alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 373 Reported in House (RH)]

                                                 Union Calendar No. 320

103d CONGRESS

  2d Session

                             H. J. RES. 373

                          [Report No. 103-575]

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

    Disapproving the extension of nondiscriminatory treatment (most-
 favored-nation treatment) to the products of the People's Republic of 
                     China, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                             June 30, 1994

Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union 
                       and ordered to be printed

                                     

                                                 Union Calendar No. 320
103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. J. RES. 373

                          [Report No. 103-575]

    Disapproving the extension of nondiscriminatory treatment (most-
 favored-nation treatment) to the products of the People's Republic of 
                     China, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              June 8, 1994

   Mr. Solomon introduced the following joint resolution; which was 
              referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

                             June 30, 1994

Additional sponsors: Mr. Sanders, Mr. Smith of New Jersey, Mr. Bunning, 
               Mr. Wolf, Mr. Rohrabacher, and Mr. Gilman

                             June 30, 1994

Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union 
                       and ordered to be printed

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
    Disapproving the extension of nondiscriminatory treatment (most-
 favored-nation treatment) to the products of the People's Republic of 
                     China, and for other purposes.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That the Congress does not 
approve the extension of the authority contained in section 402(c) of 
the Trade Act of 1974 recommended by the President to the Congress on 
June 2, 1994, with respect to the People's Republic of China.
```
Exhibit 31.1



CERTIFICATIONS



I, Paul C. Honda, 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 Honda Auto Receivables 2015-2
Owner Trust (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 review 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: Deutsche Bank Trust Company
Americas.



Date: June 10, 2016



|/s/ Paul C. Honda                                    | 
|---------------------------------------------------- | 
|Paul C. Honda                                       
|Vice President and Assistant Secretary              
|American Honda Finance Corporation                  
|(senior officer in charge of the servicing function)
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Federal Reserve System

The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board's Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire a bank or bank holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)). 

The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must be received not later than November 24, 2000. 

**A. Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis**                     (JoAnne F. Lewellen, Assistant Vice President) 90 Hennepin Avenue, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55480-0291:                 

*1. William E. Coffee,*                     Billings, Montana, individually and as trustee for the following trusts: Coffee Family Trust I, Coffee Family Trust II, Nefsy Family Trust I, Nefsy Family Trust II, and Nefsy Family Trust III, and the following trusts acting in concert: Coffee Family Trust I, Coffee Family Trust II, Nefsy Family Trust I, and Nefsy Family Trust III, all of Billings, Montana, to acquire voting shares of Stockman Financial Corporation, Miles City, Montana, and thereby indirectly acquire voting shares of Stockman Bank of Montana, Miles City, Montana.                 

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, November 3, 2000. 

Robert deV. Frierson, 

Associate Secretary of the Board. 

[FR Doc. 00-28765 Filed 11-8-00; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-20737 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus VICTOR SAN MARTIN DE LA CRUZ, also known as Victor San Martin-Delacruz, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. H-01-CR-148-ALL

-------------------- April 11, 2002 Before SMITH, DeMOSS, and PARKER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * The Federal Public Defender representing Victor San Martin De La Cruz has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief as required by Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). San Martin De La Cruz has not filed a response. Our independent review of the brief and the record discloses no nonfrivolous issue in this direct appeal. Accordingly, the motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from furtherNo. -2- responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR . R. 42.2.
