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

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1696 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.R.1696

                      One Hundred Seventh Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE FIRST SESSION

         Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday,
             the third day of January, two thousand and one

                                 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. APPROVAL OF WORLD WAR II MEMORIAL SITE AND DESIGN.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the World War II 
memorial described in plans approved by the Commission of Fine Arts on 
July 20, 2000 and November 16, 2000, and selected by the National 
Capital Planning Commission on September 21, 2000 and December 14, 
2000, and in accordance with the special use permit issued by the 
Secretary of the Interior on January 23, 2001, and numbered NCR-NACC-
5700-0103, shall be constructed expeditiously at the dedicated Rainbow 
Pool site in the District of Columbia in a manner consistent with such 
plans and permits, subject to design modifications, if any, approved in 
accordance with applicable laws and regulations.

SEC. 2. APPLICATION OF COMMEMORATIVE WORKS ACT.

    Elements of the memorial design and construction not approved as of 
the date of enactment of this Act shall be considered and approved in 
accordance with the requirements of the Commemorative Works Act (40 
U.S.C. 1001 et seq.).

SEC. 3. JUDICIAL REVIEW.

    The decision to locate the memorial at the Rainbow Pool site in the 
District of Columbia and the actions by the Commission of Fine Arts on 
July 20, 2000 and November 16, 2000, the actions by the National 
Capital Planning Commission on September 21, 2000 and December 14, 
2000, and the issuance of the special use permit identified in section 
1 shall not be subject to judicial review.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Mohammed Reza Enayat

v. Civil No. 07-cv-72-JD

United States of America

PROCEDURAL ORDER

The movant has filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to

vacate, set aside, or correct the sentence ordered by the court

following the movant's trial in United States v. Mohammad Reza

Enayat, No. 03-cr-82-JD.

The court orders the United States Attorney to file an

answer within sixty (60) days of the date of this order, which

answer shall provide a detailed response, with appropriate

references to the record when necessary, to each claim asserted

by the movant.

In the event that the United States Attorney contends that

the motion is not timely filed under the limitations provided for

in 28 U.S.C. § 2255 or that it is a second or successive motion,

a motion to dismiss in lieu of a response shall be filed within

thirty (30) days of the date of this order

 SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.

District Judge

June 13, 2007

cc: Edward J. Juel, Esquire

Aixa Maldonado-Quinones, Esquire

Case 1:07-cv-00072-JD Document 12 Filed 06/13/07 Page 1 of 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 06-cr-226-PB

Beth Handy, et al.

O R D E R

Defendant Ofer Lupovitz has moved to continue the trial

scheduled for October 21, 2008, citing the need for additional

time to review discovery on the second superseding indictment and

prepare a defense. The government and co-defendants do 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 October 21, 2008 to January 13, 2009. 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 defendants in a speedy

trial. 

Case 1:06-cr-00226-PB Document 156 Filed 10/15/08 Page 1 of 2
2

The court will hold a final pretrial conference on December

22, 2008 at 3:00 p.m.

SO ORDERED.

/s/Paul Barbadoro 

Paul Barbadoro

United States District Judge

October 15, 2008

cc: Dana Cole, Esq.

Michael Iacopino, Esq.

David Bownes, Esq.

Richard Johnston, Esq.

Bjorn Lange, Esq.

Seth Aframe, Esq.

Mark Irish, Esq.

Aixa Maldonado-Quinones, Esq.

United States Probation

United States Marshal

Case 1:06-cr-00226-PB Document 156 Filed 10/15/08 Page 2 of 2
EXHIBIT
35.1



SERVICER
COMPLIANCE STATEMENT



Re:
Mercedes-Benz Financial Services USA LLC, in its capacity as Servicer (the “Servicer”) under the Amended and Restated
Servicing Agreement, dated as of March 1, 2009, among Daimler Trust, as Titling Trust, Daimler Title Co., as Collateral Agent,
and Mercedes-Benz Financial Services USA LLC, as Lender and as Servicer (the “Servicing Agreement”), and under the
2019-A Servicing Supplement, dated as of January 1, 2019, among the same parties (the “Servicing Supplement”) for
the period from January 30, 2019, to December 31, 2019 (the “Reporting Period”)

I,
Brian T. Stevens, certify that:



| | (a) | A
                                         review of the Servicer’s activities during the Reporting Period and of its performance
                                         under the Servicing Agreement and the Servicing Supplement has been made under my supervision.
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (b) | To
                                         the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its
                                         obligations under the Servicing Agreement and the Servicing Supplement in all material
                                         respects throughout the Reporting Period.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Dated:
March 19, 2020



| | /s/
    Brian T. Stevens                 | 
| | ---------------------------------------- | 
| | Name:
    Brian T. Stevens              
| | Title:
    Vice President and Controller
#### FRY v. SHAEFFER.

No. 6406.

Circuit Court of-Appeals, Third Circuit.

Feb. 7, 1938.

John N. Landberg, of. Philadelphia, Pa., for appellant.

Joseph R. Byars, of Lancaster, Pa., for appellee.

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

PER CURIAM.

The questions raised require an examination of the testimony taken before the conciliation commissioner or referee and his report in the premises to the trial court. Such evidence and such report are not part of the record, nor is there any agreed statement of the evidence or of the report by the parties as to what they respectively contain. See Equity Rules Nos. 75 and 77, 226 U.S. 672, 286 U.S. 570, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723, and General Order in Bankruptcy No. 36; 288 U.S. 632, 11 U.S.C.A. following section 53. Not having such before us, we indulge the presumption that the missing items support the decree made by the District Court. See Bank of Eureka v. Partington, *9*Cir., 91 F.2d 587, 590.

Accordingly, the decree of the court below is affirmed.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Katon Lang

v. Case No. 07-cv-66-SM

James O’Mara, Jr., Superintendent,

Hillsborough County Department of

Corrections; Ronald Potter; David

Archambault; and Todd Gordon

NOTICE OF RULING

Re: (Document No. 42) Defendants’ Motion for Reconsideration

of Order Denying Motion for Summary Judgment

Ruling: Denied. Defendants miss the point. Yes, their

version of the pertinent events would, if true, entitle

defendants to summary judgment, but the record does not. 

Defendants themselves submitted evidence in support of their

summary judgment motion (i.e., plaintiff's sworn version of the

pertinent events) which demonstrated the existence of genuine

disputes as to material facts precluding summary judgment. With

respect to qualified immunity, again, if plaintiff's version of

the pertinent events (which defendants put before the court) is

accepted by the jury, defendants would not be entitled to

qualified immunity. 

Steven J. McAuliffe

Chief Judge

February 19, 2009

cc: Michael J. Sheehan, Esq.

Elizabeth L. Hurley, Esq.

John A. Curran, Esq.

Case 1:07-cv-00066-SM Document 44 Filed 02/19/09 Page 1 of 1
EXHIBIT
31.01





RULE
13a-14(a)/15d-14(a)


CERTIFICATION
OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE AND PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER




I, John
Hummel, certify that:









1. I have
reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of AIS Futures Fund IV
L.P.;




2. Based
on my knowledge, this report does 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, the financial statements, and other financial information
included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial
condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and
for, the periods presented in this report;




4. The
registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing
and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act
Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:




(a)
Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that
material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly
during the period in which this report is being prepared;




(b)
Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness
of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered
by this report based on such evaluation; and




(c)
Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the Partnership’s most recent fiscal
quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report)
that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the
registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and




5.  The
registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most
recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):




(a) All
significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to
adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and
report financial information; and




(b) Any
fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who
have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial
reporting.









Date:
August 14, 2008




By:  /s/ John
Hummel


John
Hummel


President
(principal executive and principal financial officer)


AIS
Futures Management LLC


General
Partner of AIS Futures Fund IV L.P.
I

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1661

To extend indefinitely the authority of the States of Washington, Oregon,

and California to manage a Dungeness crab fishery until the effective

date of a fishery management plan for the fishery under the MagnusonStevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MAY 1, 2001

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California (for himself and Mr. WALDEN of Oregon)

introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Resources

A BILL

To extend indefinitely the authority of the States of Washington, Oregon, and California to manage a Dungeness

crab fishery until the effective date of a fishery management plan for the fishery under the Magnuson-Stevens

Fishery Conservation and Management Act.

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

3 SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF AUTHORITY OF STATES OF

4 WASHINGTON, OREGON, AND CALIFORNIA TO

5 MANAGE DUNGENESS CRAB FISHERY.

6 Section 203 of the Act entitled ‘‘An Act to approve

7 a governing international fishery agreement between the
2

•HR 1661 IH

1 United States and the Republic of Poland, and for other

2 purposes’’, approved November 13, 1998 (Public Law

3 105–384; 16 U.S.C. 1856 note), is amended by striking

4 subsection (i).

Æ
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

_____________ No. 96-2665WA

_____________ Dennis Joslin, CPA, * * Appellant, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the Western v. * District of Arkansas. * Jack D. Beavert, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellee. *

_____________ Submitted: July 22, 1997

Filed: August 4, 1997

_____________ Before FAGG, BOWMAN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

_____________ PER CURIAM. Dennis Jo slin appeals from the adverse decisions of the jury and the judge i n Joslin's diversity action to collect the unpaid balance on a note. We reverse. Througha series of transactions, Joslin obtained a promissory note guaranteed by Jack D. Beavert from the Federal Deposit Insurance C orporation. Later, Joslin sued Beavert for the unpaid principal balance and accrued interest as a guarantor on the note. Over Joslin's objections, the district court instruct ed the jury that the debtor's obligation could be discharged to the extent the creditor impaired the value of the collateral,-2-

unle ss waiver applied, and that the creditor was required to dispose of collateral in a commercially reasonable manner. The jury returned a verdict in favor of Beavert. Applying Texas law to the guaranty signe d by Beavert, we conclude the defense of i mpairment of collateral was unavailable to Beavert. When Beavert consented t o remain liable regardless of any i mpairment of collateral, and gave the creditor the right to ignore the collateral and obtain a jud gment against the guarantor, the impairment-ofcollateral defense was expressly waived. See Simpson v. MBank Dallas, N.A. , 72 4 S.W.2d 102, 106 (Tex. Ct. App. 1987); FDIC v. Coleman , 795 S.W.2d 706, 707-1 0 (Tex. 1990). Additionally, Beavert's guaranty unambiguously waived any defens e relativ e to the commercially reasonable disposition of the collateral. See Steinberg v. Cinema N'Drafthouse Sys., Inc. , 28 F.3d 23, 24, 25-26 (5th Cir. 1994). Because the district court misinstruct ed the jury and the error "caused, or can be reasonably calculated

to have caused, the rendition of an improper verdict," Lone Star Ford, Inc. v. McCormick , 838 S.W.2d 734, 739 (Tex. Ct. App. 1992), we reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
UNAUDITED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF THE COMPANY AS OF MARCH 31, 1999,
AND FOR THE THREE MONTHS THEN ENDED AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                       6,804,429
<SECURITIES>                                31,002,356
<RECEIVABLES>                               12,311,832
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            59,485,382
<PP&E>                                         980,779
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              61,378,637
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        57,765
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                61,378,637
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            15,545,641
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               14,610,883
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                58,332
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             281,178
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                595,248
<INCOME-TAX>                                   141,414
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            595,248
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   453,834
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .09
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .09
        

</TABLE>
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

District of New Hampshire

1000 Elm Street

Suite 1001

Manchester, NH 03101−1708

In re:

Silver Lake Hardware & Custom Millwork, Inc.

 Debtor

Bk. No. 14−11065−JMD

Chapter 11

NOTICE OF COURT FEE DUE

The following fees are currently due and owing to the Clerk's Office under 28 U.S.C. § 1930(b) and the

Miscellaneous Bankruptcy Fees Schedule. Failure to pay the fees will result in the scheduling of an Order to Show

Cause hearing and posssible dismissal of the case and/or motion.

Fee related to Doc. No.: 175

Fee is owed by: Debtor

Type of fee: Motion to Sell Free & Clear

Amount Due: $176.00

Fee Due on or before: March 25, 2015

Personal checks and credit/debit cards of the debtor will not be accepted.

If mailing the payment, the money order or cashier's check should be made payable to the Clerk, U.S. Bankruptcy

Court and sent to the address listed on the top of this form. Do not send cash through the mail. If making the payment

in person, cash is accepted, exact change only.

See Local Bankruptcy Rules 5080−1 and 5081−1 for information regarding fees.

Date: March 18, 2015 Bonnie L. McAlary, Clerk

By: /s/ Dori Sommer

Deputy Clerk

INCLUDE A COPY OF THIS NOTICE WITH YOUR PAYMENT

Form ntccrtfeedue−840

Case: 14-11065-JMD Doc #: 176 Filed: 03/18/15 Desc: Notice of Court Fees Due Page 1

 of 1
Skip to Content
Release dates
About
Current release
*Other formats:*
 ASCII (48 KB)
PDF (115 KB)
CSV (103 KB)

----

**December 2004**

Section A
Section B

All files contain data as of the current quarter. Files in comma-separated variable (CSV) format contain all available historical data.Section CReserve Bank Surveys of Farm Credit Conditions and Farm Land Values   C.1. Non-real-estate Farm Lending Compared with a Year EarlierASCII (12 KB)PDF (6 KB)Screen ReaderCSV (17 KB)  C.2. Expected Farm Loan Volume for the Next QuarterASCII (11 KB)PDF (6 KB)Screen ReaderCSV (12 KB)  C.3. Indicators of Relative Credit AvailabilityASCII (12 KB)PDF (6 KB)Screen ReaderCSV (14 KB)  C.4. Average Fixed Interest Rates on Farm LoansASCII (10 KB)PDF (4 KB)Screen ReaderCSV (6 KB)  C.5. Average Variable Interest Rates on Farm LoansASCII (4 KB)PDF (3 KB)Screen ReaderCSV (1 KB)  C.6. Trends in Farm Real Estate Values and Loan VolumeASCII (7 KB)PDF (4 KB)Screen ReaderCSV (12 KB)  C.7. Trends in Farm Income and ExpendituresASCII (4 KB)PDF (3 KB)Screen ReaderCSV (7 KB)Release dates |AboutCurrent release*Other formats:* ASCII (48 KB) |PDF (115 KB) |CSV (103 KB)
Statistical releases
Home |Economic research and dataAccessibility |Contact Us**Last update: December 31, 2004**
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with theQuarterly Report of Covance Inc. (“Covance”) on Form 10-Q for the period endedSeptember 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on thedate hereof (the “Report”), I, Joseph L. Herring, Chairman of the Board andChief Executive Officer of Covance, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,that:

 

(1)          TheReport fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)          Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of Covance.

 

 
| Date:  October 26, 2007 |   |
|-------------------------|--------|
|                    |   |
|                    | /s/    | Joseph  L. Herring |   |
|                    |   | Joseph L. Herring |
|                    |   | Chairman of the Board  and |
|                    |   | Chief Executive Officer |
|                    |   | (Principal Executive  Officer) |

 

 

----