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

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> BD
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS RESTATED 1999 SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED
FROM THE CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF INCOME AND CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF
FINANCIAL CONDITION IN THE COMPANY'S QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10Q FOR THE
QUARTERLY PERIOD ENDED JUNE 30, 2000 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER>     1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                         266,056
<RECEIVABLES>                                  147,332
<SECURITIES-RESALE>                                  0
<SECURITIES-BORROWED>                                0
<INSTRUMENTS-OWNED>                            519,262
<PP&E>                                          18,050
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,015,410
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<PAYABLES>                                      84,349
<REPOS-SOLD>                                         0
<SECURITIES-LOANED>                                  0
<INSTRUMENTS-SOLD>                             516,159
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,214
<OTHER-SE>                                     413,688
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,015,410
<TRADING-REVENUE>                              430,309
<INTEREST-DIVIDENDS>                             8,728
<COMMISSIONS>                                    6,966
<INVESTMENT-BANKING-REVENUES>                        0
<FEE-REVENUE>                                    9,796
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,585
<COMPENSATION>                                 139,356
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                176,357
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                     176,357
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   113,533
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.95
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.91


</TABLE>
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

U.S. Indo-Pacific CommandUSINDOPACOM

U.S. Indo-Pacific Command

Search

Search
Search

-  Home		 
-  Leadership    -  Commander         
  -  Deputy Commander         
  -  Chief of Staff         
  -  Senior Enlisted Leader 
-  About USINDOPACOM    -  History         
  -  USPACOM Area of Responsibility         
  -  USPACOM Previous Commanders         
  -  Women, Peace and Security 
-  Organization    -  Organization Chart 
-  Media    -  News      -  Spotlight 
  -  Photos         
  -  Speeches / Testimony         
  -  Freedom of Information Act      -  FOIA - Reading Room         
    -  Submit FOIA Request         
    -  Request Status         
    -  FOIA FAQS 
-  Resources    -  Travel Requirements         
  -  Useful Theater Information         
  -  FAQ         
  -  Useful Links 
-  Newcomers		 
-  Contact    -  Directory         
  -  Media Inquiries         
  -  Industry Engagements 
-  JTF - Red Hill		 
-  JTF-Micronesia		 

Home : Media : News : News Article View

# Airmen and Soldiers Call Close Air Support in Red Flag 14-3

By 2nd Lt. Michael Trent HarringtonJBER Public Affairs

                YUKON TRAINING AREA, Alaska  –              *rrrrrrippppp*

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT                

pacom

news

articles
EXHIBIT 32


CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, the
undersigned officer of American Laser Healthcare Corporation
 (the "Company"), hereby certify to my knowledge that:

The Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31,
2011 of the Company fully complies, in all material respects,
with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, and the information contained in the
Report fairly represents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

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.


                             /s/ James Cassidy
                                 Chief Executive Officer
                                 Chief Financial Officer
 				 For the Period Covered by
				 the Report
Date: March 28, 2012
#### Individuals Securities, Ltd., Appellant, v American International Group, Inc., et al., Respondents.

[826 NYS2d 92]

In an action to recover damages for fraud, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Werner, J.), dated March 17, 2005, as granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The facts underlying the complaint arose from the defendants’ failure to cover the plaintiffs alleged loss under the terms of a securities dealer blanket bond (hereinafter the bond). The plaintiff discovered the loss in February 1989 and reported it to the defendants in May or June of 1989. Under the terms of the bond, any legal proceeding for recovery of a loss thereunder had to be commenced by the plaintiff no later than 24 months after the discovery of the loss. The defendants commenced an investigation of the claim in June or July of 1989. By the end of August 1989 the plaintiffs counsel advised the defendant that, if the matter were not resolved shortly, the plaintiff would have “no alternative but to institute suit under the [bond].” Two days later, the defendant’s counsel replied that the investigation was ongoing, that the defendants continued to reserve their *644rights under the bond, and that the plaintiff should proceed as it saw fit, “including [by commencing an action] against National Union if you deem same advisable.” This action, denominated as one to recover damages for “fraud,” was commenced nearly 13 years later, and seeks primarily to recover the full face amount of the bond.

