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

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 92 (Wednesday, June 7, 1995)]
[House]
[Page H5628]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

             KILLING THE AMERICAN DREAM OF HIGHER EDUCATION

  (Mr. HILLIARD asked and was given permission to address the House for 
1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. HILLIARD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to protest another one of the 
Republican plans to kill the American dream.
  I am speaking of the budget that was rammed through last week. This 
budget gutted the Student Loan Program, taking away the hopes and 
dreams of young Americans who will not be able to go to college. The 
budget plan is bad. The Republicans have betrayed the future of America 
by getting rid of student loans in order to cut taxes for their rich 
friends.
  To finance this despicable tax cut for the rich, they have sold out 
the young people of America. There are some great kids in Alabama and 
elsewhere in this fantastic country who now will never be able to reach 
their full potential. We have enticed them and lured them to sleep with 
dreams of a bright future, and the Republicans have turned those dreams 
into nightmares.
  Wake up, Alabama. Wake up, America.

                          ____________________
```
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

**COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,**

**Respondent**

**v.**

**BASEM K. SHLEWIET,**

**Petitioner :** 

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**: No. 269 MAL 2016** 

**Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court** 

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW **, this 17th day of August, 2016, the Petition for Al lowance of Appeal is** 

DENIED

**.**

**Justice Mundy did not participate in the consideration o r decision of this matter.**
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE
F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER

Appellate case name: In the Interest of A.C., K.L.C. III and L.C.

Appellate case number: 01

- 20

- 00 002

- C V

Trial court case number: 18CP0096

Trial court: 3 06 th District Court of Galveston County

K.L.C. II, Father, appeals the termination of his parental rights to A.C., K.L.C. III, and L.C. Father’s appointed attorney has filed a brief in which s he concludes

that

, after a review of the record and pertinent law, the appeal is frivolous and

without merit. See Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967) ; In re P.M ., 520 S.W.3d 24, 27 & n.10 (Tex. 2016) (per curiam) (approving use of Anders procedure in appeals from ter mination of parental rights because it “strikes an important balance between the defendant’s constitutional right to counsel on appeal and counsel’s obligation not to prosecute frivolous appeals” ). Father did not file a pro

se response.

Under Anders , if a n appointed attorney concludes after reviewing the record and applicable law that the appeal is without merit, he must advise the court, file a motion to withdraw, and file a brief discussing any issue that might arguably support the appeal. See Anders , 3 86 U.S. at 744; Kelly v. State , 436 S.W.3d 313, 318 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). The appellate court must then perform an independent examination of the record and the law to determine whether appeal is frivolous. See

Anders , 386 U.S. at 744. The question before us is not who will ultimately prevail but instead whether any non

- frivolous issue exists. If the court determines that there are arguable issues, it must abate the appeal and remand with orders for the trial court to appoint new counsel. See Stafford v. State , 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991).After examining the record and applicable law, the C ourt has determine d that

a nonfrivolous issue may exist

. For instance, on appeal, the Father could potentially bring a nonf

r ivolous chal lenge concerning the legal and factual sufficiency of the evidence supporting the trial court’s section 161.001(b)(1 ) (D) finding. See T EX

. F AM

. C ODE § 161.001(b)(1)(D). Accordingly, the court strikes appellant’s brief, grants the motion to withdraw, abates the appeal, and remands the case to the trial court for appointment of new counsel. Father’s brief will be due within 30 days after new counsel is appointed.

It is s o ORDERED.

Judge’s signature:

____ /s/ Sherry Radack

________  Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: ___ April 7, 2020

___
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-14-00620-CV

In the Interest of A. V. and I. V., minor children

On appeal from the

County Court at Law No. 5 of Nueces County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 2013-FAM-62029-5

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, vacates and dismisses the trial court’s judgment of November 3, 2014, in part, 

and affirms in part. The Court orders the judgment VACATED and DISMISSED IN 

PART and AFFIRMED IN PART. Costs of the appeal are adjudged against the 

appellee.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

April 30, 2015.
#### Robin Lynn Tardif MORRIS, Appellant, v. Gary Lee MORRIS, Appellee.

No. 5D09-3209.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Aug. 20, 2010.

Horace Smith, Jr. of Smith, Hood, Perkins, Loucks, Stout, Bigman, Lane & Brock, P.A., and Steven J. Guardiano, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.

Theodore R. Doran of Doran, Sims, Wolfe, Ansay, Kundid *&*Birch, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The former wife, Robin Lynn Tardif Morris, appeals the trial court’s final order terminating permanent alimony in a post-divorce proceeding. She concedes the existence of a supportive relationship, but asserts that the trial court erred by terminating her permanent alimony. Our standard of review is abuse of discretion. *Buxton v. Buxton,*963 So.2d 950, 953 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007). The trial court, after using the criteria set forth in section 61.14(l)(b)2., Florida Statutes (2007), to find a supportive relationship, properly considered the criteria set forth in section 61.08(2) in making its determination to terminate permanent alimony. *See Buxton,*963 So.2d at 955-56. After a complete review of the record, this court finds no abuse of discretion.

AFFIRMED.

EVANDER and COHEN, JJ., and TURNER, G., Associate Judge, concur.
#### Robin BUELLE and Kenneth S. Smith v. Thomas PERIOU, M.D. and Fireman’s Fund Insurance Company.

No. 2011-CC-0775.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 27, 2011.

In re Fireman’s Fund Insurance Company; —Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. C, No. 2004-12954; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2011 CW 0161.

Denied.
#### GENERAL LONGSHORE WORKERS, INC. and Edward Comeaux, Jr. v. ILA LOCAL 3000 and James Campbell, Ila President.

No. 2010-C-2137.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Nov. 19, 2010.

In re General Longshore Workers Inc. et al.; —Plaintiff; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. E, No. 2008-12651; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2010-CA-0264.

Denied.
| (logo) WELLS FARGO | **Corporate Trust Services**

  MAC R1204-010  9062 Old Annapolis Road  Columbia, MD 21045  Tel: 410 884 2000  Fax: 410 715 2380 |
|--------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|               |                                                                                                                             |
|               |                                                                                                                             |   |

GS Mortgage SecuritiesCorporation II 

200 West Street

New York, New York 10282

 

Re:          Annual Statement of Compliance for GS Mortgage Securities Corporation II,Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2014-GC22

 

 

Per the Pooling and ServicingAgreement dated as of June 1, 2014 (the "Agreement"), theundersigned, a duly authorized officer of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., asCertificate Administrator ("Wells Fargo"), hereby certifies asfollows as of and for the year ending December 31, 2016 (the "ReportingPeriod"):

 

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

 

(b) To the best of suchofficer's knowledge, based on such review, Wells Fargo has fulfilled all of itsobligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout theReporting Period.

 

 

February 27, 2017

 

/s/ Brian Smith

BRIAN SMITH

Vice President

 

 

| Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. | (logo) Together we’ll go far |
|------------------------|------------------------------------|
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              MAY-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-01-1997
<CASH>                                              16,837
<SECURITIES>                                        12,848
<RECEIVABLES>                                       23,504
<ALLOWANCES>                                           572
<INVENTORY>                                          7,442
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                    62,631
<PP&E>                                             114,469
<DEPRECIATION>                                      50,809
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     130,545
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                               17,671
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                            44,398
<OTHER-SE>                                          23,384
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       130,545
<SALES>                                            112,899
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   112,899
<CGS>                                               96,771
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                       96,771
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     4,608
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   2,310
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                         41
<INCOME-TAX>                                            14
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                     27
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                            27
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                         0.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         0.00
        

</TABLE>
A93A0112.

#### KING v. THE STATE.

(432 SE2d 109)

Birdsong, Presiding Judge.

Albert King appeals the trial court’s order reconsidering its earlier order to return confiscated property under OCGA § 17-5-30.

King’s motion to return property was filed on April 10, 1992, when the State nolle prossed his case, after the Supreme Court reversed his conviction *(King v. State,*262 Ga. 147 (414 SE2d 206)) but before the remittitur was handed on June 5, 1992. The trial court granted the motion to return property on May 15, 1992, holding that it was bound by the Supreme Court’s reversal even though the remittitur had not come down. The State returned all of King’s property except $28,354. After remittitur of the criminal appeal came down, the State, on June 15, 1992, filed in the trial court a motion to reconsider its order to return property. At the same time, the State filed the notice of appeal of the trial court’s order to return the money. The trial court reconsidered its order to return property and ruled the State did not have to return the money. King filed this appeal. *Held:*

1. The State concedes the trial court was without jurisdiction to reconsider its order to return property after the State filed a notice of appeal of the order. OCGA § 5-6-45; see *Turner v. Harper,*233 Ga. 483 (211 SE2d 742). The trial court’s jurisdiction, which was removed when the State filed its notice of appeal, is not retroactively supplied by the fact that the appeal was later dismissed by order of the Supreme Court “for lack of a right of appeal in the state,” *State v. King,*(Case No. S92A1225, decided October 2, 1992), citing *State v. McIntyre,*191 Ga. App. 565, 566 (382 SE2d 669). To rule otherwise would render uncertain every supersedeas. The trial court’s reconsidered order was without jurisdiction and is void.

2. For the sake of judicial economy, the State seeks a ruling that the trial court had no jurisdiction to order a return of property in the first place because the remittitur from reversal of the conviction had not then come down. However, the State has filed no cross-appeal and we decline to issue an advisory opinion. We note, however, that in *McIntyre,*supra, the criminal prosecution and the proceeding to return property apparently were conducted at the same time, and that the State had nolle prossed the prosecution before King filed his motion to return property.

*Judgment reversed.*

*Pope, C. J., and Andrews, J., concur.*

*624Decided May 10, 1993.

*Herbert Shafer,*for appellant.

*J. Tom Morgan III, District Attorney, Gregory A. Adams, Gregory J. Lohmeier, Assistant District Attorneys,*for appellee.
The Hon. William R. Wilson, Jr., United States District Judge for the Eastern 1

District of Arkansas.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 97-2165

___________

Willis Hampton, *

*

Appellant, *

* On Appeal from the

v. * United States District Court

* for the Eastern District

* of Arkansas.

Amtran Corporation, *

* [Not to be Published]

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: October 3, 1997

Filed: October 17, 1997

___________

Before RICHARD S. ARNOLD, Chief Judge, McMILLIAN and BEAM, Circuit

Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Willis Hampton appeals from the District Court's adverse grant of summary

1

judgment in his action against Amtran Corporation, asserting federal employment

discrimination claims and pendent state claims. Upon review of the record and the
-2- -

parties' submissions on appeal, we affirm for the reasons set forth in the District Court's

opinion. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
#### In re Appeal of the DECISION OF the DISCIPLINARY BOARD NOS. 2009-ADMIN-953 AND 2009-Admin-954.

No. 2010-OB-2018.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Oct. 29, 2010.

In re Johnson, Elfrida W.; —Plaintiff; Applying For Applying For Appeal of De-cisión of the Disciplinary Board Office of Disciplinary Counsel, Nos. 2009-ADMIN-954, 2009-ADMIN-953.

Denied.
(logo) Prudential 

 

Prudential Asset Resources

 

Prudential Mortgage Capital Company

2100 Ross Avenue, Suite 2500, Dallas TX 75201

Tel 214 777-4500

 

 

A business of Prudential Financial, Inc.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Wells Fargo Bank, National Association

Attn: Commercial Mtg Servicing

MAC D1086-120

550 South Tryon Street, 14th Floor

Charlotte, NC 28202

 

 

 

RE:         RBS Commercial Funding Inc., Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2014-C21

Period:   **August 1, 2014 to December 31,2014 (the "Reporting Period")**

Annual Compliance Statement

I, Hal Collett, in my capacity as President and Managing Director of Prudential Asset Resources, Inc. (the "Company") hereby certify with regard to the Company's role as Primary Servicer under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement, (the "Agreement") dated as of August 1*,*2014 pertaining to the above-referenced certificates, that:

 

 

(i)         a review of the activities of the Company under the Agreement during the period noted above, and of the performance of the Company under the Agreement during the reporting period has been made under my supervision, and

 

 

(ii)        to the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Company has fulfilled all its obligations under the Agreement throughout the reporting period.

 

 

 

 

Effective as of March 19, 2015

 

/s/ Hal Collett                        

Hal Collett

President and Managing Director

Prudential Asset Resources, Inc.
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF**

**THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF2002**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report ofConsolidated Graphics, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the periodending September 30, 2004, as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Joe R. Davis, Chairman ofthe Board of Directors and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

# (1)           The Reportfully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

# (2)           Informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

Dated:    October27, 2004

 

 
|   | /s/ Joe R.  Davis                                               |   |
|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|   | Joe R. Davis                                                    |
|   | Chairman of  the Board of Directors and Chief Executive Officer |

 

----
647 A.2d 469

#### IN THE MATTER OF STANLEY M. LEWIS, AN ATTORNEY AT LAW.

September 23, 1994.

ORDER

The Disciplinary Review Board having filed a report with the Supreme Court recommending that STANLEY M. LEWIS of NORTH PLAINFIELD, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 1966, be publicly reprimanded for attempting to deceive a municipal court by introducing into evidence a document falsely showing that a heating problem in an apartment of which respondent was the owner and landlord had been corrected prior to the issuance of a summons, in violation of *RPC*3.3(a)(1) and (4), and *RPC*8.4(a), (c) and (d), and the Court having heard argument in the matter, and good cause appearing;

It is ORDERED that the report of the Disciplinary Review Board is hereby adopted and STANLEY M. LEWIS of NORTH PLAINFIELD is hereby admonished for his violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct; 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 Office of Attorney Ethics and the Disciplinary Review Board for appropriate administrative costs incurred in the prosecution of this matter.
exv10w1






Exhibit 10.1




	 	 	 	 	 
	

	 	425 MARKET STREET

SAN FRANCISCO

CALIFORNIA 94105-2482


TELEPHONE: 415.268.7000

FACSIMILE: 415.268.7522


WWW.MOFO.COM
	 	MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP


NEW YORK, SAN FRANCISCO,

LOS ANGELES, PALO ALTO, 

SAN DIEGO, WASHINGTON, D.C. 


NORTHERN VIRGINIA, DENVER, 

SACRAMENTO, WALNUT CREEK


TOKYO, LONDON, BEIJING,

SHANGHAI, HONG KONG, 

	 

	 	 	 	SINGAPORE, BRUSSELS






	 	 	 
	January 5, 2009

	 	Writer’s Direct Contact
	 

	 	 415.268.7211
	 

	 	 PPfister@mofo.com





Richard Weinberg

Vice President

Pegasus Partners IV, L.P.

99 River Road

Cos Cob, CT 06807





			
	Re:	 	Purchase of Lighting Science Group Corporation Preferred Stock and Warrant





Dear Mr. Weinberg:



This letter sets forth our understanding of the terms upon which Pegasus Partners IV, L.P.
(“Pegasus”) has agreed to purchase from us 219,582 shares of Series C Preferred Stock (the
“Preferred Shares”) and a Warrant (the “Warrant”) to purchase 3,293,725 shares of Common Stock of
Lighting Science Group Corporation (“LSG”).



By signing a copy of this letter in the place provided below, Pegasus agrees that it will purchase
the Preferred Shares and Warrant from our Firm for cash in the amount of $2,799,665.18 (the
“Purchase Price”), immediately upon receipt by it of (1) stock certificate No. C-1 evidencing the
Preferred Shares registered in our name and endorsed to Pegasus, and (2) Warrant No. 109, issued in
our name and endorsed to Pegasus, and agrees that it is not purchasing the Preferred Shares and
Warrant with a view to further distribution. We are currently holding in our trust account funds
in the amount of the Purchase Price, advanced by Pegasus, and upon receipt from Pegasus or its
authorized attorneys, Akin Gump, of written instructions by email or other means of written
communication, to release such funds, we will disburse the funds to our own account.



We understand that, when notified of the consummation of the transaction set forth in the preceding
paragraph, Haynes and Boone, LLP, counsel for LSG, will be issuing to Pegasus its opinion with
respect to such transaction.




 









 













Richard Weinberg

January 5, 2009

Page Two



Please sign in the places set forth below a copy of this letter, and it will then become an
agreement between us on the terms set forth above. Signatures may be on separate counterparts.




Sincerely,




/s/ Peter J. Pfister




Peter J. Pfister

For Morrison & Foerster LLP



Accepted and agreed to this _7th___day of January, 2009




Pegasus Partners IV, L.P.





			
	By	 	Pegasus Investors IV, L.P.

its general partner






			
	By	 	Pegasus Investors IV GP, L.L.C.

its general partner





	 	 	 	 	 
	By

	 	/s/ Richard Weinberg
 

Richard Weinberg

Vice President
* 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. 07-51066 Conference Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff-Appellee v. JOSE ANGEL RODRIGUEZ, JR Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 3:07-CR-742-ALL Before GARZA, CLEMENT, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * The attorney appointed to representJoseAngel Rodriguez, Jr., has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with A nders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Rodriguez has not filed a response. Our independent review of the record and counsel’s brief discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR. R. 42.2. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D August 20, 2008 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk