alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. 11-459.

#### Prime Healthcare Services Los Angeles, LLC, Petitioner v. Brotman Medical Center, Inc.

565 U.S. 1156, 132 S. Ct. 1095,

181 L. Ed. 2d 978,

2012 U.S. LEXIS 812.

January 17, 2012.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 442 Fed. Appx. 317.
No. 10-1062.

#### Chantell Sackett, et vir, Petitioners v. Environmental Protection Agency, et al.

565 U.S. 1103, 132 S. Ct. 994,

181 L. Ed. 2d 725,

2012 U.S. LEXIS 6.

January 6, 2012.

Motion of Natural Resources Defense Council, et al. for leave to file a brief as amici curiae granted.
# C_2016345EN.01001001.xml

| 21.9.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 345/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.9.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 345/10

---

Special Report No 22/2016

‘EU nuclear decommissioning assistance programmes in Lithuania, Bulgaria and Slovakia: some progress made since 2011, but critical challenges ahead’

(2016/C 345/06)

The European Court of Auditors hereby informs you that Special Report No 22/2016 ‘EU nuclear decommissioning assistance programmes in Lithuania, Bulgaria and Slovakia: some progress made since 2011, but critical challenges ahead’ has just been published.

The report can be accessed for consultation or downloading on the European Court of Auditors’ website: http://eca.europa.eu or on EU Bookshop: https://bookshop.europa.eu

---
No. 11-7204.

#### Giles W. Witherspoon, Petitioner v. Delaware County Court of Common Pleas.

565 U.S. 1126, 132 S. Ct. 1034,

181 L. Ed. 2d 762,

2012 U.S. LEXIS 35.

January 9, 2012.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, Middle District, denied.
#### E. J. Reed and T. H. Moore, Jr., *Appellants,*v. Arena B. Hahn, *Appellee.*

Division B.

Decision filed June 4, 1926.

*Loftin, Stokes & Galkins,*for Appellants;

*E. T. Mcllvaine,*for Appellee.

Per Curiam.

— The decree herein dismissed a bill of complaint seeking specific performance of a contract made by an agent to lease real estate. This was proper, because the authority of the ’agent to execute the contract was denied and not duly proven, and ratification was not shown, therefore the decree is affirmed.

Whitfield, P. J., and Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur.
##### 



Exhibit 32.2 CERTIFICATE OF
CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
OF
AMERICAN CELLULAR CORPORATION I, Bruce R. Knooihuizen, Chief Financial Officer of American Cellular
Corporation (the Company), hereby certify that to the best of my knowledge,
the quarterly report of the Company on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30,
2004, (the Report): a. complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and that b. the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition of the Company at June 30, 2004, and the results of the Companys operations for the period
ended June 30, 2004. August 13, 2004 /s/ BRUCE R. KNOOIHUIZENBruce R. KnooihuizenExecutive Vice President and
Chief Financial Officer
No. 11-7286.

#### Jerome Myers, Petitioner v. Gregory Knowlin, Warden.

565 U.S. 1127, 132 S. Ct. 1038,

181 L. Ed. 2d 764,

2012 U.S. LEXIS 61.

January 9, 2012.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 442 Fed. Appx. 836.
No. 11-7008.

#### Deemario Bomone Magee, Petitioner v. California.

565 U.S. 1121, 132 S. Ct. 1018,

181 L. Ed. 2d 752,

2012 U.S. LEXIS 183.

January 9, 2012.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeal of California, First Appellate District, denied.

Same case below, 194 Cal. App. 4th 178, 123 Cal. Rptr. 3d 689.
JAMES WINSTON BRUMSKIN 

Is inducted into the Defense Personnel Support Center Hall of Fame this eleventh day of July 1996 

for his extraordinary leadership and support as Chief of the Perishable Branch in the Supply 

Operations Division of DPSC’s Subsistence Directorate – and for his continuous outstanding mission 

support throughout his tenure at DPSC –from 1953 to 1983. Mr. Brumskin was a true pioneer in 

supplying perishable food to the military services. He led the development of the global perishable 

food network into the world-class operation customers enjoy today. His innovations included the 

first use of commercial warehouses, and developing and improving DPSC’s worldwide Defense 

Subsistence Offices. The DSOs represented an early and critical effort for both the Defense 

Logistics Agency and DPSC to incorporate commercial business practices decades before the era of 

privatization. 

Hall of Fame Inductees Page 1 of 1

https://www.troopsupport.dla.mil/about_us/brumskin.htm 1/27/2016
No. 11-7479.

#### Ollie Otis Reaves, Petitioner v. United States.

565 U.S. 1132, 132 S. Ct. 1053,

181 L. Ed. 2d 773,

2012 U.S. LEXIS 83.

January 9, 2012.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.

Same case below, 440 Fed. Appx. 140.
No. 11-6737.

