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

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 87 

To require the disclosure of determinations with respect to which Congressional staff will be required to obtain health insurance coverage through 

an Exchange. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 7, 2015 

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

to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

A BILL 

To require the disclosure of determinations with respect to 

which Congressional staff will be required to obtain 

health insurance coverage through an Exchange. 

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 ‘‘Show Your Exemption 

5 Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. TRANSPARENCY OF COVERAGE DETERMINATION. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 30 days after the 

8 date of enactment of this Act, the Chief Administrative 

9 Officer of the House of Representatives and the Financial 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 87 IS

1 Clerk of the Senate shall make publically available the de2 terminations of each member of the House of Representa3 tives and each Senator, as the case may be, regarding the 

4 designation of their respective congressional staff (includ5 ing leadership and committee staff) as ‘‘official’’ for pur6 poses of requiring such staff to enroll in health insurance 

7 coverage provided through an Exchange as required under 

8 section 1312(d)(1)(D) of the Patient Protection and Af9 fordable Care Act (42 U.S.C. 18032(d)(1)(D)), and the 

10 regulations relating to such section. 

11 (b) FAILURE TO SUBMIT.—The failure by any mem12 ber of the House of Representatives or Senator to des13 ignate any of their respective staff, whether committee or 

14 leadership staff, as ‘‘official’’ (as described in subsection 

15 (a)), shall be noted in the determination made publically 

16 available under subsection (a) along with a statement that 

17 such failure permits the staff involved to remain in the 

18 Federal Employee Health Benefits Program. 

19 (c) PRIVACY.—Nothing in this Act shall be construed 

20 to permit the release of any individually identifiable infor21 mation concerning any individual, including any health 

22 plan selected by an individual. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 99.02


                                                         Company's Form 10-Q
                                                         September 30, 1995

                                                         Page 14





Item 1. Legal Processings.

          For information concerning certain purported class action lawsuits
filed against the Company and certain of its subsidiaries in May and June 1994,
see the description that appears in the second paragraph of page 2 of the
Company's filing on Form 8-K dated July 13, 1994, which description is
incorporated by reference herein. A copy of the pertinent paragraph of such
filing is included as an exhibit to this Form 10-Q.  The Lawrence case was
stayed pending a decision by the Supreme Court of Alabama in a case raising
similar issues regarding credit life insurance. In October, 1995 the Supreme
Court of Alabama reversed the dismissal of that case and, as such, the Company
anticipates that the stay will be lifted.  The Erkins case was dismissed
without prejudice in March 1995, and claims relating only to nonfiling
insurance have been restated in an amended complaint filed in March 1995 in the
Nobels action. On September 22, 1995, an additional purported class action
lawsuit was filed against subsidiaries of the Company in Alabama. The case,
entitled Royster v. Commercial Credit Corporation and American Health and Life
Insurance Company, was filed in the Circuit Court for Walker County on behalf
of borrowers who purchased credit life insurance in connection with installment
purchase contracts and other personal loans. Plaintiffs, who seek
unspecified compensatory and punitive damages, declaratory relief, voiding
excess premium charges, and injunctive relief, assert claims for breach of
contract, fraud, outrage and unconscionability.  The Company believes it has
meritorious defenses and intends to contest the allegations.
EX-35.9
(logo) WELLS FARGO

Corporate Trust Services

MAC R1204-010
9062 Old Annapolis Road
Columbia, MD 21045

Tel: 410 884 2000
Fax: 410 715 2380

RBS Commercial Funding Inc.
600 Washington Boulevard
Stamford, Connecticut 06901

RE: Annual Statement of Compliance for WFRBS Commercial Mortgage Trust 2013-C13,
    Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series 2013-C13

Per the Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of May 1, 2013 (the
"Agreement"), the undersigned, a duly authorized officer of Wells Fargo Bank,
N.A., as Certificate Administrator ("Wells Fargo"), hereby certifies as follows
as of and for the year ending December 31, 2013 (the "Reporting Period"):

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

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

March 10, 2014


/s/ Brian Smith
BRIAN SMITH
Vice President


Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
#### In the Matter of Brian G. Reilly, Respondent, v Carole A. Reilly, Appellant.

