alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
| (logo) NTS NATIONAL

TAX SEARCH, LLC | 303 E Wacker Drive, Suite 900

Chicago, IL 60601

(312) 233-6440 |
|--------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

 

REPORT ON ASSESSMENT OF COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE SECURITIES AND 

EXCHANGE COMMISSION'S REGULATION AB SERVICING CRITERIA

 

 

For the calendar year ending December 31, 2014, National Tax Search, LLC has been a Tax Service

Vendor for **Wells Fargo Bank**(the "Servicer" ). 

 

National Tax Search, LLC ("NTS") is responsible for assessing compliance as of December 31, 2014 and for the period from January 1, 2014 through December 31, 2014 (the "Reporting Period") with the servicing criteria set forth in Title 17, Section 229 .1122(d) of the Code of Federal Regulations ( the "CFR"). NTS has used the servicing criteria communicated to NTS by the Servicer to assess compliance with the applicable servicing criteria. Only servicing criteria 1122 (d)(1)(ii), 1122 (d)l(iv), 1122 (d)2( ii ), 1122 (d)2(v), 1122(d)2(vi), 1122 (d)2(vii), 1122(d)(4)(xi), and 1122(d)(4)(xii) (the "Applicable Servicing Criteria") are applicable to the activities NTS performs with respect to the transactions covered by this report. NTS has determined that the remaining servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122 (d) of the SEC Regulation AB are not applicable to the activities it performs with respect to the transactions covered by this report. The transactions covered by this report include all tax payments made on behalf of the Servicer using NTS's TaxQ system (the "Platform Transactions").

 

NTS, as a vendor, has assessed its compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria for the Reporting Period and has concluded that the NTS has complied, in all material respects, with the Applicable Servicing Criteria as of December 31, 2014 and for the Reporting Period with respect to the Platform Transactions taken as a whole.

 

Plante & Moran, PLLC, an independent registered public accounting firm, has issued an attestation report on the assessment of compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria as of December 31, 2014 and for the Reporting Period as set forth in this assertion.

 

National Tax Search, LLC, as Vendor to Servicer

 

/s/ Lori Eshoo 

Lori D. Eshoo, President/CEO 

January 12, 2015
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yf i nds thi s c a s e s ui t abl e f

orde c i s i on w i thout ** o r a l a r g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). JC/ R es ear ch NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON

UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T UN I T E D S T AT E S OF AME R I C A, P l ai nt i ff

- A pp el l ee , v. GA BR I EL VA LE NZUELA- SAI NZ, D e f

e n d a n t - A p p e llan t. N o. 08- 50561 D. C . No . 3 : 0 8 - c r - 0 2 8 1 3 - L AB

ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e S o u th e rn D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia L a rryA . B urns , D i s tr i c tJudge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d N ove m be r17, 2009 ** B e f o r e : A L A R C Ó N , T R O T T , a n dT A S H I M A , C ir c u it Ju d g e s . G abri elV al enzuel a- S ai nz appeal s f rom the 60 -m on th sent ence i m po se d f ol l ow i ng hi s gui l ty - pl e ac onvi c t i on f ori m port a t i on of

c oc a i ne , i n vi ol a t i on of 21 U . S . C . §§ 952 a nd 960. O urj ur i s di c t i on i s gove rne d by28 U . S . C . § 1291, a nd 

# FI LED DE C 14 2009 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALSJ C/ Res ea r ch 08- 50561 2 w e d i sm i ss. V a l e nz ue l a - S a i nz c ont e nds the di s tr i c tc ourte rr e d byf a i l i ng t o r e c om m e nd hi m t o the B ur e au of

P r i s ons ’ ( “ B O P ” ) 500- hourr e s i de nt i a l tr e a tm e ntpr ogr a m f or subst ance abuse. A utho ri ty t o d et erm i ne w hether apri soner e nt er s are si dent i al tr e a tm e n t p r o g r a m r e s id e s in th e e x e c u tiv e b r a n c h o f th e g o v e rn m e n t an dis d e le g a te dto th e B O P . See 18 U . S . C . § 3 62 1(b), (e ); se e al so D ow ney v . Crabtre e , 10 0 F . 3d 66 2, 66 6 (9th C i r. 19 96 ) ( “ [T he B O P ] has broad di sc re t i on ov erthe ent i re d ru g - tr e a tm e n t p r o c e s s w ith in th e f e d e r a l c o rr e c tio n s s y s te m , b e g in n in g w ith d et erm i n i n g w h i ch i n m at es ev er en t er su b st an ce-ab u se p ro g ram s. ”). B ecau se e l i gi bi l i tya nd r e f

e rr a l t o the r e s i de nt i a l s ubs t a nc e abus e tr e a tm e ntpr ogr a m i s not w i thi n the di stri ctcourt ’ s autho ri ty, w e have no j uri sdi ct i on t o con si der V a le n z u e la - S a in z ’s c la im o n ap p e a l. DI S MI S S E D.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-1333

KENDA R. KIRBY,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, 

District Judge. (5:13-cv-00850-FL)

Submitted: August 17, 2015 Decided: September 2, 2015

Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kenda R. Kirby, Appellant Pro Se. Alexander McClure Peters, 

Special Deputy Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Kenda R. Kirby appeals the district court’s order denying 

relief on her civil complaint. The district court referred this 

case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) 

(2012). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied 

and advised Kirby that failure to file objections to this 

recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court 

order based upon the recommendation.

