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

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4082 

To make a conforming amendment to the Federal Deposit Insurance Act 

with respect to examinations of certain insured depository institutions, 

and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

DECEMBER 5, 2006 

Mr. CRAPO introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs 

A BILL 

To make a conforming amendment to the Federal Deposit 

Insurance Act with respect to examinations of certain 

insured depository institutions, 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, 

3 SECTION 1. AMENDMENT TO THE FEDERAL DEPOSIT IN4 SURANCE ACT. 

5 Paragraph (10) of section 10(d) of the Federal De6 posit Insurance Act (12 U.S.C. 1820(d)(10)) is amended 

7 by striking ‘‘$250,000,000’’ and inserting 

8 ‘‘$500,000,000’’. 

Æ 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with BILLS
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Luis GOMEZ-PEREZ, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 06-40180.

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Decided Oct. 25, 2006.

James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Timothy William Crooks, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before JOLLY, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Luis Gomez-Perez (Gomez) appeals his guilty-plea conviction and sentence for being an alien found unlawfully in the United States after deportation and after having been convicted of an aggravated felony. Gomez argues that the “felony” and “aggravated felony” provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(1) and (2) are unconstitutional.

Gomez’s constitutional challenge is foreclosed by *Almendarez-Torres v. United States,*523 U.S. 224, 235, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998). Although Gomez contends that *Almendarez-Torres*was incorrectly decided and that a majority of the Supreme Court would overrule *Almendarez-Torres*in light of *Apprendi v. New Jersey,*530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), 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,*— U.S. -, 126 S.Ct. 298, 163 L.Ed.2d 260 (2005). Gomez properly concedes that his argument is foreclosed in light of *Almen-darez-Torres*and circuit precedent, but he raises it here to preserve it for further review.

AFFIRMED.

*

 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.
EX-33.11
MANAGEMENT'S ASSERTION ON COMPLIANCE
WITH REGULATION AB CRITERIA

March 6, 2008

SunTrust Bank (the "Asserting Party") is responsible for assessing compliance
with the servicing criteria set forth in Title 17, Section 229.1122(d)(2)(i),
229.1122(d)(4)(i) and 229.1122(d)(4)(ii) of the Code of Federal Regulations
(the "CFR") (the "Applicable Servicing Criteria"), for securitization
transactions serviced by SunTrust Mortgage, Inc. occurring after December 31,
2005 (the "Platform"). The Asserting Party is not assessing compliance with any
other criteria set forth in Section 229.1122(d) of the CFR.

The Asserting Party used the applicable criteria in paragraph (d) of Title 17,
Section 229.1122 of the CFR to assess compliance with the Applicable Servicing
Criteria.

The Asserting Party has concluded that it has complied, in all material
respects, with the Applicable Servicing Criteria as of and for the twelve month
period ending December 31, 2007 (the "Reporting Period").

Ernst & Young LLP, an independent registered public accounting firm, has issued
an attestation report on the assessment of compliance with the Applicable
Servicing Criteria for the Reporting Period as set forth in this assertion.


SUNTRUST BANK
Solely with respect to Sections 229.1122(d)(4)(i) and 229.1122(d)(4)(ii)


By: /s/ Rosealma T. Burton
Name: Rosealma T. Burton
Title: First Vice President


SUNTRUST BANK
Solely with respect to Section 229.1122(d)(2)(i)


By: /s/ Tomas E. Suarez
Name: Tomas E. Suarez
Title: Group Vice President
#### Formby *v.*Shackleford.

Until an execution issuing from a justice’s court has been properly “backed,” a constable of a county other than that in which the writ was issued has no authority to make any levy or return by virtue thereof. Consequently, an entry of no property to be found, made bysuch aconstable on an execution before it was *“*backed,” will not suffice to keep the judgment on which the execution was founded from becoming dormant. Under §2914 of the code, the entry must be made by an officer authorized to execute and return. *Judgment affirmed.*

August 6, 1894.

Levy and claim. Before Judge Harris. Heard superior court. September term, 1893.

A justice court *ft. fa.*issued in Troup county, November 21, 1862, upon a judgment rendered November 15, 1862, in favor of *W.*T. Formby against G. *W.*Formby, was, on April 29, 1892, “ backed ” by a justice of the peace of Heard county, and levied on land in Heard *671county. A claim was interposed by Shackleford. He moved to dismiss the levy, on the ground that the *fi. fa.*was dormant because the entries of *nulla bona*were made by constables of Heard county, where defendant then resided, before the *fi. fa.*was “ backed ” by a justice of the peace of Heard county, and no entries were made by a constable of Troup county from which the *fi. fa.*issued. The court sustained the motion. The following entries appeared on the *fi. fa.,*in addition to the “backing” and the levy: Cost paid by defendant, December 8, 1863. *Nulla bona,*December 17, 1868. Receipt for return of no property, January 5, ’69. Entries of *nulla bona,*November 8,1875, December 1,1880, and February 24, 1887. It was admitted that the constables who made the entries resided, at the time of making them, in Heard county, where defendant resided.

Frank S. Loftin, for plaintiff.

*W.*H. Daniel, *contra.*
Exhibit 10.90

FIFTH AMENDMENT TO LOAN AND SECURITY AGREEMENT

THIS FIFTH AMENDMENT TO LOAN AND SECURITY AGREEMENT (this “Amendment”), dated as of August 10, 2006, is entered into by and among CHELSEY FINANCE, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (“Lender”), BRAWN, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (“Brawn LLC”), HANOVER REALTY, INC., a Virginia corporation (“Hanover Realty”), THE COMPANY STORE FACTORY, INC., a Delaware corporation (“TCS Factory”), THE COMPANY OFFICE, INC., a Delaware corporation (“TCS Office”), SILHOUETTES, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (“Silhouettes LLC”), HANOVER COMPANY STORE, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (“HCS LLC”), DOMESTICATIONS, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (“Domestications LLC”), KEYSTONE INTERNET SERVICES, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (“KIS LLC”), and THECOMPANY STORE GROUP, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (“CSG LLC” and, together with Brawn, Brawn LLC, Hanover Realty, TCS Factory, TCS Office, Silhouettes LLC, HCS LLC, Domestications LLC and KIS LLC, collectively, “Borrowers” and each, individually, a “Borrower”), HANOVER DIRECT, INC., a Delaware corporation (“Hanover”), CLEARANCE WORLD OUTLETS, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (“Clearance World”), SCANDIA DOWN, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (“Scandia Down LLC”), D.M. ADVERTISING, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (“DM Advertising LLC”), AMERICAN DOWN & TEXTILE, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (“ADT LLC”), HANOVER GIFTS, INC., a Virginia corporation (“Hanover Gifts”) and HANOVER DIRECT MEMBERSHIPS, INC., a Delaware corporation (“HDMI”), collectively “Guarantors” and each, individually, a “Guarantor”.

WITNESSETH:

WHEREAS, Borrowers, Guarantors and Lender are parties to the Loan and Security Agreement, dated as of July 8, 2004, as amended (as so amended, the “Loan Agreement”), pursuant to which Lender has made loans and advances to Borrowers;

WHEREAS, Borrowers and Guarantors have requested that Lender revise the amounts of EBITDA that Borrowers are required to maintain in the third and fourth fiscal quarters of the fiscal year ending December 30, 2006;

WHEREAS, the parties hereto desire to enter into this Amendment to evidence and effectuate such consents and amendments, in each case subject to the terms and conditions and to the extent set forth herein; and

 

WHEREAS, Lender is willing to agree to provide such consents and make such amendments, subject to the terms and conditions and to the extent set forth herein.

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and covenants set forth herein and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto agree as follows: 

 

 
|   | 1 |   |
|--------|---|--------|

 

 

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     (Replace this text with the legend)
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000318380

<NAME>                                                      Public Storage, Inc.
<MULTIPLIER>                                                1
<CURRENCY>                                                  US
       
<S>                                                         <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                               3-Mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                           Dec-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                              Jan-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                                Mar-31-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                                     1
<CASH>                                                    243,190,000
<SECURITIES>                                                        0
<RECEIVABLES>                                                       0
<ALLOWANCES>                                                        0
<INVENTORY>                                                         0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                          243,190,000
<PP&E>                                                  3,262,674,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                           (404,139,000)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                          3,613,804,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                      68,466,000
<BONDS>                                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                               0
<PREFERRED>                                               921,585,000
<COMMON>                                                   11,959,000
<OTHER-SE>                                              2,138,527,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                            3,613,804,000
<SALES>                                                             0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                          142,566,000
<CGS>                                                               0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                              56,133,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                           30,555,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                          1,162,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                            48,364,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                                        0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                                 0
<DISCONTINUED>                                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                     0
<CHANGES>                                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                               48,364,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                                    0.26
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                    0.26
        

</TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Gene Edward LUCAS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 08-30278.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 12, 2009.*

Filed May 26, 2009.

Joseph E. Thaggard, Assistant U.S., USHE-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Helena, MT, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Evangelo Arvanetes, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Great Falls, MT, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before: PREGERSON, CANBY, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Gene Edward Lucas appeals from the 33-month sentence imposed following his *619jury-trial conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(e). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Lucas contends that his sentence is unreasonable because the district court failed to adequately consider the sentencing factors pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and placed too much weight on his criminal history. We conclude that the district court did not commit procedural error, and that the sentence is not substantively unreasonable. *See United States v. Stoterau,*524 F.3d 988, 999-1002 (9th Cir.2008).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**Exhibit 31.2**

**CERTIFICATION**

I, Michele Nakazawa, Chief Financial Officer of Telos Corporation, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q/A of Telos Corporation; 

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 makethe 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 flowsof the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 

4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I areresponsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) forthe registrant and have: 

a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures 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 whichthis report is being prepared; 

b) Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal controlover financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally acceptedaccounting principles; 

c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented 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 

d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and 

5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluationof internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and to the audit committee of registrant’s board of directors: 

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 torecord, process, summarize and report financial information; and 

b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involvesmanagement or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

MALIK ANDERSON,

Petitioner

v.

THE FIRST DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

PHILADELPHIA COUNTY CENTER FOR 

CRIMINAL JUSTICE,

Respondent

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 89 EM 2023

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 9

th day of February, 2024, the “Writ of Prohibition and Mandamus” 

is DENIED.
Exhibit 10.33

FIRST AMENDMENT
                                    TO
                            EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT



1. Section VII.b.ii is hereby amended by deleting said Section in its entirety and by substituting therefor the following:
2. Section VIII.a.ii is hereby amended by deleting said Section in its entirety and by substituting therefor the following:
3. Section VIII.b is hereby amended by deleting the sentence that immediately follows subsection iv thereof and by substituting
therefor the following:

---



1. Section VIII.e is hereby amended by deleting the sentence that immediately follows subsection iv thereof and by substituting
therefor the following:
2. Except as amended herein, the Agreement is confirmed in all other respects.

NPS PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.

By:	/s/ Andrew Rackear  	Andrew Rackear
   	General Counsel

/s/ Francois Nader	   Francois Nader, M.D.

2

---
#### Dukes *v.*The State.

An indictment for forgery which does not allege the making or fabrication of anything, but which sets out the fraudulent uttering of a forged bank check in the terms of 24447 of the code, is founded *394upon that section and néed not allege an intent to defraud any particular person. If any holding to the contrary is deducible from the case of *Williams*v. *The State,*51 *Ga.*535, a decision by two judges only, such holding is unsound and will not be followed. *Judgment affirmed.*

March 5, 1894.

Argued at the last term.

Indictment for forgery. Before Judge Griggs. Bibb superior court. November term, 1893.

O. A. Park and J. L. Gerdine, for plaintiff in error.

W. H. Felton, Jr., solicitor-general, *contra.*

The indictment alleged, that Columbus Dukes did “ unlawfully, falsely and fraudulently pass, pay and tender in payment, utter and publish as true and genuine, to A. Greenwood, a certain false, forged and counterfeited check on the 1st National Bank of Macon, Georgia; he the said Columbus Dukes at the time well knowing said check to have been falsely and feloniously made, forged and counterfeited, and that the same was not made and signed by said L. R. Wright, nor by any for him by his authority; said cheek being in word and figure as follows: ‘ Macon, Georgia, July 3d, 1898. First National Bank of Macon, Georgia. Pay to bearer or bearer seventeen ($17.00) dollars. (Signed) L. R. Wright.’ ” After conviction, defendant moved to arrest judgment, on the ground that the offence charged is forgery, but the offence attempted to be described is that of uttering a forged bank check; and that the indictment is insufficient as for uttering a forged check, because no intent to 'defraud any given person is alleged. The motion was overruled, and defendant excepted.
Exhibit 10(fo)


                                 AMENDMENT NO. 8
                                       TO
                      DISTRIBUTION AND MARKETING AGREEMENT

This Amendment No. 8 to Distribution  and Marketing  Agreement  ("Amendment") is
dated  as  of  September  30,  2004  between  Artera  Group,  Inc.,  a  Delaware
corporation ("Artera"), and Avaya Inc., a Delaware corporation ("Avaya").

WHEREAS, Artera and Avaya are parties to that certain Distribution and Marketing
Agreement  dated April 21, 2003,  as amended by Amendment No. 1 dated October 8,
2003,  Amendment No. 2 dated April 21, 2004, Amendment No. 3 dated May 19, 2004,
Amendment  No.  4 dated  June 4,  2004,  Amendment  No. 5 dated  June 18,  2004,
Amendment  No. 6 dated June 25, 2004 and Amendment No. 7 dated June 30, 2004 (as
so amended, "Distribution Agreement");

WHEREAS,  the parties wish to extend the term of the  Distribution  Agreement as
described herein.

NOW,  THEREFORE,  in consideration of the mutual covenants  contained herein, as
well as other good and valuable  consideration,  the receipt and  sufficiency of
which are hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows:

TERM

Article  7 of the  Distribution  Agreement  is  hereby  amended  to  read in its
entirety as follows:

     "The term of this Agreement  shall begin on the Effective Date and,  unless
     extended or earlier  terminated by the written  agreement of the parties or
     pursuant to Article 8 below, shall expire on October 14, 2004."

General

Except as expressly amended by this Amendment,  the Distribution  Agreement will
remain in full force and effect.  This  Amendment may be executed in one or more
counterparts.  Each counterpart will be deemed an original, but all counterparts
together will constitute one and the same instrument.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Amendment to be signed by their
duly authorized representatives.

AVAYA INC.                                      ARTERA GROUP, INC.


By:  /s/  Jayne L. Wolge                        By:  /s/  Michael J. Parrella
     --------------------------------                ---------------------------
     Name:  Jayne L. Wolge                           Name:  Michael J. Parrella
     Title:  Procurement Mgr                         Title:  Chairman & C.E.O.