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

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1

<S>                                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       DEC-31-2001
<PERIOD-START>                          JUL-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                            SEP-30-2001
<CASH>                                      92,550
<SECURITIES>                                20,000
<RECEIVABLES>                               17,310
<ALLOWANCES>                                     0
<INVENTORY>                                  5,742
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           247,262
<PP&E>                                      40,707
<DEPRECIATION>                              31,394
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             260,275
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        5,786
<BONDS>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            0
<PREFERRED>                                  1,000
<COMMON>                                    11,963
<OTHER-SE>                                 238,494
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               260,275
<SALES>                                    105,930
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           105,930
<CGS>                                       64,343
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               64,343
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                           188,967
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             260
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           (147,640)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       (147,640)
<DISCONTINUED>                                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  0
<CHANGES>                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                              (147,640)
<EPS-BASIC>                                (.010)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                (.010)


</TABLE>
EX-4.6



 




Exhibit 4.6




CERTIFICATE OF TRUST




OF




NATIONAL CITY CAPITAL TRUST VIII




     THIS
CERTIFICATE OF TRUST of NATIONAL CITY CAPITAL TRUST VIII (the “Trust”), dated as of November 5, 2007 is being duly executed and filed by the undersigned, as trustee, to form a statutory trust
under the Delaware Statutory Trust Act (12 Del. C. (Section) 3801 et seq.).



     1. NAME. The name of the statutory trust being formed hereby is National City Capital Trust VIII.



     2. DELAWARE TRUSTEE. The name and business address of the trustee of the Trust with a
principal place of business in the State of Delaware are as follows:



The Bank of New York (Delaware)

White Clay Center, Route 273

New Castle County

Newark, Delaware 19711

Attention: Corporate Trust




     3. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Certificate of Trust shall be effective upon filing.



     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned, being the trustee of the Trust, has executed this
Certificate of Trust as of the date first above written.



	 	 	 	 	 
	 	THE BANK OF NEW YORK (DELAWARE)

Not in its individual capacity, but
solely as Delaware Trustee

 	 
	 	By:  	/s/ Kristine K. Gullo	 
	 	 	Name: Kristine K. Gullo	 
	 	 	Title: Vice President
The District Court of the 11th Judicial District. County of Flathead.

#### STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff, vs. ADAM BARTLE, Defendant.

CAUSE NO. DC-00-041 DECISION

*86On February 25, 2010, the defendant was sentenced for violation of the conditions of a suspended sentence, to a commitment to the Department of Corrections for a term of five (5) years, for the offense of Burglary, a Felony. This sentence shall run concurrent with the sentence imposed in Flathead County Cause No. DC-09-177A.

On November 4, 2010, the defendant’s application for review of that sentence was heard by the Sentence Review Division of the Montana Supreme Court.

The defendant was present and was represented by Eric Olson. The state was represented by Ed Corrigan.

Before hearing the application, the defendant was advised that the Sentence Review Division has the authority not only to reduce the sentence or affirm it, but also increase it. The defendant was further advised that there is no appeal from a decision of the Sentence Review Division. The defendant acknowledged that he understood this and stated that he wished to proceed.

Rule 17 of the Rules of the Sentence Review Division of the Supreme Court of Montana provides that “the sentence imposed by the District Court is presumed correct, and the sentence will not be reduced or increased unless it is deemed clearly inadequate or excessive.” (§46-18-904(3), MCA).

The Division finds that the reasons advanced for modification are insufficient to hold that the sentence imposed by the District Court is inadequate or excessive.

Therefore, it is the unanimous decision of the Sentence Review Division that the sentence shall be affirmed.

Done in open Court this 4th day of November, 2010.

DATED this 18th day of November, 2010.

Chairperson, Hon. Blair Jones, Member, Hon. Richard Simonton and Member, Hon. Ray Dayton.
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 14 (Friday, January 23, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 4309]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-1275]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Internal Revenue Service


Open Meeting of the Area 6 Taxpayer Advocacy Panel (Including the 
States of Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, New Mexico, North Dakota, 
Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming)

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: An open meeting of the Area 6 Taxpayer Advocacy Panel will be 
conducted (via teleconference). The Taxpayer Advocacy Panel (TAP) is 
soliciting public comment, ideas, and suggestions on improving customer 
service at the Internal Revenue Service. The TAP will use citizen input 
to make recommendations to the Internal Revenue Service.

