alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 9

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-2000
<CASH>                                      19,223,573
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                          99,695
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                             6,400,000
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                 16,973,582
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                    124,217,111
<ALLOWANCE>                                  1,287,788
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             173,215,522
<DEPOSITS>                                 156,581,430
<SHORT-TERM>                                 3,150,000
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                          1,768,588
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     6,222,714
<OTHER-SE>                                   5,492,790
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>             173,215,522
<INTEREST-LOAN>                              5,830,346
<INTEREST-INVEST>                              616,504
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                     0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                             6,446,850
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                           1,704,870
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,895,521
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                        4,551,329
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                  114,000
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                             (2,188)
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                              5,663,245
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,537,905
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                   1,039,573
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,039,573
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.86
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.77
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    9.57
<LOANS-NON>                                    665,485
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                               161,000
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                             1,241,016
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                  114,000
<RECOVERIES>                                  (81,392)
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                            1,287,788
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                         1,287,788
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0


</TABLE>
585 A.2d 410

#### SOUTH JERSEY PUBLISHING COMPANY, T/A THE PRESS & SUNDAY PRESS v. NEW JERSEY EXPRESSWAY AUTHORITY.

October 30, 1990.

Petition for certification granted.
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

ADALBERTO RAMOS,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

Nos. 4D13-4382 and 4D13-4746

[November 12, 2015]

Consolidated appeals from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth 

Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Matthew I. Destry, Judge; L.T. Case 

No. 08-2567 CF10A.

Adalberto Ramos, Miami, pro se.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Melanie Dale 

Surber, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Adalberto Ramos appeals an order denying his motion filed pursuant 

to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. One of his claims is that 

the trial court failed to consider his “amended” motion. We agree and 

reverse and remand for further review of both of appellant’s motions. 

See Bradford v. State, 701 So. 2d 899 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) (holding that 

trial court erred in failing to continue the evidentiary hearing on the 

original 3.850 motion until such time as the claims raised in the 

amended motion could also be considered).

The amended motion was first filed as a motion for new trial. 

However, on the day of the evidentiary hearing scheduled to consider the 

original rule 3.850 motion, appellant asked the trial court to treat the 

new trial motion as an amendment to his pending rule 3.850 motion.

After considerable discussion, the judge opted to bifurcate the 

proceedings and proceed as scheduled with the evidentiary hearing. All 

agreed at the commencement that this meant the State would have the 

opportunity to respond to issues within the amendment, and that the 
2

judge might have to reevaluate all of the claims when considering those 

points.1 This plan was restated at the end of the evidentiary hearing.

Notwithstanding the court’s plan to evaluate the claims collectively, it 

entered an order denying only the original motion. The written order 

advised appellant that he had thirty days to file an appeal; he followed 

that advice. 

Thereafter, the court ordered the state to respond to the amended 

motion. The state argued that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to 

entertain the motion because of the pending appeal and that the 

amended motion was successive and insufficient. The court denied the 

amended motion based on that response without further hearing.

Based on the events as explained above, we reverse and remand for 

the trial court to proceed as it initially intended. Accordingly, “we find 

that a proper disposition of appellant’s claims on remand requires the 

trial court to consider the totality of appellant’s claims raised in both the 

original and the amended motion.” Bradford, 701 So. 2d at 900. 

Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

CIKLIN, C.J., WARNER and LEVINE, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

 

1 Appellant’s motions predate the July 1, 2013 amendments to Florida Rule of 

Criminal Procedure 3.850 (e), “Amendments to Motion.” In re Amendments to 

the Fla. Rules of Criminal Procedure & the Fla. Rules of Appellate Procedure, 132 

So. 3d 734, 748 (Fla. 2013).
Exhibit 32.2

Certification of Principal Financial Officer

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350

In connection with the accompanying Report on Form 10-Q of Sterling Financial Corporation (Sterling) for the period ended March 31, 2009 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Daniel G. Byrne, Principal Financial Officer of Sterling, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



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



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



|                   |  |  |  |     |  |                     |  |                                                                          
|------------------ |  |  |  | --- |  | ------------------- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                   |  |  | 
|Dated: May 8, 2009 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/ Daniel G. Byrne
|                   |  |  |  |     |  |                     |  | Daniel G. Byrne                                                          
|                   |  |  |  |     |  |                     |  | Executive Vice President, Assistant Secretary, andChief Financial Officer

This certification accompanies each Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and
shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by Sterling for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Sterling and will be retained by Sterling and furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission upon request.
Order entered November 17, 2015

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-15-01256-CV

IN RE PROASSURANCE INSURANCE COMPANY, Relator

Original Proceeding from the County Court at Law No. 3

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 352,923-401

ORDER

Before the Court is relator’s unopposed motion to schedule a filing date for its reply brief, 

in which relator requests that the Court permit relator to file a reply brief on or before November 

20, 2015. We GRANT the motion.

/s/ CRAIG STODDART 

JUSTICE
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                          49,737
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,840
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      8,651
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                             300
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  60,528
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           92,665
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  (32,137)
<SALES>                                          3,918
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 3,918
<CGS>                                            8,109
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                27,839
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (27,839)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (27,839)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
| (logo) WELLS FARGO | **Corporate Trust Services**

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

 

 

Re: AnnualStatement of Compliance for GS Mortgage Securities Corporation II, CommercialMortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2014-GC24 

 

 

Per the Pooling and Servicing Agreementdated as of September 1, 2014 (the "Agreement"), the undersigned, aduly authorized officer of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as Certificate Administrator("Wells Fargo"), hereby certifies as follows as of and for the yearending December 31, 2016 (the "Reporting Period"): 

 

(a) A review of Wells Fargo's activities during the ReportingPeriod and of its performance under the Agreement has been made under suchofficer's supervision; and 

 

(b) To the best of such officer'sknowledge, 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 |
|------------------------|-------------------------------------|
EXHIBIT 15.1

INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

AWARENESS LETTER

Securities and Exchange Commission

Washington, D.C. 20549

We are aware that our report dated July 13, 2011 on our review of
the interim consolidated financial statements of Dynacq Healthcare, Inc. as of and for the three and nine month periods ended May 31, 2011 and 2010 and included in this Form 10-Q for the quarter ended May 31, 2011 is incorporated by
reference in the Companys Registration Statement No. 333-72756. Pursuant to Rule 436(c) under the Securities Act of 1933, this report should not be considered as part of the Registration Statement prepared or certified by us within the
meaning of Sections 7 and 11 of that Act.



|                                    
|------------------------------------
|/s/ Killman, Murrell & Company, P.C.
|Killman, Murrell & Company, P.C.    
|Houston, Texas                      
|July 13, 2011
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-20042

YOLANDA M AGUIRRE; ANA M MORRIS; CORINA RAMOS; ROSE

URDIALEZ; OLGA ZERTUCHE; ALEJANDRA S AMIE; NARA DELEON;

SYLVIA DIAHNN SANCHEZ

Plaintiffs-Appellants

v.

SBC COMMUNICATIONS INC; SOUTHWESTERN BELL TELEPHONE

CO; SOUTHWESTERN BELL TELEPHONE LP

Defendants-Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:05-cv-03198

Before REAVLEY, CLEMENT, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The issue in this appeal is whether the district court properly granted

summary judgment to Defendant-Appellee Southwestern Bell Telephone L.P.

(“SWB”) after concluding that Plaintiffs-Appellants Yolanda Aguirre, Ana

Morris, Corina Ramos, Rose Urdialez, Olga Zertuche, Alejandra S. Amie, Nara

Deleon, and Sylvia Diahnn Sanchez (“Sanchez”) (collectively “Plaintiffs”) were

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

November 6, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 08-20042

2

exempt from the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29

U.S.C. §§ 201–219, because they were “executives” under 29 C.F.R. § 541.100(a).

Plaintiffs also appeal the district court’s denial of their motion to reconsider.

Finally, Plaintiffs assert that the district court erred in granting summary

judgment in favor of SWB on Plaintiff Sanchez’s retaliation claim.

We affirm the judgment of the district court for the reasons stated in the

district court’s thorough memorandum and order dated September 30, 2007,

granting SWB’s motion for summary judgment, and its memorandum and

opinion dated December 20, 2007, denying Plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration.

AFFIRMED.
IIB 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 965 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 3, 2017 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural 

Resources 

AN ACT 

To redesignate the Saint-Gaudens National Historic Site as 

the ‘‘Saint-Gaudens National Historical Park’’, 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, 


dlhill on DSK3GLQ082PROD with BILLS
2 

HR 965 RFS 

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Saint-Gaudens Na3 tional Historical Park Redesignation Act’’. 

4 SEC. 2. DESIGNATION OF SAINT-GAUDENS NATIONAL HIS5 TORICAL PARK. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Saint-Gaudens National His7 toric Site shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Saint8 Gaudens National Historical Park’’. 

9 (b) AMENDMENTS TO PUBLIC LAW 88–543.—Public 

10 Law 88–543 (78 Stat.749) is amended— 

11 (1) by striking ‘‘National Historic Site’’ each 

12 place it appears and inserting ‘‘National Historical 

13 Park’’; 

14 (2) in section 2(a), by striking ‘‘historic site’’ 

15 and inserting ‘‘Saint-Gaudens National Historical 

16 Park’’; 

17 (3) in section 3, by— 

18 (A) striking ‘‘national historical site’’ and 

19 inserting ‘‘Saint-Gaudens National Historical 

20 Park’’; and 

21 (B) striking ‘‘part of the site’’ and insert22 ing ‘‘part of the park’’; and 

23 (4) in section 4(b), by striking ‘‘traditional to 

24 the site’’ and inserting ‘‘traditional to the park’’. 

25 (c) REFERENCES.—Any reference in any law, regula26 tion, document, record, map, or other paper of the United 


dlhill on DSK3GLQ082PROD with BILLS
3 

HR 965 RFS 

1 States to the Saint-Gaudens National Historic Site shall 

2 be considered to be a reference to the ‘‘Saint-Gaudens Na3 tional Historical Park’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives October 2, 

2017. 

Attest: KAREN L. HAAS, 

Clerk. 


dlhill on DSK3GLQ082PROD with BILLS
No. 95-3437

CAPITOL INDEMNITY CORPORATION * * Plaintiff - Appellee * * Appeal from the United States vs. * District Court for the * District of Minnesota JOHN E. MATICH, doing business * as Wagon Wheel Saloon * [UNPUBLISHED] * Defendant * * TORY SJODIN * * Movant - Appellant *

No. 95-3475

CAPITOL INDEMNITY CORPORATION * * Plaintiff - Appellee * * Appeal from the United States vs. * District Court for the * District of Minnesota JOHN E. MATICH, doing business * as Wagon Wheel Saloon * * Defendant - Appellant * * MINNESOTA JOINT UNDERWRITERS * ASSOCIATION * * Intervenor - Appellant * *

### The HONORABLE ANDREW W. BOGUE, Senior United States * 

### District Judge for the Western Division of the District of South Dakota, sitting by designation. The Honorable Donald A. Alsop, United States District Court 1 

### Judge for the District of Minnesota.
2 Submitted: June 10, 1996 Filed: July 5, 1996

Before BEAM and HEANEY, Circuit Judges, and BOGUE, Senior District * Judge.

PER CURIAM. John Matich (Matich) appeals the district court's order denying 1 his motion to vacate a default judgment granted against him and in favor of Capitol Indemnity Corporation (Capitol). Capitol had filed a declaratory judgment action urging its comprehensive general liability policy issued to Matich did not provide coverage for an action brought against Matich by Troy Sjodin (Sjodin). Sjodin and the Minnesota Joint Underwriting Association (MJUA) appeal the district court's order denying their motions to vacate and motions to intervene. In denying all motions to vacate the default, the district court found no likelihood of success on the merits because an assault and battery exclusion precludes coverage. Having reviewed the parties' briefs and submissions, we conclude the finding of the district court on the issue of coverage was correct. Accordingly, based upon the well-reasoned opinion of the district court, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 198 (Thursday, October 14, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 63184]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-25922]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION

[Docket 2010-0009, Sequence 4]


Temporary Duty (TDY) Travel Allowances

AGENCY: Office of Governmentwide Policy, General Services 
Administration (GSA).

ACTION: Notice of Bulletin FTR 10-06.

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

SUMMARY: This bulletin provides guidance to employees of agencies 
subject to the FTR to enhance travel cost savings and reduce greenhouse 
gas emissions. This guidance will improve management of agency travel 
programs, save money on travel costs, better protect the environment, 
and conserve natural resources. Other agencies not subject to the FTR 
are also encouraged to follow this guidance and incorporate these 
strategies into their travel management policies, procedures, and 
activities related to official travel. Bulletin FTR 10-06 and all other 
Bulletins may be found at http://www.gsa.gov/bulletins.

DATES: The provisions of Bulletin FTR 10-06 are effective September 30, 
2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Ed Davis, Office of Governmentwide 
Policy (M), Office of Travel, Transportation, and Asset Management 
(MT), General Services Administration at (202) 208-7638 or via e-mail 
at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#c9bdbba8bfaca5b9a6a5a0aab089aebaa8e7aea6bf"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="82f6f0e3f4e7eef2edeeebe1fbc2e5f1e3ace5edf4">[email protected]</span></a>. Please cite Bulletin FTR 10-06.

    Dated: September 30, 2010.
Janet C. Dobbs,
Acting Deputy Associate Administrator, Office of Travel, Transportation 
and Asset Management.
[FR Doc. 2010-25922 Filed 10-13-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6820-14-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
584 A.2d 212

#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. ARMANDO ROSARIO.

May 7, 1990.

Petition for certification denied. (See 237 *N.J.Super.*63, 566 A.2d 1173)
MAHMOAD ABDAH, et al.,

Petitioners,

 v.

BARACK H. OBAMA, et al.,

Respondents.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Civil Action 04-01254 (HHK)

JUDGMENT

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 58 and for the reasons set forth in the accompanying

memorandum opinion filed with the Court Security Office this same day, it is this 8th day of

April, 2010 hereby

ORDERED that the petition for a writ of habeas corpus of Yasein Khasem Mohammad

Esmail (ISN 522) is DENIED.

Henry H. Kennedy, Jr.

United States District Judge