alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
|     |                                                                                                                                                                                                             |
|-----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| (a) | A review of the Servicer’s activities and of its performance under the applicable servicing agreement during the period from January 1, 2019 to December 31, 2019 has been made under my supervision. |
|     |                                                                                                                                                                                                           |
|-----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| (b) | To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all its obligations under the applicable servicing agreement in all material respects throughout the aforementioned period. |

|                                                                                                                           |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                                                                                                           |
| /s/ Ryan M. Hershberger                                                                                                   |
| Ryan M. HershbergerAssistant Treasurer ofFord Motor Credit Company LLC,as Servicer of Ford Credit Auto Owner Trust 2017-C |
Robert JACKSON, Petitioner, v. FLORIDA.

No. 19-7676.

Supreme Court of the United States.

April 6, 2020.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District denied.
Cirilo Mancilla LOPEZ, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 19-7182.

Supreme Court of the United States.

April 20, 2020

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
Joseph Ramon SANTILLAN, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 19-7878.

Supreme Court of the United States.

April 20, 2020

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.
# C_2018230EN.01000901.xml

| 2.7.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 230/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.7.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 230/9

---

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case M.8883 — PPF Group/Telenor Target Companies)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2018/C 230/07)

1.

This notification concerns the following undertakings:

| — | PPF Group N.V. (‘PPF’, Netherlands), |
| --- | --- |

—

PPF Group N.V. (‘PPF’, Netherlands),

| — | Telenor Bulgaria EAD (Bulgaria), |
| --- | --- |

—

Telenor Bulgaria EAD (Bulgaria),

| — | Telenor Magyarország Zrt (Hungary), |
| --- | --- |

—

Telenor Magyarország Zrt (Hungary),

| — | Telenor Real Estate Hungary Zrt (Hungary), |
| --- | --- |

—

Telenor Real Estate Hungary Zrt (Hungary),

| — | Telenor Common Operation Zrt (Hungary), |
| --- | --- |

—

Telenor Common Operation Zrt (Hungary),

| — | Telenor d.o.o. Podgorica (Montenegro), |
| --- | --- |

—

Telenor d.o.o. Podgorica (Montenegro),

| — | Telenor d.o.o. Beograd (Serbia), together the ‘Target Companies’. |
| --- | --- |

—

Telenor d.o.o. Beograd (Serbia), together the ‘Target Companies’.

PPF acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation sole control of each of the Target Companies.

The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.

2.

| — | PPF is a large multinational finance and investment group focusing on financial services, consumer finance, telecommunications, biotechnology, retail services, real estate and agriculture. |
| --- | --- |

—

PPF is a large multinational finance and investment group focusing on financial services, consumer finance, telecommunications, biotechnology, retail services, real estate and agriculture.

| — | The Target Companies are active primarily in telecommunications, acting as mobile operators in the respective countries of their incorporation for which they hold the required telecommunications licenses. |
| --- | --- |

—

The Target Companies are active primarily in telecommunications, acting as mobile operators in the respective countries of their incorporation for which they hold the required telecommunications licenses.

3.

On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of the Merger Regulation. However, the final decision on this point is reserved.

4.

Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. The following reference should always be specified:

M.8883 — PPF Group/Telenor Target Companies

Observations can be sent to the Commission by email, by fax, or by post. Please use the contact details below:

| Email: COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu |
| --- |
| Fax: +32 229-64301 |
| Postal address: |
| European Commission |
| Directorate-General for Competition |
| Merger Registry |
| 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel |
| BELGIQUE/BELGIË |

Email: COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu

Fax: +32 229-64301

Postal address:

European Commission

Directorate-General for Competition

Merger Registry

1049 Bruxelles/Brussel

BELGIQUE/BELGIË

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1 (the ‘Merger Regulation’).

