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

<ARTICLE> 9
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                          27,626
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                             162
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                12,900
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    126,715
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                           1,943
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                             1,967
<LOANS>                                        682,546
<ALLOWANCE>                                     11,756
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 863,632
<DEPOSITS>                                     684,326
<SHORT-TERM>                                    60,217
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              7,696
<LONG-TERM>                                     40,803
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        11,646
<OTHER-SE>                                      58,944
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 863,632
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 13,938
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                1,964
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   124
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                16,026
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               5,864
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               7,149
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            8,877
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      730
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                               4,177
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  8,213
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  6,870
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       6,870
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     4,522
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .41
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .40
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    4.37
<LOANS-NON>                                      1,533
<LOANS-PAST>                                       133
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                   295
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                  3,073
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                11,172
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      369
<RECOVERIES>                                       223
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                               11,756
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                            12,972
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                        (1,216)<F1>
<FN>
<F1>CERTAIN PREVIOUSLY REPORTED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENT AMOUNTS HAVE BEEN
RECLASSIFIED TO CONFORM TO THE 2000 PRESENTATION
</FN>


</TABLE>
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 Health and Human Services

###### Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

Special Emphasis Panel (SEP): Effectiveness of Empiric Antiviral Treatment for Hospitalized Community Acquired Pneumonia during the Influenza Season, Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA) IP10-007, Initial Review

In accordance with Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announces the aforementioned meeting:

*Time and Date:*                     12 p.m.-2 p.m., June 15, 2010 (Closed).                

*Place:*                     Teleconference.                

*Status:*                     The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with provisions set forth in Section 552b(c) (4) and (6), Title 5 U.S.C., and the Determination of the Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, CDC, pursuant to Public Law 92-463.                

*Matters to be Discussed:*                     The meeting will include the initial review, discussion, and evaluation of applications received in response to “Effectiveness of Empiric Antiviral Treatment for Hospitalized Community Acquired Pneumonia during the Influenza Season, FOA IP10-007”.                

*Contact Person for More Information:*                     Gregory Anderson, M.S., M.P.H., Scientific Review Officer, CDC, 1600 Clifton Road, NE., Mailstop E60, Atlanta, GA 30333, Telephone: (404) 498-2293.                

                    The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign                     **Federal Register**                     notices pertaining to announcements of meetings and other committee management activities, for both CDC and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.                

Dated: May 20, 2010.

Elaine L. Baker,

Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 

[FR Doc. 2010-12827 Filed 5-27-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2436 Filed: 06/06/19 Entered: 06/06/19 14:36:11 Page 1 of

3
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2436 Filed: 06/06/19 Entered: 06/06/19 14:36:11 Page 2 of

3
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2436 Filed: 06/06/19 Entered: 06/06/19 14:36:11 Page 3 of

3
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5179 

To amend title 39, United States Code, to provide that the United States 

Postal Service may provide certain basic financial services, and for other 

purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 23, 2014 

Mr. RICHMOND (for himself, Mrs. KIRKPATRICK, Ms. KAPTUR, Ms. LEE of 

California, and Ms. LINDA T. SA ́NCHEZ of California) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

A BILL 

To amend title 39, United States Code, to provide that 

the United States Postal Service may provide certain 

basic financial services, 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 ‘‘Providing Opportuni5 ties for Savings, Transactions, and Lending Act of 2014’’ 

6 or the ‘‘POSTAL Act of 2014’’. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5179 IH

1 SEC. 2. AUTHORITY FOR THE POSTAL SERVICE TO OFFER 

2 CERTAIN FINANCIAL SERVICES. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 404(a) of title 39, United 

4 States Code, is amended— 

5 (1) in paragraph (7), by striking ‘‘and’’ at the 

6 end; 

7 (2) in paragraph (8), by striking the period at 

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

9 (3) by adding at the end the following new 

10 paragraph: 

11 ‘‘(9) to provide basic financial services, includ12 ing— 

13 ‘‘(A) small-dollar loans; 

14 ‘‘(B) alone, or in partnership with deposi15 tory institutions (as defined under section 3 of 

16 the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (12 U.S.C. 

