alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1 In The 

### Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

__________________ N O . 09

- 21

- 00216

- CV

__________________ ZION BUILDERS LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY D/B/A ZION BUILDERS , Appellant
V.
ERI K GARDUNO A/K/A ERIC GARDUNO AND KAREN GARDUNO , Appellee s

__________________________________________________________________ On Appeal from the 457th District Court Montgomery County, Texas Trial Cause No. 19

- 05

- 06051

- CV

__________________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION Zion Builders Limited Liability Company d/b/a Zion Builders appealed from a final judgment , signed on June 23, 2021. But after that, Zion Builders failed to pay or arrange to pay the fee charged by the District Clerk to prepare a clerk’ s record to support the appeal. On October 22, 2021, we notified the parties that the District
Clerk had not filed a record , and we warned the parties the appeal would be dismissed for want of prosecution unless Zion Builders explained why it needed2 more t ime to pay for the clerk’s record since that record was required to support its appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 37.3(b). We received no response to that notice. In the absence of an explanation justifying its failure to arrange to have the record of the proce edings that it needs to support its appeal, we dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution

. See id . 37.3(b), 42.3, 43.2(f).
APPEAL DISMISSED.
PER CURIAM

S ubmitted on December 29, 2021 Opinion Delivered December 30, 2021
Before Golemon, C.J., Kreger and Horton, JJ.
**EXHIBIT** **23.1**

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-149824, 333-137768, 333-128118, 333-118348, 333-106282, 333-101536, 333-69696, 333-45094 and 333-83153) of 4Kids Entertainment, Inc. of our reports dated March 13, 2009 relating to the financial statements and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, which appears in this Form 10-K. 

/s/ Eisner LLP 

New York, New York

March 13, 2009
§ 471.11 What are the procedures for filing and processing a complaint? ( a ) *Filing complaints.* An employee of a covered contractor may file a complaint alleging that the contractor has failed to post the employee notice as required by the Executive Order and this part; and/or has failed to include the employee notice clause in subcontracts or purchase orders. Complaints may be filed with the Office of Labor-Management Standards (OLMS) or the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) at 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210, or with any OLMS or OFCCP field office.
( b ) *Contents of complaints.* The complaint must be in writing and must include: ( 1 ) The employee's name, address, and telephone number;
( 2 ) The name and address of the contractor alleged to have violated the Executive Order and this part;
( 3 ) An identification of the alleged violation and the establishment or construction work site where it is alleged to have occurred;
( 4 ) Any other pertinent information that will assist in the investigation and resolution of the complaint; and
( 5 ) The signature of the employee filing the complaint.
( c ) *Complaint investigations.* In investigating complaints filed with the Department under this section, the Director of OFCCP will evaluate the allegations of the complaint and develop a case record. The record will include findings regarding the contractor's compliance with the requirements of the Executive Order and this part, and, as applicable, a description of conciliation efforts made, corrective action taken, and/or enforcement recommended.
§ 5.28 Unfunded plans. ( a ) The costs to a contractor or subcontractor which may be reasonably anticipated in providing benefits of the types described in the Act, pursuant to an enforceable commitment to carry out a financially responsible plan or program, are considered fringe benefits within the meaning of the Act (*see* 40 U.S.C. 3141(2)(B)(ii)). The legislative history suggests that these provisions were intended to permit the consideration of fringe benefits meeting these requirements, among others, and which are provided from the general assets of a contractor or subcontractor. (Report of the House Committee on Education and Labor, H. Rep. No. 308, 88th Cong., 1st Sess., p. 4; *see also* S. Rep. No. 963, p. 6.)
( b ) Such a benefit plan or program, commonly referred to as an unfunded plan, may not constitute a fringe benefit within the meaning of the Act unless: ( 1 ) It could be reasonably anticipated to provide the benefits described in the Act;
( 2 ) It represents a commitment that can be legally enforced;
( 3 ) It is carried out under a financially responsible plan or program;
( 4 ) The plan or program providing the benefits has been communicated in writing to the laborers and mechanics affected; and
( 5 ) The contractor or subcontractor requests and receives approval of the plan or program from the Secretary, as described in paragraph (c) of this section.
( c ) To receive approval of an unfunded plan or program, a contractor or subcontractor must demonstrate in its request to the Secretary that the unfunded plan or program, and the benefits provided under such plan or program, are “bona fide,” meet the requirements set forth in paragraphs (b)(1) through (4) of this section, and are otherwise consistent with the Act. The request must include sufficient documentation to enable the Secretary to evaluate these criteria. Contractors and subcontractors may request approval of an unfunded plan or program by submitting a written request in one of the following manners: ( 1 ) By mail to the United States Department of Labor, Wage and Hour Division, Director, Division of Government Contracts Enforcement, 200 Constitution Ave. NW, Room S-3502, Washington, DC 20210;
( 2 ) By email to *unfunded@dol.gov* (or its successor email address); or
( 3 ) By any other means directed by the Administrator.
( d ) Unfunded plans or programs may not be used as a means of avoiding the Act's requirements. The words “reasonably anticipated” require that any unfunded plan or program be able to withstand a test of actuarial soundness. Moreover, as in the case of other fringe benefits payable under the Act, an unfunded plan or program must be “bona fide” and not a mere simulation or sham for avoiding compliance with the Act. To prevent these provisions from being used to avoid compliance with the Act, the Secretary may direct a contractor or subcontractor to set aside in an account assets which, under sound actuarial principles, will be sufficient to meet future obligations under the plan. Such an account must be preserved for the purpose intended. (S. Rep. No. 963, p. 6.)
[88 FR 57744, Aug. 23, 2023]
Exhibit
      32.2








CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO


18
      U.S.C.
      SECTION 1350,


AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002








In
      connection with the Quarterly Report of Visualant, Incorporated on Form 10-QSB
      for the period ended December 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and
      Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Bradley E. Sparks,
      Chief Financial Officer and Secretary Treasurer of the Company, certify,
      pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and
      belief:





(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.





Date:
                February 20, 2007
            By:
            /s/ Bradley
              E. SparksBradley
              E. SparksTitle :
              Chief
              Financial Officer and
              Secretary-Treasurer
#### COOPER v STATE

Ohio Supreme Court

No 21809.

Decided Feb. 5, 1930

Kinkade, Jones, Matthias, Day and Allen, JJ., concur.
§ 4901.13 Receipt by agency of request. The Disclosure Officer will note the date and time of receipt on each disclosure request for access to records. A disclosure request is deemed received and the period within which PBGC acts on the request, as set forth in § 4901.14, begins on the next working day following receipt, except that a disclosure request is deemed received only if and when PBGC receives all of the following: ( a ) A sufficient description under § 4901.12;
( b ) Payment or assurance of payment if required under § 4901.33(b); and
( c ) The requester's consent to pay substantial search, review, and/or duplication charges under subpart D of this part if PBGC determines that such charges may be substantial and so notifies the requester. Consent must be in the form of a statement that charges under subpart D of this part will be acceptable either in any amount or up to a specified amount. To avoid possible delay, a requester may include such a statement in an initial disclosure request.
[87 FR 43995, July 25, 2022]
#### § 503.55 Final decision of the Administrative Review Board.

The ARB's final decision will be issued within 90 days from the notice granting the petition and served upon all parties and the ALJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>           5
<MULTIPLIER>        1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                           3,433
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   26,140
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,459
<INVENTORY>                                     30,114
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                61,013
<PP&E>                                          32,173
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 140,385
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           23,447
<BONDS>                                         19,139
<COMMON>                                           189
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          2
<OTHER-SE>                                      97,608
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   140,385
<SALES>                                        145,970
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               152,809
<CGS>                                           63,446
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   46,025
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 2,307
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,932
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 39,099
<INCOME-TAX>                                    14,791
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             24,308
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    24,308
<EPS-BASIC>                                     1.28
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.19


</TABLE>
RICHARD E. ZALDIVAR, P.A., F ormer Counsel for Employee Claimant

, Appellant,

v.

DYKE INDUSTRIES, INC., LIBERTY MUTUAL

, and ALAIN DEBESA

, Appellee s

. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D 15

- 1529

_____________________________/

Opinion filed October 13, 2016.

An appeal from an order of the Judge of Compensation Claims

. Charles M. Hill, III , Judge

. Date of Accident: January 13, 2014.

Kimberly A. Hill of Kimberly A. Hill, P.L., Fort Lauderdale, and Albert Marroquin of Richard E. Zaldivar, P.A., Miami

, for Appellant.

Edward C. Duncan, III, of the Law Offices of Amy L. Warpinski, Fort Myers , for Appellee s

.

PER CURIAM.

Th e court having received the September 6, 2016, order of the Supreme Court

of Florida quashing this court’s opinion of July 8, 2015, and remanding the matter2 for reconsideration upon application of Castellanos v. Next Door Co. , 192 So. 3d

431 (Fla. 2016), and finding that reversal is warranted in light of that opinion, the

order of the Jud ge of Compensation Claims is REVERSED

, and this case is

REMANDED for proceedings consistent with that opinion.

REVERSED and REMANDED

.
B.L. THOMAS, KELSEY, and JAY, JJ., CONCUR.
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATION





I, Richard R. Walters, certify that:



1.

I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Little Squaw Gold Mining Company;

2.

Based on my knowledge, this annual 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 annual report.

3.

Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this annual 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 annual report.

4.

The Registrant's other certifying officer 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 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 annual report is being prepared;

b)

Evaluated the effectiveness of the Registrant's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this annual report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this annual 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 (fourth 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.

The Registrant's other certifying officer 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 the Registrant's board of directors:

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 26, 2004



By   /s/ Richard R. Walters



Richard R. Walters, President



A signed original of this written statement has been provided to the Registrant and will be retained by the Registrant to be furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### § 452.119 Indirect elections.

National or international labor organizations subject to the Act have the option of electing officers either directly by secret ballot among the members in good standing or at a convention of delegates or other representatives who have been elected by secret ballot among the members. Intermediate labor organizations subject to the Act have the option of electing officers either directly by secret ballot among the members in good standing or by labor organization officers or delegates elected by secret ballot vote of the members they represent. Local unions, in contrast, do not have the option of conducting their periodic elections of officers indirectly through representatives.
-88 -86 -84 -82 -80 -78 -76 -74

34 36 38 40 42 

### ★

▲ ▲ ▲ ▲



### ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ 500 1000 1500 1000 18 12 06 00 07/27 

### NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL 

## Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 27 Jul 06

EDAS Meteorological DataSource★at 39.06 N 76.88 WMeters AGL
791 A.2d 1152

#### Frank NELLOM, Appellant v. PENNSYLVANIA BOARD OF PROBATION & PAROLE, Appellee.

No. 144 MAP 2001.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

Jan. 15, 2002.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM:

AND NOW, this 15th day of January, 2002, the order of the Commonwealth Court is affirmed.
## MEMORANDUM

**DATE:** 11/7/14 **FROM:** Ken Mitchell/EPA Region 4 **TO:** Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants; Docket Id: OAR – 2013 - 0602 **SUBJECT:** Discussion of the Southeastern Electric Exchange (SEE) Conference held on 0 6 / 26/2014 **SUMMARY :**  

### EPA Region 4 provided an overview of the Clean Power Plan to attendees at the Southeastern Electric Exchange Conference held on 0 6 / 26 /2014 in Orlando, FL. 

### Th e Clean Power Plan for Existing P ower Plants was proposed on June 2, 2014. **ATTENDEES :**  **EPA** Beverly Banister/EPA R4 **External Stakeholders** Approximately 25. Convened by the Southeastern Electric Exchange ( S.E.E. Conference Coordinator: Amy Bekele ) **ATTACHMENTS**
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 23

                      CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

     As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the 
incorporation by reference of our report dated February 8, 1999, included (or 
incorporated by reference) in this Annual Report of Lawter International, 
Inc. and Subsidiaries on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 1998, into 
the Company's previously filed Registration Statements on Forms S-3 (File No. 
33-24165), S-8 (File No. 33-24859), S-8 (File No. 33-61506), S-8 (File No. 
2-84421) and S-8 (File No. 333-67337).

                                            ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP

Chicago, Illinois,
March 26, 1999
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Commerce

###### International Trade Administration

# AGENCY:

NAFTA Secretariat, United States Section, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

# ACTION:

Notice of Termination of Panel Review of the Final Results of the first administrative review of the antidumping duty order on Citric Acid and Certain Citrate Salts from Canada, Secretariat File No. USA-CDA-2011-1904-03.

# SUMMARY:

Pursuant to the negotiated settlement between the United States and Canadian industries, the panel review of the above-noted case is terminated as of August 2, 2011. No panel has been appointed to review this panel.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Ellen Bohon, United States Secretary, NAFTA Secretariat, Suite 2061, 14th and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230, (202) 482-5438.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Chapter 19 of the North American Free-Trade Agreement (“Agreement”) established a mechanism to replace domestic judicial review of final determinations in antidumping and countervailing duty cases involving imports from a NAFTA country with review by independent binational panels. When a Request for Panel Review is filed, a panel is established to act in place of national courts to review expeditiously the final determination to determine whether it conforms to the antidumping or countervailing duty law of the country that made the determination.

                    Under Article 1904 of the Agreement, which came into force on January 1, 1994, the Government of the United States, the Government of Canada, and the Government of Mexico established                     *Rules of Procedure for Article 1904 Binational Panel Reviews*                     (“Rules”). These Rules were published in the                     **Federal Register**                     on February 23, 1994 (59 FR 8686). The panel review in this matter was requested Pursuant to these Rules and terminated in accordance with the settlement agreement.                

Dated: August 3, 2011

Ellen Bohon,

United States Secretary, NAFTA Secretariat.

[FR Doc. 2011-20030 Filed 8-5-11; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-GT-P
## TECHNICAL SUPPORT DOCUMENT:

ENERGY EFFICIENCY PROGRAM

FOR CONSUMER PRODUCTS AND

COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL EQUIPMENT:

RESIDENTIAL DISHWASHERS, DE HUMIDIFIERS, AND COOKING

PRODUCTS, AND COMMERCIAL CLOTHES WASHERS

December 2009

U.S. Department of Energy

Assistant Secretary

Office of Energy Efficien cy and Renewable Energy

Building Technologies Program

Appliances and Commercia l Equipment Standards

Washington, DC 20585This Document was prepared for the Department of Energy

and by staff members of

Navigant Consulting, Inc.

and

Ernest Orlando Lawrence Be rkeley National Laboratory