1

---
```
 
 
VIX FUTURES - CBOE FUTURES EXCHANGE                                  Code-1170E1
FUTURES ONLY POSITIONS AS OF 02/18/14                         |
--------------------------------------------------------------| NONREPORTABLE
      NON-COMMERCIAL      |   COMMERCIAL    |      TOTAL      |   POSITIONS
--------------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------
  LONG  | SHORT  |SPREADS |  LONG  | SHORT  |  LONG  | SHORT  |  LONG  | SHORT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
($1000 X INDEX)                                      OPEN INTEREST:      409,111
COMMITMENTS
 107,597  122,520  111,309  170,054  149,932  388,960  383,761   20,151   25,350

CHANGES FROM 02/11/14 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST:     30,260)
  22,247   -3,938   11,098   -1,890   22,495   31,455   29,655   -1,195      605

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADERS
    26.3     29.9     27.2     41.6     36.6     95.1     93.8      4.9      6.2

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS:      185)
      69       57       91       43       41      156      157
```

----

Updated February 21, 2014
# C_2018418EN.01000101.xml

| 19.11.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 418/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.11.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 418/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.8949 — Tenneco/Federal Mogul)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2018/C 418/01)

On 6 August 2018, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32018M8949. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32018M8949. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

---
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1006 

To amend title 39, United States Code, to lower the maximum rate of 

compensation for United States Postal Service employees, and for other 

purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 6, 2013 

Mr. GRIFFITH of Virginia (for himself and Mr. MICHAUD) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

A BILL 

To amend title 39, United States Code, to lower the maximum rate of compensation for United States Postal 

Service employees, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Postal Executive Ac5 countability Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. LIMITS ON EXECUTIVE PAY. 

7 (a) LIMITATION ON COMPENSATION.—Section 1003 

8 of title 39, United States Code, is amended— 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1006 IH

1 (1) in subsection (a), by striking the last sen2 tence; and 

3 (2) by adding at the end the following: 

4 ‘‘(e)(1) Subject to paragraph (2), an officer or em5 ployee of the Postal Service may not be paid at a rate 

6 of basic pay that exceeds the rate of basic pay for level 

7 II of the Executive Schedule under section 5312 of title 

8 5. 

9 ‘‘(2) Not more than 6 officers or employees of the 

10 Postal Service that are in very senior executive positions, 

11 as determined by the Board of Governors, may be paid 

12 at a rate of basic pay that does not exceed the rate of 

13 basic pay for level I of the Executive Schedule under sec14 tion 5312 of title 5. 

15 ‘‘(3) For any fiscal year, an officer or employee of 

16 the Postal Service who is in a very senior executive posi17 tion, as designated under paragraph (2), may not receive 

18 fringe benefits (within the meaning given that term under 

19 section 1005(f)) that are greater than the fringe benefits 

20 received by supervisory and other managerial personnel 

21 who are not subject to collective-bargaining agreements 

22 under chapter 12.’’. 

23 (b) LIMITATION ON BONUSES.—Section 3686 of title 

24 39, United States Code, is amended as follows: 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 1006 IH

1 (1) In subsection (a), by adding at the end the 

2 following: ‘‘Notwithstanding the authority granted 

3 under this section and except as provided under sec4 tion 1003(e), no officer or employee of the Postal 

5 Service shall be paid compensation at a rate in ex6 cess of the rate for level II of the Executive Sched7 ule under section 5312 of title 5.’’. 

8 (2) Subsections (b) and (c) are repealed. 

9 (3) In subsection (d)— 

10 (A) in paragraph (1)— 

11 (i) by striking ‘‘which would not have 

12 been allowable but for the provisions of 

13 subsection (b) or (c);’’; and 

14 (ii) by adding ‘‘and’’ at the end; 

15 (B) in paragraph (2), by striking ‘‘; and’’ 

16 and inserting a period; and 

17 (C) by striking paragraph (3). 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
## COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02

- 13

- 0 0382

- CV

Sheila Wilson

v.

