alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

       
<ARTICLE>           BD
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information
extracted from the financial statements for The
Jones Financial Companies for the 3 months ended
March 26, 1999 and is qualified in its entirety by
reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>        1,000
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-26-1999
<CASH>                                         126,440
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,360,307
<SECURITIES-RESALE>                                  0
<SECURITIES-BORROWED>                           18,029
<INSTRUMENTS-OWNED>                            262,714
<PP&E>                                         207,276
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,094,087
<SHORT-TERM>                                    45,945
<PAYABLES>                                   1,056,133
<REPOS-SOLD>                                         0
<SECURITIES-LOANED>                             46,022
<INSTRUMENTS-SOLD>                              25,294
<LONG-TERM>                                    240,749
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     415,966
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,094,087
<TRADING-REVENUE>                                    0
<INTEREST-DIVIDENDS>                            30,413
<COMMISSIONS>                                  313,594
<INVESTMENT-BANKING-REVENUES>                    9,387
<FEE-REVENUE>                                   43,389
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              11,765
<COMPENSATION>                                 233,063
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 39,049
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                      39,049
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    39,049
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida 

Opinion filed August 28, 2024.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D23-1245

Lower Tribunal No. 21-26603 SP

________________

First Class Parking Systems LLC, 

Appellant,

vs.

Ilya Bykov,

Appellee.

An Appeal from the County Court for Miami-Dade County, Luis PerezMedina, Judge.

Alan A. Glenn (Hollywood), for appellant.

No appearance, for appellee.

Before LOGUE, C.J., and EMAS and SCALES, JJ. 

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Fla. Sm. Cl. R. 7.140(f); Morburger v. J. Reporting, Inc., 

318 So. 3d 619, 621 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021) (“First adopted in 1973 by the 
2

Florida Supreme Court, the Florida Small Claims Rules . . . eschew the 

formality ordinarily associated with civil litigation, creating an open ‘People's 

Court’ in which mere technicalities ‘must not obscure the greater purpose of 

justice for all.’” (quoting Donoghue v. Wallach, 455 So. 2d 1085, 1086 n.1 

(Fla. 2d DCA 1984))).
(logo)CWCapital

ASSETMANAGEMENT

** **

** **

**Annual Statement asto Compliance**

**For the Period ofJanuary 1, 2018 to July 5, 2018**

 

 

**MSBAM 2015-C20**

 

 

Inaccordance Item 1123 of Regulation AB and with the requirements detailed in §13.9of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement (the “Agreement”) for theabove-mentioned CMBS pool, CWCapital Asset Management LLC (“CWCAM”), inits capacity as Special Servicer, is providing this Officer’s Certificate withrespect to the following:

 

(A)      a review of CWCAM’s activities during the preceding calendar year or portionthereof (the "Reporting Period") and of CWCAM’s performanceunder the Agreement has been made under such officer’s supervision;

 

(B)      to the best of such officer’s knowledge, based on such review, CWCAM hasfulfilled all its obligations under the Agreement in all material respectsthroughout the Reporting Period.

 

Shouldyou have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.

 

Sincerely,

CWCapitalAsset Management LLC

 

/s/James P. Shevlin

JamesP. Shevlin 

President/ChiefOperating Officer

 

 

7501Wisconsin Avenue | Suite 500 West | Bethesda, MD | 20814
#### STATE v. FAIRBOURN

20170842

Supreme Court of Utah.

12-12-2017

20141149, 405 P.3d 789

Petition for Writ of Certiorari Denied.
#### Jessie M. LEWIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Nancy A. BERRYHILL, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 16-15394

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted January 11, 2018 * San Francisco, California

Filed January 16, 2018

Lawrence David Rohlfmg, Attorney, Law Offices of Lawrence Rohlfmg, Santa Fe Springs, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant

Francesco Paulo Benavides, Special Assistant U.S. Attorney, Elizabeth Firer, Special Assistant U.S. Attorney, Social Security Administration, Office of the General Counsel, San Francisco, CA, Alyson Anne Berg, Attorney, DOJ-USAO, Fresno, CA, for Defendant-Appellee

Before: WALLACE, RAWLINSON, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.

