alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**1995-  rice_stocks_01.12.95rice_stocks_03.31.95rice_stocks_08.31.95rice_stocks_10.31.95

**
|   | (1) |   | The Company’s annual report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended                    December 31, 2006 (the “Form 10-KSB”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of                    the                    Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and |   |
|--------|-----|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|

|   | (2) |   | The information contained in the Form 10-KSB fairly presents,                    in all                    material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. |   |
|--------|-----|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|

|                             |                                                                 |                       |
|----------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------|
|                             | **VALLEY FORGE COMPOSITE TECHNOLOGIES, INC.**(Registrant)            |
|                             |                                                                 |                       |
| Dated: March 30, 2007  | By:                                                        | /s/ Louis J. Brothers |
|                             | Louis J. Brothers                                                    |
|                             | President, Secretary and Treasurer(Principal Executive Officer) |

----
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan



### September 9, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice



### 136497 Michael F. Cavanag h
Elizabeth A. Weave r Marilyn Kell y Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. 

### PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Stephen J. Markman, 

### Plaintiff-Appellee, J ustices



### v SC: 136497 COA: 282969 Genesee CC: 06-018849-FC STEVEN GEROME SCHAAF, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _________________________/

On order of the Court, the application fo r leave to appeal the March 31, 2008 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.

0828 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

September 9, 2008

Clerk
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                         1
<CURRENCY>                                U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 183,006
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          156,939
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         2,819
<OTHER-SE>                                       7,617
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   183,006
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   55,486
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 1,692
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,692
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    909
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                909
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       909
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     .001
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     .001
        

</TABLE>
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ORDER

Page - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT W.D. OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

MARVIN G BROWN,

Defendant.

Case No. CR06-5446

INITIAL ORDER RE:

ALLEGATIONS OF

VIOLATION OF

CONDITIONS OF

RELEASE 

THIS MATTER comes on for an initial hearing on the Petition of the United States Pretrial

Office alleging that the defendant has violated the conditions of supervision.

The plaintiff appears through Assistant United States Attorney, Barb Sievers. 

The defendant appears personally and represented by counsel, Russell Leonard. 

The U.S. Pretrial Office has filed a petition alleging violations of the terms and conditions of 

 supervision, and the defendant has been advised of the allegation(s).

The court finds probable cause with regard to the allegation(s) and schedules a hearing on the

 petition to be held at the time and date below set forth before Judge Karen L Strombom:

Date of hearing: February 13, 2007

Time of hearing: 2:30 p.m.

 IT IS ORDERED that the defendant:

( ) Be released on an appearance bond, subject to the terms and conditions set forth thereon.

(X) Be detained for failing to show that he/she will not flee or pose a danger to any other person

 or the community pursuant to CrR 32.1(a)(1), and CrR 46(c), to be delivered as ordered

 by the court for further proceedings.

The clerks shall direct copies of this order to counsel for the United States, to counsel for the

defendant, the United States Marshal and to the United States Probation Office and/or Pretrial Services

Office.

February 8, 2007.

____s/ Karen L. Strombom______________

Karen L. Strombom, U.S. Magistrate Judge

Case 3:06-cr-05446-MAT Document 18 Filed 02/08/07 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 32.2









Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,


18 U.S.C. § 1350





I, Louis J. Brothers, Chief Financial Officer of Valley Forge Composite Technologies, Inc. (the “Corporation”), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, to my knowledge that:





1.  The Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2010 as amended by Amendment No. 1 and Amendment No. 2 thereto on Form 10-K/A (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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 Corporation.





Date: April 16, 2012


By:  /s/ Louis J. Brothers


Louis J. Brothers


President, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, and Chairman of the Board








The information contained in this Exhibit 32.1 is being furnished and shall not be deemed “filed” for the purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or otherwise subject to the liabilities of that section.
| 1. | I      have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 on Form 10-K/A to the Annual      Report on Form 10-K of China Clean Energy Inc.;    and |
|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 2. | Based      on my knowledge, this annual report does 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. |
|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:      April 12, 2010 |   |  /s/ William    Chen                                                         |
|---------------------------|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                      |   | William      Chen Chief      Financial Officer(Principal Financial  Officer) |
From: kevinlnix@hotmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 8:31:18 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,

Kevin Nix

Independence, MO 64052
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-2340

DARRYL G. DAVIS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

GEORGE MASON UNIVERSITY,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District

Judge. (CA-05-504-1)

Submitted: June 30, 2006 Decided: August 3, 2006

Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William E. Hutchings, Jr., SAUNDERS & SCHMIELER, P.C., Silver

Spring, Maryland, for Appellant. David Drummey, Assistant Attorney

General, Fairfax, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Darryl G. Davis appeals the district court’s order

granting the defendant’s motion to dismiss. We have reviewed the

record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for

the reasons stated by the district court. Davis v. George Mason

Univ., No. CA-05-504-1 (E.D. Va. filed Oct. 21, 2005 & entered

Oct. 25, 2005). We dispense with oral argument because the facts

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
No. 65263.