[853 NYS2d 900]

*884Where, as here, an order recites that it is made on consent, it is not appealable *(see Matter of Gittens v Chin-On,*19 AD3d 596 [2005]; *Matter of Polyak v Toyber,*2 AD3d 642 [2003]; *Matter of Brouwer v Pacicca,*291 AD2d 448, 449 [2002]). To the extent that the appellant challenges the recitation of consent as it appears on the order dated January 29, 2007, her remedy is to move in Family Court to vacate or resettle the order *(see Matter of Polyak v Toyber,*2 AD3d at 642-643; *Matter of Ras v Rupp,*295 AD2d 892, 893 [2002]; *Matter of Brouwer v Pacicca,*291 AD2d at 449; *Nayman v Remsen Apts.,*125 AD2d 378, 382 [1986]).

Since the mother moved for an award of an attorney’s fee pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130-1.1, her contention that she is entitled to such an award pursuant to Domestic Relations Law § 237 (b) is not properly before this Court. Moreover, her contention is based on matter that is dehors the record. Prudenti, P.J., Miller, Dillon and McCarthy, JJ., concur.
#### Jose Luis LOPEZ-CASTREJON; Maria Silvia Carrillo Santoyo, Petitioners, v. Michael B. MUKASEY,* Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 06-72553.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 20, 2007 **.

Filed Dec. 28, 2007.

Jose Luis Lopez-Castrejon, Santa Maria, CA, pro se.

Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Manuel A. Palau, Lisa M. Arnold, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Offiee of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.

*760Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.

*

 Michael B. Mukasey is substituted for his predecessor, Alberto R. Gonzales, as Attorney General of the United States, pursuant to Fed. R.App. P. 43(c)(2).

**

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

MEMORANDUM ***

Jose Luis Lopez-Castrejon and his wife Maria Silvia Carrillo Santoyo seek review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) upholding an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) order denying their application for cancellation of removal. We dismiss the petition for review.

We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s discretionary determination that petitioners failed to show exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to a qualifying relative. *See Romero-Torres v. Ashcroft,*327 F.3d 887, 892 (9th Cir.2003).

To the extent petitioners contend the IJ violated their due process rights by disregarding their evidence of hardship, this contention is not supported by the record and does not amount to a colorable constitutional claim. *See Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales,*424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir. 2005) (“[Traditional abuse of discretion challenges recast as alleged due process violations do not constitute colorable constitutional claims that would invoke our jurisdiction.”).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.

***

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-02-1999
<CASH>                                           3,011
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   90,657
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,999
<INVENTORY>                                     75,265
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               195,025
<PP&E>                                         134,684
<DEPRECIATION>                                  71,084
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 295,647
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           51,941
<BONDS>                                         73,565
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           113
<OTHER-SE>                                     166,939
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   295,647
<SALES>                                        219,186
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               219,186
<CGS>                                          113,298
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  113,298
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   272
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,645
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 10,508
<INCOME-TAX>                                     3,705
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              6,803
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     6,803
<EPS-BASIC>                                      .72
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .72


</TABLE>
* Pursuant to 5 TH 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 5 TH CIR
. R. 47.5.4. 

### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-11146 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff-Appellee

v. COSME SANCHEZ-GALLARDO, also known as Jose Salinas-Gonzales Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 5:07-CR-34-ALL
Before REAVLEY, JOLLY, and GARZA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Cosme Sanchez-Gallardo raises arguments that are foreclosed by Al mendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), whic h held that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) is a penalty provision and not a separate criminal offense. United States v. PinedaArrellano, 492 F.3d 624, 625 (5th Cir. 2007), cert. denied, 128 S. Ct. 872 (2008). United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D April 30, 2008 Charles R. Fulbruge III ClerkNo. 07-11146

2 The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-14-0000427

31-JUL-2015

07:45 AM
**CERTIFICATION UNDER SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C 1350)**

 

  I, **Nicholas Kaiser**, certify that:

This certification is being furnished pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, in connection with the filing of the Registrant’s Annual Report on Form N-CSR for the period ended November 30, 2009 (the “Report”).

 I hereby certify that to the best of my knowledge:

1. The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)); and

  Date: January 28, 2011  /s/ *Nicholas Kaiser*  President 

**CERTIFICATION UNDER SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C 1350)**

  I, **Christopher Fankhauser**, certify that:

This certification is being furnished pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, in connection with the filing of the Registrant’s Annual Report on Form N-CSR for the period ended November 30, 2009 (the “Report”).

