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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATON EXTRACTED FROM MARCH 31,
1996 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1996
<CASH>                                       3,330,730
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               10,098,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                 1,402,672
<INVENTORY>                                    168,007
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             7,632,148
<PP&E>                                       2,229,994
<DEPRECIATION>                                 762,106
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              17,390,208
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,559,954
<BONDS>                                        615,078
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       723,556
<OTHER-SE>                                  10,958,812
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                17,390,208
<SALES>                                      1,348,835
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,778,861
<CGS>                                          129,313
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                3,324,629
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               142,162
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              17,707
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                454,232
<INCOME-TAX>                                   159,391
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            294,841
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   294,841
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .04
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .04
        

</TABLE>
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A22D0155. LEMARCUS ALLISON et al. v. MARTIN C. JONES et al.

Upon consideration of this application for discretionary appeal, it is ordered

that it be hereby DENIED.

In the certificate of service attached to this application, counsel for Lemarcus

Allison certified that he served the application on Calcon Mutual Mortgage, LLC, by

email pursuant to a prior agreement with Calcon’s attorneys to allow such service. In

its response brief, Calcon represents that no agreement for electronic service exists

between the parties, and Calcon has submitted affidavits from its attorneys to that

effect. This Court takes seriously misrepresentationslike that alleged by Calcon, and

both counsel and client may be subjected to sanctionsin this or other appealsfor such

misconduct if proven.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

December 27, 2021

12/27/2021
EXHIBIT 31.2

CERTIFICATION

I, James A. Clark, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Critical Path, Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such
statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial
statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and
procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

a) Designed such
disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us
by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

b) Evaluated the
effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on
such evaluation; and

c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial
reporting that occurred during the registrants fourth fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial
reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are
reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.



Date: March 31, 2006By:

/S/    JAMES A.
CLARKJames A. Clark Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
#### ILER v. CROMER.

Slander — character* of plaintiff — evidence on not guilty.

The character of the plaintiff in a slander suit, is directly in issue upon not guilty.

The defendant in such ease may inquire into the nature and character of the words spoken, it is competent in mitigation of damages to show that the plaintiff is a common strumpet.

Error, to the Court of Common Pleas. Miss Cromer sued Iler in the court below for slander, in charging her with having had carnal connection with a dog. On trial upon not guilty, the witness called to prove the words was asked on cross examination by Iler, if the words used were not hypothetical, if any one had connection with her it was the big dog. The plaintiff objected to this, and the court ruled it out. After the plaintiff had closed her evidence, the defendant offered to prove that she was a common prostitute; this was objected to by the plaintiff, and ruled out by the court.

Burr, for the plaintiff,

insists the court erred in both particulars.

May, contra.

By the Court.

The character of the plaintiff in a slander suit, Is directly in issue upon not guilty; 1 *Maulé*and *Sel.*284; 5 *O. B.*225. Unless it be assumed that a common strumpet is held in this community as a fair or good character, entitled to as great damages as a lady above suspicion, evidence of the plaintiff’s being such was admissible. But, however that may be, the court erred in rejecting the question on cross examination, which had, for its sole object, to ascertain the character of the words spoken. The judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded.
§ 121.392 Personnel identified as flight attendants. ( a ) Any person identified by the certificate holder as a flight attendant on an aircraft in operations under this part must be trained and qualified in accordance with subparts N and O of this part. This includes: ( 1 ) Flight attendants provided by the certificate holder in excess of the number required by § 121.391(a); and
( 2 ) Flight attendants provided by the certificate holder when flight attendants are not required by § 121.391(a).
( b ) A qualifying flight attendant who is receiving operating experience on an aircraft in operations under subpart O of this part must be identified to passengers as a qualifying flight attendant.
[Doc. No. FAA-2008-0677, 78 FR 67836, Nov. 12, 2013]
EXHIBIT 32.1



Statement of Chief Executive Officer 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 of Knight Capital Group, Inc. (the Company) for the year ended December 31, 2007 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), Thomas M. Joyce, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of his knowledge:



| | (1) |  | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or, 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | --- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) |  | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/    THOMAS M.
JOYCEName:

Thomas M. JoyceTitle:

Chief Executive OfficerDate:

February 28, 2008




This
certification accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
#### ALLEN *v.*CHAMPION AND OTHERS.

Depositions — notice—evidence in mitigation of damages.

Notice to take depositions must be given at least *one*entire day before the depositions are taken.

In a suit for trespass, etc. by a landlord, for the non payment of rent, notice to quit, and other circumstances attending the act complained of, are admissible in evidence in mitigation of damages.

< Trespass and assault and battery, and injury to personal property. Plea, not guilty — son assault — and entry by the landlord to remove goods from his house, etc.

*673The plaintiff offered a deposition, the notice for which was served at 8, A. M. to take it at 8, P. M. on the same day. This was objected to.

*Conger,*for the plaintiff,

objected.

Card,

in reply, cited 4 *John. R.*130.

Lane, J.

The law knows no fractions of days, and notwithstanding the phraseology of the statute, it is necessary to give at least a day’s notice. The deposition must be rejected.

It having been proven that the plaintiff was a tenant of a house of the defendant Champion, and that he had given permission to the other defendants to enter and occupy as his tenants, if they could do so peaceably, a witness was asked by the defendant if the plaintiff *hadpaid his rent.*

Lane, J.

thought the evidence inadmissible.

Wright and Wood, J.

thought the circumstances attending the entry, such as the non payment of rent, notice to quit, etc. were admissible in mitigation of damage?.

Verdict and judgment for plaintiff.
#### § 1252.203 Special benefits for children and the elderly.

If a recipient operating a program or activity provides special benefits to the elderly or to children, such use of age distinctions shall be presumed to be necessary to the normal operation of the program or activity, notwithstanding the provision of § 1252.10.

[50 FR 13311, Apr. 4, 1985, as amended at 68 FR 51352, Aug. 26, 2003]
Exhibit
32.2








Certification of the Chief Financial Officer




Pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
1350




(Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)








I, James R. Gordon, the Senior Executive Vice President and Principal
Financial Officer of The South Financial Group, Inc. (“TSFG”) certify that to
the best of my knowledge, based upon a review of the quarterly report on Form
10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2010 of TSFG (the “Report”):




(1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d) 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 TSFG.








/s/ James R.
Gordon




James R. Gordon


Senior Executive Vice President and Principal Financial
Officer


The South Financial Group, Inc.




May 5, 2010








A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or
other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the
signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this
written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to The South
Financial Group, Inc. and will be retained by The South Financial Group, Inc.
and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
#### BRADFORD V. THE STATE.

(Decided January 15, 1914.)

Appeal from Montgomery City Court.

Heard before Hon. Armstead Brown.

No counsel marked for appellant. R. C. Brickell, Attorney General, and T. H. Seay, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.

Walker, P. J.

No error.

Affirmed.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 84 (Monday, May 1, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 25328]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-10754]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

[DA-00-868]


Telecommunications Services Between the United States and Cuba

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: On April 13, 2000, the FCC approved the application of CODETEL 
International Communications Corporation (CIC) to provide international 
message telephone service (IMTS) between the United States and Cuba 
transiting the Dominican Republic, subject to specific conditions.
    CIC plans to offer service to Cuba using facilities of Compania 
Dominicana de Telefonos (CODETEL), the dominant carrier in the 
Dominican Republic, with which CIC is affiliated within the meaning of 
47 CFR 63.09(e). The U.S.-Dominican Republic portion of the traffic 
will be carried over a submarine cable owned by CODETEL. The Dominican 
Republic-Cuba portion of the traffic will travel over satellite 
circuits already in use for CODETEL's traffic with Cuba.
    The FCC found that granting CIC's application would serve the 
public interest under Section 214 of the Act, by increasing competition 
on the U.S.-Cuba international services route and providing more 
choices to U.S. consumers.

DATES: April 13, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, CONTACT: J. Breck Blalock, Chief, Policy and 
Facilities Branch, (202) 418-1460.

Federal Communications Commission.
Rebecca Arbogast,
Chief, Telecommunications Division, International Bureau.
[FR Doc. 00-10754 Filed 4-28-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 79 (Monday, April 24, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 21733-21734]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-10107]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP00-247-000]


Colorado Interstate Gas Company; Notice of Tariff Filing

April 18, 2000.
    Take notice that on April 13, 2000, Colorado Interstate Gas Company 
(CIG), tendered for filing to become part of its FERC Gas Tariff, First 
Revised Volume No. 1, the proposed tariff sheets listed on the attached 
Appendix A to be effective June 1, 2000.
    CIG states that it is making this filing to improve the imbalance 
management options available to its Shippers. Such improvements include 
a Shipper option to trade its imbalances during the month after flow 
and to have its imbalances posted to insure that other Shippers are 
aware of the availability of such imbalances for trade. Further, 
Shippers will be able to complete trade electronically. Finally, 
Shippers may also elect not to trade and to have their imbalances 
cashed out.
    As part of this proposal, CIG is also proposing to eliminate the 
imbalance payback period that is currently available during the first 
week of the month following the transportation activities causing the 
imbalance. However, CIG will support imbalance trades through the end 
of the month following flow. CIG does not propose to modify its 
existing imbalance netting or cash out procedures. However, to

[[Page 21734]]

preclude price arbitrage on the imbalance quantities, imbalances 
remaining at the end of the trade period which are due to CIG, will be 
cashed out at the higher of the production month's or the trading 
month's Cash Out Index Price, and remaining imbalance quantities which 
are due the Shipper, will be cashed out at the lesser of the production 
month's or the trading month's Cash Out Index Price.
    CIG further states that copies of this compliance filing have been 
served on CIG's jurisdictional customers and public bodies.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426, in 
accordance with Sections 385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission's Rules 
and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed in 
accordance with Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. 
Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the 
appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants 
parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must 
file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the 
Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public 
Reference Room. This filing may be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance).

David P. Boergers,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-10107 Filed 4-21-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
Customer Service Hotline: 1-800-438-2474

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

REGION III

1650 Arch Street

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103-2029

The Honorable Randy C. Huffman, Cabinet Secretary

West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection

Executive Office

601 57th Street SE

Charleston, WV 25304

Dear Secretary Huffman:

On June 5, 2015 the Environmental Protection Agency received a revision to the West 

Virginia State Implementation Plan (SIP), submitted by your department on June 3, 2015, 

pertaining to Prevention of Significant Deterioration.

EPA has determined that the submittal is administratively and technically complete, and 

is reviewing it to prepare a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPR) action.

If members of your staff have any questions, they may direct them to Paul Wentworth, 

Office of Permits and Air Toxics, at (215) 814-2183. He is the principal contact for this 

rulemaking. 

Sincerely, 

 /Signed 7-6-2015/

 David L Arnold

 Acting Director

Air Protection Division

cc: Mr. William F. Durham, Director, WVDAQ
§ 125.251 Required inspection personnel. ( a ) No person may use any person to perform required inspections unless the person performing the inspection is appropriately certificated, properly trained, qualified, and authorized to do so.
( b ) No person may perform a required inspection if that person performed the item of work required to be inspected.
#### § 13.125 Depositions.

Depositions for investigative purposes may be taken at the discretion of the presiding officer with reasonable notice to the party under investigation. Depositions must be taken before the presiding officer or other person authorized to administer oaths and designated by the presiding officer. The testimony must be reduced to writing by the person taking the deposition, or under the direction of that person, and where possible must then be subscribed by the deponent. Any person may be compelled to appear and testify and to produce physical and documentary evidence.
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3716 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 3716

   To amend title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930 to provide that the 
provisions relating to countervailing duties apply to nonmarket economy 
                               countries.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 21, 2004

     Mr. English (for himself, Mr. Davis of Alabama, and Ms. Hart) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                             Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930 to provide that the 
provisions relating to countervailing duties apply to nonmarket economy 
                               countries.

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

SECTION 1. APPLICATION OF COUNTERVAILING DUTIES TO NONMARKET ECONOMY 
              COUNTRIES.

    Section 701(a)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1671(a)(1)) 
is amended by inserting ``(including a nonmarket economy country)'' 
after ``country'' each place it appears.

SEC. 2. EFFECTIVE DATE.

    The amendments made by section 1 apply to petitions filed under 
section 702 of the Tariff Act of 1930 on or after the date of the 
enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
#### ARKANSAS STATE HIGHWAY COMMISSION *v.*Lavonne West NEWTON et al

5-6127

489 S.W. 2d 804

Opinion Delivered February 5, 1973

*Thomas B. Keys, Kenneth R. Brock*and *Regina W. Johns,*for appellant.

/. *D. Patterson, Roger V. Logan, Jr.*and *W. Wade Berryhill,*for appellees.

George Rose Smith, Justice.

This is an appeal from a $15,000 verdict and judgment in a condemnation suit. The only argument for reversal is that the trial court should have sustained the condemnor’s motion to strike the testimony of the landowners’ expert witness with respect to the value of the land after the taking, because, in the language of the objection, he gave “no fair and reasonable basis” for his figures.

In our opinion the witness unquestionably gave a fair and reasonable basis for his opinion. He had been engaged in the real estate business in the county for 26 years, was familiar with the property, and explained the basis for his conclusions. In this court the appellant challenges the witness’s opinion because (a) he thought the entire tract, of which .66 of an acre was taken, comprised 8.08 acres instead of 9.5 acres, and (b) he had observed the change in grade resulting from the *904new construction, but he was not able to say exactly what change was called for by the condemnor’s plans for the improvement.

The actual objection, that the witness had given no fair and reasonable basis for his valuation, did not bring to the trial court’s attention either of the deficiencies now being urged. Had the omissions been pinpointed, the witness could have been examined further in the light of the true facts, which were readily available. It is not our practice to reverse the action of the trial court when the error could have been easily remedied upon a proper objection. *Smith*v. *Union Nat. Bank of Little*Rock, 241 Ark. 821, 410 S.W. 2d 599 (1967).