alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
|                                                     |   |   |   | Three-month                period |   | Three-month                period |   |
|----------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|--------|-----------------------------------|--------|-----------------------------------|--------|
|                                                     |   |   |   | ended                             |   | ended                             |   |
|                                                     |   |   |   | March                31, 2007     |   | March                31, 2006     |   |
|                                                     |   |   |   |                              |   |                              |   |
| Net                income                                |   |   |   |                              |   | $7,490                            |   |   | $8,112 |   |
| Deduct:  Senior                preferred stock |   |   |   |                              |   |                              |   |   |   |   |
| and                series A preferred                    |   |   |   |                              |   |                              |   |   |   |   |
| stock                dividends                           |   |   |   |                              |   | 6,270                             |   |   | 6,270 |   |
|                                                     |   |   |   |                              |   |                              |   |   |   |   |
|                                                          |   |   | (A)    |                              |   | $1,220                            |   |   | $1,842 |   |
| Common                share outstanding                  |   |   | (B)    |                              |   | 100                               |   |   | 100 |   |
|                                                     |   |   |   |                              |   |                              |   |   |   |   |
| Earning                per share                         |   |   | (A/B)  |                                   |   | $12                               |   |   | $18 |   |

----
#### R. J. Carter *v.*F. F. Hazelrigg’s Adm’r.

Bailment — Depositum—Bailee Not Responsible for Loss.

Where property is placed by its owner in the hands of another person for his own accommodation, the bailee is not responsible to the bailor unless loss occurs through his negligence.

APPEAL PROM MONTGOMERY CIRCUIT COURT.

October 10, 1871.

*Holt, for appellant.*

*Apperson, Reid, for appellee.*

Opinion by

Judge Pryor:

The evidence in this case shows that the mules and wagon in controversy were left in the possession of Hazelrigg at the instance of the appellant. Hazelrigg placed them in charge of a neighbor to be kept by him until appellant could send for them. It was not incumbent on him to take charge of this property, and his action in regard to it resulted from his kindness to .the owner, and not for any reward promised or expected. It also appears that Hazelrigg himself left the town and died some time afterwards. Whilst this stock was at Mount Sterling, the confederate forces were at the town and appropriating all property necessary to ■ supply their wants and, it may be, took possession of appellant’s stock. The loss of the property resulted from no act of Hazelrigg or by reason .of any negligence on his part, and there is no reason for making his estate responsible for its value.

The judgment is affirmed.
II

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 584

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JULY 16, 1997

Received

AN ACT

For the relief of John Wesley Davis.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

HR 584 RDS

1 SECTION 1. WAIVER OF TIME LIMITATIONS.

2 The time limitations set forth in sections 3702(c) and

3 3328(a)(1) of title 31, United States Code, shall not apply

4 with respect to a claim by John Wesley Davis, of Forest5 ville, Maryland, for the amounts due to him by the—

6 (1) Department of the Navy in the amount of

7 $42,123.84; and

8 (2) Department of the Treasury in the amount

9 of $12,508.20.

10 The amounts due are represented by checks that were re11 ceived but not negotiated by John Wesley Davis.

12 SEC. 2. DEADLINE.

13 Section 1 shall apply only if John Wesley Davis or

14 his authorized representative submits a claim pursuant to

15 such subsection before the expiration of the 6-month pe16 riod beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act.

Passed the House of Representatives July 15, 1997.

Attest: ROBIN H. CARLE,

Clerk.
#### Randall G. WISE, Claimant-Appellant, v. Anthony J. PRINCIPI, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 02-7310.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

Oct. 21, 2004.

ORDER

Pursuant to the Court’s letter dated September 27, 2004,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

This appeal is dismissed.
**Exhibit 3.3(c)**

 

