alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 107 (Friday, June 4, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 31812]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-13406]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

[LLMT926000-10-L19100000-BJ0000-LRCM07RE4030]


Notice of Filing of Plats of Survey; Montana

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of filing of plats of survey.

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

SUMMARY: The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) will file the plat of 
survey of the lands described below in the BLM Montana State Office, 
Billings, Montana, July 6, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marvin Montoya, Cadastral Surveyor, 
Branch of Cadastral Survey, Bureau of Land Management, 5001 Southgate 
Drive, Billings, Montana 59101-4669, telephone (406) 896-5124 or (406) 
896-5009.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This survey was executed at the request of 
the Superintendent, Fort Peck Agency, through the Rocky Mountain 
Regional Director, Bureau of Indian Affairs, and was necessary to 
determine boundaries of trust or tribal interest lands.
    The lands we surveyed are:

Principal Meridian, Montana

T. 28 N., R. 53 E.

    The plat, in 1 sheet, representing the dependent resurvey of 
portions of the south and west boundaries and the subdivisional 
lines, the adjusted original meanders of the former left bank of the 
Missouri River, downstream, through sections 30 and 31, a portion of 
the subdivision of sections 30 and 31, and the subdivision of 
sections 30 and 31 and the survey of the meanders of the present 
left bank of the Missouri River, downstream, through sections 30 and 
31, the left bank of a relicted channel of the Missouri River, 
downstream, through sections 30 and 31, the medial lines of two 
relicted channels of the Missouri River, through sections 30 and 31, 
a division of accretion line, certain partition lines and an island 
(Tract 37), Township 28 North, Range 53 East, Principal Meridian, 
Montana, was accepted May 25, 2010.

    We will place a copy of the plat, in 1 sheet, and related field 
notes we described in the open files. They will be available to the 
public as a matter of information. If the BLM receives a protest 
against this survey, as shown on this plat, in 1 sheet, prior to the 
date of the official filing, we will stay the filing pending our 
consideration of the protest. We will not officially file this plat, in 
1 sheet, until the day after we have accepted or dismissed all protests 
and they have become final, including decisions or appeals.

    Authority:  43 U.S.C. Chap 3.

    Dated: May 27, 2010.
James D. Claflin,
Chief Cadastral Surveyor, Division of Resources.
[FR Doc. 2010-13406 Filed 6-3-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-DN-P
Exhibit 34.1.3.3

 

[Letterhead of Grant Thornton]

 

**REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

Board of Directors and Shareholders

Land America Tax and Flood Services, Inc.

 

We have examined management’s assertion, included in the accompanying Report on Assessment of Compliance with Regulation AB Servicing Criteria (“Management’s Report”), that Land America Tax and Flood Services, Inc. (the “Company”) complied with the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission’s Regulation AB for the residential and commercial mortgage backed securities for which the Company served as third-party property tax payment provider on the underlying collateral (the “Platform”) as of and for the year ended December 31, 2007, excluding criteria 1122(d)(1)(i)-(iv), 1122(d)(2)(i)-(vii), 1122(d)(3)(i)-(iv), 1122(d)(4)(i)-(x) and 1122(d)(4)(xiii)-(xv), which management has determined are not applicable to the activities performed by the Company with respect to the Platform. Management is responsible for theCompany’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 for the Platform based on our examination.

 

Our examination was conducted in accordance with the standards of 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 for the Platform and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. Our examination included testing selected asset-backed transactions and securities constituting the Platform and evaluating whether the Company performed servicing activities related to those transactions and securities in compliance with the applicable servicing criteria for the period covered by this report. Accordingly, our testing may not have included servicing activities related to each asset-backed transaction or security constituting the Platform. Further, our examination was not designed to detect material noncompliance that may haveoccurred prior to the period covered by this report and that may have affected the Company’s servicing activities during the period covered by this report. 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 applicable servicing criteria.

 

In our opinion, management’s assertion that Land America Tax and Flood Services, Inc. complied with the aforementioned applicable servicing criteria as of and for the year ended December 31, 2007 is fairly stated, in all material respects.

 

/s/ Grant Thornton LLP

 

San Diego, CA

February 6, 2008
### M A N D A T E

TO THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 8 of HIDALGO COUNTY, GREE TINGS:

Before our Court of Appeals for the Thirteenth District of Texas, on the 3rd day of September, 2015 , the cause upon appeal to revise or reverse your judgment between

The State of Tex as, Appellant,

v. Alfredo Zuniga Gonzalez Appellee.
CAUSE NO. 13

- 14

- 00153

- CR (Tr.Ct.No. CR

- 05

- 4054

- H)

was determined; and therein our said Court made its order in these words:

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having consid ered this cause on

appeal, concludes the order of the trial court granting Gonzalez’s application for writ of

habeas corpus should be reversed and rendered . The Court orders the order of the trial

court REVERSED and RENDERS judgment that Gonzalez's guilty plea is reinstated

. Costs of the appeal are adjudged against appell ee

.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

September 3, 2015

.



WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the orde r of our said Court of Appeals for the Thirteenth District of Texas, in this behalf, and in all things have it duly recognized, obeyed and executed.

WITNESS, the Hon. Rogelio Valdez, Chief Justice of our Court of Appeals, with the seal thereof affixed, at the City of Edinburg, Texas this 17th day of November, 2015.

Dorian E. Ramirez, CLERK
#### STATE v. JOHN WESLEY DAWKINS.

(Filed 4 November, 1925.)

Appeal and Error — Rules of Court — Motion to Affirm Judgment — Record Proper — Certiorari.

Upon motion of the Attorney-General when the case is regularly called for argument, on an appeal by defendant, the judgment of the Superior Court will be affirmed when the rules of practice relating to appeals have not been complied with, no motion for a *certiorari*has been made by the appealing defendant, and from an inspection of the record proper, it does not appear that error has been committed on the trial.

Appeal by defendant from *Shaw, J.,*at June Special Term, 1925, of Forsyth.

*Attorney-General Brummitt and Assistant Attorney-General Nash for the State.*

*No counsel for defendant.*

Stacy, 0. J.

It appears from an inspection of the record now before the Court that Ernest Key and John Wesley Dawkins were tried jointly and both convicted of murder in the first degree at the June Special Term, 1925, of the Superior Court of Forsyth County, and from the statutory judgment of death entered on such conviction, the defendant John Wesley Dawkins appealed.

*444Nothing but the record proper has been filed in this Court. No case on appeal bas been sent up and no application has been made for a *certiorari to*have the same brought before the Court for review. The appeal has apparently been abandoned. The defendant has lost every right to have his case heard. It should have been ready for argument at the present term upon the call of the docket from the Eleventh District, to which it belongs. *S. v. Farmer,*188 N. C., 243; *Finch v. Comrs., ante,*154.

As the defendant has failed to prosecute his appeal, and no error is made to appear from an examination of the record proper, we must affirm the judgment on motion of the Attorney-General. *Comrs. v. Dickson, ante,*330, and cases there cited.

Affirmed.
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2153 Filed: 05/20/19 Entered: 05/21/19 11:31:32 Page 1 of

4
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2153 Filed: 05/20/19 Entered: 05/21/19 11:31:32 Page 2 of

4
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2153 Filed: 05/20/19 Entered: 05/21/19 11:31:32 Page 3 of

4
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2153 Filed: 05/20/19 Entered: 05/21/19 11:31:32 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





I,
Westley V. Thompson, principal executive officer of Sun Life Assurance Company
of Canada (U.S.) (the "Company"), hereby certify, to the best of my knowledge,
that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the period ended March
31, 2009, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report"), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)) and that the
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.








/s/ Westley V.
      ThompsonWestley
      V. ThompsonPresident,
      SLF U.S.(principal
      executive officer)May
      14, 2009
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION

 

In connection with the quarterly report of Northwest AirlinesCorporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30,2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the “Report”), I, Douglas M. Steenland, President and Chief Executive Officerof the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1) The Report fully complieswith the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Actof 1934; and

 

(2) The information containedin the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
| /s/ Douglas  M. Steenland              |   |
|----------------------------------------|--------|
|                                   |
| Douglas M. Steenland                   |
| President and Chief Executive  Officer |
| October 28, 2004                       |

 

----
#### WILLIAM J. BATCHELOR, ETHEL BATCHELOR v. M. B. MITCHELL *and*Wife, EMMA H. MITCHELL; R. I. MITCHELL AND SONS, INC., W. J. MANNING.

(Filed 22 September, 1954.)

Appeal by plaintiffs from *Morris, J.,*at February Civil Term, 1954, of Nash.

Affirmed.

*Davenport <& Davenport and. O. B. Moss for plaintiffs, appellants.*

*Hobart Brantley and Cooley & May for defendants, appellees.*

Per Curiam.

This is a civil action involving title to land. It was here before on appeal from a judgment sustaining the defendants’ demurrer to the complaint. Our decision reversing the lower court and holding that the allegations of the complaint are sufficient to constitute a cause of action is reported in 238 N.C. 351, 78 S.E. 2d 240, where the essential facts alleged may be found summarized.

*629"When tbe ease went back to tbe lower court tbe defendants filed answer denying tbe material allegations of tbe complaint and setting up tbe pertinent statutes of limitation.

On retrial, at tbe close of tbe plaintiffs’ evidence tbe defendants moved for judgment as of nonsuit. Tbe motion was allowed and from judgment based on sucb ruling the plaintiffs appealed.

Tbe appeal presents no new question or feature requiring extended discussion. We have examined tbe record and find no substantial merit in any of tbe exceptions brought forward. They relate to matters of evidence and to tbe question of nonsuit. Neither reversible nor prejudicial error has been made to appear. Tbe evidence adduced when liberally construed in favor of tbe plaintiffs is insufficient to make out a *prima facie*ease. Tbe judgment of nonsuit will be upheld.

Affirmed.
#### Ellis R. Williams, Respondent, v. The Delaware, Lackawana and Western Railroad Company, Appellant.

— Re-argument ordered.
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

Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP

767 Fifth Avenue

New York, NY 10153-0119

Exhibit B

Briefing Schedule for Postpetition Interest 

and Make-Whole Premium Issues

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4388-2 Filed: 10/22/19 Entered: 10/22/19 16:03:58 Page 1

of 2
WGM Draft 10.22.19

Privileged & Confidential

Postpetition Interest and Make-Whole

Premium Issues Briefing Schedule 

Postpetition Interest

Opening briefs: November 8, 2019

Reply briefs: November 22, 2019

Oral Argument: December 16, 2019

Make-Whole Premium

Opening briefs: November 21, 2019

Reply briefs: December 13, 2019

Oral Argument: January 6, 2019

The Debtors propose that the parties shall coordinate so that one brief should be filed by 

each side with respect to the two issues, consistent with what was done in the FERC hearings 

before the Court. 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4388-2 Filed: 10/22/19 Entered: 10/22/19 16:03:58 Page 2

of 2
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-6964

RICHARD DAVID COOPER; GEORGE WILSON; JOHN TRIPPETT; JAMES BRITTON; KENNEY EDWARDS; WILLIAM YOUNG; HENRY DAVIS; GARY BRIGHT; GREGORY HAMILTON; CHARLES HILL; ANTHONY PRESSBERRY; BRIAN STOKELING; IRVIN BURNS, JR.; THOMAS MATTINGLY; VINCIN HARPSTER; HENRY HARRIS; JESSE COBBS; JONATHAN BORK; JOHN CARTER; CHARLES WRIGHT; WILLIAM BAKER-EL; LOWELL D. HOWELL; DONALD FITZGERALD Plaintiffs - Appellants, and EVERETTE PRATT, Plaintiff,
versus PRISON HEALTH SERVICE, INCORPORATED; PHARMACY SERVICES, INCORPORATED; MARYLAND DIVISION OF CORRECTION, Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Frederic N. Smalkin, Chief District Judge. (CA-01-1428-S) Submitted: December 12, 2001 Decided: January 11, 2002 Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.2 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Richard David Cooper, George Wilson, John Trippett, James Britton, Kenney Edwards, William Young, Henry Davis, Gary Bright, Gregory Hamilton, Charles Hill, Anthony Pressberry, Brian Stokeling, Irvin Burns, Jr., Thomas Mattingly, Vincin Harpster, Henry Harris, Jesse Cobbs, Jonathan Bork, John Carter, Charles Wright, William Baker-El, Lowell D. Howell, Donald Fitzgerald, Appellants Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM: Appellants appeal the district court’s order dismissing their 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2001) medical treatment claim. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Further, we decline to review Appellants’ claims raised for the first time on appeal. See Muth v. United States , 1 F.3d 246, 250 (4th Cir. 1993). Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Cooper v. Prison Health Servs. , No. CA-01-1428-S (D. Md. May 23, 2001). We deny Appellants’ motion for appointment of counsel. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
#### STATE v. OTIS ANGUS SILER.

(Filed 15 December, 1954.)

Appeal by defendant from *Armstrong, J.,*and a jury, at May Term, 1954, of Mooee.

Criminal prosecution tried on appeal from County Recorder’s Court upon a warrant charging the defendant with driving a motor vehicle on a public road while under the influence of intoxicating liquor in violation of G.S. 20-138.

*310From a verdict of guilty and judgment imposing penal servitude of four months, the defendant appeals.

*Attorney-General McMullan and Assistant Attorney-General Bruton for the State.*

*Seawell & Wilson for defendant, appellant.*

Per Curiam.

This case involves no new question or feature requiring extended discussion. *We*have examined the record and find no substantial merit in any of the exceptions brought forward. Prejudicial error has not been made to appear. The verdict and judgment will be upheld.

No error.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   13,052
<ALLOWANCES>                                       530
<INVENTORY>                                      4,511
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                21,795
<PP&E>                                          18,903
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  47,487
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           17,717
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        10,610
<OTHER-SE>                                       (163)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    47,487
<SALES>                                         18,802
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                18,802
<CGS>                                           16,484
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   16,484
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 2,091
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 538
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (311)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (128)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (183)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (183)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.05)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.05)
        

</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5329 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5329

To amend the Endangered Species Act of 1973 to require establishment of 
objective numerical recovery goals for removal of species from lists of 
endangered species and threatened species under that Act, and for other 
                               purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 31, 2014

 Mr. Conaway (for himself, Mr. Lucas, Mr. Ribble, Mr. Neugebauer, Mr. 
Thompson of Pennsylvania, Mr. Thornberry, Mr. Pearce, and Mr. Crawford) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                           Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Endangered Species Act of 1973 to require establishment of 
objective numerical recovery goals for removal of species from lists of 
endangered species and threatened species under that Act, and for other 
                               purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Accountable Recovery Act''.

SEC. 2. OBJECTIVE NUMERICAL GOALS FOR REMOVAL OF SPECIES FROM LISTS OF 
              ENDANGERED SPECIES AND THREATENED SPECIES.

    Section 4(f) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 
1533(f)) is amended--
            (1) in paragraph (1)--
                    (A) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), by 
                striking ``develop and'' and inserting ``, at the time 
                of a determination in accordance with subsection (a), 
                develop, make publicly available, and propose to''; and
                    (B) in subparagraph (B)(ii), by inserting ``, 
                including objective numerical recovery goals,'' after 
                ``criteria''; and
            (2) by adding at the end the following:
    ``(5)(A) Before the end of the 30-day period beginning on the date 
the Secretary receives a petition from a State in which is located a 
species included in a list under subsection (c), or from any other 
interested State or other person, that objective numerical recovery 
goals required for the species under subsection (f)(1)(B)(ii) have been 
achieved, the Secretary may determine that the petition does not 
present such substantial information, or that such goals have not been 
achieved, and publish the reasons for such determination.
    ``(B) A species that is the subject of a petition referred to in 
subparagraph (A) is deemed to have been removed from the lists 
published under subsection (c) upon the end of such 30-day period if 
the Secretary has not issued a determination under subparagraph (A).''.
                                 <all>
```