alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 4 (Wednesday, January 7, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 891-892]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-00032]


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

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Notice of Proposals To Engage in or To Acquire Companies Engaged 
in Permissible Nonbanking Activities

    The companies listed in this notice have given notice under section 
4 of the Bank Holding Company Act (12 U.S.C. 1843) (BHC Act) and 
Regulation Y, (12 CFR part 225) to engage de novo, or to acquire or 
control voting securities or assets of a company, including the 
companies listed below, that engages either directly or through a 
subsidiary or other company, in a nonbanking activity that is listed in 
Sec.  225.28 of Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.28) or that the Board has 
determined by Order to be closely related to banking and permissible 
for bank holding companies. Unless otherwise noted, these activities 
will be conducted throughout the United States.
    Each notice is available for inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank 
indicated. The notice also will be available for inspection at the 
offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their 
views in writing on the question whether the proposal complies with the 
standards of section 4 of the BHC Act.
    Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding the applications must be 
received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of 
Governors not later than January 22, 2015.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco (Gerald C. Tsai, Director, 
Applications and Enforcement) 101 Market Street, San Francisco, 
California 94105-1579:
    1. CITIC Group Corporation, Beijing, China; to retain CLSA 
Americas, LLC, New York, New York, and to continue to engage in certain 
permissible nonbanking activities.


[[Page 892]]


    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, January 2, 
2015.
Michael J. Lewandowski,
Associate Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 2015-00032 Filed 1-6-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
#### Anna Pezhman, Appellant, v City of New York et al., Respondents.

Submitted February 23, 2009;

decided April 2, 2009

Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JANA GAZDIKOVA,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

Nos. 08-72247

 09-71871

Agency No. A078-074-876

MEMORANDUM*

On Petitions for Review of Orders of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted March 8, 2011** 

Before: FARRIS, LEAVY, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

In these consolidated petitions for review, Jana Gazdikova, a native and

citizen of the Czech Republic, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration

Appeals’ (“BIA”) orders dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”)

FILED

MAR 23 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 08-72247

removal order and denying her motion to reopen. We have jurisdiction under 

8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence whether Gazdikova is

removable. Nakamato v. Ashcroft, 363 F.3d 874, 881-82 (9th Cir. 2004). We

review for abuse of discretion the denial of a continuance, Sandoval-Luna v.

Mukasey, 526 F.3d 1243, 1246 (9th Cir. 2008) (per curiam), and the denial of a

motion to reopen, and review de novo constitutional questions, including claims of

ineffective assistance of counsel, Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92

(9th Cir. 2005). We deny the petitions for review. 

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that Gazdikova

entered her marriage for the purpose of procuring an immigration benefit where

Gazdikova’s former U.S. citizen-spouse testified that their marriage was

fraudulent, that he married Gazdikova in exchange for a room in her residence and

for remuneration, and that they co-habitated as roommates. See Nakamato, 363

F.3d at 882 (relevant inquiry is whether parties intended to establish a life together

at the time of marriage).

The IJ did not abuse her discretion in denying a continuance where

Gazdikova failed to show good cause. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.29 (IJ may grant a

motion for a continuance for good cause shown); Baires v. INS, 856 F.2d 89, 92-93

(9th Cir. 1988). It follows that Gazdikova’s due process claim fails. See Lata v.
3 08-72247

INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error for a petitioner to prevail

on a due process claim).

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Gazdikova’s motion to

reopen because she failed to establish that her former attorney’s alleged ineffective

assistance resulted in prejudice, see Mohammed, 400 F.3d at 793-94 (to prevail on

an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, petitioner must demonstrate prejudice),

and because the BIA adequately reasoned that reopening to apply for a waiver

under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(1)(H) was not warranted, see Singh v. INS, 295 F.3d

1037, 1039 (9th Cir. 2002) (BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen shall be reversed if

it is “arbitrary, irrational, or contrary to law.”). 

PETITIONS FOR REVIEW DENIED.
#### In the Matter of Darren F., Respondent, v Marie-Amina T., Appellant.

[872 NYS2d 92]

Order, Family Court, New York County (Susan R. Larabee, J.), entered on or about April 28, 2008, which denied respondent Marie-Amina T.’s objection to a Magistrate’s final order of support that obligated her to pay continuing support for her two children in the amount of $194 per week, in addition to $15,630.86 in retroactive support, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Respondent failed to rebut the presumption that the standard of support as calculated under Family Court Act § 413 (1) (c) was reasonable and appropriate *(see Matter of Andre v Warren,*
      *494192 AD2d 491 [1993]). In a hearing where credibility was a crucial consideration, respondent was not forthright about— and presented insufficient evidence regarding—the amount of her gross income, thus authorizing the Magistrate to base the support obligation on the children’s needs, pursuant to Family Court Act § 413 (1) (k) *(see Merchant v Hicks,*15 AD3d 266 [2005]).

Respondent’s unsubstantiated claim that her current employment income is insufficient to enable her to support herself and also meet her child-support obligation is unavailing. The record establishes that based on her education and background, respondent’s earning potential and capacity are more than adequate *(see*Family Ct Act § 413 [1] [b] [5] [v]; *Matter of Richards v Bailey,*296 AD2d 412 [2002]; *Polite v Polite,*127 AD2d 465, 467 [1987]). Concur—Tom, J.P., Gonzalez, Buckley, Sweeny and Catterson, JJ.
##### 



THIS AMENDING AGREEMENTis made as of the 20th day of April, 2005. BETWEEN: HUB INTERNATIONAL LIMITED,
a corporation incorporated under
the laws of Ontario, - and - BANK OF MONTREAL,
a Canadian chartered bank, WHEREAS the parties hereto entered into an amended and restated credit agreement dated as of
April 23, 2004 (such credit agreement being herein referred to as the Credit Agreement); AND WHEREAS the Borrower wishes to renew the Drawdown Period for an additional 364 days
pursuant to Section 2.3(a) of the Credit Agreement; AND WHEREAS the Lender wishes to accept Borrowers Renewal Request pursuant to Section 2.3(b)
of the Credit Agreement; AND WHEREAS the parties hereto wish to amend the Credit Agreement to reflect the extension
pursuant to Section 2.3(c) of the Credit Agreement of the first date referred to in clause (a) of
the definition of Term Date in the Credit Agreement to April 19, 2006; NOW THEREFORE THIS AGREEMENT WITNESSES that in consideration of the mutual covenants and
agreements hereinafter contained and other good and valuable consideration (the receipt and
sufficiency whereof is hereby acknowledged by each of the parties hereto) the parties do hereby
respectively covenant and agree as follows:  1.

The parties hereby concur in this amendment to the Credit Agreement and, upon the execution
of this amending agreement, the Credit Agreement and this amending agreement shall be deemed
to constitute the entire Credit Agreement. Subject as hereinafter set forth the Credit
Agreement is hereby confirmed to be in all respects in full force and effect on this date as
an agreement, binding in accordance with its terms on, and enforceable against, the parties to
this amending agreement.2.

Unless otherwise defined herein, all capitalized terms used in this amending agreement shall
have the respective meanings ascribed thereto in the Credit Agreement.3.

Effective the date of this amending agreement, Section 1.1 of the Credit Agreement is amended
by replacing the definition of Term Date thereunder with the following:




---



##### 



- 2 -  Term Date means the earlier of (a) April 19, 2006 or, if such date is extended
pursuant to Section 2.3(c), the date to which it has been extended, and (b) the
Amortization Date; 4.

This amending agreement may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an
original and all of which, taken together, shall constitute one and the same instrument.5.

This amending agreement shall be governed by, and construed in accordance with, the laws of
the Province of Ontario and the laws of Canada applicable therein. IN WITNESS WHEREOF this amending agreement has been executed by the parties hereto. HUB INTERNATIONAL LIMITEDPer:
    /s/ Martin P. HughesMartin P. Hughes, Chief Executive OfficerPer:
    /s/ Dennis J. PaulsDennis J. Pauls, Chief Financial OfficerBANK OF MONTREALPer:
    /s/ John CokeAuthorized Signing Officer
#### Robert Verle Case, Appellant, v Cayuga County et al., Respondents, et al., Defendants.

Submitted July 6, 2009;

decided September 15, 2009

Reported below, 60 AD3d 1426.

Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution.
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

DOUGLAS NOEL VELASQUEZ DOMINGUEZ

, Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

, Appellee

.

No. 4D 22

- 1853

[ April 6, 2023 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit,

Broward County ; Ernest A. Kollra, Jr. , Judge; L.T. Case No.

22001470CF10A

.

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Paul Edward Petillo, Assistant

Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Richard Valu ntas,

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

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed.

C IKLIN

, G ERBER and L EVINE

, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, January 17, 2020.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes 

of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto 

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, January 17, 2020

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A20D0243. GLENN RHODES v. MICHELLE MILLER RHODES.

Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered that it be 

hereby DENIED.

LC NUMBERS:

2018EDR0189
EX-35.6
(logo) Wells Fargo

Commercial Mortgage - Servicing

MAC A0357-030
P.O. Box 4036, Concord, Ca 94524
1320 Willow Pass Rd., Suite 300
Concord, CA 94520
800 986-9711



ANNUAL STATEMENT AS TO COMPLIANCE
OFFICER'S CERTIFICATE



Re: ML-CFC Commercial Mortgage Trust 2007-5 (the "ML-CFC 2007-5 Trust"),
Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2007-5 issued pursuant
to the Pooling and Servicing Agreement, dated as of March 1, 2007, by and among
Merrill Lynch Mortgage Investors, Inc. and the other parties thereto (the
"Pooling and Servicing Agreement").

In accordance with Section 3.13 of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement, on
behalf of Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as master servicer (the
"Master Servicer") under that certain pooling and servicing agreement, dated as
of August 1, 2005 (the "Lead Servicing Agreement"), by and among Morgan Stanley
Capital I Inc., as depositor, Prudential Asset Resources, Inc., as master
servicer, Master Servicer, CWCapital Asset Management LLC, as special servicer,
LaSalle Bank National Association, as trustee, Wells Fargo Bank, National
Association, as paying agent and certificate registrar, and ABN AMRO Bank N.V.,
as fiscal agent, relating to Morgan Stanley Capital I Inc., Commercial Mortgage
Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2005- HQ6, I certify that (i) a review of the
activities of the Master Servicer during the preceding calendar year (or, the
portion of such year during which the Certificates were outstanding) and of its
performance under the Lead Servicing Agreement has been made under my
supervision and (ii) to the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the
Master Servicer has fulfilled all its obligations with respect to the servicing
of the FRIS Chicken Mortgage Loan under the Lead Servicing Agreement in all
material respects throughout such year.

Wells Fargo Bank, National Association,
as Master Servicer


/s/ Briggs A. Hawley


Briggs A. Hawley
Vice President
Wells Fargo Bank, National Association

March 2008
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2442 

To amend title 28, United States Code, to prohibit the exclusion of individuals 

from service on a Federal jury on account of disability. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 30, 2023 

Ms. PORTER (for herself, Ms. NORTON, Ms. SCANLON, and Ms. SCHAKOWSKY) 

introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the 

Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend title 28, United States Code, to prohibit the exclusion of individuals from service on a Federal jury on 

account of disability. 

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 ‘‘Disability and Age in 

5 Jury Service Nondiscrimination Act’’. 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 2442 IH

1 SEC. 2. EXCLUSION FROM FEDERAL JURIES ON ACCOUNT 

2 OF DISABILITY. 

3 (a) DISCRIMINATION PROHIBITED.—Section 1862 of 

4 title 28, United States Code, is amended by inserting ‘‘dis5 ability, age,’’ after ‘‘origin,’’. 

6 (b) QUALIFICATIONS FOR JURY SERVICE.—Section 

7 1865 of title 28, United States Code, is amended— 

8 (1) in subsection (b)(4), by inserting ‘‘that can9 not be reasonably accommodated’’ after ‘‘infirmity’’; 

10 and 

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

12 ‘‘(c) No person may be disqualified from serving on 

13 grand and petit juries in the district court under para14 graph (2) or (3) of subsection (b) on account of disability, 

15 if the person would be qualified under such paragraph (2) 

16 or (3) by reasonable accommodation.’’. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
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 Labor

###### Employment and Training Administration

          - [TA-W-64,918]

Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an investigation was initiated on January 16, 2009 in response to a petition filed by the Rapid Response Coordinator for the State of Connecticut on behalf of workers of Lehman Brothers, Incorporated, New Haven, Connecticut.

