alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
4/22/2015 TDCJ Offender Details

Ea^j.ij^uiuM.iJ.yiMJMMiL-ya TDCJ Home B5S New Offender Search

Offender Information Details

~n moz-Wj>

Return to Search list

SID Number:

TDCJ Number:

Name:

Race:

Gender:

DOB:

Maximum Sentence Date:

Current Facility:

Projected Release Date:

Parole Eligibility Date:

Offender Visitation Eligible:

05608874

01957729

HARPER.DARRELL

B

M

1963-07-24

2017-01-30

ELLIS

2017-01-30

NOT AVAILABLE

YES

Informationprovided is updated once daily during weekdays and multiple times per day

on visitation days. Because this information is subject to change, family members and

friends are encouraged to call the unit prior to traveling for a visit

SPECIAL INFORMATION FOR SCHEDULED RELEASE:

Scheduled Release Date:

Scheduled Release Type:

Scheduled Release Location:

Parole Review Information

Offender is not scheduled for release at this time.

Will be determined when release date is scheduled.

Will be determined when release date is scheduled.

Offense History:

Offense r»««„e« Sentence nniinUl raea Mn Sentence (YY-MW1- Date 0ffense Date County Case No" DD)

2010-06-22

TERRORISTIC

THREAT 2012-01-27 TRAVIS D-1-DC-11-

904087

6-00-00

D-1-DC-11-

http://offender.tdcj.state.tx.us/OffenderSearch/offenderDetail.action?sid=05608874 1/2
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 154 (Wednesday, August 12, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 40562]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-19054]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service


Tehama County Resource Advisory Committee

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Tehama County Resource Advisory Committee (RAC) will meet 
in Red Bluff, California. Agenda items to be covered include: (1) 
Introductions, (2) Approval of Minutes from May 21 & July 16, (3) 
Public Comment, (4) Chairman's Perspective, (5) Reconsider & Vote on 
Yolla Bolly Project, (6) FY09 RAC Proposal Presentations, (7) Next 
Agenda.

DATES: The meeting will be held on August 20, 2009 from 9 a.m. and end 
at approximately 12 p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Lincoln Street School, Pine 
Room, 1135 Lincoln Street, Red Bluff, CA. Individuals wishing to speak 
or propose agenda items must send their names and proposals to Randy 
Jero, Committee Coordinator, 825 N. Humboldt Ave., Willows, CA 95988.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Randy Jero, Committee Coordinator, 
USDA, Mendocino National Forest, Grindstone Ranger District, 825 N. 
Humboldt Aye, Willows, CA 95988. (530) 934-1269; E-Mail 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#483a212d3a27082e3b662e2d2c663d3b"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="3f4d565a4d507f594c11595a5b114a4c">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The meeting is open to the public. Committee 
discussion is limited to Forest Service staff and Committee members. 
However, persons who wish to bring matters to the attention of the 
Committee may file written statements with the Committee staff before 
or after the meeting. Public input sessions will be provided and 
individuals who made written requests by August 17, 2009 will have the 
opportunity to address the committee at those sessions.

    Dated: August 4, 2009.
Eduardo Olmedo,
Designated Federal Official.
[FR Doc. E9-19054 Filed 8-11-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### § 16.40 Stays ordered by the Department of Justice.

If at any time the Attorney General or an Assistant Attorney General designated by the Attorney General transmits to the authority head a written finding that continuation of the administrative process described in this part with respect to a claim or statement may adversely affect any pending or potential criminal or civil action related to such claim or statement, the authority head shall stay the process immediately. In such a case, the authority head may order the process resumed only upon receipt of the written authorization of the Attorney General.
Exhibit 35.17  LOGO

CommercialMortgageServicing D1050-084, 8th Fl
401 South Tryon Street Charlotte, NC 28202
1-800-326-1334 ANNUAL
STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE Reference is hereby made to that certain Trust and Servicing Agreement dated as of August 1, 2016, by and
among BARCLAYS COMMERCIAL MORTGAGE SECURITIES LLC, as Depositor, WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Servicer, AEGON USA REALTY ADVISORS, LLC, as Special Servicer, WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Certificate Administrator and
Custodian, and WILMINGTON TRUST, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Trustee with respect to Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2016-ETC (the Agreement). Capitalized terms used herein not otherwise defined shall have the meanings
assigned in the Agreement. Pursuant to Section 13.7 of this Agreement, I, Leslie Hayton, Managing Director of Commercial Mortgage
Services do hereby certify that:  1.
A review of the activities of the Servicer during the period from January 1, 2018 through December 31, 2018
(the Reporting Period), and of its performance per the Agreement during such period has been made under my supervision, and  2.
To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the
Agreement in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed
this Certificate as of the 28th day of February 2019. LOGOLeslie Hayton
Managing Director
Wells Fargo Bank Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.


