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

<ARTICLE> 9
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                          30,280
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                            11,610,000
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                          0
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                              0
<ALLOWANCE>                                          0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              11,879,900
<DEPOSITS>                                           0
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                            355,952
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    11,898,213
<OTHER-SE>                                    (374,265)
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>              11,879,900
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                      0
<INTEREST-INVEST>                               41,741
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                     0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                     0
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                                   0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              12,113
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           29,628
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                        0
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                329,233
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (299,605)
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                    (299,605)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (299,605)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     (.24)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.24)
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    5.52
<LOANS-NON>                                          0
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                     0
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                        0
<RECOVERIES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                    0
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                                 0
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
H. Res. 71 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

February 1, 2017. 

Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall 

be in order to consider in the House the joint resolution 

(H.J. Res. 41) providing for congressional disapproval under 

chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of a rule submitted 

by the Securities and Exchange Commission relating to ‘‘Disclosure of Payments by Resource Extraction Issuers’’. All 

points of order against consideration of the joint resolution 

are waived. The joint resolution shall be considered as read. 

All points of order against provisions in the joint resolution 

are waived. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the joint resolution and on any amendment thereto 

to final passage without intervening motion except: (1) one 

hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair 

and ranking minority member of the Committee on Financial 

Services; and (2) one motion to recommit. 

SEC. 2. Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in 

order to consider in the House the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 

40) providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 
2 

•HRES 71 EH 

of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the 

Social Security Administration relating to Implementation of 

the NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007. All points 

of order against consideration of the joint resolution are 

waived. The joint resolution shall be considered as read. All 

points of order against provisions in the joint resolution are 

waived. The previous question shall be considered as ordered 

on the joint resolution and on any amendment thereto to 

final passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour 

of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and 

ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary 

or their respective designees; and (2) one motion to recommit. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
No. 63526.

protest 58/12977 (New York).

#### Curt L. Sterner Co. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

It was stipulated that the principles herein are similar in all material respects to those involved in *United States*v. *Browne Vintners Co., Inc.*(34 C.C.P.A. 112, C.A.D. 351) and that case No. 489, reported by the inspector as manifested, not found, was not in fact received by the importer. In accordance with stipulation of counsel and following the decision cited it was held that duty is not assessable upon the merchandise, which was reported by the inspector as manifested, not found. The protest was sustained to this extent.
EXHIBIT 21

                           SUBSIDIARIES OF REGISTRANT
                             TEK DIGITEL CORPORATION

Name                          Date of Incorporation       State of Incorporation
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ATC Group, Inc.                   June 11, 1998                 Maryland
Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h Marilyn Kell y Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathawa y Mary Beth Kell y Brian K. Zahra,

J ustices 

# Order

January 25, 2012

8/November 2011

142117-8

CHARTER TOWNSHIP OF HARING, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v SC: 142117 COA: 292122 Wexford CC: 08-020967-CK CITY OF CADILLAC, Defendant-Appellee.

________________ _______________ __________/

TOWNSHIP OF SELMA, Plaintiff-Appellant,

and

TOWNSHIP OF CLAM LAKE, Plaintiff,

v SC: 142118 COA: 292164 Wexford CC: 08-021381-CK CITY OF CADILLAC, Defendant-Appellee.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, leave to appeal having been granted and the briefs and oral arguments of the parties having been consid ered by the Court, we AFFIRM the October 12, 2010 judgment of the Court of Appeal s. Although courts are not bound by the parties’ determination that a case is ripe, we agree with the parties that considering all of the circumstances this case is ripe for adjudi cation and that the claims are not contingent or hypothetical.

The grant of leave to appeal also asked the parties to address whether Washtenaw County Health Dep’t v T&M Chevrolet, Inc , 406 Mich 518 (1979), which held that when “an available sewer line crosses municipal boundaries, the municipality operating theI, 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.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk January 25, 2012

t0118 2

sewer system may not condition connection on annexation of the properties involved

when connection means abatement of a public health hazard[,]” id. at 525-526, was correctly decided and, if so, whether it re quires the defendant to continue providing sewage transportation and treatment services to the plaintiff to wnships. However, because there is no “public hea lth hazard” requiring abatement presented in this case, the issue is not directly before the Court at this time and need not be decided.
Before the Third Division,

January 11, 1946

No. 50813.

#### Protests 100071-K, etc., of R. Dixon & Co., Inc., et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and the decisions cited, the following allowances were made to compensate for the weight of the inedible substance on the outside of the cheese: (1) 2)4 percent for cheese similar in all material respects either to the Romano, Pecorino Romano Sardo, Provolone, or Sbrinz cheese the subject of *Scaramelli*v. *United States*(9 Cust. Ct. 270, C. D. 706), or to the Gouda cheese involved in Abstract 48269; and (2) 1 percent for the cheese similar to the Reggiano cheese which was the subject of *Scaramelli*v. *United States, supra.*The protests were sustained to this extent.
Exhibit 31.1—Section 302 CertificationI, Ellen Z. Lamale, certify that:I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K, and all reports on Form 8-K containingdistribution or servicing reports filed in respect of period included in the year covered bythis annual report, of Principal Life Income Fundings Trust 2005-83;1. Based on my knowledge, the information in these reports, taken as a whole, does not containany untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make thestatements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading as of the last day of the period covered by this annual report; 2. Based on my knowledge, the distribution or servicing information required to be provided tothe depositor by the trustee under the pooling and servicing, or similar agreement, forinclusion in these reports is included in these reports; 3. I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the depositor and the trusteeunder the pooling and servicing, or similar agreement, and based upon my knowledge and theannual compliance review required under that agreement, and except as disclosed in thereports, the depositor and trustee have each fulfilled its obligations under that agreement;and 4. The reports disclose all significant deficiencies relating to the compliance by the trusteeand the depositor with the minimum servicing or similar standards based upon the reportprovided by an independent public accountant, after conducting a review in compliance with theUniform Single Attestation Program for Mortgage Bankers or similar procedures, as set forth inthe pooling and servicing, or similar agreements, that is included in these reports.In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me by thefollowing unaffiliated parties: Ernst and Young and Citibank, N.A.Date:    March 24, 2006By:       /s/ Ellen Z. LamaleName: Ellen Z. Lamale
Case Ho. 14,358.

#### UNION BANK OF GEORGETOWN v. GOZLER.

[2 Cranch, C. C. 349.] 1

Circuit Court, District of Columbia.

Oct. Term. 1822.

Usury — Bank Discount.

It is not usury m a bank to take the discount for sixty-four days, upon a sixty-day note.

[See Bank of Alexandria v. Mandeville, Case No. 850.1

Assumpsit upon the joint and several note of the defendant and two others, with a memorandum to credit the first drawer, who •was Vincent King. The defence was usury in taking sixty-four days’ discount upon a sixty-day note.

Mr. Key. for plaintiff.

Mr. Jones, for defendant.

THE COURT

(THRUSTON, Circuit Judge, absent)

decided without argument, that it was not usury to take by way of discount, interest for sixty-four days on the amount of the note; the point having been before decided both here and in Alexandria. See Bank of Alexandria v. Mandeville (at Alexandria, July, 1809) [Case No. 850]; Bank of Washington v. Eliot (unreported).
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK>0001050936
<NAME>TWP CAPITAL CORP II
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          APR-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             MAY-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-31-1998
<CASH>                                           9,840
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   25,786
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (8,192)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                37,905
<PP&E>                                           6,732
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (3,927)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  65,633
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           38,169
<BONDS>                                        183,475
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   (156,012)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    65,633
<SALES>                                         60,208
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                60,208
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   43,565
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    13
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 5,601
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               8,894
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (5,916)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (5,916)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  4,791
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (10,707)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1018 Introduced in House (IH)]

106th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1018

To require Congress to specify the source of authority under the United 
 States Constitution for the enactment of laws, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 4, 1999

  Mr. Shadegg (for himself, Mr. Bliley, Mr. Salmon, Mr. Sanford, Mr. 
Royce, Mr. Bereuter, Mr. English, Mr. Tiahrt, Mr. Hayworth, Mr. Kolbe, 
   Mr. Coburn, Mr. Stump, Mr. Paul, Mr. Nethercutt, Mr. Duncan, Mr. 
  Scarborough, Mrs. Myrick, Mrs. Cubin, Mr. Oxley, Mr. Hoekstra, Mr. 
Skeen, Mr. Metcalf, Mr. Hostettler, Mr. Barton of Texas, Mr. Goodling, 
   Mr. Burton of Indiana, Mr. Weldon of Florida, Mr. Radanovich, Mr. 
Stearns, Mr. Tancredo, Mr. Hefley, Mr. Calvert, Mr. Doolittle, and Mr. 
    Foley) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To require Congress to specify the source of authority under the United 
 States Constitution for the enactment of laws, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Enumerated Powers Act''.

SEC. 2. SPECIFICATION OF CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY FOR ENACTMENT OF LAW.

