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


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
    THIS SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL  INFORMATION  EXTRACTED FROM THE
    JUNE 30, 1997  FINANCIAL  STATEMENTS  AND IS  QUALIFIED  IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
    REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>                <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                  6-MOS            3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>              DEC-31-1997      DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                 JAN-01-1997      APR-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                   JUN-30-1997      JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                       2,932,388         2,932,388 
<SECURITIES>                         0                 0 
<RECEIVABLES>                        0                 0 
<ALLOWANCES>                         0                 0 
<INVENTORY>                          0                 0 
<CURRENT-ASSETS>             6,010,988         6,010,988 
<PP&E>                     115,540,752       115,540,752 
<DEPRECIATION>              28,589,729        28,589,729 
<TOTAL-ASSETS>              92,962,012        92,962,012 
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>        3,847,816         3,847,816 
<BONDS>                     45,852,948        45,852,948 
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                0                 0 
<PREFERRED>                          0                 0 
<COMMON>                        39,538            39,538 
<OTHER-SE>                  22,220,989        22,220,989 
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>92,962,012        92,962,012 
<SALES>                              0                 0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>             5,784,189         4,478,021
<CGS>                                0                 0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                        0                 0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>             4,030,448         3,027,581
<LOSS-PROVISION>                     0                 0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>             777,026           603,905
<INCOME-PRETAX>                613,988           509,790
<INCOME-TAX>                         0                 0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>            613,988           509,790
<DISCONTINUED>                       0                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                      0                 0
<CHANGES>                            0                 0
<NET-INCOME>                   613,988           509,790
<EPS-PRIMARY>                      .24               .13
<EPS-DILUTED>                      .24               .13
        

</TABLE>
### T E X A S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S , T H I R D D I S T R I C T , A T A U S T I N NO. 03-12-00549- CV In re Honorable Jennif

er Tharp, Crim inal Dis tric t Att orney of Com al County, Texas ORI GINAL P ROCEEDI NG F ROM CO MAL CO UNTY M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N The State’s application for emer g ency tem p o ra ry s t ay and petition for writ of mandamus ar e denie d. See Tex. R. App. P . 52.8(a) .

__________________________________________ J . Woodfin J ones, Chief Just ice Be fore Chief J ustice Jones, J ustices Pemberton a nd Rose Filed: Aug ust 16, 2012
Exhibit 34.2

| | 
| | 



REPORT
OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM



To the Audit and Finance Committee of the Board of Directors
MUFG Americas Holdings Corporation
San Francisco, California



We have examined management’s assertion, included in the accompanying
Management’s Report on Assessment of Compliance with Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Regulation AB Servicing Criteria,
that MUFG Union Bank, N.A. (the “Bank”), a wholly owned subsidiary of MUFG Americas Holdings Corporation, complied
with the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of the SEC’s Regulation AB for the servicing of certain retail
installment contracts for the Honda Auto Receivables 2014-2 Owner Trust (the “Platform”) as of March 31, 2015,
and for the period from May 21, 2014 (date of inception) to March 31, 2015, excluding criteria 1122 (d) 1(i),
1(ii), 1(iii), 1(iv), 2(i), 2(iii), 2(iv), 2(v), 2(vi), 2(vii), 3(i), 4(i), 4(ii), 4(iii), 4(iv), 4(v), 4(vi), 4(vii), 4(viii),
4(ix), 4(x), 4(xi), 4(xii), 4(xiii), 4(xiv), and 4(xv), which management has determined are not applicable to the activities performed
by the Bank with respect to the Platform. Management is responsible for the Bank’s compliance with the servicing criteria
other than allocating amounts due to investors with regards to servicing criterion 1122(d)(3)(ii). Our responsibility is to express
an opinion on management’s assertion about the Bank’s compliance with the servicing criteria based on our examination.



