alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Agricultural Marketing Service

1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-0201

www.ams.usda.gov

USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.

Negotiated Cattle 0-14 and 15-30 Day Delivery Period Report Update

November 15, 2017

Overview

Beginning November 14, 2017, the AMS National Weekly Fed Cattle Comprehensive report

now includes weighted average negotiated cattle prices for 0-14 and 15-30 day delivery 

periods. A new section titled “Weekly Negotiated Avg. Price by Delivery Period,” highlights 

negotiated prices and volumes for beef-type cattle sold on a national basis with live sales 

converted to dressed.

In April 2017, AMS conducted a study of the 0-14 and 15-30 day delivery periods to evaluate 

whether these two delivery periods could be reported separately and still meet the Livestock 

Mandatory Reporting (LMR) 3/70/20 confidentiality guideline in order to be published, and 

evaluate the price differences between the two delivery periods. 

Initially, the study, Negotiated Cattle Delivery Period Analysis, found that the two delivery 

periods could not be broken out separately in the 5-area feeding regions, while still preserving 

confidentiality. AMS continued to track data after the study and as trends and market 

participants changed, analysis has shown the two negotiated delivery periods are passing 

confidentiality on a national basis; therefore, the prices can be reported. Beginning in March

2017, the 0-14 and 15-30 day negotiated delivery periods began consistently passing the LMR 

confidentiality guideline, with this pattern continuing throughout much of the year.

Historical Charts and Tables

20

10

0

10

20

30

40

50

3/20/17 4/20/17 5/20/17 6/20/17 7/20/17 8/20/17 9/20/17 10/20/17

15-30 Head Count (in thousands) vs 

15-30 Day Delivery Discount (in $/c.w.t.)

15-30 head count from CT154 15-30 discount
Agricultural Marketing Service

1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-0201

www.ams.usda.gov

USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.

The following table is a historical series of national basis, beef-type, negotiated, 0-14 and 15-30 

day delivery period cattle covering the time period from March 2017 to November 2017:
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
                            (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)

     In connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report of Equus II
Incorporated (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2002
(the "Report"), I, Sam P. Douglass, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the
Company, hereby certify that:

     (1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
          15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or
          78o(d)); and

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

Dated: August 14, 2002                          /s/ Sam P. Douglass
       ---------------                          --------------------------------
                                                Sam P. Douglass
                                                Chairman
                                                Chief Executive Officer
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1455 

To protect States and individuals in States that have laws which permit 

the use of cannabis, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 28, 2019 

Ms. LEE of California (for herself, Mr. BLUMENAUER, Mr. NEGUSE, Mr. 

PERLMUTTER, Mr. KHANNA, Ms. PRESSLEY, and Ms. GABBARD) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committees on Financial Services, and Energy and Commerce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the 

Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within 

the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To protect States and individuals in States that have laws 

which permit the use of cannabis, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Restraining Excessive 

5 Federal Enforcement & Regulations of Cannabis Act of 

6 2019’’ or the ‘‘REFER Act of 2019’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•HR 1455 IH

1 SEC. 2. LIMITATION ON THE USE OF FUNDS. 

2 None of the funds made available by any Act of Con3 gress to any department or agency of the United States 

4 may be used to— 

5 (1) prevent a State or unit of local government 

6 from implementing or maintaining its State law or 

7 regulation that authorizes the use, distribution, pos8 session, or cultivation of cannabis; 

9 (2) detain, prosecute, sentence, or initiate civil 

10 proceedings against an individual, business or prop11 erty, that is involved in the cultivation, distribution, 

12 possession, dispensation, or use of cannabis, in ac13 cordance with the law or regulation of the State or 

14 unit of local government in which the individual is 

15 located; or 

16 (3) penalize a financial institution solely be17 cause the institution provides financial services to an 

18 entity that is a manufacturer, producer, or a person 

19 that participates in any business or organized activ20 ity that involves handling cannabis or cannabis prod21 ucts, or any related activity, and engages in such ac22 tivity pursuant to a law or regulation established by 

23 a State or a unit of local government in which the 

24 financial institution is located. 

