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

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 374 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 374

 To ensure that all individuals who should be prohibited from buying a 
 firearm are listed in the national instant criminal background check 
     system and require a background check for every firearm sale.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           February 25, 2013

  Mr. Schumer introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To ensure that all individuals who should be prohibited from buying a 
 firearm are listed in the national instant criminal background check 
     system and require a background check for every firearm sale.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Protecting Responsible Gun Sellers 
Act of 2013''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

    Congress makes the following findings:
            (1) Congress supports and respects the right to bear arms 
        found in the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United 
        States.
            (2) Congress supports the existing prohibition on a 
        national firearms registry.
            (3) There are deficits in the background check system in 
        effect before the date of enactment of this Act and the 
        Department of Justice should make it a top priority to work 
        with States to swiftly input missing records, including mental 
        health records.
            (4) If the citizens of the United States agree that in 
        order to promote safe and responsible gun ownership criminals 
        and the mentally ill should be prohibited from possessing 
        firearms, it should be incumbent upon all citizens to ensure 
        weapons are not being transferred to such people.
                                 <all>
```
#### Caroline Dowell v. Ellen Vinton.

(No. 390, Op. Book No. 1, p. 425.)

Appeal from Grayson County.

Opinion by

White, J.

§ 327. *Statute of limitations.*Two promissory notes were sued on, one due March 1, 1861, the other March 1, 1863. By sec. 43, art. 12, constitution of 1869, it is provided that “the statutes of limitations of civil suits were suspended by the (so called) acts of secession of January 28, 1861, and shall be considered as suspended within this state until the acceptance of this constitution by the United States congress.” The constitution of 1869 was approved by act of congress of date the 30th day of March, 1870. This suit was bought on the 30th day of March, 1874, exactly four years to a day-from the adoption of *141the constitution by congress. Was the bar of the statute of limitations complete when suit was brought ?

§ 328. *Statute of limitations; computation of time.*In the computation of time, whether the day on which an act was done or an event happened is to be included or-excluded, must depend upon the circumstances or the reason of the thing, so that the intention of the parties may be effected. Such a construction should be given as would operate most to the ease of the parties entitled to favor, and by which rights would he secured and forfeitures avoided. [O’Connor v. Towns, 1 Tex. 107.]

§ 329. *Same.*In the computation of time from an act done, the day on which the act is done will be excluded, whenever such exclusion will prevent an estoppel or save a forfeiture. [Windsor v. China, 4 Me. 298; The State v. Gasconade County Court, 33 Mo. 102; 5 Richardson (S. C.), 299; Lang v. Phillips, 27 Ala. 311; Kinn v. Osgood, 19 Mo. 60; Weeks v. Hull, 19 Conn. 376; 10 Mich. 486; Cornell v. Moulton, 3 Den. (N. Y.) 12; Burr v. Lewis, 6 Tex. 76.]

§ 330. *Computation as to operation of statutes.*The day on which the statute took effect is excluded. [Fairbanks v. Wood, 17 Wend. 329.] In New York and Kentucky it has been held that in computing time given by a statute, both the' first and last days are never reckoned inclusive. [Jackson v. Van Valkenburgh, 8 Cow. (N. Y.) 260; Sanders v. Norton, 4 B. Mon. (Ky.) 464.]

§331. *Fractions of days; no notice talcen of.*The first day, or day upon which the time begins to run, is excluded; as where an act-is to be done within a given time, *e. g.,*thirty days, the party has the whole of the thirtieth day in which to perform it; but if it is to be done after the expiration of thirty days, it cannot he performed until on the thirty-first day, the law taking no notice of fractions of a day. [10 Barb. (N. Y.) 14; Campbell v. Lane, 25 Tex. Sup. 93; Jones v. Planters’ Bank, 5 Humph. (Tenn.) 619; Portland Bank v. Maine Bank, 11 Mass. 204; 20 Vt. 653.]

*142May 14, 1877.

*Same.*The constitution of Texas being adopted by congress on the 30th day of March, 1870, and the statute of limitations being thus set in operation in Texas on that day, in computing the time with reference to that-adoption, the 30fch day of March, 1870, is to be excluded.

