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

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE FORM 
10-Q FOR THE QUARTER ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY
BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                              9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                          19,279
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   25,466
<ALLOWANCES>                                     4,872
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                       1,338,788
<DEPRECIATION>                                 239,430
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,189,046
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        66,702
<OTHER-SE>                                     140,972
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,189,046
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               406,072
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  207,241
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               177,415
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (166,544)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (166,544)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (166,544)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (2.50)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (2.50)
        

</TABLE>
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h Marilyn Kell y Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathawa y Mary Beth Kell y Brian K. Zahra,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk July 20, 2011

y0713 

# Order

July 20, 2011

142976

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 142976 COA: 301672 Wayne CC: 10-000888-FH BRANDON LEE SECRETO, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 3, 2011 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Nelson Harold Martindale, Appellant.

Motion denied. Appellant is directed to apply to the County Court, Washington County for a copy of the record. Present — Bergan, P. J., Coon, Herlihy and Reynolds, JJ. Gibson, J., taking no part.
#### § 92.507 Closeout.

HOME funds will be closed out in accordance with 2 CFR part 200, subpart D.

[80 FR 75935, Dec. 7, 2015]
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

SHERRELL GARY BRINKLEY,

Petitioner-Appellant,

v. No. 00-6369

P. PITZER, Warden,

Respondent-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte.

Robert D. Potter, Senior District Judge.

(CA-98-1893, CA-99-54)

Submitted: July 20, 2000

Decided: August 9, 2000

Before WILKINS, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Sherrell Gary Brinkley, Appellant Pro Se.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________
OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Sherrell Gary Brinkley seeks to appeal an order of the district court

dismissing an action construed as a motion under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255

(West Supp. 2000). He asks that the decision of the district court be

vacated and the case remanded with instructions to transfer the matter

to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas,

where it was initially filed, for consideration as a petition under 28

U.S.C. § 2241 (1994).

This case was transferred to the Western District of North Carolina

from the Eastern District of Texas. The transfer order is not reviewable. See Linnell v. Sloan, 636 F.2d 65, 67 (4th Cir. 1980). Further,

as every court to consider this case has concluded, Brinkley's challenge to his sentence was properly construed as a motion under 28

U.S.C.A. § 2255. See Swain v. Pressley, 430 U.S. 372, 381 (1977);

see also In re Vial, 115 F.3d 1192, 1194 n.4 (4th Cir. 1997); cf.

Hooker v. Sivley, 187 F.3d 680, 681-82 (5th Cir. 1999). Because the

motion was successive, and because Brinkley did not obtain permission to file a successive petition, the district court properly dismissed

the motion. See 28 U.S.C.A. § 2244, 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 2000).

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the

appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court

and argument would not significantly aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

 2
Exhibit 99.1


                            ANNUAL COMPLIANCE REPORT

I, Janet P. O'Hara, being an officer of U.S. Bank Trust National Association,
the Trustee in respect of the STRATS(SM) Trust For J.P. Morgan Chase & Co.
Securities, Series 2004-9 (the "Trust"), certify that:

      1.    I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K in respect of the
            Trust, and all reports on Form 8-K filed by the Trustee in respect
            of the Trust and all distribution or servicing reports filed in
            respect of the Trust during the 2007 calendar year;

      2.    Based on my knowledge, the information in these reports, taken as a
            whole, does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or
            omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made,
            in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made,
            not misleading as of the last day of the period covered by this
            annual report;

      3.    Based on my knowledge, the distribution information required to be
            provided to the certificateholders by the Trustee under the trust
            agreement for inclusion in these reports is included in these
            reports;

      4.    I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the
            Trustee, under the trust agreement and based on my knowledge, except
            as disclosed in this annual report, the Trustee has fulfilled its
            obligations under that agreement; and

      5.    The reports disclose all significant deficiencies relating to the
            Trustee's compliance with the minimum servicing or similar standards
            based upon the report provided by an independent public accountant,
            after conducting a review in compliance with the Uniform Single
            Attestation Program for Mortgage Bankers or similar procedure, as
            set forth in the trust agreement, that is included in these reports.

Date: March 28, 2008

By:   /s/ Janet P. O'Hara
      ---------------------------------------------
          Janet P. O'Hara, Assistant Vice President
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                         223,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,211,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    992,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,476,000
<PP&E>                                       2,965,000
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,368,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,135,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        4,415,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   (384,600)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,135,000
<SALES>                                        181,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               181,000
<CGS>                                          117,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              37,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (3,026,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (3,026,000)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.06)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.06)


</TABLE>
#### § 401.552 Servicing of second mortgage.

HUD or its designee will be responsible for servicing the second mortgage, including determining the amounts receivable by the owner under § 401.461(b)(3)(ii)(A). HUD may designate the PAE, with the PAE's consent, as servicer for the second mortgage.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Federal Reserve System

This notice corrects a notice (FR Doc. 04-27829) published on page 76470 of the issue for Tuesday, December 21, 2004.

Under the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis heading, the entry for Liberty Bancshares, Inc. is revised to read as follows:

**A.  Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis**                     (Randall C. Sumner, Vice President) 411 Locust Street, St. Louis, Missouri 63166-2034:                

*1.  Liberty Bancshares, Inc.*, Jonesboro, Arkansas; to acquire 100 percent of the voting shares of TrustBanc Financial Group, Inc., Mountain Home, Arkansas, and thereby indirectly acquire TrustBanc, Mountain Home, Arkansas.                

In addition, Arkansas Newco II, Inc., Jonesboro, Arkansas, a wholly owned subsidiary of Liberty Bancshares, Inc., also has applied to become a bank holding company by acquiring 100 percent of the voting shares of TrustBanc Financial Group, Inc., Mountain Home, Arkansas, and thereby indirectly acquire voting shares of TrustBanc, Mountain Home, Arkansas.

Comments on this application must be received by January 14, 2005.

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System,December 22, 2004.

Jennifer J. Johnson,

Secretary of the Board.

[FR Doc. 04-28450 Filed 12-28-04; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6210-01-S
### §2104. Administrative provisions

(a) The Archivist shall prescribe such regulations as the Archivist deems necessary to effectuate the functions of the Archivist, and the head of each executive agency shall cause to be issued such orders and directives as such agency head deems necessary to carry out such regulations.

(b) Except as otherwise expressly provided by law, the Archivist may delegate any of the functions of the Archivist to such officers and employees of the Administration as the Archivist may designate, and may authorize such successive redelegations of such functions as the Archivist may deem to be necessary or appropriate. A delegation of functions by the Archivist shall not relieve the Archivist of responsibility for the administration of such functions.

(c) The Archivist may organize the Administration as the Archivist finds necessary or appropriate.

(d) The Archivist is authorized to establish, maintain, alter, or discontinue such regional, local, or other field offices as the Archivist finds necessary or appropriate to perform the functions of the Archivist or the Administration.

(e) The Archivist shall cause a seal of office to be made for the Administration of such design as the Archivist shall approve. Judicial notice shall be taken of such seal.

(f) The Archivist may establish advisory committees to provide advice with respect to any function of the Archivist or the Administration. Members of any such committee shall serve without compensation but shall be entitled to transportation expenses and per diem in lieu of subsistence in accordance with section 5703 of title 5.

(g) The Archivist shall advise and consult with interested Federal agencies with a view to obtaining their advice and assistance in carrying out the purposes of this chapter.

(h) If authorized by the Archivist, officers and employees of the Administration having investigatory functions are empowered, while engaged in the performance of their duties in conducting investigations, to administer oaths.

(Added Pub. L. 98–497, title I, §102(a)(2), Oct. 19, 1984, 98 Stat. 2281.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

A prior section 2104 was renumbered section 2108 of this title.

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date

Section effective Apr. 1, 1985, see section 301 of Pub. L. 98–497, set out as an Effective Date of 1984 Amendment note under section 2102 of this title.

#### **Executive Documents**

#### Emergency Preparedness Functions

For assignment of certain emergency preparedness functions to Archivist of United States, see Parts 1, 2, and 20 of Ex. Ord. No. 12656, Nov. 18, 1988, 53 F.R. 47491, set out as a note under section 5195 of Title 42, The Public Health and Welfare.
### §§210 to 214. Omitted

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Sections 210 to 214, sections 10 to 14, respectively, of act June 27, 1934, ch. 868, §10, 48 Stat. 1288, 1289, were omitted as unconstitutional. See section 201 of this title.

Section 210 related to jurisdiction of certain courts.

Section 211 related to exemption of annuities or death payments from legal process.

Section 212 related to penalties for missed payments by carriers and has been omitted from the Code as unconstitutional.

Section 213 related to certain other penalties.

Section 214 related to separability of provisions.
**Exhibit32.1**

 

**SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATIONS**

 

In connection with the Annual Report of Lazy Days’ R.V.Center, Inc. (the “Corporation”) on Form 10-K, as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Donald W. Wallace, ChiefExecutive Officer and Director of the Corporation, certify, pursuant to 18U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

 

(1)      The Report fully complies with the requirements of section13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)      The information contained in the Report fairly presents, inall material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of theCorporation.

 

 
| Dated:  March  31, 2005 | By:    | /s/ Donald W.  Wallace                                               |   |
|-----------------------------------|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                              |   | Donald W.  Wallace                                                   |   |
|                              |   | Chief Executive  Officer and Director  (Principal Executive Officer) |   |

 

1

----
121 STAT. 2464 PUBLIC LAW 110–169—DEC. 26, 2007 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—S. 1896: 

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 153 (2007): 

Aug. 3, considered and passed Senate. 

Dec. 19, considered and passed House. 