#### Herman M. Kleiner Co. *v.*United States,

protest 60/18649 (New York).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

There being nothing before the court tending in any way to overcome the presumption of correctness attaching to the classification by the collector, the protest was overruled.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE BALANCE
SHEET AS OF DECEMBER 31, 1999, AND STATEMENT OF INCOME FOR THE NINE MONTHS
ENDING DECEMBER 31, 1999, OF HEALTHSTAR CORP. AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY
BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                         299,783
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,677,569
<ALLOWANCES>                                   140,393
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,209,865
<PP&E>                                       3,365,474
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,471,639
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              11,944,688
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,237,847
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         4,146
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 8,706,841
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            10,718,133
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               10,735,676
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (17,543)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   223,893
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (241,436)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.06)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.06)


</TABLE>
---

Exhibit 99.5


CERTIFICATION I, Rowland Wallenius, certify that: 1 I have reviewed this annual report on Form 40-F of Baja Mining Corp.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does 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, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 4. The issuers other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal controls over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-5(f) for the issuer and have: (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; (b) Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles; (c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the issuers disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and (d) Disclosed in this report any change in the issuers internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by the annual report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the issuers internal control over financial reporting; and 5. The issuers other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the issuers auditors and the audit committee of the issuers board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the issuers ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the issuers internal control over financial reporting. Date:
     March 30, 2012
     By:
     /s/ Rowland WalleniusName: Rowland WalleniusTitle: Chief Financial Officer


---
NOTE: Pursuant to Fed. Cir. R. 47.6, this disposition is not citable as precedent. It is a public record. 

## United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

05-5024

MARTI ADDAMS-MORE, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellee.

__________ ________________ DECIDE D: October 4, 2005

__________________________ Before MAYER, SCHALL, and LINN, Circuit Judges

. PER CURIAM. Marti Addams-More seeks review of an order of the United States Court of Federal Claims dismissing her complaint fo r lack of subject matter jurisdiction. AddamsMore v. United States , No. 04-CV-1154 (Fed. Cl. Sept. 17, 2004) (“ Dismissal Order ”). We affirm

. Whether the Court of Federal Claims properly di smissed Addams-More’s complaint for lack of jurisdiction is a question of law that we review de novo

. See Wilson v. United States , 405 F.3d 1002, 1008 (Fed. Cir. 2005). On July 12, 2004, Addams-More filed a complaint s eeking relief on four counts: a qui tam claim arisingunder the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. §§ 3729-33 (2000); a RI CO claim arising under 18 U.S.C. § 1964 (20 00); and two tort claim s . As the trial court stated in the Dismissa l Order , the “jurisdictional statutes governing the United Stat es Court of Federal Claim s grant authority to the court only to issue judgments for money against the United States, provided that the claims are grounded in a contract or arise pursuant to a moneymandating statute, regula tion, or provision of the Constitution.” Id. at 1 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1491; United States v. Testan , 424 U.S. 392, 397 (1976)). The Court of Federal Claims does not have jurisdiction over c l aims sounding in tort. See 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(2); Wood v. United States , 961 F.2d 195, 197 (Fed. Cir. 1992). Becau s e Addams-More’s claim s do not fall within the ju risdictional grant, the trial court properly dismissed her complaint for la ck of jurisdiction. On reconsideration, Addams-More raised three additional claims for relief, which the trial court considered. Fi rst, the court properly held that the C ourt of Federal Claims does not have jurisdiction to hear a claim arising under an impli ed-in-law contract theory. Se e Hercules Inc. v. U n ited States , 516 U.S. 417, 423 ( 1996). Second, it correctly found that Addams-More’s improper assertion of her qui tam claim as a taking s claim did not give rise to ju risdiction. Third, the court properly held that Addams-More’s claim for copyright infringement, assert ed against a private defendant, did not come within the Court of Federal Cla ims’ jurisdictional grant.

05-5024 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

[PROPOSED] ORDER RE EXTENSION OF FILING DEADLINE

U.S. v. Picazo-Sanchez/CR05-5895FDB - 1

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY

1201 Pacific Avenue, Suite 700

Tacoma, Washington 98402

(253) 428-3800

Judge Franklin D. Burgess

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

) NO. CR05-5895FDB

Plaintiff, )

) ORDER 

v. ) GRANTING STIPULATED 

) MOTION TO EXTEND TIME 

PEDRO PICAZO-SANCHEZ, ) FOR FILING OF

) GOVERNMENT’S OPPOSITION 

Defendant. ) TO MOTIONS TO SEVER )

After consideration of the stipulation by the Government and Defendant Pedro

Picazo-Sanchez’s requesting an extension of the deadline for the Government’s filing of

an opposition to Defendant’s Motions to Suppress Physical Evidence (docket #18), to

Suppress Custodial Statements (docket #19), and to Sever Defendant (docket #22), 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the stipulated motion is GRANTED, and the

//

//

//

//

//

//

//

Case 3:05-cr-05895-FDB Document 26 Filed 03/10/06 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

[PROPOSED] ORDER RE EXTENSION OF FILING DEADLINE

U.S. v. Picazo-Sanchez/CR05-5895FDB - 2

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY

1201 Pacific Avenue, Suite 700

Tacoma, Washington 98402

(253) 428-3800

Government’s deadline for filing the oppositions is extended until March 16, 2006. 

Defendant’s replies, if any, are due March 21, 2006, and the noting date is extended to

March 24, 2006.

DATED this 10th day of March, 2006. 

AFRANKLIN D. BURGESS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Presented by:

JOHN McKAY

United States Attorney

s/ Michael Dion 

MICHAEL DION 

Assistant United States Attorney

s/ Jesse Cantor (per telephonic auth.) 

JESSE CANTOR

Attorney for Defendant

Pedro Picazo-Sanchez

Case 3:05-cr-05895-FDB Document 26 Filed 03/10/06 Page 2 of 2
No. P68/64.

protests 66/4878, etc. (New York).

#### Charles Sadek Import Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

Landis, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protests consists of statuary, sculptures, and/or copies, replicas, or reproductions thereof, valued at not less than $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. 53830.

#### Longmans Green & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 149828-K (New York).

Opinion by

Rao, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise is similar in all material respects (except title) to the books the subject of *Oxford University Press,*N. *Y., Inc.*v. *United States*(33 C. C. P. A. 11, C. A. D. 309), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.