alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
----

----

----

----

----

Resource Housing Investors IV, Inc. (3)

----

| (1)   | 50%      owned by Resource Financial Fund Management,  Inc. |
|-----------------|-------------------------------------------------------------|

| (2)   | 33.33%      owned by Resource Financial Fund Management,  Inc. |
|-----------------|----------------------------------------------------------------|

| (3)   | Resource      America, Inc. currently owns 24 separate subsidiaries formerly held by      Resource Properties, Inc.,   which merged as of June 29,      2005 into Resource America, Inc. each of which owns, or held in the past,      a separate loan asset (the “Real Estate      Subsidiaries”). |
|-----------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| (4)   | 25%      owned by Resource America, Inc. |
|-----------------|------------------------------------------|

| (5)   | 5%      owned by RRE D2R2 2007, LLC. |
|-----------------|--------------------------------------|

| (6)   | 10%      owned by Resource America, Inc. |
|-----------------|------------------------------------------|

| (7)   | Resource      America sponsored real estate funds own 29 separate LLCs (the “Real Estate      Fund Subsidiaries”).  The general partner of these funds is      Resource Capital Partners Inc.. |
|-----------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| (8)   | 85%      owned by Resource Leasing, Inc. |
|-----------------|------------------------------------------|

| (9)   | 92%      owned by Leaf Financial Corp. |
|-----------------|----------------------------------------|

| (10)   | 90%      owned by Leaf Financial Corp. |
|------------------|----------------------------------------|

| (11)   | 80%      owned by Leaf Ventures II, LLC. |
|------------------|------------------------------------------|

| (12)   | 1%      owned by general partners of fund. |
|------------------|--------------------------------------------|

| (13)   | LEAF      Asset Management LLC owns a 1% GP interest and an LP    interest. |
|------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------|

----

----
Exhibit 99.1



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


In  connection with the Quarterly Report of AEI Real  Estate
Fund XVII Limited Partnership (the "Partnership") on Form 10-
QSB  for  the period ended June 30, 2002, as filed with  the
Securities  and Exchange Commission on the date hereof  (the
"Report"),  I,  Robert  P. Johnson, President  of  AEI  Fund
Management XVII, Inc., the Managing General Partner  of  the
Partnership,  certify,  pursuant  to  18  U.S.C.  1350,   as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:

     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
          Partnership.


                              /s/ Robert P Johnson
                                  Robert P. Johnson
                                  President of
                                  AEI Fund Management XVII, Inc.,
                                  the Managing General Partner
                                  August 6, 2002
ff8

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 77

WATER HEATER ENERGY EFFICIENCY STANDARDS

Forrestal Building

Room 1E-245

July 23, 1999

9:00 am.

PRELIMINARY AGENDA

Expected Outcomes: Receive comments on the analysis, recommendations on standard levels

andfactors to consider in setting standards.

9:00 am - 9:05 am Welcome (Dan Reicher)

9:05 am - 9:20 am Introductions and Agenda Review (Doug-Brookman)

* Housekeeping

* Introduction

* Agenda Review

9:20 am - 9:30 am Assistant Secretary's Remarks (Dan Reicher)

9:30 am - 10:15 am Summary of DOE Results (Terry Logee)

* Price-efficiency, LCC, Energy Savings, NPV & Emissions

* Manufacturing Impacts

10:15 am - 10:30 am Break

10:30 am - 2:00 pm Summary of Comments (Michael McCabe)

(after each topic there will be an opportunityfor stakeholder

discussion)

* Engineering, e.g., venting, heat traps, hot water usage, insulation

· Small Water Heater Closets

* Price & Markup, e.g., gas equipment markups, installation costs

* Marginal Energy Rates

* Life-cycle Cost, e.g., RECS Data, blended fuel projections

* National Energy Savings, e.g., fuel-switching

* Measured EF vs Rated EF

* Standards Recommendation

12:00 pm - 1:00 pm Lunch on Your Own

EE-RM-97-900 COMMENT 77B
2:00 pm - 4:00 pm Discussion Questions (Dan Reicher)

Including:

* What standard levels do you believe the analysis justifies?

* We have a recommendation from GAMA that appears to be the

beginning of a consensus process. What should DOE do to

continue this dialogue?

* What can DOE do to help the industry meet the new standards in

the time between the final rule and the effective date of the

rulemaking, e.g. NFGC, CPSC initiatives?

When DOE completes this rulemaking, what steps could the

Department take to support and increase the market demand for

water heaters which will exceed the new minimum standards, e.g.

Energy Star program, FEMP executive order?

4:00 pm Adjourn

EE-RM-97-900 COMMENT 77B
No. 11-10877.

