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

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2390 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2390

    To amend title 40, United States Code, to eliminate the leasing 
  authority of the Securities and Exchange Commission, and for other 
                               purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 24, 2011

  Ms. Norton introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
             Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To amend title 40, United States Code, to eliminate the leasing 
  authority of the Securities and Exchange Commission, and for other 
                               purposes.

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

SECTION 1. LEASING OF SPACE FOR SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION.

    (a) In General.--Section 3304 of title 40, United States Code, is 
amended by adding at the end the following:
    ``(e) Leasing of Space for Securities and Exchange Commission.--
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, on and after the date of 
enactment of this subsection, the Securities and Exchange Commission 
may not lease general purpose office space. The Administrator may lease 
such space for the Securities and Exchange Commission under section 585 
and this chapter.''.
    (b) Limitation on Statutory Construction.--The amendment made by 
subsection (a) may not be construed to invalidate or otherwise affect a 
lease entered into by the Securities and Exchange Commission before the 
date of enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 35.1



ANNUAL SERVICER’S COMPLIANCE CERTIFICATE



This Compliance Certificate
is furnished pursuant to Section 4.10 of the Sale and Servicing Agreement (the “Agreement”), dated as of June 27, 2013,
by and among Hyundai Auto Receivables Trust 2013-B, Hyundai Capital America, as seller and servicer (the “Servicer”),
Hyundai ABS Funding, LLC (formerly known as Hyundai ABS Funding Corporation), as depositor, and U.S. Bank National Association,
as indenture trustee and Item 1123 of Regulation AB. The undersigned hereby certifies that:



1)    	I am a duly authorized officer of the
Servicer.



2)	   A review of the activities of the Servicer
from January 1, 2015 through December 31, 2015 (the “Relevant Period”) and of the Servicer’s performance under
the Agreement during the Relevant Period has been made under my supervision.



3)    	Based on such review, the Servicer has,
to the best of my knowledge, fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout the Relevant
Period.



IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have duly executed this
Compliance Certificate this 18th day of March, 2016.





| | HYUNDAI CAPITAL AMERICA, as Servicer
| | ------------------------------------
| |                                     
| | By:                                 
| |                                     
| |
#### Louis S. Ederer, Respondent, v Steven R. Gursky et al., Appellants.

Submitted February 11, 2008;

decided March 13, 2008

Motion for reargument denied with $100 costs and necessary reproduction disbursements *[see*9 NY3d 514 (2007)].
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2311 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2311

 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to modify the tax rate for 
        excise tax on investment income of private foundations.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 23, 2011

  Mr. Paulsen (for himself and Mr. Davis of Illinois) introduced the 
 following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to modify the tax rate for 
        excise tax on investment income of private foundations.

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

SECTION 1. MODIFICATION OF THE TAX RATE FOR THE EXCISE TAX ON 
              INVESTMENT INCOME OF PRIVATE FOUNDATIONS.

    (a) In General.--Subsection (a) of section 4940 of the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking ``2 percent'' and inserting 
``1.39 percent''.
    (b) Elimination of Reduced Tax Where Foundation Meets Certain 
Distribution Requirements.--Section 4940 of the Internal Revenue Code 
of 1986 is amended by striking subsection (e).
    (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to taxable years beginning after the date of the enactment of 
this Act.
                                 <all>
```
#### Michael Dunham MURPHY, Appellant, v. Michael KEMNA; George Lombardi; Gary B. Kempker; Thomas Clements, Appellees.

No. 06-2376.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: Jan. 22, 2008.

Filed: Feb. 4, 2008.

Michael Dunham Murphy, Cameron, MO, pro se.

David Allen Johnston, Jefferson City, MO, for Appellees.

Before MURPHY, COLLOTON, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Missouri inmate Michael Dunham Murphy appeals the district court’s1 adverse grant of summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. Having conducted de novo review of the record and carefully considered Murphy’s arguments, *see Johnson v. Blaukat,*453 F.3d 1108, 1112 (8th Cir.2006) (standard of review), we find no basis for reversal, *see Brockinton v. City of Sherwood, Ark.,*503 F.3d 667, 673 (8th Cir.2007) (supervisory liability under *926§ 1983). Accordingly, we affirm. *See*8th Cir. R. 47B. We deny the pending motion.

1

. The Honorable Gary A. Fenner, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri.
| (logo) ncb  National Cooperative Bank    | 2011 Crystal Drive  Suite 8oo  Arlington, Virginia 22202 |
|-----------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

February 6, 2017

 

RBS Commercial Funding, Inc.as Depositor

600 Washington Blvd.

Stamford, CT 06901

 

RE:         Annual Statement as to Compliance

WFRBS 2013 C13

 

Dear Sir/Madam:

 

In accordance with the Poolingand Servicing Agreement entered into in connection with the issuance of theCommercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series 2013-C13, as an authorizedofficer of National Cooperative Bank, N.A., formerly NCB, FSB (the “NCBMaster Servicer”), I hereby certify pursuant to Section 11.12 thereofthat:

 

a. A review of the activitiesof the NCB Master Servicer during the preceding calendar year (the“Reporting Period”) and of its performance under the Pooling andServicing Agreement has been made under my supervision.

 

b. To the best of myknowledge, based on these reviews, the NCB Master Servicer has fulfilled allobligations under this agreement in all material respects throughout theReporting Period.

 

Please note that the annualfinancial statement will be sent under separate cover on or before March 31,2017.

 

 

Best regards, 

/s/ Karyn Mann

Karyn Mann

Senior Vice President,Investor Compliance

National Cooperative Bank,N.A.
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 174 (Monday, September 11, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 42676]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-19153]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER17-2371-000]


GenOn Holdco 5, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-
Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 
Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding 
GenOn Holdco 5, LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with 
an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a 
request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future 
issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, 
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's 
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone 
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that 
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with 
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of 
liability, is September 25, 2017.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet 
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an 
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the 
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the 
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 
5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in 
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in 
the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the 
Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an 
eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive 
email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). 
For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#b1f7f4e3f2fedfddd8dfd4e2c4c1c1dec3c5f1d7d4c3d29fd6dec7"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="d2949780919dbcbebbbcb781a7a2a2bda0a692b4b7a0b1fcb5bda4">[email protected]</span></a> or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, 
call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: September 5, 2017.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-19153 Filed 9-8-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ No. 1 7- 25 10

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca
ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el le e

v. Tracy J. Yos t
ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll an t

__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Weste rn Dis tri ct of M is so ur i - Kan sa s C it y

__ __ __ __ __ __ Su bm it te d: Nov em

be r 15 , 20 17 Fi le d: Nov em

be r 30 , 20 17 [Un pu bl is he d]

__ __ __ __ __ __ Befo re WOL LMAN, BOW MAN, an d LOKEN, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

__ __ __ __ __ __ PER CURI AM.

Tracy Yos t ap pe al s th e di st ric t co ur t’s or de r d e nyin g hi s 18 U.S.C. 1 § 3 5 82 (c)( 2) m ot io n fo r a se nt en ce m od ifi cat io n ba se d on Am en dm en t 80 1 to th e Gui de li ne s.

The Hon or ab le St ep he n R. Bo ug h, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct J u d g e f or th e 1 W es te rn Dis tri ct of M is so ur i.Hav in g rev ie w e d th e reco rd , we affi rm on th e ba si s of th e di st ric t co ur t’s

st at em en t i n f

o o tn ot e 4 of it s or de r, whi ch in di cat ed th at ev en if Am en dm en t 80 1

w e r e t o be gi ve n ret ro act iv e effe ct , th e co ur t wou ld de cl in e to m od ify Yos t’s

se nt en ce, be cau se --co ns is te nt w i t h th e co ur t’s ex pl an at io n at th e ti m e of Yos t’s

se nt en ci ng --t he co u r t vi ewed th e se nt en ce as ap pr op ria te aft er co ns id eri ng th e 18 U.S

. C

. § 35 53 (a) fact or s. See 18 U.S.C. § 35 82 (c)( 2) (s et ti ng fo rth ci rcu m st an ces
un de r whi ch co ur t m ay red uc e de fen da nt ’s pr is on te rm ); se e al so Sp irt as Co

. v. Nau ti lu s In s. Co ., 71 5 F.3 d 66 7, 67 0- 71 (8 th Ci r. 20 13 ) (th is co ur t m ay affi rm on an y ba si s su pp or te d by re co r d ) ; c f

. U n it ed St at es v. Han se n, 85 9 F.3 d 57 6, 57 7- 78 (8 th Ci r. 20 17 ) (o n di rect ap pe al , affi rmi n g s en te nc e th at was in co ns is te nt wit h Am en dm en t 80 1; co nc lu di ng th at an y erro r wou ld ha ve be en ha rm le ss in li gh t of di st ric t c o u r t ’s ex pl an at io n of se nt en ce im po se d)

. W e ex pr es s no op in io n as to th e ot he r as pe ct s o f th e d is tri ct co ur t’s o rd er. The de ni al of r el ie f is affi rm ed

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-2

-
EXHIBIT 99.2

CERTIFICATIONS

In
connection with the annual report of Talisman Energy Inc. (the "Company") on Form 40-F for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Harold N. Kvisle, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

By:

/s/ HAROLD N. KVISLEName:

Harold N. KvisleTitle:

President and Chief Executive Officer


DATEDat Calgary, Alberta, as of March 4, 2015.

---





CERTIFICATIONS

In connection with the annual report of Talisman Energy Inc. (the "Company") on Form 40-F for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2014, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Paul R. Smith, Executive Vice-President, Finance and Chief Financial
Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

By:

/s/ PAUL R. SMITHName:

Paul R. SmithTitle:

Executive Vice-President, Finance and
Chief Financial Officer


DATEDat Calgary, Alberta, as of March 4, 2015.

---



QuickLinks
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Juan Manuel PENA, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 07-10029

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Jan. 28, 2008.

Lisa J. Miller, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Jason Douglas Hawkins, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, STEWART and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Juan Manuel Pena appeals the 33-month sentence he received following his conviction for conspiracy to utter and possess counterfeit obligations of an organization and for possession of counterfeit securities, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 371 and 513(a). He argues, for the first time on appeal, that the district court erred in assessing one criminal history point for his November 2004 criminal trespass conviction as well as one point for his November 2005 conviction for driving with a suspended license. To the extent that Pena argues that trial counsel was ineffective in failing to raise the objection at sentencing, the argument will not be reviewed on direct appeal. *See United States v. Miller,*406 F.3d 323, 335-36 (5th Cir.), *cert. denied,*546 U.S. 929, 126 S.Ct. 207, 163 L.Ed.2d 278 (2005); *see also Massaro v. United States,*538 U.S. 500, 503-04, 123 S.Ct. 1690, 155 L.Ed.2d 714 (2003).

We review Pena’s argument for plain error, which requires him to show that “(1) there was an error; (2) the error was clear and obvious; and (3) the error affected the defendant’s substantial rights.” *United States v. Villegas,*404 F.3d 355, 358 (5th Cir.2005). The court exercises its discretion to correct such error only if it “seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” *Id.*at 358-59.

As the Government concedes, the inclusion in Pena’s criminal history computation of his prior misdemeanor convictions for criminal trespass and driving with a suspended license, for which he received non-probated sentences of less than 30 days each, was clear or obvious error under U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2(c)(l). Nevertheless, the error did not affect Pena’s substantial rights because the same sentence could be imposed on remand under the correctly calculated guidelines range. *See United States v. Wheeler,*322 F.3d 823, 828 (5th Cir.2003); *see also United States v. Alford,*142 F.3d 825, 830 (5th Cir.1998).

Pena’s argument that his sentence must be vacated as “procedurally unreasonable” either ignores or is an attempt to circumvent plain-error review, which review survives *Booker*and is distinct from reasonableness review. *See United States v. Booker,*543 U.S. 220, 268, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005); *United States v. Mares,*402 F.3d 511, 520 (5th Cir.), *cert.*
      *594
      *denied,*546 U.S. 828, 126 S.Ct. 43, 163 L.Ed.2d 76 (2005). Because Pena has not met his burden of showing reversible plain error, the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

**Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
Exhibit 35.1



LOGO

1123  Servicer Compliance Statement

Transactions Listed With SEC

I, Anthony
Renzi, Senior Vice President of CitiMortgage, Inc., certify that:

(a) A review of CitiMortgage, Inc. (the Servicer) activities during the 12
month period ending December 31, 2015 (Reporting Period) and of its performance under the applicable servicing agreement as identified on Schedule A has been made under my supervision.

(b) To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the applicable servicing agreement in all
material respects throughout the Reporting Period.



| |  |  |  |                   |  |                                          
| |  |  |  | ----------------- |  | -----------------------------------------
| |  |  |  | February 24, 2016
| |  |  | 
| |  |  |  | By:               |  | /s/ Anthony Renzi                        
| |  |  |  | Name:             |  | Anthony Renzi                            
| |  |  |  | Title:            |  | Senior Vice President, CitiMortgage, Inc.
| |  |  |  |                   |  | Senior Officer in Charge of Servicing    



---

Schedule A

Transactions Listed with SEC 2015



|                     |  |                                             |  |                                                                             
|-------------------- |  | ------------------------------------------- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Investor/Bond Number |  | Security or Deal                            |  | Party the Servicer is Reporting To (Master Servicer or Trustee or 
Investor)
|77056                |  | REDWOOD TRUST-WL 44                         |  | WELLS FARGO BANK - TRUSTEE                                                  
|-                    |  | SEQUOIA MORTGAGE TRUST 2013-8 (SEMT 2013-8) |  | CITIMORTGAGE, INC. MASTER SERVICING                                         
|77099                |  | CMLTI 2014-A                                |  | CITIBANK AGENCY AND TRUST                                                   
|77101                |  | NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC.                    |  | NEW RESI.MORTG. LOAN TRUST 2014-1                                           
|77106                |  | ABS LOAN TRUST III                          |  | C/O ABS LOAN TRUST III,LLC
#### In the Matter of: Rodolfo VELASQUEZ, Debtor. Rodolfo Velasquez, Appellant, v. David Burchard, Chapter 13 Trustee; et al., Appellees.

No. 06-17203.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 20, 2008.*

Filed May 28, 2008.

Rodolfo Velasquez, San Francisco, CA, pro se.

David Burchard, Esq., Office of David Burchard, Foster City, CA, pro se.

Debra D. Lew, Robert J. Perkiss, Cook Perkiss & Lew, San Francisco, CA, for Appellees.

Before: PREGERSON, TASHIMA, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Rodolfo Velasquez appeals pro se from an order of the Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (“BAP”) affirming the bankruptcy court’s order dismissing his Chapter 13 petition, without prejudice, on the basis of bad faith under 11 U.S.C. § 1307(c). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). We review the decision of the BAP de novo, the bankruptcy court’s finding of bad faith for clear error, and the dismissal for an abuse of discretion. *Leavitt v. Soto (In re Leavitt),*171 F.3d 1291, 1222-23 (9th Cir.1999). We affirm.

The bankruptcy court did not commit clear error in finding that Velasquez filed for bankruptcy in bad faith because the record shows that Velasquez filed the action to defeat a state court judgment, failed to disclose all of his assets, and lacked any financial need for the bankruptcy. *See id.*at 1224 (explaining that bad faith is determined by the totality of the circumstances, including whether the debt- or filed his petition in an inequitable manner, omitted assets, and only intended to defeat state court litigation). Velasquez’s contention regarding amendment is unavailing because even if he had been allowed to amend his schedules to include omitted assets, the totality of the circumstances would have supported the court’s bad faith finding. *See id.*

Accordingly, the bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing the action. *See id.*(“bad faith is a ‘cause’ for dismissal under § 1307(c)”).

Contrary to Velasquez’s contentions, the bankruptcy court did not err by failing to address his requests to reduce or discharge the debt to Appellees because there was no basis to continue the proceedings.

*311Velasquez’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

AFFIRMED.

**

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