Our examination was conducted in accordance with the standards of
the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) and, accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidence about
the Bank’s compliance with the applicable servicing criteria, including tests on a sample basis of the servicing activities
related to the Platform, determining whether the Bank performed those selected activities in compliance with the servicing criteria
during the specified period, and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. Our procedures
were limited to selected servicing activities performed by the Bank during the period covered by this report and, accordingly,
such samples may not have included servicing activities related to each asset-backed transaction included in the Platform. Further,
an examination is not designed to detect noncompliance arising from errors that may have occurred prior to the period specified
above that may have affected the balances or amounts calculated or reported by the Bank during the period covered by this report.
We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our examination does not provide a legal determination
on the Bank’s compliance with the servicing criteria.



In our opinion, management’s assertion that the Bank complied
with the aforementioned applicable servicing criteria as of March 31, 2015, and for the period from May 21, 2014 (date
of inception) to March 31, 2015, for the Honda Auto Receivables 2014-2 Owner Trust is fairly stated, in all material respects.







May 29, 2015
#### Corey BARBOUR, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 5D10-1367.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

July 2, 2010.

Corey Barbour, Lowell, pro se.

No Appearance for Appellee.

PALMER, J.

Corey Barbour appeals the trial court’s order denying his motions seeking post-conviction relief. *See*Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.850. Although Barbour raises eleven claims in his motions, only one merits discussion. Specifically, in ground ten, Barbour alleges that his sentence is illegal because he did not receive proper credit for the time he served in the county jail. The trial court denied this claim, stating that Barbour received credit for the time he served in county jail in a separate case and, since Barbour’s sentence in the instant case was ordered to run consecutively to the sentence in the separate case, he was not entitled to receive any additional jail credit.

The trial court is correct that a defendant is not entitled to receive credit for time served on each sentence when the court imposes consecutive sentences. *See Gillespie v. State,*910 So.2d 322 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005). Howrever, the trial court did not attach any portion of the record to support its conclusion that Barbour had received jail credit on either of his sentences. Therefore, we remand this case for the attachment of portions of the record conclusively refuting Barbour’s claim.

AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; and REMANDED.

LAWSON and EVANDER, JJ., concur.
645 A.2d 132

#### IN THE MATTER OF ANGELA M. BRAY, AN ATTORNEY AT LAW.

August 10, 1994.

ORDER

The Disciplinary Review Board having filed a report with the Court, recommending that ANGELA M. BRAY of TEANECK, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 1981, be indefinitely suspended from practice by way of reciprocal discipline pursuant to *Rule*1:20-7, respondent having been disbarred by the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York for failing to respond to disciplinary charges against her;

And respondent having been ordered to show cause why she should not be suspended from practice unless and until reinstated to practice in New York;

And the Court having deferred its consideration of the matter pending action by the New York court on respondent’s application to vacate the order of disbarment;

And respondent’s application to vacate the order of disbarment having been denied by the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York on July 7, 1994;

And good cause appearing;

It is ORDERED that ANGELA M. BRAY of TEANECK be suspended from the practice of law, effective immediately and until further Order of the Court; and it is further

ORDERED that no petition for reinstatement to practice be submitted unless and until respondent is reinstated to practice in New York; and it is further

ORDERED that the entire record of this matter be made a permanent part of respondent’s file as an attorney at law of this State; and it is further

*301ORDERED that respondent be restrained and enjoined from practicing law during the period of her suspension and that she comply with Regulation 23 of the Administrative Guidelines Governing Suspended Attorneys; and it is further

ORDERED that respondent reimburse the Office of Attorney Ethics and the Disciplinary Review Board for appropriate administrative costs incurred in the prosecution of this matter.
#### STATE ex rel. Tony Joseph TABOR v. STATE of Louisiana.

No. 2010-KH-0283.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 8, 2011.

In re Tabor, Tony Joseph; —Defendant (s); Applying for Reconsideration of this Courts action dated February 18, 2011 Parish of Terrebonne, 32nd Judicial District Court, Division E, No. 447,948; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2007 KA 0058.

