alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Agenda – August 2014 Refunding 

Treasury Dealer Meetings – July 31-August 1, 2014 

Dealer ___________________ 

To allow more time for discussion, please e-mail your responses prior to 12:00 PM on Monday, July 28, 2014 to 

Debt.Management@treasury.gov and NY.QTR@ny.frb.org. Even if you are not scheduled to meet with Treasury 

officials this quarter, your responses are still appreciated. 

I. Marketable Borrowing Estimates 

 Central 

Estimate 

Range that would not 

surprise you 

 Low/High 

 July-September 2014 / 

 Ending Cash Balance / 

 October-December 2014 / 

 Ending Cash Balance / 

 FY 2014 Total Net Marketable Borrowing 

 FY 2015 Total Net Marketable Borrowing / 

 FY 2016 Total Net Marketable Borrowing / 

 

II. Budget Deficit and Growth Estimates 

 FY 2014 / 

 FY 2015 / 

 FY 2016 / 

 Real GDP(4Q/4Q % Chg) CY2014 

 Real GDP(4Q/4Q % Chg) CY2015 

 Nominal GDP(4Q/4Q % Chg) CY2014 

 Nominal GDP(4Q/4Q % Chg) CY2015 

 

III. Quarterly Note and Bond Issuance Estimates 

 3-year note (August/September/October) / / / / - / / 

 10-year note (August) / 

 10-year note reopening (September/October) / / - / 

 30-year bond (August) / 

 30-year bond reopening (September/October) / / 

 2-year note (August/September/October) / / / / - / / 

 5-year note (August/September/October) / / / / - / / 

 7-year note (August/September/October) / / / / - / / 

 5-year TIPS reopening (August) 

 10-year TIPS reopening (September) 

 30-year TIPS reopening (October) 

 2-year FRN reopening (August/September) 

 2-year FRN (October) 

 

IV. Bill Issuance Estimates 

 52-week bill size (August/September/October) / / / / - / / 

 Total change in bills outstanding 8/14-10/14 / 

 Total change in bills outstanding FY 2014 / 

 CMB issuance August ‘14 – October ‘14 (size/date) / / / / 

Discussion Topics 

1. Please discuss your latest economic and fiscal forecasts for FY2014 and FY2015. Is the current auction schedule 

well-suited to meet Treasury’s expected financing needs? What adjustments, if any, would you recommend? 

2. Please comment on the demand for long-duration sovereign products. Should Treasury consider issuing a 

security with a maturity greater than 30 years? 

3. Recently, fails-to-deliver in the Treasury market have been increasing. Please discuss the drivers of this 

phenomenon.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 _________________________________________

 Clerk

June 25, 2012

s0618

Order 

June 25, 2012

144102

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 144102

COA: 303214

Oakland CC: 1989-091260-FC

WILLIAM BUFORD BEASLEY, Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 4, 2011 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has 

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).
#### MORAN et al. v. WATERS.

No. 4114.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. El Paso.

July 10, 1941.

Hirsch, Susman & Westheimer, of Houston, for appellants.

Margaret Waters, of Austin, for appel-lee.

WALTHALL, Justice.

This appeal is from an • order of the Judge of the District Court of San Patricio County, Texas, overruling pleas of privilege of defendants W. T. Moran, I. Mark Westheimer and Rantex Oil Company, a private corporation incorporated and existing under the laws of the State of Texas with its principal office and place of business in the City of Corpus Christi, in the County of Nueces, State of Texas. Plaintiff’s petition recites that W. T. Moran is the vice president of the Rantex Oil Corporation and resides in Plouston, Harris County, Texas; that plaintiff, Margaret Waters, is an attorney at law, duly licensed thereunto.

The record stipulated that the land described and involved in the suit is located in San Patricio County, Texas, and that the residence and place of domicile of defendants W. T. Moran and I. Mark West-heimer is in Harris County, Texas.

The foregoing statement of facts comprises all of the evidence introduced on the hearing of the pleas of privilege and the controverting affidavit thereto, and certified thereto by the official court reporter, the transcript of the evidence examined by the trial court and found correct and ordered filed.

Evidently the ruling of the trial court in overruling the pleas of privilege was predicated upon subsection 14 of Article 1995 of the Revised Civil Statutes of Texas, which subdivision reads as follows: “Lands. — Suits for the recovery of lands or damages thereto, or to remove incum-brances upon the title to land, or to quiet the title to land, or to prevent or stay waste on lands, must be brought in the county in. which the land, or a part thereof, may lie,” in the belief that the instant suit is one for the recovery of lands. The plaintiff’s petition is too lengthy to copy in the opinion, but the suit has for its pri-mqry object the fixing of a contract trust in the land involved by judgment, for title thereto and for an accounting for damages to said land since it is shown that said trust arose and is governed by such subdivision 14 of Article 1995 of the statutes. The prayer is that plaintiff have judgment against the Rantex Oil Company.

The suit is one, we think, that can be tried only in the county in which the land lies.

The court was not in error in overruling the pleas of privilege.

The case is affirmed, and it is so ordered.
IIA

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H.R. 1102

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

OCTOBER 13, 1993

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

AN ACT

To make permanent chapter 44 of title 28, United States

Code, relating to arbitration.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Court Arbitration Au5 thorization Act of 1993’’.
2

•HR 1102 RFS

1 SEC. 2. REMOVAL OF REPEAL.

2 Section 906 of the Judicial Improvements and Access

3 to Justice Act (28 U.S.C. 651 note), and the item relating

4 to such section in the table of contents contained in section

5 3 of such Act, are repealed.

6 SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

7 Section 905 of the Judicial Improvements and Access

8 to Justice Act (28 U.S.C. 651 note) is amended—

9 (1) in the first sentence by striking ‘‘for the fis10 cal year’’ and all that follows through ‘‘4 fiscal

11 years,’’; and

12 (2) in the third sentence by striking ‘‘, except

13 that’’ and all that follows through ‘‘this Act’’.

14 SEC. 4. ARBITRATION TO BE ORDERED IN ALL DISTRICT

15 COURTS.

16 (a) AUTHORIZATION OF ARBITRATION.—Section

17 651(a) of title 28, United States Code, is amended to read

18 as follows:

19 ‘‘(a) AUTHORITY.—Each United States district court

20 shall authorize by local rule the use of arbitration in civil

21 actions, including adversary proceedings in bankruptcy, in

22 accordance with this chapter.’’.

23 (b) ACTIONS REFERRED TO ARBITRATION.—Section

24 652(a) of title 28, United States Code, is amended—

25 (1) in paragraph (1)—
3

•HR 1102 RFS

1 (A) in the matter preceding subparagraph

2 (A) by striking ‘‘and section 901(c)’’ and all

3 that follows through ‘‘651’’ and inserting ‘‘a

4 district court’’; and

5 (B) in subparagraph (B) by striking

6 ‘‘$100,000’’ and inserting ‘‘$150,000’’; and

7 (2) in paragraph (2) by striking ‘‘$100,000’’

8 and inserting ‘‘$150,000’’.

9 (c) CERTIFICATION OF ARBITRATORS.—Section

10 656(a) of title 28, United States Code, is amended by

11 striking ‘‘listed in section 658’’.

12 (d) REMOVAL OF LIMITATION.—Section 658 of title

13 28, United States Code, and the item relating to such sec14 tion in the table of sections at the beginning of chapter

15 44 of title 28, United States Code, are repealed.

16 SEC. 5. CONFORMING AMENDMENT.

17 Section 901 of the Judicial Improvements and Access

18 to Justice Act (28 U.S.C. 652 note) is amended by strik19 ing subsection (c).

Passed the House of Representatives October 12,

1993.

Attest: DONNALD K. ANDERSON,

Clerk.
P. 1



# OAR Box 

# 1830 Prepped by Ollie Stewart



### Document

Number: 

# 186)IV-C-15 3 Docket Number: 

# A-87-1 1

Printed 11/13/2008 7:21:01 AM Sheet 186 of 232F _

_ UNITED STATE S ENVIRONMENTA L PROTECTIO N AGENCY

_ ,



### JA N

### 2 4 198 9

^%&#*** ^^^ :
Mr . Gregor y

J . Dan a ^ .,,'.. ? > • oO^ 1 " Vic e Presiden t an

dTechnica l Directo r Cf lN \,-- - >

M Automobil e Importer s o f America , Incorporate d : ~' 172 5 Jefferso nDavi s Highway , Suit e 100 2 Arlington , V

A 2220 2
Dea r Mr . Dana t I am writin g inrespons e t o you r Decembe r 29 , 198 8 lette r reiteratin g AIA' s positio nconcernin g th e schedul e fo r th e Supplementa l Notic e o f Propose dRulemakin g (SNPRM ) fo r refuelin g controls . I nparticula r yo uexpresse dconcern s tha t schedulin g th e publi c hearin g tw o week s afte r publicatio no f th e SNPR

M woul dno t allow

sufficien t tim

e fo r AI A

member s t o prepar e fo r th e hearing . Pleas e b e assure dtha t a s always , EP A i s committed , t o providin g adecruat e time for publi c participatio ni nth e SNPP K review process . H e continu e t o believ e tha t ou r pas t action s o f publicl y

releasin g th e key informatio nupo nwhic hth e SNPR M i s based , shoul dallow manufacturer s t o star t preparin g thei r comment s o nth e SNPRM . However , w e als o recogniz e you r continuin g concer nove r thi s matte r an dwil l full y

conside r you r comment s befor e settin g a hearing dat e fo r th e SNPRM . Than kyo ufo r you r comment s o nthi s subject .

Sincerel y

yours ,
Richar dD . Wilso n Director , Offic e o f Mobil e Source s CC t Dooke t A-87-1 1 ••'.,;:.• ; '-- .••;'&•:. ' Docke t A-85-2 1 "
MATERIALS NOT INCLUDED IN

AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVE (AD) DOCKET

FAA-2012-0101

Docket Number

2010-SW-042-AD

Directorate Identifier

Name/Description of Item(s) Not Included in DMS Docket and Maintained 

in the Supplemental AD Docket

ASB No. ASB-MBB-BK117-60-121, Revision 4, dated December 11, 2007

ASB No. MBB BK117 C-2-71A-003, Revision 3, dated December 11, 2007

MAY BE VIEWED AT: Federal Aviation Administration

Office of the Regional Counsel,

Southwest Region

Rules Docket

2601 Meacham Blvd., Room 663

Fort Worth, Texas 76137

DURING THE HOURS OF: 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

except Federal holidays.
EXHIBIT
32.2





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 Quarterly Report of Ever-Glory International Group, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-Q, for the fiscal quarter ended June 30,
2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the "Report"), I, Yan Guo, Chief Financial Officer of  the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my
knowledge:





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





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





Date:    August
      12, 2010
              /s/     Yan GuoYan
      GuoChief
      Finance Officer
                (Principal
      Finance Officer)
Exhibit 34.2  LOGO Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm To Torchlight Loan Services, LLC We have examined management of
Torchlight Loan Services, LLC (Torchlight)s assertion that Torchlight 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 December 1, 2002 for which Torchlight acted as the special servicer included in the accompanying
Managements Certification Regarding Compliance with Applicable Servicing Criteria on SEC Regulation AB as of and for the year ended December 31, 2018. Torchlight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)(C), (d)(3)(i)(D), (d)(3)(ii), (d)(3)(iii), (d)(3)(iv), (d)(4)(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
Torchlight, as a special servicer, with respect to the Companys Platform. The commercial mortgage-backed securities transactions covered by this Platform are those specified in Appendix B in the accompanying Managements Certification
Regarding Compliance with Applicable Servicing Criteria on SEC Regulation AB. 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 Torchlights compliance with the specified requirements. In our opinion, managements assertion that Torchlight complied with the servicing criteria applicable to it under paragraph (d) of Item
1122 of Regulation AB included in the accompanying Managements Certification Regarding Compliance with Applicable Servicing Criteria on SEC Regulation AB is fairly stated, in all material respects.  /s/ CohnReznick LLPBethesda, MarylandFebruary 25, 2019
<partyblock><br><br><div align="center"><b><font size="+1"> The People of the State of New York, <br><br>against<br><br>Rodney White, Defendant-Appellant.</font></b></div><br><br><p>Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, New York County (Kate Paek, J.), rendered April 8, 2015, convicting him, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree, and imposing sentence.</p><p>Per Curiam.</p><p>Judgment of conviction (Kate Paek, J.), rendered April 8, 2015, affirmed.</p><p>The accusatory instrument was not jurisdictionally defective. The deponent police officer's allegations that at a specified time and location, he "took one pipe containing crack/cocaine residue" from inside defendant's pocket and that the officer believed the substance to be crack/cocaine "based on [his] professional training as a police officer in the identification of drugs, [his] prior experience as a police officer making drug arrests and an observation of the packaging, which is characteristic of this type of drug" sufficed to show the basis for the conclusion that the substance at issue was a controlled substance (<i>see People v Smalls</i>, 26 NY3d 1064 [2015]<i>; People v Kalin</i>, 12 NY3d 225, 231-232 [2009]<a href="../2010/2010_07996.htm" target="_blank"><i>; People v Pearson, </i>78 AD3d 445</a> [2010], <i>lv denied </i>16 NY3d 799 [2011).</p><p>THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.</p><br>I concur I concur I concur<br>Decision Date: June 13, 2017<br><br><div align="center"><form method="LINK" action="../../slipidx/at_1_idxtable.shtml"><input type="submit" value="Return to Decision List"></form></div></partyblock>
Case 4:22-cv-00856-P Document 1 Filed 09/23/22 Page 1 of 8 PageID 1
Case 4:22-cv-00856-P Document 1 Filed 09/23/22 Page 2 of 8 PageID 2
Case 4:22-cv-00856-P Document 1 Filed 09/23/22 Page 3 of 8 PageID 3
Case 4:22-cv-00856-P Document 1 Filed 09/23/22 Page 4 of 8 PageID 4
Case 4:22-cv-00856-P Document 1 Filed 09/23/22 Page 5 of 8 PageID 5
Case 4:22-cv-00856-P Document 1 Filed 09/23/22 Page 6 of 8 PageID 6
Case 4:22-cv-00856-P Document 1 Filed 09/23/22 Page 7 of 8 PageID 7
Case 4:22-cv-00856-P Document 1 Filed 09/23/22 Page 8 of 8 PageID 8
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

Cause No. DA 22-0424

SHAWN FOWLER

Plaintiff/Appellee,

vs.

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, MONTANA HIGHWAY PATROL 

Defendant/Appellant.

ORDER GRANTING UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME

Pursuant to Appellant’s Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to file its 

opening brief and good cause shown,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant’s Motion is GRANTED. 

Appellant’s reply brief will be due on or before August 31, 2023.

No further extensions will be granted.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

July 25 2023

07/25/2023

Case Number: DA 22-0424
Memorandum Opinion issued March 20, 2014 Withdrawn; Affirmed and

Substitute Memorandum Opinion filed April 3 , 2014.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14

- 13

- 00218

- CR

DANIEL MICAH VERMILYEA , Appellant

V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

On Appeal from the 176th District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 1335846

S U B S T I T U T E M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

We withdraw t he opinion issued March 20, 2014 and issue this opinion in its place. Appellant entered a plea of not guilty to indecency with a child . On March 8, 2013 , the trial court sentenced appellant to confinement for nine years in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Jus tice. Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal.2

Appellant’s appointed counsel filed a brief in which he concludes the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396 (1967 ), by presenting a professional evaluation of the record and demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to
be advanced. See High v. State , 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978).
A copy of counsel’s brief was delivered to appellant. Appellant was advis ed of the right to examine the appellate record and file a pro se response. See Stafford
v. State , 813 S.W.2d 503, 512 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). At appellant’s request, the record was provided to him. On March 24, 2014 , appellant filed a pro se response

to counsel’s brief. We have carefully reviewed the record, counsel’s brief, and appellant’s response, and agree the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. Further, we find no reversible error in the record. A discussion of the brief would add nothing

t o the jurisprudence of the state. We are not to address the merits of each claim
raised in an Anders brief or a pro se response when we have determined there are no arguable grounds for review. See Bledsoe v. State , 178 S.W.3d 824, 827

– 28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).
Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Boyce, Christopher, and Brown. Do Not Publish

— T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 47.2( b).
1

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 37610

STATE OF IDAHO,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

MARGARET FALLON ARRONTE,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

2010 Unpublished Opinion No. 710

Filed: November 17, 2010

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED

OPINION AND SHALL NOT

BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Fifth Judicial District, State of Idaho, 

Minidoka County. Hon. Michael R. Crabtree, District Judge. 

Order denying I.C.R. 35 motion for reduction of sentence, affirmed.

Molly J. Huskey, State Appellate Public Defender; Diane M. Walker, Deputy 

Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. 

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming, Deputy Attorney 

General, Boise, for respondent. 

________________________________________________

Before LANSING, Chief Judge; GUTIERREZ, Judge;

and GRATTON, Judge

PER CURIAM

Margaret Fallon Arronte pled guilty to forgery, Idaho Code § 18-3601, and grand theft,

I.C. §§ 18-2401(1), 18-2407(1)(b)(3). The district court sentenced Arronte to concurrent unified 

terms of ten years with two years determinate on the forgery charge and a unified term of ten 

years with three years determinate on the grand theft charge. The sentences were suspended and 

Arronte was placed on probation. After several probation violations, continued probation, and 

opportunities to participate in the retained jurisdiction program, the district court relinquished 

jurisdiction and ordered execution of her sentences. Arronte filed an Idaho Criminal Rule 35 

motion, which the district court denied. Arronte appeals.
2

A motion for reduction of sentence under I.C.R. 35 is essentially a plea for leniency, 

addressed to the sound discretion of the court. State v. Knighton, 143 Idaho 318, 319, 144 P.3d 

23, 24 (2006); State v. Allbee, 115 Idaho 845, 846, 771 P.2d 66, 67 (Ct. App. 1989). In 

presenting a Rule 35 motion, the defendant must show that the sentence is excessive in light of 

new or additional information subsequently provided to the district court in support of the 

motion. State v. Huffman, 144 Idaho 201, 203, 159 P.3d 838, 840 (2007). An appeal from the 

denial of a Rule 35 motion cannot be used as a vehicle to review the underlying sentence absent 

the presentation of new information. Id. Because no new information in support of Arronte’s 

Rule 35 motion was presented, review of the sentence by this Court is precluded. For the 

foregoing reasons, the district court’s order denying Arronte’s Rule 35 motion is affirmed.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-7197
RICHARD S. FETT, Petitioner - Appellant, versus DIRECTOR OF VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis, III, District Judge. (CA-95-792-AM) Submitted: November 21, 1996 Decided: December 6, 1996 Before HALL, WILKINS, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.Richard S. Fett, Appellant Pro Se. Hazel Elizabeth Shaffer, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1994), amended by Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Fett v. Director of Virginia Dep't of Corrections , No. CA-95-792-AM (E.D Va. July 12, 1996).Further, we deny Appellant's motion requesting appointment of counsel. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED