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

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 9
       
<S>                             <C>
<MULTIPLIER>                    1000
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                       3,392,435
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                         159,515
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                             1,924,850
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                 29,122,737
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                       6,338,130
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                         6,406,439
<LOANS>                                     45,413,484
<ALLOWANCE>                                    553,797
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              92,166,042
<DEPOSITS>                                  73,892,189
<SHORT-TERM>                                   145,471
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                          1,020,330
<LONG-TERM>                                  9,200,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       130,000
<OTHER-SE>                                   7,778,052
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>              72,166,042
<INTEREST-LOAN>                              3,990,297
<INTEREST-INVEST>                            2,363,155
<INTEREST-OTHER>                               189,549
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                             6,543,001
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                           2,937,155
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           3,524,799
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                        3,018,202
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                  176,000
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                              46,594
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                              2,981,556
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                350,685
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                     350,685
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   218,950
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.72
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.57
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    7.50
<LOANS-NON>                                    974,474
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                974,474
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                               630,423
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                  314,990
<RECOVERIES>                                    62,364
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                              553,797
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                           225,439
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                        328,358
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>


                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.3

October 12, 2001

FAX TO: SUSAN PHILLIPS MCGEE

FAX # 856-0813

From: Geoffrey Koblick

Susan,

In the "Restructure Agreement" by and among Silicon Valley Bank, IMSI, ArtToday,
and DCDC, Section 8 Imageline Claims, it is stated in subsection (c), "IMSI
agrees that under no circumstances will it make any payment to Imageline until
the revised promissory note has been paid in full".

Per our discussion today, we need to clarify that the above section was not
referring to, nor including monthly payments to Imageline of $11,500 which are
beginning this month which had been previously negotiated and consented to.

In addition, Section 1. Acknowledgement of SVB Obligations, paragraph (b)
erroneously references the outstanding principal balance of the SVB loan as
$3,248,291.88. The actual amount is $2,499,166.67.

Finally, it is hereby agreed that the due date for the principal and interest
payments under the Promissory Note signed by IMSI for the benefit of SVB shall
begin on October 20, 2001 and continue monthly on the 20th of each month, until
the Note is paid in full.

Please signify your agreement to this clarification by signing below and FAX
this signed letter back to me at 415-897-2544. If you have any further
questions, please call me at 415-878-4082 or Paul Jakab at 415-878-4073. Thank
you.

Regards,

Geoffrey Koblick

Agreed to this 12th day of October, 2001:

By: /s/ SUSAN PHILLIPS McGEE
    ------------------------------------------
    Susan Phillips McGee,  Silicon Valley Bank


                                      111
MATERIALS NOT INCLUDED IN

AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVE (AD) DOCKET

FAA-2012-0356

Docket Number

2011-SW-067-AD

Directorate Identifier

Name/Description of Item(s) Not Included in DMS Docket and Maintained in the 

Supplemental AD Docket

Eurocopter Emergency Alert Service Bulletin MBB-BK117-80-166, Revision 1, 

dated August 4, 2011

MAY BE VIEWED AT: Federal Aviation Administration

Office of the Regional Counsel,

Southwest Region

Rules Docket

2601 Meacham Blvd., Room 663

Fort Worth, Texas 76137

DURING THE HOURS OF: 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

except Federal holidays.
Exhibit 21.1



INET TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES



|                                          |  | Jurisdiction   
|----------------------------------------- |  | ---------------
|Inet Deutschland GmbH                     |  | Germany        
|Inet Technologies Netherlands BV          |  | The Netherlands
|Inet Technologies Australia Pty Ltd       |  | Australia      
|Inet Technologies Brazil Ltda             |  | Brazil         
|Inet Technologies Japan KK                |  | Japan          
|Inet Worldwide Telecommunications Pte Ltd |  | Singapore      
|Inet Global Korea Limited Company*        |  | Korea          
|Inet Global Ltd                           |  | United Kingdom 
|Inet Foreign Sales Corporation            |  | Barbados       



* Owned 50% by Inet
Technologies, Inc. and 50% by Inet Technologies Netherlands BV.



Notes:



1.    Indented names
are subsidiaries of subsidiaries.

2.    Inclusion in the list is not a representation that the subsidiary is a
significant subsidiary.
WaterChef, Inc.
                             A Delaware Corporation
                              Resolution Adopted by
                         WaterChef's Board-Of-Directors.

