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

<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                  12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                           1,887,000
<SECURITIES>                                     5,211,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,188,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                             0
<INVENTORY>                                              0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                10,346,000
<PP&E>                                         196,534,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                 116,353,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  90,527,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            7,690,000
<BONDS>                                                  0
<COMMON>                                        10,014,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<OTHER-SE>                                      13,954,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    90,527,000
<SALES>                                          5,238,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                17,722,000
<CGS>                                            2,003,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   13,962,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                         0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,944,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    824,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                       210,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                614,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                       614,000
<EPS-BASIC>                                          .07
<EPS-DILUTED>                                          .07








</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 144 (Wednesday, July 29, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 37740]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-17989]


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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meeting

Federal Register Citation of Previous Announcement [74 FR 36281, July 
22, 2009]

Status: Closed Meeting.

Place: 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC.

Date and Time of Previously Announced Meeting: Friday, July 24, 2009 at 
8 a.m.

Change in the Meeting: Time Change.
    The Closed Meeting scheduled for Friday, July 24, 2009 at 8 a.m. 
has been changed to Friday, July 24, 2009 at 9 a.m.
    At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in 
the scheduling of meeting items. For further information and to 
ascertain what, if any, matters have been added, deleted or postponed, 
please contact the Office of the Secretary at (202) 551-5400.

    Dated: July 23, 2009.
Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-17989 Filed 7-28-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-P
IV 

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 222

Commending those individuals who contributed to the debris collection effort 

following the Space Shuttle Columbia accident. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 7, 2003

Mr. HALL (for himself, Mr. GREEN of Texas, Mr. RODRIGUEZ, Mr. SANDLIN, 

Mr. EDWARDS, Mr. SESSIONS, Mr. REYES, Mr. CARTER, Mr. TURNER of 

Texas, Mr. BARTON of Texas, Mr. HINOJOSA, Mr. LAMPSON, Mr. BRADY

of Texas, Mr. STENHOLM, and Mr. BOEHLERT) submitted the following 

resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Science 

RESOLUTION

Commending those individuals who contributed to the debris 

collection effort following the Space Shuttle Columbia 

accident.

Whereas on February 1, 2003, the Space Shuttle Columbia 

and its crew of seven heroic astronauts were lost in a 

tragic accident; 

Whereas the breakup of Columbia scattered debris over a 

large area of Texas, as well as Louisiana, Nevada, California, and possibly other States; 

Whereas the Federal Emergency Management Agency was 

designated the lead agency for directing other Federal 

agencies in the recovery of the Space Shuttle Columbia 

debris; 
2

•HRES 222 IH 

Whereas personnel from the Federal Emergency Management 

Agency, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the United States Forest Service, the Environmental Protection Agency, and other agencies assisted in 

the recovery of the Columbia debris; 

Whereas personnel from State and local agencies assisted in 

the recovery of the Columbia debris; 

Whereas many citizens, including National Aeronautics and 

Space Administration contractor personnel from multiple 

States, volunteered their time to assist in the recovery of 

the Columbia debris; 

Whereas two searchers perished and three others were injured in a helicopter crash while searching for Columbia 

debris; 

Whereas citizens of eastern Texas offered their whole-hearted 

support, both physical and emotional, to the debris 

search teams; and 

Whereas the combined efforts of all of these individuals and 

organizations resulted in the collection of more than seventy thousand pieces of debris, far more than was originally thought possible, providing accident investigators 

with vital evidence that will assist in determining the 

cause of the accident: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives does 

2 offer its gratitude on behalf of the American people to the 

3 thousands of individuals who worked tirelessly to recover 

4 the Space Shuttle Columbia debris.

Æ
#### KEIL et ux. v. HIMES (REILLY, third-party defendant).

Civ. A. No. 13814.

United States District Court E. D. Pennsylvania.

Dec. 2, 1952.

*452H. Mark Solomon (of Meyer, Lasch, Hankin & Poul), Philadelphia, Pa., for plaintiff.

Albert C. Gekoski, Philadelphia, Pa., for defendant.

Howard R. Detweiler, and Frank R. Ambler, Philadelphia, Pa., for third party defendant.

WELSH, District Judge.

On January 3, 1952, plaintiff was examined by Dr. Arnold S. Levine on behalf of the defendant, Leonard H. Himes. On June 18, 1952, this action was brought by the plaintiff. On October 3, 1952, plaintiff was examined by Dr. John F. Gordon on behalf of the defendant, Leonard H. Himes.

