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

29 S Hwy 69A | Miami, OK 74355

918-542-2441 | Fax: 918-542-2922

March 12, 2021

Honorable Treasury Tribal Advisory Committee Members,

The Shawnee Tribe’s comments for the Committee are in regard to Treasury’s March 18th, 2021

consultation calls with federally recognized tribes and Alaska Native Corporations. As Chief of

the Shawnee Tribe, I am disturbed to see the Department of the Treasury moving in a way that I

can only interpret as continuing to undermine our many attempts at finding a resolution for our

case, The Shawnee Tribe v. Yellen, Case No. 20-cv-1999 (D.D.C.). Shifting the purpose of

tomorrow’s call from a general discussion of equitable CARES Act fund distribution, as stated in

the original email announcement distributed by Treasury on March 4, 2021, to what is now a call

for discussion specifically about the ongoing litigation between the Shawnee Tribe and the

Departments of Treasury and Interior, as stated in the latest email reminder sent Wednesday,

March 10, is not only wildly improper considering this is ongoing litigation, but it also pits

Tribal Nations and interests against one another, particularly at the expense of my Tribe and our

co-plaintiffs the Miccosukee, and Prairie Band Potawatomi.

About what could there possibly be to consult with Indian Country at large regarding this case?

If Treasury seeks to rectify its past errors, then it should take the following actions in order:

1) Set aside at least $20 million to finally resolve the claims of the Shawnee,

Miccosukee, and Prairie Band Potawatomi;
2) Consult with the other “zero population” tribes, who, while not a part of

the

pending lawsuits, were also unjustly harmed by the use of the IHBG data; and

3) only after Treasury has remedied the litigation and “zero population”

tribes,

develop a fair and equitable formula, with input from Indian tribes, on the

reallocation of any remaining funds.

In short, the plaintiff Tribes have only sought their fair and equitable share of CARES Act

funding before Treasury reallocates those that remain. We ask for equitable treatment of all our

brothers and sisters in Indian Country. Creating an extrajudicial mechanism to circumvent justice

harms all of our Tribal Nations and damages the relationship we enjoy with our federal partners.

Niyaawe,

Benjamin J. Barnes

Chief of the Shawnee Tribe
Exhibit 10.22  Commercial Banking 800 Nicollet Mall, 3rdFloor
Minneapolis, MN 55402  September 23, 2010  Electromed, Inc. 500 Sixth Avenue NW
New Prague, MN 56071
Attn: Robert D. Hansen Re:   Waiver of Event of Default Ladies and Gentlemen: Reference is made to the Credit Agreement dated as of December 9, 2009 (the Credit Agreement), between Electromed, Inc., a Minnesota corporation (the Borrower), and U.S. Bank National Association, a national banking association (the Bank). Except as otherwise provided herein, capitalized terms used in this letter shall have the meanings given to them in the Credit Agreement. The Borrower has advised the Bank that in August 2010, the Borrower made an initial public offering (the IPO) of its Equity Interests. The IPO was a Prepayment Event under the Credit Agreement. Pursuant to Section 2.6(b) of the Credit Agreement, the Borrower is required to immediately pay to the Bank the net proceeds of each Prepayment Event. The Borrower did not pay the net proceeds of the IPO to the Bank, which is an Event of Default under Section 7.1(a) of the Credit Agreement (the Existing Default). Upon receiving by facsimile or .pdf a copy of this letter executed by the Borrower, the Bank hereby waives the Existing Default. The waiver of the Existing Default is limited to the express terms thereof, and nothing herein shall be deemed a waiver by the Bank of any other term, condition, representation, or covenant applicable to the Borrower under the Credit Agreement (including but not limited to any future occurrence similar to the Existing Default) or any of the other agreements, documents, or instruments executed and delivered in connection therewith, or of the covenants described therein. The waiver set forth herein shall not be, and shall not be deemed to be, a course of action with respect thereto upon which the Borrower may rely in the future, and Borrower hereby expressly waives any claim to such effect. The Bank and the Borrower acknowledge and affirm that the Credit Agreement, as hereby modified, is hereby ratified and confirmed in all respects and all terms, conditions, and provisions of the Credit Agreement, except as affected by this letter, shall remain unmodified and in full force and effect. The Borrower acknowledges and agrees that no events have taken place and no circumstances exist at the date hereof that would give the Borrower a basis to assert a defense, offset, or counterclaim to any claim of the Bank with respect to the Borrowers obligations under the Credit Agreement.


---



Electromed, Inc.
September 23, 2010
Page 2  If the forgoing is acceptable to the Borrower, please have a copy of this letter executed by an authorized officer of the Borrower and returned to the undersigned by facsimile or .pdf. This letter may be executed in several counterparts, each of which (when transmitted by facsimile or otherwise) shall be deemed to be an original.  Very truly yours,
U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION,By:
     /s/ Gregory GuttormssonIts:
     VP
  AGREED TO AND ACKNOWLEDGED:
ELECTROMED, INC. By:
     /s/ Terry M. BelfordIts:
     Chief Financial Officer


---
CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS


The Board of Directors
Centura Banks, Inc.:


We consent to incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Forms
S-8 (Nos. 33-52160, 33-90568, 33-80989, 333-04949 and 333-08503) on Forms
S-3 (Nos. 33-33773) and on Forms S-4 (33-71198 and 333-69283) of our report
dated January 11, 1999, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of Centura
Banks, Inc. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 1998 and 1997, and the related
consolidated statements of income, shareholders' equity and cash flows for each
of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 1998, which report
appears in the December 31, 1998 Annual Report on Form 10-K of Centura Banks,
Inc.


                                                      KPMG LLP

Raleigh, North Carolina
March 15, 1999
|    | (1)       | the accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Registrant for the fiscal year ended August 31, 2011 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, 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 Registrant.                                                                                                                          |

|   | By:          | /s/ Arnold Casale             |
|--------|--------------|-------------------------------|
|   | Name:   | Arnold Casale                 |
|   | Title:  | Chief Executive Officer       |
|   |         | (Principal Executive Officer) |
#### Charles HARRISON v. ABRY BROTHERS, INC.

No. 61017.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Dec. 2, 1977.

In re: Charles Harrison, applying for cer-tiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, Parish of Orleans. 350 So.2d 278.

Writ denied.
#### GARAN, INC. and Pacific Employers Insurance Company v. Dorothy VOWELL.

No. 50869.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Sept. 6, 1978.

B. L. Riddick, Jackson, for appellant.

Crawley & Ford, Michael H. Steele, Kosciusko, for appellee.

Before PATTERSON, C. J., and WALKER and BROOM, JJ.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Attala County; Clarence E. Morgan, Jr., Judge.

AFFIRMED.
#### Prestige Caterers, Appellant, v Irving Kaufman et al., Respondents.

[736 NYS2d 335]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Alice Schlesinger, J.), entered on or about October 20, 2000, granting defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and denying plaintiff’s cross motion for leave to amend the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff contracted with defendant Irving Kaufman to cater the wedding of Kaufman’s daughter, defendant llene Gore. Kaufman made partial payment, but soon after the wedding filed for bankruptcy. The outstanding balance owed by Kaufman to plaintiff was discharged in the bankruptcy proceeding. Thereafter, plaintiff commenced this action seeking to recover the outstanding balance, and defendants moved for summary judgment on the grounds that there was no cause of action against Kaufman in light of the bankruptcy proceeding and there was no claim against defendants llene and Matthew Gore since there was no agreement between them and plaintiff. Plaintiff responded by cross-moving to amend the complaint to assert claims of quantum meruit and unjust enrichment against the Gore defendants.

The complaint was properly dismissed since plaintiff’s claim against Kaufman was discharged in Kaufman’s bankruptcy proceeding and the Gores are not contractually obligated to plaintiff. In addition, plaintiff’s cross motion to amend its complaint to allege claims against the Gores in quantum meruit was properly denied, since the proposed claims are plainly without merit *(see, Tomczak v Trepel,*283 AD2d 229, *lv dismissed in part and denied in part*96 NY2d 930). Although the Gores benefited from plaintiff’s services, plaintiff made no showing in the motion court that its services were rendered at the Gores’ behest and thus there is no basis for plaintiff to recover in quantum meruit against the Gores *(see, Kagan v K-Tel*
      *296
      *Entertainment,*172 AD2d 375, 376). Concur — Andrias, J.P., Rosenberger, Lerner, Buckley and Marlow, JJ.
From: John Rossetti [mailto:JRossetti@mlgw.org]  

Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2011 11:03 AM

To: richardparkerdc@gmail.ccm

Cc: SRosenstock@eei.org; Donald Roberts; Philip Lim; Brian Coffey

Subject: Areas for the DOE to Investigate before final rules are selected.

Richard,

Attached are my comments and recommendation regarding areas that DOE needs to

consider before final rules are selected.

John Rossetti, P.E.

Systems Engineer

Memphis Light Gas and Water Division

City of Memphis

901.528.4743 (7:00 a.m. ‐ 3:30 p.m. c.s.t.)

MLGW now accepts VISA and MasterCard

web payments for residential accounts!   

No more fees for any MLGW electronic payment.   

Register for My Account at www.mlgw.com.

This e‐mail and any attachments represent the views and opinions

of only the sender and are not necessarily those of  

Memphis Light, Gas & Water Division, and no such inference should be made.
<PAGE>

                                                                    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

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, each of the undersigned officers of Phoenix Footwear
Group, Inc., (the "Company"), does hereby certify with respect to the Quarterly
Report of the Company on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 26, 2004, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "10-Q Report"), that:

(1) the 10-Q Report fully complies with the requirements of Sections 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

(2) the information contained in the 10-Q Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.

The undersigned have executed this Certification effective as of August 6, 2004.

                                              /s/ Richard E. White
                                              -----------------------
                                              Richard E. White
                                              Chief Executive Officer

                                              /s/ Kenneth Wolf
                                              -----------------------
                                              Kenneth Wolf
                                              Chief Financial Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Phoenix Footwear Group, Inc. and will be retained by Phoenix
Footwear Group, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or
its staff upon request.

This certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.


                                       34
#### James Stuart GASTON, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 74-304.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

March 21, 1974.

Habeas corpus denied.
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 31.2

                                  CERTIFICATION

I, David A. Shadduck, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of TruServ Corporation;

2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make
the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements
were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly
report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of
TruServ as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;

4. TruServ's other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules
13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for TruServ and we have:

            a. designed such disclosure controls and procedures or caused such
            disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our
            supervision, to ensure that material information relating to
            TruServ, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to
            us by others within those entities, particularly during the period
            in which this quarterly report is being prepared;

            b. evaluated the effectiveness of TruServ's disclosure controls and
            procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
            effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the
            end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation;
            and

            c. disclosed in this quarterly report any change in the registrant's
            internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the
            registrant's most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth
            fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially
            affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the
            registrant's internal control over financial reporting;

5. TruServ's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most
recent evaluation, to TruServ's auditors and the audit committee of TruServ's
board of directors:

            a. all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the
            design or operation of internal controls which are reasonably likely
            to adversely affect TruServ's ability to record, process, summarize
            and report financial information; and

            b. any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or
            other employees who have a significant role in TruServ's internal
            control over financial reporting.

TRUSERV CORPORATION

Date: August 13, 2004

By /s/ DAVID A. SHADDUCK
   ---------------------
   David A. Shadduck
   Senior Vice President and
   Chief Financial Officer
James Huenergardt Reel Inspirations, Inc. 238 Wind River Drive Chehalis, WA 98532 March 6, 2016 U.S. Department of Transportation Docket Management System 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE Washington, DC 20590 Subject: Request for amendment to prior exemption number 14317, regulator docket number FAA-2015-4658.
Amendment Details: Reel Inspirations would like to add the DJI Phanom 4 UAS and DJI Inspire 1 UAS to our exemption. We would also like to add the following types of non-closed set filming to our exemption. Aerial imaging, photography, videography, and cinematography for corporate, education, nonprofit productions as well as videography and photography for film and TV production including surveying, commercial aerial photogra

phy in connection with homeowner and private-property insurance inspections. Sincerely,

James Huenergardt President/Director – Reel Inspirations
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> UT
<CIK> 0000106170
<NAME>WESTERN MASSACHUSETTS ELECTRIC COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARY
<MULTIPLIER>1,000
       
<S>                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                 DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                      JUN-30-1998
<BOOK-VALUE>                                         PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                             754,883
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                           137,878
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 57,679
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                              205,036
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                              0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                      1,155,476
<COMMON>                                               26,812
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                             151,537
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                                    57,724
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>                        236,073
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                  18,000
<PREFERRED>                                            20,000
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                                  348,595
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                                     44,100
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                                   0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                              0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                          40,000
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                               1,500
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                            25,690
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                        8,329
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>                        413,189
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                       1,155,476
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                             197,838
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                                      827
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                            182,345
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                            183,386
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                                14,452
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                                      1,107
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                         15,773
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               15,144
<NET-INCOME>                                              629
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                             1,513
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                            (884)
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                                    0
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                                   0
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                                 16,634
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                            0.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                            0.00
        

</TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Rafael GUERRA-VASQUEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 01-50280.

D.C. No. CR-00-01060-R-01.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted July 22, 2002.*

Decided July 30, 2002.

*112Before BROWNING, KOZINSKI, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.

*

This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM**

Rafael Guerra-Vasquez appeals his guilty-plea conviction and 84-month sentence for possession of marijuana with intent to distribute in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 18 U.S.C. § 3742, and we affirm.

Guerra-Vasquez contends that 21 U.S.C. § 841 is facially unconstitutional under *Apprendi v. New Jersey,*530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000). Alternatively, he argues that the unconstitutional provision, § 841(b), is severable, so the district court plainly erred in sentencing him to more than one year under § 841(b)(3), or, at the most, the five-year maximum of § 841(b)(1)(D). Both arguments are foreclosed by *United States v. Buckland,*289 F.3d 558, 566-67 (9th Cir.) (en banc), *cert, denied,*— U.S.-, 122 S.Ct. 2314, 152 L.Ed.2d 1067 (2002).

Next, Guerra-Vasquez contends that the district court erred in denying him a two-level minor role adjustment under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2. We review for clear error a district court’s determination that a defendant does not qualify for a minor role adjustment. *United States v. Penar-Gutierrez,*222 F.3d 1080, 1091 (9th Cir.), *cert, denied,*531 U.S. 1057, 121 S.Ct. 670, 148 L.Ed.2d 570 (2000). An amount far smaller than the 678 pounds of marijuana transported by Guerra-Vasquez is enough to deny a minor role adjustment. ' *United States v. Hursh,*217 F.3d 761, 770 (9th Cir.2000) (considering 59.3 pounds of marijuana substantial enough to preclude minimal role adjustment); *see also United States v. Liu,*941 F.2d 844, 849 (9th Cir. 1991) (stating possession of a substantial amount of narcotics is sufficient evidence to support the denial of a mitigating role adjustment). Therefore the district court’s refusal to grant a sentence reduction was not clearly erroneous.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Exhibit 12   AMERICAN GENERAL FINANCE, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES Computation of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges (Unaudited)    Three Months EndedSix Months EndedJune 30,June 30,(dollars in thousands)2009200820092008Earnings:
Loss before benefit for income taxes$(237,164)$ (64,182)$(479,893)$(115,309)Interest expense259,363300,316538,690617,295Implicit interest in rents6,3488,16210,86113,846Total earnings$   28,547$244,296$   69,658$ 515,832Fixed charges:
Interest expense$ 259,363$300,316$ 538,690$ 617,295Implicit interest in rents6,3488,16210,86113,846Total fixed charges$ 265,711$308,478$ 549,551$ 631,141Ratio of earnings to fixed charges*0.110.790.130.82  * Earnings were insufficient to cover total fixed charges by $237.2 million for the three months ended June 30, 2009 and $479.9 million for the six months ended June 30, 2009. Earnings were insufficient to cover total fixed charges by $64.2 million for the three months ended June 30, 2008 and $115.3 million for the six months ended June 30, 2008.    72