alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

CHRISTOPHER MATTHEW FAUS T

,

Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

,

State

. §

§

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 1 3

- 00 2 44

- C R

Appeal from the

County Criminal Court No. 3

of Tarrant C ounty, Texas

(TC# 1151500 )

O R D E R

The Court GRANTS the State ’s third motion for extension of time within which to file

the brief until April 23 , 2014

. NO FURTHER MOTIONS FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO

F ILE THE STATE ’S BR IEF WILL BE CONSIDERED BY THIS COURT.

It is further ORDERED that the Hon. Charles M. Mallin , the State ’s attorney, prepare the

State ’s brief and forward the same to this Court on or before Apri l 2 3

, 2014.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 26 th day of March , 20 1 4

.

PER CURIAM

Before McClure , C.J., Rivera and Rodriguez , JJ.
I

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 104

To repeal the Bennett Freeze thus ending a gross treaty violation with

the Navajo Nation and allowing the Navajo Nation to live in habitable

dwellings and raise their living conditions, and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 3, 2001

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

Committee on Resources

A BILL

To repeal the Bennett Freeze thus ending a gross treaty

violation with the Navajo Nation and allowing the Navajo

Nation to live in habitable dwellings and raise their living

conditions, 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. FINDINGS.

4 The Congress finds that—

5 (1) the Navajo Nation is one of the largest and

6 most economically depressed Indian reservations in

7 the United States;
2

•HR 104 IH

1 (2) the Bennett Freeze, named after former

2 Bureau of Indian Affairs Commissioner Robert Ben3 nett, was administratively issued in 1966 to restrict

4 the Navajo tribe from constructing and repairing

5 their dwellings on land that was subject to a land

6 dispute with the Hopi Tribe;

7 (3) the Bennett Freeze has affected 1,500,000

8 acres of land, approximately 9 percent of the total

9 acreage of the Navajo Nation, covering 10 chapters

10 and affecting nearly 8,000 people;

11 (4) only 3 percent of the families affected by

12 the Bennett Freeze have electricity and only 10 per13 cent have running water;

14 (5) since 1966, the population has increased by

15 approximately 65 percent in the Bennett Freeze

16 area, forcing several generations of families to live

17 together in dwellings that have been declared unfit

18 for human habitation;

19 (6) members of the medical community confirm

20 that overcrowding and the absence of running water,

21 refrigeration, and adequate sewage disposal ad22 versely impact the mental and physical health of

23 Navajos residing in the Bennett Freeze area;

24 (7) the Bennett Freeze has halted essential con25 struction, including power line extensions, waterline
3

•HR 104 IH

1 extensions, road improvements, and community fa2 cilities improvements;

3 (8) when the Bennett Freeze was temporarily

4 lifted in 1992, an ambitious $20,000,000 construc5 tion plan for new dwellings was proposed that would

6 have raised living conditions and increased the eco7 nomic viability of the Bennett Freeze area, however,

8 the plan did not become a reality because a Federal

9 judge reinstated the freeze;

10 (9) the Federal Government has not taken the

11 steps necessary to end the Bennett Freeze in this al12 ready economically depressed community; and

13 (10) the Bennett Freeze is a gross violation of

14 treaty obligations to the Navajo Nation.

15 SEC. 2. REPEAL OF THE BENNETT FREEZE.

16 Section 10(f) of Public Law 93–531 (25 U.S.C.

17 640d–9(f)) is repealed.

Æ
I

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1261

To amend the Reclamation Projects Authorization and Adjustment Act of

1992 to impose a limit on the Federal share of the costs of the Long

Beach Desalinization Research and Development Project in Los Angeles

County, California.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 28, 2001

Mr. HORN introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee

on Resources

A BILL

To amend the Reclamation Projects Authorization and Adjustment Act of 1992 to impose a limit on the Federal

share of the costs of the Long Beach Desalinization

Research and Development Project in Los Angeles County, California.

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

3 SECTION 1. LIMIT ON FEDERAL COST OF THE LONG BEACH

4 DESALINIZATION RESEARCH AND DEVELOP5 MENT PROJECT.

6 Section 1605(b)(2) of the Reclamation Projects Au7 thorization and Adjustment Act of 1992 (43 U.S.C. 390h–
2

•HR 1261 IH

1 3(b)(2)) is amended by striking ‘‘50 percent of the total’’

2 and inserting ‘‘the lesser of 50 percent of the total or

3 $13,500,000’’.

Æ
Exhibit 31

Certifications

I, Richard Simpson, 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 Benchmark 2018-B6 Mortgage Trust (the “Exchange Act periodic reports”);

2.Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do not contain any 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.Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statement(s) required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicers have fulfilled their obligations under the servicing agreements in all material respects; and

5.All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included in this 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 otherwise disclosed 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:  KeyBank National Association; Midland Loan Services, a Division of PNC Bank, National Association; Park Bridge Lender Services LLC; U.S. Bank National Association; Wells Fargo Bank, National Association; CWCapital Asset Management LLC; Park Bridge Lender Services LLC; CoreLogic Commercial Real Estate Services, Inc.; and National Tax Search, LLC. 

Date:March 30, 2020

|  | /s/ Richard Simpson ___________________Richard SimpsonPresident, Citigroup Commercial Mortgage Securities Inc.(senior officer in charge of securitization of the depositor) |
|--|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

Benchmark 2018-B6 Certifications
Document

Exhibit 10.1


FIRST AMENDMENT 
TO THE
CONSTRUCTION PARTNERS, INC. 2018 EQUITY INCENTIVE PLAN
 
This First Amendment (this “Amendment”) to the Construction Partners, Inc. 2018 Equity Incentive Plan the (“Plan”) is effective as of May 24, 2019 (the “Effective Date”).
 
1.           The last sentence of Section 5(d)(ii) of the Plan is hereby deleted and replaced in its entirety with the following sentence:  
 
“The foregoing limit may be multiplied by two with respect to Awards granted in the calendar year in which a Non-Employee Director is first granted Awards.”
 
2.           Except as specifically set forth herein, all other terms and conditions contained in the Plan shall remain unchanged and shall continue in full force and effect.


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of Construction Partners, Inc. has caused this Amendment to become effective as of the Effective Date.


CONSTRUCTION PARTNERS, INC.


By: /s/ Ned N. Fleming, III   
                    Ned N. Fleming, III
                    Executive Chairman
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA

SHEILA LYNN TRIPLETT,

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

SELDIN COMPANY, ALICIA CLARK, CEO; 

JENNY CLAYTON, SVP; ASHLEY 

MCKIBBIN, Local Manager; SHERI WARE, 

Regional Portfolio Managers; and ERICA 

COATE, Regional Portfolio Manager;

Defendants.

8:23CV185

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Plaintiff Sheila Lynn Triplett, a non-prisoner, filed a Motion for Leave to Proceed 

in Forma Pauperis. Filing No. 2. Upon review of Plaintiff’s Motion, the Court finds that 

Plaintiff is financially eligible to proceed in forma pauperis.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that leave to proceed in forma pauperis is 

granted, and the Complaint shall be filed without payment of fees. Plaintiff is advised 

that the next step in her case will be for the Court to conduct an initial review of her 

claims to determine whether summary dismissal is appropriate under 28 U.S.C. § 

1915(e)(2). The Court will conduct this initial review in its normal course of business

and will address her pending motion for the appointment of counsel, Filing No. 3, at that 

time.

Dated this 19th day of May, 2023.

BY THE COURT:

Joseph F. Bataillon

Senior United States District Judge

8:23-cv-00185-JFB-PRSE Doc # 6 Filed: 05/19/23 Page 1 of 1 - Page ID # 153
IA

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. J. RES. 73

Providing for the appointment of Patricia Q. Stonesifer as a citizen regent

of the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

NOVEMBER 7, 2001

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas (for himself, Mr. MATSUI, and Mr. REGULA) introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred to the Committee on House Administration

JOINT RESOLUTION

Providing for the appointment of Patricia Q. Stonesifer as

a citizen regent of the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution.

