alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 99.3
(Letterhead) 
FIRST SECURITY CORPORATION
SCOTT C. ULBRICH
Executive Vice President and
Chief Financial Officer

March 18, 1997

Janice Ott Rotunno
Assistant Vice President
The First National Bank of Chicago
Corporate Trust Services Division
Mail Suite 0126
Chicago, IL 60670 0126

Dear Ms.  Rotunno:

This letter serves as the Officer's Certificate according to Section 3.10 of 
the Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated June 23, 1995 for the First Security
Auto Grantor Trust 1995-A.

In accordance with Section 3.10(I) a review of the activities of First 
Security's servicing for the period of January 1, 1996, through December 31, 
1996 and of its performance of its obligations under this Agreement has been 
made under such officer's supervision and (ii) to the best of such officer's 
knowledge, based on such review, First Security has fulfilled all of its 
obligations under this Agreement throughout this period, and there are no 
known defaults of First Security under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement.

Please contact us if you have any questions.

Sincerely,



Scott C. Ulbrich
Executive Vice President
& Chief Financial Officer

/sa
(page footer)
First Security Corporation,
P.O. Box 30006  
Salt Lake City, Utah 84130  
Telephone 801-246-5706
A financial services company of First Security Corporation
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  266,577
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  5,941,038
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            10,088,237
<PP&E>                                      11,879,729
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              25,933,476
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       11,118,987
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       501,345
<OTHER-SE>                                   9,782,135
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                25,933,476
<SALES>                                     23,984,394
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            23,984,394
<CGS>                                       15,717,310
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               27,375,829
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               213,335
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (3,604,770)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (3,604,770)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (3,604,770)
<EPS-BASIC>                                   (0.72)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.72)


</TABLE>
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 11**  **- 6600** 
NELSON RIVAS, a/k/a Nelson Rivas Alvarez , Petitioner

- Appellant ,
v. JAMES N. CROSS , Respondent

- Appellee
.

Appeal from the United States District Court fo r the Northern District of West Virginia , at Elkins
. John Preston Bailey , Chief District Judge. ( 2:10

- cv - 00098

- JPB

- DJJ )

Submitted : September 29, 2011 Decided: October 5, 2011

Before KING, GREGORY, and DUNCAN , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un publi shed per curiam opinion
. Nelson Rivas, Appellant Pro Se. Alan McGonigal, Assistant United States Attorney, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Nelson Rivas , a federal pr isoner, appeals the district
court ’ s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denyin g relief on his 28 U.S.C. A. § 2241 (West 2006 & Supp. 2011) p etition. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affi rm for the reasons stated by the district court. Rivas v. Cross , No. 2:10

- cv - 00098

- JPB

DJJ (N.D.W. Va. Apr. 27, 2011) . We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and a rgument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
#### § 225.142 Components.

Adequate procedures shall be established and maintained for the identification, storage, and inventory control (receipt and use) of all Type A medicated articles and Type B medicated feeds intended for use in the manufacture of medicated feeds to aid in assuring the identity, strength, quality, and purity of these drug sources. Packaged Type A medicated articles and Type B medicated feeds shall be stored in designated areas in their original closed containers. Bulk Type A medicated articles and bulk Type B medicated feeds shall be identified and stored in a manner such that their identity, strength, quality, and purity will be maintained. All Type A medicated articles and Type B medicated feeds shall be used in accordance with their labeled mixing directions.
r DIST IBUTECH®

CONFERENCE & 
 

 

 

Addressing ADMS Adoption 

Challenges Using NREL’s 

ADMS Test Bed 

Annabelle Pratt, Principal Engineer, National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) 

Brian Amundson, Director, Grid Modernization, Xcel Energy 

Santosh Veda, Group Manager, NREL 

NREL/PR-5D00-73255
Motivation: why an ADMS test bed? 

To accelerate the adoption of

advanced distribution management

systems (ADMS) 

• ADMS are expected to deliver: 

• Increased reliability 

• Improved power quality 

• More renewable energy sources 

• Data security 

• Resilience to natural disasters and 

other threats. 
Motivation: why an ADMS test bed? 

ADMS deployment requires: 

• Significant investment Advanced

A • Solid business case 

• Well-understood benefits. 
 

 

What is the ADMS test bed? 

Realistic laboratory test environment with standard interfaces 
 

 

 

What questions can the test bed address? 

• What is the impact of improved forecasting? 

• How much peak load management can be achieved? 

• Does a distributed energy resource management system significantly

improve load management performance? 

• How do grid-edge technologies impact ADMS performance? 
 

 

Xcel Energy ADMS test bed use case 

• Xcel Energy is deploying ADMS across its footprint of approx. 3,000

feeders 

• Data needed: impedance, connectivity, real-time, and load profiles 

• How accurate does the ADMS model need to be? 

• Can additional sensors offset model accuracy? 

• Is there a “sweet spot” of sensor deployment v. model improvement? 
 

Model improvement use case 

Evaluate the performance of the ADMS volt/volt-ampere reactive 

optimization application for different levels of data remediation and 

different levels of measurement density. 
 

 

 

 

 

Model improvement use case 

Model quality levels: 

• Q1: Base-level geographic information system (GIS) data 

• Q2: Field verification at select

locations. Confirm step transformer

attributes, and collect capacitor,

regulator, and recloser attributes 

• Q3: Tap-phase verifications. 

• Q4: Field-confirming each primary pole line by circuit to obtain

distribution transformer attributes,

phasing, and using Xcel Energy GIS

data. 

Measurement density levels: 

• D1: Feeder-head measurements 

• D2: D1 + voltage regulators, capacitor

banks, reclosers, and 1 tail-end

voltage sensor (advanced metering

infrastructure [AMI] sensor) per

feeder 

• D3: D2 + a total of 10 AMI sensors per

feeder 

• D4: D2 + a total of 20 AMI sensors per

feeder. 
 

Model improvement use case 

Summary of findings: 

• Long feeders show difference in

performance for varying

measurement density 

• Rural feeders show greater

improvement with increasing

levels of model quality 

• Higher measurement density

results in fewer violations. 

Semirural feeder 
Next step: ADMS test bed evaluation 

Semirural feeder 

• Select two to three test cases. 

• Simulate in real time using the test

bed. 
Thank You 

Annabelle Pratt 

annabelle.pratt@nrel.gov 
r DIST IBUTECH®

CONFERENCE &
[No. 15579-0-III.

Division Three.

November 4, 1997.]

#### Ann Finke, et al., *Appellants,*v. Dr. Harold Ellner, et al., *Respondents.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Benton County, No. 95-2-00205-3, Dennis D. Yule, J., entered February 29, 1996. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Sweeney, C.J., concurred in by Kurtz and Brown, JJ.
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. WR-83,205-01

IN RE SAMUEL M. MARTINEZ, Relator

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS

CAUSE NO. 2002-046 IN THE DISTRICT COURT

FROM CALDWELL COUNTY

Per curiam.

O R D E R

Relator has filed a motion for leave to file a writ of mandamus pursuant to the original

jurisdiction of this Court. In it, he contends that he filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus

in the District Court of Caldwell County, that more than 35 days have elapsed, and that the

application has not yet been forwarded to this Court.

In these circumstances, additional facts are needed. Respondent, the District Clerk of

Caldwell County, is ordered to file a response, which may be made by submitting the record on such

habeas corpus application, submitting a copy of a timely filed order which designates issues to be

investigated (see McCree v. Hampton, 824 S.W.2d 578, 579 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992)), or stating that
2

Relator has not filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus in Caldwell County. Should the

response include an order designating issues, proof of the date the district attorney’s office was

served with the habeas application shall also be submitted with the response. This application for

leave to file a writ of mandamus shall be held in abeyance until Respondent has submitted the

appropriate response. Such response shall be submitted within 30 days of the date of this order.

Filed: May 13, 2015

Do not publish
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________ No. 19

- 12210 Non

- Argument Calendar

________________________ D.C. Docket No. 1:17

- cr
- 20716

- UU

- 2

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

versus PAUL PIERRE D ELATOUR,
Defendant

- Appell ant

.

________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida

__________________ ______ (October 8 , 2020) Before JORDAN , NEWSOM and ANDERSON , Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:

USCA11 Case: 19-12210 Date Filed: 10/08/2020 Page: 1 of 22 Robert W. Stickney , appointed counsel for Paul Pierre Delatour in this direct criminal appeal, has moved to withdraw from further representation of the appellant
and filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Our independent review of the entire record reveals that counsel’s assessment of the relative merit of the appeal is correct. Because independent examination of the entire
record revea ls no arguable issues of merit, counsel’s motion to withdraw is
GRANTED , and Delatour’s conviction and sentence are AFFIRMED

.