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

The undersigned being all the Directors of WaterChef,  Inc. (the  "Corporation")
hereby  consent to the following  actions and adopt the  following  recitals and
Resolution as of October 25, 2001.

     Whereas  the  Board  Of  directors  has  determined  that it is in the best
interest of the Corporation and its shareholders to adopt the following:

     Resolved,  that 2,000,000 shares of the Company's common stock be issued to
the natural person named below,  in lieu of cash, for  international  patent and
trademark application services, extending patent and trademark protection to the
PureSafe  Water Station  product line to Mexico,  Korea,  China,  Israel and the
member  countries  of the  European  Union,  and such other  countries as may be
deemed  appropriate by management.  These shares shall be registered on Form S-8
to be filed with The Securities and Exchange Commission.

         Name                                                  Common Stock

Nathan Lis                                                     2,000,000 shares
21 Paerdegat 12 Street
Brooklyn, NY 11236

The  undersigned  direct  that this  consent  be filed  with the  minutes of the
proceedings of the Board Of Directors of the Corporation.

/s/ David A. Conway
--------------------
David A. Conway

/s/ Martin Clare
--------------------
Martin Clare

/s/ Richard P. Farkas
---------------------
Richard P. Farkas

/s/ Marshall S. Sterman
------------------------
Marshall S. Sterman
---

Exhibit 13.2

Certification of Chief Financial Officer

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)

In connection with the Annual Report of Forum National Investments
  Ltd. (the "Company") on Form 20-F for the annual period ended December 31, 2003
  as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
  "Report"), the undersigned certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted
  pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:

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

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

|Dated: December 22, 2006 | By                                                          | /s/
      *Martin Tutschek*
|------------------------ | ----------------------------------------------------------- | ---------------------------
|                         | Martin Tutschek, Chief Financial Officer
      and Director



---
#### John King v. The Chicago & Northwestern Railway Company, Appellant.

Negligence: jury question: evidence. Whether an employe, loading ties on a oar by drawing them in with a pick, saw or ought to have seen a hole in the car floor, through which he stepped a few minutes after he entered the car, is for the jury, notwithstanding testimony that it was in plain sight; he having testified that, though he looked, he did nob see or know of it, and that there was snow and straw, over and around it.

The fact of the wood about the hole in a car. floor, through which an employe of the railroad company stepped, being rotten, is sufficient to charge it with notice thereof.

*Appeal from Glinton District Oourt.*— Hon. P. B. Wolee, Judge.

Saturday, April 8, 1899.

Hubbard, *Dawley dk Wheeler*for appellant.

*T. W. Hall*for appellee.

Per Curiam.

Ties were being loaded on a car by first placing them on a dolly, on which they were carried to the door. The plaintiff, with a pick, threw them in, and they were then properly placed by two others'. While doing this, he stepped into a hole in the car floor, about six inches wide and ten inches long, fourteen inches from the door jamb, and five or six inches from the south wall, and sustained injury. According to his testimony, there were snow and straw on the floor and a number of pieces of bark about the hole when he pulled his leg out, and, though he looked, he did not see or know of the hole until he stepped into it. Other witnesses ■say the hole was in plain sight and had been mentioned on the car. He entered the car at 3:80 p. m. of February 10th, and the accident occurred about twenty minutes later. The plaintiff was directed to do this work, and, in the absence of knowledge, had the right to assume the floor to be in a safe *749condition. In view of bis statements with reference to straw on the floor, bark about the hole, and the character of his work, we think the question of whether it was seen by plaintiff, or might have been seen by the exercise of ordinary care, was. for the jury to determine. If the bark was about or over the hole it might not have been so obvious as to preclude the conclusion that he saw it, or ought to have seen it. To the contention that defendant cannot be charged with notice of its existence!, it may be said that, even if this was essential to recovery, there was evidence tending to show that the wood about the hole was in a decayed condition. While we might not have reached the same conclusion as did the jury, we are not at liberty to disturb their verdict. The judgment against the defendant ísaefirMed.
**EXHIBIT 10.14**

**MAGMA DESIGN AUTOMATION, INC.**

**Summary of Standard Director Compensation Arrangements forNon-Employee Directors**

**Description of Director Compensation (effective as of May 5, 2008)**

Directors who are employees of Magma do not receive separate compensation for service on the Board of Directors. Directors who are not employees of Magmareceive a cash retainer of $30,000 per year and $2,500 per Board or committee meeting attended ($1,000 for teleconference meetings) for services as a member of the Board of the Directors. In addition, the Chairman of the Audit Committee receives afee of $20,000 per year, and the Chairman of the Compensation and Nominating Committee receives a fee of $15,000 per year; the other members of the Audit Committee receive a fee of $10,000 per year, and the other members of the CompensationCommittee receive a fee of $7,500 per year. Magma reimburses its non-employee Directors for out-of-pocket expenses incurred in attending meetings of the board or its Committees. 

