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 Energy

###### Bonneville Power Administration

# AGENCY:

Bonneville Power Administration (BPA), Department of Energy (DOE).

# ACTION:

Notice of Availability of Record of Decision (ROD).

# SUMMARY:

The Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) has decided to offer Puget Sound Energy Inc., a Large Generator Interconnection Agreement for interconnection of up to 1250 megawatts of power into the Federal Columbia River Transmission System. The power would be generated from their proposed Lower Snake River Wind Energy Project (Wind Project) in Garfield and Columbia counties, Washington. To interconnect the Wind Project, BPA will construct a new substation (Central Ferry Substation) on the Little Goose-Lower Granite 500-kilovolt transmission lines near the Port of Central Ferry, Washington. This decision to interconnect the Wind Project is consistent with and tiered to BPA's Business Plan Environmental Impact Statement (DOE/EIS-0183, June 1995), and the Business Plan Record of Decision (BP ROD, August 1995).

# ADDRESSES:

                        Copies of this tiered ROD and the Business Plan EIS may be obtained by calling BPA's toll-free document request line, 1-800-622-4520. The RODs and EIS are also available on our Web site,                         *http://www.efw.bpa.gov.*

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Tish Eaton, Bonneville Power Administration—KEC-4, P.O. Box 3621, Portland, Oregon 97208-3621; toll-free telephone number 1-800-622-4519; fax number 503-230-5699; or e-mail                         *tkeaton@bpa.gov.*

Issued in Portland, Oregon, on January 28, 2010.

Stephen J. Wright,

Administrator and Chief Executive Officer.

[FR Doc. 2010-2518 Filed 2-4-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
I 

115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 7133 

To clarify the definition of nonadmitted insurer under the Nonadmitted and 

Reinsurance Reform Act of 2010, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 14, 2018 

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

on Financial Services, and in addition to the Committee on the Judiciary, 

for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case 

for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the 

committee concerned 

A BILL 

To clarify the definition of nonadmitted insurer under the 

Nonadmitted and Reinsurance Reform Act of 2010, 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, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Captive Insurers Clari5 fication Act’’. 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 7133 IH

1 SEC. 2. CAPTIVE INSURERS. 

2 (a) DEFINITIONS.—Section 527 of the Nonadmitted 

3 and Reinsurance Reform Act of 2010 (15 U.S.C. 8206) 

4 is amended— 

5 (1) by redesignating paragraphs (4) through 

6 (16) as paragraphs (5) through (17), respectively; 

7 (2) by inserting after paragraph (3) the fol8 lowing: 

9 ‘‘(4) CAPTIVE INSURANCE COMPANY.—The 

10 term ‘captive insurance company’ includes any insur11 ance company— 

12 ‘‘(A) that is wholly owned, directly or indi13 rectly, by a single parent company, and whose 

14 primary purpose is to provide insurance to 

15 cover the risks of such single parent company 

16 or any affiliates of such single parent company; 

17 ‘‘(B) that is wholly owned, directly or indi18 rectly, by a group of companies, and whose pri19 mary purpose is to provide insurance to cover 

20 the risks of such group of companies or any af21 filiates of such group of companies; and 

22 ‘‘(C) that is wholly owned, directly or indi23 rectly, by an industry, trade, or service group or 

24 association, and whose primary purpose is to 

25 provide insurance to cover the risks to any 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 7133 IH

1 member in such group or association or any af2 filiate of such member.’’; and 

3 (3) in paragraph (12)(B), as so redesignated— 

4 (A) by striking ‘‘(B) does not include a 

5 risk retention group’’ and inserting the fol6 lowing: 

7 ‘‘(B) does not include— 

8 ‘‘(i) a risk retention group’’; 

9 (B) by striking the period at the end and 

10 inserting ‘‘; or’’; and 

11 (C) by adding at the end the following: 

12 ‘‘(ii) a captive insurance company.’’. 

13 (b) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.—This Act and the 

14 amendments made by this Act may not be construed to 

15 limit a State’s taxing authority over an insured with re16 spect to any self-procurement transaction involving a cap17 tive insurance company. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
| (logo) WELLS FARGO | **Corporate Trust Services**

  MAC R1204-010  9062 Old Annapolis Road  Columbia, MD 21045  Tel:  410 884 2000  Fax:  410 715 2380 |
|--------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

Re:  Annual Statement ofCompliance for RBS Commercial Funding Inc., Commercial Mortgage Pass-ThroughCertificates, Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2014-C21

 

 

Per the Pooling and ServicingAgreement dated as of August 1, 2014 (the "Agreement"), theundersigned, a duly authorized officer of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., asCertificate Administrator ("Wells Fargo"), hereby certifies asfollows as of and for the year ending December 31, 2016 (the "ReportingPeriod"):

 

(a) A review of Wells Fargo'sactivities during the Reporting Period and of its performance under theAgreement has been made under such officer's supervision; and

 

(b) To the best of suchofficer's knowledge, based on such review, Wells Fargo has fulfilled all of itsobligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout theReporting Period.

 

 

February 27, 2017

 

 

/s/ Brian Smith

BRIAN SMITH

Vice President

  

| Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. | (logo) Together we’ll  go far |
|------------------------|-------------------------------------|
**EXHIBIT 31.2****CERTIFICATION**     I, Laurie L. Latham, certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of ViewCast.com, Inc.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presentedin this report; 4. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishingand maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the small business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is madeknown to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared;(b) [Intentionally omitted];(c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report basedon such evaluation; and(d) Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the small business issuer’s most recent fiscalquarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, thesmall business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting; and5. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuer’sauditors and the audit committee of the small business issuer’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions):(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe small business issuer’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who havea significant role in the small business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting.        Date:  August 14, 2007  /s/  Laurie L. Latham   Laurie L. Latham   Chief Financial Officer
I 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 775 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to inflation adjust the $5,000 

limitation with respect to dependent care assistance programs and flexible 

spending arrangements. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 31, 2017 

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

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to inflation 

adjust the $5,000 limitation with respect to dependent 

care assistance programs and flexible spending arrangements. 

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

3 SECTION 1. INFLATION ADJUSTMENT FOR DEPENDENT 

4 CARE ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS AND FLEXIBLE 

5 SPENDING ARRANGEMENTS. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 129(a)(2) of the Internal 

7 Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end 

8 the following new subparagraph: 


smartinez on DSK3GLQ082PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 775 IH

1 ‘‘(D) INFLATION ADJUSTMENT.—In the 

2 case of any taxable year beginning after Decem3 ber 31, 2017, the dollar amounts in subpara4 graph (A) shall be increased by an amount 

5 equal to— 

6 ‘‘(i) such amount, multiplied by 

7 ‘‘(ii) the cost-of-living adjustment de8 termined under section 1(f)(3) for the cal9 endar year in which such taxable year be10 gins by substituting ‘calendar year 2014’ 

11 for ‘calendar year 1992’ in subparagraph 

12 (B) thereof. 

13 If any increase determined under this para14 graph is not a multiple of $50, such increase 

15 shall be rounded to the next lowest multiple of 

16 $50.’’. 

17 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

18 this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after 

19 December 31, 2017. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK3GLQ082PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 13.1





Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350





Pursuant to U.S.C. Section 1350 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), each of the undersigned officers of Check-Cap Ltd. (the “Company”), does hereby certify, to such officer’s knowledge, that:





The Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2015 of the Company fully complies, in all material respects, with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in the Form 20-F fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





CHECK-CAP LTD.March 15, 2016
By:
/s/ William DenselName:
William DenselTitle:
Chief Executive Officer and Director(Principal Executive Officer)March 15, 2016
By:
/s/ Lior ToremName:
Lior ToremTitle:
Chief Financial Officer(Principal Financial Officer

and Principal Accounting Officer)
#### Bruce A. LING, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D06-2787.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Aug. 25, 2010.

Rehearing Denied Oct. 11, 2010.

Michael Ufferman of Michael Ufferman Law Firm, P.A., Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Bill McCollum, Attorney General, and Heather Flanagan Ross, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Bruce A. Ling, challenges the revocation of his probation on several grounds. We affirm the trial court’s revo*484cation of probation and imposition of sentence, but remand for entry of a corrected scoresheet because the scoresheet erroneously included four points for a legal status violation. Appellant need not be present.

AFFIRMED in part and REMANDED in part for entry of a corrected scoresheet.

WEBSTER, DAVIS, and VAN NORTWICK, JJ., concur.
#### Carlos HERNANDEZ, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D09-4232.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Oct. 27, 2010.

Carlos Hernandez, Jasper, pro se.

Bill McCollum, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Joseph A. Tringali, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

CIKLIN, J.

Appellant, Carlos Hernandez, appeals from an order denying his motion for return of property (U.S. currency) that was confiscated from him at the time of his arrest. The trial court denied his motion and ordered the state attorney’s office to remit the confiscated $562 to the clerk of the court to satisfy a mandatory court costs judgment previously entered by the trial court in the amount of $487.

Of the monies confiscated and remitted to the clerk of the court, $75 was attributed to public defender attorney’s fees; however, the record is devoid of any written judgment covering such a financial obligation. *See*§ 938.29(l)(a), Fla. Stat. (2009) (“A defendant who is convicted of a criminal act ... and who has received the assistance of the public defender’s office [or] a special assistant public defender ... shall be liable for payment of the assessed application fee under s. 27.52 and attorney’s fees and costs.... *The court shall include these fees and costs in every judgment rendered against the convicted person.”)*(emphasis added).

Because the record does not contain a judgment attributable to public defender attorney’s fees, the trial court was not entitled to order the entire $562 confiscated from Hernandez to be remitted to the clerk of the court. As such, this matter is remanded to the trial court with instructions to enter an order requiring the return of the appellant’s $75. Alternatively, the lower court may impose a judgment against Hernandez covering the $75 balance (and presumably more) representing the value of the services received by Hernandez from the public defender if the requirements of documentation, notice and *177opportunity for the appellant to be heard are met. *See*§ 938.30(6), Fla. Stat. (2009) (“If judgment has not been previously entered on any court-imposed financial obligation, the court may enter judgment thereon.... Any judgment issued under this section constitutes a civil lien against the judgment debtor’s presently owned or after-acquired property_”); *Alexis v. State,*12 So.3d 1281, 1282 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009).

*Reversed and remanded with instructions.*

TAYLOR and HAZOURI, JJ., concur.
#### Phillip Kirk JOHNSON, Jr., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 5D10-1780.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Sept. 17, 2010.

Phillip Kirk Johnson, Jr., Bushnell, pro se.

Bill McCollum, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Allison Leigh Morris, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

ON CONCESSION OF ERROR

LAWSON, J.

Phillip Kirk Johnson, Jr., appeals the denial of his motion to correct illegal sentence,1 claiming that the thirty-year prison releasee reoffender2 sentence imposed on his 2008 conviction for attempted robbery with a firearm exceeds the maximum penalty allowed by law on that charge. The State properly concedes error.

Robbery with a firearm is a first-degree felony, punishable by life. *See*§ 812.13(1),(2)(a), Fla. Stat. (2008). An attempt to commit the crime is reclassified as a second-degree felony, which carries a maximum penalty of fifteen years in state prison. *See*§ 777.04(4)(c), Fla. Stat. (2008) and § 775.082(3)(c), Fla. Stat. (2008); *see also Johnson v. State,*17 So.3d 1290, 1291 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (“Robbery with a firearm is a first-degree felony, and the attempt to commit a first-degree felony is a second-degree felony.”). Because of Johnson’s designation as a prison re-leasee reoffender, the trial court must impose the maximum penalty of fifteen years. *See*§ 775.082(9)(a)3.c., Fla. Stat. (2008).

Additionally, the information in this case alleged that Johnson actually possessed the firearm during commission of the crime for purposes of section 775.087(2)(a), Florida Statutes (2008), which requires imposition of a ten-year minimum mandatory sentence. Because the jury found that Johnson actually possessed a firearm while committing this offense, the ten-year mandatory minimum sentence must also be imposed. *Id.; McDonald v. State,*957 So.2d 605, 610-12 (Fla.2007).

Accordingly, we reverse the order denying Johnson’s motion and remand with instructions that Johnson be resentenced in accordance with this opinion.

REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS.

MONAGO, C.J., and SAWAYA, J., concur.

1

. *See*Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.800(a).

2

. *See*§ 775.082(9), Fla. Stat. (2008).
645 A.2d 89

#### IN THE MATTER OF CHRISTOPHER H. RILEY, JR., AN ATTORNEY AT LAW.

July 22, 1994.

ORDER

The Office of Attorney Ethics having filed a petition with the Supreme Court recommending that CHRISTOPHER H. RILEY, JR., of MILLVILLE, be immediately temporarily suspended from the practice of law, and good cause appearing;

It is ORDERED that CHRISTOPHER H. RILEY, JR. is temporarily suspended from the practice of law, effective immediately, and until further Order of this Court; and it is further

ORDERED that the Office of Attorney Ethics take such protective action, pursuant to *Rule*1:20 — 11(c), as may be appropriate to gain possession and control of the legal files, records, practice and trust assets of CHRISTOPHER H. RILEY, JR., wherever situate, pending further Order of this Court; and it is further

ORDERED that all funds, if any, currently existing in any New Jersey financial institution maintained by CHRISTOPHER H. RILEY, JR., pursuant to *Rule*1:21-6, shall be restrained from disbursement except upon application to this Court, for good cause shown, pending the further Order of this Court; and it is further

ORDERED that CHRISTOPHER H. RILEY, JR. show cause before this Court on September 12, 1994, at 2:00 p.m., Supreme Court Courtroom, Hughes Justice Complex, Trenton, New Jersey, why his temporary suspension and the restraints herein should not continue pending final disposition of any ethics proceedings pending against him and further why the funds restrained from disbursement should not be transmitted by the financial institutions who are the present custodians to the Clerk of the Superior Court for deposit in the Superior Court Trust Fund, pending the further Order of this Court-; and it is further

*216ORDERED that David E. Johnson, Jr., Esquire, or his designee, present this matter to the Court; and it is further

ORDERED that CHRISTOPHER H. RILEY, JR. be restrained and enjoined from practicing law during the period of his suspension and that he comply with Administrative Guideline No. 28 of the Office of Attorney Ethics dealing with suspended attorneys.
### T E X A S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S , T H I R D D I S T R I C T , A T A U S T I N

NO. 03-13-00429- CV
Ex parte Car olyn B arnes

ORI GINAL P ROCEEDI NG F ROM WI LLIAM SO N COUNTY

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N Caroly n Ba rnes has filed an o rig inal application for writ of habea s corpus in this Court. I n her application, Ba rnes contends that she “is suffe ring an unlawful extraterritorial restra int

on her liberty ,” having been char g ed by indictment with a first deg ree felony , and that “on appea l this ‘convic tio n ’ will be overturne d.” Ba rnes pray s that the she be immediately rele ased or, in the alterna tive, that this Court reduce the amount of her appellate bond. 1 This Court’s orig inal jurisdiction to issue a writ of habea s corpus is limit ed to those

case s in which a person’ s liberty is restra ined beca use the person has violated an order , judgme nt, or decr ee enter ed in a civil case . See Tex. Gov’t Code § 22.221(d); Dodson v. State , 988 S.W .2d 833, 8 3 5 ( T e x. A

p p . — Sa n A n to n io 1 9 9 9 , n o p e t. )

. M o r e o v e r , a r ti c le 1 1

. 0 7 o f th e T e xa s Co d e o f Cr im in a l Pro c e d u re vests complete jurisdiction over post-conviction relief from final felony convictions in the

Article 44.04 of the Code of Criminal Procedur e allows a convicted defe ndant to seek, in 1 the trial court, rea sonable bail pending appea l under cer tain circ umstances. Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 44.04(b). The statute also provides for a separ ate, pref ere ntial a ppeal for complaints about the trial court’s action in setting bond pending appea l. Id

. art. 44.04(g ). Her e, Ba rnes has not filed notice of appea l with respe ct t o an y trial court order deny ing her reque st, if made, to reduc e the amount of her bond pending appea l. Acc ording ly , we lack j u ri s d iction to consider any complaint rela ted to Ba

rnes’ s appellate bond in this proceeding

.Texas Court of Criminal Appea ls. See Padieu v. Court of Appeals of Tex., Fifth Dist ., 392 S.W .3d 115, 117 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013); see als o T ex . C ode Crim. Proc. art. 11.07, § 5. Ba rnes is in custody pursuant to a felony conviction for ag g rava ted assault. See Tex. Penal Code § 22.02(a) (2). Acc ording ly , we dismiss her applica tion for writ of ha

beas c orpus for w ant of jurisdiction.

__________________________________________ Scott K. Field, Just ice Be fore Chief J ustice Jones, J ustices Pemberton a nd Field Filed: Jul y

12, 2013

2
Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h
Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk August 6, 2009

s0720 

# Order

August 6, 2009

138063 & (13)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 138063 COA: 287863 Saginaw CC: 85-006602-FH FELTON WOODS, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 22, 2008 order of the Court of Appeal s is considered, and it is DE NIED, because the defendant’s motion for relief from judgment is prohibited by MCR 6.502 (G). The motion to remand
is DENIED.
584 A.2d 207

#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. CARLOS R. DIAZ.

May 7, 1990.

Petition for certification denied.