Plaintiff has moved for the production of copies of the medical reports of the examining physicians. Defendant refuses to deliver them because one examination was conducted prior to the commencement of the action and because the other was submitted to by the plaintiff voluntarily. In other words, the defendant refuses to deliver them because the examinations were made without order of Court. In so refusing defendant is in error. Under Fed.Rules Civ.Proc., rule 35(a), 28 U.S.C. A., a plaintiff may be ordered to submit to a medical examination. However, the absence of an order under Rule 35(a) does not defeat his right under Rule 35(b) to obtain from the party causing the examination to be made a copy of a detailed written report of the examining physician setting out his findings and conclusions. See Kelleher v. Cohoes Trucking Co., D.C., 25 F.Supp. 965 and Dumas v. Pennsylvania Railroad, D.C., 11 F.R.D. 496.

Accordingly, in accordance with the foregoing opinion it is this 2nd day of December, A.D., 1952, ordered, adjudged and decreed that plaintiff’s motion for the production of- medical reports under Rule 35 (b) be and the same is hereby granted.
Exhibit 4.6(h)

 

____________________

THIRD SUPPLEMENTAL INDENTURE

Dated as of May 20, 2003

to

INDENTURE

Dated as of November 21, 2001

among

VAIL RESORTS, INC., as Issuer,

the Guarantors named therein, as Guarantors,

and

THE BANK OF NEW YORK, as Trustee

____________________

up to $300,000,000

8 3/4 % Senior Subordinated Notes due 2009

THIRD SUPPLEMENTAL INDENTURE, dated as of May 20, 2003, among Vail Resorts, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the "Issuer"), the Guarantors, including the Surviving Guarantor, named on the signature pages hereto (collectively the "Guarantors"), and The Bank of New York, as Trustee (the "Trustee").

WHEREAS, the Issuer, the Guarantors, and the Merging Guarantors named on Exhibit 1 hereto have heretofore executed and delivered to the Trustee an Indenture dated as of November 21, 2001, as amended and supplemented by the First Supplemental Indenture dated as of January 16, 2002 and by the Second Supplemental Indenture dated as of October 18, 2002 (together, the "Indenture"), providing for the issuance of up to $300,000,000 aggregate principal amount of 8 3/4% Senior Subordinated Notes due 2009 of the Company (the "Notes"); and

WHEREAS, subsequent to the execution of the Indenture and the issuance of $160,000,000 aggregate principal amount of the Notes, each of the Merging Guarantors propose to merge with and into the Surviving Guarantor; and 

WHEREAS, pursuant to and as contemplated by Section 12.05 of the Indenture, the parties hereto desire to execute and deliver this Third Supplemental Indenture for the purpose of providing for the Surviving Guarantor to expressly assume all the obligations of the Merging Guarantors as a Guarantor under the Notes and the Indenture;

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the above premises, each party agrees, for the benefit of the other and for the equal and ratable benefit of the Holders of the Notes, as follows:

I.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          FEB-28-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               FEB-28-1999
<CASH>                                           7,972
<SECURITIES>                                     5,850
<RECEIVABLES>                                   12,858
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     33,865
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                60,545
<PP&E>                                         439,421
<DEPRECIATION>                                (201,929)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 325,199
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          118,570
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                       172,500
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   325,199
<SALES>                                        131,682
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               146,137
<CGS>                                          187,043
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  235,256
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               9,550
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (98,665)
<EPS-BASIC>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
#### In re: FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS SEXUAL HARASSMENT BY INMATES LITIGATION.

MDL No. 2112.

United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation.

Dec. 2, 2009.

Before JOHN G. HEYBURN II, Chairman, ROBERT L. MILLER, JR., KATHRYN H. VRATIL, DAVID R. HANSEN, W. ROYAL FURGESON, JR., FRANK C. DAMRELL, JR., DAVID G. TRAGER, Judges of the Panel.

ORDER DENYING TRANSFER

JOHN G. HEYBURN II, Chairman.

Before the entire Panel: Plaintiffs in an action pending in the Northern District *1370of Florida have moved, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, to centralize this litigation in that district. This litigation currently consists of that action, three actions in the Middle District of Florida, and two actions in the Southern District of Florida, as listed on Schedule A.

The Florida Department of Corrections (DOC), which is a defendant in all six actions, opposes centralization. If the Panel nevertheless orders centralization over its objections, then DOC favors selection of the Middle District of Florida as transferee district.

After considering all argument of counsel, we will deny the Section 1407 motion. It is true that these six Title VII actions do have some facial similarity: all plaintiffs are current or former DOC female employees who allege that they were regularly subjected to harassment by male inmates at various Florida correctional institutions, and that DOC repeatedly failed to take prompt corrective action to address the harassment. With that said, however, the alleged harassment occurred at different times and at more than a dozen institutions scattered throughout the state. The resolution of plaintiffs’ claims is likely to turn on highly individualized inquiries regarding, *inter alia,*the nature and degree of inmate misconduct to which each plaintiff was exposed, the reporting of that misconduct to DOC personnel at the involved institution, the responsive measures undertaken (or not undertaken) taken by those personnel, and the measure of each plaintiffs alleged damages. Given these circumstances, we conclude that Section 1407 centralization would not serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses or further the just and efficient conduct of the litigation at the present time.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, the motion for centralization is denied.

SCHEDULE A

MDL No. 2112 — IN RE: FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS SEXUAL HARASSMENT BY INMATES LITIGATION

*Middle District of Florida*

*Marsha Bennett, et al. v. Department of Corrections, State of Florida,*C.A. No. 2:09-549

*Tara Archer, et al. v. Department of Corrections, State of Florida,*C.A. No. 3:09-864

*Beebe L. Clark, et al. v. Department of Corrections, State of Florida,*C.A. No. 5:09-358

*Northern District of Florida*

*Donna Austin, et al. v. Department of Corrections, State of Florida,*C.A. No. 4:09-97

*Southern District of Florida*

*Eugenia V. Davis, et al. v. Department of Corrections, State of Florida,*C.A. No. 1:09-22446

*Cindy Baker, et al. v. Department of Corrections, State of Florida,*C.A. No. 2:09-14281
# table12full00

&8Page &P of &N
----

**Exhibit      10.7**

**DEVELOPMENT      AGREEMENT GUARANTY**

***[REMAINDER      OF PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK]***

**EXHIBIT      A**
----

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on Form S-8 (file no. 333-229168) of our report dated April 1, 2019 with respect to the consolidated financial statements of Live Current Media Inc. (the "Company") for the years ended December 31, 2018 and 2017 which appears in the Company's Amendment No. 1 to its Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2018, filed with the United States Securities and Exchange commission on May 15, 2019, 

/s/ DMCL____________________________

DALE MATHESON CARR-HILTON LABONTE LLP

Chartered Accountants

Vancouver, Canada

January 15, 2020

----
#### AREY v. GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER CO.

Civ. No. 25038.

United States District Court N. D. Ohio, E.. D.

Jan. 29, 1951.

Gordon C. Arey, Cincinnati, Ohio, Arthur H. VanHorn, Cleveland, Ohio, for plaintiff.

Luther E. Morrison, New York City, S. D. Jackson, Jr., Cleveland, Ohio, for defendant.

JONES, Chief Judge.

This is a patent infringement action brought by the owner of the patent. The exclusive licensee of the patent refuses to join as plaintiff and plaintiff now moves to add the licensee as party defendant.

It would appear that the exclusive licensee is a necessary and indispensible party to this action. Since it refuses to join, the licensee may be made a defendant in the action. Fed.Rules Civ.Proc. rule K>, 28 U.S.C.A.

Motion will be sustained.
exhibit_c.htm


    EXHIBIT
C

     

    FORM
OF COMPLIANCE CERTIFICATE

     

    


     

    As required by Section 6.1(c) of the
364 Day Credit Agreement, dated as of March 6, 2009 (as amended, restated,
extended, supplemented or otherwise modified in writing from time to time, the
“Agreement;”
the terms defined therein being used herein as therein defined), among Toyota
Motor Finance (Netherlands) B.V., a corporation organized under the laws of the
Netherlands, Toyota Motor Credit Corporation, a California corporation, Toyota
Financial Services (UK) PLC, a corporation organized under the laws of England,
Toyota Leasing GmbH, a corporation organized under the laws of Germany, Toyota
Credit de Puerto Rico Corp., a corporation organized under the laws of Puerto
Rico, Toyota Credit Canada Inc., a corporation organized under the laws of
Canada, Toyota Kreditbank GmbH, a corporation organized under the laws of
Germany, the Lenders from time to time party thereto, Bank of America, N.A., as
Administrative Agent, Swing Line Agent and Swing Line Lender, Banc of America
Securities LLC, Citigroup Global Markets, Inc. and The Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi
UFJ, Ltd., as Joint Lead Arrangers and Joint Book Managers, Citibank, N.A., as
Swing Line Lender, and Citibank, N.A. and The Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi UFJ,
Ltd., as Syndication Agents (the “Agreement”), I, __________________, do hereby
certify that I am the chief financial officer of [Toyota Motor Finance
(Netherlands) B.V.] [Toyota Motor Credit Corporation] [Toyota Financial Services
(UK) PLC] [Toyota Leasing GmbH] [Toyota Credit de Puerto Rico Corp.] [Toyota
Credit Canada Inc.] [Toyota Kreditbank GmbH] (the “Company”), and further
certify on behalf of the Company that, to the best of my knowledge, no Default
(as defined in the Agreement) under the Agreement exists as of the date of this
Certificate.

     

    


     

    Certified
this _____ day of ______________, 200_

     

    


     

    


     

     

    


     

    _________________________________________

     

    Name:  ___________________________________

    
 

     

     

    
      
        
        

      

      
        
          C-1

          Form of Compliance Certificate
**STATSURE        DIAGNOSTIC SYSTEMS, INC.**

**SEPTEMBER        30, 2006**

**CERTIFICATION      PURSUANT TO**

**18      U.S.C. §1350,**

**AS      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

|  | (1) | the                Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB/A of StatSure Diagnostic Systems,                Inc. for                the quarter ended September 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities                and                Exchange Commission on the date hereof, fully complies with the                requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities                Exchange Act of 1934; and |
|--|-----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|  | (2) | the                information contained in the such Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB/A                of                StatSure Diagnostic Systems, Inc. for the quarter ended September                30, 2006                fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition                and                results of operations of StatSure Diagnostic Systems,                Inc. |
|--|-----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   |                                                                                                                                                                |                                      |
|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------|
|   |                                                                                                                                                                | /s/              Leo              Ehrlich |
|   | Leo                Ehrlich Chief                Financial Officer(principal                financial officer and                duly authorized officer)  |

----
#### In re KILLIAN.

Civ. A. No. 53-31-FEBD.

United States District Court D. Massachusetts.

June 16, 1953.

I. U. Townsend, Jr. (Emery Booth Townsend Miller & Weidner), Boston, Mass., for petitioner.

George Crompton, Jr., Worcester, Mass., for Wm. L. Drown.

FORD, District Judge.

This petition is plainly brought for purposes of discovery; see Barron and Holtzoff, Vol. 2, § 671; Moore’s Federal Practice, 2d Ed., Vol. 4, pp. 1824, 1825; there will be ample time for this; furthermore, there is not any substantial degree of certainty that Drown, a Massachusetts resident, will ever be an adverse party as required by Rule 27(a) (1), Fed.Rules Civ. Proc. 28 U.S.C.A., and establish the proper venue. The real adverse party in these proceedings is the Commissioner of Patents, and patently this court has no jurisdiction of that official.

Petition denied and dismissed.
TRICCAR, Inc. 10-K

Exhibit
32.1



CERTIFICATION
OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND FINANCIAL OFFICER

UNDER
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE ACT RULES 13a-14 AND 15d-14



In
connection with the Annual Report of Frontier Oilfield Services, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ending
December 31, 2019, as filed with the Securities and Exchange commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, William
Townsend, 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:



| | (1) | The
    Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C.78m or 780(d);
    and                
| | --- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |     |                                                                                                                                                             
| | (2) | The
    information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
    of the Company.



|Dated
    this May 29, 2020 | 
|--------------------------- | 



|By: | /s/
    William Townsend    | 
|--- | --------------------------- | 
|    | William
    Townsend        | 
|    | Chief
    Executive Officer | 



23
##### 



EXHIBIT 32(b)
 
  (1)
    
    the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year
ended December 31, 2005 (the
Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and(2)
    
    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 Dated: March 2, 2006/s/ Jeffrey L. JacobsonJeffrey L. JacobsonVice President andChief Financial Officer(Chief Financial Officer)