

/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna

/s/ Richard W. Pollack

/s/ Michael D. Wilson

2
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3420 Filed: 08/07/19 Entered: 08/07/19 14:45:33 Page 1 of

4
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3420 Filed: 08/07/19 Entered: 08/07/19 14:45:33 Page 2 of

4
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3420 Filed: 08/07/19 Entered: 08/07/19 14:45:33 Page 3 of

4
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3420 Filed: 08/07/19 Entered: 08/07/19 14:45:33 Page 4 of

4
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 105 (Wednesday, June 2, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 30872]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-13197]


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

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

[Disaster Declaration <greek-i>12196 and <greek-i>12197]


Arkansas Disaster <greek-i> AR-00043

AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration.

ACTION: Notice

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

SUMMARY: This is a notice of an Administrative declaration of a 
disaster for the State of Arkansas dated 05/26/2010.
    Incident: Severe storms, tornadoes and flooding.
    Incident Period: 04/30/2010 through 05/06/2010.
    Effective Date: 05/26/2010.
    Physical Loan Application Deadline Date: 07/26/2010.
    Economic Injury (EIDL) Loan Application Deadline Date: 02/28/2011.

ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business 
Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport 
Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A. Escobar, Office of Disaster 
Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, SW., 
Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that as a result of 
the Administrator's disaster declaration, applications for disaster 
loans may be filed at the address listed above or other locally 
announced locations.
    The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected 
by the disaster:

Primary Counties: Lonoke, Saline.
Contiguous Counties:
Arkansas: Arkansas, Faulkner, Garland, Grant, Hot Spring, Jefferson, 
Perry, Prairie, Pulaski, White.

    The Interest Rates are:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Physical Damage:
  Homeowners with Credit Available Elsewhere..................     5.500
  Homeowners without Credit Available Elsewhere...............     2.750
  Businesses with Credit Available Elsewhere..................     6.000
  Businesses without Credit Available Elsewhere...............     4.000
  Non-Profit Organizations With Credit Available Elsewhere....     3.625
  Non-Profit Organizations Without Credit Available Elsewhere.     3.000
For Economic Injury:
  Businesses & Small Agricultural Cooperatives without Credit      4.000
   Available Elsewhere........................................
  Non-Profit Organizations without Credit Available Elsewhere.     3.000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 12196 C 
and for economic injury is 12197 0.
    The State which received an EIDL Declaration <greek-i> is Arkansas.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 59002 and 59008)

    Dated: May 26, 2010.
Karen G. Mills,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2010-13197 Filed 6-1-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

DEVON KNOX,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 267 WAL 2017

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 24th day of October, 2017, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED.
#### Charles L. Littlewood, Appellant, v. W. H. Riley and Another, Respondents.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.—

Pratt, J.:

The plaintiff’s case depends entirely upon his own testimony. lie is contradicted by two witnesses and the written instruments. Giving to his testimony full faith all that it established is that the minds of the parties did not meet. At most that would only authorize a rescission of the contract. That would not benefit the plaintiff. Judgment affirmed, with costs.

Brown, P. J., and Dykman, J. concurred.
#### Henry M. Potter, Appellant, v. The United States National Bank and others, Respondents.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. Opinion by

Van Brunt, P. J.
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4223 Filed: 10/16/19 Entered: 10/16/19 11:24:13 Page 1 of

4
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4223 Filed: 10/16/19 Entered: 10/16/19 11:24:13 Page 2 of

4
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4223 Filed: 10/16/19 Entered: 10/16/19 11:24:13 Page 3 of

4
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4223 Filed: 10/16/19 Entered: 10/16/19 11:24:13 Page 4 of

4
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 filing of China Crescent Enterprises, Inc.’s (the “Company”)
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2009 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), each of the undersigned,
in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, 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.





Dated:  May
20, 2009





/s/ Paul K.
Danner


Name:  Paul
K. Danner


Title:  
Chief Executive Officer





Dated:  May
20, 2009





/s/ Philip J.
Rauch


Name:  Philip
J. Rauch


Title:  
Chief Financial Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 524 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 524

 To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to clarify that the 
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency does not have the 
   authority to disapprove a permit after it has been issued by the 
          Secretary of the Army under section 404 of such Act.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 6, 2013

  Mr. McKinley (for himself, Mr. Rahall, Mr. Gibbs, Mrs. Capito, Mrs. 
Blackburn, Mr. Huelskamp, Mr. Griffith of Virginia, Mr. Duncan of South 
 Carolina, Mr. Johnson of Ohio, Mr. Bucshon, and Mr. Kline) introduced 
      the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                   Transportation and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to clarify that the 
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency does not have the 
   authority to disapprove a permit after it has been issued by the 
          Secretary of the Army under section 404 of such Act.

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

SECTION 1. PERMITS FOR DREDGED OR FILL MATERIAL.

