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

<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED>
<CIK> 0000059593
<NAME> LINDBERG CORPORATION
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                         283,270
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               14,875,005
<ALLOWANCES>                                   304,000
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            36,264,529
<PP&E>                                      91,602,405
<DEPRECIATION>                              52,505,822
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              89,563,431
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       20,117,401
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    14,183,493
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,526,192
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                89,563,431
<SALES>                                     88,783,577
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            88,783,577
<CGS>                                       63,691,330
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               63,691,330
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            13,211,421
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,681,103
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             11,636,051
<INCOME-TAX>                                 4,674,961
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          6,961,090
<DISCONTINUED>                              (6,698,240)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   262,850
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .05
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .05


</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL 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 accompanying Annual Report of Kewaunee Scientific Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-K for
the fiscal year ended April 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, D. Michael Parker, Senior Vice President, Finance and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:



| | (1) | such Form 10-K of the Company for the period ended April 30, 2007, fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 (15
U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and
| | --- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | the information contained in such Form 10-K of the Company for the period ended April 30, 2007, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: July 18, 2007



/s/ D. Michael ParkerD. Michael Parker Senior Vice President, Finance and
Chief Financial Officer
(78 South. 308)

#### CHILDS v. STATE.

(4 Div. 529.)

(Court of Appeals of Alabama.

March 12, 1918.)

Criminal Daw <&wkey;304(17) — Judicial Notice —Rules and Regulations of Live Stock Sanitary Board.

The rules and regulations authorized to be enacted by the state live stock sanitary board, when adopted, are in the nature of ordinances, and as such must be pleaded and proved before the courts will permit them to become the basis for a criminal prosecution for failure to comply therewith.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Pike County; A. B. Poster, Judge.

W. A. Childs was convicted of failing to dip cattle, and appeals.

Reversed and remanded.

The conviction of defendant was on an affidavit made before a justice of the peace, charging that “he did unlawfully and willfully fail or refuse to dip all cattle owned by him or in his charge at the time and place designated by an inspector commissioned by the state live stock sanitary board after being notified to do so by said inspector, in violation of the rules and regulations of the said board, against the péace,” etc.

J. L. R. Boyd, of Troy, for appellant. P. Loyd Tate, Atty. Gen., and Emmett S. Thigpen, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

SAMPORD, J.

The rules and regulations authorized to be enacted by. the state live stock sanitary board, when adopted, are in the nature of ordinances, and as such must *393be pleaded and proved before the courts will permit them to become the basis for a criminal prosecution. We tried to give the correct rule in Powell v. State, 75 South. 269,1 and while that part of the opinion was dictum in that ease, we adhere to it here. The demurrer should have been sustained.

The judgment is reversed, and the cause is remanded.

Reversed and remanded.

1

 Ante, p. 63.
#### *Ex parte,*Holmes Hutchinson *vs.*The Commissioners of the Canal Fund.

A *mandamus*does not lie to the *commisioners of the coned fund,*to allow a claim for costs expended by a *canal engineer,*in a suit prosecuted against him for *alleged negligence*in the discharge of his duty, in which suit the plaintiffs suffered a *non pros.*A discretion is entrusted to the commissioners, with the exercise of which this court will not interfere.

The relator was sued in his character of an *engineer*on the state canals, by S. & L. W. Holmes, for *alleged negligence*on his part in the enlargement of the Erie canal in the city of Utica, by means whereof the water from the canal forced its way into the cellar of a store occupied by the plaintiffs and damaged their property. The plaintiffs suffered judgment, as in case of nonsuit for not proceeding to trial, to be entered against them; and the relator not being able to collect the costs of the defence by process of execution against the plaintiffs, presented a claim to the *commissioners of the canal fund*for the allowance of the sum of $83.95^ [ *693 ] *the amount of such costs paid by him to his attorney, and that the same be paid to him from the *canal fund,*in pursuance of the provisions of the statute, 1 *R. S.*181, § 14, &c. *2d ed.*The commissioners refused to allow the claim, and the relator applied for a *manda-, mus.*

*By the Court,*

Nelson, C. J.

It is sufficient to say that the statute vests the commissioners with a *discretionary poioer*to allow the claim, or such part thereof as they shall deem to be reasonable," if they shall be satisfied that the officers making such claim have been subjected to costs, &c., while’ acting in good faith in the discharge of their duty. Having a right thus to exercise a discretion in the matter, the remedy by *mandamus*is inappropriate. The legislature alone can revise the decision of the commissioners.

Motion denied.
§ 37.39 How long must grant applicants and recipients maintain the records required under this part? ( a ) Each recipient must maintain the following records for a period of not less than three years from the close of the applicable program year: ( 1 ) The records of applicants, registrants, eligible applicants/registrants, participants, terminees, employees, and applicants for employment; and
( 2 ) Such other records as are required under this part or by the Director.
( b ) Records regarding complaints and actions taken on the complaints must be maintained for a period of not less than three years from the date of resolution of the complaint.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ANDREW SUDESH NARAYAN,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 11-72601

Agency No. A035-213-785

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted December 19, 2012** 

Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.

Andrew Sudesh Narayan, a native and citizen of the United Kingdom,

petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his

appeal from an immigration judge’s removal order denying Narayan’s motion to

terminate. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing de novo

FILED

DEC 21 2012

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 11-72601

questions of law, Morales-Garcia v. Holder, 567 F.3d 1058, 1061 (9th Cir. 2009),

we deny the petition for review.

The agency properly concluded that Narayan’s conviction under

section 273.5(a) of the California Penal Code constitutes a conviction for a crime

involving moral turpitude (“CIMT”) because a modified categorical analysis of the

record of conviction establishes that Narayan was convicted of inflicting corporal

injury upon his spouse. See United States v. Leal-Vega, 680 F.3d 1160, 1168-69

(9th Cir. 2012) (holding that a criminal complaint, read together with other

judicially noticeable documents, may be considered under the modified categorical

analysis if no ambiguity exists in the record of conviction to conclude that the

defendant was convicted of a generic federal offense); Morales-Garcia, 567 F.3d

at 1065 (affirming that spousal abuse constitutes a CIMT).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
#### In the Matter of the Application of The City of New York, Respondent, Relative to Acquiring Title to Land for the Establishment of a Public Beach in the Borough of Queens. Metro Investing and Credit Corporation et al., Appellants; Harry Lambros, Respondent.

Argued March 1, 1937;

decided March 9, 1937.

*Paul Windels, Corporation Counsel (Paxton Blair*and *Reuben Levy*of counsel), for motion.

*Leo B. Mittelman, A. Joseph Geist, Isaac Katz*and *Charles Lamb,*opposed.

Motion to dismiss appeal as to the city of New York denied, with leave to renew on argument of appeal.
#### EVANS et v LAWYER

Ohio Supreme Court

No 22431.

Decided Nov 19, 1930

Marshall, CJ., Kinkade, Robinson, Jones, Matthias and Allen, JJ, concur.
§ 4221.10 Costs. The costs of arbitration under this part shall be borne by the parties as follows: ( a ) *Witnesses.* Each party to the dispute shall bear the costs of its own witnesses.
( b ) *Other costs of arbitration.* Except as provided in § 4221.6(d) with respect to a transcript of the hearing, the parties shall bear the other costs of the arbitration proceedings equally unless the arbitrator determines otherwise. The parties may, however, agree to a different allocation of costs if their agreement is entered into after the employer has received notice of the plan's assessment of withdrawal liability.
( c ) *Attorneys' fees.* The arbitrator may require a party that initiates or contests an arbitration in bad faith or engages in dilatory, harassing, or other improper conduct during the course of the arbitration to pay reasonable attorneys' fees of other parties.
----

Action brought on 16 July 2004 by Enviro Tech Europe, Ltd., and Enviro Tech International, Inc., against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-291/04)

(2004/C 273/58)

Language of the case: English

An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 16 July 2004 by Enviro Tech Europe, Ltd., Kingston upon Thames, United Kingdom and Enviro Tech International, Inc., Illinois, USA, represented by Mr C. Mereu and Mr K. Van Maldegem, lawyers.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments:

The applicants seek the partial annulment of Commission Directive 2004/73/EC of 29 April 2004 adapting to technical progress for the twenty-ninth time Council Directive 67/548/EEC on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the classification, packaging and labelling of dangerous substances (1) insofar as it concerns the classification of n-propyl bromide.

The pleas in law and main arguments invoked in this case are similar to those invoked in case T-422/03, Enviro Tech Europe and Enviro Tech International against Commission (OJ 2004 C 47, p. 35).

----

(1)  OJ L 152, p. 1

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1996
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         0
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                         0
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
**Exhibit 32.1**

**Certification ofthe Chief Executive Officer Pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

I, Herbert Lindo,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual Report ofKenilworth Systems Corporation on Form 10-K for the year endedDecember 31, 2003 fully complies with the requirements ofSection 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934and that information contained in such Annual Report on Form 10-K fairlypresents in all material respects the financial condition and results ofoperations of Kenilworth Systems Corporation.
| By:    | /s/ Herbert Lindo       |   |
|--------|-------------------------|--------|
| Name:  | Herbert Lindo           |   |
| Title: | Chief Executive Officer |   |
| Date:  | August 25, 2006         |   |

 

----
(79 South. 163)

#### NELSON v. STATE.

(7 Div. 559.)

(Court of Appeals of Alabama.

June. 11, 1918.)

Appeal from Circuit Court, Randolph County; S. L. Brewer, Judge.

Andrew Nelson was indicted for assault to

murder, was convicted of an assault, and from the judgment he appeals.

Affirmed.

F. Loyd Tate, Atty. Gen., for the State.

SAMFORD, J.

The only exceptions are to the admission of testimony, all of which we have examined. We find no error in any of the rulings of the court as shown by the record. The judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.
#### SMERDA, etc v KOSKY, et.

Ohio Appeals, 8th Dist, Cuyahoga Co

No 10660.

Decided May 5, 1930

P. L. Abrams, Cleveland, for Smerda.

A. J. Bradley, Cleveland, for Kosky.

*353LEVINE, J.

An examination of the counter-claim discloses that the defendant in error relied as the basis of his recovery, upon the counter-claim, upon fraud and misrepresentation as to the condition of the Brunswick P.anatrope radio. The evidence in our opinion does not disclose that plaintiff in error was guilty of fraud and misrepresentation. Quite the contrary, the various efforts made by plaintiff in error to put the machine in condition, as well as his general attitude, would indicate that he was free from the charge of fraud ,and misrepresentation. At most, defendant in error could have urged either an express or implied warranty as to the efficiency of the Brunswick Panatrope radio.

It is unnecessary for us to state at this time as to what our holding would be if a claim based upon such warranty were urged before us. This much is quite clear, that defendant in error misconceived the nature and character of his action. It will be seen at a glance that the net result of the verdict of the jury,, were it to be allowed to stand undisturbed, is to have permitted defendant in error to retain the machine for a period of one year and ten months to have enabled him to recover every dollar paid by way of -installments to cover the purchase price and to tax the plaintiff in error $170.00 for a used Victor machine which was allowed by way of credit ,at the time of the purchase of the new radio.

We are of the opinion that the interest of justice requires that this case be reversed and that the same be remanded for a new trial. It will then be possible for defendant in error to frame his pleading under ,a proper theory and have the case decided in accordance therewith.

Judgment reversed and cause remanded for further proceedings according to law.

Vickery, PJ., and Sullivan, J., concur.
#### § 402.10 Dissemination and verification of reports.

Every labor organization required to submit a report under section 201(a) of the Act and under this part shall make available to all its members the information required to be contained in such report, including the copy of the constitution and bylaws required to be filed therewith, and every such labor organization and its officers shall be under a duty to permit such member for just cause to examine any books, records, and accounts necessary to verify such report and constitution and bylaws.

[28 FR 14381, Dec. 27, 1963, as amended at 50 FR 31309, Aug. 1, 1985]
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-6732

GUY T. LEGRANDE,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

ANNE NICHOLSON HOGEWOOD,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior District Judge. (CA-98-334-5-BR)

Submitted: July 30, 1998 Decided: August 27, 1998

Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Guy T. LeGrande, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant, a North Carolina inmate, appeals the district

court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1915A (West Supp. 1998). We have

reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find that

this appeal is frivolous. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal on the

reasoning of the district court. LeGrande v. Hogewood, No. CA-98-

334-5-BR (E.D.N.C. Apr. 27, 1998). We dispense with oral argument

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in

the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
- Skip to global NPS navigation
    - Skip to this park navigation
    - Skip to the main content
    - Skip to this park information section
    - Skip to the footer section

National Park Service**Search

# **OpenMenu**CloseMenu

## Explore This Park

## Explore the National Park Service

## Exiting nps.gov

Petroglyph
National MonumentNew Mexico
EXHIBIT
32.2
 
 Certification
Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350
 
 
 I, Rahul
Sen Gupta, Chief Financial Officer of Manas Petroleum Corporation (the
"Company"), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:
 
 (1) the
Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB/A of the Company for the quarter ended June 30,
2007 (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 the Company.
 
 
 Date:
June 17, 2008
 
 /s/ Rahul Sen
Gupta
 Rahul Sen
Gupta
 Chief
Financial Officer
#### § 2204.409 Stay of decision concerning award.

Any proceedings on an application for fees under this part shall be automatically stayed until the adversary adjudication has become a final disposition.
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D19-4065

_____________________________

OBADIAH MCCASKILL, JR.,

Petitioner,

v.

MARK S. INCH, Secretary, 

Florida Department of 

Corrections,

Respondent.

_____________________________

Petition for Writ of Certiorari—Original Jurisdiction.

September 15, 2020

PER CURIAM.

The petition for writ of certiorari is denied on the merits.

RAY, C.J., and BILBREY and JAY, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________
2

Obadiah McCaskill, Jr., pro se, Petitioner.

Lance Eric Neff, General Counsel, and Daniel R. Burke, Assistant 

General Counsel, Florida Department of Corrections, Tallahassee,

for Respondent.
```

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 37 (Tuesday, February 25, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 10518]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-04117]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9907-01-OA]

Farm, Ranch, and Rural Communities Advisory Committee (FRRCC); 
Notice of Charter Renewal

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

    Notice is hereby given that the Environmental Protection Agency 
(EPA) has determined that, in accordance with the provisions of the 
Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), 5 U.S.C. App. 2., the Farm, 
Ranch, and Rural Communities Advisory Committee (FRRCC) is a necessary 
committee which is in the public interest. Accordingly, the FRRCC will 
be renewed for an additional two-year period. The purpose of the FRRCC 
is to provide advice and recommendations to the EPA Administrator on 
environmental issues and policies that are of importance to agriculture 
and rural communities. Inquiries may be directed to Sarah Bittleman, 
U.S. EPA, (Mail Code 1101A), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, 
DC 20460, or bittleman.sarah@epa.gov.

    Dated: January 13, 2014.
 Sarah Bittleman,
Agricultural Counselor to the Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2014-04117 Filed 2-24-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
```