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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      106
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                        619
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   735
<PP&E>                                            9753
<DEPRECIATION>                                    7122
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                    3366
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             2368
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           409
<OTHER-SE>                                         544
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                      3366
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                               24
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                       24
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    85
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (109)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (109)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (109)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (.003)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (.003)
        

</TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Juan Manuel TAPIA-VELASQUEZ, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 04-10645.

D.C. No. CR-03-00353-PMP(PAL).

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Sept. 12, 2005.*

Decided Sept. 15, 2005.

Darin Lahood, USLV—Office of the U.S. Attorney, Las Vegas, NV, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Jason F. Carr, FPDNV—Federal Public Defender’s Office, Las Vegas, NV, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before REINHARDT, RYMER, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.

*

 This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM**

Juan Manuel Tapia-Velasquez appeals the 46-month sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction for illegal reentry following deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a), and we remand.

Tapia-Velasquez contends that his sentence violates the Sixth Amendment because it was enhanced on the basis of a prior felony conviction which was neither admitted to by him nor alleged in the indictment. This claim is foreclosed by *United States v. Moreno-Hernandez,*419 F.3d 906, 914-15 n. 8 (9th Cir.2005) (holding that an 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) sentence enhancement based on the fact of a prior conviction for assault raised no Sixth Amendment problems). However, because Tapia-Velasquez was sentenced under the mandatory guidelines, we remand the case for further proceedings consistent with *United States v. Ameline,*409 F.3d 1073 (9th Cir.2005) (en banc). *See Moreno-Hernandez,*419 F.3d at 915-16 (extending *837*Ameline’s*limited remand procedure to non-constitutional *Booker*error).

REMANDED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
<PAGE>   1
                     UGI UTILITIES INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
       COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES - EXHIBIT 12.1
                            (THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS)


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                     Six
                                                    Months
                                                     Ended                   Year Ended September 30,
                                                   March 31,    ------------------------------------------------------
                                                     1998           1997         1996           1995          1994
                                                 -----------    -----------   -----------    -----------   -----------
<S>                                              <C>            <C>           <C>            <C>           <C>
EARNINGS:
Earnings before income taxes                       $  57,773     $  63,275     $  61,717      $  39,759     $  41,244
Interest expense                                       8,607        16,696        15,921         16,632        16,482
Amortization of debt discount and expense                 99           176           173            206           187
Interest component of rental expense                     797         1,887         1,838          1,604         1,344
                                                 -----------    -----------   -----------    -----------   -----------
                                                   $  67,276     $  82,034     $  79,649      $  58,201     $  59,257
                                                 ===========    ===========   ===========    ===========   ===========


FIXED CHARGES:
Interest expense                                   $   8,607     $  16,696     $  15,921      $  16,632     $  16,482
Amortization of debt discount and expense                 99           176           173            206           187
Allowance for funds used during
    construction (capitalized interest)                   21           114           107             65           136
Interest component of rental expense                     797         1,887         1,838          1,604         1,344
                                                 -----------    -----------   -----------    -----------   -----------
                                                   $   9,524     $  18,873     $  18,039      $  18,507     $  18,149
                                                 ===========    ===========   ===========    ===========   ===========

Ratio of earnings to fixed charges                      7.06          4.35          4.42           3.14          3.27
                                                 ===========    ===========   ===========    ===========   ===========
</TABLE>
Order entered December 18, 2014

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-14-01232-CV

WILLIAM “BRANCH” WARREN, Appellant

V.

CARLSON RESTAURANTS, INC. D/B/A TGI FRIDAY'S, INC., Appellee

On Appeal from the 298th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-13-02122

ORDER

We GRANT appellant’s December 15, 2014 agreed motion for an extension of time to 

file a brief. Appellant shall file his brief by DECEMBER 22, 2014.

/s/ ELIZABETH LANG-MIERS 

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

 

 

**ANNUAL STATEMENT OFCOMPLIANCE**

 

ReferenceisherebymadetothatcertainPoolingandServicingAgreementdatedasof May 1, 2016, by and among Morgan Stanley Capital I Inc., as Depositor, WellsFargo Bank, National Association, as Master Servicer, Rialto Capital Advisors,LLC as Special Servicer, Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as CertificateAdministrator, Wilmington Trust, National Association, as Trustee and ParkBridge Lender Services LLC, as Operating Advisor and Asset RepresentationsReviewer with respect to Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series2016-C29 (the "Agreement"). Capitalized terms used herein nototherwise defined shall have the meanings assigned in theAgreement.

