alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"Federal Maritime Commission","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov","author_name":"Catie-Megan Moran","author_url":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/author\/cmoranfmc-gov\/","title":"Revocations and Surrenders – March 5, 2015","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"9ikeJOWYpl\"><a href=\"\/oti\/revocations-and-surrenders-march-5-2015\/\">Revocations and Surrenders – March 5, 2015<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"\/oti\/revocations-and-surrenders-march-5-2015\/embed\/#?secret=9ikeJOWYpl\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Revocations and Surrenders – March 5, 2015” — Federal Maritime Commission\" data-secret=\"9ikeJOWYpl\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script type=\"text\/javascript\">\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(c,l){\"use strict\";var e=!1,o=!1;if(l.querySelector)if(c.addEventListener)e=!0;if(c.wp=c.wp||{},c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage);else if(c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if(!t);else if(!(t.secret||t.message||t.value));else if(\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret));else{for(var r,s,a,i=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),n=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=0;o<n.length;o++)n[o].style.display=\"none\";for(o=0;o<i.length;o++)if(r=i[o],e.source!==r.contentWindow);else{if(r.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message){if(1e3<(s=parseInt(t.value,10)))s=1e3;else if(~~s<200)s=200;r.height=s}if(\"link\"===t.message)if(s=l.createElement(\"a\"),a=l.createElement(\"a\"),s.href=r.getAttribute(\"src\"),a.href=t.value,a.host===s.host)if(l.activeElement===r)c.top.location.href=t.value}}},e)c.addEventListener(\"message\",c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",t,!1),c.addEventListener(\"load\",t,!1);function t(){if(o);else{o=!0;for(var e,t,r,s=-1!==navigator.appVersion.indexOf(\"MSIE 10\"),a=!!navigator.userAgent.match(\/Trident.*rv:11\\.\/),i=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),n=0;n<i.length;n++){if(!(r=(t=i[n]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\")))r=Math.random().toString(36).substr(2,10),t.src+=\"#?secret=\"+r,t.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",r);if(s||a)(e=t.cloneNode(!0)).removeAttribute(\"security\"),t.parentNode.replaceChild(e,t);t.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:r},\"*\")}}}}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n"}
Exhibit 4.2

     

     
  

     

  
    CERTIFICATE OF TRUST

       OF

       123 SPROTT TRUST

    THIS Certificate of Trust of 123 SPROTT TRUST (the “Trust”) is being duly executed and filed on behalf of the Trust by the undersigned, as trustee, to form a statutory trust under the
      Delaware Statutory Trust Act (12 Del. C. § 3801 et seq.) (the “Act”).

    

       

    

       

    1. Name.  The name of the statutory trust formed by this Certificate of Trust is 123 SPROTT TRUST.

    

       

    2. Delaware Trustee.  The name and address of the trustee of the Trust having a principal place of business in the State of Delaware are Delaware Trust Company, 251 Little Falls Drive, Wilmington, DE 19808, Attn: Corporate Trust.

    

       

    3. Effective Date.  This Certificate of Trust shall be effective upon filing.

    

       

    

       

    IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned trustee has duly executed this Certificate of Trust in accordance with Section 3811(a)(1) of the Act.

    

       

        

       

    	 	 	 	 
	 	
            DELAWARE TRUST COMPANY, not in its individual capacity but solely as Delaware Trustee of the Trust

          
	 	 	 
	 	
            By:

          	
            /s/ Benjamin Hancock

          
	 	
            Name:

          	
             Benjamin Hancock

          
	 	
            Title:

          	
             Assistant Vice President
exv10w31xby



 





EXHIBIT 10.31(b)












FIRST AMENDMENT TO LEASE




     This first amendment to lease dated October 1, 1996 is executed by and between Syufy
Enterprises, a California Limited Partnership, hereinafter called “Landlord” and Century Theatres
Inc., a Delaware corporation, hereinafter called “Tenant”.



