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

<ARTICLE> OPUR1
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET, CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF INCOME AND CONSOLIDATED
STATEMENT OF CASH FLOWS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<BOOK-VALUE>                                  PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                      6897664
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                     296976
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                         1266128
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                       1174570
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                   72245
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 9707583
<COMMON>                                        144419
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                      1780978
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                             814560
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>                 2739957
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            76610
<PREFERRED>                                     440000
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                           3418299
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                                   0
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                            0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                       0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                    67065
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                        10120
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                          0
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                     0
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>                 2955532
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                  9707583
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                      1098404
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                             52569
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                      964107
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                      964107
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                         134297
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                                4225
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                  138522
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                         65590
<NET-INCOME>                                     20363
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                       9223
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                    11140
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                             0
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                            0
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                          127223
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.08
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Tony Campbell, Appellant.

[777 NYS2d 435]

Amended judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Ron*410ald Zweibel, J.), rendered May 17, 2002, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree and two counts of criminal use of drug paraphernalia in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to an aggregate term of six years to life, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly denied defendant’s suppression motion. The visit to defendant’s apartment by his parole officer was reasonably related to the parole officer’s official duties, and the search was permissible based on defendant’s written consent *(see People v Hale,*93 NY2d 454 [1999]; *People v Lopez,*288 AD2d 70 [2001], *lv denied*97 NY2d 706 [2002]).

The court properly exercised its discretion in admitting evidence of defendant’s parole status to complete the narrative of events leading up to his arrest *(see People v Mims,*305 AD2d 226 [2003], *lv denied*100 NY2d 623 [2003]; *People v Chestnut,*254 AD2d 525, 526 [1998], *lv denied*93 NY2d 871 [1999]). Although defendant offered to concede certain potential issues, many aspects of the recovery of drugs from defendant’s apartment would still have been incomprehensible to the jury absent an explanation of the relevant context. The probative value of this evidence outweighed its prejudicial effect, which was minimized by the court’s suitable limiting instruction.

The court properly denied defendant’s request for an adverse inference instruction regarding missing police documents, since the documents in question either did not qualify as *Rosario*material *(see People v Sims,*282 AD2d 204 [2001], *lv denied*96 NY2d 835 [2001]; *People v Williams,*273 AD2d 79, 80 [2000], *lv denied*95 NY2d 940 [2000]) or were not established to have ever existed *(see People v Cortijo,*254 AD2d 125, 126 [1998], *lv denied*92 NY2d 1030 [1998]). Furthermore, defendant failed to establish that he was prejudiced *(see People v Cooper,*292 AD2d 163 [2002], *lv denied*98 NY2d 674 [2002]).

Defendant waived any objection to testimony about an anonymous tip, since he introduced this evidence himself. Defendant’s strategic decision to introduce this evidence was not the product of any adverse ruling by the court. Concur—Buckley, P.J., Andrias, Saxe, Lerner and Friedman, JJ.
CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the reference to our firm under the captions Financial Highlights, Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm, Disclosure of Portfolio Holdings, Shareholder Reports,
and Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm and Legal Counsel in the Registration Statement (Form N-1A) and the related Prospectus and Statement of Additional Information of Nicholas Fund, Inc. and to the incorporation by reference
therein of our report dated May 3, 2007, with respect to the financial statements of Nicholas fund, Inc. filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission in this Post-Effective Amendment No. 55 to the Registration Statement under the Securities Act
of 1933 (File No. 002-30447).



|/s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP
|---------------------



|Chicago, IllinoisJuly 24, 2007
|------------------------------

---
Exhibit
        13
   **906
        Certification**
  The
        certification set forth below is being submitted in connection with the Annual
        Report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2006 as amended by Amendment
        No. 1 thereto (the “Report”) for the purpose of complying with the Rule
        13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
“Exchange Act”) and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States
        Code. This
        certification is not to be deemed filed pursuant to the Exchange Act and
        does
        not constitute a part of the Report accompanying this
        letter.
  Jason
        C.S.
        Chang, the Chief Executive Officer and Joseph Tung, the Chief Financial Officer
        of Advanced Semiconductor Engineering, Inc., each certifies that, to the
        best of
        his knowledge:
  1.
        the
        Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
        the
        Exchange Act; and
  2.
        the
        information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
        the financial condition and results of operations of Advanced Semiconductor
        Engineering, Inc..




Date:     July
      5, 2007




By:
            /s/
                Jason C.S. ChangName:
            Jason
                C.S. ChangTitle:
            Chief
                Executive Officer


By:
              /s/
                  Joseph TungName:
              Joseph
                  TungTitle:
              Chief Financial
                  Officer
915.606 Agency procedures. ( b ) Unless otherwise specified in a notice of program interest, all unsolicited proposals should be submitted to the Unsolicited Proposal Manager, U.S. Department of Energy, National Energy Technology Laboratory P.O. Box 10940, MS 921-107, Pittsburgh, PA 15236-0940. If the proposer has ascertained the cognizant program office through preliminary contacts with program staff, the proposal may be submitted directly to that office. In such instances, the proposer should separately send a copy of the proposal cover letter to the unsolicited proposal coordinator to assure that the proposal is logged in the Department's automated tracking system for unsolicited proposals.
[63 FR 56851, Oct. 23, 1998, as amended at 67 FR 14871, Mar. 28, 2002; 74 FR 36364, July 22, 2009]
Featured Grant OpportunitySchool Emergency Response to Violence (Project SERV) (Funding Opportunity) 

Featured Grant OpportunityShare with Youth: NOAA Student Opportunities Database

Featured Grant OpportunityShort Courses in Social Determinants of Health for Research Education in Nursing Research (Funding...

Featured Grant OpportunityComprehensive Partnerships to Advance Cancer Health Equity (CPACHE) Program (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityRisk and Protective Factors of Family Health and Family Level Interventions (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityPersonnel Development to Improve Services and Results for Children with Disabilities--Doctoral...

Featured Grant OpportunityStanding Announcement for Tribal Title IV-E Plan Development Grants (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityProviding Research Education Experiences to Enhance Inclusivity for a Diverse Substance Use and...

Featured Grant OpportunityFY 2024 Research on School-Based Hate Crimes (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityChallenge America (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityResearch and Evaluation on Firearm Violence and Mass Shootings (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityNational Juvenile Court Data Archive (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityGraduate Research Fellowship (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityCommunity Programs for Outreach and Intervention with Youth and Young Adults at Clinical High Risk...

Featured Grant OpportunityPrint and Disseminate Child Victims and Witnesses Support Materials (Funding Opportunity)

## Breadcrumb

            -           Perceptions of the U.S. National Tobacco Quitline among Adolescents and Adults: A Qualitative Study, 2012–2013      

# Perceptions of the U.S. National Tobacco Quitline among Adolescents and Adults: A Qualitative Study, 2012–2013

This purpose of this study was to better understand the knowledge and perception of tobacco quitlines, which provide tobacco users free telephone counseling and cessation services, among adolescents and adults. Professionals can use the results of this study to inform future marketing efforts for quitline services. 

http://www.cdc.gov/pcd/issues/2015/15_0139.htm?utm_source=youth.gov&utm_medium=federal-links&utm_campaign=reports-and-resources
#### JARASHOW, Respondent, v. SUN PRINTING & PUBLISHING ASS’N, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

March 2, 1906.)

Action by Israel L. Jarashow against the Sun Printing & Publishing Association.

No opinion. Interlocutory judgment affirmed, with costs.
No. 85027 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

IN THE MATTER OF MICHAEL H. HAMILTON, BAR NO. 7730.

ORDER OFDISBARMENT The Southern Nevada Disciplinary Board has filed, under SCR 112, a petition for attorney Michael H. Hamilton's disbarment by consent. The petition is supported by Hamilton's affidavit, statingthat he freely and voluntarily consents to disbarment, after having had the opportunity to consult with counsel. Hamilton acknowledges in the affidavit that he has notcompliedwith theordersenteredin threeprior disciplinaryproceedings: In re Discipline ofHamilton, No. 81256, 2020 WL 5512516 (Nev. Sept. 11, 2020) (Order Approving Conditional Guilty Plea Agreement) (suspending attorney for four yearstorun concurrentlywith suspensionsimposed intwo other cases); In re Discipline of Hamilton, No. 80556, 2020 WL 2319994 (Nev. May 8, 2020) (Order of Suspension) (imposing previously stayed 42- month suspension based on attorney's failure to comply with conditions on stayed portion of the suspension); In re Discipline ofHamilton, No. 78101, 2019 WL 2140630 (Nev.May 14, 2019) (OrderApprovingConditionalGuilty Plea) (suspending attorneyfor four years with 42 months ofthe suspension stayed subject to certain conditions). And he admits that he could not successfully defend against a disciplinary complaint based on his failure to comply with the prior disciplinary orders.

SUPREME COURT

OF NEVADA (0) I947A •, J.

Hardesty J. Stiglich

J. Herndon

2 SCR 112 provides that an attorney who is the subject of a proceeding involving allegations of misconduct may consent to disbarment by delivering an affidavit to bar counsel, who must file it with this court. Hamilton's affidavit meets the requirements of SCR 112(1), and we conclude that the petition should be granted. Accordingly, Hamilton is disbarred. The provisions ofSCR 115 and SCR 121.1 governing notice and publication oforders ofdisbarment shall apply to this order.

It is so ORDERED.

Parraguirre

J. J. Cadish Silver

cc: Chair, Southern Nevada Disciplinary Board Bar Counsel, State Bar ofNevada Law Offices ofMichael H. Hamilton Executive Director, State Bar ofNevada Admissions Officer, U.S. Supreme Court

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA (01 1947A
#### Marion Thorp, Appellant-Respondent, v Charlotte Makuen, Defendant, and Floyd Makuen, Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff-Respondent-Appellant. Linda Thorp, Third-Party Defendant.

a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, in which the jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff Harion Thorp and against the defendant Floyd Hakuen and third-party defendant Linda Thorp and apportioned liability, the appeals are from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County, entered December 29, 1978, which set aside the verdict and ordered a new trial, (2) an interlocutory judgment of the same court, entered December 27, 1978, upon the verdict in favor of plaintiff, and (3) a further order of the same court, dated January 30, 1979, which denied plaintiff’s motion to vacate the order of mistrial. Order dated January 30, 1979 reversed, on the law, and motion to vacate the order of mistrial granted; order entered December 28, 1979 vacated and verdict reinstated; case remanded to the Supreme Court, Orange County, for a trial on damages. *618Interlocutory judgment affirmed. Cross appeals from the order entered December 29, 1978 dismissed in light of the determination on the appeal from order dated January 30,. 1979. Plaintiff is awarded one bill of costs payable by defendant Floyd Makuen. After a trial on the issue of liability, but before the trial on damages, it was discovered that an unknown juror had made an unauthorized visit to the scene of the accident. It was not determined when this visit was made or how extensive an examination was made since this juror did not come forward when the jury was questioned by the trial court. During this *voir dire,*however, three other jurors came forward and stated that they had passed by the scene of the accident for legitimate reasons either at the time of the accident or during the trial. The trial court granted the defendant Floyd Makuen’s motion for a mistrial and ordered a new trial on liability, reasoning that the said defendant was prejudiced by his inability to determine what prejudice, if any, occurred during the unknown juror’s visit to the scene. We find such remedial action to have been improper. In view of the testimony and photographic evidence presented at trial by the plaintiff, the unauthorized view of the scene could not possibly have harmed Floyd Makuen. This determination is also bolstered by the fact that one of the jurors had actually viewed the scene at the time of the accident. Since no prejudice was suffered, a mistrial should not have been granted (see *Tanner v Stim,*66 Mise 2d 1030). Mollen, P. J., Hopkins, Titone and Mangano, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 13.1



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










                                      -93-
<PAGE>

                                  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 the  Annual  Report of  California  Exploration  Ltd.  (the
"Company")  on Form 20-F for the year  ending  May 31,  2003,  as filed with the
Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I, Nick
DeMare,  Interim  President and Chief Executive Officer (Chief Executive Officer
and Chief  Financial  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:

(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.

A signed original of this written statement has been provided to the Company and
will be  retained  by the  Company  and  furnished  to the SEC or its staff upon
request.


/s/ Nick DeMare
---------------------------
Nick DeMare,
Interim President,
Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer



                                      -94-
<PAGE>
IIB 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 115 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

DECEMBER 18 (legislative day, DECEMBER 16), 2024 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and 

Governmental Affairs 

AN ACT 

To amend chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, to provide 

for en bloc consideration in resolutions of disapproval 

for ‘‘midnight rules’’, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

HR 115 RFS

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Midnight Rules Relief 

3 Act’’. 

4 SEC. 2. EN BLOC CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTIONS OF 

5 DISAPPROVAL PERTAINING TO ‘‘MIDNIGHT 

6 RULES’’. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 801(d) of title 5, United 

8 States Code, is amended by adding at the end the fol9 lowing: 

10 ‘‘(4) In applying section 802 to rules described under 

11 paragraph (1), a joint resolution of disapproval may con12 tain one or more such rules if the report under subsection 

13 (a)(1)(A) for each such rule was submitted during the 

14 final year of a President’s term.’’. 

15 (b) TEXT OF RESOLVING CLAUSE.—Section 802(a) 

16 of title 5, United States Code, is amended— 

17 (1) by inserting after ‘‘resolving clause of which 

18 is’’ the following: ‘‘(except as otherwise provided in 

19 this subsection)’’; and 

20 (2) by adding at the end the following: ‘‘In the 

21 case of a joint resolution under section 801(d)(4), 

22 the matter after the resolving clause of such resolu23 tion shall be as follows: ‘That Congress disapproves 

24 the following rules: the rule submitted by the ll 

25 relating to ll; and the rule submitted by the ll 

26 relating to ll. Such rules shall have no force or 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
3 

HR 115 RFS

1 effect.’ (The blank spaces being appropriately filled 

2 in and additional clauses describing additional rules 

3 to be included as necessary).’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives December 17, 

2024. 

Attest: KEVIN F. MCCUMBER, 

Clerk. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
#### Christine Jones, Respondent, v Arthur Rosenstein, Appellant.

Order of the Supreme Court, New York County, entered September 6, 1979 which granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, denied defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment and awarded plaintiff $11,200 plus interests and costs, unanimously modified, on the law, plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment denied, without costs or disbursements, and the matter remanded for a hearing to determine the defendant’s obligation to meet the plaintiff’s rental expenses under paragraph 4 of the separation agreement executed by plaintiff and defendant and the judgment of said court entered on September 19,1979, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs and without disbursements. The agreement specifically provided for several options which plaintiff could choose to follow in the event the defendant called upon her to vacate the co-operative apartment occupied by the plaintiff and defendant prior to their divorce, and in which plaintiff continued to reside following their divorce. We agree with the Justice at Special Term that the provisions referred to were imprecise, incoherent and inartful. The agreement appears to us sufficiently ambiguous so as to require a hearing to develop further information that might assist in determining the intent of the parties. It may be that a hearing will confirm the validity of Special Term’s decision or point to another more appropriate interpretation *910of the subject paragraph. We do not say, however, that the defendant does not have an obligation under the separation agreement to pay for the wife’s present apartment. We remand for a hearing to determine to what extent the defendant is obliged to meet this responsibility. Concur—Kupferman, J. P., Birns, Sandler, Ross and Markewich, JJ.
Exhibit 32.2





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THTE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002








In connection with the quarterly report of AmBase Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, John P. Ferrara, Chief Financial 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 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 result of operations of the Company.








Date:  November 9, 2011


/s/ John P. Ferrara


John P. Ferrara Vice President and


Chief Financial Officer


AmBase Corporation
#### 970.0371-4 Gratuities.

Employees of a management and operating contractor shall not, under circumstances which might reasonably be interpreted as an attempt to influence the recipients in the conduct of their duties, accept any gratuity or special favor from individuals or organizations with whom the contractor is doing business, or proposing to do business, in accomplishing the work under the contract. Reference is made to the requirements prescribed in 48 CFR 3.502.