alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"Federal Maritime Commission","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov","author_name":"Catie-Megan Moran","author_url":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/author\/cmoranfmc-gov\/","title":"Next Meeting of FMC Data Initiative Focuses on Ocean Transportation Intermediaries","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"ccG05qjmtH\"><a href=\"\/next-meeting-of-fmc-data-initiative-focuses-on-ocean-transportation-intermediaries\/\">Next Meeting of FMC Data Initiative Focuses on Ocean Transportation Intermediaries<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"\/next-meeting-of-fmc-data-initiative-focuses-on-ocean-transportation-intermediaries\/embed\/#?secret=ccG05qjmtH\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Next Meeting of FMC Data Initiative Focuses on Ocean Transportation Intermediaries” — Federal Maritime Commission\" data-secret=\"ccG05qjmtH\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script type=\"text\/javascript\">\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(c,l){\"use strict\";var e=!1,o=!1;if(l.querySelector)if(c.addEventListener)e=!0;if(c.wp=c.wp||{},c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage);else if(c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if(!t);else if(!(t.secret||t.message||t.value));else if(\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret));else{for(var r,s,a,i=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),n=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=0;o<n.length;o++)n[o].style.display=\"none\";for(o=0;o<i.length;o++)if(r=i[o],e.source!==r.contentWindow);else{if(r.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message){if(1e3<(s=parseInt(t.value,10)))s=1e3;else if(~~s<200)s=200;r.height=s}if(\"link\"===t.message)if(s=l.createElement(\"a\"),a=l.createElement(\"a\"),s.href=r.getAttribute(\"src\"),a.href=t.value,a.host===s.host)if(l.activeElement===r)c.top.location.href=t.value}}},e)c.addEventListener(\"message\",c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",t,!1),c.addEventListener(\"load\",t,!1);function t(){if(o);else{o=!0;for(var e,t,r,s=-1!==navigator.appVersion.indexOf(\"MSIE 10\"),a=!!navigator.userAgent.match(\/Trident.*rv:11\\.\/),i=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),n=0;n<i.length;n++){if(!(r=(t=i[n]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\")))r=Math.random().toString(36).substr(2,10),t.src+=\"#?secret=\"+r,t.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",r);if(s||a)(e=t.cloneNode(!0)).removeAttribute(\"security\"),t.parentNode.replaceChild(e,t);t.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:r},\"*\")}}}}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n"}
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                              5
<MULTIPLIER>                           1,000
       
<S>                                    <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                          YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                      JAN-6-1996
<PERIOD-END>                           JAN-6-1996
<CASH>                                 6,162
<SECURITIES>                           0
<RECEIVABLES>                          158,567
<ALLOWANCES>                           1,960
<INVENTORY>                            356,466
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                       542,383
<PP&E>                                 187,376
<DEPRECIATION>                         81,051
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                         939,129
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                  232,914
<BONDS>                                194,301
<COMMON>                               521
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                  0
<PREFERRED>                            0
<OTHER-SE>                             499,780
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>           939,129
<SALES>                                916,179
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                       916,179
<CGS>                                  606,498
<TOTAL-COSTS>                          184,048
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                       11,745<F1>
<LOSS-PROVISION>                       827
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                     33,867
<INCOME-PRETAX>                        80,021
<INCOME-TAX>                           30,408
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                    49,613
<DISCONTINUED>                         0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                        3,120
<CHANGES>                              0
<NET-INCOME>                           49,493
<EPS-PRIMARY>                          1.03
<EPS-DILUTED>                          1.03
<FN>
<F1> Special charge for advertising costs previously deferable.
</FN>
        


</TABLE>
**EXHIBIT 35.2**

**WASHINGTON MUTUAL MORTGAGE SECURITIES CORP.**

**OFFICER’S CERTIFICATEANNUAL STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE**

            I, Barbara Campbell, an authorized officer of Washington Mutual Mortgage Securities Corp. (the “Administrative Agent”), dohereby certify to WaMu Asset Acceptance Corp. (the “Depositor”) and Washington Mutual Bank (the “Servicer”), pursuant to the Amended and Restated Administrative Agent Agreement dated as of February 1, 2005 (the“Servicing Agreement”) by and between the Servicer, and the Administrative Agent the following with respect to Washington Mutual Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates WMALT Series 2006-3 Trustfor the 2006 fiscal year (the “Relevant Year”):

1.                  A review of the activities of the Servicer during the Relevant Year and of performance under the Servicing Agreement has beenmade under my supervision.

2.                  To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the ServicingAgreement in all material respects throughout the Relevant Year.

Dated as of February 22, 2007.
|  

/s/ Barbara Campbell________________Name:  Barbara CampbellTitle:    First Vice President |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jose Luis LOZOYA, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 09-40904

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Nov. 30, 2010.

James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Timothy William Crooks, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before KING, BENAVIDES, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Jose Luis Lozoya has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Lozoya has not filed a response. Our independent review of the record and counsel’s brief discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

 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.
#### Baljit Singh SANGA, a.k.a. Baljit Singh Sangha, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 09-70459.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 8, 2011.*

Filed March 24, 2011.

James Robert Canfield, James Canfield, San Jose, CA, for Petitioner.

Wendy Benner-Leon, Esquire, OIL, Greg D. Mack, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Le-fevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.

Before: FARRIS, O’SCANNLAIN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Baljit Singh Sanga, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for a waiver of inadmissibility under former section 212(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1182(c) (repealed 1996). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence factual findings and review de novo questions of law. *Abebe v. Gonzales,*432 F.3d 1037, 1039-40 (9th Cir. 2005) (en banc). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

The BIA did not err in failing to consider Indian law. As the BIA recognized, in denying relief the IJ relied upon the inconsistencies in Sanga’s testimony regarding how his second marriage was terminated, not on whether Sanga’s second marriage was actually terminated under Indian law. Moreover, the question of what Indian law provides is a question of fact that the BIA could not consider on appeal. *See Matter of Kodwo,*24 I. & N. Dec. 479, 482 (BIA 2008).

Contrary to Sanga’s contention, the BIA. provided an adequate explanation for its decision. The BIA cited *Matter of Burbano,*20 I. & N. Dec. 872 (BIA 1994), and did not express disagreement with any part of the IJ’s decision, and thereby adopted the IJ’s decision in its entirety, including the IJ’s explanation for denying Sanga relief. *See Abebe,*432 F.3d at 1039-40.

We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s discretionary denial of relief under former section 212(c) unless the petitioner raises a “colorable” question of law or a constitutional question. *See*8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii), (D); *Vargas-Hernandez v. Gonzales,*497 F.3d 919, 921, 923 (9th Cir.2007). Sanga’s contention that substantial evidence does not support the finding that he perjured himself raises a question of fact, *Damaize-Job v. INS,*787 F.2d 1332, 1338 (9th Cir.1986) (credibility is a factual finding), as does Sanga’s contention that the agency failed to consider the totality of the evidence in denying him relief. Accordingly, we lack jurisdiction to review these contentions. *See*8 U.S.C. *749§ 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii), (D); *Vargas-Hernandez,*497 F.3d at 923.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED 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>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
PLANETRX.COM, INC. FORM 10-Q FOR THE PERIOD ENDED JUNE 30, 2000 AND IS QUALIFIED
IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                          50,608
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      2,967
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                24,463
<PP&E>                                          20,714
<DEPRECIATION>                                   5,038
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 258,013
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           21,198
<BONDS>                                          4,929
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             5
<OTHER-SE>                                     229,353
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   258,013
<SALES>                                          8,132
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 9,435
<CGS>                                            7,825
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    8,034
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                45,929
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               (615)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (43,913)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (43,913)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (43,913)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.92)<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.92)

<FN>
<F1>  Reflects basic EPS according to SFAS 128
</FN>

</TABLE>
#### U.S. RING BINDER, L.P., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. STAPLES THE OFFICE SUPERSTORE, LLC, World Wide Stationery Manufacturing Co., Ltd., Charles Leonard National, Inc., and Charles Leonard Western, Inc., Defendants-Appellees.

Nos. 2010-1284, 2010-1425.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

Dec. 10, 2010.

David L. Applegate, William Montgomery & John Ltd., of Chicago, Illinois, argued for plaintiff-appellant.

*499Keith A. Rabenberg, Senniger Powers, LLP, of St. Louis, Missouri, argued for defendants-appellees. With him on the brief was Richard L. Brophy.

Before LOURIE, SCHALL, and BRYSON, Circuit Judges.

JUDGMENT

PER CURIAM.

This Cause having been heard and considered, it is Ordered and Adjudged:

AFFIRMED. *See*Fed. Cir. R. 36.
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3034 Engrossed in House (EH)]

<DOC>
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
117th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 3034

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To amend title 28, United States Code, to provide an additional place 
for holding court for the Western District of Washington, and for other 
                               purposes.

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

SECTION 1. ADDITIONAL PLACE FOR HOLDING COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT 
              OF WASHINGTON.

    Section 128(b) of title 28, United States Code, is amended by 
inserting ``Mount Vernon,'' after ``Tacoma,''.

            Passed the House of Representatives September 19, 2022.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
117th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 3034

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To amend title 28, United States Code, to provide an additional place 
for holding court for the Western District of Washington, and for other 
                               purposes.
```
EX-33 (f)



Securities Servicing
The Bank of New York
101 Barclay Street
New York, NY 10286


(logo) The BANK
of NEW YORK

ASSERTION OF COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE SERVICING
CRITERIA


The Bank of New York and The Bank of New York Trust Company, N.A.(collectively,
the "Company") provides this platform-level assessment of compliance with the
servicing criteria specified in Item 1122(d) of Regulation AB promulgated by the
Securities and Exchange Commission.

Management has determined that the following servicing criteria are applicable
in regards to the following servicing platform for the following period:

Platform: Publicly-issued (i.e., transaction-level reporting initially required
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended) residential
mortgage-backed securities and other mortgage-related asset-backed securities
issued on or after January 1, 2006 (and like-kind transactions issued prior to
January 1, 2006) for which the Company provides trustee, securities
administration, paying agent or custodial services. The platform includes like
kind transactions for which the Company provided trustee, securities
administrator, paying agent or custodial services as a result of the Company's
acquisition as of October 1, 2006 of portions of JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.'s
corporate trust business, including structured finance agency and trust
transactions.

Applicable Servicing Criteria: All servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d),
to the extent required by the related transaction agreements as to any
transaction, except for the following criteria: 1122 (d) (1) (ii), (iii), (iv),
(4) (iv), (v), (vi), (vii), (viii), (ix), (x), (xi), (xii) and (xiii).

Period: Twelve months ended December 31, 2006.

With respect to the Platform and the Period, the Company provides the following
assessment of compliance in respect of the Applicable Servicing Criteria:

* The Company is responsible for assessing its compliance with the Applicable
Servicing Criteria.


1


(page)


* The Company has assessed compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria.

* As of December 31, 2006 and for the Period, the Company was in material
compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria.


Ernst & Young LLP, an independent registered public accounting firm, has issued
an attestation report with respect to the Company's foregoing assessment of
compliance.


The Bank of New York
The Bank of New York Trust
Company, N.A.

/s/ Robert L. Griffin
Robert L. Griffin
Authorized Signer


The Bank of New York
The Bank of New York Trust
Company, N.A.

/s/ Patrick J. Tadie
Patrick J. Tadie
Authorized Signer

March 1, 2007


2
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"Federal Maritime Commission","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov","author_name":"Catie-Megan Moran","author_url":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/author\/cmoranfmc-gov\/","title":"March 2022 Activity Report","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"kCHsKamTrE\"><a href=\"\/march-2022-activity-report\/\">March 2022 Activity Report<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"\/march-2022-activity-report\/embed\/#?secret=kCHsKamTrE\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“March 2022 Activity Report” — Federal Maritime Commission\" data-secret=\"kCHsKamTrE\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script type=\"text\/javascript\">\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(c,l){\"use strict\";var e=!1,o=!1;if(l.querySelector)if(c.addEventListener)e=!0;if(c.wp=c.wp||{},c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage);else if(c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if(!t);else if(!(t.secret||t.message||t.value));else if(\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret));else{for(var r,s,a,i=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),n=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=0;o<n.length;o++)n[o].style.display=\"none\";for(o=0;o<i.length;o++)if(r=i[o],e.source!==r.contentWindow);else{if(r.