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


<ARTICLE>                     5

<CIK>                         0000854941
<NAME>                        Elegant Illusions
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S. Dollars
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1.000
<CASH>                                         1,284,469
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  294,461
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    2,222,548
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               4,091,335
<PP&E>                                         1,166,327
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 5,339,850
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          99,308
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       17,434
<OTHER-SE>                                     5,127,237
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   5,339,850
<SALES>                                        5,998,393
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               5,998,393
<CGS>                                          1,857,812
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  1,857,812
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               3,569,241
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                571,340
<INCOME-TAX>                                   229,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            342,340
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   342,340
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  0.02
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0.000
        


</TABLE>
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsPerformance of the Widely-Used CFD Code OVERFLOW on the Pleides SupercomputerComputational performance studies were made for NASA's widely used Computational Fluid Dynamics code OVERFLOW on the Pleiades Supercomputer. Two test cases were considered: a full launch vehicle with a grid of 286 million points and a full rotorcraft model with a grid of 614 million points. Computations using up to 8000 cores were run on Sandy Bridge and Ivy Bridge nodes. Performance was monitored using times reported in the day files from the Portable Batch System utility. Results for two grid topologies are presented and compared in detail. Observations and suggestions for future work are made.Document ID20170004382Acquisition SourceAmes Research CenterDocument TypeTechnical Memorandum (TM)AuthorsGuruswamy, Guru P.*(NASA Ames Research Center Moffett Field, CA United States)*Date AcquiredMay 5, 2017Publication DateMay 1, 2017Subject CategoryFluid Mechanics And ThermodynamicsNumerical AnalysisReport/Patent NumberNASA/TM-2017-219510ARC-E-DAA-TN38625Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.KeywordsWidely UsedPleiades SupercomputerOVERFLOW CFDAvailable DownloadsNameType20170004382.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 225 Placed on Calendar Senate (PCS)]

                                                       Calendar No. 465
103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
S. RES. 225

                 Relating to the purchase of calendars.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                June 15 (legislative day, June 7), 1994

Mr. Ford, from the Committee on Rules and Administration, reported the 
    following original resolution; which was placed on the calendar

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
                 Relating to the purchase of calendars.

    Resolved, That the Committee on Rules and Administration is 
authorized to expend from the contingent fund of the Senate, upon 
vouchers approved by the chairman of that committee, not to exceed 
$79,040 for the purchase of one hundred and four thousand 1995 ``We The 
People'' calendars. The calendars shall be distributed as prescribed by 
the committee.

                                                       Calendar No. 465

103d CONGRESS

  2d Session

                              S. RES. 225

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

                 Relating to the purchase of calendars.

_______________________________________________________________________

                June 15 (legislative day, June 7), 1994

                         Placed on the Calendar
```
#### Algonquin Gas Transmission Company *v.*Carolyne Steiner Algonquin Gas Transmission Company *v.*Ernest R. Steiner

Submitted July 17

decided July 23, 1968

*Daniel D. McDonald,*in support of the motion.

After consideration of the motion for a review of the order of the trial court terminating the stay of execution in the appeal from the Superior Court in Fairfield County, modification of the order is denied.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 14 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. RES. 14

  To appoint the chairman of the Committee on Environment and Public 
          Works and the chairman of the Committee on Finance.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

             January 21 (legislative day, January 5), 1993

 Mr. Mitchell submitted the following resolution; which was considered 
                             and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
  To appoint the chairman of the Committee on Environment and Public 
          Works and the chairman of the Committee on Finance.

    Resolved, That the Senator from Montana, Max Baucus, be and he is 
hereby, appointed chairman of the Committee on Environment and Public 
Works; And be it further
Resolved, That the Senator from New York, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, be 
and he is hereby, appointed chairman of the Committee on Finance.

                                 <all>
```
#### RAYTHEON COMPANY, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES, Appellee.

No. 83-1330.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

March 23, 1984.

*1471John M. Geaghan, Wayland, Mass., argued, for appellant.

Sara V. Greenberg, of Washington, D.C., argued, for appellee. With her on brief were J. Paul McGrath, Asst. Atty. Gen. and David M. Cohen, Director, Washington, D.C.

Before RICH, and NIES, Circuit Judges, and FORD,* Judge.

*

The Honorable Morgan Ford, Judge, United States Court of International Trade, sitting by designation.

NIES, Circuit Judge.

This appeal is from the judgment of the United States Claims Court in favor of the Government on a claim by Raytheon for royalties in connection with cost savings it generated under a Government contract. The opinion of Judge White is reported at 2 Cl.Ct. 763 (1983). We affirm.

*Discussion*

Raytheon is the contractor under contract N00024-C-1310 (C-1310) for the production of sonar equipment. This contract contained a standard Value Engineering Incentive clause (VEI clause) in the form used prior to revision in 1974. Under the VEI clause Raytheon was entitled to submit proposals for changes in the contract which would reduce its cost of performance and which, after approval by the Government, would entitle Raytheon to share, *inter alia,*in future cost savings over a two-year period. Indisputably, Raytheon became entitled to share in such savings as a result of an accepted change. The dispute between the parties centers around the commencement date of the two-year period, which turns, in this case, on what date the proposal was accepted. More specifically, the phrase in the VEI clause, “date of acceptance of the cost reduction proposal,” was given a particular meaning by the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals with which the United States Claims Court agreed.