DATES: The meeting will be held Tuesday, March 3, 2009.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dave Coffman at 1-888-912-1227, or 
(206) 220-6096.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given pursuant to section 
10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) 
that an open meeting of the Area 6 Taxpayer Advocacy Panel will be held 
Tuesday, March 3, 2009, at 1 p.m. Pacific Time via a telephone 
conference call. The public is invited to make oral comments. 
Individual comments will be limited to 5 minutes. If you would like to 
have the TAP consider a written statement, please call 1-888-912-1227 
or 206-220-6096, or write to Dave Coffman, TAP Office, 915 2nd Avenue, 
MS W-406, Seattle, WA 98174 or you can contact us at http://www.improveirs.org. Due to limited conference lines, notification of 
intent to participate in the telephone conference call meeting must be 
made with Dave Coffman. Mr. Coffman may be reached at 1-888-912-1227, 
or (206) 220-6096.
    The agenda will include the following: Various IRS issues.

    Dated: January 13, 2009.
Shawn F. Collins,
Acting Director, Taxpayer Advocacy Panel.
 [FR Doc. E9-1275 Filed 1-22-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN NO. 03-0 8 -00237 -CV Se an She ldo n P owe r , A ppe lla nt

v . Xenia A. Ram os , Appellee F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF BELL CO UNTY, 146TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. 221,59 3-B , HO NORAB LE RICK M ORRI S , JUDGE PRESIDI NG

M E MO R

A N D UM O P I N I O N Appellant Sean Sheldon Power filed his notice of appe al with the trial cour t clerk on J une 22, 2007, and a

copy was filed w ith this Court on April 23, 2008. That same day , this Court rec eived notice from the B ell County District Clerk’s o ff

i ce t hat appe llant had not paid or made arr ang ements to pay

for the c lerk’s r ecor d. The c lerk’s r ecor d has not been filed. This Court sent notice to appe llant that if he did not submit a status report to this Court by J une 17, 2008, this appea l would be dismissed for wa nt of prosec ution. To date, appe llant has not responde d to this C ourt’s notice. Ac cording ly , we dismiss the appea l for wa nt of prosec ution. SeeTex. R . Ap p. P. 37.3(b), 42.3(b).2 __________________________________________ W. Kenneth L aw, Chief Justice Be fore Chief J ustice L aw, Justi ces Puryear and Waldrop Dismissed for Want of Prosecution Filed: Jul y

11, 2008
Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida

Opinion filed September 7, 2016.

________________

No. 3D15-2602

Lower Tribunal No. 14-6281

________________

Nationstar Mortgage, LLC,

Appellant,

vs.

Lillian Pardo,

Appellee.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Eric Hendon,

Judge.

Akerman LLP, Nancy M. Wallace (Tallahassee), William P. Heller (Fort

Lauderdale), Eric M. Levine (West Palm Beach) and Eric S. Matthew, for

appellant.

The Arcia Law Firm, P.L., and Omar J. Arcia (Miramar), for appellee.

Before LAGOA, EMAS and LOGUE, JJ.

PER CURIAM.
Appellant appeals from a final summary judgment entered by the trial court. 

Appellee has, commendably, filed a confession of error. Upon our review of the

record, we agree.1 

We reverse the final summary judgment and remand for further proceedings.

1

It should be noted that the case relied upon by appellant in urging reversal was

issued after the trial court granted the motion for summary judgment. 

2
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 Quarterly Report
of Cistera Networks, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the period ending December 31, 2008,
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
“Report”), I, Derek Downs, Chief Executive 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, to the best of my knowledge and
belief:





(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 result of operations of the Company.








/s/    Derek
P. Downs


Derek P.
Downs


Chief
Executive Officer





(Principal
Executive Officer and interim


Principal
Financial and Accounting Officer)








February
17, 2009





A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears
in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement has been
provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

STUART L. LEEDS,

Appellant,

v.

COMMISSION FOR LAWYER

DISCIPLINE,

Appellee. §

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 13

- 00168

- CV

Appeal from

County Court at Law No. 5

of El Paso County, Texas

(TC # 2012

- DCV

- 03258)

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on Appellant = s motion to dismiss and concludes the

motion should be granted and the appeal should be dismissed, in accordance with the opinion of

this Court. We therefore dismiss the appeal: We further order Appellant to pay all costs of this

appeal. We further order that this decision be certified below for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 30TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2013.

ANN CRAWFORD McCLURE, Chief Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Rivera, and Rodriguez, JJ.
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 
-  About Grants 
-  Funding Opportunities 

# Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education (SARE) Regional Host Institution 

###### Share

Print FriendlyEmailTwitterFacebook

The purpose of the Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education program is to encourage research and outreach designed to increase knowledge concerning agricultural production systems that:
                - maintain and enhance the quality and productivity of the soil;
                - conserve soil, water, energy, natural resources, and fish and wildlife habitat;
                - maintain and enhance the quality of surface and ground water;
                - protect the health and safety of persons involved in the food and farm system;
                - promote the well-being of animals; and
                - increase employment opportunities in agriculture (7 U.S.C. 5801 and 5811).

Apply For GrantDownload RFA

NIFA Language Access Services

Sustainable Agriculture Programs

Pest Management Programs 

The SARE legislation requires USDA to carry out the program through agreements entered into with land-grant colleges or universities, other universities, state agricultural experiment stations, the state cooperative extension services, nonprofit organizations with demonstrable expertise, or federal or state governmental entities. Applications may only be submitted by these types of organizations. Failure to meet an eligibility criterion by the application deadline may result in the application being excluded from consideration or, even though an application may be reviewed, will preclude NIFA from making an award.

Thursday, September 1, 2022

Vance Owens 

Monday, November 14, 2022

grantapplicationquestions@usda.gov

Sustainable Agriculture Program

Natural Resources

Water

Soil

Plant Health

Food Safety

Sustainable Agriculture
Exhibit 32.1





Certification of Principal Executive Officer
            Pursuant to U.S.C. Section 1350
            As Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



I, Edward J. Quilty, Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of Derma Sciences, Inc., hereby certify that the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2008 of Derma Sciences, Inc. (the “Form 10-K”) upon my best knowledge and belief
            fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Derma Sciences, Inc.



|                      |                                                                                                                | 
|--------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | 
|Dated: March 31, 2009 | /s/ Edward J. Quilty                                                                                           | 
|                      | Edward J. Quilty
        Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer
        (Principal Executive Officer) |
#### Mt. Hawley Insurance Company, Appellant, v Interstate Fire and Casualty Company, Respondent. Daniel Gutowski, Plaintiff, v Gdm Hudson Laight Street, LLC, et al., Defendants, and 48 Laight Street Associates, LLC, Respondent/Third-Party Plaintiff-Respondent. The Helix Group, Inc., Third-Party Defendant-Respondent.

[963 NYS2d 84]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Milton A. Tingling, J.), entered August 1, 2012, as amended by order entered November 16, 2012, which granted defendant/third party plaintiff 48 Laight Street’s motion for summary judgment on its claim for contractual indemnification against third-party defendant the Helix Group, Inc. and denied third-party defendant’s motion to dismiss, unanimously dismissed, without costs.

In this declaratory judgment action originating out of an underlying personal injury action in which the plaintiff, an employee of third-party defendant Helix, sought damages as a result of bodily injuries sustained when he fell from the first floor to the basement level of a building undergoing renovations. The complaint in the personal injury action named GDM Hudson Laight Street, LLC, Car-Win Construction, Inc., and 48 Laight Street Associates as defendants. 48 Laight Street had retained Helix to perform work at the site.

48 Laight moved for summary judgment, and Helix, not Mt. Hawley, its general liability insurer, cross-moved for summary judgment in the third-party action for contractual indemnity. Mt. Hawley was not a party to the third-party action. Thus, Mt. Hawley’s appeal must be dismissed because it is not an aggrieved party under CPLR 5511. Mt. Hawley’s argument that it is the real party in interest in the contractual indemnity case is unavailing (see *Compton v DAmore,*101 AD2d 800, 801 [2d Dept 1984]).

Concur—Tom, J.E, Andrias, Saxe, Abdus-Salaam and Gische, JJ.
Exhibit 99.3

Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm's Reporton Applying Agreed-Upon Procedures 

 

The Board of DirectorsPrime Receivables Corporation:

We have applied certain agreed-upon procedures, as discussed below, to the monthly settlement statements prepared by FDS Bank and delivered to JPMorgan Chase Bank in accordance with subsection 3.04 (c) of the Amended and Restated Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated December 15, 1992 among Prime Receivables Corporation ("Prime"), as Transferor, FDS Bank, successor to Federated Department Stores, Inc. ("Federated"), as Servicer, and JPMorgan Chase Bank, successor to Chemical Bank, as Trustee (the "Agreement").  Pursuant to the Agreement, Prime Credit Card Master Trust Certificates have been issued under the Series 1992-3 Supplement and the Series 2000-1 Supplement (the "Supplements").  Prime and FDS Bank are wholly owned subsidiaries of Federated.  Prime's management is responsible for the monthly settlement statements prepared by FDS Bank.  This agreed-upon procedures engagement was performed in accordance with attestation standards established by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States).  The sufficiency of these procedures is solely the responsibility of the specified users of the report.  Consequently, we make no representations regarding the sufficiency of the procedures described below either for the purpose for which this report has been requested or for any other purpose.  Our procedures and finding are set forth in the following paragraph:

In accordance with subsection 3.06 (b) of the Agreement, we recalculated the mathematical calculations set forth in the monthly settlement statements during the period from February 1, 2004 to January 29, 2005 (the "Settlement Statements") and agreed the amounts used in the mathematical calculations with Prime's computer reports which were the source of such amounts.  In performing our procedures, we utilized information in Prime's Daily Cash Allocation Reports, the Agreement, and the Supplements, as appropriate.  We noted no exceptions, as defined in subsection 3.06 (b) of the Agreement, as a result of the performance of our procedures.

We were not engaged to, and did not conduct an examination, the objective of which would be the expression of an opinion on the Settlement Statements.  Accordingly, we do not express such an opinion.  Had we performed additional procedures, other matters might have come to our attention that would have been reported to you.

This report is intended solely for your information and is not intended to be and should not be referred to or distributed for any purpose to anyone other than JPMorgan Chase Bank, Moody's Investors Service, Inc. and Standard & Poor's Corporation, as the rating Agencies, the holders of the Certificate or the management of Prime.

KPMG LLPCincinnati, OhioApril 25, 2005
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

June 30, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 03-60644

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

TONY TERRELL ARMSTEAD,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 4:02-CR-21-ALL-LS

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

Before JONES, BENAVIDES, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Tony Terrell Armstead appeals his conviction for burglary of

the United States Post Office at Rose Hill, Mississippi, in

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2115. Armstead argues that the evidence

fails to support his conviction. Armstead contends that two

Government witnesses implicated him in an attempt to exonerate

themselves and that their testimony was not worthy of belief. 

The jury accepted the Government’s evidence and rejected
No. 03-60644

-2-

Armstead’s explanation of events. We will not disturb that

credibility determination. United States v. Runyan, 290 F.3d

223, 240 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 888 (2002). The

evidence supports Armstead’s conviction.

AFFIRMED.
Form of Amendment No. 3 to Customer Agreeement


 Exhibit 10.05(c) 
 FORM OF 
 AMENDMENT NO. 3 
 TO 
 CUSTOMER AGREEMENT 
 WHEREAS, MORGAN STANLEY CHARTER GRAHAM L.P., a Delaware limited partnership (the “Customer”), and MORGAN STANLEY & CO. INCORPORATED, formerly Morgan Stanley DW Inc., a Delaware corporation (the
“Commodity Broker”), have agreed to amend the Customer Agreement, dated as of the 13th day of November 2000, as amended and supplemented from time to time, (the “Customer Agreement”), by and between the Customer and the Commodity
Broker, to reflect the merger of Morgan Stanley DW Inc. into Morgan Stanley & Co. Incorporated, and to amend the rate of interest income credited to the Customer’s account by the Commodity Broker. Terms used and not otherwise defined
herein have the meanings ascribed to such terms in the Customer Agreement. 
 WHEREAS, all provisions contained in the Customer Agreement
remain in full force and effect and are modified only to the extent necessary to provide for the amendments set forth below. 
 NOW,
THEREFORE, the parties hereto hereby amend the Customer Agreement as follows: 
  

	 	1.	Morgan Stanley DW Inc. has been merged into Morgan Stanley & Co. Incorporated and any references to “DEAN WITTER REYNOLDS, INC.”, the predecessor to Morgan
Stanley DW Inc., shall mean “MORGAN STANLEY & CO. INCORPORATED”. 

  

	 	2.	The third sentence of Section 7 Investment of Customer Funds is deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following: 

  

	 	    	“The Commodity Broker will credit the Customer with interest income on the Customer’s funds on deposit with the Commodity Broker and its affiliates at each month-end.
Funds held by the Commodity Broker and its affiliates to meet the margin requirements on the Customer’s futures, forward, and option contracts will be credited with interest income at a rate approximately equivalent to the rate the Commodity
Broker and its affiliates pay other customers on margin deposits. Funds not required to meet such margin requirements will be credited with interest income at a rate equal to the monthly average of the 4-Week U.S. Treasury bill discount rate during
such month.” 

  

	 	3.	This Amendment No. 3 shall be governed and construed under the laws of the State of New York. 







 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Amendment No. 3 to the Customer Agreement has been executed for and on
behalf of the undersigned as of the [    ] day of [    ] 2007. 
  

			
	MORGAN STANLEY CHARTER GRAHAM L.P.
		
	By:	 	 Demeter Management Corporation,
 General
Partner

		
	By:	 	 
		 	Name:
		 	Title:


  

			
	MORGAN STANLEY & CO. INCORPORATED
		
	By:	 	 
		 	Name:
		 	Title: