alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### *In re*Werder, Bankrupt.

*(Circuit Court, D. New Jersey.*

March 28, 1883.)

Bankruptcy—Assets—Membership in Produce Exchange.

Membership in a produce exchange is property which passes to the assignee in bankruptcy as assets of the debtor’s estate.

Bill of Review.

*A. Marks,*for bankrupt.

*Hamilton Wallis,*for assignee.

McKennan, J.

The bankrupt is a certificated member of the New York Produce Exchange, and the only question presented by his bill is, whether his membership in that institution is an asset, available to his creditors, through his assignee, or not. If it is, the order made by the district court, of which the bankrupt complains, was right. I regard the question as conclusively settled by the opinion of the supreme court in *Hyde*v. *Woods, 94*U. S. 523. Mr. Justice Miller, speaking for the court, there says:

> “ There can be no doubt that the incorporeal right which Eeun had to this seat when he became bankrupt was property, and the sum realized by the assignees from its sale was valuable property. Mor do we think there can be any reason to doubt that, if he had made no such assignment, it would have passed subject to the rules of the stock board, to his assignee in bankruptcy, and that, if there had been left in the hands of the defendants any balance, after paying the debts due to the members of the board, that balance might have been recovered by the assignee.”

It is futile to contest the authoritativeness of this statement by the criticism that it was unnecessary to the decision of the question be*790fore the court, and, therefore, was only the individual opinion of the judge who spoke for the court. But it was not only proper, but necessary^ to ascertain and determine the nature and character of the interest claimed by the plaintiff that the court might pronounce judgment upon the merits of the controversy between the parties. The plaintiff was the assignee of a bankrupt member of the San Francisco Stock Exchange. If the bankrupt’s membership in that institution was a mere personal privilege, and in no sense property, then it did not pass under the assignment, and the plaintiff could not maintain any action touching it for want of title. But to consider the merits at all, and to determine the legal rights of the parties in reference thereto, it was necessary for the court to define the character of the subject-of the controversy, and so to pass upon the validity of the claim of the defendants to the proceeds of its sale; they, therefore, held it to be property, which passed under the assignment in bankruptcy, subject to the rules of the exchange, which provided for the prior appropriation of the proceeds of its sale to debts due to its members, and hence that such appropriation was not within the scope of the provisions of the bankrupt law against preferences.

Begarding the opinion, then, as authoritative, it rules this case, and it is, therefore, ordered that the bill be dismissed with costs.
Exhibit 99.1


                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 filing of Tech  Electro  Industries,  Inc. and
Subsidiaries  (the  "Company")  Quarterly  Report on Form  10-QSB for the period
ending  September 30, 2002 with the  Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the
date hereof (the  "Report"),  I,  William  Tan,  President  and Chief  Executive
Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to the 18 U.S.C. (SS) 1350, as adopted
pursuant to (SS) 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 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/ William Tan
--------------------
William Tan
President and Chief Executive Officer

November 13, 2002






























                                       23
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 171 (Wednesday, September 6, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 42098]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-18813]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2017-N-4642]


B. Braun Medical, Inc.; Withdrawal of Approval of Three New Drug 
Applications and One Abbreviated New Drug Application; Correction

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice; correction.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is correcting a 
document entitled ``B. Braun Medical, Inc.; Withdrawal of Approval of 
Three New Drug Applications and One Abbreviated New Drug Application'' 
that appeared in the Federal Register of August 3, 2017 (82 FR 36150). 
The document was published with the incorrect docket number. This 
document corrects that error.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lisa Granger, Office of Policy, Food 
and Drug Administration, Bldg. 32, Rm. 3330, Silver Spring, MD 20993-
0002, 301-796-9115.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the Federal Register of Thursday, August 
3, 2017, in FR Doc. 2017-16377, on page 36150, the following correction 
is made:
    1. On page 36150, in the second column, in the header of the 
document, ``Docket No. FDA-2017-N-0002'' is corrected to read ``Docket 
No. FDA-2017-N-4642''.

    Dated: August 28, 2017.
Anna K. Abram,
Deputy Commissioner for Policy, Planning, Legislation, and Analysis.
[FR Doc. 2017-18813 Filed 9-5-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
#### UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Patrick Shawn FLORANG, Appellant.

No. 07-2117.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: Jan. 18, 2008.

Filed: Feb. 4, 2008.

Martin Joseph McLaughlin, Daniel C. Tvedt, Assistant U.S., Attorneys, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Cedar Rapids, IA, for Appellee.

Patrick Shawn Florang, Cedar Rapids, IA, pro se.

Michael L. Mollman, Cedar Rapids, IA, for Appellant.

Before BYE, SMITH, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

In this direct criminal appeal, Patrick Florang challenges the reasonableness of the 292-month prison sentence the district court1 imposed after he pleaded guilty to (1) possession of ammunition by an unlawful user of controlled substances, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), (8), and 924(a)(2); and (2) conspiracy to distribute more than 5 grams of actual methamphetamine after a prior felony drug conviction, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(l)(B)(viii). Florang also argues the district court improperly accorded his Guidelines sentence a presumption of reasonableness.

We conclude that the court appropriately applied the Guidelines and did not treat his advisory Guidelines range as presumptively reasonable. *See United States v. Akers,*476 F.3d 602, 605 (8th Cir.), *cert. denied,*— U.S. -, 128 S.Ct. 101, 169 L.Ed.2d 76 (2007) (application of Guidelines reviewed de novo). We further conclude that Florang’s 292-month prison sentence is reasonable and not an abuse of the district court’s discretion because the court properly took into account only relevant 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and did not commit a clear error of judgment in weighing those factors. *See*18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(l)-(3) (court shall consider, inter alia, nature and circumstances of offense and history and characteristics of defendant; need for sentence imposed to afford adequate deterrence and provide defendant with needed medical care or other correctional treatment; and kinds of sentences available); *Rita v. United States,*— U.S. -, 127 S.Ct. 2456, 2462-69, 168 L.Ed.2d 203 (2007) (allowing appellate presumption of reasonableness for sentences within Guidelines range; district court’s sentencing analysis was legally sufficient when record showed that court listened to each argument and considered evidence in support of sentence below advisory Guidelines range, even though court did not elaborate on its reasons); *United States v. Boss,*493 F.3d 986, 987 (8th Cir.2007) (reasonableness of sentence reviewed for abuse of discretion); *United States v. Haack,*403 F.3d 997, 1004 (8th Cir.2005) *917(listing circumstances in which abuse of discretion may occur).

Accordingly, we affirm.

1

. The Honorable Linda R. Reade, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa.
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 994 Referred in House (RFH)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 994

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 12, 2015

      Referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
   at 1 Walter Hammond Place in Waldwick, New Jersey, as the ``Staff 
          Sergeant Joseph D'Augustine Post Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. STAFF SERGEANT JOSEPH D'AUGUSTINE POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 1 Walter Hammond Place in Waldwick, New Jersey, shall be 
known and designated as the ``Staff Sergeant Joseph D'Augustine Post 
Office Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Staff 
Sergeant Joseph D'Augustine Post Office Building''.

            Passed the Senate May 11, 2015.

            Attest:

                                                 JULIE E. ADAMS

                                                             Secretary.
```
II 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 947 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to permanently extend the 

depreciation rules for property used predominantly within an Indian 

reservation. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 15, 2015 

Mr. INHOFE introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to permanently 

extend the depreciation rules for property used predominantly within an Indian reservation. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. PERMANENT EXTENSION OF DEPRECIATION 

4 RULES FOR PROPERTY ON INDIAN RESERVA5 TIONS. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subsection (j) of section 168 of 

7 the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking 

8 paragraph (8). 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 947 IS

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

2 this section shall apply to property placed in service after 

3 December 31, 2014. 

4 SEC. 2. ELECTION TO HAVE SPECIAL DEPRECIATION 

5 RULES NOT APPLY. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subsection (j) of section 168 of 

7 the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended by section 

8 1, is amended— 

9 (1) by redesignating paragraph (7) as para10 graph (8), and 

11 (2) by inserting after paragraph (6) the fol12 lowing new paragraph: 

13 ‘‘(7) ELECTION OUT.—If a taxpayer makes an 

14 election under this paragraph with respect to any 

15 class of property for any taxable year, this sub16 section shall not apply to all property in such class 

17 placed in service during such taxable year.’’. 

18 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

19 this section shall apply to property placed in service after 

20 December 31, 2014. 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
II 

Calendar No. 107 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 966 

To extend the low-interest refinancing provisions under the Local Development 

Business Loan Program of the Small Business Administration. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 15, 2015 

Mrs. SHAHEEN (for herself, Mr. ISAKSON, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms. AYOTTE, Mrs. 

FISCHER, Ms. HIRONO, Mr. COONS, and Mr. FRANKEN) introduced the 

following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 

Small Business and Entrepreneurship 

JUNE 10, 2015 

Reported by Mr. VITTER, with an amendment 

[Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert the part printed in italic] 

A BILL 

To extend the low-interest refinancing provisions under the 

Local Development Business Loan Program of the Small 

Business Administration. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 966 RS

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Commercial Real Es3 tate and Economic Development Act of 2015’’ or the 

4 ‘‘CREED Act of 2015’’. 

5 SEC. 2. LOW-INTEREST REFINANCING UNDER THE LOCAL 

6 DEVELOPMENT BUSINESS LOAN PROGRAM. 

7 (a) REPEAL.—Section 1122(b) of the Small Business 

8 Jobs Act of 2010 (15 U.S.C. 696 note) is repealed. 

9 (b) RESTORATION OF LOW-INTEREST REFINANCING

10 PROVISION.—Subparagraph (C) of section 502(7) of the 

11 Small Business Investment Act of 1958 (15 U.S.C. 

12 696(7)) (relating to refinancing not involving expansions), 

13 as in effect on September 25, 2012, shall be in effect dur14 ing the period beginning on the date of enactment of this 

15 Act and ending 5 years after that date of enactment. 

16 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

17 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Commercial Real Estate 

18 and Economic Development Act of 2015’’ or the ‘‘CREED 

19 Act of 2015’’. 

20 SEC. 2. LOW-INTEREST REFINANCING UNDER THE LOCAL 

21 DEVELOPMENT BUSINESS LOAN PROGRAM. 

22 (a) REPEAL.—Section 1122(b) of the Small Business 

23 Jobs Act of 2010 (15 U.S.C. 696 note) is repealed. 

24 (b) RESTORATION OF LOW-INTEREST REFINANCING

25 PROVISION.—Subparagraph (C) of section 502(7) of the 

26 Small Business Investment Act of 1958 (15 U.S.C. 696(7)) 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 966 RS

1 (relating to refinancing not involving expansions), as in ef2 fect on September 25, 2012, shall be in effect on and after 

3 the date of enactment of this Act, in any fiscal year during 

4 which the cost to the Federal Government of making guar5 antees under section 502 of the Small Business Investment 

6 Act of 1958 is zero. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Calendar No. 107 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 966 

A BILL 

To extend the low-interest refinancing provisions 

Program of the Small Business Administration. under the Local Development Business Loan 

JUNE 10, 2015 

Reported with an amendment 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### Sol G. GARCIA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. G. HANSEN; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 06-17284.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 20, 2007 *.

Filed Dec. 28, 2007.

Sol G. Garcia, Susanville, CA, pro se.

Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

California state prisoner Sol G. Garcia appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging medical indifference by various prison staff. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court’s dismissal for failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. *Weilburg v. Shapiro,*488 F.3d 1202, 1205 (9th Cir.2007). We review for

an abuse of discretion a district court’s dismissal for failure to comply with service of process requirements under Fed. R.Civ.P. 4. *Townsel v. Contra Costa County,*820 F.2d 319, 320 (9th Cir.1987). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Garcia’s action as to defendant Hansen after Garcia failed to include allegations against Hansen in his second amended complaint. *See Forsyth v. Humana, Inc.,*114 F.3d 1467, 1474 (9th Cir.1997) (order) (“A plaintiff waives all claims alleged in a dismissed complaint which are not realleged in an amended complaint.”).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the action without prejudice as to the remaining defendant because Garcia did not timely serve Pompey even after he was given an extension of time to do so. *See*Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(m); see *also Hason v. Medical Bd. of Cal.,*279 F.3d 1167, 1174 (9th Cir.2002) (permitting dismissal of complaint if process is not served within requisite time period).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Garcia’s request to appoint counsel to help him locate defendant Pompey because the circumstances Garcia describes are not exceptional. *See United States v. McQuade,*647 F.2d 938, 940 (9th Cir.1981) (per curiam) (noting motions for appointment of counsel are granted only in exceptional circumstances).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
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 Deposit Insurance Corporation

*Notice is hereby given*                     that the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) as receiver for The Bank of Georgia, Peachtree City, Georgia (“the Receiver”) intends to terminate its receivership for said institution. The FDIC was appointed receiver of The Bank of Georgia on October 2, 2015. The liquidation of the receivership assets has been completed. To the extent permitted by available funds and in accordance with law, the Receiver will be making a final dividend payment to proven creditors.                

Based upon the foregoing, the Receiver has determined that the continued existence of the receivership will serve no useful purpose. Consequently, notice is given that the receivership shall be terminated, to be effective no sooner than thirty days after the date of this notice. If any person wishes to comment concerning the termination of the receivership, such comment must be made in writing and sent within thirty days of the date of this notice to: Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Division of Resolutions and Receiverships, Attention: Receivership Oversight Department 34.6, 1601 Bryan Street, Dallas, TX 75201. 

No comments concerning the termination of this receivership will be considered which are not sent within this time frame.

Dated: August 30, 2017.

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.

Robert E. Feldman,

Executive Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2017-18680 Filed 9-1-17; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 6714-01-P
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATION

I,
Jennifer M. Davis, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required to be filed in respect
of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of Santander Drive Auto Receivables Trust 2013-3 (the Exchange Act periodic reports);

2. Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do 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;

3. Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and other information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period
covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;

4. Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance
statement required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicer has fulfilled its obligations under the servicing agreement in all material respects; and

5. All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on
assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this
report, except as otherwise disclosed in this report. Any material instances of noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.

In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties: Wells Fargo
Bank, National Association.



By:

/s/ Jennifer M. DavisName:

Jennifer M. DavisTitle:

Deputy Chief Financial OfficerDate:

August 19, 2016
Document Headings

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

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### Food and Drug Administration

          - [Docket No. FDA-2017-N-4642]

# AGENCY:

Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

# ACTION:

Notice; correction.

# SUMMARY:

                        The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is correcting a document entitled “B. Braun Medical, Inc.; Withdrawal of Approval of Three New Drug Applications and One Abbreviated New Drug Application” that appeared in the                         **Federal Register**                         of August 3, 2017 (82 FR 36150). The document was published with the incorrect docket number. This document corrects that error.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Lisa Granger, Office of Policy, Food and Drug Administration, Bldg. 32, Rm. 3330, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-9115.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    In the                     **Federal Register**                     of Thursday, August 3, 2017, in FR Doc. 2017-16377, on page 36150, the following correction is made:                

1. On page 36150, in the second column, in the header of the document, “Docket No. FDA-2017-N-0002” is corrected to read “Docket No. FDA-2017-N-4642”.

Dated: August 28, 2017.

Anna K. Abram,

Deputy Commissioner for Policy, Planning, Legislation, and Analysis.

[FR Doc. 2017-18813 Filed 9-5-17; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 4164-01-P