    Section 404(c) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 
U.S.C. 1344(c)) is amended by striking ``The Administrator is 
authorized'' and inserting ``Until such time as the Secretary has 
issued a permit under this section, the Administrator is authorized''.
                                 <all>
```
#### HAROLD WATTS, a Minor, by His Next Friend, FRANK L. WATTS, v. CHARLES R. CARTEE and BLUE BIRD TAXI COMPANY OF ASHEVILLE, INC.

(Filed 28 February, 1951.)

Appeal by defendants from *Patton, Special Judge,*August Term, 1950, of BuNcombe.

No error.

This was an action to recover damages for a personal injury alleged to have been caused by the negligence of the defendants.

The evidence tended to show that on the night of 11 July, 1949, the plaintiff, then thirteen years of age, was riding a bicycle traveling east on Haywood Road in the City of Asheville when and where he was struck and injured by a taxicab traveling in the opposite direction, the cab belonging to defendant Taxi Company and being driven by defendant Cartee, an employee of his codefendant. There was verdict and judgment for plaintiff, and defendants appealed.

*Horton & Horton and Joseph B. Huff for plaintiff, appellee.*

*Smathers •& Meehins for defendants, appellants.*

Per Curiam.

The only assignment of error brought forward by the defendants’ appeal is the refusal of the court to allow their motion for judgment of nonsuit. An examination of the evidence shown by the record leads us to the conclusion that it was sufficient to withstand a motion for nonsuit, and that the case was properly submitted to the jury.

In the trial we find

No error.
#### S. J. ODOM and Wife, BLANCHE B. ODOM, v. S. & W. RENDERING COMPANY

(Filed 23 September, 1953.)

Appeal by defendant from *Parker (Joseph W.\ J.,*April Term, 1953, Nash. Affirmed.

Civil action to abate a nuisance and to recover compensation for alleged damages to plaintiffs’ real property proximately resulting from tbe maintenance thereof, beard on motion to strike allegations contained in defendant’s “further answer and defense.” The motion was allowed and defendant excepted and appealed.

*0. B. Mo.ss for plaintiff appellees.*

*Cooley & May for defendant appellants.*

Per Curiam.

The facts alleged in defendant’s further answer which were stricken by the order entered in the court below constitute no valid defense. They are wholly extraneous and irrelevant. If the defendant has any affirmative defense or relevant new matter it desires to plead, it is fully protected in this respect by the order granting leave to amend.

The order entered in the court below must be

Affirmed.
#### Wilhelm Stabenau, Respondent, v. Atlantic Avenue Railroad Company, Appellant.

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. No opinion.

All concur.
1 The Honorable Ortrie D. Smith, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 03-2604

___________ William Robert Gibson, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the Western * District of Missouri. Premium Standard Farms, Inc., * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellee. *

___________ Submitted: March 5, 2004 Filed: March 25, 2004

___________ Before MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, FAGG, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. William Robert Gibson appeals from the district court’s 1 adverse grant of summary judgment in his Age Discrimination in Employment Act lawsuit. Upon our careful de novo review of the admissible evidence, we conclude summary judgment was proper because Gibson failed to submit evidence that Premium Standard Farm’s (PSF’s) stated reason for his termination--violation of PSF’s policy against intentional-2- animal abuse--was a pretext for age discrimination. See Winkle v. S.W. Bell Tel. Co. , 195 F.3d 418, 420 (8th Cir. 1999) (standard of review; burden-shifting analysis). We also conclude Gibson’s service-letter claim fails because he did not adduce evidence that PSF’s stated reason for firing him was false. See Mo. Rev. Stat. § 290.140 (2000); Stark v. Am. Bakeries Co. , 647 S.W.2d 119, 124 n.5 (Mo. 1983) (en banc). Accordingly, we affirm.

______________________________
Case: 19-30088    Doc# 3359    Filed: 08/02/19    Entered: 08/02/19 10:07:37    Page 1 of1
Exhibit 35.1

SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT

I, Barry E. Pakenham, Treasurer of
Monongahela Power Company (the Servicer), certify that:

(a) A review of the Servicers activities during the reporting
period covered by this Report on Form 10-K and of its performance under that certain Transferred Environmental Control Property Servicing Agreement dated as of April 11, 2007 between MP Environmental Funding LLC (MP Environmental) and
the Servicer and that certain Environmental Control Property Servicing Agreement, dated as of December 23, 2009, between MP Environmental and the Servicer (together, the Servicing Agreement) has been made under my supervision.

(b) To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Servicing Agreements in
all material respects throughout the reporting period

Date: March 30, 2010



|                      |  |                  
|--------------------- |  | -----------------
|/s/ Barry E. Pakenham
|Name:                 |  | Barry E. Pakenham
|Title:                |  | Treasurer