alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH DIVISION

JENNIFER VANDERSTOK, et al.,

 Plaintiffs, 

BLACKHAWK MANUFACTURING 

GROUP INC. d/b/a 80 Percent Arms,

 Intervenor-Plaintiff,

DEFENSE DISTRIBUTED, and

THE SECOND AMENDMENT 

FOUNDATION, INC.

 Intervenors-Plaintiffs,

v.

MERRICK GARLAND, in his Official 

Capacity as Attorney General of the 

United States, et al.,

 Defendants.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

Civil Action No. 4:22-cv-00691-O

DEFENSE DISTRIBUTED AND THE 

SECOND AMENDMENT FOUNDATION, INC.’S 

MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION 

Defense Distributed and the Second Amendment Foundation, Inc. (“SAF”) move for a 

preliminary injunction that parallels the preliminary injunctions already ordered with respect to 

Plaintiff Tactical Machining, LLC, Docs. 56, 84, 91, and Intervenor-Plaintiff BlackHawk 

Manufacturing Group Inc. d/b/a 80 Percent Arms, Doc. 118. For Defense Distributed and SAF, the 

Court should issue an order—either a new injunction order or an order expanding the scope of its 

existing injunction—preliminarily enjoining the Defendants from enforcing the challenged 

redefinition of “firearm” in 27 C.F.R. §§ 478.11 and 27 C.F.R. §§ 478.11, see Definition of “Frame 

Case 4:22-cv-00691-O Document 239-2 Filed 07/18/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID 4871 Case 4:22-cv-00691-O Document 163 Filed 01/12/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID 3040
or Receiver” and Identification of Firearms, 87 Fed. Reg. 24,652 (Apr. 26, 2022), against Defense 

Distributed, its customers, and SAF’s members. A brief and evidence support this motion. 

The motion is opposed. 

Date: January 12, 2023 Respectfully submitted, 

/s/ Chad Flores 

Chad Flores

Texas Bar No. 24059759

cflores@beckredden.com

Beck Redden LLP

1221 McKinney St., Suite 4500

Houston, TX 77010

(713) 951-3700

(713) 951-3720 Fax

Counsel for Defense Distributed and the Second 

Amendment Foundation, Inc.

CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE

I hereby certify that counsel for Defense Distributed and the Second Amendment 

Foundation, Inc. conferred with Defendants’ counsel on December 19, 2022. Because the parties 

did not reach an agreement, this motion is opposed.

/s/ Chad Flores

Chad Flores

Case 4:22-cv-00691-O Document 239-2 Filed 07/18/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID 4872 Case 4:22-cv-00691-O Document 163 Filed 01/12/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID 3041
Exhibit 35.5




Officer’s Certificate



Pursuant to the requirements of the applicable Servicing
Agreement for the transactions listed on Schedule I hereto, for which Midland Loan Services, a Division of PNC Bank, National Association,
as Master Servicer, and Berkeley Point Capital LLC, as Servicer, the undersigned, Ellen D. Miller, as Managing Director and Head
of Servicing of Berkeley Point Capital LLC, hereby certifies subject to any limitations listed on Schedule I hereto, as of the
date hereof, solely in her capacity as an officer and not in her individual capacity, as follows:

| | 1. | A review of the activities of the Servicer during the preceding calendar year (the “Reporting Period”) and of its
performance under the Agreement has been made under my supervision; and
| | -- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

| | 2. | To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the 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 1st day of March, 2016.



Berkeley Point Capital LLC















Schedule I



Multifamily Pass-Through Certificates, Berkeley Point Capital LLC
as Sub-Servicer:



Series 2009-K4

Series 2010-K5

Series 2011-K10

Series 2011-K12

Series 2012-K709

Series 2012-KF01

Series 2013-K24

Series 2013-KF02

Series 2014-KF03

Series 2014-K503

Series 2014-KF06

Series 2015-KF07

Series 2015-KF08

Series 2015-KF09

Series 2015-KF10

Series 2015-KF12





Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates; Berkeley Point Capital
LLC as Primary Servicer:



COMM 2014-CCRE17 Mortgage Trust

COMM 2014-CCRE19 Mortgage Trust

GS Mortgage Securities Trust 2014-GC24

COMM 2014-UBS4 Mortgage Trust

COMM 2015-CCRE23 Mortgage Trust

COMM 2015-CCRE27 Mortgage Trust

GS Mortgage Securities Trust 2015-GC30

COMM 2015-HULA

COMM 2015-LC19 Mortgage Trust

COMM 2015-LC21 Mortgage Trust

GS Mortgage Securities Trust 2015-GS1
**Exhibit 35.1**

 

SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT

 

I, Erin M. Rohde, certify that:

 

(a)                                 A review of the Servicer’s activities and of its performance under the applicable servicing agreement during the period from April 1, 2015 to December 31, 2015 has been made under my supervision.

 

(b)                                 To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all its obligations under the applicable servicing agreement in all material respects throughout the aforementioned period.

 
| Dated March 21, 2016 |                                  |
|---------------------------|---------------------------------------|
|                      |                                  |
|                      | /s/ Erin M. Rohde                     |
|                      | Erin M. Rohde                         |
|                      | Assistant Treasurer of                |
|                      | Ford Motor Credit Company LLC,        |
|                      | as Servicer of Ford Credit Auto Lease |
|                      | Trust 2015-A                          |

 

----
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

JOSEPH WASHAWITZ,

Appellant,

v.

SECRETARY, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,

Appellee.

No. 4D17-1420

[March 15, 2018]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm 

Beach County; Cymonie Rowe, Judge; L.T. Case No. 50-2016-CA-014467-

XXXX-MB.

Joseph Washawitz, South Bay, pro se.

Beverly Brewster, Assistant General Counsel, Department of 

Corrections, Tallahassee, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

GROSS, TAYLOR and KUNTZ, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                                           9
              
<MULTIPLIER>                                    1,000
       
<S>                                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                 6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                             DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                  JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                          4,046
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                            318
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                    0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                    0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     9,588
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                              0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                0
<LOANS>                                        82,412
<ALLOWANCE>                                       596
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                100,801
<DEPOSITS>                                     78,042
<SHORT-TERM>                                   10,592
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                               388
<LONG-TERM>                                         0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                           83
<OTHER-SE>                                     11,697
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                100,801
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 3,027
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                 261
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   75
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                3,363
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              1,527
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              1,662
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           1,701
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      52
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                356
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 2,342
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    73
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                       47
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     .06
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       0
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                   7.33
<LOANS-NON>                                       183
<LOANS-PAST>                                        0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                    0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                   807
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                  547
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                       3
<RECOVERIES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                 596
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                                0
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                 0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                             0
        


</TABLE>
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

RODNEY MCGHEE,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 253 EAL 2020

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW

, this 15th day of January, 2021

, The Application for Petition for

Allowance of Appeal to Be Filed Under Seal is GRANTED . The Petition for Allowance of

Appeal is DENIED

.
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

WASHINGTON, D.C.

October 2, 2017

2017 PREEMPTION REPORT

FEDERAL INSURANCE OFFICE

The Federal Insurance Office (FIO) issues this report on actions taken regarding preemption of 

inconsistent state insurance measures, pursuant to the Federal Insurance Office Act of 2010. 31 

U.S.C. § 313(n)(l); 31 U.S.C. § 313(f).

During the year ending September 30, 2017, FIO did not take any action regarding the preemption 

of any inconsistent state insurance measure.
Case 4:22-cv-01011-O Document 7 Filed 11/22/22 Page 1 of 3 PageID 19
Case 4:22-cv-01011-O Document 7 Filed 11/22/22 Page 2 of 3 PageID 20
Case 4:22-cv-01011-O Document 7 Filed 11/22/22 Page 3 of 3 PageID 21
# Official Journal C 461/2021

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 461 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 6415 November 2021 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 461

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 6415 November 2021

---

| Contents | page |
| --- | --- |
| | II   Information |
| | INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2021/C 461/01 | Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.10357 – VINCI / EIFFAGE / SMTPC) (
  1
  ) | 1 |
| 2021/C 461/02 | Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.10476 – SCHWARZ GROUP / CESPA) (
  1
  ) | 2 |
| 2021/C 461/03 | Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.10478 – CPP INVESTMENTS / BC PARTNERS / CERAMTEC) (
  1
  ) | 3 |
| 2021/C 461/04 | Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.10516 – BAIN CAPITAL / ITP AERO) (
  1
  ) | 4 |

