alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Lawrence Billings, Appellant.

[805 NYS2d 594]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Erlbaum, J.), rendered July 2, 2003, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree and criminally using drug paraphernalia in the second degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The testimony adduced at trial established that, upon the execution of a search warrant, the defendant was found alone in a bedroom, behind a locked door, surrounded by numerous bags of narcotics and various items of drug paraphernalia. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see *People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, resolution of issues of credibility, as well as the weight to be accorded to the evidence presented, are primarily questions to be determined by the jury, which saw and heard the witnesses *(see People v Gaimari,*176 NY 84, 94 [1903]). Its determination should be accorded great weight on appeal and should not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record *(see People v Garafolo,*44 AD2d 86, 88 [1974]). Upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence *(see*CPL 470.15 [5]). Florio, J.P., Crane, Ritter and Lifson, JJ., concur.
ww

w.a

phis

.usd

a.go

v/in

tern

atio

nal_s

afeg

uard

ing/

sitc

/

Smug

glin

g In

terd

ictio

n an

d Tr

ade 

Com

plia

nce 

(SIT

C)

Repo

rt s

uspe

cted

 sm

uggl

ing:

  HOT

LINE

 (800

) 877

-383

5
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 99.2


                           GTECH HOLDINGS CORPORATION

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                        18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED
                         PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
                           SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report of GTECH Holdings Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending August 24, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the Date hereof (the "Report"), I, Jaymin
B. Patel, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C section 1350, as adopted pursuant to sections 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

1.       The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
         15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

2.       The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
         material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of
         the Company.


                                      GTECH HOLDINGS CORPORATION


Date:    October 8, 2002              By /s/ Jaymin B. Patel
                                      ------------------------------------------
                                      Jaymin B. Patel, Senior Vice President and
                                      Chief Financial Officer
I

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1086

To direct the Secretary of the Army to complete work for the protection

of Point Chehalis as part of the operation and maintenance of the

project for navigation, Grays Harbor and Chehalis River, Washington.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FEBRUARY 28, 1995

Mrs. SMITH of Washington introduced the following bill; which was referred

to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

A BILL

To direct the Secretary of the Army to complete work for

the protection of Point Chehalis as part of the operation

and maintenance of the project for navigation, Grays

Harbor and Chehalis River, Washington.

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

3 SECTION 1. GRAYS HARBOR AND CHEHALIS RIVER, WASH4 INGTON.

5 Notwithstanding any other provision of law, as part

6 of the operation and maintenance of the project for navi7 gation, Grays Harbor and Chehalis River, Washington,

8 authorized by the River and Harbor Act of 1948 (62 Stat.
2

•HR 1086 IH

1 1173), the Secretary of the Army shall complete work for

2 the protection of Point Chehalis by extension of the exist3 ing revetment or by other methods determined by the Sec4 retary to be in the public interest.

Æ
Second Amendment Agreement to the Custodian Agreement



 Exhibit 10.2 
 AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO CUSTODIAN AGREEMENT 
 This Amendment No. 2 to the
Custodian Agreement dated as of July 30, 2012, is entered into among UNITED STATES GASOLINE FUND, LP, a limited partnership organized under the laws of the State of Delaware (the “Fund”), UNITED STATES COMMODITY FUNDS
LLC, formerly Victoria Bay Asset Management, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company and General Partner of the Fund (the “General Partner”), and BROWN BROTHERS HARRIMAN & CO., a limited partnership formed
under the laws of the State of New York (“BBH & Co.” or the “Custodian”), 

WITNESSETH: 
 WHEREAS, the Fund, General Partner and BBH & Co. entered into a Custodian Agreement dated as of January 16, 2008 (the “Agreement”); 

WHEREAS, the Agreement was amended by the Fund, General Partner and BBH & Co. as of October 27, 2008; and 

WHEREAS, the Fund, General Partner and BBH & Co. wish to amend the Custodian Agreement; 

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements herein contained, the Fund, General Partner and
BBH & Co. hereby agree as follows: 
  

	 	1.	 Compensation. Item 14 of the Agreement “Compensation” is deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following:



 Compensation. The General Partner agrees to pay the Custodian (a) a fee
in an amount set forth in the fee letter among the Fund, the General Partner and the Custodian in effect on the date hereof or as amended from time to time, and (b) all reasonable out-of-pocket expenses incurred by the Custodian, including the
fees and expenses of all Subcustodians, and payable from time to time. The fees paid by the General Partner to the Custodian will be paid from the General Partner’s assets. Amounts payable by the General Partner under and pursuant to this
Section 14 shall be payable by wire transfer to the Custodian at BBH & Co. in New York, New York. 
 [SIGNATURES ON
FOLLOWING PAGE] 







 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each of the parties hereto has caused this Amendment No. 2 to be
duly executed as of the date first above written. 
 UNITED STATES GASOLINE FUND, LP 

    By: United States Commodity Funds LLC, as General Partner 

 

	
	 /s/ Howard Mah

	 Name: Howard Mah

	 Title: Management Director


 UNITED STATES COMMODITY FUNDS LLC 

 

	
	 /s/ Howard Mah

	 Name: Howard Mah

	 Title: Management Director


 BROWN BROTHERS HARRIMAN & CO. 

 

	
	 /s/ James R. Kent

	 Name: James R. Kent

	 Title: Managing Director
| (logo) WELLS FARGO | **Commercial Mortgage  Servicing**D1050-084, 8th Fl  401 South Tryon Street.  Charlotte, NC 28202  1-800-326-1334 |
|--------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

**ANNUAL STATEMENT OFCOMPLIANCE**

 

Reference is hereby made tothat certain Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of November 1, 2016, byand among Morgan Stanley Capital I Inc., as Depositor, Wells Fargo Bank,National Association, as Master Servicer, C-III Asset Management LLC, asSpecial Servicer, Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as CertificateAdministrator, Wilmington Trust, National Association, as Trustee and ParkBridge Lender Services LLC, as Operating Advisor and as Asset Representations Reviewerwith respect to Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series, 2016-BNK2(the "Agreement"). Capitalized terms used herein not otherwisedefined shall have the meanings assigned in the Agreement.

 

Pursuant to Section 11.09 ofthe Agreement, I, Daniel Bober, Executive Vice President of Commercial MortgageServices do hereby certify that:

 

1.            A review of the activities of the Master Servicer during the period fromNovember 1, 2016 through December 31, 2016 (the “ReportingPeriod”), and of its performance per the Agreement during such period hasbeen made under my supervision, and 

 

2.            To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Master Servicer, hasfulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respectsthroughout the Reporting Period.

 

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, theundersigned has executed this Certificate as of the 28th day of February 2017.

 

 

/s/ Daniel Bober

Daniel Bober

Executive Vice President

Wells Fargo Bank

 

 

| Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. | (logo) Together we’ll  go far |
|------------------------|-------------------------------------|
1

Motion Granted; Appeal Reinstated, Trial Court’s Judgment Set Aside 

without Regard to the Merits, Case Remanded to the Trial Court for 

Rendition of Judgment in Accordance with the Parties’ Agreement to Settle, 

and Memorandum Opinion filed October 27, 2022

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-21-00236-CV

WARRIOR ENERGY SERVICES CORP., Appellant

V.

OILFIELD SPECIALTIES, LLC; DONALD V. UMPHRIES; AND GABOR 

P. WILLIGER, Appellees

On Appeal from the 80th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2019-46881

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This is an appeal from a judgment signed December 1, 2020. On motion of 

appellant Warrior Energy Services Corp., this court abated the appeal on October 
2

26, 2021. On October 11, 2022, the parties filed a joint motion to (1) reinstate the 

appeal and (2) set aside the trial court’s judgment without regard to the merits and 

remand the case to the trial court for rendition of judgment in accordance with the 

parties’ agreement to settle. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a)(2)(B). We grant the 

motion.

We reinstate the appeal. We set aside the trial court’s judgment without

regard to the merits and remand the case to the trial court for rendition of judgment 

in accordance with the agreement. Tex. R. App. P. (a)(2)(B).

