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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
applicable SEC Form and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such
financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                          15,702
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    2,178
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      1,301
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                20,194
<PP&E>                                          19,943
<DEPRECIATION>                                  10,407
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  33,246
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            5,035
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         9,340
<OTHER-SE>                                      18,237
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    33,246
<SALES>                                         33,543
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                33,543
<CGS>                                           16,330
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   16,330
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                10,392
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   607
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               (491)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  6,705
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,468
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              4,237
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     4,237
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .69<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .68<F1>
<FN>
<F1>SHARES AND EARNINGS PER SHARE FOR THE 1997 PERIODS (PRIOR YEAR) HAVE BEEN
ADJUSTED IN THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS TO REFLECT A TWO-FOR-ONE STOCK SPLIT
EFFECTED IN THE FORM OF A DIVIDEND WHICH WAS EFFECTIVE AS OF SEPTEMBER 22,
1997.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
Idaho comments regarding BAT requirements from 11/22/09 Conference Call

1. In the following example, I believe it is inte nded to require only one of the listed individuals to complete the items listed.

2.1.1.1.Identify the Problem . The following permit conditi ons apply to you if you are

a Public Entity, Quasi-Public Enti ty, or a For-Hired Applicator. Prior to the first pesticide applicatio n covered under this permit and prior to the first pesticide application, at a minimum, each year you must do the following for

each treatment area:

The language would make both the public entity and the applicator complete the items. The word “you” would apply to both. Delete the fi rst sentence and revise d the second sentence to read something similar to: “Prior to the first pesticide application covered under this permit each year, the Public Entity or the For-Hire Applicator must do the following, at a minimum, for each treatment area:” This same language a ppears in several places and should have similar changes made to each instance.

2. The opening sentence in 2.1 says “All permittees must evaluate, select, and implement control measures.” This is the only the second place that the word “permittees” occurs in this entire section. It is confusing as to who is respons ible to evaluate, select and implement control measures, since all of the following points references public entities, applicat ors, associations or

farmers.

3. During the call, someone asked whether indi viduals who do not need to apply for NOIs are required to conform to these requirements. The response was yes. If a person does not meet the minimum requirements, does the enforcement agency have authority to force compliance? Also, how will the public and small applicators be no tified about this requirement? It will be practically impossible to identi fy every person who may make a pplications to small bodies of water on their property, or applicat ions to shrubs and lawns that may float across small bodies of

water.

4. Will applicators be required to be professionally licensed to apply pesticides to water? If so, this creates many of the same problems in #3 above . Would homeowners also be required to be licensed? If licensing will be incorporated into th e permit requirements, it is critical to establish a minimum acreage requirement, in order to the requirement for t housands of homeowners to be licensed to treat ponds on their property.

5. Requiring a pesticide license would probably require the USEPA to make all of the pesticides with uses in, on or over water to be classified as a Restricted Us e Pesticide (RUP). A pesticide license would identify those indi viduals that make a pplications covered under the permits and

would allow easier education and training of those individuals.
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  1.
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and2.
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 LODGIAN, INC.By:
    /s/ Peter T. CyrusPETER T. CYRUSInterim President and Chief Executive OfficerBy:
    /s/ James A. MacLennanJAMES A. MACLENNANExecutive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer   49
Exhibit 10.12


 


EXTENSION AND AMENDMENT AGREEMENT


 


Effective July 1, 2009 (the "Effective
Date") by and between Viral Genetics, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), and M. Karen Newell, PhD, an
individual residing in the city of Colorado Springs, CO ("Consultant").


 


WHEREAS Company
and Consultant are party to a Consulting Agreement dated July 1, 2007 (the "Original Agreement") and wish to extend
and amend it subject to certain terms and conditions.


 


NOW,
THEREFORE, for good and lawful consideration and of the mutual covenants contained herein and the mutual benefits
to be derived hereunder, the parties agree as follows:


 


		1.	The Term of the Original Agreement is hereby extended until December 31, 2015.



		2.	The monthly Fee due under Section 6 (a) is hereby increased to five thousand dollars ($5,000)
per month.



		3.	All other terms and conditions of the Original Agreement and all exhibits and schedules therein
shall continue in full force and effect.



 


 








	 	AGREED and entered into as of the date affixed hereof.
	 	 	 	 	 
	 	COMPANY:	 	 	 
	 	VIRAL GENETICS, INC.	 	 	 
	 	 	 	By	 
	 	Duly Authorized Officer	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 
	 	CONSULTANT:	 	 	 
	 	 	 	/s/ K. Karen Rogers-Newell, PhD
	 	K. Karen Rogers-Newell, PhD
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 22-0369

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

ERIN ELLIOT HOLCOMB,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

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

produce transcripts on appeal, and good cause appearing, Court 

Reporter Kelsey McAlpine is granted an extension of time to and 

including November 30, 2022, within which to prepare, file, and serve 

the transcripts requested on appeal.

The Clerk shall serve a copy of this Order upon the district court 

and the court reporter.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

October 5 2022

10/05/2022

Case Number: DA 22-0369
**EXHIBIT 21.1**

 

Duquesne Light has the following significant subsidiaries: 

 

DQE Energy Limited, a Cayman Islands corporation 

 

DQE Energy Two Limited, a Cayman Islandscorporation 

 

Duquesne Financial,L.L.C., a Delaware limited liability company 

 

Monticello Corporation, a Delaware corporation (wholly owned by DQE Energy Two) 

 

Duquesne Financial, L.P., a Pennsylvania partnership (Duquesne Light is 99% limited partner, Duquesne Financial, L.L.C.,is 1% general partner) 

 

DQU IIFunding Corporation, a Delaware corporation (wholly owned by Duquesne Financial, L.P.
No. 10-6770.

#### Jesse Lee Bell, Jr., Petitioner v. Julia Woods, et al.

562 U.S. 1093, 131 S. Ct. 797,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9556,

178 L. Ed. 2d 534,

December 6, 2010.

Petition for writ of

certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 382 Fed. Appx. 391.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

SCOTT A. ANDREWS, )

)

Appellant, )

)

v. ) Case No. 2D17-3719

)

STATE OF FLORIDA, )

)

Appellee. )

___________________________________)

Opinion filed February 21, 2018.

Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P.

9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court 

for Polk County; William D. Sites, 

Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Jones v. State, 569 So. 2d 1234 (Fla. 1990).

KHOUZAM, BLACK, and ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM, JJ., Concur.
No. 10-1509.

#### Kelly S. Jennings, Petitioner v. Social Security Administration.

565 U.S. 825, 132 S. Ct. 116,

181 L. Ed. 2d 40,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 5531.

October 3, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit denied.

Same case below, 388 Fed. Appx. 988.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MAGDALENA A. APOSTOLOVA and

EMIL MILYAKOV,

 Plaintiffs - Appellants,

 v.

JPMORGAN CHASE BANK; et al.,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 12-15644

D.C. No. 3:11-cv-02066-WHA

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of California

William Alsup, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted November 7, 2013** 

San Francisco, California

Before: FARRIS, BLACK

***, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges. 

FILED

NOV 14 2013

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

 *** The Honorable Susan H. Black, Senior Circuit Judge for the U.S.

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, sitting by designation.
Emil Milyakov appeals from the district court’s order (1) dismissing

Milyakov’s claim for slander of title, injunctive relief, and violation of California

Civil Code section 2923.5 and California Business and Professional Code section

17200, and (2) granting summary judgment in favor of JP Morgan on Milyakov’s

claim of unjust enrichment. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.

The district court erred by taking judicial notice of seven documents

submitted by JP Morgan. These documents were not matters of general

knowledge. See Reina-Rodriguez v. United States, 655 F.3d 1182, 1193 (9th Cir.

2011). Moreover, the contents of the documents were disputed by Milyakov, and

thus did not meet the Rule 201(b) standard allowing courts to “judicially notice a

fact that is not subject to reasonable dispute.” Fed. R. Evid. 201(b)

Any error, however, was harmless. The district court could properly

consider the six documents referenced in or attached to Milyakov’s complaints,

because the complaints relied on the documents and the documents’ authenticity

was not in question. See Swartz v. KPMG LLP, 476 F.3d 756, 763 (9th Cir. 2007). 

Further, the district court could consider the purchase and assumption agreement

under Rule 12(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, because Milyakov had “a

reasonable opportunity” to oppose the court’s consideration of this document prior

to the March 15, 2012 Order granting summary judgment in favor of JP Morgan. 

2
AFFIRMED.

3
#### In re Personal Restraint of Stuhr,

No. 91920-8.

