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

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> US DOLLAR

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                      12,397,000
<SECURITIES>                                24,599,000
<RECEIVABLES>                              456,539,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                86,067,000
<INVENTORY>                                 63,369,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           517,801,000
<PP&E>                                     764,073,000
<DEPRECIATION>                             151,772,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                           2,429,914,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      282,097,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            6,000
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       723,000
<OTHER-SE>                                 587,161,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>             2,429,914,000
<SALES>                                  1,866,426,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                         1,866,426,000
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                            1,780,547,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                         119,220,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                          (332,661,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                              (44,711,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                            (2,100,000)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                             (290,050,000)
<EPS-BASIC>                                   (8.11)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (8.17)


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                                           7
       
<S>                                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                 3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                             Dec-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                Jan-1-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                  Mar-31-1998
<DEBT-HELD-FOR-SALE>                            658,616
<DEBT-CARRYING-VALUE>                            37,008
<DEBT-MARKET-VALUE>                              37,922
<EQUITIES>                                       42,756
<MORTGAGE>                                            0
<REAL-ESTATE>                                         0
<TOTAL-INVEST>                                  738,380
<CASH>                                           29,910
<RECOVER-REINSURE>                               20,702
<DEFERRED-ACQUISITION>                           23,080
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                1,421,942
<POLICY-LOSSES>                                 818,949
<UNEARNED-PREMIUMS>                             112,598
<POLICY-OTHER>                                        0
<POLICY-HOLDER-FUNDS>                                 0
<NOTES-PAYABLE>                                 109,190
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                 0
<PREFERRED>                                           0
<COMMON>                                              0
<OTHER-SE>                                      278,474
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  1,421,942
<PREMIUMS>                                       52,743
<INVESTMENT-INCOME>                              11,872
<INVESTMENT-GAINS>                                   99 
<OTHER-INCOME>                                    4,096
<BENEFITS>                                       31,924
<UNDERWRITING-AMORTIZATION>                      14,945
<UNDERWRITING-OTHER>                              4,269
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  11,193
<INCOME-TAX>                                      3,318
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               7,875
<DISCONTINUED>                                        0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                       0
<CHANGES>                                             0
<NET-INCOME>                                      8,233
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                         0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         0
<RESERVE-OPEN>                                        0
<PROVISION-CURRENT>                                   0
<PROVISION-PRIOR>                                     0
<PAYMENTS-CURRENT>                                    0
<PAYMENTS-PRIOR>                                      0
<RESERVE-CLOSE>                                       0
<CUMULATIVE-DEFICIENCY>                               0
        


</TABLE>
Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida

Opinion filed July 12, 2023.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D23-0850

Lower Tribunal No. F75-9136

________________

Tommy L. Murrell,

Appellant,

vs.

The State of Florida,

Appellee.

An Appeal under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b)(2) from 

the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Teresa Pooler, Judge.

Tommy L. Murrell, in proper person.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, for appellee.

Before FERNANDEZ, SCALES and BOKOR, JJ. 

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
exv10w2






Exhibit 10.2




MERCANTILE BANCORP, INC.




AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT




     This Amendment to Employment Agreement (“Amendment”) is made as of this 15th day of
July, 2008, by and between Mercantile Bancorp, Inc., a Delaware corporation (“Company”) with its
principal office located at Quincy, Illinois, and Michael P. McGrath, of Quincy, Illinois
(“Employee”).



     WHEREAS, Company and Employee entered into an Employment Agreement effective as of January 1,
2008 the “Employment Agreement”); and



     WHEREAS, Company and Employee wish to amend the Employment Agreement to provide for an
increase in Employee’s incentive compensation plan; and



     NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises, covenants, and conditions set forth
herein, and the performance of each, and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and
sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, Company and Employee hereby agree to amend the
Employment Agreement as follows:



     1. Section 3.2 is hereby deleted and inserted in lieu thereof is the following:




“Incentive bonus. In addition to the base salary as provided in Section 3.1
above, Company shall pay Employee an annual incentive bonus in an amount up to forty
percent (40%) of base salary in accordance with the incentive compensation plan
established by the Compensation Committee and Board of Directors of Company during
2008. The bonus shall be prorated for any partial year. Further, Employee must be
employed on December 31 of each year to be entitled to a bonus for such year.”



     2. This Amendment is effective January 1, 2008.



     3. Except as set forth in this Amendment, the Employment Agreement shall remain unaltered and
in full force and effect according to its terms and conditions.



     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Amendment to the Employment Agreement has been executed by Company
and Employee as of the date first above written.



	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	MERCANTILE BANCORP, INC.
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	By:

Name:
	 	/s/ Ted T. Awerkamp
 

Ted T. Awerkamp
	 	 
	 

	 	Title:
	 	President & CEO	 	 






	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	          /s/ Michael P. McGrath
 

MICHAEL P. McGRATH
Exhibit 31.1
**Certification of Chief Executive Officer**
I, Roy T. Rimmer, Jr., certify that:
 1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q ofTIMCO Aviation Services, Inc.;  2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does notcontain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state amaterial fact necessary to make the statements made, in light ofthe circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, andother financial information included in this report, fairlypresent in all material respects the financial condition, resultsof operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, theperiods presented in this report;  4. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I areresponsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controlsand procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have:
 a) designed such disclosure controls andprocedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensurethat material information relating to the registrant,including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to usby others within those entities, particularly during theperiod in which this report is being prepared;  b) Intentionally omitted.  c) Evaluated the effectiveness of theregistrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, asof the end of the period covered by this report based onsuch evaluation; and  d) Disclosed in this report any change in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting thatoccurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarterthat has materially affected, or is reasonably likely tomaterially affect, the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and
 5. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I havedisclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal controlover financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent function):
 a) all significant deficiencies and materialweaknesses in the design or operation of internal controlover financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record,process, summarize and report financial information; and  b) any fraud, whether or not material, thatinvolves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting.
   Date: May 13, 2004    /s/ Roy T. Rimmer, Jr.  Roy T. Rimmer, Jr. Chief Executive Officer
28
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 28 (Thursday, February 10, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 6634-6635]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-3145]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Drug Enforcement Administration


Manufacturer of Controlled Substances; Notice of Registration

    By Notice dated October 1, 1999, and published in the Federal 
Register on October 13, 1999, (64 FR 55490), Irix Pharmaceuticals, 
Inc., 101 Technology Place, Florence, South Carolina 29501, made 
application by renewal to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to 
be registered as a bulk manufacturer of methylphenidate (1724), a basic 
class of controlled substance listed in Schedule II.
    The firm plans to manufacture methylphenidate for demonstration 
purposes and for dosage form development and stability studies.
    DEA has considered the factors in Title 21, United States Code, 
Section

[[Page 6635]]

823(a) and determined that the registration of Irix Pharmaceuticals, 
Inc. to manufacture methylphenidate is consistent with the public 
interest at this time. DEA has investigated the firm on a regular basis 
to ensure that the company's continued registration is consistent with 
the public interest. These investigations have included inspection and 
testing of the company's physical security system, audits of the 
company's records, verification of the company's compliance with state 
and local laws, and a review of the company's background and history 
Therefore, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 823 and 28 CFR 0.100 and 0.104, the 
Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, hereby 
orders that the application submitted by the above firm for 
registration as a bulk manufacturer of the basic class of controlled 
substance listed above is granted.

    Dated: February 4, 2000.
John H. King,
Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug 
Enforcement Administration.
[FR Doc. 00-3145 Filed 2-9-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-09-M
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      EXHIBIT 23



The Board of Directors
Chrysler Financial Company L.L.C.:

We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statement (No.
333-50780) on Form S-3 of CARCO Auto Loan Master Trust (the "Trust") of our
report dated March 26, 2001, relating to the statements of assets, liabilities
and equity arising from cash transactions of the Trust as of December 31, 2000
and 1999, and the related statements of cash receipts and disbursements for each
of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2000, which report
appears in the December 31, 2000, annual report on Form 10-K of the Trust.


