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

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. J. RES. 13

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution to provide for a balanced budget

for the United States Government.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JANUARY 5, 1995

Mr. HEFLIN introduced the following joint resolution; which was read twice

and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

JOINT RESOLUTION

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution to provide for

a balanced budget for the United States Government.

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the fol4 lowing article is proposed as an amendment to the Con5 stitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all

6 intents and purposes as part of the Constitution if ratified

7 by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States

8 within seven years after its submission to the States for

9 ratification:
2

•SJ 13 IS

1 ‘‘ARTICLE—

2 ‘‘SECTION 1. Total outlays for any fiscal year shall

3 not exceed total receipts for that fiscal year, unless three4 fifths of the whole number of each House of Congress shall

5 provide by law for a specific excess of outlays over receipts

6 by a rollcall vote.

7 ‘‘SECTION 2. The limit on the debt of the United

8 States held by the public shall not be increased, unless

9 three-fifths of the whole number of each House shall pro10 vide by law for such an increase by a rollcall vote.

11 ‘‘SECTION 3. Prior to each fiscal year, the President

12 shall transmit to the Congress a proposed budget for the

13 United States Government for that fiscal year, in which

14 total outlays do not exceed total receipts.

15 ‘‘SECTION 4. No bill to increase revenue shall become

16 law unless approved by a majority of the whole number

17 of each House by a rollcall vote.

18 ‘‘SECTION 5. The Congress may waive the provisions

19 of this article for any fiscal year in which a declaration

20 of war is in effect. The provisions of this article may be

21 waived for any fiscal year in which the United States is

22 engaged in military conflict which causes an imminent and

23 serious military threat to national security and is so de24 clared by a joint resolution, adopted by a majority of the

25 whole number of each House, which becomes law.
3

•SJ 13 IS

1 ‘‘SECTION 6. The Congress shall enforce and imple2 ment this article by appropriate legislation, which may rely

3 on estimates of outlays and receipts.

4 ‘‘SECTION 7. Total receipts shall include all receipts

5 of the United States Government except those derived

6 from borrowing. Total outlays shall include all outlays of

7 the United States Government except for those for repay8 ment of debt principal.

9 ‘‘SECTION 8. This article shall take effect beginning

10 with fiscal year 2002 or with the second fiscal year begin11 ning after its ratification, whichever is later.’’.

Æ
Order filed January 10, 2013 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-12-00981-CV

____________

IN RE SAEXPLORATION, INC., JEFF HASTINGS, AND BRENT 

WHITELEY, Relators

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

WRIT OF MANDAMUS

215th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2012-01355

ORDER

On October 26, 2012, relators filed a petition for writ of mandamus in this 

court. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. ' 22.221. Relators asked this court to order The 

Honorable Steven Kirkland, Judge of the 215th District Court, Harris County, 

Texas, to set aside his order disqualifying Brent Whiteley entered in trial court 

cause number 2012-01355, styled CGGVeritas Land (U.S.), Inc. v. SAExploration, 

Inc.. 
On December 4, 2012, this court issued an opinion denying relators’ 

requested relief. On December 19, 2012, relators filed a motion for rehearing, 

which remains pending. Because the respondent ceased to hold the office of Judge 

of the 215th District Court, Harris County, Texas, after the institution of this 

action, we are required to abate this mandamus proceeding to permit the 

respondent’s successor, the Honorable Elaine H. Palmer, to reconsider the decision 

regarding relators’ request for relief. See Tex. R. App. P. 7.2(b). Therefore, this 

mandamus proceeding is abated for a period of thirty days from the date of this 

order, at which time the new presiding judge of the 215th District Court, Harris 

County, Texas, shall advise the court of the action taken on relators’ request. The 

court will then consider a motion to reinstate or dismiss this proceeding, as 

appropriate.

It is so ORDERED.

PER CURIAM
<PAGE>
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 11.1

                             SIEBEL SYSTEMS, INC.

            STATEMENT REGARDING COMPUTATION OF NET INCOME PER SHARE
                     (in thousands, except per share data)
                                  (unaudited)

<TABLE> 
<CAPTION> 
                                                          Three Months Ended
                                                                March 31,
                                                          ---------------------
                                                            1997          1996
                                                          -------       -------
<S>                                                       <C>           <C> 
                                                                
Net income                                                $ 2,758       $   198
                                                          =======       =======
                                                                
Weighted average number of shares outstanding                   
        Common stock                                       33,981        16,717
        Preferred stock, as if converted                       --         9,814
Number of common stock equivalents as a result of               
        stock options outstanding using the                     
        treasury stock method                               5,550         1,078
Number of common stock issued and stock options                 
        granted in accordance with SAB No. 83                  --         6,108
                                                          -------       -------
                                                                
        Shares used in net income per share computation    39,531        33,717
                                                          =======       =======

        Net income per share                              $  0.07       $  0.01
                                                          =======       =======
</TABLE>
Order entered January 7, 2020

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-19-00867-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF J.A., C.D.A., AND T.A., CHILDREN

On Appeal from the 382nd Judicial District Court

Rockwall County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1-09-785

ORDER

Before the Court is appellant’s motion to extend time to file his amended brief. We 

GRANT the motion and ORDER the brief tendered to the Clerk of the Court January 3, 2020 

filed as of the date of this order.

/s/ ROBERT D. BURNS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE
Exhibit 4.3


 


 


Consent of Independent Registered
Public Accounting Firm


We consent to the
reference made to our firm under the caption “Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm” in Part B of the Prospectus
and to the use of our report dated November 28, 2017, in this Registration Statement (Form S-6 No. 333-220274) of Smart Trust 353,
comprising Smart Trust, Preferreds Plus Trust, Series 5.


 


/s/ Grant
Thornton LLP


 


Chicago, Illinois


November 28, 2017
#### REGINALD POWELL *v.*COMMISSIONER OF MOTOR VEHICLES

(AC 20920)

Lavery, C. J., and Spear and Dranginis, Js.

Submitted on briefs April 6

officially released May 8, 2001

Per Curiam.

The judgment is affirmed.
#### Edward S. COHN; Stephen N. Goldberg, Substitute Trustee; Richard E. Solomon, Substitute Trustee; Richard J. Rogers, Substitute Trustee; Randall J. Rolls, Substitute Trustee, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. John H. HARDING, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-2434

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: February 15, 2018

Decided: February 16, 2018

*178John H. Harding, Appellant Pro Se.

Before WILKINSON, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. .

PER CURIAM:'

John H. Harding seeks to appeal the district court’s order remanding this foreclosure proceeding to the Maryland state court from which it was removed. Generally, “[a]n order remanding a case to the State court from which it was removed is not reviewable on appeal or otherwise.” 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d) (2012). The Supreme Court has instructed that “§ 1447(d) must be read *in pari materia*with [28 U.S.C.] § 1447(c), so that only remands based on grounds specified in § 1447(c) are immune from review under § 1447(d).” *Things Remembered, Inc. v. Petrarca,*516 U.S. 124, 127, 116 S.Ct. 494, 133 L.Ed.2d 461 (1995). Thus, § 1447(d)

> is tightly circumscribed to cover only remand orders within the scope of ... § 1447(c), based on (1) a district court’s lack of subject matter jurisdiction or (2) a defect in removal other than lack of subject matter jurisdiction that was raised by the motion of a party within 30 days after the notice of removal was filed.

*Doe v. Blair,*819 F.3d 64, 66 (4th Cir. 2016) (internal quotation marks omitted). “Whether a district court’s remand order is reviewable under § 1447(d) is not determined by whether the order explicitly cites § 1447(c) or not.” *Borneman v. United States,*213 F.3d 819, 824 (4th Cir. 2000).

The district court determined that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over this case. Accordingly, we are without jurisdiction to review the remand order. We therefore deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED*
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                                   5
       
<S>                                         <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                               6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                           Dec-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                              Jan-1-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                Jun-30-1997
<CASH>                                      359,193
<SECURITIES>                                0
<RECEIVABLES>                               201,057
<ALLOWANCES>                                0
<INVENTORY>                                 50,341
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            670,845
<PP&E>                                      1,641,605
<DEPRECIATION>                              403,891
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              2,310,846
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       965,723
<BONDS>                                     0
<COMMON>                                    4,932
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                       0
<PREFERRED>                                 0
<OTHER-SE>                                  1,217,294
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                2,310,846
<SALES>                                     1,215,541
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            1,394,173
<CGS>                                       701,710
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               2,873,811
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            2,147,517
<LOSS-PROVISION>                            0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          24,584
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (1,479,638)
<INCOME-TAX>                                0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         0
<DISCONTINUED>                              0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                             0
<CHANGES>                                   0
<NET-INCOME>                                (1,479,638)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                               (1.50)
<EPS-DILUTED>                               (1.50)
        

</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 123 Engrossed in House (EH)]

  1st Session

                            H. CON. RES. 123

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 Providing for the use of the catafalque situated in the crypt beneath 
 the rotunda of the Capitol in connection with memorial services to be 
conducted in the Supreme Court Building for the late honorable William 
J. Brennan, former Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United 
                                States.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
105th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. CON. RES. 123

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That the Architect of the Capitol is authorized and directed to 
transfer to the custody of the Chief Justice of the United States the 
catafalque which is presently situated in the crypt beneath the rotunda 
of the Capitol so that such catafalque may be used in the Supreme Court 
Building in connection with services to be conducted there for the late 
honorable William J. Brennan, former Associate Justice of the Supreme 
Court of the United States.

            Passed the House of Representatives July 25, 1997.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
```
| (logo) WELLS FARGO | **Commercial Mortgage  Servicing**D1050-084, 8th Floor  401 South Tryon St.  Charlotte, NC 28202  1-800-326-1334 |
|--------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

**ANNUAL STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE**

 

 

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 the ReportingPeriod.

 

 

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 |
|------------------------|-------------------------------------|
20171220 8K Exhibit 102



		

			 

		


		

			 

		




		
			AMENDMENT NO. 2  TO 
		

		
			SUPPLEMENTAL EXECUTIVE RETIREMENT PLAN AGREEMENT
		

		
			﻿
		

		
			THIS AMENDMENT NO. 2  TO SUPPLEMENTAL EXECUTIVE RETIREMENT PLAN AGREEMENT (“Amendment”) is made as of the 20th day of December, 2017, by and between JAMES R. BARTHOLOMEW (“Executive”) and EMBASSY BANK FOR THE LEHIGH VALLEY, a Pennsylvania banking institution having its principal office in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania (the “Bank”).
		

		
			﻿
		

		
			WITNESSETH
		

		
			WHEREAS, the Bank and the Executive entered into a Supplemental Executive Retirement Plan Agreement dated December 23, 2015 (as the same may be amended from time to time, the “SERP”); and
		

		
			WHEREAS, the Bank and the Executive desire to amend the SERP to increase the amount of the benefit thereunder.  
		

		
			NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements set forth herein and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto, intending to be legally bound hereby, agree as follows:
		

		
			1.Paragraph 1(b) of the SERP is hereby amended to provide that the Normal Retirement Supplemental Pension (as defined in the SERP) shall be $24,198.  
		

		
			﻿
		

		
			2.In all other respects, the SERP, as amended above, is hereby ratified and confirmed by the Bank and the Executive.  All other provisions of the SERP shall remain in full force and effect as amended hereby. 
		

		
			﻿
		

		
			IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties, each intending to be legally bound, have executed this Amendment as of the date, month and year first above written.
		

		
			﻿
		

			
					
						﻿

					
						 

					
						 

					
					
						 

					
					
						 

				
	
					
						ATTEST:

					
					
						 

					
					
						EMBASSY BANK FOR THE LEHIGH VALLEY

				
	
					
						﻿

					
					
						 

					
					
						 

				
	
					
						/s/ Judith A. Hunsicker

					
					
						By:

					
					
						/s/ David M. Lobach, Jr.

				
	
					
						﻿

					
					
						 

					
					
						 

				
	
					
						WITNESS:

					
					
						 

					
					
						EXECUTIVE

				
	
					
						﻿

					
					
						 

					
					
						 

				
	
					
						/s/ Judith A. Hunsicker

					
					
						 

					
					
						/s/ James R. Bartholomew

				



		
			﻿
Order entered December 2 , 2013

In The 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**
No. 05
- 13
- 00748
- CV PARALLEL NETWORKS, L LC, Appellant V. JENNER & BLOCK , LLP, Appellee On Appeal from the 101st Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Tr ial Court Cause No. DC
- 13
- 01146
- E 

### O RDER
We DENY appellant’s November 26, 2013 motion for permission to exceed the word limit for its reply brief. We STRIKE appellant’s reply brief filed on November 26, 2013. We ORDER appellant to file a reply brief tha t complies with the 7,500 word limit on or before DECEMBER 20, 2013

. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 9.4(i)(2)(C).

/s/ DAVID LEWIS JUSTICE
### THE SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION WASHINGTON DC 20590
July 18, 2012

The Honorable Michael Frerichs Illinois State Senate Springfi.eld, IL 62706 Dear SenatorFrerichs: Thank you for your letter supporting the proposal submitted by the University ofIllinois" Willard Airport for a grantunder the U.S. Department ofTransportation's Small Community Air Service Development Program. The Small Community Air Service Development Program was established to help smaller communitiesaddress air service deficiencies, particularly issues related to high airfares or insufficient service. Underthe statute, the Department may make 

### a maximum of40 grant awards each year, although no more than 4 awards may be to communities in the same State. In .orderto provide communities with latitude in developing solutions to their air service deficiencies, the statute provides flexibility in the types ofprojects that can be funded. On May 15, the Departmentissued an orderrequesting that communities interested in receiving 

### a grant this year file their applications by June 11. As these grant requests are pending before the Department, I cannot comment on the merits ofany particular proposal. I assure you that the Department will give full and fair consi ion 

### to all proposals thathave been properly filed. As is our normal practice, I amplaci DOT-OST-2012-0069 

### as a 

### c this program. py ofyour letter and this r the record ofthis matter. nse in Docket reciate your interestin.$Iii**ii!.IJIIilVI~$~f'/** AVL**~.,:[Q~** 111ao**~hould yot~**  have on



### 3
#### Samuel Lewis TAYLOR Plaintiff-Appellant v. Michael MILLER, CCM II, Potosi Correctional Center; Jason Crawford, Correctional Officer II, Potosi Correctional Center; Carl Gravett, Correctional Officer I, Potosi Correctional Center; Dorrain Johnson, Correctional Officer I, Potosi Correctional Center Defendants-Appellees Troy Steele, Warden, Potosi Correctional Center; Christopher Lambert, Canteen Manager, Potosi Correctional Center; Clive Hedrick, Correctional Officer I, Potosi Correctional Center; John Schneedle, Correctional Officer I, Potosi Correctional Center; Eric Dunn, CCW II, Potosi Correctional Center Defendants Stanley Pruett, CCW II, Potosi Correctional Center Defendant-Appellee Unknown Culton, Correctional Officer I, Potosi Correctional Center Defendant

No. 17-1860

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: December 7, 2017

Filed: December 28, 2017

Samuel Lewis Taylor, Pro Se

Joel A. Poole, Assistant Attorney General, Attorney General’s Office, Jefferson City, MO, Katherine S. Walsh, Attorney General’s Office, Saint Louis, MO, for Defendants-Appellees

Before SHEPHERD, MURPHY, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

In this 42 U.S.C. § 1988 action brought by Missouri Department of Corrections inmate Samuel Taylor against Potosi Correctional Center staff, Taylor appeals following the district court’s1 adverse grant of summary judgment on his First Amendment retaliation claims. Following de novo review, we agree with the district court that there is insufficient support in the record for Taylor’s contention that defendants’ actions were motivated by retaliation. See Lewis v. Jacks, 486 F.3d 1025, 1028-29 (8th Cir. 2007). The judgment of the district court is affirmed in all respects, including the pre-service without-prejudice dismissal of some claims, for the reasons stated by the district court. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

1

. The Honorable Rodney W. Sippel, Chief Judge, for the United States District Court for the Eastern District, of Missouri.
IV

105TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. CON. RES. 259

Recognizing and honoring the people of the Dodecanesian Islands for their

stance in fighting fascism and preserving democratic values and beliefs.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

APRIL 1, 1998

Mr. MANTON (for himself, Mrs. MALONEY of New York, and Mr. BILIRAKIS)

submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to the

Committee on International Relations

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Recognizing and honoring the people of the Dodecanesian

Islands for their stance in fighting fascism and preserving democratic values and beliefs.

Whereas the Federation of Dodecanesian Societies of the

United States and Canada celebrate the unification of the

Dodecanesian Islands with Greece during the month of

March;

Whereas the small Dodecanesian Islands, coveted for their

strategic locations and excellent harbors, were famed in

the ancient world as intellectual and cultural centers;

Whereas in 1912, the Dodecanesian Islands were offered to

the Kingdom of Italy as war reparation by Turkey, after

Turkey had occupied the islands for 400 years;
2

•HCON 259 IH

Whereas the movement for union of the Dodecanesian Islands

with Greece lasted from the Administration of Woodrow

Wilson to the Administration of Harry Truman, and the

Dodecanesians served in armies opposing fascists in Abyssinia, Spain, the invasion of Greece, and aided the

United States Armed Forces on all fronts of the Second

World War; and

Whereas the Dodecanesian Islands were unified with Greece

on March 7, 1948: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring), That the Congress recognizes and honors the

3 people of the Dodecanesian Islands for their stance in

4 fighting fascism and preserving democratic values and be5 liefs.

Æ