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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<CURRENCY> CHINESE RENMINBI

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                 .12048
<CASH>                                       3,929,476
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               23,032,739
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  5,955,955
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            37,262,519
<PP&E>                                       6,279,987
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              44,492,261
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       23,303,522
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,821
<OTHER-SE>                                  20,212,315
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                44,492,261
<SALES>                                     24,600,910
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            24,600,910
<CGS>                                       19,968,717
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               19,968,717
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                698,766
<INCOME-TAX>                                   124,857
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            702,717
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   702,717
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .32
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .28


</TABLE>
#### § 2522.480 Can a State's application for formula funds be rejected?

Yes. Formula funds are not an entitlement.
Exhibit 10.33


 


April 30, 2020


 


RE: Resignation from Cannabis Global, Inc.


 


To the Board of Directors:


 


Please accept this letter as formal notice
as my resignation as chief financial officer and director of Cannabis Global, Inc. effective April 30, 2020.


 


I have reviewed the draft disclosures that
the Company intends to make on Form 8-K pertaining to my resignation as it relates to Item 502 and I agree with them.


 


Regards,


 


		 
	 	 
	Robert Hymers, CPA
§ 264.80 If a Territory receives Matching Grant funds, what funds must it expend? ( a ) If a Territory receives Matching Grant funds under section 1108(b) of the Act, it must: ( 1 ) Contribute 25 percent of the expenditures funded under the Matching Grant for title IV-A or title IV-E expenditures;
( 2 ) Expend 100 percent of the amount of historic expenditures for FY 1995 for the AFDC program (including administrative costs and FAMIS), the EA program, and the JOBS program; and
( 3 ) Expend 100 percent of the amount of the Family Assistance Grant annual allocation using Federal TANF, title IV-E funds and/or Territory-only funds, without regard to any penalties applied in accordance with section 409 of the Act.
( b ) Territories may not use the same Territorial expenditures to satisfy the requirements of paragraphs (a)(1), (a)(2) and (a)(3) of this section.
---

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

I, Jason S. Mitchell, the Chief Financial Officer of Royal
Mines And Minerals Corp. (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 the best of my knowledge:

| | (i)  | the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company, for the
      fiscal year ended April 30, 2009, and to which this certification is
      attached as Exhibit 32.2 (the Report) fully complies with the
      requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) 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 Company.                                                                                                                                                  

| | By:    | /s/ Jason S. Mitchell                
| | ------ | -------------------------------------
| |        |                                      
| | Name:  | JASON S. MITCHELL                    
| |        |                                      
| | Title: | Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer
| |        |                                      
| | Date:  | July 28, 2009                        
| |        |                                      

A signed original of this written statement required by
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to the Company
and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.

This certification accompanies the Form 10-K to which it
relates, is not deemed filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and is
not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company under the
Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (whether made
before or after the date of the Form 10-K), irrespective of any general
incorporation language contained in such filing.

---
Editorial Note on Subpart E of Part 170
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to subpart E of part 170 appear at 80 FR 62755, Oct. 16, 2015.

§ 170.501 Applicability. ( a ) This subpart establishes the processes that applicants for ONC-ACB status must follow to be granted ONC-ACB status by the National Coordinator; the processes the National Coordinator will follow when assessing applicants and granting ONC-ACB status; the requirements that ONC-ACBs must follow to maintain ONC-ACB status; and the requirements of ONC-ACBs for certifying Health IT Module(s), and other types of health IT in accordance with the applicable certification criteria adopted by the Secretary in subpart C of this part.
( b ) This subpart establishes the processes that applicants for ONC-ATL status must follow to be granted ONC-ATL status by the National Coordinator; the processes the National Coordinator will follow when assessing applicants and granting ONC-ATL status; the requirements that ONC-ATLs must follow to maintain ONC-ATL status; and the requirements of ONC-ATLs for testing Health IT Modules in accordance with the applicable certification criteria adopted by the Secretary in subpart C of this part.
( c ) [Reserved]
( d ) This subpart establishes the processes the National Coordinator will follow when exercising direct review of certified health IT and related requirements for ONC-ACBs, ONC-ATLs, and developers of health IT certified under the ONC Health IT Certification Program.
[81 FR 72464, Oct. 19, 2016, as amended at 85 FR 25950, May 1, 2020]
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-60232 Summary Calendar

MIGUEL ANGEL RUIZ-RUIZ, also known as Miguel Angel Ruiz, Petitioner,

versus JOHN ASHCROFT, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent.

