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.                  

###### Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation

The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), as Receiver for 10264 Community Security Bank, New Prague, MN (Receiver) has been authorized to take all actions necessary to terminate the receivership estate of Community Security Bank (Receivership Estate); The Receiver has made all dividend distributions required by law.

The Receiver has further irrevocably authorized and appointed FDIC-Corporate as its attorney-in-fact to execute and file any and all documents that may be required to be executed by the Receiver which FDIC-Corporate, in its sole discretion, deems necessary; including but not limited to releases, discharges, satisfactions, endorsements, assignments and deeds.

Effective February 1, 2016 the Receivership Estate has been terminated, the Receiver discharged, and the Receivership Estate has ceased to exist as a legal entity.

Dated: February 1, 2016.

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.

Robert E. Feldman,

Executive Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2016-02138 Filed 2-3-16; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6714-01-P
##### 



Exhibit 32.2 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES -OXLEY ACT OF 2002 In connection with the Annual Report of Belden & Blake Corporation (the Company) on Form
10-K for the period ended December 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated
below, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the knowledge of the undersigned:  1.
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and2.
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. Date: March 31, 2005
    /s/ Robert W. PeshekRobert W. Peshek, Senior Vice Presidentand Chief Financial Officer This certification accompanies the Form 10-K and shall not be treated as having been filed as part
of the Form 10-K.
#### MARGARET A. FULCHER v. H. C. SMITH and wife STELLA SMITH.

(Filed 25 February, 1959.)

Venue §§ la, 2a—

Allegations to the effect 'that plaintiff leased a store building and purchased a stock of merchandise situate therein, that 'thereafter defendant lessor made improper proposals as a condition to her right to remain in possession of .the premises, that his demands put her in fear of bodily harm so that she was forced for her safety to abandon her leasehold rights and sell her stock of -merchandise at a loss, state a transitory cause of action for assault, 'and plaintiff is entitled to institute .the action in the county -of her residence.

Moore, J., took no part in 'the consideration or decision of this case.

Appeal by defendants from *Moore (C. L.), J.,*September-October 1958 Term of CbaveN.

This 'action was -begun 20 February 1957. The oomplaint in substance .alleges these facts: (1) Plaintiff, a resident -of Craven County, in November 1956 leased from defendants a store building situate in Pitt County and purchased a stock of merchandise situate therein.

(2) Shortly after plaintiff took possession, -defendant H. C. Smith threatened her, demanding that she .submit to sexual intercourse with him as a condition to her right to remain in possession of the demised premises. His demands and threats put ber in fear -of bodily harm.

(3) The assaults were repeated in such .manner -and to such extent as finally to force .plaintiff, for her safety to abandon her leasehold rights and sell her stock of merchandise for less than its actual value.

She seeks compensation and p-uni-tive damages.

Defendants in apt time filed with the clerk a motion to remove as a matter of right. The clerk denied the motion. On appeal from the clerk, the judge held the action was properly instituted in Craven County -and -denied -the motion. Defendants excepted and appealed.

*Cecil D. May and Ward and Tucker, for plaintiff, appellee.*

*James & Hite and Barden, Smith & McCotter, for defendants, appellants.*

PeR CüRiam.

The cause o-f action stated is for an assault. The lease and plaintiff’s occupancy pursuant thereto merely -afforded an opportunity for an -assault. The forced abandonment of plaintiff’s property to escape defendant’s advances is but an element -of -damages. The action is -transitory, not local. *Clay Co. v. Clay Co.,*203 N.C. 12, *646164 S.E. 341; *Causey v. Morris,*195 N.C. 532, 142 S.E. 783.

Affirmed.

MooRE, J., took no pant in -the consideration or decision of this case.
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 23 (Thursday, February 4, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 6032]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-02027]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4248-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2016-0001]


Mississippi; Amendment No. 2 to Notice of a Major Disaster 
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration 
for the State of Mississippi (FEMA-4248-DR), dated January 4, 2016, and 
related determinations.

DATES: Effective date: January 22, 2016.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and 
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., 
Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration 
for the State of Mississippi is hereby amended to include the following 
areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by 
the event declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration 
of January 4, 2016.

    Monroe and Prentiss Counties for Individual Assistance and 
Public Assistance.
    Panola County for Individual Assistance (already designated for 
Public Assistance).
    Clay, Itawamba, and Tallahatchie Counties for Public Assistance.

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. 2016-02027 Filed 2-3-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9111-23-P
#### UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Tyrone J. KELLY, Appellant.

No. 78-1212.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted July 12, 1978.

Decided July 18, 1978.

Tyrone Jerome Kelly, pro se.

Robert D. Kingsland, U.S. Atty., and Mark A. Heifers, Asst. U.S. Atty., St. Louis, Mo., on brief, for appellee.

Before LAY, BRIGHT and ROSS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Petitioner is a federal prisoner presently incarcerated upon his 1975 conviction for aiding and abetting the commission of a bank robbery. *United States v. Kelley,*526 F.2d 615 (8th Cir. 1975), *cert. denied,*424 U.S. 971, 96 S.Ct. 1471, 47 L.Ed.2d 739 (1976). In this action for § 2255 relief,

*153petitioner asserts three grounds for vacating his conviction:

(1) Petitioner was absent from a portion of the jury selection proceedings;

(2) The court reporter erred in transcribing certain of the trial testimony;

(3) Counsel rendered ineffective assistance in failing to attack the above two errors.

The sentencing court1 denied relief without a hearing, and petitioner has taken this appeal.

In his § 2255 petition, Kelly alleged that he was absent from the jury selection process for some of the peremptory challenges and the final impaneling and swearing in of the jury. The sentencing court referred to its own notes and recollection of the proceedings. The notes affirmatively recorded that the defendant was present; this record was in accord with the court’s personal remembrance. Petitioner supplied nothing other than his personal recollection to the contrary. The court did not err in holding that its prior familiarity with the criminal trial enabled it to conclusively resolve the factual issued raised by petitioner. *See Machibroda v. United States,*368 U.S. 487, 495, 82 S.Ct. 510, 7 L.Ed.2d 473 (1962).

Likewise the court did not err in rejecting petitioner’s contention that there was an error in the transcription of the testimony of government witness Roberson. In the separate trial of a codefendant held several days after the Kelly trial, Roberson testified (according to the trial transcript in that proceeding) identically to his transcribed testimony in the Kelly proceeding. The sentencing court properly reasoned that Roberson’s testimony had been the same in both trials and thus that there had been no transcript error.

Petitioner’s remaining contention of ineffective assistance of counsel must fail, since there is no merit to the allegations of error upon which the contention is premised.

The judgment is affirmed on the basis of the sentencing court’s memorandum opinion.

1

. The Honorable H. Kenneth Wangelin, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri.
**Exhibit 10.10**

 

**FIFTHAMENDMENT TO**

**1993 STOCKCOMPENSATION PLAN OF**

**CLAYTONWILLIAMS ENERGY, INC.**

 

 

Adopted by theBoard of Directors of Clayton Williams Energy, Inc. on November 1, 2005.

 

 

Section 17 ofthe 1993 Stock Compensation Plan of Clayton Williams Energy, Inc. (the “Plan”)is restated in its entirety as follows:

 

“17.         **Termination of the Plan**. ThePlan shall continue in effect until terminated by the Board of Directors of theCompany pursuant to Section 18 hereof. Options may be granted under this Planat any time and from time to time prior to its termination. Any Optionoutstanding under the Plan at the time of its termination shall remain ineffect until the Option shall have been exercised or shall have expired.”

 

----
Long-range 

actuarial 

balance

Annual 

balance in 

75th year

Long-range 

actuarial 

balance

Annual 

balance in 

75th year

Long-range 

actuarial 

balance

Annual 

balance in 

75th year

-3.61 -4.35 0.00* 0.00 * 0%

Estimates based on the intermediate assumptions of the 2023 Trustees Report Office of the Chief Actuary

Social Security Administration

August 1, 2023

* A change in the investment of trust fund reserves to include some equities affects the size of all summarized measures because increased 

"present-value" discounting reduces the weight on values for more distant future years. As a result, the magnitude of the current-law actuarial 

balance and the summarized effects of most proposals is reduced. Therefore, the size of the change in the long-range actuarial balance 

indicated here cannot be interpreted directly as a reduction in the shortfall. The actual reduction in the shortfall from equity investment 

depends on the amount of reserves that are available for investment throughout the period. For example, if provisions to change revenue or 

scheduled benefits resulted in a purely pay-as-you-go system (reserves just above zero throughout the period), then investment in equities 

would have no effect on the actuarial balance.

Summary Measures and Graphs

Category of Change: Trust Fund Investment in Equities

Current law

[percent of payroll]

Change from current law

[percent of payroll] Shortfall eliminated

Proposed Provision: G5. Invest 15 percent of the OASI and DI Trust Fund reserves in equities (phased in 

2024-2033), assuming an ultimate 2.3 percent annual real rate of return on equities. Thus, the ultimate rate 

of return on equities is the same as that assumed for Trust Fund bonds.

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

14.0

16.0

18.0

20.0

2023 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090

Percent

Year

OASDI Cost Rates and Income Rates

(as a percentage of taxable payroll)

Income rates under current law

Income rates with this provision

Cost rates under current law

Cost rates with this provision

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

2023 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090

Percent

Year

OASDI Trust Fund Ratio

(assets as a percentage of annual expenditures)

Current law With this provision
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 State

          - [Public Notice: 9432]

# SUMMARY:

                        Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681,                         *et seq.;*22 U.S.C. 6501 note,                         *et seq.*), Delegation of Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, Delegation of Authority No. 236-3 of August 28, 2000 (and, as appropriate, Delegation of Authority No. 257-1 of December 11, 2015), I hereby determine that the objects to be included in the exhibition “Every People Under Heaven: Jerusalem, 1000-1400,” imported from abroad for temporary exhibition within the United States, are of cultural significance. The objects are imported pursuant to loan agreements with the foreign owners or custodians. I also determine that the exhibition or display of the exhibit objects at The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, New York, from on about September 20, 2016, until on or about January 8, 2017, and at possible additional exhibitions or venues yet to be determined, is in the national interest. I have ordered that Public Notice of these Determinations be published in the                         **Federal Register**                        .                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        For further information, including a list of the imported objects, contact the Office of Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs in the Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202-632-6471; email:                         *section2459@state.gov*). The mailing address is U.S. Department of State, L/PD, SA-5, Suite 5H03, Washington, DC 20522-0505.                    

Dated: January 29, 2016.

Mark Taplin,

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy, Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, Department of State.

[FR Doc. 2016-02265 Filed 2-3-16; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 4710-05-P
#### In the Matter of Patrick J. Flaherty, Appellant, v Board of Trustees of New York City Fire Department, Article 1-B Pension Fund, et al., Respondents.

[774 NYS2d 549]

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Board of Trustees of the New York City Fire Department Article 1-B Pension Fund, dated April 26, 2002, which, inter alia, denied the petitioner’s application for accidental disability retirement benefits, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (R. Goldberg, J.), dated March 5, 2003, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The petitioner applied for accidental disability retirement benefits based on a claim that herniated discs in his cervical spine were caused by his activities as a firefighter. The New York City Fire Department Pension Fund Article 1-B Medical Board (hereinafter the Medical Board) concluded that the *770petitioner was disabled but that his disability was not service-related. The Medical Board therefore recommended to the respondent Board of Trustees of the New York Fire Department Article 1-B Pension Fund (hereinafter the Board of Trustees) that the petitioner be granted ordinary disability retirement benefits. This recommendation was upheld by a tie vote of the Board of Trustees.

Where, as here, the Board of Trustees denies an application for accidental disability retirement benefits as the result of a tie vote, its determination can be set aside on judicial review only if it can be concluded as a matter of law that the petitioner’s disability was the natural and proximate result of a service-related injury. “[A]s long as there was any credible evidence of lack of causation before the Board of Trustees, its determination must stand” *(Matter of Meyer v Board of Trustees of N.Y. City Fire Dept., Art. 1-B Pension Fund,*90 NY2d 139, 145 [1997]; *see Matter of Luppino v Board of Trustees of N.Y. City Fire Dept., Art. 1-B Pension Fund,*264 AD2d 483 [1999]).

The expert medical opinion of the Medical Board with respect to causation can constitute credible evidence sufficient to support the Board of Trustees’ determination *(see Matter of Meyer v Board of Trustees of N.Y. City Fire Dept., Art. 1-B Pension Fund, supra*at 146). Here, the Medical Board reviewed the medical evidence, and its opinion was based on evidentiary proof reasonably tending to support the conclusion of a lack of causation between the injuries in question and the petitioner’s condition. Accordingly, the Board of Trustees’ reliance on that recommendation was proper *(see Matter of Meyer v Board of Trustees of N.Y. City Fire Dept., Art. 1-B Pension Fund, supra; Matter of Luppino v Board of Trustees of N.Y. City Fire Dept., Art. 1-B Pension Fund, supra*at 484; *Matter of Cannella v Board of Trustees of N.Y. City Fire Dept., Art. 1-B Pension Fund,*258 AD2d 521, 522 [1999]). Ritter, J.P., Goldstein, Townes and Crane, JJ., concur.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-6395

CURTIS R. DAVY,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

U.S. IMMIGRATION & NATURALIZATION SERVICE;

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Greenville. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District

Judge. (CA-01-4033-6-13AK)

Submitted: October 28, 2002 Decided: November 7, 2002

Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Curtis R. Davy, Appellant Pro Se. Kevin Frank McDonald, OFFICE OF

THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, South Carolina, for

Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Curtis R. Davy appeals the district court’s order granting the

Respondents’ motion to dismiss his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000)

petition. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s

opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the

reasoning of the district court, see Davy v. INS, No. CA-01-4033-6-

13AK (D.S.C. filed Jan. 4, 2002 & entered Jan. 8, 2002), and on the

reasoning of our recent decision in Chambers v. Reno, F.3d ,

2002 WL 31301183 (4th Cir. Oct. 15, 2002). 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
EX-31 Rule 13a-14(d)/15d-14(d) Certification.


  I, Diane Courtney, 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 Morgan Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust 2007-2AX (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.I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the
    servicers and based on my knowledge and the compliance reviews
    conducted in preparing 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.

    In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on
    information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties:
    Central Mortgage Company as Servicer, GMAC Mortgage, LLC f/k/a GMAC
    Mortgage Corporation as Servicer, GreenPoint Mortgage Funding, Inc. as
    Servicer, and IndyMac Bank, F.S.B. as Servicer.

    Dated:   March 26, 2008


    /s/ Diane Courtney
    Signature

    Vice President
    (senior officer in charge of the servicing function of the master
    servicer)