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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from 
Springhill Lake Investors Limited Partnership 1998 Second Quarter 10-QSB
and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such 10-QSB filing.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000763399
<NAME> SPRINGHILL LAKE INVESTORS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                    6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998   
<CASH>                                           3,302
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    2,066
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0<F1>
<PP&E>                                         100,526
<DEPRECIATION>                                (47,175)   
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  62,330   
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0<F1>
<BONDS>                                         57,807     
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0     
<PREFERRED>                                          0  
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                       (805)    
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    62,330    
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                12,526    
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                11,824    
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,765    
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       552     
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      807<F2>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>Registrant has an unclassified balance sheet.
<F2>Multiplier is 1.
</FN>
        


</TABLE>
Exhibit 35.1


                          SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT

For the period of January 1, 2007 to December 31, 2007, the servicing of
consumer finance receivables owned by BMW Vehicle Owner Trust 2006-A has been
conducted by BMW Financial Services NA, LLC, in its capacity as servicer, in
compliance with the servicing standards in all material respects, set forth in
Articles IV and V of the Sale and Servicing Agreement dated September 1, 2006.
To the best of the undersigned's knowledge, based on such review, the servicer
has fulfilled all of its obligations under the agreement in all material
respects throughout the reporting period.


By:   BMW Financial Services NA, LLC

By:        /s/  Kerstin Zerbst
        --------------------------------
        Kerstin Zerbst

Title:  Chief Financial Officer
2910.002 Procedures.       (a) In accordance with FAR 6.302-1(c), purchase descriptions must not specify a product, or specific feature of a product, peculiar to a manufacturer unless they are justified to the contracting officer in writing by the office initiating the purchase request. The justification must state that the product, or specific product feature, is essential to the Government's requirements and other similar products or features will not meet these requirements. This determination must be signed by a representative of the office originating the request and must accompany the purchase requisition submitted to the appropriate contracting office. If such a justification is not made, the contracting officer may assume that another make and model or a generic product could equally meet the DOL requirement.          (b) In accordance with FAR 10.002(b), the requisitioning office must submit to the contracting officer information demonstrating that a variety of products from various commercial sources have been considered. This requirement is not necessary for required sources (See FAR 8.001). Orders to be placed against non-mandatory sources, such as the Federal Supply Schedules, or other Governmentwide Acquisition Contracts, should include product information concerning multiple sources based on research from *www.contractdirectory.gov* site or other sources. When documented in this manner, the contracting officer may rely on this information in developing a procurement strategy, or for documenting the comparison of catalogs or pricelists.    **Parent topic:** PART 2910 - MARKET RESEARCH
[878 NE2d 999, 848 NYS2d 584]

#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Brian Olson, Appellant.

Argued October 10, 2007;

decided November 15, 2007

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Peter Panaro,*Massapequa, for appellant.

*969
      *Kathleen M. Rice, District Attorney,*Mineola *(Lauren Del Giorno*and *Peter A. Weinstein*of counsel), for respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

The Appellate Division affirmed Supreme Court’s judgment convicting defendant, after a bench trial, of assault in the first degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree.

Defendant argues that the Appellate Division applied the incorrect legal standard in determining that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence. We disagree. The Appellate Division rejected defendant’s argument that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence, concluding, after exercising its factual review power, that the trial court’s determination concerning credibility and the weight to be accorded the evidence was supported by the record. Mere reference to *People v Gaimari*(176 NY 84 [1903]) “does not indicate that the Court failed to apply the proper legal standard for analyzing defendant’s challenge to the weight of the evidence supporting the conviction” *(People v Vega,*7 NY3d 890, 891 [2006], citing *People v Romero,*7 NY3d 633, 645-646 [2006]).

Defendant further argues that the Appellate Division erred in not reversing his conviction because the trial court improperly shifted to defendant the burden of proving justification, failed to view the evidence of justification in the light most favorable to defendant and applied the wrong legal standard regarding the amount of force one can use for justification purposes. This argument is also unavailing. Here, the trial court, after hearing the testimony and finding that defendant committed an assault, properly considered whether defendant’s actions were justified. It concluded they were not and that the People “shouldered their burden of disproving, beyond a reasonable doubt. . . the defense of justification.” The trial court, therefore, committed no reversible error.

We have considered defendant’s remaining contentions and conclude that his legal sufficiency argument as to the weapon possession charge is unpreserved and that his interest of justice argument is beyond our review.

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones concur.

*970Order affirmed in a memorandum.
EX-34 (k)
(logo) ERNST & YOUNG


Ernst & Young LLP
Suite 2800
600 Peachtree Street
Atlanta, Georgia 30308-2215

Phone: (404) 874-8300
www.ey.com

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

We have examined management's assertion, included in the accompanying Report on
Assessment of Compliance with Securities and Exchange Commission's Regulation AB
Servicing Criteria, that ZC Sterling Insurance Agency, Inc. (the Company)
complied with certain servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of the
Securities and Exchange Commission's Regulation AB for the ZC Sterling
Integrated Product Solution (ZIPS) hazard insurance outsourcing Platform
(Platform) as of and for the year ended December 31, 2006. The Company has
determined that only certain servicing criteria 1122 (d) 1(iv), 1122 (d) 2(vi),
1122 (d) 4(xi), 1122 (d) 4(xii), and 1122 (d) 4(xiii) are applicable to the
activities performed by them with respect to the Platform covered by this
report. The Company has determined that the remaining servicing criteria set
forth in Item 1122(d) of the Securities and Exchange Commission's Regulation AB
are not applicable to the activities performed by them with respect to the
Platform covered by this report. See Appendix A of management's assertion for
the Platform covered by this report. Management is responsible for the Company's
compliance with those servicing criteria, Our responsibility is to express an
opinion on management's assertion about the Company's compliance with the
servicing criteria based on our examination.

Our examination was conducted in accordance with standards of the Public Company
Accounting Oversight Board (United States) and, accordingly, included examining,
on a test basis, evidence about the Company's compliance with the applicable
servicing criteria and performing such other procedures as we considered
necessary in the circumstances. Our examination included testing of less than
all of the servicing activities related to the Platform, and determining whether
the Company performed those selected activities in compliance with the servicing
criteria. Furthermore, our procedures were limited to the servicing activities
performed by the Company during the period covered by this report. Our
procedures were not designed to determine whether errors may have occurred
either prior to or subsequent to our tests that may have affected the balances
or amounts calculated or reported by the Company during the period covered by
this report for the Platform. We believe that our examination provides a
reasonable basis for our opinion. Our examination does not provide a legal
determination on the Company's compliance with the servicing criteria.

In our opinion, management's assertion that the Company complied with the
aforementioned servicing criteria as of and for the year ended December 31, 2006
for the ZIPS Platform is fairly stated, in all material respects.

/s/ Ernst & Young LLP

February 20, 2007


A Member Practice of Ernst & Young Global
# Subpart 913.3 - Simplified Acquisition Methods

**Parent topic:**PART 913 - SIMPLIFIED ACQUISITION PROCEDURES

## 913.307 Forms.

(b) Optional Forms 347 and 348, or DOE F 4250.3, may be used for purchase orders using simplified acquisition procedures. These forms shall not be used as the contractor's invoice. See 48 CFR 12.204 regarding the use of SF-1449 for the acquisition of commercial items using simplified acquisition procedures.
Exhibit






Amendment to the Employee Restricted Stock Agreement dated February 3, 2014 
This Amendment is being entered into effective as of February 2, 2018, by and between Univar Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), and David Jukes (the “Employee”).  This Amendment revises that Employee Restricted Stock Agreement between the Company and the Employee pursuant to the Univar Inc. 2011 Stock Incentive Plan and dated February 3, 2014 (the “Agreement”).  
1.The Company and the Employee agree that Section 8(a) of the Agreement is amended in its entirety to read as follows:  