LOGO
39901.

#### BENNETT v. THE STATE.

Nichols, Presiding Judge.

The defendant was indicted, tried and convicted for stealing three hogs. The indictment alleged an alias and the defendant made a motion on the call of the case to strike the alias from the indictment. This motion was overruled and after the adverse verdict the defendant’s amended motion for new trial was overruled. Error is now assigned on the judgments adverse to the defendant. *Held:*

1. A grand jury may indict an accused under an alias dictus. *Jenkins v. State,*4 Ga. App. 859 (3) (62 SE 574); *Stinchcomb v. State,*119 Ga. 442 (46 SE 639); *Andrews v. State,*196 Ga. 84, 110 (26 SE2d 263). Accordingly, the trial court did not err in failing to strike from the indictment the alias therein alleged.

2. An objection to evidence that it constitutes an opinion or conclusion is insufficient where it does not further state that no foundation for such opinion has been laid or what foundation was laid. See *Dean v. Littleton,*161 Ga. 651 (131 SE 507); *Humphreys v. State,*35 Ga. App. 386, 387 (133 SE 518); *Townsend v. Hames,*40 Ga. App. 834 (2) (151 SE 665); *Atlantic C. L. R. Co. v. Godard,*211 Ga. 373, 379 (86 SE2d 311).

3. No harmful error is shown in a case where, after the witnesses have been sequestered, the solicitor general interviews a witness before placing him on the stand in the absence of an *285allegation that such witness was informed of what other witnesses had testified or what he was expected to testify. *General Oglethorpe Hotel Co. v. Lanier,*99 Ga. App. 401 (108 SE2d 769).

Decided January 22, 1963

Rehearing denied February 1,1963.

*Robert L. Cork,*for plaintiff in error.

*Vickers Neugent, Solicitor General,*contra.

4. “ ‘There is no provision of law for the court in the trial of a criminal case to entertain a motion for a judgment of not guilty notwithstanding a verdict of guilty.’ *Wilson v. State,*215 Ga. 775 (113 SE2d 607).” *Austin v. State,*104 Ga. App. 795 (1) (122 SE2d 926).

5. The evidence authorized the verdict of guilty.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Frankum and Jordan, JJ., concur.*
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Andre L. Barnhill, Appellant.

[805 NYS2d 140]

Crew III, J.P.

Appeals (1) from a judgment of the County Court of Columbia County (Czajka, J.), rendered September 27, 2004, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of criminal contempt in the first degree, and (2) from a judgment of said court, rendered September 27, 2004, which revoked defendant’s probation and imposed a sentence of imprisonment.

In September 2004, defendant was charged with criminal contempt in the first degree as a result of having violated the terms of an order of protection issued by County Court. Defendant also was charged with a violation of probation. Defendant thereafter pleaded guilty to both charges and waived his right to appeal. In accordance with a joint recommendation, County Court sentenced defendant to concurrent prison terms of IV2 to 3 years for his conviction of criminal contempt in the first degree and 1 to 3 years for his violation of probation. Defendant now appeals from both judgments.

Although defendant’s challenge to the voluntariness of his guilty plea survives his waiver of appeal, his failure to move to withdraw his plea or vacate the judgment of conviction renders that issue unpreserved for our review *(see People v Lopez,*71 NY2d 662, 665 [1988]; *People v Donaldson,*1 AD3d 800, 800 [2003], *lv denied*2 NY3d 739 [2004]; *People v Kemp,*288 AD2d 635, 635 [2001]). In any event, County Court conducted an ade*850quate inquiry as to whether defendant understood the rights he was relinquishing and whether his plea was made voluntarily. Moreover, defendant signed written statements indicating his desire to plead guilty to both charges and acknowledging the rights he was waiving by doing so.

Similarly, defendant has not preserved his argument regarding the effectiveness of his counsel *(see People v Jones,*18 AD3d 964, 965 [2005], *lv denied*5 NY3d 790 [2005]; *People v Allen,*15 AD3d 689, 690 [2005]; *People v Donaldson, supra*at 800). Were we to consider this claim, we would find it to be without merit. Counsel was able to obtain an advantageous plea agreement for defendant, reducing his exposure to prison time had he proceeded to a trial and hearing on the charges, and there is nothing in the record that undermines the apparent effectiveness of counsel’s representation *(see People v Ford, 86*NY2d 397, 404 [1995]; *People v Jones, supra*at 965; *People v Allen, supra*at 690). Finally, in light of defendant’s knowing, voluntary and intelligent plea and waiver of his right to appeal, we will not review his challenge to the severity of the sentence imposed *(see People v Jones, supra*at 965; *People v Allen, supra*at 690; *People v Clow,*10 AD3d 803, 804-805 [2004]).

Peters, Mugglin, Rose and Lahtinen, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgments are affirmed.
p. 1 

# OAR Box 1828 Prepped byOllie Stewart



### Document

Number: 

# 51 ) ll-K-(B)-3 9 Docket Number: 

# A-83-2 7

Printed 11/12/2008 11:12:49 AM Sheet 51 of 325P. 2 

# 'AU g

n "K-(B)-3 9

NE W PARTICULAT E CONTROL COS T ALGORITHM S PREPARE DB Y PEDCo . Lette r fro

m T . Hogan , EE

A t o J . Pratapas , EPArSASD . Jul y 1 , 1980 . THI S INFORMATION

CA N B E FOUNDI

N DOCKE T A-79-02 , ITE

M II-K-(B)-3 9
www.gpo.gov

### §1300e–3. Per capita shares to members of Assiniboine Tribe of Fort Belknap Reservation; deductions; eligibility for payments

The share of the Assiniboine Tribe of the Fort Belknap Reservation, after deducting $100,000 to be used as provided in section 1300e–4 of this title, and after deducting the estimated costs of distribution and all other appropriate expenses, shall be distributed per capita to each person born on or before, and living on, October 25, 1972, who is a citizen of the United States, is duly enrolled on the approved roll of the organized Fort Belknap Community, and is of Assiniboine lineal descent: *Provided*, That persons in the following categories shall not be eligible to receive a per capita payment: (a) persons who possess a greater degree of Gros Ventre blood than Assiniboine blood, (b) persons who possess equal degrees of Fort Belknap Assiniboine and Fort Peck Gros Ventre blood and who elect to be enrolled as Gros Ventre, and (c) persons who participated, or were eligible to participate, in the distribution of funds under the Act of March 18, 1972 (Public Law 92–254) [25 U.S.C. 1261 et seq.], for the disposition of the judgment of the Blackfeet Tribe and the Gros Ventre Tribe in Indian Claims Commission docket numbered 279–A.

(Pub. L. 92–557, §4, Oct. 25, 1972, 86 Stat. 1171.)

#### References in Text

Act of March 18, 1972, referred to in text, is act Mar. 18, 1972, Pub. L. 92–254, 86 Stat. 64, which is classified generally to subchapter LXVIII (§1261 et seq.) of this chapter. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Tables.

The Indian Claims Commission, referred to in text, terminated Sept. 30, 1978. See Codification note set out under former section 70 et seq. of this title.

#### Section Referred to in Other Sections

This section is referred to in section 1300e–4 of this title.
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 40 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. J. RES. 40

  Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to 
  restrict annual deficits by limiting the public debt of the United 
   States and requiring a favorable vote of the people on any law to 
                          exceed such limits.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 4, 1995

   Mr. Pickett 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 
  restrict annual deficits by limiting the public debt of the United 
   States and requiring a favorable vote of the people on any law to 
                          exceed such limits.

    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 public debt of the United States shall not in any 
fiscal year increase by more than one percent of the amount of the 
public debt outstanding at the beginning of such year unless authorized 
by a law approved by a majority of the Members elected to each the 
Senate and House of Representatives, which law shall not take effect 
until it shall have been submitted to the people at an election and a 
majority of those voting on the question shall have approved such law.
    ``Section 2. Section 1 shall not apply to public debt contracted--
            ``(1) to repel invasion of the United States;
            ``(2) to defend the United States in time of war;
            ``(3) to support the Armed Forces of the United States in 
        time of war; or
            ``(4) to redeem a previous debt obligation of the United 
        States.
    ``Section 3. This article shall take effect beginning with the 
second fiscal year beginning after its ratification.''.
                                 <all>
```
I

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1173

To prohibit the expenditure of Federal funds for constructing or modifying

highway signs that are expressed only in metric system measurements.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 8, 1995

Mr. STUMP (for himself, Mr. ROBERTS, Mr. CALLAHAN, Mr. BACHUS, and

Mr. EVERETT) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

A BILL

To prohibit the expenditure of Federal funds for constructing

or modifying highway signs that are expressed only in

metric system measurements.

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

3 SECTION 1. METRIC SYSTEM SIGNING.

4 (a) LIMITATION ON PLACEMENT OF NEW SIGNS.—

5 No Federal funds may be expended to construct, erect,

6 or otherwise place any sign relating to any speed limit,

7 any distance, or any other measurement, on any highway

8 if such sign establishes such speed limit, distance, or other

9 measurement solely using the metric system.
2

•HR 1173 IH

1 (b) LIMITATION ON MODIFICATION OF EXISTING

2 SIGNS.—No Federal funds may be expended to modify

3 any sign relating to any speed limit, any distance, or any

4 other measurement on any highway for the conversion of

5 such sign solely to the metric system.

6 (c) DEFINITIONS.—For the purposes of this section,

7 the following definitions apply:

8 (1) HIGHWAY.—The term ‘‘highway’’ means a

9 highway as defined in section 101(a) of title 23,

10 United States Code.

11 (2) METRIC SYSTEM.—The term ‘‘metric sys12 tem’’ means the metric system of measurement as

13 defined in section 4 of the Metric Conversion Act of

14 1975 (15 U.S.C. 205c).

Æ
Exhibit 13.2





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 this annual report on Form 20-F of Canada Goose Holdings Inc. (the “Company”) for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2017 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, John Black, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:


|    |                                                                                                                                          
|--- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|(i) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

|     |                                                                                                                                                     
|---- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|(ii) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Date: June 5, 2017





/s/ John BlackJohn BlackChief Financial Officer(Principal Financial Officer)





The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code) and is not being filed as part of the Form 20-F or as a separate disclosure document.
§ 1025.100 Definitions. Refer to § 1010.100 of this chapter for general definitions not noted herein. To the extent there is a differing definition in § 1010.100 of this chapter, the definition in this section is what applies to part 1025. Unless otherwise indicated, for purposes of this part: ( a ) *Annuity contract* means any agreement between the insurer and the contract owner whereby the insurer promises to pay out a fixed or variable income stream for a period of time.
( b ) *Covered product* means: ( 1 ) A permanent life insurance policy, other than a group life insurance policy;
( 2 ) An annuity contract, other than a group annuity contract; or
( 3 ) Any other insurance product with features of cash value or investment.
( c ) *Group annuity contract* means a master contract providing annuities to a group of persons under a single contract.
( d ) *Group life insurance policy* means any life insurance policy under which a number of persons and their dependents, if appropriate, are insured under a single policy.
( e ) *Insurance agent* means a sales and/or service representative of an insurance company. The term “insurance agent” encompasses any person that sells, markets, distributes, or services an insurance company's covered products, including, but not limited to, a person who represents only one insurance company, a person who represents more than one insurance company, and a bank or broker-dealer in securities that sells any covered product of an insurance company.
( f ) *Insurance broker* means a person who, by acting as the customer's representative, arranges and/or services covered products on behalf of the customer.
( g ) *Insurance company or insurer.* ( 1 ) Except as provided in paragraph (g)(2) of this section, the term “insurance company” or “insurer” means any person engaged within the United States as a business in the issuing or underwriting of any covered product.
( 2 ) The term “insurance company” or “insurer” does not include an insurance agent or insurance broker.
( h ) *Permanent life insurance policy* means an agreement that contains a cash value or investment element and that obligates the insurer to indemnify or to confer a benefit upon the insured or beneficiary to the agreement contingent upon the death of the insured.
Dismissed and Opinion Filed January 30, 2018 

S 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-17-01253-CV 

ASYA DONAHUE, Appellant 

V. 

LEGACY OF CEDAR HILL, Appellee 

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 4 

Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. CC-17-05248-D 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before Chief Justice Wright, Justice Evans, and Justice Brown 

Opinion by Chief Justice Wright 

The filing fee, docketing statement, and clerk’s record in this case are past due. By 

postcard dated October 31, 2017, we notified appellant the $205 filing fee was due. We directed 

appellant to remit the filing fee within ten days and expressly cautioned appellant that failure to 

do so would result in dismissal of the appeal. Also by postcard dated October 31, 2017, we 

informed appellant the docketing statement in this case was due. We cautioned appellant that 

failure to file the docketing statement within ten days might result in the dismissal of this appeal 

without further notice. By letter dated December 21, 2017, we informed appellant the clerk’s 

record had not been filed because appellant had not paid for the clerk’s record. We directed 

appellant to provide verification of payment or arrangements to pay for the clerk’s record or to 

provide written documentation appellant had been found entitled to proceed without payment of 
 –2– 

costs within ten days. We cautioned appellant that failure to do so would result in the dismissal 

of this appeal without further notice. To date, appellant has not paid the filing fee, provided the 

required documentation, or otherwise corresponded with the Court regarding the status of this 

appeal. 

Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 37.3(b); 42.3(b), (c). 

171253F.P05 

 

/Carolyn Wright/ 

CAROLYN WRIGHT 

CHIEF JUSTICE 
 –3– 

S 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

JUDGMENT 

ASYA DONAHUE, Appellant 

No. 05-17-01253-CV V. 

LEGACY OF CEDAR HILL, Appellee 

 On Appeal from the County Court at Law 

No. 4, Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. CC-17-05248-D. 

Opinion delivered by Chief Justice Wright. 

Justices Evans and Brown participating. 

 In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, this appeal is DISMISSED. 

 It is ORDERED that appellee LEGACY OF CEDAR HILL recover its costs of this 

appeal from appellant ASYA DONAHUE. 

Judgment entered January 30, 2018.