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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from
consolidated balance sheets, consoldiated statements of operations and
consolidated statements of cash flows and is qualified in its entirety
by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-28-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-22-1996
<CASH>                                       1,513,980
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   33,179
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    247,964
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,946,848
<PP&E>                                       5,246,813
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              12,179,577
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,731,420
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        37,650
<OTHER-SE>                                   9,441,853
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 9,479,503
<SALES>                                      3,604,045
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,604,045
<CGS>                                        1,843,965
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                3,020,651
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               164,480
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   404
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              22,234
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                396,276
<INCOME-TAX>                                   156,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            240,276
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   240,276
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .06
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .06
        

</TABLE>
#### LOUIS BLAKE, Respondent, v. LOUISE SUNKEL, Appellant.

St. Louis Court of Appeals,

April 19, 1910.

MECHANICS’ LIENS: Kirkwood Mfg. & Sup. Co. v.'Sunkel, *Ante,*followed.

Appeal from St. Louis County Circuit *Court.*— Eon. *J. W.*McElhinney, Judge.

Revehsed and kemanded *(with directions).*

*Thos. E. Sprinkle*.for appellant.-

*J. G. Eawken*for respondent.

GOODE, J.

This case involves the same question of law and the same mistake of description which appear in the case of Kirkwood Manufacturing & Supply Co. v. Louise Sunkel, 148 Mo. App. 186, 128 S. W. 258 ; wherefore the judgment Avill be reversed and the cause remanded with a direction to the court below to enter judgment declaring and enforcing the lien of plaintiff against that part of the premises described in the petition which belongs to defendant Louise Sunkel.

All concur.
#### § 21.9620 Educational assistance.

VA will pay educational assistance for an eligible individual's pursuit of an approved program of education. The eligible individual and/or the individual's educational institution will receive payment amounts in accordance with the formulas listed in § 21.9640. The maximum amounts of tuition and fees payable for the upcoming academic year under 38 U.S.C. chapter 33 will be published in the “Notices” section of the Federal Register by the first of August of each calendar year. The maximum amounts payable may also be obtained by visiting the GI Bill Web site at *http://www.gibill.va.gov* or by calling VA's customer service department toll-free at 1-888-442-4551. The maximum amounts payable, as published, will be effective for each term, quarter, or semester that begins during the academic year.

(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 3313, 3314, 3315, 3316, 3317)
Exhibit 35.1  LOGO Bridgecrest Credit Company OFFICERS CERTIFICATE The
undersigned hereby certifies that he is a duly authorized officer of Bridgecrest Credit Company (the Servicer), and that as such he is authorized to execute and deliver this certificate in the name and on behalf of Bridgecrest Credit
Company, and certifies that:  1.
I have reviewed the activities of the Servicer during the period March 25, 2021 through December 31,
2021 and of its performance under the Servicing Agreement; and  2.
to the best of my knowledge, based on such review and other than described herein, the Servicer has
substantially fulfilled all its obligations under the Servicing Agreement for the above referenced period. This certificate is
delivered in accordance with Section 2.9 of the Carvana Auto Receivables 2021-N1 Servicing Agreement dated as of March 25, 2021, among Carvana Auto Receivables Trust
2021-N1, Wells Fargo Bank, National Association and Bridgecrest Credit Company. This certificate is dated as of December 31, 2021.  By:

/s/ Daniel GaudreauDaniel GaudreauChief Financial Officer
§ 20.804 Rule 804. Opinions of the General Counsel. ( a ) The Board may obtain an opinion from the General Counsel of the Department of Veterans Affairs on legal questions involved in the consideration of an appeal.
( b ) *Filing of requests for the procurement of opinions.* The appellant or representative may request that the Board obtain an opinion under this section. Such request must be in writing and will be granted upon a showing of good cause, such as the identification of a complex or controversial legal issue involved in the appeal which warrants such an opinion.
( c ) *Notification of evidence to be considered by the Board and opportunity for response.* If the Board requests an opinion pursuant to this section, it will notify the appellant and his or her representative, if any. When the Board receives the opinion, it will furnish a copy of the opinion to the appellant, subject to the limitations provided in 38 U.S.C. 5701(b)(1), and to the appellant's representative, if any. A period of 60 days from the date the Board furnishes a copy of the opinion will be allowed for response, which may include the submission of relevant evidence or argument. The date the Board furnishes a copy will be presumed to be the same as the date of the letter or memorandum that accompanies the copy of the opinion for purposes of determining whether a response was timely filed.
( d ) For purposes of this section, the term “the Board” includes the Chairman, the Vice Chairman, any Deputy Vice Chairman, and any Member of the Board before whom a case is pending.
(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 5107(a), 7102(c), 7104(a), 7104(c))
[84 FR 188, Jan. 18, 2019]
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 Quarterly Report of Global Crossing Airlines Group Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ending 12/31/2021 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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 Company.




|                     |  |     |                        
|-------------------- |  | --- | -----------------------
|Date: March 31, 2022 |  | By: | /s/ Ryan Goepel        
|                     |  |     | Ryan Goepel            
|                     |  |     | Chief Financial Officer





---
42364.

#### GRAGE v. VENABLE et al.

Eelton, Chief Judge.

1. In the absence of an order of the judge of a superior court having fewer than six terms per year that the court be adjourned for the term five days before the beginning of the next term or earlier, it will be presumed that the court was adjourned by operation of law five days before the beginning of the next term. *Shivers v. Shivers,*206 Ga. 552 (57 SE2d 660); *Mathis v. Crowley,*146 Ga. 749 (92 SE 213).

2. The June, 1966, term of DeKalb Superior Court began on June 6, 1966, the first Monday in June. The March, 1966, term ended by operation of law no later than May 31, 1966. Ga. L. 1887, p. 58; Ga. L. 1896, p. 47; Ga. L. 1909, p. 97 *(Code*§ 24-3010). As a consequence the court had no jurisdic*571tion from June 1 to June 6, 1966, to perform a function which the law required to be performed in term time, such as granting a nisi on a petition to reconsider the denial of a summary-judgment issued at the March, 1966, term of the court. *Code*§ 24-2622 (Ga. L. 1898, p. 89); *Haskens v. State,*114 Ga. 837 (40 SE 997). We find no case holding to the contrary.

Argued October 4, 1966

Decided November 4, 1966.

*Gambrell, Harlan, Bussell & Moye, James H. Bratton, Jr., Sidney F. Wheeler,*for appellant.

*Mitchell, Clarke, Pate & Anderson, Taylor W. Jones,*for appellees.

3. It follows that the court had no jurisdiction on June 1, 1966, to issue a nisi on a motion (filed on June 1, 1966) to reconsider its denial of a summary judgment rendered at the March term, and to reconsider its judgment and grant a summary judgment. Since the court had no jurisdiction over the subject matter the judgment granting the summary judgment is reversed.

*Judgment reversed.*

*Frankum and Parnell, JJ., concur.*
#### In the Matter of Abstracting the Record in Indigent Criminal Cases

May 10, 1976

PER CURIAM.

This brief order is directed to counsel for indigent appellants in criminal cases. The court has perhaps been too lenient in overlooking clear-cut violations of Rule 9 on the part of such attorneys. Contrary to our practice in other criminal cases and in civil cases, we have condoned deficiencies ranging from the submission of briefs with almost no abstracts of the record to the submission of briefs with abstracts amounting almost to a reprint of the transcript.

In the future, compliance with Rule 9 will be required. Indigent appellants are entitled to effective representation by their attorneys. The court is entitled to abstracts and briefs prepared in compliance with its rules. Hereafter counsel submitting defective abstracts will be required to re-abstract the record without compensation and, in flagrant cases, at their own expense.
#### § 48.660 Recipient.

*Recipient* means any individual, corporation, partnership, association, unit of government (except a Federal agency) or legal entity, however organized, that receives an award directly from a Federal agency.
#### Ralph H. and Jackie C. MINOR, residents of the State of Washington, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 84-4159.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted May 7, 1985.

Decided Aug. 13, 1986.

*739Robert G. Moch, Michael D. Kuntz, Roberts & Shefelman, Seattle, Wash., for plaintiffs-appellants.

Michael J. Roach, Dept, of Justice, Washington, D.C., for defendant-appellee.

Before GOODWIN, SCHROEDER and BEEZER, Circuit Judges.

ORDER

This appeal challenges the refusal of the district court to tax attorneys’ fees against the United States under the Equal Access to Justice Act (28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)) on the ground that the position of the United States was substantially justified in this test case involving an important and doubtful issue of tax law. The opinion on the merits is reported at 772 F.2d 1472 (9th Cir.1985).

The EAJA was intended to facilitate the efforts of private parties to vindicate their rights when confronted with arbitrary actions by representatives of the government, without at the same time discouraging the type of vigorous advocacy on the part of government counsel which Congress felt was essential to the enforcement of federal law. Accordingly, Congress established a standard of substantial justification for determining whether the government should be held liable for its opponents attorneys’ fees when it loses a case. As the House Committee Report on the EAJA makes clear, this standard is “essentially one of reasonableness. Where the Government can show that its case had a reasonable basis both in law and fact, no award will be made.” H.R.Rep. No. 96-1418, 96th Cong., 2d Sess. at 10 ([1980] 5 U.S.Code Cong. & Ad.News 4953, 4984, 4989).

