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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF EQK REALTY INVESTORS I FOR THE PERIOD ENDED SEPTEMBER
30, 1999, 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-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                           3,224
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  45,219
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       135,875
<OTHER-SE>                                    (140,139)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    45,219
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 4,585
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      601
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   343
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,073
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    568
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                568
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       568
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.06
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.06


</TABLE>
Editorial Note on Part 47
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 47 appear at 64 FR 38108, July 15, 1999.

§ 47.8 The answer. ( a ) *Filing and service.* Within 20 days after service of the formal complaint, unless extension of time has been requested and granted, the respondent may file with the Fruit and Vegetable Programs, an answer, in triplicate, signed by the respondent or his attorney. A copy of the answer shall be served upon the complainant by the Fruit and Vegetable Programs as provided in § 47.4. If the answer includes a counterclaim, the answer shall be accompanied by the $300 handling fee required by the Act for formal complaints.
( b ) *Contents.* Such answer shall contain ( 1 ) a precise statement of the facts which constitute the grounds of defense, including any set-off or counterclaim, and shall specifically admit, deny, or explain each of the allegations of the complaint, unless respondent is without knowledge, in which case the answer shall so state; or
( 2 ) a statement that the respondent admits all of the allegations of the complaint; or
( 3 ) a statement containing an admission of liability in an amount less than that alleged in the complaint (in which event, an order may be made, pursuant to section 7(a) of the Act, directing payment of the undisputed amount), and a denial, as in paragraph (b)(1) of this section, of liability for the remaining amount. The answer may contain a waiver of hearing.
( c ) *Failure to file answer; effect of.* Failure to file an answer within the time prescribed shall constitute a waiver of hearing and an admission of the facts alleged in the complaint. If the facts deemed admitted are considered insufficient to support the amount of reparation sought, the proceeding shall continue on the question of damages only.
( d ) *Procedure upon admission of facts.* Upon the admission, in the answer or by failure to file an answer, of all the material allegations of fact contained in the complaint, an order may be issued without further procedure, official notice being taken of the license status of the respondent and the date of filing of the informal complaint, as disclosed by the records of the Department.
[10 FR 2212, Feb. 27, 1945, as amended at 24 FR 10055, Dec. 12, 1959; 64 FR 38106, July 15, 1999]
1 

127310530.1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

Case No. 3:20-CV-05479 MCR-EMT 

ALLIED WORLD ASSURANCE 

COMPANY (U.S.), INC. 

 Plaintiff, 

v. 

BAY COUNTY HEALTH SYSTEM, LLC. 

d/b/a BAY MEDICAL CENTER and 

SACRED HEART HEALTH SYSTEM, 

 Defendants. 

/

JOINT STIPULATION FOR DISMISSAL 

OF ALL CLAIMS AND COUNTERCLAIMS 

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by the Parties that this action, including 

all claims and counterclaims, shall be dismissed with prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) 

of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, with each party to bear its own attorneys’ fees and costs. 

The parties further stipulate that the United States District Court for the Northern District 

of Florida, which presently has jurisdiction over the parties to this lawsuit, may retain

jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the settlement agreement between the parties. 

Dated: September 29, 2021. 

[Signatures on following page] 

Case 3:20-cv-05479-MCR-EMT Document 38 Filed 09/29/21 Page 1 of 2
2 

127310530.1 

 /s/ Robert D. Moses

Robert D. Moses, Esquire 

Florida Bar No.: 182860 

rmoses@conroysimberg.com 

Stuart F. Cohen, Esquire 

Florida Bar No.: 986178 

scohen@conroysimberg.com 

Conroy Simberg 

101 Centrepark Drive East, Suite 200 

West Palm Beach, FL 33401 

561-5597-8088

561-697-8664

Counsel for Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff

/s/ Gregory A. Gidus 

Heidi Hudson Raschke 

Florida Bar No. 61183 

Primary: hraschke@carltonfields.com 

Secondary: pparrey@carltonfields.com 

Gregory A. Gidus 

Florida Bar No. 105930 

Primary: ggidus@carltonfields.com 

Secondary: dlester@carltonfields.com 

Carlton Fields, P.A. 

P.O. Box 3239 

Tampa, FL 33601-3239 

Telephone: (813) 223-7000 

Facsimile: (813) 229-4133 

Attorneys for Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant 

Case 3:20-cv-05479-MCR-EMT Document 38 Filed 09/29/21 Page 2 of 2
#### § 46.47 OMB control numbers assigned pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act.

The information collection requirements contained in this part have been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the provisions of 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35 and have been assigned OMB Control No. 0581-0031.

[49 FR 23826, June 8, 1984]
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.2


                            CERTIFICATION 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 Annual Report of Encore Acquisition Company (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2002 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Morris B. Smith, Chief Financial 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; and


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


/s/ Morris B. Smith


Morris B. Smith
Chief Financial Officer
March 24, 2003
June 25, 2015 

Mr. William Merkel 

151 Rebecca Road 

Sunnyvale, TX 75182 

Dear Mr. Merkel: 

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption from 

Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). It explains why we can not process your 

request and what you should do in the next 30 days. 

Why We Can Not Process Your Request 

We entered your June 12, exemption request into the public docket (No. FAA-2015-2246), 

but we are unable to process your request any further. The information you sent does not 

comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the request any 

further, you must send us all of the following: 

 The specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek relief, the extent of the 

relief you seek, and the reason you seek relief. 

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would 

benefit the public as a whole. 

 The reasons why the exemption would not adversely affect safety or how the exemption 

would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which you 

seek an exemption. 

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request. 
2 

What You Should Do 

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described 

earlier to reach us within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your 

petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption. 

If We Do Not Hear From You 

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you 

further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267-9677. 

Sincerely, 

/s/ 

Brenda Robeson 

Program Analyst, Airmen and 

 Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure
DEPTOFTRANSPORMfO N DOCKET S

. -' O m ! 1 A(1 : U l

OST-2010-004 6 Secretary o f

Jth e DO T „ ~ Dear Sir : Pleas e le t u s remai n i n Mountai n Tim e unti l avot e ca n b e hel dt o determin e wha t tim e zon e th e citizen s o f Merce r County vot e for
. Al l o f

u s no t jus t some . Merce r County Residen t
Regulatory Evaluation

Docket No. FAA-FAA-2012-0002 Directorate Identifier: 2011-NE-42-AD

If you make changes to the values in the table below, you must ensure the totals update accordingly. If 

they do not, click (or Tab) into and then out of the changed cell.

Estimated Costs:

Action

(e.g., Inspection, 

replacement)

Do not include oncondition costs here

Costs per Product (e.g., aircraft, engine, 

propeller, appliance)

Work-hours

(include 

access, testing, 

and close-up)

Labor 

cost 

(@$85/h

our)

Parts Cost Total Costs 

(labor + 

parts)

Number of 

U.S. 

Registered

Products

Total Cost 

for U.S. Fleet

Replacement of all 

6 ECi Cylinders

18.0 $1,530.0

0

$10,200 $11,730.00 6,000 $70,380,000.

00

For each engine, 

cylinder visual, 

compression test, 

and leak check - 4 

times the first year

24.0 $2,040.0

0

$2,040.00 6,000 $12,240,000.

00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

The known number of products in compliance:

Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $82,620,000

Costs covered under warranty (if known) $

On-Condition Costs:

Action

(e.g., Inspection, 

replacement)

Work-hours

(include access, 

testing, and closeup)

Labor cost 

(@$85/hour)

Parts Cost Cost per Product

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00
Special considerations for Economic Analysis (Use this field to explain anything in the Estimated Costs table 

that was assumed or might not be obvious. This field can also be used to explain warranty costs): This evaluation 

is based on 36,000 ECi cylinders that would affect 6,000 engines.

Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”?

YES* NO 

*Explanation: 

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant? 

YES* NO 

*Explanation: 

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? Explain for 

either a Yes or No answer.

YES NO 

Explanation: 

Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:

This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific requirements for 

aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode of transportation?

YES* NO 

*Explanation:
* Local Rule 47.5.1 provides: "The publication of

opinions that merely decide particular cases on the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes needless expense on the public and burdens on the legal profession." Pursuant to that Rule, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________ No. 95-60407 Conference Calendar

__________________
BILLY J. PATTON, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus STANFORD YOUNG, Attorney at Law, Defendant-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 4:95-CV-40LN

- - - - - - - - - - December 19, 1995 Before DAVIS, STEWART, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Billy J. Patton appeals the district court's dismissal as frivolous of his in forma pauperis (IFP) civil rights complaint. Patton sued his privately-retained counsel, alleging that counsel rendered ineffective assistance in a criminal proceeding. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Patton's appeal is without arguable merit and is thus frivolous. Accordingly, we DISMISSNo. 95-60407 -2- the appeal. 5th Cir. R. 42.2. Patton's motion for extraordinary relief is DENIED. We caution Patton that any additional frivolous appeals filed by him will invite the imposition of sanctions. To avoid sanctions Patton is further cautioned to review any pending appeals to ensure that they are not frivolous.
§ 3560.651 General. ( a ) This subpart contains the Agency's housing preservation requirements as related to prepayment requests and restrictive-use provisions (RUPs). The requirements of this subpart support the Agency's commitment to the preservation of decent, safe, sanitary, and affordable multi-family housing (MFH) for very low-, low-, and moderate-income households.
( b ) The Agency will coordinate, direct, and monitor the Agency's MFH preservation activities from the National Office level.
§ 3550.63 Maximum loan amount. Total secured indebtedness must not exceed the area loan limit or market value limitations specified in paragraphs (a) or (b) of this section, whichever is lower. Any loan amount for the RHS appraisal, tax monitoring fee, and the charge to establish an escrow account for taxes and insurance will not be subject to the limitations specified below. This section does not apply to loans on NP terms. ( a ) *Area loan limit.* ( 1 ) The area loan limit is the maximum value of the property RHS will finance in a given locality. This limit is based on a percentage(s) of the applicable local HUD section 203(b) limit. The percentage(s) will be determined by the Agency and published in the program handbook. The area loan limits will be reviewed at least annually and posted to the Agency website.
( 2 ) The maximum loan limit calculated under paragraph (a)(1) will be reduced in the following situations: ( i ) When the applicant owns the site or is purchasing the site at a sales price below market value, the market value of the lot will be deducted from the maximum loan limit, and
( ii ) When an applicant is receiving a housing grant or other form of affordable housing assistance for purposes other than closing costs, the amount(s) of such grants and affordable housing assistance will be deducted from the maximum loan limit.
( 3 ) The maximum loan limit for self-help housing will be calculated by adding the total of the market value of the lot (including reasonable and typical costs of site development), the cost of construction, and the value of sweat equity. The total of these three factors cannot exceed the limit established in paragraph (a)(1) of this section.
( b ) *Market value limitation.* ( 1 ) The market value limitation is 100 percent of market value for existing housing and for new dwellings for which RHS will receive adequate documentation of construction quality and the source of such documentation is acceptable to RHS.
( 2 ) The market value limitation is 90 percent of market value for new dwellings for which adequate documentation of construction quality is not available.
( 3 ) The market value limitation can be increased by: ( i ) Up to one percent, if RHS makes a subsequent loan for closing costs only, in conjunction with the sale of an REO property or an assumption.
( ii ) The amount necessary to make a subsequent loan for repairs necessary to protect the Government's interest, and reasonable closing costs.
( iii ) The amount necessary to refinance an existing borrower's RHS loans, plus closing costs associated with the new loan.
[61 FR 59779, Nov. 22, 1996; 61 FR 65266, Dec. 11, 1996, as amended at 67 FR 78330, Dec. 24, 2002; 84 FR 29038, June 21, 2019]
#### §§ 4279.105-4279.107 [Reserved]
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v. Case No. 3:20-cr-39-MCR

TIMOTHY E. JOHNSON

_____________________________/

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

CONCERNING PLEA OF GUILTY

The Defendant, by consent, has appeared before me pursuant to Rule 11, Fed. 

R. Crim. P., and has entered a plea of guilty to Count Two of the superseding 

indictment. After cautioning and examining the Defendant under oath concerning 

each of the subjects mentioned in Rule 11, I determined the guilty plea was knowing 

and voluntary and the offenses charged are supported by an independent basis in fact 

containing each of the essential elements thereof. I therefore recommend the plea 

of guilty be accepted and the Defendant be adjudicated guilty and have a sentence 

imposed accordingly.

Dated: October 27, 2020.

/s/ Hope Thai Cannon HOPE THAI CANNON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 3:20-cr-00039-MCR Document 70 Filed 10/27/20 Page 1 of 2
Case No. 3:20-cr-39-MCR

Page 2 of 2

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES

Objections to these proposed findings and recommendations may be filed 

within twenty-four (24) hours after being served a copy thereof. Any different 

deadline that may appear on the electronic docket is for the court’s internal use 

only, and does not control. A copy of objections shall be served upon the 

magistrate judge and all other parties. A party failing to object to a magistrate 

judge's findings or recommendations contained in a report and 

recommendation in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) 

waives the right to challenge on appeal the district court's order based on 

unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions. See U.S. Ct. of App. 11th Cir. Rule 

3-1; 28 U.S.C. § 636.

Case 3:20-cr-00039-MCR Document 70 Filed 10/27/20 Page 2 of 2
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.0

AVAILABILITY OPINION CONFIRMATION



From the Management of Eateries, Inc.:

We confirm that Arthur Andersen LLP has audited the consolidated balance sheets
of Eateries, Inc. and subsidiaries (an Oklahoma corporation) as of December 31,
2001 and December 31, 2000, and the related consolidated statements of income,
stockholders' equity and cash flows for each of the three years ended December
31, 2001. They represented that this audit was subject to their quality control
system for the U.S. accounting and auditing practice to provide reasonable
assurance that the engagement was conducted in compliance with professional
standards, that there was appropriate continuity of Arthur Andersen personnel
working on the audit and availability of national office consultation.
Availability of personnel at foreign affiliates of Arthur Andersen is not
relevant to this audit.


REGISTRANT:
EATERIES, INC.

By:   /s/ Vincent F. Orza, Jr.
      ---------------------------------
      Vincent F. Orza, Jr.
      Chief Executive Officer

By:   /s/ Bradley L. Grow
      ------------------------------------------
      Bradley L. Grow
      Vice President
      Chief Financial Officer

March 29, 2002
26.103 Procedures.

(a) Contracting officers and prime contractors, acting in good faith, may rely on the representation

of an Indian organization or Indian-owned economic enterprise as to its eligibility, unless an

interested party challenges its status or the contracting officer has independent reason to question

that status.

(b) In the event of a challenge to the representation of a subcontractor, the contracting officer shall

refer the matter to theU.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA)

Attn: Acquisition Management Director

12220 Sunrise Valley Drive

Reston, VA 20191.

The BIA will determine the eligibility and notify the contracting officer.

(c) The BIA will acknowledge receipt of the request from the contracting officer within 5 working

days. Within 45 additional working days, BIA will advise the contracting officer, in writing, of its

determination.

(d) The contracting officer will notify the prime contractor upon receipt of a challenge.

(1) To be considered timely, a challenge shall-

(i) Be in writing;

(ii) Identify the basis for the challenge;

(iii) Provide detailed evidence supporting the claim; and

(iv) Be filed with and received by the contracting officer prior to award of the subcontract in

question.

(2) If the notification of a challenge is received by the prime contractor prior to award, it shall

withhold award of the subcontract pending the determination by BIA, unless the prime contractor

determines, and the contracting officer agrees, that award must be made in order to permit timely

performance of the prime contract.

(3) Challenges received after award of the subcontract shall be referred to BIA, but the BIA

determination shall have prospective application only.

(e) If the BIA determination is not received within the prescribed time period, the contracting officer

and the prime contractor may rely on the representation of the subcontractor.

(f) Subject to the terms and conditions of the contract and the availability of funds, contracting

officers shall authorize an incentive payment of 5 percent of the amount paid to the subcontractor.
Contracting officers shall seek funding in accordance with agency procedures.

Parent topic: Subpart 26.1 - Indian Incentive Program
11.000 Scope of part.

This part prescribes policies and procedures for describing agency needs.

Parent topic: Part 11 - Describing Agency Needs