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

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                          50,486
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   31,061
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               161,426
<PP&E>                                       3,846,532
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,336,063
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,714,458
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           83,766
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,714,458
<SALES>                                        232,323
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               232,353
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               185,383
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              87,168
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (40,198)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (40,198)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (40,198)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
```

               Written Statement of the Chief Financial Officer
                           Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. "1350

Solely for the purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C. "1350, I, the undersigned
Chief Financial Officer of Seaview Video Technology Inc. (the "Company"), hereby
certify, based on my knowledge, that Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the
Company for the quarter ended June 30, 2002 (the "Report") fully complies with
the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
that information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Douglas Bauer
August 19, 2002
```
### **Subchapter A—Private Foundations**

Sec.
4940.
Excise tax based on investment income.
4941.
Taxes on self-dealing.
4942.
Taxes on failure to distribute income.
4943.
Taxes on excess business holdings.
4944.
Taxes on investments which jeopardize charitable purpose.
4945.
Taxes on taxable expenditures.
4946.
Definitions and special rules.
4947.
Application of taxes to certain nonexempt trusts.
4948.
Application of taxes and denial of exemption with respect to certain foreign organizations.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

**1978**—Pub. L. 95–227, §4(c)(2)(A), Feb. 10, 1978, 92 Stat. 22, added subchapter A heading and designated sections 4940 to 4948 as subchapter A.

**1969**—Pub. L. 91–172, title I, §101(b), Dec. 30, 1969, 83 Stat. 498, added analysis of sections.
#### Albert W. Pross et al., as Successor Trustees under a Deed of Trust made by Mabel E. F. Anson, Respondents, v. Helen F. Anson, an Infant, by Her Guardian ad Litem, Willard B. Vander Voort, et al., Respondents-Appellants; Alexander Halpern, as Successor Trustee under the Will of Mabel E. Flake, Deceased, Appellant, and Title Guarantee and Trust Company, as Guardian of the Property of Helen F. Anson, an Infant, et al., Respondents.

In an action to construe a trust agreement executed in 1906, as possibly affected by a will executed in 1941, and to dispose of the property in the trust, judgment, insofar as appealed from, unanimously affirmed, with costs to all parties filing briefs, payable out of the trust estate. The findings and conclusions are adjusted as follows: In the *“*Decision ” findings numbers *“*Eleventh ” and “ Twelfth ” are each modified by striking out the word, “not”. As thus modified all the findings and conclusions in the decision are affirmed. All the proposed findings and conclusions submitted by the guardian ad litem, whether found or refused by the trial justice, are found and affirmed. In our opinion the adopted daughter is a descendant within the meaning of the trust agreement executed by her foster mother. *{Matter of Cook,*187 N. Y. 253, 260.) *Matter of Dudley*(168 Mise. 695) and *Matter of Marsh*(143 Mise. 609) are not to the contrary. There the adopted children were not related in blood or in law but were strangers to the grantors. The provisions of the fourth paragraph of section 115 of the Domestic Relations Law (L. 1938, eh. 606, § 1, as amd.), providing that rights of remaindermen shall not be defeated, has no application to the facts in this case. Carswell, Johnston, Adel and Wenzel, JJ., concur; Lewis, P. J., concurs in the result, upon the opinion rendered at Special Term by Mr. Justice Sneed.
Sacramento River

YYOOLL OO CC OO

SSUUTTTTEE RR CCOO

3 2 1

11

14

10 12

15

13

T11N R2E

Knights Landing

35.2 L

Contract No. 14-06-200-4105A-R-1

Exhibit B

Lockett, William and Jean

725-202-88

Note: The Public Land Survey depicted here

was digitized from USGS topographic maps.

0 0.5 1

Miles

Date: November 9, 2004

File Name: N:\districts\contracts\lockett_william_p_and_jean_b\lockett_william_and_jean.mxd

Contractor's Service Area

Point of Diversion
### §416e. Approval of leases

The Secretary of the Interior shall approve no lease pursuant to sections 416 to 416j of this title that contains any provision that will prevent or delay a termination of Federal trust responsibilities with respect to the land during the term of the lease.

(Pub. L. 89–715, §6, Nov. 2, 1966, 80 Stat. 1113.)
#### § 681.100 What is a standing youth committee?

The Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA) eliminates the requirement for Local Workforce Development Boards (WDBs) to establish a youth council. However, the Department encourages Local WDBs to establish a standing committee to provide information and to assist with planning, operational, oversight, and other issues relating to the provision of services to youth. If the Local WDB does not designate a standing youth committee, it retains responsibility for all aspects of youth formula programs.
#### The People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellant, *v.*Randall S. Gremp, Defendant-Appellee.

(No. 73-127;

Third District

June 11, 1974.

Ronald E. Boyer, State’s Attorney, of Watseka, for the People.

James Geis, of the State Appellate Defender’s Office, of Ottawa, for appellee.

Mr. JUSTICE STOUDER

delivered the opinion of the court:

Defendant, Randall S. Gremp, was charged with the offense of unlawful possession of cannabis in excess of 30 grams in violation of section 4(d) of the Cannabis Control Act (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1971, ch. 56%, par. 704(d)). Defendant moved to suppress the evidence seized by the police officers namely the cannabis and the trial court granted such motion. The State has appealed.

Randall Gremp is one of three codefendants charged with the possession of cannabis arising from the same incident and joined with the other codefendants in moving to suppress the evidence. We have recently considered on this exact question in connection with the consolidated appeals of the other two codefendants, and in *People v. Wolf*(1973), 15 Ill.App.3d 374, 304 N.E.2d 512, *appeal allowed,*56 Ill.2d. -, we held the trial court erred in suppressing the evidence.

No useful purpose would be served by either reiterating the facts which are amply disclosed in the *Wolf*case or repeating the reasoning of the court.

Accordingly, the judgment of the circuit court of Iroquois County is reversed and the cause is remanded to said court for further proceedings.

Reversed and remanded.

ALLOY and DIXON, JJ., concur.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

 TENTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

 v. 

 MICHAEL DUANE RABIEH, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

No. 16-6317 

(D.C. Nos. 5:16-CV-00423-C and 

5:07-CR-00058-C-2) 

(W.D. Okla.) 

ORDER AND JUDGEMENT*

Before PHILLIPS, McKAY, McHUGH, Circuit Judges. 

Michael Rabieh pled guilty to knowingly and intentionally distributing 

methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). The district court applied the 

career-offender enhancement under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines § 4B1.1, and sentenced 

Mr. Rabieh to 151 months’ imprisonment. Several years later, Mr. Rabieh filed a pro se 

motion for federal habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 based on Johnson v. United 

States, 135 S. Ct. 2251 (2015), which held that the residual clause of the Armed Career 

 

*

 After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously 

that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of this appeal. See

Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted 

without oral argument. This order is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of 

law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its 

persuasive value consistent with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 32.1 and 10th 

Circuit Rule 32.1. 

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

June 21, 2017

Elisabeth A. Shumaker 

Clerk of Court
- 2 - 

Criminal Act was unconstitutionally vague, and United States v. Madrid, 805 F.3d 1204 

(10th Cir. 2015), which applied Johnson to the residual clause for the career-offender 

sentencing enhancement, as defined in U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(a)(2). 

The district court denied the § 2255 motion because the plea agreement contained 

a collateral-attack waiver. Subsequently, the district court granted a certificate of 

appealability on whether enforcement of the waiver would constitute a miscarriage of 

justice under United States v. Hahn, 359 F.3d 1315 (10th Cir. 2004). However, after the 

certificate was granted, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Beckles v. United States, 

137 S. Ct. 886 (2017). Beckles held that the Sentencing Guidelines, including the 

residual clause of § 4B1.2(a)(2), are not susceptible to vagueness challenges under the 

Due Process Clause. Thus, we need not address whether the plea waiver precludes this 

collateral attack because Mr. Rabieh’s § 2255 motion lacks merit in light of Beckles. 

AFFIRMED. 

 Entered for the Court 

 Monroe G. McKay 

 Circuit Judge
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF THE

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

OF MAX RE CAPITAL LTD.

This certification is provided
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. § 1350, and accompanies the annual report on Form 10-K (the Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2006 of Max Re Capital Ltd. (the
Issuer).

I, W. Marston Becker, the Chief Executive Officer of the Issuer certify that:



| | (i) | the Form 10-K fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)); and
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (ii) | the information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Issuer.
| | ---- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in
typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to the Issuer and will be retained by the Issuer and furnished to the SEC or its staff upon request.

Date: February 16, 2007



/s/    W. MARSTON BECKERName:    W. Marston Becker
§ 2565.2 Application; fees; contests and protests. ( a ) *Filing of application; publication and posting; submission of proof.* The trustee will file his application and notice of intention to make proof, and thereupon the authorizing officer will issue the usual notice of making proof, to be posted and published at the trustee's expense, for the time and in the manner as in other cases provided, and proof must be made showing occupancy of the tract, number of inhabitants thereon, character of the land, extent, value, and character of improvements, and that the townsite does not contain any land occupied by the United States for school or other purposes or land occupied under any existing valid claim initiated under Russian rule.
( b ) *Application service fee.* The trustee's application shall be accompanied by $10 application service fee which shall not be returnable.
( c ) *Expense money to be advanced by lot occupants.* The occupants will advance a sufficient amount of money to pay for the land and the expenses incident to the entry to be refunded to them when realized from lot assessments.
( d ) *Contests and protests.* Applications for entry will be subject to contest or protest as in other cases.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                          21,325
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,245
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      2,322
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   689
<PP&E>                                         347,095
<DEPRECIATION>                                  81,851
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 327,727
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           42,319
<BONDS>                                        293,426
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           14,090
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             1
<OTHER-SE>                                       4,979
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   327,727
<SALES>                                        120,389
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               120,389
<CGS>                                           87,573
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   87,573
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                16,597
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              11,972
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  3,958
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,659
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,299
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,299
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
Case 4:20-cv-10044-JEM Document 1-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/30/2020 Page 1 of 2
Case 4:20-cv-10044-JEM Document 1-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/30/2020 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 34.2**Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**The Board of DirectorsCitibank, N.A.:We have examined management’s assertion, included in the accompanying Appendix I, that Citibank,N.A. (or “Company”) complied with the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of theSecurities and Exchange Commission’s Regulation AB for publicly-issued (i.e., transaction-levelreporting initially required under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended) residentialmortgage-backed securities, automobile loan or lease-backed securities and student loan-backedsecurities issued on or after January 1, 2006 for which the Company provides the followingservicing functions: paying agent, securities administration and trustee; or securitiesadministration and paying agent; or paying agent and trustee; or paying agent, collectively“Servicing Functions.” (the “Platform”), excluding servicing criteria 1122(d)(1)(i),1122(d)(1)(iiii), 1122(d)(1)(iv), 1122(d)(2)(iii), 1122(d)(4)(i), 1122(d)(4)(ii) and 1122(d)(4)(iv)through 1122(d)(4)(xiv), which the Company has determined are not applicable to the activities theCompany performs with respect to the Platform, as of and for the twelve months ended December 31,2006. Management is responsible for the Company’s compliance with those servicing criteria. Ourresponsibility is to express an opinion on management’s assertion about the Company’s compliancebased on our examination.Our examination was conducted in accordance with the standards of the Public Company AccountingOversight Board (United States) and, accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidenceabout the Company’s compliance with the servicing criteria specified above and performing suchother procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. Our examination included testingof less than all of the individual asset-backed transactions and securities that comprise thePlatform, testing of less than all of the servicing activities related to the Platform, anddetermining whether the Company processed those selected transactions and performed those selectedactivities in compliance with the servicing criteria. Furthermore, our procedures were limited tothe selected transactions and servicing activities performed by the Company during the periodcovered by this report. Our procedures were not designed to determine whether errors may haveoccurred either prior to or subsequent to our tests that may have affected the balances or amountscalculated or reported by the Company during the period covered by this report for the selectedtransactions or any other transactions. We believe that our examination provides a reasonablebasis for our opinion. Our examination does not provide a legal determination on the Company’scompliance with the servicing criteria.In our opinion, management’s assessment that the Company complied with the aforementioned servicingcriteria as of and for the twelve month ended December 31, 2006 is fairly stated, in all materialrespects./s/ KPMG LLPChicago, Illinois
# Europeiska unionens C 249I/2020

| | ISSN 1977-1061 |
| --- | --- |
| Europeiska unionens
  officiella tidning | C 249I |
| | |
| Svensk utgåva | Meddelanden och upplysningar | 63 årgången29 juli 2020 |

ISSN 1977-1061

Europeiska unionens

officiella tidning

C 249I

Svensk utgåva

Meddelanden och upplysningar

63 årgången29 juli 2020

---

| Innehållsförteckning | Sida |
| --- | --- |
| | IV   Upplysningar |
| | UPPLYSNINGAR FRÅN EUROPEISKA UNIONENS INSTITUTIONER, BYRÅER OCH ORGAN |
| | Rådet |
| 2020/C 249 I/01 | Antagande av ändringar av Eurojusts arbetsordning | 1 |

Innehållsförteckning

Sida

IV   Upplysningar

UPPLYSNINGAR FRÅN EUROPEISKA UNIONENS INSTITUTIONER, BYRÅER OCH ORGAN

Rådet

2020/C 249 I/01

Antagande av ändringar av Eurojusts arbetsordning

1

---

| SV | |
| --- | --- |

SV

---

IV Upplysningar

UPPLYSNINGAR FRÅN EUROPEISKA UNIONENS INSTITUTIONER, BYRÅER OCH ORGAN

Rådet

| 29.7.2020 | SV | Europeiska unionens officiella tidning | CI 249/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.7.2020

SV

Europeiska unionens officiella tidning

CI 249/1

---

Antagande av ändringar av Eurojusts arbetsordning

(2020/C 249 I/01)

Den 24 juli 2020 antog Eurojusts kollegium ändringar av Eurojusts arbetsordning (1). Dessa ändringar bifogas rådets genomförandebeslut (EU) 2020/1114 av den 23 juli 2020 (2).

För Eurojusts kollegium

Ladislav HAMRAN

Eurojusts ordförande

---

(1)  Godkända av rådet genom genomförandebeslut (EU) 2019/2250 av den 19 december 2019 (EUT L 336, 30.12.2019, s. 309) och antagna av kollegiet den 20 december 2019 (EUT L 50, 24.2.2020, s. 1).

1

(2)  EUT L 244, 29.7.2020, s. 13.

2

---
SERVED: FEBRUARY 28, 2012 , „. ,^, ^^ „,_ 

"-•:-.f-:^-?ORTMlON 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 'TX^i OPl'.RAlION;. 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON. DC 'VM-^r7^^. -' I- 1-^ 

IN THE MATTER OF 

FROST AD ATELIER, INC. 

FAA DOCKET NO. [TO BE ASSIGNED] 

(Civil Penally AcUon) 

FDMS NO. FAA-2011-0294 

NOTICE O F HEARING DATES 

Paragraph #2 of the Procedural Order is amended as follows: 

WHEREFORE, the parties be and are hereby ORDERED to adhere to the following 

procedural schedule: 

... On or before June I, 2012. the parties shall conclude all discovery including, 

hut not limited to. depositions, document production, responses to production 

reiptests and/or interrogatories. Ij the parties cannot resolve a discovery dispute 

they shall submit the dispute to the undersigned for resolution in a timely 

manner... 

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that testimony and evidence will be heard and considered 

on June 13 and 14, 2012, inclusive, in the U.S. Tax Court: Room 2-1350, Federal 

Building and U.S. Courthouse, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94102. 

Hearings will commence at 9:00 a.m. and conclude at 4:30 p.m. each day. The parties 

should vacate the courthouse on or before 5:00 p.m. each day. 

Settled cases will not be removed from the docket until the Judge receives the 

proper plcading($). Pleadings may be forwarded by fax, express mail, courier or 

postal service. 

Li chard C. Goodwin 

U.S. Administrative Law Judge 

Attachment - Service List 
FDMS No. FAA-20] 1-0294 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

SERVICE LIST 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building—Suite 2WI000' 

ONE COPY 

David W. Williams, Respondent's Counsel 

Attorney at Law 

16372 Underhill Lane 

Huntington Beach, CA 92647 

TEL: 714-745-5610 

Lisa J. Toscano, Complainant's Counsel 

Attorney, Office of the Regional Counsel, AWP-7 

Western-Pacific Region 

Federal Aviation Administration 

P.O. Box 92007 

Los Angeles, CA 90009-2007 

TEL: 310-725-7110 

FAX: 310-725-6816 

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin, Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-2139 Attorney-Advisor 

202-366-5121 Staff Assistant/Paralegal 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

' Service was by US. Mail. Forsen'ice in person or by expedited courier, use the following 

address: Federal Aviation Adjninislnilion. 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building— 

Suite 2W1000, Wasbington. DC 20591, Alienlion: Hearing Docket Clerk. AGC-430.
### §861b. Omitted

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section, Pub. L. 95–281, §3, May 15, 1978, 92 Stat. 247, which related to restoration of Federal supervision as fulfilling other Federal statutory requirements, was omitted from the Code as being of special and not general application.
#### § 3591.2 Forms and reports.

The operator shall submit production and royalty forms and reports to the Minerals Management Service in accordance with 30 CFR parts 216 and 218.
### §1297. Omitted

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section, Pub. L. 92–456, §7, Oct. 3, 1972, 86 Stat. 763, which authorized the Secretary of the Interior to prescribe rules and regulations to carry out the provisions of this subchapter, was omitted from the Code as being of special and not general application.