alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
P.1 

OAR Box 1830 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

221) IV-C-188 

Docket Number: 

A-87-11 

Primed 11/13/2008 7:21:03 AM Sheet 221 of 232 
w P.2 

1532/ 

A-81-H 

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 

EEC J 2 1891 

OFFICE OF 

AIR AND RADIATION 

Honorable Alfonse M. D'Amato 

United States Senator 

1259 Federal Building 

P.O. Box 7216 

Syracuse, NY 13261-7216 

Dear Senator D'Amato: 

* & £ V//J 

/ 

This is in response to your November 14, 1991 letter to 

the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regarding onboard 

refueling vapor recovery systems. You included a letter from 

your constituent, Mr. Richard K. Clark, expressing concern 

that EPA does not intend to follow through on the rulemaking 

as required and that costs for Stage II systems would be 

high. We appreciate Mr. Clark's interest on this matter. 

EPA is proceeding with the rulemaking process for onboard 

controls as required by the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. 

As part of this process, Congress directed the EPA to consult 

with the Department of Transportation (DOT) regarding onboard 

system safety. This consultation is well underway. The 

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), which 

is part of the DOT, released a study of onboard system safety 

in July 1991. We are reviewing this study and have placed a 

copy in the public docket for this rulemaking. We also held a 

hearing on September 26th and 27th in order to solicit 

comments from the public on this issue. Written comments were 

accepted through October 27th. Approximately 30 written 

comments were received. We are in the process of making the 

final determination on how to proceed with the rule based on 

DOT'S conclusions regarding safety risks of onboard systems 

and on the record developed during the comment period. 

SDSB:Carol Connell:2565 Plymouth Road:X8408:12-04-91:ID#999W 

Last Reviewed by Chet Frances:12-04-91:Control No. AL-91-4827 

Reviewed by DZinger:BJR:X7647:AR-455:12-04-91:Wang NO. 2661T 

Printed on Recycled Paper 
P.3 

-2-

Thank you for your concern in this matter. Your letter 

will be included in the public docket. Please feel free to 

contact Don Kopinski of my staff at (313) 668-4229 if you 

require any additional information. 

Sincerely yours, 

ORIGINAL SIGNED BY 

RICHARD D. WILSON- ^ 

Richard D. Wilson 

Director, Office of Mobile Sources 

cc: Public Docket A-87-11
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NOS. AP-76,588 & AP-76,589

EX PARTE JESUS MARTIN RUIZ, Applicant

ON APPLICATIONS FOR WRITS OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NOS. 1072757 & 1072763 IN THE 232ND DISTRICT COURT

FROM HARRIS COUNTY

Per curiam.

O P I N I O N

Pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, the

clerk of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for writ of habeas corpus. Ex parte

Young, 418 S.W.2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was convicted of two charges of

indecency with a child and sentenced to twelve and nine years’ imprisonment, respectively. The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals affirmed his convictions. Ruiz v. State, Nos. 14-08-00932-CR & 14-08-

00933-CR (Tex. App.–Houston [14 Dist.] Aug. 25, 2009) (unpublished). th

Applicant contends that his appellate counsel rendered ineffective assistance because counsel

failed to timely file petitions for discretionary review. 
2

Appellate counsel filed an affidavit with the trial court. Based on that affidavit, the trial court

has entered findings of fact and conclusions of law that appellate counsel’s affidavit is credible and

that counsel failed to timely file petitions for discretionary review. The State agrees that Applicant

is entitled to relief. Ex parte Wilson, 956 S.W.2d 25 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997). We find, therefore,

that Applicant is entitled to the opportunity to file out-of-time petitions for discretionary review of

the judgments of the Fourteenth Court of Appeals in Cause Nos. 14-08-00932-CR & 14-08-00933-

CR that affirmed his conviction in Case Nos. 1072757 & 1072763 from the 232 Judicial District nd

Court of Harris County. Applicant shall file his petitions for discretionary review with the

Fourteenth Court of Appeals within 30 days of the date on which this Court’s mandate issues.

Delivered: June 29, 2011

Do not publish
Case 4:22-cr-00036-Y Document 5 Filed 01/27/22 Page 1 of 1 PageID 8
IA

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. J. RES. 20

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to permit

the Congress to limit expenditures in elections for Federal office.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 5, 1993

Mr. DINGELL 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 to permit the Congress to limit expenditures in

elections for Federal office.

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled

3 (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the fol4 lowing article is proposed as an amendment to the Con5 stitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all

6 intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when

7 ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several
2

HJ 20 IH

1 States within seven years after the date of its submission

2 for ratification:

3 ‘‘ARTICLE —

4 ‘‘The Congress shall have authority to limit expendi5 tures in elections for Federal office.’’.

Æ
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

SILVES H. )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. ) No. 3:22-CV-0286-K

)

KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting )

Commissioner of Social Security, )

)

Defendant. )

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

United States Magistrate Judge Renée Harris Toliver made findings, conclusions 

and a recommendation in this case. No objections were filed. The 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. Plaintiff’s motion, Doc. 22, is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s Petition to 

Obtain Approval of a Fee for Representing a Social Security Claimant, Doc. 26, should 

be GRANTED, and counsel should be awarded attorneys’ fees in the amount of 

$17,500.00.

SO ORDERED.

Signed January 4th, 2024.

__________________________

ED KINKEADE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:22-cv-00286-K-BK Document 29 Filed 01/04/24 Page 1 of 1 PageID 735
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

**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 Annual Report of Rodman & Renshaw Capital Group, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securitiesand Exchange Commission (“SEC”) on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Edward Rubin, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: 

     (1) The Report fully  complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, as amended; and 

     (2) The information  contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of the Company. 

     A signed original  of this written statement has been provided to the Company and will be retainedby the Company and furnished to the SEC or its staff upon request. 

Dated: March 11, 2009 

/s/ EDWARD RUBIN  Edward Rubin   Chief ExecutiveOfficer (Principal Executive Officer)

----
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 12**  **- 80**  **55**

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , P laintiff

- Appellee ,
v.
R A SH AWN RAKI WALLACE, a/k/a Shawn P , Defendant

- Appellant
. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at C olumbia
. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr. , District Judge. ( 3: 07

- cr - 00 155

- JFA

- 17; 3:11

- cv - 03078

- JFA )

Submitted : February 26 , 2013 Decided: March 1, 2013

Before MOTZ, WYNN , and DIAZ , Circuit Judges.

Dismiss ed by un published per curiam opinion
. William Mallory Kent, LAW OFFICE OF WILLIAM MALLORY KENT, Jacksonville, Florida, for A ppellant. Stacey Denise Haynes, Jane Barrett Taylor , Assistant United States Attorney s , Col umbia, South Carolina , for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Rashawn Raki Wallace seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. A. § 2255 ( West Supp. 2012 ) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (B) (200 6 ). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U .S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (200 6 ). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or
wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Wallace has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal3 contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

JOSEPH EUGENE NAGY,

Plaintiff,

v.

KEVIN MCGRATH and ELIANA

MCGRATH,

Defendants.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

Civil Action No. 3:22-CV-1627-X

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. [Doc. No. 7]. 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.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 23rd day of August, 2022.

____________________________________

BRANTLEY STARR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:22-cv-01627-X-BN Document 8 Filed 08/23/22 Page 1 of 1 PageID 42
# L_2013214EN.01S00301.xml

| 9.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 214/s3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 214/s3

---

NOTICE TO READERS

Council Regulation (EU) No 216/2013 of 7 March 2013 on the electronic publication of the Official Journal of the European Union

In accordance with Council Regulation (EU) No 216/2013 of 7 March 2013 on the electronic publication of the Official Journal of the European Union (OJ L 69, 13.3.2013, p. 1), as of 1 July 2013, only the electronic edition of the Official Journal shall be considered authentic and shall have legal effect.

Official Journal of the European Union

Where it is not possible to publish the electronic edition of the Official Journal due to unforeseen and exceptional circumstances, the printed edition shall be authentic and shall have legal effect in accordance with the terms and conditions set out in Article 3 of Regulation (EU) No 216/2013.

---
**
**Exhibit 31**

**Certifications**

I, RichardSimpson, certify that: 

1.    I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and allreports on Form 10-D required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of Citigroup Commercial Mortgage Trust 2015-GC29 (the“Exchange Act periodic reports”); 

2.    Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken asa 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 periodcovered by this report; 

3.    Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and other informationrequired to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports; 

4.    Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statement(s) required in this report under Item 1123 of RegulationAB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicers have fulfilled their obligations under the servicing agreements in all material respects; and 

5.    All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities and their relatedattestation 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 Rules13a-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 insuch 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 parties: Midland Loan Services, a Division of PNC Bank, National Association; Situs Holdings, LLC; Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas; CWCapital Asset ManagementLLC; Wells Fargo Bank, National Association; and Pentalpha Surveillance LLC. 

Date:    March 29, 2019 

 

 

/s/ Richard Simpson

Richard Simpson

President, Citigroup Commercial Mortgage Securities Inc.

(seniorofficer in charge of securitization of the depositor)

 

 
CGCMT 2015-GC29Certifications (2018) 

**
103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 105

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Providing for an adjournment of the House from

until Monday, June 7, 1993.recess of the Senate from Friday, May 28, 1993,Tuesday, June 8, 1993, and an adjournment orthe legislative day of Thursday, May 27, 1993, to
103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 105

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring), That when the House adjourns on the legisla3 tive day of Thursday, May 27, 1993, it stand adjourned

4 until noon on Tuesday, June 8, 1993, or until noon on

5 the second day after Members are notified to reassemble

6 pursuant to section 2 of this concurrent resolution, which7 ever occurs first; and that when the Senate recesses or

8 adjourns at the close of business on Friday, May 28, 1993,

9 pursuant to a motion made by the Majority Leader, or

10 his designee, in accordance with this resolution, it stand

11 recessed or adjourned until noon, or until such time as

12 may be specified by the Majority Leader or his designee

13 in the motion to adjourn or recess, on Monday, June 7,

14 1993, or until noon on the second day after Members are

15 notified to reassemble pursuant to section 2 of this concur16 rent resolution, whichever occurs first.

