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

[House Report 107-775]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

107th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 2d Session                                                     107-775

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

 
   PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION 124, MAKING 
 FURTHER CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 2003, AND H.R. 
   5708, TO REDUCE PREEXISTING PAYGO BALANCES, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

                                _______
                                

  November 13 (legislative day, November 12), 2002.--Referred to the 
                House Calendar and ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

Mr. Hastings of Washington, from the Committee on Rules, submitted the 
                               following

                              R E P O R T

                       [To accompany H. Res. 602]

    The Committee on Rules, having had under consideration 
House Resolution 602, by a nonrecord vote, report the same to 
the House with the recommendation that the resolution be 
adopted.

                SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS OF THE RESOLUTION

    The resolution provides for consideration of House Joint 
Resolution 124, making further continuing appropriations for 
the fiscal year 2003, and for other purposes, under a closed 
rule. The rule provides one hour of debate in the House equally 
divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority 
member of the Committee on Appropriations.
    The rule waives all points of order against consideration 
of the joint resolution. The rule provides one motion to 
recommit House Joint Resolution 124.
    The rule further provides for consideration of H.R. 5708, 
to reduce preexisting PAYGO balances, and for other purposes, 
under a closed rule providing one hour of debate in the House 
equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking 
minority member of the Committee on the Budget.
    The rule waives all points of order against consideration 
of the joint resolution. Finally, the rule provides one motion 
to recommit H.R. 5708.


```
§ 51.345 Application of standards. ( a ) When a lot of apples is required to meet a specific U.S. grade, the tolerances as set forth in § 51.346 shall apply. When packed in closed packages the application of tolerances in § 51.347 shall apply. The application of tolerances shall not apply to apples in open or bulk containers.
( b ) In the application of these standards to determine the percentage of the lot which meets the requirements of each of the grades, tolerances shall not apply.
#### § 51.891 Uniform in appearance.

*Uniform in appearance* means that not more than one-tenth of the containers in any lot show sufficient variation in color or size of berries to materially detract from the appearance of the contents of the individual container, and that the stems are well developed and strong.

[36 FR 9126, May 20, 1971. Redesignated at 42 FR 32514, June 27, 1977, and further redesignated at 46 FR 63203, Dec. 31, 1981. Redesignated at 56 FR 15802, Apr. 18, 1991]
#### § 51.2290 Insect injury.

*Insect injury* means that the insect, web, frass or other evidence of insects is present on the portion of kernel.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>

</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000758256
<NAME>                        The Saint James Company
<MULTIPLIER>                                              1
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                 DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                    APR-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                      JUN-30-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                             1
<CASH>                                                      0
<SECURITIES>                                                0
<RECEIVABLES>                                               0
<ALLOWANCES>                                                0
<INVENTORY>                                                 0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                            0
<PP&E>                                                      0
<DEPRECIATION>                                              0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                              0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                     558
<BONDS>                                                     0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                       0
<PREFERRED>                                                 0
<COMMON>                                              999,057
<OTHER-SE>                                                  0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                0
<SALES>                                                     0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                            0
<CGS>                                                       0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                               0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                            0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                            0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                        558
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                             0
<INCOME-TAX>                                                0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                         0
<DISCONTINUED>                                              0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                             0
<CHANGES>                                                   0
<NET-INCOME>                                             (279)
<EPS-BASIC>                                               0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                               0



</TABLE>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Ernest Vaughn, Appellant.

[817 NYS2d 196]

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (John E Collins, J.), rendered on or about October 25, 2004, unanimously affirmed. No opinion. Order *309filed. Concur—Buckley, P.J., Andrias, Nardelli, Sweeny and McGuire, JJ.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v David Santiago, Appellant.

[813 NYS2d 301]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Bruce Allen, J.), rendered June 17, 2004, convicting defendant, after a nonjury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third and fourth degrees, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to an aggregate term of 41/2 to 9 years, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly denied defendant’s suppression motion, and its verdict was not against the weight of the evidence. With regard to both the suppression ruling and the verdict, there is no basis for disturbing the court’s credibility determinations, which are supported by the record *(see People v Prochilo,*41 NY2d 759, 761 [1977]; *People v Gaimari,*176 NY 84, 94 [1903]). Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Friedman, Marlow and Malone, JJ.
#### In the Matter of the Probate of the Will of Rosa Rizzo, Deceased.

Decree and order insofar as appealed from unanimously reversed on the law and fact® and a new trial granted on the question of whether the will was the product of fraud or undue influence, with costs to abide the event. Memorandum : There was no evidence of fraud and the evidence as to undue influence was circumstantial and not substantial enough to sustain the jury’s finding. We believe, however, that under the circumstances contestants should be given an opportunity to retry the issue of fraud and undue influence. (Appeal from decree and order of Erie Surrogate’s Court, denying probate of will; order denied motion ,to set aside verdict.) Present—Goldman, P. J., Del Vecchio, Witmer, Moule and Bastow, JJ.
Exhibit 4.10.3



 Exhibit 4.10.3 
 CERTIFICATE OF TRUST 
 OF 
 CAPITAL ONE CAPITAL V 
 THIS Certificate of Trust of Capital One Capital V (the
“Trust”), dated as of May 6, 2009, is being duly executed and filed on behalf of the Trust by the undersigned, as trustees, to form a statutory trust under the Delaware Statutory Trust Act (12 Del. C. § 3801 et
seq.) (the “Act”). 
 1. Name. The name of the statutory trust formed by this Certificate of Trust is Capital One
Capital V. 
 2. Delaware Trustee. The name and business address of the trustee of the Trust with its principal place of business in
the State of Delaware are BNY Mellon Trust of Delaware, White Clay Center, Route 273, Newark, Delaware 19711. 
 3. Effective Date.
This Certificate of Trust shall be effective upon filing with the Secretary of State of the State of Delaware. 
 [Signature pages follow]








 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have duly executed this Certificate of Trust in accordance with
Section 3811(a)(1) of the Act. 
  

			
	THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON TRUST COMPANY, N.A., not in its individual capacity, but solely as Institutional Trustee
		
	By:	 	 /s/ D.G. Donovan

	Name:	 	D.G. Donovan
	Title:	 	Vice President
	
	BNY MELLON TRUST OF DELAWARE, not in its individual capacity, but solely as Delaware Trustee
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Kristine K. Gullo

	Name:	 	Kristine K. Gullo
	Title:	 	Vice President
	
	 /s/ Thomas A. Feil

	Thomas A. Feil, as Administrative Trustee
	
	 /s/ Stephen Linehan

	Stephen Linehan, as Administrative Trustee
Exhibit 4.10.5



 Exhibit 4.10.5 
 CERTIFICATE OF TRUST 
 OF 
 CAPITAL ONE CAPITAL VII 
 THIS Certificate of Trust of Capital One Capital VII
(the “Trust”), dated as of May 6, 2009, is being duly executed and filed on behalf of the Trust by the undersigned, as trustees, to form a statutory trust under the Delaware Statutory Trust Act (12 Del. C. § 3801 et
seq.) (the “Act”). 
 1. Name. The name of the statutory trust formed by this Certificate of Trust is Capital One
Capital VII. 
 2. Delaware Trustee. The name and business address of the trustee of the Trust with its principal place of business in
the State of Delaware are BNY Mellon Trust of Delaware, White Clay Center, Route 273, Newark, Delaware 19711. 
 3. Effective Date.
This Certificate of Trust shall be effective upon filing with the Secretary of State of the State of Delaware. 
 [Signature pages follow]








 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have duly executed this Certificate of Trust in accordance with
Section 3811(a)(1) of the Act. 
  

			
	THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON TRUST COMPANY, N.A., not in its individual capacity, but solely as Institutional Trustee
		
	By:	 	 /s/ D.G. Donovan

	Name:	 	D.G. Donovan
	Title:	 	Vice President
	
	BNY MELLON TRUST OF DELAWARE, not in its individual capacity, but solely as Delaware Trustee
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Kristine K. Gullo

	Name:	 	Kristine K. Gullo
	Title:	 	Vice President
	
	 /s/ Thomas A. Feil

	Thomas A. Feil, as Administrative Trustee
	
	 /s/ Stephen Linehan

	Stephen Linehan, as Administrative Trustee
# 6.303 Justifications.

- 6.303-1 Requirements. 
- 6.303-2 Content. 

**Parent topic:**Subpart 6.3 - Other Than Full and Open Competition
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-30935

Summary Calendar

IN RE: VIOXX PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION

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

WALTER J. ROACH, JR., Administrator of the Estate of Joanne I. Roach,

Deceased, 

 Plaintiff - Appellant

v.

MERCK AND COMPANY, INCORPORATED, 

 Defendant - Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 2:05-MD-1657

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, OWEN, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

This appeal concerns one of the remaining personal injury claims in the

Vioxx litigation. The district court granted Merck’s motion for summary

judgment, concluding that the Plaintiff’s action was barred by the applicable

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

June 18, 2013

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

* 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.

 Case: 12-30935 Document: 00512278460 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/18/2013
No. 12-30935

statute of limitations. We AFFIRM the district court’s order granting summary

judgment in favor of Merck for essentially the same reasons set forth in its Order

& Reasons.1

1 Plaintiff-Appellant argues, for the first time on appeal, that Merck waived its statute

of limitations defense. We can find no indication in the record that Plaintiff-Appellant made

this argument in the district court. Keeping with our well-settled rule that “arguments not

raised before the district court are waived and cannot be raised for the first time on appeal,”

we do not address the argument. LeMaire v. Louisiana Dept. of Transp. & Dev., 480 F.3d 383,

387 (5th Cir. 2007).

2

 Case: 12-30935 Document: 00512278460 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/18/2013
#### Max Dyes, Respondent, v. Joseph Friedman, Appellant.

Determination of the Appellate Term unanimously reversed, on the law and on the facts, with costs and disbursements to appellant in that court and judgment granted in favor of plaintiff, entered February 9, 1966, reversed on the law, on the facts and in the exercise of discretion, the verdict vacated and a new trial granted, with $50 costs and disbursements to defendant-appellant unless plaintiff stipulates to accept $3,000 in lieu of the amount awarded by verdict, in which event the judgment is modified to that extent and as so modified affirmed, without costs or disbursements in this court or the Appellate Term. The verdict is obviously excessive and is not warranted on this record. Settle order on notice. Concur—Steuer, J. P., Capozzoli, Rabin and McNally, JJ.
#### § 52.28 Appeal inspection certificate.

After an appeal inspection has been completed, the lot(s) cannot be further appealed unless authorized by the Administrator. An appeal inspection certificate shall be issued, showing the results of such appeal inspection; and such certificate shall supersede the inspection certificate previously issued for the processed product involved. Each appeal inspection certificate shall clearly identify the number and date of the inspection certificate which it supersedes. The superseded certificate shall become null and void upon the issuance of the appeal inspection certificate and shall no longer represent the quality or condition of the processed product described therein. The inspector or inspectors issuing an appeal inspection certificate shall forward notice of such issuance to such persons as he considers necessary to prevent misuse of the superseded certificate if the original and all copies of such superseded certificate have not previously been delivered to the inspector or inspectors issuing the appeal inspection certificate. The provisions in the regulations in this part concerning forms and certificates, issuance of certificates, and disposition of certificates shall apply to appeal inspection certificates, except that copies of such appeal inspection certificates shall be furnished to all interested parties who received copies of the superseded certificate.

[51 FR 20439, June 5, 1986]
§ 351.3 Procedure on arrival. All parcel post or other mail packages from foreign countries which, either from examination or external evidence, are found or are believed to contain plants or plant products, shall be dispatched for submission, or actually submitted, to the plant quarantine inspector at the most accessible location listed in § 351.2. The inspector shall pass upon the contents under the Plant Quarantine Act and Federal Plant Pest Act and with the cooperation of the customs and postal officers either ( a ) Release the package from further plant quarantine examination and endorse his decision thereon; or
( b ) Divert it to the Plant Quarantine Station at Washington, DC, Brownsville, Tex., Hoboken, N.J., Honolulu, Hawaii, Jamaica, L.I., N.Y., Laredo, Tex., Miami, Fla., New Orleans, La., San Francisco, Calif., San Juan, P.R., San Pedro, Calif., or Seattle, Wash., for whatever disposition is deemed warranted. If so diverted, the plant quarantine inspector shall attach to the package the yellow and green special mailing tag addressed to the proper quarantine station. A package so diverted shall be accompanied by customs card Form 3511 and transmitted to the appropriate Customs office for referral to the Plant Quarantine Station. Envelopes containing customs card Form 3511 addressed to the collector of customs, New York, N.Y., shall contain a notation that the material is to be referred to the Plant Protection and Quarantine Programs, Hoboken, N.J.
[24 FR 9923, Dec. 9, 1959, as amended at 28 FR 5204, May 24, 1963, as amended at 36 FR 24917, Dec. 24, 1971]
27.201-1 General.       (a) Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1498, the exclusive remedy for patent or copyright infringement by or on behalf of the Government is a suit for monetary damages against the Government in the Court of Federal Claims. There is no injunctive relief available, and there is no direct cause of action against a contractor that is infringing a patent or copyright with the authorization or consent of the Government (*e.g.*, while performing a contract).                                          (b) The Government may expressly authorize and consent to a contractor’s use or manufacture of inventions covered by U.S. patents by inserting the clause at 52.227-1, Authorization and Consent.                                          (c) Because of the exclusive remedies granted in 28 U.S.C. 1498, the Government requires notice and assistance from its contractors regarding any claims for patent or copyright infringement by inserting the clause at 52.227-2, Notice and Assistance, Regarding Patent and Copyright Infringement.                                          (d) The Government may require a contractor to reimburse it for liability for patent infringement arising out of a contract for commercial products or commercial services by inserting the clause at 52.227-3, Patent Indemnity.    **Parent topic:** 27.201 Patent and copyright infringement liability.
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Case No. 5:01cr22-RH

vs. Case No. 5:05cv21-RH/WCS

BILLY JOE BUCHANAN, 

Defendant.

 /

ORDER TO RESPOND TO § 2255 MOTION

In response to the court's order to amend his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion, doc. 133,

Defendant filed an amended § 2255 motion, memorandum of law, and appendix of

exhibits. Docs. 186-188. 

The court has reviewed the amended motion pursuant to the Rules Governing §

2255 Proceedings, and the Government is directed to file an answer, motion, or other

response in compliance with § 2255 Rule 5(b). If appropriate the Government shall

include the initial brief or other briefs from the direct appeal, and may rely on the

statement of facts presented there. Defendant may reply to the Government's

arguments within the time set by this order, but is not required to do so. § 2255 Rule

5(d). 

Case 5:01-cr-00022-RS-LB Document 189 Filed 05/20/05 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

Case Nos. 5:01cr22-RH and 5:05cv21-RH/WCS

The court will review the record after the Government's arguments and

Defendant's reply (if any) are filed. If it does not appear that a hearing or additional

argument is warranted, then the undersigned will enter a report and recommendation for

disposition of the § 2255 motion; if an evidentiary hearing is warranted, counsel will be

appointed. § 2255 Rule 8(b) and (c).

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

1. The clerk shall forward copies of the amended § 2255 motion, memorandum,

and appendix (docs. 186-188) to the United States Attorney for this District, who shall

file an answer, motion, or other response to the motion no later than July 22, 2005. 

2. If review of the PSR is necessary, the Probation Office shall allow counsel for

the Government to review the PSR upon request.

3. Defendant shall file a reply, if desired, no later than August 22, 2005. DONE

AND ORDERED on May 20, 2005.

 s/ William C. Sherrill, Jr. 

WILLIAM C. SHERRILL, JR. 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 5:01-cr-00022-RS-LB Document 189 Filed 05/20/05 Page 2 of 2
##### 



Exhibit 35.1
 SERVICER COMPLIANCE CERTIFICATE
PURSUANT TO ITEM 1123 OF REGULATION AB UNDER THE
SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
 Re:
    
    Turquoise Card Backed Securities plc  Series 2006-2 and Series 2007-1
  (i)
    
    the Receivables Trust Deed and Servicing Agreement (the RTSA Agreement) dated May 23, 2006
among Turquoise Receivables Trustee Limited, as Receivables Trustee, Turquoise Funding 1
Limited, as Loan Note Issuing Entity and Series 2006-2 Investor Beneficiary, Turquoise Funding
2 Limited, as Dormant Investor Beneficiary and the Company, as Servicer,(ii)
    
    the Series 2006-2 Supplement to the RTSA Agreement (the Series 2006-2 Agreement) dated
November 22, 2007, among Turquoise Receivables Trustee Limited, as Receivables Trustee,
Turquoise Funding 1 Limited, as Loan Note Issuing Entity and Series 2006-2 Investor
Beneficiary, Turquoise Funding 2 Limited, as Dormant Investor Beneficiary and the Company, as
Servicer,(iii)
    
    the Series 2007-1 Supplement to the RTSA Agreement (the Series 2007-1 Agreement) dated
June 28, 2007, among Turquoise Receivables Trustee Limited, as Receivables Trustee, Turquoise
Funding 1 Limited, as Loan Note Issuing Entity and Series 2007-1 Investor Beneficiary,
Turquoise Funding 2 Limited, as Dormant Investor Beneficiary and the Company, as Servicer, and(iv)
    
    the Letter Supplementing Servicing Provisions from the Company, dated October 26, 2007 to and
agreed by each of Turquoise Receivables Trustee Limited, as Receivables Trustee, Turquoise
Funding 1 Limited, as Loan Note Issuing Entity and Series 2006-2 Investor Beneficiary,
Turquoise Funding 2 Limited, as Dormant Investor Beneficiary, the Law Debenture Trust Company
of New York, as Securities Trustee and the Note Trustee and the Company (the Servicing
Supplement and together with the RTSA Agreement the Series 2006-2 Agreement and the Series
2007-1 Agreement, the Agreements)
  1.
    
    a review of the activities of the Company for the calendar year ending December 31, 2007 and
of its performance under each of the Agreements has been completed under my supervision; and2.
    
    to the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Company has fulfilled all of its
obligations under each of the Agreements in all material respects throughout the reporting
period referred to above except as set forth below:
  st
 By: 
Name:
    
    /s/ Roger K McGregor

Roger K. McGregorTitle:
    
    Chief Financial Officer, HSBC Bank plc
 32
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v. CASE NO. 3:20cr58/MCR

DYLAN ZENAS COWLES

_____________________________/

ACCEPTANCE OF PLEA OF GUILTY

Pursuant to the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate

Judge, to which there have been no timely objections, the plea of guilty of the

Defendant, DYLAN ZENAS COWLES, to Count 5 of the Third Superseding

Indictment is hereby ACCEPTED. All parties shall appear before this Court for

sentencing as directed.

DONE and ORDERED this 24th June 2021.

 s/ M. Casey Rodgers 

M. CASEY RODGERS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE