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

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. CON. RES. 20

Providing for a conditional recess or adjournment of the Senate on Thursday,

June 29, 1995, or Friday, June 30, 1995, until Monday, July 10,

1995, and a conditional adjournment of the House on the legislative

day of Friday, June 30, 1995, until Monday, July 10, 1995.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JUNE 29 (legislative day, JUNE 19), 1995

Mr. DOLE submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was considered

and agreed to

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Providing for a conditional recess or adjournment of the

Senate on Thursday, June 29, 1995, or Friday, June

30, 1995, until Monday, July 10, 1995, and a conditional

adjournment of the House on the legislative day of Friday, June 30, 1995, until Monday, July 10, 1995.

1 Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives

2 concurring), That when the Senate recesses or adjourns

3 at the close of business on Thursday, June 29, 1995, or

4 Friday, June 30, 1995, pursuant to a motion made by

5 the majority leader or his designee, in accordance with this

6 resolution, it stand recessed or adjourned until 12:00 noon

7 on Monday, July 10, 1995, or until such time on that day
2

SCON 20 ATS

1 as may be specified by the majority leader or his designee

2 in the motion to recess or adjourn, or until 12:00 noon

3 on the second day after Members are notified to reassem4 ble pursuant to section 2 of this resolution, whichever oc5 curs first; and that when the House of Representatives

6 adjourns on the legislative day of Friday, June 30, 1995,

7 it stand adjourned until 2:00 p.m. on Monday, July 10,

8 1995, or until 12:00 noon on the second day after Mem9 bers are notified to reassemble pursuant to section 2 of

10 this resolution, whichever occurs first.

11 SEC. 2. The majority leader of the Senate and the

12 Speaker of the House, acting jointly after consultation

13 with the minority leader of the Senate and the minority

14 leader of the House, shall notify the Members of the Sen15 ate and the House, respectively, to reassemble whenever,

16 in their opinion, the public interest shall warrant it.

Æ
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Con. Res. 36 Engrossed in Senate (ES)]

  1st Session
S. CON. RES. 36

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

    Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), 
That in the enrollment of the bill S. 1060, to provide for the 
disclosure of lobbying activities to influence the Federal Government, 
and for other purposes, the Secretary of the Senate shall make the 
following corrections:

            (1) In section 6(8), strike ``6'' and insert ``7''.
            (2) In section 9(7), insert ``and'' after the semicolon, in 
        section 9(8), strike ``; and'' and insert a period, and strike 
        paragraph (9) of section 9.
            (3) In section 12(c), strike ``7'' and insert ``6''.
            (4) In section 15(a)(2), strike ``8'' and insert ``7''.
            (5) In section 15(b)(1), strike ``, 5(a)(2),'' and in 
        section 15(b)(2), strike ``8'' and insert ``7''.
            (6) In section 24(b), strike ``13, 14, 15, and 16'' and 
        insert ``9, 10, 11, and 12''.
            (7) In section 12(b)(1), strike ``7'' and insert ``6''.

            Passed the Senate December 13, 1995.

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
104th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                            S. CON. RES. 36

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Directing the Secretary of the Senate to make technical corrections in 
                       the enrollment of S. 1060.
```
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose Alfredo GARCIA-RENTERIA, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-10291

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 8, 2017 *

Filed May 11, 2017

Krissa Marie Lanham, USPX — Office of the US Attorney, Phoenix, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Jose Alfredo Garcia-Renteria, 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 **

Jose Alfredo Garcia-Renteria appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges his guilty-plea conviction and 15-month sentence for reentry of a removed alien, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Garcia-Renteria’s counsel has filed a brief stating that there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. We have provided Garcia-Renteria the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed.

Garcia-Renteria waived his right to appeal his conviction and sentence. Our independent review of the record pursuant to *Penson v. Ohio,*488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), discloses no arguable issue as to the validity of the waiver. *See United States v. Watson,*582 F.3d 974, 986-88 (9th Cir. 2009). We accordingly dismiss the appeal. *See id.*at 988.

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.

DISMISSED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
# C o u rt o f

A p p ea ls

o f t h e S t a te o f

G eo rg ia

ATLANTA,_

_ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _

Th e Co u rt

o f Ap p ea l s h er eb y p a s s es t h e f

o ll owi n g o r der :

A2 1 A0 10 8 . EDW ARD T. RI DLEY v . THE STATE.

In 2 0 1 3

, Ed ward Ri d ley p l ed g u i l t y t o fai l u re t o reg i st er as a s ex o ffen d er, an d

t h e t ri al co u rt im

p o s ed a s en t en c e t h a t i n cl u d ed a t erm o f p ro bat i o n

. In No v em b er

2 0 1 9

, t h e t r i al co u rt rev o k ed ei g h t y ears o f Ri d l ey ’ s pro b at io n aft er fi n d i n g t h at h e

fai l ed t o p ay co urt -o rd ered m on i es an d co m m i t t ed a n ew fel o n y o ffen s e. In Ap ri l

2 0 2 0

, Ri d l ey fi l ed a m o t i o n t o red u ce o r m o d i fy h is s en t en ce, w h i ch t h e t ri al co u rt

d i s m i s s ed

. Ri d l ey th en fi led b o t h a n o t i ce o f ap p eal d i rect ed t o t he Su p rem e Co u rt an d

an ap p l i cat i o n fo r d i s cret i o n ary rev i ew i n th e Su prem e Co urt

, wh i ch t ran s ferred b o th

m at t ers to t h is Co u rt . W e d en i ed Ri d l ey ’ s d i scret i o n ary ap pl i cat i o n o n th e m eri t s in

J u l y 2 0 2 0

, s ee Ri dl ey v. S t a t e

, No

. A2 0 D0 4 1 4 (J u l y 2, 2 02 0 ), a n d t he d irect ap p eal

h as b een d ock et ed as t he i n st an t cas e, No

. A2 1A0 10 8

.

Becau s e we reject ed Ri d l ey ’ s ch al l en g e t o t h e t ri al co u r t o rd er s o u g h t t o b e

ap p eal ed h ere i n Cas e No

. A2 0 D0 4 1 4

, t h e cu rren t ap p eal i s b arred b y t h e l aw o f t h e

cas e. See Ro s s v. S t a t e

, 3 1 0 Ga. Ap p

. 3 2 6

, 3 27 (7 1 3 SE2 d 4 38 ) (2 0 1 1 ) (“ [A] n y i s s u e

t h at was rai s ed an d res ol v ed in an earl i er ap p eal i s th e l aw o f t h e cas e an d i s b i n d i n g

o n t hi s Co u rt

. . . .”) (p u n ct u at i o n o m it t ed ); acco rd Ho o k v. Ber g en

, 2 8 6 Ga. Ap p

. 2 5 8,

2 6 1 (1 ) (6 4 9 SE2 d 31 3 ) (2 0 0 7 ) (a ru l i n g o n an ap p l icat i o n fo r d i s cret i o n ary ap p eal

act s as res ju di cat a i n l at er p ro ceed i n g s ); s ee al s o Ja cks o n v. S t a t e

, 2 7 3 G a. 3 2 0

, 3 2 0 August 31, 2020(5 4 0 SE2 d 6 1 2) (2 0 0 1 ) (a d efen d an t “ i s n o t en t i t l ed to an o t her b i t e a t t h e ap p l e by

way o f a s eco n d ap p eal ”). Co n s eq u en t l y , t hi s ap p eal i s h ereb y DISM ISSED.

C o u r t o f A p p e a l s o f t h e S t a t e o

f G e o r g ia

C le r k ’ s O f f i c e

, A t la n t a

,

_

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I c e r ti fy t h a t t h e a b o v e is a t r u e e x t r a c t f r o m

t h e m i n u t e s o

f t h e C o u r t o

f A p p e a l s o f G e o r g i a

.

W i tn e s s m y s i g n a t u r e a n d th e s e a l o

f s a i d c o u r t

h e r e t o a f f i x e d t h e d a y a n d y e a r l a s t a b o v e w r i t t e n

.

, C l e r k

. 08/31/2020
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATION

I, William J. Fox, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this
report on Form 10-K of the Corporate Backed Callable Trust Certificates, J.C. Penney Debenture-Backed Series 2006-1 Trust (the Exchange Act periodic reports);

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

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

4. Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statement required in this report under Item 1123 of
Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicer has fulfilled its obligations under the servicing, or similar, agreement in all material respects; and

5. All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities and their related attestation
reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an
exhibit to this report, except as otherwise disclosed in this report. Based on my knowledge there were no material instances of noncompliance described in such reports.

In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me by the following unaffiliated party: U.S. Bank National Association, as Trustee.

Date: April 1, 2013



|                                                              |  |                            
|------------------------------------------------------------- |  | ---------------------------
|By:                                                           |  | /s/ William J. Fox         
|Name:                                                         |  | William J. Fox             
|Title:                                                        |  | Chief Financial Officer and
|                                                              |  | Executive Vice President   
|(Senior Officer in charge of securitization of the Depositor)
I 

114TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6297 

To reauthorize the Iran Sanctions Act of 1996. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 14, 2016 

Mr. ROYCE (for himself, Mr. ENGEL, Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN, Mr. DEUTCH, Mr. 

POE of Texas, and Mr. HOYER) introduced the following bill; which was 

referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, and in addition to the 

Committees on Financial Services, the Judiciary, Ways and Means, and 

Oversight and Government Reform, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions 

as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To reauthorize the Iran Sanctions Act of 1996. 

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 ‘‘Iran Sanctions Exten5 sion Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. REAUTHORIZATION OF IRAN SANCTIONS ACT OF 

7 1996. 

8 Section 13(b) of the Iran Sanctions Act of 1996 

9 (Public Law 104–172; 50 U.S.C. 1701 note) is amended 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 6297 IH

1 by striking ‘‘December 31, 2016’’ and inserting ‘‘Decem2 ber 31, 2026’’. 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 10.d


Independent Auditors' Consent


We consent to the use, in this Annual Report of Localiza System Ltda. on Form
20-F filed on June 28, 2002 (File No. 333-8128-01), which is incorporated by
reference in the Registration Statement on Form F-3 filed on August 24, 2001
(Registration No. 333-13852-03), of our report dated June 3, 2002.


/s/ Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu
Belo Horizonte, Brazil, June 28, 2002
<PAGE>

                         BRIGHTHOUSE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY

   ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                              NAME CHANGE ENDORSEMENT

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

   This Endorsement is made part of and should be kept with your policy,
   contract or certificate.

   The name of METLIFE INSURANCE COMPANY USA was changed to BRIGHTHOUSE LIFE
   INSURANCE COMPANY effective on March 6, 2017.

   The following changes are made to your policy, contract or certificate:

      .  All references to "MetLife Insurance Company USA" are changed to
         "Brighthouse Life Insurance Company".

      .  Any references to "MetLife" or "MetLife USA" are changed to
         "Brighthouse Life Insurance Company".

   All other terms, conditions or benefits remain unchanged.

   Brighthouse Life Insurance Company is responsible for all benefits payable
   under your policy, contract or certificate. Your rights are not affected.


   BRIGHTHOUSE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY
   Home Office:
   1209 Orange Street
   Wilmington, DE 19801


                        Brighthouse Life Insurance Company





                              /s/ D. Burt Arrington


                                    Secretary




















5-E132-16
* 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. 01-30545

Conference Calendar

 

WALTER EVANS, JR.,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

STATE OF LOUISIANA, Etc; ET AL,

Defendants,

BARRON BUILDERS & MANAGEMENT CO.,

Defendant-Appellee.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 00-CV-92

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

December 12, 2001

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BARKSDALE, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Walter Evans, Jr., appeals from the district court's Rule

12(b)(5) dismissal of his suit without prejudice against Barron

Builders and Management Company for ineffective service of

process. We review a district court's dismissal under Rule

12(b)(5) for abuse of discretion. See Lindsey v. United States

Railroad Retirement Board, 101 F.3d 444, 445 (5th Cir. 1996). 

The record fails to show that Evans effected service of process
No. 01-30545

-2-

upon "an officer, a managing or general agent" or "any other

agent authorized by appointment or by law to receive service of

process." Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(h)(1). The record also fails to

show that Evans complied with the state rules for service of

process upon a domestic corporation. See Fed. R. Civ. P.

4(e)(1); La. Code Civ. Proc. Ann. art. 1261. Service upon an

attorney representing Barron in separate state court litigation

is not effective service. See Fluor Eng'r and Constructors, Inc.

v. Southern Pacific Transp. Co., 753 F.2d 444, 449 n.7 (5th Cir.

1985). 

Accordingly, the district court's judgment is AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 4.29
  Melco PBL (Macau Peninsula) Limited, formerly known as Swift Profit Investments Limited
(Melco PBL)
   Re:
    
    Promissory Transfer of Shares Agreement dated 17 May 2006 (AGREEMENT)
entered into between MELCO PBLas promissory buyer and we, (i.) DOUBLE MARGIN LIMITED,
a company duly incorporated under the laws of the British Virgin Islands (DOUBLE
MARGIN), (ii.) LEONG ON KEI, aka ANGELA LEONG(ANGELA LEONG), as promissory sellers
(PROMISSORY SELLERS), and (iii.) SOCIEDADE DE FOMENTO PREDIAL OMAR, LIMITADA, a
company duly incorporated under the laws of Macau (OMAR), in relation to the
Purchase of the entire issued share capital of OMAR.
 We, DOUBLE MARGIN, ANGELA LEONG OMAR AGREEMENT AGREEMENT
 AGREEMENT AGREEMENT
  July 27, 2007 , PROMISSORY SELLERS, OMAR MELCO PBL AGREEMENT MELCO PBL AGREEMENT
 AGREEMENT




---



##### 



)SIGNED by Mr.
    
    
    )
    
    
    /s/ Lee Chi Keong)in the presence of:-
    
    
    )(SIG))
    
    
    /s/ Angela Leong
 Leong On Keiaka Angela Leong
    
    
    ))signed in the presence of:-
    
    
    )(SIG)
    
    
    )
 Sociedade de Fomento Predial Omar, Limitada
    
    
    ))SIGNED by Ms.
    
    
    )and Mr.
    
    
    ))in the presence of:-
    
    
    )Witness:
    
    
    )
   2




---



##### 



`
 Melco PBL (Macau Peninsula) Limited
    
    
    ))SIGNED by
    
    
    )
    
    
    (SIG))in the presence of:-
    
    
    )(SIG))
    
    

(SIG)
  3
Exhibit 32.2
 
 
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
 SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 
 
 In connection with the Quarterly Report of FFD Financial Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Robert R. Gerber, the Senior Vice President, Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:
 
 (1) The Report 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 result of operations of the Company.
 
 
 /s/Robert R. GerberRobert R. GerberSenior Vice President, Treasurer and Chief Financial OfficerMay 16, 2011
# EUR-Lex - 32002R1964 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 32002R1964

**Commission Regulation (EC) No 1964/2002 of 4 November 2002 amending Regulation (EC) No 1019/2002 on marketing standards for olive oil **

*
Official Journal L 300 , 05/11/2002 P. 0003 - 0003 *

Commission Regulation (EC) No 1964/2002

of 4 November 2002

amending Regulation (EC) No 1019/2002 on marketing standards for olive oil

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation 136/66/EEC of 22 September 1966 on the establishment of a common organisation of the market in oils and fats(1), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1513/2001(2), and in particular Article 35a thereof,

Whereas:

(1) Article 12(2) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1019/2002(3) stipulates that the Regulation is to apply from 1 November 2002 except in the case of products that were lawfully manufactured and labelled in the European Community or lawfully imported into the European Community and released for free circulation before 1 August 2002.

(2) It has been found that packagers are encountering difficulties in implementing the new labelling requirements given the quantities of labels already in stock and the shelf life of the olive oil products which can remain on the market.

(3) In addition, some producers are finding it difficult to adjust to the requirement in Article 2 of Regulation (EC) No 1019/2002 to pack products in small packagings with an appropriate closure and to label them in accordance with Articles 3 to 6 of that Regulation.

(4) To give operators enough time to adjust to the new packaging and labelling rules, the adjustment period provided for in Article 12(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1019/2002 should be extended.

(5) Regulation (EC) No 1019/2002 should be amended accordingly.

(6) The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Oils and Fats,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

Article 12(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1019/2002 is replaced by the following:

"2. It shall apply from 1 November 2002, except for Articles 2, 3, 5 and 6 which shall apply from 1 November 2003.

Article 11 shall apply from 1 July 2002.

However, products which have been legally manufactured and labelled in the Community or legally imported into the Community and put into free circulation before 1 November 2003 may be marketed until all stocks are used up."

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.

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

Done at Brussels, 4 November 2002.

For the Commission

Franz Fischler

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ 172, 30.9.1966, p. 3025/66.

(2) OJ L 201, 26.7.2001, p. 4.

(3) OJ L 155, 14.6.2002, p. 27.
#### IN RE: Marion Lamont SHERROD, Petitioner.

No. 17-1837

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: November 16, 2017

Decided: November 20, 2017

Marion L. Sherrod, Petitioner Pro Se.

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and TRAXLER and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Marion Lamont Sherrod petitions for a writ of mandamus, complaining generally about the delay in resolving a case now pending in district court and in his pro se status for that case. The district court has scheduled Sherrod’s case for trail and Sherrod is now represented by counsel. Accordingly, Sherrod is entitled to no mandamus relief. *See In re Roddy,*810 F.3d 286, 287 (4th Cir. 2016) (holding that mandamus “relief is a drastic remedy and should be used only in extraordinary circumstances”). 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.

*PETITION DENIED*