alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PETROLEUM ENGINEERS





We hereby consent to the use of our name in the Annual Report on Form 40-F (the "Annual Report") of Equal Energy Ltd. (the "Registrant"). We hereby further consent to the inclusion in the Annual Report of the Registrant's Annual Information Form dated March 20, 2012 for the year ended December 31, 2011, which document makes reference to our firm and our report entitled “Appraisal of Oil and Gas Reserves Owned by Equal Energy Ltd located in Various Oklahoma Counties as of December 31, 2011”, dated February 12, 2012, evaluating the Registrant's oil, natural gas and natural gas liquids interests effective December 31, 2011.











Dallas, Texas, USA


March 20, 2012


Haas Petroleum Engineering Services, Inc.





Signed “Robert W. Haas”





Robert W. Haas, P.E.


President
<PAGE>

                                D. DESMOND PADEN
                         1580 S. MILWAUKEE AVE SUITE 207
                             LIBERTYVILLE, IL 60048

VIA FACSIMILE

December 7, 2000

The Board of Directors of SHC Corp:
Philip E. Ruben
Terrence L. Donati

         RE:  Amendment to Letter Agreement Dated October 16, 2000

Gentlemen:

     Reference is made to that certain letter dated October 16, 2000 from Sonoma
Financial Corporation (a/k/a SHC Corp.) (the "Company") to me setting forth our
agreement relating to certain resignation, compensation and other issues as
between the Company and me (the "Letter Agreement"). The parties have agreed to
amend certain provisions of the Letter Agreement as set forth in this letter.

     In order to pursue other professional opportunities, I do not intend to
stand for re-election to the Company's Board of Directors at its anticipated
upcoming meeting of shareholders. Therefore, I hereby submit my unconditional
resignation as a director of the Company and all other positions I may hold with
the Company, effective as of Monday, December 11, 2000.

     In addition, we have agreed to amend, and by execution of this letter we
hereby amend, Paragraph 4 of the Letter Agreement by increasing the number of
franchises being offered to the Midwest Investor Group of Illinois from ten (10)
to twenty (20). This right to franchises shall remain subject to the same terms
and conditions as set forth in the Letter Agreement.

     Except as expressly modified hereby, the Letter Agreement shall remain
unamended and in full force and effect. Please indicate your acceptance of the
terms set forth herein by signing where indicated below.

                                               Sincerely,



                                               D. Desmond Paden


Agreed and Accepted December 7, 2000

SHC Corp.

By:      /s/ Terrence L. Donati
         ------------------------------
         Terrence L. Donati, President
No. 53104.

#### H. W. Gray Co. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 69393-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 8876 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to remove the limitation 

on the aggregate amount of grants made available to low-income taxpayer 

clinics and to adjust the matching fund requirements for such clinics. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 27, 2024 

Mr. WENSTRUP (for himself, Mr. DAVIS of Illinois, Mrs. MILLER of West Virginia, and Mr. RASKIN) introduced the following bill; which was referred 

to the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to remove 

the limitation on the aggregate amount of grants made 

available to low-income taxpayer clinics and to adjust 

the matching fund requirements for such clinics. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Low-Income Taxpayer 

5 Clinic Modernization Act of 2024’’. 

6 SEC. 2. LOW-INCOME TAXPAYER CLINICS. 

7 (a) REMOVE LIMIT ON INDIVIDUAL CLINIC.—Section 

8 7526(c) of such Code is amended by striking paragraph 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 8876 IH

1 (2) and redesignating paragraphs (3) through (6) as para2 graphs (2) through (5), respectively. 

3 (b) WAIVER OF REQUIREMENT OF MATCHING

4 FUNDS.—Section 7526(c)(4) of such section, as redesig5 nated by subsection (a), is amended to read as follows: 

6 ‘‘(4) REQUIREMENT OF MATCHING FUNDS.— 

7 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—A low-income tax8 payer clinic must provide the applicable amount 

9 of matching funds for all grants provided under 

10 this section. Matching funds may include— 

11 ‘‘(i) the salary (including fringe bene12 fits) of individuals performing services for 

13 the clinic, and 

14 ‘‘(ii) the cost of equipment used in the 

15 clinic. 

16 ‘‘(B) INDIRECT EXPENSES NOT TREATED

17 AS MATCHING FUNDS.—Indirect expenses, in18 cluding general overhead of the institution 

19 sponsoring the clinic, shall not be counted as 

20 matching funds for the purposes of this para21 graph. 

22 ‘‘(C) APPLICABLE AMOUNT.—For purposes 

23 of subparagraph (A), the term ‘applicable 

24 amount’ means— 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
3 

•HR 8876 IH

1 ‘‘(i) 100 percent of the grant issued 

2 under this section, or 

3 ‘‘(ii) in a case in which the Secretary 

4 determines that a lower matching contribu5 tion will expand services to more tax6 payers, an amount determined to be appro7 priate by the Secretary that is not less 

8 than 25 percent of the grant issued under 

9 this section.’’. 

10 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

11 this section shall apply to grants issued after the date of 

12 the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
No. 59074.

protests 170824-K, etc. (Bridgeport).

#### Fairfield Wool Company, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Wilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of waste sheepskin scrap similar in all material respects to that the subject of *Fairfield Wool Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(33 Cust. Ct. 199, C. D. 1653), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
#### JOHN GORMAN, JR., *ET AL.,*PLAINTIFFS-PETITIONERS, v. MARGUERITE CAMPBELL, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.

*Messrs. Heuser & Heuser*for the petitioners.

*Messrs. Carton, Nary, Witt & Arvanitis*for the respondent.

April 18, 1967.

Denied.
***FLINT
RIVER BANCSHARES, INC.***
 ***Certification
Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350***
 ***For
the Three Months Ended March 31, 2005***
 **Exhibit
32.1**


In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Flint River Bancshares, Inc. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2005 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Gerald
E. Lewis, Chief Executive Officer, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:





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


(2)
    The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.


Date:
      June 3, 2005/s/
      Gerald
      E. LewisGerald
      E. LewisChief
      Executive Officer
No. 76-438.

#### Lipkowitz et al., Executors *v.*Commissioner of Internal Revenue.

C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.
August 3, 2015

Mr. Rolando Chavez

716 Amber Ave nue

Laredo, TX 78045

Dear Mr. Chavez :

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption from

§ § 61.113(a) and (b) ; 91.119(c) ; 91.15l(a) ; 91.405(a)

, 407(a)(1)

, 409(a)(2)

, 417(a) and (b) of

Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). It explains why we can not process your

request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Can n o t Process Your Request

We entered your March 27, 2015

, exemption request into the public docket

(No. FAA− 2015

− 2031 ), but we are unable to process your request any further. The

information you sent does no t comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For

us to cons ider the request any further, you must send us all of the following:

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would

benefit the public as a whole.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.

For more detailed information relating to submitting petitions for exemption, please visit

http://aes.faa.gov/petition/index.html . This website helps the petitioner to meet Federal

Avia tion Administration (FAA) requirements outlines in § 11.81 and helps answer any

questions you may have.

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must submit the requested information

within 30 days. Please note that § 1 1.63(d) requires you to send your petition for exemption

at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption.2

If We Do Not Hear From You

If we do not receive the information, we will close the docket without notifying you further.

I f you have any questions you may call the 333 Information Line (202) 267

- 2999.

Sincerely,

/s/

Brittany Newton

Program Analyst, Airmen and

Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure3
(Reap. Dec. 8896)

Entry No. 996131, etc.

#### Sol Kahaner *&*Bro. et al. *v.*United States

(Decided July 10, 1957)

*Siegel, Mandell & Davidson*for the plaintiffs.

*George Cochran Doub,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Oliveb, Chief Judge:

The appeals for reappraisement, enumerated in schedule “A,” hereto attached and made a part hereof, relate to various articles of merchandise exported from France and entered at the port of New York.

The cases are before me on stipulated facts that show export value, as defined in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for appraisement of the merchandise in question, and which establish such statutory value for each of the items to be the unit value, as invoiced, and I so hold. Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
(Reap. Dec. 8324)

#### United States *v.*Herbert B. Moller

Entry No. J-2.

(Decided July 14, 1954)

■ *Warren E.*Burger, Assistant Attorney General *(William J. Vitale,*trial attorney), for the plaintiff.

Defendant not represented by counsel.

Lawrence, Judge:

The merchandise covered by this appeal for a reappraisement consists of 500 cartons of sardines in tomato sauce, imported from Holland, and was appraised at the entered value.

When the case was called for hearing, the parties hereto entered into an oral stipulation to the effect that, at the time such merchandise was exported from the country of exportation to the United States, *513there existed a foreign value therefor, as defined in section 402 (c) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U. S. C. § 1402 (c)), as amended by the Customs Administrative Act of 1938, of Netherlands guilders 28.50 per carton, net packed, which was the market value or the price at the time of exportation of such merchandise to the United States, at which such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale for home consumption to all purchasers in the principal markets of the country from which exported, in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade, including the cost of all containers and coverings of whatever nature, and all other costs, charges, and expenses incident to placing the merchandise in condition, packed ready for shipment to the United States, and that there was no higher export value, as defined in section 402 (d) of said act (19 U. S. C. § 1402 (d)).

Upon the agreed facts, I find the foreign value, as that value is defined in section 402 (c), as amended, *sufra,*to be the proper basis for determining the value of said merchandise, and that said value is Netherlands guilders 28.50 per carton, net packed.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 8776 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to treat membership in a 

health care sharing ministry as a medical expense, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 18, 2024 

Mr. KELLY of Pennsylvania introduced the following bill; which was referred 

to the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to treat membership in a health care sharing ministry as a medical 

expense, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. TREATMENT OF HEALTH CARE SHARING MIN4 ISTRIES AS A MEDICAL EXPENSE AND NOT AS 

5 INSURANCE. 

6 (a) TREATMENT AS A MEDICAL EXPENSE.—Section 

7 213(d)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amend8 ed by striking ‘‘or’’ at the end of subparagraph (C), by 

9 striking the period at the end of subparagraph (D) and 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 8776 IH

1 inserting ‘‘, or’’, and by adding at the end the following 

2 new subparagraph: 

3 ‘‘(E) for membership in a health care shar4 ing ministry (as defined in section 

5 5000A(d)(2)(B)(ii) without regard to subclause 

6 (IV) thereof), including— 

7 ‘‘(i) the sharing of medical expenses 

8 with respect to such ministry, and 

9 ‘‘(ii) the payment of administrative 

10 fees of such ministry.’’. 

11 (b) HEALTH CARE SHARING MINISTRY NOT TREAT12 ED AS A HEALTH PLAN OR INSURANCE.— 

13 (1) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 79 of such Code is 

14 amended by inserting after section 7702B the fol15 lowing new section: 

16 ‘‘SEC. 7702C. TREATMENT OF HEALTH CARE SHARING MIN17 ISTRIES. 

18 ‘‘For purposes of this title, a health care sharing min19 istry (as defined in section 5000A(d)(2)(B)(ii) without re20 gard to subclause (IV) thereof) shall not be treated as a 

21 health plan or as insurance.’’. 

22 (2) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sec23 tions for chapter 79 of such Code is amended by in24 serting after the item relating to section 7702B the 

25 following new item: 

‘‘Sec. 7702C. Treatment of health care sharing ministries.’’. 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 8776 IH

1 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

2 this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after 

3 December 31, 2024. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

DERRIS LEWIS, et al., :

:

Plaintiffs, :

: Civil Action No. 2:10-CV-125

v. : Judge Algenon L. Marbley

: Magistrate Judge Deavers

ALTHEA YOUNG, et al., :

:

Defendants. :

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on the Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to FRCP 41(a). (Doc.

4.) On February 12, 2010, Plaintiffs initiated this action in this Court. On April 14, 2010,

Plaintiffs filed a motion to voluntarily dismiss this case because the claim has been settled by the

parties through negotiation. Defendants have not yet filed an answer or otherwise pled. There

are no counterclaims or cross-claims pending in this matter. Federal Rule 41(a) provides that

“the plaintiff may dismiss an action without court order by filing...a notice of dismissal before

the opposing party serves either an answer or a motion for summary judgment.” Fed. R. Civ. P.

41(a)(1). Plaintiffs Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED. This case is dismissed without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 s/Algenon L. Marbley 

ALGENON L. MARBLEY

United States District Court Judge

DATED: April 16, 2010

-1-

Case: 2:10-cv-00125-ALM-EPD Doc #: 5 Filed: 04/16/10 Page: 1 of 1 PAGEID #: <pageID>
No. 42974.

#### Protest 990529-G of Dan Brechner & Co. (New York).

*360Opinion by

Tilson, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise consists of balls in chief value of paper the same as those the subject of Abstract 40492. The claim at 35 percent under paragraph 1413 was therefore sustained.
Exhibit 32.2

Certification of Chief Financial 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 Annual Report on Form 10-K of Rhino Resource Partners LP (the "Partnership") for the
year ended December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Richard A. Boone, as Chief Financial Officer of the Partnership, hereby
certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to his knowledge:

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

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

/s/ RICHARD A. BOONE Richard A. Boone Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer


Date:
March 18, 2011

---



QuickLinks
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_______________________

No. 95-30545

_______________________

ALVIN C. COPELAND,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

AMERICA'S FAVORITE CHICKEN COMPANY, ET AL.,

Defendants,

MERRILL LYNCH & CO., INC.,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

(92-CV-3961-S)

_________________________________________________________________

January 9, 1996

Before JONES, EMILIO M. GARZA, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Responding to a motion to enforce a settlement agreement

signed in June, 1994 among Copeland, AFCC and CIBC, the district

court entered judgment dismissing Copeland's complaint in the

instant "Recipe Royalty" suit with prejudice in favor of AFCC and

CIBC. As to co-defendant Merrill Lynch, the court granted judgment

"dismissing plaintiff's complaint with prejudice but reserving any
2

and all rights of Alvin C. Copeland to prosecute the matter

entitled [the Lender Liability suit]." This language is ambiguous

as to whether or not it dismisses all claims that Copeland asserted

against Merrill Lynch in the Recipe Royalty suit, or whether it

allows even those claims to be pursued in the lender liability

action pending under another cause number. The district court's

ruling on the impact of the settlement agreement on the Lender

Liability suit was premature in this case. Because of the

ambiguity, we reverse and remand for entry of a new judgment.

Having considered the record, as well as the briefs and

arguments of counsel, we conclude that the parties' settlement

agreement compelled dismissal with prejudice of all claims asserted

by Copeland against Merrill Lynch in the Recipe Royalty suit. We

do not decide, however, what effect, if any, the settlement

agreement or judgment in this case may have upon the pending Lender

Liability case between Copeland and Merrill Lynch.

The judgment is REVERSED, and the case is REMANDED, for

entry of judgment in favor of Merrill Lynch dismissing plaintiff's

complaint in this Recipe Royalty lawsuit with prejudice.

REVERSED and REMANDED for entry of judgment as stated.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7896
RICARDO BROWN, Petitioner - Appellant, versus ARTHUR F. BEELER, Warden, F.M.C. Butner, North Carolina, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CA-02-HC-545-5-H) Submitted: March 20, 2003 Decided: March 27, 2003 Before WILLIAMS and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ricardo Brown, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Ricardo Brown, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Brown’s motions for a writ of habeas corpus and oral argument, and affirm the dismissal of his petition for the reasons stated by the district court. See Brown v. Beeler , No. CA-02-HC-545-5-H (E.D.N.C., filed Sept. 11, 2002; entered Sept. 12, 2002). 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
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 this Report on Form 10-Q of Summit Financial Services Group, Inc. (the
Company), for the Quarter ended September 30, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Steven C. Jacobs, Executive Vice President and
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, do hereby certify, to my knowledge that:



| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



|                                                    
|----------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Steven C. Jacobs                                
|Steven C. Jacobs                                    
|Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
|Dated: November 14, 2008
Exhibit 8.1

Subsidiaries



|                                      |  |                         |  |                    |       |  
|------------------------------------- |  | ----------------------- |  | ------------------ | ----- | -
|Name of entity                        |  | Place of incorporation  |  | Ownership interest |      
|1. MakeMyTrip.com Inc                 |  | Delaware, United States |  |                    | 100   | %
|2. MakeMyTrip (India) Private Limited |  | India                   |  |                    | 99.99 | %
|3. Luxury Tours & Travel Pte Ltd      |  | Singapore               |  |                    | 82.78 | %
|4. Luxury Tours (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd.   |  | Malaysia                |  |                    | 100   | %