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

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                         450,512
<SECURITIES>                                 1,390,131
<RECEIVABLES>                                   55,642
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,971,148
<PP&E>                                      25,104,683
<DEPRECIATION>                                   7,643
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              27,148,509
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,195,097
<BONDS>                                     18,892,780
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     3,031,618
<OTHER-SE>                                 (1,221,088)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                27,148,509
<SALES>                                         26,984
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               119,661
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               287,110
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              14,530
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (181,979)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (181,979)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (181,979)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.06)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.06)


</TABLE>
Converted by EDGARwiz


Exhibit 10.9

DEBT SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

This  Debt  Settlement  Agreement  (this  “Agreement”)  is  effective  April  11,  2012  between  Morningstar

Corporate Communications (“Creditor”) and Infrastructure Developments Corp. (“Debtor”).

SECTION ONE

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF EXISTING OBLIGATION

The  parties  acknowledge  that  Debtor  is  indebted  to  Creditor  in  the  sum  of  forty  five  thousand  two

hundred  and  sixty  dollars  ($45,260)  pursuant  to  a  consulting  agreement  with  a  contractual  period  of  May

20, 2010 through May 19, 2011 (the "Consulting Agreement").

SECTION TWO

AGREEMENT FOR DIFFERENT METHOD OF PAYMENT

Debtor  and  Creditor  desire  and  agree  to  provide  for  the  payment  of  the  above-stated  indebtedness  in

accordance  with  terms  and  provisions  different  from,  and  in  substitution  of,  the  terms  and  obligations  of

loan repayment as described in Section One above.

SECTION THREE

CONSIDERATION

In  consideration  of  the  mutual  promises  contained  in  this  Agreement,  Debtor  and  Creditor  agree  as

follows:


a.

Method  of  Payment:  Debtor  agrees  to  pay  to  Creditor  and  Creditor  agrees  to  accept  from

Debtor,  in  full  satisfaction  of  the  terms  of  the  Consulting  Agreement  and  the  $45,260  of  the

indebtedness  described  in  Section  One,  three  million,  seventeen  thousand,  three  hundred  and

thirty four (3,017,334) shares of Debtor’s common stock, valued at $0.015 per share

.


b.

Satisfaction:  On  execution  of  this  Agreement  and  Debtor’s  board  of  directors  resolution

authorizing  the  issuance  of  3,017,334  shares  of  Debtor’s  common  stock  to  Raymond  Dove

for  the  Creditor,  any  and  all  indebtedness  of  Debtor  to  Creditor will  be  forever  cancelled  and

discharged.

In witness whereof, the parties have executed this Agreement on the date first mentioned above.

Infrastructure Developments Corp.

/s/ Thomas Morgan

By: Thomas Morgan, chief executive officer

Morningstar Corporate Communications

/s/ Chris Dove

By: Chris Dove, president
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 9

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                       2,267,885
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                       3,020,900
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                             2,000,392
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                  9,377,500
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                       1,506,291
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                         1,508,442
<LOANS>                                    105,505,198
<ALLOWANCE>                                    840,245
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             128,429,270
<DEPOSITS>                                  69,541,536
<SHORT-TERM>                                 8,600,000
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                          2,059,658
<LONG-TERM>                                 19,933,333
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    17,969,135
<OTHER-SE>                                  10,325,608
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>             128,429,270
<INTEREST-LOAN>                              4,232,637
<INTEREST-INVEST>                              284,967
<INTEREST-OTHER>                               269,578
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                             4,787,182
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                           1,537,220
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           2,355,862
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                        2,431,320
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                   90,000
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                              1,420,345
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,017,392
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                   1,017,392
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   628,967
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .38
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .38
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    3.97
<LOANS-NON>                                          0
<LOANS-PAST>                                   201,158
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                               750,417
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      172
<RECOVERIES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                              840,245
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                                 0
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                        840,245


</TABLE>
July 1, 2015

Ms. Lacey A. Szekely

5600 Caleb Drive

Fallon, NV 89406

Dear Ms. Szekely:

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption from 

§§ 91.119 and 91.203(a) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). It explains why 

we cannot process your request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Cannot Process Your Request

We entered your April 2, 2015, exemption request into the public docket 

(No. FAA−2015−1256), but we are unable to process your request any further. The 

information you sent does not comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For 

us to consider the request any further, you must send us all of the following:

 The specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek relief, the extent of the 

relief you seek, and the reason you seek relief.

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would 

benefit the public as a whole.

 The reasons why the exemption would not adversely affect safety or how the exemption 

would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which you 

seek an exemption.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described 

earlier to reach us within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your 

petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption.
2

If We Do Not Hear From You

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you 

further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267-9677.

Sincerely,

Brenda Robeson

Program Analyst, Aircraft and 

 Airport Rules Division

Enclosure
#### Stephen JACKSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CLEAR RECON CORPORATION; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 16-17006

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted September 26, 2017 *

OCTOBER 3, 2017

Stephen Jackson, Fairfield, CA, pro se.

Genail M. Anderson, Pite Duncan, LLP, Timothy R. Pomeroy, Aldridge Pite, LLP, San Diego, CA, Jon D. Ives, Esquire, Sev-erson & Werson APC, San Francisco, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.

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 **

Stephen Jackson appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his action alleging foreclosure-related claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal for failure to state a claim under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). *In re Mortg. Elec. Registration Sys., Inc.,*754 F.3d 772, 780 (9th Cir. 2014). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Jackson’s action because Jackson failed to allege facts sufficient to state any plausible claim for relief. *See Hebbe v. Pliler,*627 F.3d 338, 341-42 (9th Cir. 2010) (although pro se pleadings are to be construed liberally, a plaintiff must present factual allegations- sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief); *see also In re Mortg. Elec. Registration Sys., Inc.,*754 F.3d at 784-85 (elements of a wrongful foreclosure claim); *Oasis West Realty, LLC v. Goldman,*51 Cal.4th 811, 124 Cal.Rptr.3d 256, 250 P.3d 1115, 1121 (2011) (elements of a breach of contract elaim).

We reject as meritless Jackson’s contention that .the district court erred by failing to consider his claim under Cal. Civ. Code § 2923.6(c).

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in *436the opening brief. *See Padgett v. Wright,*587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
#### MEIHUA ZHANG, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 13-71279

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

*553Submitted June 27, 2017 *

Filed July 21, 2017

Kevin G. Long, Attorney, Law Offices of Long and Associates, Monterey Park, CA, for Petitioner

Jennifer Parker Levings, Senior Litigation Counsel, OIL, Julia Tyler, Esquire, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent

Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and HAWKINS and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Meihua Zhang, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. *Lai v. Holder,*773 F.3d 966, 970 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing *Garcia v. Holder,*749 F.3d 785, 789 (9th Cir. 2014)). We grant the petition for review and remand.

The record compels the conclusion that the IJ did not provide Zhang adequate notice of the corroboration required to supplement her credible testimony and an opportunity to explain the reasonable availability of such evidence. *See Ren v. Holder,*648 F.3d 1079, 1093 (9th Cir. 2011); *Lai,*773 F.3d at 975-76 (concluding that reliance on failure to provide corroborating evidence was procedurally improper where applicant never received notice of a need to produce the corroborative evidence identified in the IJ’s decision or an opportunity to either produce the evidence or explain its unavailability). We note that the IJ did not have the benefit of *Ren*because it was issued after her decision but before the BIA’s decision. We therefore remand for further proceedings consistent with this disposition.

PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED and REMANDED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
p. 1


# OAR Box 1830 Prepped by Ollie Stewart



### Document

Number: 

# 72 ) IV-C-38 Docket Number: 

# A-87-1 1

Printed 11/13/2008 7:20:54

AM Sheet 72 of 232

# 1 P. 2 UNITE D STATE S ENVIRONMENTA L PROTECTIO N AGENC Y

c c : Docke t

A-87-1 1 SDSB:Carlson:Dillingham:256 5 Plymout hRd.: X 270:l/5/87:ID#5578 W Las t reviewe d b

yCharle s Gray:1/11/8 8 AL87447 0 

### W 2 0 198 8

Honorabl e Arla n Stangelan d Hous e o f Representative s Washington , D C 2051 5 Dea r Mr . Stangeland t Thi s in respons e t o you r Decembe r 9 , 198 7 lette r relaying the concern s o f on e o f you r constituent s reqardin g EPA' s regulator

yproposa l t o requir e onboard canister s o n ne w vehicle s t o contro l refueling emissions . T o assis t yo u wit h your responses , I have enclose d a copyo f ou r proposa l fo r you r review . Sectio n E (page s 31177-31132 ) explain s EPA' s overal l rational e fo r proposing onboard controls . I f yo u woul d lik e furthe r detail s o f our analysis , pleas e contac t Mr . Phili p Carlso n o f the Standard s Developmen t an d Suppor t Branc ho f the Emissio n Contro l Technolog yDivision , 256 5 Plymout hRoad , Ann Arbor , M I 4810 5 (FTS 374-827 0 o r Commercia l (313 ) 668-4270) . Than k yo u for you r letter . W e wil l plac e the lette r fro m the To mBlai s For

d dealershi p i n our publi c docke t an d full y thei r comment s in the nex t phas e o f ou r rulemaking conside r process . Sincerel yvours , CRIGLCAL " SIGNE D BY 

### DONAL D E
. ZINGElT " Richard D . Wilso n Director , Offic e o f Mobil e Source s Enclosur e

SYMBO L k SURNAM E i DAT E k EP AFor m 1 

## .../St.fi J ....(fty. 

# y& 32< M (12-70 ) CONCURRENCE S

.OCrU /2f ^ 

### th 

### 3!tf i / OFFICI i »u.s . GI V L FIL E COP Y

" 0 : !986-i5°-3! f
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 6320 

To amend the Small Business Act to ensure the application of the ‘‘Rule 

of Two’’ to certain acquisitions, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 8, 2023 

Ms. VELA ́ZQUEZ introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Small Business 

A BILL 

To amend the Small Business Act to ensure the application 

of the ‘‘Rule of Two’’ to certain acquisitions, 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 ‘‘Increase Small Busi5 ness Utilization Act of 2023’’. 

6 SEC. 2. APPLICATION OF THE ‘‘RULE OF TWO’’ TO CERTAIN 

7 ACQUISITIONS. 

8 Section 15(r) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 

9 644(r)) is amended to read as follows: 

10 ‘‘(r) MULTIPLE AWARD CONTRACTS.— 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 6320 IH

1 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided by 

2 paragraph (2), the head of a Federal agency shall— 

3 ‘‘(A) set aside part or parts of a multiple 

4 award contract for small business concerns, in5 cluding the subcategories of small business con6 cerns identified in subsection (g)(2), unless a 

7 contracting officer for the Federal agency is un8 able to obtain offers from two or more small 

9 business concerns that are competitive with 

10 market prices and are competitive with regard 

11 to the quality and delivery of the goods or serv12 ices being purchased; 

13 ‘‘(B) notwithstanding the fair opportunity 

14 requirements under section 3406(c) of title 10 

15 and section 4106(c) of title 41, United States 

16 Code, set aside orders placed against multiple 

17 award contracts for small business concerns, in18 cluding the subcategories of small business con19 cerns identified in subsection (g)(2), unless a 

20 contracting officer for the Federal agency is un21 able to obtain offers from two or more small 

22 business concerns that are competitive with 

23 market prices and are competitive with regard 

24 to the quality and delivery of the goods or serv25 ices being purchased; and 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
3 

•HR 6320 IH

1 ‘‘(C) reserve 1 or more contract awards for 

2 small business concerns under full and open 

3 multiple award procurements, including the 

4 subcategories of small business concerns identi5 fied in subsection (g)(2). 

6 ‘‘(2) EXCEPTIONS.—Paragraph (1) shall not 

7 apply with respect to— 

8 ‘‘(A) contracts (including orders) awarded 

9 under subpart 8.4 of the Federal Acquisition 

10 Regulation (or any successor regulation); or 

11 ‘‘(B) any multiple award contract or order 

12 placed against a multiple award contract with a 

13 value less than the micro-purchase threshold.’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
PagePagePagePagePagePagePagePagePage10Page11 

# H ow 

# Y O U C an 

# H el p



# Support Tampa Bay: Buy a

Tampa Bay Estuary license tag

for your car or boat trailer!
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned, David K. Spohr, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (1) | The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Futures Strategic Trust for the period ended March 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Quarterly 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 Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Registrant.
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                   |  |                                                          
|------------------ |  | ---------------------------------------------------------
|                   |  |                                                          
|                  
|/s/ David K. Spohr
|Name:              |  | David K. Spohr                                           
|Title:             |  | Senior Vice President and Director of Fund Administration
|                   |  | (Principal Financial/Accounting Officer)                 
|                   |  | Preferred Investment Solutions Corp.,                    
|                   |  | Managing Owner of                                        
|                   |  | Futures Strategic Trust                                  
|                   | 
|Date:              |  | May 15, 2009                                             



50
No. 85-1386.

No. 85-1391.

#### Holloway *v.*United States; and Sullivan *v.*United States.

C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.
#### The Chester Rolling Mills, Resp’t, v. The Vessels “ Hofatcong ” and “Musconetcong,” Their Tackle, etc., App’lts.

*E. A. Brewster,*for resp’t; *Leon Abbett,*for app’lts.

Order affirmed and judgment absolute rendered against the appellants, with costs, on opinion in *Phoenix Iron Co.*v. *Same Defendants,*38 N. Y. State Rep., 66. All concur, except Brown, J., not sitting.

Affirming 25 N. Y. State Rep., 702.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                          37,122
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                          14,057
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                 3,535
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    577,582
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                             706
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                               701
<LOANS>                                      2,304,826
<ALLOWANCE>                                     27,066
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,028,757
<DEPOSITS>                                   1,852,337
<SHORT-TERM>                                   300,000
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                            652,759
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           200
<OTHER-SE>                                     223,461
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>               3,028,757
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                125,174
<INTEREST-INVEST>                               33,389
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                     0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                               158,563
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              58,414
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              34,101
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           66,048
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                    3,000
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                 905
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 40,936
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 36,144
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                      36,144
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    20,564
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.68
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.54
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    7.45
<LOANS-NON>                                      6,557
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                 4,644
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                26,160
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                    2,156
<RECOVERIES>                                        62
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                               27,066
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                            27,066
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0


</TABLE>