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

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                            3450
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    62323
<ALLOWANCES>                                    (1997)
<INVENTORY>                                      70356
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                147896
<PP&E>                                          121140
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (77303)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  261623
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           103869
<BONDS>                                         308431
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                          3147
<OTHER-SE>                                    (163944)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    261623
<SALES>                                         167238
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                167238
<CGS>                                           102827
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    60072
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (10190)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   268
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               17689
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (3158)
<INCOME-TAX>                                      1381
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (4539)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (4539)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
IA

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. J. Res. 7

Proposing a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution of the United

States.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 4, 1995

Mr. ARCHER introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred to

the Committee on the Judiciary

JOINT RESOLUTION

Proposing a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution

of the United States.

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two3 thirds of each House concurring therein), That the follow4 ing article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitu5 tion of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents

6 and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by

7 the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States with8 in seven years after the date of its submission for ratifica9 tion:
2

•HJ 7 IH

1 ‘‘ARTICLE —

2 ‘‘SECTION 1. Prior to each fiscal year, Congress shall,

3 by law, adopt a statement of receipts and outlays for such

4 fiscal year in which total outlays are not greater than total

5 receipts. Congress may, by law, amend that statement pro6 vided revised outlays are not greater than revised receipts.

7 Congress may provide in that statement for a specific ex8 cess of outlays over receipts by a vote directed solely to

9 that subject in which two-thirds of each House agree to

10 such excess. Congress and the President shall ensure that

11 actual outlays do not exceed the outlays set forth in such

12 statement.

13 ‘‘SECTION 2. Total receipts shall include all receipts

14 of the United States except those derived from borrowing

15 and total outlays shall include all outlays of the United

16 States except those for the repayment of debt principal.

17 ‘‘SECTION 3. The amount of Federal public debt as

18 of the first day of the second fiscal year beginning after

19 the ratification of this Article shall become a permanent

20 limit on such debt and there shall be no increase in such

21 amount unless two-thirds of each House shall have passed

22 a bill approving such increase and such bill shall become

23 law.

24 ‘‘SECTION 4. Congress may waive the provisions of

25 this Article for any fiscal year in which a declaration of
3

•HJ 7 IH

1 war is in effect. The provisions of this Article may be

2 waived for any fiscal year in which the United States faces

3 an imminent and serious military threat to national secu4 rity and is so declared by a joint resolution, adopted by

5 a majority of the whole number of each House, which be6 comes law.

7 ‘‘SECTION 5. This Article shall take effect for the fis8 cal year 2002 or for the second fiscal year beginning after

9 its ratification, whichever is later.’’.

Æ
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                           1,069
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   14,536
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     14,190
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                31,405
<PP&E>                                           9,704
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  46,756
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           17,695
<BONDS>                                          4,880
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                         32
<COMMON>                                            93
<OTHER-SE>                                      23,950
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    46,756
<SALES>                                         62,466
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                62,466
<CGS>                                           40,005
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   40,005
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                13,391
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,004
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  8,066
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,707
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              4,743
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     4,743
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.63
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.63
        

</TABLE>
PUBLIC LAW 113–100—APR. 18, 2014 128 STAT. 1145 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—S. 2195: 

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 160 (2014): 

Apr. 7, considered and passed Senate. 

Apr. 10, considered and passed House. 

DAILY COMPILATION OF PRESIDENTIAL DOCUMENTS (2014): 

Apr. 18, Presidential statement. 

Æ 

Public Law 113–100 

113th Congress 

An Act 

To deny admission to the United States to any representative to the United Nations 

who has been found to have been engaged in espionage activities or a terrorist 

activity against the United States and poses a threat to United States national 

security interests. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. VISA LIMITATION FOR CERTAIN REPRESENTATIVES TO 

THE UNITED NATIONS. 

Section 407(a) of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal 

Years 1990 and 1991 (8 U.S.C. 1102 note) is amended— 

(1) by striking ‘‘such individual has been found to have 

been engaged in espionage activities’’ and inserting the following: ‘‘such individual— 

‘‘(1) has been found to have been engaged in espionage 

activities or a terrorist activity (as defined in section 

212(a)(3)(B)(iii) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 

U.S.C. 1182(a)(3)(B)(iii)))’’; and 

(2) by striking ‘‘allies and may pose’’ and inserting the 

following: ‘‘allies; and 

‘‘(2) may pose’’. 

Approved April 18, 2014. 

Apr. 18, 2014 

[S. 2195] 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with PUBLIC LAWS
I

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 104

To prohibit the provision of financial assistance from the Federal Government

to any person who is more than 60 days delinquent in the payment

of any child support obligation.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 4, 1995

Mr. BILIRAKIS (for himself, Mr. MCHUGH, Mr. QUINN, Mr. STUMP, Mr.

KING, Mr. PORTER, Mr. CANADY, Mr. GREENWOOD, Mr. BAKER of Louisiana, Mr. GILLMOR, Mr. GILCHREST, and Mr. ROHRABACHER) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight

A BILL

To prohibit the provision of financial assistance from the

Federal Government to any person who is more than

60 days delinquent in the payment of any child support

obligation.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Subsidy Termination

5 for Overdue Payments Act of 1995’’.
2

•HR 104 IHIS

1 SEC. 2. CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE WITH CHILD SUP2 PORT OBLIGATIONS REQUIRED AS A CONDI3 TION OF RECEIVING FEDERAL FINANCIAL AS4 SISTANCE.

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in subsections

6 (b) and (c), an agency or instrumentality of the Federal

7 Government may not provide financial assistance to an ap8 plicant therefor unless the agency or instrumentality has

9 obtained from the applicant a certification that the appli10 cant is—

11 (1) not more than 60 days delinquent in the

12 payment of any child support obligation imposed by

13 a court or an order of an administrative process es14 tablished under State law; or

15 (2) if so delinquent, in compliance with a plan

16 or agreement entered into between the applicant and

17 the person to whom the payment is to be made or

18 a State providing services to the person with respect

19 to the collection of the support.

20 (b) EXEMPTION FOR FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE THAT

21 IS SUBJECT TO GARNISHMENT FOR FAILURE TO PAY

22 CHILD SUPPORT.—Subsection (a) shall not apply to an

23 amount of financial assistance to be provided to an appli24 cant to the extent that the amount is subject to garnish25 ment by reason of the failure of the applicant to pay a

26 child support obligation.
3

•HR 104 IHIS

1 (c) GOOD CAUSE EXCEPTION.—Subsection (a) shall

2 not apply to an applicant for financial assistance with re3 spect to any period for which the applicant has good cause

4 (as determined by the agency or instrumentality involved)

5 for having failed to pay a child support obligation de6 scribed in subsection (a)(1), or having failed to enter into

7 or comply with a plan or agreement described in sub8 section (a)(2).

9 (d) REGULATIONS.—Within 6 months after the date

10 of the enactment of this section, each agency or instru11 mentality of the Federal Government that provides finan12 cial assistance shall prescribe such regulations as may be

13 necessary to comply with this section.

Æ
I

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1053

To prohibit Members of the House of Representatives from using official

funds for the production or mailing of newsletters, to reduce by 50

percent the amount which may be made available for the Official Mail

Allowance of any such Member, and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FEBRUARY 24, 1995

Mr. POSHARD introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on House Oversight

A BILL

To prohibit Members of the House of Representatives from

using official funds for the production or mailing of

newsletters, to reduce by 50 percent the amount which

may be made available for the Official Mail Allowance

of any such Member, and for other purposes.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. PROHIBITION OF THE USE OF OFFICIAL FUNDS

4 BY MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENT5 ATIVES FOR NEWSLETTERS.

6 Notwithstanding any other law or any rule or other

7 authority, a Member of the House of Representatives may
2

•HR 1053 IH

1 not use any official funds for the production or mailing

2 of a newsletter.

3 SEC. 2. REDUCTION RELATING TO THE OFFICIAL MAIL AL4 LOWANCE.

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 311(e)(2)(B)(i) of the

6 Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 1991 (2 U.S.C.

7 59e(e)(2)(B)(i)) is amended by striking ‘‘3’’ and inserting

8 ‘‘1.5’’.

9 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by

10 subsection (a) shall apply with respect to sessions of Con11 gress beginning with the first regular session of Congress

12 beginning after the date of the enactment of this Act.

13 SEC. 3. UNOBLIGATED FUNDS TO BE APPLIED TOWARD

14 DEFICIT REDUCTION.

15 Any unobligated funds remaining in the Official Mail

16 Allowance of a Member of the House of Representatives

17 at the end of a session of Congress shall be deposited into

18 the general fund of the Treasury of the United States and

19 applied toward the reduction of the Federal budget deficit.

20 SEC. 4. DEFINITIONS.

21 For the purpose of this Act—

22 (1) the term ‘‘Member of the House of Rep23 resentatives’’ means a Representative in, or a Dele24 gate or Resident Commissioner to, the Congress;

25 and
3

•HR 1053 IH

1 (2) the term ‘‘newsletter’’ means any congres2 sional newsletter, as referred to in section

3 3210(a)(3)(B) of title 39, United States Code.

Æ
# Materials Not Included in **Airworthiness Directive (AD) Docket**

Docket Number: FAA- 2014 - 0132 Directorate Identifier: 2012NM007AD

A330 - 32 - 3173, R04 --- 6/12/06 A330 - 32 - 3173, R03 --- 3/13/06 A330 - 32 - 3173, R02 --- 5/11/05 A330 - 32 - 3173, R01 --- 6/16/04 A330 - 32 - 3173 --- 12/17/03 A330 - 32 - 3180, R04 --- 7/30/13 A330 - 32 - 3180, R03 --- 1/28/11 A330 - 32 - 3180, R02 --- 4/4/2007 A330 - 32 - 3180, R01 --- 8/15/05 A340 - 32 -4212, R04 - -- 6/12/06 A340 - 32 -4212, R03 --- 3/13/06 A340 - 32 -4212, R02 --- 5/11/05 A340 - 32 -4212, R01 --- 6/16/04 A340 - 32 -4212 --- 12/17/03 A340 - 32 -4222, --- 9/20/04 A340 - 32 -4222, R01 --- 8/15/05 A340 - 32 -4222, R02 --- 4/4/07 A340 - 32 -4222, R03 --- 1/28/11 ME SS - DOW TY A33/34 - 32 -222, R5 --- 5/1/07 MESS - DOW TY A33/34 - 32 -222 --- 12/6/03 MESS - DOW TY A33/34 - 32 -223, R1 --- 9/27/05 MESS - DOW TY A33/34 - 32 -227, R2 --- 12/9/10Name/Description of Item(s) Not Included in FDMS Docket and Maintained in the Supplemental AD Docket



### MA **Y BE VIEWED AT:** Federal Aviation Administration

Transport Airplane Directorate Rules Docket 1601 Lind Ave. SW., Renton, WA 98057 425.227.1221 **DURING THE HOURS OF:** 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Form Date: 0 3/05/2008
| (logo) WELLS FARGO | **Corporate Trust Services**

  MAC R1204-010  9062 Old Annapolis Road  Columbia, MD 21045  Tel: 410 884 2000  Fax: 410 715 2380 |
|--------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

Re:          Annual Statement of Compliance for J.P. Morgan Chase Commercial MortgageSecurities Trust 2016-NINE Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates,Series 2016-NINE

 

Per the Trust and ServicingAgreement dated as of September 26, 2016 (the "Agreement"), theundersigned, a duly authorized officer of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., asCertificate Administrator ("Wells Fargo"), hereby certifies asfollows as of and for the year ending December 31, 2016 (the "ReportingPeriod"):

 

(a)           A review of Wells Fargo's activities during the Reporting Period and of itsperformance 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 hasfulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respectsthroughout the Reporting Period.

 

 

February 27, 2017

 

 

/s/ Brian Smith

BRIAN SMITH

Vice President 

 

 

| Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. | (logo) Together we’ll go far |
|------------------------|------------------------------------|
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Lance Riley, Appellant.

[805 NYS2d 215]

Appeal from a judgment of the Livingston County Court (Ronald A. Cicoria, J.), rendered July 6, 2004. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of assault in the second degree, reckless endangerment in the second degree, and endangering the welfare of a child.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him after a jury trial of assault in the second degree (Penal Law § 120.05 [4]), reckless endangerment in the second degree (§ 120.20), and endangering the welfare of a child (§ 260.10 [1]). The evidence at trial established that defendant’s 19-month-old daughter sustained second degree burns on her legs while she was at home with defendant. Contrary to defendant’s contention, evidence of prior injuries to the child presented by the People was admissible to negate the defense of accident or mistake advanced by defendant *(see People v Sachs,*15 AD3d 1005, 1006 [2005], *lv denied*5 NY3d 768 [2005]; *People v Hawkins-Rusch,*212 AD2d 961 [1995], *lv denied 85*NY2d 910 [1995]; *People v McNeeley,*77 AD2d 205, 211), and the probative value of the evidence outweighed its potential for prejudice *(see People v Alvino,*71 NY2d 233, 242 [1987]). The introduction of such evidence “is especially warranted . . . where the crime charged has occurred in the privacy of the home and the facts are not easily unraveled” *(People v Henson,*33 NY2d 63, 72 [1973]; *see People v Holloway,*185 AD2d 646, 647 [1992], *lv denied 80*NY2d 1027 [1992]; *McNeeley,*77 AD2d at 211). In addition, we note that County Court instructed the jury that the evidence was to be considered only with respect to defendant’s claim that the child was burned because of an accident or a mistake, thus minimizing the prejudicial effect of the evidence *(see People v Engler,*150 AD2d 827, 829 [1989], *lv denied*75 NY2d 770 [1989]). Finally, the verdict is not against the weight *1078of the evidence *(see generally People v Bleakley,*69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]), and the sentence is not unduly harsh or severe. Present—Scudder, J.P., Martoche, Pine, Lawton and Hayes, JJ.
# L_2020010EN.01000501.xml

| 15.1.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 10/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.1.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 10/5

---

Corrigendum to Regulation (EU) 2019/818 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 2019 on establishing a framework for interoperability between EU information systems in the field of police and judicial cooperation, asylum and migration and amending Regulations (EU) 2018/1726, (EU) 2018/1862 and (EU) 2019/816

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 135 of 22 May 2019
  )

1. On page 97, Article 4, point (8):

for:

| ‘(8) | “identity data” means the data referred to in Article 27(3)(a) to (e);’, |
| --- | --- |

‘(8)

“identity data” means the data referred to in Article 27(3)(a) to (e);’,

read:

| ‘(8) | “identity data” means the data referred to in Article 27(3)(a) and (b);’. |
| --- | --- |

‘(8)

“identity data” means the data referred to in Article 27(3)(a) and (b);’.

2. On page 124, Article 59(5), point (a):

for:

| ‘(a) | in paragraph 1, the following point is inserted:






  “(da) | Interoperability Advisory Group;”;’, |
| --- | --- | --- |

‘(a)

in paragraph 1, the following point is inserted:

“(da)

Interoperability Advisory Group;”;’,

read:

| ‘(a) | in paragraph 1, the following point is inserted:






  “(db) | Interoperability Advisory Group;”;’. |
| --- | --- | --- |

‘(a)

in paragraph 1, the following point is inserted:

“(db)

Interoperability Advisory Group;”;’.

3. On page 130, the first sentence of Article 66(4):

for:

| ‘4. | From the envelope referred to in paragraph 3, EUR 22 861 000 shall be allocated to eu-LISA, EUR 9 072 000 shall be allocated to Europol and EUR 144 000 shall be allocated to the European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Training (CEPOL) to support these agencies in performing their respective under this Regulation.’, |
| --- | --- |

‘4.

read:

| ‘4. | From the envelope referred to in paragraph 3, EUR 22 861 000 shall be allocated to eu-LISA, EUR 9 072 000 shall be allocated to Europol and EUR 144 000 shall be allocated to the European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Training (CEPOL) to support these agencies in performing their respective tasks under this Regulation.’. |
| --- | --- |

‘4.

---
#### Phyllis Burden et al., Respondents, v Julius Graves, Appellant.

[805 NYS2d 583]

In an action, inter alia, pursuant to REAPL article 15 to set aside a deed, the defendant appeals, as limited by his notice of appeal and brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Vaughan, J.), dated December 8, 2004, as denied that branch of his motion which was to dismiss the first cause of action pursuant to CPLR 3211.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, that branch of the motion which was to *422dismiss the first cause of action pursuant to CPLR 3211 is granted, and that cause of action is dismissed.

On September 25, 2003, the defendant obtained a judgment by default against the plaintiffs Phyllis Burden and Rose Johnson establishing his “undivided one half (V2) interest” in the subject premises and barring Burden and Johnson and every person claiming under them “from all claim or claims to an estate or interest” in his share of the premises. It is undisputed that Burden and Johnson, who appeared in the prior action and were served with a copy of the judgment, neither opposed its entry nor sought to appeal from it. Instead, in 2004 Burden commenced the instant action, inter alia, to set aside as fraudulent a deed dated February 7, 1996, by which the defendant acquired from her his undivided interest in the subject premises. Johnson and the plaintiff Phyllis Burden, as Trustee of the Burden Family Trust, were later joined as additional plaintiffs in the action.

Contrary to the plaintiffs’ contention, their challenge to the deed dated February 7, 1996, which amounted to an impermissible collateral attack on the September 25, 2003, judgment, was barred by the doctrine of res judicata *(see Matter of City of New York,*307 NY 447, 453-454 [1954]; *Culver v County of Rensselaer,*139 AD2d 853, 854-855 [1988]).

In light of our determination, we do not reach the defendant’s remaining contention. Goldstein, J.P., Skelos, Fisher and Lunn, JJ., concur.