Æ 

Public Law 110–169 

110th Congress 

An Act 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 11 Central 

Street in Hillsborough, New Hampshire, as the ‘‘Officer Jeremy Todd Charron 

Post Office’’. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. OFFICER JEREMY TODD CHARRON POST OFFICE 

BUILDING. 

(a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States Postal 

Service located at 11 Central Street in Hillsborough, New Hampshire, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Officer Jeremy Todd 

Charron Post Office’’. 

(b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, regulation, 

document, paper, or other record of the United States to the facility 

referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference 

to the ‘‘Officer Jeremy Todd Charron Post Office’’. 

Approved December 26, 2007. 

Dec. 26, 2007 

[S. 1896] 


dkrause on GSDDPC29 with PUBLIC LAWS
§ 58.53 Use of prior environmental impact statements. Where any final EIS has been listed in the Federal Register for a project pursuant to this part, or where an areawide or similar broad scale final EIS has been issued and the EIS anticipated a subsequent project requiring an environmental clearance, then no new EIS is required for the subsequent project if all the following conditions are met: ( a ) The ERR contains a decision based on a finding pursuant to § 58.40 that the proposed project is not a new major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. The decision shall include: ( 1 ) References to the prior EIS and its evaluation of the environmental factors affecting the proposed subsequent action subject to NEPA;
( 2 ) An evaluation of any environmental factors which may not have been previously assessed, or which may have significantly changed;
( 3 ) An analysis showing that the proposed project is consistent with the location, use, and density assumptions for the site and with the timing and capacity of the circulation, utility, and other supporting infrastructure assumptions in the prior EIS;
( 4 ) Documentation showing that where the previous EIS called for mitigating measures or other corrective action, these are completed to the extent reasonable given the current state of development.
( b ) The prior final EIS has been filed within five (5) years, and updated as follows: ( 1 ) The EIS has been updated to reflect any significant revisions made to the assumptions under which the original EIS was prepared;
( 2 ) The EIS has been updated to reflect new environmental issues and data or legislation and implementing regulations which may have significant environmental impact on the project area covered by the prior EIS.
( c ) There is no litigation pending in connection with the prior EIS, and no final judicial finding of inadequacy of the prior EIS has been made.
§ 902.25 Physical condition scoring and thresholds. ( a ) *Scoring.* Under the physical condition indicator, a score will be calculated for individual projects, as well as for the overall condition of a PHA's public housing portfolio.
( b ) *Overall PHA physical condition indicator score.* The overall physical condition indicator score is a unit-weighted average of project scores. The sum of the unit-weighted values is divided by the total number of units in the PHA's portfolio to derive the overall physical condition indicator score.
( c ) *Thresholds.* ( 1 ) The project or projects' 100-point physical condition score is converted to a 40-point basis for the overall physical condition indicator score. The project scores on the 100-point basis are multiplied by .40 in order to derive a 40-point equivalent score to compute the overall physical condition score and overall PHAS score.
( 2 ) In order to receive a passing score under the physical condition indicator, the PHA must achieve a score of at least 24 points, or 60 percent.
( 3 ) A PHA that receives fewer than 24 points will be categorized as a substandard physical condition agency.
#### Rosemarie Dragotta et al., Appellants, v Walmart, Inc., Respondent.

[835 NYS2d 352]-

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Jones, Jr., J.), dated December 15, 2005, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff Rosemarie Dragotta (hereinafter the plaintiff) sustained personal injuries when she slipped and fell in a puddle of liquid on the floor of the defendant’s store in Centereach. The defendant met its initial burden of showing, as a matter of law, that it neither created the puddle nor had notice of that condition *(see Breuer v Wal-Mart Stores,*289 AD2d 276 [2001]). *801Although the plaintiff and another customer had waited on line for 10 minutes in close proximity to the puddle, neither of them had noticed the puddle prior to the accident. Moreover, based on their observations of the puddle after the accident, both women described the liquid as being clear.

In addition, the defendant’s employee, Heidi Canarick, averred in an affidavit submitted in support of the motion, that the Centereach store conducted a safety sweep every hour of its operation, requiring maintenance personnel to traverse and clean every walking surface in the store. Furthermore, the defendant’s employees continually “zoned” their departments, checking for any items or debris that would pose a hazard. Canarick further averred that at no time prior to the accident did anyone including a customer, member of the maintenance staff, or sales associate make her aware of any liquid on the floor.

The plaintiffs’ opposition to the motion failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the puddle was visible and apparent, and existed for a sufficient length of time prior to the accident to permit the defendant to discover and remedy it *(see Gordon v American Museum of Natural History,*67 NY2d 836, 837 [1986]). Schmidt, J.P., Mastro, Carni and Dickerson, JJ., concur.
#### SIMONSON, Appellant, v. HOES, Public Adm’r, Respondent.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

February 20, 1903.)

Action by Lucia Simonson against William M. Hoes, public administrator,, etc. E. Frayer, for appellant. F. W. Arnold, for respondent.

No opinion. Order reversed, with $10' costs and disbursements, and motion denied, with $10 costs to abide event.