17 1813)) and credit unions— 

18 ‘‘(i) checking accounts and interest19 bearing savings accounts; and 

20 ‘‘(ii) services relating to international 

21 money transfers; 

22 ‘‘(C) such other basic financial services as 

23 the Postal Service determines appropriate in 

24 the public interest; and 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 5179 IH

1 ‘‘(D) the creation of a ‘Postal Card’ that 

2 allows users to engage in the financial services 

3 described under this paragraph.’’. 

4 (b) TECHNICAL AND CONFORMING AMENDMENT.— 

5 Section 404(e)(2) of title 39, United States Code, is 

6 amended by adding at the end the following: ‘‘The pre7 ceding sentence shall not apply to any financial service of8 fered by the Postal Service under subsection (a)(9).’’. 

Æ 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

LENIST KEY,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D21-2502 

[January 13, 2022]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.850 motion from the Circuit Court for 

the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Daniel Arthur Casey, 

Judge; L.T. Case No. 11002654CF10A.

Lenist Key, Doral, pro se. 

No appearance required for appellee. 

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

CONNER, C.J., LEVINE and KLINGENSMITH, JJ., concur. 

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3524 Filed: 08/13/19 Entered: 08/13/19 10:10:37 Page 1 of

1
Exhibit 32.1








CERTIFICATION BY CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER


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 Annual Report of Cheniere Energy Partners, L.P. (the “Partnership”) on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Charif Souki, Chief Executive Officer of the general partner of the Partnership, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to my knowledge, 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 result of operations of the Company.








Date: March 1, 2011





/s/ CHARIF SOUKICharif SoukiChief Executive Officer of Cheniere Energy Partners GP, LLC, the general partner of Cheniere Energy Partners, L.P.
#### LEE A. FOLGER v. RUSSELL CLARK, J. MARKS, A. H. SHATFORD, JOSEPH A. MEYERS, JOHN F. CLARK, Jr., and JAMES COKER, Partners, Trading and Doing Business Under the Firm Name of JOHN F. CLARK & COMPANY, and T. H. PARRIS.

(Filed 4 December, 1929.)

Brokers O a — In this case no damage was shown to have resulted from failure to receive stock cum-dividend and plaintiff could not recover.

Where, in an action for damages for failure to receive stock purchased by the plaintiff! through the defendant brokers cum-dividend, the evidence tends only to show that the agent of the local brokers represented that the stock bought then would be cum-dividend when in fact it was ex-dividend, and there is no allegation of fraud and the plaintiff had not offered to rescind the contract of purchase: *SeM,*in the absence of evidence that the price of the stock purchased had not been reduced by the amount of the dividend, a judgment as of nonsuit should have been allowed, the plaintiff having failed to show any damage arising from the negligence of the local brokers.

Appeal by defendants from *Stack, J.,*at May Term, 1929, of Mecic-LENBURG.

Civil action to recover damages of defendants, as brokers, in buying stock for plaintiff on tbe New York Stock Exebange, ex-dividend, wben it bad been reported by defendants’ agent as selling cum-dividend on tbe day of purchase.

*45On 23 February, 1926, the plaintiff placed witb the defendants, brokers in the city of Charlotte, an order to buy at the market 500 shares of the common stock of the General Motors Corporation. Defendants’ agent represented to plaintiff that orders executed on that day would entitle the purchasers of said stock to a dividend of 1%%, which had been previously declared, but was not payable until 12 March following. In this, the agent was in error, for said stock sold ex-dividend on that day.

From a verdict and judgment in favor of plaintiff for $875, the amount of the dividend in question, the defendants appeal, assigning errors.

*G. H. Gover for plaintiff.*

*Alfred 8. Wyllie and Gansler & Gansler for defendants.*

Stacy, C. J.

The plaintiff has failed to show any loss due to the defendants’ negligence. True, he did not get the dividend in question, but there is no evidence that the price of the stock was not thereby reduced. The testimony of defendants’ agent would seem to indicate that it was. At any rate, we have discovered no evidence on the record of loss suffered by the plaintiff which may reasonably be said to be proximately attributable to the negligence of the defendants. Plaintiff to'ok the stock and never offered to rescind the contract of purchase. There is no allegation of fraud in the transaction. *McNair v. Finance Co.,*191 N. C., 710, 133 S. E., 85; *Pritchard v. Dailey,*168 N. C., 330, 84 S. E., 392.

