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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                          63,774
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   77,727
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,190
<INVENTORY>                                     11,788
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               160,672
<PP&E>                                         909,269
<DEPRECIATION>                                 363,444
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 745,554
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          113,644
<BONDS>                                        156,693
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           355
<OTHER-SE>                                     443,858
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   745,554
<SALES>                                         63,480
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                65,005
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   13,150
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                33,936
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,688
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 11,655
<INCOME-TAX>                                     5,456
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              6,199
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     6,199
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.17
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.17
        

</TABLE>
# C_2021471EN.01005501.xml

| 22.11.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 471/55 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.11.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 471/55

---

Action brought on 24 September 2021 — B&Bartoni v EUIPO — Hypertherm (Welding torches (part of -))

(Case T-617/21)

(2021/C 471/78)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: B&Bartoni spol. s r.o. (Dolní Cetno, Czech Republic) (represented by: E. Lachmannová, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Hypertherm, Inc. (Hanover, New Hampshire, United States)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the design at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Design at issue: European Union design 1 292 122-0001

Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 16 July 2021 in Case R 2843/2019-3

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 4(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 4(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002.

---
EX-4.67



 Exhibit 4.67 

Supplementary Agreement to the 

Web Layout Copyright License Agreement 

This second supplementary agreement to the web layout copyright license agreement (this “Supplementary Agreement”) is entered
into in Beijing on August 15, 2013 by and between: 
 Licensor: Baidu Online Network Technology (Beijing) Co., Ltd. 

Address: 3/F, Baidu Campus, No.10, Shangdi 10th Street, Haidian District, Beijing (“Party
A”) 
 Licensee: Beijing BaiduPay Science and Technology Co., Ltd. 

Address: Room 301, 3/F, Building D, No.18 South Zhongguancun Street, Haidian District, Beijing (“Party B”) 

(Collectively, the “Parties”) 
 WHEREAS,

  

	1.	Licensor and Licensee have made a certain Web Layout Copyright License Agreement dated March 1, 2004 (the “Original Agreement”). Through friendly negotiation, the Parties amend the Original
Agreement on August 15, 2013 with respect to the following: 

  

	 	(a)	Amend Section 6.1 to: this Agreement shall be executed and effective at the same time at the date first written above. Unless otherwise expressly stated in the Agreement, this Agreement shall be valid permanently.


  

	 	(b)	Delete Section 6.2. 

  

	 	(c)	The Parties agree and confirm: this Supplementary Agreement is an integral part of the Original Agreement. In the event of any discrepancy between this Supplementary Agreement and the Original Agreement, this
Supplementary Agreement shall prevail. For the parts not stated in this Supplementary Agreement shall be in accordance with the Original Agreement. 

  

	2	This Supplementary Agreement shall be effective upon execution by both Parties. 

  

	3	This Supplementary Agreement shall be executed in two originals, with each party holding one original. Each original has the same legal effect. 


[Signature page follows] 







 Licensor: Baidu Online Network Technology (Beijing) Co., Ltd. 

/s/ Baidu Online Network Technology (Beijing) Co., Ltd. 

Licensee: Beijing BaiduPay Science and Technology Co., Ltd. 

/s/ Beijing BaiduPay Science and Technology Co., Ltd. 

  
 2
|  (logo) WELLS

           FARGO | Commercial Mortgage Servicing

D1086-120, 12th Floor 

550 South Tryon Street 

Charlotte, NC 28202

1-800-326-1334 |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

ANNUAL STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE

 

 

Reference is hereby made to that certain Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of April 1, 2015, by and among WELLS FARGO COMMERCIAL MORTGAGE SECURITIES, INC., as Depositor, WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Master Servicer, RIALTO CAPITAL ADVISORS, LLC, as Special Servicer, TRIMONT REAL ESTATE ADVISORS, INC, as Trust Advisor, WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Certificate Administrator, as Tax Administrator and as Custodian and WILMINGTON TRUST, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Trustee, with respect to Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series 2015-NXS1 (the "Agreement"). Capitalized terms used herein not otherwise defined shall have the meanings assigned in the Agreement.

 

Pursuant to Section 11.12 of this Agreement, I, Daniel Bober, Executive Vice President of Commercial Mortgage Services do hereby certify that:

 

1. A review of the activities of the Master Servicer during the period from April 1, 2015 through December 31, 2015 (the “Reporting Period”), and of its performance per the Agreement 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 obligations under this Agreement in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period.

