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

| Entity                                        | Jurisdiction      of Organization | Name Under      Which Subsidiary Does Business                                                    |
|-----------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Alaska United      Fiber System Partnership   | Alaska                            | Alaska United      Fiber System Partnership, Alaska United Fiber System, Alaska      United  |
| Alaska      DigiTel, LLC                      | Alaska                            | Alaska      DigiTel, DigiTel                                                                      |
| Alaska      Wireless Internet, LLC            | Alaska                            | Alaska      Wireless Internet, LLC, Alaska Wireless Internet                                      |
| Alaska      Wireless, LLC                     | Alaska                            | Alaska      Wireless, LLC, Alaska Wireless                                                        |
| Firelake      Partners, LLC                   | Alaska                            | Firelake      Partners, LLC                                                                       |
| GCI      Communication Corp.                  | Alaska                            | GCI, GCC,      GCICC, GCI Communication Corp.                                                |
| GCI,      Inc.                                | Alaska                            | GCI, GCI,      Inc.                                                                          |
| GCI Cable,      Inc.                          | Alaska                            | GCI Cable,      GCI Cable, Inc.                                                              |
| GCI Holdings,      Inc.                       | Alaska                            | GCI Holdings,      Inc.                                                                      |
| Potter View      Development Co., Inc.        | Alaska                            | Potter View      Development Co., Inc.                                                       |
| GCI Fiber      Communication, Co., Inc.  | Alaska                            | GCI Fiber      Communication, Co., Inc., GFCC,  Kanas                              |
| Unicom,      Inc.                             | Alaska                            | Unicom, Inc.,      Unicom                                                                         |
| United-KUC,      Inc.                         | Alaska                            | United-KUC,      Inc., United-KUC, KUC                                                            |
| United      Utilities, Inc.                   | Alaska                            | United      Utilities, Inc. United Utilities,UUI                                                  |

----
#### NEW YORK CARBONIC ACID GAS CO., Respondent, v. GEYSERS NATURAL CARBONIC ACID GAS CO., Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department.

March 8, 1905.)

Action by the New York Carbonic Acid Gas Company against the Geysers Natural Carbonic Acid Gas Company.

PER CURIAM.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

PARKER, P. J., dissents. HOUGHTON, J., not sitting. ,
TABLE OF CONTENTS     ARTICLE 1. DEFINITIONS  3      ARTICLE 2. TECHNICAL SUPPORT SERVICES  3      ARTICLE 3. TECHNICAL SUPPORT SERVICES FEE  3      ARTICLE 4. REPRESENTATIONS AND WARRANTIES  4      ARTICLE 5. CONFIDENTIALITY  4      ARTICLE 6. GOVERNING LAW AND EVENTS OF DEFAULT  4      ARTICLE 7. DISPUTE RESOLUTION  4      ARTICLE 8. EFFECTIVENESS  5      ARTICLE 9. NO SUBSEQUENT OBLIGATION  5      ARTICLE 10. TRANSFER LIMITATION  5      ARTICLE 11. AMENDMENT  5      ARTICLE 12. COUNTERPARTS  5      ARTICLE 13. MISCELLANEOUS  5      EXHIBIT 1 CONTENT OF THE TECHNICAL SUPPORT SERVICES  6      EXHIBIT 2 TECHNICAL SUPPORT SERVICE FEE  7 
 

 
TECHNICAL SUPPORT AGREEMENTThis Technical Support Agreement (“this Agreement”) is entered into in Beijing, the People’sRepublic of China (the “PRC”) on October 15, 2008 between:Party A: Fortune Software (Beijing) Co., Ltd.
# Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, March 02, 2020 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A20A0863. BENJAMIN J. MAXWELL v. THE STATE.

The appellant in this case failed to comply with the notice of docketing mailed by this Court and with Court of Appeals Rule 23 (a), regarding the filing of an enumeration of errors and brief within twenty days after the appeal was docketed. See also Court of Appeals Rule 13. On February 12, 2020, this Court ordered the appellant to file an enumeration of errors and a brief no later than February 24, 2020. As of the date of this order, the appellant's enumeration of errors and brief still have not been filed. Accordingly, this appeal is deemed abandoned and is hereby ordered DISMISSED. Court of Appeals Rules 7, 23 (a). Because procedural deficiencies have deprived the appellant of the right of appellate review, the appellant is hereby informed of the following in accordance with Rowland v. State, 264 Ga. 872 (452 SE2d 756) (1995): This Court has dismissed your appeal because an enumeration of errors and a brief have not been filed on your behalf as required. If this failure occurred while you were represented by legal counsel and was due to your appellate counsel's failure to perform the duties of appellate counsel, and if you still wish to appeal, you may file a motion in the trial court for permission to pursue an out-of-time appeal. If the trial court grants your motion for an out-of-time appeal, you will have 30 days from the filing date of the order granting your motion to file in the trial court a notice of appeal from the judgment of conviction and sentence. If the trial court denies your motion for an out-of-time appeal, you will have 30 days from the filing date of the order denying your motion to file in the trial court a notice of appeal from that order.Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, March 02, 2020. I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia. Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto affixed the day and year last above written. , Clerk. The Clerk of Court is directed to send a copy of this order to the appellant as well as to the appellant's attorney of record, if any. The appellant's attorney is also directed to send a copy of this order to the appellant.
kj

May 17, 2007

R04E

R05E

T16N

T17N

®

ProducedfortheKasha-KatuweTentRocks

ROD/RMP.NowarrantyismadebytheBureauof

LandManagementastotheaccuracy,reliabilityor

completenessofthesedataforindividualuseor

aggregateusewithotherdata,orforpurposesnot

intendedbyBLM.Spatialinformationmaynotmeet

NationalMapAccuracyStandards.Thisinformation

maybeupdatedwithoutnotification.

Map10

AreaswithSpecialGeologicFeatures

Projection:UTMZone13

Datum:NAD1983

00.51

Miles

R06E

i

i

MapLegend

Trail

SpecialGeologicAreason

NorthEdgeholding

kj

Overlook

i

ParkingLot

PrimaryAccessRoad

KKTRMonumentBoundary

SpecialGeologicAreasonBLMLand

SpecialGeologicAreason

PrivateLand(inholdings)

BureauofLandManagement

ForestService

IndianLands

NationalParkService

Private

State

SpecialGeologicAreason

StateLand(inholdings)
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18U.S.C. SECTION 1350

|   | (1) | The      Report 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 Report fairly presents, in all material      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the      Company. |
|--------|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | /s/ Samuel M. Hopkins,      II                                         Samuel      M. Hopkins, IIVice      President and Chief AccountingOfficer |
|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
### §§65b, 66. Omitted

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Sections 65b, 66, relating to Territory of Alaska, were omitted in view of admission of Alaska into the Union.

Section 65b, act Apr. 3, 1944, ch. 155, §1, 58 Stat. 187, prescribed salary of secretary of Territory.

Section 66, act Mar. 3, 1905, ch. 1497, §1, 33 Stat. 1265, related to fees of secretary of Territory.
[No. 7282.

Decided May 28, 1908.]

#### The State *of*Washington, *on the Relation of P. H. Lack, Appellant,*v. John F. Meads, *Respondent.*
      *1*

Appeal — Decisions Review able — Amount in Controversy. An appeal from a judgment dismissing an action for a writ of mandamus to compel the issuance of a city warrant for the sum of $140.75 will he dismissed for the reason that the original amount in controversy is not within the appellate jurisdiction of the supreme court.

Appeal from a judgment of the superior court for Pierce county, Clifford, J., entered September 28, 1907, dismissing an action for a mandamus, after a trial on the merits before the court.

Appeal dismissed.

*L. C. Whitney,*for appellant.

*C. M. Riddell, J. W. Quick,*and *C. E. Dunkleberger,*for respondent.

Reported in 95 Pac. 1022.

Per Curiam.

Some time prior to the 11th day of May, 1907, the city of Tacoma purchased sand and gravel from one C. D. Elmore, of the value of $140.75, for which amount a claim was presented to the city council. After the presentation of the claim, but before its allowance, the claim was assigned to the relator Lack. After the assignment to Lack, the city council allowed the claim as presented, and *469credited the amount on an unpaid judgment held by the city against Elmore. The relator thereupon demanded a warrant for the amount of the claim from the city comptroller, and upon the refusal of that officer to issue the warrant, this action was brought in mandamus to compel such issuance. From a judgment dismissing the mandamus proceeding, this appeal is prosecuted.

The respondent has moved to dismiss the appeal for the reason that the original amount in controversy is not sufficient to bring the case within the appellate jurisdiction of this court. We so held in *State ex rel. Plaisie v. Cole,*40 Wash. 474, 82 Pac. 749, and *State ex rel. Ide*v. *Coon,*40 Wash. 682, 82 Pac. 993.

