alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Page 1

© ;
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation

The Honorable Rohit Chopra

Director

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
550 17" Street, NW

Washington, DC 20429

November 26, 2021

Dear Director Chopra:
The Executive Secretary is in receipt of your communication dated November 26, 2021.

The Bylaws of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation do not confer authority to an
individual Board member to circulate an item for a notational vote. Such authority rests with
the Executive Secretary under the supervision of the General Counsel and at the direction of
the Chairman.

As such, the communication dated November 26, 2021, does not constitute a valid circulation
of a notational vote and cannot be recorded in the minutes of the proceedings of the Board of
Directors.

Sincerely,
NICHOLAS Digitally signed by NICHOLAS

PODSIADLY

PODSIADLY Date: 2021.11.26 18:36:38 0500

Nicholas J. Podsiadly

General Counsel

Legal Division

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation

550 17th Street NW, Washington, D.C. 20429-9990
www.fdic.gov


Page 2

FDI (&) LEGAL DIVISION
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation

The Honorable Rohit Chopra
Director

Mr. Michael J. Hsu
Director

The Honorable Martin J. Gruenberg
Director

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
550 17" Street, NW
Washington, DC 20429

Dear Director Chopra, Director Hsu, and Director Gruenberg:

December 6, 2021

As communicated in my letter to Director Chopra dated November 26, 2021, the Bylaws of the
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation do not confer authority to an individual Board member to
circulate an item for a notational vote. This authority rests solely with the Executive Secretary
under the supervision of the General Counsel at the direction of the Chairman.

Accordingly, Director Chopra’s communication dated November 26, 2021, did not constitute a
valid circulation of a notational vote, subsequent responses do not constitute valid votes, and
neither can be recorded in the minutes of the proceedings of the Board of Directors.

Sincerely,
Digitally signed by
NICHOLAS NICHOLAS PODSIADLY
Date: 2021.12.06
PODSIADLY 22:40:59 -05'00'

Nicholas J. Podsiadly

General Counsel

Legal Division

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation

Legal Division
550 17th Street NW, Washington, D.C. 20429-9990
www.fdic.gov
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Carlos Humberto LOPEZ-LOPEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 06-50926

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

March 7, 2007.

Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Federal Public Defender’s Office Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before KING, WIENER, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Carlos Humberto Lopez-Lopez raises arguments that are foreclosed by *Almendarez-Torres v. United States,*523 U.S. 224, 235, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998), which held that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) is a penalty provision and not a separate criminal offense. The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, 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.
Exhibit 32.1

 CERTICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION
                      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection with the Annual Report of Tilden Associates, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on April 14, 2009 (the "Report"), I, Robert Baskind,
Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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 operations of
         the Company.


/s/ Robert Baskind
--------------------------------------------
Robert Baskind,
Chairman, President, Chief Executive Officer
and Chief Financial Officer
August 19, 2009
#### WEST VIRGINIA COAL WORKERS’ PNEUMOCONIOSIS FUND, as carrier for Vision Coal Company, Petitioner, v. Tracy H. CHAMP; Director, Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs, Respondents.

No. 06-1902.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Jan. 26, 2007.

Decided: March 14, 2007.

William Steele Mattingly, Ashley M. Harman, Jackson *&*Kelly, PLLC, Morgantown, West Virginia, for Petitioner. Tracy H. Champ, Respondent Pro Se; Patricia May Nece, United States Department of Labor, Washington, D.C., Helen Hart Cox, Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs, Washington, D.C., for Respondent Director, Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs.

Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

West Virginia Coal Workers’ Pneumoconiosis Fund, as carrier for Vision Coal Company, seeks review of the Benefits Review Board’s decision and order affirming the administrative law judge’s award of black lung benefits, in favor of Tracy H. Champ, pursuant to 30 U.S.C. §§ 901-945 (2000). Our review of the record discloses that the Board’s decision is based upon substantial evidence and is without reversible error.* Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the Board. *West Virginia Coal Workers’ Pneumoconiosis Fund v. Champ,*No. 05-569-BLA (BRB June 22, 2006). 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.*

*

 On appeal, the Fund asserts that Champ should have been required to render a designation of x-ray evidence in proceedings before the Administrative Law Judge, and that the Administrative Law Judge erred by failing to consider pulmonary evaluation reports prepared by Dr. Castle and Dr. Forehand. We deem these contentions waived, however, as they were not presented during the course of the administrative proceedings. *See Armco, Inc. v. Martin,*277 F.3d 468, 476 (4th Cir.2002).
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 205 (Tuesday, October 23, 2001)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 53507]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-55532]



========================================================================
Rules and Regulations
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents 
having general applicability and legal effect, most of which are keyed 
to and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published 
under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.

The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents. 
Prices of new books are listed in the first FEDERAL REGISTER issue of each 
week.

========================================================================


Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 205 / Tuesday, October 23, 2001 / 
Rules and Regulations

[[Page 53507]]



OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT

5 CFR Part 550


Pay Administration (General)

CFR Correction

PART 550--[CORRECTED]


Sec. 550.342  [Removed]

    In Title 5 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Parts 1 to 699, 
revised as of January 1, 2001, part 550 is corrected by removing 
Sec. 550.342.

[FR Doc. 01-55532 Filed 10-22-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 1505-01-D
UNITED STATES AIR FORCE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

UNITED STATES

v.

Airman Basic MATTHEW D. SHAFFER

United States Air Force

ACM S32140

01 April 2014

Sentence adjudged 29 March 2013 by SPCM convened at Keesler Air Force

Base, Mississippi. Military Judge: Rodger A. Drew, Jr.

Approved Sentence: Bad

- conduct discharge, confinement for 6 months,

forfeiture of $1010.00 pay per month for 6 months, and a reprimand.

Appellate Counsel for the Appellant: Lieutenant Colonel Jane E. Boomer.

Appellate Coun sel for the United States: Colonel Don M. Christensen and

Gerald R. Bruce, Esquire.

Before

ROAN, HARNEY, and MITCHELL

Appellate Military Judges

This opinion is subject to editorial correction before final release

.



### PER CURIAM :

The approved findings and sentence are correct in law and fact, and no error

materially prejudicial to the substantial rights of the appellant occurred.  

### Article 66(c),

UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 866(c); United States v. Reed , 54 M.J. 37, 41 (C.A.A.F. 2000).

 The Court notes that the Court

- Martial Order (CMO), dated 30 April 2013 incorrectly identifies the military judge

as Roger Drew , whereas the correct spe lling of the military judge’s name is Rodger A. Drew, Jr . The Court orders

the promulgation of a corrected CMO.ACM S32140 2 

### Accordingly, the appr oved findings and sentence are

AFFIRMED

.

FOR THE COURT

STEVEN LUCAS

Clerk of the Court
**Statement Under Oath of Principal Executive    Officer Regarding    Facts and Circumstances Relating to Exchange Act Filings**

 

I, Henry A. McKinnell, state and attest that:

> 
(1) To the best of my knowledge, based upon a review of the covered reports      of Pfizer Inc., and, except as corrected or supplemented in a subsequent      covered report:
-  no covered report contained an untrue statement of a        material fact as of the end of the period covered by such report (or in        the case of a report on Form 8-K or definitive proxy materials, as of        the date on which it was filed); and 
-  no covered report omitted to state a material fact necessary        to make the statements in the covered report, in light of the circumstances        under which they were made, not misleading as of the end of the period        covered by such report (or in the case of a report on Form 8-K or definitive        proxy materials, as of the date on which it was filed). 

(2) I have reviewed the contents of this statement with the Company's audit      committee.

(3) In this statement under oath, each of the following, if filed on or      before the date of this statement, is a "covered report":
-  Form 10-K for year ending December 31, 2001 of Pfizer        Inc.; 
-  all reports on Form 10-Q, all reports on Form 8-K, and        all definitive proxy materials of Pfizer Inc. filed with the Commission        subsequent to the filing of the Form 10-K identified above; and 
-  any amendments to any of the foregoing.   

 

/s/ Henry A. McKinnell                                                      Subscribed      and sworn to                                                                                                before      me this 13th day of August 2002.      Henry A. McKinnell      August 13, 2002                                                                 /s/      Margaret M. Foran                                                                                                 Notary      Public                                                                                                My      Commission Expires: May 31, 2003
**Exhibit32.1**

CERTIFICATIONS OFCEO AND CFO PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350.

I, Tom W. Olofson, ChiefExecutive Officer of Epiq Systems, Inc. (the “Company”), hereby certifypursuant to Section 1350, of chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code, andSection 906 of the Sarbanes – Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of myknowledge, (1) the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of the Company to which thisExhibit is attached (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements ofsection 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and (2) the informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| /s/ Tom W. Olofson                     |   |
|----------------------------------------|--------|
| Tom W. Olofson                         |
|                                   |
| Dated:   July 30,  2007 |

 

 

I, Elizabeth M.Braham, Chief Financial Officer of Epiq Systems, Inc. (the “Company”), herebycertify pursuant to Section 1350, of chapter 63 of title 18, United StatesCode, and Section 906 of the Sarbanes – Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best ofmy knowledge, (1) the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of the Company to whichthis Exhibit is attached (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements ofsection 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and (2) the informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| /s/ Elizabeth M. Braham                |   |
|----------------------------------------|--------|
| Elizabeth M. Braham                    |
|                                   |
| Dated:   July 30,  2007 |

 

----
**[Chase Logo]****SUBSERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT**RE: J.P. Morgan Mortgage Trust 2007-A2 Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates: This Pooling and Servicing Agreement, dated as of March 1, 2007 (the "Agreement"), by and among J.P. Morgan Acceptance Corporation I, a Delaware corporation, as depositor (the "Depositor"), HSBC Bank USA, National Association, as trustee (the "Trustee"), and U.S. Bank National Association, in its dual capacities as master servicer (the "Master Servicer") and securities administrator (the "Securities Administrator"), and acknowledged by J.P. Morgan Mortgage Acquisition Corp., a Delaware corporation, as seller (the "Seller"), for purposes of Sections 2.04 and 2.05 and JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association, a national banking association, as a custodian and The Bank of New York Trust Company, National Association, as a custodian (each a "Custodian") for purposes of Sections 11.01, 11.02, 11.03, 11.06, 11.07, 11.09 and 12.16 The undersigned, each a duly authorized officer of Chase Home Finance LLC ("CHF"), do hereby certify that: (1)CHF is a Subservicer under the Agreement (2)A review of the activities of CHF during the calendar year ending  December 31, 2007 and of the performance of CHF under the Agreement has been made under our supervision; and (3)To the best of our knowledge, based on such review, CHF has fulfilled all its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout such year. Capitalized terms used but not defined herein shall have the meanings assigned in the Agreement. Date: 02/28/2008 Chase Home Finance LLC, as Subservicer By: /s/ Kim Greaves Name: Kim Greaves Title:   Senior Vice President              Servicing Manager  By: /s/ Jim Miller Name: Jim Miller Title:   Senior Vice President  Default Servicing Manager
AURORA LOAN SERVICES *A Lehman Brothers Company*Depositor:  Structured Asset Securities Corporation 745 Seventh Avenue 8th Floor  New York, NY 10019 Trustee:   U.S. Bank National Association  One Federal Street 3rd Floor   Boston, MA 02110 Securities Administrator: Subject: Annual Officer's Certification Fiscal Year:   2007 Securitization:  GPMF 2007-AR2 I, E. Todd Whittemore, the undersigned, a duly authorized officer of Aurora Loan Services LLC (the "Master Servicer"), do certify the following for the Calendar Year 2007:  1.A review of the  activities  of the Master Servicer during the period beginning on the cut-off  date and ending on December 31, 2007 (the "reporting period") and of its performance under  the Agreement for such period has been made under my supervision. 2.To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Master Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material aspects throughout such reporting period. Certified by: AURORA LOAN SERVICES LLC  By: /s/ E. Todd Whittemore Name:  E. Todd Whittemore Title: Executive Vice President
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

August 22, 2018

No. 04-18-00131-CV

Lorraine KENYON, Individually and as Executrix of the Estate of Theodore Kenyon,

Appellants

v.

ELEPHANT INSURANCE COMPANY, LLC,

Appellee

From the 224th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2016CI14055

Honorable Michael E. Mery, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

This is a permissive interlocutory appeal pursuant to TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN.

§51.014(d) (West Supp. 2017). We granted appellant’s petition for permissive appeal on April 

26, 2018. TEX. R. APP. P. 28.3. The appellate record was complete on July 13, 2018, and the 

appellant’s brief was therefore due on August 2, 2018. To date, appellant has requested two

extensions totaling 11 days which were granted to August 13, 2018. To date, neither the 

appellant’s brief nor a motion for extension has been filed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 10.5(b).

It is therefore ORDERED that appellant show cause in writing within seven (7) days

from the date of this order why this appeal should not be dismissed for want of prosecution. See

TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(a)(1).

_________________________________

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 22nd day of August, 2018.

___________________________________

KEITH E. HOTTLE,

Clerk of Court
FDIC Quarterly FOIA Report

3rd Quarter 2018 (April 1 – June 30, 2018)

1. Number of requests received during quarter: 106

2. Number of requests processed during quarter: 131

3. Number of requests backlogged at end of quarter: 1

4. Status of the FDIC’s ten overall oldest pending FOIA requests from the previous fiscal 

year (i.e., number closed during quarter): All ten (10) requests were closed during the 1st

quarter of FY2018
----

|   | 1. | I have reviewed this Report on Form 10-K/A of Petroleum Development Corporation. |
|--------|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | 2. | Based on my knowledge, this report does 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; |
|--------|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:  August 31, 2010 | /s/ Gysle R. Shellum    |   |
|-----------------------------|-------------------------|--------|
|                        | Gysle R. Shellum        |   |
|                        | Chief Financial Officer |   |
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Charles Henry SMITH, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 10-6442.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Jan. 5, 2011.

Decided: Feb. 1, 2011.

Charles Henry Smith, Appellant Pro Se. Paul Aexander Weinman, Office of the United States Attorney, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Charles Henry Smith seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2010) motion. The order is not appealable un*632less a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). A certificate of appeal-ability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Smith has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. The motions for appointment of counsel and to file a formal brief are denied. 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.

*DISMISSED.*
#### QIAN IBRAHIM ZHAO, Appellant v. UNKNOWN AGENT OF the CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY and Janet Ann Napolitano, Secretary of Department of Homeland Security, Appellees.

No. 09-5425.

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.

Dec. 3, 2010.

Qian Ibrahim Zhao, China, pro se.

Addy Renee Schmitt, R. Craig Lawrence, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Washington, DC, for Appellees.

BEFORE: HENDERSON, GARLAND, and BROWN, Circuit Judges.

*JUDGMENT*

PER CURIAM.

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the briefs filed by the parties. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2); D.C.Cir. Rule 340). It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s order filed November 16, 2009 be affirmed. Appellant failed to state a claim under *Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics,*403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971), against the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security because he did not allege that the Secretary, through her “own individual actions, has violated the Constitution.” *Ashcroft v. Iqbal,*-U.S.-,-, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1948, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009). Appellant’s *337claims under *Bivens*against the unknown CIA agent are barred by the applicable statute of limitations. See D.C.Code § 12-301; *see also Wallace v. Kato,*549 U.S. 384, 388, 127 S.Ct. 1091, 166 L.Ed.2d 973 (2007) (“[I]t is the standard rule that accrual occurs when the plaintiff has a complete and present cause of action, that is, when the plaintiff can file suit and obtain relief.” (internal quotation marks, alterations and citations omitted)).

The district court judge’s sua sponte dismissal of the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is not a basis for disqualification. *See*Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(h)(3). By failing to seek leave from the district court to amend his complaint after it was dismissed, appellant forfeited the right to seek leave to amend on appeal. *See City of Harper Woods Employees’ Retirement Sys. v. Olver,*589 F.3d 1292, 1304 (D.C.Cir.2009). Finally, this court lacks jurisdiction to grant appellant’s request for transfer to the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation. *See*28 U.S.C. § 1407.

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 41(b); D.C.Cir. Rule 41.