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

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                         307,769
<SECURITIES>                                   608,610
<RECEIVABLES>                                   15,217
<ALLOWANCES>                                       936
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               810,765
<PP&E>                                         230,163
<DEPRECIATION>                                  31,907
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,176,266
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           83,668
<BONDS>                                        400,645
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          239,216
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            36
<OTHER-SE>                                     448,842
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,176,266
<SALES>                                         25,458
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                25,458
<CGS>                                           23,231
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   54,708
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,965
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (25,344)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (25,344)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (25,344)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (1.18)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.18)


</TABLE>
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

THOMPSON•KRONE, P.L.C.

4601 East Ft. Lowell Road, Suite 109

Tucson, AZ 85712

(520) 884-9694

FAX: (520) 323-4613

Evan L. Thompson, PCC: 65072, State Bar No. 017064

Evan@thompsonkrone.com

Russell E. Krone, PCC 64882, State Bar No. 01585

Attorneys for Defendants SBBI, Inc. and

Hartford Fire Insurance Company

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

IN AND FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

UNITED STATES of America, for the Use 

and Benefit of DURHAM 

STABILIZATION, INC., a California 

corporation,

Plaintiff,

v.

SBBI, INC., a Louisiana corporation; 

HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE 

COMPANY, a Connecticut casualty insurer;

JOHN DOES 1through 100; JANE DOES 

1-100, BLACK CORPORATIONS 1-100, 

WHITE PARTNERSHIPS 1-100, and 

BLUE LLC’S 1-100,

Defendants.

CASE NO. 3:15-CV-08166

CORPORATE DISCLOSURE 

STATEMENT OF DEFENDANT 

SBBI, INC.

This Corporate Disclosure Statement is filed on behalf of Defendant SBBI, Inc. in 

compliance with Rule 7.1, Fed.R.Civ.P., which provides that a nongovernmental corporate 

party to an action in a district court must file a statement that identifies any parent 

corporation and any publicly held corporation that owns 10% or more of its stock or state that 

there is no such corporation. SBBI, Inc. declares that there is no such corporation.

A supplemental disclosure statement will be filed upon any change in the information 

provided herein. 

Case 3:15-cv-08166-JAT Document 9 Filed 10/27/15 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

Dated this 27th day of October, 2015.

THOMPSON•KRONE, P.L.C.

By: /s/ Evan L. Thompson

Evan L. Thompson

Attorneys for Defendants SBBI, Inc. 

and Hartford Fire Insurance 

Company

I hereby certify that on October 27, 2015 I electronically

transmitted the attached document to the Clerk’s Office using

the CM/ECF System for filing and transmittal of a Notice of

Electronic Filing to the following CM/ECF registrants:

Karen A. Palecek

Palecek & Palecek PLLC

6263 North Scottsdale Road, Suite 310

Scottsdale, AZ 85250

Attorneys for Plaintiff

/s/ Dan Hollnagel

Case 3:15-cv-08166-JAT Document 9 Filed 10/27/15 Page 2 of 2
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"NASA","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/nasamigrate\/","title":"Multi-Utility Technology Testbed Aircraft On the Runway","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"k1vLLSjrFM\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/image-detail\/multi-utility-technology-testbed-aircraft-runway\/\">Multi-Utility Technology Testbed Aircraft On the Runway<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/image-detail\/multi-utility-technology-testbed-aircraft-runway\/embed\/#?secret=k1vLLSjrFM\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Multi-Utility Technology Testbed Aircraft On the Runway” — NASA\" data-secret=\"k1vLLSjrFM\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","thumbnail_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/ed15-0104-78-1.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":400}
<PAGE>   1

                                                                  EXHIBIT 10.29


                                ADDENDUM NO. 3

                     attaching to and forming part of the

                   CATASTROPHE "AWARDS MADE" EXCESS OF LOSS
                             REINSURANCE CONTRACT

                                 made between

         INTERMED INSURANCE COMPANY and/or INTERLEX INSURANCE COMPANY
                           of Springfield, Missouri
                 (hereinafter referred to as "the Reassured")