/s/ KPMG LLP


Detroit, Michigan
March 26, 2001
## JEFFREY A. LOVITKY

ATTORNEY AT LAW

1776 K STREET, N.W., SUITE 8 00

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006

MEMBER DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA TEL: (202) 429

- 3393

FLORIDA AND CO NNECTICUT BARS FACSIMILE (202) 318

- 4013

E

- MAIL: jeff@lovitky.com

May 7, 2015

Via E

- mail kathleen.blankriether@dot.gov

Ms. Kathleen Blank Riether

Sr. Tria l Attorney

U.S. Department of Transportation

Office of the General Counsel

Aviation Enforcement Office

1200 New Jersey Ave., SE, W98

- 321

Washington, DC 20590

Re: Jonathan Parker v. Saudi Arabian Airlines, Docket DOT

- OST

- 2015

- 0093

Tasha Grant v. Saudi Arabi an Airlines, Docket DOT

- OST

- 2015

- 0094

Dear Ms. Blank Riether :

Complainant opposes a 60

- day extension. As noted in our complaint, these

cases directly involve the personal safety of individuals traveling on Saudi Arabian

Airlines. We would respectfully assert that the personal security of individual

passengers should be of greater concern than any difficulties which respondent’s

counsel may be experiencing in obtaining information from his client.

Second, I would have expected that Mr. Cashen would have attempted to

determine whether I would oppose his request for an extension to file a responsive

pleading prior to contacting your office. In any event, there was no obvious

necessity for Mr. Cashen to have engaged in an ex parte oral communication with

your office when a simple written request for an extension would have sufficed. As

you are undoubtedly aware, the APA contains a general prohibition on ex parte

communications i n formal adversar ial proceedings. 5 U.S.C. 557. Accordingly, I

would kindly request that all future communications with your office occur in the

presence of both parties.Kathleen Blank Riether

May 7, 2015

Page 2 of 2

Respectfully,

Jeffrey A. Lovitky

JAL/ls

C c: Henry C. Cashen II
<PAGE>
                                                                 EXHIBIT 10.16.4

                            EMERGENCE BONUS AGREEMENT

     This Emergence Bonus Agreement, effective as of February 17, 2005, is
entered into between Robert J. Irving, Jr. ("Executive") and Cricket
Communications, Inc. ("Cricket).

Recitals

     A. On April 13, 2003, Cricket, Leap Wireless International, Inc. ("Leap"),
and substantially all of their respective subsidiaries filed voluntary petitions
for relief under Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code.

     B. Cricket, Leap and their respective debtor subsidiaries emerged from
bankruptcy on August 16, 2004 when the Amended and Restated Joint Plan of
Reorganization of Leap, Cricket and other debtors party thereto became
effective.

     C. Executive served as an executive officer of Leap and Cricket for all or
substantially all of the time that these two corporations were in bankruptcy.

     D. To help assure its continued operations and the retention of its
employees during its financial restructuring, Cricket instituted various
retention and bonus compensation programs in 2003 and 2004, including a program
referred to as the Key Employee Retention Program ("KERP") which provided
employees who were selected to participate in the program with bonus payments in
October 2004 and February 2005. No executive officer of Leap or Cricket
participated in the KERP.

     E. In recognition of the services that Executive rendered to Leap and
Cricket, including the services that Executive rendered to Leap and Cricket
during the pendency of these corporations' bankruptcies, the Compensation
Committee of the Board of Directors of Leap authorized the payment of a cash
emergence bonus to Executive. For good and valuable consideration, the receipt
of which is hereby acknowledged, Cricket has agreed to pay to Executive the
portion of such bonus that remains to be paid as set forth below.

Agreement

     1. Cricket shall pay Executive a bonus in an amount equal to $87,500 on (or
promptly after) the earliest to occur of the following events:

          (a) September 30, 2005, provided Executive is still employed by
     Cricket on such date;

          (b) the date on which Executive ceases to be employed by Cricket,
     unless such cessation of employment occurs as a result of a termination for
     Cause.

<PAGE>

As used in this agreement, the terms "Cause" shall have the meaning ascribed to
such term in the standard form of Stock Option Grant Notice and Non-Qualified
Stock Option Agreement filed as Exhibit 10.2 to Leap's Current Report on From
8-K, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 5, 2005.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this Agreement effective as of
the date first written above.

EXECUTIVE                               CRICKET COMMUNICATIONS, INC.


                                        By:
-------------------------------------       ------------------------------------
                                        Name: S.D. Hutcheson
                                        Title: President, CFO
<PAGE>   1

                                                                    Exhibit 10.2
                                 AMENDMENT NO. 1
                                       TO
                              EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

         This Agreement, dated as of March 18, 1999 is between Mortgage
Portfolio Services, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the "COMPANY"), and James E.
Hinton (the "EMPLOYEE").

                                    RECITALS

         a. The Company and the Employee are parties to a certain Employment
Agreement dated as of December 1, 1996 (the "AGREEMENT").

         b. The parties desire to amend the Agreement as hereinafter provided.

         NOW THEREFORE, the parties hereby agree as follows:

         1. Section 1 of the Agreement is hereby amended to change the
termination date of the "Employment Period" from March 18, 1999 to March 18,
2001.

         2. Section 2 of the Agreement is hereby amended by changing the amount
stated therein as the Employee's salary from $175,000 per year to $225,000 per
year.

         3. Except as amended hereby, the Employment Agreement remains in full
force and effect in accordance with its terms.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have signed this Agreement as of the
date and year first above written.

THE COMPANY:                                                  THE EMPLOYEE:

MORTGAGE PORTFOLIO SERVICES, INC.


By:      /s/ Alan Ferree                                /s/ James E. Hinton
    -----------------------------                  -----------------------------
    Alan Ferree                                    James E. Hinton
    Vice President
#### CARNEGIE NATIONAL BANK, etc., v. CITY OF WOLF POINT et al. Dr. Gustav A. HIPKE v. CITY OF WOLF POINT et al.

No. 9249.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Aug. 21, 1940.

Marrón and Foor, of Wolf Point, Mont, Robert N. Erskine, of Chicago, 111, and Charles Gordon, of Wolf Point, Mont, for appellants.

Frank M. Catlin, of Wolf Point, Mont, and Hall & Alexander, of Great Falls, Mont,’ for appellee City of Wolf Point.

Before GARRECHT and HEALY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Upon consideration of stipulation of counsel for respective parties that this cause abide final decision in companion cause, Carnegie National Bank v. City of Wolf Point, decided March 25, 1940, (9 Cir, 110 F.2d 569) and petition for rehearing therein having been denied on May 14, 1940, and no certiorari record therein having been issued and this court not being advised of any extension of time for filing petition for writ of certiorari, and good cause therefor appearing, it is ordered that a decree be filed and entered herein in accordance with the decision in said companion cause, and that the mandate of this court in this cause issue forthwith.
*OPINION ISSUED NOVEMBER 19, 2008*

#### GEORGIA ROUSH VS. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS

(CC-07-281)

Claimant appeared *pro se.*

*159Andrew F. Tarr and Jason C. Workman, Attorneys at Law, for respondent.

PER CURIAM:

This claim was submitted to the Court for decision upon a Stipulation entered into by claimant and respondent wherein certain facts and circumstances of the claim were agreed to as follows:

1. Respondent is responsible for the maintenance of County Route 1/6 in Kanawha County.

2. On or around April 15,2007, the Claimant’s property suffered flood damage as a result of a clogged culvert during a rain event.

3. For the purposes of settlement, Respondent acknowledges culpability for the preceding incident.

4. Claimant and Respondent believe that in this particular incident and under these particular circumstances that an award of four thousand five hundred dollars ($4,500.00) would be a fair and reasonable amount to settle this claim.

5. The parties to this claim agree that the total sum of four thousand five hundred dollars ($4,500.00) to be paid by Respondent to the Claimant in Claim No. CC-07-281 will be a full and complete settlement, compromise and resolution of all matters in controversy in said claim and full and complete satisfaction of any and all past and future claims Claimant may have against Respondent arising from the matters described in said claim.

The Court has reviewed the facts of the claim and finds that respondent was negligent in its maintenance of County Route 1/6 in Kanawha County on the date of this incident; that the negligence of respondent was the proximate cause of the damages sustained to claimant’s property; and that the amount of the damages agreed to by the parties is fair and reasonable. Thus, claimant may make a recovery for her loss.

Accordingly, the Court is of the opinion to and does make an award in the amount of $4,500.00.

Award of $4,500.00.