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

<ARTICLE>  5
<LEGEND>
THE  SCHEDULE   CONTAINS   SUMMARY   FINANCIAL   INFORMATION   EXTRACTED  FROM
REGISTRANT'S  FINANCIAL  STATEMENTS FOR THE QUARTER ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1997 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-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                         327
<SECURITIES>                                   138
<RECEIVABLES>                                  722
<ALLOWANCES>                                     0
<INVENTORY>                                      0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 0
<PP&E>                                       5,990
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,373
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               6,125
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            0
<BONDS>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            0
<PREFERRED>                                      0
<COMMON>                                     9,384
<OTHER-SE>                                  (6,143)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 6,125
<SALES>                                          0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,006
<CGS>                                            0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  575
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  0
<INCOME-TAX>                                     0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              0
<DISCONTINUED>                                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  0
<CHANGES>                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                                   431
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    0
        

</TABLE>
exv10w1



 






Exhibit 10.1




Summary of Benefits




	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Benefit	 	Amount	 	Length	 	Maximum Cost
	Office Administrative Support
	 	Reimbursement of up to $50,000 per year	 	3 years	 	$	150,000	 
	Financial Planning
	 	Reimbursement of up to $12,500 per year	 	3 years	 	$	37,500	 
	Gift of Company Car
	 	Based on book value	 	 	N/A	 	 	$	31,000	 
	Health and Wellness
Reimbursement
	 	Reimbursement of up to $1,450 per year	 	3 years	 	$	4,350	 
	Approximate Total Value
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	$	222,850
###### Editorial Note on Part 4

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 4 appear at 77 FR 39904, July 6, 2012.

#### § 4.11 General prohibition.

No person in the United States shall, on the ground of sex, race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be otherwise subjected to discrimination under any program to which this subpart applies.

[29 FR 19277, Dec. 31, 1964, as amended at 40 FR 8778, Mar. 3, 1975]
1 

### IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESS EE

AT JAC KSON June 4, 2002 Ses sion


### STATE OF TENNESSEE v. RICH ARD HA LE AUS TIN
Appeal from

the Court

of Crimi nal Appeals Criminal Court for Shelby County No. B-58357 C. Creed McGinley, Judge

No. W1999-00281-SC-DDT-DD - Filed Septem ber 16, 2002

A DOLPHO A. B IRCH , J R ., J., dissenting.

In a lin e of disse

nts, I have maintained t

hat the c omparat

ive propo

rtionalit y review pr oc es s c ur re nt ly e mb ra ce d b y this Cou rt fails. It fa ils beca use it doe s not oper

ate to protect defenda nts f rom the a

rbitrar y a nd disprop ortionate

imposition o f the dea

th pe na lt y. Se e, e.g., State v. Godsey , 60 S.W.3d 759, 793 (Tenn. 2001) (Birch, J., concurring and disse

nting); Stat e v. Bane , 57 S.W.3d 411, 431 (Tenn. 2001) (Birch, J., concurring and disse

nting); State v. Chalmers , 28 S.W.3d 913, 92 3 (Tenn. 2000) (Birch, J., concurr

ing and dissenting ); State v. Keen , 31 S.W.3d 196, 234 (Ten n. 2000) (Birch, J., dissenting). This case is no different.
The pred ominant principle underlying comparative proportionality review is that it is unjust to impose a death sentence upon one defendant when other defend ants , convi cted o f the same crimes with similar facts, receive sente nces of life imprisonment ( withor without parole). Godsey , 60 S.W.3d at 793. Based on this principle, and pursuant to Tenn essee C ode Annot ated § 39- 13-206(c )(1), th is Court mus t conduct

a compar at ive proportionality review of every de ath sentence for the purpose of “d etermining whether the death penalty is unacceptable in a particular case becaus e it i s dispropor tionate to the punishment imposed on othe rs con victed of the same crime.” Statev. Henderson , 24 S.W.3d 307, 314 (Tenn. 2000) (citing State v. Hall , 8 S.W.2d 593, 604 (Tenn. 1999)).