WITNESSETH:




     WHEREAS, Syufy Enterprises and Century Theatres of California, Inc. (a wholly owned
subsidiary of Century Theatres, Inc.) entered into an Indenture of Lease on September 30, 1995,
hereinafter referred to as the “Lease”, for the Century Ventura 8 Theatre, Ventura, California,
and



     WHEREAS, the parties hereto desire to amend said Lease as hereinafter provided,



     NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto mutually agree that the Lease shall be amended as follows:



     1. The Leased Premises shall be increased by 2.58 acres as set forth in the attached Exhibit A
to permit Tenant to add eight auditoriums and expand the existing theatre building by a total of
22,066 square feet and to provide additional parking for the Theatre.



     2. Landlord shall amend the existing REA to incorporate the land set forth in Exhibit A into
the REA.



     3. Tenant shall be responsible for all construction costs for the parking and site work
improvements. Landlord shall provide Tenant an allowance of $599,225 towards the site work
improvements.



     3. Tenant shall be responsible for all construction costs for the expanded building and new
auditoriums. Landlord shall provide Tenant an allowance of Eight five ($85.00) dollars per square
foot or a total of $1,875,610 toward the Tenant Improvements.







     4. As
consideration Tenant shall pay as additional base rent the amount of
$353,606 per year commencing the date Tenant’s work is complete and the new auditoriums are open for business. The revised Base Rent or Minimum Monthly Rent as set forth in
the lease shall increase by $29,467.16 and the new Base Rent under
the lease shall be $88,633.83 per month.







     Executed as of the date first written above.



	 	 	 	 	 
	Century Theatres, Inc.

	 	 	 	Syufy Enterprises
	 
	 	 	 	 
	/s/ Joseph Syufy

	 	 	 	/s/ Raymond W. Syufy
	 

	 	 	 	 
	Joseph Syufy, Senior Executive Vice President

	 	 	 	Raymond W. Syufy, Genl Ptr
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

LAWRENCE NISKEY,

Plaintiff,

v. Civil Action No. 13-1269 (JDB)

JEH JOHNSON,

Secretary, Department of Homeland 

Security,

 

 Defendant.

ORDER

On September 29, 2014, this Court granted the government’s motion to dismiss Lawrence 

Niskey’s Title VII complaint. Less than three weeks later, Niskey [27] wrote to the Court, 

reiterating many of his original arguments. The Court will construe Niskey’s letter as a motion 

for reconsideration under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). See Civil Statement from Pl.

[ECF No. 27] at 4 (“I am requesting the Court reconsider [its] decision to dismiss this case 

. . . .”); see also SEC v. Bilzerian, 729 F. Supp. 2d 9, 12 (D.D.C. 2010) (“If a person files a 

motion for reconsideration within twenty-eight days of the judgment or order of which he 

complains, courts consider it a Rule 59(e) motion; otherwise, they treat it as a Rule 60(b) 

motion.”). “Motions under Rule 59(e) are disfavored and the moving party bears the burden of 

establishing extraordinary circumstances warranting relief from a final judgment.” Halim v. 

Donovan, 951 F. Supp. 2d 201, 203 (D.D.C. 2013) (internal quotation marks and citation 

omitted).
Much of Niskey’s motion focuses on the substance of his complaint—irrelevant here, as 

the Court predicated its ruling on the finding that Niskey had failed to exhaust his administrative 

remedies. See generally Sept. 29, 2014 Mem. Op. [ECF No. 26]; see also Slate v. Am. Broad. 

Cos., --- F. Supp. 2d ---, 2013 WL 6713178, at *2 (D.D.C. Dec. 20, 2013) (“[L]itigants may not 

use Rule 59(e) either to repeat unsuccessful arguments or to assert new but previously available 

arguments.”). Indeed, only one of Niskey’s renewed arguments goes to the question of 

exhaustion: he argues that Title VII’s administrative exhaustion requirements are not 

jurisdictional in nature. Quite so—and the Court recognized that in its memorandum opinion. 

See Mem. Op. at 4. But that fact simply means that the requirement is subject to equitable 

tolling and estoppel. See id. And Niskey presents no reason to reconsider the Court’s decision 

that equitable tolling is inappropriate in this case. See id. at 6.

Hence, upon consideration of plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration, the applicable law, 

and the entire record herein, it is hereby 

ORDERED that [27] plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is DENIED.

SO ORDERED.

 /s/ 

 JOHN D. BATES

 United States District Judge

Dated: October 22, 2014
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3278 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to apply the mailbox rule 

to certain payments made through the Electronic Federal Tax Payment 

System. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 17, 2021 

Mr. LAHOOD (for himself and Ms. DELBENE) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to apply 

the mailbox rule to certain payments made through the 

Electronic Federal Tax Payment System. 

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

3 SECTION 1. APPLICATION OF MAILBOX RULE TO CERTAIN 

4 PAYMENTS MADE THROUGH THE ELEC5 TRONIC FEDERAL TAX PAYMENT SYSTEM. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 7502 of the Internal Rev7 enue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the 

8 following new subsection: 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3278 IH

1 ‘‘(g) PAYMENTS MADE THROUGH THE ELECTRONIC

2 FEDERAL TAX PAYMENT SYSTEM.— 

3 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—A qualified Electronic Fed4 eral Tax Payment System payment which is required 

5 to be made within a prescribed period or on or be6 fore a prescribed date under authority of any provi7 sion of the internal revenue laws shall be treated as 

8 made on the last day of such prescribed period or 

9 on such prescribed date, as the case may be. 

10 ‘‘(2) QUALIFIED ELECTRONIC FEDERAL TAX

11 PAYMENT SYSTEM PAYMENT.—For purposes of this 

12 subsection, the term ‘qualified Electronic Federal 

13 Tax Payment System payment’ means any payment 

14 if— 

15 ‘‘(A) such payment is made through the 

16 Department of the Treasury’s Electronic Fed17 eral Tax Payment System (and such payment is 

18 not required under any provision of the internal 

19 revenue laws to be made in another manner), 

20 ‘‘(B) such payment is authorized to be 

21 made at the earliest time such payment can be 

22 made through such System following such au23 thorization, and 

24 ‘‘(C) such authorization is provided within 

25 the prescribed period referred to in paragraph 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 3278 IH

1 (1) or on or before the prescribed date referred 

2 to in paragraph (1), as the case may be. 

3 ‘‘(3) APPLICATION OF CERTAIN EXCEPTIONS, 

4 INCLUDING REQUIREMENT THAT PAYMENT BE PER5 MITTED TO BE MADE BY MAILING.—For certain pay6 ments to which this subsection does not apply, see 

7 subsection (d).’’. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack, Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 April 16, 2019

izm

Order 

Clerk

April 16, 2019

159447(21)

JAMMIE COLLIER,

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v SC: 159447

CoA: 346323

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

Defendant-Appellee.

______________________________________/

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion to waive fees is considered and it is 

DENIED because MCL 600.2963 requires that a prisoner pursuing a civil action be liable 

for filing fees.

Appellant is not required to pay an initial partial fee. However, for an appeal to be 

filed, within 21 days of the date of this order, appellant shall submit a copy of this 

order and refile the copy of the pleadings returned with this order. By doing this, 

appellant becomes responsible to pay the $375.00 filing fee. Failure to comply with this 

order shall result in the appeal not being filed in this Court.

If appellant timely refiles the pleadings, monthly payments shall be made to the 

Department of Corrections in the amount of 50 percent of the deposits made to appellant’s 

account until the payments equal the balance due of $375.00. This amount shall then be 

remitted to this Court.

Pursuant to MCL 600.2963(8), appellant shall not file a new civil action or appeal 

in this Court until the entry fee in this case is paid in full. 

The Clerk of the Court shall furnish two copies of this order to appellant and return 

a copy of appellant’s pleadings with this order.
Exhibit 32.2

                    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 BF  Acquisition
Group  I,  Inc.  (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB  for  the  period
ending January 31, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, William Colucci,
Treasurer 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:

          (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.

Dated: January 22, 2004

                                    /s/ William Colucci
                                   -----------------------------
                                   William Colucci, Treasurer
                                   BF Acquisition Group I, Inc.
**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 Annual Report of Guideline, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
      10-K for the period ended December 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and
      Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, David Walke, 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 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/
      David Walke**


David
      Walke


Chief
      Executive Officer


March
      30,
      2006





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.
<PAGE>   1



                                                                 Exhibit 13(b)

                       REPORT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS



We have audited the consolidated statement of condition of Source One Mortgage
Services Corporation and subsidiaries ("the Company") as of December 31, 1996
and the related consolidated statements of income, comprehensive income,
stockholders' equity, and cash flows for each of the two years in the period
ended December 31, 1996.  These financial statements are the responsibility of
the Company's management.  Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these
financial statements based on our audits.

We conducted our audits in accordance with generally accepted auditing
standards.  Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to
obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of
material misstatement.  An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence
supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements.  An audit
also includes assessing the accounting principles used and significant
estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall financial
statement presentation.  We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis
for our opinion.

In our opinion, the financial statements referred to above present fairly, in
all material respects, the consolidated financial position of Source One
Mortgage Services Corporation and subsidiaries as of December 31, 1996 and the
consolidated results of their operations and their cash flows for each of the
two years in the period ended December 31, 1996, in conformity with generally
accepted accounting principles.


                                                    /s/ Ernst & Young LLP


Detroit, Michigan
January 30, 1997
84 A.3d 1057

#### Keith ALEXANDER, Petitioner v. Honorable Judge Chris WOGAN and Seth Williams, District Attorney, Respondents.

No. 168 EM 2013.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

Jan. 29, 2014.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 29th day of January, 2014, the Application for Relief is DENIED. The Prothonotary is directed to strike the name of the jurist from the caption.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                             APR-30-1996
<PERIOD-START>                                MAY-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                                  APR-30-1996
<CASH>                                                  0
<SECURITIES>                                            0
<RECEIVABLES>                                           0
<ALLOWANCES>                                            0
<INVENTORY>                                             0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                        0
<PP&E>                                                  0
<DEPRECIATION>                                          0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                          0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                 341
<BONDS>                                                 0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                   0
<PREFERRED>                                             0
<COMMON>                                          118,470
<OTHER-SE>                                       (118,811)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                            0
<SALES>                                                 0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   10,000
<CGS>                                                   0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      24,163
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                        0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                      0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   (14,163)
<INCOME-TAX>                                            0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               (14,163)
<DISCONTINUED>                                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                         0
<CHANGES>                                               0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (14,163)
<EPS-BASIC>                                             0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                           0


</TABLE>
#### Isador D. CHAVEZ v. UNITED STATES of America.

No. 5556.

United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit.

March 9, 1957.

Isaac S.. Willson, Denver, Colo., for .appellant.

Donald E. Kelley, U. S. Atty., and Robert S. Wham, Asst. U. S. Atty., Denver, ■Colo., for appellee..

Before’BRATTON, Chief Judge, and MURRAH, Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed without written opinion.
76 A.3d 536

#### Constance NAYLOR, May Susan Kimball, and Salahuddin Al-Sadiq, Individually and on behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Appellants v. COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE, Appellee.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

Sept. 25, 2013.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 25th day of September 2013, the Order of the Commonwealth Court is AFFIRMED. The Application to File a Supplemental Brief is DENIED.
| **Exhibit 32.1** |
|------------------|

CERTIFICATION

|   | Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section          1350, I, Bernard J. Jacob, Chief Executive Officer of Pruco Life Insurance          Company, hereby certify that the accompanying          Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2005,          containing the financial statements of  Pruco Life Variable Contract          Real Property Account (a separate account of Pruco Life Insurance Company)          and The Prudential Variable Contract Real Property Partnership (the “Report”),          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 Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial          condition and results of operations of Pruco Life Variable Contract          Real Property Account and The Prudential Variable Contract Real PropertyPartnership. |
|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

|                           |   |   | Date: March 30, 2006      |   |
|--------------------------------|--------|--------|--------------------------------|--------|
|       |   |   |                           |   |
|       |   |   |                           |   |
|       |   |   |                           |   |
|                           |   |   |                                |   |
|                           |   |   | Name: Bernard J. Jacob         |   |
|                           |   |   | Title: Chief Executive Officer |   |

|   |                                                                                                                                                                        |
|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   | The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document. |

----