Reversed and remanded.
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 

OF TEXAS 

Aun-rmu. T-6 7137ll 

April 19, 1977 

The Honorable Carl C. Hardin, Jr. 

Executive Director 

Texas State Board of Dental 

Examiners 

2101 MacArthur Blvd., No. 110 

Irving, Texas 75061 

Opinion No. H-983 

Re: Exemption of certain 

dentists from annual 

registration. 

Dear Mr. Hardin: 

You have requested our opinion concerning the authority 

of the Board of Dental Examiners to exempt from annual registration full-time professors at dental colleges, residents, 

interns, and full-time employees of the United States Public 

Health Service. 

Article 4551b-1, V.T.C.S., exempts various persons from 

the scope of the definition of dentistry, including: 

1) members of the faculty of a reputable dental 

college or school where such faculty members 

perform their services for the sole benefit 

of such school or college . . . 9) dental 

interns, dental residents and dental assistants as defined and regulated by the Texas 

State Board of Dental Examiners in its rules 

and regulations. 

In Attorney General Opinion H-890 (1976) we said that a 

licensing board could not enlarge upon exemptions created by 

statute. Thus, in general, only those persons within article 

4551b-1 may be exempted. Accordingly, professors are exempted 

so long as they "perform their services for the sole benefit 

of [their] . . . school or college." The Board is expressly 

authorized to enact rules and regulations defining, regulating 

and exempting dental interns and dental residents. Finally, 

this office has previously held that employees of the United 

States Public Health Service are exempted so long as they 

p. 4092 
The Honorable Carl C. Hardin, Jr..- page 2 (H-983) 

perform services only for the Health Service. Attorney 

General Opinion V-1045 (1950). - See 'Sperry v. Florida, 373 

U.S. 379 (1963); Attorney General Opinion O-4764 ( 1942). 

SUMMARY 

Professors at dental colleges and schools 

are exempted from annual registration with 

the Board of Dental Examiners so long as 

they perform their services for the sole 

benefit of such college or school. Dental 

interns and dental residents may be exempted 

under rules and regulations of the Board 

of Dental Examiners. Employees of the 

United States Public Health Service are 

exempt so long as they perform services only 

for the Health Service. 

APPROVED: 

Very truly yours, 

8 

8% 

. HI L 

Attorney General of 

%& 

DAVID M. KENDALL, First Assistant 

Texas 

C. ROBERT HEATH, Chairman 

Opinion Committee 

km1 

p. 4093
EXHIBIT 35.1  ANNUAL SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT PURSUANT TO ITEM 1123 OF REGULATION AB

CARMAX BUSINESS SERVICES, LLC

The undersigned, a duly authorized officer of CarMax Business Services, LLC, as Servicer pursuant to Section 3.10 of the Sale and
Servicing Agreement dated as of September 1, 2011 (the Sale and Servicing Agreement) among CarMax Auto Owner Trust 2011-2, as Issuer (the Issuer), CarMax Auto Funding LLC, as Depositor, CarMax Business Services, LLC, as
Servicer (the Servicer), and Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as Backup Servicer, does hereby certify that:



| | 1. | CarMax Business Services, LLC is, as of the date hereof, the Servicer under the Sale and Servicing Agreement.
| | -- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | The undersigned is duly authorized to execute and deliver this Officers Certificate.
| | -- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 3. | A review of the activities of the Servicer during the period beginning on March 1, 2013 and ending on February 28, 2014 and of the Servicers performance under the Sale and Servicing Agreement was made
under my supervision. To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Sale and Servicing Agreement in all material respects throughout such period.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Capitalized terms used in this certificate and not otherwise defined herein have the meanings assigned to them in the Sale and Servicing
Agreement.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned, a duly authorized officer of the Servicer, has duly executed this Officers
Certificate this 23rd day of May, 2014.



CARMAX BUSINESS SERVICES, LLC/s/ Thomas W. ReedyThomas W. ReedyExecutive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 4.12

                            CERTIFICATE OF FORMATION

                                       OF

                       RELIANT ENERGY RETAIL HOLDINGS, LLC

         This Certificate of Formation of Reliant Energy Retail Holdings, LLC
(the "Company") is being executed and filed by the undersigned authorized person
for the purpose of forming a limited liability company under the Delaware
Limited Liability Company Act (6 Del. Code Section 18-101 et seq.).

                                    ARTICLE I

         The name of the Company is Reliant Energy Retail Holdings, LLC.

                                   ARTICLE II

         The address of the registered office of the Company in the County of
New Castle, State of Delaware is Corporation Trust Center, 1209 Orange Street,
Wilmington, Delaware 19801, and the name of the registered agent of the Company
at such address is The Corporation Trust Company.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this Certificate of
Formation on August 25, 2000.

                                                     Authorized Person

                                                     /s/ Richard B. Dauphin
                                                     ----------------------
                                                     Name: Richard B. Dauphin

<PAGE>

                            CERTIFICATE OF FORMATION

                                       OF

                       RELIANT ENERGY RETAIL HOLDINGS, LLC

         This Certificate of Formation of Reliant Energy Retail Holdings, LLC
(the "Company") is being executed and filed by the undersigned authorized person
for the purpose of forming a limited liability company under the Delaware
Limited Liability Company Act (6 Del. Code Section 18-101 et seq.).

                                    ARTICLE I

         The name of the Company is Reliant Energy Retail Holdings, LLC.

                                   ARTICLE II

         The address of the registered office of the Company in the County of
New Castle, State of Delaware is Corporation Trust Center, 1209 Orange Street,
Wilmington, Delaware 19801, and the name of the registered agent of the Company
at such address is The Corporation Trust Company.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this Certificate of
Formation on August 25, 2000.

                                                     Authorized Person

                                                     /s/ Richard B. Dauphin
                                                     ----------------------
                                                     Name: Richard B. Dauphin
113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 459 

AN ACT 

To modify the boundary of the Minuteman Missile National 

Historic Site in the State of South Dakota, 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, 
2 

†S 459 ES

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Minuteman Missile Na3 tional Historic Site Boundary Modification Act’’. 

4 SEC. 2. BOUNDARY MODIFICATION. 

5 Section 3(a) of the Minuteman Missile National His6 toric Site Establishment Act of 1999 (16 U.S.C. 461 note; 

7 Public Law 106–115) is amended— 

8 (1) by redesignating paragraphs (3) and (4) as 

9 paragraphs (4) and (5), respectively; and 

10 (2) by inserting after paragraph (2) the fol11 lowing: 

12 ‘‘(3) VISITOR FACILITY AND ADMINISTRATIVE

13 SITE.— 

14 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—In addition to the 

15 components described in paragraph (2), the his16 toric site shall include a visitor facility and ad17 ministrative site located on the parcel of land 

18 described in subparagraph (B). 

19 ‘‘(B) DESCRIPTION OF LAND.—The land 

20 referred to in subparagraph (A) consists of— 

21 ‘‘(i) approximately 25 acres of land 

22 within the Buffalo Gap National Grass23 land, located north of exit 131 on Inter24 state 90 in Jackson County, South Da25 kota, as generally depicted on the map en26 titled ‘Minuteman Missile National His-
3 

†S 459 ES

1 toric Site Boundary Modification’, num2 bered 406/80,011A, and dated January 14, 

3 2011; and 

4 ‘‘(ii) approximately 3.65 acres of land 

5 located at the Delta 1 Launch Control Fa6 cility for the construction and use of a 

7 parking lot and for other administrative 

8 uses. 

9 ‘‘(C) AVAILABILITY OF MAP.—The map de10 scribed in subparagraph (B) shall be kept on 

11 file and available for public inspection in the 

12 appropriate offices of the National Park Serv13 ice. 

14 ‘‘(D) TRANSFER OF ADMINISTRATIVE JU15 RISDICTION.—Administrative jurisdiction over 

16 the land described in subparagraph (B) is 

17 transferred from the Secretary of Agriculture to 

18 the Secretary, to be administered as part of the 

19 historic site. 

20 ‘‘(E) BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENT.—The 

21 boundaries of the Buffalo Gap National Grass-
4 

†S 459 ES

1 land are modified to exclude the land trans2 ferred under subparagraph (D).’’. 

Passed the Senate June 19, 2013. 

Attest: 

Secretary. 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 459 

AN ACT 

To modify the boundary of the Minuteman Missile 

kota, and for other purposes. National Historic Site in the State of South Da-
Case: 15-15493 Date Filed: 01/08/2016 Page: 1 of 5Case: 15-15493 Date Filed: 01/08/2016 Page: 2 of 5Case: 15-15493 Date Filed: 01/08/2016 Page: 3 of 5Case: 15-15493 Date Filed: 01/08/2016 Page: 4 of 5Case: 15-15493 Date Filed: 01/08/2016 Page: 5 of 5
| (logo)  WELLS FARGO | **Commercial  Mortgage Servicing**D1050-084,  8th Floor  401 South Tryon St.  Charlotte, NC 28202  1-800-326-1334 |
|---------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

  

MorganStanley Capital I Inc. 

1585Broadway

NewYork, New York 10036 

Attention:Stephen Holmes

 

 

**ANNUAL STATEMENT OFCOMPLIANCE**

 

Referenceis hereby made to that certain Pooling and Servicing  Agreement dated as of October 1, 2011, by and among Morgan Stanley Capital I Inc ., asDepositor, Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as Master Servicer andMidland Loan Services, A Division of PNC Bank, NA, as Special Servicer, U.S.Bank National Association, as Trustee, Trimont Real Estate Advisors, Inc., asTrust Advisor, and Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as Custodian,Certificate Administrator, Certificate Registrar and Authenticating Agent, withrespect to Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series 2011-C3 (the"Agreement"). Capitalized terms used herein not otherwise definedshall have the meanings assigned in the Agreement.

 

Pursuantto Section 13.9 of the Agreement, I, Daniel Bober, Executive Vice President ofCommercial Mortgage Services do hereby certify that:

 

1.       Areview of the activities of the Master Servicer during the period from January1, 2017 through December 31, 2017 (the “Reporting Period”), and of itsperformance per the Agreement during such period has been made under mysupervision, and

 

2.       To thebest of my knowledge, based on such review, the Master Servicer, has fulfilledall of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughoutthe Reporting Period.

 

 

 

INWITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this Certificate as of the 28thday of February 2018.

 

/s/Daniel Bober

DanielBober

ExecutiveVice President 

WellsFargo Bank

 

 

| Wells  Fargo Bank, N.A. | (logo)  Together we’ll go far |
|-------------------------|-------------------------------------|
#### IN RE ROSELIUS.

Patents; Originality; Product or Process.

A product claim, as distinct from the process claim, in an application for a patent for an invention claimed to consist of the process of so treating roasted coffee as to extract the caffein, and the product thereof, is properly rejected as anticipated by a patent for an invention for extracting caffein from green coffee beans, the product of each invention consisting of decaffeinized coffee, though obtained by different, processes.

No. 673.

Patent Appeals.

Submitted November 11, 1910.

Decided December 5, 1910.

Hearing ou an appeal from a decision of the Commissioner of Patents, rejecting a product claim in an application for a patent.

*Affirmed.*

The facts are stated in the opinion.

*131
      *Mr. Nicholas L. Bogan*and *Mr. Theodore K. Bryant*for the appellant.

*Mr. Robert F. Whitehead*for the Commissioner of Patents.

Mr. Chief Justice Shepard

delivered the opinion of the Court:

Ludwig Poselius filed an application for a patent for improvements in the preparation of coffee, having claims for the process of treating roasted coffee for the extraction of the caffein therein, and for the product of that process. The process claim was allowed and the product claim rejected. Applicant has appealed from the order of rejection. The rejected claim reads as follows:

> “As a new article of manufacture, roasted coffee beans originally contained in their roasted state caffein, but freed therefrom while roasted, and having the aromatic and other valuable constituents thereof substantially unimpaired.”

Three patents were cited as anticipations, one of them being a patent to Poselius and others jointly, the seventh claim of which was for a new article of manufacture, namely, unbroken green coffee beans originally containing caffein, but freed therefrom, leaving their remaining natural constituents unimpaired. Appellant argues that the product here claimed as an invention is entirely different from the above, as it is coffee from which the caffein is extracted, not when green, but after roasting. We agree with the Commissioner that the applicant is not entitled to a patent for his product. The product of each is a decaffeinized coffee, though obtained by a different process. The patent for that process is all that the applicant is entitled to. The decision will be affirmed. The clerk will certify this decision to the Commissioner of Patents, as the statute requires. *Affirmed.*
110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 74

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Whereas hydrocephalus is a serious neurological condition, 

characterized by the abnormal buildup of cerebrospinal 

fluids in the ventricles of the brain; 

Whereas there is no known cure for hydrocephalus; 

Whereas hydrocephalus affects an estimated one million 

Americans;
2

•HCON 74 EH 

Whereas 1 or 2 in every 1000 babies are born with hydrocephalus; 

Whereas over 375,000 older Americans have hydrocephalus, 

which often goes undetected or is misdiagnosed as dementia, Alzheimer’s disease, or Parkinson’s disease; 

Whereas with appropriate diagnosis and treatment, people 

with hydrocephalus are able to live full and productive 

lives; 

Whereas the standard treatment for hydrocephalus was developed in 1952, and carries multiple risks including shunt 

failure, infection, and overdrainage; 

Whereas there are fewer than 10 centers in the United States 

specializing in the treatment of adults with normal pressure hydrocephalus; 

Whereas each year, the people of the United States spend in 

excess of $1 billion to treat hydrocephalus; 

Whereas a September 2005 conference sponsored by 7 institutes of the National Institutes of Health—‘‘Hydrocephalus: Myths, New Facts, Clear Directions’’—resulted 

in efforts to initiate new, collaborative research and treatment efforts; and 

Whereas the Hydrocephalus Association is one of the Nation’s oldest and largest patient and research advocacy 

and support networks for individuals suffering from hydrocephalus: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 

2 concurring), That—

3 (1) the Congress commends the Director of the 

4 National Institutes of Health for working with lead-
3

•HCON 74 EH 

1 ing scientists and researchers to organize the first2 ever National Institutes of Health conference on hy3 drocephalus; and 

4 (2) it is the sense of the Congress that—

5 (A) the Director of the National Institutes 

6 of Health should continue the current collabora7 tion with respect to hydrocephalus among the 

8 National Eye Institute; the National Human 

9 Genome Research Institute; the National Insti10 tute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering; 

11 the National Institute of Child Health and 

12 Human Development; the National Institute of 

13 Neurological Disorders and Stroke; the Na14 tional Institute on Aging; and the Office of 

15 Rare Diseases; 

16 (B) further research into the epidemiology, 

17 pathophysiology, disease burden, and improved 

18 treatment of hydrocephalus should be conducted 

19 or supported; and 

20 (C) public awareness and professional edu21 cation regarding hydrocephalus should increase 

22 through partnerships between the Federal Gov-
4

•HCON 74 EH 

1 ernment and patient advocacy organizations, 

2 such as the Hydrocephalus Association. 

Passed the House of Representatives February 27, 

2007. 

Attest:

Clerk. 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 74

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of the Congress regarding the 

purposes.rological condition hydrocephalus, and for other need for additional research into the chronic neu-