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

2D SESSION H. CON. RES. 262

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Authorizing the 1998 District of Columbia Special

through the Capitol Grounds.Olympics Law Enforcement Torch Run to be run
105TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. CON. RES. 262

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring),
2

•HCON 262 EH

1 SECTION 1. AUTHORIZATION OF RUNNING OF D.C. SPECIAL

2 OLYMPICS LAW ENFORCEMENT TORCH RUN

3 THROUGH CAPITOL GROUNDS.

4 On May 29, 1998, or on such other date as the

5 Speaker of the House of Representatives and the Commit6 tee on Rules and Administration of the Senate may jointly

7 designate, the 1998 District of Columbia Special Olympics

8 Law Enforcement Torch Run (in this resolution referred

9 to as the ‘‘event’’) may be run through the Capitol

10 Grounds, as part of the journey of the Special Olympics

11 torch to the District of Columbia Special Olympics sum12 mer games at Gallaudet University in the District of Co13 lumbia.

14 SEC. 2. RESPONSIBILITY OF CAPITOL POLICE BOARD.

15 The Capitol Police Board shall take such actions as

16 may be necessary to carry out the event.

17 SEC. 3. CONDITIONS RELATING TO PHYSICAL PREPARA18 TIONS.

19 The Architect of the Capitol may prescribe conditions

20 for physical preparations for the event.

21 SEC. 4. APPLICABILITY OF PROHIBITIONS.

22 Nothing in this resolution may be construed to waive

23 the applicability of the prohibitions established by section

24 4 of the Act of July 31, 1946 (40 U.S.C. 193d; 60 Stat.
3

•HCON 262 EH

1 718), concerning sales, displays, and solicitations on the

2 Capitol Grounds.

Passed the House of Representatives May 12, 1998.

Attest:

Clerk.
#### Bea E. GLENN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION; California State Teachers’ Retirement System, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 17-15801

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted January 16, 2018 *

Filed January 19, 2018

Bea E. Glenn, Pro Se

Andrea Christensen, Deputy General Counsel, CDE — California Department of Education, Sacramento, CA, for Defen*500dant-Appellee California Department of Education

Michael W. Carruth, Attorney, Kline-dinst PC, Sacramento, CA, for Defendant-Appellee California State Teachers’ Retirement System

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 ***

Bea E. Glenn appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing her action alleging discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”) in connection with the denial of disability benefits. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s dismissal based on Eleventh Amendment immunity. *Eason v. Clark Cty. Sch.*Dist., 308 F.3d 1137, 1140 (9th Cir. 2002). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Glenn’s action against the California Department of Education and the California State Teachers’ Retirement System because Glenn’s claims are barred by the Eleventh Amendment. *See Mitchell v. L.A Cmty. Coll. Dist.,*861 F.2d 198, 201 (9th Cir. 1988) (setting forth factors to determine whether a state governmental agency is an arm of the state subject to Eleventh Amendment immunity); *L.A. Branch NAACP v. L.A. Unified Sch. Dist.,*714 F.2d 946, 950 (9th Cir. 1983) (California Department of Education is a state agency subject to Eleventh Amendment immunity); *see also Bd. of Trs. of Univ. of Ala. v. Garrett,*531 U.S. 356, 360, 374, 121 S.Ct. 955, 148 L.Ed.2d 866 (2001) (holding that Title I of the ADA does not validly abrogate states’ Eleventh Amendment immunity); *Kimel v. Fla. Bd. of Regents,*528 U.S. 62, 91, 120 S.Ct. 631, 145 L.Ed.2d 522 (2000) (holding that the ADEA does not validly abrogate states’ Eleventh Amendment immunity).

We do not consider,arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. *See Padgett v. Wright,*587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED.

***

 disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Exhibit 21.1

 

SUBSIDIARIES OF PATRIOT NATIONAL, INC.

 

|                                            |        |                                            |
|--------------------------------------------|--------|--------------------------------------------|
| NAME OF SUBSIDIARY1                        |   | JURISDICTION OF INCORPORATION/ORGANIZATION |
| Patriot Services, Inc.                     |   | Delaware                                   |
| Contego Services Group, LLC2               |   | Delaware                                   |
| Contego Recovery, LLC                      |   | Delaware                                   |
| Contego Investigative Services, Inc.       |   | Delaware                                   |
| Patriot Recovery Services, Inc.            |   | Delaware                                   |
| Patriot Technology Solutions, Inc.3        |   | Delaware                                   |
| Decision UR, LLC4                          |   | California                                 |
| Patriot Captive Management, Inc.           |   | Delaware                                   |
| Patriot Captive Management (Cayman), Ltd.  |   | Cayman Islands                             |
| Patriot Captive Management (Bahamas), Ltd. |   | Bahamas                                    |
| Patriot Risk Services, Inc.                |   | Delaware                                   |
| Patriot Claim Services, Inc.               |   | Delaware                                   |
| Patriot Care, Inc.                         |   | Delaware                                   |
| Patriot Care Holdings, Inc.                |   | Delaware                                   |
| Patriot Care Services, Inc.                |   | Delaware                                   |
| Patriot Care Management, Inc.              |   | Delaware                                   |
| Forza Lien, Inc.                           |   | Delaware                                   |
| Patriot Underwriters, Inc.                 |   | Delaware                                   |
| Patriot Legal Services, Inc.               |   | Delaware                                   |

