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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE BALANCE
SHEET AT MARCH 31, 2000 (UNAUDITED) AND THE STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOR THE
QUARTERLY PERIOD ENDED MARCH 31, 2000 (UNAUDITED) AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS INCLUDED AS PART OF ITS
QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-Q FOR THE PERIOD MARCH 31, 2000
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                         610,117
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  151,233
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               761,350
<PP&E>                                      12,362,146
<DEPRECIATION>                               7,367,165
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               5,756,331
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   5,756,331
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 5,756,331
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               230,703
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  197,384
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,214
<EPS-BASIC>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
Day 1 (May 16, 2023)

11:00 AM – 11:10 AM Welcome and Agenda Review (Benson Chan/Dan Caprio) (10 min)

11:10 AM – 11:30 AM Invited Speaker: Syed Hosain (Aeris)

11:30 AM – 11:40 AM Action item Review and Discussion (10 min)

11:40 AM – 11:50 AM New subgroups / alignment (Connectivity & International) (10 min)

11:50 PM – 12:50 PM Sustainable Infrastructure Subgroup Discussion (60 min)

12:50 PM – 1:30 PM Progress and schedule review (40 min)

1:30 PM – 1:45 PM Break

1:45 PM – 2:45 PM Supply Chain Subgroup Discussion (60 min)

2:45 PM – 3:45 PM Smart Traffic and Transportation Subgroup Discussion (60 min)

3:45 PM – 4:45 PM Public Safety Subgroup Discussion (60 min)

4:45 PM – 5:00 PM Day 1 closing (15 min)

5:00 PM Adjourn for the day

Day 2 (May 17, 2023)

11:00 AM – 11:15 AM Day 1 recap (15 min)

11:15 AM – 12:00 PM Public Speakers:

Jeff Jockisch (Avantis Privacy), Colby Scullion (Avantis Privacy), 

Harvey Reed (MITRE)

12:00 PM – 1:00 PM Cybersecurity Subgroup Discussion (60 min)

1:00 PM – 1:15 PM Break

1:15 PM – 2:00 PM Privacy Subgroup Discussion (45 min)

2:00 PM – 2:45 PM Environmental Monitoring Subgroup Discussion (45 min)

2:45 PM – 3:30 PM Precision Agriculture Subgroup Discussion (45 min)

3:30 PM – 4:15 PM Healthcare Subgroup Discussion (45 min)

4:15 PM – 4:45 PM Overall Recommendations feedback and next steps

(Dan, Benson, Greg) (30 min)

4:45 PM – 5:00 PM Action items and Wrap up (15 min)

5:00 PM Adjourn
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) No. 20 CR 577-6

)

SHAUNTRELL HARRIS, ) Hon. Robert M. Dow, Jr.

) Judge Presiding

Defendant. )

 

APPOINTED DEFENSE COUNSEL’S REQUEST TO WITHDRAW

Counsel for the defendant, attorney Steven Greenberg, seeks leave to 

withdraw in this matter. In support, he states the following:

1. Attorney Greenberg was appointed as counsel for Mr. Harris when Mr. Harris

was first arrested.

2. A fundamental difference of opinion exists between counsel and Mr. Harris

that makes continued representation impossible. The differences have been 

discussed with Mr. Harris on multiple occasions, and they remain.

3. At this point counsel does not believe that he can continue to represent Mr.

Harris, and accordingly counsel seeks to withdraw.

4. A copy of this Motion has been mailed to Mr. Harris at the Metropolitan 

Correctional Center.
2

WHEREFORE, counsel respectfully requests that he be allowed to withdraw.

Respectfully submitted, 

Shauntrell Harris, Defendant 

 

By: /s/ Steve Greenberg 

 One of Defendant’s Attorneys 

Steven A. Greenberg 

Greenberg Trial Lawyers 

53 W. Jackson, Suite 315 

Chicago IL, 60604 

312-879-9500 

Steve@GreenbergCD.com
#### Anonymous.

Where the evidence of adultery, in an action for a divorce, rests on the unsupported testimony of the defendant’s paramour, the case will be referred back to the referee for further evidence; the testimony of the paramour being subject to the same objection as that of any other accompBce, (2 *Msh. on Mar, and Div.*8, § 644, *and cases cited in notes*2, 3 *and*6.)

(Before Robertson, Ch. J.

at special term, February —, 1866.)
108TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 397

AN ACT

To reinstate and extend the deadline for commencethe State of Illinois. ment of construction of a hydroelectric project in

108TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 397

AN ACT

To reinstate and extend the deadline for commencement of

construction of a hydroelectric project in the State of Illinois.

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

•HR 397 EH

1 SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF TIME FOR FEDERAL ENERGY

2 REGULATORY COMMISSION PROJECT.

3 Notwithstanding the time period specified in section

4 13 of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 806) that would

5 otherwise apply to the Federal Energy Regulatory Com6 mission project numbered 11214, the Commission may, at

7 the request of the licensee for the project, and after rea8 sonable notice, in accordance with the good faith, due dili9 gence, and public interest requirements of that section and

10 the Commission’s procedures under that section—

11 (1) reinstate the license for the construction of

12 the project as of the effective date of the surrender

13 of the license; and

14 (2) extend the time period during which the li15 censee is required to commence the construction of

16 the project for 3 consecutive 2-year periods beyond

17 the date that is 4 years after the date of issuance

18 of the license.

Passed the House of Representatives February 11,

2003.

Attest:

Clerk.
**R-373**

Arix-rmiw11.TEXAS April 25, 1947

Rex #he sppZioab1lit.y of, the Securitfes Act to a group retirement plan issued by s nonprofit group*. Bon. ?sul H:l!tpwn - F+age 2, W-165

eamttnga Oc .any ooaptbny, fnvea,tment contmot, or any other fnstrument commonly Ifnan 

### na a sauaurlty, vhether similar to tborhbmn we& t0 0~ ti0t." 

### Xtwillbe noted that the “certificate” a**buw** WfopP8d to i8 

### A& transferable either on its **race** 03 rm84lrl&o prooI#iahs 

### of the Plan, but on the Ot4@fml7 i1 MRIlJ ertti0 of the fact that the emp&wee mrrd tharsfn IS a aubsctilber to or a member **of the**  **noa eulbjwt**  to lta tense, sad provfsfons.

ft doe@ not appeer from either ,the Plan S@b8iCkd W fraa ottisr infoxvuatian that the employee 

### i.8 fam btmbp 8dioltadby the employer or the comrlttw to W.W a member of the Plan but such membershtp f.a made qvaflable to him after he has (1) comiW&@at& in rfit1ng’t.o the committee of his acceptance **of** the %eJlm:8nd caadltions of the Plan on the form ppcrided by the Wmwlttee end (2) authorized the em

### ployer ko lfritin@ to dedwt from his compensation the awtplbruticm spsotfbd In the Plan (See Article II, P@mg~W@t 2 ob tin Wan). kll caattibutions to the $wzrF C?n Ilm am to lab plrae in the State ?lrnf D (8W brC;Po ’la?III, hramph 7 o? the


### ~l!he bsasffafsl

interest

op shapeof the em

### bsasffafsl

iatepest payable ployee In tha Plaa fa payable to him in va~fng amounta e&xldependent upen certain contingencies 6 amounta dependent certain contingencies Articlea 

### thePlan). (8ee Articlea l’V 8nd V of Such interest the Paragraph 2 of the Pian)~,



### Atthough

Mu Planoontmfxu many fertures fn Cowon Wfth glWIp ratlrametat Inawnce, such as contributPoltlr by employer and employee, baaed on length of sexvice 08 other staflar olassiflostfow, and providing for e aua pilpble upon aetiain condftfoas upon the happening of aerts%n eventwlftles, nevePtheleas it is not an annuity 

### ma sWLItepmLa 

### gknerelly understood. !i%a legal effect of the Plan fs to create a sevfngs fand for the bruefft of the employee, the mansgement enb oontrol of which is vested in the employer, the committee and the tpuatee, which fund 1s to be disposed of by the trustee upon the contiagenofea set forth In Articles Iv and V of the 

### Planend thepefore, the EmployeeIton. taul H. Bran - 

### Page**3, v-165** 



### Thw Tsvs sw0urfflws Act ianot sppliorblwfo thwYSaplqww Rwtlreawnt

tlsnof 

### SafwwayStoma, Imu.,the 3(1'mw bwfw,s 

### nonpmtlt rwtlmmmt pl8awithcwrtlficetes nbt subject to 

### aalw,fnnsfwr 0~assfgnment. ~~~~~l;~,dp~~~~~~~~~~ll ep
### Yaur3vwry truly ATTQm @BSBRAL

OFTEKAS



### C. K. Richards Aesfstent
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE Northern District of Illinois − CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 6.3.3

Eastern Division

TikTok, Inc., Consumer Privacy Litigation, et al.

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 1:20−cv−04699

Honorable John Z. Lee

TikTok Inc., et al.

Defendant.

NOTIFICATION OF DOCKET ENTRY

This docket entry was made by the Clerk on Monday, April 19, 2021:

 MINUTE entry before the Honorable John Z. Lee:Status and motion hearing held

on 4/19/21. As stated on the record, Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval of class

action settlement [122] remains under advisement. The Court will rule by written order.

(ca, )

ATTENTION: This notice is being sent pursuant to Rule 77(d) of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure or Rule 49(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. It was

generated by CM/ECF, the automated docketing system used to maintain the civil and

criminal dockets of this District. If a minute order or other document is enclosed, please

refer to it for additional information.

For scheduled events, motion practices, recent opinions and other information, visit our

web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov.

Case: 1:20-cv-04699 Document #: 158 Filed: 04/19/21 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:3036
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D2023-0407 

_____________________________

LISA KING,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Leon County.

Joshua M. Hawkes, Judge.

February 23, 2024

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

OSTERHAUS, C.J., and ROBERTS and M.K. THOMAS, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________

Lisa King, pro se, Appellant.
2

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Julian E Markham,

Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-8049

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

GEORGE P. SMITH,

 Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Richmond. John A. Gibney, Jr., 

District Judge. (3:00-cr-00343-JRS-1)

Submitted: February 26, 2013 Decided: March 1, 2013

Before MOTZ, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

George P. Smith, Appellant Pro Se. Erik Sean Siebert, OFFICE OF 

THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

George P. Smith appeals the district court’s order 

denying his motion to reconsider the district court’s previous 

order denying Smith’s 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006) motion. We 

have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. 

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district 

court. United States v. Smith, No. 3:00-cr-00343-JRS-1 (E.D. 

Va. Nov. 8, 2012). We dispense with oral argument because the 

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 

materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Case: 1:20-cv-05191 Document #: 33-4 Filed: 12/10/20 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:405
Case: 1:20-cv-05191 Document #: 33-4 Filed: 12/10/20 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:406
J. 

AP A "A •I. 

NRS 176.015(5)(d) (defining "victim"). Therefore, we conclude that the 

district court plainly erred by awarding restitution to VOCP rather than 

to the actual victim. See Martinez v. State, 115 Nev. 9, 974 P.2d 133 

(1999). Accordingly, we 

ORDER the judgment of conviction AFFIRMED IN PART 

AND REMANDED IN PART to the district court for the entry of an 

amended judgment of conviction awarding restitution to the victim and for 

proceedings consistent with this order.' 

J. 

Douglas 

Saitta 

cc: Seventh Judicial District Court Dept. 2 

State Public Defender/Ely 

State Public Defender/Carson City 

Attorney General/Carson City 

White Pine County District Attorney 

White Pine County Clerk 

"After the entry of the amended judgment of conviction, VOCP 

maintains subrogation rights for payments made on behalf of the victim in 

this case pursuant to NRS 217.240. 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) I947A 

2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
"This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Resort
Income Investors, Inc.'s Form 10-QSB for the three months ended March 31,
1998 and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such Form 10-QSB."
</LEGEND>

       
<S>                <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>      3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>      DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>           MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                             760,576 
<SECURITIES>                       441,524 
<RECEIVABLES>                      661,130 
<ALLOWANCES>                          0    
<INVENTORY>                           0    
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                 4,288,230 
<PP&E>                                0    
<DEPRECIATION>                        0    
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                   4,288,230 
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>            1,515,183 
<BONDS>                               0    
<COMMON>                         2,773,047 
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                 0    
<PREFERRED>                           0    
<OTHER-SE>                            0    
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>     4,288,230 
<SALES>                               0    
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                   106,705 
<CGS>                                 0    
<TOTAL-COSTS>                         0    
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                   151,898 
<LOSS-PROVISION>                      0    
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                    0    
<INCOME-PRETAX>                    (45,193)
<INCOME-TAX>                          0    
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                (45,193)
<DISCONTINUED>                        0    
<EXTRAORDINARY>                       0    
<CHANGES>                             0    
<NET-INCOME>                       (45,193)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                         (.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                         (.01)

<FN>

NOTE: The above captions are specified in Exhibit 27, and contemplate
that the entity is a going concern.  As discussed in Note 1 to the
Company's unaudited financial statements, the Company is in the process of
liquidation as of March 31, 1998.  The amounts above are presented with the
caption that, in management's judgment, most closely correlates to
respective financial statement captions used in the Company's financial
statements.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
HMM Reference NIST Technical Note 2205: Item 17 Makeup Air Intake

Item 17 Makeup Air Intake – Large intake vents should have a 1/8th inch fine wire mesh screen to prevent ember intrusion.

Various vents should have fine metal mesh screens

Various vents should 

have fine metal mesh screens

Note: Selected photographs are included to illustrate each HMM hardening item. Additional vulnerabilities or hardening items may be seen in the photographs, but those are highlighted within their specific HMM item.
There is no CAD drawing for 

Item 17: Makeup Air Intake 

Please see photographs for illustrations.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 7
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE CONDENSED
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF INCOME AND CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE
SHEETS (UNAUDITED) AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<DEBT-HELD-FOR-SALE>                           618,650
<DEBT-CARRYING-VALUE>                                0
<DEBT-MARKET-VALUE>                                  0
<EQUITIES>                                      10,092
<MORTGAGE>                                      98,045
<REAL-ESTATE>                                        0
<TOTAL-INVEST>                                 748,890
<CASH>                                          18,951
<RECOVER-REINSURE>                                   0
<DEFERRED-ACQUISITION>                         140,845
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,776,542
<POLICY-LOSSES>                                705,673
<UNEARNED-PREMIUMS>                              2,968
<POLICY-OTHER>                                      89
<POLICY-HOLDER-FUNDS>                                0
<NOTES-PAYABLE>                                 45,082
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         2,500
<OTHER-SE>                                     302,935
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,776,542
<PREMIUMS>                                           0
<INVESTMENT-INCOME>                             29,296
<INVESTMENT-GAINS>                                 436
<OTHER-INCOME>                                  35,046
<BENEFITS>                                      64,972
<UNDERWRITING-AMORTIZATION>                      4,014
<UNDERWRITING-OTHER>                           (16,412)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  9,171
<INCOME-TAX>                                     4,294
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              4,877
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     4,877
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<RESERVE-OPEN>                                       0
<PROVISION-CURRENT>                                  0
<PROVISION-PRIOR>                                    0
<PAYMENTS-CURRENT>                                   0
<PAYMENTS-PRIOR>                                     0
<RESERVE-CLOSE>                                      0
<CUMULATIVE-DEFICIENCY>                              0
        







</TABLE>
10676.

#### Johnson *v.*Johnson.

Decided November 26, 1919.

Trover; from city court of Valdosta—Judge Cranford. April 15, 1919.

*James M. Johnson,*for plaintiff in error.

*Dan R. Bruce,*contra.

Jenkins, P. J.

1. While it is true that where a suit is defended by a person claiming as the transferee of a deceased person, the plaintiff is not allowed to testify in his own behalf against the title of the deceased person, as to transactions or communications had with the deceased person, whether the transactions or communications were had by the deceased person with the party testifying or with any other person (Civil Code of 1910, § 5858 (1)), still where the defendant was neither an indorsee nor an assignee, transferee, or persbnal representative of the deceased person from whom the plaintiff claimed to have acquired title, but the defendant claimed title under a third person, the court did not err in permitting the plaintiff to testify as follows (the suit being trover for the recovery of personal property) : “My husband, Turner Johnson [deceased], gave me his one-half interest in the cow.” *White*v. *White,*71 *Ga.*670; *Florida Central R. Co.*v. *Usina,*111 *Ga.*697, 700 (36 S. E. 928); *Austin*v. *Collier,*112 *Ga.*247 (37 S. E. 434); *Boynton*v. *Reese,*112 *Ga.*354 (37 S. E. 437).

2. The ruling announced in the preceding paragraph disposes of the only special ground of the motion for a new trial. There was sufficient evidence to authorize the verdict, which has the approval of the trial judge, and no reason appears why the verdict should be set aside.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Stephens and Smith, JJ., concur.*