*

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

*920MEMORANDUM**

1. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) erred in finding that Jessie Lewis could perform the positions of cashier (DOT #211.462-010) and storage rental clerk (DOT #295.367-026) despite her limitation to “work involving simple instructions.” Those positions require level 3 reasoning, per the Dictionary of Occupational Titles (DOT). We have held that an apparent conflict exists between a limitation to “simple, routine, or repetitive tasks” and “the demands of Level 3 Reasoning.” *Zavalin v. Colvin,*778 F.3d 842, 843-44 (9th Cir. 2015). The ALJ therefore was required to “elicit a reasonable explanation for the conflict before relying on the [vocational expert] evidence to support a determination or decision about whether [Lewis] is disabled.” SSR 00-4p, 2000 WL 1898704, at *2.

2. The ALJ did not err in finding that Lewis could perform the position of office helper (DOT #239.567-010), which requires level 2 reasoning. There is no apparent unresolved conflict between the vocational expert’s testimony that Lewis could perform that position and the DOT or its companion publication, the Selected Characteristics of Occupations Defined in the Revised Dictionary of Occupational Titles (SCO). *See*SSR 00-4p at *1.-SSR 00-4p does not require the ALJ to inquire into potential conflicts between vocational expert evidence and all possible companion publications to the DOT. Lewis cites no case from our court that has required an ALJ to resolve a conflict between vocational expert evidence and information provided in the Revised Handbook for Analyzing Jobs (U.S. Department of Labor 1991) (RHAJ). We therefore decline to hold that SSR 00-4p’s requirements were triggered here, even if a conflict existed with the RHAJ.

The vocational expert testified that “there are 10,000” office helper jobs in California. This qualifies as a “significant” number of jobs that Lewis could perform “in the region where [she] lives.” *See*42 U.S.C. § 1382c(a)(3)(B); *Gutierrez v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec.,*740 F.3d 519, 527-28 (9th Cir. 2014). Substantial evidence therefore supports the ALJ’s finding that Lewis was not disabled. *See id.*at 522-23.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R, 36-3.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.2

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of IWO Holdings Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2002 (the "Report"), I, Jerry E.
Vaughn, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:

        (1) The 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/ Jerry E. Vaughn
------------------------
Jerry E. Vaughn
Chief Financial Officer
March 25, 2003
#### Elba Ruby Alvarez OLMOS, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 16-71724

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted February 13, 2018 *

Filed February 21, 2018

James A. Fraser, Esquire, Attorney, Commonwealth Law Group, Orange, CA, for Petitioner

Gregory A. Pennington, Jr., Esquire, Trial Attorney, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Ofñce of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent

Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Elba Ruby Alvarez Olmos, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her second motion to reconsider. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the agency’s denial of a motion to reconsider. *Cano-Merida v. INS,*311 F.3d 960, 964 (9th Cir. 2002). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

Alvarez Olmos has waived any challenge to the BIA’s determination that 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(2) bars her from seeking reconsideration of the BIA’s order denying her previous motion to reconsider. *See Rizk v. Holder,*629 F.3d 1083, 1091 n. 3 (9th Cir. 2011) (issues not raised in an opening brief are waived).

To the extent Alvarez Olmos seeks review of the BIA’s March 9, 2015, order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying her application for cancellation of removal, we lack jurisdiction to consider those contentions because this petition for review is not timely *708as to that order. *See*8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1); *Membreno v. Gonzales,*425 F.3d 1227, 1229 (9th Cir. 2005) (the filing of a subsequent motion to reconsider does not affect the finality or reviewability of a previous order of removal).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3,
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 8252 

To require the Director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency to require 

each enterprise to include a military service question on the form known 

as the Uniform Residential Loan Application above the signature line 

of such application, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 15, 2020 

Mr. GREEN of Texas (for himself and Mr. ROUDA) introduced the following 

bill; which was referred to the Committee on Financial Services 

A BILL 

To require the Director of the Federal Housing Finance 

Agency to require each enterprise to include a military 

service question on the form known as the Uniform Residential Loan Application above the signature line of such 

application, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. MILITARY SERVICE QUESTION. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subpart A of part 2 of subtitle 

5 A of title 13 of the Housing and Community Development 

6 Act of 1992 (12 U.S.C. 4541 et seq.) is amended by add7 ing at the end the following: 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 8252 IH

1 ‘‘SEC. 1329. UNIFORM RESIDENTIAL LOAN APPLICATION. 

2 ‘‘The Director shall, not later than 6 months after 

3 the date of the enactment of this section, require each en4 terprise to— 

5 ‘‘(1) include a military service question on the 

6 form known as the Uniform Residential Loan Appli7 cation; and 

8 ‘‘(2) position such question above the signature 

9 line of the Uniform Residential Loan Application.’’. 

10 (b) RULEMAKING.—The Director of the Federal 

11 Housing Finance Agency shall, not later than 6 months 

12 after the date of the enactment of this section, issue a 

13 rule to carry out the amendment made by this section. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
(logo)CWCapital

ASSETMANAGEMENT

 

 

**Annual Statement as to Compliance**

**For thePeriod of January 1, 2017 to December 31, 2017**

** *** *

* *

**MSBAM 2015-C20    **

** ** 

                

In accordance with Item 1123 ofRegulation AB and****with the requirements detailed in §13.9 of the Poolingand Servicing Agreement (the “Agreement”) for the above-mentioned CMBS pool,(the “CMBS Pool”), CWCapital Asset Management LLC (“CWCAM”), in its capacity asSpecial Servicer, is providing this Officer’s Certificate with respect to thefollowing: 

 

(A)            a review of CWCAM’s activities during the preceding calendar year or portionthereof (the "Reporting Period") and of CWCAM’s performance under theAgreement has been made under such officer’s supervision and;  

 

(B)            to the best of such officer’s knowledge, based on such review, CWCAM hasfulfilled all its obligations under the Agreement in all material respectsthroughout the Reporting Period. 

 

 

Should you have any questions, pleasedo not hesitate to contact us.   

 

Sincerely, 

CWCapital Asset Management LLC 

/s/ David B. Iannarone 

David B. Iannarone

President

 

 

 

 

7501 Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 500 West, Bethesda, MD20814

www.cwcapital.com
# The U.S. Government Responds to False Allegations Targeted at the DoD CTR Program.

/ Published Jan. 10, 2022

The Department of Defense's Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR), executed by Defense Threat Reduction Agency, aims to peacefully reduce biological threats around the globe but certain countries try to falsely undermine and discredit the program's efforts to do so. Take a look at the below video to hear how the United States formally responded to the false allegations targeted at the CTR program.
No. 11-10286.

#### Thompson *v.*United States.

C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

JOSUE COUTO-AGUIRRE,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 13-50590

D.C. No. 3:13-cr-02462-LAB-2

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of California

Larry A. Burns, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted January 8, 2015

Pasadena, California

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

SAUL GARCIA-CABELLO,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 13-50594

D.C. No. 3:13-cr-02462-LAB-1

FILED

MAR 04 2015

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of California

Larry A. Burns, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted January 8, 2015** 

Pasadena, California

Before: KOZINSKI, WARDLAW, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.

Josue Couto-Aguirre (Couto) and Saul Garcia-Cabello (Garcia) appeal the

district court’s rejection of a two-level decrease in their offense level calculations

based on their minor roles in the offense of conviction. We have jurisdiction

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we vacate and remand for resentencing.

The district court clearly erred in denying a minor role adjustment because

there was no evidence in the record to support its finding that Couto and Garcia

knew that there were drugs in the tires of the truck on the first trip. United States v.

Rodriguez-Castro, 641 F.3d 1189, 1192 (9th Cir. 2011); United States v. Fitch, 659

F.3d 788, 797 (9th Cir. 2011). The district judge erroneously relied on speculation

as to what Couto and Garcia must have “felt” when driving or riding in the truck. 

The district court itself noted that in prior, similar cases, expert testimony on the

effect of drug-laden tires had been introduced to address the issue of knowledge. 

Moreover, here Couto and Garcia crossed the border without incident, further

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

2
undermining the court’s views as to the obviousness that substantial quantities of

drugs were in the truck’s tires. The district judge therefore based his denial of the

minor role adjustment on unsupported, anecdotal experience, which constitutes

clear error. Rodriguez-Castro, 641 F.3d at 1192. 

As the government recognized when it recommended a minor role

adjustment for both Couto and Garcia, they each may very well be entitled to such

an adjustment. We therefore vacate the sentences imposed and remand for

resentencing. 

VACATED and REMANDED.

3
# Advanced Flight Maneuvers ( 

# * * * ) D



# El Fly a circle and keep the aircraft nose pointed towards you. Be sure to keep the altitude the same and the circle as uniform as possible.

Fly a 4 point square box clockwise while keeping the aircraft nose facing in your direction.



# - ---- ---**-~** 

# , \ 

# , \ I \ 

# / 1' ' 

# -w-

1 

### L ' 

# -

--- -- 

# -- 

# . - - 

# -- - 

# - - 

# - - 

# -- El Fly a 4 point square box counter-clockwise while keeping the aircraft nose facing in your direction.

I I 1 I I 

# , , 

# 7i f1**----- -----~**  I \ I \ I \ I I I

## -==~::::=:;:***=" ,......_,:::::::==~==--**  

# • ________

# ,. 

# ...**----------·**

# Advanced Flight Maneuvers 

# <* * *) !JI Fly a 4 point square box clockwise and rotate the phantom in the direction of travel.



# ' ' ' ' 

# _.

# ..**----------· ~~**  Fly a circle counter-clockwise and keep the aircraft nose pointed in the direction of travel. Be sure to keep the altitude the same and the circle as uniform as possible.



