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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from 
Angeles Partners X 1998 First Quarter 10-QSB and is qualified in its 
entirety by reference to such 10-QSB filing.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000317900
<NAME> ANGELES PARTNERS X
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                    3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998   
<CASH>                                           1,450
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0<F1>
<PP&E>                                          14,857
<DEPRECIATION>                                   9,509   
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   7,699   
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0<F1>
<BONDS>                                         14,290     
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0     
<PREFERRED>                                          0  
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     (7,355)    
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     7,699    
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   814    
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   944    
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 322    
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (130)     
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (6.93)<F2>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>Registrant has an unclassified balance sheet.
<F2>Multiplier is 1.
</FN>
        


</TABLE>
#### In the Matter of John Dotzler, Appellant, v New York City Employees’ Retirement System (NYCERS), Respondent.

[825 NYS2d 751]

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondent, New York City Employees’ Retirement System (NYCERS), dated July 8, 2004, which denied the petitioner’s application for accident disability retirement benefits pursuant to Retirement and Social Security Law § 605-b, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (E Rivera, J.), dated August 5, 2005, which denied the petition, and, in effect, dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The Board of Trustees of the respondent, New York City Employees’ Retirement System (NYCERS) (hereinafter the Board of Trustees), properly denied the petitioner’s application for accident disability retirement benefits pursuant to Retirement and Social Security Law § 605-b. In April 2001 the petitioner was awarded ordinary disability retirement benefits after the Medical Board of the respondent (hereinafter the Medical Board) determined that the disabling condition was a cervical diskectomy and fusion resulting from a neck injury sustained on August 5, 1999. On November 12, 2002 the petitioner applied for accident disability retirement benefits under Retirement and Social Security Law § 605-b on the basis of an injury to his right knee and back sustained in an on-the-job incident on March 8, 2000. The Medical Board recommended the denial of the application, finding that the petitioner was not disabled as a result of the March 8, 2000 injury to his right knee and back, but, as previously determined by the Medical Board, the disability was to his cervical spine. The petitioner submitted no evidence that this injury was service-related or caused by an on-the-job incident.

*604The Board of Trustees was bound by the finding of the Medical Board as to disability because it was supported by some credible evidence *(see Matter of Borenstein v New York City Employees’ Retirement Sys.,*88 NY2d 756 [1996]; *Matter of Sorrenti v New York City Fire Dept., Art. 1-B Pension Fund,*90 NY2d 139, 145-147 [1997]). Based upon the credible evidence before the Medical Board, the determination of the Board of Trustees was neither irrational nor arbitrary and capricious *(see Matter of Borenstein v New York City Employees’ Retirement Sys., supra; Matter of Imbriale v Board of Trustees of N.Y. City Employees’ Retirement Sys.,*29 AD3d 995 [2006]). Contrary to the petitioner’s contention, although the reports and conclusions of his physicians differed from those of the Medical Board, it was solely within the province of the Medical Board to resolve the conflict *(see Matter of Ramsey v City of New York,*8 AD3d 392 [2004]; *Matter of Santoro v Board of Trustees of N.Y. City Fire Dept., Art. 1-B Pension Fund,*217 AD2d 660 [1995]).

The petitioner’s remaining contentions are without merit. Schmidt, J.E, Mastro, Fisher and Dillon, JJ., concur.
Exhibit31.1

**CERTIFICATION**

I, Martha L. Long, certifythat:

1.    I havereviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Angeles Partners X;

2.   Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statementsmade, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 

 

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

 

4.   The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined inExchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financialreporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)), for theregistrant and have: 

 

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

 

(b)  Design such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internalcontrol over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, toprovide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reportingand the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordancewith generally accepted accounting principles;

 

(c)  Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectivenessof the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period coveredby this report based on such evaluation; and 

 

(d)  Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscalquarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report)that has materially affected or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant's internal control over financial reporting; and 

 

5.     The registrant'sother certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant'sauditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of directors (orpersons performing the equivalent functions): 

 

(a)  All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operationof internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and
#### Thomas E. Bennett, receiver, &c. plaintiff, *vs.*William Erving, defendant.

An action will not lie, in this court, to set aside as fraudulent a conveyance to the defendant, of a farm in .New Jersey; the “ subject of the action ” being land in another state.

(Before Gabviit, J. at special tern,

May, 1865.)

This was an action to set aside as fraudulent a conveyance to the defendant, of a farm in new Jersey.

