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


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     1st Quarter 2000 10Q
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000820083
<NAME>                        TCC Equipment Income Fund
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
<CURRENCY>                                     US Dollars

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         891
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  983
<ALLOWANCES>                                   183
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               3
<PP&E>                                         18,343
<DEPRECIATION>                                 8,118
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 11,919
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          373
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                     11,546
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   11,919
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               772
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  556
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               3
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                213
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            0
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   213
<EPS-BASIC>                                  0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0



</TABLE>
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h

Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,

J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk June 28, 2010

d0621 

# Order

June 28, 2010

140674

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 140674 COA: 295373 Saginaw CC: 06-027557-FC DERRICK DESHAWN JACKSON, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 28, 2010 order of the Court of Appeals is consider ed, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
Interim Decision #2342 

MATTER OF YACHT "SANDPIPER" 

In Fine Proceedings 

MIA-10/12.378 

Decided by Board January 23, 1975 

The involved carrier pleaded guilty to criminal charges which related to the transportation 

of the sanu• aliens involved in this civil fine proceeding. Carrier contends that imposition 

of fine under section 273 of the Immigration and Nationality Act would result in a double 

penalty for the same offense. The mere fact that the same conduct gives rise to both a 

civil and criminal penalty does not equate with the imposition of a double fine. The 

decision of the district director was correct. 

IN RE: YACHT "SANDPIPER", which arrived at the port of Miami, Florida, from 

foreign on August 26, 1973. Alien passengers involved: Jose VillamilRodriguez, Antonio Perez-Lopez, Marla Emilia Marti-Del Toro, Lidia 

Morales-Bernal and Lidia Miguez-Lugones. • 

BASIS FOR FINES: Act of 1952—Section 273(b) (8 U.S.C.1323(b)] 

ON BEHALF or APPELLANT: Steadman S. Stahl, Jr., Esquire 

Varon, Stahl and Kay, P.A. 

2432 Hollywood Boulevard 

Hollywood, Florida 33020 

In a decision dated November 23, 1973, the district director imposed a 

fine of $5,000 upon the carrier under section 273(b) of the Immigration 

and Nationality Act for five violations of section 273(a) of the Act. The 

district director also denied the carrier's request for remission of the 

fine. The carrier has appealed from that decision. The appeal will be 

dismissed. 

Our review of the record satisfies us that the carrier's liability for the 

fine has been established and that the district director properly denied 

the carrier's request for remission of the fine. 

Counsel has informed us that the carrier has entered a plea of guilty 

to criminal charges stemming from his transportation of the alien passengers involved in these fine proceedings. Counsel contends that if the 

carrier is fined for both the criminal violation and the section 273 

violation, be will be subjected to a double penalty for the same Offense. 

Counsel's contention is without merit. An administrative fine , under 

section 273 is a civil obligation and is entirely separate and distinct from 

172 
Interim Decision #2342 

any punishment imposed for violation of the criminal law. See Lloyd 

Sabaudo Societa Anonima v. Elting, 287 U.S. 329 (1932); Oceanic 

Steam Navigation Co. v. Stranahan, 214 U.S. 320 (1909). The mere fact 

that the same incident may give rise to both civil liability under section 

273 and criminal liability under the criminal provisions of the Act does 

not equate with the imposition of a double fine for the same violation. 

The district director's decision was correct. The appeal will be dismissed. 

ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 

173
#### Augustus FELECCIA and Justin T. Resch, Respondents v. LACKAWANNA COLLEGE a/k/a Lackawanna Junior College, Kim A. Mecca, Mark D. Duda, William E. Reiss, Daniel A. Lamagna, Kaitlin M. Coyne and Alexis D. Bonisese, Petitioners

No. 359 MAL 2017

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

November 29, 2017

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 29th day of November, 2017, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED. The issues, as stated by Petitioner, are:

> 1. Is a Pennsylvania college required to have qualified medical personnel present at intercollegiate athletic events to satisfy a duty of care to the college’s student-athletes?

> 2. Is an exculpatory clause releasing “any and all liability” signed in connection with participation in intercol*222legiate football enforceable as to negligence?
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

_____________

No. 11-1398

_____________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

 

v.

QUINTRELL REYNOS,

 Appellant

(E.D. Pa. No. 09-cr-00618-002)

Present: McKEE, Chief Judge, SLOVITER, SCIRICA, RENDELL, AMBRO, 

FUENTES, SMITH, FISHER, CHAGARES, JORDAN, HARDIMAN, 

GREENWAY, Jr., and VANASKIE, Circuit Judges

ORDER

Upon further consideration and argument, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that en 

banc consideration was improvidently granted. Accordingly, the opinion and judgment 

entered May 22, 2012 for the above captioned case are hereby reinstated. 

By the Court,

/s/ Theodore A. McKee

Chief Judge

Dated: November 21, 2012

trg/cc: Joseph T. Labrum, III, Esq.

 Robert A. Zauzmer, Esq.

 Megan S. Scheib, Esq.
#### ESTATE OF SCHNELLER, M., Appeal of: Schneller, J.

1987 EDA 2016

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

07/12/2017

Reargument Denied 9/6/2017

File No. 1502-0612 (Chester)

Appeal Dismissed
#### State v. Spencer

107,328

08/19/13

Denied.

Unpublished
IV 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 57 

Expressing the sense of Congress that the President is in violation of the 

War Powers Resolution regarding the use of United States Armed Forces 

in Libya, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 1, 2011 

Mr. ROONEY (for himself, Mr. MILLER of Florida, Mr. NUGENT, Mr. ROSS

of Florida, Mr. COLE, Mr. SENSENBRENNER, Mr. WEST, Mr. COFFMAN

of Colorado, Mr. SHUSTER, Mr. ISSA, Mr. LATOURETTE, Mr. HUNTER, 

Mr. CAMP, and Mr. WESTMORELAND) submitted the following concurrent 

resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

Expressing the sense of Congress that the President is in 

violation of the War Powers Resolution regarding the 

use of United States Armed Forces in Libya, and for 

other purposes. 

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 

2 concurring), That the President is in violation of the War 

3 Powers Resolution regarding the use of United States 

4 Armed Forces in Libya and, if the President does not ob5 tain congressional authorization for the use of the Armed 

6 Forces in Libya by June 19, 2011, the President should 


smartinez on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HCON 57 IH 

1 remove the Armed Forces from Libya and the region as 

2 soon as practicable after such date. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### State v. Wines

109,680

10/07/2015

Denied

50 Kan. App. 2d 817
449P11-14

#### State v. Charles Everett Hinton

1. Def s *Pro Se*Motion for *Ex Parte*Inquiry into Restraints on Liberty by Judicial *Writ of Habeas Corpus*

2. Def’s *Pro Se*Motion for Judicial Notice of Adjudicative Facts

3. Def’s *Pro Se*Motion for Oral Hearing Opportunity to be Heard

4. Def’s *Pro Se*Motion for Findings by the Court and Interrogatories to All Interested Persons, Individuals, and Third-Parties

1. Denied 08/18/2016

2. Dismissed 08/18/2016

3. Dismissed 08/18/2016

4. Dismissed 08/18/2016

Ervin, J., recnsed
AG ENDA Merial Limited July 2 0 , 2010, 2:30 pm, Room S - 7100 Product -Specific Mitigation Meeting

I. Introductions II. Merial Presentation III. Agency Presentation/ Response I V. Other Issues V. Questions and Answers VI. Next Steps
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                             718
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   718
<PP&E>                                           4,316
<DEPRECIATION>                                      61
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   5,170
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              412
<BONDS>                                          2,513
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            69
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     5,170
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                    75
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   187
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  91
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   (203)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               (203)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (203)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     (.03)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.03)
        

</TABLE>
#### COM. v. WOODARD, R.

49 EDA 2017

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

07/11/2017

CP-51-CR-0220171-1992 (Philadelphia)

Affirmed
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

In the Matter of

KEVIN ROBERT GALLAGHER :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 29 96 Disciplinary Docket No. 3

No. 116 DB 2023

( United States Patent and Trademark Office, Proceeding No. D2023

- 28 )

Attorney Registration No. 487 49

(Out of State)

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 12 th day of January , 202 4

, upon consideration of the responses to

a Notice and Order directing Respondent to provide reasons against the imposition of

reciprocal discipline, Kevin Robert Gallagher is disbarred from the practice of law in the

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. He shall comply with the provisions of Pa.R.D.E. 217.

The Office of Disciplinary Counsel’s request to strike Respondent’s answer, in part,

is denied.
EXHIBIT 32(a)  CERTIFICATION OF THE PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002  In connection with the quarterly report of The LGL Group, Inc., (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Greg Anderson, Principal Executive 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 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.


|                |  |                   |                                                                    
|--------------- |  | ----------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------
|August 19, 2009 |  | /s/ Greg Anderson
|                |  | Name:             | Greg Anderson                                                      
|                |  | Title:            | President and Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)
|                                                                             
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                             
|View History:  Monthly  Annual Download Data (XLS File)                     
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                               
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                               
|View History:                                                                
|                                                                             
|New Hampshire Natural Gas Industrial Price  (Dollars per Thousand Cubic Feet)
|                                                                             
|                                                                             
|New Hampshire Natural Gas Industrial Price  (Dollars per Thousand Cubic Feet)
|                                                                             

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|1990's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        |        | 4.90   | 4.66   | 4.60  
|2000's                                                                                                                            | 6.18   | 7.92   | 7.38   | 9.17   | 11.86  | 12.25  | 12.55  | 13.45  | 14.37  | 12.86 
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 11.59  | 11.57  | 10.48  | 10.68  | 9.46   | 10.33  | 8.59   | 9.09   | 9.81   | 9.45  
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 8.47   | 9.53   | 13.19  | NA     |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 5/31/2024                                                                                                          
|Next Release Date: 6/28/2024
Exhibit 4(b)(vi)



 Exhibit 4(b)(vi) 
  
 GE CAPITAL LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY OF NEW YORK  
 VESTED GUARANTEED MINIMUM INCOME PAYMENT ENDORSEMENT 
  

  
 The Contract to which this endorsement is attached is amended by adding the
following provision to the Purchase Payments section immediately after the Scheduled Installment provision: 
  
 Vested Guaranteed Minimum Income Payment 
  
 A Default occurs when either: 
  

	 	(1)	 	More than 24 Scheduled Installments are paid outside of the grace period over the life of your Contract; or 

  

	 	(2)	 	A Scheduled Installment, interest that is charged on it and any monthly billing fee are not paid within one year from the Scheduled Installment’s Monthly Due Date.


  
 If a Default occurs, the Guaranteed Minimum Income Payment shown
on the Contract data pages is forfeited; however, you will be entitled to a reduced Guaranteed Minimum Income Payment. 
  
 On the date of Default, provided Default occurs after 60 Scheduled Installments have been paid, the vested Guaranteed Minimum Income Payment will be (a) divided by (b)
multiplied by (c), where: 
  

	 	(a)	 	is the total Scheduled Installments paid into the Subaccount and not previously withdrawn prior to the date of Default; 

  

	 	(b)	 	is the total Scheduled Installments that are required to be paid into the Subaccount prior to the Annuity Commencement Date to secure the Guaranteed Minimum Income Payment shown on
the Contract data pages; and 

  

	 	(c)	 	is the Guaranteed Minimum Income Payment shown on the Contract data pages. 

  
 Restrictions concerning the reduced Guaranteed Minimum Income Payment are as follows: 
  

	 	•	 	Once the reduced Guaranteed Minimum Income Payment has been determined, we will not recalculate it again even if subsequent Purchase Payments are made; and 


 

	 	•	 	Once a Default has occurred and the reduced Guaranteed Minimum Income Payment has been determined, if a withdrawal is taken from the Subaccount and not repaid with interest within
one year of the date of withdrawal, then the reduced Guaranteed Minimum Income Payment is forfeited. 

  
 For GE Capital Life Assurance Company of New York, 
  
 /s/    PAMELA S. SCHUTZ        

  
 Pamela S. Schutz 

President 
  
 Form NY5246 1/03
QuickLinks
 -- Click here to rapidly navigate through this document

 
 

EXHIBIT 10.3    
    


LILLY BETER CAPITAL GROUP, LTD.
 2424 North Federal Highway, Suite 150

Boca Raton, FL 33431

Telephone 561.361.1030

Facsimile 561.361.8997 


June
7, 2002 


Celso
B. Suarez, Jr., President

3eee, Inc.

2207 Concorde Pike

Wilmington, Delaware 19803 


Dear
Mr. Suarez: 


        This
letter will serve to confirm the agreement between Lilly Beter Capital Group, Ltd. and 3eee, Inc. We have been retained to act as an Agent for 3eee for the purpose of purchasing oil
platform contracts from the United States Bankruptcy Court. These contracts will be purchased at extremely reduced prices. The purchase prices will vary anywhere from ten, twenty, thirty or more cents
on the dollar depending on the particular oil platform. The two hundred thousand dollars ($200,000) that your company has advanced to us in check number 1046 dated June 7, 2002 will be used as a down
payment towards the purchase of various oil platforms. It is our understanding that another check for four hundred twenty one thousand and eighty-four dollars ($421,084) will be sent to us before the
end of the month. 


        This
money and any other monies advanced to us for purchasing oil platform contracts will be secured by the various contracts that we purchase on your company's behalf. If we do not
complete the purchase of any or all oil platform contracts, all monies that were earmarked for this purpose and not used will be refunded to 3eee, Inc. 


        Please
do not hesitate to call us if you should have any questions or if you will not be able to send us the rest of the money. 



	 	 	Sincerely yours,
	

 	
 	

 	
 	

/s/  JOHN MAXMIN      
 John Maxmin
 Operating Director











QuickLinks



EXHIBIT 10.3
xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?


C\_2019259EN.01002901.xml


| | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 2.8.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 259/29 |

---

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case M.9457 — Next Alt/Sotheby’s)

Candidate case for simplified procedure

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2019/C 259/07)

1.

On 26 July 2019, the Commission received notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 [(1)](#ntr1-C_2019259EN.01002901-E0001).

This notification concerns the following undertakings:

| | |
| --- | --- |
| — | Next Alt SARL (‘Next Alt’, Luxembourg), controlled by Mr Drahi, |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| — | Sotheby’s (United States). |

Next Alt acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation sole control of the whole of Sotheby’s.

The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.

2.

The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:

—   for Next Alt SARL: personal holding of Mr Drahi, controlling the Altice group which is active in the provision of a range of telecoms, content, media, entertainment and advertising services worldwide,

—   for Sotheby’s: broker of fine and decorative art, jewellery and collectibles active worldwide.

3.

On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of the Merger Regulation. However, the final decision on this point is reserved.

Pursuant to the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under the Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 [(2)](#ntr2-C_2019259EN.01002901-E0002) it should be noted that this case is a candidate for treatment under the procedure set out in the Notice.

4.

The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their possible observations on the proposed operation to the Commission.

Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. The following reference should always be specified:

M.9457 — Next Alt/Sotheby’s

Observations can be sent to the Commission by email, by fax, or by post. Please use the contact details below:

| |
| --- |
| Email: COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu |
| Fax +32 22964301 |
| Postal address: |
| European Commission |
| Directorate-General for Competition |
| Merger Registry |
| 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel |
| BELGIQUE/BELGIË |

---

[(1)](#ntc1-C_2019259EN.01002901-E0001)  [OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1](http://publications.europa.eu/resource/oj/JOL_2004_024_R_TOC) (the ‘Merger Regulation’).

[(2)](#ntc2-C_2019259EN.01002901-E0002)  [OJ C 366, 14.12.2013, p. 5](http://publications.europa.eu/resource/oj/JOC_2013_366_R_TOC).

---
#### Christopher HANEY, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-363

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

February 1, 2017

L.T. No.: 2016-CF-3917-A

Denied.