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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                           4,528
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                       73
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 5,205
<PP&E>                                          70,510
<DEPRECIATION>                                  20,991
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  57,400
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            3,709
<BONDS>                                         45,267
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            2,889
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         4,052
<OTHER-SE>                                       1,483
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    57,400
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 9,418
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    3,031
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,940
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,846
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (777)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,623
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,623
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.64
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.60


</TABLE>
EXHIBIT
31.1






CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


SECTION
302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


(18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350)






I, Scott
Gallagher, certify that:




1. I have
reviewed this annual report of FTS Group, 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. As the
registrant’s certifying officer, I am responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules
13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as
defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and
have:




(a)
Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under my supervision, to ensure that
material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to me 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 my 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 most recent fiscal
quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report)
that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the
registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and




5. As the
registrant’s certifying officer, I have disclosed, based on my most recent
evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s
auditors and the audit committee of the 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.






Dated:
      April 15, 2008/s/
      Scott GallagherScott
      Gallagher
              Chief
      Executive Officer, Interim Chief Financial Officer and Principal
      Accounting Officer
#### HILL v. SCHATZMAN

Ohio Appeals, 6th Dist, Erie County

No. 290.

Decided April 22, 1929

John F McCrystal. Sandusky, and F R Hoover, Columbus, for Hill.

Krueger & Rosino, Sandusky, ,and Frank T Dore, Tiffin, for Schatzman.

RICHARDS, J.

The case was tried in the court of common pleas in May, 1928, and a motion for new trial was overruled and final judgment rendered in December, 1928. On March 20, 1929, the Supreme Court decided the case of Pavlonis vs. Valentine, (7 Abs 206), holding by a divided court that it was not error in examining a prospective juror on his voir dire to inquire as to his connection with a casualty insurance company, where such company was interested in the result of the trial. That decision disposes of the contention made by plaintiff in error in this case that there was error on the part of the trial court relating to casualty insurance, at least in so far as the examination of prospective jurors is concerned. In the instant case the trial court refused to permit such examination. This case was' briefed in the court of appeals before the Supreme Court decision just cited, but since that decision the practice in Ohio is determined and such inquiry as to prospective jurors is proper.

It is further insisted that the trial court erred in permitting a recovery by the plaintiff below without the introduction of expert testimony and that such verdict could not be rendered in a malpractice case without the support of that class of testimony. We do not understand that in all malpractice cases expert testimony is required, and this court so held in the. case of Francis vs. Brooks, 24 Ohio App., 136.

However, in the instant case, the plaintiff below called a physician who had eleven years’ experience in the use of an X-Ray laboratory in his practice, and who testified that it w,as not in accordance with the usual or customary practice, nor was it good practice, to continue the application of X-Rays through the clothing without any examination to see the result of prior similar treatments.

The evidence in this case discloses very serious injuries resulting to Mrs. Schatzman. The evidence contained in the record shows that the trial court would not have been justified in directing a verdict for the defendant, and the whole record discloses that the finding of the jury, for the plaintiff is sustained by ample evidence.

Finding no prejudicial error, the judgment will be affirmed.

Williams and Lloyd, JJ, concur.
#### John CUNNINGHAM, Appellant, v. Martin F. O’DONOGHUE, Chairman of the Board of Monitors, and Lawrence T. Smith, as Monitor, Appellees.

No. 15483.

United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit.

Argued April 5, 1960.

Decided April 14, 1960.

Mr. J. Benjamin Simmons, Washington, D. C., for appellant,

Mr. Joseph DuCoeur, Washington, D. C., with whom Mr. Herbert J. Miller, Jr., Washington, D. C., was on the brief for appellees, argued for appellee O’Donoghue. Mr. Raymond G. Larroca, Washington, D. C., also entered an appearance for appellee O’Donoghue.

Mr. Eugene F. Mullin, Jr., Washington, D. C., for appellee Smith. Mr. J. *275Parker Connor, Washington, D. C., also entered an appearance for appellee Smith.

„ „ „ Before Edgerton Wilbur K. Miller and Fahy, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

The appeal is from an order of the District Court denying the motion filed there by appellant to remove Martin F. O’Donoghue as Chairman of the Board of Monitors and Lawrence T. Smith as a Monitor. Upon consideration of the record made in the District Court we are of the view that the claim of conflict of interests, made the basis for the motion, did not require the court as matter of law to hold that either Mr. O’Donoghue or Mr. Smith was disqualified to act under the court’s appointment, and we are also of the view that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion. Cf. English v. Cunningham, 106 U.S.App.D.C. 70, 269 F.2d 517, 526.

Affirmed
#### § 1607.3 Discrimination defined: Relationship between use of selection procedures and discrimination.

A. *Procedure having adverse impact constitutes discrimination unless justified.* The use of any selection procedure which has an adverse impact on the hiring, promotion, or other employment or membership opportunities of members of any race, sex, or ethnic group will be considered to be discriminatory and inconsistent with these guidelines, unless the procedure has been validated in accordance with these guidelines, or the provisions of section 6 below are satisfied.

B. *Consideration of suitable alternative selection procedures.* Where two or more selection procedures are available which serve the user's legitimate interest in efficient and trustworthy workmanship, and which are substantially equally valid for a given purpose, the user should use the procedure which has been demonstrated to have the lesser adverse impact. Accordingly, whenever a validity study is called for by these guidelines, the user should include, as a part of the validity study, an investigation of suitable alternative selection procedures and suitable alternative methods of using the selection procedure which have as little adverse impact as possible, to determine the appropriateness of using or validating them in accord with these guidelines. If a user has made a reasonable effort to become aware of such alternative procedures and validity has been demonstrated in accord with these guidelines, the use of the test or other selection procedure may continue until such time as it should reasonably be reviewed for currency. Whenever the user is shown an alternative selection procedure with evidence of less adverse impact and substantial evidence of validity for the same job in similar circumstances, the user should investigate it to determine the appropriateness of using or validating it in accord with these guidelines. This subsection is not intended to preclude the combination of procedures into a significantly more valid procedure, if the use of such a combination has been shown to be in compliance with the guidelines.
EXHIBIT 32.1






Statement Pursuant to Section 906 of Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002






The undersigned, Sherry McKinzey, CFO of American International Industries, Inc., a Nevada corporation, hereby makes the following certification as required by Section 906(a) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, with respect to the following of this report filed pursuant to Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934: Quarterly Report of Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2011.




The undersigned certifies that the above annual report fully complies with the requirements of Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and information contained in the above quarterly report fairly presents, in all respects, the financial condition of American International Industries, Inc. and results of its operations.






Date:  May 13, 2011


Sherry McKinzey


CFO


/s/ Sherry McKinzey
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 93 (Friday, May 12, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 30642]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-12178]


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

NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD


Sunshine Act Meeting

``FEDERAL REGISTER'' CITATION OF PREVIOUS ANNOUNCEMENT:  Vol. 65, No. 
90/Tuesday, May 9, 2000.

PREVIOUSLY ANNOUNCED TIME AND DATE:   
    9:30 a.m., Tuesday, May 16, 2000.

CHANGE IN MEETING:  A majority of the Board Members determined by 
recorded vote that the business of the Board required deleting the 
following item from the agenda at this time and that no earlier 
announcement was possible.

7256  Special Investigation Report: Actions to Reduce Fatalities, 
Injuries, and Crashes Involving the Hard Core Drinking Driver.

FOR MORE INFORMATION CONTACT:  Rhonda Underwood, (202) 314-6065.

    Dated: May 10, 2000.
Rhonda Underwood,
Federal Register Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. 00-12178 Filed 5-10-00; 3:48 pm]
BILLING CODE 7533-01-M
EXHIBIT
      32.1






Statement
      Pursuant to Section 906 of Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002






The
      undersigned, Sherry Couturier, CFO of American International
      Industries, Inc., a Nevada corporation, hereby makes the following certification
      as required by Section 906(a) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, with respect
      to
      the following of this report filed pursuant to Section 15(d) of the Securities
      Exchange Act of 1934: Quarterly Report of Form 10-Q for the period ended
      September 30, 2007.






The
      undersigned certifies that the above annual report fully complies with the
      requirements of Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and
      information contained in the above quarterly report fairly presents, in all
      respects, the financial condition of American International Industries, Inc.
      and
      results of its operations.






Date:  November
      19, 2007


Sherry
      Couturier


CFO/s/
      Sherry Couturier
#### KUSHINSKY v STORCK

Ohio Appeals, 9th Dist, Lorain Co

No. 497.

Decided October 4, 1929

Robert H. Rice, Elyria, for Kushinsky.

A.W. Cinniger, Lorain, for Storck.

FUNK, PJ.

Our Supreme Court has said at least three times that the language used by the court, to wit, “to the satisfaction of the jury,” means more than a preponderance of the evidence and is prejudicial error.

> Kelch v. State, 55 OS. 146, at pp. 152-153.

> B. & O. R. R. Co. v. Linn, 77 OS. 615.

> C., H. & D. Ry. Co. v. Frye, 80 OS. 289.

The Supreme Court has also gone further and held, in the case of Montanari v. Haworth, 108 OS. 8, at p. 14, that such error cannot be ignored under the substantial justice rule.

However, counsel for plaintiff contends that there was no contributory negligence on the part of plaintiff and that there could be no contributory negligence on the part of plaintiff, because he was confronted by an emergency caused by the negligence of defendant, and that he was not guilty of negligence in trying to extricate himself if he acted in such manner as an ordinarily prudent person might act in such a position, even though he did not make the wisest choice that could have been made, and that hence the charge on contributory negligence is not material even if the same is open to the criticism made by defendant.

We cannot agree with this contention of counsel for plaintiff, for the reason that under the pleadings and claims of the parties it is a question of fact to be determined by the jury 'from all the evidence whether or not an emergency was sud*631denly created by the negligence of defendant, whereby plaintiff was compelled to act instantly, and whether, in view of all the facts and surrounding circumstances, including an emergency, if one existed, plaintiff acted as an ordinarily prudent person would have acted, or whether the collision was caused by any contributory negligence on the part of plaintiff or by the sole negligence of plaintiff.

As to the other four errors complained of in the charge, it will be noted that if they are errors at all that they are all errors of omission rather than of commission, and that while the charge in the particulars complained of may not be as complete and clear as it perhaps should have been and thus subject to some complaint, the record does not show and there is no claim that counsel for defendant called the court’s attention to any of these omissions he now complains of.

As to the verdict being against the manifest weight of the evidence.

We find the conflict in the evidence is such in this case that a reviewing court would not be warranted in reversing on the weight of the evidence, whether the verdict was for either party or a general verdict for the defendant.

Finding that there was error prejudicial to defendant as to the quantity of evidence necessary for defendant to produce on the question of contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff, the judgment is reversed for that reason and the cause remanded for further proceedings according to law.

Pardee, J, and Washburn, J; concur.
### 25HBQ23T GLYC140902956579176 082914

X X Page 1 SANITIZED SUBMISSION

### X 

## X Page 2 SANITIZED SUBMISSIONBrian Johnson Director of Research Industrial Speciality Chemicals 16880 S. Lathrop Ave. Harvey IL 60426 bjohnson@iscwater.com

Brian Johnson Director of Research Industrial Specialty Chemicals 16880 S. Lathrop Ave. Harvey IL 60426 bjohnson@iscwater.com 708-261-0033 

## X X X X Page 3 SANITIZED SUBMISSION

## X

XXX 

## X XXX 

## X XXX 

## X
Glycidal Structure for EPA.jpg Page 4 SANITIZED SUBMISSIONEpibromohydrin, CAS# 3132-64-7

Trimethylamine, CAS # 75-50-3 Quaternization reaction of TMA into Epibromohydrin Reaction run at 0 Deg C overnight in Dimethyl Ether solvent Product precipitated and washed with DME solvent to remove residual reactants Dried at 48 Deg C under vaccum overnight 1:1.2 mole ratio of Epibromohydrin to Trimethylamine (excess TMA to ensure quaternization and minimize Epibromohydrin residuals Page 5 SANITIZED SUBMISSIONPage 6 SANITIZED SUBMISSIONPage 7 SANITIZED SUBMISSIONXXX

None Glycidyl trimethylammonium bromide 

## X 1,2-dimethoxyethane 110-71-4 0.01

XXX XXX 

### X XXX XXX 

### X Page 8 SANITIZED SUBMISSION

### XXX XXX 

## X

A raw material to modify starch polymer with an etherfication reaction Intermediate for polymer production 100 XXX 

### X 100 0 0 0

Page 9 SANITIZED SUBMISSION

## X XXX XXX XXX 

## X 1

XXX 

## X Industrial Specialty Chemicals 16880 S. Lathrop Ave Harvey United States IL 60426

Page 10 SANITIZED SUBMISSIONPage 11 SANITIZED SUBMISSIONBag addition Class B suit, dust mask, gloves dry 3.6% 1 1 200 pumping gloves, goggles, face shield liquid solution, 7.2% in water 1 1 200

Page 12 SANITIZED SUBMISSION1 0

Page 13 SANITIZED SUBMISSION

### XXX 

## X

See Attachment 002 (Intermediate Protocol.docx)

Intermediate Protocol.docx Page 14 SANITIZED SUBMISSIONP10SB1(a)(4)1 Part II, Section B, 1(a)(4). Operation Site Locations

XXX

Page 15 SANITIZED SUBMISSIONPage 16 SANITIZED SUBMISSIONPage 17 SANITIZED SUBMISSION001 Oxiranemethanaminium, N,N,N-trimethyl-,

bromide structure formula Glycidal Structure for EPA.jpg Pt.I, Sec.B, 1e. 1 002 Intermediate Reaction Intermediate Protocol.docx Pt.2, Sec.B, 1a. 1 003 zzz IR Spectrum Cleaned.pdf Worksheet: Spectra 1

Page 18 SANITIZED SUBMISSION

## X Measured 

## X 003 Measured
Page 19 SANITIZED SUBMISSION

## ATTACHMENT HEADER SHEET Attachment Number 001 Attachment Name Oxiranemethanaminium, N,N,N-trimethyl-, bromide structure formula



## Associated PMN Section Number

Pt.I, Sec.B, 1e. Does not contain CBI 

## Report Number GLYC140902956579176

## ATTACHMENT HEADER SHEET Attachment Number 002 Attachment Name Intermediate Reaction 

## Associated PMN Section Number

Pt.2, Sec.B, 1a. Does not contain CBI 

## Report Number GLYC140902956579176

## ATTACHMENT HEADER SHEET Attachment Number 003 Attachment Name

zzz 

## Associated PMN Section Number

Worksheet: Spectra Does not contain CBI 

## Report Number GLYC140902956579176
#### § 415.43 Denial of safety approval.

The FAA notifies an applicant, in writing, if it has denied safety approval for a license application. The notice states the reasons for the FAA's determination. The applicant may respond to the reasons for the determination and request reconsideration.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                      15,430,917
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   12,442
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            15,578,250
<PP&E>                                         337,575
<DEPRECIATION>                                   6,410
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              16,155,665
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,597,489
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        19,011
<OTHER-SE>                                  14,216,466
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                16,155,665
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              12,274
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (1,723,608)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,056
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         (1,725,664)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                (1,725,664)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (0.09)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.09)


</TABLE>
II 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4718 

To amend title 18, United States Code, to make fraudulent dealings in 

firearms and ammunition unlawful, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 24, 2020 

Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself and Mr. MENENDEZ) introduced the following 

bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend title 18, United States Code, to make fraudulent 

dealings in firearms and ammunition unlawful, and for 

other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Stopping the Fraudu5 lent Sales of Firearms Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. FRAUDULENT DEALINGS IN FIREARMS. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 922(a) of title 18, United 

8 States Code, is amended— 

9 (1) in paragraph (9), by striking the period and 

10 at the end and inserting ‘‘; and’’; and 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 4718 IS

1 (2) by adding at the end the following: 

2 ‘‘(10) for any person— 

3 ‘‘(A) to import, manufacture, or sell a fire4 arm or ammunition by means of false or fraud5 ulent pretenses, representations, or promises; 

6 and 

7 ‘‘(B) to transmit or cause to be trans8 mitted, by means of wire, radio, or television 

9 communication in interstate or foreign com10 merce, any communication relating to the im11 portation, manufacture, or sale described in 

12 subparagraph (A).’’. 

13 (b) PENALTY.—Section 924(a)(1)(B) of title 18, 

14 United States Code, is amended by inserting ‘‘(a)(10),’’ 

15 before ‘‘(f)’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS