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

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. CON. RES. 2 

Authorizing the use of Emancipation Hall in the Capitol Visitor Center 

for a ceremony to present the Congressional Gold Medal to the First 

Special Service Force, in recognition of its superior service during World 

War II. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 8, 2015 

Mr. TESTER submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was 

considered and agreed to 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

Authorizing the use of Emancipation Hall in the Capitol 

Visitor Center for a ceremony to present the Congressional Gold Medal to the First Special Service Force, 

in recognition of its superior service during World War 

II. 

1 Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives 

2 concurring), 

3 SECTION 1. USE OF EMANCIPATION HALL FOR CEREMONY 

4 TO PRESENT CONGRESSIONAL GOLD MEDAL 

5 TO FIRST SPECIAL SERVICE FORCE. 

6 Emancipation Hall in the Capitol Visitor Center is 

7 authorized to be used on February 3, 2015, for a cereVerDate Sep 11 2014 01:11 Jan 09, 2015 Jkt 049200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\SC2.ATS SC2

emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•SCON 2 ATS 

1 mony to present the Congressional Gold Medal to the 

2 First Special Service Force collectively, in recognition of 

3 its superior service during World War II. Physical prep4 arations for the conduct of the ceremony shall be carried 

5 out in accordance with such conditions as the Architect 

6 of the Capitol may prescribe. 

Æ 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Alonzo N. WOOTEN, a/k/a Cut Wooten, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 07-7392.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Jan. 17, 2008.

Decided: Jan. 28, 2008.

Alonzo N. Wooten, Appellant Pro Se. Timothy Richard Murphy, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Newport News, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before TRAXLER, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Alonzo N. Wooten appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for specific performance of his plea agreement. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm substantially for the reasons stated by the district court. *See United States v. Wooten,*No. 4:99-cv-00006-JBF (E.D.Va. Aug. 22, 2007). 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.

*AFFIRMED.*
Exhibit 34.2a



LOGO

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

To the Board of Directors and shareholders of CoreLogic, Inc.:

We have examined managements assertion, included in the accompanying Report on Assessment of Compliance, that CoreLogic Tax Services, LLC (the
Company), an indirect subsidiary of CoreLogic, Inc. complied with the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of the Securities and Exchange Commissions Regulation AB for all loans for residential and commercial mortgage loan
outsourcing customers for which the Company served as the residential and commercial tax service provider (the Platform), as of December 31, 2015 and for the year then ended, only including 1122(d)(1)(iv), 1122(d)(2)(ii), 1122(d)(2)(v),
1122(d)(2)(vi), 1122(d)(2)(vii), 1122(d)(4)(xi), 1122(d)(4)(xii) and 1122(d)(4)(xiii), which the Company has determined are applicable to the servicing activities performed by it with respect to the Platform. Management is responsible for the
Companys compliance with the servicing criteria. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on managements assertion based on our examination.

Our examination was conducted in accordance with attestation standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) and, accordingly,
included examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Companys compliance with the applicable servicing criteria and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. Our examination included testing of
selected servicing activities related to the Platform, and determining whether the Company performed those selected activities in compliance with the applicable servicing criteria. Our procedures were limited to the selected servicing activities
performed by the Company during the period covered by this report. Our procedures were not designed to detect noncompliance arising from errors that may have occurred prior to or subsequent to our tests that may have affected the balances or amounts
calculated or reported by the Company during the period covered by this report. We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our examination does not provide a legal determination on the Companys compliance with
the servicing criteria.

In our opinion, managements assertion that the Company complied with the aforementioned applicable servicing criteria as of
and for the year ended December 31, 2015 for all loans for residential and commercial mortgage loan outsourcing customers for which the Company served as the residential and commercial tax service provider is fairly stated, in all material respects.

February 4, 2016

/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, 2001 Ross Avenue, Suite 1800, Dallas, Texas 75201

T: (214) 999-1400, F: (214) 754-7991, www.pwc.com/us
#### PAOLO GUCCI DESIGN STUDIO, LTD., petitioner, v. Frank G. SINATRA, Trustee of the Substantively Consolidated Estates of Paolo Gucci, et al.

No. 96-1283.

Supreme Court of the United States.

April 28, 1997.

Case below, 105 F.3d 837.

*1553Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.
### T E X A S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S , T H I R D D I S T R I C T , A T A U S T I N
ON REMAND NO. 03-07-00214- CR
Jeff rey R ouse, Appellan t
v. The State of Texas, App ellee

F ROM TH E DISTRI CT COURT O F TRAVIS CO UNTY, 331 ST JUDICI AL DISTRICT

NO. 202 0119 , H ONO RAB LE B OB P ERKI NS, JUDGE P RESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N Appellant’s motion to dismi ss this appeal is g rante d. SeeTex. R. App. P . 42.2(a)
. The a ppeal is dismissed.

__________________________________________ J ohn F. Onion, Jr., J ustice Be fore J ustices Pemberton, Waldrop and O nion* Dismissed on Appellant’s Motion on Remand Filed: F ebrua

ry 5, 2010 Do Not Publish * Be fore J ohn F. Onion, J r., Presiding J udg e (re tired), Texas Court of Criminal Appea ls, sitti ng by assig nment. SeeTex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 74.003(b) ( West 2005).
#### UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Ruben ARCHULETA, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 06-3376-cr.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

Jan. 23, 2008.

Robert Koppelman, New York, NY, for Appellant.

Michael J. Garcia, United States Attorney, Daniel L. Stein, Diane Gujarati, Neil M. Barofsky, Assistant United States Attorneys, United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York, New York, NY, for Appellee.

PRESENT: AMALYA L. KEARSE, PIERRE N. LEVAD and JOSÉ A. CABRANES, Circuit Judges.

SUMMARY ORDER

Defendant-appellant Ruben Archuleta appeals from a judgment of conviction for conspiracy to distribute and possession with an intent to distribute five kilograms and more of cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 853. Following a jury trial, Archuleta was sentenced principally to a term of 264 months’ imprisonment. On *303appeal, Archuleta challenges the District Court’s admission at trial of certain evidence of other crimes not charged in the indictment. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the facts and procedural history of the case.

We review a district court’s “evidentiary rulings evidentiary rulings under a deferential abuse of discretion standard and give district court judges wide latitude in determining whether evidence is admissible at trial.” *Madeira v. Affordable Housing Found.,*469 F.3d 219, 250 (2d Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks omitted).

The District Court properly concluded that the testimony was relevant background evidence and was inextricably intertwined with the evidence of the charged conspiracy. *See, e.g., United States v. Rosa,*11 F.3d 315, 334 (2d Cir.1993) (holding that admission of prior crimes for background is permissible); *United States v. Carboni,*204 F.3d 39, 44 (2d Cir.2000) (permitting the admission of evidence of prior crimes that was “inextricably intertwined” with charged conduct). As the District Court noted, the evidence was not unduly prejudicial because the bad acts discussed in the testimony were less serious than the charged conduct. *See United States v. Roldan-Zapata,*916 F.2d 795, 804 (2d Cir.1990) (concluding that there was no unfair prejudice where the testimony involved conduct no more sensational or disturbing than the charged conduct). We, therefore, conclude that the District Court did not err in admitting the disputed testimony.

The judgment of the District Court is AFFIRMED.
**Exhibit 32.1****CERTIFICATION**     The undersigned officer of DATATRAK International, Inc. (the “Company”), does hereby certify,to such officer’s knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: 1. the Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2006 (the“Form 10-Q”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and  2. the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company as of, and for, the periodspresented in the Form 10-Q.        Dated: November 9, 2006 /s/ Jeffrey A. Green   Jeffrey A. Green   Chief Executive Officer  
25
EXHIBIT 11.0
   Three Months Ended Sept. 30,
    
    
    Nine Months Ended Sept. 30,2008
    
    
    2007
    
    
    2008
    
    
    2007Net earnings, basic and diluted
    
    $
    841,350
    
    
    $
    17,023
    
    
    $
    1,528,762
    
    
    $
    701,694Weighted average common shares
outstanding, basic
    
    
    9,610,238
    
    
    
    9,917,429
    
    
    
    9,837,994
    
    
    
    9,809,111Common share equivalents relating to:Stock options
    
    
    78,703
    
    
    
    321,578
    
    
    
    143,690
    
    
    
    323,926Warrants
    
    
    
    
    
    
    177,794
    
    
    
    1,306
    
    
    
    139,062Restricted stock
    
    
    
    
    
    
    16,667
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    16,574Weighted average common shares
outstanding
    
    
    9,688,941
    
    
    
    10,433,468
    
    
    
    9,982,990
    
    
    
    10,288,673Net earnings per share:Basic
    
    $
    0.09
    
    
    $
    0.00
    
    
    $
    0.16
    
    
    $
    0.07Diluted
    
    $
    0.09
    
    
    $
    0.00
    
    
    $
    0.15
    
    
    $
    0.07Anti-dilutive stock options,
warrants and restricted stock not
included in the diluted earnings per
share computations
    
    
    1,720,099
    
    
    
    7,500
    
    
    
    1,603,459
    
    
    
    142,750
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM MARCH 31,
1998 CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (UNAUDITED) AND IS QUALIFIED 
IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                      33,268,846
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               27,881,835
<ALLOWANCES>                                   335,962
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            35,340,115
<PP&E>                                       3,261,074
<DEPRECIATION>                                 984,571
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              45,510,879
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        6,775,877
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    49,701,821
<OTHER-SE>                                (10,966,819)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                45,510,879
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,364,283
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,025,077
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             4,341,688
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                25,975
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (3,563,325)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    55,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (3,618,325)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (3,618,325)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (0.564)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.564)
        

</TABLE>
**Exhibit 32.1**
**CERTIFICATION**
     The undersigned officer of DATATRAK International, Inc. (the “Company”), does hereby certify,to such officer’s knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:
 1.  the Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31,2005 (the “Form 10-Q”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and  2.  the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of, andfor, the periods presented in the Form 10-Q.        Dated: May 13, 2005 /s/ Jeffrey A. Green   Jeffrey A. Green   Chief Executive Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 87 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

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.

    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 ``Show Your Exemption Act''.

SEC. 2. TRANSPARENCY OF COVERAGE DETERMINATION.

    (a) In General.--Not later than 30 days after the date of enactment 
of this Act, the Chief Administrative Officer of the House of 
Representatives and the Financial Clerk of the Senate shall make 
publically available the determinations of each member of the House of 
Representatives and each Senator, as the case may be, regarding the 
designation of their respective congressional staff (including 
leadership and committee staff) as ``official'' for purposes of 
requiring such staff to enroll in health insurance coverage provided 
through an Exchange as required under section 1312(d)(1)(D) of the 
Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (42 U.S.C. 18032(d)(1)(D)), 
and the regulations relating to such section.
    (b) Failure To Submit.--The failure by any member of the House of 
Representatives or Senator to designate any of their respective staff, 
whether committee or leadership staff, as ``official'' (as described in 
subsection (a)), shall be noted in the determination made publically 
available under subsection (a) along with a statement that such failure 
permits the staff involved to remain in the Federal Employee Health 
Benefits Program.
    (c) Privacy.--Nothing in this Act shall be construed to permit the 
release of any individually identifiable information concerning any 
individual, including any health plan selected by an individual.
                                 <all>
```
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.2
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
SECTION 1350 OF TITLE 18 OF THE U.S. CODE
  1.
    
    the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period ended March 31,
2008 (the Report), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof,
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.
   /s/ Robert S. TaylorRobert S. TaylorExecutive Vice President, Treasurer and Chief

Financial Officer

Superior Energy Services, Inc.
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 Arizona Gold and Onyx Mining Company f/k/a Viking Capital Group, Inc. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(the “Report”), I, Michael Mitsunage, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. SS.
1350, as adopted pursuant to SS. 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 result of operations
of the Company.



May 8, 2018



| | /s/
    Michael Mitsunage                  
| | -------------------------------------------
| | Michael
    Mitsunage                      
| | (Chief
    Executive Officer and President)



A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise
adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement 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.
(logo) CWCapital

ASSET MANAGEMENT

 

 

Annual Statement as to Compliance

For the Period of January 1, 2014 to December 31, 2014

 

 

 

JPMCC 2013-LC11

 

 

                

In accordance with Item 1123 of Regulation AB andwith the requirements detailed in §11.09 of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement (the “Agreement”) for the above-mentioned CMBS pool, (the “CMBS Pool”), CWCapital Asset Management LLC (“CWCAM”), in its capacity as Special Servicer, is providing this Officer’s Certificate with respect to the following:

 

(A)          a review of CWCAM’s activities during the preceding calendar year or portion thereof (the “Reporting Period”) and of CWCAM’s 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, CWCAM has fulfilled all its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period.

 

 

Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.  

 

Sincerely,

CWCapital Asset Management LLC

 

/s/ David B. Iannarone

David B. Iannarone

President

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

7501 Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 500 West, Bethesda, MD  20814 www.cwcapital.com
#### Mauro Cantoran QUIROZ, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 06-75721.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 3, 2007.*

Filed Dec. 28, 2007.

Mauro Cantoran Quiroz, Santa Ana, CA, pro se.

CAC-District Counsel, Esq., Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, David V. Bernal, Attorney, Jesse Bless, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Mauro Cantoran Quiroz, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the BIA’s summary affirmance of the immigration judge’s denial of his motion to reopen removal proceedings so that he can apply for relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).

Cantoran Quiroz contends that the IJ erred in concluding that he failed to establish a prima facie case of eligibility for relief under CAT. The generalized evidence attached to his motion did not meet this standard. *See Nuru v. Gonzales,*404 F.3d 1207, 1216 (9th Cir.2005) (holding that CAT applicant must establish that it is more likely than not that, he would be tortured if removed to his native country); *Ordonez v. INS,*345 F.3d 777, 785 (9th Cir.2003) (holding that motion to reopen must establish prima facie case demon*981strating reasonable likelihood that requirements for relief have been satisfied).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
#### *In re*NICHOLAS K., JR., a Minor (The People of the State of Illinois, Petitioner-Appellee, v. Nicholas K., Jr., Respondent-Appellant).

Second District

No. 2-00-0968

Opinion filed November 14, 2003.

G. Joseph Weller and R. Christopher White, both of State Appellate Defender’s Office, of Elgin, for appellant.

Meg Górecki, State’s Attorney, of St. Charles (Martin E Moltz and Marshall M. Stevens, both of State’s Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor’s Office, of counsel), for the People.

JUSTICE McLAREN

delivered the opinion of the court:

The minor, Nicholas K., Jr., appealed from the trial court’s order requiring him to register as a sex offender under the Sex Offender Registration Act (the Act) (730 ILCS 150/1 *et seq.*(West 2000)). This court originally reversed the trial court’s order in *In re Nicholas K.,*326 Ill. App. 3d 497 (2001). The State sought leave to appeal, and our supreme court, on its own motion, remanded the case to this court with directions to vacate our judgment and reconsider the case in light of *In re J.W.,*204 Ill. 2d 50 (2003). In *J.W.,*the court held that juvenile sex offenders “are included within the larger category of sex offenders required to register” under the Act. *J.W.,*204 III. 2d at 65. In light of this decision and the supreme court’s specific pronouncement that our decision in this case did not change its holding in *J.W.*(see *J.W.,*204 Ill. 2d at 65), we must vacate our prior ruling, affirm the order of the trial court ordering the minor to register as a sex offender, and remand the cause for further proceedings.

For these reasons, the judgment of the circuit court of Kane *334County is affirmed, and the cause is remanded for further proceedings.

Affirmed and remanded.

HUTCHINSON, EJ., and GEOMETER, J., concur.