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

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 520 Introduced in House (IH)]

106th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. RES. 520

Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2457) to prohibit health 
 insurance and employment discrimination against individuals and their 
   family members on the basis of predictive genetic information or 
                           genetic services.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              June 9, 2000

Ms. Slaughter submitted the following resolution; which was referred to 
                         the Committee on Rules

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2457) to prohibit health 
 insurance and employment discrimination against individuals and their 
   family members on the basis of predictive genetic information or 
                           genetic services.

    Resolved, That, immediately upon the adoption of this resolution, 
the Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare the 
House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on the state of 
the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2457) to prohibit health 
insurance and employment discrimination against individuals and their 
family members on the basis of predictive genetic information or 
genetic services. General debate shall be confined to the bill and 
shall not exceed 30 minutes equally divided and controlled by the 
chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Education and 
the Workforce, 30 minutes equally divided and controlled by the 
chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and 
Means, and 30 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chairman 
and ranking minority member of the Committee on Commerce. After general 
debate, the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-
minute rule. Each title shall be considered as read. During 
consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chairman of the Committee 
of the Whole may accord priority in recognition on the basis of whether 
the member offering an amendment has caused it to be printed in the 
portion of the Congressional Record designated for that purpose in 
clause 8 in rule XVIII.
    Sec. 2. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for 
amendment, the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House 
with such amendments as may have been adopted. The previous question 
shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to 
final passage without intervening motion, except one motion to recommit 
with or without instructions.
    Sec. 3. If the Committee of the Whole rises and reports that it has 
come to no resolution on the bill, then on the next legislative day the 
House shall, immediately after the third daily order of business under 
clause 1 of rule XIV, resolve into the Committee of the Whole for 
further consideration of the bill.
                                 <all>
```
#### § 100.92 Candidate debates.

Funds provided to defray costs incurred in staging candidate debates in accordance with the provisions of 11 CFR 110.13 and 114.4(f) are not contributions.
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 18

- 50766 Summary Calendar

IRMA ROSAS,

Plaintiff

- Appellant

v.

SAN ANTONIO HOUSING AUTHORITY, also known as SAHA; NRP GROUP, L.L.C.; UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD; TEXAS RIOGRANDE LEGAL AID, INCORPORATED; BEXAR COUNTY, TEXAS; CITY OF SAN ANTONIO,

Defendants

- Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 5 :18

- CV

- 537

Before REAVLEY, JONES, and GRAVES , Circuit Judges

.
PER CURIAM: *

We affirm the district court’s judgment for the reasons explained by that

court.

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 i n 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit 

### FILED
August 2, 2019

Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk Case: 18-50766 Document: 00515061299 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/02/2019
### [§2430. Repealed. Pub. L. 116–283, div. A, title XVIII, §1846(f)(8), Jan. 1, 2021, 134 Stat. 4251]

Section, added Pub. L. 100–26, §7(b)(2)(A), Apr. 21, 1987, 101 Stat. 279; amended Pub. L. 102–484, div. A, title VIII, §817(b), Oct. 23, 1992, 106 Stat. 2455; Pub. L. 104–106, div. A, title XV, §1502(a)(1), Feb. 10, 1996, 110 Stat. 502; Pub. L. 106–65, div. A, title X, §1067(1), Oct. 5, 1999, 113 Stat. 774; Pub. L. 111–23, title II, §206(b), May 22, 2009, 123 Stat. 1728; Pub. L. 113–291, div. A, title X, §1071(f)(18), Dec. 19, 2014, 128 Stat. 3511; Pub. L. 114–92, div. A, title VIII, §825(a), Nov. 25, 2015, 129 Stat. 907; Pub. L. 114–328, div. A, title VIII, §§807(b), 847(a), Dec. 23, 2016, 130 Stat. 2261, 2292; Pub. L. 115–91, div. A, title VIII, §831, title X, §1081(a)(38), Dec. 12, 2017, 131 Stat. 1467, 1596; Pub. L. 116–283, div. A, title XVIII, §1846(c)(1), (d)(1), (f)(1), Jan. 1, 2021, 134 Stat. 4248–4250, defined major defense acquisition program. See sections 4201, 4202(a), and 4204 of this title.

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date of Repeal

Repeal effective Jan. 1, 2022, with additional provisions for delayed implementation and applicability of existing law, see section 1801(d) of Pub. L. 116–283, set out as a note preceding section 3001 of this title.
# C_2006310EN.01002805.xml

| 16.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 310/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 310/28

---

Order of the Court of First Instance of 16 October 2006 — Shell Hengelo Zuid v Commission

(Case T-278/99) (1)

1

(2006/C 310/56)

Language of the case: Dutch

Language of the case: Dutch

The President of the Second Chamber Extended Composition has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 47, 19.2.2000.

1

---
IV

106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. RES. 465

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that local, State, and

Federal governments should collect and disseminate statistics on the

number of newborn babies abandoned in public places.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

APRIL 6, 2000

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut (for herself, Mr. DELAY, Mr. GOODLING, Mrs.

JONES of Ohio, Mr. CALLAHAN, Mr. CAMP, Ms. PRYCE of Ohio, Mr.

OBERSTAR, Mr. MCINNIS, Mr. WATKINS, Mr. FOLEY, Mr. SMITH of New

Jersey, Mr. ENGLISH, and Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas) submitted the

following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Education

and the Workforce

RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that

local, State, and Federal governments should collect and

disseminate statistics on the number of newborn babies

abandoned in public places.

Whereas April is Child Abuse Prevention Month, which provides Congress the opportunity to focus attention and

raise awareness of the problem of newborn babies abandoned in public places;

Whereas the Department of Health and Human Services reports that, in 1998, 31,000 babies were delivered and

abandoned in hospitals by mothers;
2

•HRES 465 IH

Whereas an unknown number of newborn babies are abandoned in dumpsters, trash bins, alleys, warehouses, and

bathrooms;

Whereas the Department of Health and Human Services conducted an informal survey of major newspapers and

found that, in 1998, 105 babies were found abandoned

in public places in the United States, of which 33 were

found dead, and that, in 1991, 65 babies were abandoned, of which 8 were found dead;

Whereas national statistics on the number of infants abandoned in public places are not kept, though States are required to submit data to the Department of Health and

Human Services on the number of children who enter

foster care as a result of abandonment in general;

Whereas Texas is the only State to have enacted a law designed to address this social problem, though 24 other

states are considering such legislation, including Alabama, California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Indiana,

Kansas, Kentucky, Maryland, Minnesota, New Jersey,

New York, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania,

Tennessee, Connecticut, Oregon, Illinois, Ohio, Wisconsin, Mississippi, Michigan, and New Mexico; and

Whereas there are innovative model programs in Houston,

Mobile, Minneapolis, and Syracuse that protect mothers

who take newborns to hospitals or some other safe haven

rather than dumping them in a trash bin or leaving them

on a doorstep: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved, That local, State, and Federal statistics

2 should be kept on the number of babies abandoned in pub3 lic places.

Æ
§ 115.171 Criminal and administrative investigations. ( a ) If the agency has responsibility for investigating allegations of sexual abuse, all investigations into alleged sexual abuse must be prompt, thorough, objective, and conducted by specially trained, qualified investigators.
( b ) Upon conclusion of a criminal investigation where the allegation was substantiated, an administrative investigation shall be conducted. Upon conclusion of a criminal investigation where the allegation was unsubstantiated, the agency shall review any available completed criminal investigation reports to determine whether an administrative investigation is necessary or appropriate. Administrative investigations shall be conducted after consultation with the appropriate investigative office within DHS and the assigned criminal investigative entity.
( c ) The agency shall develop written procedures for administrative investigations, including provisions requiring: ( 1 ) Preservation of direct and circumstantial evidence, including any available physical and DNA evidence and any available electronic monitoring data;
( 2 ) Interviewing alleged victims, suspected perpetrators, and witnesses;
( 3 ) Reviewing prior complaints and reports of sexual abuse involving the suspected perpetrator;
( 4 ) Assessment of the credibility of an alleged victim, suspect, or witness, without regard to the individual's status as detainee, staff, or employee, and without requiring any detainee who alleges sexual abuse to submit to a polygraph;
( 5 ) Documentation of each investigation by written report, which shall include a description of the physical and testimonial evidence, the reasoning behind credibility assessments, and investigative facts and findings; and
( 6 ) Retention of such reports for as long as the alleged abuser is detained or employed by the agency, plus five years. Such procedures shall establish the coordination and sequencing of the two types of investigations, in accordance with paragraph (b) of this section, to ensure that the criminal investigation is not compromised by an internal administrative investigation.
( d ) The departure of the alleged abuser or victim from the employment or control of the agency shall not provide a basis for terminating an investigation.
( e ) When outside agencies investigate sexual abuse, the agency shall cooperate with outside investigators and shall endeavor to remain informed about the progress of the investigation.
Exhibit 32.3



CERTIFICATION 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 Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report of Five Oaks Investment Corp. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K/A for the period
ended December 31, 2015, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,
David C. Carroll, as Chief Executive Officer and President (principal executive officer) of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:



| | 1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and
| | -- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



|Date: April 29, 2016 | /s/ David C. Carroll                                                
|-------------------- | --------------------------------------------------------------------
|                     | David C. Carroll                                                    
|                     | Chief Executive Officer and President
 (principal executive officer)



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906
has been provided to Five Oaks Investment Corp. and will be retained by it and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
or its staff upon request.
_________________________________________ 

 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

September 10, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

132806(29) Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Stephen J. Markman, Plaintiff-Appellee, Justices 

v SC: 132806 

 COA: 270148 
 Ingham CC: 03-000476-FC

DERRICK D. COLEMAN, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court’s May 30, 2007 

order is considered, and it is DENIED, because it does not appear that the order was 

entered erroneously. 

p0830 

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. 

September 10, 2007 

 Clerk
EXHIBIT 35.2

SERVICERS CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE

Re: Assessment of compliance for services provided pursuant to the Master Sale and Servicing Agreement, dated February 27, 2007, the Series Supplement,
dated May 6, 2013, the US$ Note Trust Deed, dated May 7, 2013, and other transaction documents relating to SMART ABS Series 2013-2US Trust (collectively, the Agreements).

The undersigned hereby certifies that:



| | 1. | I, Russell Piggott, am a Director of Macquarie Securities Management Pty Limited (the Manager).
| | -- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | A review of the Managers activities during the period from April 1, 2015 through March 31, 2016 (the Reporting Period), and of its performance under each of the Agreements has been
made under my supervision.
| | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 3. | To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Manager has fulfilled all of its obligations under each of the Agreements in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period.
| | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                           
|-------------------------------------------
|Date: 17 June 2016                         
|                                           
|/s/ Russell Piggott                        
|Russell Piggott Director                   
|                                           
|Macquarie Securities Management Pty Limited
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

IN THE MATTER OF EMILY §

IR WIN , a Disabled Person. 1 § No. 326 , 201 8

§

§ Court Below : Court of Chancery of

§ the State of Delaware

§

§ CM 16855

- N

§

Submitted: July 6 , 2018

Decided: July 13 , 2018

Before STRINE

, Chief Justice; SEITZ and TRAYNOR

, Justices.

O R D E R

(1) Ronald J . Schmidt filed a notice of appeal purporting to appeal the

Court of Chancery’s alleged failure to issue a decision on a motion to dismiss filed

by Schmidt on May 7 , 2018, in a guardianship proceeding. 2 T he Clerk issued a

notice directing Schmidt to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed for

failure to comply with Supreme Court Rule 42 when taking an appeal fro m an

apparent interlocutory order. In his response to the notice to show cause, Schmidt

states that any defects in the notice of appeal are due to his inexperience as a pro se

litigant

.

1 The Court has assigned a pseudonym under Supreme Court Rule 7(d).

2 See Docket at 174, In re [ Irwin ], Del. Ch., CM 16855

- N , Transaction ID 62000117 ( May 7, 2018)

( “letter submission with various exhibits submitted by Ronald Schmidt requesting that guardi an be removed”).2

( 2 ) Schmidt’s appeal, on its face, manifestly fails to invoke the appellate

jurisdiction of this Court and is subject to dismissal, sua sponte , under Supreme

Court Rule 29(c). Th e Court’s appellate jurisdiction in Court of Chancery cases is

limited “interlocutory or final decrees” issued by the court. 3 In this case, no decree

,

either interlocutory or final, was entered in the Court of Chancery, which would

permit Schmidt to invoke the appellate jurisdiction of th e Court.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORD ERED that this appeal is DISMISSED

under Supreme Court Rule 29( c ).

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Gary F. Traynor

Justice

3 Del. Const. art. IV

, § 11(4)

.
