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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          NOV-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             DEC-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               NOV-30-1998
<CASH>                                         773,672
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               318,255
<PP&E>                                       6,041,693
<DEPRECIATION>                                 220,567
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               6,913,053
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          177,026
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   6,736,027
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 6,913,053
<SALES>                                      1,108,901
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,290,717
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  701,692
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               377,874
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                211,151
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            211,151
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   211,151
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     2.17
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.17
        

</TABLE>
HomeMadagascar

# Madagascar

52 items

        -    Media Note  		Madagascar Endorses the Proliferation Security Initiative	  March 27, 2024 
        -    Special Needs Profile  		Antananarivo, Madagascar: The American School of Antananarivo: 2024 Special Needs Profile	  February 23, 2024 
        -    DipNote: Military and Security  		Strengthening Climate Security Through Enhanced Security Sector Governance	  December 20, 2023 
        -    Press Statement  		Presidential Elections in Madagascar	  Matthew MillerDecember 1, 2023 
        -    Overseas Schools Fact Sheet  		Antananarivo, Madagascar: The American School of Antananarivo: 2023-2024 Fact Sheet	  October 17, 2023 
        -    Report  		2023 Investment Climate Statements: 	  July 26, 2023 
        -    Report  		2023 Fiscal Transparency Report: Madagascar	  June 27, 2023 
        -    Press Statement  		Madagascar National Day	  Antony J. BlinkenJune 26, 2023 
        -    Report  		2023 Trafficking in Persons Report: Madagascar	  June 15, 2023 
        -    Report  		2022 Report on International Religious Freedom: Madagascar	  May 15, 2023 

123…6next page

Back to Top
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.2 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 Sterling Gas Drilling Fund 1982 (the
Partnership) on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2003, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report),
I, Beverly A. Cummings, Chief Financial Officer of PrimeEnergy Management
Corporation, the Managing General Partner, 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 result of operations of the
Partnership. /s/ Beverly A. CummingsChief Financial OfficerMarch 29, 2004
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Eric Michael Armstrong REID.

No. 80-K-1467.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

July 3, 1980.

In re Eric Michael Armstrong Reid applying for remedial writs to the Orleans Criminal District Court. No. 275-822.

Granted. This Court has the power to review the ruling complained of. La.Const. Art. 5, §§ 2 and 5(A) (1974). *See State v. Doucet,*199 La. 276, 5 So.2d 894 (1942). Relator is granted to July 15, 1980 to file his application with this Court.
- Office Home
- Developments
- General Resources
- Family Law
- Dispute Settlement
- Judicial Assistance
- Commercial Law
- Advisory Committee on Private International Law

HomeOffice of the Assistant Legal Adviser for Private International Law...Dispute Settlement: Arbitration, Mediation and Judgments

# 									Dispute Settlement: Arbitration, Mediation and Judgments							

Office of the Legal Adviser

### Private International Law Conventions to Which the United States Is a Party

        - United Nations Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (New York, 1958)  (the “New York Convention”) 
        - OAS Inter-American Convention on International Commercial Arbitration (Panama Convention) (1975)

### Private International Law Conventions for Which U.S. Ratification/Accession Is Under Consideration

        - Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements (2005)
        - United Nations Convention on Transparency in Treaty-based Investor-State Arbitration (New York, 2014) (the “Mauritius Convention on Transparency”)
        - Hague Convention of 2 July 2019 on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil or Commercial Matters (HCCH 2019 Judgment Convention)
        - United Nations Convention on International Settlement Agreements Resulting from Mediation (Singapore Convention on Mediation)

### Other Private International Law Instruments

        - UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules
        - UNCITRAL Conciliation Rules (1980)
        - UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration (1985), with amendments as adopted in 2006 
        - UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Mediation and International Settlement Agreements Resulting from Mediation, 2018, amending the Model Law on International Commercial Conciliation, 2002
        - UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules
        - Recommendations to assist arbitral institutions and other interested bodies with regard to arbitration under the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules (as revised in 2010)
        - UNCITRAL Notes on Organizing Arbitral Proceedings (2016)
        - Technical Notes on Online Dispute Resolution (2016)
        - UNCITRAL Legislative Guide on Key Principles of a Business Registry (2018)
        - UNCITRAL Legislative Guide on Limited Liability Enterprises (2021)
        - UNCITRAL Legislative Guide on Insolvency Law for Micro- and Small Enterprises (2021)
        - UNCITRAL Mediation Rules (2021)
        - UNCITRAL Model Provisions on Mediation for International Investment Disputes (2023)
        - UNCITRAL Guidelines on Mediation for International Investment Disputes (2023)

### Codes of Conduct

        - UNCITRAL Code of Conduct for Arbitrators in International Investment Dispute Resolution 
        - UNCITRAL Code of Conduct for Judges in International Investment Dispute Resolution and commentary (Adopted in principle in 2023)

Tags

Legal AdviserPrivate International Law

Back to Top
#### THE UNITED STATES v. PURCELL ENVELOPE COMPANY.

[51 C. Cls., 211; 249 U. S., 313.]

Judgment was rendered in favor of the plaintiff company in the court below. On appeal the judgment was affirmed,, and the Supreme Court decided:

In answer to an advertisement under Revised Statutes, section 3709,. claimant made the lowest bid for furnishing envelopes and. wrappers to the Post Office Department, which was duly accepted: *Held,*That a contract was completed with the same-force and effect as if a formal writing had been executed, and bond approved, by the department, and that the Postmaster General or his successor had no discretion to revoke it.

Charges embodied in requests for findings that such a contract was procured by one without financial standing, by imposing on the Postmaster General, *held*concluded by the judgment of the Court of Claims, sustaining the contract.

Upon the Government’s repudiation of such a contract before the time for performance has arrived, the measure of claimant’s damages is the difference between the contract price and what would have been the cost of performance.

This court will assume that evidence touching the amount of damages, including the expense necessary to make the contractor ready (as it was found to be) for performance of its contract, was duly considered by the Court of Claims.

A contract to furnish and deliver promptly in quantities as ordered the envelopes and newspaper wrappers that the contractor may be called upon by the Post Office Department to furnish during four years, *construed*as entitling the contractor to supply all needed by the department in that period.

Motion to remand to the Court of Claims, for additional findings, denied.

Mr. Justice McKenna

delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court March 31, 1919.
TOUCHSTONE APPLIED SCIENCE ASSOCIATES, INC.
                                 AND SUBSIDIARIES

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                    EXHIBIT II
                                                                    ----------

               COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER COMMON SHARE (Unaudited)

                                              Six Months Ended               Three Months Ended
                                                   April 30,                      April 30,
                                            2 0 0 1         2 0 0 0        2 0 0 1         2 0 0 0
<S>                                 <C>               <C>            <C>             <C>
Basic earnings:
  Net (loss) income                     $  (474,999)     $ (829,379)    $  169,044       $   (73,506)
                                        -----------      ----------     ----------       -----------

Shares:
  Weighted common shares outstanding      2,559,453       2,314,866      2,559,453         2,493,759
                                        -----------      ----------     ----------       -----------

Primary earnings per common share       $      (.19)     $     (.36)    $      .07       $      (.03)
                                        ===========      ==========     ==========       ===========

Diluted earnings:
  Net (loss) income                     $  (474,999)     $ (829,379)    $  169,044       $   (73,506)
                                        -----------      ----------     ----------       -----------

Shares:
  Weighted common shares outstanding      2,559,453       2,314,866      2,559,453         2,493,759
  Warrants to consultants                        --              --             --                --
  Employee stock options                         --              --             --                --
  Consultant stock options                       --              --             --                --

Total weighted shares outstanding         2,559,453       2,314,866      2,559,453         2,493,759
                                        -----------      ----------     ----------       -----------

Diluted earnings per common share       $      (.19)     $     (.36)    $      .07       $      (.03)
                                        ===========      ==========     ==========       ===========

</TABLE>
#### § 417.165 Reapplication for qualification.

