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

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2767 Reported in Senate (RS)]

                                                       Calendar No. 377
112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 2767

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           December 14, 2011

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

                             April 25, 2012

              Reported by Mr. Lieberman, without amendment

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 8 West Silver Street in Westfield, Massachusetts, as the ``William 
                    T. Trant Post Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. WILLIAM T. TRANT POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 8 West Silver Street in Westfield, Massachusetts, shall be 
known and designated as the ``William T. Trant Post Office Building''.
    (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 ``William T. 
Trant Post Office Building''.
                                                       Calendar No. 377

112th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 2767

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 8 West Silver Street in Westfield, Massachusetts, as the ``William 
                    T. Trant Post Office Building''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                             April 25, 2012

                       Reported without amendment
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                             1552829
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                       800000
<ALLOWANCES>                                             0
<INVENTORY>                                              0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   2359158
<PP&E>                                                   0
<DEPRECIATION>                                           0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     2889032
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                99742
<BONDS>                                             420000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                               905
<OTHER-SE>                                         2368385
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       2889032
<SALES>                                                  0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     34399
<CGS>                                                    0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                       270591
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                         0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   23706
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    (259898)
<INCOME-TAX>                                             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                      0
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                       (259898)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        (0.11)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        (0.11)
        


</TABLE>
Exhibit 31.1I, Richard K. Crump, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q/A (Amendment 2) of Sterling Chemicals,Inc.;  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light ofthe circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to theperiod covered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periodspresented in this report;  4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controlsand procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to usby others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report isbeing prepared;(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and proceduresand presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting; and 5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions):(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information;and(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.Date: August 9, 2005       /s/ RICHARD K. CRUMP         Richard K. Crump    President and Chief Executive Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AS OF MARCH 31, 1999 AND THE CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT
OF OPERATIONS FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS INCLUDED IN THIS FORM 10-QSB
FOR PERIOD ENDED MARCH 31, 1999.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                       3,855,571
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,901,839
<PP&E>                                         250,507
<DEPRECIATION>                                 131,817
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,068,275
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,385,747
<BONDS>                                      2,600,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        54,142
<OTHER-SE>                                      28,386
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,068,275
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                48,687
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,681,044
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               324,329
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              28,849
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,985,535)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,985,535)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,985,535)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.37)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.37)
        

</TABLE>
#### Adams and another *v.*Howard and another.

*(Circuit Court, S. D. New York.*

October 24, 1881.)

1. Pleading — Answer—Demurrer.

By putting in. an answer to tbo whole bill, a defendant overrules his demurrer which is also to the whole bill.

*F. II. Betts,*for plaintiffs.

*J. A. Whitney,*for defendants.

Blatchford, C. J.

The defendant Morse has demurred to the whole bill and has put in an answer to the whole bill. The suit is one for the infringement of a patent. The grounds of demurrer set forth in the demurrer are all of them also set forth in the answer. They relate solely to the title set forth in the bill to the patent, and to the allegations in the bill respecting infringement. A replication to the answer has been filed. The plaintiffs now move for an order, either that the defendant elect between his demurrer and his answer, or that the demurrer be set down for argument. By rule 32 in equity, a defendant may demur to the whole bill, and may demur to a part of the bill and answer as to the residue. But there is nothing that allows him to demur to the whole bill and at the same time to answer to the whole bill, especially where the answer sets up everything that is in the demurrer. Putting in such an answer is a waiver of such a demurrer. The defendant must elect between his demurrer and his answer; and, to guard against misunderstanding, if he should elect his demurrer, and it should bo overruled on argument, he would be held, probably, to have waived what, ordinarily and otherwise, would be, under rule 34, his right to answer.

The defendant moves to dismiss the bill. The ground of the motion is not specified in the notice of motion. Prom the affidavit made in support of the motion, one ground would seem to be that the plaintiffs did not, under rule 38, set down the demurrer for argument within the time required, and that they did not take any testimony within three months after the replication was filed. I think the plaintiffs sufficiently excuse the omissions. The demurrer ought to be disposed of before any testimony is taken.

