alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
|     |   | Scheduled |       | Actual    |   |        |   |
|----------|--------|-----------|------------|-----------|--------|-------------|--------|
| Payment  |   | Principal |       | Principal |   | Outstanding |   |
| Date     |   | Payment   |       | Payment   |   | Balance     |   |
|     |   |      |       |      |   |        |   |
| 06/07/04 |   |      |       |      |   |        |   | $ | 789,777,000 |   |
| 11/15/04 |   | $         | 9,497,122  |      | $      | 9,497,122   |   | $ | 780,279,878 |   |
| 05/15/05 |   | $         | 24,931,710 |      | $      | 24,931,710  |   | $ | 755,348,168 |   |
| 11/15/05 |   | $         | 29,612,875 |      | $      | 29,612,875  |   | $ | 725,735,293 |   |
| 05/15/06 |   | $         | 26,001,686 |      | $      | 26,001,686  |   | $ | 699,733,607 |   |
| 11/15/06 |   | $         | 30,518,702 |      | $      | 30,518,702  |   | $ | 669,214,905 |   |
| 05/15/07 |   | $         | 27,068,916 |      |   |        |   |   |   |   |
| 11/15/07 |   | $         | 31,965,647 |      |   |        |   |   |   |   |
| 05/15/08 |   | $         | 28,029,697 |      |   |        |   |   |   |   |
| 11/15/08 |   | $         | 32,379,952 |      |   |        |   |   |   |   |
| 05/15/09 |   | $         | 28,670,797 |      |   |        |   |   |   |   |
| 11/15/09 |   | $         | 34,010,045 |      |   |        |   |   |   |   |
| 05/15/10 |   | $         | 29,909,541 |      |   |        |   |   |   |   |
| 11/15/10 |   | $         | 35,653,605 |      |   |        |   |   |   |   |
| 05/15/11 |   | $         | 31,484,179 |      |   |        |   |   |   |   |
| 11/15/11 |   | $         | 37,278,430 |      |   |        |   |   |   |   |
| 05/15/12 |   | $         | 33,135,283 |      |   |        |   |   |   |   |
| 11/15/12 |   | $         | 38,933,171 |      |   |        |   |   |   |   |
| 05/15/13 |   | $         | 34,894,486 |      |   |        |   |   |   |   |
| 11/15/13 |   | $         | 40,843,190 |      |   |        |   |   |   |   |
| 05/15/14 |   | $         | 36,895,349 |      |   |        |   |   |   |   |
| 11/15/14 |   | $         | 42,915,221 |      |   |        |   |   |   |   |
| 05/15/15 |   | $         | 39,006,143 |      |   |        |   |   |   |   |
| 11/15/15 |   | $         | 45,007,615 |      |   |        |   |   |   |   |
| 05/15/16 |   | $         | 41,133,638 |      |   |        |   |   |   |   |
|     |   |      |       |      |   |        |   |   |   |   |
**Exhibit 99(c)**

**QUARTERLY AFFIRMATION STATEMENT**

This Quarterly Statement is being provided pursuant to therequirement of Section 3.07(h)VIII of that certain Indenture dated as of August 21, 2003 between TXU Electric Delivery Transition Bond Company LLC (the “Transition Bond Company”), as Issuer, and The Bank of New York, as IndentureTrustee, (as originally executed and, as from time to time supplemented or amended by one or more Series Supplements or indentures supplemental thereto entered into pursuant to the applicable provisions of the Indenture, as so supplemented oramended, or both, the “Indenture”). Capitalized terms used herein and not otherwise defined herein, shall have the meaning ascribed to such term in Appendix A of the Indenture. 

I, John M. Casey, hereby certify that I am the Assistant Treasurer of TXU Electric Delivery Company (“TXUED”), the parent company of theTransition Bond Company, and the servicer of the transition bonds under that certain Series 2003-1 Transition Property Servicing Agreement, dated as of August 21, 2003 and that certain Series 2004-1 Transition Property Servicing Agreement datedas of June 7, 2004 between the Transition Bond Company and TXUED. 

