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

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 105 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 9, 2007 

Received and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

Supporting the goals and ideals of a National Suffragists 

Day to promote awareness of the importance of the 

women suffragists who worked for the right of women 

to vote in the United States. 

Whereas one of the first public appeals for women’s suffrage 

came in 1848 when Lucretia Mott and Elizabeth Cady 

Stanton called a women’s rights convention in Seneca 

Falls, New York, on July 19, 1848; 

Whereas Sojourner Truth gave her famous speech titled 

‘‘Ain’t I a Woman?’’ at the 1851 Women’s Rights Convention, in Akron, Ohio; 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMBILLS
2 

HCON 105 RFS 

Whereas, in 1869, women suffragists formed the National 

Woman Suffrage Association and the American Woman 

Suffrage Association, which were national organizations 

designed to work for the right of women to vote; 

Whereas these organizations united in 1890 to form the National American Woman Suffrage Association; 

Whereas, in 1872, Susan B. Anthony and a group of women 

voted in the Presidential election, in Rochester, New 

York; 

Whereas Susan B. Anthony was arrested and fined for voting 

illegally; 

Whereas at her trial, which attracted nationwide attention, 

Susan B. Anthony made a speech that ended with the 

following slogan: ‘‘Resistance to tyranny is obedience to 

God’’; 

Whereas, on January 25, 1887, the United States Senate 

voted on women’s suffrage for the first time; 

Whereas, during the early 1900s, a new generation of leaders 

joined the women’s suffrage movement, including Carrie 

Chapman Catt, Maud Wood Park, Lucy Burns, Alice 

Paul, and Harriot E. Blatch; 

Whereas women’s suffrage leaders devoted most of their efforts to marches, picketing, and other active forms of 

protest; 

Whereas Alice Paul and others chained themselves to the 

White House fence; 

Whereas women suffragists were often arrested and sent to 

jail, where many of them went on hunger strikes; 

Whereas almost 5,000 people paraded for women’s suffrage 

up Pennsylvania Avenue, in Washington, DC; 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMBILLS
3 

HCON 105 RFS 

Whereas, on August 18, 1920, ratification of the 19th 

amendment to the Constitution was completed, thus 

guaranteeing women in the United States the right to 

vote; 

Whereas July 19th is the anniversary of the first women’s 

rights convention; and 

Whereas designating July 19th as National Suffragists Day 

would raise awareness of the importance of women suffragists who fought for and won the right of women to 

vote in the United States: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 

2 concurring), That Congress supports the goals and ideals 

3 of a National Suffragists Day to promote awareness of 

4 the importance of the women suffragists who worked for 

5 the right of women to vote in the United States. 

Passed the House of Representatives May 8, 2007. 

Attest: LORRAINE C. MILLER, 

Clerk. 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMBILLS
# C_2015155EN.01000702.xml

| 11.5.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 155/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.5.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155/7

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny (Poland) lodged on 2 February 2015 — Minister Finansów v BRE Ubezpieczenia Sp. z o.o., established in Warsaw

(Case C-40/15)

(2015/C 155/09)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Referring court

Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Minister Finansów

Appellant:

Respondent: BRE Ubezpieczenia Sp. z o.o., established in Warsaw

Respondent:

Question referred

Question referred

Must Article 135(1)(a) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (1) be interpreted as meaning that services such as those in the present case, which are supplied on behalf of an insurance undertaking by a third party — in the name and on behalf of the insurer — which has no legal relationship with the insured person, are covered by the exemption referred to in that provision?

1

---

(1)  OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.

1

---
(Reap. Dec. 10262)

#### New York Merchandise Co., Inc. *v.*United States

Entry No. 16844, etc.

(Decided May 15, 1962)

*Stein and Shostak (Marjorie M. Shostak*of counsel) for the plaintiff.

*William H. Orriok, Jr.,*Assistant Attorney General *(James F. O’Hara,*trial attorney), for the defendant.

