alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4659 

To amend the USA PATRIOT ACT to extend the sunset of certain provisions 

of such Act. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 31, 2006 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Select Committee on 

Intelligence (Permanent Select), for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions 

as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To amend the USA PATRIOT ACT to extend the sunset 

of certain provisions of such Act. 

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

3 SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF THE 

4 USA PATRIOT ACT. 

5 Section 224(a) of the Uniting and Strengthening 

6 America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to 

7 Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA PATRIOT ACT) 

8 Act of 2001 (Public Law 107–56; 115 Stat. 295) is 
2 

•HR 4659 IH 

1 amended by striking ‘‘February 3, 2006’’ and inserting 

2 ‘‘March 10, 2006’’. 

Æ
Order issued November 14 , 2012



### In The 

## Tourt of Apprats .Fi1tIi Distritt of &z.xa,t1 at Dallas

No. 05-12-01437-CV IN RE KIELLE MCNEAL, Relator Original Proceeding from 

### the Criminal District Court No. 5

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F08-47896-L



### ORDER Before Justices Moseley, FitzGerald, and Myers Based on the Court's opinion of this date, we DISMISS relator's petition for writ of mandamus. We 

### ORDER that relator bear the costs of this original proceeding.
Exhibit 35.4

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

AnnualStatementastoCompliance

FortheYear Ended December31,2021

 

|                                            |
|--------------------------------------------|
| CitigroupCommercialMortgageSecuritiesInc., |
| Series2017-CD5                             |

 

PursuanttoSection3.01(37)oftheSubservicingAgreementgoverningthereferencedtransaction(the “Servicing Agreement”), Iherebyattestthat:

 

|   | i. | A review of the activities and performance of Berkadia as Subservicer during theperiodhas been madeunder my supervision. |   |
|--------|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|

 

|   | ii. | To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, Berkadia as Subservicer hasfulfilled, in all material respects, its obligations under this Subservicing Agreementthroughout the period and no default by the Subservicer under the SubservicingAgreementhas occurredand is continuing. |   |
|--------|-----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|

 

Berkadia,

 

 

Mark E. McCool

President

February10,2022

 

 

 

 

Inv.228Lib.A
No. 11-132.

#### Balbir Sohal, Petitioner v. Darrell and Jane Smith Family Partnership, et al.

565 U.S. 943, 132 S. Ct. 403,

181 L. Ed. 2d 258,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 7276.

October 11, 2011.

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

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-7305

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

DEMETRIUS DWAYNE SWINTON, a/k/a Meat, a/k/a Million Dolla Meat,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Beaufort. 

Richard Mark Gergel, District Judge. (9:17-cr-00945-RMG-1)

Submitted: June 13, 2024 Decided: June 18, 2024

Before RUSHING and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Demetrius Dwayne Swinton, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 23-7305 Doc: 7 Filed: 06/18/2024 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Demetrius Dwayne Swinton seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his

Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for relief from the district court’s prior order denying relief 

on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or 

judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B). See generally United 

States v. McRae, 793 F.3d 392, 400 & n.7 (4th Cir. 2015). A certificate of appealability 

will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 

U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies 

this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists could find the district court’s 

assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v. Davis, 580 U.S. 

100, 115-17 (2017). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the 

prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable and that 

the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Gonzalez v. 

Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 140-41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)). 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Swinton has not 

made the requisite showing. We deny Swinton’s pending motions to supplement his 

informal brief and for judicial notice. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability 

and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

USCA4 Appeal: 23-7305 Doc: 7 Filed: 06/18/2024 Pg: 2 of 2
No. 11-6225.

#### Linwood Batts, Jr., Petitioner v. United States.

565 U.S. 960, 132 S. Ct. 436,

181 L. Ed. 2d 289,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 7147.

October 11, 2011.

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

Justice Kagan took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.

Same case below, 425 Fed. Appx. 210.
<page>


EXHIBIT 32.01

CERTIFICATION OF PRESIDENT 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 Morgan Stanley Charter
Graham L.P. (the ?Partnership?) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended
September 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the ?Report?), I, Walter Davis,
President of Demeter Management Corporation, the general partner
of the Partnership, 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:
(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
results of operations of the Partnership.









By:   /s/ Walter Davis

Name:		Walter Davis
Title:	President of Demeter Management Corporation,
			the general partner of the Partnership

Date:		November 14, 2006
No. 11-5457.

#### Jack J. Minicone, Jr., Petitioner v. Robert Werlinger, Warden.

565 U.S. 1063, 132 S. Ct. 757,

181 L. Ed. 2d 490,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 8546.

November 28, 2011.

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

Same case below, 430 Fed. Appx. 84.
**EXHIBIT 35.1**

 

**SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT**

**New Holland Credit Company, LLC**

 

The undersigned, a duly authorized officer of New Holland Credit Company, LLC (“NHCC”), as Servicer pursuant to the Sale and Servicing Agreement dated as of July 1, 2017 (as amended from time to time, the “Sale and Servicing Agreement”) by and among NHCC, CNH Capital Receivables LLC and CNH Equipment Trust 2017-B, does hereby certify that:

 

1.                                      NHCC is Servicer under the Sale and Servicing Agreement.

 

2.                                      The undersigned is duly authorized as required pursuant to the Sale and Servicing Agreement to execute and deliver this Certificate to the Indenture Trustee.

 

3.                                      This Certificate is delivered pursuant to Section 4.9(a) of the Sale and Servicing Agreement and Item 1123 of Regulation AB.

 

4.                                      A review of the Servicer’s activities during the 12 month period ending (and including) December 31, 2018 and of its performance under the Sale and Servicing Agreement has been made under my supervision.

 

5.                                      To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Sale and Servicing Agreement in all material respects throughout the 12 month period ending (and including) December 31, 2018.

 

6.                                      IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has duly executed this Certificate this 25th day of March, 2019.

 
| March 25, 2019 |   |   |               |
|---------------------|--------|--------|--------------------|
|                |   |   |               |
|                |   | By:    | /s/ Brett D. Davis |
|                |   | Name:  | Brett D. Davis     |
|                |   | Title: | President          |

 

----
No. 11-7137.

#### David Damont Ward, Petitioner v. United States.

565 U.S. 1085, 132 S. Ct. 829,

181 L. Ed. 2d 537,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 8804.

December 5, 2011.

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

Same case below, 439 Fed. Appx. 258.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                          17,033
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    7,487
<ALLOWANCES>                                       537
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                       3,654,866
<DEPRECIATION>                                 270,065
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,628,104
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                      1,487,277
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,973,475
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,628,104
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               145,889
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   64,514
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              26,835
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 40,153
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             37,171
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   111,092
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.61
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.52


</TABLE>
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE

F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER ON M OTION FOR E N B ANC R ECONSIDERATION

Appellate case name: The State of Texas v. Damonte McField

Appellate case number: 01

- 2 0

- 0 0 739

- C R

Trial court case number: 2 301111

Trial court: County Criminal Court at Law No. 8 of Harris County

Date motion filed : June 3, 2022

Party filing motion : Appe ll ee

A majority of the en banc court has voted to deny appellee’s motion for en banc

reconsideration. It is ordered that the motion is denied

.

Judge’s signature:

_____

/s/ Julie Countiss

______ Acting for the En Banc Court *

*En banc court consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Kelly, Goodman, Landau, Hightower,

Countiss, Rivas

- Molloy, Guerra, and Farris

.

Landau, J., dissenting from the denial of en banc reconsideration.

Date:



### ___ A ugust 23, 2022

____
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 148 (Monday, August 3, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 41275]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-20541]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

National Park Service


Northeast Region/Boston Support Office

    In accordance with Public Law 103-332, the National Park Service 
announces that the public review period for the draft Erie Canalway 
report, a special resource study of the New York State Canal System, 
will be extended. Formal public comments regarding the study, which 
includes an environmental assessment, will be accepted until September 
30, 1998.
    A special resource study is used by the National Park Service to 
evaluate a resource for national significance and to assess its 
suitability and feasibility for possible federal designation and 
further National Park Service involvement. Based on the results of this 
assessment, the study presents a range of possible management 
alternatives.
    The draft Erie Canalway report, a special resource study of the New 
York State Canal System, is available for review at most local 
libraries throughout the canal corridor in Upstate New York. Copies are 
also available at the Boston Support Office of the National Park 
Service, 15 State Street, Attn: Ellen Levin Carlson, Boston, MA 02109. 
Call 617-223-5048 for further information. In addition, NPS staff will 
be participating in a number of meetings being sponsored by local 
community groups and institutions throughout the summer. Watch for 
meeting notices in local newspapers and newsletters.
Lawrence D. Gail,
Superintendent.
[FR Doc. 98-20541 Filed 7-31-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-70-P
ApplianceMagazine.com I GE Designs Isobutane Fridge for Smaller Dwellings 

Appliance Magazine.com 

SEIWING 'fIH A'HH':IANCE INOU!HU WORLDWIOe 

GE Designs Isobutane Fridge for Smaller Dwellings 

Oct 6,2010 

GE Appliances plans an early 2011 launch for the first U.S. refrigerator using 

isobutane as a refrigerant, and the company has designed the appliance to fit 

the needs of consumers who are moving back to cities and into smaller 

dwellings. 

To meet the needs of this trend to smaller-size households, the GE 

Monogram line Is offering luxury appliances with more versatile options. The 

Monogram 30-in, fully integrated refrigerator and wine reserve will add a third 

storage compartment - a "convertible" drawer, which can be set for fresh 

foods, frozen foods, or wine storage to add flexibility to smaller kitchens. The 

convertible drawer can be set from negative-6QF to 55QF. 

"Transitioning to city living or smaller spaces does not mean sacrificing on 

luxury, style or innovation In the kitchen," said Merrell Grant, general 

manager, GE brand and advertising. 

The new Monogram refrigerator and wine reserve will be the first in the U.S. 

to use the R600A (isobutane) refrigerant, which has a lower global warming 

impact than refrigerants commonly in the U.S. now. The refrigerators will also 

Page 1 of 1 

~ Printthis page 

use cyclopentane as the insulation foam-blowing agent instead of the higher-emitting HFC foam-blowing agents that 

are commonly used now. 

BacktQBreaking News 

http://www.appliancemagazine.comlnews_print. php?article= 1434814&zone=0&first= 1 10/2812010
Resources

_—— CDSi Resources Self-Assessment

Clinical Decision Support for Immunization (CDSi) resources provide a single, authoritative, implementation-neutral foundation for development and
maintenance of Clinical Decision Support (CDS) engines.

Are you new to the CDSi resources or do you consider yourself an expert? Take this short quiz to check your knowledge about the resources. Based on your
answers you will be directed to our recommended training materials.

CDSi resources translate clinical
recommendations into technical information

Logic Specification
ACIP | |
Recommendations Supporting Data

Updated
CDS Engines
IIS - EHR - HIE
```
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 142 (Friday, July 24, 1998)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 39804-39805]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-19717]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 73

[MM Docket No. 98-125, RM-9301]

Radio Broadcasting Services; Lufkin, TX

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This document requests comments on a petition filed by Russell 
L. Lindley, proposing the allotment of Channel 230A to Lufkin, Texas. 
The channel can be allotted to Lufkin without a site restriction at 
coordinates 31-20-48 and 94-43-30.

DATES: Comments must be filed on or before September 8, 1998, and reply 
comments on or before September 23, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Commission, Washington, DC. 20554. In 
addition to filing comments with the FCC, interested parties should 
serve the petitioner's counsel, as follows: Howard J. Barr, Patricia M. 
Chuh, Lee G. Petro, Pepper & Corazzini, L.L.P., 1176 K Street, N.W., 
Suite 200, Washington, D. C. 20006.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kathleen Scheuerle, Mass Media Bureau, 
(202) 418-2180.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Notice 
of Proposed Rule Making, MM Docket No. 98-125, adopted July 8, 1998, 
and released July 17, 1998. The full text of

[[Page 39805]]

this Commission decision is available for inspection and copying during 
normal business hours in the Commission's Reference Center (Room 239), 
1919 M Street, NW., Washington, DC. The complete text of this decision 
may also be purchased from the Commission's copy contractors, 
International Transcription Services, Inc., 1231 20th Street, NW., 
Washington, DC. 20036, (202) 857-3800, facsimile (202) 857-3805.
    Provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 do not apply 
to this proceeding.
    Members of the public should note that from the time a Notice of 
Proposed Rule Making is issued until the matter is no longer subject to 
Commission consideration or court review, all ex parte contacts are 
prohibited in Commission proceedings, such as this one, which involve 
channel allotments. See 47 CFR 1.1204(b) for rules governing 
permissible ex parte contact.
    For information regarding proper filing procedures for comments, 
see 47 CFR 1.415 and 1.420.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73

    Radio broadcasting.

Federal Communications Commission.
John A. Karousos,
Chief, Allocations Branch, Policy and Rules Division, Mass Media 
Bureau.
[FR Doc. 98-19717 Filed 7-23-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
```
No. 11-118.

#### Norberto Martinez, Petitioner v. United States.

565 U.S. 883, 132 S. Ct. 252,

181 L. Ed. 2d 146,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 5316.

October 3, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.
EXHIBIT 32.1

                            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 Entech Environmental
Technologies, Inc., a Florida corporation (the "Company"), on Form 10-QSB for
the period ended March 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Burr Northrop, President and
Chief Executive 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.

Dated: May 15, 2006.

                                              /s/ Burr Northrop
                                              ----------------------------------
                                              Burr Northrop, President and Chief
                                              Executive Officer of Entech
                                              Environmental Technologies, Inc.
No. 11-5942.

#### Akeem Muhammad, Petitioner v. George Sapp, et al.

565 U.S. 973, 132 S. Ct. 501,

181 L. Ed. 2d 343,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 7674.

October 31, 2011.

Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis denied, and petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit dismissed. See Rule 39.8. As petitioner has repeatedly abused this Court’s process, the Clerk is directed not to accept any further petitions in noncriminal matters from petitioner unless the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) is paid and petition submitted in compliance with Rule 33.1. See Martin v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 506 U.S. 1, 113 S. Ct. 397, 121 L. Ed. 2d 305 (1992) (per curiam).
LESO, Equipment Custody Receipt (ECR)

* Denotes a required field

Law Enforcement Agency Information: 

*Name:

Address:

Phone Number:

1033 Property issued to: 

*Name: (LAST)

(FIRST) 

1033 Property: 

 NSN: 

 MAKE: 

*ITEM NOMENCLATURE:

MODEL:

*SERIAL NUMBER:

ITEM UNIT COST:

*QTY OF ITEM:

Statement of Physical Custody: 

I am a Law Enforcement Officer of the aforementioned Law Enforcement Agency. I have 

physical custody of the item(s) listed above and accept personal responsibility for the property. I 

further understand that failure on my part to exercise responsibility for the care and protection of 

the item(s) listed above could result in pecuniary liability. 

*PRINTED NAME: ______________________________________________

*SIGNATURE: _____________________________________ *DATE: _________________
No. 11-5316.

#### Anthony Akeum Abari, Petitioner v. United States.

565 U.S. 901, 132 S. Ct. 296,

181 L. Ed. 2d 179,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 5414.

October 3, 2011.

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

Same case below, 638 F.3d 847.