Third AmendedExhibit 3.1

** **

**MEMBERS OF THECOMPANY; CAPITAL CONTRIBUTIONS**

** **

| **Members**    | **Class A		Units (1)** | **Class B-1		Units (1)** | **Class B-2		Units (2)** | **Class C		Units (1)** | **Percentage		Interests (Class B 	Units only)** |
|----------------|------------------------|--------------------------|--------------------------|------------------------|-------------------------------------------------|
| USPB           | 94,680,681             | 10,664,475               |                     |                   | 54.7612%                                        |
| NBPCo Holdings | 31,553,956             | 3,810,044                |                     |                   | 19.5643%                                        |
| MillerCo       |                   | 2,247,619                |                     |                   | 11.5413%                                        |
| Miller         | 6,057,143              |                     | 609,524                  | 609,524                | 3.1299%                                         |
| KleinCo        |                   | 1,123,810                |                     |                   | 5.7707%                                         |
| Klein          | 3,028,571              |                     |                     | 304,762                | 0%                                              |
| SmithCo        | 1,514,286              | 714,286                  |                     |                   | 3.6678%                                         |
| TMKCo          |                   |                     | 304,762                  |                   | 1.5649%                                         |
| **Total**      | **136,834,637**        | **18,560,234**           | **914,286**              | **914,286**            | **100.00%**                                     |

** **

**-------**

(1)           Initial Capital Contribution is equal toan amount in U.S. Dollars equal to the number of Units of such Class and thenumber of units issued with respect to the Brawley transaction.

(2)           Initial CapitalContribution with respect to Class B-2 Units is zero.
# Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas January 28, 2022
No. 04

- 21

- 00556

- CV
BEXAR APPRAISAL REVIEW BOARD ,

Appellant

v. LUCIFER LIGHTING COMPANY ,

Appellee
From the 37th Judicial District Court , Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2021

- CI

- 09696 Honorable Norma Gonzales , Judge Presiding



### O R D E R Appellant appeals from the trial court’s order denying its plea to the jurisdiction. An appeal from such an order is accelerated. See T EX

. C IV

. P RAC

. & R EM

. C ODE A NN . 51.014(a)( 8). The trial court signed the order on October 27, 2021 . Because this is an accelerated appeal, the notice of appeal was due November 16, 2021

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 26.1(b). A motion for extension of time to file the notice of appeal was due on December 1, 20 21

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 26.3. Although appellant filed a notice of appeal within the fifteen

- day grace period allowed by Rule 26.3, it did not file a motion for extension of time. A motion for extension of time is necessarily implied when an appellant, a cting in good faith, files a notice of appeal beyond the time allowed by Rule 26.1 but within the fifteen

- day grace period provided by Rule 26.3 for filing a motion for extension of time. See Verburgt v. Dorner , 959 S.W.2d 615, 617 (Tex. 1997) (construing the predecessor to Rule 26). However, the appellant must offer a reasonable explanation for failing to file the notice of appeal in a timely manner. See id. ; T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 26.3, 10.5(b)(1)(C). We therefore ORDER appellant to file, within fifteen da ys from the date of this order, a written response presenting a reasonable explanation for failing to file the notice of appeal in a timely manner. If appellant fails to respond within the time provided, the appeal will be dismissed. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42 .3( c). Further, appellant’s brief was due January 11, 2022, but has not been filed. We ORDER appellant to file, on or before February 17 , 2022 its appellant’s brief and a written responsereasonably explaining (1) its failure to timely file the brief and (2) why appellee is not

significantly injured by appellant’s failure to timely file a brief. If appellant fails to file a brief and the written response by the date ordered, its appeal will be dismissed for want of prosecution. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 38.8(a); see also T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.3(c) (allowing involuntary dismissal if appellant has failed to comply with a court order).

_________________________________ Liz a A. Rodriguez , Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 28th day of January, 2022

.

___________________________________ MICHAEL A. CRUZ , Clerk of Court
Exhibit 21
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Andrew Wagner","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/acwagner\/","title":"Tech Today: Cutting the Knee Surgery Cord","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"tLewipqB1e\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/technology\/tech-transfer-spinoffs\/tech-today-cutting-the-knee-surgery-cord\/\">Tech Today: Cutting the Knee Surgery Cord<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/technology\/tech-transfer-spinoffs\/tech-today-cutting-the-knee-surgery-cord\/embed\/#?secret=tLewipqB1e\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Tech Today: Cutting the Knee Surgery Cord” — NASA\" data-secret=\"tLewipqB1e\" 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\/2024\/03\/carrotta-orthosur-web.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":400}
EXHIBIT 10.154

 

 

**SIXTH AMENDMENT TO DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN**

 

The Deferred Compensation Plan adopted by Pentastar Services, Inc., predecessor to Dollar Thrifty Automotive Group, Inc. (“DTAG”), on December 28, 1994, as amended by (i) Amendment to Deferred Compensation Plan adopted by DTAG on September 29, 1998, (ii) Second Amendment to Deferred Compensation Plan adopted by DTAG on September 23, 1999, (iii) Third  Amendment to Deferred Compensation Plan adopted by DTAG on January 14, 2000, (iv) Fourth Amendment to Deferred Compensation Plan adopted by DTAG on December 1, 2005, and (v) Fifth Amendment to Deferred Compensation Plan adopted by DTAG on February 1, 2007 and rescinded on February 27, 2007, (collectively, the “Plan”) is hereby amended by this Sixth Amendment to Deferred Compensation Plan.

