alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
consolidated balance sheet and consolidated statements of operations on pages 1
and 2 of the Company's 1997 Form 10-Q for the three months ended March 31, 1997,
and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                    3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                           3,080
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    6,441
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      2,374
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                12,295
<PP&E>                                          61,037
<DEPRECIATION>                                (13,601)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  69,937
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            8,556
<BONDS>                                            144
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            85
<OTHER-SE>                                      47,861
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    69,937
<SALES>                                         28,427
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                28,704
<CGS>                                           16,971
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   16,971
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 5,017
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 111
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  6,918
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,636
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              4,282
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     4,282
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.50
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
§ 30.3 Prohibited transactions. ( a ) It shall be unlawful for any person to engage in the offer and sale of any foreign futures contract or foreign options transaction for or on behalf of a foreign futures or foreign options customer, except in accordance with the provisions of this part: Provided, that, with the exception of the disclosure and antifraud provisions set forth in §§ 30.6 and 30.9 of this part, the provisions of this part shall not apply to transactions executed on a foreign board of trade, and carried for or on behalf of a customer at a designated contract market, subject to an agreement with and rules of a contract market which permit positions in a commodity interest which have been established on one market to be liquidated on another market.
( b ) Except as otherwise provided in § 30.4 of this part or pursuant to an exemption granted under § 30.10 of this part, it shall be unlawful for any person to engage in the offer and sale of any foreign futures contract or foreign option transaction for or on behalf of any foreign futures or foreign options customer other than by or through a futures commission merchant on a fully-disclosed basis.
[52 FR 28998, Aug. 5, 1987, as amended at 61 FR 10895, Mar. 18, 1996]
|    |                                                                                                               |
|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 1. | CarMax Business Services, LLC is, as of the date hereof, the Servicer under the Sale and Servicing Agreement. |
|    |                                                                                       |
|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 2. | The undersigned is duly authorized to execute and deliver this Officer's Certificate. |
|    |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        |
|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 3. | A review of the activities of the Servicer during the period beginning on July 30, 2019 and ending on February 29, 2020 and of the Servicer's performance under the Sale and Servicing Agreement was made under my supervision.  To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Sale and Servicing Agreement in all material respects throughout such period. |
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-50641 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus ANTONIO GARCIA-HERNANDEZ, also known as Antonio Hernandez, also known as Juan Antonio Garcia, also known as Pedro Hernandez-Garcia, Defendant-Appellant;

____________________ Consolidated with No. 00-50682

_____________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus DANIEL SANCHEZ-CONTRERAS, also known as Daniel Sanchez, Defendant- Appellant;

____________________ Consolidated with No. 00-50692

_____________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versusNo. 00-50641 c/w Nos. 00-50682 & 00-50692 & 00-50825 & 00-50826

- 2 -

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent CARLOS REYNA-SANTANA, also known as Mario Salinas-Cardenas, also known as Felix Rivas, Defendant-Appellant;

____________________ Consolidated with No. 00-50825

_____________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus JUAN GABRIEL SEGOVIA-GALAN, also known as Roger Gallegos, Defendant-Appellant;

____________________ Consolidated with No. 00-50826

_____________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus JOSE HOMERO RUELES-HERNANDEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas

- - - - - - - - - - February 15, 2001 Before SMITH, BARKSDALE, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: *No. 00-50641 c/w Nos. 00-50682 & 00-50692 & 00-50825 & 00-50826

- 3 -

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. Antonio Garcia-Hernandez, Daniel Sanchez-Contreras, Carlos Reyna-Santana, Juan Gabriel Segovia-Galan, and Jose Homero Rueles-Hernandez (collectively the Defendants) appeal theirsentences following their guilty plea convictions for illegal reentry after deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. The Defendants argue that their sentences should not have exceeded the two-year maximum sentence under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). The Defendants acknowledge that their argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224 (1998), but they seek to preserve the issue for Supreme Court review in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466 (2000). The Defendants’ argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres , 523 U.S. at 235. The Government has moved for a summary affirmance in lieu of filing an appellee’s brief. In its motion, the Government asks that the judgments of the district court be affirmed and that an appellee’s brief not be required. The motion is granted. AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED.
#### Graciela De La Paz et al., Plaintiffs, v. Leah Hausner, Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff-Respondent. Hygrade Magnet Corp., Third-Party Defendant-Appellant.

Judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs. No opinion. Present — Peek, P. J., Dore, Cohn, Breitel and Bastow, JJ.
**Exhibit 31.2****CERTIFICATION**I, Timothy Fairbanks, certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of NationsHealth, Inc.;2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controlsand procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; andc) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the registrant’s board of directors:a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; andb) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.Date: August 14, 2006     By: /s/ Timothy Fairbanks         Timothy Fairbanks
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

WASHINGTON, DC 

United Airlines, Inc. 

Complainant 

v. 

The Port Authority of New York 

and New Jersey 

Respondent. 

