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

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

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board

# AGENCY:

Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board.

# ACTION:

Notice.

                    Pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 3511(d), the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), as amended, and the FASAB Rules of Procedure, as amended in October 2010, notice is hereby given that the Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board (FASAB) has issued an exposure draft of a proposed SFFAS entitled                     *Amending Inter-entity Cost Provisions.*

                    The exposure draft is available on the FASAB Web site at                     *http://www.fasab.gov/​documents-for-comment/​.*                     Copies can be obtained by contacting FASAB at (202) 512-7350.                

                    Respondents are encouraged to comment on any part of the exposure draft. Written comments are requested by November 30, 2017, and should be sent to                     *fasab@fasab.gov*                     or Wendy M. Payne, Executive Director, Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board, 441 G Street NW., Suite 6814, Mailstop 6H19, Washington, DC 20548.                

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Ms. Wendy M. Payne, Executive Director, 441 G Street NW., Mailstop 6H19, Washington, DC 20548, or call (202) 512-7350.

Authority:Federal Advisory Committee Act, Pub. L. 92-463.

Dated: September 1, 2017.

Wendy M. Payne,

Executive Director.

[FR Doc. 2017-19064 Filed 9-13-17; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 1610-02-P
III 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. RES. 232 

Expressing the sense of the Senate that August 30, 2015, be observed 

as ‘‘1890 Land-Grant Institutions Quasquicentennial Recognition Day’’. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 27, 2015 

Mr. BOOZMAN (for himself, Mr. ROBERTS, Mr. BROWN, Mr. TILLIS, Mr. 

PERDUE, Mrs. CAPITO, Mr. WARNER, Mr. CARDIN, Mr. WICKER, Mr. 

ISAKSON, Mr. SESSIONS, Mr. INHOFE, Mr. MANCHIN, Mr. COCHRAN, Mr. 

PORTMAN, Mr. COONS, Mr. CARPER, Mr. COTTON, Mr. GRAHAM, Mr. 

SCOTT, Mr. LEAHY, and Ms. MIKULSKI) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and 

Forestry 

AUGUST 4, 2015 

Committee discharged; considered and agreed to 

RESOLUTION 

Expressing the sense of the Senate that August 30, 2015, 

be observed as ‘‘1890 Land-Grant Institutions 

Quasquicentennial Recognition Day’’. 

Whereas the Act of August 30, 1890 (7 U.S.C. 321 et seq.), 

popularly known as the ‘‘Second Morrill Act’’, led to the 

creation of 19 historically Black Federal land-grant educational institutions; 

Whereas the 19 historically Black 1890 land-grant universities are identified as Lincoln University, Alcorn State 

University, the University of Arkansas at Pine Bluff, 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

SRES 232 ATS 

Alabama A&M University, Prairie View A&T University, 

Southern University, Virginia State University, Kentucky 

State University, the University of Maryland-Eastern 

Shore, Florida A&M University, Delaware State University, North Carolina A&T University, Fort Valley State 

University, South Carolina State University, Langston 

University, Tennessee State University, Tuskegee University, Central State University, and West Virginia State 

University; 

Whereas the Act of May 8, 1914 (7 U.S.C. 341), popularly 

known as the ‘‘Smith-Lever Act’’, provided for the establishment of the Cooperative Extension Service within the 

Department of Agriculture for the dissemination, through 

Federal land-grant institutions, of information pertaining 

to agriculture and home economics; and 

Whereas appropriate recognition should be given to the contributions made by the 19 historically Black Federal 

land-grant institutions to the heritage, educational development, and agricultural strength of the United States: 

Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That it is the sense of the Senate that— 

2 (1) August 30, 2015, should be designated as 

3 ‘‘1890 Land-Grant Institutions Quasquicentennial 

4 Recognition Day’’; 

5 (2) such day should be observed with appro6 priate ceremonies and activities to recognize the col7 lective contributions that these institutions have 

8 made to the United States; 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

SRES 232 ATS 

1 (3) the Second Morrill Act and the Smith-Lever 

2 Act have helped the United States develop agricul3 tural leaders; and 

4 (4) the Department of Agriculture and the Na5 tional Institute of Food and Agriculture should re6 main committed to supporting the goals of the Sec7 ond Morrill Act and the Smith-Lever Act. 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AND THE CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                         249,408
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,825,201
<ALLOWANCES>                                   526,199
<INVENTORY>                                    803,236
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,466,922
<PP&E>                                       6,773,533
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,961,565
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              37,178,073
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        6,880,809
<BONDS>                                     11,106,991
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                         11
<COMMON>                                         8,731
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,178,919
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                37,178,073
<SALES>                                      5,468,982
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            14,987,248
<CGS>                                        4,545,693
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                6,045,534
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             5,079,837
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               399,034
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             942,686
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (2,030,327)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (2,030,327)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (2,030,327)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.38)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
EX-10.3


 EXHIBIT 10.3 
 ASSIGNMENT AND ASSUMPTION OF PURCHASE AGREEMENT 
 For good and valuable consideration, the receipt
and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, STEADFAST ASSET HOLDINGS, INC., a California corporation (“Assignor”), hereby assigns to SIR PRAIRIE WALK, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company
(“Assignee”), all of Assignor’s rights and obligations under and in regard to that certain Agreement of Purchase and Sale dated November 30, 2011 (as may be amended, the “Purchase Agreement”), between
Prairie Walk, LLC (“Seller”) and Assignor for the purchase and sale of that certain real property located in Kansas City, Missouri, as more particularly described in Exhibit A attached hereto (the
“Property”). 
 Assignee hereby agrees to and shall assume, perform and be fully responsible for the performance of all of the
obligations of Assignor under the Purchase Agreement. 
 All of the provisions, covenants and agreements contained in the Assignment shall
extend to and be binding upon the respective legal representatives, successors and assigns of Assignor and Assignee. This Assignment represents the entire agreement between Assignor and Assignee with respect to the subject matter of the Assignment ,
and all prior or contemporaneous agreements regarding such matters are hereby rendered null and void and of no force and effect. 

(SIGNATURES APPEARS ON FOLLOWING PAGE) 






 WITNESS THE EXECUTION HEREOF, as of this December 19, 2011. 

 

					
	ASSIGNOR:
	
	 STEADFAST ASSET HOLDINGS, INC.,
 a California corporation

		
	By:	 	/s/ Ana Marie del Rio
	Name:	 	Ana Marie del Rio
	Title:	 	Secretary
	
	ASSIGNEE:
	
	 SIR PRAIRIE WALK, LLC
 an Delaware limited liability company

		
	By:	 	Steadfast Income Advisor, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, its Manager
			
		 	By:	 	/s/ Rodney F. Emery
		 	Name:	 	Rodney F. Emery
		 	Title:	 	CEO and President








 Exhibit A 
 LEGAL DESCRIPTION 
 Real property in the City of Kansas City, County of
Jackson, State of Missouri, described as follows: 
 LOTS 1, 2 AND 3, HILLSIDE PARK, A SUBDIVISION IN KANSAS CITY, JACKSON COUNTY,
MISSOURI, AS CLARIFIED BY SURVEYOR’S AFFIDAVIT RECORDED FEBRUARY 14, 1983, AS DOCUMENT NO. K-549890 IN BOOK K-1193 AT PAGE 1971.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Drug Guild
Distributors, Inc. and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such
financial statements.
</LEGEND>

       
<S>                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>             JUL-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                AUG-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                  JUL-31-1996
<CASH>                        200,000
<SECURITIES>                  0
<RECEIVABLES>                 67,274,000
<ALLOWANCES>                  1,203,000
<INVENTORY>                   29,440,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>              97,552,000
<PP&E>                        14,287,000
<DEPRECIATION>                10,956,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                105,974,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>         89,696,000
<BONDS>                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>         2,589,000
<PREFERRED>                   0
<COMMON>                      10,023,000
<OTHER-SE>                    2,596,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>  105,974,000
<SALES>                       501,383,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>              501,383,000
<CGS>                         475,500,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                 14,560,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>              10,229,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>              1,430,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>            5,494,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>               (3,807,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                  (1,543,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>           (2,264,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                0
<EXTRAORDINARY>               0
<CHANGES>                     0
<NET-INCOME>                  (2,264,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                 (.24)
<EPS-DILUTED>                 (.24)
        


