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

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 677 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 677

    To prohibit the application of certain restrictive eligibility 
 requirements to foreign nongovernmental organizations with respect to 
the provision of assistance under part I of the Foreign Assistance Act 
                                of 1961.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 9, 2015

 Mrs. Boxer (for herself, Ms. Collins, Mrs. Shaheen, Mr. Durbin, Mrs. 
 Murray, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Markey, Mrs. Gillibrand, Mr. Whitehouse, 
  Mr. Blumenthal, Ms. Warren, Mr. Murphy, Mr. Coons, Mr. Sanders, Mr. 
Wyden, Mr. Schatz, and Mr. Cardin) introduced the following bill; which 
   was read twice and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To prohibit the application of certain restrictive eligibility 
 requirements to foreign nongovernmental organizations with respect to 
the provision of assistance under part I of the Foreign Assistance Act 
                                of 1961.

    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 ``Global Democracy Promotion Act''.

SEC. 2. ASSISTANCE FOR FOREIGN NONGOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS UNDER PART 
              I OF THE FOREIGN ASSISTANCE ACT OF 1961.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of law, regulation, or policy, 
in determining eligibility for assistance authorized under part I of 
the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2151 et seq.), foreign 
nongovernmental organizations--
            (1) shall not be ineligible for such assistance solely on 
        the basis of health or medical services, including counseling 
        and referral services, provided by such organizations with non-
        United States Government funds if such services do not violate 
        the laws of the country in which they are being provided and 
        would not violate United States Federal law if provided in the 
        United States; and
            (2) shall not be subject to requirements relating to the 
        use of non-United States Government funds for advocacy and 
        lobbying activities other than those that apply to United 
        States nongovernmental organizations receiving assistance under 
        part I of such Act.
                                 <all>
```
#### Gail EVANS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WILLIAMSBURG TECHNICAL COLLEGE; Clifton Elliott, a/k/a Rusty Elliott, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Agent and Dean of Instruction of Williamsburg Technical College; Ronald Hampton, in His Official Position as Acting President Of Williamsburg Technical College, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 07-1394.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Jan. 10, 2008.

Decided: Jan. 25, 2008.

James L. Bell, The Bell Law Firm, P.A., Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellant. Charles J. Boykin, Karla McLawhorn Hawkins, Boykin, Davis & Hawkins, L.L.C., Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Gail Evans appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and granting summary judgment in favor of her former employer on her claims of discrimination, retaliation, and hostile work environment brought under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17 (2000), her claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000), and her state law claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress. This court reviews a district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo. *Higgins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co.,*863 F.2d 1162, 1167 (4th Cir.1988). Summary judgment may only be granted when “there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and ... the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). With this standard in mind, we have reviewed the materials before us on appeal and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *See Evans v. Williamsburg Tech. Coll.,*No. 4:03-cv-03939-TLW, 2007 WL 1068183 (D.S.C. Mar. 29, 2007). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED.*
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 171 (Wednesday, September 6, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 42220]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-18761]


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

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

[Disaster Declaration #15274 and #15275; Texas Disaster Number TX-
00487]


Presidential Declaration Amendment of a Major Disaster for the 
State of Texas

AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration.

ACTION: Amendment 1.

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

SUMMARY: This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a 
major disaster for the State of Texas (FEMA-4332-DR), dated 08/25/2017.
    Incident: Hurricane Harvey.
    Incident Period: 08/23/2017 and continuing.

DATES: Issued on 08/27/2017.
    Physical Loan Application Deadline Date: 10/24/2017.
    Economic Injury (EIDL) Loan Application Deadline Date: 05/25/2018.

ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business 
Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport 
Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A. Escobar, Office of Disaster 
Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW., 
Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6734.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of the President's major disaster 
declaration for the State of Texas, dated 08/25/2017, is hereby amended 
to include the following areas as adversely affected by the disaster:

Primary Counties (Physical Damage and Economic Injury Loans): Aransas, 
Brazoria, Calhoun, Chambers, Fort Bend, Galveston, Harris, Jackson, 
Liberty, Matagorda, Victoria, Wharton
Contiguous Counties (Economic Injury Loans Only):
    Texas: Austin, Colorado, Hardin, Jefferson, Lavaca, Montgomery, 
Polk, San Jacinto, Waller

    All other information in the original declaration remains 
unchanged.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number 59008)

James E. Rivera,
Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance.
