alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### FUTORIAN MFG. CO. et al. v. DEPENDENTS OF Joe Allen EASLEY, Deceased.

No. 46094.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Feb. 15, 1971.

Wade H. Lagrone, Mitchell, McNutt & Bush, Tupelo, for appellants.

John D. Sibley, Okolona, for appellees.

ETHRIDGE, Chief Justice.

Joe Allen Easley was an employee of Futorian Manufacturing Company, appellant. While working on February 18, 1969, he suffered a heart attack and died at a hospital within a few hours. The employee’s wife and son filed a claim for death benefits under the Workmen’s Compensation Act. The Commission, affirming its attorney referee, held the medical evidence failed to establish that Easley’s heart attack and death were caused or contributed to by his employment. The Circuit Court of Chickasaw County reversed the Commission and awarded death benefits. On July 26, 1968, six months before Easley suffered his final and fatal heart attack, he had returned home from work only an hour or so when he suffered a severe coronary occlusion and cardiac infarction. He was hospitalized for several weeks.

Considering the totality of the testimony of claimant’s doctor, the only physician who testified, we think it was sufficient to establish without dispute that Easley’s work activities contributed to his heart attack and death. This doctor was Easley’s personal physician and treated him on the occasions of both of his heart attacks. Defendants offered no testimony. Although the testimony of Easley’s physician is in some respects ambiguous, we think it is sufficiently definite to constitute an unrebutted medical opinion, from the physician who actually treated deceased during both heart attacks, that his work activities contributed to the fatal illness. Accordingly, on the issue of liability the circuit court is affirmed.

*414Defendants pleaded a pre-existing disease or physical condition as contributing to Easley’s death, and requested apportionment if benefits were awarded. There is sufficient evidence in the record to require apportionment, although the defendants offered no proof on this issue. Easley had suffered a major heart attack six months before the fatal event. This pre-existing condition contributed to, and had a part in, the employee’s death, which in turn was precipitated by his job activities. Better Living Markets, Inc. v. Smith 241 So.2d 152 (Miss. Nov. 9, 1970).

The judgment of the circuit court awarding workmen’s compensation benefits to the claimants is affirmed as amended and modified, to direct that this cause will be remanded to the Workmen’s Compensation Commission for apportionment in accord with the statute. Miss.Code 1942 Ann. § 6998-04 (Supp.1968).

Affirmed as modified, and remanded to the Workmen’s Compensation Commission.

PATTERSON, INZER, SMITH and ROBERTSON, JJ., concur.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-7602

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus EDITH JOSEPHINE STANLEY, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston. Joseph Robert Goodwin, District Judge. (CR-00-224; CA-04-818-2) Submitted: January 26, 2006 Decided: February 3, 2006 Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Edith Josephine Stanley, Appellant Pro Se. John Castle Parr, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Wheeling, West Virginia; Erik S. Goes, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Ch arleston, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Edith Josephine Stanley seeks to appeal the district court’s order adopting the recommendation of the magistrate judge to deny as untimely her 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. This order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of her constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. SeeMiller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Stanley has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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.

DISMISSED
EXHIBIT 10.1

COMPUTER HORIZONS CORP.  49 Old Bloomfield Avenue  Mountain Lakes, NJ 07046-1495



Mr. John
J. Cassese
3 Quimby Lane
Mendham, New Jersey 07945

Dear
Mr. Cassese:

This
is to confirm our agreement (the "Agreement") concerning the termination of your employment with Computer Horizons Corp. (the "Company"), your resignation as an officer and director
of the Company and certain other related matters, as follows:

1

---



2

---

|                                  |  | Very truly yours,      
|--------------------------------- |  | -----------------------
|                                  |  | COMPUTER HORIZONS CORP.
|                                  |  | By:                    
|Agreed to and acknowledged by:    |  |                        
|/s/JOHN J. CASSESEJohn J. Cassese |  |                        

