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

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 440 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.Con.Res.440
                                               Agreed to October 2, 2008

                       One Hundred Tenth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE SECOND SESSION

          Begun and held at the City of Washington on Thursday,
            the third day of January, two thousand and eight

                          Concurrent Resolution

    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That when the House adjourns on any legislative day on a motion offered 
pursuant to this concurrent resolution by its Majority Leader or his 
designee, it stand adjourned until 11 a.m. on Saturday, January 3, 
2009, or until the time of any reassembly pursuant to section 2 of this 
concurrent resolution, whichever occurs first; and the Senate may 
adjourn or recess at any time from Thursday, October 2, 2008, through 
January 3, 2009, on a motion offered pursuant to this concurrent 
resolution by its Majority Leader or his designee until such time as 
specified in that motion, but not beyond noon on January 3, 2009, and 
it may reassemble pursuant to section 2 of this concurrent resolution.
    Sec. 2.  The Speaker of the House and the Majority Leader of the 
Senate, or their respective designees, acting jointly after 
consultation with the Minority Leader of the House and the Minority 
Leader of the Senate, shall notify the Members of the House and the 
Senate, respectively, to reassemble at such place and respective time 
as they may designate if, in their opinion, the public interest shall 
warrant it.
Attest:

                                 Clerk of the House of Representatives.

Attest:

                                               Secretary of the Senate.
```
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. FREDERICK BAUSCH.

Jan. 14, 1980.

Petition for certification granted. (See 171 *N.J.Super.*314)
#### Carder & Parish v. J. B. Wilder & Co.

(No. 350, Op. Book No. 1, p. 170.)

Appeal from Lamar County.

April 13, 1877.

Opinion by

Ector, P. J.

§14. *Partnership; sworn account.*The affidavit toa sworn account under the act of 1874, pp. 52 and 53 [Rev. Stats, art. 2266], against a partnership, proves the partnership, unless the same is denied under oath, as well as all the other facts necessary to make out a *prima facie*case. [Persons v. Frost & Co. 25 Tex. Sup. 129.]

Affirmed.
i i i i i i



### MEM ORA ND UM OP INION
No
. 04 -0 9- 00 25 9- CR J ames Ar thur ANTHONY , Appellant
v . The STA TE of

Te xas, Appellee F ro m th e 14 4th

Judic ia l D ist

ri c t Co ur t, B e xar County , T e xas Trial Court No. 2007-CR-2235 Honora ble Sharon Mac Rae , J udg e Presiding PER CU RI AM Sitt ing: Kar en Ang elini , J ustice

Sandee B ry an Mar ion , J ustice Phy lis J . Speedlin , J ustice Deliver ed and F iled: J uly 8, 2009 DI SMI SSED Pur s u a n t t o a p l e a - b a r g a i n a g r e e m e n t , Ja m e s A rt h u r A n t h o n y p l e d n o l o c o n t e n d e re to ag g rava ted sexual assault and t ru e to an e nhance ment offe nse and w as sentenc ed to forty y ear s imprisonment in acc ordanc e with the t erms of his plea -bar g ain ag ree ment. On April 1, 2009, the trial court sig ned a c ertifica

tion of defe ndant’s rig ht to appeal stating that this “ is a plea- barg ain case , and04
- 09
- 00 25 9- CR

- 2- the def endant ha s NO rig ht of appe al.” See T EX . R. A PP . P. 25.2(a)( 2). After Anthony filed a notice of appe al, the trial c ourt cler k sent copies of the certification and notice of a ppeal to this court. See id . 25.2(e) . The c lerk’s r ecor d, which includes the t rial cour t’s Rule 25.2(a) (2) c ertification, has been filed. See id . 25.2(d). “I n a plea barg ain case ... a defenda nt may appea l only : (A) those ma tters that wer e ra ised by
wr itt e n mo tio n f

ile d a nd rul ed on before tr ia l, o r ( B ) a ft e r g e tti ng the tr ia l c ou rt ’s pe rm iss ion to appea l.” Id
. 25.2(a) (2). The cler k’s re cord e stablishes the punishment assessed by the cour t does not exceed the punishment re commended by the prosec utor and a greed to by Anthony
. Se e id . The
c le rk ’s re c or d do e s no t inc lud e a wr itt e n mot ion fi le d a nd ru le d u po n b e fo re tr ia l; n or

do e s it ind ic a te that the tri al co u rt g ave A nthony permission to appea l. Se e id . The trial c ourt’s ce rtification, there fore , appea

rs to acc urate ly ref

lect that this is a plea-ba

rg ain ca se and tha t Anthony does not have a rig ht to appeal. We must dismis s an appe al “if a cer tification that shows the def endant ha s the rig ht of appe al has not bee n made pa rt of the r ecor d.” Id . 25.2(d). We, the re fo re , w a rn e d A nth on y that thi s a pp e a l wo uld be dis mis se d p ur su a nt t o T e xas R ule of Appe llate Proce dure 25.2( d), unless a n am en d ed trial court cer tification showing that Anthony had the r ight to appe al was ma de p ar t o f t he appe llate re cord. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 25.2(d), 37.1; Da nie ls v . S

tat e , 110 S.W .3d 174, 176 (Tex. A pp.—San Antonio 2003, order ). No s u ch am ended trial court c ertifica

tion has been f

iled. This a

ppeal is, the ref

ore, dismiss ed pursuant to Rule 25.2( d).

PER CU RI AM DO NO T PU B L I SH
No. 87-6217.

#### Legrone *v.*Texas.

Ct. Crim. App. Tex. Certiorari denied.
# News

## U.S. Air Force LogoUnited States Air Force

# Around the Air Force: NATO Response Force, US Fighters Deploy, Air Policing Europe

              - Published  March 4, 2022
              -                             By Senior Airman Kahdija Slaughter                                                    
              - Air Force TV

**FORT GEORGE G. MEADE, Md. (AFNS)   --  **
Today’s look Around the Air Force highlights the historic activation of NATO’s Response Force, and F-35s and F-16s deploy to NATO’s Eastern flank to join Allied aircraft in securing airspace. (Hosted by Staff Sgt. Jevon Smith)

 

