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

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3867 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 3867

To designate the Federal courthouse located at 555 Independence Street, 
   Cape Girardeau, Missouri, as the ``Rush H. Limbaugh, Sr., Federal 
                             Courthouse''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

            September 7 (legislative day, September 6), 2006

 Mr. Bond (for himself and Mr. Talent) introduced the following bill; 
 which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and 
                              Public Works

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To designate the Federal courthouse located at 555 Independence Street, 
   Cape Girardeau, Missouri, as the ``Rush H. Limbaugh, Sr., Federal 
                             Courthouse''.

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

SECTION 1. RUSH H. LIMBAUGH, SR., FEDERAL COURTHOUSE.

    (a) Designation.--The Federal courthouse located at 555 
Independence Street, Cape Girardeau, Missouri, shall be known and 
designated as the ``Rush H. Limbaugh, Sr., Federal Courthouse''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the Federal courthouse 
referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the 
Rush H. Limbaugh, Sr., Federal Courthouse.
                                 <all>
```
The Honorable Harold D. Vietor, United States District Judge 1

for the Southern District of Iowa.

___________

No. 96-1848

___________

Herbert E. Bundy, *

 *

Appellant, *

 * Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

 * Southern District of Iowa.

Department of Housing and Urban *

Development; Teresa Taylor, * [UNPUBLISHED]

 *

Appellees. *

___________

 Submitted: June 28, 1996

 Filed: July 1, 1996

___________

Before FAGG, BOWMAN, and HANSEN, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Herbert E. Bundy appeals the decision of the District Court denying 1

his Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) motion, in which he sought to

vacate the grant of summary judgment to the United States Department of

Housing and Urban Development. Having reviewed the record and the parties’

briefs, we conclude the judgment of the District Court was correct.

Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
-2-

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
EXHIBIT 4.1

                       INCORPORATED UNDER THE LAWS OF THE
                                STATE OF NEVADA
NUMBER                                                                  SHARES

                                 M.E.R. CORPORATION

                  25,000,000 AUTHORIZED SHARES $.001 PAR VALUE
                                                                       CUSIP NO.

This is to certify that




is the record holder of


shares of                          M.E.R. Corpoation                Common Stock
transferrable  on the books of the  corporation in person or by duly  authorized
attorney upon surrender of this certificate properly endorsed.  This Certificate
is not valid until  countersigned  by the Transfer  Agent and  registered by the
Registrar.

     Witness the facsimile seal of the corporation and the facsimile  signatures
of its duly authorized officers.

Dated:


/s/ Ron Mercier                M.E.R. CORPORATION                /s/ Ron Mercier
Secretary                          CORPORATE                     President
                                      Seal
                                     NEVADA

COUNTERSIGNED AND REGISTERED BY
FIRST AMERICAN STOCK TRANSFER, INC.
706 EAST BELL ROAD, Suite 202, PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85022


AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE
EXHIBIT 21

SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT



|                                                          |  |                                            |  |                     |  
|--------------------------------------------------------- |  | ------------------------------------------ |  | ------------------- | -
|                                                          |  | State or OtherJurisdiction ofIncorporation |  | PercentageOwnership |  
|Parent                                                    |  |                                            |  |                     |  
|                                                          |  |                                           
|BCSB Bancorp, Inc.                                        |  | United States                              |  |                     |  
|                                                          |  |                                           
|Subsidiary (1)                                            |  |                                            |  |                     |  
|                                                          |  |                                           
|Baltimore County Savings Bank, F.S.B.                     |  | United States                              |  | 100                 | %
|BCSB Bankcorp Capital Trust I                             |  | Delaware                                   |  | 100                 | %
|BCSB Bankcorp Capital Trust II                            |  | Delaware                                   |  | 100                 | %
|                                                          |  |                                           
|Subsidiaries of Baltimore County Savings Bank, F.S.B. (1) |  |                                            |  |                     |  
|                                                          |  |                                           
|Ebenezer Road, Inc.                                       |  | Maryland                                   |  | 100                 | %



|(1) | The assets, liabilities and operations of the subsidiaries are included in the consolidated financial statements included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.
|--- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EX-35.2
(logo) GMAC Mortgage



SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT (Item 1123)

GMAC Mortgage, LLC

MSM2007-5AX



The undersigned, a duly authorized officer of GMAC Mortgage, LLC, as servicer
(the "Servicer") pursuant to the applicable servicing agreement, does hereby
certify that:

1. A review of the Servicer's activities during the period covered by the
Issuing Entity's report on Form 10-K and of the Servicer's performance under
the applicable servicing agreement has been made under my supervision.

2. To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has
fulfilled all of its obligations under the applicable servicing agreement in
all material respects throughout such period.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has duly executed this Certificate this
17th day of March 2008.


By: /s/ Anthony N. Renzi
Name: Anthony N. Renzi
Title: Executive Vice President



GMAC Mortgage, LLC
1100 Virginia Drive
Ft. Washington, PA 19034
#### In the Matter of Lillian Jacker, Deceased. (Matter No. 1.) Carl Jacker, Appellant, v Jordan M. Iserman et al., Respondents. (Matter No. 2.)

[963 NYS2d 397]

In a probate proceeding and a related action, inter alia, to set aside a general release based on fraudulent misrepresentation, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Surrogate’s Court, Suffolk County (Czygier, S.), dated December 29, 2011, which, after a nonjury trial on the issue of the validity of the general release, in effect, denied his application to set aside the general release.

Ordered that on the Court’s own motion, the plaintiffs notice of appeal is deemed to be an application for leave to appeal from the order, and leave to appeal is granted *(see*CPLR 5701 [c]); and it is further,

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Written releases are contracts and their interpretation is governed by the principles of contract law *(see Shklovskiy v Khan,*273 AD2d 371, 372 [2000]). Where the language in a release is clear and free from ambiguity, effect must be given to the intent of the parties as reflected in the writing alone, without resort to extrinsic evidence *(see Matter of Transtate Ins. Co.,*297 AD2d 684, 685 [2002]; *Shklovskiy v Khan,*273 AD2d at 372). Here, the language in the general release was clear and unambiguous and did not include any reference to the alleged promises made to the plaintiff *(see Alvarez v Amicucci, 82*AD3d 687, 688 [2011])

A release will be set aside by a court only for duress, illegality, fraud, or mutual mistake *(see Bodisher v Hofmann,*50 AD3d 720, 720 [2008]). The existence of a fiduciary relationship between contracting parties shifts the burden of proof such that *1049“it is incumbent upon the stronger party to show affirmatively that no deception was practiced, no undue influence was used, and that all was fair, open, voluntary and well understood” *(Cowee v Cornell,*75 NY 91, 100 [1878]; *see Matter of Greiff,*92 NY2d 341, 345 [1998]). Here, the defendant, who was in a fiduciary relationship with the plaintiff by virtue of his status as trustee, sustained his burden *(cf. Matter of Connelly,*193 AD2d 602, 603 [1993]).

The Surrogate’s Court properly determined that the plaintiff had no reasonable expectation that an attorney-client relationship existed between the defendant and him at the time of signing the general release *(see Nelson v Roth,*69 AD3d 912, 913 [2010]).

Skelos, J.E, Angiolillo, Roman and Miller, JJ., concur.
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 10 (Thursday, January 15, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 2092]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-00443]


========================================================================
Notices
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains documents other than rules 
or proposed rules that are applicable to the public. Notices of hearings 
and investigations, committee meetings, agency decisions and rulings, 
delegations of authority, filing of petitions and applications and agency 
statements of organization and functions are examples of documents 
appearing in this section.

========================================================================


Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 10 / Thursday, January 15, 2015 / 
Notices

[[Page 2092]]



AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT


Notice of Renewal of Charter of the Advisory Committee on 
Voluntary Foreign Aid

AGENCY: United States Agency for International Development.

ACTION: Notice of charter renewal.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, notice is 
hereby given of the renewal of the Charter of the Advisory Committee on 
Voluntary Foreign Aid.

Purpose of the Committee

    The Advisory Committee on Voluntary Foreign Aid (ACVFA) brings 
together USAID and private voluntary organizations (PVO) officials, 
representatives from universities, international nongovernment 
organizations (NGOs), U.S. businesses, and government, multilateral, 
and private organizations to foster understanding, communication, and 
cooperation in the area of foreign aid.
    The Charter is being renewed for two years effective from the date 
of filing on January 13, 2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jayne Thomisee, 202-712-5506.

    Dated: January 9, 2015.
Christa White,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 2015-00443 Filed 1-13-15; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 6116-02-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
PARTNERSHIP'S STATEMENTS OF EARNINGS AND BALANCE SHEETS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                              JAN-1-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                       9,759,769
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             9,894,769
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              11,022,256
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            6,297
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   9,093,606
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                11,022,256
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               254,985
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               164,594
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              37,750
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 52,641
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             52,641
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    52,641
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Alvaro RODRIGUEZ-BENITEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 06-40160.

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Decided Oct. 25, 2006.

James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Michael L. Herman, Federal Pub-*657lie Defender’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before JOLLY, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Alvaro Rodriguez-Benitez (Rodriguez) appeals his guilty-plea conviction and sentence for violating 8 U.S.C. § 1326 by being found in the United States without permission after deportation. He argues, in light of *Apprendi v. New Jersey,*530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), that the 46-month prison sentence imposed in his case exceeds the two-year statutory maximum sentence allowed for the § 1326(a) offense charged in his indictment. He challenges the constitutionality of § 1326(b)’s treatment of prior felony and aggravated-felony convictions as sentencing factors rather than elements of the offense that must be found by a jury.

Rodriguez’s constitutional challenge is foreclosed by *Almendarez-Torres v. United States,*523 U.S. 224, 235, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998). Although he contends that *Almendarez-Torres*was incorrectly decided and that a majority of the Supreme Court would overrule *Almendarez-Torres*in light of *Apprendi,*we have repeatedly rejected such arguments on the basis that *Almendarez-Torres*remains binding. *See United States v. Garza-Lopez,*410 F.3d 268, 276 (5th Cir.), *cert. denied,*— U.S. -, 126 S.Ct. 298, 163 L.Ed.2d 260 (2005). Rodriguez properly concedes that his argument is foreclosed in light of *Almendarez-Torres*and circuit precedent, but he raises it here to preserve it for further review.

AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
**Exhibit
      32.3**








**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 on Form 10-Q of AFP Imaging Corporation
      (the “Company”) for the quarter ended September 30, 2006, (the “Report”), I,
      Elise Nissen, 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;
                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/_Elise Nissen


Elise
      Nissen,


Chief
      Financial Officer


November
      14, 2006






25
#### George Eremeyev et al., Appellants, v Manhattan Eye, Ear & Throat Hospital, et al., Respondents.

Submitted March 2, 2009;

decided March 31, 2009

Motion for reargument of motion for leave to appeal etc. denied *[see*11 NY3d 903 (2009)]. Motion for poor person relief dismissed as academic.

Chief Judge Lippman taking no part.
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 92 (Thursday, May 14, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 22762]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-11261]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION


Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS); Meeting of the 
ACRS Subcommittee on Reliability and Probabilistic Risk Assessment; 
Notice of Meeting

    The ACRS Subcommittee on Reliability and Probabilistic Risk 
Assessment (PRA) will hold a meeting on June 1-2, 2009, Room T-2B3, 
11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland.
    The entire meeting will be open to public attendance. The agenda 
for the subject meeting shall be as follows: Monday, June 1, 2009-8:30 
a.m. until the conclusion of business. Tuesday, June 2, 2009-8:30 a.m. 
until the conclusion of business.
    The Subcommittee will review Draft Regulatory Guide 1.205, ``Risk-
Informed Performance-Based Fire Protection,'' and proposed Standard 
Review Plan Section 9.5.1.2, ``Risk-Informed Performance-Based Fire 
Protection.'' The Subcommittee will also discuss Human Reliability 
Analysis (HRA) models and development of guidelines for performing HRA 
in fire probabilistic risk assessments. In addition, the Subcommittee 
will discuss risk metrics for new light-water reactor risk-informed 
applications. The Subcommittee will hear presentations by and hold 
discussions with representatives of the NRC staff, Nuclear Energy 
Institute, and other interested persons regarding these matters. The 
Subcommittee will gather information, analyze relevant issues and 
facts, and formulate proposed positions and actions, as appropriate, 
for deliberation by the full Committee.
    Members of the public desiring to provide oral statements and/or 
written comments should notify the Designated Federal Officials, Girija 
Shukla and Yoira Diaz-Sanabria, (Telephones: 301-415-6855 and 301-415-
8064) five days prior to the meeting, if possible, so that appropriate 
arrangements can be made. Electronic recordings will be permitted. 
Detailed procedures for the conduct of and participation in ACRS 
meetings were published in the Federal Register on October 6, 2008, 
(73FR 58268-58269).
    Further information regarding this meeting can be obtained by 
contacting the Designated Federal Official between 8:15 a.m. and 5 p.m. 
(ET). Persons planning to attend this meeting are urged to contact the 
above named individual at least two working days prior to the meeting 
to be advised of any potential changes to the agenda.

    Dated: May 7, 2009.
Cayetano Santos,
Chief, Reactor Safety Branch A, Advisory Committee on Reactor 
Safeguards.
[FR Doc. E9-11261 Filed 5-13-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
1

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 37319

STATE OF IDAHO,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

DALE QUINCE DAVIS,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

2010 Unpublished Opinion No. 677

Filed: October 18, 2010

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED

OPINION AND SHALL NOT

BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Seventh Judicial District, State of Idaho, 

Madison County. Hon. Gregory W. Moeller, District Judge. 

Judgment of conviction and concurrent unified sentences of ten years, with a 

minimum period of confinement of two years, for attempted strangulation and 

sentence of five years, with a minimum period of confinement of one year, for 

domestic battery, affirmed.

Molly J. Huskey, State Appellate Public Defender; Justin M. Curtis, Deputy 

Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. 

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Jessica M. Lorello, Deputy 

Attorney General, Boise, for respondent. 

______________________________________________

Before LANSING, Chief Judge; GRATTON, Judge;

and MELANSON, Judge

PER CURIAM

Dale Quince Davis pled guilty to attempted strangulation, I.C. § 18-923, and entered an 

Alford1plea to domestic battery, I.C. § 18-918(3). In exchange for his guilty pleas, additional 

charges were dismissed. The district court sentenced Davis to a unified term of ten years, with a 

minimum period of confinement of two years, and a fine of $5,000 for attempted strangulation 

and a concurrent unified term of five years, with a minimum period of confinement of one year, 

and a fine of $2,500 for domestic battery. Davis appeals.

 

1

See North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (1970). 
2

Sentencing is a matter for the trial court’s discretion. Both our standard of review and the 

factors to be considered in evaluating the reasonableness of the sentence are well established and 

need not be repeated here. See State v. Hernandez, 121 Idaho 114, 117-18, 822 P.2d 1011, 1014-

15 (Ct. App. 1991); State v. Lopez, 106 Idaho 447, 449-51, 680 P.2d 869, 871-73 (Ct. App. 

1984); State v. Toohill, 103 Idaho 565, 568, 650 P.2d 707, 710 (Ct. App. 1982). When reviewing 

the length of a sentence, we consider the defendant’s entire sentence. State v. Oliver, 144 Idaho 

722, 726, 170 P.3d 387, 391 (2007). Applying these standards, and having reviewed the record 

in this case, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion.

Therefore, Davis’s judgment of conviction and sentences are affirmed.