alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
S. Con. Res. 31 Agreed to February 12, 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), That when the Senate recesses or adjourns on any day from 

Thursday, February 11, 2016, through Saturday, February 20, 2016, 

on a motion offered pursuant to this concurrent resolution by its 

Majority Leader or his designee, it stand recessed or adjourned 

until 12:00 noon on Monday, February 22, 2016, or such other 

time on that day as may be specified by its Majority Leader or 

his designee in the motion to recess or adjourn, or until the time 

of any reassembly pursuant to section 2 of this concurrent resolution, whichever occurs first; and that when the House adjourns 

on any legislative day from Friday, February 12, 2016, through 

Tuesday, February 16, 2016, on a motion offered pursuant to this 

concurrent resolution by its Majority Leader or his designee, it 

stand adjourned until 2:00 p.m. on Tuesday, February 23, 2016, 

or until the time of any reassembly pursuant to section 3 of this 

concurrent resolution, whichever occurs first. 

SEC. 2. (a) The Majority Leader of the Senate or his designee, 

after concurrence with the Minority Leader of the Senate, shall 

notify the Members of the Senate 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 

Senate adjourns on a motion offered pursuant to this subsection 

by its Majority Leader or his designee, the Senate shall again 

stand adjourned pursuant to the first section of this concurrent 

resolution. 

SEC. 3. (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 
S. Con. Res. 31—2 

stand adjourned pursuant to the first section of this concurrent 

resolution. 

Attest: 

Secretary of the Senate. 

Attest: 

Clerk of the House of Representatives.
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

2008-1448

(Opposition No. 91/157,313)

IN RE BOSE CORPORATION,

Appellant.

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office,

Trademark and Trial Appeal Board.

ON MOTION

ORDER

Bose Corporation moves without opposition for leave to file a reply appendix.

Upon consideration thereof,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

The motion is granted.

FOR THE COURT

MAR 11 2009 /s/ Jan Horbaly

Date Jan Horbaly

Clerk FED

U.S. COURT OF

IL 

APPEALS FOR

THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT

cc:	Charles Hieken, Esq.

Raymond T. Chen, Esq.

s19

MAR 1 1 2009

JAN HORBAIY

DIRK
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 17

- 40612 Summary Calendar

JASON J. HERNANDEZ , Plaintiff

− Appellant ,

v ersus GREG ABBOTT, Governor of the State of Texas; BRYAN COLLIER, Executive Director, Texas Department o f Criminal Justice; ROBERT GRANT, Program Supervisor V of the Security Threat Group Management Office; TOD HARRIS, Senior Warden , Defendant s − Appellee s

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas No. 9:17

- CV

- 23

Before SMITH, WIENER, and WILLETT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: *

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. 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 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED July 31, 2018 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 17-40612 Document: 00514578508 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/31/2018No. 17

- 40612

2 Jason Hernandez, Texas prisoner #1655115, challenge s the denial of h is motion for class certification. He filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging civil rights violations by state and prison officials against prisoners in solitary confinement at Polunksy Security Housing Unit. He contends that the district
court abused its discretion when it denied class certi fi cation , and he questions
the order of the magistrate judge (“MJ”) severing the claims into separate suits
and the denial of his motion for appointment of counsel . He also moves for a preliminary injunction on b ehalf of the class based on inade quate medical care and lack of access to courts ; he seeks leave to amend that pleading.
A party wish ing to appeal a denial of class certification must petition this court for leave to do so. F ED

. R. C IV

. P. 23 (f). We pre termit whether Hernandez has complied with that requirement because as we deny relief on other grounds. T his court has wide discretion under Federal Rule of Civil Proce

dure 23 to permit an appeal from an order denying class certification. See Microsoft Corp. v. Baker , 137 S. Ct. 1702, 1706 (2017). Hernandez has not made a showing that we should exercise that discretion

. See id . at 1710

. Because the parties did not consent to proceed before a n MJ under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1), the orders issued by the MJ are not directly appealable to this

court. See Donaldson v. Ducote , 373 F.3d 622, 624

− 25 (5th Cir. 2004). Hernan

dez also has not shown that he is entitled to injunctive relief from this court in the first instance

. See Byrum v. Landreth , 566 F.3d 442, 445 (5th Cir. 2009) ; Greene v. Fair , 314 F.2d 200, 202 (5th Cir. 1963)

. P ermission to appeal the denial of class certification is DENIED. The appeal of the severance order and of the denial of counsel is DISMISSED for

want of jurisdiction. Hernandez’s motion for a preliminary injunction is DENIED, and his motion to amend is GRANTED. Any other outstanding
motions are DENIED. Case: 17-40612 Document: 00514578508 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/31/2018
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.                  

###### Department of Commerce

###### Foreign-Trade Zones Board

          - [S-135-2017]

An application has been submitted to the Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the Board) by the New Jersey Department of State, grantee of FTZ 44, requesting subzone status for the facility of Ekornes Inc. (Ekornes), located in Somerset, New Jersey. The application was submitted pursuant to the provisions of the Foreign-Trade Zones Act, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), and the regulations of the Board (15 CFR part 400). It was formally docketed on September 7, 2017.

The proposed subzone (2.25 acres) is located at 615 Pierce Street, Somerset, New Jersey. No authorization for production activity has been requested at this time. The proposed subzone would be subject to the existing activation limit of FTZ 44.

In accordance with the Board's regulations, Kathleen Boyce of the FTZ Staff is designated examiner to review the application and make recommendations to the Executive Secretary.

Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions shall be addressed to the Board's Executive Secretary at the address below. The closing period for their receipt is October 23, 2017. Rebuttal comments in response to material submitted during the foregoing period may be submitted during the subsequent 15-day period to November 6, 2017.

                    A copy of the application will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Executive Secretary, Foreign-Trade Zones Board, Room 21013, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230-0002, and in the “Reading Room” section of the Board's Web site, which is accessible via                     *www.trade.gov/​ftz.*

                    For further information, contact Kathleen Boyce at                     *Kathleen.Boyce@trade.gov*                     or (202) 482-1346.                

Dated: September 7, 2017.

Andrew McGilvray,

Executive Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2017-19297 Filed 9-11-17; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
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.                  

###### Postal Service

# AGENCY:

                        Postal ServiceTM.                    

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add Global Expedited Package Services 8 product to the Competitive Products List.

# DATES:

*Date of notice required under 39 U.S.C. 3642(d)(1):*                         September 12, 2017.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Donald W. Ross, (973) 477-4406.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642, on September 5, 2017, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a Request of The United States Postal Service to add Global Expedited Package Services 8 to the Competitive Products List. Documents are available                           ( print page 42860)                        at                     *www.prc.gov,*                     Docket Nos. MC2017-183 and CP2017-284.                

Stanley F. Mires,

Attorney, Federal Compliance.

[FR Doc. 2017-19237 Filed 9-11-17; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
Exhibit 32.2
 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
 PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  (a)
    
    the Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended September 30, 2008 filed on the
date hereof with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report) fully complies with
the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934; and
 (b)
    
    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 By:
    /s/ JOHN R. TROKA, JR.John R. Troka, Jr.Interim Chief Financial Officer
(logo) **Rialto**

          CAPITAL

 

 

2015 Annual Statement of Servicer Compliance (Item 1123)

 

 

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

 

The undersigned, a duly authorized 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 the Pooling and Servicing Agreement are performed on behalf of the Special Servicer.

 

2. A review of the servicing activities and performance by the Special Servicer for the period of January 1, 2015 to December 31, 2015 (the "Reporting Period") in accordance with the Pooling and Servicing Agreement has been conducted under my supervision.

 

3. To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Special Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the terms of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement, in all material respects for the Reporting Period and if there has been a failure to fulfill any such obligations in any material respect, each failure and the nature and status thereof has been specifically identified herein.

 

 

| Certified by: /s/ Adam Singer

Adam Singer, Managing Director

  | Date: March 1, 2016 |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------|
IIA 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. J. RES. 28 

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

States Code, of the rule submitted by the Secretary of Agriculture 

relating to inspection of fish of the order Siluriformes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

DECEMBER 10, 2015 

Mr. MCCAIN (for himself and Ms. AYOTTE) introduced the following joint resolution; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry 

JOINT RESOLUTION 

Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of 

title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by 

the Secretary of Agriculture relating to inspection of 

fish of the order Siluriformes. 

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 That Congress disapproves the rule submitted by the Sec4 retary of Agriculture relating to ‘‘Mandatory Inspection 

5 of Fish of the Order Siluriformes and Products Derived 

6 From Such Fish’’ (80 Fed. Reg. 75590; December 2, 

7 2015), and such rule shall have no force or effect. 

Æ 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          FEB-01-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             FEB-04-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               NOV-02-1996
<CASH>                                            9030
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    17562
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     339178
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                385182
<PP&E>                                          176219
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  755429
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           309336
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           115
<OTHER-SE>                                    (204391)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    755429
<SALES>                                        1111737
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               1121645
<CGS>                                           794767
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   794767
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                479646
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                6837
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (159605)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (159605)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (159605)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (13.99)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (13.99)
        

</TABLE>
#### SAMUEL JONES v. STEPHEN VAIL.

New trial applied for on the ground that a witness for the defendant made-statements in the hearing of some of the jury which might have influenced tlie verdict, but refused, as it appears that there was no evil intention, that the defendant had no concern in the transaction and that the verdict was satisfactory to the court.

This was an action of assumpsit, tried before Mr. Justice Brown at tlie Morris Circuit Court. A verdict having been rendered for the defendant, a rule to show cause why there should not be a new trial was allowed, which was argued at June term, 1862, by *Theodore Little,*for the plaintiff, and *Vanatta,*for defendant, before Justices Haines, Van Dyke,, and Elmer. The Chief Justice, having been counsel in. the case, did not sit.

*136The opinion of the court was delivered by

Elmer, J.

The first ground relied upon for a new trial-was that the verdict was against the weight of evidence. A •careful examination of the evidence has satisfied me that the verdict was correct. It may be added that it was satisfactory to the judge who tried the case, and that the rule to show •cause was not allowed because of any doubt on this question.

The second reason urged, namely, that the jury was improperly influenced by the conversation of a person acting as •the agent of the defendant, or intimately connected with him, presents a question of more difficulty. Was it fully ■supported by the depositions produced to ¡prove it, or was there reason to suspect that what took place was in any way produced, or even connived at, by the party in Avhose favor the verdict was rendered, there could be no hesitation in submitting the case to the decision of another jury. The duty •of guarding trials by jury from all improper influences is too important to allow us to overlook any attempt to interfere with them.

It appears that a prominent witness for the defendant, who had been selected as an assignee, and thus became connected with some of the transactions drawn in question, entered into conversation with a friend, on the piazza of the hotel, during the progress of the trial, and made some statements which, if heard and understood by the jury, might have influenced their decision. Two of the jurors were present, and heard, or might have heard, more or less of this conversation. It satisfactorily appears, however, that it was ■an accidental conversation, and that there was no design to influence the decision of the jury; and it is quite uncertain whether either of the jurymen ¡present heard enough to produce any effect. There is no reason to suspect that the defendant had the slightest participation in the occurrence, directly or indirectly, and wdiat is perhaps more important, there was no evil result, the verdict actually rendered being warranted by the evidence. No improper conduct is imput*137able to any of the jurymen. Had the verdict been of even doubtful propriety, it might be proper to interfere, even at the risk of occasioning great hardship to an innocent party; but as the case is presented, I think the verdict should stand,, and the rule to show cause be discharged.

Rule discharged.
#### Landau, P.C., as Successor, by Change of Name, to Morris J. Eisen, P.C., et al., Appellants, v Larossa, Mitchell & Ross, et al., Respondents.

Submitted December 24, 2007;

decided February 14, 2008

Motion to dismiss the appeal herein denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   OTHER
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-28-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             MAR-22-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-28-1996
<CASH>                                           6,636
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   79,639
<ALLOWANCES>                                    10,153
<INVENTORY>                                     20,555
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               111,969
<PP&E>                                          35,962
<DEPRECIATION>                                   2,362
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 370,700
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           74,584
<BONDS>                                        189,158
<COMMON>                                           320
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            2,546
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                      83,626
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   370,700
<SALES>                                        288,576
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               288,576
<CGS>                                          176,194
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  176,194
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 1,249
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              10,461
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,349
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,691
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                658
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                (1,706)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,048)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 174 (Monday, September 11, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 42688]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-19328]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[Docket No. USCG-2017-0768]


Merchant Marine Personnel Advisory Committee

AGENCY: U.S. Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security.

ACTION: Notice of Federal Advisory Committee meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Merchant Marine Personnel Advisory Committee (MERPAC) 
meeting scheduled for September 14 and 15, 2017 and announced in the 
Federal Register on August 22, 2017 (82 FR 39879) has been cancelled. A 
notice of meeting will be published in the Federal Register when the 
meeting is rescheduled.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Davis J. Breyer, Alternate 
Designated Federal Officer of the Merchant Marine Personnel Advisory 
Committee, 2703 Martin Luther King Jr. Ave. SE., Stop 7509, Washington, 
DC 20593-7509, telephone 202-372-1445, fax 202-372-8382 or 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#ceaaafb8a7bde0a4e0acbcabb7abbc8ebbbdada9e0a3a7a2"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="b3d7d2c5dac09dd99dd1c1d6cad6c1f3c6c0d0d49ddedadf">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Dated: September 7, 2017.
F.J. Sturm,
Acting Director of Commercial Regulations and Standards.
[FR Doc. 2017-19328 Filed 9-7-17; 4:15 pm]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>