alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 175 (Tuesday, September 9, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 52404]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-20831]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[FEMA-1785-DR]


Florida; 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 Florida (FEMA-1785-DR), dated August 24, 2008, and 
related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: August 26, 2008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peggy Miller, Disaster Assistance 
Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., 
Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-3886.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration 
for the State of Florida is hereby amended to include the following 
areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by 
the catastrophe declared a major disaster by the President in his 
declaration of August 24, 2008.

    Volusia County for Individual Assistance.
    Okeechobee and St. Lucie Counties for Individual Assistance 
(already designated for Public Assistance).
    Hendry County for Individual Assistance and Public Assistance.
    Baker, Bradford, Collier, Gadsden, Glades, Hardee, and Union 
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.)


R. David Paulison,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. E8-20831 Filed 9-8-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-10-P
<PAGE>
 
                                                                    Exhibit 15.1

Board of Trustees and Shareholders
Security Capital Pacific Trust

Gentlemen:

Re:  Registration Statements Nos. 333-31031, 333-31033, 333-31405, 333-42283,
333-43723, 333-24035, 333-44639 and 333-51139.

With respect to the subject registration statements, we acknowledge our
awareness of the use therein of our report dated April 23, 1998 related to our
review of interim financial information.

Pursuant to Rule 436(c) under the Securities Act of 1933, such report is not
considered a part of a registration statement prepared or certified by an
accountant, or a report prepared by an accountant within the meaning of sections
7 and 11 of the Act.

KPMG Peat Marwick LLP

Chicago, Illinois
May 14, 1998

                                      29
EXHIBIT 35.1



World Omni Financial Corp.

Servicer Compliance Statement

Pursuant to Item 1123

of Regulation AB



I, Joseph A. Venezia, do hereby certify that I am the Chief Financial Officer of World Omni Financial
Corp., a Florida corporation, and further certify on behalf of World Omni Financial Corp. in its capacity as servicer (the “Servicer”)
under the Exchange Note Servicing Supplement 2018-B to Closed-End Servicing Agreement, dated as of September 19, 2018 (the “Exchange
Note Servicing Supplement”), among AL Holding Corp., as Closed-End Collateral Agent, World Omni LT, as Titling Trust, and
the Servicer, as follows:



(i)        A review of the activities of the Servicer during the period covered by the issuing entity’s Annual
Report on Form 10-K and covered by the Exchange Note Servicing Supplement and the Closed-End Servicing Agreement (as defined in
the Exchange Note Servicing Supplement) for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018 (the “Reporting Period”), and of
its performance under the Exchange Note Servicing Supplement and the Closed-End Servicing Agreement (as defined in the Exchange
Note Servicing Supplement), has been made under my supervision.



(ii)       To the best of my knowledge, based on the review described above, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its
obligations under the Exchange Note Servicing Supplement and the Closed-End Servicing Agreement (as defined in the Exchange Note
Servicing Supplement) in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period.



IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto
set my hand as of March 8, 2019.



| | WORLD OMNI FINANCIAL CORP.
| | --------------------------



| | By: | /s/ Joseph A. Venezia         
| | --- | ------------------------------
| |     | Name: Joseph A. Venezia       
| |     | Title: Chief Financial Officer
Case 1:05-cv-00258-PB Document 4 Filed 07/18/2005 Page 1 of 1

Searles v. Searles Doc. 4

Dockets.Justia.com
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit 

___________________________

No. 18-3128

___________________________ 

United States of America

 Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

Kevin Mitchell

 Defendant - Appellant

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the District of Nebraska - Omaha

____________ 

Submitted: November 11, 2019

 Filed: February 25, 2020 

[Unpublished]

____________ 

Before GRUENDER, KELLY, and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM. 

In January 2018, Kevin Mitchell entered a Walgreens in Omaha, Nebraska 

armed with a machete and demanded to be taken to the store’s safe. Mitchell then 

ran the machete across an employee’s arm and stated, “See, it’s sharp.” The 

employees took Mitchell to the safe, and one employee managed to place a GPS 

tracking device with the money. Mitchell took the cash and left. A short time later, 

officers located Mitchell and arrested him. 
-2-

In February 2018, a grand jury indicted Mitchell for one count of obstructing 

commerce by robbery under 18 U.S.C. § 1951. Mitchell pleaded guilty without a 

plea agreement. At sentencing, the district court1

found that Mitchell qualified as a 

career offender under § 4B1.1 of the sentencing guidelines. The court calculated a 

total offense level of 29 and a criminal history category of VI, resulting in an 

advisory guideline range of 151 to 188 months. The district court sentenced Mitchell 

to 151 months’ imprisonment. 

Mitchell now appeals, arguing that the district court erred in classifying him 

as a career offender because his conviction for robbery under 18 U.S.C. § 1951 does 

not qualify as a “crime of violence” under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1(a). “We review 

classification as a career offender de novo.” United States v. Quigley, 943 F.3d 390, 

393 (8th Cir. 2019).

Because the district court would have given Mitchell the same sentence 

regardless of the career-offender enhancement, we find that any error was harmless. 

A district court’s sentencing error is harmless if the district court “specifies the 

resolution of a particular issue did not affect the ultimate determination of a 

sentence.” United States v. Martinez, 821 F.3d 984, 988-89 (8th Cir. 2016). Here, 

the court noted that it “would have pronounced the same sentence even if . . . 

[Mitchell’s] objections” to the enhancement had been meritorious. The court

explained that the sentence was appropriate due to the “serious” and “scary” nature 

of the crime and the need to “protect[] the public and afford[] adequate deterrence.” 

See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Thus, any error in the district court’s application of the 

career-offender enhancement was harmless. See Martinez, 821 F.3d at 989 (noting 

that an improper career-offender finding is harmless when “the district 

court . . . would have . . . imposed the same sentence even if a lower guideline range 

applied”).

1The Honorable Robert F. Rossiter, Jr., United States District Judge for the 

District of Nebraska. 
-3-

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm.

______________________________
EXHIBIT 10.16.2  


Amendment No. 1 (the "Amendment") To

Employment Agreement (the "Employment Agreement") between

Robert V. Cahill ("Employee") and Univision Communications Inc.,

which was assigned to Univision Management Co. ("Company")  


Employee
and Company agree to amend the Employment Agreement as follows: 


        1.    Term.    The Term of the Employment Agreement is extended through December 31,
2007, unless earlier terminated in accordance with the provisions of the Employment Agreement. 


        2.    Salary.    The annual Base Salary rate will be Six Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars
($650,000) for the annual period from January 1, 2007 through December 31, 2007. 


        3.    Effective Date of Amendment.    Upon execution by Employee and Company, this Amendment
will become effective as of December 31, 2004. 


        4.    Other.    Except as provided in this Amendment, all other terms and conditions in the
Employment Agreement will remain in full force and effect, and the Employment Agreement, as amended hereby, is ratified and confirmed. 



	 	 	UNIVISION MANAGEMENT CO.
	

 	
 	

By:	
 	

/s/  JEFFREY T. HINSON      
 Jeffrey T. Hinson

Chief Financial Officer
	/s/  ROBERT V. CAHILL      
 Robert V. Cahill
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department
**465 CAF 11-00297**  PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., FAHEY, LINDLEY, AND MARTOCHE, JJ.

IN THE MATTER OF JOHN B. AND SHAWN B.

------------------------------------------ ERIE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, ORDER PETITIONER-RESPONDENT; SHAWN B., SR., RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.

EVELYNE A. O’SULLIVAN, EAST AMHERST, FOR RESPONDENT-APPELLANT. JOSEPH T. JARZEMBEK, BUFFALO, FOR PETITIONER-RESPONDENT. DAVID C. SCHOPP, ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILDREN, THE LEGAL AID BUREAU OF BUFFALO, INC., BUFFALO (CHARLES D. HALVORSEN OF COUNSEL), FOR JOHN B. AND SHAWN B.
Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Erie County (Margaret O. Szczur, J.), entered February 7, 2011 in a proceeding pursuant to Social Services Law § 384-b. The order, among other things, terminated respondent’s parental rights and transferred custody and guardianship of the subject children to petitioner. It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Entered: April 20, 2012 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
Case 1:05-cv-00224-SM Document 15 Filed 09/07/05 Page 1 of 1
The State of TexasAppellee/s

Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

August 21, 2014

No. 04-08-00358-CR

Adam Jay GONZALES,

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

From the 216th Judicial District Court, Kerr County, Texas

Trial Court No. A05-467

Honorable Stephen B. Ables, Judge Presiding

ORDER

Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

The Panel has considered the Appellant’s Motion for Reconsideration, and the motion is 

DENIED.

It is so ORDERED on the 21st day of August, 2014.

PER CURIAM

ATTESTED TO: ____________________________

Keith E. Hottle

 Clerk of Court
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 Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health 

                    Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the AIDS Research Advisory Committee, NIAID, September 16, 2008, 8:30 a.m. to September 17, 2008,  5 p.m., National Institutes of Health, Natcher Building, 45 Center Drive, Conference Rooms E1/E2, Bethesda, MD 20892 which was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     on August 25, 2008, 73 FR N50049.                 

The meeting will now discuss the post-NIAID Vaccine Summit activities and plans, and to initiate dicussions and obtain advice pertaining to the use of the nonhuman primate model for AIDS vaccine research. The meeting is open to the public. 

Dated: September 2, 2008. 

Jennifer Spaeth, 

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. E8-20835 Filed 9-8-08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
#### Wick et al. *v.*The Youngstown Sheet and Tube Co. et al. (Two Cases.)

(Nos. 24291 and 24292

Decided November 1, 1933.)

*Messrs. Squire, Sanders & Dempsey, Messrs. Day é Day, Messrs. Harrington, Huxley & Smith, Mr. Union C. DeFord*and *Mr. Park Chamberlain,*for plaintiffs in error.

Messrs:. *Baker, Hostetler, Sidlo <Sb Patterson*and *Messrs^ Manchester, Ford, Bennett & Powers,*for defendants in error.

It is ordered and adjudged that said petitions in error be, and the same hereby are, dismissed for the reason no debatable constitutional question is involved in said causes.

*Petitions in error dismissed.*

Weygandt, C. J., Allen, Stephenson, Jones, Matthias Beyis and Zimmerman, JJ., concur.
CH

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 20-0471

STATE OF MONTANA, 

Plaintiff and Appellee, 

v. 

STEVEN LEE STRIKE, Sr., 

Defendant and Appellant. 

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellee’s motion for a 30-day extension of time, 

and good cause appearing therefor, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellee is granted an extension of time to

and including November 23, 2022, within which to prepare, file, and serve the 

State’s response brief.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

October 14 2022

10/14/2022

Case Number: DA 20-0471
#### SCHAEFER et al. v. COUSINS.

No. 17169.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Orleans.

June 12, 1939.

For former opinion, see 189 So. 158.

Schwarz, Guste, Barnett & Redmann and Edw. H. Sutter, all of New Orleans, for appellants Congregation Temple Sinai and Touro Synagogue.

Daly & Hamlin, of New Orleans, for ap-pellee Mrs. Mary Schaefer Bonnelucq.

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiffs and appellees have asked for a rehearing and defendant and appellant for a correction of our decree.

We see no reason to grant either request. The application for rehearing presents nothing new and that for the amendment of the decree is unnecessary since it seeks to accomplish a result which naturally results from the interpretation of our decree as presently written. In other words, we are asked to so amend our decree as to specifically declare the ownership of two deposits in the Registry of the Civil District Court of $493.21 each — one made on June 7, 1938, and the other on May 16, 1939, the latter five days after the argument of the case in this court, both deposits having been made pursuant to an agreement between the parties dated June 1, 1938, based upon the outcome of this litigation.

We have decided the issues raised by the pleadings and the necessary implications resulting from our decree should determine the ownership of the funds in the Registry of the Civil District Court according to the agreement relative to the outcome of the litigation. In any event we cannot consider any matter not comprehended by the pleadings.

For the foregoing reasons,- both applications are refused.

Rehearing refused.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

August 26, 2019

No. 04-19-00168-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF Y.M.L., A CHILD,

From the 407th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2017-PA-02836

Honorable Charles E. Montemayor, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

In this accelerated appeal of the February 28, 2019 order terminating appellant Mom’s 

parental rights, we granted Appellant’s first motion for a four-day extension of time to file 

Appellant’s brief. The brief was due on August 23, 2019.

After the once-extended due date, Appellant filed a second motion for a four-day 

extension of time to file the brief until August 27, 2019.

Appellant’s motion is GRANTED. Appellant Mom’s brief is due on August 27, 2019. 

Any further motion for extension of time to file the brief is discouraged. See TEX. R. JUD.

ADMIN. 6.2 (directing courts of appeals to dispose of parental rights termination suits “[w]ithin 

180 days of the date the notice of appeal is filed”). 

_________________________________

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 26th day of August, 2019.

___________________________________

KEITH E. HOTTLE,

Clerk of Court
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1047 Introduced in House (IH)]

107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1047

 To amend the Electronic Fund Transfer Act to prohibit any operator of 
  an automated teller machine that displays any paid advertising from 
  imposing any fee on a consumer for the use of that machine, and for 
                            other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 15, 2001

 Mr. Andrews introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                    Committee on Financial Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Electronic Fund Transfer Act to prohibit any operator of 
  an automated teller machine that displays any paid advertising from 
  imposing any fee on a consumer for the use of that machine, 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 ``Access to Money (ATM) Act of 2001''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON USER FEES FOR AUTOMATED TELLER MACHINES THAT 
              CARRY PAID ADVERTISING.

      The Electronic Fund Transfer Act (15 U.S.C. 1693 et seq.) is 
amended--
            (1) by redesignating sections 918, 919, 920, and 921 as 
        sections 919, 920, 921, and 922, respectively; and
            (2) by inserting after section 917 the following new 
        section:

``SEC. 918. FEES.

    ``(a) In General.--If an automated teller machine or other cash 
dispensing machine at which a consumer may initiate an electronic fund 
transfer displays any advertising on the screen of such machine, 
whether in the form of a banner or a trailer or in any other format, 
for which the operator of such machine has received any payment or 
other financial benefit, no fee may be imposed on the consumer with 
respect to such transaction by the operator of such machine, whether or 
not the consumer maintains an account with the operator.
    ``(b) Exception for Direct Advertising by the Operator and Public 
Service Announcements.--Subsection (a) shall not apply with respect 
to--
            ``(1) advertising relating to products or services provided 
        by the operator of an automated teller machine or cash 
        dispensing machine referred to in such subsection or by any 
        affiliate of such operator; or
            ``(2) any public service announcement.''.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                               BD
<LEGEND>
THE FINANCIAL DATA SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED
FROM THE CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF PIPER JAFFRAY COMPANIES INC. AS OF
AND FOR THE PERIODS ENDED JUNE 30, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                   SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                        JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                                          29,165
<RECEIVABLES>                                                  747,282
<SECURITIES-RESALE>                                             43,327
<SECURITIES-BORROWED>                                                0
<INSTRUMENTS-OWNED>                                            189,935
<PP&E>                                                          30,338
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                               1,181,782
<SHORT-TERM>                                                   223,950
<PAYABLES>                                                     459,530
<REPOS-SOLD>                                                    36,142
<SECURITIES-LOANED>                                                  0
<INSTRUMENTS-SOLD>                                              70,022
<LONG-TERM>                                                     42,004
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                                0
<PREFERRED>                                                          0
<COMMON>                                                        18,676
<OTHER-SE>                                                     168,228
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                 1,181,782
<TRADING-REVENUE>                                              124,614
<INTEREST-DIVIDENDS>                                            38,754
<COMMISSIONS>                                                  154,632
<INVESTMENT-BANKING-REVENUES>                                   70,233
<FEE-REVENUE>                                                   27,130
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                              19,446
<COMPENSATION>                                                 268,447
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                                 25,210
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                                      25,210
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                      0
<CHANGES>                                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                                    15,882
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                                        0.83
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                        0.82
        

</TABLE>
TORIE ALEXANDER 

GILBERT,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D16-1901

_____________________________/

Opinion filed September 1, 2017.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Walton County.

Kelvin C. Wells, Judge.

Andy Thomas, Public Defender, and A. Victoria Wiggins, Assistant Public 

Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Quentin Humphrey, Assistant Attorney 

General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

KELSEY, WINOKUR, and WINSOR, JJ., CONCUR.