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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
financial statements included in Part I, Item 1 of Form 10-Q dated June 30, 2000
and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                             184
<SECURITIES>                                        80
<RECEIVABLES>                                      187
<ALLOWANCES>                                        20
<INVENTORY>                                         73
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   524
<PP&E>                                             576
<DEPRECIATION>                                     160
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   1,979
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              118
<BONDS>                                            951
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             1
<OTHER-SE>                                         825
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     1,979
<SALES>                                            243
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   455
<CGS>                                               77
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      169
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    72
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  31
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    110
<INCOME-TAX>                                        34
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 76
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                        76
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.74
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.72


</TABLE>
Exhibit
23.1




CONSENT
OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM




We hereby consent to the incorporation
by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (No. 333-21735, No.
333-50293 and 333-131692) of KSW, Inc. of our report dated March 23, 2009,
relating to the consolidated financial statements and financial statement
schedule as of and for the years ended December 31, 2008 and 2007, which are
included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.




/s/ J.H.
Cohn LLP


White
Plains, New York


March 23,
2009
§ 105-56.024 Purpose and scope. ( a ) This subpart establishes procedures for the offset of Federal salary payments, through the Financial Management Service's (FMS) administrative offset program, to collect delinquent debts owed to the Federal Government. This process is known as salary offset. Rules issued by the Office of Personnel Management contain the requirements Federal agencies must follow prior to conducting salary offset and the procedures for requesting offsets directly from a paying agency. See 5 CFR parts 550.1101 through 550.1108.
( b ) This subpart implements the requirement under 5 U.S.C. 5514(a)(1) that all Federal agencies, using a process known as centralized salary offset computer matching, identify Federal employees who owe delinquent non-tax debt to the United States. Centralized salary offset computer matching is the computerized comparison of delinquent debt records with records of Federal employees. The purpose of centralized salary offset computer matching is to identify those debtors whose Federal salaries should be offset to collect delinquent debts owed to the Federal Government.
( c ) This subpart specifies the delinquent debt records and Federal employee records that must be included in the salary offset matching process. For purposes of this subpart, delinquent debt records consist of the debt information submitted to FMS for purposes of administrative offset as required under 31 U.S.C. 3716(c)(6).
( d ) An interagency consortium was established to implement centralized salary offset computer matching on a Governmentwide basis as required under 5 U.S.C. 5514(a)(1). Federal employee records consist of records of Federal salary payments disbursed by members of the consortium.
Exhibit
32.1











Certification
of Chief Executive Officer





Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as
created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned
officer of Tanger Properties Limited Partnership (the “Operating
Partnership”) hereby certifies, to such officer’s knowledge,
that:





(i)           the
accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Operating Partnership for the
year ended December 31, 2007 (the “Report”) fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable,
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and





(ii)           the
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Operating
Partnership.





Pursuant
to the rules and regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission, this
certification is being furnished and is not deemed filed.





Date:
      February 28, 2008
            /s/
      Stanley K. TangerStanley
      K. Tanger
              Chief
      Executive Officer of Tanger GP Trust, Sole General Partner of the
      Registrant
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 119 (Tuesday, June 20, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 38314]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-15537]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration


RTCA, Special Committee 172; Future Air-Ground Communications in 
the VHF Aeronautical Data Band (118-137 MHz)

    Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act 
(Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., Appendix 2), notice is hereby given for 
Special Committee 172 meeting to be held July 26-27, 2000, starting at 
9:00 a.m. The meeting will be held at RTCA, 1140 Connecticut Avenue, 
NW., Suite 1020, Washington, DC 20036.
    The agenda will be as follows: July 26: (1) Plenary Convenes at 
9:00 a.m.; (2) Introductory Remarks; (3) Review and Approve Agenda; (4) 
Working Group (WG)-2, VHF Data Radio Signal-in-Space Minimum Aviation 
System Performance Standards, review comments on final work (written 
inputs only) and vote on DO-224A (distributed in advance).

    Note:  This is a single-purpose meeting convened solely for the 
purpose of completing the final draft of DO-224A. No comments will 
be accepted that were not submitted for review, in writing, prior to 
the meeting. July 27: (5) WG-2/Plenary as necessary; (6) Other 
Business; (7) Dates and Locations of Next Meeting; (8) Closing.

    Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space 
availability. With the approval of the chairman, members of the public 
may present oral statements at the meeting. Persons wishing to present 
statements or obtain information should contact the RTCA Secretariat, 
1140 Connecticut Avenue, NW., Suite 1020, Washington, DC 20036; (202) 
833-9339 (phone); (202) 833-9434 (fax); or http://www.rtca.org (web 
site). Members of the public may present a written statement to the 
committee at any time.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on June 14, 2000.
Jane P. Caldwell,
Designated Official.
[FR Doc. 00-15537 Filed 6-19-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM   Document 173-3   Entered on FLSD Docket 02/02/2024   Page 1 of 1
Exhibit
10.1


 


	Aug 15 19 05:56p	pele kala corp	6029541244	p.2




 





 


August
14, 2019


 


Legacy
Education Alliance Holdings, LLC


Attn:
James E. May, CEO


1612
E. Cape Coral Parkway


Cape Coral, Florida 33904


 


		Re:	Agreement
                                         to Extend Expiration Date Under License Agreement



 


Dear
Jim:


 


Further
to our meeting in Scottsdale, Arizona last week, this letter constitutes the agreement of Rich Dad Operating Company, LLC and
Legacy Education Alliance Holdings, LLC to amend Section 10.1 of the License Agreement between the parties dated as of September
1, 2013, as amended by the First Amendment thereto dated as of April 22, 2014 and the Second Amendment thereto dated as of January
25, 2018 (collectively, the “License Agreement”). In such regard, for good and valuable consideration, the parties
agree that Section 10.1 of the License Agreement is hereby amended to read as follows:


 


“10.1
The Term hereunder shall commence upon the Effective Date and shall expire on September 30, 2019 unless the Agreement is sooner
terminated pursuant to Section 10.2 or 10.3.”


 


Please
confirm the agreement of Legacy Education Alliance Holdings, LLC as to this amendment by counter-signing this letter in the space
provided below and returning a copy of this letter to the undersigned. The foregoing amendment shall only become effective upon
your delivery to the undersigned of such counter-signed letter.


 


	Yours truly,	 
	 	 
	Rich Dad Operating Comport, LLC	 
	 	 
	/s/ Kim Kiyosaki	 
	Kim Kiyosaki	 
	Member	 




 


	 	The foregoing amendment is agreed
    to and accepted.
	 	 
	 	Legacy Education Alliance Holdings, LLC
	 	 
	 	By:	/s/ James E. May
	 	Name: 	 James E. May
	 	Title:	CEO
	 	 	8/16/19
1

The Honorable Ann D. Montgomery, United States District Judge for the

District of Minnesota, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable

John M. Mason, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Minnesota.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 01-2999

___________

Willie Wilks, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Minnesota.

Robert Mundt, Warden, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellee. *

___________

 Submitted: January 22, 2002

 Filed: January 30, 2002

___________

Before McMILLIAN, BOWMAN, and BYE, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Federal inmate Willie Wilks appeals the District Court’s1

 dismissal with

prejudice of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas corpus petition. After de novo review, see

United States v. Lurie, 207 F.3d 1075, 1076 (8th Cir. 2000), we affirm. 

Wilks sought § 2241 relief because the Bureau of Prisons denied his request

to remove the Sex Offender Public Safety Factor from his Custody Classification
-2-

Form. We agree with the District Court that the stigma Wilks faced as a result of his

classification, without more, failed to implicate a protected liberty interest upon

which he could base his procedural due process claim. See Moody v. Daggett, 429

U.S. 78, 88 n.9 (1976) (noting that prison classification and eligibility for

rehabilitative programs in federal system are matters delegated by Congress to

discretion of federal prison officials and thus implicate “no legitimate statutory or

constitutional entitlement sufficient to invoke due process”). Wilks, who is due to

be released early based on good-time credits he has earned, conceded that his

completion of a drug-treatment program would merely make him eligible for—not

guarantee—an even earlier release. Cf. Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 487 (1995)

(concluding that because nothing in state code required parole board to deny parole

in face of misconduct record, and because misconduct record did not inevitably affect

duration of inmate’s confinement but was just one of many considerations in parole

decision, the mere possibility that disciplinary committee's misconduct finding would

influence later parole decision was “too attenuated to invoke the procedural

guarantees of the Due Process Clause”). Further, even if the classification implicated

a protected liberty interest, we would hold that—because the classification was based

in Wilks’s case on actual convictions—the review he received when he challenged

it administratively met minimum procedural due process requirements. Cf. Neal v.

Shimoda, 131 F.3d 818, 831 (9th Cir. 1997) (holding that state prisoner received due

process when prison notified him that his classification as a sex offender was based

on his prior sex-offense conviction). 

We decline to consider Wilks’s collateral challenge to the prior sex-offense

convictions upon which his classification was based, and we deny his pending

motion.

Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. 
-3-

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
#### § 109-38.701-50 Authority to sign Standard Form 97, The United States Government Certificate to Obtain Title to a Vehicle.

The Standard Form (SF) 97 shall be signed by an appropriate contracting officer. The Director, Office of Management and Program Secretarial Officer (PSO) for their respective organizations may delegate the authority to sign SF 97 to responsible DOE personnel under their jurisdiction.
Exhibit 23.2

            CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

      We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements on Form S-8 (No 33-21735, No. 333-50293 and 333-131692) of KSW, Inc.
of our report dated February 15, 2007, except for Note 17 (A), as to which the
date is March 6, 2007, and for Note 17 (B), as to which the date is March 8,
2007, relating to the consolidated financial statements which are included in
this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

MARDEN, HARRISON & KREUTER
Certified Public Accountants, P.C.

White Plains, New York
March 5, 2008
#### § 102-37.580 Who is responsible for costs associated with the donation?

The recipient public body is responsible for paying the disposal costs incident to the donation, such as packing, preparation for shipment, demilitarization (as defined in § 102-36.40 of this chapter), loading, and transportation to its site.
AFS-11-397-E September 13, 2011

Exemption No. 9565B Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2007-0061

Mr. Steven McKnight Honeywell International, Inc. 9201 San Mateo Boulevard, NE. Albuquerque, NM 87113

Dear Mr. McKnight:

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your petition to extend Exemption No. 9565, as amended. It explains the basis for our decision and describes its effect.

The Basis for Our Decision

By letter dated July 25, 2011, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Adm inistration (FAA) on behalf of Honeywell International, Inc. (Honeywell), for an extension of Exemption No. 9565, as amended. That exemption from §§ 91.9(b)(2) and 91.203(a) and (b) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations allows Honeywell to operate an unmanned aircraft system (UAS) that does not carry and display the aircraft’s airworthiness, certification, and registration documents required in part 91.

In your petition, you indicate that there has been no change in the conditions and reasons relative to public interest and safety that were the basis for granting the original exemption.

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition

in the Federal Register because the requested extension of the exemption would not set a precedent, and any delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to Honeywell.2

Our Decision

The FAA has determ ined that the justification for the issuance of Exemption No. 9565, as amended, remains valid with respect to this exemption and is in the public interest. Therefore, under the authority provided by 49 U.S.C. 40113 and 44701, which the FAA Administrator has delegated to me, I grant your petition, subject to the conditions and

limitations below.

Conditions and Limitations

1. The documents required under §§ 91.9 and 91.203 must be available to the pilot in command of the UAS any time the aircraft is operating.

2. Those documents required under § 91.9 or 91.203 must be made available within 10 days to any FAA, U.S. Department of Defense, or law enforcement official upon

request.

The Effect of Our Decision

Our decision extends the term ination date of Exemption No. 9565, as amended, to November 30, 2013, unless sooner superseded or rescinded.

Sincerely,

/s/ Raymond Towles Acting Director, Flight Standards

Service
Air-Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute

American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy

March 2, 2015

To: Members of the Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee 

(ASRAC)

Re: Negotiated Rulemaking on Commercial Packaged Air Conditioners and Commercial 

Furnaces 

The Air-Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute (AHRI) and the American Council

for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE) are writing to respectfully request that the Appliance 

Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee (ASRAC) consider a negotiated 

rulemaking for commercial package air conditioners and commercial furnaces at its upcoming 

meeting on March 19, 2015.

As you may know, the Department of Energy (DOE) recently released two notices of proposed 

rulemaking (NOPR) proposing minimum energy conservation standards for commercial package 

air conditioners and commercial furnaces. At the same time, manufacturers represented by 

AHRI and energy efficiency advocates including ACEEE, the Appliance Standards Awareness 

Project, Natural Resources Defense Council, Earthjustice, Northwest Energy Efficiency 

Alliance, Alliance to Save Energy plus the California Investor Owned Utilities entered into 

discussions to explore the feasibility of a negotiated rulemaking. The group, including 

representatives of the manufacturers, met a first time on January 8, 2015 and a second time on 

February 5th. We invited representatives of the Air-Conditioning Contractors of America 

(ACCA), the Heating Air-Conditioning Distributors International (HARDI), and the Department 

of Energy (DOE) to attend this second meeting and they participated.

There was a consensus among those who attended the meetings that both rulemakings will 

benefit from a negotiated process through ASRAC. There was a general belief that an ASRAC 

process will facilitate greater communication among stakeholders and very importantly, will 

provide the analytic support needed for a timely resolution of the rulemakings.

It is our hope that the ASRAC committee will look favorably at our request. Thank you for your 

consideration.

Respectfully submitted,

Karim Amrane

Senior Vice President

Air-Conditioning Heating, and Refrigeration 

Institute

Steven Nadel

Executive Director

American Council for an Energy-Efficient 

Economy
15 December 2015

216P15

#### Amy Pharr Elam, Elizabeth F. Bailey, and Reid T. Deramus v. William Douglas Management, Inc. and Charlotte House Association of Unit Owners, Inc.

1. Pits’ PDR Under N.C.G.S. § 7A-31 (COA14-1377)

1. Denied

2. Pits’ Motion for Temporary Stay

2. Allowed 07/22/2015

Dissolved 12/15/2015

3. Pits’ Petition for *Writ of Supersedeas*

3. Denied

Ervin, J.,

recused
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 22-61826-CIV-SINGHAL

HOWARD MICHAEL CAPLAN,

Plaintiff,

v.

ENTERPRISE AUTO SERVICE, INC., and

LAUDERDALE LAKES INDUSTRIAL PARK II, 

LTD.,

Defendants.

__________________________________________/

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

THIS CAUSE is before the Court on the parties’ Joint Stipulation of Dismissal with 

Prejudice (DE [15]). The Court having reviewed the stipulation, the record, and being 

otherwise fully advised in the premises, it is hereby

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that this cause shall stand DISMISSED WITH 

PREJUDICE. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this case and DENY AS MOOT any 

pending motions. Furthermore, all deadlines are TERMINATED, and all hearings are 

CANCELLED.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, this 20th day of

December 2022.

Copies furnished to counsel of record via CM/ECF

Case 0:22-cv-61826-AHS Document 16 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/21/2022 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 32.1



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 Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of Quotemedia, Inc. (the Company) for the year ended December 31, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, David M. Shworan, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, to my best knowledge and belief, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to §
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)); and
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



|    |  |                                          
|--- |  | -----------------------------------------
|By: |  | /s/ David M. Shworan                     
|    |  | David M. Shworan                         
|    |  | Chief Executive Officer February 17, 2004
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

June 26, 2015

N o. 04

- 15

- 00376

- CV

Eduardo BENAVIDES

, Appellant

v.

Julia BENNETT

, Appellee

From the 37th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2015

- CI

- 04550 The Honorable Stephani A. Walsh, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

The District Clerk's Notification of Late Record is hereby GRANTED. Time is extended to August 21, 2015.

______________________________ ___ Marialyn Barnard, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 26th day of June, 201 5

.

________________________________ ___ Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
Exhibit 32.1

Form 10-QSB
Senior Optician Service, Inc.
File No. 0-28683

Chief Executive and Financial Officer Certification (Section 906)


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


Pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section  1350 (as adopted  pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002), I, the  undersigned  Chief Executive and Financial
Officer of Senior Optician Service, Inc., (the "Company"),  hereby certify that,
to the best of my knowledge, the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of the Company for
the  period  ended  March  31,  2005  (the  "Report")  fully  complies  with the
requirements  of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the  Securities  Exchange Act of 1934
and that information  contained in the Report fairly  presents,  in all material
respects,  the financial  condition  and results of operation of the Company.  A
signed  original  of this  written  statement  required  by Section 906 has been
provided  to the  registrant  and will be retained  by it and  furnished  to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.


Date: June 23, 2005                         By: /s/ Donald Hill
                                               ---------------------------------
                                                                     Donald Hill
                                               Chief Executive/Financial Officer
#### § 109-38.5101 Policy.

It is DOE policy to keep the number of motor vehicles and other motor equipment at the minimum needed to satisfy programmatic requirements. To attain this goal, controls and practices shall be established which will achieve the most practical and economical utilization of motor equipment. These controls and practices apply to all DOE-owned and commercially leased motor equipment and to GSA Interagency Fleet Management System motor vehicles.