alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 99-3521

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the District v. * of Nebraska. * Calvin James, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: June 22, 2000 Filed: June 29, 2000

___________ Before WOLLMAN, Chief Judge, FAGG and BOWMAN, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Calvin James pleaded guilty to one count of bank fraud. James now appeals, and we affirm. First, James cannot establish his claim of a jurisdictional defect in the superseding indictment because he has not shown the indictment failed on its face to state the offense of bank fraud. See O'Leary v. United States , 856 F.2d 1142, 1143 (8th Cir. 1988) (per curiam) (standard for showing jurisdictional defect in indictment); UnitedStates v. Whitehead , 176 F.3d 1030, 1037 n.2 (8th Cir. 1999) (elements of bank fraud). Second, we reject James's contention that the district court improperly ordered him to make restitution without considering his ability to pay – "[t]he Mandatory-2-

Victim Restitution Act of 1996 . . . requires restitution for injuries inflicted in the course of crimes involving fraud . . . [and] requires that restitution be ordered 'without consideration of the economic circumstances of the defendant.'" UnitedStates v. Mathison , 157 F.3d 541, 551 (8th Cir. 1998) (citing 18 U.S.C. § 3663A(c)(1)(A)(ii) (Supp. III 1997) and quoting 18 U.S.C. § 3664(f)(1)(A) (Supp. III 1997)), cert. denied , 525 U.S. 1089 (1999). Third, James's claim that he should not be required to pay restitution to certain financial institutions is meritless because, even assuming we agree with James's claim that these institutions were not victims of his crime, James agreed in his plea agreement to make restitution to them. See 18 U.S.C. § 3663A(a)(3) (Supp. III 1997) ("[t]he court shall also order, if agreed to by the parties in a plea agreement, restitution to persons other than the victim of the offense"). Fourth, contrary to James's view, the Government proved by a preponderance of the evidence the amount of restitutio n awarded to victims Connie Stallworth and Lucinda Merritt. See id. § 3664( e). Fifth, by pleading guilty, James waived his claims of prosecutorial misconduct

and vindictive prosecution. See UnitedStates v. Fitzhugh , 78 F.3d 1326, 1330 (8th Cir. 1996). Sixth, we decline to address James's ineffective assistance of counsel claim because that claim is properly raised in postconviction proceedings. See UnitedStates v. Martinez-Cruz , 186 F.3d 1102, 1105 (8th Cir. 1999). Finally, we deny the motion of James's counsel to withdraw; however, when James's counsel informs the clerk of this court that he has complied with Part V of this court's Plan to Expedite Criminal Appeals, we will reconsider his motion to withdraw. Having carefully reviewed the parties' briefs and the record, we affirm without further discussion. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.-3-

A true copy.
Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

October 17, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice
132149 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices

v SC: 132149 COA: 271746 Genesee CC: 05-016891-FH JONATHAN HILL, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

By order of January 29, 2007, the applic ation for leave to a ppeal the August 25, 2006 order of the Court of Appeals was he ld in abeyance pend ing the decision in People v Johnston (Docket No. 130526). On order of the C ourt, the case having been decided on June 15, 2007, 478 Mich 90 3 (2007), the application is again considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not pe rsuaded that the questions pr esented should be reviewed by this Court.

K ELLY , J., would remand the case for resentencing.

l1010 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

October 17, 2007

Clerk
# Úradný vestník L 281/2020

| | ISSN 1977-0790 |
| --- | --- |
| Úradný vestník
  Európskej únie | L 281 |
| | |
| Slovenské vydanie | Právne predpisy | Ročník 6328. augusta 2020 |

ISSN 1977-0790

Úradný vestník

Európskej únie

L 281

Slovenské vydanie

Právne predpisy

Ročník 6328. augusta 2020

---

| Obsah | | II   Nelegislatívne akty | Strana |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | MEDZINÁRODNÉ DOHODY |
| | * | Informácie o nadobudnutí Dohody o ukončení bilaterálnych investičných zmlúv medzi členskými štátmi Európskej únie | 1 |

Obsah

II   Nelegislatívne akty

Strana

MEDZINÁRODNÉ DOHODY

*

Informácie o nadobudnutí Dohody o ukončení bilaterálnych investičných zmlúv medzi členskými štátmi Európskej únie

1

| SK | Akty, ktoré sú vytlačené obyčajným písmom, sa týkajú každodennej organizácie poľnohospodárskych záležitostí a sú spravidla platné len obmedzenú dobu.
  Názvy všetkých ostatných aktov sú vytlačené tučným písmom a je pred nimi hviezdička. |
| --- | --- |

SK

Akty, ktoré sú vytlačené obyčajným písmom, sa týkajú každodennej organizácie poľnohospodárskych záležitostí a sú spravidla platné len obmedzenú dobu.

Názvy všetkých ostatných aktov sú vytlačené tučným písmom a je pred nimi hviezdička.

---

II Nelegislatívne akty

MEDZINÁRODNÉ DOHODY

| 28.8.2020 | SK | Úradný vestník Európskej únie | L 281/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.8.2020

SK

Úradný vestník Európskej únie

L 281/1

---

Informácie o nadobudnutí Dohody o ukončení bilaterálnych investičných zmlúv medzi členskými štátmi Európskej únie

Dohoda o ukončení bilaterálnych investičných zmlúv medzi členskými štátmi Európskej únie podpísaná 5. mája 2020
   (1) v Bruseli nadobudne platnosť 29. augusta 2020 v súlade s článkom 16 ods. 1 dohody.

1

---

(1)  
  Ú. v. EÚ L 169, 29.5.2020.

1

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                         542,995
<SECURITIES>                                 2,229,053
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,063,457
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  5,321,295
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             9,378,980
<PP&E>                                       1,552,571
<DEPRECIATION>                               (803,623)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              10,886,852
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          949,197
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     3,640,274
<OTHER-SE>                                   6,297,381
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                10,886,852
<SALES>                                      2,923,229
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,923,229
<CGS>                                        2,595,558
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,595,558
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               717,163
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,761
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (241,496)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (241,496)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (241,496)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.03)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 171 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. RES. 171

To authorize the production of records by the Permanent Subcommittee on 
        Investigations of the Committee on Governmental Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

            November 20 (legislative day, November 2), 1993

  Mr. Ford (for Mr. Mitchell (for himself and Mr. Dole) submitted the 
        following resolution; which was considered and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
To authorize the production of records by the Permanent Subcommittee on 
        Investigations of the Committee on Governmental Affairs

Whereas the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the Committee on 
        Governmental Affairs has been conducting an investigation of allegations 
        of abuses in the Pell Grant financial assistance program;
Whereas several law enforcement entities have requested access to records of the 
        Subcommittee's investigation;
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 can, by administrative or judicial process, be 
        taken from such control or possession but by permission of the Senate; 
        and
Whereas, when it appears that evidence under the control or in the possession of 
        the Senate is needed for the promotion of justice, the Senate will take 
        such action as will promote the ends of justice consistent with the 
        privileges of the Senate: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the Chairman and Ranking Minority Member of the 
Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the Committee on 
Governmental Affairs, acting jointly, are authorized to provide, to law 
enforcement and regulatory entities requesting access, records of the 
subcommittee's investigation of alleged abuses in the Pell Grant 
program.

                                 <all>
```
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7884

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus MARJORIE MOISE, a/k/a Jane Doe, a/k/a Katrina Yates, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Sol Blatt, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CR-95-194, CA-01-2896-9-8) Submitted: April 30, 2003 Decided: July 18, 2003 Before TRAXLER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Marjorie Moise, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Hayden Bickerton, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Marjorie Moise appeals from the order of the district court denying relief on her motion to vacate, set aside, or correct her sentence, filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). In reviewing the denial of a § 2255 motion, this court may only grant a certificate of appealability if the appellant makes a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). The relevant inquiry is whether “‘reasonable jurists would find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong.’” Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, , 123 S. Ct. 1029, 1040 (2003) (quoting Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)). Assuming without deciding that equitable tolling applies, we conclude that Moise has failed to make this showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We also deny Moise’s motion for appointment of counsel. 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
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>           5
<LEGEND>            THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL
                    INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM 10Q DATED
                    SEPTEMBER 30, 1996 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
                    ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
                    STATEMENTS
<MULTIPLIER>                                 1000
       
<S>                                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                               9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                     DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                          SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                     153118
<SECURITIES>                              1259775
<RECEIVABLES>                               83666
<ALLOWANCES>                                 5916
<INVENTORY>                                     0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                          1671364
<PP&E>                                     138639
<DEPRECIATION>                              89551
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                            2136263
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      207661
<BONDS>                                         0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           0
<PREFERRED>                                     0
<COMMON>                                      245
<OTHER-SE>                                1720009
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>              2136263
<SALES>                                         0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           329090
<CGS>                                           0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              246601
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             37251
<INCOME-TAX>                                19200
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          5303
<DISCONTINUED>                                  0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                 0
<CHANGES>                                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                 5303
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                 .22
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   0
        

</TABLE>
§ 156.6060-1 Reporting requirements for tax return preparers. ( a ) *In general.* A person that employs one or more tax return preparers to prepare a return or claim for refund under section 5881 of the Internal Revenue Code, other than for the person, at any time during a return period, shall satisfy the record keeping and inspection requirements in the manner stated in § 1.6060-1 of this chapter.
( b ) *Effective/applicability date.* This section is applicable to returns and claims for refund filed after December 31, 2008.
[T.D. 9436, 73 FR 78461, Dec. 22, 2008]
| (logo) NTS NATIONAL

TAX SEARCH, LLC | 303 E Wacker Drive, Suite 900

Chicago, IL 60601

(312) 233-6440 |
|--------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

REPORT ON ASSESSMENT OF COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE SECURITIES AND

EXCHANGE COMMISSION'S REGULATION AB SERVICING CRITERIA

 

 

For the calendar year ending December 31, 2015, National Tax Search, LLC has been a Tax Service Vendor for **Wells Fargo Bank** (the "Servicer").

 

National Tax Search, LLC ("NTS") is responsible for assessing compliance as of December 31, 2015 and for the period from January 1, 2015 through December 31, 2015 (the "Reporting Period") with the servicing criteria set forth in Title 17, Section 229.1122(d) of the Code of Federal Regulations (the "CFR''). NTS has used the servicing criteria communicated to NTS by the Servicer to assess compliance with the applicable servicing criteria. Only servicing criteria 1122 (d) (l)(ii), 1122 (d)l(iv), 1122 (d)2(ii), 1122 (d)2(v), 1122(d)2(vi), 1122 (d)2(vii), 1122(d)(4)(xi), and 1122(d)(4)(xii) (the "Applicable Servicing Criteria") are applicable to the activities NTS performs with respect to the transactions covered by this report. NTS has determined that the remaining servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122 (d) of the SEC Regulation AB are not applicable to the activities it performs with respect to the transactions covered by this report. The transactions covered by this report include all tax payments made on behalf of the Servicer using NTS's TaxQ system (the "Platform Transactions").

 

NTS, as a vendor, has assessed its compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria for the Reporting Period and has concluded that the NTS has complied, in all material respects, with the Applicable Servicing Criteria as of December 31, 2015 and for the Reporting Period with respect to the Platform Transactions taken as a whole.

 

