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

<ARTICLE>                              7
<LEGEND>
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                                  <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                         9-Mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                     Dec-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                        Jan-1-1996
<PERIOD-END>                          Sep-30-1996
<DEBT-HELD-FOR-SALE>                  32,908,914
<DEBT-CARRYING-VALUE>                 45,402,269
<DEBT-MARKET-VALUE>                   44,547,503
<EQUITIES>                            23,118,222
<MORTGAGE>                                     0
<REAL-ESTATE>                          3,938,735
<TOTAL-INVEST>                       105,145,363
<CASH>                                 4,367,861
<RECOVER-REINSURE>                       620,895
<DEFERRED-ACQUISITION>                 7,004,838
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                       174,036,628
<POLICY-LOSSES>                       95,875,676
<UNEARNED-PREMIUMS>                   34,427,641
<POLICY-OTHER>                                 0
<POLICY-HOLDER-FUNDS>                          0
<NOTES-PAYABLE>                        4,900,000
<COMMON>                                 658,902
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<OTHER-SE>                                     0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>         174,036,628
<PREMIUMS>                            46,638,875
<INVESTMENT-INCOME>                    3,883,099
<INVESTMENT-GAINS>                       951,896
<OTHER-INCOME>                           946,232
<BENEFITS>                            28,402,440
<UNDERWRITING-AMORTIZATION>            9,139,831
<UNDERWRITING-OTHER>                   4,146,219
<INCOME-PRETAX>                        1,768,012
<INCOME-TAX>                             455,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                    1,313,012
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                           1,313,012
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                .22
<EPS-DILUTED>                                .22
<RESERVE-OPEN>                                 0
<PROVISION-CURRENT>                            0
<PROVISION-PRIOR>                              0
<PAYMENTS-CURRENT>                             0
<PAYMENTS-PRIOR>                               0
<RESERVE-CLOSE>                                0
<CUMULATIVE-DEFICIENCY>                        0
        

<PAGE>
§ 993.19a Size. *Size* means either ( a ) the number of prunes contained in a pound and may be referred to in terms of size ranges, or
( b ) the diameter of a round opening, expressed in multiples of one thirty-second of an inch, through which prunes pass freely.
[37 FR 861, Jan. 20, 1972]
EX-4.2


 Exhibit 4.2 

GUARANTEE 
 Warner Music
Group Corp. (the “Guarantor”) hereby unconditionally guarantees WMG Acquisition Corp.’s 5.500% Senior Notes due 2026 (the “Notes”) issued pursuant to the Indenture, dated as of April 9, 2014 (the
“Base Indenture”), by and among the Issuer, the guarantors party thereto (the “Guarantors”),and the Trustee, as supplemented by the Fifth Supplemental Indenture, dated of March 14, 2018 (the “Fifth
Supplemental Indenture”), by and among the Issuer, the Guarantors and the Trustee. The Base Indenture, as supplemented by the Fifth Supplemental Indenture is referred to herein as the “Indenture”.  

The obligations of the Guarantor pursuant to this Guarantee and the Indenture are expressly set forth in Article Ten of the Base Indenture,
and reference is hereby made to the Indenture for the precise terms and limitations of this Guarantee. 
 Capitalized terms used but not
defined herein shall have the meanings set forth in the Indenture. 
 [Signatures on Following Pages] 






 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Warner Music Group Corp. has caused this Guarantee to be signed by a duly
authorized officer. 
 DATED: March 14, 2018 

 

			
	WARNER MUSIC GROUP CORP.
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Paul M. Robinson

	Name: Paul M. Robinson
	Title: Executive Vice President, General Counsel & Secretary


 [Signature Page to the Warner Music Group Guarantee]
§ 766.301 Notifying borrower in bankruptcy of loan servicing. If a borrower files for bankruptcy, the Agency will provide written notification to the borrower's attorney with a copy to the borrower as follows: ( a ) *Borrower not previously notified.* The Agency will provide notice of all loan servicing options available under subpart C of this part, if the borrower has not been previously notified of these options.
( b ) *Borrower with prior notification.* If the borrower received notice of all loan servicing options available under subpart C of this part prior to the time of bankruptcy filing but all loan servicing was not completed, the Agency will provide notice of any remaining loan servicing options available.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

M IDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABA M A

OFFICE OF THE CLERK

POST OFFICE BOX 711

MONTGOMERY, ALABAMA 36101-0711

DEBRA P. HACKETT, CLERK

TELEPHONE (334) 954-3600

NOTICE OF CORRECTION

From: Clerk’s Office

Case Style: Thurman et al v. Timberline Homes, Inc. et al 

Case Number: 1:06-cv-00709-DRB

Referenced Pleading: NOTICE - Doc. 3

This Notice of Correction was filed in the referenced case this date to correct the PDF

documents attached to this notice. Please see the correct PDF documents to this notice.

Case 1:06-cv-00709-MHT-DRB Document 4 Filed 08/11/2006 Page 1 of 1
Case 1:06-cv-00709-MHT-DRB Document 4-2 Filed 08/11/2006 Page 1 of 2
Case 1:06-cv-00709-MHT-DRB Document 4-2 Filed 08/11/2006 Page 2 of 2
#### § 993.26 Selection.

Selection of members of the committee, and their respective alternates, shall be made in the appropriate number specified in § 993.24, by the Secretary from nominees nominated pursuant to this part or, in the discretion of the Secretary, from other eligible persons.
§ 993.104 Lot. ( a ) *Lot* for the purposes of §§ 993.49 and 993.149 means any quantity of prunes delivered by one producer or one dehydrator to a handler on which inspection is requested: *Provided,* That a lot shall be limited to (1) the prunes contained in not more than 30 “ton box” containers or (2), if in other containers, not more than 60,000 pounds of prunes. If the prunes in any containers are markedly inferior in quality and condition to other prunes in the proffered lot, the containers shall be segregated into lots of reasonable uniform quality.
( b ) *Lot* for the purposes of §§ 993.50 and 993.150 means: ( 1 ) With respect to in-line inspection either ( i ) the aggregate quantity of prunes of the same size, other than those rejected by inspection, processed in any continuous production of one calendar day and packed during such day in one size and style of container or
( ii ) the aggregate quantity of prunes of the same size, other than those rejected by inspection, so processed and held in packing containers for later packaging.
( 2 ) With respect to floor inspection either ( i ) prunes not previously inspected in-line, of the same size, in like containers, bearing the same identification (e.g., brand) if in consumer packages, and offered for inspection as a lot; or
( ii ) prunes previously inspected in-line but rejected as failing to meet requirements, of the same size, in like containers, processed in any continuous production of one calendar day, and offered for inspection as a new lot.
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA F OURTH D ISTRICT

TIERRA WESTBROOK , Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA , Appellee

.

No. 4D 19

- 1823

[ December 19, 2019 ]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.850 motion from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County ; Elizabeth Anne Scherer , Judge; L.T. Case No. 15

- 000004CF10A

.
Tierra Westbrook, Ocala, pro se.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, Georgina Jimenez

Orosa, Senior Assista nt Attorney General, and Allan R. Geesey, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.
Affirmed

.

G ROSS , G ERBER and L EVINE , JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
§ 14.19 When a claim is filed with more than one agency. ( a ) If the NRC and one or more other Federal agencies is or may be involved in the events giving rise to the claim, and if the claim is filed with the NRC, the NRC shall contact all other affected agencies in order to designate the single agency which will investigate and decide the merits of the claim. ( 1 ) In the event that an agreed upon designation cannot be made by the affected agencies, the Department of Justice will be consulted and will designate a primary agency to investigate and decide the merits of the claim. If the NRC is designated as the primary agency, it shall notify the claimant that all future correspondence concerning the claim shall be directed to the NRC.
( 2 ) All involved Federal agencies can agree either to conduct their own administrative reviews and to coordinate the results or to have the investigations conducted by the primary agency. In either event, the primary agency is responsible for the final determination of the claim.
( b ) A claimant presenting a claim arising from an incident to more than one agency should identify each agency to which the claim is submitted at the time each claim is presented. If a claim arising from an incident is presented to more than one Federal agency without any indication that more than one agency is involved, and any one of the concerned Federal agencies takes final action on that claim, the final action is conclusive on the claims presented to the other agencies in regard to the time required for filing suit set forth in 28 U.S.C. 2401(b). However, if NRC, as a subsequently involved Federal agency, desires to take further action with a view towards settling the claim, the NRC may treat the matter as a request for reconsideration of the final denial under 10 CFR 14.39, unless suit has been filed in the interim, and advise the claimant of the action.
§ 1013.32 Location of hearing. ( a ) The hearing may be held— ( 1 ) In any judicial district of the United States in which the defendant resides or transacts business;
( 2 ) In any judicial district of the United States in which the claim or statement in issue was made; or
( 3 ) In such other place as may be agreed upon by the defendant and the ALJ.
( b ) Each party shall have the opportunity to present argument with respect to the location of the hearing.
( c ) The hearing shall be held at the place and at the time ordered by the ALJ.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Charles Wayland Grover, Appellant.

Judgment unanimously reversed, on the law and facts, and indictment dismissed. Memorandum: We previously reserved decision on defendant’s appeal from the judgment of conviction and remitted the case to the Monroe County Court to conduct a hearing to determine whether defendant’s confession should have been suppressed *(People v Grover,*73 AD2d 819). County Court reported to this court that the District Attorney was unable to proceed because the police officers involved in the detention and interrogation of defendant lacked sufficient present recollection of the events to establish probable cause pursuant to *Dunaway v New York*(442 US 200) and that no evidence other than defendant’s confession linked him with the crime. Accordingly, as the People concede, the judgment must be reversed and the indictment dismissed. (Resubmission of appeal from judgment of Monroe County Court—arson, fourth degree.) Present—Hancock, Jr., J. P., Schnepp, Callahan, Doerr and Witmer, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
REGISTRANT'S FORM 10-Q FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31, 1997 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
INCLUDED IN SUCH REPORT.
</LEGEND>

       
<S>                   <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>         3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>     DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>          MAR-31-1997

<CASH>                       7,243,331 
<SECURITIES>                      0    
<RECEIVABLES>                  223,235 
<ALLOWANCES>                      0    
<INVENTORY>                       0    
<CURRENT-ASSETS>             7,466,566 
<PP&E>                       9,320,695 
<DEPRECIATION>                    0    
<TOTAL-ASSETS>              28,415,881 
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>           91,887 
<BONDS>                           0    
<COMMON>                          0    
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>             0    
<PREFERRED>                       0    
<OTHER-SE>                  25,005,573 
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>28,415,881 
<SALES>                        392,176 
<TOTAL-REVENUES>               918,797 
<CGS>                             0    
<TOTAL-COSTS>                  128,646 
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                99,226 
<LOSS-PROVISION>                  0    
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                0    
<INCOME-PRETAX>                690,925 
<INCOME-TAX>                      0    
<INCOME-CONTINUING>            597,306 
<DISCONTINUED>                    0    
<EXTRAORDINARY>                   0    
<CHANGES>                         0    
<NET-INCOME>                   597,306 
<EPS-PRIMARY>                     9.06 
<EPS-DILUTED>                     9.06 

        


</TABLE>
#### Niloofar Pellarin et al., Respondents, v Moon Bay Development Corp. et al., Appellants.