The defendant’s counsel moved, on the trial, to dismiss the complaint, on the ground that the words *“*cause of action,” *672in section 33 of the Code of Procedure, giving to this court jurisdiction of the actions enumerated in sections 123 and 124, “ when the cause of action shall have arisen, or the subject of the action shall be situated ” within the city of New York, refer to personal actions only, not to those of this character ; and that the *“*subject of the action ” being land in another state, the suit would not lie.

*G. W. Stevens,*for the plaintiff.

*G. W. Gotterill,*for the defendant.

The Court,

after consideration, granted the motion, and dismissed the complaint.
#### M. Silberman, Inc., Respondent, *v.*Sadie M. Abrams and Others, Individually and as Copartners, Trading under the Firm Name of Abrams Sisters, Appellants.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department,

December 30, 1924.

Appeal —• case on appeal —• motion by plaintiff to correct case to show tha1 defendant moved for directed verdict — order granting motion reversed

An order granting plaintiff’s motion to amend ease on appeal so as to show tha the defendant moved for a directed verdict is denied, since it appears by th affidavits and the probabilities of the ease that the defendant did not make th motion alleged and there is nothing to show that the trial justice has an recollection of the exact circumstances.

Appeal from three orders: (1) An order and so much thereo as allows certain amendments to the proposed case on appeal (2) an order granting plaintiff’s motion to resettle the propose; amendments and case on appeal, and (3) an order denying th defendants’ motion to resettle the last named order.

*Paul Englander,*for the appellants.

*Benjamin B. Greller,*for the respondent.

*329Per Curiam:

The “ 24th ” and the “ 26th ” proposed amendments should not have been allowed. The claim of defendants’ counsel that he *did not*move for a direction of a verdict is supported not only by his own affidavit and that of his trial assistant, but appears to find support in the probabilities and the context. Before the alleged motion of defendants’ counsel for a direction of a verdict was made the court had already indicated his view of the case and his intention to direct a verdict in plaintiff’s favor. It seems wholly improbable that defendants’ counsel when confronted with an adverse decision would have joined in plaintiff’s motion for a direction. Moreover, defendants’ counsel had theretofore clearly stated that he desired to go to the jury and immediately after it is claimed that he moved for a direction, stated that he wished to reserve his rights on appeal.

While as a general rule it is the recollection of the trial justice that controls in a situation of this character, nevertheless, where there is nothing to show his recollection or that he acted thereon, his decision is not conclusive. *(Jenkins*v. *Bishop,*133 App. Div. 517, 519; *Zimmer*v. *Metropolitan Street R. Co.,*28 id. 504.)

The orders appealed from are, therefore, reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and the motions remitted for disposition in accordance with this opinion.

All concur; present, Guy, O’Malley and Levy, JJ.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Postal Service

# AGENCY:

                        Postal ServiceTM.                    

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

# DATES:

*Effective date:*                         December 30, 2014.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Elizabeth A. Reed, 202-268-3179.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on December 22, 2014, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a                     *Request of the United States Postal Service to Add Priority Mail Express Contract 25 to Competitive Product List.*                     Documents are available at                     *www.prc.gov,*                     Docket Nos. MC2015-22, CP2015-28.                

Stanley F. Mires,

Attorney, Federal Requirements.

[FR Doc. 2014-30425 Filed 12-29-14; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Gregory Dennis DAVIS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 05-14261

D.C. Docket No. 95-00439-CR-KMM.

Non-Argument Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

June 22, 2006.

Jacqueline Esther Shapiro, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Helaine Batoff, William R. Barzee, Kathleen M. Williams, Miami, FL, for Defendant-Appellant.

Jonathan D. Colan, Anne R. Schultz, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Miami, FL, Phillip Dirosa, Ft. Lauderdale, FL, for PlaintiffAppellee.

Before TJOFLAT, ANDERSON and BIRCH, Circuit Judges.

*885PER CURIAM:

On November 30,1995, the district court sentenced appellant — on a plea of guilty to possession of cocaine with intent to distribute — to a prison term of 80 months, to be followed a five-year term of supervised release. Appellant began his supervised release on November 15, 2001. On August 10, 2004, the district court’s probation office petitioned the court to issue a summons for appellant because he had violated the conditions of supervised release; among other things, he had possessed and used marijuana and committed child abuse and domestic battery.

On July 21 and 22, 2004, the court held a revocation hearing. Appellant admitted the marijuana allegation, but contested the allegations of child abuse and domestic battery. After hearing evidence regarding those allegations, the court upheld them, revoked appellant’s supervised release, and sentenced him to a prison term of 46 months. He now appeals his sentence, contending that it is unreasonable.

That the district court revoked appellant’s supervised release on the grounds presented for revocation does not concern us because the evidence fully supported the court’s action. What troubles us is that the court, in sentencing appellant at the top of the Guidelines sentence range, neither articulated a reason for its imposition of the prison term nor indicated that it had considered the sentencing objectives set out in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Under these circumstances, we are unable to assess the reasonableness of appellant’s sentence.

We therefore remand the case with the instruction that the court consult the § 3553(a) objectives and articulate the reason^) for the sentence it imposed.

VACATED and REMANDED, with instructions.
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1910 

To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Joint Items, Botanic 

Gardens for fiscal years 2024. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 29, 2023 

Mr. BIGGS (for himself, Mr. ROSENDALE, Mr. GAETZ, Mr. GOOD of Virginia, 

Mr. ROY, and Mr. CRANE) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on House Administration, and in addition to the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of 

such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Joint 

Items, Botanic Gardens for fiscal years 2024. 

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

3 SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS FOR 

4 JOINT ITEMS, BOTANIC GARDENS FOR FIS5 CAL YEARS 2024. 

6 Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, 

7 amounts authorized to be appropriated or otherwise availVerDate Sep 11 2014 01:53 Apr 14, 2023 Jkt 039200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H1910.IH H1910

pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 1910 IH

1 able for Joint Items, Botanic Gardens for fiscal year 2024 

2 may not exceed $14,759,000. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
S-8 LTIP Plan Exhibit 410


		
			EXHIBIT 4.10 
		

		
			 
		

		
			FOURTH AMENDMENT
TO
POSTROCK ENERGY CORPORATION
2010 LONG-TERM INCENTIVE PLAN
		

		
			WHEREAS, PostRock Energy Corporation, a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), has established and maintains the PostRock Energy Corporation 2010 Long-Term Incentive Plan (the “Plan”); and
		

		
			WHEREAS, pursuant to Article 15 of the Plan, the Company has the right to amend the Plan at any time by action of the Board, subject to prior approval by the Company’s stockholders to the extent such approval is determined to be required by applicable legal and/or stock exchange requirements; and
		

		
			WHEREAS, the Company desires to amend the Plan to increase the number of shares of common stock of the Company (“Common Stock”) available for issuance under the Plan, subject to approval of the stockholders of the Company; and  
		

		
			WHEREAS, the stockholders of the Company approved such increase in shares of Common Stock and reapproved the material terms of the performance-based goals under the Plan at the Annual Meeting of Stockholders of the Company on May 5, 2015;
		

		
			NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing, the number of shares of Common Stock available for issuance under the Plan is hereby increased by 1,000,000 shares and the first sentence of Section 4.1(a) of the Plan is hereby amended to read as follows:
		

		
			“Subject to adjustment as provided in Section 15.2, the number of Shares hereby reserved for delivery under the Plan is 2,850,000 Shares (adjusted to reflect the 10 to 1 reverse stock split effective as of January 2, 2015).”
		

		
			IN WITNESS WHEREOF, PostRock Energy Corporation has caused this Fourth Amendment to be executed by its duly authorized officer as of this 5th day of August, 2015.
		

		
			POSTROCK ENERGY CORPORATION
		

		
			 
		

		
			By: /s/ Terry W. Carter
		

		
			Terry W. Carter
		

		
			Chief Executive Officer and President
Exhibit 32
                    CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                         18 U.S.C. 1350,
                     AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
          SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In  connection with the Quarterly Report of AEI Real Estate  Fund
XVIII  Limited Partnership (the "Partnership") on Form  10-Q  for
the  period ended June 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange  Commission  on  the  date hereof  (the  "Report"),  the
undersigned, Robert P. Johnson, President of AEI Fund  Management
XVIII, Inc., the Managing General Partner of the Partnership, and
Patrick  W. Keene, Chief Financial Officer of AEI Fund Management
XVIII,  Inc.,  each  certify, pursuant  to  18  U.S.C.  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  the   Report   fairly
          presents,  in  all  material  respects,  the  financial
          condition and results of operations of the Partnership.


                          /s/ ROBERT P JOHNSON
                              Robert P. Johnson, President
                              AEI Fund Management XVIII, Inc.
                              Managing General Partner
                              August 11, 2010



                          /s/ PATRICK W KEENE
                              Patrick W. Keene, Chief Financial Officer
                              AEI Fund Management XVIII, Inc.
                              Managing General Partner
                              August 11, 2010