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

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3480 

To expand the boundary of Fort Frederica National Monument in the State 

of Georgia, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 10, 2015 

Mr. CARTER of Georgia (for himself and Mr. WOODALL) introduced the 

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To expand the boundary of Fort Frederica National 

Monument in the State of Georgia, 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 ‘‘Fort Frederica Na5 tional Monument Boundary Expansion Act of 2015’’. 

6 SEC. 2. FORT FREDERICA NATIONAL MONUMENT, GEORGIA. 

7 (a) MAXIMUM ACREAGE.—The first section of the 

8 Act of May 26, 1936 (16 U.S.C. 433g), is amended by 

9 striking ‘‘two hundred and fifty acres’’ and inserting ‘‘525 

10 acres’’. 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3480 IH

1 (b) BOUNDARY EXPANSION.— 

2 (1) IN GENERAL.—The boundary of the Fort 

3 Frederica National Monument in the State of Geor4 gia is modified to include the land generally depicted 

5 as ‘‘Proposed Acquisition Areas’’ on the map enti6 tled ‘‘Fort Frederica National Monument Proposed 

7 Boundary Expansion’’, numbered 369/127,249, and 

8 dated November 2014. 

9 (2) AVAILABILITY OF MAP.—The map described 

10 in paragraph (1) shall be on file and available for 

11 public inspection in the appropriate offices of the 

12 National Park Service. 

13 (3) ACQUISITION OF LAND.—The Secretary of 

14 the Interior may acquire the land and interests in 

15 land described in paragraph (1) by donation or pur16 chase with donated or appropriated funds from will17 ing sellers only. 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 32.2
 CERTIFICATIONS
PURSANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED BY SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  1.
    
    The accompanying quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2009 as filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report) fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and2.
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 Date:  May 11, 2009
    By:
    /s/ Dale E. OberkfellName:
    Dale E. OberkfellTitle:
    Chief Financial Officer
The Honorable Russell G. Clark, United States District Judge 1

for the Western District of Missouri, adopting the report and

recommendations of the Honorable James C. England, United States

Magistrate Judge for the Western District of Missouri. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 96-2217

___________

Steven Anderson, *

 *

Appellant, *

 *

v. * Appeal from the United States

 * District Court for the

U.S. Parole Commission; United * Western District of Missouri.

States of America, *

 * [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellees. *

___________

 Submitted: March 21, 1997

 Filed: April 7, 1997

___________

Before HANSEN, MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Steven Anderson, a federal inmate, appeals from the district court's1

dismissal without prejudice of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition for a writ of

habeas corpus. Having carefully reviewed the record and the parties'

submissions, we conclude that the district court's judgment was correct and

that an extended discussion is not warranted. Accordingly, we affirm. See

8th Cir. 
-2-

R. 47B. We deny Anderson's appellate motions to supplement the record and

for release.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
#### HARMON v. STATE.

No. 18190.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

April 15, 1936.

Neal Shurtleff and Leo C. Brady, both of Houston, for appellant.

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

LATTIMORE, Judge.

Conviction for robbery; punishment, five years in the penitentiary.

There is no complaint on appellant’s part of the insufficiency of the evidence, and we deem the jury amply warranted in their •conclusion of guilt, and see no good to come from setting out the testimony.

Appellant has five bills of exception. By his bill No. 1 he complains of the fact that a convicted codefendant of this appellant, one West, was permitted to testify for the state. There is nothing in appellant’s' bill or in the record which shows when said witness was convicted, and we are unable to know whether it was prior or subsequent to the amendment of article 708, C.C.P. (Vernon’s Ann.C.C.P. art. 708). Our presumption must be in favor of the correctness of the ruling of the trial court. The bill is insufficient to present any error.

We cannot agree with appellant that there is not sufficient testimony in the record to corroborate appellant’s codefendant, whose testimony would be in the nature of an accomplice; nor can we agree that the facts in the case do not sufficiently show that the alleged offense was committed by the use of force, or the exhibition of a deadly weapon, or by putting the injured party in fear of death or bodily injury. We conclude to the contrary.

There are a number of bills of exception in the record which are in question and answer form, without any certificate of the court that it was necessary that they be in such form in order to make them understood. These bills of exception can not be considered.

Finding no error in the record, the judgment will be affirmed.
# Official Journal C 103A/2009

| | ISSN 1725-2423
  doi:10.3000/17252423.CA2009.103.eng |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 103A |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 525 May 2009 |

ISSN 1725-2423

doi:10.3000/17252423.CA2009.103.eng

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 103A

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 525 May 2009

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | Corrigenda |
| 2009/C 103A/01 | Corrigendum to the notice of competitions — EPSO/AST/91/09 — Assistants (AST 3) in the ‘offset printing’ field — EPSO/AST/92/09 — Assistants (AST 3) in the ‘pre-press’ field (OJ C 63A, 18.3.2009) | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

Corrigenda

2009/C 103A/01

Corrigendum to the notice of competitions — EPSO/AST/91/09 — Assistants (AST 3) in the ‘offset printing’ field — EPSO/AST/92/09 — Assistants (AST 3) in the ‘pre-press’ field (OJ C 63A, 18.3.2009)

(OJ C 63A, 18.3.2009)

1

---

| | |
| --- | --- |
| 2009/C 103A/02 | REVIEW OF ‘COMPETITION’ C A OJs | s3 |

2009/C 103A/02

REVIEW OF ‘COMPETITION’ C A OJs

s3

---

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

EN
August 7

, 2012



### JUDGMENT



## The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

DONNIE RAY PEARSON , Appellant

NO. 14

- 11

- 00041

- CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

____________________

We order that this co urt’ s former judgment of July 17 , 20 12

, be vacated , set aside,

and annulle d. We further order this court’ s opinion of July 17 , 20 12 , withdrawn.

This cause was heard on the transcript of the record of the court below. Having

considered the record, this Court holds that there was no error in the judgment. The

Court orders the judgment AFFIRMED , and that this decision be certified below for

observance.
Exhibit 33.1b



|     |                                                          |                                
|---- | -------------------------------------------------------- | -------------------------------
|     |                                                         
|LOGO |                                                          | 260 Interstate North Circle, SE
|     | Atlanta, GA 30339-2210 T 770.763.1000
 www.assurant.corn

REPORT ON ASSESSMENT OF COMPLIANCE WITH

§1122(d)(2)(vi), §1122(d)(4)(xi) and §1122(d)(4)(xii)

of REGULATION AB SERVICING CRITERIA

FOR THE REPORTING PERIOD

JANUARY 1, 2015 TO DECEMBER 31, 2015

American Security Insurance Company, Standard Guaranty Insurance Company and TrackSure Insurance Agency, Inc. (collectively, the Asserting Party)
is responsible for assessing compliance for the period of January 1, 2015 through December 31, 2015 (the Reporting Period) with the servicing criteria set forth in §1122(d)(2)(vi), §1122(d)(4)(xi) and
§1122(d)(4)(xii) of Title 17, §229.1122(d) of the Code of Federal Regulations, (the Applicable Servicing Criteria) which the Asserting Party has concluded are applicable to the insurance escrow servicing activities it performs
with respect to all mortgage backed securities transactions that were registered after January 1, 2006 with the Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to the Securities Act of 1933 (the Platform Transactions). The Asserting
Party used the criteria set forth in paragraph (d) of Item 1122 of Regulation AB to assess the compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria.

The Asserting Party has assessed its compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria for the Reporting Period and has concluded that the Asserting Party has
complied, in all material respects, with the Applicable Servicing Criteria for the Reporting Period with respect to the Platform Transactions.

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, an independent registered public accounting firm, has issued an attestation report on the assessment of compliance with the
Applicable Servicing Criteria as of and for the Reporting Period,

American Security Insurance Company

Standard Guaranty Insurance Company

TrackSure
Insurance Agency, Inc.



|                                                                                             
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ John Frobose                                                                             
|By: John Frobose                                                                             
|President of American Security Insurance Company and Standard Guaranty Insurance Company, and
|Sr. Vice President of TrackSure Insurance Agency, Inc.                                       
|                                                                                             
|Date: February 8, 2016
Exhibit 32.1.4

CERTIFICATION

I, Sidney E.
Anderson, principal financial officer of Hawker Beechcraft Notes Company (the Company), hereby certify that:



|(1) | The Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 28, 2010 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



|                                                                                            
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Sidney E. Anderson                                                                      
|Sidney E. Anderson, Vice President and
Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial
Officer)

May 3, 2010
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-6262

DON NEWBY,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

HAROLD CLARKE, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at 

Richmond. John A. Gibney, Jr., District Judge. (3:18-cv-00714-JAG-RCY)

Submitted: May 16, 2019 Decided: May 21, 2019

Before DIAZ and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Don Cornelius Newby, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Don Newby seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice 

his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition for failure either to pay the filing fee or explain why 

he should be excused from paying the fee. The order is not appealable unless a circuit 

justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) 

(2012). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the 

denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court 

denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that 

reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional 

claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see MillerEl v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on 

procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural 

ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a 

constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85. 

After filing this appeal, Newby paid the district court filing fee, and the district 

court subsequently entered an order vacating its dismissal order and reinstating Newby’s 

§ 2254 proceeding. Accordingly, we deny Newby’s application to proceed in forma 

pauperis, deny a certificate of appealability, and dismiss this appeal as moot. We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 

presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

DISMISSED
#### CURL v. STATE.

No. 18238.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

May 13, 1936.

A. T. Russell and Denman & Fowler, all of Nacogdoches, for appellant.

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

LATTIMORE, Judge.

Conviction for arson; punishment, two years in the penitentiary.

The indictment in this case charged that V. E. Futch and Red Curl on or about the 18th day of December, 1934, did then and there unlawfully and with intent to defraud willfully set fire to and burn certain personal property owned by themselves, to wit, an automobile, which said property was at the time insured against loss or damage from fire, etc.

The testimony shows without dispute that the automobile in question was the property of V. E. Futch, and that same was insured in favor of said Futch, and that, being desirous of having same burned in order that he .might secure the insurance, said Futch procured the aid and assistance of appellant to carry out said scheme, promising to pay him when he got his insurance. The facts show that Futch purchased a can of kerosene, and in company with appellant went to a certain point in the woods where Futch poured upon said car the kerosene, and then told this appellant to set it on fire, but to wait until he (Futch) had gone a little ways up the road; also that appellant did set fire to the car when Futch was approximately 75 yards away, and said automobile was destroyed.'

At the close of the testimony, appellant requested a special charge that the jury be told to acquit because of a variance between the allegation arid the proof, based on the fact that it was alleged that the automobile belonged to both said parties, and the proof showed it to belong entirely to Futch, and that appellant had no interest in same. It is apparent under the terms of article 1322, P.C., that it would be necessary to properly allege the ownership of the burned property and support these averments by proof. *436In practically all prosecutions wherein the element of ownership of property is necessary of averment and proof, a variance be-/ tween the allegation and supporting testimony has been held fatal. We think the rule must have application here and that the trial court erred in declining to respond to the request of the appellant in the matter above referred to.

We also note that an exception was reserved to the court’s charge for its failure to inform the jury that, before they could convict, they must believe that the property destroyed was the joint property of both said parties.

We see no need for further setting out the facts in view of our conclusion above expressed.

For the reasons mentioned, the judgment will be reversed and the cause remanded.
EXHIBIT 21.1

LIST OF REWARDS NETWORK SUBSIDIARIES



|                                               |  |                            
|---------------------------------------------- |  | ---------------------------
|Name                                           |  | Jurisdiction ofOrganization
|1. Rewards Network Establishment Services Inc. |  | Delaware                   
|2. Rewards Network Services LLC                |  | Delaware                   
|3. Rewards Network International, Inc.         |  | Delaware                   
|4. RTR Funding LLC                             |  | Delaware                   
|5. Rewards Network Canada GP Corporation       |  | Nova Scotia, Canada        
|6. Rewards Network Canada LP                   |  | Ontario, Canada            
|7. Restaurant Cash LLC                         |  | Delaware
EX-31 Rule 13a-14(d)/15d-14(d) Certifications.

 

I, Nicolas Galeone, certify that:

 

1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports onForm 10-D required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of the UBS-Barclays Commercial MortgageTrust 2012-C2 (the “Exchange Act periodic reports”);

 

2. Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, takenas a whole, do not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statementsmade, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered bythis report;

 

3. Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing andother information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this report is included in the Exchange Actperiodic reports;

 

4. Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statementsrequired in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicershave fulfilled their obligations under the servicing agreements in all material respects; and

 

5. All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicingcriteria for asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteriafor asset-backed securities required to be included in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange ActRules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwise disclosed in this report. Any materialinstances of noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.

 

In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied oninformation provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties:

 

Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as Master Servicer, CWCapitalAsset Management LLC, as Special Servicer, U.S. Bank National Association, as Trustee, U.S. Bank National Association, as CertificateAdministrator, U.S. Bank National Association, as Custodian, Pentalpha Surveillance LLC, as Operating Advisor, CoreLogic CommercialReal Estate Services, Inc., as Servicing Function Participant, and National Tax Search, LLC, as Servicing Function Participant.

 

Dated: March 22, 2018

 

/s/ Nicolas Galeone

 

President

(senior officer in charge of securitizationof the depositor)
**Final Listing of Questionnaire Files for Steam Electric Rulemaking Record**

**Plant ID 03464**  **Removed from Public**  **(Non-CBI) Docket**  **1 Copyright** 

**Flag 2**  **File Name Description**  x 03464\03464_Checklist.xls EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook

03464\03464_Completeness_Checklist.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist 03464\03464_HardcopyLog.doc EPA log of hardcopy documents submitted x 03464\03464_PartA.xls Plant submitted survey file x 03464\03464_PartB.xls Plant submitted survey file x 03464\03464_PartC.xls Plant submitted survey file x 03464\03464_PartD.xls Plant submitted survey file x 03464\03464_PartH.xls Plant submitted survey file

03464\Certification Statement_03464.pdf Plant certification statement x 03464\Supporting Documentation\03464_WAPdiagramspartAsec5qA5-3.ppt Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 03464\Supporting Documentation\WAPdiagramspartDsec3.1qD3-1.ppt Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

1Final reviewed survey responses are located in the Steam Electric Technical Questionnaire Database

. 2Copyright documents are available from the docket.
Exhibit 32.2
 CERTIFICATIONS
PURSANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED BY SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  1.
    
    The accompanying quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2010 as filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report) fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
 2.
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 Date:  August 12, 2010
    By:
    /s/ Dale E. OberkfellName:
    Dale E. OberkfellTitle:
    Chief Financial Officer