For previous episodes, click **here** for the Air Force TV page.Related links:**-  With Activation of NATO Response Force, U.S. Military Ready to Provide Forces****-  Hill AFB fighter wings deploy Airmen, F-35’s to Germany****- More German Eurofighters to secure the skies in Romania****- RAF Typhoons reinforce NATO’s response to the invasion of Ukraine**

 

Featured VideoAFTVATAFAround the Air ForceAir ForceAF
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 180 (Friday, September 17, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 57061]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-23328]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

[WY-920-1430-ET; WYW 109115]


Public Land Order No. 7748; Extension of Public Land Order No. 
6797; Wyoming

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

ACTION: Public land order.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This order extends the withdrawal created by Public Land Order 
No. 6797 for an additional 20-year period. This extension is necessary 
to continue the protection of the Whiskey Mountain Bighorn Sheep Winter 
Range in Fremont County.

DATES: Effective Date: September 14, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Janelle Wrigley, BLM Wyoming State 
Office, 5353 N. Yellowstone Road, P.O. Box 1828, Cheyenne, Wyoming 
82003, 307-775-6257.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The purpose for which the withdrawal was 
first made requires this extension to continue the protection of the 
Whiskey Mountain Bighorn Sheep Winter Range. The withdrawal extended by 
this order will expire on September 13, 2030, unless, as a result of a 
review conducted prior to the expiration date pursuant to Section 
204(f) of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, 43 U.S.C. 
1714(f), the Secretary determines that the withdrawal shall be further 
extended.

Order

    By virtue of the authority vested in the Secretary of the Interior 
by Section 204 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, 
43 U.S.C. 1714, it is ordered as follows:
    Public Land Order No. 6797 (55 FR 37878 (1990)), which withdrew 
9,609.74 acres of public mineral estate from location or entry under 
the United States mining laws (30 U.S.C. Ch. 2) to protect the Whiskey 
Mountain Bighorn Sheep Winter Range, is hereby extended for an 
additional 20-year period until September 13, 2030.

(Authority: 43 CFR 2310.4)

     Dated: September 9, 2010.
Wilma A. Lewis,
Assistant Secretary--Land and Minerals Management.
[FR Doc. 2010-23328 Filed 9-16-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-22-P
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER ON MOTION

Cause number: 01-18-00858-CR

Style: Thurston Rickey-Lee Davis v. The State of Texas

Date motion filed*: January 11, 2018

Type of motion: Second Motion to Extend Time to File Appellant’s Brief

Party filing motion: Appellant’s new counsel Garrick A. Farria, Esq.

Document to be filed: Notice of Designation of New Lead Counsel/Motion for Substitution of 

Counsel

Is appeal accelerated? No.

If motion to extend time:

Original due date: November 29, 2018

Number of extensions granted: 1 Current Due Date: January 16, 2019

Date Requested: March 16, 2019 (107 days from original deadline)

Ordered that motion is:

 Granted, in part

If document is to be filed, document due: February 15, 2019.

☒ No further extensions of time will be granted absent extraordinary 

 circumstances.

 Denied

 Dismissed (e.g., want of jurisdiction, moot)

 Other: _____________________________________ 

Appellant’s new counsel’s first extension request is granted, in part, for 30 days, 

but no further extensions will be granted absent extraordinary circumstances

given the total length of the requests. Although counsel filed a notice of appearance,

Garrick A. Farria is ordered to file a notice of designation of new lead counsel signed

by appointed counsel Natalie Schultz or, if Schultz requests withdrawal, a motion for 

substitution of counsel within 10 days of this Order. See TEX. R. APP. P. 6.1(c), 6.5(d). 

Judge’s signature: ___/s/ Evelyn V. Keyes_________

 x Acting individually Acting for the Court

Date: ___January 17, 2019______
#### C. Rhodius v. W. R. Storey.

(No. 210, Op. Book No. 1, p. 485.)

Appeal from Bexar County.

Opinion by

Ector, P. J.

§ 336. *Partnership; liability of, for act of agent.*The hiring of a horse for a partnership purpose, and to be used by an agent of the firm, is within the scope Of the authority of either partner, -and such special contract entered into by one member is binding upon the firm. If, then, the contract so entered into was violated by the agent or employee, and the party with whom it was made *144thereby suffered loss, it must he compensated by the firm.

April 24, 1878.

§ 337. *Service of citation upon one partner.*In a suit against a partnership, service of process upon one of the partners is sufficient notice to all the members of the firm, but the judgment rendered in case of such service shall only be enforced against the partnership property, and the separate property of the partner who may have been served. [Pas. Dig. art. 1514.]

Reversed and reformed.
EX 10.2 Amendment No. 3 to Employment Agreement






AMENDMENT NO. 3 TO
EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT
This Amendment No. 3 to Employment Agreement is entered into on September 30, 2014 by Vistaprint USA, Incorporated (the “Company”) and Ernst Teunissen (the “Employee”). The Company and the Employee previously entered into an Employment Agreement dated July 1, 2011, as amended (the “Agreement”), and now wish to amend the Agreement further to reflect the Employee’s compensation for the Company’s 2015 fiscal year.
The parties agree as follows:
1.Compensation and Benefits.
1.1Salary.  The Company shall pay the Employee, in accordance with the Company’s regular payroll practices, an annualized base salary of $157,660 (approximate, based on the 30-day trailing average currency exchange rate in effect at May 13, 2014) for the one-year period commencing on July 1, 2014. 
1.2FY 2015 Incentive Compensation.  The Employee is entitled to receive the bonuses, incentive awards, and equity compensation awards for the Company’s fiscal year 2015 described on Schedule A.
1.3Withholding.  All salary, bonus, and other compensation payable to the Employee is subject to applicable withholding taxes.
2.No Other Modification.  Except as specifically modified by this Amendment, the Agreement remains unchanged and in full force and effect.


The parties have executed this Amendment as of the date set forth above.


VISTAPRINT USA, INCORPORATED




By:    /s/Lawrence A. Gold
		
	Title:
	Senior Vice President and Secretary






EMPLOYEE




/s/Ernst J. Teunissen
Ernst J. Teunissen









SCHEDULE A


Incentive Compensation Payable by the Company for fiscal year 2015


Annual incentive, pursuant to the terms of the Employee’s award agreement under the Vistaprint Amended and Restated Performance Incentive Plan for Covered Employees, with a target amount of $366,650 (approximate, based on the 30-day trailing average currency exchange rate in effect at May 13, 2014) subject to the satisfaction of the performance criteria set forth in such award agreement.


Restricted share units with value at grant of $700,000, pursuant to the terms of the Employee’s grant agreement under the Vistaprint 2011 Equity Incentive Plan.
News United States Air Force
 Around the Air Force: Strategic Deterrence, Women's Air and Space Power Symposium, Ultimate Caduceus 2022Published March 18, 2022
                        
                        By Staff Sgt. Benjamin Cooper
                        
                        
                        Air Force TV
                **FORT GEORGE G. MEADE, Md. (AFNS) --**
                This week’s look Around the Air Force features the commander of Air Force Global Strike Command talking about strategic deterrence in a session at the Air Force Association's Warfare Symposium, the second annual Women’s Air and Space Power Symposium addresses how leadership can make positive change, and Exercise Ultimate Caduceus 2022 tests U.S. Transportation Command’s ability to move large numbers of medical patients from overseas to stateside treatment centers. (Hosted by Senior Airman Mikayla Daly)



For previous episodes, click **here** for the Air Force TV page.
Related links:**- Cotton talks strategic deterrence at 2022 AFA Warfare Symposium****- Breaking barriers: 2nd DAF Women’s Air and Space Power Symposium focuses on change****- USTRANSCOM patient movement exercise strengthens aeromedical skills, partnerships**Featured Video 



AFTV 



ATAF 



Around the Air Force 



Air Force 



AF
```

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 81 (Tuesday, May 16, 1995)]
[House]
[Page H4964]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                                HISTORY

  (Mrs. SEASTRAND asked and was given permission to address the House 
for 1 minute.)
  Mrs. SEASTRAND. Mr. Speaker, we are on the verge of making history. 
For the first time since my 25-year-old son was born, Congress actually 
has a plan to balance the Federal budget. We made a promise to balance 
the budget and protect Social Security. We kept that promise. We made a 
promise to save Medicare from bankruptcy, and we are keeping that 
promise to preserve, protect and improve Medicare. This week we will 
vote on our plan to balance the budget and save the future for our 
children.
  While we are making history, where is President Clinton? He is 
defending the status quo over change and defending big government over 
local solutions. That is not leadership, and that is ignoring a crisis 
and turning your back on the next generation.
  We have several choices: savings Medicare or allowing the problem to 
become a crisis; giving the next generation the family farm or simply 
handing them the mortgage; putting the Federal Government on a sensible 
diet or allowing big government to eat Twinkies off the taxpayer's 
plate.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to consider history this week and 
vote with me to provide opportunity for the next generation.

                          ____________________
```
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 180 (Friday, September 17, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 57015]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-23224]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER10-2567-000]


Kit Carson Windpower, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial 
Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 
Authorization

September 10, 2010.
    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of 
Kit Carson Windpower, LLC's application for market-based rate 
authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such 
application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR 
Part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of 
liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., 
Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the 
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 
385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a 
copy of that document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with 
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 
CFR Part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of 
liability, is September 30, 2010.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet 
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an 
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the 
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the 
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in 
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in 
the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's 
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link 
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification 
when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with 
any FERC Online service, please e-mail <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#e8aeadbaaba7868481868dbb9d9898879a9ca88e8d9a8bc68f879e"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="a5e3e0f7e6eacbc9cccbc0f6d0d5d5cad7d1e5c3c0d7c68bc2cad3">[email protected]</span></a> or 
call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-23224 Filed 9-16-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
EX-35.4
(logo) WELLS FARGO

Corporate Trust Services

MAC R1204-010
9062 Old Annapolis Road
Columbia, MD 21045

Tel: 410 884 2000
Fax: 410 715 2380


J.P. Morgan Chase Commercial Mortgage Securities Corp.
383 Madison Avenue
31st Floor
New York, New York 10179


RE: Annual Statement of Compliance for JP Morgan Chase Commercial Mortgage
Securities Trust 2011-C5,Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates,
Series 2011-Certificates, Series 2011-C5

Per the Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of September 1, 2011 (the
"Agreement"), the undersigned, a duly authorized officer of Wells Fargo Bank,
N.A., as Paying Agent ("Wells Fargo"), hereby certifies as follows as of and
for the year ending December 31, 2013 (the "Reporting Period"):

(a) A review of Wells Fargo's activities during the Reporting Period and of its
performance under the Agreement has been made under such officer's supervision;
and

(b To the best of such officer's knowledge, based on such review, Wells Fargo
has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material
respects throughout the Reporting Period.


March 7, 2014


/s/Brian Smith
BRIAN SMITH
Vice President


Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
[No. 44309-7-I.

Division One.

April 10, 2000.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Jeptha Demetrious Gates, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for King County, No. 98-1-04187-7, Anthony E Wartnik, J., entered February 24, 1999. *Affirmed*by unpublished per curiam opinion.
#### Henry H. Aplin, Auditor General, v. The Board of Supervisors of Grand Traverse County.

*Taxes*— Accounts *between State and county*— Mandamus—Action *against State*— Set-off.

In this case it is held that the set-off claimed by the county is in its nature in *assumpsit,*and its attempted enforcement only an irregular form of action against the State, and that a suit cannot be maintained, directly or indirectly, involving a common-law issue against the State.1

*Mandamus.*

Submitted on briefs October 18, 1888.

Granted January 11, 1889.

Relator applies for *mandamus*to compel respondent to levy a tax for an amount due the State from said county. The facts are stated in the opinion.

*Moses Taggart,*Attorney General *(B. W. Butterfield,.*of counsel), for relator.

*Thomas W. Browne (Pratt & Davis,*of counsel), for respondent.

1

 See *Auditor General v. Van Tassel,*78 Mich. 28.

Sherwood, C. J.

The petition for *mandamus*in this, case is to compel respondent to levy a tax to pay the-sum of $11,616.60, being the amount petitioner claims, the county owed the State on July 1, 1887. Respondent *183admits the correctness of the amount claimed, except $2,149.18. Respondent claims that there had been an open and continuous account, consisting of debits and credits, between the county and State since 1856, and that the county is entitled to have the last-named sum charged back to the State on a correct accounting, which has never yet been had between the parties. The respondent insists upon its right to have the sum it claims set. off against the amount the State demands, and asks that this Court shall so adjust the account before it directs that the writ shall issue.

It is not claimed that the amount respondent asks *to*have set off has ever been submitted to the auditing officers of the State for allowance, or .that they have ever passed upon or allowed the same, or that the amount has ever been adjudicated as due to the county from the State by any court or other competent authority. No question is made but that the State charged lawfully the amount the county now claims, but the claim is that by reason of something that has since occurred the county is entitled to have the money back.

The set-off claimed by the county is in its nature in *assumpsit,*and the right claimed to make the set-off is only an irregular form of action against the State; and a suit cannot be maintained, directly or indirectly, involving a common-law issue only, against the State. *Ambler v. Auditor General,*38 Mich. 746; *Auditor General v. Supervisors,*62 Id. 579 (29 N. W. Rep. 492); *People v. Miles,*56 Cal. 401; *U. S. v. Robeson,*9 Pet. 319; *U. S. v. Gilmore, 7*Wall. 491; *Watkins v. U. S.,*9 Id. 765.

Other considerations might be mentioned, making it, proper to issue the writ in this case, but the foregoing are sufficient.

The writ must be granted, but without costs.

Champlin, Morse, and Long, JJ., concurred.