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Bourliot, Zimmerer, and Spain.
# C_2020407EN.01001801.xml

| 26.11.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 407/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.11.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 407/18

---

Statement of revenue and expenditure of the Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency for the financial year 2020 – amending budget No 1

(2020/C 407/04)

REVENUE

| Title
  Chapter | Heading | Budget 2020 | Amending budget No 1 | New amount |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 1 | EUROPEAN UNION SUBSIDY |
| 1 1 | EUROPEAN UNION SUBSIDY | 51 458 539,98 | 22 235,42 | 51 480 775,40 |
| | Title 1 — Total | 51 458 539,98 | 22 235,42 | 51 480 775,40 |
| 2 | MISCELLANEOUS REVENUE |
| 2 3 | REIMBURSEMENT OF MISCELLANEOUS EXPENDITURE | p.m. | | p.m. |
| | Title 2 — Total | p.m. | | p.m. |
| | GRAND TOTAL | 51 458 539,98 | 22 235,42 | 51 480 775,40 |

Title

Chapter

Heading

Budget 2020

Amending budget No 1

New amount

1

EUROPEAN UNION SUBSIDY

1 1

EUROPEAN UNION SUBSIDY

51 458 539,98

22 235,42

51 480 775,40

Title 1 — Total

51 458 539,98

22 235,42

51 480 775,40

2

MISCELLANEOUS REVENUE

2 3

REIMBURSEMENT OF MISCELLANEOUS EXPENDITURE

p.m.

p.m.

Title 2 — Total

p.m.

p.m.

GRAND TOTAL

51 458 539,98

22 235,42

51 480 775,40

EXPENDITURE

| Title
  Chapter | Heading | Appropriations 2020 | Amending budget No 1 | New amount |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 1 | STAFF |
| 1 1 | REMUNERATIONS, ALLOWANCES AND CHARGES | 35 858 287 ,— | – 129 337,48 | 35 728 949,52 |
| 1 2 | PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND SOCIAL EXPENDITURE | 1 875 000 | –60 000 | 1 815 000 |
| | Title 1 — Total | 37 733 287 ,— | – 189 337,48 | 37 543 949,52 |
| 2 | INFRASTRUCTURE AND OPERATING EXPENDITURE |
| 2 1 | BUILDING EXPENDITURE | 4 930 000 | 40 000 | 4 970 000 |
| 2 2 | ICT EXPENDITURE | 2 210 000 | 382 000 | 2 592 000 |
| 2 3 | MOVABLE PROPERTY AND CURRENT OPERATING EXPENDITURE | 406 000 | –25 000 | 381 000 |
| | Title 2 — Total | 7 546 000 | 397 000 | 7 943 000 |
| 3 | PROGRAMME SUPPORT EXPENDITURE |
| 3 1 | PROGRAMME MANAGEMENT EXPENDITURE | 6 179 252,98 | – 185 427,10 | 5 993 825,88 |
| | Title 3 — Total | 6 179 252,98 | – 185 427,10 | 5 993 825,88 |
| | GRAND TOTAL | 51 458 539,98 | 22 235,42 | 51 480 775,40 |

Title

Chapter

Heading

Appropriations 2020

Amending budget No 1

New amount

1

STAFF

1 1

REMUNERATIONS, ALLOWANCES AND CHARGES

35 858 287 ,—

– 129 337,48

35 728 949,52

1 2

PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND SOCIAL EXPENDITURE

1 875 000

–60 000

1 815 000

Title 1 — Total

37 733 287 ,—

– 189 337,48

37 543 949,52

2

INFRASTRUCTURE AND OPERATING EXPENDITURE

2 1

BUILDING EXPENDITURE

4 930 000

40 000

4 970 000

2 2

ICT EXPENDITURE

2 210 000

382 000

2 592 000

2 3

MOVABLE PROPERTY AND CURRENT OPERATING EXPENDITURE

406 000

–25 000

381 000

Title 2 — Total

7 546 000

397 000

7 943 000

3

PROGRAMME SUPPORT EXPENDITURE

3 1

PROGRAMME MANAGEMENT EXPENDITURE

6 179 252,98

– 185 427,10

5 993 825,88

Title 3 — Total

6 179 252,98

– 185 427,10

5 993 825,88

GRAND TOTAL

51 458 539,98

22 235,42

51 480 775,40

---
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

JOE BRADLEY ROBERSON, JR.,

 Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

 Appellee. 

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-13-00336-CR

Appeal from

Criminal District Court No. 3

of Tarrant County, Texas

(TC # 1306790D)

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the record and concludes there was no error in the 

judgment. We therefore affirm the judgment of the court below. This decision shall be certified 

below for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 19TH DAY OF MARCH, 2015.

ANN CRAWFORD McCLURE, Chief Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, J., and Barajas, C.J., (Senior Judge)

(Barajas, C.J., Senior Judge, sitting by assignment, not participating)
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 77 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. J. RES. 77

 Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States with 
         respect to the terms of Senators and Representatives.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 8, 1995

     Mr. McCollum (for himself, Mr. Hoke, Mr. Wamp, and Mr. Foley) 
 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 with 
         respect to the terms of Senators and Representatives.

    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. The term of office of a Representative in Congress 
shall be four years and shall coincide with the term of the President 
of the United States.
    ``Section 2. No person who has been elected for a full term to the 
Senate two times shall be eligible for election or appointment to the 
Senate. No person who has been elected for a full term to the House of 
Representatives three times shall be eligible for election to the House 
of Representatives.
    ``Section 3. No person who has served as a Senator for more than 
three years of a term shall subsequently be eligible for election to 
the Senate more than once. No person who has served as a Representative 
for more than two years shall subsequently be eligible for election to 
the House of Representatives more than two times.
    ``Section 4. No election or service occurring before this article 
becomes operative shall be taken into account when determining 
eligibility for election under this article.
    ``Section 5. No Member of one House of Congress may, except in the 
final year of that Member's current term, qualify under applicable 
State law as a candidate for the other House of Congress, unless that 
Member has resigned from the House in which that Member currently 
serves.
    ``Section 6. This article shall apply with respect to terms of 
office of Representatives and Senators beginning after the first day of 
the year immediately following the first presidential election after 
ratification of this article.''.
                                 <all>
```
39430.

#### PIG’N WHISTLE, INC. v. MARSHALL.

Bell, Judge.

This case comes to us on exception taken to the denial by the trial judge of the defendant’s motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict. The question presented is whether the evidence authorized the jury to find that the defendant was justly chargeable with one or more of the particulars of negligence alleged. We are not concerned here with the sufficiency of the petition’s specifications of negligence as the law of the ease doctrine applies as to them and they must be accepted as being adequate.

The defendant demurred generally to the petition and after each amendment renewed its general demurrer. The renewed demurrers were all overruled. No exception was taken to these rulings. It now has become the law of the case that the petition states a good cause of action, and if the plaintiff proves his allegations, he is entitled to recover. *Voyles v. Lee,*204 Ga. 282 (49 SE2d 529). Under the rule it is not necessary to prove every allegation literally but' a substantial proof is sufficient. *Pierpont Mfg. Co. v. Mayor &c. of Savannah,*153 Ga. 455, 457 (112 SE 462).

In weighing the evidence upon a motion for judgment not*206withstanding the verdict, the court is to construe it in the manner most favorable to the upholding of the verdict and judgment. *Echols v. Thompson,*211 Ga. 299 (85 SE2d 423).

Decided June 22, 1962.

*Nall, Miller, Cadenhead & Dennis, David Kahn, James W. Dorsey,*for plaintiff in error.

*Troutman, Sams, Schroder & Lockerman, T. M. Smith, Jr., Robert L. Pennington,*contra.

In one specification of negligence the petition alleges in essence that the defendant maintained the floor of the area where the plaintiff’s wife slipped by the use of wax compounds and polishes, to such an extent that it was slippery, providing unsafe and unsure footing for patrons of the defendant. The plaintiff’s wife testified in a manner sufficient to justify the jury in finding that this charge was so and that she was unable to maintain her footing on the slippery floor. Under the evidence, the jury could have found that the floor was not in such condition as an ordinarily diligent person would keep it.

The plaintiff’s witness proved the injuries proximately resulted from the defendant’s alleged negligence.

There being some evidence to support the' verdict and judgment, the trial court properly overruled the motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Felton C. J., and Hall, J., concur.*
#### § 52.0-1 Introduction.

The regulations in this part 52 are designated “Environmental Tax Regulations.” The regulations relate to the environmental taxes imposed by chapter 38 of the Internal Revenue Code. See part 40 of this chapter for regulations relating to returns, payments, and deposits of taxes imposed by chapter 38.

[T.D. 8442, 57 FR 48186, Oct. 22, 1992]
-p-p-oq30-M -pLE^5& -res?om1> 

## 0 ,fT fr NLya.5 SEP 03 2015



### oaJ) CcrWX.T Wb*=S luL Uejr«_ Cure. II^fi. - 4-tcr-e*u?U^-^ .^J 4>j2u^aMt^- 4*^-*- ojvuuaoa te.ve-1 ;*_ 4-^Cis ^vd_4scn^ r VWX.,


## Z/) LJU«^ COvWlc^eJ) v,i^ c ~r>rx> S^ <M^-: Uf 2.TDfoC AJ-o. m555-1 ~p~D - O^ 30- /^ 

## all ic^S^ 'UW ,^^-^^i^c^- (^ver ^OOO ^a^*!.* ,f 6M. ^•F^q 7i/-a/( Joc_u-iAAAa*OT^ \ o^kroU^ 4"^'CU_/ tvay^. r\ 

# 1 jp.uA *. M-x use m3 c^ia^J- i^tuu^ u^ |-|efv<-&rcJo/^ Ct^rK yf \3 m,ore_ ~H^u,v (ikS^eiy ^ Ctf>u4^ 0~4~ <5tu owx. t/w^cu^ ia/0^i*ax2^ /^^6peiQuo C_f~vC7- f-inovw OoAS'i^ (r-Q&Lcxs . I )r< C_.ru/Z_~ __na/_S Orvt>e_
-1-4- "(S v,i^T^&r4«^' J_ Q^r~ <*- xp^1- cJ^a-cc«^e_



### ou>uil ;4- J- fo."vI a4" s4tck- Ueve.( t4q^ d,^ [ay 

### <^s cHa.^ fe 4^U_ <^D:_4r«-d^v_i o<a^ cLduAn^ns ' £4 2
#### § 1020.310 Reports of transactions in currency.

The reports of transactions in currency requirements for banks are located in subpart C of part 1010 of this chapter and this subpart.
The White House

Office of Science & Technology Policy

For Immediate Release May 1, 2014

Fact Sheet: PCAST Report on Big Data and Privacy: A Technological Perspective

Advances in information technology have led to many new ways to collect data, analyze, and 

use data in ever expanding volumes. Big data holds tremendous potential to benefit society and 

contribute to economic growth, yet it also presents new challenges related to individual privacy. 

In January, President Obama asked his Council of Advisors on Science and Technology 

(PCAST) to analyze the technological dimension of this big data transformation and its 

significance for the future of privacy.

In its report, PCAST examines what distinguishes big data from data at smaller scales, how the 

infrastructure for handling big data is evolving through services such as cloud computing, how 

approaches to analyzing big data are evolving and what insights they are yielding, the 

opportunities and limitations technology offers in protecting privacy, and what these and other 

technical factors imply for public policy. It discusses a number of domains (e.g. health care, 

education) that accumulate big data and explores ways it can be used.

Both technology and policy play important roles in protecting privacy. PCAST concludes that 

technical measures alone are not sufficient for protecting privacy. In its report to the President,

PCAST recommends five steps the Federal government can take around big data and privacy:

 Recommendation 1: Policy attention should focus more on the actual uses of big data and 

less on its collection and analysis. 

 Recommendation 2: Policies and regulation at all levels of government should not embed 

particular technological solutions, but rather should be stated in terms of intended 

outcomes. 

 Recommendation 3: With coordination and encouragement from the White House Office of 

Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), the agencies of the Networking and Information 

Technology Research and Development program should strengthen U.S. research in 

privacy-related technologies and in the relevant areas of social science that inform the 

successful application of those technologies.

 Recommendation 4: OSTP together with the appropriate educational institutions and 

professional societies should encourage increased education and training opportunities 

concerning privacy protection, including career paths for professionals. 
 Recommendation 5: The United States should take the lead both in the international arena 

and at home by adopting policies that stimulate the use of practical privacy-protecting 

technologies that exist today. 

Advances in technology hold the potential to both enhance and diminish personal privacy. In 

its report, PCAST notes that the challenge is to understand the nature of privacy in the modern 

world and to identify technical, educational, and policy solutions to help preserve and protect 

privacy and the societal benefits and economic potential around the use of big data.

###