alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>

[TEXT]
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
Exhibit 27
Financial Data Schedule
 "This schedule contains summary financial information extracted
from December 31, 1998 10KSB and is qualified in its entirety by
reference to such financial statements."
</LEGEND>

<S>                                <C>
<PERIOD-START>                     JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-TYPE>                      YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                  DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                       DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                             28,726
<SECURITIES>                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                      178,382
<ALLOWANCES>                       0
<INVENTORY>                        14,276,515
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                   207,108
<PP&E>                             49,937
<DEPRECIATION>                     (1,480,493)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                     13,441,736
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>              3,307
<BONDS>                            16,300
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>              0
<PREFERRED>                        1,212
<COMMON>                           47,629
<OTHER-SE>                         13,373,208
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>       13,441,736
<SALES>                            0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                   28,772
<CGS>                              0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                      523,576
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                   0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                   0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                 0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                    (494,804)
<INCOME-TAX>                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                (494,804)
<DISCONTINUED>                     0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                    0
<CHANGES>                          0
<NET-INCOME>                       (494,804)
<EPS-BASIC>                      0
<EPS-DILUTED>                      0


</TABLE>
www.dep.state.fl.us

April 18, 2011

Ms. Gwendolyn Keyes Fleming,

Regional Administrator

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) – Region 4

61 Forsyth Street, SW

Atlanta, GA 30303-8909

Re: Clean Air Act Section 110(a)(2) SIP Requirements for 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS –

Additional Information

Dear Ms. Keyes Fleming:

On September 23, 2009, the Department of Environmental Protection provided 

confirmation to EPA Region 4 that the Florida State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

adequately addressed the requirements of sections 110(a)(1) and (2) of the Clean Air Act 

for implementation of the 2006 national ambient air quality standard for fine particulate 

matter (PM2.5). We hereby supplement our September 23, 2009, submission to further 

address the section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) and 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) required elements. 

With respect to the visibility protection requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), we 

confirm that Florida has submitted to EPA a proposed SIP revision incorporating a 

regional haze plan in accordance with the requirements of 40 CFR 51.103 and 51.104. 

The plan was submitted March 19, 2010, with amendments submitted August 31, 2010. 

With respect to the interstate and international pollution abatement requirements of 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii), we confirm that Florida does not have any pending obligation 

under section 115 or 126 of the Clean Air Act. Furthermore, subsection 62-210.350(2), 

F.A.C., “Additional Public Notice Requirements for Emissions Units Subject to 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration or Nonattainment-Area Preconstruction 

Review,” ensures compliance with the requirement of section 126(a)(1) for notification 

to nearby states of major source permitting actions. This subsection has been approved 

and incorporated into Florida’s SIP by EPA on the basis that it establishes public notice 

requirements equivalent to those required by 40 CFR 51.166(q)(2).

Florida Department of

Environmental Protection

Bob Martinez Center

2600 Blair Stone Road

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400

Rick Scott

Governor

Jennifer Carroll

Lt. Governor

Herschel T. Vinyard Jr.

Secretary
Ms. Gwendolyn Keyes Fleming

Page 2

April 18, 2011

www.dep.state.fl.us

If you have any questions on this submittal or need additional information, please 

contact Larry George of my staff at (850) 717-9021. Thank you for your continued 

support of our efforts to implement the Clean Air Act in Florida.

Sincerely,

Michael P. Halpin, P.E., Director

Division of Air Resource Management

Links:

Confirmation of Section 110(a)(1) and (2) SIP Requirements for 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, 

submitted September 23, 2009: 

http://www.dep.state.fl.us/air/documents/SIP_Requirements_for_2006_PM2_5-

Florida.pdf

Regional Haze Plan, submitted March 19, 2010, and August 31, 2010:

http://www.dep.state.fl.us/air/rules/regulatory/regional_haze_imp.htm.

Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-210.350:

https://www.flrules.org/gateway/RuleNo.asp?title=STATIONARY%20SOURCES%20

-%20GENERAL%20REQUIREMENTS&ID=62-210.350

MPH/lg
#### Milton E. Smith, an Infant, by Charles L. Smith, His Guardian ad Litem, Appellant, *v.*Rochester Railway Company, Respondent.

*Smith*v. *Rochester Railway Oo.,*133 App. Div. 847, reversed.

(Argued January 20, 1910;

decided February 8, 1910.)

Appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the fourth judicial department, entered July 3, 1909, which reversed a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict and an order denying a motion for a new trial and granted a new trial in an action to recover for personal injuries alleged to have been sustained through defendant’s negligence.

