alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
```

                                                    Capital
                                                  Contributed                      Total
                            Preferred    Common    in Excess      Retained      Stockholders'
                              Stock       Stock      of Par       Earnings         Equity
                            ------------  -----   --------------  ------------ --------------

Balance, December 31, 1999   $15,000,000  $ 100    $ 284,830,286  $     -      $ 299,830,386

Net income                         -         -             -       10,287,261     10,287,261

Capital contribution from
  common stockholder               -         -           169,614        -            169,614

Dividends on 10 3/8%
  Noncumulative Exchangeable
  Preferred Stock, Series A        -         -             -       (7,781,250)    (7,781,250)

Dividends on Common Stock          -         -             -         (750,000)      (750,000)
                            ------------  -----   --------------  ------------ --------------
Balance, June 30, 2000       $15,000,000  $ 100    $ 284,999,900  $ 1,756,011  $ 301,756,011
                            ============  =====   ==============  ============ ==============

    The Notes to Financial Statements are an integral part of this statement.
```
EXHIBIT 99.5
                                                                    ------------


Gilbert Laustsen Jung
Associates Ltd.   Petroleum Consultants
4100, 400 - 3rd Avenue S.W., Calgary, Alberta, Canada T2P 4H2
(403) 266-9500    Fax (403) 262-1855



                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ENGINEERS


We hereby consent to the use of and reference to our name and our reports, and
the inclusion of information derived from our reports, evaluating Vermilion
Energy Trust's petroleum and natural gas reserves as at December 31, 2004, in
the registration statement on Form 40-F of Vermilion Energy Trust.

                                                Yours very truly,

                                                GILBERT LAUSTSEN JUNG
                                                ASSOCIATES LTD.

                                                ORIGINALLY SIGNED BY

                                                Keith M. Braaten, P. Eng.
                                                Vice-President


Dated: March 29, 2005
Calgary, Alberta
§ 1000.530 What corrective and remedial actions will HUD request or recommend to address performance problems prior to taking action under § 1000.532? ( a ) The following actions are designed, first, to prevent the continuance of the performance problem(s); second, to mitigate any adverse effects or consequences of the performance problem(s); and third, to prevent a recurrence of the same or similar performance problem. The following actions, at least one of which must be taken prior to a sanction under paragraph (b), may be taken by HUD singly or in combination, as appropriate for the circumstances: ( 1 ) Issue a letter of warning advising the recipient of the performance problem(s), describing the corrective actions that HUD believes should be taken, establishing a completion date for corrective actions, and notifying the recipient that more serious actions may be taken if the performance problem(s) is not corrected or is repeated;
( 2 ) Request the recipient to submit progress schedules for completing activities or complying with the requirements of this part;
( 3 ) Recommend that the recipient suspend, discontinue, or not incur costs for the affected activity;
( 4 ) Recommend that the recipient redirect funds from affected activities to other eligible activities;
( 5 ) Recommend that the recipient reimburse the recipient's program account in the amount improperly expended; and
( 6 ) Recommend that the recipient obtain appropriate technical assistance using existing grant funds or other available resources to overcome the performance problem(s).
( b ) Failure of a recipient to address performance problems specified in paragraph (a) of this section may result in the imposition of sanctions as prescribed in § 1000.532.
[63 FR 12349, Mar. 12, 1998, as amended at 77 FR 71529, Dec. 3, 2012]
[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 229 (Friday, November 27, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Page 76142]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-26316]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meetings

TIME AND DATE: 2:00 p.m. on Wednesday, December 2, 2020.

PLACE: The meeting will be held via remote means and/or at the 
Commission's headquarters, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549.

STATUS:  This meeting will be closed to the public.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners, 
the Secretary to the Commission, and recording secretaries will attend 
the closed meeting. Certain staff members who have an interest in the 
matters also may be present.
    In the event that the time, date, or location of this meeting 
changes, an announcement of the change, along with the new time, date, 
and/or place of the meeting will be posted on the Commission's website 
at https://www.sec.gov.
    The General Counsel of the Commission, or his designee, has 
certified that, in his opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth 
in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (5), (6), (7), (8), 9(B) and (10) and 17 CFR 
200.402(a)(3), (a)(5), (a)(6), (a)(7), (a)(8), (a)(9)(ii) and (a)(10), 
permit consideration of the scheduled matters at the closed meeting.
    The subject matter of the closed meeting will consist of the 
following topic:
    Institution and settlement of injunctive actions;
    Institution and settlement of administrative proceedings;
    Resolution of litigation claims; and
    Other matters relating to enforcement proceedings.
    At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in 
the scheduling of meeting agenda items that may consist of 
adjudicatory, examination, litigation, or regulatory matters.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: For further information; please 
contact Vanessa A. Countryman from the Office of the Secretary at (202) 
551-5400.