Denied.
#### Clinton BOE and Lori Boe v. STATE of Louisiana through the DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND DEVELOPMENT, Elbert L. Clemens and Usagencies Casualty Insurance Company.

No. 2011-CC-0143.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 4, 2011.

In re Department of Transportation and Development; State of Louisiana; —Defendants); Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Ascension, 23rd Judicial District Court Div. C, No. 82,359; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2010 CW 1748.

Denied.
Exhibit 21.1

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                 Subsidiaries of the Registrant


<S>                                                <C>
NSTAR
  BEC Energy
    Boston Edison Company
    Harbor Electric Energy Company
    BEC Funding LLC
  Boston Energy Technology Group, Inc.
    Northwind Boston LLC
    NSTAR Communications, Inc.
      NSTAR Communication Securities Corporation
  Commonwealth Energy System
    Commonwealth Electric Company
    Cambridge Electric Light Company
    Canal Electric Company
    NSTAR Gas Company
    NSTAR Steam Corporation
    Hopkinton LNG Corp.
    Advanced Energy Systems, Inc.
      MATEP, LLC
      Advanced Energy Systems Management Company, Inc.
      Medical Area Total Energy Plant, Inc.
    Energy Investment Services, Inc.
  NSTAR Electric & Gas Corporation

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
The schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
consolidated financial statements and is qualified in its entirety by reference
to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>


<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               SEP-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                  OCT-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                    SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                            9,298,822
<SECURITIES>                        214,381
<RECEIVABLES>                       626,288
<ALLOWANCES>                              0
<INVENTORY>                               0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                 10,653,244
<PP&E>                           10,852,956
<DEPRECIATION>                    1,183,774
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                   23,244,954
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>             3,657,755
<BONDS>                                   0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                     0
<PREFERRED>                               0
<COMMON>                              7,932
<OTHER-SE>                       15,835,055
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>     23,244,954
<SALES>                          20,987,613
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                 20,987,613
<CGS>                            21,231,139
<TOTAL-COSTS>                    13,956,407
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                          0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                          0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                  348,457
<INCOME-PRETAX>                    (591,983)
<INCOME-TAX>                         32,494
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                (624,477)
<DISCONTINUED>                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                     177,125
<CHANGES>                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                       (801,602)
<EPS-BASIC>                             0
<EPS-DILUTED>                             0



</TABLE>
News United States Air Force
 A-10s land on highway in EstoniaPublished Aug. 5, 2016
                        
                        By Senior Airman Missy Sterling
                        
                        
                        442d Fighter Wing Public Affairs
                **JAGALA, Estonia (AFNS) --**
                Eight Air Force Reserve Command A-10 Thunderbolt IIs conducted highway landings on the Jägala-Käravete Highway in Northern Estonia  Aug 1.The A-10s are assigned to the 442nd Fighter Wing at Whiteman Air Force Base, Missouri, and according to Col. Gregory Eckfeld, the 442nd FW vice commander, it is important to practice landing on alternative runways in case primary runways are not available during a combat situation.Eight successful landings and takeoffs from the highway not only displayed the Air Force’s tactical capabilities, it also displayed the partnership between the U.S. and Estonia that allowed for the coordination of the event.“Overall, the Estonians were great in helping us out and getting our mission accomplished, and as far as the coordination went, it couldn’t have gone smoother,” said a 321st Special Tactics Squadron combat controller who acted as air traffic control for the event. “This was a good experience and a good time and it definitely enhanced our capability and presence in the area.”This event marked the second highway landing to take place in Estonia; the first took place last June as part of exercise Saber Strike 16.The A-10’s design allows the aircraft to be able to land in a variety of locations, including semi-prepared landing strips and austere sites.“We can operate the A-10 anytime, anywhere, 24/7,” said Eckfeld, adding that the A-10 has wide tires and high-mounted engines, which help avoid foreign object damage and allows the aircraft to land on many surfaces other aircraft cannot.The 442nd FW arrived in Estonia July 25 and began a flying training deployment with the Estonian Air Force in support of Operation Atlantic Resolve. The exercise demonstrates the commitment the U.S. has made to European security and demonstrates joint force capabilities and readiness.Estonia 



USAFE 



Whiteman AFB 



ACC 



A-10
#### Dierros NIMMONS, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 1D10-1501.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Oct. 6, 2010.

Dierros Nimmons, pro se, Petitioner.

Bill McCollum, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The amended petition seeking a belated appeal of the judgment and sentence rendered on or about April 17, 2009, in Duval County Circuit Court case number 16-*992007-Cf-013890-BXXX-MA, is granted. Upon issuance of mandate, a copy of this opinion shall be furnished to the clerk of the lower tribunal for treatment as a notice of appeal in accordance with Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(c)(5)(D). If petitioner qualifies for the appointment of counsel at public expense, the lower tribunal shall appoint counsel to represent him on appeal.

WOLF, ROBERTS, and WETHERELL, JJ., concur.
#### Joseph Henry TEALE, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 1D11-2760.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

June 10, 2011.

Joseph Henry Teale, pro se, Petitioner.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

DISMISSED. *See Baker v. State,*878 So.2d 1236 (Fla.2004).

DAVIS, ROBERTS, and ROWE, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>   1
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 11.2
 
                  COMPUTATION OF PRO FORMA PER SHARE EARNINGS
 
                      ADVANCED COMMUNICATION SYSTEMS, INC.
                     (IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT PER SHARE DATA)
 
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                             SEPTEMBER 30,   SEPTEMBER 30,
                                                                 1997            1996
                                                             -------------   -------------
<S>                                                          <C>             <C>
Basic:
  Basic average shares outstanding.........................      4,306           3,733
  Stock issued to satisfy S corporation distribution in
     excess of preceding twelve months earnings based on
     the initial public offering price per share...........        376             479
                                                                ------          ------
  Total basic average shares outstanding...................      4,682           4,212
                                                                ======          ======
  Pro forma net income.....................................     $  915          $1,162
                                                                ======          ======
  Pro form net income per share - basic....................     $ 0.20          $ 0.28
                                                                ======          ======
Diluted:
  Total basic average shares outstanding...................      4,682           4,212
  Plus dilutive stock options..............................         47              74
                                                                ------          ------
  Total diluted average shares.............................      4,729           4,286
                                                                ======          ======
  Net income per share - diluted...........................     $ 0.19          $ 0.27
                                                                ======          ======
</TABLE>
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE

F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER ON M OTION FOR R EHEARING

Appellate case name: Francisco Chamul v. Amerisure Mutual Ins. Co.

Appellate case number: 01

- 14

- 00508

- CV

Trial court case number: 2012

- 14219

Trial court: 190 th District Court of Harris County

Date motion filed: February 24, 2016

Party filing motion: Appellee

It is ordered that the motion for rehearing is DENIED GRANTED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Harvey Brown

Acting individually Acting for the Court

Panel consists of: Justices Terry Jennings, Laura Higley, and Harvey Brown

Date: March 8, 2016
# U n i ted S t a te s C ou r t o f Appe a l s F OR T HE D IS TRICT OF C OLUM BIA C IRCUI T

___ ___ ___ ___ 

## No. 22-1018 September Term, 2023 FERC-ER21-11 11-0 02 FERC-ER21-11 11-0 03 FERC-ER21-11 11-0 05 FERC-ER21-11 15-0 00 FERC-ER21-11 15-0 03 Filed O n: Sep tem ber 1 9, 2 023 Advance d E nergy

United , In c., e t al., Pet itione rs
v . Fede ral Ene rg y

Regulato ry

Com mission , Respo nde nt

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- Alab am a P ower Compa ny, et a l.,

Inte rv eno rs
BEFORE: W ilkins and Rao, Circuit Jud ges, an d T ate l, Se nior Circuit Jud ge O R D E R Upon con siderat ion o f

the Fed eral En ergy

Regulato ry

Com mission ’s uno ppo sed mo tion for clarif ication of the July 14, 2 023 op inion in th is case, it is ORDERED tha t th e m otion be granted . Itis FURTHER ORDERED tha t th e o pinion issued July 14, 2 023 , be am end ed as follows: (1) Slip. o p., Page 2 2: Delete : “T he plain text of Se ction 205 gav e th e Com mission 60 da ys to act a f ter Inte rv eno rs subm itted the f inal S EEM Pro posa l f iling on Au gust 11 , 20 21. Acco rdingly , the f inal d ate for FERC to act on the SEE M Propo sal was Octob er 10 , 20 21. ”

# U n i ted S t a te s C ou r t o f Appe a l s F OR T HE D IS TRICT OF C OLUM BIA C IRCUI T

___ ___ ___ ___ 

## No. 22-1018 September Term, 2023
Inse rt in lieu the reof : “Und er FERC’s con struction of sectio n 2 05(d ), the last d ay the Com mission cou ld ha ve issue d a n o rder on the SEE M Propo sal was Octob er 11 , 202 1, t he day before t he prop osed ef fective dat e.” (2) Slip. o p., Page 2 2: Delete : “of

[th e Oct obe r 10, 20 21] orde r.” Inse rt in lieu the reof : “of [th e Oct obe r 11, 20 21] orde r.” (3) Slip. o p., Page 2 2: Delete : “T hirtyda ys f rom Octob er 10 , 20 21, was T uesd ay, Nov em ber 9 , 20 21. ” Inse rt in lieu the reof : “T hirtyda ys f rom Octob er 11 , 20 21, was W edn esda y , Novembe r 10, 20 21. ” (4) Slip o p., page 2 3: Delete : “Octo ber 1 0, 2 021 —origi nally fe ll on a Su nda y , an d th e followi ng day—” T he Clerk is directed to issue t he am end ed opin ion.
Per Curiam
FOR THE COURT:

Mark J. La nger, Clerk BY: /s/ Daniel J. Reidy Depu ty Cl erk

Page 2
857 A.2d 181

#### CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, Petitioner, v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION and Kimberly Hayes, Respondents.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

July 13, 2004.

*533
      *ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 13th day of July, 2004, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is hereby GRANTED, LIMITED to the following issue:

> Whether the common pleas court and the Commonwealth Court erred as a matter of law in affirming the decision of the Civil Service Commission of the City of Philadelphia where the Commission relied on properly objected to hearsay documents in rendering its opinion?
ex10_2.htm


    
      

    

    
      EXHIBIT  10.2

    

    
      


    

    
      ANNEX
B

    

    
      


    

    
      FORM OF
WAIVER

    

    
      


    

    
      In
consideration for the benefits I will receive as a result of my employer's
participation in the United States Department of the Treasury's TARP Capital
Purchase Program, I hereby voluntarily waive any claim against the United States
or my employer for any changes to my compensation or benefits that are required
to comply with the regulation issued by the Department of the Treasury as
published in the Federal Register on October 20, 2008.

    

    
      


    

    
      I
acknowledge that this regulation may require modification of the compensation,
bonus, incentive and other benefit plans, arrangements, policies and agreements
(including so-called "golden parachute" agreements) that I have with my employer
or in which I participate as they relate to the period the United States holds
any equity or debt securities of my employer acquired through the TARP Capital
Purchase Program.

    

    
      


    

    
      This
waiver includes all claims I may have under the laws of the United States or any
state related to the requirements imposed by the aforementioned regulation,
including without limitation a claim for any compensation or other payments I
would otherwise receive, any challenge to the process by which this regulation
was adopted and any tort or constitutional claim about the effect of these
regulations on my employment relationship.