*C. D. Kiehel*for appellant.

*W. A. Matson*for respondent.

Order of Appellate Division reversed and judgment of trial court affirmed, with costs in both courts, on dissenting opinion of Kruse, J., below.

Concur: Cullen, Ch. J., Gray, Edward T; Bartlett, Haight, Vann, Willard Bartlett and Chase, JJ.
6

§§103.3(b)(3) and 110.1(b)(5)(ii)(A). Further, a political committee must retain 

written records concerning the redesignation in order for it to be effective. 11 CFR 

§110.1(l)(5).

F. Presumptive Redesignation- When an individual makes an excessive contribution to 

a candidate’s authorized committee, the campaign may presumptively redesignate the 

excessive portion to the general election if the contribution:

• Is made before that candidate’s primary election;

• Is not designated in writing for a particular election;

• Would be excessive if treated as a primary election contribution; and

• As redesignated, does not cause the contributor to exceed any other contribution 

limit. 11 CFR §110.1(b)(5)(ii)(B)(1)-(4).

The committee is required to notify the contributor by any written method including 

electronic mail, of the redesignation within 60 days of the treasurer’s receipt of the 

contribution, and must offer the contributor the option to receive a refund instead. 11 

CFR §110.1(b)(5)(ii)(B)(5) and (6).

Facts and Analysis

A. Facts

The Audit staff utilized sample testing and a review of other contributions not included in 

the sample population to identify apparent excessive contributions from individuals.

Excessive Contributions-Testing Method

Sample Projection Amount3 $61,683

Total Amount of Excessive Contributions $61,683

Reasons for Excessive Contributions

Excessive Contributions not resolved via 

presumptive notification or refund $61,683

Total Amount of Excessive Contributions $61,683

B. Additional Information

HFC did not maintain a separate account for questionable contributions. Based on its 

cash-on-hand at the end of the audit period ($6,874), it appears that HFC did not maintain 

sufficient funds to make refunds of the apparent excessive contributions.

C. Interim Audit Report & Audit Division Recommendation

During fieldwork, the Audit staff discussed this matter with HFC. At the exit conference

schedules of the apparent excessive contributions were provided. HFC asked if 

presumptive reattribution/redesignation letters could still be issued. The Audit staff 

 3 The sample error amount ($61,683) was projected using a Monetary Unit Sample with a 95 percent 

confidence level. The sample estimate could be as low as $35,479 or as high as $87,887.
---

---

# Exhibit 23.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We hereby consent to the
incorporation by reference in the previously filed Registration Statements on Form F-3
(No. 333-130048) and Form S-8 (Nos. 333-136957, 333-110696, 333-100971 and
333-11650) of B.O.S. Better Online Solutions Ltd. of our report dated March 26, 2007 (except as to Note
14b(3), as to which the date is November 26, 2007), with
respect to the consolidated financial statements of B.O.S. Better Online Solutions Ltd.
included in this Annual Report on Form 20-F/A for the year ended December 31, 2006.

|                  |                                 
|----------------- | --------------------------------
|
|
|
|
|Tel Aviv, Israel  | /s/ Kost Forer Gabbay & Kasierer
|November 27, 2007 |                                 
|                  | Kost Forer Gabbay & Kasierer    
|                  | A Member of Ernst & Young Global



---

---
§ 3.23 Parking. ( a ) A person may not stand (vehicle stopped, with or without, an occupant), or park a motor vehicle or other vehicle: ( 1 ) In a lane, space, or area not designated by a sign for parking, and/or standing;
( 2 ) On a sidewalk;
( 3 ) Within an intersection or crosswalk;
( 4 ) Within 10 feet of a fire hydrant, 5 feet of a driveway, or 20 feet of a stop sign, crosswalk, or traffic control signal;
( 5 ) In a double-parked position;
( 6 ) At a curb painted yellow;
( 7 ) On the side of a street facing oncoming traffic;
( 8 ) In a position that would obstruct traffic;
( 9 ) For a period in excess of 24 hours, except at living quarters, or with the approval of the Police Office.
( b ) A person must park bicycles, motorbikes, and similar vehicles only in designated areas, and may not bring these vehicles inside buildings.
( c ) A visitor must park in an area identified for that purpose by posted signs or similar instructions, such as “visitor parking” and “reserved for visitors”.
( d ) A person may not drive or park an unauthorized motor vehicle on a grassy, or any other unpaved, area without the approval of the Police Office.
<PAGE>
                   EXHIBIT 8.1 SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT




1.    Jiangsu Linyang Solarfun Co., Ltd. (PRC)

2.    Linyang Solar Power Investment Holding Ltd. (BVI)

3.    Shanghai Linyang Solar Technology Co., Ltd. (PRC)

4.    Sichuan Leshan Jiayang New Energy Co., Ltd. (PRC)

5.    Nantong Linyang Solarfun Engineering Research and Development Center Co.,
      Ltd. (PRC)

6.    Solarfun Power Hong Kong Limited (Hong Kong)
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

October 8, 2014

No. 04

- 14

- 00630

- CV

Rowland J. MARTIN

, Appellant

v.

BEXAR COUNTY , City of San Antonio, and San Antonio Independent School District

, Appellees

From the 150th Judicial District Court

, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2010

- CI

- 19099 Honorable John D. Gabriel, Jr. , Judge Presiding

ORDER

In accordance with the c ourt’s opinion of this date, the motion to dismiss is GRANTED and this appeal is DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION. Additionally , the motion to extend time to pay the court filing fee is DENIED AS MOOT, and the corrected motion for extraordinary relief is DENIED.

It is so ORDERED on October 8, 2014.

_____________________________ Marialyn Barnard, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 8th day of October, 2014.

_____________________________ Keith E. Hottle, Clerk
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary information extracted from the Form 10-QSB and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to the unaudited financial statements
contained therein.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                           2,293
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                           9,715
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     32,742
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                           5,290
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                             4,345
<LOANS>                                         78,986
<ALLOWANCE>                                        430
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 131,800
<DEPOSITS>                                     100,135
<SHORT-TERM>                                    12,000
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              (149)
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            16
<OTHER-SE>                                      19,798
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 131,800
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  3,050
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                1,217
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   239
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 4,341
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               1,987
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,207
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            2,134
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                        9
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  1,586
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    681
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                         681
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       492
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .35
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .35
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                     .77
<LOANS-NON>                                        653
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                   431
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                        0
<RECOVERIES>                                         1
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                  430
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                               430
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0


</TABLE>
§ 11.503 Propulsion power limitations for national endorsements. ( a ) Engineer endorsements of all grades and types may be subject to propulsion power limitations. Other than as provided in § 11.524 of this subpart for the designated duty engineer (DDE), the propulsion power limitation placed on a license or MMC endorsement is based on the applicant's qualifying experience considering the total shaft propulsion power of each vessel on which the applicant has served.
( b ) When an applicant for an original or raise of grade of an engineer endorsement, other than a DDE, has not obtained at least 50 percent of the required experience on vessels of 4,000 HP/3,000 kW or more, a propulsion power limitation is placed on the MMC based on the applicant's qualifying experience. The endorsement is limited to the maximum propulsion power on which at least 25 percent of the required experience was obtained, or 150 percent of the maximum propulsion power on which at least 50 percent of the service was obtained, whichever is higher. Limitations are in multiples of 1,000 HP/750 kW, using the next higher figure when an intermediate horsepower is calculated. When the limitation as calculated equals or exceeds 10,000 HP/7,500 kW, an unlimited propulsion power endorsement is issued.
( c ) The following service on vessels of 4,000 HP/3,000 kW or more will be considered qualifying for raising or removing the propulsion power limitations placed on an engineer endorsement: ( 1 ) Six months of service in the highest-grade endorsed: Removal of all propulsion power limitations.
( 2 ) Six months of service as an engineer officer in any capacity other than the highest grade for which the applicant is licensed or endorsed: Removal of all propulsion power limitations for the grade in which service is performed and raised to the next higher grade endorsement to the propulsion power of the vessel on which service was performed. The total cumulative service before and after issuance of the limited engineer endorsement may be considered in removing all propulsion power limitations.
( 3 ) Twelve months of service as oiler or junior engineer while holding a license or MMC endorsement as third assistant engineer or assistant engineer (limited): Removal of all propulsion power limitations on third assistant engineer or assistant engineer's (limited) endorsement.
( 4 ) Six months of service as oiler or junior engineer while holding a license or MMC endorsement as second assistant engineer: removal of all propulsion power limitations on third assistant engineer's endorsement.
( d ) Raising or removing propulsion power limitations based on service required by paragraph (c) of this section may be granted without further written examination, if the Coast Guard considers further examination unnecessary.
#### § 84.54 Education of institutionalized persons.

A recipient to which this subpart applies and that provides aids, benefits, or services to persons who are institutionalized because of disability shall ensure that each qualified individual with disabilities, as defined in § 84.10, in its program or activity is provided an appropriate education, consistent with the Department of Education section 504 regulations at 34 CFR 104.33(b). Nothing in this section shall be interpreted as altering in any way the obligations of recipients under subpart D of this part.

