alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Institute on Aging Initial Review Group; Behavior and Social Science of Aging Review Committee.                    

*Date:*                         October 7-8, 2010.                    

*Time:*                         4 p.m. to 12 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         DoubleTree Bethesda Hotel, 8120 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20892.                    

*Contact Person:*                         Jeannette L. Johnson, PhD, Scientific Review Officer, National Institutes on Aging, National Institutes of Health, 7201 Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 2C-212, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-402-7705,                         *johnsonj9@nia.nih.gov*.                    

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.866, Aging Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: September 9, 2010.

Jennifer S. Spaeth,

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2010-23069 Filed 9-14-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
EXHIBIT 34.6







Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm


To the Board of Directors of CoreLogic, Inc.:


We have examined management’s assertion, included in the accompanying Report on Assessment of Compliance, that CoreLogic Commercial Real Estate Services, Inc. (the “Company”), an indirect subsidiary of CoreLogic, Inc. complied with the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Regulation AB for all loans for commercial mortgage loan outsourcing customers for which the Company served as the commercial tax service provider (the “Platform”), as of December 31, 2012 and for the year then ended, only including 1122(d)(1)(iv), 1122(d)(2)(v), 1122(d)(2)(vi), 1122(d)(2)(vii), 1122(d)(4)(xi), 1122(d)(4)(xii) and 1122(d)(4)(xiii), which the Company has determined are applicable to the servicing activities performed by it with respect to the Platform. Management is responsible for the Company’s compliance with the servicing criteria. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on management’s assertion based on our examination.


Our examination was conducted in accordance with attestation standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) and, accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Company’s compliance with the applicable servicing criteria and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. Our examination included testing of selected servicing activities related to the Platform, and determining whether the Company performed those selected activities in compliance with the applicable servicing criteria. Our procedures were limited to the selected servicing activities performed by the Company during the period covered by this report. Our procedures were not designed to detect noncompliance arising from errors that may have occurred prior to or subsequent to our tests that may have affected the balances or amounts calculated or reported by the Company during the period covered by this report. We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our examination does not provide a legal determination on the Company’s compliance with the servicing criteria.


In our opinion, management’s assertion that the Company complied with the aforementioned applicable servicing criteria as of and for the year ended December 31, 2012 for all loans for commercial mortgage loan outsourcing customers for which the Company served as the commercial tax service provider is fairly stated, in all material respects.


/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP


February 6, 2013








PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, 2001 Ross Avenue, Suite 1800, Dallas, Texas 75201


T: (214) 999-1400, F: (214) 754-7991, www.pwc.com/us
News United States Air Force
 14th Air Force redesignated as Space Operations CommandPublished Dec. 30, 2019
                        
                        By Maj. Cody Chiles
                        
                        
                        Space Operations Command Public Affairs
                **VANDENBERG AIR FORCE BASE, Calif. (AFNS) --**
                By order of Secretary of the Air Force Barbara M. Barrett, effective Dec. 20, Fourteenth Air Force was officially redesignated as Space Operations Command.
Air Force military and civilian personnel previously assigned to the Fourteenth Air Force are now assigned to SPOC by virtue of the redesignation action.
The SPOC directly supports the U.S. Space Force’s mission to protect the interests of the United States in space; deter aggression in, from and to space; and conduct space operations.
On Dec. 20, President Donald Trump signed the fiscal year 2020 National Defense Authorization Act, officially establishing the USSF as the sixth branch of the U.S. armed forces.
In accordance with a redesignation memorandum for record signed by Barrett, Maj. Gen. John E. Shaw, former Fourteenth Air Force commander, was redesignated as commander of Space Operations Command; in addition to Shaw’s role as U.S. Space Command’s Combined Force Space Component commander.
The SPOC provides space capabilities such as space domain awareness, space electronic warfare, satellite communications, missile warning, nuclear detonation detection, environmental monitoring, military intelligence surveillance and reconnaissance, navigation warfare, command and control, and positioning, navigation and timing, on behalf of the USSF for USSPACECOM and other combatant commands.
“It is an honor and privilege to lead the U.S. Space Force’s Space Operations Command. Every day, all around the planet, people count on us to make a difference – to provide a space-enabled combat edge to the warfighters that keep our country, our allies, and our partners safe," Shaw said. "We will not let them down.”
Additional details about SPOC will be available in early 2020 – highlighting Space Operations Command’s critical roles and responsibilities in support of national security objectives.LR 



USAF 



AF 



Air Force 



Secretary of the Air Force Barbara M. Barrett 



SecAF 



14th Air Force 



Space Operations Command 



SPOC 



President Donald Trump 



National Defense Authorization Act 



Vandenberg Air Force Base 



Vandenberg AFB 



U.S. Space Force
```

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 82 (Wednesday, May 17, 1995)]
[House]
[Page H5186]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                            LEAVE OF ABSENCE

  By unanimous consent, leave of absence was granted to:
  Mr. Bono (at the request of Mr. Armey) for today, on account of 
recovery from surgery.
  Mrs. Collins of Illinois (at the request of Mr. Gephardt) for today, 
on account of personal business.

                          ____________________
```
#### A. Hersberger et al. v. Chas. Lindsey et al.

(No. 1827, Op. Book No. 2, p. 461.)

Appeal from Parker County.

Opinion by

Quinan, J.

§ 1167. *Injunction bond; suit upon; res adjudicada; damages not recoverable in such suit.*Appellants enjoined the collection of taxes due by them to the state and county. The injunction suit was dismissed without any adjudication upon the merits, or judgment against the obligors on the injunction bond. Appellee, as sheriff of Parker county, brought this suit upon the injunction bond for the use of the state and county. Appellees pleaded, *res adjudicdta,*that the matter had been determined in the injunction suit. Judgment was rendered for appellee, for the use of the state and county, for the amount of taxes sued for, and for ten per cent, damages on that amount. *Held,*the simple dissolution of the injunction had the effect to permit the defendants to proceed and collect the taxes, the collection of which was thereby suspended. It left the parties precisely where they stood before it issued. [Comm’r v. Smith, 5 Tex. 486.] There was no issue submitted or tried in that case as to the recovery of the taxes. There was no trial of the case upon the merits. [Roberts v. Johnson, 48 Tex. 133.] Because the defendants in the injunction did not insist that their reconvention should be tried, and upon having a judgment for the amount of the taxes, it does not follow that they were precluded from pursuing the mode provided by law for their collection, or from maintaining a suit upon the injunction bond. The suit was brought to restrain the’ collection of the tax. The court decided that it would not interfere to restrain their collection, and that was all that was decided in that suit. Appellee’s plea of *res adjudicata*was not sustained, and was properly overruled. But the judgment against appellants for the ten per cent, damages was erroneous. The damages given by the statute upon the dissolution of *668an injunction restraining the collection of money are given when the judge shall be satisfied that the injunction was obtained for delay. It was for the judge who dissolved the injunction to determine whether he would or would not award damages for that cause, and, not having rendered judgment for them, the claim for the statutory damages is by his action in that suit finally determined. No actual damages are proven in this suit beyond the non-payment of the tax. There is no prayer for the recovery of damages, and no foundation laid for the judgment for them. The judgment was therefore reversed and rendered for the amount of taxes due only, awarding the costs of appeal against appellee.

October 29, 1881.

Reversed and rendered.''
#### Hohn *v.*Indiana National Bank of Indianapolis, Executor, etc.

[No. 19,095.

Filed October 30, 1959.]

*70
      *John W. Becker,*of Indianapolis, for appellant.

*Henry S. Hohlt*and *Stump & Emswiller,*both of Indianapolis, for appellee.

Gonas, C. J.

Exceptions were filed to the final report of the appellee executor.

Following trial, the court, having been requested to do so, made special findings of fact, stated conclusions of law thereon, and entered judgment favorable to appellee. Accordingly, appellant filed motion for new trial which was overruled and this appeal followed.

In the recent case of *Board of Med. Regist. and Exam., etc.*v. *Bowman*(1958), 238 Ind. 532, 150 N. E. 2d 883, the Supreme Court stated:

> *71“In order to present error on appeal it must be specified in the assignment of errors, and such specification or specifications, or the substance thereof, must appear in the ‘Concise Statement of the Record’ under Rule 2-17 (d). Without such compliance the Judges cannot give intelligent consideration to the issues in the appeal without resorting to the record, which the rules seek to avoid. When there has been such an omission, the judgment will be affirmed. . . .”

Neither the assignment of errors nor the substance thereof appears in appellant’s brief.

From the argument portion of appellant’s brief it is indicated that there were at least fifteen assignment of errors.

Appellant states generally that assignment of errors numbered 11 to 15 inclusive, are to the effect that appellant was denied a special finding of fact by the failure of the court to comprehend the issues and find the facts thereon, but we are not advised as to just what these assignments are.

Also, appellant argues that other assignments are said to be that the court erred in overruling appellant’s motion for a new trial and error in nine conclusions of law.

Rule 2-17 (e) provides that *inter alia*if substantially the same question is raised by two or more assignment of errors or causes for a new trial, they may be grouped and supported by one argument.

Appellant has grouped and supported by a single argument causes of a motion for new trial and assignment of errors which seek to raise entirely different questions.

Appellant did not cite authority in its brief, as provided by Rule 2-17 (e) nor any statute relied upon.

*72Appellant has disregarded the requirement that authorities must be cited in support of the contentions of error. Such contentions not so supported are therefore deemed waived. *Stanley*v. *Gieseking*(1952), 230 Ind. 690, 105 N. E. 2d 171; *Greenwood*v. *City of Washington*(1952), 230 Ind. 375, 102 N. E. 2d 642; *Stoner*v. *Howard Sober, Inc.*(1957), 127 Ind. App. 338, 141 N. E. 2d 458.

Appellant’s brief presents no question. Judgment appealed from the trial court is affirmed. Kelley, Bierly and Smith, JJ., concur.

Note. — Reported in 161 N. E. 2d 775.
```

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 87 (Wednesday, May 24, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Page S7388]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                        MESSAGES FROM THE HOUSE

                                 ______

                          ENROLLED BILL SIGNED

  At 11 a.m., a message from the House of Representatives, delivered by 
Mr. Hays, one of its reading clerks, announced that the Speaker has 
signed the following enrolled bill:

       H.R. 1421. An act to provide that references in the 
     statutes of the United States to any committee or officer of 
     the House of Representatives the name or jurisdiction of 
     which was changed as part of the reorganization of the House 
     of Representatives at the beginning of the One Hundred Fourth 
     Congress shall be treated as referring to the currently 
     applicable committee or officer of the House of 
     Representatives.

  The enrolled bill was subsequently signed by the President pro 
tempore [Mr. Thurmond].

                          ____________________
```
Exhibit 3.1

** **

**CERTIFICATE OF FORMATION**

** **

**OF**

** **

**AMERICAN HONDA RECEIVABLES LLC**

 

This Certificate of Formationof American Honda Receivables LLC(the “**Company**”),dated as of March 16, 2011, is duly executed and filed to form a limited liability company in accordance with the Delaware LimitedLiability Company Act (6 Del. C. §18-201, et seq.).

 

1.         Name.The name of the limited liability company is American Honda Receivables LLC.

 

2.         RegisteredOffice.   The address of its registered office in the State of Delaware is c/o The Corporation Trust Company, 1209 Orange Street,in the City of Wilmington, County of New Castle, 19801.

 

3.         RegisteredAgent.   The name and address of its registered agent for service of process in the State of Delaware is The Corporation TrustCompany, 1209 Orange Street, in the City of Wilmington, County of New Castle, 19801.

** **

**IN WITNESS WHEREOF**,the undersigned has executed this Certificate of Formation of American Honda Receivables LLC as of the 16th day of March, 2011.

** **
```

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 86 (Tuesday, May 23, 1995)]
[House]
[Page H5385]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                              {time}  1220
                            THE NEW MAJORITY

  (Mr. HAYWORTH asked and was given permission to address the House for 
1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I will lay aside my prepared remarks this 
morning to answer my good friend the gentleman from California.
  It never ceases to amaze me how the guardians of the old order who 
were here as part of an incredible corrupt regime during the former 
majority are so willing to hop on the Speaker and his positive agenda 
for change.
  With all due respect to my friends on the other side of the aisle, 
why do you not join with us to put your shoulder to the wheel and 
govern this Nation? We have the majority. Get over it.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________
```
```

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 70 (Monday, May 1, 1995)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E894]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

    MEDWAY-GRAPEVILLE VOLUNTEER FIRE COMPANY CELEBRATES 50 YEARS OF 
                      FIGHTING GREENE COUNTY FIRES

                                 ______

                        HON. GERALD B.H. SOLOMON

                              of new york

                    in the house of representatives

                           Monday, May 1, 1995
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, those who have visited my office have 
probably noticed the display of fire helmets which dominates the 
reception area. The hats hang in that prominent position for two 
reasons.
  First, I had the privilege of serving as a volunteer firefighter in 
my hometown of Queensbury for over 20 years. During that time, I gained 
a great amount of respect and appreciation for the selfless volunteers 
who devote their time and energy to protecting our rural areas from the 
devastation of fire. This immense admiration is the second reason for 
the location of my hat collection.
  In rural areas such as the many small towns in the 22d district of 
New York, fire protection is more often than not solely the 
responsibility of volunteer firemen such as those of the Medway-
Grapeville Volunteer Fire Company. These dedicated individuals have 
saved countless lives and billions of dollars worth of property in New 
York State alone. And the Medway-Grapeville Volunteer Fire Company 
exemplifies the kind of heroism which makes volunteer firefighters such 
an important part of our local communities.
  During my years as a volunteer fireman, I noticed some extraordinary 
things about my company. Its members were among the most varied groups 
of people I have encountered before or since. There were teachers, 
doctors, and farmers, just to name a few of the many walks of life 
represented. Despite their many differences, however, these volunteers 
had two very important things in common--a strong desire to help their 
fellow neighbors in times of trouble, and an unwavering commitment to 
perform their duties at any time, day or night, whenever they were 
needed. I know that my experience was not a unique one, and that the 
volunteers of the Medway-Grapeville Company are equally dedicated to 
and superbly skilled in their most crucial roles as community 
protectors.
  Mr. Speaker, on May 6, the Medway-Grapeville will celebrate its 50th 
year of service to Greene County. I would now ask that all Members join 
me in paying tribute to the Medway-Grapeville Volunteer Fire Company, 
as it celebrates a half-century of firefighting excellence.

                          ____________________
```
#### Robbins *v.*Pomeroy Manufacturing Company

[No. 19,466.

Filed April 28, 1960.]

*505
      *William P. Dennigan,*of Vincennes, for appellant.

*McCray & Clark, Herman L. McCray, Gaylon L. Clark, Jr. and William E. Statham,*all of Evansville, for appellee.

Myers, C. J.

This is an appeal from an award of the Full Industrial Board of Indiana which denied Workmen’s Compensation benefits to the appellant herein.

On the 24th day of December, 1959, the Board entered the award denying benefits. In accordance with §40-1512, Burns’ Ind. Stat., appellant was required to file her assignment of errors and transcript of the record in the office of the Clerk of the Supreme and Appellate Courts within thirty days from the date of the said award, which would have been on or before January 23, 1960. It is apparent from the record that the transcript and assignment of errors were filed with the Clerk of the Appellate Court on the 24th day of March, 1960. Appellant did not request or obtain an extension of time from this court within which to file her transcript and assignment of errors.

Appellee has entered a special appearance and moved that this appeal be dismissed on the ground that this court has no jurisdiction because of appellant’s failure to perfect her appeal on or before thirty days from the date of the award as required by statute.

In her answer to appellee’s motion to dismiss, appellant admits that the thirty-day rule was overlooked and that she proceeded on the basis of the Supreme Court rule for the filing of appeals and reviews in the “ordinary” court case, wherein ninety days are granted from either the date of the judgment *506or the ruling on the motion for a new trial. (Supreme Court Rule 2-2.) The rule states that if the statute under which an appeal or review is taken fixes a shorter time, the statute shall control. In this case the statute pertaining to appeals in Workmen’s Compensation cases fixes thirty days, and, before a shorter time, is controlling. Section 40-1512, Burns’ Ind. Stat.

The fact that appellant was mistaken or was without knowledge as to the time within which the appeal should have been perfected can be of no avail. There is no question but that when a transcript and assignment of errors in an appeal from an award of the Industrial Board is filed more than thirty days from the date of the award, such appeal must be dismissed, for the timely filing is jurisdictional. *Highfield v*. *Duffy*(1917), 64 Ind. App. 102, 115 N. E. 347; *Wenzel*v. *National Refining Co.*(1953), 123 Ind. App. 699, 114 N. E. 2d 562; *Kiradlo*v. *Pisula, Admr., etc.*(1953), 232 Ind. 659, 115 N. E. 2d 744; *Dawson et al.*v. *Wright, Mayor, etc., et al.*(1955), 234 Ind. 626, 129 N. E. 2d 796; *Higginson*v. *State*(1957), 237 Ind. 256, 142 N. E. 2d 435. See, also, Flanagan, Wiltrout and Hamilton’s Indiana Trial and Appellate Practice, §§2471, 2524 (1959 Pocket Part, pp. 77, 88).

Appeal dismissed.

Note. — Reported in 166 N. E. 2d 528.