alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Juan Carlos FLORES, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Earl R. BARKSDALE, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 17-7270

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: February 22, 2018

Decided: February 26, 2018

Juan Carlos Flores, Appellant Pro Se.

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

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Juan Carlos Flores seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition and dismissing without prejudice for failure to comply with a prior order directing him to pay a required filing fee or file an in forma pauperis application.* The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Flores has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, 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 this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED*

*

 We conclude that the district court’s order is final and appealable because the defect identified by. the district court must be cured by something more than an amendment to the allegations in the § 2254 petition. *Goode v. Cent. Va. Legal Aid Soc’y, Inc.,*807 F.3d 619, 623-24 (4th Cir. 2015).
| (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 hereby made tothat certain Pooling and Servicing  Agreement  dated as of December1, 2014, by and among RBS COMMERCIAL FUNDING INC., as Depositor, WELLS FARGOBANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Master Servicer, CWCAPITAL ASSET MANAGEMENT LLC, as Special  Servicer, TRIMONT REAL ESTATE ADVISORS, INC, as TrustAdvisor, WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Certificate Administrator,as Tax Administrator and as Custodian, and WILMINGTON TRUST, NATIONALASSOCIATION, as Trustee, with respect to Commercial Mortgage Pass-ThroughCertificates Series 2014-C25 (the "Agreement"). Capitalized termsused herein not otherwise defined shall have the meanings assigned in theAgreement.

 

Pursuant to Section 11.12 ofthis Agreement, I, Daniel Bober, Executive Vice President of CommercialMortgage Services do hereby certify that:

 

1.            A review of the activities of the Master Servicer during the period fromJanuary 1, 2016 through December 31, 2016 (the “Reporting Period”),and of its performance per the Agreement during such period has been made undermy supervision, and

 

2.            To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Master Servicer hasfulfilled all of its obligations under this Agreement in all material respectsthroughout the Reporting Period.

 

 

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 |
|------------------------|-------------------------------------|
### u.s. Deporrmenr of Tronsportolion Federal Aviation Administration April 6, 2016 Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2016-3739 Mr. George Rezkalla Parent of Julianna Rezkalla 9121 South Braden Place Tul sa, OK 74137 Dear Mr. Rezkalla : 800 Independence Ave
. . S W
. Wash i ngton . DC 2059 1

We regret to inform you that we were not able to process your request for an exemption because ofthe very short sentence you posted to the Regulatory Docket: "please I need an exemption for my child Julianna Rezkalla " Unfortunately, the above sentence is not sufficient to proceed with your request. We tried to call you on two different occas ions to gather additional information, but we were not able to reach you and that is the reason why we closed your file. However, we still have the Regulatory Docket (FAA-2016-3739) open; therefore, you can resubmit your application. I have attached to this letter the government regulations that outline the information that we need in order to proceed with your application: § 11.81ofTitle 14, Code ofFederal Regulations (14 CFR) . 

### What You Should Do Ifyou want to resubmit your exemption reque st, you must send the information described in § 11 .8 1 within 30 days. We will keep the Regulatory Docket open to receive the required information from you. Please note that § 11.63(d) require s you to send your petition for exempt ion at least 120 days before the proposed effective date ofthe exemption . 

### How Do I Resubmit a Completed Application? Please visit http :/ /kidsflysafe.com/instructions/ cares-for-special-needs-flyer s/ and scroll down until you see the template that you need
- please make sure you select the correct template-- and paste that information into a letter, fill in all ofthe nece ss ary blanks and it ems in bold and, after you fini sh the letter, go to the FDMS at www.regul ati ons.gov and type your docket number (F AA-2016-3739) to open your docket and then upload your completed letter. AFS-16-10142 -E

### If

### We Do Not Hear From You Ifwe do not hear from you within 30 day s, we will then close the Regulatory Docket without notifying you further. If you have any questions or require additional time and/or guidance, please call me: (202) 267-7977. Sincerely,

en

**eda,~-104** Federal Aviation Administration Office ofRulemaking, Airmen & Airspace Rules Division 800 Independence Avenue, SW Washington, DC 20591

Enclo sure 2
IV

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 70

Expressing the sense of the Congress that State and local governments

should be encouraged, and have the right, to pass laws and ordinances

designed to preserve and protect the safety and well-being of young

people.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MAY 1, 1997

Mr. VENTO (for himself, Mr. MARTINEZ, Mr. LEWIS of Georgia, Mr. LIPINSKI, and Ms. LOFGREN) submitted the following concurrent resolution;

which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of the Congress that State and local

governments should be encouraged, and have the right,

to pass laws and ordinances designed to preserve and

protect the safety and well-being of young people.

Whereas the incidence of violent crime in the United States

has increased alarmingly in recent years, with young people facing the highest risk of any group in the United

States of nonfatal assault;

Whereas the future of communities in the United States, and

the future of society in general, is inextricably linked to

the well-being of young people;

Whereas the number of young people arrested for murder has

increased 128 percent during the past decade, and an es-
2

•HCON 70 IH

timated 60 percent of crimes reported are being committed by young people between 10 and 20 years of age;

Whereas schools, churches, playgrounds, and community

recreation facilities are designed to function as safe

places for young people to congregate;

Whereas facilities designed to offer young people alternatives

to violence should be free from the dangers posed by firearms and other weapons;

Whereas State and local governments are obligated to protect

and preserve the well-being and safety of their citizens,

as such governments are best able to respond to the

unique safety needs of their communities;

Whereas the safety of young people is greatly enhanced by

measures designed to ban firearms and other weapons

from public facilities;

Whereas State and local governments should not be impeded

in their efforts to control the escalating damages caused

by firearms and other weapons in their communities; and

Whereas certain special interest groups have actively sought

to limit the ability of State and local governments to respond to community safety needs: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring), That it is the sense of the Congress that

3 State and local governments should be encouraged, and

4 have the right, to respond to the needs of their commu5 nities by enacting laws and ordinances designed to pre6 serve and protect the safety and well-being of young peo7 ple, including laws and ordinances that seek to ban the

8 possession of firearms and other weapons in public facili-
3

•HCON 70 IH

1 ties by individuals other than police officers, security

2 guards, and other individuals charged with the protection

3 and security of such facilities.

Æ
#### Michael BOHANNAN, Plaintiff-Appellant v. Wesley GRIFFIN, in his individual capacity and in his official capacity as CSOT Program Specialist, Defendant-Appellee

No. 16-11226 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed January 12, 2018

Michael Bohannan, Pro Se

Carol M. Garcia, Esq., Assistant Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General for the State of Texas, Austin, TX, for Defendant-Appellee

Before WIENER, DENNIS, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Michael Bohannan, Texas prisoner # 1841746, filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit to seek redress for various acts in connection with his civil commitment. This appeal concerns the district court’s disposition of state and federal law claims against defendant Griffin.

In his brief to this court, Bohannan seeks to incorporate other filings by refer*284ence. He may not do so. *See Yohey v. Collins,*985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993). To the extent he challenges the district court’s denial of his request for extensions of time, this argument fails because he has not shown an abuse of the district court’s vast discretion. *See Geiserman v. MacDonald,*893 F.2d 787, 793 (5th Cir. 1990); *Hetzel v. Bethlehem, Steel Corp.,*50 F.3d 360, 367 (5th Cir. 1995). Bohannan also raises numerous other arguments concerning various actions of the district court and the merits of his claims.

The district court concluded both that Bohannan’s claims lacked merit, that Griffin was entitled to qualified immunity as to Bohannan’s federal claims and immunity under Texas Health & Safety Code § 841.147 as to Bohannan’s state law claims, and that some of his claims were barred by the applicable statute of limitations. In his pleadings on appeal, Bohannan challenges the district court’s conclusion that his claims were barred by immunity only with respect to his claim that Griffin violated his First Amendment rights to constitutional rights of freedom of speech, association, and religion. However, Bohannan presents no challenge to the district court’s conclusion that this claim was barred by the statute of limitations. He has therefore failed to identify any reversible error in the district court’s disposition of his claims.

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. Because this case does not present exceptional circumstances, Bohannan’s motion for appointed counsel is DENIED. *See Ulmer v. Chancellor,*691 F.2d 209, 212-13 (5th Cir. 1982).

*

 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.
105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 88

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Congratulating the Government and the people of

16, 1997.pleting free and democratic elections on Marchthe Republic of El Salvador on successfully com-
105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 88

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Whereas on March 16, 1997, the Republic of El Salvador

successfully completed democratic, multiparty elections

for 84 national legislative assembly seats and 262 mayoral and municipal council posts;

Whereas these elections were deemed by international and domestic observers to be free and fair and a legitimate non-
2

•HCON 88 EH

violent expression of the will of the people of the Republic

of El Salvador;

Whereas the United States has consistently supported the efforts of the people of El Salvador to consolidate their democracy and to implement the provisions of the 1992

peace accords;

Whereas these elections demonstrate the strength and diversity of El Salvador’s democratic expression and promotes

confidence that all political parties can work cooperatively

in the new assembly and at the municipal level; and

Whereas these open, fair, and democratic elections of the new

assembly and at the municipal level should be broadly

commended: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring), That the Congress—

3 (1) congratulates the Government and the peo4 ple of the Republic of El Salvador for the successful

5 completion of democratic, multiparty elections held

6 on March 16, 1997, for 84 national legislative as7 sembly seats and 262 mayoral and municipal council

8 posts;

9 (2) congratulates El Salvadoran President

10 Armando Caldero ́n Sol for his personal commitment

11 to democracy, which has helped in the building of

12 national unity in the Republic of El Salvador;

13 (3) commends all Salvadorans for their efforts

14 to work together to take risks for democracy and to

15 willfully pursue national reconciliation in order to ce-
3

•HCON 88 EH

1 ment a lasting peace and democratic traditions in El

2 Salvador;

3 (4) supports Salvadoran attempts to continue

4 their cooperation in order to ensure democracy, na5 tional reconciliation, and economic prosperity; and

6 (5) reaffirms that the United States is un7 equivocally committed to encouraging democracy and

8 peaceful development throughout Central America.

Passed the House of Representatives July 22, 1997.

Attest:

Clerk.
#### COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Respondent v. Johnathan COLE, Petitioner

No. 408 EAL 2017

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

January 8, 2018

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 8th day of January, 2018, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is DENIED.
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 16.1


April 8, 2002

Office of the Chief Accountant
Securities and Exchange Commission
450 Fifth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20549

Dear Sir or Madam:

We have read the second and third paragraphs of Item 4 included in the Current
Report on Form 8-K dated April 5, 2002 of Spinnaker Exploration Company to be
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and are in agreement with the
statements contained therein.

Very truly yours,

/s/ ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP
-----------------------

Arthur Andersen LLP

Copy to: Robert M. Snell - Spinnaker Exploration Company
#### Jorge TRUJILLO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Francisco M. SANCHEZ, M.D.; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 17-16650

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted January 16, 2018 *

Filed January 19, 2018

Jorge Trujillo, Pro Se

Frank Anthony Toddre, II, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, AGNY — Office of the Nevada Attorney General (Las Vegas), Las Vegas, NV, for Defendants-Ap-pellees

Before: REINHARDT, TROTT, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM *

Nevada state prisoner Jorge Trujillo appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment enforcing the terms of a settlement agreement in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging medical deliberate indifference. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion the district court’s enforcement of a settlement agreement. *Doi v. Halekulani Corp.,*276 F.3d 1131, 1136 (9th Cir. 2002). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in granting defendants’ motion to enforce the oral settlement agreement that the parties reached on March 25, 2016, because Trujillo stated that he understood and agreed to the material terms of the agreement during the settlement conference before a neutral mediator. *See id.*at 1136-40 (district court did not abuse its discretion in enforcing settlement. agreement where material terms of agreement were read into the record and parties agreed to them).

We do not consider Trujillo’s contentions regarding whether the settlement agreement was breached because ■ the district court did not reach this issue.

AFFIRMED.