An entity whose qualification as an HMO has been revoked by CMS for purposes of section 1310 of the PHS Act may, after completing the corrective action required under § 417.163(c)(2), reapply for a determination of qualification in accordance with the procedures specified in subpart D of this part.

[43 FR 32255, July 25, 1978. Redesignated at 52 FR 36746, Sept. 30, 1987, and amended at 58 FR 38078, July 15, 1993]
**Exhibit 32**

 

**PRESIDENTIAL ASSOCIATES I LIMITED PARTNERSHIP** 

**FORM 10-QSB SEPTEMBER 30, 2006**

 

 

                                                                                                                                                                                                              

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Presidential Associates I Limited Partnership (the “Partnership”), on Form 10-QSB for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (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: (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 Partnership.

 

 

 

 

 

16 of 16
<PAGE>   1
                                                                  EXHIBIT 10.11

                               FIRST AMENDMENT TO
                             SOMANETICS CORPORATION
                             1997 STOCK OPTION PLAN

     WHEREAS, SOMANETICS CORPORATION, a Michigan corporation (the "Company"),
has previously adopted the Somanetics Corporation 1997 Stock Option Plan (the
"Plan");

     WHEREAS, pursuant to Paragraph 18 of the Plan, the Company's Board of
Directors has retained the right to amend the Plan; and

     WHEREAS, the Company's Board of Directors now desires to amend the Plan.

     NOW, THEREFORE, IN CONSIDERATION of the premises and by resolution of the
Company's Board of Directors, the Plan is hereby amended as follows:

     1.    The first paragraph of Paragraph 5 is amended to read as follows:

           "5. Maximum Number of Shares Subject to Plan:  The maximum number of
      shares with respect to which stock options may be granted under the Plan
      shall be an aggregate of 745,000 Common Shares, which may consist in
      whole or in part of authorized and unissued or reacquired Common Shares.
      Unless the Plan shall have been terminated, shares covered by the
      unexercised portion of canceled, expired or otherwise terminated options
      under the Plan shall again be available for option and sale."


Dated:  January 15, 1998
#### Ruth N. MOGUL, Appellant, v. Aaron FODIMAN, etc., et al., and Max A. Mogul, etc. et al., Appellees.

No. 81-1047.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Dec. 2, 1981.

*1226Kenneth D. Morse and Janet E. Messer-vey of Matthias & Matthias, Orlando, for appellant.

Davisson F. Dunlap of Carlton, Fields, Ward, Emmanuel, Smith & Cutler, P. A., Orlando, for appellees.

ON MOTION TO DISMISS

ORFINGER, Judge.

The issue presented by the motion to dismiss is whether, in supplementary proceedings1 following entry of a final judgment, an order denying a motion for protective order is appealable under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(4) (1977).

In the supplementary proceedings, the judgment creditor sought to take the deposition of appellant, the judgment debtor’s wife, and requested production of numerous documents by means of a subpoena duces tecum. The appellant filed a motion for protective order which was denied after hearing, and this appeal followed.

Appellee says that the order in question is not among those non-final orders reviewable by appeal under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(3). In proceedings prior to entry of final judgment, that position is correct. See *Briggs v. Salcines,*392 So.2d 263 (Fla.2d DCA 1980). However, appellant points to subsection (a)(4) of the rule2 which she contends makes this order appealable as an order or an authorized motion entered after final order. Rule 9.130(a)(4) appears broad enough to permit an appeal from the order in question. This is clearly a “non-final order entered after final order on [an] authorized [motion].”

By analogy, an order setting aside a default before judgment was entered has been held not appealable under this rule,3 but an order vacating a default and the final judgment based on it has been appeal-able under the section in question.4 Appel-lee says that the distinction should be made between orders which affect the validity of the final judgment and those which do not, and while that would be a logical distinction, the clear language of the rule does not appear to be that restrictive.

The motion to dismiss the appeal is denied.

MOTION DENIED.

DAUKSCH, C. J., and FRANK D. UP-CHURCH, Jr., J., concur.

1

. § 56.29, Fla.Stat. (1979).

2

. Fla.R.App.P. 9.130(a)(4):

> Non-final orders entered after final order on motions which suspend rendition are not reviewable; provided that orders granting motions for new trial in jury and non-jury cases are reviewable by the method prescribed in Rule 9.110. *Other non-final orders entered after final order on authorized motions are reviewable by the method prescribed by this rule,*(emphasis added).

3

. *Yates v. Roller Skating Rinks, Inc.,*379 So.2d 1333 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980).

4

. *Bache, Halsey, Stuart, Shields, Inc. v. Mendoza,*400 So.2d 558 (Fla.3d DCA 1981).
EXHIBIT
23.1








CONSENT
OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED


PUBLIC
ACCOUNTING FIRM








We
consent to the incorporation by reference in the previously filed Registration
Statements of PAB Bankshares, Inc. on Form S-8 (File Nos. 333-74819, 333-89527,
333-107039 and 333-137316) and Form S-3D (33-74080) of our reports, dated March
9, 2009 of our audits of the consolidated financial statements and internal
control over financial reporting, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K
of PAB Bankshares, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2008.








/s/
      Mauldin & Jenkins, LLC








Albany,
Georgia


March 9,
2009
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 171 (Friday, September 4, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 45877]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-21375]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

[LLORV00000-L10200000.DD0000; HAG 9-0348]


Notice of Public Meeting, National Historic Oregon Trail 
Interpretive Center Advisory Board

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Vale District.

ACTION: Meeting Notice for the National Historic Oregon Trail 
Interpretive Center (NHOTIC) Advisory Board.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Federal Land Policy and Management Act and the 
Federal Advisory Committee Act, the U.S. Department of the Interior, 
Bureau of Land Management (BLM) National Historic Oregon Trail 
Interpretive Center Advisory Board will meet as indicated below:

DATES: The meeting will begin at 9 a.m. (Pacific Daylight Time) on 
September 18, 2009.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will take place at the National Historic Oregon 
Trail Interpretive Center, 22267 Highway 86, Baker City, Oregon.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mark Wilkening, Public Affairs 
Officer, Vale District Office, 100 Oregon Street, Vale, Oregon 97918, 
(541) 473-6218.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: At the NHOTIC Advisory Board meeting we will 
welcome members, receive an update from the Center Manager and District 
Manager, talk about elements of the Strategic Plan, receive an update 
on the energy audit, receive an update on the American Recovery and 
Reinvestment Act projects at the Center, and consider other matters 
that may reasonably come before the Advisory Board. The meeting is open 
to the public and will take place from 9 a.m.to 12:05 p.m. Pacific 
Daylight Time (PDT). Public comment is scheduled from 11:05 a.m. to 
11:20 a.m. PDT, September 18, 2009. For a copy of the information to be 
distributed to the Council members, please submit a written request to 
the Vale District Office 10 days prior to the meeting.

    Dated: August 31, 2009.
David R. Henderson,
District Manager, Vale District Office.
[FR Doc. E9-21375 Filed 9-3-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-33-P
Exhibit 32



Certification Of Periodic Financial Report Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350



In connection with the Quarterly Report of First Capital Institutional Real Estate, Ltd.-2 (the
Partnership) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending June 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), each of Donald J. Liebentritt, as President and Chief Executive Officer of
First Capital Financial, L.L.C., the General Partner of the Partnership (the General Partner), and Philip Tinkler, as Vice PresidentFinance and Treasurer of the General Partner, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 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 result of operations of the Partnership.
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/    DONALD J. LIEBENTRITTDONALD J. LIEBENTRITTPresident and Chief Executive OfficerAugust 12, 2005/s/    PHILIP TINKLERPHILIP TINKLERVice PresidentFinance and TreasurerAugust 12, 2005