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

<ARTICLE>             9
<MULTIPLIER>          1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                             624
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                           4,311
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                          0
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                           3,000
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                               747
<LOANS>                                         93,508
<ALLOWANCE>                                        699
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 105,430
<DEPOSITS>                                      78,630
<SHORT-TERM>                                     4,000
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              1,346
<LONG-TERM>                                      8,469
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            16
<OTHER-SE>                                      12,969
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 105,430
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  2,028
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                   53
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                    83
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 2,164
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               1,028
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 166
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                              970
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                       12
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                    563
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    455
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                         455
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       455
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .21
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .20
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    3.79
<LOANS-NON>                                      3,465
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                   704
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                       18
<RECOVERIES>                                         1
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                  699
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                               699
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.2

 

 

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANTTOSECTION 906**

**OFTHESARBANES-OXLEYACT**

 

In connection with the amended Quarterly Report of Highwoods Realty Limited Partnership (the “Operating Partnership”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Terry L. Stevens, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Highwoods Properties, Inc., general partner of the Operating Partnership, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

|   | 1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and |
|--------|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | 2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Operating Partnership. |
|--------|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

| /s/ TERRYL.STEVENS                                                                       |   |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Terry L. StevensSenior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the General Partner |   |
| March 12, 2008                                                                 |   |
##### 



Exhibit 31.1
 CATALYTICA ENERGY SYSTEMS, INC.
CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
PURSUANT TO
RULE 13a-14(a) / 15d-14(a) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Catalytica Energy Systems, Inc.;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this annual 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;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in
this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of
operations and cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented
in this report;4.
    
    The small business issuers other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act
Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and have:
    5.
    
    The small business issuers other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business
issuers auditors and the audit committee of the small s business issuers board of directors
(or persons performing the equivalent functions):
   Date: March 23, 2007By:
    
    /s/ Robert W. ZackName:
    
    Robert W. ZackTitle:
    
    Chief Executive Officer
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 216 (Tuesday, November 7, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 66763]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-28574]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

National Park Service


Meeting: The Christmas Pageant of Peace

    The National Park Service is seeking public comments and 
suggestions on the planning of the 2000 Christmas Pageant of Peace, 
which opens on December 11, 2000, on the Ellipse (President's Park), 
south of the White House. The meeting will be held at 11 a.m. on 
Friday, November 17, in room 234 of the National Capital Region 
Building, at 1100 Ohio Drive, SW, Washington, DC (East Potomac Park).
    Persons who would like to comment at the meeting should notify the 
National Park Service by November 15 by calling the White House Visitor 
Center weekdays between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m. at (202) 208-1631. Written 
comments may be sent to the Park Manager, White House Visitor Center, 
1100 Ohio Drive, SW, Washington, DC 20252, and can be accepted until 
November 14.

    Dated: November 1, 2000.
Stan E. Lock,
Deputy Director, White House Liaison.
[FR Doc. 00-28574 Filed 11-6-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-70-M
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

 v. 

CHELSEA SHANNON McINTYRE, 

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 22-50019 

D.C. No. 2:19-cr-00236-RGK-1 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

R. Gary Klausner, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted March 14, 2023**

Before: SILVERMAN, SUNG, and SANCHEZ, Circuit Judges. 

Chelsea Shannon McIntyre appeals from the district court’s judgment and 

challenges the 210-month sentence imposed following her guilty-plea conviction 

for possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 

U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A)(viii). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

MAR 21 2023

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 22-50019 

and we affirm. 

McIntyre contends that her sentence is substantively unreasonable. 

Although she does not dispute that she qualifies as a career offender, she argues 

that the district court should not have considered the resulting guideline range 

because the career offender guideline is not based on sound policy and her 

predicate offenses were relatively minor and remote in time. McIntyre further 

contends that her mitigating circumstances and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors 

warranted a 138-month sentence. The district court did not abuse its discretion. 

See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The below-Guidelines sentence 

is substantively reasonable in light of the § 3553(a) factors and the totality of the 

circumstances, including McIntyre’s criminal history and decision to abscond prior 

to sentencing. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51; see also United States v. GutierrezSanchez, 587 F.3d 904, 908 (9th Cir. 2009) (“The weight to be given the various 

factors in a particular case is for the discretion of the district court.”). Moreover, 

the district court adequately considered her mitigating circumstances and the 

§ 3553(a) factors in arriving at this sentence.

AFFIRMED.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 27 Received in Senate (RDS)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. CON. RES. 27

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

             January 27 (legislative day, January 5), 1993

                                Received

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That when the House adjourns on Wednesday, January 27, 1993, it stand 
adjourned until noon on Tuesday, February 2, 1993.

            Passed the House of Representatives January 27, 1993.

            Attest:

                                           DONNALD K. ANDERSON,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
|                                                                           
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                           
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                             
|View History: Annual                                                       
|View History: Annual                                                       
|View History:                                                              
|                                                                           
|Midwest (PADD 2) Crude Oil Refinery Receipts by Pipeline (Thousand Barrels)
|                                                                           
|                                                                           
|Midwest (PADD 2) Crude Oil Refinery Receipts by Pipeline (Thousand Barrels)
|                                                                           

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0    | Year-1    | Year-2    | Year-3    | Year-4    | Year-5    | Year-6    | Year-7    | Year-8    | Year-9   
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | --------- | --------- | --------- | --------- | --------- | --------- | --------- | --------- | --------- | ---------
|1980's                                                                                                                            |           | 1,047,026 | 978,157   | 955,596   | 973,705   | 962,434   | 1,017,252 | 1,026,828 | 1,058,040 | 1,052,761
|1990's                                                                                                                            | 1,090,814 | 1,105,635 | 1,131,342 | 1,127,777 | 1,137,418 | NA        | 1,180,299 | NA        | 1,222,107 | 1,208,742
|2000's                                                                                                                            | 1,223,436 | 1,199,587 | 1,165,941 | 1,165,640 | 1,201,289 | 1,200,359 | 1,196,309 | 1,167,147 | 1,169,176 | 1,138,550
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 1,190,818 | 1,224,655 | 1,234,834 | 1,228,804 | 1,266,015 | 1,270,581 | 1,297,359 | 1,354,029 | 1,369,475 | 1,371,313
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 1,244,191 | 1,354,706 | 1,385,701 | 1,388,166 |           |           |           |           |           |          
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 6/14/2024                                                                                                          
|Next Release Date: June 2025
1

The Honorable Harold D. Vietor, United States District Judge for the Southern

District of Iowa. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 09-1068

___________

Lonzo Howard, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Southern District of Iowa.

Jerry Burt, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: December 7, 2009

Filed: December 16, 2009

___________

Before MURPHY, COLLOTON, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Iowa prisoner Lonzo Howard appeals the district court’s1

 order denying his 28

U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition challenging his conviction for second-degree sexual

abuse of his girlfriend’s 9-year-old granddaughter in violation of Iowa Code

§ 709.3(2). The district court granted a certificate on Howard’s claim that counsel

was ineffective for failing to move for a new trial or for additional findings based on

his defense that he mistakenly believed the 9-year-old, 65-pound victim was his 55-

year-old, 300-pound girlfriend. The Iowa Court of Appeals rejected the claim on
-2-

direct appeal, explaining the trial court had disbelieved Howard, and a mistake-of-fact

defense was not available to Howard under Iowa law because it would not negate any

element of his general-intent offense. The appeals court concluded counsel thus had

no duty to continue to press the defense by seeking a new trial or additional findings,

and even if counsel had done so, the trial court would have rejected the effort given

the court’s view that Howard’s mistake defense was not believable and unavailable

under Iowa law. State v. Howard, No. 03-0734, 2004 WL 894127 (Iowa Ct. App.

Apr. 28, 2004) (unpublished).

Having carefully reviewed the parties’ submissions, the record, and the

applicable law, we conclude the rejection of Howard’s ineffective-assistance claim by

the Iowa Court of Appeals did not involve an unreasonable application of Strickland

v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984), and was not based on an unreasonable

determination of the facts in light of the evidence. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) (standard

for granting habeas relief to state prisoner on claim rejected on merits by state court).

Federal habeas courts lack authority to review a state court’s interpretation and

application of state law. See Evenstad v. Carlson, 470 F.3d 777, 782 (8th Cir. 2005).

Given the Iowa Court of Appeals’s conclusion that mistake is not a defense to a

second-degree sexual abuse charge under Iowa law, the court reasonably concluded

Howard did not receive ineffective assistance when his attorney failed to pursue the

matter following the judgment. See Brewer v. State of Iowa, 19 F.3d 1248, 1251 (8th

Cir. 1994) (where defense unavailable under state law, counsel not inadequate in

failing to assert defense).

We grant Howard’s motion to amend his opening brief, and we summarily

affirm the denial of Howard’s habeas petition under 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________
(logo) Rialto CAPITAL

 

 

2016 Annual Statement ofServicer Compliance (Item 1123)

 

Pooling and ServicingAgreement (the “Pooling and Servicing Agreement”) dated as ofDecember 1, 2014 by and among Wells Fargo Commercial Mortgage Securities, Inc.,as Depositor, Wells Fargo Bank, National Association as General MasterServicer, Rialto Capital Advisors, LLC as General Special Servicer, NCB, FSB asNCB Master Servicer, NCB, FSB as NCB Special Servicer, Park Bridge LenderServices LLC, as Trust Advisor, Wells Fargo Bank, National Association asCertificate Administrator, as Tax Administrator and as Custodian and WilmingtonTrust, National Association as Trustee relating to the Wells Fargo CommercialMortgage Trust 2014-LC18, Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series2014-LC18 (WFCM 2014-LC18)

 

 

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

 

1. All servicing activitiesand performance of such servicing activities under the Pooling and ServicingAgreement are performed on behalf of the Special Servicer.

 

2. A review of the servicingactivities and performance by the Special Servicer for the period of January 1,2016 to December 31, 2016 (the “Reporting Period”) in accordancewith the Pooling and Servicing Agreement has been conducted under mysupervision.

 

3. To the best of myknowledge, based on such review, the Special Servicer has fulfilled all of itsobligations 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/ Adam Singer

Adam Singer, Managing Director

Date: March 1, 2017
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

                    Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel, November 8, 2000, 7:30 AM to November 10, 2000, 4:00 pm, Georgetown Suites, 1111 30th Street, NW., Washington, DC, 20007 which was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     on November 2, 2000, 65 FR 65870-65872.                

The starting time of the meeting has been changed to 7:30 pm on November 8, 2000. The meeting dates and location remain the same. The meeting is closed to the public.

Dated: November 6, 2000.

LaVerne Y. Stringfield,

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 00-29147  Filed 11-14-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

October 4, 2022

No. 04-22-00454-CV

Billie O. STONE d/b/a Stobil Enterprises,

Appellant

v.

K CLARK PROPERTY MANAGEMENT LLC and Trans Ventura, LLC Series B,

Appellees

From the 224th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2022CI03480

Honorable H. Paul Canales, Judge Presiding

ORDER

Appellant seeks to appeal from the trial court’s summary judgment order signed on July 

1, 2022. On September 30, 2022, the trial court clerk filed the clerk’s record. After reviewing 

the record, we cannot determine whether the summary judgment order is a final, appealable 

order.

An order granting summary judgment is not final for purposes of appeal “unless it 

actually disposes of every pending claim and party or unless it clearly and unequivocally states 

that it finally disposes of all claims and all parties.” Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 

205 (Tex. 2001). Here, the trial court’s order does not unequivocally state that it finally disposes 

of all claims and parties, and it is unclear from the order and the record whether appellees’ 

request for attorney’s fees remains pending. Appellees requested attorney’s fees in their answer 

and in their motion for summary judgment. The trial court’s order states that appellees’ motion

for summary judgment is granted in its entirety; however, the order does not award attorney’s 

fees. See Farm Bureau Cnty. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Rogers, 455 S.W.3d 161, 164 (Tex. 2015) (holding 

trial court’s summary judgment order did not dispose of parties’ requests for attorney’s fees); see 

also In re Educap, Inc., No. 01–12–00546–CV., 2012 WL 3224110, at *2 (Tex. App.—Houston 

[1st Dist.] 2012, no pet.) (determining trial court did not render final judgment when judgment 

failed to address claim for attorney’s fee, which was expressly asserted in party’s answer and 

motion for summary judgment).

Accordingly, we sua sponte ABATE this appeal and ORDER the trial court to clarify 

whether it intended to render a final judgment and, if so, to sign a judgment that is final for 
purposes of appeal. See Lehmann, 39 S.W.3d at 206 (“If the appellate court is uncertain about 

the intent of the order, it can abate the appeal to permit clarification by the trial court.”).

We further ORDER the trial court to cause a supplemental clerk’s record containing any 

pleadings, orders, and judgment relating to this order to be filed in this court by November 3, 

2022. All other appellate deadlines are suspended pending further order of this court.

_________________________________

Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 4th day of October, 2022.

___________________________________

MICHAEL A. CRUZ, Clerk of Court
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

September 29, 2016

No. 04-16-00390-CV

Juan ROBLES,

Appellant

v.

Maria Milagros ROBLES,

Appellee

From the 25th Judicial District Court, Guadalupe County, Texas

Trial Court No. 10-2084-CV

Honorable W.C. Kirkendall, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Appellant's motion to extend deadline to submit reporter's record is hereby MOOT. 

_________________________________

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 29th day of September, 2016.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court