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

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 163

To amend the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act to exempt mortgage

servicers from certain requirements of the Act with respect to federally

related mortgage loans secured by a first lien, and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 3, 2001

Mr. ROYCE (for himself, Mr. BENTSEN, Mr. MALONEY of Connecticut, Mr.

JONES of North Carolina, Mr. SESSIONS, Mr. MEEKS of New York, Mr.

SHERMAN, Mr. KANJORSKI, and Mrs. JONES of Ohio) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Financial Services

A BILL

To amend the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act to exempt

mortgage servicers from certain requirements of the Act

with respect to federally related mortgage loans secured

by a first lien, 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 ‘‘Mortgage Servicing

5 Clarification Act’’.
2

•HR 163 IH

1 SEC. 2. MORTGAGE SERVICING CLARIFICATION.

2 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Fair Debt Collection Prac3 tices Act (15 U.S.C. 1692 et seq.) is amended—

4 (1) by redesignating section 818 as section 819;

5 and

6 (2) by inserting after section 817 the following

7 new section:

8 ‘‘§ 818. Mortgage servicer exemption

9 ‘‘(a) EXEMPTION.—Any servicer of federally related

10 mortgage loans secured by first liens—

11 ‘‘(1) who is a debt collector; and

12 ‘‘(2) for whom the collection of delinquent debts

13 is incidental to the servicer’s primary function of

14 servicing current federally related mortgage loans,

15 shall be exempt from the requirements of section 807(11)

16 in connection with the collection of any debt which is a

17 federally related mortgage loan secured by a first lien.

18 ‘‘(b) DEFINITIONS.—For purposes of this section, the

19 following definitions shall apply:

20 ‘‘(1) FEDERALLY RELATED MORTGAGE LOAN.—

21 The term ‘federally related mortgage loan’ has the

22 meaning given to such term in section 3(1) of the

23 Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act of 1974.

24 ‘‘(2) SERVICER; SERVICING.—The terms

25 ‘servicer’ and ‘servicing’ have the meanings given to
3

•HR 163 IH

1 such terms in section 6(i) of the Real Estate Settle2 ment Procedures Act of 1974.’’.

3 (b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sections

4 for the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (15 U.S.C.

5 1692 et seq.) is amended—

6 (1) by redesignating the item relating to section

7 818 as section 819; and

8 (2) by inserting after the item relating to sec9 tion 817 the following new item:

‘‘818. Mortgage servicer exemption.’’.

Æ
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

April 8, 2016

No. 04

- 15

- 00582

- CV

IN THE INTEREST OF C.A. and M.A., Children

,

From the 73rd Judicial District Cou rt, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2014

- PA

- 01957

Honorable Martha Tanner, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, C h ie f Justice

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

On March 16, 2016, Attorney and Guardian Ad Litem for the children, who are the

subject of this proceeding, filed a motion for rehearing regarding this court’s opinion dated

March 2, 2016. The motion for rehearing is DENIED.

_________________________________ Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 8th day of April, 2016

.

___________________________________ Kei th E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
#### AMERICAN MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS, INC., Plaintiff-Respondent, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant-Petitioner.

No. MISC. 726.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

DECIDED: Feb. 26, 2003.

Before MICHEL, RADER, and SCHALL, Circuit Judges.

*ORDER*

MICHEL, Circuit Judge.

The United States petitions *for*permission to appeal the order certified by the Court of Federal Claims as one involving a controlling question of law with respect to which there is a substantial ground for difference of opinion and where an immediate appeal may materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation. American Management Systems, Inc. (AMS) opposes.

AMS filed suit against the United States challenging the Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board’s termination of the contract between the Thrift Board and AMS for default. The contract related to AMS’s development of an automated record keeping system for the Thrift Saving Plan (TSP). The United States moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction based on the nonappropriated funds doctrine, 28 U.S.C. § 2517(a), arguing that the TSP contract was not financed from general federal revenues, but rather funded out of private monies placed in the Thrift Savings Fund. AMS opposed the motion, advancing several independent reasons why the nonappropriated funds doctrine did not apply. The Court of Federal Claims denied the motion to dismiss on one ground and did not address AMS’s remaining arguments. The trial court subsequently *480certified its order for immediate appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(d)(2).

