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

<ARTICLE>                        5


<S>                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                         15,808
<SECURITIES>                                        0
<RECEIVABLES>                                       0
<ALLOWANCES>                                        0
<INVENTORY>                                   325,408
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                              341,216
<PP&E>                                        112,373
<DEPRECIATION>                                (35,087)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                588,782
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                         878,148
<BONDS>                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                    1,023,070
<OTHER-SE>                                 (1,312,436)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  588,782
<SALES>                                        31,440
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               31,440
<CGS>                                          70,400
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  70,400
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              291,897
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             42,239
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (373,096)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (373,096)
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (373,096)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (.05)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       0



</TABLE>
Editorial Note on Part 160
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 160 appear by USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59785, 59786, Oct. 1, 2012.

§ 160.077-9 Recognized laboratory. ( a ) A manufacturer seeking Coast Guard approval of a product under this subpart shall follow the approval procedures of subpart 159.005 of this chapter, and shall apply for approval directly to a recognized independent laboratory. The following laboratories are recognized under § 159.010-7 of this part, to perform testing and approval functions under this subpart: Underwriters Laboratories, 12 Laboratory Drive, P.O. Box 13995, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709-3995, (919) 549-1400.
( b ) Production oversight must be performed by the same laboratory that performs the approval tests unless, as determined by the Commandant, the employees of the laboratory performing production oversight receive training and support equal to that of the laboratory that performed the approval testing.
[CGD 93-055, 61 FR 13931, Mar. 28, 1996; 61 FR 15868, Apr. 9, 1996]
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

MYLES ALEXANDER #862651,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 14-cv-14629

v. HONORABLE GEORGE CARAM STEEH

RANDALL HAAS, ET AL.,

Defendants.

 /

ORDER ACCEPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT 

AND RECOMMENDATION (DOC. #33) GRANTING DEFENDANTS

JAMES ROTH’S, FREDEANE ARTIS’S, AND JEREMY HOWARD’S

(THE MDOC DEFENDANTS) MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (DOC. #11)

Plaintiff filed this action alleging wrongdoing related to his placement in

administrative segregation. All pretrial matters were referred to the magistrate judge for a

report and recommendation. (Doc. #8). The MDOC defendants, James Roth, Fredeane

Artis, and Jeremy Howard, filed a motion for summary judgment (Doc. #11). On January

20, 2016, Magistrate Judge Steven Whalen issued a report and recommendation that

recommends granting the MDOC defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Doc. #33).

The magistrate judge specifically stated that any objections to his report were to be

filed within 14 days of service, and that failure to file such objections constituted a waiver

of any further right to appeal. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 155 (1985). Plaintiff has

not objected to the report and recommendation.

The court has reviewed the record and the magistrate judge’s report and

recommendation. Finding that report and recommendation to be well-reasoned, the court

-1-

2:14-cv-14629-GCS-RSW Doc # 41 Filed 03/02/16 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 168
hereby ACCEPTS the result recommended therein. Accordingly, the MDOC defendants’

motion for summary judgment is GRANTED. The claims against the MDOC defendants

are DISMISSED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 2, 2016

s/George Caram Steeh 

GEORGE CARAM STEEH

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Copies of this Order were served upon attorneys of record on

March 2, 2016, by electronic and/or ordinary mail and also on

Myles Danard Alexander #862651, Alger Maximum

Correctional Facility, N6141 Industrial Park Drive,

Munising, MI 49862.

s/Barbara Radke

Deputy Clerk

-2-

2:14-cv-14629-GCS-RSW Doc # 41 Filed 03/02/16 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 169
#### CHARLES R. GUERIN ET UX. v. WILLIAM J. KLOD.

Decided May 4, 1929.

Before Gummere, Chief Justice, and Justice Parker.

Eor the rule, *Heine & Laird.*

*Contra, Wilbur A. Heisley.*

Per Curiam.

The plaintiffs in the present case are husband and wife. While they were riding in a car owned by and driven by the husband along the road from Eatontown to Long Branch they were run into by a car operated by the defendant, Mod. Mrs. Guerin was injured in the collision, and the car in which they were driving was considerably damaged. The plaintiffs claimed that the collision was due solely to the negligence of the defendant, Mod, and brought the present suit to recover compensation for the injuries received by the wife, and also for the loss of her services by the husband resulting from the accident and for the medical expenses incurred by the husband in the treatment of her injuries, and also for the damage done to his car. The trial resulted in a verdict in favor of each of the plaintiffs, the jury awarding the wife $2,000 and the husband $1,000.

The first contention made before us is that the damages awarded Mrs. Guerin are excessive. Our consideration of the proofs in the cause leads us to the conclusion that the award to her is very moderate.

*453It is further claimed that the award to the husband is also excessive. The proofs satisfy us that this contention is also without merit.

Other grounds upon which we are asked to make the rule absolute are directed at alleged errors in the charge to the jury upon the subject of the rights of the parties upon the respective highways along which they were severally traveling, and upon the instruction that the jury could not render verdicts in excess of the *ad damnum*clauses contained in the complaint. In our opinion, each of these matters was correctly dealt with by the trial court.

For the reasons indicated, the rule to show cause will be discharged.
**EXHIBIT
31.1**
 **CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO**
 **SECTION
302 OF THE**
 **SARBANES-OXLEY
ACT OF 2002**
 
 I,
      JosephL.
      Sullivan,
      certify that:1.
    
    I
      have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K ofCE
      Casecnan Water and Energy Company, Inc.;2.
    
    Based
      on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a
      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 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
      report;4.
    
    The
      registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible for
      establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as
      defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant
      and we have:a)
    Designed
      such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
      controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, 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 report is being
      prepared;b)
    Evaluated
      the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures
      and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of
      the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period
      covered by this report based on such evaluation; andc)
    Disclosed
      in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over
      financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent
      fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
      materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial
      reporting; and5.
    
    The
      registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our
      most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to
      the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board of
      directors (or persons performing the equivalent
  function):a)
    All
      significant deficiencies and material weaknesses 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;
andb)
    Any
      fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
      employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control
      over financial reporting.
 
 Dated:
      February 11, 2005
    /s/
      Joseph L. SullivanJoseph
      L. SullivanPresident(chief
      executive officer)
###### Editorial Note on Part 160

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 160 appear by USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59785, 59786, Oct. 1, 2012.

#### § 160.055-4 Materials—nonstandard life preservers.

All materials used in nonstandard life preservers must be equivalent to those specified in § 160.055-3 for standard life preservers.

[CGD 72-163R, 38 FR 8121, Mar. 28, 1973]
#### Moses Smith, *as Administrator, etc., Appellant, v.*Sarah E. Wild and others, *Respondents*.

Decree affirmed, with costs against appellant. Opinion by

Boardman, J.
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 72 (Monday, April 16, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 19006]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-1849]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Cancer Institute; amended Notice of Meeting

    Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the National 
Cancer Institute Special Emphasis Panel, March 5, 2007, 12 p.m. to 
March 5, 2007, 4 p.m. National Institutes of Health, 6130 Executive 
Boulevard, Rockville, MD 20852 which was published in the Federal 
Register on January 11, 2007, 72 FR1335.
    The meeting notice is changed to reflect the date change from March 
5, 2007 to April 13, 2007. The meeting is closed to the public.

    Dated: April 5, 2007.
Anna Snouffer,
Deputy Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 07-1849 Filed 4-13-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
Exhibit



Exhibit 10.2.11




March 31, 2020 


CorEnergy Infrastructure Trust, Inc.
1100 Walnut Street, Suite 3350
Kansas City, Missouri  64106
Re: Management Fee for the Quarter Ended March 31, 2020
Ladies and Gentlemen:


Reference is made to that certain Management Agreement, dated as of May 8, 2015 and effective as of May 1, 2015, by and between CorEnergy Infrastructure Trust, Inc., a Maryland corporation (the “Company”), and Corridor InfraTrust Management, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (the “Manager”) (as such agreement has been, as may be further, amended, restated, supplemented or otherwise modified from time to time, the “Management Agreement”). Capitalized terms used and not defined herein are used as defined in the Management Agreement. 
 
The Company and the Manager have entered into this Letter Agreement, effective as of March 31, 2020, to clarify the application of the Management Fee provisions set forth in Section 8(a) of the Management Agreement to the Company’s net proceeds from the August 12, 2019 private placement offering of 5.875% Convertible Senior Notes due 2025. This letter documents that the Manager has proposed, and the Company has agreed, that solely for the purpose of calculating the quarterly Management Fee due as of March 31, 2020, the definition of “Managed Assets” set forth in Section 8(a) of the Management Agreement shall be applied in a manner that reduces Managed Assets by the net proceeds from the August 12, 2019 private placement offering of 5.875% Convertible Senior Notes due 2025 (excluding the cash portion of such proceeds utilized in connection with the exchange of the Company’s 7.00% Convertible Senior Notes due 2020). This letter in no way supersedes our May 9, 2016 letter agreement (effective March 31, 2016) concerning the Management Fee calculation.
 
The purpose of this waiver is to apply Section 8(a) of the Management Agreement to only the reinvested portion of the net proceeds, received during the third quarter of 2019, from the 5.875% Convertible Note offering. Except as specifically set forth herein, all other provisions of the Management Agreement shall remain in full force and effect and shall not be affected by this Letter Agreement. Please acknowledge your agreement to the foregoing by signing this Letter Agreement as indicated below.
	
	
	Very truly yours,

	 

	CORRIDOR INFRATRUST MANAGEMENT, LLC

	By:  /s/ Richard C. Green, Jr.                                 

	Name:  Richard C. Green, Jr., Managing Director




	
	
	Agreed and accepted:

	 

	CORENERGY INFRASTRUCTURE TRUST, INC.

	By:  /s/ David J. Schulte                                          

	Name:  David J. Schulte, President










1100 Walnut Street, Suite 3350, Kansas City, MO 64106 | Main: 816.875.3705 | Fax: 816.875.5875 | corenergy.reit
**Exhibit 31.1**

 

 

**CERTIFICATIONS**

 

I, Anthony J. Armini, President andChief Executive Officer of Implant Sciences Corporation, certify that:

1.               I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB/A ofImplant Sciences Corporation;

2.               Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does notcontain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a materialfact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances underwhich such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this quarterly report;

3.               Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and otherfinancial information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in allmaterial respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flowsof the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterlyreport;

4.               The registrant’s other certifying officers and I areresponsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures(as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and wehave:

a.               designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensurethat material information relating to the registrant, including itsconsolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is beingprepared;

b.              evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosurecontrols and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date ofthis quarterly report (the “Evaluation Date”); and

c.               presented in this quarterly report our conclusions aboutthe effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on ourevaluation as of the Evaluation Date;

5.               The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed,based on our most recent evaluation, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing theequivalent function):

a.               all significant deficiencies in the design or operation ofinternal controls which could adversely affect the registrant’s ability torecord, process, summarize and report financial data and have identified forthe registrant’s auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

b.              any fraud, whether or not material, that involvesmanagement or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’sinternal controls.

 

 
|   | Date: September 1, 2004                |
|--------|----------------------------------------|
|   |                                   |
|   | /s/ Anthony J. Armini                  |
|   | Anthony J. Armini                      |
|   | President and Chief Executive  Officer |

 

----
<PAGE>
                                                                      EXHIBIT 23

                         [HENRY & PETERS, PC LETTERHEAD]

                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


The Board of Directors
Jacksonville Bancorp, Inc.


We consent to the use of our report dated November 15, 2001, on the consolidated
financial statements of Jacksonville Bancorp, Inc. and subsidiaries as of
September 30, 2001 and 2000, and for each of the years in the three-year period
ended September 30, 2001, in Jacksonville Bancorp, Inc.'s Form 10-K for the year
ended September 30, 2001.

                                                   /s/ HENRY & PETERS, P.C.
                                                   -----------------------------
                                                   HENRY & PETERS, P.C.



Tyler, Texas
December 20, 2001
**HOME | 	  ABOUT US | 	  CONTACT | 	  REGIONAL MANAGERS**Nautical Charts & Pubs****Surveys & Wrecks****GIS & Other Products****Research & Development****Customer Service****Business Opportunities****Education****Chart: 26194          Edition: 6          Edition Date: September 2011          Clear Dates: NM - 12/17/2011     LNM - 11/29/2011**Download RNCNotice ListingFind A Chart Site-  **Click the +/- buttons and drag the slider tool (solid triangle) 				to zoom in and out.** 
-  **Click the arrow buttons to pan left/right and up/down.** 
-  **Drag 				the navigation box in the upper left hand corner to move around 				the chart image.								This chart display or derived product can be used as a planning or analysis tool and may not be used as a navigational aid. 								NOTE: Use the official, full scale NOAA nautical chart for real navigation whenever possible.  These are available from authorized 				NOAA nautical chart sales agents.  Screen captures of the on-line viewable charts available here do NOT fulfill chart carriage 				requirements for regulated commercial vessels under Titles 33 and 46 of the Code of Federal Regulations.								Adobe Flash Player		  		is required to view the chart image.				Powered by Zoomify.** 
Privacy  |  Disclaimer  |  NOAA's National Ocean Service  |  NOAA  |  U.S. Department of Commerce **
#### Thomas McCraith, *Appellant, v.*The National Mohawk Valley Bank, *Respondent*.

Judgment reversed, and a new trial ordered, costs to abide the event. Opinion by

Smith, P. J.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                       5,595,075
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                8,247,662
<ALLOWANCES>                                    50,482
<INVENTORY>                                  1,966,819
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            16,241,470
<PP&E>                                       5,135,125
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,724,276
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              20,027,914
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,711,001
<BONDS>                                      2,240,959
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                  1,000,000
<COMMON>                                    23,687,579
<OTHER-SE>                                (11,985,742)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                20,027,914
<SALES>                                     15,500,024
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            15,500,024
<CGS>                                        7,341,362
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                6,369,938
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                45,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,311,792
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                600,496
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (773,621)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.14)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.14)


</TABLE>
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff,

Case No. 14-mc-51593 

vs. HON. GERSHWIN A. DRAIN

RASMIEH ODEH,

Defendant.

_____________________________/

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR ADMISSION AS AMICUS CURIAE IN SUPPORT

OF MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION [#1] 

Presently before the Court is the National Lawyers Guild’s (“NLJ”) Motion for Admission

as Amicus Curiae in Support of Defendant’s Motion for Reconsideration, filed on November 20,

2014. This Court has broad discretion in determining whether to allow admission as an amicus to

assist the court. Northern Sec. Co. v. United States, 191 U.S. 555 (1903); United States v. Michigan,

940 F.2d 143, 165 (6th Cir. 1991). Factors that warrant the granting of a motion to appear as an

amicus include findings that “the proffered information of amicus is timely, useful, or otherwise

necessary to the administration of justice.” United States v. Michigan, 940 F.2d at 165.

In light of these factors, the Court concludes that the NLJ”s participation as an amicus is

warranted. While the Government objects to the NLJ’s participation as an amicus on the theory that

this Court lacks the authority to authorize such participation in a criminal action, the Court has been

unable to locate any authority supporting the Government’s position. 

-1-

2:14-mc-51593-GAD-MKM Doc # 2 Filed 12/02/14 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 18
Accordingly, the NLJ’s Motion for Admission as Amicus Curiae in Support of Motion for

Reconsideration [#1] is GRANTED. The NLJ is directed to file its amicus brief in case number 13-

20772, United States v. Odeh, no later than December 3, 2014. The Clerk of the Court is hereby

directed to CLOSE the instant action.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 2, 2014 /s/Gershwin A Drain___________ 

GERSHWIN A. DRAIN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

-2-

2:14-mc-51593-GAD-MKM Doc # 2 Filed 12/02/14 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 19