[813 NYS2d 664]

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, the defendants appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an *554order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Underwood, J.), dated November 12, 2004, as denied their motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) to dismiss the complaint and to cancel the notice of pendency.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

In considering a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7), the court should “accept the facts as alleged in the complaint as true, accord plaintiffs the benefit of every possible favorable inference, and determine only whether the facts as alleged fit within any cognizable legal theory” *(Leon v Martinez,*84 NY2d 83, 87-88 [1994]).

Applying these principles to the instant case, the Supreme Court properly denied the defendants’ motion, inter alia, to dismiss the complaint *(see Jackal Holdings, LLC v JSS Holding Corp.,*23 AD3d 435 [2005]; *cf. Fast Track Funding Corp. v Perrone,*19 AD3d 362, 363 [2005]). The plaintiffs sufficiently stated a cause of action against the defendant John Chiarelli in his individual capacity to pierce the corporate veil *(see McCoy & Assoc. Realty Corp. v D.J.F. Props.,*194 AD2d 651 [1993]; *People ex rel. Washburn v Hall & Co.,*174 AD2d 562 [1991]), and against the defendants Fredrick P. Stern & Associates, P.C., Fredrick P Stern, and Patricia A. Stern alleging misrepresentation and breach of their fiduciary duty *(see Takayama v Schaefer,*240 AD2d 21, 25 [1998]; *Grinblat v Taubenblat,*107 AD2d 735, 736 [1985]; *see also Rovello v Orofino Realty Co.,*40 NY2d 633, 635 [1976]). Contrary to the defendants’ contention, the instant action was commenced within the 45-day period of limitations set forth in the subject contract because the plaintiffs provided notice of claim by a letter dated July 8, 2004 and commenced their action on July 12, 2004 *(cf. Krohn v Felix Indus.,*226 AD2d 506 [1996]). Florio, J.P., Santucci, Goldstein and Rivera, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                             552
<SECURITIES>                                         1
<RECEIVABLES>                                    2,006
<ALLOWANCES>                                        45
<INVENTORY>                                      2,789
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 5,636
<PP&E>                                           1,815
<DEPRECIATION>                                     160
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   7,727
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            2,078
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         6,509
<OTHER-SE>                                     (2,483)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     7,727
<SALES>                                          6,419
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 6,419
<CGS>                                            4,055
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    5,794
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  76
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    824
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (112)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                935
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       935
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .12
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .12
        

</TABLE>
```

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 8 (Monday, January 13, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 2241]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-00393]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 8589]

In the Matter of the Designation of Ahmed Abu Khattalah; Also 
Known as Ahmad Bukhattalah, as a Specially Designated Global Terrorist 
Pursuant to Section 1(b) of Executive Order 13224, as Amended

    Acting under the authority of and in accordance with section 1(b) 
of Executive Order 13224 of September 23, 2001, as amended by Executive 
Order 13268 of July 2, 2002, and Executive Order 13284 of January 23, 
2003, I hereby determine that the individual known as Ahmed Abu 
Khattalah, also known as Ahmad Bukhattalah, committed, or poses a 
significant risk of committing, acts of terrorism that threaten the 
security of U.S. nationals or the national security, foreign policy, or 
economy of the United States.
    Consistent with the determination in section 10 of Executive Order 
13224 that ``prior notice to persons determined to be subject to the 
Order who might have a constitutional presence in the United States 
would render ineffectual the blocking and other measures authorized in 
the Order because of the ability to transfer funds instantaneously,'' I 
determine that no prior notice needs to be provided to any person 
subject to this determination who might have a constitutional presence 
in the United States, because to do so would render ineffectual the 
measures authorized in the Order.
    This notice shall be published in the Federal Register.

     Dated: December 31, 2013.
John F. Kerry,
Secretary of State.
[FR Doc. 2014-00393 Filed 1-10-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-05-P
```
#### § 1042.410 Comparable facilities.

A recipient may provide separate toilet, locker room, and shower facilities on the basis of sex, but such facilities provided for students of one sex shall be comparable to such facilities provided for students of the other sex.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. George Joseph Boundy, Appellant.

'Order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated February 16, 1966 which denied, after a hearing, a *coram nobis*application to vacate two judgments of said court rendered on resentence on February 7, 1964, affirmed. No opinion. (Another order of said court, also made on February 16, 1966, denied defendant’s motion to reargue said application.) Beldoek, P. J., Christ, Brennan, Hopkins and Benjamin, JJ., concur.
§ 1013.33 Witnesses. ( a ) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, testimony at the hearing shall be given orally by witnesses under oath or affirmation.
( b ) At the discretion of the ALJ, testimony may be admitted in the form of a written statement or deposition. Any such written statement must be provided to all other parties along with the last known address of such witness, in a manner which allows sufficient time for other parties to subpoena such witness for cross-examination at the hearing. Prior written statements of witnesses proposed to testify at the hearing and deposition transcripts shall be exchanged as provided in § 1013.22(a) of this part.
( c ) The ALJ shall exercise reasonable control over the mode and order of interrogating witnesses and presenting evidence so as to ( 1 ) make the interrogation and presentation effective for the ascertainment of the truth,
( 2 ) avoid needless consumption of time, and
( 3 ) protect witnesses from harassment or undue embarrassment.
( d ) The ALJ shall permit the parties to conduct such cross-examination as may be required for a full and true disclosure of the facts.
( e ) At the discretion of the ALJ, a witness may be cross-examined on matters relevant to the proceeding without regard to the scope of his or her direct examination. To the extent permitted by the ALJ, cross-examination on matters outside the scope of direct examination shall be conducted in the manner of direct examination and may proceed by leading questions only if the witness is a hostile witness, an adverse party, or a witness identified with an adverse party.
( f ) Upon motion of any party, the ALJ shall order witnesses excluded so that they cannot hear the testimony of other witnesses. This rule does not authorize exclusion of— ( 1 ) A party who is an individual;
( 2 ) In the case of a party that is not an individual, an officer or employee of the party appearing for the entity *pro se* or designated by the party's representative; or
( 3 ) An individual whose presence is shown by a party to be essential to the presentation of its case, including an individual employed by the Government engaged in assisting the representative for the Government.
# ~~/slZ4" TG-116 IDockd No. FAA-20()8....1~; Directorate IdeDtilier 2008-NM-llfl..AD; Amen 

### 39-"; AD

# ·;r:~~~l-~Ol,

01 RIN 2UU-AA64 Federal Aviatioa AdDiiJl.istratiOQ 14CFR Part 39 

## 1491U-I3-P) DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Airworthilless DiRdiva; 

### Empresa Brasileira deAeronautics S.A. 

### (EMBRAER) e EMB-135BJ Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation AdmiDistIation (FAA), Department ofTransportatio 

### (DOl). ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: We are superseding anexisting airworthiness directive (AD) for the 

### products listed above. lIDs AD results from mandata!)' continuing airworthiness information (MeAl) 

### originated by an aviation authority ofanother country to ideoand correct anunsafe condition on anaviation jm>duct The earlier MeAl, 

### Bmzili Airworthiness Directive 2007-08·01, effective September 27. 2007, describes the condition as: Fuel system n:assessment, performed according to RBHA-E88JSFAR-88 (Rcgulamento Brasileiro de Homologacao Aeronautica 88/Special Federal Aviation Rt:gulation No. 88), requires the inclusion of new maintf'Oance tBsks inthe Critical Design Configuration CnntrnJ Limitations (CDCCL) 

### and inthe Fuel System Limitiitions (FSL), necessary topreclude ignition soW"Cesin the fuel system. • • • The new MeAl. Brazilian Airworthiness DiIective 2009-0&-03, effective August 20, 2009, descn1>esthe unsafe 

### condition as: 

## "