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 Housing Finance Agency

          - 12 CFR Part 1231
          - RIN 2590-AA08

# AGENCY:

Federal Housing Finance Agency.

# ACTION:

Correcting Amendments.

# SUMMARY:

                        This document contains a correction to §§ 1231.3 and 1231.4 of the interim final regulation concerning Golden Parachute Payments and Indemnification Payments published in the                         **Federal Register**                         on Tuesday, September 16, 2008. These sections should read “Reserved.”                    

# DATES:

*Effective Date:*                         September 19, 2008.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Alfred M. Pollard, General Counsel (OFHEO), telephone (202) 414-3788 or Christopher Curtis, General Counsel (FHFB), telephone (202) 408-2802 (not toll-free numbers), Federal Housing Finance Agency, Fourth Floor, 1700 G Street, NW., Washington, DC 20552. The telephone number for the Telecommunications Device for the Deaf is (800) 877-8339.

## Need for Correction

As published on September 16, 2008, the interim final regulation contained clerical errors, which these amendments correct.

# List of Subjects in 12 CFR Part 1231

        - Golden Parachutes
        - Government-Sponsored Enterprises
        - Indemnification

Accordingly, part 1231 of Title 12 CFR Chapter XII is corrected by making the following correcting amendments:

# PART 1231—GOLDEN PARACHUTE PAYMENTS AND INDEMNIFICATION PAYMENTS

1. The authority citation for part 1231 continues to read as follows: 

Authority:12 U.S.C. 4518(e).

§ 1231.3

2. Section 1231.3 is removed and reserved. 

§ 1231.4

3. Section 1231.4 is removed and reserved. 

Dated: September 15, 2008.

James B. Lockhart, III,

Director, Federal Housing Finance Agency.

[FR Doc. E8-21903 Filed 9-16-08; 11:15 am]

BILLING CODE 8070-01-P
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

TREMAIN MONROE,

Defendant.

8:23MJ251

ORDER ISSUED PURSUANT TO THE

DUE PROCESS PROTECTION ACT

This matter came before the Court for Initial Appearance on a Complaint. The government 

was represented by Kim C. Bunjer. The defendant was present and represented by Michael J. 

Hansen. 

IT IS ORDERED:

Pursuant to the Due Process Protections Act, the Court confirms the United States' 

obligation to disclose to the defendant all exculpatory evidence as required by Brady v. Maryland, 

373 U.S. 83 (1963) and its progeny, and orders the United States to do so. Failure to disclose 

exculpatory evidence in a timely manner may result in consequences, including, but not limited 

to, exclusion of evidence, adverse jury instructions, dismissal of charges, contempt proceedings, 

or sanctions by the Court.

DATED: May 4, 2023.

BY THE COURT:

s/ F.A. Gossett

United States Magistrate Judge

8:23-cr-00117-BCB-RCC Doc # 18 Filed: 05/04/23 Page 1 of 1 - Page ID # 29
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

JUDGMENT

No. 04-23-00520-CV

Ramiro ALCAZAR,

Appellant

v.

STARR COUNTY APPRAISAL DISTRICT, Starr County Appraisal Board, Rosalva Guerra, 

in her official capacity as Starr County Chief Appraiser, and Abraham G. Gonzalez, III, in his 

official capacity as Chairman of the Starr County Appraisal Board,

Appellees

From the 381st Judicial District Court, Starr County, Texas

Trial Court No. DC-20-307

Honorable Jose Luis Garza, Judge Presiding

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE MARTINEZ, JUSTICE RIOS, AND JUSTICE RODRIGUEZ

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s judgment is 

AFFIRMED. Costs of the appeal are taxed against Appellant Ramiro Alcazar. See TEX. R. APP.

P. 43.4.

SIGNED May 15, 2024.

_____________________________

Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE 12/31/98
RALSTON PURINA COMPANY BALANCE SHEET AND STATEMENT OF EARNINGS 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>                          SEP-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                          70,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  893,600
<ALLOWANCES>                                    26,000
<INVENTORY>                                    577,400
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,632,700
<PP&E>                                       2,246,400
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,125,700
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               5,621,700
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,562,700
<BONDS>                                      1,725,500
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        32,900
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,432,500
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 5,621,700
<SALES>                                      1,291,800
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,291,800
<CGS>                                          629,700
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  629,700
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               350,300
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0<F1>
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              49,700
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                262,100
<INCOME-TAX>                                    94,300
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            176,800
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   176,800
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.58
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.55
<FN>
<F1>LOSS-PROVISION INCLUDED IN OTHER-EXPENSES ABOVE.
</FN>
        


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAY-31-1998             MAY-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JUN-01-1998             JUN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               AUG-31-1998             AUG-31-1997
<CASH>                                       6,919,675                 373,890
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   14,999                  44,288
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0                       0
<INVENTORY>                                    180,826                 118,112
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             7,174,727                 578,343
<PP&E>                                       2,694,356               2,193,723
<DEPRECIATION>                                  56,852                  67,163
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              10,336,783               2,975,796
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        5,383,775               5,902,938
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                        29,122                  17,000
<OTHER-SE>                                           0                       0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                10,336,783               2,975,796
<SALES>                                        878,852                 251,785
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            13,878,754              14,550,545
<CGS>                                          166,572                 185,223
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               13,795,895              14,483,983
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               950,795                 442,668
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             195,140                 103,044
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,119,928)               (546,312)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0                       0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,119,928)               (546,312)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0                       0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0                       0
        

</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1110 Introduced in House (IH)]

107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1110

   To prohibit high school and college sports gambling in all States 
   including States where such gambling was permitted prior to 1991.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 20, 2001

 Mr. Graham (for himself, Mr. Roemer, Mr. Osborne, Mr. Kind, Mr. King, 
 Mr. Duncan, Mr. Baldacci, Mr. Smith of Texas, Mr. Green of Wisconsin, 
  Mr. Allen, Mr. Goode, Mr. Etheridge, Mr. Shays, Mr. Blumenauer, Mr. 
  Walsh, Ms. Carson of Indiana, Mr. Weldon of Florida, Mr. Wolf, Mr. 
    Frank, and Ms. Norton) introduced the following bill; which was 
                 referred to the Committee on Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To prohibit high school and college sports gambling in all States 
   including States where such gambling was permitted prior to 1991.

    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 ``Student Athlete Protection Act''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION.

    Section 3704 of title 28, United States Code, is amended--
            (1) in subsection (a), by striking ``Section'' and 
        inserting ``Except as provided in subsection (c), section''; 
        and
            (2) by adding at the end the following:
    ``(c)(1) Section 3702 shall apply to a lottery, sweepstakes or 
other betting, gambling, or wagering scheme based, directly or 
indirectly, on--
            ``(A)(i) one or more competitive games in which high school 
        or college athletes participate; or
            ``(ii) one or more performances of high school or college 
        athletes in competitive games; or
            ``(B) one or more competitive games at the Summer or Winter 
        Olympics.
    ``(2) In this section--
            ``(A) the term `high school' has the meaning given the term 
        `secondary school' in section 14102 of the Elementary and 
        Secondary Education Act of 1965; and
            ``(B) the term `college' has the meaning given the term 
        `institution of higher education' in section 101 of the Higher 
        Education Act of 1965.''.

SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.

    The amendments made by section 2 shall take effect on the date that 
is 30 days after the date of enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
I

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1318

To authorize the extension of nondiscriminatory treatment (normal trade

relations treatment) to the products of Kazakhstan.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 29, 2001

Mr. PITTS introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee

on Ways and Means

A BILL

To authorize the extension of nondiscriminatory treatment

(normal trade relations treatment) to the products of

Kazakhstan.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. FINDINGS.

4 Congress makes the following findings:

5 (1) Kazakhstan has been found to be in full

6 compliance with the freedom of emigration require7 ments under title IV of the Trade Act of 1974.

8 (2) Since its independence from the Soviet

9 Union in 1991, Kazakhstan has made progress to10 ward creating a free-market economy system.
2

•HR 1318 IH

1 (3) Kazakhstan concluded a bilateral invest2 ment treaty with the United States in 1992.

3 (4) Kazakhstan has demonstrated a strong de4 sire to build a friendly and cooperative relationship

5 with the United States.

6 (5) The extension of unconditional normal trade

7 relations treatment to the products of Kazakhstan

8 will enable the United States to avail itself of all

9 rights under the World Trade Organization with re10 spect to Kazakhstan.

11 SEC. 2. TERMINATION OF APPLICATION OF TITLE IV OF

12 THE TRADE ACT OF 1974 TO KAZAKHSTAN.

13 (a) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATIONS AND EXTEN14 SIONS OF NONDISCRIMINATORY TREATMENT.—Notwith15 standing any provision of title IV of the Trade Act of 1974

16 (19 U.S.C. 2431 et seq.), the President may—

17 (1) determine that such title should no longer

18 apply to Kazakhstan; and

19 (2) after making a determination under para20 graph (1) with respect to Kazakhstan, proclaim the

21 extension of nondiscriminatory treatment (normal

22 trade relations treatment) to the products of that

23 country.

24 (b) TERMINATION OF APPLICATION OF TITLE IV.—

25 On and after the effective date of the extension under sub-
3

•HR 1318 IH

1 section (a)(2) of nondiscriminatory treatment to the prod2 ucts of Kazakhstan, title IV of the Trade Act of 1974 shall

3 cease to apply to that country.

Æ
184 La. 544

#### STATE v. WASHINGTON.

No. 33767.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 2, 1936.

Robert M. McGehee, of Hammond, for appellant.

Gaston L. Porterie, Atty. Gen., James O’Connor, Asst. Atty. Gen., Walton E. McBride, of Ruston, and Lessley P. Gar-diner, Sp. Asst, to Atty. Gen., for the State.

ROGERS, Justice.

Willie Washington appeals from his conviction and sentence for shooting with intent to kill Will Gunn.

Defendant’s complaint, which is set out in five bills of exception, is, that the trial judge erred in refusing to permit the introduction of evidence of alleged prior threats by the prosecuting witness against him.

The ruling of the trial judge, as shown by his statement per curiam, was based on the following facts, viz.:

> “The testimony of the witnesses showed that the prosecuting witness, Will Gunn, was sitting on .the porch of a storehouse 'in a chair, leaning back against the wall, when defendant walked up to the edge of the porch and engaged him in a controversy. After some words were passed between them relative to a previous difference between them, defendant drew a pistol from his pocket and shot Gunn seriously, but not fatally, wounding him. Gunn was unarmed and did not, at any time, make any hostile demonstration, nor commit any overt act towards defendant. Defendant testified that Gunn made a move like he was going to shoot him, but several eye witnesses testified that no hostile movement of any nature was made by Gunn.”

We find nothing in the testimony set out-in the record which refutes the statement of the trial judge.

The statutory law and fixed jurisprudence of this state are that, “in the absence of proof of hostile demonstration or of overt act on the part of the person slain or injured, evidence of his dangerous character or of his threats against accused is not admissible.” Code Cr.Proc. art. 482; State v. Brown, 172 La. 121, 133 So. 383; State v. Scarbrock, 176 La. 48, 145 So. 264.

And the proof of such hostile demonstration or overt act must be to the satisfaction of the trial judge, subject to review by this court. State v. Brown, supra; State v. Scarbrock, supra.

As shown by his statement per curiam, the trial judge found that there was no hostile demonstration or overt act on the part of the prosecuting witness. We confirm the finding. Hence, evidence of alleged prior threats by the prosecuting witness against the defendant were inadmissible.

For the reasons assigned, the conviction and sentence appealed from are affirmed.

O’NIELL, C. J., dissents.
8:23-cv-00190-JFB-MDN Doc # 3 Filed: 05/17/23 Page 1 of 1 - Page ID # 13
**Exhibit      32.2**

**CERTIFICATION      PURSUANT TO**

**18      U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906**

**OF      THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

|   | (1) | The                Form 10-Q 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 Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material                respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the                Companies. |
|--------|-----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:                November 1, 2007       |
|---------------------------------------------|
|  /s/                Eric M. Markell    |
| Eric                M. Markell              |
| Executive                Vice President and |
| Chief                Financial Officer      |
#### Huff *v.*Pennsylvania Rd. Co.

(No. 23616

Decided June 21, 1933.)

*Mr. Jean E. Simpson*and *Mr. Roy Warren Roof,*for plaintiff in error.

*Messrs. Wheeler, Rentley, Neville S Gory*and *Messrs. Stillings & Johnson,*for defendant in error.

It is ordered and adjudged by this court that tbe judgment of tbe said Court of Appeals be, and tbe same hereby is, reversed for error in overruling tbe motion to dismiss tbe error proceedings on tbe ground that tbe granting of tbe motion for new trial on tbe weight of tbe evidence was not a final order of tbe court of common pleas.

And this court proceeding to render tbe judgment that tbe Court of Appeals should have rendered it is ordered and adjudged that tbe error proceedings filed in said Court of Appeals be, and the same are hereby-dismissed, and that tbe judgment of affirmance entered by said court be vacated and set aside.

*Judgment reversed.*

, Weygandt, C. J., Day, Allen, Stephenson, Jones and Matthias, JJ., concur.

Bevis, J., .not participating.
#### Hakeem A. MALIK, Appellant, v. Laine CARDARELLA; Federal Public Defender’s Office, Appellees.

No. 02-1783.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted Aug. 7, 2003.

Decided Aug. 7, 2003.

Before BOWMAN, BYE, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Federal inmate Hakeem A. Malik appeals the preservice dismissal of his civil rights action. Having carefully reviewed the record, *see Cooper v. Schriro,*189 F.3d 781, 783 (8th Cir.1999) (per curiam) (applying *de novo*review), we conclude the District Court1 properly dismissed the complaint because Malik’s court-appointed defense counsel was not a government actor, *see Polk County v. Dodson,*454 U.S. 312, 325, 102 S.Ct. 445, 70 L.Ed.2d 509 (1981); *Christian v. Crawford,*907 F.2d 808, 810 (8th Cir.1990) (per curiam). We decline to consider Malik’s conclusory allegations of conspiracy, which he did not mention below. Accordingly, we affirm. *See*8th Cir. R. 47B.

1

. The Honorable Fernando J. Gaitan, Jr., United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

MCKESSON CORP. et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN et al., 

Defendants. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Civ. Action No. 82-220 (RJL) 

~RDER (Marchz2. 2013) [Dkts. ##960, 961, 969] 

For the reasons set forth in the Memorandum Opinion entered this date, it is this 

~day ~ ofMarch, 2013, hereby 

ORDERED that plaintiffs' Motion for Entry of Final Judgment [Dkts. ##961, 

969] is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part; and it is further 

ORDERED that judgment be entered in favor of the plaintiffs and against the 

defendants in the amount of$40,551,000.40; and it is further 

ORDERED that plaintiffs are entitled to seek additional fees and costs incurred 

after June 30, 2012 and until the conclusion of this litigation and are hereby authorized to 

submit a further application for such fees and costs consistent with this Judgment; and it 

is further 
ORDERED that in accordance with U.S.C. § 1961, post-judgment interest 

shall accrue on all amounts awarded to plaintiffs pursuant to this Judgment as of the date 

hereof; and it is further 

ORDERED that defendants' July 30, 2012 motion [Dkt. #960] is DENIED as 

MOOT. 

SO ORDERED. 

CHARDJ.L 0~ 

United States District Judge
Exhibit 31.1








I, Susan B. Sheffield, 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 AmeriCredit Automobile Receivables Trust 2018-3  (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. Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statement required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicer has fulfilled its 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.








By:/s/ Susan B. SheffieldName:Susan B. SheffieldTitle:Executive Vice President and Chief Financial OfficerDate:March 3, 2023