alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 220 (Tuesday, November 14, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 68129]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-29086]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Army


Availability of Patents for Exclusive, Partially Exclusive or 
Nonexclusive Licenses

AGENCY: U.S. Army Soldier and Biological Chemical Command, U.S. Army, 
DoD.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of the Army announces the general availability 
of exclusive, partially exclusive, or nonexclusive licenses under the 
following Australia patent that is listed in the SUPPLEMENTARY 
INFORMATION paragraph. Any licenses granted shall comply with 35 U.S.C. 
209 and 37 CFR part 404.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Robert Rosenkrans at U.S. Army 
Soldier and Biological Chemical Command, Kansas Street, Natick, MA 
01760, Phone; (508) 233-4928 or E-mail: 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#366459545344421864594553585d44575845765857425f555d1857445b4f185b5f5a"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="0a5865686f787e245865796f6461786b64794a646b7e636961246b78677324676366">[email protected]</span></a> .

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The following Australia Patent Number, title 
and issue date is provided:
    Australia Patent Number: 720323.
    Title: Load Securing and Releasing System.
    Issue Date: May 25, 2000.

Gregory D. Showalter,
Army Federal Register Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. 00-29086 Filed 11-13-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3710-08-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
| (logo) WELLS FARGO | **Commercial Mortgage  Servicing**D1050-084, 8th Floor  550 South Tryon St.  Charlotte, NC 28202  1-800-326-1334 |
|--------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

**ANNUAL STATEMENT OFCOMPLIANCE**

** **

** **

Reference is hereby made tothat certain Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of May 1, 2015, by andamong CREDIT SUISSE FIRST BOSTON MORTGAGE SECURITIES CORP., as Depositor, WELLSFARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Master Servicer, RIALTO CAPITAL  ADVISORS, LLC, as Special Servicer, PARK BRIDGE LENDER SERVICES LLC, asOperating Advisor, WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as CertificateAdministrator, and WILMINGTON TRUST, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Trustee, withrespect to Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2015-C2 (the"Agreement"). Capitalized terms used herein not otherwise definedshall have the meanings assigned in the Agreement.

 

Pursuant to Section 10.07 ofthis Agreement, I, Daniel Bober, Executive Vice President of CommercialMortgage Services do hereby certify that:

 

1. A review of the activitiesof the Master Servicer during the period from January 1, 2016 through December31, 2016 (the “Reporting Period”), and of its performance per theAgreement during such period has been made under my supervision, and

 

2. To the best of myknowledge, based on such review, the Master Servicer, has fulfilled all of itsobligations under this Agreement in all material respects throughout theReporting Period.

 

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, theundersigned has executed this Certificate as of the 28th day ofFebruary 2017.

 

/s/ Daniel Bober

Daniel Bober

Executive Vice President

Wells Fargo Bank

 

 

| Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. | (logo) Together we’ll  go far |
|------------------------|-------------------------------------|
EAGLE LOGO
NUMBER
	SHARES
BOS	Cambex CORPORATION
	INCORPORATED UNDER THE LAWS OF
	THE COMMONWEALTH OF
MASSACHUSETTS


	CUSIP 132008 10 3


THIS CERTIFIES that
							SEE REVERSE FOR
CERTAIN DEFINITIONS
is the owner of


fully-paid and non-assessable shares of the COMMON STOCK, $.10 par
value, of
CAMBEX CORPORATION

transferable on the books of the Corporation in person or by duly
authorized attorney upon surrender of this Certificate properly endorsed.
This Certificate and the shares represented hereby are issued and held
subject to the laws of The Commonwealth of Massachusetts, the Articles of
Organization of the Corporation, as amended, and the By-Laws of the
Corporation, as amended.
This Certificate is not valid until countersigned by the Transfer Agent.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Corporation has caused this Certificate
to be executed by the facsimile signatures of its duly authorized officers and
sealed with the facsimile seal of the Corporation.

Dated
CAMBEX CORPORATION
CORPORATE
SEAL
1968
MASSACHUSETTS
*
								CAMBEX
CORPORATION
/s/	David L. Cross
	/s/ Joseph F. Kruy
              TREASURER
PRESIDENT

COUNTERSIGNED:
  	AMERICAN STOCK TRANSFER & TRUST COMPANY
	(NEW YORK, N.Y.) 		TRANSFER AGENT

BY                                                       AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE


The following abbreviations, when used in the Inscription on the face of this
certificate, shall be construed as though they were written out in full
according to applicable laws or regulations:

	TEN COM	-	as tenants in common	UNIF GIFT MIN ACT -
_______ Custodian _________
	TEN ENT	-	as tenants by the entireties		(Cust)	(Minor)
	JT TEN	-	as joint tenants with right		under
Uniform Gifts to Minors
		of survivorship and not as		Act
______________________
		tenants in common
	(State)


Additional abbreviations may also be used though not in the above list.


	For value received, _______________________ hereby sell, assign and
transfer unto

PLEASE INSERT SOCIAL SECURITY OR OTHER
   IDENTIFYING NUMBER OF ASSIGNEE
___________________________________________
___________________________________________



(PLEASE PRINT OR TYPEWRITE NAME AND ADDRESS, INCLUDING ZIP
CODE, OF ASSIGNEE)




			    Shares
of the capital stock represented by the within Certificate, and do hereby
irrevocably constitute and appoint

	Attorney
to transfer the said stock on the books of the within named Corporation, with
full power of substitution in the premises.

Dated: _________________________




						NOTICE:  THE SIGNATURE TO
THIS ASSIGNMENT MUST
CORRESPOND WITH
THE NAME AS
WRITTEN UPON THE
FACE OF THE
CERTIFICATE IN
EVERY PARTICULAR,
WITHOUT ALTERATION
OR ENLARGEMENT OR
ANY CHANGE
WHATEVER.
July 1, 2014

M s. Clara Cibrario Assereto

M assachusetts Institute of Technology Senseable City Lab

9

- 209, 77 Massachusetts Ave nue
Cambridge

, MA 02139

Dear Ms. Assereto :

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption from

part 47 of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). It explains why we can not

process your request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Can No t Process Your Request

We received your May 27 , 2014

, and June 4 , 2014

, exemption request s on behalf of

Massachusetts Institute of Technology

– S ense able City Laboratory (D ocket No. FAA

- 20 14

-

0350 ), but we are unable to process your request any further. The information you sent does

no t comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the request

any further, you must send us all of the following:

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would

benefit the public as a whole.

 The reasons why the exemption would no t adversel y affect safety or how the exemption

would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which you

seek an exemption.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.

What You Should Do

If yo u want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described

earlier to reach us within 30 days. We will consider the docket on your request open until we

receive this required information from you. Please note that § 11.63(d) r equires you to send

your petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the

exemption.2

If We Do No t Hear From You

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you

further. If you ha ve any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267

- 9677.

Sincerely,

/S/

Thuy H. Cooper

Acting Manager, Airmen and

Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure
<PAGE>   1
                                                                     EXHIBIT 4.1

LSB
COMMON STOCK
INCORPORATED UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
THIS CERTIFICATE IS TRANSFERABLE
IN CANTON, MA AND NEW YORK, NY
CUSIP 517053 10 4
SEE REVERSE FOR CERTAIN DEFINITIONS
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT
is the owner of
fully paid and non-assessable shares, $.001 par value, of the COMMON STOCK of
LARGE SCALE BIOLOGY CORPORATION
(hereinafter called the "Corporation"), transferable on the books of the
Corporation in person, or by duly authorized attorney, upon surrender of this
certificate properly endorsed. This certificate is not valid until countersigned
by a Transfer Agent and registered by a Registrar. WITNESS the facsimile seal of
the Corporation and the facsimile signatures of its duly authorized officers.
Dated:
SECRETARY
PRESIDENT
COUNTERSIGNED AND REGISTERED:
EQUISERVE TRUST COMPANY, N.A.
TRANSFER AGENT
AND REGISTRAR

BY
AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE

<PAGE>   2


LARGE SCALE BIOLOGY CORPORATION

THE CORPORATION WILL FURNISH WITHOUT CHARGE TO EACH STOCKHOLDER WHO SO REQUESTS,
A FULL STATEMENT OF THE DESIGNATIONS, RELATIVE RIGHTS, PREFERENCES AND
LIMITATIONS OF EACH CLASS OF STOCK OR SERIES THEREOF AUTHORIZED TO BE ISSUED AND
THE AUTHORITY OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE CORPORATION TO DESIGNATE AND FIX
THE RELATIVE RIGHTS, PREFERENCES AND LIMITATIONS OF CLASSES OF PREFERRED STOCK
IN SERIES.

The following abbreviations, when used in the inscription on the face of this
certificate, shall be construed as though they were written out in full
according to applicable laws or regulations:
TEN COM-D
TEN ENT-D
JT WROS-D
as tenants in common
as tenants by the entireties
as joint tenants with right
of survivorship and not as
tenants in common
UNIF GIFT MIN ACT-D               Custodian
                                 (Cust)               (Minor)
                                 under Uniform Gifts to Minors
                                 Act
                                            (State)
Additional abbreviations may also be used though not in the above list.
For value received,                            hereby sell, assign and transfer
unto
 PLEASE INSERT SOCIAL SECURITY OR OTHER
IDENTIFYING NUMBER OF ASSIGNEE
(Please print or typewrite name and address including postal zip code of
assignee)
Shares
of the Common Stock represented by the within Certificate, and do hereby
irrevocably constitute and appoint
Attorney
to transfer the said Shares on the Books of the within-named Corporation with
full power of substitution in the premises.
Dated:
NOTICE: The signature to this assignment must correspond with the name as
written upon the face of the certificate in every particular, without alteration
or enlargement, or any change whatever.

SIGNATURE(S) GUARANTEED:

THE SIGNATURE(S) MUST BE GUARANTEED BY AN ELIGIBLE GUARANTOR INSTITUTION (BANKS,
STOCKBROKERS, SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATIONS AND CREDIT UNIONS WITH MEMBERSHIP IN
AN APPROVED SIGNATURE GUARANTEE MEDALLION PROGRAM), PURSUANT TO S.E.C. RULE
17Ad-15.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

DALLAS DIVISION 

 JACK WILLIAMS, § 

 § 

Plaintiff, § 

§ 

V. § No. 3:22-cv-990-N 

§ 

USAA FEDERAL SAVINGS BANK, § 

§ 

Defendant. § 

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND 

RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

The United States Magistrate Judge made findings, conclusions, and a 

recommendation in this case. No objections were filed. The District Court reviewed 

the proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendation for plain error. Finding 

none, the Court ACCEPTS the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the 

United States Magistrate Judge. 

SO ORDERED this 16th day of September, 2022. 

 _________________________________________ 

DAVID C. GODBEY 

CHIEF UNITED STATES 

DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 3:22-cv-00990-N-BN Document 9 Filed 09/16/22 Page 1 of 1 PageID 69
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 218 (Thursday, November 9, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 67418-67419]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-28790]


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

OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT


Proposed Collection: Comment Request for Review of an Expiring 
Information Collection: Procedures for Submitting Compensation and 
Leave Claims

AGENCY: Office of Personnel Management.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. 
L. 104-13, May 22, 1995), this notice announces that the Office of 
Personnel Management (OPM) intends to submit to the Office of 
Management and Budget a request for review of an expiring information 
collection. Procedures for Submitting Compensation and Leave Claims is 
used to collect information from current and former Federal employees 
who are submitting a claim for compensation and/or leave. OPM needs 
this information in order to adjudicate the claim.
    Approximately 100 claims are submitted annually. It takes 
approximately 60 minutes to compile the information needed to submit a 
claim. The annual estimated burden is 100 hours.
    Comments are particularly invited on:
    <bullet> Whether this collection of information is necessary for 
the proper performance of functions of the Office of Personnel 
Management, and whether it will have practical utility;
    <bullet> Whether our estimate of the public burden of this 
collection is accurate, and based on valid assumptions and methodology; 
and
    <bullet> Ways in which we can minimize the burden of the collection 
of information on those who are to respond, through use of the 
appropriate technological collection techniques or other forms of 
information technology.
    For copies of this proposal, contact Mary Beth Smith-Toomey on 
(202) 606-8358, or E-mail to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#345956405b5b59514d745b44591a535b42"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="a2cfc0d6cdcdcfc7dbe2cdd2cf8cc5cdd4">[email protected]</span></a>.

DATES: Comments on this proposal should be received on or before 
January 8, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Send or deliver comments to--Melissa A. Drummond, Program 
Manager, Office of Merit Systems Oversight, Office of Merit Systems

[[Page 67419]]

Oversight and Effectiveness, U.S. Office of Personnel Management, 1900 
E Street, NW, Room 7671, Washington, DC 20415.

Office of Personnel Management.
Janice R. Lachance,
Director.
[FR Doc. 00-28790 Filed 11-8-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6325-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
-1-

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

KEVIN JEROME JONES, §

TDCJ No. 1169005, §

§

Petitioner, §

§

V. § No. 3:22cv-1055-B

§

DIRECTOR, TDCJ-CID, §

§

 Respondent. §

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE AND

DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

The United States Magistrate Judge made findings, conclusions, and a recommendation in

this case. No objections were filed. The District Court reviewed the proposed findings, conclusions,

and recommendation for plain error. Finding none, the Court ACCEPTS the Findings, Conclusions,

and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge.

Further, considering the record in this case and pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate

Procedure 22(b), Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing §§ 2254 and 2255 proceedings, and 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c), the Court DENIES a certificate of appealability. The Court adopts and incorporates by

reference the magistrate judge’s findings, conclusions, and recommendation filed in this case in

support of its finding that the Petitioner has failed to show (1) that reasonable jurists would find this

Court’s “assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong,” or (2) that reasonable jurists

would find “it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional

right” and “debatable whether [this Court] was correct in its procedural ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel,

Case 3:22-cv-01055-B-BN Document 4 Filed 06/01/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID 8
 Rule 11 of the Rules Governing §§ 2254 and 2255 Cases, as amended effective on December 1, 2009, 1

reads as follows:

(a) Certificate of Appealability. The district court must issue or deny a certificate of appealability

when it enters a final order adverse to the applicant. Before entering the final order, the court may direct the

parties to submit arguments on whether a certificate should issue. If the court issues a certificate, the court

must state the specific issue or issues that satisfy the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). If the court

denies a certificate, the parties may not appeal the denial but may seek a certificate from the court of appeals

under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 22. A motion to reconsider a denial does not extend the time to

appeal.

(b) Time to Appeal. Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a) governs the time to appeal an order

entered under these rules. A timely notice of appeal must be filed even if the district court issues a certificate

of appealability.

-2-

529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000).1

But, if Petitioner does file a notice of appeal, he must either pay the appellate filing fee of

$505.00 or move for leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal.

SO ORDERED.

DATED: June 1, 2022.

_________________________________

JANE J. BOYLE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:22-cv-01055-B-BN Document 4 Filed 06/01/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID 9
H. Con. Res. 293 Agreed to October 7, 1994

One Hundred Third Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE SECOND SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,

the twenty-fifth day of January, one thousand nine hundred and ninety-four

Concurrent Resolution

Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That a revised edition of the book entitled ‘‘History of the

United States House of Representatives’’, prepared under the supervision of the Committee on House Administration of the House

of Representatives, shall be printed as a House document.

SEC. 2. In addition to the usual number, there shall be printed

the lesser of—

(1) 5,000 casebound copies of the document, of which 4,750

copies shall be for the use of the Committee on House Administration of the House of Representatives and 250 copies shall

be for the use of the Senate; or

(2) such number of casebound copies of the document as

does not exceed a total production and printing cost of $75,000,

with such copies to be allocated in the same proportion as

described in paragraph (1).

SEC. 3. Of the copies of the document for the use of the Committee on House Administration of the House of Representatives under

section 2(1), at the request of a Member of the House of Representatives, the Member shall be entitled to receive at least 5 copies.

The Committee shall notify each Member of the entitlement under

the preceding sentence. As used in this section, the term ‘‘Member
H. Con. Res. 293—2

of the House of Representatives’’ means a Representative in, or

a Delegate or Resident Commissioner to, the Congress.

Attest:

Clerk of the House of Representatives.

Attest:

Secretary of the Senate.
#### SNOW v. STATE.

No. 25285.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

May 2, 1951.

*967M. D. Emerson, Paris, for appellant.

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

BEAUCHAMP, Judge.

The appeal is from a conviction for robbery with a sentence of five years in the penitentiary.

The sole question presented in this appeal for our consideration is the sufficiency of the indictment. As returned by the grand jury it contains three counts. The state elected to prosecute under the third count which alleges the fraudulent taking of an automobile in the following language: “ * * * in and upon Frank Scott did make an assault and did then and there by violence to the said Frank Scott and by putting the said Frank Scott in fear of life and bodily injury, fraudulently and without the consent of the said Frank Scott take from the possession of the said Frank Scott, one automobile of the value of $1000.00, with intent to deprive- the said Frank Scott of the same and to appropriate the same to the use and benefit of them the said Bill H. Irvin and J. M. Snow.”

The appellant timely filed a motion to quash the foregoing count in the indictment on the ground that there is no allegation of the ownership of the automobile. The court charged the jury as follows: “If the said automobile was in possession of Frank *Scott,*and under his control, *then*the ownership can be alleged in him.” This does not, however, cure the defect in the indictment. It does not allege the ownership to be in the prosecuting witness. It merely alleges possession.

In Higgins v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 19 S.W. S03, we find a discussion of the identical question in which the statute, now Article 1408, P.C., is discussed. It was there held that an indictment for robbery, though it follows substantially the words of the statute defining the offense, is insufficient if it fails to allege the ownership of the property taken. This opinion seems to have been followed by the court to the present date and is logical, for the reasons thoroughly discussed in the Higgins case. See Texas Jur. Vol. 37, p. 20 Sec. 19, from which we quote: “The indictment must allege in some way the ownership of the property taken; that is, it must show by proper averment that the property belonged to some person other than the accused, or that the person deprived of its possession was entitled thereto as against the accused.”

We also refer to Wilson’s Texas Criminal Forms, (Form No. 632) and authorities annotated and relied upon as supporting the form which1 makes an allegation of ownership in a person other than the accused.

For the reason stated, we hold that the third count in the indictment alleging robbery and the taking of an automobile is invalid. The judgment of the trial court is, accordingly, reversed.