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

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 315 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. CON. RES. 315

    Supporting the idea that coalition victory in Iraq is possible.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 11, 2008

 Mr. Wilson of South Carolina (for himself, Mr. Hensarling, Mr. Akin, 
 Mr. Bachus, Mr. Barrett of South Carolina, Mr. Barton of Texas, Mrs. 
 Blackburn, Mr. Boehner, Mr. Brady of Texas, Mr. Broun of Georgia, Mr. 
Burton of Indiana, Mr. Campbell of California, Mr. Cantor, Mr. Carter, 
Mr. Chabot, Mr. Conaway, Mrs. Cubin, Mr. Culberson, Mr. David Davis of 
 Tennessee, Ms. Fallin, Ms. Foxx, Mr. Franks of Arizona, Mr. Gingrey, 
  Mr. Gohmert, Ms. Granger, Mr. Herger, Mr. Issa, Mr. Sam Johnson of 
  Texas, Mr. King of Iowa, Mr. Kingston, Mr. Kline of Minnesota, Mr. 
  Lamborn, Mr. Latta, Mr. Lewis of Kentucky, Mr. Lucas, Mr. Mack, Mr. 
 Marchant, Mr. McCaul of Texas, Mr. McHenry, Mr. McKeon, Mr. Miller of 
  Florida, Mrs. Musgrave, Mrs. Myrick, Mr. Neugebauer, Mr. Pence, Mr. 
   Pitts, Mr. Platts, Mr. Poe, Mr. Price of Georgia, Mr. Putnam, Mr. 
Radanovich, Mr. Sali, Mr. Sessions, Mr. Shadegg, Mr. Smith of Nebraska, 
Mr. Smith of Texas, and Mr. Walberg) submitted the following concurrent 
   resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
    Supporting the idea that coalition victory in Iraq is possible.

    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That the Congress--
            (1) supports the idea that the war in Iraq is not lost;
            (2) recognizes that the overall progress being made on the 
        ground in Iraq is undeniable;
            (3) recognizes that much of this progress is due to the 
        skill, persistence, and valor of the American service member;
            (4) recognizes that the decision by the President and our 
        military leadership to provide a surge of troops to implement a 
        new counterinsurgency strategy was the correct course of action 
        and has been successful; and
            (5) hopes for, and will do all it can to help ensure, 
        coalition victory there as soon as possible.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 11.1


                      COMPETITIVE TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
               Schedule of Computation of Earnings Per Share
                                (Unaudited)


                                                    Quarter
                                                ended October 31,
                                                1999        1998


Net loss applicable to common stock         $ (141,066) $ (315,448)


Common and common equivalent shares -
    diluted:
  Basic weighted average common shares
    outstanding                              6,002,640   5,990,979
  Adjustments for assumed exercise of
    stock options                               30,261*      1,012*
  Adjustments for assumed exercise of
    stock warrants                                  --*         --*
  Weighted average number of common and
    common equivalent shares outstanding     6,032,901   5,991,991

Net loss per share of common stock:
    Basic and diluted                       $    (0.02) $    (0.05)

* Anti-dilutive.

These calculations are submitted in accordance with Regulation S-K item 601
(b)  (11)  which differs from the requirements of paragraph 13 of Statement
of   Financial  Accounting  Standards  No.  128  because  they  produce  an
anti-dilutive result.
Mass Certification - MA-00071 Conn Certification - PH-0520 

## Mt.Tom Generating Co. LLC Analytical Laboratory 15 Agawam Avenue West Springfield, MA 01089 Phone (413) 214-6541 Fax (413) 214-6842 email-madhu.shah@gdfsuezna.com August 5, 2010 A. Douglass Analysis of # 6 Oil 

### Enclosed are Report No(s): 23979..23981 Samples Analyzed

Customer Sample Description Laboratory Supervisor Madhu Shah madhu.shah@gdfsuezna.com eMail Report Date



# Thank you for your business Madhu Shah, Laboratory Supervisor Date West Springfield Contact

ALL the information contained in this report has been reviewed for accuracy and checked against all quality control requirements outlined in each applicable method. This report may not be reproduced, except in full, without written approval from Mt.Tom Generating Co.LLC Analytical Laboratory.1 Page of2 Mt.Tom Generating Co. LLC Analytical Laboratory10-1179 Work Order 

### Sample Analysis Sb-Antimony Total ppm EPA 200.9 2.29 1.00 08/05/10 dfp Parameter Results Method MDL Analyzed/Time 23979 3/29/10 # 6 Oil Bottom West Springfield 4/1/10 Source Taken/Time Received SampleDescription Tech Sb-Antimony Total ppm EPA 200.9 2.32 1.00 08/05/10 dfp Parameter Results Method MDL Analyzed/Time 23980 3/30/10 # 6 Oil Middle West Springfield 4/1/10 Source Taken/Time Received SampleDescription Tech Sb-Antimony Total ppm EPA 200.9 2.14 1.00 08/05/10 dfp Parameter Results Method MDL Analyzed/Time 23981 3/30/10 # 6 Oil Top West Springfield 4/1/10 Source Taken/Time Received SampleDescription Tech

2 Page of2 Mt.Tom Generating Co. LLC Analytical Laboratory
EXHIBIT 23.1

Consent of Ernst & Young LLP, Independent Auditors

We
consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-3 (No. 333-43600) pertaining to the registration of 5,961,973 shares of the
Company's common stock, Form S-3 (No. 333-71330) pertaining to the registration of 2,085,271 shares of the Company's common stock and Forms S-8, the 1996 Equity Incentive Plan,
1998-A Direct Hit Stock Plan and 1999 Non-Officer Equity Incentive Plan (No. 333-33694), 1999 Equity Incentive Plan and 1999 Employee Stock Purchase Plan
(No. 333-88435), Net Effect Systems, Inc. 1997 Stock Plan (No. 333-95687), and 1999 Non-Officer Equity Incentive Plan and 1999 Employee Stock Purchase Plan
(No. 333-73400) and in the related Prospectuses of Ask Jeeves, Inc. of our report dated February 1, 2002, except for Note 17, as to which the date is February 7, 2002, with
respect to the consolidated financial statements and financial statement schedule of Ask Jeeves, Inc. included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended
December 31, 2001.

Walnut
Creek, California
February 26, 2002

---

QuickLinks
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 09**  **- 7555** 

TERELL MOORE , Petitioner

- Appellant ,
v. GENE M. JOHNSON , Respondent

- Appellee
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of V irginia , at Roanoke
. Glen E. Conrad , District Judge. ( 7:08

- cv - 00526

- gec - mfu )

Submitted : March 30 , 2010 Decided: April 2, 2010

Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and SHEDD , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
.
Terell Moore, A ppellant Pro Se. Joanne Virginia Frye, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee
. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Terell Moore seeks to appeal the district court’s order den ying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (200 6 ) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253 (c)(1) (2006 ). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “ a substant ial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. ” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006 ). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatabl e or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. See Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683

- 84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Moore has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Moore’s motion for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We further deny Moore’s motion for the appointment of counse l. We dispense with oral argum ent because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process. DISMISSED
#### Richard W. WILLIAMS, Victor L. Davis, Sr., as personal representative of the Estate of Lakisha M. Davis, Deceased, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, A Foreign Corporation, Thomas Christiansen, Tracy Boltin, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 05-11793

Non-Argument Calendar.

D.C. Docket No. 04-00173-CV-4-SPM.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

Sept. 7, 2005.

Weslee Leigh Ferron, Michael T. Callahan, Callahan *&*Martinez, L.L.C., St. Petersburg, FL, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.

Stephen Dennis Gill, B. Richard Young, Young, Bill, Fugett & Roumbos P.A., Pensacola, FL, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before CARNES, MARCUS and WILSON, Circuit Judges.

*276PER CURIAM.