We have reviewed the arguments of Raytheon seeking to overturn the decision of the Claims Court that, in the VEI clause under consideration, the expressions “value engineering change proposal” and “cost reduction proposal” were used interchangeably. Little would be gained by repeating the thorough and sound analysis of Judge White with respect to the proper interpretation of the subject clause. Judge White dealt with each of Raytheon’s arguments made here on appeal. Accordingly, we will simply state that we not only agree with his legal conclusion, but also *affirm*on the basis of his opinion.

AFFIRMED.
§ 1.6049-10 Reporting of original issue discount on a tax-exempt obligation. ( a ) *In general.* For purposes of section 6049, a payor (as defined in § 1.6049-4(a)(2)) of original issue discount (OID) on a tax-exempt obligation (as defined in section 1288(b)(2)) is required to report the daily portions of OID on the obligation as if the daily portions of OID that accrued during a calendar year were paid to the holder (or holders) of the obligation in the calendar year. The amount of the daily portions of OID that accrues during a calendar year is determined as if section 1272 and § 1.1272-1 applied to a tax-exempt obligation. Notwithstanding any other rule in section 6049 and the regulations thereunder, a payor must determine whether a tax-exempt obligation was issued with OID and the amount of OID that accrues for each relevant period. As prescribed by section 1288(b)(1), OID on a tax-exempt obligation is determined without regard to the de minimis rules in section 1273(a)(3) and § 1.1273-1(d).
( b ) *Acquisition premium.* A payor is required to report acquisition premium amortization on a tax-exempt obligation in accordance with the rules in § 1.6049-9(c) as if section 1272 applied to a tax-exempt obligation. See paragraph (a) of this section to determine the amount of OID allocable to an accrual period.
( c ) *Effective/applicability date.* This section applies to a tax-exempt obligation that is a covered security (within the meaning of § 1.6045-1(a)(15) and (n)(12)) acquired on or after January 1, 2017. For a taxable year beginning after December 31, 2016, a broker, however, may rely on this section to report OID and acquisition premium for a tax-exempt obligation that is a covered security acquired before January 1, 2017.
[T.D. 9750, 81 FR 8154, Feb. 18, 2016]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
unaudited condensed consolidated balance sheets and unaudited condensed
consolidated statements of income found on pages 3 and 4 of the Company's Form
10-QSB for the year to date, and is qualified in its entirety by reference to
such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                  3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                             152
<SECURITIES>                                         0      
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   152
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     152
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           15,034
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                       163,188
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                    (148,306)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       152 
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0 
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   798
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    798 
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (798)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0 
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0

</TABLE>
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania :

:

v. :

: Craig Campbell, : Appellant : No. 1962 C.D. 2013

O R D E R

NOW, August 28, 2014

, having considered appell ant’s “motion for

application of reconsideration order”

, the application is denied.

_____________________________ DAN PELLEGRINI,

President Judge
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

January 29, 2021

No. 04-20-00359-CV

Brandon HJELLA,

Appellant

v.

RED MCCOMBS MOTORS, LTD,

Appellee

From the 150th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2018CI15792

Honorable Mary Lou Alvarez, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

The Appellant's Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief is hereby GRANTED. The

appellant's brief is due on or before February 2, 2021. No further extensions, absent 

extraordinary circumstances.

_________________________________

Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 29th day of January, 2021.

___________________________________

MICHAEL A. CRUZ, Clerk of Court

FILE COPY
Calendar No. 226

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. RES. 134

RESOLUTION

Urging the Government of Kuwait to compensate

O

ation during the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait.nancial losses incurred as a result of their evacuUnited States citizens and their families for fiCTOBER 5 (legislative day, SEPTEMBER 27), 1993

Reported without amendment
III

Calendar No. 226

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. RES. 134

Urging the Government of Kuwait to compensate United States citizens

and their families for financial losses incurred as a result of their evacuation during the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JULY 23 (legislative day, JUNE 30), 1993

Mrs. FEINSTEIN submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the

Committee on Foreign Relations

OCTOBER 5 (legislative day, SEPTEMBER 27), 1993

Reported by Mr. PELL, without amendment

RESOLUTION

Urging the Government of Kuwait to compensate United

States citizens and their families for financial losses incurred as a result of their evacuation during the Iraqi

invasion of Kuwait.