3

---

Exhibit B

Employee
agrees that for a period of five (5) years hereafter, Employee will not directly or indirectly, individually or in any corporation, firm, association or other business entity, compete
or attempt to compete with Company, any parent, subsidiary, or affiliate of Company, or any corporation merged into, or merged or consolidated with Company (a) by soliciting business from any
customer and/or client of Company with which Employee was directly involved during the Employment Period or (b) inducing, either directly or through an agent, any personnel of Company or its
subsidiaries to leave the service of Company or its subsidiaries, or by employing or contracting with any such personnel. The provisions of this Exhibit shall be construed as an Agreement independent
of any other provision contained herein and shall be enforceable in both Law and Equity, including by temporary or permanent Restraining Orders, notwithstanding the existence of any claim or cause of
action by Employee against Company, whether predicated on this Agreement or otherwise. As noted above in the body of the Agreement to which this is an exhibit, this non-compete provision
shall not survive a change of control of the Company.

---

Exhibit C

Release

This
Release, dated April 23, 2003, is given

|BY the Releasor: |  | John J. Cassese                                                                         
|---------------- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                 |  |                                                                                         
|TO the Releasee: |  | Computer Horizons Corp., its officers, directors, employees, affiliates and subsidiaries

2.     Consideration



3.     Signature

Releasor understands and agrees to the terms of this Release.

/s/JOHN J. CASSESEJohn J. Cassese

Date: April 23, 2003


---

QuickLinks
#### John Lee ROACH, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 73-627.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Jan. 25, 1974.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
5/25/2023 5/26/2023 5/30/2023 5/31/2023

Treasury Bills Net 987 -2 -23,990 -6

Treasury Notes Net 0 21,990 -1 11,291

Treasury Bonds Net 0 0 0 17,806

Marketable Inflation Compensation 0 0 0 229

Marketable TIPS Inflation Adjustment 200 202 803 206

Total Marketable Activity 1,187 22,189 -23,188 29,526

Airport and Airway Trust Fund 0000

Civil Service Retirement and Disability Trust Fund -1,875 0 0 0

Department of Defense Military Retirement Fund 2 502 7 845

Department of Defense Medicare Eligible Retiree Fund -27 -25 -8 -365

Employees' Health Benefits Fund -551 532 311 -262

Employees' Life Trust Fund -2 23 22 -15

Exchange Stabilization Fund 3 3 -268 3

Deposit Insurance Fund 1 -4 -49 106

Federal Disability Insurance Trust Fund 581 102 -295 1,281

FHA, Mutual Mortgage Insurance Capital Reserve Account, HUD 0006

Federal Hospital Insurance Trust Fund 462 -1,099 195 1,264

Federal Old-Age And Survivors Insurance Trust Fund 3,385 869 2,182 8,751

Federal Supplementary Medical Insurance Trust Fund 263 -715 -723 -1,740

Foreign Service Retirement And Disability Fund 0030

Highway Trust Fund -17 -1,150 80 20

National Credit Union Share Insurance Fund 0 -10 2 0

Deposits, Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, Bonus Bids, MMS 0000

Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation 543 -9 -3 -521

Postal Service Retiree Health Benefits Fund 0000

Postal Service Fund 187 -1,324 -478 141

Railroad Retirement Account 2 38 41 28

Thrift Savings Fund -2,058 -20,491 21,689 -33,195

Unemployment Trust Fund -103 -38 -792 -115

Nonmarketable TIPS Inflation Adjustment 144 145 576 144

Nonmarketable Inflation Compensation 0002

All Other Trust Funds -94 -31 -123 -4,464

Total Government Account Series (Net) 845 -22,683 22,371 -28,087

Certificates of Indebtedness -6 -7 -9 -16

Discount Adjustment -1,988 540 954 -469

Domestic Series 1151

Foreign Series 0000

State and Local Government Series 0 -1 -101 -909

Tax and Loss Bonds 0000

United States Savings Bonds -39 -40 -34 -47

Total Non-Marketable Activity (Net) -1,187 -22,189 23,188 -29,526

Daily Public Debt Activity 0000

Total Public Debt Subject to Limit 31,381,438 31,381,438 31,381,438 31,381,438

Daily Extraordinary Measures 

Investments Suspended (-)/Reinvested (+) -2,481 -21,447 20,350 -33,073

Daily Debt Subject to Limit Activity

($ millions)
Date

Impacted

Funds

Measures 

Authorized

Measures 

Used

Measures 

Remaining

CSRDF/PSRHBF 1/ 2/ 25 (25) 0

G Fund 295 (279) 16

ESF 17 0 17

Totals* 337 (304) 33

DEBT SUBJECT TO LIMIT 

EXTRAORDINARY MEASURES

($ billions)

5/31/2023

*Differences may occur due to rounding.

1/ Includes Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund, and Postal Service 

Retiree Health Benefits Fund. 

2/ Treasury entered into a debt swap transaction with the Federal Financing 

Bank (FFB) and the CSRDF on May 25, 2023. This transaction created an 

additional $1.9 billion in headroom under the debt limit.
#### Larry SCHULER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. L-402.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. First District.

Dec. 30, 1969.

Don Dansby, Public Defender, and Brian T. Hayes, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., for appellee.

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING

JOHNSON, Chief Judge.

This matter is before this court at this time on petition for rehearing. On December 3, 1969 this court denied the appellant’s attorney’s motion to withdraw as counsel. On this petition for rehearing while denying said petition, we feel that counsel is entitled to an explanation for our action in denying said motion.

We have adopted as a policy of this court the denial of a motion to withdraw, filed by the Public Defender’s office, in practically every case wherein the reasons for such a withdrawal is based upon the belief that there are no meritorious grounds upon which to base an appeal. Our reasons are fairly well outlined as follows:

Under the decisions of the United States Supreme Court beginning with Gideon, the State is required to furnish a person charged with a crime with an attorney to represent him in his criminal proceeding. To meet the need of constantly fulfilling this requirement for counsel, the Florida Legislature provided for the office of public defender. Often times, on appeals the defendants have varied ideas, some of which are imaginary, as to why their case should be reversed. When it develops that there is really no meritorious grounds in the appeal, the courts do not expect an attorney, whether he be public defender or otherwise, to stultify themselves with false representations of law or fact, but in order that the Federal Court may have a record replete with all the constitutional safeguards appearing therein, this court feels that the attorney representing such indigent person on appeal should remain in the case to its final conclusion to *668assure the defendant that his constitutional rights have not been violated by the State acting through the Attorney General or the judges.

If the record so shows the presence of competent counsel on appeal, even if no overt acts on the part of the defense attorney are necessary or offered, the Federal Court will have the assurance it needs in cases of this manner, to know that such constitutional rights have not been violated. For this reason, it constitutes a help to both this court and any future court, whether appellate or federal, to render a just decision. Hence, this court has adopted the attitude that if the only reason the attorney wishes to be permitted to withdraw is on the ground there appears no merit in the appeal, then such motion will be denied for the reasons set forth supra.

The petition for rehearing is denied, with the explanation given supra.

WIGGINTON and SPECTOR, JJ., concur.
Cropland idled, by region and States, United States, 2007 1/

