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

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM CONSOLIDATED
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR MERISEL, INC. FOR THE QUARTERLY PERIOD ENDED MARCH 31,
1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                          47,930
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  189,376
<ALLOWANCES>                                    23,206
<INVENTORY>                                    358,208
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               614,771
<PP&E>                                         113,422
<DEPRECIATION>                                  54,660
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 706,020
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          421,259
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           301
<OTHER-SE>                                      15,513
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   706,020
<SALES>                                      1,113,100
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,113,100
<CGS>                                        1,048,124
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   51,520
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 3,530
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               8,623
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,303
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,130
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,130
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .04
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .04
        

</TABLE>
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 21-0564

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

KASEY NICHOL HUGS,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, 

and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including October 12, 2022, within which to prepare, file, 

and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

September 1 2022

09/01/2022

Case Number: DA 21-0564
EX-10.63




			
	Personal & Confidential	  	Exhibit 10.63

  

							
	TO:	  	Linda Lupini	  	DATE:	  	August 31, 2012
	FROM:	  	Jason Aryeh	  	RE:	  	Addendum to Severance Letter

 Addendum to Severance Letter 
 Further to your discussions with me, this Addendum will confirm the following changes to your Severance Letter dated July 27, 2012. 

 

	 	1.	Your Termination Date is changed from August 31, 2012 to December 14, 2012. Due to this change to your Termination Date, the following payments will increase:


  

	 	a)	Section 1(c): The 18 months contribution to your RRSP will increase from $15,531.30 to $21,868.57. 


 

	 	b)	Section 5: The 2012 Cash Incentive Compensation Earned Pro-Rated to Termination Date payment will increase from $104,902.67 to $137,684.75.


  

	 	2.	As requested by you, your employment status will convert from 1.0 FTE to 0.60 FTE effective October 1, 2012. Your salary, bonus, vacation, sick days, short-term
and long-term disability & life insurance will be adjusted in proportion to your FTE Status but that decrease from 1.0 FTE to 0.60 FTE will not result in a reduction of the severance amounts provided under Sections 1 or 6 of the Severance
Letter. 

 All other terms and conditions of your Severance Letter dated July 27, 2012 will remain unchanged. 

Please confirm your agreement with this Addendum to your Severance Letter dated July 27, 2012 by signing both copies, and returning one copy as soon
as possible. You may retain the second copy for your personal records. 
 Acknowledged and agreed by: 

 

									
					
		 	/s/ Jason Aryeh	 		 		 	August 31, 2012
		 	Jason Aryeh	 		 		 	Date
		 	Chairman	 		 		 	
					
		 	/s/ Linda Lupini	 		 		 	August 31, 2012
		 	Linda Lupini	 		 		 	Date
Exhibit 32.1
                           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 Telecommunication Products, Inc.,
(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2003, as filed
with  the  Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I,  Robert  Russell, Chief Executive Officer and Interim Chief Financial Officer
of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 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  Russell
                                  -------------------------------------
                                  Robert  Russell
                                  Chief  Executive  Officer  and
                                  Interim  Chief  Financial  Officer


Dated:  December 10,  2003

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of
the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act  of 2002 (Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the
United  States  Code)  and  is  not  being  filed  as part of the Report or as a
separate  disclosure  document.
**MEMORANDUM**

DATE: June 24, 2014 TO: Carbon Power Plan for Existing Power Plants; Docket ID: OAR- 2013 -0602 FROM: Rob Lawrence

EPA/Region 6/PD SUBJECT: June 10, 2014 Roll - out Conference Call with Region 6 Energy & Environment

NGOs Regarding the Proposed Carbon Power Plan for Existing Power Plants **SUMMARY** A conference call was held between EPA and the attendees listed below on June 10, 2014, to discuss the proposed Carbon Power Plan for Existing Power Plants, which was proposed on June 2, 2014. **ATTEN DEES**  NGO Participants * : Southeast Energy Efficiency Alliance (Abby Schwimmer), Arkansas

Advance Energy Association (Kenneth Smith), Southeast Climate & Energy Network (Rudi Navarra), Western Resource Advocates (Steve Michel), Arkansas Public Policy Panel (Anna Weeks), Alliance for Affordable Energy (Casey DeMoss), Oklahoma Sustainability Network (Montelle Clark), Interwest Energy Alliance (Sarah Cottrell Propst), New Mexico Green Chamber of Commerce (Laura Sanchez - Rivet), Environment New Mexico (Sanders M oore), Sustainable Energy Economic Development Coalition (Karen Hadden), Public Citizen (Tom "Smitty" Smith), South - central Partnership for Energy Efficiency as a Resource (Doug Lewin) * Participated by phone. Others may have been on the phone with in the various offices EPA Participants: Regional Administrator (Ron Curry), Multi - Media Division Director (Wren

Stenger), External Affairs Division Director (David Gray), Air Programs Branch Chief (Mark Hansen), Energy Policy Advisor (Rob Lawrence) , Advisor to the RA (Tom Ruiz) , and Air Planning Staff (Clovis Steib and Terry Johnson )
I

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 2833

To amend the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act, 1930, to require

that perishable agricultural products be labeled or marked as to their

country of origin.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

DECEMBER 22, 1995

Ms. KAPTUR (for herself and Mrs. THURMAN) introduced the following bill;

which was referred to the Committee on Agriculture

A BILL

To amend the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act,

1930, to require that perishable agricultural products

be labeled or marked as to their country of origin.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. COUNTRY OF ORIGIN LABELING OF PERISH4 ABLE AGRICULTURAL COMMODITIES.

5 (a) LABELING REQUIRED.—Section 14 of the Perish6 able Agricultural Commodities Act, 1930 (7 U.S.C. 499n),

7 is amended by adding at the end the following new sub8 section:
2

•HR 2833 IH

1 ‘‘(c) COUNTRY OF ORIGIN LABELING.—(1) The Sec2 retary shall carry out a nationwide program to require

3 perishable agricultural commodities (or the bins, display

4 cases, or similar containers holding such perishable agri5 cultural commodities) to be labeled, marked, or otherwise

6 clearly identified at the retail level as to their country of

7 origin.

8 ‘‘(2) The program shall apply to imported and domes9 tic perishable agricultural commodities, including perish10 able agricultural commodities that are exempted, under

11 section 304(a)(3)(J) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C.

12 1304(a)(3)(J)), from the country of origin marking re13 quirements of that Act.’’.

14 (b) PENALTIES.—Subsection (b) of such section is

15 amended—

16 (1) by inserting ‘‘or country of origin label re17 quired’’ after ‘‘certificate issued’’; and

18 (2) by inserting ‘‘or label’’ after ‘‘certificate’’

19 the last place it appears.

20 (c) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Such section is fur21 ther amended by striking ‘‘SEC. 14’’ and inserting the fol22 lowing:
3

•HR 2833 IH

1 ‘‘SEC. 14. INSPECTION AND LABELING OF PERISHABLE AG2 RICULTURAL COMMODITIES.’’.

3 (d) APPLICATION OF AMENDMENTS.—The amend4 ments made by this section shall apply with respect to per5 ishable agricultural commodities marketed on or after one

6 year after the date of the enactment of this Act.

Æ
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

ISAIAH FREEMAN,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 42 MAL 2023

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 23rd day of May, 2023

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of BMW Vehicle Lease Trust 2017-1 (the “Exchange Act periodic reports”);
  2. Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;
  3. Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and other information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;
  4. I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the servicer and based on my knowledge and the compliance review conducted in preparing the servicer compliance statement required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicer has fulfilled its obligations under the servicing agreement in all material respects; and
 5. All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwise disclosed in this report.  Any material instances of noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.
     By:
/s/ Ritu ChandyName:
Ritu ChandyTitle:
Vice President – Finance & CFOBMW Financial Services NA, LLC
§ 566.701 Penalties. ( a ) *Civil penalties.* As set forth in section 102(a)(3) of the Hizballah International Financing Prevention Act of 2015 (Pub. L. 114-102, 129 Stat. 2205 (50 U.S.C. 1701 note)), a civil penalty not to exceed the amount set forth in section 206(b) of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) (50 U.S.C. 1705(b)) may be imposed on any person who violates, attempts to violate, conspires to violate, or causes a violation of any license, order, regulation, or prohibition set forth in or issued pursuant to this part.
( b ) The applicable maximum civil penalty per violation of IEEPA is the greater of $368,136 or an amount that is twice the amount of the transaction that is the basis of the violation with respect to which the penalty is imposed.
( c ) *Criminal penalties.* As set forth in section 102(a)(3) of HIFPA, a person who willfully commits, willfully attempts to commit, or willfully conspires to commit a violation of any license, order, regulation, or prohibition set forth in or issued pursuant to this part shall, upon conviction, be fined not more than $1,000,000, or if a natural person, be imprisoned for not more than 20 years, or both.
( d ) *Adjustments to penalty amounts.* ( 1 ) The civil penalties provided in IEEPA are subject to adjustment pursuant to the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990 (Pub. L. 101-410, as amended, 28 U.S.C. 2461 note).
( 2 ) The criminal penalties provided in IEEPA are subject to adjustment pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3571.
( e ) Attention is also directed to 18 U.S.C. 1001, which provides that “whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact; or makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry” shall be fined under title 18, United States Code, imprisoned, or both.
( f ) Violations of this part may also be subject to other applicable laws.
[81 FR 22186, Apr. 15, 2016, as amended at 81 FR 43076, July 1, 2016; 82 FR 10438, Feb. 10, 2017; 83 FR 11880, Mar. 19, 2018; 84 FR 27718, June 14, 2019; 85 FR 19888, Apr. 9, 2020; 86 FR 14538, Mar. 17, 2021; 87 FR 7373, Feb. 9, 2022; 88 FR 2233, Jan. 13, 2023; 89 FR 2143, Jan. 12, 2024]
§ 578.505 Entries in certain accounts for normal service charges. ( a ) A U.S. financial institution is authorized to debit any blocked account held at that financial institution in payment or reimbursement for normal service charges owed it by the owner of that blocked account.
( b ) As used in this section, the term *normal service charges* shall include charges in payment or reimbursement for interest due; cable, telegraph, internet, or telephone charges; postage costs; custody fees; small adjustment charges to correct bookkeeping errors; and, but not by way of limitation, minimum balance charges, notary and protest fees, and charges for reference books, photocopies, credit reports, transcripts of statements, registered mail, insurance, stationery and supplies, and other similar items.
§ 549.512 Transactions related to the provision of agricultural commodities, medicine, medical devices, replacement parts and components, or software updates for personal, non-commercial use. ( a ) All transactions prohibited by this part that are related to the provision, directly or indirectly, of agricultural commodities, medicine, medical devices, replacement parts and components for medical devices, or software updates for medical devices to an individual whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this part are authorized, provided the items are in quantities consistent with personal, non-commercial use.
( b ) For the purposes of this section, agricultural commodities, medicine, and medical devices are defined as follows: ( 1 ) *Agricultural commodities.* For the purposes of this section, agricultural commodities are: ( i ) Products that fall within the term “agricultural commodity” as defined in section 102 of the Agricultural Trade Act of 1978 (7 U.S.C. 5602); and
( ii ) That are intended for ultimate use as: ( A ) Food for humans (including raw, processed, and packaged foods; live animals; vitamins and minerals; food additives or supplements; and bottled drinking water) or animals (including animal feeds);
( B ) Seeds for food crops;
( C ) Fertilizers or organic fertilizers; or
( D ) Reproductive materials (such as live animals, fertilized eggs, embryos, and semen) for the production of food animals.
( 2 ) *Medicine.* For the purposes of this section, medicine is an item that falls within the definition of the term “drug” in section 201 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 321).
( 3 ) *Medical devices.* For the purposes of this section, a medical device is an item that falls within the definition of “device” in section 201 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 321).
Note 1 to § 549.512 .
This section does not relieve any person authorized thereunder from complying with any other applicable laws or regulations.
[87 FR 78490, Dec. 21, 2022]
United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

April 18, 2001

Before

Hon. Richard A. Posner, Circuit Judge

No. 00-1894

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

DINA ABDELHAQ,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District

Court for the Northern District

of Illinois, Eastern Division.

No. 98 CR 146

George W. Lindberg, Judge.

O R D E R

The sentence on page 1 of the slip opinion beginning "The district judge ordered" is

amended to read as follows: "The district judge (not Judge Lindberg, to whom the case was

reassigned for trial) ordered".
I

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 2728

To amend the National Trails System Act to designate the Old Spanish

Trail and the Northern Branch of the Old Spanish Trail for potential

inclusion into the National Trails System, and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

DECEMBER 6, 1995

Mr. HEFLEY introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Resources

A BILL

To amend the National Trails System Act to designate the

Old Spanish Trail and the Northern Branch of the Old

Spanish Trail for potential inclusion into the National

Trails System, and for other purposes.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

4 Section 5(c) of the National Trails System Act (16

5 U.S.C. 1244(c)) is amended by adding at the end the fol6 lowing new paragraph:

7 ‘‘(36) The Old Spanish Trail, beginning in

8 Santa Fe, New Mexico, proceeding through Colorado
2

HR 2728 IH

1 and Utah, and ending in Los Angeles, California,

2 and the Northern Branch of the Old Spanish Trail,

3 beginning near Espanola, New Mexico, proceeding

4 through Colorado, and ending near Crescent Junc5 tion, Utah.’’

Æ
#### § 539.203 Evasions; attempts; conspiracies.

Any transaction by any United States person or within the United States on or after the effective date that evades or avoids, has the purpose of evading or avoiding, or attempts to violate any of the prohibitions set forth in this part is prohibited. Any conspiracy formed for the purpose of engaging in a transaction prohibited by this part is prohibited.
40487.

#### LOUDERMILK v. ASSOCIATES DISCOUNT CORPORATION.

Frankum, Judge.

This is the second appearance of this case in this court. On the former appearance, *Loudermilk v. Associates Discount Corp.,*107 Ga. App. 574 (130 SE2d 831), it was held that the trial court erred in overruling the certiorari because the debtor made out a prima facie defense against the plaintiff’s action, and there was no evidence introduced by the plaintiff or the defendant to overcome such prima facie case. Upon the return of the remittitur to the superior court the judgment rendered thereon was “that the writ of certiorari be sustained with judgment for plaintiff, Loudermilk, and with costs on the defendant, Associates Discount Corporation.” Thereafter without any order remanding the case to the civil court having been taken, the case was placed on the trial calendar, and the defendant, Loudermilk, filed what he denominated as a plea of res judicata contending, among other things, that the judgment of the superior court was conclusive on the parties as to the issues in the case. This plea was overruled, and after hearing evidence the court entered a judgment for the plaintiff for the amount sued for. This latter judgment is assigned as error along with the judgment overruling the plea of res judicata. *Held:*

The motion to dismiss the writ of error being without merit is denied.

The judgment of the superior court entered on the remittitur from this court was a final judgment in favor of the plaintiff in certiorari and against the plaintiff in the trial court. While such a judgment, under the facts of this case, may not have been authorized, *Dorsey v. Black,*55 Ga. 315, 319 (2), *Holmes v. Pye*& *Co.,*107 Ga. 784, 788 (33 SE 816), *Whiddon v. Atlantic C. L. R. Co.,*21 Ga. App. 377, 378 (4) (94 SE 617), *Tuten v. Towles,*36 Ga. App. 328 (2) (136 SE 537), yet, it was, at most, merely an erroneous judgment, and no exception having been taken thereto, it stands as the law of the case, finally disposing of it. When the petition for certiorari was first sanctioned and the writ issued, a supersedeas on any further proceedings in the civil court became effective, which supersedeas remained in effect until the case should be remanded by a proper order of the superior court to the civil *180court for further proceedings. Since this was not done the case was no longer pending in the civil court and it had no authority to take any action in the case. Accordingly, it erred in not sustaining the defendant’s plea invoking the judgment of the superior court as a final disposition of the case.

Decided February 24, 1964.

*Oze R. Horton,*for plaintiff in error.

*Levy, Buffington & Levy, M. Alvin Levy,*contra.

*Judgment reversed.*

*Felton, C. J., and Pannell, J., concur.*