The district court in this case found that the position of the United States was substantially justified. In particular the court found that the issues presented by the government were not “subject to resolution by clear, controlling precedent,” and that this was a test case whose outcome would resolve a large number of similar disputes then pending administratively. This determination is reviewable only for abuse of discretion. *See e.g., Rawlings v. Heckler,*725 F.2d 1192, 1194 (9th Cir.1984). Manifestly, the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that the government was substantially justified in seeking judicial resolution of the important, and doubtful, question of tax law presented in this case.

We affirm the district court order. Each party is to pay its own costs in this court.
719 A.2d 1260

#### ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION OF MARYLAND, 100 Community Place Suite 3301 Crownsville, MD 21032, Petitioner, v. John Walsh CASSIDY, Respondent.

Misc. AG No. 60,

Sept. Term, 1998.

Court of Appeals of Maryland.

Nov. 4, 1998.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the Joint Petition and Consent to Suspension filed by the Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland and Respondent, John Walsh Cassidy, it is this 4th day of November, 1998,

ORDERED by the Court of Appeals of Maryland that the Respondent, John Walsh Cassidy, be and he is hereby suspended from the practice of law for a period of eighteen (18) months, effective on the 4th day of November, 1998, and it is further,

ORDERED, that the Clerk of this Court shall remove the name of John Walsh Cassidy, from the register of attorneys in this Court, and certify that fact to the Clients’ Security Trust Fund and the Clerks of all judicial tribunals in this State in accordance with Maryland Rule 16-713.
Exhibit 4.108


 


Loan Agreement


 


Contract No. : TL1400018P


 


Borrower : Ganglian
Finance Leasing Co., Ltd


Lender : Bank
of East Asia (China) Limited Shijiazhuang Branch


Signing Date
: August 4, 2014


Loan Amount
: RMB105,000,000


 


Length of maturity
: From August 4, 2014 to August 4, 2016


Use of Loan
: Vehicle Purchase


Loan Interest : 6.765%


 


Date of Draft
: August 4, 2014


Withdrawal Amount
: RMB105,000,000


Payment Method: The interest should be repaid by quarterly. The
principal shall be repaid at the end of 6 th month, 12th month, 18th month


and 24th month with the principal amount RMB5,000,000,
RMB10,000,000,RMB10,000,000 and 80,000,000 separately .


Repayment Date
: August 4, 2016


Loan Guarantee : Guaranty of Mortgage, Guaranty
of Pledge, Guaranty of Guarantee


 


- Hebei Ruiliang Trading Co., Ltd entered into The Maximum Mortgage
Contract with the lender, with the contract no. TL1400018P,


Which to take Kaiyuan Tower property as collateral for the assessment
value of RMB 210,000,000.


 


- Hebei Ruiliang Trading Co., Ltd entered into The Maximum Pledge
Contract with the lender, with the contract no. TL1400018P,


Which to take rent receivable of Kaiyuan Tower as pledge.


 


-Mr. Li yong hui entered into the Guarantee Contract with lender,
with the contract no. TL1400018P.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUL-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-30-1995
<CASH>                                       7,669,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               11,041,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                 94,749,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           123,535,000
<PP&E>                                     298,153,000
<DEPRECIATION>                           (161,281,000)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             262,745,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      105,499,000
<BONDS>                                     23,543,000
<COMMON>                                        71,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                 108,469,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               262,745,000
<SALES>                                    277,053,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           277,053,000
<CGS>                                      212,138,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               64,915,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,840,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,290,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                   482,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   808,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .11
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
---

EXHIBIT 32.1

Certification Pursuant to 
  18 U.S.C. Section 1350, 
  As Adopted Pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Silverado Gold
Mines, Ltd. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending Feburary 28,
2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report"), I, Garry L. Anselmo, Principal Executive Officer of the Company,
certify to the best of my knowledge, 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 result of operations of the
Company.

/s/ Garry L. Anselmo Garry
L. Anselmo Principal Executive Officer

April 13, 2006

---
#### § 4.129 Mental disorders due to traumatic stress.

When a mental disorder that develops in service as a result of a highly stressful event is severe enough to bring about the veteran's release from active military service, the rating agency shall assign an evaluation of not less than 50 percent and schedule an examination within the six month period following the veteran's discharge to determine whether a change in evaluation is warranted.

(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 1155)

[61 FR 52700, Oct. 8, 1996]
The size of all the documents in these folders is 50 MB. Because of the unusually large size

of these documents they are not available for download from www.regulations.gov. Copies 

of these documents (listed below) are available for public inspection at the EPA Region III 

address listed in the Federal Register Proposed Rules document. For further information, 

EPA Region III’s point of contact (POC) is listed in this docket. 