I hereby affirm that, in all material respects, for each materiallysignificant REP for which TXUED provided electric delivery transmission and distribution services for the quarterly period ending December 31, 2005, (a) each REP has been billed in compliance with the requirements outlined in the FinancingOrder; (b) each REP has made payments in compliance with the requirements outlined in the Financing Order; and (c) each REP satisfies the creditworthiness requirements of the Financing Order.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

ANDREW BRADICK,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

GRUMMAN DATA SYSTEMS

CORPORATION, No. 95-2636

Defendant-Appellee,

and

NORTHROP GRUMMAN CORPORATION,

Defendant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria.

Claude M. Hilton, District Judge.

(CA-95-620)

Argued: September 23, 1996

Decided: June 27, 1997

Before HALL, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Reversed and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

ARGUED: John Michael Bredehoft, CHARLSON & BREDEHOFT,

P.C., Reston, Virginia, for Appellant. James Joseph Kelley, II, MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS, L.L.P., Washington, D.C., for Appellee.
ON BRIEF: Elaine C. Bredehoft, Linda M. Jackson, CHARLSON &

BREDEHOFT, P.C., Reston, Virginia, for Appellant. Nancy R. Kuhn,

Fred B. Jacob, MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS, L.L.P., Washington, D.C., for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Andrew Bradick alleges that his former employer, Grumman Data

Systems, discharged him in violation of the common law of Virginia.

The district court granted judgment on the pleadings to the employer.

On Bradick's appeal, we certified the following question of law to the

Supreme Court of Virginia:

 Does the common law of Virginia provide a wrongful discharge remedy to an employee of an employer covered by

the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 701 et seq.,

where the employee is discharged on account of his disability or the employer's perception of his disability?

The Supreme Court of Virginia, in its discretion, accepted the certified question, and, on June 6, 1997, the Court answered it in the affirmative. Consequently, we now reverse the judgment of the district

court for the reasons given by the Virginia Supreme Court in its opinion. Bradick v. Grumman Data Systems Corp., ___ Va. ___, ___

S.E.2d ___ (1997) (No. 962531). The case is remanded for such further proceedings as may be necessary.

REVERSED AND REMANDED

 2
*Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

May 17, 2007

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________

No. 06-40278

Conference Calendar

_____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

ELIAS RIVERA-ALVAREZ,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

(05-CR-459)

ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Before JOLLY, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

This court previously affirmed the conviction and sentence of

the Appellant, Elias Rivera-Alvarez (“Rivera”). United States v.

Rivera-Alvarez, 202 Fed.Appx. 830 (5th Cir. 2006). The Supreme

Court vacated and remanded the case for reconsideration in the

light of Lopez v. Gonzales, 127 S.Ct. 625 (2006). Ochoa-Perez v.

United States, 127 S.Ct. 1263 (2007). Following the Supreme
2

Court’s remand, we requested and received supplemental letter

briefs from both parties with respect to the impact of Lopez.

In the light of Lopez, the district court erred by enhancing

Rivera’s sentence based on his Texas conviction for possession of

cocaine. Because Rivera has completed service of his term of

imprisonment and was released by the Bureau of Prisons on August

31, 2006, any argument that the sentence of imprisonment should be

reduced is moot and the only portion of the sentence remaining for

consideration is Rivera’s term of supervised release.

However, as both parties noted in their supplemental letter

briefs, Rivera presumably has been deported. In order to

resentence him and reduce his term of supervised release, Federal

Rule of Criminal Procedure 43 requires the defendant to be present

and have the opportunity to allocute. Because Rivera has been

deported and is legally unable, without permission of the Attorney

General, to reenter the United States to be present for a

resentencing proceeding, there is no relief we are able to grant

Rivera and his appeal is moot. See United States v. RosenbaumAlanis, No. 05-41400, 2007 WL 926832 (5th Cir. March 29, 2007).

