alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
H. Res. 537

In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

September 16, 1998.

Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule

XXIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the

Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of

the bill (H.R. 4300) to support enhanced drug interdiction efforts in the major transit countries and support a comprehensive supply eradication and crop substitution program in

source countries. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. General debate shall be confined to the bill and

shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by

Representative Hastert of Illinois, and a Member opposed to

the bill. After general debate the bill shall be considered for

amendment under the five-minute rule for a period not to exceed three hours. It shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute

rule the amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in

the Congressional Record and numbered 1 pursuant to clause

6 of rule XXIII. That amendment in the nature of a sub-
2

•HRES 537 EH

stitute shall be considered as read. Points of order against

that amendment in the nature of a substitute for failure to

comply with clause 7 of rule XVI are waived. During consideration of the bill for amendments, the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may accord priority in recognition on the

basis of whether the Member offering an amendment has

caused it to be printed in the portion of the Congressional

Record designated for that purpose in clause 6 of rule XXIII.

Amendments so printed shall be considered as read. The

Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may: (1) postpone

until a time during further consideration in the Committee of

the Whole a request for a recorded vote on any amendment;

and (2) reduce to five minutes the minimum time for electronic voting on any postponed question that follows another

electronic vote without intervening business, provided that the

minimum time for electronic voting on the first in any series

of questions shall be 15 minutes. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise

and report the bill to the House with such amendments as

may have been adopted. Any Member may demand a separate

vote in the House on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the bill or to the amendment in the nature of a substitute made in order as original text. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and

amendments thereto to final passage without intervening mo-
3

•HRES 537 EH

tion except one motion to recommit with or without instruction.

Attest:

Clerk.
CFTC Ex. 300

Case: 1:20-cv-03758 Document #: 81-6 Filed: 11/05/21 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:1750
Case: 1:20-cv-03758 Document #: 81-6 Filed: 11/05/21 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:1751
Case: 1:20-cv-03758 Document #: 81-6 Filed: 11/05/21 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:1752
Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2003



In connection with the Quarterly Report of United Pan Am Financial Corp (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2003 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), Garland Koch certifies in his capacity as Chief Financial Officer and Senior Vice President of the Company, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted
pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2003, that to his knowledge:



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



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



IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has hereunto signed this Certification as
of August 6, 2003.



/s/ Garland KochGarland KochChief Financial Officer and Sr. Vice President




A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
EXHIBIT 15.21

 

 

 

August 7, 2006

 

Dollar Thrifty Automotive Group, Inc.

5330 East 31st Street

Tulsa, Oklahoma

 

We have made a review, in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States), of the unaudited interim financial information of Dollar Thrifty Automotive Group, Inc. and subsidiaries for the periods ended June 30, 2006 and 2005, as indicated in our report dated August 7, 2006; because we did not perform an audit, we expressed no opinion on that information.

 

We are aware that our report referred to above, which is included in your Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2006, is incorporated by reference in Registration Statements No. 333-79603, No. 333-89189, No. 333-33144, No. 333-33146, No. 333-50800 and No. 333-128714 on Form S-8.

 

We also are aware that the aforementioned report, pursuant to Rule 436 (c) under the Securities Act of 1933, is not considered a part of the Registration Statement prepared or certified by an accountant or a report prepared or certified by an accountant within the meaning of Sections 7 and 11 of that Act.

 

/s/  DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

 

Tulsa, Oklahoma
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-6238

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus THOMAS HOUSER, a/k/a Robert Joiner, a/k/a Thomas Gross, a/k/a Edward Kingman, a/k/a Tommy King, a/k/a Thomas King, a/k/a Ian Hopkins, a/k/a Tim Hopkins, a/k/a Timothy Hopkins, a/k/a Ian King, Defendant - Appellant.

No. 04-6239

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus THOMAS HOUSER, a/k/a Robert Joiner, a/k/a Thomas Gross, a/k/a Edward Kingman, a/k/a Tommy King, a/k/a Thomas King, a/k/a Ian Hopkins, a/k/a Tim Hopkins, a/k/a Timothy Hopkins, a/k/a Ian King, Defendant - Appellant.- 2 - Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Newport News. Rebecca Beach Smith, District Judge. (CR-01-125; CR-02-36; CA-03-41-4; CA-03-42-4) Submitted: July 12, 2004 Decided: September 17, 2004 Before WIDENER, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Thomas Houser, Appellant Pro Se. Robert John Krask, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 3 - PER CURIAM: Thomas Houser seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2255 proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Houser has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
#### John W. Sanders *v.*J. C. Lawson, etc.

Attachment — Garnishment Purchase Money — Title Must be Perfected Before Payment Can be Enforced.

The pleadings show that appellant’s indebtedness to Innes was for a tract of land for title to which he held the bond of the latter. By this bond Innes covenanted to malte appellant a general warranty deed to the land. The appellant, who occupies the position of garnishee, should be allowed to avail himself of every defense he could have made had suit been brought against him by Innes. The court, in its judgment, does not attempt to invest appellant with the title to the land for which he is adjudged to pay.

*727APPEAL FROM HARDIN CIRCUIT COURT.

October, 1872.

Opinion by

Judge Lindsay :

Lawson and Pusey should have brought original actions against Innes instead of making themselves parties to the suit of *Garnett’s Administrator v. Garnett's Heirs, etc.,*but no objection was taken to the mode of proceeding in the court below, and this court will not reverse for that cause alone. We are aware of but two sections of our civil code, 248 and 274, authorizing judgments directly against persons indebted to parties who subject themselves to be proceeded against by attachment. The petitions of both appellees set out grounds of attachment against Innes, their debtor, and Sanders, who occupies the position of garnishee, cannot complain that orders of attachment were not sued out, nor the necessary bonds for the protection of Innes executed.

But he ought to have been allowed to avail himself of every defense he could have made had suit been brought against him by his creditor Innes, and of this right he has been deprived.

The pleadings show that his indebtedness to Innes is for a tract of land for title to which he holds the bond of the latter. By this bond Innes covenanted to make to Sanders a general warranty deed to the land. This has not been done, nor does the court, by its judgment, attempt to invest Sanders with the title. It merely adjudges that Innes' title is good, valid and legal and then compels Sanders to pay the purchase price and leaves him to his remedy against Innes to enforce a conveyance of title. In this the court erred. If Innes could not be gotten into court by actual service of process the proper steps should have been taken upon the constructive service to have authorized a judgment investing Sanders with the title, he has the right under his bond to demand. Further than this the petitions of appellats show that the holder of the legal title to the land is Gibbony and not Innes at all. The judgment must be reversed. Upon the return of the cause appelleés should be allowed a reasonable time within which to so prepare the case as to authorize a judgment investing Sanders with title, in which *728event they may have judgment against him for the amount of their debts against Innes.

*Brown, Murray, for appellant.*

*Montgomery, for appellees.*
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 218 (Wednesday, November 12, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 67165]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-26720]


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

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding 
Companies

    The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for 
approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 
1841 et seq.) (BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR Part 225), and all other 
applicable statutes and regulations to become a bank holding company 
and/or to acquire the assets or the ownership of, control of, or the 
power to vote shares of a bank or bank holding company and all of the 
banks and nonbanking companies owned by the bank holding company, 
including the companies listed below.
    The applications listed below, as well as other related filings 
required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the 
Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The applications will also be available 
for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested 
persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated 
in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the 
acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether 
the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards 
in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, 
nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States.
    Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these 
applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the 
offices of the Board of Governors not later than December 5, 2014.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta (Chapelle Davis, Assistant Vice 
President) 1000 Peachtree Street, NE., Atlanta, Georgia 30309:
    1. ServisFirst Bancshares, Inc., Birmingham, Alabama; to merge with 
Metro Bancshares, Inc., and thereby indirectly acquire Metro Bank, both 
in Douglasville, Georgia.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, November 6, 
2014.
Michael J. Lewandowski,
Associate Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 2014-26720 Filed 11-10-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
#### Wm. Garvey’s Admr. *v.*G. Garnett.

Executors and Administrator — Demand against Estate, Arising after Death.

A demand against a decedent’s estate arising after death, is not embraced in the provisions of Sec. 35, Art. 2, Chap. 37, E. S., 1. Vol., p. 509.

APPEAL PROM OWEN CIRCUIT COURT.

December 13, 1871.

*Dorman, Lindsay, for appellaiit.*

*Drone, for appellee.*

Opinion by

Judge Peters :

Appellee had no cause of action until after he satisfied the judgment rendered on the note executed by him to appellant’s intestate, and by the payment of the amount thereof a liability arose on the part of appellant to refund the amount of usury collected.

It was not, therefore, a demand against the estate of the decedent existing at the time of his death, created by him, but one that had arisen since his death and being of that character is not embraced by the provisions of Sec. 35, Art. 2, Chapt. 37, *R.*S., 1. Vol., p. 509.

As, therefore, no error is perceived in the judgment, the same is affirmed.

Chief Justice not sitting.
Wolverine World Wide, Inc. Exhibit 10.19 to Form 10-K Y/E/ 12/28/02



Exhibit 10.19


FIFTIETH AMENDMENT

OF

WOLVERINE WORLD WIDE, INC.

EMPLOYEES' PENSION PLAN


          FIFTIETH AMENDMENT to the WOLVERINE WORLD WIDE, INC. EMPLOYEES' PENSION PLAN (the Plan) made this 9th day of July, 2002, by WOLVERINE WORLD WIDE, INC. (the Company).


	
 
	
1.
	
Purpose. Under the authority reserved to it under Section 12.1 of the Plan, the Company wishes to amend the Plan to permit deferred vested participants to elect optional forms of benefit under the plan.

	
 
	
 
	
 

	
 
	
2.
	
Amendment. The Plan is amended at:

	
 
	
 
	
 
	
 

	
 
	
 
	
(a)
	
Section 6.1 to delete the last sentence prohibiting election of an optional form of benefits.

	
 
	
 
	
 
	
 

	
 
	
 
	
(b)
	
Supplement F to include A.T. Payne, III, as a B Executive.

	
 
	
 
	
 
	
 

	
 
	
3.
	
Effective Date. This amendment shall be effective on April 1, 2002 as to Section 6.1 and February 15, 2002, as to Supplement F.

	
 
	
 
	
 

	
 
	
4.
	
Revised Pages. The amendment is incorporated in revised pages which shall be substituted for their counterparts. 




          The Company has caused this Amendment to be executed by its authorized officers on the date first written above.








	 	 	
WOLVERINE WORLD WIDE, INC.

	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	 	 	
/s/ Blake W. Krueger 


	 	 	
Blake W. Krueger

Executive Vice President,

General Counsel and Secretary

	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	
Attest
	 	 
	 	 	 
	
/s/ Nicholas P. Ottenwess

	 	 
	
Nicholas P. Ottenwess

Corporate Controller
CFTC Ex. 409

Case: 1:20-cv-03758 Document #: 77-12 Filed: 11/05/21 Page 1 of 5 PageID #:1107
Case: 1:20-cv-03758 Document #: 77-12 Filed: 11/05/21 Page 2 of 5 PageID #:1108
Case: 1:20-cv-03758 Document #: 77-12 Filed: 11/05/21 Page 3 of 5 PageID #:1109
Case: 1:20-cv-03758 Document #: 77-12 Filed: 11/05/21 Page 4 of 5 PageID #:1110
Case: 1:20-cv-03758 Document #: 77-12 Filed: 11/05/21 Page 5 of 5 PageID #:1111
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

PETER H. MILLER, )

)

Appellant, )

)

v. ) Case No. 2D16-3159

)

STATE OF FLORIDA, )

)

Appellee. )

)

Opinion filed March 2, 2018.

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Pinellas 

County; William H. Burgess, III, Judge.

Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and 

Jean-Jacques A. Darius, Assistant Public 

Defender, Bartow, for Appellant. 

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, 

Tallahassee, and Brandon R. Christian, 

Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for 

Appellee. 

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. 

NORTHCUTT, CASANUEVA, and SALARIO, JJ., Concur.
Exhibit 23.1

Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (i) Form S-3 (No. 333-126938,
No. 333-128013 and No. 333-143037) and in the related Prospectus, (ii) Form S-4 (No. 333-147765) and in the related
Prospectus, (iii) Form S-8 (No. 333-121051) pertaining to the Gramercy Capital Corp. Equity Incentive Plan of our reports dated March 13, 2008 with
respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule of Gramercy Capital Corp., and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of Gramercy Capital Corp., included in this
Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2007.

/s/
Ernst and Young LLP
New York, New York
March 13, 2008

---



QuickLinks
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1

SUBSIDIARIES OF BIOMED REALTY TRUST, INC. AS OF DECEMBER 31, 2004:

                                                     Jurisdiction of
                                                       Formation/
Name                                                  Incorporation
----                                                 ---------------

BioMed Realty, L.P.                                      Maryland
BioMed Realty Holdings, Inc.                             Maryland
BioMed Realty LLC                                        Delaware
BMR-34790 Ardentech Court LLC                            Delaware
BMR-8808 Balboa Avenue LLC                              California
BMR-Bayshore Boulevard LLC                               Delaware
BMR-6411 Beckley Street LLC                              Delaware
Guilford Real Estate Trust 1998-1                          Utah
BMR-17190 Bernardo Center Drive LLC                      Delaware
BMR-Bridgeview Technology Park LLC                       Delaware
BMR-3030 Bunker Hill Street LLC                          Delaware
BMR-2600 Eisenhower Road LLC                             Delaware
BMR-201 Elliott Avenue LLC                               Delaware
BMR-201 Industrial Road LLC                              Delaware
BMR-145 King of Prussia Road GP LLC                      Delaware
BMR-145 King of Prussia Road LP                          Delaware
BMR-Landmark at Eastview LLC                             Delaware
BMR-10165 McKellar Court GP LLC                         California
10165 McKellar Court LP                                 California
BMR-3450 Monte Villa Parkway LLC                         Delaware
BMR-10255 Science Center Drive LLC                       Delaware
BMR-9885 Towne Centre Drive LLC                          Delaware
BMR-6611 Tributary Street LLC                            Maryland
I

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 896

To amend section 108(q)(4) of the Housing and Community Development

Act of 1974 to promote regional cooperation in proposed plans for

economic development grants.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FEBRUARY 27, 1997

Mr. TRAFICANT introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Banking and Financial Services

A BILL

To amend section 108(q)(4) of the Housing and Community

Development Act of 1974 to promote regional cooperation in proposed plans for economic development grants.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Regional Cooperation

5 Act’’.

6 SEC. 2. AMENDMENT.

7 Section 108(q)(4) of the Housing and Community

8 Development Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5308(q)(4)), is

9 amended—
2

•HR 896 IH

1 (1) by striking ‘‘and’’ after the semicolon in

2 subparagraph (C);

3 (2) by redesignating subparagraph (D) as sub4 paragraph (E); and

5 (3) by inserting after subparagraph (C) the fol6 lowing:

7 ‘‘(D) when applicable as determined by the

8 Secretary, the extent of regional cooperation

9 demonstrated by the proposed plan; and’’.

Æ
From: Marcin Czabanski 

Sent: Friday, December 14, 2018 3:41 PM

To: privacyframework 

Subject: Developing a Privacy Framework

Ms. Katie MacFarland,

Below are comments for “Developing a Privacy Framework” RFI.

1. Non-prescriptive approach allows for flexibility to meet the needs of the business

2. A jurisdiction agnostic framework that would be recognized globally as addressing

the protections and rights of individuals

3. Organizations adopting the NIST Privacy Framework and demonstrating

accountability would achieve ‘adequacy’ status. Thus, eliminating the need for alternative

approaches to legitimizing the transfer and processing of personal information. (e.g.,

Standard Contractual Clauses, Privacy Shield)
Exhibit 99.1
 
 ANNUAL COMPLIANCE REPORT
 
 The undersigned, being an officer of U.S. Bank Trust National Association, as trustee (the “Trustee”), with respect to CorTSTrust II For Goldman Sachs Capital I, on whose behalf  Structured Products Corp. has prepared this annual report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2013 (the “Annual Report”), certifies as follows:
 
 1.           The Trustee is the trustee under the trust agreement.
 
 2.           Based on my knowledge, for the periods included in the year covered by the Annual Report, the Trustee has fulfilled its obligations, including any servicing obligations, under the trust agreement.
 
 
 /s/   Janet P. O'HaraName:
Janet P. O’HaraTitle:
Vice PresidentDate:
February 19, 2014