 

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this Certificate as of the 4th day of March 2016.

 

 

/s/ Daniel Bober

Daniel Bober

Executive Vice President

Wells Fargo Bank

 

|  Wells Fargo Bank, N.A |  (logo) Together we’ll go far

  |
|-----------------------------|--------------------------------------------------|
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 8304 

To prohibit the disbursement of funds to entities owned or controlled by 

individuals with executive or managerial authority over the operations 

of political committees, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 17, 2020 

Mr. MALINOWSKI (for himself and Mr. GALLAGHER) introduced the following 

bill; which was referred to the Committee on House Administration 

A BILL 

To prohibit the disbursement of funds to entities owned 

or controlled by individuals with executive or managerial 

authority over the operations of political committees, 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. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Stopping Corrupt Ac5 tors from Making Political Action Committees Act’’ or the 

6 ‘‘SCAM PAC Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 8304 IH

1 SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON DISBURSEMENT OF FUNDS TO EN2 TITIES OWNED OR CONTROLLED BY INDIVID3 UALS WITH AUTHORITY OVER OPERATIONS 

4 OF POLITICAL COMMITTEES. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 302 of the Federal Elec6 tion Campaign Act of 1971 (52 U.S.C. 30102) is amended 

7 by adding at the end the following new subsection: 

8 ‘‘(j)(1) A political committee may not make disburse9 ments to an entity owned or controlled in whole or in part 

10 by an individual, or by an immediate family member of 

11 an individual— 

12 ‘‘(A) who is authorized to carry out executive or 

13 managerial authority over the operation of the com14 mittee; 

15 ‘‘(B) who is authorized to solicit or disburse 

16 funds for or on behalf of the committee; or 

17 ‘‘(C) who is an employee of the committee 

18 (whether paid or unpaid) and who provides the com19 mittee with professional services (other than ac20 counting or legal services) relating to the commit21 tee’s campaign or fundraising strategy. 

22 ‘‘(2) A political committee may not employ or allow 

23 to volunteer on behalf of the committee an individual who 

24 owns or controls an entity that has accepted disburse25 ments made from any political committee in violation of 

26 paragraph (1). 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 8304 IH

1 ‘‘(3) In this subsection, the term ‘immediate family 

2 member’ means, with respect to an individual, a parent, 

3 parent-in law, grandparent, child, child-in law, grandchild, 

4 spouse, or sibling.’’. 

5 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

6 subsection (a) shall apply with respect to disbursements 

7 made on or after the date that is 90 days after the date 

8 of enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
No. 11-10163.

#### Davis *v.*Rozum, Superintendent, State Correctional Institution at Somerset, et al.

C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.
# HAVCP BUDGET WORKSHEET

# Year 4 Budget

# Year 5 Budget
Exhibit 34.2



Report of
Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm



The Board of Directors

U.S. Bank National Association



We
have examined management’s assertion, included in the accompanying Report on Assessment of Compliance with Applicable Servicing
Criteria, that U.S. Bank National Association (the “Company”) complied with the servicing criteria set forth in Item
1122 (d) of the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Regulation AB for the U.S. Bank Corporate Trust Asset-Backed Securities
Platform (the “Platform”), for which the Company providestrustee, securities administration, registrar or paying
agent services, as of and for the year ended March 31, 2015, except forservicing criteria 1122 (d)(1)(i)-(iv), 1122 (d)(2)(i), 1122 (d)(2)(iii), 1122 (d)(2)(v)-(vii), 1122 (d)(3)(i), and 1122 (d)(4)(i)-(xv),
which the Company has determined are not applicable to the activities performed by them with respect to the servicing platform
covered by this report. Management is responsible for the Company’s compliance with those servicing criteria. Our responsibility
is to express an opinion on management’s assertion about the Company’s compliance with the servicing criteria based
on our examination.



Our examination was conducted in accordance
with attestation standards established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, as adopted by the Public Company
Accounting Oversight Board (United States) and, accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Company’s
compliance with the applicable servicing criteria and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances.
Our examination included testing of less than all of the individual asset-backed transactions and securities that comprise the
Platform, testing of less than all of the servicing activities related to the Platform, and determining whether the Company processed
those selected transactions and performed those selected activities in compliance with the servicing criteria. Furthermore, our
procedures were limited to the selected transactions and servicing activities performed by the Company during the period covered
by this report. Our procedures were not designed to determine whether errors may have occurred either prior to or subsequent to
our tests that may have affected the balances or amounts calculated or reported by the Company during the period covered by this
report for the selected transactions or any other transactions. We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis for
our opinion. Our examination does not provide a legal determination on the Company’s compliance with the servicing criteria.



In our opinion, management’s assertion
that the Company complied with the aforementioned servicing criteria as of and for the year ended March 31, 2015, for the U.S.
Bank Corporate Trust Asset-Backed Securities Platform is fairly stated, in all material respects.



|                       | 
|---------------------- | 
|                       | 
|Minneapolis, Minnesota | 
|May 29, 2015           |
Cost of NIST Cylinder Analysis, Report, Cylinder Demurrage and 1-Way Shipping

Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0837

March 3, 2010

The cost to analyze 60 tri-blend (SO2, NO and CO2 with N2 balance gas) EPA Protocol gas 

cylinders and produce an analysis report in a recent Interagency Agreement with the National 

Institute of Standards and Technology was $100,000. This equates to approximately $1,667 per 

cylinder. Average one-way shipping costs are approximately $91 per cylinder, and average 

demurrage (rental) is approximately $7 per cylinder per month from a 2009 EPA Protocol gas 

audit. Total cost of NIST analysis, report, six months cylinder demurrage and shipping back to 

EPA Protocol gas production site is approximately $1,800.

Accessing dockets:

Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or 

in hard copy at the Air and Radiation Docket, EPA West Building, Room 3334, 1301 

Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, D.C. 20460. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 

a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for 

the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the Air and Radiation 

Docket is (202) 566-1742.
U.S. ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION 

1335 East West Highway - Suite 4300 

Silver Spring, MD 20910 

BEFORE THE ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION 

In the Matter of: ) 

) 

Adoption of U.S. Election Assistance ) 

Commission 2019 Succession Plan ) 

) 

CERTIFICATION 

I, Christy McCormick, Chairwoman of the Elect ion Assistance Commission, do hereb y 

certify that on October 18, 2019 the Commission decided by a vote of 3-0 the following 

action(s): 

1. 

U.S. Election Assistance Commission 2019 Succession Plan 

Commissioners McCormick, Hovland, and Palmer approved the recommendation. 

Commissioner Hicks did not return a ballot. 

Attest: 

Dat e Christy McCor

Chairwoman
# Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) Ukraine Factsheet

/ Published May 15, 2023
# C_2021368EN.01003401.xml

| 13.9.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 368/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.9.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 368/34

---

Action brought on 30 July 2021 — Thomas Henry v EUIPO (MATE MATE)

(Case T-452/21)

(2021/C 368/50)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Thomas Henry GmbH (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: O. Spieker, A. Schönfleisch, N. Willich and D. Mienert, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for EU word mark MATE MATE — Application for registration No 18 091 934

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 May 2021 in Case R 406/2021-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council in conjunction with Article 7(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council in conjunction with Article 7(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council in conjunction with Article 7(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council in conjunction with Article 7(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(g) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council in conjunction with Article 7(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(g) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council in conjunction with Article 7(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
2022 EAVS Data Brief: Hawaii EAVS Jurisdictions:

5 

 Voter Registration 

Active Reg. Voters as of Nov. 8, 20221 

764,102 

Reg. Forms Received2* 

151,594 

Total Confirmation Notices Sent3* 

63,259 

Voters Removed from Reg. Rolls4* 

41,308 

Source of Registration Applications5 

Motor Vehicle Dept. 71.7% 

Online 20.3% 

Mail, Email, Fax 7.9% 

Other 0.0% 

In Person 0.0% 

 Voting and Turnout 

Voters Participating By Mode6 

7 Turnout 

40.6% 

In-Person 

Election Day

5,789 

1.4% 

Mail 

402,243 

95.0% 

In-Person

Early 

10,879 

2.6% 

Other 

492 

0.1% 

Total Voting Locations8: 11 

Total Poll Workers9: 44 

Election Technology 

Percentage of Jurisdictions Using...10 

80.0% 

Ballot 

Marking 

Devices 

80.0% 

Scanners 

20.0% 

Electronic

Poll 

Books 

0.0% 

DREs w/o 

VVPAT 

0.0% 

DREs with

VVPAT 

0.0% 

Hand 

Counting 

 Mail Ballots 

• 733,360 mail ballots transmitted11 

• 55.7% of transmitted mail ballots returned by voters12 

• 98.4% of returned mail ballots counted13 

• 1.2% of returned mail ballots rejected14 

• Conducted all-mail election statewide15 

• Allowed drop boxes16 

• Allowed ballot curing17 

 Election Audits18 

-- Access audit 

-- Ballot design audit 

-- Ballot reconciliation 

audit 

-- Compliance/ 

procedural audit 

-- Eligibility audit 

-- Legal audit 

✔ Logic and accuracy 

testing 

✔ Post-election 

tabulation audit 

-- Other 

Notes 

EAVS data and reports may be downloaded at www.eac.gov 

/research-and-data/datasets-codebooks-and-surveys. 

Responses of “Does not apply,” “Data not available,” and “Valid 

skip” are shown as zeroes or dashes. Percentages may not sum 

to 100% because of missing data or rounding. 

* Close of registration for 2020 

general election to close of 

registration for 2022 general 

election. 

1 A1b of EAVS. 

2 A3a of EAVS. 

3 A8a of EAVS. 

4 A9a of EAVS. 

5 Mail, Email, Fax is A4a/A3a. 

In Person is A4b/A3a. Online is 

A4c/A3a. Motor Vehicle Dept. is 

A4d/A3a. Other is the sum of 

A4e–A4l/A3a. May not sum to 

100% because of missing data. 

6 In-Person Election Day is F1b. 

Mail is F1d+F1g. In-Person Early 

is F1f. Other is F1c+F1e+F1h. 

7 F1a of EAVS divided by citizen 

voting age population (CVAP). 

8 D2a of EAVS. 

9 D7a of EAVS. 

10 F3a–f, F5a–F9a of EAVS; 

number of jurisdictions that 

responded “Yes” divided by

number of jurisdictions in 

state/territory. 

11 C1a of EAVS. 

12 C1b/C1a of EAVS. 

13 C8a/C1b of EAVS. 

14 C9a/C1b of EAVS. 

15 Q17 and Q17a of Policy 

Survey. 

16 Q19 of Policy Survey. 

17 Q20 of Policy Survey. 

18 Q36 of Policy Survey. See 

survey questionnaire for full 

definitions of each type of 

audit.
#### COM. v. ROYSTER, T.

1906 EDA 2016

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

09/19/2017

Reargument Denied 11/22/2017

CP-51-CR-0903181-1999 (Philadelphia)

Affirmed
No. 11-9796.

#### Muhammad *v.*Marin County, California.

Ct. App. Cal., 1st App. Dist. Certiorari denied.
#### Frederick BANKS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Felicia LANGFORD, Assistant US Attorney; Jeff Sessions, Attorney General; Robert Cessar, Assistant US Attorney; David Hicton, Assistant US Attorney; Soo Song, Acting US Attorney; Mark Hornak, Judge; Cynthia Reed Eddy, Judge; Mike Pompeo, Director, CIA; Sean Langford, Special Agent; Robert Werner, Special Agent; Timothy Pivnichny, Special Agent; Scott Smith, Special Agent in Charge; Christopher Asher Wray, Director, FBI; Dr. Heather Ross; Adrian Roe, Attorney; US Attorney, Eastern District of NC, Respondents-Appellees.

No. 17-7380

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: January 30, 2018

Decided: February 2, 2018

Frederick Hamilton Banks, Appellant Pro Se.

Before MOTZ and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

*584PER CURIAM:

Frederick Banks appeals the district court’s order dismissing Banks’ complaint, in part, to the extent that Banks sought habeas relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012).* We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. We thus affirm the district court’s judgment. *See Banks v. Langford,*No. 5:17-ct-03057-FL (E.D.N.C. Oct. 2, 2017 & Oct. 26, 2017). 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*

*

 To the extent Banks sought to assert a civil rights action, the district court denied Banks’ application to proceed without prepayment of fees and directed Banks to pay the full filing fee within 14 days of the court's order, and ultimately dismissed Banks’ action when he failed to do so. Because Banks does not challenge this portion of the district court’s order, we need not review it on appeal. *See*4th Cir. R, 34(b).