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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM RIVERWOOD
HOLDING, INC'S CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS AND STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS FOR THE
PERIOD ENDED SEPTEMBER 27, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-27-1997
<CASH>                                           12553
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   140692
<ALLOWANCES>                                      1238
<INVENTORY>                                     200271
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                365143
<PP&E>                                         1670630
<DEPRECIATION>                                  177948
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 2636918
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           319083
<BONDS>                                        1683564
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            75
<OTHER-SE>                                     530,983
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   2636918
<SALES>                                         846097
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                846097
<CGS>                                           739545
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   739545
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   589
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              124743
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (117905)
<INCOME-TAX>                                      4341
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (108551)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                   2463
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (111014)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
#### JOHNSON v. METROPOLITAN LIFE INS. CO.

No. 1690.

District Court, M. D. Pennsylvania.

April 11, 1945.

*295Al. J. Kane and Wm. J. Fahey, both of Wilkes Barre, Pa., for plaintiff.

Collins & Collins, of Wilkes Barre, Pa., for defendant.

WATSON, District Judge.

This suit was brought by the plaintiff as beneficiary of an insurance policy issued by the defendant.

The defendant in its answer admitted the issuance of the policy and the death of the insured but denied liability in certain paragraphs of the answer on the ground that the insured in applying for the insurance made certain fraudulent representations upon which the defendant relied in issuing the policy. The answer sets forth the false statements which it is alleged the deceased made.

The defendant has moved the court to order the plaintiff to reply to the averments in defendant’s answer as to fraud and contends that such an order is authorized by Rule 7 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. following Section 723c. Rule 7 provides for an answer as well as a reply, but the latter can be had only to a designated counterclaim or upon court order. Obviously, the framers of the rule intended that pleadings should be terminated quickly. The rule does not provide that the court may order a reply to an affirmative defense. Such a provision was purposely omitted. Under the rule the court clearly has the power to order a reply to allegations in an answer and perhaps should do so under certain conditions, which conditions do not exist here.

The question should be decided on the sufficiency of the pleadings and not upon the adherence of defendant’s answer to the provisions of the Practice Act in Pennsylvania, 12 P.S., Pa., §§ 382 et seq. Defendant in its answer alleges that deceased’s averments of facts submitted in the application for the policy, which appears as an exhibit attached to the complaint, were false and fraudulent. Plaintiff cannot deny the averments made by the decedent in the application, which are also fully set forth in the defendant’s additional averments; and it is, in fact, difficult to perceive what information the plaintiff can add to the averments other than categorical denials or affirmations, neither of which would ease any burden on the defendant. The real function of pleading is to create the issues. In this case, the issues are clearly created by the complaint and answer, and there is no need for additional pleadings. It is well to keep in mind that cases should generally be tried on proofs rather than on pleadings. Defendant’s motion will be denied.

Now, April 11, 1945, defendant’s motion for an order directing the plaintiff to reply is denied.
II 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 46 

To reduce the amount of financial assistance provided to the Government 

of Mexico in response to the illegal border crossings from Mexico into 

the United States, which serve to dissipate the political discontent with 

the higher unemployment rate within Mexico. 

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 Foreign Relations 

A BILL 

To reduce the amount of financial assistance provided to 

the Government of Mexico in response to the illegal 

border crossings from Mexico into the United States, 

which serve to dissipate the political discontent with the 

higher unemployment rate within Mexico. 

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

3 SECTION 1. BORDER CROSSING ACCOUNTABILITY. 

4 (a) ESTIMATION OF ANNUAL ILLEGAL BORDER

5 CROSSINGS.—Not later than 30 days after the end of each 

6 fiscal year, the Secretary of State, in consultation with the 

7 Secretary of Homeland Security, shall estimate the numVerDate Sep 11 2014 02:03 Jan 13, 2015 Jkt 049200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S46.IS S46

emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 46 IS

1 ber of illegal border crossings that occurred during such 

2 fiscal year along the southern land border of the United 

3 States. 

4 (b) REDUCTION OF FOREIGN ASSISTANCE.— 

5 (1) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided under 

6 paragraph (2), the Secretary of State, shall propor7 tionately reduce the amount of financial assistance 

8 provided to the Government of Mexico for each fiscal 

9 year by a total of $1,000 for each illegal border 

10 crossing from Mexico to the United States during 

11 the previous fiscal year. 

12 (2) EXCEPTION.—Notwithstanding paragraph 

13 (1), the Secretary of State may decide not to reduce 

14 the amounts appropriated for the Government of 

15 Mexico from the International Military Education 

16 and Training Fund, the International Narcotics 

17 Control and Law Enforcement Fund, and the fund 

18 to carry out nonproliferation, anti-terrorism, 

19 demining, and related programs and activities. 

Æ 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 35.1



|     |  |                                                                                                          
|---- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|LOGO |  | Commercial Mortgage Servicing D1050-084, 8th Floor 401 South Tryon St.
Charlotte, NC 28202 1-800-326-1334

ANNUAL STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE

Reference is hereby made to that certain Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of April 1, 2013, by and among CITIGROUP COMMERCIAL
MORTGAGE SECURITIES INC., as Depositor, WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Master Servicer, LNR PARTNERS, LLC, as Special Servicer, PENTALPHA SURVEILLANCE LLC, as Operating Advisor, CITIBANK, N.A., as Certificate Administrator and U.S. BANK
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Trustee, with respect to Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2013-GCJ11 (the Agreement). Capitalized terms used herein not otherwise defined shall have the meanings assigned in the Agreement.

Pursuant to Section 10.08 of this Agreement, I, Leslie Hayton, Managing Director of Commercial Mortgage Services do hereby certify
that:



| | 1. | A review of the activities of the Servicer during the period from January 1, 2018 through
December 31, 2018, and of its performance per the Agreement during such period has been made under my supervision, and
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer, has fulfilled all of its obligations under
this Agreement in all material respects throughout the period January 1, 2018 through December 31, 2018.
| | -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this Certificate as of the 28th day of February 2019.



|                                                
|------------------------------------------------
|                                                
|LOGO                                            
|Leslie Hayton Managing Director
Wells Fargo Bank



|                       |  |     
|---------------------- |  | ----
|Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. |  | LOGO
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 880 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 880

To expand project eligibility to certain public infrastructure projects 
            under chapter 6 of title 23, United States Code.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 26, 2015

 Mr. Schatz (for himself, Mr. Markey, and Mr. Merkley) introduced the 
 following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 
                      Environment and Public Works

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To expand project eligibility to certain public infrastructure projects 
            under chapter 6 of title 23, United States Code.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Transit-Oriented Development 
Infrastructure Financing Act''.

SEC. 2. INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCE.

    (a) In General.--Section 601(a)(12) of title 23, United States 
Code, is amended--
            (1) in subparagraph (C), by striking ``and'' at the end;
            (2) in subparagraph (D), by striking the period at the end 
        and inserting ``; and''; and
            (3) by adding at the end the following:
                    ``(E) a project to improve or construct public 
                infrastructure that is located within walking distance 
                of and accessible to a fixed guideway transit facility, 
                passenger rail station, intercity bus station, or 
                intermodal facility, including transportation, public 
                utility, and capital projects described in section 
                5302(3)(G)(v) of title 49, and related infrastructure 
                that would promote transit ridership, walkability, or 
                increased private investment.''.
    (b) Eligible Project Costs.--Section 602(a)(5)(B) of title 23, 
United States Code, is amended--
            (1) by striking ``(B) Intelligent transportation system 
        projects.--In the case'' and inserting the following:
                    ``(B) Exceptions.--
                            ``(i) Intelligent transportation systems.--
                        In the case''; and
            (2) by adding at the end the following:
                            ``(ii) Transit-oriented development 
                        projects.--In the case of a project described 
                        in section 601(a)(12)(E), eligible project 
                        costs shall be reasonably anticipated to be 
                        equal to or exceed $10,000,000.''.
                                 <all>
```
EX-35.10

(logo) WELLS FARGO

Corporate Trust Services

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

Tel: 410 884 2000
Fax: 410 715 2380

Wells Fargo Commercial Mortgage Securities, Inc.
c/o Wells Fargo Securities, LLC
375 Park Avenue 2nd floor
J0127-023
New York, New York 10152-023

RE: Annual Statement of Compliance for Wells Fargo Commercial Mortgage
    Securities Inc., Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series 2013-
    C14

Per the Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of June 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.
Exhibit
4.1


 


Tyco
International Ltd.


 


Schaffhausen, Switzerland


 


 


	
  Share Capital:

  	
   

  	
  CHF 4,088,387,211.53

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  fully paid in, divided into

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  479,295,101 Common Shares of

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  CHF 8.53 each

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  CUSIP:  H89128 104

  	
   

  	
   

  



 


 


Certificate no. XXX


 


over


 


XXX registered Common Shares

of CHF 8.53 each


 


fully paid in


 


Shares no. XXX-XXX


 


 


in the name of


 


XXX


 


 


The transfer of above mentioned shares has to be made by endorsement on
this certificate. Any transfer must be registered in the share register of the
company. For the company the transfer is only valid if the board of directors
agreed to it.


 


 


	
   

  	
   

  	
  For the Board of Directors:

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  XXX, Secretary
* 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

December 16, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 04-50297

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

RENE GUILLERMO CASTANON,

Defendant-Appellee.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. EP-03-CR-659-1-DB

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

Before KING, Chief Judge, and DeMOSS and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Rene Guillermo Castanon appeals from his conviction of

possessing with intent to distribute methamphetamine. Castanon,

for the first time on appeal, contends that the adjustments to

his offense level violated Blakely v. Washington, 124 S. Ct. 2531

(2004), and constituted plain error. Castanon correctly concedes

that his argument is foreclosed by United States v. Pineiro, 377

F.3d 464 (2004), petition for cert. filed (U.S. July 14, 2004)

(No. 04-5263), but he raises the issue to preserve it for further

review.
No. 04-50297

-2-

Castanon contends that the district court erred by not

awarding him a two-level “safety-valve” adjustment; by adjusting

his offense level for an aggravating role; and by failing to

adjust his offense level for a mitigating role. Castanon argues

that his waiver of the right to appeal his sentence was unknowing

and involuntary because he suffered from unspecified psychiatric

problems.

The record indicates that Castanon’s waiver was knowing and

voluntary. See United States v. Robinson, 187 F.3d 516, 518

& n.2 (5th Cir. 1999). The record does not support Castanon’s

assertion that he was impaired by a psychiatric condition. 

Because Castanon waived the right to appeal his sentence, we do

not address his contentions regarding application of the

sentencing guidelines.

AFFIRMED.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 09-6045

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

 v. 

KEVIN V. BURTON, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District 

Judge. (3:03-cr-00006-HEH-1; 3:08-cv-00717-HEH) 

Submitted: July 23, 2009 Decided: July 29, 2009 

Before WILKINSON and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge. 

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Linda S. Sheffield, LINDA S. SHEFFIELD ATTORNEY AT LAW, Atlanta, 

Georgia, for Appellant. Richard Daniel Cooke, Assistant United 

States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2 

PER CURIAM: 

Kevin V. Burton seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order construing his motion for writ of error audita querela, 28 

U.S.C. § 1651 (2006), as a successive motion pursuant to 28 

U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2009) and denying relief. The order 

is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a 

certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). 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) (2006). A prisoner satisfies this 

standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find 

that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district 

court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural 

ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. MillerEl v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 

529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th 

Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and 

conclude that Burton 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
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.40



March 19, 1998



Ms. Gloria C. L. Ma
Chairman and Chief Executive
XXsys Technologies, Inc.
4619 Viewridge Ave.
San Diego, CA 92123


Subject:  Notice of Exercise of "Series A" Preferred Stock

        I hereby elect to exercise my rights to convert 4,000 shares of "Series
A" Preferred Stock into 320,000 shares of Common Stock of XXsys Technologies,
Inc. (the "Company"). Enclosed herewith is tender of the certificate for "Series
A" Preferred Stock in the amount of 4,500 shares.

        A certificate representing the "Series A" Preferred Stock representing
any unexercised portion of the surrendered Preferred Stock certificate should be
delivered to the undersigned at the address set forth below.


                                    Banton Ma
                                    "Series A" Preferred Stock Holder

                                    /s/  BANTON MA
                                    -----------------------------------
                                    Signature


                                    -----------------------------------
                                    Address for delivery


                                    -----------------------------------
                                    Tax I.D. Number or Social Security No.



                                       14
##### 



Exhibit 31.1
 Certification of Chief Executive Officer pursuant to Rule 13a-14(a) / Rule 15d-14(a),
promulgated under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Encysive Pharmaceuticals Inc.;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 make the 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 flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this
report;4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible 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)) for the registrant and have:
     5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the




---



##### 



audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):
    /s/ Bruce D. Given, M.D.
 
 2
#### Henry Lee BRAZIL *v.*STATE of Arkansas

CR 98-109

962 S.W.2d 814

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Opinion delivered April 16, 1998

*Robert N. Jeffery,*for appellant.

No response.

Per Curiam.

Appellant Henry Lee Brazil, by his attorney, has filed a motion for rule on the clerk.

Appellant filed a notice of appeal and designation of record on October 17, 1997, following the entry on September 25, 1997 of terms and conditions of suspended imposition of sentence. Subsequently, on December 12, 1997, a judgment convicting appellant of burglary and theft of property was entered. Appellant did not timely file a notice of appeal after entry of the judgment on December 12, 1997.

Appellant’s previous motion for rule on the clerk was denied because appellant’s attorney faded to admit fault on his part. *See Brazil v. State,*332 Ark. 74 (Feb. 26, 1998) (per curiam). Although a notice of appeal was filed on October 17, 1997, appellant’s attorney, Robert N. Jeffrey, now admits that a notice of appeal following the entry of the judgment was not filed in a timely manner due to a mistake on his part.

We find that such error, admittedly made by the attorney for a criminal defendant, is good cause to grant the motion, which we will treat as a motion for belated appeal. *See Terry v.*
      *615
      *State, 212*Ark. 243, 613 S.W.2d 90 (1981); *In Re: Belated Appeals in Criminal Cases,*265 Ark. 964 (1979) (per curiam).

The motion for belated appeal is, therefore, granted. A copy of this opinion will be forwarded to the Committee on Professional Conduct.