alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF AMERICAN RESIDENTIAL SERVICES, INC. AND
SUBSIDIARIES AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                           3,724
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   55,738
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,506
<INVENTORY>                                     17,564
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                85,013
<PP&E>                                          67,378
<DEPRECIATION>                                  36,541
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 317,388
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           49,511
<BONDS>                                        116,041
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            15
<OTHER-SE>                                     147,649
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   317,388
<SALES>                                        272,781
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               272,781
<CGS>                                          194,512
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  194,512
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                56,051
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,955
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 18,086
<INCOME-TAX>                                     7,838
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             10,248
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    10,248
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.71
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.71
        

</TABLE>
CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF HAMPTON

#### Jay-Ton Construction Co., Inc. v. Bowen Construction Services, Inc.

Case No. (Law) 02-468

October 23, 2002

November 22, 2002

By Judge Christopher W. Hutton

Along with the Rules of Virginia Supreme Court, I have reviewed the pleadings of the above-styled case and the arguments to those pleadings.

The central issue is a reading of Paragraph 17 of the Defendant’s Verified Grounds of Defense. I find that a logical reading of those two sentences raises a new matter not mentioned in the Motion for Judgment to which the Defendant expressly requested a reply which was not filed.

The failure to reply to a Rule 3:12 request for a reply results in an admission pursuant to Rule 1:4(e). With that admission, the Court must grant Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. I do not feel that I am empowered under the Rules of Virginia Supreme Court and the pleadings of this case to grant Plaintiffs Motion to File Reply. Thus, the Motion for Judgment must be dismissed.

Having considered Mr. Hearne’s Petition to Rehear and Motion for Reconsideration and Mr. Short’s response, I have again reviewed the *531pleadings in this case and will correct error which I now believe I committed in my earlier consideration.

On page 2 of the November 14, 2002, Memorandum, Mr. Short suggests that what Mr. Hearne requests is for me to reconsider and reach a different conclusion. That is perhaps accurate.

I now firmly believe that a granting of Summary Judgment in this case is too drastic a remedy considering not only the discretion allowed me under Rule 1:9 but in light of the procedural history of the pleadings. I had given weight to both of these elements before, but perhaps not enough weight to Jay-Ton’s due diligence in its filings.

I do still rule that Paragraph 17 of the .Grounds of Defense sets up a new matter. Additionally, an appropriate exercise of discretion dictates that the Plaintiff be allowed the filing of alate reply pursuant to Rule 1:9 of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Virginia. > ■
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Con. Res. 3 Engrossed in Senate (ES)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. CON. RES. 3

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

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

SECTION 1. USE OF EMANCIPATION HALL FOR EVENT TO CELEBRATE BIRTHDAY OF 
              KING KAMEHAMEHA.

    (a) Authorization.--Emancipation Hall in the Capitol Visitor Center 
is authorized to be used for an event on June 7, 2015, to celebrate the 
birthday of King Kamehameha I.
    (b) Preparations.--Physical preparations for the conduct of the 
event described in subsection (a) shall be carried out in accordance 
with such conditions as may be prescribed by the Architect of the 
Capitol.

            Passed the Senate April 23, 2015.

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
114th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                             S. CON. RES. 3