</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21-4305

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

ANTHONY SELLERS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at 

Orangeburg. Margaret B. Seymour, Senior District Judge. (5:08-cr-00944-MBS-21)

Submitted: January 24, 2022 Decided: March 30, 2022

Before THACKER and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit 

Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: Parks N. Small, Federal Public Defender, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL 

PUBLIC DEFENDER, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. M. Rhett DeHart, Acting 

United States Attorney, Leesa Washington, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF 

THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Anthony Sellers appeals from the district court’s amended order and opinion 

granting relief and reducing his sentence pursuant to the First Step Act of 2018.*

 In his 

opening brief, Sellers argued that the district court failed to adequately explain its reasons 

for imposing what Sellers characterized as an upward variant sentence on Count 41, aiding 

and abetting in the possession with intent to distribute a quantity of cocaine within 1000 

feet of a school, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C), 860(a), and 18 U.S.C. 

§ 2. Sellers abandons this claim in his reply brief and argues instead that the district court 

erred by failing to explain its reasons for not imposing a downward variant sentence on 

Count 41. Because he failed to raise this issue in his opening brief, it is waived. See 

Grayson O Co. v. Agadir Int’l LLC, 856 F.3d 307, 316 (4th Cir. 2017) (recognizing that 

issues raised for first time in reply brief are waived). Accordingly, we affirm the district 

court’s order. United States v. Sellers, No. 5:08-cr-00944-MBS-21 (D.S.C. June 22, 2021). 

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 

presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

AFFIRMED

* Sellers filed a notice of appeal from the district court’s initial opinion and order 

granting partial relief under the First Step Act. Because the court subsequently granted 

Sellers’ motion for reconsideration, the initial order is no longer in effect.
EXHIBIT 34.1





ATTESTATION REPORT ON ASSESSMENT OF COMPLIANCE WITH SERVICING CRITERIA FOR


ASSET-BACKED SECURITIES OF DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP


ON BEHALF OF OHIO POWER COMPANY, AS SERVICER





REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM





Board of Directors and Shareholders





Ohio Phase-In-Recovery Funding LLC


Columbus, Ohio





We have examined management's assertion, included in the accompanying Management's Report on Assessment of Compliance with SEC Regulation AB Servicing Criteria, that Ohio Phase-In-Recovery Funding LLC (the Company) complied with the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of the Securities and Exchange Commission's Regulation AB for the Senior Secured Phase-In-Recovery Bonds, Series A-1 and A-2 (the "Platform") as of and for the year ended December 31, 2014, excluding criteria 1122(d)(l)(ii), 1122(d)(l)(iii), 1122(d)(l)(iv), 1122(d)(2)(vi), 1122(d)(3)(ii), 1122(d)(4)(iii), 1122(d)(4)(v), 1122(d)(4)(ix),1122(d)(4)(x), 1122(d)(4)(xi), 1122(d)(4)(xii), 1122(d)(4)(xiii), and 1122(d)(4)(xv), which management has determined are not applicable to the activities performed by the Company with respect to the Platform. Management is responsible for the Company's compliance with the servicing criteria. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on management's assertion about the Company's compliance with the servicing criteria based on our examination.





Our examination was conducted in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States), and, accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Company's compliance with the applicable servicing criteria, including tests on a sample basis of the servicing activities related to the Platform, determining whether the Company performed those selected activities in compliance with the servicing criteria during the specified period, and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. Our procedures were limited to selected servicing activities performed by the Company during the period covered by this report and, accordingly, such samples may not have included servicing activities related to each asset-backed transaction included in the Platform. Further, an examination is not designed to detect noncompliance arising from errors that may have occurred prior to the period specified above that may have affected the balances or amounts calculated or reported by the Company during the period covered by this report. We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our examination does not provide a legal determination on the Company's compliance with the servicing criteria.





In our opinion, management's assertion that the Company complied with the aforementioned


applicable servicing criteria as of and for the year ended December 31, 2014 for the Senior Secured Phase-In-Recovery Bonds, Series A-1 and A-2 is fairly stated, in all material respects.








