alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 10.1 Schedule 1.1E Issuing Lender Addrresses






SCHEDULE 1.1E
	
		
	Issuing Lender
	Address for Notices

	Citibank, N.A.:
	Citi Corporate and Investment Banking
388 Greenwich St.
New York, NY
Attn: Piotr Marciszewski
Telecopy: (646)737-0678
Telephone: (212)816-5356
Email: Piotr.Marciszewski@citi.com

	PNC Bank, National Association:
	PNC Bank, National Association
PNC Real Estate Finance
2 Tower Center, 18th Floor
East Brunswick, New Jersey 08816
Attention: Douglas G. Paul, Senior Vice President
Telecopy: 732-220-3744
Telephone: 732-220-3566
Email: douglas.paul@pnc.com
And
PNC Bank, National Association
Firstside Center
500 First Avenue
Mail Stop #: P7-PFSC-04-V
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15219
Attention: Eric P. Morgan
Telecopy: 412-768-9542
Telephone: 412-705-2124
Email: e.morgan@pnc.com













	
		
	Regions Bank:
	Regions Bank
Regions Center
1500 5th Avenue North, 15th Floor
Birmingham, AL 35203
Attn: Wanda Pate
Telecopy: (205)801-0138
Telephone: (205)326-4615
Email: wanda.pate@regions.com

	The Huntington National Bank:
	The Huntington National Bank 
200 Public Square CM17
Cleveland, OH 44114
Attn: Michael D. Mitro
Telecopy: (877)203-6964
Telephone: (216)515-6983
Email: Michael.D.Mitro@huntington.com

	U.S. Bank National Association:
	U.S. Bank National Association
10 W Broad Street, 12th Floor
Columbus, OH 43215
Attn: Anthony Mathena and Renee Fridley
Telecopy: (614)232-8033
Telephone: (614)232-8013/(614)232-8029
Email: anthony.mathena@usbank.com/
renee.fridley@usbank.com 

	Wells Fargo Bank, National Association:
	Wells Fargo Bank, National Association
2030 Main Street, Suite 800
Irvine, CA  92614
Attn: Stacy R. Novack
Telecopy: (949)851-9728
Telephone: (949)251-4358
Email: novacks@wellsfargo.com
#### CARTWRIGHT v. GREENPOINT BASIN & CONSTRUCTION CO.

No. 1965.

District Court, E. D. New York.

May 4, 1942.

Satterlee *&*Warfield, of New York City, for plaintiff.

Philip C. Samuels, of New York City, for defendant.

CAMPBELL, District Judge.

This is a motion to permit the plaintiff and his attorneys upon the examination of the defendant, by its officers Marshall E. Tulloch and Theodore Wm. Brigham, at the United States Court House, Brooklyn, New York, to inspect and to copy each of the .following books, papers and records:

1. All balance sheets and profit and loss statements of said defendant for the years 1936 to 1941, inclusive.

2. All books of account of said defendant from August 1, 1936, to April 24, 1941, inclusive, including all ledgers and journals of said defendant covering said period.

3. All shipbuilding and repair contracts entered into by the defendant from August 1, 1936, to April 24, 1941, inclusive, and any other contracts during said period from which defendant did derive or would derive income or profits.

4. All correspondence of said defendant from August 1, 1936, to April 24, 1941, relating to the services or compensation of plaintiff, or to any agreement between plaintiff and defendant, or in any way referring to plaintiff, or in any way relating to any contracts described in Item 3 hereof, or to the financial condition of defendant.

The motion is granted to the extent that the examination and taking of copies of the books, records and papers, as to which that is permitted, shall take place in the office of the defendant, in this district, not at this Courthouse, as the defendant is at present engaged in carrying out war contracts, and should not be unnecessarily interfered with in its work, by bringing such books and papers to Brooklyn.

Request 1. Is granted.

Request 2. Is denied.

Request 3. Is denied in the form requested, but granted to the extent that defendant is required to allow an inspection of the method of execution of each of said contracts, as that goes to the question of the customary way of executing contracts by the defendant, and the authority of the officers named to bind the defendant.

As to any contracts made with the Government for war work, which is required to be held in secrecy, the method of their execution shall be described by the defendant, by its said officers, designating the contracts by date, but not referring to the things contracted for.

Request 4. Is granted except as to so much thereof which reads as follows: “or in any way relating to any contracts *339described in Item 3 hereof, or to the financial condition of the defendant”, as to which it is denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                          89,429
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                           2,364
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                56,730
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    532,979
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                         426,458
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                           429,872
<LOANS>                                      3,256,866
<ALLOWANCE>                                     34,395
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,557,336
<DEPOSITS>                                   3,284,428
<SHORT-TERM>                                   370,203
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                             65,938
<LONG-TERM>                                    418,855
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              354
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     417,558
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>               4,557,336
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                229,360
<INTEREST-INVEST>                               13,605
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                72,252
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                               315,217
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                             142,213
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             185,385
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                          129,832
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                        0
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                100,750
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 74,549
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                      49,461
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  (403)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    49,058
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.45
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.40
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    3.01
<LOANS-NON>                                      5,592
<LOANS-PAST>                                     3,185
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                   857
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                 20,969
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                35,965
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                    2,781
<RECOVERIES>                                     1,211
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                               34,395
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                            34,395
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
ELECTRONIC RECORD

W&-/5

COA# 11-13-00060-CR OFFENSE: 1

Ashley Jack Cody Henderson v.

STYLE: The Stateof Texas COUNTY: Haskell

COA DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED TRIAL COURT: 39th District Court

DATE: 3/26/15 Publish: NO TC CASE #: 6547

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

Ashley Jack Cody Henderson

STYLE: v. The State of Texas

APPELLANTS Petition

FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW IN CCA IS:

DATE: P6 //f/jLQlf

JUDGE: {l* faSU^>J~

CCA#: PD-0446-15

CCA Disposition:

DATE:

JUDGE:

SIGNED:

PUBLISH:

REHEARING IN CCA IS:

JUDGE:

PC:.

DNP:

MOTION FOR

ELECTRONIC RECORD
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-7648

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

JACKIE LEE RATTLER,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, 

at Bryson City. Martin K. Reidinger, District Judge. (2:13-cr-00012-MR-DLH-1; 1:16-

cv-00126-MR)

Submitted: April 25, 2017 Decided: April 27, 2017

Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jackie Lee Rattler, Appellant Pro Se. John Daren Pritchard, Amy Elizabeth Ray, 

Assistant United States Attorneys, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Jackie Lee Rattler seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 

U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge 

issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). 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) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the 

merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would 

find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. 

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 

336-38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner 

must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the 

motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 

484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Rattler has not 

made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny 

leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 

materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
# Fourth Court of Appeals **San Antonio, Texas**
MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04

- 13

- 00740

- CR
IN RE Marcus A . COOPER Original Mandamus Proceeding 1
PER CURIAM Sitting: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice Marialyn Barnard, Justice
Delivered and Filed: December 11, 2013
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED
Relator Marcus Cooper filed this pro se petition for writ of mandamus on October 24 , 2013, complaining of the trial court’s failure to rule on a pending motion for speedy trial . Relator has been appointed trial counsel to repre sent him in connection with his pending crim inal charges . We conclude that any original proceeding on the issue presented should be presented by relator’s trial counsel. Relator is not entitled to hybrid representation. See Patrick v. State , 906 S.W.2d 481, 498 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995). The absence of a right to hybrid representation means relator’s pro se mandamus petition will be treated as presenting nothing for this court’s review. See id .; see also Gray v. Shipley , 877 S.W.2d 806, 806 (Tex. App.

— Houston [1 st Dist.] 1994, orig. proceeding). Accordingly, relator’s petition for writ of mandamus is denied. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 52.8(a).

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2013CR6596, styled The State of Texas v. Marcus A. Cooper , pending in the 186th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Maria Teresa Herr presiding.04

- 13

- 00740

- CR Additionally, relator filed a request for leave to file his petition for writ of mandamus. No leave is required to file a petition for writ of mandamus in this court. T EX
. R. A PP
. P . 52. Therefore,
relator’s motion for leave to file is denied as moot.

PER CURIAM
DO NOT PUBLISH

- 2

-
#### In the Matter of Frederick Bermel, Petitioner v Dennis M. Walcott et al., Respondents.

[975 NYS2d 905]

*620Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Chancellor of the New York City Department of Education dated June 14, 2011, which adopted the findings and recommendation of a hearing officer, made after a hearing, finding the petitioner guilty of certain charges of misconduct, and terminated the petitioner’s employment.

Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, the petition is denied, and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits, without costs or disbursements.

Contrary to the petitioner’s contention, the determination of the Chancellor of the New York City Department of Education that the petitioner was guilty of certain charges of misconduct was supported by substantial evidence in the record *(see 300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v State Div. of Human Rights,*45 NY2d 176, 179 [1978]). Moreover, the penalty imposed is not so disproportionate to the offenses committed by the petitioner as to be shocking to one’s sense of fairness, thus constituting an abuse of discretion as a matter of law *(see Matter of Kelly v Safir,*96 NY2d 32, 38 [2001]; *see also Matter of Winters v Board of Educ. of Lakeland Cent. School Dist.,*99 NY2d 549, 550 [2002]; *Matter of Barhite v Village of Medina,*23 AD3d 1114, 1115 [2005]; *Matter of Rogers v Sherburne-Earlville Cent. School Dist.,*17 AD3d 823, 825 [2005]; *Matter of Foster v Saratoga Springs City School Dist.,*16 AD3d 824, 826 [2005]). Dillon, J.E, Angiolillo, Roman and Sgroi, JJ., concur.
IV 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 421 

Recognizing the International Year of the Salmon in 2019 as a framework 

of collaboration across the Northern Hemisphere to sustain and recover 

salmon stocks through research, partnerships, and public action. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 4, 2019 

Mr. YOUNG (for himself, Mr. KILMER, and Mr. HUFFMAN) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and 

Reform 

RESOLUTION 

Recognizing the International Year of the Salmon in 2019 

as a framework of collaboration across the Northern 

Hemisphere to sustain and recover salmon stocks 

through research, partnerships, and public action. 

Whereas salmon are a vital resource, providing communities 

with cultural and social value, food security, and economic opportunity; 

Whereas salmon are critically important to marine and aquatic ecosystems and indicators of the health of rivers and 

oceans that people, fish, and wildlife depend on; 

Whereas salmon are vulnerable to impacts from human interference, including development pressures and climate 

change; 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 421 IH 

Whereas drawing on science, indigenous knowledge, and the 

experience of fishers, policymakers, resource managers, 

and others is essential to conserve salmon; 

Whereas people can learn about the value of salmon and support salmon conservation; and 

Whereas salmon migrations span national boundaries, and 

collaborating and sharing knowledge across borders is 

critical to sustaining salmon stocks: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives recog2 nizes the International Year of the Salmon, a unique, hem3 ispheric-level collaboration bringing people together in 

4 order to ensure that healthy wild salmon populations per5 sist into the future. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
#### SEARS, ROEBUCK & CO. v. HARRISON.

No. 46582.

District Court, N. D. Illinois, E. D.

Jan. 8, 1940.

Lederer, Livingston, Kahn, Adler & Ad-sit, of Chicago, Ill., for plaintiff.

William J. Campbell, U. S. Atty., of Chicago, Ill., for defendant

HOLLY, District Judge.

On motion to require defendant to answer certain interrogatories.

Defendant will answer interrogatories 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23 and 24. In directing defendant to answer these interrogatories I am not determining that the answers will be admissible in evidence. They may or may not be, but if it appears on the trial that the information called for is admissible, having the information in the record will expedite the proceedings.

Defendant need not answer interrogatories 1 to 13, inclusive. I am of the opinion that the information called for is not relevant to the issues raised by the material allegations contained in the pleadings. I have examined the cases cited by plaintiff on this subject, including Blair v. Oesterlein Machine Co., 275 U.S. 220, 48 S.Ct. 87, 72 L.Ed 249, and do not consider them in point.

On defendant’s motion to strike plaintiff’s second amendment to the complaint.

This motion will be sustained for the reasons set out in defendant’s brief.

An order will be entered accordingly.
<PAGE>
 
                                                               Exhibit 21
                                                               ----------

                              LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES
                              --------------------



                                                            Jurisdiction of
Name of Subsidiary                                           Incorporation
------------------                                          ---------------

St. Paul Federal Bank for Savings                           United States

Annuity Network, Inc.                                       Illinois

St. Paul Financial Development Corporation                  Illinois

Custom Source Realty Corporation (a)                        Illinois

St. Paul Service, Inc. (b)                                  Illinois

St. Paul Securities, Inc. (b)                               Illinois

Community Finance Corporation (b)                           Illinois

Managed Properties, Inc. (b)                                Illinois

MPI Illinois, Inc. (b)                                      Illinois

EFS/San Diego Service Corporation (b)                       Illinois

EFS Service Corporation (b)                                 Illinois

Investment Network, Inc. (c)                                Illinois

Investment Network Advisors, Inc. (d)                       Illinois



------------------------------------------------------------------
(a)  Subsidiary of St. Paul Financial Development Corporation.
(b)  Subsidiary of St. Paul Federal Bank for Savings.
(c)  Subsidiary of St. Paul Securities, Inc.
(d)  Subsidiary of Investment Network, Inc.
EXHIBIT 10.2

    DESCRIPTION OF IOURI BALTCHOUGOV VERBAL AGREEMENT WITH MOBILE LADS CORP.

Mr. Baltchougov, the sole officer and director of Mobile Lads Corp. (the
"Company") has verbally agreed to loan the Company funds necessary to complete
the registration process on Form S-1. The loan is unsecured and does not bear
interest nor have a maturity date or a repayment provision or other terms and
conditions.
WRITTEN STATEMENT OF THE PRESIDENT, CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD

           AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SS. 1350



     Solely for the purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, I, the
undersigned President, Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of
Badger Paper Mills, Inc. (the "Company"), hereby certify, based on my knowledge,
that the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended December
31, 2002 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in the Report
fairly represents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
of operations of the Company.




/s/ Robert A. Olah
-----------------------------------
Robert A. Olah
March 3, 2003


                                      -48-
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                               841,056 
<SECURITIES>                                               0 
<RECEIVABLES>                                      5,442,970 
<ALLOWANCES>                                          92,759 
<INVENTORY>                                       12,875,203 
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  20,728,968 
<PP&E>                                            27,817,469 
<DEPRECIATION>                                    16,738,337 
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                    38,816,496 
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              8,287,574 
<BONDS>                                                    0 
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                      0 
<PREFERRED>                                                0 
<COMMON>                                           2,523,261 
<OTHER-SE>                                        25,707,788 
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                      38,816,496 
<SALES>                                           45,783,629 
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                  45,783,629 
<CGS>                                             32,759,376 
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                     42,502,597 
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     790,309 
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                      97,176 
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   530,231 
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    2,490,723 
<INCOME-TAX>                                         528,470 
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                1,962,253 
<DISCONTINUED>                                             0 
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                            0 
<CHANGES>                                                  0 
<NET-INCOME>                                       1,962,253 
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                           0.78 
<EPS-DILUTED>                                           0.78 
                                               

</TABLE>