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

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                         472,082
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  161,456
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                33,076
<PP&E>                                       3,102,522
<DEPRECIATION>                                  77,573
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,782,094
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           67,385
<BONDS>                                      1,532,699
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,182,010
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,782,094
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               405,968
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  219,524
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               103,779
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             101,598
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (42,578)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (42,578)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
No. 54513.

#### City of Paris Dry Goods Co. *v.*United States,

protest 152305-K (San Francisco).

Opinion by

Ford, J.

The protest was dismissed.
Exhibit
      13.2





CERTIFICATION
      OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER UNDER SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY
      ACT





Pursuant
      to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
      Act
      of 2002, the undersigned officer of Given Imaging Ltd. (the "Company") hereby
      certifies, to such officer's knowledge that:





(i)
      the
      accompanying Annual Report on Form 20-F of the Company for the year ended
      December 31, 2007 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section
      13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
      as amended; and





(ii)
      the
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





Dated:
      March 31, 2008





/s/
                Yuval YanaiYuval
                YanaiChief
                Financial Officer





The
      foregoing certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report
      pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, and is not being filed for the purposes
      of
      Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to
      be
      incorporated by reference to any filing of the Company, whether made before
      or
      after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in
      such
      filing.
Exhibit 32

  Certification of Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer
                             18 U.S.C. Section 1350
                             as Adopted Pursuant to
                  Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002




The undersigned, the Principal Executive Officer (President) and the Principal
Financial Officer (President) of GLOBAL BIOTECH CORP. (the "Company"), hereby
certifies that to his knowledge on the date hereof:

          (a)  The Annual Report on Form 10-K SB of the Company for the year
               ended November 30, 2007, filed on the date hereof with the
               Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report") fully complies
               with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15 (d) of the
               Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
          (b)  Information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
               material respects, the financial condition and results of
               operations of the Company.



Date: December 24, 2008


                                                       /s/ Louis Greco
                                                   ----------------------
                                                       Louis Greco
                                                       President
                                     (Principal Executive and Financial Officer)





This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by such Act, be deemed filed
by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended.
No. 51504.

#### Protest 116107-K of Blossom Hill Wine Co. (Cleveland).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

It appeared from the papers that the protest was not filed with the collector until 61 days after liquidation. Inasmuch as the protest was not filed within the time prescribed by law under section 514, Tariff Act of 1930, the motion made by counsel for the Government to dismiss the protest was granted. The protest was therefore dismissed.
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OFTHE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with theQuarterly Report of Mercer Insurance Group, Inc. (the “Company”) onForm 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2004 as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), each ofthe undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, herebycertifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:

 

1.  The Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of1934; and

 

2.  The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operation of the Company.

 
|                         | By:    | /s/Andrew  R. Speaker                  |
|------------------------------|--------|----------------------------------------|
|                         |   | Andrew  R. Speaker,                    |
|                         |   | President  and Chief Executive Officer |
|                         |   |                                   |
|                         |   |                                   |
| Dated:  August 13, 2004 | By:    | /s/David  B. Merclean                  |
|                         |   | David  B. Merclean,                    |
|                         |   | Chief  Financial Officer               |

 

----
Document headings vary by document type but may contain
                    the following: the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document
the number of the CFR title and the number of each part
                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly
                      related to
the agency docket number / agency internal file number
the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in
                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory
                      Actions See the
                    Document Drafting Handbook
                    for more details.
 Department of Energy Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Project No. 6951-018]
 On September 15, 2021, Tallassee Shoals, LLC. filed an application for a new license to continue to operate and maintain the 2.3-megawatt Tallassee Shoals Hydroelectric Project No. 6951 (Tallassee Shoals Project). On September 14, 2022, Commission staff issued a notice of intent to prepare an Environmental Assessment (EA) to evaluate the effects of relicensing the Tallassee Shoals Project. The notice of intent included a schedule for preparing a draft and final EA. By this notice, Commission staff is updating the procedural schedule for completing a final EA. The revised schedule is shown below. Further revisions to the schedule may be made as appropriate. Milestone
Target dateIssue EA
January 2024.
 Any questions regarding this notice may be directed to Michael Spencer at (202) 502-6093, or by email at 
                    *michael.spencer@ferc.gov.* Dated: October 27, 2023. Debbie-Anne A. Reese, Deputy Secretary.


[FR Doc. 2023-24256 Filed 11-2-23; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND> This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from
Consolidated Balance Sheet, Consolidated Statement of Operations and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                            JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                              APR-03-1998
<CASH>                                              0
<SECURITIES>                                        0         
<RECEIVABLES>                                  29,906
<ALLOWANCES>                                    2,073
<INVENTORY>                                    54,441
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               92,080 
<PP&E>                                         63,118
<DEPRECIATION>                                 25,471
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                144,205
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          45,249
<BONDS>                                       102,606
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                           20
<OTHER-SE>                                    (5,757)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  144,205
<SALES>                                        52,161 
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               52,161
<CGS>                                          40,154         
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  40,154 
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               10,183
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              2,910
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (1,086)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    (165)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (921)
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0 
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0 
<NET-INCOME>                                    (921)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (0.46)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.46)
        


</TABLE>
No. 54457.

#### Sears, Roebuck & Co. *v.*United States,

protest 155383-K/2205 (Chicago).

Opinion by

Cole, J.

The protest was dismissed.
November 13, 1959

No. 63518.

protest 182674-K.

#### Henry Clay & Bock & Co., Ltd. *v.*United States,

C.D. 2081. Plaintiff’s application for rehearing denied.
Before the Second Division,

September 6, 1946

No. 51286.

#### Protests 942253-G, etc., of Julius Kayser & Co. (New York).

Opinion by

Kincheloe, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise is the same in all material respects as the gloves which were the subject of *United States*v. *Julius Kayser & Co.*(33 C. C. P. A. 179, C. A. D. 333). In accordance therewith the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                  Exhibit 15

                        INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANT'S REPORT

August 2, 1999

To the Board of Directors and Shareholders of
Central Newspapers, Inc.

We have reviewed the accompanying consolidated statement of financial position
of Central Newspapers, Inc. as of June 27, 1999 and the consolidated statements
of income, shareholders' equity and cash flows for the three-month and
six-month periods ended June 27, 1999 and June 28, 1998. These financial
statements are the responsibility of the Company's management.

We conducted our review in accordance with standards established by the
American Institute of Certified Public Accountants. A review of interim
financial information consists principally of applying analytical procedures to
financial data and making inquiries of persons responsible for financial and
accounting matters. It is substantially less in scope than an audit conducted
in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards, the objective of
which is the expression of an opinion regarding the financial statements taken
as a whole. Accordingly, we do not express such an opinion.

Based on our review, we are not aware of any material modifications that should
be made to the accompanying financial statements referred to above for them to
be in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles.

We previously audited in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards,
the consolidated statement of financial position as of December 27, 1998, and
the related consolidated statements of income, shareholders' equity and cash
flows for the year then ended (not presented herein), and in our report dated
January 29, 1999 we expressed an unqualified opinion on those consolidated
financial statements. In our opinion, the information set forth in the
accompanying consolidated statement of financial position as of December 27,
1998, is fairly stated in all material respects in relation to the
consolidated statement of financial position from which it has been derived.


/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
Wallet Card 

Give the person seeking your proof of 

employment the following information: 

1) The Work Number Access Options: 

 www.theworknumber.com

 1-800-367-5690

2) The FERC Employer Code 11727

3) Your Social Security Number 

The Work Number Client Service Center (Mon– Fri, 7:00am–8:00pm, CST) 

1-800-996-7566 (Voice) 1-800-424-0253 (TTY– Deaf) 

Need Proof of Employment?

1) Visit www.theworknumber.com/employee or call 1-800-367-2884 

2) Enter: -The FERC Employer Code: 11727

 -Your Social Security Number 

 -Your PIN # 

3) Select to obtain a Salary Key – Write down the Salary Key 

4) Give the person seeking proof of your employment & income: 

 The Work Number Access Options: 

 www.theworknumber.com 

 1-800-367-5690 

 The FERC Employer Code: 11727

 Your Social Security Number 

 Your Salary Key 

The Work Number Client Service Center (Mon– Fri, 7:00am–8:00pm, CST) 

1-800-996-7566(Voice) 1-800-424-0253 (TTY– Deaf) 

Need Proof of Employment Plus Income?
November 16, 1961.

No. 66218.

#### F. H. Paul & Stein Bros., Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 60/17345, etc.

Plaintiffs’ application for rehearing granted.
Before the First Division,

February 3, 1949

No. 52866.

#### Kittay & Blitz, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 142763-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
No. 55792.

protest 158708-K (Philadelphia).

#### R. W. Parkinson *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

It was stipulated that the Federal Reserve bank certified dual rates of exchange for the currency involved in the liquidation of the entry for the date of exportation of the merchandise covered by the entry and that the circumstances relating to the liquidation of the said entry are similar in all material respects to those in Abstract '54732. In view of this stipulation and following the cited decision it was held that the currency of the invoice should *291have been converted in the manner directed by the judgment of this court in said Abstract 54732, in accordance with Bureau of Customs Circular Letter No. 2675, dated October 19,1949.
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Do Not Quote, Cite, or Release During the Review **

EO12866_RIN2070-AJ92_Formaldehyde-Imp_NPRM_EA-A4-table_2013-04-11_MARKUP.docx 

Reg Plan Costs and Benefits Table for 

Formaldehyde Emissions Standards for Composite Wood Products; Proposed Rule 

SAN 5287; RIN 2070-AJ92 

Source citation: Economic Analysis of the Formaldehyde Emission Standards for Composite Wood Products Act Implementin

Rule. 

Category Primary Estimate Low Estimate High Estimate 

Units 

Year 

Dollars Disc Period Co

BenefitsAnnualized Monetized $millions/year 

Not estimated $919 $13723 2010 7% 2014 to 204

Not estimated $18420 $27848 2010 3% 2014 to 204

Annualized Quantified Not estimated Not estimated Not estimated 7% Not estimated Not estimated Not estimated 3% 

Qualitative: Unquantified benefits due to avoided cases of upper respiratory tract pathology, pulmonary functionrelated effects, redsensitization, immune function effects, neurological and behavioral toxicity, and developmental toxicity. CostsAnnualized Monetized $millions/year

Not estimated $7280 $8189 2010 7% 2014 to 204

Not estimated $8172 $8981 2010 3% 2014 to 204

Annualized Quantified Not estimated Not estimated Not estimated 7% Not estimated Not estimated Not estimated 3% 

QualitativeTransfers

Federal Annualized Monetized $millions/year

Not applicable Not applicable Not applicable Not applicable Not applicable Not applicable 

From: To: 

Other Annualized Monetized $millions/year 

Not applicable Not applicable Not applicable 7% Not applicable Not applicable Not applicable 3% 

 From: To: EffectsState, Local, and/or Tribal Government Government entities are not expected to be subject to the rule’s requirements, which apply to entities that manufacture, fabricate, di

products. The rule does not have a significant intergovernmental mandate, significant or unique effect on small governments, or ha

Small BusinessApproximately 879,000 small firms impacted: ~851,000 have costs impacts < 1% of revenues, ~23,000 firms have impacts between 

have impacts > 3% of revenues. Most firms with impacts > 1% have annualized costs < $250. 

WagesNot estimated GrowthNot estimated. Unlikely – rule costs are less than $1 billion per year.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

THOMAS MISIK, 

Appellant,

 v.

THOMAS D’ARCO, 

Appellee.

No. 18-55750

D.C. No. 2:17-cv-05629-AB

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

Andre Birotte, Jr., District Judge, Presiding

Submitted September 12, 2019** 

Pasadena, California

Before: RAWLINSON, IKUTA, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges.

Thomas Misik appeals the district court’s order affirming the bankruptcy

court’s judgment in favor of Thomas D’Arco in Misik’s action alleging D’Arco’s

FILED

SEP 20 2019

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
debt to him was nondischargeable in bankruptcy under 11 U.S.C. § 523. We have

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d), and we affirm.

The bankruptcy court’s finding that D’Arco lacked fraudulent intent because

he intended to repay the loan funds and spent all funds in furtherance of the

development project was not clearly erroneous. See In re Slyman, 234 F.3d 1081,

1085 (9th Cir. 2000). Therefore, the bankruptcy court did not err in concluding

D’Arco’s debt was not excepted from discharge under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A). 

For the same reason, the bankruptcy court did not err in concluding D’Arco’s debt

was not excepted from discharge under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(B). See In re

Candland, 90 F.3d 1466, 1469 (9th Cir. 1996).

The bankruptcy court also did not err in concluding D’Arco’s debt was not

excepted from discharge under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(4). The bankruptcy court did

not clearly err in finding D’Arco spent all funds in furtherance of the project. 

Therefore, even assuming D’Arco was acting in a fiduciary capacity for purposes

of 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(4), Misik failed to prove that D’Arco committed “an

intentional wrong” necessary to prove defalcation under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(4),

Bullock v. BankChampaign, N.A., 569 U.S. 267, 273 (2013), or that D’Arco

embezzled any funds, see In re Littleton, 942 F.2d 551, 555 (9th Cir. 1991). Nor

did Misik prove that D’Arco’s accounting of the funds was a “gross deviation from

2
the standard of conduct that a law-abiding person would observe in the actor’s

situation.” Bullock, 569 U.S. at 274 (emphasis omitted) (quoting Model Penal

Code § 2.02(2)(c) (1985)).

Finally, the bankruptcy court did not err in holding D’Arco’s debt was not

excepted from discharge under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6) because Misik failed to prove

D’Arco had any intent to injure. See In re Ormsby, 591 F.3d 1199, 1206 (9th Cir.

2010).

AFFIRMED.

3
I

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1121

To designate the Federal building and United States courthouse located

at 18 Greenville Street in Newnan, Georgia, as the ‘‘Lewis R. Morgan

Federal Building and United States Courthouse’’.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 16, 1999

Mr. COLLINS introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

A BILL

To designate the Federal building and United States courthouse located at 18 Greenville Street in Newnan, Georgia, as the ‘‘Lewis R. Morgan Federal Building and

United States Courthouse’’.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

4 The Federal building and United States courthouse

5 located at 18 Greenville Street in Newnan, Georgia, shall

6 be known and designated as the ‘‘Lewis R. Morgan Fed7 eral Building and United States Courthouse’’.
2

•HR 1121 IH

1 SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

2 Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document,

3 paper, or other record of the United States to the Federal

4 building and United States courthouse referred to in sec5 tion 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Lewis

6 R. Morgan Federal Building and United States Court7 house’’.

Æ
Before the Second Division,

October 31, 1952

No. 56923.

#### Walter Baumgartner Cheese Supply Store and Rohner, Gehrig & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 163907-K (New York).

*394Opinion by

Ford, J.

The record showed that certain items of the merchandise consist of cheesecloth, similar in all material respects to that the subject of *Davies, Turner & Company*v. *United States*(39 C. C. P. A. 76, C. A. D. 466). Upon the established facts and following the cited authority, the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
Before the Second Division,

November 5, 1952

No. 56926.

#### Gimbel Bros., Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 188979-K, 188977-K, and 187673-K (New York).

Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that certain items of the merchandise consist of beaded bags the same in all material respects as those the classification of which was involved in Abstract 56124, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.