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Authorizing the use of Emancipation Hall in the Capitol Visitor Center 
      for an event to celebrate the birthday of King Kamehameha I.
```
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2338 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 2338

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           November 29, 2012

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security 
                        and Governmental Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
    at 600 Florida Avenue in Cocoa, Florida, as the ``Harry T. and 
                     Harriette Moore Post Office''.

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

SECTION 1. HARRY T. AND HARRIETTE MOORE POST OFFICE.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 600 Florida Avenue in Cocoa, Florida, shall be known and 
designated as the ``Harry T. and Harriette Moore Post Office''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Harry T. 
and Harriette Moore Post Office''.

            Passed the House of Representatives November 28, 2012.

            Attest:

                                                 KAREN L. HAAS,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-20599

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JUAN A. TREVINO

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:02-CR-36-4

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

PER CURIAM:*

Juan A. Trevino appeals the 210-month sentence imposed following his

resentencing for possession with intent to distribute marijuana.

The Government argues that the appeal waiver Trevino signed as a part

of his plea agreement bars this appeal. During Trevino’s first appeal, this court

held that the Government forfeited its ability to invoke Trevino’s appeal waiver

by not asking this court to enforce it. See United States v. Trevino, 125 F. App’x

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

January 23, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 05-20599

2

549, 550 n. 2 (5th Cir. 2005) (unpublished). This determination is the law of the

case. Accordingly, Trevino’s appeal waiver does not bar this appeal.

Trevino argues that the district court erred in calculating the quantity of

drugs it attributed to him for sentencing purposes. Estimates of the amount of

drugs in controversy are fact questions, which this court reviews for clear error.

United States v. Alford, 142 F.3d 825, 831 (5th Cir. 1998). In this case, officers

seized 461 kilograms of marijuana from Trevino’s property, butthe district court

held Trevino responsible for an additional 3,846 kilograms of marijuana based

on the testimony of a confidential informant. After carefully reviewing the

record and considering oral arguments from both parties, we hold that the

district court did not clearly err in assessing the confidential informant’s

credibility or in using the extrapolation method to calculate the drug quantity

it attributed to Trevino.

We also rejectTrevino’s contention that his sentence violates UnitedStates

v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005) because it was based upon facts neither proved to

a jury nor admitted by him. As this court has repeatedly held, Booker does not

prevent a sentencing judge from finding all facts relevant to sentencing. See,

e.g., United States v. Alonzo, 435 F.3d 551, 553 (5th Cir 2006).

For these reasons, Trevino’s sentence is AFFIRMED.
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 the Treasury

###### Internal Revenue Service

# AGENCY:

Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

# ACTION:

Notice of meeting.

# SUMMARY:

An open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Special Projects Committee will be conducted. The Taxpayer Advocacy Panel is soliciting public comments, ideas, and suggestions on improving customer service at the Internal Revenue Service.

# DATES:

The meeting will be held Tuesday, October 10, 2017.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Matthew O'Sullivan at 1-888-912-1227 or (510) 907-5274.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    Notice is hereby given pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) that a meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Special Projects Committee will be held Tuesday, October 10, 2017, at 1:00 p.m. Eastern Time via teleconference. The public is invited to make oral comments or submit written statements for consideration. Due to limited conference lines, notification of intent to participate must be made with                           ( print page 42725)                        Matthew O'Sullivan. For more information please contact Matthew O'Sullivan at 1-888-912-1227 or (510) 907-5274, or write TAP Office, 1301 Clay Street, Oakland, CA 94612-5217 or contact us at the Web site:                     *http://www.improveirs.org.*                     The agenda will include various IRS issues.                

The agenda will include a discussion on various special topics with IRS processes.

Dated: September 1, 2017.

Antoinette Ross,

Acting Director, Taxpayer Advocacy Panel.

[FR Doc. 2017-19200 Filed 9-8-17; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
EXHIBIT
32.2



CERTIFICATION
OF THE chief FINANCIAL
OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. sECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In
connection with the Quarterly Report (the "Report") of Digerati Technologies, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-Q for the period ending January 31, 2013, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Antonio
Estrada Jr., the Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,



| | 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 in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
                                         and results of operations of the Company.



|By | /s/
    Antonio Estrada Jr. | 
|-- | --------------------------- | 
|   | Antonio
    Estrada Jr.     | 
|   | Chief
    Financial Officer | 
|   | January
    20, 2015        |
UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20549  FORM 10-Q/A (Amendment No. 1) (Mark One)  x
        QUARTERLY REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OFTHE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934  For the quarterly period ended September 30, 2005.  OR  o
        TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OFTHE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934  For the transition period from ___________ to ____________.  Commission file number:000-22673  SCHICK TECHNOLOGIES, INC. (Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)  Delaware
(State or other jurisdiction of
incorporation or organization)
11-3374812
(IRS Employer
Identification No.)   30-00 47th Avenue, Long Island City, NY 11101 (Address of principal executive offices) (Zip Code)  Registrants telephone number, including area code: (718) 937-5765  Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act: None  Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act: Common stock, par value $.01 per share  Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days.  Yes
        x
        No
        o  Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is an accelerated filer (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act).  Yes
        x
        No
        o  As of November 6, 2005, 16,170,463 shares of common stock, par value $.01 per share, were outstanding.     EXPLANATORY NOTE



This Amendment No. 1 to our Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended September 30, 2005 is being filed solely for the purpose of correcting certain inadvertent omissions in the certifications filed as Exhibits 31.1 and 31.2 thereto. This Amendment No. 1 does not change or update any of the Companys previously reported financial statements or any other disclosure contained in the original Form 10-Q.



  
  PART
    II  OTHER INFORMATION
  
  Item
            6. Exhibits31.1
      
      Certification
          of Chief Executive Officer pursuant to the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 200231.2
      
      Certification
          of Principal Financial Officer pursuant to the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
          2002SCHICK TECHNOLOGIES, INC.



SIGNATURES



Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has duly caused this Report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned thereunto duly authorized.




SCHICK TECHNOLOGIES, INC.Date: March 24, 2006
        
        By:
        /s/ Jeffrey T. SlovinJeffrey T. SlovinChief Executive OfficerBy:
        /s/ Ronald RosnerRonald RosnerDirector of Finance and Administration(Principal Financial Officer)



EXHIBIT INDEX




Exhibit No.
        
        Description31.1
        
        Certification of Chief Executive Officer pursuant to the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 200231.2
        
        Certification of Principal Financial Officer pursuant to the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2369 

To amend title 36, United States Code, to provide for an additional power 

for the American Legion under its Federal charter. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 24, 2011 

Mr. ALTMIRE (for himself and Mr. ROONEY) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend title 36, United States Code, to provide for an 

additional power for the American Legion under its Federal charter. 

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

3 SECTION 1. ADDITIONAL POWER OF AMERICAL LEGION 

4 UNDER FEDERAL CHARTER. 

5 Section 2104 of title 36, United States Code, is 

6 amended— 

7 (1) in paragraph (7), by striking ‘‘and’’ at the 

8 end; 

9 (2) by redesignating paragraph (8) as para10 graph (9); and 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2369 IH

1 (3) by inserting after paragraph (7) the fol2 lowing new paragraph (8): 

3 ‘‘(8) provide guidance and leadership to the in4 dividual Departments and Posts, but may not con5 trol or otherwise influence the specific activities and 

6 conduct of the independent, autonomous Depart7 ments and Posts; and’’. 

Æ 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
| (logo) WELLS FARGO | **Corporate Trust Services**MAC R1204-0109062 Old Annapolis RoadColumbia, MD 21045Tel: 410 884 2000 Fax: 410 715 2380 |
|--------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

Morgan Stanley Capital I Inc.

1585 Broadway

New York, New York 10036

 

 

RE: Annual Statement of Compliance for Morgan Stanley Bank of America Merrill Lynch Trust 2013-C10 Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2013-C10

 

Per the Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of July 1, 2013 (the "Agreement"), the undersigned, a duly authorized officer of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as Certificate Administrator ("Wells Fargo"), hereby certifies as follows as of and for the year ending December 31, 2015 (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, 2016

/s/ BRIAN SMITH

BRIAN SMITH

Vice President

 

 

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
1 The Honorable Charles A. Shaw, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri. ___________ No. 95-3050

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Eastern District of Missouri. William T. Moore, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: February 6, 1996 Filed: February 9, 1996

___________ Before McMILLIAN, WOLLMAN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM.

William T. Moore appeals the year-and-a-day sentence imposed by the district court 1following his guilty plea to possession of stolen property, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 659. We affirm.

From 1987 until 1992, Moore stole items from air freight shipments at Lambert-St. Louis International Airport. To facilitate the thefts, Moore enlisted the aid of four other individuals, who assisted him at various times throughout the course of the criminal activity. Moore sold most of the stolen items to two "fences." At sentencing, the district court assessed a four-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(a), after finding that Moore was the leader or organizer of criminal activity that-2- involved five or more participants. On appeal, Moore argues the district court erred because neither he nor the "fences" could be considered "participants," and because the criminal activity never involved five participants at one time.

Under section 3B1.1(a), a district court must increase a defendant's offense level if he was an organizer or leader of a criminal activity that involved five or more participants, or that was otherwise extensive. "A `participant' is a person who is criminally responsible for the commission of the offense, but need not have been convicted." U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1, comment. (n.1). We have previously held that a defendant "is counted as a participant in the criminal activity." United States v. Kenyon , 7 F.3d 783, 785-86 (8th Cir. 1993) (citing United States v. Harry , 960 F.2d 51, 54 (8th Cir. 1992)). Even assuming "fences" are not counted for purposes of section 3B1.1(a), the district court correctly determined that the criminal activity involved five participants. First, Moore's role in the offense is determined based on all his relevant conduct and not solely on the act of conviction. See U.S.S.G. Ch.3, Pt.B, intro. comment. Second, the record shows that four other individuals helped Moore facilitate the theft of the items, and that these individuals were also criminally responsible. We reject Moore's assertion that the criminal activity must involve five or more participants "at any one time." Accordingly, we conclude the district court did not clearly err in assessing the section 3B1.1(a) enhancement. See United States v. Smith , 62 F.3d 1073, 1079 (8th Cir. 1995) (standard of review), cert. denied , 1995 WL 761706 (U.S. Jan. 22, 1996) (No. 95-7191).

The judgment is affirmed.-3- A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.