#### Bailey *v.*United States.

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> UT
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<BOOK-VALUE>                                  PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                      182,136
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                          0
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                          47,133
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                        12,874
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 242,143
<COMMON>                                         1,244
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                       37,685
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                             39,311
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>                  78,240
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      6,400
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                            72,372
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                              20,410
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                            0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                       0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                    3,707
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                            0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                          0
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                     0
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>                  61,014
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                  242,143
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                      210,673
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                             4,489
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                      72,996
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                      77,485
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                         15,831
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                                 371
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                  16,202
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                         7,431
<NET-INCOME>                                     8,771
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                        626
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                    8,145
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                         4,777
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                        6,042
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                          28,281
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     6.55
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     6.55
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.1  CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER 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 accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Knickerbocker Capital Corp. for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2009, I certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to my knowledge, that:  (1)the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Knickerbocker Capital Corp. for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2009 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 on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2009, fairly presents in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Knickerbocker Capital Corp..    By:/s/ Dempsey MorkName:Dempsey MorkTitle:Principal Executive Officer,
and DirectorDate:Nov. 19, 2009By:/s/ Dempsey MorkName:Dempsey MorkTitle:Principal Financial OfficerDate:Nov. 19, 2009
#### Tommy SPAN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. ATTORNEY GENERAL of the State OF FLORIDA, Florida Department of Corrections, Respondents-Appellees.

No. 17-11130 Non-Argument Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

(February 27, 2018)

Tommy Span, Pro Se

Rebecca Rock McGuigan, Attorney General’s Office, Daytona Beach, FL, Pam Bondi, Sandra Lipman, Attorney General’s Office, Miami, FL, for Respondents-Appel-lees

Before TJOFLAT, WILSON, and FAY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Tommy Span, a Florida state prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition as an unauthorized second or successive petition. On appeal, Span addresses at length the merits of some of the claims in his habeas corpus petition, but he does not directly address the district court’s dismissal of his petition. Briefly, however, Span recites the language from 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2)(A) re*997garding successive petitions, asserting that his petition contained a claim premised on “a new rule of constitutional law made retroactive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court, that was previously unavailable,” and alludes to “United States Supreme Court rulings banning enhanced sentences based on factors that had not come before a jury at trial.” He similarly mentions that he has “newly discovered evidence” that a police investigator had claimed that Span, at the time of his arrest, had said he would kill “anyone associated with his arrest.”

Span previously filed a § 2254 petition, which was denied on the merits in 1999. He also previously filed an application for leave to file a second or successive petition in this court, which was denied in 2015. He filed the instant § 2254 petition in the Southern District of Florida in 2016.

We consider de novo whether a collateral attack is second or successive. *See Stewart v. United States,*646 F.3d 856, 858 (11th Cir. 2011). A state prisoner who wishes to file a second or successive habe-as corpus petition must move the appropriate court of appeals for an order authorizing the district court to consider such a petition. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A). Absent such an order, the district court is obligated to dismiss a successive petition, as the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to entertain the motion. *Hubbard v. Campbell,*379 F.3d 1245, 1246-47 (11th Cir. 2004) (per curiam). A certificate of appealability is not required for a federal prisoner to appeal the district court’s order dismissing a § 2254 petition as imper-missibly successive. *See id.*at 1247.

Here, the district court did not err in dismissing the instant § 2254 petition for lack of jurisdiction because Span filed a previous § 2254 petition, and he did not receive our permission to file a second or successive petition.

AFFIRMED.
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 1073 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. RES. 1073

Expressing the view that every individual is created equal and made in 
  the image of God and the modern Democratic Party's use of identity 
 politics rejects all attempts to unite America and instead focuses on 
      dividing individuals into groups in order to achieve power.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 30, 2020

     Mr. Budd (for himself and Mrs. Lesko) submitted the following 
resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
Expressing the view that every individual is created equal and made in 
  the image of God and the modern Democratic Party's use of identity 
 politics rejects all attempts to unite America and instead focuses on 
      dividing individuals into groups in order to achieve power.

