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


<ARTICLE>                                            5
<LEGEND>
                         STOICO RESTAURANT GROUP, INC.
                            FINANCIAL DATA SCHEDULE

    THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF STOICO RESTAURANT GROUP, INC. AS OF OCTOBER
7, 1997, AND FOR THE FORTY WEEKS THEN ENDED, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<MULTIPLIER>                                         1
<CURRENCY>                                U.S. Dollars

       

<S>                                      <C>      
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                    Other
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          Dec-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             Jan-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               Oct-07-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          48,369
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  195,019
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    155,087
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               573,644
<PP&E>                                       5,754,407
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,290,334
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               5,119,448
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,107,125
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        57,090
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,897,926
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 5,119,448
<SALES>                                      6,935,787
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             7,094,572
<CGS>                                        4,916,291
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               10,880,224
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              54,348
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (3,768,826)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (3,768,826)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0 
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (3,768,826)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0  
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        



</TABLE>
Exhibit
      23.1





**CONSENT
      OF INDEPENDENT EXPERTS**





The
      Board
      of Directors


James
      River Coal Company





Marshall
      Miller & Associates, Inc. hereby consents to the use in the Company’s Annual
      Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2006, and the incorporation
      by reference into the Company’s Registration Statements on Form S-3 (No. 333-129970) and Form S-8 (No. 333-126860) of
      the
      information contained in our reports, for James River Coal Company, dated
      July 22, 2004, and for Triad Mining, Inc. and subsidiary, dated April 29, 2005
      and April ll, 2006, setting forth the estimates of the Company’s (as of March
      31, 2004) and Triad’s (as of February 1, 2005 and April 11, 2006) coal reserves,
      and to the references to our firm under the heading “Experts” in the
      registration statements.





Marshall
                Miller & Associates, Inc.By:  /s/ John E. FeddockName:
                John E. Feddock, P.E.Title: Senior
                Vice President





March
      15,
      2007
#### § 1210.30 What are my responsibilities as a reporter/payor?

Each reporter/payor must submit accurate, complete, and timely information to ONRR according to the requirements in this part. If you discover an error in a previous report, you must file an accurate and complete amended report within 30 days of your discovery of the error. If you do not comply, ONRR may assess civil penalties under 30 CFR part 1241.
### §1421c. Certain laws continued in force; modification or repeal of laws

(a) The laws of Guam in force on August 1, 1950, except as amended by this chapter, are continued in force, subject to modification or repeal by the Congress of the United States or the Legislature of Guam, and all laws of Guam inconsistent with the provisions of this chapter are repealed to the extent of such inconsistency.

(b) Repealed. Pub. L. 90–497, §7, Sept. 11, 1968, 82 Stat. 847.

(Aug. 1, 1950, ch. 512, §25, 64 Stat. 390; Pub. L. 90–497, §7, Sept. 11, 1968, 82 Stat. 847.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1968—Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 90–497 repealed subsec. (b) which prohibited the application to Guam of laws of the United States not specifically made applicable to Guam and established a commission to determine which laws were applicable to Guam and which were not.

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

#### Effective Date of 1968 Amendment

Pub. L. 90–497, §7, Sept. 11, 1968, 82 Stat. 847, provided that the amendment made by that section is effective on date of enactment of Pub. L. 90–497, which was approved Sept. 11, 1968.
#### Alexander Steinberg, Respondent, v. John H. Seal, Jr., Appellant.

—■ Plaintiff, a pedestrian, while crossing at a street intersection controlled by traffic lights, was injured as the result of being struck by a motor vehicle owned and operated by the defendant. The defendant appeals: (1) from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, entered November 23, 1959, upon a jury verdict in favor of the plaintiff; and (2) from rulings of the Trial Judge denying his motions to set aside the verdict and for a mistrial. Judgment affirmed, with costs. No opinion. Appeal from rulings dismissed. No orders entered thereon are printed in the record. Nolan, P. J., Ughetta, Christ, Pette and Brennan, JJ., concur.
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

STEVEN G. KALAR

Federal Public Defender

ELIZABETH M. FALK

Assistant Federal Public Defenders

450 Golden Gate Avenue

San Francisco, CA 94102

Telephone: (415) 436-7700

Attorney for Defendant CLEMONS

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

SHERMAN CLEMONS

 Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CR-09-1211 WHA

[PROPOSED] ORDER

TERMINATING SUPERVISED

RELEASE

The Honorable William Alsup

 For the reasons stated at today’s hearing, defendant Sherman Clemon’s supervised

release term is hereby TERMINATED effective today, December 8, 2015.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED:___________________ ______________________________________________

THE HONORABLE WILLIAM H. ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

December 11, 2015.

Case 3:09-cr-01211-WHA Document 50 Filed 12/11/15 Page 1 of 1
CERTIFICATIONS OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT

Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)

In connection with the Annual Report of Douglas Lake Minerals Inc., a Nevada corporation (the "Company"), on Form 10-KSB for the year ended May 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), Antonia Bold-de-Haughton, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, does hereby certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350), that to her 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 result of operations of the Company.



|Date:  September 5, 2006 | /s/ Antonia Bold-de-Haughton
Antonia Bold-de-Haughton
Chief Financial Officer
|------------------------ | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

[A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Douglas Lake Minerals Inc. and will be retained by Douglas Lake Minerals Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.]
### [§§55316, 55317. Repealed. Pub. L. 113–67, div. A, title VI, §602(a), Dec. 26, 2013, 127 Stat. 1188]

Section 55316, Pub. L. 109–304, §8(c), Oct. 6, 2006, 120 Stat. 1647; Pub. L. 110–246, title III, §3001(b)(1)(A), (2)(Y), June 18, 2008, 122 Stat. 1820, 1821; Pub. L. 112–141, div. F, title I, §100124(b), (c)(2), July 6, 2012, 126 Stat. 915, related to financing the transportation of agricultural commodities.

Section 55317, Pub. L. 109–304, §8(c), Oct. 6, 2006, 120 Stat. 1648; Pub. L. 112–141, div. F, title I, §100124(c)(3), July 6, 2012, 126 Stat. 915, provided for the termination of this subchapter 90 days after the notification under section 55316(f) of this title is made, subject to certain exceptions.
#### § 1229.108 Deduction of civil penalties accruing to the State or tribe under the delegation of authority.

Fifty percent of any civil penalty resulting from activities under a delegation of authority shall be shared with the delegated State. However, the amount of the civil penalty shared will be deducted from any Federal funding owed under a delegation of authority under the provisions of 30 U.S.C. 1735. ONRR shall maintain records of civil penalties collected and distributed to the States involved in 30 U.S.C. 1735 delegations. Each quarterly payment will be reduced by the amount of the civil penalties paid to the delegated State or tribe during the prior quarter.

[49 FR 37351, Sept. 21, 1984. Redesignated at 49 FR 40025, Oct. 12, 1984]
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Robert Curry, Appellant.

Motion by appellant’s attorney to be relieved as attorney is granted. A new attorney will be assigned to appellant. Determination of the appeal from the judgment of the Supreme Court, New York County, rendered on March 12, 1976 will be held in abeyancé pending filing of a brief by such new attorney. Appellant’s attorney has twice filed the same "brief,” the second time after being informed by the clerk that the attorney should comply with the requirements of *People v Saunders*(52 AD2d 833). The "brief’ contains no discussion or argument; nor does it comply with the requirements specified in *People v Saunders (supra)*where an attorney believes that there are no nonfrivolous arguments that he can present on behalf of his client. We deem it useless to again refer the matter back to this same attorney for compliance with the requirements of *People v Saunders (supra).*Accordingly, we are relieving this attorney and will assign another attorney for appellant. Concur—Lupiano, J. P., Birns, Silverman, Evans and Markewich, JJ.
kj

May 16, 2007

R04E R05E

T16N

T17N

® Produced for the Kasha-Katuwe Tent Rocks

ROD/RMP. No warranty is made by the Bureau of

Land Management as to the accuracy, reliability or

completeness of these data for individual use or

aggregate use with other data, or for purposes not

intended by BLM.Spatial information may not meet

National Map Accuracy Standards. This information

may be updated without notification.