 

Pursuant to Section 11.09 of theAgreement, 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 fromJanuary 1, 2017 through December 31, 2017 (the “Reporting Period”), and of itsperformance per the Agreement during such period has been made under mysupervision,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 ReportingPeriod.

 

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned hasexecuted this Certificate as of the 28th day ofFebruary2018.

 

/s/ Daniel Bober

Daniel Bober

Executive Vice President

Wells Fargo Bank

 

 

| Wells Fargo Bank,  N.A. | (logo)  Together we’ll go far |
|-------------------------|-------------------------------------|
110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. CON. RES. 286 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

Whereas Earl Lloyd was born in Alexandria, Virginia on 

April 3, 1928; 

Whereas Earl Lloyd first developed his passion for basketball 

at the city of Alexandria’s segregated Parker-Gray High 

School; 

Whereas Earl Lloyd was drafted by the NBA in 1950 as a 

ninth round pick by the Washington Capitols; 
2 

•HCON 286 EH 

Whereas on October 31, 1950, Earl Lloyd became the first 

African-American to play in the NBA; 

Whereas Earl Lloyd dissolved the color barrier in the NBA 

3 years after Jackie Robinson had done the same in baseball; 

Whereas Earl Lloyd proudly put his professional career on 

hold and served in the Army for 2 years before returning 

to the NBA; 

Whereas Earl Lloyd played 560 NBA games and won a 

championship before retiring in 1960; 

Whereas in 2003, Earl Lloyd was inducted into the Naismith 

Memorial Basketball Hall of Fame; and 

Whereas the newly constructed basketball court at T.C. Williams in his home town of Alexandria was named in his 

honor: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 

2 concurring), That it is the sense of Congress that Earl 

3 Lloyd should be recognized and honored for breaking the 

4 color barrier and becoming the first African-American to 

5 play in the National Basketball Association League 58 

6 years ago. 

Passed the House of Representatives March 5, 

2008. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. CON. RES. 286 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

Expressing the sense of Congress that Earl Lloyd 

sociation League 58 years ago. American to play in the National Basketball Asthe color barrier and becoming the first Africanshould be recognized and honored for breaking
No. 39081.

#### Protest 445683-G of Bartman & Bixer, Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

The record established that certain items consist of articles in chief value of cellulose filaments similar to those involved in Abstract 37230. The claim at 60 percent under paragraph 31 was therefore sustained.
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v JERALD P. SMITH, Airman First Class, U. S. Air Force, Appellant

18 USCMA 609, 40 CMR 321

No. 22,180

September 26, 1969

*Colonel Bertram Jacobson, Lieutenant Colonel Leonard Eichner,*and *Major Clarence E. Powell*were on the pleadings for Appellant, Accused.

*Colonel James M. Bumgarner*and *Lieutenant Colonel Robert W. Vayda*were on the pleadings for Appellee, United States.

Opinion of the Court

FERGUSON, Judge:

The-aceused was convicted by general court-martial, convened at Ramey Air Force Base, Puerto.Rico, of one specification of carnal knowledge of a female under sixteen years of age, not his wife, at divers times between October 5 and December 14, 1968, in violation of Article 120, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 USC § 920. We granted review to determine the validity of the accused’s conviction in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in O’Callahan v Parker, 395 US 258, 23 L Ed 2d 291, 89 S Ct 1683 (1969).

This case differs from that which pertained in United States v Henderson, 18 USCMA 601, 40 CMR 313, where we dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, in only one respect — the place where the offense ' occurred. Henderson was also convicted of carnal knowledge.

*610Here, as in *Henderson,*the accused was stationed at Ramey Air Force Base and this victim too was the dependent daughter of a serviceman. However, in this case, unlike Henderson, the accused had sexual intercourse with the victim at various locations in *on-base*housing at Ramey Air Force Base while in *Henderson*the offenses took place *off base*at Henderson’s apartment in Aguadilla, Puerto Rico. This difference is a vital one for, as we have noted in other cases (United States v Crapo,

18 USCMA 594, 40 CMR 306; United States v Paxiao, 18 USCMA 608, 40 CMR 320), the need to maintain “the security of a military post” (O’Callahan v Parker, supra, 395 US, at page 274) is sufficient to vest in the court-martial jurisdiction to try this offense.

The decision of the board of review is affirmed.

Chief Judge Quinn and Judge DAR-DEN concur.
Comments on 1/14/10 NPDES Webcast 

Contact: George Robinson, Idaho Dept of Agriculture 

George.Robinson@agri.idaho.gov

208-332-8593 

• Most 303d listed streams are included on the list due to turbidity or nutrient issues. If the 

water body is not impaired by the specific pesticide being applied, will the applicator be able 

to treat the water body? Are lists available to the general public regarding known 

contaminates of 303d streams? If that information is available, where can applicators find 

those lists? If the stream is on the list due to turbidity or nutrients, that should not prohibit 

applications of pesticides. 

• If a commercial applicator submits copies of his application records, in lieu of a summary 

document with his annual report, would that be a violation? I can imagine that applicators 

that forget about submitting their annual report on time may look for extreme shortcuts to 

slide in under the deadline. Will EPA develop a checklist or template that the applicators 

must use to submit the necessary information? 

• Creating a summary of over a thousand application records may result in mistakes and 

inaccurate information. If the information is incorrect, due to entry mistakes, what are the 

consequences to the applicator? 

• If the pesticide labels have language that requires the applicator to comply with NPDES 

requirements for that pesticide, who will have primacy on enforcing compliance with the 

NPDES permit? State pesticide lead agencies do a large amount of routine inspections and 

respond to complaints regarding pesticide applications, some of which will involve pesticide 

products with labels that require NPDES permits. The lines of authority are not clear, 

regarding which agency has primacy for conducting an investigation resulting from a 

complaint filed with the state lead agency for FIFRA complaints. 

• Some applicators do not have access to the internet. If the applicator mails the NOI, does the 

10 day waiting period still apply? If not, how long is the waiting period? 

• On thresholds for ditches, the distance is considered doubled, if both sides of the ditch are 

treated. Some irrigation ditches are only 1-2 feet wide and do not have irrigation water in 

them on a regular basis. Both sides of the ditch can be easily treated at the same time. A 

minimum ditch width, such as 5 feet across, should be considered before the “counting as 

double” standard is applied.
No. 56670.

protest 180443-K (New York).

#### The Danwill Co. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protest.
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

1 

79–012 2018

115th Congress, 2d Session – – – – – – – – – – – – House Document 115–159 

DESIGNATION OF FUNDING AS AN EMERGENCY 

REQUIREMENT 

COMMUNICATION 

FROM

THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES 

TRANSMITTING

DESIGNATION OF FUNDING AS AN EMERGENCY REQUIREMENT, 

PURSUANT TO DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AND LABOR, HEALTH 

AND HUMAN SERVICES, AND EDUCATION APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 

2019 AND CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2019, DIV. C, SEC. 

113(b) 

SEPTEMBER 28, 2018.—Referred to the Committee on Appropriations and 

ordered to be printed 


dlhill on DSK3GLQ082PROD with HEARINGE:\Seals\Congress.#13

dlhill on DSK3GLQ082PROD with HEARING
(1) 

THE WHITE HOUSE, 

Washington, September 28, 2018. 

Hon. PAUL D. RYAN, 

Speaker of the House of Representatives, 

Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. SPEAKER: In accordance with section 113(b) of division 

C of the Department of Defense and Labor, Health and Human 

Services, and Education Appropriations Act, 2019 and Continuing 

Appropriations Act, 2019 (H.R. 6157; the ‘‘Act’’), I hereby designate 

as emergency requirements all funding so designated by the Congress in the Act pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced 

Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, for the accounts 

referenced in section 7058(d) of Public Law 115–141 and continued 

under the Act. 

The details of this action are set forth in the enclosed memorandum from the Director of the Office of Management and Budget. 