25 SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS. 

26 In this Act: 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
3 

•HR 1455 IH

1 (1) The term ‘‘financial institution’’ has the 

2 meaning given such term in section 5312 of title 31, 

3 United States Code. 

4 (2) The term ‘‘State’’ means any State, the 

5 District of Columbia, any territory or possession of 

6 the United States, or any Indian tribal government. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
**Exhibit 32.2**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350 (as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002), I, theundersigned Chief Financial Officer of *info*USA Inc. (the “Company”), hereby certify that to myknowledge on the date hereof, (i) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for thequarterly period ended September 30, 2007 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements ofSection 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and (ii) the information contained inthe Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of the Company.Date: November 9, 2007         */s/ Stormy L. Dean*   Stormy L. Dean,   Chief Financial Officer        A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other documentauthenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed formwithin the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been providedto the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and ExchangeCommission or its staff upon request.     The foregoing certification is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission asour exhibit to the Form 10-Q and shall not be deemed to be considered filed as part of the Form10-Q.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Ziegler
Leasing Corporation financial statements and is qualified in its entirety
by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                           5,106
<SECURITIES>                                 1,377,191
<RECEIVABLES>                                7,957,135<F1>
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0<F2>
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0<F3>
<PP&E>                                               0<F4>
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0<F4>
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              47,953,958
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0<F3>
<BONDS>                                     14,938,202
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         0
<SALES>                                      5,743,018<F5>
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             7,319,354
<CGS>                                                0<F6>
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0<F6>
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             4,306,179<F7>
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               430,997
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,903,625
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                678,553
<INCOME-TAX>                                   273,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            405,553
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   405,553
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0<F8>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0<F8>
<FN>
<F1>Includes all amounts receivable from customers without regard to current
or long-term classification.
<F2>Allowance for doubtful accounts are included in investment in leases and
has not changed significantly during the third quarter.
<F3>Registrant has an unclassified balance sheet.
<F4>Amounts are not disclosed in the financial statements as the amounts are
insignificant.
<F5>Includes all income from leasing activities.
<F6>Not applicable to lease income.
<F7>Includes depreciation, selling, general and administrative expense.
<F8>Earnings per share not calculated.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
Case: 14-13768 Date Filed: 04/17/2015 Page: 1 of 3 
Case: 14-13768 Date Filed: 04/17/2015 Page: 2 of 3 
Case: 14-13768 Date Filed: 04/17/2015 Page: 3 of 3
#### CONSOLIDATED SERVICES, INC., a Utah Corporation, et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. FMA LEASING COMPANY, a Utah Corporation, and Barbara Jensen Interiors, a Utah Corporation, Defendants and Respondents.

No. 14039.

Supreme Court of Utah.

Dec. 19, 1975.

George B. Handy, Ogden, for plaintiffs and appellants.

Robert C. Liljenquist, Piercey, Bradford & Marsden, Salt Lake City, for defendants and respondents.

HENRIOD, Chief Justice:

Appeal from the dismissal of an action brought by Campions, Lessees, involving a furniture lease. Affirmed with no costs.

In October, 1970, Campions purchased furniture from Barbara Jensen Interiors, half the purchase price of which was being financed by defendant Lessor, FMA Leasing. An argument ensued between Cam-pions and Interiors. The former advised FMA not to make payments to Interiors until further notice. Interiors sued Cam-pions for the price, but the latter, nonetheless, paid FMA the commitment fee (the first and last installments) anyway, in accordance with the terms of the lease. Thereafter they also paid five more monthly payments (totalling $4,156.36) while the suit was pending. Interiors obtained a judgment against Campions who, about three years later, in December, 1973, on the ground of unjust enrichment and lack of consideration, sued FMA to recover the payments theretofore made under the contract.

Believable evidence indicated that FMA already had paid a lending bank $1,600.00 interest for the finance money, incurred $900.00 accrued handling charges and may *487have suffered a potential $10,000.00 loss arising out of breach of the contract, for servicing the lease over a 60-month period, —as basis for a counterclaim.

The trial court found that the Campions breached the existing contract and granted FMA’s motion to dismiss, refusing to grant any relief on the counterclaim for failure to pursue and prove any specific damages.

There were other facts before the trial court that need no detail here amply supportive of the judgment, — sufficiently reflected from Campions’ own admissions of contractual liability and breach, — irrespective of that adduced by FMA.

