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

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 734 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 734

To provide for the equitable distribution of Universal Service funds to 
                             rural States.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 12, 2015

  Ms. Ayotte introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
   referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To provide for the equitable distribution of Universal Service funds to 
                             rural States.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``USF Equitable Distribution Act of 
2015''.

SEC. 2. DISTRIBUTION OF UNIVERSAL SERVICE FUNDS.

    Section 254 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 254) is 
amended by adding at the end the following:
    ``(m) Distribution of Universal Service Funds.--
            ``(1) In general.--Not less than 75 percent of all amounts 
        collected by providers of interstate telecommunications from 
        consumers in a rural State for the purpose of making 
        contributions under subsection (d) shall be allocated to the 
        provision of universal service to consumers in that rural 
        State.
            ``(2) Rural state.--In this subsection, the term `rural 
        State' means a State in which the total population density is 
        not more than 200 people per square mile, as determined by the 
        latest available decennial census conducted under section 
        141(a) of title 13, United States Code.
            ``(3) Amounts collected.--Nothing in this subsection shall 
        be construed as requiring an increase in amounts collected by 
        providers of interstate telecommunications from consumers for 
        the purpose of making contributions under subsection (d).''.
                                 <all>
```
#### William T. DOLAN, Claimant-Appellee, v. Gordon H. MANSFIELD, Acting Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Respondent-Appellant.

No. 2007-7033.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

Dec. 10, 2007.

Before RADER, SCHALL, and PROST, Circuit Judges.

*ORDER*

SCHALL, Circuit Judge.

The Acting Secretary of Veterans Affairs moves to vacate the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims in *Dolan v. Nicholson,*21 Vet. App. 403, 2006 WL 2497693 (2006) and remand this appeal.

William T. Dolan appealed to the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims from a August 1, 2006 decision of the Board of Veterans’ Appeals that, inter alia, determined Dolan had received adequate notification of the evidence or information necessary to substantiate his claim as required by 38 U.S.C. § 5103(a) through receipt of various pre and post-decisional communications.

Having determined that the Board’s reliance on post-decisional communications was improper under *Mayfield v. Nicholson,*444 F.3d 1328 (Fed.Cir.2006) and noting that it was uncertain whether the Board would have concluded that pre-decisional communications alone would have satisfied the Secretary’s section 5103(a) notice requirements, the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims held that it was not in a position to determine whether the notice error was prejudicial. The court vacated and remanded for the Board to decide the issue in the first instance. The Secretary appealed, seeking review by this court.

On October 4, 2007, the court issued its decision in *Mlechick v. Mansfield,*503 F.3d 1340 (Fed.Cir.2007). *Mlechick*held that the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims cannot refuse to consider the rule of prejudicial error if the Board relied on both pre and post-decisional communications. *Id.*at 1345-46. Rather, in cases such as this, where the Secretary has attempted to show the notice error was nonprejudicial, the court should review the pre-decisional communications “to determine if any differences between the notice given and the notice required by [section 5103(a) ] ‘affected the fundamental fairness of the adjudication’ being mindful that the burden is on [the Secretary] to make such a showing.” *Id.*(citation omitted) Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

(1) The Acting Secretary’s motion is granted. The judgment of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims is vacated and the case is remanded for further proceedings.

(2) Each side shall bear its own costs.
Exhibit 32.2

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 Annual Report on Form 10‐K of Fractyl Health, Inc. (the “Company”) for the period ended December 31, 2023 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I 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, as amended; and

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

|                     |     |                                                                                                                          |
|---------------------|-----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Date: April 1, 2024 | By: | /s/ Lisa DavidsonLisa Davidson

Chief Financial Officer

(Principal Financial Officer and

Principal Accounting Officer) |

 

 

 

 

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1997

<CASH>                                         730,105
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  6,167,101
<ALLOWANCES>                                   228,406
<INVENTORY>                                    8,859,454
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               17,194,321
<PP&E>                                         2,228,409
<DEPRECIATION>                                 1,202,115
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 22,734,898
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          7,001,744
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       47,075
<OTHER-SE>                                     15,686,079
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   22,734,898
<SALES>                                        24,675,644
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               24,675,644
<CGS>                                          16,732,575
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  16,732,575
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               7,587,231
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             140,954
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                214,884
<INCOME-TAX>                                   1,642,766
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            355,838
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,427,882)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (.34)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (.30)
        


</TABLE>
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 Transportation

###### Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

# AGENCY:

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

# ACTION:

Notice of Unified Carrier Registration Plan Board of Directors Meeting.

# TIME AND DATE:

The meeting will be held on August 24, 2017, from 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m., Pacific Daylight Time.

# PLACE:

The meetings will be open to the public at the Double Tree Suites Doheny Beach, 34402 Pacific Coast Highway, Dana Point, CA 92629, and via conference call. Those not attending the meeting in person may call 1-877-422-1931, passcode 2855443940, to listen and participate in the meeting.

# STATUS:

Open to the public.

# MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

The Unified Carrier Registration Plan Board of Directors (the Board) will continue its work in developing and implementing the Unified Carrier Registration Plan and Agreement and to that end, may consider matters properly before the Board.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mr. Avelino Gutierrez, Chair, Unified Carrier Registration Board of Directors at (505) 827-4565.

Issued on: August 18, 2017.

Larry W. Minor, 

 Associate Administrator for Policy, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration.

[FR Doc. 2017-17903 Filed 8-21-17; 11:15 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 156 (Tuesday, August 15, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 38756]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-17145]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration


Government/Industry Aeronautical Charting Forum Meeting

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of public meeting.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces the bi-annual meeting of the Federal 
Aviation Administration (FAA) Aeronautical Charting Forum (ACF) to 
discuss informational content and design of aeronautical charts and 
related products, as well as instrument flight procedures development 
policy and design criteria.

DATES: The ACF is separated into two distinct groups. The Instrument 
Procedures Group (IPG) will meet October 24, 2017, from 8:30 a.m. to 
5:00 p.m. The Charting Group will meet October 25 and 26, 2017, from 
8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. and October 27, 2017, from 8:30 a.m. to 12:00 
noon.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the AOPA National Aviation 
Community Center, 296 Bucheimer Road, Frederick, MD 21701.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information relating to the 
Instrument Procedures Group, contact John Bordy, FAA, Flight Procedures 
Standards Branch, AFS-420, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd., P.O. Box 25082, 
Oklahoma City, OK 73125; telephone: (405) 954-0980.
    For information relating to the Charting Group, contact Valerie S. 
Watson, FAA, Aeronautical Information Services, Governance & Standards, 
AJV-553, 1305 East-West Highway, SSMC4, Station 3409, Silver Spring, MD 
20910; telephone: (301) 427-5155.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Instrument Procedures Group agenda will 
include briefings and discussions on recommendations regarding pilot 
procedures for instrument flight, as well as criteria, design, and 
developmental policy for instrument approach and departure procedures.
    The Charting Group agenda will include briefings and discussions on 
recommendations regarding aeronautical charting specifications, flight 
information products, and new aeronautical charting and air traffic 
control initiatives.
    Attendance is open to the interested public, but will be limited to 
the space available. The public must make arrangements by October 6, 
2017, to present oral statements at the meeting. The public may present 
written statements and/or new agenda items to the forum by providing a 
copy to the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION section not 
later than October 6, 2017. Public statements will only be considered 
if time permits.

Valerie S. Watson,
Co-Chair, Aeronautical Charting Forum.
[FR Doc. 2017-17145 Filed 8-14-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT In re : KHAM LA SIHAB OUTH a nd M ANYSAY SIHAB OUTH,

De btors,

______________________________ KHAM LA SIHAB OUTH a nd M ANYSAY SIHAB OUTH,

Appe lla nts, v. B ANK OF NEW

YOR K M E LLON C ORP., FKA The B ank of Ne w York, As Truste e For C e rtific a te holde rs Of C W ALT, Inc ., Alte rnative Loa n Trust 2006-0C 6, M ortga ge Pa ss-Through C e rtific ate s, Se rie s 2006-0C 6,

Appe lle e . No. 14-60046 B AP No. 13-1378 M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Ninth C irc uit B ankruptc y

Appe lla te Pane l K urtz , Jury , a

nd Ta y lor, B ankruptc y

Judge s, Pre s iding Argue d a nd Subm itte d July

5, 2016 

# FIL ED JUL 13 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. CO URT O F APPEALS

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

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

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia

B e fore : B ER

Z ON, a nd N.R . SM ITH, C i rc uit Judge s, a nd ZOUHAR

Y, * * Distric t Judge . The judgm e nt of the B ankruptc y Appe lla t e Pane l is AFFIRM E D for the re a s ons se t forth in its July 2, 2014 M e m orandum .

** The Honora

ble Ja c k Zouha

ry , Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the Northe rn Distric t of Ohio, sitting by de signa t ion. 2
ex10-4.htm


Exhibit 10.4










IRREVOCABLE PROXY RESCISSION

















I, PAUL O. KOETHER, do hereby surrender the title and duties of Proxy Agent for JENNIFER S. HEALEY, with respect to 750,000 of shares of common stock in KENT FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC., a NEVADA corporation ("Corporation") as appointed to me by the Irrevocable Proxy executed February 25, 2009.












IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have executed this rescission on December 7, 2011.







 

 







_____________________







Shareholder







 

 







Paul O. Koether







Print Name
(logo)**Prudential**

**PrudentialAsset Resources**

PrudentialMortgage Capital Company

2100Ross Avenue, Suite 2500, Dallas TX 75201

Tel214-777-4500

 

Abusiness of Prudential Financial, Inc.

 

 

WellsFargo Bank, National Association

CommercialMortgage Servicing

MACD1086

550South Tryon Street, 14th Floor

Charlotte,North Carolina 28202

Attention:Asset Manager

 

RE:**WFRBS 2013****‐****C13**

Period:**January 1, 2017 to December 31, 2017(the “Reporting Period”)**

 

 

**AnnualCompliance Statement**

 

I,Joni Brown‐Haas, in mycapacity as President and Managing Director of Prudential Asset Resources, Inc.(the “Company”) hereby certify with regard to the Company’s role as Sub‐Servicer undertheSub‐ServicingAgreement, (the “Agreement”) dated as of May 1, 2013, pertaining to the above‐referencedcertificates, that:

 

(i)a review of the activities of the Company under the Agreement during the periodnoted above, and of the performance of the Company under the Agreement duringthe reporting period has been made under my supervision, and

 

(ii)to the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Company has fulfilledall its obligations under the Agreement throughout the reporting period, and

 

(iii)to the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Company has fulfilledits obligations under its sub‐servicing agreement in all material respects, and

 

(iv)the Company has maintained an effective internal control system over theservicing of mortgage loans including the Loans serviced by the Company, and

 

(v)the Company has not received any notice regarding qualification, or challengingthe status of the Lower Tier REMIC or the Upper Tier REMIC as a REMIC, from theIRS or any other governmental agency or body.

 

Effectiveas of 2/22/2018

 

 

/s/Joni Brown-Haas

JoniBrown‐Haas

Presidentand Managing Director

PrudentialAsset Resources, Inc.
#### WHITE v. SKELLY OIL CO. et al.

No. 5450.

United States District Court W. D. Missouri, W. D.

Dec. 28, 1950.

*81John W. Hudson, Kansas City, for plaintiff.

Caldwell, Downing, Noble & Garrity and C. A. Randolph all of Kansas City, Mo., for defendant Skelly Oil Co.

Hogsett, Trippe, Depping, Houts & James, Kansas City, Mo., for defendant Crane Co.

REEVES, District Judge.

By his motion .the plaintiff seeks the production for inspection and copying of the following: “Turn-in records of Robert E. Bailey for month of July, 1948; All cylinder cards, invoice and sales report of Customer Robert E. L. White II of Bethel, Kansas, for month of July 1948; All records showing daily and hourly itinerary of Robert E. Bailey for month of July, 1948.” An intelligent decision requires a brief statement of the issues:

The plaintiff sues the defendants for damages occasioned by an explosion and damage in a residential property owned by the plaintiff. The defendant Oil Company supplied gas and the defendant Crane Company supplied fixtures. It is alleged both were negligent and that by reason of the explosion and consequent damages the plaintiff suffered a loss in the sum of $6,-500. The issue, therefore, is whether the Oil Company was negligent in supplying gas, and whether the Crane Company was negligent in respect to fixtures supplied by it. The documents sought do not relate in any way whatever to the issues in the case. No reason appears why the “turn-in records of Robert E. Bailey for month of July, 1948” should be produced. Undoubtedly Robert E. Bailey is available to give his deposition, and this would inform the plaintiff as to his whereabouts, if in any way that should become pertinent and relevant. The same thing is true in respect of records relating to his itinerary in the month of July, 1948. Furthermore, the cylinder cards, invoice and sales report of Customer Robert E. L. White II, of Beth-el, Kansas, for the month of July, 1948 would be wholly immaterial.

The rule invoked, namely, Fed. Rules Civ. Proc. Rule 34, 28 U.S.C.A. is very specific to the effect that only such documents and papers should be produced as “constitute or contain evidence relating to any of the matters within the scope of the examination permitted by Rule 26(b) * * *

Adverting to Rule 26(b), a deponent in a deposition “may be examined regarding any matter * * *, which is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action”.

These are' not relevant to the subject matter of. the pending action and could only serve the purpose of furnishing plaintiff with data for aid to counsel in the examination of witnesses. Under such circumstances the motion should be denied and it will be so ordered.
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT UNITED STATES OF AM ER IC A, Plaintiff - Appe lle e , v. NAB OR C AM PILLO-VEGA, a .k.a . Edua rdo C am pillo-Ve ga , a .k.a . Jua

n M anue l Ve g a -Zuniga , De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt. No. 13-10641

D.C . No. 2:07-c r-00478-JGZ M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ariz o na Je nnife r G. Zipps, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d Fe brua

ry 17, 2015 * * B e fore : O’ SC ANNLAIN, LEAVY, a n d FER N ANDEZ, C irc uit Judge s. Na bor C am pillo-Ve ga

a ppe a ls from

the re voc at ion of supe rvise d re le a se and 24-m onth c onse c utive se nte n c e im pose d upon re voc ation. Pursua nt to Ande rs v . C alifornia , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), C am pillo-Ve g a ’ s c ounse l ha s file d a brie f stating



# FIL ED FEB 24 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

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

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

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

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

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

the re are no grounds for re lie f, a long with a m otion to withdra

wa s c ounse l of re c o rd. W e have p rovide d C am pillo-Ve g a

the opportunity

to file a pro se supple m e nta l brie f. No pro se supple m e nta l brie f or answe ring brie f ha s be e n file d . Our inde pe nde nt re v i e w of the re c ord pursua n t to Pe nson v . Ohio , 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), disc lose s no a rgua ble grounds for re lie f on dire c t a ppe a l. C ounse l’ s m otion to withdra w is G RANT E D. AFFIRM E D.

1 3 - 1 0 6 4 1 2
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02-18-00238-CR

RALEIGH LEE KEMP JR., Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

§

§

§

§

§

On Appeal from the 396th District 

Court

of Tarrant County (1428013D)

May 23, 2019

Opinion by Justice Birdwell

(nfp)

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that there 

was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of the trial 

court is affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

By /s/ Wade Birdwell

 Justice Wade Birdwell
#### COLBURN et al. v. BIRR et al.

No. 44 C 750.

District Court, N. D. Illinois, E. D.

Feb. 13, 1945.

Brayton G. Richards, of Chicago, 111., for plaintiffs.

Harold Olsen, of Chicago, 111., for defendants.

LA BUY, District Judge.

In re motion for leave to file an amendment to complaint. The original complaint involves the Birr patent, 21,193,759, and the action is based on section 4915 of Rev. Stats., 35 U.S.C.A. § 63, unfair competition, and request for declaratory decree holding said patent invalid and request for damages. The proposed amendment introduces for the first time the Martin and Grunwald patents, 1,479,664 and 2,193,589, which are alleged to be owned or claimed to be owned by one of the defendants, Steiner Sales Company.

Rule 15(c), 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c, provides that “whenever the claim or defense asserted in the amended pleading arose *out*of the conduct, transaction, or occurrence set forth or attempted to be set forth in the original pleading, the amendment relates back to the date of the original pleading.” Under this rule an amendment cannot be permitted which sets up a new and distinct cause of action unrelated to that alleged in the original complaint. It cannot be a deviation and the amendment must be such as “arose out of the conduct, transaction, or occurrence set forth or attempted to be set forth in the original pleading.” A plaintiff may set up in his amendment a new cause of action arising out of the same transaction alleged in the original pleading. Kuhn v. Pac. Mut. Life Ins. Co., D.C.S.C.N.Y., 1941, 37 F.Supp. 102. The allegations of the proposed amendment in no way connect with or relate back to the claims in the original complaint.

Rule 20 cannot be applied for that rule pertains to the “same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences.”

If the plaintiff had included the Martin and Grunwald patents in his original complaint, it would have been a misjoinder of causes. Hooper v. Langston, D.C., 56 F.Supp. 577. To allow the plaintiff to bring the Martin and Grunwald patents into the case by amendment renders it no less a misjoinder of causes and improper.

For the reasons above stated the motion for leave to file the amendment is overruled.