Motion for discretionary review of a decision of the Court of Appeals, No. 46988-0-II, June 24, 2015. *Granted*December 2, 2015.
**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)   | the              Quarterly Report of EVCI Career Colleges Holding Corp. on Form 10-Q              for              the quarter ended March 31, 2006 fully complies with the requirements              of              Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and |
|-----------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| (ii)   | information              contained in such report fairly presents in all material respects the              financial condition and results of operations of EVCI Career Colleges              Holding Corp. |
|------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Dated:                May 15, 2006 |   |   |   | /s/                Dr. John J.                McGrath        |
|------------------------------------|--------|--------|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                               |   |   |   | Dr.                John J. McGrathChief                Executive Officer and President          |

----
TITLE MDAS CERTIFICATE

Requirements

The explosives safety status of MPPEH must be determined by:

(a) 100-percent visual inspection and an independent 100-percent re-inspection by qualified 

personnel;

(b) Processing by a DDESB-approved method with appropriate post-processing inspection 

(e.g., sampling) of the material; or

(c) Application of DoD Component-approved expert knowledge. A certification or 

verification statement as shown must be signed and dated by a DoD contracted person or a 

government employee.

This documentation is only valid if the material listed is properly segregated and secured, and the 

chain of custody is maintained until the material’s release from DoD control.

Disposal Turn-In Document: Quantity:

National Stock Number or Description:

Certification Statement

The material listed on this form has been inspected, processed by DDESB-approved means, or undergone the application of 

expert knowledge, in compliance with DoD policy, and to the best of my knowledge and belief does not pose an explosive 

hazard.

Signature:

Date: 

Printed Name/Position: 

Organization/Address: 

Phone (Commercial/Defense Switched Network (DSN)/Fax)/E-mail Address:

Signature:

Date: 

Printed Name/Position: 

Organization/Address: 

Phone (Commercial/DSN/Fax)/E-mail Address:
# Table 1

# Table 2

# Table 3

# Table 4

# Table 5

# Table 6

# Table 7
# Figure 1 Trend

Year

Percentage
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 130 (Wednesday, July 8, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 36920]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-18015]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)
[Announcement 98043]


National Partnership for Human Immunodeficiency; Virus (HIV) 
Prevention; Notice of Availability of Funds for Fiscal Year 1998 
Amendment

    A notice announcing the availability of Fiscal Year 1998 funds for 
grants to support National Partnerships for Human Immunodeficiency 
Virus (HIV) Prevention Program was published in the Federal Register on 
June 3, 1998, [Vol. 63 FR No. 106]. The notice is amended as follows:
    On page 30233, third column, under ``Eligible Applicants'', the 
first paragraph, line 12 should read: ``Tax-exempt status is determined 
by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Code, Section 501(c). Tax-exempt 
status may be proved by either providing a copy of the pages from the 
IRS' most recent list of 501 (c) tax-exempt organizations or a copy of 
the current IRS Determination Letter.''
    On page 30238, second column, under ``Submission and Deadline'', 
the second paragraph should read: ``On or before August 7, 1998, submit 
the application to: Julia Valentine Grants Management Specialist, 
Grants Management Branch, Procurement and Grants Office, Announcement 
98043, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Room 300, 255 
East Paces Ferry Road, NE, M/S E15, Atlanta, GA 30305-2209.
    All other information and requirements of the notice remain the 
same.

    Dated: July 1, 1998.
John L. Williams,
Director, Procurement and Grants Office, Centers for Disease Control 
and Prevention (CDC).
[FR Doc. 98-18015 Filed 7-7-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
IC 02-04

**DoD 4000.25-1-M**

*DoD 4000.25-1-M, January, 2006*

Change 1

*DLM 4000.25, Volume 2, November 26, 2019*

*Change 13*

**AP8.19. APPENDIX 3.19**

**SHIPMENT STATUS**

AP8.13-3

3

APPENDIX 3.19

AP8.19-1

APPENDIX 8.19
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

No. 09

- 3128

CARLEN URIEL HIGGS,

Petitioner

v.

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES,

Respondent

( Agency No. A046

- 018

- 938 )

Present: FUEN TES

, FISHER and NYGAARD, Circuit Judges

Motion by Petitioner To Amend the Opinion Issued on 08/25/2011.

Respectfully,

Clerk/ pdb

____________________ _____________ORDER________________________________

The foregoing motion is granted. The opinion shall be amended so that Ryan Christian is

omitted from the listing of petitioner’s counsel. Petitioner’s counsel shall be listed as

follows:

Thomas S. Jones, Esq.

Alison M. Kilmartin, Esq.

Jones Day 500 Grant Street, Suite 4500

Pittsburgh, P A 15219

Counsel for Petitioner

By the Court,

/s/ Julio M. Fuentes

Circuit Judge

Dated: September 19, 2011

PDB/cc: All Counsel of Record
No. 10-6936.

#### Xiang Li, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 1174, 131 S. Ct. 990,

178 L. Ed. 2d 819,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 208.

January 10, 2011.

Petition for rehearing denied.

Justice Sotomayor took no *820part in the consideration or decision of this petition.

Former decision, 562 U.S. 1054, 131 S. Ct. 613, 178 L. Ed. 2d 453, 2010 U.S. LEXIS 8876.
No. 10-6958.

#### Khari Leon Hollins, Petitioner. v. Georgia.

562 U.S. 1143, 131 S. Ct. 911,

178 L. Ed. 2d 761,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 258.

January 10, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Georgia denied.

*762Same case below, 287 Ga. 233, 695 S.E.2d 23.
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 130 (Wednesday, July 8, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 36889-36890]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-17990]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. RP95-408-000 (Phase II)]


Columbia Gas Transmission Corp.; Notice of Informal Settlement 
Conference

July 1, 1998.
    Take notice that an informal settlement conference will be convened 
in this proceeding on Thursday, July 9, 1998, at 10:00 a.m., at the 
offices of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, 
NE, Washington, DC, 20426, for the purpose of exploring the possible 
settlement of the above-referenced docket.
    Any party, as defined by 18 CFR 385.102(c), or any participant as 
defined in 18 CFR 385.102(b), is invited to attend. Persons wishing to 
become a party must move to intervene and receive intervener status 
pursuant to the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 385.214).
    For additional information, please contact Thomas J. Burgess at 
(202) 208-

[[Page 36890]]

2058 or David R. Cain at (202) 208-0917.
David P. Boergers,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 98-17990 Filed 7-7-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
No. 11-5397.

#### John Renard Harris, Petitioner v. Stephen Upton, Warden.

565 U.S. 905, 132 S. Ct. 305,

181 L. Ed. 2d 187,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 5521,

October 3, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
EXHIBIT 11
F&M NATIONAL CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES
COMPUTATIONS OF WEIGHTED AVERAGE SHARES
OUTSTANDING AND EARNINGS PER SHARE - 1996
(in thousands, except per share amounts)
<TABLE>
<S> <C>

Basic EPS:

     Average shares outstanding - 1996                                  16,570

     Restatement related to Fairfax Bank and Trust Company               2,485  (1)

     Restatement related to F&M Bank-Allegiance                          1,354  (1)

     1996 Weighted average shares outstanding                           20,409

     Net income - 1996                                              $   29,298

     Earnings per share, basic - 1996                               $     1.44

Diluted EPS:

     1996 Weighted average shares outstanding                           20,409

          Effect of dilutive shares                                        211

     1996 Weighted average shares outstanding, assuming dilution        20,620

     Net income - 1996                                              $   29,298

     Earnings per share, assuming dilution - 1996                   $     1.42
</TABLE>

 (1) On  March  29,  1996,  the  merger  with  FB&T  Financial  Corporation  was
     consummated with 2,517,577 shares of F&M National  Corporation common stock
     being   issued.    The    transaction   was   accounted   for   using   the
     pooling-of-interests   method  of  accounting.   Accordingly,   the  shares
     outstanding  have been  restated  for all  reported  periods to reflect the
     acquisition.

     Additionally,   on  October  1,  1996,  the  merger  with  Allegiance  Banc
     Corporation  was  consummated   with  1,455,628   shares  of  F&M  National
     Corporation  common stock being issued.  The  transaction was accounted for
     using the  pooling-of-interests  method  of  accounting.  Accordingly,  the
     shares  outstanding  have been restated for all reported periods to reflect
     the acquisition.

<PAGE>
*DLM 4000.25, Volume 1, January 22, 2024*

*Change 13*

**AP3. APPENDIX 3**

**ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS**

54

AP3-15	APPENDIX 3
No. 11-5483.

#### Robert Richard Evans, Petitioner v. United States.

565 U.S. 910, 132 S. Ct. 318,

181 L. Ed. 2d 196,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 6480.

October 3, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 430 Fed. Appx. 576.