                                     and

                         REINSURERS SIGNATORY HERETO
                (hereinafter referred to as "the Reinsurers")

                    U.S. CLASSIFICATION: U.S. REINSURANCE


With effect from 1st October, 1997, the following amendments are made to this
Contract:

1.   The first paragraph of ARTICLE 8 - PREMIUM, is amended to read as follows:

         In consideration of the liabilities undertaken by the Reinsurers in
         accordance with the terms of this Contract, the Reassured shall pay
         the Reinsurers a premium for each Contract Year hereunder, calculated
         at the rate of 1.50% of the Reassured's subject matter Premium Income
         (being the sum of Intermed Insurance Company's Gross Net Earned
         Premium Income for original policies up to US$1,000,000 or so deemed,
         and Interlex Insurance Company's Gross Net Written Premium Income for
         original policies up to US$1,000,000 or so deemed, including Premium
         in respect of Defence Costs Allowance Rider on policy limits up to
         US$1,000,000) for the Contract Year under consideration, subject,
         however, to an annual Minimum and Deposit Premium of US$170,000
         payable in four equal instalments on 1st October, 1997, 1st January,
         1998, 1st April, 1998 and 1st July, 1998.

2.   The participations of Reinsurers shall be as shown in the attached
     Schedules and not as heretofore.

ALL OTHER TERMS AND CONDITIONS REMAIN UNALTERED


IN WITNESS WHERREOF the parties hereto have, by their duly authorised
representative, executed this Addendum as follows.

Signed in Springfield, Missouri, this 29th day of December, 1997


For and on behalf of the Reassured:
INTERMED INSURANCE COMPANY


/s/

And for the Reinsurers by means of and in accordance with the attached
Schedules which shall be considered to form an integral part of this Contract.
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A18A1448. MERIAM SMITH v. WRI CAPITAL GROUP, LLC A/A/F

RESIDENTIAL CAPITAL MANAGEMENT FUND 1, LP.

This case began as a dispossessory proceeding in magistrate court. After the

magistrate court issued a writ of possession in favor of the plaintiff, the defendant

Meriam Smith appealed to the superior court. The superior court also entered a writ

of possession in favor of the plaintiff. Smith then filed this direct appeal. We lack

jurisdiction.

“[A]ppeals from decisions of the superior courts reviewing decisions of lower

courts by certiorari or de novo proceedings shall be by application for discretionary

appeal.” Bullock v. Sand, 260 Ga. App. 874, 875 (581 SE2d 333) (2003); see also

OCGA § 5-6-35 (a) (1). Because Smith did not follow the proper procedure for

requesting appellate review in this case, we lack jurisdiction over this appeal, which

is hereby DISMISSED.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

April 12, 2018

04/12/2018
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 211 (Friday, October 31, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 64887]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-25959]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY


Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

ACTION: Notice; correction.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of the Treasury published a document in the 
Federal Register on October 24, 2014 (79 FR 63669), inviting comments 
on collections of information submitted to the Office of Management and 
Budget (OMB) for review. This document contained an incorrect office 
reference.

Correction

    In the Federal Register of October 24, 2014, in FR Doc. 2014-25351, 
make the following corrections:
    <bullet> Page 63669, in the second column, under SUMMARY: remove 
``Currently, the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Financial 
Markets, within the Department of the Treasury, is soliciting comments 
concerning the New Issue Bond Program and Temporary Credit and 
Liquidity Program.''

    Dated: October 28, 2014.
Brenda Simms,
Treasury PRA Clearance Officer.
[FR Doc. 2014-25959 Filed 10-30-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4810-25-P
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Felix De Santiago-Chaparro,

Petitioner, 

v. 

USA, 

Respondent.

No. CV15-2555 PHX DGC (DKD)

No. CR14-1414 PHX DGC 

ORDER 

 Petitioner Felix De Santiago-Chaparro has filed a motion to vacate sentence 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Doc. 1. United States Magistrate Judge David K. Duncan 

has issued a report and recommendation (“R&R”) recommending that the motion be 

denied. Doc. 6. No objection has been filed, which relieves the Court of its obligation to 

review the R&R. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); Thomas v. Arn, 

474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 

2003). The Court will accept the R&R and deny the motion as moot. 

IT IS ORDERED:

 1. The R&R (Doc. 6) is accepted. 

 2. The motion to vacate sentence (Doc. 1) is denied as moot. 

 3. A certificate of appealability and leave to proceed in forma pauperis on 

appeal are denied

Case 2:15-cv-02555-DGC Document 7 Filed 05/12/16 Page 1 of 2
‐ 2 ‐ 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

 4. The Clerk is directed to terminate this action. 

 Dated this 12th day of May, 2016. 

 

Case 2:15-cv-02555-DGC Document 7 Filed 05/12/16 Page 2 of 2
Case 3:15-cr-08235-DLR Document 4 Filed 10/08/15 Page 1 of 3
Case 3:15-cr-08235-DLR Document 4 Filed 10/08/15 Page 2 of 3
Case 3:15-cr-08235-DLR Document 4 Filed 10/08/15 Page 3 of 3
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








In connection with the Annual Report of Unilava Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date here of (the "report"), I, Baldwin Yung, Chief Executive Officer and 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:





(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 this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





Dated this 16th day of April, 2012.








/s/ Baldwin YungBaldwin YungChief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
EXHIBIT 99(b)



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 the Quarterly Report of United Rentals, Inc. and United Rentals (North America), Inc. (the
Companies) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, John N. Milne, President and Chief Financial Officer of the Companies,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:



| |  | 1. |  | the Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) 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 Companies.



/s/    JOHN N.
MILNEJohn N. Milne President and Chief Financial Officer




|May |  | 14, 2003
|--- |  | --------
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

United States of America, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Baylen Boyd Bedell, 

Defendant.

No. CR-16-0113-PHX-SRB

DETENTION ORDER 

 In accordance with the Bail Reform Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f), the issue of 

detention was addressed at a hearing on January 29, 2016. The Court was informed that 

the defendant is subject to other custody and is not eligible for release at this time. 

 The Court finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant is subject to 

other custody and should be similarly detained in this case. If circumstances change such 

that defendant is no longer in custody in the other matter, defendant shall have leave to 

request that the matter of detention be reopened in this case. 

 IT IS ORDERED that the defendant be detained pending further proceedings. The 

defendant is committed to the custody of the Attorney General or his designated 

representative for confinement in a corrections facility separate, to the extent practicable, 

from persons awaiting or serving sentences or being held in custody pending appeal. The 

defendant shall be afforded a reasonable opportunity for private consultation with defense 

counsel. On order of the Court of the United States or on request of an attorney for the 

government, the person in charge of the corrections facility shall deliver the defendant to 

Case 2:16-cr-00113-SRB Document 9 Filed 02/01/16 Page 1 of 2
- 2 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

the United States Marshal for the purpose of an appearance in connection with a Court 

proceeding. 

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that should a motion for review/reconsideration of 

this detention order be filed, it is counsel's responsibility to deliver a copy of the motion 

for review/reconsideration to Pretrial Services at least one day prior to the hearing. 

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if a release to a third party is to be considered, it 

is counsel's responsibility to notify Pretrial Services sufficiently in advance of the hearing 

to allow Pretrial Services an opportunity to interview and investigate the potential third 

party custodian. 

 Dated this 1st day of February, 2016. 

