alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
|                                                                                        
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                        
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                          
|View History: Annual                                                                    
|View History: Annual                                                                    
|View History:                                                                           
|                                                                                        
|Colorado Refinery Alkylates Production Capacity as of January 1 (Barrels per Stream Day)
|                                                                                        
|                                                                                        
|Colorado Refinery Alkylates Production Capacity as of January 1 (Barrels per Stream Day)
|                                                                                        

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|1980's                                                                                                                            |        |        | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 1,200  | 1,200 
|1990's                                                                                                                            | 1,200  | 1,200  | 1,200  | 1,200  | 1,200  | 1,200  | NA     | 0      | NA     | 0     
|2000's                                                                                                                            | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0     
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0     
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      |        |        |        |        |       
|- = 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
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 221 (Wednesday, November 15, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 68986-68987]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-29173]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER00-3454-000, ER00-3454-001]


Duke Power, a Division of Duke Energy Corporation; Notice of 
Issuance of Order

November 7, 2000.
    Duke Power, a Division of Duke Energy Corporation (Duke Power) 
submitted for filing a rate schedule under which Duke Power will engage 
in wholesale electric power and energy transactions at market-based 
rates. Duke Power also requested waiver of various Commission 
regulations. In particular, Duke Power requested that the Commission 
grant blanket approval under 18 CFR Part 34 of all future issuances of 
securities and assumptions of liability by Duke Power.
    On October 24, 2000, pursuant to delegated authority, the Director, 
Division of Corporate Applications, Office of Markets, Tariffs and 
Rates, granted requests for blanket approval under Part 34, subject to 
the following:
    Within thirty days of the date of the order, any person desiring to 
be heard or to protest the blanket approval of issuances of securities 
or assumptions of liability by Duke Power should file a motion to 
intervene or protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 
First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 
and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 
385.211 and 385.214).
    Absent a request for hearing within this period, Duke Power is 
authorized to issue securities and assume obligations or liabilities as 
a guarantor, indorser, surety, or otherwise in respect of any security 
of another person; provided that such issuance or assumption is for 
some lawful object within the corporate purposes of the applicant, and 
compatible with the public interest, and is reasonably necessary or 
appropriate for such purposes.
    The Commission reserves the right to require a further showing that 
neither public nor private interests will be adversely affected by 
continued approval of Duke Power's issuances of securities or 
assumptions of liability.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing motions to 
intervene or protests, as set forth above, is November 24, 2000.
    Copies of the full text of the Order are available from the 
Commission's Public Reference Branch, 888 First Street, NE., 
Washington, DC 20426. The Order may

[[Page 68987]]

also be viewed on the Internet at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance).

David P. Boergers,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-29173 Filed 11-14-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
#### Charles BOYD et al., Movant v. Annie HERD, Opposed.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

May 15, 1951.

George C. Robbins and Coleman Coving-ton, both of Richmond, for movant. -

Henry Clay Cox and Delbert Eagle, both of Lancaster, Kentucky, opposed.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal denied.

Judgment affirmed.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

MIHRETU BULTI DASISA, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) Civil Action No. 06-2142 (RCL)

)

HOWARD UNIV. BD. OF EDUC., )

)

Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM

This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation filed by Magistrate

Judge Deborah A. Robinson on March 1, 2010. The 14-day period during which the parties may

file objections to the Report and Recommendation has expired, see Local Civil Rule 72.3(b), and

neither party has filed objections. 

The plaintiff, Mihretu Bulti Dasisa, submitted this pro se complaint for filing in

November 2006. Naming Howard University Board of Education as the sole defendant, the

complaint alleges that events occurring on or about 1998-99 gave rise to claims of discrimination

under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq., and a breach of

“educational degree contract.” Compl. at 3; see also id. at 2, 5. The defendant moved to dismiss

the complaint because any claim arising from the events alleged is barred by the applicable threeyear limitations period, see D.C. Code § 12-301(8), and because it failed to state a claim under

Title IX upon which relief could be granted, as there was no allegation of gender discrimination,

the only cognizable discrimination under Title IX. The plaintiff filed an opposition, an amended

opposition and a sur-reply, but did not present evidence to show that his claims were not time-
- 2 -

barred, that he was alleging discrimination within the ambit of any federal statute, or that he had

a contractual relationship with the defendant. Accordingly, Magistrate Judge Robinson

recommended granting the defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a

claim upon which relief may be granted. After consideration of the Report and Recommendation

of Magistrate Judge Deborah A. Robinson, the absence of any party’s objection thereto, the entire

record before the Court and the applicable law, the Court will adopt Magistrate Judge Robinson’s

Report and Recommendation and dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which

relief may be granted. 

A separate final order accompanies this memorandum. 

 /s/ 

ROYCE C. LAMBERTH

DATE: March 22, 2010 Chief Judge
Exhibit 32.2

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly  Report of Secured Digital  Applications,  Inc.
(the  "Company") on Form 10-Q for the  quarterly  period ending June 30, 2007 as
filed with the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof  (the
"Report"),  I, Voon Fui Yong, Chief Accounting Officer of the Company,  certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350,  as adopted  pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:

     (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 result of  operations of the
Company.

/s/  Voon Fui Yong
------------------------
Voon Fui Yong
Chief Accounting Officer
August 14, 2007
#### MILLER et ux. v. WILKINSON.

No. 4112.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Beaumont.

Nov. 25, 1942.

*742O. M. Lord and C. A. Lord, both of Beaumont, for appellants.

W. O. Bowers, Jr., of Beaumont, for appellee.

O’QUINN, Justice.

This appeal was prosecuted from an interlocutory order of the district court of the 60th judicial district of Jefferson county, made and entered on the Zlst day of October, 1942, appointing a receiver on the prayer of appellee. The order was made before the petition was filed and without notice to appellant. The court held in Solomon v. Mathews, Tex.Civ.App., 238 S.W. 307, 309, that the appointment of a receiver prior to the institution of the suit “by filing of the petition,” constituted fundamental error. This proposition seems to be the uniform holding of our courts. Webb v. Allen, 15 Tex.Civ.App. 605, 40 S.W. 342; Bingham v. Graham, Tex.Civ.App., 220 S.W. 105; Amason v. Harrigan, Tex.Civ.App., 288 S.W. 566. Appellant cites no authorities against this proposition but asserts that the holding is “flimsy” and “technical.” We are certain that eminent counsel would not have this court put itself in conflict with the unbroken line of decisions in this state by holding the contrary to the proposition of fundamental error announced by the court in Solomon v. Mathews, supra.

It follows that the order appointing the receiver should be reversed and set aside, and it is accordingly so ordered.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 173 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. J. RES. 173

    Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States 
                        regarding school prayer.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 31, 1993

   Mr. Solomon introduced the following joint resolution; which was 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
    Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States 
                        regarding school prayer.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House 
concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an 
amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be 
valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when 
ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States 
within seven years after the date of its submission for ratification:

                              ``Article--

    ``Nothing in this constitution shall prohibit the inclusion of 
voluntary prayer in any public school program or activity. No person 
shall be coerced by the United States or by any State to participate in 
such prayer. Neither the United States nor any State shall prescribe 
the content of any such prayer.''.

