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

   Schedule of Year-To-Date Principal and Interest Distributions
                           to
                  Certificateholders

                                                                    Ending
Class            Interest             Principal    Losses           Balance
<S>               <C>                  <C>            <C>           <C>
A1                1295312.5         535963.5                0       248164036.49
A2                 66710.94                0                0           12808500
A3                158333.33                0                0           30400000
APO                       0            46.03                0           47779.97
B1                 34144.17             5339                0            6550341
B2                 13498.86          2110.77                0         2589670.23
B3                  7146.46          1117.47                0         1371002.53
B4                  5558.35           869.14                0         1066334.86
B5                   3176.2           496.65                0          609334.35
B6                  3970.26           620.82                0          761669.92
R                      0.53              100                0                  0


</TABLE>
# C_2012049EN.01000401.xml

| 18.2.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 49/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.2.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 49/4

---

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 21 December 2011 — ACEA SpA v Iride Spa, formerly AEM SpA, European Commission

(Case C-319/09 P) (1)

1

(Appeals - State aid - Aid granted to public utilities - Tax exemptions - Decision declaring the aid scheme incompatible with the common market - Action for annulment - Admissibility - Standing - Legal interest - Article 87 EC - Concept of ‘aid’ - Article 88 EC - Concept of ‘new aid’ - Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 - Articles 1 and 14 - Lawfulness of a recovery order - Duty to state reasons)

2012/C 49/06

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Appellant: ACEA SpA (represented by: L. Radicati di Brozolo, A. Giardina and T. Ubaldi, avvocati)

Appellant:

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: E. Righini, V. Di Bucci and D. Grespan, Agents), Iride SpA, formerly AEM Spa (represented by: L. Radicati di Brozolo, M. Merola, T. Ubaldi and A. Santa Maria, avvocati)

Other parties to the proceedings:

Re:

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (now the General Court) (Eighth Chamber, Extended Composition) of 11 June 2009 in Case T-297/02 ACEA v Commission by which the General Court dismissed the action brought for annulment of Articles 2 and 3 of Commission Decision 2003/193/EC of 5 June 2002 on State aid granted by Italy in the form of tax exemptions and subsidised loans to public utilities with a majority public capital holding (OJ 2003 L 77, p. 21).

ACEA

Commission

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the main appeal and the cross-appeal. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the main appeal and the cross-appeal.

| 2. | Orders ACEA SpA to pay the costs of the main appeal. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders ACEA SpA to pay the costs of the main appeal.

| 3. | Orders the European Commission to pay the costs of the cross-appeal. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the European Commission to pay the costs of the cross-appeal.

| 4. | Orders Iride SpA to pay its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders Iride SpA to pay its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 267, 7.11.2009.

1

---
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-1163

BRADLEY TODD, a/k/a Leamon Bradley Todd,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION;

CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY; STATE OF SOUTH

CAROLINA,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Columbia. Margaret B. Seymour, District Judge.

(3:05-cv-00922-MBS)

Submitted: July 19, 2006 Decided: August 2, 2006

Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Bradley Todd, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Bradley Todd appeals the district court’s order denying

relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. The district

court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2000). The magistrate judge recommended

that relief be denied and advised Todd that failure to file timely

objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of

a district court order based upon the recommendation. Despite this

warning, Todd failed to object to the magistrate judge’s

recommendation.

The timely filing of specific objections to a magistrate

judge’s recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of

the substance of that recommendation when the parties have been

warned of the consequences of noncompliance. Wright v. Collins,

766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474

U.S. 140 (1985). Todd has waived appellate review by failing to

timely file specific objections after receiving proper notice.

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

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.

AFFIRMED
CLERK OF THE SUPREME COURT ELI BETH A. B OWN BY:

I - 3 2 IS IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
No. 83588



# FILED NOV 0 8 2021
CLERK g SeEME

O CTURT BY • DEPUTY CLERK FELTON L. MATTHEWS, JR., Petitioner, vs. THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF CLARK; AND THE HONORABLE RONALD J. ISRAEL, DISTRICT JUDGE, Respondents, and THE STATE OF NEVADA DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES AND PUBLIC SAFETY, PAROLE AND PROBATION DIVISON; AND THE STATE OF NEVADA, Real Parties in Interest.

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION This petition was docketed on October 7, 2021, without paynient of the requisite filing fee. See NRAP 21(g). That same day, this court issued a notice directing petitioner to pay the required filing fee or demonstrate compliance with NRAP 21 within 10 days. The notice advised that failure to comply would result in the dismissal of this petition. To date, petitioner has not paid the filing fee or otherwise responded to this court's notice. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed.

It is so ORDERED.

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA CLERK'S ORDERcc: Hon. Ronald J. Israel, District Judge Felton L. Matthews, Jr. Attorney General/Carson City Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA
CLERK'S ORDER 2 (0) 1947 eigE41.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

June 17, 2021

No. 04-21-00189-CV

Bill Trevino HALL,

Appellants

v.

Jackline ROLLINS,

Appellee

From the 288th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2020-CI-16578

Honorable Cathleen M. Stryker, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

On May 24, 2021, the trial court clerk filed a notification of late record, notifying this 

court that the clerk’s record has not been filed because appellant has failed to pay or make 

arrangements to pay the clerk’s fee for preparing the record based on the recalculated, corrected 

costs.

 It is therefore ORDERED that appellant provide proof to this court within ten (10) days 

of the date of this order that either (1) the clerk’s fee has been paid or arrangements have been 

made to pay the clerk’s fee; or (2) appellant is entitled to appeal without paying the clerk’s fee. 

 It is further ORDERED that the clerk’s record must be filed no later than ten (10) days 

after the date appellant’s written proofs are filed with this court. If appellant fails to respond 

within the time provided, this appeal will be dismissed for want of prosecution. See TEX. R. APP.

P. 37.3(b).

_________________________________

Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 17th day of June, 2021.
___________________________________

Michael A. Cruz, 

Clerk of Court
IV 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 1728 

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives regarding the recognition, protection, promotion, and facilitation of the annual JFK 50 Mile. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 18, 2010 

Mr. BARTLETT (for himself, Mr. HOYER, Ms. EDWARDS of Maryland, Mr. 

KRATOVIL, Mr. RUPPERSBERGER, Mr. SARBANES, Mr. CUMMINGS, and 

Mr. VAN HOLLEN) submitted the following resolution; which was referred 

to the Committee on Natural Resources 

RESOLUTION 

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives regarding the recognition, protection, promotion, and facilitation of the annual JFK 50 Mile. 

Whereas the Cumberland Valley Athletic Club answered 

President John F. Kennedy’s challenge and held the first 

JFK 50 Mile in 1963; 

Whereas by 1973, there were 2,000 entrants; 

Whereas the JFK 50 Mile course was laid out over Government land designated for the expressed use of hikers and 

citizens seeking fitness; 

Whereas President Kennedy set a national goal of improving 

the health of the United States people; 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 1728 IH 

Whereas President Kennedy called upon the Executive order 

from President Theodore Roosevelt challenging United 

States Marine Officers to finish 50 miles in 20 hours; 

Whereas since the inception of the JFK 50 Mile, all members 

of the United States Armed Forces have been welcome 

and have met this challenge by former Presidents Kennedy and Roosevelt over this historic course marked by 

the history of the Nation over the Appalachian Trail and 

the C & O Canal passing over hallowed ground near 

Crampton’s Gap, Maryland, Weaverton Cliffs, Maryland, 

Harpers Ferry, West Virginia, and Antietam Battlefield; 

and 

Whereas the JFK 50 Mile is the Nation’s oldest ultra marathon: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Rep2 resentatives that— 

3 (1) the Cumberland Valley Athletic Club and 

4 the Director of the National Park Service should 

5 continue to accommodate members of the United 

6 States Armed Forces as they meet the challenge of 

7 the JFK 50 Mile; 

8 (2) the Cumberland Valley Athletic Club should 

9 work with the National Park Service to accommo10 date controlled and managed growth of the JFK 50 

11 Mile as the event approaches its 50th year in 2012; 

12 (3) any growth over 2,000 participants should 

13 be at the mutual consent of the Director of the NaVerDate Mar 15 2010 22:42 Nov 18, 2010 Jkt 099200 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\HR1728.IH HR1728

srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HRES 1728 IH 

1 tional Parks and the Cumberland Valley Athletic 

2 Club; and 

3 (4) the United States Government should recog4 nize the desire to protect and promote the heritage 

5 and historical significance of the JFK 50 Mile held 

6 every year rain or shine, sleet or snow. 

Æ 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with BILLS
SEC Exhibit



Exhibit 10.1



Amendment No. 1 to
Sixth Amended and Restated 
Basic Energy Services, Inc. 
2003 Incentive Plan
(Amendment No. 1 effective May 19, 2016)


WHEREAS, Basic Energy Services, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”) maintains the Sixth Amended and Restated Basic Energy Services, Inc. 2003 Incentive Plan, as approved by the stockholders of the Company at the Annual Meeting of Stockholders held on May 21, 2015 (the “Plan”);


WHEREAS, capitalized terms used but not defined herein shall have the respective meanings given to such terms in the Plan;


WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 7(a) of the Plan, this Amendment No. 1 (the “Amendment”) to the Plan has been duly adopted, authorized and approved by the Board; and


WHEREAS, based on Board approval, and subject to and based on applicable approval by the stockholders of the Company, the Company desires to increase the number of Shares authorized for issuance under the Plan by 1,000,000 Shares from 11,350,000 to 12,350,000 Shares.


NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan is hereby amended as follows:


1.    Reference to the number of Shares available for issuance under the Plan in the first sentence of Section 4(a) of the Plan shall be amended from “11,350,000” to read “12,350,000”.


2.    Except as set forth above, the remaining provisions of the Plan shall not be amended hereby and shall remain in full force and effect.


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Amendment No. 1 to the Plan is adopted and effective on the 19th day of May, 2016, the date approved by the stockholders of the Company.


BASIC ENERGY SERVICES, INC.


By: /s/Eric Lannen    
Name: Eric Lannen    
Title: Vice President, Human Resources
Rufus S. MILLER, petitioner, v. Julie L. JONES, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections.

No. 16-5039.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 28, 2016.

Petition for rehearing denied.
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 117 (Monday, June 18, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 32796]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-15214]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary


Change in Meeting Date of the DoD Advisory Group on Electron 
Devices

AGENCY: Department of Defense, Advisory Group on Electron Devices.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Working Group B (Microelectronics) of the DoD Advisory Group 
on Electron Devices (AGED) announces a change to a closed session 
meeting.

DATES: The meeting will be held at 0900 Wednesday, June 27, 2001.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Palisades Institute for 
Research Services, 1745 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 500, Arlington, 
VA 22202.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elise Rabin, AGED Secretariat, 1745 
Jefferson Davis Highway, Crystal Square Four, Suite 500, Arlington, 
Virginia 22202.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The mission of the Advisory Group is to 
provide advice to the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and 
Technology, to the Director Defense Research and Engineering (DDR&E), 
and through the DDR&E, to the Director Defense Advanced Research 
Projects Agency and the Military Departments in planning and managing 
an effective research and development program in the field of electron 
devices.
    The Working Group B meeting will be limited to review of research 
and development programs which the military proposes to initiate with 
industry, universities or in their laboratories. The microelectronics 
area includes such programs on semiconductor materials, integrated 
circuits, charge coupled devices and memories. The review will include 
classified program details throughout.
    In accordance with Section 10(d) of Pub. L. 92-463, as amended, (5 
U.S.C. App. Sec. 10(d) (1994)), it has been determined that this 
Advisory Group meeting concerns matters listed in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(1) 
(1994), and that accordingly, this meeting will be closed to the 
public.

    Dated: June 12, 2001.
L.M. Bynum,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 01-15214 Filed 6-15-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-08-M
Ahdy L. ATTALLAH, petitioner, v. NEW YORK COLLEGE OF OSTEOPATHIC MEDICINE, et al.

