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

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                           2,891
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                          37,223
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    138,472
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          13,056
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            12,580
<LOANS>                                        233,785
<ALLOWANCE>                                      2,019
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 463,463
<DEPOSITS>                                     272,562
<SHORT-TERM>                                    67,500
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              5,230
<LONG-TERM>                                     75,402
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         6,596
<OTHER-SE>                                      19,973
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 463,463
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 18,533
<INTEREST-INVEST>                               11,984
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   551
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                31,068
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              11,352
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              19,231
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           11,837
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      420
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                               (886)
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  9,802
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,842
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       2,842
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,362
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.14
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.11
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    7.47
<LOANS-NON>                                      2,160
<LOANS-PAST>                                       355
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 1,928
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      363
<RECOVERIES>                                        34
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                2,019
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             1,576
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                            443


</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 35.1





SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT





I, Lonni L. Dieck, certify that:





(a) A review of Ohio Power Company’s (the “Servicer”) activities during the reporting period covered by this Report on Form 10-K and of its performance under that certain Servicing Agreement dated as of August 1, 2013 between Ohio Phase-In-Recovery Funding LLC, as the Issuing Entity, and the Servicer (the "Servicing Agreement") has been made under my supervision.





(b) To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Servicing Agreement in all material respects throughout the reporting period.





Date: March 30, 2017








/s/ Lonni L. Dieck


Name:  Lonni L. Dieck


Title: Treasurer and Senior Officer in Charge of


the Servicing Function, Ohio Power Company, as Servicer
Opinion issued February 21, 2013

In The 

## Court of Appeals For The 

## First District of Texas

———————————— NO. 01
- 12
- 01037
- CV

——————————— SUNIL KUMAR TYAGI AND SUNNY'S PERFUME, INC. , Appellant s V. GOPE C. PAGARANI AND BNP IMPORTS, INC. , Appellee s

O n Appeal from the Co unty Civil C our t at Law No . 4 Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 884326

MEMORANDUM OPINION Appella nt s have filed an unopposed motion to dismiss the appeal , stating that the parties have settled their claims

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.1(a)(1). No opinion has issued. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.1(c ). Accordingly, we grant the motion2 and dismiss the appeal. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 43.2(f ). We dismiss any other pending
motions as moot.
PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices Jennings, Bland, and Massengale

.
#### Ralph T. BYRD, et ux., petitioners, v. James M. HOFFMAN, et al.

No. 10-173.

Oct. 12, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
<PAGE>
 
                                                                   EXHIBIT 23.1
 
                      CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS
 
We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Prospectus
constituting part of the Registration Statements on Form S-3 (No. 33-66516,
No. 33-54741, No. 333-00903 and No. 333-13099) and in the Registration
Statement on Form S-8 (No. 33-67834) of Western Gas Resources, Inc. of our
report dated March 7, 1996 appearing on page 25 of this Form 10-K.
 
PRICE WATERHOUSE LLP
 
Denver, Colorado
March 14, 1997
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2533 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2533

  To amend title 28 of the United States Code with respect to proper 
 venue for cases filed by corporations under chapter 11 of title 11 of 
                               such Code.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 14, 2011

Mr. Smith of Texas (for himself, Mr. Conyers, Mr. Coble, and Mr. Cohen) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                             the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend title 28 of the United States Code with respect to proper 
 venue for cases filed by corporations under chapter 11 of title 11 of 
                               such Code.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Chapter 11 Bankruptcy Venue Reform 
Act of 2011''.

SEC. 2. AMENDMENTS.

    Section 1408 of title 28 of the United States Code is amended--
            (1) by inserting ``(a)'' before ``Except'',
            (2) by inserting ``and subsection (b) of this section'' 
        after ``this title'', and
            (3) by adding at the end the following:
    ``(b) A case under chapter 11 of title 11 in which the person that 
is the subject of the case is a corporation may be commenced only in 
the district court for the district--
            ``(1) in which the principal place of business in the 
        United States, or principal assets in the United States, of 
        such corporation have been located for 1 year immediately 
        preceding such commencement, or for a longer portion of such 1-
        year period than the principal place of business in the United 
        States, or principal assets in the United States, of such 
        corporation were located in any other district; or
            ``(2) in which there is pending a case under chapter 11 of 
        title 11 concerning an affiliate of such corporation, if the 
        affiliate in such pending case directly or indirectly owns, 
        controls, or holds with power to vote more than 50 percent of 
        the outstanding voting securities of such corporation.''.

SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE; APPLICATION OF AMENDMENTS.

    (a) Effective Date.--Except as provided in subsection (b), this Act 
and the amendments made by this Act shall take effect on the date of 
the enactment of this Act.
    (b) Application of Amendments.--The amendments made by this Act 
shall apply only with respect to cases commenced under title 11 of the 
United States Code on or after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT
32.1





CERTIFICATION
OF PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER


PURSUANT
TO 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
connection with the Quarterly Report of ATSI Communications, Inc. on Form 10-Q
for the period ending October 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Arthur L. Smith, President and Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C, ss. 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that,





1)
            the
      Report complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
and





2)
            the
      information in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
      financial condition and result of operations of the
    Company.





By /s/
Arthur L. Smith


Arthur L.
Smith


President
and


Chief
Executive Officer


December
10, 2009
#### Deonarine Ramnarain, Appellant, v Chandradat Ramnarain, Respondent, et al., Defendant.

Submitted January 28, 2008;

decided March 13, 2008

Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution.
Exhibit 32.2

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 Point.360 ( the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September
30, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report),
I, Alan R. Steel, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§ 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that,
to my knowledge:

|(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 Company.
|--- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/ Alan R. SteelAlan R. Steel
Chief Financial
Officer
November 12, 2003

A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906 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.

23
#### † Sayles v. Dubuque & Sioux City R. Co.

*(Circuit Court, D. Iowa.*In Chancery.)

Per Curiam,

(Dillon and Love, JJ.,

concurring.) We have considered the points made in argument upon the demurrer to the bill. We have no time to elaborate our views. It must suffice to state our conclusions. .We do this at .this time so that the cause may proceed. These conclusions are not on all the points so fixed as to preclude further argument and consideration on the final hearing. The views which we now entertain of the questions made are as follows: * * *

*Fourth.*As to the statute of limitations. We are of opinion that the state statute of limitation has no application to suits in respect of the rights granted by letters patent for inventions. This bill was brought in February, 1877. The original term expired July 6, 1866; the extended term, July 6, 1873. The act of congress of 1870, section 55, prescribed that “ all actions shall lie brought during the term for which the letters patent shall be granted or extended, or six years after the expiration thereof.” This limitation continued in force until the first day of December, 1873, when the Revised Statutes took effect, repealing it. Since the original and extended term of a patent may be and often is held by different persons, and since the language of the limitation statute of 1870 is ambiguous, — in view of the injustice to defendants of requiring them to account for profits made any time since the date of the original patent in 1852, a period of 25 years, where the proofs may be lost, — we are of opinion that their right is barred to recover for profits or damages during the original term. An inquiry of profits or gains within a period of five years is difficult, as the profits gained depend upon many conditions. When we come to carry such an investigation back for almost a quarter of a century, accuracy of results is almost impossible, and the laches of a patentee coming forward at such a late date does not give him a very favorable position in a court of equity. What is the proper rule to measure compensation in a court of equity is a question not arising on the demurrer, and it is not implied from the above use of the words “profits and gains.”
Exhibit 10.5


EXHIBIT 10.5 - Agreement for Services

Agreement for Services            

	
	[LOGO:  THE DIVERSIFIED GROUP

  Wealth Management

  Real Estate Investment

   Financial Services]




August 11th 2010 in Bay City Michigan

American Realty Funds, A Tennessee Corporation, has with this letter entered into agreement with The Diversified Group Partnership Management, LLC, A Michigan Limited Liability Corporation for the latter to provide materials and labor for the renovation of the properties listed below.

Consideration for these materials and labor shall be experiences and invoiced by The Diversified Group Partnership Management, LLC

These renovations shall be separately invoiced and are not included in the purchase price of the properties which were also purchased from The Diversified Group partnership Management, LLC under a separate agreement.

The properties shall be renovated to a condition into which they can be sold for a price at, around, or above the after repaired value third party appraisal.

Properties:

701 Wenona, Bay City, MI 48706

1203 S. Raymond, Bay City, MI 48706

414 Franklin St. Bay City MI 48708

3318 N. Water St., Bay City, MI 48708

200 N. Sheridan, Bay City MI 48708

207 E. Thomas, Bay City, MI 48706

505 N. Henry, Bay City, MI 48706

616 Howard, bay City, MI 48708

118 Heyn, Saginaw, MI 48602




This agreement may be amended to include additional properties in the future.

Agreed and Accepted By:

			
	/s/Michael Kazee

	 
	/s/Joel I. Wilson


	Michael Kazee, President

	 
	Joel I. Wilson, CO-CEO


	For The Diversified Group Partnership Management, LLC

	 
	For American Realty Funds Corp.




The Diversified Group is a Michigan Registered Investment Advisor

	
	The Diversified Group

501 Eulicid Avenue

Bay City, MI 48706

(989) 907-1834-telephone

(989) 671-2182-fax
Order entered April 30, 2015

In The 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**

No. 05
- 14
- 01384
- CV
IN THE INTEREST OF K .V.K., A CHILD On Appeal from the 256th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DF
- 12
- 19679 

### O RD ER Before the Court is appellant’s April 28, 2015 unopposed motion to file supplemental reporter’s records. Appellant has been found indigent and is allowed to proceed without advance payment of costs. Appellant requested the reporter’s record from the bench trial and six hearings. Only the reporter’s record from the bench trial has been filed.
We GRANT appellant’s motion. We ORDER Glenda Johnson, Official Court Reporter for the 256th Judicial District Court, to file, WITHIN THIRTY DAYS of the date of this order, the reporter’s records with exhibits from the hearings held on the following dates:
1. February 20, 2014;
2. February 28, 2014;
3. March 20, 2014;
4. October 7, 2014;
5. October 22, 2014; and6. January 9, 2015.
If any of the hearings were not recorded, Glenda Johnson shall file written verificat ion that such hearings were not recorded. Appellant’s brief will be due THIRTY DAYS after the above

- listed reporter’ s records are filed or the requested written verification is filed.
We DIRECT the Cle rk of this Court to send a copy of this order to the Honorable David Lopez, Judge of the 256th Judicial District Court, Glenda Johnson, and counsel for all parties.
/s/ ELIZABETH LANG

- MIERS JUSTICE
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2490 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2490

 To amend the National Trails System Act to provide for a study of the 
                         Cascadia Marine Trail.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 11, 2011

Mr. Inslee (for himself, Mr. Dicks, Mr. Larsen of Washington, Mr. Smith 
of Washington, Mr. McDermott, and Mr. Bass of New Hampshire) introduced 
  the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Natural 
                               Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the National Trails System Act to provide for a study of the 
                         Cascadia Marine Trail.

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION OF TRAIL FOR STUDY.

    (a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as the ``Cascadia 
Marine Trail Study Act''.
    (b) Designation of Trail for Study.--Section 5(c) of the National 
Trails System Act (16 U.S.C. 1244(c)) is amended by adding at the end 
the following:
            ``(__) Cascadia Marine Trail, a series of water trail 
        routes encompassing approximately 2,300 miles of shoreline in 
        the State of Washington, extending from Point Roberts near the 
        Canadian border to the southern reach of Puget Sound near 
        Olympia. In conducting the study, the Secretary shall 
        coordinate with appropriate Federal, State, local, tribal, and 
        private entities, and may evaluate sites of recreational, 
        scenic, or historic significance near the Cascadia Marine Trail 
        for potential inclusion in the Trail. The Secretary shall also 
        consider what activities may be limited by the designation, 
        including existing activities, hunting, boating, or proposed 
        infrastructure improvements.''.
                                 <all>
```
CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND

#### Jason Haskins v. William Richardson

June 13, 2003

Case No. LP-851-3

By Judge T. j. Markow

The defendant came on his *in limine*objection to the deposition testimony of Dr. William A. Yetter, plaintiffs treating psychiatrist.

Defendant argues that Dr. Yetter’s entire testimony must be stricken in that he fails to provide a causal connection to the illnesses he diagnosed and the defendant.

Upon its review of the deposition, the court determined that Dr. Yetter diagnosed the plaintiff as suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and Depression when he saw the plaintiff in March 2001 about four months following a second confrontation between the plaintiff and police.

Dr. Yetter did not give specific details of either confrontation between plaintiff and the police as he did not know them. He concludes that the June 1998 incident, which is the subject of this action, created a condition which resulted in a cascade of recollections of feelings of stress, etc., when the second incident in 2000 occurred. He concludes that both incidents contributed to his diagnosis of PTSD and Depression.

Dr. Yetter testified that PTSD is caused by “Traumatic events, usually, that are caused when people are faced with life-threatening situations, very dangerous events.” Transcript P-13.

Dr. Yetter gave no factual basis for his determination that the 1998 incident presented a “life-threatening” or “dangerous event.” The jury could not on its own determine whether the 1998 incident was of the type to cause the PTSD/Depression.

*161Similarly, Dr. Yetter’s testimony does not permit the jury to conclude that the 1998 incident proximately caused plaintiffs PTSD/Depression. The 1998 incident, at worst, created a condition which permitted the illness to occur.

Plaintiff cites *Lock*v. *Rice,*182 Va. 373 (1944), as support for the proposition that it is not necessary to isolate parts of an injury for attribution to a specific tortfeasor. That principle is applicable only where there are joint tortfeasors. Assuming the 2000 incident was perpetrated by tortfeasors, their torts were not joint with those alleged to be perpetrated by the defendant.

Virginia Code 8.01-401.1 requires that an expert’s opinion must be based upon “facts, circumstances, or data.” It is clear that Dr. Yetter did not know anything more than the most general facts about either incident and not enough facts to enable him to determine that the plaintiff faced a “life-threatening or very dangerous” situation. His testimony is based upon speculation as to causation.

It is, therefore, ordered that the defendant’s objections to the entire testimony of Dr. William A. Yetter are sustained and it will not be offered to the jury.