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

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000795196
<NAME> JOHN HANCOCK REALTY INCOME FUND LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                       2,494,571
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  200,816
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,695,387
<PP&E>                                      23,540,809
<DEPRECIATION>                               4,944,621
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              21,665,215
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          489,231
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                  21,175,984
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                21,665,215
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               662,122
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  151,155
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               177,408
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                333,559
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            333,559
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   333,559
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     3.68
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     3.68
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 99.2




				Exhibit 99(ii)

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

    In connection with the Quarterly Report of Datascension Inc. (the "Company")
on  Form  10-QSB  for  the  quarter  ended  March 31, 2004  as  filed  with  the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date  therein specified (the "Report")
"Report"),  I,  Jason F. Griffith, Chief  Financial   Officer  of  the  Company,
certify  pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted  pursuant to  Section  906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

         (1)  The Report fully complies with the  requirements of  Section 13(a)
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/ Jason F. Griffith, CPA
                                    -------------------------------------------
                                    JASON F. GRIFFITH, Chief Financial Officer

Dated: May 17, 2004
###### Editorial Note on Part 248

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 248 appear at 79 FR 5804, Jan. 31, 2014.

#### §§ 248.8-248.9 [Reserved]
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

I,
William E. Franklin, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual Report of
Copart, Inc. on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended July 31, 2009 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and that, based on my knowledge, the information contained in this Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of
Copart, Inc.

|                                                                                                        |  | 
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | 
|/s/WILLIAM E. FRANKLIN William E. Franklin
Senior Vice President of Finance and
Chief Financial Officer |  | 

Date:
September 29, 2009

A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Copart, Inc. and will be retained by Copart, Inc. and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

The
foregoing certification is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350. It is not being filed for purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company,
whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.

---



QuickLinks
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 23-0332

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

DAVID ANDREW BOUCHER, JR.,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, 

and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including November 17, 2023, within which to prepare, 

file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

October 12 2023

10/12/2023

Case Number: DA 23-0332
§ 308.6 Appearance and practice in adjudicatory proceedings. ( a ) *Appearance before the FDIC or an ALJ* — ( 1 ) *By attorneys.* Any member in good standing of the bar of the highest court of any state, commonwealth, possession, territory of the United States, or the District of Columbia may represent others before the FDIC if such attorney is not currently suspended or debarred from practice before the FDIC.
( 2 ) *By non-attorneys.* An individual may appear on the individual's own behalf.
( 3 ) *Notice of appearance.* ( i ) Any individual acting on the individual's own behalf or as counsel on behalf of a party, including the FDIC, must file a notice of appearance with OFIA at or before the time that the individual submits papers or otherwise appears on behalf of a party in the adjudicatory proceeding. The notice of appearance must include: ( A ) A written declaration that the individual is currently qualified as provided in paragraph (a)(1) or (2) of this section and is authorized to represent the particular party; and
( B ) A written acknowledgement that the individual has reviewed and will comply with the Uniform Rules and Local Rules in subpart B of this part.
( ii ) By filing a notice of appearance on behalf of a party in an adjudicatory proceeding, the counsel agrees and represents that the counsel is authorized to accept service on behalf of the represented party and that, in the event of withdrawal from representation, the counsel will, if required by the ALJ, continue to accept service until new counsel has filed a notice of appearance or until the represented party indicates that the party will proceed on a *pro se* basis.
( b ) *Sanctions.* Dilatory, obstructionist, egregious, contemptuous or contumacious conduct at any phase of any adjudicatory proceeding may be grounds for exclusion or suspension of counsel from the proceeding.
# C_2004148EN.01000701.xml

| 3.6.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 148/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.6.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 148/7

---

ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT

ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT

25 February 2004

in Case E-3/03, Transportbedriftenes Landsforening and Nor-Way Bussekspress AS v EFTA Surveillance Authority, with respect to the application from Transportbedriftenes Landsforening and Nor-Way Bussekspress AS of 18 September 2003, seeking annulment of the EFTA Surveillance Authority's Decision No 140/03/COL of 16 July 2003

(2004/C 148/07)

the President of the Court made an Order of 25 February 2004, the operative part of which orders:

| 1. | Case E-3/03 to be removed from the Register. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Case E-3/03 to be removed from the Register.

| 2. | The Applicants to pay the costs of the Defendant. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The Applicants to pay the costs of the Defendant.

---
§ 261b.6 Public announcement of meetings. ( a ) Except as otherwise provided by the Act, public announcement of meetings open to public observation and meetings to be partially or completely closed to public observation pursuant to § 261b.8 of this part will be made at least one week in advance of the meeting. Except to the extent such information is determined to be exempt from disclosure under § 261b.5 of this part, each such public announcement will state the time, place and subject matter of the meeting, whether it is to be open or closed to the public, and the name and phone number of the official designated to respond to requests for information about the meeting.
( b ) If a majority of the members of the agency determines by a recorded vote that agency business requires that a meeting covered by paragraph (a) of this section be called at a date earlier than that specified in paragraph (a) of this section, the agency will make a public announcement of the information specified in paragraph (a) of this section at the earliest practicable time.
( c ) Changes in the subject matter of a publicly announced meeting, or in the determination to open or close a publicly announced meeting or any portion of a publicly announced meeting to public observation, or in the time or place of a publicly announced meeting made in accordance with the procedures specified in § 261b.9 of this part will be publicly announced at the earliest practicable time.
( d ) Public announcements required by this section will be posted at the Board's Public Affairs Office and Freedom of Information Office and may be made available by other means or at other locations as may be desirable.
( e ) Immediately following each public announcement required by this section, notice of the time, place and subject matter of a meeting, whether the meeting is open or closed, any change in one of the preceding announcements and the name and telephone number of the official designated by the Board to respond to requests about the meeting, shall also be submitted for publication in the Federal Register.
# C_2015366EN.01001102.xml

| 5.11.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 366/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.11.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 366/11

---

Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Fürstliches Obergericht, Liechtenstein, dated 19 May 2015, in the Case of Abuelo Insua Juan Bautista v Liechtensteinische Invalidenversicherung

(Case E-13/15)

(2015/C 366/09)

A request has been made to the EFTA Court by a letter dated 19 May 2015 from Fürstliches Obergericht, Liechtenstein (Princely Court of Appeal, Liechtenstein), which was received at the Court Registry on 29 May 2015, for an Advisory Opinion in the case of Abuelo Insua Juan Bautista v Liechtensteinische Invalidenversicherung, on the following questions:

| 1. | Is a recipient of benefits (claimant) prohibited, because the debtor institution is bound by the findings of the institution of the place of stay or residence under the second sentence of Article 87(2) of Regulation (EC) No 987/2009, from challenging those findings in the procedure before the debtor institution? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is a recipient of benefits (claimant) prohibited, because the debtor institution is bound by the findings of the institution of the place of stay or residence under the second sentence of Article 87(2) of Regulation (EC) No 987/2009, from challenging those findings in the procedure before the debtor institution?

| 2. | If the first question is answered in the affirmative: does that binding effect also apply in court proceedings which, under national procedural rules, follow on from the proceedings before a debtor institution? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the first question is answered in the affirmative: does that binding effect also apply in court proceedings which, under national procedural rules, follow on from the proceedings before a debtor institution?

---
# C_2017123EN.01000401.xml

| 20.4.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 123/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.4.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 123/4

---

State aid — Decisions to close an existing aid case as a result of acceptance of appropriate measures by an EFTA State

(2017/C 123/05)

The EFTA Surveillance Authority has proposed appropriate measures, which were accepted by Iceland, on the following State aid measure:

| Date of adoption of the decision | : | 25 January 2017 |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Case number | : | 78027 |
| Decision No | : | 010/17/COL |
| EFTA State | : | Iceland |
| Title (and/or name of the beneficiary) | : | Decision to close the case concerning the use of publicly owned land and natural resources by electricity producers in Iceland |
| Legal basis | : | Various |
| Type of measure | : | No State aid |
| Other information | : | The Authority considers that the measures undertaken and the commitments given by the Icelandic authorities to amend the scheme regarding the use of public natural resources by electricity producers in Iceland and the review and amendments of existing contracts with electricity producers will ensure the abolishment of the existing system of aid. Therefore, the Authority has decided to close the case. |

Date of adoption of the decision

Date of adoption of the decision

:

25 January 2017

Case number

Case number

:

78027

Decision No

Decision No

:

010/17/COL

EFTA State

EFTA State

:

Iceland

Title (and/or name of the beneficiary)

Title (and/or name of the beneficiary)

:

Decision to close the case concerning the use of publicly owned land and natural resources by electricity producers in Iceland

Legal basis

Legal basis

:

Various

Type of measure

Type of measure

:

No State aid

Other information

Other information

:

The Authority considers that the measures undertaken and the commitments given by the Icelandic authorities to amend the scheme regarding the use of public natural resources by electricity producers in Iceland and the review and amendments of existing contracts with electricity producers will ensure the abolishment of the existing system of aid. Therefore, the Authority has decided to close the case.

The authentic text of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found on the EFTA Surveillance Authority’s website:

http://www.eftasurv.int/state-aid/state-aid-register/

---
**Exhibit 23.1**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration StatementsNo. 333-81741, No. 333-114933 and No. 333-133846 on Forms S-8 of our reports dated April 16, 2007, relating to the consolidated financial statements of Perry Ellis International, Inc. and subsidiaries and management’s reporton the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Perry Ellis International, Inc. for the year ended January 31, 2007. 

/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP 

Miami, Florida 

April 16, 2007
#### § 303.231 Waiting time for a subsequent application if an application is denied.

An application under section 19 may be made in writing at any time more than one year after the issuance of a decision denying an application under section 19. If the original denial is subject to a request for a hearing, then the subsequent application may be filed at any time more than one year after the decision of the Board of Directors, or its designee, denying the application. The prohibition against participating in the affairs of an IDI under section 19 shall continue until the individual has been granted consent in writing to participate in the affairs of an IDI by the Board of Directors or its designee.
§ 263.2 Rules of construction. For purposes of this subpart: ( a ) Any term in the singular includes the plural, and the plural includes the singular, if such use would be appropriate;
( b ) The term *counsel* includes a non-attorney representative; and
( c ) Unless the context requires otherwise, a party's counsel of record, if any, may, on behalf of that party, take any action required to be taken by the party.
# C_2021199EN.01000201.xml

| 27.5.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 199/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.5.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 199/2

---

EFTA Surveillance Authority’s notice on state aid recovery interest rates and reference/discount rates for the EFTA States applicable as from 1 March 2021

(Published in accordance with the rules on reference and discount rates set out in Part VII of ESA’s State Aid Guidelines and Article 10 of ESA’s Decision No 195/04/COL 14 July 2004 (1))

(2021/C 199/02)

Base rates are calculated in accordance with the Chapter on the method for setting reference and discount rates of ESA’s State Aid Guidelines as amended by ESA’s Decision No 788/08/COL of 17 December 2008. To obtain the applicable reference rates, appropriate margins shall be added to the base rate in accordance with the State Aid Guidelines.

Base rates have been determined as follows:

| | Iceland | Liechtenstein | Norway |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 1.3.2021 – | 1,50 | - 0,61 | 0,44 |

Iceland

Liechtenstein

Norway

1.3.2021 –

1,50

- 0,61

0,44

---

(1)  OJ L 139, 25.5.2006, p. 37 and EEA Supplement to the OJ No. 26/2006, 25 May 2006, p. 1.

---
#### Mechanicsville Supply Company, Inc. *v.*Norman Langevin et als.

Maltbie, C. J., Avert, Brown, Jennings and Ells, Js.

Argued February 4

decided March 7, 1941.

*E. A. Massey,*for the appellant (plaintiff).

*William Perry Barber,*for the appellees (defendants).

Ells, J.

This case comes to us upon the sustaining of a demurrer to a complaint alleging the following facts: The plaintiff is a corporation specially chartered by the legislature and authorized to sell and distribute water for household uses and other purposes, within certain territorial limits, to open highways for the purpose of laying necessary pipes, and to exercise certain powers of eminent domain; it has expended money in *628improving its water system to conform to the rules of the state board of health, and has established uniform rates for serving the community with an uninterrupted supply of pure drinking water; it has been deprived of substantial revenue by the activities of the defendants; five individual defendants “are supplying water to families previously supplied by the plaintiff and engaging in the water business in the district . . . without securing a franchise, or complying with” certain statutes and regulations. It is then alleged, as a conclusion of law, that the plaintiff has exclusive rights until another company has secured overlapping franchise rights and complied with the statutory requirements. It seeks an injunction restraining the defendants from digging a well, laying water distribution pipes, or transacting any water business within the district covered by its franchise, and from furnishing water to or soliciting customers now served by the plaintiff.

The defendants demurred upon the grounds that the franchise of the plaintiff confers no exclusive rights, that the damage claimed is damnum absque injuria and that the amended complaint does not show that any legal or equitable right of the plaintiff has been or is about to be invaded by the defendants. We are confronted with the same difficulties that beset the trial court, which pointed out that it does not appear from the complaint whether the defendants are supplying water individually or in some joint capacity, and particularly that the source of supply and the means of distribution are not alleged. It sustained the demurrer upon all grounds. We do not know, nor can we speculate as to what the defendants are doing. The complaint does not state facts upon the basis of which it can be determined whether any rights of the plain*629tiff have been or are about to be invaded. The demurrer was properly sustained.

There is no error.

In this opinion the other judges concurred.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000795196
<NAME> JOHN HANCOCK REALTY INCOME FUND LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                       2,205,230
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,205,230
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,205,230
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          530,790
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,674,440
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,205,230
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                34,059
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   88,578
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (54,519)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (54,519)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (54,519)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.59)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.59)


</TABLE>
42686.

#### UNITED INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA v. MONROE.

*Hall and Eberhardt, JJ., concur.*

Argued May 2, 1967

Decided May 19, 1967.

*Hitch, Miller, Beckmann &r Simpson, Robert M. Hitch, III,*for appellant.

*Jones & Kemp, Charles M. Jones,*for appellee.

Felton, Chief Judge.

1. Under a life-insurance policy with an accidental death feature, in order to make out a prima facie case solely under the accidental death feature, the burden was on the plaintiff beneficiary to prove that the death was caused “directly and independently of all other causes by accidental bodily injury,” this being the definition of accident contained in the policy. *Riggins v. Equitable Life Assur. Society,*64 Ga. App. 834, 835 (14 SE2d 182) and cases cited; *Johnson v. Southern Life Ins. Co.,*95 Ga. App. 625, 629 (98 SE2d 382).

2. The evidence in the present case demanded the finding that a fall sustained by the insured, if a cause of her death, was only a contributing cause, not one independent of such other possible causes as cerebral thrombosis, old age, arteriosclerosis, hardening of the arteries, acute abdominal condition, dehydration, decreased nutritional status, debility and temperature. The plaintiff beneficiary failed to carry the burden of proof of death caused “directly and independently of all other causes by accidental bodily injury”; therefore, the court erred in its judgment overruling the defendant insurer’s motion for judgment n.o.v.

*Judgment reversed.*