    Dated: November 24, 2020.
Vanessa A. Countryman,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-26316 Filed 11-24-20; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
Case 3:09-cr-00943-MMC Document 6 Filed 04/21/10 Page 1 of 2Case 3:09-cr-00943-MMC Document 6 Filed 04/21/10 Page 2 of 2
CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM





We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference into the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (File Nos. 333-132059 and 333-119839) of our report, dated December 23, 2010, on the consolidated financial statements of Roebling Financial Corp, Inc. (the “Registrant”) at and for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2010 which report is incorporated by reference into the Registrant’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2010.











December 23, 2010













534 Union Boulevard   ▪   Totowa Boro, NJ   07512   ▪973.595.5300phone   ▪  973.595.5890 fax   ▪   www.fasbhome.com
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Raymond Copeland, Appellant.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, rendered May 26, 1976, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. Judgment reversed, on the law, and new trial ordered. During its deliberations, the jury informed the court that it was hopelessly deadlocked at eleven to one. After polling each juror individually to confirm the statement of deadlock, the court said: "This is not my opinion. I think if I send you out you can reach a verdict and I am going to send you out. Let me give you a few additional instructions, if I may. This verdict, when you reach a verdict, and *I expect you to reach a verdict,*this verdict must be the verdict of each individual juror and not a mere acquiescence in the conclusion of your fellow jurors and each one of you should re-examine the questions submitted with candor and an appropriate regard and deference to the opinion of the other. It is the duty of the jury to decide this case if you can conscientiously do so, and I emphasize that, it is the duty of the jury to decide this case if you can conscientiously do so. You should listen to each others arguments with a disposition to be convinced and if the larger of you are for conviction a dissenting juror should consider if his or her doubt is a reasonable one since it makes no impression upon the main *[sic]*of so many persons equally honest and equally as intelligent as that juror. If, on the other hand, the majority are for acquittal, the minority ought to ask themselves whether they might reasonably doubt the correctness of a judgment which is not concurred by the majority.” (Emphasis supplied.) To that point the Trial Judge had given a paraphrase of what is known as the *Allen*charge (see *Allen v United States,*164 US 492, 501), which has received acceptance in the New York courts *(People v Graham,*48 AD2d 646, affd 39 NY2d 775). Had he stopped there, the charge would have passed muster despite the sentence underlined above. Unfortunately, he chose to go on, and said "I am sending you out again and I expect you to come here with a verdict.” To this entire supplemental charge defense counsel objected and moved for a mistrial. His motion was denied and he took an appropriate exception. In our view the motion should have been granted because, as defense counsel noted, there was an element of coercion in the final statement which went beyond the outer perimeters of *Allen.*Furthermore, the hour was late and the jury obliged by bringing in a verdict of guilty some 55 minutes later. Titone, J. P., Rabin, Shapiro and Cohalan, JJ., concur.
Order entered October 17, 2018

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 18

- 00522

- CR

PATRICK D

. MARTIN, Appellant

V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the Crimin al District Court No. 3

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F17

- 18397

- RJ



### O RDER

T he reporter’s record, originally due July 20, 2018 , was filed October 15, 2018. Missing from the record is State’s Exhibit 67, a CD of medical records ordered sealed. We ORDER court reporter Kimberly Xavier to file a supplemental reporter’s record containing a true and correct playable copy of State’s Exhibit 67 WITHIN TEN DAYS of the date of this order.
We VACATE our October 9, 2018 order that Kimberly Xavier not sit as a court reporter

. We DIRECT the Clerk to send copies of this order to the Honorable Gracie Lewis, Presiding Judge, Criminal District Court No. 3; Kimberly Xavier, official court reporter, Criminal District Court No. 3; to the Dallas County Auditor’s Of fice; and to counsel for all parties.

/s/ LANA MYERS JUSTICE
Comment Info: =================

General Comment:Comment
§ 206.39 Principal residence. ( a ) The property must be the principal residence of each borrower, and if applicable, Eligible Non-Borrowing Spouse, at closing.
( b ) *HECM for Purchase.* For HECM for Purchase transactions, each borrower, and if applicable, Eligible Non-Borrowing Spouse, must occupy the property within 60 days from the date of closing.
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

ANTHONY MICHAEL BOWDEN,

 

 Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

 State.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-19-00057-CR

Appeal from the

384th District Court

of El Paso County, Texas 

(TC# 20160D05559)

O R D E R

The Court Grudgingly GRANTS the Appellant’s fourth motion for extension of time 

within which to file the brief until December 14, 2019. NO FURTHER MOTIONS FOR 

EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE THE APPELLANT’S BRIEF WILL BE CONSIDERED BY 

THIS COURT.

