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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-6059

ROBERT LEE WASHINGTON,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

JUDY A. WRIGHT, Sergeant; LIEUTENANT ELKS;

WILLIE WELDON, Warden of Lieber Correctional

Institution; MAE BROWN, Head of Classification; MARVIN POWELL, Investigator,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Greenville. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., District

Judge. (CA-98-2259-6-17-AK)

Submitted: March 11, 1999 Decided: March 18, 1999

Before WIDENER and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert Lee Washington, Appellant Pro Se. Edwin Warren Moise, GRIMBALL & CABANISS, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant filed an untimely notice of appeal. We dismiss for

lack of jurisdiction. The time periods for filing notices of appeal

are governed by Fed. R. App. P. 4. These periods are “mandatory

and jurisdictional.” Browder v. Director, Dep’t of Corrections,

434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson, 361

U.S. 220, 229 (1960)). Parties to civil actions are accorded

thirty days within which to file in the district court notices of

appeal from judgments or final orders. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1).

This appeal period may be extended under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5) or

reopened under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6).

The district court entered its order on November 24, 1998; Appellant’s notice of appeal was filed on January 5, 1999, which was

beyond the thirty-day appeal period. Appellant’s failure to note

a timely appeal or obtain an extension of the appeal period leaves

this court without jurisdiction to consider the merits of Appellant’s appeal. We therefore dismiss this appeal. We dispense with

oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would

not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
#### Victor ARGUELLES-VASQUEZ, Petitioner, v. IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent.

No. 84-7697.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Sept. 22, 1986.

Carlos Vellanoweth, Los Angeles, Cal., for petitioner.

Evelyn Matteucci, Asst. U.S. Atty., Los Angeles, Cal., for respondent.

Before: BROWNING, Chief Judge, GOODWIN, WALLACE, SNEED, KENNEDY, ANDERSON, HUG, TANG, SCHROEDER, FLETCHER, FARRIS, PREGERSON, ALARCON, POOLE, NELSON, CANBY, NORRIS, REINHARDT, BEEZER, HALL, WIGGINS, BRUNETTI, KOZINSKI, NOONAN and THOMPSON, Circuit Judges

ORDER

Upon the vote of a majority of the regular active judges of this court, it is ordered that this case be reheard by the en banc court pursuant to Rule 25 of the Rules of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The previous three-judge panel assignment is withdrawn.
| (logo) WELLS FARGO | **Corporate Trust Services**MAC R1204-0109062 Old Annapolis RoadColumbia, MD 21045Tel: 410 884 2000 Fax: 410 715 2380 |
|--------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

RE: Annual Statement of Compliance for Wells Fargo Commercial Mortgage Securities, Inc. Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2015-NXS2

 

Per the Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of July 1, 2015 (the "Agreement"), the undersigned, a duly authorized officer of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as Certificate Administrator ("Wells Fargo"), hereby certifies as follows as of and for the year ending December 31, 2015 (the "Reporting Period"):

 

(a) A review of Wells Fargo's activities during the Reporting Period and of its performance under the Agreement has been made under such officer's supervision; and

 

(b) To the best of such officer's knowledge, based on such review, Wells Fargo has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period.

 

 

February 25, 2016

 

 

/s/ Brian Smith 

BRIAN SMITH

Vice President

 

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
On May 7, 2001, by action of the Board of Directors, the second
sentence of Section 2.14(a)(ii) of the Company's By-laws was amended to provide
as follows:

          To be timely, a shareholder's notice shall be received by the
          Secretary of the corporation at the principal office of the
          corporation not less than 60 days nor more than 90 days prior to the
          last Thursday in the month of April; provided, however, that in the
          event that the date of the Annual Meeting is advanced by more than 30
          days or delayed by more than 150 days from the last Thursday in the
          month of April, notice by the shareholder to be timely must be so
          received not earlier than the 90th day prior to the date of such
          Annual Meeting and not later than the close of business on the later
          of (x) the 60th day prior to such Annual Meeting and (y) the 10th day
          following the day on which public announcement of the date of such
          meeting is first made.
null

2007-11-05

151.57321

eng - Argued: 2007-11-05. Docket number: 2007-1109Pt2
104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. CON. RES. 211

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Directing the Clerk of the House of Representatives

of H.R. 3060.to make a technical correction in the enrollment
104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. CON. RES. 211

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring), That in the enrollment of the bill (H.R. 3060)

3 to implement the Protocol on Environmental Protection

4 to the Antarctic Treaty, the Clerk of the House of Rep5 resentatives shall make the following technical correction:

6 In section 201(a)(1) strike ‘‘paragraphs (1) through (9)

7 of subsection (a) as paragraphs (3) through (11)’’ and in8 sert in lieu thereof ‘‘paragraphs (1) through (10) of sub9 section (a) as paragraphs (3) through (12)’’.

Passed the House of Representatives September 10,

1996.

Attest:

Clerk.
#### § 1.985-0 Outline of regulation.

This section lists the paragraphs contained in §§ 1.985-1 through 1.985-6.

## § 1.985-1 Functional currency.

(a) Applicability and effective date.

(b) Dollar functional currency.

(c) Functional currency of a QBU that is not required to use the dollar.

(d) Single functional currency for a foreign corporation.

(e) Translation of nonfunctional currency transactions.

(f) Examples.

## § 1.985-2 Election to use the United States dollar as the functional currency of a QBU.

(a) Background and scope.

(b) Eligible QBU.

(c) Time and manner for dollar election.

(d) Effect of dollar election.

## § 1.985-3 United States dollar approximate separate transactions method.

(a) Scope and effective date.

(b) Statement of method.

(c) Translation into United States dollars.

(d) Computation of DASTM gain or loss.

(e) Effect of DASTM gain or loss on gross income, taxable income, or earnings and profits.

## § 1.985-4 Method of accounting.

(a) Adoption or election.

(b) Condition for changing functional currencies.

(c) Relationship to certain other sections of the Code.

## § 1.985-5 Adjustments required upon change in functional currency.

(a) In general.

(b) Step 1—Taking into account exchange gain or loss on certain section 988 transactions.

(c) Step 2—Determining the new functional currency basis of property and the new functional currency amount of liabilities and any other relevant items.

(d) Step 3A—Additional adjustments that are necessary when a branch changes functional currency.

(e) Step 3B—Additional adjustments that are necessary when a taxpayer changes functional currency.

(f) Examples.

## Section 1.985-6 Transition rules for a QBU that uses the dollar approximate separate transactions method for its first taxable year beginning in 1987.

(a) In general.

(b) Certain controlled foreign corporations.

(c) All other foreign corporations.

(d) Pre-1987 section 902 amounts.

(e) Net worth branch.

(f) Profit and loss branch.

[T.D. 8263, 54 FR 38653, Sept. 20, 1989, as amended by T.D. 8464, 58 FR 232, Jan. 5, 1993; T.D. 8556, 59 FR 37672, July 25, 1994]
exv10w4



 





Exhibit 10.4




Avery Dennison Corporation




Non-Employee Director Compensation Summary(1)




	 	 	 	 	 
	Board members
	 	 	 	 
	Annual retainer for non-executive Chairman
	 	$	220,000	 
	Annual retainer for other Directors
	 	$	55,000	 
	Meeting fees
	 	$	1,500	 
	Annual stock payment (shares of ADC stock)
	 	 	750	 
	Committee Chairman retainer
	 	 	 	 
	Audit Committee
	 	$	10,000	 
	Compensation and Executive Personnel Committee
	 	$	10,000	 
	Other Committees
	 	$	5,000	 
	Committee meeting fees
	 	 	 	 
	Chairman
	 	$	2,000	 
	Members
	 	$	1,500	 








 




			
	(1)	 	Effective July 27, 2006
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                             593
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      335
<ALLOWANCES>                                      (54)
<INVENTORY>                                      1,225
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 3,374
<PP&E>                                           3,204
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (1,763)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   5,122
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            1,453
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      9,903
<COMMON>                                        48,905
<OTHER-SE>                                    (55,152)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     5,122
<SALES>                                            234
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   234
<CGS>                                            1,034
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    1,034
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 2,796
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  16
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (3,548)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (3,548)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (3,548)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.41)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.41)
        

</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-1462
RUDOLPH S. PAPESH, Plaintiff - Appellant, versusAMERICAN NATIONAL CAN COMPANY; UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA, AFL-CIO LOCAL 6660, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, District Judge. (CA-93-523-WMN) Submitted: September 30, 1997 Decided: November 4, 1997 Before WILKINS and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Rudolph S. Papesh, Appellant Pro Se. Mary T. Keating, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court's order granting summary judgment to American National Can Company, dismissing his claimsagainst the union, and denying various other motions. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Papesh v. American Nat'l Can Co. , No. CA-93-523-WMN (D. Md. Mar. 14, 1997). We dispense with oral argument because thefacts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-2007 In Re: JAMES JULIUS JACKSON, Debtor. JAMES JULIUS JACKSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus WEST VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN RESOURCES, Defendant - Appellee, and ROBERT TRUMBLE, Trustee - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. W. Craig Broadwater, District Judge. (CA-01-27, AP-00-3175, BK-00-32337) Submitted: January 31, 2002 Decided: February 6, 2002 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.2 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James Julius Jackson, Appellant Pro Se. Tracey Brown Dawson, STEPTOE & JOHNSON, Martinsburg, West Virginia; Robert Trumble, MCNEER, HIGHLAND & MCMUNN, Martinsburg, West Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM: James Julius Jackson appeals from the district court’s orderaffirming the bankruptcy court’s dismissal of his adversary proceeding. We have reviewed the record, the district court’s opinion, and the bankruptcy court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Jackson v. West VA Dep’t Health & Human Resources , Nos. CA-01-27; AP-00-3175; BK-00-32337 (N.D.W. Va. July 24, 2001). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
IV

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. CON. RES. 218

Expressing the sense of the Congress that the President should categorically

disavow any intention of issuing pardons to James or Susan McDougal

or Jim Guy Tucker.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

SEPTEMBER 25, 1996

Mr. BACHUS submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred

to the Committee on the Judiciary

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of the Congress that the President

should categorically disavow any intention of issuing pardons to James or Susan McDougal or Jim Guy Tucker.

Whereas it is incumbent upon the United States House of

Representatives to oppose any action that would have the

effect of undermining the rule of law or the American

people’s faith in the jury system;

Whereas on May 28, 1996, the President of the United

States’ former business partners were found guilty of a

total of 24 felony counts by a jury of 12 Arkansas citizens;

Whereas Susan McDougal and Jim Guy Tucker have been

sentenced for their crimes by a Federal district judge in
2

•HCON 218 IH

Little Rock, Arkansas, and their codefendant James

McDougal is awaiting sentencing by the same judge;

Whereas on September 4, 1996, Susan McDougal was held

in contempt of court for refusing to answer questions before a Federal grand jury relating to (1) the President

of the United States’ knowledge of the fraudulent transactions for which she was convicted, and (2) the truthfulness of the President of the United States’ testimony at

her trial;

Whereas in a televised interview broadcast on September 23,

1996, the President of the United States stated that any

requests for a presidential pardon made by James or

Susan McDougal or Jim Guy Tucker would be reviewed

in the normal course, thereby leaving open the possibility

that pardons might indeed be issued at some later date;

Whereas any presidential pardon of James or Susan

McDougal or Jim Guy Tucker would seriously undermine

the confidence of the American people in our criminal

justice system, by essentially nullifying felony convictions

of friends and associates of the President of the United

States rendered by a jury of 12 Arkansas citizens on

charges initially brought by a grand jury comprised of 23

other Arkansans; and

Whereas the September 23, 1996, remarks by the President

of the United States could be construed by his recently

convicted friends and associates as offering them an inducement to refuse to testify honestly and openly about

matters under investigation by Federal law enforcement

authorities: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring), That it is the sense of the Congress that the
3

•HCON 218 IH

1 President of the United States should categorically dis2 avow any intention of issuing presidential pardons to

3 James and Susan McDougal and Jim Guy Tucker, and

4 thereby affirm the principle that in the American system,

5 no one is above the law.

Æ
Attachment 1a



### I **NCOMPLETE** 

### F **ORMS** 

### M **AY** 

### N **OT** 

### B **E** 

### P **ROCESSED** Information collection via this form is authorized by OMB Control No. 2060 - 0439 

# Registration Form for EPA’s SunWise Program **Your** Name: _____________________________________________________________________ How did you learn about SunWise? ___________________________________________________

____________________________________________ ____________________________________ 

## About Your School Please select **your position** at school: Teacher Nurse Counselor PTA member Principal/Administrator School District Employ ee Student Teacher Substitute Teacher Other:_______________________ **School** Name: ___________________________________________________________________ **School** Address: _

_________________________________________________________________ City : ___________________________________ State:__________ Zip Code: ________________ Phone: (_______)__________________________ County : ________________________________ Your E - mail : ______

______________________________________________________________ School Web site: __________________________________________________________________ Is your school: Public Non - charter Private Charter Grade(s) you teach: Pre - K K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 - 12 Subjects y ou teach: Science Social Studies Math English ESL Health School Nurse Phy s ical Education Env. Studies Other:_____________________ Estimated number of **total** students in your school: ______________________________________ Number of students **you plan to teach**  SunWise in a y ear: ____________

_____________________ How do y ou plan to use the kit (i.e., on testing day s as a fun break for students, during our solar unit, or at the beginning of outdoor activities, during rainy day P.E. activities, etc.)? _________________

__________________________ ______________________________________________________ **Language** : English Materials **OR** Spanish Materials? Inkeeping with the EPA's commitment to program evaluation, are you willing to be contacted periodically

regardin g SunWise? Yes No
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPI RES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

ANTHONY SCOTT MIDDLETON, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D13-4032 ) STATE OF FLORIDA, ) ) Appellee. ) ) Opinion filed November 5, 2014. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Pasco County; Pat Siracusa, Judge. Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and Timothy J. Ferreri, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant. Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Susan D. Dunlevy, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.

DAVIS, Chief Judge. Anthony Middleton challenges the revocation of the probation he was serving in circuit court case numbers CRC05-00605 and CRC05-007 36. The trial court found Middleton to be in violation of his probation for leaving his county of residence without permission, possessing a weapon, and committing new law offenses. We- 2 - conclude that the trial court did not err in finding that Middl eton willfully and substantially violated his probation for leaving the county and committing th e new offenses, and we affirm the revocation of his probation on those bases without f urther comment. However, the trial court erred in finding Middleton in violat ion of condition five of his probation for possessing a weapon as that condition prohibited him from possessing a firearm. The State did not allege, and nothing in the record suggests, that Middleton possessed a firearm. As such, we remand for the tria l court to strike the finding that Middleton violated condition five of his probation . See Miffin v. State, 19 So. 3d 377, 379 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) ("Because the State met its burd en of proof as to the new law violation of grand theft motor vehicle, we affirm the r evocation of probation and resulting sentences. However, we remand for the trial court to strike the findings that Miffin violated [c]onditions 1, 3, and 10." (citation omitted))

. Affirmed but remanded.

WALLACE and SLEET, JJ., Concur.
IV

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. CON. RES. 222

Providing that George Washington’s ‘‘Farewell Address’’ shall be read at

the beginning of each Congress.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

SEPTEMBER 26, 1996

Mr. DORNAN submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was

referred to the Committee on Rules

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Providing that George Washington’s ‘‘Farewell Address’’

shall be read at the beginning of each Congress.

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring),

3 SECTION 1. RULE.

4 On the first day of the first regular session of each

5 Congress, George Washington’s ‘‘Farewell Address’’ shall

6 be read aloud—

7 (1) in the Senate by a Senator designated by

8 the majority leader of the Senate; and

9 (2) in the House of Representatives by a Rep10 resentative designated by the Speaker of the House.
2

•HCON 222 IH

1 SEC. 2. EXERCISE IN RULEMAKING POWER.

2 This resolution is adopted by Congress—

3 (1) as an exercise of the rulemaking power of

4 the House of Representatives and the Senate, re5 spectively, and as such it shall be considered as part

6 of the rules of each House, respectively, or of that

7 House to which it specifically applies, and such rule

8 shall supersede other rules only to the extent that it

9 is inconsistent therewith; and

10 (2) with full recognition of the constitutional

11 right of either House to change such rules (so far

12 as relating to such House) at any time, in the same

13 manner, and to the same extent as in the case of

14 any other rule of such House.

Æ