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

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

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Federal Reserve System

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

The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must be received not later than February 2, 2015.

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

                    1.                     *Saltzman Family (Theodore G. Saltzman, Jr.; Shennen S.C. Saltzman, both of Dakota Dunes, South Dakota; and Sundae M. Saltzman Haggerty, South Sioux City, Nebraska*) as a group acting in concert; to retain control of Pioneer Development Company, Sergeant Bluff, Iowa, and thereby indirectly control of Pioneer Bank, Sergeant Bluff, Iowa.                

      ( print page 2423)    
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, January 12, 2015.

Michael J. Lewandowski,

Assistant Secretary of the Board.

[FR Doc. 2015-00559 Filed 1-15-15; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
##### 



---

---

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
COMMISSIONWashington, D.C. 20549

Form 6-K

Report of Foreign Private Issuer
Pursuant to Rule 13a-16 or 15d-16
of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934

For the month of January 2004.

Sun Life Financial Inc.  (Translation of registrants name into English) 150 King Street West, Toronto, Ontario, M5H 1J9(Address of principal executive offices)


Indicate by check mark whether the registrant files or will file annual
reports under cover Form 20-F or Form 40-F.

|           |  |           
|---------- |  | ----------
|Form 20-Fo |  | Form 40-Fþ

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant by furnishing the
information contained in this Form is also thereby furnishing the information
to the Commission pursuant to Rule 12g3-2(b) under the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934.

|     |  |    
|---- |  | ---
|Yeso |  | Noþ

If Yes is marked, indicate below the file number assigned to the
registrant in connection with Rule 12g3-2(b): 82- N/A



---

---

|          |  |                                      
|--------- |  | -------------------------------------
|Exhibits: |  |                                      
|          |  |                                      
|99.1      |  | Press Release dated January 29, 2004.





---



##### 



SIGNATURE

Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the
registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the
undersigned, thereunto duly authorized.

|                       |  |                                      |  |                                                 
|---------------------- |  | ------------------------------------ |  | ------------------------------------------------
|                       |  | Sun Life Financial Inc.
(Registrant)
|                       |  |                                      |  |                                                 
|                       |  |                                      |  |                                                 
|Date: January 29, 2004 |  | By:                                  |  | /s/ Thomas A. Bogart                            
|                       |  |                                      |  |                                                 
|                       |  |                                      |  | Thomas A. Bogart,                               
|                       |  |                                      |  | Executive Vice-President and Chief Legal Officer
#### In the Matter of Arianna S. and Another, Children Alleged to be Neglected. Virginia R., Appellant; Commissioner for Social Services of the City of New York, Respondent.

[974 NYS2d 779]

— Order of fact-finding, Family Court, New York County (Rhoda J. Cohen, J.), entered on or about July 26, 2012, which, after a hearing, found that respondent mother had neglected her children, unanimously reversed, on the law and the facts, without costs, and the petition dismissed. Appeal from order of disposition, same court and Judge, entered on or about September 21, 2012, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as abandoned.

Since the court concluded that it could not determine whether or not the mother had used excessive corporal punishment, petitioner failed to meet its burden by a preponderance of the evidence on the only allegation in the petition (Family Ct Act § 1046 [b] [i]). Although the issue is not preserved, we conclude *462the court improperly based its determination on claims of neglect not raised in the petition, without affording appellant a reasonable opportunity to prepare to answer this claim *(see*Family Ct Act § 1051 [b]; *Matter of Vallery P. [Jondalla P.],*106 AD3d 575 [1st Dept 2013]). Moreover, the petitioner failed to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that the children were impaired or at risk of impairment by the mother’s admitted financial and emotional stressors *(see Matter of Jeffrey M. [Noemi C.],*102 AD3d 608 [1st Dept 2013]). Concur— Andrias, J.E, Acosta, Saxe, Renwick and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.
Exhibit 4.15


Exhibit 4.15


FIFTH AMENDMENT
TO THE
CARDINAL HEALTH 401(K) SAVINGS PLAN
(As amended and restated January 1, 2011)


Background Information


		
	A.
	Cardinal Health, Inc. (“Cardinal Health”) previously adopted and currently maintains the Cardinal Health 401(k) Savings Plan (the “Plan”) for the benefit of employees of Cardinal Health and its subsidiaries and affiliates.




		
	B.
	Plan Section 12.02 permits Cardinal Health to amend the Plan at any time.




		
	C.
	The Cardinal Health, Inc. Financial Benefit Plans Committee (the “Committee”) is authorized to make certain amendments to the Plan, in accordance with the authority delegated by the Human Resources and Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of Cardinal Health.




		
	D.
	The Committee desires to amend the Plan to define “Spouse” as any individual, regardless of gender, who is legally married in any state, territory, or foreign jurisdiction having the legal authority to sanction marriages, to comply with the U.S. Supreme Court decision in United States v. Windsor, as well as with recent guidance published by the U.S. Department of Labor and the Internal Revenue Service, effective as of June 26, 2013, as authorized by the Committee in Resolutions adopted on May 28, 2014.




Plan Amendment


The Plan is hereby amended as follows, effective as of June 26, 2013:


		
	1.
	Section 1.41 “Spouse” is hereby amended in its entirety to read as follows:




Section 1.41    Spouse.  The lawful spouse of the Participant, including a same-sex spouse, as determined under the law of the state in which the marriage occurred.  For this purpose, the term “state” means any state of the United States, the District of Columbia, any territory or possession of the United States, and any foreign jurisdiction having the legal authority to sanction marriages.


		
	2.
	All other provisions of the Plan shall remain in full force and effect.


	
			
	 
	CARDINAL HEALTH, INC.

	 
	By:
	/s/ Kendell F. Sherrer

	 
	Its:
	V.P., Benefits

	 
	Date:
	5/28/14
Exhibit 21.1
 SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT
DECEMBER 31, 2010
 STATE/JURISDICTION OFINCORPORATION/
    
    NAME UNDER WHICHNAME OF SUBSIDIARY
    
    ORGANIZATION
    
    BUSINESS IS CONDUCTEDCrestwood Gas Services Operating LLC
    
    Delaware
    
    Crestwood Gas Services Operating LLCCrestwood Gas Services Operating GP LLC
    
    Delaware
    
    Crestwood Gas Services Operating GP LLCCowtown Gas Processing Partners L.P.
    
    Texas
    
    Cowtown Gas Processing Partners L.P.Cowtown Pipeline Partners L.P.
    
    Texas
    
    Cowtown Pipeline Partners L.P.
EXHIBIT 11.1

STATEMENT OF COMPUTATION OF NET EARNINGS PER SHARE



|                                          |  |                              |  |                   |     
|----------------------------------------- |  | ---------------------------- |  | ----------------- | ----
|                                          |  | Shares                       |  | EarningsPer Share
|                                          |  | Year EndedDecember 31, 2006 
|Basic Weighted Average Shares Outstanding |  | 1,359,055                    |  | $                 | 0.54
|                                          |  |                              |  |                   |     
|                                          |  |                             
|Effect of Dilutive Options                |  | 24,724                       |  |                   |     
|                                          |  |                              |  |                   |     
|                                          |  |                             
|Average Shares Outstanding                |  | 1,383,779                    |  | $                 | 0.53
|                                          |  |                              |  |                   |     
|                                          | 
|                                          |  | Year Ended December 31, 2005
|Basic Weighted Average Shares Outstanding |  | 1,055,396                    |  | $                 | 0.99
|                                          |  |                              |  |                   |     
|                                          |  |                             
|Effect of Dilutive Options                |  |                             |  |                   |     
|                                          |  |                              |  |                   |     
|                                          |  |                             
|Average Shares Outstanding                |  | 1,055,396                    |  | $                 | 0.99
|                                          |  |                              |  |                   |     



42
#### William A. Scorzari, Jr., Appellant, v Gary Pezza et al., Respondents. (And a Third-Party Action.)

[976 NYS2d 140]

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Rebolini, J.), dated August 21, 2012, as denied that branch of his motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3126 to strike the defendants’ answer.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying that branch of the plaintiffs motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3126 to strike the defendants’ answer for failure to comply with a discovery demand. Although CPLR 3101 provides for “full disclosure of all matter material and necessary in the prosecution or defense of an action” (CPLR 3101 [a]), “ ‘unlimited disclosure is not required, and supervision of disclosure is generally left to the trial court’s broad discretion’ ” *(H.R. Prince, Inc. v Elite Envtl. Sys., Inc.,*107 AD3d 850, 850 [2013], quoting *Palermo Mason Constr. v Aark Holding Corp.,*300 AD2d 460, 461 [2002]; *see Matter of Greenfield v Board of Assessment Review for Town of Babylon,*106 AD3d 908, 908 [2013]). Here, the Supreme Court properly determined that the plaintiff’s discovery demand was overbroad and burdensome *(see Matter of Greenfield v Board of Assessment Review for Town of Babylon,*106 AD3d at 909; *Board of Mgrs. of the Park Regent Condominium v Park Regent Assoc.,*78 AD3d 752, 753 [2010]; *Latture v Smith,*304 AD2d 534, 536 [2003]; *see generally H.R. Prince, Inc. v Elite Envtl. Sys., Inc.,*107 AD3d at 850). “Where discovery demands are overbroad, the appropriate remedy is to vacate the entire demand rather than to prune it” *(Matter of Greenfield v Board of Assessment Review for Town of Babylon,*106 AD3d at 909 [internal quotation marks omitted]; *see Board of Mgrs. of the Park Regent Condominium v Park Regent Assoc.,*78 AD3d at 753; *Latture v Smith,*304 AD2d at 536). Moreover, *917the plaintiff failed to make a clear showing that the defendants’ failure to comply with the discovery demand was willful or contumacious, as required to support the drastic remedy of striking an answer *(see Pinto v Tenenbaum,*105 AD3d 930, 931 [2013]; *Laskin v Friedman,*90 AD3d 617, 617-618 [2011]; *Weber v Harley-Davidson Motor Co., Inc.,*58 AD3d 719, 722 [2009]). Dillon, J.E, Angiolillo, Dickerson and Cohen, JJ., concur.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-1061

WALLACE WORMACK; LAKEISHA JONES; CAROLYN MARSHALL,

Plaintiffs - Appellants,

v.

CAESARS BALTIMORE MANAGEMENT COMPANY, LLC,

Defendant - Appellee, 

and

CBAC GAMING, LLC; CBAC BORROWER, LLC; CVPR GAMING 

HOLDINGS, LLC; PRT TWO, LLC; CAESARS ENTERTAINMENT, INC.; 

CBAC HOLDING COMPANY, LLC; CAESARS BALTIMORE INVESTMENT 

COMPANY, LLC; CAESARS ENTERPRISE SERVICES, LLC; CAESARS 

LICENSE COMPANY, LLC, d/b/a Horseshoe Baltimore Casino; STRON-MD 

LIMITED PARTNERSHIP; ROCK GAMING, LLC; JACK ENTERTAINMENT, 

LLC; JACK ENTERTAINMENT IP, LLC; CR BALTIMORE HOLDINGS, LLC,

Defendants. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. 

Stephanie A. Gallagher, District Judge. (1:22-cv-01108-SAG)

Submitted: June 25, 2024 Decided: June 27, 2024

Before RICHARDSON and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

USCA4 Appeal: 24-1061 Doc: 13 Filed: 06/27/2024 Pg: 1 of 3
2

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Wallace Wormack, Lakeisha Jones, Carolyn Marshall, Appellants Pro Se. Robert L. Hebb, 

Richard Medoff, SEMMES, BOWEN & SEMMES, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee

Caesars Baltimore Management Company, LLC. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 24-1061 Doc: 13 Filed: 06/27/2024 Pg: 2 of 3
3

PER CURIAM:

Wallace Wormack, Lakeisha Jones, and Carolyn Marshall (collectively, 

“Appellants”) appeal the district court’s order granting Defendant’s (a) motion in limine to 

preclude their expert witness testimony; and (b) motion for summary judgment in 

Appellants’ removed civil action alleging negligence/premises liability claims arising 

under Maryland law. We confine our review to the issues raised in the informal brief. See

4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Appellants’ informal brief does not challenge the district court’s 

rationale for granting the motion in limine, they have forfeited appellate review of this 

portion of the court’s order. See Jackson v. Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir. 2014) 

(“The informal brief is an important document; under Fourth Circuit rules, our review is 

limited to issues preserved in that brief.”). As to the grant of summary judgment, we have 

reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s 

order. Wormack v. Caesars Balt. Mgmt. Co., LLC, No. 1:22-cv-01108-SAG (D. Md. Jan. 