I hereby certify that to the best of my knowledge:

1. The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)); and

Date: January 28, 2011

/s/ *Christopher Fankhauser*Treasurer
#### MAGEE et al. v. McNANY.

Civ. A. Mo. 121-Erie.

United States District Court W. D. Pennsylvania.

Oct. 3, 1951.

See also 95 F.Supp. 675.

Quinn, Leemhuis, Plate & Dwyer and Frank B. Quinn, all of Erie, Pa., for plaintiff.

Marsh, Spaeder, Baur & Spaeder and Byron A. Baur, all of Erie, Pa., for intervening plaintiff.

Gifford, Graham, MacDonald & Illig and William F. Illig, all of Erie, Pa.; for defendant.

*593BURNS, District Judge.

In this case, plaintiff filed a complaint ■and defendant filed a counterclaim in an action sounding in trespass. The jury returned a verdict “in favor of neither party. Both negligent.” The question arises as to how costs should be taxed.

It will bé my policy,, normally, in such, cases, to require each party to bear his own costs. In my view, neither is “the prevailing party” so as to be entitled to costs as of oourse under the provisions of Rule 54(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.
#### BOYLE v. CURTIS PUBLISHING CO.

Civ. No. 7362.

United States District Court E. D. Pennsylvania.

Nov. 27, 1950.

William Jenks Woolston, Philadelphia, Pa., for plaintiff. •

Philip H. Strubing, Philadelphia, Pa., for defendant.

GANEY, District Judge.

This case arises upon the defendant’s motion in opposition to a motion, for the substitution of Aline Reiter Boyle as party plaintiff, under Rule 25(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S. C.A., in an action brought by James C. Boyle, who subsequently died on May 20, 1950.

Under Rule 17(b) the capacity of an individual, other than a Federal Court appointed receiver, acting in a representative capacity to sue is determined by the law of the state in which the dis*93trict court is held. The rule in Pennsylvania, the State in which this court sits, is that a foreign executor or administrator has no standing to sue in the courts of the State. Consequently he has no right “to be substituted in a suit brought by a decedent during his life time”. 2 Standard Pennsylvania Practice, p. 50, Sec. 64. Also see: Kelly v. Werner Co., 27 Pa. Dist. & Co. R. 38; 16 North 45; Moskovitz v. Moskovitz, 20 North 135. Before he may be substituted, the requirements set forth in the Pennsylvania Act1, relating to foreign fiduciaries, should be met.

As far as the record before us is concerned, there is no indication that Aline Reiter Boyle has or has not met the requirements of the Pennsylvania Act. Accordingly we think that the executrix of the estate of James C. Boyle, deceased, should be given an opportunity to show that she has met the requirements of State law, and if she has not, she ■ should be given an opportunity to meet those requirements. For this reason, we will hold in abeyance any ruling on' the defendant’s motion to dismiss.

1

. Act of April 18, 1949, P.L. 512, art; XI, Sees. 1101 et seq., 20 P.iS. § 320.1101 et seq.
exhibit_10-6.htm


    


      Exhibit 10.6

       

      SCHEDULE
OF PARTIES TO MANAGEMENT AND EXECUTIVE EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

       

      Parties to current form of management
agreement – filed as exhibit 10.5 in Form 10-K for the year ended December 31,
2008:

       

      
        	
                Name

              	 
      	
                Title

              	 
      
	
                H.
      Chris Killingstad

              	 
      	
                President
      and Chief Executive Officer

              	 
      
	
                Thomas
      Paulson

              	 
      	
                Vice
      President and Chief Financial Officer

              	 
      
	
                Thomas
      J. Dybsky

              	 
      	
                Vice
      President, Administration

              	 
      
	
                Heidi
      M. Hoard

              	 
      	
                Vice
      President, General Counsel and Secretary

              	 
      
	
                Michael
      W. Schaefer

              	 
      	
                Vice
      President, Chief Technical Officer

              	 
      
	
                Andrew
      J. Eckert

              	 
      	
                Vice
      President, North American Sales and Service

              	 
      
	
                Donald
      B. Westman

              	 
      	
                Vice
      President, Global Operations

              	 
      


      

       

      Parties
to current form of management agreement – filed as exhibit 10.2 in Form 10-Q for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2006, amended on December 17, 2008 –
filed as exhibit 10.16 in Form 10-K for the year ended December 31,
2008:

       

      
        	
                Name

              	 	
                Title

              	 
	
                Karel
      Huijser 

              	 	
                Vice
      President, International
*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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

October 28, 2005

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 05-60233

Summary Calendar

 

RAMZAN ALI, also known as Ali Ramzan;

RAHEEL ALI, also known as Ali Raheel,

Petitioners,

versus

ALBERTO R. GONZALES, U.S. 

ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Respondent.

 

Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

(Agency Nos. A95 319 889 and A95 319 888)

Before REAVLEY, JOLLY and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Petitioners appeal the Board’s denial of their petition to reopen the removal

proceeding. There being no new facts set forth, reopening was not warranted. No other

issue is properly before this court.

Petition DENIED.
II 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 729 

To amend title 11, United States Code, with respect to certain exceptions 

to discharge in bankruptcy. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 12, 2015 

Mr. DURBIN (for himself, Mr. WHITEHOUSE, Mr. FRANKEN, Mr. 

BLUMENTHAL, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr. REED, Ms. WARREN, Mr. WYDEN, 

Mrs. BOXER, Mr. KAINE, Mr. SCHATZ, Mrs. GILLIBRAND, and Ms. 

HIRONO) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend title 11, United States Code, with respect to 

certain exceptions to discharge in bankruptcy. 

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 ‘‘Fairness for Strug5 gling Students Act of 2015’’. 

6 SEC. 2. EXCEPTIONS TO DISCHARGE. 

7 Section 523(a)(8) of title 11, United States Code, is 

8 amended by striking ‘‘dependents, for’’ and all that follows 

9 through the end of subparagraph (B) and inserting ‘‘deVerDate Sep 11 2014 00:23 Mar 18, 2015 Jkt 049200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S729.IS S729

emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 729 IS

1 pendents, for an educational benefit overpayment or loan 

2 made, insured, or guaranteed by a governmental unit or 

3 made under any program funded in whole or in part by 

4 a governmental unit or an obligation to repay funds re5 ceived from a governmental unit as an educational benefit, 

6 scholarship, or stipend;’’. 

Æ 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 32.1


                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

      In connection with the Quarterly Report of First Ipswich Bancorp (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended March 31, 2007 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Russell
G. Cole, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 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; and

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

      This certification is provided solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350
and Item 601(b)(32) of Regulation S-B ("Item 601(b)(32)") promulgated under the
Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities Act") and the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the "Exchange Act"). In accordance with clause (ii) of Item 601(b)(32),
this certification (A) shall not be deemed "filed" for purposes of Section 18 of
the Exchange Act, or otherwise subject to the liability of that section, and (B)
shall not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the
Securities Act or the Exchange Act, except to the extent that the Company
specifically incorporates it by reference.


/s/ Russell G. Cole
------------------------
Russell G. Cole
Chief Executive Officer

May 15, 2007
II 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 788 

To require the termination of any employee of the Department of Veterans 

Affairs who is found to have retaliated against a whistleblower. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 18, 2015 

Mrs. MCCASKILL introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 

referred to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL 

To require the termination of any employee of the Department of Veterans Affairs who is found to have retaliated 

against a whistleblower. 

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

3 SECTION 1. TERMINATION OF EMPLOYEES OF THE DE4 PARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS WHO RE5 TALIATE AGAINST WHISTLEBLOWERS. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subject to chapter 12 of title 5, 

7 United States Code, including the right of an employee 

8 to obtain judicial review under section 1215(a)(4) of that 

9 title, and notwithstanding any other provision of law, any 

10 employee of the Department of Veterans Affairs who is 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 788 IS

1 determined under section 1215 of that title to have vio2 lated paragraph (8), (9), or (13) of section 2302(b) of that 

3 title shall be terminated. 

4 (b) APPLICABILITY.—Subsection (a) shall apply to an 

5 act committed before, on, or after the date of enactment 

6 of this Act. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS