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

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2804 Reported in Senate (RS)]

                                                       Calendar No. 881
106th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2804

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             June 28, 2000

  Mr. Bayh (for himself and Mr. Lugar) introduced the following bill; 
  which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Governmental 
                                Affairs

                           September 29, 2000

  Reported under authority of the order of the Senate of September 28 
    (legislative day, September 22), 2000, by Mr. Thompson, without 
                               amendment

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
  at 424 South Michigan Street in South Bend, Indiana, as the ``John 
                        Brademas Post Office''.

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION OF JOHN BRADEMAS POST OFFICE.

    (a) In General.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 424 South Michigan Street in South Bend, Indiana, shall be 
known and designated as the ``John Brademas Post Office''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``John 
Brademas Post Office''.

                                                       Calendar No. 881

106th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                                S. 2804

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
  at 424 South Michigan Street in South Bend, Indiana, as the ``John 
                        Brademas Post Office''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                           September 29, 2000

  Reported under authority of the order of the Senate of September 28 
      (legislative day, September 22), 2000, without amendmentD11/
```
|us bank(logo) | All of us serving you
|------------- | ---------------------





VIA: EMAIL



UBS Commercial Mortgage Securitization Corp.

1285 Avenue of the Americas

New York, New York 10019

Attention: Nicholas G. Galeone

Email: nicholas.galeone@ubs.com



17g5informationprovider@usbank.com



Annual Statement of Compliance

UBS-Barclays Commercial Mortgage Trust 2012-C4



| | Re: | ThePooling and Servicing Agreement (the “Agreement”)
dated as of December 1, 2012 among UBS Commercial Mortgage Securitization Corp., as depositor, Wells Fargo Bank, National Association,
as master servicer, Rialto Capital Advisors LLC, as special servicer, Trimont Real Estate Advisors, Inc., as operating advisor,
and U.S. Bank National Association, as trustee, certificate administrator, paying agent and custodian
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I, Kimberly O. Jacobs,
a Senior Vice President of U.S. Bank National Association, as Certificate Administrator hereby certify that:



(1) A review of the activities
of the Certificate Administrator during the preceding calendar year (the “Reporting Period”) and of the performance
of the Certificate Administrator under the Agreement have been made under my supervision; and



(2) To the best of my knowledge,
based on such review, the Certificate Administrator has fulfilled its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects
throughout such Reporting Period.



Capitalized terms used
but not defined herein have the meanings set forth in the Agreement.





Date: March 1, 2018



U.S. Bank National Association, as Certificate Administrator





|By: | /s/ Kimberly
    O. Jacobs | 
|--- | -------------------------- | 
|    | Kimberly O. Jacobs         | 
|    | Senior Vice President      |
1

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 39192

STATE OF IDAHO,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

KYLE DANIEL DAY,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

2012 Unpublished Opinion No. 481

Filed: May 17, 2012

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED 

OPINION AND SHALL NOT 

BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Fifth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Cassia

County. Hon. Michael R. Crabtree, District Judge. 

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of twenty years, with a minimum 

period of confinement of five years, for rape, affirmed.

Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Brian R. Dickson, Deputy 

Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. 

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming, Deputy Attorney 

General, Boise, for respondent. 

________________________________________________

Before GRATTON, Chief Judge; LANSING, Judge;

and GUTIERREZ, Judge

PER CURIAM

Kyle Daniel Day pleaded guilty to rape, Idaho Code § 19-1601(1). The district court 

sentenced Day to a unified term of twenty years, with a minimum period of confinement of five 

years, to run concurrent with two unrelated sentences. Day appeals.

Sentencing is a matter for the trial court’s discretion. Both our standard of review and the 

factors to be considered in evaluating the reasonableness of the sentence are well established and 

need not be repeated here. See State v. Hernandez, 121 Idaho 114, 117-18, 822 P.2d 1011, 1014-

15 (Ct. App. 1991); State v. Lopez, 106 Idaho 447, 449-51, 680 P.2d 869, 871-73 (Ct. App. 

1984); State v. Toohill, 103 Idaho 565, 568, 650 P.2d 707, 710 (Ct. App. 1982). When reviewing 
2

the length of a sentence, we consider the defendant’s entire sentence. State v. Oliver, 144 Idaho 

722, 726, 170 P.3d 387, 391 (2007). Applying these standards, and having reviewed the record 

in this case, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion.

Therefore, Day’s judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.
##### 



Exhibit 5.1




---



##### 



Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Thompson & Knight LLP
EX-10.1



 Exhibit 10.1 

AMENDMENT NUMBER ONE 

TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN DURATA THERAPEUTICS, INC. 

AND MICHAEL DUNNE 

This AMENDMENT NUMBER ONE (the “Amendment”) to the Employment Agreement dated June 10, 2012 (the “Agreement”)
is made as of May 1, 2014 between Durata Therapeutics, Inc. (the “Company”), and Michael Dunne (“Employee”). 

WHEREAS, the Company and the Employee entered into the Agreement on June 10, 2012. 

WHEREAS, the parties wish to amend the Agreement as set forth herein. 

NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants contained herein, the parties intending to be legally bound agree as follows:

  

	 	1.	Section 4.4 of the Agreement is deleted in its entirety. 

  

	 	2.	Section 3.1 of the Agreement shall be amended so that Executive’s Base Salary is $395,247.88 as of the Effective Date of this Amendment. 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement as of the date first above written. 

 

			
	DURATA THERAPEUTICS
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Patricia Adams

		 	Patricia Adams
		 	Senior Director, Human Resources
	
	EMPLOYEE
	
	 /s/ Michael Dunne

	Michael Dunne
	Chief Medical Officer
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

LUIS ALBERTO GARCIA, a.k.a. Luis

Alberto Juares-Garcia, a.k.a. Luis Alberto

Juarez-Garcia,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 10-10107

D.C. No. 4:09-cr-02103-FRZ

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Arizona

Frank R. Zapata, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted October 25, 2011** 

Before: TROTT, GOULD, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges. 

Luis Alberto Garcia appeals from his guilty-plea conviction and 42-month

sentence imposed for re-entry after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. 

Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Garcia’s counsel has filed a

FILED

NOV 03 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 10-10107

brief stating there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as

counsel of record. We have provided the appellant with the opportunity to file a

pro se supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has

been filed.

Our independent review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S.

75, 80-81 (1988), discloses no arguable grounds for relief on direct appeal. 

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED. 

AFFIRMED.
#### HINTON v. STATE.

No. 15432.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Dec. 7, 1932.

Rehearing Withdrawn Jan. 11, 1933.

Keeney & Moseley, of Texarkana, for appellant.

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

*838BATTIMORE, J.

Conviction for transporting intoxicating liquor; punishment, one year in the penitentiary.

There are two complaints; one of the reception of testimony of the officers who followed appellant several blocks, overtook him, searched his car, and found ten gallons of whisky. We note that appellant took the witness stand in his own behalf and swore that the officers found the whisky in the car. This testimony in the record without objection renders of no avail appellant’s complaint that the officers searched his ear without warrant and without probable cause. As decisive we cite Reusch v. State, 119 Tex. Cr. R. 112, 45 S.W.(2d) 209, and the authorities therein cited. Both appellant and the officers testified to the driving of the car before it was searched. The other complaint was of the refusal of the court to charge on circumstantial evidence. The facts are such as to establish this as a case of direct testimony.

No error appearing, the judgment will be . affirmed.

On Rehearing.

MORROW, P. J.

Since the affirmance of the case and the filing of the motion for rehearing, appellant has filed his written request, duly verified, asking that said motion be withdrawn.

The request is granted, the motion for rehearing will be withdrawn, and the mandate issued at once.
### IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA DA 2 2

- 0 109

_________________ NETZER LAW OFFICE, P.C. and DONALD L. NETZER,P laintiffs and Appellants,

v. ST ATE OF MONTANA, by and through A US TIN KNUDSEN in his official capacity as Attorney General , and LAURIE ESAU, Montana Commissioner of Labor and Industry ,

Respondent s and Appell ees . O R D E R

_________________ On Friday, August 19, 2022, Appellants moved for leave to file an overlength reply brief, requesting an additional 2,500 words, or a total of 7,500. The brief is due today. Appellee State of Montana filed an immediate objection to the motion, and offered to file
more extensive briefing if further time would be granted. A ppellants have demonstrated that the case raises constitutional issues of first impression. In the interest of expediency, IT IS ORDERED that the motion for leave to file an over- length reply brief is granted in part and denied in part. Appellants are granted leave to file an overlength reply brief of 6,250 words, or 1,250 words beyond the limit provided in the Rules of Appellate Procedure. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Appellants are granted an extension of time until Friday, August 26, 2022, to file their reply brief herein. The Clerk is directed to provide a copy of this Order to all counsel of record.

Electronically signed by: Jim Rice Justice, Montana Supreme Court August 22 2022

08/22/2022

Case Number: DA 22-0109
**EXHIBIT 35.1**

 

**SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT**

**New Holland Credit Company, LLC**

 

The undersigned, a duly authorized officer of New Holland Credit Company, LLC (“NHCC”), as Servicer pursuant to the Sale and Servicing Agreement dated as of September 1, 2012 (as amended from time to time, the “Sale and Servicing Agreement”) by and among NHCC, CNH Capital Receivables LLC and CNH Equipment Trust 2012-C, does hereby certify that:

 

1.             NHCC is Servicer under the Sale and Servicing Agreement.

 

2.             The undersigned is duly authorized as required pursuant to the Sale and Servicing Agreement to execute and deliver this Certificate to the Indenture Trustee.

 

3.             This Certificate is delivered pursuant to Section 4.9(a) of the Sale and Servicing Agreement and Item 1123 of Regulation AB.

 

4.             A review of the Servicer’s activities during the period from the trust’s initial cutoff date, August 31, 2012, to and  including December 31, 2012 and of its performance under the Sale and Servicing Agreement has been made under my supervision.

 

5.             To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Sale and Servicing Agreement in all material respects throughout the period from the trust’s initial cutoff date, August 31, 2012, to and  including December 31, 2012.

 

6.             IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has duly executed this Certificate this 28th day of March 2013.

 

----

 
| March 28,   2013 |   |
|-----------------------|--------|
|                  |   |
|                  |   |
|                  | By:    | /s/   Steven C. Bierman |
|                  | Name:  | Steven   C. Bierman |
|                  | Title: | President |

 

----
2002 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

3-19-2002

Lapid Laurel LLC v. Zoning Bd Adjustment

Precedential or Non-Precedential:

Docket 0-3625

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2002

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2002 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"Lapid Laurel LLC v. Zoning Bd Adjustment" (2002). 2002 Decisions. Paper 186.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2002/186
 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

 FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT 

 No. 00-3625 

 ____________________ 

 LAPID-LAUREL, L.L.C.; 

 JOHN AND JANE DOE, Appellants 

 v. 

 ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OF 

 THE TOWNSHIP OF SCOTCH PLAINS; 

 THE TOWNSHIP OF SCOTCH PLAINS; 

 ALTA A. ROSE; BARBARA HOREV 

 (D.C. Civ. No. 99-cv-02461) 

 _________________________________________ 

 Argued: September 7, 2001 

 Before: BECKER, Chief Judge, ALITO and BARRY, 

 Circuit Judges. 

 (Opinion filed March 15, 2002) 

 ____________________________ 

 ORDER AMENDING OPINION 

 ____________________________ 

 The slip opinion in the above case filed March 15, 2002 is hereby 

amended as 

follows: 

 1. On page 19, line 19, the word Mengine should be italicized. 

 2. On page 20, line 10, delete "at 233" after Id. 

 3. On page 29, next to the last line of footnote 8, delete the comma 

after the word 

"accommodations." 

 4. On page 33, line 8, drop the "s" in the word requires, and add 

the word "would" 

before the word "require." 

 BY THE COURT: 

 /s/ Edward R. Becker 

 Chief Judge 

DATED: March 19, 2002
 MEMORANDUM 

DATE: March 18, 2002 

TO: Carolyn Hicks, Case Manager 

FROM: Judge Becker 

RE: Lapid-Laurel v. Zoning Board of Adjustment 

 No. 00-3625 

 Opinion filed March 15, 2002 

 Please file enclosed Unpublished Order Amending Opinion in the above 

captioned case. 

 Sincerely, 

 Edward R. Becker 

ERB:afr 

 cc: Judge Alito 

 Judge Barry 

 Marcy Waldron 

 Trish Coleman
#### PUEBLO v. STATE.

No. 16666.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

March 21, 1934.

Coleman Cline, of Fort Worth, for appellant.

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

MORROW, Presiding Judge.

Conviction is for robbery; penalty assessed at confinement in the penitentiary for ninety-nine. years.

It is charged in the indictment that the appellant, on April 3, 1933, by assault and violence, robbed Vernon Gray of certain property, including a suit of clothes and a small sum of money. It is also charged that appellant, on June 20, 1928, was convicted in the district court of Ward county, in cause No. SIC, of a felony of like character; namely, robbery. The jury was authorized by the charge of the court to impose the enhanced penalty permitted by article 62, P. C. 1925, if their finding was that the appellant was guilty of the robbery of Gray and if they also found that appellant, as alleged in the indictment, had been previously convicted of an offense of like character. On the finding by the jury that appellant was guilty in both particulars charged in the indictment, the court assessed the penalty above mentioned, acting under the authority of article 62, P. O. 1925, which reads as follows: “If it be shown on the trial of a felony less than capital that the defendant has been before convicted of the same offense, or one of the same nature, the punishment on such second or other subsequent conviction shall be the highest which is affixed to the commission of such offenses in ordinary cases.”

The record is void of a statement of facts or bills of exception, in consequence of which the sufficiency of the evidence is assumed, and the procedure not violative of any substantial right of the accused.

A motion to continue was made and overruled, but no bill of exception was prepared and approved by the trial judge complaining of the ruling, and, moreover, this court cannot, in the absence of the facts before the trial court, appraise the motion for continuance, especially in view of the controverting affidavit of the district attorney.

No written exceptions appear in the record assailing the court’s charge, nor is there fundamental error revealed in the instructions to the jury.

The motion for new trial does not reveal any fault in the trial that would authorize this court’s interference with the result.

The judgment is affirmed.
# L_2011319EN.01003201.xml

| 2.12.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 319/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.12.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 319/32

---

COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1246/2011

of 29 November 2011

entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Mantecados de Estepa (PGI))

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Pursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, Spain’s application to register the name ‘Mantecados de Estepa’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Pursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, Spain’s application to register the name ‘Mantecados de Estepa’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).

| (2) | As no statement of objection under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, that name should therefore be entered in the register, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

As no statement of objection under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, that name should therefore be entered in the register,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The name contained in the Annex to this Regulation is hereby entered in the register.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 29 November 2011.

For the Commission, On behalf of the President,

Dacian CIOLOȘ

Member of the Commission

---

(1)  
  OJ L 93, 31.3.2006, p. 12.

1

(2)  
  OJ C 32, 1.2.2011, p. 22.

2

---

ANNEX

Foodstuffs listed in Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 510/2006:

Class 2.4.   Bread, pastry, cakes, confectionery, biscuits and other baker’s wares

SPAIN

Mantecados de Estepa (PGI)

---
BERKADIA(logo)



Annual
Statement as to Compliance

For
the Year Ended December 31, 2018



Morgan
Stanley Capital I Inc. Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series 2012-C5



Pursuant
to Section 13.9 of the Subservicing Agreement governing the referenced transaction (the “Servicing Agreement”), I
hereby attest that:



|i.  | A
    review of the activities and performance of Berkadia as Subservicer during the period has been made under my supervision.                                                                                                                                                                           
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|    |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           
|ii. | To
    the best of my knowledge, based on such review, Berkadia as Subservicer has fulfilled, in all material respects, its obligations
    under this Subservicing Agreement throughout the period and no default by the Subservicer under the Subservicing Agreement
    has occurred and is continuing.



Berkadia,





|/s/ Mark E. McCool | 
|------------------ | 



Mark
E. McCool

President

February
10, 2019



Inv. 222
Lib. A