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


<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                         0000731947                         
<NAME>                        Swiss Army Brands, Inc.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
<CURRENCY>                                     US Dollars
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                 JUL-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1.000
<CASH>                                         3,673
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  23,750
<ALLOWANCES>                                   1,032
<INVENTORY>                                    33,966
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               69,044
<PP&E>                                         10,449
<DEPRECIATION>                                 6,682
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 96,863
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          19,048
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       882
<OTHER-SE>                                     76,933
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   96,863
<SALES>                                        53,076
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               53,076
<CGS>                                          33,748
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  22,935
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (109)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             111
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (3,387)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (1,372)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (2,015)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (2,015)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (0.25)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.25)
        


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                           5,158
<SECURITIES>                                     2,594
<RECEIVABLES>                                    2,126
<ALLOWANCES>                                        44
<INVENTORY>                                      5,195
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                          23,052
<DEPRECIATION>                                   8,147
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  56,184
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                          7,184
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0<F2>
<COMMON>                                           822
<OTHER-SE>                                      10,749
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    56,184
<SALES>                                         57,587
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                61,397
<CGS>                                           45,842<F1>
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     7
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,007
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  6,092
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,372
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              3,720
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  (191)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,529
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     4.77<F3>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     4.74<F3>
<FN>
<F1>Excludes depreciation and special tools amortization, and employee 
retirement benefits.
<F2>Less than $1 million
<F3>In May 1996, Chrysler declared a two-for-one stock split in the form of a 
100 percent stock dividend which was distributed on July 15, 1996 to 
shareholders of record on June 15, 1996.  Financial data schedules for prior 
years have not been restated for this stock split.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
#### FIREMAN’S FUND INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. KOIN KLEEN LAUNDROMAT, INC., Ruth Fongemie, Nelson Fongemie, Defendants-Appellants, Arthur Lefebvre, Defendant, Joyce Hadley, as personal representative of the Estate of Willard Wendell Hill, III, Intervenor-Defendant-Appellant.

No. 05-15076

Non-Argument Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

Feb. 14, 2006.

Shannon Mclin Carlyle, The Carlyle Appellate Law Firm, Lady Lake, FL, for Defendants-Appellants.

Edwin A. Green, III, Blanchard, Merriam, Adel *&*Kirkland, Ocala, FL, for Intervenor-Defendant-Appellant.

Rina Niyogi, Bonner Kiernan Trebach & Crociata, LLP, Stuart L. Peacock, William H. White, Jr., Gilberg *&*Kiernan, Washington, DC, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Before MARCUS, WILSON and FAY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

The summary judgment entered in favor of the appellee, Fireman’s Fund Insurance Company, is affirmed for the reasons set forth in the ORDER of the district court dated August 10, 2005.

AFFIRMED.
Editorial Note on Part 41
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 41 (formerly part 275) appear at T.D. ATF-460, 66 FR 39093, July 27, 2001.

§ 41.63 Payment of tax by electronic fund transfer. ( a ) Each importer who was liable, during a calendar year, for a gross amount equal to or exceeding five million dollars in taxes on cigars, cigarettes, cigarette papers, and cigarette tubes combining tax liabilities incurred under this part and part 40 of this chapter, shall use a commercial bank in making payment by electronic fund transfer (EFT) of such taxes during the succeeding calendar year. Payment of such taxes by cash, check, or money order is not authorized for an importer who is required, by this section, to make remittances by EFT. For purposes of this section, the dollar amount of tax liability is defined as the gross tax liability on all taxable withdrawals and importations (including similar products brought into the United States from Puerto Rico or the Virgin Islands) during the calendar year, without regard to any drawbacks, credits, or refunds, for all premises from which such activities are conducted by the taxpayer.
( b ) For the purposes of this section, a taxpayer includes a controlled group of corporations, as defined in 26 U.S.C. 1563, and implementing regulations in 26 CFR 1.1563-1 through 1.1563-4, except that the words “at least 80 percent” shall be replaced by the words “more than 50 percent” in each place it appears in subsection (a) of 26 U.S.C. 1563, as well as in the implementing regulations. Also, the rules for a “controlled group of corporations” apply in a similar fashion to groups which include partnerships and/or sole proprietorships. If one entity maintains more than 50% control over a group consisting of corporations and one, or more, partnerships and/or sole proprietorships, all of the members of the controlled group are one taxpayer for the purpose of determining who is required to make remittances by EFT.
( c ) For the purposes of this section, ( 1 ) electronic fund transfer or EFT means any transfer of funds, other than a transaction originated by check, draft, or similar paper instrument, which is initiated through an electronic terminal, telephonic instrument, or computer of magnetic tape, so as to order, instruct, or authorize a financial institution to either debit or credit an account, in accordance with procedures established by the U.S. Customs Service, and
( 2 ) electronic fund transfer or EFT does not have the meaning defined in § 41.11 for use elswhere in this part.
( d ) An importer who is required by this section to make remittances by EFT, shall make the EFT remittance in accordance with the requirements of the U.S. Customs Service.
(Act of August 16, 1954, 68A Stat. 775, as amended (26 U.S.C. 6302); Sec. 202, Pub. L. 85-859, 72 Stat. 1417, as amended (26 U.S.C. 5703))
[T.D. ATF-245, 52 FR 534, Jan. 7, 1987, as amended by T.D. ATF-384, 61 FR 54095, Oct. 17, 1996. Redesignated and amended by T.D. TTB-16, 69 FR 52424, 52425, Aug. 26, 2004]
#### Kevin SLAPE, Plaintiff — Appellant, v. CITY OF LONG BEACH; K. Klein, individually and as a peace officer #5637; A. Alu, individually and as a peace officer # 5653, Defendants — Appellees.

No. 04-55881.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Feb. 6, 2006.*

Filed Feb. 21, 2006.

Thomas E. Beck, Esq., Thomas E. Beck & Associates, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Belinda Mays, Esq., Office of the City Attorney, City of Long Beach, Long Beach, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before: BEEZER, T.G. NELSON, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Plaintiff Kevin Slape appeals the district court’s denial of his second motion to set aside the district court’s order of dismissal. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm.

We only have jurisdiction to review Slape’s second motion to set aside the dismissal order. We lack jurisdiction to review the underlying dismissal order and Slape’s first motion to set aside that dismissal because Slape did not timely appeal.1

The district court was within its discretion 2 when it denied Slape’s second motion because Slape and his counsel ignored the court’s guidance to resubmit the second motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). By re-characterizing Slape’s first motion as one under Rule 60(b) and citing relevant precedent,3 the court effec*760tively instructed Slape on the applicable rule, Rule 60(b), and indicated that the rules under which Slape had filed his first motion, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41 and Central District Local Rule 41-3, were not applicable. Thus, when Slape ignored the court’s instruction and filed a second motion improperly relying on a local rule, the district court was within its discretion to deny the motion.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

1

. Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(1); *Taylor v. Knapp,*871 F.2d 803, 805 (9th Cir.1989) (noting that an appeal from a denial of a request for relief from judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) brings up for review only that denial and not the underlying judgment).

2

. *United States v. Nutri-cology, Inc.,*982 F.2d 394, 397 (9th Cir.1992) (citing standard of review).

3

. The district court specifically cited to both Rule 60(b) and *Ashford v. Steuart,*657 F.2d 1053 (9th Cir.1981) (per curiam), a case addressing Rule 60(b) motions.
UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
 WASHINGTON, DC 20549
 
 FORM 8-K
 CURRENT REPORT
 PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE
SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
 Date of Event Reported: June 30, 2011
 Tufco Technologies, Inc.
 
 Delaware
    
    0-21018
    
    39-1723477(State or Other Jurisdiction 
of Incorporation)
    
    (Commission
File Number)
    
    (IRS Employer
Identification No.)
 PO Box 23500, Green Bay, Wisconsin
    
    54305(Address of Principal Executive Offices)
    
    (Zip Code)
 920.336.0054
  o
    
    Written communications pursuant to Rule 425 under the Securities Act (17 CFR 230.425)
 o
    
    Soliciting material pursuant to Rule 14A-12 under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14a-12)
 o
    
    Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 14d-2(b) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14d-2(b))
 o
    
    Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 13e-4(c) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.13e-4(c))




---



##### 



ITEM 1.01
    
    ENTRY INTO A MATERIAL DEFINITIVE AGREEMENT
    Exhibit No.
    
    Description10.1
    
    
    Second Amendment to the First Amended and Restated Credit Agreement,
dated June 30, 2011, among Tufco, L.P., the Company, JPMorgan Chase
Bank N.A., as lender, and the guarantors party thereto.




---



##### 



TUFCO TECHNOLOGIES, INC.Dated:  June 30, 2010
    By:

/s/ Michael B. WheelerMichael B. WheelerExecutive Vice President, Chief Financial
Officer and Chief Operating Officer




---



##### 



Exhibit No.
    
    Description10.1
    
    
    Second Amendment to the First Amended and Restated Credit Agreement,
dated June 30, 2011, among Tufco, L.P., the Company, JP Morgan Chase
Bank N.A., as lender, and the guarantors party thereto.
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Seguro Medico, LLC and Arthur :

Wayne Walsh, :

Petitioners :

:

v. : No. 293 M.D. 2023

:

Michael Humphreys, in his official :

capacity as Acting Commissioner of :

the Pennsylvania Department of :

Insurance, David Buono, in his official :

capacity as Acting Deputy Insurance :

Commissioner, Michael Fissel, in his :

official capacity as the Chief of the :

Department of Insurance Field :

Investigations/Enforcement Bureau, :

and the Commonwealth of :

Pennsylvania Department of Insurance, :

Respondents :

PER CURIAM O R D E R

NOW, February 1, 2024, upon consideration of Petitioners’

application for reargument, the application is DENIED.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

DAY ELEV

 124.04

 123.90

 123.73

 123.89

 123.91

 123.92

 123.82

 123.62

 124.04

 124.05

 124.20

 123.73

 123.90

 123.94

 123.43

 123.06

 122.97

 123.32

 123.28

 123.50

 123.54

 123.44

 123.29

 123.59

 122.88

 122.52

 122.56

 122.70

 123.19

 123.70

 123.83

 8,281

 8,214

 8,134

 8,209

 8,219

 8,223

 8,176

 8,082

 8,281

 8,286

 8,361

 8,134

 8,214

 8,233

 7,993

 7,819

 7,778

 7,941

 7,923

 8,026

 8,045

 7,998

 7,927

 8,068

 7,737

 7,575

 7,593

 7,656

 7,880

 8,120

 8,181

STORAGE

+86

-67

-80

+75

+10

+4

-47

-94

+199

+5

+75

-227

+80

+19

-240

-174

-41

+163

-18

+103

+19

-47

-71

+141

-331

-162

+18

+63

+224

+240

+61

CHANGE

2,091

2,015

2,008

2,086

2,055

2,050

2,016

2,002

2,144

2,037

2,076

1,925

2,074

2,052

1,908

1,952

2,027

2,125

2,040

2,097

2,055

2,014

1,995

2,083

1,849

1,937

2,028

2,068

2,145

2,163

2,065

INFLOW

 1,943

 1,943

 1,942

 1,943

 1,945

 1,943

 1,935

 1,943

 1,938

 1,934

 1,942

 1,944

 1,939

 1,946

 1,932

 1,938

 1,943

 1,938

 1,944

 1,943

 1,941

 1,942

 1,945

 1,944

 1,944

 1,939

 1,938

 1,948

 1,937

 1,947

 1,939

POWER

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

SPILL

 60

 60

 60

 60

 60

 60

 60

 60

 60

 60

 60

 60

 60

 60

 60

 60

 60

 60

 60

 60

 60

 60

 60

 60

 60

 60

 60

 60

 60

 60

 60

HATCHERY

 0

 1

 1

 0

 0

 0

 0

 1

 1

 0

 1

 0

 0

 1

 1

 1

 0

 0

 0

 0

 1

 1

 0

 0

 0

 0

 1

 0

 0

 0

 0

C.F.S.

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION-CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT-CALIFORNIA

DECEMBER 2003 LAKE NATOMA DAILY OPERATIONS RUN DATE: January 2, 2004

IN LAKE

EVAP

C.F.S.

COMPUTED*

ACRE-FEET

RELEASE - C.F.S.

TOTALS -14 63,182 60,182 0 1,860 11

ACRE-FEET -14 125,321 119,371 0 3,689 22

COMMENTS:

* COMPUTED INFLOW IS THE SUM OF CHANGE IN STORAGE, RELEASES AND EVAPORATION.

SUMMARY

RELEASES (ACRE-FEET)

POWER 119,371

SPILL 0

FOLSOM SOUTH CANAL

HATCHERY

 2,253

 3,689

 8,195

FOLSOM

SOUTH 

CANAL

 45

 45

 45

 45

 45

 45

 45

 45

 45

 40

 35

 35

 35

 35

 36

 41

 45

 45

 45

 42

 43

 35

 26

 8

 12

 20

 20

 28

 35

 35

 35

 1,136

 2,253

(1)

(1) INCHES OF EVAPORATION TAKEN FROM FOLSOM PAN.

RELEASES (ACRE-FEET)

TOTAL 125,313

Table 12
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

DAY ELEV

 123.30

 122.70

 122.31

 122.13

 122.35

 122.80

 122.97

 123.08

 122.79

 123.63

 124.43

 123.21

 123.44

 123.28

 122.80

 122.64

 122.85

 123.13

 123.48

 122.86

 124.18

 123.75

 122.02

 122.82

 121.90

 122.38

 124.27

 124.20

 123.79

 123.54

 123.36

 7,932

 7,656

 7,481

 7,400

 7,499

 7,701

 7,778

 7,829

 7,697

 8,087

 8,476

 7,890

 7,998

 7,923

 7,701

 7,629

 7,724

 7,852

 8,017

 7,728

 8,351

 8,144

 7,350

 7,710

 7,299

 7,512

 8,396

 8,361

 8,162

 8,045

 7,960

STORAGE

+108

-276

-175

-81

+99

+202

+77

+51

-132

+390

+389

-586

+108

-75

-222

-72

+95

+128

+165

-289

+623

-207

-794

+360

-411

+213

+884

-35

-199

-117

-85

CHANGE

2,296

2,127

2,205

2,262

2,351

2,073

1,848

1,920

1,832

1,986

2,110

1,619

1,973

1,877

1,778

1,850

1,936

1,785

1,699

1,320

1,717

1,310

1,020

1,599

1,128

1,437

1,831

1,371

1,260

1,242

1,331

INFLOW

 2,160

 2,178

 2,202

 2,215

 2,220

 1,890

 1,727

 1,803

 1,808

 1,698

 1,823

 1,823

 1,828

 1,830

 1,829

 1,825

 1,826

 1,655

 1,513

 1,390

 1,326

 1,323

 1,323

 1,321

 1,240

 599

 300

 294

 649

 1,214

 1,288

POWER

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 27

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 644

 998

 1,008

 625

 0

 0

SPILL

 60

 60

 60

 60

 60

 60

 60

 60

 60

 60

 60

 60

 60

 60

 60

 60

 60

 60

 60

 60

 60

 60

 60

 60

 60

 60

 60

 60

 60

 60

 60

HATCHERY

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 0

 1

 1

 2

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 2

 2

 1

 1

 0

 1

 2

 2

 2

 2

 2

 2

 1

 2

 1

C.F.S.

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION-CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT-CALIFORNIA

MARCH 2013 LAKE NATOMA DAILY OPERATIONS RUN DATE: April 1, 2013

IN LAKE

EVAP

C.F.S.

COMPUTED*

ACRE-FEET

RELEASE - C.F.S.

TOTALS +136 54,093 48,120 3,302 1,860 39

ACRE-FEET +136 107,293 95,446 6,550 3,689 77

COMMENTS:

* COMPUTED INFLOW IS THE SUM OF CHANGE IN STORAGE, RELEASES AND EVAPORATION.

SUMMARY

RELEASES (ACRE-FEET)

POWER 95,446

SPILL 6,550

FOLSOM SOUTH CANAL

HATCHERY

 1,394

 3,689

 7,824

FOLSOM

SOUTH 

CANAL

 21

 27

 30

 27

 20

 20

 22

 30

 30

 29

 30

 30

 30

 24

 0

 0

 0

 3

 15

 15

 17

 30

 35

 35

 33

 25

 25

 25

 25

 25

 25

 703

 1,394

(1)

(1) INCHES OF EVAPORATION TAKEN FROM FOLSOM PAN.

RELEASES (ACRE-FEET)

TOTAL 107,079
#### § 463.35 What is integrated education and training?

The term “integrated education and training” refers to a service approach that provides adult education and literacy activities concurrently and contextually with workforce preparation activities and workforce training for a specific occupation or occupational cluster for the purpose of educational and career advancement.

(Authority: 29 U.S.C. 3272(11))
#### McCARTHY, Appellant, v. TIMM, et al, Respondent.

(268 N. W. 108.)

(File No. 7919.

Opinion filed June 29, 1936.)

*467
      *D. H. Lloyd,*of Flandreau, for Appellant.

*Louis H. Smith,*of .Sioux Falls, for Appellees.

PER CURIAM.

Certified copies of notice of appeal and undertaking on appeal in the above-entitled cause were filed with the clerk of this court on the 24th day of January, 1936. Since said date, the appellant has not filed his brief nor taken any other steps whatever to prosecute such appeal. This ¡being the case, such appeal is deemed to have been abandoned, and the orders from which the appeal is attempted to be taken are affirmed.

All the Judges concur.
EXHIBIT 13.1
 Certification by the Chief Executive Officer
Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002
     By:
    /s/ Jianyu YangName:
    Jianyu YangTitle:
    Chief Executive Officer
###### Editorial Note on Part 40

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 40 appear by T.D. ATF-460, 66 FR 39094-39096, July 27, 2001; T.D. ATF-464, 66 FR 43479, Aug. 20, 2001; and T.D. TTB-91, 76 FR 5479, Feb. 1, 2011.

#### § 40.403 Deposit of securities in lieu of corporate surety.

In lieu of corporate surety, the manufacturer of cigarette papers and tubes may pledge and deposit, as security for the bond, securities which are transferable and are guaranteed as to both interest and principal by the United States, in accordance with the provisions of 31 CFR Part 225—Acceptance of Bonds, Notes or Other Obligations Issued or Guaranteed by the United States as Security in Lieu of Surety or Sureties on Penal Bonds.

(61 Stat. 650, 72 Stat. 1421, 31 U.S.C. 9301, 9303, 26 U.S.C. 5711, 5 U.S.C. 552(a) (80 Stat. 383, as amended))
Exhibit 99.4




                       GE CAPITAL MORTGAGE SERVICES, INC.
             OFFICERS' ANNUAL COMPLIANCE CERTIFICATE - SERIES 1997-4


         The undersigned,  Vice Presidents of GE Capital Mortgage Services, Inc.
(the "Servicer"), pursuant to the Pooling and Servicing Agreement for the Series
1997-4 REMIC Multi-Class  Mortgage  Pass-Through  Certificates (the "Agreement")
entered into by GE Capital Mortgage Services,  Inc., as Seller and Servicer, and
State Street Bank and Trust Company,  as Trustee,  which  Agreement  requires an
annual  statement of  compliance  to be made to the Trustee by an officer of the
Servicer, hereby state that:

     (i)  a review  of the  activities  of the  Servicer  during  the  preceding
          calendar year and of its performance under the Agreement has been made
          under the undersigned officers' supervision; and

     (ii) to the  best of the  undersigned  officers'  knowledge,  based on such
          review,  the Servicer has  fulfilled  all of its material  obligations
          under  the  Agreement  throughout  such  year,  except as set forth on
          Exhibit A hereto.

Capitalized  terms used  herein but not  defined  herein  shall have the meaning
given to them in the Agreement.


Dated:            March 25, 1998




By:      /s/ Gregory A. Gibson
------------------------------
         Gregory A. Gibson
         Vice President


By:      /s/ Karen Pickett
--------------------------
         Karen Pickett
         Vice President



<PAGE>



                                    EXHIBIT A


         Flood Insurance.  There may be instances in which mortgage loans in the
CompanyOs   servicing  portfolio  which  did  not  require  flood  insurance  at
origination  were  subsequently  included  within  special flood hazard areas as
designated by the Federal  Emergency  Management  Agency and flood  insurance on
such mortgage loans may not yet be in place. The Company,  however, has arranged
for back-up flood insurance  coverage in the event of a flood loss relating to a
mortgaged  property  located in a special  flood  hazard  area.  The  Company is
continuing  a  remapping  effort  which  will  identify  mortgage  loans  in its
servicing  portfolio  which  may  now be (but  which  were  not at  origination)
included in special flood hazard  areas.  The Company is not aware of any losses
associated with the lack of flood insurance coverage on such mortgage loans.
#### George E. Whiteman, Respondent, v. Wesley R. Guile, Appellant.

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. All concurred.