alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 218 (Thursday, November 9, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 67349-67350]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-28777]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Army


Final Environmental Assessment (EA) and Finding of No Significant 
Impact (FNSI) for BRAC 95 Disposal and Reuse of Rio Vista Army Reserve 
Center, California

AGENCY: Department of the Army, DoD.

ACTION: Notice of availability.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with Public Law 101-510 (as amended), the 
Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990, the Defense Base 
Closure and Realignment Commission recommended the closure of Rio Vista 
Reserve Center.
    The Final EA evaluates the environmental impacts of the disposal 
and subsequent reuse of the 28-acre installation. Alternatives examined 
in this EA include no action, unencumbered disposal of the property and 
encumbered disposal of the property. Encumbered disposal refers to 
transfer or conveyance of property having restrictions on subsequent 
use as a result of any Army-imposed or legal restraint. Under the no 
action alternative, the Army would not dispose of property but would 
maintain it in a caretaker status for an indefinite period.

DATES: Comments must be submitted by December 11, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the Final EA and FNSI may be obtained by writing 
to Mr. Jerry Fuentes, Corps of Engineers, Sacramento District, 
Environmental Resources Branch (CESPK-PD-R), 1325 J Street, Sacramento, 
CA 95814.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Jerry Fuentes at (916) 557-6706.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: While closure of Rio Vista is the Army's 
primary action, the EA also analyzes the potential environmental 
effects of reuse as a secondary impact by means of evaluating 
intensity-based reuse scenarios. The Army's preferred alternative for 
disposal of the Rio Vista Reserve Center is encumbered disposal, with 
encumbrances pertaining to easements, threatened and endangered species 
habitat, lead-based paint and asbestos-containing material.
    A Notice of Intent declaring the Army's intent to prepare an EA for 
the

[[Page 67350]]

closure of Rio Vista Reserve Center was published in the Federal 
Register on September 22, 1995 (60 FR 49264).
    The Final EA and FNSI are available for review at the Rio Vista 
Library, 167 Main St, Rio Vista, CA 94571.

    Dated: September 26, 2000.
Richard E. Newsome,
Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army (Environment, Safety and 
Occupational Health) OASA (I&E).
[FR Doc. 00-28777 Filed 11-8-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3710-08-M
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AMARILLO DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA §

§

v. § 2:22-CR-00046-Z-BR

§

RAUL MANCHA MONTOYA (7) §

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

CONCERNING PLEA OF GUILTY

RAUL MANCHA MONTOYA (7), by consent, under authority of United States v. Dees, 125 F.3d 261 (5th Cir. 

1997), has appeared before me pursuant to FED. R.CRIM. P. 11, and has entered a plea of guilty to Count 6 of the Indictment.

After cautioning and examining RAUL MANCHA MONTOYA (7) under oath concerning each of the subjects mentioned 

in Rule 11, I determined that the guilty plea was knowledgeable and voluntary and that the offense charged is supported by 

an independent basis in fact containing each of the essential elements of such offense. I therefore recommend that the plea 

of guilty be accepted, and that RAUL MANCHA MONTOYA (7) be adjudged guilty of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 

841(b)(1)(C) - POSSESSION WITH INTENT TO DISTRIBUTE METHAMPHETAMINE and have sentence imposed 

accordingly. After being found guilty of the offense by the District Judge,

☒ The defendant is currently in custody and should be ordered to remain in custody.

☐ The defendant must be ordered detained pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3143(a)(1) unless the Court finds by clear and 

convincing evidence that the defendant is not likely to flee or pose a danger to any other person or the community 

if released.

☐ The Government does not oppose release.

☐ The defendant has been compliant with the current conditions of release.

☐ I find by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant is not likely to flee or pose a danger to any other 

person or the community if released and should therefore be released under § 3142(b) or (c).

☐ The Government opposes release.

☐ The defendant has not been compliant with the conditions of release.

☐ If the Court accepts this recommendation, this matter should be set for hearing upon motion of the 

Government.

☐ The defendant must be ordered detained pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3143(a)(2) unless (1)(a) the Court finds there is a 

substantial likelihood that a motion for acquittal or new trial will be granted, or (b) the Government has 

recommended that no sentence of imprisonment be imposed, or (c) exceptional circumstances are clearly shown 

under § 3145(c) why the defendant should not be detained, and (2) the Court finds by clear and convincing evidence 

that the defendant is not likely to flee or pose a danger to any other person or the community if released.

Date: November 16, 2022

______________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

NOTICE

Failure to file written objections to this Report and Recommendation within fourteen (14) days from the date of its 

service shall bar an aggrieved party from attacking such Report and Recommendation before the assigned United States 

District Judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B).