On the authority of these cases the appeal must be dismissed, and it is so ordered.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-7100

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

MARK ALEXIS, a/k/a Al,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Robert G. Doumar, Senior District

Judge. (CR-93-64)

Submitted: October 12, 2000 Decided: October 20, 2000

Before WILLIAMS and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Mark Alexis, Appellant Pro Se. Laura Marie Everhart, Assistant

United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Mark Alexis seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying

his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2000). We

have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find

no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district

court. See United States v. Alexis, No. CR-93-64 (E.D. Va. July 5,

2000). We deny Alexis’ motions for stay of deportation and for

preparation of transcripts at government expense. 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.

DISMISSED
<Page>

Exhibit 99.4


                   TURBODYNE ANNOUNCES FINANCIAL PLAN
                  AND DIRECTORS WITHDRAWL FROM LAWSUIT

Carpinteria, California - May 10, 2001 - Turbodyne Technologies, Inc.
[O.T.C.-Pink Sheets: TRBD} is pleased to announce that two of its
directors, who were plaintiffs in a lawsuit against other Turbodyne
directors and officers, have agreed to withdraw from the lawsuit. The
board will work to improve Turbodyne's financial picture and to
increase awareness in the automotive industry of our expertise in the
field of charging engines.  A group of shareholders of Turbodyne
in Germany and a group in the United States have agreed that they
will provide the company with funds of approximately $4,000,000.00
to enable the company to continue its' operation. The German investors
and the American investors have provided and will continue to provide
funds in several tranches over the next year. The investments by these
investors will take the form of private placements with Turbodyne. These
matching investments will greatly help the company while the company
continues to seek additional capital for future research and development
and ongoing expenditures.

The Turbodyne board has formed a committee, composed of board
members, to address the concerns of Honeywell, with whom Turbodyne
has a Development and Licensing Agreement. Turbodyne will respond to
Honeywell's letter of April 4,2001 to reassure them that Turbodyne
will be able to meet its' contractual obligations under the joint
development agreement.

Turbodyne Technologies, Inc., a California based high technology
company, specializes in the development of charging technology for
internal combustion engines and the development and manufacturing of
high-tech assemblies for electrically assisted turbochargers and
superchargers. Turbodyne Technologies' headquarters is located in
Carpinteria, California, and its European office is located in
Frankfurt, Germany.

Contacts:
Kenneth Fitzpatrick - President and CEO at California Headquarters:
(800) 566-1130
Editorial Note on Part 250
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 250 appear at 77 FR 50891, Aug. 22, 2012.

§ 250.1463 Does my request for a hearing on the record affect the penalties? ( a ) If you do not correct the violations identified in the Notice of Noncompliance regarding violations without a period to correct, the penalties will continue to accrue even if you request a hearing on the record.
( b ) You may ask the Hearings Division (Departmental) to stay the accrual of penalties pending the hearing on the record and a decision by the Administrative Law Judge under § 250.1472. ( 1 ) You must file your petition within 45 calendar days after you receive the Notice of Noncompliance.
( 2 ) To stay the accrual of penalties, you must post a bond or other surety instrument, or demonstrate financial solvency, using the standards and requirements as prescribed in BOEM's regulations, 30 CFR part 550, subpart N. The posted amount must cover the unpaid principal and interest due for the Notice of Noncompliance, plus the amount of any penalties accrued before the date a stay becomes effective.
( 3 ) The Hearings Division will grant or deny the petition under 43 CFR 4.21(b).
[76 FR 64462, Oct. 18, 2011, as amended at 81 FR 36150, June 6, 2016]
#### § 972.236 HUD process for approving a conversion plan.

Although a PHA will submit its conversion plan to HUD as part of the PHA Annual Plan, the conversion plan will be treated separately for purposes of HUD approval. A PHA needs a separate written approval from HUD in order to proceed with conversion. HUD anticipates that its review of a conversion plan will ordinarily occur within 90 days following submission of a complete plan by the PHA. A longer process may be required where HUD's initial review of the plan raises questions that require further discussion with the PHA. In any event, HUD will provide all PHAs with a preliminary response within 90 days following submission of a conversion plan. A lack of a HUD response within this time frame will constitute automatic HUD approval of the conversion plan.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3527 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3527

      To extend the temporary suspension of duty on Ethalfluralin.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 28, 2005

  Mr. Buyer introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
      To extend the temporary suspension of duty on Ethalfluralin.

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

SECTION 1. ETHALFLURALIN.

    (a) In General.--Heading 9902.30.49 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (relating to N-Ethyl-N-(2-methyl-2-
propenyl)-2,6-dinitro-4-(trifluoromethyl)benzenamine) is amended by 
striking ``12/31/2006'' and inserting ``12/31/2008''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano, 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.

 September 3, 2013

s0826

Order 

Clerk

September 3, 2013

147115

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 147115

COA: 305052

Ingham CC: 10-000402-FH

RUSHAUN DEMARIO BURTON,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 17, 2013 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.
Exhibit
4.2


 


Consent
of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm


 


We
have issued our report dated November 18, 2022, with respect to the financial statement of Advisors Disciplined Trust 2139 contained
in Amendment No. 1 to the Registration Statement on Form S-6 (File No. 333-266969) and related Prospectus. We consent to the use
of the aforementioned report in the Registration Statement and Prospectus, and to the use of our name as it appears under the
caption “Experts”.


 





	 	/s/ GRANT THORNTON LLP







 


Chicago,
Illinois 


November
18, 2022
§ 905.304 CF ACC term and covenant to operate. ( a ) *Period of obligation to operate as public housing.* The PHA shall operate all public housing projects in accordance with the CF ACC, as amended, and applicable HUD regulations, for the statutorily prescribed period. These periods shall be evidenced by a recorded DOT on all public housing property. If the PHA uses Capital Funds to develop public housing or to modernize existing public housing, the CF ACC term and the covenant to operate those projects are as follows: ( 1 ) *Development activities.* Each public housing project developed using Capital Funds shall establish a restricted use covenant, either in the DOT or as a Declaration of Restrictive Covenants, to operate under the terms and conditions applicable to public housing for a 40-year period that begins on the date on which the project becomes available for occupancy, as determined by HUD.
( 2 ) *Modernization activities.* For PHAs that receive Capital Fund assistance, the execution of each new CF ACC Amendment establishes an additional 20-year period that begins on the latest date on which modernization is completed, except that the additional 20-year period does not apply to a project that receives Capital Fund assistance only for management improvements.
( 3 ) *Operating Fund.* Any public housing project developed that receives Operating Fund assistance shall have a covenant to operate under requirements applicable to public housing for a 10-year period beginning upon the conclusion of the fiscal year for which such amounts were provided, except for such shorter period as permitted by HUD by an exception.
( b ) *Mortgage or security interests.* The PHA shall not allow *any mortgage* or security interest in public housing assets, including under section 30 of the 1937 Act (42 U.S.C. 1437z-2), without prior written approval from HUD. PHAs that undertake financing unsecured by public housing assets shall include the following nonrecourse language in all financing documents as follows: “This financing is non-recourse to any public housing property (real or personal property including all public housing assets or income), or disposition proceeds approved pursuant to Section 18 of the United States Housing Act of 1937 (unless explicitly permitted by HUD in the Section 18 approval letter).”
( c ) *Applicability of latest expiration date.* All public housing subject to this part or required by law shall be maintained and operated as public housing, as prescribed, until the latest expiration date provided in section 9(d)(3) of the 1937 Act (42 U.S.C. 1437g(d)(3)) or any other provision of law or regulation mandating the operation of the housing as public housing, or under terms and conditions applicable to public housing, for a specified period of time.
EXHIBIT 23.3


                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


The Board of Directors
General Communication, Inc.:


         We consent to the incorporation by reference of our report dated March
8, 2002, on the consolidated financial statements of General Communication, Inc.
and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2001 and 2000 and for each of the years in
the three-year period ended December 31, 2001 and the related financial
statement schedule, which appear in the December 31, 2001 annual report on Form
10-K of General Communication, Inc.

                                                     KPMG LLP


                                                       /s/


Anchorage, Alaska

August 28, 2002
EXHIBIT 32.1



CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report of FCStone Group, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K/A for the period ended August 31, 2008
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Paul G. Anderson, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, 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 Report fully
complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and



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



|    |  |                                         
|--- |  | ----------------------------------------
|By: |  | /s/    PAUL G.
ANDERSON                 
|    |  | Paul G. Anderson Chief Executive Officer



Date:
November 19, 2008



A signed original 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.