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

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 7231 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 7231

To provide regulatory relief for conventional marginally producing oil 
  and gas wells from the Environmental Protection Agency's ``Methane 
                                Rule''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           December 10, 2018

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

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To provide regulatory relief for conventional marginally producing oil 
  and gas wells from the Environmental Protection Agency's ``Methane 
                                Rule''.

    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 ``Methane Rule Relief Act of 2018''.

SEC. 2. APPLICATION OF METHANE RULE.

    The final rule titled ``Oil and Natural Gas Sector: Emission 
Standards for New, Reconstructed, and Modified Sources'' (81 Fed. Reg. 
35824, June 3, 2016), and the document titled ``Control Techniques 
Guidelines for the Oil and Natural Gas Industry'' (October 2016), 
published by the Environmental Protection Agency, shall not apply with 
respect to--
            (1) any oil well that has a maximum daily average oil 
        production, during any 12-month consecutive time period, that 
        does not exceed 15 barrels of oil per day;
            (2) any natural gas well that has a maximum daily average 
        gas production, during any 12-month consecutive time period, 
        that does not exceed 90,000 cubic feet per day; or
            (3) any emissions source covered by the rule that is 
        associated with an oil well described in paragraph (1) or a 
        natural gas well described in paragraph (2).
                                 <all>
```
No. 13,675.

#### Rout *v.*Ninde et al.

Change op *Venue.*— Motion *for.*— Duty *of Court.*— Where, in a civil case, a motion for a change of venue from the county is made, supported by an affidavit in compliance with the statute, it is the imperative duty of the court to grant the change.

From the Adams Circuit Court.

*C. J. Lutz*and *J. W. Headington,*for appellant.

*R. S. Peterson*and *E. A. Huffman,*for appellees.

Olds, J.

This is an action by the appellees against appellant on an account for services rendered by appellees as *124attorneys for appellant. There was a trial, finding and judgment for appellees. Appellant filed a motion for a new trial, which was overruled, and exceptions reserved by appellant. The ruling of the court on the motion for a new trial is assigned as error. Before the trial, and during the pendency of the cause in the Adams Circuit Court, at the November term, 1886, the appellant moved the court fora continuance, and filed his own affidavit in support of the motion, which motion for a continuance was overruled, and appellant at the time excepted to the ruling. At the same term appellant moved the court for a change of venue from the county of Adams, which motion.for a change of venue, was supported by the affidavit of the appellant, and was also overruled and exceptions reserved by appellant. The rulings of the court on the motions for a change of venue and for a continuance were assigned as reasons for a new trial. It is only necessary for us to consider the question presented on the ruling of the court on the motion for a change of venue. The affidavit states that the appellant is the defendant in the cause, and that he can not have a fair and impartial trial of said cause in the county of Adams, for the reason that the plaintiffs have an undue influence over the citizens of said county. The affidavit is in compliance with the statute authorizing a change of venue in civil actions, and it was error for the court to overrule the motion for a change of venue.

The statute in force does not permit a counter-showing to be made, and it makes it imperative on the court to grant a change of venue on proper affidavit being filed. Whether the statute operates to promote or retard the dispensing of justice, or whether its provisions are wise or unwise, is not for the court to determine. It is within the power of the Legislature to enact such a law, and having done so, it is imperative on the court, in civil actions, to grant a change on proper affidavit being filed in support of the motion for a change of venue.

It is suggested by counsel in argument, that there was a *125rule of court, at the time the court made the ruling on the motion, goveiming the time of filing affidavits for changes of venue, and that the affidavit in this case was not filed within the time allowed by such rule; but the rule is not set out in' the bill of exceptions, nor does it appear in the record in any manner so as to be considered by this court.

Filed March 27, 1889.

For the error in overruling the motion for a change of venue the judgment must be reversed.

Judgment reversed, at the costs of appellees.
Electronically FiledIntermediate Court of Appeals3036312-JAN-201208:06 AM
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                       1,419,000