Of course, a broker is liable in damages for fraud or negligence which results in injury to.his customer, but no measurable tort liability has been shown on the present record. 4 R. C. L., 285.

Reversed.
#### Merritt Peckham and others, Appellants, v. Silas S. Matteson and others, Respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with co^ts on opinion of Martin, J., delivered at Special Term.
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 13003 Filed: 09/26/22 Entered: 09/26/22 11:57:34 Page 1

of 15
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 13003 Filed: 09/26/22 Entered: 09/26/22 11:57:34 Page 2

of 15
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 13003 Filed: 09/26/22 Entered: 09/26/22 11:57:34 Page 3

of 15
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 13003 Filed: 09/26/22 Entered: 09/26/22 11:57:34 Page 4

of 15
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 13003 Filed: 09/26/22 Entered: 09/26/22 11:57:34 Page 5

of 15
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 13003 Filed: 09/26/22 Entered: 09/26/22 11:57:34 Page 6

of 15
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 13003 Filed: 09/26/22 Entered: 09/26/22 11:57:34 Page 7

of 15
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 13003 Filed: 09/26/22 Entered: 09/26/22 11:57:34 Page 8

of 15
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 13003 Filed: 09/26/22 Entered: 09/26/22 11:57:34 Page 9

of 15
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 13003 Filed: 09/26/22 Entered: 09/26/22 11:57:34 Page 10

of 15
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 13003 Filed: 09/26/22 Entered: 09/26/22 11:57:34 Page 11

of 15
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 13003 Filed: 09/26/22 Entered: 09/26/22 11:57:34 Page 12

of 15
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 13003 Filed: 09/26/22 Entered: 09/26/22 11:57:34 Page 13

of 15
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 13003 Filed: 09/26/22 Entered: 09/26/22 11:57:34 Page 14

of 15
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 13003 Filed: 09/26/22 Entered: 09/26/22 11:57:34 Page 15

of 15
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED February 1, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

05-30973

AUDREY BUSFIELD, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, Lafayette

No. 6:03-CV-1235

Before SMITH, BENAVIDES, and PRADO, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * This appeal is from a judgment awarded to the plaintiff, Audrey Busfield, pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act for injuries she suffered as a result of a negligent performance of a chemical peel at a Veterans Administration Medical Center. We affirm. After an eight-day bench trial, the district court found in2

favor of the plaintiff with respect to each of the three counts of negligence and further found that the negligence of the defendant, the government, proximately caused damage to the plaintiff. The government does not appeal liability. The government appeals the district court’s decision awarding

a substantial amount of specific and general damages. In an eighty-seven page ruling, the district court found that “[t]he

chemical peel that ultimately was performed reached into the reticular dermis, leading to severe scarring, scar contracture, and the plaintiff has suffered by all evidence and testimony presented permanent disfiguring and muscle involvement.” The record reveals that the chemical peel caused the skin on Busfield’s face and neck to become scarred. This scar contracture has pulled her head down and to the right. In the nine years since the chemical peel, the plaintiff endured numerous plastic surgeries and hundreds upon hundreds of visits to various health care providers in an attempt to mitigate the physical and psychological damage. The evidence further indicates that Busfield will undergo more surgeries. The government complains that the damages are excessive and invokes the maximum recovery rule. The government also claims that the general damages were duplicative of certain specific damages. We have considered the arguments and find that the government has not shown clear error, nor any error that requires reversal of the district court’s judgment.3