No. 16-611.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 9, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE BALANCE
SHEET AS OF MARCH 31, 2000 AND FROM THE STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOR THE THREE
MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31, 2000 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                         2,553,496
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  97,191
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               0<F1>
<PP&E>                                         17,193,070
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0<F2>
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 20,503,459
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          0<F1>
<BONDS>                                        11,523,151
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                     8,002,323
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   20,503,459
<SALES>                                        981,701
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               1,018,427
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  944,260
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             221,643
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (147,476)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (147,476)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (147,476)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0
<FN>
<F1>THE PARTNERSHIP HAS AN UNCLASSSIFIED BALANCE SHEET, THEREFORE THE VALUE IS
$0.
<F2>THIS INFORMATION IS NOT DISCLOSED IN THE PARTNERSHIP'S FORM 10-Q FILING.
</FN>



</TABLE>
Brandon Royce TAYLOR, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 16-6022.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 31, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit denied.
EXHIBIT 32.1

SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATIONS

In connection with this Amendment No. 1 of the Annual Report of DG FastChannel, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K/A for
the year ended December 31, 2010, as filed with the SEC on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby certify pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to such officer's knowledge: (1) the Report fully complies with the requirements
of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and (2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company.

Date: May 2, 2011

By:

/s/ SCOTT K. GINSBURG Scott K. Ginsburg Chairman of the Board of Directors
and Chief Executive OfficerDate: May 2, 2011

By:

/s/ OMAR A. CHOUCAIR Omar A. Choucair Chief Financial Officer


The
foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.

---



QuickLinks
Kenneth John ZIMMERMAN, petitioner, v. Gary SWARTHOUT, Warden.

No. 16-5954.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 31, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
H. Res. 1641 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

November 16, 2010. 

Whereas September 30, 2010, marks the 60th anniversary of 

the date on which President Harry S. Truman signed 

Public Law 81–874, which enacted the Impact Aid program into law; 

Whereas the Impact Aid Program is considered by the community it serves as the ‘‘original’’ Federal elementary 

and secondary education program, and is administered by 

the Secretary of Education; 

Whereas Impact Aid is designed to reimburse local educational agencies for the loss of traditional revenue due 

to the presence of tax-exempt property or Federal activity; 

Whereas Impact Aid payments are allocated directly to local 

educational agencies in lieu of lost local tax dollars to assist with the basic educational needs of the students and 

schools; 

Whereas nearly 1,000,000 children of our men and women in 

uniform, children residing on Indian lands, children in 

low-rent public housing, and children of civilians working 

or living on Federal land are ‘‘federally connected children’’ who are served by local educational agencies that 

are eligible for Impact Aid payments in 2010; 
2 

•HRES 1641 EH 

Whereas in 1951, 1,183 local educational agencies were eligible for a total Impact Aid payment of $29,080,788, and 

in 2010, 1,484 local educational agencies enrolling over 

11,000,000 students will receive $1,276,183,000; 

Whereas the original Impact Aid statute (Public Law 81– 

874) was the vehicle used by Congress in 1965 to pass 

the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965; 

Whereas Congress has continued to show its support for Impact Aid by reauthorizing the program 15 times during 

the period between 1950 and 2001; 

Whereas the House Impact Aid Coalition was established in 

1995 and the Senate Impact Aid Coalition was established in 1996 to formalize and energize the broad, bipartisan support for the Impact Aid Program; and 

Whereas the Federal obligation upon which the Impact Aid 

Program is based today is no different than it was 60 

years ago: Now, therefore, be it 

Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 

(1) recognizes and celebrates the 60th anniversary 

of the enactment of the Impact Aid program (Public 

Law 81–874), the original Federal elementary and secondary education program, as ‘‘Impact Aid Recognition 

Day’’; 

(2) recognizes the importance of the Impact Aid 

program (which is currently in title VIII of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 

7701 et seq.)) in ensuring that federally connected children (including children of members of the Armed 
3 

•HRES 1641 EH 

Forces, children residing on Indian lands, children in 

low-rent public housing, and children of civilians working 

or living on Federal land) receive a high-quality public 

education; and 

(3) recommends that federally connected schools 

and the communities they serve recognize Impact Aid 

Recognition Day and carry out appropriate activities 

centered on the Federal Government’s obligation to federally connected children and the need for continuing 

funding. 

Attest: 

Clerk.