 

|         |                                                                                                                                                       |
|---------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 1  | Patriot National, Inc. owns, directly or indirectly, 100% of its subsidiaries with the exception of Contego Services Group, LLC and Decision UR, LLC. |
| 2  | Patriot Services, Inc. owns 97% of Contego Services Group, LLC. Steven M. Mariano maintains a 3% membership interest in Contego Services Group, LLC.  |
| 3       | Carrier and Technology Solutions, Inc. changed its name to Patriot Technology Solutions, Inc. on February 3, 2015.                                    |
| 4       | Patriot Technology Solutions, Inc. owns 98.8% of Decision UR, LLC. Kevin Hamm maintains a 1.2% membership interest in Decision UR, LLC.

        |
| (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 November 1, 2014, byand among WELLS FARGO COMMERCIAL MORTGAGE SECURITIES, INC., as Depositor, WELLSFARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Master Servicer, RIALTO CAPITAL ADVISORS,LLC, as Special Servicer, PENTALPHA SURVEILLANCE LLC, as Trust Advisor, WELLSFARGO 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-C24 (the "Agreement"). Capitalized terms used herein nototherwise defined shall have the meanings assigned in the Agreement.

 

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 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 my knowledge,based on such review, the Master Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligationsunder this Agreement in all material respects throughout 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 |
|------------------------|-------------------------------------|
No. 11-1360.

#### Clark *v.*Utah.

Ct. App. Utah. Certiorari denied.
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 September 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.


                                       25
No. 11-1410.

#### Dhillon *v.*Zions First National Bank et al.

C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.
p. 1



# OAR Box 1413 Prepped by Ollie Stewart



## Document

Number: 

# 101)11-1-10 2 Docket Number: 

# A-94-5 2

Printed 7/9/2008 3:11:25 PM

Sheet 101 of 114

# Industr y & Financial Consultin g Service s 

# Industr y Norm s & Ke y Busines s Ratio s Desk-lb p Editio n 1996-9 7 I



# Ove r 80 0 Line s o f Busines s SI C #0100-899 9

Dun&BradstrCopyright©Du n & Bradstreet , Inc. , 199 7 Al l right s reserved . Exceptfo r us e i n a review , th e reproductio n o r us e o f thi s wor k in an y for m o r b y an y electronic , mechanica

l o r Othe r means , no

w know n o r hereafter invented , includin g xerography , photocopying , an d recording , an

d in an y infonnatio n storage an

d retrieva l syste m i s forbidde

n withoutth e writte n permissio

n o f th e publisher . To obtai n reprin tpermission , pleas e sen d your correspondenc e to : Du n & BradstreetInfonnatio n Service s Attn : Public Relations On e Diamon

d Hil l Roa

d Murra y HiU , N J 0797 4 Manufacture

d i n th e Unite

d State s o f America .



## ftv

-&&'3j3wr«?5, < •
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-6937

RICO GREER,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at 

Wheeling. John Preston Bailey, District Judge. (5:23-cv-00263-JPB-JPM)

Submitted: December 19, 2023 Decided: December 27, 2023

Before HARRIS, QUATTLEBAUM, and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Rico Greer, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6937 Doc: 9 Filed: 12/27/2023 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Rico Greer appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 

petition without prejudice for failure to comply with the court’s prior order directing him 

to submit court-approved forms and denying as moot his motion to suppress statements. 

On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the informal brief. See 4th Cir. R. 

