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

<ARTICLE> UT
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from balance
sheets, income statements and cash flow statements and is qualified in its
entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                     1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<BOOK-VALUE>                                  PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                    1,694,631
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                     36,502
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                         144,116
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                       420,088
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,295,337
<COMMON>                                        94,031
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                      358,455
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                            242,088
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>                 694,574
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                    106,975
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                           716,218
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                                   0
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                       22,332
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                  54,016
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                       71
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                            0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                          0
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                     0
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>                 701,151
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                2,295,337
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                      578,445
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                            52,092
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     391,274
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     443,366
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                        135,079
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                              12,534
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                 147,613
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                        56,995
<NET-INCOME>                                    90,618
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                      7,463
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                   83,155
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                        69,924
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                       52,165
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                         174,415
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     2.21
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.21
        


</TABLE>
B 2100A (Form 2100A) (12/15)

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

In re Christopher J. Branch Case No. 18-73980-FJS

TRANSFER OF CLAIM OTHER THAN FOR SECURITY

A CLAIM HAS BEEN FILED IN THIS CASE or deemed filed under 11 U.S.C. § 1111(a). Transferee 

hereby gives evidence and notice pursuant to Rule 3001(e)(2), Fed. R. Bankr. P., of the transfer, other 

than for security, of the claim referenced in this evidence and notice.

Name of Transferee Name of Transferor

Name and Address where notices to transferee 

should be sent:

Court Claim # (if known): 5

Amount of Claim: 

Phone: 

Last Four Digits of Acct #: 2887

Phone: (877) 426-8805

Last Four Digits of Acct #:

Name and Address where transferee payments should 

be sent (if different from above ):

Phone: 

Last Four Digits of Acct #: 2887

I declare under penalty of perjury that the information provided in this notice is true and correct to the 

best of my knowledge and belief. 

By Date:

Transferee/Transferee’s Agent

Penalty for making a false statement: Fine of up to $500,000 or imprisonment for up to 5 years, or both. 18 U.S.C. §§ 152 3571.

United Security Financial Corp.

BSI Financial Services

314 S Franklin St, 2nd Floor

PO Box 517

Titusville, PA 16354

BSI Financial Services 

PO Box 679002

Dallas, TX 75267-9002

Date Claim Filed: 

/s/Mark D. Meyer, Esq. 3/24/2021

$4,308.36

12/31/2018

2887

United Security Financial Corp.

(800) 327-7861

(800) 327-7861

Case 18-73980-FJS Doc 44 Filed 03/24/21 Entered 03/24/21 13:21:09 Desc Main

Document Page 1 of 2
IN RE

CHRISTOPHER J. BRANCH

 Debtor

Case No. 18-73980-FJS

Chapter 13

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

 I hereby certify that on the 24th day of March, 2021, the Transfer of Claim 

was mailed, first class mail, postage prepaid, upon the following who were not

served via CM/ECF: 

IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA

 Norfolk Division

Christopher J. Branch

3708 Old Forge Road

Virginia Beach, VA 23452

Christopher Baker, Esquire

Boleman Law Firm

272 Bendix Road, Suite 330 

Virginia Beach, VA 23452

(served via CM/ECF) 

R. Clinton Stackhouse, Jr., Trustee

7021 Harbour View Boulevard, 

Suite 101

Suffolk, VA 23435

(served via CM/ECF)

Mark D. Meyer, Esq.

Rosenberg & Associates, LLC 

4340 East West Highway, Suite 600

Bethesda, MD 20814

/s/ Mark D. Meyer, Esq.

