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

          - [Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-1941-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2010-0002]

# AGENCY:

Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

This notice amends the notice of a major disaster for the State of Minnesota (FEMA-1941-DR), dated October 13, 2010, and related determinations.

# DATES:

*Effective Date:*                         October 14, 2010.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Peggy Miller, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-3886.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Notice is hereby given that the incident period for this declared disaster is closed effective October 14, 2010.

(The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households in Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance—Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households—Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants—Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.)

W. Craig Fugate,

Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.

[FR Doc. 2010-26846 Filed 10-22-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 9111-23-P
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

IN RE: J.J.H., A MINOR

PETITION OF: L.D., JR., FATHER

:

:

:

:

:

No. 271 MAL 2018

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 26th day of June, 2018, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 206 (Tuesday, October 26, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 65644]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-27050]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

[AA-11937, AA-11938, AA-11939, AA-11940, AA-11944, AA-11943, AA-11941, 
AA-11936, AA-11933, AA-11928, AA-11929, AA-11931, AA-11932; LLAK-
962000-L14100000-HY0000-P]


Alaska Native Claims Selection

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of decision approving lands for conveyance.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: As required by 43 CFR 2650.7(d), notice is hereby given that 
the Bureau of Land Management will issue an appealable decision to The 
Aleut Corporation. The decision will approve the conveyance of only the 
surface estate for certain lands pursuant to the Alaska Native Claims 
Settlement Act. The lands are located on the Rat Islands, west of Adak, 
Alaska, aggregating 191.31 acres. Notice of the decision will also be 
published four times in the Anchorage Daily News.

DATES: Any party claiming a property interest in the lands affected by 
the decision may appeal the decision within the following time limits:
    1. Unknown parties, parties unable to be located after reasonable 
efforts have been expended to locate, parties who fail or refuse to 
sign their return receipt, and parties who receive a copy of the 
decision by regular mail which is not certified, return receipt 
requested, shall have until November 26, 2010 to file an appeal.
    2. Parties receiving service of the decision by certified mail 
shall have 30 days from the date of receipt to file an appeal.
    Parties who do not file an appeal in accordance with the 
requirements of 43 CFR part 4, subpart E, shall be deemed to have 
waived their rights.

ADDRESSES: A copy of the decision may be obtained from: Bureau of Land 
Management, Alaska State Office, 222 West Seventh Avenue, <greek-i>13, 
Anchorage, Alaska 99513-7504.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The Bureau of Land Management by phone 
at 907-271-5960, or by e-mail at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#f89993d69a9495d69b97968e9d8199969b9db89993d69a9495d69f978e"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="76171d58141a1b5815191800130f1718151336171d58141a1b58111900">[email protected]</span></a>. Persons 
who use a telecommunication device (TTD) may contact the Bureau of Land 
Management by calling the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 
1-800-877-8339, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

Dina L. Torres,
Land Transfer Resolution Specialist, Branch of Preparation and 
Resolution.
[FR Doc. 2010-27050 Filed 10-25-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-JA-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
| (logo) WELLS FARGO | **Commercial Mortgage  Servicing**D1050-084, 8th Floor  401 South Tryon St.  Charlotte, NC 28202  1-800-326-1334 |
|--------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

**ANNUAL STATEMENT OFCOMPLIANCE**

 

 

Reference is hereby made tothat certain Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of July 1, 2014, by andamong J.P. Morgan Chase Commercial Mortgage Securities Corp., as Depositor,Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as Master Servicer, Midland LoanServices, A Division of PNC Bank, National Association, as Special Servicer,Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as Certificate Administrator,Wilmington Trust, National Association, as Trustee, and Pentalpha SurveillanceLLC, as Senior Trust Advisor with respect to Commercial Mortgage Pass-ThroughCertificates Series 2014-C21 (the "Agreement"). Capitalized termsused herein not otherwise defined shall have the meanings assigned in theAgreement.

 

Pursuant to Section 11.09 ofthis Agreement, I, Daniel Bober, Executive Vice President of CommercialMortgage Services do hereby certify that:

 

1. A review of the activitiesof the Master Servicer during the period from January 1, 2016 through December31, 2016 (the “Reporting Period”), and of its performance per theAgreement during such period has been made under my supervision, and

 

2. To the best of myknowledge, based on such review, the Master Servicer has fulfilled all of itsobligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout theReporting Period.

  

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, theundersigned has executed this Certificate as of the 28th day ofFebruary 2017.

 

/s/ Daniel Bober

Daniel Bober

Executive Vice President 

Wells Fargo Bank 

 

 

| Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. | (logo) Together we’ll  go far |
|------------------------|-------------------------------------|
Appeal No. 2023AP730

Cir. Ct. No. 2021TP41

STATE OF WISCONSIN IN COURT OF APPEALS

DISTRICT III

IN RE THE TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS TO P. K.,

A PERSON UNDER THE AGE OF 18:

BROWN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,

 PETITIONER-RESPONDENT,

 V.

A. K.,

 RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.

FILED

September 13, 

2023

Samuel A. Christensen

Clerk of Court of Appeals

ERRATA SHEET

Samuel A. Christensen

Clerk of Court of Appeals

Electronic Notice

Court of Appeals District I

Electronic Notice

Court of Appeals District III

Electronic Notice

Christina Plum, Sarah Motiff

Electronic Notice

Court of Appeals District II

Electronic Notice

Court of Appeals District IV

Electronic Notice

Hon. Tammy Jo Hock

Circuit Court Judge

Electronic Notice

Cheryl Young

Juvenile Clerk

Brown County Courthouse

Electronic Notice

Samantha Shaw Mabry Wagner

Electronic Notice

Steven Zaleski

Electronic Notice

Richard R. Laurent

Electronic Notice
No. 2023AP730

2

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that corrections were made to paragraphs

1 and 11 in the above-captioned opinion which was released on September 6, 2023. 

A corrected electronic version in its entirety is available on the court’s website at 

www.wicourts.gov. 
No. 2023AP730

3
1

The Honorable Gary A. Fenner, United States District Judge for the Western

District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 07-3697

___________

Darrin C. Savage, *

*

Appellant, *

*

v. * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

Dennis D. Fastnacht, doing business * Western District of Missouri.

as DDF Rental Property, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: February 13, 2009

 Filed: February 24, 2009

___________

Before BYE, COLLOTON, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Darrin Savage appeals the district court’s1

 dismissal--for lack of subject matter

jurisdiction--of his complaint against Dennis Fastnacht and the court’s dismissal of

his motion to amend his complaint.

Upon de novo review of the district court’s dismissal for lack of subject matter

jurisdiction, see LeMay v. U.S. Postal Serv., 450 F.3d 797, 799 (8th Cir. 2006), we
-2-

conclude that the district court correctly held that Savage had not met his burden to

establish (1) diversity jurisdiction, see 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) (diversity requirements);

OnePoint Solutions, LLC v. Borchert, 486 F.3d 342, 346 (8th Cir. 2007) (complete

diversity rule); Jones v. Gale, 470 F.3d 1261, 1265 (8th Cir. 2006) (plaintiff has

burden to establish subject matter jurisdiction); or (2) federal question jurisdiction,

even under a liberal construction of the complaint, see 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal

question jurisdiction); Stone v. Harry, 364 F.3d 912, 914 (8th Cir. 2004) (pro se

complaints are to be construed liberally, but they still must allege sufficient facts to

support claims advanced).

We further conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in

declining to allow Savage to amend his complaint, because the amendments he

proposed would have been futile. See Hammer v. City of Osage Beach, 318 F.3d 832,

844 (8th Cir. 2003) (leave to amend should be denied for, inter alia, futility of

amendment; denial of leave to amend complaint reviewed for abuse of discretion). 

Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. Savage’s pending motions are

denied.

______________________________
#### Farmer *v.*Fairman.

Saturday, *January*11.

If to a suit on a promissory note, the defendant plead the want or failure of consideration, the plaintiff may reply generally that the consideration had not failed, in manner and form as alleged in the plea.

ERROR to the *Tippecanoe*Circuit Court.

Blackford, J.

Debt by *Fairman*against *Farmer*and one *Cole,*on a promissory note payable to *Harter,*and by him assigned to the plaintiff The writ was returned “not found” as to *Cole,*and the return was suggested on the record. *Farmer*pleaded three pleas. 1. *Nil debet.*2. That the consideration of the note was the bargain and sale by indenture of a certain tract -of land by the payee to the defendant and *Cole,*in which indenture the vendor covenanted that he was' seised in fee, and had good right to sell, *258and that *the*land was free from incumbrances; that the plaintiff had no title, &c. 3. That the consideration of the note was the same as mentioned in the second plea; and that the land was incumbered by judgments and other liens to its full value, &c. Replications to the special pleas, that the consideration had not failed in manner and form as alleged in the pleas. General demurrers to the replications and the demurrers overruled.

*A. S. White*and *R. A.*Loclcwood, for the plaintiff.

*A.*Ingram, for the defendant.

The cause was tried on the general issue. Verdict and judgment for the plaintiff.

It is- contended that the replications demurred to are insufficient. The special pleas show a failure of consideration ; and to such pleas in a suit on a promissory note, the replications in question are good. *Mitchell*v. Sheldon, 2 Blackf. 185. The defendant says, the pleas show that there was no consideration for the note. Were that the case, the replications would still be valid. 'Pleas, whether of failure of consideration or of no consideration, admit the promise and avoid the effect of its non-performance by matter of excuse. In such cases, a general denial of the matter of excuse is sufficient. *Griffin*v. *Yates,*2 Bingh. New Cas. 579.

*Per Curiam.*

The judgment is affirmed with costs.
| (logo) ncb  National Cooperative Bank    | 2011 Crystal Drive  Suite, 8oo  Arlington, VA 22202 |
|-----------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------|

 

 

February 6, 2017

 

RBS Commercial Funding, Inc.as Depositor 

600 Washington Blvd.

Stamford, CT 06901

 

RE:         Annual Statement as to Compliance 

WFRBS 2014 C23

 

Dear Sir/Madam:

 

In accordance with the Poolingand Servicing Agreement entered into in connection with the issuance of theCommercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series 2014-C23, as an authorizedofficer of National Cooperative Bank, N.A., formerly NCB, FSB (the “Co-opSpecial Servicer”), I hereby certify that:

 

a. A review of the activitiesof the Co-op Special Servicer during the preceding calendar year (the“Reporting Period”) and of its performance under the Pooling andServicing Agreement has been made under my supervision.

 

b. To the best of myknowledge, based on these reviews, the Co-op Special Servicer has fulfilled allobligations under this agreement in all material respects throughout theReporting Period.

 

Please note that the annualfinancial statement will be sent under separate cover on or before March 31,2017.

 

 

Best regards, 

 

/s/ Karyn Mann

Karyn Mann

Senior Vice President,Investor Compliance 

National Cooperative Bank, N.A.
#### The State *v.*Irvin.

An indictment for unlawfully winning of several persons (naming them) and others, a certain quantity of beef, &c., was held bad for not naming all the persons with whom the bet was made, or stating that the names not given were unknown.

*Monday, June*8.

ERROR to the *Randolph*Circuit Court.

*W. J.*Peaslee, for the state.

*D.*Kilgore, for the defendant.

Dewey, J.

The indictment in this case charges, that the defendant in error unlawfully won of several persons (naming them) “ and others ” a certain quantity of beef, by betting the same with the said persons “ and others,” on a shooting match, &c. The Court below quashed the indictment on the motion of the defendant, and discharged him from the prosecution. The state prosecutes this writ of error.

There is no error in the judgment of the Circuit Court. The indictment is defective in not setting out the names of all the persons with whom the defendant made the wager, or alleging an excuse for the omission. The names of third persons in an indictment should be set forth if they áre known to the grand jury; if they cannot be ascertained, such persons should be stated as certain persons to the jurors unknown. 1 Chitt. Cr. Law, 212.—Bac. Abr. tit. Indict. G. 2.—Arch. Cr. Pr. 33.—2 Hawk. P. C. c. 25. s. *71.—The* St*ate*v. *Stucky,*2 Blackf. *289.*—Butler v. *The*State, decided at this term.

*Per Curiam.*

The judgment is affirmed.
FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

March 23, 2010

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

REYES J. MARTINEZ,

 Petitioner - Appellant,

v. 

RON WILEY, Warden, Federal Prison

Camp - Florence,

 Respondent - Appellee.

No. 09-1548

(D.C. No. 1:09-CV-02036-ZLW)

ORDER

The captioned appeal is dismissed for lack of prosecution pursuant to 10th Cir. R.

42.1 and 3.3(b).

A copy of this order shall stand as and for the mandate of this court.

Entered for the Court,

ELISABETH A. SHUMAKER, Clerk

Appellate Case: 09-1548 Document: 01018389864 Date Filed: 03/23/2010 Page: 1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

FULTON BANK, N.A.

v.

PAUL A. SANDQUIST, PATRICIA A. ZWAAN, BARRY L. SPEVAK AND DOWNEY, SPEVAK & ASSOCIATES,

LTD.

PETITION OF: BARRY L. SPEVAK AND DOWNEY, SPEVAK & ASSOCIATES,

LTD. :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 732 MAL 2017

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

FULTON BANK, N.A.,

Petitioner

v.

PAUL A. SANDQUIST, PATRICIA A. ZWAAN, BARRY L. SPEVAK AND DOWNEY, SPEVAK & ASSOCIATES,
LTD.,

Respondents :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 763 MAL 2017

Cross Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior

Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 3rd day of April, 2018

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. WILLIE CARTER.

May 4, 1987.

Petition for certification denied.
1 min read

# NASA’s X-59 Tail Installed

### Kristen Hatfield

#### Pubic Affairs Specialist

Apr 11, 2023

Image Article

            -   
            -   
            -   
            -   

NASA’s X-59 has undergone final installation of its lower empennage, better known as the tail assembly. This series of images was taken at Lockheed Martin Skunk Works in Palmdale, California. 

This installation allows the team to continue final wiring and system checkouts on the aircraft as it prepares for integrated ground testing, which will include engine runs and taxi tests.  

Once complete, the X-59 aircraft is designed to demonstrate the ability to fly supersonic while reducing the loud sonic boom to a quiet sonic thump. This aircraft is the centerpiece of NASA’s Quesst mission.

@NASA@NASAaero@NASA_es

@NASA@NASAaero@NASA_es

@NASA@NASAaero@NASA_es

@NASA

## Discover More Topics From NASA

Missions

Quesst: The Vehicle

Supersonic Flight

Explore NASA’s History

## Share

                  -   
                  -   
                  -   
                  -   

## Details

jim.banke@nasa.gov

## Related Terms

                - Aeronautics
                - Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate
                - Ames Research Center
                - Armstrong Flight Research Center
                - Glenn Research Center
                - Langley Research Center
                - Low Boom Flight Demonstrator
                - NASA Aircraft
                - Quesst (X-59)
                - Quesst: The Vehicle
                - Supersonic Flight
Exhibit 32.1



SECTION 906 CERTIFICATIONCEO



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Plains Exploration & Production Company (the Company) on Form 10-Q/A for the period ending June 30, 2004
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, James C. Flores, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



To the best of my knowledge, after
reasonable investigation:



| | (1) |  | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | --- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) |  | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.
| | --- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Dated: April 4, 2005.



/s/ James C. FloresJames C. FloresChief Executive Officer




The foregoing certification is being
furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form
within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
UNITED STATES OF AM ER IC A,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lle e , v. ISAAC M ONGE,

De fe nda n t-Appe l la

nt. No. 16-10458

D.C . No. 4:10-c r-00865-DC B -LAB -1
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ariz o na David C . B ury , Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d Fe brua

ry 16, 2018 * * San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : B EA a

nd N.R . SM ITH, C irc uit Judge s, a nd LASNIK, *** Distric t Judge
.



# FIL ED
FEB 21 2018 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U

. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).

* * * The Honora

ble R obe rt S. La snik, Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the W e ste rn Distric t of W a shington, sitting by de signa tion.Issa c M onge a ppe a ls the distric t c o urt’ s orde r de ny ing his m otion for a
re duc t ion of se nte nc e unde r 18 U.S.C . § 3582(c )(2). W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291, a

nd we a ffirm
. M onge argue s tha

t he is e ntitle d to a se nte nc e re duc tion unde r Unite d Stat e s Se nte n c i ng Guide l ine s Am e ndm e nt 782. W e re vie w “ de novo whe the r a distric t
c ourt ha s jurisdic tion to m odify an othe rwise fina l se nte nc e .” Unite d State s v . W ate rs , 771 F.3d 679, 680 (9th C ir. 2014) (pe r c uriam ). A distric t c ourt ha s jurisdic tion to m odify

an im pose d se nte nc e whe re the “ de fe nda nt . . . ha s be e n
se nte nc e d to a

te rm of im

prisonm e nt ba se d on a

se nte nc ing ra

nge that ha s subse q ue ntly be e n lowe re d by

the Se nte nc ing C om

m ission.”18 U.S.C . § 3582(c )(2). M onge is not e ligiblefor se nte nc e re duc tion, be c a use his se nte nc e wa s not “ba se d on” a

subse que ntly

lowe re d se nte nc ing ra

nge . Id. ; se e also Unite d State s v . Rodrigue

z-Soriano , 855 F.3d 1040, 1042 (9th C ir. 2017). Ne ithe r the prose c ution nor the de fe nse argue d for a se nte nc e re duc tion ba se d on the Guide line s, a

nd the distric t c ourt did not im p ose a se nte nc e ba se d on the a

pplic a ble Guide line s ra

nge . R a the r, the distric t c ourt sta te d (1) it wa s de pa

rting substa

ntia lly be low both the

Guide line s a

nd the m andatory m inim

um ; a nd (2) the se nte nc e wa s ba se d on M onge ’ s c onduc t he re in. AFFIRM E D.
2
#### ALBERT M. GREENFIELD AND COMPANY OF NEW JERSEY, ETC. *v.*SSG ENTERPRISES, ETC., ET AL.

February 6, 1987.

Petition for certification denied. (See 213 *N.J.Super.*1)