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

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1152 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1152

 To direct the United States Sentencing Commission to make sentencing 
     guidelines for Federal criminal cases that provide sentencing 
                     enhancements for hate crimes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 1, 1993

     Mr. Schumer (for himself, Mr. Sensenbrenner, Mr. Schiff, Mrs. 
   Schroeder, Mr. Conyers, Mr. Scott, Mr. Glickman, Mr. Hughes, Mr. 
    Berman, Mrs. Kennelly, Mr. Lantos, Mr. Deutsch, Mr. Waxman, Mr. 
   Hastings, Mr. Hinchey, Mr. Studds, Mr. LaRocco, Mr. Williams, Mr. 
    Frost, Mr. Matsui, Mr. Reynolds, Mr. Owens, Mr. Applegate, Mrs. 
 Maloney, Mr. Barrett of Wisconsin, Mrs. Lowey, Ms. Pelosi, Mr. Dixon, 
Mr. Gutierrez, Mr. Martinez, Mrs. Collins of Illinois, Mr. Tucker, Mr. 
 Pastor, Mr. Rush, Mr. Stark, Mr. Klein, Mrs. Morella, Mr. Wyden, Mr. 
 Torricelli, Mr. Wynn, and Ms. Woolsey) introduced the following bill; 
          which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To direct the United States Sentencing Commission to make sentencing 
     guidelines for Federal criminal cases that provide sentencing 
                     enhancements for hate crimes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Hate Crimes Sentencing Enhancement 
Act of 1993''.

SEC. 2. DIRECTION TO COMMISSION.

    (a) In General.--Pursuant to section 994 of title 28, United States 
Code, the United States Sentencing Commission shall promulgate 
guidelines or amend existing guidelines to provide sentencing 
enhancements of not less than 3 offense levels for offenses that are 
hate crimes. In carrying out this section, the United States Sentencing 
Commission shall assure reasonable consistency with other guidelines, 
avoid duplicative punishments for substantially the same offense, and 
take into account any mitigating circumstances which might justify 
exceptions.
    (b) Definition.--As used in this Act, the term ``hate crime'' is a 
crime in which the defendant's conduct was motivated by hatred, bias, 
or prejudice, based on the actual or perceived race, color, religion, 
national origin, ethnicity, gender, or sexual orientation of another 
individual or group of individuals.