[FR Doc. 2017-18761 Filed 9-5-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
Amendment to Expense Support Agreement



 Exhibit 10.1 

 

			
	



	  	 450 S. Orange Avenue
 Orlando, FL 32801
 Tel 866.745.3797

Fax 407.540.7653
 www.CorporateCapitalTrust.com
  
 Mailing Address:
 P.O. Box 4920

Orlando, Florida 32802-4920


 December 16, 2011 
  

			
	 CNL Fund Advisors Company
 450 S. Orange Avenue
 Orlando, FL 32801
 Attention: Paul S. Saint-Pierre
 Chief Financial Officer
	  	 KKR Asset Management LLC

555 California Street, 50th Floor
 San Francisco,
CA 94104
 Attention: Nicole J. Macarchuk

General Counsel


  

	 	RE:	Amendment 2 to Expense Support and Conditional Reimbursement Agreement Dated as of June 7, 2011, as amended 


Ladies and Gentlemen: 
 This
letter confirms our intent that, effective as of immediately before the close of business on December 31, 2011, in accordance with Section 4.4 thereof, the above-referenced agreement among us (the “Agreement”) is hereby amended
as follows: 
  

	 	1.	The reference to “December 31, 2011” in Section 1 of the Agreement is hereby deleted, and “March 31, 2012” is inserted in the place of such
deleted reference. 

  

	 	2.	Each reference to “50%” in Section 1 of the Agreement is hereby deleted, and “32.5%” is inserted in the place of each such deleted reference.


  

	 	3.	The definition of “(b) “Operating Expenses”“ in Section 1 of the Agreement is hereby deleted in its entirety and the following definition is
inserted in the place of such deleted definition: “(b) “Operating Expenses” for any period means all costs and expenses paid or incurred by the Company, as determined under generally accepted accounting principles, including base
advisory fees payable pursuant to the Advisory Agreements, and excluding (i) incentive advisory fees payable pursuant to the Advisory Agreements, (ii) offering and organization expenses, and (iii) all interest costs related to
indebtedness for such period, if any.” 

  

	 	4.	All references in the Agreement to “Agreement” shall be deemed to mean the Agreement as modified by this letter. This letter shall be deemed incorporated into
and to form part of the Agreement. Except as modified hereby, the Agreement remains in full force and effect in accordance with its terms. 

 If the foregoing accurately reflects our agreement, please indicate your acceptance hereof by countersigning a copy of this letter and returning a counterpart of such copy to the attention of the
undersigned. Thank you. 
  
  

Corporate Capital Trust, Inc. is advised by CNL Fund Advisors Company and KKR Asset Management, LLC 







 
	
	Sincerely,
	
	/s/ Andrew A. Hyltin
	 Andrew A. Hyltin
 President
and Chief Executive Officer



  

									
	 AGREED AND ACCEPTED:
  

CNL FUND ADVISORS COMPANY
	 		 	 AGREED AND ACCEPTED:
  

KKR ASSET MANAGEMENT LLC

					
	By:	 	/s/ Paul S. Saint-Pierre	 		 	By:	 	/s/ Nicole J. Macarchuk
	Name:	 	Paul S. Saint-Pierre	 		 	Name:	 	Nicole J. Macarchuk
	Title:	 	Chief Financial Officer	 		 	Title:	 	General Counsel


  
 2
Exhibit 33.2b

 
260 Interstate North Circle, SE 

Atlanta, GA 30339 

T 770.763-4000 

www.assurant.com 

 

 

January 26, 2022

 

REPORT ON ASSESSMENT OF COMPLIANCE WITH§1122 (d)(2)(vi), §1122(d)(4)(xi) and §1122(d)(4)(xii)of REGULATION AB SERVICING CRITERIAFOR THE REPORTING PERIODJANUARY 1, 2021 TO DECEMBER 31, 2021

American Security Insurance Company, Standard Guaranty Insurance Company and TrackSure Insurance Agency, Inc. (collectively, the “Asserting Party”) is responsible for assessing compliance for the period of January 1, 2021 through December 31, 2021 (the “Reporting Period”) with the servicing criteria set forth in §1122(d)(2)(vi), §1122(d)(4)(xi) and §1122(d)(4)(xii) of Title 17, §229.1122(d) of the Code of Federal Regulations, (the “Applicable Servicing Criteria”) which the Asserting Party has concluded are applicable to the insurance escrow servicing activities it performs with respect to all mortgage backed securities transactions that were registered after January 1, 2006 with the Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to the Securities Act of 1933 (the “Platform Transactions”). The Asserting Party used the criteria set forth in paragraph (d) of Item 1122 of Regulation AB to assess the compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria.

The Asserting Party has assessed its compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria for the Reporting Period and has concluded that the Asserting Party has complied, in all material respects, with the Applicable Servicing Criteria for the Reporting Period with respect to the Platform Transaction.

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, an independent registered public accounting firm, has issued an attestation report on the assessment of compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria as of and for the Reporting Period.

American Security Insurance CompanyStandard Guaranty Insurance CompanyTrackSure Insurance Agency, Inc.

 

/s/ Michael Campbell

By: Michael Campbell

President of American Security Insurance Company

And Standard Guaranty Insurance Company, and

Sr. Vice President of TrackSure Insurance Agency, Inc.

Date: January 26, 2022
#### Ronald E. EDINGBOURGH, Claimant-Appellee, v. Gordon H. MANSFIELD, Acting Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Respondent-Appellant.

No. 2007-7012.

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 *Edingbourgh v. Nicholson,*— Vet.App.-, No. 04-1227, 2006 WL 2107049 (Vet.App. July 13, 2006).

Ronald E. Edingbourgh appealed to the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims from a May 30, 2006 decision of the Board of Veterans’ Appeals that, inter alia, determined Edingbourgh 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 United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims is vacated and the case is remanded for further proceedings.

(2) Each side shall bear its own costs.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
UNAUDITED BALANCE SHEET AT SEPTEMBER 30, 1996 AND THE UNAUDITED STATEMENT OF
OPERATIONS FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1996.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<CASH>                                       1,607,554
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,634,851
<PP&E>                                       2,855,892
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,980,984
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,550,684
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,700,290
<BONDS>                                         28,826
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     73,749
<COMMON>                                         4,551
<OTHER-SE>                                     743,268
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,550,684
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,004,719
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              (4,383,758)
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            (34,156)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (3,304,944)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (3,304,944)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (3,304,944)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (7.31)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        


</TABLE>
chatching_ex42.htm


EXHIBIT 4.2


 


 


ChatChing Inc.







Employee/Consultant Benefit Plan







Amendment to plan dated December 15, 2011







Section 12 of the Plan is amended in its entirety to read:







12. Amendment of the Plan. The Board of Directors may at any time modify or amend the Plan in any respect; provided, however, any such amendments may not adversely affect then-existing interests or expectations of then-existing Consultants or other participants.  The Board  will give reasonable notice of any such modification or amendment to Qualified Consultants through the Site. The Plan may only be modified in writing as set forth in this Section.
MR. CHRISTOPHER PRINE

CLERK, FIRST COURT OF APPEALS

301 FANNIN

HOUSTON, TX 77002 RE: Case No. 14-0811 DATE: 11/20/2015

COA #: 01-13-00357-CV TC#: 2011-36224

STYLE: ENDURING RESOURCES, LLC

v. TALISMAN ENERGY USA INC. AND STATOIL TEXAS

ONSHORE PROPERTIES, LLC

Today the Supreme Court of Texas denied the

petition for review in the above-referenced case.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellant, Cross-Appellee, v. Elroy Antonio PHILLIPS, a.k.a. 6, a.k.a. 86, Defendant-Appellee Cross-Appellant.

No. 06-14794.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

Jan. 11, 2008.

Madeleine R. Shirley, Anne R. Schultz, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Miami, FL, Plaintiff-Appellant, Cross-Appellee.

Jeanne Marie Mullenhoff, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Miami, FL, for DefendantAppellee Cross-Appellant.