Rivera asserts that Rosenbaum-Alanis was wrongly decided, and

wishes to preserve the issue for further review. Nevertheless, for

purposes of this appeal, it remains binding precedent.

Accordingly, the appeal is

DISMISSED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          NOV-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               NOV-30-1998
<CASH>                                          34,677
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   27,336
<ALLOWANCES>                                     3,533
<INVENTORY>                                  1,198,553
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,257,033
<PP&E>                                          25,901
<DEPRECIATION>                                  11,300
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,917,834
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          355,707
<BONDS>                                        798,838
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         5,815
<OTHER-SE>                                     709,850
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,917,834
<SALES>                                      2,089,762
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,416,865
<CGS>                                        1,641,741
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,711,020
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               418,103
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              47,628
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                240,114
<INCOME-TAX>                                    96,046
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            144,068
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   144,068
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     2.59<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.49
<FN>
<F1>Represents basic EPS in accordance with SFAS 128.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
Editorial Note on Part 149
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 149 appear by USCG-2010-0351, 75 FR 36284, June 25, 2010.

§ 149.694 What are the requirements for catwalks, floors, and openings? ( a ) The configuration and installation of catwalks, floors, and openings must comply with § 143.110 of this chapter.
( b ) This section does not apply to catwalks, floors, deck areas, or openings in areas not normally occupied by personnel or on helicopter landing decks.
Catfish Processing Agricultural Statistics Board

March 1999 2 NASS, USDA
C


Catfish Processing Agricultural Statistics Board

March 1999 6 NASS, USDA

The next “Catfish Processing ” report will be released at 3:00 p.m. ET on April 22, 1999.

The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on

the basis of race, color, national origin, gender, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, and

marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require
**EXHIBIT 15.1**

 

November 1, 2010

 

Alexander’s, Inc.

210 Route 4 East

Paramus, New Jersey 07652

 

We have reviewed, in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States), the unaudited interim financial information of Alexander’s, Inc. and subsidiaries for the nine-month periods ended September 30, 2010 and 2009, and issued our report dated November 1, 2010.  As indicated in such report, because we did not perform an audit, we expressed no opinion on that information.

We are aware that our report referred to above, which was included in your Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2010, is incorporated by reference in the following registration statements of Alexander’s, Inc.:

 

Registration Statement No. 333-151721 on Form S-8

Amendment No. 1 to Registration Statement No. 33-155727 on Form S-3

 

We also are aware that the aforementioned report, pursuant to Rule 436(c) under the Securities Act of 1933, is not considered a part of the Registration Statement prepared or certified by an accountant or a report prepared or certified by an accountant within the meaning of Sections 7 and 11 of that Act.

 

/s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

Parsippany, New Jersey

 

----
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18
- 1096

STARSHA M. SEWELL, M.Ed. , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. STRAYER UNIVERSITY; ROBERT SILBERMAN; KARL MCDONNELL , Defendants

- Appellees

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland , at Greenbelt

. Paul W. Grimm , District Judge. ( 8:16

- cv
- 00159

- PWG )

Submitted : May 15, 2018 Decided: May 17, 2018

Before DUNCAN, DIAZ, and THACKER , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Starsha M. Sewell, Appellant Pro Se. John Byron Flood, OGLETREE DEAKINS NASH SMOAK & STEWART, PC, Washington, D.C., for Appellee s
.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
Starsha M. Sewell appeals the district court’s order striking her motion for reconsideration of her Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion and directing that the motion for
reconsideration be stricken from the district court’s docket. On appeal, we co nfine our review to the issues raised in the Appellant’s brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because
Sewell ’ s informal brief does not challenge the basis for the district court’s disposition,
Sewell has forfeited appellate review of the court’s order. See Jac kson v. Lightsey , 775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir. 2014) (“The informal brief is an important document; under Fourth Circuit rules, our review is limited to issues preserved in that brief.”)

. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. We dispense w ith oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
FORM OF CERTIFICATION
                       PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14 AND 15d-14
              UNDER THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934, AS AMENDED

                                  CERTIFICATION

I, Dave Neville, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of FinancialContent, Inc.;

2.  Based on my  knowledge,  this  annual  report  does not  contain  any untrue
statement of 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,  the  financial  statements,  and  other  financial
information  included  in this annual  report,  fairly  present in all  material
respects the financial  condition,  results of operations  and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this annual report;

4. As the registrant's  certifying officer I am responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules
13a-14 and 15(e) and 15d-15(e) for the registrant and I have:

     (a)  designed  such  disclosure  controls  and  procedures  to ensure  that
     material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
     subsidiaries,  is  made  known  to  us by  others  within  those  entities,
     particularly  during  the  period  in which  this  annual  report  is being
     prepared; and

     (b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
     procedures  and presented my  conclusions  about the  effectiveness  of the
     disclosure  controls and  procedures as of the end of the period covered by
     the report; and

     (c)  disclosed  in this  report any  changes in the  registrant's  internal
     control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most
     recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer's fourth fiscal quarter in
     the case of an  quarterly  report)  that  has  materially  affected,  or is
     reasonably likely to materially affect,  the registrant's  internal control
     over financial reporting;

5. As the  registrant's  certifying  officer I have disclosed,  based on my most
recent  evaluation,  to the registrant's  auditors and the registrant's board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

     (a) all material  weaknesses,  as well as significant  deficiencies  in the
     design or operation of internal control over financial  reporting which are
     reasonably  likely to adversely affect the registrant's  ability to record,
     process, summarize, and report financial information,  have been disclosed;
     and

     (b) any fraud,  whether or not material,  that involves management or other
     employees  who  have  a  significant  role  in  the  registrant's  internal
     controls.


Date: May 15, 2007


/s/ DAVE NEVILLE
------------------------------
Dave Neville
Chief Financial Officer
Editorial Note on Part 157
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 157 appear by USCG-2008-0179, 73 FR 35015, June 19, 2008.

§ 157.29 Discharges: Seagoing tank vessels of 150 gross tons or more. Unless a seagoing tank vessel of 150 gross tons or more discharges an oily mixture in compliance with the requirements in § 157.37, § 157.39, or § 157.43, the vessel must: ( a ) Retain the mixture; or
( b ) Transfer the mixture to a reception facility.
###### Editorial Note on Part 117

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 117 appear by USCG-1998-3799, 63 FR 35529, June 30, 1998.

#### § 117.881 John Day River.

The draw of the Portland and Western railroad bridge, mile 0.0 near Astoria, shall open on signal if at least one hour notice is given. However, the draw shall open promptly on signal from four hours before to four hours after each day's authorized commercial fishing period established by the Columbia River Compact (Washington State Department of Fisheries and the Fish Commission of Oregon) for the Columbia River Fishery below Bonneville Dam.

[CGD 82-025, 49 FR 17452, Apr. 24, 1984, as amended by CGD13 91-07, 56 FR 67528, Dec. 31, 1991; USCG-2000-7223, 65 FR 40056, June 29, 2000; USCG-2001-10881, 71 FR 70312, Dec. 4, 2006]
III 

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. RES. 619 

Expressing support for a constructive dialogue on human rights issues 

between the United States and Bahrain. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 22, 2008 

Mr. SESSIONS (for himself and Mr. COLEMAN) submitted the following 

resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations 

RESOLUTION 

Expressing support for a constructive dialogue on human 

rights issues between the United States and Bahrain. 