[89 FR 40188, May 9, 2024]
****

Monaker Group, Inc. 10-K/A

 
 

**Exhibit 31.4**
 

**CERTIFICATIONOF PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTING OFFICER PURSUANT TO** 

**18U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**  

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OFTHE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

I, Mr. Sirapop “Kent”Taepakdee, certify that:

 

1. I have reviewed this Form 10-K/A ofMonaker Group, Inc.; and

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this report doesnot contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, inlight of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report.

 
 Date: June 25, 2020By: */s/ Mr. Sirapop “Kent” Taepakdee* Mr. Sirapop “Kent” Taepakdee Acting Chief Financial Officer (Principal Accounting/Financial Officer)
Exhibit 4.1


 





Alaia Capital, LLC


10 Corbin Drive


Darien, Connecticut 06820


 


June 9, 2020


 


m+ Buffer 30 Fund, m+ funds Trust, Series 1-11


c/o The Bank of New York Mellon, as Trustee


2 Hanson Place, 12th Floor


Brooklyn, New York 11217


 


		Re:	m+ funds Trust, Series 1-11 (the “Trust”)



 


 


Ladies and Gentlemen:


 


We have examined Amendment No. 1 to the Registration Statement
(File No. 333-238107) for the above captioned Trust. We hereby consent to the use in the Registration Statement of the references
to Alaia Capital, LLC as evaluator.


 


You are hereby authorized to file a copy
of this letter with the Securities and Exchange Commission.


 


 


 


	 	Very truly yours,	 
	 	 	 
	 	Alaia Capital, LLC	 
	 	 	 
	 	By:	/s/ Oscar Loynaz	 
	 	 	Name: Oscar Loynaz	 
	 	 	Title:  Managing Director
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

 v. 

GABRIEL SALAS, 

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 18-50201 

D.C. No. 3:18-cr-00104-LAB

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of California

Larry A. Burns, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted January 15, 2019**

Before: TROTT, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.

Gabriel Salas appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 

151-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for importation 

of methamphetamine and cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952 and 960. We 

have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

JAN 17 2019

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 18-50201

Salas contends that the district court misinterpreted and misapplied the 

minor role Guideline, U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2, and its commentary in denying his request 

for a minor role reduction. We review the district court’s interpretation of the 

Guidelines de novo and its application of the Guidelines to the facts for abuse of 

discretion. See United States v. Gasca-Ruiz, 852 F.3d 1167, 1170 (9th Cir. 2017) 

(en banc).

The record reveals that the district court identified the correct legal standard 

and considered the five factors listed in the commentary before determining that 

Salas was not “substantially less culpable than the average participant.” See 

U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 cmt. n.3(A), (C). Contrary to Salas’s contention, the district 

court properly compared Salas’s culpability to known and likely co-participants in 

the offense and did not err by considering Salas’s criminal history in addition to 

the commentary’s non-exhaustive factors. See United States v. Quintero-Leyva, 

823 F.3d 519, 523 (9th Cir. 2016) (“[B]ecause the factors set forth in the 

Amendment are non-exhaustive, a district court may also consider other reasons 

for granting or denying a minor role reduction.”). The district court did not abuse 

its discretion by denying the minor role adjustment in light of the totality of the 

circumstances, including Salas’s prior successful drug crossings and the large 

amount of drugs Salas smuggled. See U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 cmt. n.3(C); QuinteroLeyva, 823 F.3d at 523.
3 18-50201

Salas also contends that the sentence is substantively unreasonable. The 

district court did not abuse its discretion. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 

51 (2007). The low-end Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable in light of 

the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances. 

See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51.

AFFIRMED.
§ 11.457 Requirements for master of inland self-propelled vessels of less than 100 GRT. ( a ) An applicant for an endorsement as master of inland self-propelled vessels of less than 100 GRT must present 1 year of service on any waters. In order to raise the tonnage limitation to more than 100 GRT, the examination topics indicated in subpart I of this part must be completed in addition to satisfying the experience requirements of § 11.452(a) of this subpart.
( b ) To obtain an endorsement for sail or auxiliary sail vessels, the applicant must submit evidence of 6 months of service on sail or auxiliary sail vessels. The required 6 months of service may have been obtained prior to issuance of the license or MMC endorsement.
( c ) All endorsements issued for master or mate of vessels of less than 100 GRT are issued in tonnage increments based on the applicant's qualifying experience in accordance with the provisions of § 11.422 of this subpart.