                                 <all>
```
Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-18-0000479

15-JUN-2020

07:48 AM
| (logo) WELLS FARGO | **CMBS Department**

 

MAC N9401-011

1055 10th Avenue SE

Minneapolis, MN 55414 |
|--------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

Morgan Stanley Capital I Inc. 

1585 BROADWAY

NEW YORK, New York 10036-8200

 

RE: Annual Statement ofCompliance for Morgan Stanley Bank of America Merrill Lynch Trust 2015-C22,Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2015-C22

 

Per the Pooling and ServicingAgreement dated as of April 1, 2015 (the "Agreement"), the undersigned,a duly authorized officer of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as Custodian ("WellsFargo"), hereby certifies as follows as of and for the year endingDecember 31, 2016 (the "Reporting Period"):

 

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

 

(b) To the best of suchofficer's knowledge, based on such review, Wells Fargo has fulfilled all of itsobligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout theReporting Period.

 

 

February 27, 2017

 

/s/ Gail Vannest

GAIL VANNEST

Vice President

 

 

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
#### Jack COLLIER, Appellant, v. STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 22945.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Oct. 11, 1944.

Claude Segrest, of Waco, for appellant.

Ernest S. Goens, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

GRAVES, Judge.

Upon his plea of guilty before the court appellant was convicted of the offense of forgery, and his punishment assessed at two years’ confinement in the penitentiary.

Since the filing of the record in this court, the appellant has presented a written motion, duly verified, stating that he no longer desires to prosecute the appeal and requesting that the same be dismissed. The motion is granted and the appeal is ordered dismissed.
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 10.3

                            VASTAR RESOURCES, INC.
                              FIRST AMENDMENT TO
                            VASTAR RESOURCES, INC.
                      DEFERRAL PLAN FOR OUTSIDE DIRECTORS

     Pursuant to the power of amendment reserved therein, the Vastar Resources,
Inc. Deferral Plan for Outside Directors, effective June 26, 1994 (the "Plan"),
is hereby amended as follows:

     1.  Article I, Section 2.1, is amended in its entirety and shall now read
as follows:

     "2.1  This Plan shall generally be effective as of June 26, 1994, as
amended effective October 20, 1999, and shall apply to those persons who are not
employees of the Company or its affiliates and who serve on the Board on or
after June 26, 1994.  For the purposes of this Section 2.1, and for Section
3.13, an affiliate means any person or entity that, directly or indirectly,
controls, or is controlled by, or is under common control with, Vastar
Resources, Inc."

     2.   Article I, Section 3.13, is amended in its entirety and shall now read
as follows:

     "Director means a member of the Board who is not an employee of Vastar
Resources, Inc. or its affiliates (as defined in Section 2.1 of this Plan)."

     3.  Except as amended hereby, the Plan remains unchanged and in full force
and effect.

     Executed as of the 1st day of December, 1999, but effective as of October
20, 1999.

     ATTEST:                               VASTAR RESOURCES, INC.

          /s/  JONATHAN D. EDELFELT             /s/  JEFFREY M. BENDER
     By: ----------------------------      By: ----------------------------
           Jonathan D. Edelfelt                  Jeffrey M. Bender
           Associate Secretary                   Vice President, Human Resources
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                                            9
                
<MULTIPLIER>                                     1,000
       
<S>                                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                 3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                             JUN-30-1998 
<PERIOD-END>                                  SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                          1,656
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                          1,579
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                    0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                    0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    44,817
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                              0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                0
<LOANS>                                        58,700
<ALLOWANCE>                                       374
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                109,964
<DEPOSITS>                                     60,349
<SHORT-TERM>                                   34,352
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                             1,169
<LONG-TERM>                                         0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                           77
<OTHER-SE>                                     14,018
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                109,964
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 1,230
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                 643
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   40
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                1,913
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                                757
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              1,169
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                             744
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      37
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                  0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                   443
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   283
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                        283
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                      179
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     .24
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     .23
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                   2.90 
<LOANS-NON>                                       323 
<LOANS-PAST>                                        5 
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                    0 
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                   864 
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                  339 
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                       3 
<RECOVERIES>                                        1 
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                 374 
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                              374 
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                 0 
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                             0 
                                                 

</TABLE>
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 355 

To increase the statutory limit on the public debt only upon the certification 

by the President of the submission to the States for their ratification 

of the proposed amendment to the Constitution of the United States 

to balance the Federal Budget or limit Federal spending. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 23, 2013 

Mr. CRAWFORD introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To increase the statutory limit on the public debt only upon 

the certification by the President of the submission to 

the States for their ratification of the proposed amendment to the Constitution of the United States to balance 

the Federal Budget or limit Federal spending. 

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

3 SECTION 1. PUBLIC DEBT LIMIT EXTENSION. 

4 Subsection (b) of section 3101 of title 31, United 

5 States Code, is amended by striking out the dollar limita6 tion contained in such subsection and inserting 

7 ‘‘$16,994,000,000,000’’ upon the certification by the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS

2 

•HR 355 IH

1 President of the submission to the States for their ratifica2 tion of the proposed amendment to the Constitution of the 

3 United States described in section 2. 

4 SEC. 2. EFFECTIVE DATE. 

5 The amendment made by section 1 shall not take ef6 fect unless and until the date upon which the President 

7 certifies the Archivist of the United States has submitted 

8 to the States for their ratification a proposed amendment 

9 to the Constitution of the United States pursuant to a 

10 joint resolution entitled ‘‘Joint resolution proposing a bal11 anced budget amendment to the Constitution of the 

12 United States’’, ‘‘Joint resolution proposing a spending 

13 limit amendment to the Constitution of the United 

14 States’’, or ‘‘Joint resolution proposing an amendment to 

15 the Constitution of the United States to restrict the power 

16 of Congress to enact legislation increasing any amount 

17 spent under entitlement programs or creating new entitle18 ment programs’’. 

Æ 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
IA

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. J. RES. 138

To designate the week beginning April 12, 1993, as ‘‘National Public Safety

Telecommunicators Week’’.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 9, 1993

Mr. MARKEY introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred to

the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service

JOINT RESOLUTION

To designate the week beginning April 12, 1993, as

‘‘National Public Safety Telecommunicators Week’’.

Whereas over one-half million dedicated men and women are

engaged in the operation of emergency response systems

for Federal, State, and local governmental entities

throughout the United States;

Whereas these individuals are responsible for responding to

the telephone calls of the general public for police, fire

and emergency medical assistance and for dispatching

such assistance to help save the lives and property of our

citizens;
2

•HJ 138 IH

Whereas such calls include not only police, fire and emergency medical service calls but those governmental communications related to forestry and conservation operations, highway safety and maintenance activities, and all

of the other operations which modern governmental agencies must conduct; and

Whereas America’s public safety telecommunicators daily

serve the public in countless ways without due recognition

by the beneficiaries of their services: Now, therefore, be

it

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 That the week beginning April 12, 1993, is hereby des4 ignated as ‘‘National Public Safety Telecommunicators

5 Week’’. The President is authorized and requested to issue

6 a proclamation calling upon the people of the United

7 States to observe that week with appropriate ceremonies

8 and activities.

Æ