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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from
American Financial Corporation 10-Q for the three months ended
March 31, 1997 and is qualified in its entirety by reference to
such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                        $404,801
<SECURITIES>                                10,668,133<F1>
<RECEIVABLES>                                  638,718
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              15,173,046
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                        523,062
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            9,625
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       162,760
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,275,372
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                15,173,046
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               945,627
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                77,187
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              23,611
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 98,211
<INCOME-TAX>                                    36,221
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             61,990
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                   (55)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   $61,935
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0<F2>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0<F2>
<FN>
<F1>Includes an investment in investees of $213 million.
<F2>Not applicable since all common shares are owned by American
Financial Group.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
December 28, 2022

David Warrington

Dhillon Law Group Inc.

2000 Duke Street, Suite 300

Alexandria, VA 22314

Dear Mr. Warrington:

In my capacity as Chairman of the House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th 

Attack on the U.S. Capitol (the “Select Committee”), I issued a subpoena to your client, former 

President Donald J. Trump, on October 21, 2022, regarding various records and deposition 

testimony.

As you may know, the Select Committee has concluded its hearings, released its final

report and will very soon reach its end. In light of the imminent end of our investigation, the Select 

Committee can no longer pursue the specific information covered by the subpoena. 

Therefore, through this letter, I hereby formally withdraw the subpoena issued to former 

President Trump, and notify you that he is no longer obligated to comply or produce records in 

response to said subpoena.

We appreciate your engagement with the Select Committee on this matter.

Sincerely,

Bennie G. Thompson 

Chairman

Case 9:22-cv-81758-RAR Document 8-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/30/2022 Page 1 of 1
#### § 102-74.115 What standard in providing asset services must Executive agencies follow?

Executive agencies must provide asset services that maintain continuity of Government operations, continue efficient building operations, extend the useful life of buildings and related building systems, and provide a quality workplace environment that enhances employee productivity.
<PAGE>   1
EXHIBIT NO. 99: CAUTIONARY STATEMENT FOR PURPOSES OF THE "SAFE HARBOR"
PROVISIONS OF THE PRIVATE SECURITIES LITIGATION REFORM ACT OF 1995

Written or oral statements made by Alcan or its representatives, including
statements set forth in Alcan's Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2001,
which describe the Company's or management's objectives, projections, estimates,
expectations or predictions of the future may be "forward-looking statements"
within the meaning of the United States Private Securities Litigation Reform Act
of 1995, which can be identified by the use of forward-looking terminology such
as "believes," "expects," "may," "will," "should," "estimates," "anticipates" or
the negative thereof or other variations thereon. The Company cautions that, by
their nature, forward-looking statements involve risk and uncertainty and that
the Company's actual results could differ materially from those expressed or
implied in such forward-looking statements or could affect the extent to which a
particular projection is realized.

Important factors which could cause the Company's actual performance to differ
materially from projections or expectations included in forward-looking
statements include global aluminum supply and demand conditions, aluminum ingot
prices and changes in other raw materials costs and availability, cyclical
demand and pricing within the principal markets for the Company's products,
changes in government regulations, particularly those affecting environmental,
health or safety compliance, economic developments and other factors within the
countries in which the Company operates or sells its products and other factors
relating to the Company's ongoing operations including, but not limited to,
litigation, labour negotiations and fiscal regimes.

Copies of the Company's filings may be obtained by contacting the Company or the
United States Securities and Exchange Commission.

                                       21
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5331 Engrossed in House (EH)]

  2d Session

                               H. R. 5331

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

   To authorize the Frederick Douglass Gardens, Inc., to establish a 
    memorial and gardens on Department of the Interior lands in the 
  District of Columbia or its environs in honor and commemoration of 
                          Frederick Douglass.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
106th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5331

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
   To authorize the Frederick Douglass Gardens, Inc., to establish a 
    memorial and gardens on Department of the Interior lands in the 
  District of Columbia or its environs in honor and commemoration of 
                          Frederick Douglass.

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

SECTION 1. MEMORIAL AND GARDENS TO HONOR AND COMMEMORATE FREDERICK 
              DOUGLASS.

    (a) Memorial and Gardens Authorized.--The Frederick Douglass 
Gardens, Inc., is authorized to establish a memorial and gardens on 
lands under the administrative jurisdiction of the Secretary of the 
Interior in the District of Columbia or its environs in honor and 
commemoration of Frederick Douglass.
    (b) Compliance With Standards for Commemorative Works.--The 
establishment of the Frederick Douglass memorial and gardens shall be 
in accordance with the Commemorative Works Act (40 U.S.C. 1001 et 
seq.).
    (c) Payment of Expenses.--The Frederick Douglass Gardens, Inc., 
shall be solely responsible for acceptance of contributions for, and 
payment of the expenses of, the establishment of the memorial and 
gardens. No Federal funds may be used to pay any expense of the 
establishment of the memorial and gardens.
    (d) Deposit of Excess Funds.--If, upon payment of all expenses of 
the establishment of the memorial and gardens (including the 
maintenance and preservation amount required under section 8(b) of the 
Commemorative Works Act (40 U.S.C. 1008(b)), or upon expiration of the 
authority for the memorial and gardens under section 10(b) of such Act 
(40 U.S.C. 1010(b)), there remains a balance of funds received for the 
establishment of the memorial and gardens, Frederick Douglass Gardens, 
Inc., shall transmit the amount of the balance to the Secretary of the 
Treasury for deposit in the account provided for in section 8(b)(1) of 
such Act (40 U.S.C. 1008(b)(1)).

            Passed the House of Representatives October 3, 2000.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
```
#### JOHN STOTHERS, EXECUTOR UNDER THE LAST WILD AND TESTAMENT OF CATHERINE STEVENSON, ALSO KNOWN AS CATHERINE FLIEGER, PLAINTIFF, v. ALICE FLIEGER, WIDOW OF CHARLES FLIEGER, EDNA SCHADE, PHYLLIS COURTENAY AND MARY FLIEGER, HEIRS-AT-LAW OF CHARLES FLIEGER, DEFENDANTS.

Superior Court of New Jersey Chancery Division

Decided May 3, 1951.

*380
      *Mr. John*Stothers, attorney for plaintiff.

*Messrs. Ward &*Friedman, attorneys for defendants.

Gkimshaw, J. S. 0.

The parties to this action join in-seeking a construction of the will of Catherine Stevenson,. *381also known as Catherine Elieger, who died on March 14-, 1950. The will was admitted to probate by the Surrogate of the County of Bergen on June 13, 1950. It provided, among other things, as follows:

> “THIRD:—All the rest, residue and remainder of my estate, real, personal or mixed, whatsoever and wheresoever situate, including any power of appointment or disposition that I may have or acquire, I give, devise, and bequeath to my husband, CHARLES ELTEGER.”

The question posed for determination by the court is what, if anything, passed to Charles Flieger under the residuary clause of Catherine Stevenson’s will, quoted above.

The facts which occasioned the doubt are as follows: On March 12, 1935, Catherine Stevenson went through a marriage ceremony with Charles Flieger. Thereafter they lived as husband and wife until her death. At the time of the ceremony Flieger had a wife from whom he had not been divorced and to whom he remained married until his death on April 24, 1950, some five weeks after the death of Catherine Stevenson. The legal wife and children of Charles Flieger are the defendants in this litigation. So far as the record shows, Catherine Stevenson, also known as Catherine Flieger, left no next of kin or heirs at law.

Ordinarily where a bequest or devise is made to a named beneficiary who is, additionally, referred to as “my husband,” the quoted words are considered to be mere words of description and the beneficiary takes, even though at the time of the death of the testatrix he was not, in fact, her husband. *Murphy v. Markis,*98 *N. J. Eq.*153 *(Ch.*1925), affirmed 99 *N. J. Eq.*888 *(E. & A.*1926). And the same result follows in spite of the fact that the parties were never legally married, provided that there is no showing of fraudulent concealment of the prior marriage. *In re Dries’ Will,*69 *N. J. Eq.*415 *(Prerog.*1903).

There is no proof that Charles Flieger fraudulently concealed his prior marriage. In fact, in the stipulation of facts there is a copy of a proposed will drawn by Flieger after the *382death of Catherine Stevenson, the language of which tends to indicate that Elieger believed that he was legally married to Catherine Stevenson and had been divorced from his first wife.

I am of the opinion that at the time of. the making of her will, Catherine Stevenson intended to and did devise her entire estate to Charles Elieger and that the words “my husband” were mere words of description.

Judgment accordingly.
Case 1:22-cv-23753-KMM Document 80 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/03/2023 Page 1 of 1
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title: Research& development highlights...**
 
1999 | 2001
 
SuDoc Number:A 13.42/2:H 53/
Item Number:0079-A (online)
CGP systemNumber:001062224
 
June 25, 2018
Rockingham

No. 79-004

#### Pauline M. Goudreault v. Rudolph A. Goudreault

March 5, 1980

*Dalton, Dalton & Bryden,*of Andover, Massachusetts *(Charles F. Dalton, Jr.,*orally), for the plaintiff.

*Shute, Engel & Frasier P.A.,*of Exeter *(Francis J. Frasier*orally), for the defendant.

Memorandum Opinion

The Superior Court *(Contas,*J.) transferred the question of reasonableness of a divorce decree. The defendant objects to the division of property and provisions for support and maintenance recommended by the Master *(Nicholas G. Copadis,*Esq.) and approved by *Mullavey, J.*

 Matters of property division and alimony are for the trial court to determine in the exercise of its sound discretion. “Appeals to this court will not be successful absent a showing that there has been an abuse of discretion.” (Citations omitted.) *Symmes v. Symmes,*118 N.H. 488, 490, 387 A.2d 1181, 1182 (1978); *Thayer v. Thayer,*119 N.H. 871, 409 A.2d 1326 (1979); *Paine v. Paine,*119 N.H. 874, 409 A.2d 790 (1979). A review of the record, exhibits and the substantial transcript of testimony fails to demonstrate an abuse of discretion.

The defendant argues that the decree should be modified because of his recent inability to perform due to his poor financial situation and ill health. Both alleged conditions developed subsequent *141to the hearings below and were never before the trial court. We suggest that if there is “[a]ny remedy that is available [it] is in the superior court, not here.” *Mayo v. Mayo,*119 N.H. 697, 699, 406 A.2d 719, 720 (1979). *But see, Douglas v. Douglas,*109 N.H. 11, 242 A.2d 78 (1968).

*Exceptions overruled.*
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

Case No. 1:22-cv-24066-KMM 

GRACE, INC., et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

CITY OF MIAMI, 

Defendant. 

________________________________/ 

NOTICE OF CHANGE IN MAILING ADDRESS AND 

DESIGNATION OF EMAIL ADDRESSES 

Undersigned counsel, as attorney for City of Miami and pursuant to Local Rule 11.1(g), 

hereby gives notice of her change in mailing address and designation of email addresses, as 

follows: Jessica D. Santos, Esq., GrayRobinson, PA., 333 S.E. 2nd Avenue, Suite 3200, Miami, FL 

33131; primary email address is jessica.santos@gray-robinson.com; secondary email address is 

yari.portanova@gray-robinson.com. 

Dated: January 22, 2024 Respectfully submitted, 

GRAYROBINSON, P.A.

By: /s/ Jessica D. Santos

Jason L. Unger, Esquire 

Florida Bar No. 991562 

George T. Levesque 

Florida Bar No. 55551 

Andy Bardos 

Florida Bar No. 822671 

301 S. Bronough Street 

Suite 600 

Tallahassee, Florida 32301 

Telephone: (850) 577-9090 

Facsimile: (850) 577-3311 

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 154 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/22/2024 Page 1 of 3
2

Christopher N. Johnson 

Florida Bar No. 69329 

Email: Christopher.Johnson@gray-robinson.com 

Marlene Quintana, B.C.S. 

Florida Bar No. 88358 

Email: Marlene.Quintana@gray-robinson.com 

Fabian A. Ruiz 

Florida Bar No. 117928 

Email: Fabian.Ruiz@gray-robinson.com 

Jessica D. Santos 

Florida Bar No. 1038776 

Email: Jessica.Santos@gray-robinson.com 

333 S.E. 2nd Avenue, Suite 3200 

Miami, Florida 33131 

Telephone: (305) 416-6880 

Facsimile: (305) 416-6887 

CITY OF MIAMI 

VICTORIA MÉNDEZ, City Attorney 

Florida Bar No. 194931 

JOHN A. GRECO, Chief Deputy City Attorney 

Florida Bar No. 991236 

KEVIN R. JONES, Deputy City Attorney 

Florida Bar No. 119067 

KERRI L. MCNULTY, 

Litigation & Appeals Division Chief 

Florida Bar No. 16171 

Office of the City Attorney 

444 S.W. 2nd Avenue 

Miami, FL 33130 

Telephone: (305) 416-1800 

Facsimile: (305) 416-1801 

Attorneys for Defendant 

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 154 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/22/2024 Page 2 of 3
3

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that on January 22, 2024, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of 

the Court by using the CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing document is being served this day 

on all counsel of record or pro se parties either via transmission of Notice of Electronic Filing 

generated by CM/ECF or in some other authorized manner for those counsel or parties who are not 

authorized to receive electronically Notices of Electronic Filing. 

By: /s/ Jessica D. Santos 

Counsel for City of Miami 

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 154 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/22/2024 Page 3 of 3
WeirFouIds LLP  

June 20, 2008

             R. Ian Mitchell

             T: 416-947-5088

             imitchell@weirfoulds.com

**DELIVERED**

             File 12045.00002

Tara Gold Resources Corp.

2162 Acorn Court

Wheaton, IL 60187

United States of America

Dear Sirs/Mesdames:

Re: 

**La Camera Mining Inc.**

We are counsel to La Camera Mining Inc. ("LCMI") and we are writing to advise you that our client has determined to surrender in its entirety the property more commonly known as the Picacho property as set out in that certain binding commitment to purchase agreement between LCMi and Tara Gold Resources Corp. ("Tara") dated the 19thday of December, 2007 (the "Agreement"). Our client hereby surrenders any and all interest in and to the Mineral Claim Blocks comprising the Contractual Interests (as those term are defined in the Agreement) as of the date hereof. This letter also confirms that our client has now surrendered all interest in the properties covered by the master agreement between Tara, LCMI, Corporacion Amermin S.A. de C.V. and Minero La Camera Mexico S.A. de C.V. and that all of their obligations thereunder and under all agreements and promissory notes referenced therein are hereby terminated.

Please do not hesitate to contact me should you have any questions.

Yours truly,

**WeirFoulds LLP**

Per:

R. Ian Mitchell

c:

Martin B. Carroll, Esq (Fox, Hefter, Swibel, Levin & Carroll, LLP)

Jose Alberto Jimenez Probert, Esq. (Jimenez Probert)

Tom Buranosky (Fox, Hefter, Swibel, Levin & Carroll, LLP)

William Quesnel (La Camera Mining Inc.)

David DesLaurier (La Camera Mining Inc,)

Sanjay Joshi (WeirFoulds LLP)

The Exchange Tower, Suite 1600 P.O. Box 480,130 King Street West Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5X 1J5

T:416-365-1110 F:416-366-1876

www.weirfoulds.com
#### § 102-192.110 At what levels in our agency must we have performance measures?

You must have performance measures for mail operations at the agency level and in all mail facilities and program levels.
250 E Street, SW

Washington, D.C. 20525

202-606-5000 | 800-942-2677 | TTY 800-833-3722

To: Deborah Jeffrey

Inspector General 

From: Lori Giblin/s/

Chief Risk Officer 

Subject: High-Dollar Overpayments for the quarter ending June 30, 2017

Date: July 11, 2017

The purpose of this document is to comply with the High-Dollar overpayments' reporting 

requirements in Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-123, Appendix C. 

Appendix C requires agency heads to submit reports quarterly on High-Dollar 

overpayments to the Office of Inspector General.

The Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS) identifies high-dollar 

overpayments through improper payments testing, which will be completed in Q4 of 

FY2017 and Q1 of FY2018. Therefore, during the reporting period covering 4/01/2017 

through 06/30/2017, CNCS has not identified any high-dollar overpayments. 

This report upholds the Corporation’s commitment to carrying out the Executive Order’s 

goals of eliminating payment errors. Reducing improper payments remains vital for the 

Corporation. We continue to monitor programs in order to reduce the amount of 

overpayments.
§ 102-117.55 What are the advantages and disadvantages of using a rate tender? ( a ) Using a rate tender is an advantage when you: ( 1 ) Have a shipment that must be made within too short a time frame to identify or solicit for a suitable contract;
( 2 ) Have shipments recurring between designated places, but do not expect sufficient volume to obtain favorable rates; or
( 3 ) Are not in a position to make a definite volume and shipment commitment under a FAR contract.
( b ) Using a rate tender may be a disadvantage when: ( 1 ) You have sufficient time to use the FAR and this would achieve better results;
( 2 ) You require transportation service for which no rate tender currently exists; or
( 3 ) A TSP may revoke or terminate the tender on short notice.
[65 FR 60061, Oct. 6, 2000, as amended at 75 FR 51393, Aug. 20, 2010]
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

VIOLA WILSON ADMINISTRATOR AND PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF SADIE SHARPE; AND THE ESTATE OF SADIE SHARPE, Appellants, vs. ALISHA GRUNDY, AN INDIVIDUAL, Res • ondent. No. 83861 

# FILE APR 1 1 2022
ELIZABETH A. BROWN CLERKX V

I RRENIE COURT BY ' 7 DEPUTY CLERK
ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL This is an appeal from an October 18, 2021, district court order granting summary judgment on respondent's claims for civil forfeiture, constructive trust, and declaratory judgment concerning the forfeiture of two parcels of real property located in California. Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Adriana Escobar, Judge. Appellants have filed an emergency motion to stay execution of the summary judgment without bond, explaining that they cannot afford the $1 million supersedeas bond required by the district court and, absent a stay, the judgment will be used in support of respondent's motion for summary judgment soon to be heard in parallel litigation pending in the California courts.

Notice of entry of the October 18 summary judgment was electronically served on October 19, 2021, but appellants notice of appeal was not filed until November 23, 2021, 4 days beyond the 30-day appeal period. NRAP 4(a)(1). On March 3, 2021, appellants filed in this court a notice acknowledging the untimely appeal and asserting that the district court has indicated its intent to grant NRCP 60(b) relief and reissue the judgment, restarting the time for appeal. Appellants did not provide any
SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA ICI) 19.11A .1/14. 

## .2.2-w.6141district court order so stating, but regardless, an untimely notice of appeal

fails to vest jurisdiction in this court. Healy v. Volkswagenwwerk, 103 Nev. 329, 331, 741 P.2d 432, 433 (1987); see also Walker v. Scully, 99 Nev. 45, 46, 657 P.2d 94, 94 (1983) (holding that the district court lacks authority to extend the appeal period and that this court lacks jurisdiction to consider an untimely appeal). Appellants appear to recognize as much when, in their notice, they state that the appeal will need to be dismissed; further, as the district court did not lose jurisdiction when appellants filed the untimely appeal, there is no need to remand this matter. Therefore, we lack jurisdiction and

ORDER this appeal DISMISSED.'



# A4_,t Hardesty


### .4"4t 4

-- 0 Stiglich J.

J.

J. Herndon

cc: Hon. Adriana Escobar, District Judge Eleissa C. Lavelle, Settlement Judge TRILAW Flangas Civil Law Firm, Ltd. Eighth District Court Clerk 'Appellants emergency motion for stay is denied as moot.

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA KM 1947A aggAP> 2
#### § 102-75.939 When can agencies grant easements?

Agencies may grant easements in, on, or over Government-owned real property upon determining that the easement will not adversely impact the Government's interests.