Whereas Bahrain is a friend of the United States and a critical partner in the war on terrorism, as demonstrated by 

Bahrain’s designation as a major ally outside of the 

North Atlantic Treaty Organization, the completion of 

the United States-Bahrain Free Trade Agreement in 

2006, and the continued presence of United States forces 

in Bahrain; 

Whereas the strategic relationship between the United States 

and Bahrain should not prevent the United States from 

speaking honestly to the Government of Bahrain about 

concerns regarding human rights issues in a mutually respectful dialogue; and 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
2 

•SRES 619 IS 

Whereas numerous reports, including the Department of 

State’s 2007 Country Report on Human Rights Practices 

in Bahrain, detail potential shortcomings by the Government of Bahrain in the areas of human rights and democracy, including— 

(1) the use of torture and undue force against political activists; 

(2) systematic discrimination by the Sunni government against the Shi’a majority, including forbidding 

Shi’a from joining the military and discriminating 

against Shi’a in public sector employment; 

(3) the denial, in practice, of the right to a fair trial; 

and 

(4) gerrymandering of political districts in order to 

support favored candidates: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the Senate— 

2 (1) supports a constructive dialogue on human 

3 rights issues as an integral part of the bilateral 

4 agenda between the United States and Bahrain; 

5 (2) expresses support for efforts to promote 

6 human rights, democracy, and the rule of law in 

7 Bahrain; and 

8 (3) calls upon the President and the Secretary 

9 of State to aid in those efforts. 

Æ 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
#### § 161.40 Vessel Traffic Service Berwick Bay.

(a) The VTS area consists of the navigable waters of the following segments of waterways: the Intracoastal Waterway (ICW) Morgan City to Port Allen Alternate Route from Mile Marker 0 to Mile Marker 5; the ICW from Mile Marker 93 west of Harvey Lock (WHL) to Mile Marker 102 WHL; the Atchafalaya River Route from Mile Marker 113 to Mile Marker 122; from Bayou Shaffer Junction (ICW Mile Marker 94.5 WHL) south one statute mile along Bayou Shaffer; and from Berwick Lock northwest one statute mile along the Lower Atchafalaya River.

(b) *VTS Special Area.* The Berwick Bay VTS Special Area consists of those waters within a 1000 yard radius of the Burlington Northern/Santa Fe Railroad Bridge located at Mile .03 MC/PA.

(c) *Reporting Points.*

Table [161.40](/on/2024-09-19/title-33/section-161.40)(c)—VTS Berwick Bay Reporting Points

| Designator | Geographic name | Geographic description | Latitude/longitude | Notes |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 1 | Stouts Pass | Stouts Point Light “1” Mile 113-Atchafalaya River | 29°43′47′′ N 91°13′25′′ W | |
| 2 | Berwick Lock | Mile 1.9 MC/PA | 29°43′10′′ N 91°13′28′′ W | If transiting the Lock. |
| 3 | Conrad's Point Junction | Buoy “1” Mile 1.5 MC/PA | 29°42′32′′ N 91°13′14′′ W | |
| 4 | Swift Ships Flat Lake Junction | Mile 3 MC/PA | 29°43′26′′ N 91°12′22′′ W | |
| 5 | Burlington Northern/Santa Fe Railroad Bridge | Mile 0.3 MC/PA | 29°41′34′′ N 91°12′44′′ W | |
| 6 | 20 Grant Point Junction | Bayou Boeuf-Atchafalaya R. Mile 95.5 ICW | 29°41′18′′ N 91°12′36′′ W | |
| 7 | ICW | Overhead Power Cable Mile 96.5 ICW | 29°40′43′′ N 91°13′18′′ W | |
| 8 | Wax Bayou Junction | Light “A” Mile 98.2W ICW | 29°39′29′′ N 91°14′46′′ W | |
| 9 | Shaffer Junction | ICW-Bayou Shaffer Mile 94.5 ICW | 29°41′10′′ N 91°11′38′′ W | |

[CGD 90-020, [59 FR 36324](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/59-FR-36324), July 15, 1994, as amended by CGD 95-033, [60 FR 28332](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/60-FR-28332), May 31, 1995; USCG-1998-3799, [63 FR 35531](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/63-FR-35531), June 30, 1998; USCG-2009-0416, [74 FR 27441](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/74-FR-27441), June 10, 2009]