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 Reserve System

The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board’s Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire a bank or bank holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).

The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for inspection at the office of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must be received not later than September 22, 2010.

**A. Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago,**                     (Colette A. Fried, Assistant Vice President) 230 South LaSalle Street, Chicago, Illinois 60690-1414:                

*1. The Thomas C. Pangborn Trust, with Thomas C. Pangborn as trustee, and the Trust, together with Thomas C. Pangborn, Traverse City, Michigan, Heidi M. Pangborn, Traverse City, Michigan, Emily Davies, Oakland, California, and Christine A. Wherry, Chicago, Illinois, as a group acting in concert,*                     to acquire more than 25 percent of the outstanding voting shares of TCSB Bancorp, Inc., Traverse City, Michigan, and thereby indirectly acquire control of Traverse City State Bank, Traverse City, Michigan.                

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, September 1, 2010.

Robert deV. Frierson,

Deputy Secretary of the Board.

[FR Doc. 2010-22157 Filed 9-3-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6210-01-S
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2884 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2884

   To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to prohibit tax-exempt 
status to professional sports leagues that promote the use of the term 
                               redskins.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 18, 2014

 Ms. Cantwell (for herself, Mr. Reid, and Mr. Johnson of South Dakota) 
introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the 
                          Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to prohibit tax-exempt 
status to professional sports leagues that promote the use of the term 
                               redskins.

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

SECTION 1. SPECIAL RULE RELATING TO PROFESSIONAL SPORTS LEAGUES.

    (a) In General.--Section 501 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 
is amended--
            (1) by redesignating subsection (s) as subsection (t), and
            (2) by inserting after subsection (r) the following new 
        subsection:
    ``(s) Special Rule Relating to Professional Sports Leagues.--No 
professional sports league shall be treated as described in subsection 
(c)(6) if such professional sports league promotes, or allows a member 
club or franchise connected with such professional sports league to 
promote, the use of the term `redskins' in connection with any team or 
club connected with such professional sports league.''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to taxable years beginning after the date of the enactment of 
this Act.
                                 <all>
```
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15

- 20413

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee

v. RAFAEL E. RIVAS

- LOPEZ , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:09

- CV

- 33 3 5 USDC No. 4: 04

- CR

- 145

- 2

Before CLEMENT, ELROD, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Rafael E. Rivas

- Lopez, federal prisoner # 16285

- 179, requests a certificate of appealability (COA) so that he may appeal the district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. His req u est to supplement his COA motion and his motion to proceed in forma paupe ris are GRANTED. In 2012, we remanded the case to the district court and ordered it to hold an evidentiary hearing on Rivas

- Lopez’s claim that he received ineffective

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED May 23, 2016 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 15-20413 Document: 00513516341 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/23/2016No. 15

- 20413

2 assistance of counsel during the plea negotiatin g stage of his criminal proceedings. Riv as - Lopez now challenges the district court’s failure to appoint counsel to represent him at that hearing. Rule 8(c) of the Rules Governing § 2255 Proceedings required the district court to appoint Rivas

- Lopez counsel for the evidentiary hearing because Ri vas - Lopez was unable to afford retained counsel. See United States v. Vasquez , 7 F.3d 81, 84 (5th Cir. 1993). Rivas

Lopez’s motion for a COA is therefore GRAN TED. The district court’s judg ment is VACATED, and the case is REMANDED for a new evidentiary h earing with appointed counsel. Rivas

- Lopez’s motion for the preparation of a transcript at the Government’s expense is DENIED

. Case: 15-20413 Document: 00513516341 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/23/2016
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. CHESTER ZAMORSKY.

Jan. 14, 1980.

Petitions for certification denied. (See 170 *N.J.Super.*198)
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

91 

CA 14-00356 

PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., PERADOTTO, LINDLEY, SCONIERS, AND DEJOSEPH, JJ. 

 

KAREN MARKS, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, 

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

MICHAEL ALONSO, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

(APPEAL NO. 2.) 

 

BARTH SULLIVAN BEHR, BUFFALO (ANDREW J. KOWALEWSKI OF COUNSEL), FOR

DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

SPADAFORA & VERRASTRO, LLP, BUFFALO (RICHARD E. UPDEGROVE OF COUNSEL),

FOR PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT. 

 

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County (James H.

Dillon, J.), entered November 26, 2013. The order denied the motion

of defendant for summary judgment.

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is

unanimously affirmed without costs.

Same Memorandum as in Marks v Alonso ([appeal No. 1] ___ AD3d ___

[Feb. 13, 2015]).

Entered: February 13, 2015 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT
In the Interest of A.D.C., a child. ) ___________________________________) ) R.W., ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D18-1636 ) DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND ) FAMILIES and GUARDIAN AD LITEM ) PROGRAM, ) ) Appellees. ) ___________________________________) Opinion filed September 26, 2018. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Pinellas County; James V. Pierce, Judge. Frank D. L. Winstead of Winstead Law Offices, Land O' Lakes, for Appellant. Bernie McCabe, State Attorney, Tallahassee, and Leslie M. Layne, Assistant State Attorney, Clearwater, for Appellee, Department of Children and Families. Thomasina Moore, Statewide Director of Appeals, Tallahassee, and Rocco J. Carbone, III, St. Augustine, for Appellee, Guardian Ad Litem Program.- 2 -

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
LaROSE, C.J., and BADALAMENTI, and ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM, JJ., Concur.
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-3824

___________

William G. Carter, *

*

Appellant, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

v. * Eastern District of Missouri.

*

R. Timothy Bickhaus, P.A., * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellee, *

___________

Submitted: June 3, 2005

Filed: July 27, 2005 

___________

Before BYE, MAGILL, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

William G. Carter was civilly committed after pleading not guilty by reason of

insanity to state criminal charges. He brought this civil-rights action against the state

prosecutor, asking for damages, release from custody, and other injunctive relief. The

district court dismissed the action under 28 U.S.C § 1915(e)(2)(B), and Carter

appeals. 

We grant Carter leave to appeal in forma pauperis. Having carefully reviewed

the record de novo, see Moore v. Sims, 200 F.3d 1170, 1171 (8th Cir. 2000) (per

curiam), we conclude for the reasons the district court stated that dismissal of the
-2-

complaint--insofar as it sought damages and injunctive relief other than release--was

proper, in part based on Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994). However,

we modify the dismissal to be without prejudice. See Sheldon v. Hundley, 83 F.3d

231, 234 (8th Cir. 1996).

 

As for Carter’s request for release, we agree with the district court that such

relief is not available under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, but is properly sought in a habeas

corpus petition after exhaustion of state remedies. See Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S.

475, 487-90 (1973). Construing this aspect of the complaint as a habeas petition, see

Kruger v. Erickson, 77 F.3d 1071, 1073 (8th Cir. 1996) (per curiam) (court must look

to substance of relief sought to determine if action is § 1983 suit or habeas corpus

action; prisoner’s labeling of suit is not controlling), we are unable to determine on

the record before us whether Carter has fully exhausted the necessary state procedures

to challenge his civil commitment. The district court should make this determination

after giving Carter the opportunity to demonstrate, through an amended habeas

petition, that he has met the exhaustion requirement. Cf. Rhines v. Weber, 125 S. Ct.

1528, 1533-35 (2005) (discussing district court’s options for handling habeas

petitions in light of time limitations imposed by 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)). We suggest

the district court reconsider Carter’s motion for appointment of counsel.

Accordingly, we affirm in part, as modified, and remand in part for further

proceedings consistent with this opinion.

______________________________
Exhibit 4.5




EXHIBIT 4.5
AGREEMENT TO FURNISH DEBT INSTRUMENTS 
Pursuant to Item 601(b)(4)(iii)(A) of Regulation S-K promulgated under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, AutoGenomics, Inc. (the “Company”) has not included as an exhibit to its registration statement on Form S-1 any instrument with respect to long-term debt if the total amount of debt authorized by such instrument does not exceed 10% of the total assets of the Company. The Company agrees to furnish a copy of any such instrument to the Securities and Exchange Commission upon request. 
 
	
	
	AutoGenomics, Inc.

	 

	/s/ Salvatore Alberti

	Salvatore Alberti
Chief Financial Officer 
August 8, 2014
Exhibit 33.2



MANAGEMENT’S
ASSERTION OF COMPLIANCE



Management of the Agency
and Trust division of Citibank, N.A. (or “Company”) is responsible for assessing compliance with the servicing
criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of Regulation AB promulgated by the Securities and Exchange Commission.



Management has determined
that the servicing criteria in Item 1122(d) of Regulation AB are applicable in regard to the servicing platform for the period
as follows:



Platform:
Publicly-issued (i.e., transaction-level reporting initially required under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended) and
certain privately issued (i.e., for which transaction-level reporting is required pursuant to contractual obligation) automobile
loan or lease-backed securities, equipment loan-backed securities and student loan-backed securities issued on or after January
1, 2006, for which the Company provides trustee and paying agent services (the “Platform”).



Applicable
Servicing Criteria: All servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d), to the extent required by Item 1122(d) servicing criteria
in regards to the activities performed by the Company with respect to the Platform as to any transaction, except for the following
criteria: 1122(d)(1)(i)-1122(d)(1)(iv), 1122(d)(2)(i), 1122(d)(2)(iii), 1122(d)(2)(vi)-1122(d)(2)(vii), 1122(d)(3)(i) and 1122(d)(4)(i)-1122(d)(4)(xv),
which management has determined are not applicable to the activities the Company performs with respect to the Platform (the “Applicable
Servicing Criteria”).



Period:
Twelve months ended December 31, 2011 (the “Period”).



With respect to the
Platform as of and for the Period, the Company’s management provides the following assertion of compliance with respect to
the Applicable Servicing Criteria:



| | · | The Company’s management is responsible for assessing the Company’s compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria.
| | - | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | · | The Company’s management has assessed compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria. In making this assessment, management
used the criteria set forth by the Securities and Exchange Commission in paragraph (d) of Item 1122 of Regulation AB.
| | - | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | · | Based on such assessment, the Company has complied, in all material respects, with the Applicable Servicing Criteria.
| | - | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



KPMG LLP, an independent
registered public accounting firm, has issued an attestation report with respect to management’s assertion of compliance
with the Applicable Servicing Criteria as of and for the Period.



CITIBANK,
N.A.



By: /s/ Karen
Montbach

Its: Managing
Director

Dated: February 28, 2012
#### Frank C. Edwards et al., respondents, *v.*Edward Oakes et al., appellants.

[Argued November 23d, 1910.

Decided March 6th, 1911.]

On appeal from a decree of the court of chancery advised by Vice-Chancellor Stevenson.

*Mr. Albert V.*Pedrick, for the respondents.

*Mr. Edward Oakes,*for the appellants.

Per Curiam.

The decree appealed from is affirmed for the reasons stated in the opinion of Vice-Chancellor Stevenson.

' *For affirmance*— The Chiee-Justtce, Garrison, Swayze, Reed, Trenoiiard, Parker, Bergen, Voorhees, Minturn, Bogert, Vredenburgi-i, Vroom, Congdon — 13.

*For reversal*— None.
# News

## U.S. Air Force LogoUnited States Air Force

# Air Force to solicit 75th birthday theme ideas

              - Published  Jan. 3, 2020
              -                             By Tech. Sgt. Anthony Nelson Jr., Secretary of the Air Force Public Affairs                                                    

**ARLINGTON, Va. (AFNS) --  **
In preparation for its 75th anniversary, Sept. 18, 2022, the Air Force is soliciting birthday theme ideas from Total Force Airmen and civilians. Every year in September, the Department of the Air Force dedicates a theme to celebrate the Air Force’s birthday.Some of the past themes include, “Frontiers of Blue... This is 72!”, ”Focusing on heritage, warfighting capability and innovation,” “American Airman... Wingman, Leader, Warrior,” and “Breaking Barriers!”Concepts for the 75th birthday theme should consider inclusiveness of multi-domain operations, capture Airmen’s innovation and reflect the Air Force’s heritage over the last 75 years. Considered themes should be short, concise, catchy and memorable (e.g. the 70th anniversary theme was “Breaking Barriers”). Submissions must also be in good taste.All submissions and voting will take place through the IdeaScale website.The submission and voting timeline is as follows:- The competition submission period will be from Jan. 6-31, 2020.- The voting window will be from Feb. 24 – March 6, 2020.The best qualified submissions will be considered and sent to the chief of staff of the Air Force, the vice chief of staff of the Air Force, the Air Force director of staff and the chief master sergeant of the Air Force for the final decision.The winner will be announced around April 1, 2020.The winner will receive an all-expense paid trip to the Air Force Association’s Air, Space & Cyber Conference in September 2022, to attend the 75th Air Force birthday celebration and meet the CSAF and CMSAF.Airmen and civilians with ideas should submit them online at https://usaf.ideascalegov.com/a/ideas/recent/campaigns/101, when the submission window opens.

AFWNUSAFAFDepartment of the Air Force75th birthdayAir Force’s heritagebirthday theme ideasAir Force Association’s National ConferenceCSAFCMSAFAir Force birthday
#### Alexander Hotovitsky *v.*Little Russian Greek Catholic St. Peter and Paul Church of Jersey City.

[Argued December 2d, 1910.

Decided March 8th, 1911.]

On appeal from a decree in chancery advised by Vice-Chancellor Garrison.

*Mr. Harry B. Brochhurst,*for the appellant.

*Mr. Herbert O. Gilson,*for the respondent.

Per Curiam.

To a bill for relief the defendant filed a plea similar to that set out in our opinion in the case of *Ewald*v. *Ortynsky et al.,*decided at the present term. The case went to hearing upon the plea before Vice-Chancellor Garrison, and, after consideration, an order was advised by him that the plea be overruled, with costs. The order also reserved the right to the defendant to use the matter contained in its plea upon a motion to set aside the service of subpoena upon it, upon the payment of the costs of its plea, provided the motion was made within seven days from the date of the order. The order further' provided that if the defendant failed to make that motion within the time limited, it might answer the complainant’s bill within twenty days from that time, and if it failed to answer within such time, the bill of complaint should be taken as confessed against it. We think this order proper in all its parts. The inquiry when a case is heard upon a plea is substantially as if the complainant had demurred to the plea. If it is found to be bad, the proper practice is to overrule it. *Davison*v. *Johnson, 16 N. J. Eq. (1 C. E. Gr.) 112.*The conclusion of the vice-chancellor that the plea was bad we concur *577in for the reasons expressed in onr opinion in *Ewald*v. *Ortynsky.*With the plea overruled the case showed a bill filed against the defendant, a subpoena issued against it, and a return of the writ showing service upon it. The sheriffs return is presumptive proof of the fact recited in it. The leave granted to the defendant to move to set aside the service on the ground that the return was untrue, in fact, was a privilege granted to it of which it could take advantage or not as it chose. On the overruling of the plea, unless the service was set aside, the defendant was required by the twenty-fourth section of the Chancery act (P. *L. 1902 p. 519)*to file its answer to the complainant’s bill in twenty days thereafter, or submit to have the bill taken as confessed against it.

The defendant asks in its plea to be dismissed, with costs against the complainant. If the plea had been sustained, it would, presumably, have been entitled to them. The plea having been overruled, it is only fair that it should pay costs to the complainant.

The order appealed from will be affirmed.

*For affirmance*— The Chief-Justice, Garrison, Swayze, Reed, Teencitakd, Parker, Bergen, Voorhees, Minturn, Bo-GERT, VREDENBURGH, VROOM, CONGDON — 13.

*For reversal*— -None.
```

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 77 (Wednesday, May 10, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Page S6369]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                                 prayer

  The Chaplain, Dr. Lloyd John Ogilvie, offered the following prayer:
  Let us pray:
  God is able to make all grace abound toward you, that you, always 
having all sufficiency in all things, may have an abundance for every 
good work.--II Corinthians 9:8.
  Gracious Father, we claim this Biblical promise as we begin this new 
day. We thank You for Your amazing grace, Your unqualified love, and 
forgiveness that flows from Your heart into our hearts filling up our 
diminished reserves. We are energized by the realization that You have 
chosen to be our God and have chosen us to belong first and foremost to 
You. So we clarify our priorities and commit ourselves to seek first 
Your will and put that above all else. It is liberating to know that 
You will supply all we need, in all sufficiency, to discern and do what 
glorifies You. Grant us wisdom, Lord, for the decisions of this day.
  We ask this not for our own personal success but for our beloved 
Nation. America deserves the very best from us today. Experience has 
taught us that You alone can empower us to be the leaders America 
needs. Fill us with a new passion for patriotism and fresh commitment 
for the responsibilities of leadership You have entrusted to us.
  In the name of Him who helps us live every day to the fullest. Amen.
  

                          ____________________
```
```

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 76 (Tuesday, May 9, 1995)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E981-E982]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

              AN AMENDMENT TO RESOLVE THE TACOMA DECISION

                                 ______

                           HON. BILL EMERSON

                              of missouri

                         HON. BILL K. BREWSTER

                              of oklahoma

                    in the house of representatives

                          Tuesday, May 9, 1995
  Mr. EMERSON. Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this amendment is to resolve 
the friction and conflict that the Clean Water Act, as interpreted by 
the Supreme Court in its 1994 Tacoma decision, is creating with the 
Federal Power Act. The Supreme Court has interpreted the Clean Water 
Act, in particular section 401 of the Act, so broadly as to effectively 
supersede the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's licensing 
authority over hydropower projects under the Federal Power Act. This 
amendment would rectify that situation by exempting hydropower projects 
from regulation under the Clean Water Act.
  The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission already conducts a 
comprehensive review of proposed new hydropower projects when first 
[[Page E982]] deciding whether to issue a license and again upon 
relicensing. That review takes into account the inputs of state and 
federal agencies, Indian tribes, and the public. The review also 
carefully evaluates and addresses the potential environmental impacts 
of each proposed and existing project. Therefore, in the context of 
hydropower projects under the Commission's jurisdiction, there is no 
need for the additional, duplicative layer of regulation that the Clean 
Water Act now creates. This amendment eliminates the duplicative layer 
of federal regulation.

                          ____________________
```