alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
105TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. CON. RES. 292

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Calling for an end to the recent conflict between

Eritrea and Ethiopia, and for other purposes.
105TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. CON. RES. 292

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Whereas the 1991 ouster of the Mengistu dictatorship led to

relative peace and stability in Eritrea and Ethiopia;

Whereas in 1993 Eritrea became independent after an internationally supervised referendum and the Government of

Ethiopia accepted the result of the referendum;
2

•HCON 292 EH

Whereas the Governments of Eritrea and Ethiopia have

worked closely on a wide range of issues over the past

several years;

Whereas the Governments of Eritrea and Ethiopia enjoy

warm relations with the United States;

Whereas on May 6, 1998, a military confrontation erupted

between Eritrea and Ethiopia, resulting in the deaths of

hundreds of innocent civilians and the displacement of

tens of thousands of people;

Whereas the peoples of Eritrea and Ethiopia have suffered

for decades due to war and manmade famines and do not

deserve once again to suffer due to armed conflict;

Whereas the conflict between Eritrea and Ethiopia could destabilize the entire subregion and lead to a massive humanitarian crisis;

Whereas the Governments of Eritrea and Ethiopia have both

stated that they are committed to a peaceful resolution

of the conflict; and

Whereas the Governments of the United States and Rwanda,

as well as countries in the region, have put forth proposals for resolving the conflict: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring), That the Congress—

3 (1) calls on both Eritrea and Ethiopia imme4 diately to bring an end to the violence between the

5 two countries;

6 (2) commends the executive branch of the

7 United States Government for brokering a morato8 rium on air raids between Eritrea and Ethiopia;
3

•HCON 292 EH

1 (3) commends the recent efforts of the United

2 States facilitation team to resolve the crisis, and en3 courages continued United States engagement to4 ward a peaceful resolution of the conflict; and

5 (4) calls on President Isaias Afewerki and

6 Prime Minister Meles Zenawi to end the conflict

7 peacefully before it escalates into a full-scale war.

Passed the House of Representatives September 9,

1998.

Attest:

Clerk.
**EXHIBIT 35.1**

 

**SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT**

**New Holland Credit Company, LLC**

 

The undersigned, a duly authorized officer of New Holland Credit Company, LLC (“NHCC”), as Servicer pursuant to the Sale and Servicing Agreement dated as of October 1, 2014 (as amended from time to time, the “Sale and Servicing Agreement”) by and among NHCC, CNH Capital Receivables LLC and CNH Equipment Trust 2014-C, does hereby certify that:

 

1.             NHCC is Servicer under the Sale and Servicing Agreement.

 

2.             The undersigned is duly authorized as required pursuant to the Sale and Servicing Agreement to execute and deliver this Certificate to the Indenture Trustee.

 

3.             This Certificate is delivered pursuant to Section 4.9(a) of the Sale and Servicing Agreement and Item 1123 of Regulation AB.

 

4.             A review of the Servicer’s activities during the 12 month period ending (and including) December 31, 2017 and of its performance under the Sale and Servicing Agreement has been made under my supervision.

 

5.             To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Sale and Servicing Agreement in all material respects throughout the 12 month period ending (and including) December 31, 2017.

 

6.             IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has duly executed this Certificate this 27th day of March, 2018.

 

----

 

March 27, 2018

 

 
|   | By:    | /s/ Brett D. Davis |
|--------|--------|--------------------|
|   | Name:  | Brett D. Davis     |
|   | Title: | President          |

 

----
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Nemiah MARBRA, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-12911 Non-Argument Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

(January 11, 2018)

Yvette Rhodes, U.S. Attorney Service— Middle District of Florida, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Tampa, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Adam Joseph Nate, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Tampa, FL, Rosemary Cakmis, Donna Lee Elm, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Orlando, FL, for Defendant-Appellant

Nemiah Marbra, Pro Se

Before WILSON, JORDAN and NEWSOM, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Stephen Langs, appointed counsel for Nemiah Marbra in this direct criminal appeal, has moved to withdraw from further representation of the appellant and filed a brief pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 *653U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Our independent review of the entire record reveals that counsel’s assessment of the relative merit of the appeal is correct. Because, independent examination of the entire record reveals no arguable issues of merit, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and Marbra’s conviction and sentence are AFFIRMED.
| (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 September 1,2014, by and among RBS COMMERCIAL FUNDING INC., as Depositor, WELLS FARGO BANK,NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as General Master Servicer, CWCAPITAL ASSET MANAGEMENTLLC, as General Special Servicer, NCB, FSB, as NCB Master Servicer, NCB, FSB,as Co-op Special Servicer, TRIMONT REAL ESTATE ADVISORS, INC, as Trust Advisor,WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Certificate Administrator, as TaxAdministrator and as Custodian, and WILMINGTON TRUST, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, asTrustee, with respect to Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series2014-C23 (the "Agreement"). Capitalized terms used herein nototherwise defined shall have the meanings assigned in the Agreement.

 

Pursuant to Section11.12 of this Agreement, I, Daniel Bober, Executive Vice President ofCommercial Mortgage Services do hereby certify that:

 

1. A review of theactivities of the General Master Servicer during the period from January 1,2017 through December 31, 2017 (the “Reporting Period”), and of its performanceper the Agreement during such period has been made under my supervision, and

 

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

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the undersigned has executed this Certificate as of the 28th day of February2018.

 

 

/s/ Daniel Bober

Daniel Bober

Executive VicePresident 

Wells Fargo Bank

 

 

 

 

| Wells Fargo Bank,  N.A. | (logo)  Together we’ll go far |
|-------------------------|-------------------------------------|
N OTE : This disposition is nonprecedential.



# United States **Court of Appeals** 
**for the Federal Circuit**

______________________

BAKER HUGHES, INC., Appellant

v.

NALCO COMPANY, Appellee

______________________

2015

- 1895

______________________

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No s . 95/000,524, 95/001,399.

______________________

JUDGMENT

______________________

C HRISTOPHER A ARON S HIELD , Bracewell & Giuliani, LLP, Houston, TX, argued for appellant. Also represented by J ONATHAN R. S PIVEY

.

J AMES W. P ORADEK , Faegre Baker Daniels LLP, Minneapolis, MN, argued for appellee. Also represented by E DMOND A HADOME

, L AUREN J. F RANK

, T IMOTHY E.
G RIMSRUD ; R OBERT J. B ARZ

, D EVON C. B EANE

, J ASON A LEXANDER E NGEL , K&L Gates LLP, Chicago, IL.

______________________T HIS C AUSE having been heard and considered, it is

O RDERED and A DJUDGED :

P ER C URIAM (R EYNA

, W ALLACH

, and S TOLL

, Circuit Judges ).

AFFIRMED

. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

E NTERED BY O RDER OF THE C OURT

March 15, 2016 /s/ Daniel E. O’Toole

Date Daniel E. O’Toole
Clerk of Court
#### Dianna MONTEZ, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CHASE HOME FINANCE, LLC; JPMorgan Chase & Co., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 16-55226

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submission Deferred December 7, 2017 *

Filed January 29, 2018

Resubmitted January 29, 2018 Pasadena, California

Amid Bahadori, Bahadori & Thomas, LLP, Irvine, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant

Joseph H. Bias, Morgan, Lewis *&*Bocki-us LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendants-Appellees

Before: REINHARDT and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges, and BLOCK,** District Judge.

*

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

**

 The Honorable Frederic Block, United States Senior District Judge for the Eastern District of New York, sitting by designation.

MEMORANDUM ***

Dianna Montez seeks review of the district court’s order dismissing her Second Amended Complaint with leave ‘to amend. However, we lack jurisdiction to review that order because it was not a final decision that ended the litigation on the merits. *See*28 U.S.C. § 1291; *Lovell v. Chandler,*303 F.3d 1039, 1047 (9th Cir. 2002). Moreover, the order did not merge into the district court’s final order dismissing for failure to prosecute. *See Al-Torki v. Kaempen,*78 F.3d 1381, 1386 (9th Cir. 1996) (holding that dismissal for failure to prosecute “forfeits a litigant’s right to appeal interlocutory orders prior to judgment”). We therefore decline to consider Montez’s challenge to the district court’s dismissal with leave to amend.

Although we have jurisdiction to review the dismissal for failure to prosecute, Mon-tez has forfeited any challenge to it. *See Sharemaster v. SEC,*847 F.3d 1059, 1070 (9th Cir. 2017) (“Ordinarily, we will not consider ‘matters on appeal that are not specifically and distinctly argued in appellant’s opening brief.’” (quoting *United**329*States v. Ullah,*976 F.2d 609, 514 (9th Cir. 1992))).

We have carefully considered Montez’s remaining arguments, including her claim of judicial bias, and hold that they are without merit.

AFFIRMED.

***

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 15.1



                      [DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP LETTERHEAD]



Penske Motorsports, Inc.
Detroit, Michigan

We have made a review, in accordance with standards established by the American
Institute of Certified Public Accountants, of the unaudited interim financial
information of Penske Motorsports, Inc. for the periods ended September 30,
1996, as indicated in our report dated October 24, 1996; because we did not
perform an audit, we expressed no opinion on that information.

We are aware that our report referred to above, which is included in your
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 1996, is
incorporated by reference in Registration Statement No. 333-00692 on Form S-8.

We also are aware that the aforementioned report, pursuant to Rule 436(c) under
the Securities Act of 1933, is not considered a part of the Registration
Statement prepared or certified by an accountant or a report prepared or
certified by an accountant within the meaning of Sections 7 and 11 of that Act.




/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP
-------------------------
Deloitte & Touche LLP

October 24, 1996
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 17

- 41269 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.
RENE COLON , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 2:16

- CR

- 466

- 6

Before STEWART, Chief Judge, and OWEN and COSTA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Rene Colon pleaded guilty to one count o f wire fraud in violation of
18 U.S.C. §§ 1343 and 2. The district court sentenced Colon to 12 months and one day of imprisonment followed by two years of supervised release. It also imposed a $25,000 fine and ordered restitution of $50,000. Colo n argues on appeal that the district court reversibly erred in imposing a $25,000 fine given

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED September 19, 2018 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 17-41269 Document: 00514648275 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/19/2018No. 17

- 41269

2 the purported determination in his presentence report (PSR) that his ability to pay a fine was limited

. Colon did not argue before the district court , as he now d oes on appeal, that the fine imposed is improper because it is greater than the PSR’s purported fine recommendation, nor did he lodge a specific objection to the $25,000 amount of the fine. Because the district court did not have the opportunity to addres s the “gravamen” of Colon’s argument on appeal, review is for plain error. See United States v. Garcia

- Perez , 779 F.3d 278, 282 (5th Cir. 2015); see also United States v. McElwee , 646 F.3d 328, 338 (5th Cir. 2011)

. Relying primarily on United States v. F air , 979 F.2d 1037 (5th Cir. 1992) , Colon argues that the district court improperly disregarded the PSR’s recommendation on a fine. In Fair , the district court imposed a $20,000 fine even though the PSR indicated that the defendant did not have the abilit y to pay a fine and recommended against imposing a fine. Id . at 1040. This court vacated the fine relying on prior caselaw holding that it is “error for the district court to adopt the PSR, and then depart from its recommendation on fines and cost of inc arceration, absent any reasons for such a departure.” Id . at 1041

- 42. Here, unlike Fair , the PSR affirmatively determined that Colon had the ability to pay some level of a fine. Though the PSR suggested that a fine “possibly lower” than the applicable g uidelines range would be appropriate, this is far from an affirmative recommendation of a fine below the guidelines range as Colon argues. The $25,000 fine is also within the guidelines range of $10,000 to $95,000 and is therefore presumptively reasonable

. See United States v. Pacheco

- Alvarado , 782 F.3d 213, 221 (5th Cir. 2015). The district court did not plainly err in imposing a fine in Colon’s case. See Puckett v. United States , 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009). The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. Case: 17-41269 Document: 00514648275 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/19/2018
<PAGE>   1

                                                                      EXHIBIT 11

                            GATEWAY BANCSHARES, INC.

                 STATEMENT RE: COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE

The following tabulation presents the calculation of basic and diluted earnings
per common share for the three month period ended March 31, 2000 and 1999.

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                             THREE MONTHS ENDED
                                                                 MARCH 31,
                                                     --------------------------------
                                                         2000                1999
                                                         ----                ----

<S>                                                  <C>                 <C>
Basic net income                                     $    161,687        $     60,121
                                                     ============        ============

Basic earnings on common shares                      $    161,687        $     60,121
                                                     ============        ============

Weighted average common shares
         outstanding - basic                              679,048             679,048
                                                     ============        ============

Basic earnings per common share                      $        .24        $        .09
                                                     ============        ============

Basic net income per common share                    $        .24        $        .09
                                                     ============        ============

Diluted net income                                   $    161,687        $     60,121
                                                     ============        ============

Diluted earnings on common shares                    $    161,687        $     60,121
                                                     ============        ============

Weighted average common shares
         outstanding - diluted                            680,337             679,048
                                                     ============        ============

Diluted earnings per common share                    $        .24        $        .09
                                                     ============        ============

Diluted net income per common share                  $        .24        $        .09
                                                     ============        ============
</TABLE>



                                       17
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 285 Engrossed in House (EH)]

  2d Session

                            H. CON. RES. 285

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 Expressing the sense of the Congress that the President of the United 
   States should reconsider his decision to be formally received in 
 Tiananmen Square by the Government of the People's Republic of China.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
105th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. CON. RES. 285

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Whereas 9 years ago on June 4, 1989, thousands of Chinese students peacefully 
        gathered in Tiananmen Square to demonstrate their support for freedom 
        and democracy;
Whereas it was with horror that the world witnessed the response of the 
        Government of the People's Republic of China as tanks and military units 
        marched into Tiananmen Square;
Whereas Chinese soldiers of the People's Republic of China were ordered to fire 
        machine guns and tanks on young, unarmed civilians;
Whereas ``children were killed holding hands with their mothers'', according to 
        a reliable eyewitness account;
Whereas according to the same eyewitness account, ``students were crushed by 
        armored personnel carriers'';
Whereas more than 2,000 Chinese pro-democracy demonstrators died that day, 
        according to the Chinese Red Cross;
Whereas hundreds continue to languish in prisons because of their belief in 
        freedom and democracy;
Whereas 9 years after the massacre on June 4, 1989, the Government of the 
        People's Republic of China has yet to acknowledge the Tiananmen Square 
        massacre; and
Whereas, being formally received in Tiananmen Square, the President would bestow 
        legitimacy on the Chinese Government's horrendous actions of 9 years 
        ago: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That it is the sense of the Congress that the President should 
reconsider his decision to be formally received in Tiananmen Square 
until the Government of the People's Republic of China acknowledges the 
Tiananmen Square massacre, pledges that such atrocities will never 
happen again, and releases those Chinese students still imprisoned for 
supporting freedom and democracy that day.

            Passed the House of Representatives June 4, 1998.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
```
Exhibit 32.2

                                  Certification

                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 Long Island Physician Holdings
Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2005 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Concetta Pryor, 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 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 result of operations of the
Company.

/s/ Concetta Pryor
-----------------------
Concetta Pryor
Chief Financial Officer

Date: __________________________

      This certification accompanies the above-described Report on Form 10-Q
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except
to the extent required by such Act, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes
of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.


                                       24
(logo) Prudential 

Prudential Asset Resources

 

Prudential Mortgage Capital Company

2100 Ross Avenue, Suite 2500, Dallas TX 75201

Tel 214 777-4500

 

 

A business of Prudential Financial, Inc.

 

 

 

 

Wells Fargo Bank, National Association

Attn: Commercial Mtg Servicing

MAC 01086-120

550 South Tryon Street, 14th Floor

Charlotte, NC 28202

 

 

 

RE:         RBS Commercial Funding Inc., Commercial  Mortgage Pass-Through  Certificates, Series 2014-C25

Period:   **December 1, 2014 to December 31, 2014 (the "Reporting Period")**

Annual Compliance Statement

I, Hal Collett, in my capacity as President and Managing Director of Prudential Asset Resources, Inc. (the "Company") hereby certify with regard to the Company's role as Primary Servicer under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement, (the "Agreement") dated as of December 1, 2014 pertaining to the above-referenced certificates, that:

 

 

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

 

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

 

 

 

 

Effective as of March 19, 2015

 

 

/s/ Hal Collett                      

Hal Collett

President and Managing Director

Prudential Asset Resources, Inc.