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.                  

###### Small Business Administration

          - [Disaster Declaration #15352 and #15353; CALIFORNIA Disaster Number CA-00279]

# AGENCY:

U.S. Small Business Administration.

# ACTION:

Amendment 3.

# SUMMARY:

This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of California (FEMA-4344-DR), dated 10/12/2017. 

*Incident:*                         Wildfires.                    

*Incident Period:*                         10/08/2017 and continuing.                    

# DATES:

Issued on 10/15/2017.

*Physical Loan Application Deadline Date:*                         12/11/2017.                    

*Economic Injury (EIDL) Loan Application Deadline Date:*                         07/12/2018.                    

# 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 California, dated 10/12/2017, is hereby amended to include the following areas as adversely affected by the disaster:

*Primary Counties (Physical Damage and Economic Injury Loans):*                     Nevada, Orange                

*Contiguous Counties (Economic Injury Loans Only):*

California: Los Angeles, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego

Nevada: Washoe

All other information in the original declaration remains unchanged.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number 59008)

Rafaela Monchek,

Acting Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance.

[FR Doc. 2017-22763 Filed 10-19-17; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
# Public Notices Archives - Federal Maritime Commission

- Industry Advisory—All FMC Statutes & Regulations Remain in Full Effect Following Bridge Collapse Disruption to regular service at the Port of Baltimore is causing many shippers to adjust supply chain operations. Regulated entities are reminded that all statutes administered by the Federal Maritime Commission remain in effect. Common carriers and marine terminal operators (MTOs) must continue to comply with all statutory and regulatory requirements governing their operations. Demurrage [&#8230;]The post Industry Advisory—All FMC Statutes &amp; Regulations Remain in Full Effect Following Bridge Collapse appeared first on Federal Maritime Commission.
- Notice to Passengers Regarding American Queen Voyages Posted&#160;February 22, 2024 The Federal Maritime Commission has been informed that American Queen Voyages has shut down, cancelled all future voyages, and has filed a voluntary petition for relief under Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code. Consumers who have purchased travel on American Queen Voyages should visit the “Customer Claims Portal” webpage established [&#8230;]The post Notice to Passengers Regarding American Queen Voyages appeared first on Federal Maritime Commission.
IB 

Union Calendar No. 205 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3542 

[Report No. 111–353] 

To direct the Architect of the Capitol to fly the flag of a State over the 

Capitol each year on the anniversary of the date of the State’s admission 

to the Union. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 9, 2009 

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California introduced the following bill; which 

was referred to the Committee on House Administration 

DECEMBER 3, 2009 

Reported with an amendment, committed to the Committee of the Whole 

House on the State of the Union, and ordered to be printed 

[Insert the part printed in italic] 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3542 RH

A BILL 

To direct the Architect of the Capitol to fly the flag of 

a State over the Capitol each year on the anniversary 

of the date of the State’s admission to the Union. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 3542 RH

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘State Admission Day 

5 Recognition Act of 2009’’. 

6 SEC. 2. FLYING STATE FLAG OVER CAPITOL ON ANNIVER7 SARY OF STATE’S ADMISSION TO UNION. 

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—To honor the anniversary of each 

9 State’s admission to the Union, the Architect of the Cap10 itol shall fly the flag of the State over the Capitol each 

11 year on the anniversary of the date of the State’s admis12 sion to the Union. 

13 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The Architect of the Capitol 

14 shall fly the first flag of a State over the Capitol under 

15 this section on the first December 7 which occurs after 

16 the date of the enactment of this Act, in honor of the anni17 versary of the admission of Delaware, the first State ad18 mitted to the Union. 

19 SEC. 3. REGULATIONS. 

20 The Committee on House Administration of the House 

21 of Representatives and the Committee on Rules and Admin22 istration of the Senate may promulgate jointly such regula23 tions as may be appropriate to carry out this Act, including 

24 regulations permitting the Architect of the Capitol to honor 

25 the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with BILLS
4 

•HR 3542 RH

1 American Samoa, Guam, the United States Virgin Islands, 

2 and the Northern Mariana Islands by flying the flag of each 

3 such jurisdiction over the Capitol each year on an appro4 priate date for that jurisdiction. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with BILLS

srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with BILLS
Union Calendar No. 205 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3542 

[Report No. 111–353] 

A BILL 

To direct the Architect of the Capitol to fly the flag 

the Union. versary of the date of the State’s admission to of a State over the Capitol each year on the anniDECEMBER 3, 2009 

Reported with an amendment, committed to the Comand ordered to be printed mittee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with BILLS
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 342 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide for an enhanced 

deduction for qualified residence interest on acquisition indebtedness 

for heritage homes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 8, 2009 

Mr. PLATTS 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 provide 

for an enhanced deduction for qualified residence interest 

on acquisition indebtedness for heritage homes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Heritage Homes Tax 

5 Incentive Act of 2009’’. 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
2 

•HR 342 IH

1 SEC. 2. ENHANCED DEDUCTION FOR QUALIFIED RESI2 DENCE INTEREST ON ACQUISITION INDEBT3 EDNESS FOR HERITAGE HOMES. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subsection (h) of section 163 of 

5 the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to disallow6 ance of deduction for personal interest) is amended by 

7 adding at the end the following new paragraph: 

8 ‘‘(6) HERITAGE HOME.— 

9 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—In the case of quali10 fied residence interest which is paid or accrued 

11 on acquisition indebtedness incurred with re12 spect to the heritage home of the taxpayer, the 

13 deduction under subsection (a) shall be 125 

14 percent of the amount otherwise allowable by 

15 subsection (a). 

16 ‘‘(B) HERITAGE HOME.—For purposes of 

17 subparagraph (A), the term ‘heritage home’ 

18 means the principal residence of the taxpayer— 

19 ‘‘(i) the construction of which was 

20 substantially completed at least 50 years 

21 before the beginning of the taxable year, 

22 ‘‘(ii) which is a certified historic struc23 ture (as defined in section 47(c)(3)(A)), 

24 ‘‘(iii) which is located in a registered 

25 historic district (as defined in section 

26 47(c)(3)(B)), or 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
3 

•HR 342 IH

1 ‘‘(iv) which is located on land which 

2 was platted for residential purposes at 

3 least 50 years prior to the beginning of the 

4 taxable year.’’. 

5 (b) DEDUCTION ALLOWED WHETHER OR NOT TAX6 PAYER ITEMIZES DEDUCTIONS.—Subsection (a) of section 

7 62 of such Code (defining adjusted gross income) is 

8 amended by inserting before the last sentence the fol9 lowing new paragraph: 

10 ‘‘(22) QUALIFIED RESIDENCE INTEREST ON AC11 QUISITION INDEBTEDNESS FOR HERITAGE HOMES.— 

12 The deduction under section 163 for qualified resi13 dence interest on acquisition indebtedness with re14 spect to the heritage home of the taxpayer. Terms 

15 used in the preceding sentence have the meanings 

16 given such terms by section 163.’’. 

17 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

18 this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after 

19 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
#### Russell COHEN, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Sharon SUMMERVOLD; R. Bryant, Defendants—Appellees.

No. 06-17039.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted April 22, 2008.*

Filed May 1, 2008.

Russell Cohen, Ely, NV, pro se.

Before: GRABER, FISHER, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Russell Cohen appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing with prejudice, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging prison guards violated his constitutional rights. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. *643§ 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion the district court’s dismissal with prejudice for failing to comply with a court order to amend the complaint. *Yourish v. California Amplifier,*191 F.3d 983, 989 (9th Cir.1999). We reverse and remand.

Cohen’s pro se complaint alleged that defendants retaliated against him for filing grievances by refusing to provide him with forms and supplies, and by serving him with a notice of charges. The complaint further alleged that Cohen’s First Amendment rights were chilled because he feared that if he tried to submit grievances, Officer Summervold would continue to serve him with notices of charges. Liberally construed and taken as true, these allegations state a claim for retaliation. *See Rhodes v. Robinson,*408 F.3d 559, 563 n. 1, 567-68 (9th Cir.2005) (explaining that “a viable claim of First Amendment retaliation entails five basic elements: (l)[a]n assertion that a state actor took some adverse action against an inmate (2) because of (3) that prisoner’s protected conduct, and that such action (4) chilled the inmate’s exercise of his First Amendment rights, and (5) the action did not reasonably advance a legitimate correctional goal.”).

The fact that Cohen continued to file grievances and federal actions despite the alleged retaliation cannot be used to determine that he failed to state a claim that his First Amendment rights were chilled, because the relevant question is whether defendants’ actions would have chilled “a person of ordinary firmness from future First Amendment activities.” *See id.*at 568 (citation and quotation marks omitted).

Because Cohen was entitled to stand on the allegations without further amendment, the district court abused its diseretion by dismissing the complaint for failure to amend it. *See McKeever v. Block,*932 F.2d 795, 797 (9th Cir.1991) (“The refusal to file a[n] ... amended compliant would not be unreasonable if the [original] complaint was dismissed erroneously.”).

We also reverse the dismissal of Cohen’s due process and equal protection claims because it is not clear that the deficiencies in the complaint with respect to those claims could not be cured through amendment. *See Yourish,*191 F.3d at 990.

REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this memorandum.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
EX-35 (b)
(logo) WELLS FARGO

Corporate Trust Services
MAC N2702-011
9062 Old Annapolis Road
Columbia, MD 21045
410 884-2000
410 715-2380 Fax

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.


March 24, 2007

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
9062 Old Annapolis Road
Columbia, MD 21045

RE: Annual Statement As To Compliance for MASTR Asset Backed Securities Trust
2006-AM1

Per Section 3.20 of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement, dated as of 2/1/2006,
the undersigned Officer of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., (Master Servicer), hereby
certifies the following for the 2006 calendar year or portion thereof:

(i) A review of the activities of the party during the preceding calendar year
and of performance under this Agreement has been made under such officers'
supervision.

(ii) To the best of such officers' knowledge, based on such review, the party
has fulfilled all of its obligations under this Agreement in all material
respects throughout such year, or, if there has been a failure to fulfill any
such obligation in any material respect, specifying each such failure known to
such officer and the nature and status of cure provisions thereof.

(iii) Notwithstanding anything herein to contrary (and noting that, to the
extent of any inconsistency, any and all other statements, certifications or
assertions herein are subject to the following): instances of noncompliance
related to the subject transaction for the applicable reporting period are
identified on Schedule A hereto.

Certified By:
/s/ Barry Akers
Barry Akers
Vice President


Certified By:
/s/ Gordon Johnson
Gordon Johnson, Assistant Secretary


(page)

Schedule A

Reporting Errors

During the reporting period, one or more of the monthly investor reports
contained certain types of errors in regard to the calculation and or the
reporting of delinquencies for the pool assets. To the best of the signing
officer's knowledge, each such error, which may or may not have been material,
has been identified and remedied and any related corrective action has been
disclosed in a report previously filed with the SEC in respect of the reporting
period.
APPLICATION FOR ADMISSION TO PRACTICE
BEFORE THE FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION
FORM FMC-12

ADDENDUM

1, , certify under penalty

(Name)

of perjury under the laws of the United States, that I have not been convicted, after
September 1, 1989, of any Federal or State offense involving the distribution or possession of
a controlled substance, or that if I have been so convicted, I am not ineligible to receive

Federal benefits, either by court order or operation of law, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 862.

Signature
#### National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, Pa., Appellant, v Bruce R. Montgomery, Respondent, et al., Defendant.

[665 NYS2d 665]

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Norman Ryp, J.), entered on or about October 10, 1996, which denied plaintiffs motion for summary judgment, and granted its motion to dismiss defendant’s affirmative defenses only to the extent of directing a traverse, unanimously modified, on the law, to grant plaintiff summary judgment in the event personal jurisdiction is sustained, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

Defendant’s affidavit that he did not open the door to his home for a man who knocked on the door and said he had “some papers” but neither identified himself nor the papers he had, and that after the man left plaintiff found the summons and complaint on his doorstep, is sufficient to rebut the process server’s affidavit that he personally delivered the summons and complaint to defendant, and raises an issues of fact as to jurisdiction *(see, Cooper v Drobenko Bros. Realty,*200 AD2d *151415; *Coyne v Besser,*154 AD2d 503, *lv denied*75 NY2d 711). However, if service is found to have been proper, plaintiff would be entitled to summary judgment, since the guarantee in issue specifically prohibits assertion of any defenses to the underlying note *(see, National Union Fire Ins. Co. v Allen,*232 AD2d 80, 88-89). Concur—Wallach, J. P., Rubin, Williams, Tom and Andrias, JJ.
[No. 41834-7-II.

Division Two.

November 13, 2012.]

#### George Nervik, *Appellant,*v. The Department of Licensing, *Respondent.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Thurston County, No. 09-2-02385-6, Paula Casey, J., entered January 28, 2011. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per

Johanson, A.C.J.,

concurred in by Quinn-Brintnall and Penoyar, JJ.
1... See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.

COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 2-08-293-CR

DONALD LEON CALTON II APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE

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

FROM THE 396TH DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY

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

MEMORANDUM OPINION1

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

Appellant Donald Leon Calton II entered an open plea of guilty to

aggravated assault on a public servant. The trial court assessed his punishment

at two years’ confinement.

