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

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0001037115
<NAME> ORBIT/FR,INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
<CURRENCY> US DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                           9,640
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    3,618
<ALLOWANCES>                                       445
<INVENTORY>                                      2,158
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                19,228
<PP&E>                                           2,675
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,598
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  21,520
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            7,585
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            61
<OTHER-SE>                                      13,874
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    21,520
<SALES>                                          3,638
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 3,638
<CGS>                                            2,794
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    2,794
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (322)
<INCOME-TAX>                                      (53)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (269)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (269)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.04)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.04)


</TABLE>
EX-31 Rule 13a-14(d)/15d-14(d) Certification.


  I, Kristen Ann Cronin, certify that:

  1.I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D
    required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on
    Form 10-K of PHH Mortgage Trust, Series 2008-CIM1 (the "Exchange Act
    periodic reports");

  2.Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a
    whole, do not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit
    to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in
    light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not
    misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

  3.Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and other
    information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period
    covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;

  4.I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the
    servicers and based on my knowledge and the compliance reviews
    conducted in preparing the servicer compliance statements required in
    this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed
    in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicers have fulfilled
    their obligations under the servicing agreements in all material
    respects; and

  5.All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria
    for asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on
    assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed
    securities required to be included in this report in accordance with
    Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18
    have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwise
    disclosed in this report.  Any material instances of noncompliance
    described in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form
    10-K.

    In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on
    information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties: PHH
    Mortgage Corporation as Servicer.

    Dated:   March 20, 2009


    /s/ Kristen Ann Cronin
    Signature

    Vice President
    (senior officer in charge of the servicing function of the master
    servicer)
From: "Higgins, Cortney" <Cortney_Higgins@omb.eop.gov> 

To: RobertJ Wayland/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Karen Thundiyil/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, 

Nick Hutson/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA 

Date: 11/29/2011 07:48 PM 

Subject: FW: E.O. 12866 Meeting on the EGU MACT Rule 

Hi all, 

Here are the handouts from this meeting today. 

 

Regards, 

Cortney 

 

 

 

-----Original Appointment----- 

From: Echols, Mabel E. 

Subject: E.O. 12866 Meeting on the EGU MACT Rule 

When: Tuesday, November 29, 2011 2:30 PM-3:00 PM (UTC-05:00) Eastern Time 

(US & Canada). 

Where: Room 10103 NEOB 

 

 

This meeting was requested by Scott Segal, Bracewell & Giuliani LLP on 

behalf of ERCC.
| 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. |
|----------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Signatures                              |   | Title                                                                          |   | Date                    |
|-----------------------------------------|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|-------------------------|
|                                    |   |                                                                           |   |                    |
| /s/ Natalie RussellNatalie      Russell |   | Chief      Financial OfficerPrincipal      Accounting OfficerSecretaryDirector |   | April 9,      2010 |

----
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 Pershing Gold Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-K/A for the year ended December 31, 2012, as filed with the SEC on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned hereby 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 results of operations of the Company.
  /s/ Stephen AlfersStephen Alfers

Chief Executive Officer and President and

Chairman of the Board of Directors

(Principal Executive Officer)

April 29, 2013/s/ Eric AlexanderEric Alexander

Vice President Finance and Controller

(Principal Financial Officer)

April 29, 2013
**EXHIBIT 21.1**

 

**LIST OFSUBSIDIARIES**

 
| **Company Name**                              | ** ** | **Jurisdiction  of  Incorporation** |
|-----------------------------------------------|------------|-------------------------------------|
| ** **                                    | ** ** | ** **                          |
| Waste2Energy, Inc.                       |       | Delaware                            |
| Waste2Energy  Services, Inc              |       | Delaware                            |
| Enerwaste Inc.                                |       | Delaware                            |
| Enerwaste International                       |       | Washington                          |
| Waste2Energy International  Ltd.              |       | England                             |
| Waste2Energy Group  Holdings PLC              |       | Isle  of Man                        |
| Waste2Energy Europe Ltd.                      |       | England                             |
| Waste2Energy Holdings PLC                     |       | England                             |
| W2E Isle of Man Ltd.                          |       | Isle  of Man                        |
| Waste2Energy Engineering  Ltd.                |       | Scotland                            |
| Waste2Energy Technologies  International Ltd. |       | Isle  of Man                        |

 

----
Exhibit 32.02

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 Fairchild Semiconductor International, Inc. (the company) on Form 10-Q for the period
ended September 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Mark S. Frey, Chief Financial Officer of the company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to
ss. 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 the operations of the company.
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/ Mark S. Frey       
|Mark S. Frey           
|Chief Financial Officer
|November 8, 2007
From: ms_todd@hotmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:22:29 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,

Susan` Todd

Anderson, IN 46011
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-20354

Summary Calendar

BRUCE A. ROGERS,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

SHAWNA TALBOT BOATRIGHT, Supervisor, Texas Department of Criminal 

Justice-Correctional Institution Division; JOSE L. GARCIA, JR., 

Transportation Driver, Security; HERBERT J. GARCIA, Transportation 

Driver, Security; JOEL GARCIA,

Defendants-Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:10-CV-1058

Before REAVLEY, OWEN, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Bruce A. Rogers, Texas prisoner # 566928, has appealed the district 

court’s order denying his motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6)

to reopen this civil rights lawsuit, which was voluntarily dismissed on Rogers’s 

motion. Rogers contends that he has shown that he was prevented from 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

October 19, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-20354 Document: 00513725179 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/19/2016
No. 15-20354

2

pursuing his civil rights claims by circumstances related to an illness and that 

the defendants have not shown that they will be prejudiced if his lawsuit is 

reopened. He argues that he should be permitted to proceed with his civil 

rights claims in the interests of justice. 

Under Rule 60(b)(6), a court may relieve a party from a final judgment 

for “any other reason that justifies relief.” FED. R. CIV. P. 60(b)(6). Such a 

motion must be made “‘within a reasonable time,’ unless good cause can be 

shown for delay.” In re Osborne, 379 F.3d 277, 283 (5th Cir. 2004) (quoting 

FED. R. CIV. P. 60(c)(1)). A Rule 60(b)(6) motion will be granted only in 

extraordinary circumstances. Yesh Music v. Lakewood Church, 727 F.3d 356, 

363 (5th Cir. 2013). “Accordingly, Rule 60(b)(6) requires a showing of manifest 

injustice and will not be used to relieve a party from the free, calculated, and 

deliberate choices he has made.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation 

omitted). “Rule 60(b)(6) should not be used to undo the damage done by a poor 

strategic decision.” Id. 

At most, Rogers’s illness provides good cause excusing his 14-month 

delay in moving for relief under Rule 60(b)(6). Rogers has not shown that the 

district court’s denial of his Rule 60(b)(6) motion will result in a manifest 

injustice. See id. Extraordinary circumstances requiring relief under Rule 

60(b)(6) are not present and have not been shown. See id. The district court’s 

order is

AFFIRMED.

 Case: 15-20354 Document: 00513725179 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/19/2016
<PAGE>
                                                                    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 Orbit/FR, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the three and nine months ending September 30, 2006 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Israel Adan, President and 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.

November 14, 2006

/s/ Israel Adan
-------------------------
Israel Adan
President and Chief Executive Officer



                                                                              21
#### The People of the State of New York *ex rel.*James Harny v. Same.

Like order.
**Exhibit 32.1**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 USC, SECTION 1350,****AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906****OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

            In connection with the Quarterly Report of Material Technologies, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended June 30, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on or about the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Robert M. Bernstein, President of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:				            (1)        The Report fully complies with the requirements of Sections 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.

| Dated:  August 17, 2006 | /s/ Robert M. Bernstein                                     |
|------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                              | By:  Robert M. Bernstein                                                                                                                                                                                                                   |
|                              | Its:  President                                                                                                                                                                                                                            |

----
From: dndstoltzfus@frontiernet.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 2:03:02 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,

Deborah Stoltzfus

Christiana, PA 17509
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T UN I T E D S T AT E S OF AME R I C A, P l ai nt i ff

- A pp el l ee , v. S T E VE N S AE P HA RN, D e f

e n d a n t - A p p e llan t. N o. 12- 30011 D . C. N o . 3 : 1 1 - c r - 0 0 0 7 3 - RRB ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt

f orthe D i s tr i c tof

A l a s ka R a l ph R . B e i s t l i ne , C hi e f Judge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d M ay14, 2013 ** B efo re: L E A V Y , T H O M A S , an dM U R G U IA , C i rcu i tJu d g es. S t even S ae ph arn app ea l s f rom the di stri ctcourt ’ s j ud gm entand chal l enges hi s j ury - tr i a l c onvi c t i on f ordi s tr i but i on of

m e tha m phe t a m i ne , i n vi ol a t i on of 21 U . S . C . § 841( a ) ( 1) , ( b) ( 1) ( B ) . P ur s uantt o A n de rs v . Ca lifo rn ia , 386 U . S . 738 

# FI LED MA Y17 2 013 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS12- 30011 2 ( 1967) , S a e pha rn’ s c ouns e l ha s f i l e d abr i e f

s t a t i ng tha tthe r e a r e no gr ounds f or re l i ef , al on g w i th a m ot i on t o w i thd raw as coun se l of re cord. W e have provi ded S aep h arn th e o p p o rtu n i ty t o fi l e a p ro se sup p l em en t al b ri ef. N o p ro se s up p le m e n ta l b r ie f

o ra n s w e r in g b r ie f

h a s b e e n f

ile d . O uri nde pe nde ntr e vi e w of the r e c or d pur s uantt o P e n s o n v . O h io , 4 8 8 U . S. 7 5 , 8 0 ( 1 9 8 8 ) , d is c lo s e s n o a r g u ab le g r o u n d s f o rr e lie f o n d ir e c t ap p e a l. C o u n sel ’ s m o t i o n t o w i th d raw i s GR AN T E D. AF F I RME D.
#### The State v. Miller, *Appellant.*

Impeachment of Witness. For the purpose of impeaching tlie testimony of a witness, it is competent to inquire concerning her general moral character and the state of her feelings toward the par" ties.

*Appeal from Jackson Criminal Court.*— Hon. H. P. White, Judge.

Reversed.

*Frank Titus*for appellant.

J. *L.*Smith, Attorney-General, for the State.

Napton, J.

This was an indictment under section 29, 1 Wag. Stat., p. 449, for an assault with intent to kill. The only witness for the prosecution was a Mrs. Lucett, and, therefore, the main purpose of the defendant was to destroy *591her credibility with the jury. Mrs. Lucett was the only person who saw the stabbing, neither the person who was stabbed, a man named Lester, nor the defendant, were witnesses on the trial. A daughter of the defendant, Mrs. Gradwold, was a witness for defendant. She knew but little about the case, except that she heard abusive language interchanged between defendant and Lester. But she was asked, among other questions, what the general character of the witness, Mrs. Lucett, was for morality, and the court excluded the question. She was also asked what this witness’ feelings toward defendant were, which question was also excluded. This court has decided both these points adversely to the ruling of the criminal court. *State v. Shields,*13 Mo. 236; *State v. Hamilton,*55 Mo. 520; *State v. Breeden,*58 Mo. 507; *State v. Clinton,*67 Mo. 386; *State v. Montgomery,*28 Mo. 594. The judgment of the criminal court must, therefore, be reversed.

The instructions, taken all together, were unobjectionable, and we see no force in the objections to the remarks of the prosecuting attorney to the jury. They were legitimate comments on the evidence in the case. Judgment reversed and cause remanded.

All concur.