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

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE>    UT
<LEGEND>     THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED
             FROM THE BALANCE SHEET AND RELATED STATEMENTS OF INCOME,
             RETAINED EARNINGS AND CASH FLOWS OF MASSACHUSETTS ELECTRIC
             COMPANY IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
             FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                                                                     <C>
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                    DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                         MAR-31-1997
<PERIOD-TYPE>                              3-MOS
<BOOK-VALUE>                            PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>              1,098,453
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                    0
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                   231,123
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                  63,101                 <F1>
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                         1,392,677
<COMMON>                                    59,953
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                201,172
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                      166,803
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>           427,928
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                               50,000
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                     333,369
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                         4,400
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                      0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>            17,475
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>             40,000
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                      0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                    0
<LEASES-CURRENT>                               0
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>           519,505
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>          1,392,677
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                405,518
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                       8,596
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>               372,681
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>               381,277
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                   24,241                 
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                        (1,896)
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>            22,345
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                   8,709
<NET-INCOME>                              13,636
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                  778
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>             12,858
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                  11,991
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                  7,083
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                    52,777
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  0                 <F2>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0                 <F2>
<FN>
<F1>                                  Total deferred charges includes other assets.
<F2>                                  Per share data is not relevant because the Company's common stock is
                                      wholly-owned by New England Electric System.
</FN>
Exhibit 99.1   Officer's Certificate regarding Annual Statement of
               Compliance of Washington Mutual Bank

                             WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK
                              OFFICER'S CERTIFICATE

The  undersigned  officer of  Washington  Mutual  Bank (the  "Servicer")  hereby
certifies  on behalf of the  Servicer  and on his own behalf for purposes of the
WaMu Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2005-AR17, as follows:

1. I am the duly appointed and qualified Senior Vice President of the Servicer.

2. Capitalized terms used and not defined herein shall have the meanings
ascribed to such terms in the Pooling and Servicing Agreement related to the
above-referenced series of Certificates.

3. I am duly authorized to execute and deliver this Officer's Certificate on
behalf of the Servicer.

4. A review of the activities of the Servicer during the preceding
calendar year and performance under this Agreement has been made under my
supervision.

5. To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has
fulfilled all its obligations under the Agreement throughout such year.



     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have signed my name as of March 1, 2006.





                     WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK


                     By: /s/ Henry J. Berens
                         -------------------------------------
                         Henry J. Berens
                         Senior Vice President
Exhibit 35.1







Annual Statement of Compliance

TILES Trust No. 2006-1



VIA: EMAIL



MS Structured Asset Corp.

1585 Broadway

New York, New York 10036



Reference is made to the
Trust Agreement (the “Agreement”), between MS Structured Asset Corp., as Depositor and U.S. Bank National Association,
as Trustee, as successor-in-interest to Bank of America, National Association, as Trustee, as successor by merger to LaSalle Bank
National Association, as Trustee, for TILES Trust No. 2006-1, dated February 15, 2006, together with Schedules I, II and III attached
thereto, and the Standard Terms for Trust Agreements, between MS Structured Asset Corp., as Depositor and U.S. Bank National Association,
as Trustee, as successor-in-interest to Bank of America, National Association, as Trustee, as successor by merger to LaSalle Bank
National Association, as Trustee dated March 5, 2003. Capitalized terms used herein and not defined shall have the meanings defined
in the Trust Agreement and the Standard Terms for Trust Agreements.



I, Kimberly O. Jacobs, a Senior Vice President
of U.S. Bank National Association as successor-in-interest to Bank of America, National Association, as successor by merger to
LaSalle Bank National Association, as Trustee hereby certify that:



1.A review of the activities of the Trustee during the preceding calendar year and of the performance of the Trustee under
the Agreement has been made under my supervision; and



2. To the best of my knowledge, based on such
review, the Trustee has fulfilled all its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout such year.



Capitalized terms used but not defined herein
have the meanings set forth in the Agreement.









Date: March 11, 2019





U.S. Bank National Association as successor-in-interest
to Bank of America, National Association as successor by merger to LaSalle Bank National Association, as Trustee







