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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM APPLICABLE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                           7,111
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   46,741
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,329
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                68,357
<PP&E>                                       1,254,843
<DEPRECIATION>                               (550,007)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 795,796
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           67,581
<BONDS>                                        306,283
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                         17
<COMMON>                                           430
<OTHER-SE>                                     279,089
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   795,796
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               189,130
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  166,021
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 (168)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              24,819
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (817)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     3,100
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (16,902)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (16,902)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.40)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.40)


</TABLE>
I

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1491

To assist in the preservation of archaeological, paleontological, zoological,

geological, and botanical artifacts through construction of a new facility

for the University of Utah Museum of Natural History, Salt Lake City,

Utah.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

APRIL 4, 2001

Mr. MATHESON (for himself, Mr. HANSEN, and Mr. CANNON) introduced the

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Resources

A BILL

To assist in the preservation of archaeological, paleontological, zoological, geological, and botanical artifacts through

construction of a new facility for the University of Utah

Museum of Natural History, Salt Lake City, Utah.

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 ‘‘Utah Public Lands

5 Artifact Preservation Act of 2001’’.

6 SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

7 Congress finds that—
2

•HR 1491 IH

1 (1) the collection of the Utah Museum of Nat2 ural History in Salt Lake City, Utah, includes more

3 than 1,000,000 archaeological, paleontological, zoo4 logical, geological, and botanical artifacts;

5 (2) the collection of items housed by the Mu6 seum contains artifacts from land managed by—

7 (A) the Bureau of Land Management;

8 (B) the Bureau of Reclamation;

9 (C) the National Park Service;

10 (D) the United States Fish and Wildlife

11 Service; and

12 (E) the Forest Service;

13 (3) more than 75 percent of the Museum’s col14 lection was recovered from federally managed public

15 land; and

16 (4) the Museum has been designated by the leg17 islature of the State of Utah as the State museum

18 of natural history.

19 SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

20 In this Act:

21 (1) MUSEUM.—The term ‘‘Museum’’ means the

22 University of Utah Museum of Natural History in

23 Salt Lake City, Utah.

24 (2) SECRETARY.—The term ‘‘Secretary’’ means

25 the Secretary of the Interior.
3

•HR 1491 IH

1 SEC. 4. ASSISTANCE FOR UNIVERSITY OF UTAH MUSEUM

2 OF NATURAL HISTORY.

3 (a) ASSISTANCE FOR MUSEUM.—The Secretary shall

4 make a grant to the University of Utah in Salt Lake City,

5 Utah, to pay the Federal share of the costs of construction

6 of a new facility for the Museum, including the design,

7 planning, furnishing, and equipping of the Museum.

8 (b) GRANT REQUIREMENTS.—

9 (1) IN GENERAL.—To receive a grant under

10 subsection (b), the Museum shall submit to the Sec11 retary a proposal for the use of the grant.

12 (2) FEDERAL SHARE.—The Federal share of

13 the costs described in subsection (a) shall not exceed

14 25 percent.

15 (c) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is

16 authorized to be appropriated to carry out this Act

17 $15,000,000, to remain available until expended.

Æ
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

William Graham

v.

NH State Prison Warden, et al.

Civil No. 06-cv-453-JD

O R D E R

I herewith approve the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge

Muirhead dated April 4, 2007, no objection having been filed.

SO ORDERED.

April 27, 2007 /s/ Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.

Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.

United States District Judge

cc: William Graham, pro se

Laura Lombardi, Esq.

Case 1:06-cv-00453-JD Document 22 Filed 04/27/07 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit (10)(a)

    

    

    

    

    

    

    Consent of Ernst & Young LLP, Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

    

    

    

    

    We consent to the reference to our firm under the caption “Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm” in Post-Effective Amendment No. 10 to the 1933 Act
      Registration Statement (Form N-4 No. 333-214143) and Amendment No. 693 to the 1940 Act Registration Statement (Form N-4 No. 811-08517), and to the use therein of our reports dated (a) March 13, 2019, with respect to the
      consolidated financial statements of The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company and (b) April 16, 2019, with respect to the financial statements of Lincoln Life Variable Annuity Account N for the registration of interests in a separate account under
      individual flexible payment deferred variable annuity contracts.

    

    

    /s/ Ernst & Young LLP

    

    

    

    

    

    Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

    August 22, 2019
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1439 Introduced in House (IH)]

107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1439

   To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend permanently 
                    environmental remediation costs.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 4, 2001

 Mr. Coyne (for himself and Mr. Weller) introduced the following bill; 
         which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend permanently 
                    environmental remediation costs.

