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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                          15,231
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                 5,940
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     78,575
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                        208,465
<ALLOWANCE>                                      2,296
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 343,024
<DEPOSITS>                                     278,896
<SHORT-TERM>                                    17,530
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              1,644
<LONG-TERM>                                      5,105
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        33,764
<OTHER-SE>                                       6,085
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 343,024
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 15,085
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                3,094
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                     0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                18,179
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               6,502
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               6,980
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           11,199
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                    3,681
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  9,758
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    452
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                         452
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       346
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.13
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.13
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    9.48
<LOANS-NON>                                      2,003
<LOANS-PAST>                                       178
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 2,792
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                    4,364
<RECOVERIES>                                       187
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                2,296
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             2,296
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

REGION IX 

75 Hawthorne Street 

San Francisco, CA 94105 

September 30, 2016 

Red Mesa Chapter, Navajo Nation Reservation 

P.O. Box 422 

Montezuma Creek, UT 84534 

A TIN: Minne John 

Subject: Request to retain public documents at the Red Mesa Chapter for public inspection 

Dear Ms. John: 

The purpose of this letter is to request that the Red Mesa Chapter of the Navajo Nation 

Reservation retain the enclosed package at the library for at least sixty (60) days for public 

inspection. The package consists of documents related to the United States Environmental 

Protection Agency's final decision on the Clean Air Act Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

amendment permit for the McElmo Creek Unit Oil Production Facility on the Navajo Nation 

Indian Reservation near the city of Aneth, San Juan County, Utah. 

We would greatly appreciate your assistance for making these documents available to the general 

public. Please contact me at (415) 947-4156 or r9airpermits@epa.gov if you have any questions. 

Enclosure 

Shaheerah Kelly 

Environmental Engineer 

Permits Office, Air Division
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
 

REGION VII
 

901 NORTH 5TH STREET 

KANSAS CITY, KANSAS 66101 

September 23, 2011 

Geraldine D Snell 

2577 Titus Avenue 

Omaha, Nebraska 68112 

RE: SAID: 40505 

2577 Titus Avenue 

Lead-Based Paint (LBP) Assessment 

Dear Owner/Resident: 

A Lead Based Paint assessment was recently performed on your property by the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency as part of the Omaha Lead site investigation. The purpose of 

this assessment is to determine whether a significant quantity of LBP is present on the exterior 

surface of structures, where deteriorating paint conditions (peeling, flaking, cracking, etc) exist 

that might increase lead concentrations in the yard above acceptable levels. 

Enclosed are the LBP assessment sheets for 2577 Titus Avenue. The EPA has developed paint 

stabilization eligibility criteria that involve measuring the amount of deteriorated LBP on a 

structure and calculating the concentration of lead in soils around the home that would result if 

all of the identified deteriorated paint were to fall to the ground and uniformly mix with the soil 

under certain assumptions. During the LBP assessment, the areal extent of the deteriorated paint 

observed on structure surfaces was estimated and the lead content in the deteriorated paint was 

measured using an X-Ray Fluorescence instrument. 

The data obtained during the LBP assessment was used to estimate the increase in soil lead 

concentration that would result if all of the deteriorating paint identified in the assessment were 

to fall to the ground and mix with surface soil within six feet of the foundation of the structure. 

For purposes of this calculation, the deteriorating LBP on a structure is assumed to fall onto the 

ground surface within six feet of the foundation and be uniformly mixed with the top one inch 

of soil. The estimated lead concentration in the soil potentially caused by the deteriorating LBP 

provides a measure of the severity of LBP deterioration on individual structures. The EPA uses 

these criteria to rank properties based on the potential for recontamination of soil to occur. Paint 

stabilization is being offered at only those households with the most severe LBP problems, 

particularly where children under the age of seven reside. 

The LBP assessment performed by the EPA using the above criteria indicated that your 

house IS NOT eligible for paint stabilization. 
 

 

 

If you have any questions or concerns, please contact the EPA Public Information Center at 

(402) 731-3045. 

Sincerely, 

Pauletta R. France-Isetts 

Project Coordinator 

Environmental Protection Agency 

Enclosures 

Para información en español, llame al EPA Information Center (402) 731-3045. 

Omaha Lead Site LBP Assessment 

.EGEND: H - N - P - 01 - 40505 I Samples Analyzed 

Sample Number Lead Loading StructureIFeature 

(Window,siding, porch, etc.) 