Respectfully Submitted, 

MARK MEYER

DC BAR 475552

MD BAR 15070

VA BAR 74290

ROSENBERG &

ASSOCIATES, LLC

 4340 East West Highway

SUITE 600

BETHESDA, MD 20814

(301) 907-8000

FILE NUMBER: 79458

Case 18-73980-FJS Doc 44 Filed 03/24/21 Entered 03/24/21 13:21:09 Desc Main

Document Page 2 of 2
Case 18-12095-BFK Doc 105 Filed 10/18/18 Entered 10/18/18 08:58:36 Desc MainDocument Page 1 of 25Case 18-12095-BFK Doc 105 Filed 10/18/18 Entered 10/18/18 08:58:36 Desc MainDocument Page 2 of 25Case 18-12095-BFK Doc 105 Filed 10/18/18 Entered 10/18/18 08:58:36 Desc MainDocument Page 3 of 25Case 18-12095-BFK Doc 105 Filed 10/18/18 Entered 10/18/18 08:58:36 Desc MainDocument Page 4 of 25Case 18-12095-BFK Doc 105 Filed 10/18/18 Entered 10/18/18 08:58:36 Desc MainDocument Page 5 of 25Case 18-12095-BFK Doc 105 Filed 10/18/18 Entered 10/18/18 08:58:36 Desc MainDocument Page 6 of 25Case 18-12095-BFK Doc 105 Filed 10/18/18 Entered 10/18/18 08:58:36 Desc MainDocument Page 7 of 25Case 18-12095-BFK Doc 105 Filed 10/18/18 Entered 10/18/18 08:58:36 Desc MainDocument Page 8 of 25Case 18-12095-BFK Doc 105 Filed 10/18/18 Entered 10/18/18 08:58:36 Desc MainDocument Page 9 of 25Case 18-12095-BFK Doc 105 Filed 10/18/18 Entered 10/18/18 08:58:36 Desc MainDocument Page 10 of 25Case 18-12095-BFK Doc 105 Filed 10/18/18 Entered 10/18/18 08:58:36 Desc MainDocument Page 11 of 25Case 18-12095-BFK Doc 105 Filed 10/18/18 Entered 10/18/18 08:58:36 Desc MainDocument Page 12 of 25Case 18-12095-BFK Doc 105 Filed 10/18/18 Entered 10/18/18 08:58:36 Desc MainDocument Page 13 of 25Case 18-12095-BFK Doc 105 Filed 10/18/18 Entered 10/18/18 08:58:36 Desc MainDocument Page 14 of 25Case 18-12095-BFK Doc 105 Filed 10/18/18 Entered 10/18/18 08:58:36 Desc MainDocument Page 15 of 25Case 18-12095-BFK Doc 105 Filed 10/18/18 Entered 10/18/18 08:58:36 Desc MainDocument Page 16 of 25Case 18-12095-BFK Doc 105 Filed 10/18/18 Entered 10/18/18 08:58:36 Desc MainDocument Page 17 of 25Case 18-12095-BFK Doc 105 Filed 10/18/18 Entered 10/18/18 08:58:36 Desc MainDocument Page 18 of 25Case 18-12095-BFK Doc 105 Filed 10/18/18 Entered 10/18/18 08:58:36 Desc MainDocument Page 19 of 25Case 18-12095-BFK Doc 105 Filed 10/18/18 Entered 10/18/18 08:58:36 Desc MainDocument Page 20 of 25Case 18-12095-BFK Doc 105 Filed 10/18/18 Entered 10/18/18 08:58:36 Desc MainDocument Page 21 of 25Case 18-12095-BFK Doc 105 Filed 10/18/18 Entered 10/18/18 08:58:36 Desc MainDocument Page 22 of 25Case 18-12095-BFK Doc 105 Filed 10/18/18 Entered 10/18/18 08:58:36 Desc MainDocument Page 23 of 25Case 18-12095-BFK Doc 105 Filed 10/18/18 Entered 10/18/18 08:58:36 Desc MainDocument Page 24 of 25Case 18-12095-BFK Doc 105 Filed 10/18/18 Entered 10/18/18 08:58:36 Desc MainDocument Page 25 of 25
#### § 200.76 [Reserved]
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION 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 Annual Report of Nuance
Communications, Inc. (the Registrant) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Charles W. Berger, Chief Executive
Officer of the Registrant, certify, in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:



| | (1) | The Report, to which this certification is attached as Exhibit 32.1, fully complies with the requirements of Sections 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



A signed original of this written statement required by 18 U.S.C. Section
1350 has been provided to the Registrant and will be retained by the Registrant and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.



By:

/s/    CHARLES W. BERGERCharles W. BergerPresident and Chief Executive OfficerMay 10, 2005
1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 46031

STATE OF IDAHO ,

Plaintiff

- Respondent ,

v.

JOE ANTHONY SANTIAGO ,

Defendant

- Appellant

. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Filed: February 13, 2019

Karel A. Lehrman, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION AND SHALL NOT BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Ada County. Hon. Lynn G. Norton , District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and suspended unified sentence of seven years, with a minimum period of confinement of two years, for possession of a controlled substance, affirmed

.
Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Andrea W. Reynolds

, Deputy Appe llate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming , Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.

