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

[Congressional Bills 119th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Con. Res. 3 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        S.Con.Res.3
                                       Agreed to January 3, 2025        

                     One Hundred Nineteenth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE FIRST SESSION

           Begun and held at the City of Washington on Friday,
         the third day of January, two thousand and twenty five

                          Concurrent Resolution

    Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring),

SECTION 1. HONORING JAMES EARL CARTER, JR.

    (a) Lying in State in Rotunda.--In recognition of the long and 
distinguished service rendered to the Nation and to the world by the 
late James Earl Carter, Jr., the 39th President of the United States, 
his remains shall be permitted to lie in state in the rotunda of the 
Capitol from January 7, 2025 until January 9, 2025. The Architect of 
the Capitol, under the direction of the Majority Leader of the Senate 
and the Speaker of the House of Representatives, shall take all 
necessary steps for the accomplishment of that purpose.
    (b) Use of Catafalque.--The Architect of the Capitol is authorized 
and directed to transfer the catafalque which is situated in the 
Exhibition Hall of the Capitol Visitor Center to the rotunda of the 
Capitol so that such catafalque may be used in connection with services 
to be conducted there for the late James Earl Carter, Jr., 39th 
President of the United States.
Attest:

                                               Secretary of the Senate.
Attest:

                                 Clerk of the House of Representatives.
```
STATE of Louisiana v. Grover D. CANNON

NO. 2019-KH-0193

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 6, 2019

Denied.
Jasmine CRANDALL, DOC #T94085, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D18-2721

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed April 24, 2019

Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and Robert D. Rosen, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the revocation of Ms. Crandall's probation and the resultant sentence without comment. Because the written sentence contains a single designation of credit ("Credit for Time Served: 72 Days (INCLUDING PRIOR PRISON CREDIT)") without delineating the jail credit to which she is entitled from the prison credit that the trial court also awarded, we remand only for the limited purpose of the entry of a new written sentence distinguishing between the jail and prison credit awards and clarifying that the calculation of the prison credit is to be calculated by the Department of Corrections. *See**Rowan v. State*, 779 So.2d 417, 418 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000) ("This appears to be a scrivener's error that combines jail and prison credit.... The trial court need not calculate prison credit so long as the trial court checks the standard box allowing all appropriate prior prison credit.").

Affirmed; remanded.

SILBERMAN, LUCAS, and SALARIO, JJ., Concur.
March 29, 1965 

Mr. Eldon Jeffrey8 

Executive Secretary 

Opinion No. C-408 

State Board of Barber Examiners Re: Whether the Texas Barber 

Austin, Texas Law can be interpreted to 

make it legal for a mobile 

barber shop mounted on a 

truck, to operate on the 

streets of a city, going 

from door to door to renBear Mr. Jeffreys: der barber services. 

You have requested an opinion from this offlce upon 

the following question: 

"Could the Texas Barber Law be interpreted 

to make it legal for a mobile barber shop mounted 

on a truck, to operate on the streets of a city 

going from door to door to give barber services?" 

Article 729, Vernon's Penal Code, provides that: 

"Every person owning,operating or managing 

a barber shop or beauty parlor shall register 

his full name and the location of said shop or 

~parlor In a book to be kept in the office of 

State Board of Health for that purpose, and 

every owner, operator or manager of a barber 

shop or beauty parlor that is first opened 

for business hereafter shall within five days 

after the opening of such shop or parlor register, in like manner. In event of a change 

in the manager or location of any such shop 

or parlor, the manager of same shall call at 

or communicate by mail with said board within 

five days after such change takes place and lnform said board thereof." (Emphasis added). 

Section 4 of Article 73&a, Vernon's Penal Code, provides in part that: 

-1934- 
Mr. Eldon Jeffreys, page 2 (C- 408) 

'Barber shop, as defined herein, shall 

lace where barbering is practiced 

??thb . . !(Emphasls added). 

A study of Article 73&a, the Texas Barber Law, falls 

to disclose any specific prohibition against operating mobile 

barber shops. In fact, Section 4 of Article 73&a sets forth 

that a barber shop shall mean any place where barbering Is 

practiced. This would seem to include mobile shops as well as 

ones located at a fixed and permanent site. 

SUMMARY 

The provisions of Article 73&a, Vernon's 

Penal Code, the Texas Barber Law, would not 

prohibit the operation of mobile barber shops. 

Very truly yours, 

WAGGONER CARR 

Attorney General 

PB:mkh 

APPROVED: 

OPINION COMMITTEE 

W. V. Geppert, Chairman 

Howard Fender 

Harry Gee 

John Reeves 

Harold Kennedy 

APPROVED FOR TRE ATTORNEY GENERAL 

BY: Stanton Stone 

-1935-
J.G. v. B.G.

2160059

