alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




Pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned hereby certifies that
the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended February 28, 2010 of
International Development and Environmental Holdings (the “Company”) fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in such
Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Company.





(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/ Bernard J. Tanenbaum
III





Bernard
J. Tanenbaum III


Chief
Executive Officer




Date:  June
15, 2010




A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
International Development and Environmental Holdings and will be retained by
International Development and Environmental Holdings and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1

                            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 California Beach Restaurants, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the period ending April 30, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Alan
Redhead, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
certify, to the best of my knowledge, 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
                  operations of the Company.

           /s/  Alan Redhead
         -------------------------
         Alan Redhead
         Chief Executive Officer
         & Chief Financial Officer
         August  9, 2002
Order entered January 12 , 2015

In The 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**
No. 05
- 14
- 00297
- CR KIRK STEVEN JACKSON, Appellant
V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 7 Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F13
- 70153
- Y 

### O RDER
The Court ORDERS the trial court to conduct a hearing to determine why appellant’s brief has not been filed. In this regard, the trial court shall make appropriate findings and recommendations and determine whether app ellant desires to prosecute the appeal, whether appellant is indigent, or if not indigent, whether retained counsel has abandoned the appeal. See
T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 38.8( b ). If the trial court cannot obtain appellant’s presence at the hearing, the trial cou rt shall conduct the hearing in appellant’s absence. See Meza v. State , 742 S.W.2d 708 (Tex. App.

– Corpus Christi 1987, no pet.) (per curiam). If appellant is indigent, the trial court is ORDERED to take such measures as may be necessary to assure effecti ve representation, which may include appointment of new counsel.We ORDER the trial court to transmit a record of the proceedings, which shall include written findings and recommendations, to this Court within THIRTY DAYS of the date of this order. This appeal is ABATED to allow the trial court to comply with the above order. The appeal shall be reinstated thirty days from the date of this order or when the findings are received, whichever is earlier.
/s/ ADA BROWN JUSTICE
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02-24-00150-CV

EX PARTE J.M. §

§

§

§

On Appeal from the 213th District Court

of Tarrant County (D213-E-19509)

May 23, 2024

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Kerr

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that the 

appeal should be dismissed. It is ordered that the appeal is dismissed for want of 

jurisdiction.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By __/s/ Elizabeth Kerr_________________

 Justice Elizabeth Kerr
From: Brostroml@uwstout.edu

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 3:11:40 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,

Lori Brostrom

Menomonie, WI 54751
From: donald.buechler@att.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:26:21 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,

Donald Buechler

Florissant, MO 63031
Before the Third Division

July 14, 1966

No. P66/158. —

#### Daprato Statuary Co. *v.*United States, protest 64/24484 (New York).

Landis, J.

In accordance with, stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protest consists of earthenware statuettes, valued over $2.50 each, similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Wm. S. Pitcairn Corp.*v. *United States*(39 CCPA 15, C.A.D. 458), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
No. 61482.

#### J. J. Boll et al. *v.*United States

protests 296552-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

The protests were dismissed.
No. 68886.

#### Aristo-Craft Distinctive Miniatures *v.*United States,

protests 62/18358 and 62/18375 (San Francisco).

Opinion by

Oliver, O.J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of miniature motors similar in all material respects to those the subject of Abstract 66961, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
From: roses4jmj@comcast.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 2:00:22 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,

Florence Sammataro

Gales Ferry, CT 06335
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             MAR-03-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                       1,058,836
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,158,444
<ALLOWANCES>                                   146,699
<INVENTORY>                                  1,513,075
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             4,028,907
<PP&E>                                         464,902
<DEPRECIATION>                                  71,324
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,718,441
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,772,433
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        29,885
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,207,740
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,718,441
<SALES>                                     11,673,102
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            11,673,102
<CGS>                                        6,685,464
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             4,683,203
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              88,714
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                215,721
<INCOME-TAX>                                    78,570
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   137,151
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .05
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     9
<CIK>                         1037249
<NAME>                        PEOPLE'S COMMUNITY CAPITAL CORPORATION

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                      3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                  DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                     JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                       MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                             2,289,868
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>             36,644,198
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                   1,900,000
<TRADING-ASSETS>                   0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>        10,599,545
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>             0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>               0
<LOANS>                            38,138,029
<ALLOWANCE>                        467,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                     55,247,490
<DEPOSITS>                         44,680,046
<SHORT-TERM>                       987,235
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                139,733
<LONG-TERM>                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>              0
<PREFERRED>                        0
<COMMON>                           9,983
<OTHER-SE>                         9,430,493
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>     55,247,490
<INTEREST-LOAN>                    823,647
<INTEREST-INVEST>                  169,375
<INTEREST-OTHER>                   38,029
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                   1,031,051
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                 378,098
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                 384,555
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>              646,496
<LOAN-LOSSES>                      57,000
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                 0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                    501,793
<INCOME-PRETAX>                    168,620
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>         168,620
<EXTRAORDINARY>                    0
<CHANGES>                          0
<NET-INCOME>                       104,474
<EPS-BASIC>                        .11
<EPS-DILUTED>                      .10
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                     5.29
<LOANS-NON>                        41,847
<LOANS-PAST>                       0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                   0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                    41,847
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                   410,000
<CHARGE-OFFS>                      0
<RECOVERIES>                       0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                  467,000
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>               0
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>            467,000


</TABLE>
No. 69798.

protests 64/22436, 64/23691, and 65/2269 (New York).

#### Elmay Importing Co. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Kao, C.J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of pole ends similar in all material respects to those the subject of *J. C. DeJong & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(52 CCPA 26, C.A.D. 852), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
From: jason@midwestdrafting.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 2:12:44 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,

Jason Jimenez

Orange City, IA 51041
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE  CONTAINS SUMMARY  FINANCIAL  INFORMATION  EXTRACTED FROM WILLCOX &
GIBBS, INC. FORM 10-Q FOR THE PERIOD ENDED JUNE 30, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                                                <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                    6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                           1,331
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   39,179
<ALLOWANCES>                                     3,667
<INVENTORY>                                     47,925
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                94,460
<PP&E>                                           5,486
<DEPRECIATION>                                     593
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 137,986
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           38,933
<BONDS>                                         84,861
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         9,030
<OTHER-SE>                                     (1,013)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   137,986
<SALES>                                         89,242
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                89,242
<CGS>                                           61,216
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   61,216
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   495
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               5,937
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (577)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (218)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (359)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                (1,557)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,916)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.99)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.99)
        

</TABLE>
#### New York Council for Exceptional People et al., Appellants, v George E. Pataki, as Governor of the State of New York, et al., Respondents.

[632 NYS2d 531]

—Order, Supreme *237Court, New York County (Helen Freedman, J.), entered on or about June 13, 1995, which, *inter alia,*declared that plaintiffs are not entitled to transitional care funding by defendants, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The lack of merit to plaintiffs’ claim that they are entitled to continued transitional care funding is demonstrated by the plain words of Social Services Law article 8-B, which provides that localities such as the defendant City "may” provide the funding that plaintiffs seek herein (Social Services Law § 466 [2]) and that defendant State’s responsibility prior to 1999 is "reimbursement” for 60% of the localities’ expenditures *(ibid.),*and of Laws of 1994 (ch 600, § 16), which provides that the statute shall not be "deemed or construed to create any right, interest or entitlement for any individual to receive mental hygiene, education or social services funds or services, or placement in a mental hygiene facility, or any other right, interest or entitlement to services, funds or placement”. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Wallach, Ross and Tom, JJ.
- 498 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 306 Nebraska Reports STATE v . GALVAN Cite as 306 Neb. 498

State of Nebraska, appellee, v. Braden M. Galvan, appellant. ___ N.W.2d ___ Filed July 17, 2020. Nos. S‐19‐623, S‐19‐624.

supplemental opinion Appeal from the District Court for Hall County: Mark J. Young , Judge. Former opinion modified. Motion for rehear

ing overruled. Gerard A. Piccolo, Hall County Public Defender, for appellant. Douglas J. Peterson, Attorney General, and Melissa R. Vincent for appellee. Heavican , C.J., Miller

- Lerman , Cassel , Stacy , Funke , Papik , and Freudenberg , JJ. Per Curiam

. This case is before us on a motion for rehearing filed by the appellee, State of Nebraska, concerning our opinion in State v. Galvan , 305 Neb. 513, 941 N.W.2d 183 (2020). We overrule the motion, but modify the opinion as follows: In the analysis section, under the subheading “ Plain Error ,” we withdraw the first two sentences of the fifth paragraph, including footnotes 24 and 25. State v. Galvan , 305 Neb. at 521, 941 N.W.2d at 190. The remainder of the opinion shall remain unmodified. Former opinion modified. Motion for rehearing overruled. Nebraska Supreme Court Online Library www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/ 08/07/2020 08:07 AM CDT
No. 66458.

#### James Betesh Import Co. *v.*United States,

protest 61/5376 (New York).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of earthenware eggcups similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Ross Products, Inc.*v. *United States*(46 Cust. Ct. 8, C.D. 2226), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.