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


<ARTICLE>                     5



<S>                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  12-Mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              Oct-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                 Nov-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                   Oct-31-1997
<CASH>                                         0
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  429,473
<ALLOWANCES>                                   178,997
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               268,682
<PP&E>                                         1,052,394
<DEPRECIATION>                                 648,919
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 1,235,127
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          1,307,883
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       1,702
<OTHER-SE>                                     (653,237)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   1,235,127
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               2,790,367
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  4,583,188
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (77,683)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             104,514
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,819,652)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,819,652)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,819,652)
<EPS-BASIC>                                  (1.07)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0



</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 32

                CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                       AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
                        OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




      The certification set forth below is hereby made solely for the purpose of
satisfying the requirements of Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and
may not be relied upon or used for any other purposes.

      In connection with the Annual Report of Realmark Property Investors
Limited Partnership - V (the "Partnership") on Form 10-K for the year ended
December 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the "Report"), I, Joseph M. Jayson, Individual General Partner and
Principal Financial Officer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the
best of my knowledge:

     1.  The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
         15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

     2.  The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
         material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
         the Partnership.




March 28, 2008                                   /s/ Joseph M. Jayson
--------------                                   --------------------
    Date                                         Joseph M. Jayson
                                                 Individual General Partner and
                                                 Principal Financial Officer
§ 31.160 Monthly summary report. ( a ) *Requirement.* Every wholesale dealer in liquors must, when required, submit monthly to the appropriate TTB officer a summary report of the total quantities of all distilled spirits received and disposed of daily during the month (including the date of discovery for theft, casualty and inventory losses and inventory gains). This report must be posted by the wholesaler on a daily basis. If there were no receipts or disposals of distilled spirits during the month, the report must be marked “No Transactions During Month.” This report must be filed not later than the 15th day of the month following the report period, with a copy retained by the dealer. The appropriate TTB officer may authorize a dealer, upon request, to post the report less frequently until otherwise notified; the appropriate TTB officer's authorization will specify the intervals at which the posting will be accomplished, but not less frequently than monthly.
( b ) *Form of report.* When required under paragraph (a) of this section, the monthly summary report may be prepared in a format that is adapted to the dealer's accounting and recordkeeping systems. In addition to any other information shown therein, the report must include: ( 1 ) Daily totals of all bottled spirits received and disposed of, recorded by wine gallons or liters;
( 2 ) Daily totals of all bulk spirits in packages received and disposed of, recorded by proof gallons; and
( 3 ) Entries showing, by date, each disposition caused by an inventory, casualty, or theft loss and each receipt caused by a recorded gain in inventory.
( c ) *Declaration.* When required to be filed, the monthly summary report must bear the following declaration signed by the dealer or an authorized agent: I declare under the penalties of perjury that I have examined this report and, to the best of my knowledge and belief, it is true, correct, and complete and is supported by true, correct, and complete records which are available for inspection.
( d ) *Other records.* Even if the monthly summary report is not required by the appropriate TTB officer, every wholesale dealer in distilled spirits must maintain and make available for review by appropriate TTB officers: ( 1 ) Records of receipt required by § 31.155;
( 2 ) Records of disposition, required by § 31.156; and
( 3 ) Any other supporting information or documents regarding the receipt and disposition of distilled spirits that have a direct role in determining the completeness and accuracy of the receipt and disposition records.
(26 U.S.C. 5121)
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 1513-0065)
AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

     This Amendment is made and entered into this 1st day of
June, 1996, by and between M.S. Carriers, Inc. a Tennessee
corporation (the "Company") and Carl J. Mungenast, a resident of
Germantown, Tennessee (the "Employee").

     WHEREAS, the Company and Employee entered into a certain
Employment Agreement (the "Agreement") dated the first day of
April, 1994; and

     WHEREAS, the Company and the Employee have determined that
it is in their mutual best interests to amend certain provisions
of the Agreement to reflect the decrease in the scope of the
duties assigned to Employee by the Company.

     NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises, the
parties do amend the Agreement as follows:

     Section 2 of the Agreement is deleted in its entirety and
the following is substituted in its place:

     2.  COMPENSATION.

        (a)  Base Salary.  Company agrees to pay Employee an
annual base salary to be paid to him in regular installments in
accordance with the Company's usual payroll procedures.  The
annual base salary to be paid Employee for the period commencing
June 1, 1996, and ending May 31, 1997, is $70,000 which shall be
paid on a pro rata basis.  Thereafter, the Employee's annual base
salary shall be determined by the Company.

        (b)  Employee Benefits.  Employee shall be eligible to
participate in such employee benefit plans as the Company may
make available to its employees in general from time to time
provided that Employee shall meet the eligibility requirements of
such plans.  Notwithstanding anything contained herein to the
contrary, Employee acknowledges that he has been advised of the
following specific benefits and/or benefits plans and,
nonetheless, declines to accept such benefits or be covered by
such benefit plans:  (i) all medical and dental benefits; (ii)
all group life insurance benefits; (iii) all split-dollar
insurance benefits; and (iv) all long-term disability benefits.

        (c)  Expense Reimbursement.  The Company shall reimburse
to Employee all ordinary and necessary business expenses incurred
directly in connection with his employment duties hereunder,

                                47
<PAGE>

provided Employee shall satisfactorily substantiate, in such
detail as reasonably necessary, the business relationship of such
expenses.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Amendment
on the day and year first above written.


                                   COMPANY:

                                   M.S. CARRIERS, INC.

                                   BY: s/ Michael S. Starnes
                                        Michael S. Starnes,
                                        Chairman of the Board

                                   EMPLOYEE:

                                   s/ Carl J. Mungenast
                                   CARL J. MUNGENAST




                                48
#### § 99.6 [Reserved]
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 09**  **- 7030** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v. BERNARD DONNELL SHERILL, a/k/a Nard , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina , at Charlotte
. Frank D. Whitney , District Judge. ( 3:95

- cr - 00005

- FDW

- 8 )

Submitted : March 31, 2011 Decided: April 4, 2011

Before NIEMEYER , SHEDD, and AGEE , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per c uriam opinion
.
Noell Peter Tin, TIN, FULTON, WALKER & OWEN, PLLC, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant . Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Bernard Donnell Sherill appeals the district court’s order granting his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) (2006) motion. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the distric t court. United States v. Sherill , No. 3:95

- cr - 00005

- FDW

- 8 (W.D.N.C. May 22, 2009)
. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal conten tions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decision al
process.
AFFIRMED
#### John W. Kinney, Respondent, v. The New York Central and Hudson River Railroad Company, Appellant.

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. All concurred, except Kruse, P. J., who dissented; Lambert, J., not sitting.
Opinion filed September 16, 2021

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals ___________

No. 11-21-00179-CR

___________

DERRICK BERNARD HARDEN, JR., Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 42nd District Court

Taylor County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 28974A

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellant entered into a plea agreement with the State. Pursuant to that plea 

agreement, Appellant pleaded guilty to the offense of evading arrest, enhanced. See

TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. §§ 38.04(b)(1) (West 2016), 12.425(a) (West 2019). The 

trial court assessed Appellant’s punishment, in accordance with the terms of the plea 

agreement, at imprisonment for seven years. Appellant filed a pro se notice of 

appeal. We dismiss the appeal. 
2

This court notified Appellant by letter that the trial court had certified that this 

is a plea bargain case in which Appellant has no right of appeal. See TEX. R.

APP. P. 25.2(a)(2), (d); see also TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 44.02 (West 

2018). We requested that Appellant respond and show grounds to continue the 

appeal. We have received a response from Appellant’s court-appointed appellate 

counsel, but the response does not provide any grounds upon which this appeal may 

be continued. 

Rule 25.2(a)(2) provides that, in a plea bargain case in which the punishment 

does not exceed the punishment agreed to in the plea bargain, “a defendant may 

appeal only: (A) those matters that were raised by written motion filed and ruled on 

before trial, (B) after getting the trial court’s permission to appeal, or (C) where the 

specific appeal is expressly authorized by statute.” TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(a)(2). 

Subsections (A), (B), and (C) are not applicable here. We note that Rule 25.2 does 

not permit a plea-bargaining defendant to appeal matters related to the voluntariness 

of the plea bargain—unless the defendant has obtained the trial court’s permission 

to appeal. See Cooper v. State, 45 S.W.3d 77, 83 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001); 

Carender v. State, 155 S.W.3d 929, 931 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2005, no pet.). 

The documents on file in this appeal reflect that Appellant entered into a plea 

bargain, that his punishment was assessed in accordance with the plea bargain, and 

that he waived his right of appeal. The trial court certified that Appellant has no 

right of appeal. Both the plea agreement and the trial court’s certification were

signed by Appellant, Appellant’s trial counsel, and the judge of the trial court. The

documents on file in this court support the trial court’s certification. See Dears v. 

State, 154 S.W.3d 610, 613–14 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Accordingly, we must 

dismiss this appeal without further action. TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(d); Chavez v. State, 

183 S.W.3d 675, 680 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006).
3

This appeal is dismissed. 

PER CURIAM

September 16, 2021

Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b). 

Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J., 

Trotter, J., and Williams, J.
EXHIBIT 99.2

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 Annual Report of The Aristotle Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2002, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Steven B. Lapin, President 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: 

The Report fully complies 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 presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

		 

March 28, 2003

/s/ Steven B. Lapin *

Steven B. Lapin

President and Chief Operating Officer

 

* 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 SEC or its staff upon request.
Electrical Conductivity, UMHOS

Day High Low Mean

1 355 300 326

2 346 290 323

3 352 301 327

4 334 285 313

5 314 258 281

6 310 236 276

7 304 239 266

8 303 241 268

9 286 224 249

10 274 218 244

11 283 222 251

12 260 218 235

13 253 209 231

14 239 213 224

15 238 205 224

16 237 205 223

17 242 204 224

18 248 204 227

19 249 214 231

20 265 223 239

21 275 234 251

22 283 236 257

23 287 248 265

24 291 249 269

25 297 255 276

26 302 259 278

27 302 262 281

28 304 265 283

29 313 266 291

COMMENT(S): 0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

Historical Archive and Report Database

Holland Tract On Old River 

Run Date: 3/17/2024

February 2024
March 19, 1998 

Mr. Kevin Tubbs

Director, Environmental Technology

American Standard 

One Central Avenue 

Piscataway, New Jersey 08855-6820 

Dear Mr. Tubbs: 

This is in response to your February 3, 1998 letter to Richard Wilson, Acting Assistant 

Administrator, Office of Air and Radiation, requesting an interim policy determination related to 

the New Source Review/Prevention of Significant Deterioration (NSR/PSD) significance level for 

ozone-depleting substances (ODS). I understand that your concern focuses on very small 

amounts of potential fugitive emissions from refrigeration and air-conditioning equipment. 

On July 23, 1996, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed a significance 

level of 100 tons per year (TPY) for ODS. The EPA received no adverse comments on this 

proposed significance level. In addition, the EPA recently responded to a similar request made by 

the State of Louisiana’s Department of Environmental Quality, stating that EPA would have no 

objection to the State not conducting a PSD review for ODS emissions from a chlorofluorocarbon 

(CFC) recycling and reclamation facility that would potentially emit substantially less than 100 

TPY of ODS. 

The EPA has reviewed the emissions characteristics associated with refrigeration and airconditioning units, such as commercial refrigeration, industrial chillers, all types of air 

conditioners, and other related refrigeration equipment. In cases where a source is adding cooling 

capacity, EPA believes that potential emissions from the added refrigeration and air-conditioning 

units will be significantly less than 100 TPY. Our understanding is that any anticipated emissions 

from these units would primarily be fugitive, estimated between 5 and 20 pounds per year. The 

EPA’s current refrigerant recovery and leak repair requirements and the high price of refrigerants 

help to ensure that these emissions will remain minuscule. In light of these and other factors, EPA 

will not object to a State or local air pollution control agency’s decision not to conduct a PSD 

review for refrigeration and air-conditioning units with the potential to emit ODS in relatively 

minute quantities. 
2 

This response has been coordinated with EPA’s Office of General Counsel, Office of 

Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, and Office of Atmospheric Programs. If you have any 

questions or concerns on this issue, please contact David Solomon of the Integrated 

Implementation Group at (919) 541-5375. 

I appreciate the opportunity to be of service and trust that this information will be helpful 

to you. 

Sincerely, 

/s/ Henry Thomas for 

John S. Seitz 

Director

Office of Air Quality Planning

and Standards

cc: Bruce Buckheit, Director, Air Enforcement Division, OECA 

Alan Eckert, Associate General Counsel, Air and Radiation Division, OGC 

Paul Stolpman, OAP
EXHIBIT 99.1

                                 March 28, 2002


To Securities and Exchange Commission:

Arthur Andersen LLP has represented to us that its audits of the consolidated
financial statements of Specialized Health Products International, Inc. as of
December 31, 2001 and for the years ended December 31, 2001 and 2000 were
subject to its quality control system for the U.S. accounting and auditing
practice to provide reasonable assurance that the engagement was conducted in
compliance with professional standards, that there was appropriate continuity of
Arthur Andersen personnel working on the audits and that there was appropriate
availability of national office consultation. The availability of personnel at
foreign affiliates of Arthur Andersen was not applicable to this engagement.


                                 SPECIALIZED HEALTH PRODUCTS INTERNATIONAL, INC.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

DAY HIGH

 390

 398

 401

 369

 338

 320

 299

 283

 277

 263

 266

 265

 263

 267

 266

 261

 260

 269

 256

 255

 256

 251

 245

 239

 237

 237

 237

 239

 239

 240

 293

 309

 332

 330

 293

 270

 254

 246

 242

 241

 250

 250

 251

 250

 249

 248

 249

 245

 244

 241

 240

 232

 227

 228

 228

 227

 228

 226

 222

 220

 330

 346

 363

 352

 320

 293

 271

 259

 255

 249

 254

 255

 254

 256

 255

 255

 254

 254

 250

 248

 249

 241

 237

 235

 233

 232

 232

 232

 230

 230

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION-CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT-CALIFORNIA

APRIL 2019 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: May 6, 2019

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

HOLLAND TRACT ON OLD RIVER
Page 1 

Matthew S. Throop (VSB No. 87094) 

Throop Law, P.C. 

530 E. Main St., Ste. 1020 

Richmond, VA 23219 

(804) 299-5222 

matthew@throoplaw.com 

Counsel for Debtor

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA 

RICHMOND DIVISION 

In re: 

STEWART, Breandra Nicole, 

 Debtor. 

)

) 

) 

) 

 Case No. 19-35482-KLP 

 Chapter 7 

 

EX PARTE MOTION FOR AN ORDER ADMITTING 

DANIEL E. GARRISON PRO HAC VICE 

Matthew S. Throop, Esq. (“Throop”), counsel to the debtor in the above-referenced chapter 

7 case, hereby moves the Court on an ex parte basis to grant the admission pro hac vice of Daniel 

E. Garrison, Esq. of Protego Law, PLLC to act as counsel to Throop in connection with the “Notice 

and Motion (1) to Compel Cooperation with Trustee and Turnover of Information and (2) for an 

Order to Show Cause” (the “Motion”) filed at docket no. 28 by Chapter 7 Trustee Jennifer J. West 

(“Trustee”), and any proceedings that might ensue in this case where the bifurcated engagement 

structure, disclosures or fee of Throop may be at issue. 

Mr. Garrison has particular and extensive experience in chapter 7 bifurcation, and offering 

debtors post-petition payment terms. A copy of his curriculum vitae is attached to the required 

“Application to Qualify as a Foreign Attorney under Local Bankruptcy Rule 2090-1(E)(3),” filed 

herewith as Exhibit “A.” 

As required by Local Rule 2090-1(E)(3), Throop will serve as local counsel and 

accompany Mr. Garrison in all appearances, and sign all filings. 

 

Case 19-35482-KLP Doc 39 Filed 01/28/20 Entered 01/28/20 13:56:38 Desc Main

Document Page 1 of 2
Page 2 

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 28th day of January, 2020, 

 /s/ Matthew S. Throop 

Matthew S. Throop #87094 

Throop Law. P.C. 

530 E. Main Street, Ste. 1020 

Richmond, VA 23219 

Tel: (804) 299-5222 

Fax: (804) 299-5202 

matthew@throoplaw.com

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

This is to certify, under penalty of perjury, that on January 28, 2020, the foregoing was 

emailed to: 

Jennifer J. West, Esq. 

Spotts Fain PC 

411 East Franklin St., Ste. 600 

Richmond, VA 23219 

jwest@spottsfain.com 

Kenneth N. Whitehurst, III 

Assistant United States Trustee 

Office of the United States Trustee 

Norfolk Federal Building, Room 625 

200 Granby Street 

Norfolk, Virginia 23510 

Kenneth.n.whitehurst@usdoj.gov 

/s/ Matthew S. Throop 

Case 19-35482-KLP Doc 39 Filed 01/28/20 Entered 01/28/20 13:56:38 Desc Main

Document Page 2 of 2
#### Globe Mail Service, Inc., v. George L. Green et al.

Motion for reargument denied, with $10 costs. Present — Dore, J. P., Cohn, Callahan, Van Voorhis and Shientag, JJ. [See *ante,*p. 876.]
MICHAEL JOSEPH NILIO,

Petitioner,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Respondent.

___________________________/

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D14-3405

Opinion filed August 11, 2014.

Petition for Writ of Prohibition -- Original Jurisdiction.

Michael Joseph Nilio, pro se, Petitioner.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The petition for writ of prohibition is denied on the merits. 

VAN NORTWICK, WETHERELL, and MAKAR, JJ., CONCUR.
### §81h. Rules and regulations

The Board shall prescribe such rules and regulations not inconsistent with the provisions of this chapter or the rules and regulations of the Secretary of the Treasury made hereunder and as may be necessary to carry out this chapter.

(June 18, 1934, ch. 590, §8, 48 Stat. 1000.)