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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                         207,546
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     37,841
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               360,015
<PP&E>                                      13,407,679
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,551,662
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              13,489,818
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        4,549,749
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        62,453
<OTHER-SE>                                   (757,714)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                13,489,818
<SALES>                                      1,642,971
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,642,971
<CGS>                                        1,777,240
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,562,340
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             728,008
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,647,377)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,647,377)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 235,284
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,882,661)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.33)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.33)


</TABLE>
§ 891.770 Denial of admission, termination of tenancy, and modification of lease. ( a ) The provisions of part 5, subpart I, of this title apply to Section 202 direct loan projects with Section 162 assistance for disabled families.
( b ) The provisions of part 247 of this title apply to all decisions by a Borrower to terminate the tenancy or modify the lease of a family residing in a unit (or residential space in a group home).
[66 FR 28798, May 24, 2001]
### §646. Other provisions

#### (a) OMB

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the initial rule making required under section 642(a)(1) of this title shall be exempt from review by the Office of Management and Budget.

#### (b) PRA

Subchapter I of chapter 35 of title 44 (commonly known as the "Paperwork Reduction Act") shall not apply to any rule making or other action by the Commission required under this subchapter.

#### (c) Execution of responsibilities

Except, with respect to an entity that is not the Universal Service Administrative Company, as provided in section 642(a)(2)(B) of this title, section 642(b)(1)(A)(ii) of this title, and subsections (c), (d), and (e) of section 644 of this title, the Commission—

(1) including the offices of the Commission, shall carry out the responsibilities assigned to the Commission under this subchapter; and

(2) may not delegate any of the responsibilities assigned to the Commission under this subchapter to any third party, including the Universal Service Administrative Company.

#### (d) Reporting

Each fiscal year, the Commission shall submit to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate and the Committee on Energy and Commerce of the House of Representatives a report that summarizes the implementation of this subchapter and associated enforcement activities conducted during the previous fiscal year.

#### (e) Rule of construction

If the Commission, before March 23, 2020, has taken an action that, in whole or in part, implements this subchapter, the Commission shall not be required to revisit such action to the extent that such action is consistent with this subchapter.

(June 19, 1934, ch. 652, title VIII, §806, as added Pub. L. 116–130, §2, Mar. 23, 2020, 134 Stat. 238; amended Pub. L. 117–58, div. F, title I, §60102(h)(2)(E)(ii), Nov. 15, 2021, 135 Stat. 1198.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2021—Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 117–58 substituted "any rule making or other action by the Commission required under this subchapter" for "the initial rule making required under section 642(a)(1) of this title".

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

#### Implementation

For requirement to implement amendment made by section 60102(h)(2)(E)(ii) of Pub. L. 117–58 as soon as possible after Nov. 15, 2021, see section 1702(h)(2)(E)(iii) of this title.
Exhibit 99.2









Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

To the Management of Protective Life Insurance Company and The Bank of New York, as Indenture Trustee of Protective
Life Secured Trust 2004-35, (collectively the "Management")
and Wilmington Trust Company, as Trustee of Protective Life Secured Trust 2004-35 (the "Trust"):

We have examined Management's assertion, included in the accompanying "Management Assertion Regarding the Collection and Distribution of Trust Money by The Bank of New York (Indenture Trustee)," that the collection of payments on the funding agreements and distribution of payments to the noteholders has occurred as required by Section 5.02 of the Indenture agreement dated November 7, 2003 between the Trust and the Indenture Trustee during the year ended December 31, 2004.  Management is responsible for the assertion.  Our responsibility is to express an opinion on the assertion based on our examination.

Our examination was conducted in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) and, accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting management's assertion and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances.  We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion.

In our opinion, Management's assertion referred to above is fairly stated, in all material respects, based on the criteria defined in the accompanying "Management Assertion Regarding the Collection and Distribution of Trust Money by The Bank of New York (Indenture Trustee)."



PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

Birmingham, AlabamaMarch 30, 2005











Management Assertion Regarding the Collection and Distribution of Trust
Money by The Bank of New York (Indenture Trustee)





Management of the Trust asserts that it has collected payments on the funding agreements and distributed payments to the noteholders as required by Section 5.02 of the Indenture agreement dated November 7, 2003 between the Trust and the Indenture Trustee for the year ended December 31, 2004.  This assertion is based on the following criteria:

1. The payments made by Protective Life on the funding agreements that secured the Notes, for the year ended December 31, 2004, are included in Protective Life's Secured Trusts P & I Payments: 1/1/04 through 12/31/04 (P & I Payments report).
2. The payments made by Protective Life on the funding agreements that secured the Notes, for the year ended December 31, 2004, are included in the Indenture Trustee's History of Transactions List.
3. The amounts due on the Notes are reported as a component of the charges from Cede & Co., the nominee of the Depository Trust Company, on the Indenture Trustee's Payment Obligation Report System (PORS Report).
4. Charges from Cede & Co. are included in the Indenture Trustee's screen prints titled The Depository Trust Company Activity History Details, which represent the charge confirmations to Cede & Co., the nominee of the Depository Trust Company.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned, Harpreet Singh Sangha, the Chief Executive Officer and Herminder Rai the Chief Financial Officer of Douglas Lake Minerals Inc. (the "Company"), each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to his knowledge, the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended May 31, 2010, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that the information contained in the Annual Report on Form 10-K, as amended, fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Date:  September 13, 2010

By: "Harpreet Singh Sangha"      Harpreet Singh Sangha
      Chief Executive Officer and a director

By: "Herminder Rai"      Herminder Rai
      Chief Financial Officer, Secretary and Treasurer



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

__________
Dismiss; Opinion Filed January 26, 2017.

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 17
- 00048
- CR ANGELA DAWN CLAMPITT , Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee On Appeal from the 380th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 380
- 81729
- 2014 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Lang, Brown, and Whitehill Opinion by Justice Lang Angela Dawn Clampitt filed a notice of appeal on January 13, 20 17. After reviewing the documents submitted with the notice of appeal, we conclude we lack jurisdiction and dismiss this appeal. Appellant was originally charged with two counts of endangering a child involving her two children

. See State v. Clampitt , No . 05

- 15

- 00901

- CR, 2016 WL 3947943 , *1 (Tex. App.

— Dallas July 15, 2016, pet. ref’d) (mem.op., not designated for publication). The jury acquitted her in the case involving one child but convicted her in the case involving the other , and t he trial
court ass essed punishment at two years in state jail suspended for four years. Id

. Appellant then filed a motion for new trial alleging insufficiency of the evidence, which the trial court granted. Id

. The State filed an appeal, alleging the trial court erred b y granting a new trial on the grounds– 2

–

of legal insufficiency. Id. On July 15, 2016, we issued our opinion, vacating the trial court ’ s order and reinstat ing the judgment of conviction and sentence. Id . at *7. In August 2016, appellant filed a petition fo r discretionary review. After the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals refused her petition, we issued our mandate on December 13, 2016. Appellant then filed a notice of appeal, appealing “the judgment of conviction and sentence herein rendered” against her. To invoke this Court’s jurisdiction, a notice of appeal must be timely filed after conviction or the entry of an appealable order

. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 26.2(a); Slaton v. State , 981 S.W.2d 208, 210 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998) ; Wright v. State , 969 S.W.2d 588, 5 89 (Tex. App.

– Dallas 1998, no pet.). Here, appellant filed a notice of appeal after this Court issued its mandate in her direct appeal. Because there is no new conviction or appealable order , we lack jurisdiction over this appeal. We dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction.

