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

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1696 Engrossed in House (EH)]

  1st Session

                               H. R. 1696

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

   To expedite the construction of the World War II memorial in the 
                         District of Columbia.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1696

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
   To expedite the construction of the World War II memorial in the 
                         District of Columbia.

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

SECTION 1. EXPEDITED COMMENCEMENT BY AMERICAN BATTLE MONUMENTS 
              COMMISSION OF CONSTRUCTION OF WORLD WAR II MEMORIAL.

    Section 2113 of title 36, United States Code, as added by section 
601(a) of the Veterans Millennium Health Care and Benefits Act (Public 
Law 106-117; 113 Stat. 1576), is amended by adding at the end the 
following new subsection:
    ``(i) Congressional Direction to Commence Construction.--(1) The 
requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 
U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), the Commemorative Works Act (40 U.S.C. 1001 et 
seq.), and all other laws pertaining to the siting and design for the 
World War II memorial having been met, the Commission shall 
expeditiously proceed with the construction of the World War II 
memorial at the dedicated Rainbow Pool site in the District of 
Columbia.
    ``(2) The construction of the World War II memorial authorized by 
paragraph (1) shall be consistent with--
            ``(A) the final architectural submission made to the 
        Commission of Fine Arts and the National Capital Planning 
        Commission on June 30, 2000, as supplemented on November 2, 
        2000; and
            ``(B) such reasonable construction permit requirements as 
        may be required by the Secretary of the Interior, acting 
        through the National Park Service.
    ``(3) The decision to construct the World War II memorial at the 
dedicated Rainbow Pool site, decisions implementing this subsection, 
and decisions regarding the design for the World War II memorial are 
final and conclusive and shall not be subject to administrative or 
judicial review.''.

            Passed the House of Representatives May 15, 2001.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
```
I

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1547

To establish a grant program in the Department of Defense to assist States

and local governments in improving their ability to prevent and respond

to domestic terrorism.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

APRIL 24, 2001

Mr. ANDREWS introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Armed Services, and in addition to the Committees on the Judiciary, and Energy and Commerce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions

as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

A BILL

To establish a grant program in the Department of Defense

to assist States and local governments in improving their

ability to prevent and respond to domestic terrorism.

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

3 SECTION 1. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE GRANTS TO IM4 PROVE DOMESTIC PREPAREDNESS TO COM5 BAT TERRORISM.

6 (a) GRANTS AUTHORIZED.—The Secretary of De7 fense may make grants to States and political subdivisions

8 of States for the purpose of assisting grant recipients to
2

•HR 1547 IH

1 improve their ability to prevent and respond to domestic

2 terrorism through the purchase of suitable anti-terrorism

3 equipment.

4 (b) MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF GRANT.—The amount of

5 a grant under subsection (a) may not exceed 50 percent

6 of the net present value of the amount calculated to pay

7 the principal and interest on bonds that would have to

8 be issued by the grant recipient to purchase the anti-ter9 rorism equipment in the absence of the grant.

10 (c) FUNDING MECHANISM.—There shall be available

11 for the purposes of carrying out this section

12 $1,200,000,000 for fiscal year 2002 and each of the 4 suc13 ceeding fiscal years from the proceeds from the use of a

14 competitive bidding system under section 309(j) of the

15 Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 309(j)).

Æ
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998             DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998             MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                          829693                  169963
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                 30430415                 9351864
<ALLOWANCES>                                    299292                    6000
<INVENTORY>                                   17658480                 6456293
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                              49456365                16136512
<PP&E>                                         6899804                 2166724
<DEPRECIATION>                                 2797636                 1166409
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                92678933                18127802
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                         18555302                 5463711
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                             0                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                    40310702                12534104
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  92678933                18127802
<SALES>                                       55164405                20226020
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              55164405                20226020
<CGS>                                         42653199                16745304
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 52916416                19462377
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                302060                 (11250)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              426280                     871
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                1945929                  774893
<INCOME-TAX>                                    860000                  313832
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            1085929                  461061
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                   1085929                  461061
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .14                     .09
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .14                     .09
        

</TABLE>
1 Of course, a judge cannot be forced to recuse by a

criminal defendant in a case already assigned to him or her

merely because the defendant threatens that judge. It is quite a

different matter, however, when that defendant is subsequently

charged with the crime of threatening the judge — the judge, as

“victim,” cannot sit. The distinction would seem apparent, but

is often not recognized or misunderstood.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Criminal No. 07-cr-190-01-SM

Robert Wolffe

O R D E R

While it may be a debatable legal and ethical point, still,

I think recusal in this case is both warranted and appropriate,

given the close circumstantial relatedness between the charged

conspiracy and reported public statements by the Browns and

others associated with them over the past several months. 

Because those public statements included threats of violence and

physical harm directed at me, a reasonable person, fully informed

of the facts, might understandably question my ability to remain

impartial in this case, were I to preside. Strictly speaking,

the charges here do not include allegations of threats made

against me (which would unquestionably warrant recusal)1, but

such distinctions overlook practical realities. While I have no

Case 1:07-cr-00190-GZS Document 15 Filed 10/15/07 Page 1 of 2
2

doubt about my own ability to be impartial, I think the public

interest is better served by my recusal and reassignment of this

case to a different judge to avoid the risk of even an appearance

of partiality.

The Clerk shall reassign the matter to a different judge.

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Steven J. McAuliffe

Chief Judge

October 15, 2007

cc: Arnold H. Huftalen, AUSA

Robert M. Kinsella, AUSA

Paul J. Garrity, Esq.

U.S. Marshal

U.S. Probation

Case 1:07-cr-00190-GZS Document 15 Filed 10/15/07 Page 2 of 2
* The Honorable Donovan W. Frank, United St ates District Judge for the District of Minnesota. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 05-1344

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the District * of Minnesota. Jorge Leyva, also known as Jorge * Leyva Hernandez, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: March 7, 2006 Filed: March 13, 2006

___________ Before MELLOY, FAGG, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Jorge Leyva appeals the 90-month prison sentence the district court * imposed after Leyva pleaded guilty to a drug-conspiracy charge. On appeal, counsel has moved to withdraw and has filed a brief under Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967).-2- Construing the Anders brief as raising a challenge to the denial of a minor-role reduction under the advisory Guidelines, th e argument fails. Leyva admittedly helped his co-conspirators hide a large quantity of drugs in the bumper of a car in which one of his co-conspirators transported the drugs for distribution. We conclude the district court's finding that Leyva’s role in the drug conspiracy was not minor compared to his co-conspirators is not clearly erroneous. See U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2(b) & comment (n.5) (minor participant is one “who is less culpab le than most other participants, but whose role could not be described as minimal”); United States v. Johnson , 408 F.3d 535, 538-39 (8th Cir. 2005) (propriety of § 3B1. 2 adjustment is determined by comparing acts of each participant in re lation to relevant conduct fo r which participant is held accountable and by measuring each partic ipant’s individual acts and relative culpability against elements of offe nse); United States v. Bustos-Torres , 396 F.3d 935, 947-48 (8th Cir.) (district court’s factual dete rmination of defendant’s role in offense may be reversed only if it is clearly err oneous, and it is defendant’s burden to prove role reduction is warranted), cert. denied , 125 S. Ct. 2557 (2005) and 126 S. Ct. 203 (2005); United St ates v. Belitz , 141 F.3d 815, 818-19 (8th Cir. 1998) (defendant’s voluntary and knowing storage of substan tial amount of drugs was sufficient to preclude minor-role decrease).
Having carefully reviewed the recordand finding no nonfrivolous issues, we affirm the district court’s judgment, and grant counsel leave to withdraw.

______________________________
EX-4.2





 Exhibit 4.2 
  

					
	Urkunden-Nr. / No. of Certificate	  	BioNTech SE	  	
			
	[●]	  	Mainz, Deutschland/Germany	  	

 Urkunde / Certificate 

über / with respect to 

[●] 
 auf den Namen lautende
Stückaktien mit einem rechnerischen Anteil am Grundkapital der BioNTech SE in Höhe von jeweils EUR 1 je Aktie. / no-par value registered shares with a notional interest in the registered share
capital of BioNTech SE of EUR 1 per share. 
 Der auf der Rückseite als letzter benannte Aktionär ist mit [●] auf den Namen lautenden
Stückaktien mit einem rechnerischen Anteil am Grundkapital in Höhe von jeweils EUR 1 nach Maßgabe der Satzung als Aktionär an der BioNTech SE beteiligt und als Inhaber dieser. Aktien in das Aktienregister der Gesellschaft
eingetragen. / The shareholder named as last on the back holds [●] no-par value registered shares of BioNTech SE with a notional interest in the registered share capital of EUR 1 in accordance with the
articles of association of the company and is entered in the company’s share register as holder of these shares. 
 Die Urkunde ist in deutscher und
englischer Sprache verfasst; maßgebend ist die deutsche Fassung. / This certificate is made in the German and the English language; the German version shall prevail. 

Mainz, [●] 
  

 
 [●] 

einzelvertretungsberechtigtes Vorstandsmitglied / 

member of the management board with sole power of representation 












 Name des ersten Aktionärs / name of first shareholder: [●] 

 

					
	Indossant /endorser	  	Indossatar / endorsee	  	Unterschrift des Indossanten /signature of endorser
#### BEIGHLE et al. v. Le ROY et al. (BLOOMFIELD, Intervener).

No. 6495.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.

Jan. 3, 1938.

*31Samuel R. Blaine, of Newark, N. J., for appellants.

Frederic M. P. Pearse, of Newark, N. J., for intervener-appellee.

Martin B. Stutsman, of Plainfield, N. J., (George Such Pearse, of Newark, N. J., on the brief), for L. R. Lamb, N. Avlonitis, J. Jackson, defendant-appellees.

Before BUFFINGTON and BIGGS, Circuit Judges, and WATSON, District Judge.

BUFFINGTON, Circuit Judge.

Without reciting all the facts, it suffices to say that on June 8, 1937, the court in this action of ejectment opened a default judgment against the tenants of Anita I. Bloomfield and permitted her to defend. In doing so the court overlooked the fact that on September 16, 1936, the Plainfield Trust Company, executor of the will under which she claimed, had filed an answer. Whereupon plaintiffs took this appeal, contending the term had passed and the court below was without power to act. But it appears the term had been extended by order of court on September 4, 1936. Moreover, the order to reopen was not a final decree. See Merriman v. Chicago & E. I. R. Co., 7 Cir., 64 F. 535, at page 547, wherein it is said: “A final decree or judgment is one which puts an end to the controversy between the parties litigant. If the decision or judgment leaves some matter involved in the controversy open for future hearing and determination before the ultimate rights of the parties are conclusively adjudicated, it is interlocutory, and not final.”

In view of the foregoing, the appeal is dismissed.
5

A.1. Number of Non-real-estate Bank Loans Made to FarmersMillions

Size of loan Si

Purpose of loan (thousands of dollars) 

Other Farm 

current machinery 1 10 25 100

Feeder Other operating and to to to and Sm

Period Total livestock livestock expenses1 equipment Other2 9 24 99 over mid

1993...... 2.70 .36 .27 1.62 .18 .27 1.65 .56 .37 .12 1994...... 2.53 .28 .23 1.56 .18 .27 1.55 .51 .35 .12 1995...... 2.49 .26 .19 1.48 .17 .39 1.45 .57 .36 .12 1996...... 2.22 .18 .17 1.38 .14 .36 1.33 .48 .31 .11 1997...... 2.27 .19 .20 1.40 .15 .33 1.32 .50 .34 .11 1998...... 2.10 .15 .18 1.39 .17 .22 1.20 .45 .33 .12 1999...... 1.96 .14 .16 1.32 .16 .18 1.09 .44 .32 .11 2000...... 1.91 .11 .17 1.30 .13 .19 1.09 .44 .28 .10 2001...... 1.76 .13 .16 1.08 .13 .26 .97 .40 .28 .11 2002...... 1.95 .11 .15 1.34 .12 .23 1.11 .42 .31 .12 2003...... 1.66 .12 .12 1.14 .13 .15 .91 .36 .29 .10 2004...... 1.64 .09 .13 1.15 .13 .14 .87 .36 .29 .12 2001: Q2... 2.16 .13 .19 1.34 .16 .34 1.23 .49 .32 .12  Q3... 1.66 .09 .13 1.09 .12 .23 1.00 .36 .23 .08  Q4... 1.57 .17 .15 .92 .10 .24 .81 .38 .26 .12 2002: Q1... 1.76 .14 .16 1.10 .13 .24 .90 .39 .34 .14  Q2... 2.44 .11 .15 1.78 .13 .26 1.44 .52 .34 .14  Q3... 1.95 .07 .14 1.40 .14 .20 1.16 .40 .29 .10  Q4... 1.65 .13 .15 1.09 .07 .20 .92 .36 .28 .09 2003: Q1... 1.69 .13 .14 1.08 .16 .18 .84 .37 .33 .15  Q2... 1.81 .11 .12 1.27 .15 .15 1.07 .37 .27 .09  Q3... 1.58 .08 .09 1.17 .10 .14 .94 .33 .24 .08  Q4... 1.57 .14 .14 1.04 .10 .15 .80 .36 .31 .10 2004: Q1... 1.60 .09 .13 1.12 .12 .15 .81 .33 .32 .14  Q2... 1.88 .08 .13 1.38 .14 .15 1.06 .43 .28 .10  Q3... 1.62 .07 .12 1.17 .14 .12 .93 .36 .23 .10  Q4... 1.44 .12 .13 .95 .10 .15 .67 .33 .32 .13  Note. Data are estimates from the Federal Reserve System’s Survey of the Terms of Bank Lending to Farmers. Quarterly estimates aannual rate and are based on loans made during the first full week of the second month of the quarter. 1. Loans used primarily to finance such items as current crop production expenses and the care and feeding of livestock (including p 2. Typically loans for which the lender does not know the purpose. 3. Portfolios with $25 million or less in farm loans. 4. Portfolios with more than $25 million in farm loans.
(logo)Rialto 

         CAPITAL

 

**2018 Annual Statement of ServicerCompliance (Item 1123)**

** **

Poolingand Servicing Agreement (the "Pooling and Servicing Agreement") datedas of December 1, 2018 by andamong UBS Commercial Mortgage Securitization, Corp. asDepositor, Midland Loan Services, a Division of PNCBank, NationalAssociation as Master Servicer, Rialto Capital Advisors, LLC as SpecialServicer, Park BridgeLenderServices LLC, as Operating Advisor and as Asset Representations Reviewer, WellsFargo Bank, NationalAssociationas Ce1tificate Administrator and as Trustee, relating to the UBS CommercialMortgage Trust 2018-C14,CommercialMortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2018-C14**(UBS 2018-Cl4)**

 

Theundersigned, a duly authorized officer of Rialto Capital Advisors, LLC, asspecial servicer (the "Special Servicer")herein certifies tothe following:

 

1.        All servicingactivities and performance of such servicing activities under the Pooling andServicing Agreement are performed on behalf of the Special Servicer.

 

2.        A review of theservicing activities and performance by the Special Servicer for the period ofDecember 12, 2018 to December 31, 2018 (the "Reporting Period") inaccordance with the Pooling and Servicing Agreement has been conducted under mysupervision.

 

3.        To the best of myknowledge, based on such review, the Special Servicer has fulfilled all of itsobligations under the terms of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement, in allmaterial respects for the Reporting Period and if there has, been a failure tofulfill any such obligations in any material respect, each failure and thenature and status thereof has been specifically identified herein.

 

 

Certifiedby: /s/ Adam Singer 

AdamSinger, Managing Director 

 

Date:March 1, 2019
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

 v. Case No. 07-cr-198-01-SM

David Bettoney

O R D E R

Defendant's assented-to motion to continue the trial (document no. 14) is granted.

Trial has been rescheduled for the March 2008 trial period. Defendant shall file a Waiver

of Speedy Trial Rights not later than February 5, 2008. On the filing of such waiver, his

continuance shall be effective.

The court finds that the ends of justice served by granting a continuance outweigh

the best interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial, 18 U.S.C. §

3161(h)(8)(B)(iv), in that failure to grant a continuance would unreasonably deny the

defendant the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation taking into account

Case 1:07-cr-00198-SM Document 15 Filed 02/04/08 Page 1 of 2
2

the exercise of due diligence under the circumstances.

Final Pretrial Conference: February 22, 2008 at 9:30 AM 

Jury Selection: March 4, 2008 at 9:30 AM

SO ORDERED.

February 4, 2008 _________________________

Steven J. McAuliffe

Chief Judge

cc: Helen Fitzgibbon, Esq.

 Michael Iacopino, Esq.

 U. S. Probation

 U. S. Marshal

Case 1:07-cr-00198-SM Document 15 Filed 02/04/08 Page 2 of 2
7

A.3. Volume of Non-real-estate Bank Loans Made to FarmersBillions of dollars

Size of loan Si

Purpose of loan (thousands of dollars) 

Other Farm 

current machinery 1 10 25 100

Feeder Other operating and to to to and Sm

Period Total livestock livestock expenses1 equipment Other2 9 24 99 over mid

1992...... 83.7 23.6 6.7 24.6 2.9 26.0 6.2 8.0 16.8 52.8 1993...... 92.6 28.7 6.2 24.7 2.5 30.6 6.1 8.3 17.1 61.0 1994...... 85.7 16.8 6.4 25.4 3.2 33.9 5.8 7.4 16.5 56.0 1995...... 84.1 12.7 5.2 27.3 2.7 36.1 5.4 8.3 16.0 54.4 1996...... 87.3 10.6 4.0 35.9 2.4 34.5 5.0 7.1 13.9 61.3 1997...... 71.4 8.0 5.3 23.6 2.7 31.9 5.0 7.4 15.8 43.3 1998...... 68.0 6.1 4.4 25.2 4.9 27.5 4.5 6.7 14.9 41.9 1999...... 60.6 4.9 4.2 28.4 5.2 18.0 4.2 6.6 15.1 34.9 2000...... 50.2 4.8 4.5 27.6 3.9 9.3 4.2 6.5 12.6 26.8 2001...... 51.6 5.1 4.7 21.7 4.1 16.1 3.7 5.9 12.6 29.3 2002...... 56.2 5.3 5.1 28.8 2.9 14.1 4.1 6.3 14.3 31.5 2003...... 51.1 7.9 4.5 24.5 4.3 10.0 3.4 5.3 13.5 28.8 2000: Q4... 41.2 5.8 5.1 17.8 2.3 10.2 3.7 5.3 11.4 20.8 2001: Q1... 54.3 3.6 4.3 23.7 4.7 18.0 3.3 5.7 13.9 31.4  Q2... 58.0 4.1 5.5 25.9 6.7 15.9 4.8 7.1 14.1 32.1  Q3... 38.6 4.1 3.5 17.7 2.8 10.5 3.7 5.3 10.2 19.5  Q4... 55.6 8.4 5.6 19.4 2.4 19.8 3.2 5.6 12.5 34.3 2002: Q1... 58.5 6.5 5.4 28.5 3.4 14.7 3.3 5.8 16.1 33.2  Q2... 57.9 4.7 5.0 33.1 2.5 12.6 5.3 7.9 15.3 29.4  Q3... 56.4 3.3 4.1 29.4 4.3 15.3 4.3 6.0 12.7 33.4  Q4... 51.9 6.9 5.9 24.0 1.3 13.7 3.5 5.4 12.9 30.0 2003: Q1... 60.8 8.8 4.5 30.0 6.1 11.4 3.1 5.6 15.3 36.9  Q2... 44.4 4.9 3.8 22.9 4.3 8.4 4.0 5.4 13.1 21.9  Q3... 43.9 6.6 3.6 20.8 3.9 9.0 3.3 4.8 11.0 24.7  Q4... 55.2 11.1 6.0 24.1 2.9 11.1 3.3 5.4 14.6 31.9 2004: Q1... 72.2 5.2 5.4 39.7 6.7 15.1 3.1 5.0 14.9 49.1  Q2... 60.2 3.8 4.7 30.2 3.9 17.6 4.0 6.5 13.0 36.7  Note. Data are estimates from the Federal Reserve System’s Survey of the Terms of Bank Lending to Farmers. Quarterly estimates aannual rate and are based on loans made during the first full week of the second month of the quarter. 1. Loans used primarily to finance such items as current crop production expenses and the care and feeding of livestock (including p 2. Typically loans for which the lender does not know the purpose. 3. Portfolios with $25 million or less in farm loans. 4. Portfolios with more than $25 million in farm loans.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 07-cr-200-01-SM

Kanhnha Sao

O R D E R

Defendant Sao’s motion to continue the final pretrial conference and trial is

granted (document 8). Trial has been rescheduled for the April 2008 trial

period. Defendant Sao shall file a waiver of speedy trial rights not later than

December 10, 2007. On the filing of such waiver, his continuance shall be

effective. 

The Court finds that the ends of justice served by granting a continuance

outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial, 18

U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(B)(iv), in that failure to grant a continuance would

unreasonably deny defendant the reasonable time necessary for effective

preparation taking into account the exercise of due diligence under the

circumstances. 

Final Pretrial Conference: March 21, 2008 at 3:00 p.m.

Jury Selection: April 1, 2008 at 9:30 a.m.

Case 1:07-cr-00200-SM Document 9 Filed 11/28/07 Page 1 of 2
2

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Steven J. McAuliffe

 Chief Judge

November 28, 2007

cc: James Gleason, Esq.

Don Feith, AUSA

US Probation

US Marshal

Case 1:07-cr-00200-SM Document 9 Filed 11/28/07 Page 2 of 2