The motion is denied.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 11.1


DYNAMEX INC.
CALCULATION OF NET INCOME (LOSS) PER COMMON SHARE
(in thousands except per share data)
(Unaudited)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                         Three months ended        Six months ended
                                             January 31,              January 31,
                                        -------------------      -------------------
                                          2001        2000         2001        2000
                                        -------     -------      -------     -------
<S>                                     <C>         <C>          <C>         <C>
Net income (loss)                       $    59     $  (352)     $   557     $    53
                                        =======     =======      =======     =======

Weighted average common
   shares outstanding                    10,207      10,207       10,207      10,207

Common share equivalents related
   to options and warrants                   --          --           --          --
                                        -------     -------      -------     -------

Common shares and common share
   equivalents                           10,207      10,207       10,207      10,207
                                        =======     =======      =======     =======

Common stock price used under
   treasury stock method                $  1.44     $    --      $  1.44
                                        =======     =======      =======     =======

Net income (loss) per common share:
   Basic                                $  0.01     $ (0.03)     $  0.05     $  0.01
                                        =======     =======      =======     =======

   Diluted                              $  0.01     $ (0.03)     $  0.05     $  0.01
                                        =======     =======      =======     =======
</TABLE>

On September 16, 1999, the American Stock Exchange suspended trading in the
Company's common stock. As a result, the Company is unable to determine the
number, if any, of common share equivalents related to options and warrants for
the six months ended January 31, 2000.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 3.4

                             ARTICLES OF AMENDMENT


         Pursuant to RCW 23B.10.060 of the Washington Business Corporation Act,
the following Articles of Amendment to Restated Articles of Incorporation are
herewith submitted for filing.


         ARTICLE 1.  The name of record of the corporation is:

                          Multicom Publishing, Inc.

         ARTICLE 2.  The text of the amendment as adopted is as follows:

                 Article III is amended by modifying the following language to
increase the number of shares of Series A Preferred Stock by 85,000 shares to
235,000:

              Rights, Preferences and Restrictions of Series A Preferred Stock

The rights, preferences, privileges, and restrictions granted to and imposed on
the Series A Preferred Stock, which series shall consist of two hundred
thirty-five thousand (235,000) shares, are as set forth below.

         ARTICLE 3.  The date of adoption of the amendment was:

                          February 11, 1997

         ARTICLE 4.  The amendment was adopted by:

                 The board of directors.  Shareholder action was not required.

         ARTICLE 5.  These Articles will be effective upon filing.



Dated:  February 11, 1997

                                       ____________________________________
                                       Tamara L. Attard
                                       Chairman   and Chief Executive Officer





                                                                               1
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

VICTOR MANUEL GALLEGOS

,

Appellant

,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

,

State

. §

§

§

§

§

§

§

'

' No. 08

- 1 4

- 00274

- CR

Appeal from the

County Court at Law No. 7

of El Paso County , Texas

(TC# 20120C00778 )

O R D E R

The Court GRANTS the State ’s third motion for extension of time to file the brief until

September 3

, 201 5

. NO FURTHER MOTIONS FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE THE

STATE ’S BRIEF WILL BE CONSIDERED BY THIS COURT.

It is further ORDERED that the Hon. Jaime Esparza , the State ’s Attorney, prepare the

S tate ’s brief and forward the same to this Court on or before September 3 , 201 5

.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 2 1 st day of July, 2015

.

PER CURIAM

Before McClure, CJ, Rodriguez and Hughes, JJ

.
(logo)****CURCIO

+COHEN

 

 

**Report of IndependentRegistered Public Accounting Firm**

 

Managing Member

Park Bridge Lender ServicesLLC

New York, NY

 

 

We have examinedmanagement’s assertion, included in the accompanying Management’sReport on Assessment of 2016 Compliance by Park Bridge Lender Services LLC withRegulation AB Servicing Criteria (“Management’s Report”),that Park Bridge Lender Services LLC (the “Company”) complied withthe servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of the U.S. Securities andExchange Commission’s Regulation AB as of and for the year ended December31, 2016, excluding those criteria noted as not applicable (N/A) within ExhibitB to Management’s Report. The transactions covered by this report areonly those transactions processed by the Company in its capacity as trust advisoror operating advisor for the asset backed securities transactions (the“Platform”) identified in Management’s Report. ReferenceExhibit A to Management’s Report for the transactions covered by thisexamination. Management is responsible for the Company’s compliance withthe applicable servicing criteria. Our responsibility is to express an opinionon management’s assertion based on our examination.

 

Our examination was conductedin accordance with attestation standards of the Public Company AccountingOversight Board (United States) and, accordingly, included examining, on a testbasis, evidence about the Company’s compliance with the applicableservicing criteria and performing such other procedures as we considerednecessary in the circumstances. Our examination included testing of a selectedsample of the servicing activities related to the Platform, determining whetherthe Company performed those selected activities in compliance with theapplicable servicing criteria during the specified period. Our procedures werelimited to the selected transactions and servicing activities performed by theCompany during the period covered by this report. Our examination was notdesigned to detect material noncompliance arising from errors that may haveoccurred prior to or subsequent to our tests, that may have affected theCompany’s servicing activities during the period covered by this report.We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion.Our examination does not provide a legal determination on the Company’scompliance with the applicable servicing criteria.

 

In our opinion,management’s assertion that the Company complied with the aforementionedapplicable servicing criteria identified in Exhibit B to Management’s Reportwith respect to the transactions identified in Exhibit A to Management’sReport as of and for the year ended December 31, 2016, for the Platform, isfairly stated in all material aspects.

 

 

/s/ Curcio & Cohen,CPA’s, P.C.

 

 

New York, NY

February 2, 2017

 

 

CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTSPC 7 PENN PLAZA, SUITE 1500 NEW YORK NY 10001

TEL: 212 557-9800  FAX:212 557 9819   WEBSITE: WWW.CWCCPAFIRM.COM
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

REGINALD BRYANT,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 371 EAL 2021

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the Superior Court

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

REGINALD BRYANT,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 372 EAL 2021

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 23rd day of February, 2022

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED

.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.  No. 01-4848

ANTHONY JEROME TRAPP,

Defendant-Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Wilmington.

James C. Fox, Senior District Judge.

(CR-00-119-F)

Submitted: June 20, 2002

Decided: June 28, 2002

Before MICHAEL and KING, Circuit Judges, and

HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

COUNSEL

Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, G. Alan DuBois,

Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for

Appellant. Kimberly A. Moore, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES

ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. 
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c). 

OPINION

PER CURIAM: 

Anthony Jerome Trapp appeals the district court’s order revoking

his term of supervised release and sentencing him to twenty-four

months’ imprisonment. Trapp’s attorney has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), raising one

issue but stating that, in his view, there are no meritorious grounds for

appeal. Trapp was informed of his opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief, but has not done so. Finding no reversible error, we

affirm. 

Trapp claims that the district court abused its discretion in imposing a twenty-four month sentence because it exceeded the recommended sentencing range of six to twelve months set out in U.S.

Sentencing Guidelines Manual ("USSG") § 7B1.4(a) (2000). We

review the reasonableness of a revocation sentence for abuse of discretion. United States v. Davis, 53 F.3d 638, 642-43 (4th Cir. 1995).

Based on our review of the record, we find the district court did not

abuse its discretion in sentencing Trapp to the statutory maximum

sentence of twenty-four months’ imprisonment. The sentencing

ranges contained in Chapter Seven of the Guidelines are "nonbinding, advisory guides to district courts in supervised release revocation proceedings." Davis, 53 F.3d at 642; see also United States v.

Holmes, F.3d ___, 2002 WL 441198, *1 (8th Cir. Mar. 22, 2002). 

As required by Anders, we have examined the entire record and

find no other meritorious issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm

the district court’s order. This court requires that counsel inform his

client, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the

United States for further review. If the client requests that a petition

be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous,

then counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof was served

2 UNITED STATES v. TRAPP
on the client. 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

UNITED STATES v. TRAPP 3
RB

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 19-0666

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

LOUIS W. MIKESELL,

Defendant and Appellant.

GRANT OF EXTENSION

Upon consideration of Appellee’s motion for a 30-day extension of time, and

good cause appearing therefor, Appellee is granted an extension of time to and

including March 1, 2021, within which to prepare, serve, and file its response brief.

Electronically signed by:

Bowen Greenwood

Clerk of the Supreme Court

January 26 2021

01/26/2021

Case Number: DA 19-0666