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

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2612 

To amend the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection 

Act to repeal the authority of the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection to prohibit certain acts or practices. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 21, 2011 

Mr. MACK (for himself, Mr. GOSAR, Mr. GOWDY, and Mr. ROSS of Florida) 

introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Financial Services, and in addition to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in 

each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To amend the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act to repeal the authority of the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection to prohibit certain acts or practices. 

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

3 SECTION 1. REPEAL. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1031 of the Dodd-Frank 

5 Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act is here6 by repealed. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2612 IH

1 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.— 

2 (1) DODD-FRANK ACT.—The Dodd-Frank Wall 

3 Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act is 

4 amended— 

5 (A) in the table of contents for such Act, 

6 by striking the item relating to section 1031; 

7 (B) in section 1036(a)— 

8 (i) in paragraph (1)(B), by adding 

9 ‘‘or’’ at the end; 

10 (ii) in paragraph (2)(C), by striking ‘‘; 

11 or’’ and inserting a period; and 

12 (iii) by striking paragraph (3); and 

13 (C) in section 1061(b)(5)— 

14 (i) by amending subparagraph (B) to 

15 read as follows: 

16 ‘‘(B) BUREAU AUTHORITY.—The Bureau 

17 shall have all powers and duties under the enu18 merated consumer laws to prescribe rules, issue 

19 guidelines, or to conduct studies or issue re20 ports mandated by such laws, that were vested 

21 in the Federal Trade Commission on the day 

22 before the designated transfer date.’’; 

23 (ii) by striking subparagraph (D); and 

24 (iii) by redesignating subparagraph 

25 (E) as subparagraph (D). 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 2612 IH

1 (2) TELEMARKETING AND CONSUMER FRAUD

2 AND ABUSE PREVENTION ACT.—Section 3(c) of the 

3 Telemarketing and Consumer Fraud and Abuse Pre4 vention Act is amended to read as follows: 

5 ‘‘(c) VIOLATIONS.—Any violation of any rule pre6 scribed under subsection (a) shall be treated as a violation 

7 of a rule under section 18 of the Federal Trade Commis8 sion Act regarding unfair or deceptive acts or practices.’’. 

Æ 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
#### BAOCHEN XING, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY,* Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 05-75977.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 3, 2007.**

Filed Dec. 28, 2007.

Melissa S. Lee, Esq., City of Industry, CA, for Petitioner.

CAC-District Counsel, Esq., Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Michelle G. Latour, Surell Brady, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Offiee of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.

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

*

 Pursuant to Fed. R.App. P. 43(c)(2), Michael B. Mukasey is substituted for his predecessor, Alberto R. Gonzales, as Attorney General of the United States.

**

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

MEMORANDUM ***

Baochen Xing, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen and reconsider. To the extent we have jurisdiction, it is under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.

We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s May 26, 2006, order dismissing Xing’s direct appeal from the Immigration Judge’s decision because the petition for review is not timely as to that order. *See*8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1); *Singh v. INS,*315 F.3d 1186, 1188 (9th Cir.2003).

Xing has not provided argument on, and has therefore waived any challenge to, the BIA’s denial of his motion to reopen and reconsider. *See Ghahremani v. Gonzales,*498 F.3d 993, 997-98 (9th Cir.2007).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED IN PART; DENIED IN PART’

***

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AND CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF
OPERATIONS OF LAMINATING TECHNOLOGIES, INC. AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                         423,859
<SECURITIES>                                 1,796,965
<RECEIVABLES>                                  126,675<F1>
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    375,590
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,797,725
<PP&E>                                         283,725<F1>
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,081,450
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          293,882
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        31,851
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,751,613
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,081,450
<SALES>                                      1,439,834
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,439,834
<CGS>                                        1,012,798
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,012,798
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,343,580
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,187
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (820,887)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (820,887)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     (.30)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.30)
<FN>
<F1>Net amount
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 99.2


        Certification under Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002


     Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I Henry E.
Gemino, as Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of Profile
Technologies, Inc., hereby certify that the accompanying Quarterly Report on
Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended September 30, 2002 fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
as amended, and that the information contained in such Quarterly Report on Form
10-QSB for the quarter ended September 30, 2002 fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Profile
Technologies, Inc.



                                                      /s/ Henry E. Gemino
                                                      -------------------
                                                      Henry E. Gemino
                                                      Chief Executive Officer
                                                      and
                                                      Chief Financial Officer
EXHIBIT 32



CERTIFICATION



Each of the undersigned hereby certifies, for the purposes of section 1350 of chapter 63 of title 18 of the United States Code, in his capacity as an
officer of SRI/Surgical Express, Inc. (SRI), that, to his knowledge, the Quarterly Report of SRI on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2003, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and
that the information contained in this report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of SRI.



|                        |  |  | 
|----------------------- |  |  | 
|Date: November 12, 2003 |  |  | 
|                        |  |  | 
|                        |  |  | 
|                        |  |  | 
|Date: November 12, 2003 |  |  | 
|                        |  |  | 
|                        |  |  |
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AS OF SEPTEMBER 30, 1996 AND CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT 
OF OPERATIONS FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1996
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                6,095,131
<ALLOWANCES>                                 2,349,512
<INVENTORY>                                  5,131,559
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            11,694,171
<PP&E>                                       1,261,798
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              17,698,180
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        8,939,752
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       130,109
<OTHER-SE>                                   9,483,416
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,900,878
<SALES>                                     29,328,465
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            29,328,465
<CGS>                                       16,350,850
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               19,517,720
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            12,784,552
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             993,717
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             3,967,524
<INCOME-TAX>                               (1,185,583)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (2,741,941)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (2,573,454)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.33)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
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 State

          - [Public Notice: 10131]

      ( print page 44023)    
Acting under the authority of and in accordance with section 1(b) of Executive Order 13224 of September 23, 2001, as amended by Executive Order 13268 of July 2, 2002, and Executive Order 13284 of January 23, 2003, I hereby determine that the person known as Tony-Lee Thulsie, also known as Yakeen Thulsie, also known as Yaqeen ibn Hernani, also known as Yakeen, also known as Simba, committed, or poses a significant risk of committing, acts of terrorism that threaten the security of U.S. nationals or the national security, foreign policy, or economy of the United States. Consistent with the determination in section 10 of Executive Order 13224 that prior notice to persons determined to be subject to the Order who might have a constitutional presence in the United States would render ineffectual the blocking and other measures authorized in the Order because of the ability to transfer funds instantaneously, I determine that no prior notice needs to be provided to any person subject to this determination who might have a constitutional presence in the United States, because to do so would render ineffectual the measures authorized in the Order.

                    This notice shall be published in the                     **Federal Register**                    .                

Dated: August 28, 2017.

 Rex W. Tillerson,

 Secretary of State.

[FR Doc. 2017-20030 Filed 9-19-17; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 4710-AD-P
EX-35.12
(logo) LNR
Partners, LLC


ANNUAL STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE

OF

LNR PARTNERS, LLC


The undersigned, Job Warshaw, being the President of LNR Partners, LLC (the
"Special Servicer"), as special servicer under the applicable Pooling and
Servicing Agreement for the transactions listed on Schedule II hereto, hereby
certifies, subject to any limitations listed on Schedule II hereto, as of the
date hereof, on behalf of the Special Servicer, solely in his capacity as an
authorized officer of the Special Servicer and not in his individual capacity,
as follows:

1. A review of the activities performed by the Special Servicer during the
   period commencing on January 1, 2013 and ending on December 31, 2013 (or any
   other shorter period set forth on Schedule II hereto) (the "Reporting
   Period"), and of the Special Servicer's performance under the Pooling and
   Servicing Agreement has been made under my supervision; and

2. To the best of my knowledge, based on such review and using the applicable
   servicing criteria under Item 1122 of Regulation AB, the Special Servicer has
   fulfilled all of its obligations under the applicable Pooling and Servicing
   Agreement in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period.


LNR PARTNERS, LLC,
a Florida limited liability company

By: /s/ Job Warshaw
        Job Warshaw
        President


Dated: February 28, 2014


1601 Washington Avenue * Suite 700 * Miami Beach, Florida 33139-3164
Telephone: (305) 695-5600 * Fax: (305) 695-5601


(page)


Schedule II

Transaction                                   Certificate Restrictions (if any)
JPMBB Commercial Mortgage Securities
Trust 2013-C12, Commercial Mortgage
Pass-Through Certificates, Series
2013-C12
#### Rosario Guzzi vs. Secretary of Public Safety & others.1

December 14, 2007.

*Supreme Judicial Court,*

Superintendence of inferior courts. *Imprisonment.*

1

The Commissioner of Correction; the superintendent of the Massachusetts Correctional Institution, Shirley (MCI Shirley); the director of treatment at MCI Shirley; and the Jewish chaplain at MCI Shirley.

The petitioner is an inmate in the custody of the Massachusetts Department of Correction. In an underlying civil action, a Superior Court judge dismissed the petitioner’s request for certain declaratory relief with regard to the department’s inmate-to-inmate mail regulations. Pursuant to G. L. c. 231, § 118, first par., the petitioner sought, and was denied, leave from a single justice of the Appeals Court to file an interlocutory appeal.2 Thereafter, he filed a petition with this court, pursuant to G. L. c. 211, § 3, seeking leave to pursue his interlocutory appeal to the full Appeals Court. A single justice of this court denied the petition. We affirm.

The single justice neither committed an error of law nor abused his discretion in denying relief under G. L. c. 211, § 3. *Rogan*v. *Commonwealth,*415 Mass. 376, 378 (1993). Where adequate alternative means of obtaining appellate review exist, relief is properly denied under G. L. c. 211, § 3. *Devon Servs., Inc.*v. *Wellman,*432 Mass. 1013 (2000). In filing a petition pursuant to G. L. c. 231, § 118, the petitioner pursued an adequate alternative remedy provided by statute. *Mirrione*v. *Jacobs,*446 Mass. 1001, 1001 (2006), quoting *Greco*v. *Plymouth Sav. Bank,*423 Mass. 1019, 1019-1020 (1996) (“Review under G. L. c. 211, § 3, does not lie where review under [G. L.] c. 231, § 118, would suffice”). The petitioner has not demonstrated that the remedy pursued was inadequate or that his substantive claims cannot be addressed in the ordinary course of appeal. *Greco*v. *Plymouth Sav. Bank, supra*at 1019. Although his petition pursuant to G. L. c. 231, § 118, was denied, G. L. c. 211, § 3, does not provide a second opportunity as a matter of right for interlocutory relief. In addition, the Superior Court docket indicates that *1017separate and final judgment may now have entered in the underlying action. Any claims of error can be raised in the ordinary appellate process. *Devon Servs., Inc.*v. *Wellman, supra*at 1013.

The case was submitted on briefs.

*Rosario Guzzi,*pro se.

*Joan T. Kennedy*for the defendants.

*Judgment affirmed.*

2

The petitioner attempted to appeal to a panel of the Appeals Court from the denial of his G. L. c. 231, § 118, petition and also sought reconsideration of the single justice’s order. All such relief was denied.
#### PLAN B DEVELOPMENT, LLC, Appellant, v. AUBURN ACE HOLDINGS, LLC, Appellee.

No. 09-35953.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted June 11, 2010.*

Filed July 14, 2010.

Douglas Elston, Law Offices of Douglas W. Elston, Snohomish, WA, for Appellant.

Christine M. Tobin, Bankruptcy Counsel, Bush, Strout & Kornfeld, Seattle, WA, for Appellee.

Before: CALLAHAN and IKUTA, Circuit Judges, and BENITEZ,** District Judge.

**

 The Honorable Roger T. Benitez, United States District Judge for the Southern District of California, sitting by designation.

*

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

MEMORANDUM ***

The parties do not dispute that the debt- or’s primary asset was sold during the *747bankruptcy process. Nor do they dispute that Plan B failed to obtain a stay of the proceedings while this appeal was pending. Therefore, we conclude that the transfer of that asset precludes us from providing meaningful relief. *Trone v. Robert Farms, Inc. (In re Roberts Farm, Inc.),*652 F.2d 793, 797 (9th Cir.1981).

Plan B’s reliance on *Popp v. Zimmerman (In re Popp),*323 B.R. 260 (9th Cir. BAP 2005) is misplaced, as in that case the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel could still provide relief based on a lien that remained on the property in that suit. *Id.*at 271-72. No such lien exists in this case.

The appeal is DISMISSED as moot.

***

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provid-
**IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS**

No. 10-0044

IN RE  KEN HARVEY, JAN HARVEY AND DAVID HARVEY

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus

**ORDERED:**

1.Relator’s motion for emergency stay, filed January 21, 2010, is granted.   The order dated December 18, 2009, in Cause No. 02-09-00335-CV, styled *In re  Chassidie L. Russell*, in the Second Court of Appeals is stayed pending further order of this Court.

2.The real party in interest is requested to respond to relator’s petition for writ of mandamus on or before 3:00 p.m., February 4, 2010.

3.The petition for writ of mandamus remains pending before this Court.

Done at the City of Austin, this January 27, 2010.

Blake A. Hawthorne, Clerk

Supreme Court of Texas

By Claudia Jenks, Chief Deputy Clerk
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2480 

To amend title 5, United States Code, to authorize appropriations for the 

Administrative Conference of the United States for fiscal years 2012, 

2013, and 2014, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 8, 2011 

Mr. SMITH of Texas (for himself and Mr. COBLE) introduced the following 

bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend title 5, United States Code, to authorize appropriations for the Administrative Conference of the United 

States for fiscal years 2012, 2013, and 2014, and for 

other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Administrative Con5 ference of the United States Reauthorization Act of 

6 2011’’. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2480 IH

1 SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS. 

2 Section 596 of title 5, United States Code, is amend3 ed to read as follows: 

4 ‘‘§ 596. Authorization of appropriations 

5 ‘‘There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out 

6 this subchapter not more than $2,750,000 for fiscal year 

7 2012, $2,750,000 for fiscal year 2013, and $2,750,000 

8 for fiscal year 2014. Of any amounts appropriated under 

9 this section, not more than $2,500 may be made available 

10 in each fiscal year for official representation and enter11 tainment expenses for foreign dignitaries’’. 

Æ 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
EXHIBIT 11
                            Schick Technologies, Inc.
                        Computation of Earnings Per Share

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                     Days              Weighted 
                                                  Shares          Outstanding       Average  Shares
                                                ---------------------------------------------------
<S>                                             <C>                  <C>               <C>      
Three months ended September 30, 1997
Shares outstanding at July 1,1997               7,957,321            91                7,957,321
                                                                                     
Sale and issuance of common stock               2,012,500            91                2,012,500
                                                                                     
Stock options and warrants considered to be                                          
   common stock equivalents                       438,191            91                  438,191
                                                                                     
Options issued during fiscal 1998                  12,272            82              
                                                                                          11,058
                                                                                     -----------
Weighted average shares outstanding                                                   10,419,070
                                                                                     
Net income for the three months ended                                                
September 30, 1997                                                                   $ 1,009,824
                                                                                     -----------
                                                                                     
Net income per share                                                                 $      0.10
                                                                                     ===========
</TABLE>

                                       11