    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 ``Brownfields Clean-up Act''.

SEC. 2. PERMANENT EXTENSION OF EXPENSING OF ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION 
              COSTS.

    Section 198 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to 
expensing of environmental remediation costs) is amended by striking 
subsection (h).
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0001023458
<NAME> AEI INCOME & GROWTH FUND XXII LTD PARTNERSHIP

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                       7,850,375
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   47,306
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             7,897,681
<PP&E>                                       5,910,986
<DEPRECIATION>                                (48,389)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              13,760,278
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          343,886
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                  13,416,392
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                13,760,278
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               403,049
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  128,357
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                274,692
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            274,692
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   274,692
<EPS-BASIC>                                    15.91
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    15.91



</TABLE>
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Bank of America, N.A.

v. Civil No. 06-cv-300-JM

NH Department of Revenue, et al.

O R D E R

In this interpleader, the two lien holders have filed a

stipulation (Document no. 23) which purports to divide the

interpled fund between them, allotting nothing to payment of the

fees and expenses of the plaintiff. Plaintiff opposes a

resolution which does not pay its fees and costs of $3,672.52.

Discussion

The interpled fund totals $42,330.47. The State of New

Hampshire has a tax lien of $7,508.20. The United States

recognizes that the New Hampshire lien has priority over its lien

of $88,106.64. It is clear that the portion of the res set aside

for the United States is not subject to charge for the fees and

costs of the plaintiff. See United States v. R.F. Ball Constr.

Co., 355 U.S. 587, 588 (1958); Manchester Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n

v. Emery-Waterhouse Co., 102 N.H. 233, 239 (N.H. 1959).

Case 1:06-cv-00300-JM Document 26 Filed 01/08/08 Page 1 of 2
2

However, New Hampshire law does recognize that attorneys’

fees and costs incurred by the party filing an interpleader may

be charged against the shares of the res of parties other than

the United States. See Id. at 239; Guay v. Brotherhood Bldg.

Ass’n., 87 N.H. 216, 222 (1935). The State of New Hampshire is

ordered to show cause within ten days why its share of the res

should not be charged with plaintiff’s reasonable fees and costs.

Counsel for plaintiff and for New Hampshire are ordered to

meet and confer within ten days to attempt to agree on the amount

of reasonable fees and costs.

The stipulation can not be approved unless the State shows

cause as above ordered.

SO ORDERED.

____________________________________

James R. Muirhead

United States Magistrate Judge

Date: January 8, 2008

cc: Jeffrey J. Clark, Esq.

 Glenn A. Perlow, Esq.

 Julie C. Avetta, Esq.

Case 1:06-cv-00300-JM Document 26 Filed 01/08/08 Page 2 of 2
J-S27027-19

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

SHARON MARTIN 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 1540 WDA 2018

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered September 27, 2018

In the Court of Common Pleas of Fayette County 

Criminal Division at No(s): CP-26-SA-0000089-2018

BEFORE: OLSON, J., OTT, J., and COLINS, J.

JUDGMENT ORDER BY OTT, J.: FILED SEPTEMBER 18, 2019

Sharon Martin appeals from the judgment of sentence entered on

September 27, 2018,1in the Court of Common Pleas of Fayette County 

following her conviction on two counts of 3 P.S. § 459-305(a)(3), unlawful 

confinement and control of a dog, and one count of 3 P.S. § 459-502(a)(1)(ii), 

harboring a dangerous dog. Martin was sentenced to pay fines, court costs 

and fees. In this timely appeal, Martin raises three issues. However, because 

Martin has not provided this Court with a complete record, we are unable to 

conduct a meaningful review. Accordingly, we find all issues waived.

____________________________________________

 Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

1 Judgment of sentence was dated September 25, 2018 and docketed in the 

lower court on September 27, 2018.
J-S27027-19

- 2 -

The certified record in this matter contains no notes of testimony from 

the bench trial held on September 25, 2018. Although the notes were 

transcribed, they were not included in the certified record. 

Our law is unequivocal that an appellant bears the responsibility 

to ensure that the record certified on appeal is complete in the 

sense that it contains all of the materials necessary for the 

reviewing court to perform its duty. Commonwealth v. B.D.G., 

959 A.2d 362, 372 (Pa. Super. 2008). Therefore, “we can only 

repeat the well established principle that ‘our review is limited to 

those facts which are contained in the certified record’ and what 

is not contained in the certified record ‘does not exist for purposes 

of our review.’ ” Id. (citation omitted).

