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

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 688

To provide for the minting and circulation of one-dollar silver coins.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

APRIL 6 (legislative day, APRIL 5), 1995

Mr. MURKOWSKI (for himself and Mr. GRASSLEY) introduced the following

bill; which was referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and

Urban Affairs

A BILL

To provide for the minting and circulation of one-dollar

silver coins.

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 ‘‘United States Silver

5 Dollar Coin Act of 1995’’.

6 SEC. 2. ONE-DOLLAR COINS.

7 (a) COLOR AND CONTENT.—Section 5112(b) of title

8 31, United States Code, is amended—

9 (1) in the first sentence, by striking ‘‘The dol10 lar,’’ and inserting ‘‘The’’; and
2

•S 688 IS

1 (2) by inserting after the fourth sentence the

2 following: ‘‘The dollar coin authorized under sub3 section (a)(1) shall be silver in color, shall have a

4 distinctive edge and have tactile and visual features

5 that make the denomination of the coin readily dis6 cernible, shall be minted and fabricated in the

7 United States, and shall have metallic and anti8 counterfeiting properties similar to those of United

9 States clad coinage, except that the dollar coin shall

10 be a clad coin with 3 layers of metal, including 2

11 outer layers of silver. The dollar coin authorized

12 under subsection (a)(1) shall contain not less than

13 1 gram of newly mined fine silver.’’.

14 (b) ADJUSTMENTS TO SILVER CONTENT.—Section

15 5112(c) of title 31, United States Code, is amended by

16 adding at the end the following: ‘‘Notwithstanding sub17 section (b), the Secretary may prescribe the weight of sil18 ver in the dollar coin if the Secretary determines that such

19 action is necessary to ensure an adequate supply of dollar

20 coins to meet the needs of the United States.’’.

21 (c) DESIGN.—Section 5112(d)(1) of title 31, United

22 States Code, is amended—

23 (1) in the fourth sentence, by striking ‘‘the dol24 lar, half dollar,’’ and inserting ‘‘the half dollar’’; and
3

•S 688 IS

1 (2) by striking the fifth and sixth sentences and

2 inserting the following: ‘‘The obverse side of the dol3 lar coin shall bear a likeness of President Dwight D.

4 Eisenhower and the reverse side shall bear a render5 ing of the Iwo Jima Memorial.’’.

6 (d) EFFECTIVE DATE.—Not later than 30 months

7 after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of

8 the Treasury shall place into circulation the one-dollar

9 coins authorized by section 5112(a)(1) of title 31, United

10 States Code, in accordance with the amendments made by

11 subsections (a), (b), and (c).

Æ
UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T T HE NA T I ON AL AS S OC I AT I ON OF H O M E BU I LD ERS, P la in tif

f - A p p e llan t, v. THE S AN J OA QU IN V ALLE Y U NI FI ED AI RP OL L UT I ON C ON T R OL D I STRI CT; TH E G O V ERN IN G BO A RD OF THE S AN J OA QU IN V ALLE Y UN I F I E D A I RP OL L UT I ON C ON T R OL DI ST RI CT , D efen d an t s - A p p el l ees, and ENVI RONM ENTAL DEF ENSE ; SI ERRA CLU B, D efen d an t -i n t erv en o rs - A p p el l ees, N o. 08- 17309 D. C. No . 1 : 0 7 - c v - 0 0 8 2 0 - LJ O- DLB E a s te rn D is tr ic t o f

C a lif o rn ia , F r e s no ORDER

B efo re: B . F L E T C H E R , T H O M A S , an dN . R . S M IT H , C i rcu i tJu d g es. Ju d g e N .R . S m ith h a s v o te dto g r an t th e p e titio n f o rr e h e ar in g e n b an c . Ju d g e Th o ma s h a s v o t e dt o d e n yth e p e t i t i o n f o rr e h e ar i n g e n b an c , an dJu d g e B. F l et ch er so reco m m en d s. 

