alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>

 <ARTICLE> 5

 <S>                             <C>
 <PERIOD-TYPE>                             6-MO
 <FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-2000
 <PERIOD-END>                               March-31-2000
 <CASH>                                      456,130
 <SECURITIES>                                       0
 <RECEIVABLES>                                 531,703
 <ALLOWANCES>                                         0
 <INVENTORY>                                   740,151
 <CURRENT-ASSETS>                            1,727,983
 <PP&E>                                      2,203,689
 <DEPRECIATION>                              1,919,053
 <TOTAL-ASSETS>                              6,193,846
 <CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          760,615
 <BONDS>                                            0
 <PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              0
 <PREFERRED>                                        0
 <COMMON>                                         62,879
 <OTHER-SE>
 765,988
 <TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                6,193,846
 <SALES>                                     1,736,431
 <TOTAL-REVENUES>                            1,736,431
 <CGS>
 1,110,980
 <TOTAL-COSTS>                                             1,110,980
 <OTHER-EXPENSES>                            1,948,897
 <LOSS-PROVISION>                                          1,323,446
 <INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             293,913
 <INCOME-PRETAX>                                701,882
 <INCOME-TAX>                                      0
 <INCOME-CONTINUING>                          701,882
 <DISCONTINUED>                                    0
 <EXTRAORDINARY>                                   0
 <CHANGES>                                         0
 <NET-INCOME>                                    701,882
 <EPS-BASIC>                                   (0.12)
 <EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
From: patrickvitale@sbcglobal.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:51:07 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,

Patrick vitale

Milford, CT 06460
From: woweelacs@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 5:16:53 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,

Aurora Lacsamana

Richardson, TX 75082
No. P68/506.

protests 65/20884 and 66/7086 (New York).

#### Hudson Merchandise Co. *v.*United States,

Maletz, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protests consists of “sandtimers” similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Hudson Merchandise Co.*v. *United States*(59 Cust. Ct. 67, C.D. 3075), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
From: iamholter@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 3:51:10 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,

Terri Holter

Clackamas, OR 97015
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 393 Engrossed in House (EH)]

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                          May 10, 2007.
    Resolved,  That the following named Members be, and are hereby, elected to 
the following standing committees of the House of Representatives:
    Committee on Appropriations: Mr. Calvert.
    Committee on Armed Services: Mr. Shuster, to rank after Mr. Franks of 
Arizona.
    Committee on Financial Services: Mr. McCotter.
    Committee on Foreign Affairs: Mr. Bilirakis.
    Committee on Natural Resources: Ms. Fallin and Mr. McCarthy of California.
    Committee on Oversight and Government Reform: Mr. Jordan of Ohio.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
<PAGE>


                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2

 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


In connection with the Annual Report of Cover-All Technologies Inc., a Delaware
corporation (the "Company"), on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2006
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Ann F. Massey, Chief Financial Officer (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, that, to my
knowledge:

        (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.

Date:    April 2, 2007

/s/ Ann F. Massey
--------------------------------
Name:    Ann F. Massey
Title:   Chief Financial Officer
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 Universal Solar Technology, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2008 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Wensheng Chen, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant
to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:




(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.





Date: April 9,
2009





/s/
      Wensheng ChenWensheng
      Chen, Principal Executive
Officer
From: vpvac@usfamily.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 4:41:48 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,

Ken Kiemele

, 56058-1617
The State of TexasAppellee

Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

April 21, 2014

No. 04-14-00069-CR

Charles Arthur WARREN,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 379th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2012CR9856B

Honorable Ron Rangel, Judge Presiding

ORDER

On April 16, 2014, appellant filed a motion to stay the terms of his community 

supervision. The State may file a response to the motion on or before May 2, 2014. See 

Humphries v. State, 261 S.W.3d 144, 145 (Tex. App.---San Antonio 2008, no pet.).

_________________________________

Karen Angelini, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 21st day of April, 2014.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
11 TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND

, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

Darvus Henry, * From the County Court at Law No. 2

of Midland County

Trial Court No. CC

- 18,449.

Vs. No. 11

- 16

- 00 265

- C V * August 3 1 , 2018

City of Midland, * Memorandum Opinion by Bailey, J.

(Panel consists of: Bailey, J. ;

Gray, C.J., sitting by assignment; and

Wright, S.C.J., sitting by assignment )

(Willson, J., not participating)

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that there

is no error in the judgment below. Therefore, in accordance with this court ’ s

opinion, th e judgment of the trial court is in all things affirmed. The costs

incurred by reason of thi s appeal are taxed against Darvus Henry.
Exhibit 99.7



CONSENT OF RAMON MENDOZA REYES



In connection with the
Annual Report on Form 40-F, and any amendments and exhibits thereto, of Sandstorm Gold Ltd. (the “Company”)
for the year ended December 31, 2016 (collectively, the “Annual Report”), I, Ramon Mendoza Reyes, P. Eng., consent
to the use of and references to my name, including as an expert or “qualified person,” with respect to the disclosure
on the Santa Elena mine contained in the Annual Report and any of the exhibits thereto, including, but not limited to, the Annual
Information Form for the year ended December 31, 2016.



I also consent to the incorporation
by reference of such information contained in the Annual Report and exhibits thereto into the Company’s Registration Statement
on Form F-10 (File No. 333-215009), as amended.



|Date:   March 29, 2017 |                         |                                                                 
|---------------------- | ----------------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------
|                       |                         |                                                                 
|                       | /s/ Ramon Mendoza Reyes
|                       | Name:                   | Ramon Mendoza Reyes, P. Eng.                                    
|                       | Title:                  | Vice President Technical Services forFirst Majestic Silver Corp.
UN PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17
- 1676

In R e: GIUSEPPE PILEGGI , Petitioner

.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus

. ( 3:06

- cr - 00151

- RJC

- 1; 3:14

- cv - 00159

- RJC )

Submitted : September 7, 2017 Decided: September 14, 2017

Before DUNCAN and WYNN , Circuit Judges , and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge

.

Petition denied by un published per curiam opinion

. Giuseppe Pileggi, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Giuseppe Pileggi petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging that the district court has unduly delayed in acting on his Fed. R. Crim. P. 41(g) motion and 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. He seeks an order from this court directing th e district court to act. Our review of the district court’s docket reveals that the district court denied Pileggi’s Rule 41(g) motion without prejudice by order entered July 26, 2017, and dismissed his § 2255 motion by order entered September 1, 2017. Ac cordingly, because the district court has recently decided Pileggi’s motions , we deny the mandamus petition as moot. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and arg ument would not aid the decisional
process. PETITION DENIED
From: fgriggs@wctel.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 5:05:20 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,

Fred Griggs

Lowndesville, SC 29659
No. 63824.

protest 803612-G (Baltimore).

#### William H. Masson, Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Richardson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise and issues are similar in all material respects to those involved in *United States*v. *R. C. Williams & Co., Inc.*(40 C.C.P.A. 130, C.A.D. 508), and *Austin, Nichols & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(22 Cust. Ct. 33, C.D. 1155), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
Dismissed and Opinion Filed July 23, 2024 

# S

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-24-00272-CV IN RE M.C., Relator Original Proceeding from the 302nd Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DF-21-17924 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Partida-Kipness, Nowell, and Miskel Opinion by Justice Partida-Kipness In his petition for writ of mandamus, relator challenges temporary orders issued in the underlying suit to modify the parent–child relationship. Those temporary orders (1) named Mother as the person with the exclusive right to designate the child’s primary residence an d (2) set a geographic restriction on the child’s residence. It came to our attention the trial cour t has set a Dallas C ounty Local Rule 8.02 “Dismissal/Entry of Final Order” hearing. Because this suggested the parties have announced settlement in the underlying matte r, we questioned our jurisdiction over this mandamus proceeding. We directed rela tor to file a letter brief addressing our–2– concern and providing an update as to the status of the underlying case. We cautioned him that failure to comply by July 12, 2024, could result in dismissal of the original proceeding without further notice. To date, he has not filed the requested letter brief. Accordingly, we dismiss the petition for writ of mandamus. Additionally, based on our review, relator’s mandamus record contains unredacted sensitive data—such as the minor’s full birthdate— in violation of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 9.9. Accordingly, we strike the mandamus record.

240272F.P05 /Robbie Partida-Kipness / ROBBIE PARTIDA-KIPNESS JUSTICE
```

[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 27 (Friday, February 10, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10356-10357]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-02805]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[ER-FRL-9031-7]

Environmental Impact Statements; Notice of Availability

    Responsible Agency: Office of Federal Activities, General 
Information (202) 564-7146 or http://www.epa.gov/nepa.

Weekly receipt of Environmental Impact Statements (EISs)
Filed 01/30/2017 Through 02/03/2017
Pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.9.

[[Page 10357]]

    Notice: Section 309(a) of the Clean Air Act requires that EPA make 
public its comments on EISs issued by other Federal agencies. EPA's 
comment letters on EISs are available at: http://www.epa.gov/compliance/nepa/eisdata.html.

EIS No. 20170023, Draft Supplement, DOS, MN, Line 67 Expansion 
(previously known as the Alberta Clipper Pipeline), Comment Period 
Ends: 03/27/2017, Contact: Mary D. Hassell 202-736-7428.
EIS No. 20170024, Revised Final, USFS, SC, Francis Marion Forest Plan 
Revision, Review Period Ends: 03/13/2017, Contact: Mary Morrison 803-
561-4058.

Amended Notices

EIS No. 20160311, Draft, USACE, NE., Missouri River Recovery Management 
Plan, Comment Period Ends: 04/24/2017, Contact: Aaron Quinn 402-995-
2669, Revision to FR Notice Published 12/23/2016; Extending Comment 
Period from 2/24/2017 to 4/24/2017.

    Dated: February 7, 2017.
Dawn Roberts,
Management Analyst, NEPA Compliance Division, Office of Federal 
Activities.
[FR Doc. 2017-02805 Filed 2-9-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
```