This court has complete discretion to grant or deny a petition for permission to appeal. *In re Convertible Rowing Exerciser Patent Litigation,*903 F.2d 822 (Fed. Cir.1990). In this case, we are not convinced that immediate interlocutory review of the trial court’s order is warranted. We are particularly persuaded by AMS’s argument that immediate interlocutory review may not advance the ultimate termination of the litigation because our decision on appeal, either affirming or reversing, would not decide the ease. If we affirmed, the case would continue. If we reversed, the trial court would still be required to consider AMS’s remaining arguments regarding jurisdiction.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

The United States’ petition for permission to appeal is denied.
(logo)Wells Fargo

 

**CorporateTrust Services**

MACR1204-010

9062Old Annapolis Road

Columbia,MD 21045

 

Telephone:410 884 2000

Fax:410 715 2380

 

 

**AnnualStatement of Compliance**

 

 

Perthe applicable Servicing Agreement for the transaction listed on Schedule Ihereto, the undersigned, a duly authorized officer of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.,in its applicable capacity as listed on Schedule I ("Wells Fargo"),hereby certifies as follows as of and for the year ending December 31, 2019 (the"Reporting Period"):

 

(a)      A review of WellsFargo’s activities during the Reporting Period and of its performance under theapplicable Servicing Agreement has been made under such officer’s supervision;and

 

(b)     To the best of suchofficer’s knowledge, based on such review, Wells Fargo has fulfilled all of itsobligations under the applicable Servicing Agreement in all material respectsthroughout the Reporting Period, except as noted in Schedule I.

 

 

February12, 2020

 

 

/s/Brian Smith

BrianSmith

VicePresident

 

/s/Patti Spencer

PattiSpencer

AssistantSecretary

 

 

©2019 Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. All rights reserved.

 

 

**ScheduleI**:

| ** **

**Transaction**                                                                                    | ** **

**Servicing  Agreement**     | ** **

**Servicing  Agreement Date** | ** **

**Wells Fargo  Capacity(ies)** |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------|
|  

UBS Commercial  Mortgage Trust 2018-C14 Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series  2018-C14 |  

Pooling and  Servicing Agreement |  

12/01/2018                        |  

Certificate  Administrator         |

 

 

**MaterialInstance(s) of Non-Compliance**

 

Listof exemptions for UBS Commercial Mortgage Trust 2018-C14 Commercial MortgagePass-Through Certificates Series 2018-C14:

 

OnJanuary 17, 2019, Wells Fargo made a distribution (the "JanuaryDistribution") to the holders of the certificates of the UBS CommercialMortgage Trust 2018-C14 Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series2018-C14. The January Distribution contained a payment error that resulted inthe overpayment to several CUSIPs totaling approximately $135,650 and acorresponding underpayment to the sole holder of the physical certificates. Thepayment error resulted from an administrative error during the deal setupprocess. The impact of this error was limited to the January Distribution.

 

OnJanuary 25, 2019, the January Distribution was revised to correct the paymenterror, whereby funds received from the overpaid CUSIPs were distributed to theunderpaid holder. To prevent further similar payment errors, Wells Fargo hasincorporated additional control procedures.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

)

Plaintiff, )

) 8:00CR57

vs. )

) ORDER

CURTIS A. GRANT, )

)

Defendant. )

Defendant Curtis A. Grant appeared before the court on Thursday, October 25, 2007 on a Petition

for Warrant or Summons for Offender Under Supervision [68]. The defendant was represented by

Assistant Federal Public Defender Michael F. Maloney and the United States was represented by

Assistant U.S. Attorney Douglas Semisch. Through his counsel, the defendant waived his right to a

probable cause hearing on the Report pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.1(a)(1). The government moved

for detention. Through counsel, the defendant declined to present any evidence on the issue of detention.

Since it is the defendant’s burden under 18 U.S.C. § 3143 to establish by clear and convincing evidence

that he is not a danger, the court finds the defendant has failed to carry his burden and that he should be

detained pending a dispositional hearing before Chief Judge Bataillon. 

I find that the Report alleges probable cause and that the defendant should be held to answer for

a final dispositional hearing before Judge Bataillon.

IT IS ORDERED:

1. A final dispositional hearing will be held before Judge Joseph F. Bataillon in Courtroom

No.3, Third Floor, Roman L. Hruska U.S. Courthouse, 111 South 18th Plaza, Omaha, Nebraska, on

November 16, 2007 at 9:30 a.m. Defendant must be present in person.

2 The defendant, Curtis A. Grant, is committed to the custody of the Attorney General or

his designated representative for confinement in a correctional facility;

3. The defendant shall be afforded a reasonable opportunity for private consultation with

defense counsel; and

4. Upon order of a United States court or upon request of an attorney for the government,

the person in charge of the corrections facility shall deliver defendant to the United States Marshal for the

purpose of an appearance in connection with a court proceeding.

DATED this 25th day of October, 2007.

