alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 171 (Wednesday, September 6, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 42086]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-18844]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission


Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural 
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP17-980-000.
    Applicants: Northern Natural Gas Company.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: 20170828 Interim UAF to be 
effective 10/1/2017.
    Filed Date: 8/28/17.
    Accession Number: 20170828-5158.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/11/17.

    Docket Numbers: RP17-981-000.
    Applicants: Northwest Pipeline LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: NWP 2017 Winter Fuel Filing to 
be effective 10/1/2017.
    Filed Date: 8/29/17.
    Accession Number: 20170829-5037.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/11/17.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by 
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above 
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the 
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and Sec.  385.214) on or 
before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests 
may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to 
the proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing 
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying 
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call (866) 208-3676 
(toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: August 30, 2017.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.
 Deputy Secretary
[FR Doc. 2017-18844 Filed 9-5-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
[Cite as State v. Gates, 131 Ohio St.3d 372, 2012-Ohio-1221.]

T HE S TATE OF O HIO , A PPELLEE , v . G ATES , A PPELLANT . [Cite as State v. Gates, 131 Ohio St.3d 372, 2012-Ohio-1221.] Judgment of the court of appeals reverse d, and cause remanded to the court of appeals for application of State v. Smith

. (No. 2012-0030—Submitted March 21, 2012—Decided March 27, 2012.)
C ERTIFIED by the Court of Appeals for Portage County, No. 2011-P-0001,
2011-Ohio-5711.

__________________ {¶ 1} The judgment of the court of appeals is reversed, and the cause is remanded to the court of appeals fo r application of our decision in State v. Smith, 131 Ohio St.3d 297, 2012-Ohio-781, 964 N.E.2d 423.
O’C ONNOR , C.J., and P FEIFER , L UNDBERG S TRATTON , O’D ONNELL , L ANZINGER , C UPP , and M C G EE B ROWN , JJ., concur.

__________________ Pamela J. Holder, Portage County Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee. Neil P. Agarwal, for appellant.

______________________
Exhibit 35.1



|     |  |                                                                                                                        
|---- |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|LOGO |  | Corporate Trust Services 
MAC R1204-010 9062 Old
Annapolis Road Columbia, MD 21045 
Tel: 410 884 2000 Fax: 410 715 2380

Citibank, National Association

388 Greenwich Street

14th Floor

New York, New York 10013



|Re: | Annual Statement of Compliance for Sequoia Mortgage Trust 2013-7 Mortgage Pass- Through Certificates, Series 2013-7
|--- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Per the Amended and Restated Pooling and Servicing dated as of January 1, 2014 (the Agreement), the undersigned, a duly authorized officer of
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as Master Servicer (Wells Fargo), hereby certifies as follows as of and for the year ending December 31, 2016 (the Reporting Period):

(a)    A review of Wells Fargos activities during the Reporting Period and of its performance under the Agreement has
been made under such officers supervision; and

(b)    To the best of such officers knowledge, based on
such review, Wells Fargo has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period.

March 1,
2017



|                             
|-----------------------------
|LOGO                         
|Kristen Cronin Vice President



|                       |  |     
|---------------------- |  | ----
|Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. |  | LOGO
#### Larry E. FREIHEIT, Petitioner, v. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, Respondent.

No. 2006-3391.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

Dec. 10, 2007.

Before RADER, SCHALL, and PROST, Circuit Judges.

SCHALL, Circuit Judge.

*ORDER*

The Department of Transportation moves without opposition to lift the stay of proceedings and remand Larry E. Freiheit’s petition for review of a decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board.

Freiheit filed an appeal alleging that the Department had improperly charged him leave for the performance of military reserve duty on non-workdays in violation of the Uniform Sendees Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA), 38 U.S.C. § 4301 (2000). The Board determined that, based on an agreement by the Department, Freiheit would receive maximum restoration of annual leave to which he was entitled under the law. The Board then dismissed his complaint without granting a heai’ing. Freiheit appealed.

On March 7, 2007, we issued our decision in *Kirkendall v. Army,*479 F.3d 830 (Fed.Cir.2007) (en banc), *cert. denied*— U.S. --, 128 S.Ct. 375, 169 L.Ed.2d 260 (2007). *Kirkendall*held, inter alia, that USERRA requires that “any veteran who requests a hearing shall receive one.” *Id.*at 844. Because Freiheit was denied a hearing, we remand for further proceedings in light of *Kirkendall.*On remand, the Board may also consider, inter alia, our recent decisions in *Hernandez v. Department of the Air Force,*498 F.3d 1328 (Fed.Cir.2007) and *Pucilowski v. Department of Justice,*498 F.3d 1341 (Fed.Cir. 2007).

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

(1) The motion is granted. The Board’s decision is vacated and the case is remanded for further proceedings.

(2) All sides shall bear their own costs.
Flows to and from employment for selected periods preceding and during the last and current recessions


	                        				      Thousands	
				
					       Mar 2007 to 	Sept 2006 to 	Dec 2000 to 	June 2000 to
						Dec 2008	 Mar 2007	 Jun 2003	 Dec 2000

Average monthly flows 
FROM EMPLOYMENT to not in labor force	    	  3,963 	    4,190 	    3,860 	     3,846

Average monthly flows  
FROM EMPLOYMENT to unemployment	 	          1,962 	    1,809 	    1,925 	     1,596 
	
Average monthly flows 
from not in labor force TO EMPLOYMENT	          3,753 	    4,161 	    3,679 	     3,663 	

Average monthly flows 
from unemployment TO EMPLOYMENT	                  2,003 	    2,011 	    2,033 	     1,814
Order entered December 4, 2019

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-19-00918-CV

TE LUN WANG, Appellant

V.

XIANGYU CAO, ET AL., Appellees

On Appeal from the 429th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 429-04995-2017

ORDER

Before the Court is the December 2, 2019 request of Cindy Bardwell, Official Court 

Reporter for the 429th Judicial District Court, for an extension of time to file the reporter’s 

record. We GRANT the request and extend the time to December 12, 2019.

We DIRECT the Clerk of this Court to send a copy of this order to Ms. Bardwell; Ms. 

LaTresta Ginyard; Ms. Young-Martinez; and all parties.

/s/ KEN MOLBERG 

JUSTICE
Document Headings

                    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.                  

###### Small Business Administration

          - [Disaster Declaration #15274 and #15275; Texas Disaster Number TX-00487]

# AGENCY:

U.S. Small Business Administration.

# ACTION:

Amendment 4.

# SUMMARY:

This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of Texas (FEMA-4332-DR), dated August 25, 2017.

# DATES:

Issued on 09/04/2017.

*Physical Loan Application Deadline Date:*                         10/24/2017.                    

*Economic Injury (EIDL) Loan Application Deadline Date:*                         05/25/2018.                    

# ADDRESSES:

*Submit completed loan applications to:*                         U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6734.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The notice of the President's major disaster declaration for the State of Texas, dated 08/25/2017, is hereby amended to include the following areas as adversely affected by the disaster:

*Incident:*                     Hurricane Harvey.                

*Incident Period:*                     08/23/2017 and continuing.                

*Primary Counties (Physical Damage and Economic Injury Loans):*                     Austin, Bastrop, Dewitt, Gonzales, Karnes, Lavaca, Lee                

*Contiguous Counties (Economic Injury Loans Only):*

Texas: Atascosa, Burleson, Guadalupe, Milam, Travis, Williamson, Wilson

All other information in the original declaration remains unchanged.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number 59008)

James E. Rivera,

Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance.

[FR Doc. 2017-19125 Filed 9-8-17; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
**Order filed June 6, 2013**

**In The**

**Court of Appeals**

**For The**

**First District of Texas**

**___________**

**NO.  01-12-01027-CR**

**____________**

**Robert Michael Gomez, Appellant**

**v.**

**The State of Texas, Appellee**

**On Appeal from the 405th District Court**

**Galveston County, Texas**

**Trial Court Cause No. 10CR3363**

**ORDER**

This court has determined, pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 34.5(f) and 34.6(g)(2), that it must inspect the original of **State’s exhibit 25, State's exhibit 26, and Defendant’s exhibit 1.**

The clerk of the 405th District Court is directed to deliver to the Clerk of this court the original of State’s exhibit 25, State's exhibit 26 and Defendant’s exhibit 1, on or before **June 17, 2013.** The Clerk of this court is directed to receive, maintain, and keep safe this original exhibit; to deliver it to the justices of this court for their inspection; and, upon completion of inspection, to return the original of State’s exhibit 25, State's exhibit 26 and Defendant’s exhibit 1, to the clerk of the 405th District Court.

PER CURIAM
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

DENNIS J. CLINTON, AKA Dennis Lee

Clinton,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 13-50579

D.C. No. 8:08-cr-00176-DOC-7

MEMORANDUM*

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

WILLIAM JOSEPH FERRY,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 13-50582

D.C. No. 8:08-cr-00176-DOC-5

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

David O. Carter, District Judge, Presiding

FILED

OCT 29 2015

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Submitted October 20, 2015** 

Pasadena, California

Before: IKUTA and OWENS, Circuit Judges and SESSIONS,*** District Judge.

 

Dennis Clinton and William Ferry appeal convictions for conspiracy, mail

fraud, and wire fraud. Because the parties are familiar with the facts, we do not

recount them except as necessary. Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we

reject the appellants’ claims and affirm.

First, we decline to address Clinton’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim. 

“‘As a general rule,’ we do not review [these] claims on direct appeal” and neither

exception to the rule applies here. See United States v. Benford, 574 F.3d 1228,

1231 (9th Cir. 2009). 

Second, the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding evidence

of a co-defendant’s dismissal as more prejudicial than probative. The dismissal

was not probative of the appellants’ guilt or innocence and evidence of the

dismissal created an “undue tendency” that the jury would rely on an improper

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

 *** The Honorable William K. Sessions III, District Judge for the U.S.

District Court for the District of Vermont, sitting by designation.

2 13-50579
basis to decide the case. See United States v. Gonzalez-Flores, 418 F.3d 1093,

1098 (9th Cir. 2005); United States v. Hitt, 981 F.2d 422, 424 (9th Cir. 1992).

Third, the district court did not err when it held an ex parte hearing with the

government concerning the co-defendant’s dismissal. The district court properly

reviewed the government’s reasons for dismissing the co-defendant in camera to

determine if the information was exculpatory, and as a result would need to be

disclosed to the defendant. See Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963); United

States v. Alvarez, 358 F.3d 1194, 1208–09 (9th Cir. 2004). 

Fourth, the transcript of the ex parte hearing should remain sealed. After

determining that the transcript was not relevant to the defendants’ defense, and

therefore not Brady material, the district court had no obligation to release it. See

Alvarez, 358 F.3d at 1208. 

Appellant’s motion for judicial notice is denied.

AFFIRMED. 

3 13-50579
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Con. Res. 58 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

114th CONGRESS
  2d Session
S. CON. RES. 58

Expressing the sense of Congress that rates for inmate calling service 
  should not exceed the affordable modified rate caps adopted by the 
                   Federal Communications Commission.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            December 7, 2016

  Mr. Booker submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was 
   referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
Expressing the sense of Congress that rates for inmate calling service 
  should not exceed the affordable modified rate caps adopted by the 
                   Federal Communications Commission.

Whereas an estimated 5,000,000 United States children have, or have had, a 
        parent in prison or jail;
Whereas phone calls make it easier for families of incarcerated individuals to 
        maintain positive relationships with their loved ones who are 
        incarcerated;
Whereas phone calls help to reduce recidivism and promote the well-being of 
        children;
Whereas a reduction in recidivism rates by just 1 percent would save United 
        States taxpayers $250,000,000 per year in correctional costs;
Whereas families of incarcerated individuals frequently experience financial 
        hardship because of the loss of a key wage earner;
Whereas the cost of maintaining contact with incarcerated loved ones through in-
        person visits can be prohibitive;
Whereas written correspondence, especially with small children and disabled 
        individuals, can be an inadequate way of maintaining communication; and
Whereas the Federal Communications Commission has been steadfast in its efforts, 
        in accordance with its authority under the Communications Act of 1934 
        (47 U.S.C. 151 et seq.)--

    (1) to bring about a compromise on inmate calling service rate caps; 
and

    (2) to ensure that those rates are just and reasonable: Now, therefore, 
be it

    Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), 
That it is the sense of Congress that--
            (1) rates for inmate calling service should not exceed the 
        affordable modified rate caps adopted by the Federal 
        Communications Commission as of the date of the adoption of 
        this resolution; and
            (2) reduced inmate calling service rates should be 
        implemented swiftly because of the importance of inmate calling 
        service as a rehabilitative means of communication.
                                 <all>
```
S. J. Res. 22 

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 

Joint Resolution 

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

Code, of the rule submitted by the Corps of Engineers and the Environmental 

Protection Agency relating to the definition of ‘‘waters of the United States’’ 

under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. 

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 Corps of Engineers and 

the Environmental Protection Agency relating to ‘‘Clean Water Rule: 

Definition of ‘Waters of the United States’ ’’ (80 Fed. Reg. 37054; 

June 29, 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.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT DARRELL WARD, DOC #265206, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D17-3380 ) STATE OF FLORIDA, ) ) Appellee. ) ) Opinion filed June 12, 2019. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Pinellas County; Joseph A. Bulone, Judge. Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and William L. Sharwell, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Jonathan P. Hurley, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.

LaROSE, Chief Judge.

Darrell Ward appeals his judgment and sentence for burglary of a structure, a third-degree felony. See § 810.02(4)(a), Fla. Stat. (2015). The trial court sentenced him to thirteen years' imprisonment, with a ten-year mandatory minimum as a violent career criminal. See § 775.084(4)(d), Fla. Stat. (2015). The trial court also entered a restitution order nearly a year before trial. We have jurisdiction. See Fla. R.- 2 -

App. P. 9.030(b)(1)(A). We affirm Mr. Ward's judgment and sentence without further comment; we remand for the trial court to strike the restitution order.

During the pendency of this appeal, Mr. Ward moved to correct a sentencing error pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(2), arguing that the restitution order should be stricken because the order preceded his conviction and the prosecutor did not request restitution at the sentencing hearing. The State explained that the parties discussed restitution at a pretrial hearing but that the trial court did not order restitution. It is also apparent the trial court did not impose restitution at the sentencing hearing.

The trial court correctly granted the motion and ordered the clerk to strike the restitution order. Cf. Hollins v. State, 881 So. 2d 86, 87 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004) ("Restitution is a mandated part of sentencing and must be imposed at the time of sentencing or within sixty days thereafter."); cf. also Socorro v. State, 901 So. 2d 940, 941 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005) ("Prior to ordering restitution, a trial court must determine that: (1) the damage or loss for which restitution is ordered was caused directly or indirectly by defendant's offense; and (2) there is a significant relationship between the damage to the victim and the crime proved." (emphasis added)). The record reflects no subsequent action by the clerk. The State concedes that remand is appropriate.

We affirm Mr. Ward's judgment and sentence. We remand for the trial court to enter an order directing the clerk to strike the August 30, 2016, restitution order.

Affirmed and remanded with directions. KHOUZAM and SLEET, JJ., Concur.