The timely filing of specific objections to a magistrate 

judge’s recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review 

of the substance of that recommendation when the parties have 

been warned of the consequences of noncompliance. Wright v. 

Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also Thomas 

v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Liberally construed, Kirby’s 

objections to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation 

specifically challenged the magistrate judge’s failure to 

address her claims concerning Title IX of the Education 

Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. §§ 1681-1688 (2012), and the 

recommendation to deny relief on her due process and equal 

protection claims. By failing to file specific objections to 

the magistrate judge’s recommendation with regard to her other 

claims, after receiving proper notice, Kirby has waived 

appellate review of those claims. 
3

Turning to the district court’s dismissal of Kirby’s Title 

IX, equal protection, and due process claims, we have reviewed 

the record and discern no reversible error. Accordingly, we 

affirm the judgment of the district court. Kirby v. N.C. State 

Univ., No. 5:13-cv-00850-FL (E.D.N.C. Mar. 11, 2015). We deny 

Kirby’s motion to allow a new issue on appeal and dispense with 

oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

adequately presented in the materials before this court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
IIA 

114TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. J. RES. 30 

Relating to the disapproval of the proposed foreign military sale to the 

Government of Pakistan of F–16 Block 52 aircraft. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 24, 2016 

Mr. PAUL introduced the following joint resolution; which was read twice and 

referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations 

JOINT RESOLUTION 

Relating to the disapproval of the proposed foreign military 

sale to the Government of Pakistan of F–16 Block 52 

aircraft. 

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 That the issuance of a letter of offer with respect to any 

4 of the following proposed sales to the Government of Paki5 stan (described in the certification Transmittal No. 15– 

6 80, sent to the Speaker of the House of Representatives 

7 and the chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations 

8 of the Senate pursuant to section 36(b)(1) of the Arms 

9 Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2776(b)(1))) on February 

10 11, 2016, is hereby prohibited: 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•SJ 30 IS 

1 (1) The proposed sale of eight (8) F–16 Block 

2 52 aircraft with the Fl00–PW–229 increased per3 formance engine, and related defense articles and 

4 defense services (Transmittal Numbered 15–80). 

5 (2) The proposed sale of two (2) F–16 Block 

6 52 C models with the Fl00–PW–229 increased per7 formance engine, and related defense articles and 

8 defense services (Transmittal Numbered 16–80). 

9 (3) The proposed sale of six (6) F–16 Block 52 

10 D models with the Fl00–PW–229 increased per11 formance engine, and related defense articles and 

12 defense services (Transmittal Numbered 16–80). 

13 (4) The proposed sale of fourteen (14) Joint 

14 Helmet Mounted Cueing Systems (JHMCS), and re15 lated defense articles and defense services (Trans16 mittal Numbered 16–80). 

17 (5) The proposed sale of eight (8) AN/APG– 

18 68(V)9 radars, and related defense articles and de19 fense services (Transmittal Numbered 16–80). 

20 (6) The proposed sale of eight (8) ALQ– 

21 211(V)9 Advanced Integrated Defensive Electronic 

22 Warfare Suites (AIDEWS), and related defense arti23 cles and defense services (Transmittal Numbered 

24 16–80). 

Æ 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C.
§1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the
Quarterly Report of Universal Hospital Services, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Rex T. Clevenger,
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and



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



|                                               
|-----------------------------------------------
|                                               
|/s/ Rex T. Clevenger                           
|Rex T. Clevenger                               
|Senior Vice President & Chief Financial Officer
|August 10, 2004
| (logo) WELLS

           FARGO | Commercial Mortgage Servicing

D1086-120, 12th Floor 

550 South Tryon Street 

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 May 1, 2013, by and among RBS COMMERCIAL FUNDING INC., as Depositor, WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as General Master Servicer, LNR PARTNERS, LLC, as General Special Servicer, NCB, FSB, as NCB Master Servicer, NCB, FSB, as Co-op Special Servicer, TRIMONT REAL ESTATE ADVISORS, INC., as Trust Advisor, WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Certificate Administrator, as Tax Administrator and as Custodian, and U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Trustee, with respect to Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates WFRBS 2013-C13 (the "Agreement"). Capitalized terms used herein not otherwise defined shall have the meanings assigned in the Agreement.

 

Pursuant to Section 11.12 of this Agreement, I, Daniel Bober, Executive Vice President of Commercial Mortgage Services do hereby certify that:

 

1. A review of the activities of the General Master Servicer during the period from January 1, 2015 through December 31, 2015 (the “Reporting Period”), 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 General Master Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period.

 

 

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this Certificate as of the 4th day of March 2016.

                                                                        

 

 

/s/ Daniel Bober

Daniel Bober

Executive Vice President                  

Wells Fargo Bank

 

 

| Wells Fargo Bank, N.A |  (logo) Together we’ll go far

  |
|-----------------------|--------------------------------------------------|
III 

114TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. CON. RES. 34 

Providing for an adjournment of the House of Representatives. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 17, 2016 

Mr. MCCONNELL submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was 

considered and agreed to 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

Providing for an adjournment of the House of 

Representatives. 

1 Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives 

2 concurring), That when the House adjourns on any legisla3 tive day from Wednesday, March 23, 2016, through Fri4 day, April 8, 2016, on a motion offered pursuant to this 

5 concurrent resolution by its Majority Leader or his des6 ignee, it stand adjourned until 3:30 p.m. on Monday, April 

7 11, 2016, or until the time of any reassembly pursuant 

8 to section 2 of this concurrent resolution, whichever occurs 

9 first. 

10 SEC. 2. (a) The Speaker or his designee, after con11 sultation with the Minority Leader of the House, shall noVerDate Sep 11 2014 23:54 Mar 17, 2016 Jkt 059200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\SC34.ATS SC34

emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•SCON 34 ATS 

1 tify the Members of the House to reassemble at such place 

2 and time as he may designate if, in his opinion, the public 

3 interest shall warrant it. 

4 (b) After reassembling pursuant to subsection (a), 

5 when the House adjourns on a motion offered pursuant 

6 to this subsection by its Majority Leader or his designee, 

7 the House shall again stand adjourned pursuant to the 

8 first section of this concurrent resolution. 

Æ 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

address the factual question of whether, and to what extent, the claims in 

the instant matter relate to the facts and circumstances of the first suit. 

We decline to make such an inquiry now. See Liu v. Christopher Homes, 

LLC, 130 Nev., Adv. Op. 17, 321 P.3d 875, 881 (2014) (stating that a 

determination involving factual inquiries should not be resolved by this 

court if the district court did not reach the issue). "As we have repeatedly 

noted, an appellate court is not an appropriate forum in which to resolve 

disputed questions of fact," and the "discretion of this court to entertain a 

petition for a writ of mandamus . . . will not be exercised unless legal, 

rather than factual, issues are presented." Round Hill Gen. Improvement 

Dist. v. Newman, 97 Nev. 601, 604, 637 P.2d 534, 536 (1981). 

Furthermore, we conclude petitioners have an adequate 

remedy at law, as they will be able to assert claim preclusion absent this 

court's intervention. See Jeep Corp. v. Second Judicial Dist. Court, 98 

Nev. 440, 443, 652 P.2d 1183, 1185 (1982) ("[N]either mandamus or 

prohibition is appropriate in the face of effective alternative remedies.") 

Although petitioners must wait until the rights and liabilities of all the 

parties in the other action are adjudicated before they may assert claim 

preclusion in this action, this fact does not affect our disposition where 

petitioners had the opportunity to certify the district court's order in the 

other action as final under NRCP 54(b) yet declined to do so. 

ORDER the petition DENIED. 

J. 

Parraguirre 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A GS 
cc: Hon. Richard Scotti, District Judge 

Thorndal Armstrong Delk Balkenbush & Eisinger/Las Vegas 

Black & LoBello 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 3 

10) 1947A
FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTH CI RCUI T SEPTEMBER 10, 2010 J OHN L EY CL ERK [ D O N O T P U B L I S H ]

I N T H E U N I T E D S T A T E S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S

F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C I R C U I T

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ N o

. 0 9

- 1 5 0 9 3 N o n - A r g u m e n t C a l e n d a r

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ D

. C

. D o c k e t N o

. 0 9

- 0 0 0 0 7

- C R

- 4

- R H

U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A ,

P l a i n t i f f

- A p p e l l e e ,

v e r s u s

T R A V I S M

. H U N T L E Y ,
D e f e n d a n t

- A p p e l l a n t

.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ A p p e a l f r o m t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s D i s t r i c t C o u r t f o r t h e N o r t h e r n D i s t r i c t o f F l o r i d a

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ( S e p t e m b e r 1 0 , 2 0 1 0 )

B e f o r e B A R K E T T , H U L L a n d F A Y , C i r c u i t J u d g e s

.
P E R C U R I A M :

R i c h a r d A

. G r e e n b e r g , a p p o i n t e d c o u n s e l f o r T r a v i s M

. H u n t l e y i n t h i sd i r e c t c r i m i n a l a p p e a l , h a s m o v e d t o w i t h d r a w f r o m f u r t h e r r e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f t h e

a p p e l l a n t a n d f

i l e d a b r i e f p u r s u a n t t o A n d e r s v

. C a l i f o r n i a , 3 8 6 U

. S

. 7 3 8 , 8 7 S

. C t

.
1 3 9 6 , 1 8 L

. E d

. 2 d 4 9 3 ( 1 9 6 7 )

. O u r i n d e p e n d e n t r e v i e w o f t h e e n t i r e r e c o r d r e v e a l s

t h a t c o u n s e l ’ s a s s e s s m e n t o f t h e r e l a t i v e m e r i t o f t h e a p p e a l i s c o r r e c t

. B e c a u s e
i n d e p e n d e n t e x a m i n a t i o n o f t h e e n t i r e r e c o r d r e v e a l s n o a r g u a b l e i s s u e s o f m e r i t ,

c o u n s e l ’ s m o t i o n t o w i t h d r a w i s G R A N T E D , a n d H u n t l e y ’ s c o n v i c t i o n a n d

s e n t e n c e a r e A F F I R M E D

.

2
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Sergio Mauricio GUZMAN-SALDIVAR, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 07-40149

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Jan. 23, 2008.

James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for PlaintiffAppellee.

Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before JONES, Chief Judge, and HIGGINBOTHAM and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Sergio Mauricio Guzman-Saldivar (Guzman) pleaded guilty to an indictment charging him with illegal reentry following deportation. Guzman was sentenced to 37 months of imprisonment and a three-year term of supervised release. Guzman gave timely notice of his appeal.

Guzman contends that the district court erred in ruling that his prior New York conviction of third-degree rape was a “crime of violence” for purposes of U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2. *See*N.Y. Penal Law § 130.25 (McKinney 2004). We review this question de novo. *See United States v. Villegas,*404 F.3d 355, 359-61 (5th Cir. 2005). We reject Guzman’s argument that the district court did not have competent evidence from which to determine the offense of conviction. *See United States v. Neri-Hemandes,*504 F.3d 587, 592 (5th Cir.2007).

Under § 2L1.2(b)(l)(A)(ii), a defendant’s offense level is increased by 16 levels if, prior to deportation, he was convicted of a “crime of violence.” The offense of statutory rape is a crime of violence. § 2L1.2, comment. (n.l(B)(iii)). Guzman was convicted under part 2 of § 130.25, under which a person is guilty of rape in the third degree when, “being twenty-one years old or more, he or she engages in sexual intercourse with another person to whom the actor is not married less than seventeen years old.” § 130.25-2. This statutory definition is consistent with a “common sense” meaning of the offense of statutory rape. *See United States v. Izaguirre-Flores,*405 F.3d 270, 275 (5th Cir. 2005). The district court did not err in applying § 2L2.1(b)(l)(A)(ii).

In light of *Apprendi v. New Jersey,*530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), Guzman challenges the constitutionality of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)’s treatment of prior felony and aggravated felony convictions as sentencing factors rather than *595elements of the offense that must be found by a jury. This court has held that this issue is “fully foreclosed from further debate.” *United States v. Pineda-Arrellano,*492 F.3d 624, 625 (5th Cir.2007), *petition far cert. filed*(Aug. 28, 2007) (No. 07-6202).

AFFIRMED.

*

 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.
#### Gregory A. SCHUELER, Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent.

No. 07-1902.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: Feb. 4, 2008.

Filed: Feb. 7, 2008.

Gregory A. Schueler, Coon Rapids, MN, pro se.

*734Donald L. Korb, U.S. Internal Revenue Service, Office of Chief Counsel, Teresa E. McLaughlin, Eileen J. O’Connor, Kenneth W. Rosenberg, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before WOLLMAN, RILEY, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Gregory Schueler appeals the tax court’s1 adverse grant of summary judgment. Having carefully reviewed the record and considered the arguments advanced by Schueler on appeal, we conclude that summary judgment was proper. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons set forth in the tax court’s well-reasoned opinion. *See*8th Cir. R. 47B.

1

. The Honorable Diane L. Kroupa, United States Tax Court Judge.
III 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. RES. 13 

Notifying the House of Representatives of the election of a Sergeant at 

Arms and Doorkeeper of the Senate. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 6, 2015 

Mr. MCCONNELL submitted the following resolution; which was considered 

and agreed to 

RESOLUTION 

Notifying the House of Representatives of the election of 

a Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper of the Senate. 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives be noti2 fied of the election of the Honorable Frank J. Larkin as 

3 Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper of the Senate. 

Æ 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS