alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>   1


Deposit Guaranty Corp.
Jackson, Mississippi

Gentlemen:

RE:  September 30, 1995 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q

With respect to the subject Quarterly Report, we acknowledge our awareness of
the use therein of our report dated October 17, 1995 related to our review of
interim financial information.

Pursuant to Rule 436(c) under the Securities Act, such report is not considered
a part of a Registration Statement prepared or certified by an accountant or a
report prepared or certified by an accountant within the meaning of Sections 7
and 11 of the Act.

                                        Very truly yours,


                                        /s/KPMG PEAT MARWICK LLP
                                        ------------------------
                                        KPMG PEAT MARWICK LLP

Jackson, Mississippi
November 14, 1995
EXHIBIT
99.25   From: Klinger, Mike
 Sent: Thursday, April 09, 2009
3:11 PM
 To: Robert L. Chapman,
Jr.
 Cc: 'Clarke H. Bailey'
 Subject: RE: EDCI Holdings
(EDCI): Personnel: CFO Michael Klinger: Separation Agreement
  Bob,
  I have
read your summation of discussion today and confirm that the points listed below
are as agreed.
  Mike
888 Seventeenth Street, NW, Suite 700
Washington, DC 20006

- 3309

Phone 202.298.8660

Fax 202.342.0683

www.zsrlaw.com

DAVID M. ENDERSBEE DIRECT DIAL (202) 973

- 7935

dmendersbee@zsrlaw.com

Zuckert, Scoutt & Rasenberger, L.L.P. December 19, 2014

BY ELECTRONIC MAIL

Robert Finamore Chief, Foreign Air Carrier Licensing Division U.S. Department of Transportation 1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Re: Aruba Airlines (Docket OST

- 2012

- 0212 )

Dear Mr. Finamore:

On December 17 , 2014, Arubaanse Luchtvaart Maatschappij N.V. d/b/a Aruba Airlines (“Aruba”) filed in the above

- referenced docket a Supplement to its December 20, 2012 Application for a Foreign Air Carrier Permit and Exemption Authority, as amended by its January 16, 2013, Amendment No. 1.

Aruba has completed polling and no carrier objected to the grant of its application , as amended and supplemented

. Aruba respectfully requests that the Department promptly grant its request for an exemption and foreign air carrier permit.

Respectfully submitted,

David M. Endersbee

Counsel for Arubaanse Luchtvaart Maatschappij N.V. d/b/a Aruba Airlines

cc: Service List
§ 902.113 Incentives for small rural PHAs high-performers. ( a ) *High performer.* PHAs with a weighted average score for all inspections of at least 90 percent of all available points will be considered high performers and will be eligible for benefits as described in § 902.113(b) and § 905.400(l) of this chapter.
( b ) *Incentives.* High performer small rural PHAs under the public housing program will be eligible for the same incentives as high performer PHAs under PHAS as described in § 902.71.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 9619 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 9619

   To amend the International Organizations Immunities Act to extend 
  certain privileges and immunities to the European Organization for 
                           Nuclear Research.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 17, 2024

    Mr. Castro of Texas (for himself and Mr. Foster) introduced the 
 following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend the International Organizations Immunities Act to extend 
  certain privileges and immunities to the European Organization for 
                           Nuclear Research.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Strengthening Science Through 
Diplomacy Act''.

SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF CERTAIN PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES TO THE CONSEIL 
              EUROPEEN POUR LA RECHERCHE NUCLEAIRE (CERN; THE EUROPEAN 
              ORGANIZATION FOR NUCLEAR RESEARCH).

    The International Organizations Immunities Act (22 U.S.C. 288 et 
seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following new section:
    ``Sec. 21.  Under such terms and conditions as the President shall 
determine, the President is authorized to extend the provisions of this 
title to the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN) in the 
same manner, to the same extent, and subject to the same conditions, as 
it may be extended to a public international organization in which the 
United States participates pursuant to any treaty or under the 
authority of any Act of Congress authorizing such participation or 
making an appropriation for such participation.''.
                                 <all>
```
#### MARTIN v. KAR.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

January 16, 1903.)

Action by Joseph Martin as receiver against De Wit Kar individually, etc.

.No opin.No on. Motion granted so far as to dismiss appeal, with $10 costs.
Editorial Note on Part 1206
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 1206 (formerly part 206) appear at 67 FR 19111, Apr. 18, 2002.

§ 1206.457 Washing allowances—general. ( a ) For ad valorem leases subject to § 1206.456, ONRR shall, as authorized by this section, allow a deduction in determining value for royalty purposes for the reasonable, actual costs incurred to wash coal, unless the value determined pursuant to § 1206.456 was based upon like-quality unwashed coal. Under no circumstances will the authorized washing allowance and the transportation allowance reduce the value for royalty purposes to zero.
( b ) If ONRR determines that a lessee has improperly determined a washing allowance authorized by this section, then the lessee shall be liable for any additional royalties, plus interest determined in accordance with § 1218.202 of this subchapter, or shall be entitled to a credit, without interest.
( c ) Lessees shall not disproportionately allocate washing costs to Indian leases.
( d ) No cost normally associated with mining operations and which are necessary for placing coal in marketable condition shall be allowed as a cost of washing.
( e ) Coal washing costs shall only be recognized as allowances when the washed coal is sold and royalties are reported and paid.
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NORTHERN CALIFORNIA PIPE

TRADES HEALTH AND WELFARE

PLAN, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

CHARLOTTE RODRIGUES,

Defendant.

NO. C09-1431 TEH

ORDER GRANTING MOTION

FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT

This matter came before the Court on April 5, 2010, on Plaintiffs’ motion for default

judgment. At the hearing, the Court orally ruled that default judgment would be entered and

that Plaintiffs would be awarded the claimed reimbursements for benefits paid, as well as the

claimed attorneys’ fees and costs. These amounts are $22,645.89 and $11,540.48,

respectively.

The only remaining question is the rate at which pre-judgment interest should be

awarded. Plaintiffs calculated simple interest at 10% but consented at the hearing to

applying the statutory 52-week United States Treasury bill rate. As the United States Court

of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has explained:

We have held that the interest rate prescribed for post-judgment

interest under 28 U.S.C. § 1961 is appropriate for fixing the rate

of pre-judgment interest “unless the trial judge finds, on

substantial evidence, that the equities of that particular case

require a different rate.” . . . Section 1961 provides that the

post-judgment interest rate shall be equal to “the coupon issue

yield equivalent (as determined by the Secretary of the Treasury)

of the average accepted auction price for the last auction of

fifty-two week United States Treasury bills settled immediately

prior to the date of the judgment.” 28 U.S.C. § 1961.

Nelson v. EG & G Energy Measurements Group, Inc., 37 F.3d 1384, 1391 (9th Cir. 1994)

(citation omitted). The most recent weekly rate, as of April 2, 2010, was 0.43%. See Federal

Case 3:09-cv-01431-TEH Document 20 Filed 04/06/10 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

2

Reserve Statistical Release H.15 Selected Interest Rates, http://www.federalreserve.gov/

releases/h15/data/Weekly_Friday_/H15_TCMNOM_Y1.txt (last visited Apr. 5, 2010). 

“Interest shall be computed daily to the date of payment . . . and shall be compounded

annually.” 28 U.S.C. § 1961(b). Based on the premiums paid by Plaintiffs, as documented

in Exhibit B to the Declaration of Kim Biagi, and the Court’s calculations, the pre-judgment

interest due to Plaintiffs is $313.03.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that judgment shall be entered in favor of

Plaintiffs and against Defendant in the amount of $34,499.40. Interest shall accrue daily on

the unpaid balance of the judgment at the annual rate of 0.43%, compounded annually, until

the judgment is fully paid. The Clerk shall enter judgment and close the file.

 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 04/06/10 

THELTON E. HENDERSON, JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case 3:09-cv-01431-TEH Document 20 Filed 04/06/10 Page 2 of 2
EXHIBIT 13.1

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

In connection with this
Annual Report of Levon Resources Ltd. (the Company) on Form 20-F for the year
ended March 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
the date hereof (the Report). I, Ron Tremblay, Principal Executive Officer of
the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my
knowledge and belief:

| |     |                                                                                                                                                         
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | (1) | the Report fully complies
  with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange
  Act of 1934; and                               
| |     |                                                                                                                                                         
| | (2) | the information contained
  in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
  condition and results of operations of the Company.

|                       |                                            
|---------------------- | -------------------------------------------
|Date: October 14, 2008 | /s/ Ron Tremblay                           
|                       |                                            
|                       | Ron Tremblay, Principal
  Executive Officer

---
### §3227. Transfer date

In this part, the term "transfer date" means the date on which the National Intelligence University is transferred from the Defense Intelligence Agency to the Director of National Intelligence under section 3334a(a) of this title.

(July 26, 1947, ch. 343, title X, §1031, as added Pub. L. 116–260, div. W, title III, §305(a), Dec. 27, 2020, 134 Stat. 2366.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

The transfer date, referred to in text, is June 20, 2021.
Data Reflect Changing Nature of Facility

Populations, Characteristics, and Practices

Nearly half of all facilities were privately operated, but 

they held less than 30% of youth in placement in 2014

Proportion of petitioned cases referred

Facilities

Youth

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

46% 21% 33%

29% 34% 37%

Private State Local

Facility operation:

Percentage of facilities and youth held

Nearly half of training schools and detention centers 

reported use of isolation to control behavior

All facilities Training school Detention center

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Mechanical restraints†

Locked youth in room*

Percentage of facilities reporting past month use

23% 24%

46%

62%

47%

43%

The number of youth in residential placement fell 53%, 

74% in large facilities, between 2000 and 2014 

All facilities Small

(<20 beds)

Medium

(21−100 beds)

Large

(>100 beds)

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

108,802

50,821

13,207 8,735

39,609

27,366

55,974

14,720

2000

2014

Number of youth in placement 

Facility size

In 2014, 90% of reporting facilities evaluated all youth 

for suicide risk

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

58%

74%

90% 88%

Percentage of facilities screening all youth

Suicide

risk

Education

needs

Substance

abuse

Mental health

needs

In 2014, 4% of all facilities were over capacity, 

compared with 8% in 2000

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

Percentage of facilities over capacity

All facilities Small

(<20 beds)

Medium

(21−100 beds)

Large

(>100 beds)

Facility size

2000

2014

8%

4%

2% 3%

15%

4%

25%

6%

Access more information on residential 

facilities and youth in placement

n Review FAQs about residential facility characteristics

n Analyze data with Easy Access to the Census of 

Juveniles in Residential Placement

Notes: Throughout this publication, juveniles and youth refer 

to those charged with or adjudicated for law violations held in 

residential facilities. This publication was prepared by Charles 

Puzzanchera and Sarah Hockenberry, National Center for 

Juvenile Justice, with funds provided by OJJDP through grant 

#2013-MU-FX-0005. August 2016.

Data source: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency 

Prevention. Juvenile Residential Facility Census [machine-readable 

data files]. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau (producer). 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

* Locked in isolation, seclusion, or sleeping room for more than 4 hours.

† Restraints include handcuffs, leg cuffs, waist bands, leather straps, or restraining 

chairs. Excludes use for transportation purposes.

ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb
### Part D—National Intelligence University
#### § 585.111 How do I submit plans, applications, reports, or notices required by this part?

Unless otherwise stated, you must submit one electronic copy of all plans, applications, reports, or notices required by this part to BOEM. BOEM will inform you if it requires paper copies of specific documents. Unless stated otherwise, documents should be submitted to the relevant contacts listed on the BOEM website.
Exhibit 32.1


                              CERTIFICATION OF THE
                          JOINT CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                         Pursuant to Section 906 of the
                           Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

      In connection with the Quarterly Report of Trident Rowan Group, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending March 31, 2001 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Mark S.
Hauser, Joint Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:

      (1)   The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
            15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934; and

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


                                          /s/ Mark S. Hauser
                                          --------------------------------
                                          Mark S. Hauser
                                          Joint Chief Executive Officer
                                          May 25, 2004
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Joffre Earl Gregory, Appellant.

Appeal by defendant: (a) from a judgment of the former County Court, Queens County, rendered January 12, 1962 after a jury trial, convicting him of robbery in the first degree and conspiracy to commit robbery in the first degree, and imposing sentence; and (b) from two intermediate orders, made on November 13, 1961 and November 22, 1961, respectively. Judgment reversed on the law and a new trial granted. The finding's of fact have not been considered. No separate appeal lies from the intermediate orders, which nevertheless have been reviewed on the appeal from the judgment (Code Grim, Pro., § 517, subd. 3). During cross-examination, an accomplice witness for the People denied that he expected or had been promised leniency. Thereupon, an Assistant District Attorney, who was not the prosecuting attorney, but who had participated in the People’s preparation of this case, made himself *750an unsworn witness against the defendant by stating in open court: “If I had made any promise to this person or any other person, in my function and office as an Assistant District Attorney, I would have advised the Court of that and -also counsel.” He thus endeavored, iby the weight of his own veracity and official position, to support the credibility of a key prosecution witness who was then testifying. 'Thereafter, the trial Assistant District Attorney, in his summation recalled this statement to the jury, and he suggested to them that they believe his colleague’s unsworn statement. In our opinion, the circumstance and content of that unsworn remark, coupled with the prosecutor’s later comment thereon, placed the veracity and position of these Assistant District Attorneys in issue and, consequently, so prejudiced the defendant that he was deprived of a fair trial *(People*v. *Jackson,*7 N Y 2d 142; *People*v. *Lomeilo,*1N Y 2d 436). Beldoek, P. J., Kleinfeld, Christ, Rabin -and Hopkins, JJ., concur.
#### Meyer Turetsky, Respondent, v. City of Long Beach et al., Appellants.

-In an action for a declaratory judgment as to the proper use of plaintiff’s premises in the City of Long Beach under the city’s zoning ordinance, the defendant city and its officials appeal from a judgment (incorrectly designated as a “final order”) of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, entered December 3, 1962 upon the court’s opinion and decision after a nonjury trial, declaring, *inter alla,*that the use of such premises “ as an apartment house for occupancy by more than two families but not more than five families is a legal and lawful nonconforming use under the existing zoning law of the City of Long Beach ° * * so long as such use is continuous and uninterrupted”. Judgment modified on the law and the facts by amending its first and second decretal paragraphs so as to limit the occupancy referred to therein to not more than four (instead of five) families. As so modified, judgment affirmed, without costs. Findings of fact implicit in the decision and opinion below which may be inconsistent herewith are reversed, and new findings are made as indicated herein. Upon the trial plaintiff proved that at the time of the enactment of the defendant city’s first zoning ordinance plaintiff’s premises were used as a four-family house and that such use continued until 1926 when a fifth apartment was added. Plaintiff thus established his right to maintain as a nonconforming use the four apartments in existence at the time of the enactment of the zoning ordinance. However, plaintiff failed to prove any consent by the municipality to subsequent enlargement of this nonconforming use. Plaintiff’s application for a building permit and the subsequent certificate of occupancy issued upon the completion of the enlargement, both indicate that the .building as altered was to be a two-family .dwelling. We agree with the court below that, under the circumstances here, such misstatement of the facts, which was evidently made by the builder, cannot be attributed to the owner and that it is not sufficient to constitute an abandonment of the then nonconforming use. We cannot, however, construe the issuance of a certificate of occupancy -based on such a misstatement as a consent by the municipality to an enlargement of such nonconforming use. A nonconforming use cannot be enlarged as a matter of right *(Matter of Chandler*v. *Corbett,*274 App. Div. 1073; *Matter of French*v. *Incorporated Vil. of North Haven,*1 A D 2d 788). Ughetta, Acting P. J., Kleinfeld, Hill, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          FEB-28-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             MAR-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               NOV-30-1997
<CASH>                                       6,483,528
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                 14,436,891
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            56,208,012
<PP&E>                                      46,346,515
<DEPRECIATION>                              14,371,746
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              93,587,910
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       20,592,558
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         9,681
<OTHER-SE>                                  71,290,377
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                93,587,910
<SALES>                                     79,563,975
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            79,563,978
<CGS>                                       34,652,227
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               34,652,227
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               134,541
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              3,919,002
<INCOME-TAX>                                 1,175,701
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          2,743,301
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 2,743,301
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .18
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .18
        

</TABLE>
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. David Thomas against Anna M. Kross, as Commissioner of Correction of the City of New York.

Motion to dismiss appeal from order entered November 18, 1959, granted. Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, Rabin, Valente and McNally, JJ.