The Supreme Court properly granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. A cause of action to recover damages for fraud does not lie when, as here, the only fraud charged relates to the breach of a contract *(see Carle Place Union Free School Dist. v Bat-Jac Constr., Inc.,*28 AD3d 596, 598-599 [2006]; *Marshel v Farley,*21 AD3d 935, 936 [2005]). The record in this case contains no evidence that the defendants violated any duty extraneous to the bond thereby giving rise to an actionable tort *(see Saidai v Security Ins. Co. of Hartford,*9 AD3d 420, 421 [2004]).

Moreover, to the extent the complaint may be construed as stating a cause of action alleging breach of contract, the defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by showing that such cause of action is time barred *(see Gilbert Frank Corp. v Federal Ins. Co.,*70 NY2d 966, 967-968 [1988]; *Saidai v Security Ins. Co., supra; cf. Carle Place Union Free School Dist. v Bat-Jac Constr., supra).*In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise any triable issue of fact *(see Gilbert Frank Corp. v Federal Ins. Co., supra*at 968; *Dailey v Mazel Stores,*309 AD2d 661, 663-664 [2003]; *McGivney v Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co.,*305 AD2d 559, 559-560 [2003]; *Affordable Auto Repair v Travelers Indem. Co.,*292 AD2d 477 [2002]).

The plaintiffs remaining contentions are without merit. Adams, J.P., Skelos, Fisher and Covello, JJ., concur.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Raymond A. Holt, Appellant.

[823 NYS2d 750]

Appeal from a judgment of the Genesee County Court (Robert C. Noonan, J.), rendered August 12, 2004. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of rape in the second degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed. Present— Hurlbutt, A.EJ, Gorski, Smith and Centra, JJ.
AD Economic Evaluation

Docket No. FAA-2010-0491 Directorate ID: 2009-SW-64-AD

Helicopter Model: Eurocopter France Model AS332L2 Helicopters

Number of Helicopters (U.S. Operators): 0 Helicopters in the US Registry, therefore there are no costs 

of compliance for US operators.

Reason: Discovery of broken swashplate bearing attaching screw heads.

Costs:

Parts per Helicopter $ N/A

 (P/N: XXXXXXXXX)

Labor per Helicopter

(XX x $85/work-hour)

$ N/A

Other (Explain)

Total Cost per Helicopter $N/A 

Total Fleet Cost $N/A

Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action?” Yes ( ) No ()

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant? Yes ( ) Explain Below No ()

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities?

Yes ( ) No ()

Project Engineer: Gary Roach
#### Patrick B. Daly, Appellant, v. The State of New York, Respondent.

Judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs. Mo opinion.
§ 141.53 Cease and desist orders. ( a ) If the Commissioner believes that violation of the regulations in this part is occurring, the Commissioner may order the person believed to be in violation to show cause according to the provisions of § 141.56 why a cease and desist order should not be issued.
( b ) If the person accused of the violations fails to show cause at the hearing why such an order should not issue, the Commissioner shall issue the order.
( c ) A person subject to a cease and desist order issued under this section who violates the order is liable to revocation of license after a show cause proceeding according to the provisions of § 141.56 of this part.
### **CHAPTER 1413—ALTERNATIVE PROMOTION AUTHORITY FOR OFFICERS IN DESIGNATED COMPETITIVE CATEGORIES**

Sec.
15101.
Officers in designated competitive categories.
15102.
Selection for promotion.
15103.
Eligibility for consideration for promotion.
15104.
Opportunities for consideration for promotion.
15105.
Promotions.
15106.
Failure of selection for promotion.
15107.
Retirement: retirement for years of service; selective early retirement.
15108.
Continuation on the Reserve Active-Status List.
15109.
Other administrative authorities.
15110.
Regulations.
### §12107. Army National Guard of United States; Air National Guard of the United States: enlistment in

(a) Except as provided in subsection (c), to become an enlisted member of the Army National Guard of the United States or the Air National Guard of the United States, a person must—

(1) be enlisted in the Army National Guard or the Air National Guard, as the case may be;

(2) subscribe to the oath set forth in section 304 of title 32; and

(3) be a member of a federally recognized unit or organization of the Army National Guard or the Air National Guard, as the case may be, in the grade in which he is to be enlisted as a Reserve.

