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

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 173 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. J. RES. 173

  Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to 
                protect the rights of victims of crime.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 22, 1996

Mr. Hyde introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred 
                   to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
  Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to 
                protect the rights of victims of crime.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House 
concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an 
amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be 
valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when 
ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States 
within seven years after the date of its submission for ratification:

                              ``Article --

    ``Section 1. To insure that victims of crime are treated with 
fairness, dignity, and respect, in each prosecution by the United 
States or a State, for a crime either involving violence or for which 
the defendant can be imprisoned for a period longer than one year, any 
victim of the crime shall have the right to receive notice of, and to 
be present at, every stage of the public proceedings, unless the court 
determines there is good cause for the victim not to be present; to 
comment at any such proceeding involving the possible release of the 
defendant from custody, the acceptance of any plea agreement with the 
defendant, or the sentencing of the defendant; to be informed of any 
release or escape of the defendant; to receive reasonable protection 
from physical harm or intimidation relating to the proceedings; to have 
the proceedings resolved in a prompt and timely manner; and to have the 
court order restitution from the defendant upon conviction.
    ``Section 2. The rights established in section 1 shall be made 
available to victims upon request to the prosecuting authority and in 
the manner provided by law under section 3.
    ``Section 3. The legislatures of the States, with respect to a 
proceeding in a State forum, and the Congress with respect to a 
proceeding in a United States forum, shall have the power to enforce 
this article by appropriate legislation.''.
                                 <all>
```
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 172 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. J. RES. 172

    Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States 
     relating to contributions and expenditures intended to affect 
                               elections.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 18, 1996

Mr. English of Pennslyvania introduced the following joint resolution; 
          which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
    Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States 
     relating to contributions and expenditures intended to affect 
                               elections.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House 
concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an 
amendment to the Constitution of the United States, to be valid only if 
ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States 
within seven years after the date of final passage of this joint 
resolution:

                              ``Article--

    ``Section 1. Congress shall have power to set reasonable limits on 
campaign expenditures by, in support of, or in opposition to, any 
candidate in any primary or other election for Federal office.
    ``Section 2. The States shall have power to set reasonable limits 
on campaign expenditures by, in support of, or in opposition to, any 
candidate in any primary or other election for State or local office.
    ``Section 3. Congress shall have power to implement and enforce 
this article by appropriate legislation.''.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                         482,859
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  807,498
<ALLOWANCES>                                   128,659
<INVENTORY>                                     90,411
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,389,147
<PP&E>                                       1,938,454
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,541,141
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               6,840,424
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        5,621,276
<BONDS>                                      1,334,744
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            2,948
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           320
<OTHER-SE>                                   (816,433)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 6,840,424
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             9,373,125
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                9,542,407
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             (709,527)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   556
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             717,024
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (878,809)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (878,809)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (878,809)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.27)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.27)


</TABLE>
§ 55.6696-1 Claims for credit or refund by tax return preparers. ( a ) *In general.* For rules for claims for credit or refund by a tax return preparer who prepared a return or claim for refund for tax under chapter 44 of subtitle D of the Internal Revenue Code, the rules under § 1.6696-1 of this chapter will apply.
( b ) *Effective/applicability date.* This section is applicable to returns and claims for refund filed, and advice provided, after December 31, 2008.
[T.D. 9436, 73 FR 78460, Dec. 22, 2008]
#### In the Matter of Narciussus Dellamore, Appellant, v Robert Dennison, as Chairman of New York State Division of Parole, Respondent.

[803 NYS2d 479]

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Wyoming County (Mark H. Dadd, A.J.), entered August 3, 2004 in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78. The judgment dismissed the petition to review the determination of respondent denying petitioner’s request for release to parole.

It is hereby ordered that said appeal be and the same hereby is unanimously dismissed without costs as moot *(see Matter of Brunner v Speckard,*214 AD2d 1040 [1995], *lv denied*86 NY2d 707 [1995]). Present—Pigott, Jr., P.J., Hurlbutt, Gorski, Smith and Lawton, JJ.
(logo)Rialto 

         CAPITAL

 

 

**2017 AnnualStatement of Servicer Compliance (Item 1123)**

 

 

Poolingand Servicing Agreement (the “Pooling and Servicing Agreement”) dated as of September1, 2016 by and among GS Mortgage Securities Corporation II, as Depositor,Midland Loan Services, a Division of PNC Bank, National Association as MasterServicer, Rialto Capital Advisors, LLC as General Special Servicer, TriMontReal Estate Advisors, LLC as 540 West Madison Special Servicer, PentalphaSurveillance LLC as Operating Advisor and Asset Representations Reviewer, WellsFargo Bank, National Association as Certificate Administrator and Wells FargoBank, National Association as Trustee relating to the GS Mortgage SecuritiesTrust 2016-GS3, Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2016-GS3 **(GSMS2016-GS3)**

 

 

Theundersigned, a duly authorized officer of Rialto Capital Advisors, LLC, asspecial servicer (the “Special Servicer”) herein certifies to the following:

 

1.     Allservicing activities and performance of such servicing activities under thePooling and Servicing Agreement are performed on behalf of the SpecialServicer.

 

2.     Areview of the servicing activities and performance by the Special Servicer forthe period of January 1, 2017 to December 31, 2017 (the “Reporting Period”) inaccordance with the Pooling and Servicing Agreement has been conducted under mysupervision.

 

3.     Tothe best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Special Servicer hasfulfilled all of its obligations under the terms of the Pooling and ServicingAgreement, in all material respects for the Reporting Period and if there hasbeen a failure to fulfill any such obligations in any material respect, eachfailure and the nature and status thereof has been specifically identifiedherein.

 

 

Certifiedby: /s/ AdamSinger                                                                                              Date: March 1, 2018

AdamSinger, Managing Director
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

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

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

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MARIA ESTELA ROQUE DE

ESCOBEDO,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 09-70255

Agency No. A077-093-637

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted October 19, 2010** 

Before: O’SCANNLAIN, TALLMAN, and BEA, Circuit Judges.

Maria Estela Roque de Escobedo, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions

for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from

an immigration judge’s decision that she is inadmissible for participating in alien

smuggling and ineligible for cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8

FILED

OCT 25 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 09-70255

U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law and review for substantial

evidence the agency’s factual findings. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785,

791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that Escobedo

participated in alien smuggling. See Urzua-Covarrubias v. Gonzales, 487 F.3d

742, 748-49 (9th Cir. 2007). The record reflects Escobedo provided a birth

certificate and false information to the border inspector in order to assist an alien’s

attempt to enter the United States unlawfully. See 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(E)(i) (an

alien is inadmissible if she has “knowingly encouraged, induced, assisted, abetted,

or aided any other alien to enter or to try to enter the United States in violation of

law”). 

 The agency correctly determined that Escobedo is ineligible for cancellation

of removal because she was granted Lawful Permanent Resident status in 2004 and

her Notice to Appear was served in 2006. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(a)(1)-(2)

(requiring cancellation applicants to have resided continuously in the United States

for seven years “after having been admitted in any status”); id. at § 1229b(d)(1)

(period of continuous residence ends “when the alien is served a notice to appear”). 

Escobedo’s contention that she may impute presence from her father is not

persuasive because she has not shown her father was ever admitted as a lawful
3 09-70255

permanent resident. Cf. Cuevas-Gaspar v. Holder, 430 F.3d 1013, 1029 (9th Cir.

2005).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of American Biogenetic Sciences, Inc. (the“Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2002 (the“Report”), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the datehereof, I, Richard Rubin, CEO, CFO and Chairman of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,that:

1. TheReport fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

2. Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

/s/ Richard Rubin

Ivo Heiden CEO, CFO and ChairmanDated: February 14, 2006

A signed original of this writtenstatement required by Section 906 has been provided to American Biogenetic Sciences, Inc.and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and ExchangeCommission or its staff upon request.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
COMPANY'S FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD ENDED JUNE 30, 2000 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                             339,373
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    6,338,673
<ALLOWANCES>                                       162,371
<INVENTORY>                                      8,953,070
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                16,568,025
<PP&E>                                           5,381,856
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,573,570
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  23,254,893
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           16,343,555
<BONDS>                                          4,970,785
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                            534
<COMMON>                                           742,515
<OTHER-SE>                                       1,197,504
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    23,254,893
<SALES>                                         16,101,009
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                16,101,009
<CGS>                                           11,651,564
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    5,828,411
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  (772,677)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 972,133
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (1,578,422)
<INCOME-TAX>                                             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (1,578,422)
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (1,578,422)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          (0.03)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        (0.03)



</TABLE>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Jerome Sullen, Appellant.

[803 NYS2d 918]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (DiFiore, J.), rendered September 16, 2004, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

We have reviewed the record and agree with the defendant’s assigned counsel that there are no nonfrivolous issues which could be raised on appeal. Counsel’s application for leave to withdraw as counsel is granted *(see Anders v California,*386 US 738 [1967]; *People v Paige,*54 AD2d 631 [1976]; *cf. People v Gonzalez,*47 NY2d 606 [1979]). Schmidt, J.P., S. Miller, Mastro, Spolzino and Lunn, JJ., concur.
1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS

No. 1 23,994

In the Matter of M ANDEE R OWAN P INGEL
,

Respondent

.

ORDER OF DISCHARGE FROM PROBATION

On November 19, 2021

, the court ordered Mandee Rowan Pingel suspended from
the practice of law in the s tate of Kansas, in accordance with Supreme Court Rule
225(a)(3) (2021 Kan. S. Ct. R. at 275) , for a one

- year period. The court then stayed the
suspension pending Pingel's successful completion of the agreed 12

- month probation
plan. In re Pingel , 314 Kan. 347, 498 P.3d 744 (2021)

.

On November 22, 2022

, Pingel filed a motion to be discharged from probation
along with a supporting affidavit in compliance with Supreme Court Rule 2 27(g) (1)
(2022 Kan. S. Ct. R. at 284 ). The Office of the Disciplinary Administrator responded that
Pingel has fully complied with the conditions of the agreed probation plan , confirmed
Pingel's e ligibility for discharge from probation , and voiced no objection to such
discharge

.

Th e c ourt, having reviewed the motion, the supporting affidavit, and the response
grants Pingel's motion for discharge from probation

.

The court orders Pingel fully discharged from probation and closes this
disciplinary proceeding

.2

The court orders the publication of this order in the Kansas Reports and assesses

a ny remaining costs of this proceeding to Pingel

.

Dated this 2 1 st day of December 202 2

.
EX-10.43.A



 





Exhibit 10.43
(a)




AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT




     Amendment to Employment Agreement (this “Amendment”) dated as of December 22, 2006,
by and between Realogy Corporation (the “Company”) and Anthony E. Hull (the “Executive”).



     WHEREAS, the Company and the Executive are parties to that certain Employment
Agreement, dated as of the separation of the Company from Cendant Corporation on July 31,
2006, governing the terms of the Executive’s employment with the Company (the “Employment
Agreement”); and



     WHEREAS, the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of the Company has
approved the amendment of the Employment Agreement in certain respects.



     NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing and other good and valuable
consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties
hereby agree as follows:




	1.	 	The second and third sentences of Section VII(a) of the Employment Agreement (such
section entitled “Without Cause Termination and Constructive Discharge”) are hereby
amended and restated to read, in their entirety, as follows:






     “In addition, upon such event, all Long Term Incentive Awards granted on or after the
Effective Date will become vested upon the Executive’s termination of employment, and any
such awards that are stock options or stock appreciation rights will remain outstanding for
a period of two years (but not beyond the original expiration date) following the
Executive’s termination of employment. In addition, upon such event, the Executive will be
entitled to elect to continue to participate in the Company’s medical and dental plans at
the rate applicable to active employees for a period ending upon the earlier of the second
anniversary of Executive’s termination of employment and the date he becomes eligible to
participate in another employer’s medical plan.”




	2.	 	Except as otherwise provided in this Amendment, the Employment Agreement shall
remain in full force and effect.






	3.	 	This Amendment has been executed and delivered in the State of New Jersey and its
validity, interpretation, performance and enforcement shall be governed by the laws
of such state.






	4.	 	This Amendment may be executed in counterparts, of each which will be deemed an
original, but both of which together will constitute one and the same instrument.




 









 










	 
	IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this Agreement as of the date first
above written.







	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	REALOGY CORPORATION
	 
	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	By:	 	/s/ Richard A. Smith
	 

	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	Richard A. Smith
	 

	 	 	 	Vice Chairman and President
	/s/ Anthony E. Hull
	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 
	Anthony E. Hull
# L_2019180DE.01003101.xml

| 4.7.2019 | DE | Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union | L 180/31 |
| -------- | -- | -------------------------------- | -------- |

---

Berichtigung der Delegierten Verordnung (EU) 2019/331 der Kommission vom 19. Dezember 2018 zur Festlegung EU-weiter Übergangsvorschriften zur Harmonisierung der kostenlosen Zuteilung von Emissionszertifikaten gemäß Artikel 10a der Richtlinie 2003/87/EG des Europäischen Parlaments und des Rates ( Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union L 59 vom 27. Februar 2019 )
Seite 69, Anhang VII Abschnitt 10.1.5 Buchstabe a Absatz 2: Anstatt: „Diese Menge wird wie folgt berechnet: Em AG = V AG · Hu AG · (EF AG – EF AG · Korr n ) (Gleichung 17)“
muss es heißen: „Diese Menge wird wie folgt berechnet: Em AG = V AG · Hu AG · (EF AG – EF EG · Korr n ) (Gleichung 17)“.

---