Contents

page

II   Information

INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2021/C 461/01

Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.10357 – VINCI / EIFFAGE / SMTPC) (
  1
  )

1

1

2021/C 461/02

Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.10476 – SCHWARZ GROUP / CESPA) (
  1
  )

1

2

2021/C 461/03

Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.10478 – CPP INVESTMENTS / BC PARTNERS / CERAMTEC) (
  1
  )

1

3

2021/C 461/04

Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.10516 – BAIN CAPITAL / ITP AERO) (
  1
  )

1

4

---

| | IV   Notices |
| --- | --- |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2021/C 461/05 | Euro exchange rates — 12 November 2021 | 5 |

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2021/C 461/05

Euro exchange rates — 12 November 2021

5

---

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPETITION POLICY |
| | European Commission |
| 2021/C 461/06 | Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.10496 – CREMER / CLYDE INVESTMENTS / CREMER SUSTAINABLE FOODS JV) – Candidate case for simplified procedure (
  1
  ) | 6 |

V   Announcements

PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPETITION POLICY

European Commission

2021/C 461/06

Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.10496 – CREMER / CLYDE INVESTMENTS / CREMER SUSTAINABLE FOODS JV) – Candidate case for simplified procedure (
  1
  )

1

6

---

| | Corrigenda |
| --- | --- |
| | Corrigendum to Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.10338 – GALILEO / M6 / JV) ( OJ C 430, 25.10.2021 ) | 8 |

Corrigenda

Corrigendum to Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.10338 – GALILEO / M6 / JV) ( OJ C 430, 25.10.2021 )

( OJ C 430, 25.10.2021 )

8

---

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance. |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance.

1

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

EN
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 308 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. J. RES. 308

   Providing for the display of the flag at half-mast on Government 
buildings on the 7th of December of each year in honor and remembrance 
   of the members of the Armed Forces who served at Pearl Harbor on 
                           December 7, 1941.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 26, 1994

 Mr. Andrews of New Jersey (for himself and Mr. Montgomery) introduced 
the following joint resolution; which was referred to the Committee on 
                             the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
   Providing for the display of the flag at half-mast on Government 
buildings on the 7th of December of each year in honor and remembrance 
   of the members of the Armed Forces who served at Pearl Harbor on 
                           December 7, 1941.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That the President is 
authorized and requested to issue annually a proclamation calling upon 
officials of the Government to display the flag of the United States at 
half-mast on the 7th of December on all Government buildings in honor 
and remembrance of the members of the Armed Forces who served at Pearl 
Harbor on December 7, 1941.

                                 <all>
```
The HONORABLE CHARLES R. WOLLE, Chief Judge of the United States 1

District Court for the Southern District of Iowa.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 97-4240

___________

Jesse James Jackson, *

 *

Appellant, *

 * Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

 * Southern District of Iowa.

Jeff Shipley, *

 * [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellee. *

___________

 Submitted: November 4, 1998

 Filed: November 9, 1998

___________

Before FAGG, BEAM, and LOKEN, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Iowa inmate Jesse James Jackson commenced this pro se action under 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983, alleging that Keokuk County Deputy Sheriff Jeff Shipley violated Jackson’s

Fourth Amendment rights by arresting him on February 14, 1996, without a valid

warrant or probable cause to arrest. Jackson appeals the district court&s adverse grant 1

of summary judgment based on qualified immunity. We affirm.
-2-

It is undisputed that, before arresting Jackson, Shipley contacted the Mahaska

County Sheriff&s Department and was told that the department had an outstanding arrest

warrant for Jackson, a resident of Mahaska County, and that Jackson was supposed to

turn himself in on February 15. Shipley, who was investigating a Keokuk County

homicide, knew that Keokuk County sometimes allowed persons to turn themselves in

after an arrest warrant had been issued. Shipley arrested Jackson at Jackson&s home

based upon the Mahaska County arrest warrant. Only later did Shipley learn that

Mahaska County had not issued an arrest warrant, only a “mittimus” to arrest and

transport Jackson to the town of Oakdale.

The district court concluded that Shipley was entitled to qualified immunity

because he could reasonably have believed that a Mahaska County arrest warrant

existed and that he had the authority to arrest Jackson under that warrant. Having

reviewed the grant of summary judgment and the issue of qualified immunity de novo,

see White v. Holmes, 21 F.3d 277, 279 (8th Cir. 1994), we agree that Shipley&s

conduct as arresting officer was objectively reasonable. See Anderson v. Creighton,

483 U.S. 635, 641 (1987); Gainor v. Rogers, 973 F.2d 1379, 1382 (8th Cir. 1992)

(qualified immunity standard is arresting officer&s objective reasonableness). Because

Shipley had a reasonable basis to believe that there was an outstanding Mahaska

County warrant for Jackson&s arrest, Shipley did not knowingly and recklessly violate

Jackson&s Fourth Amendment rights in making the arrest. See Edwards v. Baer, 863

F.2d 606, 607-08 (8th Cir. 1988).

Accordingly, we affirm.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
**Exhibit 32.2**

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTEDPURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Pursuantto section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b)of section 1350, chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), theundersigned officer of NEOPHARM, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”),does hereby certify with respect to the Quarterly Report of the Company on Form10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission (the “10-Q Report”) that:

(1)                                  the10-Q Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d)of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)                                  theinformation contained in the 10-Q Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| Dated:  August 9, 2006 | /s/ Lawrence A. Kenyon  |   |
|-----------------------------|-------------------------|--------|
|                        | Lawrence A. Kenyon,     |
|                        | Chief Financial Officer |

 

----
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AMARILLO DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA §

§

v. § 2:22-CR-00106-Z-BR

§

ALVARO CASTRO-LOPEZ (1) §

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

CONCERNING PLEA OF GUILTY

ALVARO CASTRO-LOPEZ (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 2 of the Indictment.

After cautioning and examining ALVARO CASTRO-LOPEZ (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 ALVARO CASTRO-LOPEZ (1) be adjudged guilty of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 841(b)(1)(C) 

- POSSESSION WITH INTENT TO DISTRIBUTE METHAMPHETAMINE 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 8, 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-00106-Z-BR Document 50 Filed 12/08/22 Page 1 of 1 PageID 98
1 

### Medina, Dayana

From: Medina, Dayana

Sent: Friday, April 12, 2013 3:59 PM

To: pettyjohn@adeq.state.ar.us

Cc: Donaldson, Guy; Feldman, Michael

Subject: Region 6 response on Georgia-Pacific Crossett Mill

Hi Mary,

We appreciate the opportunity to review the April 1, 2013, letter sent to ADEQ by James Cutbirth from the Georgia

‐

Pacific Crossett Mill. We have reviewed the additional information provided and believe that the technical analysis

presented in the letter and the spreadsheets and other attachments included in Mr. Cutbirth’s April 1, 2013 email,

demonstrate that the actual SO 2 , PM, and NOx emissions from the 6A and 9A boilers during the 2001

‐ 2003 baseline

period are below the emission rates modeled by Georgia Pacific in its 2011 BART screening CALPUFF modeling. We

believe that Georgia

‐ Pacific’s analysis, which compares the modeled emission rates with estimates of 2001

‐ 2003

maximum 24

‐ hour emission rates that were calculated based on daily fuel usage and EPA’s AP

‐ 42 emission factors, and

other newly provided information allow for a more accurate assessment of whether or not the 6A and 9A boilers are

subject to BART. Based on this newly provided information, we believe the 6A and 9A boilers are not subject to BART

and therefore it is not necessary for Georgia

‐ Pacific to submit a BART five factor analysis. Please inform Region 6

whether ADEQ concurs with our assessment or if you would like to discuss this matter further. If ADEQ concurs with

Region 6, please ensure that when you submit the Arkansas Regional Haze SIP revision, the SIP submittal includes the

BART screening CALPUFF modeling files for the Georgia

‐ Pacific Crossett Mill, as well as a copy of Mr. Cutbirth’s April 1,

2013, letter and the spreadsheets and other attachments provided in Mr. Cutbirth’s April 1, 2013 email.

Thank you,

Dayana Medina

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6

Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division

Air Planning Section (6PD

‐ L)

214

‐ 665

‐ 7241

medina.dayana@epa.gov