    (a) Constitutional Authority for This Act.--This Act is enacted 
pursuant to the power granted Congress under article I, section 8, 
clause 18, of the United States Constitution and the power granted to 
each House of Congress under article I, section 5, clause 2, of the 
United States Constitution.
    (b) Constitutional Authority Statement Required.--Chapter 2 of 
title 1, United States Code, is amended by inserting after section 102 
the following new section:
``Sec. 102a. Constitutional authority clause
    ``Each Act of Congress shall contain a concise and definite 
statement of the constitutional authority relied upon for the enactment 
of each portion of that Act. The failure to comply with this section 
shall give rise to a point of order in either House of Congress. The 
availability of this point of order does not affect any other available 
relief.''
    (c) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the beginning of 
chapter 2 of title 1, United States Code, is amended by inserting after 
the item relating to section 102 the following new item:

``102a. Constitutional authority clause.''.
                                 <all>
```
#### Cokely *v.*Stipp, Appellant.

*Affidavit of defense*— Insufficiency—Assumpsit *for goods sold and delivered.*

In an action of assumpsit for goods sold and delivered, an affidavit of defense which does not deny the receipt of the goods, and contains merely the assertion that the defendant did not order them, will be deemed evasive of, rather than responsive to, the demand, and is not sufficient to prevent judgment.

Argued March 4, 1924.

Appeal, No. 21, March T., 1924, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. Lackawanna Co., June T., 1923, No. 596, making absolute rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense, in the case of B. E. Cokely and J. T. Cokely, trading as B. E. and J. T. Cokely, v. Catharine Stipp.

Before Porter, Henderson, Trexler, Keller, Linn and Gawthrop, JJ.

Affirmed.

Assumpsit on book account. Before Newcomb, J.

Buie for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense.

The facts are stated in the following opinion of the court below:

Assumpsit for the price of various garden seeds alleged to have been sold and delivered by plaintiffs to defendant from time to time at her instance and request for the respective prices charged to her account as in plaintiff’s statement set forth by copy. The issue now is on the sufficiency of defendant’s answer; and it only need to be said that it amounts to nothing more or less than a general denial of liability.

That doesn’t meet the requirements of the Practice Act of 1915. Defendant must furnish something more than her personal conclusion on the subject. The plaintiff’s statement traces the goods to her hands by the ordinary process of delivery in course of dealing between a *185merchant and his customer. That she so received the goods is not denied. She has contented herself with the bald assertion that she did not order them. That must be deemed evasive of, rather than responsive to the demand. As such it can avail nothing.

Exceptions sustained, and judgment for plaintiffs in the sum of four hundred eleven and 43/100 dollars ($411.43).

*Error assigned*was the decree of the court.

*A. A. Vosburg,*for appellant.

*G. A. Battenberg,*for appellee.

May 5, 1924:

Pee Curiam,

This is an appeal from judgment for want of sufficient affidavit of defense; it is affirmed on the opinion of Judge Newcomb.
Before the First Division,

July 21, 1948

No. 52472.

protests 130666-K, etc. (New York).

#### Sandoz Chemical Works, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Cole, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise in question is the same in all material respects as the estrogenic hormone passed upon in *Roche-Organon*v. *United States*(35 C. C. P. A. 99, C. A. D. 378). The claim at 10 percent under paragraph 34 was therefore sustained.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION

Electronic Tariff Filings Docket No. RM01-5-000

Filing and Reporting Requirements For 

Interstate Natural Gas Company Rate 

Schedules and Tariffs

Docket No. RM95-3-000

NOTICE OF UPDATED AND COMBINED INSTRUCTION MANUALS

(April 29, 2014)

Take notice that today the Commission’s Instruction Manual for Electronic Filing 

of Rate Filings (Instruction Manual) applicable to rate filings made pursuant to Part 154 

of the Commission’s regulations1

 has been updated. The updates reflect the changes in 

electronic filing requirements, data elements and acceptable file types instituted by Order 

No. 714 for tariff filings,2

 and updated contact information. In addition, the Instruction 

Manual has been combined with and made an Appendix to the Implementation Guide for 

Electronic Filing of Parts 35, 154, 284, 300, and 341 Tariff Filings.

3 Other than the 

addition of the Appendix, there are no other changes to the Implementation Guide.

For more information, contact Keith Pierce, Office of Energy Market Regulation 

at (202) 502-8525, or send an email to FERConline@ferc.gov.

Kimberly D. Bose,

Secretary.

 1

 18 C.F.R. Part 154 (2013). The Instruction Manual for Electronic Filing of Rate 

Filings was issued pursuant to Filing and Reporting Requirements for Interstate Natural 

Gas Company Rate Schedules and Tariffs, Order No. 582, FERC Statutes and 

Regulations, Regulations Preambles January 1991-June 1996 ¶ 31,025 (1995).

2 Electronic Tariff Filings, Order No. 714, FERC Statutes and Regulations

¶ 31,276 (2008).

3 Implementation Guide for Electronic Filing of Parts 35, 154, 284, 300, and 341 

Tariff Filings available at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/etariff/implementationguide.pdf (Implementation Guide).

20140429-3007 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 04/29/2014
Document Content(s)

RM01-5-000.DOCX.......................................................1-1

20140429-3007 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 04/29/2014
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 Quarterly Report of Dragon International Group Corp.
on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, David Wu, Chief Executive Officer
of the Company,  certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to
ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

     1. The Report complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

     2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.


May 23, 2005


                                                 By:/s/ David Wu
                                                        David Wu, CEO

<page>