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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE>           5
<LEGEND>
                    The Schedule contains summary financial
                    information extracted from the financial
                    statements for P-B Watson & Taylor Ltd 2
                    and is qualified in its entirety by reference
                    to such financial statements
</LEGEND>

<RESTATED>

<CIK>               0000737296
<NAME>              P-B Watson & Taylor Ltd 2
<MULTIPLIER>        1

<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               Dec-31-1997

<PERIOD-START>                  Jan-1-1997

<PERIOD-END>                    Dec-31-1997

<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-Mos

<CASH>                          870,538

<SECURITIES>                    0

<RECEIVABLES>                   78,983

<ALLOWANCES>                    0

<INVENTORY>                     0

<CURRENT-ASSETS>                949,521

<PP&E>                          1,518,521

<DEPRECIATION>                  0

<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  2,468,042

<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>           377,989

<BONDS>                         0

<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>           0

<PREFERRED>                     0

<COMMON>                        0

<OTHER-SE>                      2,090,053

<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>    2,468,042

<SALES>                         0

<TOTAL-REVENUES>                0<F1>

<CGS>                           0

<TOTAL-COSTS>                   0

<OTHER-EXPENSES>                0<F1>

<LOSS-PROVISION>                0

<INTEREST-EXPENSE>              0

<INCOME-PRETAX>                 0

<INCOME-TAX>                    0

<INCOME-CONTINUING>             0

<DISCONTINUED>                  0

<EXTRAORDINARY>                 0

<CHANGES>                       0

<NET-INCOME>                    0<F1>

<EPS-PRIMARY>                   0<F1>

<EPS-DILUTED>                   0

<FN>
<F1>Registrant adopted the liquidation basis of accounting
on October 1, 1996, and, accordingly, does not reflect
operations subsequent to October 1, 1996. See Note A to the
financial statetments for further details.

</TABLE>
f8k122812a1ex10ix_cactus.htm


Exhibit 10.9


 


 





 




Monday, April 14, 2003 (3).max


  





  


 





  






 





 




Monday, April 14, 2003 (3).max


  





  


 





  






 





 




Monday, April 14, 2003 (3).max


  





  


 





  






 





 




Monday, April 14, 2003 (3).max


  





  


 





  






 





 




Monday, April 14, 2003 (3).max


  





  


 





  






 





 




Monday, April 14, 2003 (3).max


  





  


 





  






 







Monday, April 14, 2003 (3).max


  





  


 





  






 







Monday, April 14, 2003 (3).max


  





  











  






 





 




Monday, April 14, 2003 (3).max


  





  











  






 





 




Monday, April 14, 2003 (3).max


  





  











  






 





 




Monday, April 14, 2003 (3).max


  





  











  






 





 




Monday, April 14, 2003 (3).max


  





  











  






 





 




Monday, April 14, 2003 (3).max


  





  











  






 





 




Monday, April 14, 2003 (3).max


  





  











  






 





 




Monday, April 14, 2003 (3).max


  





  











  






 





 




Monday, April 14, 2003 (3).max


  





  











  






 





 




Monday, April 14, 2003 (3).max


  





  











  






 





 




Monday, April 14, 2003 (3).max


  





  











  






 





 




Monday, April 14, 2003 (3).max


  





  











  






 





 




Monday, April 14, 2003 (3).max


  





  











  






 





 




Monday, April 14, 2003 (3).max


  





  











  






 





 




Monday, April 14, 2003 (3).max


  





  











  






 





 




Monday, April 14, 2003 (3).max


  





  











  






 





 




Monday, April 14, 2003 (3).max


  





  











  






 





 




Monday, April 14, 2003 (3).max


  





  











  






 





 




Monday, April 14, 2003 (3).max


  





  











  






 





 




Monday, April 14, 2003 (3).max


  





  











  






 





 




Monday, April 14, 2003 (3).max


  





  











  






 





 




Monday, April 14, 2003 (3).max


  





  











  






 





 




Monday, April 14, 2003 (3).max


  





  











  






 





 




Monday, April 14, 2003 (3).max


  





  











  






 





 




Monday, April 14, 2003 (3).max


  





  











  






 





 




Monday, April 14, 2003 (3).max


  





  











  






 





 




Monday, April 14, 2003 (3).max


  





  











  






 





 




Monday, April 14, 2003 (3).max


  





  











  






 





 




Monday, April 14, 2003 (3).max
Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATIONS 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 CIG Wireless Corp. on
Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2014 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),
I, Romain Gay-Crosier, Principal Financial 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, to my knowledge that:



(1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of
section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and



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



Date: April 15, 2015



|By: | /s/ Romain Gay-Crosier |                            
|--- | ---------------------- | ---------------------------
|    | Name:                  | Romain Gay-Crosier         
|    | Title:                 | Principal Financial Officer
From: clarandelly@hotmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 2:27:38 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Kelly Poindexter

Portland, OR 97267
#### George Silva and others, Respondents, v. Philip Lust, Appellant.

Orderaffirmed, with ten d-ilhuv costs and disbursements. Opinion by

Daniels, J.
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 184 (Monday, September 25, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 65620-65621]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-20666]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R06-OAR-2022-0307; FRL-10892-03-R6]


Air Plan Approval; Texas; Updates to Public Notice and Procedural 
Rules and Removal of Obsolete Provisions

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule; correction.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is correcting a 
final rule that appeared in the Federal Register on August 24, 2023. 
The document issued a final rule approving portions of three revisions 
to the Texas State Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by the Texas 
Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) on July 9, 2021, and January 
21, 2022, that update the air permitting program by removing obsolete 
provisions and enhancing public notice requirements of the air 
permitting program. This correction addresses errors in the amendatory 
language instructions published on August 24, 2023.

DATES: This rule is effective on September 25, 2023.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Adina Wiley, EPA Region 6 Office, Air 
Permits Section, 214-665-2115, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#a2d5cbcec7db8cc3c6cbccc3e2c7d2c38cc5cdd4"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="0d7a64616874236c6964636c4d687d6c236a627b">[email protected]</span></a>. Please call or 
email the contact listed above if you need alternative access to 
material indexed but not provided in the docket.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In FR Doc. 2023-17945 appearing in the 
Federal Register on Thursday, August 24, 2023, the following 
corrections are made:


Sec.  52.2270  [Corrected]

0
1. On page 57884, in the third column, in amendment 2, the instruction 
(i) is corrected to read ``Revising the entries for Sections 39.405, 
39.411, 39.412, 39.418, 39.419, 39.420, 39.601, 39.602, 39.603, 39.604, 
55.154, 55.156, 101.306, 116.111, 116.112, 116.164, 116.196, 116.198, 
116.310, 116.611, 116.615, 116.910, 116.911, 116.912, 116.916, 116.917, 
116.918, 116.920, 116.930, and 116.1530.
0
2. On page 57885, in the third column, in amendment 2, instruction 
(iii) is added to read ``iii. Adding an entry for section 39.426'' in 
numeric order under the headings Chapter 39--Public Notice; Subchapter 
H--Applicability and General Provisions.


[[Page 65621]]


    Dated: September 18, 2023.
Earthea Nance,
Regional Administrator, Region 6.
[FR Doc. 2023-20666 Filed 9-22-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
From: gesstone@cox.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 3:04:26 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

W. BURGESS STONE

Pensacola, FL 32503
From: mdoncheckmail@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 2:50:28 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Monica Donovan

Huntington Beach, CA 92649
Order entered June 29, 2021

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 20

- 01111

- CV

CITY OF DALLAS , Appellant

V.

KATHERINE V. HOMAN , Appellee
On Appeal from the 44th Judicia l District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC

- 19

- 02758

O RDER
Before the Court is appellee’s June 28, 2021 unopposed motion for

extension of time to file her brief

. We GRANT the motion and ORDER the brief

be filed no later than July 2, 2 021. Because the brief was first due May 3, 2021
, we caution that further extension requests will be disfavored.

