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

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. RES. 169 

Expressing condolences to the family of Dr. Warren Weinstein, and 

commemorating the life and work of Dr. Warren Weinstein. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 5, 2015 

Mr. CARDIN (for himself and Ms. MIKULSKI) submitted the following 

resolution; which was considered and agreed to 

RESOLUTION 

Expressing condolences to the family of Dr. Warren 

Weinstein, and commemorating the life and work of Dr. 

Warren Weinstein. 

Whereas Dr. Warren Weinstein was abducted in Lahore, 

Pakistan on August 13, 2011, and was held captive by 

al-Qaeda for nearly 4 years; 

Whereas Dr. Warren Weinstein is widely recognized as a 

scholar and humanitarian who devoted his life to improving the lives of men, women, and children around the 

world; 

Whereas Dr. Warren Weinstein selflessly suffered financial 

hardships and separation from his family, as many foreign service, military, development, and journalism personnel do, in order to serve the greater good and those 

in need; 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•SRES 169 ATS 

Whereas Dr. Warren Weinstein was a Fulbright scholar who 

earned a master’s degree and a Ph.D. in international 

law and economics from Columbia University; 

Whereas Dr. Warren Weinstein served as a tenured professor 

with the political science department at SUNY Oswego; 

Whereas Dr. Warren Weinstein served for 9 years at the Africa Bureau of the United States Agency for International Development and for 7 years at the International Finance Corporation, a division of the World 

Bank Group; 

Whereas Dr. Warren Weinstein served as a Peace Corps Director in Togo and Ivory Coast; 

Whereas Dr. Warren Weinstein served for 7 years as a development advisor in Pakistan for J.E. & Austin Associates, 

a contractor to the United States Agency for International Development; 

Whereas Dr. Warren Weinstein was proficient in at least 7 

languages; 

Whereas Dr. Warren Weinstein had a home in Rockville, 

Maryland, where he lived with his family; and 

Whereas Dr. Warren Weinstein is survived by his wife, 2 

daughters, a son-in-law, a granddaughter, and a grandson: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the Senate— 

2 (1) mourns the death of Dr. Warren Weinstein 

3 and expresses condolences to his family; 

4 (2) salutes Dr. Warren Weinstein for his life5 long commitment to humanitarian development work 

6 in challenging and dangerous circumstances; 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•SRES 169 ATS 

1 (3) calls on the United States to make the re2 turn of all citizens of the United States held captive 

3 abroad, regardless of the different circumstances, a 

4 top priority and to provide a coordinated and con5 sistent approach to supporting hostages and the 

6 families of the hostages; and 

7 (4) respectfully requests that the Secretary of 

8 the Senate transmit an enrolled copy of this resolu9 tion to the family of Dr. Warren Weinstein. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
EXHIBIT 35.1





SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT





I, Julia A. Sloat, certify that:





(a) A review of Ohio Power Company’s (the “Servicer”) activities during the reporting period covered by this Report on Form 10-K and of its performance under that certain Servicing Agreement dated as of August 1, 2013 between Ohio Phase-In-Recovery Funding LLC, as the Issuing Entity, and the Servicer (the "Servicing Agreement") has been made under my supervision.





(b) To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Servicing Agreement in all material respects throughout the reporting period.








Date: March 27, 2015





/s/ Julia A. Sloat


Name:  Julia A. Sloat


Title: Treasurer and Senior Officer in Charge of


the Servicing Function, Ohio Power Company, as Servicer
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 11**  **- 1358** 

EDWARD C. DEDRICK , Plaintiff

– Appellant ,

v. JOHN BERRY, Director, U.S. Office of Personnel Management; JOHN MCHUGH, Secretary of the U.S. Army , Defendants

– A ppellees

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland , at Baltimore

. William D. Quarles, Jr. , District Judge. ( 1:07

- cv - 00429

- WDQ )

Submitted : August 25, 2011 Decided: September 7, 2011

Before KING, DUNCAN, and AGE E , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Edward C. Dedrick, Appellant Pro Se. Neil R. White, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circui t.2 PER CURIAM: Edward C. Dedrick appeals the district court’s order denying his summary judgment motion and granting Defendants’

cross - motion for summary judgment on Dedrick’s action seeking
review of the Merit Systems Protection Board’s order denying his claim for disability retirement benefits under the Civil Service
Reform Act, 5 U.S.C.A. § 1101 et seq. (West 2007 & Supp. 2011)

. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. See Dedrick
v. Berry , No. 1:07

- cv - 00429

- WDQ (D. Md. Feb. 28, 2011). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
**Exhibit 99.1**

**Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

To the Stockholders and the Board of Directors of 

InvestcorpCredit Management BDC, Inc.

