alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. 11-7468.

#### Henry Davis, Jr., Petitioner v. Burl Cain, Warden.

565 U.S. 1167, 132 S. Ct. 1114,

181 L. Ed. 2d 996,

2012 U.S. LEXIS 719.

January 17, 2012.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
No. 09-6208.

#### D. G., Petitioner v. Louisiana.

559 U.S. 967, 130 S. Ct. 1729,

176 L. Ed. 2d 176,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 2114.

March 1, 2010.

On petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and petition for writ of certiorari granted. Judgment vacated, and case remanded to the Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit, for further consideration in light of Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305, 129 S. Ct. 2527, 174 L. Ed. 2d 314 (2009).

Same case below, 11 So. 3d 548.
No. 09-8091.

#### Jack R. Koch, Petitioner v. Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Attorney General of California, et al.

559 U.S. 949, 130 S. Ct. 1570,

176 L. Ed. 2d 130,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 1328.

February 22, 2010.

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

Same case below, 340 Fed. Appx. 372.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0001067457
<NAME> ROMACORP, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-25-2001
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-25-2000
<CASH>                                           1,618
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,528
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      1,052
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 6,385
<PP&E>                                          61,291
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  85,048
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           16,978
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      (8,365)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    85,048
<SALES>                                         31,796
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                34,213
<CGS>                                           11,677
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   32,923
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     4
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,271
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   (985)
<INCOME-TAX>                                      (344)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               (641)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  1,214
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       573
<EPS-BASIC>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
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 Annual Report on Form 10-K of Golub Capital BDC 3, Inc. and Subsidiaries (the “Registrant”), for the annual period ended September 30, 2018 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), we, David B. Golub and Ross A. Teune, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, respectively, 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 our knowledge:





(1)The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities ExchangeAct of 1934; and





(2)The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial conditionand results of operations of the Company.








Date: December 7, 2018/s/  David B. GolubDavid B. GolubChief Executive Officer/s/  Ross A. TeuneRoss A. TeuneChief Financial Officer
No. 09-8397.

#### Kendrick Latham, Petitioner v. United States.

559 U.S. 955, 130 S. Ct. 1549,

176 L. Ed. 2d 140,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 1183.

February 22, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied.
No. 11-7323.

#### Junious C. Morgan, Petitioner v. United States.

565 U.S. 1100, 132 S. Ct. 864,

181 L. Ed. 2d 563,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 8988.

December 12, 2011.

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

Same case below, 437 Fed. Appx. 354.
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 32

  CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC FINANCIAL REPORT PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and in connection with the Quarterly Report
on Form 10-Q of Pinnacle Airlines Corp. for the quarterly period ended June 30,
2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report"), the undersigned Philip H. Trenary, the President and Chief
Executive Officer, and Peter D. Hunt, the Vice President and Chief Financial
Officer, hereby certify that the Report fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the registrant.

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
     Signature                           Title                         Date
---------------------  ------------------------------------------  -------------
<S>                    <C>                                         <C>
/s/ PHILIP H. TRENARY     President and Chief Executive Officer    August 2, 2005
---------------------
Philip H. Trenary

/s/ PETER D. HUNT      Vice President and Chief Financial Officer  August 2, 2005
---------------------
Peter D. Hunt
</TABLE>
| (logo)  **ncb**  National Cooperative Bank    | 2011  Crystal  Drive  Suite, 8oo  Arlington, VA 22202 |
|----------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

**FORM OF ANNUAL COMPLIANCE STATEMENT**

 

CERTIFICATION

 

BANK 2017-BNK7, Commercial Mortgage Pass-ThroughCertificates, Series 2017-BNK7 (the “Trust”)

 

I, Karyn Mann, on behalf ofNational Cooperative Bank, N.A., as NCB Special Servicer (the “CertifyingServicer”), certify to Wells Fargo Commercial Mortgage Securities, Inc. andits officers, directors and affiliates, and with the knowledge and intent that theywill rely upon this certification, that:

 

1.       I (or Servicing Officers under mysupervision) have reviewed the Certifying Servicer’s activities during thepreceding calendar year between January 1, 2018 to December 31, 2018 (the “ReportingPeriod”) and the Certifying Servicer’s performance under the Pooling andServicing Agreement; and

 

2.       To thebest of my knowledge, based on such review, the Certifying Servicer hasfulfilled all of its obligations under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement inall material respects during the Reporting Period.