<SECURITIES>                                 6,455,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                3,571,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                   116,000
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            11,537,000
<PP&E>                                       5,323,000
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,602,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              14,258,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,434,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     4,170,000
<OTHER-SE>                                   8,364,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                14,258,000
<SALES>                                     12,775,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            13,074,000
<CGS>                                        6,273,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                9,967,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              3,107,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                 1,175,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 3,299,000
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .59
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .53


</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 4.71

ENGLISH SUMMARY of Verbal Sublease Agreement BETWEEN CDISCOUNT S.A. (“CDISCOUNT”) AND DISTRIBUTION FRANPRIX S.A. (“FRANPRIX”) FOR WAREHOUSE LOCATED IN SAINT MARD, FRANCE

Parties: Cdiscount S.A. and Distribution Franprix S.A. 

Purpose: Franprix as lessee leases to Cdiscount as sublessee space consisting mainly of warehouse space located at ZAC de la Fontaine du Berger, Saint Mard, 77230, France.

Summary of Major Terms:

|  | · |  | Premises covered by the lease represent approximately 50,000 square meters. |
|--|--------|--|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|  | · |  | The lease starts on March 1, 2015 and ends on March 1, 2016, on which date Cdiscount leases such premises directly from the lessor. |
|--|--------|--|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|  | · |  | Annual rent set forth in lease is €1,751,292 (excluding taxes and charges). |
|--|--------|--|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

----
647 A.2d 471

#### IN THE MATTER OF SUNAO T.A YAMADA, AN ATTORNEY AT LAW.

September 28, 1994.

ORDER

SUNAO T.A. YAMADA, of JERSEY CITY who was admitted to the bar of this State in 1982, having been ordered to show cause on September 27, 1994, why this Court’s Order of temporary suspension should not be continued pending the disposition of ethics proceedings against him, and respondent having failed to appear on the return date of the Order to Show Cause;

It is Ordered that the suspension of SUNAO T.A. YAMADA continue pending further Order of this Court; and it is further

ORDERED that respondent continue to be restrained and enjoined from practicing law during the period of his suspension and that he continue to comply with Regulation 23 of the Administrative Guidelines Governing Suspended Attorneys; and it is further

*38ORDERED that the Office of Attorney Ethics take such protective action pursuant to *Rule*1:20 — 11(c) as it deems appropriate, including the transfer to the Clerk of the Superior Court for deposit in the Superior Court Trust Fund the attorney account funds held in any financial institution by SUNAO T.A. YAMADA, which funds were restrained from disbursement by this Court’s Order of July 13, 1994.
#### Howard Dale SNIPES, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 5D10-1667.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Oct. 29, 2010.

Howard Dale Snipes, Daytona Beach, pro se.

No Appearance for Appellee.

*ON ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE*

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Howard Dale Snipes, appeals the denial of his motion for postconviction relief, filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. After reviewing his filings on appeal, we issued a *Spencer*
      *1*
      **show cause order directing Snipes to demonstrate why he should not be barred from filing further pro se challenges to his convictions and sentences in this case. Having considered Snipes’ response and finding it to be unpersuasive, we conclude that he is abusing the judicial process and should be barred from further pro se filings.

Therefore, we now prohibit Howard Dale Snipes from filing with this Court any more pro se pleadings concerning Orange County, Ninth Judicial Circuit Court case number 04-CF-9832. The Clerk of this Court is directed not to accept any further pro se filings from Snipes concerning this case. Any additional pleadings regarding this case will be summarily rejected by the Clerk, unless they are filed by a member in good standing of the Florida Bar. *See Johnson v. State,*652 So.2d 980, 980 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995) (prohibiting petitioner from-filing further pro se pleadings with this Court after thirteen challenges to conviction and sentence); *Isley v. State,*652 So.2d 409, 411 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995) (“Enough is enough.”). The Clerk is further directed to forward a certified copy of this opinion to the appropriate institution for consideration of disciplinary procedures. *See*§ 944.279(1), Fla. Stat. (2010); *Simpkins v. State,*909 So.2d 427, 428 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005).

AFFIRMED; future pro se filings PROHIBITED; certified opinion FORWARDED to Department of Corrections.

MONACO, C.J., SAWAYA, and JACOBUS, JJ„ concur.

. *State v. Spencer,*751 So.2d 47 (Fla.1999).
No. 87-6299.

#### Pearl *v.*Apel et al.

C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.
* 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. 98-41504 Conference Calendar

RICKY G. MORENO, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus TAMMY BUNTON; MITCHELL BRADSHAW; JOHN DOE, Defendants-Appellees.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. C-98-CV-466

-------------------- August 24, 1999 Before KING, Chief Judge, and DAVIS and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: * Ricky G. Moreno, Texas prisoner #501109, appeals from the dismissal of his civil rights action as frivolous. Moreno argues that the district court erred by making improper factual findings when dismissing his complaint as frivolous; that the district court erred by dismissing the complaint without giving him an opportunity to amend it or to conduct discovery; that prison officials violated the Due Process Clause at his disciplinary hearing by not allowing him to call witnesses; that counsel substitute violated the Due Process Clause by failing to performNo. 98-41504 -2- adequately at his disciplinary hearing; that the “John Doe” defendant violated the Due Process Clause by failing to correct the violations at Moreno’s disciplinary hearing; that there was no evidence to support the disciplinary charge against him; that the hearing officer violated prison rules by the way he conducted the disciplinary hearing; and that prison officials violated the Due Process Clause and prison rules by disciplining him for refusing to accept a housing assignment with a black prisoner. First, the punishment Moreno received in his disciplinary hearing, 45 days’ recreation and commissary restriction, did not impose atypical and significant hardship on Moreno in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life. See Sandin v. Conner , 515 U.S. 472, 484 (1995)(internal citations omitted). Second, the failure of prison administrators to follow prison rules and regulations does not, without more, give rise to a constitutional violation. Myers v. Klevenhagen , 97 F.3d 91, 94 (5th Cir. 1996). Moreno has failed to demonstrate plain error regarding his contentions that prison officials violated prison rules, contentions that he raises for the first time on appeal. Moreno’s appeal is without arguable merit and is frivolous. Accordingly, the appeal is DISMISSED. 5 TH C IR . R. 42.2. The dismissal of this appeal as frivolous counts as a strike for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). We caution Moreno that once he accumulates three strikes, he may not proceed in forma pauperis in any civil action or appeal filed while he is in prison unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).No. 98-41504 -3-

APPEAL DISMISSED; WARNING ISSUED.
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 7280 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 7280

   To direct the Architect of the Capitol to install a commemorative 
plaque next to each office previously used by a Member of Congress who 
     became President of the United States, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           December 12, 2018

Miss Gonzalez-Colon of Puerto Rico introduced the following bill; which 
         was referred to the Committee on House Administration

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To direct the Architect of the Capitol to install a commemorative 
plaque next to each office previously used by a Member of Congress who 
     became President of the United States, 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. COMMEMORATIVE PLAQUE FOR OFFICES PREVIOUSLY USED BY MEMBERS 
              OF CONGRESS WHO BECAME PRESIDENT.

    (a) In General.--Not later than 90 days after the date of enactment 
of this Act, the Architect of the Capitol shall design, procure, 
prepare, and install a plaque described in subsection (b) for display 
immediately next to the front door of each office that--
            (1) is located in a House Office Building or Senate Office 
        Building;
            (2) was previously used by a Member of Congress who became 
        President; and
            (3) was used as the final individual Member office room of 
        such Member.
    (b) Contents.--A plaque installed pursuant to subsection (a) 
shall--
            (1) commemorate the use of the office by a Member of 
        Congress who became President; and
            (2) provide such information about the use of the office as 
        the Architect of the Capitol considers appropriate.
                                 <all>
```
861 A.2d 122

#### IN THE MATTER OF DAVID C. ANTON, AN ATTORNEY AT LAW (ATTORNEY NO. 031961981).

December 2, 2004.

ORDER

The Disciplinary Review Board having filed with the Court its decision in DRB 04-104, concluding that as a matter of reciprocal discipline pursuant to *Rule*1:20-14, DAVID C. ANTON of DAVIS, CALIFORNIA, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 1981, should be suspended from the practice of law for a prospective period of three months based on discipline imposed in the State of California for conduct in violation of *RPC*8.4(c) (dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation) and *RPC*8.4(d) (conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice);

And DAVID C. ANTON having failed to appear as ordered by the Court to show cause why he should not be disbarred or otherwise disciplined;

*63And the Court having determined from its review of the matter that respondent should be suspended from the practice of law for a period of one year;

And good-cause appearing;

It is ORDERED that DAVID C. ANTON is suspended from the practice of law for a period of one year and until the further Order of the Court, effective December 29, 2004; and it is further

ORDERED that the entire record of this matter be made a permanent part of respondent’s file as an attorney at law of this State; and it is further

ORDERED that respondent be restrained and enjoined from practicing law during the period of suspension and that respondent comply with *Rule*1:20-20; and it is further

ORDERED that pursuant to *Rule*l:20-20(c), respondent’s failure to comply with the Affidavit of Compliance requirement of *Rule*1:20 — 20(b)(15) may (1) preclude the Disciplinary Review Board from considering respondent’s petition for reinstatement for a period of up to six months from the date respondent files proof of compliance; (2) be found to constitute a violation of *RPC*8.1(b) and *RPC*8.4(c); and (3) provide a basis for an action for contempt pursuant to *Rule*1:10-2; and it is further

ORDERED that the entire record of this matter be made a permanent part of respondent’s file as an attorney at law of this State; and it is further

ORDERED that respondent reimburse the Disciplinary Oversight Committee for appropriate administrative costs incurred in the prosecution of this matter.
EXHIBIT 99.2



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



As of the date hereof, I, Eric Borrmann, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual Report of Plumtree Software, Inc. on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2002 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities exchange Act of 1934 and that
information contained in such Annual Report on Form 10-K fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of Plumtree Software, Inc.



By:

/s/    ERIC BORRMANNName:

Eric BorrmannTitle:

Chief Financial OfficerDated:

March 24, 2003
Exhibit 32.2





                CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                      AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF
                         THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

         In connection with the filing of the Annual Report on Form 10-K of
South Jersey Gas Company (the "Company") for the period ended December 31, 2003,
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, David A. Kindlick, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby
certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:

         (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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





/s/ David A. Kindlick
-------------------------------------------------------
Name: David A. Kindlick
Title: Chief Financial Officer
March 12, 2004
(logo) **usbank**

All of**us**serving you

 

** **

**Annual Statement of Compliance**

**Citigroup Commercial MortgageSecurities Inc.,**

**Commercial Mortgage Pass-ThroughCertificates, Series 2014-GC19**

 

*VIA: EMAIL*

 

Citigroup Commercial MortgageSecurities Inc.

390 Greenwich Street, 5th Floor

New York, New York 10013 

Attention: Paul Vanderslice

Email: paul.t.vanderslice@citi.com

 

GS Mortgage SecuritiesCorporation II, as Depositor for

GS Mortgage SecuritiesCorporation II,

Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series2014-GC18 

& GS Mortgage Securities Corporation II,

Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series2014-GC20 

& GS Mortgage Securities Corporation II,

Commercial Mortgage Pass-ThroughCertificates, Series 2014-GC22

200 West Street

New York, New York 10282 

Attention: Leah Nivison

Email: leah.nivison@gs.com

 

Wells Fargo Bank, NationalAssociation, as Certificate Administrator for

GS Mortgage SecuritiesCorporation II,

Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series2014-GC18 

& GS Mortgage Securities Corporation II,

Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series2014-GC20 

& GS Mortgage Securities Corporation II,

Commercial Mortgage Pass-ThroughCertificates, Series 2014-GC22

9062 Old Annapolis Road

Columbia, Maryland 21045

Email: trustadministrationgroup@wellsfargo.com

Email: cts.sec.notifications@wellsfargo.com

Attention: SEC Notifications

 

 

Re: Pooling and ServicingAgreement dated as of March l, 2014 (the "Agreement") betweenCitigroupCommercial Mortgage Securities Inc., as Depositor, Wells Fargo Bank, NationalAssociation, as the Master Servicer, Midland Loan Services, a Division of PNCBank, National Association, as the Special Servicer, Situs Holdings, LLC, asthe Operating Advisor, and U.S. Bank National Association, as the CertificateAdministrator and Trustee.

 

 

I, Kimberly O. Jacobs, a SeniorVice President of U.S. Bank National Association, as Certificate Administrator,as a certifying servicer hereby certify that:

 

(1) A review of the activitiesof the Certificate Administrator during the preceding calendar year (the "ReportingPeriod") and of the performance of the Certificate Administrator underthe Agreement has been made under my supervision; and

 

(2) To the best of my knowledge,based on such review, the Certificate Administrator has fulfilled all itsobligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout suchReporting Period.

 

Capitalized terms used but notdefined herein have the meanings set forth in the Agreement.

 

 

Date: March 1, 2018

 

U.S. Bank National Association,as Certificate Administrator

 

By: /s/ Kimberly O. Jacobs

Kimberly O. Jacobs 

Senior Vice President