alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
| (1) | The      Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June      30, 2010 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;and |
|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

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

| /s/      Dejun Zou           |   |   |   |   |
|------------------------------|--------|--------|--------|--------|
| Dejun      Zou               |   |   |   |   |
| Chief      Executive Officer |   |   |   |   |

| /s/      Ben Wang            |   |   |   |   |
|------------------------------|--------|--------|--------|--------|
| Ben      Wang                |   |   |   |   |
| Chief      Financial Officer |   |   |   |   |

----
* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 98-20386

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

OLAJIDE ODUNAYO SOLOYE,

also known as Darryl Parker, 

also known as Patrick Fielder,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. H-97-CR-138-1

- - - - - - - - - -

November 25, 1998

Before KING, BARKSDALE, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Olajide Odunayo Soloye appeals the order of restitution

imposed upon him at sentencing after pleading guilty to

conspiracy to commit bank fraud and bank fraud. We find that the

district court’s failure to mention restitution during the plea

colloquy was harmless error. See United States v. Johnson,

1 F.3d 296, 298 (5th Cir. 1993)(en banc). Soloye’s plea

agreement stated that he may be required to make full restitution
for the losses sustained by the victims of the offenses of

conviction. At his guilty plea hearing, Soloye affirmed that he

had read and understood the plea agreement. Accordingly, the

judgment and sentence of the district court are affirmed. 

AFFIRMED.
EXHIBIT 23






CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM



We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos.
33-39987, 33-56728, and 333-39726 on Form S-8 and Registration Statement Nos.
333-33746, 333-80291, and 33-61309 on Form S-3 of our report dated October 8,
2004, appearing in the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Possis Medical, Inc. and
subsidiaries for the year ended July 31, 2004.



Deloitte & Touche LLP
Minneapolis, Minnesota
October 12, 2004




                                       60
I 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2757 

To prohibit United States voluntary contributions to the regular budget of 

the United Nations or any United Nations agency. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 12, 2015 

Mr. BABIN introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Foreign Affairs 

A BILL 

To prohibit United States voluntary contributions to the 

regular budget of the United Nations or any United 

Nations agency. 

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

3 SECTION 1. PROHIBITION ON UNITED STATES VOLUNTARY 

4 CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE UNITED NATIONS 

5 AND UNITED NATIONS AGENCIES. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—No funds made available to any 

7 Federal department or agency may be used to make 

8 United States voluntary contributions to the regular budg9 et of the United Nations or any United Nations agency. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2757 IH

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—Subsection (a) applies with 

2 respect to funds made available for fiscal year 2015 and 

3 subsequent fiscal years. 

Æ 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
The Honorable E. Richard Webber, United States Distr ict Judge for the Eastern 1 District of Missouri. United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

_____________ No. 97-2446

_____________ Evelyn E. Rice; Robert Hohlt, * * Appellants, * * v. * * Appeal from the United States Lesley Borovicka; Cheryl Holland; * District Court for the Katie Broyles; Ann Deaton; Complete * Eastern District of Missouri. Health Care, Inc.; Shirley Harrison; * Mark Anderson; Diane Webb; Kathie * [UNPUBLISHED] Godsey; Gregory A. Vadner, Director, * Division of Aging, * * Appellees. *

_____________ Submitted: December 12, 1997 Filed: December 18, 1997

_____________ Before BOWMAN, WOLLMAN, and LOKEN, Circuit Judges.

_____________ PER CURIAM. Plaintiffs appeal from a final order entered by the Distric t Court dismissing their 1 complaint. For reversal, plaintiffs argue principally that the court misapplied the-2-

Rook er-Feldmandoctrine and the Colorado River abstention doctrine. Havin g reviewed the case, we conclude the District Court committed no error of law, nor did it abuse its discretio n. For the reasons stated in the District Court's memorandum and order, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
Exhibit 33.3



|     |  |  |  |                     
|---- |  |  |  | --------------------
|LOGO |  |  |  | 1 Mortgage Way      
|     |  |  |  | Mt. Laurel, NJ 08054





REPORT ON ASSESSMENT OF COMPLIANCE WITH REGULATION AB

SERVICING CRITERIA

PHH Mortgage
Corporation (the Asserting Party) is responsible for assessing compliance as of December 31, 2015 and for the period from January 1, 2015 through December 31, 2015 (the Reporting Period) with the servicing criteria set forth
in Section 229.1122(d) of the Code of Federal Regulations (the CFR), except for criteria set forth in Section 229.1122(d)(3)(i)(c), (d)(4)(xv) and (d)(1)(iii) of the CFR, which the Asserting Party has concluded are not applicable to the
servicing activities it performs with respect to the transactions covered by this report (the Applicable Servicing Criteria). The criteria set forth in Section 229.1122 (d)(2)(i), (d)(2)(ii), (d)(4)(iv), (d)(4)(vii), (d)(4)(viii) and
(d)(4)(xi) of the CFR are performed by outsource providers on behalf of the Asserting Party; however, the Asserting Party has monitored the outsourcing of these criteria and assumes responsibility for compliance. The transactions covered by this
report include all non-agency loan sale agreements executed after January 1, 2006 as well as all re-securitization transactions after January 1, 2006 for which the Asserting Party served as servicer (the Platform).

The Asserting Party has assessed its compliance with the Servicing Criteria as of December 31, 2015 and for the Reporting Period and has concluded that the
Asserting Party has complied, in all material respects, with the Applicable Servicing Criteria with respect to the Platform taken as a whole.

Deloitte
& Touche, an independent registered public accounting firm, has issued an attestation report on the assessment of compliance with the Servicing Criteria for the Reporting Period as set forth in this assertion.



|                                      
|--------------------------------------
|PHH Mortgage Corporation              
|                                      
|Date: February 26, 2016               
|                                      
|/s/ Glen A. Messina                   
|Glen A. Messina                       
|President                             
|                                      
|/s/ Martin L. Foster                  
|Martin L. Foster                      
|Senior Vice President  Loan Servicing
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l a r g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T MI S AK T E R YA N; MAR I T E R YA N, P et i t i o n ers, v. E R I C H . H O L D E R , J r ., A tto rn e yG e n e r a l, R e s p o n d e n t. N o. 08- 75183 A ge nc yN os . A 095- 191- 276

A 095- 191- 277 ME MOR AN DU M *

O n P e t i t i on f

orR e vi e w of

a n O r de rof

the B o a r do f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls S ubm i tt e d A pr i l 20, 2011 ** B efo re: R Y M E R , T H O M A S , an dP A E Z , C i rcu i tJu d g es. M i sak T eryan and M ar i T eryan, nat i ves of G re ec e and ci t i ze ns of A rm eni a, pe t i t i on f orr e vi e w of

the B oa r d of

I m m i gr a t i on A ppe a l s ’ ( “ B I A ” ) or de rde ny i ng thei r m ot i on t o reopen. W e have j uri sdi ct i on un der 8 U . S . C . § 1 25 2. W e r evi ew f o rab u s e o f

d is c r e tio n th e d e n ia l o f am o tio n to r e o p e n , Si ng h v. G on zales , 491



# FI LED MA Y05 2 011 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS08- 75183 2 F . 3d 1090, 1095 ( 9th C i r . 2007) , a nd w e de nyi n pa rta nd gr a nti n pa rtthe pe t i t i on f o rr e v i e w. T h e B I A d idn o t ab u s e its d is c r e tio n in d e n y in g p e titio n e r s ’ m o tio n to r e ope n a s unt i m e l ybe c aus e the m ot i on w a s f i l e d m or e tha n f

oury e a r s a f

t e rthe B I A ’s F e b ru a ry2 4 , 2 0 0 4 , o r d e rd is m is s in g th e u n d e r ly in g ap p e a l, se e 8 C. F. R. § 1 00 3. 2(c) (2) ( m ot i on t o reopen m ustgeneral l y be f i l ed w i thi n 9 0 d ay s of the fi nal a d m in is tr a tiv e o r d e r ) , a n dp e titio n e r s f a ile dto e s tab lis h g r o u n d s f o re q u itab le to llin g , s e e I

tu rr i b a rr i a v . I

NS , 32 1 F . 3d 88 9, 89 7-98 (9th C i r. 20 03 ). P e titio n e r s ’ c o n te n tio n th a t a n im m ig r a tio n c o n s u lta n t th e yk n e w w a s n o t a la w y e rp r o v id e dth e m w ith in e f f e c tiv e a s s is ta n c e o f

c o u n s e l is f

o r e c lo s e d . See H erna ndezv. Mukasey , 524 F . 3d 1014, 1020 ( 9th C i r . 2008) ( hol di ng tha tknow i ng r e l i a nc e upon the a dvi c e of anon- a tt orne yc a nnots upportac l a i m f ori ne f f e c t i ve a s s is ta n c e o f

c o u n s e l in ar e m o v a l p r o c e e d in g ) . B e c aus e the B I A f

a i l e d t o a ddr e s s pe t i t i one r s ’ r e que s ttha ti te xe r c i s e i t s s ua spon t e autho ri ty t o reopen p roce edi ng s, w e r em and for the B IA t o con si der p e titio n e r s ’ r e q u e s t in th e f ir s t in s ta n c e . See M

on tes –L op ezv. G on zales , 486 F . 3d 11 63 , 11 65 (9th C i r. 20 07 ). E a c h p a rtys h a l l b e a ri t s o wn c o s t s f o rth i s p e t i t i o n f

o rr e v i e w. P E T IT IO N F O R R E V IE W D E N IE D i n p art; G R A N T E D i n p art.
# C_2018311EN.01001901.xml

| 3.9.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 311/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.9.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 311/19

---

Action brought on 16 July 2018 — Peek & Cloppenburg v EUIPO — Peek & Cloppenburg (Peek & Cloppenburg)

(Case T-446/18)

(2018/C 311/20)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Peek & Cloppenburg KG, Düsseldorf (Düsseldorf, Germany) (represented by: P. Lange, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Peek & Cloppenburg KG, Hamburg (Hamburg, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Party applying for the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark Peek & Cloppenburg — Application for registration No 4 295 069

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 April 2018 in Case R 1589/2007-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 8(4) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council, read in conjunction with Paragraph 15(2) of the German Law on trade marks; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(4) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council, read in conjunction with Paragraph 15(2) of the German Law on trade marks;

| — | Infringement of Article 8(4)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council, read in conjunction with Paragraph 15(3) of the German Law on trade marks; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(4)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council, read in conjunction with Paragraph 15(3) of the German Law on trade marks;

| — | Infringement of Article 8(4) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(4) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

| — | Infringement of Article 63 of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009, read in conjunction with Rule 20(7)(c) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2868/95. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 63 of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009, read in conjunction with Rule 20(7)(c) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2868/95.

---
#### ZIMMERMAN v. STATE.

No. 18996.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

May 12, 1937.

Hughes & Monroe and Jack Gillespie, Jr., all of Dallas, for appellant.

Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

CHRISTIAN, Judge.

The conviction is for a misdemeanor; the punishment being assessed at a fine of '$100.

Omitting the formal parts, the complaint reads as follows: “Jake Zimmerman, hereinafter styled defendant, heretofore, on or about the sixth day of September, A. D. 1936, in the County of Dallas and State of Texas, was then and there the holder of a package store permit issued by the Texas Liquor Control Board of Texas for the sale of liquor on the premises located at 2700 South Ervay Street in the City of Dallas, Dallas County, Texas, and the said Jake Zimmerman did unlawfully then and there in and upon said premises sell and deliver one-half pint of liquor to *260H. H. Brossman the sixth day of September, A. D. 1936, being- a Sunday.”

The averments in the information correspond with those of the complaint. The prosecution proceeded under subdivision (d) of section 25, art. 1, c. 467, General and Special Laws passed by the Forty-Fourth Legislature at its Second Called Session (Vernon’s Ann.P.C. § 666 — -25 (d). Said subdivision prohibits the sale or delivery of liquor on or from the premises of the holder of any permit on Sunday, except upon the prescription of a duly licensed physician., It is observed that the complaint and information fail to negative the exception, that is, fail to allege that the sale was not made upon a prescription from a duly licensed physician. In the recent case of Mrs. Sterling D. Anderson v. State, 105 S.W.(2d) 258, delivered December 9, 1936, this court held that the exception was so clearly made part of the offense and was so plainly written into the very description and definition of the offense as that one could not be read without the other. In that case it was charged that the holder of a permit sold liquor on Sunday. It was held that it was necessary to negative the exception.

It is suggested that if another complaint be filed, the liquor alleged to have been sold should Be described by alcoholic content or in such manner as to show that it was comprehended by the statute.

The judgment is reversed, and the prosecution ordered dismissed.

PER CURIAM.

The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the court.
IIB 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3116 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 25, 2015 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and 

Governmental Affairs 

AN ACT 

To extend by 15 years the authority of the Secretary of 

Commerce to conduct the quarterly financial report program. 

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

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS

2 

HR 3116 RFS

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Quarterly Financial 

3 Report Reauthorization Act’’. 

4 SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF AUTHORITY FOR SECRETARY OF 

5 COMMERCE TO CONDUCT QUARTERLY FI6 NANCIAL REPORT PROGRAM. 

7 Section 4(b) of the Act entitled ‘‘An Act to amend 

8 title 13, United States Code, to transfer responsibility for 

9 the quarterly financial report from the Federal Trade 

10 Commission to the Secretary of Commerce, and for other 

11 purposes’’, approved January 12, 1983 (Public Law 97– 

12 454; 13 U.S.C. 91 note), is amended by striking ‘‘2015’’ 

13 and inserting ‘‘2030’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives September 24, 

2015. 

Attest: KAREN L. HAAS, 

Clerk. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
I 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2735 

To amend the Endangered Species Act of 1973 to require establishment 

of objective numerical recovery goals for removal of species from lists 

of endangered species and threatened species under that Act, and for 

other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 11, 2015 

Mr. CONAWAY (for himself and Mr. WESTERMAN) introduced the following 

bill; which was referred to the Committee on Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To amend the Endangered Species Act of 1973 to require 

establishment of objective numerical recovery goals for 

removal of species from lists of endangered species and 

threatened species under that Act, and for other purposes. 

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 ‘‘Accountable Recovery 

5 Act’’. 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2735 IH

1 SEC. 2. OBJECTIVE NUMERICAL GOALS FOR REMOVAL OF 

2 SPECIES FROM LISTS OF ENDANGERED SPE3 CIES AND THREATENED SPECIES. 

4 Section 4(f) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 

5 (16 U.S.C. 1533(f)) is amended— 

6 (1) in paragraph (1)— 

7 (A) in the matter preceding subparagraph 

8 (A), by striking ‘‘develop and’’ and inserting ‘‘, 

9 at the time of a determination in accordance 

10 with subsection (a), develop, make publicly 

11 available, and propose to’’; and 

12 (B) in subparagraph (B)(ii), by inserting 

13 ‘‘, including objective numerical recovery goals,’’ 

14 after ‘‘criteria’’; and 

15 (2) by adding at the end the following: 

16 ‘‘(5)(A) Before the end of the 30-day period begin17 ning on the date the Secretary receives a petition from 

18 a State in which is located a species included in a list 

19 under subsection (c), or from any other interested State 

20 or other person, that objective numerical recovery goals 

21 required for the species under subsection (f)(1)(B)(ii) have 

22 been achieved, the Secretary may determine that the peti23 tion does not present such substantial information, or that 

24 such goals have not been achieved, and publish the reasons 

25 for such determination. 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 2735 IH

1 ‘‘(B) A species that is the subject of a petition re2 ferred to in subparagraph (A) is deemed to have been re3 moved from the lists published under subsection (c) upon 

4 the end of such 30-day period if the Secretary has not 

5 issued a determination under subparagraph (A).’’. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                       4,208,339
<SECURITIES>                                10,857,728
<RECEIVABLES>                               29,579,972
<ALLOWANCES>                                 1,000,000
<INVENTORY>                                 27,533,220
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            73,940,500
<PP&E>                                     101,260,757
<DEPRECIATION>                              39,428,723
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             138,537,534
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        9,707,676
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        89,381
<OTHER-SE>                                 121,047,770
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               138,537,534
<SALES>                                    160,323,091
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           161,326,563
<CGS>                                      111,027,364
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              139,074,861
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             129,168
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             22,122,534
<INCOME-TAX>                                 8,264,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         13,858,534
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                13,858,534
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.79
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.79



</TABLE>
#### LEWIS v. STATE.

No. 21052.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

April 10, 1940.

W. A. Hogan, of San Antonio, for appellant.

Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

HAWKINS, Presiding Judge.

Conviction is for selling whisky without "having obtained a permit from the Texas Liquor Control Board. Punishment was -assessed at a fine of $250.

The indictment seems to be in regular form. No statement of facts or bills of ex■ception are found in the record. In such condition nothing is presented for review.

The judgment is affirmed.
IIB 

114TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 3004 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 25, 2016 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural 

Resources 

AN ACT 

To amend the Gullah/Geechee Cultural Heritage Act to extend the authorization for the Gullah/Geechee Cultural 

Heritage Corridor Commission. 

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


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

HR 3004 RFS 

1 SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF THE AUTHORIZATION FOR THE 

2 GULLAH/GEECHEE CULTURAL HERITAGE 

3 CORRIDOR COMMISSION. 

4 Section 295D(d) of the Gullah/Geechee Cultural Her5 itage Act (Public Law 109–338; 120 Stat. 1833; 16 

6 U.S.C. 461 note) is amended by striking ‘‘10 years’’ and 

7 inserting ‘‘15 years’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives February 24, 

2016. 

Attest: KAREN L. HAAS, 

Clerk. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with BILLS