 

The following paragraph is added as the last paragraph to Section 6.1 of the Plan:

 

Pursuant to IRS Notice 2006-79, a Participant may make new payment elections with respect to the time and form of payment of amounts deferred under this Plan, provided that such new payment election is made on or before December 31, 2007, and provided further that (i) the new election may apply only to amounts that would not otherwise be payable in 2007, and (ii) may not cause an amount to be paid in 2007 that would not otherwise be payable in 2007.  

 

This Sixth Amendment was approved by the Human Resources & Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of DTAG at its meeting held on September 26, 2007.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) Case No. 20 CR 299 

 ) 

 v. ) Judge Robert M. Dow, Jr. 

 ) 

HARDY BROWNER ) 

JOINT STATUS REPORT

The UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, by JOHN R. LAUSCH, JR., United 

States Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois, and defendant HARDY 

BROWNER, by his attorneys Molly Armour and Joshua G. Herman, respectfully 

submits this Status Report, pursuant to the Court’s Order of December 15, 2020 (R. 

# 39).

On June 17, 2020, the defendant was indicted on one count of violating Title 

18, United States Code, Section 1001(a)(2). On or about July 6, 2020, after a detention 

hearing before Judge Valdez, the defendant was ordered to remain in federal custody.

On or about June 18, 2020 and August 6, 2020, the government produced a 

total of approximately 15,000 pages of documents on a total of 10 discs. The 

government expects to produce another round of unclassified discovery of 

approximately 554 pages on 3 discs during the week of February 15, 2021. The 

government will also produce the first round of classified discovery to Mr. Herman 

that same week. The government anticipates that an additional round of unclassified 

and classified discovery will be produced as soon as the material has been processed 

by the FBI. 

Case: 1:20-cr-00299 Document #: 42 Filed: 02/11/21 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:125
The government recognizes its ongoing obligation to supplement these 

disclosures with new material as it becomes available. 

A status conference is currently scheduled for February 18, 2021. The parties 

request that the conference proceed as scheduled. 

 Respectfully submitted,

 JOHN R. LAUSCH, JR.

 United States Attorney

By: /s/ Barry Jonas 

BARRY JONAS

JORDAN MATTHEWS

Assistant U.S. Attorneys 

 219 South Dearborn St., Rm. 500

 Chicago, Illinois 60604

(312) 353-5300

/s/ Molly Armour 

MOLLY ARMOUR

Law Offices of Molly Armour

4050 N. Lincoln Avenue

Chicago, IL 60618

(773) 746-4849

Attorney for Defendant 

/s/ Joshua G. Herman 

JOSHUA G. HERMAN

53 West Jackson, Blvd. 

Suite 457

Chicago, IL 60604

(312) 909-0434

Attorney for Defendant

Case: 1:20-cr-00299 Document #: 42 Filed: 02/11/21 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:126
IV

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. RES. 229

Amending the Rules of the House of Representatives to limit admission

of ex-Members of the House of Representatives to the House floor

and rooms leading thereto in certain instances where personal or pecuniary interests are involved.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

SEPTEMBER 11, 1997

Mr. MENENDEZ (for himself, Mr. BARRETT of Wisconsin, Mr. MEEHAN, Mr.

FAZIO of California, Mr. BONIOR, Mr. EDWARDS, Mr. GEJDENSON, and

Mr. FARR of California) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Rules

RESOLUTION

Amending the Rules of the House of Representatives to

limit admission of ex-Members of the House of Representatives to the House floor and rooms leading thereto

in certain instances where personal or pecuniary interests

are involved.

1 Resolved, That clause 3 of rule XXXII of the Rules

2 of the House of Representatives is amended by inserting

3 after the first sentence the following new sentence: ‘‘Ex4 Members of the House of Representatives, former Par5 liamentarians of the House, and former elected officers

6 and former elected minority employees of the House shall
2

•HRES 229 IH

1 also be excluded from admission to the Hall of the House

2 and rooms leading thereto if they have a direct personal

3 or pecuniary interest in any measure or matter under con4 sideration in any committee or subcommittee, unless that

5 measure or matter contains any provision that affects such

6 individuals solely because they belong to the class of ex7 Members.’’.

Æ
#### Joseph C. HILLYARD, Claimant-Appellant, v. Anthony J. PRINCIPI, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 04-7021.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

Dec. 14, 2004.

ON MOTION

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of Joseph C. Hill-yard’s unopposed motion to voluntarily dismiss his appeal,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

(1) The motion is granted.

(2) Each side shall bear its own costs.
EXHIBIT 31

LONG BEACH MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST 2004-2
ASSET-BACKED CERTIFICATES
SERIES 2004-2


I, James Guerin, a Senior Vice President of Long Beach Securities Corp.,
certify that:

l.  I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K, and all reports
on Form 8-K containing distribution or servicing reports filed in
respect of periods included in the year covered by this annual report,
of Long Beach Mortgage Loan Trust 2004-2, Asset-Backed Certificates,
Series 2004-2;

2.  Based on my knowledge, the information in these reports, taken
as a whole, 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 as of the last day of the period covered by this annual report;

3.  Based on my knowledge, the distribution or servicing information
required to be provided to the Trustee by the servicer under the
pooling and servicing, or similar, agreement, for inclusion in these
reports is included in these reports;

4.  I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by
the servicer under the pooling and servicing, or similar, agreement
and based upon my knowledge and the annual compliance review required
under that agreement, and except as disclosed in the reports, the
servicer has fulfilled its obligations under that agreement; and

5. The reports disclose all significant deficiencies relating to the
servicer's compliance with the minimum servicing standards based upon
the report provided by an independent public accountant, after conducting
a review in compliance with the Uniform Single Attestation Program for
Mortgage Bankers or similar procedure, as set forth in the pooling and
servicing, or similar, agreement, that is included in these reports.


Dated:  March 1, 2005

By:  /s/  James Guerin
     James Guerin
     Senior Vice President
IV

House Calendar No. 155

105TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. RES. 385

[Report No. 105–434]

Waiving points of order against the conference report to accompany the

bill (H.R. 1757) to consolidate international affairs agencies, to authorize

appropriations for the Department of State and related agencies for

fiscal years 1998 and 1999, and to ensure that the enlargement of

the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) proceeds in a manner

consistent with United States interests, to strengthen relations between

the United States and Russia, to preserve the prerogatives of the Congress with respect to certain arms control agreements, and for other

purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 11, 1998

Mr. SOLOMON, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following resolution; which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed

RESOLUTION

Waiving points of order against the conference report to

accompany the bill (H.R. 1757) to consolidate international affairs agencies, to authorize appropriations for

the Department of State and related agencies for fiscal

years 1998 and 1999, and to ensure that the enlargement of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO)

proceeds in a manner consistent with United States interests, to strengthen relations between the United States
2

HRES 385 RH

and Russia, to preserve the prerogatives of the Congress

with respect to certain arms control agreements, and

for other purposes.

1 Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it

2 shall be in order to consider the conference report to ac3 company the bill (H.R. 1757) to consolidate international

4 affairs agencies, to authorize appropriations for the De5 partment of State and related agencies for fiscal years

6 1998 and 1999, and to ensure that the enlargement of

7 the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) proceeds

8 in a manner consistent with United States interests, to

9 strengthen relations between the United States and Rus10 sia, to preserve the prerogatives of the Congress with re11 spect to certain arms control agreements, and for other

12 purposes. All points of order against the conference report

13 and against its consideration are waived. The conference

14 report shall be considered as read.

House Calendar No. 155

105TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. RES. 385

[Report No. 105–434]

RESOLUTION

Waiving points of order against the conference rearms control agreements, and for other purposes. rogatives of the Congress with respect to certain United States and Russia, to preserve the pre- interests, to strengthen relations between the ceeds in a manner consistent with United States North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) pro- 1999, and to ensure that the enlargement of the and related agencies for fiscal years 1998 and ize appropriations for the Department of State solidate international affairs agencies, to author- port to accompany the bill (H.R. 1757) to conMARCH 11, 1998

Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be

printed