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


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1996 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         1004125
<NAME>                        KSW, INC.

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                           4,464
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   17,427
<ALLOWANCES>                                       170
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                23,777
<PP&E>                                           1,403
<DEPRECIATION>                                     752
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  28,734
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           18,195
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            55
<OTHER-SE>                                      10,484
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    28,734
<SALES>                                         46,294
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                46,394
<CGS>                                           42,600
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   46,556
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  14
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (176)
<INCOME-TAX>                                      (72)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (104)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (104)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.02)


</TABLE>
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 Quarterly Report of Emtec, Inc. (the Company) on Form
10-Q for the period ending May 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Dinesh R. Desai,
Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, 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; and                              
| |                                                                                                                                                            
| | (2) The
  information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
  respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.

| |                          
| | -------------------------
| | /s/ Dinesh
  R. Desai    
| | Chief
  Executive Officer
| | July 17,
  2006          

---
I

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 714

To amend title 46, United States Code, to protect seamen against economic

reprisal.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FEBRUARY 11, 1999

Mr. BOSWELL introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

A BILL

To amend title 46, United States Code, to protect seamen

against economic reprisal.

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 ‘‘Protection of Seamen

5 Against Economic Reprisal Act of 1999’’.

6 SEC. 2. PROTECTION OF SEAMEN AGAINST DISCRIMINA7 TION FOR REFUSING TO PERFORM DUTIES.

8 Section 2114 of title 46, United States Code, is

9 amended—
2

•HR 714 IH

1 (1) by amending subsection (a) to read as fol2 lows:

3 ‘‘(a)(1) No person shall discharge or in any manner

4 discriminate against a seaman for refusing to perform the

5 seaman’s duties when the seaman has a reasonable appre6 hension that performing such duties would result in seri7 ous injury to the seaman, other seamen, a vessel, cargo,

8 or the environment. The circumstances causing the sea9 man’s apprehension of serious injury must be of such a

10 nature that a reasonable person, under the circumstances

11 then confronting the seaman, would conclude that there

12 is a bona fide danger of an injury or serious impairment

13 of health resulting from the circumstances.

14 ‘‘(2) In order to qualify for protection, the seaman

15 must have—

16 ‘‘(A) sought from the seaman’s employer or the

17 owner, charterer, or managing operator of the vessel

18 on which the seaman is employed, and have been un19 able to obtain, corrections of the circumstances caus20 ing the refusal to perform the duties; and

21 ‘‘(B) reported to the Coast Guard, in a timely

22 manner to the extent practicable, in accordance with

23 regulations issued by the Secretary.’’;

24 (2) in subsection (b)—
3

•HR 714 IH

1 (A) in paragraph (1) by striking ‘‘and’’

2 after the semicolon;

3 (B) in paragraph (2) by striking the period

4 and inserting ‘‘; and’’; and

5 (C) by adding at the end the following:

6 ‘‘(3) an award of costs and reasonable attor7 ney’s fees to a prevailing plaintiff.’’.

Æ
This memorandum opinion was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports. Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain computer-generated errors or other deviations from the official paper version filed by the Court of Appeals and does not include the filing date. IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO 1 STATE OF NEW MEXICO, 2 Plaintiff-Appellee, 3

v. NO. A-1-CA-36262 4 ANTHONY BACA, 5 Defendant-Appellant. 6 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF CURRY COUNTY 7 Fred T. Van Soelen, District Judge 8 Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General 9 Santa Fe, NM 10 for Appellee 11 Bennett J. Baur, Chief Public Defender 12 Caitlin C.M. Smith, Assistant Appellate Defender 13 Santa Fe, NM 14 for Appellant 15 MEMORANDUM OPINION 16 HANISEE, Judge. 17 {1} Defendant Anthony Baca appeals from his conviction of aggravated assault. 18 This Court issued a notice of proposed disposition, proposing to summarily affirm, 192 and a second notice of proposed disposition, proposing to summarily affirm, in part, 1 and reverse, in part. Defendant fileda memorandum in support of summary reversal 2 and opposition to summary affirmance (DMIO), stating that he “relies upon the facts 3 and arguments contained in his initial memorandum in opposition to proposed 4 summary affirmance,” and supports our proposed reversal in part. [DMIO 1] The State 5 also filed a response to our proposed disposition (SMIO), by which it “informs the 6 Court that after due consideration it will not be filing a memorandum in opposition.” 7 [SMIO 1] Accordingly, and for the reasons stated in our notice of proposed 8 disposition, as remain applicable, and our second notice of proposed disposition, we 9 affirm Defendant’s conviction of aggravated assault, but reverse the district court’s 10 designation of the conviction as a serious violent offense. 11 {2} IT IS SO ORDERED. 12

____________ _________________________ 13 J. MILES HANISEE, Judge 14 WE CONCUR: 15

____________________________ 16 JULIE J. VARGAS, Judge 17

____________________________ 183 DANIEL J. GALLEGOS, Judge 1
```

[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 123 (Monday, June 26, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 39431]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-16020]

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Pension and Welfare Benefits Administration

[Prohibited Transaction Exemptions 2000-25, et al.; Application Nos. D-
10119 and D-10120, et al.]

Grant of Individual Exemptions for Morgan Guaranty Trust Company 
of New York, et al.

AGENCY: Pension and Welfare Benefits Administration, Department of 
Labor (the Department).

ACTION: Notice of technical correction.

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

    On June 1, 2000, the Department published in the Federal Register 
at 65 FR 35129 a notice of five individual exemptions in which the 
grant numbers were inadvertently omitted from the operative language. 
On page 35134, in the first paragraph under the heading ``Exemption,'' 
the individual Prohibited Transaction Exemptions (PTEs) should have 
been listed as follows: PTE 2000-25, Morgan Guaranty Trust Company of 
New York and J.P. Morgan Investment Management Inc.; PTE 2000-26, 
Goldman, Sachs & Co.; PTE 2000-27, The Chase Manhattan Bank; PTE 2000-
28, Citigroup Inc.; and PTE 2000-29, Morgan Stanley Dean Witter & Co.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Andrea W. Selvaggio or Ms. Karin 
Weng of the Department, telephone (202) 219-8881. (This is not a toll-
free number.)

    Signed at Washington, D.C., this 20th day of June, 2000.
Ivan L. Strasfeld,
Director, Office of Exemption Determinations, Pension and Welfare 
Benefits Administration
[FR Doc. 00-16020 Filed 6-23-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-29-P
```
N~ 

f3,~ s~ 

&~ ~J,v 

__ 1'2'!~ 1(/;0 A)M,t;ifzc 

J o •r ~~ ~ ( ' hv.c:.IL Fe. u t{ k._ 

c"'~<t.J ~~~~~k\­ ~~,.,. fV\ \'v\P! roJ 

&;b Hermttll strn. 

Er<. J (I) lv L-l.. o.s 

~~lc~ 

~ """) I A Ph twh:.- -

(f>-t-

£PA 

~4 

,1/72 

k'1 

M?<2-

-- c_ 

BP 

P~&& 

AV\ 

( 11~ )!711 - 3.bo !> 

~1'l sln- L-J~q' 

~/ t- ~41//~ j-j' ;>q; 

(c< ~-<) 6'8~ 6.~-2 f 

7o 3-9Lf"- 331\l · 

(:,0~-'?~1-jb~b 

~'-~r~--~b~ 

fi?XJ-CJ~1-7~r-o 

q, f- 97'7- 73fof 

to'L G~Z B'St<? 
Delayed Coking Unit Depressurization Work Practice 

(Preliminary Information) 

I. Neither a 2 or 5 psig work practice is a cost-effective risk reduction alternative. 

a. Emissions reduction potential is small 

i. Max allowable emissions is not representative of coker emissions. 

ii. Coke drums targeting 5 psig typically average :53 psig 

iii. Coke drums targeting 2 psig typically average :51 psig 

Table 1: Preliminary API base case release pressure distribution 

Release Pressure Assumption, psig Percent 

of coke 

drums 

2 psig regulatory limit (1 psig average release pressure) 15 

2 psig internal target (2 psig average release pressure) 10 

5 psig regulatory limit (3 psig average release pressure) 20 

5 psig internal target (5 psig average release pressure) 15 

>5 psig average release pressure (Taken as 13 psig for emission 40 

calculations for conservatism reasons). 

b. The potential emissions are overstated by the ICR protocol. 

c. Costs are high. 

i. Project cost range for an individual DCU to achieve a not to exceed 5 psig-

$1.SMM-30MM (average project -$5-7MM) 

ii. Project cost range for an individual DCU to achieve a not to exceed 2 psig- $1.SMM50MM (average project -S10-12MM) 

iii. A do not exceed limit incurs considerably more cost than an average limit. 

Table 2: Preliminary API Investment Cost Estimates 

Portion of Annualized Total 

DCU 's Total Investment Annual Op Annual Cost 

% M$ M$ Cost M$ M$ 

5 psig regulatory limit 55 227 21 16 37 

2 psig regulatory limit 85 450 42 32 74 
II. NSPS Ja and many permits impose a not to exceed 5 psig limita. A different MACT work practice would be conflicting 

b. A different MACT work practice may result in stranded capital 

c. As indicated in I, average release pressures are much less than the limit, resulting in 

diminished emission reduction due to reducing limit from 5 to 2 psig. 

Ill. Other considerations 

a. Adequate implementation timing is critical 

i. §112(d}(6) affords 3+1 years 

ii. Some projects will require entire unit shutdown- critical to overlay on planned 

turnaround (or significant lost profit opportunity exists) 

iii. Expedited projects escalate cost 

b. Overhead temperature is not an indicator of emissions or reliably measureable and thus the 

work practice should use overhead pressure as its basis. 

r: Alternatives should be allowed. 

i. Vent for less than 20 minutes. 

ii. Establish base case emissions through testing and establish alternate work practices 

through testing that result in no increased emissions.
Exhibit 32
CERTIFICATIONS
     Inconnection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of AIG SunAmerica Life Assurance Companyfor the quarter ended March 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on thedate hereof (“the Report”), each of, Jay S. Wintrob, ChiefExecutive Officer of the Company, and N. Scott Gillis, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:
 1.  The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and  2.  The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of the Company.                                                                /s/  JAY S. WINTROB   Jay S. Wintrob   Chief Executive Officer                                                                   /s/  N. SCOTT GILLIS   N. Scott Gillis   Senior Vice President andChief Financial Officer   
Date: May 13, 2005
     The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 andis not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.
§ 109-27.5104-5 Control and issue of stock. Precious metals in stock are metals held in a central location and later issued to individuals when authorized requests are received. The following control procedures shall be followed for such metals: ( a ) Stocks shall be held to a minimum consistent with efficient support to programs.
( b ) The name and organization number of each individual authorized to withdraw precious metals, and the type and kind of metals, shall be prominently maintained in the stockroom. This authorization shall be issued by the Precious Metals Control Officer or his designee and updated annually. Issues of metals will be made only to authorized persons.
( c ) Accurate records of all receipts, issues, returns, and disposals shall be maintained in the stockroom.
( d ) Receipts for metal issues and returns to stock shall be provided to users. Such receipts, signed by the authorized requesting individual and the stockroom clerk, shall list the requesting organization, type and form of metal, quantity, and date of transaction.
No. 10-11022.

#### Ortega *v.*United States.

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
#### § 105-74.645 Federal agency or agency.

*Federal agency or agency* means any United States executive department, military department, government corporation, government controlled corporation, any other establishment in the executive branch (including the Executive Office of the President), or any independent regulatory agency.
#### § 301-10.403 What is the difference between a Government aircraft and an aircraft hired as a special conveyance?

A Government aircraft is any aircraft owned, leased, chartered, or rented and operated by the Government. An aircraft hired as a special conveyance is an aircraft that you, in your private capacity, rent, lease, or charter and operate.
#### § 105-68.810 When does a debarment take effect?

A debarment is not effective until the debarring official issues a decision. The debarring official does not issue a decision until the respondent has had an opportunity to contest the proposed debarment.
#### § 302-17.9 Which expenses should I report on my state tax returns if I am required to file returns in two different states?

In most cases, your state tax return for the state you are leaving should reflect your reimbursement or allowance, if any, for househunting expenses and your reimbursement or direct payments to vendors for real estate expenses at the home you are leaving. All other taxable expenses should be shown as income on the tax return you file in the state into which you have moved. However, you and your agency must carefully study the rules in both states and include everything that each state considers to be income on each of your state tax returns.

[FTR Amdt. 2014-01, 79 FR 49645, Aug. 21, 2014. Redesignated at 86 FR 73684, Dec. 28, 2021]
#### Milton Stetler *et al.*v. Philip King.

*Instbuotions*— Defective *Record*— No *Review.*Where the instructions given to the jury are complained of, but none of the evidence is brought here, nor any statement as to its purport, but simply that the parties offered evidence and rested, it cannot be held that the court instructed the jury erroneously.

*317
      *Error from Ottawa District Court.*

The case is stated in the opinion.

*R. F.*Thompson, and *W. E. Richards,*for plaintiffs in error.

*G. W. Hurley,*and *Chipman & Maltby,*for defendant in error.

Opinion by

Holt, C.:

The defendant in error, Philip King, brought his action against defendants, alleging in his petition that he had made a verbal agreement with Milton Stetler to sell and convey to him certain real estate for the sum of $1,600, to be paid in promissory notes, ponies, and $550 in cash; that in accordance with such agreement a deed had been executed by said plaintiff conveying said real estate to Milton Stetler, but that the $550 in cash had not been paid, and asking judgment against him for that sum, and costs. A copy of the deed referred to was attached to and made a part of his petition. It contained a receipt in full for $1,600, as its consideration. The defendant answered, first, by a general denial; and second, “that before the commencement of this action these defendants paid to the plaintiff the full consideration for the said real estate, as set forth in said deed.” The plaintiff replied by a general denial. At the trial at the December term, 1887, the plaintiff recovered a judgment of $536.24 and costs. The court instructed the jury that the burden of proof was upon the defendants. Of this the defendants complain.

The pleadings and instructions are set forth in full, but none of the evidence is preserved in the case-made. The only statement in regard to the testimony is: “ Said action came on for trial before the court and a jury, and the parties appearing offer their evidence, and rest.” Under this statement in the case-made we cannot say there was any error on the part of the court in instructing the jury that the burden of proof rested upon the defendants. It is unnecessary in a case-made to preserve all the testimony, or in fact any part of it, but in *318its absence there should be some statement showing in some way what *its*purport was. There was no statement in the case-made that the evidence offered by either party tended to support the allegations of their respective pleadings, but simply that they offered their evidence. It may have been of such a nature that the instructions of the court were correct. In the absence of any showing to the contrary, we are compelled to presume that the proceedings of the court were in every way regular and correct. Error must be shown, and is never presumed.

Under this view of the case, we recommend that the judgment be affirmed.

By the Court: It is so ordered.

All the Justices concurring.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 15 (Monday, January 24, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 3676]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-1584]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Wells Rural Electric Company; Docket No. ER00-611-000 and EL00-19-000 
(not consolidated)]


Notice of Issuance of Order

January 18, 2000. Wells Rural Electric Company (WREC) is a Nevada rural 
electric cooperative providing electrical service to approximately 
5,300 customers in northeastern Nevada and Tooele County, Utah. On 
November 19, 1999, in Docket No. EL00-19-000, WREC filed a request for 
waiver of the requirements of Order Nos. 888 and 889. In its filing, 
WREC also requested certain waivers and authorizations. In particular, 
WREC requested that the Commission grant blanket approval under 18 CFR 
Part 34 of all future issuances of securities and assumptions of 
liabilities by WREC. On January 12, 2000, the Commission issued an 
Order Granting Request For Waivers of Order Nos. 888 And 889, 
Addressing Requests For Other Waivers And Accepting Agreements For 
Filing (Order), in the above-docketed proceedings.
    The Commission's January 12, 2000 Order granted the request for 
blanket approval under Part 34, subject to the conditions found in 
Ordering Paragraphs (D), (E), and (G):
    (D) Within 30 days of the date of this order, any person desiring 
to be heard or to protest the Commission's blanket approval of 
issuances of securities or assumptions of liabilities by WREC should 
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426, 
in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214.
    (E) Absent a request to be heard within the period set forth in 
Ordering Paragraph (D) above, WREC is hereby authorized to issue 
securities and assume obligations and liabilities as guarantor, 
indorser, surety or otherwise in respect of any security of another 
person; provided that such issue or assumption is for some lawful 
object within the corporate purposes of WREC compatible with the public 
interest, and reasonably necessary or appropriate for such purposes.
    (G) The Commission reserves the right to modify this order to 
require a further showing that neither public nor private interests 
will be adversely affected by continued Commission approval of WREC's 
issuances of securities or assumptions of liabilities . . .
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing motions to 
intervene or protests, as set forth above, is February 11, 2000.
    Copies of the full text of the Order are available from the 
Commission's Public Reference Branch, 888 First Street, N.E., 
Washington, D.C. 20426. The Order may also be viewed on the Internet at 
http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for 
assistance).

David P. Boergers,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-1584 Filed 1-21-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
§ 105-68.840 How is fact-finding conducted? ( a ) If fact-finding is conducted— ( 1 ) You may present witnesses and other evidence, and confront any witness presented; and
( 2 ) The fact-finder must prepare written findings of fact for the record.
( b ) A transcribed record of fact-finding proceedings must be made, unless you as a respondent and the General Services Administration agree to waive it in advance. If you want a copy of the transcribed record, you may purchase it.
#### § 6.01-2 District Commander.

*District Commander* as used in this part, means the officer of the Coast Guard designated by the Commandant to command a Coast Guard District.