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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
COMPANY'S CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS INCLUDED IN THE COMPANY'S FORM 10-Q
FOR THE YEAR-TO-DATE AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-03-1999
<CASH>                                            7382
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   245571
<ALLOWANCES>                                      7852
<INVENTORY>                                     132907
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                386181
<PP&E>                                          201769
<DEPRECIATION>                                   52814
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  793245
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           290008
<BONDS>                                         176960
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           250
<OTHER-SE>                                      214035
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    793245
<SALES>                                         251400
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                251400
<CGS>                                           183865
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   183865
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                6506
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   6349
<INCOME-TAX>                                      1529
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               4830
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      4830
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
EX-35 (c)
(logo) WELLS FARGO

Corporate Trust Services
MAC N2702-011
9062 Old Annapolis Road
Columbia, MD 21045
410 884-2000
410 715-2380 Fax

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

March 13, 2007

Morgan Stanley Capital I Inc.

RE: Annual Statement As To Compliance for Morgan Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust
2006-15XS

Per Section 9.11 of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement, dated as of 10/1/2006,
the undersigned Officer of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., (Master Servicer), hereby
certifies the following for the 2006 calendar year or portion thereof:

(A)     a review of such party's activities during the preceding calendar year
        or portion thereof and of such party's performance under this Agreement,
        or such other applicable agreement in the case of an Additional
        Servicer, has been made under such officer's supervision,

(B)     to the best of such officer's knowledge, based on such review, such
        party has fulfilled all its obligations under this Agreement, or such
        other applicable agreement in the case of an Additional Servicer, in all
        material respects throughout such year or portion thereof, or, if there
        has been a failure to fulfill any such obligation in any material
        respect, specifying each such failure known to such officer and the
        nature and status thereof and

(C)     in the case of the Master Servicer, to the best of such officer's
        knowledge, each Servicer has fulfilled all its obligations under its
        Servicing Agreement in all material respects throughout such year, or,
        if there has been a failure to fulfill any such obligation in any
        material respect specifying each such failure known to such officer and
        the nature and status thereof.

Certified By:
/s/ Reid Denny
Reid Denny, Vice President

Certified By:
/s/ Gordon Johnson
Gordon Johnson, Assistant Secretary
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6933 

To provide the National Credit Union Administration Board flexibility to 

increase Federal credit union loan maturities, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 10, 2024 

Mr. FITZGERALD (for himself, Mr. VARGAS, Mrs. KIM of California, and Mr. 

SHERMAN) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Financial Services 

A BILL 

To provide the National Credit Union Administration Board 

flexibility to increase Federal credit union loan maturities, 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 ‘‘Expanding Access to 

5 Lending Options Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. SENSE OF CONGRESS. 

7 It is the sense of Congress that as the prudential reg8 ulator of the federally chartered credit unions of the 

9 United States, it is of paramount importance that the 

2 

•HR 6933 IH

1 NCUA place safety and soundness as a cornerstone of its 

2 oversight of these credit unions. 

3 SEC. 3. POWERS OF FEDERAL CREDIT UNIONS. 

4 Section 107(5) of the Federal Credit Union Act (12 

5 U.S.C. 1757(5)) is amended— 

6 (1) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), 

7 by inserting ‘‘(or, as the Board may allow by regula8 tion, shall not exceed 20 years)’’ after ‘‘15 years’’; 

9 and 

10 (2) in subparagraph (A)(i), by striking ‘‘or will 

11 be the principal residence of a credit union member, 

12 and which is’’. 

Æ
Oklahoma Corporation Commission

Oil and Gas Conservation Division

Tim Baker, Director

Mike Moore, Hydrologist
Waste Material Practices Reference Chart

OAC165:10-7-24

(b) Waste Materials (54)

(c) Disposal Options (22)
165:10-7-24. Waste management practices reference chart

(a) Scope. 

(b) Waste materials and disposal options. 

(1) Produced water: Options 1, 7 & 9

(2) Weighted water: Options 1 & 7

(3) Used treatment fluids, frac sand, and other flowback wastes: Options 1, 2, 5 & 7 and, for

. frac sand only, options 3 & 20

(4) Water based mud: Options 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8 & 19

(5) Water based mud cuttings: Options 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 12 & 19

(6) Oil based mud: Options 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 12 & 22

c) Disposal options and rule reference guide. The following waste disposal options are 

referenced in of this Section:

(1) Reclaim and/or recycle. 

(2) Burial (in accordance with 165:10-7-16).

(3) Landfills regulated by the Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality.

(4) Road applications by County Commissioners (in accordance with 165:10-7-22 and 

165:10-7-28).

(5) Noncommercial pits (in accordance with 165:10-7-16).

(6) Commercial mud disposal pits (in accordance with 165:10-9-1).

(7) Underground injection (in accordance with 165:10-5-1 through 165:10-5-14).

(8) Land application (in accordance with 165:10-7-19 and 165:10-7-26).

(9) Discharge (in accordance with 165:10-7-17).
Waste Material

(1) Produced water: Options 1, 7 & 9 
Produced Water Disposal Options

(1) Reclaim and/or recycle.

(7) Underground injection (in accordance with 

165:10-5-1 through 165:10-5-14).

(9) Discharge to land, 165:10-7-17
Produced Water Disposal Option

(1) Reclaim and/or recycle.
Reverse Osmosis
Produced Water Disposal Option

(7) Underground injection

See: 165:10-5-1 through 165:10-5-14.

PHOTO UIC Well

Produced Water Disposal Option

(9) Discharge to land, 165:10-7-17(d)

Produced Water may not

stored in a pit

Produced Water May Be Stored 

In Temporary Aboveground Tanks
Portable Unregulated Tank

Above Ground Tanks are 

Treated like Frac Tanks

 There are no monitor wells required

 Sampling is not necessary
Future Costs?
Future Events

What could cause a large portable container to fail?
Above Ground Tank Failure
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350 (as adopted pursuant to 906 of the Sarbanes-
Oxley Act of 2002), I, Barry Bennett, Chief Executive Officer of Advanced
ID Corporation (the 'Company"), hereby certify, that to the best of my
knowledge, the Quarterly report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2003 (the "Report") fully complies with
the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and that information contained in the Report fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
the Company.

Date: May 20, 2003

/s/Barry I. Bennet
--------------------
Chief Executive Officer


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

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350 (as adopted pursuant to 906 of the Sarbanes-
Oxley Act of 2002), I, Todd Noble, Chief Financial Officer of Advanced ID
Corporation (the 'Company"), hereby certify, that to the best of my
knowledge, the Quarterly report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2003 (the "Report") fully complies with
the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and that information contained in the Report fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
the Company.

Date: May 20, 2003

/s/Todd Noble
--------------------
Chief Financial Officer
#### Joseph Roland BROWN, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.

No. 23810.

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.

Nov. 21, 1966.

H. M. Ray, U. S. Atty., E. Grady Jolly, Jr., Asst. U. S. Atty., Oxford, Miss., for appellee.

Before JONES, WISDOM and GOLDBERG, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

The appellant has appealed from the denial of a motion for the correction of sentence pursuant to Rule 35, Federal Rules Crim.Proc., 18 U.S.C.A. After waiver of counsel, appellant entered a plea of guilty to all three counts of an indictment. Each count carried a maximum penalty of five years. The district court imposed a general sentence of six years. The contention is that the sentence is illegal under Benson v. United States, 5th Cir. 1964, 332 F.2d 288. The sentence was imposed prior to the decisión in the *Benson*case. The question is whether Benson should be given retrospective effect. It is our conclusion that retrospective effect is not required either by the Constitution of the United States or by anything said in the Benson opinion. See Tehan v. United States ex rel. Shott, 382 U.S. 406, 86 S.Ct. 459, 15 L.Ed.2d 453, 456-461 (1966). The order of the district court is

Affirmed.
#### KAI HE, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 12-72344

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted October 11, 2017 Honolulu, Hawaii

Filed October 31, 2017

Jisheng Li, Attorney, Law Office of Jisheng Li, Honolulu, HI, for Petitioner

Dana Michelle Camilleri, Virginia Lum, Attorney, OIL, 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, for Respondent

Before: SCHROEDER, D.W. NELSON, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM *

Kai He, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from the immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Our appellate jurisdiction rests on 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we DENY the petition.

