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

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                    3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                            7968
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   147649
<ALLOWANCES>                                       968
<INVENTORY>                                     177561
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                350297
<PP&E>                                          768602
<DEPRECIATION>                                  452267
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 1014664
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           200153
<BONDS>                                         392046
<COMMON>                                         83465
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                      153444
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   1014664
<SALES>                                         198512
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                198512
<CGS>                                           156248
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   145629
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   550
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                8368
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  43965
<INCOME-TAX>                                     16141
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              27824
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     27824
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .33
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .33


</TABLE>
<PAGE>   1


                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1

CAUTIONARY STATEMENT FOR PURPOSES OF THE "SAFE HARBOR"
PROVISIONS OF THE PRIVATE SECURITIES LITIGATION REFORM ACT OF 1995

The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 provides a "safe harbor"
for forward-looking statements to encourage companies to provide prospective
information about their companies without fear of litigation so long as those
statements are identified as forward-looking and are accompanied by meaningful
cautionary statements identifying important factors that could cause actual
results to differ materially from those projected in the statement. The Company
desires to take advantage of the "safe harbor" provisions of the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 in connection with the forward-looking
statements contained in this report. Accordingly, the Company hereby identifies
the following important factors which could cause the Company's financial
results to differ materially from any such results which might be projected,
forecast, estimated or budgeted by the Company in forward-looking statements:

                           (a) Heightened competition, including specifically
         the intensification of price competition; the entry of new competitors;
         and the expansion, renovation and opening of new stores by new and
         existing competitors.

                           (b) Failure to obtain new customers or retain
         existing customers.

                           (c) Inability to carry out marketing, sales and
         capital plans.

                           (d) Insufficiency of financial resources to renovate
         and expand store base.

                           (e) Prolonged dispute with labor.

                           (f) Economic downturn in the Southeast region.

                           (g) Loss or retirement of key executives.

                           (h) Higher selling, general and administrative
         expenses occasioned by the need for additional advertising, marketing,
         administrative, or management information systems expenditures.

                           (i) Adverse publicity and news coverage. 

The foregoing review of factors pursuant to the Private Litigation Securities
Reform Act of 1995 should not be construed as exhaustive or as any admission
regarding the adequacy of disclosures made by the Company prior to this filing.
#### Gerding, surviving partner, *vs.*Anderson, Starr & Company.

To require the superior court to consolidate three actions on three promissory notes into one, the defendant must make it appear to the court either that he has no defense, or that the defense is the same to all of the notes; and in the latter case he must aver what that defense is, so that the court may adjudge whether it be the same in all the cases.

Practice in the Superior Court. Before Judge Lawson. Putnam Superior Court. March Term, 1879.

Gerding, surviving partner, was defendant in three suits brought on promissory notes in Putnam superior court by Anderson, Starr <fe Co. He moved to consolidate them, stating in his motion “that if there is any defense at all filed to said suits, it will be the same in each case, and petitioner therefore moves the court to allow said cases to be consolidated, in order to save petitioner expenses, costs, etc.” He introduced no evidence in support of the motion. *305Plaintiffs made a counter-showing, to the effect that when the notes were presented for payment, defendant said he would pay them in the fall; but if they were sued, he would remove the cases to the United States court, and thus gain time. Plaintiffs’ counsel brought suit on each note sepai-ately, each one being under $500.00, but the aggregate being more than that amount. He urged that the nxotioxx to consolidate was really made for the purpose of obtaining a removal. The motion was ovei’ruled, and defendant excepted.

W. A. Reid; W. B. Wingfield, for plaintiff in error.

W. F. Jenkins, by brief, for defendants.

Jackson, Justice.

This was a motion to consolidate three suits on three notes into one action. There can be no doubt of the right of the defendant ordinarily to consolidate, if there be no detriment thereby to the plaintiff on the merits of the cases. To show that there will be no hurt to the plaintiff, defendant must show either that he has no defense, or that the same defense applies to all the cases, and in order to show the court the latter fact, he must disclose what that defense is. For it is for the court to decide whether the facts make the defense the same in each case. Tf the consolidation will work harm to the plaintiff, or if it would make the aggregate sum sued for so large as to oust the jurisdiction, and on the same principle, if it would make him try different issues on different pleas in one case to several notes, the consolidation will not be allowed. Code, §3261. 13 *Ga.,*201; 35 *Ga.,*82; 45 *Ga.,*96, 124.

The defendant not having made it appear upon what defense he relied to defeat these notes, or each of them, so that the court could see the transaction, and judge of the propriety of the consolidation, this court will not reverse the judgment which refused the motion to consolidate.

Judgment affirmed.
<PAGE>
 
                                                                   EXHIBIT 23.0
 
                         INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT
 
To the Board of Directors and Shareholders United States Filter Corporation:
 
  We consent to incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (No.
33-49382, No. 33-56744, No. 33-73542, No. 33-89662, No. 33-63285, No. 333-
16083, No. 33-82424, No. 33-63287, No. 333-16069) on Form S-8, the
Registration Statements (No. 33-85026, No. 33-63325, No. 333-24465) on Form S-
3 and the Registration Statement (No. 333-23881) on Form S-4 of United States
Filter Corporation of our report dated June 6, 1997, relating to the
consolidated balance sheets of United States Filter Corporation as of March
31, 1996 and 1997, and the related consolidated statements of income,
shareholders' equity, and cash flows and related schedule for each of the
years in the three-year period ended March 31, 1997, which report appears in
the March 31, 1997 Annual Report on Form 10-K of United States Filter
Corporation.
 
                                          KPMG Peat Marwick LLP
 
Orange County, California
June 23, 1997
 
                                      65
#### Miriam Pinkus et al., Appellants, v. Incorporated Village of Hempstead, Respondent.

In an action by plaintiff taxpayers to declare arbitrary and unlawful a resolution of the Board of Trustees of the defendant village fixing the area of special assessment to defray the cost of acquisition of land for the widening of a public street within the village, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated March 6, 1962, which denied their motion for judgment on the pleadings, pursuant to rule 112 of the Rules of Civil Practice. The defendant concedes that, with minor exceptions, the assessment area comprises in essence the business and industrial center of the village, and that all residentially zoned land has been excluded. Order affirmed, without costs. No opinion. Kleinfeld, Acting P. J., Brennan, Hill, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur.
### §6613. Rural natural resources and economic diversification action teams

#### (a) Requests for assistance

Economically disadvantaged rural communities may request assistance from the Secretary in identifying opportunities that will promote economic improvement and diversification and revitalization.

#### (b) Establishment

Upon request, the Secretary may establish rural natural resources and economic diversification action teams to prepare an action plan to provide technical assistance to economically disadvantaged communities. The action plan shall identify opportunities to promote economic diversification and enhance local economies now dependent upon National Forest System land resources. The action team may also identify opportunities to use value-added products and services derived from National Forest System land resources.

#### (c) Organization

The Secretary shall design and organize any action team established pursuant to subsection (b) to meet the unique needs of the requesting rural community. Each action team shall be directed by an employee of the Forest Service and may include personnel from other agencies within the Department of Agriculture, from other Federal and State departments and agencies, and from the private sector.

#### (d) Cooperation

In preparing action plans, the Secretary may cooperate with State and local governments, universities, private companies, individuals, and nonprofit organizations for procurement of services determined necessary or desirable.

#### (e) Eligibility

The Secretary shall ensure that no substantially similar geographical or defined local area in a State receives a grant for technical assistance to an economically disadvantaged community under this subchapter and a grant for assistance under a designated rural development program during any continuous five-year period.

#### (f) Approval

After reviewing requests under this section for financial and economic feasibility and viability, the Secretary shall approve and implement in accordance with section 6614 of this title those action plans that will achieve the purposes of this subchapter.

#### (g) "Designated rural development program" defined

In this section, the term "designated rural development program" means a program carried out under section 1924(b), 1926(a), or 1932(e) of this title for which funds are available at any time during the fiscal year.

(Pub. L. 101–624, title XXIII, §2375, Nov. 28, 1990, 104 Stat. 4047; Pub. L. 104–127, title VII, §753(b)(1), Apr. 4, 1996, 110 Stat. 1131; Pub. L. 106–113, div. B, §1000(a)(3) [title III, §345(c)], Nov. 29, 1999, 113 Stat. 1535, 1501A–204.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1999—Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 106–113 substituted "natural resources" for "forestry" and substituted "National Forest System land resources" for "national forest resources" in two places.

1996—Subsec. (e). Pub. L. 104–127, §753(b)(1)(A), struck out ", as defined in section 2008(b)(2) of this title," before "during any".

Subsec. (g). Pub. L. 104–127, §753(b)(1)(B), added subsec. (g).
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Lloyd J. Dorman, Respondent, v. New York State Department of Public Works et al., Appellants. Workmen’s Compensation Board, Respondent.

Taylor, J.

Appeal by an employer and its carrier from a decision and award of the Workmen’s Compensation Board. Claimant entered the employ of appellant, State Department of Public Works, on May 23, 1960 as a laborer whose duties entailed the heavy work of shoveling cinders from a truck into the hopper of a machine whence they were spread upon public highways. In late December of the same year he detected symptoms of precordial pain upon exertion which thereafter increased in intensity. On January 7, 1961 he consulted a physician whose initial diagnostic impression was that of coronary heart disease which following radiographic examination and other tests he later changed to one of radicular pain associated with degenerative arthritis in the area of the thoracic spine. The board found that claimant’s exertive work activities aggravated an underlying arthritic condition inducing symptoms causing disability, “ thus establishing a recognizable link between claimant’s disability [sic] and his occupation ” and *“*that therefore occupational disease and causally related disability [were] established.” The test of occupational disease “ is not met where disability is caused by an aggravation of a condition which is not occupational in nature.” *(Matter of Detenbeck*v. *General Motors Corp.,*309 N. Y. 558, 562.) There is no evidentiary showing here that claimant’s pre-existing arthritic condition was such as “ would ordinarily be an occupational disease” (p. 561). Claimant should be afforded the opportunity, if so advised, to develop the record in this respect. Decision reversed, with costs to appellants against the Workmen’s Compensation Board, and ease remitted for further proceedings not inconsistent herewith. Gibson, P. J., Reynolds, Aulisi and Hamm, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Hawks
Industries, Inc. 2nd quarter 1998 10Q and is qualified in its entirety by
reference to such 10Q
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                          40,000
<SECURITIES>                                   200,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                  653,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     16,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               972,000
<PP&E>                                       3,916,000
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,156,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,329,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          820,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        13,000
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,106,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,329,000
<SALES>                                      1,262,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,265,000
<CGS>                                          965,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,187,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              39,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                107,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            107,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   107,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .08
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .08
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.1



Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, As Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of

the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



I, Allan L. Bridgford, Chairman of Bridgford Foods Corporation (the Company), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, that:



|(1) | the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period April 16, 2004 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 780(d)); and
|--- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



Dated: May 28, 2004

/s/    Allan L. BridgfordAllan L. Bridgford, Chairman (Principal Executive
Officer)
1480.801 General. ( a ) The CO must insert the provision at 1452.280-4, Indian Economic Enterprise representation, in all solicitations regardless of dollar value solicited under 1480.401(c) or (d) and in accordance with this part.
( b ) To be considered for an award under 1480.401(c) or (d), an offeror must certify that it meets the definition of “Indian Economic Enterprise” (as defined in 1480.201) in response to a specific solicitation set-aside in accordance with the Buy Indian Act and this part; and
( c ) The enterprise must meet the definition of “Indian Economic Enterprise” throughout the following time periods: ( 1 ) At the time an offer is made in response to a solicitation;
( 2 ) At the time of contract award; and
( 3 ) During the full term of the contract.
( d ) If, after award, a contractor no longer meets the eligibility requirements as it has certified and as set forth in this section, then the contractor must provide the CO with written notification within 3 days of its failure to comply with the eligibility requirements. The notification must include: ( 1 ) Full disclosure of circumstances causing the contractor to lose eligibility status; and
( 2 ) A description of actions, if any, that must be taken to regain eligibility.
( e ) Failure to provide written notification required by paragraph (d) of this section means that: ( 1 ) The economic enterprise may be declared ineligible as an IEE for future contract awards under this part; and
( 2 ) The CO may consider termination for default if it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government.
( f ) A CO will review the representation if an interested party challenges the IEE representation or if the CO has any other reason to question the representation. The CO may ask the offeror for more information to substantiate the representation. Challenges of and questions concerning a specific representation must be referred to the CO or CCO in accordance with subpart 1480.9.
( g ) Participation in the Mentor-Protégé Program established under section 831 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1991 (25 U.S.C. 47 note) does not render an IEE ineligible for contracts awarded under the Buy Indian Act.
Case: 1:12-cv-00767 Document #: 57 Filed: 02/15/13 Page 1 of 17 PageID #:299
Case: 1:12-cv-00767 Document #: 57 Filed: 02/15/13 Page 2 of 17 PageID #:300
Case: 1:12-cv-00767 Document #: 57 Filed: 02/15/13 Page 3 of 17 PageID #:301
Case: 1:12-cv-00767 Document #: 57 Filed: 02/15/13 Page 4 of 17 PageID #:302
Case: 1:12-cv-00767 Document #: 57 Filed: 02/15/13 Page 5 of 17 PageID #:303
Case: 1:12-cv-00767 Document #: 57 Filed: 02/15/13 Page 6 of 17 PageID #:304
Case: 1:12-cv-00767 Document #: 57 Filed: 02/15/13 Page 7 of 17 PageID #:305
Case: 1:12-cv-00767 Document #: 57 Filed: 02/15/13 Page 8 of 17 PageID #:306
Case: 1:12-cv-00767 Document #: 57 Filed: 02/15/13 Page 9 of 17 PageID #:307
Case: 1:12-cv-00767 Document #: 57 Filed: 02/15/13 Page 10 of 17 PageID #:308
Case: 1:12-cv-00767 Document #: 57 Filed: 02/15/13 Page 11 of 17 PageID #:309
Case: 1:12-cv-00767 Document #: 57 Filed: 02/15/13 Page 12 of 17 PageID #:310
Case: 1:12-cv-00767 Document #: 57 Filed: 02/15/13 Page 13 of 17 PageID #:311
Case: 1:12-cv-00767 Document #: 57 Filed: 02/15/13 Page 14 of 17 PageID #:312
Case: 1:12-cv-00767 Document #: 57 Filed: 02/15/13 Page 15 of 17 PageID #:313
Case: 1:12-cv-00767 Document #: 57 Filed: 02/15/13 Page 16 of 17 PageID #:314
Case: 1:12-cv-00767 Document #: 57 Filed: 02/15/13 Page 17 of 17 PageID #:315
Subsidiaries of the Registrant



IceSolv, Inc. - a Pennsylvania corporation which was formed in June, 1993.

Cannon Sline, Inc. - a Pennsylvania corporation formed by merger of Oliver B.
Cannon & Son, Inc. and Sline Industrial Painters, Inc.

IMCON Painters, Inc. - a Texas corporation which was formed in October, 1996.

Mansfield Industrial Coatings, Inc. - a Mississippi corporation which was
acquired by Canisco Resources, Inc. on April 22, 1998.


Other Notes:

(1) Canisco Resources, Inc., is the survivor by merger of Canisco Resources,
    Inc., a Delaware corporation, Nuclear Support Services, Inc., a Virginia
    corporation and NSS of Delaware, Inc., a Delaware corporation.
    Shareholder approval of the merger of these entities was received at a
    Special Meeting of Shareholders held March 29, 1996.  The merger was
    effective May 24, 1996.

(2) Henze Services, Inc. - substantially all the assets of Henze were sold
    to Harley Industries, Inc. of Tulsa, Oklahoma in June, 1996.

























Exhibit 22
EXHIBIT 32.2.0


                            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 on Form  10-KSB of  Mountains  West
Exploration,  Inc. (the "Corporation") for the period ended December 31, 2005 as
filed with the SEC (the "Report"), the undersigned, in the capacities and on the
date indicated below, 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 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; and

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




 /s/ Douglas Stukel
--------------------------------------
Treasurer and Principal Accounting Officer
March 31, 2006