alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS Appeals of

-- ) ) Afghan Builders Consortium ) ) Under Contract Nos. W917PM-07-D-0009 ) W5J9JE-12-C-0119 ) W5J9JE-12-C-0091 ) W5J9JE-12-C-0132 ) APPEARANCE FORTHE APPELLANT:
APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: ASBCA Nos. 59347, 59348, 59349, 59350

Mr. Taj Mohammad

President Thomas H. Gourlay, Jr., Esq.

Engineer ChiefTrial Attorney Pietro 

### 0. Mistretta, Esq. James D. Stephens, Esq.

Engineer Trial Attorneys U.S. Army Engineer District, Middle East Winchester, VA ORDER OF DISMISSAL The disputes have been settled. The appeals are dismissed with prejudice. Dated: 17 April 2015

# ~~- MARK N. STEMPLER Administrative Judge Acting Chairman Armed Services Board ofContract Appeals I certify that the foregoing is a true copy ofthe Order ofDismissal ofthe Armed Services Board ofContract Appeals in ASBCANos. 59347, 59348, 59349, 59350, Appeals ofAfghan Builders Consortium, rendered in conformance with the Board's Charter. Dated:
JEFFREY D. GARDIN Recorder, Armed Services Board ofContract Appeals
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advanc e sheets, it may be cited as Norman v. Kellie Auto Sales, Inc. , Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-1198.]

NOTICE This slip opinion is subject to f ormal revision before it is pu blished in an advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports. Readers are reques ted to promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohi o, 65 South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of any typographical or other formal errors in the opinion, in order that corrections may be made before the opinion is published.

S LIP O PINION N O . 2022-O HIO -1198
N ORMAN , A PPELLEE , v. K ELLIE A UTO S ALES , I NC ., A PPELLANT . [Until this opinion appears in t he Ohio Official Reports advanc e sheets, it may be cited as Norman v. Kellie Auto Sales, Inc. , Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-1198.] Court of appeals’ judgment affirmed on the authority of Jezerinac v. Dioun. (No. 2021-0207―Submitted Marc h 29, 2022―Decided April 13, 2022. )
A PPEAL from the Court of Appeal s for Franklin County, No. 18AP-32, 2020-Ohio-6953.

_________________ {¶ 1} The judgment of the court of appe als is affirmed on the authori ty of Jezerinac v. Dioun , ___ Ohio St.3d ___, 2022-Ohio-509, ___ N.E.3d ___.
O’C ONNOR , C.J., and K ENNEDY , F ISCHER , D E W INE , D ONNELLY , and
S TEWART , JJ., concur.
B RUNNER , J., not participating.

_________________S UPREME C OURT OF O HIO

2 Coffman Legal, L.L.C., and Matthew J.P. Coffman; and Bryan Lega l, L.L.C., and Daniel I. Bryant, f or appellee, Justin Norman. Law Offices of Thomas Tootle Co., L.P.A., and Thomas Tootle, fo r appellant.

_________________
107TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 163

AN ACT

To amend the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act to

exempt mortgage servicers from certain requirements of the Act with respect to federally relatedmortgage loans secured by a first lien, and forother purposes.

107TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 163

AN ACT

To amend the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act to exempt

mortgage servicers from certain requirements of the Act

with respect to federally related mortgage loans secured

by a first lien, and for other purposes.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

•HR 163 EH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Mortgage Servicing

3 Clarification Act’’.

4 SEC. 2. MORTGAGE SERVICING CLARIFICATION.

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Fair Debt Collection Prac6 tices Act (15 U.S.C. 1692 et seq.) is amended—

7 (1) by redesignating section 818 as section 819;

8 and

9 (2) by inserting after section 817 the following

10 new section:

11 ‘‘§ 818. Mortgage servicer exemption

12 ‘‘(a) EXEMPTION.—A covered mortgage servicer who,

13 whether by assignment, sale or transfer, becomes the per14 son responsible for servicing federally related mortgage

15 loans secured by first liens that include loans that were

16 in default at the time such person became responsible for

17 the servicing of such federally related mortgage loans shall

18 be exempt from the requirements of section 807(11) in

19 connection with the collection of any debt arising from

20 such defaulted federally related mortgage loans.

21 ‘‘(b) DEFINITIONS.—For purposes of this section, the

22 following definitions shall apply:

23 ‘‘(1) COVERED MORTGAGE SERVICER.—The

24 term ‘covered mortgage servicer’ means any servicer

25 of federally related mortgage loans secured by first

26 liens—
3

•HR 163 EH

1 ‘‘(A) who is also debt collector; and

2 ‘‘(B) for whom the collection of delinquent

3 debts is incidental to the servicer’s primary

4 function of servicing current federally related

5 mortgage loans.

6 ‘‘(2) FEDERALLY RELATED MORTGAGE LOAN.—

7 The term ‘federally related mortgage loan’ has the

8 meaning given to such term in section 3(1) of the

9 Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act of 1974, ex10 cept that, for purposes of this section, such term in11 cludes only loans secured by first liens.

12 ‘‘(3) PERSON.—The term ‘person’ has the

13 meaning given to such term in section 3(5) of the

14 Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act of 1974.

15 ‘‘(4) SERVICER; SERVICING.—The terms

16 ‘servicer’ and ‘servicing’ have the meanings given to

17 such terms in section 6(i) of the Real Estate Settle18 ment Procedures Act of 1974.’’.

19 (b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sections

20 for the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (15 U.S.C.

21 1692 et seq.) is amended—

22 (1) by redesignating the item relating to section

23 818 as section 819; and
4

•HR 163 EH

1 (2) by inserting after the item relating to sec2 tion 817 the following new item:

‘‘818. Mortgage servicer exemption.’’.

Passed the House of Representatives October 7,

2002.

Attest:

Clerk.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 05-cr-69-01-PB

Michelle Olivieri

O R D E R

Defendant has moved through counsel to continue the

September 7, 2005 trial in the above case, citing the need for

additional time to complete discovery and prepare a defense. 

The government does not object to a continuance of the trial

date.

Accordingly, for the above reason and to allow the parties

additional time to properly prepare for trial, the court will

continue the trial from September 7, 2005 to December 6, 2005. 

In agreeing to continue the trial, the court finds pursuant to 18

U.S.C.A. § 3161(h)(8)(A) that for the above-stated reasons, the

ends of justice served in granting a continuance outweigh the

best interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial.

Case 1:05-cr-00069-PB Document 10 Filed 08/26/05 Page 1 of 2
2

The court will hold a final pretrial conference on November 

28, 2005 at 4:00 p.m.

SO ORDERED.

 /s/Paul Barbadoro 

Paul Barbadoro

United States District Judge

August 26, 2005

cc: Bjorn Lange, Esq.

William Morse, AUSA

United States Probation

United States Marshal

Case 1:05-cr-00069-PB Document 10 Filed 08/26/05 Page 2 of 2
17

A.12. Characteristics of Bank Loans to Farmers -- Large Farm Lenders, by Risk Rating, November 5-9, 2Percent except as notedLoan characteristic All Minimal Low Moderate Acceptable Special Not ratVolume of loans (thousands of dollars) 1,140,199 38,716 116,062 479,156 314,664 89,724 6,0Number of loans 17,859 710 2,051 8,289 3,624 827 1Weighted average maturity (months)1 15.48 7.24 12.64 19.38 14.11 9.17 12.0

Weighted average repricing interval (months)2 4.10 6.96 4.62 3.70 4.29 4.92 9.2

Weighted average risk rating3 3.29 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 n

Weighted average interest rate 4 7.44 7.64 7.77 7.36 7.18 7.95 7.2

 Standard error5 .16 .41 .18 .21 .43 .22 .5

 Interquartile range6 75th percentile 8.25 8.60 8.44 8.03 7.76 8.85 7.5 25th percentile 6.66 6.32 7.07 6.45 6.35 7.76 6.5 Purpose of loan Feeder livestock 7.72 8.18 8.22 7.38 6.78 8.85 n Other livestock 7.65 7.39 8.30 8.04 7.26 6.30 9. Other current operating expenses7 7.66 7.04 7.92 7.76 7.35 7.58 9.0

 Farm machinery and equipment 7.99 8.50 9.15 7.93 8.64 7.73 8.7 Farm real estate 7.92 n.a. 8.50 7.23 8.81 8.76 7.4 Other8 6.90 6.66 6.23 6.74 6.94 8.62 6.9

Share of total loan volume Features of loan Floating rates 80.20 6.28 42.57 88.84 89.08 77.89 74.9 Under commitment 87.87 97.56 90.38 91.20 95.86 82.46 74.9 Callable 17.09 85.29 45.57 10.13 9.03 8.89 n Purpose of loan Feeder livestock 9.59 51.62 13.23 8.01 5.14 2.46 n Other livestock 6.14 .37 10.66 4.34 10.63 3.08 7. Other current operating expenses7 39.23 46.65 51.51 37.32 39.14 30.41 . Farm machinery and equipment 7.52 .83 2.37 9.24 1.69 33.54 5.0 Farm real estate 3.66 n.a. 5.05 4.22 1.31 8.51 11.0 Other8 33.86 .52 17.19 36.88 42.08 22.00 76.

 Type of collateral Farm real estate 7.05 3.66 11.99 7.74 1.69 4.26 14. Other 89.66 95.94 87.48 87.12 97.01 90.12 85. Note. Most large farm lenders that reported loans to farmers had more than $25 million in farm loans. For explanation of footnotes, see table A.8. n.a. Not available.
I

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 197

To require preemployment drug testing with respect to applicants for Federal

employment.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 3, 2001

Mr. SWEENEY introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Government Reform

A BILL

To require preemployment drug testing with respect to

applicants for Federal employment.

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Federal Employment

5 Applicant Drug Testing Act’’.

6 SEC. 2. PREEMPLOYMENT DRUG TESTING.

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—All applicants for employment

8 with the Federal Government shall be subject to pre9 employment drug testing in accordance with requirements

10 which shall be prescribed by—
2

•HR 197 IH

1 (1) the President, with respect to applicants for

2 employment within the executive branch;

3 (2) the Administrative Office of the United

4 States Courts, with respect to applicants for employ5 ment within the judicial branch; and

6 (3)(A) each House of Congress, with respect to

7 applicants for employment within such House; or

8 (B) the appointing authority, with respect to

9 applicants for employment in any other office or

10 agency within the legislative branch.

11 (b) DEFINITION.—For purposes of this Act, the term

12 ‘‘drug’’ means a controlled substance as defined by section

13 102(6) of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C.

14 802(6)).

15 SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.

16 Any rules or regulations necessary to carry out this

17 Act shall be issued in time so that they may be imple18 mented beginning not later than the 90th day after the

19 date of the enactment of this Act.

Æ
Exhibit
32.2




CERTIFICATION
OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER


AND
PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER


PURSUANT
TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350




In
connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of MoneyLogix
Group, Inc. for the three month period ending March 31, 2009, I, Gary Cilevitz,
Chief Financial Officer of MoneyLogix Group, Inc. hereby certify pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge and belief, that:




1.
  Such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the three months
ending March 31, 2009, 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 such Quarterly  Report on
Form 10-Q for the three months ended March  31, 2009, fairly
represents in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of MoneyLogix Group, Inc.




Dated:
May 11, 2009





MONEYLOGIX
      GROUP, INC.By:
                /s/ Gary
      CilevtzGary
      CilevitzChief
      Financial Officer
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Chao-Cheng Teng

v. Civil No. 09-cv-00008-JL

Town of Kensington, et al.

ORDER AFTER PRELIMINARY

PRETRIAL CONFERENCE

The Preliminary Pretrial Conference was held in chambers on

March 18, 2009.

The Discovery Plan (document no. 6) is approved as

submitted.

The defendants will not press the issue of insufficient

service of process.

The plaintiff will file an amended complaint shortly.

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Joseph N. Laplante

United States District Judge

Dated: March 18, 2009

cc: Richard C. Mooney, Esq.

R. Matthew Cairns, Esq.

William G. Scott, Esq.

Case 1:09-cv-00008-JL Document 9 Filed 03/18/09 Page 1 of 1
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 Defense

###### Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers 

# AGENCY:

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, DOD. 

# ACTION:

Notice. 

# SUMMARY:

In accordance with 10 United States Code 2869, the Department of the Army intends to enter into an Exchange Agreement with a Development Company (to be selected) for the exchange of three (3) separate parcels (totaling 94.79+/−acres) of Government owned land at Soldier Systems Center, Natick, Massachusetts, in exchange for the construction and renovation to several buildings at Soldier Systems Center. The purpose of this notice is to effect the exchange pursuant to provisions of 10 U.S.C. 2869. 

This is a partial transfer of the entire acreage located at the facility.  Additional information is on file with the U.S. Army Engineer District, Corps of Engineers, Baltimore, Maryland. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mr. Bob Penn, 410-962-3000. 

# ADDRESSES:

Documents are on file at U.S. Army Engineer District, Baltimore, Corps of Engineers, 10 South Howard Street, Baltimore, Maryland 21201-1715. 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

None. 

Dated: September 17, 2008. 

Bob Penn, 

Assistant Chief, Real Estate Division, Baltimore District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

[FR Doc. E8-22759 Filed 9-26-08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3710-41-P
#### BARTHOLD et al. v. DOVER et al.

No. 4777.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Second Circuit.

March 29, 1934.

For former opinion, see 153 So. 49.

Praser & Carroll, of Many, for appellants.

Cook & Cook, of Shreveport, for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

Counsel for defendants and appellees complain of that part of the judgment which rejects their alternative demand for the return of $S86.70, with interest and attorney’s fees, paid by. defendants at tax sale for the entire property. We recognize the force of their contention and the weight of the authorities cited, but do not think they apply in this case.