ELLETT, CROCKETT, TUCKETT and MAUGHAN, JJ., concur.
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04

- 19

- 00551

- CR

IN RE Carlos ZUNIGA

Original Mandamus Proceeding 1

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

Irene Rios, Justice

Delivered and Filed: September 18, 2019

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION

On August 19, 2019, relator filed a petition for writ of mandamus by which he seeks to

compel the Board of Pardons and Paroles to determine relator is entitled to parole , “reverse the

lower court’s judgment in whole or in part and [sic] the judgment of the lower court [sic] should

have rendered at parole review.” This court’s mandamus jurisdiction does not extend to the Board

of Pardons and Paroles. See T EX

. G OV ’ T C ODE § 22.221(a), (b). Therefore, we dismiss relator’s

petition for want of jurisdiction.

PER CURIAM

DO NOT PUBLISH

1 This proceeding arises from a parole panel decision by the State of Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles.
QuickLinks
 -- Click here to rapidly navigate through this document

Exhibit 10.13  


 
 

TENTH AMENDMENT
  TO THE
  MANDALAY RESORT GROUP EMPLOYEES'
  PROFIT SHARING AND INVESTMENT TRUST    
  


        This Tenth Amendment to the Mandalay Resort Group Employees' Profit Sharing and Investment Trust is made and entered into this 29 day of November, 2001,
but is effective for all purposes as of May 1, 2001 (except as otherwise provided herein), by and between Mandalay Resort Group (the "Company") and Wells Fargo Bank (the "Trustee"). 


W I T N E S S ET H:  


        WHEREAS, the Company has previously adopted the Mandalay Resort Group Employees' Profit Sharing and Investment
Trust which has been amended from time to time (as amended the "Trust") and 


        WHEREAS, pursuant to the terms of the Trust, the Company is authorized and empowered to further amend the Trust; and 


        WHEREAS, the Company deems it advisable and in the best interests of the Participants to amend the Trust to provide for an additional
Employer. 


        NOW, THEREFORE, the Trust is hereby amended to read as follows: 


I.  


        Paragraph (i) of Article I of the Trust is hereby amended to read as follows: 



        (i)    "Employer" shall mean the Company, Circus Circus Casinos, Inc., SlotsAFun, Inc., Edgewater Hotel
Corporation, Colorado Belle Corp., New Castle Corp., Ramparts, Inc., Circus Circus Mississippi, Inc., Mandalay Development, Railroad Pass Investment Group, Jean Development Company, Jean
Development West, Mandalay Corp., Circus Circus Michigan, Inc., and Ramparts International, as well as any other subsidiary, related corporation or other entity that adopts the Plan with the
consent of the Company. Railroad Pass Investment Group, Jean Development Company and Jean Development West are, at times, collectively referred to herein as the "Gold Strike Entities." The term
"Employer" shall also include, effective as of February 1, 2000, Go Vegas. The term "Employer" shall also include, effective as of May 1, 2001, Mandalay Place. 






 

        IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Tenth Amendment has been executed as of the date first written above. 



	 
	 	 
	 	 

	 	 	MANDALAY RESORT GROUP
	

 	
 	

By:	
 	

GLENN SCHAEFFER
	 	 	 	 	
 President
	

 	
 	

 	
 	
"COMPANY"
	

 	
 	
WELLS FARGO BANK
	

 	
 	

By:	
 	

DEBRA LAGESCHULTE

	

 	
 	

Its:	
 	

Vice President

	 	 	 	 	 
	

 	
 	

By:	
 	

NANCY VAN GELDER

	

 	
 	

Its:	
 	

Vice President

	

 	
 	

 	
 	
"TRUSTEE"




2









QuickLinks


TENTH AMENDMENT TO THE MANDALAY RESORT GROUP EMPLOYEES' PROFIT SHARING AND INVESTMENT TRUST
----

| 1. | I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of ARI Network Services, Inc. (the “Company”); |
|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 2. | Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and |
|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 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 the Company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; |
|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Dated:  March 17, 2011 |                                  |
|----------------------------------|---------------------------------------|
|                             |                                  |
|                             | /s/ Roy W. Olivier                    |
|                             | Roy W. Olivier                        |
|                             | President and Chief Executive Officer |

----
```

Exhibit 99.2

                  CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL MANAGER

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. &1350)

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. &1350),
the  undersigned,  Linda J.  Haines,  Principal  Financial  Manager of Nutrition
Management  Services Company, a Pennsylvania  corporation (the "Company"),  does
hereby certify, to his knowledge, that:

The Quarterly  Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter  ended  September 30, 2002 of
the Company (the "Report")  fully complies with the  requirements  of section 13
(a) or 15 (d) of the  Securities  Exchange  Act of  1934,  and  the  information
contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company.

                                              /s/ Linda J. Haines
                                             -----------------------------------
                                             Linda J. Haines
                                             Principal Financial Manager

November 14, 2002
```
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7530

WILLIE S. MERRIWEATHER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JOHNSTON POLICE DEPARTMENT, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Patrick Michael Duffy, District Judge. (CA-97-2037-6-23AK) Submitted: March 11, 1999 Decided: March 17, 1999 Before WIDENER and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Willie S. Merriweather, Appellant Pro Se. Amy Patterson Shumpert, HENDERSON & SALLEY, Aiken, South Carolina; Gary Hudson Smith, III, BRAITHWAITE, MCCANTS & SMITH, Aiken, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Willie S. Merriweather appeals the district court’s order granting Appellee’s motion for summary judgment and denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 1998) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Merriweather v. Johnston Police Dep’t , No. CA-97-2037-6-23AK (D.S.C. Sept. 18, 1998). We dispense with oral argument becausethe facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
20515

#### State v. Keliikoa

Affirmed
#### Joshua Howard MALONE, Appellant, v. Marie MALONE, Appellee. Marie MALONE, Cross-Appellant, v. Joshua Howard MALONE, Cross-Appellee.

Nos. 3095, 3127.

Supreme Court of Alaska.

Dec. 22, 1978.

M. Ashley Dickerson, James H. Ottinger, Anchorage, for appellant and cross appellee.

Russellyn S. Carruth, Burr, Pease & Kurtz, Inc., Anchorage, for appellee and cross appellant.

OPINION

Before BOOCHEVER, C. J., and RABI-NOWITZ, CONNOR, BURKE and MATTHEWS, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

At issue is whether it was error to award appellee, as a property division, $350.00 per month during the lives of the parties, as her share of appellant’s vested federal civil service retirement benefits. Appellant has not retired and is not now receiving retirement benefits.

AS 09.55.210(6)1 empowers the superior court to divide property of the parties “in the manner as may be just.” In performing this function the court has broad discretion which will be interfered with on appeal only in cases of clear injustice.2*Burrell*v. *Burrell,*537 P.2d 1, 4 (Alaska 1975).

Joshua Malone’s take-home pay monthly is approximately $1,450.00. Marie Malone’s *1168is approximately $650.00. Subtracting $350.00 from Joshua’s income and adding it to Marie’s leaves him with $1,150.00 per month and her with $1,000.00.

The alternative, in a marriage of this long duration, would be an award of alimony. In *Messina*v. *Messina,*583 P.2d 804 (Alaska, 1978), we adopted the view that courts should be encouraged to provide for the financial needs of spouses by a property disposition, rather than by alimony. The result here is consistent with that preference.

We find that there has been no abuse of discretion in the division of the parties’ property.

AFFIRMED.

1

. AS 09.55.210(6) states:

> In a judgment in an action for divorce or action declaring a marriage void or at any time after judgment, the court may provide:

> 

> (6) for the division between the parties of their property, whether joint or separate, acquired only during coverture, in the manner as may be just, and without regard to which of the parties is in fault; however, the court, in making the division, may invade the property of either spouse acquired before marriage when the balancing of the equities between the parties requires it; and to accomplish this end the judgment may require that one or both of the parties assign, deliver, or convey any of his or her real or personal property to the other party; .

2

. Appellant does not challenge the propriety of treating his retirement benefits as property to be divided between the parties.
C9
Sample

Company Self Certification Statement


(COMPANY LETTERHEAD)

Letterhead Certificate for Export of Fresh/Frozen Poultry and Poultry Products, Shell
Eggs and Egg Products to India

DATE ISSUED. CERTIFICATE NUMBER.
1, The consignment(s) destined to India do not contain beef and beef products in any form.

2. The source birds were not fed with feeds containing materials of internal organs, blood meal
and tissue of bovine origin.

ACCREDITED VETERINARIAN USDA/APHIS
SIGNATURE ACCREDITATION NUMBER

PRINTED NAME TITLE/PROFESSIONAL DEGREE

Edition — 11-15-17 Page | of |