Case 2:16-cr-00113-SRB Document 9 Filed 02/01/16 Page 2 of 2
Order filed June 9, 2016

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 16

- 00325

- CV

____________ IN THE INTEREST OF J .N.L., A CHILD

On Appeal from the 257th District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2015

- 45052



### ORDER
This appeal is from an order signed January 14, 2016 . Appellant filed a notice of appeal on February 8, 2016 . Appellant filed an affidavit of indigenc e on May 12,
2016

. No contest was filed. “Unless a contest is timely filed, no hearing will be conducted, the affidavit’s allegations will be deemed true, and the party will be allowed to proceed without advance payments of costs.” See Tex. R. App. P. 20.1(f).
Accordingly, t he official court reporter for the 257th District Court is directed to file the reporter’s record within 30 days of the date of this order

.
PER CURIAM
Case 2:15-mj-01955-JFM Document 3 Filed 12/28/15 Page 1 of 3
Case 2:15-mj-01955-JFM Document 3 Filed 12/28/15 Page 2 of 3
Case 2:15-mj-01955-JFM Document 3 Filed 12/28/15 Page 3 of 3
#### J. Guthrie Coke *v.*J. Allen Porter, et al.

Pleading — Petition Alleging Action on Supersedeas Bond.

A petition, alleging the execution of a supersedeas bond, and all facts of its course through the Appellate Court, constitutes a good cause of action.

Same — Demurrer.

A demurrer to such petition should be overruled.

APPEAL PROM JEFFERSON CIRCUIT COURT, C. P.

May 1, 1871.

Opinion of the Court by

Judge Peters:

It is alleged in the petition of appellant that appellee covenanted in the bond sued on that Porter & Brooks would pay to appellant *all costs and damages*that might be adjudged against them on the appeal, that they would satisfy, and perform the said decree in case it should be affirmed, and any judgment, or order, which the Court of Appeals might render, or direct the inferior court to render, &c.

A copy of the supersedeas bond is filed, which is made the foundation of the action, containing the covenants substantially as recited.

And it averred that on the 17th of November, 1869, that the *27Court of Appeals adjudged that there was uo error, in the judgment appealed from, that the same be affirmed, and that the appellee in said appeal recover from appellant ten per cent damages on the amount superceded, that the amount superceded was $1,687.48, being debt and interest up to the 2nd of February, 1869, and 33 85-100 costs; that ten per cent damages amounted to $172.20, to which he was entitled by reason of said affirmance, and judgment of the Court of Appeals, which was then due and unpaid, and for which he prayed judgment.

*Arbegust, for appellant.*

*Stratton, for appellee.*

The covenant on the part of appellees to pay such damages as this court might adjudge in the appeal in case of affirmance, that the judgment was affirmed with ten per cent damages on the amount superceded, the precise amount of the damages, and he non-payment thereof, are all distinctly set forth in the petition. The covenant and the breach are well pleaded, and a good cause of action set forth in the petition, and 'consequently the demurrer to it should have been overruled. Wherefore, the judgment is *reversed,*and the cause is remanded, with directions to overrule the demurrer to the petition and for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2788 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

108th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                 S. 2788

  To reauthorize appropriations for the Pacific coast salmon recovery 
  fund and include the State of Idaho in the salmon recovery program.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 10, 2004

Mr. Crapo (for himself and Mr. Stevens) introduced the following bill; 
    which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, 
                      Science, and Transportation

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To reauthorize appropriations for the Pacific coast salmon recovery 
  fund and include the State of Idaho in the salmon recovery program.

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

                    pacific coastal salmon recovery.

    Section 1.
    Section 623(d)(2) of the Departments of Commerce, Justice, and 
State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2000 (16 
U.S.C. 3645(d)(2)), is amended--
            (1) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``2000, 2001, 2002, 
        and 2003, $90,000,000 to the States of Alaska, Washington, 
        Oregon, and California'' and inserting ``2004, 2005, 2006, 
        2007, and 2008, $200,000,000 to the States of Alaska, 
        Washington, Oregon, California, and Idaho''; and
            (2) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``2000, 2001, 2002, 
        and 2003, $10,000,000'' and inserting ``2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 
        and 2008, $20,000,000''.
                                 <all>
```