alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
H. Res. 374 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

June 7, 2017. 

Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall 

be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 2213) to 

amend the Anti-Border Corruption Act of 2010 to authorize 

certain polygraph waiver authority, and for other purposes. 

All points of order against consideration of the bill are 

waived. The amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Homeland Security now 

printed in the bill shall be considered as adopted. The bill, 

as amended, shall be considered as read. All points of order 

against provisions in the bill, as amended, are waived. The 

previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, 

as amended, and on any further amendment thereto, to final 

passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of 

debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Homeland Security; (2) the further amendment printed in the report of the 

Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution, if offered 

by the Member designated in the report, which shall be in 
2 

•HRES 374 EH 

order without intervention of any point of order, shall be considered as read, shall be separately debatable for the time 

specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the 

proponent and an opponent, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question; and (3) one motion to recommit with or without instructions. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
#### PEOPLE, Appellant, v. SMITH, Respondent.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

January 29, 1915.)

Proceeding by the People of the State of New York against Gersham Smith.

No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

JUDGMENT

No. 04-12-00491-CR

Felicia Renee AKINS,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 213th District Court, Tarrant County, Texas

Trial Court No. 1250943D

The Honorable Louis E. Sturns, Judge Presiding

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE STONE, JUSTICE BARNARD, AND JUSTICE MARTINEZ

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s judgment is 

AFFIRMED.

SIGNED July 10, 2013.

_____________________________

Marialyn Barnard, Justice
Subpart 602.1—Definitions

Parent topic: PART 602—DEFINITIONS OF WORDS AND TERMS

602.101 Definitions.

602.101-70 DOSAR definitions.

For the purposes of the DOSAR, unless otherwise indicated, the following terms have the meanings

set forth in this subpart.

Chief of Mission means the principal officer in charge of a diplomatic mission of the United States or

of a United States office abroad which is designated by the Secretary of State as diplomatic in

nature, including any individual assigned under section 502(c) of the Foreign Service Act of 1980

(Public Law 96–465) to be temporarily in charge of such a mission or office.

Consolidated Receiving Point or CRP; means the contractor under contract to a Despatch Agency to

receive and prepare items for shipment to a post. The CRP receives, records, consolidates, and

packs items for shipment overseas under the direction of the Despatch Agency.

Department or DOS means the Department of State, including all of its activities wherever located.

Despatch Agency means the office responsible for the transportation of supplies between the U.S.

and posts within its specific geographic area as assigned by the Office of Logistics Operations. There

are six Despatch Agencies, one each in Iselin, New Jersey; Baltimore, Maryland; Miami, Florida;

Seattle, Washington; Brownsville, Texas; and the European Logistical Support Office in Antwerp,

Belgium.

Government means the Government of the United States of America unless specifically stated

otherwise.

Major system has the same definition as described in FAR 2.101; however, the Department of State's

dollar threshold as defined in paragraph (2) is $30 million. The Under Secretary for Management is

the head of the agency for the purposes of paragraph (3).

Overseas post means a “post” located outside the United States of America.

Post means a diplomatic or consular mission of the United States of America, administered or

managed by the DOS.
### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN NO. 03-0 7 -00 541 -CV Shal andaAug ill ar d , A ppe lla nt

v. Tif fan y Madura and Richard T oro , Appellee F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF HAY S COUNTY , 274TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. 06- 0762 , HO NORAB LE WI LLIAM HENRY , JUDGE PRESIDI NG

C O N C U R

R I N G O P I N I O N Iconcur in the judgme nt only .

__________________________________________ J an P. Patterson, J ustice Be fore J ustices Patterson, Puryear and He nson Filed: June 20, 2008
§ 73.21 Protection of Safeguards Information: Performance requirements. ( a ) *General performance requirement.* ( 1 ) Each licensee, certificate holder, applicant, or other person who produces, receives, or acquires Safeguards Information (including Safeguards Information with the designation or marking: Safeguards Information—Modified Handling) shall ensure that it is protected against unauthorized disclosure. To meet this general performance requirement, such licensees, certificate holders, applicants, or other persons subject to this section shall: ( i ) Establish, implement, and maintain an information protection system that includes the applicable measures for Safeguards Information specified in § 73.22 related to: Power reactors; a formula quantity of strategic special nuclear material; transportation of or delivery to a carrier for transportation of a formula quantity of strategic special nuclear material or more than 100 grams of irradiated reactor fuel; uranium hexafluoride production or conversion facilities; fuel fabrication facilities; uranium enrichment facilities; independent spent fuel storage installations; and geologic repository operations areas.
( ii ) Establish, implement, and maintain an information protection system that includes the applicable measures for Safeguards Information specified in § 73.23 related to: Research and test reactors that possess special nuclear material of moderate strategic significance or special nuclear material of low strategic significance.
( iii ) Protect the information in accordance with the requirements of § 73.22 if the Safeguards Information is not described in paragraphs (a)(1)(i) and (a)(1)(ii) of this section.
( 2 ) Information protection procedures employed by Federal, State, Tribal, and local law enforcement agencies are presumed to meet the general performance requirement in paragraph (a)(1) of this section.
( b ) *Commission authority.* ( 1 ) Pursuant to Section 147 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, the Commission may impose, by order or regulation, Safeguards Information protection requirements different from or in addition to those specified in this Part on any person who produces, receives, or acquires Safeguards Information.
( 2 ) The Commission may require, by regulation or order, that information within the scope of Section 147 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, related to facilities or materials not specifically described in §§ 73.21, 73.22 or 73.23 be protected under this part.
[73 FR 63574, Oct. 24, 2008, as amended at 77 FR 34205, June 11, 2012; 79 FR 58671, Sept. 30, 2014]
| (logo) Rialto 

CAPITAL |  

  |
|-------------------------|----------------|

 

 

                                

 

2014 Annual Statement of Servicer Compliance (Item 1123)

 

 

                Pooling and Servicing Agreement (the “Pooling and Servicing Agreement”) dated as of December 1, 2012 by and among J.P. Morgan Chase Commercial Mortgage Securities Corp., as Depositor, Midland Loan Services, a Division of  PNC Bank, National Association as Master Servicer, Rialto Capital Advisors, LLC as Special Servicer, Wells Fargo Bank, National Association as Certificate Administrator, Wells Fargo Bank, National Association as Trustee and Pentalpha Surveillance LLC as Senior Trust Advisor relating to the J.P. Morgan Chase Commercial Mortgage Securities Trust 2012-LC9, Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2012-LC9 

(JPMCC 2012-LC9)

                

The undersigned, a duly authorized officer of Rialto Capital Advisors, LLC, as special servicer (the “Special Servicer”) herein certifies to the following:

 

(B)    All servicing activities and performance of such servicing activities under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement are performed on behalf of the Special Servicer.

 

(C)    A review of the servicing activities and performance by the Special Servicer for the period of January 1, 2014 to December 31, 2014 (the “Reporting Period”) in accordance with the Pooling and Servicing Agreement has been conducted under my supervision.

 

(D)    To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Special Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the terms of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement, in all material respects for the Reporting Period and if there has been a failure to fulfill any such obligations in any material respect, each failure and the nature and status thereof has been specifically identified herein.

 

 

 

 

Certified by:  /s/  Adam Singer                                                                                Date:  March 5, 2015

       Adam Singer, Managing Director
# PGI Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation

- PGI Part 242 - CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION 
- PGI Part 243 - CONTRACT MODIFICATIONS 
- PGI Part 244 - SUBCONTRACTING POLICIES AND PROCEDURES 
- PGI Part 245 - GOVERNMENT PROPERTY 
- PGI Part 246 - QUALITY ASSURANCE 
- PGI Part 247 - TRANSPORTATION 
- PGI Part 249 - TERMINATION OF CONTRACTS 
- PGI Part 250 - EXTRAORDINARYCONTRACTUAL ACTIONS 
- PGI Part 251 - USE OF GOVERNMENT SOURCES BY CONTRACTORS 

**Parent topic:**PGI Subchapter G - CONTRACT MANAGEMENT
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                       2,099,557
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,463,223
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,081,997
<PP&E>                                      10,101,281
<DEPRECIATION>                             (3,119,863)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              11,626,195
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        5,458,329
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                    345,455
<COMMON>                                        48,578
<OTHER-SE>                                   5,773,833
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                11,626,195
<SALES>                                     10,871,296
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            10,871,296
<CGS>                                        6,558,222
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                6,558,222
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             6,972,417
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              46,162
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (2,705,505)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (2,705,505)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (2,705,505)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.56)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.56)
        

</TABLE>
SERVED: SEPTEMBER 28, 2010 ' ^FPARTMENT OF 

:RANSPORIATION 

•"-KET OPERATIONS 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 'M i B 2^ A ^: 39 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

IN THE MATTER OF 

COLGAN AIR, INC. 

FAA DOCKET NO. CP09EA0017 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

DMS NO.-FAA-2009-0581 

NOTICE OF PREHEARING CONFERENCE 

A Prehearing Telephone Conference is hereby scheduled on October 14, 2010, at 2 p.m., 

Easten;! Time. 

All parties should be prepared to discuss all issues and facts at issue. All documents that 

have been exchanged and that have not already been provided to the Judge should be furnished 

to him by October 7, 2010. 

Pursuant to Section 556 of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 556(c)(8), each 

party shall be represented by someone who has authority to negotiate concerning resolution of all 

issues in controversy. 

SO ORDERED. 

^~~R6rmie A. Yoder 

Chief Administrative Law/ud; 

Attachment - Service List 
FAA Docket No. CP09EA0017 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

SERVICE LIST 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building - Suite 2W1000' 

ONE COPY 

Mark A. Dombroff, Respondent's Counsel 

DOMBROFF GILMORE JAQUES & FRENCH, P.C. 

1676 International Drive - Penthouse 

McLean, VA 22102 

TEL: 703-336-8700 

FAX: 703-336-8750 

Christian L. Lewerenz, Complainant's Counsel 

Attorney, Office of the Regional Counsel, EAL-7 

Federal Aviation Administration 

1 Aviation Plaza 

Jamaica, NY 11434 

TEL: 718-553-3273 

FAX: 718-995-5699 

The Honorable Ronnie A. Yoder, Chief Administrative Law Judge 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Office of Hearings, M-20, Room El 2-320 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-2142 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

' Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: 

Federal Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building - Suite 2W1000, 

Washington, DC 20591, Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430. 

- 2 -
###### Editorial Note on Part 2

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 2 appear at 79 FR 75739, Dec. 19, 2014.

#### § 2.1101 Purpose.

The regulations in this subpart establish hybrid hearing procedures, as authorized by section 134 of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (96 Stat. 2230), to be used at the request of any party in certain contested proceedings on applications for a license or license amendment to expand the spent nuclear fuel storage capacity at the site of a civilian nuclear power plant. These procedures are intended to encourage and expedite onsite expansion of spent nuclear fuel storage capacity.
Exhibit 32.2

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 Annual Report on
Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2012 of PBF Holding Company LLC (the Company), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Matthew C. Lucey, Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer
of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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.
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: March 18, 2013



|                                              
|----------------------------------------------
|/s/ Matthew C. Lucey                          
|Matthew C. Lucey                              
|Senior Vice President, Chief Executive Officer
|(Principal Financial Officer)                 

A signed original of the written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to PBF Holding Company LLC and
will be retained by PBF Holding Company LLC and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
* Honorable James H. Hancock, Senior U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of Alabama, sitting by designation. Robert L. JONES, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. J. Wayne GARNER, Chairman, State Board of Pardons and Paroles, et al., Defendants-Appellees. No. 97-9009. United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

May 10, 2000. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia (No. 1:95-cv-3012-CAM); Charles A. Moye, Jr., Judge. ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Before BIRCH and BARKETT, Circuit Judges, and HANCOCK * , Senior District Judge. PER CURIAM: In light of the Supreme Court's decision in Garner v. Jones, --- U.S. ----, 120 S.Ct. 1362, --- L.Ed.2d ---- (March 28, 2000), we remand the case for further proceedings. In its decision the Supreme Court noted that: The Court of Appeals' analysis failed to reveal whether the amendment to Rule 475-3-.05(2), in its operation, created a significant risk of increased punishment for respondent. Respondent claims he has not been permitted sufficient discovery to make this showing. The matter of adequate discovery is one for the Court of Appeals or, as need be, fo r the District Court in the first instance. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion. Id. at 1371. We thus remand the case to the district c ourt to determine, after permitting sufficient discovery, whether the amendment to Ga. Rules & Regs., Rule 475- 3-.05(2) (1985) in its operation created a significant risk of increased punishment for Robert L. Jones. SO ORDERED.
## COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH
NO. 02
- 11
- 00530
- CR

JOHNNY BRIAN ODOMS APPELLANT
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE

---------- FROM CRIMINAL DISTRICT CO URT NO. 3 OF TARRANT COUNTY

---------- 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION 1

---------- Appellant Johnny Brian Odoms pled guilty to f raudulent use of identifying
information , and the trial court sentenced him to ten years’ confinement. In a single issue, Appellant argues that his sentence violate s the state and federal

1 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.2

constitutional prohibi tions against grossly disproportionate sentences. 2 We
affirm.
In Kim v. State , t his court stated the following : It is axiomatic that errors that are asserted on the part of the trial court must generall y be brought to the trial court’ s attention in order to afford the trial court an opportunit y to correct the error, if any. To preserve for appellate review a complaint that a sentence is grossly disproportionate, constituting cruel and unusual punishment, a defendant must present to the trial court a timel y request, objection, or motion stating the specific grounds for the ruling desired.
Kim’ s complaint about the alleged disproportionality of his sentence was not raised at the time it was imposed or in a motion for new trial. Therefore, he preserved nothi ng for our review. 283 S.W.3d 473, 475 (Tex. App.

–– Fort Worth 2009, pet. ref’ d) (citations omitted).
We reaffirmed Kim’s holding in Russell v. State , 341 S.W.3d 526, 527

– 28 (Tex. App.

–– Fort Worth 2011, no pet.). Similarly, here, Appellant did not assert a ny objection when the trial court

s entenced him to ten years ’ confinement, nor did he file a motion for new trial
t hereby raising the disproportionality argument that he now asserts in this appeal. Consequently, we hold that Appellant has failed to preserv e this issue for our
review. See id .; Laboriel

- Guity v. State , 336 S.W.3d 754, 756 (Tex. App.

–– Fort
Worth 2011 , pet. ref’d); Kim , 2 83 S.W.3d at 47 5; Wynn v. State , 219 S.W.3d 54, 61 (Tex. App.

–– Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, no pet.); Smith v. State , 10 S.W.3d 48,

2 Fraudulent use of identifying information is a second

- degree felony, punishable by a term of imprisonment of not more than twenty years or less than two years. Tex. Penal Code Ann. §§ 12.33(a) (West 2011) , 3 2 .5 1 (c ) (3) ( West Supp. 2012).3

49 (Tex. App.

–– Texarkana 1999, no pet.); see also Mercado v. State , 718 S.W.2d 291, 296 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986) ( “ As a general rule, an appellant may not assert error pertaining to his sentence or punishment where he failed to object or otherw ise raise su ch error in the trial court. ” ). We overrule Appellant’ s
sole i ssue and affirm the trial court’s judgment

.

LEE GABRIEL JUSTICE
PANEL: MCCOY , MEIER , and GAB RIEL, JJ.
DO NOT PUBLISH Tex. R. App

. P. 47.2(b )
DELIVERED: October 11, 2012
LOBBYING AND LITIGATION CERTIFICATION FOR GRANTS 

AND COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS* 

INSTRUCTIONS:

*At project completion, complete this form pursuant to the 2001 Department of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban 

Development, and Independent Appropriations Act, Public Law 106-377, Section 424 and 2000 Department of Veterans

Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and Independent Appropriations Act, Public Law 106-74, Section 426 and 

any other subsequent Appropriation Act requirements.

Please mail this form to your EPA Grant Specialist within 90 days of project completion. DO NOT send this information

to the Office of Management & Budget. 

Assistance Agreement Number(s): 

________________________________________

________________________________________

________________________________________

I hereby certify that none of these funds have been used to engage in the lobbying of the Federal 

Government or in litigation against the United States unless authorized under existing law. 

__________________________________________ ____________________________ 

Signature of the Chief Executive Officer Date 

__________________________________________

Print Name 

Burden Statement - The annual public reporting and record keeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 5 minutes per 

respondent. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide 

information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and 

systems for the purposes of collecting, validating and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing 

information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to 

a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the

information. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to , a collection of information unless it displays a 

currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA’s regulations are listed in 40 CFR Part 9 and 48 CFR Chapter 15. 

Send comments on the Agency’s need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for 

minimizing respondent burden, including through the use of automated collection techniques to the Director, Regulatory Information Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, Ariel Rios Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Mail Code 3213A, Washington, DC 20460; and to the 

Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk 

Officer for EPA. Include the EPA ICR number and OMB control number in any correspondence. 

EPA Form 5700-53 (Rev. 04/2012)

United States

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Washington, DC 20460

OMB Control No. 2030-0020

Approval expires 04/30/2012
#### § 603.1225 Cash contributions.

A recipient's cash expenditures made as contributions toward cost sharing, including expenditures of money that third parties contributed to the recipient.