USCA11 Case: 19-12210 Date Filed: 10/08/2020 Page: 2 of 2
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 39 (Monday, March 1, 2010)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 9142]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-4121]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Internal Revenue Service

26 CFR Parts 1, 31 and 301

[REG-139255-08]
RIN 1545-BI51


Information Reporting for Payments Made in Settlement of Payment 
Card and Third Party Network Transactions; Hearing

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

ACTION: Rescheduling of notice of public hearing on proposed 
rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: This document reschedules a notice of public hearing on 
proposed rulemaking and notice of public hearing relating to 
information reporting requirements, information reporting penalties, 
and backup withholding requirements for payment card and third party 
network transactions.

DATES: The public hearing, originally scheduled for Wednesday, February 
10, 2010 at 10 a.m. is rescheduled for Monday, March 15, 2010 at 1 p.m.

ADDRESSES: The public hearing is being held in the IRS New Carrollton 
Federal Building, 5000 Ellin Road, Lanham, Maryland 20706.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Regina Johnson of the Publications and 
Regulations Branch, Legal Processing Division, Associate Chief Counsel 
(Procedure and Administration) at (202) 622-7180 (not a toll-free 
number).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A notice of proposed rulemaking and notice 
of public hearing that appeared in the Federal Register on Tuesday, 
November 24, 2009 (74 FR 61294), announced that a public hearing on 
proposed regulations relating to information reporting requirements, 
information reporting penalties, and backup withholding requirements 
for payment card and third party network transactions, was to be held 
on Wednesday, February 10, 2010 at 10 a.m. Due to inclement weather, 
the date and location of the public hearing has been changed. The 
public hearing is scheduled for Monday, March 15, 2010 beginning at 1 
pm. in the auditorium of the IRS New Carrollton Federal Building, 5000 
Ellin Road, Lanham, Maryland 20706. The building has controlled access 
restrictions, attendants will not be admitted beyond the entrance 
before 12:30 p.m. The IRS will prepare an agenda showing the scheduling 
of the speakers testifying, and make copies available free of charge at 
the hearing.

LaNita Van Dyke,
Chief, Publications and Regulations Branch, Legal Processing Division, 
Associate Chief Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2010-4121 Filed 2-26-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED AUGUST 18, 2015

NO. 03-14-00380-CR

Michael Stuart Burton, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

APPEAL FROM 264TH DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES PURYEAR, PEMBERTON, AND FIELD

AFFIRMED -- OPINION BY JUSTICE PEMBERTON

This is an appeal from the judgment of conviction signed by the district court. Having reviewed 

the record and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was no reversible error in the 

district court’s judgment of conviction. Therefore, the Court affirms the district court’s

judgment of conviction. Because appellant is indigent and unable to pay costs, no adjudication 

of costs is made.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995             DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995             DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                           9,760                   8,063
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   19,288                  21,084
<ALLOWANCES>                                       591                     590
<INVENTORY>                                     20,488                  29,553
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                55,177                  71,630
<PP&E>                                          38,888                  72,942
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  97,725                 158,245
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           16,016                  35,523
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                           357                     710
<OTHER-SE>                                      81,352                 120,727
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    97,725                 158,245
<SALES>                                        172,752                 218,566
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               172,752                 218,566
<CGS>                                           50,295                  66,790
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   50,295                  66,790
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                69,187                  77,894
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 273                   (781)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 52,997                  74,663
<INCOME-TAX>                                     7,830                  28,670
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             32,143                  45,993
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                    45,167                  45,993
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0                    0.64
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0                       0


</TABLE>
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    Exhibit 10.7


SmithKline Beecham Pharmaceuticals
Phone:  (02) 656.88 32
Fax:  (02) 656.81 44

SmithKline Beecham Biologicals s.a.
Rue de l'Institut 89
B-1330 Rixensart, France
Phone: (02) 656.81 11
Fax: (02) 656.80 00
                                       CORIXA CORPORATION
                                       1124 Columbia Street
                                       Suite 200
                                       Seattle, WA  98104
                                       USA

                                       Rixensart, July 22, 1998

Dear Sirs,

RE: TUBERCULOSIS COLLABORATION AND LICENSE AGREEMENT - RESEARCH PROGRAM

We refer to the Tuberculosis Collaboration and License Agreement between Corixa
Corporation ("Corixa") and SmithKline Beecham Biologicals S.A. ("SB") dated
October 6, 1995 as amended ("Agreement").

We are pleased to notify you hereby, in accordance with Section 5 (c) of the
above-referenced Agreement, of our intention to renew the Research Program for a
further period of one year from June 1, 1998 to May 31, 1999. A technology
access fee of [***] will be paid by SB to Corixa in equal quarterly installments
of [***] each to be reinvested in full in accordance with Section 10 (b) of the
Agreement, unless the parties agree on a broader strategic alliance. The Option
granted by Corixa to SB pursuant to Section 4 (a) of the Agreement will
accordingly be extended for a further one year period starting on September 1,
1998 and ending on August 30, 1999.

For the sake of good order, would you please sign and return to us the copy of
this letter which is being sent to you in duplicate.

Sincerely yours,

/s/ Jean Stephenne

Jean Stephenne
President and General Manager
                                       ACKNOWLEDGED AND ACCEPTED
                                       FOR AND ON BEHALF OF
                                       CORIXA CORPORATION

                                       /s/ Mark McDade

                                       Name: Mark McDade
                                       Title: Chief Operating Officer
                                       Date: July 28, 1998
- cover
- page01
- page02
- page03
- page04
- page04b
- page05
- page06
- page07
- page07b
- page08
- page09
- page10
- page11
- page12

    -       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2023-07-14T00:17:00-0400
      - Government Publishing Office, Washington, DC 20401
      - Government Publishing Office
      - Government Publishing Office attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by Government Publishing Office
## I N T H E C O U R T O F C R I M I N A L A P P E A L S O F T E X A S NO. WR-85,373-01

IN RE JOHN CHRISTO P HER ROSS , Relator

ON AP P LICATION FOR A WRIT OF M ANDAM US CAUSE NO. 1254204-A IN THE 182nd DISTRICT COURT

F ROM HARRIS COUNTY

Per curiam . O R D E R
Relator has filed a motion for leave to file a writ o f m an damus pursuant to the orig inal jurisdiction of this Court. I n it, he contends that he filed an application for a writ of habea s corpus in the 182nd District Court o f Ha rr i s County , that more than 35 day s have elapse d, and that the application has not y et bee n forwa rded to this Court. I n these circ umstances, additional fac ts are neede d. Respondent, the District Clerk of Har ris County , is order ed to f

ile a response , which may be made by submitt ing the rec ord on such habea s corpus application, submitt ing a copy of a timely filed order which desig nates issues to be investiga ted ( see McCree v. Hampton , 824 S.W .2d 578, 579 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992)), or stating that2

Relator has not filed an application for a writ of habea s corpus in Har ri s County

. Should the response include an order desig nating issues, proof of the date the district attorne y ’s o ff i ce was
serve d with the habea s application shall also be submitted with the response. T his application for leave to file a writ of mandamus shall be held in abey ance until Respondent has su b m i t t ed the appropr iate re sponse. Such re sponse shall be submitted within 30 day s of the date of this order.

Filed: Aug ust 3, 2016 Do not publish
#### § 522.2404 Thialbarbitone sodium for injection.

(a) *Specifications.* Thialbarbitone sodium for injection when reconstituted with sterile distilled water provides 94 milligrams of thialbarbitone sodium per milliliter of solution.

(b) *Sponsor.* See No. 054771 in § 510.600(c) of this chapter.

(c) *Conditions of use.*

(1) The drug is administered as a general anesthetic in surgical procedures on dogs, cats, swine, sheep, cattle, and horses. The drug is used for procedures of relatively short duration. However, the period of anesthesia can be lengthened by slower initial injection and supplemental administration during surgery.

(2) It is administered intravenously. The drug is injected slowly to dogs, cats, cattle, sheep, and swine. For horses, it is recommended that a pre-anesthetic sedation be administered to the horse 30 minutes before the drug is administered. The drug is then injected rapidly and completely. The drug is used at the following dosage levels:

| Species | Weight of animal in pounds | Dosage in milligrams per pound |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Dog | Over 50 | 14.1 |
| Do | 30-50 | 18.8 |
| Do | 10-30 | 23.5 |
| Do | Under 10 | 28.2 |
| Cat | | 31.3-37.6 |
| Horse | | 6.3-7.8 |
| Cattle and swine | | 6.7-9.4 |
| Calves and sheep | | 9.4-11.8 |

(3) Federal law restricts this drug to use by or on the order of a licensed veterinarian.

[40 FR 13858, Mar. 27, 1975, as amended at 79 FR 16196, Mar. 25, 2014]