Calton’s court-appointed appellate counsel has filed a motion to withdraw

as counsel and a brief in support of that motion. Counsel’s brief and motion
2... 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396 (1967).

2

meet the requirements of Anders v. California

2

 by presenting a professional

evaluation of the record demonstrating why the appeal is frivolous. See McCoy

v. Court of Appeals of Wis., Dist. 1, 486 U.S. 429, 444, 108 S. Ct. 1895,

1905 (1988) (stating that appeal is frivolous if “the client’s interests would not

be served by proceeding with the appeal”); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807,

813 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978) (discussing that a “frivolous appeal”

brief must “discuss either why the trial court’s ruling was correct or why the

appellant was not harmed by the ruling of the court”). The State has not filed

any response to counsel’s Anders brief. Likewise, Calton was given the

opportunity to file a pro se brief, but he did not do so.

As the reviewing court, we must conduct an independent evaluation of

the record to determine whether counsel is correct in determining that the

appeal is frivolous. See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim.

App. 1991); Mays v. State, 904 S.W.2d 920, 923 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth

1995, no pet.). Only then may we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. See

Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 82–83, 109 S. Ct. 346, 351 (1988). Because

Calton entered an open plea of guilty, our independent review for potential error

is limited to potential jurisdictional defects, the voluntariness of Calton’s plea,
3

error that is not independent of and supports the judgment of guilt, and error

occurring after entry of the guilty plea. See Monreal v. State, 99 S.W.3d 615,

620 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003); Young v. State, 8 S.W.3d 656, 666–67 (Tex.

Crim. App. 2000).

We have carefully reviewed the record and counsel’s brief. We agree

with counsel that this appeal is wholly frivolous, that Calton’s interests would

not be served by proceeding with the appeal, and that Calton was not harmed

by the court’s rulings. See McCoy, 486 U.S. at 444, 108 S. Ct. at 1905;

Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827–28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005); High, 573

S.W.2d at 813. We therefore grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm

the trial court’s judgment.

SUE WALKER

JUSTICE

PANEL: LIVINGSTON, DAUPHINOT, and WALKER, JJ.

DO NOT PUBLISH

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

DELIVERED: March 19, 2009
#### Tyrone LUCAS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Angela BROWN, DHO; Captain Kevin Ford; Captain E. Bittenger; Captain Gaskins; Lieutenant Alice Fleming; Lieutenant Audrey Price; Officer Shannon Dean; Officer Sauls; Officer Donald Tucker; Officer Patricia Cook; Vernon Tucker; Ms. Florence Kline; Ms. Annason, Defendants-Ap-pellees.

No. 10-7446.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: March 31, 2011.

Decided: April 5, 2011.

Tyrone Lucas, Appellant Pro Se. Steven Barry Johnson, Lee Erter Wilson Holler & Smith, LLC, Sumter, South Carolina, for Appellees.

*268Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Tyrone Lucas appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *See Lucas v. Brown,*No. 1:09-cv-01601-TLW, 2010 WL 3724677 (D.S.C. Sept. 16, 2010). 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
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-10854

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

FRANCISCO REYNA-VASQUEZ,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:15-CR-360-1

Before JOLLY, PRADO, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Appealing the judgment in a criminal case, Francisco Reyna-Vasquez

raises an argument that is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States,

523 U.S. 224, 228, 235 (1998), which held that convictions used to enhance a 

sentence under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) need not be set forth in the indictment. 

Accordingly, the motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, the alternative 

motion for an extension of time to file a brief is DENIED, and the judgment of 

the district court 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

February 21, 2017

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 16-10854 Document: 00513882602 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/21/2017
#### Juliana EE, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. WASHINGTON COUNTY, et al., Defendants-Appellants.

No. 10-35305.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted March 11, 2011.

Filed March 24, 2011.

Martin Christopher Dolan, David H. Griggs, Dolan Griggs, LLP, Jonathan Os-tar, Portland, OR, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Jacquilyn Saito-Moore, William G. Blair, Hillsboro, OR, for Defendants-Appellants.

Before: THOMAS and GRABER, Circuit Judges, and SELNA,* District Judge.

*

 The Honorable James V. Selna, United States District Judge for the Central District of California, sitting by designation.

MEMORANDUM **

Having considered the parties’ briefs, the appellate record, and the arguments of counsel on March 11, 2011, the court affirms the denial of defendants’ motion for summary judgment for the reasons stated in the district court’s Opinion and Order.

AFFIRMED.

**

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