alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
##### 



Exhibit 13.1


CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


20-F/A




|    |                                                                                                                                                            
|--- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|(1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a)
    or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and                      
|   
|(2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
    material respects, the financial condition and result of
    operations of the Company.



| |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              
| | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | /s/ Dr. Ben J. Lipps 
     Dr. Ben J. Lipps 
     Chief Executive Officer and 
     Chairman of the Management Board of 
     Fresenius Medical Care Management AG 
     general partner of 
     Fresenius Medical Care AG & Co. KGaA 
     February 26, 2007 /s/ Lawrence A. Rosen 
     Lawrence A. Rosen 
     Chief Financial Officer and 
     Member of the Management Board of 
     Fresenius Medical Care Management AG 
     general partner of 
     Fresenius Medical Care AG & Co. KGaA 
     February 26, 2007
A89A2039.

#### BOTTOMS v. THE STATE.

(392 SE2d 59)

Carley, Chief Judge.

Appellant pled guilty to several counts of theft by receiving and one count of financial transaction card theft. The trial court sentenced appellant to ten years’ probation conditioned upon her payment of restitution. Appellant appeals, enumerating error as to her sentence.

1. Over appellant’s objection, the trial court granted the State’s motion to continue the restitution hearing so as to secure the presence of several victims. We find no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s grant of this motion.

2. Apparently the stolen items found in appellant’s possession had been taken from the victims’ homes in a series of burglaries. In these burglaries, numerous items had been taken in addition to those which formed the basis of the charges against appellant. In sentencing appellant, the trial court ordered restitution as to all items that had been taken in the burglaries. Appellant enumerates this as error.

For purposes of restitution, “ ‘[djamages’ means all damages which a victim could recover against an offender in a civil action . . . based on the same act or acts for which the offender is sentenced. . . .” OCGA § 17-14-2 (2). The acts for which the trial court was authorized to impose sentence upon appellant were not the bur*863glaries of the victims’ homes. Appellant was not charged with those burglaries. She was charged with theft by receiving only certain items which had been taken in those burglaries. While the burglars themselves could be ordered to make restitution as to any and all items that had been stolen from the victims’ homes, the trial court was not authorized to order appellant to make restitution as to items that she was not herself charged with having stolen. See *Robinson*v. *State,*169 Ga. App. 763 (315 SE2d 277) (1984). The trial court was authorized to order appellant to make restitution only to the extent that the victims may have suffered “damages” as the result of her acts of theft by receiving and financial transaction card theft. “Therefore, the case is remanded with direction that appellant be resentenced in accordance with law.” *Robinson*v. *State,*supra at 763.

Decided March 14, 1990.

*Boling, Rice & Bettis, Jeffrey S. Balgey,*for appellant.

*Garry T. Moss, District Attorney, Russell McClelland III, Assistant District Attorney,*for appellee.

3. Appellant’s remaining enumeration of error is moot.

*Judgment reversed and case remanded with direction.*

*McMurray, P. J., concurs. Beasley, J., concurs in the judgment only.*
Federal Reserve Board of Governors

Course Description for Real Estate

Lending Seminar

Last Revised: January 16, 2019
2 P a g e

Course Overview

Real Estate Lending Seminar (RELS) is designed to provide a systematic approach to 

analyzing real estate acquisition, development and construction lending facilities. The course 

reviews various types of real estate projects and the unique risks. Topics include real estate 

underwriting standards, developer cash flow analysis, appraisals and appraisal policy 

guidelines, financing different types of real estate, real estate related accounting issues, 

problem real estate loan management, classification standards and issues and local economic 

conditions affecting real estate lending. RELS is an interactive forum, where participants are 

encouraged to share in classroom discussions and case studies.

Overview of Curriculum

Day 1

• Types of Commercial Real Estate

• Commercial Real Estate Risk Management Framework

• The Real Estate Decision Strategy

• Loan Policies & Procedures

• Opportunity Assessment

• Ownership Structures

Day 2

• Market and Property Assessment

• Assessment of Primary Source of Repayment

• Real Estate Valuation

Day 3

• Global Financial Assessment

• Loan Structure and Covenants

• Risk Rating

• Construction Loan Analysis 

Day 4

• Construction Loan Analysis (continued)

• Real Estate Loan Documentation and Portfolio Management

• Residential Lending

Type of Participant Targeted

RELS is for individuals whose typical job assignments involve the credit quality evaluation of 

loan portfolios. The typical participant will have some exposure to real estate credits, along with 

three to five years of regulatory experience.
3 P a g e

Prerequisites

None

Class Size and Instructors

The minimum class size is 15 participants and the maximum is 25. The seminar is instructed by are 

presented by professional instructors from Omega Performance and Federal Reserve Bank field 

examiners. Omega instructors provide a unique combination of real-world experience with 

professionally trained instructors. A System examiner will serve as a facilitator and instructor 

reinforcing System supervisory policy statements and relaying practical examination perspectives on 

an as-needed basis during group work and discussion.
Contact Us

#   Selected Analytical Methods for Environmental Remediation and Recovery (SAM) 2022

EPA’s *Selected Analytical Methods for Environmental Remediation and Recovery* (SAM) identifies analytical methods to be used by laboratories performing analyses of environmental and building material samples following a contamination event. Laboratories may use this information to evaluate the nature and extent of contamination and assess decontamination efficacy. In addition to providing the SAM document in its entirety, this site contains a tool that allows users to easily query the SAM methods.

## SAM Methods Query Tool

                - Chemical Methods Query
                - Radiochemical Methods Query
                - Pathogen Methods Query
                - Biotoxin Methods Query

## 2022 SAM Document

EPA's SAM identifies analytical methods to be used by laboratories that analyze chemical, radiochemical, pathogen and biotoxin contaminants of concern in environmental samples, and radiochemical contamination of building materials, following a contamination incident.

Selected Analytical Methods for Environmental Remediation and Recovery (SAM) 2022 

## Laboratory Resources

                - Environmental Response Laboratory Network (ERLN)
                - Water Laboratory Alliance (WLA)

## SAM Resources

                - SAM Technical Contacts
                - SAM Method Sources
                - Acronyms and Abbreviations
                - Glossary

## About SAM

                - Basic SAM Information  - Background information and purpose
                - General Quality Control (QC) Guidelines  - General discussion of quality control considerations
                - General Safety and Waste Management  - General discussion of safety and waste management
                - Selected Methods  - Summary descriptions and sources of SAM methods

## Related Information

                - SAM Companion Documents  - Links to SAM companion documents and other related sample collection procedures
                - SAM Revision Tracking Information  - Information regarding each SAM revision beginning with SAM Revision 1.0, 2004
                - ESAM Updates  - Information regarding updates to SAM methods, SAM/SCID query tools and companion documents since publication of SAM 2022
                - Waste Management  - Information regarding managing materials and wastes
                - Related SAM Links  - Links to key collaborators, laboratories and research centers

          -  ESAM Home 
          -  Sample Collection Information Documents (SCID) 
          -  Sample Collection Procedures and Strategies 
          -  Selected Analytical Methods (SAM) 
          -  Analytical Methods and Protocols 

Contact Us
<PAGE>   1
                                    FORM 8-K

                       Securities and Exchange Commission

                             Washington, D.C. 20549

                                 CURRENT REPORT

                         Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d)
                     of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934

       Date of Report (Date of earliest event reported) December 14, 1998

                         PRINCETON AMERICAN CORPORATION
             (Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

         Nevada                      0-5141                       22-1848644
  (State or other               (Commission File                 (IRS Employer
    Jurisdiction of                  Number)                    Identification
    Incorporation                                                   Number)

            2222 E. Camelback Road, Suite 105, Phoenix, Arizona  85016

               (Address of Principal Executive Offices)        (Zip Code)

       Registrant's Telephone Number, including area code: (602) 522-2444
<PAGE>   2
ITEM 4.  BANKRUPTCY OR RECEIVERSHIP

         On December 14, 1998, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the
District of Arizona, Case No. 96-13675 PHX JMM, ordered a hearing set for
January 6, 1999 on a motion to modify the plan of reorganization for the
Company. The Company's motion seeks to extend certain deadlines established by 
the joint plan of reorganization approved by the Bankruptcy Court on December 
20, 1997. A copy of the order is attached hereto as an exhibit and is
incorporated herein by reference.


ITEM 7.  FINANCIAL STATEMENTS, PRO FORMA FINANCIAL INFORMATION AND EXHIBITS

         (c)      Exhibits.

                  (20)     Documents Incorporated By Reference

                           20.1     Order And Notice Of Hearing On Motion To
                                    Modify Plan Filed By The Reorganized Debtor,
                                    Princeton American Corporation

                                   SIGNATURES

         Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, the registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf
by the undersigned hereunto duly authorized.

WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 16, 1998

                                   Princeton American Corporation

                                   By:    /s/  William C. Taylor
                                   ------------------------------------------
                                   William C. Taylor, Chief Executive Officer
<PAGE>   3
                                  EXHIBIT INDEX

Exhibit
   No.                                            Description
-------                                           -----------

20.1              Order And Notice Of Hearing On Motion To Modify Plan Filed By
                  The Reorganized Debtor, Princeton American Corporation


                                       3
No. 67666.

#### Barbizonia Mills, Inc., and Rohner Gehrig & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 237391-K and 232600-K (New York).

*285Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of nylon yarn similar in all material respects to that the subject of Abstract 65138 and following the principles set forth in *United States*v. *Steinberg Bros.*(47 CCPA 47, C.A.D. 727), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
EXHIBIT 4.11

                             TravelnStore.com, Inc.
                                Bridge Loan Note

This Note is issued by TravelnStore.com, a California Corporation.

General Description.

This note has a face amount of $25,000 and shall bear interest at 8 percent from
the date of  subscription.  It will  mature  the  later of 90 days  from date of
issuance  or no more than 30 days from the closing  date of the  initial  public
offering  of stock by  TravelnStore.com,  Inc.,  at  which  time the  principal,
accrued interest and stock bonus will be due.

Stock Bonus.

As  additional  consideration  for the  Noteholder  to make the  loan  evidenced
herein,  TravelnStore.com,   Inc.  will  issue  to  Noteholder,  or  Noteholders
designee(s),  5,000 shares of the common stock of  TravelnStore.com,  Inc.  Said
stock is subject to Rules 144 and 237 of the Securities and Exchange  Commission
prohibiting the sale of said shares for one year from the date of investment

Subordination.

This Note is a general  obligation of the Issuer.  It will be subordinate to any
debt senior in status.

No Third Party Guaranty.

No third party has, is, or is expected to guarantee  the  repayment of this Note
or any interest accrued or due.

Security.

This Note is a general  obligation  of the Issuer.  No interest in any property,
either  personal or real, is being pledged or assigned as collateral or security
for this Note.

Jurisdiction.

Any  dispute  arising  from the  granting  or  repayment  of this Note  shall be
adjudicated in the County of Ventura, State of California.

Attorney Fees.

Should any  action be  required  to enforce  the  provisions  of this Note,  the
prevailing party shall be entitled to reasonable attorney fees and costs.

In exchange for $25,000,  receipt hereby  acknowledged,  TravelnStore.com,  Inc.
issues this Note to___________________________________________, this ____ day of
___________, 2000.


     /s/ Jim Tyner
---------------------
Jim Tyner,
Chairman
TravelnStore.com, Inc.
FI LED U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ELEV ENT H CI RCUI T APRI L 5, 2 012 J OHN LEY CLERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 1- 14 90 4 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 1 :0 7- cr-0 01 23 -CC- LTW -7 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us HERMILA LARIOS SANDOVAL, Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di stric t Co urt fo r th e North ernDis tri ctof Ge or gi a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ (Ap ril 5, 2 01 2) Befo re CARNES, BAR KETT andANDERSON, Circu itJu dg es PER CURI AM: Den ni s C . O’ Bri en , app oi nt edco un se l fo r Herm il a San do va l i n thi s d ire ct cri m in al ap pe al , has m ov edto withdraw fro m furth er re pr es en ta ti onof t he ap pe ll an t an d fi le d abri ef p ur su an t t o An de rs v. Ca li fo rn ia , 38 6 U.S. 7 38 , 87 S.Ct .13 96 , 18 L.Ed.2d49 3 (1 96 7) . Our i nd ep en de ntrev ie w of the en ti re re co rdrev eal s

th atco un se l’s as se ss m en t o f th e rel at iv e m eri t o f th e ap pe al is co rrec t. Bec au se in de pe nd en t ex am in at io n o f th e en ti re rec or d re ve al s n o arg uabl e is su es of m eri t, co un se l’s m ot io n t o wi th dr aw is GRANTED , andSan do va l’s co nv ic ti onan d se nt en ce ar e AFFIRMED .

2
Case No. 7,723.

#### KEROSENE LAMP CO. v. LITTELL.

[2 N. J. Law J. 150.]

Circuit Court, D. New Jersey.

March 29, 1879.

Patents — Rehearing—New Evidence.

Motion for a rehearing denied in the absence of clear proof of anticipation of the patented article. ■

On motion for a rehearing upon affidavits of newly discovered evidence.

Dickerson & Beaman, for plaintiff.'

B. F. Lee, for defendant.

NIXON, District Judge.

There has been ¿ decree for the complainant in this cause on final hearing, .and this is an application for a rehearing, which the court, as a rule, is not disposed to favor. There are doubtless cases where such applications are proper, and where newly discovered facts render a rehearing the only method of averting injustice and securing the rights of litigants. But it is to the interest of the republic that there should be an end to strife, and the court is not disposed to encourage the practice sometimes resorted to by the losing party, of employing new counsel, and renewing the controversy, after he has submitted his case upon his proofs and elaborate argument, and had a decision rendered against him.

The opinion proceeds with an examination of the affidavits of the patentee, and the other proofs of newly discovered evidence, and concludes that it does not clearly appear that the lamps or heaters in evidence were in existence prior to the invention of Fish (the patentee), and that, if they were, they were not anticipations of the complainant’s patent, as heretofore construed by the court The motion for a rehearing was denied.

[See Case No. 7,724.]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF POWERTEL, INC. FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31, 2000
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                         334,109
<SECURITIES>                                    16,688
<RECEIVABLES>                                   33,349
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     19,029
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               426,100
<PP&E>                                         737,345
<DEPRECIATION>                                (182,163)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,395,259
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           81,059
<BONDS>                                        936,929
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          3
<COMMON>                                           312
<OTHER-SE>                                    (105,280)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,395,259
<SALES>                                          7,001
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               100,076
<CGS>                                           29,138
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  123,360
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                27,190
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              27,296
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (50,474)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (50,474)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (52,911)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (1.74)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (1.74)


</TABLE>
No. 60632.

#### Alltransport, Incorporated *v.*United States,

protest 262674-K (New York).

Opinion by

Donlon, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise, consisting of 327 original paintings, were not classified under paragraph 1807 for the reason *466that the importer failed to file a declaration for free entry of original paintings, as required by customs regulations; that said declaration has now been filed with the collector; and that if said declaration had been received by the collector within the 90-day review period, the entry would have been reliquidated free of duty under paragraph 1807. Accepting the stipulation as an agreed statement of fact and following *Anderson Art Galleries*v. *United States*(63 Treas. Dec. 495, T. D. 46258), the claim for free entry under paragraph 1807 was sustained.
### 7 Regulatory Evaluation

Docket No. FAA

- Directorate Identifier:

- AD

If you make changes to the values in the table below, you must ensure the totals update accordingly. If

they do not, click (or Tab) into and then out of the changed cell

.

Estimated Costs:

Action

(e.g., Inspection,

replacement)

Do not include on

condition costs here Costs per Product (e.g., air craft, engine,

propeller, appliance)

Work

- hours

(include

access, testing,

and close

- up) Labor

cost

(@$85/h

our) Parts Cost Total Costs

(labor +

parts) Number of

U.S.

Registered

Products Total Cost

for U.S. Fleet



### Inspection of frame

to strin ger

connections 240.0 $ 20,400.

00 $0 $ 20,400.00 

### 2 $ 40,800.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.0 0 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00



### The known number of products in compliance: 

### 0

Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $ 40,800



### Costs covered under warranty ( if known ) $

On

- Condition Costs:

Action

(e.g., Inspection,

replacement) Work

- hours

(include access,

testing, and close

up) Labor cost

(@$85/hour) Parts Cost Cost per Product

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

### 8 Special considerations for Economic Analysis (Use this field to explain anything in the Estimated Costs table

that was assumed or might not be obvious. This field can also be used to explain warranty costs) 

### :

Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”?

YES * NO

* Explanation:

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant?

YES * NO

* Explanation:

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? E xplain for

either a Yes or No answer.

YES NO

Explanation: 

### This is an aging A/C wi th a small flying fleet

Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:

This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific requirements for

aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode of transportation?

YES * NO



### * Explanation 

### :