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

<ARTICLE>                 5

<S>                       <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>             9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                 FEB-28-2001
<PERIOD-END>                      NOV-30-2000
<CASH>                                          1,702,000
<SECURITIES>                                            0
<RECEIVABLES>                                 245,900,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                   10,828,000
<INVENTORY>                                     1,027,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                              243,676,000
<PP&E>                                          3,173,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                  1,847,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                275,980,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                         187,997,000
<BONDS>                                                 0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                   0
<PREFERRED>                                             0
<COMMON>                                       23,151,000
<OTHER-SE>                                     42,407,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  275,980,000
<SALES>                                        14,314,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               23,626,000
<CGS>                                          12,951,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  12,951,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                3,060,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                  433,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              5,533,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 1,649,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                      651,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               998,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                         0
<CHANGES>                                               0
<NET-INCOME>                                      998,000
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0.19
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0.18


</TABLE>
|Exhibit 32.2
|------------



|CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Startech Environmental Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended July 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Peter J. Scanlon, Chief Financial Officer, Treasurer and Secretary of the Company, 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.
|   



|By:/s/ Peter J. ScanlonPeter J. ScanlonChief Financial Officer, Treasurer and SecretarySeptember 15, 2008
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.



---
II

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. J. RES. 31

Disapproving the extension of nondiscriminatory treatment (most-favorednation treatment) to the products of the People’s Republic of China.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JUNE 3, 1997

Mr. HELMS (for himself, Mr. FEINGOLD, Mr. HUTCHINSON, and Mr.

WELLSTONE) introduced the following joint resolution; which was read

twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

JOINT RESOLUTION

Disapproving the extension of nondiscriminatory treatment

(most-favored-nation treatment) to the products of the

People’s Republic of China.

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 That the Congress does not approve the extension of the

4 authority contained in section 402(c) of the Trade Act of

5 1974 recommended by the President to the Congress on

6 May 29, 1997, with respect to the People’s Republic of

7 China.

Æ
To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:44:43 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,

John Walker

Ooltewah, TN 37363
Exhibit 31.2

I, Scott Emerson Lybbert, certify that:

  1.   I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of TGFIN Holdings,
Inc.;

        2.   Based upon my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain
any untrue statements 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 quarterly report;

        3.   Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other
financial information included in this quarterly report, fairly represent in
all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash
flows of the Registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this
quarterly report;

        4.   The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible
for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as
defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have:

               a)   designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure
that material information relating to the registrant, including its
consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those
entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is
being prepared;

               b)   evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure
controls and procedures as of and updated to the date of this quarterly report
(the Evaluation Date); and

               c)   presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about
the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our
evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;

        5.   The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed,
based on our most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the
audit committee of registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the
equivalent functions):

               a)   all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of
internal controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to
record, process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for
the registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

               b)   any fraud, whether or not material, that involves
management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's
internal controls; and

        6.   The registrant's other certifying officers and I have indicated
in this quarterly report whether there were significant changes in internal
controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls
subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective
actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

     /s/ Scott Emerson Lybbert      Chief Financial Officer
    --------------------------
         Scott Emerson Lybbert      May 16, 2005
COMPLETENESS CHECKLIST FOR 

Submission of Waiver and Authorization Measures into the California SIP

Title 40 CFR, Part 51, Appendix V –

Criteria for Determining the Completeness 

of Plan Submissions

Enclosed Notes

ADMINISTRATIVE MATERIALS

2.1(a) Submittal Letter from Governor's 

Designee YES See letter from Richard Corey, 

ARB Executive Officer.

2.1(b) Evidence of Adoption YES See enclosed ARB Resolution 15-40.

2.1(c) Legal Authority Citation YES See ARB Resolution 15-40.

2.1(d) Copy of :

a. Attainment Plan for ozone

c. Contingency measures, 

d. Transportation control conformity budgets 

c. Vehicle Miles Traveled offset demonstration

d. Reasonably Available Control Measure

analysis

NO Not applicable.

2.1(e) Evidence of Compliance with State's 

Procedural Requirements YES See ARB Resolution 15-40.

2.1(f) Evidence of Public Notice Consistent with 

40 CFR part 51.102 YES

See public notice and proof 

of publication in the ARB public

notice published to web on 

June 19, 2015 at 

http://www.arb.ca.gov/planning/sip/wsh

/waivernotice.pdf

2.1(g) Certification of Public Hearing in 

Accordance with Notice YES See ARB Resolution 15-40.

2.1(h) Compilation of Public Comments and 

Responses YES

There were no public comments for the 

ARB Board adoption. See Board 

Meeting Comment Log. 

2.2(a) Identification of Regulated Pollutant NO Not applicable.

2.2(b) Identification of Attainment Area/Status NO Not applicable.

2.2(c) Estimate of Plan's Impact on Emissions NO Not applicable.

2.2(d) Demonstration that Plan 

Approval/Implementation Protects NAAQS NO Not applicable.

2.2(e) Modeling Support NO Not applicable. 

2.2(f)- Compliance/Enforcement and 

2.2(i) Justification NO Not applicable.

W:\Federal Liaison -- General\Lawsuits and Court Cases\Waiver Excercise\Submittal to EPA\SIP Submittal Completeness 

Checklist.doc
No. 63399.

protest 59/4283 (Seattle).

#### Charles Gilkey *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Richardson, J.

In accordance with rule 5(b) of the rules of this court, as amended, the protest was dismissed for lack of prosecution.
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

REGION VII

901 NORTH 5TH STREET

KANSAS CITY, KANSAS 66101

September 23, 2011

Dear Owner/Resident:

Nicholas Ferraguti

Omaha, Nebraska 68108

1305 South 8 Street

 1305 South 8 Street

A Lead Based Paint assessment was recently performed on your property by the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency as part of the Omaha Lead site investigation. The purpose of 

this assessment is to determine whether a significant quantity of LBP is present on the exterior 

surface of structures, where deteriorating paint conditions (peeling, flaking, cracking, etc) exist 

that might increase lead concentrations in the yard above acceptable levels.

Enclosed are the LBP assessment sheets for 1305 South 8 Street. The EPA has developed paint 

stabilization eligibility criteria that involve measuring the amount of deteriorated LBP on a 

structure and calculating the concentration of lead in soils around the home that would result if 

all of the identified deteriorated paint were to fall to the ground and uniformly mix with the soil 

under certain assumptions. During the LBP assessment, the areal extent of the deteriorated paint 

observed on structure surfaces was estimated and the lead content in the deteriorated paint was 

measured using an X-Ray Fluorescence instrument.

The data obtained during the LBP assessment was used to estimate the increase in soil lead 

concentration that would result if all of the deteriorating paint identified in the assessment were 

to fall to the ground and mix with surface soil within six feet of the foundation of the structure. 

For purposes of this calculation, the deteriorating LBP on a structure is assumed to fall onto the 

ground surface within six feet of the foundation and be uniformly mixed with the top one inch 

of soil. The estimated lead concentration in the soil potentially caused by the deteriorating LBP 

provides a measure of the severity of LBP deterioration on individual structures. The EPA uses 

these criteria to rank properties based on the potential for recontamination of soil to occur. Paint 

stabilization is being offered at only those households with the most severe LBP problems, 

particularly where children under the age of seven reside.

 Lead-Based Paint (LBP) Assessment

The LBP assessment performed by the EPA using the above criteria indicated that your 

house IS NOT eligible for paint stabilization. 

RE: SAID: 124
Enclosures

Para información en español, llame al EPA Information Center (402) 731-3045.

Sincerely,

Pauletta R. France-Isetts

Project Coordinator

Environmental Protection Agency

If you have any questions or concerns, please contact the EPA Public Information Center at 

(402) 731-3045.
No. P68/26.

protests 63/21099-13910, etc. (Chicago).