Pursuant to the 2001 Stock Incentive Plan, as amended, which was approved by Magma’s stockholders, each non-employee director receives an initialaward of 20,000 restricted stock units upon appointment or election. The initial award vests as to 25% on the first anniversary of the award date. The remainder of the award vests quarterly over 12 quarters. Following the conclusion of each regularannual meeting of stockholders, each continuing non-employee director receives an additional award of 10,000 restricted stock units. When a non-employee director is appointed to the Board of Directors at a time other than at an annual meeting, suchdirector receives an interim award that is a pro rata portion of the annual 10,000 restricted stock unit award. The annual awards and the interim awards vest in full on the day immediately prior to the annual meeting of stockholders in the yearimmediately following the year of the grant if the director continues as a member of the Board on that date. All awards will vest fully upon a change in control of Magma, as set forth under the 2001 Stock Incentive Plan.
----

**Exhibit        32.01**

**CERTIFICATION          PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION          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                    as of the dates and for the periods explained in the                    report. |
|---|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | /s/                    Michael Garin       | /s/                    Wallace Macmillan   |
|--------|--------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------|
|   | Michael                    Garin           | Wallace                    Macmillan       |
|   | Chief                    Executive Officer | Chief                    Financial Officer |
|   |                                       |                                       |
|   | August                    2, 2007          |                                       |

----
#### First Wisconsin National Bank of Milwaukee, Respondent, vs. Bonn and wife, Appellants.

For the appellants: *Brennan & Brennan*of Milwaukee, attorneys, and *Homer J. Williams*of Waukesha of counsel.

For the respondent: *Wood, Warner & Tyrrell*of Milwaukee.

*By the Court.*

Judgment affirmed.
#### State of Iowa v. Walter Sherry, Appellant.

Adultery: evidence warrants conviction: no error in instructions.

*Appeal from Muscatine District Court.*— Hon. A. Howatt, Judge.

Thursday, February 1, 1894.

Indictment for adultery. Trial by jury, and a verdict of guilty, and the defendant *appealed.*

Affirmed.

*754The cause was submitted by the attorney general for the state on a transcript of the record and evidence.

No appearance for appellee.

Pee Curiam.

1The record in this ease seems to be complete, including the indictment, evidence, and charge of the court. While the evidence is conflicting in some particulars, and the criminal act charged is shown only by circumstantial evidence, it is of a character to fully warrant the finding of the jury. The charge of the court was fair to the defendant, and we discover no error in the record. The judgment is ajtjtrmed.
SERVE D JULY18 , 201 1 

### DEPARTyEN TO F :F;AMSPCRTATiO N iOCKE TOPERA l ION S 2D! 1 Jii L1 8 P 2^3 0

U.S . DBPARTMEN TO F TI^NSPORTATIO N

OFFIC E O FHEARING S WASHINGTON . D C INTHEMA'ITBRO F M & RHKLICOPTERS , LL C 'A ADOCKE TNo . CPlOSOOO i 1 (Civi l PenaltyAction ) FDMSNo . FAA-2010-121 I ORDE R DENYIN G MOTIO N FO R DEPOSITIO N O F LAUR APONT O AN D LATONY AWILLIAM S Responden t M & R Helicopters , LL C ("Respondent" ) ha s move d unde r 1 4 CF R §13.22 5 t o "have " th e depositio n o f Laur a Poht o an d LaTony a Williams . Th e regulatio n cite d I s inapplicabl e t o th e relie f requested . Moreover , neithe rindividua l i s a part yt o th e case . Th e motio n i s DENIED . Pleading s whic h ar e repetitious , vexatious , o rharassin g wil l no t b e tolerated . The ywil l b e summaril ydenied , an d furthe rsanction s ma yissue .

dministrativ e La

w Judg e Attachmen t

- Servic e Lis tFA A Docke t No . CPlOSOOO i (Civi l Penalt y Action ) REVISE D SERVIC ELIS T ORIGINA L& ON ECOP Y Federa l Aviatio nAdministratio n 80 0 Independenc e Avenue , S.W . Washington , D C 2059 1 Attention : Hearin g Docke t Clerk , AGC-43 0 Wilbu r Wrigh t Building—Suit e 2W1000 '