-------------------- Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A75 224 615

-------------------- December 16, 2002 Before DAVIS, WIENER and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Miguel Angel Ruiz-Ruiz petitions this court for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision affirming the Immigration Judge’s order denying Ruiz’ application for cancellation of removal pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1) and dismissing his appeal. Ruiz contends that the BIA erred by not considering factors relevant to whether he satisfied theNo. 02-60232 -2- “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” requirement of 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(D). The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act’s (IIRIRA) restrictions on judicial review apply to cases in which removal proceedings were commenced on or after April 1, 1997, the effective date of the IIRIRA. See DeLeon-Holguin v. Ashcroft , 253 F.3d 811, 813 (5th Cir. 2001). Under the IIRIRA, we lack subject matter jurisdiction to review claims for discretionary relief, such as cancellation of removal. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252 (a)(2)(B)(i); Eyoum v. INS , 125 F.3d 889, 891 (5th Cir. 1997). Because Ruiz’ case was commenced in June 1997, after the effective date of the IIRIRA, we lack subject matter jurisdiction over this appeal. The petition for review is DISMISSED FOR LACK OF
JURISDICTION.
# C_2009175EN.01012301.xml

| 28.7.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 175/123 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.7.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 175/123

---

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a Council Directive .../.../EC of [...] determining the scope of Article 143(b) and (c) of Directive 2006/112/EC as regards exemption from value added tax on the final importation of certain goods on the common system of value added tax (codification)’

COM(2008) 575 final — 2008/0181 (CNS)

(2009/C 175/24)

On 8 October, the Council of the European Union decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee, under Articles 93 and 94 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the

Proposal for a Council Directive .../.../EC of [...] determining the scope of Article 143(b) and (c) of Directive 2006/112/EC as regards exemption from value added tax on the final importation of certain goods on the common system of value added tax (codification)

Proposal for a Council Directive .../.../EC of [...] determining the scope of Article 143(b) and (c) of Directive 2006/112/EC as regards exemption from value added tax on the final importation of certain goods on the common system of value added tax (codification)

COM(2008) 575 final — 2008/0181 (CNS).

Since the Committee unreservedly endorses the content of the proposal and feels that it requires no comment on its part, it decided, at its 449th plenary session of 3 and 4 December 2008 (meeting of 3 December), by 167 votes in favour, three against with three abstentions, to issue an opinion endorsing the proposed text.

Brussels, 3 December 2008.

The President of the European Economic and Social Committee

Mario SEPI

The Secretary-General of the European Economic and Social Committee

Martin WESTLAKE

---
#### § 2505.3 To what extent are meetings of the Board open to the public?

The Board shall conduct meetings, as defined in § 2505.2, in accordance with this part. Except as provided in § 2505.4, the Board's meetings shall be open to the public. The public is invited to attend all meetings of the Board that are open to the public but may not participate in the Board's deliberations at such meetings or record any meeting by means of electronic, photographic, or other device.
#### People ex rel. Hallock v. Sleight.

*Certiorari*— *review of judgment injustice’s court.*

A common law certiorari *held*not to be allowable to review a justice’s court judgment, for the reason that the time for appealing had expired. The only mode of reviewing such judgments is by appeal, as provided by the Code, § 351.

Certiorari issued upon the relation of George W. Hallock, to review a judgment recovered before Brinley D. Sleight, a justice of the peace of the town of East Hampton, Suffolk county.

The judgment in question was recovered against the relator, under the name of Richard Roe, by one Nathaniel Dominy, for a penalty. The only papers in the case were the following writ and the return of the respondent thereto:

“The people of the State of New York, to Brinley D. Sleight, Esq., one of the justices of the peace of the county of Suffolk, greeting: Whereas, in a certain cause lately pending in our court held before you, wherein Nathaniel Dominy was plaintiff and George W. Hallock, by the name of Richard Roe, was defendant, of a plea for a penalty, judgment has been given by you in our said court against the said George W. Hallock, as it is said, and we being willing, for certain causes, to be certified of the same, and of the proceedings therein, do therefore command you that the said proceedings and judgments, with the process, pleadings and all other .things touching the same, in as full and ample a manner as the same remain before you, distinctly and plainly under your seal, you send to our justices of our supreme court, at the court-house in Riverhead, in Suffolk county, on the 4th Monday of April next, together with this writ, so that our said Supreme Court may further cause to be done therein what of righ.t ought to be done.

“Witness, Abraham B. Tappen, Esq., justice of our said [l. s.] Supreme Court, at the court-house in the city oi Brooklyn, the 18th day of March, 1874.

“George C. Campbell, *Olerk.”*

Such other facts as are of importance appear in the opinion.

*168
      *George Miller,*for relator,

cited *People*v. *Fuller,*40 How. 35; *People*v. *Wheeler,*21 N. Y. 82; 4 Wait’s Dig. 186; 8 Abb. Dig. 132.

*Geo. W. Whitaker,*for respondent.

Talcott, J.

This proceeding is an attempt to review the judgment rendered in a justice’s court by means of a common-law certiorari. The certiorari appears to have been issued without any application for the same, or any allowance by the court, but merely at the option of the attorney of the party against whom judgment was rendered in the justice’s court, and for the reason that the time for appealing has expired. The writ must be quashed. It is expressly provided by law that the only mode of reviewing such judgments is by appeal, as provided in chapter 5th of the Code of Procedure. Code, § 351.

The certiorari is quashed with costs against the relator.

*Writ quashed.*
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 of La Cortez Energy, Inc. (the “Company”) on
Form 10-K/A for the year ended December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Andrés Gutierrez
Rivera, Chief Executive Officer 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;





(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.





A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.





/s/ Andrés Gutierrez RiveraName:
              Andrés
      Gutierrez RiveraTitle:
              Chief
      Executive OfficerDate:
              April
      20, 2010
§ 5.63 How does HHS process appeals? ( a ) We respond to your appeal within 20 working days after the appeal official designated in your appeal letter receives it. If, however, your appeal is based on a denial of a request for expedited processing, we will act on your appeal of that decision expeditiously. Before making a decision on an appeal of an adverse determination, the designated review official will consult with the Office of the General Counsel. Also, the concurrence of the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs is required in all appeal decisions, including those on fees. When the review official responds to an appeal, that constitutes the Department's final action on the request.
( b ) If we reverse or modify the initial decision, we will inform you in writing and, if applicable, reprocess your request. If we do not change our initial decision, we will respond in writing to you, explain the reasons for the decision, set out any FOIA exemptions that apply, and inform you of the provisions for judicial review. If a requester files a FOIA lawsuit in reference to an appeal, we will cease processing the appeal.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA 

NORTHERN DIVISION 

NO. 2:08-CV-39-H(1) 

HOLLY LYNN KOERBER and 

COMMITTEE FOR TRUTH IN 

POLITICS, INC., 

plaintiffs, 

ORDER 

v. 

FEDERAL	 ELECTION COMMISSION, 

Defendant. 

This matter is before the court on plaintiff's motion to 

stay this action pending the United States Supreme Court's 

decision in Citizens United v. FEC, No. 08-205 (U.S. appeal 

filed Aug. 14, 2008 & prob. juris. noted Nov. 14, 2008). 

Plaintiff contends that Citizens United "is based in large part 

on the constitutional analysis on which Plaintiffs rely and will 

directly address" whether communications such as involved in 

this case may be SUbjected to disclosure requirements, an issue 

presently before this court. (Mot. Stay at 1.) Defendant 

Federal Election Commission does not oppose a stay. 

In the court's discretion, and in the interests of justice 

and for the efficient administration of jUdicial resources, 

plaintiff's motion to stay [DE #41] is GRANTED and the instant 

case is hereby STAYED pending decision by the United States 

Case 2:08-cv-00039-H Document 43 Filed 01/07/2009 Page 1 of 2
Supreme Court in Citizens United v. FEC, No. 08-205 (U.S. appeal 

filed Aug. 14, 2008 & prob. juris. noted Nov. 14, 2008). The 

parties shall promptly notify the court upon conclusion of the 

proceedings in Citizens United. 

This ~day of January 2009. 

~---- Senior United States District Judge 

At Greenville, NC 

#31 

2
 

Case 2:08-cv-00039-H Document 43 Filed 01/07/2009 Page 2 of 2
USGS HomeContact USGSSearch USGS

U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2009�1231

Integrated Multibeam and LIDAR Bathymetry Data Offshore of New London and Niantic, Connecticut

----

## Methods 

----

AccessibilityFOIAPrivacyPolicies and Notices

U.S. Department of the Interior |		U.S. Geological Survey		                                    URL: http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2009/1231/html/methods.html		Page Contact Information: GS Pubs Web Contact		Page Last Modified: Sunday, 11-Jul-2010 23:14:15 EDT
#### § 630.620 Cooperative agreement.

*Cooperative agreement* means an award of financial assistance that, consistent with 31 U.S.C. 6305, is used to enter into the same kind of relationship as a grant (see definition of grant in § 630.650), except that substantial involvement is expected between the Federal agency and the recipient when carrying out the activity contemplated by the award. The term does not include cooperative research and development agreements as defined in 15 U.S.C. 3710a.
#### Schoonmaker v. Roese, appellant.

*Agency*— *when principal hound hy acts of agent*— *Damages — measure*of', *in contract of sale.*

Defendants, who had purchased some ice of plaintiffs, and were not satisfied with the quality, sent their agent to plaintiffs to complain, and see that better ice was sent. The agent accepted certain ice, which plaintiffs loaded and sent to defendants. *Held,*that the acceptance was in the line of the agent’s duty, and binding on defendants.

Defendants refused to receive the ice sent. *Held,*that plaintiffs had a right to keep the ice at defendants’ risk, and recover the contract price. *Dustan*v. *McAndrew,*44 KT. Y. 72; Sedgw. on Dam. *282; Lewis*v. *Qreider,*49 Barb 608 ; *Pollen*v. *Le Boy,*30 N. Y. 349.

Appeal from a judgment in favor of plaintiffs entered upon the report of a referee. The action was brought in Cayuga county by David H. Schoonmaker and another against Simeon Eouse to recover damages for a breach, of contract for the sale and purchase of ice sold by plaintiffs to defendant.

*Sedgwicks, Kennedy & Tracy,*for appellant.

*Wood & Rathbun,*for' respondents.

E. Darwin Smith, J.

The head-note fully states the only points of any importance for publication contained in the opinion.

*Judgment affirmed.*
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1747 Engrossed in House (EH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1747

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
     To authorize appropriations for the design, acquisition, and 
     construction of a combined buoy tender-icebreaker to replace 
                icebreaking capacity on the Great Lakes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Great Lakes Icebreaker Replacement 
Act''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

    Congress finds that--
            (1) five of the Coast Guard's Great Lakes icebreakers are 
        nearing the end of their useful lives;
            (2) two other Coast Guard icebreaking assets have 
        experienced difficulty in heavy ice conditions;
            (3) during the spring of 2008, United States-flag vessels 
        operating on the Great Lakes suffered more than $1,300,000 in 
        damages to their hulls because the Coast Guard did not have 
        enough assets available to keep Great Lakes shipping lanes 
        open;
            (4) during the 2006-2007 ice season, shipments of iron ore, 
        coal, and limestone on the Great Lakes exceeded 20,000,000 
        tons;
            (5) during the 2006-2007 ice season, the transportation of 
        10,400,000 tons of iron ore on the Great Lakes helped support 
        100,000 jobs at steel mills and 300,000 jobs at supplier 
        industries by keeping those industries working during the 
        winter season; and
            (6) the 6,400,000 tons of coal shipped on the Great Lakes 
        during the 2006-2007 ice season kept the Great Lakes region 
        supplied with electricity.

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

    There is authorized to be appropriated $153,000,000 for necessary 
expenses of the Coast Guard for the design, acquisition, and 
construction of a combined buoy tender-icebreaker to replace 
icebreaking capacity on the Great Lakes, to remain available until 
expended.

            Passed the House of Representatives April 27, 2009.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
111th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                               H. R. 1747

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

     To authorize appropriations for the design, acquisition, and 
     construction of a combined buoy tender-icebreaker to replace 
                icebreaking capacity on the Great Lakes.
```
#### § 611.11 Judicial review.

Action taken pursuant to section 602 of the Act is subject to judicial review as provided in section 603 of the Act.