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

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 98

To amend the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 to establish a process

to identify and control tax expenditures.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JANUARY 4, 1995

Mr. BRADLEY (for himself, Mr. DASCHLE and Mr. KERRY) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred jointly pursuant to the

order of August 4, 1977, to the Committees on the Budget and Governmental Affairs, with instructions that if one committee reports, the other

committee have thirty days to report or be discharged

A BILL

To amend the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 to establish

a process to identify and control tax expenditures.

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 ‘‘Tax Expenditure Con5 trol Act of 1995’’.

6 SEC. 2. TAX EXPENDITURES INCLUDED IN BUDGET RESO7 LUTION.

8 Section 301 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974

9 is amended—
2

•S 98 RIS

1 (1) in subsection (a)(2) by inserting after ‘‘Fed2 eral revenues’’, both places it appears, the following:

3 ‘‘and tax expenditures (including income tax expend4 itures or other equivalent base narrowing tax provi5 sions applying to other Federal taxes)’’; and

6 (2) in subsection (a)(4) by inserting after

7 ‘‘budget outlays,’’ the following: ‘‘tax expenditures

8 (including income tax expenditures or other equiva9 lent base narrowing tax provisions applying to other

10 Federal taxes),’’.

11 SEC. 3. TAX EXPENDITURE ANALYSIS IN REPORT ACCOM12 PANYING BUDGET RESOLUTION.

13 Section 301(e)(1) of the Congressional Budget Act

14 of 1974 is amended by inserting after ‘‘revenues’’ the fol15 lowing: ‘‘and tax expenditures’’.

16 SEC. 4. RECONCILIATION MAY INCLUDE TAX EXPENDITURE

17 CHANGES.

18 Section 310(a)(2) of the Congressional Budget Act

19 of 1974 is amended by inserting after ‘‘revenues’’ the fol20 lowing: ‘‘and tax expenditures’’.

21 SEC. 5. CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE REPORT.

22 Section 202(f)(1) of the Congressional Budget Act of

23 1974 is amended in the matter following subparagraph

24 (B) by striking ‘‘and budget outlays’’ and inserting ‘‘,

25 budget outlays, and tax expenditures’’.
3

•S 98 RIS

1 SEC. 6. EFFECTIVE DATE.

2 This Act and the amendments made by this Act shall

3 take effect on the date of enactment of this Act.

Æ
No. 11-1011.

#### Howes, Warden *v.*Walker.

C. A. 6th Cir. Motion of respondent for leave to proceed *in forma pauperis*granted. Certiorari granted, judgment vacated, and case remanded for further consideration in light of *Parker*v. *Matthews, ante,*p. 37 *(per curiam).*
<PAGE>
Statement Re: Computation of Earnings Per Share                    Exhibit 11.1


<TABLE> 
<CAPTION> 


                                                           Three Months Ended                           Nine Months Ended
                                                -------------------------------------       -------------------------------------
                                                October 3, 1997    September 30, 1996       October 3, 1997    September 30, 1996
                                                ---------------    ------------------       ---------------    ------------------
<S>                                             <C>                <C>                      <C>                <C> 
                                                
Weighted average shares outstanding                   9,168,921             6,005,227             9,107,338             5,728,874
Effect of common and common                     
     equivalent shares issued by the         
     Company during the twelve month period  
     immediately preceding the Company's     
     registration for initial public         
     offering on August 2, 1996, as if       
     they were outstanding for all periods   
     presented prior to the registration     
     for initial public offering, using       
     the treasury stock                      
     method                                                   0                     0                     0               206,902
                                                ----------------   -------------------      ----------------   -------------------
Total shares                                          9,168,921             6,005,227             9,107,338             5,935,776
                                                ================   ===================      ================   ===================
Net income (loss)                                    $ (874,874)           $ (969,681)         $ (5,704,278)         $ (2,857,847)
                                                ================   ===================      ================   ===================
Net income (loss) per common and                
     common share equivalent                         $    (0.10)           $    (0.16)         $      (0.63)         $      (0.48)
                                                ================   ===================      ================   ===================
                                              
</TABLE>
| (logo) WELLS FARGO | **Commercial Mortgage  Servicing**D1050-084, 8th Floor  401 South Tryon St.  Charlotte, NC 28202  1-800-326-1334 |
|--------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

**ANNUAL STATEMENT OFCOMPLIANCE**

 

 

Reference is hereby made tothat certain Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of September 1, 2014, byand among Deutsche Mortgage & Asset Receiving Corporation, as Depositor,Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as Master Servicer, LNR Partners, LLC,as Special Servicer, Wilmington Trust, National Association, as Trustee, andWells Fargo Bank, National Association, as Certificate Administrator, PayingAgent and Custodian and Park Bridge Lender Services LLC, as Operating Advisor,with respect to Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series 2014-LC17(the "Agreement"). Capitalized terms used herein not otherwisedefined shall have the meanings assigned in the Agreement.

 

Pursuant to Section 10.11 ofthis Agreement, I, Daniel Bober, Executive Vice President of CommercialMortgage Services do hereby certify that:

 

1. A review of the activitiesof the Master Servicer during the period from January 1, 2016 through December31, 2016 (the “Reporting Period”), and of its performance per theAgreement during such period has been made under my supervision, and

 

2. To the best of myknowledge, based on such review, the Master Servicer has fulfilled all of itsobligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout theReporting Period.

 

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, theundersigned has executed this Certificate as of the 28th day of February 2017.

 

 

/s/ Daniel Bober

Daniel Bober

Executive Vice President

Wells Fargo Bank

  

 

| Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. | (logo) Together we’ll  go far |
|------------------------|-------------------------------------|
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 323 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

104th CONGRESS
  2d Session
S. RES. 323

      To commend the exemplary leadership of the majority leader.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 3, 1996

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

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
      To commend the exemplary leadership of the majority leader.

    Resolved, That the thanks of the Senate are hereby tendered to the 
distinguished majority leader, the Senator from Mississippi, the 
Honorable Trent Lott, for his exemplary leadership and the cooperative 
and dedicated manner in which he has performed his leadership 
responsibilities in the conduct of Senate business during the second 
session of the 104th Congress.
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT 11

INNOVATIVE MEDICAL SERVICES
COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER COMMON SHARE
FOR THE SIX MONTHS ENDED JANUARY 31, 1997 AND 1998



                                             For the Six Months Ended
                                                    January 31,
                                           ----------------------------
                                               1998             1997
                                           ----------------------------

Shares outstanding                           3,832,851        3,370,851 
                                            ==========       ========== 

Weighted average shares outstanding          3,655,134        3,202,938 
Stock Options                                  406,250           31,250 
Warrants                                     1,798,125        1,765,417 
                                            ----------       ---------- 
     Total weighted average
      shares outstanding                     5,859,509        4,999,605 
                                            ==========       ========== 


Net Income (Loss)                           $ (794,702)      $ (459,842)
                                            ==========       ========== 


Net Earnings (Loss) per share               $    (0.14)      $    (0.09)
                                            ==========       ==========
II

Calendar No. 44

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. RES. 24

Providing for the broadcasting of press briefings on the floor prior to the

Senate’s daily convening.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JANUARY 4, 1995

Mr. DOLE (for himself and Mr. DASCHLE) submitted the following resolution;

which was referred to the Committee on Rules and Administration

MARCH 30 (legislative day, MARCH 27), 1995

Reported by Mr. STEVENS, with an amendment

[Strike out all after the resolving clause and insert the part printed in italic]

RESOLUTION

Providing for the broadcasting of press briefings on the

floor prior to the Senate’s daily convening.

1 Resolved, That notwithstanding the provisions of S.

2 Res. 28 (99th Congress, 2nd Session), live television cov3 erage of those periods before the Senate comes into session

4 in which the press is allowed on the floor to ask questions

5 of the majority and minority leaders be permitted.
2

•SRES 24 RS

1 That Senate Resolution 28, agreed to February 27, 1986

2 (Ninety-Ninth Congress), is amended by adding after sec3 tion 17 the following:

4 ‘‘SEC. 18. The Majority and Minority Leaders are au5 thorized to conduct press briefings in the Senate Chamber

6 prior to the convening of the Senate each day, and the Sen7 ate may broadcast the briefings under the same conditions

8 that apply to the broadcast of Senate proceedings under this

9 resolution. The Committee on Rules and Administration

10 may adopt regulations to implement this section.’’.

Calendar No. 44

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. RES. 24

RESOLUTION

Providing for the broadcasting of press briefings on

the floor prior to the Senate’s daily convening.

MARCH 30 (legislative day, MARCH 27), 1995

Reported with an amendment
# EUR-Lex - 32003R0784 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 32003R0784

**Commission Regulation (EC) No 784/2003 of 8 May 2003 on the opening of a standing invitation to tender for the resale on the internal market of some 7705 tonnes of rice from the 1998 harvest held by the Spanish intervention agency **

*
Official Journal L 115 , 09/05/2003 P. 0014 - 0014 *

Commission Regulation (EC) No 784/2003

of 8 May 2003

on the opening of a standing invitation to tender for the resale on the internal market of some 7705 tonnes of rice from the 1998 harvest held by the Spanish intervention agency

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 3072/95 of 22 December 1995 on the common organisation of the market in rice(1), as last amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 411/2002(2), and in particular the last indent of Article 8(b) thereof,

Whereas:

(1) Commission Regulation (EC) No 75/91 of 11 January 1991 laying down the procedures and conditions for the disposal of paddy rice held by intervention agencies(3) lays down requirements relating to those procedures and conditions.

(2) For a very long time now the Spanish intervention agency has been storing a significant quantity of round-, medium- and long-grain A paddy rice from the 1998 harvest. A standing invitation to tender should be opened for the resale on the internal market of approximately 7705 tonnes of round-, medium- or long-grain A paddy rice from the 1998 harvest held by the Spanish intervention agency.

(3) The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Cereals,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The Spanish intervention agency shall open, on the terms laid down in Regulation (EEC) No 75/91, a standing invitation to tender for the resale on the internal market of some 7705 tonnes of round-, medium- or long-grain A paddy rice from the 1998 harvest which it holds.

Article 2

1. The closing date for submitting tenders under the first partial invitation to tender shall be 21 May 2003.

2. The closing date for submitting tenders under the last partial invitation to tender shall be 16 July 2003.

3. The tenders must be lodged with the Spanish intervention agency: Fondo Español de Garantía Agraria (FEGA) Beneficencia 8 E - 28004 Madrid telex 23427 FEGA E Fax: (34) 91 521 98 32, (34) 91 522 43 87.

Article 3

No later than the Tuesday of the week following the closing date for submitting tenders, the Spanish intervention agency shall inform the Commission of the quantities and average prices of the various lots sold.

Article 4

This Regulation shall enter into force on the third 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, 8 May 2003.

For the Commission

Franz Fischler

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 329, 30.12.1995, p. 18.

(2) OJ L 62, 5.3.2002, p. 27.

(3) OJ L 9, 12.1.1991, p. 15.
#### Charles Gregory REECE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Amrick BASI; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 17-15432

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

*686Submitted November 15, 2017 *

Filed November 21, 2017

Charles Gregory Reece, Pro Se

Ann Hoffmann Larson, Esquire, Attorney, Craddick, Candland & Conti, San Ramon, CA, for Defendant-Appellee Amrick Basi

Kevin Allen Voth, Deputy Attorney General, California Department of Justice, San Francisco, CA, for Defendants-Appellees Lehay, Diane Villote

Before: CANEY, TROTT, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Charles Gregory Reece, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs and a due process violation. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. *Jett v. Penner,*439 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir. 2006). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment with regal’d to defendant Basi’s treatment of Reece’s urological condition because Reece failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Basi consciously disregarded a serious risk to Reece’s health in treating his condition with prescription medication, and acted deliberately to deprive Reece of his right to make informed decisions about his medical care. *See Toguchi v. Chung,*391 F.3d 1051, 1060 (9th Cir. 2004) (deliberate indifference is a high legal standard; mere negligence does not suffice); *Benson v. Terhune,*304 F.3d 874, 884 (9th Cir. 2002) (“The due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment substantively protects a person’s rights to be free from unjustified intrusions to the body, to refuse unwanted medical treatment and to receive sufficient information to exercise these rights intelligently.” (citation omitted)).

The district court properly granted summary judgment with regard to defendants’ treatment of Reece’s vision problems because Reece failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether any delay in treatment resulted in substantial harm so as to constitute a violation of the Eighth Amendment. *See Hallett v. Morgan,*296 F.3d 732, 746 (9th Cir. 2002) (a delay of medical treatment evinces deliberate indifference to a serious medical need only if the delay leads to further injury).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in ruling on Reece’s motion to compel defendant Basi’s work records. *See id.*at 751 (setting forth standard of review and explaining district court’s broad discretion to deny discovery).

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. Lenny CAIN, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-7213

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: January 30, 2018

Decided: February 14, 2018

Lenny Lyle Cain, Appellant Pro Se. Clinton Jacob Fuchs, Assistant United States Attorney, Kenneth Sutherland Clark, Mushtaq Zakir Gunja, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Before AGEE, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Lenny Cain seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certifícate of appealability. *See*28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (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, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (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 motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Cain has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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*
* Pursuant to 5 T H C IR

. 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

For the Fifth Circuit

No. 97-50195

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

VERSUS

ALVIN RAY MATHIS, JR.,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Western District of Texas

(SA-95-CR-148-1)

March 10, 1998

Before WISDOM, WIENER, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Under a written plea agreement, Alvin Ray Mathis, Jr.

pleaded guilty to distributing in excess of 50 grams of cocaine

base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1). The district court

imposed a 115-month term of imprisonment, to be followed by a fiveyear term of supervised release. In calculating the sentence, the2 See United States v. Price

, 95 F.3d 354, 367 (5th Cir.

1996).

2 district court reduced Mathis’s offense level by two points on the

basis of his acceptance of responsibility. On appeal, Mathis

contends that the government breached the plea agreement by failing

to adhere to its promise that it would recommend to the sentencing

court that he receive a three-point reduction. After a de novo

review 2 of both the terms of the agreement and the evidence placed

before the district court, we conclude that the government did not

breach its promise. We affirm.

Although the plea agreement stated that the government would

recommend a three-point reduction, the presentence report

recommended that Ma this receive merely a two-point reduction

because he did not plead guilty until the day of trial. At the

sentencing hearing, Mathis objected to this recommendation. When

the district court inquired as to the government’s response to

Mathis’s objection, the prosecuting attorney stated that the

government was “bound by the plea agreement,” and that it “did not

oppose a three-level downward adjustment.” The probation officer

in attendance then stated that case law supported his

recommenda tion that Mathis was entitled only to a two-point

reduction. The prosecuting attorney did not respond to this

statement. In the end, the district court concluded that Mathis

was only entitled to a two-point reduction.

Though Mathis undoubtedly preferred the prosecuting attorney3 United States v. Benchimol

, 471 U.S. 453, 455 (1985); United

States v. Cates , 952 F.2d 149, 153 (5th Cir. 1992).

3 to argue zealously for a three-point reduction, binding precedent

makes it clear to us that unless the explicit language of the plea

agreement so requires, the government need not endorse the terms of

its plea agreements enthusiastically. 3 It cannot be denied that

the government placed its recommendation for a three-point

reduction squarely before the court. The government adhered to the

terms of the plea agreement.

AFFIRMED.
# Official Journal L 421/2020

| | ISSN 1977-0677 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 421 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 6314 December 2020 |

ISSN 1977-0677

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 421

English edition

Legislation

Volume 6314 December 2020

---

| Contents | | II   Non-legislative acts | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | REGULATIONS |
| | * | Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/1749 of 7 October 2020 amending Council Regulation (EC) No 428/2009 setting up a Community regime for the control of exports, transfer, brokering and transit of dual-use items | 1 |

Contents

II   Non-legislative acts

page

REGULATIONS

*

Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/1749 of 7 October 2020 amending Council Regulation (EC) No 428/2009 setting up a Community regime for the control of exports, transfer, brokering and transit of dual-use items

1

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.