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

Regions and States 2007

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

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

Northeast 1,036 3%

 Maine 85 0%

 New Hampshire 10 0%

 Vermont 27 0%

 Massachusetts 14 0%

 Rhode Island 2 0%

 Connecticut 13 0%

 New York 266 1%

 New Jersey 24 0%

 Pennsylvania 513 1%

 Delaware 10 0%

 Maryland 71 0%

 District of Columbia 0 0%

Lake States 3,037 8%

 Michigan 553 1%

 Wisconsin 738 2%

 Minnesota 1,745 5%

Corn Belt 4,642 13%

 Ohio 431 1%

 Indiana 262 1%

 Illinois 970 3%

 Iowa 1,608 4%

 Missouri 1,372 4%

Northern Plains 8,913 24%

 North Dakota 3,569 10%

 South Dakota 1,516 4%

 Nebraska 1,221 3%

 Kansas 2,608 7%

Appalachian 1,578 4%

 Virginia 194 1%

 West Virginia 51 0%

 North Carolina 247 1%

 Kentucky 676 2%

 Tennessee 410 1%

Southeast 1,061 3%

 South Carolina 201 1%

 Georgia 364 1%

 Florida 90 0%

 Alabama 406 1%

Delta States 930 3%

 Mississippi 376 1%

 Arkansas 94 0%
 Louisiana 460 1%

Southern Plains 5,553 15%

 Oklahoma 890 2%

 Texas 4,663 13%

Mountain 7,432 20%

 Montana 3,558 10%

 Idaho 789 2%

 Wyoming 141 0%

 Colorado 2,076 6%

 New Mexico 545 1%

 Arizona 96 0%

 Utah 198 1%

 Nevada 30 0%

Pacific 2,875 8%

 Washington 1,521 4%

 Oregon 696 2%

 California 657 2%

48 States 1/ 37,057 100%

 Alaska 48

 Hawaii 49

U.S. Total 1/ 37,154

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

 N.A. = Not Available

 1/ Distributions may not add to totals due to rounding.

Sources: Estimates for 2007 and 2002 based on USDA, Economic Research Service calculations using USDA/ 

National Agricultural Statistics Service (2004a, 2004b, 2009a and 2009b) and USDA/Farm Services Agency 

(2003 and 2008). Estimates prior to 2002 are based on Vesterby and Krupa (2001); Daugherty (1991 and 1995); 

Frey (1973, 1979, and 1982); Frey and Hexem (1985); Frey et al. (1968); Wooten et al. (1962); Wooten and 

Anderson (1957); and Wooten (1953a).
LAKE STATES (MI, MN, WI)

Weeds MI MN WI

No Data No Data No Data

BROADLEAF WEEDS

GRASSES and SEDGES
NORTHERN PLAINS (KS, NE, ND, SD)

Weeds KS NE ND SD

GRASSES and SEDGES

No Data No Data No Data No data

BROADLEAF WEEDS
APPALACHIAN (KY, NC, TN, VI, WV)

Weeds KY NC TN VI WV

No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data

GRASSES and SEDGES

BROADLEAF WEEDS
SOUTHERN PLAINS (OK, TX)

Weeds OK TX*

Johnsongrass No Data X

Nutsedge, species X

Bindweed, field X

Blueweed, Texas X

Bursage, woolly X

Nightshade, silverleaf X

GRASSES and SEDGES

BROADLEAF WEEDS

* Perennial Weed Control During Fallow Periods in the Texas High Plains, L-5102. TX A&M Ext Serv. 

http://amarillo.tamu.edu/files/2010/11/bean9_L-5102.pdf Accessed January 20, 2013.

MOUNTAIN (AZ, CO, ID, MT, NM, NV, UT, WY)

Weeds AZ CO ID MT NM NV UT WY

GRASSES and SEDGES

No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data

BROADLEAF WEEDS
PACIFIC (CA, OR, WA)

Weeds CA OR WA

No Data No Data No Data

GRASSES and SEDGES

BROADLEAF WEEDS
813 A.2d 231

#### ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION OF MARYLAND, v. William B. ELLINGER.

Misc. AG No. 87,

Sept. Term, 2002.

Court of Appeals of Maryland.

Dec. 17, 2002.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the Joint Petition for Disbarment by Consent filed herein pursuant to Maryland Rule 16-772, it is this 17th day of December, 2002,

ORDERED, by the Court of Appeals of Maryland, that William B. Ellinger, be, and he is hereby, disbarred by consent from the further practice of law in the State of Maryland; and it is further

ORDERED, that the Clerk of this Court shall strike the name of William B. Ellinger from the register of attorneys, and pursuant to Maryland Rule 16 — 772(d) shall certify that fact to the Trustee’s of the Clients’ Protection Fund and the Clerks of all judicial tribunals in the State.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE 10-QSB
FOR THE PERIOD ENDED MARCH 31, 1998 FOR DUNES HOTEL AND CASINOS AND IS QUALIFIED
IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                           3,633
<SECURITIES>                                       922
<RECEIVABLES>                                    2,534
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,899
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                           3,765
<DEPRECIATION>                                     509
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  13,459
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          5
<COMMON>                                         3,900
<OTHER-SE>                                       5,033
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    13,479
<SALES>                                             84
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   131
<CGS>                                               86
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      218
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   324
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  30
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (538)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         2
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (540)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (540)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.14)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.14)
        

</TABLE>
## IN THE COU RT O F CR IM IN AL AP PE ALS OF TE XAS N O . A P - 76, 465
EX PA R TE JO N A TH A N SH A N E R O SS PE A K E , A ppl i c ant
ON AP P LI CAT I ON F OR A W RI T OF HABE AS CORP US CAUS E N O. 0 1 - 0 8 - 0 5 2 3 3 - CR I N T HE 3 5 9 TH DI S TR I CT COURT

FROM M ON TGO M ERY CO UNTY
P er cur i am . O P I N I O N Pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Crim i n al P ro ce dure, the cler k of the trial c ourt transmitted to this C ourt this application for a writ of habe as cor

pus. Ex pa rte Y oung , 418 S.W .2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App
. 1 9 6 7). Applica nt was convic ted of ag g ravated
ro bb e ry and se nte nc e d to thi rt

y y e ars ’ i mpr iso nme nt. Th e Se ve nth Court of App e a ls a ff

ir me d his conviction. Pe ak

e v . S tat e , No. 07-03-00216- CR (Tex. App.–Amarillo 2004, no pet.)
. Appl i ca n tco n t en d s t h at h i s ap p el l at e c o un s el re n d er edi n ef fe ct i v e a s s i s t an ce beca

use, among oth e r t hin g s, he fa ile d to time ly no tif y Ap pli c ant that his c on vic tio n ha d be e n a ff ir me d a nd fa ile d to advise him of his rig ht to petition for discretionar y revie w pro se. Ap pe llate c ouns e l f ile d a n a ff ida vit2

with the trial court. B ased on that affidavit, the trial court has e ntere d finding s of fa ct and conclusions of lawthat appellat e c o u n s e l r e n d e r e d

in e f f e ctive assistanc e. The trial court r ecommends that relief be g rante d. Ex parte W

ilson , 956 S.W .2d 25 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997). We find, theref ore, that Applicant is entitled to the opportunity to file an out-of-time petition for discr etionary revie w of the jud g me nt o f t

he Se ve nth

Court of Ap pe a ls i n Ca

us e No . 07 -0 3- 00 21 6- CR that a ff ir me d his
c o n v i c t i o n i nC a s e N o . 0 1
- 0 8
- 0 5 2 3 3
- C R f r o m t h e 3 5 9 t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c tC o u rto f M o n t g o m e r y County . App lic ant s ha ll fi le his pe tit ion fo r dis c re tio na ry re vie w w iththe Se ve nth Court of Ap pe a ls wi thi n 3 0 d ay s o f t

he date on

wh ic h th is C ourt ’s mand a te iss ue s.
Deliver ed: Dec ember

8, 2010 Do no t pu bli sh
US TREASURY FINANCING SCHEDULE FOR 2nd QUARTER 2011

BILLIONS OF DOLLARS

ANNOUNCEMENT AUCTION SETTLEMENT OFFERED MATURING NEW

ISSUE DATE DATE DATE AMOUNT AMOUNT MONEY

4-WK 3-MO 6-MO 12-MO

4-WEEK AND 3/31 4/4 4/7 40.00 34.00 31.00 22.00 124.00 3.00

3&6&12 MO BILLS 4/7 4/11 4/14 40.00 34.00 31.00 97.00 8.00

4/14 4/18 4/21 40.00 34.00 31.00 97.00 8.00

4/21 4/25 4/28 40.00 34.00 31.00 97.00 8.00

4/28 5/2 5/5 40.00 34.00 31.00 22.00 126.00 1.00

5/5 5/9 5/12 35.00 34.00 31.00 100.00 0.00

5/12 5/16 5/19 25.00 32.00 30.00 102.00 -15.00

5/19 5/23 5/26 25.00 29.00 28.00 102.00 -20.00

5/26 5/31 6/2 25.00 29.00 28.00 22.00 127.00 -23.00

6/2 6/6 6/9 25.00 29.00 28.00 97.00 -15.00

6/9 6/13 6/16 25.00 29.00 28.00 87.00 -5.00

6/16 6/20 6/23 25.00 29.00 28.00 87.00 -5.00

6/23 6/27 6/30 25.00 29.00 28.00 22.00 112.00 -8.00

1292.00 1355.00 -63.00

CASH MANAGEMENT BILLS

56-DAY BILL 5/18 5/19 5.00 5.00 0.00

Matures 7/14

28-DAY BILL 6/7 6/9 25.00 0.00 25.00

Matures 7/7

CMB Funds: 25.00

COUPONS

CHANGE

IN SIZE IN SIZE

3-year Note 4/7 4/12 4/15 32.00 0.00

10-year Note ® 4/7 4/13 4/15 21.00 0.00

30-year Bond ® 4/7 4/14 4/15 13.00 0.00 25.24 40.77

5-year TIPS 4/14 4/21 4/29 12.00 2.00 0.00 12.00

2-year Note 4/21 4/26 5/2 35.00 0.00

5-year Note 4/21 4/27 5/2 35.00 0.00

7-year Note 4/21 4/28 5/2 29.00 0.00 39.47 59.53

3-year Note 5/4 5/10 5/16 32.00 0.00

10-year Note 5/4 5/11 5/16 24.00 0.00

30-year Bond 5/4 5/12 5/16 16.00 0.00 21.78 50.22

10-year TIPS ® 5/12 5/19 5/31 11.00 0.00

2-year Note 5/19 5/24 5/31 35.00 0.00

5-year Note 5/19 5/25 5/31 35.00 0.00

7-year Note 5/19 5/26 5/31 29.00 0.00 53.71 56.29

3-year Note 6/2 6/7 6/15 32.00 0.00

10-year Note ® 6/2 6/8 6/15 21.00 0.00

30-year Note ® 6/2 6/9 6/15 13.00 0.00

30-year TIPS ® 6/16 6/23 6/30 8.00 1.00 0.00 74.00

2-year Note 6/23 6/27 6/30 35.00 0.00

5-year Note 6/23 6/28 6/30 35.00 0.00

7-year Note 6/23 6/29 6/30 29.00 0.00 54.46 44.54

532.00 194.66 337.34

Estimates are italicized. R = Reopening

NET CASH RAISED THIS QUARTER: 299.34
Materials Not Included in

Airworthiness Directive (AD) Docket

 Docket Number: FAA-2013-0631

 Directorate Identifier: 2012NM142AD

ISB.57-073 --- 9/6/10

AOM 12-010V-1 --- 5/8/12

Name/Description of Item(s) Not Included in FDMS Docket and Maintained in the 

Supplemental AD Docket

MAY BE VIEWED AT: Federal Aviation Administration

Transport Airplane Directorate

Rules Docket

1601 Lind Ave. SW.,

Renton, WA 98057

425.227.1221

DURING THE HOURS OF: 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday,

except Federal holidays.

Form Date: 03/05/2008