Plante & Moran, PLLC, an independent registered public accounting firm, has issued an attestation report on the assessment of compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria as of December 31, 2015 and for the Reporting Period as set forth in this assertion.

 

 

National Tax Search, LLC, as Vendor to Servicer

/s/ Lori D. Eshoo

Lori D. Eshoo, President/CEO

January 18, 2016
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA

Present: Judges Baker, Benton and Overton Argued at Norfolk, Virginia

NORFOLK SHIPBUILDING & DRYDOCK CORPORATION MEMORANDUM OPINION * BY v. Record No. 1257-96-1 JUDGE NELSON T. OVERTON NOVEMBER 26, 1996 ARTHUR J. ROBINSON

FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION Gerard E. W. Voyer (Donna White Kearney; Taylor & Walker, P.C., on brief), for appellant. John H. Klein (Matthew H. Kraft; Rutter & Montagna, L.L.P., on brief), for appellee.

Norfolk Shipbuilding & Drydock Corporation, the employer, appeals from an award of benefits to Arthur J. Robinson for an injury by accident he sustained during his employment. We find that credible evidence supports the findings of the commission

and affirm the commission. The parties are fully conversant with the record to this case, and a recitation of the facts is unnecessary to this memorandum opinion. Guided by well-established principles, we construe the evidence in the light most favorable to the party prevailing

below. Crisp v. Brown's Tysons Corner Dodge, Inc. , 1 Va. App. 503, 504, 339 S.E.2d 916, 916 (1986). "If there is evidence, or

* Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not designated for publication.- 2 - reasonable inferences can be drawn from the evidence, to support the Commission's findings, they will not be disturbed on review, even though there is evidence in the record to support a contrary finding." Morris v. Badger Powhatan/Figgie Int'l, Inc. , 3 Va. App. 276, 279, 348 S.E.2d 876, 877 (1986); see Code § 65.2-706. "In determining whether credible evidence exists," this Court will not "retry the facts, reweigh the preponderance of the evidence, or make its own determination of the credibility of the

witnesses." Wagner Enters., Inc. v. Brooks , 12 Va. App. 890, 894, 407 S.E.2d 32, 35 (1991) (citation omitted). "[A] determination of causation is a factual finding." Ingersoll-Rand Co. v. Musick , 7 Va. App. 684, 688, 376 S.E.2d 814, 817 (1989). The commission found, from the testimony of Robinson and corroborating medical records, that Robinson injured his knee during the execution of his job-related duty. The commission further found that Robinson continues to be partially disabled. Finally, the commission found that Robinson had adequately marketed his residual capacity. Because the record contains credible evidence to support these conclusions, we affirm the

award of the commission. The commission also held that Robinson was not discharged for just cause. Not every discharge to which the employer can assign a reason is a "justified" discharge, and the commission errs if it does not consider the nature of the conduct leading to the discharge. Eppling v. Schultz Dining Programs , 18 Va. App.- 3 - 125, 128-29, 442 S.E.2d 219, 221-22 (1994). The reasons given by employer in this case at best show a misunderstanding, at worst a laziness, resulting in slight inconvenience to the employer. They do not demonstrate "the type of willful misconduct or misbehavior that, upon termination, justifies a forfeiture of workers' compensation benefits." Id. at 130, 442 S.E.2d at 222. Accordingly, the commission's decision is affirmed.

Affirmed.
IV 

104TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. CON. RES. 185

Expressing the sense of the Congress that Members should understand and 

use the Internet to improve the democratic process, communicate with 

the Internet community. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 13, 1996

Mr. WHITE (for himself and Mr. BOUCHER) submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on House Oversight 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

Expressing the sense of the Congress that Members should 

understand and use the Internet to improve the democratic process, communicate with the Internet community.

Whereas approximately 18,000,000 people use the Internet 

and nearly 100,000,000 expect to use it by 1998; 

Whereas the Internet is changing the way the world communicates, conducts business, and educates; 

Whereas the Internet can lead to a more open democratic 

process if fully utilized by elected representatives; 

Whereas many Members of the House of Representatives and 

Senate do not use electronic mail or worldwide web sites; 
2

•HCON 185 IH 

Whereas an increase in the usage and knowledge by Members 

of the Internet will lead to better policy decisions regarding the Internet and better communications with the 

Internet community: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 

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

3 (1) Congress should educate itself about the 

4 Internet and use the technology in personal, com5 mittee, and leadership offices; 

6 (2) Congress should work in a bipartisan and 

7 bicameral fashion to facilitate the growth and ad8 vancement of the Internet; 

9 (3) Congress should maximize the openness of 

10 and participation in government by the people via 

11 the Internet so that our constituents can have more 

12 information from and more access to their elected 

13 representatives; 

14 (4) Congress should promote commerce and 

15 free flow of information on the Internet; 

16 (5) Congress should advance the United States’ 

17 world leadership in the digital world by avoiding the 

18 passage of laws that stifle innovation and increase 

19 regulation of the Internet; and 
3

•HCON 185 IH 

1 (6) Congress should work with the Internet 

2 community to receive its input on the issues affect3 ing the Internet that come before Congress.

Æ
Exhibit 32.2

SARBANES-OXLEY ACT SECTION 906

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, the undersigned officer of Sky Financial Group, Inc. (the Company), hereby certifies, to such officers knowledge,
that the Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2006 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                                                    
|----------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Kevin T. Thompson                               
|Kevin T. Thompson                                   
|Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer

July 28, 2006

The signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version
of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.