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

Calendar No. 113

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1032

To amend the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 with respect to the authority

of the Overseas Private Investment Corporation to issue insurance and

extend financing.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JULY 17, 1997

Mr. HELMS, from the Committee on Foreign Relations, reported the following

original bill; which was read twice and placed on the calendar

A BILL

To amend the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 with respect

to the authority of the Overseas Private Investment Corporation to issue insurance and extend financing.

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 ‘‘Overseas Private In5 vestment Corporation Amendments Act of 1997’’.
2

•S 1032 PCS

1 SEC. 2. AUTHORITY TO ISSUE INSURANCE AND EXTEND FI2 NANCING.

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 235(a) of the Foreign As4 sistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2195(a)) is amended—

5 (1) by striking paragraphs (1) and (2)(A) and

6 inserting the following:

7 ‘‘(1) INSURANCE AND FINANCING.—(A) The

8 maximum contingent liability outstanding at any one

9 time pursuant to insurance issued under section

10 234(a), and the amount of financing issued under

11 sections 234 (b) and (c), shall not exceed in the ag12 gregate $29,000,000,000.’’;

13 (2) by redesignating paragraph (3) as para14 graph (2); and

15 (3) by amending paragraph (2) (as so redesig16 nated) by striking ‘‘1997’’ and inserting ‘‘1999’’.

17 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Paragraph (2) of

18 section 235(a) of that Act (22 U.S.C. 2195(a)), as redes19 ignated by subsection (a), is further amended by striking

20 ‘‘(a) and (b)’’ and inserting ‘‘(a), (b), and (c)’’.

Calendar No. 113

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1032

A BILL

To amend the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 with

extend financing.Investment Corporation to issue insurance andrespect to the authority of the Overseas Private

JULY 17, 1997

Read twice and placed on the calendar
**Exhibit 21.1**

 

Subsidiaries of 

OYO Geospace Corporation 

 

OYOG, LLC, a Delaware limited liabilitycompany 

OYOG Limited Partner, LLC, a Nevada limited liability company 

OYOG Operations, LP, a Texas limited partnership 

Geospace Technologies, LP, a Texas limited partnership 

Geospace Technologies Corporation, a Delaware corporation 

GeospaceTechnologies Corporation Japanese Branch Office, a Japanese company 

OYO Geospace China, a Chinese company 

OYO Geo Space Canada, Inc., an Alberta corporation 

OYO Instruments LP, aTexas limited partnership 

OYO Instruments Europe Limited, a United Kingdom company 

Geospace Engineering Resources International, LP, a Texas limited partnership 

Geospace Engineering Resources EAME Limited,a United Kingdom company 

Concord Technologies, LP, a Texas limited partnership 

OYO Geospace J.V., LP, a Texas limited partnership 

OYO-GEO Impulse International, LLC, a Russian limited liability company
Order filed September 28, 2017. 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-17-00411-CR

____________

ROBERT DEWAYNE BOLDEN, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 185th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1487229

ORDER

The clerk’s record in this case was due September 7, 2017. See Tex. R. App. P.

35.2. On September 8, 2017, the clerk of this court sent a letter to the Harris County 

District Clerk, informing him the record had not been filed. 

The court has not received a request for an extension of time to file the record. The 

record has not been filed with the court. We therefore issue the following order.

We order the Harris County District Clerk, to file the record in this appeal on or

before October 31, 2017.

PER CURIAM
EX-4.5





 Exhibit 4.5 
  

	
	 CERTIFICATE OF FORMATION

 
 OF

 
 INVITATION HOMES OP GP
LLC



 This Certificate of Formation of Invitation Homes OP GP LLC (the “LLC”), dated as of
December 14, 2016, is being duly executed and filed by the undersigned, as an authorized person, to form a limited liability company under the Delaware Limited Liability Company Act (6 Del. C. §
18-101, et seq.). 
 FIRST. The name of the limited liability company formed hereby is
Invitation Homes OP GP LLC. 
 SECOND. The registered office of the LLC in the State of Delaware shall be located at c/o Corporation Service
Company, 2711 Centerville Road, Suite 400, Wilmington, Delaware 19808. 
 THIRD. The name and address of the registered agent of the LLC for
service of process on the LLC in the State of Delaware shall be Corporation Service Company, 2711 Centerville Road, Suite 400, Wilmington, Delaware 19808. 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this Certificate of Formation as of the date first above written. 

 

			
		
	By:	 	/s/ Kalliope Kefallinos
		 	Kalliope Kefallinos
		 	Authorized Person
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 16**  **- 6659** 

FRANKIE L. MCCOY, SR. , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. PATRICK CONROY, Warden; THOMAS CORCORAN, Ex

- Warden; CHARLES H. BRADBERRY, Case Manager; D. HOWARD, Case Manager; C. ALTON, Case Manager; UNKNOWN NAMED DEFENDANTS, Defendants are sued individual and official capacities , Defendants

– Appellees,
and B. ALLEN, Supervisor Case Management,
Defendant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland , at Baltimore

. J. Frederick Motz , Senior District Judge. ( 1:01

- cv - 01581

- JFM )

Submitted : October 25, 2016 Decided: November 23, 2016

Before DUNCAN and FLOYD , Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.2 Frankie L. McCoy, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Stephanie Judith Lane

Weber, Assistant Attorney General, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.3 PER CURIAM: Frankie L. McCoy, Sr., filed a lawsuit in the district
court under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act, claiming that the Defendants discriminated against him on account of his physical disabilities. The
district court grant ed s ummary judgment to the Defendants on the ground that McCoy settled the asserted claims in a settlement agreement reached in a prior action. McCoy now appeals.
We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reason s stated by the district

court. McCoy v. Conroy , No. 1:01

- cv - 01581

- JFM (D. Md. filed Apr. 15, 2016; entered Apr. 18, 2016). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Household Finance Corporation                                   
HFC Card Funding Corporation                                    
Household Credit Card Master
Trust, Series 1995-1
                                                                
                                                                
                                                                
Original Class A Principal                                      
Number of Class A Bonds (000's)                                 
Original Class B Principal                                      
Number of Class B Bonds (000's)                                 
                                                                
                                                                
Distribution Date                     12/15/98           Total
                                                                
CLASS A                                                         
Beginning Class A Principal       700,000,000.00              
Outstanding
Beginning Class A Pool Factor         0.46666667              
Class A Certificates Exchanged              0.00   800,000,000.00
Class A Principal Distributions             0.00             0.00
Class A Principal Payment Factor      0.00000000             0.00
(per 1,000 Bond)
                                                                
Ending Class A Principal          700,000,000.00   700,000,000.00
Outstanding
Ending Class A Pool Factor            0.46666667       0.46666667
                                                                
Class A Interest                    3,071,959.53    84,544,112.44
Class A Interest Payment Factor       2.04797302      56.36274163
(per 1,000 Bond)
                                                                
                                                                
CLASS B                                                         
Beginning Class B Principal       214,286,000.00              
Outstanding
Beginning Class B Pool Factor         1.00000000              
Class B Principal Distributions             0.00             0.00
Class B Principal Payment Factor      0.00000000       0.00000000
(per 1,000 Bond)
                                                                
Ending Class B Principal          214,286,000.00   214,286,000.00
Outstanding
Ending Class B Pool Factor            1.00000000       1.00000000
                                                                
Class B Interest                      971,468.50    12,970,363.48
Class B Interest Payment Factor      4.533513611            60.53
(per 1,000 Bond)
#### Bhadar SINGH, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 10-70995.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted July 12, 2011.*

Filed July 22, 2011.

Saad Ahmad, Fremont, CA, for Petitioner.

OIL, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Daniel I. Smulow, Trial, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.

Before: SCHROEDER, ALARCÓN, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Bhadar Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen proceedings based on ineffective assistance of counsel. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, *Singh v. Gonzales,*491 F.3d 1090, 1095 (9th Cir.2007), and we deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Singh’s motion to reopen where the motion was filed nearly eleven years after the BIA’s final order of removal, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Singh did not establish that he exercised due diligence during the entirety of this time period, as required to obtain equitable tolling of the filing deadline, *see Singh,*491 F.3d at 1096-97.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
1

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

__________________

NO. 09-21-00028-CV

__________________

IN RE GRAYSON CHARNEY

__________________________________________________________________

Original Proceeding

457th District Court of Montgomery County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 19-08-11322-CV

__________________________________________________________________

ORDER

Grayson Charney, Relator, filed a petition for a writ of mandamus and a 

motion for temporary relief. See Tex. R. App. P. 52. Relator is the defendant in Trial 

Cause Number 19-08-11322-CV, Sheri Strickland, Individually and as Legal 

Guardian of L.D. v. Grayson Charney, et al. Relator seeks a writ compelling the 

Honorable Vincenzo Santini, Judge of the 457th District Court of Montgomery

County, Texas, to vacate a December 18, 2020 order denying a motion to compel a 

neuropsychological examination and a February 8, 2021 order denying a motion to 

reconsider. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221.
2

Relator requests that the trial court proceedings be stayed while this Court 

considers the mandamus petition. The Court finds temporary relief is necessary to 

prevent undue prejudice. It is ORDERED that all trial court proceedings in Trial 

Cause Number 19-08-11322-CV are STAYED until our opinion issues or until 

further order of this Court. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.10(b). No bond is required of 

Relator as a condition to any relief herein granted.

MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RELIEF GRANTED. 

ORDER ENTERED March 10, 2021.

PER CURIAM

Before Golemon, C.J., Kreger and Johnson, JJ.
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S.J. Res. 8 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. J. RES. 8

Providing for the appointment of Stephen M. Case as a citizen regent of 
          the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           February 28, 2011

   Mr. Leahy (for himself, Mr. Cochran, and Mr. Reed) introduced the 
 following joint resolution; which was read twice and referred to the 
                 Committee on Rules and Administration

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
Providing for the appointment of Stephen M. Case as a citizen regent of 
          the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That, in accordance with 
section 5581 of the Revised Statutes (20 U.S.C. 43), the vacancy on the 
Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution, in the class other 
than Members of Congress, occurring by reason of the resignation of 
Phillip Frost of Florida is filled by the appointment of Stephen M. 
Case of Virginia. The appointment is for a term of 6 years, effective 
on the date of enactment of this joint resolution.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 7
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<DEBT-HELD-FOR-SALE>                            17,505
<DEBT-CARRYING-VALUE>                                0
<DEBT-MARKET-VALUE>                                  0
<EQUITIES>                                         118
<MORTGAGE>                                         189
<REAL-ESTATE>                                        0
<TOTAL-INVEST>                                  21,795
<CASH>                                              58
<RECOVER-REINSURE>                               5,623
<DEFERRED-ACQUISITION>                           3,626
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 113,470
<POLICY-LOSSES>                                  5,260
<UNEARNED-PREMIUMS>                                 45
<POLICY-OTHER>                                  21,070
<POLICY-HOLDER-FUNDS>                           81,013
<NOTES-PAYABLE>                                    650
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              250<F1>
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             1
<OTHER-SE>                                       2,376
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   113,470
<PREMIUMS>                                       1,767
<INVESTMENT-INCOME>                                792
<INVESTMENT-GAINS>                                   0
<OTHER-INCOME>                                       0
<BENEFITS>                                       1,429
<UNDERWRITING-AMORTIZATION>                        214
<UNDERWRITING-OTHER>                               589
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    271
<INCOME-TAX>                                        93
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                178
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       178
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.27
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.27
<RESERVE-OPEN>                                       0
<PROVISION-CURRENT>                                  0
<PROVISION-PRIOR>                                    0
<PAYMENTS-CURRENT>                                   0
<PAYMENTS-PRIOR>                                     0
<RESERVE-CLOSE>                                      0
<CUMULATIVE-DEFICIENCY>                              0
<FN>
<F1>REPRESENTS COMPANY OBLIGATED MANDATORILY REDEEMABLE PREFERRED SECURITIES OF
SUBSIDIARY TRUSTS HOLDING SOLELY JUNIOR SUBORDINATED DEBENTURES.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
# C_2019131EN.01005701.xml

| 8.4.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 131/57 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 131/57

---

Action brought on 20 February 2019 — Abarca v EUIPO — Abanca Corporación Bancaria (ABARCA SEGUROS)

(Case T-106/19)

(2019/C 131/66)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Abarca — Companhia de Seguros SA (Lisbon, Portugal) (represented by: J. Pimenta and Á. Pinho, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Abanca Corporación Bancaria, SA (Betanzos, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union figurative mark ABARCA SEGUROS in colours pink, light blue, light green and black — Application for registration No 16 041 519

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 November 2018 in Case R 1370/2018-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | totally alter the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

totally alter the contested decision;

| — | as a consequence, grant EUTM registration No 16 041 519 in its entirety; |
| --- | --- |

—

as a consequence, grant EUTM registration No 16 041 519 in its entirety;

| — | order the other parties to bear the costs of the present proceedings, as well as those of the opposition and appeal proceedings before EUIPO. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the other parties to bear the costs of the present proceedings, as well as those of the opposition and appeal proceedings before EUIPO.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-41247 Conference Calendar

JERRY T. PARDUE, Petitioner-Appellant,

versus N. L. CONNER, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 5:99-CV-115

-------------------- August 24, 2000 Before KING, Chief Judge, and POLITZ and WIENER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Jerry T. Pardue, federal prisoner #06225-112, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition for writ of habeas corpus. Pardue argues that the district court erred in dismissing his § 2241 petition because he is actually innocent, he was denied Due Process, and his prior § 2255 motion was denied in the Seventh Circuit. Pardue’s § 2241 petition attacks alleged errors at trial. Accordingly, his petition should have been brought as a § 2255 motion to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence. See TolliverNo. 99-41247 -2- v. Dobre , 211 F.3d 876, 877-78 (5th Cir. 2000). To the extent that a certificate of appealability (COA) is required, COA is denied. See § 2253(c)(2). Pardue required permission from the Seventh Circuit before he could file a successive § 2255 motion, and he has not obtained any such permission. See §§ 2244, 2255. In addition, even if Pardue had permission to file a successive § 2255 motion, Pardue could file it only in Illinois, and it was improperly filed in Texas. See § 2255. Accordingly, the district court properly dismissed Pardue’s petition. Pardue’s appeal is frivolous because it lacks any arguable basis in law or fact, and it is dismissed as such. See Howard v. King , 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983); 5th Cir. R. 42.2. All outstanding motions are denied. APPEAL DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS; COA DENIED; ALL OUTSTANDING MOTIONS DENIED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             FEB-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-30-1999
<CASH>                                           39945
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    75912
<ALLOWANCES>                                      1905
<INVENTORY>                                     103065
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                233977
<PP&E>                                           60759
<DEPRECIATION>                                   13008
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  303707
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            79804
<BONDS>                                         107861
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            50
<OTHER-SE>                                       37671
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    303707
<SALES>                                         117679
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                117813
<CGS>                                           108039
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   122447
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                3458
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (7568)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       976
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (8544)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (8544)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Robert Lee LASSITER, III, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 08-7530.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Dec. 10, 2008.

Decided: Dec. 30, 2008.

Robert Lee Lassiter, III, Appellant Pro Se. Laura Pellatiro Tayman, Assistant United States Attorney, Newport News, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before WILKINSON, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

*715PER CURIAM:

Robert Lee Lassiter, III, appeals the district court’s orders denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) (2006) motion and petition to reconsider. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *United States v. Lassiter,*No. 2:01-cr-00180-RAJ-All (E.D.Va. June 20 & July 11, 2008).

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED.*