- 1 -

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH DIVISION

ASHONDRA J HARRIS §

§

 Plaintiff, §

§

v. § Civil Action No. 4:22-CV-00738-O

§

PROCOLLECT INC §

§

 Defendant. §

ORDER

Before the Court is the parties’ Joint Motion for Protective Order (ECF No. 13), filed 

March 7, 2023. Having considered the Joint Motion and the applicable law, the Court finds that it 

should be and is hereby DENIED.

This Court routinely declines to use Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) to convert an 

agreement of the parties into a court order. This practice does not leave the parties without 

recourse. First, the parties may agree to any confidentiality or discovery-related contract among 

themselves without devoting scarce judicial resources to the matter. Davis v. City of Fort Worth, 

No. 4:14-cv-491-A, 2014 WL 12940678, at *3 (N.D. Tex. July 3, 2014) (McBryde, J.).

Second, a party may move for leave to file a specific document under seal with a 

memorandum outlining the good cause for the document to be sealed from public, supporting legal 

authorities, and relevant facts verified by oath or declaration of a person with personal knowledge. 

See United States v. Holy Land Found. for Relief & Dev., 624 F.3d 685, 690 (5th Cir. 2010) 

(“Public confidence [in our judicial system] cannot long be maintained where important judicial 

decisions are made behind closed doors and then announced in conclusive terms to the public, with 

the record supporting the court’s decision sealed from public view.”); Binh Hoa Le v. Exeter Fin.

Case 4:22-cv-00738-O Document 14 Filed 03/08/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID 75
- 2 -

Corp., No. 20-10377, 2021 WL 838266, at *8 (5th Cir. Mar. 5, 2021) (“when materials enter the 

court record, the standard for shielding records from public view is far more arduous”); cf. United 

States v. Edwards, 823 F.2d 111, 118 (5th Cir. 1987) (if closure of a presumptively open 

proceeding is to withstand a First Amendment challenge, the court must make specific fact findings 

demonstrating that a substantial probability exists that an interest of a higher value will be 

prejudiced and that no reasonable alternatives will adequately protect that interest).

For these reasons, the parties’ Joint Motion for Protective Order (ECF No. 13), is 

DENIED.

SO ORDERED this 8th day of March, 2023.

Case 4:22-cv-00738-O Document 14 Filed 03/08/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID 76
#### O. S. VAUGHN, Appellant, v. STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 22502.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

March 17, 1943.

Eugene Talbert, of Tyler, for appellant.

Spurgeon E. Bell, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

GRAVES, Judge.

Upon his plea of guilty and waiver of trial by jury, appellant was convicted of theft, and his punishment assessed at three years’ confinement in the penitentiary.

Appellant has filed proper application, duly verified, asking that his appeal be withdrawn, which request is granted and the appeal dismissed.
## In The Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

No. 07 - 19 - 00103 - CV IN RE ARNOLD LEWIS F ILEWOOD, RELATOR O RIGINAL PROCEEDING 

### April 15 , 2019 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before CAMPBELL and PIRTLE and P ARKER , JJ. Relator Arnold Lewis Filewood, a Texas inmate proceeding pro se , filed a petition for writ of mandamus with the clerk of this Court but did not accompany his petition with the required filing fee. By letter dated March 25, 2019, we directed Filewood to pay the filing fee of $1 55 or, in lieu thereof, t o comply with c hapter 14 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code by fil ing an affidavit of indigence, a n affidavit relating to previous filings , and a certified copy of his inmate trust account statement
. See T EX . C IV . P RAC . & R EM . C ODE A NN . §§ 14.002(a), 14.004 (West 2017 ). We advised Filewood that if he did not comply by April 4 , this proceeding was subject to dismissal without further notice. To date, Filewood has neither paid the filing fee nor submitted the materials necessary to proceed under chapter 14.2

Unless a party is excused from paying a filing fee, the c lerk of this C ourt is required to collect filing fees set by statute or the Supreme Court when an item is presented for filing. See T EX . R. A PP . P . 5, 12.1(b). An inmate who files an affidavit or a declaration of inability to pay costs in an appeal or original proceed ing must also comply with chapter 14 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code. See T EX . C IV . P RAC . & R EM . C ODE A NN . § 14.002 (a). An inmate’s failure to comply with chapter 14 is grounds for dismissal of the appeal or original proceeding. See In re Johnson , No. 07 - 16 - 00354 - CV, 2016 Tex. App. LEXIS 11841, at *2 (Tex. App.
— Amarillo Nov. 1, 2016, orig. proceeding) (per curiam) (m em. op.) (dismissing inmate’s petition for writ of mandamus for failure to pay the filing fee or submit the materials required to proceed under chapter 14). Because Filewood has failed to pay the filing fee or comply with chapter 14 of the Texas Civil Prac tice and Remedies Code wi thin the time provided by this C ourt for compliance, his ori ginal proceeding is dismissed. P er Curiam
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

DALLAS DIVISION 

ORDER – PAGE 1 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA § 

 § 

v. § Crim. Action No. 3:22-CR-00054-N 

 § 

HENRY DWIGHT WILLIAMS (1) § 

SENTENCING SCHEDULING ORDER 

The sentencing hearing is scheduled for October 17, 2022 at 9:30 a.m. The 

probation officer must furnish the presentence report to the Court, the defendant’s counsel, 

and the attorney for the government before September 12, 2022 at 5:00 p.m. 

 The parties must deliver to the court, the probation officer and the opposing party 

their objections, if any, to the presentence report within 14 days of the receipt of the 

presentence report. If there are no objections, the party must submit a statement adopting 

the report. 

 The probation officer must deliver any addendum to the presentence report to the 

Court, the defendant’s counsel and counsel for the government at least 14 days before the 

sentencing hearing. Counsel will then have 7 days before the sentencing to deliver to the 

court, the probation officer and opposing counsel any objections to the addendum. 

 Defendant’s counsel shall submit any written materials, such as letters, notes and/or 

other items, for consideration to the Court and the probation officer at least 7 days before 

sentencing. 

 Any motion regarding downward or upward departures must be filed at least 14 

days before sentencing. Any response in opposition to such a motion must be filed at least 

7 days before sentencing. 

Case 3:22-cr-00054-N Document 29 Filed 07/27/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID 62
SENTENCING SCHEDULING ORDER - PAGE 2

 In any case in which 18 U.S.C. §§ 3663-64 apply, no later than 5 days from the date 

of this order the attorney for the government must provide to the probation officer all 

information that the officer needs to comply with crime victim restitution requirements. 

If during the presentence report investigation, it is determined that Texas Youth 

Commission (“TYC”) records are needed, the court orders the TYC to release these records 

to the probation officer assigned to prepare the PSR, acting in the performance of the 

officer’s official duties pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 32. The specific records that are to 

be released include documents pertaining to the defendant’s social history, court 

disposition records, substance abuse treatment records, psychological evaluations, other 

mental health treatment records, educational records, general hearth records, adjustment 

while incarcerated records and release dates from the TYC. Counsel should direct any 

questions regarding this Order to Carla Moore, Court Coordinator, at 214-753-2706. 

 Signed July 27, 2022. 

 

 David C. Godbey 

United States District Judge 

Case 3:22-cr-00054-N Document 29 Filed 07/27/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID 63
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 

SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY 

The Honorable John A. Boehner 

Speaker 

U.S. House ofRepresentatives 

Washington, DC 20515 

Dear Mr. Speaker: 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

August 2, 2013 

I am writing to notify you, as required under 5 U.S.C. § 8348 (1)(2), of my determination that, by 

reason of the statutory debt limit, I will continue to be unable to fully invest the portion of the 

Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund (CSRDF) not immediately required to pay 

beneficiaries. I have determined that a "debt issuance suspension period," previously determined 

to last until August 2, 2013, will continue through October 11, 2013, the last day that Congress is 

expected to be in session before the Columbus Day recess. As a result, the Treasury Department 

will continue to suspend additional investments of amounts credited to, and redeem an additional 

portion of the investments held by, the CSRDF, as authorized by law. By law, the CSRDF will 

be made whole once the debt limit is increased. Federal retirees and employees will be 

unaffected by these actions. 

I respectfully urge Congress to protect America's good credit and avoid the potentially 

catastrophic consequences of failing to act by increasing the debt limit in a timely fashion. Past 

experience has proven that it is impossible to predict Treasury's debt and cash requirements with 

certainty. Waiting until the last possible moment to act would risk financial market and economic 

damage that is completely avoidable and irresponsible to our investors and our country. 

We will continue to update Congress as more information becomes available. 

Sincerely, 

Jacob J. Lew 

Identical letter sent to: 

The Honorable Nancy Pelosi, House Democratic Leader 

The Honorable Harry Reid, Senate Majority Leader 

The Honorable Mitch McConnell, Senate Republican Leader 

cc: The Honorable Dave Camp, Chairman, House Committee on Ways and Means 

The Honorable Sander M. Levin, Ranking Member, House Committee on Ways and Means 

The Honorable Max Baucus, Chairman, Senate Committee on Finance 

The Honorable Orrin G. Hatch, Ranking Member, Senate Committee on Finance 

All other Members of the 1131

h Congress
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Wayne Green, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Westchester County (Lange, J.), rendered May 12, 1986, convicting him of burglary in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of those branches of the defendant’s omnibus motion which were to suppress physical evidence and identification testimony.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

At the suppression hearing, Police Officer Paulo testified that after receiving two radio transmissions regarding a burglary which described the intruder as a white male with curly dark hair, approximately 5 feet 9 to 5 feet 10 inches tall, wearing dark pants and a blue jacket, carrying a blue and brown canvas camera bag, he proceeded to the train station which he thought would be the suspect’s likely point of egress from the area where the crime had occurred. Upon arriving at the train station he observed the defendant, who matched the description perfectly, aside from the fact that his coat was being worn inside out and appeared white with blue trim. Not only was the defendant carrying a blue and brown camera bag, but the officer noticed that he was sweating profusely and that he had twigs and sticks in his hair. Officer Paulo then *458restrained the defendant and after observing a bulge in his pocket reached in and discovered 26 pieces of jewelry. The defendant was placed under arrest and transported to the police station.

Based upon the totality of the circumstances known to the arresting officer, as well as the fact that the defendant matched the description of the suspect almost perfectly, the officer had probable cause to arrest the defendant *(see, People v Rivera,*142 AD2d 742). Since there existed probable cause for the arrest at the time the physical evidence was obtained, " '[i]t is immaterial that the seizure of the evidence occurred immediately before, rather than simultaneously with, the formal arrest’ ” *(People v McLeod,*161 AD2d 671).

We have considered the defendant’s remaining contentions and find that they do not warrant reversal. Thompson, J. P., Brown, Kunzeman and Eiber, JJ., concur.
Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, September 28, 2021

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A21A1770. EDDIE BERNARD JACOBS, SR. v. THE STATE.

The appellant in this case failed to comply with the notice of docketing mailed by this 

Court and with Court of Appeals Rule 23 (a), regarding the filing of an enumeration of errors 

and brief within twenty days after the appeal was docketed. See also Court of Appeals Rule 13.

On August 23, 2021, this Court ordered the appellant to file an enumeration of errors and 

a brief no later than September 02, 2021. As of the date of this order, the appellant's 

enumeration of errors and brief still have not been filed. Accordingly, this appeal is deemed 

abandoned and is hereby ordered DISMISSED. Court of Appeals Rules 7, 23 (a).

Because procedural deficiencies have deprived the appellant of the right of appellate 

review, the appellant is hereby informed of the following in accordance with Rowland v. State, 

264 Ga. 872 (452 SE2d 756) (1995):

This Court has dismissed your appeal because an enumeration of errors and a 

brief have not been filed on your behalf as required. If this failure occurred while 

you were represented by legal counsel and was due to your appellate counsel's 

failure to perform the duties of appellate counsel, and if you still wish to appeal, 

you may file a motion in the trial court for permission to pursue an out-of-time 

appeal. If the trial court grants your motion for an out-of-time appeal, you will 

have 30 days from the filing date of the order granting your motion to file in the 

trial court a notice of appeal from the judgment of conviction and sentence. If the 

trial court denies your motion for an out-of-time appeal, you will have 30 days 

from the filing date of the order denying your motion to file in the trial court a 

notice of appeal from that order.
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, September 28, 2021.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes 

of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto 

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

The Clerk of Court is directed to send a copy of this order to the appellant as well as to 

the appellant's attorney of record, if any. The appellant's attorney is also directed to send a copy 

of this order to the appellant.