alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
TIGTA Capital Investment Plan Page 1 of 1 2/18/2020

TIGTA FY 2021 President's 

Budget Request: Summary of 

Capital Investments

$000,000s

Agency External Agency External Total Agency External Agency External Total Agency External Agency External Total Percent Agency External Agency External Total

Capital Investments Total 3.258 - 9.773 - 13.031 3.519 - 10.557 - 14.076 3.510 - 10.531 - 14.041 0% 3.442 - 10.316 - 13.758 

Major IT sub-total

non-Major IT sub-total 0.797 - 2.391 - 3.188 0.874 - 2.623 - 3.497 0.884 - 2.653 - 3.537 1% 0.815 - 2.446 - 3.261 

Standard/Non-Standard IT sub-total 2.461 - 7.382 - 9.843 2.645 - 7.934 - 10.579 2.626 - 7.879 - 10.505 -1% 2.626 - 7.870 - 10.496 

IT Total 3.258 - 9.773 - 13.031 3.519 - 10.557 - 14.076 3.510 - 10.531 - 14.041 0% 3.442 - 10.316 - 13.758 

non-IT Total

TIGTA Major IT Investments

TIGTA non-Major IT Investments

Applications and Collaboration 0.797 - 2.391 - 3.188 0.874 - 2.623 - 3.497 0.884 - 2.653 - 3.537 1% 0.815 - 2.446 - 3.261 

015-05-0119-0 TIGTA Salaries and Expenses 0.797 - 2.391 - 3.188 0.874 - 2.623 - 3.497 0.884 - 2.653 - 3.537 1% 0.815 - 2.446 - 3.261 

TIGTA Standard/Non-Standard IT Investments

Cybersecurity 0.486 - 1.459 - 1.945 0.554 - 1.662 - 2.216 0.558 - 1.674 - 2.232 1% 0.558 - 1.674 - 2.232 

015-05-0101 Salaries and Expenses 0.486 - 1.459 - 1.945 0.554 - 1.662 - 2.216 0.558 - 1.674 - 2.232 1% 0.558 - 1.674 - 2.232 

Enterprise Architecture & Management 0.277 - 0.832 - 1.109 0.234 - 0.702 - 0.936 0.237 - 0.710 - 0.947 1% 0.237 - 0.702 - 0.939 

015-05-0119-0 TIGTA Salaries and Expenses 0.277 - 0.832 - 1.109 0.234 - 0.702 - 0.936 0.237 - 0.710 - 0.947 1% 0.237 - 0.702 - 0.939 

Infrastructure End User Systems and Support 0.541 - 1.624 - 2.165 0.832 - 2.496 - 3.328 0.798 - 2.394 - 3.192 -4% 0.798 - 2.394 - 3.192 

015-05-0119-0 TIGTA Salaries and Expenses 0.541 - 1.624 - 2.165 0.832 - 2.496 - 3.328 0.798 - 2.394 - 3.192 -4% 0.798 - 2.394 - 3.192 

Infrastructure Mainframe and Servers Services and 

Support

0.798 - 2.394 - 3.192 0.611 - 1.834 - 2.445 0.616 - 1.849 - 2.465 1% 0.616 - 1.849 - 2.465 

015-05-0119-0 TIGTA Salaries and Expenses 0.798 - 2.394 - 3.192 0.611 - 1.834 - 2.445 0.616 - 1.849 - 2.465 1% 0.616 - 1.849 - 2.465 

Infrastructure Telecommunications 0.358 - 1.073 - 1.431 0.413 - 1.240 - 1.653 0.417 - 1.250 - 1.667 1% 0.417 - 1.250 - 1.667 

015-05-0119-0 TIGTA Salaries and Expenses 0.358 - 1.073 - 1.431 0.413 - 1.240 - 1.653 0.417 - 1.250 - 1.667 1% 0.417 - 1.250 - 1.667 

TIGTA non-IT Investments

Total

Change 

from CY 

to BY DME O&M Total

FY 2019 Actual Obligations FY 2020 Estimated Obligations FY 2021 Estimated Obligations FY 2021 Budget Authority Request 

DME O&M Total DME O&M Total DME O&M
DLD

- 064 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 18

- 3054

___________

In re : TIMOTHY DOYLE YOUNG

, Petitioner

____________________________________
On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus

____________________________________ Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P. January 3, 2019

Before: JORDAN, GREENAWAY, JR., and NYGAARD

, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: January 25, 2019 )

_________
OPINION *

_________
PER CURIAM

Timothy Doyle Young is a longtime inmate of USP

- Florence, a maximum security

prison in Colorado. Though neither housed in this Circuit, nor currently litigating in this

Circuit, Young has filed a mandamus petition seeking from this Circuit an order “that

forces the DOJ to treat [his] chronic Hepatitis

- infection.” 1 Young also asks that we

* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5 .7 does not constitute binding precedent.

1 It appears that we are but the latest forum in which Young has shopped his request for2 declare unconstitutional the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) and various other

statutes that purportedly “ have prevented Due Process and access to the Courts.”

Young’s petition will be denied, largely for the sa me reason we denied the

mandamus petition he filed in this Court almost nine years ago. See In re Young , 382 F.

App’x 148, 149 (3d Cir. 2010) (per curiam) (concluding, inter alia, that “[w]e have no

power to issue writs with respect to a matter not within our jurisdiction”). W e conclude

as well that Young has satisfied none of the criteria for mandamus relief

. See generally

Hollingsworth v. Perry , 558 U.S. 183 (2010) (per curiam) (requiring mandamus

petitioner to show that (1) he has no other adequate mean s to get the relief he seeks; (2)

his right to relief is clear and immune from dispute; and (3) mandamus relief is

appropriate under the circumstances of his case)

. 2

medical treatment. See, e.g.

, Young v. Sickler , 732 F. App’x 358, 359 (5th Cir. 2018) (per curiam) (“Young’s claims regardin g any denial of treatment of his Hepatitis C condition are not before us and would be properly pursued only in Colorado, where he is housed

. ”).

2 Young is advised that mandamus may not be used to circumvent the fee requirements of the PLRA. See Madden v. Myers , 102 F.3d 74, 78 (3d Cir. 1996), superseded in part by 3d Cir. L.A.R. 24.1(c) (2011) (“A litigant should not be able to evade the PLRA by masking as a mandamus petition a paper otherwise subject to the Act . . .. It is the nature of the document, ra ther than the label attached by the litigant, that controls

. ”)

.
Exhibit 31.2 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT
TO 17 CFR 240.13a-14 PROMULGATED UNDER SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 I, Paul Edgecliffe-Johnson, certify that:  1.
I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Flutter
Entertainment plc;  2.
Based on my knowledge, this report does 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, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report,
fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;  4.
The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining
disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:  a.
Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be
designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is
being prepared;  b.
[Reserved];  c.
Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this
report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and  d.
Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that
occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal
control over financial reporting; and




---

5.
The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of
internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):  a.
All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over
financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and  b.
Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in
the registrants internal control over financial reporting.  Date: March 26, 2024



/s/ Paul Edgecliffe-JohnsonPaul Edgecliffe-JohnsonChief Financial Officer(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA §

§

v. § CASE NO.: 3:22-CR-356-B

§

LORENZO VAZQUEZ-ALBA §

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

CONCERNING PLEA OF GUILTY

LORENZO VAZQUEZ-ALBA, 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 Counts 1 and 2 of the twocount superseding Indictment filed October 18, 2022. After cautioning and examining LORENZO VAZQUEZ-ALBA under 

oath concerning each of the subjects mentioned in Rule 11, I determined that the guilty plea was knowledgeable and 

voluntary and that the offenses charged are 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 LORENZO VAZQUEZ-ALBA

be adjudged guilty of Illegal Reentry After Removal from the United States, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), and 

Failure to Register as a Sex Offender, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2250(a), 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: July 11, 2023 

 ______________________________________ 

 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 3:22-cr-00356-B Document 39 Filed 07/12/23 Page 1 of 1 PageID 68
(logo)WELLS FARGO      **Commercial Mortgage Servicing**

                                              D1050-084,8th Floor 

                                              401 South Tryon Street 

                                              Charlotte, NC 28202

                                              1-800-326-1334

 

 

**ANNUALSTATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE**

** **

Reference is hereby made to that certainPooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of April 1, 2015, by and among MorganStanley Capital I Inc., as Depositor, Wells Fargo Bank, National Association,as Master Servicer, Midland Loan Services, A Division of PNC Bank, NationalAssociation, as Special Servicer, Park Bridge Lender Services LLC, as TrustAdvisor, Wilmington Trust, National Association, as Trustee, and Wells FargoBank, National Association, as Certificate Administrator, CertificateRegistrar, Authenticating Agent and Custodian with respect to CommercialMortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series 2015-C22 (the "Agreement").Capitalized terms used herein not otherwise defined shall have the meaningsassigned in the Agreement.

 

Pursuant to Section 13.9 of the Agreement,I, Daniel Bober, Executive Vice President of Commercial Mortgage Services dohereby certify that:

 

1. A review of the activities of theMaster Servicer during the period from January 1, 2017 through December 31,2017 (the “Reporting Period”), and of its performance per the Agreement duringsuch period has been made under my supervision,and

 

2.To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Master Servicer, hasfulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respectsthroughout the ReportingPeriod.

 

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned hasexecuted this Certificate as of the 28th day of February2018.

 

 

/s/Daniel Bober   

Daniel Bober

Executive Vice President 

Wells Fargo Bank

 

 

WellsFargo Bank, N.A.                                                                         (logo)Together we’ll go far
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

JEROME L. GRIMES,

Plaintiff,

v.

SANTANDER CONSUMER USA,

Defendant.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

Civil Action No. 3:22-CV-1933-X-BH

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. 18]. 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.

Accordingly, Defendant’s motion to dismiss [Doc. 12] is GRANTED IN PART 

AND DENIED IN PART, and Plaintiff’s FDCPA and TILA claims are DISMISSED 

WITH PREJUDICE. Plaintiff’s federal law claims for violations of the FCRA, the 

Sixth Amendment, and other “Civil Rights Acts against Discrimination in the Rights 

to Education,” and his state law claims for defamation, breach of contract, negligence, 

vicarious liability, negligent supervision, and fraud and misrepresentation remain 

pending.

Case 3:22-cv-01933-X-BH Document 20 Filed 08/05/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID 107
2

IT IS SO ORDERED this 5th day of August, 2023.

____________________________________

BRANTLEY STARR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:22-cv-01933-X-BH Document 20 Filed 08/05/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID 108
# 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 COURTOF CRIMINALAPPEALS Thomas Ramirez, Jr. v. The STYLE: Texas State of Petition 

# CCA# \l£S>~/&
FORDISCRETIONARYREVIEW 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
## Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

In the Interest of A.M. and A.M., Children,

No. 06

- 19

- 00037

- CV Appeal from the 307th District Court of Gregg County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 2018

- 869

- DR ). Memorandum Opinion delivered by Jus tice Stevens, Chief Justice Morriss and Justice Burgess participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find no error in the judgment of the court

below

. We affirm the judgment of the trial court

. We note that the appellant has adequately indicated h er inability to pay costs of appeal. Therefore, we waive payment of costs.

RENDERED JULY 25, 2019 BY ORDER OF THE COURT JOSH R. MORRISS, III CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST: Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-31199

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

NAESHA C. LOW,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 5:12-CR-92-6

Before JOLLY, JONES, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The attorney appointed to represent Naesha C. Low has moved for leave

to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386

U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Low

has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant

portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment

that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. 

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

October 25, 2013

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

 Case: 12-31199 Document: 00512419921 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/25/2013
No. 12-31199

The record does reveal a clerical error in the judgment. The judgment

should be corrected to reflect that Low pleaded guilty to and was convicted of

conspiracy to possess with the intent to distribute methamphetamine in

violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 846. See FED. R. CRIM. P. 36.

Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel

is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS

DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2. The case is REMANDED for correction of

the clerical error pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.

2

 Case: 12-31199 Document: 00512419921 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/25/2013
# Official Journal C 442/22 D

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 442 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 6022 December 2017 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 442

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 6022 December 2017

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | II   Information |
| | INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2017/C 442/01 | Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union — Cases where the Commission raises no objections (
  1
  ) | 1 |
| 2017/C 442/02 | Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union — Cases where the Commission raises no objections (
  2
  ) | 7 |

Notice No

Contents

page

II   Information

INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2017/C 442/01

Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union — Cases where the Commission raises no objections (
  1
  )

1

1

2017/C 442/02

Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union — Cases where the Commission raises no objections (
  2
  )

2

7

---

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance. |
| | (2)   Text with EEA relevance, except for products falling under Annex I of the Treaty. |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance.

1

(2)   Text with EEA relevance, except for products falling under Annex I of the Treaty.

2

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

EN
Case 4:22-cr-00301-Y Document 50 Filed 11/30/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID 98
Case 4:22-cr-00301-Y Document 50 Filed 11/30/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID 99
# C_2014351EN.01000601.xml

| 6.10.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 351/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.10.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 351/6

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Budapesti XX., XXI. És XXIII. Kerületi Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 28 July 2014 — Herrenknecht AG v Hév-Sugár Kft.

(Case C-366/14)

2014/C 351/07

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Referring court

Budapesti XX., XXI. És XXIII. Kerületi Bíróság

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Herrenknecht AG

Applicant:

Defendant: Hév-Sugár Kft.

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | How should Article 23(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 (1), relating to the court which is to have exclusive jurisdiction, be interpreted where, in the terms and conditions of the contract, the contracting parties which are in dispute have attributed jurisdiction to hear disputes relating to the contract to various courts? Furthermore, is the applicant free to choose from among the courts selected the forum which has exclusive jurisdiction and those which have alternative jurisdiction and can the exclusive jurisdiction of the court which is hearing the case be inferred accordingly? |
| --- | --- |

1.

How should Article 23(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 (1), relating to the court which is to have exclusive jurisdiction, be interpreted where, in the terms and conditions of the contract, the contracting parties which are in dispute have attributed jurisdiction to hear disputes relating to the contract to various courts? Furthermore, is the applicant free to choose from among the courts selected the forum which has exclusive jurisdiction and those which have alternative jurisdiction and can the exclusive jurisdiction of the court which is hearing the case be inferred accordingly?

1

| 2. | How should Article 3(1) of the Rome Convention (2), relating to the substantive law which is applicable in the event the contract is to be enforced, be interpreted where, in the terms and conditions of the contract, the parties have designated the laws of several Member States as relevant to the contract and, in those circumstances, which of those is the applicable law? |
| --- | --- |

2.

How should Article 3(1) of the Rome Convention (2), relating to the substantive law which is applicable in the event the contract is to be enforced, be interpreted where, in the terms and conditions of the contract, the parties have designated the laws of several Member States as relevant to the contract and, in those circumstances, which of those is the applicable law?

2

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1).

1

(2)  Convention on the law applicable to contractual obligations opened for signature in Rome on 19 June 1980 (OJ 1980 L 266, p. 1).

2

---