# FI LED MA R 18 2011 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS Case: 08-17309 03/18/2011 Page: 1 of 2 ID: 7686551 DktEntry: 622

T he f ul lc ourtha s be e n a dvi s e d of the pe t i t i on f

orr e he ar i ng e n banc , and no ju d g e o f th e c o u rt h a s r e qu e s te dav o te o n w h e th e rto r e h e arth e m a tte re n b an c . F e d. R . A pp. P . 35. A c c or di ngl y , appe l l ant ’ s pe t i t i on f orr e he ar i ng e n banc i s de ni e d. Case: 08-17309 03/18/2011 Page: 2 of 2 ID: 7686551 DktEntry: 62
| (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 herebymade to that certain Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of October 1,2014, by and among DEUTSCHE MORTGAGE & ASSET RECEIVING CORPORATION, asDepositor, WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Master Servicer,TORCHLIGHT LOAN SERVICES, LLC, as Special Servicer, WILMINGTON TRUST, NATIONALASSOCIATION, as Trustee, and WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, asCertificate Administrator, Paying Agent and Custodian, and PARK BRIDGE LENDERSERVICES LLC as Operating Advisor with respect to Commercial MortgagePass-Through Certificates, COMM 2014-CCRE20 (the "Agreement").Capitalized terms used herein not otherwise defined shall have the meaningsassigned in the Agreement.

 

Pursuant to Section10.11 of this Agreement, I, Leslie Hayton, Managing Director of CommercialMortgage Services do hereby certify that:

 

1.      Areview of the activities of the Master Servicer during the period from January1, 2018 through December 31, 2018 (the “Reporting Period”), and of itsperformance per the Agreement during such period has been made under mysupervision, and

 

2.      To thebest of my knowledge, based on such review, the Master Servicer has fulfilledall of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughoutthe Reporting Period.

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the undersigned has executed this Certificate as of the 28th day of February 2019.

 

 

/s/ Leslie Hayton

LeslieHayton 

ManagingDirector 

WellsFargo Bank 

 

 

| Wells Fargo Bank,  N.A. | (logo) Together  we’ll go far |
|-------------------------|-------------------------------------|
Sl()-1()()3()9-()1 9 TH E CIT YO F

BENTONVILL E

Marc h 2,201 0 Th e Honorabl e Raymon d H . LaHoo d Secretar y U.S . Departmen t o f Transportatio n 120 0 NewJerseyAve , S E Washington , D

C 2059 0 Re : Docice

t DOT-OST-2010-0034 Dea rMr . Secretary : Than k yo u fo rth e opportunit yt o expres s m ysuppor t fo rth e applicatio n fo rantitrus t immunit yan d propose d join t busines s agreemen t file d b yAmerica n Airline s an d Japa n Airlines . Th e propose d allianc e betwee n thes e tw o airline s i s vita l fo rth e oneworl d allianc e t o compet e effectivel ywit h th e Sta ran d SkyTea m alliances . Thi s increase d allianc e competitio n wil l i n tur n enhanc e th e benefit s o f th e Department' s Ope n Skie s policy- firs t b ysolidifyin g U.S . - Japa n Ope n Skies , the n b yservin g a s a foundatio n fo rfurthe rliberalizatio n acros s Asia . Afte ra thoroug h review , I encourag e th e Departmen t o f Transportatio n t o approv e thi s applicatio n a s i t woul d enabl e thes e oneworl d allianc e airline s t o wor k closel ytogethe rt o delive rhighl ycompetitiv e ai r transportatio n services . Approva l fo rAA/JA L allianc e wil l have a positiv e impac t o n ai rtrave l b yofferin g customers mor e service , schedulin g an d pricin g option s an d wil l hel p t o ensur e tha t customer s continu e t o benefi t fro m th e competitio n afforde d b ythre e competitiv e ai ralliances . I urg e yo u t o quickl yapprov e thi s application . Sincerely , Bo b McCasli n Mayor , Cit

yo f Bentonvill e



### 11 7 W . CENTRA L AVE . • BENTONVILLE , A R7271 2 • (479 ) 27 1 -311 2

• www.bentonvillear.co m• •iS ^
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Christopher William ODEN, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-7423

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: January 30, 2018

Decided: February 2, 2018

Christopher William Oden, Appellant Pro Se. Erin K. Reisenweber, Assistant United States Attorney, Martinsburg, West Virginia, Stephen Donald Warner, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Elkins, West Virginia, for Ap-pellee.

Before MOTZ and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Christopher William Oden seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge, denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion, and denying his motion for reconsideration. The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 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 Oden 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 *180materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED*
# L_2008321EN.01S00301.xml

| 1.12.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 321/s3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.12.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 321/s3

---

NOTE TO THE READER

The institutions have decided no longer to quote in their texts the last amendment to cited acts.

Unless otherwise indicated, references to acts in the texts published here are to the version of those acts currently in force.

---
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 307 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

104th CONGRESS
  2d Session
S. RES. 307

    Electing Gary Lee Sisco of Tennessee as Secretary of the Senate.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 1, 1996

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

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
    Electing Gary Lee Sisco of Tennessee as Secretary of the Senate.

    Resolved, That Gary Lee Sisco of Tennessee be and he is hereby 
elected Secretary of the Senate.
                                 <all>
```
#### Jason VANN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Barbara MEAD, Medical Staff Supervisor, Defendant-Appellee, and Rappahannock Regional Jail, Defendant.

No. 17-6905

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: December 21, 2017

Decided: December 27, 2017

*188Jason Vann, Appellant Pro Se. Alexander Francuzenko, COOK CRAIG *&*FRANCUZENKO, PLLC,. Fairfax, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before WILKINSON and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Jason Vann seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion for appointment of counsel. Barbara Mead has moved to dismiss the appeal. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2012), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2012); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); *Cohen v. Beneficial*Indus. *Loan Corp.,*337 U.S. 541, 545-46, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). The order Vann seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we grant Mead’s motion to dismiss and dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 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*
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

April 28, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

130004 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 130004 

 COA: 264344 

Wayne CC: 04-003310-01 

ROBERT FRANKLIN MATLOCK, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the November 8, 2005 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

t0424 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

April 28, 2006 

Clerk
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 120 Introduced in House (IH)]

105th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. CON. RES. 120

To authorize the use of the rotunda of the Capitol for a congressional 
          ceremony honoring Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 24, 1997

   Mr. Leach  (for himself and Mr. Gonzalez) submitted the following 
  concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on House 
                               Oversight

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
To authorize the use of the rotunda of the Capitol for a congressional 
          ceremony honoring Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew.

Whereas Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew is the spiritual leader of nearly 300 
        million Orthodox Christians around the world and millions of Orthodox 
        Christians in America;
Whereas Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew is recognized in the United States and 
        abroad as a leader in the quest for world peace, respect for the earth's 
        environment, and greater religious understanding;
Whereas the extraordinary efforts of Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew continue 
        to bring people of all faiths closer together in America and around the 
        world;
Whereas the courageous leadership of Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew for peace 
        in the Balkans, Eastern Europe, the Middle East, the Eastern 
        Mediterranean, and elsewhere inspires and encourages people of all 
        faiths toward his dream of world peace in the new millennium; and
Whereas the outstanding accomplishments of Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew have 
        been formally recognized and honored by numerous governmental, academic, 
        and other institutions around the world: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That the rotunda of the Capitol is authorized to be used on October 21, 
1997, for a congressional ceremony honoring Ecumenical Patriarch 
Bartholomew. Physical preparations for the ceremony shall be carried 
out in accordance with such conditions as the Architect of the Capitol 
may prescribe.
                                 <all>
```
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Henry Lee HARRIS, a/k/a Henry Fletcher Peterson, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-6896

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: December 21, 2017

Decided: December 27, 2017

*191Joshua B. Carpenter, FEDERAL DEFENDERS OF WESTERN NORTH CAROLINA, INC., Asheville, North Carolina; Anthony Martinez, Federal Public Defender, FEDERAL DEFENDERS OF WESTERN NORTH CAROLINA, INC., Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Robert John Gleason, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina; Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before WILKINSON and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Henry Lee Harris 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 certificate of appealability. 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 Harris 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*
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
Exhibit 27

          Financial Data Schedule

 "This schedule contains summary financial information extracted
from June 30, 2000 10QSB and is qualified in its entirety by
reference to such financial statements."
</LEGEND>

<S>                                                     <C>
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUNE-30-2000
<CASH>                                         67,557
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  380,122
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    12,189,016
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               0
<PP&E>                                         49,937
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (1,388)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 11,181,114
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          0
<BONDS>                                        16,300
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    1,562
<COMMON>                                       49,466
<OTHER-SE>                                     11,130,086
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   11,181,114
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               0
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  18,995
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                71,302
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            71,302
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   71,302
<EPS-BASIC>                                  .000
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  .000


</TABLE>
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-13-00439-CV

Wise Electric Cooperative, Inc.

v.

American Hat Company

§

§

§

§

From the 97th District Court

of Montague County (2007-

0000383M-CV)

September 17, 2015

Opinion by Justice Walker

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that 

there was error in part of the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the trial 

court’s judgment is affirmed in part and reversed, severed, and remanded in part.

We reverse the trial court’s award of $2,578,067.00 to Wise Electric 

Cooperative, Inc. on its counterclaim for offset. We order that counterclaim 

severed from the judgment and we remand Wise Electric Cooperative, Inc.’s 

counterclaim to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. 
On remand, the trial court shall assign a new cause number to Wise Electric 

Cooperative, Inc.’s counterclaim for offset. 

We affirm the portions of the trial court’s judgment that American Hat 

Company have judgment against Wise Electric Cooperative, Inc. for 

$18,437,160.06 in compensatory damages ($13,385,969.37 in personal property 

damages plus $5,100,379.00 in past lost-profits damages less a $49,188.31 

credit to Wise Electric), pre-judgment interest on that amount, post-judgment 

interest on that amount computed at the rate of 5% per year, and trial court costs. 

It is further ordered that American Hat Company shall have and recover of 

and from Wise Electric Cooperative, Inc. and its surety National Union Fire 

Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA from the supersedeas bond, the amount of 

this judgment plus applicable prejudgment and post-judgment interest and court 

costs and from Wise Electric Cooperative, Inc. the remainder after computation 

of interest for which let execution issue.

Each party shall bear their own costs of appeal.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

By _/s/ Sue Walker ________________

 Justice Sue Walker
(logo)TORCHLIGHT

 

**ANNUALCOMPLIANCE STATEMENT**

CERTIFICATION

 

**COMM2014-CCRE20 Mortgage Trust (the “Trust”)**

 

 

I,William A. Clarkson, on behalf of Torchlight Loan Services, LLC, as specialservicer (the “Certifying Servicer”), certify to Deutsche Mortgage &Asset Receiving Corporation, the Depositor, each Other Depositor and theirrespective officers, directors and affiliates, and with the knowledge andintent that they will rely upon this certification, that:

 

1.     I (orServicing Officers under my supervision) have reviewed the CertifyingServicer’s activities during the year ended December 31, 2019 (the “ReportingPeriod”) and the Certifying Servicer’s performance under the Pooling andServicing Agreement; and

 

2.     To thebest of my knowledge, based on such review, the Certifying Servicer hasfulfilled all of its obligations under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement inall material respects throughout the Reporting Period.

 

 

Date: February 28, 2020

 

TORCHLIGHTLOAN SERVICES, LLC

 

By:/s/ William A Clarkson

Name:William A. Clarkson

Title:Authorized Signatory