17 SEC. 2. The Speaker of the House and the Majority

18 Leader of the Senate, acting jointing after consultation

19 with the Minority Leader of the House and the Minority
2

HCON 105 EH

1 Leader of the Senate, shall notify the Members of the

2 House and the Senate, respectively, to reassemble when3 ever, in their opinion, the public interest shall warrant it.

Passed the House of Representatives May 27, 1993.

Attest:

Clerk.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998             DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998             DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                           3,789                   2,586
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   22,866                   6,054
<ALLOWANCES>                                      (305)                   (119)
<INVENTORY>                                          0                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                28,446                  10,695
<PP&E>                                          46,060                  24,944
<DEPRECIATION>                                   3,072                   2,840
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  79,569                  37,227
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           26,801                  10,846
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                  19,416
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                        41,517                   6,337
<OTHER-SE>                                        (772)                 (6,041)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    79,569                  37,227
<SALES>                                         35,900                  19,107
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                35,900                  19,107
<CGS>                                           19,816                  11,172
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   19,816                  11,172
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 7,952                   7,020
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                (15)                       0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  8,305                     973
<INCOME-TAX>                                     3,156                     (45)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              5,149                   1,018
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                     5,149                   1,018
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .40                     .09
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .38                     .08
        

</TABLE>
wss-is

ELECTRONIC RECORD

COA# 02-13-00540-CR OFFENSE: 19.02

Thomas Ramirez, Jr. v. The State

STYLE: ofTexas COUNTY: Tarrant

COA DISPOSITION: MODIFY TRIAL COURT: 297th District Court

DATE: 08/06/2015 Publish: NO TC CASE #: 1260933R

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

Thomas Ramirez, Jr. v. The

STYLE: Texas

State of

Petition

CCA# \l£S>~/&

FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW IN CCA IS:

CCA Disposition:

DATE:

(?c7V4<=f7) JUDGE:

DATE: ///oyiJ-Vy

JUDGE: fJA OCotsJtJ.—

SIGNED: PC:

PUBLISH: DNP:

MOTION FOR

REHEARING IN CCA IS:

JUDGE:

ELECTRONIC RECORD
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 255 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. J. RES. 255

  Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to 
                     prohibit retroactive taxation.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             August 6, 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 to 
                     prohibit retroactive taxation.

    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--

    ``Congress shall not increase the rate of a tax or fee levied, or 
impose a new tax or fee, on income that is gained or realized before 
the date of the enactment of the law that causes such increase or 
imposes such tax, except under the declaration of a national emergency 
by the President of the United States.''.

                                 <all>
```
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Chief Judge Philip A. Brimmer

Civil Action No. 21-cv-02315-PAB

SWM International, LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

DYNAENERGETICS EUROPE GMBH,

DYNAENERGETICS US, Inc.,

Defendants.

SECOND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff SWM International, LLC’s Response

to Order to Show Cause. Docket No. 42. Plaintiff asserts that the Court has jurisdiction

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Docket No. 1 at 4, ¶ 14. The Court ordered plaintiff to

provide allegations that would allow the Court to determine the citizenship of plaintiff

and defendant DynaEnergetics GmbH and to determine whether the Court has

jurisdiction. Docket No. 35 at 5. Plaintiff’s response sufficiently alleges defendant

DynaEnergetics GmbH’s citizenship. Docket No. 42 at 3-5.

The response however, fails to allege the citizenship of one of the members of

plaintiff SWM International, LLC (“SWM”). The citizenship of a limited liability company

is determined by the citizenship of all of its members. See Siloam Springs Hotel, LLC v.

Century Sur. Co., 781 F.3d 1233, 1237-38 (10th Cir. 2015) (“[I]n determining the

Case 3:22-cv-01769-M Document 48 Filed 04/18/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID 419
citizenship of an unincorporated association for purposes of diversity, federal courts

must include all the entities’ members.”). Plaintiff states that it has four members and

one member, DRM Holdings, Inc. is “an entity incorporated under the laws of Texas.” 

Docket No. 42 at 3. A corporation, is deemed to be a citizen of “every State and foreign

state by which it has been incorporated and of the State or foreign state where it has its

principal place of business.” See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1). Plaintiff has not provided the

principal place of business for DRM Holdings Inc. See Docket No. 42 at 3. 

Because the allegations are presently insufficient to allow the Court to determine

the citizenship of plaintiff and whether the Court has jurisdiction, it is

ORDERED that, on or before April 25, 2022, plaintiff shall show cause why this

case should not be dismissed due to the Court’s lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

DATED April 18, 2022.

BY THE COURT:

 

PHILIP A. BRIMMER

Chief United States District Judge

2

Case 3:22-cv-01769-M Document 48 Filed 04/18/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID 420
EXHIBIT
10.2




Director
Fee Arrangements for Fiscal 2015




Each
director of Southern Missouri Bancorp, Inc. (the "Company") also is a director
of Southern Bank (the "Bank"). For Fiscal 2015, each director receives a monthly
fee of $900 for serving on the Company's Board of Directors and $1,100 for
serving on the Bank's Board of Directors.