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 Homeland Security

###### Federal Emergency Management Agency

# AGENCY:

Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

FEMA gives notice of an increase of the maximum amount for Small Project Grants to State and local governments and private nonprofit facilities for disasters declared on or after October 1, 2010.

# DATES:

*Effective Date:*                         October 1, 2010, and applies to major disasters declared on or after October 1, 2010.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Tod Wells, Recovery Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-3834.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (the Stafford Act), 42 U.S.C. 5121-5207, prescribes that FEMA must annually adjust the maximum grant amount made under section 422, Small Project Grants, Simplified Procedure, relating to the Public Assistance program, to reflect changes in the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers published by the Department of Labor.

FEMA gives notice of an increase of the maximum amount of any Small Project Grant made to the State, local government, or to the owner or operator of an eligible private nonprofit facility, under section 422 of the Stafford Act, to $63,900 for all disasters declared on or after October 1, 2010.

FEMA bases the adjustment on an increase in the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers of 1.1 percent for the 12-month period ended in August 2010. The Bureau of Labor Statistics of the U.S. Department of Labor released the information on September 17, 2010.

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 97.036, Public Assistance Grants.

W. Craig Fugate,

Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.

[FR Doc. 2010-25329 Filed 10-6-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 9111-23-P
EXHIBIT 31.1

    Certification Required by Securities Exchange Act of 1934 Rule 13a-14(a)
                           (Chief Executive Officer)

I, Joseph L. LaMonica, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of PennFed Financial
Services, Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a
material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements
made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not
misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as
of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for
establishing and 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 and procedures to be designed under our supervision,
      to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including
      its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those
      entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being
      prepared;

      b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
      procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
      effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of
      the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

      c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal
      control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's
      most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the
      case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably
      likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal control over
      financial reporting; and

5. The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors
(or persons performing the equivalent functions):

      a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
      operation of internal control over financial reporting which are
      reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record,
      process, summarize and report financial information; and

      b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
      employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control
      over financial reporting.

Date: February 9, 2005


/s/ Joseph L. LaMonica
----------------------------------------
Joseph L. LaMonica
President and Chief Executive Officer


                                       30
585 A.2d 373

#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. HENRY BROWN.

September 18, 1990.

Petition for certification denied.
EXHIBIT 11.1

                               FRESH AMERICA CORP.

                       COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS*

                    (In thousands, except per share amounts)

                                          QUARTER ENDED       NINE MONTHS ENDED
                                      ---------------------  -------------------
                                       Sept. 27, Sept. 26, Sept. 27  Sept. 26,
                                         1996       1997       1996       1997
                                       --------   --------   --------   --------
Net income applicable to common and
 common equivalent shares ..........   $    811   $  1,081   $  2,565   $  3,557
                                       ========   ========   ========   ========
Weighted average common shares
 outstanding .......................      3,698      3,760      3,697      3,745
Effect of stock options and warrants        239        215        221        226
                                       --------   --------   --------   --------
Weighted average common and common
  equivalent shares ................      3,937      3,975      3,918      3,971
                                       ========   ========   ========   ========
Net income per common and common
equivalent share - fully diluted ...   $   0.21   $   0.27   $   0.65   $   0.90
                                       ========   ========   ========   ========

*  Earnings per share are presented on a fully diluted basis.
No. 13,490.

#### Wheeler *v.*The City of Plymouth.

*City.*— Explosives—Negligence.—Damages *to Property of Citizen.*— Liability *of City.*— A city is not liable for damages caused to the property of a citizen by the negligent manner in which other persons, acting under permission from the mayor, fire explosives within the city.

*Same.*— Failure *to Enforce or Enact Ordinances.*— A municipal corporation is not liable for a negligent failure to enforce an ordinance, nor for omitting to enact ordinances.

*Same.*— Liability *for Act of Licensee.*— A municipal corporation is not liable for the acts of its licensees unless it is shown that an act authorized was dangerous in itself.

From the Marshall Circuit Court.

*S. Parker,*for appellant.

*A. C. Capron,*for appellee. .

Elliott, J.

The city of Plymouth had in force on the 4th day of July, 1885, and for a long time prior to that day,, an ordinance prohibiting the firing of gunpowder or any other explosive substance, except in cases where the mayor,, on occasions of public rejoicing, granted permission to fire guns, cannon or other things in which gunpowder could be used. On the day named the mayor did grant permission to fire-gunpowder in an anvil on a lot in the city near where there was sand, gravel and other things of like character. In firing the anvil pebbles and gravel were thrown against the plate-glass doors of the appellant’s building, shattering and breaking them. For the loss thus caused him he brings this action. The action can not be maintained.

A municipal corporation is not liable for a negligent failure to enforce an ordinance, nor is it liable for omitting to enact ordinances. *City of Lafayette*v. *Timberlake,*88 Ind. 330, and authorities cited; *Dooley*v. *Town of Sullivan,*112 *159Ind. 451 (2 Am. St. R. 209); *McDade*v. *Chester City,*117 Pa. St. 414 (2 Am. St. R. 681).

Filed Nov. 16, 1888.

There is no actionable breach of corporate duty in failing to enact a proper ordinance, or in failing to enforce one that has been enacted, and, consequently, this action can not be maintained upon the theory that there was not a proper ordinance, nor upon the theory that the ordinance was not enforced.

The act of the mayor in granting permission to fire the anvil did not create a liability against the city. The utmost that can be granted is that the act of the mayor constituted the wrong-doers the licensees of the corporation, and granting this, but by no means so deciding, the city is not liable for their act, because it is not shown that it was intrinsically dangerous. It is quite well settled that a municipal corporation is not liable for the acts of its licensees unless it is shown that they were authorized to perform an act dangerous in itself. *City of Warsaw*v. *Dunlap,*112 Ind. 576 (580); *Dooley v. Town of Sullivan, supra; Ryan*v. *Curran,*64 Ind. 345 (31 Am. R. 123).

Here there is nothing to show that the authorized act was intrinsically dangerous; on the contrary, the danger arose from the negligent manner in which the licensees performed the act.

Judgment affirmed.
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

TIMOTHY MARIBONA,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D2023-0582

[March 7, 2024]

Appeal from the County Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, St. 

Lucie County; Jeffrey Walton Hendriks, Judge; L.T. Case No. 

562022MM000177 A. 

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Benjamin Eisenberg, Assistant 

Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Luke R. Napodano, 

Senior Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

WARNER, LEVINE and ARTAU, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
| (logo) WELLS FARGO | **Corporate Trust Services**

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

 

 

J.P. Morgan Chase Commercial MortgageSecurities Corp. 

383 Madison Avenue

31st Floor

New York, New York 10179

 

Re: Annual Statement ofCompliance for JPMBB Commercial Mortgage Securities Trust 2014-C18, CommercialMortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2014-C18

 

Per the Pooling and ServicingAgreement dated as of February 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 |
|------------------------|-------------------------------------|
#### Willamena PARETTI v. GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, MetLife Financial Services and Barry J. Bellina.

No. 2012-C-0583.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 20, 2012.

In re Beilina, Barry J.; MetLife Financial Services; Metropolitan Life Insurance Company; — Defendant(s); Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 2005-12231; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2011 CA 0844.

Denied.
EX-10.1.H









Exhibit 10.1(h)




EIGHTH AMENDMENT

OF

U.S. BANK NON-QUALIFIED RETIREMENT PLAN




     The U.S. Bank Non-Qualified Retirement Plan (the “Plan”) is amended in the following respects:


1. OPTIONAL PAYMENT FORMS. Effective January 1, 2005, the fourth full paragraph Section 4.3 of the
Plan (which begins, “No optional payment . . .”) shall be deleted and replaced in its entirety with
the following paragraph:



If a Participant was married at the time that the last optional payment election form was filed by
such Participant at least twelve full months prior to the Participant’s termination of employment
and either (a) the Participant is married to a different spouse on the date the Participant’s
benefit commences, or (b) if the spouse was named as a joint annuitant on such last optional
payment election form and the spouse dies before the date the Participant’s benefit commences, then
(in either case) the Participant’s optional payment election shall be void and have no effect, and
the Participant’s benefit shall be paid in the applicable normal form described in Section 4.2.



2. FORM OF PAYMENT. Effective January 1, 2005, Section 5.5 of the Plan shall be amended to a
sentence to the end of Section 5.5 that reads as follows:



Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the various plans, contracts or arrangements
set forth in this Article 5 and related Appendices, there shall be no requirement that a married
Participant obtain written spousal consent and spousal signature notarization with respect to any
optional payment election form.



3. OPTIONAL PAYMENT FORMS. Effective January 1, 2005, the second full paragraph Section 6.6 of the
Plan (which begins, “No optional payment . . .”) shall be deleted and replaced in its entirety with
the following paragraph:



If a Participant was married at the time that the last optional payment election form was filed by
such Participant at least twelve full months prior to the Participant’s termination of employment
and either (a) the Participant is married to a different spouse on the date the Participant’s
benefit commences, or (b) if the spouse was named as a joint annuitant on such last optional
payment election form and the spouse dies before the date the Participant’s benefit commences, then
(in either case) the Participant’s optional payment election shall be void and have no effect, and
the Participant’s benefit shall be paid in the normal form described in the applicable Appendix B.



4. SAVINGS CLAUSE. Save and except as expressly amended above, the Plan shall continue in full
force and effect.





1
#### STATE ex rel. Marshall WHITLEY v. STATE of Louisiana.

No. 2009-KH-2760.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Nov. 19, 2010.

In re Whitley, Marshall; —Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. G, Nos. 313-400, 312-936; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2009-K-1454.

Denied. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8; *State ex rel. Glover v. State,*93-2330 (La.9/5/95), 660 So.2d 1189; *State v. Parker,*98-0256 (La.5/8/98), 711 So.2d 694; cf. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.4(D).
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Jeff Andrew HAGGINS.

No. 2010-KP-1977.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 1, 2011.

In re Haggins, Jeff Andrew; —Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or *1247Remedial Writs, Parish of St. Martin, 16th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 95-168,010; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. KW 09-01189.

Denied.
585 A.2d 384

#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. EDWARD G. TYLER.

October 2, 1990.

Petition for certification denied.
This memorandum opinion was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports. Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain computer-generated errors or other deviations from the official paper version filed by the Court of Appeals and does not include the filing date.
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO 1 WM SPECIALTY MORTGAGE, LLC, 2 Plaintiff/Counterdefendant-Appellee, 3

v. No. 35,166 4 GREG JOHNSON, a/k/a 5 GREGORY P. JOHNSON; and 6 OLGA JOHNSON, 7 Defendants/Counterclaimants-Appellants, 8 and 9 HOME LOAN SERVICES, INC., 10 f/k/a NATIONAL CITY MORTGAGE CO., 11 Defendants, 12 and 13 GREG JOHNSON and OLGA JOHNSON, 14 Third-Party Plaintiffs, 15

v. 16 ACCREDITED HOME LENDERS, INC.; 17 NATIONWIDE CREDIT, INC.; 18 BANK OF AMERICA HOME LOANS; 192 WM SPECIALTY MORTGAGE, LLC; 1 NATIONAL CITY MORTGAGE, INC.; 2 FINANCIAL MORTGAGE GROUP, LLC; 3 and MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC 4 REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC., 5 Third-Party Defendants. 6 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY 7 Nan G. Nash, District Judge 8 Montgomery & Andrews, P.A. 9 Seth C. McMillan 10 Santa Fe, NM 11 Quilling, Selander, Lownds Winslett & Moser, P.C. 12 Marcie L. Schout 13 Dallas, TX 14 for Appellee WM Specialty Mortgage, LLC 15 JRSPC, LLC 16 Joshua R. Simms 17 Albuquerque, NM 18 for Appellants and Third-Party Plaintiffs Greg and Olga Johnson 19 MEMORANDUM OPINION 20 VIGIL, Judge. 21 {1} Summary reversal was proposed for the reasons stated in the notice of proposed 22 summary disposition. No memorandum opposing summary reversal has been filed 23 and the time for doing so has expired. 24 {2} IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 {3} REVERSED. 263 __________________________________ 1 MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Judge 2

WE CONCUR: 3

___________________________ 4JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge 5

___________________________ 6 J. MILES HANISEE, Judge 7
```

                            SHARE PURCHASE AGREEMENT

The Shareholders of Global Gemstone & Jewelry Inc., Dirk Witte, as to FIFTY
ONE (51) SHARES, and Ian Jones, as to FORTY NINE (49) SHARES, hereby agree to
sell to Winmax Trading Group, Inc. and Winmax Trading Group, Inc. agrees to
purchase ONE HUNDRED (100%) PER CENT of the said issued shares of Global
Gemstone & Jewelry Inc. free and clear of any and an encumbrances for and in
consideration of SEVEN HUNDRED FIFTY ($750.00) DOLLARS per share being SEVENTY
FIVE THOUSAND ($75,000.00) DOLLARS payable SEVENTY FOUR THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED
FIFTY ($74,250,00) DOLLARS to Dirk Witte and SEVEN HUNDRED FIFTY ($750.00)
DOLLARS payable to Ian Jones the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged by Dirk
Witte and Ian Jones as is evidenced by their signatures affixed hereon.

The said shareholders of Global Gemstone & Jewelry Inc., Dirk Witte and
Jones, hereby represent and warrant to Winmax Trading Group, Inc., and are aware
that Winmax Trading Group Inc. is relying upon said representations and
warrants that:

a) Each of Dirk Witte and Ian Jones have the legal right to sell their shares to
   Winmax Trading Group, Inc. free and clear of any and all encumbrances
   whatsoever and wheresoever;

b) The shares of Global Gemstone and Jewelry being transferred to Winmax Trading
   Group, Inc. have not and are not presently security or encumbered in any
   manner by any entity whatsoever and wheresoever;

c) That Global Gemstone & Jewelry is not indebted to any entity whatsoever
   and wheresoever in any amount;

d) That there are no other shareholders of Global Gemstone & Jewelry save
   and except for Dirk Witte and Ian Jones, the vendors of the shares herein and
   that the shares being transferred to Winmax Trading Group, Inc. are all of
   the issued shares of Global Gemstone & Jewelry Inc.; and

e) The within transaction being the sale of all the issued shares of Global
   Gemstone & Jewelry Inc. has been unanimously approved by the current
   Shareholders, Officers end Directors of Global Gemstone & Jewelry Inc.
   being the said Dirk Witte and Ian Jones.

DATED AT CHANGMI IN THE COUNTRY OF THAILAND THIS 15 DAY OF NOVEMBER AD 2001.

Dirk Witte                            Witness as to signature of Dirk Witte
/s/ Dirk Witte                        _____________________________________

Ian Jones                             Witness as to signature of Ian Jones
/s/ Ian Jones                         _____________________________________

Winmax Trading Group, Inc.
/s/ Gerald E. Sklar  (SEAL)
Gerald E. Sklar
President
```
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED JANUARY 13, 2017

NO. 03-15-00247-CR

Kayla Jean Lardieri, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE 207TH DISTRICT COURT OF COMAL COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES PURYEAR, GOODWIN, AND BOURLAND

AFFIRMED -- OPINION BY JUSTICE GOODWIN

This is an appeal from the judgments of conviction entered by the trial court. Having reviewed 

the record and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was no reversible error in the 

trial court’s judgments of conviction. Therefore, the Court affirms the trial court’s judgments of 

conviction. Because appellant is indigent and unable to pay costs, no adjudication of costs 

is made.
Exhibit 32.2 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 In connection with the Quarterly Report of Kenneth Cole Productions,
                  Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31,
                  2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
                  hereof (the "Report"), I, David P. Edelman, Chief Financial Officer
                  of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted
                  pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
                  or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
                  material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
                  of the Company. /s/ DAVID P. EDELMAN David P. EdelmanChief Financial Officer(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)Kenneth Cole Productions, Inc. May 6, 2011