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 State

          - [Public Notice 6337] 

Acting under the authority of and in accordance with section 1(b) of Executive Order 13224 of September 23, 2001, as amended by Executive Order 13268 of July 2, 2002, and Executive Order 13284 of January 23, 2003, I hereby determine that the individual known as Joseph Kony has committed, or poses a significant risk of committing, acts of terrorism that threaten the security of U.S. nationals or the national security, foreign policy, or economy of the United States. 

Consistent with the determination in section 10 of Executive Order 13224 that “prior notice to persons determined to be subject to the Order who might have a constitutional presence in the United States would render ineffectual the blocking and other measures authorized in the Order because of the ability to transfer funds instantaneously,” I determine that no prior notice needs to be provided to any person subject to this determination who might have a constitutional presence in the United States, because to do so would render ineffectual the measures authorized in the Order. 

                    This notice shall be published in the                     **Federal Register**                    .                 

      ( print page 51039)    
Dated: August 22, 2008. 

Condoleezza Rice, 

Secretary of State, Department of State.

[FR Doc. E8-20164 Filed 8-28-08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4710-10-P
196 La. 490

#### LANDRY v. LANDRY et al.

No. 34073.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Dec. 2, 1940.

A. Wilmot Dalferes, of Lafayette, for plaintiff and appellant.

James J. Martin and E. L. Guidry, both of St. Martinville, for defendants and appel-lees.

O’NIELL, Chief Justice.

This is a suit to annul a testament on the ground that the testator was mentally incapacitated. The plaintiff is appealing from a judgment rejecting his demand.

The testator was eighty years of age and was suffering from an ailment which caused severe pain at certain intervals; but he was subject to immediate relief hy the use of a simple contrivance; and he was never neglected. The physician who was attending him before and about the time when he made the will testified that the testator would not have been apt to attempt to make a will or to attend to any other business during the periods in which he suffered pain; but those periods were of short duration, and the intervals of comfort were of long duration — lasting several hours or perhaps days. The physician testified also that the testator was never deficient mentally, even in the slightest degree; and the testimony to that effect was -corroborated by other witnesses, and was not contradicted hy any one. There is no reason to believe that the testator was suffering at the time when he made the will. It is a nun-cupative will, dictated by the testator to a notary public in the presence of three witnesses residing in the parish. The notary public is an attorney at law in good standing, and there is no reflection upon the good character of the witnesses. It is argued for the appellant that the defendants, who are legatees under the will, should have called upon the notary public and the subscribing witnesses, all of whom were in court, to prove that the testator was of sound mind and not incapacitated by pain or suffering when he made the will. But, as there is *402nothing in the will itself suggestive of mental weakness, the defendants had the right to rely upon the presumption of law in that respect, so long as the plaintiff failed to produce any evidence of mental incapacity on the part of the testator. A will which in its terms bears no evidence of mental weakness on the part of the testator is presumed to have been made by a person of sound mind, and the burden of proof is on the party attacking the will to show that the testator was not mentally capable of making the will. Chandler v. Barrett, 21 La.Ann., 58, 99 Am.Dec. 701; Succession of Villa, 132 La. 714, 61 So. 765; Succession of Brugier, 146 La. 29, 83 So. 366; Wilcox v. City of Hammond, 163 La. 489, 112 So. 375; Succession of Mithoff, 168 La. 624, 122 So. 886; Rostrup v. Succession of Spicer, 183 La. 1087, 165 So. 307; Succession of Edgar, 184 La. 775, 167 So. 438; Succession of Lambert, 185 La. 416, 169 So. 453.

The judgment is affirmed;
CERTIFICATIONI, Kokmeng Koh, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-Drequired to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K ofPrincipal Life Income Fundings Trust 2006-22 (the “Exchange Act periodic reports”);  2. Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as whole, donot contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material factnecessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which suchstatements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport;  3. Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and otherinformation required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by thisreport is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;  4. Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statement(s) required inthis report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the ExchangeAct period reports, the servicer has fulfilled its obligations under the servicingagreement(s) in all material respects; and  5. All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria forasset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on assessment ofcompliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be includedin this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwisedisclosed in this report. Any material instances of noncompliance described in suchreports 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 thefollowing unaffiliated parties: Citibank, N.A. and Bankers Trust Company, N.A.Date: March 28, 2007   /s/ Kokmeng Koh     Kokmeng Koh  Second Vice President
Exhibit 10.10**ITEM 10.10 Entry into a Material Definitive Agreement.*****Summary of Director Compensation***     On October 11, 2006, the Company’s Board of Directors approved the 2007 directors’compensation program. In 2007 each member of the Company’s Board of Directors will receive amonthly board fee of $600 except that the Chairman of the Board and the Chairman Emeritus willreceive a monthly board fee of $1,150. In addition, each member will receive a Board meeting feeof $450 for each Board meeting attended and a committee meeting fee of $300 for each committeemeeting attended. The Chairperson of each committee will receive an additional $100 for eachcommittee meeting attended. The Board of Directors meets monthly. Each Board member will serve ona committee or committees that are expected to meet six times in 2007. The Company reimbursesout-of-pocket expenses incurred by all directors in connection with attending Board of Directors’and committee meetings. Also as a component of 2007 Board compensation, in December 2006 eachmember of the Board of Directors is expected to be granted equity-based compensation pursuant tothe 2006 Dental Care Plus Management Equity Incentive Plan with a value of approximately $12,000,either in the form of Phantom Shares or Restricted Shares depending on the members’ election underthe Company’s Deferred Compensation Plan. The equity-based awards will be subject to forfeiture ifa director fails to attend 75% of his or her scheduled Board and committee meetings in 2007
63
Exhibit 23.1




Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm









ChyronHego Corporation




Melville, New York




We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Prospectus constituting a part of this Registration Statement of our report dated March 7, 2013, relating to the consolidated financial statements of ChyronHego Corporation (formerly Chyron Corporation) appearing in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2012.




We also consent to the reference to us under the caption “Experts” in the Prospectus.









/s/ BDO USA, LLP




Melville, New York




February 14, 2014
Exhibit 23.1.2  CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM  We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements filed by Osiris Therapeutics, Inc. on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-167652, 333-137952 and 333-137593) and on Form S-3 (No. 333-148750) of our report dated March 14, 2009 with respect to the audit of the statements of operations, changes in stockholders equity (deficit), and cash flows of Osiris Therapeutics, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2008 which appears in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Osiris Therapeutics, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2010.   /s/ STEGMAN & COMPANY  Baltimore, Maryland March 14, 2011
#### Craig L. MORROW, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. John S. FARRELL, Individually and in his official capacity, Chief, Prince George’s County Police; Henry Hamer, Lieutenant, # 687, Individually and in his official capacity, Prince George’s County Police Department Internal Affairs Division; Richard Delabrer, Sergeant, # 1446, Individually and in his official capacity, Prince George’s County Police Department Internal Affairs Division; Prince George’s County, Maryland, a Body Corporate and Politic Office of Law, Defendants-Appellees, and John C. Lindsay, Major, # 923, Individually and in his official capacity Prince George’s County Policy Department Commander, Inspectional Services; Charles A. Pollock, Captain, # 961, Individually and in his official capacity, Prince George’s County Police Department Former Commander, Internal Affairs Division; Orlando D. Barnes, Lieutenant Colonel, # 1209, Individually and in his official capacity, Prince George’s County Police Department, Chief, Bureau of Administration; Linda Dixon, Captain, # 887, Individually and in her official capacity, Prince George’s County Police Department Inspection Services, Defendants.

No. 02-1342.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Oct. 29, 2002.

Decided Nov. 18, 2002.

David M. Melnick, Rockville, Maryland, for Appellant. Kevin Karpinski, Allen, Karpinski, Bryant & Karp, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Before WILLIAMS, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Craig L. Morrow appeals from the district court’s order granting summary judgment to the Defendants on his employment discrimination action and related claims. Morrow claims that the district court abused its discretion in denying his request for additional discovery, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(f), prior to its entry of summary judgment. Finding no reversible error, we affirm.

In declining to order a continuance under Rule 56(f), the district court noted that Morrow had failed to identify any specific facts that he was yet to discover. Rather, the court concluded that Morrow sought a “fishing expedition” in that he made only generalized statements about disparate treatment by the Prince George’s County Police Department’s disciplinary system without specifying what discovery might be needed or pointing to specific facts that might merit further discovery. Moreover, Morrow had several months from the time he filed his complaint until the summary *180judgment motion was filed to conduct discovery, yet failed to do so. We find that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the Rule 56(f) motion. *See Nguyen v. CNA Corp.,*44 F.3d 234, 242 (4th Cir.1995).

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of the Defendants on the reasoning of the district court. *See Morrow v. Farrell,*No. CA-01-1221-CA (D.Md. Feb. 25, 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.*
Sarbanes-Oxley Certification


  I, E. Todd Whittemore, 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 Lehman XS Trust 2006-7, (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:
Citibank, N.A., as Trustee and Paying Agent; Deutsche Bank National Trust
Company, as Custodian; LaSalle Bank National Association, as Custodian;
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as Custodian; U.S. Bank National Association, as
Custodian; First American Real Estate Solutions of Texas LP, as
sub-contractor for Aurora Loan Services LLC; Newport Management Corporation,
as sub-contractor for Aurora Loan Services LLC.


     Dated:    March 30, 2007

By : /s/ E. Todd Whittemore
    --------------------------------------------------------
         E. Todd Whittemore
         Executive Vice President
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM POLAROID
CORPORATION'S FORM 10-Q FOR THE QUARTER ENDED MARCH 28, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN
ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-28-1999
<CASH>                                          67,900
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  487,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                  (41,300)
<INVENTORY>                                    518,100
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,268,300
<PP&E>                                       1,990,300
<DEPRECIATION>                             (1,418,400)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,139,300
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          854,000
<BONDS>                                        572,700
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        75,400
<OTHER-SE>                                     265,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,139,300
<SALES>                                        379,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               379,000
<CGS>                                          237,300
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  385,900
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                22,600
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 1,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              17,900
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (47,400)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (16,600)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (30,800)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (30,800)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.70)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.70)
        

</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-2199

DIONISHIAH WANJIRU MWAURA,

Petitioner,

versus

ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration

Appeals. (A96-093-929)

Submitted: February 23, 2005 Decided: March 16, 2005

Before TRAXLER, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Oti W. Nwosu, Arthur D. Wright, III, THE WRIGHT LAW NETWORK,

Riverdale, Maryland, for Petitioner. Paul J. McNulty, United

States Attorney, Gerard J. Mene, Assistant United States Attorney,

Alexandria, Virginia, for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Dionishiah Wanjiru Mwaura, a native and citizen of Kenya,

petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration

Appeals (Board) denying her motion to reconsider its denial of her

motion to reopen. Mwaura alleges she will be tortured by the

police if she returns to Kenya.

We review the Board’s denial of a motion to reconsider

for an abuse of discretion. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) (2004);

Yanez-Popp v. INS, 998 F.2d 231, 234 (4th Cir. 1993). A motion to

reconsider asserts that the Board made an error in its earlier

decision. The motion must “state the reasons for the motion by

specifying the errors of fact or law in the prior Board decision

and shall be supported by pertinent authority.” 8 C.F.R.

§ 1003.2(b)(1). Such motions are especially disfavored “in a

deportation proceeding, where, as a general matter, every delay

works to the advantage of the deportable alien who wishes merely to

remain in the United States.” INS v. Doherty, 502 U.S. 314, 323

(1992).

Mwaura contends the Board abused its discretion because,

at the very least, it should have found her eligible for protection

under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). To qualify for

protection under the CAT, a petitioner bears the burden of

demonstrating that “it is more likely than not that [s]he . . .
- 3 -

would be tortured if removed to the proposed country of removal.”

8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2) (2004). We have reviewed the record and

conclude that the Board did not abuse its discretion when it

determined that Mwaura failed to establish that its denial of her

motion to reopen should be reconsidered.

Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. 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.

PETITION DENIED
EX-35 (c)
(logo) HOME LOAN SERVICES

FORM OF ANNUAL COMPLIANCE CERTIFICATE

March 1, 2007

HSI Asset Securitization Corporation,
Attention: Head MBS Principal Finance
452 Fifth Avenue
New York, New York 10018

To: Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.,
as Securities Administrator and Master Servicer
Attention: Corporate Trust Services - FFMLT 2006-FF5
9062 Old Annapolis Road
Columbia, Maryland 21045

RE:  Annual officer's certificate delivered pursuant to Section 3.24 of that
     certain Pooling Servicing Agreement, dated as of April 1, 2006 (the
     "Pooling and Servicing Agreement"), among HSI Asset Securitization
     Corporation, as depositor (the "Depositor"), National City Home Loan
     Services, Inc., as Servicer, First Franklin Financial Corporation, as
     Mortgage Loan Seller, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as master servicer (the
     "Master Servicer"), and securities administrator (the "Securities
     Administrator"), and Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as trustee
     (the "Trustee")

Steven A. Baranet, the undersigned, a duly authorized Vice President of Home
Loan Services, Inc., f/k/a National City Home Loan Services, Inc. (the
"Servicer") does hereby certify the following for the calendar year ending on
December 31, 2006:

1.   A review of the activities of the Servicer during the preceding calendar
     year and of its performance under the Agreement for such period has been
     made under my supervision.

2.   To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the servicer has
     fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material
     respects throughout such year or, if there has been a failure to fulfill
     any such obligation in any material respect, I have specifically identified
     to the Depositor and the Master Servicer each such failure known to me and
     the nature and status thereof, including the steps being taken by the
     Servicer to remedy such default.

Certified By:


/s/ Steven A. Baranet
Name: Steven A. Baranet
Title: Vice president

Loan Services
P.O. Box 1838
Pittsburgh, PA 15230-1838

(logo) Merrill Lynch
Home Loan Services is a subsidiary
of Merrill Lynch Bank and Trust Co., FSB

(logo) EQUAL HOUSING
       LENDER
Order entered August 15, 2022

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-22-00155-CR

MICHAEL RYAN WARNER, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 7

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F18-75393-Y

ORDER

Before the Court is appellant’s August 12, 2022 second motion for an 

extension of time to file his brief. We GRANT the motion and ORDER 

appellant’s brief filed by August 26, 2022.

/s/ BILL PEDERSEN, III

JUSTICE