alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
(a)  A
        review of Toyota Motor Credit Corporation’s activities and of its performance under the Sale and Servicing Agreement, dated as of July 27, 2020, as amended (the “Sale and Servicing Agreement”), among Toyota Auto Finance Receivables LLC, as seller,
        Toyota Motor Credit Corporation, as servicer (in such capacity, the “Servicer”) and sponsor, and Toyota Auto Receivables 2020-C Owner Trust, as issuer, during the year ended December 31, 2022 has been made under my supervision.
  (b)  To
        the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Sale and Servicing Agreement in all material respects throughout the aforementioned period.
    /s/ Scott Cooke
#### PRICE FIRE & WATER PROOFING COMPANY v. UNITED STATES.

[56 C. Cls. 502; 261 U.S. 179.]

Judgment was rendered against the United States for a portion of the sum claimed in the court below. On appeal the judgment was affirmed, and the Supreme Court decided:

Expenses incurred by a manufacturer after termination of its work for the Government during the war and after November 12, 1918, in efforts to keep alive its organization and regain its commercial business, are not recoverable from the United States under the Dent Act, March 2, 1919, c. 94, 40 Stat. 1272.

Mr. Justice Brandeis

delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court February 19, 1923.
Exhibit 23.1


                  INDEPENDENT  ACCOUNTANTS'  REPORT


Celestial Seasonings, Inc.:

We  have  reviewed  the accompanying consolidated  balance  sheet  of
Celestial  Seasonings, Inc. and subsidiaries  (the "Company")  as  of
December  31, 1996 and the related consolidated statements of  income
and cash flows for the three-month period ended December 31, 1996 and
1995.   These  financial  statements are the  responsibility  of  the
Company's management.

We  conducted our review in accordance with standards established  by
the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants.  A review  of
interim   financial  information  consists  principally  of  applying
analytical  procedures to financial data and of making  inquiries  of
persons  responsible  for financial and accounting  matters.   It  is
substantially  less  in scope than an audit conducted  in  accordance
with generally accepted auditing standards, the objective of which is
the expression of an opinion regarding the financial statements taken
as a whole.  Accordingly, we do not express such an opinion.

Based  on  our review, we are not aware of any material modifications
that  should  be  made to such consolidated financial statements  for
them   to   be  in  conformity  with  generally  accepted  accounting
principles.

We  have  previously  audited, in accordance with generally  accepted
auditing standards, the consolidated balance sheet of the Company and
subsidiaries  as of September 30, 1996, and the related  consolidated
statements  of income, stockholders' equity, and cash flows  for  the
year  then  ended  (not presented herein); and in  our  report  dated
November  4,  1996,  we  expressed an unqualified  opinion  on  those
consolidated  financial statements.  In our opinion, the  information
set  forth  in  the  accompanying consolidated balance  sheet  as  of
September  30,  1996 is fairly stated, in all material  respects,  in
relation  to  the consolidated balance sheet from which it  has  been
derived.





Deloitte & Touche LLP


Denver, Colorado
January 15, 1997

                                  PAGE 14
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2246 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

  1st Session
                                H. R. 2246

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            December 5, 2007

   Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and 
                           Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To provide for the release of any reversionary interest of the United 
            States in and to certain lands in Reno, Nevada.

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

SECTION 1. RAILROAD LANDS DEFINED.

    For the purposes of this Act, the term ``railroad lands'' means 
those lands within the City of Reno, Nevada, located within portions of 
sections 10, 11, and 12 of T.19 N., R. 19 E., and portions of section 7 
of T.19 N., R. 20 E., Mount Diablo Meridian, Nevada, that were 
originally granted to the Union Pacific Railroad under the provisions 
of the Act of July 1, 1862, commonly known as the Union Pacific 
Railroad Act.

SEC. 2. RELEASE OF REVERSIONARY INTEREST.

    Any reversionary interests of the United States (including 
interests under the Act of July 1, 1862, commonly known as the Union 
Pacific Railroad Act) in and to the railroad lands as defined in 
section one of this Act are hereby released.

            Passed the House of Representatives December 4, 2007.

            Attest:

                                            LORRAINE C. MILLER,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
#### § 494.10 Definitions.

As used in this part—

*Dialysis facility* means an entity that provides outpatient maintenance dialysis services, or home dialysis training and support services, or both. A dialysis facility may be an independent or hospital-based unit (as described in § 413.174(b) and (c) of this chapter) that includes a self-care dialysis unit that furnishes only self-dialysis services.

*Discharge* means the termination of patient care services by a dialysis facility or the patient voluntarily terminating dialysis when he or she no longer wants to be dialyzed by that facility.

*Furnishes directly* means the ESRD facility provides the service through its own staff and employees or through individuals who are under direct contract to furnish these services personally for the facility.

*Home dialysis* means dialysis performed at home by an ESRD patient or caregiver who has completed an appropriate course of training as described in § 494.100(a) of this part.

*Self-dialysis* means dialysis performed with little or no professional assistance by an ESRD patient or caregiver who has completed an appropriate course of training as specified in § 494.100(a) of this part.

*Transfer* means a temporary or permanent move of a patient from one dialysis facility to another that requires a transmission of the patient's medical record to the facility receiving the patient.
| Advanced Search/Archiveiip/content/usia/usia/web/docs/usinfo/header.inc'; ?>   Español | Français | Pycckuú |  |  |  Friday October 15, 2004   ans/content/usia/usia/web/docs/products/pubs/breadcrumb.inc';?>USINFO > Publicationsans/content/usia/usia/web/docs/include/pubs/header.html';?>(Posted September 1998) About *The Freedom Papers*
Freedom Paper No.1: Building Free and Independent Media
Freedom Paper No.2: Teaching Democracy
Freedom Paper No.3: The Role of the Legislature in a Democracy
Freedom Paper No.4: The Role of the Independent Judiciary
Freedom Paper No.5: Administering Higher Education in aDemocratic Society
Freedom Paper No.6: Public Access to Government Information
Freedom Paper No.7: Creating and Disseminating Law in aDemocratic Society       This site is produced and maintained by the U.S. Department of State's Bureau of International Information Programs.       Links to other internet sites should not be construed as an endorsement of the views contained therein.  Home  |  What's New  |  About USINFO  |  Site Index  |  Webmaster  |  PrivacyTopics  |  Regions  |  Resource Tools  |  Productsans/content/usia/usia/web/docs/include/globnav/footer.inc';?>Sorry, you need a JavaScript capable browser to get the best from this page |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
* The Honorab le Robert Holmes B ell, Chief United States Distri ct Judge for the Western District of Michigan, sitt ing by designati on.

NOT RECOMM

ENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PU BLICATION File Name: 04a0007n.06 Filed: October 6, 2004 Case No. 02-5885; 02-5888 UNITED STATE S COURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE SIXTH C IRCUIT

KENTUCKY R

ESTAURANT

CONCEPTS ) INC., ET AL., ) ) Plaintiff s-Appellants, ) ) ON APPEAL F ROM THE v. ) UNITED STATES DISTRICT ) COURT FOR THE WESTERN CITY OF LOUISVILLE, ET AL., ) DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY ) Defendant

s-Appellees. ) ) __________________________________________)
BEFORE: BATCHELDER and SUTTON, Circuit Judges; and BEL L, District Judge. * ALICE M. BATCHELDER, Circuit Judge. At oral a rgument, counsel f

or Appel lants and Appellees conceded that the only issue properly bef ore this court is the question of damages–a question not overtly considered by the district court’s June 12, 2002 orde r. We agree. Accordingly, we deny the Appellees’ Motion to Dismiss and we REMAND this case for consideration of damages in light of the district court’s prior order in favor of Appellants and such othe r facto rs as the district c ourt dee

ms releva nt.
**[if !supportEmptyParas]> [endif]>
**Department ofCommerce Announcement Regarding the Closure of Three American Business Centersin Russia
4/29/99
[if !supportEmptyParas]> [endif]>
TheAmerican Business Centers (ABCs) in Volgograd, Chelyabinsk and Yekaterinburghave successfully completed their 5-year grant agreements with the Departmentof Commerce and are closing on April 30,1999.�U.S. businesses seeking commercial assistance in these regions maycontact the U.S. Foreign Commercial Office in Moscow, telephone 7-095-737-5030.
[if !supportEmptyParas]> [endif]>
Nineother ABCs in Russia/NIS will remain open and continue to provide the followingessential professional office and business support services exclusively toAmerican companies: 
� 
� Business Counseling 
� Office and Conference Room Rental 
� Market Research 
� International Telephone, Fax, and E-mail 
� Locating, Screening, and Assessing Partners 
� Trade Mission and Event Planning 
� Interpretation and Translation Services 
� Business Appointment Scheduling andSecretarial Assistance
[if !supportEmptyParas]> [endif]>
Thenine American Business Centers that will remain open are:
[if !supportEmptyParas]> [endif]>
ALMATY,KAZAKHSTAN*�� 
Phone:7 (3272) 58-79-19 or 58-79-20�� 
Fax:7 (3272) 58-79-21�� 
E-mail:[email protected]� 
� 
KHABAROVSK,RUSSIA�� 
Phone:7 (4212) 32-67-17��� 
Fax:7 (4212) 32-40-12��� 
E-mail:[email protected]�� 
[if !supportEmptyParas]> [endif]>
KYIV,UKRAINE*�� 
Phone:380 (44) 246-8168(70)��� 
Fax:380 (44) 417-1419�� 
E-mail:[email protected]��� 
�
NIZHNYNOVGOROD, RUSSIA���� 
Phone/Fax:7 (8312) 372-213���� 
E-mail:[email protected]���� 
[if !supportEmptyParas]> [endif]>
SAMARA,RUSSIA�� 
Phone:7 (8462) 79-20-41/42
Fax:7 (8462) 79-20-43E-mail: [email protected]
ST.PETERSBURG, RUSSIA*� 
Phone:7 (812) 326-2560�� 
Fax:7 (812) 326-2571�� 
E-mail:[email protected]�� 
[if !supportEmptyParas]> [endif]>
TASHKENT,UZBEKISTAN*�� 
Phone:998 (712) 406-705 or 406-706� 
Fax:998 (712) 406-676 or 406-692� 
E-mail:[email protected]� 
[if !supportEmptyParas]> [endif]>
VLADIVOSTOK,RUSSIA*� 
Phone:7 (4232) 300-093��� 
Fax:7 (4232) 300-092�� 
E-mail:[email protected]�� 
[if !supportEmptyParas]> [endif]>
YUZHNO-SAKHALINSK,RUSSIA�� 
Phone:7 (4242) 72-71-24 or 25� 
Fax:7 (4242) 72-71-24� 
E-mail:[email protected]� 
[if !supportEmptyParas]> [endif]>
*These ABCs are managed by the Commercial Service of the U.S. Department ofCommerce****
(a)  A
        review of Toyota Motor Credit Corporation’s activities and of its performance under the Sale and Servicing Agreement, dated as of July 27, 2020, as amended (the “Sale and Servicing Agreement”), among Toyota Auto Finance Receivables LLC, as seller,
        Toyota Motor Credit Corporation, as servicer (in such capacity, the “Servicer”) and sponsor, and Toyota Auto Receivables 2020-C Owner Trust, as issuer, during the year ended December 31, 2023 has been made under my supervision.
  (b)  To


        the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Sale and Servicing Agreement in all material respects throughout the aforementioned period.
    /s/ James Schofield
<PAGE>   1



EXHIBIT 11

STATEMENT RE: COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                 FOR THE THREE MONTHS                   FOR THE SIX MONTHS
                                                    ENDED JUNE 30                          ENDED JUNE 30
                                                  1997            1996                   1997            1996
                                            ----------------------------------------------------------------------
<S>                                            <C>              <C>                   <C>              <C>
PRIMARY:

Average shares outstanding                      9,271,387        9,296,006             9,282,959        9,296,006
Net effect of options                              22,487           12,772                18,629           12,772
                                            ----------------------------------------------------------------------
Total                                           9,293,874        9,283,234             9,301,588        9,283,234
                                            ======================================================================

Net income                                     $3,512,000       $2,598,000            $6,754,000       $5,431,000
                                            ======================================================================
Earnings per share                                  $0.38            $0.28                 $0.73            $0.59
                                            ======================================================================

FULLY DILUTED:

Average shares outstanding                      9,271,387        9,296,006             9,282,959        9,296,006
Net effect of options                              23,001           12,772                21,689           13,052
                                            ----------------------------------------------------------------------
Total                                           9,294,388        9,283,234             9,304,648        9,282,954
                                            ======================================================================

Net income                                     $3,512,000       $2,598,000            $6,754,000       $5,431,000
                                            ======================================================================
Earnings per share                                  $0.38            $0.28                 $0.73            $0.59
                                            ======================================================================
</TABLE>

                                       19
#### Charles Leonard TRUMAN, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 45375.

Supreme Court of Florida.

June 7, 1974.

As Corrected on Denial of Rehearing Sept. 23, 1974.

Certiorari denied. 292 So.2d 592.

ADKINS, C. J., and ROBERTS, ERVIN, BOYD and OVERTON, JJ„ concur.
Opinion issued November 21, 2017

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The 

First District of Texas 

————————————

NO. 01-16-00899-CV

———————————

WEATHERFORD U.S., L.P., Appellant

V.

SPITZER INDUSTRIES, INC., Appellee

On Appeal from the 80th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Case No. 2014-02648

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant, Weatherford U.S., L.P., has filed an unopposed motion to dismiss 

this appeal. No opinion has issued in this appeal. Accordingly, we grant the motion 

and dismiss the appeal. See TEX.R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(1). We dismiss any other pending 

motions as moot.
2

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Higley and Bland.
Certification 
 

I, Ann Murtlow, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q/A (Amendment No. 1) of IPALCOEnterprises, Inc. (the"registrant");

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact oromit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport; 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 

4. The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have:

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourthfiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonablylikely to materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the auditcommittee of registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunction):

(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant'sability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting.

Date:	August 16, 2004	
	/s/ Ann Murtlow	
Ann Murtlow

President and Chief Executive Officer
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-619
In Re: DARLENE SCHMIDT, Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CA-91-2802-3-17) Submitted: August 12, 1997 Decided: September 10, 1997 Before MURNAGHAN, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Darlene Schmidt, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Darlene Schmidt petitions this court for a Writ of Mandamus directing South Carolina's district court judges to cease reliance on "cult law," declaring cult law invalid, and reversing a district court order dismissing her civil action. A party seeking mandamus relief must show that her right to the relief sought is "clear and indisputable." In re Beard , 811 F.2d 818, 827 (4th Cir. 1987). To the extent that Schmidt has standing to seek the relief requested, we find that she has failed to demonstrate that she is indisputably entitled to it. Also, mandamus relief is only appropriate where the petitioner shows that no other means of relief is available. Id. at 826. To the extent that Schmidt seeks a reversal of a decision of the district court, she has failed to demonstrate why she could not have sought such relief on appeal. Accordingly, we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis but the petition for a Writ of Mandamus is denied.

PETITION DENIED
I 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2212 

To require the President to close the Department of Defense detention facility 

at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 8, 2007 

Ms. HARMAN (for herself and Mr. ABERCROMBIE) introduced the following 

bill; which was referred to the Committee on Armed Services 

A BILL 

To require the President to close the Department of Defense 

detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, 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. REQUIRED CLOSURE OF GUANTANAMO BAY DE4 TENTION FACILITY. 

5 (a) CLOSURE OF DETENTION FACILITY.—Not later 

6 than one year after the date of the enactment of this 

7 Act— 

8 (1) the President shall close the Department of 

9 Defense detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, 

10 Cuba; and 


bajohnson on PRODPC74 with BILLS
2 

HR 2212 IH

1 (2) all detainees detained at such facility shall 

2 be removed from the facility and— 

3 (A) transferred to a military or civilian de4 tention facility in the United States and 

5 charged with a violation of United States or 

6 international law and tried in an Article III 

7 court or military legal proceeding before a regu8 larly-constituted court; 

9 (B) transferred to a military or civilian de10 tention facility in the United States without 

11 being charged with a violation of law if the de12 tainee may be held as an enemy combatant or 

13 detained pursuant to other legal authority as 

14 Congress may authorize; 

15 (C) transferred to an international tribunal 

16 operating under the authority of the United 

17 Nations with jurisdiction to hold trials of such 

18 individuals; 

19 (D) transferred to their country of citizen20 ship or a different country for further legal 

21 process, provided that such country provides 

22 adequate assurances that the individual will not 

23 be subject to torture or cruel, inhuman, or de24 grading treatment; or 

25 (E) released from any further detention. 


bajohnson on PRODPC74 with BILLS
3 

HR 2212 IH

1 (b) IMMIGRATION STATUS.—The transfer of an indi2 vidual under subsection (a) shall not be considered an 

3 entry into the United States for purposes of immigration 

4 status. 

Æ 


bajohnson on PRODPC74 with BILLS