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

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. CON. RES. 295 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 17, 2008 

Received and referred to the Committee on Armed Services 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

Expressing the deepest appreciation of Congress to the 

families of members of the United States Armed Forces. 

Whereas more than 2,000,000 Americans are demonstrating 

their devotion to the United States and freedom by serving in the United States Armed Forces; 

Whereas there are a multitude of family members, including 

mothers, fathers, siblings, spouses, and children, supporting each member of the Armed Forces; 


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
2 

HCON 295 RFS 

Whereas, even in peacetime, the family of a member of the 

Armed Forces makes concessions given the inherent dangers of military service and the frequent relocations resulting in disruption of everyday routine; 

Whereas, during wartime, family members endure increased 

sacrifices, forgo time with their loved one, and face increased worry and uncertainty when their loved one 

serves extended tours overseas or engages in enhanced 

training activities; 

Whereas an increasing number of family members have taken 

on volunteer responsibilities in organizations associated 

with the Armed Forces; 

Whereas the family of a member of the Armed Forces wounded in action willingly accepts the additional role of caregiver, even when it requires postponement of personal 

goals; 

Whereas the families of members of the Armed Forces serve 

as a pillar of strength and encouragement for those serving the interests of the United States at home and 

abroad; and 

Whereas the families of members of the Armed Forces play 

a critical role in providing emotional support and readjustment assistance as members transition from military 

life to civilian life: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 

2 concurring), That Congress expresses its deepest apprecia3 tion to the families, both immediate and extended, of 

4 members of the United States Armed Forces for the un5 wavering support, both physical and emotional, that family 


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
3 

HCON 295 RFS 

1 members give their loved ones while they answer the call 

2 to serve their country and keep the United States safe. 

Passed the House of Representatives July 16, 2008. 

Attest: LORRAINE C. MILLER, 

Clerk. 

By ROBERT F. REEVES, 

Deputy Clerk. 


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
1 Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 98-11180

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

DAVID HUGIE,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:98-CR-13-6

- - - - - - - - - -

June 30, 1999

Before DAVIS, DUHÉ, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:1

David Hugie has appealed the 37-month prison sentence he

received on his guilty plea of having conspired to distribute, and

to possess with intent to distribute, controlled substances. We

AFFIRM.

Hugie’s sole appellate contention is that the district court

erred by concluding that the Attorney General’s permanent

rescheduling of certain controlled substances violates Article I,

§ 7 of the Constitution. Specifically, Hughie complains of the

rescheduling of methylphenidate (Ritalin) from Schedule III to
Schedule II, which increases the maximum penalties for offenses

involving it. Hugie's prison term is considerably less than the

five-year maximum which can be imposed for a Schedule III offense.

See 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(B) and (C).

The Government contends that Hugie waived his right to raise

this issue, by the plea agreement which he and his counsel signed.

Hugie has not attempted to refute the Government’s contention,

which we find to be meritorious. See United States v. Portillo, 18

F.3d 290, 292-93 (5th Cir. 1994). Accordingly, the district

court's judgment is AFFIRMED.
Before the First Division,

October 1, 1941

No. 46375.

#### Protest 37625-K of S. S. Perry (San Francisco).

*277Opinion by

Oliver, P. J.

At the trial it was agreed that the bags in question, are made of sea grass in its natural state. The claim at 25 percent under paragraph 1537 was therefore sustained.
No. 45180.

#### Protests 44763-K, etc., of Borden Co. et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and on the authority of *Locatelli*v. *United States*(T. D. 48284 and T. D. 49389) it was held that an allowance should have been made in the weight of the cheese to compensate for the inedible coverings.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             FEB-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               NOV-01-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          61,169
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   28,964
<ALLOWANCES>                                       279
<INVENTORY>                                     10,432
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               109,488
<PP&E>                                         130,644
<DEPRECIATION>                                  59,921
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 190,813
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           36,250
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           242
<OTHER-SE>                                     152,121
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   190,813
<SALES>                                        137,556
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               137,556
<CGS>                                           64,588
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   64,588
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 37,337
<INCOME-TAX>                                    13,783
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             23,554
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    23,554
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .95
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .94
        

</TABLE>
(a)  A review of Toyota Motor Credit Corporation’s activities and of its performance under the Sale and Servicing Agreement, dated as of May 11, 2016 (the “Sale and Servicing Agreement”), among Toyota Auto Finance Receivables LLC, as seller, Toyota Motor Credit Corporation, as servicer (in such capacity, the “Servicer”) and sponsor, and Toyota Auto Receivables 2016-B Owner Trust, as issuer, during the year ended December 31, 2017 has been made under my supervision.
 
 (b)  To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Sale and Servicing Agreement in all material respects throughout the aforementioned period.
 
  
 /s/ Wei Shi
# C_2018072EN.01003201.xml

| 26.2.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 72/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.2.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 72/32

---

Judgment of the General Court of 16 January 2018 — EDF v Commission

(Case T-747/15) (1)

1

((State aid - Aid granted by the French authorities to EDF - Reclassification as a capital contribution of accounting provisions created free of tax for the renewal of the high-voltage transmission network - Decision declaring the aid to be incompatible with the internal market - Force of res judicata - Private investor test))

(2018/C 072/40)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Électricité de France (EDF) (Paris, France) (represented by: M. Debroux, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: É. Gippini Fournier, B. Stromsky and D. Recchia, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Intervener in support of the applicant: French Republic (represented initially by G. de Bergues, D. Colas and J. Bousin, and subsequently by D. Colas and J. Bousin, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the applicant:

Re:

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Articles 1 to 5 of Commission Decision (EU) 2016/154 of 22 July 2015 on State aid SA.13869 (C 68/2002) (ex NN 80/2002) — reclassification as capital of the tax-exempt accounting provisions for the renewal of the high-voltage transmission network implemented by France in favour of EDF (OJ 2016, L 34, p. 152).

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Électricité de France (EDF) to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission, with the exception of those incurred by the latter as a result of the intervention of the French Republic; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Électricité de France (EDF) to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission, with the exception of those incurred by the latter as a result of the intervention of the French Republic;

| 3. | Orders the French Republic to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Commission as a result of its intervention. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the French Republic to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Commission as a result of its intervention.

---

(1)  OJ C 78, 29.2.2016.

1

---
Rialto
CAPITAL(logo)  2018
Annual Statement of Servicer Compliance (Item 1123)  Pooling
and Servicing Agreement (the “Pooling and Servicing Agreement”) dated as of November 1, 2016 by and among CCRE Commercial
Mortgage Securities, L.P. as Depositor, Wells Fargo Bank, National Association as Master Servicer, Rialto Capital Advisors, LLC
as Special Servicer, AEGON USA Realty Advisors, LLC as Potomac Mills Special Servicer, Park Bridge Lender Services LLC as Operating
Advisor and Asset Representations Reviewer, Wilmington Trust, National Association as Trustee and Wells Fargo Bank, National Association
as Certificate Administrator, Paying Agent, and Custodian relating to the CFCRE 2016-C6 Mortgage Trust, Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through
Certificates, Series 2016-C6 (CFCRE 2016-C6)  The undersigned,
a duly authorized officer of Rialto Capital Advisors, LLC, as special servicer (the “Special Servicer”) herein certifies
to the following:  1.
    All servicing activities and performance of such servicing activities under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement are performed on behalf of the Special Servicer.2.
    A review of the servicing activities and performance by the Special Servicer for the period of January 1, 2018 through December 31, 2018 (the “Reporting Period”), under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement has been conducted under my supervision.3.
    To the best of my Knowledge, based on such review, the Special Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the terms of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement, in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period and if there has been a failure to fulfill any such obligations in any material respect, each failure and the nature and status thereof has been specifically identified herein.  Certified by:
    /s/ Adam Singer
    
    Date: March 1, 2019Adam Singer, Managing Director
No. 39076.

#### Protests 380606-G, etc., of Mary Liotta, Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

The record showed that certain of the articles are in chief value of cellulose filaments similar to those involved in Abstract 37230. The claim at 60 percent under paragraph 31 was therefore sustained.
Before the Second Division,

March 10, 1943

No. 48082.

#### Protests 94227-K, etc., of New York Merchandise Co., Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel brass base shells and electric Christmas wreaths were held dutiable as parts of articles having as an essential feature an electrical element or device, such as signs, as claimed. *New York Merchandise Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(8 Cust. Ct. 209, C. D. 607) and *United States*v. *N. Minami & Co., Inc.*(29 C. C. P. A. 169, C. A. D. 188) followed.
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v HENRY L. MARTIN, Private, U. S. Marine Corps, Appellant

19 USCMA 486, 42 CMR 88

No. 22,873

June 5, 1970

*Lieutenant Martin A. Selzer,*JAGC, USNR, was on the pleadings for Appellant, Accused.

*Lieutenant Colonel Charles J. Keever,*USMC, was on the pleadings for Appellee, United States.

Opinion of the Court

Darden, Judge:

The appellant pleaded guilty to possessing heroin on January 30 and May 15, 1969. Because of the date of these offenses the introduction of a record of nonjudicial Article 15 punishment during the post-finding portion of this court-martial was in error. United States v Johnson, 19 USCMA 464, 42 CMR 66 (1970). Moreover, there is a fair risk of resulting prejudice, since this inadmissible matter reflects a prior absence without leave, two thefts, and disrespect toward a superior officer. Because of the substantial nature of the earlier offenses we think the sentence should be reexamined. Accordingly, the decision of the Court of Military Review as to sentence is reversed. The record of trial is returned to the Judge Advocate General of the Navy for submission to the Court of Military Review for reconsideration of the sentence in light of this opinion.

Chief Judge Quinn concurs.

Ferguson, Judge

(concurring in the result) :

I concur in the result for the reasons set forth in my separate opinion in United States v Johnson, 19 USCMA 464, 42 CMR 66 (1970).
#### Alberto Leandro Maldonado PEREZ, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 04-72095.

Agency No. [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Sept. 12, 2005.*

Decided Sept. 15, 2005.

Law Offices of Sarah J.M. Jones, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.

Regional Counsel, Western Region Immigration & Naturalization Service, Laguna Niguel, CA, OIL, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Offiee of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before REINHARDT, RYMER and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM**

Alberto Leandro Maldonado Perez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) dismissal of his appeal from an immigration judge’s denial of his application for cancellation of removal.

We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s discretionary determination that Maldonado Perez failed to establish good moral character for purposes of cancellation of removal. *See Moran v. Ashcroft,*395 F.3d 1089, 1091 (9th Cir.2005) (a moral character determination is reviewable only where it falls under one of the per se exclusion categories contained in 8 U.S.C. § 1101(f)); *cf. Gomez-Lopez v. Ashcroft,*393 F.3d 882, 884 (9th Cir.2005).

We also lack jurisdiction to review the denial of voluntary departure. *See Gomez-Lopez,*393 F.3d at 884.

PETITION FOR REVIEW 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 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
<PAGE>

Exhibit 99.3

                           UNIFAB INTERNATIONAL, INC.
                             SECOND QUARTER RESULTS


New Iberia, LA - (Business Wire) - August 14, 2002-- UNIFAB International, Inc.
(NASDAQSC: UFAB) today reported net loss of $3.4 million ($0.42 per share, basic
and diluted) on revenue of $8.4 million for the three months ended June 30,
2002, compared to net loss of $591,000 ($0.07 per share, basic and diluted) on
revenue of $22.9 million for the three months ended June 30, 2001. Depreciation
and amortization for the quarter was $638,000 compared to $654,000 in the June
quarter last year. The Company reported backlog of approximately $7.2 million at
June 30, 2002. At June 30, 2002 the Company is in default under the terms of its
Senior Secured Credit Agreement and consequently has classified $22,667,000
outstanding under the agreement as a current liability.

Included in cost of revenue in the June quarter, are valuation reserves of
$408,000 on inventory, mainly waste processing modules manufactured by the
Environmental Division, asset impairment costs of $252,000 related to certain
assets acquired in the OBI acquisition which have no remaining utility, and
$550,000 in reserves related to contract disputes arising in the quarter.
Included in SG&A for the June quarter are payments totaling $150,000 related to
settlement of employment contracts with former corporate executives. Other
expense includes a $477,000 loss on the transfer of buildings and other
leasehold improvements in full settlement of all obligations under and
cancellation of the leases on the drilling rig repair facility in the Port of
Iberia net of $126,000 gain on the sale of assets formerly used in plant
maintenance operations. Drilling rig repair services will be performed at the
Company's main facility in the Port of Iberia and at the Company's deepwater
facility in Lake Charles, Louisiana.

UNIFAB International, Inc. is a custom fabricator of topside facilities,
equipment modules and other structures used in the development and production of
oil and gas reserves. In addition, the Company designs and manufactures
specialized process systems, refurbishes and retrofits existing jackets and
decks, provides design, repair, refurbishment and conversion services for oil
and gas drilling rigs and performs offshore piping hook-up and platform
maintenance services.

Statements made in this news release regarding UNIFAB's expectations as to
future operations of the Company and other statements included herein that are
not statements of historical fact are forward-looking statements that depend
upon the following factors, among others: continued demand for the services
provided by UNIFAB, availability of skilled employees. Should any of these
factors not continue as anticipated, actual results and plans could differ
materially from those expressed in the forward-looking statements.
August 26, 2015

VIA ELECTRONIC DOCKET (9-AWA-AGC-Part-16@faa.gov)

Office of the Chief Counsel

Attn: FAA Part 16 Docket Clerk AGC-600

Federal Aviation Administration

800 Independence Ave, SW

Washington, DC 20591

Re: Motion for Preliminary Injunction – Pro-Flight Aviation, Inc. v. City of Renton – Docket 

No. 16-15-03

Dear Sir or Madam:

We represent Pro-Flight Aviation, Inc. (“PFA”), in the above-referenced matter and are 

writing in regard to the Motion for Preliminary Injunction (“Motion”) that was filed by PFA on 

July 17, 2015.

By way of the Motion, PFA requested that the FAA preliminarily enjoin the City of 

Renton, Washington (“City” or “Respondent”) from evicting PFA from the nine tie-down spots 

that it currently leases from the City on the 760 Parcel, pending a final determination in this 

matter. PFA requested this relief because, as it currently stands, it will be evicted from the 760 

Parcel on September 14, 2015,

1

so that the Boeing Company can begin making modifications to 

the 760 Parcel in order to accommodate 737MAX aircraft. If the eviction goes ahead as planned

on September 14th, PFA will be forced to sell or relocate a portion of its flight training aircraft 

fleet and/or limit the transient customers to which it can provide parking and other services.

On August 7, 2015, Respondent submitted an answer to the Motion. Given that time is 

critical, PFA did not seek leave to file or file a reply brief.

PFA understands that your office has a significant number of other matters to attend to, 

and would not normally expect a decision on the Motion to be rendered by this time. However, 

 

1 The original eviction date was August 31, 2015; however, the parties agreed to extend the date until September 14, 

2015, in exchange for PFA agreeing to an extension of time for the City to respond to the Motion and to serve its 

Answer.

80 Ferry Boulevard

Stratford, CT 06615

Phone 203-375-7724

Fax 203-375-9397

Writer’s Direct Extension: 108

bhk@lopal.com

www.lopal.com

445 Park Ave., 9th Floor

New York, NY 10022

Phone 212-385-1215

Fax 212-608-1215

Please Reply To: CT Office
2

given that PFA will be required to make decisions that will have serious and lasting 

consequences for its business if the eviction is allowed to proceed, it respectfully seeks an 

indication as to whether your office expects to decide the Motion before the September 14, 2015 

eviction date.

Thank you for your consideration and assistance on this matter.

Sincerely,

/s/

Benjamin H. Klein 

cc: Zanetta Fontes, Esq., Counsel for Respondent (via email)
### Reconnaissance of the geology and ground-water resources of the Pumpkin Creek area, Morrill and Banner Counties, Nebraska, with a section on the chemical quality of the water

By: H. M. BabcockF. N. VisherW. H. Durum

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/cir156

#### Links

-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- Plate:  **Plate 1**                            (pdf)
- NGMDB Index Page:  **National Geologic Map Database Index Page**
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

No abstract available.

#### Study Area

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.