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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
financial statements of Speedway Motorsports Inc. for the year ended December
31, 1999 and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial
statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>  0000934648
<NAME> SPEEDWAY MOTORSPORTS, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                          56,548
<SECURITIES>                                     1,181
<RECEIVABLES>                                   41,713
<ALLOWANCES>                                       951
<INVENTORY>                                     15,287
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               108,567
<PP&E>                                         794,834
<DEPRECIATION>                                 107,816
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 995,982
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          131,982
<BONDS>                                        458,400
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           416
<OTHER-SE>                                     331,292
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   995,982
<SALES>                                         36,423
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               317,493
<CGS>                                           32,241
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  218,802
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 (959)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              27,686
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 68,566
<INCOME-TAX>                                    27,123
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             41,443
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    41,443
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .97


</TABLE>
#### John H. PIERSON and Gynelle Pierson, Appellants, v. G. Kendall SHARP, Appellee.

No. 72-1212.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Jan. 29, 1973.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Indian River County; Wallace Sample, Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
# Q

U.S . Departmen t o f Transportatio n Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n ^ ^

80 0 Independenc

e Ave. , S.W . Washington , D.C . 2059 1

VI A TELECOPIE R September

30 , 200 9 WilliamElder , Esq . Hogan & Hartso n Columbi aSquar e 55 5 ThirteenthSt. , N.W . Washington , D.C . 2000 4 (fa x no . 202-637-5910 ) J . Ernes t Baird , Esq . Dary l M . Williams , Esq . Baird , William s & Greer , LL P 622 5 N . 24 * Street , Suite 12 5 Phoenix , A Z8501 6 (fa x no . 602-271-9308 ) 5 2 '- d

— I C 3

- 1 - ^ J

Re : Valley Aviatio nService s v . City o f Glendale , FA A Docke t

No . 16-09-0 6 Dea r Mr . Elde r

an dMr . Williams : Th e Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n ("FAA" ) receive dth e Valley Aviatio nServices ' reques t for a30-day extensio n o f

tim e i n whic ht o file arespons e t o th e complaint . Base do ncoimsel' s representatio n tha t

ther e i s n o oppositio n t o thi s request , th e FA A hereb y grant s th e reques t for an extensio nunti l Octobe r 30,2009 . I f yo u hav e an y questions , pleas e contac t me . Th^Hkyo u for

you r attention,t o thi s matter . 

# Jhd Elizabethlr . Head , E/q . Airport s La w Branen , AGC-61 0 Offic e o f th e Chie f Counse l Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n 80 0 Independenc e Ave. , S.W. , Washington , D.C . 2059 1 Elizabeth.Head@faa.go v (202)267-3211(0 )Cop y to :

FA A Part 1 6 Airport

Proceeding s Docke t

(AGC-610 ) Airport Complianc e Division Offic e o f Airport Complianc e an dFiel dOperation s ACO-lO O
SECTION 1 — Design Specifications 

1.1 Design Specifications 

TYPE OF KILN 

BURNER CAPACITY 

NO. 2 FUEL OIL 

NATURALGAS 

FUELS 

NO, 2 FUEL OIL 

CENTRAL AIR 

NATURALGAS 

STRAIGHT/SWIRL AIR 

IRON ORE PELLETIZING 

300 MMBTU/HR 

300 MMBTU/HR max 

2056 USGPH AT 400 PSIG 

145,900 BTU/GAL 

1430 SCFM AT 2.5 PSIG 

5376 SCFM Operating 

Operating c1P across burner: 15 PSIG 

930 13TU/ aCF (I.I iV) 

3,400 SCFM at 18 inches w.c. 

PILOT 

NATURAL GAS 18 SCFM Operating 

930 BTUlscf (LHV) 

2 psig max across pilot 

PILOT AIR 180 SCFM (Dry Air) Operating 

2 psig max across pilot 

5 SCFM Purging (Dry Air) 

l ~
SNODGRASS

Certified Public
Accountants and Consultants



EXHIBIT 99.1



INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS REPORT



Board of Directors

First West Virginia Bancorp, Inc.



We have
reviewed the accompanying consolidated balance sheets of First West Virginia Bancorp, Inc. and subsidiary as of March 31, 2004, and the related consolidated statements of income, changes in stockholders equity, and cash flows for the
three-month periods then ended. These financial statements are the responsibility of the Companys management.



We conducted our reviews in accordance with standards established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants. A review of interim financial information
consists principally of applying analytical procedures to financial data and making inquiries of persons responsible for financial and accounting matters. It is substantially less in scope than an audit conducted in accordance with auditing
standards generally accepted in the United States of America, the objective of which is the expression of an opinion regarding the financial statements taken as a whole. Accordingly, we do not express such an opinion.



Based on our reviews, we are not aware of any material modifications that should be made to
the accompanying financial statements for them to be in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.



We have previously audited, in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America, the consolidated balance sheet of First West
Virginia Bancorp, Inc. and subsidiary as of December 31, 2003, and the related consolidated statements of income, changes in stockholders equity, and cash flows for the year then ended (not presented herein); and in our report dated February
6, 2004, we expressed an unqualified opinion on those consolidated financial statements.



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/ S.R. Snodgrass A.C.
|                       
|Wheeling, West Virginia
|May 12, 2004           



S.R. Snodgrass, A.C.

980 National Road Wheeling, WV 26003-6400 Phone: 304-233-5030 Facsimile: 304-233-3062



33
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

Federal Trade Commission 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20580 

Office of Commissioner 

Alvaro M. Bedoya 

Statement of Commissioner Alvaro M. Bedoya 

Joined by Chair Lina M. Khan and Commissioner Rebecca Kelly Slaughter 

In the Matter of Amazon Alexa (United States v. Amazon.com, Inc.) 

May 31, 2023 

The Commission alleges that when parents asked Amazon to delete their kids’ Alexa 

voice data, the company did not delete all of it. The Commission also alleges that, as a default, 

Amazon kept child voice recordings indefinitely, in violation of federal law, including a federal 

child privacy law. 

These allegations should set off alarms for any parent. Rightly so. I am writing separately 

to highlight an equally important aspect of the settlement that should not be overlooked: 

Amazon’s alleged justification for keeping kids’ data. 

The Commission alleges that Amazon kept kids’ data indefinitely to further refine its

voice recognition algorithm. Amazon is not alone in apparently seeking to amass data to refine

its machine learning models; right now, with the advent of large language models, the tech 

industry as a whole is sprinting to do the same. 

Today’s settlement sends a message to all those companies: Machine learning is no 

excuse to break the law. Claims from businesses that data must be indefinitely retained to 

improve algorithms do not override legal bans on indefinite retention of data. The data you use to 

improve your algorithms must be lawfully collected and lawfully retained. Companies would do 

well to heed this lesson.
EXHIBIT 11
COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE
For the Periods Ended June 30 
(Amounts in thousands, except per share data)

                                       Second Quarter          Six Months
                                       1998       1997       1998       1997
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Net income........................   $64,993    $47,613   $124,337  $ 92,886
Preferred dividends...............        --         --         --        --
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Net income available to common
  shareholders....................   $64,993    $47,613   $124,337  $ 92,886
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weighted average shares:
Common shares.....................    96,316     86,021     94,087    86,385
Convertible preferred shares......        --         --         --        --
Stock awards......................        63         47         62        44
Stock options.....................     2,717      2,660      2,765     2,592
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weighted average diluted common
 shares...........................    99,096     88,728     96,914    89,021
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Basic earnings per share..........   $  0.67    $  0.55   $   1.32  $   1.08
  (net income available to common
  shareholders divided by weighted
  average of common shares)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Diluted earnings per share........   $  0.66    $  0.54   $   1.28  $   1.04
  (net income divided by weighted
  average diluted common shares)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Earnings per share and weighted average share amounts 
have been restated for adoption of SFAS No. 128.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY PUBLIC MEETING

ON THE PROPOSED POLICY FOR ADOPTING FULL-FUEL-CYCLE ANALYSES 

INTO ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS PROGRAM

U.S. Department of Energy

1000 Independence Avenue, SW.

Washington, DC 20585

Room 1E-245

Thursday, October 7, 2010

Purpose

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is holding this informal public meeting to present and 

discuss its proposal to modify the methods it uses to estimate the likely impacts of energy 

conservation standards for covered products and covered equipment on energy use and emissions 

and to expand the energy use and emissions information made available to consumers. 

Specifically, DOE proposes to use full-fuel-cycle (FFC) measures of energy and emissions, 

rather than the primary energy measures it currently uses. It also proposes to consider the 

impacts of standards on the energy-related emissions of two additional greenhouse gases (GHG), 

methane and nitrous oxide. Additionally, DOE proposes to work collaboratively with the 

Federal Trade Commission to make FFC energy and GHG emissions data available to the public 

to enable consumers to make cross-class comparisons.

Agenda

9:00 - 9:30 am Welcome, Attendee Introductions and Agenda Review

Doug Brookman 

9:30 - 9:45 am Overview of Key Proposals/Questions

Anthoney Perkins/Mark Friedrichs

9:45 – 10:45 am Brief Opening Statements from Interested Parties

Doug Brookman

10:45 - 11:00 am Break

11:00 – 12:15 pm Shift from Primary Energy to Full-Fuel-Cycle Energy, using GREET 

Model, followed by discussion

Anthoney Perkins/Michael Wang/Mark Friedrichs

12:15 - 1:15 pm Lunch (on your own)

1:15 – 2:00 pm Addition of Energy-Related Emissions of Methane and Nitrous Oxide 

to Estimated Impacts on CO2 Emissions, followed by discussion

Mark Friedrichs
2:00 – 3:00 pm Improving Information Available to Consumers, followed by 

discussion

Anthoney Perkins/Mark Friedrichs

3:00 – 3:15 pm Final Remarks and Questions from Interested Parties

Doug Brookman

3:15 – 3:30 pm Next Steps and Closing

Anthoney Perkins, Doug Brookman

3:30 pm Adjourn
PXB

Case 1:18-cv-03309-PJM Document 1117-2 Filed 01/21/21 Page 1 of 3
Case 1:18-cv-03309-PJM Document 1117-2 Filed 01/21/21 Page 2 of 3
Case 1:18-cv-03309-PJM Document 1117-2 Filed 01/21/21 Page 3 of 3
Exhibit 99.2

                            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 Annual Report of Downey  Financial Corp.  ("Downey")
on Form  10-K for the  period  ending  December  31,  2002,  as  filed  with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  I, Thomas
E.  Prince,  Chief  Financial  Officer  of  Downey,  certify  to the  best of my
knowledge,  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; and

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






Date: March 6, 2003                     /s/  Thomas E. Prince
                                         -----------------------
                                             Thomas E. Prince
                            Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
Converted by EDGARwiz


Execution

FOURTH AMENDMENT TO PURCHASE AGREEMENT

(Scottsburg Healthcare Center)




This Fourth Amendment to Purchase Agreement (Scottsburg Healthcare Center) is made effective June 19, 2012, by and between Strawberry Patch Aleph, LLC, an Indiana Limited Liability Company, ("Purchaser") and Wood Moss, LLC, a Georgia limited liability company ("Seller").




Recitals




A.

Seller and Purchaser are parties to that certain Purchase Agreement (Scottsburg Healthcare Center) dated as of October 9, 2008, a First Amendment to Purchase Agreement dated November 21, 2008, a Second Amendment to Purchase Agreement dated December 31, 2008, a Third Amendment to Purchase Agreement dated October 7, 2011, and assigned to Purchaser and consented to by Seller via a Landlord Consent and Estoppel dated November 1, 2011 (collectively, the "Purchase Agreement", all capitalized terms used herein and not otherwise defined having the meanings ascribed to then in the Purchase Agreement).




B.

The parties wish to amend the Purchase Agreement as more particularly set forth herein.




Accordingly, in consideration of the terms, conditions and covenants contained in the Purchase Agreement and herein and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties agree to amend the Purchase Agreement as follows:




1.

Section 8 of the Purchase Agreement is amended by deleting the second sentence in its entirety and substituting the following in lieu thereof:




"Date of Closing. The closing contemplated herein (the "Closing") shall occur at the offices of Seller's counsel in Atlanta, Georgia, or at any other location agreed to by the parties hereto, on or before December 31, 2015 (the "Closing Date")."




2.

Purchase Price Credit. Purchaser acknowledges that Seller (as the successor in interest to National Assistance Bureau, Inc.) leases the Facility to The Waters of Scottsburg II, LLC, pursuant to that certain Lease dated December 30, 2008 as amended by First Amendment to Lease dated January 1, 2010, by Second Amendment to Lease dated July 1, 2010, by Third Amendment to Lease dated November 18, 2010, by Fourth Amendment to Lease Dated October 7, 2011, and by the Fifth Amendment to Lease dated as of June _______, 2012 (as amended and assigned, the "Lease"). Notwithstanding anything contained in the Lease or the Purchase Agreement to the contrary, but provided that the Tenant is not in default under the Lease at the time of the Closing, Seller agrees that Purchaser shall be entitled to a credit against the Purchase Price in an amount equal to $5,000 per month for each month after July 1, 2012 and running through the Closing Date. By way of example, if the Closing occurs December 31, 2012, the Purchaser would be entitled to a credit against the Purchase Price in the amount of $30,000.




3.

The Purchase Agreement is unchanged except as specifically set forth herein.

















SIGNATURES




PURCHASER:

SELLER:

Strawberry Patch Aleph, LLC

Wood Moss, LLC







By: /s/ Moishe Gubin, Manager

By:  /s/ Christopher F. Brogdon, Manager
<PAGE>   1
                                                                     EXHIBIT 4.4

                 Amendment to the Employee Stock Purchase Plan

Subject to approval by the Company's stockholders at the next scheduled annual
stockholder meeting, effective as of April 19, 2001, subsection 3(a) of the
Employee Stock Purchase Plan is amended by deleting the number "600,000" and
inserting in lieu thereof the number "5,400,000" provided, however, that if not
approved by stockholders within twelve months following April 19, 2001, this
amendment shall have no force or effect.
JOHN F. KITTRELL

,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

,

Appellee

. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D 15

- 3717

_______ ______________________/

Opinion filed November 6, 2015.

An appeal from an order of the Circuit Court for Escambia County

. Terry D. Terrell , Judge

.

John F. K ittrell, pro se

, Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee , for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

LEWIS, THOMAS, and ROWE, JJ., CONCUR.
263 La. 797

#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Roy Lee JACKSON v. C. Murray HENDERSON, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary.

No. 52909.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Dec. 5, 1972.

In re: Roy Lee Jackson applying for writs of certiorari, and habeas corpus.

Application denied. The evidentiary hearing establishes a knowledgeable and voluntary plea with competent counsel. Relator has waived his right to challenge the grand jury venire. See C.Cr.P. Art. 535 subds. B(3) and D and State v. Valentine, 259 La. 1019, 254 So.2d 450.
#### Don HASSEL et al., Appellants, v. H B & S ADVERTISING CONSULTANTS, INC., Appellees.

No. 70-712.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Dec. 4, 1970.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
#### Elouise WRIGHT, Appellant, v. COCA COLA BOTTLING COMPANY OF MIAMI, a Florida corporation, Appellee.

No. 71-385.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Dec. 15, 1971.

W. George Allen, Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.

J. T. Blackard of Knight, Peters, Hoeveler, Pickle, Niemoeller & Flynn, Miami, for appellee.

OWEN, Judge.

Appellant became ill upon discovering a foreign substance in a bottle of appellee’s product from which she was drinking. The jury returned a verdict for the defendant appellee and the appeal is from the final judgment entered thereon.

The only questions raised on appeal concern the correctness of certain jury instructions given by the court. The record fails to disclose that appellant made any objection to the instructions. At oral argument appellant’s counsel suggested that an appropriate objection was made at the charge conference, but this conference was not transcribed and made a part of the record on appeal, nor was it within the appellant’s designations to the reporter. It is the responsibility and duty of the appellant to provide the appellate court with the record sufficient to review the matter assigned as *57error, Conlee Construction Co. v. Cay Construction Co., Fla.App.1969, 221 So.2d 792. Absent a record showing of a timely objection to the jury instructions' which appellant now assails, the court’s giving such instructions may not be assigned as error, and we cannot consider the merits of the questions presented by appellant. Rule 1.-470(b) R.C.P., 30 F.S.A.; Eicholz v. Frey, Fla.App.1965, 173 So.2d 771, and Smith v. Tantlinger, Fla.App.1958, 102 So.2d 840.

Affirmed.

REED, C. J., and CROSS, J., concur.
----

**EXHIBIT      32.1**

**CERTIFICATION      PURSUANT TO **

**18      U.S.C. §1350, **

**AS      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO **

**SECTION      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 **

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

|   | (2) | The                information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material                respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the                Company. |
|--------|-----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:                July 2, 2007 | By:    | /s/                William Prouty                    |   |
|-----------------------------------|--------|------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                              |   | William                Prouty                        |
|                              |   | President                and Chief Executive Officer |

----
STA TE OF D E L AWARE 

DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES 

AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL 

O FFIC E O F TH E 

SEC RETARY 

Mr. William C. Early (3RAOO) 

Acting Regional Administrator 

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Region III 

1650 Arch Street 

Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029 

Dear r1y:6 ;J2/?-

89 K I NGS H I G HWAY 

DOV ER, DELAWARE 1 990 1 

October 26, 2009 

PH O N E: ( 302 ) 739-9000 

F AX: ( 302) 739- 6242 

I am pleased to submit the enclosed revision to the State of Delaware State Implementation Plan 

(SIP) for the Attainment and Maintenance of the 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard. 

This revision amends Regulation No. 1142 - SPECIFIC EMISSION CONTROL REQUIREMENTS by 

adding a new section, Section 2 - Control of Nitrogen Oxide Emissions from Industrial Boilers and 

Process Heaters at Petroleum Refineries. The revision will require new and/or additional controls on 

industrial boilers and process heaters with heat input capacities of equal to or greater than 200mmBTU/hr 

at petroleum refining facilities in Delaware. This revision is a part of Delaware's overall effort to make 

reasonable progress towards attainment, and to attain the 8-hour ozone standard by 2010; and to maintain 

the ozone standard thereafter. The effective date of this revision is November I 1,2009. 

The requirements of the CAA Section 110(a)(2)(A) have been met through the normal public 

hearing process established by the State of Delaware with proper notification (30 days) prior to the 

convening of the public hearing. Attachments A and B are copies of affidavits as proof of proper 

notification. It is the position of the State of Delaware that all minimum requirements set forth in the 

1990 Clean Air Act Amendments have been met. 

We look forward to continuing the cooperative effort between Delaware and EPA in this 

impOltant work. As always, feel free to contact me or Ali Mirzakhalili, Administrator, (302) 739-9402, if 

you have any questions concerning the enclosed documents. 

Sincerely ' 

::::"" ra~:2:~" Secretary 

cc: Judy Katz, EPA w/encl. 

Ali Mirzakhalili
#### Grant Wilson MADRY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 70-600.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Sept. 16, 1970.

Appeal dismissed.