Our audits of the consolidated financial statements referred to in our report dated September 21, 2020, (appearing in theaccompanying Form 10-K) also included an audit of the senior securities table of Investcorp Credit Management BDC, Inc. and Subsidiaries (formerly CM Finance Inc) (the Company) appearing in Part II,Item 7 in the accompanying Form 10-K. This table is the responsibility of the Company’s management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion based on our audits of the consolidated financialstatements. 

In our opinion, the senior securities table, when considered in relation to the basic consolidated financial statements taken as a whole,presents fairly in all material respects the information set forth therein. 

/s/ RSM US LLP 

New York, New York 

September 21, 2020
Exhibit 31.1

Certification of Chief Executive Officer

Pursuant to Rule 13a-14(a) Under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934

I, Brenton L. Saunders, President and Chief Executive Officer, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A of Allergan plc and Warner Chilcott Limited; and

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.

Date: April 4, 2016



By:

/s/    BRENTON L.
SAUNDERSBrenton L. SaundersPresident and Chief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer)
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 169 (Friday, September 1, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 41651]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-18689]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

[USITC SE-17-038]


Government in the Sunshine Act Meeting Notice

Agency Holding the Meeting:  United States International Trade 
Commission.

Time and Date:  September 7, 2017 at 9:30 a.m.

Place:  Room 101, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, Telephone: 
(202) 205-2000.

Status:  Open to the public.

Matters to be Considered: 
    1. Agendas for future meetings: None.
    2. Minutes.
    3. Ratification List.
    4. Vote in Inv. No. 731-TA-539-C (Fourth Review) (Uranium from 
Russia). The Commission is currently scheduled to complete and file its 
determination and views of the Commission by September 20, 2017.
    5. Outstanding action jackets: None.
    In accordance with Commission policy, subject matter listed above, 
not disposed of at the scheduled meeting, may be carried over to the 
agenda of the following meeting.

    By order of the Commission.

    Issued: August 29, 2017.
William R. Bishop,
Supervisory Hearings and Information Officer.
[FR Doc. 2017-18689 Filed 8-30-17; 11:15 am]
 BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_________________________________________ Clerk February 6, 2013

h0130 

# Order

February 6, 2013

145702

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v SC: 145702

COA: 301762

Saginaw CC: 03

- 022744

- FC

CHARLES HENRY ARTHUR,

Defendant

- Appellee.

____________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 26, 2012

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.302(H)(1), in

lieu of granting leave to appeal, we REMAND this case to the Saginaw Circuit Court for

an evide ntiary hearing regarding the decision to keep the defendant in shackles during the

trial. We ORDER the trial court to articulate with particularity, on the record, its reasons

for requiring the defendant to wear shackles at his jury trial. The court shal l receive

evidence and make findings of fact regarding: (1) whether the physical restraints were

justified under Deck v Missouri , 544 US 622; 125 S Ct 2007; 161 L Ed 2d 953 (2005),

and (2) whether those restraints were visible to any jurors, either during jury selection or

afterward. We DIRECT the trial court to commence the hearing within 35 days of the

date of this order. We further ORDER that court to submit a transcript of the hearing,

along with its findings of fact and conclusions of law, to the Cl erk of this Court within 28

days of the conclusion of the hearing.

We retain jurisdiction.
Affirmation of Subordination Agreement between Ashutosh Roy and Comerica Bank



 Exhibit 10.2 
 AFFIRMATION OF SUBORDINATION AGREEMENT 
 THIS AFFIRMATION OF SUBORDINATION
AGREEMENT (this “Affirmation”) is made as of December 28, 2011, by the undersigned creditor (“Creditor”) for the benefit of COMERICA BANK (“Bank”) 

RECITALS 

A. eGain Communications Corporation, a Delaware corporation (“Borrower”) and Bank are parties to that certain Loan and
Security Agreement dated as of June 27, 2011 (as modified, amended, restated, supplemented, revised or replaced, the “Agreement”). Borrower and Bank propose to enter into a First Amendment to Loan and Security Agreement dated
as of December 28, 2011 (the “Amendment”). 
 B. Creditor executed for the benefit of Bank a Subordination
Agreement, dated as of June 27, 2011 (as amended from time to time, the “Subordination Agreement”). Bank has agreed to enter into the Amendment provided, among other things, that, Creditor acknowledges the entry by Borrower
into the Amendment and agrees that its Subordination Agreement will remain effective. 
 AGREEMENT 

NOW, THEREFORE, Creditor agrees as follows: 
 1. Creditor acknowledges the execution, delivery and performance by Borrower of the Amendment, as well as all other amendments and modifications to the Agreement, both now existing or hereafter arising.
The Subordination Agreement shall remain in full force and effect with respect to Borrower’s obligations to Bank under the Agreement and otherwise. 
 2. Creditor affirms its obligations under the Subordination Agreement. 
 3. Unless
otherwise defined, capitalized terms in this Affirmation shall have the meaning assigned in the Subordination Agreement or the Agreement, as applicable. 
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this Affirmation of Subordination Agreement as of the first date above written. 

 

	
	“Creditor”
	
	         /s/ Ashutosh Roy

	ASHUTOSH ROY
EXHIBIT 31.1





CERTIFICATION





I, Julia A. Sloat, certify that:





1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of Ohio Phase-In-Recovery Funding LLC (the "Exchange Act periodic reports");





2. Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do 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, all of the distribution, servicing and other information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;





4. I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by Ohio Power Company, as Servicer, and based on my knowledge and the compliance review conducted in preparing the servicer compliance statement required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicer has fulfilled its obligations under the Servicing Agreement dated as of August 1, 2013 between Ohio Phase-In-Recovery Funding LLC, as the Issuing Entity, and the Servicer, in all material respects; and





5. All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities and the related attestation reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rule 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwise disclosed in this report. Any material instances of noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.





6. In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties: U.S. Bank National Association, as Indenture Trustee.








Date: March 27, 2015/s/ Julia A. SloatName:  Julia A. SloatTitle: Treasurer and Senior Officer in Charge of the Servicing Function, Ohio Power Company, as Servicer
#### Shamsideen ADAMOH-FANIYAN, Plaintiff, v. Lynne A. McCONNELL, Defendant.

Civ. A. No. 84-498.

United States District Court, District of Columbia.

Jan. 4, 1985.

Douglas R. Stevens, Washington, D.C., for plaintiff.

Elizabeth J. Haegelin, Washington, D.C., for defendant.

ORDER

JOHN H. PRATT, District Judge.

Upon consideration of defendant’s motion to dismiss or for summary judgment, plaintiff’s opposition thereto and the entire record herein, and it appearing that the plaintiff at the time of the accident on January 16, 1984 was driving his taxicab and that taxi cabs, with certain exceptions not here relevant, are exempt from the provisions of the D.C. Compulsory-No-Fault Motor Vehicle Insurance Act of 1982, D.C.Code § 35-2111(e), it is by the court this 3rd day of January, 1985.

ORDERED that defendant’s motion to dismiss be and the same hereby is denied.*

*

 On December 7, 1984 Judge Gasch of this court held invalid the $5,000 threshold as a prerequisite for filing suit. *Dimond, et al. v. District of Columbia, et al.,*Civil Action No. 83-1938 (D.D.C.1984).
**EXHIBIT 11.0**Computation of Earnings per ShareThe following represents the computation of earnings per share reflecting the assumption that thegranted shares under the option and warrants plan which would be dilutive will be exercised.                   Three Months Ended Sept. 30,  Nine Months Ended Sept. 30,   2007  2006  2007  2006               (Restated) Net earnings applicable to commonshareholders, basic $17,023  $1,173,841  $701,694  $888,124 Less: Change in fair value of warrants  —   —   —   (841,215)             Net earnings, diluted $17,023  $1,173,841  $701,694  $46,909                               Weighted average common sharesoutstanding, basic  19,834,858   18,963,948   19,618,221   17,665,550 Common share equivalents relating to:                Stock options  643,156   586,714   647,851   740,428 Warrants  355,588   —   278,124   4,055 Restricted stock  33,333   —   33,149   —              Weighted average common sharesoutstanding, diluted  20,866,935   19,550,662   20,577,345   18,410,033                               Net earnings per share:                Basic $0.00  $0.06  $0.04  $0.05 Diluted $0.00  $0.06  $0.03  $0.00                  Anti-dilutive preferred stock, stockoptions and warrants not included inthe diluted earnings per sharecomputations  15,000   2,807,156   285,500   3,696,136      See notes to consolidated financial statements.
#### Jorge Alberto TREJO-GONZALES, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 06-73718.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 20, 2007 *.

Filed Dec. 28, 2007.

*747Deborah K. Burlinski, Esq., Burlinski Law Office, LLC, Anchorage, AK, for Petitioner.

Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, WWS-District Counsel, Immigration and Naturalization Service Office of the District Counsel, Seattle, WA, David E. Dauenheimer, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Offiee of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Jorge Alberto Trejo-Gonzales, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for special rule cancellation of removal. To the extent we have jurisdiction, it is pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We dismiss the petition for review in part and deny it in part.

We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s discretionary decision to deny Trejo-Gonzales cancellation of removal. *See*8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii); *Fernandez v. Gonzales,*439 F.3d 592, 599 n. 5 (9th Cir.2006).

Reviewing de novo, we conclude that Trejo-Gonzales’s due process contentions are unpersuasive. He was not deprived of a full and fair hearing by the admission of a police report and the foster parents’ letter. Nor has he demonstrated that he was prejudiced by the fact that he did not receive documents regarding his prior asylum claim until after his removal hearing. *See Lata v. INS,*204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir.2000) (“To prevail on a due process challenge to deportation proceedings, [a petitioner] must show error and substantial prejudice.”). We note that these documents were not submitted to the BIA.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-25-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             DEC-27-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-25-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                           7,928
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   91,153
<ALLOWANCES>                                     3,442
<INVENTORY>                                     19,749
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               137,652
<PP&E>                                          76,944
<DEPRECIATION>                                  23,118
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 424,902
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           71,682
<BONDS>                                        333,701
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           320
<OTHER-SE>                                       1,261
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   424,902
<SALES>                                        467,001
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               467,001
<CGS>                                          165,701
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  165,701
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 1,991
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              23,671
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (2,800)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (1,358)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,442)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                (2,173)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (3,615)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

JUAN PABLO VAZQUEZ,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 310 MAL 2017

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 22nd day of August, 2017

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED

.
Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

Heritage SNF d/b/a Heritage Plaza Nursing 

and Rehabilitation Center, Appellant

No. 06-15-00070-CV v.

George Fisher, Individually and as 

Independent Executor of the Estate of 

Wilmer Giddens, Deceased, Appellee

Appeal from the County Court at Law of 

Bowie County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 06-

C1701-CCL). Memorandum Opinion 

delivered by Justice Burgess, Chief Justice 

Morriss and Justice Moseley participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find that the motion of the appellant to 

dismiss the appeal should be granted. Therefore, we dismiss the appeal.

We further order that each party shall bear its own costs of appeal.

RENDERED NOVEMBER 17, 2015

BY ORDER OF THE COURT

JOSH R. MORRISS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST:

Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
Order filed July 27 , 2021

.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 21

- 00 305

- CV

____________ JERLENE BATISTE , Appellant

V. CARLA ARMAUND; KINGWOOD PINES HOSPITAL, LLC; RAYMOND

BATISTE; AND JERRI SETHNA, MD , Appellee s

On Appeal from the County Civil Court at Law No. 1

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 1153306

- 102



### ORDER
No reporter’s record has been filed in this case. On June 23 , 2021, the court reporter informed this court the reporter’s record h ad not been requested or paid for.
W e w ill consider and decide those issues that do not require a reporter ’ s record unless appellant, within fifteen days of the date of this order, provide s this court with proof that (1) a request to prepare the reporter’s record has been made; and (2) arrangements to pay for the reporter’s record have been made. See T ex. R. App

.2

P. 37.3(c). If appellant does not provide this court with such proof, appellant’s brief in this appeal will be due forty

- five days from the date of this order , or 30 days after the clerk’s record is provided to this court, whichever is later

.

PER CURIAM

Panel Consists of Justices Bourliot, Poissant, and Wilson.