alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 99

Financial Measures That Supplement Generally AcceptedAccounting PrinciplesGeneral Electric Capital Services, Inc. and Consolidated Affiliates

 We sometimes use information derived from consolidatedfinancial information but not presented in our financial statements prepared inaccordance with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP).  Certainof these data are considered "non-GAAP financial measures" under SECregulations.  Specifically, we have referred to:

-  net revenues (revenues from services less interest and other financial  charges) of the Commercial Finance and Consumer Finance segments; and delinquency rates on managed financing receivables of the Commercial  Finance and Consumer Finance segments. 
The reasons we use these non-GAAP financial measures and theirreconciliation to their most directly comparable GAAP financial measures follow.
**Net Revenues**
We provided reconciliations of net revenues to reported revenuesfor these segments on pages 15 and 16, respectively. Because net revenues is acommon industry measure of margin, these disclosures enable investors to comparethe results of our businesses with results of others in the same industry.
**Delinquency Rates on Managed Financing Receivables**
Approximate delinquency rates on financing receivables follow.
**CONSUMER FINANCE** **At  
  **6/30/04 **12/31/03 **6/30/03  
 
 
 
Managed
5.58
%
5.57
%
5.81
%
Off-book
4.23
%
4.58
%
4.55
%
On-book
5.73
%
5.67
%
5.97
%              **COMMERCIAL FINANCE** **At  
  **6/30/04 **12/31/03 **6/30/03  
 
 
 
Managed
1.67
%
1.37
%
1.84
%
Off-book
0.27
%
0.72
%
1.13
%
On-book
1.70
%
1.55
%
2.04
%              
We believe that delinquency rates on managed financingreceivables provide a useful perspective of our portfolio quality and are keyindicators of financial performance. Further, investors use such information,including the results of both the on-book and securitized portfolios, which arerelevant to our overall performance.****************
AAM-11-458 September 16, 2011

Exemption No. 9946A Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2009-0769

Mr. Andrew Landis AAVIATION, LLC

115 South Schultz Road Telford, PA 18969

Dear Mr. Landis:

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your petition to extend Exemption No. 9946. It explains the basis for our decision, describes its effect, and lists the conditions

and limitations.

The Basis for Our Decision

By letter dated Septem ber 12, 2011, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on behalf of AAVIATION, LLC (AAVIAT ION) for an extension of Exemption No. 9946. That exemption from part 120 Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations allowsAAVIATION which is operating under separate parts of the regulations, to cover its safetysensitive employees under one testing program.

In your petition, you indicate that there has been no change in the conditions and reasons relative to public interest and safety that were the basis for granting the original exemption.

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition

in the Federal Register because the requested extension of the exemption would not set a precedent, and any delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to AAVIATION.

Our Decision

The FAA has determ ined that the justification for the issuance of Exemption No. 9946 remains valid with respect to this exemption and is in the public interest. Therefore, under the2

authority provided by 49 U.S.C. 40113 and 44701, which the FAA Administrator has delegated to me, I grant your petition, subject to the following conditions and limitations.

Conditions and Limitations

1. Employees of AAVIATION are subject to the drug and alcohol regulations at all times while conducting operations under part 135 or part 91.

2. The drug and alcohol testing program must be implemented under the auspices of the AAVIATION part 135 operation, not under the part 91.

The Effect of Our Decision

Our decision extends the term ination date of Exemption No. 9946 to September 30, 2013, unless sooner superseded or rescinded.

All conditions and limitations of Exemption No. 9946 remain the same. This letter must be attached to, and is a part of, Exemption No. 9946.