DoNLON, Judge:

On call of these cases at the term of court in Los Angeles on February 2, 1962, counsel stipulated, in open court, that the merchandise covered by the entries in the appeals for reap-praisement listed in schedule A, attached to and made a part of this decision, was entered after February 27, 1958, the effective date of the final list published by the Secretary of the Treasury, T.D. 54521, under section 6(a) of the Customs Simplification Act of 1956,70 Stat. 943, T.D. 54165. The cases were submitted on a further written stipulation of counsel for the parties, filed of record, as follows:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between counsel for the respective parties hereto, subject to the approval of the Court, that the merchandise covered by the appeals for reappraisement enumerated in the attached Schedule of Cases, consists of Christmas tree light sets, exported from Japan; and that, at the time of exportation thereof to the United States, the market value or the price at which such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of the country from which exported, in the usual wholesale quantity and in the ordinary course of trade, for exportation to the United States, including the cost of all containers and coverings of whatever nature and all other costs, charges and expenses incident to placing the merchandise in condition packed ready for shipment to the United States, were the invoice unit values plus f.o.b. charges set out on the invoices, but not including the buying commission to Minami Sangyo as stated on the invoices.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the merchandise the subject of this stipulation is not included in the list of articles designated by the Secretary of the Treasury in T.D. 64521, as provided for in Sec. 6(a) of the Gustoms Simplification Act of 1956, Public Law 927, 84th Congress, and that said merchandise is subject to appraisement under See. 402 of the Tariff Act of 1930 as amended by the Customs Simplification Act of 1956.

Accepting these two stipulations as an agreed statement of facts, I find and hold that export value, as defined in section 402(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Customs Simplification Act of 1956, supra, is the proper basis for determination of the values of the Christmas tree light sets, described on the invoices covered by the *668entries in these appeals for reappraisement, and that such values are the invoice unit values, plus f.o.b. charges, but not including the buying commission to Minami Sangyo, all as shown on the invoices which are included in the official papers filed with the court in the several suits.

As to all other merchandise, these appeals for reappraisement are dismissed.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
| (logo)  WELLS FARGO | **Commercial  Mortgage Servicing**D1050-084,  8th Floor  401 South Tryon St.  Charlotte, NC 28202  1-800-326-1334 |
|---------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

**ANNUAL STATEMENT OFCOMPLIANCE**

 

Reference is hereby made to that certainTrust and Servicing Agreement dated as of February 1, 2016, by and among MorganStanley Capital I Inc., as Depositor, Wells Fargo Bank, National Association,as Servicer and Special Servicer, Wilmington Trust, National Association, asTrustee, and Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as Certificate Administrator,with respect to Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series 2016-PSQ(the "Agreement"). Capitalized terms used herein not otherwisedefined shall have the meanings assigned in the Agreement.

 

Pursuant to Section 10.8 of the Agreement,I, Daniel Bober, Executive Vice President of Commercial Mortgage Services dohereby certify that:

 

1.A review of the activities of the Servicer during the period from January 1,2017 through December 31, 2017 (the “Reporting Period”), and of its performanceper 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 fulfilledall of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughoutthe ReportingPeriod.

 

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned hasexecuted this Certificate as of the 28th day of February2018.

 

/s/Daniel Bober

DanielBober

Executive Vice President

Wells Fargo Bank

 

 

| Wells  Fargo Bank, N.A. | (logo) Together we’ll go far |
|-------------------------|------------------------------------|
**Exhibit 35.1**

 

SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT

 

I, Sumito Mulchandani, certify that:

 

(a)                                 A review of the Servicer’s activities and of its performance under the applicable servicing agreement during the period from March 1, 2016 to December 31, 2016 has been made under my supervision.

 

(b)                                 To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all its obligations under the applicable servicing agreement in all material respects throughout the aforementioned period.

 

 

Dated March 22, 2017

 
|   | /s/ Sumito Mulchandani                |
|--------|---------------------------------------|
|   | Sumito Mulchandani                    |
|   | Assistant Treasurer of                |
|   | Ford Motor Credit Company LLC,        |
|   | as Servicer of Ford Credit Auto Lease |
|   | Trust 2016-A                          |

 

----
# C_2015146EN.01001202.xml

| 4.5.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 146/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.5.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 146/12

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the tribunal de première instance de Namur (Belgium) lodged on 20 January 2015 — Criminal proceedings against Sébastien Andre

(Case C-23/15)

(2015/C 146/19)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Referring court

Tribunal de première instance de Namur

Party to the main proceedings

Party to the main proceedings

Sébastien Andre

By Order of 19 March 2015, the Court (Fourth Chamber) has declared that the request for a preliminary ruling is manifestly inadmissible.

---
From: <Alicea.Jezebele@epamail.epa.gov>

To: "Spicer, Gary" <Gary.Spicer@luminant.com>

Date: 7/7/2010 9:14 AM

Subject: Confirmation of Extension Request Letter

Attachments: pic07905.jpg; 2010-07-06 Luminant Power request for extension.pdf

Greetings,

This e-mail is a confirmation that your extension request for the steam

electric effluent guidelines questionnaire was received. Extension

requests will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Please be aware that

submittal of an extension request to EPA does not alter the due date of

your questionnaire unless and until EPA agrees to the extension and

establishes a new date.

Sincerely,

(Embedded image moved to file: pic07905.jpg)

 

 From: "Spicer, Gary" <Gary.Spicer@luminant.com> 

 To: Jezebele Alicea/DC/USEPA/US@EPA 

 Cc: Ronald Jordan/DC/USEPA/US@EPA 

 Date: 07/06/2010 02:17 PM 

 Subject: 

Dear Ms Alicea,

Attached please find Luminant Power’s request for an extension for

response to the Questionnaire for the Steam Electric Power Generating

Effluent Guidelines for its eleven recipient plants. If you have any

questions, please contact Gary Spicer at 214-875-8299 (office),

214-973-6150 (mobile) or via e-mail at spicer@luminant.com .

Also, please respond to this e-mail as a method of confirming that you

have received it.

(See attached file: 2010-07-06 Luminant Power request for extension.pdf)
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
         
                                                 Exhibit 12.1

                             
         United Air Lines, Inc. and Subsidiary Companies
                                
        Computation of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges
                                
                                

                                              Six Months Ended
                                                  June 30
                                              1997        1996
                                               (In Millions)
                                              ----------------
<S>                                         <C>         <C>
Earnings:                                                 
                                                          
   Earnings before income taxes and                       
       extraordinary item                   $  546      $  380
   Fixed charges, from below                   490         460
   Undistributed earnings of affiliates        (40)        (32)
   Interest capitalized                        (50)        (39)
                                             -----       -----      
       Earnings                             $  946      $  769
                                             =====       =====
                                                          
Fixed charges:                                            
                                                          
   Interest expense                         $  142      $  156
   Portion of rental expense                              
    representative of the interest factor      348         304
                                             -----       -----
                                                          
       Fixed charges                        $  490      $  460
                                             =====       =====
                                                          
Ratio of earnings to fixed charges            1.93        1.67
                                             =====       =====
                                                          
</TABLE>
III 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. RES. 72 

Providing for members on the part of the Senate of the Joint Committee 

on Printing and the Joint Committee of Congress on the Library. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 4, 2005 

Mr. LOTT submitted the following resolution; which was considered and agreed 

to 

RESOLUTION 

Providing for members on the part of the Senate of the 

Joint Committee on Printing and the Joint Committee 

of Congress on the Library. 

1 Resolved, That the following named Members be, and 

2 they are hereby, elected members of the following joint 

3 committees of Congress: 

4 JOINT COMMITTEE ON PRINTING: Mr. Lott, Mr. 

5 Cochran, Mr. Chambliss, Mr. Inouye, and Mr. Dayton. 

6 JOINT COMMITTEE OF CONGRESS ON THE LIBRARY: 

7 Mr. Stevens, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Lott, Mr. Dodd, and Mr. 

8 Schumer. 

Æ
SAT Report

PMN Number: P-13-0217

SAT Date: 1/25/2013

Print Date: 6/4/2013

Related cases:

Concern levels:

Type of Concern: Health Eco Comments

Level of Concern: 1-2 3

 Persistence Bioaccum Toxicity Comments

2 11

Exposure Based Review:

Health: No

Ecotox: Yes Exposure based testing (eco): Chronic Base-Set Eco

Fish, OCSPP 850.1400- Flow-through method, 

mean measured concentrations, certificate of 

analysis

Daphnia, OCSPP 850.1300-Flow-through 

method, mean measured concentrations, 

certificate of analysis

Algae, OCSPP 850.4500- Static, mean measured 

concentrations certificate of analysis 

Routes of exposure: Health: Drinking Water Inhalation 

Ecotox: All releases to water

Fate: ;

Keywords:

 Keywords: MUTA; NEURO; ONCO (UNCERT); AQUATOX

Summary of Assessment:

 Fate:

Fate Summary: P-13-0217

FATE: 
Solid 

S < 1 mg/L at 25 C (E)

VP < 1.0E-6 torr at 25 C (E)

BP > 400 C (E)

H < 1.00E-8 (E)

POTW removal (%) = 90 via sorption and possible partial biodeg

Time for complete ultimate aerobic biodeg = mo

Sorption to soils/sediments = v.strong

PBT Potential: P2B1

*CEB FATE: Migration to ground water = negl

 Health:

 Health Summary: Absorption nil thru skin based on physical/chemical 

properties, poor thru lungs based on physical/chemical properties; and poor thru GI based on 

analogs; expect some dissociation in the stomach with subsequent release of . 