By: /s/ Kimberly O. Jacobs

Kimberly O. Jacobs

Senior Vice President
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-4139

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,
v. WESLEY DEVON FOOTE, Defendant - Appellant.
On Remand from the Supreme Court of the United States. (S. Ct. No. 07-7941) Submitted: April 15, 2008 Decided: May 7, 2008 Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges. Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion. Louis C. Allen, Federal Public Defender, William C. Ingram, First Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Anna Mills Wagoner, United States Attorney, David P. Folmar, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: Wesley Devon Foote pled guilty to three counts of distribution of cocaine base (crack) after a prior conviction for a drug offense, 21 U.S.C.A. § 841(a), (b)(1)(B) (West 1999 & Supp. 2007). He was sentenced as a career offender to a term of 262 months imprisonment. U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 4B1.1 (2005). Foote appealed his sentence, arguing that he was improperly sentenced as a career offender, that this court’s standard of review for criminal sentences is an unconstitutional return to mandatory guideline sentencing, and that the district court erroneously believed that it lacked authority to i mpose a sentence below the guideline range based in part on the disparity in sentences for crack and cocaine offenses. We affirmed his sentence; however, the Supreme Court subsequently vacated the judgment and remanded the case for reconsideration in light of Kimbrough v. United States , 128 S. Ct. 558 (2007). See United States v. Foote , 249 F. App’x 967 (4th Cir. 2007), vacated , 128 S. Ct. 1133 (2008). In Kimbrough , the Supreme Court held that “it would not be an abuse of discretion for a district court to conclude when sentencing a particular defendant that the crack/powder disparity yields a sentence ‘greater than necessary’ to achieve § 3553(a)’s purposes, even in a mine-run case.” Kimbrough , 128 S. Ct. at 575. Kimbroughhas thus abrogated United States v. Eura , 440 F.3d 625* On remand, Foote will be resentenced under the revised guidelines for crack offenses that took effect on November 1, 2007. - 3 - (4th Cir. 2006) (holding that sentencing court may not vary from guideline range solely because of 100:1 ratio for crack/cocaine offenses), vacated , 128 S. Ct. 853 (2008). The district court did not have the benefit of Kimbroughwhen it determined Foote’s sentence. To give the district court the opportunity to reconsider the sentence in light of Kimbrough , we conclude that resentencing is necessary. We therefore vacate the sentence imposed by the district court and remand for resentencing. * We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
VACATED AND REMANDED
|                                                                               
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                               
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                 
|View History: Annual                                                           
|View History: Annual                                                           
|View History:                                                                  
|                                                                               
|New Hampshire Natural Gas Number of Residential Consumers  (Number of Elements)
|                                                                               
|                                                                               
|New Hampshire Natural Gas Number of Residential Consumers  (Number of Elements)
|                                                                               

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0  | Year-1  | Year-2  | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5  | Year-6  | Year-7  | Year-8  | Year-9 
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------- | ------- | ------- | ------ | ------ | ------- | ------- | ------- | ------- | -------
|1980's                                                                                                                            |         |         |         |        |        |         |         | 60,078  | 61,969  | 64,059 
|1990's                                                                                                                            | 65,310  | 67,991  | 69,356  | 70,938 | 72,656 | 74,232  | 75,175  | 77,092  | 78,786  | 80,958 
|2000's                                                                                                                            | 82,813  | 84,760  | 87,147  | 88,170 | 88,600 | 94,473  | 94,600  | 94,963  | 67,945  | 96,924 
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 95,361  | 97,400  | 99,738  | 98,715 | 99,146 | 102,567 | 104,484 | 105,540 | 107,447 | 109,303
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 112,022 | 113,574 | 114,313 |        |        |         |         |         |         |        
|- = 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
|                                                        
|--------------------------------------------------------
|                                                        
|View History:  Monthly  Annual Download Data (XLS File)
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                          
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                          
|View History:                                           
|                                                        
|Nevada Dry Natural Gas Production (Million Cubic Feet)  
|                                                        
|                                                        
|Nevada Dry Natural Gas Production (Million 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                                                                                                                            |        | 53     | 30     | 21     | 16     | 13     | 11     | 9      | 9      | 8     
|2000's                                                                                                                            | 7      | 7      | 6      | 6      | 5      | 5      | 5      | 5      | 4      | 4     
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 4      | 3      | 4      | 3      | 3      | 4      | 3      | 3      | 3      | 5     
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 12     | 4      | 4      |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = 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
#### Miguel Angel DOMINGUEZ, Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, Appellee(s)/Respondent(s),

CASE NO.: 3D17-0441

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

MAY 25, 2017

L.T. NO.: 16-26963

Dismiss.
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 86 (Tuesday, May 5, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 24808]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-11869]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY

[FEMA-1193-DR]


Guam; Amendment to Notice of a Major Disaster Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster for the 
Government of Guam (FEMA-1193-DR), dated December 17, 1997, and related 
determinations.

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 24, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Madge Dale, Response and Recovery 
Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC 20472, 
(202) 646-3260.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that, effective this 
date and pursuant to the authority vested in the Director of the 
Federal Emergency Management Agency under Executive Order 12148, I 
hereby appoint William B. Carwile of the Federal Emergency Management 
Agency to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this declared 
disaster.
    This action terminates my appointment of Dale R. Peterson as 
Federal Coordinating Officer for this disaster.

(The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) 
are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 83.537, Community 
Disaster Loans; 83.538, Cora Brown Fund Program; 83.539, Crisis 
Counseling; 83.540, Disaster Legal Services Program; 83.541, 
Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 83.542, Fire Suppression 
Assistance; 83.543, Individual and Family Grant (IFG) Program; 
83.544, Public Assistance Grants; 83.545, Disaster Housing Program; 
83.548, Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.)
James L. Witt,
Director.
[FR Doc. 98-11869 Filed 5-4-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6718-02-P
Exhibit 32.1


                  Certification of Chief Executive Officer
         Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
                Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

I, Vahan V. Basmajian, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the
quarterly report of Megatech Corporation on Form 10Q for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2003 fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that
information contained in such quarterly report fairly presents in all
material respects the financial condition and results of operations of
Megatech Corporation.


Dated: October 29, 2003                /s/ Vahan V. Basmajian
                                       ----------------------
                                       Vahan V. Basmajian
                                       President & Treasurer

A signed original of this statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Megatech Corporation and will be retained by Megatech
Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request.


<PAGE>
341P14-2

#### State v. Robert McPhail

1. Def’s *Pro Se*Petition for *Writ of Certiorari*to Review Order of Superior Court, Mecklenburg County

2. Def’s *Pro Se*Motion to Proceed *In Forma Pauperis*

3. Def’s *Pro Se*Motion to Appoint Counsel

1. Dismissed

2. Allowed

3. Dismissed as moot

Ervin, J., recused
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 19-0199

IN THE MATTER OF:

S.G.-H.M., JR.,

A Former Youth Under the Age of 18,

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, 

and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including April 22, 2020, within which to prepare, file, 

and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

March 16 2020

03/16/2020

Case Number: DA 19-0199
No. 12-6989.

#### Yepiz *v.*United States.

C. A. 9th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.
Vri( of Mandamus Denied, Opinion issued November 6, 2012

in The

uitrt uf ;piah

iftI! Thitrirt uf xa at 1alla

No. 05-12-01426-CV

IN RE AFTERMATh, INC., Relator

Original Proceeding from the 68th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 12-04971

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Befi)re Justices Moseley, FitzGerald, and Myers

Opinion by Justice Myers

Relator contends the trial judge erred by granting real parties in interest’s motion to compel.

The facts and issues are well known to the parties, so we need not recount them herein. We conclude

relator’s petition does not satisfy the requirements of the Texas Rules ofAppellate Procedure. See

TEx. R. App. P. 52.3(j); In re Butler, 270 S.W.3d 757, 758 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2008, orig.

proceeding). Accordingly, we DENY relator’s petition for writ of mandamus.

LANA

JUSTICE

12 l426F.P05
In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06-18-00102-CR

WILLIAM ROBERT PARKER, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 123rd District Court

Panola County, Texas

Trial Court No. 13,122

Before Morriss, C.J., Moseley and Burgess, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Morriss
2

MEMORANDUM OPINION

William Robert Parker was convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment in 

February 1981. On April 26, 2018, Parker filed an “Out of Time Motion For New Trial” in the 

trial court. On May 9, 2018, the trial court denied that motion, and on May 29, 2018, Parker filed 

a notice of appeal from the trial court’s denial of his motion.

In the State of Texas, a party may appeal only when the Texas Legislature has authorized 

an appeal. Galitz v. State, 617 S.W.2d 949, 951 (Tex. Crim. App. 1981). When the Legislature 

passes such authorizing legislation, in addition to granting its citizens the right of appeal, it also

grants the appellate courts of this State jurisdiction to hear those appeals. In the absence of such

authorizing legislation, appellate courts are without jurisdiction and have no authority to act.

Generally speaking, in the criminal context, the Texas Legislature has authorized appeals 

by criminal defendants only from written judgments of conviction. See Gutierrez v. State, 307 

S.W.3d 318, 321 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010); Ex parte Shumake, 953 S.W.2d 842, 844 (Tex. App.—

Austin 1997, no pet.). There are a few very limited exceptions to this general rule, see Wright v. 

State, 969 S.W.2d 588, 589 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1998, no pet.), but the trial court’s May 9 order

denying Parker’s motion for an out of time appeal does not fall within one of those exceptions. 

Thus, the trial court’s May 9 order is not an order from which the Texas Legislature has authorized 

an appeal. 

By letter dated June 13, 2018, we informed Parker of the potential jurisdictional issue stemming 

from the lack of an appealable order and provided Parker an opportunity to demonstrate how we have 

jurisdiction notwithstanding the noted defect. Although Parker filed a response to our jurisdictional 
3

defect letter, that response failed to demonstrate how this Court has jurisdiction over Parker’s 

attempted appeal. 

Because the trial court’s May 9, 2018, denial of Parker’s “Out of Time Motion For New Trial” 

does not constitute an appealable order, we lack jurisdiction over this appeal. Consequently, we 

dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

Josh R. Morriss, III

Chief Justice

Date Submitted: July 11, 2018

Date Decided: July 12, 2018

Do Not Publish