#### Marcia T. Turner, Petitioner v. Garabet Khatchikian.

565 U.S. 1083, 132 S. Ct. 824,

181 L. Ed. 2d 533,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 8677.

December 5, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District, denied.

Same case below, 60 So. 3d 403.
No. 11-7527.

#### Guadalupe Olmos-Olvera, Petitioner v. United States.

565 U.S. 1134, 132 S. Ct. 1057,

181 L. Ed. 2d 775,

2012 U.S. LEXIS 52.

January 9, 2012.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.

*776Same case below, 396 Fed. Appx. 163.
No. 10-10930.

#### In re Roy Williams, Petitioner.

565 U.S. 812, 132 S. Ct. 391,

181 L. Ed. 2d 245,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 6353.

October 3, 2011.

Petition for writ of habeas corpus denied.
TEXT ILLEGIBLE OR INCOMPLETE 

Table VIII, Defect No. 203 – Minor defect. Defect No. 103 – 

Major defect (Military purchases).
No. 11-6415.

#### Michael Petros, Petitioner v. Paul Boos, et al.

565 U.S. 1152, 132 S. Ct. 1085,

181 L. Ed. 2d 803,

2012 U.S. LEXIS 492.

January 9, 2012.

Petition for rehearing denied.

Former decision, 565 U.S. 1041, 132 S. Ct. 588, 181 L. Ed. 2d 432, 2011 U.S. LEXIS 8219.
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3051 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3051

  To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend by 2 years the 
            energy efficient commercial buildings deduction.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 30, 2019

Mr. Van Drew (for himself and Mr. Kelly of Pennsylvania) introduced the 
 following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend by 2 years the 
            energy efficient commercial buildings deduction.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Commercial, Low Emissions And Net 
Energy Reduction Buildings Act'' or the ``CLEANER Buildings Act''.

SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF ENERGY EFFICIENT COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS DEDUCTION.

    (a) In General.--Section 179D(h) is amended by striking ``December 
31, 2017'' and inserting ``December 31, 2019''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section shall apply 
to property placed in service after December 31, 2017.
                                 <all>
```
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA 

CARL DEAN EDWARDS, 

Appellant, 

vs. 

THE STATE OF NEVADA; AND THE 

STATE OF NEVADA DEPARTMENT 

OF CORRECTIONS, 

Respondents. 

No. 70531 

FILED 

JUL 2 8 2016 

TRACE K. LINDEMAN 

CLERK F SUPREME COURT 

BY ' 

OEPUTY CLERK 

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL 

This appeal was docketed in this court on June 9, 2016, 

without payment of the requisite filing fee. On that same day a notice was 

issued directing appellant to pay the filing fee within ten days, The notice 

further advised that failure to pay the filing fee within ten days would 

result in the dismissal of this appeal. To date, appellant has not paid the 

filing fee or otherwise, responded to this court's notice. Accordingly, cause 

appearing, this appeal is dismissed. 

It is so ORDERED. 

CLERK OF THE SUPREME COURT 

TRACE K. LINDEMAN 

BY: 

cc: Hon. Kimberly A. Wanker, District Judge 

Carl Dean Edwards 

Attorney General/Carson City 

Nye County District Attorney 

Nye County Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

CLERK'S ORDER 

(0)-1947 4.0eix,
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE>  5
<MULTIPLIER>    1,000
       
<S>                                       <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                             3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                           JAN-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                              AUG-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                                OCT-31-1998
<CASH>                                                            42009
<SECURITIES>                                                          0
<RECEIVABLES>                                                     80739
<ALLOWANCES>                                                       2250
<INVENTORY>                                                      139932
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                                 277790
<PP&E>                                                            59058
<DEPRECIATION>                                                    11011
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                                   451477
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                             97048
<BONDS>                                                          176086
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                                 0
<PREFERRED>                                                           0
<COMMON>                                                              0
<OTHER-SE>                                                        94139
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                     451477
<SALES>                                                          125504
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                                 125666
<CGS>                                                            109720
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                    127407
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                                      0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                      0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                                 5464
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                                  (4878)
<INCOME-TAX>                                                     (1104)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                              (3774)
<DISCONTINUED>                                                        0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                       0
<CHANGES>                                                             0
<NET-INCOME>                                                     (3774)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                                         0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                         0
        

</TABLE>
No. 11-6852.

#### Craig Bassett, Petitioner v. Kenneth S. Tucker, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, et al.

565 U.S. 1096, 132 S. Ct. 851,

181 L. Ed. 2d 555,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 8938,

December 12, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
No. 11-537.

#### Viewcrest Investments, LLC, et al., Petitioners v. Oregon.

565 U.S. 1094, 132 S. Ct. 856,

181 L. Ed. 2d 552,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 8852.

December 12, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Oregon denied.

Same case below, 239 Or. App. 362, 246 P.3d 520.
No. 11-5306.

#### Peng Thao, Petitioner v. United States.

565 U.S. 900, 132 S. Ct. 295,

181 L. Ed. 2d 179,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 5691.

October 3, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.
Opinion i ssued November 21 , 201 3

In The 

## Court of Appeals For The 

## First District of Texas

NO . 01
- 13
- 00726
- CR

____________ JUSTIN NAQUIN , Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 176 t h District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No
. 1389803

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Pursuant to a plea

- b argain agreement with the State, Justin Naquin pleaded2

g uilty to the offense of a ggra vated a ssault with a deadly w eapon. 1 The trial court accepted the plea agreement and s entenced Naquin to 15 years in prison and certified that this is a plea

- bargain case and there is no right to appeal. L ess than 30 days later, a ppellant filed a pro se notice of appeal

. In a plea bargain case

— that is, a case in which a defendant ’ s plea was guilty or nolo contendere and the punishment did not exceed the punishment recommended by the prosecutor and agreed to by the defendant

— a defendant may appeal only t hose matters that were raised by written motion and ruled on before
trial , or after getting the trial court ’ s permission to appeal. T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 25.2(a)(2).
T he record reflects that Naquin pleaded guilty to the charged offense and t he
trial court assessed the punishment recommended by the State and to which appellant had agreed. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 25.2(a)(2). Appellant does not complain
about the trial court ’ s ruling on a pretrial motion, nor does he have the trial court ’ s permission to appeal. See id

. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. All pending
motions are dismissed as moot.
P ER CURI A M
Panel consists of Justice s Jennings, Sharp and Brown

.

1 See T EX

. P ENAL C ODE A NN . § 22 .0 2 (a)(2)(West Supp. 2013 ).3

Do not publish. T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 47.2( b).
NUMBER 13-07-00717-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

 

DAN UZZELL, Appellant,

v.

WILLIAM T. McGEE, Appellee.

 

On appeal from the 107th District Court 

of Cameron County, Texas.

 

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Yañez, Rodriguez, and Vela

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Rodriguez

Pro se appellant Dan Uzzell filed suit for fraud in Cameron County, Texas against

appellee William T. McGee and others. After a hearing, the trial court granted McGee's

motion to sever and transfer venue. In this accelerated appeal, Uzzell, by one issue,
 Uzzell does not challenge the severance order. 1

2

challenges the trial court's order transferring venue. Appellee contends that the trial 1

court's order transferring venue is interlocutory and not appealable; therefore, this Court

does not have jurisdiction. We agree and dismiss for want of jurisdiction. 

