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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                      34,550,015
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                6,656,074
<ALLOWANCES>                                    65,000
<INVENTORY>                                  3,360,485
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            46,963,819
<PP&E>                                      13,869,590
<DEPRECIATION>                               9,100,215
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              51,877,485
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,844,032
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           64,537
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                  47,655,704
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                51,877,485
<SALES>                                     13,682,004
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            14,237,491
<CGS>                                       10,446,195
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               10,808,130
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             2,647,127
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              39,961
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                782,234
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,256
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            780,978
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   780,978
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .11
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .10


</TABLE>
§ 1.332-8 Recognition of gain on liquidation of certain holding companies. ( a ) *Definition of controlled foreign corporation.* For purposes of section 332(d)(3), a controlled foreign corporation has the meaning provided in section 957, determined without applying section 318(a)(3)(A), (B), and (C) so as to consider a United States person as owning stock which is owned by a person who is not a United States person.
( b ) *Applicability date.* This section applies to distributions in complete liquidation occurring on or after October 1, 2019, and to distributions in complete liquidation occurring before October 1, 2019, that result from an entity classification election made under § 301.7701-3 of this chapter that is filed on or after October 1, 2019. For distributions in complete liquidation occurring before October 1, 2019, other than distributions in complete liquidation occurring before October 1, 2019, that result from an entity classification election made under § 301.7701-3 of this chapter that is filed on or after October 1, 2019, a taxpayer may apply this section to distributions in complete liquidation occurring during the last taxable year of a distributee foreign corporation beginning before January 1, 2018, and each subsequent taxable year of the foreign corporation, provided that the taxpayer and United States persons that are related (within the meaning of section 267 or 707) to the taxpayer consistently apply this section with respect to all foreign corporations.
[T.D. 9908, 85 FR 59431, Sept. 22, 2020]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                            DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                 SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                            14,562
<SECURITIES>                                           0
<RECEIVABLES>                                          0
<ALLOWANCES>                                           0
<INVENTORY>                                       51,962
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 135,829
<PP&E>                                           478,871
<DEPRECIATION>                                   137,149
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   525,865
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            102,044
<BONDS>                                          263,532      
<COMMON>                                               0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                  0
<PREFERRED>                                            0
<OTHER-SE>                                             0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     525,865
<SALES>                                          470,191
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 470,191
<CGS>                                            337,639
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    434,444
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                       0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                     0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   (1,244)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        (742)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 (502)
<DISCONTINUED>                                         0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                        0
<CHANGES>                                              0
<NET-INCOME>                                        (502)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      (0.05)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      (0.05)
        

</TABLE>
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h Marilyn Kell y Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathawa y Mary Beth Kell y Brian K. Zahra,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk December 28, 2011

h1219 

# Order

December 28, 2011

142967

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 142967 COA: 302104 Kent CC: 83-033922-FY EDWARD JOHN SHERMAN, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application fo r leave to appeal the March 10, 2011 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, a nd it is DENIED, because the defendant has
failed to meet the burden of establishi ng entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).
exv10wbb



 










Exhibit 10-BB




Description of Company Practices Regarding Club Memberships for Executives



Certain Group Vice Presidents and a limited number of other employees may be reimbursed (or have
fees paid on their behalf) for expenses associated with certain club memberships when such
memberships are considered to be beneficial to the Company’s interests. The expenses reimbursed
under this practice are restricted to initiation fees, membership fees, dues, assessments, and
other expenses required to maintain memberships in good standing. Greens fees and other charges
related to the use of the facilities are not reimbursed.



In addition, the Company maintains a number of corporate memberships for officers at the Tournament
Players Club (TPC) of Michigan. Effective January 1, 2007, those officers with TPC corporate
memberships may retain their membership; however, all charges related to the TPC membership will
become their personal responsibility.
Exhibit 9.1



PROXY



The undersigned stockholder
("Stockholder") of GSV Growth Credit Fund Inc., a Maryland corporation (the "Company"), hereby
(i) grants to, and appoints, the Company, and any person designated in writing by the Company, and each of them individually, Stockholder's
proxy and attorney-in-fact (with full power of substitution), for and in the name, place and stead of Stockholder, to vote all
of the shares (the "Covered Shares") of common stock, par value $0.01 per share (the "Common Stock")
of the Company held by Stockholder, or grant a consent or approval in respect of the Covered Shares, in accordance with the terms
of this Proxy and (ii) revokes any and all proxies heretofore given in respect of the Covered Shares.



The attorneys-in-fact and
proxies named above are hereby authorized and empowered by the undersigned at any time after the date hereof to act as the undersigned's
attorney-in-fact and proxy to vote the Covered Shares in the same proportion as the vote of all other holders of the Common Stock
and to exercise all voting, consent and similar rights of the undersigned with respect to the Covered Shares (including, without
limitation, the power to execute and deliver written consents), at every annual, special, adjourned or postponed meeting of the
stockholders of the Company and in every written consent in lieu of such a meeting (such authorization and empowerment, the "Proxy").
The Stockholder shall not commit or agree to take any action inconsistent with the foregoing.



Any obligation of the undersigned
hereunder shall be binding upon the successors and assigns of the undersigned.



Dated: December 15, 2016



|STOCKHOLDER:                 |                     
|---------------------------- | --------------------
|                             |                     
|OCM GROWTH HOLDINGS, LLC     |                     
|By:  Oaktree Fund GP, LLC    |                     
|Its:   Manager               |                     
|                             |                     
|By:  Oaktree Fund GP I, L.P. |                     
|Its:   Manager               |                     
|                             |                     
|By:                          | /s/ Emily Stephens  
|Name:                        | Emily Stephens      
|Title:                       | Authorized Signatory
|                             |                     
|By:                          | /s/ Brian Laibow    
|Name:                        | Brian Laibow        
|Title:                       | Authorized Signatory
#### § 1.817-1 Taxable years affected.

Except as otherwise provided therein, §§ 1.817-2 through 1.817-4 are applicable only to taxable years beginning after December 31, 1957, and all references to sections of part I, subchapter L, chapter 1 of the Code are to the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as amended by the Life Insurance Company Income Tax Act of 1959 (73 Stat. 112) and section 3 of the Act of October 23, 1962 (76 Stat. 1134).

[T.D. 6886, 31 FR 8689, June 23, 1966]
427 A.2d 1211

#### Commonwealth v. Yokes, Appellant.

Submitted November 8, 1976.

Stephen *607Toole, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant;

Ballard Smith, District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.

Before WATKINS, P. J., and JACOBS, HOFFMAN, CERCONE, PRICE, VAN der VOORT and SPAETH, JJ.

The judgment of sentence of the lower court is hereby affirmed.

JACOBS, J., did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-22-00529-CR

Jenelius O. CREW,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 187th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2017CR12785

Honorable Stephanie R. Boyd, Judge Presiding

Opinion by: Lori I. Valenzuela, Justice

Sitting: Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice

Lori I. Valenzuela, Justice

Delivered and Filed: June 28, 2023

AFFIRMED

Appellant, Jenelius Odell Crew, pled true to three violations of his community supervision 

and was sentenced to ten years’ confinement.

The court-appointed appellate attorney for Crew filed a brief, which included a request to 

withdraw, in which he concludes this appeal is frivolous and without merit. The brief demonstrates 

a professional and thorough evaluation of the record and meets the requirements of Anders v. 

California, 87 S. Ct. 1396 (1967) and High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978).

Counsel sent copies of the brief, which included a request to withdraw, to Crew and informed him 
04-22-00529-CR

- 2 -

of his rights in compliance with the requirements of Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313 (Tex. Crim. 

App. 2014). Crew was notified of his right to request a copy of the record and file a pro se brief. 

He did not file a pro se brief. See also Nichols v. State, 954 S.W.2d 83, 85-86 (Tex. App.—San 

Antonio 1997, no pet.) (per curiam); Bruns v. State, 924 S.W.2d 176, 177 n.1 (Tex. App.—San 

Antonio 1996, no pet.). We have thoroughly reviewed the record and counsel’s brief. We find no 

arguable grounds for appeal exist and conclude the appeal is wholly frivolous. See Bledsoe v. 

State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). We therefore grant the request to 

withdraw filed by appointed counsel and affirm the trial court’s judgment. See id.; Nichols, 954 

S.W.2d at 86; Bruns, 924 S.W.2d at 177 n.1.

No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should Crew wish to seek further review of this 

case by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, he must either retain an attorney to file a petition for 

discretionary review or must file a pro se petition for discretionary review. Any petition for 

discretionary review must be filed within thirty days from the date of either this opinion or the last 

timely motion for rehearing that is overruled by this court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2. Any petition 

for discretionary review must be filed in the Court of Criminal Appeals. See id. 68.3. Any petition 

for discretionary review must comply with the requirements of Rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of 

Appellate Procedure. See id.

Lori I. Valenzuela, Justice

Do not publish
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-4652

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

ALBERT M. MCDOWELL, JR.,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Abingdon. Glen M. Williams, Senior District

Judge. (CR-97-45-A)

Submitted: June 29, 1999 Decided: July 15, 1999

Before HAMILTON, LUTTIG, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Joseph Franklin Dene, DENE & DENE, Abingdon, Virginia, for Appellant. Robert P. Crouch, Jr., United States Attorney, Rick A.

Mountcastle, Assistant United States Attorney, Abingdon, Virginia,

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Albert M. McDowell, Jr., appeals his conviction and sentence

for being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18

U.S.C.A. § 922(g)(1) (West Supp. 1999). The district court properly included McDowell’s 1974 and 1976 state convictions as predicate offenses under 18 U.S.C.A. § 924(e) (West Supp. 1999), and

thus properly sentenced McDowell as a career offender. See 18

U.S.C.A. § 921(a)(20) (West Supp. 1999); United States v. O’Neal,

___ F.3d ___, No. 96-4188, 1999 WL 351147 (4th Cir. June 2, 1999);

United States v. Hairston, 71 F.3d 115, 117-18 (4th Cir. 1995).

The district court likewise did not abuse its discretion in

admitting evidence of McDowell’s Mississippi arrest involving

possession of a handgun. See United States v. Queen, 132 F.3d 991,

995-97 (4th Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 118 S. Ct. 1572 (1998); Fed.

R. Evid. 404(b).

We affirm McDowell’s conviction and sentence. We dispense

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are

adequately set forth in the materials before the court and argument

would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
§ 1.668(a)-3A Determination of tax. In a taxable year in which an amount is included in a beneficiary's income under § 1.668(a)-1A(a), the tax on the beneficiary for such taxable year is determined only as provided in section 668 and consists of the sum of: ( a ) A partial tax computed on ( 1 ) the beneficiary's taxable income reduced by
( 2 ) an amount equal to the total amounts includible in his income under § 1.668(a)-1A(a), at the rate and in the manner as if section 668 had not been enacted,
( b ) A partial tax determined as provided in § 1.668(b)-1A, and
( c ) In the case of a beneficiary of a trust which is not required to distribute all of its income currently, a partial tax determined as provided in § 1.669(b)-1A.
[T.D. 7204, 37 FR 17148, Aug. 25, 1972]
1 The Honorable William Jay Riley became Chief Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit on April 1, 2010.

2 The Honorable Charles R. Wolle, United St ates District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 09-2574

___________ Joshua Ray Puffinbarger, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Southern District of Iowa. Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner of * Social Security, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellee. *

___________ Submitted: March 24, 2010 Filed: April 30, 2010

___________ Before RILEY, 1 Chief Judge, BYE, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Joshua Ray Puffinbarger appeals the district court’s 2order affirming the denial of disability insurance benefits and s upplemental security income. Puffinbarger alleged disability from, among other things, arthritis, herniated discs in his neck and back, and carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS). Af ter a hearing, an administrative law judge-2- (ALJ) determined that (1) Puffinbarger’s combined impairments--degenerative disc disease, CTS, diabetes, hypertension, depr ession, personality disorder, and history of kidney stones and rotator-cuff injury--were severe, but did not meet or equal the requirements of any listing alone or combin ed; (2) his subjective complaints were not entirely credible; and (3) based on the tes timony of a vocational expert, Puffinbarger’s residual functional capacity (RFC) did not preclude his past relevant work as an inspector or security guard. The Appeals Council denied re view, and the district court affirmed. After de novo review of the record, see Davidson v. Astrue , 578 F.3d 838, 841-42 (8th Cir. 2009) (standard of review), we affirm. We reject Puffinbarger’s challenges to the ALJ’s credibility findings, as those findings were based on multip le valid reasons. See Finch v. Astrue , 547 F.3d 933, 935-36 (8th Cir. 2008) (where ALJ explic itly discredits claimant and gives good reasons for doing so, courts will norma lly defer to his judgment); see also Gowell v. Apfel , 242 F.3d 793, 796 (8th Cir. 2001) (real issu e is severity of claimant’s pain). We also find that the ALJ’s determin ation of Puffinbarger’s physical RFC is supported by substantial evidence. SeeMoore v. Astrue , 572 F.3d 520, 523 (8th Cir. 2009) (considerations in RFC determination); Goff v. Barnhart , 421 F.3d 785, 790 (8th Cir. 2005) (burden is on claimant to establish RFC). Accordingly, we affirm.

______________________________
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from
the balance sheet of CNL Income Fund VIII, Ltd. at March 31, 1997, and
its statement of income for the three months then ended and is qualified
in its entirety by reference to the Form 10-Q of CNL Income Fund
VIII, Ltd. for the three months ended March 31, 1997.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                       1,364,440
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   31,803
<ALLOWANCES>                                     5,614
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0<F1>
<PP&E>                                      15,398,766
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,281,806
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              32,244,568
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0<F1>
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                  31,156,687
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                32,244,568
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               850,775
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   96,282
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                819,353
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            819,353
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   819,353
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>Due to the nature of its industry, CNL Income Fund VIII, Ltd. has
an unclassified balance sheet; therefore, no values are shown above
for current assets and current liabilities.
</FN>
        


</TABLE>
# Publications

Read and order free Medicare products in a variety of formats. 

## Medicare & You 2025

Summary of Medicare benefits, coverage decisions, rights and protections, and answers to the most frequently asked questions about Medicare.

                            -  Open PDF  of Medicare &amp; You 2025 

Learn how to order publications in accessible formats.

## Popular Publications

##       Getting Started: Medicare    

Open PDF

##       2024 Medicare Costs    

Open PDF

##       Medicare Hospice Benefits    

Open PDF

##       Understanding Medicare Advantage Plans    

Open PDF
III

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. RES. 81

To express the sense of the Senate with respect to the availability and

affordability of health care coverage and services in our Nation.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

MARCH 19, (legislative day, MARCH 3), 1993

Mr. MCCONNELL (for himself, Mr. MCCAIN, Mr. ROCKEFELLER, Mr. BURNS,

Mr. SPECTER, Mr. MATHEWS, and Mr. PRESSLER) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Labor and

Human Resources

RESOLUTION

To express the sense of the Senate with respect to the

availability and affordability of health care coverage and

services in our Nation.

Whereas millions of American men, women, and children lack

adequate access to health care and health insurance;

Whereas in 1992, health care spending in the United States

exceeded $838,000,000,000; and

Whereas the Department of Commerce predicts health care

spending will increase by 12.1 percent in 1993: Now,

therefore, be it

1 Resolved, That it is a shared interest of both the pub2 lic and private sectors at the Federal, State, and local lev3 els to provide access to high quality, affordable health care
2

•SRES 81 IS

1 coverage and services for every man, woman, and child

2 in the United States, and that collectively we commit our3 selves to take the necessary steps towards that goal.

Æ