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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This  schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the Balance

Sheet for CIMARRON-GRANDVIEW GROUP, INC. at September 30, 2000, and the
Statements of Income for the period  ended September 30, 2000, and is  qualified
in its entirety by reference  to  such  financial  statements.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                          16,245
<SECURITIES>                                    14,795
<RECEIVABLES>                                  100,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               131,040
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 131,040
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       693,949
<OTHER-SE>                                    (562,909)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   131,040
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 4,132
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                33,985
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (29,853)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (29,853)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (29,853)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     0.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.00






</TABLE>
#### Gay M. McPHERSON, Appellant, v. Sandra McPHERSON, Appellee.

No. 72-661.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

July 13, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
Dismissed; Opinion Filed September 3, 2020

In The

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-19-01553-CV

PHYLLIS SLICKER, Appellant

V.

WILLIAM SLICKER AND LESLIE G. MARTIN, P.C., Appellees

On Appeal from the 330th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DF-11-15742

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Schenck, Osborne, and Partida-Kipness

Opinion by Justice Schenck

Appellant’s brief in this case is overdue. By postcard dated June 30, 2020, 

we notified appellant the time for filing appellant’s brief had expired. We directed 

appellant to file a brief and an extension motion within ten days. We cautioned 

appellant that failure to file a brief and an extension motion would result in the 

dismissal of this appeal without further notice. To date, appellant has not filed a 

brief, filed an extension motion, or otherwise corresponded with the Court regarding 

the status of this appeal.
–2–

Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(a)(1); 42.3(b), 

(c).

191553F.P05

/David J. Schenck/

DAVID J. SCHENCK

JUSTICE
–3–

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

PHYLLIS SLICKER, Appellant

No. 05-19-01553-CV V.

WILLIAM SLICKER AND LESLIE 

G. MARTIN, P.C., Appellees

On Appeal from the 330th Judicial 

District Court, Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DF-11-15742.

Opinion delivered by Justice 

Schenck. Justices Osborne and 

Partida-Kipness participating.

In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, this appeal is 

DISMISSED.

It is ORDERED that appellees WILLIAM SLICKER AND LESLIE G. 

MARTIN, P.C. recover their costs of this appeal from appellant PHYLLIS 

SLICKER.

Judgment entered this 3rd day of September, 2020.
##### 



Exhibit 31.2
 CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER
PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
      (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 the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by
others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being
prepared;(b)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant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 report any change in the registrants internal control over financial
reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter that has
materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants
internal control over financial reporting; and
    Dated: November 14, 2007
    By:
    /s/ Gerald Y. NgGerald Y. NgChief Financial Officer
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

WILLIAM BURROWS

,

Defendant Below, Appellant,

v.

STATE OF DELAWARE

,
Appellee. § § § No. 99 , 20 2 2 § § Court Below: Superior Court § of the State of Delaware § § Cr. I.D. No. 1507008924 (N) § §

Submitted: April 26 , 20 2 2 Decided: May 5 , 20 2 2

Before SEITZ

, Chief Justice; VALIHURA and VAUGHN

, Justices

.

O R D E R

After consideration of the notice to show cause and the appellant’s response ,

it appears to the Court that:

(1) On March 21 , 202 2 , the Court received a letter from the appellant,

Williams Burrows

, expressing his desire to appeal from a Superior Court order dated

February 7, 2022, and docketed on February 8, 202 2

, that denied his m ot ion for

reduction or modification of sentence. T he Seni or Court Clerk deemed the letter to

be a notice of appeal and issued a notice directing Burrows to show cause why th e

appeal should not be dismissed as untimely filed. Under Supreme Court Rules 6 and

11, a timely notice of appeal should have been filed on or before March 10, 202 2

.2

(2) In response to the notice to show cause, Burrows states that he sent a

notice of appeal on April 3, 202 2

— later than the letter that was deemed to be his

notice of appeal

— and indicates that he believed the deadline to appeal to be April

5, 2022. A notice of appeal must be timely filed to invoke the Court’s appellate

jurisdiction. 1 A notice of appeal must be received by the Court within the applicable

time period to be ef

fective. 2 Unless an appellant can demonstrate that the failure to

file a timely notice of appeal is attributable to court

- related personnel, an untimely

appeal cannot be considered. 3 An appellant's pro se , incarcerated status does not

excuse a failure to comply strictly with the jurisdictional requirements of Supreme

Court Rule 6

. 4 The failure to f ile a timely appeal in this case is not attributable to

court

- related personnel. Therefore, the appeal must be dismissed.

N OW, THEREFORE, IT IS OR DERED, under Supreme Court Rule 29(b)

,

that the appeal is DISMISSED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Karen L. Valihura Justice

1 Carr v. State , 554 A.2d 778, 779 (Del. 1989).

2 D EL

. S UPR

. C T

. R. 10(a).

3 Bey v. State , 402 A.2d 362, 363 (Del. 1979).

4 Hughes v. State , 2019 WL 1723098 (Del. Apr. 15, 2019).
#### Pittsburgh and Steubenville Railroad Company *versus*Hall *et al.*

*'*TKe assessment of damages occasioned to a tract of land by the building of a railroad, on the petition of several joint owners, is properly made in a gross sum.

It is no objection to the validity of the proceedings, that the viewers did not apportion the damages among the claimants according to their respective , interests in the land.

Certiorari to the Common Pleas of *Allegheny county.*

On the 27th day of January, 1855, James W. Hall, Margaret Hall Ms wife [late Margaret Ewing), John Ewing, and Elizabeth Woods, the two former being the children, and the latter the late widow of John Ewing, deceased, now intermarried with Stephen Woods, presented their petition to the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny county, alleging they were the owners of a tract of land in said county, and that the railroad company had entered upon and appropriated a portion of the said land for the purposes of their road. On the same day the Court appointed viewers, and on the 1st of March following, the report was filed, finding for the petitioners $1500 damages.

To this report the railroad company filed exceptions, one of wMch was to the effect,, that the viewers had made no apportionment of the damages among the petitioners, according to their several interests in the land. These exceptions were overruled, and the report of the viewers confirmed.

The only exception pressed in this Court, was the one above stated.

*Todd*and Smith, for plaintiffs, in error. —

The claims of the complainants are distinct and distributive, and not collective and aggregate, and the finding of the viewers should correspond: 1 *Harris*500; 7 *Watts*33; 5 *Wheat. 394;*3 *W.*& *Ser.*464.

*Hall*and *Woods,*contrá. —

The viewers assess the damages if there is any contest as to the distribution between the parties. A payment of the amount assessed would exonerate the company: 1 *Harris*500. It is not necessary to set forth the title of the parties. The petitioners were bound to make out their title before the viewers, and in the absence of contrary proof, it will be presumed that they have done so: 7 *W. & Ser.*236.

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Black, J.

All the exceptions in this case are abandoned ex*337cept one. That one is, that the viewers did not apportion and divide the damages among the different claimants, according to their respective interests in the land laken. This is nothing. If the railroad company pays these damages, it matters not to it how they may be divided among those entitled.

Judgment affirmed.
113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1093 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 130 Caldwell Drive in Hazlehurst, Mississippi, 

as the ‘‘First Lieutenant Alvin Chester Cockrell, Jr. Post 

Office Building’’. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

†S 1093 ES

1 SECTION 1. FIRST LIEUTENANT ALVIN CHESTER 

2 COCKRELL, JR. POST OFFICE BUILDING. 

3 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

4 Postal Service located at 130 Caldwell Drive in 

5 Hazlehurst, Mississippi, shall be known and designated as 

6 the ‘‘First Lieutenant Alvin Chester Cockrell, Jr. Post Of7 fice Building’’. 

8 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg9 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

10 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

11 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘First Lieutenant Alvin 

12 Chester Cockrell, Jr. Post Office Building’’. 

Passed the Senate August 1, 2013. 

Attest: 

Secretary. 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1093 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States Posting’’. Alvin Chester Cockrell, Jr. Post Office Build- Hazlehurst, Mississippi, as the ‘‘First Lieutenant al Service located at 130 Caldwell Drive in
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-6796

WALLACE SPENCER DAVIS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

MEMBERS, Virginia Department of Corrections;

RON ANGELONE; GENE JOHNSON, Department Director, Virginia Department of Corrections; DEPUTY DIRECTOR, Security, Virginia Department

of Corrections; DEPUTY DIRECTOR, Treatment,

Virginia Department of Corrections,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, District Judge.

(CA-96-13-R)

Submitted: March 13, 1997 Decided: March 18, 1997

Before HALL, ERVIN, and WILKINS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Wallace Spencer Davis, Appellant Pro Se. Mark Ralph Davis, OFFICE

OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for

Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court's order dismissing his

previous notice of appeal as moot, denying his motion for relief

from the court's order denying his motions for default, and granting his motion to resume active consideration of his case. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the order is not

appealable. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final

orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (1994), and certain interlocutory and

collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (1994); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b);

Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949). The

order here appealed is neither a final order nor an appealable

interlocutory or collateral order.

We dismiss the appeal as interlocutory. 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
IV

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. RES. 191

Prohibiting Members of the House of Representatives from using the frank

for unsolicited mailings.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JUNE 9, 1993

Mr. BOEHNER submitted the following resolution; which was referred jointly

to the Committees on House Administration, Post Office and Civil Service, and Rules

RESOLUTION

Prohibiting Members of the House of Representatives from

using the frank for unsolicited mailings.

1 Resolved,

2 SECTION 1. PROHIBITION OF USE OF THE FRANK FOR UN3 SOLICITED MAILINGS.

4 Notwithstanding any law, rule, or other authority, a

5 Member of the House of Representatives may not use the

6 frank for mail other than mail—

7 (1) in direct response to a communication from

8 the person to whom the mail is addressed;
2

•HRES 191 IH

1 (2) from the Member of the House of Rep2 resentatives to another Member of Congress, or to a

3 Federal, State, or local government official;

4 (3) of a news release to the communications

5 media; or

6 (4) in furtherance of the administrative duties

7 of the Member of the House of Representatives.

8 SEC. 2. DEFINITION.

9 As used in this resolution, the term ‘‘Member of the

10 House of Representatives’’ means a Representative in, or

11 a Delegate or Resident Commissioner to, the Congress.

Æ
#### Gail Claire GANN, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 68-38.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

Feb. 6, 1968.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 141 (Monday, July 23, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 34849]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-15614]


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

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding 
Companies

    The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for 
approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 
1841 et seq.) (BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR part 225), and all other 
applicable statutes and regulations to become a bank holding company 
and/or to acquire the assets or the ownership of, control of, or the 
power to vote shares of a bank or bank holding company and all of the 
banks and nonbanking companies owned by the bank holding company, 
including the companies listed below.
    The applications listed below, as well as other related filings 
required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the 
Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The applications will also be available 
for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested 
persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated 
in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the 
acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether 
the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards 
in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, 
nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States.
    Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these 
applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the 
offices of the Board of Governors not later than August 17, 2018.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City (Dennis Denney, Assistant 
Vice President) 1 Memorial Drive, Kansas City, Missouri 64198-0001:
    1. BOK Financial Corporation, Tulsa, Oklahoma; to acquire through 
its de novo subsidiary, BOKF Merger Corporation Number Sixteen, Tulsa, 
Oklahoma, 100 percent of the voting shares of CoBiz Financial, Inc., 
Denver Colorado; and thereby indirectly acquire CoBiz Bank (doing 
business as Colorado Business Bank in Colorado and Arizona Business 
Bank in Arizona), also of Denver, Colorado.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, July 17, 2018.
Ann Misback,
Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 2018-15614 Filed 7-20-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
November 19, 2010 Response of Patterson-UTI Energy, Inc. to

September 9, 2010 Request of U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Master Index

File Name CBI Production Date Type Redaction 

2010-11-19 Patterson - Cover Letter.pdf 11/19/2010 Adobe Acrobat2010-11-19 Patterson - EPA Hydraulic Fracturing Questionnaire 090910.xls 11/19/2010 Microsoft Excel2010-11-19 Patterson - Master Index.pdf 11/19/2010 Adobe Acrobat2010-11-19 Patterson - Narrative Responses.pdf 11/19/2010 Adobe Acrobat2010-11-19 Patterson - Narrative Responses Question 4aii CBI.pdf CBI 11/19/2010 Adobe Acrobat2010-11-19 Patterson - Narrative Responses Question 4b CBI .pdf CBI 11/19/2010 Adobe Acrobat2010-11-19 Patterson - Transmittal Letter.pdf 11/19/2010 Adobe AcrobatPATT-EPA-0000878.pdf 11/19/2010 Adobe Acrobat 03; 03aPATT-EPA-0001060.pdf 11/19/2010 Adobe Acrobat 03; 03a

Page 1
# C_2021338EN.01000901.xml

| 23.8.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 338/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.8.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 338/9

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van eerste aanleg Oost-Vlaanderen, afdeling Gent (Belgium) lodged on 27 May 2021 — The Escape Center BVBA v Belgische Staat

(Case C-330/21)

(2021/C 338/11)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank van eerste aanleg Oost-Vlaanderen, afdeling Gent

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: The Escape Center BVBA

Defendant: Belgische Staat

Question referred

Must Article 98(2) of Directive 2006/112, (1) read in conjunction with point (14) of Annex III to that directive, be interpreted as meaning that the right to use sporting facilities is subject to the reduced rate of VAT only if no individual or group guidance is provided?

---

(1)  Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1).

---
EX-4.1





 Exhibit 4.1 

STATE OF DELAWARE 
  

			
	 CERTIFICATE NO.
	  	NUMBER OF SHARES
	 1
	  	150,000            

 JPMORGAN CHASE & CO. 

INCORPORATED UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 

Authorized 150,000 Shares of 
 4.55%
Non-Cumulative Preferred Stock, Series JJ, Par Value $1.00 Per Share 
 This certifies that
Computershare Inc., as Depositary, is the owner of 150,000 shares of 4.55% Non-Cumulative Preferred Stock, Series JJ, par value $1.00 per share, of JPMorgan Chase & Co., a Delaware corporation (the
“Corporation”), fully paid and non-assessable, transferable only upon the books of the Corporation, in person or by attorney, upon surrender of this Certificate properly endorsed. 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Corporation has caused this Certificate to be signed by its duly authorized officers this 17th day of March, 2021. 
  

					
			
	   
	 		 	   

	Irene Apotovsky	 		 	Stephen B. Grant
	Managing Director	 		 	Assistant Corporate Secretary

 The Corporation will furnish, without charge to each stockholder who so requests, the powers, designations, preferences and
relative, participating, optional or other special rights of each class of stock or series thereof and the qualifications, limitations or restrictions of such preferences and/or rights. 












 FOR VALUE RECEIVED, ____________________________ does hereby sell, assign and transfer
unto___________________________________ (________) Shares represented by within Certificate, and does hereby irrevocably constitute and appoint ___________________________________ as its attorney to transfer such Shares on the books and records of
the Corporation with full power of substitution in the premises. 
 Dated: _________________, 20__. 

 

					
	In presence of:	 		 	Stockholder:
			
	   
	 		 	   

	Name:	 		 	Name:
Exhibit 4.12

Phil Hodkinson

c/o BT Centre

81 Newgate Street

London

EC1A 7AJ

21 November 2011

Dear Phil,

I am writing to confirm that the Board has agreed to extend your appointment for three years from
1 February 2012. Your appointment will continue in all other respects on the terms set out in your letter of appointment dated 21 February 2011 including, in particular, that either you or the Board may give the other at least three
months written notice to terminate the appointment at any time.

As agreed by the Board at its meeting in November 2011, you will cease to be
Chairman of the Audit & Risk Committee with effect from 1 January 2012 but will continue as a member, and you will become Chairman of the Equality of Access Board with effect from 14 January 2012. You will, from the
1 January 2012, receive £62,000 a year for your services as a director and £15,000 as a member of the Audit & Risk Committee. In addition, you will receive a fee of £72,500 as Chairman of the Equality of Access
Board with effect from 14 January 2012. All other committee fees remain unchanged.

Please sign the attached copy of this letter to confirm
your acceptance of this extension and return a copy to me.

Yours sincerely,

/s/ Andrew Parker

A J PARKER







|To: | Andrew Parker
|--- | -------------

| | Company Secretary
| | -----------------

I accept this extension of my appointment on the
above terms.



|                   |  |  |  |           
|------------------ |  |  |  | ----------
|/s/ Phil Hodkinson |  |  |  | 14/12/2011
|Phil Hodkinson     |  |  |  | Date