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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
financial statements of Eco-Rx, Inc. as of and for the year ended December 31,
1999, and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial
statements.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                          26,761
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 2,755
<PP&E>                                          37,534
<DEPRECIATION>                                (28,759)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  38,291
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          716,393
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         5,843
<OTHER-SE>                                   (683,945)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    38,291
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               174,447
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              55,857
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (230,302)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (230,302)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.04)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.04)


</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-1089

STUART THOMPSON,

Petitioner,

v.

NORTHROP GRUMMAN SHIPBUILDING INCORPORATED; DIRECTOR, OFFICE 

OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION PROGRAMS,

Respondents.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Benefits Review Board. 

(BRB-10-0168)

Submitted: August 31, 2011 Decided: September 27, 2011

Before DUNCAN, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Petition dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Gregory E. Camden, MONTAGNA KLEIN CAMDEN LLP, Norfolk, Virginia, 

for Petitioner. Jonathan H. Walker, MASON, MASON, WALKER & 

HEDRICK, PC, Newport News, Virginia, for Respondents. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Stuart Thompson appeals the order of the Benefits 

Review Board (“the Board”) reversing the decision of the 

District Director of the Office of Workers’ Compensation 

Programs awarding attorney’s fees to Thompson’s counsel from 

Northrup Grumman Shipbuilding (“the Employer”) and remanding for 

consideration of Thompson’s liability for attorney’s fees. This 

court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders of the 

Board. 33 U.S.C. § 921(c) (2006); see Eggers v. Clinchfield 

Coal Co., 11 F.3d 35, 38 (4th Cir. 1993) (“The finality 

requirement contained in § 921 encompasses the same concepts as 

finality in 28 U.S.C. § 1291 [(2006)].”). Because the Board did 

not determine the amount of the attorney’s fees and remanded the 

case for further proceedings, the Board’s order is not a final 

order. See John v. Barron, 897 F.2d 1387, 1390 (7th Cir. 1990) 

(“An award of attorneys’ fees which does not fix the amount of 

the award or specify a formula allowing the amount to be 

computed is not a final decision within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1291.”); Dir., Office of Workers’ Comp. Programs v. Bath Iron 

Works Corp., 853 F.2d 11, 16 (1st Cir. 1988) (holding that 

“order remanding . . . to an ALJ for further findings is not, in 

general, immediately appealable under 33 U.S.C. § 921(c)”); 

Dir., Office of Workers’ Comp. Programs v. Brodka, 643 F.2d 159, 

161 (3d Cir. 1981) (finding appeal premature where Board “made a 
3

determination of liability for attorney’s fees but . . . 

remanded the case to the deputy commissioner to determine the 

amount”). 

Accordingly, we dismiss the petition for review for 

lack of jurisdiction. 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.

PETITION DISMISSED
Document Headings

                    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 Homeland Security

###### Bureau of Customs and Border Protection 

          - [CBP Dec. 07-12] 

# AGENCY:

Bureau of Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security. 

# ACTION:

Notice of re-approval The Strawn Group of Houston, Texas, as a commercial gauger. 

# SUMMARY:

                        Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to 19 CFR 151.13, The Strawn Group, 3855 Villa Ridge, Houston, Texas 77068, has been re-approved to gauge petroleum and petroleum products, organic chemicals and vegetable oils for customs purposes, in accordance with the provisions of 19 CFR 151.13. Anyone wishing to employ this entity for gauger services should request and receive written assurances from the entity that it is approved by the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection to conduct the specific gauger service requested. Alternatively, inquiries regarding the specific gauger services this entity is approved to perform may be directed to the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection by calling (202) 344-1060. The inquiry may also be sent to                         *http://www.cbp.gov/​xp/​cgov/​import/​operations_​support/​labs_​scientific_​svcs/​org_​and_​operations.xml*.                     

# DATES:

The re-approval of The Strawn Group as a commercial gauger became effective on January 4, 2005. The next triennial inspection date will be scheduled for January 2008. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Eugene J. Bondoc, PhD, or Randall Breaux, Laboratories and Scientific Services, Bureau of Customs and Border Protection, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Suite 1500N, Washington, DC 20229, 202-344-1060. 