________________________________________________ Before GRATTON, Chief Judge; HUSKEY, Judge; and LORELLO, Judge

________________________________________________

PER CURIAM
Joe Anthony Santiago pled guilty to possession of a controlled substance . I.C. § 37

- 2732(c)(1)(F)

. In exchange for his guilty plea, an additional charge wa s dismissed. The parties
entered into a plea agree ment in which the parties agreed that the State would recommend
probation with an underlying sentence of seven years, with a minimum period of confinement of
three years. At senten cing, the State made the agreed

- upon sentencing recommendation.
Santiago concurred with the recommendation. The district court sentenced Santiago to a unified2 term of seven years, with a minimum period of confinement of only two years ; suspended the

sentence ; and placed Santiago on p robation

. Santiago appeals

, without acknowledging his
concurrence in the State’s sentencing recommendation. Santiago argues his sentence , which is

less than the recommendation, is excessive

. Although Santiago received a lesser sentence than he agreed to at the time of sentencing

, he asserts that his underlying suspended sentence is excessive . The doctrine of invited error
applies to estop a party from asserting an error when his or her own conduct induces the

commission of the error. State v. Atkins on , 124 Idaho 816, 819, 864 P.2d 654, 657 (Ct. App.
1993). One may not complain of errors one has consented to or acquiesced in. State v. Caudill

, 109 Idaho 222, 226, 706 P.2d 456, 460 (1985); State v. Lee , 131 Idaho 600, 605, 961 P.2d 1203,
1208 (Ct. Ap p. 1998). In short, invited errors are not reversible. State v. Gittins , 129 Idaho 54,
58, 921 P.2d 754, 758 (Ct. App. 1996). This doctrine applies to sentencing decisions as well as
rulings made during trial. State v. Griffith , 110 Idaho 613, 614, 716 P.2d 1385, 1386 (Ct. App.
1986).

Therefore, because Santiago received a lesser sentence t h an he requested, he may not complain that the district court abused its discretion. Accordingly, Santiago’s suspended unified
sentence of seven years, with a min imum period of confinement of two years, for possession of a

controlled substance is affirmed.
-       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2023-09-02T05:07:26-0400
      - Government Publishing Office, Washington, DC 20401
      - Government Publishing Office
      - Government Publishing Office attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by Government Publishing Office
Exhibit 10(a) 





CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT
REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM 



We consent to the incorporation by
reference in this Post-Effective Amendment No. 41 to Registration Statement No. 2-96219
on Form N-1A of our report dated August 23, 2007, relating to the financial statements
and financial highlights of BlackRock International Value Fund (the “Fund”) (formerly
Merrill Lynch International Value Fund) one of the funds constituting BlackRock
International Value Trust (formerly Mercury Funds II and BlackRock Funds II), appearing
in the Annual Report on Form N-CSR of the Fund for the year ended June 30, 2007, and to
the references to us under the headings “Financial Highlights” in the Prospectus and
“Financial Statements” in the Statement of Additional Information, which are part of such
Registration Statement. 



/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP 



Princeton, New Jersey 
October 26,
2007
BENEFITS ASSISTANCE SERVICE 

BURIAL FLAG 

Disabilities determined by VA to be related to your military service can lead to monthly non-taxable compensation, enrollment in the 

VA health care system, a 10-point hiring preference for federal employment and other important benefits. Ask your VA 

representative or Veterans Service Organization representative about Disability Compensation, Pension, Health Care, Caregiver 

Program, Career Services, Educational Assistance, Home Loan Guaranty, Insurance and/or Dependents and Survivors’ Benefits.

WHY DOES VA PROVIDE A BURIAL FLAG? 

A United States flag is provided, at no cost to drape the casket of a deceased Veteran who served 

honorably in the U.S. Armed Forces. It is furnished to honor the memory of a Veteran’s military 

service to his or her country. VA will furnish a burial flag to memorialize Veterans who receive an 

other-than-dishonorable discharged: 

 Veteran who served during wartime

 Veteran who died on active duty after May 27, 1941

 Veteran who served after January 31, 1955

 peacetime Veteran who was discharged or released before June 27, 1950

 certain persons who served in the organized military forces of the Commonwealth of the

Philippines while in service of the U.S. Armed Forces and who died on or after April 25, 1951

 Certain former members of the Selected Reserves

WHO IS ELIGIBLE TO RECEIVE THE BURIAL FLAG? 

Generally, the flag is given to the next-of-kin, as a keepsake, after its use during the funeral service. 

When there is no next-of-kin, VA will furnish the flag to a friend making request for it. For those VA 

national cemeteries with an Avenue of Flags, families of Veterans buried in these national cemeteries 

may donate the burial flags of their loved ones to be flown on patriotic holidays. 

HOW CAN YOU APPLY? 

You may apply for the flag by completing VA Form 27-2008, Application for United States Flag for 

Burial Purposes. VA Regional Offices and some United States Post Offices are the primary issuing 

points for burial flags. Call and confirm with the post office in advance as not all local post offices 

have burial flags on hand.
Benefits Assistance Service– February 2015

CAN A BURIAL FLAG BE REPLACED? 

The law allows us to issue one flag for a Veteran’s funeral. We cannot replace it if it is lost, destroyed, 

or stolen. However, some Veterans’ organizations or other community groups may be able to help 

you get another flag. 

HOW SHOULD THE BURIA L FLAG BE DISPLAYED? 

The proper way to display the flag depends upon whether the casket is open or closed. VA Form 27-

2008 does provide the correct method for displaying and folding the flag. The burial flag is not 

suitable for outside display because of its size and fabric. It is made of cotton and can easily be 

damaged by weather.
Exhibit 32.2     DAC TECHNOLOGIES GROUP INTERNATIONAL, INC. CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(b) ORRULE 15d-14(c) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 AND 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350     In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of DAC Technologies Group InternationalInc (the “Company”) for the period ended September 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), Robert C. Goodwin, Chief Financial Officerof the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 ofthe Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements ofsection 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and (2) The information contained inthe Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of the Company.              /s/ Robert C. Goodwin   Robert C. Goodwin, CFO, Principal Accounting Officer and Principal Financial Officer      Date: November 14, 2006
Page 1 of 3

Disposition Comments

Docket No: FAA-2013-0093 These comments are in

Directorate ID: 2011-NM-109-AD response to an SNPRM

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

Next Step: FRAN SNPRM

 No Comments/Only Supportive Comments Received – If this box is checked, no signatures are 

required.

 Has the referenced service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? If yes, 

list latest revision and attach a copy. Note that changes beyond the scope of the previously 

published NPRM will require a new notice. Contact the Directorate focal point for guidance.

Instructions: Summarize all comments by issue (not by commenter) and provide your recommended resolution of 

each issue. All comments relating to the same issue should be discussed together. Do not list all of the issues 

from one commenter together. If changes to the AD are required based on the comments received, explain why and 

describe in detail what change(s) you recommend. Reference FAA-IR-M-8040.1C Chapter 9.

ISSUE 1: Select one of the following: 

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): 

What change to the AD action is requested? 

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? 

Do we agree? 

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: 

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with because We disagree with because 

Make the following changes to the AD: 

If NO, we don’t agree because 

ISSUE 2: Select one of the following: 

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): 

What change to the AD action is requested? 

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? 

Do we agree? 

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: 

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with because We disagree with because 

Make the following changes to the AD:
Page 2 of 3

If NO, we don’t agree because 

For additional issues, double-click here
Page 3 of 3

Signature Section

Signature indicates concurrence with this action.

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

ASE Printed Name: Date

Branch Manager Date
#### L. J. Hobart *v.*Edwin F. Reeves *et al.*

Mechanic’s *lien—sufficiency of petition as to compliance with contract.*Where a contract requires the contractor to furnish the material and complete a building, but contains a clause, that the owner is to pay a third party a certain sum by assuming bills for lumber for the building, and to a cer*528tain extent, and the balance of such sum when such other party completes the carpenter work, a petition by such contractor for ¡a mechanic’s lien, which sets out these facts, and avers that the third party furnished the 1 lumber and finished the carpenter work, and that the contractor furnished material and completed the balance of the work, and that the entire work is completed and the building accepted by the owner, shows a substantial compliance with the contract, and is sufficient to entitle him to a lien.

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook comity; the Hon. Lambert Tree, Judge, presiding.

Messrs. Barber & Laokner, for the appellant.

Messrs. Sleeper & Whiton, for the appellees.

Mr. Justice Craig

delivered the opinion of the Court:

This was a petition, filed in the circuit court of Cook county, by appellees against appellant, to enforce a mechanic’s lien.

Appellant filed a general demurrer to the petition, which the court overruled, and a decree was entered in favor of appellees.

The only objection made to the petition is, that it fails to show a performance of the contract on the part of the *petitioners.*

The objection is not tenable. The contract set out in the petition, it is true, requires appellees to furnish the material and complete the building. It, however, contains a clause that appellant is to pay J. S. Miller $1000, by assuming the bills for the lumber for the building to the amount of $700, and the balance to be paid to J. S. Miller when he completes the job of carpenter work.

It is averred in the petition, that it was agreed that Miller should furnish all lumber and do all the carpenter work, and appellees should furnish the material and do all the mason work. It is also averred, that appellees furnished the material and did all the mason work, and that Miller furnished the material and did the carpenter work. That the entire work has been completed, and the building accepted by appellant.

This, we regard as sufficient. The contract expressly shows *529that Miller Avas to furnish the material and do the carpenter work, and the averment that the carpenter Avork was all completed by Miller, shows a substantial performance of the contract by appellees.

The decree of the circuit court will be affirmed.

*Decree afirmed.*