34(b). Because Greer’s informal brief does not challenge the basis for the district court’s 

disposition, he has forfeited appellate review of the court’s order. See Jackson v. Lightsey, 

775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir. 2014) (“The informal brief is an important document; under 

Fourth Circuit rules, our review is limited to issues preserved in that brief.”). Accordingly, 

we affirm the district court’s judgment. 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

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6937 Doc: 9 Filed: 12/27/2023 Pg: 2 of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                    OTHER
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-27-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             DEC-29-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-04-1998
<CASH>                                           6,251
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      922
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      9,385
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                17,305
<PP&E>                                         191,068
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 602,774
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           55,461
<BONDS>                                        125,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           341
<OTHER-SE>                                     306,145
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   602,774
<SALES>                                        285,699
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               285,699
<CGS>                                           98,038
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  264,027
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               9,162
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (31,451)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (26,799)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.81)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.81)
        

</TABLE>
#### IN the INTEREST OF: A.J.O., a Minor

588 EDA 2017

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

09/06/2017

CP-51-AP-0001280-2016

CP-51-DP-00000069-2013

(Philadelphia)

Affirmed
# Official Journal L 180/12 J

| | ISSN 1725-2555 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 180 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 4812 July 2005 |

ISSN 1725-2555

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 180

English edition

Legislation

Volume 4812 July 2005

---

| Contents | | I   Acts whose publication is obligatory | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | Commission Regulation (EC) No 1089/2005 of 11 July 2005 establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables | 1 |

Contents

I   Acts whose publication is obligatory

page

Commission Regulation (EC) No 1089/2005 of 11 July 2005 establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

1

| | | Corrigenda |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | * | Corrigendum to Commission Regulation (EC) No 991/2005 of 28 June 2005 establishing unit values for the determination of the customs value of certain perishable goods (OJ L 168, 30.6.2005) | 3 |

Corrigenda

*

Corrigendum to Commission Regulation (EC) No 991/2005 of 28 June 2005 establishing unit values for the determination of the customs value of certain perishable goods (OJ L 168, 30.6.2005)

3

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.
#### Antoine D. DEGRATE, Appellant v. Scott S. HARRIS, Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, Office of the Clerk, Appellee

No. 17-5187

September Term, 2017

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.

Filed On: December 15, 2017

*722Antoine D. Degrate, Pro Se

R. Craig Lawrence, U.S. Attorney’s Office, (USA) Civil Division, Washington, DC, for Defendant-Appellee

BEFORE: Rogers and Srinivasan, Circuit Judges, and Ginsburg, Senior Circuit Judge

JUDGMENT

Per Curiam

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the brief filed by appellant, which included a motion to appoint counsel, and the appendix. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); D.C. Cir. Rule 84(3). It te

ORDERED that the motion to appoint counsel be denied. In civil cases, appellants are not entitled to appointment of counsel when they have not demonstrated sufficient likelihood of success on the merits. It is

FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court order filed July 19, 2017 be affirmed. The district court correctly held that it has no authority to order the Clerk of the Supreme Court to take any action. See In re Marin, 956 F.2d 339, 340 (D.C. Cir. 1992) (per curiam). Though appellant now claims entitlement to damages, the Clerk enjoys immunity for actions taken as part of the judicial function. See Sindram v. Suda, 986 F.2d 1459, 1460-61 (D.C. Cir. 1993) (per curiam).

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed. R. App. P. 41(b); D.C. Cir. Rule 41.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              OCT-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 NOV-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   JAN-31-1999
<CASH>                                         0
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  2,587,390
<ALLOWANCES>                                   215,000
<INVENTORY>                                    1,636,324
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               4,826,409
<PP&E>                                         3,788,412
<DEPRECIATION>                                 1,716,714
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 7,052,924
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          4,120,781
<BONDS>                                        4,369,247
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       4,000
<OTHER-SE>                                     (546,904)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   7,052,924
<SALES>                                        6,919,449
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               6,919,449
<CGS>                                          5,885,491
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  5,885,491
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               549,946
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             98,834
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                385,178
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            385,178
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   385,178
<EPS-BASIC>                                    .10
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0



</TABLE>
Exhibit 15.1

LOGO

Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

The Board of Directors,

Erytech Pharma S.A.

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statement (no. 333-222673) on Form S-8 of Erytech Pharma S.A. of our report dated April 23,
2018, with respect to the consolidated statements of financial position of Erytech Pharma S.A. and its subsidiary as of December 31, 2017 2016 and 2015, and the related consolidated statements of income (loss), comprehensive income (loss), changes
in shareholders equity and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2017, and the related notes (collectively, the consolidated financial statements), which report appears in the Annual Report on
Form 20-F of Erytech Pharma S.A for the year ended December 31, 2017.



Lyon, April 24, 2018 
KPMG Audit Département de KPMG S.A./s/ Sara Righenzi de VillersSara Righenzi de Villers
Partner




LOGO
##### 



Exhibit 31.1
  CERTIFICATION
    PURSUANT TO
    18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
    AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
    SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
    Form 10-Q
  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))
    and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in
    Exchange Act Rules
    13a-15(f)
    and
    15d-15(f))
    for the registrant and have:          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 the registrants board
    of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):      Michael
    B. Targoff