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


<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                         0000091741
<NAME>                        Sonesta International Hotels Corporation
<MULTIPLIER>                                      1000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               Sep-30-1999
<CASH>                                           4,300
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    7,088
<ALLOWANCES>                                       152
<INVENTORY>                                      1,281
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                14,828
<PP&E>                                         114,247
<DEPRECIATION>                                  31,106
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 100,951
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           18,833
<BONDS>                                         49,701
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                        294
<COMMON>                                         3,488
<OTHER-SE>                                      21,735
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   100,951
<SALES>                                         18,963
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                74,889
<CGS>                                            4,687
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   30,990
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                36,659
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,475
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  8,137
<INCOME-TAX>                                     3,045
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              5,092
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     5,092
<EPS-BASIC>                                     1.27
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.27



</TABLE>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Keith Young, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from two judgments of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Marrus, J.), both rendered December 9, 1987, convicting him of robbery in the first degree (five counts), rape in the first degree (two counts), burglary in the first degree (two counts), sodomy in the first degree (two counts), and sexual abuse in the first degree (five counts), under indictment No. 8686/86, upon a jury verdict, and robbery in the first degree (five counts), rape in the first degree (four counts), burglary in the first degree (two counts), sexual abuse in the first degree (two counts), and sodomy in the first degree, under indictment No. 663/87, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentences.

Ordered that the judgments are affirmed.

The defendant’s conviction under indictment No. 8686/86 is predicated on five distinct incidents which occurred during October and November 1986 at five different apartment buildings in Brooklyn, New York. The crimes, which involved five victims, were joined in one indictment. With respect to indictment No. 663/87, the defendant’s convictions are again based on five distinct incidents which occurred during March, October, November and December 1986 at five different apartment buildings in Brooklyn, New York. The crimes, which involved another set of five victims, were joined under a second and separate indictment. Each indictment was the subject of a separate trial.

We note that the crimes joined in each indictment were "the same or similar in law” (CPL 200.20 [2] [c]) and were consequently properly joinable *(see, People v Jenkins,*50 NY2d 981; *People v Martin,*141 AD2d 854; *People v Nelson,*133 AD2d 470). The defendant argues that the court at each trial improvidently exercised its discretion in denying his severance application since each trial resulted in the jury considering together the evidence with respect to the different crimes.

We disagree. There is no basis in the record to support the assertion that the defendant suffered prejudice as a result of the denial of either one of his severance applications. At each *442trial the defendant was identified as the perpetrator by each victim and the proof of each crime was separately presented, uncomplicated and easily segregable in the minds of the jurors *(see, People v Martin, supra; People v Nelson, supra).*There was no substantial difference in the quantity of proof at either trial for the crimes. Indeed, the independent proof of each crime was overwhelming *(see, People v Martin, supra).*The jury was instructed at each trial to consider each count separately in determining whether the People proved the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. We may presume those instructions were followed *(see, People v Nelson, supra).*

The defendant’s other contention regarding the alleged commingling of the evidence under indictment No. 8686/86 is unpreserved for appellate review *(see,*CPL 470.05 [2]; *People v Medina,*53 NY2d 951). In any event, it is without merit *(cf., People v Pinkas,*156 AD2d 485). Bracken, J. P., Kunzeman, Kooper and Balletta, JJ., concur.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

WACO DIVISION

WSOU INVESTMENTS, LLC D/B/A 

BRAZOS LICENSING AND 

DEVELOPMENT,

Plaintiff,

v. 

MICROSOFT CORPORATION,

Defendant.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

CIVIL ACTION 6:20-cv-00454-ADA

CIVIL ACTION 6:20-cv-00455-ADA

CIVIL ACTION 6:20-cv-00456-ADA

CIVIL ACTION 6:20-cv-00457-ADA

CIVIL ACTION 6:20-cv-00458-ADA

CIVIL ACTION 6:20-cv-00459-ADA

CIVIL ACTION 6:20-cv-00460-ADA

CIVIL ACTION 6:20-cv-00461-ADA

CIVIL ACTION 6:20-cv-00462-ADA

CIVIL ACTION 6:20-cv-00463-ADA

CIVIL ACTION 6:20-cv-00464-ADA

CIVIL ACTION 6:20-cv-00465-ADA

WSOU’S NOTICE OF COMPLIANCE REGARDING DISCLOSURE OF EXTRINSIC 

EVIDENCE

TO THE HONORABLE COURT:

Pursuant to the Court’s Version 3.2 of the Court’s Order Governing proceedings entered 

November 5, 2020, and in accordance with the Court’s Scheduling Order, Plaintiff hereby notifies 

the Court Plaintiff has disclosed its extrinsic evidence for use in claim construction on Defendant 

Microsoft Corporation via electronic mail on December 11, 2020. 

Case 6:20-cv-00454-ADA Document 45 Filed 12/12/20 Page 1 of 2
Date: December 12, 2020 Respectfully submitted,

By: /s/ Mark D. Siegmund_____ 

Mark D. Siegmund

State Bar No. 24117055

mark@waltfairpllc.com

Law Firm of Walt, Fair PLLC.

1508 North Valley Mills Drive 

Waco, Texas 76710

Telephone: (254) 772-6400

Facsimile: (254) 772-6432

Counsel for Plaintiff WSOU Investments, LLC

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

A true and correct copy of the foregoing instrument was served or delivered 

electronically via U.S. District Court [LIVE]- Document Filing System, to all counsel of record, 

on this the 12th day of December 2020.

/s/ Mark D. Siegmund

Mark D. Siegmund

Case 6:20-cv-00454-ADA Document 45 Filed 12/12/20 Page 2 of 2
EXHIBIT 31.1I, Jason Liddell, certify that:     1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K, and all reports onForm 8-K containing distribution or servicing reports filed in respect ofperiods included in the year covered by this annual report, of Merrill LynchDepositor, Inc., on behalf of PreferredPLUS Trust Series MSD-1;     2. Based on my knowledge, the information in these reports, taken as awhole, does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to statea material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading as of thelast day of the period covered by this annual report;     3. Based on my knowledge, the distribution or servicing informationrequired to be provided to the depositor by the trustee under the pooling andservicing, or similar, agreement, for inclusion in these reports is included inthese reports;     4. I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by thedepositor and the trustee under the pooling and servicing, or similar, agreementand based upon my knowledge and the annual compliance review required under thatagreement, and except as disclosed in the reports, the depositor and trusteehave each fulfilled its obligations under that agreement; and     5. The reports disclose all significant deficiencies relating to thecompliance by the depositor or trustee with the minimum servicing or similarstandards based upon the report provided by an independent public accountant,after conducting a review in compliance with the Uniform Single AttestationProgram for Mortgage Bankers or similar procedure, as set forth in the poolingor servicing, or similar, agreement, that is included in these reports.In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on informationprovided to me by the following unaffiliated parties: The Bank of New York andits officers and agents.        Date: March 26, 2007 /s/ Jason Liddell   Vice President
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5433 

To suspend temporarily the duty on lightweight digital camera lenses 

measuring approximately 10 mm or more. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 7, 2012 

Mr. ISRAEL introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on lightweight digital 

camera lenses measuring approximately 10 mm or more. 

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

3 SECTION 1. LIGHTWEIGHT DIGITAL CAMERA LENSES MEAS4 URING APPROXIMATELY 10 MM OR MORE. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

6 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

7 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

8 new heading: 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5433 IH

‘‘ 9902.01.00 Lenses designed for digital 

cameras, the foregoing 

with a focal length measuring approximately 10 

mm or more but not over 

24 mm and weighing between 455 and 465 grams 

(provided for in subheading 9002.11.90) ......... Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2014 ’’. 

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

2 subsection (a) applies to articles entered, or withdrawn 

3 from warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day 

4 after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 187 (Tuesday, September 26, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 57848]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-24856]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

POSTAL SERVICE BOARD OF GOVERNORS


Sunshine Act Meeting

Board Votes To Close September 22, 2000, Special Meeting

    By recorded vote on September 20, 2000, a majority of the Board of 
Governors of the United States Postal Service voted to hold a special 
meeting by telephone conference call and close it to public observation 
on September 22, 2000.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:
    1. Priority Mail Processing Center Contract.
    Persons Expected to Attend: Governors Ballard, Daniels, del Junco, 
Dyhrkopp, Fineman, and Walsh; Postmaster General Henderson, Deputy 
Postmaster General Nolan, Secretary of the Board Hunter, and General 
Counsel Gibbons.
    General Counsel Certification: The General Counsel of the United 
States Postal Service has certified that the meeting may be closed 
under the Government in the Sunshine Act.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Requests for information about the 
special meeting should be addressed to the Secretary of the Board, 
David G. Hunter, at (202) 268-4800.

David G. Hunter,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-24856 Filed 9-22-00; 3:46 pm]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-M
#### Ex parte BLACK (two cases).

Nos. 25947, 25948.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

June 25, 1952.

Florence and Florence, Gilmer, C. E. Florence, for appellant.

George P. Blackburn, State’s Atty. of Austin, for the State.

MORRISON, Judge.

These are appeals from orders of the District Court of Wood County denying appellant bail in two murder cases pending against him, one for killing Jack Gilliam and another for killing his wife, on the docket of said court.

At the hearing, the State produced witnesses who saw the. appellant drive up to Gilliam’s house and shoot Gilliam at close range with a shotgun and continue to shoot after Gilliam called upon him to desist. Another witness testified that, immediately after he heard certain shots fired, he saw the appellant leaving; and the appellant told him that he had “killed his wife and hoped to hell he killed Jack”. The witness then went where appellant directed him and found appellant’s wife dead from gun shot wounds.

We have read the record carefully, but refrain, as is our custom in such cases, from writing extensively on the facts.

Able counsel for both the State and the appellant have been helpful to this Court in reaching a decision in this matter.

Appellant says his case is parallel to the case before this Court in Ex parte Varnado, 215 S.W.2d 165. In that case, the relator below testified at the hearing and told of improper relations between his wife and White, both of whom he was charged with having killed. By doing so, he put his defense in the record for this Court to review. Such is not the case before us here. It will be further observed that one member of the present Court saw fit to enter his dissent to the opinion granting bail in that case.

Appellant contends that, since the killings were unexplained and since the State has not shown malice, he is. entitled to bail.

We have concluded that malice has been shown such as would warrant the trial court in refusing bail. ■ -

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Exhibit 31                  Rule 13a-14(d) Certification

                                  CERTIFICATION

     I, Thomas G. Lehmann, a First Vice President of Washington Mutual
Mortgage Securities Corp., certify that:

     1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K, and all reports on Form
8-K containing distribution or servicing reports filed in respect of periods
included in the year covered by this annual report, of WAMU MORTGAGE
PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2002-S3;

     2. Based on my knowledge, the information in these reports, taken as a
whole, does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state
a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the
circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading as of the
last day of the period covered by this annual report;

     3. Based on my knowledge, the distribution or servicing information
required to be provided to the trustee by the servicer under the pooling and
servicing, or similar, agreement, for inclusion in these reports is included in
these reports;

     4. I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the servicer
under the pooling and servicing, or similar, agreement and based upon my
knowledge and the annual compliance review required under that agreement, and
except as disclosed in the reports, the servicer has fulfilled its obligations
under that agreement; and

     5. The reports disclose all significant deficiencies relating to the
servicer's compliance with the minimum servicing standards based upon the report
provided by an independent public accountant, after conducting a review in
compliance with the Uniform Single Attestation Program for Mortgage Bankers or
similar procedure, as set forth in the pooling and servicing, or similar,
agreement, that is included in these reports.

     In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information
provided to me by the following unaffiliated third parties acting as servicers
and sub-servicers:


None


Dated: March 29, 2005
                                     /s/ Thomas G. Lehmann
                                     ----------------------------------------
                                     Thomas G. Lehmann,
                                     First Vice President
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

SAN ANTONIO DIVISION

ANNA GONZALEZ and RONALD K. 

PAGE, on behalf of themselves and all others 

similarly situated,

Plaintiffs,

v.

STATE FARM LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY,

Defendant.

Civil Action No. SA-20-CV-617-FB-ESC

CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE

I hereby certify that on June 15, 2021, I conferred via email with counsel for Defendant 

in a good-faith attempt to reach agreement regarding Plaintiff’s Unopposed Motion for Leave to 

File Under Seal Plaintiff’s Memorandum in Support of Motion for Class Certification and 

Certain Exhibits Thereto (Doc. 80), and I further certify that Defendant does not oppose the 

motion to seal or sealing State Farm’s confidential materials. 

Dated: June 22, 2021 Respectfully Submitted,

STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP

/s/ Ethan M. Lange

Norman E. Siegel (pro hac vice)

siegel@stuevesiegel.com

Lindsay Todd Perkins (pro hac vice)

perkins@stuevesiegel.com

Ethan M. Lange (Tex. Bar No. 24064150)

lange@stuevesiegel.com

460 Nichols Road, Suite 200

Kansas City, Missouri 64112

Tel: 816-714-7100

Fax: 816-714-7101

Case 5:20-cv-00617-FB-ESC Document 82 Filed 06/22/21 Page 1 of 3
2

John J. Schirger (pro hac vice)

jschirger@millerschirger.com

Matthew W. Lytle (pro hac vice)

mlytle@millerschirger.com

Joseph M. Feierabend (pro hac vice)

jfeierabend@millerschirger.com

MILLER SCHIRGER, LLC 

4520 Main Street, Suite 1570

Kansas City, Missouri 64111

Tel: 816-561-6500

Fax: 816-561-6501

James T. Clancy (Tex. Bar No. 00795292)

jclancy@branscomblaw.com

BRANSCOMB, PLLC

802 N. Carancahua, Suite 1900

Corpus Christi, Texas 78401-0036

Tel: (361) 886-3800

Fax: (361) 886-3805

Attorneys for Plaintiff

Case 5:20-cv-00617-FB-ESC Document 82 Filed 06/22/21 Page 2 of 3
3

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on June 22, 2021, I electronically filed the foregoing document with 

the Clerk of the Court by using the CM/ECF system, which will send notification of such filing 

to all counsel of record.

/s/ Ethan M. Lange

Attorney for Plaintiff

Case 5:20-cv-00617-FB-ESC Document 82 Filed 06/22/21 Page 3 of 3
----

Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 24 March 2006 — Sumitomo Chemical Agro Europe and Philagro France v Commission

(Case T-454/05 R)

(Application for interim measures - Directive 91/414/EEC - Admissibility)

(2006/C 121/22)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Sumitomo Chemical Agro Europe SAS (Saint-Didier-au-Mont-d'Or, France) and Philagro France SAS (Saint-Didier-au-Mont-d'Or) (represented by: K. Van Maldegem and C. Mereu, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: B. Doherty, Agent)

Re:

Application, first, for suspension of a decision allegedly contained in a letter from the Commission of 20 October 2005 and, second, for an order for interim measures concerning the administrative procedure conducted before the Commission for the inclusion of procymidone in Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (OJ 1991 L 230, p.1)

Operative part of the order

----
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 191 (Monday, October 2, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 58765]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-25119]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP00-557-000]


Texas Eastern Transmission Corporation; Notice of Proposed 
Changes in FERC Gas Tariff

September 26, 2000.
    Take notice that on September 22, 2000, Texas Eastern Transmission 
Corporation (Texas Eastern) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas 
Tariff, Sixth Revised Volume No. 1, the following tariff sheets, to be 
effective on October 15, 2000.

Sixth Revised Volume No. 1
First Revised Sheet No. 926
First Revised Sheet No. 930

    Texas Eastern states that the purpose of this filing is to modify 
the LINKr System Agreement contained in Sheet Nos. 926 through 930 of 
the Tariff to add East Tennessee Natural Gas Company to the list of 
companies utilizing this agreement, as East Tennessee is now an 
affiliate of Texas Eastern, and to remove Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line 
Company (Panhandle) and Trunkline Gas Company (Trunkline) from that 
list, as Panhandle and Trunkline are no longer affiliates of Texas 
Eastern.
    Texas Eastern states that copies of its filing have been mailed to 
all affected customers and interested state commissions.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426, 
in accordance with Sections 385.214 of 385.211 of the Commission's 
Rules and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed in 
accordance with Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. 
Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the 
appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants 
parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must 
file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the 
Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public 
Reference Room. This filing may be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm. (call 202-208-2222 for assistance).

David P. Boergers,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-25119 Filed 9-29-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
Exhibit 31.1

I, Lowell C. McAdam, certify that:



|1. | I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 on Form 10-K/A of Cellco Partnership; and
|-- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|2. | Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in
light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report.
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                    |  |  |  |                         |  |                                                        |  | 
|------------------- |  |  |  | ----------------------- |  | ------------------------------------------------------ |  | 
|Date: April 8, 2010 |  |  |  | /s/    Lowell C. McAdam |  |                                                       
|                    |  |  |  |                         |  | Lowell C. McAdam President and Chief Executive Officer |  |