Case 2:22-cr-00046-Z-BR Document 301 Filed 11/16/22 Page 1 of 1 PageID 731
Case 4:22-cv-00430-Y Document 178 Filed 12/26/23 Page 1 of 1 PageID 4994
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF SIMCALA INC. FOR THE SIX MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30, 1999
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                          16,022<F1>
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    6,013
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      1,575
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                24,075
<PP&E>                                          56,765
<DEPRECIATION>                                   5,103
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 112,969
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            6,556
<BONDS>                                         81,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        18,807
<OTHER-SE>                                      (4,513)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   112,969
<SALES>                                         28,221
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                28,221
<CGS>                                           26,528
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   26,528
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  (437)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,852
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (3,006)
<INCOME-TAX>                                      (716)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (2,290)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (2,290)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>OF THIS AMOUNT, 6,189 WAS RESTRICTED CASH.
</FN>


</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-7746
CHARLIE OMAR SEAY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus KENNETH A. POWELL, Doctor, Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, District Judge. (CA-95-1157-R) Submitted: March 21, 1996 Decided: April 10, 1996 Before NIEMEYER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Charlie Omar Seay, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Seay v. Powell , No. CA-95-1157-R (W.D. Va. Oct. 25, 1995).We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Exhibit 31.1


1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of Navient Student Loan Trust 2015-2 (the “Exchange Act periodic reports”);
 
 2. Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do 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, all of the distribution, servicing and other information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;
 
 4. Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statements required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicer and administrator have fulfilled their obligations under the servicing agreement and administration agreement, as applicable, in all material respects; and
 
 5. All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwise disclosed in this report. Any material instances of noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K. In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me by the following unaffiliated party: Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as indenture trustee.
 
  
  
 
 /s/ SOMSAK CHIVAVIBUL
#### CORNELIUS v. STATE.

No. 25670.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Feb. 6, 1952.

*887Jack Ray, Fort Worth, for appellant

Stewart W. Heilman, Crim. Dist. Atty., W. H. Tolbert, Truman Power and Ronald Aultman, Asst. Crim. Dist. Attys., Fort Worth, George P. Blackburn, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

MORRISON, Judge.

The offense is driving while intoxicated; the punishment, a fine of $50.

It was established without dispute that an automobile in which appellant was riding and a pickup truck driven by Mr. Davis were involved in a collision.

Mr. Davis testified that appellant was the driver of the automobile and that, in his opinion, appellant was intoxicated.

Appellant and his companion in the automobile testified that appellant was not driving the automobile at the time of the collision and that neither of them were intoxicated.

An officer of the Highway Patrol testified that when he arrived at the scene of the accident appellant told him that he had been driving the automobile.

The appellant, testifying in his own behalf, denied that he had been driving the automobile and refuted the officer’s testimony as to their conversation, stating that the officer had asked him the question, “You were driving, weren’t you? ” and that he had replied, “You can put it that way on your report if you care to”. He gave as his reason for making such a statement to the officer that his companion, who he said was actually driving the automobile, did not have his driver’s license with him.

In rebuttal, the State called the officer back to the stand, and he gave a more detailed version of the conversation as follows : He stated that he had asked appellant the question, “Are you the driver of the Chevrolet ? ” and that appellant answered, “Yes, sir”.

Appellant’s one bill of exception contains the direct, cross, redirect, recross and redirect examination of the witness Wheeler during the presentation of the State’s case in chief and the direct and cross on rebuttal; and the objection is leveled at “all of the testimony of the witness Wheeler, relative to the conversation with the defendant” on the grounds that the same was not a part of the res gestae.

It will be notéd that the witness first testified that, from his conversation with appellant, he concluded that appellant had been drinking heavily. This was clearly admissible, though a part of his conversation with appellant. It is further noted that appellant’s counsel questioned the witness about his conversation with appellant.

A part of the testimony complained of being admissible and a part being elicited by appellant, an objection to all of it was too general to raise a question for review in this Court. An objection must be specific as to the portion of the testimony to which it is leveled.

After the State had rested, appellant testified as to what he had told officer Wheeler, and then officer Wheeler was called in rebuttal by the State and gave his version thereof.

Under the doctrine of Florence v. State, 109 Tex.Cr.R. 335, 4 S.W.2d 555, this rebuttal testimony was admissible.

Finding no reversible error, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Exhibit 35.5



|     |  |  |                                                          |                         
|---- |  |  | -------------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------
|LOGO |  |  |                                                          | Corporate Trust Services
|     |  |  | MAC R1204-010
9062 Old Annapolis Road Columbia, MD 21045
|     |  | 
|     |  | 
|     |  |  |                                                          | Tel: 410 884 2000       
|     |  |  |                                                          | Fax: 410 715 2380       

Citibank, National Association

388 Greenwich Street

14th Floor

New York, New York 10013



|    |  |                                                                                                  
|--- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Re: |  | Annual Statement of Compliance for COMM 2015-CCRE23 Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through
Certificates

Per the Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of May 1, 2015 (the Agreement), the undersigned, a duly
authorized officer of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as Certificate Administrator (Wells Fargo), hereby certifies as follows as of and for the year ending December 31, 2016 (the Reporting Period):

(a) A review of Wells Fargos activities during the Reporting Period and of its performance under the Agreement has been made under such
officers supervision; and

(b) To the best of such officers knowledge, based on such review, Wells Fargo has fulfilled all of
its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period.



|              
|--------------
|March 1, 2017 
|              
|LOGO          
|              
|BRIAN SMITH   
|Vice President



|                       |  |     
|---------------------- |  | ----
|Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. |  | LOGO
IV

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. CON. RES. 313

To designate certain lands in the California desert as wilderness, to establish

Death Valley, Joshua Tree, and Mojave National Parks, and for other

purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

OCTOBER 7 (legislative day, OCTOBER 6), 1994

Mr. THOMAS of California submitted the following resolution; which was

considered and agreed to

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

To designate certain lands in the California desert as wilderness, to establish Death Valley, Joshua Tree, and Mojave

National Parks, and for other purposes.

Resolved, That in the enrollment of the bill (S. 21) to

designate certain lands in the California desert as wilderness,to establish Death Valley, Joshua Tree, and Mojave National Parks, and for other purposes, the Secretary of the

Senate shall make the following correction:

In the second sentence of section 102(1), strike ‘‘fifteen’’

and insert ‘‘twenty’’.

Æ
#### KANSAS CITY TITLE INS. CO., appellant, v. BOARD OF INS. COM’RS of the State of Texas, et al., appellees.

No. 9694.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Austin.

Jan. 14, 1948.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 28, 1948.

Murfee & Crystal, by Latimer Murfee, all of Houston, and Critz, Kuykendall, Bau-knight, Mann & Stevenson, of Austin, for appellant. •

Price Daniel, Atty. Gen., of Texas, and W. V. Geppert and' C. K. Richards, Asst. Attys.. Gen., for appellees.

GRAY, Justice.

This is a companion case to Lawyers Title Insurance Corporation v. Board of Insurance Commissioners et al., 207 S.W.2d 972, this day decided by this court, and presents the same questions decided by us in that case. For the reasons stated in that opinion, which is here referred to and adopted, the judgment of the trial court in this case is affirmed.

Affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                                    <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                            MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                   $2,492,621
<SECURITIES>                                      0
<RECEIVABLES>                               428,635 
<ALLOWANCES>                                400,000 
<INVENTORY>                                 219,076
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                          2,932,875
<PP&E>                                    1,256,337
<DEPRECIATION>                              430,656
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                            3,764,980
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       833,284
<BONDS>                                     322,326
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                             0
<PREFERRED>                                       0
<COMMON>                                  6,628,722  
<OTHER-SE>                               (4,019,352)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>              3,764,980
<SALES>                                     799,922
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            799,922 
<CGS>                                       122,366
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               122,366  
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            921,510 
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                  0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            9,711 
<INCOME-PRETAX>                          (  217,011)
<INCOME-TAX>                             (  217,011) 
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                      (  217,011)
<DISCONTINUED>                                    0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                   0
<CHANGES>                                         0	
<NET-INCOME>                             (  217,011) 
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                 ( .06)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                 ( .06) 
        


</TABLE>
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 Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Docket No. RP96-367-012]

Take notice that on October 30, 2000, Northwest Pipeline Corporation (Northwest) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Third Revised Volume No. 1, the following tariff sheets, to be effective December 1, 2000:

Thirteenth Revised Sheet No. 8

Tenth Revised Sheet No. 8.1

Northwest states that the purpose of this filing is to implement rate design changes to Northwest's Rate Schedule LS-1, LS-2F, and LS-21 LNG storage services consistent with the Commission's resolution of LNG storage services rate design issues in Northwest's Docket No. RP95-409 and pursuant to the terms of the Commission-approved Settlement in Northwest's Docket No. RP96-367.

                    Any person desiring to protest said filing should file a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with section 385.211 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such 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. 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).                          ( print page 67730)    

Comments and protests may be filed electronically via the internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's web site at http://www.ferc.fed.us/​efi/​doorbell.htm.

David P. Boergers,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00-28928  Filed 11-9-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
#### WRIGHT v. STATE.

No. 21785.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Dec. 10, 1941.

H. H. Wellborn, of Henderson, for1 appellant.

Spurgeon E. Bell; State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

HAWKINS,’ Presiding Judge. ’

Conviction is- for failure to stop and render aid, punishment assessed being a fine of $50.

■ No statement of facts is found in the record. A" number.of objections to the court’s charge were, presented. Obviously such objections cannot be appraised -without the court being advised as to the facts developed upon the trial.

The judgment is' affirmed.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 24 - 0083 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. DARRIN LELAND REBER,

Defendant and Appellant.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time to produce transcripts on appeal, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Court Reporter Julie Pesanti DeLong is granted an extension of time to and including November 25 , 202 4, within which to prepare, file, and serve the transcripts requested on appeal. The Clerk shall serve a copy of this Order upon the district court and the court reporter.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

October 8 2024

10/08/2024

Case Number: DA 24-0083