#### J. E. Bernard & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protests consists of pistol grips for motion picture cameras similar in all material respects to those the subject of *J. E. Bernard &*Co., *Inc.*v. *United States*(57 Cust. Ct. 143, C.D. 2744), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
From: wvbares19992002@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 6:58:47 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,

Dana Bare

Rutherfordton, NC 28139
IN THE SUPREME COURT FOR THE STATE OF MONTANA 

No. DA 21-0384

IN THE MATTER OF: 

J.S., 

 Youth In Need Of Care. 

ORDER 

 Upon consideration of Father and Appellant’s Motion For Extension Of 

Time (First), and with good cause shown, Father and Appellant C.G. is hereby 

granted an extension of time until November 5, 2021 in which to prepare, file and 

serve Father and Appellant’s opening brief. 

No further extensions will be granted.

 

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

October 1 2021

10/01/2021

Case Number: DA 21-0384
EXHIBIT 32





BLUFOREST INC.





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 Amendment No. 1 to the Annual  Report of Bluforest Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K/A for the period ended December 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Charles Miller as Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer) and Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer) of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





(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 this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.








Date: June 8, 2012
By:
/s/ Charles MillerName:
Charles MillerTitle:
Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer) and Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer)





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 1350 of Title 18 of the United States Code 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.





The foregoing certification is being furnished as an exhibit to the Report pursuant to Item 601(b)(32) of Regulation S-K and Section 1350 of Title 18 of the United States Code and, accordingly, is not being filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission as part of the Report and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (whether made before or after the date of the Report, irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.)
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

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

No. 00-50271 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus JOSE MANUEL LOPEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. P-99-CR-241-1-F

-------------------- June 15, 2001 Before WIENER, DeMOSS, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Court-appointed counsel for Jose Manuel Lopez has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief as required by Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Lopez has received a copy of counsel’s motion and brief, and he has not filed a response. Our independent review of the brief and the record discloses no nonfrivolous issue. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR . R. 42.2.
Exhibit











5310 Maryland Way
Brentwood, TN 37027
United States Of America


April 5, 2018


Via Hand Delivery


Mr. Michael Cairnes




Dear Mike:


On behalf of Kirkland’s Inc. (the “Company”), this letter agreement confirms your appointment as the Company’s Acting President and Chief Executive Officer, effective on the date hereof.  We appreciate your willingness to serve in this capacity.


During your service as the Company’s Acting Chief Executive Officer (your “Acting Service”), you will report directly to the Board of Directors of the Company (the “Board”) and perform such duties as may be assigned to you by the Board.  Except for such titles and duties, and except as expressly provided below, your employment will continue on the terms set forth in your Employment Agreement with the Company dated November 22, 2016 (“Employment Agreement”).


While it is anticipated that your Acting Service will last for several months, the Board may choose to end your Acting Service at any time, whether or not a new Chief Executive Officer has by then been identified.  However, if the Company concludes your Acting Service without offering you the Chief Executive Officer role on a permanent basis, you will continue your employment as Chief Operating Officer and Executive Vice President on the terms set forth in your Employment Agreement; provided, that, if you remain employed by the Company for 90 days following the start date of the new permanent Chief Executive Officer (“90-Day Period”), you will be paid a bonus of $50,000 promptly thereafter (“Acting Bonus”). Further, if you incur a separation from service during the 90-Day Period that would entitle you to severance under the terms of your Employment Agreement, you shall be entitled to receive, promptly after such separation of service, the Acting Bonus in addition to such severance benefits that you may otherwise be entitled to receive pursuant to your Employment Agreement.  For the avoidance of doubt, failure to name you permanent Chief Executive Officer shall not be deemed a “material diminution in [your] position, authority, duties or responsibilities” within the meaning of clause (i) of the definition of “Good Reason” in your Employment Agreement.


To acknowledge your agreement with the foregoing, please execute and date this letter in the space provided below and return the executed original to me.


Sincerely,


Kirkland’s Inc.


By:    /s/ Nicole Strain                        
Title:    Interim Chief Financial Officer




Agreed on April 5, 2018:


/s/ Michael Cairnes                                 
Michael Cairnes