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

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 281 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

104th CONGRESS
  2d Session
S. RES. 281

          To authorize representation by Senate Legal Counsel.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             July 18, 1996

 Mr. Daschle submitted the following resolution; which was considered 
                             and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
          To authorize representation by Senate Legal Counsel.

Whereas, in the case of James Lockhart v. United States, et al., No. C95-1858Z, 
        pending in the United States District Court for the Western District of 
        Washington, the plaintiff has named Senator Trent Lott and former 
        Senator Robert J. Dole as defendants; and
Whereas, pursuant to sections 703(a) and 704(a)(1) of the Ethics in Government 
        Act of 1978 (2 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 288b(a) and 288c(a)(1)(1994)), the 
        Senate may direct its counsel to defend its Members in civil actions 
        relating to their official responsibilities: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the Senate Legal Counsel is authorized to represent 
Senator Lott and former Senator Dole in the case of James Lockhart v. 
United States, et al.
                                 <all>
```
**Exhibit 35**

** **

**ITEM 1123 CERTIFICATION**

** **

**I,David J. Kolibachuk, Vice President of U.S. Bank National Association (the “Servicer”),hereby certify that:**

** **

**(1) Areview of the activities of the Servicer during the fiscal year covered by thisannual report on Form 10-K and of the performance of the Servicer underthe Standard Terms for Trust Agreement, dated as of November 9, 2006,between the Servicer and the depositor (the “Agreement”) has been made under mysupervision;**

** **

**and**

** **

**(2) Tothe best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled allits obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout thereporting period, or, if there has been a failure to fulfill any suchobligation in any material respect, I have specified below each such failureknown to me and the nature and status thereof.**

** **

** **

**Date:July 28, 2009**

** **

** **
| **/s/ David J. Kolibachuk** | ** ** |
|-----------------------------|------------|
| **David J. Kolibachuk**     | ** ** |
| **Vice President**          | ** ** |

** **

----
Cite as 2015 Ark. 459



## SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS

IN RE CLIENT SECURITY FUND COMMITTEE Opinion Delivered December 3, 2015

PER CURIAM Kandice A. Bell, Esq., of White Hall, is appointed to the Client Security Fund Committee to replace Hon. Earnest Brown, Jr., for a term to expire on July 31, 2017. We thank Ms. Bell for accepting appointment to this important committee. The court expresses its gratitude to Judge Brown for his years of dedicated service to the committee.
PORTLAND

FRO M FORES T TO FAUCET

Nick Fish, Commissioner

David G. Shaff, Administrator

1120 SW 5th Avenue, Room 600

Portland, Oregon 97204-1926

Information: 503-823-7404

www.portlandoregon.gov/water An Eijtial Opportunity Employe

December 31, 2014

Dear Sir or Madam:

The City of Portland, Oregon, Water Bureau appreciates the opportunity to provide comments

regarding distribution system water storage facility inspection and cleaning.

The Portland Water Bureau conducts routine inspection and cleaning of our drinking water

storage tanks. We feel that a multi-barrier approach, including routine inspection and cleaning

of storage facilities, is necessary for optimizing distribution system water quality. However, we

do not believe that a separate federal regulation is necessary, nor do we believe that a onesize-fits-all regulatory approach to tank inspections/cleaning is appropriate. States already

have the authority to address storage tank maintenance issues with sanitary surveys under the

SWTR. Additionally, there is existing guidance from AWWA regarding best practices for storage

tank inspections and cleanings.

Sincerely,

Chris J. Wanner

Director of Operations

The City of Portland will make reasonable accommodation for people with disabilities. Please notify us no later than five (5) business days prior

to the event by phone 503-823-7404, by the City's TTY at 503-823-6868, or by the Oregon Relay Service at 1-800-735-2900.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 24-0343

STATE OF MONTANA, 

Plaintiff and Appellee, 

vs. 

LILA LYNN LORD,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, 

and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including October 28, 2024, within which to prepare, file, 

and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

September 23 2024

09/23/2024

Case Number: DA 24-0343
EX-33 (b)
REPORT ON ASSESSMENT OF COMPLIANCE

First American Real Estate Solutions of Texas, L.P. (an indirect subsidiary of
The First American Corporation, and the "Asserting Party") is responsible for
assessing compliance as of December 31, 2006, and for the period from January 1,
2006 through December 31, 2006 (the "Reporting Period") with the servicing
criteria set forth in Title 17, Sections 229.1122(d)(1)(iv), (d)(2)(v),
(d)(2)(vi), (d)(2)(vii), (d)(4)(xi), (d)(4)(xii) and (d)(4)(xiii) of the Code of
Federal Regulations (the "CFR") applicable to the Asserting Party (the
"Applicable Servicing Criteria"). The transactions covered by this report
include all loans for residential mortgage loan outsourcing customers for which
the Asserting Party served as the residential tax service provider (the
"Platform").

The Asserting Party has assessed its compliance with the Applicable Servicing
Criteria for the Reporting Period and has concluded that, except as set forth
hereinbelow, the Asserting Party has complied, in all material respects, with
the Applicable Servicing Criteria as of December 31, 2006, and for the Reporting
Period with respect to the Platform taken as a whole.

The Asserting Party assessed its compliance with the Applicable Servicing
Criteria for the Reporting Period and has identified a material instance of
noncompliance with the servicing criterion set forth in Section
229.1122(d)(2)(vii)(B) of the CFR with respect to the Platform. Specifically,
the Asserting Party did not prepare reconciliations for all asset-backed
securities related bank accounts within 30 calendar days after the bank
statement cut-off date or such number of days specified in the transaction
agreements.

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 December 31, 2006, and for the Reporting
Period as set forth in this assertion.

FIRST AMERICAN REAL ESTATE SOLUTIONS OF TEXAS, L.P.
By: First American Real Estate Solutions LLC
General Partner



/s/ Lucy A. Przybyla
Lucy A. Przybyla
Senior Vice President
February 28, 2007
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM NEVSTAR
GAMING & ENTERTAINMENT CORPORATION'S STATEMENTS FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDING
SEPTEMBER 30, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                       6,446,446
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                      10,082,068
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              16,905,513
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                      7,720,853
<COMMON>                                        34,022
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      1,150
<OTHER-SE>                                   8,075,750
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                16,905,513
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,932,910
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,218,808
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (3,147,889)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         (3,147,889)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                (3,147,889)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (1.40)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (1.40)
        

</TABLE>
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 23
- 0058 IN THE MATTER OF: A.B., Respondent and Appellant
. **ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including December 6 , 2023, within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

October 30 2023

10/30/2023

Case Number: DA 23-0058
# Official Journal C 490/22 D

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 490 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 6522 December 2022 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 490

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 6522 December 2022

---

| Contents | page |
| --- | --- |
| | II   Information |
| | INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2022/C 490/01 | Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union – Cases where the Commission raises no objections (
  1
  ) | 1 |

Contents

page

II   Information

INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2022/C 490/01

Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union – Cases where the Commission raises no objections (
  1
  )

1

1

---

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance. |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance.

1

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

EN
III

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. RES. 295

To designate October 18, 1996, as ‘‘National Mammography Day’’.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

SEPTEMBER 18, 1996

Mr. BIDEN (for himself, Mr. ABRAHAM, Mr. AKAKA, Mr. BAUCUS, Mr. BINGAMAN, Mrs. BOXER, Mr. BRADLEY, Mr. BRYAN, Mr. BURNS, Mr. CHAFEE,

Mr. COHEN, Mr. COVERDELL, Mr. D’AMATO, Mr. DOMENICI, Mr. DORGAN, Mr. FEINGOLD, Mrs. FEINSTEIN, Mr. FORD, Mr. FRIST, Mr.

GLENN, Mr. GRASSLEY, Mr. GREGG, Mr. HATCH, Mrs. HUTCHISON, Mr.

INOUYE, Mr. JOHNSTON, Mrs. KASSEBAUM, Mr. LAUTENBERG, Mr.

LEAHY, Mr. LEVIN, Mr. LIEBERMAN, Mr. LOTT, Mr. MACK, Mr.

MCCAIN, Ms. MIKULSKI, Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN, Mr. MOYNIHAN, Mr.

MURKOWSKI, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr. PELL, Mr. REID, Mr. ROBB, Mr.

ROCKEFELLER, Mr. ROTH, Mr. SARBANES, Mr. SIMON, Mr. SMITH, Ms.

SNOWE, Mr. SPECTER, Mr. STEVENS, Mr. THOMAS, Mr. THURMOND, and

Mr. WELLSTONE) submitted the following resolution; which was referred

to the Committee on the Judiciary

RESOLUTION

To designate October 18, 1996, as ‘‘National Mammography

Day’’.

Whereas, according to the American Cancer Society, 184,300

women will be diagnosed with breast cancer in 1996, and

44,300 women will die from this disease;

Whereas, in the decade of the 1990’s, it is estimated that

about 2,000,000 women will be diagnosed with breast

cancer, resulting in nearly 500,000 deaths;
2

•SRES 295 IS

Whereas the risk of breast cancer increases with age, with a

woman at age 70 having twice as much of a chance of

developing the disease than a woman at age 50;

Whereas at least 80 percent of the women who get breast

cancer have no family history of the disease;

Whereas mammograms, when operated professionally at a

certified facility, can provide a safe and quick diagnosis;

Whereas experts agree that mammography is the best method

of early detection of breast cancer, and early detection is

the key to saving lives; and

Whereas mammograms can reveal the presence of small cancers of up to 2 years or more before regular clinical

breast examination or breast self-examination (BSE),

saving as many as 30 percent more lives: Now, therefore,

be it

1 Resolved, That the Senate designates October 18,

2 1996, as ‘‘National Mammography Day’’. The Senate re3 quests that the President issue a proclamation calling

4 upon the people of the United States to observe such day

5 with appropriate programs and activities.

Æ
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                         389,931
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    2,140
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                          75,542
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 486,532
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                        371,500
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            29
<OTHER-SE>                                     102,605
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   486,532
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                10,418
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              19,412
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (8,994)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (2,203)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (6,791)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (6,791)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     8.85
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     8.85
        

</TABLE>
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SUSAN DYER REYNOLDS,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v. DEAN E. PRESTON,

Defendant

- Appellant. No. 23

- 15504
D.C. No. 3:22

- cv - 08408

- WHO

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California William Horsley Orrick, District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted May 30, 2024 San Francisco, California Before: KOH, H.A. THOMAS, and DESAI, Circuit Judges. Dean E. Preston, a member of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, appeals a district court order denying his motion to dismiss Su s an Dyer Reynolds’s claim that Preston violated Reynolds’s First Amendment rights by blocking her on

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

- 3. 

# FILED

JUN 3 2024 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2

Twitter. 1 “We have jurisdiction under the collateral order doctrine to review a district court’s rejection of a qualified immunity defense at the motion to dismiss stage, and we review such a denial de novo.” Polanco v. Diaz , 76 F.4th 918, 925 (9th Cir. 2023) (citation s omitted). We reverse and remand for the district court to dismiss the case.
To overcome a qualified immunity defense at the motion to dismiss stage, a plaintiff must show that, “accepting all of [the plaintiff’s] allegations as true, [the defendant’s] conduct ‘(1) violated a constitutional right that (2) was clearly established at the time of the violation.’” Id. (quoting Ballou v. McElvain , 29 F.4th 413, 421 (9th Cir. 2022)). Reynolds argues that Preston’s conduct violated law clearly established by our decision in Garnier v. O’Connor

- Ratcliff , 41 F.4th 1158 (9th Cir. 2022) , vaca ted , 601 U.S. 205 (2024). But the Supreme Court has since vacated that decision

. O’Connor

- Ratcliff v. Garnier , 601 U.S. 205, 208 (2024). This vacatur prevents our decision in Garnier “ from spawning any legal consequences”

— including the consequence of clearly establishing the violation of

a constitutional right. Camreta v. Greene , 563 U.S. 692, 713 (2011) (quoting United States v. Munsingwear, Inc. , 340 U.S. 36, 41 (1950)). Reynolds cites no

1 Since Reynolds filed her complaint, Twitter has been renamed X. Ir i n a Ivanova, Twitter is Now X. Here’s What That Means

. , CBS News (July 31, 2023 , 2 :18 PM), https://www.cbsnews.com/news/twitter

- rebrand

- x - name - change

elon

- musk

- what

- it

- means/ [ https://perma.cc/98P6

- QDD4 ]

.3

other case clearly establishing that blocking her on Twitter violated her First Amendment rights.
A bsent clearly established law, Preston is entitled to qualified immunity. See Polanco , 76 F.4th at 925. We therefore reverse the judgment of the district court and remand with instructions to dismiss the case.
REVERSED and REMANDED
.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Enriqueta NAVARRETE-ZAVALA, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-50183

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted August 10, 2017 Pasadena, California

Filed November 28, 2017

Jonathan I. Shapiro, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Helen H. Hong, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Timothy Francis Salel, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Daniel Earl Zipp, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the US Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Gary Paul Burcham, Burcham *&*Zug-man, San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant

Before: REINHARDT, KOZINSKI, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM *

1. The district court increased Navar-rete-Zavala’s sentence under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(12) for maintaining a stash house. *See*U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(12), cmt. n.17 (2015). Under the circumstances of this case, the district court did not err by imposing this enhancement.

2. Even if the district court mistakenly applied the enhancement from § 2S1.1(b)(2)(B) as a specific offense characteristic while calculating Navarrete-Zavala’s sentence under the drug distribution guideline § 2D1.1, any error was harmless. *See United States v. Munoz-Camarena,*631 F.3d 1028, 1030-31 (9th Cir. 2011); *United States v. Ali,*620 F.3d 1062, 1074 (9th Cir. 2010). Had the district court calculated Navarrete-Zavala’s Guidelines range in the manner she urges, it would have resulted in the same offense level used to calculate the Guidelines range. *See*U.S.S.G. § 3D1.3(b).

3. On the facts of this case, the district court abused its discretion by denying Na-*709varrete-Zavala’s request to seal the transcripts from her sentencing hearings and the parties’ joint request to seal the government’s sentencing memorandum. *See United States v. Doe,*870 F.3d 991, 994 (9th Cir. 2017).

Navarrete-Zavala’s sentence is AFFIRMED. The case is REMANDED for the district court to seal the government’s sentencing memorandum and the transcripts from Navarrete-Zavala’s sentencing hearings.

*

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

Calendar No. 693 

114TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6297 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

NOVEMBER 16, 2016 

Received 

NOVEMBER 28, 2016 

Read the first time 

NOVEMBER 29, 2016 

Read the second time and placed on the calendar 

AN ACT 

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 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

HR 6297 PCS 

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

Passed the House of Representatives November 15, 

2016. 

Attest: KAREN L. HAAS, 

Clerk. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with BILLS

srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Calendar No. 693 

114TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6297 

AN ACT 

To reauthorize the Iran Sanctions Act of 1996. 

NOVEMBER 29, 2016 

Read the second time and placed on the calendar 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Court of Appeals 

First District of Texas 

BILL OF COSTS

No. 01-14-00094-CV

Byron Robinson 

v.

Elizabeth Shelton

NO. 1039938 IN THE CO CIVIL CT AT LAW NO 1 OF HARRIS COUNTY

TYPE OF FEE CHARGES PAID/DUE STATUS PAID BY

MT FEE

MT FEE

MT FEE

RPT RECORD

FILING

STATEWIDE EFILING

CLK RECORD

MT FEE

$10.00

$10.00

$10.00

$338.50

$175.00

$20.00

$62.00

$10.00

07/31/2014

06/12/2014

05/13/2014

04/15/2014

03/23/2014

03/23/2014

02/27/2014

02/10/2014

E-PAID

E-PAID

E-PAID

PAID

E-PAID

E-PAID

PAID

NOT PAID

APE

ANT

ANT

ANT

ANT

ANT

ANT

ANT

The costs incurred on appeal to the First Court of Appeals Houston, Texas are 

$635.50.

Court costs in this case have been taxed in this Court’s judgment

I, Christopher A. Prine, Clerk of the Court of Appeals for the First District of Texas, do hereby 

certify that this is a true statement of the costs of appeal in this case.

IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, witness my 
hand and the seal of the Court of Appeals for the 

First District of Texas, this July 13, 2015.