### §1735f–3. Insurance of mortgage proceeds advanced during construction or rehabilitation or prior to final endorsement of project mortgage

The Secretary is authorized to insure mortgage proceeds advanced during construction or rehabilitation or otherwise prior to final endorsement of a project mortgage for the purpose of (1) financing improvements to the property and the purchase of materials and building components delivered to the property, and (2) providing funds to cover the cost of building components where such components have been assembled and specifically identified for incorporation into the property but are located at a site other than the mortgaged property, with such security as the Secretary may require.

(June 27, 1934, ch. 847, title V, §525, as added Pub. L. 93–383, title III, §301, Aug. 22, 1974, 88 Stat. 676.)
#### Aaron J. Woodman, Appellant, v. Brooklyn Heights Railroad Company, Respondent.

Order modified so as to grant a new trial on condition that the defendant pay the costs and disbursements of the trial; otherwise motion denied, with ten dollars costs, and as thus modified affirmed, without costs. No opinion. Jenks, Hooker, Gaynor, Rich and Miller, JJ., ¿oncurred.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                          10,730
<SECURITIES>                                    47,537
<RECEIVABLES>                                    2,402
<ALLOWANCES>                                       311
<INVENTORY>                                        105
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                60,995
<PP&E>                                           7,111
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,773
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  87,085
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           11,641
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           207
<OTHER-SE>                                      75,237
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    87,085
<SALES>                                         47,589
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                47,589
<CGS>                                           38,889
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   38,889
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                30,932
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   909
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (20,711)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (20,711)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (20,711)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (1.03)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.03)


</TABLE>
(logo) **TRIMONT**

Global

 

 

**OFFICER'S CERTIFICATE**

For the reporting period January 1, 2018 throughDecember 31, 2018

(the “Reporting Period”)

 

 

COMM 2012-CCRE2,

Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, COMM2012-CCRE2

 

 

Pursuant to Section 10.11 ofthe Pooling and Servicing Agreement governing the above referenced transaction:

 

As authorized Officer ofTRIMONT REAL ESTATE ADVISORS, LLC as Certifying Servicer with respect to theReporting Period a review of the activities of the Certifying Servicer duringthe period and its performance under the Trust and Servicing Agreement has beenmade under such Officer's supervision.

 

To the best of such Officer'sknowledge, based on such review, the Certifying Servicer has fulfilled itsobligations under the Trust and Servicing Agreement in all material respectsthroughout the Reporting Period.

 

 

Date: March 5, 2019

 

**TRIMONT REAL ESTATEADVISORS, LLC**

 

By: /s/ Steven M. Lauer  

Steven M. Lauer

Authorized Signatory

 

 

One Alliance Center 

3500 Lenox Road #G1 

Atlanta, GA 30326
,J. 

Hardesty 

Parraguirre Cherry 

J. 

refund amount issue remained pending below, rendering the district 

court's decision interlocutory and nonappealable. 

In their timely responses to our show cause order, the parties 

point out that they stipulated below to the amount of use tax paid on 

employee meals and, thus, that part of the amount of any refund due is 

not at issue. The parties also point to pending arguments regarding 

whether the requested refund should be offset against other taxes due and 

whether appellant is entitled to interest on the refund amount, however. 

Nevertheless, appellant urges this court to deem the district court's 

decision final and appealable. Cross-appellant asserts that these issues 

remain unresolved and that the matter should thus be remanded for 

further proceedings at the administrative level. 

Because the district court has neither remanded this matter to 

the administrative agency to determine these issues nor ruled on these 

issues and the refund amount due itself, we conclude that they remain 

pending in the district court, such that no final judgment has been entered 

over which we may exercise jurisdiction. NRAP 3A(b)(1); NRS 233B.150. 

Accordingly, we 

ORDER this appeal and cross-appeal DISMISSED. 1 

A6A. XAA.2‘ 

'This dismissal does not preclude any aggrieved party from filing a 

timely appeal or cross-appeal from the district court's final judgment once 

it is entered. NRAP 3A(b)(1); Bally's Grand Hotel & Casino v. Reeves, 112 

Nev. 1487, 1488-89, 929 P.2d 936, 937 (1996). 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) I947A • > 

2 
cc: Hon. Gloria Sturman, District Judge 

John Bartlett, Attorney at Law 

Henderson City Attorney 

Attorney General/Las Vegas 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A 

3
### SUBCHAPTER III—RECOGNITION OF A FOREIGN PROCEEDING AND RELIEF