                                 <all>
```
#### FEDERAL UNDERWRITERS EXCHANGE v. HADNOT.

No. 3720.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Beaumont.

Aug. 26, 1940.

James F. Parker, of Kpuntze, and Bat-taile & Burr, of Houston, for appellant.

J. Austin Barnes, of Beaumont, and Glenn Faver, of Jasper, for appellee.

COMBS, Justice.

This cause is reversed and remanded to the trial court upon agreement of the parties. This order is subject to payment of costs of this appeal which are taxed against the appellant.
| (logo) WELLS  FARGO | **Commercial  Mortgage Servicing**D1050-084,  8th Floor  401 South Tryon St.  Charlotte, NC 28202  1-800-326-1334 |
|---------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

**ANNUAL STATEMENT OFCOMPLIANCE**

** **

ReferenceisherebymadetothatcertainPoolingandServicingAgreementdated as of September 1, 2015, by and amongWELLS FARGO COMMERCIAL MORTGAGE SECURITIES, INC., as Depositor, WELLS FARGOBANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, asGeneralMaster Servicer, RIALTO CAPITAL ADVISORS, LLC, as General Special Servicer,NATIONAL COOPERATIVE BANK, N.A., as NCB Master Servicer, NATIONAL COOPERATIVEBANK, N.A., as NCB Special Servicer, PARK BRIDGE LENDER SERVICES LLC, as TrustAdvisor, WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Certificate Administrator,as Tax Administrator and as Custodian and WILMINGTON TRUST, NATIONALASSOCIATION, as Trustee, with respect to Commercial Mortgage Pass-ThroughCertificates Series 2015-LC22 (the "Agreement"). Capitalized termsused herein not otherwise defined shall have the meanings assigned in the Agreement.

 

Pursuant to Section 11.12 of thisAgreement, I, Daniel Bober, Executive Vice President of Commercial MortgageServices do hereby certify that:

 

1.A review of the activities of the General Master Servicer during the periodfrom January 1, 2017 through December 31, 2017 (the “Reporting Period”) , andof its performance per the Agreement during such period has been made under mysupervision,and

 

2.To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the General Master Servicer,has fulfilled all of its obligations under this Agreement in all materialrespects throughout 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

 

 

| Wells Fargo Bank,  N.A. | (logo)  Together we’ll go far |
|-------------------------|-------------------------------------|
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                       1,984,465
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                       2,205,782
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                 34,064,052
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                         492,912
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                    196,637,480
<ALLOWANCE>                                  1,563,592
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             239,534,251
<DEPOSITS>                                 123,700,114
<SHORT-TERM>                                43,137,694
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                            703,272
<LONG-TERM>                                 46,500,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        24,005
<OTHER-SE>                                  25,469,166
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>             239,534,251
<INTEREST-LOAN>                              7,649,581
<INTEREST-INVEST>                              588,599
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                93,107
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                             8,331,287
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                           2,661,718
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           4,482,997
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                        3,848,290
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                  135,000
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                              2,060,720
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              2,050,032
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                   1,271,065
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,271,065
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.85
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.82
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                       0
<LOANS-NON>                                  1,127,000
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                             1,454,000
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                   51,000
<RECOVERIES>                                    25,000
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                            1,563,592
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                           100,600
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                      1,462,992


</TABLE>
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

ROBERTO BATTLE,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 376 MAL 2020

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 14th day of October, 2020

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
#### Charles DeRider, Individually and as Father and Natural Guardian of David A. DeRider, an Infant, Respondent, v William E. Haines, Jr., Appellant.

Order unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: The court properly denied defendant’s motion to amend the answer to assert a counterclaim for contribution against the father of the infant plaintiff. The undisputed facts submitted on the motion to amend show that defendant’s cause of action against the father, based on negligent supervision of the infant plaintiff, lacks merit *(see, Holodook v Spencer,*36 NY2d 35). This case does not fall within the exception to the rule set forth in *Holodook (supra)*because the bicycle operated by the infant was not a dangerous instrument *(see, Nolechek v Gesuale,*46 NY2d 332; *Steinberg v Cauchois,*249 App Div 518; *see also, Parsons v Wham-O, Inc.,*150 AD2d 435; *Young v Dalidowicz,*92 AD2d 242). (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Wesley, J. — amended answer.) Present — Doerr, J. P., Denman, Boomer, Green and Pine, JJ.
A01A0149.

#### THE STATE v. HAMMANG.

(549 SE2d 440)

Barnes, Judge.

The State appeals the trial court’s grant of Jamie Sue Hammang’s motion to suppress evidence obtained after a police officer stopped Hammang’s car, including breath test results showing blood alcohol contents of 0.057 and 0.060. For the reasons set forth below, we reverse.

The State charged Hammang with three counts: driving under the influence of alcohol to the extent that she was a less safe driver (OCGA § 40-6-391 (a) (1)), driving with more than 0.02 percent blood alcohol content while under the age of twenty-one (OCGA § 40-6-391

(k) ), and driving without her headlights on (OCGA § 40-8-22). The arresting officer testified that he stopped Hammang because he saw her drive through a poorly lit intersection without her headlights on. He further testified that it was almost dark outside and all the other cars in view had their headlights on. Hammang did not testify at the suppression hearing.

The trial court granted Hammang’s motion to suppress, finding that the officer stopped her at “approximately 9:00 p.m.”; that sunset that day was 8:34 p.m.; that Hammang “was not required to have her headlights on until 9:04 p.m.”; and that “therefore there was no reasonable articulable suspicion for the stop.”

When the evidence is uncontroverted and no issues of witness credibility are presented, we review de novo the trial court’s application of the law to undisputed facts. *Vansant v. State, 264*Ga. 319, 320 (l) (443 SE2d 474) (1994). “If the officer acting in good faith believes that an unlawful act has been committed, his actions are not rendered improper by a later legal determination that the defendant’s actions were not a crime according to a technical legal definition or distinction determined to exist in the penal statute.” *McConnell v. State,*188 Ga. App. 653, 654 (1) (374 SE2d 111) (1988). “The question to be decided is whether the officer’s motives and actions at the time and under all the circumstances, including the nature of the officer’s mistake, if any, were reasonable and not arbitrary or harassing.” (Citations and punctuation omitted.) *State v. Webb,*193 Ga. App. 2, 3-4 (1) (386 SE2d 891) (1989).

“No purpose of deterrence would be served by suppressing the evidence found in this case, which was the product of a stop prompted by the officer’s legitimate concern for public safety.” *State v. Armstrong,*223 Ga. App. 350, 353 (2) (477 SE2d 635) (1996). The police officer presented specific and articulable facts that justified a limited inquiry, and therefore the State demonstrated “some basis from which the court can determine that the detention was not pretextual, arbitrary or harassing, and not based upon mere inclina*812tion, caprice, or a ‘hunch’ by law enforcement.” Id. The trial court’s grant of Hammang’s motion to suppress is reversed.

Decided May 14, 2001

Reconsideration denied June 4, 2001

*Gerald N. Blaney, Jr., Solicitor-General, Staci B. Melton, Gary S. Vey, Assistant Solicitors-General,*for appellant.

*William R. Carlisle,*for appellee.

*Judgment reversed.*

*Smith, P. J., and Phipps, J., concur.*
<PAGE>   1

                 TANDY BRANDS ACCESSORIES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

EXHIBIT (21):  SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT


21.1  List of subsidiaries

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

Subsidiaries of                             State or Other Jurisdiction of               Names Under Which Such
the Registrant                              Incorporation or Organization               Subsidiaries Do Business
---------------                             ------------------------------              ------------------------

<S>                                         <C>                                         <C>
Accessory Design Group, Inc.                A Delaware Corporation                      Accessory Design Group, Inc.
                                                                                        Accessory Design Group

TBAC-Prince Gardner, Inc.                   A Delaware Corporation                      TBAC-Prince Gardner, Inc.
                                                                                        Prince Gardner

TBAC-AIS, Inc.                              A Delaware Corporation                      TBAC-AIS, Inc.

H.A. Sheldon Canada Ltd.                    A Canadian Corporation                      1088258 Ontario, Inc.
                                                                                        H.A. Sheldon Canada Ltd.

TBAC-Canterbury, Inc.                       A Delaware Corporation                      TBAC-Canterbury, Inc.

Amity / Rolfs, Inc.                         A Delaware Corporation                      Amity / Rolfs, Inc.

Tiger Accessories, Inc.                     A New York Corporation                      Tiger Accessories, Inc.

TBAC General Management Co.                 A Nevada Corporation                        TBAC General Management Co.

TBAC Investment, Inc.                       A Nevada Corporation                        TBAC Investment, Inc.

TBAC Investment Trust                       A Pennsylvania Trust                        TBAC Investment Trust

TBAC Management Co., L.P.                   A Delaware Limited Partnership              TBAC Management Co., L.P.

Tandy Brands Accessories Handbags, Inc.     A Delaware Corporation                      Tandy Brands Accessories
                                                                                        Handbags, Inc.
</TABLE>
I

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1367

To provide that a portion of the income derived from trust or restricted

land held by an individual Indian shall not be considered as a resource

or income in determining eligibility for assistance under any Federal

or federally assisted program.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 16 1993

Mr. RICHARDSON (for himself, Mr. MILLER of California, Mr. MCDERMOTT,

Ms. ENGLISH of Arizona, Ms. FURSE, Mr. YOUNG of Alaska, and Mr.

THOMAS of Wyoming) introduced the following bill; which was referred

jointly to the Committees on Natural Resources and Ways and Means

A BILL

To provide that a portion of the income derived from trust

or restricted land held by an individual Indian shall

not be considered as a resource or income in determining

eligibility for assistance under any Federal or federally

assisted program.

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

3 SECTION 1. EXEMPTION.

4 Section 8 of the Act of October 19, 1973 (25 U.S.C.

5 1408), is amended—
2

•HR 1367 IH

1 (1) by inserting immediately after ‘‘lands’’ the

2 following: ‘‘, and income (including interest) up to

3 $4,000 per year derived therefrom,’’; and

4 (2) by inserting immediately after ‘‘resource’’

5 the following: ‘‘or income’’.

6 SEC. 2. ALASKA NATIVE CLAIMS SETTLEMENT ACT AMEND7 MENT.

8 Section 29(c)(3)(A) of the Alaska Native Claims Set9 tlement Act (43 U.S.C. 1626(c)(3)(A)) is amended by

10 striking ‘‘$2,000’’ and inserting in lieu thereof ‘‘$4,000’’.

®
```

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 202 (Thursday, October 18, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 64114-64115]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-25622]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

EXPORT-IMPORT BANK

[Public Notice 2012-0304]

Agency Information Collection Activities: Final Collection; 
Comment Request

AGENCY: Export-Import Bank of the U.S.

ACTION: Submission for OMB Review and Comments Request.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

    Form Title: EIB 03-02 Application for Medium Term Insurance or 
Guarantee.

SUMMARY: The Export-Import Bank of the United States (Ex-Im Bank), as a 
part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent 
burden, invites the general public and other Federal Agencies to 
comment on the proposed information collection, as required by the 
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
    The purpose of this collection is to gather information necessary 
to make a determination of eligibility of a transaction for Ex-Im Bank 
assistance under its medium-term guarantee and insurance program.
    The form can be viewed at www.exim.gov/pub/pending/eib03-02.pdf.

DATES: Comments should be received on or before December 17, 2012 to be 
assured of consideration.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be submitted electronically on 
www.regulations.gov or by mail to Vasilios Giannpooulos, Export Import 
Bank of the United States, 811 Vermont Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20571.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Titles and Form Number: EIB 03-02 Application for Medium Term 
Insurance or Guarantee.
    OMB Number: 3048-0014.
    Type of Review: Regular.
    Need and Use: The purpose of this collection is to gather 
information necessary to make a determination of eligibility of a 
transaction for Ex-Im Bank assistance under its medium-term guarantee 
and insurance program.
    Affected Public: This form affects entities involved in the export 
of U.S goods and services.
    Annual Number of Respondents: 400.

[[Page 64115]]

    Estimated Time per Respondent: 1 hour and 45 minutes.
    Number of forms reviewed by Ex-Im Bank: 400.
    Government Annual Burden Hours: 700 hours.
    Government Cost: $38,115.
    Frequency of Reporting or Use: As needed--each time a company seeks 
medium term guarantee or insurance support for an export sale.

Sharon A. Whitt,
Agency Clearance Officer.
[FR Doc. 2012-25622 Filed 10-17-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6690-01-P
```
VII

Private Calendar No. 9

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 1184

[Report No. 103–580]

For the relief of Jung Ja Golden.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 2, 1993

Mr. EDWARDS of Texas introduced the following bill; which was referred to

the Committee on the Judiciary

JUNE 30, 1994

Committed to the Committee of the Whole House and ordered to be printed

A BILL

For the relief of Jung Ja Golden.

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

3 SECTION 1. IMMEDIATE RELATIVE STATUS FOR JUNG JA

4 GOLDEN.

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Jung Ja Golden shall be classified

6 as an immediate relative within the meaning of section

7 201(b)(2)(A)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act

8 for purposes of approval of a relative visa petition filed
2

•HR 1184 RH

1 under section 204 of such Act by Jung Ja Golden and

2 the filing of an application for an immigrant visa or for

3 adjustment of status.

4 (b) ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS.—If Jung Ja Golden

5 enters the United States before the filing deadline speci6 fied in subsection (c), she shall be considered to have en7 tered and remained lawfully and shall, if otherwise eligible,

8 be eligible for adjustment of status under section 245 of

9 the Immigration and Nationality Act as of the date of the

10 enactment of this Act.

11 (c) DEADLINE FOR APPLICATION AND PAYMENT OF

12 FEES.—Subsections (a) and (b) shall apply only if the pe13 tition and the application for issuance of an immigrant

14 visa or the application for adjustment of status are filed

15 by Jung Ja Golden with appropriate fees within 2 years

16 after the date of the enactment of this Act.

17 (d) REDUCTION OF IMMIGRANT VISA NUMBER.—

18 Upon the granting of an immigrant visa or permanent res19 idence to Jung Ja Golden, the Secretary of State shall

20 instruct the proper officer to reduce by 1, for the following

21 fiscal year, the total number of immigrant visas available

22 under section 201(c)(1)(A) of the Immigration and

23 Nationality Act.

Private Calendar No. 

9

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 1184

[Report No. 103–580]

A BILL

For the relief of Jung Ja Golden.

JUNE 30, 1994

Committed to the Committee of the Whole House and

ordered to be printed
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

October 7, 2005 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

128131 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

KEVIN MACLACHLAN, Personal Representative Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, of the Estate of DAVID MACLACHAN, Justices Deceased, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 128131 

 COA: 252221 

Ingham CC: 02-001949-NI 

CAPITAL AREA TRANSPORTATION 

AUTHORITY and JOHN DOE, 

Defendants, 

and 

CITY OF LANSING,

 Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 20, 2005 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.302(G)(1), we 

direct the Clerk to schedule oral argument on whether to grant the application or take 

other peremptory action permitted by MCR 7.302(G)(1). The parties shall include among 

the issues to be addressed at oral argument whether the Court of Appeals erred in 

reversing the trial court's conclusion that defendant City of Lansing was entitled to 

summary disposition based on governmental immunity. The parties may file 

supplemental briefs within 28 days of the date of this order, but they should avoid 

submitting mere restatement of arguments in application papers. 

s1003 

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. 

October 7, 2005 

Clerk
IIA

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1346

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

MAY 5 (legislative day, April 19), 1993

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

Public Works

AN ACT

To designate the Federal building located on St. Croix,

Virgin Islands, as the ‘‘Almeric L. Christian Federal

Building’’.

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

3 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

4 The Federal building located on St. Croix, Virgin Is5 lands, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Almeric L.

6 Christian Federal Building’’.
2

•HR 1346 RFS

1 SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

2 Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document,

3 paper, or other record of the United States to the Federal

4 building referred to in section 1 shall be deemed to be

5 a reference to the ‘‘Almeric L. Christian Federal

6 Building’’.

Passed the House of Representatives May 4, 1993.

Attest: DONNALD K. ANDERSON,

Clerk.