PER CURIAM:

This is the second time we have considered an appeal of this case. In the first appeal, we affirmed Phillips’s convictions but vacated his sentences and remanded the case for resentencing *(“Phillips*/”). On remand, the district court sentenced Phillips to 288 months in the federal penitentiary. The government appealed Phillips’s sentence and Phillips cross-appealed his sentence on three grounds.1 First, Phillips argues that the district court erred when it applied an armed-career criminal enhancement, see U.S.S.G. § 4B 1.4(a) (2002), based on its erroneous determination that Phillips was a career offender, see § 4Bl.l(a). Second, Phillips argues that the district court erred when it denied his motion for new trial. Third, Phillips contends that the district court erroneously determined that §§ 922(g) and 924(e) of Title 18 of the United States Code are constitutional as applied to him.

After reviewing the record, reading the parties’ briefs, and having the benefit of oral argument, we conclude that all of Phillips’s arguments in support of his cross-appeal are meritless. Based on our decision in *Phillips I,*Phillips’s arguments that the district court erred when it denied his motion for new trial and determined that § § 922(g) and 924(e), as applied to him, do not violate the Constitution are barred by the law of the case doctrine. *See United States v. Jordan,*429 F.3d 1032 (11th Cir.2005). Phillips’s argument that the district court erred when it determined that he qualified as a career offender, see U.S.S.G. § 4Bl.l(a), which Phillips raises for the first time in this appeal, is also barred by the law of the case doctrine. *See United States v. Escobar-Urrego,*110 F.3d 1556, 1560 (11th Cir.1997). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s determination that Phillips qualifies as an armed-career offender under U.S.S.G. § 4Bl.l(a), and we affirm his sentence.

AFFIRMED.

1

. Subsequently, the government filed a motion to dismiss its appeal, which we granted. Accordingly, the cross-appeal is all that remains for disposition.
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

SHONTRELL HIGGS,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D19-3876

[July 22, 2020]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, 

Broward County; Elizabeth A. Scherer, Judge; L.T. Case No. 19-

004576CF10A.

Alfred J. Fluehr of Francis Alexander, LLC, Media, PA, and Michael D. 

Walsh of Law Offices of Michael Walsh, Boca Raton, for appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Jessenia J. 

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

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See James v. State, 886 So. 2d 1032 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004);

State v. Sion, 942 So. 2d 934 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006).

LEVINE, C.J., KUNTZ, J., and SHEPHERD, CAROLINE, Associate Judge, concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                       5                     
<MULTIPLIER>                    1              
<CURRENCY>                      U.S. Dollars              
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               DEC-31-1998              
<PERIOD-START>                  JAN-01-1998   
<PERIOD-END>                    SEP-30-1998   
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                            1
<CASH>                                     0             
<SECURITIES>                               0  
<RECEIVABLES>                      8,294,814  
<ALLOWANCES>                         552,000           
<INVENTORY>                          644,479  
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                   8,713,235  
<PP&E>                             4,666,337  
<DEPRECIATION>                     1,395,448  
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                    25,879,127  
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>             14,699,859  
<BONDS>                            8,332,639  
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                      0  
<PREFERRED>                                0  
<COMMON>                             118,844  
<OTHER-SE>                        10,255,143 
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>      25,879,127  
<SALES>                            5,695,389  
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                  24,820,587 
<CGS>                              5,695,389  
<TOTAL-COSTS>                     24,298,369  
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                           0  
<LOSS-PROVISION>                           0  
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                   612,267  
<INCOME-PRETAX>                       14,658  
<INCOME-TAX>                              29  
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                   14,619  
<DISCONTINUED>                    (3,851,455)  
<EXTRAORDINARY>                            0            
<CHANGES>                                  0  
<NET-INCOME>                      (3,570,246)  
<EPS-PRIMARY>                            .00 
<EPS-DILUTED>                           (.30)  
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT
32.1





CERTIFICATION
OF PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER


PURSUANT
TO 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
connection with the Quarterly Report of ATSI Communications, Inc. on Form 10-Q
for the period ending January 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Arthur L. Smith, President and Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C, ss. 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that,





1)
            the
      Report complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
and





2)
            the
      information in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
      financial condition and result of operations of the
    Company.





By /s/
Arthur L. Smith


Arthur L.
Smith


President
and


Chief
Executive Officer


March 12,
2010