Dated: March 22, 2007. 

Ira S. Reese, 

Executive Director, Laboratories and Scientific Services. 

 [FR Doc. E7-5706 Filed 3-27-07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9111-14-P
#### Cornelius Rhoades, *Respondent, v.*John Cameron, Appellant.

—Judgment affirmed, with costs. Opinion by Bookes, J.
#### William Shutter, *Appellant v.*Walter E. Ward, Respondent.

Judgment of County Court affirmed, with costs. Opinion by Westbrook, J. ' ,
Exhibit 16  Letter on Change in Certifying Accountant

                             Kurt D. Saliger, C.P.A.
                                Las Vegas, Nevada

                                  April 4, 2003

Securities and Exchange Commission
Washington, D.C. 20549

Re: Morgan Clark Management, Inc.
File No.: 000-28147


Dear Sir or Madam:


     I have read Item 8 of the Form 10K-SB of Morgan Clark Management, Inc.
dated April 4, 2003 and agree with the statements relating only to Kurt D.
Saliger, C.P.A., contained therein.


/s/Kurt D. Saliger, C.P.A.
--------------------------
Kurt D. Saliger, C.P.A.
#### Oscar F. Archer, *Respondent, v.*Thomas W. Radford, *Appellant.*

Judgment of County Court reversing City Court of Yonkers reversed, and judgment of City Court affirmed, with costs. Opinion by Dykman, J.
No. 55305.

#### Alfred Mainzer et al. *v.*United States,

protests 164042-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Rao, J.

The protests were dismissed.
No. 47456.

#### Protests 802184-G/10547, etc., of Kloeckner Steel Corp. et al. (New Orleans, etc.).

Opinion by

Dallinger, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
Exhibit 32.1




CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER


PURSUANT
TO


18 U.S.C.
SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




In
connection with the Quarterly Report of ChinaCast Education Corporation on Form
10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Ron Chan Tze Ngon, Chairman of the Board
and Chief Executive Officer of ChinaCast Education Corporation, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted by 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 the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of ChinaCast Education
Corporation.




Dated:
      November 9, 2010
              /s/ Ron Chan Tze NgonRon Chan Tze NgonChairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer
                (Principal Executive
      Officer)
#### Sarah L. Tingue, *Respondent, v.*The Village of Portchester and John Leonard, *its Treasurer, Appellants.*

— Judgment affirmed, with costs. Opinion by Barnard, P. J.;

Dykman, J., not sitting.
Exhibit 32.2

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 on Form 10-Q of The First Marblehead Corporation (the "Company") for the
quarter ended December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Kenneth Klipper, Managing Director, Chief Financial Officer, Treasurer
and Chief Accounting 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, to my
knowledge:



Dated: February 9, 2010

/s/ KENNETH KLIPPER Kenneth Klipper Managing Director, Chief Financial Officer,
Treasurer and Chief Accounting Officer


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to The First Marblehead Corporation and will be retained by The First
Marblehead Corporation and furnished to the SEC or its staff upon request.

---



QuickLinks
CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                      AND PRINCIPAL CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Anmore,
Inc. for the Quarter Ending September 30, 2003, I, Giorgio Saumat, Chief
Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of Anmore, Inc. hereby certify
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge and belief, that:

     1.   Such quarterly report of Form 10-QSB for the period ending September
          30, 2003, 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 such Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for
          the period ended September 30, 2003, fairly represents in all material
          respects, the financial condition and results of operations of ANMORE,
          INC.


Dated:    November 10, 2003

ANMORE, INC.


By:  /s/ Giorgio Saumat
-----------------------------------------
Chief Executive Officer
Chief Financial Officer
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7252

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus AIRRION CURTIS AGEE, Defendant - Appellant.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, District Judge. (CR-97-287) Submitted: December 27, 2001 Decided: January 14, 2002 Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Airrion Curtis Agee, Appellant Pro Se. James Brien Comey, Jr., OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Airrion Curtis Agee seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2001). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and findno reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Agee , No. CR-97-287 (E.D. Va. July 11, 2001). 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.

DISMISSED
#### The People of the State of New York *ex rel.*Daniel Gere and others, *Appellants, v.*John R. Whitlock and others, *Respondents.*

Judgment affirmed, with costs, on opinion of Churchill, J., at circuit; Smith, P. J., not sitting.
#### THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK ex rel. JAMES H. EVERETT and JOSEPH C. TREADWELL, Respondents, v. THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ULSTER COUNTY, Appellant.

*Commissioners of highways are not agents of the town*— *a judgment against the commissioners is not a judgment against the town.*

A judgment recovered against the commissioners of highways of a town is not a judgment against the town, and the hoard of supervisors of the county cannot he compelled hy *mandamus*to levy the amount thereof, upon the property of the town.

Appeal from an order awarding a peremptory writ of *mandamus*commanding the defendant to apportion the amount of a certain judgment recovered by the relator, upon certain towns in Ulster county, which formerly constituted the town of Kingston, and to levy the amount so apportioned upon them. The relators recovered the judgment on January 2, 1882, against the then commissioners of highways of the town of Kingston. The judgment was recovered for services rendered in grading and repairing a highway in the ‘town, in pursuance of a contract entered into with the commissioners of highways.

*John J. Lmson*and *Howard Chirp]), Jr.,*for the appellant.

*J. Newton Fiero,*for the respondents.

By the Coukt :

A question is presented in this case which does not arise in the cases of similar character argued at this term.

The relators have only a judgment against the commissioners of highways. This is not a judgment against the town. *(People ex rel. Van Keuren*v. *Auditors,*74 N. Y., 311; Laws 1880, chap. 554; 2 R. S., m. p. 474, § 102, etc.)

The judgment is to be collected from the commissioners (2 R. S., m. p. 476, § 108, as modified by section 1931, Code of Civil Procedure). When they shall have paid it, it may be allowed in their accounts. We cannbt determine whether or not these commissioners will have any claim against the town upon their accounting. *186There is nothing in the remark to which we are referred, made in *Van Alstyne*v. *Freday*(41 N. Y., 177), which should change the principle above stated. At present there is no judgment against the town and no allowance of the claim by the town auditors.

For these reasons, without passing on the other questions, the order should be reversed, with costs of appeal, and motion for *mandamus*denied, with fifty dollars costs, under section 2086 of the Code.

Present — Learned, P. J., Boardman and Bocees, «TJ.

Order reversed, with costs of appeal, and motion for *mandamus*denied, with fifty dollars costs, under section 2086 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

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

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

GREGORY SYLVESTER RIDEAU, JR.,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

LARRY SMALL, Warden; et al.,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 09-56216

D.C. No. 3:09-cv-00535-W-PCL

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of California

Thomas J. Whelan, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted September 13, 2010** 

Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Gregory Sylvester Rideau, Jr., a California state prisoner, appeals pro se

from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging

deliberate indifference to serious medical needs. We have jurisdiction under 28

U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal for failure to state a claim, Barren

FILED

OCT 12 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 09-56216

v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (order), and for failure to

exhaust, Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1117 (9th Cir. 2003). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed the claim that defendants denied

Rideau a therapeutic medical diet beneficial for his heart condition because an

inmate’s disagreement with his physicians or prison officials regarding the course

of treatment does not constitute deliberate indifference to serious medical needs. 

See Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1058 (9th Cir. 2004). 

The district court properly dismissed the claim that defendants denied

Rideau single cell status and other treatment for his sleep disorder because, as he

appears to concede on appeal, Rideau did not exhaust his administrative remedies

as to this claim before filing suit. See McKinney v. Carey, 311 F.3d 1198, 1199

(9th Cir. 2002) (per curiam) (requiring dismissal without prejudice where prisoner

does not exhaust his administrative remedies prior to filing suit). 

Rideau’s remaining contentions, including those concerning a claim under

the Americans with Disabilities Act that he tried to allege, are unpersuasive.

AFFIRMED.
Before the Third Division,

July 28, 1939

No. 41872.

#### Protest 976617-G of B. Altman & Co. (New York).

Opinion by

Evans, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise consists of tomato sticks, bronx bix, and football cheese wafers similar to that the subject of *Renken*v. *United States*(C. D. 73) and Abstracts 36318 and 41193. The claim at 20 percent under paragraph 1558 was therefore sustained.
#### E. L. DOWNS CO., RESPONDENT, v. OWEN MAGNETIC CAR COMPANY OF NEW JERSEY, APPELLANT.

Argued February 19, 1918

Decided July 26, 1918.

Where the record brought up for review of a case tried in the District Court by a judge sitting without a jury simply presents a judgment based upon conclusions of the court, without any objections or exceptions entered or taken by counsel during the course of the trial or any request to find certain facts or conclusions of law, to the refusal of which objection might have been taken, the judgment will be affirmed.

On appeal from the First District Court of Newark.

Before Justices Swayke, Theechard and Mixture.

For the respondent, *Henry H. Freyling.*

For the appellant, *William*Huck, *Jr.*

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Mixture, J.

The ease is before us upon an agreed state of facts by the attorneys, which shows that it was tried before the District Court without a jury, and that judgment was rendered for the plaintiff against the defendant. The court when rendering judgment filed a written statement 'of his conclusions. To this no objection was made or exception taken as far as the record shows; nor does the state of the case exhibit any objection or exception entered or taken by counsel during the course of the trial, or to the court’s conclusions upon law or fact. Nor is there in the record any request to find certain facts or conclusions of-law, to the refusal of which objection might have been taken and entered upon the record. The case simply presents a judgment based upon conclusions of the court and nothing more.

This situation clearly brings the case within the ruling enunciated in *Blanchard Brothers*v. Beveridge, 86 *N. J. L.*561, and followed in *Edwards Co.*v. *Excelsior Drum Works,*88 *Id.*189, and *Ruggles*v. *Ocean Accident*Co., 89 *Id.*180.

*94Chapter 62 of the laws of 1916 can have no bearing upon this situation for the obvious reason that that act contemplates that objection of some character shall appear upon the record; the evident purpose of the act being to relieve counsel only of the necessity of specifically submitting to the court the ground of objection. Here there was neither objection nor a semblance of objection.

The judgment will therefore be affirmed, with costs.
<PAGE>


                                                                     Exhibit 23

                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in this Form 10-KSB of
CommerceFirst Bancorp, Inc. and in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (Nos.
333-109138 and 333-119988) of our report, dated January 21, 2005, relating to
the consolidated balance sheets of CommerceFirst Bancorp, Inc. as of December
31, 2004 and 2003, and the related consolidated statements of operations,
changes in stockholders' equity and cash flows for the years ended December 31,
2004, 2003 and 2002.


/s/ Trice Geary & Myers LLC
March 16, 2005
#### ERIC BARSOHN, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. LEHIGH VALLEY RAILROAD CO., *ET AL.,*DEFENDANTS-PETITIONERS.

*Messrs. Pindar, McBlroy, Connell & Foley, Miss Sonia Napolitano, Messrs. Lamb, Blake, Hutchinson & Dunne,*and *Mr. Paul B. Thompson*for the petitioners.

*Messrs. Asch & Asch*for the respondent.

March 21, 1967.

Denied.
---

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM





We consent to the incorporation by reference in the
Registration Statements pertaining to The 2006 Stock Option Plan (Form S-8, No.
333-133552, April 26, 2006) and to the Amended 1999 Stock Option Plan (Form S-8
No. 333-114904, April 27, 2004) of Destiny Media Technologies Inc. of our report
dated October 25, 2006 with respect to the consolidated financial statements of
Destiny Media Technologies Inc. included in its Annual Report (Form 10-KSB) for
the year ended August 31, 2006.



|                   | /s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP
|------------------ | ---------------------
|                   |                      
|Vancouver, Canada, |                      
|November 28, 2006  | Chartered Accountants

---
#### B. J. LUCARELLI & CO., INC., PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, CROSS-PETITIONER, v. HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF HOBOKEN, DEFENDANT-PETITIONER, CROSS-RESPONDENT.

*Mr. Samuel J. Davidson*for the petitioner, cross-respondent.

*Messrs. Apruzzese & McDermott*for the respondent, cross-petitioner.

May 2, 1967.

Denied.