In theory, the compa

ra tive proportionality review pr otocol seems ideal and workable; however , as I

have oft en state d, albeit

in gentl er terms , it just doe s not work

. Three flaws en sure the

unrelia bility of the re view pro cess: (1) t he propo rtionalit y te st is
so broa d that nea rly ever y sentence

is pronounced proportionate; (2) the “pool” of case s used for comp arison is e ntirely to o small; and ( 3) the review process itself is much too subjective. Chalmers , 28 S.W.3d a t 923 (Bir

ch, J., con

currin g and dissenting). If this2

Courtis to adeq

uately protect agains t the dispr

oportiona te imposition of the de ath senten ce, these flaws must be corrected. Bane , 57 S.W.3d at 431 (Birch, J., co ncurrin g and dissenting).

Until the issues I have continually raised are addressed, I

hol d that this Court cannot th or ou gh ly a nd ad eq ua te ly f ul fi ll it s s ta tu to ry d ut y to revi ew death penalty cases to ensure that a defendant’s death sentenc e is proportionate.

__________________________________ ADOL PHO A. BI

RCH, JR.
IV 

House Calendar No. 130 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 596 

[Report No. 109–344] 

Waiving points of order against the further conference report to accompany 

the bill (H.R. 3010) making appropriations for the Departments of 

Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2006, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 13, 2005 

Mrs. CAPITO, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following resolution; 

which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed 

RESOLUTION 

Waiving points of order against the further conference report 

to accompany the bill (H.R. 3010) making appropriations 

for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies for the fiscal 

year ending September 30, 2006, and for other purposes. 

1 Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it 

2 shall be in order to consider the further conference report 

3 to accompany the bill (H.R. 3010) making appropriations 

4 for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Serv-
2 

HRES 596 RH 

1 ices, and Education, and Related Agencies for the fiscal 

2 year ending September 30, 2006, and for other purposes. 

3 All points of order against the conference report and 

4 against its consideration are waived. The conference re5 port shall be considered as read. 

House Calendar No. 130 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 596 

[Report No. 109–344] 

RESOLUTION 

Waiving points of order against the further conposes. ending September 30, 2006, and for other pur- cation, and Related Agencies for the fiscal year Labor, Health and Human Services, and Edu- making appropriations for the Departments of ference report to accompany the bill (H.R. 3010) 

DECEMBER 13, 2005 

Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 

printed
Exhibit 35.1

Servicer Compliance Statement of AmeriCredit Financial Services, Inc.

This Annual Statement as to Compliance is delivered to you pursuant to Section 4.10 (a) of the Sale and Servicing Agreement dated as of January 16,
2013 (the Agreement) and Item 1123 of Regulation AB, executed in connection with the formation of AmeriCredit Automobile Receivables Trust 2013-1 (the Trust), the issuance of the Notes
by the Trust and the closing of the transactions and the execution and delivery of the various documents by AmeriCredit Financial Services, Inc. (the Servicer) and AFS SenSub Corp. in connection therewith. The capitalized terms used
herein shall have the same meanings as in the Agreement.

The undersigned certifies that I am the Executive Vice President, Corporate
Controller and Chief Accounting Officer of the Servicer. I further certify as follows:



| | 1. | I have conducted, or caused to be conducted under my supervision, a review of the Servicer during the preceding period from January 1, 2016 through December 31, 2016, and its performance under the Agreement.
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | To the best of my knowledge, following such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all its obligations under the Agreement throughout such period, and, to the best of my knowledge, there has been no default in the
fulfillment of any such obligation.
| | -- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

AmeriCredit Financial Services, Inc.



|    |  |                                         |  |                      
|--- |  | --------------------------------------- |  | ---------------------
|By: |  | /s/ Connie Coffey                       |  | Dated: March 15, 2017
|    |  | Connie Coffey                           |  |                      
|    |  | Executive Vice President, Corporate     |  |                      
|    |  | Controller and Chief Accounting Officer |  |
PGI 217.7504 Acquisition of parts when data

is not available.

When acquiring a part for which the Government does not have necessary data with rights to use in

a specification or drawing for competitive acquisition, use one of the following procedures in order

of preference:

(1) When items of identical design are not required, the acquisition may still be conducted through

full and open competition by using a performance specification or other similar technical

requirement or purchase description that does not contain data with restricted rights. Two methods

are—

(i) Two-step sealed bidding; and

(ii) Brand name or equal purchase descriptions.

(2) When other than full and open competition is authorized under FAR Part 6, acquire the part from

the firm that developed or designed the item or process, or its licensees, provided productive

capacity and quality are adequate and the price is fair and reasonable.

(3) When additional sources are needed and the procedures in paragraph (1) of this section are not

practicable, consider the following alternatives:

(i) Encourage the developer to license others to manufacture the parts;

(ii) Acquire the necessary rights in data;

(iii) Use a leader company acquisition technique (FAR Subpart 17.4) when complex technical

equipment is involved and establishing satisfactory additional sources will require technical

assistance as well as data; or

(iv) Incorporate a priced option in the contract that allows the Government to require the contractor

to establish a second source.

(4) As a last alternative, the contracting activity may develop a design specification for competitive

acquisition through reverse engineering. Contracting activities shall not do reverse engineering

unless—

(i) Significant cost savings can be demonstrated; and

(ii) The action is authorized by the head of the contracting activity.

Parent topic: PGI 217.75 -ACQUISITION OF REPLENISHMENT PARTS
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 547 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 547

  Expressing support for designation of February 3, 2018, as ``United 
                     States Missing Persons Day''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 28, 2017

Mr. Poe of Texas submitted the following resolution; which was referred 
          to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
  Expressing support for designation of February 3, 2018, as ``United 
                     States Missing Persons Day''.

Whereas the observance of United States Missing Persons Day on February 3, 2018, 
        provides an opportunity to raise awareness of the many individuals of 
        all ages who go missing each year;
Whereas in 2016, the National Crime Information Center had nearly 88,000 cases 
        of actively missing Americans, of those, more than 76,000 were under the 
        age of 21;
Whereas the establishment of United States Missing Persons Day is due in part to 
        the efforts of Jo Ann Lowitzer, whose daughter, Alexandria Joy ``Ali'' 
        Lowitzer, went missing from Spring, Texas, on April 26, 2010, at the age 
        of 16;
Whereas, on February 3, 2018, Ali would have been 24 years old, and on that day, 
        communities are encouraged to come together in support of all families 
        who have suffered the disappearance of a loved one;
Whereas this occasion also offers an opportunity to educate those families on 
        the best way to aid in the investigation of their loved one's case, to 
        communicate with case investigators, and to maintain public awareness of 
        the case until it is resolved; and
Whereas no matter their age, all missing persons leave behind family and friends 
        whose lives are consumed with longing for their safe return, and it is 
        appropriate that a special day be set aside in honor of all those who 
        have disappeared: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Representatives 
that--
            (1) a day ought to be established to bring awareness to the 
        issue of missing persons; and
            (2) the people of the United States should be encouraged 
        to--
                    (A) observe the day with appropriate programs and 
                activities; and
                    (B) support worthy initiatives and increased 
                efforts to locate missing persons.
                                 <all>
```
#### INGALLS, Appellant, v. ERIE R. CO., Respondent.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

May 27, 1914.)

Action by Cora Ingalls against the Erie Railroad Company.

PER CURIAM.

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. See, also, 155 App. Div. 878, 139 N. Y. Supp. 1127.

KRUSE, P. J.,. dissents.
PGI 232.603 Debt determination.       Upon transfer of a case to the contract financing office, the contracting officer shall close the debt record by reference to the date of transfer.    **Parent topic:** PGI 232.6 -CONTRACT DEBTS
§ 62.31 Termination of emergency access. ( a ) The Commission may terminate a grant of emergency access when emergency access is no longer necessary to eliminate an immediate threat to public health and safety or the common defense and security.
( b ) The Commission may terminate a grant of emergency access if an applicant has provided inaccurate information in its application for emergency access or if the applicant has failed to comply with this part or any conditions set by the Commission pursuant to this part.
# ORIGINAI
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA PR 22-0005

IN RE THE MOTION OF ARRON B. NESBITT FOR ADMISSION TO THE BAR OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 

# FILED JUN 21 2022 Bowen Greenwood Clerk of Supreme Court State of Montana ORDER

Arron B. Nesbitt has filed a motion for admission to the Bar ofthe State ofMontana pursuant toRule V oftheRules forAdmission, Admission on Motion. TheBarAdmissions Administrator ofthe State Bar ofMontana has informed the Court that the Commission on Character and Fitness has certified that Nesbitt has provided the necessary documentation and has satisfied the requirements prerequisite to admission on motion under Rule V. Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that upon payment of any application fees and completion of any other processing requirements as set forth by the Bar Admissions Administrator, Arron B. Nesbitt may be sworn in to the practice of law in the State of Montana. Arrangements for swearing in may be made by contacting the office ofthe Clerk ofthe Montana Supreme Court. The Clerk is directed to provide copies ofthis order to Petitioner and to the State Bar ofMontana. 

### s_>4 DATED this

# et day ofJune, 2022.

ChiefJustice 06/21/2022

Case Number: PR 22-00052 Justices
2007-1870.

#### Cheap Escape Co., Inc. v. Haddox, LLC.

Franklin App. No. 06AP-1107, 2007-Ohio-4410. Discretionary appeal accepted on Proposition of Law No. I.

Lundberg Stratton, O’Donnell, and Lanzinger, JJ., would also accept the appeal on Proposition of Law No. II.

Pfeifer and Cupp, JJ., dissent.
Processing Sites
§ 473.23 Interagency review panel. ( a ) The interagency review panel shall consist of— ( 1 ) A head designated by the Federal agency that employs the manager;
( 2 ) A representative of the DOE if the manager is not an employee of the DOE; and
( 3 ) A representative of any other Federal agency deemed appropriate by the Federal agency that employs the manager.
( b ) The interagency review panel shall— ( 1 ) Review the research and development to be performed and consider the information presented by the applicant, in the case of a grant, cooperative agreement, or contract, and by any interested person who filed a statement of objection;
( 2 ) Make a recommendation with a supporting statement of findings to the manager as to whether the research and development to be performed complies with the standards and criteria of § 473.30; and
( 3 ) Operate by majority vote with the head of the panel casting the decisive vote in the event of a tie.
#### § 455.60 Purpose.

This subpart specifies what constitutes a technical assistance program eligible for financial assistance under this part and sets forth the eligibility criteria for schools, hospitals, units of local government, and public care institutions to receive grants for technical assistance to be performed in buildings owned by such institutions.
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of

law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

## F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### DEC 18 2002 

### PATRICK FISHER Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v. No. 02-5018 STEVEN LYNN MANN, Defendant-Appellant. (D.C. No. 01-CR-18-C) (N.D. Okla.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
BeforeEBEL , BALDOCK, and KELLY , Circuit Judges. Defendant Steven Lynn Mann appeals his conviction and life sentence, arguing the district court erred by (1) not suppressing evidence arising out of three searches; (2) admitting into evidence a videotape showing him manufacturing methamphetamine and exchanging methamphetamine for sex; (3) permitting a Drug Enforcement Agency agent to extrapolate the total amount of methamphetamine Mann could have manufactured based solely on witnesses’ testimony about pseudoephedrine sold to Mann; (4) failing to remedy the Government’s pretrial misrepresentation that it had offered no promises or2

inducements to Government witnesses; and (5) sentencing Mann to a disproportionate sentence as compared to his co-conspirators. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The parties to this case are familiar with its facts and procedural history, and we will not repeat them here. When reviewing a district court’s denial of a motion to suppress, we accept the district court’s factual findings unless clearly erroneous. United States v. Price , 265 F.3d 1097, 1104 (10th Cir. 2001). We review de novo the legal question of whether the officers conducting the searches complied with the Fourth Amendment. Id. We review the trial court’s rulings on the admission of evidence, including expert testimony, for an abuse of discretion. See United States v. Velarde , 214 F.3d 1204, 1208 (10th Cir. 2000) (expert testimony); United States v. Simpson , 152 F.3d 1241, 1248 (10th Cir. 1998) (evidence generally). We review de novo a claim that the Government failed to disclose exculpatory evidence. United States v. Molina , 75 F.3d 600, 602 (10th Cir. 1996). We review for an abuse of discretion Mann’s claim the district court sentenced him to a disparately harsh sentence. United States v. Allen , 24 F.3d 1180, 1188 (10th Cir. 1994). After reviewing the record and the briefs, and hearing oral3

argument, we find no reversible error. AFFIRMED. Entered for the Court,
Bobby R. Baldock Circuit Judge
<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 Quarterly Report of Sionix Corporation(the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2002, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), the undersigned, Robert
McCray, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certifies to the best of his
knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 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
                      results of operations of the Company.

                                                     /s/ Robert McCray
                                                     ---------------------------
                                                     Robert McCray
                                                     Chief Financial Officer

                                                     August 13, 2002

This certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for
purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.