2, 2024). 

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

AFFIRMED

USCA4 Appeal: 24-1061 Doc: 13 Filed: 06/27/2024 Pg: 3 of 3
EX-34.4
(logo) Deloitte

Deloitte & Touche LLP
Suite 1500
191 Peachtree Street NE
Atlanta, GA 30303-1943
USA

Tel: +1 404 220 1500
www.deloitte.com


REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM


To the Board of Directors of
LNR Partners Inc.
Miami Beach, Florida

We have examined management's assertion, included in the accompanying
Management's Report on Assessment of Compliance with SEC Regulation AB
Servicing Criteria, that LNR Partners Inc. (the "Company") complied with the
servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of the Securities and Exchange
Commission's Regulation AB for the commercial mortgage-backed securities
transactions for which the Asserting Party served as special servicer, that
were completed on or after January 1, 2006, and that were registered with the
Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to the Securities Act of 1933 (the
"Platform") as of and for the year ended December 31, 2007, excluding criteria
229.1122(d)(1)(iii), (3)(i)(C), (3)(i)(D), (3)(ii), (3)(iii), (3)(iv), (4)(v),
(4)(ix), (4)(x), (4)(xi), (4)(xii), (4)(xiii) and (4)(xv), which management
has determined are not applicable to the activities performed by the Company
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 about the Company's compliance with the
servicing criteria based on our examination.

Our examination was conducted in accordance with attestation standards
established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, as
adopted by 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, including tests on a sample
basis of the servicing activities related to the Platform, determining whether
the Company performed those selected activities in compliance with the
servicing criteria during the specified period, and performing such other
procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. Our procedures were
limited to selected servicing activities performed by the Company during the
period covered by this report and, accordingly, such samples may not have
included servicing activities related to each asset-backed transaction included
in the Platform. Further, an examination is not designed to detect
noncompliance arising from errors that may have occurred prior to the period
specified above 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, 2007 for the commercial mortgage-backed securities Platform is
fairly stated, in all material respects.


/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP
February 22, 2008


Member of
Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu
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

                    Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the Frederick National Laboratory Advisory Committee to the National Cancer Institute, February 3, 2015, 09:00 a.m. to February 4, 2015, 02:00 p.m., National Institutes of Health, Building 31, 31 Center Drive, Bethesda, MD, 20892 which was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     on December 30, 2014, 79 FR 78457.                

The meeting notice is amended to change the date and time of the meeting to February 3, 2015 from 08:30 a.m. to 05:00 p.m. The meeting is open to the public.

Dated: January 13, 2015.

Melanie J. Gray,

Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2015-00655 Filed 1-16-15; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
<PAGE>

                                                                 EXHIBIT 15.1


July 27, 2001


The Board of Directors and Stockholders of Genentech, Inc.

We are aware of the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
pertaining to the Genentech, Inc. Tax Reduction Investment Plan, the 1999
Stock Plan, the 1996 Stock Option/Stock Incentive Plan, the 1994 Stock Option
Plan, the 1990 Stock Option/Stock Incentive Plan, and the 1991 Employee Stock
Plan and in the related prospectuses, as applicable, contained in such
Registration Statements of our report dated July 9, 2001 relating to the
unaudited condensed consolidated interim financial statements of Genentech,
Inc. which are included in its Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2001.

Pursuant to Rule 436(c) of the Securities Act of 1933 our report is not a part
of the registration statement prepared or certified by accountants within the
meaning of section 7 or 11 of the Securities Act of 1933.


                                                         Very truly yours,




                                                         /s/ERNST & YOUNG LLP
                                                         --------------------
                                                            Ernst & Young LLP