Do Not Publish T EX
. R. A PP
. P . 47 170048F.U 05 /Douglas S. Lang/ DOUGLAS S. LANG JUSTICE– 3

– 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT
ANGELA DAWN CLAMPITT, Appellant
No. 05

- 17

- 00048

- CR V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 380th Judicial District Court, Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 380

- 81729

- 2014. Opinion delivered by Justice Lang, Justices Brown and Whitehill participating. Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we DISMISS this appeal for want of jurisdiction.
Judgment entered this 26th day of January, 2017.
§ 1243.9 Will ONRR continue to suspend my obligation to comply with an order if I seek judicial review in a Federal court? ( a ) If you seek judicial review of an IBLA decision or other final action of the Department of the Interior regarding an order, ONRR will suspend your obligation to comply with that order pending judicial review if you continue to meet the requirements of this part.
( b ) Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (a) of this section, ONRR may decide that it will not suspend your obligation to comply with an order. ONRR will notify you in writing of that decision and the reasons for it.
###### Editorial Note on Part 250

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 250 appear at 77 FR 50891, Aug. 22, 2012.

#### § 250.140 When will I receive an oral approval?

When you apply for BSEE approval of any activity, we normally give you a written decision. The following table shows circumstances under which we may give an oral approval.

| When you . . . | We may . . . | And . . . |
| --- | --- | --- |
| (a) Request approval orally | Give you an oral approval, | You must then confirm the oral request by sending us a written request within 72 hours. |
| (b) Request approval in writing, | Give you an oral approval if quick action is needed, | We will send you a written approval afterward. It will include any conditions that we place on the oral approval. |
| (c) Request approval orally for gas flaring, | Give you an oral approval, | You don't have to follow up with a written request unless the Regional Supervisor requires it. When you stop the approved flaring, you must promptly send a letter summarizing the location, dates and hours, and volumes of liquid hydrocarbons produced and gas flared by the approved flaring (see 30 CFR 250, subpart K). |
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 13**  **- 7787** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

– Appellee ,
v. CHI ANTONIO RAY , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland , at Baltimore
. J. Frederick Motz, Senior District Judge. ( 1:08

- cr - 00117

- JFM

- 1; 1:13

- cv - 03057

- JFM )

Submitted : March 25, 2014 Decided: March 28 , 2014

Before GREGORY, KEENAN, and WYNN , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. Chi Antonio Ray, Appellant Pro Se. Bonnie S. Greenberg, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland; Kristi Noel O’Malley, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenbel t, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Chi Antonio Ray seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 ( 2012 ) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (B) (20 12 ). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (20 12 ). Whe n the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 4 73, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debat able claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Ray has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Ray’s motion for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials3 before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.

DISMISSED
#### Ernest Parker et al. v. David Fisher et al.

Motion to dismiss appeal granted, with $10 costs, unless the appellants procure the record on appeal and appellants’ points to be served and filed on or before May 17, 1962, with notice of argument for May 29', 1962, said appeal to be argued or submitted when reached. Concur — Breitel, J. P., Rabin, Valente, McNally and Eager, JJ.
§ 92.250 Maximum per-unit subsidy amount, underwriting, and subsidy layering. ( a ) *Maximum per-unit subsidy amount.* The total amount of HOME funds and ADDI funds that a participating jurisdiction may invest on a per-unit basis in affordable housing may not exceed the per-unit dollar limitations established under section 221(d)(3)(ii) of the National Housing Act (12 U.S.C.17151(d)(3)(ii)) for elevator- type projects that apply to the area in which the housing is located. HUD will allow the per-unit subsidy amount to be increased on a program-wide basis to an amount, up to 240 percent of the original per unit limits, to the extent that the costs of multifamily housing construction exceed the section 221(d)(3)(ii) limit.
( b ) *Underwriting and subsidy layering.* Before committing funds to a project, the participating jurisdiction must evaluate the project in accordance with guidelines that it has adopted for determining a reasonable level of profit or return on owner's or developer's investment in a project and must not invest any more HOME funds, alone or in combination with other governmental assistance, than is necessary to provide quality affordable housing that is financially viable for a reasonable period (at minimum, the period of affordability in § 92.252 or § 92.254) and that will not provide a profit or return on the owner's or developer's investment that exceeds the participating jurisdiction's established standards for the size, type, and complexity of the project. The participating jurisdiction's guidelines must require the participating jurisdiction to undertake: ( 1 ) An examination of the sources and uses of funds for the project and a determination that the costs are reasonable; and
( 2 ) An assessment, at minimum, of the current market demand in the neighborhood in which the project will be located, the experience of the developer, the financial capacity of the developer, and firm written financial commitments for the project.
( 3 ) For projects involving rehabilitation of owner-occupied housing pursuant to § 92.254(b): ( i ) An underwriting analysis is required only if the HOME-funded rehabilitation loan is an amortizing loan; and
( ii ) A market analysis or evaluation of developer capacity is not required.
( 4 ) For projects involving HOME-funded downpayment assistance pursuant to § 92.254(a) and which do not include HOME-funded development activity, a market analysis or evaluation of developer capacity is not required.
[78 FR 44670, July 24, 2013]
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsUncertainty Analysis of the NASA Glenn 8x6 Supersonic Wind TunnelThis paper presents methods and results of a detailed measurement uncertainty analysis that was performed for the 8- by 6-foot Supersonic Wind Tunnel located at the NASA Glenn Research Center. The statistical methods and engineering judgments used to estimate elemental uncertainties are described. The Monte Carlo method of propagating uncertainty was selected to determine the uncertainty of calculated variables of interest. A detailed description of the Monte Carlo method as applied for this analysis is provided. Detailed uncertainty results for the uncertainty in average free stream Mach number as well as other variables of interest are provided. All results are presented as random (variation in observed values about a true value), systematic (potential offset between observed and true value), and total (random and systematic combined) uncertainty. The largest sources contributing to uncertainty are determined and potential improvement opportunities for the facility are investigated.Document ID20160013865Acquisition SourceGlenn Research CenterDocument TypeContractor Report (CR)AuthorsStephens, Julia*(HX5, LLC Cleveland, OH, United States)*Hubbard, Erin*(Jacobs Technology, Inc. Cleveland, OH, United States)*Walter, Joel*(Jacobs Technology, Inc. Bingham Farms, MI, United States)*McElroy, Tyler*(Jacobs Technology Inc. Tullahoma, TN, United States)*Date AcquiredNovember 30, 2016Publication DateNovember 1, 2016Subject CategoryEngineering (General)Statistics And ProbabilityReport/Patent NumberE-19309NASA/CR-2016-219411GRC-E-DAA-TN36213Funding Number(s)WBS: WBS 147016.03.03.04.03CONTRACT_GRANT: NNL13AA14CCONTRACT_GRANT: NNC15BA02BDistribution LimitsPublicCopyrightPublic Use Permitted.KeywordsErrorPropagationUncertaintyAvailable DownloadsNameType20160013865.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman

, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Kurtis T. Wilder

Elizabeth T. Clement

, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

December 14 , 2018 

# Order

Clerk December 14 , 2018

15 8 59 2 ( 1 0 )

In re ANONYMOUS JUDGE

SC: 158592

RFI No. 2017

- 22845

BEFORE THE JUDICIAL TENURE COMMISSION

_____________________________ _ ______ ______ __/

On order of the C hief Justice , the motion to strike the reply of the Judicial Tenure

Commission is DENIED

.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. John W. Holland, Appellant.

Motion to dispense with printing granted. The appeal will be heard on the original papers (including the typed minutes) and on a typewritten brief. The appellant is directed to file five typewritten copies of his brief and to serve one copy on the District Attorney. The appellant’s time to perfect the appeal is enlarged to the January 1961 Term. The appeal is ordered placed on the calendar for said term. Motion for assignment of counsel granted. Grant Reynolds, Esq., 20 Depot Plaza, White Plains, N. Y., is assigned as counsel to prosecute the appeal. Nolan, P. J., Kleinfeld, Christ, Pette and Brennan, JJ., concur.