The petitioner has requested that the petition be withdrawn. Consequently, the investigation has been terminated.

Signed at Washington, DC, this 16th day of April 2009.

Richard Church,

Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.

[FR Doc. E9-10900 Filed 5-8-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
<PAGE>


                                                                      EXHIBIT 32

                            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 NT Media Corp. of California, Inc.
(the "Registrant") on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2008, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Ali Moussavi, Principal Executive Officer and Acting Principal
Financial Officer of the Registrant, certify to the best of my knowledge,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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 and 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 registrant.

                                        /s/ Ali Moussavi
                                        ----------------------------------------
Dated:  November 14, 2008               Ali Moussavi
                                        Principal Executive Officer and Acting
                                        Principal Financial Officer
#### The Western Union Telegraph Company *v.*Blance.

1. In an action against a telegraph company for the statutory penalty for failure to transmit and deliver with due diligence, the message actually delivered by the company to the sendee is admissible as original evidence, and is not secondary in its nature. *432*Conyers*v. *Postal Teh Cable Co.,*92 *Ga.*619; *Western Union Telegraph Co.*v. *Bates,*93 *Ga.*352.

2. The pleadings raising no issue as to any stipulation with reference to the time or mode of presenting a claim for the penalty, and the record furnishing no indication that any question on that subject was raised or decided in the court below*; and the evidence applicable to the issue tried fully warranting the verdict, it is not apparent to this court that there was any error in denying the motion for a new trial. *Judgment affirmed.*

March 26, 1894.

Argued at the last term.

Action for penalty. Before Judge Janes. Haralson •superior court. January term, 1893.

*

See *Mathis*v. *Telegraph Co., ante,*338.

On July 30, 1891, Blance delivered a message at defendant’s office in Cedartown, for transmission to Buchanan and delivery to Craven at that place. Defendant’s agent at Buchanan received the message but forgot to deliver it until he was asked about it three •days afterwards. Suit was brought on June 7, 1892, for the statutory penalty. No plea except that of the general issue appears in the record. Plaintiff intro■duced the message which was finally delivered at Buchanan, and it was received over objection that the original message delivered for transmission had not been produced or accounted for. Afterward the defendant company introduced the original message as received by it at Cedartown. On the back of it were printed the usual statements as to the-terms on which all messages are received by the company, including: “ This company will not be liable for damages or statutory penalties in .any ease where the claim is not presented in writing within sixty days after the message is filed with the •company for transmission.” The jury found for the plaintiff. Defendant moved for a new trial on the grounds that the verdict was contrary to law and evidence; and for error in admitting the message delivered at Buchanan, over the objection stated.

*433Dorsey, Brewster & Howell and J. M. McBride, for plaintiff in error.

S. L. Craven and Colville & Noyes, *contra.*
<PAGE>
                                    FORM 6-K
                       SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
                             Washington, D.C. 20549


                        Report of Foreign Private Issuer


                        PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-16 OR 15d-16
                     OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

                                 August 24, 2004

                         Commission File Number: 0-22346

                                 HOLLINGER INC.
                 (Translation of registrant's name into English)

                               10 TORONTO STREET
                            TORONTO, ONTARIO M5C 2B7
                                     CANADA
                    (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-F [X] Form 40-F [ ]

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is submitting the Form 6-K in paper as
permitted by Regulation S-T Rule 101(b)(1): ____

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is submitting the Form 6-K in paper as
permitted by Regulation S-T Rule 101(b)(7): ____

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

                                 Yes [ ] No [X]

If "Yes" is marked, indicate below the file number assigned to the registrant in
connection with Rule 12g3-2(b): 82- ________



<PAGE>


                                  EXHIBIT LIST


Exhibit         Description
-------         -----------

99.1            Press Release, dated August 24, 2004 regarding Hollinger Inc.
                Announcement of the Retirement of General Richard Rohmer, O.C.,
                Q.C. as a Director.




<PAGE>




                                   SIGNATURES

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.

Date:  August 24, 2004


                                        HOLLINGER INC.

                                        By  /s/ Peter G. White
                                            ------------------------------------
                                            Name:  Peter G. White
                                            Title: Co-Chief Operating Officer
                                                   and Secretary