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 That, in accordance with section 5581 of the Revised Stat4 utes of the United States (20 U.S.C. 43), the vacancy on

5 the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution, in

6 the class other than Members of Congress, occurring by

7 reason of the expiration of the term of Homer Alfred Neal

8 of Michigan on December 7, 2001, is filled by the appoint9 ment of Patricia Q. Stonesifer of Washington. The ap-
2

•HJ 73 IH

1 pointment is for a term of 6 years and shall take effect

2 on December 8, 2001.

Æ
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedulle contains summary financial information extracted from the
consolidated Balance sheets and consolidated  statements of operations
found on pages 3 and 4 of the company's form 10-q for the year-to-date,
and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>  1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1995
<CASH>                                             572
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,360
<ALLOWANCES>                                        68
<INVENTORY>                                      1,791
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 4,110
<PP&E>                                             216
<DEPRECIATION>                                      90
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   5,553
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            1,252
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                            87
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                       4,127
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     5,553
<SALES>                                          9,629
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 9,629
<CGS>                                            7,103
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    8,789
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  (37)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   848
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   1
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     28
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (752)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                781
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       781
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .09
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .09
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Sumner Brown, et. al.

vs. Civil No. 1:06-cv-63-JM

Filtrine Manufacturing Co., Inc., et al.

STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between Plaintiffs, Sumner

Brown, Carla Brown and Hallie Brown b/f/n/f Sumner Brown, and defendant, Filtrine

Manufacturing Co., Inc. and Robert Piescik, Plan Adminstrator of Filtrine Manufacturing Co.,

Inc., pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, that this action shall be and hereby is

dismissed, with prejudice, and without costs or attorney’s fees to any party.

SUMNER BROWN, CARLA BROWN FILTRINE MANUFACTURING CO., INC. AND

and HALLIE BROWN B/F/N/F SUMNER ROBERT PIESCIK, PLAN ADMINISTRATOR

BROWN OF FILTRINE MANUFACTURING CO., INC.

By their attorneys, By their attorneys,

_/s/Francis X. Quinn, Jr_________ _/s/Thomas M. Closson___________________

Francis X. Quinn, Jr., Bar #4848 Thomas M. Closson, Bar #9966

BOYNTON, WALDRON, DOLEAC, FLYGARE, SCHWARZ & CLOSSON, PLLC

WOODMAN & SCOTT, P. A. 11 Court Street, P. O. Box 439

P. O. BOX 418 - 82 Court Street Exeter, NH 03833

Portsmouth, NH 03802-0418 Phone - 603-778-7300

Phone - 603-436-4010 Fax - 603-778-7373

Fax - 603-431-9973

Dated: September 6, 2007

Case 1:06-cv-00063-JM Document 13 Filed 09/06/07 Page 1 of 1
| (logo) WELLS

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

 

 

**ANNUAL STATEMENT OFCOMPLIANCE**

 

 

Reference is hereby made to that certainPooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of October 1, 2018, by and amongDEUTSCHE MORTGAGE & ASSET RECEIVING CORPORATION, as Depositor, WELLS FARGOBANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Master Servicer, RIALTO CAPITAL ADVISORS, LLC,as Special 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 DBGS 2018-C1 Mortgage TrustCommercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates (the "Agreement").Capitalized terms used herein not otherwise defined shall have the meaningsassigned in the Agreement.

 

Pursuant to Section 10.11 of this Agreement, I, Leslie Hayton, ManagingDirector of Commercial Mortgage Services do hereby certify that:

 

1.           Areview of the activities of the Master Servicer during the period from October1, 2018 through December 31, 2018 (the “Reporting Period”), and of itsperformance per the Agreement during such period has been made under mysupervision, 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 has executed this Certificate as of the 28th day ofFebruary 2019.

 

 

/s/ Leslie Hayton

LeslieHayton

ManagingDirector              

WellsFargo Bank

 

 

| Wells Fargo Bank,  N.A. | (logo) Together  we’ll go far |
|-------------------------|-------------------------------------|
August 16, 1978

Civil Service Reform Act (5 U.S.C. § 1101 et seq.)—

Director of Office of Personnel Management

This responds to your request for this Office’s opinion on the constitutionality of § 1102(a) (2) of the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs’ 

version of S. 2640, the Civil Service Reform bill. Section 1102(a) (2) states 

that the Director of the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) “ may be 

removed by the President only for inefficiency, neglect of duty or malfeasance 

in office.” * This provision raises a question that we have frequently addressed 

in a number of different contexts. The question, stated simply, is whether an 

official within the Executive branch who is charged with carrying out functions 

of the type assigned to the Director of OPM may be in any significant way 

insulated from the President’s direction and control.

The question here is squarely controlled by the Supreme Court's decision in 

M yers v. United States, 272 U.S. 52 (1926). That case stands for the 

proposition that officials within the Executive branch who perform primarily 

executive functions must be removable at the will of the President if the 

President is to perform his constitutional function “ faithfully to execute the 

laws.” While it is true that officials who perform quasi-legislative or 

quasi-judicial functions may properly be insulated from removal (see, Humphrey’s

E xecu tors. United States, 295 U.S. 602 (1935); Wiener v. United States, 357 

U.S. 349 (1958)), the President’s removal power must not be constricted where 

he is dealing with those who are assigned clearly executive functions. The 

catalogue of responsibilities of the OPM Director set forth in § 1103 of the bill 

constitutes a rather complete description of functions which may only be 

characterized as executive in nature. Among his responsibilities, for instance, 

is the duty to aid the President in preparing rules for the civil service and in 

providing him with advice on “ actions which may be taken to promote an

78-95 MEMORANDUM OPINION FOR THE COUNSEL

TO THE PRESIDENT

*See S. Rep. No. 95-969, at 25. It should be noted that the language does not appear in the bill as 

enacted. See Pub. L. No. 95-454, 92 Stat. 1119, 5 U .S.C . § 1102.

413
efficient civil service.” In § 1103(a) (1) he is also directly charged with 

‘‘executing, administering, and enforcing” civil service rules and regulations. 

By their terms, these functions can only be regarded as executive in nature. As 

the Court made clear in its recent decision in Buckley v. Valeo. 422 U.S. 1, 138 

(1976), the enforcement of the laws is a function vested in the President. Given 

the case law, we think there is no satisfactory basis on which to contend that the 

President’s necessary removal power can be circumscribed in the manner 

contemplated by § 1102(a) (2) of this bill.

L a rr y A. H a m m o n d

D eputy Assistant Attorney General

Office o f Legal Counsel

414
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                               UT
<CIK>                                   0000081100
<NAME>                                  PUGET SOUND ENERGY
<MULTIPLIER>                            1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-1999
<BOOK-VALUE>                                   PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                      3,488,638
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                    262,712
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                         366,099
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                       0
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                 606,340
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 4,723,789
<COMMON>                                       845,605
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                      450,836
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                            64,441
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>                 1,360,882
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          65,662
<PREFERRED>                                    90,000
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                           1,714,770
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                             174,000
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                      0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                 62,493
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                  107,000
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                      0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                    0
<LEASES-CURRENT>                               0
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>                 1,148,982
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                  4,723,789
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                      1,010,772
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                           60,678
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     793,267
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     853,945
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                        156,827
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                             16,849
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                 173,676
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                       72,855
<NET-INCOME>                                   100,821
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                    5,889
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                  94,932
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                       77,796
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                      66,375
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                         232,179
<EPS-BASIC>                                  1.12
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  1.12


</TABLE>