# B Fly a circle counter-clockwise with the aircraft nose pointed at the center ofthe circle. Be sure to keep the altitude the same and the circle as uniform as possible.



# _._ _____ _ _ 

# ........ ......


## ......... 

# , ,

# Advanced Flight Maneuvers 

# <* * *) D Fly a figure 8 without rotating the Phantom. Be sure to keep the altitude the same and the circle as uniform as possible.



# ----- 

# •
----- _ 

# .... ......... 

# , ,

Fly a Figure 8 with the aircraft nose of the Phantom pointed in the direction of travel. Be sure to keep the altitude the same and the circle as uniform as possible

. 

# w**-- --------** **~ ~** **'~** ,

# ~**-- -----~----~-------** **~**

# ~ 

# - -----,.. 

# . '...... .,.,""" 

# -·---- .---

Fly Figure 8 patterns while experimenting with different orientations. For example, aircraft nose always pointed in a given direction or opposite/left/right the direction of travel, etc. Be sure to keep the altitude thesame and the circle as uniform as possible

.
2014 Non-Employee Director Compensation Plan Effective 112014Adopted12122013b


Exhibit 10.1


WEX Inc.
Non-Employee Director Compensation Plan


Effective January 1, 2014
 
Adopted December 12, 2013 


Annual Cash Retainers 


The Company shall pay each non-employee board member the following annual cash retainer(s) based upon his or her service. All payments hereunder shall be made in equal quarterly amounts. 


	
			
	Annual Lead Director Cash Retainer
	$
	75,000

	Annual Director Cash Retainer (other than Lead Director)
	$
	50,000

	Audit Committee Chair Cash Retainer
	$
	30,000

	Compensation Committee Chair Cash Retainer
	$
	20,000

	Finance Committee Chair Cash Retainer
	$
	20,000

	Governance Committee Chair Cash Retainer
	$
	15,000

	Finance Committee Member Cash Retainer (other than Committee Chair)
	$
	10,000

	Audit Committee Member Cash Retainer (other than Committee Chair)
	$
	15,000

	Compensation Committee Member Cash Retainer (other than Committee Chair)
	$
	10,000

	Governance Committee Member Cash Retainer (other than Committee Chair)
	$
	7,500






Equity Retainers


All directors other than the Lead Director shall, at the time of the annual stockholders’ meeting (“ASM”), shall be granted a number of restricted stock units (“RSUs”) worth the equivalent of $110,000 at the then current stock price.  Such RSUs will vest annually. 


The Lead Director shall, at the time of the ASM, shall be granted a number of RSUs worth the equivalent of $135,000 at the then current stock price.  Such RSUs will vest annually. 


New Director Equity Grants


All new directors shall be granted a number of restricted stock units (“RSUs”) worth the equivalent of $50,000 at the then current stock price. Such RSUs will vest annually and will be granted at the next ASM after their appointment. 


Fee Deferral


Directors may defer all or part of their cash fees and equity retainers into deferred stock units which will be payable in Company shares to the Director only upon termination from Board Service. 


Expense Reimbursement 


Directors are reimbursed by the Company for their out-of-pocket travel and related expenses incurred in attending all Board and committee meetings. 


Pro-ration of Annual Cash Retainers for New Directors 


To the extent a director is appointed at a time other than the ASM, any Annual Cash Retainers will be prorated.

S:\WEX Corp\Board of Directors\Committees\Compensation Committee\Director Compensation Plan\2014 Non-Employee Director Compensation Plan.Effective 1.1.2014.Adopted.12.12.2013.b.docx
EXHIBIT 32

                            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 China  Direct  Trading
Corporation  on Form 10-QSB for the period  ending March 31, 2006, as filed with
the Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I,
Howard  Ullman,  Chief  Executive/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 the best of my knowledge and belief:

         (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/    Howard Ullman
--------------------
Howard Ullman
CEO, President and Chairman
(Principal Executive and Financial Officer)


May 15, 2006


A signed  original of this written  statement  required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the  electronic  version of this written  statement
has been  provided  to the  Company  and will be  retained  by the  Company  and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.