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

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 763 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 763

To authorize the Secretary of Transportation to issue a certificate of 
 documentation and coastwise trade endorsement for the vessel EVENING 
                     STAR, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                  May 8 (legislative day, May 1), 1995

  Mr. Inouye introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
   referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To authorize the Secretary of Transportation to issue a certificate of 
 documentation and coastwise trade endorsement for the vessel EVENING 
                     STAR, and for other purposes.
    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. CERTIFICATE OF DOCUMENTATION.

    Notwithstanding sections 12106 through 12108 of title 46, United 
States Code, and section 27 of the Merchant Marine Act, 1920 (46 U.S.C. 
App. 883), the Secretary of Transportation may issue a certificate of 
documentation and coastwise trade endorsement for the vessel EVENING 
STAR, hull identification number HA2833700774, and State of Hawaii 
registration number HA8337D.
                                 <all>
```
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 11.1

                       HEALTH SYSTEMS DESIGN CORPORATION

                   COMPUTATION OF NET INCOME (LOSS) PER SHARE

                    (IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT PER-SHARE AMOUNTS)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                           THREE MONTHS ENDED     SIX MONTHS ENDED
                                                                MARCH 31,             MARCH 31,
                                                           -------------------   -------------------
                                                             2000       1999       2000       1999
                                                           --------   --------   --------   --------
<S>                                                        <C>        <C>        <C>        <C>
Net income (loss)........................................  $  (291)   $   227    $(2,082)   $(1,199)
                                                           =======    =======    =======    =======
Weighted average common shares outstanding:
  Basic..................................................    6,742      6,704      6,738      6,690
                                                           =======    =======    =======    =======
  Fully Diluted..........................................    6,742      6,754      6,738      6,690
                                                           =======    =======    =======    =======
Net income (loss) per common share:
  Basic..................................................  $ (0.04)   $  0.03    $ (0.31)   $ (0.18)
                                                           =======    =======    =======    =======
  Diluted................................................  $ (0.04)   $  0.03    $ (0.31)   $ (0.18)
                                                           =======    =======    =======    =======
</TABLE>

NET INCOME (LOSS) PER COMMON SHARE:

    Basic net income (loss) per common share (Basic EPS) excludes dilution and
is computed by dividing net income (loss) by the weighted average number of
common shares outstanding during the period. Diluted net income per common share
(Diluted EPS) reflects the potential dilution that could occur if stock options
or other contracts to issue common stock were exercised or converted into common
stock. The computation of Diluted EPS does not assume exercise or conversion of
securities that would have an antidilutive effect on net income per common
share. In periods where losses are recorded, common stock equivalents would
decrease the loss per share and are therefore not added to the weighted average
shares outstanding.
EX-35 (g)
(logo) imb
IndymacBank


REG AB 1123 Statement of Compliance


I am an authorized officer for IndyMac Bank, F.S.B, the servicer for the
transactions listed on the attached schedule and I certify:

a) A review of IndyMac Bank's activities during the reporting period and of its
performance under the applicable servicing agreement has been made under my
supervision.

b) To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, except as set forth below
IndyMac Bank has fulfilled all of its obligations under the agreement in all
material respects throughout the reporting period.

c) None


By: /s/ Robert M. Abramian
Robert M. Abramian
First Vice President
Home Loan Servicing
Investor Reporting
Indymac Bank


By: /s/ Bart Vincent
Bart Vincent
First Vice President
HLS-Finance
Financial
Indymac Bank


Prepared for: Wells Fargo Bank

Date: February 28, 2007

Ref: EXHIBIT A


www.indymacbank.com

7700 W. Parmer Lane, Bldg D, Austin, TX 78729
Tel: 512.250.2700


(page)


EXHIBIT A

849 GSR 2006-1F 1/30/06
902 BSALTA 2006-1 1/30/06
840 DBALT 2006-AR1 1/31/06
918 BAYVIEW 2006-A 02/08/06
213 GSR 2006-2F
214 GSR 2006-3F 03-30-06
159 GSR 2006-0A1 8/24/06
229 MASTR 2006-1 03-29-06
223 DBALT 2006-AF1 03-31-06
231 HARBORVIEW 2006-2
233 LUMINENT 2006-3 (4-28-06)
287 LUMINENT 2006-5 (6-29-06)
454 LUMINENT CONDUIT 12MAT WLS 11/27/06
5001 LUMINENT 12MAT CONDUIT WLS 12/27/06
235 BAFC 2006-D 04/28/06
219 GSR 2006-5F 5/26/06
809 GSR 2006-6F (GS) 6/30/06
808 HARBORVIEW 2006-6 6/30/06
807 DBALTA 2006-AR 2 6/30/06
921 BSALTA 2006-4 6/30/06
285 MALT 2006-3 (6-30-06)
141 BSALTA 2006-5 7/28/06
278 GSAMP 2006-S4 (6-9-06)
199 HARBORVIEW 2006-8 (GW) 8/30/06
430 LUMINENT 2006-6 092806
432 MLMI 2006-F1 (ML) 09/29/06
379 CSMC 2006-8 09/29/06
378 BAFC 2006-H 9/29/06
178 MARM 2006-0A2 11/15/06
296 GSAA 2006-17 10/30/06
297 DBALT 2006-AR5 10/30/06
442 CSMC 2006-9 10/30/2006
440 ITF CSAB 2006-3 10/31/2006
456 JPALT 2006-S4 11/29/06
457 BCAP 2006-AA2 11/30/2006
458 ACE 2006-SD3 11/30/06
4101 DBALT 2006-AR6 12/15/06
4102 HARBORVIEW 2006-14 12/22/06
4103 MSM 2006-17XS 12/28/06
4104 GSR 2006-10F 12/29/06
4110 LUMINENT 2006-7 12/14/2006
4105 JPMMT 2006-S4 12/21/06
4106 GSAA 2006-20 12/29/06
4111 BSALTA 2006-8 12/28/06
II

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 813

To amend the Pennsylvania Avenue Development Corporation Act of 1972

to authorize appropriations for implementation of the development plan

for Pennsylvania Avenue between the Capitol and the White House,

and for other purposes.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

MAY 17 (legislative day, MAY 15), 1995

Mr. MURKOWSKI (by request) introduced the following bill; which was read

twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

A BILL

To amend the Pennsylvania Avenue Development Corporation Act of 1972 to authorize appropriations for implementation of the development plan for Pennsylvania Avenue between the Capitol and the White House, 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 That section 17(a) of the Pennsylvania Avenue Develop4 ment Corporation Act of 1972 (86 Stat. 1266, 40 U.S.C.

5 871, as amended) is amended by adding at the end the

6 following new sentence: ‘‘There are further authorized to

7 be appropriated for operating and administrative expenses
2

S 813 IS

1 of the Corporation $3,043,000 for fiscal year 1996 and

2 such sums as may be necessary for fiscal year 1997.’’.

Æ
Exhibit 32.1














CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. 1350


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q (the "Report") for the period ended March 31, 2010 of Dime Community Bancshares, Inc., (the "Company") as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Vincent F. Palagiano, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:




(1)
The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) 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.









May 10, 2010


Date









By:  /s/ VINCENT F. PALAGIANO


Vincent F. Palagiano


Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Alvaro GUTIERREZ-CARDONA, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-40138 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

FILED April 19, 2017

Carmen Castillo Mitchell, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Alvaro Gutierrez-Cardona, Pro se.

Before JONES, WIENER, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Alvaro Gutierrez-Cardona has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed briefs in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and *United States v. Flores,*632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Gutierrez-Cardona has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s briefs and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivo-lous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cíe. 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 SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

ANDRE VANCLIFF,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 282 MAL 2018

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 11th day of September, 2018

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED

.

Justice Wecht did not participate in the consideration or decision of this matter.
EX-35 (f)
(logo) WELLS FARGO

Corporate Trust Services
MAC N2702-011
9062 Old Annapolis Road
Columbia, MD 21045
410 884-2000
410 715-2380 Fax

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.


March 23, 2007

Citigroup Mortgage Loan Trust, Inc.


RE: Annual Statement As To Compliance for Citigroup Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-FX1

Per Section 3.2 of the Pooling And Servicing Agreement, dated as of 10/1/2006,
the undersigned Officer of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., (Master Servicer), hereby
certifies the following for the 2006 calendar year or portion thereof:

(i)  a review of such party's activities during the preceding calendar year or
     portion thereof and of such party's performance under this Agreement, or
     such other applicable agreement in the case of a Servicing Function
     Participant has been made under such officers' supervision and

(ii) to the best of such officers' knowledge, based on such review, such party
     has fulfilled all of its obligations under this Agreement, or such other
     applicable agreement in the case of a Servicing Function Participant, in
     all material respects throughout such year or portion thereof, or, if there
     has been a failure to fulfill any such obligation in any material respect,
     specifying each such failure known to such officer and the nature and
     status of cure provisions thereof.


Certified By:
/s/ Scott Strack
Scott Strack, Vice President

Certified By:
/s/ Gordon Johnson
Gordon Johnson, Assistant Secretary
Exhibit 32.1

Certification Pursuant To 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 By The Chief Executive Officer,

As Adopted Pursuant To Section 906 Of The Sarbanes-Oxley Act Of 2002.

I, Gerald L. Storch, certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:



| | 1. | The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Toys R Us, Inc. (the Company) for the quarterly period ended May 1, 2010 (the Report)
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) and 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (15 U.S.C. 78m); and
| | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



|                                    
|------------------------------------
|June 10, 2010                       
|                                    
|/s/    Gerald L.
Storch             
|Gerald L. Storch                    
|Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
|(Principal Executive Officer)
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
      <LEGEND>
This  Schedule  contains  summary  financial   information  extracted  from  the
September  30,  2000  financial  statments  of  SmartServ  Online,  Inc.  and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
     </LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   OTHER
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>              DEC-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                 JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                   SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                          21,668,505
<SECURITIES>                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                      129,006
<ALLOWANCES>                             0
<INVENTORY>                              0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                22,128,059
<PP&E>                           1,750,595
<DEPRECIATION>                     891,736
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  24,795,612
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>            2,344,873
<BONDS>                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                    0
<PREFERRED>                              0
<COMMON>                            58,148
<OTHER-SE>                      18,849,241
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>    18,907,389
<SALES>                          1,013,528
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                 1,013,528
<CGS>                            1,010,710
<TOTAL-COSTS>                    1,428,486
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                (2,522,591)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                       0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                  2,459,061
<INCOME-TAX>                             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>              2,459,061
<DISCONTINUED>                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                          0
<CHANGES>                                0
<NET-INCOME>                     2,459,061
<EPS-BASIC>                           0.47
<EPS-DILUTED>                         0.27


</TABLE>
I 

114TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6036 

To extend the civil statute of limitations for victims of Federal sex offenses. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 15, 2016 

Mr. POE of Texas (for himself and Mr. COHEN) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To extend the civil statute of limitations for victims of 

Federal sex offenses. 

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 ‘‘Extending Justice for 

5 Sex Crime Victims Act of 2016’’. 

6 SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR 

7 CIVIL REMEDY FOR PERSONAL INJURIES. 

8 Part I of title 18, United States Code, is amended— 

9 (1) in section 1595(c)— 

10 (A) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), 

11 by striking ‘‘the later of’’; and 


smartinez on DSK3GLQ082PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 6036 IH

1 (B) in paragraph (1) by striking ‘‘after the 

2 cause of action arose; or’’ and inserting the fol3 lowing: ‘‘after the date upon which the plaintiff 

4 discovers the later of— 

5 ‘‘(A) the violation that forms the basis for 

6 the claim; or 

7 ‘‘(B) the injury that forms the basis for 

8 the claim; or’’; and 

9 (2) in section 2255(b), by striking ‘‘filed within 

10 10 years’’ and all that follows through the end and 

11 inserting the following: ‘‘filed— 

12 ‘‘(1) not later than 10 years after the date upon 

13 which the plaintiff discovers the later of— 

14 ‘‘(A) the violation that forms the basis for 

15 the claim; or 

16 ‘‘(B) the injury that forms the basis for 

17 the claim; or 

18 ‘‘(2) in the case of a person under a legal dis19 ability, not later than 10 years after the disability 

20 ends.’’. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK3GLQ082PROD with BILLS
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-7330

TYRONE L. JOHNSON,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

D. A. BRAXTON, Warden for the Red Onion State

Prison,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Richmond. David G. Lowe, Magistrate

Judge. (CA-02-930)

Submitted: June 10, 2004 Decided: June 16, 2004

Before WILLIAMS and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Tyrone L. Johnson, Appellant Pro Se. Donald Eldridge Jeffrey, III,

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

This matter is before the court following a limited

remand for a determination as to whether Tyrone L. Johnson could

show excusable neglect with regard to his untimely notice of

appeal. Because Johnson did not make a showing of excusable

neglect, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 

Parties are accorded thirty days after entry of the

district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, see

Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1), unless the district court extends the

appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5) or reopens the appeal

period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). This appeal period is

“mandatory and jurisdictional.” Browder v. Director, Dep’t of

Corrections, 434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978) (quoting United States v.

Robinson, 361 U.S. 220, 229 (1960)). 

The district court’s order was entered on the docket on

July 1, 2003. Johnson’s notice of appeal was executed on

August 21, 2003. On limited remand to the district court for a

determination of excusable neglect, Johnson filed a motion to

withdraw and indicated he no longer wished to pursue his appeal.

This does not constitute a showing a excusable neglect. Because

Johnson failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an

extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal.

We deny Johnson’s motion for a certificate of appealability. We

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions
- 3 -

are adequately presented in the materials before the court and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
#### Donald Morris LEE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. State of WASHINGTON, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 16-35472

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 8, 2017 *

Filed May 11, 2017

Donald Morris Lee, Pro Se

Before: REINHARDT, LEAVY, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Washington state prisoner Donald Morris Lee appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his “RICO Complaint by a Civilian.” We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s dismissal for failure to state a claim under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”), *see Howard v. Am. Online Inc.,*208 F.3d 741, 746 (9th Cir. 2000), and we affirm.

Although Lee’s action was docketed as a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petition, Lee is not seeking habeas relief, as the district court noted. Instead, he alleges a RICO violation premised upon someone allegedly forging a judge’s signature on orders in his state court proceedings. The district court properly dismissed Lee’s action because he failed to allege facts sufficient to state a plausible RICO claim. *See Sedima, S.P.R.L. v. Imrex Co., Inc.,*473 U.S. 479, 496, 105 S.Ct. 3275, 87 L.Ed.2d 346 (1985) (elements of RICO claim); *Hebbe v. Pliler,*627 F.3d 338, 341-42 (9th Cir. 2010) (although pro se pleadings are to be liberally construed, a plaintiff must present factual allegations sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief).

All pending motions are denied.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Thomas Romero RUIZ, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-10390

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 8, 2017 *

Filed May 11, 2017

Robert Lally Miskell, Assistant U.S. Attorney, USTU — Office of the US Attorney, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Thomas Romero Ruiz, Pro Se

Before: REINHARDT, LEAVY, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Thomas Romero Ruiz appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his *972motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.O. § 3582(c)(2). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Ruiz contends that he is entitled to a sentence reduction under Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines. We review de novo whether a district court has authority to modify a sentence under section 3582(c)(2). *See United States v. Leniear,*574 F.3d 668, 672 (9th Cir. 2009). The record reflects that Amendment 782 was in effect at the time that Ruiz was sentenced and he was sentenced under the amended Guidelines. Therefore, the district court correctly determined that Ruiz was not eligible for a sentence reduction, *see*18 U.S.C. § 3582 (c)(2); *Leniear,*574 F.3d at 673-74, and Ruiz’s equal protection rights were not violated.

Ruiz’s argument that he should have received an adjustment for acceptance of responsibility at his original sentencing is not cognizable in a section 3582(c)(2) proceeding. *See Dillon v. United States,*560 U.S. 817, 831, 130 S.Ct. 2683, 177 L.Ed.2d 271 (2010) (alleged errors at the original sentencing are “outside the scope of the proceeding authorized by § 3582(c)(2)”).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.