Substrate 

(Wood, concrete etc ) Area 

mglcd 

mglcm' 

ft' 

ft' 

mglcm' 

mglcm' 

ti' 

mglcm' 

fl'
SRECEIVEDSTATEOFMARYLANDJAN212011OFFICEOFTHEGOVERNOREPAREGIONIIIOPRFC,IUNALADMINISTR,S.MARTINO’MALLEYRECEIvrrGOVERNORSTATEHOUSEJAN312011ANNAPOLIS,MARYLAND21401-1925(410)974-3901(TOLLFREE)1-800-811-8336January12,2011TTYUSERSCALLVIAMDRELAYShawnM.GarvinRegionalAdministratorU.S.EnvironmentalProtectionAgencyRegionIIIRECEIVED1650ArchStreet(3RAOO)JAN2PhiladelphiaPA19103-2023DearMr.Garvin:ThankyoufortheopportunitytopresenttheEnvironmentalProtectionAgency(EPA)withrecommendationsfordesignationofMaryland’scountiesundertherevisednitrogendioxide(NO2)airqualitystandard.Inaccordancewith§107(d)(1)oftheCleanAirAct,Maryland’sboundaryrecommendationsforattainment,nonattainment,andunclassifiableareasunderthenew1-hourNO2standardareprovidedbelowinthetable.MarylandrecommendsthatEPAdesignateallofMarylandasunclassifiablewithrespecttothenewstandard.Marylanddoesnothaveanycountiesthatviolatethenew1-hourNO2standardatthelevelof100partsperbillion(ppb)accordingtocurrentNO2monitoringresultsfromacrosstheUnitedStatesmappedonEPA’sNO2standardswebpage,http://www.epa.gov/air/nitrogenoxides/actions.htnil.MarylandhasamonitoringsitethatmeetsthenewNO2monitoringrequirementsforacommunitywidemonitoringsite.MarylanddoesnothaveanynearroadwayNO2monitors,butintendstoaddresstherequirementsofthenewstandardandtheneedforthesemonitors.Marylandwillberequiredtohavethreenear-roadwaymonitors—twointheBaltimoreCoreBasedStatisticalArea(CBSA)andoneintheWashington,DCCoreBasedStatisticalArea(CBSA).MDEwillproposelocationsfornearroadwayNO2monitorsinafutureambientairmonitoringnetworkplaninordertocomplywiththeJanuary1,2013monitoringstartdate.WerealizethataftermonitoringbeginsMaryland’sdesignationstatusmaychange.ThetablebelowsummarizesthespecificcountiesthatMarylandisrecommendingbedesignatedasunclassifiablecontrolregionareas.Maryland’sNO2DesignationRecommendationDesignatedAreaDesignationAnneArundelCountyUnclassifiableBaltimoreCityUnclassifiableBaltimoreCountyUnclassifiableCarrollCountyUnclassifiableMr.ShawnM.GarvinPageTwoDesignatedAreaDesignationHarfordCountyUnclassifiableHowardCountyUnclassifiableCalvertCountyUnclassifiableCharlesCountyUnclassifiableFrederickCountyUnclassifiableMontgomeryCountyUnclassifiablePrinceGeorgesCountyUnclassifiableWashingtonCountyUnclassifiableCecilCountyUnclassifiableKentCountyUnclassifiableQueenAnne’sCountyUnclassifiableAlleganyCountyUnclassifiableGarrettCountyUnclassifiableSt.Mary’sCountyUnclassifiableCarolineCountyUnclassifiableDorchesterCountyUnclassifiableTalbotCountyUnclassifiableWicomicoCountyUnclassifiableSomersetCountyUnclassifiableWorcesterCountyUnclassifiableMarylandrecognizesthatthisboundaryrecommendationsubmittalisonlythefirststepintheNO2designationprocess,andlooksforwardtoworkingwithEPAandMarylandstakeholdersduringthefinalstepsofthedesignationprocess.Ifyouhaveanyquestionsaboutthissubmission,pleasedonothesitatetocontactRobertM.Summers,Ph.D.,ActingSecretary,MarylandDepartmentoftheEnvironmentat(410)537-3084orGeorge(Tad)Aburn,DirectoroftheAirandRadiationManagementAdministrationat(410)537-3255.Sincerely,Governorcc:RobertM.Summers,ActingSecretaryGeorge(Tad)Aburn,Director,AirandRadiationManagementAdministration
Second Amendment to the 2011 Equity Incentive Plan



 Exhibit 10.3 
 Second Amendment to 
 Amerigon Incorporated 

2011 Equity Incentive Plan 
 The Amerigon Incorporated 2011 Equity Incentive Plan (the “Plan”) is hereby amended as follows: 
 1. Increase in Maximum Number of Shares Subject to the Plan. The maximum number of shares of stock which may be issued pursuant to Awards granted under the Plan or with respect to which Awards may
be granted under the Plan is increased by 2,000,000, from 850,000 shares of Common Stock of the Corporation to 2,850,000 shares of Common Stock of the Corporation (subject to adjustments as provided in Paragraph 5 of the Plan). 

2. Increase in Number of Shares of Common Stock that may be Issued Pursuant to Full Value Awards. The maximum number of shares of stock
that may be issued pursuant to Awards in the form of restricted stock, restricted stock units, Performance Shares or other stock-based awards granted under the Plan is increased by 200,000, from 50,000 shares of Common Stock of the Corporation to
250,000 shares of Common Stock of the Corporation (subject to adjustments as provided in Paragraph 5 of the Plan). 
 The
section headings contained in this Amendment are inserted for convenience only and will not affect in any way the meaning or interpretation of this Amendment.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Trenton Hollis PORTER, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-1289

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

Filed March 30, 2017

Kurt Bohn, Karl L. Schock, Office of the United States Attorney, District of Colorado, Denver, CO, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Josh Lee, Office of the Federal Public Defender, Districts of Colorado and Wyoming, Denver, CO, for Defendant-Appellant

Before KELLY, MURPHY, and MATHESON, Circuit Judges.*

*

 After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this three-judge panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not be of material assistance in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The cause is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

ORDER AND JUDGMENT **

Paul J. Kelly, Jr., Circuit Judge

Defendant-Appellant Trenton Porter appeals from the district court’s resentencing pursuant to our remand in United States v. Porter, 643 Fed.Appx. 758 (10th Cir. Mar. 29, 2016) (unpublished). He challenges the application of a base offense level of 20 (instead of 14) pursuant to U.S.S.G. §§.2K2.1(a)(4) and 4B1.2(a)(l). Our jurisdiction arises under 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a) and 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Mr. Porter pled guilty to possessing a firearm as a previously-convicted felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2). At resentencing, the district court, over Mr. Porter’s objection, concluded that robbery under Colorado law (Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-4-301(1)) was a crime of violence under § 4B1.2(a)(l). The court imposed a sentence accordingly.

We held in United States v. Harris that robbery under § 18-4-301(1) is a violent felony under the elements clause of the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA). 844 F.3d 1260, 1270-71 (10th Cir. 2017). Relying on Harris, we applied the same reasoning to Colorado robbery in the context of § 4B1.2(a)(l), whose elements clause mirrors that of the ACCA. United States v. *671Crump, No. 15-1497, 674 Fed.Appx. 802, 2017 WL 33530 (10th Cir. Jan. 4, 2017) (unpublished).

Mr. Porter seeks to preserve the issue and argues for several reasons that Harris was wrongly decided. We cannot overrule Harris absent en banc reconsideration or a superseding contrary decision by the Supreme Court. In re Smith, 10 F.3d 723, 724 (10th Cir. 1993). Because neither circumstance applies, we AFFIRM.

**

**This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
#### Samuel Anthony ACINELLI, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Kirk A. TORRES, MD, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 16-56552

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted September 26, 2017 *

OCTOBER 3, 2017

Samuel Anthony Acinelli, Jr., Tehachapi, CA, pro se.

Gabrielle Desantis Nield, Esquire, Nield Law Group, APC, Encinitas, CA, for Defendant-Appellee.

Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument, *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2),

MEMORANDUM **

Samuel Anthony Acinelli, Jr., a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment for failure to exhaust administrative remedies in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging Eighth Amendment and state law claims arising out of sexual assault allegations. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, *Williams v. Paramo,*775 F.3d 1182, 1191 (9th Cir. 2015), and we reverse and remand.

The district court concluded that appeal CIM-HC-12024587 did not exhaust Acinel-li’s administrative remedies because, although the original grievance stated that Dr. Torres “has violated me,” and Acinel-li's response to the second level response stated that Acinelli was “being subjected to inappropriate behavior, misconduct, and sexual assault,” the appeal was vague, and failed to include any dates or factual details as required by prison regulations. We conclude that the appeal was sufficient to put the prison on notice of the nature of the wrong alleged in this suit. *See Reyes v. Smith,*810 F.3d 654, 659 (9th Cir. 2016) (“[A] grievance suffices if it alerts the prison to the nature of the wrong for which redress is sought.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)). Furthermore, prison officials processed Acinelli’s appeal rather than rejecting it on the basis of failure to comply with procedural rules, and rendered a decision on the merits at *435all three levels of review. *See id.*at 659 (“[A] prisoner exhausts such administrative remedies as are available ... under the [Prison Litigation Reform Act] despite failing to comply with a procedural rule if prison officials ignore the procedural problem and render a decision on the merits of the grievance at each available step of the administrative process.”) Because Acinelli exhausted his administrative remedies, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.

We do not consider documents and facts not presented to the district court. *See United States v. Elias,*921 F.2d 870, 874 (9th Cir. 1990).

REVERSED and REMANDED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Exhibit 99.7




CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




In connection with the Annual Report of Brookfield Properties Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 40-F for the year ended December 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Bryan K. Davis, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:




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




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









By:
/s/ Bryan K. Davis





Bryan K. Davis


Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer




March 30, 2011
Performance 

Payload Capacity 

Flight Time 

Up to 14.1 oz 1400 g 

Typically 16 to 22 minutes (depending on payload weight and other 

factors) 

Flight Control System 

Processor 

GPS 

Receiver 

Components 

Rotors 

Motors 

Mount 

Flight Battery 

Telemetry Radio 

Frequency 

Transmit Power 

Receiver Sensitivity 

Receive Sensitivity 

Protocol 

32-bit Pixhawk with Cortex M4 CPU 

uBiox GPS with integrated magnetometer 

3DR Radio, 915 MHz 

2 x CCW: 9.5 x 4.5" I 24.1 x 11.4 em tiger motor multi-rotor; selftightening counterclockwise rotation 

2 x CW: 9.5 x 4.5" I 24.1 x 11.4 em tiger motor multi-rotor; selftightening clockwise rotation 

4 x920 KV 

Integrated GoPro camera mount with vibration dampener 

3S 5100 mAh LiPo 

915 MHz (FCC complaint; Europe and other regions may require the 

433 MHz version) 

Up to 100 mW at 20 dBm (adjustable) 

25mA 

-117 dBm 

MAVLink 
Transmission Method 2-way full-duplex communication through adaptive TOM 

Frequency Hopping Spread Spectrum {FHSS) 

Parallel/Serial UART interface {3.3 VDC) I transparent serial link 

Translation 

Error Correction Corrects up to 25% of bit errors 

Firmware Open-source SIK firmware 

Software Requirements Configurable through Mission Planner and APM Planner 

Compatible Devices Android tablet with OTG (on the go) support 

Windows desktop computer 

Connectivity 

Power Requirements 

Dimensions 

General 

Dimensions 

Weight 

Per Radio (Two Included): 

1 x Micro-USB port 

1 x 6-pin DF13 connector 

1 x RP-SMA for antenna 

3.7 to 6 VDC {from USB or DF13 connector) 

1.1 X 2.2 X 0.5" /26.7 X 55.5 X 13.3 mm 

Height: 3.9" /100 mm 

Motor-to-Motor Dimension: 21.7" /550 mm 

With Battery: 2.8 lb /1.3 kg
#### Job D. Tanner, Appellant, *v.*Martin S. Hills, Respondent.

One H. worked plaintiff’s farm under a contract, in and by which plaintiff agreed to let the farm to H. to work on shares upon certain conditions, among others, that plaintiff was to account and pay to H., in consideration of the premises and for his performance, the value of one-half of all the grain, etc., produced from the farm. Held, that the parties were not tenants in common of the crops, but that plaintiff had exclusive title thereto.

(Argued September 21, 1871;

decided January term, 1872.)

*John Gaul*for the appellant.

*J¿. E. Andrews*for the respondent.

*663Leonard, 0., reads for reversal.

All concur.

Order of General Term reversed, and judgment of County Court affirmed, with costs in both courts.
Erick GONZALEZ, Appellant, v. ALL HILL PLUMBING CORPORATION, etc., Appellee.

No. 3D17-1596

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed May 2, 2018

Law Offices of Ruben V. Chavez, P.A., and Ruben V. Chavez, for appellant.

Kubicki Draper, and G. William Bissett, Jr., Miami, for appellee.

Before LAGOA, LOGUE and SCALES, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

*976Affirmed. *Moradiellos v. Gerelco Traffic Controls, Inc.*, 176 So.3d 329 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015).
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 99.1



March 22, 2002

Securities and Exchange Commission
450 Fifth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20549-0408


Ladies and Gentlemen:

This letter is written pursuant to Temporary Note 3T to Article 3 of Regulation
S-X.

Nextel Partners, Inc. has received a representation letter from Arthur Andersen
LLP ("Andersen") stating that the audit of the consolidated balance sheets of
Nextel Partners, Inc. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2001 and 2000, and the
related consolidated statements of operations, shareholders' equity and cash
flows for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 2001, was
subject to Andersen's quality control system for the U.S. accounting and
auditing practice to provide reasonable assurance that the engagement was
conducted in compliance with professional standards, that there was appropriate
continuity of Andersen personnel working on the audit, availability of national
office consultation, and availability of personnel at foreign affiliates of
Andersen to conduct the relevant portions of the audit.


Very truly yours,


/S/ JOHN D. THOMPSON

John D. Thompson
Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer