alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
May 15 , 2012



### JUDGMENT 

## The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

MARCUS MARQUIS PRUIT T , Appellant

NO. 14

- 12

- 00079

- CV V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

____________________ Today the Court heard its own motion to dismiss the appeal from the order signed by the court below on December 15, 2011. Having considered the motion and found it meritorious, we order the appeal DISMISSED

. We further order that all costs incurred by re ason of this appeal be paid by MARCUS MARQUIS PRUIT T

. We further order this decision certified below for observance.
1 

### Troutman, Jake (FAA)

From: Troutman, Jake (FAA)

Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2015 9:20 AM

To: 'brian@brianwalk.com'

Cc: Pappas, Rob (FAA)

Subject: Request for Additional Informat ion - Unmanned Aerial Solutions

Dear Brian M. Walk:

This letter is to inform you that the following information is missing from your petition (Docket No. FAA

‐ 2015

‐ 0143). This information is necessary for the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to process your petition.

• Provide a copy of the Motion Picture and Television Operations Manual (MPTOM) which is required by Order

8900.1, Volume 3, Chapter 8, Section 1. If you wish for us to proceed without this manual and not consider closed

‐ set

filming in your proposed operation please inform of us of your intention before the requested response date listed

below.

Please submit the additional information (non

‐ proprietary) to your docket at www.regulations.gov and submit any

proprietary information to the FAA Headquarters or electronically via e

‐ mail to 333exemptions@faa.gov

. If you want us

to process your request any further, we must receive the information described above by 4/30/15. If you have any

questions, please feel free to contact me at (202) 267

‐ 9521.

Sincerely,

Jake J Troutman

Program Analyst | Rulemaking

FAA Office of Aviation Safety

Airmen and Airspace Rules Division

202

‐ 267

‐ 9521
KNOW YOUR 

RIGHTS

Limited English 

Proficiency (LEP)?

NUREG/BR-0344

December 2008

If you believe that you have experienced 

national origin discrimination and want 

help or more information, please call the 

number or write to the address on the back 

of this brochure.

National Origin 

Discrimination Is 

Against the Law

FOR MORE INFORMATION

U.S. Department of Justice

Civil Rights Division

Coordination and Review Section - NWB 

950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.

Washington, DC 20530

http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/cor/

Title VI Hotline:

1-888-TITLE-06 (1-888-848-5306) 

(Voice / TDD)

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Office of Small Business and Civil Rights

Outreach and Compliance Coordination Program

Mailstop: O-3H8

Washington, DC 20555-0001

Phone: 301-415-7380

Fax: 301-415-5953

TDD: 301-415-5244
Have you tried to get benefits or 

services from the Government or an 

organization but were unable to do so 

because you cannot read, speak, write, 

or understand English well enough?

Did you know that this could be a form 

of national origin discrimination?

What Is National Origin 

Discrimination?

•	 A Federal law, Title VI of the Civil

Rights Act of 1964, protects your 

civil rights, including your right 

to be free from national origin 

discrimination.

•	 The Supreme Court of the United

States of America said that one 

type of national origin discrimination 

is discrimination based on your 

inability to speak, read, write, or 

understand English.

•	 This means that states or local

governments or any organization 

that receives money or other types 

of assistance from the Federal 

Government cannot discriminate 

against you because of your 

national origin.

interpreter who can speak 

your language. You are told 

to return with someone who 

can interpret for you.

•	 A government office sends

important documents to you 

in English only, including 

applications; letters regarding 

reduction, denial, or 

termination of money; or any 

letter that requires your reply.

•	 A company or group receives

funds from the Federal 

Government to conduct a 

research study that impacts 

your community. As part of 

the study, they have to talk 

with the community, but they 

only speak with individuals in 

the community who are fluent 

in English. 

•	 A hospital only has forms or

documents in English and 

does not know how to help 

you if you don’t speak, read, 

write, or understand English 

well enough.

•	 You call the police to report

an emergency, but they 

cannot help you because 

they only speak English and 

they cannot understand your 

language. 

•	 Your child’s school

communicates important 

information to you only in 

English, but you do not read 

or understand English well 

enough to understand the 

information.

•	 You seek help at a

government office, but 

there is no employee or 

Here Are Some Examples of What Might Be 

National Origin Discrimination:
<page> EXHIBIT 32.01

CERTIFICATION OF PRESIDENT 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 Quarterly Report of Morgan Stanley Principal
Plus Fund L.P. (the ?Partnership?) on Form 10-Q for the quarter
ended September 30, 2006 filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the ?Report?), I, Walter Davis,
President of Demeter Management Corporation, the general partner of
the Partnership, 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; and
(2)	The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and results
of operations of the Partnership.









By:  	/s/ Walter Davis

Name:		    Walter Davis
Title:	    President of Demeter Management Corporation,
			    the general partner of the Partnership

Date:		    November 14, 2006
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

VILASID PHICHITH,

Petitioner,

v.

JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney

General,

Respondent. No. 16

- 71925

Agency No. A098

- 177

- 766

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

S ubmitted December 18, 2017 **

Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN , and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

Vilasid Phichith, a native and citizen of Laos

, petitions for review of the

Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an

immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his request for a continuance. We

have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

DEC 21 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 16

- 71925

denial of a continuance and review de novo questions of law. Ahmed v. Holder

,

569 F.3d 1009, 1012 (9th Cir. 2009)

. We deny the petition for review.

The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Phichith’s request for an

additional continuance whe re he did not demonstrate good cause. See 8 C.F.R.

§ 1003.29; Ahmed v. Holder , 569 F.3d 1009, 1012 (9th Cir. 2009) (factors

considered in determining whether the denial of a continuance constitutes an abuse

of discretion include the nature of the evidence excluded and the number of

continuances previously granted).

Phichith cites no authority to support his contention that the BIA erred in

dismissing his appeal from an IJ ’s denial of a continuance prior to resolving his

motion to reconsider the denial of his visa petition

. Cf. Matter of Aurelio , 19 I. &

N. Dec. 458, 460 (BIA 1987) (“The proceedings in which visa petitions are

adjudicated are separate and apart from exclusion and deportation proceedings.”).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIE D

.
From: Thomas Finseth

To: alicea.jezebele@epa.gov

CC: Bartram, Deborah; Jordan.Ronald@epamail.epa.gov; Lewis, Danielle; Wang, Daisy

Date: 3/1/2013 9:16 AM

Subject: Fwd: RE: Manatee Site Visit Notes CBI

FYI - Finally got confirmation from Manatee that the notes do not contain any CBI.

>>> "Kiernan, Christian" <Christian.Kiernan@fpl.com> 3/1/2013 9:14 AM >>>

Sorry for the confusion. I did not see anything that was CBI in the meeting notes. Thanks.

Regards, 

Christian Kiernan

Technical Services General Manager

Environmental & Emissions Fleet Team

Power Generation Division 

Florida Power & Light Company

700 Universe Blvd, JSA-JB 

Juno Beach, FL 33408 

office: 561-691-2781 

mobile: 561-676-3975

From: Thomas Finseth [mailto:Thomas.Finseth@erg.com] 

Sent: Friday, February 15, 2013 3:39 PM

To: Kiernan, Christian

Subject: RE: Manatee Site Visit Notes CBI

Christian,

I'm sorry if my message was confusing. I wasn't looking for the information claimed CBI in the survey, I am trying to determine 

whether there is any CBI in the site visit notes (you provided comments on November 26, 2012). We delivered the site visit notes 

to you as CBI because there was an indication during the visit that some of the information was CBI and we asked that you look 

closely to determine whether there was any CBI. You emailed your comments back but didn't specify whether any of the 

information is considered CBI. Therefore, we just want to confirm that nothing in the notes is considered CBI.

Sorry for the confusion.

Have a great weekend.

TJ

>>> "Kiernan, Christian" <Christian.Kiernan@fpl.com> 2/15/2013 3:31 PM >>>

TJ,

Thanks for sending over the email The only section that is marked as CBI is Part I, 5-2 (Steam Electric Generating Unit Operating 

Information). This applies to all surveys submitted. Please let me know if you need additional information. Thanks.

Regards, 

Christian Kiernan

Technical Services General Manager

Environmental & Emissions Fleet Team

Power Generation Division 
Florida Power & Light Company

700 Universe Blvd, JSA-JB 

Juno Beach, FL 33408 

office: 561-691-2781 

mobile: 561-676-3975

From: Thomas Finseth [mailto:Thomas.Finseth@erg.com] 

Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2013 12:35 PM

To: Kiernan, Christian

Subject: Manatee Site Visit Notes CBI

Christian,

Please let me know what information you consider CBI.

Thanks,

TJ
| (logo) WELLS FARGO | **Commercial Mortgage  Servicing**D1050-084, 8th Floor  401 South Tryon St.  Charlotte, NC 28202  1-800-326-1334 |
|--------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

**ANNUAL STATEMENT OFCOMPLIANCE**

 

Reference is hereby made tothat certain Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of September 1, 2015, byand among WELLS FARGO COMMERCIAL MORTGAGE SECURITIES, INC., as Depositor, WELLSFARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as General Master Servicer, RIALTO CAPITALADVISORS, LLC, as General Special Servicer, NATIONAL COOPERATIVE BANK, N.A., asNCB Master Servicer, NATIONAL COOPERATIVE BANK,    N.A., as NCBSpecial Servicer, PARK BRIDGE LENDER SERVICES LLC, as Trust Advisor, WELLSFARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Certificate Administrator, as TaxAdministrator and as Custodian and WILMINGTON TRUST, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, asTrustee, with respect to Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series2015-LC22 (the "Agreement"). Capitalized terms used herein nototherwise defined shall have the meanings assigned in the Agreement.

 

Pursuant to Section 11.12 ofthis Agreement, I, Daniel Bober, Executive Vice President of CommercialMortgage Services do hereby certify that:

 

1. A review of the activitiesof the General Master Servicer during the period from January 1, 2016 throughDecember 31, 2016 (the “Reporting Period”) , and of its performanceper the Agreement during such period has been made under my supervision, and

 

2. To the best of myknowledge, based on such review, the General Master Servicer, has fulfilled allof its obligations under this Agreement in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period.

 

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, theundersigned has executed this Certificate as of the 28th day of February 2017.

 

 

/s/ Daniel Bober 

Daniel Bober

Executive Vice President 

Wells Fargo Bank

 

 

| Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. | (logo) Together we’ll  go far |
|------------------------|-------------------------------------|
EXHIBIT 32.1 CERTIFICATION
OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18
U.S.C. SS 1350, AS ADOPTED
PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY
ACT OF 2002 In connection with the quarterly report on Form
10-Q of Edd Helms
Group, Inc. and Subsidiaries (the Company) for the quarter ended November 30,
2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the Report), I, W. Edd Helms, Jr., President and Chief Executive Officer of
the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 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; 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:
January 10, 2009

/s/    W.
 Edd Helms, Jr.W. Edd
 Helms, Jr., President, Chief Executive OfficerJanuary 10, 2009

/s/    Dean
 A. GoodsonDean A.
 Goodson, Chief Financial OfficerJanuary 10, 2009

/s/    L.
 Wade HelmsL. Wade
 Helms, Executive Vice President 18
III

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. RES. 106

To authorize testimony by and representation of Senate employees.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

MAY 6 (legislative day, APRIL 19), 1993

Mr. FORD (for Mr. MITCHELL) (for himself and Mr. DOLE) submitted the

following resolution; which was considered and agreed to

RESOLUTION

To authorize testimony by and representation of Senate

employees.

Whereas, in the case of United States v. Thomas F. Weiss,

Case No. M–772–93, pending in the Superior Court of

the District of Columbia, subpoenas for testimony have

been issued to Mary Jane Hatcher, David Hauck, Mary

Beth Markey, Sandra Mason, and Ursula McManus, employees of the Senate on the staff of the Committee on

Foreign Relations;

Whereas, by the privileges of the Senate of the United States

and Rule XI of the Standing Rules of the Senate, no evidence under the control or in the possession of the Senate may, by the judicial process, be taken from such control or possession but by permission of the Senate;
2

SRES 106 ATS

Whereas, when it appears that evidence under the control or

in the possession of the Senate may promote the administration of justice, the Senate will take such action as will

promote the ends of justice consistently with the privileges of the Senate; and

Whereas, pursuant to sections 703(a) and 704(a)(2) of the

Ethics in Government Act of 1978, 2 U.S.C. §§ 288b(a)

and 288c(a)(2)(1988), the Senate may direct its counsel

to represent committees, Members, officers and employees of the Senate with respect to subpoenas or orders

issued to them in their official capacity: Now, therefore,

be it

1 Resolved, That Mary Jane Hatcher, David Hauck,

2 Mary Beth Markey, Sandra Mason, and Ursula McManus,

3 and any other employee of the Senate who is subpoenaed

4 to testify, are authorized to testify in the case of United

5 States v. Thomas F. Weiss, except concerning matters for

6 which a privilege should be asserted.

7 SEC. 2. That the Senate Legal Counsel is directed

8 to represent Mary Jane Hatcher, David Hauck, Mary

9 Beth Markey, Sandra Mason, and Ursula McManus, and

10 any Member, officer, or other employee of the Senate who

11 is subpoenaed to testify, in connection with the testimony

12 authorized under section 1.

Æ
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 164 Committee Discharged Senate (CDS)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. RES. 164

 Expressing  the  sense  of  the  Senate  commemorating  the  bombing  
                         of  Pan Am Flight 103.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

            November 10 (legislative day, November 2), 1993

 Mr. Moynihan (for himself, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. D'Amato, Mr. Lautenberg, 
Mr. Hatch, and Mr. Grassley) submitted the following resolution; which 
             was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

            November 20 (legislative day, November 2), 1993

                          Committee discharged

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
Expressing the sense of the Senate commemorating the bombing of Pan Am 
                              Flight 103.

Whereas two hundred and fifty-nine passengers and crew members of Pan American 
        Airways Flight 103 and eleven persons on the ground in Lockerbie, 
        Scotland, were killed by a terrorist bomb on December 21, 1988;
Whereas one hundred and eighty-nine Americans were victims of this heinous 
        attack along with citizens from twenty other nations;
Whereas this was effectively an attack on the United States and on all nations 
        which support the rule of law;
Whereas the families and friends of the victims of this outrageous and criminal 
        act have suffered an incalculable loss and have worked actively to 
        diminish the possibility of future attacks;
Whereas, on December 21, 1993, five years will have passed without the 
        terrorists who murdered the passengers and crew of Pan Am Flight 103 
        being brought to justice;
Whereas the United States must never forget the victims of this crime nor weaken 
        in its resolve to bring their murderers to justice; and
Whereas it is appropriate and fitting that the United States set aside a day to 
        commemorate the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 as an act of remembrance 
        for the victims, an expression of solidarity with their loved ones and a 
        token of the abiding United States commitment to obtain justice for 
        their murderers: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That December 21, 1993, is designated a ``Fifth 
Anniversary Day of Remembrance for the Victims of the Bombing of Pan Am 
Flight 103'', and the President is authorized and requested to issue a 
proclamation calling upon the people of the United States to observe 
this day with appropriate ceremonies.

                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 32.1

Certification of Chief Executive Officer of

COMMUNITY NATIONAL BANCORPORATION

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350
(Adopted by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)

The undersigned Chief Executive Officer of Community National Bancorporation, hereby certifies that:

1. Community National Bancorporation's Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2003, to which this certification is attached as an exhibit (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 Community National Bancorporation

/S/ Theron G. ReedTheron G. Reed
President and Chief Executive Officer

November 13, 2003
# C_2014253EN.01005602.xml

| 4.8.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 253/56 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.8.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 253/56

---

Action brought on 12 June 2014 — Almoauto v Commission

(Case T-427/14)

2014/C 253/75

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Almoauto, SA (Alcorcón, Madrid, Spain) (represented by: J. García Muñoz, J. Jiménez-Blanco Carrillo de Albornoz and J. Corral García, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision; and

| — | order the Commission to pay all the costs incurred in the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay all the costs incurred in the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are those raised in Case T-392/14 Gutser v Commission.

---
Editorial Note on Part 1
Editorial Note: IRS redesignated the following sections to appear below the undesignated center heading “Regulations Applicable to Certain Bonds Sold Prior to July 8, 1997” and preceding the undesignated center heading “Deductions for Personal Exemptions.” See 62 FR 25507 and 25513, May 9, 1997 for the specific sections involved in the redesignation.

§ 1.404(c)-1 Certain negotiated plans; effect of section 404(c). ( a ) Section 404(a) does not apply to deductions for contributions paid by an employer under a negotiated plan which meets the following conditions: ( 1 ) The contributions under the plan are held in trust for the purpose of paying, either from principal or income or both, for the benefit of employees and their families, at least medical or hospital care, and pensions on retirement or death of employees; and
( 2 ) Such plan was established before January 1, 1954, as a result of an agreement between employee representatives and the Government of the United States during a period of Government operation, under seizure powers, of a major part of the productive facilities of the industry in which such employer is engaged. If these conditions are met, such contributions shall be deductible under section 162, to the extent that they constitute ordinary and necessary business expenses.
( b ) The term “as a result of an agreement” is intended primarily to cover a trust established under the terms of an agreement referred to in paragraph (a)(2) of this section. It will also include a trust established under a plan of an employer, or group of employers, who are in competition with the employers whose facilities were seized by reason of producing the same commodity, and who would therefore be expected to establish such a trust as a reasonable measure to maintain a sound position in the labor market producing the commodity. Thus, for example, if a trust was established under such an agreement in the bituminous coal industry, a similar trust established about the same time in the anthracite coal industry would be covered by this provision.
( c ) If any such trust becomes qualified for exemption under section 501(a), the deductibility of contributions by an employer to such trust on or after the date of such qualification would no longer be governed by section 404(c), even though the trust may later lose its exemption under section 501(a).
[T.D. 6500, 25 FR 11690, Nov. 26, 1960]