Sincerely, 

DONALD J. TRUMP. 


dlhill on DSK3GLQ082PROD with HEARING
2 


dlhill on DSK3GLQ082PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 3 here HD159.001
# C_2016326EN.01003401.xml

| 5.9.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 326/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.9.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 326/34

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (2nd Chamber) of 28 June 2016 — Lorenzet v EASA

(Case F-144/15) (1)

1

((Civil service - Temporary staff - Article 2(f) of the CEOS - Contract for an indefinite period - Unpaid leave - Unpaid leave on personal grounds - Refusal to extend unpaid leave for an additional year - Article 52 of the CEOS))

(2016/C 326/57)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Andrea Lorenzet (Paris, France) (represented by: S. Orlandi and T. Martin, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Aviation Safety Agency (represented by: initially, F. Manuhutu and A. Haug, Agents, D. Waelbroeck and I. Antypas, lawyers, then F. Manuhutu and A. Haug, Agents, A. Duron and C. Dekemexhe, lawyers)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment of the European Aviation Safety Agency’s decision not to extend the applicant’s unpaid leave on personal grounds for an additional year.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Declares that Mr Andrea Lorenzet is to bear his own costs and orders him to pay the costs incurred by the European Aviation Safety Agency. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Declares that Mr Andrea Lorenzet is to bear his own costs and orders him to pay the costs incurred by the European Aviation Safety Agency.

---

(1)  OJ C 48, 8/2/2016, p. 102.

1

---
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Daniel ISOBE, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 04-10286.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Aug. 1, 2005.*

Decided Aug. 4, 2005.

*47Mark E. Recktenwald, USH—Office of the U.S. Attorney, Honolulu, HI, for Plaintiff—Appellee.

Daniel Isobe, Atwater, CA, pro se.

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

*

 This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Daniel Isobe appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 942(a)(2). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Reviewing for plain error, *see United States v. Siu Kuen Ma,*290 F.3d 1002, 1005 (9th Cir.2002), we dismiss.

Isobe contends that his plea agreement is invalid because the government did not provide adequate consideration. Though Isobe is correct that plea agreements are typically construed according to contract law principles, *see United States v. Johnston,*199 F.3d 1015, 1020 (9th Cir.1999), we are not persuaded by his contention. Because Isobe received the benefit of his bargain, his negotiated plea agreement is valid. *See United States v. Lewis,*979 F.2d 1372, 1375 (9th Cir.1992) (stating that because the government fulfilled its promise not to recommend sentencing defendant as a career offender, defendant received the benefit of his bargain and the plea agreement was valid.)

Next, Isobe contends that his appeal waiver is invalid because the district court did not address him personally, at the change of plea hearing, regarding the waiver. This contention also lacks merit. *See Siu Kuen Ma,*290 F.3d at 1005 (concluding there was no plain error where the prosecutor summarized the terms of the plea, including the waiver provision, in open court, and the district court asked the defendant if this comported with her understanding of the plea agreement).

To the extent that Isobe contends that his waiver is unenforceable because the district court advised him that he had the right to appeal, we are unpersuaded. The court did not make an unambiguous statement that Isobe had a right to appeal, and thus its statement did not invalidate Isobe’s waiver of appeal. *See United States v. Aguilar-Muniz,*156 F.3d 974, 977 (9th Cir.1998).

We dismiss in light of the valid appeal waiver. *See United States v. Nguyen,*235 F.3d 1179, 1182 (9th Cir.2000) *48(stating that an appeal waiver is valid when it is entered into knowingly and voluntarily); *see also United States v. Cardenas,*405 F.3d 1046, 1048 (9th Cir.2005) (holding that the changes in sentencing law imposed by *United States v. Booker,*— U.S. -, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), did not render waiver of appeal involuntary and unknowing).

DISMISSED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
### Local overdevelopment of ground-water supplies, with special reference to conditions at Grand Island, Nebraska

By: Leland Keith Wenzel

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/wsp836E

#### Links

-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

Part or all of this report is presented in Portable Document Format                        (PDF). For best results viewing and printing PDF documents, it is recommended that you download                        the documents to your computer and open them with Adobe Reader. PDF documents opened from your                        browser may not display or print as intended. Download the latest version of Adobe Reader, free of charge. More information                        about viewing, downloading, and printing report files can be found at the common download problems FAQ.