The death of Appellant’s mother, although tragic, cannot be imputed to Appellant, because he has failed to show “a pattern of persecution closely tied to” him. *Mgoian v. I.N.S.,*184 F.3d 1029, 1036 (9th Cir. 1999) (quoting *Arriaga-Barrientos v. U.S.I.N.S.,*937 F.2d 411, 414 (9th Cir. 1991)). As a result, Appellant’s claim of past persecution is premised on a single incident of beating and detention, which is not sufficient. *See Gu v. Gonzales,*454 F.3d 1014, 1020-21 (9th Cir. 2006); *Prasad v. I.N.S.,*47 F.3d 336, 339-40 (9th Cir. 1995).

Appellant has also failed *to show*a well-founded fear of future persecution. Appellant has not reported subsequent acts of violence against his father and sister, who both remain in China and continue to attend an underground house church. *See Hakeem v. I.N.S.,*273 F.3d 812, 816 (9th Cir. 2001) (“An applicant’s claim of persecution upon return is weakened, even undercut, when similarly-situated family members continue to live in the country without incident.”).

Because Appellant failed to establish eligibility for asylum, he has not met “the higher burden of proving” he is entitled to withholding of removal. *Kumar v. Gonzales,*439 F.3d 520, 525 (9th Cir. 2006). Appellant has also failed to show that the record compels a finding that he would be subject to torture upon return to China. We do not address the IJ’s adverse credibility finding, because the BIA correctly concluded Appellant was not entitled to relief even assuming he was credible.

PETITION DENIED.

*

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS FOR THE QUARTER ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY AS REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                           1,236
<SECURITIES>                                       393
<RECEIVABLES>                                    8,749
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (1,308)
<INVENTORY>                                      2,249
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                11,848
<PP&E>                                           8,521
<DEPRECIATION>                                  (4,828)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  15,541
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            6,877
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             8
<OTHER-SE>                                       7,133
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    15,541
<SALES>                                         23,393
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                23,393
<CGS>                                           11,845
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   11,845
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                10,921
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    631
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                631
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       631
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.08
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.08
        

</TABLE>
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 7017 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to take certain Medicare 

premiums of household members into account in determining the health 

care insurance premiums tax credit. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 17, 2024 

Mr. LEVIN (for himself and Ms. SA ́NCHEZ) introduced the following bill; which 

was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to take certain 

Medicare premiums of household members into account 

in determining the health care insurance premiums tax 

credit. 

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


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 7017 IH

1 SECTION 1. CERTAIN MEDICARE PREMIUMS OF HOUSE2 HOLD MEMBERS TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT IN 

3 DETERMINING HEALTH CARE INSURANCE 

4 PREMIUMS TAX CREDIT. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 36B(b) of the Internal 

6 Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end 

7 the following new paragraph: 

8 ‘‘(4) ADJUSTMENT FOR CERTAIN MEDICARE

9 PREMIUMS OF HOUSEHOLD MEMBERS.— 

10 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—In the case of any ap11 plicable taxpayer who elects (at such time and 

12 in such manner as the Secretary may provide) 

13 the application of this paragraph with respect 

14 to any coverage month, the amount determined 

15 under paragraph (2)(B)(ii) with respect to such 

16 coverage month shall be reduced (but not below 

17 zero) by the aggregate amount of specified 

18 Medicare premiums of such applicable tax19 payer’s household members for such month. 

20 ‘‘(B) HOUSEHOLD MEMBERS.—For pur21 poses of this paragraph, the term ‘household 

22 member’ means, with respect to any applicable 

23 taxpayer, any individual who is taken into ac24 count in determining the family size of such ap25 plicable taxpayer under subsection (d)(1). 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
3 

•HR 7017 IH

1 ‘‘(C) SPECIFIED MEDICARE PREMIUMS.— 

2 For purposes of this paragraph, the term ‘spec3 ified Medicare premiums’ means premiums paid 

4 by the applicable taxpayer or such taxpayer’s 

5 household members (and not reimbursed by any 

6 other person) for coverage under part A, B, C, 

7 or D of title XVIII of the Social Security Act, 

8 and premiums for coverage under a Medicare 

9 supplemental policy under section 1882 of such 

10 Act.’’. 

11 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

12 this section shall apply to coverage months beginning after 

13 December 31, 2024. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
Exhibit 4(c)


Amendment No. 1 to the Investment Management
Agreement


This Amendment No.
1 to the Investment Management Agreement dated as of June 1, 2011 (the “Amendment”) is entered into by and between
BlackRock Mid Cap Value Opportunities Series, Inc., a Maryland corporation (the “Corporation”), on behalf of BlackRock
Mid Cap Value Opportunities Fund (the “Fund”), a series of the Corporation, and BlackRock Advisors, LLC, a Delaware
limited liability company (the “Advisor”).


WHEREAS, the Corporation,
on behalf of the Fund, and the Advisor have entered into an Investment Management Agreement dated September 29, 2006 (the “Management
Agreement”) pursuant to which the Advisor agreed to act as investment advisor to the Fund; and


WHEREAS, the Management Agreement provides
that the Corporation, on behalf of the Fund, will pay to the Advisor a monthly fee in arrears at an annual rate equal to the amount
set forth in Schedule A thereto; and


WHEREAS, the Management
Agreement provides that the Management Agreement may be amended by the parties to the Management Agreement only if the amendment
is specifically approved by a vote of the Board of Directors of the Corporation, including a majority of those Directors who are
not parties to the Management Agreement or interested persons of any such party cast in person at a meeting called for the purpose
of voting on such approval, and, where required by the Investment Company Act of 1940, by a vote of the majority of the outstanding
voting securities of the Fund; and


WHEREAS, the Board
of Directors, including a majority of those Directors who are not interested persons of the Corporation, specifically approved
this Amendment at an in-person meeting held on May 11, 2011;


NOW, THEREFORE, the
parties hereto, intending to be legally bound, hereby agree as follows:


		1.	Schedule A of the Management Agreement is hereby amended as set forth on the Schedule A attached
hereto with respect to the Fund.



		2.	Except as otherwise set forth herein, the terms and conditions of the Management Agreement shall
remain in full force and effect.




    	-1-



    	 



    

IN WITNESS WHEREOF,
the parties hereto have caused this Amendment No. 1 to the Investment Management Agreement to be executed by their officers designated
below as of the day and year first above written.


BLACKROCK MID CAP VALUE OPPORTUNITIES SERIES, INC.


 


 


 


By:__/s/ John M. Perlowski_______


Name: John M. Perlowski


Title: President and CEO


 


 


 


BLACKROCK ADVISORS, LLC


 


 


 


By:__/s/ Neal J. Andrews________


Name: Neal J. Andrews


Title: Managing Director


 


 



    	-2-



    	 



    

 


Schedule A


Investment Advisory Fee


0.65%
of the average daily Net Assets of the Fund not exceeding $1 billion; 0.61% of the average daily Net Assets of the Fund exceeding
$1 billion but not exceeding $3 billion; 0.59% of the average daily Net Assets of the Fund exceeding $3 billion but not exceeding
$5 billion; 0.57% of the average daily Net Assets of the Fund exceeding $5 billion but not exceeding $10 billion; and 0.55% of
the average daily Net Assets of the Fund exceeding $10 billion.
#### The Bank of the Commonwealth *vs.*Hiles.

Pet. & Sum.

[Mr. Crittenden and Mr. Robinson for appellant: Mr. [J. H. Daviess for appellee.]

From the Circuit Court eor Scott County.

*November*4.

Verdict for pl’tf —upon slight evidence, and new trial granted; ver diet, upon the second trial, for def’t—which, as the plaintiff took no exception, is presumed to be according to the right of the case: Held, that there should be no reversal for error in granting the new trial.

Chief Justice Robertson

delivered the Opinion of the Court.

Although the evidence on the first trial, on the plea of *non est*factum, may have authorized the verdict, it was certainly but slight and questionable; and, therefore, as upon the second trial, a jury found a verdict for the defendant, and, by not excepting, the Bank has virtually admitted that, *that*verdict was right, we are not disposed to set it aside merely on the ground of alleged error in the Circuit Court, in setting aside the first verdict; for, as the new trial only afforded an opportunity for a full investigation on the merits—this court should not reverse the last judgment (apparently just,) only on the ground that a technical advantage was taken from the Bank by setting aside the verdict in its favor and granting another trial. No palpable error to the prejudice of the Bank seems to have been committed, and justice, as we must now infer, has been finally done.

Wherefore, the judgment is affirmed.