alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
S. Con. Res. 29 Agreed to February 3, 2016

One Hundred Fourteenth Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE SECOND SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Monday, 

the fourth day of January, two thousand and sixteen 

Concurrent Resolution 

Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), 

SECTION 1. USE OF THE ROTUNDA AND EMANCIPATION HALL OF THE 

CAPITOL. 

The rotunda and Emancipation Hall of the United States Capitol are authorized to be used on January 20, 2017, by the Joint 

Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies in connection 

with the proceedings and ceremonies conducted for the inauguration 

of the President-elect and the Vice President-elect of the United 

States. 

Attest: 

Secretary of the Senate. 

Attest: 

Clerk of the House of Representatives.
(logo)      CURCIO

WIESELTHIER

+COHEN

 

CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS PC 7 PENN PLAZA, SUITE 1500 NEW YORK NY 10001

TEL: 212 557-9800 • FAX: 212 557-9819 • website: www.cwccpafirm.com

 

 

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

 

Managing Member

Park Bridge Lender Services LLC

New York, NY

 

 

We have examined management’s assertion, included in the accompanying Management’s Report on Assessment of 2014 Compliance by Park Bridge Lender Services LLC with Regulation AB Servicing Criteria (“Management’s Report”), that Park Bridge Lender Services LLC (the “Company”) complied with the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission’s Regulation AB as of and for the year ended December 31, 2014, excluding those criteria noted as not applicable (N/A) within Exhibit B to Management’s Report. The transactions covered by this report are only those transactions processed by the Company in its capacity as trust advisor or operating advisor for the asset backed securities transactions (the “Platform”) identified in Management’s Report. Reference Exhibit A to Management’s Report for the transactions covered by this examination. Management is responsible for the Company’s compliance with the applicable 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, including 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 a selected sample of the servicing activities related to the Platform, determining whether the Company performed those selected activities in compliance with the applicable servicing criteria during the specified period. Our procedures were limited to the selected transactions and servicing activities performed by the Company during the period covered by this report. Our examination was not designed to detect material noncompliance arising from errors that may have occurred prior to or subsequent to our tests, that may have affected the Company’s servicing activities 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 applicable servicing criteria.

 

In our opinion, management’s assertion that the Company complied with the aforementioned applicable servicing criteria identified in Exhibit B to Management’s Report with respect to the transactions identified in Exhibit A to Management’s Report as of and for the year ended December 31, 2014, for the Platform, is fairly stated in all material aspects.

 

 

/s/ Curcio, Wieselthier & Cohen, C.P.A.’S, P.C.

 

Curcio, Wieselthier & Cohen, C.P.A.’S, P.C. New York, NY 

February 20, 2015

 

 

MEMBER OF THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS
**EXHIBIT 35.1**

 

**SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT**

**New Holland Credit Company, LLC**

 

The undersigned, a duly authorized officer of New Holland Credit Company, LLC (“NHCC”), as Servicer pursuant to the Sale and Servicing Agreement dated as of May 1, 2013 (as amended from time to time, the “Sale and Servicing Agreement”) by and among NHCC, CNH Capital Receivables LLC and CNH Equipment Trust 2013-B, does hereby certify that:

 

1.                                      NHCC is Servicer under the Sale and Servicing Agreement.

 

2.                                      The undersigned is duly authorized as required pursuant to the Sale and Servicing Agreement to execute and deliver this Certificate to the Indenture Trustee.

 

3.                                      This Certificate is delivered pursuant to Section 4.9(a) of the Sale and Servicing Agreement and Item 1123 of Regulation AB.

 

4.                                      A review of the Servicer’s activities during the 12 month period ending (and including) December 31, 2014 and of its performance under the Sale and Servicing Agreement has been made under my supervision.

 

5.                                      To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Sale and Servicing Agreement in all material respects throughout the 12 month period ending (and including) December 31, 2014.

 

6.                                      IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has duly executed this Certificate this 30th day of March, 2015.

 

----

 

March 30, 2015

 
|   | By:    | /s/   Brett D. Davis |
|--------|--------|----------------------|
|   | Name:  | Brett   D. Davis     |
|   | Title: | President            |

 

----
Exhibit 10.6










Exhibit 10.6




Directors Compensation




Effective January 1, 2008, compensation for each non-employee director of the Company is as
follows:




	 	(i)	 	$18,750 in cash;
	 
	 	(ii)	 	5,000 shares of restricted stock issued under our 2006 Health Grades Inc. Equity
Compensation Plan, with 50% vesting on each of the first two anniversaries of the date
of grant; and
	 
	 	(iii)	 	1,000 shares of restricted stock issued under our 2006 Health Grades Inc. Equity
Compensation Plan for serving as the Audit Committee Chairperson, with 50% vesting on
each of the first two anniversaries of the date of grant.
EXHIBIT 10.1

 

FIRST AMENDMENT TO DIRECTOR SERVICES AGREEMENT

 

This First Amendment to Director Services Agreement (the “Amendment”) is made and entered into effective as of October 31, 2011, by and between The Neiman Marcus Group, Inc., a Delaware corporation (“NMG”), Neiman Marcus, Inc., a Delaware corporation (“Parent”) and Burton M. Tansky (the “Executive”).

 

W I T N E S S E T H:

 

WHEREAS, NMG, Parent and Executive entered into a Director Services Agreement effective as of April 26, 2010 (the “Agreement”); and

 

WHEREAS, NMG, Parent and Executive now desire to amend the Agreement to extend the Term (as defined in the Agreement) through December 31, 2012;

 

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises, the parties do hereby agree as follows:

 

1.                                       Paragraph 2 of the Agreement is hereby amended and restated in its entirety as follows:

 

2.                                       Term.                  The term of this Agreement shall be from October 6, 2010 through December 31, 2012 (the “Term”) The Term shall not renew or be extended absent an express written agreement otherwise between the parties. Prior to the expiration of the Term, the Boards of Directors of the Companies will discuss whether to extend the Term. No refusal by either or both of the Companies to extend the Term or by Tansky to agree to such an extension shall result in any liability to any of the parties to this Agreement. Unless the parties agree to extend the Term, this Agreement and the obligations in this Agreement will terminate at the expiration of the Term and Tansky will resign from the Boards of Directors of the Companies effective at the expiration of the Term.

 

2.                                       Except as otherwise specifically set forth herein, all other terms and conditions of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.

 











 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, NMG and Parent have caused this Amendment to be executed on each entities behalf by its duly authorized officer, and the Executive has executed this Amendment, on this the 31st day of October, 2011.

 

 

	
 
    	
 
    	
THENEIMAN   MARCUS GROUP, INC.
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
By:
    	
/s/   Nelson A. Bangs
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
Nelson   A. Bangs, Senior Vice President
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
and   General Counsel
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
NEIMAN   MARCUS, INC.
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
By:
    	
/s/   Nelson A. Bangs
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
Nelson   A. Bangs, Senior Vice President
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
and   General Counsel
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
EXECUTIVE
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
/s/   Burton M. Tansky
    


 

2
#### T. Robert MATTEN, Individually and as Executor of the Estate of Angela M. Matten, Deceased, Plaintiff, v. Daniel G. HEAD, Jr., Administrator of the Estate of John Lazar, Deceased, Defendant.

Civ. A. No. 29695.

United States District Court E. D. Pennsylvania.

Nov. 29, 1961.

Robert I. Cottom, Matten & Cottom, Reading, Pa., for plaintiff.

John J. McDevitt, 3rd, Philadélphia, Pa., for defendant.

GRIM, Senior District Judge.

In this diversity action the complaint avers that a Rhode Island court granted defendant letters of administration on the estate of his decedent. In his answer to the complaint defendant denies this generally. He also denies that the Rhode Island court “had authority” to grant the letters and denies that he is “the proper and duly constituted administrator” of the estate. As a separate defense he avers that he “is not a duly authorized representative” of the estate.

Plaintiff has moved, under F.R.Civ.P. rule 12(f), 28 U.S.C.A., to strike these averments from the answer on the ground that they fail to state a legal defense and are immaterial and irrelevant.

If the averments can be substantiated they would amount to a complete defense, although not on the merits.

It may be that the letters were not properly granted, but since there has been no discovery or other ascertainment of the facts there are no facts on the record from which this can be determined. Consequently, the motion to strike will be denied.
II 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 965 

To prohibit the use of funds by Internal Revenue Service to target citizens 

of the United States for exercising any right guaranteed under the 

First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 15, 2015 

Ms. COLLINS introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To prohibit the use of funds by Internal Revenue Service 

to target citizens of the United States for exercising 

any right guaranteed under the First Amendment to 

the Constitution of the United States. 

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

3 SECTION 1. PROHIBITION ON TARGETING BY THE INTER4 NAL REVENUE SERVICE BASED ON THE EXER5 CISE OF FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS. 

6 None of the funds made available under any Act may 

7 be used by the Internal Revenue Service to target citizens 

8 of the United States for exercising any right guaranteed 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 965 IS

1 under the First Amendment to the Constitution of the 

2 United States. 

Æ 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
**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. Section1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,that:
 1. the Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterended September 30, 2004 (the “Form 10-Q”) fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities ExchangeAct of 1934, as amended; and  2. the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents,in all material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of the Company as of, and for, the periods presented inthe Form 10-Q.        Dated: November 12, 2004 /s/ Jeffrey A. Green   Jeffrey A. Green   Chief Executive Officer
#### Perry GUYNN *v.*STATE of Arkansas

CR 98-278

961 S.W.2d 35

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Opinion delivered March 26, 1998

*Jack R. Kearney,*for appellant.

No response.

Per Curiam.

Appellant was convicted on August 13, 1997, of possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver, possession of drug paraphernalia, and manufacture of a controlled substance. Fie filed a notice of appeal on September 4, 1997, but the court’s judgment and commitment order was not entered until October 6, 1997. On November 11, 1997, the Pulaski County Circuit Court granted the appellant an extension to file the record on or before March 3, 1998, and the record was tendered on March 2, 1998. Obviously, because the notice of appeal was filed prematurely, any extension to file the record was improper.

The appellant has filed a motion for belated appeal to compel the clerk’s office to accept the record. In his motion, appellant states the reason the record was tendered late is that the “defendant and counsel were unaware that their notice of appeal and designation of record had preceded the filing of the judgment and commitment order.”

This court has held that we will grant a motion for belated appeal when the attorney admits that the notice of appeal was untimely filed due to an error on his part. *See In Re: Belated*
      *435
      *Appeals in Criminal Cases,*265 Ark. 964 (1979) (per curiam). Here, the attorney does not admit fault on his part. We have held that a statement that it was someone else’s fault or no one’s fault will not suffice. *Clark v. State,*289 Ark. 382, 711 S.W.2d 162 (1986). Therefore, appellant’s motion must be denied.

The appellant’s attorney shall file within thirty days from the date of this per curiam a motion and affidavit in this case accepting full responsibility for the untimely filing of the notice of appeal. Upon filing same, the motion will be granted and a copy of the opinion will be forwarded to the Committee on Professional Conduct.
S. J. Res. 24 

One Hundred Fourteenth Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE FIRST SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday, 

the sixth day of January, two thousand and fifteen 

Joint Resolution 

Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States 

Code, of a rule submitted by the Environmental Protection Agency relating to 

‘‘Carbon Pollution Emission Guidelines for Existing Stationary Sources: Electric 

Utility Generating Units’’. 

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the

United States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress 

disapproves the rule submitted by the Environmental Protection 

Agency relating to ‘‘Carbon Pollution Emission Guidelines for 

Existing Stationary Sources: Electric Utility Generating Units’’ 

(published at 80 Fed. Reg. 64662 (October 23, 2015)), and such 

rule shall have no force or effect. 

Speaker of the House of Representatives. 

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Con. Res. 50 Engrossed in Senate (ES)]

<DOC>
114th CONGRESS
  2d Session
S. CON. RES. 50

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

    Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), 
That, in consonance with section 132(a) of the Legislative 
Reorganization Act of 1946, when the House adjourns on any legislative 
day from Friday, July 15, 2016, through Friday, September 2, 2016, on a 
motion offered pursuant to this concurrent resolution by its Majority 
Leader or his designee, it stand adjourned until 2 p.m. on Tuesday, 
September 6, 2016, or until the time of any reassembly pursuant to 
section 2 of this concurrent resolution, whichever occurs first.
    Sec. 2.  (a) The Speaker or his designee, after consultation with 
the Minority Leader of the House, shall notify the Members of the House 
to reassemble at such place and time as he may designate if, in his 
opinion, the public interest shall warrant it.
     (b) After reassembling pursuant to subsection (a), when the House 
adjourns on a motion offered pursuant to this subsection by its 
Majority Leader or his designee, the House shall again stand adjourned 
pursuant to the first section of this concurrent resolution.

            Passed the Senate July 14, 2016.

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
114th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                            S. CON. RES. 50

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

     Providing for an adjournment of the House of Representatives.
```
#### In re: CHECKING ACCOUNT OVERDRAFT LITIGATION Jeffrey Buffington, et al. v. SunTrust Bank, Inc., N.D. Georgia, C.A. No. 1:09-1558.

MDL No. 2036.

United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation.

Dec. 1, 2009.

Before ROBERT L. MILLER, JR., Acting Chairman, JOHN G. HEYBURN II, Chairman *, KATHRYN H. VRATIL, *1364DAVID R. HANSEN, W. ROYAL FURGESON, JR., FRANK C. DAMRELL, JR. and DAVID G. TRAGER, Judges of the Panel.

*

 Judge Heybum took no part in the disposition of this matter.

TRANSFER ORDER

ROBERT L. MILLER, JR., Acting Chairman.

Before the entire Panel *: Defendant SunTrust Bank (SunTrust) moves pursuant to Rule 7.4, R.P.J.P.M.L., 199 F.R.D. 425, 435-36 (2001), asking the Panel to vacate its order conditionally transferring this action (Buffington) to the Southern District of Florida for inclusion in MDL No. 2036. The *Buffington*plaintiffs oppose the motion.

After considering all argument of counsel, we find that *Buffington*involves common questions of fact with actions in this litigation previously transferred to the Southern District of Florida. Transfer of the action to the Southern District of Florida for inclusion in MDL No. 2036 will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. We further find that transfer of this action is appropriate for reasons that we set out in our original order directing centralization in this docket. In that order, we held that (1) the Southern District of Florida was a proper Section 1407 forum for actions involving claims relating to the alleged improper imposition of bank checking account overdraft fees; and (2) while there are some unique questions of fact from bank-to-bank, all actions share sufficient factual questions relating to industry-wide bank posting policies and procedures to warrant centralization of all actions in one MDL docket. *See In re Checking Account Overdraft Litigation,*626 F.Supp.2d 1333 (J.P.M.L.2009). Accordingly, *Buffington*clearly falls within the scope for this MDL docket established by the Panel.

SunTrust argues against inclusion of *Buffington*in MDL No. 2036 proceedings that, *inter alia,*plaintiffs’ claims are subject to arbitration. Arbitration clauses are, however, often included in checking account customer agreements. The question of the arbitrability of overdraft claims is already before the MDL No. 2036 transferee court. Inclusion of *Buffington*will lead to the consistent and expeditious consideration of this threshold issue in *Buffington*and other MDL No. 2036 actions. *In re Checking Account Overdraft Litigation,*2009 WL 3460951 (J.P.M.L. Oct. 7, 2009).

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, this action is transferred to the Southern District of Florida and, with the consent of that court, assigned to the Honorable James Lawrence King for inclusion in the coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings occurring there in this docket.
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 965 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 965

  To prohibit the use of funds by Internal Revenue Service to target 
citizens of the United States for exercising any right guaranteed under 
     the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 15, 2015

  Ms. Collins introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To prohibit the use of funds by Internal Revenue Service to target 
citizens of the United States for exercising any right guaranteed under 
     the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

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

SECTION 1. PROHIBITION ON TARGETING BY THE INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE 
              BASED ON THE EXERCISE OF FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS.

    None of the funds made available under any Act may be used by the 
Internal Revenue Service to target citizens of the United States for 
exercising any right guaranteed under the First Amendment to the 
Constitution of the United States.
                                 <all>
```
CERTIFICATION
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Aastrom Biosciences, 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/Scott C. DurbinScott C. DurbinChief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)