Commonwealth v. Brown, 161 A.3d 960, 968 (Pa. Super. 2017).2

Because we have no notes of testimony to review, we must find that all 

issues have been waived. 

Judgment of sentence affirmed. 

____________________________________________

2 As a matter of courtesy, counsel was contacted, more than once, by the 

Office of the Prothonotary of our Court, was informed of the failure to include 

the notes of testimony, and was asked to supplement the certified record. 

However, this has not been done. Nor has this Court been informed of why 

the notes were not included in the first place; why, in more than two weeks 

since counsel was first informed of the lack of notes of testimony, the certified 

record has not been supplemented; nor, when the supplement might be 

expected.
J-S27027-19

- 3 -

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 9/18/2019
|Structure Data for U.S. Banking Offices of Foreign Entities

Structure and Share | 
About




December 2003


By Country
  By Type
  ASCIIHome | 
Banking Information and RegulationAccessibility | 
Contact us
Last update: June 30, 2008
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#### BONNELUCQ v. BERNARD.

No. 18650.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Orleans.

Dec. 1, 1947.

For former opinion, see 31 So.2d 36.

Phil Trice, of New Orleans, for plaintiff and appellant.

Marion G. Seeber, of New Orleans, for defendant and appellee.

JANVIER, Judge.

We based our original opinion and decree on our belief that the certificate of the Office of Price Administration had ordered that the refund for overcharge in rent be made to plaintiff, Mrs. Mary Schaefer Bon-nelucq.

It was contended by the defendant that Mrs. Bonnelucq had no right to maintain the action to recover for that part of the overcharge which had been made during the period in which the community had existed between herself and her deceased husband, and in which the rent had been paid by Mr. Bonnelucq, the said deceased husband, as head and master of the community.

We held that we could not go into the question of whether the certificate had been issued to the correct person since [31 So.2d 36, 37] : “the power to consider the validity of any regulation or order of the Office of Price Administration is vested solely in the Emergency Court of Appeal.”

It has been brought to our attention that, the certificate on which the suit was based and on which we based our opinion was not' offered in evidence and is not in the record.

It is also brought to our attention that in all probability the certificate, as a matter of fact, designates Mr. Bonnelucq and not Mrs. Bonnelucq as the party to whom the refund must be made.

It also comes to our attention that in all probability the Office of Price Administration, having issued the certificate to Mr. Bonnelucq, and having discovered that Mr. Bonnelucq has since died, has issued a ruling to the effect that Mrs. Bonnelucq is entitled to make the claim for refund.

We have before us at this time nothing from which we can ascertain the true facts concerning the said certificate nor concerning any subsequent certificate or ruling which may have been made by the Office of Price Administration.

We are not prepared to say just what, if any, effect should be given to any subsequent ruling and merely hold that at this time the best interests of justice will be served by remanding the matter in order that all of the facts concerning the certificate and concerning any subsequent rulings may be presented to and passed upon by the judge a quo.

It is therefore ordered, adjudged and decreed that our original decree be, and it is recalled and annulled; that the judgment appealed from be, and it is annulled, avoided and reversed, and that the matter be, and it is remanded to the Civil District Court for further proceedings not inconsistent1 with the views herein expressed, Appellant to pay costs of this appeal, all other costs to await final decision in the matter.

Original decree recalled.

Judgment reversed.

Case remanded.
Exhibit (10)(a)

  

  

  

  

  

  

  Consent of Ernst & Young LLP, Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

  

  

  

  

  We consent to the reference to our firm under the caption “Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm” in Post-Effective Amendment No. 25 to the 1933 Act
    Registration Statement (Form N-4 No. 333-181612) and Amendment No. 708 to the 1940 Act Registration Statement (Form N-4 No. 811-08517), and to the use therein of our reports dated (a) March 13, 2019, with respect to the
    consolidated financial statements of The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company and (b) April 16, 2019, with respect to the financial statements of Lincoln Life Variable Annuity Account N for the registration of interests in a separate account under
    individual flexible payment deferred variable annuity contracts.

  

  

  /s/ Ernst & Young LLP

  

  

  

  

  

  Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

  September 6, 2019
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff, 

v. 

DRE’SHAUN E. BURNS,

Defendant.

8:23CR120

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on the Unopposed Motion to Continue Trial (Filing 

No. 39). Counsel needs additional time to conduct plea negotiations. For good cause 

shown,

IT IS ORDERED that the Unopposed Motion to Continue Trial (Filing No. 39) is 

granted as follows:

1. The jury trial now set for May 21, 2024, is continued to July 15, 2024.

2. In accordance with 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A), the Court finds that the ends 

of justice will be served by granting this continuance and outweigh the 

interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial. Any additional 

time arising as a result of the granting of this motion, that is, the time between

today’s date and July 15, 2024, shall be deemed excludable time in any 

computation of time under the requirement of the Speedy Trial Act. Failure 

to grant a continuance would deny counsel the reasonable time necessary for 

effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence. 18 

U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A) & (B)(iv).

Dated this 13th day of May 2024.

BY THE COURT:

Robert F. Rossiter, Jr.

Chief United States District Judge

8:23-cr-00120-RFR-MDN Doc # 40 Filed: 05/13/24 Page 1 of 1 - Page ID # 60
Exhibit 10.1

 



 

September 6, 2019

 

Mr. Jonathan Wolin

430 Hurlingham Avenue

San Mateo, CA  94402

 

Dear Jon,

 

As Jaguar Health places a high value on the contributions, hard work, and dedication that you have demonstrated over the past year, we would like to congratulate you on your promotion to Chief Compliance Officer, General Counsel and Chief of Staff effective September 1, 2019.  Your new annual base salary has increased to $280,800 from $260,000 and your new pay increase will be reflected in your September 14 paycheck.  Your bonus opportunity is 40% of your base salary earnings for the year.  Because we value the long-term incentive compensation component of your Total Rewards package, you will also receive a promotional stock option grant of 43,500 stock options granted and approved by the Board of Directors on September 5, 2019.

 

Jon, once again, I wanted to thank you for accepting your new promotional opportunity and believe in your success as a valuable member of the Jaguar Health family!

 

Warm regards,

 

	
/s/ Lisa A. Conte
    	
 
    
	
Lisa   A. Conte
    	
 
    
	
President &   Chief Executive Officer
    	
 
    


 

Jaguar Health, Inc. · 201 Mission Street, Suite 2375  · San Francisco, CA 94105

Tel: (415) 371-8300 · Fax: (415) 371-8311 · www.jaguar.health
Exhibit 10.3


 


AMENDMENT No. 1


TO


RESTRICTED SHARE UNIT AGREEMENT


(Under the HyreCar Inc. 2018 Equity Incentive
Plan)


 


This Amendment No. 1
to Restricted Share Unit Agreement (this “Amendment”) is made with reference to that certain Restricted Share
Unit Agreement (the “Agreement”), by and between HyreCar Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”)
and the Participant of the Company’s 2018 Equity Incentive Plan (the “Plan”) listed below. Capitalized
terms used herein but not otherwise defined shall have the meanings ascribed to them in the Agreement.


 


WHEREAS, the
parties desire to amend the Agreement to provide for the potential acceleration of vesting requirements for awards made under the
Plan in the event of a Change in Control; and


 


WHEREAS, the
Agreement may only be amended by a written instrument signed by the parties.


 


NOW, THEREFORE,
in exchange for good and valuable consideration, the sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, and intending to be legally
bound hereby, the parties hereby agree as follows:


 


1. The
following is inserted at the end of Section 3 of the Agreement titled “Vesting and Settlement:”


 


In the event
that a Change in Control occurs, then:


 


(a) any
unvested portion of any Award shall become fully vested; and


 


(b) the
restrictions, deferral limitations, and forfeiture conditions applicable to an Award granted under the pursuant to this Agreement
shall lapse and such Award shall be deemed fully vested and any performance conditions imposed with respect to such Awards shall
be deemed to be fully achieved at target performance levels.


 


2. Acknowledgement.
The parties acknowledge that except for the amendment expressly set forth in this Amendment, all other terms and conditions
of the Agreement shall be unaffected hereby and remain in full force and effect. The parties reaffirm, ratify and confirm
their respective obligations, covenants and agreements under the Agreement.


 


	 	HYRECAR INC.
	 	 
	Date:  ____, 2019	
	 	 
	 	Name: 	 
	 	Title:	 
	 	 
	 	PARTICIPANT:
	 	 
	 	 
	 	Name: