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


<ARTICLE>                           5
<LEGEND>

THIS  SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL   INFORMATION  EXTRACTED  FROM  THE
CONSOLIDATED  CONDENSED FINANCIAL  STATEMENTS FILED WITH NOVAMED'S JUNE 30, 2000
QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-QSB AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

</LEGEND>

<CIK>                                                0001036478
<NAME>                                               NovaMed, Inc.
<MULTIPLIER>                                         1
<CURRENCY>                                           U.S. Dollars


<S>                                                <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                        3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                    DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                         JUN-30-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                               18,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        278,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          443,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     739,000
<PP&E>                                               92,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                       28,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       825,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                777,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             16,000
<OTHER-SE>                                           32,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         825,000
<SALES>                                              375,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     375,000
<CGS>                                                111,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        568,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      (193,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  (193,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                         (193,000)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          (0.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        (0.01)


</TABLE>
Before the Third Division,

February 13, 1962

No. 66457.

#### Morganite, Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 61/3989 (New York).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of carbon powder similar in all material respects to that the subject of *Morganite, Inc.*v. *United States*(42 C.C.P.A. 207, C.A.D. 595), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
MANAGEMENTS ASSERTION OF COMPLIANCE
   Platform: (i.e.,
 Applicable Servicing Criteria:
 Period:
  
    
    The Companys management is responsible for assessing the Companys compliance with the
Applicable Servicing Criteria.
    
    The Companys management has assessed compliance with the Applicable Servicing
Criteria. In making this assessment, management used the criteria set forth by the Securities and
Exchange Commission in paragraph (d) of Item 1122 of Regulation AB.
    
    Based on such assessment, the Company has complied, in all material respects,
with the Applicable Servicing Criteria.
  CITIBANK, N.A.By:
    
    /s/ Karen MontbachIts:
    
    Managing Director  CIS
 Dated: February 27,2009
    
    Karen Montbach, Managing DirectorCiti Issuer Services388 Greenwich Street, 14th FloorNew York, NY 10013212-816-5718
Amendment No. 1 to Employment Agreement dated December 20, 2012



 Exhibit 10.1 
 AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO EXECUTIVE EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT 
 This Amendment
No. 1 to Executive Employment Agreement (this “Amendment”) is entered into by and between Spark Networks, Inc., a Delaware Corporation (“Company”), and Gregory R. Liberman (“Executive”).

 A. The Company and Employee entered into that certain Executive Employment Agreement dated April 11, 2011 (the
“Agreement”) pursuant to which the Executive would be employed by the Company as President and Chief Executive Officer. Capitalized terms used but not defined herein shall have the meanings assigned to them in the Agreement.

 B. The Company and the Employee wish to amend the Agreement pursuant to the terms of Section 13 thereof to reflect the
following: (1) an increase in Executive’s Base Salary from $325,000 to $375,000 and (2) an increase in Executive’s Target Annual Bonus from $225,000 to $250,000. 

The parties agree as follows: 
 1. Effective Date. The effective date of this Amendment shall be January 1, 2013 (the “Amendment Effective Date”). 

2. Base Salary. As of the Amendment Effective Date, all references to the Base Salary throughout the Agreement and as contained in
Section 4.1 thereof shall mean three hundred seventy-five thousand dollars ($375,000). 
 3. Target Annual Bonus. As
of the Amendment Effective Date, all references to the Target Annual Bonus throughout the Agreement and as contained in Section 4.2 thereof shall mean two hundred fifty thousand dollars ($250,000). 

4. No Other Changes in Terms and Conditions of Agreement. Except as specifically set forth in this Amendment, all of the terms and
conditions of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. 
 5. Interpretation; Construction. This Amendment and
the Executive Employment Agreement shall be read together as a single, integrated agreement. The headings set forth in this Amendment are for convenience only and shall not be used in interpreting this Amendment. This Amendment has been drafted by
legal counsel representing the Company, but Executive has participated in the negotiation of its terms. Furthermore, Executive acknowledges that Executive has had an opportunity to review and revise the Amendment and have it reviewed by legal
counsel, if desired, and, therefore, the normal rule of construction to the effect that any ambiguities are to be resolved against the drafting party shall not be employed in the interpretation of this Amendment. 







 THE PARTIES TO THIS AMENDMENT HAVE READ THE FOREGOING AMENDMENT AND FULLY UNDERSTAND EACH AND EVERY
PROVISION CONTAINED HEREIN. WHEREFORE, THE PARTIES HAVE EXECUTED THIS AMENDMENT ON THE DATES SHOWN BELOW. 
  

	
	GREGORY R. LIBERMAN
	
	 /s/ Gregory R. Liberman

	
	Dated: December 20, 2012
	
	SPARK NETWORKS, INC
	
	 /s/ Michael Kumin

	Michael Kumin
	Chairman of the Board of Directors
	
	Dated: December 20, 2012



  
 - 2 -
In The 

Court of Appeals 

Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

________________________

No. 07-14-00015-CV 

________________________

ALBENITA GONZALES, APPELLANT 

 

V. 

 

DOROTHY GONZALES, APPELLEE 

 

 

On Appeal from the 181st District Court 

Randall County, Texas 

Trial Court No. 62,319-B; Honorable John B. Board, Presiding 

 

February 18, 2014 

 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

 

Before CAMPBELL and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ.

Appellant, Albenita Gonzales, perfected this appeal from the trial court’s 

judgment in favor of Appellee, Dorothy Gonzales, in a suit involving the creation and 

operation of Canyon Caliche Pit, Inc. By letter dated January 22, 2014, this Court 

advised Appellant that a filing fee of $195 was overdue and also noted that failure to 

submit payment within ten days might result in dismissal of the appeal. Appellant has
2

not responded, paid the filing fee nor made other arrangements for the discharge of the 

clerk’s filing fee. See TEX. R. APP. P. 12.1(b). 

Unless a party is excused from paying a filing fee, the Clerk of this Court is 

required to collect filing fees set by statute or the Texas Supreme Court when an item is 

presented for filing. See TEX. R. APP. P. 5 and 12.1(b). Although the filing of a notice of 

appeal invokes this Court’s jurisdiction, if a party fails to follow the prescribed rules of 

appellate procedure, the appeal may be dismissed. TEX. R. APP. P. 25.1(b). 

COURT REPORTER’S REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME

Pending before this Court is a request for an extension of time in which to file the 

reporter’s record. The basis for the request from the Official Court Reporter of the 181st 

District Court is that only partial payment has been made. In light of our disposition of 

this appeal, the motion is rendered moot. 

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed for failure to comply with a directive from 

this Court requiring action within a specified time. TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(c).

Patrick A. Pirtle

 Justice
No. 502, Misc.

#### Larson *v.*Washington.

Supreme Court of Washington. Certiorari denied.
CATERPILLAR FINANCIAL SERVICES CORPORATION

POWERNOTES (SM)

With Maturities of 9 months or more from Date of Issue

 

Registration No. 333-59540

Filed Pursuant to Rule 424 (b) (3)

PRICING SUPPLEMENT NO. 088				Trade Date: 06/14/01
(To Prospectus Supplement & Prospectus dated

June 1, 2001)						Issue Date: 06/19/01
The Date of this Pricing Supplement June 14, 2001
SUBJECT TO REDEMPTION OR REPAYMENT

CUSIP									Date and terms of redemption or

or	Stated				 Interest			repayment (including any

Common	Interest		 Price to	 Discounts & Payment	Survivors		applicable regular or special

Code	Rate (1)	Maturity	Public (2)	Commissions Frequency	 Option	Yes/No	record dates)

14911QDR9 5.15%	06/15/04	100%	 0.625% Semi-Annually YES	 NO	

Principal						1st Payment	Day	

Amount		Proceeds		Dealer		 Date		Count

$1,701,000.00	$1,690,368.75	ABN AMRO Inc.	12/15/01		30/360	
 

Original Issue Discount Note:					Total Amount of OID:

____ Yes	 X No						N/A

 

 
- The interest rates on the PowerNotes (SM) may be changed by Caterpillar Financial Services Corporation from time to time, but any such change will not affect the interest rate on any PowerNotes (SM) offered prior to the effective date of the change.Prior to the date of this Pricing Supplement, $[14.572]mm principal amount of the PowerNotes (SM) were sold at interest rates then in effect. Subsequent offerings of PowerNotes (SM) will be made under a Prospectus Supplement and Prospectus dated June 1,2001.
- Expressed as a percentage of aggregate principal amount. Actual Price to Public may be less, and will be determined by prevailing market prices at the time of purchase as set forth in the confirmation sheet.
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsAcoustic Emission Monitoring of the DC-XA Composite Liquid Hydrogen Tank During Structural TestingThe results of acoustic emission (AE) monitoring of the DC-XA composite liquid hydrogen tank are presented in this report. The tank was subjected to pressurization, tensile, and compressive loads at ambient temperatures and also while full of liquid nitrogen. The tank was also pressurized with liquid hydrogen. AE was used to monitor the tank for signs of structural defects developing during the test.Document ID19970001260Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeTechnical Memorandum (TM)AuthorsWilkerson, C.*(NASA Huntsville, AL United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 6, 2013Publication DateOctober 1, 1996Subject CategoryQuality Assurance And ReliabilityReport/Patent NumberNAS 1.15:108520NASA-TM-108520Accession Number97N11094Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19970001260.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
- All
            - Title
            - Author
            - Subject
            - Date
            - Full-Text

            -                              Explore                            ******                - Educational Resources
              - Archival Collections
              -                                      Themes                                    ******                  - Economic Data
                - Federal Reserve
                - View all 
              - Timelines 
            -                              Browse                            ******                - Titles
              - Authors
              - Subjects
              - Dates 
            -                              About                            ******                - About FRASER
              - FAQ
              - Contact Us
              -                                      FRASER API                                    ******                  - REST API
                - OAI-PMH 
            - Inside FRASER Blog

            - **

Home                 > Browse by Title > Repealing Certain Legislation Relating to Reserves Against Deposits in Federal Reserve Banks

              																	United States. Congress. House. Committee on Banking and Currency, 1865-1974					 and 	Eighty-Ninth Congress, 1965-1967. 						*Repealing Certain Legislation Relating to Reserves Against Deposits in Federal Reserve Banks : Hearing Before the Committee on Banking and Currency, House of Representatives, Eighty-Ninth Congress, First Session, on H.R. 3818, February 1, 1965*,												Washington: 								Government Printing Office, 										February 1, 1965,									https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/title/283,			accessed on August 26, 2024.						    

        - **FRASER**
        - About
        - FAQ
        - Legal and Privacy
        - FRASER API

          -                              @FedFRASER 
          - ** Contact Us
          -  **  What's New  
          -  **  Inside FRASER
No. 460, Misc.

#### Summers *v.*United States.

Petitioner *pro se.*

*Solicitor General Cox, Assistant Attorney General Miller, Beatrice Rosenberg*and *Julia P. Cooper*for the United States.

United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Certiorari denied.
From: karriep@dayspring.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:35:16 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Karrie Packard

Siloam Springs, AR 72761
| For      the Period: 3/16/2009 to 3/23/2008 |
|---------------------------------------------|

| Coupon | Interest                           | Maturity | Callable   | Survivor'sOption | Price1 | Yield2 | Moody's | S&P | CUSIP     |
|--------|------------------------------------|----------|------------|------------------|--------|--------|---------|---------|-----------|
| 4.850% | Semi-Annual(†††) | 3/15/11  | NO         | YES§        | 100.00 | 4.850% | A2      | A       | 14912HNW6 |
| 5.750% | Semi-Annual(†††) | 3/15/13  | NO         | YES§        | 100.00 | 5.750% | A2      | A       | 14912HNX4 |
| 6.750% | Semi-Annual(†††) | 3/15/15  | 3/15/10*** | YES§        | 100.00 | 6.750% | A2      | A       | 14912HNY2 |
# Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect toPersons Who Commit, Threaten To Commit, or SupportTerrorism

                    On September 23, 2001, by Executive Order 13224, the President declared a national emergency pursuant to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701*et seq.*) to deal with the unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States constituted by the grave acts of terrorism and threats of terrorism committed by foreign terrorists, including the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, in New York and Pennsylvania and against the Pentagon, and the continuing and immediate threat of further attacks against United States nationals or the United States.                

On September 9, 2019, the President signed Executive Order 13886 to strengthen and consolidate sanctions to combat the continuing threat posed by international terrorism and to take additional steps to deal with the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13224, as amended.

The actions of persons who commit, threaten to commit, or support terrorism continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States. For this reason, the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13224 of September 23, 2001, as amended, and the measures adopted to deal with that emergency, must continue in effect beyond September 23, 2023. Therefore, in accordance with section 202(d) of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)), I am continuing for 1 year the national emergency with respect to persons who commit, threaten to commit, or support terrorism declared in Executive Order 13224, as amended.

                    This notice shall be published in the                     *Federal Register*                     and transmitted to the Congress.                

[FR Doc. 2023-19744

Billing code 3395-F3-P
From: josamen@libertysengine.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:38:00 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Joseph Amendolea

Tonawanda, NY 14150
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFOMATION EXTRACTED FROM IMPAC
COMMERCIAL HOLDINGS, INC. QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-Q FOR THE QUARTER ENDED
MARCH 31, 2000 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                          17,805
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 438,778
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           68,091
<BONDS>                                        272,255
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          5
<COMMON>                                            84
<OTHER-SE>                                      98,343
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   438,778
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 7,634
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   635
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               5,607
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,392
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,392
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,392
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.14
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.14


</TABLE>