File Folder: Appendices

Files: APPENDICES-cover page.pdf

Appendix 1-1a Contribution Assessment Chapt_1-9--2006[1].1006.pdf

Appendix 1-1b A- Supplement_Brigantine_8[1].25.06.pdf

Appendix 3-1 Final Intermin Principles for Regional Haze.pdf

Appendix 4-1a US DOI Letter - Delaware Comments.pdf

Appendix 4-1b DNREC Responses to DOI Comments.pdf

Appendix 7-1 MANE-VU_2002 Base Year Final_V3_TSD_11-20-06.pdf

Appendix 7-2 MANEVU 2002 Inventory data.pdf

Appendix 7-3 EGU_Projections_Summary_Final.pdf

Appendix 7-4 MANEVU_Emission_Projections_TSD_.pdf

Appendix 7-5 Emission Projection Tables.pdf

Appendix 7-6 Reg 24 VOC controls.pdf

Appendix 8-1 BART Letters.pdf

Appendix 8-2a City of Dover BART final Analysis and Proposal 060207.pdf

Appendix 8-2b City of Dover - MRS - BART Analysis Addendum to FLM.pdf

Appendix 8-2c Indian River NRG addendum.pdf

Appendix 8-2d Indian River NRG.pdf

Appendix 8-2e Edge Moor BART final report 7 22 08 .pdf

Appendix 8-3 Reg. 30 Title V.pdf

Appendix 8-4 DE Regulation 1102.pdf

Appendix 8-5 Claymont Steel Permit 7-2-08.pdf

Appendix 8-6 Multi_p_TechSptDoc1.pdf

Appendix 8- 2d Edge Moor BARTre-submittal report final 6 25 07 submt to DNREC 7 3 

07.pdf

Appendix 9-1 Baseline and Natural_Background Visibility Conditions.pdf

Appendix 9-2 The Nature of the Fine Particle and Regional Haze Problems in MANEVU 

Class I.pdf

Appendix 9-3 Assessment of RPG for RH in MANEVU.pdf

Appendix 9-4 Five Factor Analysis of BART-Eligible Sources.pdf

Appendix 9-5 BART_Control_Assessment.pdf

Appendix 9-6 Modeling_for_Reasonable_Progress_Final_021208[1].pdf

Appendix 9-7 2018 Visibility Projections FINAL 05 13 08.pdf

Appendix 9-8 Non-EGU Source Shutdowns in MANEVU.pdf

Appendix 9-9 Top_EGU_list_ the 167 FINAL list.pdf

Appendix 9-10 Construction_TSD_102006.pdf

Appendix 9-11 Hopke Receptor Modeling Study Final Report.pdf

Appendix 9-12 Pages from Inter-RPO Consultation Briefing book_vol 1[1].pdf

Appendix 10-1 Final_consultation_framework_060510[1].pdf

File Folder: Final Marked and Unmarked SIP to EPA - Narrative

Files: DE_ Proposed_Visibility_SIP_draft_SOUL 9_24_08.pdf
§ 79.50 Selecting grantees for renewal of legal services grants. VA will use the following process to select grantees applying for renewal of legal services grants: ( a ) So long as the grantee continues to meet the threshold requirements set forth in § 79.30, VA will score the grantee using the scoring criteria set forth in § 79.45.
( b ) VA will rank those grantees who receive at least the minimum amount of total points and points per category set forth in the NOFO. The grantees will be ranked in order from highest to lowest scores.
( c ) VA will use the grantee's ranking as the basis for selection for funding. VA will fund the highest-ranked grantees for which funding is available.
( d ) At its discretion, VA may award any non-renewed funds to an applicant or existing grantee. If VA chooses to award non-renewed funds to an applicant or existing grantee, funds will be awarded as follows: ( 1 ) VA will first offer to award the non-renewed funds to the applicant or grantee with the highest grant score under the relevant NOFO that applies for, or is awarded a renewal grant in, the same community as, or a proximate community to, the affected community. Such applicant or grantee must have the capacity and agree to provide prompt services to the affected community. For the purposes of this section, the relevant NOFO is the most recently published NOFO which covers the geographic area that includes the affected community, or for multi-year grant awards, the NOFO for which the grantee, who is offered the additional funds, received the multi-year award.
( 2 ) If the first such applicant or grantee offered the non-renewed funds refuses the funds, VA will offer to award the funds to the next highest-ranked such applicant or grantee, per the criteria in paragraph (d)(1) of this section, and continue on in rank order until the non-renewed funds are awarded.
( e ) If a grantee would have been selected but for a procedural error committed by VA, VA may select that grantee for funding when sufficient funds become available if there is no material change in the information that would have resulted in the grantee's selection. A new application would not be required.
§ 1022.121 Active duty alerts. ( a ) *Duration.* The duration of an active duty alert shall be twelve months.