 

 

Date:February 6, 2019

 

 

NATIONALCOOPERATIVE BANK, N.A.,

asNCB Special Servicer

By:/s/ Karyn Mann

Name:Karyn Mann

Title:Senior Vice President
(1) Adjusting Price

Base Skim Milk Price for Class I $13.50 CWT 0.965 $13.0275

Advanced Butterfat Pricing Factor $1.6803 LB 3.5 $5.8811

Class I Price $18.9086

(2) Base Price

Base Skim Milk Price for Class I $13.09 CWT 0.965 $12.6319

Advanced Butterfat Pricing Factor $1.8000 LB 3.5 $6.3000

Class I Price $18.9319

(3) Change from Base Price per CWT ($0.0233)

(4) Price change per gallon ($0.0020)

(Line (3) divide by 11.63 gallons/cwt)

(5) Price change per half gallon **

Price change per quart **

Price change per pint **

Price change per 12-oz pg. **

Price change per 1/3 qt. (10-oz) **

Price change per half pint **

(6) Price adjustment per gallon **

Price adjustment per half gallon **

Price adjustment per quart **

Price adjustment per pint **

Price change per 12-oz pg. **

Price adjustment per 1/3 qt. (10-oz) **

Price adjustment per half pint **

**No price adjustment is required this month since the price change per gallon in either direction

is not equal to or greater than +/-$0.0100 (See paragraph (f)(1) of the clause). 

NOTE: Numbers in brackets are negative or decreases, all others are positive or increases.

Monthly EPA Calculation for Class I Milk (Clause 52.216-9032)

Based on USDA Announcement of Advanced Prices and Pricing Factors

Effective Date: July 7, 2013
**Exhibit 34.40**

**KATZ**

**SAPPER**

**& MILLER**

**Report of IndependentRegistered Public Accounting Firm**

Managing Member 

Park Bridge Lender Services LLC 

New York, NY 

We have examined management’s assertion, included in the accompanying Management’s Report on Assessment of 2017 Compliance by Park Bridge LenderServices LLC with Regulation AB Servicing Criteria (“Management’s Report”), that Park Bridge Lender Services LLC (the “Company”) complied with the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of the U.S. Securities andExchange Commission’s Regulation AB as of and for the year ended December 31, 2017, excluding those criteria determined by management and noted as not applicable (N/A) within Exhibit B to Management’s Report. The transactions coveredby this report are only those transactions processed by the Company in its capacity as trust advisor or operating advisor for the asset backed securities transactions (the “Platform”) identified in Management’s Report. ReferenceExhibit A to Management’s Report for the transactions covered by this examination. Management is responsible for the Company’s compliance with the applicable servicing criteria. Our responsibility is to express an opinion onmanagement’s assertion about the Company’s compliance with the applicable servicing criteria based on our examination. 

Our examination wasconducted in accordance with standards of 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. Ourexamination included tests on a sample basis of the servicing activities related to the Platform, determining whether the Company performed those selected activities in compliance with the applicable servicing criteria during the specified period,and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. Our procedures were limited to the selected servicing activities performed by the Company during the period covered by this report and, accordingly, such samplesmay not have included servicing activities related to each asset backed transaction included in the Platform. An examination is not designed to detect noncompliance arising from errors that may have occurred prior to the period specified above orsubsequent to our tests that may have affected the Company’s servicing activities during the period covered by this report. We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our examination does not provide a legaldetermination on the Company’s compliance with the applicable servicing criteria. 

In our opinion, management’s assertion that the Companycomplied with the aforementioned applicable servicing criteria identified in Exhibit B to Management’s Report with respect to the transactions identified in Exhibit A to Management’s Report as of and for the year ended December 31,2017, for the Platform, is fairly stated, in all material aspects. 

/s/ Katz, Sapper & Miller LLP 

New York, NY 

February 15, 2018
No. D-2594.

#### In the Matter of Disbarment of Barry Stephen Tabachnick.

565 U.S. 974, 132 S. Ct. 545,

181 L. Ed. 2d 391,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 7694.

October 31, 2011.

Disbarment entered.

Former order, 564 U.S. 1016, 131 S. Ct. 3053, 180 L. Ed. 2d 869, 2011 U.S. LEXIS 4577.
Montana Twelfth Judicial District Court. County of Hill.

#### STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff, -vs- JOHN CHIEFSTICK, JR., Defendant.

CAUSE NO. DC-10-095

DECISION

On August 13, 2015, the Defendant’s sentence was revoked and he was sentenced to a commitment to the Department of Corrections for a period of five (5) years, for the offense of Count I: Operation of Non-Commercial Vehicle by a Person with Alcohol Concentration of .08 or more, a Felony, in violation of §61-8-406, MCA. The Court recommended the Department of Corrections screen the Defendant for placement in a treatment program or facility, such as WATCh, followed by pre-release. Defendant received credit for 244 days *7previously served. Defendant shall pay all fines, costs, fees, and any other financial obligations ordered by the sentencing court in the original Judgment entered May 2, 2011.

Done in open Court this 4th day of February, 2016.

