alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT CO

FOR TIIE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF

DALLAS DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

v.

VINCENT PAUL GOMEZ,

Defendant.

REPORT Ai\tD RECOMMEI\TDATION

CONCERNING PLEA OF GTIILTY

VINCENT PAUL GOMEZ, by consent, under authority of United States v. Dees, 125 F.3d26l (sthCir. 1997),

has appeared before me pursuant to Fed. R. Crim.P. 11, and has entered a plea of guilty to Count' 2.; of the Superseding

Indictment. After cautioning and examining VINCENT PAUL GOMEZ under oath concerning each of the subjects

mentioned in Rule I l, 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 VINCENT PAUL GOMEZ be adjudged guilty of 2l U.S.C. g 8al(a)(l) and

(bXlXC) and l8 U.S.C. $ )Possession with the Intentto Distribute a Schedule II Controlled Substance, Aiding and Abetting

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.

n The defendant must be ordered detained pursuant to 18 U.S.C. $ 3la3(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 Govemment 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 maffer should be set for hearing upon motion of the

Government.

The defendant must be ordered detained pursuant to 18 U.S.C. $ 3la3(a)(2) unless (l)(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

under $ 3 las(c) why the defendant should not be detained, and (2) the by clear and convincing evidence

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

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

!

n

n

n

!

n

D

Date: l3th day of December,2022. (

ruDGE

CE

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(bxlXB).

U.S. DISTRICT COURT

NORT1{ER}i DtS'iRrC f Oir f EL\s

FILED

DEC I 3 2022 "xw'

Case Numb er: 3 :22-CR-00342-E( I )

Case 3:22-cr-00342-E Document 91 Filed 12/13/22 Page 1 of 1 PageID 238
# Official Journal C 324A/2012

| | ISSN 1977-091X
  doi:10.3000/1977091X.CA2012.324.eng |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 324A |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 5525 October 2012 |

ISSN 1977-091X

doi:10.3000/1977091X.CA2012.324.eng

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 324A

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 5525 October 2012

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | V   Announcements |
| | ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES |
| | European Personnel Selection Office |
| 2012/C 324A/01 | Notice to readers | 1 |
| 2012/C 324A/02 | Notice of open competition — EPSO/AST/123/12 — Assistants with Croatian citizenship (AST 3) | 6 |

Notice No

Contents

page

V   Announcements

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES

European Personnel Selection Office

2012/C 324A/01

Notice to readers

1

2012/C 324A/02

Notice of open competition — EPSO/AST/123/12 — Assistants with Croatian citizenship (AST 3)

6

---

REVIEW OF COMPETITION C A OJs

Please find below the list of C A published during the present year.

Unless otherwise indicated, OJs are published in all language versions.

| 8 | (DA/EL/HU/IT/MT/PL) |
| --- | --- |
| 10 | |
| 17 | (LT) |
| 20 | (EN) |
| 22 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 27 | |
| 30 | (FR) |
| 31 | (ES) |
| 37 | |
| 44 | |
| 46 | |
| 53 | |
| 55 | |
| 59 | |
| 69 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 70 | (EL) |
| 71 | (ES) |
| 74 | (HU) |
| 75 | (NL) |
| 76 | |
| 77 | (RO) |
| 84 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 86 | |
| 90 | (EN) |
| 101 | |
| 110 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 114 | |
| 121 | (BG) |
| 122 | |
| 134 | |
| 136 | (PT) |
| 140 | |
| 144 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 146 | (CS/DA) |
| 160 | |
| 161 | |
| 169 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 180 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 187 | |
| 189 | |
| 197 | (DA/DE/EN/SK) |
| 198 | (EN/FR) |
| 199 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 204 | (ET/GA/LV/PT) |
| 206 | (CS) |
| 210 | (LT) |
| 211 | (MT) |
| 212 | (PL) |
| 214 | (SK) |
| 215 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 228 | (SL) |
| 266 | |
| 270 | |
| 274 | (CS) |
| 275 | (LV) |
| 276 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 278 | |
| 281 | (MT) |
| 283 | (SV) |
| 285 | (ES) |
| 288 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 290 | |
| 291 | |
| 292 | (HU) |
| 294 | (BG) |
| 296 | (BG) |
| 300 | |
| 302 | |
| 304 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 305 | |
| 307 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 314 | |
| 316 | |
| 324 | (DE/EN/FR) |

8

(DA/EL/HU/IT/MT/PL)

10

17

(LT)

20

(EN)

22

(DE/EN/FR)

27

30

(FR)

31

(ES)

37

44

46

53

55

59

69

(DE/EN/FR)

70

(EL)

71

(ES)

74

(HU)

75

(NL)

76

77

(RO)

84

(DE/EN/FR)

86

90

(EN)

101

110

(DE/EN/FR)

114

121

(BG)

122

134

136

(PT)

140

144

(DE/EN/FR)

146

(CS/DA)

160

161

169

(DE/EN/FR)

180

(DE/EN/FR)

187

189

197

(DA/DE/EN/SK)

198

(EN/FR)

199

(DE/EN/FR)

204

(ET/GA/LV/PT)

206

(CS)

210

(LT)

211

(MT)

212

(PL)

214

(SK)

215

(DE/EN/FR)

228

(SL)

266

270

274

(CS)

275

(LV)

276

(DE/EN/FR)

278

281

(MT)

283

(SV)

285

(ES)

288

(DE/EN/FR)

290

291

292

(HU)

294

(BG)

296

(BG)

300

302

304

(DE/EN/FR)

305

307

(DE/EN/FR)

314

316

324

(DE/EN/FR)

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
Case 4:22-cr-00036-Y Document 26 Filed 03/23/22 Page 1 of 6 PageID 49
Case 4:22-cr-00036-Y Document 26 Filed 03/23/22 Page 2 of 6 PageID 50
Case 4:22-cr-00036-Y Document 26 Filed 03/23/22 Page 3 of 6 PageID 51
Case 4:22-cr-00036-Y Document 26 Filed 03/23/22 Page 4 of 6 PageID 52
Case 4:22-cr-00036-Y Document 26 Filed 03/23/22 Page 5 of 6 PageID 53
Case 4:22-cr-00036-Y Document 26 Filed 03/23/22 Page 6 of 6 PageID 54
#### Wade COLEMAN, Appellant, v. STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 23019.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Nov. 29, 1944.

Jimmie Cunningham and Eugene F. Mathis, both of Liibbock, for appellant.

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

HAWKINS, Presiding Judge.

Conviction was for murder, punishment assessed being 20 years in the penitentiary.

Appellant has filed proper affidavit advising this court that he desires to no further prosecute the appeal, and at his request the same is dismissed.
Exhibit 34.7  LOGO Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm To the Partners CWCapital Asset Management LLC We have examined management of CWCapital Asset Management LLC (CWCAM)s assertion that CWCAM complied with the servicing criteria
applicable to it under paragraph (d) of Item 1122 of the Securities and Exchange Commissions Regulation AB for the special servicing platform (Platform) for commercial mortgage-backed securities transaction that were issued on
or after January 1, 2006 for which CWCAM acted as the special servicer included in the accompanying Managements Assertion on Compliance with Regulation AB Criteria as of and for the year ended December 31, 2018. CWCAMs
management is responsible for its assertion. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on managements assertion based on our examination. Management has determined that the criteria set forth in Sections 1122 (d)(1)(iii), (d)(3)(i)(B), (d)(3)(i)(C), (d)(3)(i)(D), (d)(3)(ii), (d)(3)(iii),
(d)(3)(iv), (d)(4)(v), (d)(4)(ix), (d)(4)(x), (d)(4)(xi), (d)(4)(xii), (d)(4)(xiii), (d)(4)(xiv), and (d)(4)(xv) are not applicable to the activities performed by CWCAM, as a special servicer, with respect to CWCAMs Platform. The commercial
mortgage-backed securities transactions covered by this Platform are those specified in Appendix B in the accompanying Managements Assertion on Compliance with Regulation AB Criteria. Our examination was conducted in accordance with attestation standards established by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States).
Those standards require that we plan and perform the examination to obtain reasonable assurance about whether managements assertion is fairly stated, in all material respects. An examination involves performing procedures to obtain evidence
about managements assertion. The nature, timing, and extent of the procedures selected depend on our judgment, including an assessment of the risks of material misstatement of managements assertion, whether due to fraud or error. We
believe that the evidence we obtained is sufficient and appropriate to provide a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our examination does not provide
a legal determination on CWCAMs compliance with the specified requirements. Our examination disclosed the following material noncompliance
with servicing criterion 1122(d)(2)(vii)(B) as applicable to CWCAM: With respect to servicing criterion 1122(d)(2)(vii)(B), certain bank
reconciliations were not prepared within 30 calendar days after the bank statement cut-off date.  1




---

LOGO In our opinion, except for the material noncompliance described above, managements assertion that CWCAM
complied with the servicing criteria applicable to it under paragraph (d) of Item 1122 of Regulation AB included in the accompanying Managements Assertion on Compliance with Regulation AB Criteria is fairly stated, in all material
respects. We do not express an opinion or any form of assurance on Managements Discussion on Material Instance of Noncompliance in Schedule B
to the Managements Assertion.  /s/ CohnReznick LLPBethesda, MarylandFebruary 28, 2019  2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>           5
<MULTIPLIER>        1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                           7,290
<SECURITIES>                                     8,429
<RECEIVABLES>                                      759
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                32,733
<PP&E>                                           5,768
<DEPRECIATION>                                   3,630
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  43,399
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           38,631
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                            53
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                       4,168
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    43,399
<SALES>                                         69,177
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                70,033
<CGS>                                           59,827
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   59,827
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 8,747
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,459
<INCOME-TAX>                                       525
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                934
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       934
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.18
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.18
        

</TABLE>
#### THOMAS, Collector of Internal Revenue, v. COWAN et al.

No. 14321.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Fort Worth.

July 11, 1941.

Frank B. Potter, Asst. U. S. Atty., of Fort Worth, for appellant.

Martin, Moore & Brewster, of Fort Worth, for appellees.

SPEER, Justice.

T. P. Cowan sued Murray Harris in a District Court of Tarrant County, Texas, for debt and a foreclosure of a mortgage lien on certain property. W. A. Thomas, Collector of Internal Revenue, intervened in the suit and sought recovery against Harris for alleged unpaid income taxes due the United States Government, and asked for a foreclosure of a lien securing such tax against the same property.

Trial was had to the court, and Thomas, as Collector of Internal Revenue, was denied a recovery. He excepted to the judgment and gave notice of appeal to this court. That judgment was entered on January 29, 1941.

No transcript of the proceedings below has been filed in this court. Cowan, plaintiff below, Union Bank & Trust Co., an in-tervener, and E. N. Ratliff, a receiver appointed by the trial court, have filed, here, their motion to affirm on certificate.

The motion is accompanied by a certificate of the Clerk of the District Court where the case was tried, showing the judgment entered and stating that no appeal or supersedeas bond had been filed in that court by any party to the suit.

The certified judgment discloses that intervener Thomas was acting as Collector of Internal Revenue for the United States Government, in all matters pertaining to the litigation. No appeal bond having been filed, the appeal has never been perfected to this court, and consequently we have never acquired jurisdiction in the case. There being no appeal from the judgment of the trial court, it became final.

It was necessary for Thomas, as such Collector of Internal Revenue, to file an appeal or supersedeas bond to perfect *510the appeal and confer jurisdiction on this court. United States v. Branson, Banking Commissioner, Tex.Civ.App., 147 S.W.2d 286, writ refused, and authorities there cited.

This court being without jurisdiction, it becomes our duty to deny the motion to affirm on certificate. The motion is therefore overruled.
MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-11-00230-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF L.M.B. and E.S.B., Children

From the 37th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2002-CI-09082

Honorable Victor Hugo Negron Jr., Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice

Karen Angelini, Justice

Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

Delivered and Filed: June 22, 2011

DISMISSED

Appellant has filed a notice of nonsuit which the court construes as a motion to dismiss 

this appeal. The motion contains a certificate of service to appellee, who has not opposed the 

motion. Therefore, we grant the motion and dismiss the appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(1). 

Costs of the appeal are taxed against appellant.

PER CURIAM
Exhibit 31.1


Rule 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a) Certification





I, James Darrell Thomas, certify that:





|   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          
|-- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|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 Harley-Davidson Motorcycle 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.   I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the servicer and based on my knowledge and the compliance reviews conducted in preparing the servicer compliance statement required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicer has fulfilled its obligations under the servicing agreement 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: The Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company, N.A.





HARLEY-DAVIDSON MOTORCYCLE TRUST 2015-2By:Harley-Davidson Credit Corp.,as ServicerBy:/s/ James Darrell ThomasJames Darrell ThomasVice President, Treasurer and Assistant Secretary    (senior officer in charge of the servicing function)March 28, 2016
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

STEVIE WILSON,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D16-884

[ July 13, 2017 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm 

Beach County; Samantha Schosberg Feuer, Judge; L.T. Case No. 502014 

CF003833A.

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, Ian Seldin and Patrick Donahue, 

Assistant Public Defenders, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Matthew Steven 

Ocksrider, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

WARNER, CIKLIN and KLINGENSMITH, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 223 (Friday, November 17, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 69598]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-29520]


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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 3476]


Determination; Assistance to the National Democratic Alliance 
(NDA)

    Pursuant to section 451 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as 
amended (22 U.S.C. sec. 2261) (the ``Act''), and section 1-201 of 
Executive Order 12163, as amended, I hereby authorize, notwithstanding 
any other provision of law, the use of up to $3.0 million in FY 2000 
funds made available under Chapter IV of Part II of the Act for 
assistance to the civilian wing of the Sudanese National Democratic 
Alliance.
    This authorization shall be reported to Congress immediately and 
published in the Federal Register.

    Dated: October 31, 2000.
Madeline Albright,
Secretary of State.
[FR Doc. 00-29520 Filed 11-16-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-26-P
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

WESTERN DISTRICT 

JOHN T. CRAMER, 

 Petitioner 

 v. 

KIMBERLY A. BARKLEY, 

 Respondent 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 64 WM 2014 

ORDER 

PER CURIAM 

AND NOW, this 21st day of October, 2014, the Application for Leave to File 

Original Process is GRANTED, and the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DENIED.
IV

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 9

Expressing the sense of the Congress that the 1981 Israeli preemptive strike

against the Iraqi nuclear reactor at Osirak was a legitimate and justifiable exercise of self-defense, and that the United States should seek

the repeal of United Nations Security Council Resolution 487 which

condemned that 1981 Israeli preemptive strike.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 5, 1993

Mr. TORRICELLI submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was

referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of the Congress that the 1981 Israeli

preemptive strike against the Iraqi nuclear reactor at

Osirak was a legitimate and justifiable exercise of selfdefense, and that the United States should seek the

repeal of United Nations Security Council Resolution

487 which condemned that 1981 Israeli preemptive

strike.

Whereas on June 7, 1981, the Israeli air force launched a

preemptive strike against the Iraqi nuclear reactor at

Osirak;

Whereas on June 19, 1981, the United Nations Security

Council adopted Resolution 487 which condemned that

Israeli preemptive strike;
2

•HCON 9 IH

Whereas in the years following that Israeli preemptive strike,

Iraq demonstrated an ability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, as evidenced by chemical weapons attacks against both Iranian military forces and

Kurdish Iraqi citizens;

Whereas in 1990, Iraqi President Hussein attempted to illegally acquire triggering devices for atomic bombs, and

also threatened to use weapons of mass destruction

against both neighboring Arab countries and Israel;

Whereas in August 1990, Iraq invaded and occupied Kuwait,

demonstrating a continuing policy of aggression;

Whereas after United States-led coalition forces attacked the

Iraqi forces on January 16, 1991, Iraq attempted to

draw Israel, a non-belligerent country, into the conflict by

launching 42 Scud missiles at Israel; and

Whereas there is no evidence that the Israeli preemptive

strike against the Iraqi nuclear reactor at Osirak delayed

efforts to resolve the Arab-Israeli conflict: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring), That it is the sense of the Congress that—

3 (1) the 1981 Israeli preemptive strike against

4 the Iraqi nuclear reactor at Osirak was a legitimate

5 and justifiable exercise of self-defense which also re6 duced the threat of Iraqi nuclear aggression against

7 countries bordering Iraq; and

8 (2) the United States should seek the repeal of

9 United Nations Security Council Resolution 487
3

•HCON 9 IH

1 which condemned that 1981 Israeli preemptive

2 strike.

Æ