Whereas every individual is created equal and made in the image of God;
Whereas the Republican Party believes that every individual American is endowed 
        by our Creator with the unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the 
        pursuit of happiness;
Whereas the Republican Party believes in judging people based on the content of 
        their character and not the color of their skin, their ethnic group, or 
        their gender;
Whereas a Democratic Senator attacked the then-Secretary of the Interior of the 
        United States for not wanting to make hiring decisions based on race;
Whereas House Democrats introduced a divisive COVID-19 relief bill that would 
        require companies who receive Federal aid to make decisions based on 
        race and gender;
Whereas a Democratic National Committee (DNC) chair candidate said it is her job 
        to ``shut other White people down'' when they claim they are not 
        prejudiced toward minorities;
Whereas a DNC staffer announced that she prefers not to hire ``cisgender 
        straight white males''; and
Whereas based on the above examples and many others, radical members of the 
        Democratic Party believe that individuals should be judged based on 
        their group membership and not on their individual merits: Now, 
        therefore, be it
    Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Representatives that 
the modern Democratic Party's use of identity politics rejects all 
attempts to unite America and instead focuses on dividing individuals 
into groups in order to achieve power.
                                 <all>
```
- Skip to main content
- About Us
- Contact Us
- FAQs
-  Language Assistance ****   - English
  - español
  - 中文: 繁體版
  - Việt-ngữ
  - 한국어
  - Tagalog
  - Русский

U.S. Department of Education

U.S. Department of Education

            - Student Loans
            - Grants
            - Laws
            - Data

|                                            |
|--------------------------------------------|
|                                            | PurposeFunding StatusEligibilityLaws, Regs, & GuidanceApplicant InfoResourcesAwardsFAQsPerformanceContacts |  |
| Office of Communications and Outreach Home |
|                                            |

Follow us on Facebook

News & Media Stories

About the Program

The U.S. Presidential Scholars Program was established in 1964, by executive order of the President, to recognize and honor some of our nation's most distinguished graduating high school seniors. In 1979, the program was extended to recognize students who demonstrate exceptional talent in the visual, creative and performing arts. In 2015, the program was again extended to recognize students who demonstrate ability and accomplishment in career and technical education fields. Each year, up to 161 students are named as Presidential Scholars, one of the nation's highest honors for high school students.
                - **2024 Candidates**,  [PDF, 1.2 MB]

----

 

 Printable view

## How Do I Find...

          - Student loans, forgiveness
          - Higher Education Rulemaking
          - College accreditation
          - Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA)
          - FERPA
          - FAFSA
          - 1098, tax forms

More >

## Information About...

          - Elevating Teaching
          - Early Learning
          - Engage Every Student
          - Unlocking Career Success
          - Cybersecurity

 

----

*Our mission*

Student Loans
Repaying LoansDefaulted LoansLoan ForgivenessLoan Servicers

Grants & Programs
Apply for Pell GrantsGrants ForecastApply for a Grant

Laws & Guidance
Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA)FERPACivil RightsNew IDEA Website

Data & Research
Education StatisticsPostsecondary Education DataED Data ExpressNation's Report CardWhat Works ClearinghouseOpen Data PlatformCOVID Relief Data

About Us
Contact UsED OfficesJobsPress ReleasesFAQsRecursos en españolBudget, PerformancePrivacy Program

----

          - Notices
          - FOIA
          - Privacy Policy
          - Accessibility
          - Security
          - Information quality
          - Inspector General
          - Whitehouse.gov
          - USA.gov
          - Benefits.gov
          - Regulations.gov
August 14, 2012

No. 11-626.

#### Lozman *v.*City of Riviera Beach, Florida.

C. A. 11th Cir. [Certiorari granted, 565 U. S. 1195.] Parties are directed, and the Solicitor General is invited, to file letter briefs addressing the following question: “The res in this putative *in rem.*admiralty proceeding was sold at a judicial auction in execution of the District Court’s judgment on a maritime lien and a maritime trespass claim, App. to Brief for Petitioner 9a-10a, and subsequently destroyed, Brief for Petitioner 10-11. Does either the judicial auction or the subsequent destruction of the res render this case moot?” Briefs, limited to 10 pages, are to be filed simultaneously with the Clerk and served upon opposing counsel on or before 2 p.m., Tuesday, August 28, 2012.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                          23,744
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                           1,355
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                23,204
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     42,001
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                         549,490
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                           549,578
<LOANS>                                      1,485,623
<ALLOWANCE>                                      7,225
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,190,646
<DEPOSITS>                                   1,888,965
<SHORT-TERM>                                    41,203
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                             17,214
<LONG-TERM>                                     49,500
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            8,854
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     184,910
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>               2,190,646
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 54,594
<INTEREST-INVEST>                               23,428
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                     0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                78,022
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              43,453
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              47,420
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           30,602
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      502
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 22,128
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 13,190
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                      13,190
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                    640
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    12,550
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.80
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.80
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                       0
<LOANS-NON>                                      3,790
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                 1,740
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 7,051
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      224
<RECOVERIES>                                        15
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                7,225
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             7,225
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Christopher Cassatt, :

Petitioner :

:

v. : No. 2278 C.D. 2015

:

Workers' Compensation Appeal :

Board (Uninsured Employers :

Guaranty Fund), :

Respondent :

O R D E R

NOW, November 2, 2016

, upon consideration of respondent’s

application for rearg ument , the application is denied.

MARY HANNAH LEAVITT,

President Judge
#### Fito Bozo v. State.

154 So. 246.

Opinion Filed April 18, 1934.

*Lester, Harris & Albury, J. F. Busto*and *Aquilino Lopez,*for Plaintiff in Error;

*Cary D. Landis,*Attorney General, and *Roy Campbell,*Assistant, for the State.

Buford, J.

— The writ of error is to a judgment of conviction against the plaintiff in error had in the Criminal Court of Record of Monroe County upon the charge of having had carnal intercourse with an unmarried female under eighteen years of age of previous chaste character.

A consideration of the record convinces us that the judgment should be reversed for the grounds stated in and upon the authority of the opinion and judgment in the case of Skiff v. State, 107 Fla. 90, 144 Sou. 323, and cases there cited. It is so ordered.

Reversed.

Davis, C. J., and Whitfield and Tyrrell, J. J., concur.