alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Local Form 25-R, revised July 2018 All Previous Versions Obsolete 

Basic Allowance for Housing 

(BAH) 

Checklist 

The following checklist was designed to assist Soldiers with understanding the new requirement for 

processing BAH (this checklist must be placed in your Finance In-Processing/ Separation packet). 

Soldiers should check the appropriate box below, then sign the document in the area designated at the 

bottom. Failure to comply with these instructions could result in an over/under-payment of your BAH 

entitlement. This checklist will assist us in ensuring that your pay account reflects correct BAH status 

and therefore you receive accurate BAH entitlement. 

Soldiers Name (Last, First MI):____________________________ 

Life Changing Events Have Not Occurred During PCS or Prior to Separating From Service: 

I am single with no dependents.

I am married and receiving BAH with-dependent rate on behalf of a non-military spouse. 

I am receiving BAH with-dependent rate on behalf of a minor child in my “primary” custody.

I am receiving BAH with-dependent rate for paying child support on behalf of a minor child in the 

custody of a non-military former spouse. 

I am married to a member on active duty and receiving BAH at the without-dependent rate. 

I am married to a member on active duty and receiving BAH at the with-dependent rate on behalf of

a minor child. 

Life Changing Events Affecting BAH that Require BAH Update - DA Form 5960 and supporting 

documents must be attached: 

 I married a spouse. (DA 5960 and Marriage Certificate) 

I acquired a dependent child and I have a Primary custody. (DA 5960 and Birth Certificate) 

 I am divorced and I pay monthly child support. (DA 5960 and Divorce Decree are attached).

 I am divorced and I have a “Primary” custody of a minor child. (DA 5960 and Divorce Decree) 

I acquired a dependent child outside of a marriage and pay child support. (DA 5960, Birth Certificate, 

and a proof of child support) 

 I PCS to an oversea station and I am paying child support (DA Form 5960 and Divorce Decree or 

proof of child support are attached – SM authorized BAH-DIFF only). 

Note: All DA 5960 must be signed by the commander or the first commissioned officer in the chain of 

command with proper signature authority designated on a DD 577. 

Soldier Signature ______________________________ Date ____________
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,
Robert C. Salipante, 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 June
30, 2008, 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/ Robert C.
      SalipanteRobert
      C. SalipantePresident(principal
      executive officer)August
      14, 2008
#### The People of the State of New York, Plaintiff, v Javier Rivera, Defendant.

District Court of Nassau County, First District,

April 30, 1987

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Denis Dillon, District Attorney,*for plaintiff. *Mitchell Gittin*for defendant.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Marvin E. Segal, J.

On February 3, 1987 defendant Javier Rivera, age 17, pleaded guilty to attempted unauthorized use of a vehicle, a class B misdemeanor. The defendant admitted to knowing that the vehicle, a 1980 Mazda, was stolen while he was a passenger in the vehicle. The codefendant, Anthony Valdez, was the *351driver of the vehicle. The defendant contends, and codefendant Valdez affirms that once the defendant Rivera became aware that the police were in pursuit, the defendant yelled to Valdez to stop the vehicle, which at the time was speeding at 80 mph. Codefendant Valdez ignored the defendant and shortly thereafter the vehicle collided with a 1975 Chevrolet. Both vehicles were totaled with property damage claimed for the combined sum of $5,132. On March 17, 1987, Anthony Valdez was sentenced before the Hon. Bruce Alpert to three years’ probation and $2,566 restitution as a condition thereof. The restitution to be paid by Anthony Valdez represents one half of the amount of damage caused by the accident.

Can the defendant Javier Rivera be required to pay restitution for one half of the amount of damage caused by an accident in which he was a passenger in the vehicle responsible for the accident?

The defendant, Javier Rivera, is liable for the offense of attempted unauthorized use of a vehicle and is responsible for the damage caused as a result of the offense. The defendant has already pleaded guilty to the offense and admitted knowing the vehicle was stolen.

The fact that the codefendant, Anthony Valdez, testified at the restitution hearing that the defendant Rivera told him to stop the vehicle before the accident, has no bearing on Javier Rivera’s liability for the damage, since a person is criminally liable for the conduct of another when he intentionally solicits, requests or aids such person to engage in such conduct. *(See, People v Bosque,*78 AD2d 986 [4th Dept 1980]; Penal Law § 20.00.) In the instant case, the defendant aided codefendant Valdez in the unauthorized use of a motor vehicle. Accordingly, the defendant is liable for the conduct of Valdez while driving the vehicle. (Penal Law § 20.00.)

This court has the discretion to condition the defendant’s probation on the payment of restitution for the damage caused by his offense pursuant to Penal Law § 65.10. Accordingly, the court directs defendant to pay $2,566 in restitution, since the court finds that the total damage caused by defendant’s participation in the offense amounted to the sum of $5,132. Whether or not defendant can pay the restitution ordered by the court will be determined at the time the sentence of probation is imposed.
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

In re:

PG&E CORPORATION

-andPACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY,

Debtors.

Case No. 19-30088 (DM)

Chapter 11

(Lead Case)

(Jointly Administered)

TRANSFER OF CLAIM OTHER THAN FOR SECURITY

A CLAIM HAS BEEN FILED IN THIS CASE or deemed filed under 11 U.S.C. §1111 (a). Transferee hereby gives notice 

pursuant to Rule 3001(e) (2), Fed. R. Bankr. P., of the transfer, other than for security, of the claim referenced in this notice.

CONTRARIAN FUNDS, LLC

Name of Transferee

Address for all Communications/Notices:

CONTRARIAN FUNDS, LLC

411 WEST PUTNAM AVE., SUITE 425

GREENWICH, CT 06830

ATTN: ALISA MUMOLA

Phone: 203-862-8211

Fax: 203-485-5910

Email: tradeclaimsgroup@contrariancapital.com

Address for all Payments/Distributions:

CONTRARIAN FUNDS, LLC

ATTN: 392426

500 ROSS ST 154-0455

PITTSBURGH, PA 15262

POWER ENGINEERS, INC.

Name of Transferor

Name and Current Address of Transferor:

POWER ENGINEERS, INC.

3940 GLEENBROOK DR.

HAILEY, ID 83333

ATTN: BRANDON BURNS

I declare under penalty of perjury that the information provided in this notice

is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.

By:_______/s/ Alisa Mumola_________

 Transferee/Transferee’s Agent

Date: December 10, 2019

Penalty for making a false statement: Fine of up to $500,000 or imprisonment for up to 5 years, or both. 18 U.S.C. §§ 152 & 3571.

Schedule/Claim No. Creditor Name Amount Debtor Case No.

Claim No. 2996 Power Engineers, Inc. $137,758.83 Pacific Gas and Electric Company 19-30089

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 5051 Filed: 12/10/19 Entered: 12/10/19 12:10:07 Page 1 of

2
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 5051 Filed: 12/10/19 Entered: 12/10/19 12:10:07 Page 2 of

2
#### STATE v. SIMON GIBSON, Alias “COOCHIE” GIBSON.

(Filed 8 May, 1940.)

Criminal Law § 80—

The appeal in this case is dismissed upon motion of the Attorney-General for failure of defendant to file statement of case on appeal within time allowed, Buie of Practice in the Supreme Court, No. 17, but as defendant stands convicted of a capital felony the motion is allowed only after an inspection of the record fails to disclose apparent error.

MotioN by State to docket and dismiss appeal.

*Attorney-General McMullan for the State.*

*No counsel contra.*

Per Curiam.

Former appeal, 216 N. C., 535, 5 S. E. (2d), III. Thereafter, defendant was tried at the January Term, 1940, of tbe Superior Court of New Hanover County upon a bill of indictment charging him with the crime of rape. There was verdict of guilty of rape as charged in the bill of indictment, upon which judgment of death by asphyxiation was pronounced and entered. Defendant gave notice, in open court, of appeal to Supreme Court, and was allowed to appeal *in forma pauperis,*and was given sixty days in which to serve statement of case on appeal. The assistant clerk of Superior Court certifies under seal of said court that no record of the case on appeal has been filed in the office of the clerk of the Superior Court; that the time allowed by the court for perfecting the appeal has expired and the' appeal has not been perfected; and that the clerk has inquired of counsel for the defendant and has been informed by them that they do not intend to perfect the appeal. *S. v. Stovall,*214 N. C., 695, 200 S. E., 426; *S. v. Page, ante,*288, 7 S. E. (2d), 559.

The Attorney-General moves to docket and dismiss the appeal under Rule 17. After careful examination of the record now before us we find no apparent error. Hence the motion will be allowed. *S. v. Page, supra; S. v. Hopkins, ante,*324, 7 S. E. (2d), 556; *S. v. Flynn, ante,*345.

Judgment affirmed and appeal dismissed.
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 242 (Monday, December 18, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 65069]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-30639]



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


DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993--Wilfred Baker Engineering, Inc. Petroleum/
Chemical Processing Joint Agreement

    Notice is hereby given that, on June 22, 1995, pursuant to Section 
6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 
15 U.S.C. Sec. 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), Wilfred Baker Engineering, 
Inc., has filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney 
General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing a change in its 
membership. The notifications were filed for the purpose of extending 
the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to 
actual damages under specified circumstances. Specifically, Hoechst 
Celanese Chemical Group, Dallas, TX has joined the joint venture. No 
other changes have been made in either the membership or planned 
activities of the venture.
    On March 14, 1995, Wilfred Baker Engineering, Inc. filed its 
original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The 
Department of Justice published a notice in the Federal Register 
pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on May 11, 1995 (60 FR 25252).
Constance K. Robinson,
Director of Operations Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 95-30639 Filed 12-15-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-01-M
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 243 (Tuesday, December 19, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 65261-65262]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-30774]



=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

29 CFR Chapter XIV


Older Workers Benefit Protection Act of 1990 (OWBPA)

AGENCY: Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).

ACTION: Second meeting of Negotiated Rulemaking Advisory Committee.

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

SUMMARY: EEOC announces the dates of the second meeting of the 
``Negotiated Rulemaking Advisory Committee for Regulatory Guidance on 
Unsupervised Waivers of Rights and Claims under the Age Discrimination 
in Employment Act'' (the Committee). A Notice of Intent to form the 
Committee was published in the Federal Register on August 31, 1995, 60 
F.R. 45388, and a Notice of Establishment of the Committee was 
published in the Federal Register on October 20, 1995, 60 F.R. 54207. 
The Committee had its first meeting on December 6-7, 1995 in 
Washington, DC.

DATES: The second meeting will be held on January 23-24, 1996, 
beginning at 10:00 a.m. on January 23. It is anticipated that the 
meeting will last for two days. The session of January 24, 1996 will 
commence at 9:00 a.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the EEOC Headquarters, 1801 L 
Street, NW., Washington, DC 20507.


[[Page 65262]]

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Joseph N. Cleary, Paul E. Boymel, or John K. Light, ADEA Division, 
Office of Legal Counsel, EEOC, 1801 L Street, NW., Washington, DC 
20507, (202) 663-4692.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: All Committee meetings, including the 
meeting of January 23-24, 1996, will be open to the public. Any member 
of the public may submit written comments for the Committee's 
consideration, and may be permitted to speak at the meeting if time 
permits. In addition, all Committee documents and minutes will be 
available for public inspection in EEOC's Library (6th floor of the 
EEOC Headquarters).
    Persons who need assistance to review the comments will be provided 
with appropriate aids such as readers or print magnifiers. To schedule 
an appointment call (202) 663-4630 (voice), (202) 663-4630 (TDD). 
Copies of this notice are available in the following alternate formats: 
large print, braille, electronic file on computer disk, and audio tape. 
Copies may be obtained from the Office of Equal Employment Opportunity 
by calling (202) 663-4395 (voice), (202) 663-4399 (TDD).

    Purpose of Meeting/Summary of Agenda: At the second meeting, the 
Committee will continue to discuss the unsupervised waiver legal issues 
that will be considered by the Committee in drafting a recommended 
notice of proposed rulemaking for EEOC approval.

    Dated: December 12, 1995.
Gilbert F. Casellas,
Chairman.
[FR Doc. 95-30774 Filed 12-18-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6570-06-M
EXHIBIT C

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4719-3 Filed: 11/14/19 Entered: 11/14/19 12:34:18 Page 1

of 2
EXHIBIT C

EXPENSE SUMMARY

FOR THE PERIOD SEPTEMBER 1, 2019 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 30, 2019

Expense Type Amount

Airfare $12,641.90

Data Processing / Materials For Committee $0.00

Ground Transportation (In-Town - Taxi/Uber/Car Service) $567.27

Ground Transportation (Out-of-Town - Taxi/Uber/Car Service) $1,631.29

Hotel Stay (Traveling) $7,530.33

Internet/Online Fees $146.89

Meals - In Town Only $522.19

Meals - Out-of-Town Travel Only $1,425.75

Other / Miscellaneous $209.26

Parking $478.80

Printing/Photocopying (In-House) $1,310.10

Research (Databasees) $4,500.00

Teleconferencing $247.74

Total $31,211.52

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4719-3 Filed: 11/14/19 Entered: 11/14/19 12:34:18 Page 2

of 2
* 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

February 21, 2006

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 04-41253

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

MICHAEL DWIGHT RAVEN, also known as Red,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:01-CV-779

USDC No. 3:95-CR-10-1

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

Before SMITH, GARZA, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Michael Dwight Raven, federal prisoner # 46219-079, appeals

the denial of his FED. R. CIV. P. 60(b) motion requesting that the

district court set aside its order dismissing as time-barred his

28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. We reject the Government’s contention

that the Rule 60(b) motion should have been treated as a second

or successive § 2255 motion. Cf. Gonzalez v. Crosby, 125 S. Ct.

2641, 2648 (2005) (holding, in 28 U.S.C. § 2254 context, that

when a Rule 60(b) motion attacks “some defect in the integrity of
No. 04-41253

-2-

the federal habeas proceedings,” such as alleging that the

district court misapplied the statute of limitations, the motion

is not the equivalent of a successive habeas application and

should not be construed as such).

We review the district court’s denial of a Rule 60(b) motion

for abuse of discretion. Dunn v. Cockrell, 302 F.3d 491, 492

(5th Cir. 2002). Raven has not shown that he was prevented from

filing a timely § 2255 motion due to an impediment created by

governmental action. See Egerton v. Cockrell, 334 F.3d 433, 436

(5th Cir. 2003); § 2255(2). Because the district court did not

abuse its discretion, the order denying Raven’s Rule 60(b) motion

is AFFIRMED.
#### Charles B. Myers, Administrator, etc., Respondent, v. James Cronk, Administrator etc., Appellant.

Judgment modified so as to award a recovery of only $200 and interest from June 9, 1878; no costs of appeal. Opinions by

Learned, P. J.,

and by Bockes, J., dissenting.
EXHIBIT 32.1  In connection with the accompanying Annual Report of OpenCell Biomed, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ending November 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Mislav Pavelic, in my capacities set forth below of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:  (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.   March 16, 2009 /s/ Mislav Pavelic Mislav Pavelic, President (as Principal Executive Officer)
Exhibit 35.3

SERVICER COMPLIANCE CERTIFICATE

PURSUANT TO ITEM 1123 OF REGULATION AB UNDER THE

SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

|   | Re: | HSBC Automotive Trust (USA) 2007-1 |
|--------|-----|------------------------------------|

I, Betty A. Earll, Vice President of HSBC Technology & Services (USA) Inc. (the “Company”), pursuant to Item 1123 of Regulation AB of the Securities and Exchange Commission and Section 4.10(a) of the Sale and Servicing Agreement, dated as of January 31, 2007 (the “Agreement”), among HSBC Automotive Trust (USA) 2007-1, as Issuer, HSBC Auto Receivables Corporation, as Seller, the HSBC Finance Corporation, as Servicer, Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas, as Indenture Trustee, and HSBC Bank USA, National Association, as Administrator, hereby certify that:

 

|   | 1. | A review of the activities of the Company from January 31, 2007 through December 31, 2007 and of its performance under the Agreement has been made under my supervision; and |
|--------|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

|   | 2. | To the best of my knowledge, based on my review, the Company has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout the reporting period referred to above except as set forth below: |
|--------|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

|   | NONE |
|--------|------|

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have signed this certificate on behalf of the Company this 3rd day of March 2008.

|   | . |
|--------|---|

 

HSBC Technology &Services (USA) Inc.

 

By: /s/ Betty A. Earll

Name:  Betty A. Earll

Title:  Vice President
ex10-b.htm


Exhibit 10.b

 

AMENDMENT

TO THE

 

FIRST BANCORP EMPLOYEES’ PENSION PLAN





 

WHEREAS, First Bancorp (hereinafter referred to as “the Bank”) previously established the First Bancorp Employees’ Pension Plan (hereinafter referred to as “the Plan”); and

 

WHEREAS, the Bank is empowered to amend the Plan from time to time;

 

NOW, THEREFORE, pursuant to the authority granted the undersigned corporate officer of First Bancorp by its Board of Directors, the First Bancorp Employees’ Pension Plan (“the Plan”) is amended as follows:

 

Effective June 11, 2009, Section 2.1 Requirements For Participation is hereby amended by adding the following new subparagraphs (d) and (e) thereto, as follows:

 


	
  
	
“(d)
	
Employees hired by the Employer on and after June 11, 2009;




 


	
  
	
  (e)
	
Employees of the Employer who became employed as a result of the acquisition of Cooperative Bank on June 19, 2009.”




 





 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Amendment to the First Bancorp Employees’ Pension Plan is adopted this 30th day of June 2009, to be effective as stated above.

 





 


	  	
FIRST BANCORP

	  	  
	  	  
	  	  
	  	
By: /s/ Jerry L. Ocheltree

	 	 
	  	
Its: President & CEO








 


ATTEST:


 


By: Anna G. Hollers


 


Its: Secretary, EVP, COO


 





 

(CORPORATE SEAL)