(a)Withholding. The Employee shall pay any taxes that must be withheld in connection with the vesting of the Restricted Stock by either:


		
	(i)
	paying the Company in cash; or


(ii) directing the Company to retain that number of whole shares that have an aggregate fair market value (as of the Vesting Date) equal to the amount of the required withholding.  (The Company shall pay to the Employee in cash the value of any fractional share withheld in excess of the required amount.)  
The Employee may choose either of the above methods unless the retention of shares would be inconsistent with any law, regulation or financing term applicable to the Company (or any Subsidiary); in that event, the Employee must pay the Company in cash.  
2.The meaning of capitalized terms not otherwise defined in this Amendment may be found in Section 7 of the Agreement.  This Amendment may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which shall be deemed to be an original and all of which together shall constitute one and the same document.




[signature page follows]


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company and the Employee have executed this Amendment to be effective as of the date first above written.
UNIVAR INC.
By:    _________________________
Name:    Jeffrey W. Carr
Title:  Senior Vice President


THE EMPLOYEE:
__________________________
David Jukes
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED December 12, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-10887 Conference Calendar

DERRICK MCNAIRY, Petitioner-Appellant,

versus DAN JOSLIN, WARDEN, FEDERAL CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION SEAGOVILLE, Respondent-Appellee.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:05-CV-1166

-------------------- Before KING, WIENER, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Derrick McNairy, federal prisoner # 33456-077, was convicted of possession of cocaine base with intent to distribute and sentenced to serve 15 years in prison. He filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas corpus petition to challenge his sentence, and he now appeals the district court’s dismissal of his § 2241 petition. He argues that he should be permitted to pursue § 2241 relief in accordance with the savings clause of 28 U.S.C. § 2255 because the remedy under § 2255 is inadequate and because he is actually innocent of his sentence. He relies on United States v.No. 05-10887 -2- Booker , 543 U.S. 220 (2005), in support of his substantive sentencing claims. McNairy has not shown that the district court erred in determining that his purported § 2241 petition was best construed as an unauthorized successive § 2255 motion. See Tolliver v. Dobre , 211 F.3d 876, 877 (5th Cir. 2000); Cox v. Warden, Fed.
Det. Ctr. , 911 F.2d 1111, 1113 (5th Cir. 1990). McNairy likewise has not shown that he should be permitted to proceed under the savings clause of § 2255. See Reyes-Requena v. United States , 243 F.3d 893, 904 (5th Cir. 2001); Pack v. Yusuff , 218 F.3d 448, 452-53 (5th Cir. 2000). The judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED.
#### § 958.7 Handle.

*Handle* is synonymous with *ship* and means to sell or transport onions, or cause onions to be sold or transported, within the production area or between the production area and any point outside thereof. Except as otherwise provided in §§ 958.56 and 958.65, this definition of “handle” shall not be applicable to onions that are transported within the production area for grading or storing therein, or to onions that are transported or sold to commercial dehydrators for processing by such dehydrators into dehydrated onion products.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

PENSACOLA DIVISION 

IN THE MATTER OF IN RE 

SKANSKA USA CIVIL 

SOUTHEAST INC. AND 

SKANSKA USA, INC. AS 

OWNERS OF THE BARGE KS 

5531 PRAYING FOR 

EXONERATION FROM OR 

LIMITATION OF LIABILITY 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§

ADMIRALTY RULE 9(H) 

 § 

§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 

3:20-CV-05980 – LC/HTC

DISCOVERY ORDER No. 1 

Re: CELL PHONE DATA 

On June 16, 2021, the parties were before the Court on a status conference with 

regard to pending discovery matters including, in particular, ESI discovery. One of 

the issues addressed was the production by Petitioner, Skanska USA Civil Southeast 

Inc. (“Skanska”), of cell phone data for certain custodians. According to Skanska’s 

counsel, Skanska is utilizing the services of third-party vendor, Servient, to download 

cell phone data for seven (7) custodians1 into a format that can be searched and 

reviewed for production. 