Tarrant County Constables, its Agents, Assigns and/or Successors
in Interest, its Affiants, U. S. Persons

of I nterest (person, firms, corporations and political entities), and Federal National Mortgage Association, its Agents an d/or
Successors in Interest, and its

A ffiants §

§

§

§ From County Court at Law No. 1

o f Tarrant County (2013

- 002366

- 1 )

December 12, 2013

P er C uriam



### JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that

the appeal should be dismissed. It is ordere d that the appeal is dismissed for

want of jurisdiction.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

PER CURIAM
```
 
 
VIX FUTURES - CBOE FUTURES EXCHANGE                                  Code-1170E1
OPTION AND FUTURES COMBINED POSITIONS AS OF 01/28/14          |
--------------------------------------------------------------| NONREPORTABLE
      NON-COMMERCIAL      |   COMMERCIAL    |      TOTAL      |   POSITIONS
--------------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------
  Long  | Short  |Spreads |  Long  | Short  |  Long  | Short  |  Long  | Short
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
($1000 X INDEX)                                      OPEN INTEREST:      376,043
COMMITMENTS
 108,155  173,659   82,545  163,118   96,046  353,818  352,250   22,225   23,793

CHANGES FROM 01/21/14 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST:    -40,913)
 -20,393  -19,195    1,217  -21,742  -22,384  -40,918  -40,362        5     -551

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADER
    28.8     46.2     22.0     43.4     25.5     94.1     93.7      5.9      6.3

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS:      167)
      59       53       73       35       35      137      133
```

----

Updated January 31, 2014
Supreme Court. New York General Term,

November, 1861.

*Gierke, Ingraham*and *Sutherland,*Justices.

#### John Wilson, plaintiff in error, *v.*The People, defendants in error.

Where, in an indictment for forgery, the counterfeit note, which it is charged the prisoner had in his possession, is set forth in *hao verba,*it is unnecessary to allege, in addition, that the note purported to he the act of another.

On the trial of an indictment for forgery, the counterfeit note offered in evidence had upon its face the words, “ Countersigned and registered in the Bank Department,” and the signature of the register, “A. D. Ward.” No such certificate or signature appeared on the note set forth in the indictment. It was held to he no variance.

*179This case came before the court on a writ of error to the ¡New York General Sessions. The questions raised on the trial are sufficiently stated in the opinion of the court

*John Sedgwick,*for the plaintiff in error.

*K J. Waterbury*(District Attorney), for the People.

*By the Court,*Sutherland, J.

There is no question in this case, except the one as to variance and the validity of the indictment. This question I think very plain.

The forged and counterfeited note, which the indictment alleges the prisoner had in his possession,, is set forth in the indictment in *hcec verba;*it was therefore-unnecessary for the indictment formally to allege, in addition, in the words of the statute, that the note purported to be the act of another, &c. *(The People*v. *Rynders,*12 *Wend. R.,*430.)

When the note was produced' on the trial, the counsel for the prisoner objected to its being put in evidence on the ground of variance, the note, as set forth in the indictment, not appearing to have upon it the certificate, “ countersigned and registered in the Bank Department,” and the signature of the register,. “A. D. Ward.”

The objection was overruled, and an exception taken.

The ruling of the court was clearly right. The certificate of the register is no part of the note. As to the bank the note is a valid note without the registering, certificate, &c. The statute requiring the registering, &c., is for the protection of the public, not of the bank. If the bank, without regard to the requirements of the statute, issues notes to. circulate as money, how can it set up its infraction of the law as an excuse for not paying or redeeming the note ? If it could do so, it would be taking advantage of its own wrong, and that no bank or individual can do.

The note set forth in the indictment, without the certificate of the- register, if genuine and actually issued by the bank, would have bound the bank, and would have been the sub*180ject of forgery, and therefore I think the objection, on the ground of variance, not well taken.

It seems that in England forgery might be committed on unstamped paper. (2 *East Cr. L.,*955; *Hawkeswood’s Case.)*The judgment of the General Sessions should be affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.
Erik Leonardus PEETERS, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 19-7754.

Supreme Court of the United States.

March 23, 2020

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
Benjamin ESCOBEDO, Petitioner, v. TEXAS.

No. 19-5537

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 15, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Texas, Fourth District denied.
| (logo) WELLS FARGO | **Commercial  Mortgage Servicing**

D1050-084,  8th Floor

401  South Tryon St.

Charlotte,  NC 28202

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

 

 

**ANNUAL STATEMENT OFCOMPLIANCE**

 

Referenceis hereby made to that certain Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of December1, 2017, by and among UBS COMMERCIAL MORTGAGE SECURITIZATION CORP., asDepositor, WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Master Servicer, RIALTOCAPITAL ADVISORS, LLC, as Special Servicer, WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONALASSOCIATION, as Certificate Administrator, WILMINGTON TRUST, NATIONALASSOCIATION, as Trustee, and PENTALPHA SURVEILLANCE LLC, as Operating Advisorand as Asset Representations Reviewer with respect to Commercial MortgagePass-Through Certificates Series 2017-C6 (the "Agreement"). Capitalizedterms used herein not otherwise defined shall have the meanings assigned in theAgreement. 

 

Pursuantto Section 11.09 of this Agreement, I, Daniel Bober, Executive Vice Presidentof Commercial Mortgage Services do hereby certify that: 

 

1.A review of the activities of the Master Servicer during the period fromDecember 1, 2017 through December 31, 2017 (the “Reporting Period”), and of itsperformance per the Agreement during such period has been made under mysupervision, and 

 

2.To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Master Servicer hasfulfilled all of its obligations under this Agreement in all material respectsthroughout the Reporting Period. 

 

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

 

/s/ Daniel Bober 

DanielBober 

ExecutiveVice President

WellsFargo Bank 

 

 

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

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 107 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. J. RES. 107

    Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States 
  relating to contributions and expenditures with respect to Federal 
                               elections.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 16, 2014

Mr. Yarmuth (for himself, Ms. Lee of California, Mr. Sarbanes, and Mr. 
Cohen) introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred to 
                     the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
    Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States 
  relating to contributions and expenditures with respect to Federal 
                               elections.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled   (two-thirds of each House 
concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an 
amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be 
valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when 
ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States 
within seven years after the date of its submission for ratification:

                              ``Article--

    ``Section 1. Financial expenditures, or in-kind equivalents, with 
respect to a candidate for Federal office, without regard to whether or 
not a communication expressly advocates the election or defeat of a 
specified candidate in the election, shall not constitute protected 
speech, as guaranteed by this Constitution or any amendment to this 
Constitution.
    ``Section 2. Congress shall have the power to enact a mandatory 
public financing system to provide funds to qualified candidates in 
elections for Federal office, which shall be the sole source of funds 
raised or spent with respect to Federal elections.
    ``Section 3. Congress shall have power to enforce the provisions of 
this article by appropriate legislation.''.
                                 <all>
```
## COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02

- 13

- 00239

- CV

DEBORAH BELL APPELLANT

V.

DANNY L. HANEY, LAW FIRM OF COBB MARTINEZ WOODWA RD, AND ATTORNEY DAVID D ENTON APPELLEES

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

FROM COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 2 OF TARRA NT COUNTY

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



### MEMORANDUM OPINION 1 

### AND JUDGMENT

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

We have considered the parties’ “Agreed Motion To Dismiss.” In the

motion, it states that appellant has settled her claims with Cobb Martinez

Woodward, PLLC and David Denton. It is the court’s opinion that the motion to

dismiss the appeal as to appellees Cobb Martinez Woodward, PLLC and David

1 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.2

Denton should be granted; therefore, we dismiss the appeal as to Cobb Martinez

Woodward, PLLC and David Denton

. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a )(2 ), 4 3.2(f).

The appeal shall hereafter be styled Deborah Bell v. Danny L. Haney

.
Appellant’s brief is due T ues day, February 1 8 , 2014

.
Costs of the appeal shall be paid by appellant, for which let execution

issue. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(d).

PER CUR IAM

PANEL: WALKER, MCCOY, and MEIER, JJ.

DELIVERED: January 16 , 2014
Larry Dean COCHRUN, Petitioner v. Bob DOOLEY, Warden

No. 19-5692

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 21, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.
Harold A. FLORES, Petitioner, v. ENTERGY NUCLEAR OPERATIONS, INC.

No. 19-269

Supreme Court of the United States.

November 4, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.
IN RE Robert STRANGE, Petitioner.

No. 19-7658.

Supreme Court of the United States.

April 20, 2020

Petition for writ of mandamus and/or prohibition denied.