Whereas during the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in August 1990,

the United States Government evacuated numerous families within a 48-hour period;

Whereas many of these families consisted of one or more

American citizens and their immediate relatives;
2

SRES 134 RS

Whereas the urgent nature of the evacuation process forced

these families to leave personal property and assets in

Kuwait;

Whereas since the liberation of Kuwait, the Government of

Kuwait has not permitted these families to return to Kuwait to settle their financial accounts;

Whereas many of these families have not been compensated

for contractual and business obligations that existed before the invasion of Kuwait;

Whereas the Government of Kuwait has acknowledged that it

is ‘‘well aware of the indispensable contributions made by

many of the foreign workers who resided in Kuwait before August 2, 1990’’; and

Whereas these families are at present residing in several

States throughout the United States and are being supported through public assistance programs and loans

from the United States Government: Now, therefore, be

it

1 Resolved, That it is the sense of the Senate that the

2 President should encourage the Government of Kuwait to

3 compensate the American citizens and their families which

4 were evacuated from Kuwait during the Iraqi invasion of

5 August 1990, in accordance with the applicable contrac6 tual, business, and financial obligations of the Government

7 of Kuwait or of its citizens, as the case may be.
#### § 1.643(d)-2 Illustration of the provisions of section 643.

(a) The provisions of section 643 may be illustrated by the following example:

# Example.

(1) Under the terms of the trust instrument, the income of a trust is required to be currently distributed to W during her life. Capital gains are allocable to corpus and all expenses are charges against corpus. During the taxable year the trust has the following items of income and expenses:

| Dividends from domestic corporations | $30,000 |
| --- | --- |
| Extraordinary dividends allocated to corpus by the trustee in good faith | 20,000 |
| Taxable interest | 10,000 |
| Tax-exempt interest | 10,000 |
| Long-term capital gains | 10,000 |
| Trustee's commissions and miscellaneous expenses allocable to corpus | 5,000 |

(2) The “income” of the trust determined under section 643(b) which is currently distributable to W is $50,000, consisting of dividends of $30,000, taxable interest of $10,000, and tax-exempt interest of $10,000. The trustee's commissions and miscellaneous expenses allocable to tax-exempt interest amount to $1,000 (10,000/50,000 × $5,000).

(3) The “distributable net income” determined under section 643(a) amounts to $45,000, computed as follows:

| Dividends from domestic corporations | $30,000 |
| --- | --- |
| Taxable interest | 10,000 |
| Nontaxable interest | $10,000 | |
| Less: Expenses allocable thereto | 1,000 | |
| | 9,000 |
| Total | 49,000 |
| Less: Expenses ($5,000 less $1,000 allocable to tax-exempt interest) | 4,000 |
| Distributable net income | 45,000 |

In determining the distributable net income of $45,000, the taxable income of the trust is computed with the following modifications: No deductions are allowed for distributions to W and for personal exemption of the trust (section 643(a) (1) and (2)); capital gains allocable to corpus are excluded and the deduction allowable under section 1202 is not taken into account (section 643(a)(3)): the extraordinary dividends allocated to corpus by the trustee in good faith are excluded (sections 643(a)(4)); and the tax- exempt interest (as adjusted for expenses) and the dividend exclusion of $50 are included) section 643(a) (5) and (7)).

(b) See paragraph (c) of the example in § 1.661(c)-2 for the computation of distributable net income where there is a charitable contributions deduction.

[T.D. 6500, 25 FR 11814, Nov. 26, 1960. Redesignated, T.D. 6989, 34 FR 732, Jan. 1, 1969]
Docket No: FAA-2014-1052 Dir ID: 2014-NM-140-AD
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

DA 20-0416

ANNELISE AIKING-TAYLOR,

 Plaintiff and Appellant,

 v.

OLIVER SERANG,

 

 Defendant and Appellee.

ORDER OF MEDIATOR APPOINTMENT

This appeal being subject to M.R.App.P. 7, and the parties having failed to jointly 

and timely select a mediator under M.R.App.P., 7(4),(c),

IT IS ORDERED THAT Andrea J. Olsen, whose name appears next on the list

of attorneys desiring appointment as mediators for Money Judgments appeals which is 

maintained pursuant to M.R.App.P., 7(4)(e), is hereby appointed to conduct the 

mediation process required by M.R.App.P., 7(5), and 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the time periods set forth in M.R.App.P., 

7(5)(d) shall run from the date of this order of appointment.

A true copy of this order is being mailed to counsel of record for the parties, or to 

the parties individually if not represented by counsel, on the date hereof.

DATED this September 10, 2020.

Bowen Greenwood, Clerk of the Supreme Court

c: Annelies Aiking-Taylor, Jessie Lea Lundberg, Andrea J. Olsen

09/10/2020

Case Number: DA 20-0416
| (logo) WELLS FARGO | CMBS Department

 

MAC N9401-011

1055 10th Avenue SE

Minneapolis, MN 55414 |
|--------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

Morgan Stanley Capital I Inc.

1585 Broadway

New York, New York 10036

 

 

RE: Annual Statement of Compliance for Morgan Stanley Bank of America Merrill Lynch Trust 2015-C24, Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series 2015-C24

 

Per the Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of August 1, 2015 (the "Agreement"), the undersigned, a duly authorized officer of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as Custodian ("Wells Fargo"), hereby certifies as follows as of and for the year ending December 31, 2015 (the "Reporting Period"):

 

(a) A review of Wells Fargo's activities during the Reporting Period and of its performance under the Agreement has been made under such officer's supervision; and

 

(b) To the best of such officer's knowledge, based on such review, Wells Fargo has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period.

 

 

March 1, 2016

/s/ Gail Vannest

GAIL VANNEST

Vice President

 

 

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.