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

<ARTICLE>     7
<MULTIPLIER>  1000
<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
<DEBT-HELD-FOR-SALE>                      217,640
<DEBT-CARRYING-VALUE>                           0
<DEBT-MARKET-VALUE>                             0
<EQUITIES>                                  6,919
<MORTGAGE>                                      0
<REAL-ESTATE>                                   0
<TOTAL-INVEST>                            250,903
<CASH>                                      1,486
<RECOVER-REINSURE>                        141,920
<DEFERRED-ACQUISITION>                      5,531
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                            485,605
<POLICY-LOSSES>                           272,127
<UNEARNED-PREMIUMS>                        47,054
<POLICY-OTHER>                                  0
<POLICY-HOLDER-FUNDS>                           0
<NOTES-PAYABLE>                            17,942
<COMMON>                                      834
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           0
<PREFERRED>                                     0
<OTHER-SE>                                126,392
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>              485,605
<PREMIUMS>                                 62,276
<INVESTMENT-INCOME>                        10,676
<INVESTMENT-GAINS>                          2,252
<OTHER-INCOME>                              4,379
<BENEFITS>                                 37,418
<UNDERWRITING-AMORTIZATION>                11,672
<UNDERWRITING-OTHER>                       16,696
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            13,246
<INCOME-TAX>                                3,392
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         9,854
<DISCONTINUED>                                  0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                 0
<CHANGES>                                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                9,854
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                1.18
<EPS-DILUTED>                                1.18
<RESERVE-OPEN>                            132,558
<PROVISION-CURRENT>                             0
<PROVISION-PRIOR>                               0
<PAYMENTS-CURRENT>                              0
<PAYMENTS-PRIOR>                                0
<RESERVE-CLOSE>                           133,979
<CUMULATIVE-DEFICIENCY>                         0
        

</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-6091

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

CHARLES DEANGELO COMER,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr.,

Chief District Judge. (CR-95-119, CA-98-864-1)

Submitted: May 25, 2000 Decided: June 5, 2000

Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Charles Deangelo Comer, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Francis Joseph,

Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
* Although the district court’s order is marked as “filed” on

November 12, 1999, the district court’s records show that it was

entered on the docket sheet on November 15, 1999. Pursuant to

Rules 58 and 79(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is

the date that the order was entered on the docket sheet that we

take as the effective date of the district court’s decision. See

Wilson v. Murray, 806 F.2d 1232, 1234-35 (4th Cir. 1986).

2

PER CURIAM:

Charles Deangelo Comer seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.

1999). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s

opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of

appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Comer, Nos. CR-95-119; CA-98-

864-1 (M.D.N.C. Nov. 15, 1999).* We dispense with oral argument

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in

the materials before the court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

DISMISSED
|   | 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. |
|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|               |                          |                                                                                                                                                      |
|--------------------|-------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|               | IR BIOSCIENCES HOLDINGS, INC. |
|               |                          |                                                                                                                                                      |
| Date: May 24, 2010 | By:                 | /s/ Michael K. Wilhelm                      |
|               | Chief Executive Officer       |
|               |                          |
#### § 80.5 Applications.

To apply for a grant, an eligible entity must submit a complete application package to VA, as described in the NOFO. There will be a limit of one application per submitting organization serving the same participant population and in the same geographic service area. Applications will be accepted only through *www.grants.gov*.

(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control numbers 2900-8080, 4040-0006, 4040-0010, and 4040-0013)

(Authority: Pub. L. 116-315, sec. 4304; 2 CFR 200.203)
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 249 Engrossed in House (EH)]

  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 249

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
To restore the prohibition on the commercial sale and slaughter of wild 
                    free-roaming horses and burros.

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

SECTION 1. SALE OF WILD FREE-ROAMING HORSES AND BURROS.

    (a) In General.--Section 3(d)(5) of Public Law 92-195 (16 U.S.C. 
1333(d)(5)) is amended--
            (1) by striking the period and inserting the following: 
        ``Provided, That no wild free-roaming horse or burro or its 
        remains may be sold or transferred for consideration for 
        processing into commercial products.''; and
            (2) by striking subsection (e).
    (b) Criminal Provisions.--Section (8)(a)(4) of Public Law 92-195 
(16 U.S.C. 1338(a)(4)) is amended by striking ``except as provided in 
section 3(e),''.

            Passed the House of Representatives April 26, 2007.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
110th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                               H. R. 249

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

To restore the prohibition on the commercial sale and slaughter of wild 
                    free-roaming horses and burros.
```
#### Harry W. Bell, Respondent, *v.*Gabriel Valente, Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment at a Trial Term entered upon a verdict, and from an order denying a motion for a new trial.

Louis S. Finn (Joseph Fischer, of counsel), for appellant.

Scott & Treadwell (L. B. Treadwell, of counsel), for respondent.

Conlah, J.

Tho action was upon two drafts accepted by the defendant.

*823The making and acceptance of the drafts is admitted, but the defendant alleges there was a conditional acceptance based upon the completion of certain work by the drawers of the draft before they should become payable.

This is denied by the plaintiff, who says the acceptance and delivery was unaccompanied by any condition whatever other than at the time of the acceptance the defendant had not the funds wherewith to pay the same.

Upon this conflict the case was submitted to the jury upon a charge which was eminently fair to the defendant, and the jury having determined the issues in favor of the plaintiff, it is not within our province as an appellate tribunal to interfere with that determination, unless something has occurred which operated to the prejudice of the defendant’s rights in the minds of the jury, and finding no element of the kind in the record before us, it follows that the judgment and order appealed from must be affirmed, with costs.

Judgment and order appealed from affirmed, with costs.

Fitzsimons, Oh. J., and O’Dwyer, J., concur.

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs.
§ 53.30 Payments. ( a ) The amount of payments awarded under this part during a Federal fiscal year will be the amount requested by the State and approved by VA in accordance with this part. Payments may not exceed 50 percent of the cost of the employee incentive program for that fiscal year and may not exceed 2 percent of the amount of the total per diem payments estimated by VA to be made under 38 U.S.C. 1741 to the State for that SVH during that fiscal year for adult day health care, domiciliary care, hospital care, and nursing home care.
( b ) Payments will be made by lump sum or installment as deemed appropriate by the Director, Geriatrics and Extended Care Operations.
( c ) Payments will be made to the State or, if designated by the State representative, the SVH conducting the employee incentive program.
( d ) Payments made under this part for a specific employee incentive program shall be used solely for that purpose.
(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 101, 501, 1744)
[73 FR 73560, Dec. 3, 2008, as amended at 77 FR 73313, Dec. 10, 2012]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 18-1993

Filed January 23, 2019

IN THE INTEREST OF M.H.,

Minor Child,

J.O., Mother,

Appellant.

________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Woodbury County, Mary L. Timko, 

Associate Juvenile Judge.

A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights. AFFIRMED. 

John S. Moeller of John S. Moeller, P.C., Sioux City, for appellant mother.

Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Anagha Dixit, Assistant Attorney 

General, for appellee State.

Theresa Rachel of Fankhauser Rachel, PLC, Sioux City, guardian ad litem 

for minor child.

Considered by Tabor, P.J., and Mullins and Bower, JJ.
2

MULLINS, Judge.

A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her minor child 

pursuant to Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(f) and (l) (2018). Her argument on 

appeal is limited to her statements of disagreement with the juvenile court’s 

conclusions “that the child cannot be returned to the custody of the mother as 

provided in section 232.102” and her “prognosis indicates that the child will not be 

able to be returned to the custody of the [mother] within a reasonable period of 

time considering the child’s age and need for a permanent home.” See Iowa Code 

§ 232.116(1)(f)(4), (l)(3). The mother provides no facts, argument, or analysis in 

support of her statements of disagreement. Her failure to do so waives error. See

Iowa R. App. P. 6.903(2)(g)(3); see also In re C.B., 611 N.W.2d 489, 492 (Iowa 

2000) (“A broad, all encompassing argument is insufficient to identify error in cases 

of de novo review.”); Hyler v. Garner, 548 N.W.2d 864, 876 (Iowa 1996) (“[W]e will 

not speculate on the arguments [a party] might have made and then search for 

legal authority and comb the record for facts to support such arguments.”); Inghram

v. Dairyland Mut. Ins. Co., 215 N.W.2d 239, 240 (Iowa 1974) (“To reach the merits 

of this case would require us to assume a partisan role and undertake the 

appellant’s research and advocacy. This role is one we refuse to assume.”).

Although we acknowledge termination-of-parental-rights appeals are expedited 

and the opportunity for briefing is abbreviated, see generally Iowa R. App. P. 6.201, 

the mother’s position is not adequately formulated to facilitate our review. 

Consequently, we affirm the termination of her parental rights. 

AFFIRMED.
I 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2164 

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to provide for an extension 

of increased payments for ground ambulance services under the Medicare 

Program. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 3, 2007 

Mr. MCNULTY (for himself, Mr. REYNOLDS, Mr. ALLEN, Mr. PICKERING, and 

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania) introduced the following bill; which was 

referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to 

the Committee on Ways and Means, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions 

as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to provide 

for an extension of increased payments for ground ambulance services under the Medicare Program. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Medicare Ambulance 

5 Payment Extension Act’’. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS

2 

•HR 2164 IH

1 SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF INCREASED MEDICARE PAYMENTS 

2 FOR GROUND AMBULANCE SERVICES. 

3 Section 1834(l)(13) of the Social Security Act (42 

4 U.S.C. 1395m(l)(13)) is amended— 

5 (1) in subparagraph (A), in the heading, by 

6 striking ‘‘IN GENERAL’’ and inserting ‘‘FOR THE

7 SECOND HALF OF 2004 AND FOR 2005 AND 2006’’; 

8 (2) by redesignating subparagraph (B) as sub9 paragraph (C); 

10 (3) by inserting the following after subpara11 graph (A): 

12 ‘‘(B) FOR 2008 AND 2009.—After com13 puting the rates with respect to ground ambu14 lance services under the other applicable provi15 sions of this subsection, in the case of such 

16 services furnished on or after January 1, 2008, 

17 and before January 1, 2010, the fee schedule 

18 established under this section shall provide that 

19 the rate for the service otherwise established, 

20 after application of any increase under para21 graphs (11) and (12), shall be increased by 5 

22 percent.’’; and 

23 (4) in subparagraph (C), as redesignated by 

24 paragraph (2)— 

25 (A) in the heading, by striking ‘‘APPLICA26 TION OF INCREASED PAYMENTS AFTER 2006’’ 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS

3 

•HR 2164 IH

1 and inserting ‘‘NO EFFECT ON SUBSEQUENT

2 PERIODS’’; and 

3 (B) by adding at the end the following new 

4 sentence: ‘‘The increased payments under sub5 paragraph (B) shall not be taken into account 

6 in calculating payments for services furnished 

7 after the period specified in such subpara8 graph.’’. 

Æ 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS
**
**Exhibit 31.1**

I, Mike McKeever, certify that: 

1. I have reviewed this reporton Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this reporton Form 10-K of Carvana Auto Receivables Trust 2021-N1 (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 amaterial 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 providedunder Form 10-D for the period covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports; 

4. Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statement(s) required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed inthe Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicer has fulfilled its obligations under the servicing agreement in all material respects; and 

5. All of thereports 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 inaccordance 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 asotherwise disclosed in this report. Any material instances of noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.

In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties: Wells Fargo Bank, NationalAssociation and Computershare Trust Company, National Association. 

Date: March 25, 2022 

 

/s/ Mike McKeever
Mike McKeeverPresidentCarvana Receivables Depositor LLC(senior officer in charge of securitization)**
**Exhibit32-1**

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection withthe Quarterly Report of The Navigators Group, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Qfor the period ending March 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Stanley A. Galanski, certify,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)            The Report fully complieswith the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Actof 1934; and

(2)            The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| /s/ STANLEY  A. GALANSKI              |   |
|---------------------------------------|--------|
| Stanley A. Galanski                   |   |
| President and Chief Executive Officer |   |
| May 3, 2007                           |   |

 

A signed original of thiswritten statement required by Section 906 has been provided to The NavigatorsGroup, Inc. and will be retained by The Navigators Group, Inc. and furnished tothe Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

----
**Table 4. SCR Capital Cost Survey Results** Reference Capital, MW ($/kW,

2006 Basis) Observed

($/kW)
Hoskins, 2003 128 (400 MW) 80-160
Cichanowicz, 2004 84 (600-899 MW) to

128 (100-399 MW) 56-185

Marano, 2006 118 (>900) to 167 (<300 MW) Most costs

reported to be within 100-200
ERG 2008 227 207 - 267

Average Low-High Cost ObservationCost Basis: 2002. 15 of 20 reported unit costs exceeded

$100/kW. Weak relationship of unit cost and scale. Cost Basis: 2003. For four categories of generating capacity, the least cost units were among the first

installed. Cost Basis: 2005. “Units with a capacity of 600 to 900 MW appear to be more difficult to retrofit than those in

other size ranges.” Cost Basis: 2007 (http://www.deq.state.or.us/aq/haze/docs/ergMemo.pdf)
#### § 42.11 Referral of complaint and answer to the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ).

Upon receipt of an answer, the reviewing official shall file the complaint and answer with the ALJ.
**Exhibit 32.2**

** **

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANTTO**

**SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of The Navigators Group, Inc.(the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2004 as filed withthe Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,Paul J. Malvasio, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002, that:

 

(1)          TheReport fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)          Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
| /s/ Paul J.  Malvasio         |   |   |
|-------------------------------|--------|--------|
| Paul J.  Malvasio             |
| Executive  Vice President and |
| Chief  Financial Officer      |
| May 6, 2004                   |

 

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 hasbeen provided to The Navigators Group, Inc. and will be retained by TheNavigators Group, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commissionor its staff upon request.

 

1

----
§ 21.9685 Tutorial Assistance. ( a ) An individual who is eligible to receive benefits under 38 U.S.C. chapter 33 may receive additional monetary assistance for tutorial services. VA will pay the individual this assistance if the tutorial assistance is necessary for the eligible individual to complete his or her program of education successfully, and the individual— ( 1 ) Is enrolled in and pursuing a postsecondary program of education at a rate of pursuit of at least 50 percent at an institution of higher learning; and
( 2 ) The professor or other person teaching, leading, or giving the course certifies that— ( i ) Tutorial assistance is essential to correct a deficiency of the individual in such course; and
( ii ) The course is required as part of, or is prerequisite or indispensable to the satisfactory pursuit of, an approved program of education.
( b ) *Limits on tutorial assistance.* ( 1 ) VA will authorize the cost of tutorial assistance in an amount not to exceed $100 per month.
( 2 ) The total amount of all tutorial assistance provided under this section will not exceed $1,200.
(The Office of Management and Budget has approved the information collection provisions in this section under control number 2900-0171) (Authority: 38 U.S.C. 3034(a), 3314, 3323(a), 3492)