Generally, appellate jurisdiction applies to cases in which a final judgment has been

rendered, or a statute permits interlocutory appeal. Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d

191, 195 (Tex. 2001). Section 15.064 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code

provides that "[i]n all venue hearings, no factual proof concerning the merits of the case

shall be required to establish venue. The court shall determine venue questions from the

pleadings and affidavits. No interlocutory appeal shall lie from the determination." TEX.

CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 15.064(a) (Vernon 2002) (emphasis added). 

In this case, the appeal is from a venue order and not a final judgment.

Furthermore, the statute does not permit interlocutory appeal from a determination of

venue; in fact, it prohibits interlocutory appeal. Id.; Elec. Data Sys. Corp. v. Pioneer Elecs.,

68 S.W.3d 254, 257 (Tex. App.–Fort Worth 2002, no pet.) ("The legislature has provided

that no interlocutory appeal is available from a trial court's determination of a venue

question."). Therefore, this Court does not have jurisdiction. Accordingly, we dismiss the

appeal for want of jurisdiction.

NELDA V. RODRIGUEZ

Justice

Memorandum Opinion delivered and

filed this 22nd day of May, 2008.
No. 11-7873.

#### David Allen Girard, aka David A. Girard, Petitioner v. United States.

565 U.S. 1172, 132 S. Ct. 1129,

181 L. Ed. 2d 1006,

2012 U.S. LEXIS 593,

January 17, 2012.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.

Same case below, 440 Fed. Appx. 894.
116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3172 

AN ACT 

To provide that inclined sleepers for infants and crib bumpers shall be considered banned hazardous products under 

section 8 of the Consumer Product Safety Act, 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, 
2 

•HR 3172 EH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Safe Sleep for Babies 

3 Act of 2019’’. 

4 SEC. 2. BANNING OF INCLINED SLEEPERS FOR INFANTS. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 180 days after the 

6 date of enactment of this Act, inclined sleepers for infants, 

7 regardless of the date of manufacture, shall be considered 

8 a banned hazardous product under section 8 of the Con9 sumer Product Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 2057). 

10 (b) INCLINED SLEEPER FOR INFANTS DEFINED.— 

11 In this section, the term ‘‘inclined sleeper for infants’’ 

12 means a product with an inclined sleep surface greater 

13 than ten degrees that is intended, marketed, or designed 

14 to provide sleeping accommodations for an infant up to 

15 1 year old. 

16 SEC. 3. BANNING OF CRIB BUMPERS. 

17 (a) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 180 days after the 

18 date of enactment of this Act, crib bumpers, regardless 

19 of the date of manufacture, shall be considered a banned 

20 hazardous product under section 8 of the Consumer Prod21 uct Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 2057). 

22 (b) CRIB BUMPER DEFINED.—In this section, the 

23 term ‘‘crib bumper’’— 

24 (1) means any material that is intended to 

25 cover the sides of a crib to prevent injury to any crib 

26 occupant from impacts against the side of a crib or 
3 

•HR 3172 EH

1 to prevent partial or complete access to any openings 

2 in the sides of a crib to prevent a crib occupant from 

3 getting any part of the body entrapped in any open4 ing; 

5 (2) includes a padded crib bumper, a supported 

6 and unsupported vinyl bumper guard, and vertical 

7 crib slat covers; and 

8 (3) does not include a non-padded mesh crib 

9 liner. 

Passed the House of Representatives December 16, 

2019. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 
116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3172 

AN ACT 

To provide that inclined sleepers for infants and 

Product Safety Act, and for other purposes. ardous products under section 8 of the Consumer crib bumpers shall be considered banned haz-
************************

• MONOGRAPH NO.: 2A1

************************

ITEM: Applesauce, Semisolid (ASC)

NSN: 8915-01-277-7430 ITEM SPECIFICATION: US STD for Grades

APPROXIMATE CALORIC VALUE PER SERVING: 97

CHARACTERISTICS OF ITEM:

 APPEARANCE: Light yellow color, bright.

 ODOR: Applesauce.

 FLAVOR: Sweet.

 TEXTURE: Smooth.

 ESTIMATED SHELF-LIFE AT 70 DEGREES F: 36 months

 80 DEGREES F: 30 months

 90 DEGREES F: 20 months

 100 DEGREES F: 9 months

EXPECTED DETERIORATIVE CHANGES:

 APPEARANCE: Dull, slightly brown color.

 ODOR: Slightly sour.

 FLAVOR: Slightly sour applesauce.

 TEXTURE: Watery with fine pulp.

UNIQUE EXAMINATION/TEST PROCEDURES: None.

SPECIAL NOTES: Product is packed in #2-1/2 can. Can is designed

to yield 6 portions of approximately 1/2 cup each (128 grams).
SHADE STANDARD AND TOLERANCE EVALUATION REQUEST

Submit #:____________________________

Date:_______________________________

Supplier Name/POC:___________________________________________________________ 

Fabric (Style & Color):__________________________________________________________ 

Description (Fiber Content & Construction):_________________________________________

Contract #:___________________________________________________________________ 

Purchase Description #:_________________________________________________________ 

Purchase Description Name:_____________________________________________________ 

Sample Identification # (roll/piece #):_______________________________________________

Material is used for: ____Basic Shell Material _____ Lining Material

____ Reinforcement Material _____ Pocketing Material

____ Other (list here: _____________________________________) 

Evaluate against Shade Standard # /Color: __________________________________________

Submitting for: ____ Shade Standard for substrate (must keep sufficient fabric on hand to 

 set up government standard roll in the event that this is approved)

____ Shade Limit (list limit here _________________________________) 

____ Not Submitting at this time--please explain why__________________ 

____________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________

Other Comments: _____________________________________________________________

Send results to (list email): ______________________________________________________

************************************************************************************************************
Exhibit 35.8



|     |  |                                                                                                           |  | 
|---- |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | 
|LOGO |  | Commercial Mortgage Servicing D1050-084, 8th Fl 401 South Tryon Street
Charlotte, NC 28202 1-800-326-1334 |  | 



ANNUAL STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE

Reference is hereby made to that certain Trust and Servicing Agreement dated as of June 9, 2017, by and among Morgan Stanley Capital I
Inc., as Depositor, Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as Servicer, Aegon USA Realty Advisors, LLC, as Special Servicer, Wilmington Trust, National Association, as Trustee and Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as Certificate Administrator
and Custodian with respect to Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series 2017-GM (the Agreement). Capitalized terms used herein not otherwise defined shall have the meanings assigned in
the Agreement.

Pursuant to Section 10.8 of the 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 June 9, 2017 through December 31, 2017 (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 the Agreement in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period.
| | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this Certificate as of the 28th day of
February 2018.



|                        
|------------------------
|LOGO                    
|Daniel Bober            
|Executive Vice President
|Wells Fargo Bank        



|                       |  |     
|---------------------- |  | ----
|Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. |  | LOGO