BY THE COURT:

s/ F. A. Gossett

United States Magistrate Judge

8:00-cr-00057-JFB Doc # 75 Filed: 10/25/07 Page 1 of 1 - Page ID # 45
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 181 (Wednesday, September 17, 2008)]
[Presidential Documents]
[Page 54055]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-21861]




                        Presidential Documents 



Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 181 / Wednesday, September 17, 2008 / 
Presidential Documents

___________________________________________________________________

Title 3--
The President

[[Page 54055]]

                Presidential Determination No. 2008-27 of September 12, 
                2008

                
Continuation of the Exercise of Certain 
                Authorities Under the Trading With the Enemy Act

                Memorandum for the Secretary of State [and] the 
                Secretary of the Treasury

                Under section 101(b) of Public Law 95-223 (91 Stat. 
                1625; 50 U.S.C. App. 5(b) note), and a previous 
                determination on September 13, 2007 (72 FR 53409), the 
                exercise of certain authorities under the Trading With 
                the Enemy Act is scheduled to terminate on September 
                14, 2008.

                I hereby determine that the continuation for 1 year of 
                the exercise of those authorities with respect to Cuba 
                is in the national interest of the United States.

                Therefore, consistent with the authority vested in me 
                by section 101(b) of Public Law 95-223, I continue for 
                1 year, until September 14, 2009, the exercise of those 
                authorities with respect to Cuba as implemented by the 
                Cuban Assets Control Regulations, 31 C.F.R. Part 515.

                The Secretary of the Treasury is authorized and 
                directed to publish this determination in the Federal 
                Register.
                <GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
                
                    (Presidential Sig.)

                THE WHITE HOUSE,

                    Washington, September 12, 2008

[FR Doc. E8-21861
Filed 9-16-08; 8:45 am]
Billing code 4811-33-M
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-10387

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

KALI LORD,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 6:17-CR-57-1

Before BENAVIDES, HIGGINSON, and ENGELHARDT, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Kali Lord appeals the 57-month, within-guidelines sentence imposed 

following her guilty plea conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm. 

She argues that the district court failed to adequately explain the reason for 

the sentence in light of the nonfrivolous arguments she presented in favor of a 

lower sentence.

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

November 26, 2018

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 18-10387 Document: 00514735529 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/26/2018
No. 18-10387

2

We review Lord’s arguments for plain error. See United States v. 

Gerezano-Rosales, 692 F.3d 393, 399-400 (5th Cir. 2012). To establish plain 

error, Lord must show that the district court committed a clear or obvious error 

that affected her substantial rights. See Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 

135 (2009). Even if she succeeds, this court will correct the error only if it 

seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the proceedings. 

See id.

The district court’s justification for imposing the particular terms of 

imprisonment and supervised release in this case implicitly acknowledged that 

Lord made 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) arguments, and the court rejected them. See 

United States v. Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d 357, 362–63 (5th Cir. 2009). 

Thus, there is no clear or obvious error. See Puckett, 556 U.S. at 135. Further, 

her speculative arguments that the court likely would have imposed a lower 

sentence had it given more explanation fails to show an effect on substantial 

rights. See, e.g., Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d at 364-65. 

AFFIRMED.

 Case: 18-10387 Document: 00514735529 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/26/2018
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-13-00520-CR

Juan Manuel Rodriguez-Olivas

v.

The State of Texas

§

§

§

§

§

From the 235th District Court

of Cooke County (CR12-00257)

October 15, 2015

Opinion by Justice Meier

(nfp)

JUDGMENT

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

there was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of 

the trial court is affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

By /s/ Bill Meier 

 Justice Bill Meier
**Exhibit      32(b)**

**TXU      CORP.**

**Certificate      Pursuant to Section 906**

**of      Sarbanes - Oxley Act of 2002**

**CERTIFICATION      OF CFO**

|   | 1. | The                Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31,                2007 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a)                or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and                  |
|--------|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | 2. | Information                contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,                the                financial condition and results of operation of the Company.  |
|--------|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   |   | /s/                David A. Campbell                                |   |
|--------|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|   | Name:  | David                A. Campbell                                    |   |
|   | Title: | Executive                Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |   |
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 07-cr-17-PB

Yvonne Thrasher

O R D E R

The defendant, through counsel, has moved to continue the

April 3, 2007 trial in the above case, citing the need for

additional time to complete discovery and prepare a defense. The

government does not object to a continuance of the trial date.

Accordingly, for the above reason and to allow the parties

additional time to properly prepare for trial, the court will

continue the trial from April 3, 2007 to June 5, 2007. In

agreeing to continue the trial, the court finds pursuant to 18

U.S.C.A. § 3161(h)(8)(A) that for the above-stated reasons, the

ends of justice served in granting a continuance outweigh the

best interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial.

Case 1:07-cr-00017-PB Document 14 Filed 03/23/07 Page 1 of 2
2

The March 23, 2007 final pretrial conference is continued to 

May 22, 2007 at 4:45 p.m.

SO ORDERED.

/s/Paul Barbadoro 

Paul Barbadoro

United States District Judge

March 23, 2007

cc: Michael R. Smith, Esq.

Robert Viega, Esq.

United States Probation

United States Marshal

Case 1:07-cr-00017-PB Document 14 Filed 03/23/07 Page 2 of 2
*Release Date: December 30, 2003*

*Other formats:*
ASCII (4 KB)
PDF (3 KB)
CSV (1 KB)

----

```
C.5. Average Variable Interest Rates on Farm Loans
Percent
```

| Quarter | Other operating loans1 | Intermediate non-real-estate loans | Long-term real estate loans |
|---------|------------------------|------------------------------------|-----------------------------|
||
| 7.9     | 7.7                    | 7.2                                |
| 7.4     | 7.5                    | 7.0                                |
| 7.2     | 7.2                    | 6.8                                |
| 6.8     | 6.7                    | 6.4                                |
| 6.7     | 6.6                    | 6.3                                |
| 6.5     | 6.4                    | 6.1                                |
| 6.3     | 6.2                    | 5.9                                |
| 6.2     | 6.1                    | 5.7                                |
| 6.1     | 6.1                    | 5.7                                |
||
| 0.0     | 0.0                    | 0.0                                |
| 0.0     | 0.0                    | 0.0                                |
| 7.7     | 7.6                    | 7.1                                |
| 7.5     | 7.4                    | 6.9                                |
| 7.2     | 7.0                    | 6.6                                |
| 7.0     | 6.9                    | 6.4                                |
| 6.9     | 6.8                    | 6.3                                |
| 6.7     | 6.6                    | 6.1                                |
| 6.7     | 6.6                    | 6.2                                |
||
| n.a.    | n.a.                   | n.a.                               |
| n.a.    | n.a.                   | n.a.                               |
| n.a.    | n.a.                   | n.a.                               |
| n.a.    | n.a.                   | n.a.                               |
| n.a.    | n.a.                   | n.a.                               |
| 5.8     | 6.0                    | 6.2                                |
| 5.2     | 5.3                    | 5.2                                |
| 5.1     | 5.3                    | 5.6                                |
| 4.6     | 4.9                    | 5.7                                |
```
1. Loans used primarily to finance such items as current crop production expenses
and the care and feeding of livestock (including poultry). Return to table
   * State falls only partly within the indicated Reserve District.
   n.a. Not available.
   Source. Federal Reserve Bank quarterly surveys of agricultural credit conditions at
commercial banks.
```

*Other formats:*
ASCII (4 KB)
PDF (3 KB)
CSV (1 KB)

Statistical releases

----

HomeEconomic research and dataAccessibilityContact Us
I

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 159

To prohibit a State from determining that a ballot submitted by an absent

uniformed services voter was improperly or fraudulently cast unless the

State finds clear and convincing evidence of fraud, and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 3, 2001

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

on House Administration

A BILL

To prohibit a State from determining that a ballot submitted

by an absent uniformed services voter was improperly

or fraudulently cast unless the State finds clear and

convincing evidence of fraud, 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 ‘‘Armed Services Voting

5 Act’’.
2

•HR 159 IH

1 SEC. 2. STANDARD FOR INVALIDATION OF BALLOTS CAST

2 BY ABSENT UNIFORMED SERVICES VOTERS

3 IN FEDERAL ELECTIONS.

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—A State may not refuse to count

5 a ballot submitted in an election for Federal office by an

6 absent uniformed services voter on the grounds that the

7 ballot was improperly or fraudulently cast unless the State

8 finds clear and convincing evidence of fraud in the prepa9 ration or casting of the ballot by the voter. For purposes

10 of the previous sentence, the lack of a witness signature,

11 address, postmark, or other identifying information may

12 not be considered clear and convincing evidence of fraud

13 (absent any other information or evidence).

14 (b) NO EFFECT ON FILING DEADLINES UNDER

15 STATE LAW.—Nothing in this section may be construed

16 to affect the application to ballots submitted by absent

17 uniformed services voters of any ballot submission dead18 line applicable under State law.

19 (c) ABSENT UNIFORMED SERVICES VOTER DE20 FINED.—In this Act, the term ‘‘absent uniformed services

21 voter’’ has the meaning given such term in section 107(1)

22 of the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting

23 Act (42 U.S.C. 1973ff–6(1)).
3

•HR 159 IH

1 SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.

2 This Act shall apply with respect to ballots submitted

3 for elections for Federal office occurring after the date of

4 the enactment of this Act.

Æ