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

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                         139,930
<SECURITIES>                                   135,050
<RECEIVABLES>                                   37,565
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               178,595
<PP&E>                                       7,833,954
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,059,195
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               7,214,881
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,407,850
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 7,214,881
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,172,935
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  728,019
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             422,066
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    29,787
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
#### In the Matter of Citizens Against Sprawl-Mart, by Leo F. Alcuri, et al., Appellants, v City of Niagara Falls et al., Respondents.

Submitted May 14, 2007;

decided July 2, 2007

Reported below, 35 AD3d 1190.

Motion, insofar as it seeks leave to appeal as against Bender-son Development Company, Inc. and Randall Benderson 1993-1 Trust, dismissed as untimely *(see*CPLR 5513 [b]; 2103 [b] [6]); motion, insofar as it seeks leave to appeal as against the City of Niagara Falls, the City Council of Niagara Falls, the Planning Board of the City of Niagara Falls and the Zoning Board of Appeals of the City of Niagara Falls, denied.
EXHIBIT 32.2
 
 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS
 ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 
 Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned hereby certifies that, to his knowledge, the annual report on Form 10-K/A (the “Report”) of ANTs software inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), for the period ended December 31, 2009:
 
 1.           Fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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 condition and results of operations of the Company.
 
 This certification is being provided pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350 and is not to be deemed a part of this Report, nor is it to be deemed to be “filed” for any purpose whatsoever.
 
 Date:    April 20, 2010
  /s/Joseph KozakJoseph Kozak, Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and President




A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to the Company, and will be retained by the Company, and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission upon request.
§ 4279.165 Evaluation of application. ( a ) *General review.* The Agency will evaluate the application and make a determination whether the borrower is eligible, the proposed loan is for an eligible purpose, there is reasonable assurance of repayment ability, there is sufficient collateral and equity, and the proposed loan complies with all applicable statutes and regulations. If the Agency determines it is unable to guarantee the loan, it will inform the lender in writing.
( b ) *Environmental requirements.* The environmental review process must be completed, in accordance with 7 CFR part 1970, “Environmental Policies and Procedures,” or successor regulation, prior to loan approval.
BUILDINGTECHNOLOGIESPROGRAMMay27,2014ASRAC PumpsWorkingGroupPERC‐ValueUpdate‐ComparisonofDOEandHIdata2IntroductionUsingthePERMetric,C‐ValuesareusedtodefineeachEfficiencyLevelforeachEquipmentClassAtthistime,wehavedevelopedPERC‐ValuesateachEfficiencyLevelfromboththeHIandDOEdatasetsoWhenthedatasetsaremerged,wewillhaveonesetofproposedC‐ValuesThefollowingslideswillpresentandcomparethecurrentDOEandHIPERC‐ValuesPleasenotethefollowing:oEndSuctionandInlineDOEC‐ValueshavenotchangesincetheApril29‐30meetingsoBasedonpreliminaryfeedback,wearenotpresentingC‐Valuesforthe4‐PoleVT‐SequipmentclassoPERC‐ValuesforRS‐VhavebeenestablishedbyshiftingtheEULot11MEIC‐Valuesby‐0.524points.3SummaryofC‐ValuesProposedDOEPERC‐ValuesEquipmentClass PER10 PER25 PER40 PER50 PER55 PER70ESCC 1800 131.73 128.32 126.66 125.56 125.03 123.63ESCC 3600 133.06 130.03 128.50 127.61 127.17 125.08ESFM 1800 130.92 127.98 126.36 125.33 124.86 123.33ESFM 3600 132.71 130.40 128.60 127.78 127.50 125.29IL 1800 133.91 129.05 127.20 126.43 125.76 124.19IL 3600 138.89 133.17 130.52 129.68 129.26 127.17RSV 1800 133.93 132.16 129.86 129.52 128.11 124.96RSV 3600 137.67 134.63 133.43 132.91 132.13 129.85VTS 1800VTS 3600 135.78 133.90 130.91 129.49 128.62 127.21ProposedHIPERC‐ValuesPER10 PER25 PER40 PER50 PER55 PER70ESCC 1800 131.53 128.86 126.97 125.81 125.32 123.95ESCC 3600 134.45 130.70 128.97 128.20 127.72 125.39ESFM 1800 133.22 129.33 127.52 126.29 125.74 124.04ESFM 3600 134.90 131.19 129.34 128.26 127.96 126.12IL 1800 134.78 129.63 127.09 126.21 125.49 124.14IL 3600 138.90 134.06 131.40 130.00 129.45 127.10RSV 1800 133.93 132.16 129.86 129.52 128.11 124.96RSV 3600 137.67 134.63 133.43 132.91 132.13 129.85VTS 1800VTS 3600 134.78 131.88 129.93 128.88 128.03 126.844Results:ESCC 18005Results:ESCC 36006Results:ESFM 18007Results:ESFM 36008Results:IL18009Results:IL360010Results:VT‐S360011Summary:HI(NavigantCalc)vs.DOEC‐ValuesESCCoDOEC‐Valuesareconsistentlymoreefficient,byanaverageof0.5efficiencypointsateachcut‐offlevel•MEIC‐Valuesvariedbythesamedelta.ESFMoDOE C‐Valuesareconsistentlymoreefficient,byanaverageof1.1efficiencypointsateachcut‐offlevel•MEIC‐ValuesvariedbythesamedeltaILoDOE C‐Valuesareconsistentlymoreefficient,byanaverageof0.25efficiencypointsateachcut‐offlevel•MEIC‐Valuesvariedby0.5efficiencypointsVT‐SoDOEC‐Valuesareconsistentlylessefficient,byanaverageof0.7efficiencypointsateachcut‐offlevel•MEIC‐Valuesvariedby0.7efficiencypoints12ConclusionsCommentsonvariationamongUSC‐ValuedatasetsVariationbetweentheHIandDOEC‐Valueswasexpected,asDOEandHIdatasetscontainanumberofnon‐overlappingmodels.ThepresentedPERvariationwasfoundbeconsistentwiththeMEIvariationpresentedpreviouslyCalculationofPERC‐Valuesfromthemergeddatasetshouldsettletheissue
MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

2002-2130.

#### State v. McKnight.

Vinton C.P. No. 01-CR-7230. On application for reopening under S.Ct.Prac.R. XI(6). Application denied.
Exhibit 99.1
                            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 on Form 10-K/A of Chell Group Corporation
(the "Company") for the period ending August 31, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Stephen
McDermott, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. (S) 1350, as adopted pursuant to (S) 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.


/s/ Dave Bolink
-----------------------------
Dave Bolink
President, Chief Executive Officer & Chief Accounting Officer
October 22, 2004
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 15**  **- 1539** 

JAMES T. LUTHER , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,
v. WELLS FARGO BAN K, N.A.; ATLANTIC LAW GROUP, LLC , Defendants

- Appellees
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia , at Danville
. Michael F. Urbanski , District Judge. ( 4:13

- cv - 00072

- MFU

- RSB )

Submitted : November 24, 2015 Decided: December 2, 2015

Before KING, WYNN, and THACKER , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion
. James T. Luther, Appellant Pro Se. Terry Catherine Frank, KAUFMAN & CANOLES, PC, Richmond, Virginia; Hunter Wilmer Sims, Jr., KAUFMAN & CANOLES, PC, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee s .
Unpu blished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: James T. Luther appe als from the district court ’ s order granting in part the Defendants’ motion to dismiss, its order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and granting summary judgment to the Defendants on the remaining claims , and its order denying reconsideration
. Many of Luther’s claims on appeal were never properly presented to the district court; thus, we do not consider those claims. Muth v. United
States , 1 F.3 d 246, 250 (4th Cir. 1993)
. As to the properly presented claims, w e have reviewed the record and f ind no reversible error . Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Luther v. Wells Fargo Bank , N.A. , No. 4:13

- cv - 00072

- M FU

- RSB (W.D. Va. Nov. 17, 2014, Apr. 9, 2015 , Apr. 21, 2015 ) . We deny Luther’s motion to show cause. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would n ot aid th e decisional
process.
AFFIRMED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                           5,609
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  133,399
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     53,720
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               209,018
<PP&E>                                         593,305
<DEPRECIATION>                               (227,540)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 689,684
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          132,085
<BONDS>                                        714,632
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           106
<OTHER-SE>                                   (272,545)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   689,684
<SALES>                                        790,465
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               790,465
<CGS>                                          679,039
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  679,039
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                47,644
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              13,380
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 50,402
<INCOME-TAX>                                    16,898
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             33,504
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  1,900
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    31,604
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     .620
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     .620
        

</TABLE>
-84 -82 -80 -78 -76 -74

 36

 38

 40

▲ ★

▲

▲

▲

★ ▲

▲ ▲ ▲

 500

 1000

 1500

 1000

18 12 06 00

08/15

NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL

 Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 15 Aug 07

 EDAS Meteorological Data

Source

★ at 38.81 N 76.74 W Meters AGL
#### § 4284.2 Policy.

It is the policy of Cooperative Services to administer grant programs as uniformly as possible to minimize unnecessary inconsistencies in the administration of the grant programs provided for in this part. The specific provisions or definitions provided in the subparts that are specific to Cooperative Services are supplemental to these general provisions. Where a specific program provision is expressly different from what is provided in this subpart, the program specific subpart shall prevail.
#### § 4279.77 Minimum retention.

The lender is required to hold in its own portfolio a minimum of 5 percent of the original total loan amount. The amount required to be maintained must be of the unguaranteed portion of the loan and cannot be participated to another. The lender may enter into no agreement that reduces its exposure below the minimum 5 percent it is required to retain in its portfolio. The lender may sell the remaining amount of the unguaranteed portion of the loan only through participation.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

JUDGMENT

No. 04-15-00118-CV

Shirley ADAMS, Charlene Burgess, Willie Mae Herbst Jasik, William Albert Herbst, 

Helen Herbst, and R. May Oil & Gas Company, Ltd.,

Appellants

v.

MURPHY EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION CO.-USA, a Delaware Corporation,

Appellee

From the 218th Judicial District Court, Atascosa County, Texas

Trial Court No. 13-05-0466-CVA

Honorable Stella Saxon, Judge Presiding

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE MARION, JUSTICE BARNARD, AND JUSTICE ALVAREZ

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s judgment, including 

any award of attorney’s fees, is REVERSED. This cause is REMANDED to the trial court for 

further proceedings consistent with this opinion. 

We ORDER that appellants Shirley Adams, Charlene Burgess, Willie Mae Herbst Jasik, 

William Albert Herbst, Helen Herbst, and R. May Oil & Gas Company, Ltd., recover their costs 

of court for this appeal from appellee Murphy Exploration & Production Co.-USA. 

SIGNED June 15, 2016.

_____________________________

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice
Deborah Jordan, Air Division Director

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9

Air-i

75 Hawthorne Street

San Francisco, CA 94105Subject: ADEQ Request for Relocation ofthe Payson Well Monitor on the Same Site

Dear Ms. Jordan:

The Arizona Department ofEnvironmental Quality (ADEQ) is submitting the Arizona Air

Monitoring Network Plan for the Year 2013. There is one site that does not meet the

requirement for unrestricted airflow as specified in 40 CFR Part 58 Appendix E. This letter is to

request EPA approve for the relocation ofthe Payson Well monitor placement to another

location on the same property. Below is information that ADEQ has considered in the

determination that the new monitoring site would better meet the required siting criteria.The Payson Well site was established in 1991, and currently monitors PM10 and meteorological

wind, temperature, and relative humidity. There have been several structural changes at the

Payson Well site that are limiting airflow around the PM10 monitor. These include construction

of new buildings and growth oftrees. ADEQ met with the site manager to determine a more

suitable location. ADEQ is requesting approval by EPA Region 9 for the relocation ofthe

current PM10 monitoring location (lat: 34.2294; long: -111.3297) to a parcel 90 meters to the east

at location (lat: 34.2296; long: -111.3295). The PM10 monitoring will remain on the same

property while better meeting the required siting criteria. The AQS Site ID and Site Name will

remain the same. Please see Figure 1 and Figure 2 below for aerial photographs ofthe site

relocation schematic.

We appreciate the effort by EPA in the review ofthis request for relocation ofthe Payson Well

site monitor to better meet siting requirements and provide unrestricted air flow. If you have any

questions, please contact Theresa Rigney at (602) 771-2274.Sincerely,

nc C.)ey, Director

Air 7fality Division
Ad

..

-j

-

——

t

S

: (i L

:

a

-I

*

Figure 3.3-2 Google Earth Image ofthe proposed PM10 monitor location at Payson

Well Site -

I F

IL

—

-.

S. F, L : If!

I

ea

.4-

IC’

:‘ .4.

rr

V

a I

I

a.
#### § 3565.106 Construction lender requirements.

A lender making a construction loan, as part of a construction and permanent loan, must demonstrate an ability to originate and service construction loans, in addition to meeting the other requirements of this subpart.

[63 FR 39458, July 22, 1998, as amended at 76 FR 4, Jan. 3, 2011]
#### Willie R. Gibson, an Infant, by His Guardian ad Litem, Willie R. Gibson, et al., Respondents, v. Boys Club of Mount Vernon, Inc., Appellant.

Order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated January 11, 1966, affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements. The discovery and inspection directed in the first decretal paragraph of the order shall proceed as provided in the order upon 10 days’ written notice or at such other time and place as the parties may agree by written stipulation. The time for compliance with the remaining portions of the order and for giving the notice provided for in its last decretal paragraph is extended until 10 days after entry of the order hereon. In order to avoid any misconstruction of subdivision 2 of the first decretal paragraph, requiring production of *“*Records of accidents occurring on defendant’s premises for a period of one year, from June 7th, 1960 through to *545June 7th, 1961”, we note that any accident *reports*in defendant’s possession are not thereby discoverable. The learned Justice at Special Term correctly so ruled in his opinion. The accident *records*for one year prior to the date of the accident which were declared discoverable are, we infer, relevant on the question of notice only. Beldoek, P. J., Ughetta, Christ, Hill and Benjamin, JJ., concur.
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

MELVIN WOODARD,

Plaintiff,

v. 4:20cv295–WS/MAF

MRS. WILSON, LPN,

Defendant.

 

ORDER ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Before the court is the magistrate judge's report and recommendation (ECF

No. 4) docketed June 4, 2020. The magistrate judge recommends that this action be

transferred to the Middle District of Florida. Plaintiff has filed no objections to the

report and recommendation.

The court having reviewed the matter, it is ORDERED:

1. The magistrate judge's report and recommendation (ECF No. 4) is adopted

and incorporated by reference in this order of the court.

Case 4:20-cv-00295-WS-MAF Document 5 Filed 07/07/20 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

2. The clerk shall TRANSFER this action to the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Florida, Jacksonville Division, for all further

proceedings.

DONE AND ORDERED this 7th day of July , 2020.

s/ William Stafford 

WILLIAM STAFFORD

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 4:20-cv-00295-WS-MAF Document 5 Filed 07/07/20 Page 2 of 2
1 Mears, Gilbert

From: Linda Stanley <linda@eissolar.com> Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2014 11:18 AM To: Mears, Gilbert Subject: TRI Loophole for the Oil & Gas Industry
Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged

Dear Mr. Mears,
I am writing to you about the TRI Loophole th e oil and gas industr y currently enjoys.
We have the right to know what these operations are releasing into our air, land and water.
Please close this loophole Do cket # EPA-HQ-TRI-2013--0281.
It is important to me and to my community. I ha ve children who ar e relying on me to protect them!!
Thank you for taking the time to read my comments.
Sincerely,

-- Linda E. Stanley Energy Consultant Energy Independent Solutions (724)831-3442 linda@eissolar.com
---

CERTIFICATION OFCHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF
FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF
2002

I, Susan Downing, the Chief Executive Officer and Chief
Financial Officer of Konigsberg Corporation (the Company), hereby 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:

| | (i)  | the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company, for
      the fiscal quarter ended September 30, 2005, and to which this
      certification is attached as Exhibit 32 (the Report) fully complies with
      the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act
      of 1934, as amended; and
| | ---- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |      |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             
| | (ii) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents,
      in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
      operations of the Company.                                                                                                                                                            

| | By:    | /s/
      Susan Downing          
| | ------ | ---------------------------------
| |        |                                  
| | Name:  | SUSAN DOWNING                    
| |        |                                  
| | Title: | Chief Executive Officer and Chief
| |        | Financial
  Officer              
| |        |                                  
| | Date:  | December 8, 2005                 

A signed original of this written statement required by
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 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.

This certification accompanies the Form 10-QSB to which it
relates, is not deemed filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and is
not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company under the
Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (whether made
before or after the date of the Form 10-QSB), irrespective of any general
incorporation language contained in such filing.

---
2006-0646.

#### Ohio Consumers’ Counsel v. Public Util. Comm.

Public Utilities Commission, No. 05-792-EL-ATA. This cause is pending before the court as an appeal from the Public Utilities Commission. Upon consideration of the motion of Dayton Power and Light Company for leave to intervene as an appellee,

IT IS ORDERED by the court that the motion is granted.