alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                          23,265
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  259,879
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (6,959)
<INVENTORY>                                    354,137
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               667,554
<PP&E>                                       3,779,270
<DEPRECIATION>                               (911,529)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,856,124
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          739,509
<BONDS>                                        444,322
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     1,229,142
<OTHER-SE>                                     763,331
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,856,124
<SALES>                                      1,567,402
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,567,402
<CGS>                                        1,238,299
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,238,299
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               128,628
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               580,521
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              40,110
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (420,156)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,781
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (422,937)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (422,937)
<EPS-BASIC>                                   (7.79)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (7.79)


</TABLE>
104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. CON. RES. 132

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Relating to the trial of Martin Pang for arson and

felony murder.
104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. CON. RES. 132

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Whereas it is alleged that Martin Pang intentionally started

a warehouse fire in Seattle, Washington on January 5,

1995, that killed four firefighters;

Whereas shortly thereafter Martin Pang fled to Brazil from

where he was extradited to the United States on March

1, 1996;

Whereas the extradition decision of the Supreme Court of

Brazil states that Martin Pang should stand trial in the
2

•HCON 132 EH

United States only for arson and not for felony murder;

and

Whereas it is accepted international practice in extradition

cases for the executive authorities of the requested state

to grant consent for prosecution of offenses other than

those for which the fugitive was extradited: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

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

3 the interests of justice and furthering good relations be4 tween the United States and Brazil, the Government of

5 Brazil should grant its consent to prosecution of Martin

6 Pang for both arson and felony murder.

Passed the House of Representatives September 24,

1996.

Attest:

Clerk.
Sixth
                                Amendment
                                  of the
                             Restated 2/22/91
                                 By-Laws
                                    of
                               GEHL COMPANY
                         (A Wisconsin Corporation)          
                       

Effective immediately, Section 3.01 shall be revised to read as follows:

     "3.01 General Powers and Number. All corporate powers shall be 
exercised by or under the authority of, and the business and affairs of the
corporation shall be managed under the direction of its Board of Directors.
The number of directors of the corporation shall be eight (8) divided into
three (3) classes:  Class I - three (3) directors; Class II - two (2) 
directors; Class III - three (3) directors."


Approved at 4/29/98 Board Meeting
#### Kelly v. Sheehan, Administrator

*J. C. Crumlish, Jr.,*for plaintiff.

*H. Arronson,*for defendant.

February 26, 1952.

Flood, J.,

Plaintiff, the nephew of defendant’s testator, alleges that decedent orally contracted to bequeath him $13,000, in exchange for his promise to “care for and minister to decedent’s wants and needs and act as a companion to him so long as decedent should live”. The uncle died four months after the alleged agreement was made. His administrator denies the existence of the contract and further *155contends that even if there were such a contract the measure of damages is restricted to the value of the services rendered to decedent. "We have before us defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings upon the ground that since plaintiff has not alleged any value for the services rendered he has not set forth any case for recovery against defendant. Plaintiff in opposing the motion stands upon his right to recover the sum promised in the contract.

Defendant contends that in such a case as this the ordinary measure of damages in tort and restitution should apply, and recovery therefore should be limited to what plaintiff has lost, the value of services performed by him. Plaintiff urges the measure ordinarily applied in contract cases, the promised benefit, or the amount which decedent promised to will him. It would seem that the contract measure of damages should govern in such a case as this and so the Supreme Court flatly held in the case of Elwood’s Estate, 309 Pa. 505 (1932). In view of that decision and the fact that it seems so clearly the correct one (Cf. 5 Williston on Contracts (rev. ed.) 1411 A) we would have no difficulty in denying this motion were it not for the dicta in the cases of In re Jones Estate, 359 Pa. 260 (1948) and In re Stichler Estate, 359 Pa. 262 (1948). In these cases the Supreme Court said that “on a breach of contract to will the whole or part of an estate, the measure of damages is the value of the services rendered and not of the estate promised to be willed”. In neither case was the measure of damages in issue, since in both cases the orphans’ court held that claimant had not proved that the contract to make a will in her favor had actually been made and this holding was affirmed by the Supreme Court. While we are reluctant not to follow Supreme Court dicta so recent as those quoted, yet they seem to us at variance with the flat decision of the court in the Elwood case *156which has not been overruled, unless they can be distinguished from the Elwood case by the fact that in that case, like the one before us, the promise was much more definite. In our case the promise is of a definite sum under the words of the contract, according to the averments of the complaint. In the Elwood case the sum promised had been made definite by the provision for a $4,000 bequest in a lost will.

This may have been considered by the Supreme Court to be different in its effect from the promise in the Jones case, supra, to will claimant the entire estate or that in the Stichler case to leave her the residue. In any event we feel that we must follow the Elwood case and deny the motion.
| (logo) NTS NATIONAL

TAX SEARCH, LLC | 130 S. Jefferson, Suite 300

Chicago, IL 60661

312-233-6440 |
|--------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

REPORT ON ASSESSMENT OFCOMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION’SREGULATION AB SERVICING CRITERIA

 

 

For the calendar year endingDecember 31, 2016, National Tax Search, LLC has been a Tax Service Vendor for **WellsFargo Bank** (the “Servicer”).

 

National Tax Search, LLC(“NTS”) is responsible for assessing compliance as of December 31,2016 and for the period from January 1, 2016 through December 31, 2016 (the“Reporting Period”) with the servicing criteria set forth in Title17, Section 229.1122(d) of the Code of Federal Regulations (the“CFR”). NTS has used the servicing criteria communicated to NTS bythe Servicer to assess compliance with the applicable servicing criteria. Onlyservicing criteria 1122 (d) (l)(ii), 1122 (d)1(iv), 1122 (d)2(ii), 1122(d)2(v), 1122(d)2(vi), 1122(d)(4)(xi), and 1122(d)(4)(xii) (the “ApplicableServicing Criteria”) are applicable to the activities NTS performs withrespect to the transactions covered by this report. NTS has determined that theremaining servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122 (d) of the SEC RegulationAB are not applicable to the activities it performs with respect to thetransactions covered by this report. The transactions covered by this reportinclude all tax payments made on behalf of the Servicer using NTS’s TaxQsystem (the “Platform Transactions”).

 

NTS, as a vendor, has assessedits compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria for the Reporting Periodand has concluded that NTS has complied, in all material respects, with theApplicable Servicing Criteria as of December 31, 2016 and for the ReportingPeriod with respect to the Platform Transactions taken as a whole.

 

Plante& Moran, PLLC, anindependent registered public accounting firm, has issued an attestation reporton the assessment of compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria as ofDecember 31, 2016 and for the Reporting Period as set forth in this assertion.

 

National Tax Search, LLC, asVendor to Servicer

 

 

/s/ Lori D. Eshoo

Lori D. Eshoo, President/CEO 

January 23, 2017
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

April 23, 2003

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 02-50998

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

NELSON WILFREDO PAREDES-CUBIAS,

also known as Nelson Wilfredo Paderes-Cubias,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. DR-02-CR-54-1

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

Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE, and STEWART, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Nelson Wilfredo Paredes-Cubias appeals the sentence imposed

following his guilty plea conviction of being found in the United

States after deportation/removal in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. 

Paredes-Cubias contends that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and 8 U.S.C.

§ 1326(b) define separate offenses. He argues that the prior

conviction that resulted in his increased sentence is an element

of a separate offense under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) that should have

been alleged in his indictment. Paredes-Cubias maintains that he
No. 02-50998

-2-

pleaded guilty to an indictment which charged only simple reentry

under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). He argues that his sentence exceeds

the two-year maximum term of imprisonment which may be imposed

for that offense.

In Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235

(1998), the Supreme Court held that the enhanced penalties in

8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are sentencing provisions, not elements of

separate offenses. The Court further held that the sentencing

provisions do not violate the Due Process Clause. Id. at 239-47. 

Paredes-Cubias acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by

Almendarez-Torres, but asserts that the decision has been cast

into doubt by Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000). 

He seeks to preserve his argument for further review. 

Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres. See Apprendi,

530 U.S. at 489-90; United States v. Dabeit, 231 F.3d 979, 984

(5th Cir. 2000). This court must follow Almendarez-Torres

“unless and until the Supreme Court itself determines to overrule

it.” Dabeit, 231 F.3d at 984 (internal quotation marks and

citation omitted). The judgment of the district court is

AFFIRMED.

The Government has moved for a summary affirmance in lieu of

filing an appellee’s brief. In its motion, the Government asks

that an appellee’s brief not be required. The motion is GRANTED. 

AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED.
H. Con. Res. 207 Agreed to September 28, 1996

One Hundred Fourth Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE SECOND SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday,

the third day of January, one thousand nine hundred and ninety-six

Concurrent Resolution

Approving certain regulations to implement provisions of the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995 relating to labor-management relations with respect to covered

employees, other than employees of the House of Representatives and employees

of the Senate, and for other purposes.

Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring),

SECTION 1. APPROVAL OF REGULATIONS.

(a) IN GENERAL.—The regulations described in subsection (b)

are hereby approved, insofar as such regulations apply to covered

employees under the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995

(other than employees of the House of Representatives and employees of the Senate) and to the extent such regulations are consistent

with the provisions of such Act.

(b) REGULATIONS APPROVED.—The regulations referred to in

subsection (a) are the regulations issued by the Office of Compliance

on July 9, 1996, under section 220(d) of the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995 to implement section 220 of such Act (relating

to the application of chapter 71 of title 5, United States Code),

as published in the Congressional Record on July 11, 1996 (Volume

142, daily edition), beginning on page H7454.

SEC. 2. ADOPTION OF REGULATIONS RELATING TO HEARING

OFFICERS.

The Board of Directors of the Office of Compliance shall adopt

regulations (in accordance with section 304 of the Congressional

Accountability Act of 1995) to implement the requirement that

the Board refer any matter under section 220(c)(1) of such Act

which relates to covered employees (other than employees of the
H. Con. Res. 207—2

House of Representatives and employees of the Senate) to a hearing

officer.

Attest:

Clerk of the House of Representatives.

Attest:

Secretary of the Senate.
NO. 07-03-0297-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL D

SEPTEMBER 29, 2003

______________________________

SHAWN O’CONNELL LEWIS,

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, 

Appellee

_________________________________

FROM THE 108TH DISTRICT COURT OF POTTER COUNTY;

NO. 44,391-E; HON. RICHARD DAMBOLD, PRESIDING

_______________________________

Before QUINN, REAVIS and CAMPBELL, JJ.

ON ABATEMENT AND REMAND

Appellant Shawn O’Connell Lewis appeals his conviction for the offense of driving

while intoxicated. The clerk’s record is due in this cause, and an extension of the

applicable deadline was sought. To justify the extension, the clerk represented that

appellant failed to pay or make arrangements to pay for the record. Nothing of record

appears showing whether the appellant is indigent and entitled to a free record. 
2

Accordingly, we now abate this appeal and remand the cause to the 108th District

Court of Potter County (trial court) for further proceedings. Upon remand, the trial court

shall immediately cause notice of a hearing to be given and, thereafter, conduct a hearing

to determine the following: 

1. whether appellant desires to prosecute the appeal; 

 2. whether appellant is indigent; and

3. whether the appellant is entitled to a free appellate record and to

appointed counsel on appeal due to his indigency.

The trial court shall cause the hearing to be transcribed. So too shall it 1) execute findings

of fact and conclusions of law addressing the foregoing issues, 2) cause to be developed

a supplemental clerk’s record containing the findings of fact and conclusions of law and

all orders it may issue as a result of its hearing on this matter, and 3) cause to be

developed a reporter’s record transcribing the evidence and arguments presented at the

aforementioned hearing. Additionally, the district court shall then file the supplemental

record with the clerk of this court on or before October 29, 2003. Should further time be

needed by the trial court to perform these tasks, then same must be requested before

October 29, 2003. Finally, should it be determined that appellant desires to prosecute this

appeal, is indigent, and is entitled to appointed counsel but has none, then the trial court

shall appoint counsel to appellant. The name, address phone number and state bar

number of the attorney appointed, if any, shall be included in the trial court’s findings of

fact and conclusions of law. 

It is so ordered. 
3

 Per Curiam 

Do not publish.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                       1,512,683
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                         156,288
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                             3,440,000
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    797,208
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                       5,243,544
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                         5,374,386
<LOANS>                                     28,735,905
<ALLOWANCE>                                    234,048
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              41,346,906
<DEPOSITS>                                  35,412,388
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                            277,517
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       404,388
<OTHER-SE>                                   5,252,613
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>              41,346,906
<INTEREST-LOAN>                              2,222,402
<INTEREST-INVEST>                              302,774
<INTEREST-OTHER>                               123,853
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                             2,649,029
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                             944,394
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             944,512
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                        1,704,517
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                  108,000
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                             (27,332)
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                              1,014,687
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,018,065
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                   1,018,065
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   729,844
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.85
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.58
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    6.27
<LOANS-NON>                                     27,805
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                485,841
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                               213,969
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                  114,247
<RECOVERIES>                                    26,326
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                              234,048
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                           234,048
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
#### § 1.514(d)-1 Basis of debt-financed property acquired in corporate liquidation.

(a) If debt-financed property is acquired by an exempt organization in a complete or partial liquidation of a corporation in exchange for its stock, the organization's basis in such property shall be the same as it would be in the hands of the transferor corporation, increased by the amount of gain recognized to the transferor corporation upon such distribution and by the amount of any gain which is includible, on account of such distribution, in the gross income of the organization as unrelated debt-financed income.

(b) The application of this section may be illustrated by the following example:

# Example.

On July 1, 1970, T, an exempt trust, exchanges $15,000 of borrowed funds for 50 percent of the shares of M Corporation's stock. M uses $35,000 of borrowed funds in acquiring depreciable assets which are not used at any time for purposes described in section 514(b)(1) (A), (B), (C), or (D). On July 1, 1978, and for the 12-month period preceding this date, T's acquisition indebtedness with respect to M's stock has been $3,000. On this date, there is a complete liquidation of M Corporation to which section 331(a)(1) applies. In the liquidation T receives a distribution in kind of depreciable assets and assumes $7,000 of M's indebtedness which remains unpaid with respect to the depreciable assets. On this date, M's adjusted basis of these depreciable assets is $9,000, and such assets have a fair market value of $47,000. M recognizes gain of $6,000 with respect to this liquidation pursuant to sections 1245 and 1250. T realizes a gain of $25,000 (the difference between the excess of fair market value of the property received over the indebtedness assumed, $40,000 ($47,000-$7,000) and T's basis in M's stock, $15,000). A portion of this gain is to be treated as unrelated debt-financed income. This amount is determined by multiplying T's gain of $25,000 by the debt/basis percentage. The debt/basis percentage is 20 percent, the ratio which the average acquisition indebtedness ($3,000) is of the average adjusted basis ($15,000). Thus, $5,000 (20 percent of $25,000) is unrelated debt-financed income. This amount and the gain recognized pursuant to sections 1245 and 1250 are added to M's basis to determine T's basis in the property received. Consequently, T's basis in the property received from M Corporation is $20,000, determined as follows:

| M Corporation's adjusted basis | $9,000 |
| --- | --- |
| Gain recognized by M Corporation on the distribution | 6,000 |
| Unrelated debt-financed income recognized by T with respect to the distribution | 5,000 |
| T's transferred basis | 20,000 |

[T.D. 7229, 37 FR 28153, Dec. 21, 1972]