Mineral rights are peculiar unto themselves and, despite attempts to make them, do not come wholly within the provisions of our law governing any particular class of property. Though an important element of value, they are not assessable and not taxable. There was no attempt to tax those involved in the case, either directly or by adding their value to that of the land. Therefore no part of the consideration paid at the tax sale was for taxes on the mineral rights.

The mineral rights involved had been separated from the land by sale duly recorded before the tax sale. The tax purchaser was therefore charged with notice of the separation. . As we attempted to show, these rights were only included in the sale, after separation from the land, because they had become affected with the lien and legal mortgage securing the taxes.

The judgment rendered annuls the tax sale only as to the mineral rights; therefore, the tax purchaser acquired and still holds the property actually assessed and taxed.

The provisions of the Constitution apply under its terms to the sale of property for taxes, that is the sale of the property itself burdened with taxes, and therefore do not control the unusual situation presented here.

The rule that a tax sale must be annulled in its entirety and only after a refund of the entire consideration is not without exception. *725Section 11 of article 10 of the Constitution of 1921, provides:

“The fact that taxes were paid on a part of the property sold, prior to the sale thereof, or that part thereof was not subject to taxation, shall not be cause for annulling the sale as to any part thereof on which the taxes for which it was sold were due and unpaid.”

For the above reasons and those contained in the original opinion, the motion for a rehearing is denied.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Kenneth Saalfrank

v. Civil No. 08-cv-00046-JL

Town of Alton

O R D E R

The Preliminary Pretrial Conference was held in chambers on

August 4, 2008.

The Discovery Plan (document no. 40) is approved as

submitted.

Based on the conversation between counsel and the court at

the conference, the following affirmative defenses are stricken

without prejudice to being re-asserted if warranted by the

evidence:

• Alton, Alton Police Department, et al.’s defenses C

(statute of limitations, laches), D (res judicata and

collateral estoppel), and E (release and waiver);

• Belknap County’s sixth (PLRA exhaustion);

• Dr. Ward’s tenth (res judicata, collateral estoppel),

eleventh (PLRA exhaustion), 13th (laches), 15th

(estoppel), and 16th (waiver);

Case 1:08-cv-00046-JL Document 43 Filed 08/04/08 Page 1 of 2
2

• Dr. Craig’s 9th (res judicata, collateral estoppel), and

10th (PLRA exhaustion).

The motions filed by Dr. Ward and Dr. Craig to refer the

case to the medical malpractice board will be taken up with their

respective motions for summary judgment.

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Joseph N. Laplante

United States District Judge

Dated: August 4, 2008

cc: Jeffrey C. Spear, Esq.

Robert S. Carey, Esq.

Charles P. Bauer, Esq.

Jeanne P. Herrick, Esq.

K. Joshua Scott, Esq.

William G. Scott, Esq.

Catherine M. Costanzo, Esq.

Todd J. Hathaway, Esq.

Jonathan A. Lax, Esq.

Case 1:08-cv-00046-JL Document 43 Filed 08/04/08 Page 2 of 2
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1906 Engrossed in House (EH)]

  2d Session

                               H. R. 1906

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

  To amend the Act that established the Pu'uhonua O Honaunau National 
         Historical Park to expand the boundaries of that park.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
107th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 1906

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
  To amend the Act that established the Pu'uhonua O Honaunau National 
         Historical Park to expand the boundaries of that park.

    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 ``Pu`uhonua o Honaunau National 
Historical Park Addition Act of 2002''.

SEC. 2. ADDITIONS TO PU`UHONUA O HONAUNAU NATIONAL HISTORICAL PARK.

    The first section of the Act of July 26, 1955 (69 Stat. 376, ch. 
385; 16 U.S.C. 397), is amended--
            (1) by striking ``That, when'' and inserting the following:
    ``Section 1. (a) When''; and
            (2) by adding at the end thereof the following new 
        subsections:
    ``(b) The boundaries of Pu`uhonua o Honaunau National Historical 
Park are hereby modified to include approximately 238 acres of lands 
and interests therein within the area identified as `Parcel A' on the 
map entitled `Pu`uhonua o Honaunau National Historical Park Proposed 
Boundary Additions, Ki`ilae Village', numbered PUHO-P 415/82,013 and 
dated May, 2001.
    ``(c) The Secretary of the Interior is authorized to acquire 
approximately 159 acres of lands and interests therein within the area 
identified as `Parcel B' on the map referenced in subsection (b). Upon 
the acquisition of such lands or interests therein, the Secretary shall 
modify the boundaries of Pu`uhonua o Honaunau National Historical Park 
to include such lands or interests therein.''.

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATIONS OF APPROPRIATIONS.

    There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be 
necessary to carry out this Act.

            Passed the House of Representatives June 17, 2002.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
```