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


<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Moviefone,
Inc.'s condensed consolidated financial statements as of and for the nine months
ended September 30, 1996 and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such
financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                       1,353,701
<SECURITIES>                                 5,010,637
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,075,595
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    161,334
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             9,192,902
<PP&E>                                       5,205,682
<DEPRECIATION>                               3,357,160
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              23,119,839
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,718,956
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       128,060
<OTHER-SE>                                  20,272,823
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                23,119,839
<SALES>                                        157,833
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            10,626,830
<CGS>                                          175,497
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,987,351
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,248,396)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,248,396)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,248,396)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.10)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.2In connection with the Quarterly Report of Fentura Financial, Inc. (the “Corporation”) on Form10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on thedate hereof (the “Report”), I, Douglas J. Kelley, Chief Financial Officer of Fentura Financial Inc.certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:(1) the Report on Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities and Exchange Act of 1934; and(2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Corporation.       Dated: August 10, 2007   /s/Douglas J. Kelley           Douglas J. Kelley      Chief Financial Officer
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Timothy WASHINGTON.

No. 2011-KO-0422.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 16, 2011.

In re Washington, Timothy; — Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. K, No. 481-883; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2010-KA-1026.

Denied.
Exhibit 4(k)


               Amendment No. 1 to Investment Advisory Agreement

This is Amendment No. 1, dated as of September 1, 2002, to the Investment
Advisory Agreement dated as of the 13th day of January, 2000 (the "Agreement")
by and between Sentinel Group Funds, Inc., a Maryland corporation and a
registered investment company under the Investment Company Act of 1940
("SGF"), one series of which is the Sentinel Flex Cap Opportunity Fund
(hereinafter called the "Fund"), and Sentinel Advisors Company (herein called
"SAC"), a Vermont general partnership, having its principal office at National
Life Drive, Montpelier, Vermont 05604.


                                  WITNESSETH:


     WHEREAS, pursuant to the Agreement, SAC currently acts as investment
adviser to the Fund; and

     WHEREAS, the parties have agreed to amend the provision of the Agreement
relating to SAC's fee for providing service as such investment adviser.


     NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and mutual covenants
herein contained, SGF and SAC agree as follows:


1. SGF and SAC hereby agree that section 7 of the Agreement shall be amended
and restated in its entirety as follows:

        7. For the services to be rendered by SAC hereunder, SGF shall pay
        to SAC a monthly fee, in arrears, equal to:

        0.90% per annum of the first $250 million of the average daily net
        asset value of the Fund, as determined in accordance with the
        provisions of the Prospectus then constituting part of the
        Registration Statement then in effect under the Securities Act of
        1933, and 0.85% per annum of the next $250 million of such average
        daily net asset value of the Fund, and 0.80% per annum of such
        average daily net asset value of the Fund in excess of $500
        million.

2. In all other respects, the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be
executed on the day and year first above written.

                             Sentinel Group Funds, Inc.


                             By:_/s/ Joseph M. Rob___________________________
                                     Joseph M. Rob
                                     Chairman

                             Sentinel Advisors Company


                             By:_/s/ Rodney A. Buck__________________________
                                     Rodney A. Buck
                                     Chief Executive Officer
#### A. F. Dignowitty et al. v. J. M. Ballantyne et al.

(No. 2250.)

Appeal from Kinney County.

*(Transferred from Austin,J*

Ogden, Ogden & Johnson, counsel for appellants.

No counsel appeared for appellees.

Opinion by

Willson, J.

§ 194. *Damage io uninclosed pasturage by domestic animals; rule as to; case slated.*Appellees sued appellants for damages done to three hundred and twenty acres of uninclósed pasture land, by appellants’ goats eating and treading down the pasturage growing thereon. They claimed $600 actual damage and $300 exemplary damage, and recovered judgment for $100 and costs. Upon the trial appellants asked the following charge: “The owner of loose, straying or lost animals is not liable for damages done by such animals by grazing upon uninclosed lands belonging to another,” which charge was refused. *Held,*the charge is correct in principle [2 W. Con. Rep. § 360], but it was not error to refuse it, because the evidence did not warrant it. The evidence shows that appellants’ goats were not loose, straying or lost animals, but were herded by appellants’ herders upon appellees’ land, and such being the case, appellants are liable for the damage done to the land I137 said goats.

*237November 24, 1886.

§ 195. *Excessive .verdict.*The actual damage found by the jury, to wit, $100, is manifestly excessive. It is plain from the evidence that if appellees sustained anjr damage it did not exceed the market value of the pasturage destroyed by the goats, which market value, the proof showed, did not exceed five cents per acre, aggregating not exceeding $16. No other injury to the land except the consumption of the pasturage was shown to have been done by the goats. On the contrary, one of appellees himself testified that the land had been benefited, and increased in value $2 per acre, by the manure dropped upon it by the goats. "The consumption of the pasturage tvas only a temporary injury to the land, and there being uo other injury done to it, the actual damage was the market value of the pasturage and nothing-more. There was no evidence warranting a-recovery for any greater amount.

Deversed and remanded.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

DUAN E. ROBINSON, )

)

Appellant, )

)

v. ) Case No. 2D17-2887

)

STATE OF FLORIDA, )

)

Appellee. )

)

Opinion filed February 14, 2018. 

Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 

9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for 

Pinellas County; Nancy Moate Ley, 

Judge.

Duan E. Robinson, pro se. 

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. 

CASANUEVA, SLEET, and LUCAS, JJ., Concur.
Exhibit 31.1

Certifications

I, J.A. Cardwell, Sr., certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Petro Stopping Centers, L.P.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this
report 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 with respect to the period
covered by this report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all
material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.
The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure
that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I have
disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are
reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.

Date: May 10, 2006



|                          |  |                                                          
|------------------------- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------
|/s/    J.A. Cardwell, Sr.
|                          |  | (J.A. Cardwell, Sr.) Chairman and Chief Executive
Officer
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Timothy J. MAZIQUE.

No. 2010-K-1198.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Dec. 17, 2010.

In re Mazique, Timothy J.; —Defendant; Applying For Writ of Mandamus and/or Writ of Prohibition, Parish of St. Charles, 29th Judicial District Court Div. E, No. 08-216; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 09-KA-845.

Denied.
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 23 (Thursday, February 4, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 5812]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-2411]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION


Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements Under OMB Review

AGENCY: Small Business Administration.

ACTION: Notice of Reporting Requirements Submitted for OMB Review.

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

SUMMARY: Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 
Chapter 35), agencies are required to submit proposed reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements to OMB for review and approval, and to 
publish a notice in the Federal Register notifying the public that the 
agency has made such a submission.

DATES: Submit comments on or before March 8, 2010. If you intend to 
comment but cannot prepare comments promptly, please advise the OMB 
Reviewer and the Agency Clearance Officer before the deadline.
    Copies: Request for clearance (OMB 83-1), supporting statement, and 
other documents submitted to OMB for review may be obtained from the 
Agency Clearance Officer.

ADDRESSES: Address all comments concerning this notice to: Agency 
Clearance Officer, Jacqueline White, Small Business Administration, 409 
3rd Street, SW., 5th Floor, Washington, DC 20416; and OMB Reviewer, 
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and 
Budget, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jacqueline White, Agency Clearance 
Officer, (202) 205-7044.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Title: Impact of Broadband Speed and Prime on Small Business.
    SBA Form Number: N/A.
    Frequency: On Occasion.
    Description of Respondents: Small Businesses using Broadband 
Internet services.
    Responses: 1,200.
    Annual Burden: 250.

Jacqueline White,
Chief, Administrative Information Branch.
[FR Doc. 2010-2411 Filed 2-3-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
Exhibit 33.5



LOGO

MANAGEMENTS ASSERTION ON COMPLIANCE WITH REGULATION AB CRITERIA

February 26, 2016

SunTrust
Bank (the Asserting Party) is responsible for assessing compliance with the servicing criteria set forth in Title 17, Section 229.1122(d)(2)(i) of the Code of Federal Regulations (the CFR) (the Applicable Servicing
Criteria), for securitization transactions serviced by SunTrust Mortgage, Inc. occurring after December 31, 2005 (the Platform). The Asserting Party is not assessing compliance with any other criteria set forth in
Section 229.1122(d) of the CFR.

The Asserting Party has engaged ACS@Xerox, LLC. as a vendor, which is not deemed to be a servicer as
deemed in Item 1101(j) of Regulation AB (the Vendor), to perform specific, limited or scripted activities, and the Asserting Party elects to take responsibility for assessing compliance with the servicing criteria or portion of the
servicing criteria applicable to such Vendors activities.

The Asserting Party used the applicable criteria in paragraph (d) of
Title 17, Section 229.1122 of the CFR to assess compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria.

The Asserting Party has concluded
that it has complied, in all material respects, with the Applicable Servicing Criteria as of and for the twelve month period ending December 31, 2015 (the Reporting Period).

The Asserting Party has not identified and is not aware of any material instance of noncompliance by the Vendor with the applicable servicing
criteria as of December 31, 2015 and for the Reporting Period with respect to the Platform taken as a whole.

The Asserting Party has
not identified any material deficiency in its policies and procedures to monitor the compliance by the Vendor with the applicable servicing criteria as of December 31, 2015 and for the Reporting Period with respect to the Platform taken as a
whole.

Ernst & Young LLP, an independent registered public accounting firm, has issued an attestation report on the assessment
of compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria for the Reporting Period as set forth in this assertion.



|                                                               |  |                                                              
|-------------------------------------------------------------- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------
|SunTrust Bank Solely with respect
to Section 229.1122(d)(2)(i)
|                                                               | 
|By:                                                            |  | /s/ Timothy Janyska                                          
|                                                               |  | Timothy Janyska Group Vice President
Dated: February 26, 2016
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                5
<CIK>                    0000919957
<NAME>                   NTL (TRIANGLE) LLC
<MULTIPLIER>             1,000
<CURRENCY>               U.K. POUNDS

<S>                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                               DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                    JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                  JAN-01-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                 1.5163
<CASH>                                           41,832
<SECURITIES>                                          0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    21,285
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (10,547)
<INVENTORY>                                           0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 58,395
<PP&E>                                          527,747
<DEPRECIATION>                                (116,715)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  915,673
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            89,983
<BONDS>                                         330,937
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                 0
<PREFERRED>                                           0
<COMMON>                                              8
<OTHER-SE>                                      486,534
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    915,673
<SALES>                                               0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 77,612
<CGS>                                                 0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    26,968
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 33,590
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                      0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               16,977
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (61,683)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         75
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (61,608)
<DISCONTINUED>                                        0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                       0
<CHANGES>                                             0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (61,608)
<EPS-BASIC>                                           0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         0


</TABLE>
Exhibit 14.1



CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS



We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-102605) pertaining to securities offered under the Employee Stock Option Plan
of United Microelectronics Corporation of our report dated January 15, 2004, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of United Microelectronics Corporation included in the Annual Report (Form 20-F) for the year ended December 31, 2003.



|                        
|------------------------
|                        
|/s/ Diwan, Ernst & Young
|                        
|Diwan, Ernst & Young    
|                        
|Taipei, Taiwan,         
|                        
|Republic of China       
|                        
|June 17, 2004
News United States Air Force
 Around the Air Force: July 15Published July 15, 2016
                        
                        By Air Force TV
                
                **FORT GEORGE G. MEADE, Md. (AFNS)** -- In this look around the Air Force, Defense Secretary Ash Carter announces that 560 more U.S. troops are deploying to Iraq, U.S. and Malaysian Airmen take part in joint exercise Cope Taufan 16, and the Air Force provides an update on an MQ-9 Reaper crash from late 2015.
For previous episodes, click here for the Air Force TV page.
Related links:
- Carter announces 560 US troops to deploy to Iraq
- Cope Taufan 16 kicks off in Malaysia
- Reaper crash updateIraq 



SecDEF 



Cope Taufan 



MQ-9 Reaper 



crash 



ATAF
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

I, David A. Smith, President and
Chief Executive Officer of PSS World Medical, Inc. (the Company), hereby
certify that the Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period
ended October 3, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)) and that the
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

/s/ David A. SmithDavid A. Smith
 President and Chief
Executive Officer

November 13, 2003
#### William A. KISH, Jr., Appellant, v. Emily J. KISH n/k/a Emily J. Whelan, Appellee.

No. 5D10-2862.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Oct. 7, 2011.

Marcia K. Lippincott of Marcia K. Lip-pincott, P.A., Lake Mary, for Appellant.

Clifton H. Gorenflo of Gray & Gorenflo, P.A., Sanford, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

William A. Kish, Jr., appeals a final order granting his former wife’s motion to relocate their children to California. We have carefully considered the issues raised, and find no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s decision. However, we agree with Appellant that the trial court should have memorialized the detailed timesharing plan on which the relocation order was premised in the order itself. This plan included a provision for the former husband to have frequent contact with the children via internet video chat, and an agreement that the former wife would bear most of the travel costs for the children to regularly return to Florida to spend time with their father. We also agree that when ordering the former wife to pay half of the fee for the expert who testified at the hearing, the trial court should have set a reasonable deadline for this payment in the order.

Accordingly, we affirm the order on appeal but remand with directions that the trial court formally adopt the timesharing plan by order, and set a deadline for payment of the former wife’s portion of the expert’s fees.

AFFIRMED and REMANDED with Directions.

GRIFFIN, LAWSON, JJ., and ZAMBRANO, R.A., Associate Judge, concur.