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

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1157 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 12, 2013 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural 

Resources 

AN ACT 

To ensure public access to the summit of Rattlesnake Mountain in the Hanford Reach National Monument for educational, recreational, historical, scientific, cultural, and 

other purposes. 

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


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

HR 1157 RFS 

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Rattlesnake Mountain 

3 Public Access Act’’. 

4 SEC. 2. FINDINGS. 

5 Congress finds the following: 

6 (1) The Hanford Reach National Monument is 

7 public land that belongs to the American people. 

8 (2) The United States Fish and Wildlife Serv9 ice’s Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) for 

10 the Monument restricts public access to large por11 tions of the Monument, including the summit of 

12 Rattlesnake Mountain. 

13 (3) Public access to Rattlesnake Mountain is 

14 important for educational, recreational, historical, 

15 scientific, and cultural purposes. 

16 (4) Rattlesnake Mountain reaches an elevation 

17 of 3,660 feet above sea level—the highest elevation 

18 of the Monument, and provides unparalleled scenic 

19 views over the Monument, the Hanford Site, and the 

20 Columbia River. 

21 (5) Public access to Rattlesnake Mountain will 

22 increase tourism interest in the Monument and will 

23 provide economic benefits to local governments. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

HR 1157 RFS 

1 SEC. 3. ENSURING PUBLIC ACCESS TO THE SUMMIT OF 

2 RATTLESNAKE MOUNTAIN IN THE HANFORD 

3 REACH NATIONAL MONUMENT. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of the Interior shall 

5 provide public access to the summit of Rattlesnake Moun6 tain in the Hanford Reach National Monument for edu7 cational, recreational, historical, scientific, cultural, and 

8 other purposes, including— 

9 (1) motor vehicle access; and 

10 (2) pedestrian and other nonmotorized access. 

11 (b) COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS.—The Secretary of 

12 the Interior may enter into cooperative agreements to fa13 cilitate access to the summit of Rattlesnake Mountain— 

14 (1) with the Secretary of Energy, the State of 

15 Washington, or any local government agency or 

16 other interested persons, for guided tours, including 

17 guided motorized tours to the summit of Rattlesnake 

18 Mountain; and 

19 (2) with the Secretary of Energy, and with the 

20 State of Washington or any local government agency 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
4 

HR 1157 RFS 

1 or other interested persons, to maintain the access 

2 road to the summit of Rattlesnake Mountain. 

Passed the House of Representatives June 11, 2013. 

Attest: KAREN L. HAAS, 

Clerk. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-6786

RONNIE SYLVIA, Plaintiff – Appellant,

v. TOMMY MADDOX; TONI BANKS; D. WEAVER; N. AUSTIN, Defendants – Appellees,

and

KEITH WHITENER,

Defendant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Graham C. Mullen, Senior District Judge. (5:05-cv-00013-GCM)

Submitted: October 15, 2009 Decided: October 21, 2009

Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jeffrey Michael Brandt, ROBINSON & BRANDT, PSC, Covington, Kentucky, for Appellant. James Philip Allen, Assistant Attorney General, Joseph Edward Elder, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Ronnie Sylvia seeks to appeal the district court’s orders dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint and denying his motion for reconsideration. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed. Parties are accorded thirty days after the entry of the district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), unless the district court extends the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). This appeal period is “mandatory and jurisdictional.” Browder v. Dir., Dep’t of

Corr. , 434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978) (quoting United States v.

Robinson , 361 U.S. 220, 229 (1960)).

The district court’s orders were entered on the docket on August 7, 2007, and August 28, 2007. The notice of appeal was filed no sooner than April 9, 2009. Because Sylvia failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we deny his motion for appointment of counsel and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and oral argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. NAKOMA CANNON HILLMAN, Defendant.

No. COA03-1529

North Carolina Court of Appeals

Filed July 20, 2004.

This case not for publication

Cleveland County, Nos. 01 CRS 56980-82.

*Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General David L. Elliott, for the State.*

*Leslie C. Rawl, for defendant-appellant.*

HUDSON, Judge.

The jury found defendant guilty of assault with a deadly weapon inflicting serious injury, discharging a firearm into occupied property, and attempted robbery with a dangerous weapon. The trial court sentenced defendant to an active prison term of 117 to 150 months for the attempted robbery. It consolidated defendant's remaining convictions and imposed a consecutive sentence of 46 to 65 months. Defendant gave notice of appeal in open court.

Defendant's counsel has been unable to identify any issue with sufficient merit to support a meaningful argument for relief. She asks this Court to conduct its own review of the record forpossible prejudicial error. Counsel has shown to the satisfaction of this Court that she has complied with the requirements of *Anders v. California,* 386 U.S. 738, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967), and *State v. Kinch,* 314 N.C. 99, 331 S.E.2d 665 (1985), by advising defendant of his right to file written arguments with this Court and providing him with the necessary documents. Defendant has not filed any written arguments with this Court in a reasonable time period.

In accordance with *Anders,* we have fully examined the record to determine whether any issues of arguable merit exist and whether the appeal is wholly frivolous. We have examined the record for possible prejudicial errors and have found none.

No error.

Judges STEELMAN and THORNBURG concur.

Report per Rule 30(e).
| (logo) WELLS

            FARGO | **Commercial  Mortgage Servicing**D1050-084,  8th Floor  401 South Tryon St.  Charlotte, NC 28202  1-800-326-1334

 

  |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 **ANNUALSTATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE**

 

 

Reference is hereby made to that certainPooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of July 1, 2018, by and among DEUTSCHEMORTGAGE & ASSET RECEIVING CORPORATION, as Depositor, WELLS FARGO BANK,NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Master Servicer, CWCAPITAL ASSET MANAGEMENT LLC, asSpecial Servicer, WILMINGTON TRUST, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Trustee, WELLSFARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Certificate Administrator, Paying Agentand Custodian, and PARK BRIDGE LENDER SERVICES LLC, as Operating Advisor andAsset Representations Reviewer with respect to Benchmark 2018-B4 Mortgage TrustCommercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2018-B4 (the"Agreement"). Capitalized terms used herein not otherwise definedshall have the meanings assigned in the Agreement.

 

Pursuant to Section10.11 of this Agreement, I, Leslie Hayton, Managing Director of CommercialMortgage Services do hereby certify that:

 

1.             Areview of the activities of the Master Servicer during the period from July 1,2018 through December 31, 2018 (the “Reporting Period”), and of its performanceper the Agreement during such period has been made under my supervision, and 

 

2.             To thebest of my knowledge, based on such review, the Master Servicer has fulfilledall of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughoutthe Reporting Period.

 

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned hasexecuted this Certificate as of the 28th day of February 2019.

 

 

/s/Leslie Hayton

LeslieHayton

ManagingDirector

WellsFargo Bank

 

 

| Wells Fargo Bank,  N.A. | (logo) Together  we’ll go far |
|-------------------------|-------------------------------------|
John P. DEROSE, Petitioner, v. VILLAGE OF ORLAND PARK, ILLINOIS, et al.

No. 19-651

Supreme Court of the United States.

January 27, 2020

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied.
# Official Journal C 298/2019

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 298 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 623 September 2019 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 298

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 623 September 2019

---

| Contents | page |
| --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Parliament |
| 2019/C 298/01 | Plenary meeting of the LXI COSAC — 23-25 June 2019, Bucharest — Contribution of the LXI COSAC | 1 |

Contents

page

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Parliament

2019/C 298/01

Plenary meeting of the LXI COSAC — 23-25 June 2019, Bucharest — Contribution of the LXI COSAC

1

---

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
Herron Kent DUCKETT, Petitioner v. Lorie DAVIS, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division

No. 19-5428

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 15, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
STATE of North Carolina v. Bobby GRADY.

No. 473P03-2.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

February 10, 2004.

Bobby Grady, 0151278, Pro Se.

William P. Hart, Special Deputy Attorney General, C. Branson Vickory, III, District Attorney, for State.

***593*****ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 22nd day of January 2004 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the order of the North Carolina Court of Appeals, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

> "Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 10th day of February 2005."
Jacquelyne JONES v. LAKE HICKORY R.V. RESORT, INCORPORATED.

No. 113A04.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

May 6, 2004.

Michael W. Clark, Bruce W. Berger, Raleigh, for Jones.

John G. Golding, Charlotte, for Lake Hickory R.V. Resort, Inc.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition for discretionary review, filed by Plaintiff on the 16th day of March 2004 in this matter pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 and the Appellate Rule 16(b) as to issues in addition to those presented as the basis for the dissenting opinion in the Court of Appeals, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals: the petition for discretionary review as to additional issues is

> "Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 6th day of May 2004."
<PAGE>


                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.14





December 23, 2003




Ms. Jan Scofield
9800 Richmond Avenue
Suite 680
Houston, Texas  77042

Dear Jan:

This letter shall serve as a conditional offer of employment to you by Franklin
Bank S.S.B ("Franklin") and Franklin Bank Corp. This offer is conditional upon
the happening of the initial public offering of Franklin Bank Corp (the "IPO").
Thus, if you accept this offer and the IPO occurs, this letter agreement will
take effect and supersede the prior letter agreement between you and by Franklin
setting forth certain terms of your employment. If the IPO does not occur, this
letter will be null and void and of no force and effect.

The above referenced offer is as follows:

Position:              Managing Director - Technology

Salary & Bonus:        Your current salary is $120,000 per annum and you will
                       participate in Franklin's bonus program with a 2004
                       target of $30,000.

Restricted Stock:      In connection with the IPO, you will receive shares of
                       restricted stock of Franklin Bank Corp. as set forth in a
                       separate restricted stock award agreement

Expenses:              You will receive annual allowance as follows:
                       auto -- $6,000.

Severance:             Generally, you will receive a severance of six months'
                       salary continuation, if terminated by Franklin without
                       cause prior to a change of control.

Please note that at no point in time will this letter or the offer that it
memorializes, serve as or be construed to grant you, a guarantee of employment
for any period of time. You will be at all times an employee at will.

Please also note that this offer, and the above particulars, are subject to
Franklin's policies, any Franklin Bank Corp. Board of Directors' resolution or
directive regarding the same and the approval of Franklin Bank Corp.'s Board of
Directors.

<PAGE>

Please confirm your acceptance of this offer of employment by signing this
letter where indicated and returning the executed original to our offices.
Should you have any questions about this offer of employment or the company,
please call the company at the above phone number.

Very truly yours,


By:
    -----------------------------
Name:  Anthony J. Nocella
Title:    Chief Executive Officer


ACCEPTED:


-----------------------------      Date:   ----------------------
Jan Scofield
- 389 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 310 Nebraska Reports IN RE ESTATE OF LAKIN Cite as 310 Neb. 389

In re Estate of Charles E. Lakin, deceased. Charles E. Lakin Foundation, Inc., appellant, v. Thomas Pribil and William Kilzer, Copersonal Representatives of the Estate of Charles E. Lakin, appellees. In re Trust of Charles E. Lakin, deceased. Charles E. Lakin Foundation, Inc., appellant, v. Thomas Pribil and William Kilzer, Cotrustees of the Charles E. Lakin Revocable Trust, et al., appellees. ___ N.W.2d ___ Filed November 19, 2021. Nos. S-20-093, S-20-094.

supplemental opinion Appeals from the County Court for Douglas County: Stephanie S. Shearer , Judge. Former opinion modified. Motions for rehearing overruled. Zachary W. Lutz-Priefert, Frederick D. Stehlik, William J. Lindsay, Jr., and John A. Svoboda, of Gross & Welch, P.C., L.L.O., for appellant. Edward D. Hotz, Amanda M. Forker, and Benjamin C. Deaver, of Pansing, Hogan, Ernst & Bachman, L.L.P., for defendants-appellees Thomas L. Pribil and William A. Kilzer. Trenten P. Bausch and Megan S. Wright, of Cline, Williams, Wright, Johnson & Oldfather, L.L.P., for appellee Thomas L. Pribil in his individual capacity. Nebraska Supreme Court Online Library www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/ 12/03/2021 12:07 AM CST- 390 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 310 Nebraska Reports IN RE ESTATE OF LAKIN Cite as 310 Neb. 389 Cathy S. Trent-Vilim and Brian J. Brislen, of Lamson, Dugan & Murray, L.L.P., for appellee William A. Kilzer, an individual.
Heavican , C.J., Cassel , Stacy , Funke , and Freudenberg , JJ.
Per Curiam

. This case is before us on three motions for rehearing filed by the appellees, Thomas Pribil and William Kilzer—in their individual capacities and their capacities as copersonal rep

resentatives and cotrustees—concerning our opinion in In re Estate of Lakin

. 1 While there is no substantive merit to the motions, Pribil and Kilzer point out that this court incorrectly found that the check used to pay Pribil was not in our record. The check appears in exhibit 59. We overrule the motions, but modify the original opinion to substitute language as follows. In the paragraph under the subheading “7. § 6-1437,” we withdraw the third and fourth sentences and substitute: “Our record is not clear on the source of the payment and the capacity of the person making the payment.” The remainder of the opinion shall remain unmodified. Former opinion modified. Motions for rehearing overruled. Miller

- Lerman and Papik , JJ., not participating.

1 In re Estate of Lakin , 310 Neb. 271, 965 N.W.2d 365 (2021).
K. N., et ux., Petitioners v. MONTANA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

No. 19-6191

Supreme Court of the United States.

December 9, 2019

Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed *in forma pauperis* denied. Petitioner allowed until December 30, 2019, within which to pay the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) and to submit a petition in compliance with Rule 33.1 of the Rules of this Court.
Keith COX and Linda Cox v. Bruce STEFFES, M.D. and Village Surgical Associates, P.A.

No. 630P03.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

April 1, 2004.

Thomas E. Harris, New Bern, W. Gregory Merritt, Greenville, for Steffes, M.D. and Village Surgical Associates, P.A.

William S. Britt, Lumberton, for Keith and Linda Cox.

Prior report: 161 N.C.App. 237, 587 S.E.2d 908.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendants on the 5th day of December 2003 for Writ of Supersedeas of the judgment of the Court of Appeals in this matter, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

> "Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 1st day of April 2004."

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 23rd day of December 2003 by Defendants in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

> "Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 1st day of April 2004."
Relonzo PHILLIPS, Petitioner v. DEKALB COUNTY ASSISTANT PUBLIC DEFENDERS, et al.

No. 19-5708

Supreme Court of the United States.

January 13, 2020

The petition for rehearing is denied.
EXHIBIT 16

INSTITUTIONAL CASH MANAGEMENT FUND, INC.

SCHEDULE OF 7 DAY YIELD COMPUTATION

Cash Portfolio

Net change in value per share 
from May 24, 1997 to May 30, 1997		$0.001072054794521

Value of one share at May 24			$1.00

7 Day  Yield = 0.001072054794521*365/7	5.59%

					Government Portfolio

Net change in value per share 
from May 24, 1997 to May 30, 1997		$0.001006849315068

Value of one share at May 24			$1.00

7 Day  Yield = 0.001006849315068*365/7	5.25%

					Municipal Portfolio

Net change in value per share 
from May 24, 1997 to May 30, 1997		$0.0006904109589041

Value of one share at May 24			$1.00

7 Day  Yield = 0.0006904109589041*365/7	3.60%

SCHEDULE OF 7 DAY EFFECTIVE YIELD COMPUTATION 5/31/97

Cash Portfolio
[(Based period return +1) 365/7] -1
[(0.001072054794521+1)52.142857]-1
Effective 7 Day Yield=5.75%

Government Portfolio
[(Based period return +1) 365/7] -1
[(0.001006849315068+1)52.142857]-1
Effective 7 Day Yield=5.39%

Municipal Portfolio
[(Based period return +1) 365/7] -1
[(0.0006904109589041+1)52.142857]-1
Effective 7 Day Yield=3.66%

u:\legal\funds\inst\misc\ex16
Jon Eric SHAFFER, Petitioner, v. PENNSYLVANIA.

No. 19-618.

Supreme Court of the United States.

May 4, 2020

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, Western District denied.
**
**Exhibit 31.1**

**CERTIFICATION**

I, CoreyHenry, certify that: 

1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of Drive Auto Receivables Trust 2018-2 (the“Exchange Act periodic reports”); 

2. Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do not containany untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3. Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and other information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports; 

4. Basedon my knowledge and the servicer compliance statement required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicer has fulfilled its obligations under the servicing agreement inall material respects; and 

5. All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria forasset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included inthis report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwisedisclosed in this report. Any material instances of noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.

In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties: WilmingtonTrust, National Association. 

 
By: /s/ Corey HenryName: Corey HenryTitle: President and Chief Executive Officer Santander Drive Auto Receivables LLC, as Depositor (senior officer in charge of securitization of the depositor)Date: March 31, 2022**