Sincerely,

/s/ Frederick E. Tilton, M.D. Federal Air Surgeon
§ 9.4 Administration of fiduciary powers. ( a ) *Responsibilities of the board of directors.* A national bank's fiduciary activities shall be managed by or under the direction of its board of directors. In discharging its responsibilities, the board may assign any function related to the exercise of fiduciary powers to any director, officer, employee, or committee thereof.
( b ) *Use of other personnel.* The national bank may use any qualified personnel and facilities of the bank or its affiliates to perform services related to the exercise of its fiduciary powers, and any department of the bank or its affiliates may use fiduciary officers, employees, and facilities to perform services unrelated to the exercise of fiduciary powers, to the extent not prohibited by applicable law.
( c ) *Agency agreements.* Pursuant to a written agreement, a national bank exercising fiduciary powers may perform services related to the exercise of fiduciary powers for another bank or other entity, and may purchase services related to the exercise of fiduciary powers from another bank or other entity.
( d ) *Bond requirement.* A national bank shall ensure that all fiduciary officers and employees are adequately bonded.
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

October 31, 2005 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice
128746 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices

v SC: 128746 COA: 255581 Monroe CC: 03-033079-FH ROBERTO VELEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, th e application for leave to a ppeal the Apr il 12, 2005 judgment of the Court of Appeals is cons idered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented s hould be reviewed by this Court.

s1024 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.

October 31, 2005

Clerk
Order entered May 15 , 2015

In The 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas** No. 05 - 14 - 01548 - CR No. 05 - 14 - 01549 - CR No. 05 - 14 - 01559 - CR No. 05 - 14 - 01560 - CR No. 05 - 14 - 01561 - CR RONNIE JAMARR CONLEY , Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the County Criminal Court No. 10 Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No s . MA13 - 24802 - L , MA13 - 25397 - L, MA14 - 25147 - L MA14 - 25148 - L, MA14 - 25149 - L 

### O RDER Before Justices Francis, Lang

- Miers, and Whitehill Based on the Court’s opinion of this dat e, we DIRECT the Clerk of this Court to issue the mandates in these appeals INSTANTER

. /s/ ELIZABETH LANG

- MIERS JUSTICE
sourcetypeIDisLeapYear monthID monthVMTFraction

11 N 1 0.073086

11 N 2 0.069713

11 N 3 0.081732

11 N 4 0.082302

11 N 5 0.087503

11 N 6 0.088272

11 N 7 0.092325

11 N 8 0.09343

11 N 9 0.084681

11 N 10 0.086516

11 N 11 0.080228

11 N 12 0.080214

21 N 1 0.073086

21 N 2 0.069713

21 N 3 0.081732

21 N 4 0.082302

21 N 5 0.087503

21 N 6 0.088272

21 N 7 0.092325

21 N 8 0.09343

21 N 9 0.084681

21 N 10 0.086516

21 N 11 0.080228

21 N 12 0.080214

31 N 1 0.073086

31 N 2 0.069713

31 N 3 0.081732

31 N 4 0.082302

31 N 5 0.087503

31 N 6 0.088272

31 N 7 0.092325

31 N 8 0.09343

31 N 9 0.084681

31 N 10 0.086516

31 N 11 0.080228

31 N 12 0.080214

32 N 1 0.073086

32 N 2 0.069713

32 N 3 0.081732

32 N 4 0.082302

32 N 5 0.087503

32 N 6 0.088272

32 N 7 0.092325

32 N 8 0.09343

32 N 9 0.084681

32 N 10 0.086516
32

N 11 0.080228

32N 12 0.080214

41N1 0.073086

41N2 0.069713

41N3 0.081732

41N4 0.082302

41N5 0.087503

41N6 0.088272

41N7 0.092325

41N8 0.09343

41N9 0.084681

41N 10 0.086516

41N 11 0.080228

41N 12 0.080214

42N1 0.073086

42N2 0.069713

42N3 0.081732

42N4 0.082302

42N5 0.087503

42N6 0.088272

42N7 0.092325

42N8 0.09343

42N9 0.084681

42N 10 0.086516

42N 11 0.080228

42N 12 0.080214

43N1 0.073086

43N2 0.069713

43N3 0.081732

43N4 0.082302

43N5 0.087503

43N6 0.088272

43N7 0.092325

43N8 0.09343

43N9 0.084681

43N 10 0.086516

43N 11 0.080228

43N 12 0.080214

51N1 0.073086

51N2 0.069713

51N3 0.081732

51N4 0.082302

51N5 0.087503

51N6 0.088272

51N7 0.092325

51N8 0.09343

51N9 0.084681
51

N 10 0.086516

51N 11 0.080228

51N 12 0.080214

52N1 0.073086

52N2 0.069713

52N3 0.081732

52N4 0.082302

52N5 0.087503

52N6 0.088272

52N7 0.092325

52N8 0.09343

52N9 0.084681

52N 10 0.086516

52N 11 0.080228

52N 12 0.080214

53N1 0.073086

53N2 0.069713

53N3 0.081732

53N4 0.082302

53N5 0.087503

53N6 0.088272

53N7 0.092325

53N8 0.09343

53N9 0.084681

53N 10 0.086516

53N 11 0.080228

53N 12 0.080214

54N1 0.073086

54N2 0.069713

54N3 0.081732

54N4 0.082302

54N5 0.087503

54N6 0.088272

54N7 0.092325

54N8 0.09343

54N9 0.084681

54N 10 0.086516

54N 11 0.080228

54N 12 0.080214

61N1 0.073086

61N2 0.069713

61N3 0.081732

61N4 0.082302

61N5 0.087503

61N6 0.088272

61N7 0.092325

61N8 0.09343
61

N9 0.084681

61N 10 0.086516

61N 11 0.080228

61N 12 0.080214

62N1 0.073086

62N2 0.069713

62N3 0.081732

62N4 0.082302

62N5 0.087503

62N6 0.088272

62N7 0.092325

62N8 0.09343

62N9 0.084681

62N 10 0.086516

62N 11 0.080228

62N 12 0.080214
§ 1261.109 Computation of allowance. ( a ) The amount allowed for damage to or loss of any item of property may not exceed the cost of the item (either the price paid in cash or property, or the value at the time of acquisition if not acquired by purchase or exchange). There will be no allowance for replacement cost or for appreciation in the value of the property. Subject to these limitations, the amount allowable is either: ( 1 ) The depreciated value, immediately prior to the loss or damage of property lost or damaged beyond economical repair, less any salvage value; or
( 2 ) The reasonable cost of repairs, when property is economically repairable: Provided, That the cost of repairs does not exceed the amount allowable under paragraph (a)(1) of this section.
( b ) Depreciation in value is determined by considering the type of article involved, its cost, its condition when damaged or lost, and the time elapsed between the date of acquisition and the date of damage or loss, with appropriate recognition of current replacement value.
( c ) *Limitation on agent or attorney fees.* No more than 10 per centum of the amount paid in settlement of each individual claim submitted and settled shall be paid or delivered to or received by an agent or attorney on account of services rendered in connection with that claim, any contract to the contrary notwithstanding (31 U.S.C. 243).
Exhibit
      32.2




**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO**


**18
      U.S.C. § 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**


**§
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**





In
      connection with the filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission of the
      Quarterly Report of Lakeland Industries, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for
      the period ending July 31, 2007 (the “Report”), I, Gary Pokrassa, Chief
      Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as
      adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of
      my knowledge:





(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.








September
                6, 2007
            /s/Gary
                PokrassaGary
                Pokrassa,Chief
                Financial Officer


30
§ 1216.307 Programmatic documents and tiering. ( a ) For actions that require EAs or EISs, NASA encourages programmatic-level analysis for actions that are similar in nature, broad in scope, or likely to have similar environmental effects. Programmatic NEPA analyses may take place in the form of an EA or EIS.
( b ) Tiering from previously prepared EISs or EAs is appropriate when it would eliminate repetitive discussions of the same issues and exclude from consideration issues already decided. Tiering from a programmatic-level NEPA document is appropriate for site- or project-specific actions that are included within the scope of the programmatic-level analysis.
[89 FR 25502, Apr. 11, 2024]
EXHIBIT B

Additional Interested Parties or Their Affiliates Which Paul Hastings Represents

or Has Represented in the Past in Matters Unrelated to the Title III Cases

Additional Interested Parties Relationship to 

Debtors

Clients & Their Affiliates

Bank of New York Mellon 

Corp.

Additional Interested 

Parties from HTA’s List 

of Creditors

Related entities are current clients.

Claro Telephone Company Additional Interested 

Parties from HTA’s List 

of Creditors

Not a client. Entities related to 

parent are former clients.

DMJM Harris Inc. Additional Interested 

Parties from HTA’s List 

of Creditors

Not a client. Entities related to 

parent are current clients.

Freepoint Commodities LLC Additional Interested 

Parties from PREPA’s 

List of Creditors

Not a client. Parent and related 

entities are current clients.

Gas Natural 

Aprovisionamientos SDG S.A.

Additional Interested 

Parties from PREPA’s 

List of Creditors

Not a client. Entity related to parent

is a current client.

MHPS Puerto Rico LLC Additional Interested 

Parties from PREPA’s 

List of Creditors

Not a client. Parent and related 

entities are former clients.

Scotiabank De Puerto Rico Additional Interested 

Parties from PREPA’s 

List of Creditors

Not a client. Entity related to parent

is a current client.

KDC Solar LLC Parties Filing Notice of 

Appearance

Former client.

Silver Point Capital, L.P. Parties Filing Notice of 

Appearance

Current client. Related entities are 

current clients.

FTI Consulting, Inc. Professionals Former client. Related entities are

former clients.

McKinsey & Company, Inc. Professionals Current client.

Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP Professionals Current client.

Siemens Corporation Other Not a client. Entities related to 

parent are former clients. 

Sonnedix Solar L.P. Other Current client. Related entity is also 

a current client.

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:2485-2 Filed:02/13/18 Entered:02/13/18 12:09:29 Desc:

Exhibit B Page 1 of 1
# Official Journal C 83/2010

| | ISSN 1725-2423
  doi:10.3000/17252423.C_2010.083.eng |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 83 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 5330 March 2010 |

ISSN 1725-2423

doi:10.3000/17252423.C_2010.083.eng

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 83

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 5330 March 2010

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | |
| 2010/C 083/01 | Consolidated versions of the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union | 1 |
| Consolidated version of the Treaty on European Union | 13 |
| Consolidated version of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union | 47 |
| Protocols | 201 |
| Annexes | 329 |
| Declarations annexed to the Final Act of the Intergovernmental Conference which adopted the Treaty of Lisbon | 335 |
| Tables of equivalences | 361 |
| 2010/C 083/02 | Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union | 389 |
| 2010/C 083/03 | Note to the reader (see page 2 of the cover) | s2 |

Notice No

Contents

page

2010/C 083/01

Consolidated versions of the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union

Consolidated versions of the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union

1

Consolidated version of the Treaty on European Union

13

Consolidated version of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union

47

Protocols

201

Annexes

329

Declarations annexed to the Final Act of the Intergovernmental Conference which adopted the Treaty of Lisbon

335

Tables of equivalences

361

2010/C 083/02

Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union

Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union

389

2010/C 083/03

Note to the reader (see page 2 of the cover)

Note to the reader

s2

---

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
<PAGE>   1




                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.2


                                J2 COMMUNICATIONS
                        10850 WILSHIRE BLVD., SUITE 1000
                          LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90024





March 5, 2001





Mr. Daniel S. Laikin
25 West 9th Street
Indianapolis, Indiana 46204

Mr. Paul J. Skjodt
9920 Towne Road
Carmel, Indiana 46032

Gentlemen:

     Pursuant to Section 13 of the Letter Agreement, dated the date hereof,
among yourselves, the undersigned and James P. Jimirro, the undersigned hereby
consents to your purchase of up to 67,700 shares of the undersigned's common
stock, no par value.

     You are hereby reminded that the United States securities laws prohibit any
person who is in possession of material, non-public information concerning an
issuer from purchasing or selling securities of such issuer. You are advised to
seek legal counsel prior to any purchase of the undersigned's common stock.



                                             J2 Communications


                                             By: /s/Christopher M. Trunkey
                                             ---------------------------------
                                             Name: Christopher M. Trunkey
                                             Title: VP/CFO


                                       1
§ 155.3 Applicable law. ( a ) Section 4 of the Act of October 1, 1949 (63 Stat. 700) authorizes the Administrator to grant the releases described in § 155.1, if he determines that— ( 1 ) The property to which the release relates no longer serves the purpose for which it was made subject to the terms, conditions, reservations, or restrictions concerned; or
( 2 ) The release will not prevent accomplishing the purpose for which the property was made subject to the terms, conditions, reservations, or restrictions, and is necessary to protect or advance the interests of the United States in civil aviation. In addition, section 4 of that Act authorizes the Administrator to grant the releases subject to terms and conditions that he considers necessary to protect or advance the interests of the United States in civil aviation.
( b ) Section 2 of the Act of October 1, 1949 (63 Stat. 700) provides that the restrictions against using structures for industrial purposes in any instrument of disposal issued under section 13(g)(2)(A) of the Surplus Property Act of 1944, as amended (61 Stat. 678) are considered to be extinguished. In addition, section 2 authorizes the Administrator to issue any instruments of release or conveyance necessary to remove, of record, such a restriction, without monetary consideration to the United States.
( c ) Section 68 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2098) releases, remises, and quitclaims, to persons entitled thereto, all reserved rights of the United States in radioactive minerals in instruments of disposal of public or acquired lands. In addition, section 3 of the Act of October 1, 1949 (50 U.S.C. App. 1622b) authorizes the Administrator to issue instruments that he considers necessary to correct any instrument of disposal by which surplus property was transferred to a non-Federal public agency for airport purposes or to conform the transfer to the requirements of applicable law. Based on the laws cited in this paragraph, the Administrator issues appropriate instruments of correction upon the written request of persons entitled to ownership, occupancy, or use of the lands concerned.
#### Falender et al. v. Atkins et al.

[No. 21,659.

Filed March 15, 1911.

Rehearing denied November 20, 1912.]

1. *Appeal.—Record.—Matters Not Apparent from Record.—Ruling on Demurrer.—No Question*Presented.—Where the only error assigned is on the ruling of the court in sustaining a demurrer to the complaint, and a search of the record discloses no ruling sustaining such demurrer and no exception by appellant to same, no question is presented and the judgment will be affirmed, p. 477.

From Superior Court of Marion County (76,142) ; *Clarence E. Weir,*Judge.

Action by Samuel Falender and others against Henry C. Atkins and others. From a judgment for defendants, the plaintiffs appeal.

*Affirmed.*

*Merrill Moores*and *Walter Myers,*for appellants.

*Ferdinand Winter, John C. Ruckelshaus*and *Michael A. Ryan,*for appellees.

Cox, J.

Appellants sued the city of Indianapolis, Henry C. Atkins, Merritt A. Potter and Thomas R. Kackley for damages to real estate alleged to have resulted from the vacation of a street in a part of the block in which appel*477lants’ property was situated, and the subsequent closing of it by defendants, other than the city, who owned the fee thereof as abutters, which closing left appellants’ property in a *cul de sac.*Defendants demurred separately to the amended complaint for want of facts. Appellants dismissed as to the city and Kackley, and appeal from a judgment against them for costs, assigning as error that “the court erred in sustaining the demurrers of the defendants, Henry O. Atkins and Merritt A. Potter to the amended complaint. ’ ’

1. The record shows that the demurrers of the city and of Kackley were sustained, and that appellants dismissed as to them, but a search of the record fails to disclose any ruling of the lower court on the demurrers of Atkins and Potter, or any exceptions thereto taken by appellants. The absence from the record of any rulings sustaining these demurrers, and a like absence of exceptions taken by appellants to such rulings, make a record which presents no question for the consideration of this court and requires an affirmance of the judgment of the lower court. *Rittenhause*v. *Knoop*(1894), 9 Ind. App. 126, 36 N. E. 384; *Hollis*v. *Roberts*(1900), 25 Ind. App. 426, 58 N. E. 502; *Hamilton*v. *Goddard*(1890), 125 Ind. 600, 25 N. E. 543; *Smith*v. *Borden*(1903), 160 Ind. 223, 66 N. E. 681.

Judgment affirmed.

Note.—Reported in 94 N. E. 323. See, also, 3 Cyc. 176.