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message){if(1e3<(s=parseInt(t.value,10)))s=1e3;else if(~~s<200)s=200;r.height=s}if(\"link\"===t.message)if(s=l.createElement(\"a\"),a=l.createElement(\"a\"),s.href=r.getAttribute(\"src\"),a.href=t.value,a.host===s.host)if(l.activeElement===r)c.top.location.href=t.value}}},e)c.addEventListener(\"message\",c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",t,!1),c.addEventListener(\"load\",t,!1);function t(){if(o);else{o=!0;for(var e,t,r,s=-1!==navigator.appVersion.indexOf(\"MSIE 10\"),a=!!navigator.userAgent.match(\/Trident.*rv:11\\.\/),i=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),n=0;n<i.length;n++){if(!(r=(t=i[n]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\")))r=Math.random().toString(36).substr(2,10),t.src+=\"#?secret=\"+r,t.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",r);if(s||a)(e=t.cloneNode(!0)).removeAttribute(\"security\"),t.parentNode.replaceChild(e,t);t.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:r},\"*\")}}}}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n"}
<PAGE>   1

                                                                      EXHIBIT 12

              COMBINED WITH 50% OWNED UNCONSOLIDATED SUBSIDIARIES
               COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                2000    1999
              FOR THE SIX MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30                  ----    ----
                   (DOLLARS IN MILLIONS)
<S>                                                             <C>     <C>
Income from continuing operations...........................    $ 68    $ 52
Add
  Interest..................................................      67      68
  Portion of rentals representative of interest factor......       8       8
  Income tax expense and other taxes on income..............      50      24
                                                                ----    ----
       Earnings as defined..................................    $193    $152
                                                                ====    ====
Interest....................................................    $ 67    $ 68
Interest capitalized........................................       3      --
Portion of rentals representative of interest factor........       8       8
                                                                ----    ----
       Fixed charges as defined.............................    $ 78    $ 76
                                                                ====    ====
Ratio of earnings to fixed charges..........................    2.47    2.00
                                                                ====    ====
</TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES of America v. Jerry Clayton COLLIER and Ronald L. Grimm.

Civ. No. 3-79-2.

United States District Court, E. D. Tennessee, N. D.

April 10, 1979.

John H. Cary, U. S. Atty., Knoxville, Tenn., Joe Vaulx Crockett, III, Atty., Tax Div., Dept, of Justice, Washington, D. C., for plaintiff.

Dudley W. Taylor, Ambrose, Wilson & Grimm, Knoxville, Tenn., for defendants.

MEMORANDUM

ROBERT L. TAYLOR, District Judge.

At the conclusion of the evidence in this case, the Court denied interest on the recovery. This denial was based on the idea that the Court had discretion in granting or not granting interest on a recovery. That is the Tennessee rule. *See generally, Farmers Chemical Ass’n, Inc. v. Maryland Casualty,*421 F.2d 319 (6th Cir. 1970). Also, the Court was of the opinion that principles of equity would require a decision to not allow interest. This view was based on the decision of *United States v. City of Los Angeles,*336 F.Supp. 1014 (C.D.Cal.1972). We have reread that decision and find that the City in that case was an innocent stakeholder which paid the assessed amount into the Registry of the Court. The trial court held that equity principles precluded the recovery of interest. Insofar as we can determine, the case was not appealed.

The Government has recently filed a motion to alter and amend the final order of this Court so as to allow the recovery of interest on the judgment rendered in favor of the United States. In support of its contention, the applicable statute has been cited and reads as follows:

> “Any person who fails or refuses to surrender any property or rights to prop*1186erty, subject to levy, upon demand by the Secretary, shall be liable in his own person and estate to the United States in a sum equal to the value of the property or rights not so surrendered ... together with costs and interest on such sum . . . from the date of such levy. . . .”26 U.S.C. § 6332(c)(1).

In this case, demand was made by the Government on defendant Grimm on October 8, 1974 and he refused payment believing that his claim to the fund was superior to that of the Government. The Court was of the view that the claim of the Government was superior and so held by order dated March 20, 1979. Section 6332 indicates that the Court has no discretion in the matter since the wording of the statute mandates the allowance of interest. The Court, accordingly, but reluctantly, holds that the Government is entitled to the interest claimed.

The Court is of the view that although the Government is entitled to interest, it is disappointing to the Court that the Government would enforce that right under the circumstances of this case.

It is, accordingly, ORDERED that the motion of the Government be, and the same hereby is, granted.

Order Accordingly.