(b)(1) Under regulations to be prescribed by the Secretary of the Army, a person who enlists in the Army National Guard, or whose term of enlistment in the Army National Guard is extended, shall be concurrently enlisted, or his term of enlistment shall be concurrently extended, as the case may be, as a Reserve of the Army for service in the Army National Guard of the United States.

(2) Under regulations to be prescribed by the Secretary of the Air Force, a person who enlists in the Air National Guard, or whose term of enlistment in the Air National Guard is extended, shall be concurrently enlisted, or his term of enlistment shall be concurrently extended, as the case may be, as a Reserve of the Air Force for service in the Air National Guard of the United States.

(c)(1) A member of the Army Reserve who enlists in the Army National Guard in his reserve grade, and is a member of a federally recognized unit or organization of the Army National Guard, becomes a member of the Army National Guard of the United States and ceases to be a member of the Army Reserve.

(2) A member of the Air Force Reserve who enlists in the Air National Guard in his reserve grade, and is a member of a federally recognized unit or organization of the Air National Guard, becomes a member of the Air National Guard of the United States and ceases to be a member of the Air Force Reserve.

(Added Pub. L. 103–337, div. A, title XVI, §1662(b)(1), Oct. 5, 1994, 108 Stat. 2989.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

Provisions similar to those in this section were contained in sections 3261 and 8261 of this title, prior to repeal by Pub. L. 103–337, §1662(b)(3).

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date

Section effective Dec. 1, 1994, except as otherwise provided, see section 1691 of Pub. L. 103–337, set out as a note under section 10001 of this title.
1

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 43128

STATE OF IDAHO,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

DRIFTER BLAKE NIBLER,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

2015 Unpublished Opinion No. 683

Filed: October 29, 2015

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED

OPINION AND SHALL NOT

BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Second Judicial District, State of Idaho, 

Latah County. Hon. John R. Stegner, District Judge. 

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of ten years with two years 

determinate, affirmed.

Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Jenny C. Swinford, Deputy 

Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. 

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming, Deputy Attorney 

General, Boise, for respondent. 

________________________________________________

Before MELANSON, Chief Judge; GRATTON, Judge;

and HUSKEY, Judge

________________________________________________

PER CURIAM

Drifter Blake Nibler pled guilty to vehicular manslaughter. Idaho Code § 18-4006(3)(b), 

18-4007(3)(b). The district court sentenced Nibler to a unified sentence of ten years with two 

years determinate. Nibler appeals asserting that the district court abused its discretion by 

imposing an excessive sentence.

Sentencing is a matter for the trial court’s discretion. Both our standard of review and the 

factors to be considered in evaluating the reasonableness of the sentence are well established and 

need not be repeated here. See State v. Hernandez, 121 Idaho 114, 117-18, 822 P.2d 1011, 1014-

15 (Ct. App. 1991); State v. Lopez, 106 Idaho 447, 449-51, 680 P.2d 869, 871-73 (Ct. App. 
2

1984); State v. Toohill, 103 Idaho 565, 568, 650 P.2d 707, 710 (Ct. App. 1982). When reviewing 

the length of a sentence, we consider the defendant’s entire sentence. State v. Oliver, 144 Idaho 

722, 726, 170 P.3d 387, 391 (2007). Applying these standards, and having reviewed the record 

in this case, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion.

Therefore, Nibler’s judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.
Exhibit 34.2











Report of Independent
Registered Public Accounting Firm



To the Board of Directors, PNC Financial Services Group,
Inc.:



We have examined management’s assertion, included in
the accompanying Report on Assessment of Compliance with Regulation AB Servicing Criteria, that Midland Loan Services, a division
of PNC Bank, National Association ("Midland" or the "Company") complied with the servicing criteria set forth
in Item 1122(d) of the Securities and Exchange Commission's Regulation AB for the commercial mortgage-backed securities transactions
(the "Platform"), as of December 31, 2011 and for the year then ended, excluding criteria 1122(d)(1)(iii), 1122(d)(3)(i)(B),
1122(d)(3)(i)(C), 1122(d)(3)(i)(D), 1122(d)(3)(ii), 1122(d)(3)(iii), 1122(d)(3)(iv), and 1122(d)(4)(xv), which the Company has
determined are not applicable to the servicing activities performed by it with respect to the Platform. Management is responsible
for the Company's compliance with the servicing criteria. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on management's assertion
based on our examination.



Our examination was conducted in accordance with attestation
standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) and, accordingly, included examining, on a test basis,
evidence about the Company’s compliance with the applicable servicing criteria and performing such other procedures as we
considered necessary in the circumstances. Our examination included testing of selected asset-backed transactions and securities
that comprise the Platform, testing of selected servicing activities related to the Platform, and determining whether the Company
processed those selected transactions and performed those selected activities in compliance with the applicable servicing criteria.
Our procedures were limited to the selected transactions and servicing activities performed by the Company during the period covered
by this report. Our procedures were not designed to detect noncompliance arising from errors that may have occurred prior to or
subsequent to our tests that may have affected the balances or amounts calculated or reported by the Company during the period
covered by this report. We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our examination does not provide
a legal determination on the Company’s compliance with the servicing criteria.



In our opinion, management’s assertion that Midland
Loan Services complied with the aforementioned applicable servicing criteria as of and for the year ended December 31, 2011 for
the Platform is fairly stated, in all material respects.



/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP



February 24, 2012



















PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, 1100 Walnut, Suite 1300, Kansas
City, MO 64106

T: (816) 472 7921, F: (816) 218 1890, www.pwc.com/us





1
§ 1187.42 What may awardees use grant funds for? An awardee may use grant amounts for any or all of the following purposes: ( a ) To provide physical workspace and facilities for Native businesses and Native entrepreneurs participating in the business incubator;
( b ) To establish partnerships with other institutions and entities to provide comprehensive business incubation services to Native businesses and Native entrepreneurs participating in the business incubator; and
( c ) For any other uses typically associated with business incubators that OIED determines to be appropriate and consistent with the purposes of the IBIP.
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsThe Effects of Fiber Orientation and Adhesives on Tensile Properties of Carbon Fiber Reinforced Polymer Matrix Composite with Embedded Nickel-Titanium Shape Memory AlloysNickel-titanium (NiTi) shape memory alloy (SMA) sections were embedded within carbon fiber reinforced polymer matrix composite (CFRPPMC) laminates and their tensile properties were evaluated with simultaneous monitoring of modal acoustic emissions. The test specimens were fabricated in three different layup configurations and two different thin film adhesives were applied to bond the SMA with the PMC. A trio of acoustic sensors were attached to the specimens during tensile testing to monitor the modal acoustic emission (AE) as the materials experienced mechanical failure. The values of ultimate tensile strengths, strains, and moduli were obtained. Cumulative AE energy of events and specimen failure location were determined. In conjunction, optical and scanning electron microscopy techniques were used to examine the break areas of the specimens. The analysis of AE data revealed failure locations within the specimens which were validated from the microscopic images. The placement of 90 deg plies in the outer ply gave the strongest acoustic signals during break as well as the cleanest break of the samples tested. Overlapping 0 deg ply layers surrounding the SMA was found to be the best scenario to prevent failure of the specimen itself.Document ID20170011148Acquisition SourceGlenn Research CenterDocument TypeTechnical Memorandum (TM)AuthorsQuade, Derek J.*(NASA Glenn Research Center Cleveland, OH, United States)*Jana, Sadhan C.*(Akron Univ. Akron, OH, United States)*Morscher, Gregory N.*(Akron Univ. Akron, OH, United States)*Kannan, Manigandan*(Akron Univ. Akron, OH, United States)*McCorkle, Linda S.*(Ohio Aerospace Inst. Brook Park, OH, United States)*Date AcquiredNovember 17, 2017Publication DateNovember 1, 2017Subject CategoryChemistry And Materials (General)Report/Patent NumberNASA/TM-2017-219703E-19435GRC-E-DAA-TN46795Funding Number(s)WBS: WBS 826611.04.03.01CONTRACT_GRANT: NNC13BA10BDistribution LimitsPublicCopyrightPublic Use Permitted.Keywordsshape memory alloypolymer matrix compositesAvailable DownloadsNameType20170011148.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of Peregrine Industries, Inc. (the“Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2006 (the“Report”), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the datehereof, I, Richard Rubin, CEO, CFO and Chairman of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,that:

1. TheReport fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

2. Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

/s/ Richard Rubin

CEO, CFO and DirectorDated: May 12, 2006

A signed original of this writtenstatement required by Section 906 has been provided to Peregrine Industries, Inc. and willbe retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or itsstaff upon request.