AFFIRMED.
**Report on Assessment of Compliance****with Regulation AB Servicing Criteria**1.  The undersigned authorized officer of LandAmerica Tax and Flood Services, Inc. (the "Company") is responsible for assessing the Company's compliance with the applicable servicing criteria as defined in 17 CFR Part 229 Section 1122(d)(4) (xi) and 1122(d)(4)(xii) (the "Regulation AB Servicing Criteria') for residential and commercial mortgage backed  securities for which the Company served as third-party property tax payment provider on the underlying collateral (the "Platform"). Except as set forth in the preceding sentence, the servicing criteria set forth in 17 CFR Part 229 Section 1122(d) are not applicable to the activities the Company performed with respect to the Platform. 2. The Company used the criteria in 17 CFR Part 229 Section 1122(d) to assess the compliance with the applicable Regulation AB Servicing Criteria. 3.Under one of the services offered by the Company, some customers may elect to remit tax payments directly to tax agencies without having the Company remit those property tax  payments through our tax payment service. We refer to these customers as "non-outsourced servicer customers." With respect to these non-outsourced customers and the services the Company delivered pursuant to the servicing criteria set forth in 17 CFR Part 229 Section I122(d)(4)(xi), the Company's assertion is strictly limited to its processing of tax payments submitted through the Company's tax payment service. 4.With respect to servicing criteria set forth in 17 CFR Part 229 Section 1122(d)(4)(xii), the Company's assertion is strictly limited to its processing of property tax penalty payments. The Company has determined that its servicer customers may also have access to systems that enable those servicers to process penalties through obligor escrow accounts. Management's assessment of compliance does not relate to the actual or potential activities of other parties with access to obligor escrow accounts. 5.Based on such assessment, management believes that, as of and for the year ended December 31, 2007, the Company has complied in all material respects with the Regulation AB Servicing Criteria related to the servicing of the Platform taken as a whole. 6.The registered public accounting firm of Grant Thornton, LLP, has issued an attestation report on the Company's assessment of compliance with the Regulation AB Servicing Criteria as of and for the year ended December 31, 2007. Date: February 6, 2008 LandAmerica Tax and Flood Services, Inc. /s/ Robert Ige By:  Name:  Robert Ige Its: Executive Vice President
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

In re: 

PG&E CORPORATION and PACIFIC GAS 

AND ELECTRIC COMPANY,

 Debtors 

Chapter 11 

No. 19-30088 (DM) 

(Jointly Administered) 

TRANSFER OF CLAIM OTHER THAN FOR SECURITY 

A CLAIM HAS BEEN FILED IN THIS CASE or deemed filed under 11 U.S.C. § 1111(a). 

Transferee hereby gives evidence and notice pursuant to Rule 3001(e)(2) of the Federal Rules of 

Bankruptcy Procedure of the transfer, other than for security, of the claim referenced in this 

evidence and notice. 

T Scott Dunn Construction Inc., dba Heli-Dunn Cherokee Debt Acquisition, LLC 

Name of Transferor Name of Transferee 

Claim No: 1834 

Debtor: Pacific Gas and Electric Company 

(19-30089) 

Claim Amount: $90,181.98 

Name and Address where notices and payments to 

transferee should be sent: 

Cherokee Debt Acquisition, LLC 

1325 Avenue of the Americas, 28th Floor 

New York, NY 10019 

I declare under penalty of perjury that the information provided in this notice is true and correct 

to the best of my knowledge and belief. 

By: _____________________ Date: June 11, 2019 

Transferee/Transferee’s Agent

Penalty for making a false statement: Fine of up to $500,000 or imprisonment for up to 5 years, 

or both. 18 U.S.C. §§ 152 & 3571. 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2478 Filed: 06/11/19 Entered: 06/11/19 10:52:49 Page 1 of

2
11

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2478 Filed: 06/11/19 Entered: 06/11/19 10:52:49 Page 2 of

2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

BAKER 

&

HOSTETLER LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

LOS 

ANGELES

-11- 

Exhibit C 

 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2798-3 Filed: 07/01/19 Entered: 07/01/19 10:07:47 Page 1

of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

BAKER 

&

HOSTETLER LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

LOS 

ANGELES

-12- 

EXPENSE SUMMARY 

FOR THE PERIOD MAY 1, 2019 THROUGH MAY 31, 2019 

EXPENSES AMOUNTS

Airfare $27,540.00

Automated Research $6,942.48

Business Meals $5,256.04

Delivery Services $229.35

Ground Transportation (Local) $3,892.28

Ground Transportation (Out of Town) $1,995.87

Lodging $17,698.50

Meals While Traveling $883.96

Miscellaneous (Meeting Room Rental) $1,950.00

On-line Research $30.50

Other Professional Services $689.70

Outside Duplicating & Binding Services $877.95

Postage $650.34

Teleconference Charges (Court Call) $577.50

Transcripts $790.26

Total Expenses Requested: $70,017.53

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2798-3 Filed: 07/01/19 Entered: 07/01/19 10:07:47 Page 2

of 2