alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
ANNUAL REPORT
Chevy Chase Auto Receivables Trust 1997-4
$ 230,065,034.95 6.25% Auto Receivables Backed Certificates
For the Year Ended December 31, 2001




           PRINCIPAL    INTEREST      NET       NET        30 +      DELQ.
              DIST        DIST       LOSSES    LOSS %     DELQ.        %

          ____________ ___________ ___________ ________ ____________ _______
 Jan-2001   2,453,110     212,331     213,825    6.83%    5,913,956   15.75%
 Feb-2001   2,635,265     199,309      94,728    3.26%    5,391,221   15.44%
 Mar-2001   2,429,581     185,320      64,222    2.37%    4,661,651   14.35%
 Apr-2001   2,612,043     172,423     104,358    4.19%    4,265,780   14.28%
 May-2001   2,341,553     158,558      68,048    2.97%    4,336,081   15.75%
 Jun-2001   2,235,635     146,128       8,140    0.39%    4,218,978   16.68%
 Jul-2001   2,091,419     134,261      20,939    1.08%    3,863,043   16.65%
 Aug-2001   2,080,192     123,159      39,443    2.24%    3,710,466   17.57%
 Sep-2001   1,981,783     112,116      50,210    3.15%    3,214,865   16.80%
 Oct-2001   1,693,108     101,596      34,970    2.41%    3,215,667   18.43%
 Nov-2001   1,737,123      92,609      (7,323)  -0.56%    3,095,364   19.70%
 Dec-2001   1,591,248      83,387      67,267    5.72%    2,801,725   19.85%

          ____________ ___________ ___________
  Totals   25,882,059   1,721,198     758,824

  **  The date represents the month of the Distribution date, the
      information is from activity of the previous month.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 275 Received in Senate (RDS)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. CON. RES. 275

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                July 29 (legislative day, July 20), 1994

                                Received

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
       Waiving the requirement in section 132 of the Legislative 
Reorganization Act of 1946 that the Congress adjourn sine die not later 
                       than July 31 of each year.

    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That, notwithstanding the provisions of section 132(a)(1) of the 
Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 (2 U.S.C. 198), the House of 
Representatives and the Senate shall not adjourn for a period in excess 
of three days, or adjourn sine die, until both Houses of Congress have 
adopted a concurrent resolution providing either for an adjournment (in 
excess of three days) to a day certain or for adjournment sine die.

            Passed the House of Representatives July 29, 1994.

            Attest:

                                           DONNALD K. ANDERSON,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
#### In the Matter of the Accounting of Marion F. Clark, as Executrix of Michael J. Murphy, Deceased.

Surrogate’s Court, Bronx County,

May 2, 1958.

*Vaughan & Lyons*for executrix.

*David Davidoff*for Chas. W. Sommer & Bro., Inc., claimant.

*Scribner & Miller*for Walter B. Cooke, Inc., claimant.

*Albert Margolin,*special guardian for John M. Arsenault and others, infants.

*867Christopher C. McGrath, S.

In this accounting proceeding, six parties having claims against this insolvent estate contend that they are entitled to a preference and seek to impress a trust upon the assets.

Upon the stipulated facts as herein presented, the court finds that the decedent acted in the nature of a trustee for the claimant, Chas. W. Sommer & Bro. Inc., for merchandise held by the decedent on consignment and that title to the merchandise did not pass to the decedent. In view of the foregoing the court holds that the funds of the estate are impressed with a trust in favor of Chas. W. Sommer *&*Bro. Inc., in the amount of $550. *(Matter of Sielcken,*176 Misc. 799, 802; *Matter of Kornder,*168 Misc. 553, 556; *Matter of Accles,*153 Misc. 421, 424.)

There are five other claimants listed in the petition and the account as preferred creditors. They failed to file objections and appear on the return date of the citation. In the absence of any positive proof as to the source of the deposits in the decedent’s account at the time of his death, it cannot be said that any part of said account represents funds of these five alleged creditors *(Matter of Gaul,*160 Misc. 123). Their claims will be allowed only as general claims.

The court fixes the fair and reasonable compensation of the attorneys for the executrix in the sum requested together with disbursements.

The claim of the funeral director is fixed and allowed in the sum of $650.

Settle decree.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 277 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. CON. RES. 277

Expressing the sense of the Congress regarding the prerogatives of each 
                     State for health care reform.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             August 4, 1994

  Mr. Hoekstra (for himself, Mr. Armey, Mr. Boehner, Mr. Dornan, Mr. 
 Goodling, Mr. Grams, Mr. McKeon, Mr. Miller of Florida, Mr. Smith of 
     New Jersey, Mr. Ballenger, Mr. Knollenberg, Mr. McInnis, Mr. 
 Hutchinson, Mr. Upton, Mr. Torkildsen, and Mrs. Fowler) submitted the 
  following concurrent resolution; which was referred jointly to the 
          Committees on Energy and Commerce and Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
Expressing the sense of the Congress regarding the prerogatives of each 
                     State for health care reform.

    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That it is the sense of the Congress that, if the Congress enacts 
legislation providing for a national program for health care reform 
which would restrict the freedom of any individual State in setting its 
own course toward health care reform which is reflective of the unique 
experience of such State, such legislation should provide for the 
inclusion of such State only upon approval of the inclusion of such 
State by a majority of the voters in such State in a State referendum 
conducted on the issue of the inclusion of such State.
                                 <all>
```
#### GENTRY v. STATE.

No. 26129.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Jan. 7, 1953.

No attorney on appeal for appellant.

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

DAVIDSON, Commissioner.

Appellant and her husband, Doyle Gentry, occupied, as their private residence, rooms connected with a filling station, which they operated. About eleven o’clock on fire morning of April 15, 1952, agents of the Liquor Control Board, armed with a searoh warrant, went to the station and residence and attempted to open the door to the residential part of the building. Finding the door locked, they forced entrance by breaking the lock. Inside the room they saw Doyle Gentry and noting appellant running to the rear of the building, one of the agents pursued 'her and prevented her entry into a room in which a quantity of whisky and gin was afterwards found. It appears that the bottles of whisky and gin were placed upon and around the curbing of a well about forty feet in depth, where they could be easily knocked or pushed into the well and broken.

It was the state’s theory that the appellant was, when prevented, attempting to destroy the whisky and gin through the medium mentioned.

This is the testimony upon which appellant was convicted and fined the sum of $750.

The appellant did not testify.

It is insisted that under the provisions of Art. 32, Vernon’s P.C., the trial court should have instructed the jury that appellant could not have been assessed a fine in excess of $500, that, being one-half of the $1,000 fine allowed to be assessed. Art. 666-41, Vernon’s P.C.

Said article has application when the wife commits an offense by the command or persuasion of her husband, in which event her punishment shall, be only one-half that which is ordinarily fixed.

There is no evidence, here, which would make applicable the provisions of the statute mentioned; there is nothing to show that what appellant was doing was at the command or persuasion of her husband. A married woman may be convicted as a principal with her husband1 in the commission of a crime. Barker v. State, 64 Tex.Cr.R. 106, 141 S.W. 529.

Here the facts are sufficient to warrant the jury’s conclusion that the appellant, in the presence of the officers, was endeavoring to destroy the whisky and gin which she and her husband were charged with possessing.

The judgment is affirmed.

Opinion approved by the court.
Case 2:22-cv-00118-Z Document 10 Filed 07/13/22 Page 1 of 4 PageID 23
Case 2:22-cv-00118-Z Document 10 Filed 07/13/22 Page 2 of 4 PageID 24
Case 2:22-cv-00118-Z Document 10 Filed 07/13/22 Page 3 of 4 PageID 25
Case 2:22-cv-00118-Z Document 10 Filed 07/13/22 Page 4 of 4 PageID 26
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

§

ROJELIO REYES, JR (5) §

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

CONCERNING PLEA OF GUILTY

ROJELIO REYES, JR (5), 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 4 of the Indictment. After 

cautioning and examining ROJELIO REYES, JR (5) 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 ROJELIO REYES, JR (5) 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: October 28, 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 287 Filed 10/28/22 Page 1 of 1 PageID 661
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                          27,020
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    5,114
<ALLOWANCES>                                       293
<INVENTORY>                                      1,834
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                34,455
<PP&E>                                           2,294
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,312
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  49,529
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            7,389
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        77,268
<OTHER-SE>                                    (35,236)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    49,529
<SALES>                                         13,607
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                13,607
<CGS>                                            5,247
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    5,247
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                18,815
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   124
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 186
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (9,141)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (9,141)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (9,141)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.80)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.80)


</TABLE>
|                                                                           
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                           
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                             
|View History: Annual                                                       
|View History: Annual                                                       
|View History:                                                              
|                                                                           
|Colorado Number of Operable Refineries as of January 1 (Number of Elements)
|                                                                           
|                                                                           
|Colorado Number of Operable Refineries as of January 1 (Number of Elements)
|                                                                           

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|1980's                                                                                                                            |        |        | 3      | 3      | 3      | 3      | 2      | 2      | 2      | 3     
|1990's                                                                                                                            | 3      | 3      | 3      | 3      | 2      | 2      | NA     | 2      | NA     | 2     
|2000's                                                                                                                            | 2      | 2      | 2      | 2      | 2      | 2      | 2      | 2      | 2      | 2     
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 2      | 2      | 2      | 2      | 2      | 2      | 2      | 2      | 1      | 2     
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 2      | 2      | 2      | 2      | 2      |        |        |        |        |       
|- = 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
# CA2006087EN.01000101.xml

| 11.4.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CA 87/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.4.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CA 87/1

---

NOTICE TO READERS

Image

---
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,
v. ADRIAN TOLEDO-MARTINEZ, Defendant - Appellant. No. 14-50230 D.C. No. 3:13-cr-02616-BEN-1
MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Roger T. Benitez, District Judge, Presiding Submitted April 8, 2015 ** Pasadena California Before: SILVERMAN and BEA, Circuit Judges and DONATO, *** District Judge. 

# FILED
APR 10 2015 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). *** The Honorable James Donato, District Judge for the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, sitting by designation.Defendant Adrian Toledo-Martinez app eals his conviction and sentence for being found in the United States after rem oval in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C . § 1291 and 18 U.S.C. § 3742 and affirm. The defendant argues that his Wa shington Revised Code § 69.50.401 convictions for delivery of cocaine and he roin are not categorical drug trafficking offenses. However, we recently reject ed the same argument advanced by the defendant, that § 69.50.401(a) is categorica lly overbroad because it fails to exempt acts of “administering” drugs. See United States v. Burgos-Ortega , 777 F.3d 1047, 1052-55 (9th Cir. 2015). The district court did not err when it denied the motion to dismiss the indictment and applied a 12-le vel increase to the base offense level pursuant to United States Sentencing Guideline § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A). 1 AFFIRMED
.

1 United States Sentencing Commission, Guidelines Manual , § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A) (Nov. 2013). 2
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 222 (Thursday, November 16, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 69307]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-29359]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-6902-5]


Second Consultation Meeting on a Longitudinal Cohort Study of 
Environmental Effects on Children

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Notice of public meeting: consultation on the plans for a 
longitudinal cohort study of environmental effects on children.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is announcing a two-
day meeting cosponsored by the Office of Behavioral and Social Science 
Research (OBSSR) of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the 
National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD)/NIH, 
and the National Center for Environmental Health (NCEH) of the Centers 
for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The meeting is being convened 
to discuss the development of a longitudinal cohort study of 
environmental effects on the health and well-being of children. Content 
of the meeting will include the status of activities to date, outline 
of study rationale and plan, issues of longitudinal cohort design, 
ethical issues, and discussion groups for input and feedback.

DATES: The meeting dates are December 12, 2000, from 8:30 a.m. until 
5:00 p.m., and December 13, 2000, from 8:30 a.m. until 12:30 p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting site is the Marriott at Metro Center, 775 12th 
Street, NW., Washington, DC. The workshop is open to the public, but 
seating is limited to a maximum of 400. Those planning to attend must 
register no later than November 29, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: To register as an observer, contact 
Ms. Kim Brickhouse, TASCON, P.O. Box 30686, Bethesda, MD 20824-0686; 
telephone: 301-315-9000, ext. 516; facsimile: 301-738-9786; email: 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#a2c9c0d0cbc1c9cacdd7d1c7e2d6c3d1c1cdcc8cc1cdcf"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="c9a2abbba0aaa2a1a6bcbaac89bda8baaaa6a7e7aaa6a4">[email protected]</span></a>. For further information, contact Dr. Peter 
Scheidt, National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, 
National Institutes of Health, U.S. Department of Health and Human 
Services, Room 7B05, 6100 Executive Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20892; 
telephone: 301-496-5064; facsimile: 301-402-2084; e-mail: 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#0477676c616d6070744469656d682a6a6d6c2a636b72"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="483b2b202d212c3c38082529212466262120662f273e">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Dated: November 8, 2000.
William H. Farland,
Director, National Center for Environmental Assessment.
[FR Doc. 00-29359 Filed 11-15-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


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

No. 21386.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Jan. 29, 1941.

A. A. Morris, of .Waco, for appellant.

Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

BEAUCHAMP, Judge.

Appellant was convicted on a charge of violating the liquor laws and assessed a fine of $100.

The transcript in the case fails to show any notice of appeal. This is essential to confer jurisdiction on the reviewing court. See Art. 827, Vernon’s Ann.C.C.P., and authorities collated under said article.

The appeal is dismissed.