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



<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL  INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE AUDITED
FINANCIAL  STATEMENTS  FOR THE  FISCAL  YEAR ENDED  DECEMBER  31,  2000,  AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.

</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-2000
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           43,369
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            45
<OTHER-SE>                                    (43,414)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         0
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                10,611
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (10,611)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (10,611)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (10,611)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0



</TABLE>
#### Milton V. MILICH, Sylvia Milich, Jimmie D. Harris and Mary H. Harris, etc., Appellants, v. CITY OF NORTH MIAMI BEACH, et al. Appellees.

No. 69-211.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

Nov. 26, 1969.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
EXHIBIT 32.1

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Daxor Corporation (the "Company") on
Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date thereof (the "Report"), I, Joseph
Feldschuh,M.D., President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

      (2)   The information contained in the Report fairly represents, in all
            material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
            of the Company.


/s/ Joseph Feldschuh, M.D.
Joseph Feldschuh, M.D.
President and Chief Executive Officer
August 11, 2004


                                       8
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CRESTED CORP. FORM 10-Q FOR THE QUARTER ENDED NOVEMBER 30, 1995 AND
IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000025657
<NAME> CRESTED CORP.
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAY-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JUN-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               NOV-30-1995
<CASH>                                           5,800
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  402,400
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     77,100
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               485,300
<PP&E>                                       6,034,500
<DEPRECIATION>                               3,375,700
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               9,233,100
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        5,915,300
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                        10,200
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,431,400
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 9,233,100
<SALES>                                      1,307,200
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,493,700
<CGS>                                        1,061,100
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,061,100
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               680,900
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              24,100
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (272,400)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (272,400)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
that lien. The district court's decisions thus were based on an erroneous 

interpretation of the controlling law and did not reach the other issues 

colorably asserted. Accordingly, we 

VACATE the order denying preliminary injunctive relief, 

REVERSE the order granting the motion to dismiss, AND REMAND this 

matter to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this 

order. 

ACt.t AA; J. 

Hardesty 

Douglas 

CHERRY, J., concurring: 

For the reasons stated in the SFR Investments Pool 1, LLC v. 

U.S. Bank, N.A., 130 Nev. , 334 P.3d 408 (2014), dissent, I disagree 

that respondent lost its lien priority by virtue of the homeowners 

association's nonjudicial foreclosure sale. I recognize, however, that SFR 

Investments is now the controlling law and, thusly, concur in the 

disposition of these appeals. akanotiv 

Cherry 

cc: Hon. Kathleen E. Delaney, District Judge 

David A. Rosenberg 

Howard Kim & Associates 

Wright, Finlay & Zak, LLP/Las Vegas 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

J. 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

2 

(0) 1047A
P.1 

OAR Box 1103 

Prepped by RyanDugan 

Document Number: 

90) IV-C-2 

Docket Number: 

A-83-41 

Printed 4/11/2008 1:50:51 PM Sheet 90 of 174 
P.2 

.eo sr.,, 

fi-z.$-yi 

i -SmL» I UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY "St - ~ ^ ~ tf*C 

I ___\|/_Z. •? WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 O 

<•»>. ,<•<*" 

FEB

 - 6 f995 OFFICE OF 

AIR AND RADIATION 

Mr. Bob Meek 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

Washington, DC 20005 

Dear Mr. Meek: 

This is in response to our telephone conversation today, 

February 6, 1995, inquiring about an extension of the comment 

period for the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) proposed 

recommendations on Federal Radiation Protection Guidance for 

Exposure of the General Public. 

We have carefully considered your request for an extension of 

the formal period of comment on these proposed recommendations, and 

have decided not to grant your request at this time. We will reevaluate this decision following the public hearing to be held 

February 22-23, 1995, in Washington, D C Please be assured, 

however, that we will make every effort to consider comments 

received after the expiration of the' formal comment period, and 

that the process of developing final recommendations will extend 

well past the extension you have requested. 

Sincerely, 

f r~> / 

Allan CB . Richardson 

Deputy Director for Federal 

Guidance 

Criteria & Standards Division 

Office of Radiation Programs 

Enclosure 

Printed on Recycled Paper
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 242 (Wednesday, December 17, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 66058]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-32951]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary


Defense Science Board Task Force on Satellite Reconnaissance

ACTION: Notice of advisory committee meetings.

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

SUMMARY: The Defense Science Board Task Force on Open Systems will meet 
in closed session on December 17-18, 1997 and January 27-28, 1998 at 
Strategic Analysis, Inc., 4001 N. Fairfax Drive, Arlington, Virginia. 
In order for the Task Force to obtain time sensitive classified 
briefings, critical to the understanding of the issues, this meeting is 
scheduled on short notice.
    The mission of the Defense Science Board is to advise the Secretary 
of Defense through the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and 
Technology on scientific and technical matters as they affect the 
perceived needs of the Department of Defense. At these meetings the 
Task Force will examine the benefits of, criteria for, and obstacles to 
the application of an open systems approach to weapon systems, and to 
make recommendations on revisions to DoD policy, practice, or 
investment strategies that are required to obtain maximum benefit from 
adopting open systems. The Task Force should examine application to new 
defense programs, to those that have already made substantial 
investments in a design, and to those that are already fielded, across 
the spectrum of weapon systems, not just those heavily dependent on 
advanced computers and electronics.
    In accordance with Section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee 
Act, Public Law 92-463, as amended (5 U.S.C. App. II, (1994)), it has 
been determined that these DSB Task Force meetings concern matters 
listed in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(1) (1994), and that accordingly these 
meetings will be closed to the public.

    Dated: December 12, 1997.
L.M. Bynum,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 97-32951 Filed 12-16-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5000-04-M
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 242 (Wednesday, December 17, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 66125]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-32915]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management
[UT-069-1220-00-25.7]


Notice of Intent

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare proposed plan amendment for the San 
Juan Resource Management Plan (RMP).

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

SUMMARY: The Bureau of Land Management San Juan Field Office is 
proposing to amend the San Juan RMP in order to change certain specific 
management decisions regarding recreation and other programs.

DATES: Comments on these proposed amendments should be submitted no 
later than 30 days after publication of this notice or January 16, 1998 
to the address listed below.

ADDRESSES: Comments and/or questions regarding this proposed amendment 
must be submitted to San Juan Field Office, Bureau of Land Management, 
435 North Main Street, P. O. Box 7, Monticello, UT 84535.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robin Fehlau, Outdoor Recreation 
Planner, Project Lead, San Juan Field Office, Bureau of Land 
Management, 435 North Main Street, P. O. Box 7, Monticello, UT 84535. 
Telephone (801) 587-1500.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The San Juan RMP was approved in March of 
1991. Since that period there has been a significant increase in 
recreational use that has lead to degradation of sensitive resources 
including riparian areas, cultural sites, visual resources etc., in the 
Indian Creek Area and other areas of the Canyon Basins Special 
Recreation Management Area. Preliminary issues that have been 
identified for proposed plan amendment include camping restrictions and 
modifications to existing OHV designations in order to reduce resource 
degradation, firewood closures to reduce degradation in riparian areas, 
and the addition of specific management prescriptions in the Bridger 
Jack Mesa Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC), Lavender Mesa 
ACEC, and Shay Canyon ACEC to reduce resource degradation from 
uncontrolled recreation use.
    No new planning criteria have been developed specifically for this 
proposed plan amendment. An interdisciplinary team will be used to 
analyze this proposed amendment in addition to other alternatives that 
may be considered.

    Dated: December 10, 1997.
Linda Colville,
Acting State Director.
[FR Doc. 97-32915 Filed 12-16-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-DQ-P
#### Jacquelyn Claypoole LeGETTE, Appellant, v. Eugene Smith LeGETTE, Appellee.

No. 72-620.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

March 14, 1973.

Robert B. White, Jr., and David R. Best, of Best & Sears, and Maurice M. Paul, Orlando, for appellant.

No appearance for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Upon a review of the record on appeal and after consideration of the brief and oral argument of the appellant,1 we are of the opinion that the final judgment should be modified to the extent that the appellant shall not be required to repay the amounts granted by the trial court as a temporary allowance nor shall such amounts constitute a lien on the proceeds of the real and personal property previously awarded to the appellant. In all other respects the .final judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed, as modified.

WALDEN, CROSS and MAGER, JJ., concur.

1

. Appellee failed to file a brief in accordance with F.A.R. 3.7b, 32 F.S.A., and as such forfeited the right to oral argument.
EXHIBIT 10.15



Amendments to the KSwiss 401(k) and Profit Sharing Plan dated December 31, 2007



|(1) |  | An amendment to reflect the Internal Revenue Code sections 401(k) and 415 2007 Final Regulations, the Katrina Emergency Tax Relief Act of 2005, generally effective for
plan years and limitation years beginning on and after July 1, 2007, and the Gulf Opportunity Zone Act of 2005 (the 415 Amendment); and
|--- |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|(2) |  | An amendment to add a technical provision from the final 401(k) and 401(m) regulations, to facilitate the addition of a Pension Protection Act compliant vesting schedule
applicable to nonelective employer contributions and to provide employers with the opportunity to add an automatic enrollment feature to their plans, generally effective for plan years beginning on and after January 1, 2006 (the Automatic
Enrollment Amendment).
|--- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#### Robert WHITTLE, Appellant, v. INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA and Charles B. Schiro, Appellees.

No. 69-308.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Jan. 30, 1970.

Rehearing Denied March 9, 1970.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
Exhibit 32   Certifications   In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2009 of American General Finance Corporation (the Company) as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), each of Frederick W. Geissinger, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Donald R. Breivogel, Jr., Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:  (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 results of operations of the Company.    /s/Frederick W. GeissingerFrederick W. GeissingerPresident and Chief Executive Officer/s/Donald R. Breivogel, Jr.Donald R. Breivogel, Jr.Senior Vice President and Chief Financial OfficerDate:May 11, 2009   58
### z
N!ic 

## € :

o 

# E 2 3 o:z<- 

## etro oL)o) o ald 

# I R. o x & Y;S E c 6 ';:l ; t- rrz 

# =cE -$ EE E9g EE8E 9: iE Zns 

# EFE* .8.6.

aE n is= E: > !c o.di :E 9 

# g8<r? ;H5 Et g dNt QPai. *lp de : ll = E = = A E - ! F 

## :.egE ad€ Ec . F 1=5E EcigEE A O JOrr<, <-roo 04 < F

(3Nt1 O31IOO

NO1n9).. r..rr r r... rr....

IL 

## o 

# z E. 

# o z z I E , o 

### '68 

## 9EB .=-- E;9 

## 8j: 6 0 € FEO



### z 

# s UJ TA F i!< (rcl o - (rl) r r E 

### o t
r z

# kz 6 - t! 

### o y
t^= tq N 

### u*z r {
=- \ t 

### trN o N
L h l z < o 

## = E O O 2 o 

# Tg ul; E < 

# ?- E \ o ; o l<* t> !l

# Esa**EEE*E,

E€€i 

# ofg$i

o o

o LJ

h 

# =3 Y $ F O Uot 

## ? H(J 

# Hhx G^Y -Jn 

# Rg= Yu< - <-F !!oz 

# dRs E



# e qE e€s ? 9# ;,qE '=v = 

## fss Pco E.= q 

# s ie R P F F o S 

# Fb:
-oc 666 

## 8.s+ 

# e eE

- O*- b< P 

# igg, g!EE xs;e 

# igEE 

# *.E; e :E;E 

# EEEF EiEE {

R an z 

# s 

# $

\

6 @ o o N N oi -j - 6 o 0 o o

U F 

# 35 a ^ o < U_E F C < x O u z o 

## E E o 2 z z 

## ? 9 

# 63 x3E E1S =fr8 <ilF 

# bBt ;ud iito 

# ?44" 

# HEb tro.u 

# 3kz 

# EE F F 

# btr 5 0 u 

## = F

c 

# E z o N s 

# z o Y v. 

# e$ < z > o Ftr r=< <x. zj- 

### o 9 

## tr(' <ur z E -uro)uo F o 

## I

# I
**Exhibit 34.1**

**Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

To the Board of Directors of Bank of America Corporation: 

Wehave examined management’s assertion, included in the accompanying *Certification Regarding Compliance with Applicable Servicing Criteria*(the “Compliance Statement”), that Bank of America, National Association (the“Company”) complied with the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Regulation AB for the asset-backed securities transaction backed by retail installment sales contracts andinstallment loans made to retail consumers and secured by motor vehicles, completed by Bank of America Auto Receivables Securitization, LLC on or after January 1, 2006, for which the Company acted as Servicer, that was registered with theSecurities and Exchange Commission pursuant to the Securities Act of 1933, where the related asset-backed securities were outstanding during the period from January 1, 2014 through December 31, 2014 (the “Platform”), as ofDecember 31, 2014 and for the year then ended, excluding criteria 1122(d)(1)(iii)-(iv), 1122(d)(2)(ii)-(iii), 1122(d)(3)(ii)-(iv), 1122(d)(4)(ix)-(xiii) and 1122(d)(4)(xv), which the Company has determined are not applicable to theservicing activities performed by it with respect to the Platform. Management is responsible for the Company’s compliance with the servicing criteria. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on management’s assertion based on ourexamination. 

Our examination was conducted in accordance with attestation standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) and,accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Company’s compliance with the applicable servicing criteria and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. Our examination includedtesting of the selected asset-backed transaction and securities that comprise the Platform, testing of selected servicing activities related to the Platform, and determining whether the Company processed the selected transaction and performed thoseselected activities in compliance with the applicable servicing criteria. Our procedures were limited to the selected transaction and servicing activities performed by the Company during the period covered by this report. Our procedures were notdesigned to detect noncompliance arising from errors that may have occurred prior to or subsequent to our tests that may have affected the balances or amounts calculated or reported by the Company during the period covered by this report. We believethat our examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our examination does not provide a legal determination on the Company’s compliance with the servicing criteria. 

In our opinion, management’s assertion that the Company complied with the aforementioned applicable servicing criteria as of and for the year endedDecember 31, 2014 for the Platform is fairly stated, in all material respects. 

/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP 

March 25, 2015
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FIFTH DISTRICT

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

DAMIAN DRE BUCH, 

Appellant, 

v. Case No. 5D21-1206

LT Case No. 2020-CF-000315-A

STATE OF FLORIDA, 

Appellee. 

_______________________________/ 

Decision filed July 26, 2022

Appeal from the Circuit Court

for Citrus County, 

Richard A. Howard, Judge.

Matthew J. Metz, Public Defender, and Robert

Jackson Pearce, III, Assistant Public Defender,

Daytona Beach, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee,

and L. Charlene Matthews, Assistant Attorney

General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM. 

AFFIRMED. 

EISNAUGLE, NARDELLA and WOZNIAK, JJ., concur.
CALL BY: CALL TO: Organization: Date: Time: PMN: 15-0242 Organization:
Phone: Concerning what? CBI: No MEMORANDUM of TELEPHONE CONVERSATION ( C ontains No TSCA CBI)