alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 99

             REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM
             -------------------------------------------------------

Board of Directors and Stockholders
WVS Financial Corp.

We have reviewed the  accompanying  consolidated  balance sheet of WVS Financial
Corp.  and  subsidiary  as of  September  30,  2008;  the  related  consolidated
statement of income for the  three-month  periods  ended  September 30, 2008 and
2007;  the  consolidated  statement of changes in  stockholders'  equity for the
three-month  period ended September 30, 2008; and the consolidated  statement of
cash flows for the three-month  periods ended September 30, 2008 and 2007. These
financial statements are the responsibility of the Company's management.

We conducted  our reviews in  accordance  with  standards of the Public  Company
Accounting  Oversight  Board  (United  States).  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 standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States),
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 reviews, 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 U.S. generally accepted accounting principles.

We have previously  audited,  in accordance with standards of the Public Company
Accounting  Oversight Board (United States),  the consolidated  balance sheet of
WVS Financial Corp as of June 30, 2008, and the related consolidated  statements
of income,  changes in  stockholders'  equity,  and cash flows for the year then
ended (not  presented  herein),  and in our report dated  September 8, 2008,  we
expressed an unqualified opinion on those consolidated financial statements.

/s/ S.R. Snodgrass, A.C.

Wexford, PA
November 10, 2008

                                       E-5
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Floyd DOMINO.

No. 60957-A.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 31, 1978.

Bernard E. Fulghum, Orleans Indigent Defender Program, New Orleans, for defendant-appellant.

William J. Guste, Jr., Atty. Gen., Barbara Rutledge, Asst. Atty. Gen., Harry F. Con-nick, Dist. Atty., Louise S. Korns, Howat A. Peters, Jr., Asst. Dist. Attys., for plaintiff-appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10(y)

                                AMENDMENT NO. 10
                                     to the
                            MARTIN INDUSTRIES, INC.
                         EMPLOYEE STOCK OWNERSHIP PLAN



     Pursuant to and in accordance with the provisions of Section 19 of the
Martin Industries, Inc. Employee Stock Ownership Plan, as heretofore amended
(the "Plan"), the Plan is hereby amended as follows:

              Section 11(a) is hereby amended by adding thereto, at the
         end thereof, the following:

              Notwithstanding the foregoing, rights with respect to
         Company Stock that are distributed pursuant to that certain
         Rights Agreement between the Company and SunTrust Bank,
         Atlanta, dated as of February 23, 1999, shall be and become
         part of the shares of Company Stock credited to the Company
         Stock Accounts of Participants and shares of Company Stock
         held in the Suspense Account at March 8, 1999.

     This amendment to the Plan shall be effective as of February 18, 1999.



                                               MARTIN INDUSTRIES, INC.


                                                     /s/ Robert L. Goucher
                                               ---------------------------------
                                                         Robert L. Goucher
                                               President Chief Executive Officer

ATTEST:


   /s/ Roderick V. Schlosser
-----------------------------------
    Roderick V. Schlosser
         Secretary



[CORPORATE SEAL]
### Docket ID: EPA-HQ-Oq-2010-0505 John Weisheit to: Nick Parsons 08/04/2010 03:22 PM

Mr. Nick Parsons Environmental Engineer U.S. Environmental Protection Agency OAR/OAQPS/SPPD/CCGEPA Denver (Region 8) Parsons.Nick@epamail.epa.gov

Dear Mr. Parsons:

The Canyonlands Watershed Council would like to use this opportunity to inform the Environmental Protection Agency about our concerns pertaining to the impairment of air quality on the Colorado Plateau . Our organization is based in Moab, Utah in the area of the Colorado Plateau where all the major tributaries of the Colorado River basin converge and enter Lake Powell . The Colorado Plateau has the largest concentration of federal reserve lands in the United States. The critical habitat of the Colorado River above Lake Powell is also the last hope for the recovery of its endangered fish species .

The Colorado Plateau is rich in hydrocarbon fuels including coal , oil, natural gas, oil shale and tar sands. The cumulative impacts of the hydrocarbon extraction industry on air and water resources of the Colorado Plateau is increasing despite federal mandates , such as Secretarial Order 3289, to reduce greenhouse gases and implement renewable energy programs .

Additionally, the impacts of fugitive dust on the Colorado Plateau is causing rapid and early snowmelt in the Rocky Mountains . As stated by Secretary Salazar in December of 2009, the Colorado River basin will be affected by climate change more than any other river basin in the United States .

The Bureau of Reclamation announced in February 2010 that the rising trend of water consumption in the Colorado River basin now exceeds the declining trend of water supply. Reclamation has also determined that the streamflow of the Colorado River for the last decade has declined by 30%, which is unprecedented in the modern instrument record. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's RISA program (Regional Integrated Sciences and Assessments ) at the University of Colorado at Boulder has determined that in four decades the annual yield of the Colorado River will only be 12 million acre-feet, which is alarming considering that the current hydrologic determination of the basin is 15 maf.

The two greatest threats to the streamflow of the Colorado River basin are atmospheric in nature: greenhouse gas emissions and fugitive dust . If these two threats are not reduced immediately , then it is reasonable to conclude that the people and businesses dependent on the Colorado River water will suffer.

It will take national leadership and strategic programs with substantive funding mechanisms to solve a these problems . Since federal and state legislatures are at an impasse politically on issues of energy production and climate change, perhaps it is time for the EPA to mobilize willing communities that want to adjust to climate change by instituting appropriate airshed/watershed planning documents and programs .

We are willing to assist in such an initiative and invite EPA to work with us and the other communities of the Colorado Plateau .Sincerely yours,

John Weisheit Canyonlands Watershed Council
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 Big Sky Industries II, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Ramon Chimelis, President of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 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 operations of the Company.



Dated: January 15, 2009



/s/ Ramon Chimelis

Ramon Chimelis, President

Big Sky Industries II, Inc.
| Date:      March 17, 2008       | /s/ Thomas E.      ChristmanThomas      E. Christman               |
|---------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Date:      March 17, 2008       | /s/ Arthur Dulik,      Jr.Arthur      Dulik, Jr.                   |
| Date:      March 17, 2008  | /s/ Thomas F.      Goldrick, Jr.Thomas      F. Goldrick, Jr.  |
| Date:      March 17, 2008       | /s/ Nicos      KatsoulisNicos      Katsoulis                       |
| Date:      March 17, 2008       | /s/ John J.      LaFalceJohn      J. LaFalce                       |
| Date:      March 17, 2008       | /s/ K. Thomas      LiawK.      Thomas Liaw                         |
| Date:      March 17, 2008       | /s/ Gerard J.      McKeonGerard      J. McKeon                     |
| Date:      March 17, 2008       | /s/ Richard W.      MerzbacherRichard      W. Merzbacher           |
| Date:      March 17, 2008       | /s/ Joseph F.      MunsonJoseph      F. Munson                     |
| Date:      March 17, 2008  | /s/ Thomas M.      O’BrienThomas      M. O’Brien  |
| Date:      March 17, 2008       | /s/ John F.      PiccianoJohn      F. Picciano                     |
| Date:      March 17, 2008       | /s/ Daniel T.      RoweDaniel      T. Rowe                         |
| Date:      March 17, 2008       | /s/ Suzanne H.      RueckSuzanne      H. Rueck                     |
| Date:      March 17, 2008       | /s/ Andrew J.      SimonsAndrew      J. Simons                     |
| Date:      March 17, 2008       | /s/ Jeffrey S.      WilksJeffrey      S. Wilks                     |
Exhibit
23.2




Francis
      J. Merkel, CPAJoseph
      J. Quinn, CPA/ABV, CVADaniel
      J. Gerrity, CPAMary
      Ann E. Novak, CPA




McGrail
Merkel Quinn & Associates
 CERTIFIED
PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS & CONSULTANTS




Consent
of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm




We hereby
consent to the use in this Registration Statement on Form S-4 of our reports
dated February 19, 2008 and February 23, 2007, relating to the financial
statements of Old Forge Bank, which are contained in this Registration
Statement.




We also
consent to the reference to us under the caption “Experts” in the proxy
statement-prospectus, which is part of this Registration Statement.




/s/
      McGrail Merkel Quinn & AssociatesScranton,
      PennsylvaniaJanuary
      23, 2009










RSM McGladrey Network
 An
Independently Owned Member
 
 Clay
Avenue Professional Plaza, 1173 Clay Avenue, Scranton, PA 18510  570
961-0345 Fax: 570-961-8650
 www.mmq.com
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 18 (Tuesday, January 28, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 4051]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-1977]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------


FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM

Notice of Proposals To Engage in Permissible Nonbanking 
Activities or To Acquire Companies That Are Engaged in Permissible 
Nonbanking Activities

    The companies listed in this notice have given notice under section 
4 of the Bank Holding Company Act (12 U.S.C. 1843) (BHC Act) and 
Regulation      Y, (12 CFR Part 225) to engage de novo, or to acquire 
or control voting securities or assets of a company that engages either 
directly or through a subsidiary or other company, in a nonbanking 
activity that is listed in Sec.  225.25 of Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.25) 
or that the Board has determined by Order to be closely related to 
banking and permissible for bank holding companies. Unless otherwise 
noted, these activities will be conducted throughout the United States.
    Each notice is available for inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank 
indicated. Once the notice has been accepted for processing, it will 
also be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of 
Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the 
question whether the proposal complies with the standards of section 4 
of the BHC Act, including whether consummation of the proposal can 
``reasonably be expected to produce benefits to the public, such as 
greater convenience, increased competition, or gains in efficiency, 
that outweigh possible adverse effects, such as undue concentration of 
resources, decreased or unfair competition, conflicts of interests, or 
unsound banking practices'' (12 U.S.C. 1843). Any request for a hearing 
on this question must be accompanied by a statement of the reasons a 
written presentation would not suffice in lieu of a hearing, 
identifying specifically any questions of fact that are in dispute, 
summarizing the evidence that would be presented at a hearing, and 
indicating how the party commenting would be aggrieved by approval of 
the proposal.
    Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding the applications must be 
received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of 
Governors not later than February 11, 1997.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago (James A. Bluemle, Vice 
President) 230 South LaSalle Street, Chicago, Illinois 60690-1413:
    1. Vermilion Bancorp, Inc., Danville, Illinois (to be formed); to 
engage de novo in making and servicing loans, pursuant to Sec.  
225.25(b)(1) of the Board's Regulation Y.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, January 22, 
1997.
Jennifer J. Johnson,
Deputy Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 97-1977 Filed 1-27-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-F
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM MARTIN
INDUSTRIES, INC'S FORM 10-K FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1999 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>   1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                           5,218
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   13,757
<ALLOWANCES>                                       604
<INVENTORY>                                     13,192
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                35,713
<PP&E>                                          27,769
<DEPRECIATION>                                  14,190
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  58,920
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           17,272
<BONDS>                                          2,406
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            98
<OTHER-SE>                                      36,957
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    58,920
<SALES>                                         85,678
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                85,678
<CGS>                                           77,370
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   77,370
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                17,724
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   102
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 433
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (8,683)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    (2,544)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (6,139)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (6,139)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (0.84)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.84)


</TABLE>
#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Autry Lee JONES v. The Hon. Judge Luther F. COLE, Div. “G”, 19th Judicial District Court, Baton Rouge, Louisiana.

No. 61083.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 27, 1978.

In re: Autry Lee Jones applying for writ of mandamus. Parish of East Baton Rouge.

*202Denied. The District Judge advises that the applicant’s pre-trial conference will be held within the next 90 days.
No. 99-1087.

#### Lambert, Superintendent, Washington State Penitentiary *v.*Lord.

C. A. 9th Cir. Motion of respondent for leave to proceed *in forma pauperis*granted. Cer-tiorari denied.
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Robert M. BRYANT, Richard Dobson and Sandy C. Osgood.

No. 60350.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

July 26, 1977.

In re: Robert M. Bryant, Richard Dobson and Sandy C. Osgood, applying for remedial writs and stay order.

Writ refused. Insufficient showing at this time to warrant the quashing of the subpoena.

CALOGERO, J.,

concurs. Absent a showing that applicants are to be questioned concerning the transaction out of which they have been charged by bill of information and until attempt is made to require applicants to appear before the grand jury without counsel, I am unprepared to find erroneous the trial court’s determination refusing to quash the subpoenas.

MARCUS, J., concurs for reasons assigned by Justice CALOGERO.

DENNIS, J., concurs for the reasons stated by CALOGERO, and also for the reason that we cannot assume applicants will be denied their constitutional rights to remain silent and to be assisted by counsel at each stage of the proceedings.
No. 99-7985.

#### James *v.*United States.

C. A. 11th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.
Exhibit 32.1

WRITTEN STATEMENT OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350

Solely for the purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C. §1350, I, the undersigned Chief Executive Officer of Jagged Peak, Inc. (the Company), hereby certify
that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the period ended September 28, 2007, (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information
contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                       |  |                        
|---------------------- |  | -----------------------
|Date: November 9, 2007
|                       | 
|By:                    |  | /s/ Paul B. Demirdjian 
|                       |  | Chief Executive Officer
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 158 (Friday, August 15, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 43741-43742]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-21301]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

[Docket No. FR-4235-N-16]


Federal Property Suitable as Facilities To Assist the Homeless

AGENCY: Office of the Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and 
Development, HUD.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This notice identifies unutilized, underutilized, excess, and 
surplus Federal property reviewed by HUD for suitability for possible 
use to assist the homeless.

EFFECTIVE DATE: August 15, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mark Johnston, Department of Housing and Urban Development, Room 7256, 
451 Seventh Street SW, Washington, DC 20410; telephone (202) 708-1226; 
TDD number for the hearing- and speech-

[[Page 43742]]

 impaired (202) 708-2565, (these telephone numbers are not toll-free), 
or call the toll-free Title V information line at 1-800-927-7588.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In accordance with the December 12, 1988 
court order in National Coalition for the Homeless v. Veterans 
Administration, No. 88-2503-OG (D.D.C.), HUD publishes a notice, on a 
weekly basis, identifying unutilized, underutilized, excess and surplus 
Federal buildings and real property that HUD has reviewed for 
suitability for use to assist the homeless. Today's notice is for the 
purpose of announcing that no additional properties have been 
determined suitable or unsuitable this week.

    Dated: August 7, 1997.
Fred Karnas, Jr.,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Economic Development.
[FR Doc. 97-21301 Filed 8-14-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4210-29-M
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 Amendment No. 3 to the Annual Report of Pay Mobile, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K/A for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2010 (the "Report"), the undersigned, in the capacity and on the date indicated below, hereby certifies 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, as amended; and




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






Date: May 13, 2011
/s/Francisco Terreforte



Francisco Terreforte
### 1 Regulatory Evaluation

Docket No. FAA

- 2010

- 4344 Directorate Identifier: 2015

- NE

- 32

- AD

Add the work hours, parts cost, and number o f U.S. registered products to the table below. When you are

finished, click on the “Update Fields” button to automatically f ill in the totals.

Estimated Costs:

Action

(e.g., Inspection,

replacement)

Do not include on

condition costs here Costs per Product (e.g., aircraft, engine,

propeller, appliance)

Work

- hours

(include

access, testing,

and close

- up) Labor

cost

(@$85/h

our) Parts Cost Total Costs

(labor +

parts) Number of

U.S.

Registered

Products Total Cost

for U.S. Fleet

Removal &

replacement of heat

shield 5 425 1832 2257 935 2,110,295

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

The known number of products in compliance: 

### Number

Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: 2,110,295

Costs covered under warranty ( if known ) $ 

### Warranty

On

- Condition Costs:

Action

(e.g., Inspection,

replacement) Work

- hours

(include access,

testing, and close

up) Labor cost

(@$85/hour) Parts Cost Cost per Product

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

### 2 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

Special considerations for Economic Analysis (Use this field to explain anythi ng in the Estimated Costs table

that was assumed or might not be obvious. This field can also be used to explain warranty costs) :

Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”?

YES * ☐ NO ☒

* Explanation:

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant?

YES * ☐ NO ☒

* Explanation:

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? E xplain for

either a Yes or No answer.

YES ☐ NO ☒

Explanation:

Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:

This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific requirements for

air craft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode of transportation?

YES * ☐ NO ☒



### * Explanation 

### :