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

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. J. RES. 53

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

bills and resolutions from containing more than a single subject when

they are presented to the President.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 5, 1993

Mr. ZIMMER (for himself, Mr. FRANKS of New Jersey, Mr. CASTLE, and Mr.

ROHRABACHER) 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 bills and resolutions from containing

more than a single subject when they are presented

to the President.

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 for all

6 intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when
2

HJ 53 IH

1 ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several

2 States within seven years after the date of its submission

3 by the Congress:

4 ‘‘ARTICLE—

5 ‘‘SECTION 1. No bill or joint resolution containing

6 more than a single subject shall be presented to the Presi7 dent, and the single subject of any bill or joint resolution

8 shall be expressed in the title when its presented to the

9 President.

10 ‘‘SECTION 2. The provisions of section 1 shall not

11 apply to a bill or joint resolution that compiles, consoli12 dates, revises, or rearranges the statutory law.’’.

Æ
| (logo) WELLS

           FARGO | Commercial Mortgage Servicing

D1086-120, 12th Floor

550 South Tryon Street 

Charlotte, NC 28202

1-800-326-1334 |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

ANNUAL STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE

 

   

Reference is hereby made to that certain Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of July 1, 2015, by and among DEUTSCHE MORTGAGE & ASSET RECEIVING CORPORATION, as Depositor, WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Master Servicer, RIALTO CAPITAL ADVISORS, LLC, as Special Servicer, WILMINGTON TRUST, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Trustee, and WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Certificate Administrator, Paying Agent and Custodian and PARK BRIDGE LENDER SERVICES LLC, as Operating Advisor with respect to Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, COMM 2015-PC1 (the "Agreement"). Capitalized terms used herein not otherwise defined shall have the meanings assigned in the Agreement.

 

Pursuant to Section 10.11 of this Agreement, I, Daniel Bober, Executive Vice President of Commercial Mortgage Services do hereby certify that:

 

1. A review of the activities of the Master Servicer during the period from July 1, 2015 through December 31, 2015 (the “Reporting Period”), and of its performance per the Agreement during such period has been made under my supervision, and 

 

2. To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Master Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period.

 

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this Certificate as of the 4th day of March 2016.

 

 

/s/ Daniel Bober

Daniel Bober

Executive Vice President

Wells Fargo Bank

 

 
| Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. | (logo) Together we’ll go far |
|------------------------|------------------------------------|
NEW

MONEY

Net BILLS Issuance for the quarter -154.12

RECOMMENDED

SETTLEMENT OFFERED MATURING NEW

ISSUE DATE AMOUNT CHANGE** AMOUNT MONEY

2-Year Note 7/1 40.00 0.00

5-Year Note 7/1 41.00 0.00

7-Year Note 7/1 32.00 0.00 71.99 41.01

3-Year Note 7/15 38.00 0.00

10-Year Note (r) 7/15 24.00 0.00

30-Year Bond (r) 7/15 16.00 0.00 41.29 36.71

10-Year TIPS 7/31 14.00 1.00

2-Year Note 7/31 40.00 0.00

2-Year FRN 7/31 20.00 0.00

5-Year Note 7/31 41.00 0.00

7-Year Note 7/31 32.00 0.00 115.87 31.13

3-Year Note 8/15 38.00 0.00

10-Year Note 8/15 27.00 0.00

30-Year Bond 8/15 19.00 0.00 57.34 26.66

30-Year TIPS (r) 8/30 7.00 2.00

2-Year FRN (r) 8/30 18.00 0.00 0.00 25.00

2-Year Note 9/3 40.00 0.00

5-Year Note 9/3 41.00 0.00

7-Year Note 9/3 32.00 0.00 76.14 36.86

3-Year Note 9/16 38.00 0.00

10-Year Note (r) 9/16 24.00 0.00

30-Year Bond (r) 9/16 16.00 0.00 24.00 54.00

2-Year FRN (r) 9/27 18.00 0.00 0.00 18.00

10-Year TIPS (r) 9/30 12.00 1.00

2-Year Note 9/30 40.00 0.00

5-Year Note 9/30 41.00 0.00

7-Year Note 9/30 32.00 0.00 80.25 44.75

781.00 466.88 314.12

Recommendations are italicized. r = Reopening NET CASH RAISED THIS QUARTER: 160

actually issue debt in the future.

** Change is relative to the prior issuance of the relevant instrument. For example, a reopening is compared to the prior

reopening of that instrument tenor and type.

BILLIONS OF DOLLARS

TBAC RECOMMENDED US TREASURY FINANCING SCHEDULE FOR CALENDAR 3RD QUARTER 2019*

* This financing table reflects TBAC recommendations based on meeting discussions and does not indicate how Treasury will
AGENDA

Advisory Committee on Risk-Sharing Mechanisms

May 11, 2020

10:30 - 10:40 a.m. Welcome & Opening Remarks

Steven Seitz, Director, Federal Insurance Office

10:40 -10:50 a.m. Welcome & Opening Remarks

Michael Sapnar (Chair), TransRe

10:50 -12:15 p.m. Review of Report and Adoption by the Committee

Michael Sapnar (Chair), TransRe, and Members of 

the Committee

12:15 -12:25 p.m. Conclusion

Michael Sapnar (Chair), TransRe, and

Steven Seitz, Director, Federal Insurance Office

12:25 -12:30 p.m. New Business

12:30 p.m. Adjorn

Introduction of Committee Members:

Keith Bell, Travelers

Kean Driscoll, AIG

John Lupica, Chubb

Emil Metropoulos, Guy Carpenter

Wendy Peters, Willis Towers Watson

John Seo, Fermat Capital

Keith Wolfe, Swiss Re
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION IX 75 Hawthorne Street San Francisco, CA 94105



## NOV 17 2011 Mr. Chas Spell Arizona Public Service Company Mail Station 9303 P. O. Box 53999 Phoenix, Arizona 85072-3933

DearMr. Spell:

I am writing to inform you thatEPA Region 9 is developing a partial Regional Haze Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) for the state ofArizona. However, ourpreliminarydetermination is that the West Phoenix Power Station is exempt from Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) requirements. Therefore, we do not expect that the facility will be subjectto any additional emission controls based on those requirements.

The purpose ofthe Regional Haze FIP is to improve visibility in national parks and wilderness areas in Arizona and surrounding states as required by Section 169A ofthe Clean Air Act (Act). EPA has entered into a consent decree that requires the Agency to propose approval ofArizona's Regional Haze State Implementation Plan (SIP) and/or propose a Regional Haze FIP that meets the requirements ofthe Act and EPA's regional haze regulations byMay 15,2012. The consent decree also requires the Agencyto take final action on the Arizona Regional Haze SIP and/orFIP byNovember 15,2012. EPA Region 9 will hold public hearings in Arizona and solicitpublic comments on a proposed ArizonaRegional Haze FIP in the months preceding the November 15 deadline.
During the process ofdeveloping the Arizona Regional Haze SIP, submitted to EPA on March 2, 2011, the Arizona Department ofEnvironmental Quality (ADEQ) determined that the West Phoenix Power Station was exempt from BARTrequirements under section 169A(b)(2)(A) ofthe Act, and EPA's implementing regulations and BART guidelines at 40 CFR Part 51, SubpartP and Appendix Y. ADEQ's analysis appears to be sound and we therefore intend to concurwith their determination thatthis facility is exempt from BART requirements.

Thankyou for your attention. Ifyou have any questions, please contact Thomas Webb at webb.thomas@epa.gov, or byphone at 415-947-4139.

SincereIY 

# I1·J,kt

# r**~MCKaUghan** Associate Director, Air Division

cc: HenryR. Darwin, ADEQ Eric Massey, ADEQ
Motion Granted; Appeal Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed May 30 ,

2019

.

In The



## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14- 19 -00340- CV

KENDERRICK MERRITT, Appellant

V. THE METHODIST HOSPITAL; THE METHODIST HOSPITAL – HOUSTON; THE METHODIST HOSPITAL SYSTEM; THE METHODIST HEALTH CARE SYSTEM, INC.; HOUSTON METHODIST ; HOUSTON METHODIST HOSPITAL ; HOUSTON METHODIST – TEXAS MEDICAL CENTER ; MICHAEL T. MANN, M.D.; AND PATRICIO DE HOYO S

ZAMBRANO, M.D., Appellees

On Appeal from the 295th District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2017-42856

MEMORANDUM OPINION
This is an attempted interlocutory appeal from an order granting Michael T. Mann, M.D.’s motion to dismiss with prejudice for failure to serve an expert report pursuant to Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code section 74.351(b)(2)

. The order2

was signed December 29 , 2018. Appellant’s notice of appeal was filed April 12,
2019.
Section 51.014 (a)(9) of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code permits an interlocutory appeal from an order that “denies all or part of the relief sought by a motion under Section 74.351(b). .

. of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code. In an accelerated appeal, the notice of appeal must be filed within 20 days after the judgment or order is signed. Tex. R. App. P. 26.1(b). In an accelerated appeal the deadline for filing a notice of appeal is strictly set at twenty days after the judgment is signed, with no exceptions, and filing a Rule 26.1(a) motion for new trial, motion to modify the judgment, motion to reinstate, or request for findings of fact and
conclusions of law will not extend that deadline. In re K.A.F. , 160 S.W.3d 923, 927 (Tex. 2005).
Appellant’s notice of appeal was not filed timely and was not filed with in the fifteen-day grace period allowed by Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 26.3

. On May 1, 2019 , appellee Michael T. Mann filed a motion to dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction. Appellant filed no response. Appellee Michael T. Mann’s motion is granted, and the appeal is ordered dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Frost and Justices Spain and Poissant.
ANNUAL STATEMENT AS TO COMPLIANCE

COMM 2015-LC21

The undersigned, David Co, a Director of Deutsche Bank Trust
Company Americas, as the Certificate Administrator (a “Certifying Servicer”) under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement,
dated as of June 1, 2015 (the “Agreement”), by and among, Deutsche Mortgage & Asset Receiving Corporation, as Depositor,
Midland Loan Services, a Division of PNC Bank, National Association, as Master Servicer
,Midland Loan Services, a Division of PNC Bank, National Association, as Special Servicer, Wilmington Trust, National Association,
as Trustee, Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas, as Certificate Administrator, Paying Agent and Custodian, and Park Bridge Lender
Services LLC, as Operating Advisor, here by certifies in accordance with Section 10.11 of the Agreement:



| | A) | A review of such Certifying Servicer’s activities from January 1, 2017 to December 31, 2017 (the “reporting period”)
and of such Certifying Servicer’s performance under the Agreement has been made under such officer’s supervision and
| | -- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

| | B) | That, as to the best of such officer’s knowledge, based on such review, such Certifying Servicer has fulfilled all its
obligations under the Agreement, in all material respects throughout the reporting period.
| | -- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



DEUTSCHE BANK TRUST COMPANY AMERICAS

as Certificate Administrator





BY: David Co

Title: Director

Date: March 1, 2018
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 94 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. CON. RES. 94

 Expressing the sense of the Congress regarding the expression of self-
              determination by the people of Puerto Rico.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 5, 1993

 Mr. Serrano submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was 
   referred jointly to the Committees on Foreign Affairs and Natural 
                               Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
 Expressing the sense of the Congress regarding the expression of self-
              determination by the people of Puerto Rico.

Whereas the people of Puerto Rico are natural-born citizens of the United States 
        but do not enjoy all of the individual rights and liberties accorded to 
        other American citizens under the United States Constitution;
Whereas the future status of Puerto Rico remains under discussion among 
        residents of the Island of Puerto Rico and among Puerto Ricans residing 
        in the 50 States of the United States; and
Whereas the Charter of the United Nations, a treaty to which the United States 
        is a signatory, expresses the right of self-determination, that is the 
        right of a people to decide for themselves the political status under 
        which they live: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That the Congress--
            (1) reaffirms the commitment of the people of the United 
        States to the principle of self-determination;
            (2) reasserts the principle, first articulated by the 
        Congress in its ratification of the Charter of the United 
        Nations, that with respect to territories whose peoples have 
        not yet attained a full measure of self-government, the 
        interests of the inhabitants of such territories are paramount; 
        and
            (3) endorses the right of the people of Puerto Rico to 
        political self-determination.

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

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AMARILLO DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA §

§

v. § 2:22-CR-00068-Z-BR

§

MARTIN OCHOA-PEREZ (1) §

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

CONCERNING PLEA OF GUILTY

MARTIN OCHOA-PEREZ (1), 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 1 of the Indictment. After 

cautioning and examining MARTIN OCHOA-PEREZ (1) 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 MARTIN OCHOA-PEREZ (1) be adjudged guilty of 8 U.S.C. §§ 1326(a) and (b)(1); and 6 

U.S.C. §§ 202(3), 202(4), and 557 - ILLEGAL RE-ENTRY AFTER DEPORTATION 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: December 1, 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-00068-Z-BR Document 35 Filed 12/01/22 Page 1 of 1 PageID 72
# C_2011347EN.01003303.xml

| 26.11.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 347/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.11.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 347/33

---

Order of the President of the General Court of 30 September 2011 — Gollnisch v Parliament

(Case T-347/11 R)

(Interim measures - Rejection of the request for the defence of immunity for a member of the European Parliament - Application for suspension of operation - Inadmissibility)

2011/C 347/58

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Bruno Gollnisch (Limonest, France) (represented by: G. Dubois, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: R. Passos, D. Moore and K. Zejdová, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for suspension of operation of the decision of the European Parliament of 10 May 2011 not to defend the applicant’s immunity and privileges.

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The application for interim measures is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The application for interim measures is dismissed.

| 2. | Costs are reserved. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Costs are reserved.

---
The Williams Companies Response to EPA's White Papers on 

Methane / VOC Emissions and Mitigation Techniques for the Oil 

and Natural Gas Sector

Mr. Morales:

Please find attached The Williams Companies, Inc.’s (Williams) response to the following White Papers by the 

U.S. EPA (EPA), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards:

 Report for Oil and Natural Gas Sector Pneumatic Devices, Review Panel, April 2014; and 

 Report for Oil and Natural Gas Sector Compressors, Review Panel, April 2014. 

Williams appreciates the opportunity to provide comments to the EPA on these reports. Should you have 

questions regarding these comments, please contact Mr. Glen Jasek, Director of Environmental Services, at (713) 

215­2134, or at glen.jasek@williams.com.

Sincerely,

Phil Roberts

Phil Roberts, PE | Sr. Environmental Specialist | Center of Excellence| Operational Excellence

One Williams Center, WRC­2SW, Tulsa, OK 74172 | 918.573.0757| phil.roberts@williams.com

Roberts, Phil <Phil.Roberts@Williams.com>

Fri 6/13/2014 7:12 PM

To:OilandGas.Whitepapers <OilandGas.Whitepapers@epa.gov>; 

 2 attachments

Williams Response to EPA White Paper - Pneumatic Devices 061314.pdf; Williams Response to EPA White Paper - Compressors 

061314.pdf; 

The Williams Companies Response to EPA's White Pape... - OilandGas.Whitepapers Page 1 of 1

https://pod51045.outlook.com/owa/OilandGas.Whitepapers@epa.gov/ 8/27/2014
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

AUGUSTE DAMIAN,

#A022624859,

§

§

 Petitioner, §

§

v. § No. 3:22-cv-01309-M (BT)

§

WARDEN, et al.,

 Respondents.

§

§

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION 

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

The Court has taken under consideration the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation 

of United States Magistrate Judge Rebecca Rutherford dated May 3, 2023. The Court has reviewed 

the Findings, Conclusion, and Recommendation for plain error and has found none. IT IS, 

THEREFORE, ORDERED that the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the United 

States Magistrate Judge are accepted. 

SO ORDERED this 1st day of June, 2023.

Case 3:22-cv-01309-M-BT Document 11 Filed 06/01/23 Page 1 of 1 PageID 116
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

DALLAS DIVISION

INTELLECTUAL VENTURES I LLC and 

INTELLECTUAL VENTURES II LLC,

Plaintiffs, 

v.

HONDA MOTOR CO., LTD.; AMERICAN 

HONDA MOTOR CO., INC.; and 

AMERICAN HONDA FINANCE CORP.,

Defendants.

Case No. 3:22-cv-00761-E

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE 

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE UNDER SEAL

Before the Court is the Unopposed Motion for Leave to File Under Seal filed by Defendants 

Honda Motor Co., Ltd., American Honda Motor Co., Inc., and American Honda Finance Corp., 

(collectively, “Defendants” or “Honda”). Honda moves the Court to file the following documents 

under seal: Defendants’ Motion to Transfer Venue Under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) To The Central 

District of California, Defendants’ Memorandum of Law in Support of Defendant’s Motion to 

Transfer, and the Exhibits and Appendices attached thereto. Plaintiff does not oppose the request 

to file the above documents under seal.

Accordingly, and for good cause shown,

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Honda’s Unopposed Motion for Leave to File 

Defendants’ Motion to Transfer Venue Under Seal is hereby GRANTED. It is therefore 

ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Transfer Venue Under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) To The 

Central District of California, Defendants’ Memorandum of Law in Support of Defendant’s

Case 3:22-cv-00761-E Document 52 Filed 06/23/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID 5745
Motion to Transfer, and the Exhibits and Appendices attached thereto shall be filed under seal 

and deemed filed as of the date of this Order pursuant to Local Rule 79.3.

SO ORDERED: June 23, 2022. 

Case 3:22-cv-00761-E Document 52 Filed 06/23/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID 5746
United States Court of Appeals 

for the Fifth Circuit

 ___________ 

No. 20-20068 

 ___________ 

Donald Calhoun, 

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Jack Doheny Companies, Incorporated, 

Defendant—Appellant.

 ______________________________ 

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Southern District of Texas 

USDC No. 4:19-CV-3171 

 ______________________________ 

Before Jolly, Graves, and Duncan, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam: 

The opinion in this case issued on August 7, 2020 (Calhoun v. Jack 

Doheny Companies, Inc., No. 20-20068, 2020 WL 4557641 (5th Cir. Aug. 7, 

2020)). Unbeknownst to this court, the parties had settled the case earlier 

and notified only the district court of the settlement. This case is moot, and 

it was moot at the time we issued our opinion. 

 The opinion of August 7, 2020 is WITHDRAWN, and this appeal 

is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as moot. 

United States Court of Appeals 

Fifth Circuit 

FILED 

August 28, 2020 

Lyle W. Cayce 

Clerk
Case 4:22-cr-00036-Y Document 1 Filed 12/21/21 Page 1 of 5 PageID 1
Case 4:22-cr-00036-Y Document 1 Filed 12/21/21 Page 2 of 5 PageID 2
Case 4:22-cr-00036-Y Document 1 Filed 12/21/21 Page 3 of 5 PageID 3
Case 4:22-cr-00036-Y Document 1 Filed 12/21/21 Page 4 of 5 PageID 4
Case 4:22-cr-00036-Y Document 1 Filed 12/21/21 Page 5 of 5 PageID 5