ORDER 

FAA Docket No.16-14-13 

On January 5, 2015, counsel for Respondent, The Port Authority of New York and New 

Jersey, filed a Motion pursuant to 14 C.P.R.§ 16.19, requesting an extension of time to 

February 10, 2015 to Move to Dismiss the Complaint, or for Summary Judgment, or to 

file an Answer to the Complaint. 

Counsel advised that the Respondent needs the additional time in order to adequately 

respond to the Complaint citing the allegations in the Complaint, the intervening holiday 

season, and the need to address the parties' lease agreements. Counsel further advised 

that she contacted the Complainant's counsel who indicated that it will not oppose the 

Respondent's request to extend the due date to February 10, 2015. 

Part 16 is intended to expedite substantially the handling and disposition of airportrelated complaints. [See, Rules of Practice for Federally-Assisted Airport Enforcement 

Proceedings, Final Rule, 61 Fed. Reg. 53998 (October 16, 1996).] The rule provides that 

an extension of time may be granted where necessary or appropriate for a fair and 

complete consideration of matters before the agency. See 14 C.P.R. § 16.ll(a). 

An extension of time is reasonable under the circumstances. Accordingly, Respondent is 

hereby granted an extension of time in which to file a Motion to Dismiss the Complaint, 

or a Motion for Summary Judgment, or to file an Answer to the Complaint. The 

Respondent's pleading is now due on February 10,2015. Complainant may file an 

Answer to the Motion or a Reply to the Answer, as applicable within ten days of the date 

of service of the Respondent's pleading. 

andall S. Fiertz 

Director, Airport Compliance 

and Management Analysis 

Date 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

' ,Ji 

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on January G:' ~- 2015, I caused to be placed in the United 

States mail (first class, postage paid) or personally delivered a true copy of the foregoing 

Order addressed to: 

Counsel for Respondent 

Carlene V. Mcintyre, Assistant General Counsel 

Arnold D. Kolikoff, Attorney 

Faith Tabafunda, Attorney 

THE PORT AUTHORITY OF NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY 

Law Department 

225 Park Avenue South, 14th Floor 

New York, NY 10003 

Counsel for Complainant 

Keith J. Harrison, Esq. 

Gerald F. Murphy, Esq. 

Steven J. Seiden, Esq. 

CROWELL & MORING LLP 

1001 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 

Washington, DC 20004 

RobertS. Span, Esq. 

Alan K. Steinbrecher, Esq. 

Sophy Chen, Esq. 

STEINBRECHER & SPAN LLP 

1155 F Street, N.W., Suite 1050 

Washington, DC 20004 

Hand-Delivered to: 

FAA Part 16 Airport Proceedings Docket (AGC-600) 

FAA Office of Airport Compliance and Management Analysis, AC0-100 

Claudia Roberts 

Office of Airport Compliance and 

Management Analysis
-       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2023-09-05T08:58:48-0400
      - Government Publishing Office, Washington, DC 20401
      - Government Publishing Office
      - Government Publishing Office attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by Government Publishing Office
§ 242.502 Certifications in connection with public appearances. ( a ) If a broker or dealer publishes, circulates, or provides a research report prepared by a research analyst employed by the broker or dealer or covered person to a U.S. person in the United States, the broker or dealer must make a record within 30 days after any calendar quarter in which the research analyst made a public appearance that contains the following: ( 1 ) A statement by the research analyst attesting that the views expressed by the research analyst in all public appearances during the calendar quarter accurately reflected the research analyst's personal views at that time about any and all of the subject securities or issuers; and
( 2 ) A statement by the research analyst attesting that no part of the research analyst's compensation was, is, or will be, directly or indirectly, related to the specific recommendations or views expressed by the research analyst in such public appearances.
( b ) If the broker or dealer does not obtain a statement by the research analyst in accordance with paragraph (a) of this section: ( 1 ) The broker or dealer shall promptly notify in writing its examining authority, designated pursuant to section 17(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78q(d)) and § 240.17d-2 of this chapter, that the research analyst did not provide the certifications specified in paragraph (a) of this section; and
( 2 ) For 120 days following notification pursuant to paragraph (b)(1) of this section, the broker or dealer shall disclose in any research report prepared by the research analyst and published, circulated, or provided to a U.S. person in the United States that the research analyst did not provide the certifications specified in paragraph (a) of this section.
( c ) In the case of a research analyst who is employed outside the United States by a foreign person located outside the United States, this section shall only apply to a public appearance while the research analyst is physically present in the United States.
( d ) A broker or dealer shall preserve the records specified in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section in accordance with § 240.17a-4 of this chapter and for a period of not less than 3 years, the first 2 years in an accessible place.
PUBLIC LAW 115–363—DEC. 21, 2018 132 STAT. 5087 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 6059: 

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 164 (2018): 

Dec. 11, considered and passed House. 

Dec. 19, considered and passed Senate. 

Æ 

Public Law 115–363 

115th Congress 

An Act 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 51 Willow 

Street in Lynn, Massachusetts, as the ‘‘Thomas P. Costin, Jr. Post Office Building’’. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. THOMAS P. COSTIN, JR. POST OFFICE BUILDING. 

(a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States Postal 

Service located at 51 Willow Street in Lynn, Massachusetts, shall 

be known and designated as the ‘‘Thomas P. Costin, Jr. Post Office 

Building’’. 

(b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, regulation, 

document, paper, or other record of the United States to the facility 

referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference 

to the ‘‘Thomas P. Costin, Jr. Post Office Building’’. 

Approved December 21, 2018. 

Dec. 21, 2018 

[H.R. 6059] 


dkrause on DSKBC28HB2PROD with PUBLAWS
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

AUGUST 12, 2011

JOHN LEY

CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

 ________________________

 No. 10-14963 

Non-Argument Calendar

 ________________________

 Agency No. A034-714-953

WILFREDO FREDERICK DARIA, 

llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Petitioner,

 versus

U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,

llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Respondent.

________________________

 Petition for Review of a Decision of the

 Board of Immigration Appeals

 ________________________

(August 12, 2011)

Before EDMONDSON, WILSON and KRAVITCH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Wilfredo Frederick Daria petitions this Court for review of his removal

proceedings. Specifically, he claims that the U.S. Attorney General violated his
procedural due process rights by waiting until 2008 to commence removal

proceedings based on an aggravated felony conviction—sexual battery—in 1991.1

“The procedural component of the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause

protects against the deprivation of life, liberty, or property without the ‘due

process of law.’ The necessary first step in evaluating any procedural due-process

claim is determining whether a constitutionally protected interest has been

implicated.” Tefel v. Reno, 180 F.3d 1286, 1299 (11th Cir. 1999) (internal citation

omitted). 

Here, Daria does not articulate the constitutionally protected interest at

stake. He does not demonstrate that either “property” or “liberty” are implicated

by the Attorney General’s decision to commence removal proceedings in 2008. 

Instead, he argues that the Attorney General’s decision violated general precepts

of fairness. But that claim does not warrant relief under the Due Process Clause in

this case. See, e.g., Dandan v. Ashcroft, 339 F.3d 567, 575 (7th Cir. 2003)

(“[T]he decision when to commence deportation proceedings is within the

 The notice to appear issued by the Department of Homeland security also stated Daria 1

was removeable because (1) he committed two crimes of moral turpitude—the 1991 conviction

for sexual battery and a 2007 conviction for unemployment compensation fraud; and (2) he

committed aggravated-felony burglary in 2000. The Florida courts vacated the burglary

conviction in 2008, and Daria entered into a new guilty plea, which resulted in a sentence of less

than one year of imprisonment. Accordingly, it was no longer an independent ground for

removal. Ultimately, the Immigration Judge and Board of Immigration Appeals denied relief

based on the sexual battery conviction. 

2
discretion of the Attorney General and does not, therefore, involve a protected

property or liberty interest.”). Accordingly, we deny his petition for review.

PETITION DENIED. 

3
ANNUAL COMPLIANCE STATEMENT

For the period of July 6, 2019 through December 31,2019 (“Reporting Period”)

 

Deutsche Mortgage & Asset Receiving Corporation

Hudson Yards 2019-30HY Mortgage Trust, Commercial

Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates (the “Trust”)

 

 

SitusHoldings, LLC, as Special Servicer, (a “Certifying Servicer”) is responsiblefor assessing compliance as of December 31, 2019 for the Reporting Period withthe applicable servicing criteria specified in Paragraph (d) of Item 1122 ofthe U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission’s Regulation AB (the “RelevantServicing Criteria”).

 

TheSpecial Servicer has assessed its compliance with the Relevant ServicingCriteria for the Reporting Period and has concluded that the Special Servicerhas complied, in all material respects, with the Relevant Servicing Criteria asof December 31, 2019 and for the Reporting Period with respect to the Platformtaken as a whole. 

 

AsExecutive Managing Director and Vice President of Compliance of Situs Holdings,LLC, we certify that:

 

                A.  A reviewof the Special Servicer’s activities during the preceding calendar year and ofSpecial Servicer’s performance under the Trust and Servicing Agreement has beenmade under our supervision; and 

 

B.  Tothe best of our knowledge, based on such review, the Certifying Servicer hasfulfilled all of its obligations under the Trust and Servicing Agreement in allmaterial respects during the Reporting Period.  

 

Date: February 20, 2020

 

SITUS HOLDINGS, LLC,

as Special Servicer

 

By: /s/ George Wisniewski

Name:    George Wisniewski

Title:      Executive Managing Director

 

By: /s/  Stacey Ciarlanti

Name:      Stacey Ciarlanti

Title:        Vice President,Compliance
§ 204.61 Scope. ( a ) The receipt of payments pursuant to this subpart does not preclude the Commission from pursuing other debt collection remedies, including the offset of Federal payments to satisfy a delinquent nontax debt owed to the United States. The Commission may pursue such debt collection remedies separately or in conjunction with administrative wage garnishment.
( b ) This subpart does not apply to the collection of delinquent nontax debt owed to the United States from the wages of Federal employees from their Federal employment. Federal pay is subject to the Federal salary offset procedures set forth in 5 U.S.C. 5514 and other applicable laws.