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

August 11, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Case 4:05-cr-00040-Y Document 7 Filed 03/30/05 Page 1 of 3 PageID 11
Case 4:05-cr-00040-Y Document 7 Filed 03/30/05 Page 2 of 3 PageID 12
Case 4:05-cr-00040-Y Document 7 Filed 03/30/05 Page 3 of 3 PageID 13
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT UNITED STATES OF AM ER IC A, Plaintiff - Appe lle e , v. M AR TIN YANEZ VER

D UGO, De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt. No. 12-50545

D.C . No. 3:12-c r-01433-LAB M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Southe rn Distric t of C a lifornia Larry A. B urns, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d De c e m

be r 17, 2013 ** B e fore : GOODW IN, W ALLAC E, a nd GR AB ER , C irc uit Judge s. M artin Ya

ne z Ve rdugo a

ppe a ls from the distric t

c o urt’ s judgm e nt a

n d c ha lle nge s the 68-m onth se nte n c e im pose d following his guilty -ple a c onvic tion for im porta tion of c oc a ine , in viola

tion of 21 U.S.C . §§ 952 a nd 960. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291, a nd we a ffirm . 

# FIL ED D EC 30 2013 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S
. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).Yane z Ve rdugo c onte nds tha t the distric t c ourt e rre d

by de ny ing his re que st for a m inor role a djustm e nt unde r U.S.S.G. § 3B 1 .2(b), be c a use it pre sum e d drug c ourie rs a re ine ligiblefor a

m inor role a djustm e nt, im p rope rly c onside re d gove rnm e nt e vide nc e in othe r c a se s , a nd im prope rly c onside re d pre m e dita tion. W e re vie wde novo thedistric t c ourt’ s inte rpre tation of theGuide line s, for a buse of disc re tion thedistric t c ourt’ s a pplic ation of theGuide line s to the fa c ts of the c a se , and for c le ar e rror its fa c tua l de te rm ination tha t a de fe nda n t is not a m inor pa rtic i pa nt. Unite d State

s v . Rodrigue

z-C astro , 641 F.3d 1189, 1192 (9th C ir. 2011). W e ne e d not de c ide whe the r the distric t c ourt e rre d be c a u se any e rror wa s ha rm le s s in light of the

distric t c ourt’ s de t e rm inat ion, supporte d by the re c ord, tha

t Yane z Ve rdugo fa ile d

to prove he wa s substa

ntia lly le s s c ulpa

ble tha n the av e ra ge pa rtic i pa nt in theoffe nse . S

e e U.S.S.G. § 3B 1.2(b) & c m t. n.3(A); se e also Rodrigue z-C astro , 641 F.3d a

t 1193 (distric t

c o urt did not err in de c lining to a pply m inor role a d

justm e nt whe re de fe nda

nt, a c ourie r, re giste re d

c ar in his na

m e , c re ate d a “ c rossing re c ord,” and tra nsporte d a

substa ntia l a m ount of na

rc otic s). AFFIRM E D.

1 2 - 5 0 5 4 5 2
# C_2017392EN.01001101.xml

| 20.11.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 392/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.11.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 392/11

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Krajowa Izba Odwoławcza (Poland) lodged on 24 January 2017 — Saferoad Grawil sp. z o.o., Saferoad Kabex sp. z o.o. v Generalna Dyrekcja Dróg Krajowych i Autostrad Oddział w Poznaniu

(Case C-35/17)

(2017/C 392/15)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Referring court

Krajowa Izba Odwoławcza

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: Saferoad Grawil sp. z o.o., Saferoad Kabex sp. z o.o.

Appellants:

Respondent: Generalna Dyrekcja Dróg Krajowych i Autostrad Oddział w Poznaniu

Respondent:

Interveners: Przedsiębiorstwo Budownictwa Drogowego S.A., Zakład Bezpieczeństwa Ruchu Drogowego (Zaberd) S.A.

Interveners:

By order of 13 July 2017, the Court of Justice (Sixth Chamber) ruled that Article 2 of Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts, (1) the principle of equal treatment and the obligation of transparency must be interpreted as precluding the exclusion of an economic operator from a public tendering procedure as a result of non-compliance, on the part of that operator, with an obligation which does not follow expressly from the documents relating to that procedure.

1

---

(1)  OJ 2004 L 134, p. 114.

1

---
Case 3:04-cv-02291-H Document 79 Filed 06/14/05 Page 1 of 2 PageID 420
 

 Case 3:04-cv-02291-H Document 79 Filed 06/14/05 Page 2 of 2 PageID 421
Christine LAWLEY v. CHELSEA'S HIDDEN ACRES ASSISTED LIVING

2160589

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

October 20, 2017

Affirmed.
# COPELAND LAW FIRM

P.O. Box 399 Cedar Park, Texas 78613 512.219.8930 (phone/fax)

TIM COPELAND* ERIKA COPELAND**
(512) 897-8196 mobile/text (512) 897-8126 mobile/text tcopeland14@yahoo.com ecopeland63@yahoo.com

*Board Certified - Oil, Gas & Mineral Law **Of Counsel

Texas Board of Legal Specialization



### October 20, 2015

Jeffrey D. Kyle, Clerk Third Court of Appeals

P.O. Box 12547 Austin, Texas 78711 Via e-filing

Re: Cause No. 03

- 14 -00673- CR (Trial Court No. 72519)(Bell County) Christopher Anthony George v . The State of Texas

Dear Mr. Kyle:

Please be advised that I have complied with Rule 48.4 with regard to giving

notification of the Court’s opinion in this case to the above -referenced client as well as advised him of his rights with regard to the filing of a petition for discretionary review

-- as shown by the enclosed copy of the certified mailing receipt for same.

Very truly yours,

/s/Erika Copeland

Erika Copeland

EC:aw ACCEPTED
03-14-00673-CR

7450929
THIRD COURT OF APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS
10/20/2015 11:18:18 AM
JEFFREY D. KYLE

CLERKD
.:r JJ Cl

U")

. - '!
Cl t'

-
**CERTIFICATION      OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION      1350**

**AS      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF      2002**

|   | l |   | the                    Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the quarter                    ended March                    31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission                    (the                    “Report”), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)                    of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and |
|--------|---|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | l |   | the                    information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material                    respects, the financial condition and results of operations of                    the                    Company. |
|--------|---|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                                                                                                                                |   |   |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|
| Date:                May 12, 2006                                                                                              |   |   |
|                                                                                                                                |   |
| /s/ W.                  Donald                  BrunsonW. Donald BrunsonPresident(Principal                      Executive Officer) |        |
|                                                                                                                                |   |

----
# C_2019112EN.01000401.xml

| 25.3.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 112/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.3.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 112/4

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 31 January 2019 — Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines and Others v Council of the European Union, European Commission

(Case C-225/17 P) (1)

((Appeal - Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken against the Islamic Republic of Iran - Freezing of funds and economic resources - Annulment of a listing by the General Court of the European Union - Amendment of the criteria governing inclusion on a list of persons and entities whose assets are to be frozen - Re-listing - Evidence dating from before the first listing - Facts known before the first listing - Force of res judicata - Scope - Legal certainty - Protection of legitimate expectations - Principle Non bis in idem - Effective judicial protection))

(2019/C 112/05)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines, Hafize Darya Shipping Lines (HDSL), Khazar Shipping Lines, IRISL Europe GmbH, Qeshm Marine Services & Engineering Co., Irano Misr Shipping Co., Safiran Payam Darya Shipping Lines, Marine Information Technology Development Co., Rahbaran Omid Darya Ship Management Co., Hoopad Darya Shipping Agency and Valfajr 8th Shipping Line Co. (represented by: M. Lester QC and M. Taher, Solicitor)

Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union (represented by: J. Kneale and M. Bishop, Agents), European Commission (represented by: D. Gauci and by T. Scharf, Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines, Hafize Darya Shipping Lines (HDSL), Khazar Shipping Lines, IRISL Europe GmbH, Qeshm Marine Services & Engineering Co., Irano Misr Shipping Co., Safiran Payam Darya Shipping Lines, Marine Information Technology Development Co., Rahbaran Omid Darya Ship Management Co., Hoopad Darya Shipping Agency and Valfajr 8th Shipping Line Co. to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines, Hafize Darya Shipping Lines (HDSL), Khazar Shipping Lines, IRISL Europe GmbH, Qeshm Marine Services & Engineering Co., Irano Misr Shipping Co., Safiran Payam Darya Shipping Lines, Marine Information Technology Development Co., Rahbaran Omid Darya Ship Management Co., Hoopad Darya Shipping Agency and Valfajr 8th Shipping Line Co. to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union;

| 3. | Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 231, 17.7.2017.

---
EX PARTE Katherine B. LONG

1160741 (2160172)

Supreme Court of Alabama.

July 7, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Cert. denied.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-30154 Summary Calendar

WILLIAM K. FARRIS, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus GUFFEY L. PATTISON; HAROLD DILLARD; RANDY MURPHY, Defendants-Appellees.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 99-CV-462

-------------------- October 26, 2000 Before SMITH, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * William K. Farris, Louisiana prisoner # 234096, appeals the district court’s summary judgment in favor of Guffey L. Pattison, Harold Dillard, and Randy Murphy, denying his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights action. He argues that the defendants denied him adequate medical care for an injury to his arm suffered while he was incarcerated at the Sabine Parish Detention Center. Because Farris has not shown that Sheriff Pattison or Warden Dillard had any personal involvement in the alleged denial of adequate medical care, he has not shown that the district court erred inNo. 00-30154 -2- denying Farris’ claim against them. See Alton v. Texas A & M University , 168 F.3d 196, 200 (5th Cir. 1998). The competent summary judgment evidence indicates that Farris received extensive medical care for the injury to his arm. The evidence does not indicate that the defendants acted with deliberate indifference to Farris’ serious medical needs. See Farmer v. Brennan , 511 U.S. 825, 847 (1994); Reeves v. Collins , 27 F.3d 174, 176-77 (5th Cir. 1994). Unsuccessful medical treatment, acts of negligence, or medical malpractice are insufficient to give rise to a § 1983 action; disagreement with medical treatment is not actionable under § 1983. See Varnado v. Lynaugh , 920 F.2d 320, 321 (5th Cir. 1991). Because Farris has not shown that this case presents exceptional circumstances which warrant appointment of counsel, his motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED. AFFIRMED; MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL DENIED.
**EXHIBIT 13.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE U.S. SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

COMPANHIA BRASILEIRA DE DISTRIBUIÇÃO (the “Company”) is filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, on the date hereof, its annual report on Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014 (the “Report”).  Pursuant to Exchange Act Rules 13a - 14(b) or 15d - 14(b) and to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as enacted pursuant to the requirements of Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, Christophe Hidalgo, Chief Financial Officer, hereby certify that:

 (i) the Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 (ii) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Date: April 29, 2015

By: /s/ Christophe Hidalgo
I 

119TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 100 

To amend Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to protect the 

‘‘gig economy’’ and small businesses that operate in large part through 

contractor services from the threat of costly class action litigation, and 

for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 3, 2025 

Mr. BIGGS of Arizona introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 

to protect the ‘‘gig economy’’ and small businesses that 

operate in large part through contractor services from 

the threat of costly class action litigation, and for other 

purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Protect the Gig Econ5 omy Act of 2025’’. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 100 IH

1 SEC. 2. PROTECTING THE GIG ECONOMY FROM CLASS AC2 TIONS. 

3 Rule 23(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 

4 is amended— 

5 (1) in paragraph (3), by striking ‘‘and’’ at the 

6 end; 

7 (2) in paragraph (4), by striking the period at 

8 the end and inserting ‘‘; and’’; and 

9 (3) by inserting after paragraph (4) the fol10 lowing: 

11 ‘‘(5) the claim does not allege the 

12 misclassification of employees as independent con13 tractors.’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
I 

119TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 55 

To repeal the National Voter Registration Act of 1993. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 3, 2025 

Mr. BIGGS of Arizona (for himself and Mr. PERRY) introduced the following 

bill; which was referred to the Committee on House Administration 

A BILL 

To repeal the National Voter Registration Act of 1993. 

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

3 SECTION 1. REPEAL OF NATIONAL VOTER REGISTRATION 

4 ACT OF 1993. 

5 The National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (52 

6 U.S.C. 20501 et seq.) is repealed. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
Pearl MOYER, Appellant, v. NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC., Kenneth R. Moyer, and MTGLQ Investors, L.P., Appellees.

Case No. 5D18-7

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed February 26, 2019 Rehearing Denied April 2, 2019

AFFIRMED.
STATE of Louisiana v. Leonard COLLINS

NO. 2018-KH-0800

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 25, 2019

Denied. Applicant has previously exhausted his right to state collateral review and fails to show that any exception permits his successive filing. See State ex rel. Collins v. State, 15-1876 (La. 12/16/16), 207 So.3d 1047.
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

ROYALCO OIL & GAS CORPORATION

,

Appellant,

v.

TEXAS CES, INC. D/B/A SHALE TANK

TRUCK, MERCER WELL SERVICE,

AND BASIN TOOL COMPANY,

Appelle e

. §

§

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 11

- 00 013

- CV

Appeal from the

43 rd D istrict Court

of Parker County, Texas

(TC# CV08

- 1966 )

O R D E R

On February 23, 2022, the Appellee’s filed a response regarding the status of bankruptcy.

Appell ee represents to the Court the bankruptcy proceedings were di s missed

. Therefore, on the

Court’s own motion, the above

- styled and numbered cause is hereby REINSTATED.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 1 st day of March , 202 2

.

PER CURIAM

Before Rodriguez , C.J., Palafox and Alley JJ.
EX PARTE Terry G. BLAND

CR-16-1200

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

November 1, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Mand. pet. dismissed.
EX PARTE Jason Matthew SIMMONS

1160801 (CR-15-1466)

Supreme Court of Alabama.

August 11, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Cert. denied.
<PAGE>

Exhibit 10.7
Promissory Note

Lender: Corporacion Pipasa, S,A,
Borrower: Inversiones La Ribera, S.A.
Amount: $1,000,000
Currency: U.S. Dollars
Interest Rate: 8.00% fixed rate
Date of issuance: March 1, 2002
Due date: Due on demand