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

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                          34,779
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                         529,978
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                24,005
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    111,071
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          93,607
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            93,824
<LOANS>                                        430,001
<ALLOWANCE>                                      6,450
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 728,206
<DEPOSITS>                                     632,783
<SHORT-TERM>                                     9,656
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              5,649
<LONG-TERM>                                     23,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      2,345
<COMMON>                                           584
<OTHER-SE>                                      54,189
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 728,206
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 26,966
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                9,173
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                     0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                36,139
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              15,853
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,829
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           18,457
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      300
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                               (746)
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 18,074
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  3,828
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       3,828
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,028
<EPS-BASIC>                                      23.22
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    23.22
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    7.58
<LOANS-NON>                                        297
<LOANS-PAST>                                     1,473
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                    297
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 6,188
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      301
<RECOVERIES>                                       263
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                6,450
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             6,450
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0


</TABLE>
From: draper431@aol.com [mailto:draper431@aol.com] 

Sent: Sunday, April 25, 2010 3:24 PM 

To: EBSA, E-OHPSCA - EBSA 

Subject: Comment in support of RIN 1210-AB30 

April 25, 2010 

I am writing to support the interim final rule under the Paul Wellstone 

and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008 

(RIN 1210-AB30). 

I support the strong rule that would forbid insurance companies from 

charging higher copayments, deductibles, and other out-of-pocket 

expenses for mental health treatment than they would for other physical 

health care. Thank you for ensuring that mental health care and 

physical health care coverage are included in a single deductible. 

I don't see why there is even a question about equal copay. 

Sincerely, 

Viki Draper 

172 Draper Rd 

Rochester, WA 98579
# EUR-Lex - 52002XC0207(02) - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 52002XC0207(02)

**Commission notice on the appropriate measures provided for in the Community Guidelines on State aid for environmental protection (OJ C 37 of 3.2.2001) **

*
Official Journal C 034 , 07/02/2002 P. 0013 - 0013 *

Commission notice on the appropriate measures provided for in the Community Guidelines on State aid for environmental protection (OJ C 37 of 3 February 2001)

(2002/C 34/11)

On 15 January 2002 the Commission decided that:

- France has until 30 June 2002 to bring aid scheme N 116/2000 (management of municipal and industrial waste) into line with the aforementioned new Community Guidelines on State aid for environmental protection;

- Germany has until 30 September 2002 to bring its existing environmental State aid schemes into line with the aforementioned new Community Guidelines on State aid for environmental protection.
Robichaud circa April 15: Oregon planning to put out a fact sheet re their intent re dealing with the decision. Don = t plan to issue any permits. Will issue some sort of order sanctioning application of herbicide. Asked irrigaters to come up with conditions. Intend to public notice it; may not hold. Looking at long term policy options: general permit, rule changes, UA analysis 04/13/01: Robichaud said he would fax me a proposed aquatic pesticide strategy that Washington is working on. [Called back and said he couldn = t b/c it = s atty. client Asking Oregon for more background about why they can issue orders. Neither state has variance provision. He can send me a section that is about 6 pages that decribes how they have been dealing with applicators over the last few years using short term mods.. Out Monday, can send Tuesday.
#### The People of the State of New York, *Respondents, v.*Austin Persons, *Appellant.*

— Judgment and conviction reversed, and new trial ordered in the Ontario County Sessions. Opinion by

Hardin, J.
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Humphreys, Beales and Senior Judge Fitzpatrick 

LOWE’S OF CHARLOTTESVILLE #517 AND 

 SPECIALTY RISK SERVICES 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION*

 

v. Record No. 0590-07-3 PER CURIAM 

 JULY 31, 2007 

JOHN W. GARVER 

 FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION 

 (Calvin W. Fowler; J.P. McGuire Boyd; Williams Mullen, on brief), 

for appellants. 

 (George L. Townsend; The Chandler Law Group, on brief), for 

appellee. 

 Lowe’s of Charlottesville #517 and its insurer appeal a decision of the Workers’ 

Compensation Commission finding that John W. Garver proved his back surgery and total 

disability beginning June 22, 2005 were causally related to his compensable March 20, 2003 

injury by accident. We have reviewed the record and the commission’s opinion and find that this 

appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the commission in its 

final opinion. See Garver v. Lowe’s of Charlottesville #0517, VWC File No. 216-13-82 (Feb. 

14, 2007). We dispense with oral argument and summarily affirm because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the Court and argument would not 

aid the decisional process. See Code § 17.1-403; Rule 5A:27. 

 Affirmed.

 *

 Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication.
Exhibit 10.1


 





AMENDMENT No 3 to MASTER SERVICES AGREEMENT


 


This Amendment, dated as of October 29,
2013 (the “Amendment Effective Date”) to that certain Master Services Agreement dated as of March 31, 2009 (the
“Original Agreement”), as amended by Amendment No 1 to Master Services Agreement dated as of July 27, 2011 (the “First
Amendment”) and Amendment No 2 to Master Services Agreement dated as of March 7, 2013 (the “Second Amendment”
and, together with the Original Agreement and First Amendment, the “Agreement”), is between Cadila Pharmaceuticals
Limited (“Cadila”), and Novavax, Inc. (“Novavax”).


 


WHEREAS the parties to the Original
Agreement initially agreed that Cadila would provide Services to Novavax;


 


WHEREAS effective January 1, 2013,
the parties wish to allow Cadila to provide such Services to Novavax through CPL Biologicals Private Limited (“CPLB”),
to allow Novavax to work directly with CPLB, and to allow CPLB to invoice Novavax for such Services hereunder;


 


Now therefore, the parties hereto agree
as follows:


 


The following new second paragraph is added
to the end of Section 2, entitled “Performance by Cadila”:


 


Effective as of January 1, 2013, and from
time to time thereafter, Cadila may notify Novavax in writing and thereafter direct Services described in a Project Plan to CPL
Biologicals Private Limited (“CPLB”), the joint venture between Cadila and Novavax, and have CPLB perform certain Services
for Novavax on Cadila’s behalf. The parties shall agree to any such arrangement prior to the initiation of Services and CPLB
shall thereafter work directly with Novavax and shall provide reasonable updates to Cadila. CPLB shall be entitled to invoice Novavax
for such Services pursuant to a Project Plan and Novavax shall thereafter make payment to CPLB for such Services. All Services
performed by CPLB hereunder shall be treated as Services for purposes of Novavax’ guaranty as described in Section 4.


 


In all other respects the Agreement shall
remain in full force and effect.


 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF,
the parties have caused this Amendment to be executed by their duly authorized representatives as of the Amendment Effective Date.


 


 


	NOVAVAX, INC.	 	CADILA PHARMACEUTICALS LIMITED
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	By:	/s/ Stanley C. Erck	 	By:	/s/ Rajiv I. Modi	 
	 	Stanley C. Erck	 	 	Rajiv I. Modi	 
	 	President and Chief Executive Officer	 	 	Managing Director
```

[Journal of the House of Representatives, 1995]
[Thursday, March 16, 1995 (46), Para 46.11 Recorded Vote]
[Page 396]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

para.46.11  recorded vote

  A recorded vote by electronic device was ordered in the Committee of 
the Whole on the following amendment submitted by Mr. STEARNS:

       Page 22, line 13, strike ``$5,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$15,000,000''.

It was decided in the

Yeas

168

negative

Nays

260
```
```

[Journal of the House of Representatives, 1995]
[Friday, April 7, 1995 (58), Para 58.7 Calendar Wednesday Business Dispensed With]
[Page 602]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

para.58.7  calendar wednesday business dispensed with

  On motion of Mr. WALSH, by unanimous consent,
  Ordered, That business in order for consideration on Wednesday, May 3, 
1995, under clause 7, rule XXIV, the Calendar Wednesday rule, be 
dispensed with.
```
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-6794
STEPHANIE ATCHLEY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CITY OF WINSTON-SALEM, NORTH CAROLINA; J. E. BOWMAN, Police Officer, Defendants - Appellees.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Winston-Salem. Richard C. Erwin, Senior District Judge. (CA-96-526-6) Submitted: October 7, 1997 Decided: November 7, 1997 Before NIEMEYER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Stephanie Atchley, Appellant Pro Se. Gusti Wiesenfeld Frankel, WOMBLE, CARLYLE, SANDRIDGE & RICE, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court's order denying relief on her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Atchley v. Winston-Salem , No. CA-96-526-6 (M.D.N.C. Apr. 25, 1997).We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Editorial Note on Part 192
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 192 appear at 71 FR 33406, June 9, 2006.

§ 192.144 Qualifying metallic components. Notwithstanding any requirement of this subpart which incorporates by reference an edition of a document listed in § 192.7 or Appendix B of this part, a metallic component manufactured in accordance with any other edition of that document is qualified for use under this part if— ( a ) It can be shown through visual inspection of the cleaned component that no defect exists which might impair the strength or tightness of the component; and
( b ) The edition of the document under which the component was manufactured has equal or more stringent requirements for the following as an edition of that document currently or previously listed in § 192.7 or appendix B of this part: ( 1 ) Pressure testing;
( 2 ) Materials; and
( 3 ) Pressure and temperature ratings.
[Amdt. 192-45, 48 FR 30639, July 5, 1983, as amended by Amdt. 192-94, 69 FR 32894, June 14, 2004]
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

July 31, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 130884 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 130884 

 COA: 257332 

Kent CC: 04-001615-FC 

JERRY LOUIS DAVID, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 2, 2006 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

d0724 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

July 31, 2006 

 Clerk
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

INTERNATIONAL MORTGAGE CAPITAL FUND II, LLC,

a Delaware limited liability company,

Appellant,

v.

MULTIBUY, LLC, a Florida limited liability company, JUSTIN REWANE,

an individual, and MARIAN NNEDI REWANE, an individual,

Appellees.

No. 4D21-1767

[August 11, 2022]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, 

Broward County; Barry J. Stone, Senior Judge; L.T. Case No. 

CACE19002428.

Ian M. Corp and Christopher B. Spuches of Agentis PLLC, Coral Gables, 

for appellant.

Nicole R. Moskowitz of Neustein Law Group, P.A., Aventura, for 

appellees.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

GROSS, CIKLIN and KUNTZ, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
98-2543.

#### Marshall v. Ortega.

Cuyahoga App. No. 72096. Discretionary appeal allowed; *sua sponte,*cause consolidated with 98-2610, *supra.*

Douglas, Resnick and Pfeifer, JJ., dissent.
EXHIBIT 32
                                   ----------


                CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                       AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
                        OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



        In connection with the Quarterly Report of Realmark Property Investors
Limited Partnership - II (the "Partnership") on Form 10-Q for the period ending
March 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the "Report"), I, Joseph M. Jayson, Individual General Partner and
Principal Financial Officer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the
best of my knowledge:

         (1)   The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
               or 15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934; and

         (2)   The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
               material respects, the financial condition and result of the
               operations of the Partnership.


              May 15, 2007                  /s/ Joseph M. Jayson
              ------------                  ------------------------------
                  Date                      Joseph M. Jayson,
                                            Individual General Partner and
                                            Principal Financial Officer
```

[Journal of the House of Representatives, 1995]
[Wednesday, June 21, 1995 (84), Para 84.14 Motion to Rise]
[Page 1027]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

para.84.14  motion to rise

  A recorded vote by electronic device was ordered in the Committee of 
the Whole on the motion of Mr. VOLKMER that the Committee do now rise.

It was decided in the

Yeas

166

negative

Nays

257
```
```

[Journal of the House of Representatives, 1995]
[Monday, May 22, 1995 (70), Para 70.9 Adjournment]
[Page 804]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

para.70.9  adjournment

  On motion of Mr. TAUZIN, pursuant to the special order of the House 
agreed to on May 18, 1995, at 4 o'clock and 17 minutes p.m. the House 
adjourned until 10:30 a.m., Tuesday, May 23, 1995.
```
#### In the Matter of the Application of Robert G. Monroe, as Commissioner of Water Supply, Gas and Electricity of the City of New York, to Acquire Certain Real Estate in Westchester County. The City of New York, Appellant; Rebecca S. Betts et al., Respondents.

*Matter of Monroe,*131 App. Div. *872,*affirmed.

(Argued November 15, 1910;

decided November 29, 1910.)

Appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the second judicial department, entered April 23, 1909, which affirmed an order of Special Term confirming an award of commissioners of appraisal in the above-entitled proceeding.

*Archibald R. Watson, Corporation Counsel (Frederick W. Sherman*of counsel), for appellant.

*Wilson*Brown, *Jr.,*for respondents.

Order affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Cullen, Ch. J., Gray, Haight, Vann, Werner, Willard Bartlett and Chase, JJ.
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
EXHIBIT 12.3

Southwestern Electric Power Company
Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges
For Years Ended December 31,

                                          1997       1996       1995      1994      1993
                                        --------   --------   --------  --------  --------
                                                    (thousands, except ratios)
<S>                                    <C>        <C>        <C>       <C>       <C>

Operating income                        $139,409   $138,083   $162,776  $145,922  $118,057
Adjustments:
  Income taxes                            44,396     32,931     41,131    20,623    37,108
  Provision for deferred
    income taxes                          (2,244)     2,849      6,287    22,248      (648)
  Deferred investment tax credits         (4,662)    (4,730)    (4,786)   (4,278)   (5,193)
  Charges for investments and plant
    development costs, net of tax           (483)   (21,815)        --        --        --
  Other income and deductions              3,578        312        178     4,656     3,658
  Allowance for borrowed and equity
    funds used during construction         2,156      2,423      9,334     6,097     2,580
  Interest portion of financing
    leases                                 1,194      1,514      1,896     2,562     2,534
                                        --------   --------   --------  --------  --------
        Earnings                        $183,344   $151,567   $216,816  $197,830  $158,096
                                        ========   ========   ========  ========  ========


Fixed charges:
  Interest on long-term debt             $40,440    $44,066    $44,468   $43,395  $ 40,958
 Distributions on Trust Preferred
    Securities                             5,582         --         --        --        --
  Interest on short-term debt and other    5,736      8,381     10,706     7,568     4,866
  Interest portion of financing leases     1,194      1,514      1,896     2,562     2,534
                                        --------   --------   --------  --------  --------
        Fixed charges                    $52,952    $53,961    $57,070   $53,525  $ 48,358
                                        ========   ========   ========  ========  ========


Ratio of earnings to fixed charges          3.46       2.81       3.80      3.70      3.27(1)



(1) The ratio of earnings to fixed charges for 1993 was calculated before 
    cumulative effect of change in accounting principles.

</TABLE>
-----Original Message----- 

From: joedisalvo04@gmail.com [mailto:joedisalvo04@gmail.com] 

Sent: Sunday, April 25, 2010 11:59 PM 

To: EBSA, E-OHPSCA - EBSA 

Subject: Comment in support of RIN 1210-AB30 

April 25, 2010 

I am writing to support the interim final rule under the Paul Wellstone 

and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008 

(RIN 1210-AB30). 

I support the strong rule that would forbid insurance companies from 

charging higher copayments, deductibles, and other out-of-pocket 

expenses for mental health treatment than they would for other physical 

health care. Thank you for ensuring that mental health care and 

physical health care coverage are included in a single deductible. 

Sincerely, 

Joe DiSalvo 

1017 Howe Ave. APT 10 

Cuyahoga Falls, OH 44221
#### § 213.143 Frog guard rails and guard faces; gage.

(a) The guard check and guard face gages in frogs shall be within the following limits—

Table 1 to [§ 213.143](/on/2024-09-24/title-49/section-213.143)(a)

| Class of track | Guard check gage | Guard face gage |
| --- | --- | --- |
| The distance between the gage line of a frog to the guard line1 of its guard rail or guarding face, measured across the track at right angles to the gage line,2 may not be less than— | The distance between guard lines,1 measured across the track at right angles to the gage line,2 may not be more than— |
| Class 1 track | 4′61/8′′ | 4′51/4′′ |
| Class 2 track | 4′61/4′′ | 4′51/8′′ |
| Class 3 and 4 track | 4′63/8′′ | 4′51/8′′ |
| Class 5 track | 3 4′61/2′′ | 4′5′′ |
| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 1 A line along that side of the flangeway which is nearer to the center of the track and at the same elevation as the gage line. | | |
| 2 A line five-eighths of an inch below the top of the center line of the head of the running rail, or corresponding location of the tread portion of the track structure. | | |
| 3 See [paragraph (b)](/on/2024-09-24/title-49/section-213.143#p-213.143(b)) of this section. | | |

(b) For any heavy-point frog (HPF) on Class 5 track, the guard check gage may be less than 4′61⁄2′′ but not be less than 4′63⁄8′′, provided that:

(1) Each HPF and guard rails on both rails through the turnout are equipped with at least three serviceable through-gage plates with elastic rail fasteners and guard rail braces that permit adjustment of the guard check gage without removing spikes or other fasteners from the crossties; and

(2) Each HPF bears an identifying mark applied by either the track owner, railroad, or the frog manufacturer that identifies the frog as an HPF.

[[85 FR 63388](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/85-FR-63388), Oct. 7, 2020]
#### John O’Brien, *Respondent, v.*The State of New York, *Appellant.*

Decision of state board of audit affirmed, with costs. Opinion by

Dykman, J.