Plaintiffs-Appellants Richard W. Williams (‘Williams”) and Victor L. Davis, Sr. (“Davis”), as personal representative of the estate of Lakisha M. Davis, deceased, appeal the district court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of GEICO General Insurance Company (“GEICO”).1

Williams was insured by GEICO through an automobile liability policy when he was involved in a fatal car accident in which Davis and his son were seriously injured, and his wife was fatally injured. After an excess judgment was entered against Williams, he and Davis filed a complaint seeking damages for GEICO’s alleged bad faith in failing to negotiate a settlement for the policy limits. In granting summary judgment in GEICO’s favor, the district court concluded that GEICO “did not act in bad faith toward its insured.”

Upon a *de novo*review of the record and consideration of the parties’ briefs, we agree with the district court that there is insufficient record evidence that would lead a rational trier of fact to conclude that GEICO acted in bad faith in handling Davis’s bodily injury and death claim against Williams. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order granting summary judgment in GEICO’s favor.

AFFIRMED.

1

. Prior to granting summary judgment in favor of GEICO, the district court dismissed Defendants Thomas Christiansen and Tracy Boltin as fraudulently joined.
(logo) Rialto CAPITAL

 

 

**2016 Annual Statement ofServicer Compliance (Item 1123)**

 

 

Pooling and ServicingAgreement (the “Pooling and Servicing Agreement”) dated as of May 1,2016 by and among Morgan Stanley Capital I, Inc. as Depositor, Wells FargoBank, National Association as Master Servicer, Rialto Capital Advisors, LLC asSpecial Servicer, Wilmington Trust, National Association as Trustee, WellsFargo Bank, National Association as Certificate Administrator and Park BridgeLender Services LLC as Operating Advisor and Asset Representations Reviewerrelating to Morgan Stanley Bank of America Merrill Lynch Trust 2016-C29,Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2016-C29 **(MSBAM2016-C29)**

 

 

The undersigned, a dulyauthorized officer of Rialto Capital Advisors, LLC, as special servicer (the“Special Servicer”) herein certifies to the following:

 

1.  All servicingactivities and performance of such servicing activities under the Pooling andServicing Agreement are performed on behalf of the Special Servicer.

 

2.  A review of theservicing activities and performance by the Special Servicer for the period ofMay 5, 2016 to December 31, 2016 (the “Reporting Period”) inaccordance with the Pooling and Servicing Agreement has been conducted under mysupervision.

 

3.  To the best ofmy knowledge, based on such review, the Special Servicer has fulfilled all ofits obligations under the terms of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement, in allmaterial respects for the Reporting Period and if there has been a failure tofulfill any such obligations in any material respect, each failure and thenature and status thereof has been specifically identified herein.

 

 

Certified by: /s/ AdamSinger                                                 Date: March 1, 2017

Adam Singer, Managing Director
No. 65738.

#### J. Einstein, Inc., and J. J. Boll et al. *v.*United States,

protests 234925-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of nylon fabrics similar in all material respects to those the *517subject of *United States*v. *Steinberg Bros.*(47 C.C.P.A. 47, C.A.D. 727), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v THOMAS A. CLARK, Private First Class, U. S. Marine Corps, Appellant

10 USCMA 614, 28 CMR 180

No. 13,192

Decided August 14, 1959

*Major Lester E. Wilkes*was on the brief for Appellant, Accused.

*Lieutenant Colonel J. E. Stauffer*was on the brief for Appellee, United States.

Opinion of the Court

ROBERT E. Quinn, Chief Judge:

The accused was convicted of aggravated assault, in violation of Article 128, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 USC § 928. The principal contested issue at the trial was whether the accused or someone else cut the victim during a street fight. In the post-trial advice to the convening authority, the staff legal officer summarized the evidence for both the Government and defense, but did not give any reason for his recommendation that the evidence established the accused’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Before the board of review, the accused contended that under our decision in United States v Bennie, 10 USCMA 159, 27 CMR 233, the review was legally inadequate. The issue was decided against him. For the reasons set out in the *Bennie*case, we hold that the board of review erred.

The decision of the board of review is reversed. The record of trial is returned to The Judge Advocate General of the Navy for submission to a corn-petent convening authority for further proceedings in accordance with Articles 61 and 64 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 USC §§ 861, 864.

Judge Ferguson concurs.

Latimer, Judge

(dissenting):

I dissent.

Here, in his post-trial review, the staff legal officer set forth a full summary of the evidence presented by both parties, advised the convening authority that he noted no errors or irregularities, and as to the adequacy and weight of the evidence gave his opinion that the competent evidence of record established accused’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and that the findings were correct in law and fact. Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in my dissenting opinion in United States v Bennie, 10 USCMA 159, 27 CMR 233, I must disagree with the conclusion of my associates.

I would affirm the decision of the board of review.
### A brief geologic and hydrologic reconnaissance of the Furnace Creek Wash area, Death Valley National Monument, California

By: Marvin Arthur PistrangFred Kunkel

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/wsp1779Y

#### Links

-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- Plate:  **Plate 1**                            (pdf)
- NGMDB Index Page:  **National Geologic Map Database Index Page**                            (html)
- Superseded Publications:
                                        A brief geologic and hydrologic reconnaissance of the Furnace Creek wash area, Death Valley National Monument, California(1958)                                    

                                        A brief summary of ground water in the Furnace Creek Wash area, Death Valley National Monument, California(1963)                                    

                                        A brief geologic and hydrologic reconnaissance of the Furnace Creek Wash area, Death Valley National Monument, California(1963)                                    

- 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.
<PAGE>   1

                                                                    Exhibit 11

                  Statement re: computation of per share earnings

                  The following table reconciles the weighted average shares
outstanding and the income available to common shareholders used for basic and
diluted earnings per share:
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                            Year ended December 31, 
                                                       1998           1997         1996
<S>                                                 <C>             <C>           <C>

Weighted average number of common shares
         Outstanding used in basic earnings per
         Common Share calculation                     1,536,821      595,942      548,089
Dilutive effect of stock options                             14            0            0

Weighted average number of shares outstanding
         adjusted for effect of dilutive securties
         used in diluted EPS calculation              1,536,835      595,942      548,089

Net income                                           $  672,264     $343,957   $  211,943

Basic earnings per common share                      $      .44     $    .58   $      .39

Diluted earnings per common share                    $      .44     $    .58   $      .39

</TABLE>
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:****VA/DOD clinical practiceguideline for the management of pregnancy [electronic resource].**
PDF--2018|PDF-- clinician's summary |PDF-- patient's summary |PDF-- pocket card |
 
2009editions
 
SuDoc Number:VA 1.10:P 91/2

Item Number: 0987 (online)

CGP systemNumber:001083162 
October 24, 2018
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
SonomaWest Holdings, Inc. condensed financial statements for the interim period
ended September 30, 2000 included in Form 10-Q and is qualified in its entirety
by refernce to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                   0000102588
<NAME>                  SONOMAWEST HHOLDINGS, INC.
<MULTIPLIER>            1,000
<CURRENCY>              USD

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              JUN-30-2001
<PERIOD-START>                                 JUL-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         7,446
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  115
<ALLOWANCES>                                   8
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               9,071
<PP&E>                                         7,834
<DEPRECIATION>                                 5,091
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 12,026
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          705
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       2,905
<OTHER-SE>                                     6,309
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   12,026
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               243
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  517
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (133)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             (45)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (186)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (75)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (111)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 90
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (21)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (0.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.01)




</TABLE>
<PAGE>
 
                                                                      Exhibit 21


                                PRIMESTAR, Inc.
                            a Delaware corporation
                        incorporated on August 27, 1997
                             Fed ID # 84-1441684
                                        

                            SUBSIDIARY INFORMATION


Subsidiary               Fed ID #     State of Inc.   Date of Inc.
------------------------------------------------------------------

PRIMESTAR MDU, Inc.     84-1352884       Delaware        6/21/96

PRIMESTAR Partner
 Holdings, Inc.         84-1385150       Delaware        2/19/97

PRIMESTAR Partner 1,    84-1353963       Colorado        7/9/96
 Inc. (a subsidiary of
 PRIMESTAR Partner
 Holdings, Inc.)      

PRIMESTAR Partner 2,    84-1353961       Colorado        7/9/96
 Inc. (a subsidiary of
 PRIMESTAR Partner 
 Holdings, Inc.)

PRIMESTAR Partners,     23-2601075       Delaware        2/16/90
 L.P.