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

Calendar No. 72 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. CON. RES. 16 

Stating the policy of the United States regarding the release of United 

States citizens in Iran. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 7, 2015 

Mr. RISCH (for himself, Mr. CRAPO, Mr. RUBIO, Mrs. BOXER, Mr. BLUNT, 

Ms. STABENOW, Mr. NELSON, Mr. PETERS, Mr. SULLIVAN, Mr. CRUZ, 

Mr. ISAKSON, and Mrs. FEINSTEIN) submitted the following concurrent 

resolution; which was ordered to be placed on the calendar 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

Stating the policy of the United States regarding the release 

of United States citizens in Iran. 

1 Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives 

2 concurring), 

3 SECTION 1. STATEMENT OF POLICY ON RELEASE OF 

4 UNITED STATES CITIZENS IN IRAN. 

5 (a) FINDINGS.—Congress makes the following find6 ings: 

7 (1) Saeed Abedini of Idaho is a Christian pas8 tor unjustly detained in Iran since 2012 and senmstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS

2 

•SCON 16 PCS 

1 tenced to eight years in prison on charges related to 

2 his religious beliefs. 

3 (2) Amir Hekmati of Michigan is a former 

4 United States Marine unjustly detained in 2011 

5 while visiting his Iranian relatives and sentenced to 

6 10 years in prison for espionage. 

7 (3) Jason Rezaian of California is a Wash8 ington Post journalist credentialed by the Govern9 ment of Iran. He was unjustly detained in 2014 and 

10 has been held without a trial. 

11 (4) Robert Levinson of Florida is a former Fed12 eral Bureau of Investigations (FBI) official who dis13 appeared in 2007 in Iran. He is the longest held 

14 United States citizen in United States history. 

15 (b) STATEMENT OF POLICY.—It is the policy of the 

16 United States that— 

17 (1) the Government of the Islamic Republic of 

18 Iran should immediately release Saeed Abedini, 

19 Amir Hekmati, and Jason Rezaian, and cooperate 

20 with the United States Government to locate and re21 turn Robert Levinson; and 

22 (2) the United States Government should un23 dertake every effort using every diplomatic tool at its 

24 disposal to secure their immediate release. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS

Calendar No. 72 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. CON. RES. 16 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

Stating the policy of the United States regarding 

the release of United States citizens in Iran. 

MAY 7, 2015 

Ordered to be placed on the calendar 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
EXHIBIT 32.1
 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 quarter ended March 31, 2010 (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; and2.
    
    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
   /s/ David D. DunlapDavid D. DunlapChief Executive Officer


Superior Energy Services, Inc.
**Exhibit 31.2**RULE 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a) CERTIFICATION  I, Allan E. Mehlow, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Croghan Bancshares, Inc.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;  b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controlsand procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and  c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, oris reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions): a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operationof internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and  b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employeeswho have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.     Date: October 25, 2005   /s/ Allan E. Mehlow         Allan E. Mehlow, Treasurer
22
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

EDGAR CARDENAS,

Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee. §

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 18

- 00083

- CR

Appeal from the

346th District Court

of El Paso County, Texas

(TC#20180D01708)

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the record and concludes there was no reversible

error in the judgment. We therefore affirm the judgment of the court below. This decision shall be

certified below for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 1 7 TH OF AUGUST, 2021.

YVONNE T. RODRIGUEZ, Chief Justice

Before Rodriguez, C.J., Palafox, and A lley, JJ.
<TABLE>                                                 
                    HAMPSHIRE GROUP, LIMITED AND SUBSIDIARIES
                  STATEMENT RE COMPUTATION OF INCOME PER SHARE
                      (in thousands, except per share data)

<CAPTION>
                                      Three Months Ended      Nine Months Ended
                                      ------------------      -----------------
                                   Sept. 26,     Sept. 27,  Sept. 26,  Sept. 27,
                                      1998         1997       1998        1997
                                   ---------     ---------  ---------  ---------
                                        (unaudited)              (unaudited)
<S>                                 <C>          <C>        <C>        <C> 
Weighted average number of                                   
  common and common equivalent 
  shares outstanding:               4,138        3,856      4,127       3,857
 
Net income (loss)                    $663       $5,111    ($1,295)     $4,615
Less-Preferred dividend 
  requirements                        -             42        -           128
                                    -----       ------     ------      ------
Net income (loss) applicable to 
  common stock                       $663       $5,069    ($1,295)     $4,487
                                     ====       ======     ======      ======
Net income (loss) per share-basic   $0.16        $1.31     ($0.31)      $1.16
                                    =====        =====      =====       =====

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

Weighted average number of common 
  and common equivalent shares 
  outstanding per above             4,138        3,856     4,127       3,857

Additional shares assumed to be 
  outstanding from the exercise 
  of options and warrants 
  (computed using the treasury 
   stock method)                      328          250       -           258

Assumed conversion of preferred 
  stock                               -            318       -           353
                                    -----        -----     -----       -----
  Total common shares-diluted       4,466        4,424     4,127       4,469
                                    =====        =====     =====       =====
                                
Net income (loss) applicable 
  to common stock                    $663       $5,069   ($1,295)     $4,487
Plus-Preferred dividend requirement    -            42       -           128
                                     ----       ------    ------      ------
Net income (loss)                    $663       $5,111   ($1,295)     $4,615
                                     ====       ======    ======      ======
                                
Net income (loss) per share-diluted $0.15        $1.16    ($0.31)      $1.03
                                    =====        =====     =====       =====  
</TABLE>
Exhibit 10.23


BASE SALARIES OF NAMED EXECUTIVE
OFFICERS OF THE REGISTRANT


     The following are the base salaries
(on an annual basis) of the named executive officers of the Company:


	 	 	 	 	 
	Name and Title	 	Base Salary(1)
	Errol De Souza

President and Chief Executive Officer	 	$	463,500	 
	Gerard J. Michel

Chief Financial Officer, Vice President Corporate Development and Treasurer	 	$	326,000	 
	Alan Krasnser

Chief Medical Officer	 	$	321,000	 
	Paul Bavier

General Counsel and Secretary	 	$	217,000	 
	Erik Steiner

Vice President, Operations	 	$	210,000	 


 



	 	 	 
	(1)	 	Base salaries effective October 1, 2011.
Exhibit 35.2A



|     |  |                                     
|---- |  | ------------------------------------
|LOGO |  | 1 Corelogic Drive
Westlake, TX 76262

SERVICER COMPLIANCE CERTIFICATION

This Servicer Compliance Certification is issued pursuant to the Tax Outsourcing Agreement dated as of May 28, 2009 (together with all amendments
thereto, the Agreement), between Cenlar FSB (Bank) and CoreLogic Tax Services, LLC (CoreLogic).

I, Vicki Chenault, an
authorized officer of CoreLogic, certify to Bank and with the knowledge and intent that it will rely upon this certification, that:

1.
The servicing information required to be provided to Bank by CoreLogic under the Agreement has been so provided;

2. I am responsible for
reviewing the activities performed by CoreLogic under the Agreement and, based upon my knowledge and in all material respects throughout the relevant reporting period, CoreLogic has fulfilled its obligations under the Agreement.

3. Attached to this Servicer Compliance Certification is a list of all material failures and the nature and status thereof. [NONE/NO
ATTACHMENT]

CORELOGIC TAX SERVICES, LLC



|    |  |                      
|--- |  | ---------------------
|By: |  | /s/ Vicki Chenault   
|    |  | Vicki Chenault       
|    |  | Senior Vice President
|    |  | February 11, 2016
#### BOWLES, Price Adm’r, v. ANDERSON.

No. 429.

District Court, W. D. Missouri, S. D.

Oct. 17, 1944.

Dick F. Bennett, Dist. Enforcement Atty., and Gibson Langsdale and S. V. Medling, Enforcement Attys., all of Kansas City, Mo., for plaintiff.

William L. Vandeventer, of Springfield, Mo., for defendant.

REEVES, District Judge.

It is charged in the complaint that, between January 1 and August 16, 1944, “on many and various occasions” the defendant “sold at wholesale to many customers cigarettes of leading and popular brands in excess of the maximum or ceiling prices fixed by such regulations and amendments thereto and that a check was made of' such illegal activity engaged in by the defendant and overcharges from June 5, 1944 to July 28, 1944 amounting to the sum of $600.00 were shown to have been made.”

Upon this averment the defendant asked for a detail as to the dates, the names of customers, the places where sold and the prices therefor, also the kind and brands of the cigarettes and the selling prices.

The object of a bill of particulars is to secure an amendment to the pleadings. However, as the judges have been saying, the office of the bill of particulars has become or is becoming obsolete. United States v. Hartmann, D.C., 2 F.R.D. 477. Bills of particulars are not favored. Klug v. Palmer et al., D.C., 2 F.R.D. 273. Moreover, the present Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c, are now in process of amendment. The original rule in relation to bills of particulars (being a part of paragraph (e) of rule 12) has been entirely stricken out. The reason for the *182abandonment of the rule is that the identical information can be obtained more easily by interrogatories or any other of the discovery rules.

I am mindful of the decision of Judge Schoonmaker, of the Western District of Pennsylvania, in Bowles v. National Erie Corporation, D.C., 3 F.R.D. 469, where in an identical suit the administrator was re- ' quired to file a bill of particulars.

Some time ago the courts construed out of the Rule the words “or to prepare for trial.” And it would seem that the defendant would have no trouble in preparing his responsive pleading in this case. The averments of the complaint are clear enough to enable him to admit or deny the charge.

The motion for a bill of particulars should be overruled, and it will be so ordered.
Document headings vary by document type but may contain
                    the following: the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document
the number of the CFR title and the number of each part
                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly
                      related to
the agency docket number / agency internal file number
the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in
                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory
                      Actions See the
                    Document Drafting Handbook
                    for more details.
 Office of Personnel Management 5 CFR Part 532
RIN 3206-AN48
 AGENCY: U.S. Office of Personnel Management.
 ACTION: Correcting amendment.
 SUMMARY: The U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) published a final rule in the 
                        **Federal Register**
                         on May 31, 2017 (82 FR 24825), amending the geographic boundaries of several nonappropriated fund (NAF) Federal Wage System (FWS) wage areas. The final rule incorrectly listed Lane County, Oregon, in the Pierce, Washington, NAF FWS wage area under the State of Washington instead of under the State of Oregon. This document corrects this error.
 DATES: Effective August 31, 2017.
 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Madeline Gonzalez, by telephone at (202) 606-2838 or by email at 
                        *pay-leave-policy@opm.gov.*


SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In a final rule published in the 
                    **Federal Register**
                     on May 31, 2017 (82 FR 24825), OPM incorrectly listed Lane County, Oregon, in the Pierce, Washington, NAF FWS wage area under the State of Washington instead of under the State of Oregon. This document corrects the error and does not affect the pay of any FWS employees. List of Subjects in 5 CFR Part 532 Administrative practice and procedure
Freedom of information
Government employees
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements
Wages
 U.S. Office of Personnel Management. Brenda L. Roberts, Deputy Associate Director for Pay and Leave.
 Accordingly, OPM amends 5 CFR part 532 as follows: PART 532—PREVAILING RATE SYSTEMS
 1.The authority citation for part 532 continues to read as follows: Authority:
                        5 U.S.C. 5343, 5346; § 532.707 also issued under 5 U.S.C. 552. 2.Appendix D to Subpart B is amended by revising the wage area listing for the Pierce, WA, wage area to read as follows: Appendix D to Subpart B of Part 532—Nonappropriated Fund Wage and Survey Areas *    *    *    *    ***WASHINGTON***    *    *    *    ***Pierce***Survey Area*Washington:Pierce*Area of Application. Survey area plus:*Oregon:ClatsopCoosDouglasLaneMultnomahTillamookWashington:ClarkGrays Harbor*    *    *    *    *


[FR Doc. 2017-18514 Filed 8-30-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6325-39-P
II 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 753 

To amend the method by which the Social Security Administration determines 

the validity of marriages under title II of the Social Security Act. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 17, 2015 

Mrs. MURRAY (for herself, Ms. BALDWIN, Mr. MARKEY, Mr. SCHATZ, Mrs. 

SHAHEEN, Mr. UDALL, and Mr. COONS) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To amend the method by which the Social Security Administration determines the validity of marriages under title 

II of the Social Security Act. 

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 ‘‘Social Security and 

5 Marriage Equality Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. DETERMINATION OF VALID MARRIAGE UNDER THE 

7 SOCIAL SECURITY ACT. 

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 216(h)(1)(A)(i) of the So9 cial Security Act (42 U.S.C. 416(h)(1)(A)(i)) is amended 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 753 IS

1 by striking ‘‘is domiciled’’ and all that follows through 

2 ‘‘the District of Columbia,’’ and inserting ‘‘and such appli3 cant were married (or, if such insured individual and such 

4 applicant were not married in any State but were validly 

5 married in another jurisdiction, the courts of any State)’’. 

6 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

7 this section shall apply to all final determinations of family 

8 status made after June 26, 2013. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF DAISYTEK INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES FOR
THREE MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS. THE AMOUNTS BELOW HAVE BEEN RETROACTIVELY
RESTATED TO COMBINE THE ACCOUNTS OF DAISYTEK INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION WITH THE
TAPE COMPANY, INC., WHICH WAS ACQUIRED BY DAISYTEK DURING JUNE 1998 AND
ACCOUNTED FOR AS A POOLING OF INTEREST
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                           1,085
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   97,385
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,124
<INVENTORY>                                     76,278
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               175,278
<PP&E>                                          23,745
<DEPRECIATION>                                  11,526
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 193,382
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           87,549
<BONDS>                                         33,779
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           146
<OTHER-SE>                                      75,475
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   193,382
<SALES>                                        182,777
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               182,777
<CGS>                                          163,154
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  163,154
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   418
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 586
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  6,515
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,415
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              4,100
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     4,100
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.29
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.27
        

</TABLE>
(logo) Rialto CAPITAL

 

 

**2016 Annual Statement ofServicer Compliance (Item 1123)**

 

 

Pooling and ServicingAgreement (the “Pooling and Servicing Agreement”) dated as of May 1, 2013  by and among GS Mortgage Securities Corporation II, asDepositor, Wells Fargo Bank, National Association as Master Servicer, Rialto CapitalAdvisors, LLC as Special Servicer, Situs Holdings, LLC as Operating Advisor,Wells Fargo Bank,  National Association as Certificate Administrator,Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas as Trustee relating to the GS MortgageSecurities Trust 2013-GCJ12, Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates,Series 2013-GCJ12**  (GSMS 2013-GCJ12)**

               

 

The undersigned, a dulyauthorized officer of Rialto Capital Advisors, LLC, as special servicer (the“Special Servicer”) herein certifies to the following:

 

1.            All servicing activities and performance of such servicing activities under thePooling and Servicing Agreement are performed on behalf of the SpecialServicer.

 

2.            A review of the servicing activities and performance by the Special Servicer forthe period of January 1, 2016 to December 31, 2016 (the “ReportingPeriod”) in accordance with the Pooling and Servicing Agreement has beenconducted under my supervision.

 

3.            To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Special Servicer hasfulfilled all of its obligations under the terms of the Pooling and ServicingAgreement, in all material respects for the Reporting Period and if there hasbeen a failure to fulfill any such obligations in any material respect, eachfailure and the nature and status thereof has been specifically identifiedherein.

 

 

Certified by: /s/AdamSinger                                  Date: March 1, 2017

                    Adam Singer, Managing Director
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S.J. Res. 10 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. J. RES. 10

    Disapproving the action of the District of Columbia Council in 
 approving the Reproductive Health Non-Discrimination Amendment Act of 
                                 2014.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 18, 2015

Mr. Cruz (for himself and Mr. Lankford) introduced the following joint 
   resolution; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 
               Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
    Disapproving the action of the District of Columbia Council in 
 approving the Reproductive Health Non-Discrimination Amendment Act of 
                                 2014.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That the Congress disapproves 
of the action of the District of Columbia Council described as follows: 
The Reproductive Health Non-Discrimination Amendment Act of 2014 (D.C. 
Act 20-593), signed by the Mayor of the District of Columbia on January 
23, 2015, and transmitted to Congress pursuant to section 602(c)(1) of 
the District of Columbia Home Rule Act on March 6, 2015.
                                 <all>
```