*

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Tony Alforenzo WALKER, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-7545

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: January 18, 2018

Decided: January 23, 2018

Tony Alforenzo Walker, Appellant Pro Se. Dana James Boente, United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and SHEDD and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions ai’e not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Tony Alforenzo Walker seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for reconsideration of the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Walker has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Walker’s motion for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED*
Document headings vary by document type but may contain
                    the following: the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document
the number of the CFR title and the number of each part
                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly
                      related to
the agency docket number / agency internal file number
the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in
                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory
                      Actions See the
                    Document Drafting Handbook
                    for more details.
 Department of Justice Drug Enforcement Administration [Docket No. DEA-986]
 AGENCY: Drug Enforcement Administration, Justice.
 ACTION: Notice of application.
 SUMMARY: Usona Institute, Inc. has applied to be registered as a bulk manufacturer of basic class(es) of controlled substance(s). Refer to 
                        **SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION**
                         listed below for further drug information.
 DATES: Registered bulk manufacturers of the affected basic class(es), and applicants therefore, may submit electronic comments on or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration on or before May 23, 2022. Such persons may also file a written request for a hearing on the application on or before May 23, 2022.
 ADDRESSES: The Drug Enforcement Administration requires that all comments be submitted electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal, which provides the ability to type short comments directly into the comment field on the web page or attach a file for lengthier comments. Please go to 
                        *https://www.regulations.gov*
                         and follow the online instructions at that site for submitting comments. Upon submission of your comment, you will receive a Comment Tracking Number. Please be aware that submitted comments are not instantaneously available for public view on 
                        *https://www.regulations.gov.*
                         If you have received a Comment Tracking Number, your comment has been successfully submitted and there is no need to resubmit the same comment.


SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33(a), this is notice that on February 16, 2022, Usona Institute, Inc., 2780 Woods Hollow Road, Room 2413, Fitchburg, Wisconsin 53711, applied to be registered as a bulk manufacturer of the following basic class(es) of controlled substance(s): Controlled substance
Drug code
SchedulePsilocybin
7437
IPsilocin
7438
I
 The company plans to bulk manufacture the listed controlled substances for use in chemical process development as well as pre-clinical and clinical research. Matthew J. Strait, Deputy Assistant Administrator.


[FR Doc. 2022-06166 Filed 3-22-22; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
III

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. RES. 315

Appointing a committee to notify the President concerning the proposed

adjournment of the session.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

OCTOBER 3, 1996

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

to

RESOLUTION

Appointing a committee to notify the President concerning

the proposed adjournment of the session.

1 Resolved, That a committee of two Senators be ap2 pointed by the Presiding Officer to join a similar commit3 tee of the House of Representatives to notify the President

4 of the United States that the two Houses have completed

5 their business of the session and are ready to adjourn un6 less he has some further communication to make to them.

Æ
exv4w11



 






EXHIBIT 4.11



PROMISSORY NOTE




	 	 	 
	$690,000

 	 	
October 8, 1998

Alexandria, Virginia



     FOR VALUE RECEIVED, the undersigned, a Virginia corporation (the
Borrower) hereby promises to pay to the order of RESEARCH INDUSTRIES
INCORPORATED, a Virginia corporation (the Lender), at 123 North Pitt Street,
Alexandria, Virginia 22314, or such other location as the holder hereof may in
writing designate, the principal sum of SIX HUNDRED AND NINETY THOUSAND AND
NO/00 DOLLARS ($690,000), in lawful money of the United States of America in
immediately available funds, on January 6, 1999, without defense, offset or
counterclaim, together with interest on the unpaid principal amount hereof, at
such office, in like money and funds, from the date hereof at the rate of eight
(8) per cent per annum.


     This Note is subject to the terms and conditions of the Subordination
Agreement dated January 27, 1998 entered into by and among Research Industries
Incorporated, Crestar Bank and Halifax Corporation.


     This Note is one of two Notes referred to in the Loan Agreement between
the Borrower and the Lender dated October 8, 1998.


     The Borrower hereby waives presentment, demand, notice of dishonor,
protest and all other demands and notices in connection with the delivery,
acceptance, performance and enforcement of this Note. Lender shall be entitled
to recover any costs and reasonable attorney’s fees incurred in the collection
of this Note.


     This Note may be prepaid at anytime without penalty.


     This Note shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws
of the Commonwealth of Virginia, without reference to conflict of laws
principles.


     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Borrower has caused this note to be executed by
its duly authorized President as of the day and year first above written.




	 	 
	 	BORROWER
	 
	 	HALIFAX CORPORATION

a Virginia Corporation
	 
	 	By:  /s/  HOWARD C. MILLS

	 	


	 	
Name:  Howard C. Mills

Title: President