alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Stewart Deus BASIL, Appellant v. UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES, Appellee

No. 17-5034

September Term, 2017

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.

Filed On: January 3, 2018

*698Stewart Deus Basil, Pro Se

Lori Warlick, Trial Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice, (DOJ) Civil Division, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent-Appellee

BEFORE: Rogers, Tatel, and Millett, Circuit Judges

JUDGMENT

Per Curiam

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the briefs filed by the parties. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); D.C. Cir. Rule 34(j). Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s February 17, 2017 order be affirmed. Appellant argues that the government made misstatements in the correspondence preceding the final denial of his Form 1-360 visa petition. However, these errors were corrected by the government before it issued its final denial. See Resp. Br., Ex. B at 2-4 (October 13, 2015 final denial of appellant’s petition). In addition, appellant has not demonstrated that the government engaged in “affirmative misconduct” or that he reasonably relied on the government’s misstatements such that the government should be equitably es-topped from denying his Form 1-360 petition. See Morris Comm’ns, Inc. v. FCC, 566 F.3d 184, 191 (D.C. Cir. 2009). Finally, appellant has not shown that the denial of his Form 1-360 petition, based on his failure to establish that his marriages were entered into in good faith, was arbitrary or capricious.

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed. R. App. P. 41(b); D.C. Cir. Rule 41.
`[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 102 Referred in Senate (RFS)]







105th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. CON. RES. 102




_______________________________________________________________________


                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             June 25, 1997

      Received; referred to the Committee on Governmental Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION


 
   Expressing the sense of the Congress that the cost of government 
  spending and regulatory programs should be reduced so that American 
         families will be able to keep more of what they earn.

Whereas the total cost of government spending and regulations (total cost of 
        government) consumes 36.2 percent of the Nation's net national product;
Whereas the total cost of government now exceeds $3,520,000,000,000 annually;
Whereas Federal regulatory costs now exceed $785,000,000,000 annually;
Whereas the cost of government in general and excessive regulations in 
        particular place a tremendous drain on the economy by reducing worker 
        productivity, increasing prices to consumers, and limiting the economic 
        choices and individual freedoms of our citizenry;
Whereas, if the average American worker were to spend all of his or her gross 
        earnings on nothing else besides meeting his or her share of the total 
        cost of government for the current year, that total cost would not be 
        met until July 3, 1997;
Whereas July 3, 1997, should therefore be considered Cost of Government Day 
        1997; and
Whereas it is not right that the American family has to give up more than 50 
        percent of what it earns to the government: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That it is the sense of the Congress that, as part of balancing the 
budget and reevaluating the role of government, Federal, State, and 
local elected officials should carefully consider the costs of 
government spending and regulatory programs in the year to come so that 
American families will be able to keep more of what they earn.

            Passed the House of Representatives June 25, 1997.

            Attest:

                                                ROBIN H. CARLE,

                                                                 Clerk.`
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED> 
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY>   US DOLLAR
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998             DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998             MAR-31-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1                       1
<CASH>                                          84,713                  84,708
<SECURITIES>                                    91,081                 145,756
<RECEIVABLES>                                   67,934                 147,676
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0                       0
<INVENTORY>                                          0                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               255,080                 405,336
<PP&E>                                          24,679                  48,328
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 286,488                 468,312
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           62,912                 136,566
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                            87                      91
<OTHER-SE>                                     223,327                 331,013
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   286,488                 468,312
<SALES>                                         56,002                  93,432
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                74,672                 134,050
<CGS>                                           11,821                  25,517
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   48,675                  77,056
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 1,592                   2,395
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0                       0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 15,268                  33,872
<INCOME-TAX>                                     5,520                  12,532
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0                       0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                     9,748                  21,340
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.11                    0.24
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.10                    0.20
        

</TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES of America Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michel MARTINEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-10131

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted December 18, 2017 *

Filed December 21, 2017

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

Rafael Malanga, Attorney, Malanga Law Office, Bisbee, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant

Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Michel Martinez appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for a *359sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we vacate the court’s order and remand for further proceedings.

There was no dispute in the district court that, because Amendment 782 lowered Martinez’s Guidelines range, he was statutorily eligible for a sentence reduction. The court declined to grant a reduction, however, “[a]fter reviewing the facts of this case.” It provided no further explanation. Martinez contends that this explanation was inadequate. We agree that greater elaboration was required. *See United States v. Trujillo,*713 F.3d 1003, 1009-1011 (9th Cir. 2013).

VACATED and REMANDED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provid*359ed by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
# L_2013252EN.01S00302.xml

| 24.9.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 252/s3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.9.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 252/s3

---

NOTICE TO READERS

Council Regulation (EU) No 216/2013 of 7 March 2013 on the electronic publication of the Official Journal of the European Union

In accordance with Council Regulation (EU) No 216/2013 of 7 March 2013 on the electronic publication of the Official Journal of the European Union (OJ L 69, 13.3.2013, p. 1), as of 1 July 2013, only the electronic edition of the Official Journal shall be considered authentic and shall have legal effect.

Official Journal of the European Union

Where it is not possible to publish the electronic edition of the Official Journal due to unforeseen and exceptional circumstances, the printed edition shall be authentic and shall have legal effect in accordance with the terms and conditions set out in Article 3 of Regulation (EU) No 216/2013.

---
EXHIBIT 11

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                   GATEWAY BANCSHARES, INC.
               CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT RE COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PERSHARE
                                          (unaudited)


The following tabulation presents the calculation of basic and diluted earnings
per common share for the three- and six-month periods ended June 30, 2004 and
2003.


                                                      Three Months Ended    Six Months Ended
                                                     --------------------  --------------------
                                                     June 30,   June 30,   June 30,   June 30,
                                                       2004       2003       2004       2003
                                                     ---------  ---------  ---------  ---------
<S>                                                  <C>        <C>        <C>        <C>
Basic net income                                     $ 519,133  $ 344,824  $ 961,781  $ 736,005
                                                     =========  =========  =========  =========

Basic earnings on common shares                      $ 519,133  $ 344,824  $ 961,781  $ 736,005
                                                     =========  =========  =========  =========

Weighted average common shares outstanding, basic      652,638    681,461    652,638    681,608
                                                     =========  =========  =========  =========

Basic earnings per common share                      $    0.80  $    0.51  $    1.47  $    1.08
                                                     =========  =========  =========  =========

Basic net income per common share                    $    0.80  $    0.51  $    1.47  $    1.08
                                                     =========  =========  =========  =========

Diluted net income                                   $ 519,133  $ 344,824  $ 961,781  $ 736,005
                                                     =========  =========  =========  =========

Diluted earnings on common shares                    $ 519,133  $ 344,824  $ 961,781  $ 736,005
                                                     =========  =========  =========  =========

Weighted average common shares outstanding, diluted    725,175    707,258    725,175    720,789
                                                     =========  =========  =========  =========

Diluted earnings per common share                    $    0.72  $    0.49  $    1.33  $    1.02
                                                     =========  =========  =========  =========

Diluted net income per common share                  $    0.72  $    0.49  $    1.33  $    1.02
                                                     =========  =========  =========  =========
</TABLE>


                                      -20-
<PAGE>
**Exhibit
      32.1**





**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 Equicap, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form
      10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and
      Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, Peter
      Wang, Chairman and President and David Ming He, Chief Financial Officer, each
      certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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 results of operations of the Company.





/s/
                Peter Wang
              Peter
                Wang
              Chairman
                and President
              Principal
                Executive Officer
              May
                11, 2007
              
              /s/
                David Ming He
              David
                Ming He
              Chief
                Financial Officer
              Principal
                Financial Officer
              May
                11, 2007
June 10, 2015 

 

Mr. Gregory Stark 

10706 Indigo Sky Way 

South Jordan, UT 84095 

Dear Mr. Stark: 

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption. It 

explains why we can not process your request and what you should do in the next 30 days. 

Why We Can Not Process Your Request 

We entered your May 19, 2015, exemption request into the public docket (No. FAA-2015-

1723), but we are unable to process your request any further. The information you sent does 

not comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the request 

any further, you must send us all of the following: 

 The specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek relief, the extent of the 

relief you seek, and the reason you seek relief. 

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would 

benefit the public as a whole. 

 The reasons why the exemption would not adversely affect safety or how the exemption 

would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which you 

seek an exemption. 

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request. 

What You Should Do 

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described 

earlier to reach us within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your 

petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption. 
2 

If We Do Not Hear From You 

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you 

further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267-9677. 

Sincerely, 

/s/ 

Brenda Robeson 

Program Analyst, Airmen and 

 Airspace Rules Division 

Enclosure
(logo)Prudential

**PrudentialAsset Resources**

PrudentialMortgage Capital Company

2100Ross Avenue, Suite 2500, Dallas TX 75201

Tel214-777-4500

 

Abusiness of Prudential Financial, Inc.

 

 

WellsFargo Bank, National Association

CommercialMortgage Servicing

MACD1086

550South Tryon Street, 14th Floor

Charlotte,North Carolina 28202

Attention:Asset Manager

 

RE:**WFRBS 2014-C24**

Period:**January 1, 2017 to December 31, 2017(the "Reporting Period")**

 

**Annual ComplianceStatement**

 

I,Joni Brown-Haas, in my capacity as President and Managing Director ofPrudential Asset Resources, Inc.

(the"Company") hereby certify with regard to the Company's role asSub-Servicer under the Sub-Servicing Agreement, (the "Agreement")dated as of November 1, 2014, pertaining to the above-referenced certificates,that:

 

(i)           a review of the activities of the Company under the Agreement during the periodnoted above, and of the performance of the Company under the Agreement duringthe reporting period has been made under my supervision, and

 

(ii)          to the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Company has fulfilledall its obligations under the Agreement throughout the reporting period, and

 

(iii)         to the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Company has fulfilledits obligations under its sub-servicing agreement in all material respects, and

 

(iv)         the Company has maintained an effective internal control system over theservicing of mortgage loans including the Loans serviced by the Company, and

 

(v)          the Company has not received any notice regarding qualification, or challengingthe status of the Lower Tier REMIC or the Upper Tier REMIC as a REMIC, from theIRS or any other governmental agency or body.

 

Effectiveas of 2/22/2018

 

 

/s/JoniBrown-Haas

JoniBrown-Haas

Presidentand Managing Director

PrudentialAsset Resources, Inc.
Longview Energy



# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

May 1, 2014

N o. 04

- 12

- 00630

- CV

THE HUFF ENERGY FUND, L.P., WRH Energy Partners, L.L.C., William R."Bill" Huff, Rick D'Angelo, Ed Dartley, Bryan Bloom, and Riley

- Huff Energy Group, LLC, Appellant s

v.

LONGVIEW ENERGY COMPANY,

Appellee

From the 365th Judicial District Court, Zavala County, Texas

T rial Court No. 11

- 09

- 12583

- ZCVAJA Honorable Amado J. Abascal, III, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

Appellants William R. "Bill" Huff and Rick D'Angelo's unopposed first motion for extension of time to file reply brief is hereby GRANTED. Time is extended to May 28, 2014.

_________________________________ Sandee Bryan Marion , Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 1st day of May, 2014

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle

Cle rk of Court
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-02-00183-CV

John J. Fietsam; and John J. Fietsam, Idividually and dba John J. Fietsam, Inc. and

dba Texbutane Co., Appellants

v.

Lennard Sidney , Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF FAYETTE COUNTY, 155TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. 2001V-231, HONORABLE DANIEL R. BECK, JUDGE PRESIDING

The district court rendered judgment in this cause on January 30, 2002. Appellants filed a 

notice of appeal in the district court March 4. However, on February 28 appellants had timely filed a 

motion for new trial or alternatively a motion for rehearing. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 329b(a). On May 13, the 

clerk of this Court received notice that the district court had vacated its prior judgment and granted the 

motion for rehearing.1 See Tex. R. Civ. P. 329b(c), (d). As a result, there is no final judgment before this 

Court. 

 

1

 On May 13 the clerk of this Court received a letter from the district-court clerk containing this 

information along with a copy of a letter from the district court to the parties that read, AI have decided to 

vacate my current ruling and to grant the Motion for Rehearing. The matter is set for rehearing on Friday, 

June14, 2002, at 9:00 a.m., in the 155th District Courtroom, La Grange, Fayette County, Texas.@
Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a).

 

Lee Yeakel, Justice

Before Chief Justice Aboussie, Justices B. A. Smith and Yeakel

Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction

Filed: May 31, 2002

Do Not Publish
| (logo) WELLS FARGO | **Corporate Trust Services**

  MAC R1204-010  9062 Old Annapolis Road  Columbia, MD 21045  Tel: 410 884 2000  Fax: 410 715 2380 |
|--------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

Re: Annual Statement ofCompliance for RBS Commercial Funding Inc., Commercial Mortgage Pass-ThroughCertificates, Series 2014-C23

 

Per the Pooling and ServicingAgreement dated as of September 1, 2014 (the "Agreement"), theundersigned, a duly authorized officer of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., asCertificate Administrator ("Wells Fargo"), hereby certifies asfollows as of and for the year ending December 31, 2016 (the "ReportingPeriod"):

 

(a) A review of Wells Fargo'sactivities during the Reporting Period and of its performance under theAgreement has been made under such officer's supervision; and

 

(b) To the best of suchofficer's knowledge, based on such review, Wells Fargo has fulfilled all of itsobligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout theReporting Period.

 

 

February 27, 2017

 

 

/s/ Brian Smith

BRIAN SMITH

Vice President

 

 

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