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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
consolidated financial statements of Fingerhut Companies, Inc. for the fiscal
quarter ended March 28, 1997 and is qualified in its entirety by reference to
such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-26-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-28-1997
<CASH>                                          86,672
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  780,451
<ALLOWANCES>                                   166,333
<INVENTORY>                                    131,916
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,075,642
<PP&E>                                         464,832
<DEPRECIATION>                                 186,227
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,425,168
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          519,130
<BONDS>                                        246,473
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           462
<OTHER-SE>                                     605,559
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,425,168
<SALES>                                        289,537
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               350,014
<CGS>                                          146,294
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  335,377
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 1,427
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                32,046
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               8,281
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  4,929
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,368
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,561
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,561
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .05
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .05
        

</TABLE>
I 

114TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4575 

To amend the Federal Home Loan Bank Act to provide investment authority 

to support rural infrastructure development, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 12, 2016 

Mr. POLIQUIN (for himself and Mr. DAVID SCOTT of Georgia) introduced the 

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Financial Services 

A BILL 

To amend the Federal Home Loan Bank Act to provide 

investment authority to support rural infrastructure development, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. COOPERATIVE ASSOCIATIONS THAT SUPPORT 

4 RURAL INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT. 

5 Section 11 of the Federal Home Loan Bank Act (12 

6 U.S.C. 1431) is amended by adding at the end the fol7 lowing: 

8 ‘‘(m) COOPERATIVE ASSOCIATIONS THAT SUPPORT

9 RURAL INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT.—Each Fed10 eral Home Loan Bank is authorized to purchase investVerDate Sep 11 2014 01:58 Feb 17, 2016 Jkt 059200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H4575.IH H4575

emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4575 IH

1 ment-grade securities from nonmember lenders that are 

2 organized as cooperatives and that have received financing 

3 from the Federal Financing Bank and that have dem4 onstrated experience in making loans to cooperatives that 

5 are eligible to receive loans or commitments for loans from 

6 the Rural Utilities Service (or any successor agency). Such 

7 securities shall be secured investments collateralized by 

8 loans of the cooperative lender. The purchase of such secu9 rities shall be at the sole discretion of each Federal Home 

10 Loan Bank, consistent with such regulations, restrictions, 

11 and limitations as may be prescribed by the Agency.’’. 

Æ 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
### NUMBER 13 - 1 9 - 00 3 70 - CV 

## COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

____________________________________________________________ TERESA A. JOHNSON , A ppellant , V. SUNTRUST BANK D/B/A LIGHTSTREAM , A ppellee

.

____________________________________________________________

On a ppeal from the 370 th District Court of Hidalgo County, Texas.

____________________________________________________________



## MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Benavides, Longoria , and Perkes Memorandum Opinion by Justice Benavides Appellant Teresa A. Johnson, proceeding pro se, attempted to perfect an appeal from trial court cause number C

- 2122

- 19

- G in the 370th District Court of Hidalgo County, Texas. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Generally, appellate courts have jurisdic tion only over appeals from final judgments. See City of Watauga v. Gordon , 434 S.W.3d 586, 588 (Tex. 2014); Lehmann2

v. Har

- Con Corp. , 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001). Further, a ppellate courts have jurisdiction to consider appeals of interlocutory orders only if a statute explicitly provides for such an appeal. Tex. A & M Univ. Sys. v. Koseoglu , 233 S.W.3d 835, 840 (Tex. 2007); see City of Watauga , 434 S.W.3d at 588

. Appellant’s notice of appeal states that she wishes to appeal “the Citation served
on Ju ly 13, 2019.” On August 2, 2019, the Clerk of this Court notified appellant that it appeared that there was no final, appealable order so that steps could be taken to correct
th is defect, if it could be done. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 37.1, 42.3 (a) . Appellant was advised
that the appeal would be dismissed if the defect was not corrected within ten days from the date of receipt of this notice . Appellant did not correct the defect or otherwise respond to this Court’s notice. The Court, having considered the d ocuments on file and appellant ’ s failure to correct the defect in this matter, is of the opinion that the appeal should be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Accordingly, we DISMISS the appeal for want of jurisdiction. See
id. R. 37.1, 42.3(a),(c). GINA M. BENAVIDES , Justice D elivered and filed the 12th day of September , 2 019

.
### §913. Omitted

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section, Pub. L. 86–97, §3, July 17, 1959, 73 Stat. 222, which related to payment of shares of deceased enrollees, minors, and persons under legal disability, was omitted from the Code as being of special and not general application.
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

 1,198.63

 1,198.48

 1,198.41

 1,198.35

 1,198.39

 1,198.51

 1,198.33

 1,198.41

 1,198.36

 1,198.31

 1,198.32

 1,198.36

 1,198.42

 1,198.29

 1,198.24

 1,198.45

 1,198.40

 1,198.30

 1,198.16

 1,198.41

 1,198.29

 1,198.20

 1,198.46

 1,198.69

 1,198.61

 1,198.51

 1,198.41

 1,198.51

 1,198.26

 1,198.74

 1,198.64

 206.1

 205.6

 205.4

 205.2

 205.4

 205.7

 205.2

 205.4

 205.3

 205.1

 205.2

 205.3

 205.4

 205.1

 204.9

 205.5

 205.4

 205.1

 204.7

 205.4

 205.1

 204.8

 205.6

 206.2

 206.0

 205.7

 205.4

 205.7

 205.0

 206.4

 206.1

STORAGE

-0.4

-0.4

-0.2

-0.2

+0.1

+0.4

-0.5

+0.2

-0.1

-0.1

+0.0

+0.1

+0.2

-0.4

-0.1

+0.6

-0.1

-0.3

-0.4

+0.7

-0.4

-0.3

+0.8

+0.7

-0.2

-0.3

-0.3

+0.3

-0.7

+1.4

-0.3

CHANGE

1,738

1,685

1,664

1,652

1,613

1,703

1,693

1,750

1,576

1,561

958

1,017

1,031

987

1,045

570

157

54

18

576

27

73

592

544

83

59

60

452

-19

1,055

190

INFLOW

 1,761

 1,700

 1,566

 1,539

 1,351

 1,323

 1,760

 1,428

 1,449

 1,435

 742

 757

 742

 977

 915

 57

 31

 1

 22

 2

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 101

 148

 136

 139

PP

 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

 200

 200

 200

 200

 200

 200

 200

 200

 200

 200

 200

 200

 200

 200

 200

 200

 200

 200

 200

 200

 200

 200

 200

 200

 200

 200

 200

 200

 200

 200

 200

OUTLETS

 0

 8

 2

 3

 3

 2

 0

 3

 2

 1

 1

 1

 0

 3

 4

 1

 1

 1

 4

 2

 5

 7

 6

 2

 2

 8

 8

 3

 4

 6

 0

C.F.S.

 .00

 .09

 .02

 .03

 .03

 .02

 .00

 .04

 .02

 .01

 .01

 .01

 .00

 .03

 .05

 .01

 .01

 .01

 .05

 .02

 .06

 .08

 .07

 .02

 .02

 .09

 .09

 .03

 .05

 .07

 .00

INCHES

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

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

DECEMBER 1999 WHISKEYTOWN LAKE DAILY OPERATIONS RUN DATE: January 25, 2000

IN LAKE

EVAPORATION

C.F.S. FRANCIS

COMPUTED*

1000 ACRE-FEET

RELEASE - C.F.S. 

TOTALS -0.2 26,164 6,200 0 20,082 93 1.04

ACRE-FEET -0.2 51,896 12,298 0 39,833 184

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

(1) WATER TO CLEAR CREEK BEING DISCHARGED THROUGH 972.00-1110.00 ELEVATION OUTLET.

SUMMARY

RELEASE (ACRE-FEET)

POWER 39,833

SPILL 0 52,131

 206.5

OUTLET 12,298

TOTAL

JUDGE

CARR PP

(1)

 1,511

 1,456

 1,484

 1,465

 1,531

 1,517

 1,512

 1,492

 1,460

 1,508

 962

 1,039

 975

 942

 979

 588

 209

 605

 1

 552

 448

 432

 1,067

 235

 23,970

 47,544

FROM

TO

SPRING CR.

TO CLEAR CR

CLEAR

CR.

NATURAL

FLOW

 227

 229

 180

 187

 82

 186

 181

 258

 116

 53

-4

-22

 56

 45

 66

-18

-52

 54

 18

-29

 27

 72

 40

 96

 83

 59

 60

 20

-19

-12

-45

 2,194

 4,352

 .54

 .2

 .05

 .31

 .1

 .08

 1.28

PRECIP

INCHES

PRECIPITATION

 1.28

 12.83

THIS MONTH

JULY 1, 1999 TO DATE
FIL ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T APRI L26, 2011 J OHN LEY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE U

NITED STATE S COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 14 17 4 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 1 :0 9- cv -2 17 90 -J LK ALEXAND ER ZAMORA, lll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll an t, ve rs us W ILLIAMS-S ONOMA STORES, INC., a Cal ifo rn iaco rp or at io n, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Defen dant -Ap pe ll ee.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di stric t Co urt forth e So uthe rnDis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Ap ril 26 , 20 11 ) Befo re BARKETT, W ILSON an d B LACK, Circ ui t J ud ge s. PER CURI AM: Alex an de r Zam or a ap pe al s fr om th e d is tri ctco urt’s g ran t o f su m m aryjud gm en t t o h is form er em pl oyer, W il li am s- So no m a St or es , Inc . (“ W il li am sSo no m a”), i n h is act io n a ll eg in g b oth d is cri m in at io n andret al ia ti on un de r: Ti tl e VII o f th e Ci vi l Ri gh ts Act o f 19 64 , 42 U.S.C. §§ 20 00 e-2 (a) and20 00 e-3 (a); th e Am eri can s With Dis ab il it ie s Act , 42 U.S.C. §§ 12 11 2( a) an d 1 22 03 (a); an d s ta te law. Zam or a al le ge d tha t, dur in g the co ur se of h is em pl oym en t as anass is tant 1 st or e m an ag er, Will ia m s- So no m a d is cri m in at edag ai ns t h im onth e b as is of h is Cuba n n at io na l o rig inan d re ta li at edag ai ns t h im for op po si ng su chdi sc riminat io n. He al so all eg edth atW il li am s- So no m a d is cri m in at edag ai ns t h im onth e b as is of a di sabi li ty, nam el y

a ch ro ni c an kl e co nd it io n, an d re ta li at edag ai ns t h im for reque st in g a cco m

m od at io ns forth is co nd it io n. Th e d is tri ctco urt g ran te d W il li am s- So no m a su m

m ary jud gm en t o n the gro un d tha t Zam or a fai le d t o m ak e ou t a p rima facie cas e fo r an y of h is cla im s. We hav e car efu ll y rev ie wedth e reco rd , as wel l as th e p art ie s’ bri efs , andwe reac h the same con cl us io n, fi nd in g n o ge nu in e is su es of m at eri al fact . Accor di ng ly, we affi rm th e d is tri ctco urt’s g ran t o f su m m ary jud gm en t i n favo r of W il li am s- So no m a. AFFIRMED.

“This Court revie ws de novo summary judgme nt rulings a

nd draw s all infere nces a

nd 1 revie ws all evidenc e in the light most favorableto the non-movingparty . Summary judgme nt is appropriate only

if the movant shows that thereis no ge nuine dispute as to any materia l fac t and the movant is entitled to judgment a s a matter of law.” Moton v. Cowar

t, 631 F.3d 1337, 1341 (11th Cir. 2011) (c itations omi tted). 2
### §3732. Postgraduation recruitment, education and training programs

#### (a) Assumption of loans

The Secretary shall establish and maintain a program to attract Indian professionals who are graduates of a course of postsecondary or graduate education for employment in either the Bureau agriculture or related programs or, subject to the approval of the tribe, in tribal agriculture or related programs. According to such regulations as the Secretary may prescribe, such program shall provide for the employment of Indian professionals in exchange for the assumption by the Secretary of the outstanding student loans of the employee. The period of employment shall be determined by the amount of the loan that is assumed.