 

1

 The custodians are: Beddow, DeMarco, Benton, Francis, Fulton, Rodgers, and Salamanca. 

Case 3:20-cv-05980-LC-HTC Document 1186 Filed 06/16/21 Page 1 of 2
2 

Case No. 3:20-cv-05980-LC-HTC 

Based on the representations of counsel at the conference, and the need for 

some firm deadlines for production and clear explanation for any delays, it is 

ORDERED that: 

1. Skanska produce at least 75% of all responsive cell phone data for the 

custodians at issue by Tuesday, June 22, 2021. 

2. If Skanska is unable to meet that deadline, Skanska shall have a 

representative from Servient present at the next regularly scheduled status conference 

set for Wednesday, June 23, 2021, either in-person or by telephone, to explain the 

status of the cell phone data production and the reason for any delays. 

3. Skanska through counsel, or a Servient representative, should also be 

ready to provide the Court during that status conference with the following: (1) the 

date when Mr. Rubio’s phone was lost; (2) the dates Mr. Bender and Ms. Stevens 

ceased their employment with Skanska; (3) the dates when Mr. Bender’s and Ms. 

Stevens’ phones were cleaned; (4) whether there are any backups of the cell phone 

data from Mr. Bender’s and Ms. Stevens’ phones; and (5) the status of getting access 

to the cell phone data from Mr. McGlynn’s and Mr. Johnson’s phones. 

Done this the 16th day of June 2021, Pensacola, Florida: 

 /s/ Hope Thai Cannon 

 HOPE THAI CANNON 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 3:20-cv-05980-LC-HTC Document 1186 Filed 06/16/21 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 1017


		
			Exhibit 10.17
		

		
			 
		

		
			ServiceMaster Global Holdings, Inc.
		

		
			﻿
		

		
			Schedule of Signatories* to a Director Indemnification Agreement
		

		
			 
		

		
			Mark E. Tomkins
		

		
			Peter L. Cella 
		

		
			John B. Corness 
		

		
			Laurie Ann Goldman
		

		
			Naren K. Gursahaney (effective December 1, 2017)
		

		
			Richard P. Fox
		

		
			Stephen J. Sedita
		

		
			Nikhil M. Varty
		

		
			﻿
		

		
			*   Jerri L. DeVard, Robert J. Gillette, Thomas C. Tiller, Jr.,  John Krenicki, Jr.,  David H. Wasserman, Darren M. Friedman, Sarah Kim and Curtis D. Hecht each previously signed a Director Indemnification Agreement, but they are no longer serving on our Board of Directors.
		

		
			﻿
		

		
			The form of Director Indemnification Agreement was filed with the SEC on June 19, 2014 as Exhibit 10.71 to the Registration Statement on Form S-1 of ServiceMaster Global Holdings, Inc.
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 23

- 00054

- CR

The State of Texas v. Juan Villarreal

On Appeal from the 148th District Court of Nueces County , Texas Trial Cause No. 18FC

- 4900E

JUDGMENT
The Court ’ s judgment issued on May 9, 2024, is hereby withdraw n and the following is subs titu ted therefor. THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be reversed and the cause
remanded to the trial court. The Court orders the judgmen t of the trial court REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings in accordance with its opinion

. We furthe r order this decision certified below for observance. May 23 , 2024
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D20-3651

_____________________________

SOUTH WALTON PROPERTIES,

LLC and A&J HOLDINGS, LLC,

Appellants,

v.

CALYPSO TOWERS RESORT 

COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION, INC.,

THE CALYPSO GROUP, LLC, THE 

CALYPSO DEVELOPERS I, LLC,

THE CALYPSO DEVELOPERS II,

LLC, THE CALYPSO DEVELOPERS 

III, LLC, and YATES, LLC,

Appellees.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Bay County.

