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

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                            1706
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        9
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  1715
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                    1715
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                               98
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                        1617
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                      1715
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                    50
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    82
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   (32)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               (32)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (32)
<EPS-BASIC>                                   (0.42)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.42)


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                         123,054
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                4,307,966
<ALLOWANCES>                                  (30,000)
<INVENTORY>                                  6,391,001
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            11,695,076
<PP&E>                                      19,816,721
<DEPRECIATION>                             (8,833,747)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              35,846,281
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        6,015,446
<BONDS>                                     18,144,935
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        56,147
<OTHER-SE>                                  11,629,753
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                35,846,281
<SALES>                                      8,874,487
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             8,874,487
<CGS>                                        7,110,154
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                7,110,154
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,268,821
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             399,747
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 95,765
<INCOME-TAX>                                    45,960
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             49,805
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    49,805
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .01


</TABLE>
EX-10.1






AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT




This AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT (the “Agreement”) is dated as of March 23, 2006,
by and between PORTFOLIO RECOVERY ASSOCIATES, INC., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), and
Judith S. Scott (“Employee”).



W I T N E S S E T H

:




WHEREAS, effective as of April 1, 2006, the Company desires to amend the Agreement with the
Employee in the manner set forth herein, and



WHEREAS, the Employee agrees to such an amendment to the Agreement upon the terms set forth
herein.



NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and mutual covenants contained herein and for
other good and valuable consideration, the adequacy and receipt of which are hereby acknowledged,
the parties agree as follows:



Section 4(a) of the Agreement is deleted in its entirety, and the following is inserted in its
place:



“4. Compensation



a) Base Salary. Employee shall be paid a base salary (the “Base Salary”) at
an annual rate of $175,000, payable at such intervals as the other executive officers of the
Company are paid, but in any event at least on a monthly basis. On each January 1 following the
Commencement Date, commencing January 1, 2007, Base Salary shall be increased annually by no less
than 4% over the immediately preceding year’s Base Salary.”



Except as provided herein or modified hereby, all provisions, covenants and conditions of the
Agreement shall remain unchanged and enforceable in accordance with their terms. To the extent
that any provision of this Amendment to Employment Agreement conflicts with any similar provision
of the Agreement, the terms set forth herein shall control.



IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement as of the day and year
first set forth above.




PORTFOLIO RECOVERY ASSOCIATES, INC.




By: _/s/ Steven D. Fredrickson     

Name: Steven D. Fredrickson

Position: President





By:_/s/ Judith Scott     




	 	 	Judith Scott
Order entered October 24, 2018

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 18

- 00360

- CR

DEMOND DEPREE BLUNTS ON, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 4 9th District Court Webb County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2012CRO000674D1



### O RDER

Before the Court is appellant’s October 15 , 2018 motion to abate the appeal for a hearing

on the reporter’s record. In the motion, appellant states that he requested certa in portions of the

reporter’s record but those portions have not been filed and the court reporter has not responded

to inquiries about the missing portions of the record.

We GRANT the motion to the extent we ORDER the trial court to c ond u c t a h e ar i n g a t

w hi c h Cynthia Perez Lenz is p re s e nt a nd to m a k e f indin g s r e g a r ding the status of :

 the record , if any, of chambers conference attended by the parties and referenced at volume 5, pages 6

- 7 of the reporter’s record;

 the record , if any, of a discussion between the trial court and appellant referenced at volume 8, pages 4

- 5 of the reporter’s record; and the record, if any, of a chambers conference held on April 20, 2016, referred to at the charge conference held in open court later that same day and referenced at volume 1, page 4 of the supplemental reporter’ s record.

In addition, appellant seeks clarification regarding the “accuracy of the matters

transcribed at 40 RR 37

- 38, and about the location of a discussion between counsel and the court

mentioned at 21 RR 5

- 6.”

W e ORD E R the t r i a l c ou r t to t ra nsmit a supp l e m e nt a l rec o r d c ont a in i ng its w r itt e n

f indin g s of f

a c t, a n y su p po r ting d o c um e nt a tion, a nd a n y o r d er s to this C ou r t regarding

whether the portions detailed above were, in fact, reported and , if so, when t hey may be filed

with the Court within TWENTY DAYS of the d a te o f this o r d er

.

We DIRECT the Clerk to send copies of this order to the Honorable J ose Lopez

,

Presiding Judge, 49th District Court ; to Cynthia Perez Lenz

, official court reporter

, 49th District

Court ; and to all counsel for all parties.

We ABATE this appeal to allow the trial court to comply with this order. The appeal

shall be reinstated when we receive the supplemental record containing the trial court’s findings

of fact or when the Court oth erwise deems it appropriate to reinstate the appeal.

/s/ LANA MYERS

JUSTICE
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2453 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2453

 To amend title 18, United States Code, to increase speedy trial time 
                                limits.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            October 10, 1995

  Mr. Frank of Massachusetts introduced the following bill; which was 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend title 18, United States Code, to increase speedy trial time 
                                limits.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Fugitive Detention Act of 1995''.

SEC. 2. SPEEDY TRIAL TIME LIMITS.

    Section 3161 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding 
at the end the following:
    ``(l) If the defendant was a fugitive from justice, the time limit 
required by subsection (c), as extended by subsection (h), is further 
extended by 60 days for each year the court determines the defendant 
was a fugitive from justice. Section 3164(c) of this title does not 
apply with respect to such a defendant.''.
                                 <all>
```
§ 211.47 Review procedures. ( a ) As specified in section 203, Public Law 91-458, 84 Stat. 972 (45 U.S.C. 432), opportunity for review of Emergency orders issued under that section will be provided in accordance with section 554 of title 5 of the U.S.C. Petitions for such review must be submitted in writing to the Office of Chief Counsel, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, DC 20590. Upon receipt of a petition, FRA will immediately contact the petitioner and make the necessary arrangements for a conference to be held at the earliest date acceptable to the petitioner. At this conference, the petitioner will be afforded an opportunity to submit facts, arguments and proposals for modification or withdrawal of the Emergency order. If the controversy is not resolved at the conference and a hearing is desired, the petitioner must submit a written request for a hearing within 15 days after the conference. The hearing will commence within 14 calendar days f receipt of the request and will be conducted in accordance with sections 556 and 575, title 5, U.S.C. Each petition for review shall be decided not later than 3 months after receipt.
( b ) Unless stayed or modified by the Administrator, the requirements of each Emergency order shall remain in effect and be observed pending decision on a petition for review.
#### § 37.171 Equivalency requirement for demand responsive service operated by private entities not primarily engaged in the business of transporting people.

A private entity not primarily engaged in the business of transporting people which operates a demand responsive system shall ensure that its system, when viewed in its entirety, provides equivalent service to individuals with disabilities, including individuals who use wheelchairs, as it does to individuals without disabilities. The standards of § 37.105 shall be used to determine if the entity is providing equivalent service.
Page 1 of 1

Pete

From: "Jane DeGraff" <jcdegraff@gmail.com>
Date: Thursday, July 09, 2015 9:01 PM

To: "De Graff, Peter H." <phdegraff@gmail.com>

Subject: | Fwd: RIN 1210-AB32 DOL proposed rule

cannnennne Forwarded message ----------

From: Jane DeGraff <jcdegraff@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 4:52 PM

Subject: RIN 1210-AB32 DOL proposed rule

To: ori@dol.gov

Iam a retiree with only a very modest investment portfolio and IRA and I have just recently become
aware of the proposed DOL fiduciary rule.

After reading about it on numerous Internet sites, I am now extremely concerned that , while the goal is
laudatory, the ultimate effect will constrict the ability of my financial advisor to give me timely and
specific advice.

lam dependent on my IRA and I do not want to be put in the position of only being given "impartial"
advice as to the type of category of investment appropriate to me and have to then decide on my own
which product to choose. I do not have the required knowledge to make such decisions.

I currently have an adviser who listens and responds when I say that I want a well diversified and
conservative portfolio. Since 2004 and through the 2008 crash and to the present my IRA has steadily
grown, even while getting annual distributions from it.

I worry that in response to the proposed DOL rule (if it is implemented) that my adviser's company will
then create new policies (in order to qualify for one of the many "prohibited transaction exemptions" )
that will unintentionally tend to inhibit an advisor from providing the kind of personalized advice that a
client may require.

While the proposed DOL rule has the best of intentions, the implementation may be another story and
have unintended consequences. The bottom line for me is: I do not want anything to interfere with my
current relationship with my financial adviser. So I urge you to tread very carefully regarding any
changes you may be considering making to the rule currently in place.

Sincerely yours,
Jane C. DeGraff

7/9/2015
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL  INFORMATION  EXTRACTED FROM BALANCE
SHEETS AS OF SEPTEMBER 30, 2000 AND STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS FOR THE NINE MONTHS
ENDED  SEPTEMBER  30, 2000 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                           DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                              JAN-1-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                         749,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                3,715,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (75,000)
<INVENTORY>                                  3,234,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             8,374,000
<PP&E>                                      21,614,000
<DEPRECIATION>                             (11,839,000)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              25,939,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,542,000
<BONDS>                                     12,100,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        50,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  10,823,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                25,939,000
<SALES>                                     20,503,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            20,503,000
<CGS>                                        9,130,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                9,130,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             5,214,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              6,283,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                 2,264,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          4,019,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 4,019,000
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.64
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.64


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

From: wlftax@aol.com [mailto:wlftax@aol.com] 

Sent: Sunday, April 25, 2010 3:49 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, 

Wendy Finn 

PO Box 727 

Banner Elk, NC 28604
#### § 374.103 Notice to be printed on tickets.

Every motor carrier of passengers subject to 49 U.S.C. subtitle IV, part B shall cause to be printed on every ticket sold by it for transportation on any vehicle operated in interstate or foreign commerce a plainly legible notice as follows: “Seating aboard vehicles operated in interstate or foreign commerce is without regard to race, color, creed, or national origin.”

Note:

The following interpretation of the provisions of [§ 374.103](/on/2024-09-24/title-49/section-374.103) (formerly [§ 1055.2](/on/2024-09-24/title-49/section-1055.2)) appears at [27 FR 230](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/27-FR-230), Jan. 9, 1962:

The words, “Seating aboard vehicles operated in interstate or foreign commerce is without regard to race, color, creed, or national origin”, should appear on the face of every ticket coming within the purview of the section. If the ticket is in parts or consists of additional elements, such as coupons, identification stubs, or checks, it shall be sufficient for the purposes of [§ 374.103](/on/2024-09-24/title-49/section-374.103) that the notice appear only once on the ticket and be placed on the face of that portion of the ticket which is held by the passenger.

[[36 FR 1338](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/36-FR-1338), Jan. 28, 1971. Redesignated at [61 FR 54709](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/61-FR-54709), Oct. 21, 1996, as amended at [62 FR 15423](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/62-FR-15423), Apr. 1, 1997; [81 FR 68345](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/81-FR-68345), Oct. 4, 2016]
§ 350.225 What MOE must a State maintain to qualify for MCSAP funds? ( a ) *General.* Subject to paragraph (e) of this section, a State must maintain an MOE each fiscal year for CMV safety programs eligible for funding under this part at a level at least equal to: ( 1 ) The average level of that expenditure for the base period of fiscal years 2004 and 2005; or
( 2 ) The level of expenditure in fiscal year 2021, as adjusted under section 5107 of the Fixing America's Surface Transportation (FAST) Act (Pub. L. 114-94, 129 Stat. 1312, 1532-34 (2015)).
( b ) *Calculation.* In determining a State's MOE, FMCSA: ( 1 ) May allow the State to exclude State expenditures for Federally-sponsored demonstration and pilot CMV safety programs and strike forces;
( 2 ) May allow the State to exclude expenditures for activities related to border enforcement and new entrant safety audits;
( 3 ) May allow the State to use amounts generated under the Unified Carrier Registration Agreement, provided the amounts are not applied to the match required under § 350.223;
( 4 ) Requires the State to exclude Federal funds; and
( 5 ) Requires the State to exclude State matching funds required under § 350.223.
( c ) *Costs.* ( 1 ) In calculating the MOE under paragraph (b) of this section, a State must include all eligible costs associated with activities performed during the base period by the Lead State Agency that receives funds under this part.
( 2 ) In its annual MOE, a State must include only those activities that meet the current requirements for funding eligibility under MCSAP.
( d ) *Waivers and modifications.* ( 1 ) If a State requests, FMCSA may waive or modify the State's obligation to meet its MOE for a fiscal year if FMCSA determines that the waiver or modification is reasonable, based on circumstances described by the State.
( 2 ) Requests to waive or modify the State's obligation to meet its MOE must be submitted to FMCSA in writing.
( 3 ) FMCSA will review the request and provide a response as soon as practicable, but no later than 120 days following receipt of the request.
( e ) *Permanent adjustment.* After Federal fiscal year 2021, at the request of a State, FMCSA may make a permanent adjustment to reduce the State's MOE only if a State has new information unavailable to it during Federal fiscal year 2021.
Unassociated Document


    AMENDMENT
      NO. 5

    TO

    BURLINGTON
      RESOURCES INC.

    2002
      STOCK INCENTIVE PLAN

     

     

    The
      Burlington Resources Inc. 2002 Stock Incentive Plan (the “Plan”) is hereby
      amended, effective as of January 1, 2005, as follows:

     

    A
      new
      Section 3.5 is added to the Plan to read as follows:

     

    “3.5
      Anything
      in this Plan to the contrary notwithstanding, the Plan Administrator and the
      Board of Directors shall neither have nor exercise any authority under this
      Plan
      to modify outstanding options, stock appreciation rights or Restricted Stock
      so
      as to cause any such options, stock appreciation rights or Restricted Stock
      to
      provide for a deferral of compensation subject to Section 409A of the
      Code.”
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-20576 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus CHRISTOPHER JOHNSON, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. H-99-CR-648-1

-------------------- February 13, 2001 Before SMITH, BARKSDALE, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Christopher Johnson appeals his guilty-plea conviction for receiving a firearm while under a felony indictment in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(n). He contends that 18 U.S.C. § 922(n) is unconstitutional as applied in his case because it lacks a sufficient nexus to interstate commerce. Johnson concedes that this circuit has held 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) constitutional and that the holding applies equally to 18 U.S.C. § 922(n). Johnson argues that we should reconsider our jurisprudence regarding the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) in light of Jones v.No. 00-20576 -2- United States , 120 S. Ct. 1904 (2000) and United States v. Morrison , 120 S. Ct. 1740 (2000). “This court has repeatedly emphasized that the constitutionality of § 922(g)(1) is not open to question.” See United States v. De Leon , 170 F.3d 494, 499 (5th Cir.), cert. denied , 120 S. Ct. 156 (1999). The cases cited by Johnson do not affect this determination and, therefore, cannot serve to support a challenge to a conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 922(n). AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 23


                       Consent of Independent Accountants

We  hereby  consent  to the  incorporation  by  reference  in  the  Registration
Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-22553,  33-27417, 33-32224 and 33-17829) of our
report  dated March 12,  2001  relating to the  financial  statements  of AmBase
Corporation,  which appears on AmBase  Corporation's  Annual Report on Form 10-K
for the year ended December 31, 2000.





PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
New York, New York
March 28, 2001