DATED this 29th day of February, 2016.

On February 4, 2016, the Defendant’s Application for review of that sentence was heard by the Sentence Review Division of the Montana Supreme Court (hereafter “the Division”).

The Defendant was present and was represented by Peter Ohman of the Office of the State Public Defender. The State was not represented.

Before hearing the Application, the Defendant was advised that the Division has the authority not only to reduce the sentence or affirm it, but also to increase it. The Defendant was further advised that there is no appeal from a decision of the Division. The Defendant acknowledged that he understood this and stated that he wished to proceed.

Rule 12, Rules of the Sentence Review Division of the Supreme Court of Montana, provides that, “The sentence imposed by the District Court is presumed correct. The sentence shall not be reduced or increased unless it is clearly inadequate or clearly excessive.” (Section 46-18-904(3), MCA).

The Division finds that the reasons advanced for modification are insufficient to hold that the sentence imposed by the District Court is clearly inadequate or clearly excessive.

Therefore, it is the unanimous decision of the Division that the sentence is AFFIRMED.

Hon. Brenda Gilbert, Chairperson, Hon. Brad Newman, Member and Hon. John Warner, Member.
No. 11-7991.

#### Gordon B. Grigg, Petitioner v. United States.

565 U.S. 1184, 132 S. Ct. 1158,

181 L. Ed. 2d 1029,

2012 U.S. LEXIS 1002.

January 23, 2012.

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

Same case below, 434 Fed. Appx. 530.
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3533 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3533

  To amend title 18, United States Code, to clarify the definition of 
               crime of violence, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 27, 2019

   Mrs. Roby (for herself and Mr. Collins of Georgia) introduced the 
  following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend title 18, United States Code, to clarify the definition of 
               crime of violence, and for other purposes.

    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 ``Combat Violent Crime Act of 2019''.

SEC. 2. AMENDMENT TO THE DEFINITION OF CRIME OF VIOLENCE.

    Section 924(c)(3)(B) of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
     (a) by striking ``by its nature, involves'' and inserting ``, 
based on the facts underlying the offense, involved''; and
    (b) by striking ``may be used'' and inserting ``may have been 
used''.

SEC. 3. APPLICATION.

    (a) In General.--The amendments made by this Act shall apply to any 
offense committed on or after the date of the enactment of this Act.
    (b) Rule of Construction.--The amendments made by this Act shall 
not be construed to create any right to challenge a sentence imposed 
before the date of the enactment of this Act under section 924 of title 
18, United States Code.
                                 <all>
```
SUBSISTENCE INSPECTION MANUAL DPSCM 4155.6

SUBSECTION 225.6

30 JUN 86

CONTRACTOR INSPECTION

Evaluation of Contractor’s Calibration System

I. REFERENCES.

A. MIL-Q-9858, Quality Program Requirements.

B. MIL-I-4520, Inspection System Requirements.

C. MIL-STD-45662, Calibration System Requirements.

D. MIL-HDRK-52, Evaluation of Contractor’s Calibration System.

II. PURPOSE AND SCOPE. This Subsection provides procedures for Subsistence 

evaluation of the contractor’s calibration system and is applicable to all Military 

Quality Assurance Representatives (MQARs) performing origin inspection.

III. RESPONSIBILITIES. 

A. The contractor is required to evaluate the calibration system to assure that the 

measuring and testing equipment is accurate for contractual conformance of 

supplies furnished on DPSC contracts. The contractor is required to provide 

proof of such evaluation in the form of logs or other written documents which 

shall be made available to the MQAR. The MQAR shall review the 

contractor’s written evaluation quarterly (90 days) as a minimum frequency to 

assure that the requirements are being met. More frequent evaluation may be 

initiated based on additional factors such as initial adequacy of calibration 

procedures, changes in procedures, type of equipment and recall frequencies, 

changes in personnel performing calibration of equipment, etc. The MQAR 

may, at their discretion, observe the contractor evaluating the calibration 

system. Failure on the part of the contractor to provide proof of accuracy of 

the calibration system shall be grounds for the MQAR declaring the 

contractor’s calibration system unreliable.

B. Within the technical expertise and capabilities of the MQAR, the contractor’s 

laboratory testing equipment calibration should be reviewed in addition to the 

examination equipment. However, the MQAR’s primary efforts shall be 

concerned with equipment used in examination, e.g., scales, gauges, 

micrometers, calipers, etc.
C. Macro-measuring equipment such as rulers and sieves, which are not damaged 

or in abnormal condition, shall be accepted at face value and are not required 

to be traced to a high standard. Damaged or abnormal macro-measuring 

equipment shall not be used.

BY ORDER OF THE COMMANDER

PATRICIA FENWICK

Chief, Administrative Service Division 

 Office of Installation Services

DISTRIBUTION

 Special

ST-B, ST-E thru ST-H

ST-T, ST-Q, ST-U and ST-V

DoD Deputy Asst (DAIG-IN) – 1

DoD IGROs – 6

DLA-QV – 1

DPSC-IA – 25

DPSC-IAA/Library – 2

This Subsection supercedes Subsection 225.6, 24 Apr 81.

*Denotes Changes.
APP A

DSCPH 4155.2

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

MONOGRAPH NO.: M4R

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

ITEM: Crackers, Vegetable (CKV)

NSN: 8920 01 450 1921 ITEM SPECIFICATION: A-A-20212 (MIL C 44112)

APPROXIMATE CALORIC VALUE: 203 Calories (PRIMARY)

CHARACTERISTICS OF ITEM: 

 APPEARANCE: Square shape; medium, golden color with particles of dehydrated vegetable 

blend throughout; surface contains numerous perforations.

 ODOR: Toasted cracker with dehydrated, vegetable blend.

 FLAVOR: Toasted cracker with dehydrated, vegetable blend

 TEXTURE: Dry, flaky to crumbly.

DEFECTS LIKELY TO OCCUR:

 APPEARANCE: Darkened but not due to overbaking.

 ODOR: Off-odor, stale, rancid, musty.

 FLAVOR: Off-flavor, bitter, rancid

 TEXTURE: Excessively dry, crumbly or hard.

UNIQUE EXAMINATION/TEST PROCEDURES: None

SPECIAL NOTES: Serviceability of the cracker is considered significantly affected when more 

than 25% of the cracker is crushed or in crumbs. This item is vacuum packaged. The sealed 

pouch shall continue to exhibit tight f the contents when a pulling force is applied at the center of 

each side seal. This force shall be applied by holding each side seal between thumb and 

forefinger of each hand, simultaneously exerting a slight pull with both hands.
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 40 (Tuesday, March 3, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 9328]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-4431]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Highway Administration


Environmental Impact Statement: Chautauqua County, NY

AGENCY: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT.

ACTION: Revised notice of intent.

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

SUMMARY: The FHWA is issuing this revised notice to advise the public 
that FHWA will not be preparing an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) 
for the proposed Millennium Parkway project in Chautauqua County, New 
York. A Notice of Intent to prepare an EIS was published in the Federal 
Register on December 27, 2007.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeffrey W. Kolb, Division 
Administrator, Federal Highway Administration, New York Division, Leo 
W. O'Brien Federal Building, 9th Floor, Clinton Avenue and North Pearl 
Street, Albany, New York 12207, Telephone: (518) 431-4127.
    Or
    Alan E. Taylor, Regional Director, NYSDOT Region 5; 100 Seneca 
Street, Buffalo NY 14203, Telephone: 716-847-3238.
    Or
    George P. Spanos, P.E., Director, CCDPF, 454 North Work Street, 
Falconer, New York 14733, Telephone: (716) 661-8400.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FHWA, in cooperation with the New York 
State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT), and Chautauqua County 
Department of Public Facilities (CCDPF) will not prepare an EIS as 
previously intended on a proposal to progress the construction of the 
Millennium Parkway in Chautauqua County, New York. The purpose of the 
Millennium Parkway Project is to improve tractor-trailer truck traffic 
access to the industrial corridor, including the Chadwick Bay 
Industrial Park, from New York (NY) Route 60 (Bennett Road). Based upon 
further review of the project and related impacts it was determined 
that the scope of the project would be reduced to use an alignment that 
would be comprised of a combination of reconstruction of the existing 
portion of Talcott Street between NY Route 60 and CR 81, and the 
construction of a roadway on a new alignment, approximately 1000 meters 
through a previously disturbed, vacant area between CR 81 and CR 82. 
The improvements being considered will not have a significant impact on 
the environment. In light of the minimal environmental impacts a 
Categorical Exclusion with Documentation is being prepared to progress 
the project.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Number 20.205, 
Highway Planning and Construction. The regulations implementing 
Executive Order 12372 regarding intergovernmental consultation on 
Federal programs and activities apply to this program.)

    Authority: 23 U.S.C. 315; 23 CFR 771.123.

    Issued on: February 24, 2009.
Jeffrey W. Kolb,
Division Administrator, Federal Highway Administration, Albany, New 
York.
 [FR Doc. E9-4431 Filed 3-2-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-22-P
# C_2016417EN.01000804.xml

| 11.11.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 417/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.11.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 417/8

---

EUROPEAN RAILWAY AGENCY

Publication of the final accounts for the financial year 2015

(2016/C 417/31)

The complete version of the final accounts may be found at the following address:

http://www.era.europa.eu/The-Agency/BudgetandAccounts/Pages/home.aspx

---