John L. Fishel, II, Judge.

September 6, 2022

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

WINOKUR, NORDBY, and TANENBAUM, JJ., concur.
2

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________

Stephen E. Syfrett of Syfrett & Garmon, P.A., Panama City; 

Martin B. Sipple and Alexandra Akre of Ausley McMullen, 

Tallahassee, for Appellants.

Matthew R. Cogburn of Cogburn Law Firm, P.A., Tampa; Craig B. 

Morris of Morris Law Firm, P.C., Point Clear, AL, for Appellees.
JIM R. WRIGHT

 CHIEF JUSTICE

MIKE WILLSON

 JUSTICE

JOHN M. BAILEY

 JUSTICE

Court of Appeals

Eleventh District of Texas

100 WEST MAIN STREET, SUITE 300

P. O. BOX 271

EASTLAND, TEXAS 76448

SHERRY WILLIAMSON

CLERK

TELE: 254/629-2638

FAX: 254/629-2191

sherry.williamson@txcourts.gov 

www.txcourts.gov/11thcoa

August 3, 2017

Jennifer A. Habert, District Attorney

Baylor County

101 S. Washington Street

Seymour, TX 76380

* DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL *

Carl Lopez Anchondo

TDCJ #00646402

Stringfellow Unit

1200 FM 655

Rosharon, TX 77583

RE: Appellate Case Number: 11-17-00195-CR

Trial Court Case Number: 3493

Style: Carl Lopez Anchondo v. The State of Texas

The Court has this day DISMISSED the appeal in the above cause.

Copies of the Court's opinion and judgment are attached.

Appellant is advised that a Petition for Discretionary Review may be filed with the Clerk,

Court of Criminal Appeals, Austin, Texas. No copy is required for the Eleventh Court of

Appeals.

Respectfully yours,

Sherry Williamson, Clerk

cc: Bobby Burnett, Judge (DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL)

Lisa Cypert, District Clerk (DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL)

Kelly Moore, Administrative Judge (DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL)

FILE COPY
§ 764.102 General limitations. ( a ) Limitations specific to each loan program are contained in subparts D through I of this part.
( b ) The total principal balance owed to the Agency at any one time by the applicant, or any one who will sign the promissory note, cannot exceed the limits established in § 761.8 of this chapter.
( c ) The funds from the FLP loan must be used for farming operations located in the United States.
( d ) The Agency will not make a loan if the proceeds will be used: ( 1 ) For any purpose that contributes to excessive erosion of highly erodible land, or to the conversion of wetlands;
( 2 ) To drain, dredge, fill, level, or otherwise manipulate a wetland; or
( 3 ) To engage in any activity that results in impairing or reducing the flow, circulation, or reach of water, except in the case of activity related to the maintenance of previously converted wetlands as defined in the Food Security Act of 1985.
( e ) Any construction financed by the Agency must comply with the standards established in § 761.10 of this chapter.
( f ) Loan funds will not be used to establish or support a non-eligible enterprise, even if the non-eligible enterprise contributes to the farm. Notwithstanding this limitation, an EM loan may cover qualified equine losses as specified in subpart I of this part.
[72 FR 63298, Nov. 8, 2007, as amended at 75 FR 54015, Sept. 3, 2010; 76 FR 75434, Dec. 2, 2011]
[if !vml]>[endif]>
[if !vml]>[endif]>
You havereached the Federal Depository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC)Archive. This archive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC.Access to publications in the archive is available through GPO's suite ofcataloging and locator services, including the Catalog of U.S. GovernmentPublications.  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the eventthat publications are no longer available from the original publishing agencysite. (Historical purposes)
**Title:****Mineralresources of the Mount Grafton Wilderness Study Area, Lincoln and White Pinecounties, Nevada**** 
SuDocNumber:I19.3:1728-F
ItemNumber: 0620
CGPsystem Number:000594836
 
Report
Plate
 **