It is further ORDERED that the Hon. William R. Cox, the Appellant’s attorney, prepare 

the Appellant’s brief and forward the same to this Court on or before December 14, 2019.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 18

thday of November, 2019.

PER CURIAM

Before Alley, C.J., Rodriguez and Palafox, JJ.
### **CHAPTER 43—SUSPENDED ENTRIES AND CLAIMS; PATENTS**

Sec.
2501.
"Suspended entries of public lands" and "suspended preemption land claims".
2502.
Adjudications as to suspended entries; approval.
2503.
Patents surrendered and new ones issued.
2504.
Extent of foregoing provisions.
2505.
Suspension of entries for correction of clerical errors; patents.
2506.
Limitations of suits to annul patents.
2507.
Entries and final proofs, made out of proper district, confirmed.
### §9872. Allotments

(a) From the amounts appropriated under section 9871 of this title for each fiscal year, the Secretary shall allot to each State an amount which bears the same ratio to the total amount appropriated under such section for such fiscal year as the population of the State bears to the population of all States, except that no State may receive less than $50,000 in each fiscal year.

(b) For the purpose of the exception contained in subsection (a), the term "State" does not include Guam, American Samoa, the Virgin Islands, the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.

(Pub. L. 97–35, title VI, §670B, as added Pub. L. 98–558, title I, §109, Oct. 30, 1984, 98 Stat. 2880.)

#### **Executive Documents**

#### Termination of Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands

For termination of Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands, see note set out preceding section 1681 of Title 48, Territories and Insular Possessions.
II 

Calendar No. 351 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2892 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

DECEMBER 15, 2005 

Received and read the first time 

DECEMBER 16, 2005 

Read the second time and placed on the calendar 

AN ACT 

To amend section 255 of the National Housing Act to remove the limitation on the number of reverse mortgages 

that may be insured under the FHA mortgage insurance 

program for such mortgages. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Reverse Mortgages to 

5 Help America’s Seniors Act’’. 
2 

HR 2892 PCS 

1 SEC. 2. ELIMINATION OF CAP ON NUMBER OF MORTGAGES 

2 INSURED. 

3 Section 255 of the National Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 

4 1715z–20) is amended— 

5 (1) in subsection (g), by striking the first sen6 tence; and 

7 (2) in subsection (i)(1)(C), by striking ‘‘limita8 tions’’ and inserting ‘‘limitation’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives December 14, 

2005. 

Attest: KAREN L. HAAS, 

Clerk. 

Calendar No. 351 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2892 

AN ACT 

To amend section 255 of the National Housing Act 

mortgages. FHA mortgage insurance program for such verse mortgages that may be insured under the to remove the limitation on the number of reDECEMBER 16, 2005 

Read the second time and placed on the calendar
### §8838. Jurisdiction of Department of Energy and Environmental Protection Agency

The provisions of section 5920(c) 1 of this title, relating to the responsibilities of the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Energy, shall apply with respect to actions under this subchapter to the same extent and in the same manner as such provisions apply to actions under section 5920 1 of this title.

(Pub. L. 96–294, title II, §238, June 30, 1980, 94 Stat. 704.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

Section 5920 of this title, referred to in text, was repealed by Pub. L. 109–58, title X, §1009(b)(12), Aug. 8, 2005, 119 Stat. 936.

1 See References in Text note below.
#### § 72.18 Payment of debts owed by decedent.

The consular officer may pay debts of the decedent which the consular officer believes in his or her discretion are legitimately owed in the country in which the death occurred, or in the country in which the decedent was residing at the time of death, including expenses incident to the disposition of the remains and the personal effects, out of the convertible assets of the personal estate taken into possession by the consular officer.
#### BRYAN, Respondent, v. MADDEN, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

January 16, 1903.)

Action by Charles A. Bryan against Matilda L. Madden impleaded with another.

No opinion. Order (78 N. Y. Supp. 220) affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements.
### §1313. Exceptions from operation of section 1311 of this title

There is excepted from the operation of section 1311 of this title—

(a) all tracts or parcels of land together with all accretions thereto, resources therein, or improvements thereon, title to which has been lawfully and expressly acquired by the United States from any State or from any person in whom title had vested under the law of the State or of the United States, and all lands which the United States lawfully holds under the law of the State; all lands expressly retained by or ceded to the United States when the State entered the Union (otherwise than by a general retention or cession of lands underlying the marginal sea); all lands acquired by the United States by eminent domain proceedings, purchase, cession, gift, or otherwise in a proprietary capacity; all lands filled in, built up, or otherwise reclaimed by the United States for its own use; and any rights the United States has in lands presently and actually occupied by the United States under claim of right;

(b) such lands beneath navigable waters held, or any interest in which is held by the United States for the benefit of any tribe, band, or group of Indians or for individual Indians; and

(c) all structures and improvements constructed by the United States in the exercise of its navigational servitude.

(May 22, 1953, ch. 65, title II, §5, 67 Stat. 32.)
#### § 241.1080 Eligibility of title.

In order for the project to be eligible for insurance, the Commissioner shall determine that the title to the property is vested in the borrower as of the date the security instrument is filed for record. The title evidence will be examined by the Commissioner and the endorsement of the credit instrument for insurance shall be evidence of its acceptability.
Exhibit 99.2













Independent Accountant’s Report








Synthetic Fixed-Income Securities, Inc. (as Depositor)


One Wells Fargo Center


301 South College Street


Charlotte, NC 28288





U.S. Bank Trust National Association (as Trustee)


Corporate Trust Department


100 Wall Street


New York, NY 10005








Re:
STRATSTrust For Goldman Sachs Group Securities, Series 2004-8 (the “Trust”)




Ladies and Gentlemen:





We have examined assertions of Synthetic Fixed-Income Securities, Inc. (the “Depositor”) and U.S. Bank Trust National Association, (the “Trustee” and together with the Depositor, the “Management”) that the Depositor and the Trustee have complied, in all material respects, with the provisions of the Base Trust Agreement dated as of September 26, 2003, as supplemented by a series supplement dated as of June 29, 2004 (together, the “Trust Agreement”), in respect of the STRATS Trust For Goldman Sachs Group Securities, Series 2004-8(the “Trust”), during the period covered by the annual report on Form 10-K filed by the Depositor on behalf of the Trust for the year ended December 31, 2012 (the “Annual Report”).  Management is responsible for compliance with the Trust Agreement. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on Management’s assertions based on our examination.





Our examination was made in accordance with attestation standards established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants and, accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Depositor’s and the Trustee’s compliance with the Trust Agreement and performing such other procedures as considered necessary in the circumstances.  We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion.





In our opinion, the Depositor and the Trustee have complied, in all material respects, with the Trust Agreement during the period covered by the Annual Report and Management’s assertions with respect to such compliance are fairly stated, in all material respects, for the year ended December 31, 2012.








/s/ Aston Bell, CPA





New York, New York


March 20, 2013
### §5616. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 5616 was editorially reclassified as section 11116 of Title 34, Crime Control and Law Enforcement.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-7305
HENRY HARDY, Petitioner - Appellant, versus ALBERT F. BEELER, Warden, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CA-03-570) Submitted: December 19, 2003 Decided: February 26, 2004 Before WILLIAMS, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Henry Hardy, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Henry Hardy, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Hardy v. Beeler , No. CA-03-570 (E.D.N.C. Aug. 1, 2003). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
(No. 51365.

#### EVELYN PUCKETT, Appellant, v. THE INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION *et al.*(Augustana Hospital, Appellee).

*Opinion filed September 19, 1979*.

Rehearing *denied November 30, 1979.*

Bernard Fleischman, of Chicago (Sidney Z. Karasik, of counsel), for appellant.

*322Discipio & DeCarlo, of Chicago (Vito D. DeCarlo, of counsel), for appellee.

MR. JUSTICE MORAN

delivered the opinion of the court:

An arbitrator, designated by the Industrial Commission, awarded claimant,, Evelyn Puckett, compensation for 32 weeks of temporary total disability, 50% permanent loss of the use of the right leg, and $665 of medical expenses unpaid by the employer, Augustana Hospital. The Commission, after hearing additional testimony by the claimant, affirmed the award for temporary total disability, increased the award for the permanent loss of the use of the right leg to 66 2/3% thereof, and increased the award for medical expenses to $977.50. The circuit court of Cook County confirmed the Commission’s decision. The claimant has appealed, contending that the Commission’s finding of less than total permanent disability is contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence.

We find it unnecessary to discuss the details of this case, as it would serve no useful purpose to do so. It is sufficient to note that each party presented the testimony of a single medical witness, that these witnesses differed on the extent of claimant’s disability, and that the resolution of this difference was within the particular purview of the Commission. After carefully reviewing this testimony and the other evidence, we hold that the decision of the Industrial Commission is not against the manifest weight of the evidence.

The judgment of the circuit court of Cook County is affirmed.

*Judgment affirmed.*