/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP


Columbus, Ohio


March 27, 2015
_________________________________________ 

 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

December 5, 2005 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

127985 & (19) Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 127985 

 COA: 256711 

Ottawa CC: 03-027056-FH 

MATTHEW DAVID BRADY, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the December 16, 2004 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has 

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D). The 

motion to remand to the trial court for an evidentiary hearing is DENIED. 

CAVANAGH, J., would remand this case to the trial court for correction of the 

sentence. 

KELLY, J., would remand this case for a hearing pursuant to People v Ginther, 390 

Mich 436 (1973). 

p1128 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

December 5, 2005 

Clerk
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

January 27, 2009 

0120 

Order 

 

January 27, 2009 

137315 & (55) 

KAREN LEONARD, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Cross-Appellant, 

v SC: 137315 

 COA: 273129 

WCAC: 01-000139 

WAYNE STATE UNIVERSITY, 

Defendant-Appellant, 

Cross-Appellee. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the August 5, 2008 

judgment of the Court of Appeals and the application for leave to appeal as crossappellant are considered, and they are DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the 

questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>           5
<MULTIPLIER>        1
<CURRENCY>          U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                                <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                      9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                  DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                     JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                       SEP-30-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                    1
<CASH>                             4,620,820
<SECURITIES>                       8,017,604
<RECEIVABLES>                      0
<ALLOWANCES>                       0
<INVENTORY>                        0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                   13,039,355
<PP&E>                             1,839,521
<DEPRECIATION>                     762,826
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                     23,501,680
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>              2,405,443
<BONDS>                            217,874
<COMMON>                           132,550
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>              0
<PREFERRED>                        0
<OTHER-SE>                         20,745,813
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>       23,501,680
<SALES>                            0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                   3,597,488
<CGS>                              0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                      0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                   5,010,305
<LOSS-PROVISION>                   0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                 60,389
<INCOME-PRETAX>                    (1,648,960)
<INCOME-TAX>                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                0
<DISCONTINUED>                     0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                    0
<CHANGES>                          0
<NET-INCOME>                       (1,648,960)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                      (.12)
<EPS-DILUTED>                      (.12)
        

</TABLE>
#### Efrain PONCE-FRUTOS; Christina Hernandez-Sousa, Petitioners, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 06-74260.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 20, 2007 *.

Filed Dec. 28, 2007.

Charles E. Nichol, Esq., Law Office of Charles E. Nichol, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioners.

Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Lisa M. Arnold, Esq., DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Karen Y. Stewart, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice Civil Division, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

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 **

Efrain Ponce-Frutos and Christina Hernandez-Sousa, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying them motion to reopen removal proceedings. To the extent we have jurisdie*943tion, it is pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, *Iturribarria v. INS,*321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir.2003), and we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying petitioners’ motion to reopen, because the BIA considered the evidence they submitted with their motion to reopen that their daughter and Ponce-Frutos were each diagnosed with depression and acted within its broad discretion in determining that the evidence was insufficient to warrant reopening. *See Singh v. INS,*295 F.3d 1037, 1039 (9th Cir.2002) (The BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen shall be reversed only if it is “arbitrary, irrational or contrary to law.”).

The remaining evidence petitioners presented with them motion to reopen concerned the same basic hardship grounds as their application for cancellation of removal. *See Fernandez v. Gonzales,*439 F.3d 592, 602-03 (9th Cir.2006). We therefore lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s discretionary determination that the evidence would not alter its prior discretionary determination that they failed to establish the requisite hardship. *See id.*at 600 (holding that 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)© bars this court from reviewing the denial of a motion to reopen where “the only question presented is whether [the] new evidence altered the prior, underlying discretionary determination that [the petitioner] had not met the hardship standard.”) (internal quotations and brackets omitted).

To the extent petitioners contend that the BIA failed to consider some or all of the evidence they submitted with them motion to reopen, petitioners have not overcome the presumption that the BIA did review the record. *See Fernandez v. Gonzales,*439 F.3d 592, 603 (9th Cir.2006).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

**

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