Map 9

Soil Map Units (SMUs)

Projection: UTM Zone 13

Datum: NAD 1983

0 0.5 1

Miles

SMU 104

SMU 353

SMU 345

SMU 300

SMU 307 SMU 345

SMU 206 SMU 603 SMU 52

i

i

SMU 345

SMU 353

Map Legend

kj Overlook

Primary Access Road

KKTR Monument Boundary

Parking Lot

Cochiti-Espiritu Association (353)

Cochiti-Montecito Association (104)

Espiritu-Bamac Association (345)

Flugle-Waumac Complex (307)

Laventana-Mirand Very Cobbly Loam (603)

Pinitos Loam (206)

Totavi Loamy Sand (52)

Waumac-Bamac Association (300)

i
**EXHIBIT 99.8**

**News Release****August 18, 2000****Trading Symbols:**TRBD (EASDAQ) 

**TURBODYNE UPDATES LEGAL MATTERS**

**Carpinteria, California—August 18, 2000**—Turbodyne Technologies, Inc. (EASDAQ:TRBD) announces developments in several legal matters that are currently pending.

**TST vs. Turbodyne**

As previously reported on February 18, 2000, one materials vendor from Pacific Baja bankruptcy has filed a suit against Turbodyne and several other defendants as guarantors of the debt. TST, Inc. filed suit on March 13, 2000 for approximately $1.5 million plus interest, costs and attorneys’ fees. The suit is in the discovery phase.

**Heartland Financial v. Turbodyne**

On May 8, 2000, Heartland Financial, a service provider whose claim was heard in the Pacific Baja bankruptcy, filed for arbitration against Turbodyne for approximately $465,000 plus interest, costs and attorney’sfees. This matter was previously heard and ruled upon by the bankruptcy court in the Pacific Baja bankruptcy proceedings. The Company’s position is that the bankruptcy court’s decision is final and that the matter has already been adjudicated.Heartland maintains that it has the right to sue Turbodyne outside of the bankruptcy proceedings. The matter has been assigned to Fresno for arbitration to determine the jurisdictional issues and the parties are still in the process of choosing anarbitrator.

**Jamison v. Turbodyne**

On January 21, 2000, Jamison Capital, a service provider for Pacific Baja, filed a complaint against Turbodyne demanding payment of $115,000, plus interest and costs, in New Jersey State Court. The matter was later removedto federal court. On August 15, 2000 Turbodyne was awarded summary judgment against Jamison Capital. The Court awarded Jamison a “break-up” fee of $21,000. Turbodyne has already paid $10,000 of the $21,000 total judgment. Jamison Capitalhas 30 days from August 15, 2000, in which to file an appeal.

**Willett v. Turbodyne**

On June 21, 2000, the Company was served with a demand for arbitration by David Willett, a former employee. The Company did not oppose the demand. Mr. Willett is seeking approximately $45,000 plus 200,000 stock options plus consequential damages allegedly suffered. The parties are in the process of choosing an arbitrator. The matter is expected to go to arbitration on or before February 13, 2001.

Turbodyne Technologies, Inc., a California based high technology company, specializes in the development of charging technology for internal combustion engines plus the development and manufacturing of high-tech assemblies forelectrically assisted turbochargers and superchargers. Turbodyne Technologies, Inc.’s headquarters is located in Carpinteria, CA; the European business location is Frankfurt, Germany. 

Contacts:

Kenneth Fitzpatrick, VP Group Finance—Investor Relations: (805) 684-4551Markus Kumbrink, Turbodyne Europe Investor Relations: +49-69-69-76-73-13

Except for the historical information contained in this news release, the matters discussed herein include forward-looking statements that involve risks and uncertainties.

****

----
#### Eugene Connell, Appellant, v County of Rockland et al., Respondents.

Order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County, entered November *97530, 1977, affirmed, with one bill of $50 costs and disbursements payable jointly to respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs, on the opinion of Mr. Justice O’Gorman at Special Term. Hopkins, J. P., Martuscello, Latham and Gulotta, JJ., concur.
PUBLIC LAW 110–99—OCT. 24, 2007 121 STAT. 1015 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 2587: 

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 153 (2007): 

Sept. 10, considered and passed House. 

Oct. 3, considered and passed Senate. 

Æ 

Public Law 110–99 

110th Congress 

An Act 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 555 South 

3rd Street Lobby in Memphis, Tennessee, as the ‘‘Kenneth T. Whalum, Sr. Post 

Office Building’’. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. KENNETH T. WHALUM, SR. POST OFFICE BUILDING. 

(a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States Postal 

Service located at 555 South 3rd Street Lobby in Memphis, Tennessee, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Kenneth T. Whalum, 

Sr. Post Office Building’’. 

(b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, regulation, 

document, paper, or other record of the United States to the facility 

referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference 

to the ‘‘Kenneth T. Whalum, Sr. Post Office Building’’. 

Approved October 24, 2007. 

Oct. 24, 2007 

[H.R. 2587] 


dkrause on GSDDPC29 with PUBLIC LAWS
#### § 891.110 Allocation of authority.

In accordance with 24 CFR part 791, the Assistant Secretary will separately allocate the amounts available for capital advances for the development of housing for elderly households and for disabled households, less amounts set aside by Congress for specific types of projects, and for amendments of fund reservations made in prior years, for technical assistance, and for other contracted services.
From: Michael.Pelan@lafarge-na.com

To: Keith Barnett/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Date: 06/08/2012 11:38 AM

Subject: Revised PM limit

Keith:

I realize that we are still a few days away from seeing the proposed NESHAP

reconsideration rulemaking. However, I wanted to ask you a question or two

regarding the expected revision to the PM standard.

Based on the information EPA has shared with the industry, the revised

existing source PM limit (believed to be 0.07 lb/ton clinker) will be based

on a 3-hr stack testing basis with PM CEMS used as a parametric monitoring

requirement.

Given this to be accurate, I was wondering how EPA went from a May 6, 2009

proposed limit of 0.085 lb/ton clinker based on 3-hr stack testing data, to

the revised limit of 0.07 lb/ton clinker based on 3-hr stack testing data?

Did EPA use different PM data in its floor calculation or revise the

methodology (i.e., UPL formula) for calculating the revised existing source

limit?

I am expecting that we will have a very limited comment period on this

rulemaking. Therefore, would it be possible to get a copy of the PM

analysis asap (I'm assuming that it is not yet posted to the docket)?

Thanks,

Michael L. Pelan

Director, Environmental Compliance and Air Programs, US

Lafarge North America

michael.pelan@lafarge-na.com

office: 816 941-1822

mobile: 913 558-4468
#### § 965.302 Requirements for energy audits.

All PHAs shall complete an energy audit for each PHA-owned project under management, not less than once every five years. Standards for energy audits shall be equivalent to State standards for energy audits. Energy audits shall analyze all of the energy conservation measures, and the payback period for these measures, that are pertinent to the type of buildings and equipment operated by the PHA.
Exhibit 23.3 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We consent to the incorporation by reference inRegistration Statements No. 333-117484-01 and 333-119441-01 on Form S-3 of our report dated March 30, 2005 (which report expresses an unqualified opinion and includes an explanatory paragraph relating to economic and operational dependency on itsparent) related to the statements of operations, stockholders’ equity and comprehensive income, and cash flows for the period inception (May 4, 2004) to December 31, 2004 of Accredited Mortgage Loan REIT Trust appearing in this Annual Report onForm 10-K of Accredited Mortgage Loan REIT Trust for the year ended December 31, 2006. 

/s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP 

San Diego, California 

July 31, 2007
### §1341. Abolition of United States Railway Association

#### (a) Abolition and termination

(1) Effective April 1, 1987, the United States Railway Association is abolished.

(2) On January 1, 1987, all powers, duties, rights, and obligations of such association relating to the Corporation under the Regional Rail Reorganization Act of 1973 (45 U.S.C. 701 et seq.) shall be transferred to the Secretary of Transportation.

(3) The sole function of the United States Railway Association after January 1, 1987, shall be the termination of its affairs and the liquidation of its assets.

#### (b) Transfer of securities and responsibilities

(1) Any securities of the Corporation held by the United States Railway Association shall, upon 1 October 21, 1986, be transferred to the Secretary of Transportation.

(2) If, on the date the United States Railway Association is abolished under subsection (a), such association shall not have completed the termination of its affairs and the liquidation of its assets, the duty of completing such winding up of its affairs and liquidation shall be transferred to the Secretary of Transportation, who for such purposes shall succeed to all remaining powers, duties, rights, and obligations of such association.

#### (c) Financing agreement

(1) On January 1, 1987, the Amended and Restated Financing Agreement, dated May 10, 1979, between the United States Railway Association and the Corporation, together with any and all rights and obligations of or on behalf of any person with respect to such agreement, shall terminate and be of no further force or effect, except for those provisions specifying terms and conditions for payments made to the United States with respect to debentures, preferred stock, and contingent interest notes.

(2) Effective as of the sale date, those provisions of the Financing Agreement referred to in paragraph (1) shall terminate.

(Pub. L. 99–509, title IV, §4031, Oct. 21, 1986, 100 Stat. 1906.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

The Regional Rail Reorganization Act of 1973, referred to in subsec. (a)(2), is Pub. L. 93–236, Jan. 2, 1974, 87 Stat. 985, which is classified principally to chapter 16 (§701 et seq.) of this title. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 701 of this title and Tables.

1 So in original. Probably should be "on".
#### In the Matter of Bernardo Acosta, Respondent, v City of New York, Appellant.

[834 NYS2d 267]

*630In a proceeding for leave to serve a late notice of claim pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-e (5), the City of New York appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Minardo, J.), dated May 31, 2006, which granted the petition.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the petition is denied, and the proceeding is dismissed.

The Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in granting the petition for leave to serve a late notice of claim. In determining whether to permit service of a late notice of claim, the court must consider all relevant facts and circumstances, including whether (1) the movant demonstrated a reasonable excuse for the failure to serve a timely notice of claim, (2) the public corporation acquired actual knowledge of the facts constituting the claim within 90 days of its accrual or a reasonable time thereafter, and (3) the delay would substantially prejudice the public corporation in defending on the merits *(see*General Municipal Law § 50-e [5]; *Matter of Henriques v City of New York,*22 AD3d 847, 848 [2005]; *Matter of Hicks v City of New York,*8 AD3d 566, 566-567 [2004]; *Matter of Fierro v City of New York,*271 AD2d 608, 609 [2000]; *Matter of Gaffney v Town of Hempstead,*226 AD2d 721, 722 [1996]).

Here, the petitioner failed to establish that the City of New York had actual notice of the essential facts constituting his claim. The police accident report did not provide the City with actual notice of the essential facts underlying the petitioner’s claim *(see Matter of McHugh v City of New York,*293 AD2d 478 [2002]; *Rabanar v City of Yonkers,*290 AD2d 428, 429 [2002]), and did not connect the subject accident to any negligence on the City’s part *(see Matter of Haeg v County of Suffolk,*30 AD3d 519, 520 [2006]; *Rabanar v City of Yonkers, supra).*

Moreover, the petitioner’s delay of more than one year after the subject accident in seeking to serve a notice of claim prejudiced the City’s ability to maintain a defense *(see Matter of Henriques v City of New York, supra).*Rivera, J.P., Dillon, Angiolillo and Dickerson, JJ., concur.