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 companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841*et seq.*) (BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR part 225), and all other applicable statutes and regulations to become a bank holding company and/or to acquire the assets or the ownership of, control of, or the power to vote shares of a bank or bank holding company and all of the banks and nonbanking companies owned by the bank holding company, including the companies listed below.                

The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The applications will also be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States.

Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than September 20, 2017.

*A. Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas*                     (Robert L. Triplett III, Senior Vice President) 2200 North Pearl Street, Dallas, Texas 75201-2272:                

                    1.                     *Noble Bancorporation, Inc.,*                     Spring, Texas; to become a bank holding company by acquiring Falcon Bancorporation, Inc., and thereby indirectly acquiring First Bank and Trust of Memphis, both in Memphis, Texas.                

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, August 22, 2017.

Yao-Chin Chao,

Assistant Secretary of the Board.

[FR Doc. 2017-18055 Filed 8-24-17; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
#### James ODOM, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MICROSOFT CORPORATION, a Washington corporation; Best Buy Co., Inc., a Minnesota corporation, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 04-35468.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Sept. 28, 2006.

Beth Terrell, Tousley Brain Stephens P.L.L.C., Seattle, WA, Daniel C. Girard, Esq., Aaron M. Sheanin, Esq., Girard Gibbs and de Bartolomeo LLP, San Francisco, CA, Anthony K. Lee, Esq., San Francisco, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Charles C. Sweedler, Esq., Peter Breslauer, Esq., Charles B. Casper, Esq., Montgomery, McCracken, Walker & Rhoads, Philadelphia, PA, Jonathan M. Palmer, Esq., Heller Ehrman, LLP, Seattle, WA, Michael J. Shepard, Esq., Heller Ehrman, LLP, San Francisco, CA, Timothy M. Block, Esq., Robbins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi, Minneapolis, MN, Stacy S. Schwartz, Esq., Robins Kaplan Miller & Ciresi, Los Angeles, CA, James Richard Murray, Gordon Murray Tilden, LLP, Seattle, WA, J. Kevin Snyder, Esq., Dykema Gossett LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before MARY M. SCHROEDER, Chief Judge.

ORDER

Upon the vote of a majority of nonrecused regular active judges of this court,1 it is ordered that this case be reheard by the en banc court pursuant to Circuit Rule 35-3.

1

. Judges Pregerson, McKeown, Wardlaw, Gould, Clifton, Smith, and Ikuta are recused.
Exhibit 31.2

CERTIFICATION OF CFO PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14 OR 15d-14

OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION
302

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Francis T. McCarron, certify that:



| | 1. | I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the annual report on Form 10-K of Harbinger Group Inc.;
| | -- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



|                                                    
|----------------------------------------------------
|Date: January 30, 2012                              
|                                                    
|/s/ FRANCIS T. McCARRON                             
|Francis T. McCarron                                 
|Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
EXHIBIT 31.1 

 

I, Gary D. Blackford, certify that: 

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

4. The registrant’s other certifyingofficer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: 

 

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, orcaused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; ****

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Date: November 12, 2003
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-20067

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JESUS SALINAS ITURBE, also known as Jesus Salinas, also known as Jesus

Iturbe Salinas, also known as Jesus Iturbe-Salinas, also known as Jesus SalinasIturbe,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:10-CR-406-1

Before JONES, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The attorney appointed to represent Jesus Salinas Iturbe (Salinas) has

moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th

Cir. 2011). Salinas has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief

and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

April 17, 2012

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

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.

Case: 11-20067 Document: 00511824157 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/17/2012
No. 11-20067

counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate

review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED,

counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS

DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

2

Case: 11-20067 Document: 00511824157 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/17/2012
# In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 14-1191V

Filed: October 14, 2015

Not for Publication

*************************************

ANTHONY LAWSON , *

* Petitioner, *

*

v. *

*

SECRETARY OF HEALTH * AND HUMAN SERVICES, *

* Respondent. *

*

*************************************

P . Richard Talley , Dandridge, TN, for petitioner.

Althea W. Davis , Washington, DC, for respondent.

MILLMAN, Special Master

DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES 1

On October 14, 2015 , the parties filed the attached stipulation in which they agreed to settle this case and described the settlement terms. Petitioner alleges that he suffered from brachial plexopathy caused by his receipt of the influenza (“flu”) vaccine on January 4, 2014. He further alleges that he experienced the residual effects of this injury for more than six months. Respondent denies that the flu vaccine caused petitioner to suffer brachial plexopathy or any other injury and further denies that the flu vaccine cause d petitioner’s current condition. Nonetheless, the parties agreed to resolve this matter informally.

1 Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation for the special master’ s action in this case, the special master intends to post this unpublished decision on the United States Court of Federal

Cl aims’ website, in accordance with the E-Government Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-347, 116 Stat. 2899, 2913 (Dec. 17, 2002). Vaccine Rule 18(b) states that all decisions of the special masters will be made available to the public unless they contain trade secrets or commercial or financial information that is privileged and confidential, or medical or similar information whose disclosure would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy. When such a decision is filed, petitioner has 14 days to identify and move to delete such information prior to the document’ s disclosure. If the special master, upon review, agrees that the identified material fits within the banned categories listed above, the special master shall delete such material from public a ccess. Damages decision based on stipulation; influenza (“flu”)

vaccine ; brachial plexopathyThe undersigned finds the terms of the stipulation to be reasonable. The court hereby adopts the parties’ said stipulation, attached hereto, and awards compensation in the amount and on the terms set forth therein. Pursuant to the stipulation, the court awards a lump sum of $55,000.00 , representing compensation for all damages that would be available under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a). The award shall be in the form of a check for $55,000.00 made payable to petitioner.

In the absence of a motion for review filed pursuant to RCFC Appendix B, the clerk of the court is directed to enter judgment herewith. 2

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 14, 2015 s/ Laura D. Millman

Laura D. Millman Special Master

2 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), entry of judgment can be expedited by each party , either separately or jointly, filing a notice renouncing the right to seek review.
#### WILLIAM BERLAND REALTY CO., *ET AL.,*PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS, AND CROSS-RESPONDENTS, v. HAHNE & CO., *ET AL.,*DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS, AND CROSS-APPELLANTS.

Superior Court of New Jersey Appellate Division

Argued January 4, 1954

Decided January 21, 1954.

Before Judges Jayne, Francis and *Clapp.*

*317*Mr. Herbert J. Ilannoch*argued the cause for appellants and cross-respondents (.Messrs. *Hannoch, Lasser, Weinstein <& Myers,*attorneys).

*Mr. Vincent P. Biunno*argued the cause for respondents and cross-appellants *(Messrs. Lum, Pairlie & Foster,*attorneys).

The opinion of the court was delivered

Per Curiam.

The judgment with the following modification is affirmed for the reasons expressed by Judge Speakman whose opinion is reported at *26 N. J. Super. 477 (Ch. Div.*1953). Our review guides us to the conclusion that the extraordinary relief granted by paragraph No. 3 of the judgment wherein the defendants, their respective officers, agents and attorneys are permanently restrained and enjoined from assigning the tenant’s interest or any part thereof under the lease, and from subletting the whole or any part of the demised premises during the term of the lease, or any renewal thereof, without the written consent of the plaintiff William Berland Eealty Co., or its successors and assigns, was unwarranted by the existing state of the evidence. In that respect only the judgment is reversed and in all other respects it is affirmed. No costs.
CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF FREDERICKSBURG

#### Amy C. Mannion v. Mary Washington College

July 26, 1996

Case No. CL96-138

BY JUDGE JOHN W. SCOTT, JR.

This matter comes before the Court on the petition of Amy C. Mannion, by counsel, presenting that the final decision of Mary Washington College (hereinafter referred to as the “agency”) denying her application for classification as an in-state student be reversed. It is the function of the court, in reviewing the “agencies” determination, to determine whether the decision is supported by the record or is arbitrary, capricious, or otherwise contrary to the law. Section 23-7.4(H), Code of Va. (1950, as amended).

In order to become eligible for in-state tuition, an independent student shall establish by clear and convincing evidence that for a period of at least one year immediately prior to the date of the alleged entitlement, she was domiciled in Virginia and had abandoned any previous domicile, if such existed. Section 23-7.4(B), Code of Va. (1950, as amended). The domicile of an individual is determined by considering a large number of factors. The record in this case contains a number of facts which help determine Amy Mannion’s domicile.

The Petitioner came to Virginia in 1993 to enroll in college. Prior to that time, she resided in the State of Connecticut with her parents. The only reason the Petitioner came to Virginia was to attend college. While in Virginia, the Petitioner opened a bank account with a Virginia bank, obtained a Virginia driver’s license, obtained employment both with the agency and in *423the jurisdiction in which she resided, and became financially independent from her parents.

The Petitioner also registered to vote in Virginia in December 1995, never filed or paid Virginia income tax, and received a Stafford Loan which is guaranteed by the State of Connecticut in connection with her attending college here in Virginia for the 1995/96 academic year.

Given these facts, the Court must focus on the Petitioner’s actions during the 1995/96 school year to determine if there was a change in domicile. In December 1995, the Petitioner registered to vote in Virginia. The record does not reflect any other change in circumstance that would indicate a change in domicile.

If the Petitioner’s domicile, in fact, changed as of December 1995, the Petitioner does not satisfy the statutory requirement that domicile must be changed at least one year prior to the alleged entitlement. Section 23-7.4(B), Code of Va. (1950, as amended).

It is therefore adjudged, ordered, and decreed that the Petition of Amy C. Mannion to reverse die decision by Mary Washington College declaring her ineligible to be charged in-state tuition is denied.
Exhibit 35.1

** **

**SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT**

 

The undersigned hereby certifies that the undersigned is the duly elected and acting Vice President, Controller, and Chief Accounting Officer of CONSUMERS ENERGY COMPANY, as servicer (the “Servicer”) under the Securitization Property Servicing Agreement dated as of July 22, 2014 (the “Servicing Agreement”) by and between the Servicer and CONSUMERS 2014 SECURITIZATION FUNDING LLC, and further certifies that:

 

1.         A review of the activities of the Servicer and of its performance under the Servicing Agreement during the year ended December 31, 2016 has been made under the supervision of the undersigned pursuant to Section 3.03 of the Servicing Agreement.

 

2.         To the undersigned’s knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations in all material respects under the Servicing Agreement throughout the year ended December 31, 2016.

 

Executed as of this 9th day of March 2017.

 
|   |                                                               | CONSUMERS ENERGY COMPANY, |
|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------|
|   |                                                               | as Servicer               |
|   |                                                               |                      |
|   |                                                               |                      |
|   | By:                                                                | /s/ Glenn P. Barba        |
|   |                                                               | Glenn P. Barba            |
|   | Vice President, Controller, Chief   Accounting Officer, and senior |
|   | officer in charge of the servicing   function of the Servicer      |

 

----
Exhibit 35.6



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

Citibank, N.A.

388 Greenwich
Street

14th Floor

New York, New York 10013



|RE: | Annual Statement of Compliance for GS Mortgage Securities Corporation II,
|--- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commercial Mortgage
Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2013-GC10

Per the Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of February 1, 2013 (the Agreement), the
undersigned, a duly authorized officer of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as Certificate Administrator (Wells Fargo), hereby certifies as follows as of and for the year ending December 31, 2015 (the Reporting Period):

(a) A review of Wells Fargos activities during the Reporting Period and of its performance under the Agreement has been made under such
officers supervision; and

(b) To the best of such officers knowledge, based on such review, Wells Fargo has fulfilled all of
its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period.

March 1, 2016



|              
|--------------
|LOGO          
|BRIAN SMITH   
|Vice President



LOGO
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

**890**

**KA 15**

**- 00933** 

PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., PERADOTTO, DEJOSEPH, NEMOYER, AND CURRAN, JJ.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

LESTER M. STREETER, DEFENDANT

- APPELLANT. (APPEAL NO. 2.)

DAVID J. FARRUGIA, PUBLIC DEFENDER, LOCKPORT (JOSEPH G. FRAZIER OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT

- APPELLANT.

NIAGARA COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY = S OFFICE, LOCKPORT (THOMAS H. BRANDT OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

Appeal from a judgment of the Niagara County Court (Matthew J. Murphy, III, J.), rendered February 5, 2015. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of attempted criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree.

It is hereby ORDERED that the case is held, the decision is reserved and the matter is remitted to Niagara County Court for fur ther proceedings in accordance with the following memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of attempted criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (Penal Law ' ' 110.00, 265.03 [3]). The People correctly concede that County Court erred in failing to determine whether defendant should be afforded youthful offender status
( see People v Rudolph , 21 NY3d 497, 501). We therefore hol d the case, reserve decision, and remit the matter to County Court to make and state

for the record A a determination of whether defendant is a youthful offender @
( id. at 503).

Entered: November 10, 2016 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court