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 Deposit Insurance Corporation

The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC or Receiver), as Receiver for 10422, Patriot Bank Minnesota, Forest Lake, Minnesota, has been authorized to take all actions necessary to terminate the receivership estate of Patriot Bank Minnesota (Receivership Estate); the Receiver has made all dividend distributions required by law. The Receiver has further irrevocably authorized and appointed FDIC-Corporate as its attorney-in-fact to execute and file any and all documents that may be required to be executed by the Receiver which FDIC-Corporate, in its sole discretion, deems necessary; including but not limited to releases, discharges, satisfactions, endorsements, assignments, and deeds. Effective November 1, 2017, the Receivership Estate has been terminated, the Receiver discharged, and the Receivership Estate has ceased to exist as a legal entity.

Dated: November 3, 2017.

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.

Robert E. Feldman, 

Executive Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2017-24286 Filed 11-7-17; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 6714-01-P
#### James Anthony MAY, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Melvin A. HORTON; Boyd Bennett; Hattie B. Pimpong; Captain Brown; S. Banks; Sgt. Korwin; Carl E. Battle; Robert C. Lewis, Dir. Div. of Prisons; Roy Cooper, Attorney General, Defendants—Appellees.

No. 10-7080.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Nov. 18, 2010.

Decided: Dec. 1, 2010.

*851James Anthony May, Appellant Pro Se. Peter Andrew Regulski, Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.

Before SHEDD and AGEE, Circuit Judges, Circuit Judge, and HAMILTON, Senior

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

James Anthony May appeals the district court’s order 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. *May v. Horton,*No. 5:09-ct-03081-BO, 2010 WL 2990198 (E.D.N.C. July 29, 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.*
Denied and Opinion Filed February 2 , 2021

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05 - 20 - 00938 - CV IN RE L.C. AKA S.R.M . , Relator Original Proceeding from the 330th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DF - 20 - 07925 - Y MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Myers, Molberg, and Goldstein

Opinion by Justice Myers In their October 27, 2020 petition for writ of mandamus , relators challeng e the trial court’s order granting real party in interest’s petition for bill of review, which set aside the final order of adoption and reopened the case

. After reviewing relator s’ petition, real party’s response, and the mandamus record, we conclude that relator s ha ve failed to comply with the requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52 in such a manner that precludes us from conducting a meaningful review of the trial court’s order

. Accordingly, we deny relator s’ petition for writ of– 2

–

mandamus. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 52.8(a). We also lift our stay order issued on November 25, 2020

.

200938 F

. P 05 /Lana Myers/ LANA MYERS JUSTICE
#### Oscar HILLS, IV, Petitioner-Appellant v. Warden M.D. CARVAJAL, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 13-30684

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Nov. 21, 2013.

Oscar Hills, IV, Baton Rouge, LA, pro se.

Before JOLLY, SMITH, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Oscar Hills, IV, federal prisoner # 05251-095, appeals the dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition for lack of jurisdiction. He argues that his remedy under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 for challenging his wire fraud convictions is inadequate and ineffective because this court, after partially granting him a certificate of appealability on an issue raised in his § 2255 motion, remanded his case to the district court instead of addressing his appeal and reversing his convictions. He also complains that the district court did not address his claim of actual innocence. Finally, he argues that it was proper for him to raise his claims in a § 2241 petition because he is challenging the fact and duration of his unconstitutional confinement.

As a general rule, a federal prisoner who seeks to collaterally challenge the legality of his conviction or sentence must file a § 2255 motion. *Padilla v. United States,*416 F.3d 424, 426-27 (5th Cir.2005). Such claims may be raised in a § 2241 petition under the savings clause of § 2255(e) only if the prisoner shows that the § 2255 remedy is “inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention.” § 2255(e). Hills has not made such a showing as he has not established that his claims are based on a retroactively applicable Supreme Court decision establishing that he was convicted of a nonexistent offense. *See Padilla,*416 F.3d at 426-27; *Reyes-Requena v. United States,*243 F.3d 893, 904 (5th Cir.2001).

The district court’s dismissal of Hills’s § 2241 petition is AFFIRMED. Hills’s motion for the appointment of counsel is DENIED.

*

 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**

** **

**WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK**

** **

**OFFICER’S CERTIFICATEANNUAL STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE**

 

            I, H. John Berens, an authorized officer of Washington Mutual Bank (the “Servicer”), do hereby certify toWaMu Asset Acceptance Corp. (the “Depositor”), pursuant to the Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of April 1, 2006 (as amended, the “Servicing Agreement”) by and between the Depositor, the Servicer, LaSalle Bank, NationalAssociation, as Trustee, and Christiana Bank & Trust Company, as Delaware Trustee, the following with respect to Washington Mutual Asset-Backed Certificates Series 2006-HE1 Trust for the 2006 fiscal year (the “Relevant Year”):

 

 

1.        A review of the activities of the Servicer during the Relevant Year and of performance under the ServicingAgreement has been made under my supervision.

2.        To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under theServicing Agreement in all material respects throughout the Relevant Year.

 

 

Dated as of February 22, 2007.

                                                                       

                                                                           /s/H. John Berens
| ___________________________________________

Name:  H. John Berens

Title:    Senior Vice President |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"Federal Maritime Commission","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov","author_name":"Catie-Megan Moran","author_url":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/author\/cmoranfmc-gov\/","title":"Commission Raises Penalty Fees","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"tF8rSJkIcj\"><a href=\"\/commission-raises-penalty-fees\/\">Commission Raises Penalty Fees<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"\/commission-raises-penalty-fees\/embed\/#?secret=tF8rSJkIcj\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Commission Raises Penalty Fees” — Federal Maritime Commission\" data-secret=\"tF8rSJkIcj\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script type=\"text\/javascript\">\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(c,l){\"use strict\";var e=!1,o=!1;if(l.querySelector)if(c.addEventListener)e=!0;if(c.wp=c.wp||{},c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage);else if(c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if(!t);else if(!(t.secret||t.message||t.value));else if(\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret));else{for(var r,s,a,i=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),n=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=0;o<n.length;o++)n[o].style.display=\"none\";for(o=0;o<i.length;o++)if(r=i[o],e.source!==r.contentWindow);else{if(r.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message){if(1e3<(s=parseInt(t.value,10)))s=1e3;else if(~~s<200)s=200;r.height=s}if(\"link\"===t.message)if(s=l.createElement(\"a\"),a=l.createElement(\"a\"),s.href=r.getAttribute(\"src\"),a.href=t.value,a.host===s.host)if(l.activeElement===r)c.top.location.href=t.value}}},e)c.addEventListener(\"message\",c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",t,!1),c.addEventListener(\"load\",t,!1);function t(){if(o);else{o=!0;for(var e,t,r,s=-1!==navigator.appVersion.indexOf(\"MSIE 10\"),a=!!navigator.userAgent.match(\/Trident.*rv:11\\.\/),i=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),n=0;n<i.length;n++){if(!(r=(t=i[n]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\")))r=Math.random().toString(36).substr(2,10),t.src+=\"#?secret=\"+r,t.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",r);if(s||a)(e=t.cloneNode(!0)).removeAttribute(\"security\"),t.parentNode.replaceChild(e,t);t.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:r},\"*\")}}}}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n"}
#### Valeriy Yuryevich KOSTRABA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General of the United States, Respondent.

No. 10-1617.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: Nov. 12, 2010.

Filed: Nov. 17, 2010.

*152Rachel N. Sampong, argued, Minneapolis, MN, for Petitioner.

Scott Baniecke, U.S. Immigration & Naturalization Service, Bloomington, MN, Karen Yolanda Drummond, Richard M. Evans, Ilissa M. Gould, Melissa Lynn Nei-man-Kelting, U.S. Department of Justice, argued, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before WOLLMAN, MELLOY, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Valeriy Yuryevich Kostraba, a native and citizen of Ukraine, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), which affirmed an immigration judge’s denial of his application for cancellation of removal.1 We conclude that Kostraba’s arguments regarding the BIA’s discretionary denial of cancellation of removal are unreviewable, *see Saleheen v. Holder,*618 F.3d 957, 960-62 (8th Cir.2010) (court lacks jurisdiction to review “the ultimately discretionary denial of cancellation of removal”), and that his other arguments are unavailing, *see Sanchez v. Holder,*614 F.3d 760, 763 (8th Cir.2010) (where alien concedes removability on one ground, appeals court need not consider correctness of determination that alien is also removable on other ground); *Sanchez-Velasco v. Holder,*593 F.3d 733, 737 (8th Cir.2010) (“aliens have no right to due process in the purely discretionary remedy of cancellation of removal”); *Munoz-Yepez v. Gonzales,*465 F.3d 347, 349-50 (8th Cir.2006) (grant of discretionary waiver of criminal grounds of excludability did not mean that crimes disappeared from alien’s record for all immigration purposes).

Accordingly, we deny the petition for review.

1

. Kostraba does not challenge the denial of readjustment of status for refugees, asylum, withholding of removal, relief under the Convention Against Torture, or voluntary departure. *See Averianova v. Mukasey,*509 F.3d 890, 892 n. 1 (8th Cir.2007) (alien waived claim by failing to present argument on appeal).
Document

Amendment No. 3
To the Owens & Minor, Inc.
2018 Stock Incentive Plan


This AMENDMENT NO. 3 (this “Amendment”) to the Owens & Minor, Inc. 2018 Stock Incentive Plan (as amended, the “Plan”) is effective as of April 29, 2022 (the “Amendment Effective Date”). Capitalized terms used herein and not otherwise defined shall have the meanings ascribed to such terms in the Plan.


WHEREAS, Owens & Minor, Inc., a Virginia corporation (the “Company”), previously established and maintains the Plan; 


WHEREAS, in connection with the Company’s acquisition of Apria, Inc., a Delaware corporation, on March 29, 2022, the Company assumed the 3,216,759 shares of common stock that were available for issuance under the Apria, Inc. 2021 Omnibus Incentive Plan (the “Apria Plan”), to be issued pursuant to the Plan in accordance with, and subject to the terms and conditions of, an exception under Rule 303A.08 of the NYSE Listed Company Manual (the “Apria Plan Assumption”); and


WHEREAS, the Company desires to amend the Plan to reflect the Apria Plan Assumption.


NOW, THEREFORE, pursuant to the powers enumerated in Articles X and XIV of the Plan, the Company amends the Plan as follows, effective as of the Amendment Effective Date:
Section 5.02 of the Plan is hereby amended by deleting the present section in its entirety and substituting the following in lieu thereof: 


5.02. Aggregate Limit


The maximum aggregate number of shares of Common Stock that may be issued under this Plan shall be 12,156,759 shares (which represents the 8,940,000 shares currently authorized under the Plan plus an additional 3,216,759 shares assumed from the Apria, Inc. 2021 Omnibus Incentive Plan (the “Apria Shares”) that became available as of March 29, 2022), less the number of shares of Common Stock subject to awards granted under the Pre-Existing Plan after March 1, 2018 and prior to May 8, 2018, plus the number of shares of Common Stock subject to awards granted under the Pre-Existing Plan that become available in accordance with Section 5.04 below after March 1, 2018.  Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained herein, (i) the Apria Shares may not be granted pursuant to awards to individuals who were employed immediately prior to March 29, 2022 by the Company or a Related Entity and (ii) the Apria Shares will not be available for grant under this Plan after February 10, 2031. The total number of shares of Common Stock that may be issued upon the exercise of incentive stock options shall not exceed 8,940,000 shares of Common Stock. The maximum aggregate number of shares of Common Stock that may be issued under this Plan and under incentive stock options shall be subject to adjustment as provided in Article X and Section 5.04. Except as otherwise set forth herein, shares of Common Stock covered by an Award shall only be counted as used to the extent actually used. No further awards will be granted under the Pre-Existing Plan after May 8, 2018; provided, however, that nothing in this Plan shall affect any awards granted under the Pre-Existing Plan which were outstanding on May 8, 2018. 


[Remainder of Page Intentionally Blank]
Exhibit 31.1




CERTIFICATION




I, William Threadgill, certify that:




1.           I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of STRATS(SM) Trust For Procter & Gamble Securities, Series 2006-1 (the “Exchange Act periodic reports”);




2.           Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;




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




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




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




In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me by the following unaffiliated party: The Bank of New York Mellon, as Trustee.




Dated: March 29, 2013
By:  /s/ William ThreadgillWilliam ThreadgillPresident(senior officer of depositor in charge of securitization)
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"Federal Maritime Commission","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov","author_name":"Catie-Megan Moran","author_url":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/author\/cmoranfmc-gov\/","title":"Chairman Michael A. Khouri Statement on Demurrage & Detention Interpretive Rule","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"Lk9XSiTXQc\"><a href=\"\/khouri-comment-demurrage-detention\/\">Chairman Michael A. Khouri Statement on Demurrage & Detention Interpretive Rule<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"\/khouri-comment-demurrage-detention\/embed\/#?secret=Lk9XSiTXQc\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Chairman Michael A. Khouri Statement on Demurrage & Detention Interpretive Rule” — Federal Maritime Commission\" data-secret=\"Lk9XSiTXQc\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script type=\"text\/javascript\">\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(c,l){\"use strict\";var e=!1,o=!1;if(l.querySelector)if(c.addEventListener)e=!0;if(c.wp=c.wp||{},c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage);else if(c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if(!t);else if(!(t.secret||t.message||t.value));else if(\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret));else{for(var r,s,a,i=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),n=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=0;o<n.length;o++)n[o].style.display=\"none\";for(o=0;o<i.length;o++)if(r=i[o],e.source!==r.contentWindow);else{if(r.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message){if(1e3<(s=parseInt(t.value,10)))s=1e3;else if(~~s<200)s=200;r.height=s}if(\"link\"===t.message)if(s=l.createElement(\"a\"),a=l.createElement(\"a\"),s.href=r.getAttribute(\"src\"),a.href=t.value,a.host===s.host)if(l.activeElement===r)c.top.location.href=t.value}}},e)c.addEventListener(\"message\",c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",t,!1),c.addEventListener(\"load\",t,!1);function t(){if(o);else{o=!0;for(var e,t,r,s=-1!==navigator.appVersion.indexOf(\"MSIE 10\"),a=!!navigator.userAgent.match(\/Trident.*rv:11\\.\/),i=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),n=0;n<i.length;n++){if(!(r=(t=i[n]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\")))r=Math.random().toString(36).substr(2,10),t.src+=\"#?secret=\"+r,t.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",r);if(s||a)(e=t.cloneNode(!0)).removeAttribute(\"security\"),t.parentNode.replaceChild(e,t);t.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:r},\"*\")}}}}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n"}
EXHIBIT 32
<PAGE>

     In  connection  with the Annual Report of Security  Devices  International,
Inc. (the  "Company")  on Form 10-K for the period  ending  November 30, 2010 as
filed with the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  (the  "Report"),  Gregory
Sullivan,  the  Principal  Executive  Officer and Rakesh  Malhotra the Principal
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 to
the best of their knowledge:

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

(2)   The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects the financial condition and results of the Company.


March 14, 2011                      By: /s/ Gregory Sullivan
                                        -----------------------------------
                                        Gregory Sullivan, Principal Executive
                                        Officer


March 14, 2011                      By: /s/ Rakesh Malhotra
                                        --------------------------------------
                                        Rakesh Malhotra, Principal Financial
                                        Officer
<PAGE>
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack

, Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, 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 22, 2020

b1214 

# Order

Clerk December 22, 2020

161155

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 161155

COA: 351720

Washtenaw CC: 97

- 008763

- FC

ISIAH SIMPSON, JR.,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the February 27, 2020

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

motion for relief from judgment is prohibited by MCR 6.502(G).