ON ECOP Y Michae l B . Selig , MD , FACC , Respondent' s Representativ e 281 6 Orefiel dRoa d AMentown , P A 1810 4 TEL ; 610-360-395 3 FAX ; Charle s Raley , Complainant' s Counse l Attorney , Enforcemen t

Division , AGC-30 0 Offic e o f th e Chie f

Counse l Federa l Aviatio nAdministratio n 80 0 Independenc e Avenue , S.W . Washington , D C 2059 1 TEL : 202-267-335 7 FAX ; 202-267-510 6 Th e Honorabl e Richar dC . Goodwin , Administrativ e La w Judg e U.S . Departmen t

o f Transportatio n Offic e o f Hearings , M-2 0 120 0 Ne w Jerse y Avenue , S.E . Eas t Buildin g Groun dFloor , Roo mEl2-32 0 Washington , D C 2059 0 TEL : Attorney-Adviso r 202-366-213 9 Lega l Assistan t

202-366-512 1 FAX ; 202-366-753 6

Service wa s b y U.S . Mail . Fo

r sendee i nperso no r b y expeditedcourier, use lli

e followin g address : Federa

l Aviatio nAdniinistralion , 60

0 Independence Avenue. . S.W. . Wilbu r Wrigh t Building—Suit

e 2WI000 . Washington, D C 20591 ; Altenlion : Hearing Docke t Clerk, AGC^30 . 

### - 2 -
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-1370

In Re: STUART HILL; In Re: VICKI HILL,

Debtors.

STUART HILL; VICKI HILL,

Plaintiffs - Appellants,

versus

STATE OF MARYLAND, (O.A.G.) Consumer

Protection Division,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (CA01-692-CCB, AP-99-5579-JS)

Submitted: August 29, 2002 Decided: September 4, 2002

Before WIDENER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
2

Stuart Hill, Vicki Hill, Appellants Pro Se. Philip David Ziperman,

Assistant Attorney General, Steven M. Sakamoto-Wengel, OFFICE OF

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Stuart Hill and Vicki Hill appeal from the district court’s

order affirming the bankruptcy court’s orders finding that the

claim of the Maryland Consumer Protection Division is

nondischargeable and dismissing the Hills’ counterclaims. Our

review of the record and the opinions below discloses no reversible

error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district

court. In re: Hill, No. CA-01-692-CCB (D. Md. Feb. 12, 2002). 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.

AFFIRMED
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman

, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen

Kurtis T. Wilder,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

Octo ber 2 0 , 2017 

# Order

Clerk Octo ber 2 0 , 2017

15 6 307 ( 65 )

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

SC: 15 6 307

v COA: 330574

Wayne CC: 15

- 003301

- FC

VICTOR GRAHAM SHIVERS

, Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the C hief Justice

, the motion of defendant

- appellant to file a reply in

excess of the page limitation of MCR 7.305(E) is DENI ED

. The 50

- page reply submit ted

on October 13, 2017, is rejected. The defendant

- appellant shall be allowed to file an

amended reply that substantially conforms to the form and page limit ation of the court

rules on or before November 10 , 2017

.
Alpha Taxiway Aviation

Date: 20150516 Revision: 1.0 Revision:1.0

Page 1 of 1

PRIVACY INFORMATION - NOT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE

Appendix B 

PRIVACY POLICY

One area of notable concern requiring attention regarding public and civil use of UAS technologies is 

personal privacy. Alpha Taxiway Aviation believes that respect of individual privacy guaranteed by 

our Constitution and the Fourth Amendment are sacrosanct and the potential for UAS technology to 

usurp those rights is very real. As with all new technology, we must move slowly in its application as 

we seek to include it in our daily lives. There are many emotional issues to overcome in the use of 

UAS technologies and part of our job in the UAS community is to ensure we educate and gain the 

trust of all people to ensure we are ever mindful of their privacy concerns. 

Alpha Taxiway Aviation will comply with any federal, state, and/or local privacy policies or rules 

that may apply in particular areas where DJI UAS are used. Further, because we will only fly over 

private property with the permission of the land owner, the likelihood that we will collect private 

information of an unknown person is minimal. Information provided to customers will be masked to 

include only the acreage for which they are responsible, further limiting the possibility of a trespass 

of privacy.

.