alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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

February 23, 2006

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 05-40410

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JORGE ANGEL-LEONARDO,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:04-CR-853-1

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

Before GARZA, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Jorge Angel-Leonardo appeals his conviction and sentence for

being found unlawfully present in the United States following

deportation and after being convicted of an aggravated felony. 

Angel-Leonardo was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 27

months to be followed by a three-year term of supervised release.

Angel-Leonardo argues that the enhancement provisions in

8 U.S.C. § 1326(b), which provides for increased sentences based 

on prior convictions, are unconstitutional in light of Apprendi

v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000). He contends that his
No. 05-40410

-2-

conviction should be reduced to the lesser included offense in

§ 1326(a)(2) and that his sentence should be reduced to no more

than two years of imprisonment.

Angel-Leonardo’s constitutional challenge is foreclosed by

Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998). 

Although Angel-Leonardo contends that Almendarez-Torres was

incorrectly decided and that a majority of the Supreme Court

would overrule Almendarez-Torres in light of Apprendi, we have

repeatedly rejected such arguments on the basis that 

Almendarez-Torres remains binding. See United States v.

Garza-Lopez, 410 F.3d 268, 276 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S.

Ct. 298 (2005). Angel-Leonardo properly concedes that his

argument is foreclosed in light of Almendarez-Torres and circuit

precedent, but he raises it here to preserve it for further

review.

AFFIRMED.
#### STATE ex rel. Jonathon SMITH v. STATE of Louisiana.

No. 2010-KH-1227.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 27, 2011.

In re Smith, Jonathon; —Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial *994Writs, Parish of Caddo, 1st Judicial District Court Div. 3, No. 238,578; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 45,-534-KH.

Denied.
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 7393 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 7393

  To require the Secretary of Health and Human Services to promulgate 
  regulations with respect to quality control and oversight of out-of-
                 State care under the Medicaid program.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           December 21, 2018

   Mr. Faso introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                    Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To require the Secretary of Health and Human Services to promulgate 
  regulations with respect to quality control and oversight of out-of-
                 State care under the Medicaid program.

    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 ``Medicaid Quality Care Act''.

SEC. 2. REGULATIONS WITH RESPECT TO QUALITY CONTROL AND OVERSIGHT OF 
              OUT-OF-STATE CARE UNDER MEDICAID PROGRAM.

    Not later than one year after the date of enactment of this Act, 
the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall promulgate regulations 
requiring each State with a State plan approved under title XIX of the 
Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396 et seq.) to develop and implement a 
written plan providing for quality control and oversight by the State 
of medical assistance provided by out-of-State providers to individuals 
enrolled under the State plan (or a waiver of such plan).
                                 <all>
```
#### FIRST BANK STOCK CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. BOARD OF GOVERNORS OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM.

No. 16337.

United States Court of Appeals Eighth Circuit.

March 16, 1960.

Joseph H. Colman, W. F. Marquart and John G. Dorsey, Minneapolis, Minn., for petitioner.

Samuel D. Slade, and John G. Laughlin, Attys., Department of Justice, Washington, D. C., for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

Petition for review of order of Board of Governors of Federal Reserve System dated July 21, 1959, dismissed as moot, without prejudice and without costs.
#### Gregory PETERS v. GREYHOUND LINES, INC.

No. 2010-C-2769.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 4, 2011.

In re Peters, Gregory; —Plaintiff; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review Office of Workers’ Compensation Dist. 08, No. 07-6092; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2010-CA-0969.

Denied.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN RE: 

APPOINTMENT TO DOMESTIC 

RELATIONS PROCEDURAL RULES 

COMMITTEE

:

:

:

:

:

No. 677

CIVIL PROCEDURAL RULES

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 26th day of January, 2018, the Honorable George W. Wheeler, 

Tioga County, is hereby appointed as a member of the Domestic Relations Procedural 

Rules Committee for a term of three years, commencing March 1, 2018.
EXHIBIT 32.1



CERTIFICATIONS



The undersigned, as the chief executive officer of Valley Financial Corporation, certifies that the Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended September 30, 2004,
which accompanies this certification, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in the periodic report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Valley Financial Corporation at the dates and for the periods indicated. The foregoing certification is made solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United
States Code and is subject to the knowledge and willfulness qualifications contained in Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350(c).



Dated: November 15, 2004



/s/ Ellis L. GutshallChief Executive Officer




35
#### Betty Jean RUSSELL v. EYE ASSOCIATES OF NORTHEAST LOUISIANA and Hanover Insurance.

No. 2011-CC-0772.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 27, 2011.

In re Hanover Insurance Company; — Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Ouachita, 4th Judicial District Court Div. H, No. 09-0666; to the Gourt of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 46455-CW.

Denied.
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 731 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 731

To permanently prohibit oil and gas leasing off the coast of the State 
                 of California, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 30, 2017

 Mr. Carbajal introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                     Committee on Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To permanently prohibit oil and gas leasing off the coast of the State 
                 of California, and for other purposes.

    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 ``California Clean Coast Act''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION OF OIL AND GAS LEASING IN AREAS OF THE OUTER 
              CONTINENTAL SHELF LOCATED OFF THE COAST OF CALIFORNIA.

    Section 8 of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1337) 
is amended by adding at the end the following:
    ``(q) Prohibition of Oil and Gas Leasing in Areas of the Outer 
Continental Shelf Located Off the Coast of California.--
            ``(1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
        this Act or any other law and except as provided in paragraph 
        (2), beginning on the date of enactment of this subsection, the 
        conduct of oil and gas preleasing, leasing, and related 
        activities is prohibited in areas of the outer Continental 
        Shelf located off the coast of the State of California.
            ``(2) Effect.--Nothing in this subsection affects any 
        rights under leases issued under this Act before the date of 
        enactment of this subsection.''.
                                 <all>
```
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-10224 Summary Calendar

FLORA ADAMS, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus KENNETH S. APFEL, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:97-CV-2714-T

- - - - - - - - - - November 30, 1999 Before SMITH, BARKSDLE, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Flora Adams appeals the district court’s decision affirming the determination by the Commissioner of Social Security that Adams is not disabled within the meaning of the Social Security Act. Adams argues that the determination of the administrative law judge (ALJ) that her depression was not severe is not supported by substantial evidence because he failed to consider the opinions of the treating physicians and the state medical consultant. She also argues that the ALJ’s determination that she has the residual functional capacity to perform a full rangeNo. 99-10224 -2- of sedentary work is not supported by substantial evidence in view of her bilateral manipulative limitations. We have reviewed the record and Adams’ brief and AFFIRM the district court’s decision for essentially the same reasons adopted by the district
court. Adams v. Apfel , No. 3:97-CV-2714-T (N.D. Tex. December 16, 1998). Adams also argues for the first time on appeal that the ALJ erred in finding that her depression was not severe and that the ALJ’s determination that she can perform a full range of sedentary work is not supported by substantial evidence in view of her inability to tolerate environmental pollutants such as dust, fumes, and smoke. Because Adams did not raise these issues in the district court, we will not consider them for the first time on appeal. See Chaparro v. Bowen , 815 F.2d 1008, 1011 (5th Cir. 1987); James v. Bowen , 793 F.2d 702, 704 (5th Cir. 1986).
AFFIRMED.
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATIONS

The undersigned, as the Chief Financial Officer of Valley Financial Corporation,
certify that the Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2007, which accompanies this certification, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the
information contained in the periodic report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Valley Financial Corporation at the dates and for the periods indicated. The foregoing certification is made
solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States Code and is subject to the knowledge and willfulness qualifications contained in Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350(c).

Dated: November 12, 2007



/s/ Kimberly B. SnyderChief Financial Officer
H. R. 7319 

One Hundred Fifteenth Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE SECOND SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday, 

the third day of January, two thousand and eighteen 

An Act 

To amend the Federal Assets Sale and Transfer Act of 2016 to provide flexibility 

with respect to the leaseback of certain Federal real property, and for other purposes. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. LEASEBACK RESTRICTION. 

Section 12(b)(4) of the Federal Assets Sale and Transfer Act 

of 2016 (40 U.S.C. 1303 note; Public Law 114–287) is amended— 

(1) by inserting ‘‘for a period of greater than 3 years’’ 

before the period at the end; 

(2) by striking ‘‘None of the’’ and inserting the following: 

‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—None of the’’; and 

(3) by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘(B) REQUIREMENTS.—A leaseback under this paragraph— 

‘‘(i) shall expire on or before the last day of the 

3-year period beginning on the date of the sale of 

the respective property; 

‘‘(ii) may not contain any options to extend or 

renew the leaseback; 

‘‘(iii) may only be entered into once for purposes 

of temporarily housing the Federal agency in the property at the time of the sale; and 

‘‘(iv) shall only be for the purpose of facilitating 

the sale of the respective property.’’. 

Speaker of the House of Representatives. 

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
#### Geneva PITCHER v. DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES OFFICE OF COMMUNITY SERVICES.

No. 2012-C-0594.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 20, 2012.

IN RE Pitcher, Geneva; — Plaintiff; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review State Civil Service Commission, No. S-16750; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2011 CA 1163.

Denied.
| (logo) WELLS 

           FARGO | **Commercial  Mortgage Servicing**D1050-084,  8th Floor  401 South Tryon St.  Charlotte, NC 28202  1-800-326-1334 |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

 **ANNUALSTATEMENT OFCOMPLIANCE**

** **

 

Reference is hereby made to that certain Pooling and Servicing Agreementdated as of August 1, 2014, by and among RBS COMMERICAL FUNDING INC., asDepositor, WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as General Master Servicer,CWCAPITAL ASSET MANAGEMENT LLC, as General Special Servicer, NCB, FSB, as NCBMaster Servicer, NCB, FSB, as Co-op Special Servicer, TRIMONT REAL ESTATEADVISORS, INC., as Trust Advisor, WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, asCertificate Administrator, as Tax Administrator and as Custodian, andWILMINGTON TRUST, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Trustee, with respect to CommercialMortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series 2014-C21 (the "Agreement").Capitalized terms used herein not otherwise defined shall have the meaningsassigned in the Agreement.

 

Pursuant to Section 11.12 of this Agreement, I, Leslie Hayton,Managing Director of Commercial Mortgage Services do hereby certify that:

 

1.      A review of the activities of the General Master Servicer duringthe period from January 1, 2018 through December 31, 2018 (the “ReportingPeriod”), and of its performance per the Agreement during such period has beenmade under my supervision, and 

 

2.      To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicerhas fulfilled all of its obligations under this Agreement in all materialrespects throughout the Reporting Period.

 

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the undersigned has executed this Certificate as of the 28th day of February 2019.

 

 

/s/Leslie Hayton

LeslieHayton

ManagingDirector

WellsFargo Bank

 

 

| Wells Fargo Bank,  N.A. | (logo) Together we’ll  go far |
|-------------------------|-------------------------------------|
#### Tex. & Pac. R’y Co. v. J. W. Dyer.

(No. 2969.)

Appeal from Palo Pinto County.

Opinion by

White, P. J.

*(Transferred from Austin. J*

§ 312. *Appeal from justice's court; process to compel the justice to send up papers, etc.*Appellee recovered of appellant a judgment in justice’s court. Appellant executed within the time, and in compliance with law, an appeal bond appealing the case to the county court. This appeal bond was approved and filed by the justice, but notwithstanding this, the justice failed and refused to send up the papers in the case, and a transcript of the *271proceedings therein, as required by law [R. S. arts. 1640, 1641], and issued an execution on the judgment. Appellant thereupon applied to the county judge for process to compel the justice to send up the papers, etc., to the county court. This application was by petition setting forth the facts, and praying the court to ‘ ‘ grant and issue its writ of *certiorari*with such mandate as will compel the said justice to send up the record as under appeal in said cause, and that the cause be tried *de novo*in the county court.” The petition was verified by affidavit. The judge *ordered*the writ as prayed for to issue upon appellant’s giving bond. Bond was given, writ issued, and the papers, etc., in the case before the justices were sent up to the county court in obedience to the writ, and filed in said court. Upon motion of appellee the county court dismissed the petition and also dismissed the appeal, refusing appellant a trial *de novo. Held,*error. The execution of the appeal bond perfected the jurisdiction of the county court, and that court or the judge thereof could issue any writ necessary to enforce its jurisdiction. [Const, art. Y, sec. 16.] The court below treated the case as purely a *certiorari,*as that proceeding is prescribed and provided for by statute. [R. S. art. 299 *et seq.~]*An appeal by *certiorari*was not the object and purpose of the petition, but it was to procure from the county court a writ which would compel the justice to send up the papers, etc., in the appeal which had been perfected. The relief desired was more in the nature of a *mandamus*than a *certiorari.*But the process granted served the purpose of bringing the papers, etc., up to the county court, and by virtue of the fact that that court had jurisdiction on the perfected appeal, the case should not have been dismissed, but a trial *de novo*should have been had therein. [Witt v. Kaufman, 25 Tex. Sup. 384; W. & W. Con. Rep. § 459.]

October 15, 1884.

Reversed and remanded.
Exhibit 31.1

Certifications

I, J.A. Cardwell, Sr., certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Petro Stopping Centers, 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 registrants most recent fiscal quarter 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 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: November 13, 2006             
|                                    
|/s/ J.A. Cardwell, Sr.              
|(J.A. Cardwell, Sr.)                
|Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
Exhibit 32.2


CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER


Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002





I, Joseph E. Miller, certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:


|    |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           
|--- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|(i) | The Annual Report on Form 10-K of Griffin-Benefit Street Partners BDC Corp. (the “Company”) for the annual period ended December 31, 2015 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m); and

|     |                                                                                                                                                     
|---- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|(ii) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Dated:March 30, 2016By:/s/ Joseph E. MillerJoseph E. MillerChief Financial Officer and Treasurer(Principal Financial Officer)
#### STATE ex rel. Billy ROBINSON v. STATE of Louisiana.

No. 2009-KH-2500.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Nov. 19, 2010.

In re Robinson, Billy; —Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Lasalle.

Denied.