alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
|   | 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 conditions and results of operations of      Registrant. |
|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                       |                                             |                     |
|----------------------------|--------------------------------------------------|--------------------------|
|                       |                                             |                     |
| Dated:      April 15, 2009 |                                             | /s/      David M. Barnes |
|                       | David      M. BarnesChief      Executive Officer |
|                       |                                             |                     |

----
#### § 964.325 Notice of funding availability.

A Notice of Funding Availability will be published periodically in the Federal Register containing the amounts of funds available, funding criteria, where to obtain and submit applications, the deadline for the submissions, and further explanation of the selection criteria.
#### Joanne Guider, Respondent, v. Clement H. Guider, Appellant.

Motion to place case on September 1960 Term for argument denied.
#### § 891.820 Civil rights requirements.

The mixed-finance development must comply with the following: all fair housing and accessibility requirements, including the design and construction requirements of the Fair Housing Act; the requirements of section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973; accessibility requirements, project standards, and site and neighborhood standards under 24 CFR 891.120, 891.125, 891.210, 891.310, and 891.320, as applicable; and 24 CFR 8.4(b)(5), which prohibits the selection of a site or location which has the purpose or effect of excluding persons with disabilities from federally assisted programs or activities.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned, Harpreet Singh Sangha, the Chief Executive Officer and Herminder Rai the Chief Financial Officer of Douglas Lake Minerals Inc. (the "Company"), each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to his knowledge, the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended May 31, 2009, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that the information contained in the Annual Report on Form 10-K, as amended, fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Date:  October 13, 2009

By: "Harpreet Singh Sangha"      Harpreet Singh Sangha
      Chief Executive Officer and a director

By: "Herminder Rai"      Herminder Rai
      Chief Financial Officer, Secretary and Treasurer



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signatures that appear in typed form within the electronic version 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.

__________
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

November 29, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,
Chief Justice

134842-3 Michael F. Cavanagh
Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Stephen J. Markman, Plaintiff-Appellee, Justices

v SC: 134842-3 COA: 269203; 272072 Wayne CC: 05-010263-01; 05-010260-01 RICARDO LAMONT RICHARD, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, th e application for leave to appeal the August 23, 2007 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

p1119 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

November 29, 2007

Clerk
### [§70117. Repealed. Pub. L. 111–281, title II, §208(b), Oct. 15, 2010, 124 Stat. 2912]

Section, added Pub. L. 108–293, title VIII, §801(a), Aug. 9, 2004, 118 Stat. 1078, §70118; renumbered §70117, Pub. L. 109–241, title IX, §901(l)(1), July 11, 2006, 120 Stat. 565; Pub. L. 109–304, §15(33)(A), Oct. 6, 2006, 120 Stat. 1705; Pub. L. 110–181, div. C, title XXXV, §3529(c)(1), Jan. 28, 2008, 122 Stat. 603, related to firearms, arrests, and seizure of property.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

A prior section 70117 was renumbered section 70120 of this title.

Another prior section 70117 was renumbered section 70119 of this title.
§ 55.12 Inapplicability of 24 CFR part 55 to certain categories of proposed actions. With the exception of the flood insurance requirements in § 55.5, this part shall not apply to the following categories of proposed HUD actions: ( a ) HUD-assisted activities described in 24 CFR 58.34 and 58.35(b);
( b ) HUD-assisted activities described in 24 CFR 50.19, except as otherwise indicated in § 50.19;
( c ) The approval of financial assistance for restoring and preserving the natural and beneficial functions and values of floodplains and wetlands, including through acquisition of such floodplain and wetland property, where a permanent covenant or comparable restriction is placed on the property's continued use for flood control, wetland protection, open space, or park land, but only if: ( 1 ) The property is cleared of all existing buildings and walled structures; and
( 2 ) The property is cleared of related improvements except those which: ( i ) Are directly related to flood control, wetland protection, open space, or park land (including playgrounds and recreation areas);
( ii ) Do not modify existing wetland areas or involve fill, paving, or other ground disturbance beyond minimal trails or paths; and
( iii ) Are designed to be compatible with the beneficial floodplain or wetland function of the property.
( d ) An action involving a repossession, receivership, foreclosure, or similar acquisition of property to protect or enforce HUD's financial interests under previously approved loans, grants, mortgage insurance, or other HUD assistance;
( e ) Policy-level actions described at 24 CFR 50.16 that do not involve site-based decisions;
( f ) A minor amendment to a previously approved action with no additional adverse impact on or from a floodplain or wetland;
( g ) HUD's or the responsible entity's approval of a project site, an incidental portion of which is situated in the FFRMS floodplain (not including the floodway, LiMWA, or coastal high hazard area), but only if: ( 1 ) The proposed project site does not include any existing or proposed buildings or improvements that modify or occupy the FFRMS floodplain except de minimis improvements such as recreation areas and trails; and
( 2 ) The proposed project will not result in any new construction in or modifications of a wetland.
( h ) Issuance or use of Housing Vouchers or other forms of rental subsidy where HUD, the awarding community, or the public housing agency that administers the contract awards rental subsidies that are not project-based (*i.e.,* do not involve site-specific subsidies);
( i ) Special projects directed to the removal of material and architectural barriers that restrict the mobility of and accessibility to elderly and persons with disabilities.
[89 FR 30908, Apr. 23, 2024]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF TRAMMELL CROW COMPANY FOR THE SIX MONTHS
ENDED JUNE 30, 2000 AND IS QUALIFIED BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                          29,716
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  135,288
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (3,863)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               412,760<F1>
<PP&E>                                          58,039
<DEPRECIATION>                                (32,030)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 664,303
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          285,925<F2>
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           358
<OTHER-SE>                                     265,301
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   664,303
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               349,389
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  321,486
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               7,744
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 20,159
<INCOME-TAX>                                     8,066
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             12,093
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    12,093
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .35
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .34
<FN>
<F1>INCLUDES REAL ESTATE HELD FOR SALE OF $231,064
<F2>INCLUDES NOTES PAYABLE ON REAL ESTATE HELD FOR SALE OF $145,365
</FN>


</TABLE>
#### Universal Vending Service Company, appellee, v. George Alexander, appellant.

Gen. No. 28,573.

Consolidated with No. 28,578 ante. Appeal from the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Henry M. Walker, Judge, presiding. Heard in the second division of this court for the first district.

Affirmed.

Opinion filed November 27, 1923.

Per Curiam.
### NUMBER 13

- 14

- 00 012

- CV


## COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI

- EDINBURG

____________________________________________________________

IN THE INTEREST OF A .R., A MINOR CHILD

____________________________________________________________

On a ppeal from the 1 56th District Court

of Bee County, Texas.

____________________________________________________________



## MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Garza, Benavides , and Perkes Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam
Appellant, Emilio Barrientes
, filed an appeal from a judgment rendered against h im
in the 156th District Court of Bee County. On February 3, 2014, the Clerk of this Court
notified appellant that the clerk's record in the above cause was originally due on January

25, 2014 , and that the deputy district clerk, Julissa James , had notified this Court that
appellant failed to make arrangements for payment of the clerk's record. The Clerk of
this Court notified appellant of this defect so that steps could be taken to correct the
defect, if it could be done. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 37.3, 42.3(b),(c). Appellant was advised2

that, if the defect was not corrected within ten days from the date of receipt of th e Court’s

n otice, the appeal would be dismissed for want of prosecution.

On February 3, 2014 , the Clerk of the Court notified appellant that he w as delinquent in remitting a $19 5.00 filing fee. The Clerk of this Court notified appellant that
the appeal was subject to dismissal if the filing fee was not paid within ten days from the
date of receipt of this letter. See id. 42.3(b),(c).
Appellant has failed to respond to this Court ’ s notices and has failed to pay the
filing fee. Accordingly, the appeal is DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION.

See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 42.3(b), (c).

PER CURIAM

D elivered and filed the 27th day of March , 20 14

.
CERTIFICATIONS OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT

Exhibit 31.2

CERTIFICATIONS

I, Gurpreet Singh Sangha, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Douglas Lake Minerals Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

(c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

(d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting.

|Date:  September 12, 2005 | /s/ Gurpreet Singh SanghaGurpreet Singh Sangha
Chief Financial Officer
|------------------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-40492

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

MANUEL PEREZ-MEJIA,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 7:13-CR-64-1

Before JOLLY, SMITH, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Manuel Perez-Mejia (Perez) appeals from the judgment imposed in 

connection with his guilty plea conviction of being illegally present in the 

United States after removal. As Perez concedes, the argument he raises on 

appeal is foreclosed by United States v. Rodriguez, 711 F.3d 541, 557, 562 & 

n.28 (5th Cir. (en banc), cert denied, 2013 WL 2617911 (U.S. Nov. 4, 2013) (No. 

12-10695), in which this court concluded that the generic, contemporary 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

December 19, 2013

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

 Case: 13-40492 Document: 00512476509 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/19/2013
No. 13-40492

definitions of “sexual abuse of a minor” and “statutory rape” do not include an 

age-differential requirement. Accordingly, Perez’s motion for summary 

affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

2

 Case: 13-40492 Document: 00512476509 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/19/2013
### [§2108. Repealed. Pub. L. 109–304, §15(5), Oct. 6, 2006, 120 Stat. 1702]

Section, Pub. L. 98–89, Aug. 26, 1983, 97 Stat. 507, related to refund of penalties unlawfully, improperly, or excessively imposed. See section 504 of this title.
**TV 1 TV 6**  **TV 7 TV 8**  **TV 9 TV 11**  **TV 13**

**Screen area (in 2** **)** 686.00 1276.00 941.00 904.00 754.00 1708.00 220.00 **P on** **(watts)** 112.77 126.53 116.77 125.30 100.60 245.86 26.92 **P on** **from E* data set** 88.00 98.00 91.00 117.00 78.00 210.00 N/A **P 0**  **(watts)** 58.57 70.94 71.26 64.89 45.87 162.75 19.28 **P 10**  **(watts)** 112.99 121.22 74.09 70.27 55.87 245.59 19.31 **P 30**  **(watts)** - - - - - - - **P 40**  **(watts)** - - - - - - - **P 100** **(watts)** 112.90 151.31 112.85 125.83 100.90 246.31 26.80 **P 150** **(watts)** 112.82 151.18 126.13 124.41 100.71 246.52 26.71 **P 300** **(watts)** 112.83 151.18 126.10 123.81 100.64 246.59 26.69 **L 0**  **(cd/m 2** **)** - - - - - - - **L 10**  **(cd/m 2** **)** - - - - - - - **L 30**  **(cd/m 2** **)** - - - - - - - **L 40**  **(cd/m 2** **)** - - - - - - - **L 100** **(cd/m 2** **)** - - - - - - - **L 150** **(cd/m 2** **)** - - - - - - - **L 300** **(cd/m 2** **)** - - - - - - - The above chart is for ABC Enabled TV's. The average power is shown above during the IEC dynamic content clip at the corresponding room luminance level.

N/A

- 

## Television On Mode Power and Luminance Measurements with ABC Enabled

= Calculated Data = Raw Data = Not Applicable = No Data Available**TV C TV J**  **TV E TV D**  **TV K TV L**  **TV M TV N**  **TV A**

436.0 438.0 754.0 904.0 904.0 904.0 941.0 1155.0 1155.0 84.0 42.0 117.4 196.8 65.5 85.7 80.5 166.1 127.5 65.0 36.0 92.0 99.0 48.0 64.0 63.0 139.0 112.0 42.0 28.6 61.8 103.8 28.4 43.8 37.3 115.1 71.4 83.3 28.5 62.5 104.0 65.7 43.8 81.7 115.5 91.7 83.6 30.2 62.5 107.8 66.1 45.4 79.1 121.9 93.0 84.0 38.7 74.4 109.9 66.0 48.6 80.4 137.4 92.5 83.3 42.5 86.5 130.3 65.7 67.2 81.8 165.6 91.7 83.3 42.5 91.3 130.1 65.7 70.7 81.7 165.7 119.8 83.3 46.5 90.2 130.3 65.6 85.1 81.9 166.0 127.5 41.1 128.3 93.8 232.3 28.9 72.6 18.4 165.4 92.5 296.9 128.2 97.7 234.1 236.1 72.3 285.7 169.0 266.9 296.2 141.8 130.2 240.6 235.9 87.8 282.4 186.7 266.4 296.1 202.5 158.7 246.5 236.4 113.4 283.3 226.6 266.2 296.7 238.1 230.9 283.1 236.2 221.2 284.5 301.2 266.5 298.2 246.9 247.7 300.1 236.1 316.3 283.7 301.4 266.6 298.5 258.8 233.8 298.7 236.3 363.7 283.7 302.2 266.8

The above chart is for ABC Enabled TV's. The average power is shown above during the IEC dynamic content clip at the corresponding room luminance level. 

## Television On Mode Power and Luminance Measurements with ABC Enabled**TV B TV O**  **TV P TV G** 

1230.0 1293.0 1293.0 1540.0 199.2 134.8 97.9 436.0 159.0 119.0 90.0 245.8 111.0 89.3 58.8 245.8 198.4 89.0 60.0 434.8 199.3 133.8 78.2 433.3 199.8 132.7 86.2 433.4 199.2 144.0 97.8 434.8 199.0 136.7 97.9 433.8 188.3 142.7 98.0 434.7 23.3 27.0 92.4 68.2 78.9 27.1 92.0 75.0 79.7 63.7 152.4 79.7 80.2 63.3 187.5 80.9 79.0 64.4 236.1 79.7 79.2 63.4 236.3 79.7 79.1 62.7 236.7 80.2
Order entered October 30, 2015

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-15-00787-CR

ROY LEE TANNER, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 204th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F14-76344-Q

ORDER

The Court notes that the record does not contain the trial court’s certification of 

appellant’s right to appeal. Additionally, although court reporter Kendra Thibodeaux indicated 

in the exhibit volume that State’s Exhibit No. 4 would be filed separately, she has not yet filed 

the exhibit.

Accordingly, we ORDER the trial court to prepare and file with this Court, within TEN 

DAYS of the date of this order, a certification of appellant’s right to appeal that accurately 

reflects the trial court proceedings. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(a), (d); Cortez v. State, 420 S.W.3d 

803 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013).
We ORDER court reporter Kendra Thibodeaux to file, within TEN DAYS of the date of 

this order, a supplemental record containing State’s Exhibit No. 4, a DVD.

We DIRECT the Clerk to send copies of this order to the Honorable Tammy Kemp, 

Presiding Judge, 204th Judicial District Court; Kendra Thibodeaux, official court reporter, 204th 

Judicial District Court; Felicia Pitre, Dallas County District Court; and to counsel for all parties.

/s/ ADA BROWN 

JUSTICE
§ 990.160 Overview of calculating formula expenses. ( a ) *General.* Formula expenses represent the costs of services and materials needed by a well-run PHA to sustain the project. These costs include items such as administration, maintenance, and utilities. HUD also determines a PHA's formula expenses at a project level. HUD uses the following three factors to determine the overall formula expense level for each project: ( 1 ) The project expense level (PEL) (calculated in accordance with § 990.165);
( 2 ) The utilities expense level (UEL) (calculated in accordance with §§ 990.170, 990.175, 990.180, and 990.185); and
( 3 ) Other formula expenses (add-ons) (calculated in accordance with § 990.190).
( b ) *PEL, UEL, and Add-ons.* Each project of a PHA has a unique PEL and UEL. The PEL for each project is based on ten characteristics and certain adjustments described in § 990.165. The PEL represents the normal expenses of operating public housing projects, such as maintenance and administration costs. The UEL for each project represents utility expenses. Utility expense levels are based on an incentive system aimed at reducing utility expenses. Both the PEL and UEL are expressed in PUM costs. The expenses not included in these expense levels and which are unique to PHAs are titled “other formula expenses (add-ons)” and are expressed in a dollar amount.
( c ) *Calculating project formula expense.* The formula expense of any one project is the sum of the project's PEL and the UEL, multiplied by the total EUMs specific to the project, plus the add-ons.