/s/ KEN MOLBERG JUSTICE
GE Energy Services NetDAHS©

 Average Values Report

 Version 59.0

 Generated: 8/26/2010 10:50

Company: Detroit Edison Company Period Start: 6/2/2010 00:00 

 Plant: 3500 E. Front St. Period End: 7/1/2010 23:59 

City/St: Monroe, MI 48161 Validation Type: 60/60 min 

Source: BOILER3 Averaging Period: 24 hr 

 Type: Block Avg 

 Average Average Average Average Average Average Average 

3Load_M 3FGDLqFloM 3FGDPrsInM 3FGDPrsOuM 3StackPrsM 3Stk_TempM 3CO2_M 

_Period Start _ MW _ GPM _ inH2O _ inH2O _ "Hg _ degF _ % _

06/02/2010 00:00 740.1 140.2 9.9 0.1 28.81 127.6 11.0 

06/03/2010 00:00 765.3 102.7 10.1 0.2 28.86 126.7 11.1 

06/04/2010 00:00 765.1 91.3 10.0 0.1 28.85 127.5 11.1 

06/05/2010 00:00 718.6 83.2 9.3 0.1 28.79 128.3 11.1 

06/06/2010 00:00 719.6 75.9 9.5 0.0 28.77 127.7 11.1 

06/07/2010 00:00 760.6 99.6 9.9 0.0 29.10 127.0 11.3 

06/08/2010 00:00 765.3 90.4 10.0 0.0 29.18 127.4 11.3 

06/09/2010 00:00 765.1 88.9 10.0 0.1 28.89 128.0 11.2 

06/10/2010 00:00 692.7 88.3 9.1 0.1 29.02 126.8 10.6 

06/11/2010 00:00 748.2 84.4 9.7 0.1 29.12 128.5 11.2 

06/12/2010 00:00 757.7 86.7 10.2 0.2 28.99 130.1 11.1 

06/13/2010 00:00 729.2 84.6 9.9 0.1 29.04 130.1 11.2 

06/14/2010 00:00 764.6 87.2 10.0 0.2 28.99 130.5 11.2 

06/15/2010 00:00 741.5 84.5 9.7 0.0 29.08 129.8 11.1 

06/16/2010 00:00 759.9 89.6 10.1 0.1 29.01 129.9 11.1 

06/17/2010 00:00 790.5 99.1 10.2 0.1 29.15 129.2 11.3 

06/18/2010 00:00 725.2 86.1 9.6 0.1 29.08 129.8 11.0 

06/19/2010 00:00 664.4 85.2 9.0 0.1 29.00 129.6 10.9 

06/20/2010 00:00 668.1 95.5 8.9 0.1 29.12 129.2 10.7 

06/21/2010 00:00 759.5 98.2 10.1 0.1 29.14 130.9 10.0 

06/22/2010 00:00 743.9 94.4 10.5 0.3 29.06 130.3 10.3 

06/23/2010 00:00 765.3 99.0 11.0 0.3 29.06 130.6 11.1 

06/24/2010 00:00 765.3 92.7 10.7 0.2 28.99 129.8 11.1 

06/25/2010 00:00 765.1 107.4 10.5 0.2 29.13 129.5 11.2 

06/26/2010 00:00 765.4 101.7 11.0 0.2 28.92 130.8 11.1 

06/27/2010 00:00 540.6 68.3 7.7 -0.1 28.77 129.0 10.0 

06/28/2010 00:00 710.3 87.5 9.4 0.2 28.78 128.0 10.8 

06/29/2010 00:00 778.3 91.4 10.0 0.1 29.08 125.2 11.3 

06/30/2010 00:00 787.6 107.8 10.0 0.0 29.24 127.3 11.3 

07/01/2010 00:00 784.9_ 111.4_ 10.0_ 0.0_ 29.26_ 123.6_ 11.0_

 Final Average* 740.3 93.4 9.9 0.1 29.01 128.6 11.0 

 Maximum* 790.5 140.2 11.0 0.3 29.26 130.9 11.3 

 Minimum* 540.6 68.3 7.7 -0.1 28.77 123.6 10.0 

*Does not include Invalid Averaging Periods ("N/A")
EXHIBIT 23

                 Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm


     We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
Nos. 333-02943 and 333-142750 on Form S-8 of UCI Medical Affiliates, Inc. of our
report  dated  November 30, 2007,  with  respect to the  consolidated  financial
statements of UCI Medical  Affiliates,  Inc. for year ended  September 30, 2007,
included in this  Annual  Report on Form 10-K for the year ended  September  30,
2007.


/s/ SCOTT MCELVEEN, LLP


Columbia, South Carolina
November 30, 2007
Q (MGD) 26.42 Q (MGD) **Inf luent**  **An oxic**  **Ae ro**  **bic**Q (MGD) 25.75

0.67 **Ae ro**  **bic Ef**  **fl uent**  **WA S**
#### Kenneth L. DEMERY, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Doug WADDINGTON, Respondent—Appellee.

No. 04-35373.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Aug. 1, 2005.*

Decided Aug. 11, 2005.

Jeffrey Erwin Ellis, Steven Witchley, Esq., Ellis, Holmes & Witchley, PLLC, Seattle, WA, for Petitioner-Appellant.

Ronda Denise Larson, Esq., Office of the Washington Attorney General, Olympia, WA, for Respondent-Appellee.

Before: NOONAN, T.G. NELSON, and WARD LAW, Circuit Judges.

*

 This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Kenneth Demery appeals the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition challenging his 142-month sentence and jury-trial conviction for first degree robbery and kidnapping. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.

As Demery concedes, the United States Supreme Court has not explicitly addressed whether it is a violation of federal due process to admit a police officer’s pretrial interview statements that the officer did not believe the defendant’s answers. In *Dubria v. Smith,**1***however, we held that it was not a violation of due process to admit such statements when they gave context to the defendant’s answers and did not “carry any special aura of reliability.” 2 The detectives’ statements in this case are sufficiently similar to those in *Dubria.*Therefore, we hold that the Washington Supreme Court’s decision upholding admission of the detectives’ statements was not “contrary to ... clearly established *643federal law.”3 Even if it were error to admit those statements, such error did not substantially influence the verdict.4

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

1

. 224 F.3d 995 (9th Cir.2000).

2

. *Id.*at 1002.

3

. *Robinson v. Ignacio,*360 F.3d 1044, 1057 (9th Cir.2004) (when the Supreme Court has not explicitly addressed a narrow issue, "we may turn to our own precedent ... in order to determine whether the state decision violates the general principles enunciated by the Supreme Court and is thus contrary to clearly established federal law”).

4

. *See Brecht v. Abrahamson,*507 U.S. 619, 637, 113 S.Ct. 1710, 123 L.Ed.2d 353 (1993) (habeas petitioner must show constitutional error had a "substantial and injurious effect or influence” on the jury’s verdict) (internal quotation omitted).
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-6877
THOMAS TALMADGE EVANS, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DANIEL T. MAHON, Warden, Dillwyn CorrectionalCenter; DIANE ELKO, Nurse, Dillwyn Correctional Center, Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Chief District Judge. (CA-95-1178-R) Submitted: July 23, 1996 Decided: August 6, 1996 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Thomas Talmadge Evans, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Jill Theresa Bowers, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia; Powell Murry Leitch, III, FLIPPIN, DENSMORE, MORSE, RUTHERFORD & JESSEE, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Evans v. Mahon , No. CA-95-1178-R (W.D. Va. May 9, 1996). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
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





I, Mark Bradley, Chief Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer of Players Network, a Nevada corporation (the "Company"), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





(1) the report on Form 10-Q of Players Network. (the "Registrant") for the fiscal quarter ended September 30, 2010 (the "Report") which this statement accompanies fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





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







Date: November 15, 2010





/s/ Mark Bradley


Name:  Mark Bradley


Title: Chief Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer





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.