#### (b) Postgraduate intergovernmental internships

For the purposes of training, skill development and orientation of Indian and Federal agricultural management personnel, and the enhancement of tribal and Bureau agricultural resource programs, the Secretary shall establish and actively conduct a program for the cooperative internship of Federal and Indian agricultural resource personnel. Such program shall—

(1) for agencies within the Department of the Interior—

(A) provide for the internship of Bureau and Indian agricultural resource employees in the agricultural resource related programs of other agencies of the Department of the Interior, and

(B) provide for the internship of agricultural resource personnel from the other Department of the Interior agencies within the Bureau, and, with the consent of the tribe, within tribal agricultural resource programs;

(2) for agencies not within the Department of the Interior, provide, pursuant to an interagency agreement, internships within the Bureau and, with the consent of the tribe, within a tribal agricultural resource program of other agricultural resource personnel of such agencies who are above their sixth year of Federal service;

(3) provide for the continuation of salary and benefits for participating Federal employees by their originating agency;

(4) provide for salaries and benefits of participating Indian agricultural resource employees by the host agency; and

(5) provide for a bonus pay incentive at the conclusion of the internship for any participant.

#### (c) Continuing education and training

The Secretary shall maintain a program within the Trust Services Division of the Bureau for Indian agricultural resource personnel which shall provide for—

(1) orientation training for Bureau agricultural resource personnel in tribal-Federal relations and responsibilities;

(2) continuing technical agricultural resource education for Bureau and Indian agricultural resource personnel; and

(3) development training of Indian agricultural resource personnel in agricultural resource based enterprises and marketing.

(Pub. L. 103–177, title II, §202, Dec. 3, 1993, 107 Stat. 2020.)
#### § 3472.2 Filing of qualification statements.
##### 



Exhibit 32.1

Certification of Chief Executive Officer Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

I, Richard H. De Voto, the Chief Executive Officer of Canyon Resources
Corporation (the Company), hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:



|1) |  | the Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2003, (the Form 10-Q), fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
|-- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|2) |  | the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
the Company.
|-- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: November 14, 2003
    
    /s/ Richard H. De VotoRichard H. De Voto
Chief Executive Officer
§ 3430.3-1 Land use planning. ( a ) As a matter of policy, the Department shall complete the processing of all preference right lease applications.
( b ) Preference right lease applications shall be processed in the cycle of on-going comprehensive land use plans unless the authorized officer determines that the processing of the application, in the cycle of on-going comprehensive land use plans, will not be completed by December 1, 1984.
( c ) ( 1 ) Each applicant may file a request with the authorized officer: ( i ) For an estimate of when the application shall be processed in the cycle of on-going comprehensive land use plans; and
( ii ) To have the applicant's application processed in advance of the period specified in the authorized officer's estimate.
( 2 ) The request shall include a statement of how the applicant will benefit from having the application processed more quickly than otherwise scheduled, and shall specify how the pendency of the application affects the applicant's production, marketing or use of coal before 1986.
( 3 ) If the authorized officer concludes that the failure to process an application apart from the cycle of on-going comprehensive land use plans would cause the applicant substantial hardship, the authorized officer may process the application apart from the cycle of on-going comprehensive land use plans in a land use analysis.
[44 FR 42628, July 19, 1979, as amended at 47 FR 33143, July 30, 1982; 52 FR 25798, July 8, 1987]
#### Joseph Kellner, Respondent, v. Emil Kaufman et al., Appellants.

*946Present — Martin, P. J., Glennon, Untermyer, Dore and Cohn, J J.
## Draft Proposal E-1

This concept has been developed by the DOE Building Energy Codes Program (BECP) as a possible code
change proposal to the Commercial provisions of the 2012 International Existing Buildings Code (IEBC).

Interested parties are asked to submit any and all comments on DOE's initial concepts and draft code
change proposals. For instructions on submitting comments, visit:

www.energycodes.gov/deve lopment/iebc_concepts



## Alteration Definition (E-1)

Objective: Expand definition of “alteration” to include retrofits and changes to energy systems.

Suggested Code Change Proposal

Revise the definition of “alteration” in Section 202 as follows:

ALTERATION. Any construction, retrofit or renovation to an existing structure other

than a repair or addition . Also, a change in a mechanical, service water heating, or lighting system that involves and extension, addition or change to the arrangement, type or purpose of the original installation. Alterations are classified as Level 1, Level 2 or

Level 3.

Reason: For consistency with the 2012 International Energy Conservation Code (IECC). The

terms “construction” and “renovation” are not def ined in the International Existing Buildings Code (IEBC) or other International Code C ouncil (ICC) codes and would logically include mechanical, water heating, and lighting systems but this is not clearly spelled out and some energy using systems might be excluded, given some interpretations of the code. The suggested new sentence is intended to clarify this and is consistent with the definition of “alteration” in the 2012 IECC. Because the term “retrofit” is also used regularly to generally describe work done in existing buildings, its inclusion in the definition along with construction and renovation is intended to provide more clarity to what can be confusing when trying to determine what is and is not covered by the IEBC with respect to work being done in and to existing buildings.

Cost Impact: There is no cost impact.
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l a r g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T UN I T E D S T AT E S OF AME R I C A, P l ai nt i ff

- A pp el l ee , v. J U LI U S D A RN ELL RO BERTS, D e f

e n d a n t - A p p e llan t. N o. 12- 30031 D. C . No . 2 : 0 2 - c r - 0 0 2 8 2 - F VS ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe E a s t e rn D i s tr i c tof W a s hi ngt on F r e d L . V a n S i c kl e , D i s tr i c tJudge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d S e pt e m be r10, 2012 ** B efo re: W A R D L A W , C L IF T O N , an dN . R . S M IT H , C i rcu i tJu d g es. Jul i us D a rne l l R obe rt s appe a l s f r om the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s or de rde ny i ng hi s 18 U . S . C . § 3 58 2(c) (2) m ot i on for r educt i on of se nt ence . W e have j uri sdi ct i on un der 2 8 U . S. C. § 1 2 9 1 , a n dw e a f f i rm. 

# FI LED SEP 21 2012 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS12- 30031 2 R o b e rts c o n te n d s th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u rt ab u s e dits d is c r e tio n b yd e n y in g h is m ot i on t o reduce hi s s ent ence because the courtdo ub l e c ou nt ed hi s c ri m i nal hi s t orya nd f

a i l e d t o c ons i de ra de qua t e l yhi s pos t - c onvi c t i on r e habi l i t a t i on. T he c o u rt c o n s id e r e dR o b e rts ’s p o s t- c o n v ic tio n r e h ab ilita tio n a n dp r o p e r lyb a s e dits d e c is io n o n p u b lic s a f

e tyc o n s id e r a tio n s a n dth e n e e df o rd e te rr e n c e . See U. S . S . G. § 1 B 1. 10 cm t . n. 1(B ); U ni te d States v . L i

ght f oot , 62 6 F . 3d 10 92 , 10 96 (9th C i r. 20 10 ). AF F I RME D.
Case 9:20-cr-80037-KAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/10/2020 Page 1 of 14
Case 9:20-cr-80037-KAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/10/2020 Page 2 of 14
Case 9:20-cr-80037-KAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/10/2020 Page 3 of 14
Case 9:20-cr-80037-KAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/10/2020 Page 4 of 14
Case 9:20-cr-80037-KAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/10/2020 Page 5 of 14
Case 9:20-cr-80037-KAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/10/2020 Page 6 of 14
Case 9:20-cr-80037-KAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/10/2020 Page 7 of 14
Case 9:20-cr-80037-KAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/10/2020 Page 8 of 14
Case 9:20-cr-80037-KAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/10/2020 Page 9 of 14
Case 9:20-cr-80037-KAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/10/2020 Page 10 of 14
Case 9:20-cr-80037-KAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/10/2020 Page 11 of 14
Case 9:20-cr-80037-KAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/10/2020 Page 12 of 14
Case 9:20-cr-80037-KAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/10/2020 Page 13 of 14
Case 9:20-cr-80037-KAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/10/2020 Page 14 of 14
§ 3214.18 Who will BLM hold liable under the lease and what are they liable for? BLM will hold all interest owners in a lease jointly and severally liable for compliance with the requirements of § 3200.4 for obligations that accrue while they hold their interest. Among other things, all interest owners are jointly and severally liable for: ( a ) Plugging and abandoning wells;
( b ) Reclaiming the surface and other resources;
( c ) Compensatory royalties assessed for drainage; and
( d ) Rent and royalties due.