alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-K

Annual Report Pursuant to Section 13
or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 1999

Commission File Number: 333-53859

Commercial Mortgage Acceptance Corporation issuer in
respect of Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates
Series 1999-C2
(Exact Name of registrant as specified in its charter)

Delaware      			13-3672337
(State or Other Juris-		(I.R.S. Employer
diction of Incorporation)     Identification No.)

Two World Financial Center, Building B 21st Floor,
New York, NY 10281
(Address of Principal Executive Office)

212-667-9300
(Registrant's telephone number, including area code)


Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the
Act:     None

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the
Act:     None

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all
reports required to be filed  by Section 13 or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months
(or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to
file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing
requirements for the past 90 days.

Yes  X   No _

Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers
pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K is not contained herein,
and will not be contained, to the best of registrant's
knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statements
incorporated by reference in part III of this Form 10-K or any
amendment to this Form 10-K.

Not applicable.

Aggregate market value of voting stock held by non-affiliates of
the Registrant as of December 31, 1999.

Not applicable.

Number of shares of common stock outstanding as of December 31,
1999.

Not applicable.
##### 



EXHIBIT 12.3

GRACECHURCH RECEIVABLES TRUSTEE LIMITED
Certification Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act 2002

I, Richard Francis Sommers, certify that:



|1. |  | I have reviewed this annual report on
Form 20-F, and all reports on Form 6-K
containing distribution or servicing
reports filed in respect of periods
included in the year covered by this
annual report, of Gracechurch
Receivables Trustee Limited;                                                                                                                                            
|-- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|  
|2. |  | Based on my knowledge, the information
in these reports, taken as a whole,
does not contain any untrue statement
of a material fact or omit to state a
material fact necessary to make the
statements made, in light of the
circumstances under which such
statements were made, not misleading as
of the last day of the period covered
by this annual report;                                  
|  
|3. |  | Based on my knowledge, the distribution
or servicing information required to be
provided to the trustee by the servicer
under the pooling and servicing, or
similar, agreement, for inclusion in
these reports is included in these
reports;                                                                                                                                                     
|  
|4. |  | I am responsible for reviewing the
activities performed by the servicer
under the pooling and servicing, or
similar, agreement and based upon my
knowledge and the annual compliance
review required under that agreement,
and except as disclosed in the reports,
the servicer has fulfilled its
obligations under that agreement; and                                                          
|  
|5. |  | The reports disclose all significant
deficiencies relating to the servicers
compliance with the minimum servicing
standards based upon the report
provided by an independent public
accountant, after conducting a review
in compliance with the Uniform Single
Attestation Program for Mortgage
Bankers or similar procedure, as set
forth in the pooling and servicing, or
similar, agreement.

By: /s/ Richard Francis SommersName: Richard Francis SommersTitle: DirectorDate: June 21, 2004
#### Barbara Davis, plaintiff in error, *vs.*William Bagley *et al.,*defendants in error.

(By two judges.) — 1. When an administrator of an estate pays over to A‘ one of the distributees and her children, A’s distributive share, divdiing it equally between them, under the misapprehension that the children were entitled to participate in the fund, it is a *devastavit*as to the amount paid to the children.

2. A charge not warranted by the evidence is error.

3. It is too late to move to dismiss a case here, for want of filing of the bill of exceptions, in the Clerk’s office below, after the opening argument for plaintiff in error is concluded. (R.) 5th March, 1872.

Administrators and Executors. *Devastavit.*Charge of Court. Practice of Supreme Court. Before Judge Johnson. Harris Superior Court. October Term, 1871.

For the facts, see 40 Georgia Reports, 181, and the opinion.

(When the opening argument for plaintiff in error was concluded, defendant’s counsel discovered that the bill of exceptions did not appear to have been filed in the office of the Clerk of the Superior Court, and for this, moved to dismiss the case. The Court said the motion came too late.)

D. H. Burts; Peabody & Brannon, for plaintiff in error.

B. A. Thornton; E. G. Raiford, for defendants.

Montgomery, Judge.

The facts of this case are fully set out in the same case, as it is reported in 40 Georgia, 181, except as to the charge of the Court.

Counsel for plaintiff, requested the Court, in the present case to charge the jury, *“*that the $5,000, paid by Bagley to the children of Mrs. Davis, were assets in his, Bagley’s, hands” — which the Court refused to do. We think, under the former decision in the case, the plaintiff was entitled to *109the charge. The delivery of the assets to the children was there decided to be a *devastavit,*and if a *devastavit,*the fund was certainly, in contemplation of law, still in the hands of the administrator to be administered.

The Judge charged: *“*If the jury believe that Bagley reserved in his hands, as administrator of Samuel Jones, an amount sufficient to pay the distributive share of Mrs. Davis, and that the assets in his hands consisted of notes given for the hire of negroes, and sale of negroes, and in Confederate bonds and Confederate money, and that he acted in good faith — then, although he paid to some of the distributees more than lie paid to others, yet if the whole estate in his hands had become of no value, *without the fault of Bagley,*by the results of the war and subsequent legislation, then the jury should find for-the defendant.” This charge, under the former decision in the case, was not warranted by the evidence.

The proof shews that $5,000 had been lost by his fault, and for this amount he was responsible.

Judgment reversed.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Housing and Urban Development

          - [Docket No. FR-5125-N-42]

# AGENCY:

Office of the Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and Development, HUD.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

This Notice identifies unutilized, underutilized, excess, and surplus Federal property reviewed by HUD for suitability for possible use to assist the homeless.

# DATES:

*Effective Date:*                         October 19, 2007.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Kathy Ezzell, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW., Room 7262, Washington, DC 20410; telephone (202) 708-1234; TTY number for the hearing- and speech-impaired (202) 708-2565, (these telephone numbers are not toll-free), or call the toll-free Title V information line at 800-927-7588.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    In accordance with the December 12, 1988 court order in                     *National Coalition for the Homeless*                     v.                     *Veterans Administration*, No. 88-2503-OG (D.D.C.), HUD publishes a Notice, on a weekly basis, identifying unutilized, underutilized, excess and surplus Federal buildings and real property that HUD has reviewed for suitability for use to assist the homeless. Today's Notice is for the purpose of announcing that no additional properties have been determined suitable or unsuitable this week.                

Dated: October 11, 2007

Mark R. Johnston,

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Special Needs.

[FR Doc. 07-5105  Filed 10-18-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4210-67-M
Case 1:07-cv-02262-WHP Document 8 Filed 04/30/2007 Page 1 of 1
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

JOHN ASHFORD HILL,

Plaintiff,

v. 3:10cv68-WS

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE,

Commissioner, Social 

Security Administration,

Defendant.

 

ORDER ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Before the court is the magistrate judge's report and recommendation docketed

August 24, 2011. See Doc. 20. The magistrate judge recommends that the

Commissioner's decision to deny the plaintiff's application for benefits be affirmed. The

plaintiff has filed no objections to the magistrate judge's report and recommendation.

The court being in accord with the magistrate judge's report and

recommendation, it is ORDERED:

1. The magistrate judge's report and recommendation is ADOPTED and

incorporation by reference into this order.

Case 3:10-cv-00068-WS-EMT Document 21 Filed 09/27/11 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

2. The Commissioner's decision to deny Plaintiff's application for benefits is

AFFIRMED.

3. The clerk shall enter judgment stating: "The decision of the Commissioner is

AFFIRMED and this action is DISMISSED."

DONE AND ORDERED this 27th day of September , 2011.

s/ William Stafford 

WILLIAM STAFFORD

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case No. 4:06cv99-WS

Case 3:10-cv-00068-WS-EMT Document 21 Filed 09/27/11 Page 2 of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 7
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<DEBT-HELD-FOR-SALE>                         1,637,923
<DEBT-CARRYING-VALUE>                                0
<DEBT-MARKET-VALUE>                                  0
<EQUITIES>                                      75,563
<MORTGAGE>                                     237,464
<REAL-ESTATE>                                   54,208
<TOTAL-INVEST>                               2,128,736
<CASH>                                          36,852
<RECOVER-REINSURE>                             280,113
<DEFERRED-ACQUISITION>                         337,950
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,117,799
<POLICY-LOSSES>                              1,884,970
<UNEARNED-PREMIUMS>                                  0
<POLICY-OTHER>                                  35,676
<POLICY-HOLDER-FUNDS>                           29,167
<NOTES-PAYABLE>                                199,914
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           44,688
<PREFERRED>                                     20,999
<COMMON>                                       175,221
<OTHER-SE>                                     446,072
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,117,799
<PREMIUMS>                                     263,807
<INVESTMENT-INCOME>                            118,454
<INVESTMENT-GAINS>                               8,739
<OTHER-INCOME>                                 106,055
<BENEFITS>                                     172,293
<UNDERWRITING-AMORTIZATION>                     33,105
<UNDERWRITING-OTHER>                           109,846
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 86,966
<INCOME-TAX>                                    30,472
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             56,494
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    56,494
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     2.58
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.52
<RESERVE-OPEN>                                       0
<PROVISION-CURRENT>                                  0
<PROVISION-PRIOR>                                    0
<PAYMENTS-CURRENT>                                   0
<PAYMENTS-PRIOR>                                     0
<RESERVE-CLOSE>                                      0
<CUMULATIVE-DEFICIENCY>                              0
        

</TABLE>
#### STATE v. SMITH

No. 48 PC.

Case below: 18 N.C. App. 583.

Petition for writ of certiorari to North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 4 April 1972.
#### BALLARD v. HUNTER

No. 80 PC.

Case below: 12 N.C. App. 618.

Petition for writ of certiorari to North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 4 January 1972.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-7735

GUY JACKSON PRICE,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

RONALD J. ANGELONE,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior

District Judge. (CA-02-883-7)

Submitted: February 25, 2004 Decided: March 29, 2004

Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

David Bernard Hargett, HARGETT & WATSON, P.L.C., Richmond,

Virginia, for Appellant. Robert H. Anderson, III, OFFICE OF THE

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Guy Jackson Price seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254

(2000) alleging ineffective assistance of counsel and a deficient

final judgment order. An appeal may not be taken from the final

order in a § 2254 proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge

issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)

(2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28

U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his

constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive

procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or

wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003);

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d

676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the

record and conclude that Price has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the

appeal. 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. 

DISMISSED
EXHIBIT 32.1    CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002   In connection with the Quarterly Report of Little Squaw Gold Mining Company, (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Richard R. Walters, President and Principal Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:  1. The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and  2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Little Squaw Gold Mining Company.    /s/ Richard R. Walters DATE:  November 13, 2007 Richard R. Walters, President   A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Little Squaw Gold Mining Company and will be retained by Little Squaw Gold Mining Company to be furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>           5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted
from Kellwood Company and Subsidiaries Condensed Consolidated
Balance Sheet at October 31, 1999, and from the Condensed
Consolidated Statement of Earnings and Condensed Consolidated
Statement of Cash Flows for the six months ended October 31,
1999, and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such
financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                    1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          APR-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             MAY-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-31-1999
<CASH>                                         111,958
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  429,265
<ALLOWANCES>                                    12,127
<INVENTORY>                                    301,580
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               868,769
<PP&E>                                         263,979
<DEPRECIATION>                                 155,332
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,136,504
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          240,956
<BONDS>                                        369,544
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       166,288
<OTHER-SE>                                     309,017
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,136,504
<SALES>                                      1,104,031
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,104,031
<CGS>                                          865,516
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  865,516
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               163,882
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 2,476
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              14,810
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 59,823
<INCOME-TAX>                                    24,200
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             35,623
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    35,623
<EPS-BASIC>                                     1.28
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.27


</TABLE>
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED NOVEMBER 18, 2022

NO. 03

- 21

- 00464

- CR

Jose Antonio Nasipak , Appellant

v.

The State of Texas , Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE 453RD DISTRICT COURT OF HAYS COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES GOODWIN , BA KER, AND KELLY

AFFIRMED

-- OPINION BY JUSTICE BAKER

This is an appeal from the judgments of conviction entered by the trial court. Having reviewed

the record and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was no reversible error in

the judgments

. Therefore, the Court affirms the trial court’s judgments of conviction

. Becaus e

appellant is indigent and u nable to pay costs, no adjudica t i on of costs is made.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                           3,640
<SECURITIES>                                    10,616
<RECEIVABLES>                                   32,301
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,421
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               540,511
<PP&E>                                         168,779
<DEPRECIATION>                                  97,282
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 917,196
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          294,003
<BONDS>                                        258,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       113,089
<OTHER-SE>                                     468,154
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   917,196
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               124,276
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   95,847
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (12,016)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              12,705
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 27,740
<INCOME-TAX>                                    11,448
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             16,292
<DISCONTINUED>                                  26,061
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    42,353
<EPS-BASIC>                                       2.18
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.15


</TABLE>