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

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 11 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.Con. Res.11
                                                Agreed to April 10, 1997

                       One Hundred Fifth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE FIRST SESSION

          Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,
 the seventh day of January, one thousand nine hundred and ninety-seven

                          Concurrent Resolution

 
Permitting the use of the rotunda of the Capitol for a ceremony as part 
   of the commemoration of the days of remembrance of victims of the 
                               Holocaust.

    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That the rotunda of the Capitol is authorized to be used from 8 o'clock 
ante meridiem until 3 o'clock post meridiem on May 8, 1997, for a 
ceremony as part of the commemoration of the days of remembrance of 
victims of the Holocaust. Physical preparations for the ceremony shall 
be carried out in accordance with such conditions as the Architect of 
the Capitol may prescribe.
Attest:

                                 Clerk of the House of Representatives.

Attest:

                                               Secretary of the Senate.
```
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jorge Roberto MORALES, Defendant-Appellant

No. 17-10378 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed January 30, 2018

James Wesley Hendrix, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Christopher Allen Curtis, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth, TX, Stephen J. Green, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, for Defendant-Appellant

Before JOLLY, OWEN, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Jorge Roberto Morales appeals following his guilty plea conviction of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. He first *227asserts, relying on *Nat’l Fed’n of Indep. Bus. v. Sebelius,*567 U.S. 519, 132 S.Ct. 2566, 183 L.Ed.2d 450 (2012) *(NFIB),*that 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional because it regulates conduct that falls outside the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. We have rejected such a challenge, explaining that *NFIB*“did not address the constitutionality of § 922(g)(1), and it did not express an intention to overrule the precedents upon which our cases — and numerous other cases in other circuits — relied in finding statutes such as § 922(g)(1) constitutional.” *United States v. Alcantar,*733 F.3d 143, 146 (5th Cir. 2013). We have consistently upheld § 922(g) as being “a valid exercise of Congress’s authority under the Commerce Clause.” *Id.*at 145. Thus, as Morales acknowledges, *Alcantar*forecloses his argument.

Additionally, Morales contends, in reliance on *Flores-Figueroa v. United States,*556 U.S. 646, 129 S.Ct. 1886, 173 L.Ed.2d 853 (2009), that his indictment should have been dismissed because it failed to allege that he knew that the firearm he possessed had at some point traveled in interstate commerce. Under *United States v. Dancy,*861 F.2d 77, 81-82 (5th Cir. 1988), a § 922(g)(1) conviction “requires proof that the defendant knew that he had received (or possessed or transported) a firearm but does not require proof that he knqw that the firearm had an interstate nexus or that he was a felon.” *United States v. Schmidt,*487 F.3d 253, 254 (5th Cir. 2007). We have determined that *Dan-cy*is still good law even after the Supreme Court’s decision in *Flores-Figueroa,*which addressed the mens rea element of a different statute. *See United States v. Rose,*587 F.3d 695, 705 (5th Cir. 2009). In view of *Rose,*Morales’s contention is foreclosed, as he concedes.

Accordingly, Morales’s unopposed motion for summary disposition is GRANTED, and the judgment is AFFIRMED.

*

**Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
#### Jamaal GITTENS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NC DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 17-2106

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: January 30, 2018

Decided: February 1, 2018

*139Jamaal Gittens, Appellant Pro Se.

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

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Jamaal Gittens appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his complaint in which he asserted claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692-1692p (2012). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *Gittens v. NC Dep’t of Revenue,*No. 3:17-cv-00522-RJC-DSC (W.D.N.C. Sept. 8, 2017). 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.

*AFFIRMED*
April 18, 2012

U.S. Department of Transportation

Docket Management System

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.

West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140

Gentlemen,

AH Aero Services, LLC a certificate holder with the authority to operate under part 135 of the Federal 

Aviation Regulations and section 91.147 is hereby seeking an exemption from certain specific 

requirements concerning drug and alcohol testing (14 CFR part 120). Specifically, our company conducts 

both part 135 operations and part 91 air tour operations and is therefore, otherwise, required to 

maintain separate and distinct testing programs. The company seeks an exemption from this

requirement so that the company can run both drug and alcohol programs under one program manager.

As background, we are a small company of 12 total employees and six safety sensitive covered 

employees. Our drug and alcohol testing is administered by a third party subcontractor, Occupational 

Health Care International (OHCI), out of Salt Lake City, Utah. The company has a relatively longstanding 

relationship with OHCI and believe that the program oversight they provide more than compensates for 

any concern that two separate drug and alcohol programs are necessary.

Specifically, the company is seeking relief from the dual program requirement based on the relatively 

small number of covered personnel operating under part 135 and section 91.147 (currently two 

persons). Additionally, the added cost and administrative burden would outweigh any benefit, in our 

opinion.

We believe the granting of an exemption would not adversely affect safety either to the flying public or 

to the company’s employees. Further, we maintain that a comparable level of safety would exist by 

running our part 135 and part 91 operations under one drug and alcohol program for the reasons 

previously stated. This includes the centralization and oversight of records for our small population of 

covered employees.

To summarize we are a small fixed based operator that is providing cost effective aviation services to the 

flying public under parts 135 and 91. We believe that the synergies of operating one drug and alcohol 

program as opposed to two would outweigh the added costs in manpower and records processing 

without providing any commensurate increase in relative safety. We respectfully request that you 

grant this exemption.

Sincerely,

Alan Robertson

Controller
Order entered November 8 , 2016

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 16
- 00298
- CR
MONTRANCE TYRONE ROB ERSON, Appellant
V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from th e 195th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F15
- 51843
- N



### O RDER The reporter’s record was originally due July 7, 2016. In August 2016, we abated the case for a hearing on why the reporter’s record had not been filed. We ado pted the trial court’s findings and ordered the record due September 21, 2016. When the record was not filed, we ordered court reporter Sandra Hughes to file the reporter’s record by October 25, 2016 or we
would use whatever available remedies to ensure t he reporter’s record was filed. Although Ms. Hughes filed the reporter’s record October 12, 2016, numerous exhibits were missing. We ordered her to file, no later than October 24, 2016, a supplemental reporter’s record containing the following exhibits:

 exhibits 6, 7, 8, and 9, each labeled “photo;”

 exhibit 112, a CD of the surveillance video; exhibit 113, a CD of the 911 call;

 exhibit 118, labeled “photo;”

 exhibit 132, stipulation of evidence;

 exhibit 133, a CD of jail calls,

 exhibit 140, marked “CD

– Richardson PD;” and

 exhibit 141, labeled “photo.” To date, the supplemental reporter’s record containing the missing exhibits has not been filed. Therefore, we ORDER that Sandra Hughes not sit as a court reporter until she has filed
the supplemental reporter’s record in this appeal.
We DIRECT the Clerk to send copies of this order to the Presiding Justice of the 195th Judicial District Court; Sandra Hughes, court reporter; the Dallas County Auditor’s Office; and to counsel for all parties.

/s/ ADA B ROWN JUSTICE
##### 



EXHIBIT 31.1 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(a) or RULE 15d-14(a),
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 302
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 I, Carl J. Johnson, President and Chief Executive Officer of Matrixx
Initiatives, Inc., certify that: 1.      I have reviewed this quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Matrixx Initiatives,
Inc.; 2.      Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of
a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the
statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were
made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 3.      Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects
the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant
as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 4.      The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: (a)     designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision,
to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including
its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those
entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being
prepared; (b)     evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls
and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures as of the end of
the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and (c)     disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants
most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth quarter in the case
of an annual report) that has materially affected or is reasonably likely
to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial
reporting; and 5.      The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on
our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrants auditors and the audit committee of registrants board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): (a)     all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are
reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record,
process, summarize and report financial information; and (b)     any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal
control over financial reporting. Date: August 13, 2004/s/ Carl J. JohnsonCarl J. JohnsonPresident and Chief Executive Officer
#### Lamin Y. JATTA, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 17-1659

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: December 19, 2017

Decided: January 24, 2018

Jay S. Marks, LAW OFFICES OF JAY S. MARKS, LLC, Silver Spring, Maryland, for Petitioner. Chad A. Readier, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Anthony P. Nicastro, Assistant Director, Jonathan Robbins, Senior Litigation Counsel, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Before AGEE and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Lamín Y. Jatta, a native and citizen of The Gambia, petitions for review of an *236order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) dismissing his appeal from the immigration judge’s decision denying his application for cancellation of removal. We have thoroughly reviewed the record, including the transcript of Jatta’s merits hearing before the immigration court and all supporting evidence. We conclude that the record evidence does not compel a ruling contrary to the administrative factual findings, *see*8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (2012), and that substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that Jatta gave false testimony for the purpose of obtaining an immigration benefit and is therefore statutorily ineligible for cancellation of removal. Accordingly, we deny the petition for review for the reasons stated by the Board. *In re Jatta*(B.I.A. May 1, 2017). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*PETITION DENIED*
Exhibit



Exhibit 10.1











December 7, 2017






Mr. Gale Klappa
[ADDRESS]
[ADDRESS]


Dear Gale:


This letter will confirm compensation and benefits to be provided to you for services as Chief Executive Officer of WEC Energy. 
 
2017 Compensation 
You will be paid $2,000,000, less applicable taxes, for work performed as CEO in 2017.


2018 Compensation


You will receive $1,425,000 base pay in 2018.  In addition to your base pay, you will receive annual incentive compensation with a target value of 120 percent of base pay.  You will participate in the Short-Term Performance Plan (STPP), which has pre-established performance measures determined by the Compensation Committee.  Should the STPP prorate your award for 2018 to reflect partial year employment, you will receive a make-whole amount to ensure you receive annual incentive compensation as if the STPP had applied for the full calendar year.  This make-whole amount will be paid at the same time that the STPP award is paid.


You also will participate in the long-term incentive plan with a target compensation level of 342 percent of base pay.  The award, which will be granted in January, will be comprised of 80 percent restricted stock vesting one year from the date of grant and 20 percent stock options vesting in accordance with the standard terms and conditions.  
 
Additional Benefits 
You will be eligible to participate in all other benefits available to other senior executives of the company.  All benefits described above which are further defined in plan documents are subject to all of the terms in those documents which supersede any other description.  Management reserves the right in its discretion to change or terminate all current benefit plans or practices and other policies and procedures.  Finally, your employment would be considered at-will; that is, you could be discharged for any reason or no reason at all, at any time and without notice, and likewise, you may resign at any time and without notice. 


Gale, I appreciate your availability and willingness to provide company leadership in these very unusual circumstances.  Your proven track record of performance will help ensure continued success for WEC Energy Group.


Sincerely,


/s/ John F. Bergstrom


John F. Bergstrom
Chair, WEC Energy Group Compensation Committee


__________________


I have reviewed and accept this offer of employment.






Signature:  /s/ Gale E. Klappa                      Date: December 7. 2017















1
| (logo) WELLS   

           FARGO

  | Commercial Mortgage Servicing

D1086-120, 12th Floor

550 South Tryon Street

Charlotte, NC 28202

1-800-326-1334 |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

 

ANNUAL STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE

 

Reference is hereby made to that certain Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of September 1, 2014, by and 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, and Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as Certificate Administrator, Paying Agent 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 otherwise defined shall have the meanings assigned in the Agreement.

 

Pursuant to Section 10.11 of this Agreement, I, Daniel Bober, Executive Vice President of Commercial Mortgage Services do hereby certify that:

 

1.        A review of the activities of the Master Servicer during the period from September 1, 2014 through December 31, 2014 (the “Reporting Period”),   and of its performance per the Agreement during such period has been made under my supervision, and 

 

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

 

 

 

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this Certificate as of the 6th day of March 2015.

                                                                                                

 

 

/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. 206 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. RES. 206

   Making minority party appointments for the Committee on Veterans' 
                                Affairs.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           December 29, 1995

 Mr. Leahy (for Mr. Daschle) submitted the following resolution; which 
                      was considered and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
   Making minority party appointments for the Committee on Veterans' 
                                Affairs.

    Resolved, That the following shall constitute the minority party's 
membership on the Committee on Veterans' Affairs for the second session 
of the 104th Congress, or until their successors are appointed: Mr. 
Rockefeller, Mr. Graham, Mr. Akaka, Mr. Wellstone, and Mrs. Murray.
                                 <all>
```
August 8, 2016

Mr. Perry Gilland Perry Gilland
152 Reid Street Roopville

, GA 30170

Re: FAA

– 2016

– 3513

Dear Mr. Gilland :

This letter is to provide notification that we have reviewed your petition for exemption, and have determined that we will continue to process your petition.

As referenced in the June 22, 2016, letter posted to your docket at www.regulations.gov

, we are reviewing pending Section 333 petitions to determine if the recently

- issued regulation, Operation and Certification of Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems, Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 107 ( www.faa.gov/uas ) will satisfy your request

. We have determined that

y our request requires further regulatory relief (Tier 3), and we will continue working on your petition for exemption

.

We have found that your petition, if granted, would set a precedent. Therefore, we will publish a summary of your petition in the Federal Register for public comments , if we have not done so already.

We will advise you of the agency’s final decision on your petition as soon as possible. If you have any questions regarding your petition, please contact me at 333exemptions@faa.gov

.

Sincerely,

/s/
Brenda Robeson Program A nalyst
EXHIBIT 99.1

                            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 on Form 10-QSB for the nine-month period
ended September 30, 2002 of Equicap, Inc. a California corporation (the
"Company"), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the "Quarterly Report"), I, Stephen M. Siedow, Chief Executive Officer
and Chief Financial Officer of the Company certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:

     1.   The Quarterly Report fully complies with the requirements of Section
          13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended;
          and

     2.   The information contained in this Quarterly Report fairly presents, in
          all material respects, the financial condition and results of
          operation of the Company.


                                         /s/ Stephen M. Siedow
                                         ---------------------------------------
                                         Stephen M. Siedow, Chief Executive
                                         Officer and Chief Financial Officer

                                         Date: October 15, 2002
```

[Federal Register: July 1, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 126)]
[Notices]               
[Page 38087]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr01jy10-50]                         

[[Page 38087]]

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

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION

 
Sunshine Act Meetings

TIME AND DATE:  11 a.m., July 16, 2010.

PLACE: 1155 21st St., NW., Washington, DC, 9th Floor Commission 
Conference Room.

STATUS: Closed.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: Surveillance Matters.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Sauntia S. Warfield, 202-418-5084.

Sauntia S. Warfield,
Assistant Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2010-16188 Filed 6-29-10; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 6351-01-P
```