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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND NOTES INCLUDED IN THIS FORM 10-Q AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                           2,123
<SECURITIES>                                    53,984
<RECEIVABLES>                                   29,175
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     15,226
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               102,092
<PP&E>                                          88,426
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 212,935
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           54,215
<BONDS>                                         15,388
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        89,799
<OTHER-SE>                                      51,561
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   212,935
<SALES>                                         49,093
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                52,509
<CGS>                                           39,580
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   46,247
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 793
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  6,262
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              6,262
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     6,262
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.41
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.41
        

</TABLE>
#### Chasm Power Company, Appellant, v. Peter B. McCaghey and Others, Respondents.

Motion granted, with costs for serving amendments to proposed case, and. ten dollars costs 'of this motion.
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 793 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 793

To eliminate the administrative authority to prohibit the possession or 
                transfer of particular assault weapons.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 2, 1995

Mr. Baker of Louisiana (for himself, Mr. Young of Alaska, Mr. Emerson, 
Mr. Tanner, Mr. Stump, Mr. Kolbe, Mr. Riggs, Mr. McKeon, Mr. Bryant of 
Tennessee, Mr. Upton, Mr. Ney, Mrs. Chenoweth, Mr. LaTourette, and Mr. 
   Hancock) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To eliminate the administrative authority to prohibit the possession or 
                transfer of particular assault weapons.

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

SECTION 1. ELIMINATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE AUTHORITY TO PROHIBIT THE 
              POSSESSION OR TRANSFER OF PARTICULAR ASSAULT WEAPONS.

    (a) In General.--Section 921(a)(30) of title 18, United States 
Code, is amended to read as follows:
    ``(30) The term `semiautomatic assault weapon' means--
            ``(A) any firearm known as--
                    ``(i) Norinco, Mitchell, and Poly Technologies 
                Avtomat Kalashnikovs (all models);
                    ``(ii) Action Arms Israeli Military Industries UZI 
                and Galil;
                    ``(iii) Beretta Ar70 (SC-70);
                    ``(iv) Colt AR-15;
                    ``(v) Fabrique National FN/FAL, FN/LAR, and FNC;
                    ``(vi) SWD M-10, M-11, M-11/9, and M-12;
                    ``(vii) Steyr AUG; or
                    ``(viii) INTRATEC TEC-9, TEC-DC9 and TEC-22; and
            ``(B) any revolving cylinder shotgun, such as (or similar 
        to) the Street Sweeper and Striker 12.''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall 
take effect as if the amendment were included in subtitle A of title XI 
of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 at the 
time such subtitle became law.
                                 <all>
```
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6238 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 6238

  To amend the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009 to increase 
  Tribal access to water conservation and efficiency grants, and for 
                            other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            December 9, 2021

  Ms. Stansbury (for herself, Ms. Leger Fernandez, Mr. Horsford, Mr. 
 Gallego, Mr. Cole, Mr. Huffman, Mrs. Napolitano, Mr. Neguse, and Mr. 
    Costa) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                     Committee on Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009 to increase 
  Tribal access to water conservation and efficiency grants, and for 
                            other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``WaterSMART Access for Tribes Act''.

SEC. 2. WATER MANAGEMENT IMPROVEMENT.

    Section 9504(a)(3)(E)(i) of the Omnibus Public Land Management Act 
of 2009 (42 U.S.C. 10364(a)(3)(E)(i)) is amended--
            (1) in subclause (I), by striking ``subclause (II)'' and 
        inserting ``subclauses (II) and (III)''; and
            (2) after subclause (II), by inserting the following:
                                    ``(III) Waiver; reduction.--With 
                                respect to a grant or other agreement 
                                entered into under paragraph (1) 
                                between the Secretary and an Indian 
                                tribe, the Secretary may reduce or 
                                waive the non-Federal share (and 
                                increase the Federal share accordingly) 
                                of the cost of any infrastructure 
                                improvement or activity that is the 
                                subject of that grant or other 
                                agreement if the Secretary determines 
                                that the Indian tribe does not have 
                                sufficient funds to pay such cost 
                                share.''.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit (32)



SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Owens Corning (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2004 (the Report), I,
David T. Brown, Chief 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 to the best of my knowledge:



|(1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
|--- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|(2) | Information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
|--- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                       
|-----------------------
|                       
|/s/    DAVID T. BROWN  
|                       
|Chief Executive Officer



May 4, 2004





---

Exhibit (32)



SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Owens Corning (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2004 (the Report), I,
Michael H. Thaman, Chief Financial 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 to the best of my knowledge:



|(1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
|--- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|(2) | Information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
|--- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                        
|------------------------
|                        
|/s/    MICHAEL H. THAMAN
|                        
|Chief Financial Officer 



May 4, 2004
#### In re CANAL BANK & TRUST COMPANY, In Liquidation. Intervention of Thomas J. FERGUSON.*

No. 14868.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Orleans.

June 11, 1934.

Dufour, St. Paul, Levy & Miceli, of New Orleans (Rene J. Waguespack, of New Orleans, of counsel), for appellant.

Miller, Bloch & Martin, of New Orleans, for appellee.

*

 Rehearing denied June 28, 1934.'

WESTERFIELD, Judge.

On February 19, 1932, Thomas J. Ferguson deposited with the Canal Bank for collection five interest coupons of $50 each and one of $25, which had been detached from bonds issued by Stovall Properties, Inc. These coupons were payable March 1, 1933, at the Canal Bank, paying agents for Stovall Properties, Inc. Funds had been deposited with the Canal Bank by the Stovall Properties, Inc., and were available on March 1st, the due date of the coupons, but for some reason not disclosed by the record a credit was not made to the account of Ferguson until March 21, 1933. In the meanwhile the Canal Bank and other banks in the city of New Orleans were closed on March 2, 1933, reopened again on a restricted basis on March 3, 1933, and the i Canal Bank finally placed in liquidation by the State Bank Examiner on May 20, 1933. See In re Canal Bank & Trust Company in Liquidation, Intervention of E. C. Palmer & Co. (La. App.) 154 So. 498.

The object of this intervention, which was filed on November 27, 1933, is to compel the liquidators of the bank to pay over to inter-vener, Thomas J. Ferguson, the face value of the coupons, $275, with preference and priority in accordance with the provisions of section 1 of Act No. 63 of 1926. The liquidators oppose intervener’s claim on the ground that the coupons were deposited with the bank for payment and not for collection, and that therefore the relation between the depositor and the bank was that of debtor and creditor and not that of principal and agent.

• The only distinction we can see between this case and the case considered by us in Re Canal Bank & Trust Co. in Liquidation, Intervention of Palmer & Co., supra, is that in this case the bank was the paying agent of the items deposited with it. This we believe to be a distinction without a difference, and are of the opinion that this case, like the Palmer Case, is controlled by the authority of S. E. Hall, Inc., v. Farmers’ Trust & Savings Bank, 177 La. 659, 148 So. 909.

For the reasons assigned, the judgment appealed from is affirmed.

Affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                       1,062,000
<SECURITIES>                                     3,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,346,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                 (165,000)
<INVENTORY>                                  6,225,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             9,819,000
<PP&E>                                       4,668,000
<DEPRECIATION>                             (2,577,000)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              14,433,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,618,000
<BONDS>                                      3,015,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       304,000
<OTHER-SE>                                   7,126,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                14,433,000
<SALES>                                      5,941,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             5,941,000
<CGS>                                        3,801,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                3,801,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             2,486,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             170,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (408,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (408,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                190,000
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (218,000)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.11)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.11)


</TABLE>
**EXHIBIT99.1**

 

**P & F INDUSTRIES, INC.**

 

**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 theQuarterly Report of P&F Industries, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for theperiod ending March 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Richard A. Horowitz, PrincipalExecutive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, asadopted pursuant to §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 the Company.

 

 
| /s/ Richard A. Horowitz     |   |
|-----------------------------|--------|
| Richard A. Horowitz         |
| Principal Executive Officer |
| May 14, 2003                |

 

----
* 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. 97-40880 Summary Calendar

ROBERT CHARLES CEASER, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus CARL R. GRIFFITH, JR., Sheriff; UP HEMMINGWAITE, Officer, Jefferson County Sheriff’s Department; UP HENDERSON, Officer, Jefferson County Sheriff’s Department, Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:94-CV-25

- - - - - - - - - - March 23, 1999 Before KING, Chief Judge, and JOLLY, and DUHE’, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Robert Charles Ceaser appeals the partial dismissal as frivolous of his civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the district court’s denial of his motion for judgment as a matter of law. He asserts that the district court abused its discretion by dismissing Sheriff Griffith as a defendant in theNo. 97-40880 -2- action and by dismissing all claims except for the use of excessive force against Jefferson County Sheriff’s Department Officers Hemmenway (sued as Officer Hemmingwaite) and Henderson. He also argues that the district court erred in denying judgment as a matter of law on a due process claim stemming from his transfer from the Jefferson County Detention Center to an older correctional facility in Beaumont, Texas. Ceaser has not shown that the district court abused its discretion in dismissing Sheriff Griffith as a defendant, or in dismissing all causes of action except for excessive force against Officers Hemmenway and Henderson. See Smith v. Brenoettsy , 158 F.3d 908, 911-12 (5th Cir. 1998); Mendoza v. Lynaugh , 989 F.2d 191, 193 (5th Cir. 1993); Jacquez v. Procunier , 801 F.2d 789, 793 (5th Cir. 1986). Likewise, he has not shown that the district court erred in dismissing his motion for judgment as a matter of law. See Baltazor v. Holmes , 162 F.3d 368, 373 (5th Cir. 1998).
AFFIRMED.
EX-35 (d)
(logo) WELLS FARGO

Corporate Trust Services
MAC N2702-011
9062 Old Annapolis Road
Columbia, MD 21045
410 884-2000
410 715-2380 Fax

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.


March 06, 2007

Credit Suisse First Boston Mortgage Securities Corp.
11 Madison Ave
4th Floor
New York, ny 10010

RE: Annual Statement As To Compliance for Thornburg Mortgage Securities Trust
2006-2

Per Section 3.17 of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement, dated as of 3/1/2006,
the undersigned Officer of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., (Securities Administrator),
hereby certifies the following for the 2006 calendar year or portion thereof:


(A)  a review of such party's activities during the preceding calendar year or
     portion thereof and of such party's performance under this Agreement, or
     such other applicable agreement in the case of any Servicing Function
     Participant, has been made under such officer's supervision and

(B)  to the best of such officer's knowledge, based on such review, such party
     has fulfilled all its obligations under this Agreement, or such other
     applicable agreement in the case of any Servicing Function Participant, in
     all material respects throughout such year or portion thereof, or, if there
     has been a failure to fulfill any such obligation in any material respect,
     specifying each such failure known to such officer and the nature and
     status thereof.



Certified By:
/s/ Barry Akers
Barry Akers
Vice President

Certified By:
/s/ Reid Denny
Reid Denny, Assistant Secretary
#### Jeanette PERRY-BEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF NORFOLK, a municipal corporation, Defendant-Appellee, and Regina Williams, individually and in her official capacity as the City Manager of the City of Norfolk; Melvin C. High, individually and in his official capacity as the Chief of the City of Norfolk Police Department; Captain Sharon L. Chamberlin, individually and in her official capacity as a member of the City of Norfolk Police Department; Lieutenant C.W. Brewer, *266individually and in his official capacity as a member of the City of Norfolk Police Department; Lieutenant P.S. Midgett, individually and in his official capacity as a member of the City of Norfolk Police Department; Officer Judy Hash, individually and in her official capacity as a member of the City of Norfolk Police Department; Officer D.J. Powell, individually and in her official capacity as a member of the City of Norfolk Police Department, Defendants.

No. 02-2378.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted July 25, 2003.

Decided Aug. 20, 2003.

Jeanette Perry-Bey, Appellant pro se. Bernard Anthony Pishko, Joan Elizabeth Mahoney, Melvin Wayne Ringer, City Attorney’s Office, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before TRAXLER, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

PER CURIAM.

Jeanette Perry-Bey appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of her former employer, the City of Norfolk, in her civil action alleging retaliation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3 (2000). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm substantially on the reasoning of the district court. *See Perry-Bey v. City of Norfolk,*No. CA-02-7-2 (E.D.Va. Oct. 31, 2002). 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.*
#### Walter C. Jordan, Respondent, v. Frank Keenan, Appellant.

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. No opinion.
H. R. 6080 

One Hundred Seventeenth Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE SECOND SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Monday, 

the third day of January, two thousand and twenty-two 

An Act 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 5420 

Kavanaugh Boulevard in Little Rock, Arkansas, as the ‘‘Ronald A. Robinson 

Post Office’’. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. RONALD A. ROBINSON POST OFFICE. 

(a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States Postal 

Service located at 5420 Kavanaugh Boulevard in Little Rock, 

Arkansas, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Ronald A. Robinson Post Office’’. 

(b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, regulation, 

document, or other record of the United States to the facility 

referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference 

to the ‘‘Ronald A. Robinson Post Office’’. 

Speaker of the House of Representatives. 

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
Exhibit



EX 10.10.3



AMENDMENT NO. 1
TO THE
LITHIA MOTORS, INC. 
EXECUTIVE MANAGEMENT NON-QUALIFIED DEFERRED COMPENSATION
 AND LONG-TERM INCENTIVE PLAN
 
WHEREAS, Lithia Motors, Inc. (the “Company”) established and maintains the Lithia Motors, Inc. Executive Management Non-Qualified Deferred Compensation  and Long-Term Incentive Plan, effective February 22, 2011 (the “Plan”); and
WHEREAS, Section 9.1(a) of the Plan grants the Compensation Committee of the Company’s Board (the “Committee”) authority to amend the Plan for the purpose of clarifying the Plan type; and
WHEREAS, the Compensation Committee desires to amend the Plan, effective September 1, 2018, to change the Plan name.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan is hereby amended, in the following respects:
 “Lithia Motors, Inc. Executive Management Non-Qualified Deferred Compensation and Long-Term Incentive Plan” is hereby renamed “Lithia Motors, Inc. Executive Management Non-Qualified Deferred Compensation and Supplemental Executive Retirement Plan” and is replaced in each place it occurs in the Plan document.


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned executed this Amendment No. 1 as of September 1, 2018.


LITHIA MOTORS, INC.
Carla Hegler, Director                    
Name, Title