Concern for mutagenicity based on test data for an analogue and neurotoxicity based on the 

 Uncertain concern for oncogenicity based on the mutagenicity study.

 Test Data: [Analogue data submitted with ]: test data for 

the were rat acute oral LD50 = 16 g/kg; rabbit acute dermal LD50 = 16 g/kg; 

Ames test was negative; and mouse micronucleus test was positive; the positive mouse 

micronucleus test (ip) was also submitted as 

 Ecotox:

Test Organism Test 

Type

Test End 

Point

Predicted Measured Comments

fish 96-h LC50 *

daphnid 48-h LC50 *

green algal 96-h EC50 *

fish _ chronic value *

daphnid _ chronic 

value

* 0.035

algal _ chronic 

value

*

Sewage Sludge 3-h EC50 _

Sewage Sludge _ Chronic 

Value

_

Ecotox Values Comments: Predictions are based on SARs for Organic Antimony 

Dithiocarbamate, Stable @ pH 7; MW 822; solid with unknown mp (P); S < 0.001 g/L (P); 

pH7; effective concentrations based on 100% active ingredients and measured concentrations; 

hardness < 150.0 mg/L as CaCO3; and TOC <2.0 mg/L;

Analog data reviewed under the HPV Challenge Program.
Factors Values Comments

Assessment Factor 10

Concentration of Concern 

(ppb)

4

SARs Dithiocarbamates

SAR Class Dithiocarbamates, Antimony

Ecotox Category Dithiocarbamates

Ecotox Factors Comments: 

 SAT Chair: L Keifer 564-8916
# C_2016211EN.01002102.xml

| 13.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 211/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 211/21

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 5 April 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hanseatisches Oberlandesgericht in Bremen — Germany) — Execution of European arrest warrants issued in respect of Pál Aranyosi (C-404/15), Robert Căldăraru (C-659/15 PPU)

(Joined Cases C-404/15 and C-659/15 PPU) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters - Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA - European arrest warrant - Grounds for refusal to execute - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Article 4 - Prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment - Conditions of detention in the issuing Member State))

(2016/C 211/27)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Hanseatisches Oberlandesgericht in Bremen

Parties to the main proceedings

Pál Aranyosi (C-404/15), Robert Căldăraru (C-659/15 PPU)

Operative part of the judgment

Article 1(3), Article 5 and Article 6(1) of Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States, as amended by Council Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA of 26 February 2009, must be interpreted as meaning that, where there is objective, reliable, specific and properly updated evidence with respect to detention conditions in the issuing Member State that demonstrates that there are deficiencies, which may be systemic or generalised, or which may affect certain groups of people, or which may affect certain places of detention, the executing judicial authority must determine, specifically and precisely, whether there are substantial grounds to believe that the individual concerned by a European arrest warrant, issued for the purposes of conducting a criminal prosecution or executing a custodial sentence, will be exposed, because of the conditions for his detention in the issuing Member State, to a real risk of inhuman or degrading treatment, within the meaning of Article 4 of the Charter, in the event of his surrender to that Member State. To that end, the executing judicial authority must request that supplementary information be provided by the issuing judicial authority, which, after seeking, if necessary, the assistance of the central authority or one of the central authorities of the issuing Member State, under Article 7 of the Framework Decision, must send that information within the time limit specified in the request. The executing judicial authority must postpone its decision on the surrender of the individual concerned until it obtains the supplementary information that allows it to discount the existence of such a risk. If the existence of that risk cannot be discounted within a reasonable time, the executing judicial authority must decide whether the surrender procedure should be brought to an end.

---

(1)  OJ C 320, 28.9.2015.

OJ C 59, 15.2.2016.

---
## F I FTH 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________ Case No. 5 D 2 3

- 3397 LT Case No. 2022

- CF

- 12230

_____________________________ L OGAN E TIENNE , Petitioner ,

v. S TATE OF F LORIDA , Respondent

.

_____________________________ Petition for Bel ated Appeal

. A Case o f Original Jurisdiction

. Andrea Hart , of Andera Hart Law, Jacksonville, for Petitioner.
No A ppearance for Respondent. March 22, 2024
P ER C URIAM

. The petition for belated appeal is granted. A copy of this opinion shall be filed with the trial court and be treated as the notice of appeal from the July 19, 2023 judgment and sentence rendered in Case No. 2022

- CF -12230, in the Circuit Court in and for Duval County, Florida. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(c)(6)(D).
P ETITION G RANTED

. H ARRIS , K ILBANE , and M AC I VER , JJ., concur
.2 ____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331
.

_____________________________